On Vigilantes and Intangibles


Ultimate Intrigue Playtest General Discussion

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been looking at the vigilante and I think I realized the origin of some of the problems that we've seen, but also a bit of the problem with the view. The thing is that the vigilante doesn't just have to be be balanced against other classes (to make sure that the vigilante isn't ridiculously over or under powered) but it also has to be compared to itself.

I am wondering if the problems from the warlock and zealot that we're seeing is from them trying to balance caster versions versus non caster versions. The thing is that so far it looks like the warlock and zealot are looking less interesting and maybe even less effective than say the stalker version. The Avenger version has its own issues but that mostly has to do with the fact that in some ways it's actually playing against type.

What I would suggest is that it might be a good idea for the designers to focus on class intangibles. Stuff that a class can do but that isn't a clear power comparison. IE things like the warlocks mystic bolts versus a different class ability. The thing is right now part of the problem with the vigilante is that the options feel limited, and worse they feel BORING. Most of the other classes feel dynamic when I am building and designing and instead we're seeing something kinda iffy with the vigilante.

The vigilante needs to feel less cookie cutter and more dynamic, it also needs to be able to do its job at least as well as another class trying to copy it. Remember, there is a masked hero version of the swashbuckler for example, and I'd be pretty sure that it will probably fight better than the avenger vigilante and might even be able to do the secret identity stuff better too. What we need for the class is more than raw power, we need options. I had mentioned the idea of something like the shadow companion from a 3.5 book that couldn't fight, couldn't flank, but gave all enemies around it a penalty to hit, saves and AC. Something like that could be really cool for the warlock as an option, or something that lets them use wands and staves better.

I also figure that people here have ideas for different versions of the vigilante that would be interesting and fun. What I guess I'm wondering is what you guys think on this and, if my idea on what part of the core problem is ways we might be able to fix or adjust it.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

In my view, the issue with the Warlock and Zealot is the element of false choice. Right now, you have the "choice" to select spell levels or not to, but there is no incentive whatsoever to not to maximize your spellcasting. If there is going to be some actual choice, there needs to be talents that are worth (or at least make you consider) giving up or delaying spellcasting for them. On the other hand, you can't put strong talents out there to just cherry pick, or you create balance issues, so what is needed for both specialties is chains of talents that require commitment and investment to maximize. (Arcane/Divine casting is are chain talents requiring commitment, although it's an easy commitment when compared to the alternatives.)

If some decent talent chains are set up with some payoff at the higher ends, then you might see some warlocks and zealots who decide being a 4th level caster instead of 6th might be a fun way to build, or even some who give up the advanced casting altogether because they want to invest in a couple deep chains instead of just one.

The results I want are warlocks and zealots where they won't all use the exact same build (or just a slight variation).


Right now as I see it there are 3 different builds you can go with the warlock for your primary combat style: spellcasting, mystic bolts, or bombs

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Bombs are terrible though. Build an alchemist, or even a rogue if you want to go that route. So currently you have 2 routes that make any sense.


Thrawn007 wrote:
Bombs are terrible though. Build an alchemist, or even a rogue if you want to go that route. So currently you have 2 routes that make any sense.

Agreed. With no int to damage and bomb talents limited to * ones you'd be hard pressed to make a second rate bomb focused character. At best it's something to do until mystic bolts can be taken or to hit swarms with.


The reality is if you go Warlock you're doing it for Mystic Bolts. It's the only reason the class even exists right now. No one is going to opt into a terrible spells tax for any other reason. If I cared that much about dual identity id play a Magus 11/Vigilante 1.

And let's be clear too, I'd never do that because dual identity will never be worth it for me as a PC.


I think bombs are better if your going conductive longe range weapon to suppliment casting. But thats just because I'd rather have a mini aoe on my arrow/bolt than a mystic bolt rider. It's a nice lil oomph if you want a long long ranged fellow

So for a pure caster (6th level pure casters don't work (but I may build pure casting badly) and more so here with less spells per day) need a litle side note, it's not a bad thing. can use Touch bombs or conductive shot. I forget if explosive missle weapon is valid. but its not like you have the talent space for that as well anyway. Not unless taking bombs lets you take the "extra alchemist discovery" feat which I don't believe it does.

