Inquisitor or Cavalier

Remove all ads!

I was wondering is their anypoint of taking the Inquisitor over the Cavalier?

Well let's do a comparision shall we?

Cavalier: This guy gets all the regular Paladin ability's and some good resistances and immunity's to things that are used against you quite often (acid, fear, fire) and the only disadvantage for all this is he can only use melee weapons, or more accurately he cannot use weapons the require a launcher (bow, xbow, sling) but he still has axe's, knives, darts etc and the axes (I don't know about the rest increase in damage based on str, unlike bow's and slings.

Inquisitor: this guy has only two advantages although they are quite big advantages. He has an uber dispel and truesight, but for all this he looses the ability to cast spells, which is one of the things that can make the Cavalier so versatile and formidable in melee, and he cannot turn undead, plus he doesn't get any resistances or immunitys by default.

I'm not saying the Inquisitors useless even if I am personally leaning more toward the cavalier side then the inquisitor, but this "uber" dispel ability can be as harmful as it can be benificial, for example if your in a fight and your melee fighters and the enemy are engaged in melee it takes very accurate aim to actually hit the people you want without your frontliners losing their own advantages, which is somewhere between extremely difficult to impossible, and besides this you have mages and clerics for a reason don't you?

Also cavaliers can potentially make better disrupters then inquisitors when it comes to single mages, you can just cast a greater malison, and some dooms (doom is a paladin spell also) and the cavalier can shortly after follow with a miscast magic spell, giving the target a 4/5 chance of spell failure.

Anyway I've said about everything i have to say for now, on this.

 

I say Inquisitor.

Weak spells that aren't very useful by the time you're able to cast them. True Sight and Dispel beat the pants off of any cleric spell of 4th level or lower. Those two spells bail you out of so many bad situations it's not even funny.

Whoopty-doo. There aren't enough undead in the game that this makes a noticable difference. Besides - his turn would never be as good as a cleric of the same level.

Hey look at me! I just turned a ghast that I could easily chunk in a single hit! Y'all betta reconize!

Not true. Inquisitors are immune to hold and charm spells, which can be devastating if you fail your save.

An interesting point, since you disprove it in the paragraph above:

Why have your Cavalier casting a bunch of spells when they should be kicking a bunch of ass?

But I like Cavaliers, too. Point is, there are plenty of reasons to take one over the other. Both have different strengths and play to different playing styles. I just happen to prefer the Inquisitor for practicality.

[ February 06, 2004, 17:24: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Here is my opinion - primarily just the conclusion and not the reasoning. When I say something can be duplicated below, I mean either via item or via another party member.

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=005396#000000

 

If you're playing a party, no there's no reason to make an Inquisitor, because there is kick-ass Inquisitor available from very early on in the game: Keldorn. So, why not have your cake and eat it too? Take both. Although, I have to say my personal choice would be Undead Hunter over Cavalier. They have immunity to all those annoying hold, paralyze, level drain undead abilities, which is reason enough for me to take them over the Cavalier. The cavalier does have the nice 20% resistance to elementals, but the extra ability to hit dragons and demons isn't a big deal for me, because there are so few of these creatures in the game, it doesn't really help.

 

Both are good kits. Inquisitor cannot turn undead and has no spells but has True Sight and Dispel Magic (which power is thrice better than the power of normal dispel magic: the levels of Inquisitor count thrice). So my choice is Inquisitor.

 

Cavalier.
IMO Inquisitor's abilities are easier to duplicate than the Cavalier's. There's also the fact that there are too many clerics in this game.
No complaints there, though.

 

Well...

With the right items you can always get a high level Bard to cast dispel magic a speed of 1 and it would almost be as effective as an Inquisitor not to mention the dozens of other possiblity's that comes with a Bard.

 

I think it is dependent on your playing style.
But I prefer the Cavalier (being a more melee person to a tactical thinking person).

The Inquisitor's dispel abilities can be very hazardous in the midst of combat. I mean, keldorn virtually stripped Jahiera offf her protections in the Demogorgon battle and got her killed. Well, it was partially my fault but one must have a good co-ordination to be able to fully utilise an Inqutsitor Dispel Magic.

