Why is "having a social identity" worthy of a whole class?


Ultimate Intrigue Playtest General Discussion

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Dual Identities scry protection actually gave my character a few extra rounds in a battle, since I was able to get away and change identities, so when they tried to scry my social persona they couldn't find my vigilante in the bushes hiding.


Godwyn wrote:


+20 is pretty odd though. Perhaps, instead of a +20 bonus at level 1, it provides a scaling bonus. Or just the same +10 as most of the disguise spells. The only reason I can see for the +20 that early, is that somehow the Vigilante is supposed to be able to hide from higher level characters. It think that approach is flawed. The level system is an integral part of the overall system. Higher level characters are supposed to be better, even if that means a level 10 bard, ranger, oracle, whatever, can figure out the secret identity of a low level vigilante.

Well, since they're making a class out of it, which I'm sure they'll do regardless of the fact that so many of us agree it's not worthy of a whole class (we differ on whether it can be one feat or needs to be more, but I agree it's not nearly enough to base a whole class on), it's pretty useless if when interacting with anyone significant when they're at low levels, they'll be discovered.

Their social identity is meant to interact with powerful NPC's without being discovered, so the concept requires the +20 to work as intended.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:
Or make it a rider class (like the evangalist prestige class, where you trade a lower rate of class advancement for some extra powers.)

I actually was talking about this with my friend earlier. This class should come with class abilities and then you select another base class just like Evangelist which gets reduced progression added to that base.

As it stands I'm disappointed with the current class design and feel that the social part is useless and the Vigilante parts are mechanically weak.


The problem I have is that the social identity has a "so what" factor to it.

At lower levels this isn't as much of an issue, but in a world where the PCs are just "normal joes" it fails because the social identity is less than a "normal joe" normally. It needs some umpf of its own.


mplindustries wrote:
Oly wrote:
Would a feat that allowed you to cast Alter Self, with unlimited duration, on demand, but without changing ability scores or gaining special attacks and the like be overpowered or not?
Not. Without the stat adjustments or special abilities, it does nothing except give a bonus to a skill.

Just to put some numbers on this, an item that gave a constant +20 competence bonus to a skill would, by the book, be worth 4000 gp. You can double that if you like because it's slotless, which still makes it only 8000 gp.

The dark blue rhomboid ioun stone gives you a single feat (Alertness) for 10,000 gp.

So I don't think a feat for a +20 bonus, esp. for a highly marginal skill, is overpowered.


also that's a static feat; a slotless feat (such as a fighter's) would be worth more.

Sovereign Court

DM_Blake wrote:
We ARE getting this book and the Vigilante class WILL be released.

Only one of those two statements is true.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:

As per the subject, I don't really understand why this is even a class. [snip]

Why isn't the whole social identity thing just an add on option? [snip]
I am just not seeing a compelling reason this is a class at all. Most of the class talents that are legitimately cool and new ideas (Mystic Bolt, Penance Gaze, etc.) could be added as options/talents/archetypes/whatever for other classes instead.

OVERLAP PETE AGREES WITH YOU. AND SO DOES MY PAL DOCTOR DOOM. THE NEED FOR A HIDDEN IDENTITY IS A SIGN OF WEAKNESS: TRUE POWER REQUIRES A CONFIDENT HAND THAT INVITES ENEMIES INTO ITS CASTLE FOR DINNER, THEN TOYS WITH THEM IN ITS DUNGEON FOR EVENING ENTERTAINMENT!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I build plenty of classes, and use of class skills to promote social activity in my game. I don't need what makes the vigilante a sociable character, I have other more effective means of doing that without having to disable a class to do that.

Liberty's Edge

Orfamay Quest wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Oly wrote:
Would a feat that allowed you to cast Alter Self, with unlimited duration, on demand, but without changing ability scores or gaining special attacks and the like be overpowered or not?
Not. Without the stat adjustments or special abilities, it does nothing except give a bonus to a skill.

Just to put some numbers on this, an item that gave a constant +20 competence bonus to a skill would, by the book, be worth 4000 gp. You can double that if you like because it's slotless, which still makes it only 8000 gp.

The dark blue rhomboid ioun stone gives you a single feat (Alertness) for 10,000 gp.

So I don't think a feat for a +20 bonus, esp. for a highly marginal skill, is overpowered.

You slipped a digit. It'd be 40,000, or 80,000 for a slotless version.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It would be some tiny fraction of that, actually, since it's only useful for disguising yourself as one specific identity.

Further, while, yes, a skill bonus costs X, you are kidding yourself if you think a bonus to disguise is actually as valuable as a skill bonus to something like perception, diplomacy, umd, etc.

