Pathfinder class question: Inquisitor or Paladin?

[keen320]

So, I'm trying to make up my mind about two classes for a game I'll be playing at the start of my sophomore year. This is my first pathfinder game, and I've only done a couple 3.5 games before.

The campaign will take place on the plains, and we'll start at level 8 (we don't really have time to play a long game where we get up to high level and just think it would be more interesting).

My original character idea was an Aasimar Werebear Paladin of St. Cuthbert (we're using the same campaign setting as our 3.5 games). But the werebear is kind of confusing as to it's level adjustment. The DM (this is his first game) at first ruled that it was only a +1 level adjustment, and I went along with that, until about a week or two ago when I realized how incredibly unbalanced and munchkiny that would be. So I thought I'd switch to a werewolf, since that's legitimately a +1 level adjustment at our level. But for backstory reason I thought the Paladin's of St. Cuthbert might not want a Paladin who was openly a werewolf. Then the Inquisitor caught my eye.

I'm trying to decide whether to go with a Paladin or an Inquisitor. The rest of the party will consist of a Sorcerer, a Ranger, and probably a Fighter. So I'll end up being the party band aid box. But I don't really want to be a cleric or druid. The Paladin is better at the band aid box role, but I think the Inquisitor would be a bit more interesting to play (I'm thinking of looking to Mad Eye Moody for role-playing inspiration), especially since social situations are often some of the most interesting and funny in the two campaigns I've done so far.

I'll have decent stats (the DM didn't want to do a point buy or risk us having bad stats from lousy rolls so went with some weird homebrew system of adding a couple d4 rolls to a base of 8) and some decent items, specifically a +2 Belt of Physical Perfection, a Mithril Breastplate, and probably a magic weapon if Inquisitor or maybe a Lion's Shield if Paladin. I can probably get most other standard equipment as well. Except whistles. Whistles are bannded. The DM thinks they're stupid or something. But he didn't ban signal horns!

So, any advice on whether I should chose Inquisitor or Paladin, and why? Or are they both terrible choices for the party composition and werewolf bit? Please explain any abbreviations you use, I only just started reading some D20 forums and only just figured out what TWF meant.

Oh yeah, and the dwellers on the plains will probably be Blink Dogs

[The Random NPC]

One interesting trick my friend found, the penalty for not sleeping is you're fatigued the next day, a 3rd level Paladin can use lay on hands to cure fatigue. Result? You never need to sleep again. And as far as the Inquisitor goes, Teamwork feats suck, unless you have a way to grant them to the party.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

Inquisitors are more fun. They have more spells, and more unique abilities. However, there can be a fair amount of bookkeeping, and they do not do well in a "band aid" role. However, any sort of optimized party can get away without a dedicated healer, and be fine. Both you and the ranger should carry Cure X Wounds wands, and your Sorcerer should carry a wand of Infernal Healing. You'll be fine.

[keen320]

One interesting trick my friend found, the penalty for not sleeping is you're fatigued the next day, a 3rd level Paladin can use lay on hands to cure fatigue. Result? You never need to sleep again. And as far as the Inquisitor goes, Teamwork feats suck, unless you have a way to grant them to the party.
The Fatigue thing is kinda nice, although we have a sorcerer, so we couldn't use it to full advantage. But it would be useful for keeping watch and stuff. I don't really like the teamwork feats much, but the Inquisitor has the Solo Tactics ability, which means that for their purposes, the rest of the party is treated as having those feats. Although they don't benefit from them without having the feats themselves.

I like the wand idea, although I might have to lose some other equipment. You don't need Use Magic Device for them, do you? I've never used wands before, in our last two campaigns the DM never let us buy any magic items (despite one campaign being level 7 and the other 3).

[The Random NPC]

I did not know about the Solo Tactics thing, but I also didn't know much about Inquisitors. As for wands, you don't need a Use Magic Device check if the spell appears on your spell list.

[grarrrg]

I'd vote for Inquisitor, just for the utility of it.

Inquisitors are right up there with Bards in the "do anything" area and, in my opinion, do a better job of "anything" than Bards.


If you need/want to fill a Social role, then take either the Heretic (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/paizo---inquisitor-archetypes/heretic) or Infiltrator (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/paizo---inquisitor-archetypes/infiltrator) archetypes, and throw on the Conversion (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/paizo---inquisitor-archetypes/inquisitions/conversion-inquisition) Inquisition.

