Why do you dislike the playtest version of the Vigilante?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I was reading this thread and wondered why the overall opinion was negative. I feel like I am very critical of pathfinder material, but I adore the Vigilante. Since that particular thread is not for discussion, I wanted to ask people about it elsewhere.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

For me it's because a lot of the talents could simply be added to existing classes without necessitating an entirely new base. Avenger stuff could go to the Slayer and Stalker stuff could go to the rogue and you'd basically have the class, albeit without a persona. The persona could honestly just be an archetype for those.

What the Zealot does is kind of cool with the origins, but at the end of the day it's kind of competing with Inquisitor. Warlock, too, is competing with Arcanist in some ways. Both of these could also be archetypes for existing classes.

I guess it mostly comes down to the feel of the class and having it overall do something mechanically different. We have a TON of base classes at this point, and I'm not sure if what we saw in the playtest necessarily is different enough (unlike the new Occult classes) to warrant a Vigilante class, rather than a Vigilante archetype for Rogue, Slayer, Arcanist, and Inquisitor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The base mechanic of the class (dual identity) is flawed. It doesn't make much sense for most character designs and if I were to play a vigilante I would ignore the vigilante identity and always use all my abilities in social identity.

The class as a whole doesn't have enough abilities/talents to compare to existing classes. Other than the stalker which has some abilities that break normal action economy, the other 3 specializations are weaker versions of existing classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because we didn't get enough material to playtest and only the Stalker had relevant developer feedback.


Puna'chong wrote:

For me it's because a lot of the talents could simply be added to existing classes without necessitating an entirely new base. Avenger stuff could go to the Slayer and Stalker stuff could go to the rogue and you'd basically have the class, albeit without a persona. The persona could honestly just be an archetype for those.

What the Zealot does is kind of cool with the origins, but at the end of the day it's kind of competing with Inquisitor. Warlock, too, is competing with Arcanist in some ways. Both of these could also be archetypes for existing classes.

I guess it mostly comes down to the feel of the class and having it overall do something mechanically different. We have a TON of base classes at this point, and I'm not sure if what we saw in the playtest necessarily is different enough (unlike the new Occult classes) to warrant a Vigilante class, rather than a Vigilante archetype for Rogue, Slayer, Arcanist, and Inquisitor.

I do not mind if the class doesn't fill a niche. All that matters to me is if the class itself seems like a solid package. On that point vigilante seems like a pretty good class.


nicholas storm wrote:

The base mechanic of the class (dual identity) is flawed. It doesn't make much sense for most character designs and if I were to play a vigilante I would ignore the vigilante identity and always use all my abilities in social identity.

The class as a whole doesn't have enough abilities/talents to compare to existing classes. Other than the stalker which has some abilities that break normal action economy, the other 3 specializations are weaker versions of existing classes.

Well I think it only makes sense that the class doesn't fit concepts that don't have dual identities.

Could you explain why the vigilante seems weaker than other classes? Would that change in more intrigue focused campaigns?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it suffered from a lack of identity with the specializations. My players weren't really sure why they'd go social identity or even what type of character they were supposed to be able to make with zealot.

My character was able to find a decent niche as a noble who is a magic thief by night. He was cool, but... something did feel lacking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:

The base mechanic of the class (dual identity) is flawed. It doesn't make much sense for most character designs and if I were to play a vigilante I would ignore the vigilante identity and always use all my abilities in social identity.

The class as a whole doesn't have enough abilities/talents to compare to existing classes. Other than the stalker which has some abilities that break normal action economy, the other 3 specializations are weaker versions of existing classes.

Well I think it only makes sense that the class doesn't fit concepts that don't have dual identities.

Could you explain why the vigilante seems weaker than other classes? Would that change in more intrigue focused campaigns?

If you compare the avenger to full BAB classes:

All other full BAB classes have some type of attack/damage booster. The avenger has none.

If you read the feedback on the original playtest, many felt like the avenger was a weak fighter and the fighter is acknowledged as one of the weakest full BAB classes. Compare the avenger to the slayer - slayer gets same skills, same number of talents, studied target, sneak attack, track, swift tracker, and quarry.

If you compare the zealot and warlock to other 3/4 caster classes -
1) Warpriest and magus have action economy abilities (spell combat, fervor) and are stacked with other abilities (arcane pool, spell strike, arcana, spell recall, casting in light/medium/heavy armor) or (blessings, focus weapon, sacred weapon, sacred armor)
2) Bard and inquisitor are stacked with powerful abilities (bardic performance, versatile performance, well versed, bardic knowledge, lore master) or (judgement, stern gaze, monster lore, cunning initiative, track, solo tactics, bane, stalwart)

This doesn't even address the retarded casting advancement of zealot/warlock requiring them to burn lots of their talents to get reduced casting.

I read many playtest feedback that stated that they wished they were other classes than warlock or zealot, because other classes would have been able to have more lasting power with more spells and abilities than these classes.


nicholas storm wrote:

If you compare the avenger to full BAB classes:

All other full BAB classes have some type of attack/damage booster. The avenger has none.

If you read the feedback on the original playtest, many felt like the avenger was a weak fighter and the fighter is acknowledged as one of the weakest full BAB classes. Compare the avenger to the slayer - slayer gets same skills, same number of talents, studied target, sneak attack, track, swift tracker, and quarry.

If you compare the zealot and warlock to other 3/4 caster classes -
1) Warpriest and magus have action economy abilities (spell combat, fervor) and are stacked with other abilities (arcane pool, spell strike, arcana, spell recall, casting in light/medium/heavy armor) or (blessings, focus weapon, sacred weapon, sacred armor)
2) Bard and inquisitor are stacked with powerful abilities (bardic performance, versatile performance, well versed, bardic knowledge, lore master) or (judgement, stern gaze, monster lore, cunning initiative, track, solo tactics, bane, stalwart)

This doesn't even address the retarded casting advancement of zealot/warlock requiring them to burn lots of their talents to get reduced casting.

I read many playtest feedback that stated that they wished they were other classes than warlock or zealot, because other classes would have been able to have more lasting power with more spells and abilities than these classes.

Avenger seems more fighter-y than the slayer to me while at the same time seems like a slayer with more social skills. The damage is less than slayer, but the ability to sneak around in full plate without an armor check penalty is pretty nice and the talents themselves are like feats+. At 12th they gain pounce via mad-rush which is very nice.

The spellcasting advancement via talent seems like the designer felt with spell casting you should lose half of your talents, but wanted to give you the flexibility of when/if you lose those talents. Which makes sense to me given how strong spellcasting is. I'm not sure about Zealot because I am not that familiar with inquisitor spells, but Warlock feels like a solid class too me (magic blot and alchemist bombs plus wizard spells up to 6), at least up there with alchemist. Sure the action economy is worse, but personally I am getting sick of running 3/4 casters with 13 or more buffs on at anytime.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually plan out a Warlock and see what you'll have at each level and what talents you'll have left to spend on "cool things" after going through yout talent taxes. Then pull up another 3/4 caster (like a magus) and see how they compare. Remember, every other class can use a feat to get more of its class features /except/ the vigilante.
You'll see why it isn't as solid as you think.

