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


Ultimate Intrigue Playtest General Discussion

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

15 people marked this as a favorite.

As per the subject, I don't really understand why this is even a class. Why is the vigilante your choice of "weak slayer with a social identity," "weak rogue with a social identity," weak wizard with a social identiy," and "weak inquisitor with a social identity?"

Why isn't the whole social identity thing just an add on option? Why not have a Slayer, Wizard, Rogue, Inquisitor, or frankly, every class, archetype that adds the social identity? Or, let's be honest, this isn't super strong; maybe it could just be a feat? Or even a function of the disguise skill?

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.


I made a whole thread about my stance on this and personal opinions and arguments on how to deal with it. I'm on my phone so I can't link you but it should be around here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
Why isn't the whole social identity thing just an add on option? Why not have a Slayer, Wizard, Rogue, Inquisitor, or frankly, every class, archetype that adds the social identity?

That's probably not the answer. Archetypes trade class features. If you traded some Slayer abilities for a social identity, you would have a weak Slayer with a social identity.

That seems to be what you're trying to avoid.

mplindustries wrote:
Or, let's be honest, this isn't super strong; maybe it could just be a feat? Or even a function of the disguise skill?

That's far more like it. I would totally support this.

Sadly, it's not going to happen; that ship has sailed. We ARE getting this book and the Vigilante class WILL be released. They're too far invested in it now to rewrite the whole thing as a few footnotes on the Disguise skill.

I do agree with you, this class seems to be unworthy of being an actual class. It's already a niche idea to begin with, so they're creating a whole class for a niche. I wouldn't mind that, but they seem to be building a whole book around the niche which makes me less interested in the book. And since the niche class seems to be woefully undesirable, the outlook is bleak.

I really hope they fix a lot of this or it might be the first official Paizo book that I decline to purchase. Even if they fix it, I'm not convinced I need this niche - but if it's a worthy product, I'll get it and be prepared to use it if the niche presents itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:

Why is the vigilante your choice of weak wizard with a social identiy"?

The skill points, fear effects, decent combat damage, social ability, and the actual opportunity to use stealth without it sucking horribly. Plus spells.


I'd be happy to see an archetype that trades out all the social mode stuff and buffs vigilante mode. That would be a win for me. Without something like that, I'm having an increasingly tough time imagining playing a vigilante that doesn't ignore social mode all together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

Why is the vigilante your choice of weak wizard with a social identiy"?

The skill points, fear effects, decent combat damage, social ability, and the actual opportunity to use stealth without it sucking horribly. Plus spells.

Actually wizards are fairly decent at stealth... in fact they can be better than pretty much everyone...

One of my Stealthiest Characters was actually a Fetchling Sorcerer. For arcane casters, their second highest stat tends to be Dexterity, and as SAD classes, they can afford to pump out a higher dexterity. Add in on top of that the fact that Arcane Full Casters tend to NOT wear armor, they can actually utilize their full DEX and have no ACP to stealth.

Further more, they have familiars to give a +4 bonus to stealth AND they have spells. Beyond just the basic Invisibility and illusions, they have the darkness spell to create more places to hide. Also, depending on your GM, you can actually counter out Darkvision with light spells by forcing them into normal vision over darkvision in a focused area so you can grant concealment with ease.

Also, really? Fear Effects? Your comparing the lousy ability the warlock gets to a full caster arcane spell list? That ability will never top Illusionists on fear effects.

As for combat damage, turns out summon monster is a pretty good spell... and besides, the weakest caster is a blaster...

Funny thing about the Vigilante, as counter-intuitive it may first seem, the Wizard and the Sage Sorcerer will crush them in skill points... Turns out having INT as a casting stat is pretty useful for skills...

As for a face, Again spell casters dominate this. This class can't match the abilities of Face built Sorcerers (your CHA bonus is HOW MUCH?...)


Over here I am actually contemplating on the idea of making the Vigilante a Full Class Shadow Dancer or Mystic Theurge with Social being a Full Class Master Spy

This would give them a rather unique niche and distinct flavor (since Prestige Classes are kinda not to popular). Essentially do with the aforementioned Prestige Classes what paizo did with Eldritch Knight and the Magus in Ultimate Magic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
maybe it could just be a feat? Or even a function of the disguise skill?