Well, its IMO anyway...

 

Actually, I started counting, (lost count cuz it was from memory), and there are like 10 Dragons, and many many many demons in the game. It comes into play more than you guys might think!! and it is worth having someone more capableof killing the demons/dragons, because they are HARD TO KILL otherwise!!! and they can remove fear, which is good in many many cases, against mages/dragons/demons/etc etc. The clerical spell and Mage spell aren't often used and I've noticed that myself, so having this innate ability is very useful!
I would say I like the Undead Hunter quite a bit myself, the +3 to hit is pretty useless but the +3 dmg is always nice. The immunities rock too!! They give me the ability to spend more time powering up my mages/clerics with anti-level drain items!
The Inquisiter I like to use only if I don't want Keldorn, (because I hate his quest, if I'm good I lose him ). Under all three classes, it's worth getting them just for the sword... it's like........... wwwwwooooowwwww... haha, and it gives you a ton of dispel abilities, making the inquisiter not so great yet again, but it doesn't have true sight as the inquisiter does, but you reallyonly need a caster to have it cast once per fight, you don't need 12 uses of it :-\.

I'd say the Inquis is the most useless of the three, but still a powerful character. Turn undead is very very useful, and it's more powerful than a clerics, because paladins have a minimum charisma of 17, and I usually have mypaladins wisdom at about 14-18, making him much more formidable than my clerics 10-12 charisma and 18 wisdom! I use it all the time against undead and it always does some good!!

 

Yeah, it's too bad Wisdom and Charisma have NOTHING to do with turning undead.

 

From what I've heard, it does in 3rd ed D&D?
But BG2 uses 2nd ed AD&D.

EDIT: I agree with the post below. Individually the Inquisitor is a better choice - especially for a solo.

[ February 10, 2004, 10:32: Message edited by: Scythesong Immortal ]

 

In 2ed AD&D the power of turning undead is only dependent on the level of the caster and not on his/her ability scores...

To be more on topic, I generally prefer Inquisitor because he fits my playing style better. The extreme dispel magic saved the day more than once, be it with Keldorn or with a Inquisitor protagonist when Keldorn was not in my party. It's quite useless to have two Inquisitors...

 

Sigh.. I am more of a 3rd ed player , but ok... I still don't think inquisitor is very useful unless you solo, and even then, I think it's preferrable to solo with a fighter/thief because you can fight and you can get rid of traps, two of the most important abilities in the game. An inquisiter lets you cast true sight, (as does any other cleric), and dispel magic, (as does any paladin with the Carsymor(SP), cleric, mage, sorcerer, druid, bard, or cleric... Those abilities are overrated in the end, especially since you get so many uses of them when they aren't needed. I hold tightly to the idea that the Cavalier becomes the most useful when he holds the Carsymor, because he can dispel, true sight(later with paladin spells I believe), and he has immunities/res's that are very useful, + he can remove fear. Undead Hunter i just nice, last time I used a paladin, it was an Undead Hunter because Immunity to charm and level drain is beyond great!!

 

Ok, obviously it's better to take a Cavalier, because Keldorn is all the Inquisitor you'll ever need, which is really the biggest knock on the Inquisitor kit.

Regardless, I'd take an inquisitor in a heartbeat. You lose turning undead... take a cleric then. Paladin's turn undead is pathetic anyway. Put carsomyr in his hand, and he'll turn undead alright... turn them into mush. Using a paladin as a spellcaster is like cutting bread with an axe. You COULD, but you're kind of missing the point. Losing the lay on hands is rough, mind you, but it's nothing you can't do without.

However, it's not like a cavalier's drawback is a big thing; I never, ever, ever use any sort of ranged weapon with a Paladin. What's the point of having a tanking class if they're sitting back shooting arrows? However, getting bonuses to hit dragons and demons is no big thing; you can count the amount of dragons you fight on one hand, and demons are really not incredibly powerful anyway by the time you encounter them in real numbers.