You're effectively playing a 3/4 caster with no class features until high level.

If you delay your talent taxes, well then you're basically way behind for little to no benefit.


I liked the concept very much, but didn't feel like the two halves of the class added up to a coherent whole. I'm of the mind that improving the means of switching between modes, along with better thematic encounter and adventure mechanics, might bring about a better response and greater appreciation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think if you are making 2 distinct identities, each identity should be as powerful as a regular class. Dividing it up and making both weaker because they are part of the whole is in my opinion part of what is wrong with this class. As it currently stands, the medium from occult adventures works better than this class.


Flame Effigy wrote:

Actually plan out a Warlock and see what you'll have at each level and what talents you'll have left to spend on "cool things" after going through yout talent taxes. Then pull up another 3/4 caster (like a magus) and see how they compare. Remember, every other class can use a feat to get more of its class features /except/ the vigilante.

You'll see why it isn't as solid as you think.

You're effectively playing a 3/4 caster with no class features until high level.

If you delay your talent taxes, well then you're basically way behind for little to no benefit.

OK. I'll compare to a magus I am currently playing. Unfortunately that makes it a pretty high level build.

Magus

Warlock

The magus probably edges out my warlock in a fight if she has bound no outsiders, has no minions, or contingency set up. Skills-wise my warlock is leagues ahead.

Things I learned:
-Bombs may be kind of silly and unnecessary.
-Arcane training does not always skip a slot for when you need to take it, thus 5 of your first 8 talents go to expanding your spellcasting
-Magic Bolt works with arcane striker 0_0 3d6+8 (includes point blank shot, not sure if that actually adds) damage per hit.

Conclusion: Really kick-ass class that I would totally take into something like the RotRLs that my magus is playing in.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Flame Effigy wrote:

Because we didn't get enough material to playtest and only the Stalker had relevant developer feedback.

Yeah, I found it rather revealing when one of the early things the devs mentioned as far as feedback went was that the class would be stronger than it looked in the playtest since it would interact very well with the rest of the new mechanics in Ultimate intrigue. When people naturally followed up by asking what those mechanics were, the answer was "Well, we haven't actually designed any of those yet..."

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My first impression after reading through it, which has only grown stronger since, is that it's four separate classes awkwardly shoved onto the framework of one single class.

I'm not a fan of class bloat, but this is not the answer.


Kthulhu wrote:

My first impression after reading through it, which has only grown stronger since, is that it's four separate classes awkwardly shoved onto the framework of one single class.

I'm not a fan of class bloat, but this is not the answer.

Why?


Your warlock would have a lot of fun fighting demons or any caster with electricity resistance. Your magus could at least fight them and your magus is far from optimized.


nicholas storm wrote:
Your warlock would have a lot of fun fighting demons or any caster with electricity resistance. Your magus could at least fight them and your magus is far from optimized.

Just arcane striker would do 2d6+4 per hit.

Point blank shot plus summoning/binding a bard puts that at 2d6+7. Buff with haste and we have 8 touch attacks so potentially 16d6+56. That's a lot of damage for being unable to fight them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Turns out... elemental resistance is a b$&%!....

Resist 10 will drop you by to... 4 damage per hit On average.. REAL scary...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:
Your warlock would have a lot of fun fighting demons or any caster with electricity resistance. Your magus could at least fight them and your magus is far from optimized.

Just arcane striker would do 2d6+4 per hit.

Point blank shot plus summoning/binding a bard puts that at 2d6+7. Buff with haste and we have 8 touch attacks so potentially 16d6+56. That's a lot of damage for being unable to fight them.

16d6+56 is 112 damage. Which is pretty mediocre at that level for DPR. If you actually got that consistently then that would be one thing, but...

a)bolts have a 30ft range. Unless in tight spaces it is easy to deny you full attacks, rendering you useless with your 14 damage a round at level 17.
b)resist 5 against your element drops your damage to 72. Resist 10 drops it to 32 damage. At that level most threatening outsiders have maybe 1 element at most that they don't have at least resist 10 to. This is crippling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:
Your warlock would have a lot of fun fighting demons or any caster with electricity resistance. Your magus could at least fight them and your magus is far from optimized.

Just arcane striker would do 2d6+4 per hit.

Point blank shot plus summoning/binding a bard puts that at 2d6+7. Buff with haste and we have 8 touch attacks so potentially 16d6+56. That's a lot of damage for being unable to fight them.

Pretty sure all of the damage is electricity. So 0 damage vs demons.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Turns out... elemental resistance is a b~%+~....

Resist 10 will drop you by to... 4 damage per hit On average.. REAL scary...

Agreed. Starting at 1st level, you can run into suli's and the like with resist 5. As you level it only becomes more common and larger. At 17th, you have a better chance of dealing damage with that characters punch than having a foe without some kind of resistance... (either natural or spells. 2nd and 3rd level spells TOTALLY neuter you) 8 touch attacks that deal 0 damage is still 0.

Bombs are a joke as you have no int to damage and you can't take the nice bomb talents. Spells are taxed... At least the tattoo chamber is cool. One talent works.

The whole intrigue side is dead weight IMO. If they axed that and focused on the other part, they could have a cool class. As-is, everything is linked to renown (even your hide out!) and gods forbid you don't adventure 20 levels in the same town...

It's just pretty bad...


30 people marked this as a favorite.

In General:

It forces you to be a Superhero; worse than that, it forces you to be Bat-Zorr-Devil-Arrow-Hornet-Shadow-Man! You wanna play Spider-Man? Go suck a dick, apparently, because you HAVE to be a wealthy social butterfly who has lots of connected friends and a secret bat-cave somewhere. And GOD FORBID you wanna play a spy like Michael Westen...

Every other Class in the game that uses a "Specialization" has been: 75-85% Base Class abilities, 15-25% Specialization Abilities.

See Also: Domains, Schools, Bloodlines, Mysteries, Blessings, Orders, Patrons, etc.

The Vigilante is trying to be 25-50% Base Class Abilities, 50-75% Specializations.

The result is that the Vigilante looks and plays far less like a single cohesive Class with a few thematic options, and more like 4 entirely-separate Classes with a single theme. Worse yet, it plays like 4 existing Classes with a single theme, which is what Archetypes are and always have been.

You, Rheydyn, might like that, but that is NOT good class design.

Classes are supposed to be unique in one way or another, even if they seem very similar at first.

It could have been forgiven for being 4 disparate Classes shoved sideways into one body IF the Specializations were base-class forms of Prestige Classes, like how the Bloodrager is the Dragon Disciple, the Slayer is the Assassin, the Magus is the Eldritch Knight, etc.

