| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think many of the hybrid classes, like slayer and brawler, are so practical and useful they just feel like more base classes to me. Vigilante's specificness bugs me, but I get that I'm trying to hold back the tide with a one-brick wall here. :P
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.
The base ability and bonus class skills
apply when the vigilante is in either of his identities, but
all of the other abilities are available only when he is in his
vigilante identity, unless stated otherwise.
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.
The base ability and bonus class skills
apply when the vigilante is in either of his identities, but
all of the other abilities are available only when he is in his
vigilante identity, unless stated otherwise.
Confirmations!
Yeah, the "talker" definitely needs to be able to do more right now. A barbarian without his rage struggles, but this is more like a wizard without spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the "talker" definitely needs to be able to do more right now. A barbarian without his rage struggles, but this is more like a wizard without spells.
In the Warlock's case, almost identical to a Wizard without spells.
Yeah, the "talker" definitely needs to be able to do more right now. A barbarian without his rage struggles, but this is more like a wizard without spells.
Well... a wizard without level 2 spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think that the warlock and zealot need to be able to progress normally like any other spell aster without needing to get talents because the way it is now is just confusing.
Not that confusing, except for the typo in the warlock's table ... which is very very confusing.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Now I want to make a vigilante-styled druid.
"By day, he is mild-mannered woodsman Benjamin Birch. By night, he is the scourge of all criminals, the Bear!!!"
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Now I want to make a vigilante-styled druid.
"By day, he is mild-mannered woodsman Benjamin Birch. By night, he is the scourge of all criminals, the Bear!!!"
You need to make an entire squad of characters like this.
BEAR. FORCE. ONE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaand we're back to bears. G'night everybody.
|
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.
To be fair Batman dosent really work in the comics without a certain level of suspension of belief.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think that the warlock and zealot need to be able to progress normally like any other spell aster without needing to get talents because the way it is now is just confusing.
While it doesn't make the transition less painful, another way they could present the warlock and zealot more like archetypes for the vigilante class. Then they could say something of the nature "you gain spellcasting, this replaces the vigilante talents at 4th, 8th, 10th, 14th, and 16th level." With that they could save almost a full column of text used to explain how adding spell levels with talents works. (It would also make it so vigilante could more reasonably benefit from prestige classes that grant additional caster levels.)
I thought the teletubbies WERE the horrifying monsters...
The class is so highly specific, it belongs to the same bag as Anti-Paladin
Aka its variety night and GM made you a quick game where you all get to pretend to be evil bastards, kick the baby and pillage the villages to play out all those crazy and evil urges out of players before they return back to normal games.
It is like group counseling in a way. Better to let players vent out their chaotic stupid habits than let them ruin actual games. Now it comes in Batman flavor for those people who think "stealth and social" aspects involve just killing people during the night in a fancy museum rather than the day in a cave.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just love an explanation as to how this plays out with any given adventuring party.
The group joins together. There's a fighter, with a big axe and shield, and he says he can fight, and protect the others. There's a cleric, with his holy symbol and spells, and he heals and does amazing divine magics for the party. There's this wizard, and all are amazed at the arcane possibilities he presents...and then there's the town baker. He can...sell cookies.
...or is he this vigilante, who never goes into 'baker' mode?
Now, there are some niche games where the vigilante has his place, but they are few and far between. Niche.
As an NPC class - pure flavor-wise - it has possibilities...if it's not just plain weak. I'd love to see some straight builds that can stand up to good builds of other classes, though. I'm not terribly convinced that it's strong enough to hold its own - all for the value of a good disguise.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Waiting 5 minutes for abilities to kick in, can be deadly.
+1 to this. I find the concept kind of interesting but in my experience, 5 minutes during battle is impractical and 5 minutes out of battle is irrelevant.
I just can't see rolling initiative while in my social persona and telling my fellow players "I'll be back in 50 rounds with my good class abilities working!"