Note that a +10 disguise should cost 10k, but a hat of disguise actually just costs 1800, less than a +5 skill item.


The whole "whether the skill bonus is worth a feat or not" is barking up the wrong tree, in my opinion. The problem isn't whether a social identity is mechanically balanced or worth it, the problem is that the social identity is trying to encompass a playstyle that only certain campaigns will even be interested in.

Why will I care to detail out an alternate identity for a game where the DM will not let me explore it? Most Pathfinder games just aren't going to run into a situation where your alternate identity will be pressured or questioned any more than a normal Disguise check. In such situations, the whole alternate identity ability just boils down to a raw Disguise bonus check and it doesn't let you do anything new besides a very high bonus to your Disguise check.

Only a very specific campaign will there be a difference between Social Identity, as written, and a raw Disguise bonus. In such a case, it works better as a campaign specific system instead of a class, an ability, or even a a feat.


AncientSpark wrote:
The whole "whether the skill bonus is worth a feat or not" is barking up the wrong tree, in my opinion. The problem isn't whether a social identity is mechanically balanced or worth it, the problem is that the social identity is trying to encompass a playstyle that only certain campaigns will even be interested in.

Isn't that true of any class that some playstyles or campaign flavors aren't optimal for a given table? I mean in a Dark Age setting gunslingers don't belong, as simply firearms don't exist. If you're running a Plieostocene Epoch game where everybody is a cave dwelling barbarian, most weapons and armor don't belong, so neither do cavaliers, samurai, paladins and host of other classes.

So if there exists a class that fits a flavor that isn't included in your game, any class is subject to not belonging. I don't see the Vigilante as being especially unusable versus any other class or class concept for many games. Some classes just don't fit every table's needs. Just don't use those classes - I don't see the problem.

Or are you one of those folk, who believe that if Paizo published it, you can use it in any game? My settings always restrict what classes and races are available - consider that in most of my worlds, there are no such thing as elves and dwarves as a race, so no one gets to play one.


gamer-printer wrote:
AncientSpark wrote:
The whole "whether the skill bonus is worth a feat or not" is barking up the wrong tree, in my opinion. The problem isn't whether a social identity is mechanically balanced or worth it, the problem is that the social identity is trying to encompass a playstyle that only certain campaigns will even be interested in.

Isn't that true of any class that some playstyles or campaign flavors aren't optimal for a given table? I mean in a Dark Age setting gunslingers don't belong, as simply firearms don't exist. If you're running a Plieostocene Epoch game where everybody is a cave dwelling barbarian, most weapons and armor don't belong.

So if there exists a class that fits a flavor that isn't included in your game, any class is subject to not belonging. I don't see the Vigilante as being especially unusable versus any other class or class concept for many games. Some classes just don't fit every table's needs.

The problem is the width of the niche and the effort needed by the campaign to adapt to the class. Gunslinger has one problem with it, that it relies on a technology not available to every campaign. But, in truth, there's not much work that you need to get it to work if you wanted to; you just say "Guns have been invented" and you don't have to change plots or give extra focus to the Gunslinger's character events, etc. And you don't have to say any more about why a character has a gun besides "That's what he was trained with" (although you certainly could).

Social Identity requires more campaign weight. For one, having a alternate identity that a character relies on constantly doesn't mean anything if that identity isn't pressured. There has to be a reason why the character has to keep their adventurer identity hidden and then that has to bring at least some focus into the campaign or else it's just a Disguise bonus. For example, in superhero comics, alternate identities exist to either protect people the hero knows or because they exist outside the law, which makes it a major comic book focus. The plot of comic books warp around the idea that its hero has an alternate identity.

Then you have to ask the question of why does the vigilante have to hide and the others don't? Again, think of the gunslinger; the reason why the gunslinger uses guns and the others don't is because it's either not widely available or the other characters were not trained in it. But, for the vigilante, there is no such easy reason. The other adventurers are in plain sight and, presumably, they will have similar enemies to the vigilante due to being in a party. Why is it that only the vigilante has to keep up an alternate identity? Do you have to make vigilante only enemies for the character in order to force alternate identities? If you do, isn't that forcing a class into a story role where it really shouldn't require one?

See what I mean? The gunslinger has very little pressure on what the campaign means as a whole. Yes, it might not fit in every campaign due to iron-clad flavor reasons, but it's relatively painless to insert into a game as well, because the party dynamic or the campaign events are not warped by their introduction. The vigilante warps required campaign and character events because Social identity, in order for it not to be "just a Disguise bonus", gains a lot of event and flavor implications.