The Vigilante, however, plays pretty much exactly like weaker versions of the Slayer/Fighter, Rogue, Magus, and Inquisitor, without much deviation from those classes at all, meaning "why not just play X?" is constantly being asked.

The Social Persona is given no identity unto itself, making the "4 Class In One" nonsense even MORE painfully obvious.

On top of all of this, the "I CAN BE ANYTHING!!!" Class already exists - it's called The Medium, it just came out, and that's fine IF the Medium is unique in that regard. If every class on forward becomes "I CAN PLAY ANYTHING!" then Classes become meaningless.

I don't know how long you've been playing, but those of us playing since 3rd Ed are already tired of the "I CAN PLAY ANYTHING!" Class, because we had it since Day 1: it was the Cleric, and all-Cleric parties got boring very, very quickly. The Cleric lost a fair amount of that omniscience in the move to Pathfinder, and we're better off for it. The Medium is fine because it "can play anything" with about 85% effectiveness of the class archetypes its replacing/supplementing, along with having its own shticks and spells to boot.

So, in summation of the general points:

1) it doesn't follow the same general theory as everything else that has Specializations, which is bad (demonstrably so);
2) as a result of that point 1, it plays like 4 entirely different Classes or Archetypes shoehorned with an arc welder into a single class, which is a giant cop-out;
3) it's a massive missed opportunity to make popular PRD Prestige Classes into Base Classes;
4) The Social Persona is ANOTHER giant missed-opportunity and is given basically no love, even though the general consensus is that Social Persona should have obviously been the backbone of the class
5) The whole "I Can Play Anything!" shtick has been done by the Cleric accidentally back in 3.5 (this wasn't good), and is currently being handled by the Medium (this is fine, because it supplements, not invalidates); the Medium should stay unique in that regard, not become the forebearer of a whole new line of Classes that make separate Classes irrelevant.

So What's Different, And Bad, About Having a Class That's Mostly Specializations?

Specializations have existed since Day 1 of Pathfinder, and even before.

Domains were a very-powerful and cool idea. The idea was replicated and expanded for both Schools and Bloodlines in the Core Rulebook, and over time a whole host of other classes gained similar designs like Mysteries, Orders, and Blessings.

These worked extremely well because they added a touch of flavor and functionality onto already-solid classes, and allowed each individual example of the Class play thematically differently just enough to feel unique: An Arcane Sorcerer and a Draconic Sorcerer are different fluff-wise and even functionally to a degree, all while overall acting like the same class; while all basic Cavaliers make Challenges, ride Mounts, and carry Banners, the Orders give a handful of abilities and general Creeds which means that each Cavalier feels somewhat unique while all being basically the same; etc. etc.

Because these Specializations are just icing on the cake, however, every Class remains fairly standardized and holds its own identity - you KNOW that a Cavalier is basically a paragon soldier or mundane super-knight, you KNOW that a Sorcerer is a Spontaneous Caster who draws power from his magical heritage; you KNOW that a Cleric's power is derived from the Deity which she serves.

No-one knows what the f#%~ the Vigilante is supposed to be, and that's BECAUSE it has no single identity.

Because the Vigilante's thematic identity is determined almost ENTIRELY by its Specialization, the result is that it plays like 4 classes shoved into a single theme and contrivedly called "one class".

Imagine, for example, if the Mesmerist, Medium, Spiritualist, and Occultist were shoved into a single class called the "Mystic".

That'd be pretty stupid, right?

Well, that's exactly what's happening with the Vigilante, and it's why so many, many people are calling "bullshit".

But It's Even Worse Then That, Because It's Not Even 4 New Classes - It's 4 Well-Trodden Classes Repackage All Over Again

The other thing that's pissing people off is that these 4 Base Classes being shoved into the same space aren't even new, inspired ideas, or even new base-class forms of Prestige Classes that haven't gotten the Base Class Conversion treatment.

The Avenger is a Slayer without Sneak Attack, lower HP, and without Studied Strike, either. You may say you feel it's more a Fighter, but the Slayer can gain almost as many Feats as a Fighter (something like 90% the number of Feats a Fighter can), and has 6+ Skill Points to boot. The Avenger, however, is like a watered-down version of the Slayer almost to a "T", and thus people have asked pretty constantly "why not play a Slayer?"

This is made even worse by the fact that the Slayer isn't even as badass as a full-on Ranger, either. The Slayer is a fine class, but in many ways it's already close to treading into "Why not play a Ranger?" territory, to the Avenger is basically the red-headed step child of a red-headed step-child.

The Stalker is comparable to a Ninja or Rogue, but slightly different, so it's kinda the most-solid of all the Specializations. I've heard suggestions of just making the Stalker the default Vigilante, but again - why? If it's already similar to 2 Classes, one of which is an Alternate Class of the other, what's the point of making a THIRD class that acts just like the first two but for a few tricks here and there (tricks which, might I and most people add, should just be Ninja and/or Rogue tricks to begin with).

If the Stalker were given many/most of the Shadowdancer's abilities, that'd be an entirely different story - the ability to meld into and even teleport between Shadows is something neither the Rogue nor Ninja can do, and especially not create illusory beings made of solid shadow or call creatures from the Shadow Plane.

The Warlock is the Magus with fewer tricks. The SOLE thing that separates the Warlock from the Magus is Mystic Bolt, which isn't even a default ability - it's one you have to pay for. On TOP of that, you have to actively PAY for your spellcasting, which no other class has to.

So on top of being a Magus without any of its tricks like Spell Combat, Spellstrike, Arcanas, etc., you are basically left with 4 whole Talents open (1 spent for Mystic Bolt, 5 spent to gain full spellcasting) if you want to be a 6th-level spellcaster. So, really, why the hell would you ever WANT to be a Warlock when you could be a Magus, Bard, Skald, Summoner, Mesmerist, Occultist, or Archmage-Channeling Medium? And if you're that enamored with Mystic Bolts, than just play a Kineticist and be a significantly-more-powerful class with the same statistics.

The Zealot is a spontaneous 6th-level Divine spellcaster that plays pretty much exactly the same as an Inquisitor. Except that the Inquisitor doesn't have to PAY for its Spellcasting, it has Judgments, Bane, Teamwork Feats, etc., that make is a borderline-OP class, and generally considered one of, if not THE, most-powerful non-full-casters besides the Summoner (which is pretty universally regarded as honestly Broken).

The Zealot made some headway in Round 2 by gaining divine versions of Bloodlines, which is cool. But ultimately, the fact that you're playing a Class with no real abilities and only 5 Talents because you have to spend the OTHER 5 just to be what every other 6th-level spellcaster is NATURALLY, means that you're really left asking, "why didn't I play the Inquisitor, Warpriest, or Hunter?"

And No-One Would Be Asking "Why Not Play X" If the Specializations Were Based On Prestige Classes

The major reason why people play the Slayer over the Ranger is that the Slayer has several abilities which make it look and perform much more like a Base-Class version of the Assassin than a photocopy of the Ranger.