Maybe have it full round at first level then eventually standard/move/swift as you level up? Maybe a "change in plain sight" ability or feat?
It's a clever ability, it just seems to me right more hinderance than benefit which isn't so great for one of the main first level abilities.
I'd just love an explanation as to how this plays out with any given adventuring party.
The group joins together. There's a fighter, with a big axe and shield, and he says he can fight, and protect the others. There's a cleric, with his holy symbol and spells, and he heals and does amazing divine magics for the party. There's this wizard, and all are amazed at the arcane possibilities he presents...and then there's the town baker. He can...sell cookies.
...or is he this vigilante, who never goes into 'baker' mode?
You could just keep the two lives seperate....
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.
The thing is...my take is that the DM should not be continually putting the player in situation where he needs the vigilante to fight in his social persona. that is the same kind of nonsense that I think is the equivalent of DM's that constantly attack/remove a wizard's spellbook, or make a paladin fall. If that is happening regularly to a vigilante player, that is the DM's fault, not a design flaw of the class
The class works with the assumption that most of the time, you will head into a dungeon or enemy base in vigilante mode.
| 2 people 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.
Mechanically, the class is set up to enforce the secret identity bit. However this should probably be treated more like a paladin than a hard and fast mechanic rule.
I think the flavor they are going with is that the vigilante keeps his identity a secret to protect his interests, avoid jail, and keep his loved ones safe. So he will intentionally avoid using his abilities in public in such a way that he is outed as a super hero. Which is a super common trope in fiction, and appropriate for the class.
Maybe instead it should be rewritten so that a vigilante can use all his vigilante talents in a social persona, but if a vigilante uses his vigilante abilities in public and leaves witnesses, he loses access to all the benefits of his social persona (skills, alignment/scry invisibility, social talents). that would perhaps avoid the problem people are having with thinking the character has two personalities
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."
Paranoia computer: Asking questions about this is above your pay grade. You aren't a traitor, are you comrade?
|
|
| 1 person 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.The thing is...my take is that the DM should not be continually putting the player in situation where he needs the vigilante to fight in his social persona. that is the same kind of nonsense that I think is the equivalent of DM's that constantly attack/remove a wizard's spellbook, or make a paladin fall. If that is happening regularly to a vigilante player, that is the DM's fault, not a design flaw of the class
The class works with the assumption that most of the time, you will head into a dungeon or enemy base in vigilante mode.
It's not that simple though, right? I mean, in a conventional adventure path, the player playing the paladin shouldn't be forced to atone every book, but it's fine to challenge them. On the other hand, if they insist on playing a paladin character in Reign of Winter after having been warned not to and it really doesn't go well, that's not the GM's fault.
With a vigilante, there may very well be campaigns where the class works great--presumably Hell's Rebels will be one of them. But if you throw a vigilante into a conventional adventuring party in a conventional campaign and expect it to work out, that's probably not the GM's problem, it's yours for making a poor choice.
If the AP says the ball is going to be attacked and you're in your social identity because that's what you do, there's not a ton the GM can or maybe should do to lessen the blow of you being stuck in the wrong persona at the time. So far, APs aren't designed for people with this particular limitation. And this problem gets worse the more that you use the social persona.
It really puts the PC who plays the class in a position where it's either mostly unused RP fluff or an incredibly dangerous liability.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a big part of the issue is that in most Pathfinder settings, there's really no reason to have a "social persona" because there is no social stigma associated with adventuring. Typically, there's nothing keeping, say, a level 10 fighter or wizard from getting invites to the best parties. Merely possessing dangerous class features isn't something that needs hiding, so a mechanic dedicated to hiding it feels useless.
I think a big part of the issue is that in most Pathfinder settings, there's really no reason to have a "social persona" because there is no social stigma associated with adventuring. Typically, there's nothing keeping, say, a level 10 fighter or wizard from getting invites to the best parties. Merely possessing dangerous class features isn't something that needs hiding, so a mechanic dedicated to hiding it feels useless.