Skill Unlocks, anyone?

This seems like exactly the kind of thing the skill unlock system was designed to do.


DM_Blake wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Why isn't the whole social identity thing just an add on option? Why not have a Slayer, Wizard, Rogue, Inquisitor, or frankly, every class, archetype that adds the social identity?

That's probably not the answer. Archetypes trade class features. If you traded some Slayer abilities for a social identity, you would have a weak Slayer with a social identity.

Actually, *Totem Rager Archetype for the Barbarian doesn't trade anything to access totems (any Barb who has a totem has that archetype)).

* Originally, it let you have more than one totem, but they FAQed that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And because all barbarians have access to totems, Totem Rager doesn't actually do anything.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

I really have to agree - I don't really get what the vigilante class as written does that multi-classing or archetypes, feats, etc can do for many existing characters.

While we might be stuck with the class existing, theoretically (though I doubt it will happen) they could scrap what they have and start again.

I still would like the class to instead be something that effectively let you switch between two normal classes, with some sort of limiting factor. If you wanted one of your two classes to be a social identity, you could pick a rogue, bard, investigator, etc. for one of them. But there's no reason you couldn't have a wizard or fighter be your "social" identity while some other class was what you used when righting social wrongs as an alias.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I'm going to assume that Ultimate Intrigue is about the same size as Ultimate Combat. Which means that Vigilante isn't enough to fill the whole book.

I'd have to guess that the rest of the book will be filled with ways to add Intrigue to your game. Where you need to make an argument to the Emperor's guards that they should allow you in for an audience, and 'I attack them' will be answered with 'they kill you'

If this sounds like your thing, if you enjoyed reading the Goblin Emperor, or the Amber series, maybe vigilante is a great class. If you can't imagine why anyone would trade combat power for social power, well, you're probably looking for a different style of game.

And it's not right or wrong, it's just different. I'm willing to at least give the rest of the book a look. Maybe that's needed to fully understand.


With fixes to the dual identity and maybe having to buy spell casting, and more original talents instead of copy/paste from existing classes, yes it could be is own class. Everyone has their favorite class and archetypes, but now that we've torn the class down, let's see if we can help fix up the vigilante instead of only tearing it down.

The Exchange

Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

...Where you need to make an argument to the Emperor's guards that they should allow you in for an audience, and 'I attack them' will be answered with 'they kill you'

If this sounds like your thing, if you enjoyed reading the Goblin Emperor, or the Amber series, maybe vigilante is a great class...

I don't see any comparison to Amber in that. In Amber you either already have the right to see the Emperor, or you're sneaking in to see the Emperor, or you and your 80,000 samurai are there to kill the Emperor's guards so you can be the Emperor.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I really love the idea of Dual Identity, but I think it would be much better as a feat or skill unlock.

Then any class could be a vigilante.

If they want to have a vigilante class, it should be able to do something new. Rich Berlew's Champion class fills a similar niche with a more "He man" or "Shazam" vibe, but the basic mechanics could easily fit the Vigilante idea and allow for a lot more class versatility.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

So, I'm going to assume that Ultimate Intrigue is about the same size as Ultimate Combat. Which means that Vigilante isn't enough to fill the whole book.

I'd have to guess that the rest of the book will be filled with ways to add Intrigue to your game. Where you need to make an argument to the Emperor's guards that they should allow you in for an audience, and 'I attack them' will be answered with 'they kill you'

If this sounds like your thing, if you enjoyed reading the Goblin Emperor, or the Amber series, maybe vigilante is a great class. If you can't imagine why anyone would trade combat power for social power, well, you're probably looking for a different style of game.

And it's not right or wrong, it's just different. I'm willing to at least give the rest of the book a look. Maybe that's needed to fully understand.

I don't really see how the dual identity thing really gives you much of anything in the way of social power. Vigilante seem weaker, socially, than even core classes like the Bard. Their only unique social ability is that they have a dual identity at all, which is almost duplicated already with disguise checks and certain spells.