I mean, to take your example of it fitting a campaign, the vigilante requires more events centered around the idea of the alternate identity. And if such a situation occurs, then why don't you just make it available to everyone, since it's a major campaign theme? Why restrict it to a class and instead just make it an alternate system?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a guy playing someone with a masked identity (masked avenger swashbuckler) in Iron Gods right now, I can say with some authority that it neither requires taking over the campaign nor foisting an alternate identity on the rest of the group. It requires a certain amount of flexibility on the part of the player and some thought beforehand on why the PC would be interested in traveling with the rest of the party, but that's a good thing to do with any character, so I don't feel like it's demanding too much.


AncientSpark wrote:
The problem is the width of the niche and the effort needed by the campaign to adapt to the class.

But you're missing my point altogether, I don't want nor need to be inclusive, I am always exclusive. I run themed games, always. I hate kitchen sink settings and all-inclusive campaigns. It isn't always the same classes, monsters, magic items, and spells - every campaign has restrictions, and there will be different restrictions in different games. I don't try to think how I can make an allowance for a given published concept that a given player wants - if I stated no gunslingers or no samurai up front, then that's what it means, and no exceptions.

Of course, I have an existing table of players that are excited about playing themed games, so I'm not in a position of lacking players, so having to accommodate their wants in order just to get them to participate in my game. I don't need that, so no need to accommodate, ever.

Right now I'm working on a gothic horror, old west setting for Pathfinder (for publication), where the advanced gun rules are the order of the day. Every class will have an archetype with some level of firearms use. You could choose to play a character with no firearms skills in the setting, but it would be kind of stupid (not impossible, but stupid, just the same). Additionally, its a humanocentric setting - the only playable race are humans. Of course that means alternate racial traits for humans are also included.

Also regarding my old west setting, secret societies play a major role, so most characters have kind of an alternate identity, their public image and their society image, and they tend to keep their membership a secret from everyone else. There doesn't need to be a special class designed to accommodate that - it applies to practically everyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gamer-printer wrote:
AncientSpark wrote:
The problem is the width of the niche and the effort needed by the campaign to adapt to the class.

But you're missing my point altogether, I don't want nor need to be inclusive, I am always exclusive. I run themed games, always. I hate kitchen sink settings and all-inclusive campaigns. It isn't always the same classes, monsters, magic items, and spells - every campaign has restrictions, and there will be different restrictions in different games. I don't try to think how I can make an allowance for a given published concept that a given player wants - if I stated no gunslingers or no samurai up front, then that's what it means, and no exceptions.

Of course, I have an existing table of players that are excited about playing themed games, so I'm not in a position of lacking players, so having to accommodate their wants in order just to get them to participate in my game. I don't need that, so no need to accommodate, ever.

Right now I'm working on a gothic horror, old west setting for Pathfinder (for publication), where the advanced gun rules are the order of the day. Every class will have an archetype with some level of firearms use. You could choose to play a character with no firearms skills in the setting, but it would be kind of stupid (not impossible, but stupid, just the same). Additionally, its a humanocentric setting - the only playable race are humans.

No, you're missing the point. If you run a game where Secret Identity is useful, it's useful to *everyone or no-one* because the campaign theme is specifically weighted towards that, so you're incentivized to make Secret Identity a globally available ability. Under that case, why are you making it a class? Classes are bigger deals than feats or systems because you have to commit more of your levels you run? I mean, they don't make "Caravan master" a class for Jade Regent because everyone should have incentive on participating in caravan shenanigans regardless of class, right? Wouldn't that be the case for Vigilante for Intrigue-based games?

Yeah, it's cute that you can run a game where everyone has a gun archetype and make it work, but that doesn't mean that the gun archetype is useful *only in that circumstance*. It's useful in all sorts of campaigns and it's useful in games where there are mixes of gun users and non-gun users. It's useful if you're the only gun user and it's useful if you're in all gun games. That doesn't apply for Social Identity, unless the DM specifically weights the game towards a Social Identity-based Intrigue game.

I mean, you're raising all this hubbub about class inclusivity, but tell me, what's the difference if they made Social Identity a system vs a class? Wouldn't it still be the same for intrigue-based games like you're clamoring for?

Shisumo wrote:
As a guy playing someone with a masked identity (masked avenger swashbuckler) in Iron Gods right now, I can say with some authority that it neither requires taking over the campaign nor foisting an alternate identity on the rest of the group. It requires a certain amount of flexibility on the part of the player and some thought beforehand on why the PC would be interested in traveling with the rest of the party, but that's a good thing to do with any character, so I don't feel like it's demanding too much.