There is one type of adventurer that is often persecuted in many settings, arcane spellcasters. Warlocks serve as mages in witch-hunting societies rather well.
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.The thing is...my take is that the DM should not be continually putting the player in situation where he needs the vigilante to fight in his social persona. that is the same kind of nonsense that I think is the equivalent of DM's that constantly attack/remove a wizard's spellbook, or make a paladin fall. If that is happening regularly to a vigilante player, that is the DM's fault, not a design flaw of the class
The class works with the assumption that most of the time, you will head into a dungeon or enemy base in vigilante mode.
It's not that simple though, right? I mean, in a conventional adventure path, the player playing the paladin shouldn't be forced to atone every book, but it's fine to challenge them. On the other hand, if they insist on playing a paladin character in Reign of Winter after having been warned not to and it really doesn't go well, that's not the GM's fault.
With a vigilante, there may very well be campaigns where the class works great--presumably Hell's Rebels will be one of them. But if you throw a vigilante into a conventional adventuring party in a conventional campaign and expect it to work out, that's probably not the GM's problem, it's yours for making a poor choice.
If the AP says the ball is going to be attacked and you're in your social identity because that's what you do, there's not a ton the GM can or maybe should do to lessen the blow of you being stuck in the wrong persona at the time. So far, APs aren't designed for people with this particular limitation. And this problem gets worse the more that you use the social persona.
Oh I agree. The Vigilante is a lot like the Paladin. It's a specialized class that simply is not going to work or be worthwhile in a decent number of campaigns. I don't think that is all that bad...at this point in the game cycle some specialization isn't bad.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a big part of the issue is that in most Pathfinder settings, there's really no reason to have a "social persona" because there is no social stigma associated with adventuring. Typically, there's nothing keeping, say, a level 10 fighter or wizard from getting invites to the best parties. Merely possessing dangerous class features isn't something that needs hiding, so a mechanic dedicated to hiding it feels useless.I think the concept would work better if the Vigilante was some sort of template which you could apply to any class. Then you could have a full adventuring party with synchronized dual-identities in a campaign where that feature would be useful for the group.
I agree. The different vigilante specializations indicate the developers wanted the vigilante to play any role in the party, so why not make the secret identity a feat (or, dare I suggest it?, a Variant Multiclassing option that doesn't come from a base class), so anybody can attach a secret identity to their class concept?
I'd just love an explanation as to how this plays out with any given adventuring party.
The group joins together. There's a fighter, with a big axe and shield, and he says he can fight, and protect the others. There's a cleric, with his holy symbol and spells, and he heals and does amazing divine magics for the party. There's this wizard, and all are amazed at the arcane possibilities he presents...and then there's the town baker. He can...sell cookies.
...or is he this vigilante, who never goes into 'baker' mode?
Perhaps he is the party face and benefactor who...never seems to be present at the same time as...that other guy in the party who also works for him.
Yeah, that doesn't really work either.
In any case, the vigilante's very own class abilities makes it clear that there are people in the world who know his secret. Why not his PC allies as well? The fighter, cleric, and wizard all already know he is much more than a baker and, like his other followers, will keep his secret.
|
|
I agree. The different vigilante specializations indicate the developers wanted the vigilante to play any role in the party, so why not make the secret identity a feat (or, dare I suggest it?, a Variant Multiclassing option that doesn't come from a base class), so anybody can attach a secret identity to their class concept?I think a big part of the issue is that in most Pathfinder settings, there's really no reason to have a "social persona" because there is no social stigma associated with adventuring. Typically, there's nothing keeping, say, a level 10 fighter or wizard from getting invites to the best parties. Merely possessing dangerous class features isn't something that needs hiding, so a mechanic dedicated to hiding it feels useless.I think the concept would work better if the Vigilante was some sort of template which you could apply to any class. Then you could have a full adventuring party with synchronized dual-identities in a campaign where that feature would be useful for the group.