I'm all for a book adding social/intrigue options. I think the weakest part of D&D 3rd (and up) has always been the skill system (before 3rd, they didn't really even have one and it somehow felt like it worked better), so, shoring that up could be cool if done well. But giving me a class like the Vigilante doesn't give me a ton of hope. They don't appear to interact in any special way with the "social combat" or whatever other subsystems they're introducing. They aren't really better at any social skills than existing classes (they're probably worse, in fact, than several, since they can't afford to waste point buy on Charisma).

All they have is the existence of a dual identity, and it's just not looking like enough to hang a whole class on (never mind four classes--and I think we can all see this is four classes that just share a single line of class features: the dual identity stuff). I'd much rather hang it on ALL of the classes, and have dual identity Fighters, Shamans, Sorcerers, Paladins, whatever.

I mean, can a character like that even fit in a normal adventuring party? It looks like the whole group would have to be vigilantes for it to work at all.


Add another +1 to this should be a feat that ANY character could take.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Vigilante is a stand-alone concept that could make very fun D&D games. The structure makes it so a complete 4 person party could all be vigilantes and have a medieval fantasy super hero game in pathfinder, which I think is Great.

I also agree with most people in here that it's not a very unique class, it's not very powerful, and it's not really up to snuff.

One of the main things that hybrid classes get in pathfinder is greater action economy than full BAB and full caster classes. Magus gets spell combat, bloodrager gets bloodrage spells, Warpriest gets fervor, Summoner has a powerful companion, as does Hunter. Bard can still fight while bardic music if singing, and alchemist... Could also use some work in this regard.

I agree with Pixie in one big point. Vigilante almost touches on a very cool niche, the master spy shadow dancer, but it doesn't quite do it very well, because of how heavily the class is invested into the hero/alt ego concept.

Too many ideas shoved into one box.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, some of the talents are in really DUMB spots..

for instance:

WHY THE HELL DOES THE WARLOCK GET THE SHADOW DANCER'S SHADOW JUMP???? OR SHADOW FORM??? Honestly those two ability should have been the Stalker's, not the Warlock's...


PIXIE DUST wrote:

Actually wizards are fairly decent at stealth... in fact they can be better than pretty much everyone...

Tier 1 =! argument to remove classes, because they are automatically better than anyone at everything, based on that no classes should exist aside from tier 1's.

Quote:

One of my Stealthiest Characters was actually a Fetchling Sorcerer. For arcane casters, their second highest stat tends to be Dexterity, and as SAD classes, they can afford to pump out a higher dexterity. Add in on top of that the fact that Arcane Full Casters tend to NOT wear armor, they can actually utilize their full DEX and have no ACP to stealth.

Further more, they have familiars to give a +4 bonus to stealth AND they have spells. Beyond just the basic Invisibility and illusions, they have the darkness spell to create more places to hide. Also, depending on your GM, you can actually counter out Darkvision with light spells by forcing them into normal vision over darkvision in a focused area so you can grant concealment with ease.

My guy has illusions, darkness (probably should get deeper darkness now that I think about it), persistant images, greater invisibility, and the ability to turn into an incorporeal shadow that always has concealment even against people that can see through darkness.

Quote:
Also, really? Fear Effects? Your comparing the lousy ability the warlock gets to a full caster arcane spell list? That ability will never top Illusionists on fear effects.

I thought most fear effects were necromancy, either way, warlocks get fear spells as well.

Quote:
As for combat damage, turns out summon monster is a pretty good spell... and besides, the weakest caster is a blaster...

Even just using a conductive ominous weapon two weapon fighting with mystic bolt has been pretty decent damage wise, and if an brute enemy can do more damage I'll just charm monster them.

Quote:
Funny thing about the Vigilante, as counter-intuitive it may first seem, the Wizard and the Sage Sorcerer will crush them in skill points... Turns out having INT as a casting stat is pretty useful for skills...

Warlock has Int for casting as well.

Quote:
As for a face, Again spell casters dominate this. This class can't match the abilities of Face built Sorcerers (your CHA bonus is HOW MUCH?...)

My Cha is merely 16, but who needs Cha above that when I have geas/charm monster/triggered suggestion/memory lapse.

Note: I'm not saying it's a good class or a strong one. But a warlock vigilante isn't horrible... it still is a (and the Only) "decent" specialization. Simply because of how powerful the sorcerer and wizard spell list is, and the mystic bolt can be decent with conductive weapons without the BAB being super low (the class still needs a attack roll booster though).


its only ok because it gets the best things in the game, which are SPELLS.