Granted at that point, its not really a pure caster I guess.


Tuyena wrote:
The reality is if you go Warlock you're doing it for Mystic Bolts.

We must live in different realities then, because I can play this class, not take mystic bolts, and be effective in combat.

Tuyena wrote:
It's the only reason the class even exists right now.

actually, the specialization (I assume that you mean that, as opposed to the entire class) exists because the created presumably felt that there was a need for a class that allowed a player to have concrete rules for playing someone like Zorro. With the specializations, this class can actually represent a rather wide variety of play styles.

Tuyena wrote:
No one is going to opt into a terrible spells tax for any other reason.

It's good that you can both see the future and speak for all players ever. Although it does raise the question of why we even have forums, except for you to tell us what we will do. [/sarcasm]


Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
Tuyena wrote:
The reality is if you go Warlock you're doing it for Mystic Bolts.

We must live in different realities then, because I can play this class, not take mystic bolts, and be effective in combat.

Tuyena wrote:
It's the only reason the class even exists right now.

actually, the specialization (I assume that you mean that, as opposed to the entire class) exists because the created presumably felt that there was a need for a class that allowed a player to have concrete rules for playing someone like Zorro. With the specializations, this class can actually represent a rather wide variety of play styles.

Tuyena wrote:
No one is going to opt into a terrible spells tax for any other reason.

It's good that you can both see the future and speak for all players ever. Although it does raise the question of why we even have forums, except for you to tell us what we will do. [/sarcasm]

If I saw a player who wanted to join my game. As a Warlock, right now. Without Mystic Bolts. I'd advise them to put ranks into Disguise and kindly direct them to this page, you may be unfamiliar with it.

Silver Crusade

I think you mean the Archeologist Bard Page. Either or.


Tuyena wrote:
If I saw a player who wanted to join my game. As a Warlock, right now. Without Mystic Bolts. I'd advise them to put ranks into Disguise and kindly direct them to this page, you may be unfamiliar with it.

Oh, I know about the magus. I retired one in pathfinder at level 13, because it was boring as hell to play.

Also, can you point me to the magus archetype that uses bombs? I'm pretty sure I missed that one.


Or wait a little bit for the kineticist. No reason to play a class that's between expert and a PC class when there are viable alternatives

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
Also, can you point me to the magus archetype that uses bombs? I'm pretty sure I missed that one.

If you want bombs, there are plenty of classes that do that better than a warlock. In fact it's pretty much at the bottom.

I'd also be curious to see what you find much more interesting in the warlock over a magus. I'm not seeing it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I'd also be curious to see what you find much more interesting in the warlock over a magus. I'm not seeing it.

I like that there is a duality about the class. I like that this class, unlike any other class in the game, can fill the niche for me where I only want to have a little bit of spellcasting, as opposed to nine full levels of it. I like that I can play the same class multiple times, and have it play differently each time. I like that for most intents and purposes, you can play two characters in one class. Mostly, I like that it offers you protection from divination magic, one of the most powerful schools, especially when combined with the amounts of money that such characters tend to have.

I like that the social persona is not an expert, but could take up the role of the fighter, while changing to the role of the caster/skirmisher/healer as the group needs. I like that it's a versatile class, instead of a class that sits on one set of rails.

All of the above said, I think there are things that could be made better in the class, but are not getting as much attention because people can't get over the fact that the class is not *insert other class here*, and so that makes it horribad.

I like that this class is not a bard, which while frankly is the class in most need of toning down in the game and is the least likely to get it; and I like that it's not a wizard, who after 9th level only has like 6 classes that can directly compete with it. I like that it's not a rogue, with all the baggage that comes along with it. I like that it's not a cleric tied down to a specific god, but that it makes pacts with other powers to get it's spellcasting.

In short, I like it's differences.

