|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Robert Brookes wrote:
Erik Mona and I are both huge fans of aeons. We have slightly different views on what makes them great and why we love them, but we are both passionate about seeing them make it into print. So aeons definitely have "champions" among contributors and staff alike. I worked very closely with Erik on some things for this Bestiary. Whatever correlation you put between those sentences is your own :)
I read this as:
Bestiary 5: In Strange Aeons
I had a similar question about whether an enchanted arcane bonded item should count against an NPCs Wealth By Level since it shouldn't function for anyone else if he's killed, but never got a definitive answer.
EDIT: And also, this:
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat. For example, a wizard with a bonded dagger must be at least 5th level to add magic abilities to the dagger (see the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat in Feats). If the bonded object is a wand, it loses its wand abilities when its last charge is consumed, but it is not destroyed and it retains all of its bonded object properties and can be used to craft a new wand. The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it. If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type.
So nobody finds it weird that she uncovered the evil plots of her father's advisers and didn't do anything with that information or even seem to care?
They aren't her father's advisors- they're his boss' (he's a minor functionary to the rajah).
I'm not sure what more she could have done; it sounds like the rajah was counseled against them (as Zhangar notes, he probably didn't want the mind-reader around either).
I also wouldn't be surprised if their thoughts and fears weren't entirely evil, per se- just your standard run-of-the-mill jostling for position and dark thoughts all of us have at times.
I think the Aeons look really cool, though I do see the argument that they don't really do anything, and aren't terribly interesting.
(I think good-aligned monsters are kind of in the same boat, in a lot of ways. They tend not to have much mileage in most campaigns, unless you use one of the many ways of turning them evil/templating them as bad guys/etc.)
I think it might also be good to somehow make clear that the scope of renown (particularly as relates to the social identity) is not exactly the same scope from a Real (modern day) World perspective as it is in a Golarion perspective.
For example, the largest city on Golarion is Absalom, at around 300,000 people. That is far smaller than the largest modern day cities (such as Shanghai at 37 million, Istanbul 13 million, Los Angeles 4 million, etc.)
It even falls short of a lot of historical cities, such as Ancient Rome (60 million), Constantinople (1 million), Cuzco (4+ million), etc. Even Tenochtitlan was only about on par with Absalom.
So while by our present-day standards, the numbers may seem low, they are actually proportionately higher by Golarion's standards.
(I do think there is probably a great degree of leeway to allow a more gradual expansion of influence, however.)
Something I only just noticed (never paid any attention to Treants before), but the Treants animate trees special ability is denoted as being a spell-like ability, yet it only shows up in their Special Qualities section of the stat block, and not in a Spell-Like Abilities section of the stat block (nor does it have a CL listed). The mythic Treant has the same ability listed (in the same location). Should this be a Supernatural (Su) ability instead of a spell-like ability?
I disagree that there needs to be some kind of mechanical implementation for what you suggest. I think that is the sort of thing that is ripe for roleplay and could be integrated into the campaign. I would like to think that any DM who is going to have a player vigilante outed in the campaign- and thus take away one of the classes abilities- would do so only temporarily, or with some kind of story-oriented goal in mind and with a resolution (either of their own or worked out with the player).
To not do so would be like suddenly and incurably having a player's wizard feebleminded, or changing a paladin's alignment and giving them no way to atone, or otherwise crippling a character.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
Is there a way to change your Social Identity? Count of Monte Cristo style?
Let's see. Other than the aforementioned "One More Day" method, how to fix things when your Social ID gets outed?
* Mythic Modify Memory
the Others are fey, not undead, maybe the wall is like a polar circle ley line they can't cross
Maybe everyone is wrong in assuming they want to get on the south side of the wall. Perhaps they just want to keep all the bickering humans and their treachery from infecting the far north.
Epic Meepo wrote:
ow imagine what would happen if performance combat and kingdom building worked like dual identity. The only characters who could win over crowds in arenas would belong to the gladiator class. The only characters who could build and rule kingdoms would belong to the kingmaker class.
Then again, you could still achieve a similar (if not precisely identical) dual identity role for any character by using the Reputation subsystem from Ultimate Campaign.
You're not barred from playing a character similar to the Vigilante- there are already many classes and archetypes that accomplish similar things, and rules that exist to also emulate it. The Vigilante as a class is just a more specialized version of those broader efforts, to appeal to people for whom those efforts do not quite cover things.
The existence of a class doesn't suddenly shut off all options for different sorts of campaigns.
Kevin Mack wrote:
To be fair Batman dosent really work in the comics without a certain level of suspension of belief.
Yes. Especially when he's running around with the very high-profile JLA and yet citizens of Gotham still speak of him as if he's only this mythical, possibly nonexistent entity.
(At least, that was his status quo for quite a while pre-Flashpoint; not sure how New 52 deals with it.)
Yes, but Hell's Kitchen alone has a population of 45,000. Well above anything that can be done with renown.
Not sure that's a fair comparison, given that Manhattan has a population of 1.5 million, whereas- say- Korvosa only has a population of 18,000.
Heck, even Absalom, one of the most populous cities on Golarion is only around 300,000 as I recall.
(Community sizes on Golarion relative to RW modern day communities aside, I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more steady progression in the Renown size. The jump from 200 at level 1 to 5,000 at level 9 seems a bit huge, then to 15,000 at level 15. Maybe something a bit more gradual to fill the gaps? As well as a "big" boost/capstone for level 20? Like Lanitril posted above.)
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Why not? Other classes have "mode switches". Alchemists, barbarians and druids are the three obvious examples. The vigilante is just someone who is chill by day and fights by night, so to speak. It doesn't have to be a huge secret.