If you have spells you are strong, that's it


CWheezy wrote:

its only ok because it gets the best things in the game, which are SPELLS.

If you have spells you are strong, that's it

Yep.


I agree it shouldn't be a whole class, but I'd make it a feat chain to get all the abilities of the dual identity in the class (Dual Identity, Improved Dual Identity, Greater Dual Identity, the last of which might include some abilities not even in the class)-- but I agree it's not worthy of an entire class, though I really do like the dual identity concept.

As to suggesting ways to build the Dual Identity ability up to make it worthy of an entire class, I'd suggest adding in most of the features the Master Spy PrC gets. Those plus what's already there could make it worthy of a class.

Note that I really hope Dual Identity can be incorporated into the game one way or another, though-- but if it's not just made a feat chain (which would be ideal) the Vigilante class needs more features added to the Dual Identity to be worth playing.


Milo v3, all your arguments are in favor of a 20 lvl Arcane trickster class, which everyone wants and is the only niche that the Vigilante class has, not a masked man class. If the basis of this class was '20 level Arcane Trickster' no one would be complaining about the classes uniqueness because its something people have been begging for forever and is a mechanical niche that has existed in the game but is harder to do at 1st level.

But none of this justifies having an entire class be about a separate identity. Hence my thread about Origins.


Malwing wrote:

Milo v3, all your arguments are in favor of a 20 lvl Arcane trickster class, which everyone wants and is the only niche that the Vigilante class has, not a masked man class. If the basis of this class was '20 level Arcane Trickster' no one would be complaining about the classes uniqueness because its something people have been begging for forever and is a mechanical niche that has existed in the game but is harder to do at 1st level.

But none of this justifies having an entire class be about a separate identity. Hence my thread about Origins.

My character has a separate identity, because it makes being a magical thief much much easier. The class having mechanics for separate identities makes down that much much easier. Adding origins just forces a specific flavour down peoples throats.

I don't really care if a non-existant class can cover what I'm using this class for, if there was an arcane trickster base class I'd probably play the hell out of it, but right now I have this, and this functions in that role better than the other options, even if it isn't really a good option. But reducing potential character concepts from the playtest version just sounds stupid as all hell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Malwing wrote:

Milo v3, all your arguments are in favor of a 20 lvl Arcane trickster class, which everyone wants and is the only niche that the Vigilante class has, not a masked man class. If the basis of this class was '20 level Arcane Trickster' no one would be complaining about the classes uniqueness because its something people have been begging for forever and is a mechanical niche that has existed in the game but is harder to do at 1st level.

But none of this justifies having an entire class be about a separate identity. Hence my thread about Origins.

My character has a separate identity, because it makes being a magical thief much much easier. The class having mechanics for separate identities makes down that much much easier. Adding origins just forces a specific flavour down peoples throats.

I don't really care if a non-existant class can cover what I'm using this class for. But reducing potential character concepts from the playtest version just sounds stupid as all hell.

That only backs up the argument that having a separate identity mechanic shouldn't be a class feature but something any class can take.


Malwing wrote:
That only backs up the argument that having a separate identity mechanic shouldn't be a class feature but something any class can take.

Then take the amateur vigilante feat that Jason has said the dev team likes the idea of.


Yeah, I'm totally sold on Warlock becoming a separate class (without dual identity) that's maybe a bit stronger, then adding dual identity as a "anyone can take this" thing.


Milo v3 wrote:
Malwing wrote:
That only backs up the argument that having a separate identity mechanic shouldn't be a class feature but something any class can take.
Then take the amateur vigilante feat that Jason has said the dev team likes the idea of.

Which makes the entire point of the vigilante worse and supports scrapping it and making a 20 lvl arcane trickster based on the Warlock Specialization.


Malwing wrote:
Which makes the entire point of the vigilante worse and supports scrapping it and making a 20 lvl arcane trickster based on the Warlock Specialization.

While I would prefer an arcane trickster class over vigilante (though my character would likely be very very very lacking in feats to get amateur vigilante [especially if it's a feat tree]), vigilante is happening. That's not going to change. It's currently at the stage in development where the name of the class cannot be changed. Complaining about it wont change that, this thread is pointless, so time would be better spent discussing how to improve the class (which I admit you have been doing in your origins thread even if I dislike your idea itself).

