These contradictory stances devalue your feedback because it seems to me that there is no pleasing you and you won't explain why 4-class in one is BS. Since this is a discussion thread, I want to know why you feel that way.
Other classes are one class in one, because they're a class with a clear theme and concept. They have (mostly) many class features, their abilities (mostly) build on one another, and their features can be traded away and customized with archetypes, or doubled up on with feats.The vigilanteks conept is that you have a lot of skill points and renown, and then staple some other stuff on top of it.
The Vigilante is four "classes" in one. Each class is a watered down version of an existing class, you only get "Vigilante" abilities every other level, you have to spend your talents that you only get every other level to even become the watered down class in the first place, your abilities don't build on one another (Most of the abilities don't scale. If you want vII then you have to spend another one of your limited talents on it.).
Imagine the Stalker as a base class. You get your skill points, you get to sneak around, you get to FEEL like a vigilante. Then you overlay the Warlock on it, or the Avenger, or the Zealot. You build on yourself rather than having to start from the ground up and being horrifically delayed.
Some of the most frequent comments were that the specializations should be combined or that there should be a shared pool of talents between all the specializations, and that there needed to be a feat to gain extra talents.
You're playing a vanilla fighter/caster/inquisitor///commoner multiclass with extra skill points.
Renown also doesn't scale for some asinine reason. You have to spend your social persona talents on each passing level. There weren't enough enough persona talents to choose from in the playtest, so there was zero reason to give us the false choice.
False choices false choices false choices, that's the class in a nutshell.
Sure if you build one high level it might look okay, since you're getting everything at once, but playing one and having to level up only to see "Well...I kind of HAVE to do this. Boy, sure would be nice to just play the class I'm emulating and get real class features" is extremely disheartening.
Also, I know this is a discussion thread for you to learn opinions, but have you read through the playtest threads? They give a lot of the info that's been posted here.
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'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.
A Lawful Good on a party can be just as disruptive as a Chaotic Neutral.
Hell, two Lawful Goods on the same team who have conflicting ideas of "Lawful Good" can be the worst of all.
If one of the Lawful Goods thinks that KILL EVERYONE WHO PINGS AS EVIL PURGE THEM and the other is Lawful Good he might think "Yeah no" and they'll fight about it.
If one of the Lawful Goods thinks that KILL EVERYONE WHO PINGS AS EVIL PURGE THEM and the other is Chaotic Neutral he might think "This guy is going to get himself killed, draw attention to us, and ruin our plans" and they'll fight about it.
If one of the Lawful Goods thinks that "Follow the law, don't eat puppies, and we won't have problems" and the other is Chaotic Neutral, unless he has no sense of self preservation, no motives, and no goals, he'll say "Yeah okay. I should probably not annoy you since we're both on the same side, and as a Chaotic Neutral, I'm looking out for myself and my own interests. If we fight I won't be able to get X. I'll play be your rules because it helps me."
If you're playing an insane sowacky lel character, don't even put an alignment on your sheet. Just write "Insane".
"But I have a wizard who spent 500 years preparing for yada yada yada, infinite buffs something something something"
Yeah, Lucifer's been doing the same thing far longer than you, along with having an entire plane at his fingertips. You don't.
There's 0 way you'd ever just wind up in a square room with him alone on one side and your party on the other.
Final thoughts on the Warlock, since that was my favorite class.
What I liked:
What I don't like:
What I would change:
Introduce Bomb Training II+. Bombs are an interesting direction for the Warlock to take, but as they are right now, there's really no reason to take them, since you'd be going away from Arcane Training. As I said before, Arcane Training shouldn't be the only option for the Warlock. This would give you the option of ignoring Arcane Training for something else that is also viable. This would also open up more character concepts. (Even though I don't know why Bomb Training would be with Warlock, but that's a different matter entirely.)
Return the Warlock's bolt damage back to what it was in the first playtest.
Just throw out Vengeance Strike. I know it's a capstone ability and most people won't ever reach it, but it just feels like a flop. I don't really have a suggestion for what to replace it with, sorry.
Stunning Apperance is split up with its two upgrades, Frightening and Stunning. Maybe combine them all into one scaling ability and then give another small bonus at 11 and 17? Maybe a bonus combat feat could work.
I don't like the spellbook. Familiars should be available as an alternate to spellbooks without the need of a talent. Maybe something like:
There really needs to be an Extra Talent feat if the Warlock is going to be forced to give up his talents to do what he's being forced to do anyway, even if you can just take the extra talent feat once.
With having the option of taking talents OTHER than Arcane Training, you could do something like Battle Armor, Bombs, and Bolts (With buffs) and create an entirely different character concept than somehow who took all the Arcane Training.
And lastly, scaling AC without the need for Armor. How about something like Canny Defense/Monk's Wisdom to AC (But not with Wisdom.)
Final thoughts on the class as a whole:
But there weren't enough social talents to choose from in the playtest, so you might as well have just been given a specific social talent every other level instead of getting to choose, because choosing was largely pointless. Unfortunately, that's what a lot of the choices of this class feel like, pointless. You either take the obvious thing and play a character who's lost half the talents doing what they were supposed to, or you pick things that look cool and interesting, and lose access to the thing you should be able to do in the first place. It'd be like if the Barbarian had to give up Rage Talents to learn how to Rage, and had to continue to give up Rage Talents to get his Rage to scale. And also couldn't take Extra Rage Power as a feat. And 3/4 of the Rage Powers weren't available to him.
I do understand that there will be many more talents in the finalized version, and that we were only seeing a small portion, but the portion we were allowed to see just wasn't enough and it left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.
I really do love the concept of this class, even though most of what I said about it seems negative.
I'm ready for 2.0
If by 2.0 you mean a republication of the core rulebook that's basically identical but is entirely rewritten with clear and consistent language (and probably renaming of certain actions/other terms so that they don't share a name with something else), includes information from other books so that those ones don't need to be rewritten, and maybe an adjustment on what spells belong to which school.
Keep a notebook out during the game to write down details your players learn of, things they do, and ideas they give you.