It's amazing how much passion these games still inspire so many years after original release.
What I find amazing is that so many people still insist on subscribing to the concept that only the most optimized character/party will do and anyone who chooses otherwise and finds their experience to be fun and rewarding is obviously an idiot who doesn't understand how bad his experience really is -
Only the best is best everything else is useless garbage and how dare you attempt to say otherwise.
It's amazing how much passion these games still inspire so many years after original release.
What I find amazing is that so many people still insist on subscribing to the concept that only the most optimized character/party will do and anyone who chooses otherwise and finds their experience to be fun and rewarding is obviously an idiot who doesn't understand how bad his experience really is -
Only the best is best everything else is useless garbage and how dare you attempt to say otherwise.
If you're drawing this conclusion from discourse on the forums then I suspect you're making massive assumptions that have little to do with reality.
Providing factual information about the objective value of a given character choice in response to a post asserting the objective value of a given character choice (which may or may not later be revealed to be a personal choice with little basis on actual character effectiveness) is little reflection on any posters playstyle who takes the time to provide said factual information.
For my part (as an accused "power gamer"); I've played no reload, I've played "roll and play", I've played single classes only and I've played a level 1 HoF party with 5 dual classes and a skald ... Suffice to say, I've played a broad range of play styles with the only distinguishing factor being a general aversion to ranged combat. Additionally, I've played as much multiplayer as I can and consequently I have been able to experience a broad range of play styles from a 3rd person perspective which is sometimes more beneficial than doing it yourself.
For instance, in my experience, it's actually less fun to play a non-minmaxed character in a multiplayer game for everyone involved.
Hmm, I only posted this because I tried an inquisitor, against the usual advice, and I found it to be a useful and fun choice. I suppose that my posting about it implied that I was interested in hearing other opinions about it, since I put a question mark on it. My concluding statement in my OP was that I thought the class was a little better and more useful than a lot of people think.
I don't see where I ever implied, much less said outright, that I was expressing anything other than a subjective opinion. My emotion behind my initial post was that I was having fun trying something a little different (for me), and I wanted to share my thoughts and experiences with friends I've made here.
I've been watching the results with some bemusement. A few people seem to be taking it as somehow a personal attack that I expressed an opinion they don't agree with. To them I would say, let's ligthen up. It's just a game. I have fun with it one way, other people have fun with it another way.
I thought there might be some back and forth discussion resulting from what I posted, but I certainly never expected it to cause any heated emotions or actual hostility.
To those who got the spirit of my post as I intended it, as just something interesting and fun to share, and have been defending it as such, I thank you very much.
For instance, in my experience, it's actually less fun to play a non-minmaxed character in a multiplayer game for everyone involved.
That depends on who you play with. If you play with powergamers, of course you should powergame yourself so you aren't dragging back the team from optimal performance. However personally I've been having a great time with my roleplay driven multiplayer full saga game that's been going on for well over a year now. All of us have "sub-optimal" characters, but that's a great part of what makes it interesting. http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/27270/the-bhaalspawn-journals-roleplaying-multiplayer-game/p1
There's many ways to enjoy this game and nobody's method of enjoyment is objectively better than anybody else's. It's a game, play it however you want.
My concluding statement in my OP was that I thought the class was a little better and more useful than a lot of people think.
So the Inquisitor doing something the kit description says it does is "better and more useful than a lot of people think"?
I mean seriously all you just proved is the Inquisitor does the stuff the game says it can do. You haven't really said anything about how other classes do the job sufficiently enough or make class specific Hold immunity a non issue or a more powerful Dispel Magic unnecessary that reducing a character into a gimped Fighter is worth it.
So the Inquisitor, if the player takes away all the options to deal with Hold Person and ways to just bulldoze over the flimsy enemy mage protections, is suddenly a really good idea over other Paladins (and possibly other classes)? Sure. But that's no different from saying the worst character in a game only becomes the best character if all the other options are ignored, which really just proves why that character is the worst.