Personally, I think vigilante has more reason to exist than something like gunslinger. I mean... it's a class literally defined by, "I use these specific weapons".


Milo v3 wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Which makes the entire point of the vigilante worse and supports scrapping it and making a 20 lvl arcane trickster based on the Warlock Specialization.

While I would prefer an arcane trickster class over vigilante (though my character would likely be very very very lacking in feats to get amateur vigilante [especially if it's a feat tree]), vigilante is happening. That's not going to change. It's currently at the stage in development where the name of the class cannot be changed. Complaining about it wont change that, this thread is pointless, so time would be better spent discussing how to improve the class (which I admit you have been doing in your origins thread even if I dislike your idea itself).

Personally, I think vigilante has more reason to exist than something like gunslinger. I mean... it's a class literally defined by, "I use these specific weapons".

I wouldn't say that this thread is pointless. It asks a question I in another thread. In terms of flavor and theme in said thread I gave my own answer to the question. The Vigilante is happening but that's more reason to focus the flavor and theme not dilute it.

Gunslinger would be the absolute worst about this if not for grit. With Grit the class is insinuated to not be someone who 'uses guns' but someone who 'dares to use guns' In the context of medieval stasis settings this is a man that has the courage and gumption to specialize in a form of combat that is literally powered by explosions. For me Gunslinger gets some credit for that at least, I've seen that assumption go far in the case of third party products. Rogue Genius Games made a book called Grit and Gunslingers that made the class resemble something more like the Swashbuckler, feeling more like a daredevil that gets power from moxy, grit, or guile. I've also seen Grit gains for specific risks, which slightly happens with Gunslinger but not to the extent I've seen in third party.

Which is what I would like see accomplished with the concept of origins in regards to vigilante. Gunslinger gets a mechanic that makes him more than a gun without being a dull shadow of another class. (even though it was proven that it could have doubled as a Swashbuckler in third party but that ship already sailed) and its a mechanic that relates to the concept of a gun and the tropes and emotions it evokes.

As far as options that I think fixes this problem;

I already had an entire thread about Origin story mechanics.

In that thread I mentioned a possible central mechanic called 'Nemesis' where you could make use a Challenge or Favored Enemy type bonus against specific kinds of enemies you designate as a 'nemesis' which takes the term vigilante a bit more literally, Think 'Death Wish'.

If you could switch between Social, Warlock, Stalker, Avenger and Zealot, and gained a talent each level that you sort out between the five identities, that would be amazing. Identity stops being purely a superhero setup, as it leans towards right now, and its a becomes a class about the fluidity of identity in general. You could have two, or up to five identities that you switch between. Make the change a full round action and it becomes a cool utility class that explores the concept of how strong a personality is. Dual Identity can be farmed out as a feat for those who need the mask and only the mask.

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Would it really be so BAD to make these 4 different classes and then give anyone the ability to have a social identity? We already have a plethora of classes and I understand they have other things to fit in this book but they're essentially already having to explain 4 new classes with each archetypal choice.


We used to get this flavor by letting people have a single free level of aristocrat at the start of the game.


Oly wrote:
I agree it shouldn't be a whole class, but I'd make it a feat chain to get all the abilities of the dual identity in the class (Dual Identity, Improved Dual Identity...

Just say no to Feat Chains.

It either needs to be a scaleable feat, or just be a Skill Unlock for Disguise.

I guess that's redundant considering that Skill Unlocks are all scaleable feats.


I think there are a lot of neat ideas with this class that need some tweaks. That said however I'm not sure how needed this class is.

On a positive note is seems like there are a lot of fun builds despite them being under powered.

As for the dual identity it just seems very cumbersome and kinda pointless. Give them a quick costume change and get ride of the rest. No one wants to wait 5 min before they can participate in combat without revealing their identity.

Also...what happens if your identity is revealed? Could be a cool rping situation. Mechanically I guess you should lose some abilities and gain others?

Plus, what if you want to use the mechanics of the class but not play them as a dual identity character?

Not to mention how much the dual identity causes problems for the DM and players in anything larger than a solo party.

