Quiet down, Crazy Steve. Your Batman disguise isn't fooling anyone.
Kinda surprised I am not the only one who watches Linkara.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without dual identity, you are not filling the role of the vigilante who is taking on another identity in order to do things that would otherwise harm their social standing (possibly because those things are illegal and punishable by death).
that's what the disguise skill is for.
So far the vigilante is three archetypes + a useless duel identity that does nothing but give the party and gm headaches.
|
Without dual identity, you are not filling the role of the vigilante who is taking on another identity in order to do things that would otherwise harm their social standing (possibly because those things are illegal and punishable by death).that's what the disguise skill is for.
So far the vigilante is three archetypes + a useless duel identity that does nothing but give the party and gm headaches.
You would need to play some specific (mostly noncombatant) archetype of Rogue with HEAVY investment in skill feats/talents, and some not-optimal dips in other classes to pull this off before.
Now, at last, there are some mechanics to do it from the very start. Granted, they might not be perfect, but after all this is exactly what play tests are for.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without dual identity, you are not filling the role of the vigilante who is taking on another identity in order to do things that would otherwise harm their social standing (possibly because those things are illegal and punishable by death).that's what the disguise skill is for.
So far the vigilante is three archetypes + a useless duel identity that does nothing but give the party and gm headaches.
At the very least they need to get rid of the whole "lose your vigilante talents in social mode" rule. Not only is it arbitrary and unnecessary, it's opened up multiple cans of worms and generally gives everyone a headache.
What happens to an Avenger's bonus feats? Or a Warlock's familiar?
Who the hell knows?
|
|
You would need to play some specific (mostly noncombatant) archetype of Rogue with HEAVY investment in skill feats/talents, and some not-optimal dips in other classes to pull this off before.
Bluff, Diplomacy, and Disguise is not heavy feat/talent investment. This is standard stuff for pretty much any class out side the 2+inters, and even they can pull it off with minimal work.
There is a reason why the bear with ranks in bluff is so hilarious, it's because it WORKS.
You would need to play some specific (mostly noncombatant) archetype of Rogue with HEAVY investment in skill feats/talents, and some not-optimal dips in other classes to pull this off before.Bluff, Diplomacy, and Disguise is not heavy feat/talent investment. This is standard stuff for pretty much any class out side the 2+inters, and even they can pull it off with minimal work.
There is a reason why the bear with ranks in bluff is so hilarious, it's because it WORKS.
It needs more class abilities than the specific one given to each type. If you're going to have the abilities work only 50% of the time then each side shouldn't be 1/2 a class, each side should be at least 75% of a class so they can function within their specific role effectively.
There are a lot of classes though that need a little prep, luck, or whatever to make work though. Rogues don't ALWAYS get Sneak Attack, Rangers aren't ALWAYS fighting their favored opponent, the spells you prepared that day may never see the light of day...
While I do like to see things that the class is based around work more often, I'm not sure the '50%' thing here is actually weaker then most other classes out there.
For the uninitiated.
You would need to play some specific (mostly noncombatant) archetype of Rogue with HEAVY investment in skill feats/talents, and some not-optimal dips in other classes to pull this off before.Bluff, Diplomacy, and Disguise is not heavy feat/talent investment. This is standard stuff for pretty much any class out side the 2+inters, and even they can pull it off with minimal work.
There is a reason why the bear with ranks in bluff is so hilarious, it's because it WORKS.
I don't get it. Why would anyone believe that, that would work as described?
I don't get it. Why would anyone believe that, that would work as described?For the uninitiated.
You would need to play some specific (mostly noncombatant) archetype of Rogue with HEAVY investment in skill feats/talents, and some not-optimal dips in other classes to pull this off before.Bluff, Diplomacy, and Disguise is not heavy feat/talent investment. This is standard stuff for pretty much any class out side the 2+inters, and even they can pull it off with minimal work.
There is a reason why the bear with ranks in bluff is so hilarious, it's because it WORKS.
Why wouldn't it?
Plus, he mimicked the Chicken in Animaniacs.
Lying that you can speak Common, or any other language, doesn't let you speak said language (or let others understand you somehow). I don't even understand how you could tell a lie if you can't even communicate!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The lie was that he had an impossible to decipher accent that only the butler understood.
I don't get it. Why would anyone believe that, that would work as described?
Heh heh. Ah. I pity your jealous heart. You are like the sheep who bleats after the fox.
HI-YA!*Karate chops through skylight*
|
|
I don't get it. Why would anyone believe that, that would work as described?
cause the rules say it does.