The same is true for the Bloodrager being a Base Class form of the Dragon Disciple (and not being forced to use the Dragon Bloodline, but ANY Bloodline they wish); this is a major reason why people are totally cool with having both the Bloodrager AND Barbarian - even though they play so similarly on the surface, the fact that one focuses more on modifying its Rage and generally being a Abrams Tank, while the other focuses on being a Rage-Mage with extra Bloodline abilities, is enough to differentiate the classes and allow both in a party without stepping on each-others' toes.

If the Vigilante HAD to stick with this whole "Four Classes in One" crap, then the least that could have happened was to make the Specializations unique among all the Classes out there.

If Specializations were based on the Stalwart Defender instead of the Slayer/Fighter, the Shadowdancer instead of the Stalker, and the Mystic Theurge instead of the Warlock & Zealot, NO-ONE would be asking "why not play X?" Instead, they'd be going "OH SWEET MONKEY-NUTS, YES! I CAN FINALLY PLAY MY FAVORITE PRESTIGE CLASS FROM LEVEL 1 ON!!!"

There was also massive room for the Vigilante to break new ground for designs: A Spontaneous Alchemist and a Prepared Psychic come to mind first and foremost.

A Spontaneous Alchemist that doesn't focus on creating mutagens, poisons, & bombs, and instead focuses on assembling gadgets and gizmos would tickle a lot of peoples' fancies.

A Prepared Psychic that's built to act like the Arcane Trickster as a Base Class would double as being a new design while also being something people have wanted for a long, long time (and be thematically appropriate at the same time).

And yet, no... we instead got half-assed rehashes of Base Classes that we've been playing for years now.

Oh, and, Let's Not Forget Than There's ANOTHER Prestige Class That was BEGGING to be Made Into a Base Class That Would Have Been Perfect for a Book Called, "Ultimate Intrigue"

[The Master Spy.

Seriously, who the f@+$ looks at that popular Prestige Class, looks at a book named "Ultimate Intrigue" and DOESN'T see the obvious chance to turn it into a Base Class?

Apparently Jason Buhlmann, but let's not point too many fingers here.

Seriously, the Master Spy is everything that the Vigilante WANTS to be, SHOULD be, and isn't:

It's a class based HEAVILY around disguising yourself on-the-fly while assuming an alternate identity and infiltrating areas; it's about lying so spectacularly that you can mask your alignment, stave off thought-detecting magics, and even hide from Scrying. It Sneak Attacks like a pro. It can be used for espionage, for sabotage, con-artistry, acting as the faceman of a group, smuggling, for being a scrounger, for acting as a bodyguard in secret, even - GASP! - BEING A SUPERHERO!!!

But, regardless of all that, the Social Persona of the Vigilante is left with... nothing.

Not a damn SHRED of the Master Spy exists in this class. Even the "Immune to Scrying" thing is radically different between the two classes.

But, no... we get a pretty pathetic NPC+ Class which just (badly) emulates 4 other Base Classes, instead of the Master Spy being the basic chassis of this class with Specializations focusing on how exactly the abilities of a Master Spy or Master of Disguise could be applied: as an Assassin/Hitman, as an Espionage & Information Warfare specialist, as a Saboteur, as a Conman... as a GODDAMN SUPERHERO.

And for better awesomeness, think of this:

A Master-Spy-Made-Base-Class with SPONTANEOUS ALCHEMY!

Look at that - I just blew your freakin' mind with a Class that would cause people to HUMP THIS BOOK.

If you have 6th-level Alchemy, it opens up a WHOLE WORLD of possibilities for Archetypes that STILL sticks with the idea of messing with Specializations:

You trade out the Alchemy for an Archetype that grants you both Divine AND Arcane spells, where you have to know an equal number of Arcane & Divine spells (whenever possible from leveling), where you use Spell Slots to cast either Arcane OR Divine as you so choose, and you have a unique Spell List for both Arcane and Divine that doesn't overlap so you always know what's Divine and Arcane; AND you have a few abilities which modify spells based on whether they're Arcane or Divine. (HI, MYSTIC THEURGE!!!)

You trade out Alchemy for an Archetype which grants you Psychic abilities. You lose your Spells Known list and instead Prepare and Cast spells like an Arcanist, meaning you Prepare your Psychic Spells Known and then cast them freely using Spell Slots. (HI, ARCANE TRICKSTER!!!)

You completely drop most of your abilities that are based around Disguising and instead gain a metric f!%$-ton of abilities based around blending into Shadows, MELDING into Shadows, hopping BETWEEN Shadows, making living Shadows and Summoning Monsters with the Shadow Template. (Helloooooo, Shadowdancer, you sexy, sexy BEAST!)

You even drop Alchemy ENTIRELY and gain a Rage-Like ability, a Flurry ability to up your BAB equal to your Level, and abilities focusing on acting as a Bodyguard to other characters (STALWART DEFENDER, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL MY LIFE!?)

See that? I just made people have orgasms all over again, and all I did was DESCRIBE these Archetypes. Actually building them wouldn't be hard in the slightest, especially if you're PAID to do it like the Devs are. At that point, you're left with one glaring problem: how do you fit THAT MUCH RAW AWESOMENESS into a single book, let alone a single CLASS?

But... no.

Apparently someone felt like pressing the "I Don't Give a Shit" button, and instead you have a Super-Expert NPC Class with 4 limping versions of Base Classes stapled onto it, rather than remind people that this is the company that created the Gunslinger and Alchemist classes.

There hasn't been so much wasted potential since The Last Airbender.

Yes, I said it - I just compared this class to one of the worst pieces of shit in cinematic history, and I am a goddamned Avatar: The Last Airbender FANBOY, so you KNOW how much this playtest has pissed me off for what it COULD have been...

And Then There's the Glaring Fact that Specializations Effectively ARE Archetypes Latched Onto the Basic Class

So, yeah, all this talk about Archetypes in the last section? Let's elaborate on that.

Notice that the Daring Champion Cavalier is an Archetype instead of a "Specialization."

Notice that the Skirmisher Ranger is an Archetype instead of a "Specialization."

The Vivisectionist Alchemist... the Psychic Investigator... the Sacred Fist Warpriest... these are all Archetypes.

They're ways that their basic Classes are bent and re-examined in different lights.

So not only is the Vigilante one giant reverse-Archetype of the 4 Classes its copying, it's also basically 4 of its OWN Archetypes shoved into the basic chassis... worse yet, it HAS no basic chassis, so it's basically JUST 4 Archetypes of 4 different classes all being pounded together with a rusty mallet and being sold as an "all-new, all-awesome Base Class".

No.

I'm sorry, but...

F@@+. THAT. NOISE.

A Mastery Spy Base Class, as I described before, is MUCH more what a Vigilante could and should be.

Specializations should be treated like the Bloodlines of Sorcerers and Bloodragers, like the Orders of Cavaliers, like the Mysteries and Curses of Oracles: add-ons that are less than one-fourth of the Class, that help to focus an already-solid chassis of a Master Spy.