Anyways, hats off to Paizo for trying something new but I'd like to think that this class gets certain mechanics significantly changed.


If the Vigilante ever makes it to my table, which is pretty farfetched knowing my group the way I do (they're locked into the characters they have and are determined to ride them out to 20th level) I'm going to ditch dual identity totally and probably replace renown with the reputation mechanic. No matter how many times I read the Vigilante playtest manuscript, I just. can't. like. Dual Identity.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Oly wrote:
I agree it shouldn't be a whole class, but I'd make it a feat chain to get all the abilities of the dual identity in the class (Dual Identity, Improved Dual Identity...

Just say no to Feat Chains.

It either needs to be a scaleable feat, or just be a Skill Unlock for Disguise.

I guess that's redundant considering that Skill Unlocks are all scaleable feats.

I think, if all aspects of dual identity were to be incorporated into feats, it would have to be a chain because, while it's not an ability worthy of a whole class, giving all its benefits in one feat would make that feat OP.

I don't like "feat taxes," as if Dual Identity were one feat but required the Deceitful feat as a prerequisite. But the full version of Dual Identity, with all the features of it in the class, would IMO be OP to get (even scaled) in one feat.

If they do an "Amateur Vigilante" feat, I'm certain Dual Identity will be much more limited than in Vigilante.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oly wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Oly wrote:
I agree it shouldn't be a whole class, but I'd make it a feat chain to get all the abilities of the dual identity in the class (Dual Identity, Improved Dual Identity...

Just say no to Feat Chains.

It either needs to be a scaleable feat, or just be a Skill Unlock for Disguise.

I guess that's redundant considering that Skill Unlocks are all scaleable feats.

I think, if all aspects of dual identity were to be incorporated into feats, it would have to be a chain because, while it's not an ability worthy of a whole class, giving all its benefits in one feat would make that feat OP.

I don't like "feat taxes," as if Dual Identity were one feat but required the Deceitful feat as a prerequisite. But the full version of Dual Identity, with all the features of it in the class, would IMO be OP to get (even scaled) in one feat.

If they do an "Amateur Vigilante" feat, I'm certain Dual Identity will be much more limited than in Vigilante.

Why is it better than a single feat? What does it really give you? Honestly, I don't even think it's strong enough to be worth a whole feat. It barely does anything, so, it'd be far more like a feat tax than anything else. I'd almost rather it just be a function of high Disguise checks, or a trait that scales as you level. Or just an alternate Disguise unlock. Or a toggle the GM flips for a campaign, so all PCs get the ability or don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

So, I'm going to assume that Ultimate Intrigue is about the same size as Ultimate Combat. Which means that Vigilante isn't enough to fill the whole book.

I'd have to guess that the rest of the book will be filled with ways to add Intrigue to your game. Where you need to make an argument to the Emperor's guards that they should allow you in for an audience, and 'I attack them' will be answered with 'they kill you'

If this sounds like your thing, if you enjoyed reading the Goblin Emperor, or the Amber series, maybe vigilante is a great class. If you can't imagine why anyone would trade combat power for social power, well, you're probably looking for a different style of game.

And it's not right or wrong, it's just different. I'm willing to at least give the rest of the book a look. Maybe that's needed to fully understand.

I already have that in the campaigns I play in, incorporated into skills, spells, and roleplaying. That seems the intrinsic problem with this class, is that it is trying to codify roleplaying opportunities into class features, with a lot of the mechanics already covered by other things in the game.

If necessary, I support the dual identity being a feat. Or maybe an additional bonus for having disguise and bluff skill unlocks.


Oly wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Oly wrote:
I agree it shouldn't be a whole class, but I'd make it a feat chain to get all the abilities of the dual identity in the class (Dual Identity, Improved Dual Identity...

Just say no to Feat Chains.

It either needs to be a scaleable feat, or just be a Skill Unlock for Disguise.

I guess that's redundant considering that Skill Unlocks are all scaleable feats.

I think, if all aspects of dual identity were to be incorporated into feats, it would have to be a chain because, while it's not an ability worthy of a whole class, giving all its benefits in one feat would make that feat OP.

I don't like "feat taxes," as if Dual Identity were one feat but required the Deceitful feat as a prerequisite. But the full version of Dual Identity, with all the features of it in the class, would IMO be OP to get (even scaled) in one feat.

