Game Mechanic Posing as a Class

[Abraham spalding]

Is it just me or does this entire class seem like a game mechanic for a specific sort of AP?

I mean why do we need a class for this instead of just a subsystem?

It seems to me that the dual identity (and the rest of the "social identity") should simply be something where you trade the ability to use some of your actual class features when you aren't in costume for the abilities it gives.

I'm also less than impressed by the social identity aspect mainly because it's basically an expert NPC class that turns into a PC with 5 minutes of "alone time".

Did I miss something?

[Ipslore the Red]

Hey, rogue has to look good somehow, and it sure isn't going to be by actually being good.

[Seranov]

I strongly agree with Abraham. Vigilante's class features are all over the place, and it has no real solid niche of its own besides "I have class features that should be feat lines or a VMC instead."

Like, the class itself is never going to play well with others because do much of it is dedicated to a amazingly small niche type of gameplay. Making the Dual Identity think something any class can take will allow people to do play the classes they normally enjoy, instead of being required to play this one class to contribute to get the flavor and dual identity feature.

[LazarX]

Seranov wrote:

I strongly agree with Abraham. Vigilante's class features are all over the place, and it has no real solid niche of its own besides "I have class features that should be feat lines or a VMC instead."

Like, the class itself is never going to play well with others because do much of it is dedicated to a amazingly small niche type of gameplay. Making the Dual Identity think something any class can take will allow people to do play the classes they normally enjoy, instead of being required to play this one class to contribute to get the flavor and dual identity feature.

I don't have the problem that this is a limited niche class. After all the campaigns you should be running it in are the kind of campaigns described in Ultimate Utility, Not Ultimate Dungeon. The class after all is being created for a niche player, and the audience at Paizocon itself seemed to love the idea.

[Abraham spalding]

Don't get me wrong I love the idea. I find the presentation as a class limiting. Either you need a full party of vigilantes or the vigilante needs to be catered to specifically in a normal party.

If you are playing an intrigue multiple identy game why have a single class that must be every class.

If the class you make has to be every other class in one I think you are better off with a subsystem rather than a new class.

[Seranov]

Making a class that is playing at being every other class is a far more limiting design than just making a subsystem that can be applied to every other class. What's the point? What if you want to be able to do BOTH the social stuff AND the dungeon crawling?

I'm just thoroughly displeased with the Vigilante all around.

[Abraham spalding]

Honestly I had expected something more in line with the chameleon from races of destiny. In Fact if allowed to change focus each day and have a "dual focus" ability at 10th level where you can split your talents on two paths that is exactly what we would have.

Which is what I think I will do.

[Oly]

I really like the concept of the class; but the way it's written, it just doesn't have enough features to be useful.

The class features unique to the class could be a feat chain as it is.

It's still a good idea, but just needs essentially to have more abilities: Maybe they didn't want to step on the Master Spy PrC or something; but Master Spy, while a great PrC for creating very slippery NPC's, is quite weak as a PC PrC. The Vigilante class would be worth playing if they incorporated more of the Master Spy class features; but as it is, infiltration-based archetypes (the Inquisitor has a good one, and I think the Investigator does as well) are nearly as good for dual identity usage; and because their classes have other features as well, are considerably better at everything else.

[Starbuck_II]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Don't get me wrong I love the idea. I find the presentation as a class limiting. Either you need a full party of vigilantes or the vigilante needs to be catered to specifically in a normal party.

If you are playing an intrigue multiple identy game why have a single class that must be every class.

If the class you make has to be every other class in one I think you are better off with a subsystem rather than a new class.

Everyone is a Vigilante:

That is how I am doing my playtest. Due to weakness reports, I am doing a 1st level adventure with level 2 Vigilantes (plus, 1st level is pretty scarce in abilities for the class).
I let them be multiclassed if they wished.

Still haven't all made characters, but I am hopeful they will make it through the adventure and have fun.

[Genuine]

I'll be honest - I saw the class and had just one thought: "Now my murder-hobo PFS dungeon crawling maniac can also be a suave & socially acceptable hob-nobber; even the pure role-play grognards can't complain about the inconsistencies!"

In other words, I get to keep building the axe-crazy characters I love but still get an effective option in social encounters & scenarios.

[Epic Meepo]

To expand upon Abraham's point, let's compare the dual identity mechanics from Ultimate Intrigue to the performance combat mechanic from Ultimate Combat and the kingdom building mechanic from Ultimate Campaign.

• Dual identity is a mechanic for blending into high society when not adventuring. The design goal is to make this mechanic available to characters of every major party role (arcane, divine, martial, etc.). To accomplish this, we get a vigilante class (and, presumably, vigilante archetypes) with specializations that recreate the wheel by mimicking other classes while also granting a dual identity. Characters who want a dual identity must multiclass, retrain, or archetype into vigilante.
  
• Performance combat is a subsystem for winning over a crowd in an arena. The design goal is to make this mechanic available to characters of every major party role (arcane, divine, martial, etc.). To accomplish this, characters of any class can participate in performance combat by performing certain actions while in an arena. Characters wanting to be better at this can take performance combat feats, purchase performance combat items, or learn performance combat spells.
  
