Well, then explain the drop in Subtlety. What exactly is the difference between a 75+ Influence Acolyte and a 75+ Influence Inquisitor that only help from the latter would risk the warband's activities being uncovered?

But it's not true. You see, other races shouldn't love him or even like him. But when you're speaking with somebody who attended with Council Space politics Shepard IS somebody who matters. Shadow Broker isn't human; Barla Von isn't human; but they have dossier on Shepard and leak intelligence for him. Not to anybody else. Sha'ira is not human and she knows about Shepard. Her lover is not human and he knows about Shepard (and Shepard can even push him!)...

He is somebody worth keeping tabs on him. Even if he, being provincial military officer, can be surprised with it.

Or another good example about what Influence (not high at that moment) is:

"Norrington: You are, without doubt, the worst pirate I've ever heard of.

Jack Sparrow: But you have heard of me. "

And really, as we know, Jack Sparrow have pretty good influence at that point. He IS one of the capitans, after all, and he is the son of the Keeper.

Or, I don't know, Doctor Who shows good example of astonishing influence. He was so weary about it that Eleventh even wipe any trace of his existence to drop Influence - and it's not helped.

That would explain the drop in Subtlety, but it postulates that all Inquisitors are semi-public figures who are not operating from secrecy, which is a pretty drastic contrast to the work of the Acolyte warband.

Well, I'm not sure "semi-public" is the right world, but, of course, any Inquisitor is official figure. That's why he need acolytes to do dark work!

By the way, if we looks into Inquisitorial authority it's somebody near our-world totalitarian state intelligence service head. Every damned one. In Imperial matters it's counted for sector I believe (well, there are Imperial-wide Inquisitors, but THIS is rare, Imperium is too big for that!). But in the sector if you're matters you WILL know, or at least try to know, Inquisitors. At least every one who flashes his Rosette and leaves anybody to speak the tale.

Would a PC inquisitor take a hit for using his/her influence? No. Would the party? Also no. The hit to subtlety is there to counter using an influence source outside of the party's.

There's a reason the book advises against starting with a PC inquisitor, as the book puts a lot of weight on influence as a scaling mechanic, as much as experience. By using a player inquisitor at the start, you basically are ensuring the entire campaign will need to be a higher power level based around better equipment and the ability to bypass social encounters via influence.

Influence itself is definitely a game-ified way of handling a lot of abstract things that are difficult for a new GM to handle on his/her own. Some of you view it as a crutch and a vulnerability, but its there to make the game simpler to GM by folding things into an easier to track stat than having to constantly track everyone's individual inventories, cash, contacts, and reputation as separate non-linear values.

At this point, if you want a different effect, it will require home ruling. As to whether it should be home ruled, or whether you dislike home ruling itself, is a separate point entirely.

Would a PC inquisitor take a hit for using his/her influence? No.

Well, it is possible. So party can take a hit for using their influence. Question is not "are you using influence or not" but "how do you use it".

Would a PC inquisitor take a hit for using his/her influence? No.

Well, it is possible. So party can take a hit for using their influence. Question is not "are you using influence or not" but "how do you use it".

Well yeah, there's the rule that if you're trying to find something rare or harder to find, you take a subtlety hit, but for simply using influence, no.

Would a PC inquisitor take a hit for using his/her influence? No.

Well, it is possible. So party can take a hit for using their influence. Question is not "are you using influence or not" but "how do you use it".

Well yeah, there's the rule that if you're trying to find something rare or harder to find, you take a subtlety hit, but for simply using influence, no.

Rarity is not matter. If you're using your authority, Inquisitorial or any other (Cain used his authority as Commissar and a hero) openly, so it's subtelty hit. If you're using it, well, subtle - it's not.

The no-subtlety loss camp's position is particularly confusing.

"I work for a the Inquisition! (shows boss's rosette) Do as I say!" -> Subtlety loss.

"I AM the Inquisition! (shows own rosette) Do as I say!" -> No Subtlety loss.

The no-subtlety loss camp's position is particularly confusing.

"I work for a the Inquisition! (shows boss's rosette) Do as I say!" -> Subtlety loss.

"I AM the Inquisition! (shows own rosette) Do as I say!" -> No Subtlety loss.

There is a distinction to make here:

overt usage of your influence

usage of someone else's influence

I think the key is that overt usage costs subtley and that using someone else's power is inherently overt.

One problem is that the rules don't mention alternate ways of using Influence. The only nod to overt usage is when you lose subtlety by acquiring things with negative modifiers. Basically, you're stretching your resources, which causes people to notice you.

The same idea, I think, holds for using your Inquisitor's influence. You don't have a fine enough handle on it to REALLY access that influence network as well as he can. It's not your network. So, the usage costs your group subtlety.

Does that make sense?

"I AM the Inquisition! (shows own rosette) Do as I say!" -> No Subtlety loss.