If they do an "Amateur Vigilante" feat, I'm certain Dual Identity will be much more limited than in Vigilante.

You keep saying dual identity is overpowered as a single feat.

Why is that?


Snowblind wrote:
Oly wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Oly wrote:
I agree it shouldn't be a whole class, but I'd make it a feat chain to get all the abilities of the dual identity in the class (Dual Identity, Improved Dual Identity...

Just say no to Feat Chains.

It either needs to be a scaleable feat, or just be a Skill Unlock for Disguise.

I guess that's redundant considering that Skill Unlocks are all scaleable feats.

I think, if all aspects of dual identity were to be incorporated into feats, it would have to be a chain because, while it's not an ability worthy of a whole class, giving all its benefits in one feat would make that feat OP.

I don't like "feat taxes," as if Dual Identity were one feat but required the Deceitful feat as a prerequisite. But the full version of Dual Identity, with all the features of it in the class, would IMO be OP to get (even scaled) in one feat.

If they do an "Amateur Vigilante" feat, I'm certain Dual Identity will be much more limited than in Vigilante.

You keep saying dual identity is overpowered as a single feat.

Why is that?

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? I say it would be.

In some ways, Dual Identity is inferior, in that you can only change to one identity and the time to change is longer than Alter Self's casting time. But on the other hand, the Disguise bonus is +20 rather than +10, you're immune to scrying, you can (slightly) fool alignment discernment, and because it isn't magical anti-magic fields or True Seeing don't penetrate it.

With a campaign involving intrigue, which is what the book is about, being able to be two seemingly-different people is quite potent. It isn't potent enough to be the point of a whole class, but it's more potent than any feat that isn't often banned.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lets ask the inverse though, would anyone, except in a specific campaign type that calls for the dual role, take a feat to get a slightly improved disguise self spell, that also sometimes protects against scrying, that takes 50 rounds to cast?

Which is a point to consider. It does not make you immune to scrying, it makes it so you don't show up as the other identity to be scryed. But someone hunting the vigilante form, can scry them any time they are in that form.

And for a team game, it does not work well either. It has no synergy. Anyone looking for anyone else in the party will find the party, and the vigilante no matter what identity the vigilante is in.

For a feat, though, it is great. In that sort of focused campaign, everyone spends their first level feat on it. And Voila, we have a Power Rangers team, or Batman and Robin, any number of the Sailor Scouts. As a feat, this ability works, as the focus of a class it does not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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. A skill that's mostly ignored anyway--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.

Oly wrote:
With a campaign involving intrigue, which is what the book is about, being able to be two seemingly-different people is quite potent. It isn't potent enough to be the point of a whole class, but it's more potent than any feat that isn't often banned.

I don't think so. It is entirely designed to make it possible at all to have two identities. It is a useless ability unless you want to have two identities, and if you want two, you just about need it (or a whole bunch of spells), but there's nothing actually super useful or beneficial about having two identities--it's a totally fluff desire. Why charge more than one feat for something that's pretty much non-mechanical anyway? I would never take this feat unless I specifically wanted to be a dual-identity masked vigilante type, but even if I did want that, I'd just be frustrated at the feat tax I had to pay for such a thing to be viable.

Grand Lodge

I still say make it an add on system for intrigue style games and be done with it.

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


Godwyn wrote:


For a feat, though, it is great. In that sort of focused campaign, everyone spends their first level feat on it. And Voila, we have a Power Rangers team, or Batman and Robin, any number of the Sailor Scouts. As a feat, this ability works, as the focus of a class it does not.

If "everyone spends their first level feat on it," even if only in specific types of campaigns, it's OP. A non-OP feat always has people thinking, "Should I take this feat, or is it better to take this other feat?"

I agree on the other hand that it's definitely too weak to be the focus of a class.

The way it becomes "Should I take it or not?" is if you need to take a chain of feats to get all the benefits.

It's true that no one would take Secret Identity, even as a single feat, in a hack and slash campaign with no intrigue. But in certain kinds of campaigns giving all the benefits in one feat is way OP.


Oly wrote:
But in certain kinds of campaigns giving all the benefits in one feat is way OP.

