Ultimate Intrigue—Vigilante Playtest!

I just realized, the Vigilante makes the best 'evil advisor' type villain ever. Their class features give them a good reputation, and the Dual Identity lets them have a good standing identity as an advisor to a lord and a super villain identity that can be the main villain.

Yup! The vigilante doesn't have to be a nice person. There's tons of room for this kind of thing. You could also be Jack the Ripper or Sweeney Todd by night too.

Already seeing word errata. "in civilized company and lends and air of menace" That should say "company and lends an air".

Shisumo wrote:

Is there some reason why we don't have a psychic vigilante? I seriously feel like a vigilante class that can't give me a real close approximation of The Shadow, in the wake of Occult Adventures in particular, has missed the mark.

This has come up. Remember, this is the first iteration of the class...and the tools you are talking about has not seen release. Thus a lack of occult in this document.

Wunderbarr! :D

Shisumo wrote:

Is there some reason why we don't have a psychic vigilante? I seriously feel like a vigilante class that can't give me a real close approximation of The Shadow, in the wake of Occult Adventures in particular, has missed the mark.

This has come up. Remember, this is the first iteration of the class...and the tools you are talking about has not seen release. Thus a lack of occult in this document.

Well, there is some occult in the document, as shown by the warlock's Living Shadow talent.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Is there some reason why we don't have a psychic vigilante? I seriously feel like a vigilante class that can't give me a real close approximation of The Shadow, in the wake of Occult Adventures in particular, has missed the mark.

This has come up. Remember, this is the first iteration of the class...and the tools you are talking about has not seen release. Thus a lack of occult in this document.

Well, there is some occult in the document, as shown by the warlock's Living Shadow talent.

I did say lack. You can lack something while still having some of it. But I digress.

as i see this class as Emulator is a paragon for flexibility... dont know if you can mix abilities from the class (you should). so, my Avenger casting Warlock and such. i imagine this will be a great class at the end, and we must feedback with the playtest to make it happen.

The last class i liked from paizo was the Magus, before that... was kind of meh...

This could be a good pathfinder version for D20 Blue Rose classes.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Is there some reason why we don't have a psychic vigilante? I seriously feel like a vigilante class that can't give me a real close approximation of The Shadow, in the wake of Occult Adventures in particular, has missed the mark.

This has come up. Remember, this is the first iteration of the class...and the tools you are talking about has not seen release. Thus a lack of occult in this document.

Wunderbarr! :D

We have lots of great things in store for you guys! But for the playtest, yeah, imagine if we told you something like "He uses the mesmerist's stare" and then you wound up playtesting with the playtest mesmerist's stare instead of the final OA mesmerist's stare, adding another level of difference between the playtest and the final class.

I don't see this class really meshing well with a party of adventurers. While it has a ton of options, it seems too narrowly focused, at least to me.

Is there going to be a way to get some of those Stalker talents as Rogue talents? I'm specifically looking at Sniper, the ability the Sniper Rogue archetype always deserved.

kamenhero25 wrote:

Okay, I love this so far, but I have a question because there's something I think I'm missing.

How does the Warlock Vigilante spell casting interact with armor?

The spells are arcane with no call-out, so they suffer ASF, as usual. We've been jotting down ideas, and Logan told me he's liking the idea of putting ignoring light armor's ASF into a talent though!

Personally, I'd rather see the Warlock Vigilantes play out more like Bards or Magi: That is, take away the Med armour proficiency, but let them continue to cast in light armour w/ no problem.

Both the caster types (Warlock and Zealot) strike me as being already fairly heavily taxed on their Vigilante Talents, just to keep up with basic spellcasting. As a player, I'd rather spend my Vigilante Talents on cool and colourful options, rather than just trying to keep up w/ the other base classes.

I hope this is the only new class in the book... We have enough base classes in the game and I think its better if the designers can put more effort into a single class than having to create and balance 2~3 at the same time. That was one of the problems that led to the ACG being what it is...