The bear only takes a -2 for disguising itself as a different race, easily covered by masterwork tools or the synergy bonus from bluff ranks (sadly gone in PF). all you have to beat is the average take 10 perception.
It's the talking that's hard, keep it simple and you have a target DC 15 to pass a secret message that your target(s) will auto understand. complex and you have to hit dc 20. you'd be a slow talker however, as it'll take twice as long than normal.
in some ways it's easier to pull off in PF, no chance of giving the wrong message; someways harder, loss of the synergy bonus between the 2 skills.
There is actually nothing that stops the bear from just taking a rank in linguistics, which is the easiest way of speaking.
Actually, there is. Animals don't have the mouth and jaw structure to vocalize human sounds.
Nevertheless, this bear isn't passing secret messages. He is, as Arachnofiend said, pretending to speak while actually saying nothing.
"The Godpigeon says that you should never debate obscure Pathfinder rulings with an unhappy ursine."
Actually, there is. Animals don't have the mouth and jaw structure to vocalize human sounds.
In real life correct, but I think in Pathfinder if you can get the intelligence high enough animals can talk. What is it? 3? 5?
|
|
Actually, there is. Animals don't have the mouth and jaw structure to vocalize human sounds.
not actually in the rules, this is DM fiat at best. At best you can say the bear is no longer an animal for having higher than 3 int.
There is actually nothing that stops the bear from just taking a rank in linguistics, which is the easiest way of speaking.
true.
Actually, there is. Animals don't have the mouth and jaw structure to vocalize human sounds.
not actually in the rules, this is DM fiat at best. At best you can say the bear is no longer an animal for having higher than 3 int.
Actually, animals can have int higher than 2 in PF. It even has rules for if you do it to an animal companion.
The FAQ has explicitly discussed it, actually. Either it or a blog post. I'll have to check.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gaining a language does not necessarily grant the ability to speak. Most animals do not possess the correct anatomy for speech. While a very intelligent dolphin might be taught to understand Common, there's no way for him speak it. There is also the issue of learning the language. The rules are mostly silent on this front, due to ease of play for PCs, but a GM should feel safe in assuming that it might take years to actually teach Common to an intelligent animal. All of this, of course, assumes that the animal even bothers to fill that language slot. Possessing the ability to use a language does not necessarily mean that such an ability is utilized.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, is the very uniqueness a dead giveaway?
If I have someone who sometimes is a valid target, and sometimes is not, how long before word gets out that this is a defining characteristic of vigilantes?
I would rather it read: "Any attempts to scry or otherwise locate the vigilante work only if the vigilante is currently in an identity known to the creature attempting to locate him. If he is in an identity unknown to the creature, the spell or effect has no effect, revealing nothing but darkness as if the target
was invalid or did not exist.had made it's saving throw."
I concur.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love favoriting people's "I agree" posts. It makes me feel like I'm at a Rock Ridge town hall meeting!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love favoriting people's "I agree" posts. It makes me feel like I'm at a Rock Ridge town hall meeting!
Kobold Cleaver is right!
Are we trying to argue that "kobold" and "gnome" are the same species, just different races?
Or "kobold" and "orc". After all, you can disguise within one size category with no penalty.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. It's baggage. Baggage that's best left to comic books where the author can cater the story to best work around the social limitations.
What's really going to happen:
Oh a fight broke out and you're stuck in your social suit and tie? lol at you. Sorry we're not all going to wait around while you change into your tights.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. It's baggage. Baggage that's best left to comic books where the author can cater the story to best work around the social limitations.
What's really going to happen:
Oh a fight broke out and you're stuck in your social suit and tie? lol at you. Sorry we're not all going to wait around while you change into your tights.
That's exactly what my players were saying!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think dual identity is necessary for flavor and concept for the class but compared the vigilante persona, the "normal" Persona seems strongly weak.
I would suggest buffing up the "normal" persona a little, like giving it some of the abilities or similar ones from the Noble Scion Prestige Class. Maybe with some social bonuses based on the specialization you take to better hide your strength(Avenger), Agility/Cunning(Stalker), your magic affiliation(Warlock), or your Faith(Zealot).
Plus the ability for your normal persona to give your something like a cash stipulation and even an awesome Hideout/lair,customizable to your character. Such as the building and business rules from Ultimate Campaign, that way Players can truly play a duel personality class by playing the role of both a PC and an NPC persona.