Would you notice any difference if Social Identity read "+20 to Disguise"? Could you give an example? It's not just that the ability isn't useful, it's just that it's nothing more than a numerical bonus unless the DM throws more towards the player's alternate identity, which leads to the above circumstance.


AncientSpark wrote:
...stuff...

Ah, you just missed my edit (last paragraph), you posted a response, before I could post my edit (and even knowing that you responded yet.)

In my old west setting, pretty much everyone has a secret identity, except for maybe the journalists (though even they might hide that they are press in order to get a scoop). But agreed, no need to make it a class feature, just hide your identity no matter what class you have. Its something you choose to do, not something that requires a class feature to accomplish.

And as far as your point where firearm inclusivity for one game, couldn't be useful for others - sure any mechanic should be able to work in any circumstance (not just one themed games), but then I never not play a themed game for it to be an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just chiming in with my thoughts. I agree, the class is incredibly lack luster even with the variations. At best it is a 5th or even 6th wheel class. Hope you enjoy the read, just to clarify this isn't a debate just my feelings on it thusfar.

a) Firstly looking at the base abilities HD and Skills are similar to that of a Bard (another 5th class). With a wide assortment of skills coming from both the base and the specialty it easily fits into the "skilled" class of character

b)Dual Identity : This ability basically takes the disguise to the next level effectively allowing you to ignore repercussions of any act you take as your alter ego. The ability is like reading mechanical fluff, because the rules of the game without this feature are fundamentally the same. If you manage to hide your identity by adopting a disguise (which can be bought) then while not in a disguise people don't get knowledge checks to find out who you are unless its revealed. Just to be clear please stop and ask yourself how many NPCs have had to make knowledge checks against the party on your table?

"Changing identity is not like changing outfits and clothing (although that is a part of it); it often involves make-up, hair and other personal effects" sooooo a disguise check with a disguise kit or a hat of disguise. Which doesn't help you at all with this ability.

The actual affect of this ability boils down to, enjoy 2 alignments one for you and one for your alter ego. Which means effectively I could stick babies on spikes but when johnny law comes knocking on my door with detect evil I have pipe in hand and come up as MR Neutral. Mechanical reasons you are able to manipulate the morality of the world and for "some" reason a quick disguise kit and poof alignment away.

This ability also blocks scrying when people are attempting to find the alter ego. You know because when I find an item belonging to you and use a spell that says "find the person who last owned this" Because you have a disguise on my spell shouldn't work.

c)Social Graces : +20 disguise check, sure why not, no point giving it +1/2 level or anything sensible that behaves like any of the other classes nah, level 1 just have +20 no sweat. In fact at second level 2/4/6 pick up a mental stat to get +4 in all checks with because I know it must be brutal with the 6+int skill points you've got on you.

d)Vigilante specialization Talents *will address this down the bottom because it's a chunky piece*

e)Renown - I notice that this ability is pretty much trying (not very well) to strong arm the DM into acknowledging the PC as a vigilante, bonus intimidate when people know who you are and leveling up determines the size of the city you gain this bonus with. This is incredibly....boring. Also "Subject to GM approval" yeah cause that's what you want on a class feature. This should be the red flag that proves this class is just a big pile of mechanical fluff because people don't know how to just ROLEPLAY a vigilante character and use a disguise kit.

f) Startling appearance - When a vigilante makes an attack while stealthed or invisible the creature is flatfooted for the full turn instead of just for the opening hit and takes -4 atk on strikes on the vigilante for 1 round. Shame there is nothing besides the Stalker variant that would make much benefit from it.

g)Loyal Aid - Gain allies, +1/2 lvl to diplomacy for gather information and get them to cover for him (his normal persona) for 1 day usable 1/week and once per day can ask them to do a task for him "Subject to GM discretion" As above in point e) another ability which relies on the DM approving your actions and again something that can be done by ANY character with some freaking ROLEPLAY. The only thing right about this ability is the format of the diplomacy bonus.

h)Many guises - +20 disguise to appear as a mundane member of his race. Spells and abilities all fail while looking for the vigilante in this state. His mundane appearance can never be anything apart from an ordinary member of society "Subject to GM discretion". Just when I had restored some faith in the formatting rules, so should you have chosen a mundane identity for your Social Graces class you may now enjoy an undetectable identity with a +40 disguise check. See points e) for points around GM discretion abilities.

i)Frightening appearance - When attacking a unaware foe, free intimidate check to demoralize target and any enemy within 10ft before attack is resolved. IF the check is successful the targets are frightened as well as shaken (Should in instead of given shaken effect upgrades not stacks) unless target makes Will DC 10+1/2 vigilante level + Cha).Once hit creature is immune for 24 hours. Honestly this is actually a good power, straight forward and works well apart from the wording I mentioned.