If you want to show the Inquisitor is better than what people say it is, don't ignore options and show that even with stuff like Rings of Free Action, Free Action, using summons to catch enemy spells, access to regular Dispel/Remove Magic, using overwhelmingly buffed weapon attacks that the Inquisitors makes a better choice than the other Paladins if the player decides to devote one party slot to a Paladin.
@Zyzzogeton It sounds to me like you are not finding this thread very informative. That's perfectly fine.
However, I did find it informative. If you adhere to conventional wisdom, you will likely never play an Inquisitor. All @BelgarathMTH is saying is that you might find it surprisingly useful if you give it a shot.
Now that I have your attention, I'd like to share my theory on the absolute, unequivocal superiority of the Beastmaster
The 'popular opinion' is that whatever uses the Inquisitor has doesn't make it a better pick over the other Paladin kits in general. And by in general I'm talking about a party that doesn't specifically limit itself to the point that it needs someone that resists Hold spells naturally and is somehow incapable of just plowing fhrough defensive spells with brute force or just relying on regular Dispel/Remove Magic.
Because really all this topic proves is that if the player ignores all the other ways to circumvent Hold spells, then someone that can resist Hold spells becomes really useful. Well duh.
And Dispel Magic is one on the ways to deal with enemy mage protections. Again. Duh.
But it doesn't show how these make the Inquisitor is better than at least one other Paladin kit unless the player limits themselves to make that true.
If the Inquisitor was useless it wouldn't just be the worst Paladin kit, it'd be worse than an empty character slot. And feel free to show how that's the 'popular opinion' because being the worst Paladin kit doesn't automatically translate to the Inquisitor being useless.
For instance, in my experience, it's actually less fun to play a non-minmaxed character in a multiplayer game for everyone involved.
That depends on who you play with. If you play with powergamers, of course you should powergame yourself so you aren't dragging back the team from optimal performance. However personally I've been having a great time with my roleplay driven multiplayer full saga game that's been going on for well over a year now. All of us have "sub-optimal" characters, but that's a great part of what makes it interesting. http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/27270/the-bhaalspawn-journals-roleplaying-multiplayer-game/p1
There's many ways to enjoy this game and nobody's method of enjoyment is objectively better than anybody else's. It's a game, play it however you want.
Sub-optimal characters? I don't know their stats but just from the classes I can say that their stats don't matter as you've put together a proper power gaming party, even going so far as to keeper an unstoppable force stopping DD/cleric.
There are nice if you aren't depending on many buffs on yourself. If your party gets hit by hold or confusion just dispel it and throw a haste afterwards for basic buffing.
The inquisitor's dispel has the advantage of being instantly cast at twice the inquisitor's level, though. Regular dispel takes three round segments to cast, increasing the chances of interruption. During an emergency, those extra round segments can make a big difference.
I don't know if IWD changes the basic Dispel Magic spell to be more reliable, but in BG, it was notoriously UNreliable. Only the inquisitor's dispel could be counted on to work 100 percent of the time.
In IWD level doesn't affect the success of a Dispel Magic spell. It always works (unless I suppose someone had some kind of spell immunity stopping it from working).
@elminster, thanks, that info does make a huge difference, and makes the IWD inquisitor a bit less of a good choice. I still like mine for the instant cast dispel, though, plus the charm immunity. The undead hunter doesn't need his level drain protection, and I find that my inquisitor hits undead just as well as my undead hunter (from another party), even without the +3 bonus.
Well I think the conclusion is the inquisitor isn't underappreciated. It just doesn't offer much advantage in IWD, which I think is a welcome contrast to its dominance in SoA-ToB.
In IWD level doesn't affect the success of a Dispel Magic spell. It always works (unless I suppose someone had some kind of spell immunity stopping it from working).
Wow. Let's be honest, this makes the kit completely redundant and anyone who says otherwise is just blindly ignoring the facts.
Next they'll be telling us that climate change isn't real.
I might actually use dispel a little more often ... Does remove magic work the same way?
Near Infinity doesn't seem to like Remove Magic's settings, so I'm not sure how it works. However its likely that its description is accurate and if that is the case then it is based around levels.
Edit: Turns out its description is wrong. It always dispels (according to Near Infinity anyways).