Sorry, didn't mean to jump up on the soapbox.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to say, you see thing WAY differently than I. I see an interesting idea that falls down in the execution. I don't think it's social persona is enough to make up for it not filling the rolls of fighter/caster/skirmisher/healer as well as any of the non-npc classes. It's not that it's not "*insert other class here*" but "*insert other class here*" + vigilante 1-4 can do a vigilante better than the straight vigilante.

Bomb? Vigilante 2 + alchemist better than vigilante.
Mystic bolts? vigilante 4 plus fighter beats them out.
Casting? Pick a *insert other caster class here* plus warlock/zealot 1
That's what makes it "horribad". it's a better dip than it is a full class. The differences are nice but the combined whole has to stand up on it's own compared to other classes and right not it doesn't.

And feel free to use the soapbox. plenty of people use it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
graystone wrote:
I'd also be curious to see what you find much more interesting in the warlock over a magus. I'm not seeing it.

I like that there is a duality about the class. I like that this class, unlike any other class in the game, can fill the niche for me where I only want to have a little bit of spellcasting, as opposed to nine full levels of it. I like that I can play the same class multiple times, and have it play differently each time. I like that for most intents and purposes, you can play two characters in one class. Mostly, I like that it offers you protection from divination magic, one of the most powerful schools, especially when combined with the amounts of money that such characters tend to have.

I like that the social persona is not an expert, but could take up the role of the fighter, while changing to the role of the caster/skirmisher/healer as the group needs. I like that it's a versatile class, instead of a class that sits on one set of rails.

All of the above said, I think there are things that could be made better in the class, but are not getting as much attention because people can't get over the fact that the class is not *insert other class here*, and so that makes it horribad.

I like that this class is not a bard, which while frankly is the class in most need of toning down in the game and is the least likely to get it; and I like that it's not a wizard, who after 9th level only has like 6 classes that can directly compete with it. I like that it's not a rogue, with all the baggage that comes along with it. I like that it's not a cleric tied down to a specific god, but that it makes pacts with other powers to get it's spellcasting.

In short, I like it's differences.

Sorry, didn't mean to jump up on the soapbox.

1) Disguise skill. That is literally what jsut about every DM did before this. This class actually HURTS classes because it codifies something behind a class ability that before was handled by Disguise (look at the master Spy after all)

2) Bloodrager, Magus, Bard, Summoner all cry at your presumption at classes that are lower magic that full casters

3) It does NOT offer protection from divination. It just makes it so that your Social and Vigi personas literally ping as two completely different people. If you want true protection from Divination, only the Master Spy really offers that.

4) You are not "changing up your role".. Once you have a specialization you stick with it.

5) Just about every problem with this class has been mentioned. and is getting a lot of attention. The reason WHY people are saying "Its not like X class" is because X class is almost strictly better all around.

6) Why does the Bard need to get toned down? It is one of the best made classes in the game. The only other classes that match it are the Alchemist and the Inquisitor when it comes to being solidly built. Just because the rogue (pre unchain) was horrid means nothing about the bard. And if you don't like the diety thing with clerics you can always worship and ideal (it says so in the description) of there is the Oracle OR the Shaman... or inquisitor... or war priest...

There is not much "seperating" this class... The Stalker is finally getting somewhere sure, but its essentially a Rogue+Master Spy (lite)+ Full sneak attack. The Avenger still has problems trying to distinguish itself from classes like Slayer (who is also a D10, full BAB, 6+int skills class focused on stealth and skills..) who is pretty much just all around better. The Zealot has improved but still suffers from being very tied down due to its spellcasting. And the warlock got hammered with the inability to bypass resistances effectively and being one of the most cookie cutter classes in the game.


PIXIE DUST wrote:


1) Disguise skill. That is literally what jsut about every DM did before this. This class actually HURTS classes because it codifies something behind a class ability that before was handled by Disguise (look at the master Spy after all)

How does having actual concrete rules for secret identities hurt classes? I don't know if you ever played any edition of dnd before 3.0, but table variation was a MF, especially if you played with several different groups. Some groups would only let rogues be sneaky or try to hide themselves, others said that anyone could try, and still others said that the rogue had to made the skill check for you. Even when chatting with other gamers at local game shops, you could hear the stories about bad gms who (in retrospect) weren't bad per se, but had table variation or weren't "easy" gms.