Conversion has WIS replace CHA for Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate checks. Either of the archetypes add WIS to Bluff checks. Depending on archetype you also get WIS to either Stealth or Diplomacy.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Paladins are better at not dying and doing stupidcrazyuberdamage against x foes per day, x being smite evil usages. Inquisitor is a much better caster and skill monkey and fares better in fights with lots of enemies.

Overall, Inquisitor is the stronger class, though paladin covers his big stupid fighter role quite well if that's what you're after. His only real issue is lack of ability to force enemies to "stick" to him. Which can easily be fixed by un-nerfing the Antagonize feat (it used to force the target to approach you in melee, but paizo fans don't like warriors having nice things).

As for teamwork feats...they suck, solo tactics makes them usable, though. My favorites are Lookout (it's just...amazing), Tandem Trip (2d20 take the higher on trip checks), and Coordinated Charge (charge as an immediate action when an ally charges!).

Melee Inquisitor can be really good, ranged inquisitor is a trap. Feel free to switch hit, but don't invest feats in archery.

[Psyren]

I was putting together a little guide for Inquisitor during my downtime. Your instincts are definitely on the money - the Teamwork feats suck hard, so I highly recommend the Preacher (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/paizo---inquisitor-archetypes/preacher) or Spellbreaker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/paizo---inquisitor-archetypes/spellbreaker) archetypes to get rid of them for something much better.

They're sort of a Ranger/Paladin hybrid with Bardic casting.

[grarrrg]

They're sort of a Ranger/Paladin hybrid with Bardic casting.

I think of Inquisitors as more of an everything/anything hybrid.

If you rank various classes in various areas (i.e. Melee damage, spell casting, skills, etc...) Inquisitors would never be at the top of the list, but they wouldn't be near the bottom either.

[Psyren]

I think of Inquisitors as more of an everything/anything hybrid.

If you rank various classes in various areas (i.e. Melee damage, spell casting, skills, etc...) Inquisitors would never be at the top of the list, but they wouldn't be near the bottom either.

Bards are more of an "everyman" if you ask me. For instance, they can get trapfinding while Inquisitors can't, and function better as the face as well. Bards have many more roles they can fill.

But I was actually referring more to fluff than crunch with that statement. Inquisitors are dogged hunters (like Rangers), and they are zealous and rigid (like Paladins.)

Though the crunch lines up too, e.g. their track ability and knowledge skills for various monsters coming from the Ranger side, and their encounter-long buffs vs hated foes/alignment-based powers coming from the Paladin side.)

[grarrrg]

Bards are more of an "everyman" if you ask me. For instance, they can get trapfinding while Inquisitors can't, and function better as the face as well. Bards have many more roles they can fill.

They are quite similar, but you don't give the Inquisitor enough credit.

As for functioning better as the face?

NOTE: The following build is optimized for "pure face-ness". It does NOT represent the majority of Inquisitor builds, but taking any of the options listed does contribute substantially to "face-ness". I'm not saying the Inquisitor is necessarily 'better' than Bard, merely that they are at least as versatile.


Half-Orc (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/core-races/half-orc) Infiltrator (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/paizo---inquisitor-archetypes/infiltrator) Archetype Inquisitor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor) with the Conversion (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/paizo---inquisitor-archetypes/inquisitions/conversion-inquisition) Inquisition.

Half Orc has Inquisitor favored bonus of +1/2 to Intimidate per level (also +1/2 on Knowledge to identify).

Infiltrator adds WIS to Bluff and Diplomacy.

Inquisitor's Stern Gaze gives +1/2 per level to Intimidate and Sense Motive.

Conversion Inquisition lets you use WIS instead of CHA for Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate.


End result:
WIS+20+ranks to Intimidate
WISx2+ranks to Bluff and Diplomacy
WIS+10+ranks on Sense Motive
And they are all class skills for the +3 bonus.

Where's your Bard now?

[Psyren]

Where's your Bard now?

Free to choose archetypes?

[grarrrg]

Free to choose archetypes?

:smallsigh: [copy/paste]


NOTE: The following build is optimized for "pure face-ness". It does NOT represent the majority of Inquisitor builds, but taking any of the options listed does contribute substantially to "face-ness". I'm not saying the Inquisitor is necessarily 'better' than Bard, merely that they are at least as versatile.