Without a general trend to back it up "in an emergency" logic applies to every class.
"In an emergency" the Undead Hunter's bonus against Undead saves a round or two of beating down on a Skeleton that might have killed whatever it is it was hitting
"In an emergency" a Kensai's Kai deals enough bonus damage against a boss to kill it a round earlier to prevent a party wipe
"In an emergency" a Ranger's innate 2 pips of Dual Wield lets it put 2 proficiency points in another weapon earlier letting it specialize in that weapon you just found letting it kill an enemy that would have killed off your Cleric had it lived for one or two extra rounds.
So if all the Inquisitor has for its Dispel Magic is it might be useful "in an emergency", then it's not underappreciated at all.
And yet, my inquisitor has saved his fellow party members' lives numerous times, all in a single round segment. I think the contention here actually comes down to the classical "roleplayers vs. powergamers" dichotomy, and maybe also the "solo players vs. party players" dichotomy. I stand by my original post. Inquisitor is a fine class for a roleplaying party tank.
"(To Minsc after he mentions what a great honor it is to fight next to Keldorn) Do not take honor in fighting with my presence. Take honor in that you fight for good, for that is my source of strength.
"I shall do everything in my power to keep this group safe and on the path of right."
I think the contention here actually comes down to the classical "roleplayers vs. powergamers" dichotomy
And exactly how does this mean the Inquisitor is under appreciated?
From a power gaming point of view, it's the worst Paladin kit. So far nothing you've shown makes it better than any Paladin Kit.
Instant Dispel Magic, and other Inquisitor class abilities don't justify it being a gimped Fighter, especially in a party that isn't gimped to the point that Dispel Magic needs to have a Casting Speed of 1 and act at twice the level of the caster. Which pretty much means any party a powergamer can come up with that isn't specifically gimped to make the Inquisitor shine.
So far nothing you've said proves otherwise.
No one has ever said the Inquisitor is incapable of doing anything you said it does.
Most roleplayers don't really care how a class matches up to other classes or how its advantages and disadvantages match up as long as it's playable. Which so far no one has ever stated that it wasn't.
Powergamers appreciate the Inquisitor as much as it deserves to be appreciated from a powergaming standpoint. And roleplayers appreciate practically anything.
So where's the lack of appreciation?
Inquisitor is a fine class for a roleplaying party tank.
Normally, the Inquisitor kit has a number of very useful advantages: - true sight - instant dispel at double level - immunities
And some disadvantages: - no spells
Now, in BG series it's fine. The double caster level is amazing for removing protections and the true sight is very effective as every Mage has illusion spells. The immunities were always so-so but they help occasionally.
In contrast, in IWD True Sight is useless, dispel is just as effective cast by the inquisitor as literary any other character, cleric spell buffs are so much more useful and the immunities remain so-so - or even worse as there's less status effects in IWD generally.
End of the day I'd probably have more fun playing a fallen paladin and it would be just as effective. I mean, what would an Inquisitor even be doing in the frozen north?
I think we've pretty much established now that the Inquisitor is not under-appreciated, it's appreciated exactly right. What that level of appreciation may be, well, that's your individual business.
And yet, my inquisitor has saved his fellow party members' lives numerous times, all in a single round segment.
But that's only because you aren't effectively dealing with enemy spellcasters in the first place. I don't need Dispel Magic because I turn anyone who starts waving his arms in the air into a porcupine.
And yet, my inquisitor has saved his fellow party members' lives numerous times, all in a single round segment.
But that's only because you aren't effectively dealing with enemy spellcasters in the first place. I don't need Dispel Magic because I turn anyone who starts waving his arms in the air into a porcupine.
And if they do get a spell off you'll hopefully have a backline character with dispel magic ready.
It's interesting how all have come to this. I should say this is not a thread about powergamers vs role players.
This thread, the OP in its core, is meant to tell us: "Hey, if you're playing IWDEE, don't overlook an Inquisitor by default. Maybe you heard somewhere that if you want a Pally in IWDEE, you should take a cavalier/an undead hunter/a blackguard instead. But an Inquisitor is not so bad. It's a fine class, maybe not the most powerful even among the Paladin fellows in IWDEE, but still you can freely take it."