PIXIE DUST wrote:


2) Bloodrager, Magus, Bard, Summoner all cry at your presumption at classes that are lower magic that full casters

and yet show me one at the same level who can stand up to a 10th level wizard in single combat, assuming that they are equal level. how about a 15th level wizard?

PIXIE DUST wrote:


3) It does NOT offer protection from divination. It just makes it so that your Social and Vigi personas literally ping as two completely different people. If you want true protection from Divination, only the Master Spy really offers that.

Sure it does. pinging as two different people IS protection against divination. That is to say nothing of having two different alignments. You just have to be careful how you go about your business. For starters, your social persona should probably not interact in a meaningful way with your group.

PIXIE DUST wrote:


4) You are not "changing up your role".. Once you have a specialization you stick with it.

So a zealot who has max levels of casting can't have his social persona, who is bob the mercenary, act as the fighter of the group?

PIXIE DUST wrote:


5) Just about every problem with this class has been mentioned. and is getting a lot of attention. The reason WHY people are saying "Its not like X class" is because X class is almost strictly better all around.

Actually, that assertion is entirely subjective, not objective. Setting that aside for the moment, however, go and look at all of the complaints of the class, then take away all of them that are "this class is not X class" and what does that leave you with? almost no complaints.

PIXIE DUST wrote:


6) Why does the Bard need to get toned down? It is one of the best made classes in the game. The only other classes that match it are the Alchemist and the Inquisitor when it comes to being solidly built. Just because the rogue (pre unchain) was horrid means nothing about the bard. And if you don't like the diety thing with clerics you can always worship and ideal (it says so in the description) of there is the Oracle OR the Shaman... or inquisitor... or war priest...

Bards can break games. Moreso than just about any other class. Most people don't see it because the bard has traditionally been the "Girlfriend" class (i.e. it's the class that people always seem to make for the girlfriend of one of the players who wants to join the game). You're also assuming that in all games you can play a divine caster who doesn't have to have a deity. In PFS for example, the only classes from your list that DON'T have to worship a deity are the oracle and shaman.

PIXIE DUST wrote:


There is not much "seperating" this class... The Stalker is finally getting somewhere sure, but its essentially a Rogue+Master Spy (lite)+ Full sneak attack. The Avenger still has problems trying to distinguish itself from classes like Slayer (who is also a D10, full BAB, 6+int skills class focused on stealth and skills..) who is pretty much just all around better. The Zealot has improved but still suffers from being very tied down due to its spellcasting.

See my comments above about comparing to other classes.

PIXIE DUST wrote:


And the warlock got hammered with the inability to bypass resistances effectively and being one of the most cookie cutter classes in the game.

the barbarian, zen archer, magus, alchemist, and investigator would all like to have a word about you trying to bestow their title on one part of a class.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Disguise skill. That is literally what jsut about every DM did before this. This class actually HURTS classes because it codifies something behind a class ability that before was handled by Disguise (look at the master Spy after all)

Be aware, that the *main* purpose of Ultimate Intrigue is to give very concrete rules for what skills can and can't do. Multiple pages per skill worth of definition. So Disguise may come out the other side of the ruleset doing very different things than what it does right now by consensus.

Don't lay that at the feet of the Vigilante.


if not comparing the class... what should you compare it to?


M1k31 wrote:
if not comparing the class... what should you compare it to?

Nothing... Compare it to Nothing as this is its own class. It can stand on its own 2 feet against other classes. It doesnt need to be compared to other classes.

For example the Stalker gets Spring Attack as a class ability instead of a feat. the fact that it can run past someone, do an acrobatics check to pass someone and if successful make a free attack that includes its d4 sneak attack is something no other class can do, so you can double move every turn, make an acrobatics check to move through the 2 squares it would threaten to AoO you as you pass and you can still make an attack that includes sneak attack, this specialization is built as a hit and run and its only requirement is 4th level.

