|
Now I know my subject line is a little mean. Meant most to grab your attention.
So, I have read and re-read the playtest multiple times. At face value, the concepts are really neat. However, you are playing, respectively, a fighter, rogue, sorcerer, and inquisitor, based on your specialization. The problem is that you are playing a lesser version of each of those classes. A barbarian, fighter, ranger, would win against an avenger. A rogue, especially unchained, would be better than a stalker. A sorcerer, arcanist, and wizard is clearly better than a warlock. And a cleric/inquisitor is clearly better than a zealot. (by leaps and bounds).
The previous paragraph seems to be the running train on the forums.
So you are willing to be a lesser version of other classes for some social bonuses and a dual persona.
My problem is that legitimate role playing can give you those social bonuses and dual persona easily. The concepts are cool but if you want to play batman, play a gunslinger/fighter and role play the crap out of it. Captain America? Shield Brawler and role play the crap out of it. Work with your GM's and have fun, but we shouldn't need a class that is mediocre at best that actual role playing can circumvent.
No, Only the Rogue class can be a stealthy sneaky guy, you can't have a fighter sneaking around.
and the ranger has to be an archer. range is in his name!
Gosh, people who think that you can play any class any way you want.
All of this was sarcasm.
Because roleplaying/items/skills can give you a dual persona easily I like to think of the class feature as more than donning a mask and talking in a raspy voice. From a flavor perspective these are not people who put on a costume and went after a cause but people who are deeply fractured choosing or being forced to become someone else, something else, to conquer the forces that broke them. These aren't people that had the power to right wrongs but made into different people than they once were by events out of their control.
From a class logic I like that the idea is being played around with. Sorcerers and Oracles contrast with Wizards and Clerics by being versions of that kind of casting where it's implied that they didn't exactly have a choice. Sure they chose to expand that path but it's not something to be sought, it is something that taints you or curses you. I see Vigilante as an extension of that idea for a mundane class. Something happened to them that made them that way, and in another thread I argue that this concept is almost required for compelling vigilantes and in superhero comics it's explored to a huge degree. Most costumed vigilantes either have a legacy to uphold, a tainted heritage or one bad day that changed them forever and it's common that it directly interferes with their sense of identity.
Or at least that's how I rationalize why they exist. Like others I'm not 100% of a fan of it's current form but I hope that further design takes the tropes like that to heart to differentiate vigilantes from brawlers with masks.
|
|
Yeah, I am not sure we need to get provocative with our thread titles to generate attention. Post your thoughts and they will be read. No attention grabbing necessary.
So, I am going to go ahead and tone that down a bit.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
At least make it about role playing......
I know that you guys get a ton of free play-testing from everyone on paizo.com, but did you guys play test this at all at your offices? Cause it really doesn't seem like this was made from people that play, more from people that have visions. Mystic bolt that can't be modified by feats, terrible spell casting for both warlock and zealot, a lesser skill monkey than a rogue with worse fighting capabilities. And a fighter that has been knee capped.