The Specializations we currently have, of the Avenger, Stalker, Warlock, and Zealot, should be Archetypes... or, actually, no, they should be scrapped entirely and everyone involved who proposed them should be smacked with a wet, salty codpiece, even Mark who has actually engaged in this playtest (however, if Mark and the others were strong-armed into writing them this way rather than being unique, then I'd gladly hand over the codpiece in question in order to smack the real party at fault here *cough*Jason*cough*)

The proposed Specializations - those based on the Shadowdancer, Stalwart Defender, Mystic Theurge, and Arcane Trickster - which radically alter the basic Class' design, should be Archetypes of the Vigilante, not part of the basic Class' architecture.

This Class is So Horribly Focused On Talents That It's Left Cripppled

"Choose your own X" is fine, up to a point. But there's ALWAYS too much of a good thing.

The Vigilante is so far past this point that it's circumnavigated JUPITER.

The Vigilante is nothing BUT a "Choose your Own Abilities" Class and has become a giant mess of "options options options," leaving the Class with no abilities unique to itself besides a pitiful assortment of "Appearance" abilities which don't come online until mid-levels or higher.

The Unchained Rogue has 10 Talents and a BUTTLOAD of other Abilities.

The Alchemist has 10 Talents, Alchemy, and STILL has plenty of Abilities to make it useful.

The Vigilante, however, has 20 Talents and... that's... pretty much it.

That means that it's basically the Anti-Fighter. That's not good; that's not even "not good" - that's pathetic.

This class is going to be so pathetically weak in a newbs' hands that they may quit playing altogether.

If you think the FIGHTER requires a fairly high level of System Mastery to build efficiently (it does, actually), then the Vigilante would completely blow the Fighter out of the water.

It's SO easy to choose 20 random Abilities from this class, throw them together, and end up with a non-functioning Cronenberg-esque... THING.

If you choose 10 random-ass Rogue Talents with the Unchained Rogue, you've STILL got a Class which naturally gets Skill Unlocks, Dex to Damage, Sneak Attacks, Trapfinding and Danger Sense, the ability to not be caught Flat-Footed, etc.

If you choose 10 random Discoveries, you're STILL an Alchemist with Mutagens, Bombs, etc.

If you choose random Combat Feats with the Warpriest, even THEN you've STILL got your Sacred Weapon, Sacred Armor, Blessings, etc.

But the Vigilante? You've got an unplayable mess, because there is NOTHING to help you play this class despite System Mastery.

THAT is some of the most piss-poor design sense I've ever heard of.

SO, In Summation, Why Do We Hate This Playtest?

Because there are glaring, known, PAINFULLY OBVIOUS ways to make this Class infinitely more appealing, playable, thematically-appropriate for a book called Ultimate Intrigue, and would have been a MUCH better use of the Playtesters' and Paizos time than the steaming pile of donkey-shit we got.

The First Round was a class that wasn't even half completed.

The Second Round was a class that was barely half completed, and STILL didn't solve most of the problems from the first round.

The Class looks and plays like something an amateur who's been playing this game for 6 months would come up with.

Don't get me wrong - I still love this game, I still love all the Classes that have come out thus far, and I've even grown on Classes that I absolutely despised in Playtests prior (I actually LIKE The Medium now - it might be a little weak, but it's a much-more-manageable and enjoyable class with a clearer general-concept usefulness besides the Spirits).

But this class?

Holy freaking GOD, no.

I love superheroes; I would LOVE to play a Superhero.

But I want to play a Superhero MY way.

And I also want the ability to play a master spy, master thief, etc. - and I KNOW all these and more are possible with the Vigilante if it stops trying to be The Poly-Class and instead just focuses on the aspect and niche-class that this game has been missing since day 1: that being a fairly-dedicated master-of-disguise and social/skill-based-encounters monster that puts even the Bard and Rogue to shame.

This is generally the response that everyone has given:

Give us the Mechanics, and WE'LL figure out how to apply them in an RP sense; DON'T shove a certain style of RP down our throats and then call it "mechanics," and ESPECIALLY don't penalize us both in-game and in a meta sense if we don't want to play it that way or if the DM decides they want/need to out your character's Secret Identity.

And give us a unique design to operate with, not 4 diluted versions of classes we've played again and again for a while now.

If those parameters are too hard to fill, then Ultimate Intrigue is better left without a Class, like the Ultimate Campaign and Ultimate Equipment was; I and others would rather see a book without a Class than let the book be a pathetic end-of-the-trilogy following Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat just because the Vigilante is an ill-conceived garbled mess.

---

So, there you have it.

Basically every reason why I, and many others, hate the Playtest version of the Vigilante.

I'm fully aware that it could receive a MASSIVE rewrite, and indeed I know it should.

There are a multitude of ways to make this class act like a "vigilante for justice" while also being given an applicability as versatile as any of the other 38 Classes in this game, for those not interested in making a superhero and instead want to play a significantly-more intrigue-based character.

I'm not doom-and-gloom by any stretch; I've yet to see a class that's actually BAD in this game (well... okay, the base Rogue, but it was just very-underpowered, and the Unchained Rogue solved pretty much all those problems), and I'd honestly be surprised if this class is left as cripplingly-awful as it currently is.

However, I AM afraid that, for once, I'd be completely wrong, and the Class we end up getting come 2016 is close to the mess it is now. I'll concede that it'd be a BETTER mess, but if it comes out looking really ANYTHING like it currently does, then I'd call it a massive miss-opportunity for the game, and make even ME question what the Devs are thinking.

I disliked this Playtest because, even at the end, I am convinced that this class is uninspired and nowhere even CLOSE to being considered marginally "complete".

If there comes a Playtest Round 3 later in the year that brings it closer to what I imagine the Vigilante SHOULD be, or shows a completely-different design that's still usable, then I'll be happy.

Until then, I am as Salty as the Dead Sea.


I'd kill to get some designer imput and a rough outline of what the class will wind up being thanks to our "feedback" when the final thoughts thread wraps up.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
...

.....

+1


I wanted Batman and I got The Green Hornet.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Flame Effigy wrote:
Remember, every other class can use a feat to get more of its class features /except/ the vigilante.

... and the Monk (No Extra Ki Power).


Flame Effigy wrote:
I'd kill to get some designer imput and a rough outline of what the class will wind up being thanks to our "feedback" when the final thoughts thread wraps up.

That would be great.

Unfortunately, the only person who has had significant interaction with the community (Mark) is the person we need the least input from, because he has already been pretty good about discussing things with us, and his specialization is the least terrible - The Stalker might be yet another slightly different incarnation of the "not-rogue", but making it like that was Mark's job and what he produced was about as decent as one could hope for given the design restraints. The other Devs haven't talked to us much, and there isn't any indication that that is about to change any time soon.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Turns out... elemental resistance is a b$@$~....

Resist 10 will drop you by to... 4 damage per hit On average.. REAL scary...