...like, maybe...a prestige class. Of sorts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is...my take is that the DM should not be continually putting the player in situation where he needs the vigilante to fight in his social persona. that is the same kind of nonsense that I think is the equivalent of DM's that constantly attack/remove a wizard's spellbook, or make a paladin fall. If that is happening regularly to a vigilante player, that is the DM's fault, not a design flaw of the class
The class works with the assumption that most of the time, you will head into a dungeon or enemy base in vigilante mode.
It's not that simple though, right? I mean, in a conventional adventure path, the player playing the paladin shouldn't be forced to atone every book, but it's fine to challenge them. On the other hand, if they insist on playing a paladin character in Reign of Winter after having been warned not to and it really doesn't go well, that's not the GM's fault.
With a vigilante, there may very well be campaigns where the class works great--presumably Hell's Rebels will be one of them. But if you throw a vigilante into a conventional adventuring party in a conventional campaign and expect it to work out, that's probably not the GM's problem, it's yours for making a poor choice.
If the AP says the ball is going to be attacked and you're in your social identity because that's what you do, there's not a ton the GM can or maybe should do to lessen the blow of you being stuck in the wrong persona at the time. So far, APs aren't designed for people with this particular limitation. And this problem gets worse the more that you use the social persona.
Oh I agree. The Vigilante is a lot like the Paladin. It's a specialized class that simply is not going to work or be worthwhile in a decent number of campaigns. I don't think that is all that bad...at this point in the game cycle some specialization isn't bad.
The problem with that comparison is that the paladin works in the vast majority of APs, modules, and scenarios, whereas the vigilante's social identity seems ill-suited for most APs, most scenarios, and nearly every first-party module I've checked. Even in cases where the dual identity concept could be fun, aspects of the implementation (like the 5-minute changeover) seem to make the social identity more trouble than it's worth.
So I have an idea. Not promising a good one, but it's an idea!
First; make the secret identity fluid and multiple. There can be a prime identity that is only seen in his or her home town, and is the carefully guarded secret. Losing this secret might come with a larger penalty.
However, maybe once per day, a Vigilante can chose from a number of alternate identities. Each one (Farmer, Merchant, Laborer, distance noble) grants him bonuses to his social standings in a given area. So, today you decide your secret identity (Which is false and not your prime one) will be a merchant, and you get a +2 circumstance bonus to appraise, and a bonus to haggling in general.
I think they could also limit your abilities, without getting rid of them in social mode. In fact maybe even make it so you can use any of your abilities, but some of them have a chance to reveal who you are, and others suffer a small penalty because you're not fighting in your comfort zone or something. You can get around this by changing into Vigilante mode, which takes a Full/standard/move/swift action, depending on level and maybe some more abilities.
If you change in full view, or if you're revealed while fighting, you can cut loose, but you also lose access to that identity in that area. You can chose one of the others, but it takes maybe a week before you can create a new identity of the same type. So, you're a merchant, and you're revealed, you can still be a merchant with a new name, but you have to wait a week.
Just some ideas.
To be fair Batman dosent really work in the comics without a certain level of suspension of belief.
Yes. Especially when he's running around with the very high-profile JLA and yet citizens of Gotham still speak of him as if he's only this mythical, possibly nonexistent entity.
(At least, that was his status quo for quite a while pre-Flashpoint; not sure how New 52 deals with it.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why are all vigilantes secretly bakers or bears?
I'd just love an explanation as to how this plays out with any given adventuring party.
The group joins together. There's a fighter, with a big axe and shield, and he says he can fight, and protect the others. There's a cleric, with his holy symbol and spells, and he heals and does amazing divine magics for the party. There's this wizard, and all are amazed at the arcane possibilities he presents...and then there's the town baker. He can...sell cookies.