I'm short on time so I can't look into it right now, but it seems like an interesting idea. I wonder who is designing this class.

Imbicatus wrote:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Is there some reason why we don't have a psychic vigilante? I seriously feel like a vigilante class that can't give me a real close approximation of The Shadow, in the wake of Occult Adventures in particular, has missed the mark.

This has come up. Remember, this is the first iteration of the class...and the tools you are talking about has not seen release. Thus a lack of occult in this document.

Well, there is some occult in the document, as shown by the warlock's Living Shadow talent.

I did say lack. You can lack something while still having some of it. But I digress.

So, uh, how does that talent work? Occult Adventures might be available only to Subscribers only by the time the playtest ends.

I hope this is the only new class in the book... We have enough base classes in the game and I think its better if the designers can put more effort into a single class than having to create and balance 2~3 at the same time. That was one of the problems that led to the ACG being what it is...

I'm short on time so I can't look into it right now, but it seems like an interesting idea. I wonder who is designing this class.

All the designers!

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Is there some reason why we don't have a psychic vigilante? I seriously feel like a vigilante class that can't give me a real close approximation of The Shadow, in the wake of Occult Adventures in particular, has missed the mark.

This has come up. Remember, this is the first iteration of the class...and the tools you are talking about has not seen release. Thus a lack of occult in this document.

Well, there is some occult in the document, as shown by the warlock's Living Shadow talent.

I did say lack. You can lack something while still having some of it. But I digress.

So, uh, how does that talent work? Occult Adventures might be available only to Subscribers only by the time the playtest ends.

If you promise to post a 14th level playtest where you can use it to its full potential and test it out, I promise to do my best to convince Jason to give an early reveal of that spell for you :D

We don't need even more base classes!

who's this we you speak of? i am all for new classes

Lemmy wrote:

I hope this is the only new class in the book... We have enough base classes in the game and I think its better if the designers can put more effort into a single class than having to create and balance 2~3 at the same time. That was one of the problems that led to the ACG being what it is...

I'm short on time so I can't look into it right now, but it seems like an interesting idea. I wonder who is designing this class.

All the designers!

So... No one is responsible/main designer for any class, like it was for the Occult Adventures and ACG playtest?

xevious573 wrote:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Is there some reason why we don't have a psychic vigilante? I seriously feel like a vigilante class that can't give me a real close approximation of The Shadow, in the wake of Occult Adventures in particular, has missed the mark.

This has come up. Remember, this is the first iteration of the class...and the tools you are talking about has not seen release. Thus a lack of occult in this document.

Well, there is some occult in the document, as shown by the warlock's Living Shadow talent.

I did say lack. You can lack something while still having some of it. But I digress.

So, uh, how does that talent work? Occult Adventures might be available only to Subscribers only by the time the playtest ends.

If you promise to post a 14th level playtest where you can use it to its full potential and test it out, I promise to do my best to convince Jason to give an early reveal of that spell for you :D

Well, the Warlock can select the talent at 6th level, so it might come up before then. ;)

The leaner, meaner cousin of the factotum rises from the shadows!

I think my first question is: how married is everyone to the name vigilante? Something like 'enigma' might have less self-appointed law enforcer baggage.

Any idea when the PFS chronicle sheet is gonna be available? Or if it can count the times played before the chronicle is available retroactively if it's not out til next week or so?

xevious573 wrote:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Is there some reason why we don't have a psychic vigilante? I seriously feel like a vigilante class that can't give me a real close approximation of The Shadow, in the wake of Occult Adventures in particular, has missed the mark.

This has come up. Remember, this is the first iteration of the class...and the tools you are talking about has not seen release. Thus a lack of occult in this document.

Well, there is some occult in the document, as shown by the warlock's Living Shadow talent.

I did say lack. You can lack something while still having some of it. But I digress.

So, uh, how does that talent work? Occult Adventures might be available only to Subscribers only by the time the playtest ends.

