| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Inquisition perks article. |
|---|
|
The codex perks should stack. You should get all four of them, but do realize that they stack additive not multiplicative.
That means...
1 perk equals 50% x 50 = 25 2 perks equals 50% x 50 = 25 3 perks equals 50% x 50 = 25 4 perks equals 50% x 50 = 25
4 x 25 = 100
So, if you have all four perks you are getting 150 (50 for the codex and 25 for each of 4 perks) experience for each codex.
There are many, many codex in this game, and in all actuality they reward more experience than kills (especially if you have the four perks), so your priority first thing in the game before you do anything (including, of course reading any codex in returnable areas) is to unlock those four inquisition picks and then get as many codex as possible (which will put you at a higher level before you have to kill anything).
Your fifth choice should be the 5% to monster kills and then is when you start doing actual quests. This is how you make a game that most people say is slow leveling level a LOT faster.
The fastest way to unlock the perks would be to do requisitions (which are repeatable) and do any of the missions on the world map that give inquisition points. Questing that does not involve looting codex is also a good way.
Influence Merchant
An average play-through seems to be around 10 influence ranks (thus 10 points for perks), but there is a merchant in Skyhold near the stables, across from Seggit/Bonny Lem, that sells contracts and treaties that grant varying amounts of influence.
The merchant sells several items within what I would classify as three tiers of items.
- The first tier items costs around 146g and grants 30 influence per purchase
- The second tier items costs around 646g and grants 300 influence per purchase
- The third tier items costs over 6000g and grants 3000 influence per purchase
There are about 5 or 6 different items per tier, each with a quantity of 10.
I figure this is important to mention, for those that want to quickly boost their influence levels and/or for those that missed the chance to recruit agents.
direinsomniac --140.211.27.253 (talk) 19:23, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
A bug should be added for Imperial Court Tailoring (the second inventory increase). There have been reports of items disappearing or not inventory not filling up and getting stuck at a much lower number after taking this perk.
I'd add it myself but I don't know how.
Heidirs
Individual pages
I think some of the perks benefit from individual pages like The Short List and The Rare Stocks (which I just created). The former simply has a "description" heading which I think is redundant given the description is in the transformer. I've put a "rewards" heading on The Rare Stocks. It seems that would be relevant for other pages unless someone would like to suggest an alternative? -- Ness csr (talk) 10:33, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
- All perks should have individual pages. The Short List description is not redundant since – unlike the in-game description – it explains what the perk actually does. It might be better to call it "Information". – mostlyautumn • talk • contribs • 10:50, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
Agents
I've added links where relevant to the Sit in Judgment and Agents pages. Hopefully this is the right way to deal with the agents. -- Ness csr (talk) 06:02, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
Nobility Knowledge
I have a question: do Human Nobles already possess the Nobility perk? Or do they still have to unlock it?
Kunnaki (talk) 09:10, February 26, 2015 (UTC)
Tips
I question the need for having this section at all. Each of the perks should have their own articles, so if any of them need further explanation than the in-game description, that should be listed on those pages instead of here. There's too much opinion here, and it reads too much like a forum. The "unanimously seen as the most important" is pretty questionable. The knowledge perks are certainly useful, but they're not vital and I personally skip getting them on most playthroughs. And then there's just a long list of other perks that are apparently useful but not necessary. (and highly recommended by whom??) Again, all of this info either is on the separate pages or should be moved to those pages (or the pages need to be created and then the info moved there). Articles should be objective, not subjective. --♫ Kelcat Talk 03:52, June 8, 2015 (UTC)
Each perk has it's own page, feel free to click on their links. But first,
Re-read the first sentence of the first paragraph in the Tips Section:
The following tips are not firm rules to follow, rather, they are guidelines based on several forums and guides written about the subject, condensed onto one page. As it is entirely up to the player to decide how to play the game; something one Inquisitor feels is absolutely necessary another may feel is not worth getting.
In less than a dozen words, you already know that these are suggestions and not rules that you must follow, and in less than thirty you also know that this is a compilation of multiple forums, guides, builds, and miscellaneous information; found scattered all over the internet and put into one place for easy access. Feel free to search for this same information elsewhere. I recommend starting with IGN and GameFaqs.
Here is the second sentence of the first paragraph:
As it is entirely up to the player to decide how to play the game; something one Inquisitor feels is absolutely necessary another may feel is not worth getting.
I find that sums it up quite nicely, there is nothing in here that states a mandatory way to play the game, but given the significant amount of time that goes into this game, some players (like yourself, it seems) like to have some suggestions if they are unsure about how to proceed.
You stated: "The knowledge perks are certainly useful, but they're not vital and I personally skip getting them on most playthroughs". Well there you go, you feel that those are not worth getting, just like it states.
Also, it does not state unanimous, it reads: almost unanimous, i.e. it is not absolute but a common consensus based on player feedback. However, I can see how that could be misread; it has been corrected and now reads:
The four "Knowledge" perks are seen by a majority of players as the most important...
The Perks system is subjective by default due to the nature of how it affects gameplay and the myriad of different players who enjoy the game. Some appreciate the "lore" aspect, others are interested in the raw numbers, some like to split the difference and others don't even care.
The Tips section is simply there for easy access of information that many players have asked for. What they do with it is entirely up to them, and no one is forcing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightEnchanter117 (talk • contribs)
- I know that these are emphasized as guidelines, but again, I do not feel they belong on the wiki. They still read like opinion and opinion should not be on the wiki. Especially when you add in vague phrases such as "seen by the majority of players". Have you run a consensus? Done a survey? If these are pulled from specific places why aren't they properly sourced??? If it's a guideline, why aren't there details of the benefits of all of the perks rather than just a few seemingly picked out of the air? They could be made into a forum page, I'd be fine with that, but it doesn't belong in the mainspace. We present the facts--i.e. the list of perks and descriptions, and should leave it at that. --♫ Kelcat Talk 19:46, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
- While I understand trying to steer clear of opinion I think it should be clearly pointed out when not having a perk will mean sections of the game may be unobtainable. It's like being told before leaving Haven there's things that you won't be able to do afterwards. (I can't help it, I'm a completionist!)
So instead of nothing, which is what was here when I found it, I've done a section covering the Perks that will specifically add gameplay elements, not simple stuff like XP or loot but extra agents, quests, options etc.
Not sure if that's a valid compromise or just a way to annoy both sides of the debate.
--Ajnspencer (talk) 23:39, June 17, 2015 (UTC) 23:17, June 17th, 2015 (UTC)