...or is he this vigilante, who never goes into 'baker' mode?
Perhaps he is the party face and benefactor who...never seems to be present at the same time as...that other guy in the party who also works for him.
Yeah, that doesn't really work either.
In any case, the vigilante's very own class abilities makes it clear that there are people in the world who know his secret. Why not his PC allies as well? The fighter, cleric, and wizard all already know he is much more than a baker and, like his other followers, will keep his secret.
Batman is always Batman when he's working with Commissioner Gordon, never Bruce Wayne. I don't really see why you'd be in the social persona when there's crime fighting to be done.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize that there's more to Batman than Adam West?
Batman is always Batman when he's working with Commissioner Gordon, never Bruce Wayne. I don't really see why you'd be in the social persona when there's crime fighting to be done.
NO, THERE IS NOT!!!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Adam West Batman was terrible, most of my knowledge of the series comes from the 90's animated series. I don't see how this has anything to do with my post, though.
The Adam West Batman was terrible, most of my knowledge of the series comes from the 90's animated series.
PHILISTINE!!!
| 7 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.The thing is...my take is that the DM should not be continually putting the player in situation where he needs the vigilante to fight in his social persona. that is the same kind of nonsense that I think is the equivalent of DM's that constantly attack/remove a wizard's spellbook, or make a paladin fall. If that is happening regularly to a vigilante player, that is the DM's fault, not a design flaw of the class
The class works with the assumption that most of the time, you will head into a dungeon or enemy base in vigilante mode.
No, this is not AT ALL the same thing.
Making a Paladin fall or destroying a Wizard's spellbook are things that the GM does to the player.
The Vigilante, on the other hand, forces the GM not to do certain things instead.
Can't do ambushes on the party in the middle of the street, or the middle of the night...or any time.
Can't ever have a social situation that turns into a combat. No tense situations with the Barbarian Warlord or whatever where saying the wrong thing or flubbing a Diplomacy/Bluff check can set them off.
And so much more!
If a class requires the campaign to be designed around him it is poorly designed.
| 1 person 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.The thing is...my take is that the DM should not be continually putting the player in situation where he needs the vigilante to fight in his social persona. that is the same kind of nonsense that I think is the equivalent of DM's that constantly attack/remove a wizard's spellbook, or make a paladin fall. If that is happening regularly to a vigilante player, that is the DM's fault, not a design flaw of the class
The class works with the assumption that most of the time, you will head into a dungeon or enemy base in vigilante mode.
No, this is not AT ALL the same thing.
Making a Paladin fall or destroying a Wizard's spellbook are things that the GM does to the player.
The Vigilante, on the other hand, forces the GM not to do certain things instead.
Can't do ambushes on the party in the middle of the street, or the middle of the night...or any time.
Can't ever have a social situation that turns into a combat. No tense situations with the Barbarian Warlord or whatever where saying the wrong thing or flubbing a Diplomacy/Bluff check can set them off.
And so much more!
If a class requires the campaign to be designed around him it is poorly designed.
and a paladin forces a DM to toss out any campaign that heavily plays with shades of grey. Because alignment. And the gunslinger necessitates a GM having gun technology to make sense, which may significantly alter campaign settings
The social persona is going to be attending social galas, running his business, etc. I don't know why he would be meeting with Barbarian warlords, or prowling the streets at night. And I never said you can never throw fights or combat at the character when he is in social persona. But it shouldn't be a weekly occurrence. Oliver Queen is not attacked by ninjas every time he steps into Queen Consolidated or throws a party at his house.
and as mentioned elsewhere...I think the mechanics would work better as the social persona can use all his talents, but doing so in public has consequences for his persona. And there should probably be feats and items to help with that (I am thinking of the reverse flash's costume ring or Arrow's collapsible bow)
(P.S. If you can't tell I just finished three seasons of Arrow and the first season of Flash a couple of weeks ago...)