j)Quick Change - Can change identity as a Full round action. But requires a disguise check, or 1 minute will negate the need for the check. Again nothing inherently wrong with this ability, short sweet, simple and comes in at a reasonable level.

k)Stunning Appearance - Attack an unaware foe and make a successful attack foe must make a will save DC 10 + 1/2 lvl + Cha or be stunned for 1 round. So striking a creature at level 17 entails them making 2 will saves and having creatures with 10ft be shaken/frightened and this poor sod being stunned. Well level 17 why not stun the hell out of people, with the 24 hour immunity this is a well balanced ability if anything I would have tacked on knocked prone to this as well just for some oomph because if they are frightened and stunned then they're not running for one round.

l)Everyman - +20 on disguise check and +10 bluff check to emulate a specific individual who MUST be a farmer, laborer or Peasant. With a 50% chance of divination spells finding the vigilante instead of the subject. At this point I think they've forgotten that a disguise check is actually an opposed Perception check and unless every person in your game is Sherlock Holmes most of these +20s are so damn excessive especially given they work on your pretending to be a civilian or peasant.

m)Vengeance Strike - Standard action to study target that is unaware of the vigilante up to a max of 5 consecutive standard actions. When the subject is attacked within 1 round of study, for each round spent studying the target gain +4 atk and one of the following +3d6 precision damage, treat his die roll as it were 2 higher to determine if the attack hits or confirms a crit (maximum die number 20). This is another awesome ability and one that I think makes a good capstone. In summary the Startling/Frightful/Stunning/appearances are the best part of this class and should be the main focus on something less pathetic.

At this point before I get into the specialties I want to just point out how regular disguise works.

Disguise check vs Perception check opposed roles. Why is this skill based class that has disguise as a class skill investing so much into disguising as a commoner? It's not hard to trick people, most people don't have +1/2 level in perception. By putting ranks in the skills and giving the class 1 ability that grants + 1/2 level to disguise you achieve what all those shocking +20 bonuses would do. It is excessive and underestimates the quality of good roleplay. I've played a vigilante before, I was a kitsune called the Grey Guardian and I only adventured as my fox. It was an enjoyable game and one that functioned easily without the need for this class.

My recommendation turn this class into something original and not just a batman ripoff. Call it the Hunter or something and center it around that, not fluff that can be roleplayed around and requires the GM to work to make the basic class abilities function effectively.

SPECIALTIES

All of these function effectively as though you had rogue talents that could make you function as a core class. Avenger = fighter, Stalker = Rogue, Warlock = Wizard, Zealot = Cleric. Now I'm not going to badmouth their abilities, to be honest they are interesting and well balanced particularly in later levels.

I will say this though, we have all these classes Paizo. We love you guys and want to see some real hard hitting content, why waste time making something that does what each of these does already? Since I've played Pathfinder I've found that the BEST content is their conversion content, stuff like the Kinetisist from the upcoming Occult Adventures was inspired by the Warlock from 3.5 and they made an incredible class because of it. Thats the kind of stuff you want to be releasing, not trying to repackage whats already in your game, especially not core classes.

I know there is lots of debate circling around this and this is a long ass post so if nothing else, read the last too paragraphs. A third of this class is dedicated to fluff that can be done currently with any character with little to no effort. Another third is replicated core classes that have polished and perfected their roles over years of gameplay and the supplementary abilities gained by this class will ALWAYS fall short. The final third of this class is about ambushing unaware targets and devastating them in an opening volley which is by far the coolest element of this class and should be the central foundation of what makes it function and ditch the idea of social identity concealment and all those rubbish abilities.


I should point out that you don't have to use a gun as a gunslinger anymore. They DID make a crossbow archetype. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They should convert this into a class specializing in hunting and tracking specific individuals but via ambush and observation rather than just tracking.

Call it the Bounty Hunter, Keep the Startling/Frightening/Stunning/Vengeance strikes

insert - Non lethal combat variation rules and convert the specialties into counter class variations. Turn this into a hunter that becomes and Avenger = Anti-fighter / Stalker = Anti-rogue / Warlock = Anti-Wizard / Zealot = Anti-cleric. Renaming them to suit of course

This would have waaaay more substance and be much more valuable to the Pathfinder class stable.


That sounds boring. Also isn't everything an anti-rogue?


Suz wrote:

They should convert this into a class specializing in hunting and tracking specific individuals but via ambush and observation rather than just tracking.