If you promise to post a 14th level playtest where you can use it to its full potential and test it out, I promise to do my best to convince Jason to give an early reveal of that spell for you :D

Eh, well I'll have to think on that. But if it is an ability that could work thematically in Shadows of Gallowspire, there might be potential. Otherwise, my groups will talk about available playtest times.

I hope this is the only new class in the book... We have enough base classes in the game and I think its better if the designers can put more effort into a single class than having to create and balance 2~3 at the same time. That was one of the problems that led to the ACG being what it is...

I'm short on time so I can't look into it right now, but it seems like an interesting idea. I wonder who is designing this class.

The vigilante is the only new class in Ultimate Intrigue. The core was designed by me, with input from the team, but each one of us designed one of the vigilante types.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Mark Seifter wrote:

xevious573 wrote:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Is there some reason why we don't have a psychic vigilante? I seriously feel like a vigilante class that can't give me a real close approximation of The Shadow, in the wake of Occult Adventures in particular, has missed the mark.

This has come up. Remember, this is the first iteration of the class...and the tools you are talking about has not seen release. Thus a lack of occult in this document.

Well, there is some occult in the document, as shown by the warlock's Living Shadow talent.

I did say lack. You can lack something while still having some of it. But I digress.

So, uh, how does that talent work? Occult Adventures might be available only to Subscribers only by the time the playtest ends.

If you promise to post a 14th level playtest where you can use it to its full potential and test it out, I promise to do my best to convince Jason to give an early reveal of that spell for you :D

Well, the Warlock can select the talent at 6th level, so it might come up before then. ;)

You can, to be sure, but nonetheless I have buy-off from Jason. The first person who promises to post a thorough 14th level playtest where they use the ability will lead to me being able to give you guys a free early peek at the shadow body spell. Then if that person doesn't keep their promise, we'll totally call them out on it or something, I guess!

The leaner, meaner cousin of the factotum rises from the shadows!

I think my first question is: how married is everyone to the name vigilante? Something like 'enigma' might have less self-appointed law enforcer baggage.

As the designer of the Factotum, I was wondering when someone would notice the similarities. As for the name, I think we are pretty much locked in on that front. In general, by the time we announce a name, we are well past the point of changing it. Too much is already in motion.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Any idea when the PFS chronicle sheet is gonna be available? Or if it can count the times played before the chronicle is available retroactively if it's not out til next week or so?

I anticipate having the Chronicle sheet as part of Monday's blog. I won't make promises about retroactive credit at this time, but I'm inclined to say that allowing it would be okay, given the duration of the playtest.

If this is anything like the Factotum from 3.5, I'm already in love with it.

Robert Brookes wrote:

The leaner, meaner cousin of the factotum rises from the shadows!

I think my first question is: how married is everyone to the name vigilante? Something like 'enigma' might have less self-appointed law enforcer baggage.

As the designer of the Factotum, I was wondering when someone would notice the similarities. As for the name, I think we are pretty much locked in on that front. In general, by the time we announce a name, we are well past the point of changing it. Too much is already in motion.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

The factotum came pretty late in 3.5's life so I never got much of a chance to play with one. But that was definitely the first thing that came to mind--especially knowing your involvement behind both. It'll be interesting to see in the play test where the vigilante's strengths/weaknesses as a class lines up with the factotum's.

Loving the flavor of this class. The first thing that sticks out to me is that the Stalker's most powerful ability by far is stripping away an enemy's DR with dirty tricks, but he can't effectively use the ability due to having no bonuses to CMB. At the very least the Stalker should treat his BAB as his class level for the purposes of CMB. Getting Lore Warden bonuses on top of that would be a better base ability than Hidden Strike, even.

Robert Brookes wrote:

The leaner, meaner cousin of the factotum rises from the shadows!

I think my first question is: how married is everyone to the name vigilante? Something like 'enigma' might have less self-appointed law enforcer baggage.