Only because the game is absolutely not set up to play those games whatsoever. It's the only feat that's really designed for those kinds of games. Nothing else really applies. I guess Skill Focus?

If Ultimate Intrigue is super awesome and totally revolutionizes Pathfinder, I'll regret these words, but if you're in a game where this Secret Identity is overpowered as a feat, you're honestly better off playing one of hundreds of RPGs better suited to that kind of a game than Pathfinder is.


Oly: Saying it's OP is like saying teamwork feats are OP. They can work well if everyone has them but when you're the only one with it, it's dead weight. Same with Social ID as a feat.

Your bonus to disguise?: If someone is after the group and either ID is in the group, you're likely to get lumped in.
No scry: Someone other than you gets found, then see the above.
fool alignment discernment: utterly useless as it's only 1 step. I could have murdered/saved my quota of farmers today and had my alignment change 1 step. If it was a dramatic change, it might be worth something.
5 MIN ACTIVATION: this turns some super niche but interesting abilities into dead weight.

The only way to minimize the issues is everyone take it and it goes from suck to meh... Nothing seems even close to OP.


Oly wrote:
Godwyn wrote:


For a feat, though, it is great. In that sort of focused campaign, everyone spends their first level feat on it. And Voila, we have a Power Rangers team, or Batman and Robin, any number of the Sailor Scouts. As a feat, this ability works, as the focus of a class it does not.

If "everyone spends their first level feat on it," even if only in specific types of campaigns, it's OP. A non-OP feat always has people thinking, "Should I take this feat, or is it better to take this other feat?"

I agree on the other hand that it's definitely too weak to be the focus of a class.

The way it becomes "Should I take it or not?" is if you need to take a chain of feats to get all the benefits.

It's true that no one would take Secret Identity, even as a single feat, in a hack and slash campaign with no intrigue. But in certain kinds of campaigns giving all the benefits in one feat is way OP.

It isn't OP, it's a theme. You could make a party from a troupe of flying trapeze artists that all take skill focus: acrobatics, but that doesn't make skill focus: acrobatics an OP feat either.


So blending in is never useful? I guess I'm the only one who's ever played in games where the Disguise skill gets used?

Because if the Disguise skill is ever useful, a single feat with all of Dual Identity in it is so far superior to Skill Focus: Disguise (granted, I doubt SF: D is taken much at all; I've never seen it taken) that's it's way OP. It's not just +20 rather than +3/+6 to Disguises, but beating Scrying is also really important.

I would, in a feat chain, have Greater Dual Identity be able to detect as whatever alignment one wants when in false identity form. It was a real mistake when Paizo is trying to make a whole frigging class out of it to limit alignment falsification to one step. Still, it's more than the Disguise skill or Alter Self can give you.

No one seems to be thinking about a character whose dual identity is only used to gather info as a "normal person" and then he adventures as his adventurer-self (defeating nobles whose info he has learned using his "normal person" pretense), so his "normal person" identity will never come up in a scry when he's with the party.


Oly wrote:
Godwyn wrote:


For a feat, though, it is great. In that sort of focused campaign, everyone spends their first level feat on it. And Voila, we have a Power Rangers team, or Batman and Robin, any number of the Sailor Scouts. As a feat, this ability works, as the focus of a class it does not.

If "everyone spends their first level feat on it," even if only in specific types of campaigns, it's OP. A non-OP feat always has people thinking, "Should I take this feat, or is it better to take this other feat?"

I agree on the other hand that it's definitely too weak to be the focus of a class.

The way it becomes "Should I take it or not?" is if you need to take a chain of feats to get all the benefits.

It's true that no one would take Secret Identity, even as a single feat, in a hack and slash campaign with no intrigue. But in certain kinds of campaigns giving all the benefits in one feat is way OP.

BigDTBone already answered perhaps better than I could have, but I will attempt to also.

Being the best tool for a specific job does not make it OP, that is kind of supposed to be the point of taking a feat, because it is the best option to do that specific thing. Most builds can spare a feat for something with enough thematic flavor like this. But 2 or even 3? Many builds will barely be functioning at that point, and to gain almost nothing whenever they are actually with a group, unless the entire group takes the same feats. At that point, why not just make it easy on the group.

+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.

1 to 50 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.