Ultimate Intrigue—Vigilante Playtest!

Starting Wealth: 5d6 × 10 (average 175 gp)

Unacceptable! How will I play The Gold Baron Bruce Wayne The Gold Baron now?!

Green Hornet?

I think Intimidate should definitely be a class skill for the baseline vigilante.

There should also be a way to grab talents from other specializations.

And maybe some DR/- for the avenger to make up for the d8 HD. Not a lot, maybe DR 1/- or 2/-.

And just give the stalker sneak attack. No need to re-invent the wheel.

This class also reminds me of a custom class I designed, The Pretender!

Some what interesting but just a class that I would like to play but at least it fills a couple of niches.

First impressions: While I'm inclined to agree with kevin_video's assessment of their viability, I'm nevertheless reversed on how interesting I find the specializations. Stalker looks fun. Just from a combat standpoint, the ability to fade away and strike through the shadows, play the role of Batman, and actually have to use your "sneak attack" (which, question, why not just call it Sneak Attack? Did it have weird interactions with multiclassing Sneak Attack dice in internal playtesting>) without being noticed, as opposed to just getting the opponent flatfooted (looking at you seven-branched sword) or else flanked like literally every other Rogue character does.

Next comes Warlock, for two main reasons. One, I think choosing between your limited spell progression and other talents is, frankly, a really interesting dynamic, especially when some of the other talents are actually really cool. I'm referring, of course, to Eldritch Bla-I mean Mystic Bolts. Having, effectively, a 1d6 blasting cantrip that doesn't provoke effectively taking the place of a weapon is nifty. Plus there's a lot of other neat utility. I think the idea that it's MAD is ridiculous. It's only a little more MAD than, say, the Arcanist, which can want Cha depending on your Exploit.

Avenger feels kinda like "I'm a Fighter who's also a face sometimes," which is kinda neat. The only main draw that I feel is the modifications to the bonus traits (raise your hand if you're now annoyed that the Vital Strike Combat Trick wasn't getting to use it on AoOs).

Zealot... okay, don't get me wrong, flavorwise it's mostly interesting and is tied with Stalker for what I'd want one of my character concepts to be (Inquisitor of Calistria). And then I look at the talents, and I get annoyed. Stalker feels similar to but still very unique from a Rogue. Warlock is the same but with Arcanist (I say Arcanist over Sorc or Wizard because them prep rules). Avenger... is basically a Fighter, but it plays with it. Zealot is "we took a cleric ability, Breath of Life, and some things that not a single soul alive would be shocked to see as an Inquisitor option, and throw them all together. Boom. Done.

If I had to give any suggestions, it would be: I agree with bumping up Stalker's damage dice. Getting off a full power Hidden Strike should feel rewarding rather than "I just went out of my way to do something two classes and a bunch of archetypes can do much easier." d8 for full damage and d6 for partial seems to make more sense.

Give Zealot some interesting tools to play with. It should feel like its own class, not Inquistor-lite+channeling. Either cut the healer-oriented stuff from its talent options, or else have it take from the Cleric/Oracle list and not the Inquisitor list. Inquisitors are not healbots, and their spell list reflects this. Give it some cool face-skill interactions: this is a class that's designed to face, in a book presumably all about skill monkeys and faces, so take advantage of that.

Finally, just a comment: This is very clearly not a class. This is four different classes with a unifying element. I think if you really want to make all four viable, play up the specializations a lot, emphasize that they all play very differently. Give them one or two more base abilities. Put the capstone on the specialization. Vengeance Strike is basically a situationally superior but generally inferior Studied Strike, but each of the specializations could get something really cool and unique to further separate their identities.

Oh, also:

At 10th level,

the zealot vigilante treats his holy symbol as a permanent
fixture for the purpose of determining the concentration or
desecration effects. A zealot vigilante must be at least 4th level
to select this talent."

I'm assuming that's meant to be consecration.

Quote:

Starting Wealth: 5d6 × 10 (average 175 gp)

Unacceptable! How will I play The Gold Baron Bruce Wayne The Gold Baron now?!

By having rich parents?

Unrelatedly, is the Avenger's Favored Maneuver supposed to allow you to ignore prerequisites? If so, I feel like it should be stated directly...and if not, I'd like to encourage that it to be altered to do so? Pretty please?