But that is the point of the class- it's someone who feels as if their cause (good or ill) cannot be accomplished in their social identity for whatever reason, and thus adopts a second identity with which to achieve their ends. If they could do what they want to do without keeping their secret, they'd be one of the other adventuring classes.
As the description notes: "In either case, the vigilante is a character of two natures, the face that everyone knows and the mask that inspires fear."
I can just see the scenario now. Our Big Bad has captured the party, and has them all tied up at the top of his tower as he reveals his dastardly plan:
"Und now I shall dangle you interfering dolts over ze precipice wall, where ze rats shall slowly chew through the rope strand by agonizing strand, until it finally snaps, und you all fall to your deaths! Muahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!"
He stops laughing, and then points at the Stalker.
"Except for zat vun. Ve shall just kill him outright."
"I told you you should have picked up 'Another Day' instead, Batdude!"
The more I think about it, the more I think (probably unpopular opinion here) that the Dual Identity actually should play more of a role in the mechanics of the class all the way through level 20 than it does currently.
Functionally, the various specializations don't really do too much that can't already be done with other classes or class combos (there are a couple nifty new things, but these could be emulated by feats or talents given to other classes as well).
The Dual Identity feature does a little bit more than the Reputation rules, but fundamentally is very similar.
The core of this class is the marriage between the two ideas: other classes + Reputation/Identity = Vigilante.
Right now it seems like the two don't intermingle as much as they should. Perhaps there are some other mechanics that tie into Ultimate Intrigue that we are missing where we might see more overlap, but as is, I would like to see the Dual Identity play more of a role in the mechanics of this class. (I'm admittedly not sure specifically what at this point, but I'll keep thinking on it.)
I think the confusing part is the table is labeled both "Spells Prepared" and "Spells Known." It should probably only be labeled "Spells Prepared," as the Vigilante can potentially know an unlimited amount of spells.
As Gisher notes, his spellcasting mechanic is like the Arcanist. He can prepare up to the number of spells per day on the table for his level from his list of spells known, and (like a sorcerer) can select from among those prepared spells to cast up to that limit each day (so a 1st level caster could cast each 1st level spell once, or one of them twice).
I gotta say, I don't like the auto-undetectability of the secret identity. A level 20 diviner shouldn't be stymied by a first-level ability. I think something like a caster level check of 15+level would be more appropriate.
If your nemesis at 1st level is a 20th level character, I think you've got bigger problems to worry about. You could frankly use all the help you could get at that point.
Putting this here for now (until/unless we get some stickied threads for the Vigilante Specializations).
It came up in another thread when Michael Westen was mentioned;as regards the Avenger, I'd like to see a little more "Oomph!" in the Environmental Weapon ability. As is, it seems like its both slightly more powerful and slightly weaker (situational) than the Improvised Weapon feat. Perhaps the weapon should get a favored terrain bonus to hit/damage like a Ranger? Or maybe a scaling damage like the Brawler/Monk get with unarmed attacks for improvised weapons used in the favored terrain?
I need my Michael Westen to be able to Macgyver himself up some damaging weapons to use on the bad guys.
Speaking of Michael Westen, I'd like to see a little more "Oomph!" in the Environmental Weapon ability. As is, it seems like its both slightly more powerful and slightly weaker (situational) than the Improvised Weapon feat. Perhaps the weapon should get a favored terrain bonus to hit/damage like a Ranger?
(And I think I'll drop this in another thread, if I see one that seems appropriate.)
I need my Michael Westen to be able to Macgyver himself up some damaging weapons to use on the bad guys.
Well, Blackjack really only comes up as regards to Renown. And if the character you immediately think of when you think of the Class, from the official world, can't be built with that Class...something is wrong with the Class.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that that makes something wrong with the class. He can still function perfectly well within the playtest rules as written, if you choose to remake him as a Vigilante. As Vencarlo he treats NPCs in his community (presumably Old Korvosa) as one attitude category more positive, and as Blackjack he gains a +6 Intimidate bonus within 9 miles of Old Korvosa. That sounds about right to me; no particular reason that all of the serfs and peasants of Korvosa would treat Vencarlo as anything special (many of them probably look down on him as nobility), and 9 miles is pretty much sufficient to cover the entirety of Korvosa. (And again, I don't see why he would necessarily be so completely effective everywhere in the city. IIRC, Blackjack only operates within Old Korvosa- much like Daredevil in Hell's Kitchen. Even certain writings of Batman don't have him as effective all over the entirety of Gotham. Though you often have to ignore the fact that this shadowy figure of legend also happens to very publicly run with the Justice League.)
And besides, Blackjack aside, I see no reason a high level Vigilante shouldn't be known throughout a 100k citizen city like Absalom or Goka. Indeed, I'd think that being known throughout such a city should very much be an achievable goal for a Vigilante PC.
There are still the Fame/Reputation rules from Ultimate Campaign.
I can't say I'm too thrilled about the Everyman ability. At 19th level that just seems really unnecessary. The Many Guises and a good Disguise check can do something remotely the same.
As an aside, I've never quite understood the taboo of allowing characters to disguise themselves as specific individuals (magically or through mundane means). It seems like every version of D&D had this as does Pathfinder. Is it really that game breaking to be able to make yourself appear to be someone else?
I wouldn't use Blackjack as the measuring stick by which the class (or any of its myriad abilities) function or don't function. At least as regards renown:
1) The Blackjack identity has been around for centuries, and is larger than one man.
(Also, Vencarlo has magic items that explicitly grant him some of the dual identity benefits afforded by the class, so he may not even actually be a Vigilante. Perhaps he is as he was under 3E, Fighter/Rogue, or perhaps he is a Swashbuckler or something.)