2d6+4 is just from arcane striker, 2d6 holy, 4 from arcane strike.

Total Damage can be 3d6+11
1d6+4 electricity
2d6 holy
4 arcane striker
1 point blank shot
2 summon bard via summon monster 6.


Snowblind wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:
Your warlock would have a lot of fun fighting demons or any caster with electricity resistance. Your magus could at least fight them and your magus is far from optimized.

Just arcane striker would do 2d6+4 per hit.

Point blank shot plus summoning/binding a bard puts that at 2d6+7. Buff with haste and we have 8 touch attacks so potentially 16d6+56. That's a lot of damage for being unable to fight them.

16d6+56 is 112 damage. Which is pretty mediocre at that level for DPR. If you actually got that consistently then that would be one thing, but...

a)bolts have a 30ft range. Unless in tight spaces it is easy to deny you full attacks, rendering you useless with your 14 damage a round at level 17.
b)resist 5 against your element drops your damage to 72. Resist 10 drops it to 32 damage. At that level most threatening outsiders have maybe 1 element at most that they don't have at least resist 10 to. This is crippling.

a) I have a good chunk of spells and alchemist bombs that can be thrown farther than 30ft.

b) 16d6+56 is ideal DPR against electricity immune foes.


chbgraphicarts wrote:

1) it doesn't follow the same general theory as everything else that has Specializations, which is bad (demonstrably so);

2) as a result of that point 1, it plays like 4 entirely different Classes or Archetypes shoehorned with an arc welder into a single class, which is a giant cop-out;
3) it's a massive missed opportunity to make popular PRD Prestige Classes into Base Classes;
4) The Social Persona is ANOTHER giant missed-opportunity and is given basically no love, even though the general consensus is that Social Persona should have obviously been the backbone of the class
5) The whole "I Can Play Anything!" shtick has been done by the Cleric accidentally back in 3.5 (this wasn't good), and is currently being handled by the Medium (this is fine, because it supplements, not invalidates); the Medium should stay unique in that regard, not become the forebearer of a whole new line of Classes that make separate Classes irrelevant.

Quoting parts for brevity

1) Does not follow. Just because it is different does not make it bad. It definitely rubs you the wrong way.
2)As you pointed out, the social side is more or less the same. What mainly changes is the combat methods. This class seems to treat the combat side as a minor quality about itself. Regardless, you haven't shown why being for classes in one is wrong aside from it breaking tradition.
3)Agreed, but if they did that wouldn't it just be more classes in one, further rubbing you the wrong way?
4)I saw talent that fit the spy idea. But yes, the class doesn't support chars who want their social side not to be social members like Peter Parker.
5)This is not a problem for me. Some of classes the vigilante steps the toes on deserve to be stepped on. I rather dislike PF and 3.5, so something not following that mold is not a reason for me not to like it.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

Imagine, for example, if the Mesmerist, Medium, Spiritualist, and Occultist were shoved into a single class called the "Mystic".

That'd be pretty stupid, right?

If the mechanics deliver then no.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

The Avenger is a Slayer without Sneak Attack, lower HP, and without Studied Strike, either. You may say you feel it's more a Fighter, but the Slayer can gain almost as many Feats as a Fighter (something like 90% the number of Feats a Fighter can), and has 6+ Skill Points to boot. The Avenger, however, is like a watered-down version of the Slayer almost to a "T", and thus people have asked pretty constantly "why not play a Slayer?"

This is made even worse by the fact that the Slayer isn't even as badass as a full-on Ranger, either. The Slayer is a fine class, but in many ways it's already close to treading into "Why not play a Ranger?" territory, to the Avenger is basically the red-headed step child of a red-headed step-child.

You can get pounce at level 12 via mad rush, and sneak around in heavy armor with no penalty. Furthermore an avenger is far better at social elements than the slayer. Unkillable is also a pretty character defining talent. I would also consider it much more like a fighter+ than a slayer-.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

The Stalker is comparable to a Ninja or Rogue, but slightly different, so it's kinda the most-solid of all the Specializations. I've heard suggestions of just making the Stalker the default Vigilante, but again - why? If it's already similar to 2 Classes, one of which is an Alternate Class of the other, what's the point of making a THIRD class that acts just like the first two but for a few tricks here and there (tricks which, might I and most people add, should just be Ninja and/or Rogue tricks to begin with).

If the Stalker were given many/most of the Shadowdancer's abilities, that'd be an entirely different story - the ability to meld into and even teleport between Shadows is something neither the Rogue nor Ninja can do, and especially not create illusory beings made of solid shadow or call creatures from the Shadow Plane.

Stalker is the rogue I always wanted. For any rogue concept that doesn't fall under slayer or investigator, the stalker fills that role.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

The Warlock is the Magus with fewer tricks. The SOLE thing that separates the Warlock from the Magus is Mystic Bolt, which isn't even a default ability - it's one you have to pay for. On TOP of that, you have to actively PAY for your spellcasting, which no other class has to.

So on top of being a Magus without any of its tricks like Spell Combat, Spellstrike, Arcanas, etc., you are basically left with 4 whole Talents open (1 spent for Mystic Bolt, 5 spent to gain full spellcasting) if you want to be a 6th-level spellcaster. So, really, why the hell would you ever WANT to be a Warlock when you could be a Magus, Bard, Skald, Summoner, Mesmerist, Occultist, or Archmage-Channeling Medium? And if you're that enamored with Mystic Bolts, than just play a Kineticist and be a significantly-more-powerful class with the same statistics.

1. A rogue array of skills

2. Bolts are a very solid offensive option that even my magus envy's with all the SR and high ACs he faces.
3. Full access to 6th level wizard spells or lower.
4. A whole glut of social features that you basically don't even need to be a competitive option at this point.

I want the paying for your spell casting to be every other talent. Right now it doubles up a lot, but if I have to pay for spellcasting to keep warlock talents as cool as they are, then fine.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

The Zealot is a spontaneous 6th-level Divine spellcaster that plays pretty much exactly the same as an Inquisitor. Except that the Inquisitor doesn't have to PAY for its Spellcasting, it has Judgments, Bane, Teamwork Feats, etc., that make is a borderline-OP class, and generally considered one of, if not THE, most-powerful non-full-casters besides the Summoner (which is pretty universally regarded as honestly Broken).

The Zealot made some headway in Round 2 by gaining divine versions of Bloodlines, which is cool. But ultimately, the fact that you're playing a Class with no real abilities and only 5 Talents because you have to spend the OTHER 5 just to be what every other 6th-level spellcaster is NATURALLY, means that you're really left asking, "why didn't I play the Inquisitor, Warpriest, or Hunter?"

The zealot can smite. Aside from that idk too much about inquisitors to make a judgment. It's a class with abilities that last "until the end of combat" which is something that rubs me the wrong way for basically being an "encounter power". Btw, fey gets druid/ranger spells instead. My friends and I found the holy zealot to be a decent healer between channel, heavenly fir, spells, and revivifying touch

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Until then, I am as Salty as the Dead Sea.