Speaking of the warlock, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you from using your arcane strike with mystic bolts. Shocking acid blasts anyone?

I demand 10d6 x 10 gp. No, not for the class, for me. Put in the bag, peasant!

Damn he who grabbed the Gold Baron alias before I could.

Gisher wrote:

If I understand how this works, a 20th level Warlock who has all six Arcane Training Talents would be able to cast the following number of spells per day:

6 cantrips
4 1st level
3 2nd level
3 3rd level
3 4th level
2 5th level
1 6th level

That seems a bit underwhelming when compared to, say, a Bard or Magus. I also don't see any combat mechanic similar in value to Performance or Spell Conbat/Spellstrike. Am I missing something?

Well, it's Arcanist casting (ie: the best each of prepared and Spontaneous). So there's that.

And you still get 5 Talents and way more skills and skill advantages than a Magus...but yeah, some combat bonus would be nice on all the Vigilante Specializations as well.

It stil has 6/9 of another spell list without any spell at discount and feels awkward like the warpirest. At least the Hunter got the Ranger spell added to its list.

It stil has 6/9 of another spell list without any spell at discount and feels awkward like the warpirest. At least the Hunter got the Ranger spell added to its list.

6/9 of the whole Wizard list is pretty solid, though. I mean, even delayed access to part of the best list in the game is very nice to have.

I demand 10d6 x 10 gp. No, not for the class, for me. Put in the bag, peasant!

Damn he who grabbed the Gold Baron alias before I could.

I rolled 10 1s, here's 10 gold.

Quote:

Starting Wealth: 5d6 × 10 (average 175 gp)

Unacceptable! How will I play The Gold Baron Bruce Wayne The Gold Baron now?!

Even rich brats kids have an allowance. ;)

Score!

*Runs off in stolen batsuit*

But wait...10 x 10 is...HEY! I DIDN'T GET THROUGH THE THIRD GRADE FOR NOTHIN'!

I'm just glad the zealot got the inquisitor list instead of the cleric list.

I really want to finish playing a certain high level set of scenarios (I'm in the middle of it now) because I want to convert a number of galt revolutionary heroes to vigilantes and see how they balance out. I just don't want to spoil anything for myself, but at least one NPC and possibly the entire team could make good samples to rebuild and test for play balance.

Speaking of the warlock, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you from using your arcane strike with mystic bolts. Shocking acid blasts anyone?

Arcane Strike does specify a weapon.

Why are people comparing this to the Factotum? Don't get me wrong, I loved the Factotum... but the whole point of that class was that you could change your focus as needed, doing a little bit of everything over the course of the day. The Vigilante picks a focus and keeps it forever, that's not similar at all.

I like the way the Vigilante is looking, too. Especially the Warlock, that looks really fun. But I don't really see it having anything in common with the Factotum... being able to pick from one of four permanent options is nowhere near the same as being able to pick from a dozen temporary options.

Also, while I love the Warlock, I think the spellcasting is a bit... jumpy. I don't mind taking talents for your spells so much (it hurts, but spells can be pretty powerful), what I mind is going several levels with nothing, then suddenly jumping up a few spells per day.

I think a better option would be to include a spells per day table like any other class, then have the Arcane Training talents govern your access to that table. For example (obviously the real wording would be more in-depth):

Arcane Training I: Your spells per day are based on [Table X], up to level 3 (you are treated as your Warlock level or level 3 when determining your spells per day, whichever is lower). Your spells per day don't increase at 4th level and higher unless you take additional Arcane Training talents.

Arcane Training II: Your spells per day are based on [Table X], up to level 7.

Arcane Training III: Your spells per day are based on [Table X], up to level 11.

Arcane Training IV: Your spells per day are based on [Table X], up to level 13.

Arcane Training V: Your spells per day are based on [Table X], up to level 15.

Arcane Training VI: Your spells per day are based on [Table X], up to level 20.

That said, we'd love to hear your ideas for more universal specializations to add to our list, and one of us will probably make a thread specifically for those at some point!

Or we could flip things on their heads, and you could start a thread that outlines many or all of the (other) ideas you designers have had.