Example: Joraz is a simple merchant living in Azir, living in a small mansion with many financial connections. He's been an adamant defender of the Laws of Man and no Pure Legionnaire can detect or sense a single connection to any gods on him. But underneath his mansion is a small complex containing a temple to Sarenrae in which the vigilante Perzas dons his mask and roams the streets of Azir at night spreading the will of the Dawnflower and seeking to help the starving and enslaved people in Rahadoum.
I do think it takes too long to change from one identity to another, to the extent it makes ambushes an auto-fail until level 13. But aside from that I do not see an issue with dual identity.
Imagine there were a spell on the sorcerer/wizard spell list that worked like a combination nondetection, but for the duration of the spell, you couldn't use any class abilities above 1st level. How often would someone let this spell be cast on them voluntarily?
And doesn't this basically encourage anyone who DOES want a very secretive but not necessarily powerful social identity to just dip into vivilante? You could be nina 7 / vigilante 1, and basically be this ninja who, if they really needed to, could adopt a drastic alternate identity and lose... well, basically no abilities. Vigilante might very be a rare example of a Pathfinder prestige class worth dipping into. :)
Okay, I'm about to be constructive. This is what it looks like. You've been warned.
Here's my idea. It might be better to make the "dual identity" much less focused on concealment and disguises and much more focused on the "social mode vs. fighting mode" flip, to make both roles equally useful in different situations. I honestly don't think "damn it an ambush!" is that big a problem—just a risk the player has to weigh when he walks around in his social identity. You think Tony Stark doesn't worry a bit when he walks around outside his suit? I bet he does. I haven't read a single Iron Man comic or viewed a single Iron Man movie. :I The contrast is fine by me. The problem is there's no good reason to swap right now, which I expect will be fixed in time.
The thing is, the identity is fine, but the "secret identity" part of it? That should only be an option. It can work for some campaigns, with the right group, but it should not be forced. Make it a bunch of talents, or even an archetype in and of itself. Make the main vigilante just a guy who "switches gears"—still weird, but not the weirdest thing on the classlist. It could be flavored as the result of meditation, a special brand of madness, whatever, but the forced secrecy? That gets too specific for a whole class. And too impossible, considering the party problems people have brought up already. More people will end up going for the "opt out" archetypes than the main class itself.
What I'm saying is, don't force the "secret" onto the "identity". It may just be too inconvenient, too constraining. Every PC will have to jump through hoop after hoop to keep his secret. They'll be forced to work out whether to tell the party immediately or roleplay it "realistically" (and highly inconveniently). Every vigilante will be forced to perform the exact same rigmarole to explain why his two identities are never seen at the same time in the middle of the vast quest to save the world. It's a really cool option, but that's all it should be.
EDIT: And before anybody reminds me that the vigilante isn't "forced" to use his abilities—yes, okay, but giving a class abilities, making them a huge portion of the flavor for the class, and acting like those abilities are a significant portion of the class's whole? It kinda leaves the impression that you're expected to use them. That's what I'm objecting to, since it's basically an empty promise (or a misleading synopsis that leads people to either avoid or be disappointed by what the class really is).
The problem, Kobold Cleaver, is that social vs. fighting is exactly what it's supposed to be. Unfortunately the social aspects of the social identity are related to mechanics in Ultimate Intrigue which we are not allowed to see or playtest. So the social persona is just going to look like complete garbage until the book is officially released... which kind of defeats the purpose of a playtest.
Which brings up the question: Why have an open playtest for a class that requires mechanics that you're not willing to unveil to function? I understand why these mechanics are kept secret (don't want to make an open beta for the entirety of the book) but it is very difficult to give meaningful feedback on a class we're observing only half of.
The issue with taking the secret identity portion of the class away is that, without it, there is no reason for the class to exist.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kinda feels like I'm playing Paranoia and being told to go into an Indigo area again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with making the secret identity portion of the class away is that, without it, there is no reason for the class to exist.
Why not? Other classes have "mode switches". Alchemists, barbarians and druids are the three obvious examples. The vigilante is just someone who is chill by day and fights by night, so to speak. It doesn't have to be a huge secret. "Oh, that's Freya. She's a great opera performer, and a real nice gal. Just don't mess with her troupe, man. And hide those onyx gems. She doesn't like undead. No, I'm serious. Just don't mess with her.
"Oh, sure, she looks harmless up on that stage, real delicate flower. Everyone in town sure loves her. Yeah, she doesn't look like much. But everyone in town also knows that the last guy who brought his mummy monkey into her theater 'broke a leg' in a very literal sense. Also, broke a neck. But go ahead. Piss her off."