As the designer of the Factotum, I was wondering when someone would notice the similarities. As for the name, I think we are pretty much locked in on that front. In general, by the time we announce a name, we are well past the point of changing it. Too much is already in motion.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

can't wait for the new iconic

Protoman wrote:

Any idea when the PFS chronicle sheet is gonna be available? Or if it can count the times played before the chronicle is available retroactively if it's not out til next week or so?

I anticipate having the Chronicle sheet as part of Monday's blog. I won't make promises about retroactive credit at this time, but I'm inclined to say that allowing it would be okay, given the duration of the playtest.

Sweet! That's great to hear, John!

Also, the stalker's rogue talent option doesn't note whether you can take standard rogue talents, unchained rogue talents, or both. It doesn't cite Pathfinder Unchained, so I'm leaning towards standard rogue talents. That said, there are clearly some abilities that I would rather have unchained (like the major / minor magic talents) and some that I would rather have the standard (such as offensive defensive).

This was my immediate question as well.

EDIT: My second question was regarding the Avenger's Favored Maneuver ability. Must he meet the prereqs for the Improved xxxx Feat? I'm betting he doesn't, but since it doesn't say, I would think he would need them.

So far I don't like how you keep having to waste talents to increase your casting ability. Arcane and Divine Training should just be part of those Specializations class abilities. It feels like they are being forced to use their talents on those things while the other Specializations can pick more freely from their lists.

I think some of the Talents abilities are locked for too many levels, like Mad Rush, Mystical Bolt, and Stalwart.

The Specializations all need more Talents to chose from. They seem like they would end up near the same build for each Specialization.
Look to Rogue Genius Games Talented line of classes to see how a class should get Talents as an option.

Protoman wrote:

Any idea when the PFS chronicle sheet is gonna be available? Or if it can count the times played before the chronicle is available retroactively if it's not out til next week or so?

I anticipate having the Chronicle sheet as part of Monday's blog. I won't make promises about retroactive credit at this time, but I'm inclined to say that allowing it would be okay, given the duration of the playtest.

So for those of us who may be playing PFS this weekend, does this mean that the playtest document for Ultimate Intrigue can now be considered legal for PFS play? (because play-testing one of these after running WBGF sounds like a FINE idea)

-TimD

Darn, I have a PC now in book 5 who basically wanted to play exactly this sort of concept. wound up a ninja. *dives into reading details*

John Compton wrote:

Protoman wrote:

Any idea when the PFS chronicle sheet is gonna be available? Or if it can count the times played before the chronicle is available retroactively if it's not out til next week or so?

I anticipate having the Chronicle sheet as part of Monday's blog. I won't make promises about retroactive credit at this time, but I'm inclined to say that allowing it would be okay, given the duration of the playtest.

So for those of us who may be playing PFS this weekend, does this mean that the playtest document for Ultimate Intrigue can now be considered legal for PFS play? (because play-testing one of these after running WBGF sounds like a FINE idea)

-TimD

From the Blog:

For the Pathfinder Society players, the playtest version of this class opens as a character option. And there will be a special Chronicle sheet available soon that allows you to gain benefits that increase in future utility the more sessions that you play a vigilante for the playtest, or GM a game with at least one vigilante player at the table.

And Chris Lambertz's statement:

Yes, per the blog post, you may use the playtest version in PFS. A Chronicle sheet will also be available soon.

Doesn't say we need the chronicle first to play it, so I'm gonna start playing a vigilante this weekend.

So far I don't like how you keep having to waste talents to increase your casting ability. Arcane and Divine Training should just be part of those Specializations class abilities. It feels like they are being forced to use their talents on those things while the other Specializations can pick more freely from their lists.

Yeah, at lvl 12 they'll need to use 4 of their 6 talents to keep their spellcasting maxed. That leaves a lot of flavorful abilities behind. I suspect that Warlock characters are going to end up feeling very feat starved after taking extra talent feats.