Entryhazard wrote:

It stil has 6/9 of another spell list without any spell at discount and feels awkward like the warpirest. At least the Hunter got the Ranger spell added to its list.

6/9 of the whole Wizard list is pretty solid, though. I mean, even delayed access to part of the best list in the game is very nice to have.

Still it rubs me the wrong way that the best this magician will do at level 17-20 is to cast Contingency or Summon Monster 6 when the Bard gets Overwhelming Presence (And even the Inquisitor thus the Zealot)

Part of me wonders if this is going to be a genderfluid iconic.

I mean, I figure it's unlikely, since it'd be a bit gimmicky, but it would be kinda interesting to see.

Imbicatus wrote:

Speaking of the warlock, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you from using your arcane strike with mystic bolts. Shocking acid blasts anyone?

Arcane Strike does specify a weapon.

Arcane Strike imbues all your weapons at once, and Mystic Bolts are a weapon.

...and Mystic Bolts are a weapon.

Where does it say that?

My only complaint is the timing of dropping the playtest on pfs GMs. In less than a year we've gotten 12 new classes with a wide variety of new mechanics, and changes from unchained. Can you slow it down?

I like everything but the social persona. I'm not clear on why this mechanic can't be covered by roleplaying? Items of non-detection, and disguise currently cover this.

For the warlock, will there be a way to increase damage for the mystic bolt?

Instead of caster levels, can there be an option for SLAs and SUs? I'm thinking of the summoner and arcanist special summoning ability, or the witch's hexes.

For the warlock, will there be a way to increase damage for the mystic bolt?

Yes: the damage doubles at 8th level and triples at 15th level.

As a touch attack, 1d6 plus level, with two bolts and then three bolts, is pretty impressive for having spent a single talent. At high levels, even a +5 ranged touch is viable, and at 1d6+15 damage, you'll get a lot of value out of it even if you don't go weapon-and-bolt with Two Weapon Fighting.

Entryhazard wrote:

...and Mystic Bolts are a weapon.

Where does it say that?

It says you can take Weapon Focus(Mystic Bolt), so it's a weapon.

Putting this here for now (until/unless we get some stickied threads for the Vigilante Specializations).

It came up in another thread when Michael Westen was mentioned;as regards the Avenger, I'd like to see a little more "Oomph!" in the Environmental Weapon ability. As is, it seems like its both slightly more powerful and slightly weaker (situational) than the Improvised Weapon feat. Perhaps the weapon should get a favored terrain bonus to hit/damage like a Ranger? Or maybe a scaling damage like the Brawler/Monk get with unarmed attacks for improvised weapons used in the favored terrain?

I need my Michael Westen to be able to Macgyver himself up some damaging weapons to use on the bad guys.

The obvious route with the warlock is too maximize spellcasting. However, the fact that vigilante talents are needed to maximize spellcasting tell us that it's just one of many options. So what really interests me is how viable warlocks are that invest nothing in spellcasting, or go hybrid and only partially invest.

If warlocks that go with all non-spellcasting talents isn't viable, then the current design is a waste of time. So that's where most of my warlock testing time will go.

the one thing I would probably change is removing the need to spend talents to get spells for the Warlock and Zealot specializations and let them gain the spell casting naturally. And in return make sure the other level 1 talents of the Stalker and Avenger equal and scale in a similar manner.

FedoraFerret wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Speaking of the warlock, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you from using your arcane strike with mystic bolts. Shocking acid blasts anyone?

Arcane Strike does specify a weapon.

Arcane Strike imbues all your weapons at once, and Mystic Bolts are a weapon.

While we're on how mystic bolt interacts with feats, how do we feel about Rapid Shot?

JRutterbush wrote:

Entryhazard wrote:

...and Mystic Bolts are a weapon.

Where does it say that?

It says you can take Weapon Focus(Mystic Bolt), so it's a weapon.

That's not how that works. Making an exception for Mystic Bolts in the case of one feat is not the same as saying that Mystic Bolts counts as a weapon for other effects. It's making a specific exception to the normal rule, not establishing a new rule: saying "You can use Weapon Focus with Mystic Bolts, even though it's not a weapon.", not "Mystic Bolts is a weapon."