The Avenger can can effectively end a combat where none of the enemies notice he is there. If he manages to make all his stealth checks he can effectively paralyze everyone of them.

The warlock can either specialize in Bombs, Spell casting or Mystic bolts. making them a more versatile class than any other. By specializing in Bombs one can have 6th level casting that doesnt require you to spend a talent on infusion to buff other party member, while still having effective bombs, maybe not with as much damage as an Alchemist but can still be more versatile. Mystic Bolts can be used in a full attack, something no other class can do either with a supernatural ability, yes there is a problem with the resistance/immunity thing but still not a bad class ability.

And the Zealot is just a cool concept that actually relates more to the 3.5 Warlock than the warlock specialization.


Since Extra Discovery was written before this class it does not include rules for the Vigilante, but one can assume that a Vigilante could take it as a feat and it would only apply to Bomb Discoveries.

You are Specializing in what you choose, the summoner gets a wall of class abilities relating to his Eidolon or Summons, sounds 1 trick ponish to me and any person smart enough to play a Summoner is going to spend their spells and feats on only pumping their eidolon. where as the Warlock gets his class abilities to whatever he feels like.

The Summoner sounds more Cookie Cutter to me than the Alchemist. the Alchemist can at least use his discoveries to either change himself, his bombs, his potions, his mutagens/cognatogens or his poisons. But most people who play an Alchemist focus... sorry SPECIALIZE in one of those aspects. You want to be a bomb alchemist, your gonna have to pick discoveries that enhance your bombs, want to be an infusion giving Alchemist, better take Infusions, Enhance Potion, Extend Potion, Dilution, Combine Extracts, etc... Want to augment yourself, then better take arms, wings, tentacles, tumor familiar, deadly excretions, etc. Hmmmm seems like the Alchemist is more in line with the Warlock than you thought seeing as the Alchemist is also SPECIALIZING in its own gimmicks. but no ya its totally cookie cutter, since no one ever has tried to combine stuff like arms, fast bombs, infusions, and what have you in one build, no not at all....

And yes again we come back to SPECIALIZING..... the Warlock does have to waste 5 talents on spell casting to SPECIALIZE in spell casting... A Warlock could just as easily take Arcane Training II spending only 1 talent and focusing their talents on Other things. Like Bombs... or Mystic Bolts. if you chose a Warlock you chose it because one of these 3 things appealed to you, which means your going to SPECIALIZE in it, therefore this all comes back to SPECIALIZING....

What all you people seem to want is the ability to take every single ability this class gives you and use it all at the same time. but again im beating a dead horse here... they are called SPECIALIZATIONS for a reason.

and im the one thats dense....


Specialize means to choose one single thing you are good at and stick to improving only that. In the case of an Alchemist choosing Bombs to specialize in, or the Warlock choosing Mystic Bolts to Specialize in. The problem comes from the fact that the Avenger is supposed to specialize in Combat and the Stalker is supposed to Specialize in being stealthy and getting SA without the worry of magic, once you throw being able to cast magic into the mix people auto assume that they should get the progression for free "like X class does". but the reality is that it is still called a Specialization and thus if you want to Cast Spells you need to Specialize in casting spells and leave all other abilities alone.

To compare to real life, Doctors choose specializations for things such as Brain Surgery, and Orthopedics. Thats one thing they decided to become really good at.

I will admit I might not know what cookie cutter means to you or the community, but to me it has always meant a single defined shape, thus a Summoner is only good with his Eidolon or Summons, take those away and he becomes almost useless. You can shut a Summoner down pretty easily with Dismissal and Banishment forcing them to rely solely on their spells which they probably prepared to be used on their Eidolon only.

Liberty's Edge

Alric Rahl wrote:
Specialize means to choose one single thing you are good at and stick to improving only that. In the case of an Alchemist choosing Bombs to specialize in, or the Warlock choosing Mystic Bolts to Specialize in. The problem comes from the fact that the Avenger is supposed to specialize in Combat and the Stalker is supposed to Specialize in being stealthy and getting SA without the worry of magic, once you throw being able to cast magic into the mix people auto assume that they should get the progression for free "like X class does". but the reality is that it is still called a Specialization and thus if you want to Cast Spells you need to Specialize in casting spells and leave all other abilities alone.