Call it the Bounty Hunter, Keep the Startling/Frightening/Stunning/Vengeance strikes

insert - Non lethal combat variation rules and convert the specialties into counter class variations. Turn this into a hunter that becomes and Avenger = Anti-fighter / Stalker = Anti-rogue / Warlock = Anti-Wizard / Zealot = Anti-cleric. Renaming them to suit of course

This would have waaaay more substance and be much more valuable to the Pathfinder class stable.

What I think would be the most fitting and also fit into Paizo's design paradigm recently is to make the social guise a full class Master Spy,combine Avenger and Stalker to make a full class Shadow Dancer, and combine Zealot and Warlock into a full class Mystic Theurge.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Or Paizo could get over their apparent hate of prestige classes and half this beast and turn it into a 10 level prestige instead. Cut the faff and bring its full potential out. I'm a big supporter of "add new content" not just repackaging and reselling the stuff they've already released ie the Pain Taster <sigh>

Also playing anti-X classes are great fun. Nothing more amusing than playing some of the anti-spellcasters. A specialist who knows how to hunt down the big 4 works in all kinds of situations for both PCs, NPCs and cohorts. They currently don't exist in the game and would add alot more variety than anything currently coming out.

By anti-rogue I mean like fortified armor/skin that eventually leads into sneak immunity. Tied together with the ability to rig "Disable traps" when someone attempts to disable one trap it activates another. Plus bonuses to perception to identify someone in stealth.

Anti-fighter would be someone with improved DR and deflect/dodge AC together with bleed or physical weakening stats.

Anti-cleric would be something that reverses, steals or diminishes channel and heal/inflict abilities. Even abilities that cut off ones ties to the divine power source.

Anti-spellcaster (While some exist) have something that counterspells, as well as binds their casting abilities via silence, still etc.

What would these classes do when they aren't fighting against their chosen class? Easy they go into the Startling Frightful Stunning appearances tree and focus on ambush tactics and perhaps even dealing Non Lethal damage as a bonus so as to be effective as a class designed for capturing others.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't know about the rest of you, but myself and a few others have been discussing why this class was invented, and we've all agreed that it's not for players. It's for the GM. This is the absolute perfect NPC villain class. Their alignment shifts, they're immune to scrying in their second identity, they have +20 to Disguise when you meet them, and their abilities "disappear" (for the most part with certain specializations) when they change identities. At higher levels they can Darkman into the crowd so you can't follow, and even be different people that you interact with and might let slip. Hell, they can infiltrate better than some if they've been pretending to be that little old lady down the street for the past year. They could even be the butler. They're the perfect "It was me the whole time." Mark my words, this will be a final boss that's been pulling the strings for an entire AP. Someone's going to write up an amped up version of a Scooby-Doo scenario.


kevin_video wrote:
Don't know about the rest of you, but myself and a few others have been discussing why this class was invented, and we've all agreed that it's not for players. It's for the GM.

Yep, works great as an NPC class...


I love how people are arguing about if a class should exist without even seeing the book and what paizo has in store for it


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackvial wrote:
I love how people are arguing about if a class should exist without even seeing the book and what paizo has in store for it

I know right.

It's not as if they started a playtest for receiving feedback about a class and gave us everything they felt we should have for the playtest. Because if they did the feedback "with what we have right now I don't see why this class exists" is actually pretty useful feedback.

Oh wait.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackvial wrote:
I love how people are arguing about if a class should exist without even seeing the book and what paizo has in store for it

It's not even whether it should exist or not. It's more "what practical reason could I have for playing this?" For PFS reasons, for AP reasons, and even for homebrew reasons, when would you ever use this class other than for a one-shot, or for an entire team of vigilantes. That's what some of us are asking.


The only 'beneficial' use I've seen for the alternate persona so far is to betray the party and still go adventuring with them. It's the only thing the class allows which it does better than other options.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:
FLite wrote:
Or make it a rider class (like the evangalist prestige class, where you trade a lower rate of class advancement for some extra powers.)

I actually was talking about this with my friend earlier. This class should come with class abilities and then you select another base class just like Evangelist which gets reduced progression added to that base.

As it stands I'm disappointed with the current class design and feel that the social part is useless and the Vigilante parts are mechanically weak.

I'm disappointed as well, like they are grasping at straws to create another hardback to sale, I could throw a bloat comment in here but I'd get lambasted by the hard core Paizo peeps so I'll just leave it at the first part.


Kohl McClash wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
FLite wrote:
Or make it a rider class (like the evangalist prestige class, where you trade a lower rate of class advancement for some extra powers.)

I actually was talking about this with my friend earlier. This class should come with class abilities and then you select another base class just like Evangelist which gets reduced progression added to that base.

