7 réponses à ce sujet

[EdgeSanity]

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I personally think the perception that Inquistors are the best Paladin kit--and indeed one of the top kits in the game--is incorrect.  I think a Cavalier is better.  The Inquisitor gives up virtually everything that makes a Paladin worth playing in exchange for dispel magic and true sight.  Yeah, they are good spells, but they are not exclusive to an Inquisitor.  With mage being the most powerful class in the game, why wouldn't you have at least one around?  Meanwhile the Cavalier has bonus damage to the hardest opponents in the game, immunities, a couple pretty decent cleric buffs, and lay on hands.

[Grond0]

The point though is that dispel magic is a level-dependent spell. If you're playing in a party, then most of the opponents you meet will be higher level than you and dispel magic probably won't work. The inquisitor spell casts at double actual level and therefore normally does work - which makes it incredibly useful.

I agree that you give a lot up for it and, depending on your play style, another kit could be better. However, if used according to its strengths the inquisitor does have a good argument to be the best kit.

[morbidest2]

Well, in ToB a mage type is probably the strongest PC, but for most of SoA an Inquisitor with a +5 2HS and red dragon armor is a pretty tough critter. This discussion makes me want to start another run with an Inquis named "Hot Needle of Inquiry."  

[EdgeSanity]

Well, a cavalier can wield the holy avenger as well. I'm certainly not saying that an inquisitor is useless or anything like that. I understand that his dispel is better than a mage's and that dispel is an important spell. However, I just think if you look at the pros and cons of each kit and think about how they fit into a party, the edge goes to cavalier. Those cleric buffs like armor of faith and DUHM are self cast only. Lay on hands might not be all that much to write home about, but the fact that it is instant cast will save you in quite a few sticky situations. Cavalier is also immune to a host of effects and has a whopping +3 to hit/damage against dragons.

So I think my point basically boils down to the fact that what the inquisitor brings to the table can be covered by the party, whereas what he gives up cannot be mitigated by the party. The cavalier gives up basically nothing (can't use ranged weapons but just uses a throwing axe), retains paladin skills that can't be provided by the party, and has bonuses against enemies that provide one of the rare occasions when you'd actually need bonuses of that sort.

Now, if you're talking a solo run, it's a completely different story.

[morbidest2]

They are both easily playable classes if you are feeling LG. But besides dispell magic, a quick True Vision comes in handy at a number of points in SoA.
Each to his own   

Modifié par morbidest2, 22 juillet 2013 - 12:23 .

[Flamedance]

It's not just the power of his Dispel Magic, it's the speed too. Both Dispel Magic and True Seeing are cast with a speed of 1, meaning nearly instantaneous. IMO, an Inquisitor's Dispel Magic is badly overpowered. SCS reduces it to 1,5 actual level. Even at that level it's still a very powerful ability, but at least it gives your opponents a fighting chance

There's very little wrong with Cavaliers, but exactly how many dragons and tough demons are you going to meet in the game, compared to mages?.

[EdgeSanity]

Yeah, I see your point. I guess I've just never had much of a problem dispelling with a bard or mage.

[Ishad Nha]

Just use Breach on a Mage then take him apart in melee. I rarely use Dispel Magic as Breach is so useful. A Sorceror can cast it repeatedly if the Mage is protected by Contingencies.