To be honest if that the case with the warlock and zealot then the need to change the base ability to something else to give it the full effect... Just cause they are magical doesn't mean they have to be define by spells


Yes the Wizard is a casting specialist in that he is specifically written to SPECIALIZE in casting...

The Warlock is given the Choice to specialize in whatever it is he wants.

The Wizard cant Specialize in Mystic bolts because he has no choice to do so. He can Specialize in Bombs, but only by taking an Archetype, in which case again... he is written to specialize in bombs.

the Warlock. HAS. A. CHOICE. and thus it is still SPECIALIZING if he CHOOSES Spell Casting. its not a tax its a design feature the devs created. you can either Choose to Specialize in casting, Mystic bolts, or Bombs. but not all 3, or 2.

Thus bringing my point back to ITS. A. SPECIALIZATION.

Liberty's Edge

I'm agree with that it just having there base ability be first level spell it automatically making people think the need to specialize in casting as Pixie keep proving above.

spells automatically = magic I mean from what I leaned from pathfinder so far is magic also = bombs, demon, angels, you inner ability... Not just casting a spell.

What I believe is they should make something new that defines magic with the warlock/zealot and not just go to the default.


chad gilbreath wrote:
Alric Rahl wrote:
Specialize means to choose one single thing you are good at and stick to improving only that. In the case of an Alchemist choosing Bombs to specialize in, or the Warlock choosing Mystic Bolts to Specialize in. The problem comes from the fact that the Avenger is supposed to specialize in Combat and the Stalker is supposed to Specialize in being stealthy and getting SA without the worry of magic, once you throw being able to cast magic into the mix people auto assume that they should get the progression for free "like X class does". but the reality is that it is still called a Specialization and thus if you want to Cast Spells you need to Specialize in casting spells and leave all other abilities alone.
To be honest if that the case with the warlock and zealot then the need to change the base ability to something else to give it the full effect... Just cause they are magical doesn't mean they have to be define by spells

I agree with you they dont have to be defined by spells.

I would also agree that maybe the Arcane Training I could be an inane ability and be given a different base ability, thus meaning that they still get the 0 and 1st level spells but to progress they need to still pick the talents. However that then brings up the argument that if they do that to those 2 Specialization then the same thing should be done with the Avenger/Stalker. make their Base abilities inane and give them a different Base ability.

All they have done with the Specializations is give them the 1st level abilities of their similar counterparts but in a way thats confusing, yet supposed to define them.

If you mean that they should make Arcane/Divine Training I be a choice in the Vigilante talents and give them something different, I would agree with that too, maybe the Warlocks Base ability should be the Mystic Bolts with better talents to choose from for them. and if a Warlock wants spell casting then they must choose it. not sure what the Zealot should get instead but I like the way you think.


chad gilbreath wrote:

I'm agree with that it just having there base ability be first level spell it automatically making people think the need to specialize in casting as Pixie keep proving above.

What I believe is they should make something new that defines magic with the warlock/zealot and not just go to the default.

Yes exactly because spell casting is the Base ability people are auto assuming that it should be free. but it was just a way to define the Warlock/Zealot as being a casting specialization.


I really think that both the warlock and the zealot would benefit from having their casting be spell-like abilities instead of casting. It would remove the need for both concealed casting and caster's defense from the warlock, and make for something that hasn't been seen before: a class that gets to choose the spell-likes they get (as opposed to the current system of granting specific spell-likes).

Liberty's Edge

To be honest when I picture a warlock I see someone who throws fire and is kinda dark and scary looking.

And a Zealot in my eyes is someone who is devoted and religious crazed that they will destroy any nah water anyway possible.