I very much support this OP and the idea in its main: don't be afraid to play an Inquisitor, she may come useful even in IWDEE.
But from a general "fun" perspective, the Inquisitor looses out as well, simply by getting less stuff to do than the other Paladin kits. No spells, no turn undead. He is just a fighter without the fun of massive GM buttkicking until such time as you mess up with an enemy caster.
With IWD, many of the spellcasters are undead anyway, so an Undead Hunter with a longbow will deal with them more effectively, and still get most of the other Paladin stuff.
Comments
Only the best is best everything else is useless garbage and how dare you attempt to say otherwise.
Providing factual information about the objective value of a given character choice in response to a post asserting the objective value of a given character choice (which may or may not later be revealed to be a personal choice with little basis on actual character effectiveness) is little reflection on any posters playstyle who takes the time to provide said factual information.
For my part (as an accused "power gamer"); I've played no reload, I've played "roll and play", I've played single classes only and I've played a level 1 HoF party with 5 dual classes and a skald ... Suffice to say, I've played a broad range of play styles with the only distinguishing factor being a general aversion to ranged combat. Additionally, I've played as much multiplayer as I can and consequently I have been able to experience a broad range of play styles from a 3rd person perspective which is sometimes more beneficial than doing it yourself.
For instance, in my experience, it's actually less fun to play a non-minmaxed character in a multiplayer game for everyone involved.
I don't see where I ever implied, much less said outright, that I was expressing anything other than a subjective opinion. My emotion behind my initial post was that I was having fun trying something a little different (for me), and I wanted to share my thoughts and experiences with friends I've made here.
I've been watching the results with some bemusement. A few people seem to be taking it as somehow a personal attack that I expressed an opinion they don't agree with. To them I would say, let's ligthen up. It's just a game. I have fun with it one way, other people have fun with it another way.
I thought there might be some back and forth discussion resulting from what I posted, but I certainly never expected it to cause any heated emotions or actual hostility.
To those who got the spirit of my post as I intended it, as just something interesting and fun to share, and have been defending it as such, I thank you very much.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/27270/the-bhaalspawn-journals-roleplaying-multiplayer-game/p1
There's many ways to enjoy this game and nobody's method of enjoyment is objectively better than anybody else's. It's a game, play it however you want.
I mean seriously all you just proved is the Inquisitor does the stuff the game says it can do. You haven't really said anything about how other classes do the job sufficiently enough or make class specific Hold immunity a non issue or a more powerful Dispel Magic unnecessary that reducing a character into a gimped Fighter is worth it.
So the Inquisitor, if the player takes away all the options to deal with Hold Person and ways to just bulldoze over the flimsy enemy mage protections, is suddenly a really good idea over other Paladins (and possibly other classes)? Sure. But that's no different from saying the worst character in a game only becomes the best character if all the other options are ignored, which really just proves why that character is the worst.
If you want to show the Inquisitor is better than what people say it is, don't ignore options and show that even with stuff like Rings of Free Action, Free Action, using summons to catch enemy spells, access to regular Dispel/Remove Magic, using overwhelmingly buffed weapon attacks that the Inquisitors makes a better choice than the other Paladins if the player decides to devote one party slot to a Paladin.
However, I did find it informative. If you adhere to conventional wisdom, you will likely never play an Inquisitor. All @BelgarathMTH is saying is that you might find it surprisingly useful if you give it a shot.
Now that I have your attention, I'd like to share my theory on the absolute, unequivocal superiority of the Beastmaster
The 'popular opinion' is that whatever uses the Inquisitor has doesn't make it a better pick over the other Paladin kits in general. And by in general I'm talking about a party that doesn't specifically limit itself to the point that it needs someone that resists Hold spells naturally and is somehow incapable of just plowing fhrough defensive spells with brute force or just relying on regular Dispel/Remove Magic.
Because really all this topic proves is that if the player ignores all the other ways to circumvent Hold spells, then someone that can resist Hold spells becomes really useful. Well duh.