If dispel magic is destroying your magical protections as well, then the answer is simple. Don't use it if you're running a magic heavy party. Since an inquisitor really keeps mages in check, then you can run a melee heavy party with impunity. You can load up on fighters with the knowledge that you'll just maul mages once you dispel their protections. An inquisitor is a melee fan's best friend; you don't even NEED breach anymore. He's like a wizard slayer on 'roids.

Of course, if you LIKE playing with mages (and I wonder about you people) then the Cavalier might be the way to go. Personally, I think an Undead Hunter is better, but that's just me.

 

I think the biggest mistake being made about the Cavalier and his spellcasting is the fact that it's supportive and NOT meant to be his main purpose, as a Berserker/Cleric(Dual Class), would use his Cleric Abilities to strengthen himself to insane amounts while he then proceeds to bash the skulls of whatever in. A paladin that can't cast Armor of Faith, is already weaker than most other divine fighters, (clerics/druids/paladins/rangers), because he takes full damage instead of 5% less per level! Having spells makes a big big difference if you ask me, an extra skeleton tank might mean the difference between one of your characters living or dieing! I'm not trying to say the Inquisitor is useless or nothin, but IMHO, the Inquisitors usefullness comes in with the lack of other spellcasting due to wanting a limited number of players, once you go for a party of six and include even 1 other spell caster, you really don't need him anymore.

 

I think you miss the point when you say that a Cavalier can duplicate the Inquisitor's abilities via Carsomyr and spells. Because the Cavalier can't. He can dispel magic with Carsomyr. He can't dispel magic at twice his level and cast it instantaneously. Nobody can dispel magic as well as the Inquisitor. A level 40 sorcerer can't dispel magic as well as an Inquisitor. Likewise, instantaneous True Sight can't be duplicated by the Cavalier.

Those two abilities can't be duplicated. The only cavalier ability that can't be duplicated by item or party is the plus to hit and damage dragons/demons. The only undead hunter ability that can't be duplicated is the plus to hit and damage undead.

They're different and well balanced. That's why the argument keeps cropping up.

Personally, I find an Inquisitor more useful in a party and I find a Cavalier more useful solo. The Cavalier spell abilities make him more versatile and solo she levels quickly enough to access these abilities relatively quickly. The Inquisitor's dispel magic is so fast and so powerful it can't be easily duplicated by any other party member and thus gives a party a unique advantage.

For those who have problems taking down your party's own protections - practice aiming. You can aim the dispel anywhere you want and it's pretty simple to target it in such a way that you miss your party, even if engaged in combat.

 

@Laches
We have a misunderstanding. I never said the Inquisitor's powers can be duplicated by a Cavalier, what I meant was that it can be done by other members of the party.
That's why Cavaliers are a better choice if you plan on bringing a party along.

 

When it comes down to it, you do not need to dispel at twice your level because Minor Glove = your dispel is useless, and it is in fact VERY difficult to aim dispel so that it doesn't effect you, if someone doesn't have minor globe on it's better to have a mage cast Remove Magic, and with the Robe of Vecna, it's done easily and quickly! True sight's instaneous ability is useless since it lasts for a good long while and goes off once per turn. And the shear amount of times you attempt to dispel an opponent with Carsomyr makes it so that it doesn't matter if it's super powerful, because quantity over quality works in this case, if it's even important to do so! Most of the time the only kind of anti-magic spell I ever need in a party are those cast by my mages, Breach, Secret Word, Spell Strike. That's why the Inquisitor is almost useless in a full party, but powerful in a non-mage party.

What also matters is the argument that most of the cavaliers abilities are easily duplicated... It doesn't matter, because all that means, is you can spend that much more time and effort making other members of your party stronger, becuase your paladin is already buffed. My thief could put that fire res ring to use instead of my tank since he's already got some naturally!

 

Role-playing: Cavalier. The traditional knight. Rreally enjoy his immunity to fear and remove fear abilities. Many a time 'lay-on-hands' has saved my character's life (instant hp boost). Inquisitor also has too many negative connotations reguarding its name.

Power-gaming: Cavalier. If I wanted an inquisitor I'd take Keldorn.

 

Inquisitor. True sight and dispel magic are much more useful that a lousy + to hit and damage against some creatures.