With this in mind, yes I believe the the warlock base ability should probably be the mythic bolt with a damage increase every 2 lvl or increase dice size every 5 with damage bonus equal to Int mod or increase how many dice every 3/4 lvls

the zealot probably should have it ability be something more gear toward their belief (like an inquisition of the sort seeing how they want to give them the inquistor spell list anyways) instead of the divine powers


Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
I really think that both the warlock and the zealot would benefit from having their casting be spell-like abilities instead of casting. It would remove the need for both concealed casting and caster's defense from the warlock, and make for something that hasn't been seen before: a class that gets to choose the spell-likes they get (as opposed to the current system of granting specific spell-likes).

I like this idea. Though not sure how it would be written. Im a little fuzzy on how Spell like abilities are different from actual spells.

Hmm... upon actually reading spell like abilities I dont think this would work out the way you think. since you cant augment them with metamagic feats. people might find it lacking.


Alric Rahl wrote:
Hmm... upon actually reading spell like abilities I dont think this would work out the way you think. since you cant augment them with metamagic feats. people might find it lacking.

True, you can't augment them with metamagics, but you could augment them with the metamagic sla abilities from the beastiary. offering those as an option specific to the casting of your warlock/zealot abilities and you would have a character who does things differently than a traditional caster.


True and I like it. Would love to see it changed to that. with a scaling number of times per day you can use them. make it more of like you can cast any of your SLA's but you have specific set number for all of them. such as 3+Int per day. and if you run out of that number you cant cast anymore of them. so you could cast Magic Missile 5 times per day with a 14 Int or cast 3 Magic Missiles and 2 Grease spells. And you gain an additional 2 time per day every 3 levels or something.

Liberty's Edge

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
Alric Rahl wrote:
Hmm... upon actually reading spell like abilities I dont think this would work out the way you think. since you cant augment them with metamagic feats. people might find it lacking.
True, you can't augment them with metamagics, but you could augment them with the metamagic sla abilities from the beastiary. offering those as an option specific to the casting of your warlock/zealot abilities and you would have a character who does things differently than a traditional caster.

I was hoping to give them something along the line of a SU ability instead and just have anything casting-base as talent so that way they really are specializing into what you really wanna do.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pH unbalanced wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Disguise skill. That is literally what jsut about every DM did before this. This class actually HURTS classes because it codifies something behind a class ability that before was handled by Disguise (look at the master Spy after all)

Be aware, that the *main* purpose of Ultimate Intrigue is to give very concrete rules for what skills can and can't do. Multiple pages per skill worth of definition. So Disguise may come out the other side of the ruleset doing very different things than what it does right now by consensus.

Don't lay that at the feet of the Vigilante.

Where is this "main purpose of UI" stated??? Seems I missed the memo.


Ravingdork wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Disguise skill. That is literally what jsut about every DM did before this. This class actually HURTS classes because it codifies something behind a class ability that before was handled by Disguise (look at the master Spy after all)

Be aware, that the *main* purpose of Ultimate Intrigue is to give very concrete rules for what skills can and can't do. Multiple pages per skill worth of definition. So Disguise may come out the other side of the ruleset doing very different things than what it does right now by consensus.

Don't lay that at the feet of the Vigilante.

Where is this "main purpose of UI" stated??? Seems I missed the memo.

I would also like to see it.

For that matter, I would like to see what the devs have said about what they are going to do with skills. I would expect that for it to make a huge difference, they would have to overhaul the entire system. Which isn't impossible - they have most of a book to do it in if they are so inclined. It just seems like something they would be sure to advertise very vocally about, since skills not being second fiddle to spells is something that a lot of people want enough to fork out for a book over.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Disguise skill. That is literally what jsut about every DM did before this. This class actually HURTS classes because it codifies something behind a class ability that before was handled by Disguise (look at the master Spy after all)

Be aware, that the *main* purpose of Ultimate Intrigue is to give very concrete rules for what skills can and can't do. Multiple pages per skill worth of definition. So Disguise may come out the other side of the ruleset doing very different things than what it does right now by consensus.

Don't lay that at the feet of the Vigilante.

Where is this "main purpose of UI" stated??? Seems I missed the memo.

One of the PaizoCon panels I listened to via Know Direction.

EDIT: Looking at the list, I *think* it was "the Future of Paizo"

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Intrigue Playtest / General Discussion / On Vigilantes and Intangibles All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.