I feel confident that the options will be very limited for the playtest, but there will be many more when the full book comes out. When haven't they done that with a playtest?

I definitely think it is interesting, I will likely allow even this playtest version when I run Hell's Rebels next.

extra talent feats.

The playtest doc suggests we should not assume this is a thing.

First of all -- Thanks, Paizo! I've been looking forward to this since the PaizoCon announcement

Second -- There are several abilities that trigger off of atacking foes unaware of the Vigilante's presence or consider him an ally. Are there some examples of how a player is intended to pull this off in an adventure/scenario? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this concept. Thanks!!!

First of all -- Thanks, Paizo! I've been looking forward to this since the PaizoCon announcement

Second -- There are several abilities that trigger off of atacking foes unaware of the Vigilante's presence or consider him an ally. Are there some examples of how a player is intended to pull this off in an adventure/scenario? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this concept. Thanks!!!

It's likely that if you are personally stealthing or invisible, foes won't be aware of your presence at the start of combat (they may know about the other loud party members who were clanking from hundreds of feet away, but probably not you).

Eryx_UK wrote:

We don't need even more base classes!

who's this we you speak of? i am all for new classes

I see what he talks about

37 classes every one with every single archetype that make them use abilities from other classes. now, the virtualist will bring us 10+emulated classes, so 47 classes to you. plus 3rd party.

DragoDorn wrote:

So far I don't like how you keep having to waste talents to increase your casting ability. Arcane and Divine Training should just be part of those Specializations class abilities. It feels like they are being forced to use their talents on those things while the other Specializations can pick more freely from their lists.

Yeah, at lvl 12 they'll need to use 4 of their 6 talents to keep their spellcasting maxed. That leaves a lot of flavorful abilities behind. I suspect that Warlock characters are going to end up feeling very feat starved after taking extra talent feats.

I feel confident that the options will be very limited for the playtest, but there will be many more when the full book comes out. When haven't they done that with a playtest?

I think it was mentioned back on the first page that there won't be any Extra Talent feats for this, which means that a caster Warlock gets two talents for other flavorful stuff. Hoping that's tweaked a bit… going to look at the class now, though!

Already seeing word errata. "in civilized company and lends and air of menace" That should say "company and lends an air".

This was for Renown, btw.

Frightening Presence "any enemies with 10 feet" should be "within 10 feet".

I can't say I'm too thrilled about the Everyman ability. At 19th level that just seems really unnecessary. The Many Guises and a good Disguise check can do something remotely the same. Essentially, you're telling me that Darkman is epic level? No, this should be given at a lower level. Maybe down around 13th near the Quick Change ability they have.

Vengeance Strike seems like a mediocre version of an assassin's Death Attack. It's pretty weak for a level 20 ability.

Okay, why doesn't the Vigilante have Intimidate as a base skill? Two of the specializations have it, yet it's obvious that it's going to be used by the character a fair bit. Namely Renown gives bonuses and Frightening Appearance gives a free demoralization check. A stalker isn't intimidating?

The warlock is MAD. Int for spells and Cha for everything else? Why?

"a warlock vigilante an choose" should be "can choose".

First impressions:
It looks like the zealot is pretty much the way to go. The MAD warlock in a far second. The avenger with equivalent full BAB is a distant third, and stalker is dead last. I think the avenger and stalker should have a bit more to offset the fact that the spellcasters have spells. Having full BAB doesn't offset that. Gaining 1d4 every odd level (1d6 if you're not noticed) does not offset that. However, I'll admit that a MAD spellcaster does bring down their effectiveness somewhat.
For anyone relatively experienced in Pathfinder first trying out the class, the zealot would be the way to go, with the avenger being second. The other two would take more planning, and a specific campaign setting. That said, I'm more than just a little sure that I'll see way more zealots and warlocks than I'll ever see avengers or stalkers during this playtest. Spellcasters always trump for PC power builds. That said, the training talents could be worrisome as well. Maybe that's the balance?