Most likely they even intended for all the feats like Weapon Specialization and Improved Critical to apply on this one.

Probably not a good idea to start assuming intention when nothing's actually been said on the matter.

The obvious route with the warlock is too maximize spellcasting. However, the fact that vigilante talents are needed to maximize spellcasting tell us that it's just one of many options. So what really interests me is how viable warlocks are that invest nothing in spellcasting, or go hybrid and only partially invest.

If warlocks that go with all non-spellcasting talents isn't viable, then the current design is a waste of time. So that's where most of my warlock testing time will go.

Personally I think there's three builds to go with. There's full caster, in which case you're mainly playing to be a partial Arcane spellcaster with a secret identity, and picking up some neat side things; a blasting build using Mystic Bolts for ranged attacks, picking up mobility talents and probably focusing about halfway down the spells list; and a close up build, using melee Mystic Bolts and/or an actual weapon, possibly Bond of Blood, definitely Caster's Defense and Elemental Battle Armor.

Oh, and if Educated Defense doesn't become core on Warlocks I'll eat my hat.

While we're on how mystic bolt interacts with feats, how do we feel about Rapid Shot?

If MBs are indeed weapons Rapid Shot would apply, but maybe it's particularly powerful as for an extra attack targeting touch AC a -2 to hit is negligible. But that may not be really OP at higher levels.

That's not how that works. Making an exception for Mystic Bolts in the case of one feat is not the same as saying that Mystic Bolts counts as a weapon for other effects. It's making a specific exception to the normal rule, not establishing a new rule: saying "You can use Weapon Focus with Mystic Bolts, even though it's not a weapon.", not "Mystic Bolts is a weapon."

Except the bolded is missing from the ability description. The blurb about Weapon Focus is there to say that Mystic Bolts aren't Rays, most likely to avoid players banking everything on it overlapping with it bettering ray spells too for the same number of feats.

Quote:

Most likely they even intended for all the feats like Weapon Specialization and Improved Critical to apply on this one.

Probably not a good idea to start assuming intention when nothing's actually been said on the matter.

If the specification is there to differentiate from Rays this is the next step. It's not like +2 to damage and critting on a 19 from level 11 are really overpowered.

ChesterCopperpot wrote:

While we're on how mystic bolt interacts with feats, how do we feel about Rapid Shot?

If MBs are indeed weapons Rapid Shot would apply, but maybe it's particularly powerful as for an extra attack targeting touch AC a -2 to hit is negligible. But that may not be really OP at higher levels.

*coughGunslingercough*

Entryhazard wrote:

ChesterCopperpot wrote:

While we're on how mystic bolt interacts with feats, how do we feel about Rapid Shot?

If MBs are indeed weapons Rapid Shot would apply, but maybe it's particularly powerful as for an extra attack targeting touch AC a -2 to hit is negligible. But that may not be really OP at higher levels.

*coughGunslingercough*

I'm aware of that, but the gunslinger doesn't add Level to damage and still needs to bypass DR while energy damage goes through even DR/-

Also it has a range of 30 ft. and it's still a touch attack beyond the first increment and doesn't have reloading/misfire issues. Also can attack at melee range without provoking by default.

On the other hand it can struggle against energy resistance, and the gunslinger's full BAB lets it already attack one more time compared to this Vigilante

Clustered Shots is a thing.

Playing a kitsune vigilante starting at level 3 (for an avenger) or level 5 (for everybody else) means being able to have your mild-mannered alter ego be an ordinary fox.

FedoraFerret wrote:

Entryhazard wrote:

ChesterCopperpot wrote:

While we're on how mystic bolt interacts with feats, how do we feel about Rapid Shot?

If MBs are indeed weapons Rapid Shot would apply, but maybe it's particularly powerful as for an extra attack targeting touch AC a -2 to hit is negligible. But that may not be really OP at higher levels.

*coughGunslingercough*

I'm aware of that, but the gunslinger doesn't add Level to damage and still needs to bypass DR while energy damage goes through even DR/-

Also it has a range of 30 ft. and it's still a touch attack beyond the first increment and doesn't have reloading/misfire issues. Also can attack at melee range without provoking by default.