As it stands I'm disappointed with the current class design and feel that the social part is useless and the Vigilante parts are mechanically weak.

I'm disappointed as well, like they are grasping at straws to create another hardback to sale, I could throw a bloat comment in here but I'd get lambasted by the hard core Paizo peeps so I'll just leave it at the first part.

The book kinda DID need to be made, though.

Combat and Magic both got focus books, and skills are the third peg of adventuring.

No-one is crying BLOAT! about this (well, maybe you) - we're expecting the book to be as useful as the Ultimate books before it; however, we're concerned that while the majority of the book may be awesome, the signature class of the book may end up being as garbled a mess as Mythic Adventures.

MA, you kinda expected it; no-one has ever managed to produce solid "Epic" content before AND keep the same basic feel of D&D - the Immortal rules from BECMI were the best rules for Epic-style play, and even THOSE had to throw out pretty much everything and work on an entirely-different set of rules than standard D&D.

But this is an Ultimate book, which means it should fall in line with the same level of usefulness and quality as Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Campaign, and Ultimate Equipment... especially the first two, which is kinda finally finishing the "combat, magic, skills" trilogy.

Having a boring-uninspired-and-underpowered class be the featured class in an Ultimate book geared towards players isn't exactly something we want to see, even if the rest of the book is amaze-balls.

There's definitely a niche for the class, there are people who are dying to have a class that FILLS that niche, and there are definite ways to make that class fill that niche AND keep this whole "mode A mode B" design (in fact, it's what would MAKE the niche work).

The devs just need to expand way beyond the ideas of "it HAS to be a superhero" and "the specializations HAVE to replicate existing classes". The current architecture is just lazy designing, no matter how you look at it.

Hopefully this'll change - you'll STILL have people crying "BLOAT!!!", of course, but you always do, and always have, ever since the CRB was first printed.


I don't think the Vigilante is on par with mythic...tweak the change between personas and buff the social persona and it will be an okay class. Mythic is incredibly problematic while the vigilante just needs fine-tuning IMHO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I knew some girls in high school were their social identity was the only class that mattered.

Worst boss battles ever.

I've seen boobs since.

High five.


MMCJawa wrote:
I don't think the Vigilante is on par with mythic...tweak the change between personas and buff the social persona and it will be an okay class. Mythic is incredibly problematic while the vigilante just needs fine-tuning IMHO.

Right now, the Vigilante is a rusty '67 VW Beetle, while most other classes are Porsches, Maseratis, and Bugattis. Even the Pre-Unchained Rogue and Monk are at the worst respectable '92 Mazda 626s.

The Vigilante needs a massive overhaul to both be unique and for half the class to be consistently more functional than an NPC Class.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I don't think the Vigilante is on par with mythic...tweak the change between personas and buff the social persona and it will be an okay class. Mythic is incredibly problematic while the vigilante just needs fine-tuning IMHO.

Right now, the Vigilante is a rusty '67 VW Beetle, while most other classes are Porsches, Maseratis, and Bugattis. Even the Pre-Unchained Rogue and Monk are at the worst respectable '92 Mazda 626s.

The Vigilante needs a massive overhaul to both be unique and for half the class to be consistently more functional than an NPC Class.

But don't forget, it's abilities are too powerful to allow an extra talent feat to be made... :P


graystone wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I don't think the Vigilante is on par with mythic...tweak the change between personas and buff the social persona and it will be an okay class. Mythic is incredibly problematic while the vigilante just needs fine-tuning IMHO.

Right now, the Vigilante is a rusty '67 VW Beetle, while most other classes are Porsches, Maseratis, and Bugattis. Even the Pre-Unchained Rogue and Monk are at the worst respectable '92 Mazda 626s.

The Vigilante needs a massive overhaul to both be unique and for half the class to be consistently more functional than an NPC Class.

But don't forget, it's abilities are too powerful to allow an extra talent feat to be made... :P

Powerful is an understatement.

Come on, what feat lets you get a level of spellcasting. That is so ridiculous that for the sake of game balance the don't dare allow the vigilante to get more than mostly just that for 20 levels .


Snowblind wrote:
graystone wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I don't think the Vigilante is on par with mythic...tweak the change between personas and buff the social persona and it will be an okay class. Mythic is incredibly problematic while the vigilante just needs fine-tuning IMHO.

Right now, the Vigilante is a rusty '67 VW Beetle, while most other classes are Porsches, Maseratis, and Bugattis. Even the Pre-Unchained Rogue and Monk are at the worst respectable '92 Mazda 626s.

The Vigilante needs a massive overhaul to both be unique and for half the class to be consistently more functional than an NPC Class.