Things I'd want to see added:
Give the avenger a chance to have an animal companion. This seems like a very Zorro type of character specialization. He should have his mount. Barring that, give it something better to compete with the spellcasters. Maybe give it something at 8th level. The stalker I wouldn't mind seeing a cohort, or bonuses to the Leadership feat, and give it d8 when unseen, and d6 normally.
Somehow give the vigilante a mind-affecting ability or some kind of aura that makes it so no one ever questions why personality A leaves and personalty B suddenly shows up. Unless the entire group is in on it, eventually they're going to question why Batman shows up for the battles, but leaves to go get Bruce Wayne to do all the dipomacy. That's like classic 80's cheese of "Oh, he's safe." or "I have a friend that could help us in this situation."

Now that the Pathfinder Unchained classes are out, this really needs to step up if it wants to compete and be used by players. More so given the fact that having secret identities mesh in mixed groups.

That said, I'm still going to try it out for PFS in July when our sessions start back up.

I suspect that Warlock characters are going to end up feeling very feat starved after taking extra talent feats.

There are not any extra talent feats for vigilantes, see the sidebar on pg 13.

That said, you don't need to take every casting talent if you don't want to. Spells give a lot of utility, but some of the talents are quite powerful, and may be worth sacrificing or delaying casting to pick up.

I approve of the Warlock Vigilante's ability to hide spellcasting. I really like the design of the class so far :D

I dislike the hidden spell casting. A spell cast with no components is not hidden so this doesn't do much. If it is intended that magic can be hidden by hiding the components (V/S/M) and any caster can do it then, I will just go into the corner and grumble about it.

It would be awesome to be able to secretly buff the party. PC drinks some water, secretly cast fly. PC opens door, secretly cast close. PC mentions your preferred deity in a positive way, secretly cast guidance or other cantrip.

Matrix Dragon wrote:

I approve of the Warlock Vigilante's ability to hide spellcasting. I really like the design of the class so far :D

I dislike the hidden spell casting. A spell cast with no components is not hidden so this doesn't do much. If it is intended that magic can be hidden by hiding the components (V/S/M) and any caster can do it then, I will just go into the corner and grumble about it.

It would be awesome to be able to secretly buff the party. PC drinks some water, secretly cast fly. PC opens door, secretly cast close. PC mentions your preferred deity in a positive way, secretly cast guidance or other cantrip.

A spell cast with no components isn't hidden, that's correct, but this ability specifically allows you to hide spells (which so far I think mainly only the bard can do with that one feat).

Stuff from the blog and Chris L. indicating PFS legality

Doesn't say we need the chronicle first to play it, so I'm gonna start playing a vigilante this weekend.

Thanks, [proto]man. :)

-TimD

As the designer of the Factotum, I was wondering when someone would notice the similarities. As for the name, I think we are pretty much locked in on that front.

Gah! 30 minutes too late to make this comment.

I immediately thought of the Factotum at first skim through.

Then I immediately wondered if there would be a new proliferation of Pathfinder 2e threads since "we now have the Pathfinder factotum" could be uttered as a statement and indicator of impending doom (or glory - depending on your perspective).

I am totally looking forward to converting my Dark Knight character into this class! I'll be sure to post it in this thread and in my Crazy Character Emporium once it's ready. I wonder how it's going to turn out; will it be better or worse than what I have now?

Can't wait to find out.

Neat.

Protoman wrote:

Stuff from the blog and Chris L. indicating PFS legality

Protoman wrote:

Doesn't say we need the chronicle first to play it, so I'm gonna start playing a vigilante this weekend.

Thanks, [proto]man. :)

I guess I'm just used to only seeing stuff from John & Mike as official notice of things for PFS, must have looked right past it.

-TimD

Yea I smacked my own head when Chris pointed out the blog had the info I needed on it. I admit the moment I found out there was a playtest I focused on the playtest PDF and skipped over the blog post to my detriment.