On the other hand it can struggle against energy resistance, and the gunslinger's full BAB lets it already attack one more time compared to this Vigilante

Gunslinger does, however, add Dex to damage, has full BAB and so can afford to use Deadly Aim.

My point being, applying Rapid Shot to touch attacks isn't too far out there.

Playing a kitsune vigilante starting at level 3 (for an avenger) or level 5 (for everybody else) means being able to have your mild-mannered alter ego be an ordinary fox.

This pairs nicely with pretending to be someone's familiar.

The more time I spend looking at this class, the more I like the general approaches taken to the four specializations (although the stalker appears to have been balanced against the Core rogue, which is not a good place for it to be). There's a great amount of creativity in here that I like.

Still, there are two big structural things I have big problems with:
1. The social identity. It doesn't work for most PCs and using it ends up being a trap option because you lose the vast majority of your class abilities while you're in your social identity, and switching isn't quick. On top of that, I'm not sure I buy the rationale that you lose abilities based on your identity. Bruce Wayne wouldn't let himself die just because he didn't have his Batman suit on... and he also wouldn't lose the +4 bonus to Knowledge or Craft or Sense Motive that he had in his civilian gear.
2. The talent-based spellcasting advancement. The rest of the systems in the game aren't built to support this method of advancement, and even parts of the identity system seem to interact with the spellcasting advancement very poorly. For example, in your social identity, you retain your ability to cast first-level spells but lose your ability to cast higher-level spells.

Mechanically, given what we non-Paizo folks can see, I think this class could have been implemented more smoothly by picking one variant (Avenger? Stalker?) and using that as the base class, and then implementing the others as archetypes. That would let you seamlessly fix the spellcasting problem using mechanical solutions you've already developed.

Parts of the class, in particular a small number of the Stalker talents, also seem to have been written with very specific restrictions that might be intended to keep them from being overpowered, but serve to limit their utility for anything but, well... murderhobo-ing, if you'll pardon the expression. The flexibility I would hope for from a tabletop game just isn't there in these things below:
1. Twisting Fear, for example, could be fun but the effect doesn't seem to be optional. Do you really want to damage every NPC you try to intimidate?
2. Rooftop Infiltrator--why does the Vigilante need to be the person to attach the rope? What if my friend/ally does it? What if it's already there? This leads to silly situations where there's a rope right next to you and you have to get your own rope up there to climb at your accelerated movement speed anyway, even though the other rope is knotted and yours has been coated in Grease. Or a rope hangs down into darkness and you can climb it at quarter- or half- speed, but if you detach it and reattach it, you can suddenly climb faster. Climb speed on ropes or anything DC 15 and below would seem more reasonable given the intended power level of the talents.
3. Pull Into Shadows I've already mentioned, but it's also reminiscent of video game design. What if I want to create a pacifist character whose vigilante identity pulls potential victims into hiding while the muggers are distracted? It's very clearly the same mechanism, but it's explicitly outlawed. Why? It just doesn't make any sense to me. Reward creativity, don't limit it outright.

Not to mention firearms have a rules exception to allow deadly aim to work with them, that mystic bolts lacks. You can't power attack or deadly aim touch attacks.

Mechanically, given what we non-Paizo folks can see, I think this class could have been implemented more smoothly by picking one variant (Avenger? Stalker?) and using that as the base class, and then implementing the others as archetypes. That would let you seamlessly fix the spellcasting problem using mechanical solutions you've already developed.

As best I can tell, the class was built from the ground up with a flavor basis in mind. You're creating a Vigilante because you want to play this "mild mannered X by day, badass by night" sort of character. The specializations exist to accomodate that.

If anything, I would say that rather than an archetype... maybe make this a new kind of class? You have your core classes, your base classes, your alternate classes, your hybrid classes, and your vigilante classes. Vigilante classes all get their own accesses to these certain kinds of features to disguise themselves (perhaps the Warlock, for instance, gets to magically switch into his outfit at the cost of it being vulnerable to Dispels, for instance) and live out double lives. It creates more room to focus on what are now the specializations, when those are really in and of themselves their own classes.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees by now that while interesting the casting of the warlock and zealot are underwhelming. I would suggest simply switching how the casting works to what's below. For the Stalker I would explicitly state that hidden strike counts as sneak attack for all feats and abilities that work with sneak attack(it seems fine to me otherwise). For the Avenger I just think they need better talents and one of those should be a lesser version of martial flexibility(maybe 1/2 as strong if you keep the no extra talent thing or 1/4 if you allow the extra talent feat eventually) My main hope is that there is an archetype or that the 20th level ability of the class is changed to you getting a 2nd specialization in addition to your main one.