And Dispel Magic is one on the ways to deal with enemy mage protections. Again. Duh.
But it doesn't show how these make the Inquisitor is better than at least one other Paladin kit unless the player limits themselves to make that true.
If the Inquisitor was useless it wouldn't just be the worst Paladin kit, it'd be worse than an empty character slot. And feel free to show how that's the 'popular opinion' because being the worst Paladin kit doesn't automatically translate to the Inquisitor being useless.
I don't know if IWD changes the basic Dispel Magic spell to be more reliable, but in BG, it was notoriously UNreliable. Only the inquisitor's dispel could be counted on to work 100 percent of the time.
Next they'll be telling us that climate change isn't real.
I might actually use dispel a little more often ... Does remove magic work the same way?
Edit: Turns out its description is wrong. It always dispels (according to Near Infinity anyways).
"In an emergency" the Undead Hunter's bonus against Undead saves a round or two of beating down on a Skeleton that might have killed whatever it is it was hitting
"In an emergency" a Kensai's Kai deals enough bonus damage against a boss to kill it a round earlier to prevent a party wipe
"In an emergency" a Ranger's innate 2 pips of Dual Wield lets it put 2 proficiency points in another weapon earlier letting it specialize in that weapon you just found letting it kill an enemy that would have killed off your Cleric had it lived for one or two extra rounds.
So if all the Inquisitor has for its Dispel Magic is it might be useful "in an emergency", then it's not underappreciated at all.
"(To Minsc after he mentions what a great honor it is to fight next to Keldorn) Do not take honor in fighting with my presence. Take honor in that you fight for good, for that is my source of strength.
"I shall do everything in my power to keep this group safe and on the path of right."
"Good is on our side this day!"
From a power gaming point of view, it's the worst Paladin kit. So far nothing you've shown makes it better than any Paladin Kit.
Instant Dispel Magic, and other Inquisitor class abilities don't justify it being a gimped Fighter, especially in a party that isn't gimped to the point that Dispel Magic needs to have a Casting Speed of 1 and act at twice the level of the caster. Which pretty much means any party a powergamer can come up with that isn't specifically gimped to make the Inquisitor shine.
So far nothing you've said proves otherwise.
No one has ever said the Inquisitor is incapable of doing anything you said it does.
Most roleplayers don't really care how a class matches up to other classes or how its advantages and disadvantages match up as long as it's playable. Which so far no one has ever stated that it wasn't.
Powergamers appreciate the Inquisitor as much as it deserves to be appreciated from a powergaming standpoint. And roleplayers appreciate practically anything.
So where's the lack of appreciation? And has anyone said or indicated otherwise?
No?
Then the Inquisitor isn't under appreciated.
Normally, the Inquisitor kit has a number of very useful advantages:
- true sight
- instant dispel at double level
- immunities
And some disadvantages:
- no spells
Now, in BG series it's fine. The double caster level is amazing for removing protections and the true sight is very effective as every Mage has illusion spells. The immunities were always so-so but they help occasionally.
In contrast, in IWD True Sight is useless, dispel is just as effective cast by the inquisitor as literary any other character, cleric spell buffs are so much more useful and the immunities remain so-so - or even worse as there's less status effects in IWD generally.
End of the day I'd probably have more fun playing a fallen paladin and it would be just as effective. I mean, what would an Inquisitor even be doing in the frozen north?
This thread, the OP in its core, is meant to tell us: "Hey, if you're playing IWDEE, don't overlook an Inquisitor by default. Maybe you heard somewhere that if you want a Pally in IWDEE, you should take a cavalier/an undead hunter/a blackguard instead. But an Inquisitor is not so bad. It's a fine class, maybe not the most powerful even among the Paladin fellows in IWDEE, but still you can freely take it."
I very much support this OP and the idea in its main: don't be afraid to play an Inquisitor, she may come useful even in IWDEE.
I'd assume anyone who doesn't have a warped view of the game's difficulty would think so.
With IWD, many of the spellcasters are undead anyway, so an Undead Hunter with a longbow will deal with them more effectively, and still get most of the other Paladin stuff.