Let's be honest. The whole "I forgot how to cast spells because I left my mask at home!" thing is kinda goofy no matter what, and doesn't follow any particular narrative. In fact, it's almost something new. The only work I can think of right now that even implies that "powers come from the identity" (not the costume, but the identity itself) is Underdog. Oh, and Shazaam/Captain Marvel, sort of. I'm sure there are more, but my point is, secret identities don't have to be connected to class ability swaps.
Because the entire point of the class is to make Batman work in Pathfinder's high magic setting. The class's premise does not function from the outset if you don't have the alter ego to dodge scrying/alignment detection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It actually does, but aside from that, we can have Batman. But Batman doesn't really work as a whole class, because he's just one character. A class needs to be more flavor-flexible. Batman is more of an archetype than a class.
Also, Batman didn't gain his powers from putting on his secret identity. He had them all the time. I think it's safe to say that whatever the vigilante is now, it's a bit more than Batman/Hannah Montana "Gottsa keep my secret or the paparazzi'll find me!" :P
Why not? Other classes have "mode switches". Alchemists, barbarians and druids are the three obvious examples. The vigilante is just someone who is chill by day and fights by night, so to speak. It doesn't have to be a huge secret.
But that is the point of the class- it's someone who feels as if their cause (good or ill) cannot be accomplished in their social identity for whatever reason, and thus adopts a second identity with which to achieve their ends. If they could do what they want to do without keeping their secret, they'd be one of the other adventuring classes.
As the description notes: "In either case, the vigilante is a character of two natures, the face that everyone knows and the mask that inspires fear."
That description doesn't even really have to change, though. You can have two natures without keeping one a secret. It's just a case of "Yeah, don't bother Frank on Tuesdays."
Again, the secret-keeping really doesn't work for most adventuring parties or most campaigns.
By the way, this whole line of thought is almost completely separate from my original post. I noticed people are kind of just using my thread as a "Things I don't like about Vigilante" thread, so I figured I'd post a mostly unrelated idea of mine. I also noticed people are conflating my original views with "KC doesn't like secret identity", so I figured I should also clarify.
That description doesn't even really have to change, though. You can have two natures without keeping one a secret. It's just a case of "Yeah, don't bother Frank on Tuesdays."
Again, the secret-keeping really doesn't work for most adventuring parties or most campaigns.
No, it doesn't. What it does work for is the type of campaign Ultimate Intrigue is being marketed towards: one placed in a social setting where you'll spend more time in a noble's mansion than a dungeon. You're not going to use any of Ultimate Intrigue if you're running Rappan Athuk, but Paizo is more concerned about pleasing the people running Hell's Rebels.
Which would be totally satisfying to me if vigilante didn't appear to be intended as, y'know, PFS legal. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which would be totally satisfying to me if vigilante didn't appear to be intended as, y'know, PFS legal. :P
The Vigilante is intended to be PFS legal for the same reason Extreme wrote a power ballad. :p
Unfortunately the class is heavily tied to Ultimate Intrigue which is all about the skill-monkey's and social character types so the number of players who will find an adventure to fit it is already limited. the purpose of the class is to more accurately fit not just the superhero with the hidden identity concept but also the spy and secret agent role types.
What makes this different from the Alchemist, Barbarian and druid is that they literally become a different character. (Barbarian/Alchemist gain bonuses in exchange, and Druids turn into animals and not another player character statistically.)
this class is really made for the urban, noir, spy, and revolution setting games so in their limited nature I agree with Kobold Cleaver. But then again, like the Hybrid Class's, this class is meant to fit the role of a prestige class or multiclass build people want to play. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the class's purposed for Advanced Class Guide that got booted out for space reasons.
plus I don't believe that the abilities of the vigilante are entirely lost in their Social Persona as I think a Avenger Vigilante in their social persona can still punch someone at the full base attack bonus. I can't find any reference as to their abilities being lost in their secret identity at all in the playtest so I believe even a Warlock Vigilante can cast spells in his secret identity. the main purpose of it is to throw off divination and investigations.
Which would be totally satisfying to me if vigilante didn't appear to be intended as, y'know, PFS legal. :PThe Vigilante is intended to be PFS legal for the same reason Extreme wrote a power ballad. :p
If I'm not blind why can't I see, That a circle can't fit where a square should be, there's a hole in my heart that can only be filled by yoooooo
Yeah, makes sense