Zen Archer, Inquisitor, and Character Focus

[Sir_Elderberry]

So our current campaign is about to wrap up, and it's time for new characters. I have a lot more experience than other people in the group, and so I let everyone else pick first, and we ended up with a bunch of melee types and a cleric. I just got done playing blaster-caster, so I'm not really feeling the arcane route, and it seemed to me what we needed was ranged DPS. Thing is, I think rangers are terribly boring--my experience is that you mostly end up standing in one spot, and when it's your turn you throw a ton of dice at the table and then you're done. Not enough choices, tactical movement, etc.

My thought then drifted to other classes, and I stumbled upon inquisitor. The judgments, teamwork feats/solo tactics, light casting, RP flavor, all really appealed to me. It seemed like I would easily be able to play a ranged DPSer who would have a little more depth. Then, to get to SAD, I started looking into Zen Archer Monk. I was thinking that ZAM 3/Inquisitor X would get me WIS to everything and patch up the terrible feat taxes of ranged characters.

When I searched around about this, I found lots of people on the internet (and indeed, GiTP) discussing this build. However, lots of them pointed out that stopping at ZAM 3 wasn't strictly the best. Some said ZAM 4 or 5, and eventually it was pointed out that Zen Archer Monk is just a better ranged class than Inquisitor, so if you want to be doing damage then just play that.

So now I'm at something of a quandary, because maybe if I don't want to be a ranger, I should just go straight inquisitor (...or drop the concept entirely). What do you guys think? Is splitting ZAM and Inquisitor a matter of not being able to pick a proper focus for the character, or will the SAD make playing an Inquisitor much better even if it's less Inquisitor-y? (If anyone has actually played this build, I'd love to hear from you.)

If it matters, the campaign starts at 5, 20 PB, and we're starting off from an explicitly high-magic setting (2x WBL),.

[Secret Wizard]

The biggest mistake you could make is thinking that SAD builds are in any shape or form better than MAD builds.

DEX Magus are pretty SAD but they still are at best on-par with STR Magus, if not worse late game.

For your specific quandary, forget ZAM levels. They add nothing unless your GM is pushing 10pt buy. Besides, the amount of multiclassing an inquisitor wants is 0.

All you need to do to be a competent ranged inquisitor is pick an archetype that removes teamwork feats because they are rarely useful from a distance. I recommend the Cloaked Wolf.

[Anlashok]

DEX Magus are pretty SAD but they still are at best on-par with STR Magus, if not worse late game.

Aren't DEX magi considered basically purely superior? If anything it's the other way around, early game the feat advantage strength builds have is really strong but at higher levels that advantage starts to evaporate pretty handily.

[Florian]

Aren't DEX magi considered basically purely superior? If anything it's the other way around, early game the feat advantage strength builds have is really strong but at higher levels that advantage starts to evaporate pretty handily.

Lol? Considered by whom? STR-based work from the start and have the advantage to develop better spellcasting by having the feats to engage in the more elaborate feat chains, like Spell Perfection.
DEX-based have the advantage of mobility and INIT and that´s pretty much it.

[Barstro]

My ranged Inquisitor did so much damage that I had to dumb down my playing to not overshadow the other players.

14 Wis was enough to do all I needed. The rest went to Dex

[Psyren]

Dex-based also have higher reflex (a magus weakness) and better touch AC. But aside from that yes, Str-based work fine.

But getting back on topic: OP, ranged Inquisitor is perfectly fine without Wis to attack. If you really want to be SAD, I would suggest asking your GM to just port i the Zen Archery feat from 3.5 rather than setting 4 levels on fire with Zen Archer Monk. Yes, that would get you Wis to attack, but with everything you'd lose/delay from Inquisitor I would say the tradeoff wouldn't be worth it at that point.

[Florian]

Agreed.

There´s no big need to try an be SAD with an Inquisitor. It´s rather the other way round: The spells, and therefore WIS, are a supporting feature and can be kept low. It´s enough when you can cast Wrath ;)

[Secret Wizard]

A good 20 pt. buy array:

S14 D16 C12 I10 W15 CH7

Alternatively, you could go with 14 WIS and 8 CHA, or I8 and CH8 to keep W15.

[Sir_Elderberry]

Cool, thanks guys. Knowing that other people have gone straight inquisitor and had it work fine is reassuring.

[Florian]

Cool, thanks guys. Knowing that other people have gone straight inquisitor and had it work fine is reassuring.

Simply get a grip on the fact that SAD is not necessarily better than MAD in any ways. That´s dependent on the class and what it brings to the table.

You want to engage in archery and that is, as usual, nearly entirely feat based. The Inquisitor class brings Judgement and Bane to the table, along with some spells to support that.
So you´ll run fine with DEX > CON > STR > WIS and dump INT and CHA to do so, as this class allows for builds like that.

[Psyren]

With 20 PB I recommend a spread like this:

Str 12
Dex 16 (all but one stat increases go here)
Con 14
Int 10 (I don't like dumping Int, plus they get a lot of useful skills.)
Wis 15 (level 16 increase goes here, if you get that far)
Cha 7

[Secret Wizard]

I wouldn't recommend 14 CON because you are not really a frontliner.