|
Seriously, they give up an awful lot for the social persona, and when they make the shift, I think they should be seriously impressive. Like - Barbarian/Wizard/Paladin impressive. At least.
Hardly any character I can think of with a secret identity is less impressive than a basic character type of their respective world.
I don't think the devs are concerned with "Tiers", really.
If the Vigilante should have a wide range of uses (and it should) it should come organically from the Social and Vigilante Personas both having their own useful abilities and each covering different aspects:
The Social Persona should have a certain set of skills... skills which make it great for espionage/infiltration, information gathering, and disappearing into crowds. It should probably also have a small repertoire of abilities which could also translate to being somewhat useful for traditional dungeon-diving (emphasis on things like Stealth, etc.)
The Vigilante Persona should be more Combat-centric, focusing more on how it handles violent situations and making sure the Vigilante is not so focused on social skills that it's dead weight to the party when the feces hits the rotational cooling unit.
---
I think they should look at making the Vigilante about as useful as the Bard or Inquisitor - good both in and out of Combat, and in and out of trapped Dungeons.
That's easy enough. Give them 9th level casting instead of 6th level casting. A d6 1/2BAB class working off the 9th level cleric/wizard list is pretty much automatically T1. The vigilante talents could make rogue talents look powerful and the class would still be T1, because 9th level caster.
Of course, the class would still be kinda bad. Gunning for T1 is liable to get us either a horrifically overpowered monster, or a really bland class. Probably the latter. Hope for a mechanically interesting T3 (which most of the other T3 classes are).
Another way to look at, If i just play a fighter and drop a feat for skill focus. What changes about my character from an Avenger? More feats? earlier access to feats? There is a small penalty to a social skill and I have to worry about stealth in armor. But, instant change from social persona to damage dealer.
It's more accurate to compare the Avenger to the Slayer.
Same BAB, same number of Skills.
Slayer has a better HD, can pretty much get just as many Feats, and doesn't have the baggage of potentially getting caught with it's pants down and requiring 50 Combat Rounds to gain access to those qualities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it isn't made T1, expect plenty of dipping into Vigilante, typically 1 level.
If it can't compete with Vig1/WizXX, why play it? If I want to build a fantasy street level super, is there a reason to take VigX over Vig1/BrawlerX-1?
Brawler is at best a T4 class. There is a world of difference between "Wizards are better than my masked vigilante class at being a masked vigilante" and "Brawlers are better than my masked vigilante class at being a masked vigilante".
The "Why wouldn't I play *T1 Class* instead of *Other Class*" can get fielded for every single non-tier-1 class out there. In every case, the answer is either "You should play *T1 class*", or "*other class* fits the concept better than *T1 class*, despite not having the raw narrative power, and also is mechanically strong and interesting enough to be enjoyable to play". Bards, Inquisitors, Rangers and most of the other T2-4 classes have their own niches that T1 classes can muscle in on with sheer brute force, but don't naturally work well with. You could make a cleric who is a smooth charming magic rogue type with difficulty, but bards work so much better for that.
The issue is that almost everything the vigilante gets makes it a weaksauce version of another class with some social mechanics tacked on, and the social mechanics themselves are either borderline useless, or largely replicated by a high skill modifier.
|
|
If it isn't made T1, expect plenty of dipping into Vigilante, typically 1 level.
If it can't compete with Vig1/WizXX, why play it? If I want to build a fantasy street level super, is there a reason to take VigX over Vig1/BrawlerX-1?
Brawler is at best a T4 class. There is a world of difference between "Wizards are better than my masked vigilante" and "Brawlers are better than my masked vigilante".
The "Why wouldn't I play *T1 Class* instead of *Other Class*" can get fielded for every single non-tier-1 class out there. In every case, the answer is either "You should play *T1 class*", or "*other class* fits the concept better than *T1 class*, despite not having the raw narrative power, and also is mechanically strong and interesting enough to be enjoyable to play". Bards, Inquisitors, Rangers and most of the other T2-4 classes have their own niches that T1 classes can muscle in on with sheer brute force, but don't naturally work well with. You could make a cleric who is a smooth charming magic rogue type with difficulty, but bards work so much better for that.
The issue is that almost everything the vigilante gets makes it a weaksauce version of another class with some social mechanics tacked on, and the social mechanics themselves are either borderline useless, or largely replicated by a high skill modifier.
I get that the Brawler is far from a T1 - but if a Brawler can fit the theme with only the addition of the secret ID - and still kick the Vigilante's butt, level for level - my point has been made, crystal clear.
The Vigilante is WEAK. In all caps. That hardly strikes fear into the typical adventurer.
If, as a GM, I want to build a Vigilante BBEG, what do I do? (Incidentally, I mention that because it's something I actually do want...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it isn't made T1, expect plenty of dipping into Vigilante, typically 1 level.
If it can't compete with Vig1/WizXX, why play it? If I want to build a fantasy street level super, is there a reason to take VigX over Vig1/BrawlerX-1?
Brawler is at best a T4 class. There is a world of difference between "Wizards are better than my masked vigilante" and "Brawlers are better than my masked vigilante".