Yeah, you really need to decide if believe "4 classes in one is bull@#$%" or believe "these specializations could have been based on prestige classes". Since, those are contradictory views. Neither of which really persuade me that the class is bad.


Just for fun, I made a quick non-magic bolt focused warlock

Since I'm just comparing to a magus I'm playing and keeping similar gear, the character suffers from not being as high as level 17 wbl nor do you see any bonus from crafting feats. (I would probably blow most of WBL walking around in adamantine construct golem armor while polymorphed into a huge creature.)


Rhedyn wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:
Your warlock would have a lot of fun fighting demons or any caster with electricity resistance. Your magus could at least fight them and your magus is far from optimized.

Just arcane striker would do 2d6+4 per hit.

Point blank shot plus summoning/binding a bard puts that at 2d6+7. Buff with haste and we have 8 touch attacks so potentially 16d6+56. That's a lot of damage for being unable to fight them.

16d6+56 is 112 damage. Which is pretty mediocre at that level for DPR. If you actually got that consistently then that would be one thing, but...

a)bolts have a 30ft range. Unless in tight spaces it is easy to deny you full attacks, rendering you useless with your 14 damage a round at level 17.
b)resist 5 against your element drops your damage to 72. Resist 10 drops it to 32 damage. At that level most threatening outsiders have maybe 1 element at most that they don't have at least resist 10 to. This is crippling.

a) I have a good chunk of spells and alchemist bombs that can be thrown farther than 30ft.

b) 16d6+56 is ideal DPR against electricity immune foes.

The damage is all electrical - so 0 damage against demons


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I feel like Dual Identity is hard to build a class around. It has a lot of assumptions and requirements about the kind of campaign you have to play in order to make it work that other base classes don't have.

I also feel like most of the class' options are just emulating other classes. A stalker is a rogue or slayer, a zealot is an inquisitor and so on.

Between the two it just seems like this would be better off being a series of archetypes or a feat chain.

Also some of the things that Dual Identity lets you do feel like they should be innate features of the bluff skill rather than special abilities.

The only real unique Vigilante is the Warlock... and that just makes me wish there was a sixth level arcane caster who wasn't as focused on a specific gimmick as the magus is.


Rhedyn: You're doing it wrong. "nor can a mystic bolt be made with magic weapon special abilities." You can't add those weapon abilities to your bolt. As far as I can tell, all Arcane Striker does is add Arcane Strike damage to the bolt. I'd asked if they where going to fix that but shockingly got no reply.

Total Damage can be 3d6+111d6+11 electricity
1d6+4 electricity
2d6 holy
4 arcane striker electricity
1 point blank shot electricity
2 summon bard via summon monster 6 electricity

Also mad rush for -(4-6) AC isn't exactly the most exciting thing a melee guy wants to see. I'm all for pounce, but this has some MAJOR drawbacks.

chbgraphicarts: +1000. I couldn't have said it better myself.


Honestly, I can't say too much about this class mechanically, but it's more the concept that trips me up a bit. If the vigilante is supposed to be cool because it has two identities, why do we need a class for that? It just leaves me wondering why I can't use a clever disguise as a fighter, let's say, to become a vigilante.

Imagine, "Murdock the Basket Weaver" by day, "Sting the Bringer of Justice" by night! I could use a disguise check to become Sting. If I wanted to make the change even more jarring, I could play something like a kitsune where I could have two completely different forms to complement my various abilities. My basket weaver could (appear to) be a human, and my bringer of justice could be a kitsune. It just leaves me wondering... Why is the core concept of a class something that can be replicated by a skill check?

Do forgive me if I am not understanding something properly here.


graystone wrote:
Rhedyn: You're doing it wrong. "nor can a mystic bolt be made with magic weapon special abilities." You can't add those weapon abilities to your bolt. As far as I can tell, all Arcane Striker does is add Arcane Strike damage to the bolt. I'd asked if they where going to fix that but shockingly got no reply.

"Abilities that

affect all weapon attacks, such as the arcane striker warlock
vigilante talent, function with mystic bolts."

No you can't make a bolt with special abilities, but you can apply special abilities to a bolt.


nicholas storm wrote:
The damage is all electrical - so 0 damage against demons

It is unclear to me whether you add weapon damage or increase the energy damage.

Increasing energy damage seems simpler, but I clearly assumed different kinds of damage were being added when I read it.

Now you do have magic missile, alchemist bombs, and at higher levels telekinesis throwing weapons. Throwing 15 holy greatswords at demons for 4d6+4 damage seems pretty effective to me. Heaven forbid if instead you have to buff up and use a bow should your campaign suddenly be "only creatures immune to Warlocks chosen energy damage".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@SunstonePhoenix- No, that is one of the problems. It has made (bad) mechanics out of what is already covered by the skill rules, followed by forcing you to be (almost always) a worse version of an already existing class (or, indeed, classes, given the redundancy of the existing class bloat).

A group of vigilantes (that is, people who act outside the law to deal with crime) is pretty much the default for any party trying to cope with urban adventures. Sure, occasionally, you'll find a party that stays in the legal system, but it is pretty darn rare. You don't need to be a bad class to do that.

And frankly, 'versatility means you should be less useful' as a design conceit is only true if you get to keep the versatility. If it turns off on day one and you're stuck with whatever sub-par role you chose, it is no different from choosing a non-versatile (better) class in the first place.


Rhedyn wrote:
graystone wrote:
Rhedyn: You're doing it wrong. "nor can a mystic bolt be made with magic weapon special abilities." You can't add those weapon abilities to your bolt. As far as I can tell, all Arcane Striker does is add Arcane Strike damage to the bolt. I'd asked if they where going to fix that but shockingly got no reply.

"Abilities that

affect all weapon attacks, such as the arcane striker warlock
vigilante talent, function with mystic bolts."

No you can't make a bolt with special abilities, but you can apply special abilities to a bolt.

That might be what they meant but that's not what they wrote. How can you hit someone with a bolt unless you make one? How do you apply the special abilities unless you put it on one when it's made as it's "impermanent".

If their meaning you can't enchant a bolt, the wording failed miserably. As it's worded only the first part of arcane striker works, arcane strike. The rest is disallowed by not allowing "magic weapon special abilities" on bolts you make.

Stupid? You bet. It's the kind of thing that feedback could have helped with...

And again, +1000 to chbgraphicarts newest post.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SunstonePhoenix wrote:

Honestly, I can't say too much about this class mechanically, but it's more the concept that trips me up a bit. If the vigilante is supposed to be cool because it has two identities, why do we need a class for that? It just leaves me wondering why I can't use a clever disguise as a fighter, let's say, to become a vigilante.

Imagine, "Murdock the Basket Weaver" by day, "Sting the Bringer of Justice" by night! I could use a disguise check to become Sting. If I wanted to make the change even more jarring, I could play something like a kitsune where I could have two completely different forms to complement my various abilities. My basket weaver could (appear to) be a human, and my bringer of justice could be a kitsune. It just leaves me wondering... Why is the core concept of a class something that can be replicated by a skill check?