But don't forget, it's abilities are too powerful to allow an extra talent feat to be made... :P

Powerful is an understatement.

Come on, what feat lets you get a level of spellcasting. That is so ridiculous that for the sake of game balance the don't dare allow the vigilante to get more than mostly just that for 20 levels .

Yes, with that kind of power they might come close to a magus or inquisitor for power... As long as you don't look at spells cast per day... What spell casting class WOULDN'T want the opertunity to pay a feat to gain their spellcasting abilities? Sounds like a steal! :P


I'm surprised no one has brought up the Zealot... am I missing something that makes it as good or better than the other 3?

1/4th of a clerics channel, little of the domain abilities, the revive seems OP as hell... until you look at the limitations.

I have to agree with the assumption this is for a truly badass NPC class and not for general player use... and that the Social Identity needs either be buffed for PC use, or dropped from the main class features.

The main problem with Dual identity seems to stem from the unclarified results of broken cover, and the inability to force the issue of your training in your social Identity. If you wanted to keep a witness who knows silent... why not use a spell or vigilante ability to protect it?

Maybe they could make this class easier to multiclass with than others(like it doesn't count as your favored class, you automatically get bonuses as thought it is, you are not an "ex"-paladin/vigilante, instead you are a paladin that happens to be a vigilante, etc...)?


mplindustries wrote:

in four years of playing Pathfinder, I've never seen Disguise rolled once, and in all the time I've played 3rd edition, it was one of the least rolled skills in the book. I think we rolled Use Rope more often.

I can't even wrap my head around this statement...


Blackvial wrote:
I love how people are arguing about if a class should exist without even seeing the book and what paizo has in store for it

Well, that IS why they released the playtest of it, you know. To see what we think...

Sovereign Court

GroovyBoy wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

in four years of playing Pathfinder, I've never seen Disguise rolled once, and in all the time I've played 3rd edition, it was one of the least rolled skills in the book. I think we rolled Use Rope more often.

I can't even wrap my head around this statement...

mpl is right though... it's the "dump skill" per excellence (1,800gp hat of disguise... there you go... rank redirection process begins!)


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
GroovyBoy wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

in four years of playing Pathfinder, I've never seen Disguise rolled once, and in all the time I've played 3rd edition, it was one of the least rolled skills in the book. I think we rolled Use Rope more often.

I can't even wrap my head around this statement...
mpl is right though... it's the "dump skill" per excellence (1,800gp hat of disguise... there you go... rank redirection process begins!)

Which is one reason why so many people are happily expectant of this book:

Having a Skills-focused book in the same vein as Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic should add a huge amount of usefulness to skills as a whole, especially those skills that aren't as immediately-useful as ones like Intimidate, Disable Device, Diplomacy, etc.

If rules for social gatherings, massive crowds, espionage, etc. are introduced in the same way that rules for Chases were introduced back in the day, then Disguise could get a major bump for usefulness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do you see the chase rules used a lot, ever?

Grand Lodge

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
GroovyBoy wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

in four years of playing Pathfinder, I've never seen Disguise rolled once, and in all the time I've played 3rd edition, it was one of the least rolled skills in the book. I think we rolled Use Rope more often.

I can't even wrap my head around this statement...
mpl is right though... it's the "dump skill" per excellence (1,800gp hat of disguise... there you go... rank redirection process begins!)

Which is one reason why so many people are happily expectant of this book:

Having a Skills-focused book in the same vein as Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic should add a huge amount of usefulness to skills as a whole, especially those skills that aren't as immediately-useful as ones like Intimidate, Disable Device, Diplomacy, etc.

If rules for social gatherings, massive crowds, espionage, etc. are introduced in the same way that rules for Chases were introduced back in the day, then Disguise could get a major bump for usefulness.

I wouldn't mind synergy coming back.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Do you see the chase rules used a lot, ever?

I just looked those up.

They read like really a really convoluted version of what most GMs would improvise if they needed to do a chase.

If the new social rules are anything like that then this book is going to be a real stinker.

What they need to be instead is stuff that gives players new options. Not stuff that is worse 90% of the time than what the GM would otherwise make up on the spot. I don't know how they are actually going to do this, since as far as I can see the only way to make skills decent is to let them do things that are almost magical at low to mid levels(not level 20, looking at you, bluff skill unlock), and I don't think that's going to happen. Hopefully I am wrong in some way, but I am not holding my breath.

Sovereign Court

kevin_video wrote:


I wouldn't mind synergy coming back.

THAT is blasphemous!

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Intrigue Playtest / General Discussion / Why is "having a social identity" worthy of a whole class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion