To be honest, I like inquisitor kit quite a bit. From a RPG perspective, he could be dubbed as a "divine dispeller" or something, from a pure gaming perspective: ultimate mage killing-machine with the power of a Divine God at his back...
I now find them a bit useless.
For many reasons.
Not that there's anything wrong with them as pure fighters (well, gimme a dwarf Berserker any day over an inquisitor anyway). What I did found out is this:
Until they hit REALLY high levels, they are useless. Their "dispel magic" is always lacking a bit. Or much. There are few fights where their "dispel" could be useful:
1)pirate coordinator - will it work in chp3? No. Will it be needed in chpt.6? No. Does anybody wait for chp6 to face them?
2)Dracolich. will it work before you exit Underdark? No. God knows I tried.
3)Noble Genie in Ust Natha, Deirex cave 2nd floor. It won't work.
4)If you're not evil, and go for Vanya's first quest (Rune Asassins) it will work sometimes (not always, depending on his lvl), but you'll probably have HLA's by then, your sorc will be an Avatar of Mass Destruction etc. Will you need "dispel" here? No, to say the truth. You'll have problems even casting it early on, with those Asassins hurting you. In my expirience, you can (and this is what usually happens) kill everybody and leave them for last, since they have elemental resistances, unlike most of the other thieves..
5)in any Dragon battle, Inqusitors are useless as dispelers, since dragons can be breached, wich is far more reliable than "dispel"
6)in late game (ToB) your cleric can probably dispel both Sendai and that Lich in her lair (forgot his name, has "Skull of Lich" for Spectral Brand and Pommel Jewel for Carsomyr), Abazigal also, which are the last enemies you'll be facing who use SI:div. Not to forget the fact that Inquisitor is a fighter. With Skeleton Granlords running around, you'll hardly have time to cast "dispel" vs.Lich. He'll also get silenced (probably), if not equiped with Amulet of Power. And you'll want that item on someone else here, trust me.
7)if you get to the point where their "dispel magic" gains power, you'll be more than well-equiped with knowledge on how to fight against enemies who use SI:div and SI:abj
8)final fight of Judgement Day. By the time you see this, you'll hardly need to "dispel" anything. Marilyths (Escorts, Demon Knights...) will be dispellable by your mage via "remove magic". Sure, he can dispel the main demon's pfmw. So can your cleric. Not to forget the fact you must be "good aligned single-class warrior" to actually see this fight.
9)Liches. Sure, it works (sometimes) at very high levels. It will also dispel your Death Ward, Prot Magic Energy, Prot Fire etc. Brilliant.
10)Guardians for Dragonslayer sword. Wee-hoo! It worked. Was it needed? At this levels (18), chpt6? - No.
11)it is a "dispel", not a "remove". This is a BIG problem. My f/m/c (I tried all this with a f/m/c prot) had a hard time keeping his SI active due to all those Rubys he was taking, and now he also had to worry about "friendly fire"? It sucks. How many times do you "need" a "dispel" instead a "remove"? I, myself, not once. Imp.haste is a very important spell, for practically any mid and late-game fight. Not to mention Prot mag Energy, which is essential. Unless you have a "perfect aim" for dispel (or SI active), it's gone.
12)Orcus. If you get a "dispel" off in this fight with an Inquisitor before you kill other enemies, you should get a Nobel Prize. Not to mention that Orcus has more than one PFMW casting. Cleric can also dispel him, if high lvl enough.
13)Samia wizard (Kaol) Not only do you have a hard time casting it, it also barely works at lvls17, 18, 19. A sorcerer, on the other hand, shines here at this levels.
14)EDE - my my... no comment on what inq can actually contribute here, and what a sorc cannot do. Right, sorc can "remove"....inq can not. He can dispel your pfme with a high probability.
The single advantage they have is the casting speed (it still gets disrupted), not the fact that their dispel is so powerful. A cleric basically falls 2 levels behind them for most of the game, due to the fact that clerics gain lvls so much faster. Not to forget that Cleric has also other spells to cast, not only "dispel".
15)for any oponnent who use SI:div and CAN be breached. As noted above, inquisitor won't do much good before he gets HLAs. Once your sorc get HLAs, he can Breach everybody via Wish, making inquisitors even more crappy.
Just what good are they if you have, for example, 2 sorcerers with 18 wis, practically ensuring you'll get the right Wish option?
16) Supreme Leader. It's not his pfmw casting that's the problem in this fight, so even if you do "dispel" it, it won't do much good.

As for Keldorn... I really gave this guy a lot of credit. I like him a lot for his character. How come only Valy had his strenght buffed up? "You still may use Belts." Aha. Wait till you find one. "strenght" spell? Try and see how long it will last when Keldorn sees Torgal. Potions? Damn expensive, dispellable. Dextery is also very low, actually abysmal. He has also one big issue (well, he has more than 1 issue ) - his armor.
It gives you 40% resistance to Magic Damage and a slight saving throw bonus. (+2)
Is it needed? It's useless. The one and only dangerous "magic damage" you'll be facing are ADHWs. Keldorn wields 2-handed wpns. You WILL forge Poseidon Halberd, right? What good is Keldorn's armor then? 25%missile resistance? If you want this that badly, forge Huskars armor. There are very few fights where immunity to missiles is useful, btw, and if it's not 100%, it won't do much good, since it's not the missiles which kill you. You also might want to use a very low AC vs.missiles instead. I SK'd Keldorn to use bastard swords and flails (Phosphorous) when I took him along to actually make this item upgrade useful and had a Berserker with Poseidon.
IMO, it's previous version (Free Action) would be much more useful in IA. Overpowered? yes, apsolutely. More useful? Try any spider fight, or Drow ambushes. EDE also.
15% resistance to MD on his non-upgraded armor? a Chain Con of 3xWiltings will kill him, regardless.
You may say: "Well, someone else can then wield PW halberd".
How many people use 2 fighters with 2-handed wpns? Very few from what I've seen.
The armor upgrade is incredibly expensive (waay too much... It does look cool however!), to say the least, since you must also buy Trachies Plate (which is useless), so the cost is actually around 125000 + all the items also used which could be sold (Beljurils etc.). Not to mention the wasting of Belt of Inertial Barrier.
Take another armor/item combo - Great Wyrm scale/Belt of inertial barrier. 125 000. Comes late, but Keldorn's armor may also come quite late.
50% mag.damage reduction, 75%fire reduction, wield any weapon you want. Takes your belt slot, but you can use Lum the Mad machine to get strenght to 19 or 20.
And play a berserker...

Now, you may argue/disagree with some points here, but that's where Inquisitors stand in IA IMO.. which is bad.
My solution to their problems would be to make them cast both "remove" and "dispel", in a way similar as sorcerers do.
For example - lvl 9 inq would have 3 spells to cast. So, he could cast 2x remove and 1x dispel.
Or/and, give them another +x to spellcasting lvl. There's really no point in playing them, since until they hit high levels they can't dispel anything but fighter potions. And when they do, you don't need it anymore. They just don't make a difference, and they should.
I know and understand that this has probably been tested before IA5 got out. I fail to see the point still. What good is an Inquisitor in party if he can't dispel anything IMPORTANT before HLAs? Your imp.haste will be dispelled, of course. He may fail to dispel even THAT sometimes. You're better off without him, and taking a normal fighter, or a sorcerer.
If you're a big fan of Paladins, I'd say: go for Cavalier. He's crappy compared to berserkers or barbarians (not to mention kensai..or rangers) but immunity to poison and fear (which will be removed, unfortunately I must say. I hardly see this as an "unfair advantage" over anything) are much better than "Charm" and "Hold" immunities of Inquisitor kit.

Thanks for your thoughts, Kerkes!

Playing an inquisitor (and using his dispel magic ability) surely requires micro-management and has its own advantages and disadvantages.

There are certain battles in which inquisitors can be more useful and certain other battles (= mostly battles against high level clerics) in which inquisitors will be less effective.

Interestingly (and ironically), among your examples, there are a few in which an inquisitor (if played correctly) can really shine. The battle with Dracolich and the battle with Samia's party are two such examples from your list. If you do not delay these battles for too long, your mages, clerics, sorcerers and bards will have no chance to dispel the enemy; whereas an inquisitor has a fair chance of success. As a side-note, I'm (most probably) going to confine access to deeperdark dungeons to chapter 5. Players won't be able to return for Dracolich after exiting underdark in IA v6. Having an inquisitor will be your only chance to dispel Dracolich at the normal levels you will meet him; without an inquisitor, the battle will still be doable (as you can read in my own walkthrough), but only with the usual method of waiting for the duration of his protections to expire (as he is immune to Breach).

The fact that inquisitors cast dispel magic rather than remove magic is actually a balancing factor; otherwise, they would have been too powerful.

Keldorn's stats are also moderately re-distributed and rebalanced in v6.

ahmm....
lvl 17 Inquisitor vs.Dracolich? No chance for a reliable dispel (it barely works, I dunno if we're talking about same levels or the same Draco here ), so Inq won't "shine" here (a dwarf will, on the other hand), he will be useless. Buy you 4 rounds (or less?! Summoning will buy you all the time you need.) You'll still need summons. Even if he gets lucky sometimes, Draco has more than a few pfmws. You'll still have to wait him out. And it will dispel your DW also if you're not careful. I played this once with Keldorn on 25th lvl. Sure, he could dispel him regulary. Custom lvl 17 inq? (effective casting level 22) Once, one single time. A cleric can overwhelm him with Skeletons, which is even better than dispeling him (and worrying about your DW on, Draco does that pretty good) if you play that well. Basically, playing with "dispel" for Inqs means "getting lucky" IMO. What can he do? Stand a bit back so that he doesn't get disrupted, cast "dispel" and pray that it works ( while your fighters run away from it, sice they're dead if it cathes them against something with a CC 3xADHW, or a trigger with Chain Lightnings) . If it doesn't, recast, or reload, so that it eventually works. "dispel" has always at least 1% chance to suceed, so you can reload on anything until it finally works, and you don't need an Inq for that kind of gameplay. Not my cup of tea for sure.
As for Samia, I usually use Wish for breaching Kaol , far more reliable than dispel here, even at random. (of course, you can get an Inq to lvl 20+, so it will probably work. I don't fight them so late, but if I did, I'd hardly need a "dispel", since a sorc with 4 or 6 lvl9 spells can wreak havoc on them anyway) You can also kill everybody else before him, he isn't all that big of a problem anyway. My bard dispelled Kaol on 2nd try (without reloads). with a "remove", of course, so I need not to worry about my kensai and B-C who have no SI:abj on getting hit by something nasty. So, a 22 (or 23, don't remember) level bard can dispel him, probably with a very decent chance of sucess.
I think not being able to return to Underdark deeper dungeons is a very good idea, not so for Draco but for Demon Knights (which are far worse IMO) it would be good.
I don't see casting a "remove" too powerful/unbalancing for them, they are so much nerfed already. Draco isn't all that hard anyway, Samia also isn't THAT hard so that having or not having an Inq in party will actually make a difference, which is the thing I'm trying to say. It can alter your gameplay a bit, but not much. I'll take a sorcerer any day over an Inquisitor now, far more useful. A vanilla dwarf fighter is also better for my taste.
Another thing is that many oponnents simply use SI:abj, making their dispel useless at the start of the battle.
In EDE, really, their "dispel" can kill you out-right if you're not mega-careful about where to cast it (you'll want to use it on something with pfmw, and those oponnents are very close to your melee fighters). even more so if you're not wearing an armor with mag dmg resistance and some fire res gear or innate abilities.
Also, as I said, a sorc will always sucessfuly dispel Rakshasas at those levels, making Inqs utterly useless here.

Edited for one more tought, from a PM I got (I completely forgot about that, but one good player did not):
mr. Kaol CAN be hit by normal wpns without problem. He uses PFMW. Inq is crap even in this battle. I fail to see any irony in my previous post.
Just my toughts, and reasons I quit playing them.

Exactly. I don't understand this change. Keldorn is a gimp without it. And whoever wastes belt of inertial barrier for that useless pile of junk called imp. firecam armor should be taken behind the barn and smacked upside the head. ;F
But it seems that the real problem is his nerfed dispel.....

One of the bigger problems with Keldorn is that as he runs away from clerics they dispel his buffs. Also requires a casting of "remove fear" so that he composes himself, but he won't have (imp.)haste on himself anymore (or anything else), so he'll, once again, be a whimp in melee combat with 2 or 5/2 attacks per round. And clerics turn him more than once... You can use warblade with immunty fo fear to counter this (or Dragonslayer sword. ahmm..), but there are far better options for warblade upgrade, and warblade comes late and at a big price...
He's just a burden for the party IMO. Playing with him against, for example, Troll Queen, is a very painful endeavor, you actually have one less party member active, unless you waste time on remove fear castings (and you'll probably be wasting time on ruby ray, breach and healing). And his dispel is useless here, even if it works, since Queen can be breached.
He, Jan (lvl progression is slow, I dunno use traps, low HP, his armor upgrade is no good), Viconia (low HP, enemies kill her MR, is not a dwarf so her saving throws are awful, worthless in melee), Edwin (cannot equip amulet of Power, his quest is mega-hard since the lich there is powerful, also evil. Does have a nice spelbook), Korgan (bad wpn proficiencies disribution, evil, will leave if rep is above 18), Jaheira (Cernd is 10 times better for IA), to an extent Aerie (low HP, a lot of micromanagement, no specific upgrades/abilities, vulnerable to PW spells, for me annoying personality and crappy banters...only Anomen has a worse personality), really got the crap end of the stick in IA, IMO. Even more so since if you make a custom non-protag inquisitor clerics won't turn them.
But as I said, I no longer bother with either Keldorn or a custom Inq, both are no good to me. It may be because I really tend to use either mages for rubys and breaching, or bards for dispeling (if I want to play with someone who's dispel is powerful). Cleric are also good in late-game.
Jan is completely obsolete by Nalia, but I believe there are some bugs involved here. Nalia's pickpocketing skill is 0. Potions increase it by some "percent". Any percent added to 0 is still 0. Therefore, she should never be able to pickpocket anything. yet, if she drinks 5 thievry potions, she can pickpocket everything.
The only NPC fighter with 2-hnd weapons which I find semi-useful is Sarevok. However, he comes very late and his proficiencies (5*in sword) are bad. He's also a human, which is even worse, since he'll be failing his saving throws a lot. His special attack won't work vs.tough oponnents. He doesn't have a kit, which is also bad.
Custom (berserker, kensai, some paladin kit ) is the way to go if you want something powerful for big weapons, I'm affraid.
I completely agree for Keldorn's armor upgrade, waaay to weak (it does look cool!!), Valy's armor is 10 times better at least (it doesn't look nearly as cool!!) - fire res, mag dmg res, acid res, charm and confusion res... (funny enough, it's actually much cheaper than Keldorn's). A mage-slayer such as Keldorn should have far more mag dmg resistance than a ranger IMO, but both Valy and Vagrant have more than him, and can get it up to 75 with Belt of Barrier. However, I believe that it's original version would be a bit too unbalacing for IA gameplay.

Edited for one more note:
I actually wouldn't use inqs even if they didn't have issues with clerics, and even if their dispel was not nerfed. I just find that IA gameplay (sorcerers with 18 wis for wish breaching, use of SI:abj, the importance of saving throws) makes this kit (which must be human. I use dwarves) simply crap for me, and the gameplay I prefer (which does not include "dispel magic" unless if really needed (to be cast by my cleric), for example Abazigal or Sendai).

Hmm... I'm not too sure about that. In my own IA runs, I found her rather useful as a fighter who can cast Ironskins and Regeneration. Further, she does get quite a lot of HLAs (despite getting them rather late, being a multiclass) in the mid- to late game. Further, her romance quest gives the protagonist a whopping 100k xp as a reward. I found her to be a useful fighter even in the EDE.



Heh, Dwarves having good saves is an exception, not the norm. Don't fault Sarevok just for being human. I agree that he comes late and has very low XP if you choose to use him though... too bad, as one can change his alignment to Good. Also, his special attack does work against tough opponents if they are not immune to slashing damage: 200 slashing damage in the vanilla game, I believe, which is a considerable amount. I don't think this was changed in IA. However, I wouldn't use him anyway because of his low xp.

Also, why do you say 5* in 2-handed sword is bad? GM in weapons does give 1 extra attack after all. For my 2-handed weapons fighter specialist, I almost always end up having 5* in Staff, Halberd and 2-handed sword, and 2* in 2-handed weapon (17 proficiency points max at lvl 39).

Even in the vanilla game, 'boss' enemies are immune to the effects of Sarevok's Deathbringer Assault (and the stunning attack thing he also has) without being immune to slashing damage. Those same tough enemies will still have the immunity in IA.

Ironskins be breached. With her HP (she does get regeneration waay late) it means she's dead, she has only 2 castings for a long time. Low strenght. Half-elf with crap saves. Buffs are easilly dispeled. With her amulet, she can be useful. Immunity to poison is also good (sometimes). Compared to what high lvl Cernd can contribute to the party, she's just crap for me, regardless of 100k reward. I also hate her personality. I dunno like druids. Insect plague is nerfed a lot. Creeping doom does not bypass MR. Some powerful enemies are also immune to it.
I never get that much exp for a single-class fighter. Even with a 5 member party (which gives a nice exp boost), I didn't get kensai to lvl 39 up to EDE. I must be missing something here, I never get that much exp as other people I've seen posting party levels.
Any 2-hnd sword is nothing in IA compared to Poseidon halberd and Staff of Ram. His attack does not work against tough oponnents. Say, Elite Nishruu. Not immune to slashing. You think you can kill it in a single blow with Sarevok getting lucky? I don't think so. Ancient Dragon, struck down in 2 blows? Rakshasa Prince?

Woops! I had forgotten that!



Against Mage enemies, yes. However, the enemy mage casting Breach would mean that they are not taking down my mages' protections. Ironskins has a quick recast time anyway, and I give her Hardiness HLAs when the Stoneskins run out or will be taken down too fast.

There are lots of Strength enhancing Belts in IA, and little other decent belts aside from Belt of Inertial Barrier anyway.



She acts as a ssecondary divine caster for me, as usually I have another, usually Anomen. As secondary caster, she can buff Mages who are protected by SI:A.

I think Cernd is great too, but the main advantage Cernd has over her (to me, at least) is the Immunity to Silence. Not all of the enemies have Silence though, and she is a good fighter actually, with access to HLAs. Further, I know you may not think much about low ACs, but she can get it down low, and it works for me.



2-Handed swords... Warlord's Blade is decent actually. Further, Slashing damage can be good against a certain type of Golem, so I always switch to 2-handed Swords for that. The other 2 weapons you mentioned are superior of course. Also, as Raven pointed out to me, the Deathbringer Assault doesn't work on bosses. However, if it did work, not everything is about killing things in 2 blows, and massive damage proc'ing always sounds good to me.

There seems to be a contradiction here. By the time your mage can cast one wish spell per day (= 3,400,000 xp), which has a low chance to get the "Breach everyone" option, your inquisitor is already 18th level which means he will have 60% chance to dispel Kaol. By the time your mage can cast enough number of wish spells per day to have an average chance to get the "Breach everyone" option, your Inquisitor is high level enough to dispel Kaol with 90+ percent chance. When you say, I don't fight them "so late", I can't understand how you have access to enough number of wish spells.



Even in v5, bards were inferior to inquisitors regarding their chance to dispel enemies, but if we are talking about v6, then you can't count on a bard's remove magic much more than you can count on a mage (see the progress report topic).

In general, I can understand that some players won't be willing to play inquisitors because of the micro-management needed for using their dispel magic and because of their weakness against high level clerics; however, some other players (= those who know how to play inquisitors well and are ready to accept the micro-management required for using them) will still be willing to have them in party. The kit has advantages and disadvantages. Either develop the required style and expertise to use them effectively or don't use them. It's a matter of playing style as well. We had more or less similar comments about Auramasters' usefulness in the past as well. Some players (such as Raven) are experts in using auramasters; some others don't want to use them, because auramasters don't match with their playing styles, but it doesn't mean that the kit is useless. It's something each player should decide for himself.

@ Sikret
There's no contradicition. A 60% chance from inq is not good enough for my taste. I want my fighters close to him AND imp.haste on them along with other prot buffs, which cannot be done with an Inq casting dispel. Kaol is dead in the next round if "wish" breach is an option. If not, switch to normal wpns, and kill him with that. There's no need to dispel anything here, as I already mentioned. I'd rather have imp.haste activated, along with all other buffs, so I can take care of fighters also.
Even if an inq dispels him, what then? If I have no fighters close to him, I'll need to dispel again. Or breach (if he doesn't go invisible), but my sorc can do something else instead (like going in TS and doing what they do best).
"Enough number" is 3 for sorcerer, since at lvl18 they cast 3 lvl 9 spells I believe. What part here is a contradiction? You can also get "make if rested". So the chance actually isn't that poor compared to what inq has, no? A "breach" will always work on Kaol, unlike dispel. I never mentioned mage, I mentioned sorcerer. You can also get "breach on everyone" on the first try, breaching all of the other goons asap also.
60% chance for dispel won't touch Hardiness.
I already mentioned, this fight really isn't all that hard even if Kaol lives for some time (he can live for 30 mins for all I care), so the usefulness of inqs is really best not discussed over Kaol, there are far worse enemies (say Sendai's lich. Odamaron?) in IA where an Inq could be useful, but is not (as I mentioned in my previous post).
I disagree with "an inq is more powerful dispeler than bard even in IA5". A bard can put 3x remove magic in a sequencer. He has Alcatry. He can cast while being surrounded by enemies without getting disrupted. He can be vocalized. Most importantly, he casts "remove magic". He casts spells very fast. And a bard is usually 1 single lvl behind an Inq (considering their dispeling power). 3x lvl 23 "remove" beats 1x "dispel" lvl24 by far. So, I don't see bards inferior to inqs in IA5. In IA6, they won't be as good. In IA5, they are. It's not something I like, I wrote you a PM with my toughts about how overpowered bard's dispeling power is. This is a fact in IA5, not my imagination or my fondness for bards.
I said, that "I" don't like inqs and made a post of "my opinion" on them. Of course, if someone likes them, play them, regardless of what I think. This posts I made are based on my experiences with them (and Keldorn). I posted just how they do in 16 different fights, and didn't even mention those like Torgal, Troll Queen (did in the next post, ok) Ilithid sewers etc. where Keldorn's usefulness is better not discussed. And just how useful they are in those fights, for me.
I also wrote that even if they were not nerfed, even if clerics would not turn them, I still would not play them. Therefore, it may be just my playing style. I'm not saying they are not powerful dispelers at high lvls, they are. At lvl 30, they can basically dispel anything. What I am saying, a sorc is always, in any given fight, at any level, simply more useful, (there are fights where a figher-heavy approach is preffered. But there are better fighters than inqs are in this game) even if you already have one sorc in your party. 2 sorcs + a mage is better than sorc, mage + inquisitor for IA fights in my experience.
- I completely agree. I have.

@ LZJ

- you can use an f/m instead of Jaheira if you need another target for breach. A f/m can cast quite a few more stoneskins than Jaheira can ironskins. Stoneskins can have even a shorter casting time. f/m can, of course, also have "hardiness". He can also buff your mages, a mage's spellbook is far better than druid's, for any kind of protection spell.
"vocalize" is of course, great in certain battles. -2 to casting speed, extra spell slots are even better. Not to forget Aura Cleansing, and all of the other Cernd abilities. In EDE, give me Jaheira over Cernd any day, I agree.
But not all of IA is EDE.

- I already mentioned this for Keldorn. Belts aren't easy to get. She, of course, can get those Ogre gauntlets, which are better for her anyway.

As for AC, sure. Why bother with Ironskins or Hardiness then? Just joking, yes, low AC is good in some very hard fights (I noticed this a lot when I had a berserker with an AC of -21 and a barbarian at -12 in the same party. Barbarian was taking a lot more dmg, regardless of his 20% innate dmg resistance). Jaheira was always an AC tank, even in vanilla. I still prefer something else for a tank, but that's just me.

For that "golem" - Lirarcor +3 will do just well, no need for +5 enhancement. But yes, I agree that Warblade is a powerful wpn. I like it, and regullary forge it. I just like that my 2-hnd guy has points in swords, halbs and staffs from the start, not max in anything unless I want to dual. Sarevok doesn't, which is bad for me. Of course, it does not make him useless. GWW will give you 10apr, even if you give Sarevok a dagger.
Does anybody use that "Ravager" halberd with Vorpal anymore? I always used Sarevok with that in vanilla.

Are you trying to make suggestions for v6, Kerkes? Or are you just talking about how it was in v5?

My impression was that you were making suggestions for v6. If so, you should consider every factor as they are in v6, right?

1- In v6, bard is no match for inquisitor; so, let's stop commenting about bards and comparing them with inquisitors here. Inquisitors are far better dispellers than bards.

2- In v6, Kaol casts Absolute Immunity. So, there is no point in getting excited about normal weapons.

3- In v6, The "magical rest" option of wish has its own dangers. So, saying that the sorcerer can choose magical rest instead of breach and continue to wish doesn't convince me. By the time you gain the breach option, many nasty things may happen to your party.

Even in v5, a sorcerer's chance to get the "breach everyone" option out of casting three wish spells is still far lower than an inquisitor's chance to dispel Kaol by casting three dispel magics.

Even with one dispel magic, his chance is 60% which is still higher than the sorcerer's chance to get the breach option. It's simple math (hence, the contradiction I wrote about). With three dispel magics, the inquisitor's chance is 94%.

Moreover, if the inquistor does the dispelling job, the sorcerer can make better use of his 9th level spells in the battle instead of casting all of his three 9th level spells in the hope of gaining the breach option.

Dracolich is even a better example than Kaol. Noone, but an inquisitor, can dispel Dracolich. Even the breach option of wish spell doesn't work on him (and remember that you can't return for Dracolich with a very high level party in chapter 6).

It's true that the inquisitor will also dispel your own protections and buffs; but that's when a sorcerer with Imp. Alacrity can come in to refresh them quickly. This is a much better use of the sorcerer. As I said, playing an inquisitor requires its own expertise and tactical skills. When his dispel magic dispels your own buffs, you should know how to refresh them quickly rather than cursing the inquisitor for what he has done.

If you don't want to play inquisitors, don't play them; I can understand this as I said in my previous post, but you have not convinced me that they need to be improved for the next version of the mod.

inqs are better than bards in IA6 - great IMO, as it should be, was not true in IA5, inq were/are nothing compared to bards, as I mentioned above.
Kaol casts AI - as I said, he can live for 30 mins, AI of pfmw, he's not that powerful
wish - I'd still take my chances with a sorc anyway if I'm set on killing Kaol that fast for any given reason. I won't be playing an inq anyway, so it will be my only opt come IA6. There are other ways of killing him anyway.
An inq won't cast 3x dispel here that fast. Chances are, he'll get killed instead. Or (even worse), he'll get somebody else in your party dead.
I don't understand about Dracolich. I played this, with lvl 17 inq (I really must be missing something with exp gains. I get less exp than anybody! ). You can not convince me that he will dispel him. He won't. I tried it. It does not work, period. Worked once. I may reload, it may work twice. Or three times maybe. Maybe not at all. I already wrote, this kind of gameplay is hardly satisfactory for me, even more if a battle can easilly be won in another way. Sorc can not breach him, but can (and is) much more useful here than an Inq. IMO, of course.
Sorc can not cast "Death ward". Sorc has actually quite limited spell selection. Chaotic commands? Not everyone plays a berserker. prot mag energy has a long casting time. Not everyone has 50% mag dmg reduction armor, or fire/lightning resistance. Not all have great save throws.
I don't curse inquisitors for their "dispel". It is me who casts it, not a computer animation - I am casting, I am to blame. I don't play them.
I said, even if they were as powerful as in vanilla game, I'd still not play them, so you don't need to "improve" them. 0x0 equals 0 for me.

Hmm I hope Sikret won't mind me revealing this, but the Bard Armor Eternal Melody no longer has Improved Alacrity in v6. This is another great rebalancing move, as Bards level up fast and have Remove Magic... being able to cast it many times in a round would negate the stronger dispelling power of the Inquisitor's Dispel Magic.

Sikret mentioned in the above post:


To quote Kerkes:
I think Sikret, in talking about 3 Wishes vs 3 Dispel Magics, was just responding to your earlier post about 3 lvl 9 spells and the Wish spell:



Also, I don't quite get what you're trying to say in:


Well, perhaps you're trying to make the point that each class/kit has its own disadvantages? Anyway, everybody has their own playing style. Inquisitors may not work for you due to your playing style, but others might find it useful. Similarly, Raven finds using Auramasters enjoyable, but others might not find it so. As for me, I don't think I'm particularly skilled in any one class or kit, but I daresay I'm adequate in using any of them rather effectively. To each his/her own, I say... IA isn't about any one specific party after all, and different tactics and party compositions are feasible.

I don't understand what you're talking about here and what part is not true.
The points I am making:
In IA5, bards are far better than inqs as dispelers. Nobody can say they are not, since they are. In IA6, they won't be. They'll be worse than mages, since they will level up more slowly than mages (If somebody plays a bard in IA6, he should have his head examined). So, regardless of Eternal Melody, they'll be useless, since their high casting level will no longer be an advantage, mages level up faster than bards now.
Inq dispels even clerical buffs (not with a high probability for most of the game). Sorc can not cast cleric protections spells. Cleric won't refresh spells fast enough (chaotic commands for example). What part here is not clear? Does your sorc memorize also prot fire, prot electricity? Mine does not.
I don't think "every class" has disadvantages or advantages. Vagrants have very few "disadvantages" IMO (leather armor (the best armor in game is vagrant only) and 12 Charisma. woo hoo), sorcs also. Figh/mag even more so, to name a few. Asassin? Bard, in IA6? Do they have "advantages"? Hardly. They are, or will be, useless (not to forget "Bounty Hunters".)
0x0 equals zero means - their usefulness in IA5 is 0 for me. If Sikret made any improvements (such as turning them vanilla again, which won't happen) I said I'd still not play them, they'd still be useless for me.
I agree somebody might find them useful. In the first post, I wrote down 16 examples (there are much more) where they could, but are not, useful.
If somebody thinks I'm wrong here, please correct me with a specific example, as I have made in the first post. Not by "in IA6 it won't work because..." This means nothing to me, I'm not playing IA6. Sikret said that ironically, there are a few where Inq shines. I said, they don't shine. Say that Kaol is much worse than he is (this is more than doable even without a sorc with 18 wis or an inq). It would be one, one single battle out of 16 I pointed out (without any "clerical turning" fights). Dracolich is a bad example (inq does "not" dispel here). A lvl 17 inq will have 20% chance to dispel him. Now, is that "the mighty dispel" which will make a difference? Lvl 17 inq has 5 dispel castings. He will be (probably) succesful once. So, please, leave Draco be. Inq will be useless here, as I said in my first post.

I agree... the slightly higher effective level of Inquisitors' Dispel does not compensate for the difficulty of micro-managing, when Bards can just use Remove Magic.



I don't know how you've gotten this idea. I'm currently testing IA v6 and the xp level progression is unchanged from v5. Bards still level up much faster than mages.

Ah, I think I finally get the point you're getting at, which is about refreshing protections after they are dispelled by the Inquisitor. Actually, my sorc does (or rather, will) memorize Prot Fire, but that's a separate point and doesn't affect the validity of your argument.

The solution to this is skilful targeting, that's all I can say about that. Also, many mages would remain stationary whilst casting spells, whilst the fighters would come after you. I know there are a few exceptions where powerful mages are found in closed areas which makes the Dispel even harder to target, but I won't mention them here because I do not wish to unintentionally give spoilers. Something possible is to allow your SI:A mages to tank it out by moving in front first, whilst your Inquisitor casts Dispel Magic before your fighters move in. The downside to the Inquisitor's powerful Dispel is that it is extremely difficult to use effectively in mid-battle, which is probably why you dislike it so much. However, the enemies tend to cast Remove Magic as well which can also strip your party's buffs, so I see the Inquisitor's Dispel as a good equalising tool to use when that happens.



I agree that some kits are more powered up than others, especially some rather useless ones in the vanilla game. In particular, vagrants are very powerful in IA, which I don't deny... I can hardly find a major disadvantage to them. That aside, sorcs are powerful but they lack flexibility in casting, especially when casting party buffs. This is evident in the early game when one has to consider carefully which lvl 6 spell to take, lvl 7 spell etc. Late game, they are powerful, no doubts about that. Sorcs are perhaps more useful in IA for experienced players than single-class mages are, but between a mage or sorcerer protagonist, the mage has a much better chance of forging the Cloak of the Apprenti compared to a sorc protagonist.

Fighter/Mages are powerful, but they get HLAs and 9th level spells much slower and their spells' effective level is lower, so a single-class mage would quite often have more value to the party as a whole.

Also, Bards may be seriously nerfed in v6, but their one saving grace (to me) is the Improved Bard Song. I admit this would not be enough to make me pick them though. Anyway, v6 changes are not finalized yet, so let's just wait and see how it goes.

Anyway, I do get what you're saying about the relative lack of usefulness of the Inquisitors' Dispel. One of the current IA testers (not me) is testing out the Inquisitor, so I'm sure that the difficulties you've mentioned will be tested from his experiences. Just to repeat a point though: many mages will be stationary when they are casting spells so they can get out of the way when the Inquisitor releases a strategically placed Dispel. Admittedly, this is difficult to do in certain confined areas and/or when enemy fighters are harassing you as well.

EDIT:
I just checked up the Pirate Coordinator. A level 14 Inquisitor (2 million xp) would have a 20% chance of dispelling his protections. By contrast, a Bard of the same experience would be at lvl 17 with a 1% chance only.

For the Dracolich, it is true that a lvl 17 inquisitor (3.05 million xp) would only have a 20% chance of dispelling his buffs. However, a level 18 Inquisitor (3.4 million xp) has a 40% chance... I'm not too sure now of what levels your party members can achieve if they leave the Dracolich to the end of Chpt 5, after all the Drow city quests.



Now, for this I cannot believe it barely works. At level 17, it should work 50% of the time. At level 18, it would work 70% of the time. Level 19, 80%.

@ LZJ

1) check the "progress report" topic, that's where I got the idea from. I guess it's a rather new tweak, so you might have missed it.
2) skilfull targeting - yes, I know what's the solution. I dunno like the solution, even more so if it has a decent chance to fail.
3)I had a very easy game with 2 sorcerers once in a party as my arcane combo. Never did I miss a mage, specialist or otherwise, since I got every little spell I wanted. I agree, it takes some meta-game knowledge to know what spells (and when) to take. I see them far superior to mages, but that's just me. I also hate rewriting spellbook. If I wanted a protagonist mage, I'd take a necro of course. But "memory robe" comes quite short of JD sword if you ask me, and you might still fail to forge Memory of apprenti.
4)for f/m types, yes, late HLAs , slower THAC0, lower HP are a problem. But it doesn't matter in late-game, where they shine head and shoulders above others, since they can kill alot in TS, and turn themselves immune to everything.
5) bard song is good, of course. Not good enough for me, to waste a slot.
6)many mages simply use SI:abj anyway..

as for Coordinator - I do this before anybody is lvl14.
at 17 for Kaol, ok, it can work 50 % chance. I must have got unlucky when I played this relying on inq. Great. Read my previous posts.

I'm testing out the latest version with all the tweaks. I believe the progress report says that it is spell progression and not level progression.

And oh, Inquisitors are also good against Yuanti Mages, at least.



I agree that they are great with TS. However in such a late-game scenario, TS won't work against many of the bosses, so they might kill off the rest of your party members instead. As I mentioned earlier, they are great, invulnerable killing machines by themselves, but I still believe a single-class mage's buffs are more helpful to the rest of the party.

It says both.

EDIT: Here is the quote:

Hmm... I see. The documentation on the level progression tables I got weren't changed. My bad.

EDIT:

I just checked it out. Level progression wasn't changed in my version yet, actually. They still reach level 39 at 8.63 million xp, and the rest of the levels are as yet untouched. Not sure how it will change for the final version though.

EDIT (again) :

Upon reading it, I think maybe what Sikret meant was that the spell level (effective spell level of what they cast) of the Bard is nerfed, and not the amount of xp they need for their character levels? I guess we should wait for confirmation on this one. Anyway, this would mean that, if true, Kerkes' point about Bards becoming sucky dispellers would be very accurate.

I can understand all of your arguments... I can see the reason behind them. However I agree with Kerkes, inquisitors are among the weaker classes in IA. There are many stronger classes, and they are few weaker ones. Bards will be among the weakest classes in v6 I think, but LZJ has right, we should wait till final release and make a decision based by that.

Kerkes started this topic to give suggestions for v6, which didn't convince me, but despite my notification that his suggestions should take the v6 changes into consideration, he continued to comment about v5. This made the entire topic fruitless for the mod development purposes.

Inquisitors:

1- Inquisitors are very useful characters for those who know how to play them well and have developed the required playing style for the accurate targeting and refreshing their buffs in the right time (clerics and druids can also refresh your buffs quickly if you know how to play them effectively, Kerkes!). This is true even in v5.

2- I even gave certain examples in which an inquisitor can shine in the game. Kerkes denied them and disagreed, but it can only mean that he didn't play his inquisitor well in his game. This doesn't mean that Kerkes is a bad or weak player; it only means that he lacks the required style to play an inquisitor effectively. He may be a very good player with other classes or kits.

3- I repeat that I can understand that some players won't be willing to play inquisitors, because of the required micro-management and because of their playing styles, but this doesn't mean that the kit is useless. It's all about your playing style whether you pick an inquisitor or not.

As I said, there are also players who don't pick auramasters; while, there are other players who love playing auramasters. The same applies to inquisitors as well.

Bards:

1- Bards level progression table is revised, but they don't progress more slowly than mages. However, upon reaching certain high levels, bard's level progression will noticeably slow down to make sure that a bard can't cast absurdly powerful remove magic spells.

2- Bard will still remain a playable class, but only because of the abilitites a bard should have. Some players are fond of bards, not because they really like to play a bard as per the class' definition and description, but because of the cheesy, unintended and unreasonable abilitites a bard can gain in the vanilla game. This will be hopefully fixed in v6 by removing the unreasonable features of the bard class and replacing them with new and reasonable abilities which fit much better with the class description.

I think Kerkes knows very well how to play Inqisitor. His statement was imo not that inq. is weak and useless by itself but rather in comparison to other class - his is weak dispeller compared to sorc, wiz, not to mention bard and he is not so good fighter compared to ranger, barbarian and, of course, fighter. And that's why there is no point to take him in party in IA5.
I don't think that further nerfing bard will encourage players to pick inq. instead.

Auramaster is very useful in IA5, inq. is not, and it doesn't matter much if player know or don't how to play them both effectively. Imagine that there is a player who don't know how to play both auramaster and inq and when he learns how to play them, imo auramaster will be useful for his party, far far more useful than inq. Simple fact. ;D Inq in IA5 is useful only for testing your thumbs and knuckles.

btw. Auramaster is very interesting kit, perfectly suited to the mod, only vagrant is better.

Inq. on the other hand is really good in dispelling your own protections and he can do silly things when facing high level enemy clerics, which may be fun to watch hehehheh

@ Sikret

This topic was not made to "suggest tweaks for IA6". Those are my experiences with inquisitors. In IA5. Druids (Auramasters) can refresh your buffs quickly, of course. Clerics can not, I'm affraid, since they lack Alcatry (and if I have an Inq, cleric stands ready with Greater Restoration usually)
You mentioned for example, Dracolich. As I said, Inq is no good here, regardless of "tactical skill required".
Auramaster is far more useful than an Inq for me, but I'd still take a sorcerer any day over them both.
You mentioned "the class has advantages and disadvantages". There are far more disadvantages than advantages for Inqs, IMO. Not balanced, just too weak, in the late-game even more so, practically useless (Sendai, Abazigal, EDE, Draconis, Ancient Wyrm.... no good).
May I ask, just what good bards will be?!

I pass. There is no point in continuing this discussion. Read my previous posts again.

Same here.

So... you're basically comparing a warrior type class with dispelling abilities to full time (or half time for bards, if you want) spellcasters?

This is a good point. I, too, agree that comparing the inquisitor with the sorcerer doesn't make sense at all. As I said before, it's all about playing styles. If a player is more comfortable with certain classes and kits compared to other classes and kits (because of his playing style), it doesn't mean that the ones he is not comfortable with are useless. Other players who have different styles may feel and think quite the opposite.