Good customization options, but it steals some thunder from the Fighter and Rogue, and they're already growing less and less viable with every release.

Superstitious and cowardly lot.

There is no Rogue "thunder".

It occurs to me that Indiana Jones/Dr Henry Jones, Jr might well qualify as a vigilante - and in so doing provide a possible archetype for what an "adventuring" vigilante might do in a traditional Pathfinder game. Just as the mild-mannered and somewhat soft-spoken archeology professor occasionally wanders off and saves the world from spirit-nuke-possessing Nazis (using a pseudonym to do it, even!), the adventuring vigilante might simply be someone who doesn't adventure "full time" for some reason, but nonetheless can grab his towel and be prepared for trouble when he needs to...

Terminalmancer wrote:

Mechanically, given what we non-Paizo folks can see, I think this class could have been implemented more smoothly by picking one variant (Avenger? Stalker?) and using that as the base class, and then implementing the others as archetypes. That would let you seamlessly fix the spellcasting problem using mechanical solutions you've already developed.

As best I can tell, the class was built from the ground up with a flavor basis in mind. You're creating a Vigilante because you want to play this "mild mannered X by day, badass by night" sort of character. The specializations exist to accomodate that.

The way flavor is incorporated into a class when you build it is a little different than the way you implement the class abilities. What I was referring to was the awkward way that talent-based spellcasting interacts with many of the other spellcasting systems. An archetype-based approach already has the framework for making this work--instead of having a wannabe cleric who can't benefit from most divine spellcasting-based PrCs because everything she does is based on talents she no longer gets, have the cost of the archetype be losing the talents at 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16. Then it all just works!

Actually, wait. That is a bizarre progression. It looks like you get that really bizarre spellcasting progression because you want all the spells to increase on even levels, because of the talent thing. So you fix even more things by going with an existing framework instead of inventing a new one, because you can have the standard one-spell-level-per-three-class-levels progression that 6-level casters get.

So, I was thinking about this and another question comes to mind.

Can a vigilante utilize their talents if they become the target of a polymorph effect or assume a mundane disguise while assuming their vigilante identity?

The way flavor is incorporated into a class when you build it is a little different than the way you implement the class abilities. What I was referring to was the awkward way that talent-based spellcasting interacts with many of the other spellcasting systems. An archetype-based approach already has the framework for making this work--instead of having a wannabe cleric who can't benefit from most divine spellcasting-based PrCs because everything she does is based on talents she no longer gets, have the cost of the archetype be losing the talents at 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16. Then it all just works!

Except that now you're shoehorned into focusing spellcasting, when the entire point of the modular spell progression is so you can pick and choose. If I'm playing a Warlock focused on melee combat, I can delay my spell progression in favor of picking up my melee combat talents early, and then get those spells later on. Eventually I'll probably advance my Arcane Training to the maximum, simply because there aren't enough talents I necessarily want to focus on, but I can choose not to focus on it in favor of something else.

Could it be better applied? Absolutely, but I for one adore the concept of a character who casts spells, and can focus on spellcasting, but can also literally ignore spellcasting for other cool stuff.

A warlock would probably be interesting to play in a setting where arcane casting is feared.

Part of me wonders if this is going to be a genderfluid iconic.

I mean, I figure it's unlikely, since it'd be a bit gimmicky, but it would be kinda interesting to see.

There's already a genderfluid iconic, the ninja.

So, I was thinking about this and another question comes to mind.

Can a vigilante utilize their talents if they become the target of a polymorph effect or assume a mundane disguise while assuming their vigilante identity?

Based on the wording you assume an identity at the start of each day, although it doesn't necessarily say you need to rest. Changing identities during the day certainly seems to require some extra gear--a clothing change, some makeup, etc.--so it's unclear whether you need any of that for setting your initial identity when you wake up.