• Kingdom building is a subsystem for building and ruling a small kingdom. The design goal is to make this mechanic available to characters of every major party role (arcane, divine, martial, etc.). To accomplish this, characters of any class can apply their ability modifiers to various kingdom statistics and can use their existing class features to explore new territory. Characters wanting to invest more in a kingdom can spend more time exploring and can donate treasure to their kingdom's treasury.

Now imagine what would happen if performance combat and kingdom building worked like dual identity. The only characters who could win over crowds in arenas would belong to the gladiator class. The only characters who could build and rule kingdoms would belong to the kingmaker class. Aside from acting as vehicles for these new subsystems, these new gladiator and kingmaker classes would just mimic the abilities of existing classes so characters wanting to play characters resembling those other classes can participate in the exclusive, new subsystems.

What happens if we want to make a new subsystem for airship pilots? Do we have to make a new airship pilot base class with specializations that allow cleric-like airship pilots, fighter-like airship pilots, rogue-like airship pilots, and wizard-like airship pilots? And do we have to go back and add an airship pilot specialization to the vigilante class, the gladiator class, and the kingmaker class?

Why should we recreate the existing base classes every time we get a new subsystem? Why not just design rules that allow characters of any class or archetype participate in the new subsystem?

[Liz Courts]

Removed a post. You can state your opinion without being insulting to other posters—please keep our Community Guidelines in mind when posting.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

I play a sorcerer who maintains this mechanic without any class or class feature. It's easy to have multiple identities. Obviously this more a more integrated concept; but it can be roleplayed and done mechanically without the class. If you made it into a feat or two this might be better.

I just built am going to playtest a few of the classes in some one-offs we have coming up, but I am not optimistic. It's better for the martial classes, who cannot do this as easily; avenger looks like it could be fun, but the switch mechanic should probably be much easier.

[Cthulhudrew]

Epic Meepo wrote:

ow imagine what would happen if performance combat and kingdom building worked like dual identity. The only characters who could win over crowds in arenas would belong to the gladiator class. The only characters who could build and rule kingdoms would belong to the kingmaker class.

Then again, you could still achieve a similar (if not precisely identical) dual identity role for any character by using the Reputation subsystem from Ultimate Campaign.

You're not barred from playing a character similar to the Vigilante- there are already many classes and archetypes that accomplish similar things, and rules that exist to also emulate it. The Vigilante as a class is just a more specialized version of those broader efforts, to appeal to people for whom those efforts do not quite cover things.

The existence of a class doesn't suddenly shut off all options for different sorts of campaigns.

[Epic Meepo]

Cthulhudrew wrote:

Epic Meepo wrote:

ow imagine what would happen if performance combat and kingdom building worked like dual identity. The only characters who could win over crowds in arenas would belong to the gladiator class. The only characters who could build and rule kingdoms would belong to the kingmaker class.

Then again, you could still achieve a similar (if not precisely identical) dual identity role for any character by using the Reputation subsystem from Ultimate Campaign.

You're not barred from playing a character similar to the Vigilante- there are already many classes and archetypes that accomplish similar things, and rules that exist to also emulate it. The Vigilante as a class is just a more specialized version of those broader efforts, to appeal to people for whom those efforts do not quite cover things.

The existence of a class doesn't suddenly shut off all options for different sorts of campaigns.

If it's true that the vigilante is a more-specialized version of something that multiple other classes can already pull off, then the vigilante shouldn't be a base class. A more-specialized version of a class that already exists is just an archetype.

In fact, the vigilante class reads a lot like a list of abilities meant to appear in archetypes for other classes. Avenger could be a brawler or fighter archetype, stalker could be a rogue archetype, warlock could be split into an arcanist and a kineticist archetype, and zealot could be an inquisitor archetype. The vigilante class is just dual identity and renown plus a bunch of abilities that should be options available to other base classes.

If the vigilante is going to be a base class, it needs to be something more compelling than "I'm kinda like that other base class, but I can socialize, too." Vigilante needs to be to the master spy what the swashbuckler is to the duelist; it needs to be a spell-less analog of the bard; it needs to be something, anything, that we don't already have. What it doesn't need to be is four existing base classes with some social subsystem abilities tacked on. That's what archetypes and feats are for.

If it's absolutely necessary that a vigilante mimic the role of another base class, at least do away with all of these designer-imposter specializations. You should just get to count some fraction of your vigilante levels as levels in one other base class of your choice and gain the features of that other class accordingly. You aren't a feaux inquisitor (or whatever other class). You're a super-diplomat who can turn into a super-boogeyman, both of whom happen to have some genuine inquisitor class features in addition to their social/anti-social talents. (Which, incidentally, makes for a great cover story. "I'm not a rebellious vigilante, I'm an inquisitor who keeps the peasants in line. I can demonstrate my inquisitor abilities if you require proof.")

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

I'm afraid I agree with this.

I am normally deadset against pure theorycrafting in playtesting.

Honestly the Vigilante concept could easily be ported on to an overlay similar to mythic, or a subsystem similar to Virtual Multiclassing.

The Vigilante as a class should pick a direction and be the best at it, remove the specializations and let players build the hero they may not deserve, but the hero they need.