Do forgive me if I am not understanding something properly here.

No, you're basically understanding it perfectly. It's one of the major issues people have had so far with the Vigilante.

The Master Spy has abilities which build UP to something like Dual Identity, and it's easy to see how that works: You have different thought patterns when in your assumed identity, you have a different alignment, your mannerisms are radically different to the point that bluffing and lying are nigh-impossible to detect, SCRYING doesn't work on you even IF the scryer saw you change right before them.

You honestly assume an entirely-different persona.

Except that the major difference for the Master Spy is that it doesn't just stop at ONE alternate identity - you do this for any number of disguises.

The Master Spy is a Master of Disguise, and the result is that the abilities have a much-broader range of applications.

Dual Identity being one SPECIFIC identity would be fine... as an Archetype.

But the default Vigilante right now has Dual Identity as a default setting, and it's being questioned endlessly as to "how is this not just using the Disguise skill or a Hat of Disguise and roleplaying the rest?"

The answer is exactly what you came to: it really isn't.

And that's what's making so many people upset: it's taking up a LOT of design space and being given insane amounts of importance, and yet its overall mechanical effect on the class is either nonexistent at best or honestly harmful to it at worst.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seriously though, turning something that SHOULD be a function of the Disguise Skill supported with a bit of money into an entire class?

This can't have good results on the ability for Rogues and Swashbucklers to use Disguise effectively. [I've excluded Investigators and Bards because magic.]


graystone wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
graystone wrote:
Rhedyn: You're doing it wrong. "nor can a mystic bolt be made with magic weapon special abilities." You can't add those weapon abilities to your bolt. As far as I can tell, all Arcane Striker does is add Arcane Strike damage to the bolt. I'd asked if they where going to fix that but shockingly got no reply.

"Abilities that

affect all weapon attacks, such as the arcane striker warlock
vigilante talent, function with mystic bolts."

No you can't make a bolt with special abilities, but you can apply special abilities to a bolt.

That might be what they meant but that's not what they wrote. How can you hit someone with a bolt unless you make one? How do you apply the special abilities unless you put it on one when it's made as it's "impermanent".

If their meaning you can't enchant a bolt, the wording failed miserably. As it's worded only the first part of arcane striker works, arcane strike. The rest is disallowed by not allowing "magic weapon special abilities" on bolts you make.

Stupid? You bet. It's the kind of thing that feedback could have helped with...

And again, +1000 to chbgraphicarts newest post.

Yeah sorry. I can't seriously argue about whether or not an ability works with the abilities it says it works with.

Arcane striker applies special abilities to your weapon attacks. It doesn't make weapons. So the restriction against "magic weapon special abilities" is neither here nor there.

Process:
1. Swift action arcane striker
2. Make bolt
3. Throw bolt
4. Arcane striker applies to weapon attack.


Rhedyn wrote:
graystone wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
graystone wrote:
Rhedyn: You're doing it wrong. "nor can a mystic bolt be made with magic weapon special abilities." You can't add those weapon abilities to your bolt. As far as I can tell, all Arcane Striker does is add Arcane Strike damage to the bolt. I'd asked if they where going to fix that but shockingly got no reply.

"Abilities that

affect all weapon attacks, such as the arcane striker warlock
vigilante talent, function with mystic bolts."

No you can't make a bolt with special abilities, but you can apply special abilities to a bolt.

That might be what they meant but that's not what they wrote. How can you hit someone with a bolt unless you make one? How do you apply the special abilities unless you put it on one when it's made as it's "impermanent".

If their meaning you can't enchant a bolt, the wording failed miserably. As it's worded only the first part of arcane striker works, arcane strike. The rest is disallowed by not allowing "magic weapon special abilities" on bolts you make.

Stupid? You bet. It's the kind of thing that feedback could have helped with...

And again, +1000 to chbgraphicarts newest post.

Yeah sorry. I can't seriously argue about whether or not an ability works with the abilities it says it works with.

Arcane striker applies special abilities to your weapon attacks. It doesn't make weapons. So the restriction against "magic weapon special abilities" is neither here nor there.

Process:
1. Swift action arcane striker
2. Make bolt
3. Throw bolt
4. Arcane striker applies to weapon attack.

Process #1 look at rules.

#2 see bolt can't be made with "magic weapon special abilities".
#3 fire bolt without "magic weapon special abilities"

Or to use your example
2. make bolt (can't add "magic weapon special abilities" as bolt feature says I can't)

Also 2 and 3 are the same process.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Seriously though, turning something that SHOULD be a function of the Disguise Skill supported with a bit of money into an entire class?

This can't have good results on the ability for Rogues and Swashbucklers to use Disguise effectively. [I've excluded Investigators and Bards because magic.]

Disguise can't change your alignment.

Disguise doesn't start off with a free +20 bonus.

Yeah the social talents are very rumormonger-like. They let you do things that skills can do without making a skill check, or without needing to be as good at the skill.

If a GM understands that their can be many routes to do a thing, then it's fine. If a GM decides you need X ability instead of Z ability to do Y things because X specifically does Y, then that is going to cause problems.


graystone wrote:

Process #1 look at rules.

#2 see bolt can't be made with "magic weapon special abilities".
#3 fire bolt without "magic weapon special abilities"

Or to use your example
2. make bolt (can't add "magic weapon special abilities" as bolt feature says I can't)

Also 2 and 3 are the same process.

Well I didn't know that the arcane strike feat makes magical weapons! I guess all my bards are filthy rich because they can make magical weapons as a swift action!

*washes hands of conversation* We're done. You either get it or you don't at this point.


Rhedyn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Seriously though, turning something that SHOULD be a function of the Disguise Skill supported with a bit of money into an entire class?

This can't have good results on the ability for Rogues and Swashbucklers to use Disguise effectively. [I've excluded Investigators and Bards because magic.]

Disguise can't change your alignment.

Nor should it, but somewhere around level 5 I expect it to be able to successfully fake your alignment. [Yes I know it doesn't do that now.]

Quote:
Disguise doesn't start off with a free +20 bonus.

And how frequently do you suspect GMs are going to start adjusting to such a high bonus to make it less easy for PC's to successfully infiltrate? Personally speaking I'd make no adjustments at all and- in my personal opinion- that's how a GM should be. Many many GMs- however- expect events to present a challenge and want to make sure that their scenarios aren't guaranteed successes for the party. This results in a stealth-nerf to classes without access to heavy buffs like that. [Meanwhile Bards and Investigators do alright, via Disguise Self's +10]

Quote:
If a GM understands that their can be many routes to do a thing, then it's fine. If a GM decides you need X ability instead of Z ability to do Y things because X specifically does Y, then that is going to cause problems.

Indeed.

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why do you dislike the playtest version of the Vigilante? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.