The "Why wouldn't I play *T1 Class* instead of *Other Class*" can get fielded for every single non-tier-1 class out there. In every case, the answer is either "You should play *T1 class*", or "*other class* fits the concept better than *T1 class*, despite not having the raw narrative power, and also is mechanically strong and interesting enough to be enjoyable to play". Bards, Inquisitors, Rangers and most of the other T2-4 classes have their own niches that T1 classes can muscle in on with sheer brute force, but don't naturally work well with. You could make a cleric who is a smooth charming magic rogue type with difficulty, but bards work so much better for that.
The issue is that almost everything the vigilante gets makes it a weaksauce version of another class with some social mechanics tacked on, and the social mechanics themselves are either borderline useless, or largely replicated by a high skill modifier.
I get that the Brawler is far from a T1 - but if a Brawler can fit the theme with only the addition of the secret ID - and still kick the Vigilante's butt, level for level - my point has been made, crystal clear.
The Vigilante is WEAK. In all caps. That hardly strikes fear into the typical adventurer.
If, as a GM, I want to build a Vigilante BBEG, what do I do? (Incidentally, I mention that because it's something I actually do want...)
Is your point that Vigilante should be buffed, or that Vigilante should be buffed into tier 1?
I agree with the former, but don't think anything good will come with the latter.
|
Yeah, I'm like 90% sure you're the only one.
Vigilante is currently aimed towards a very solid place, it's just that its class features are mostly terrible and it's only as good as it is because it can get 6th level spellcasting.
Really, it shouldn't be a class at all, but since it is, they just need to make it so it can actually contribute in its various roles, instead of just being an outright inferior Rogue/Fighter/Inquisitor or a meh Magus.
|
|
If it isn't made T1, expect plenty of dipping into Vigilante, typically 1 level.
If it can't compete with Vig1/WizXX, why play it? If I want to build a fantasy street level super, is there a reason to take VigX over Vig1/BrawlerX-1?
Brawler is at best a T4 class. There is a world of difference between "Wizards are better than my masked vigilante" and "Brawlers are better than my masked vigilante".
The "Why wouldn't I play *T1 Class* instead of *Other Class*" can get fielded for every single non-tier-1 class out there. In every case, the answer is either "You should play *T1 class*", or "*other class* fits the concept better than *T1 class*, despite not having the raw narrative power, and also is mechanically strong and interesting enough to be enjoyable to play". Bards, Inquisitors, Rangers and most of the other T2-4 classes have their own niches that T1 classes can muscle in on with sheer brute force, but don't naturally work well with. You could make a cleric who is a smooth charming magic rogue type with difficulty, but bards work so much better for that.
The issue is that almost everything the vigilante gets makes it a weaksauce version of another class with some social mechanics tacked on, and the social mechanics themselves are either borderline useless, or largely replicated by a high skill modifier.
I get that the Brawler is far from a T1 - but if a Brawler can fit the theme with only the addition of the secret ID - and still kick the Vigilante's butt, level for level - my point has been made, crystal clear.
The Vigilante is WEAK. In all caps. That hardly strikes fear into the typical adventurer.
If, as a GM, I want to build a Vigilante BBEG, what do I do? (Incidentally, I mention that because it's something I actually do want...)
Is your point that Vigilante should be buffed, or that Vigilante should be buffed into tier 1?
I agree with the former, but don't think anything good will come with...
If not, the Vigilante will remain the class that gets dipped into more often than played. Most players will prefer to have characters that can respond to whatever an AP throws at them when it happens, so most will maybe use disguise if they want that flavor to begin with - and most GMs that run scenarios or APs for parties won't want to deal with it, either.
|
|
Yeah, I'm like 90% sure you're the only one.
Vigilante is currently aimed towards a very solid place, it's just that its class features are mostly terrible and it's only as good as it is because it can get 6th level spellcasting.
Really, it shouldn't be a class at all, but since it is, they just need to make it so it can actually contribute in its various roles, instead of just being an outright inferior Rogue/Fighter/Inquisitor or a meh Magus.
I might suggest that they might want to make it something that people actually want to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Judging by your response, I am assuming that the answer to my very explicit question is "Yes, I think that vigilante should be buffed to T1".
Instead of making it absurdly powerful, why not just make it mechanically interesting, competent and not eclipsed by several other classes who it steals class abilities from. Y'know, like most of the other classes we have available. Seems like the better choice.
|
|
...Judging by your response, I am assuming that the answer to my very explicit question is "Yes, I think that vigilante should be buffed to T1".
Instead of making it absurdly powerful, why not just make it mechanically interesting, competent and not eclipsed by several other classes who it steals class abilities from. Y'know, like most of the other classes we have available. Seems like the better choice.
Ok, I'd be happy with that. So far, the only mechanical differences are new ways to gimp it. If you have to deal with being gimped, wouldn't you rather play a class that isn't?
By the way, I'm not suggesting 'absurdly powerful', any more than the game gets absurdly powerful at high levels and ANY workable class had best follow suit.
|
|
I might suggest that they might want to make it something that people actually want to play.Yeah, I'm like 90% sure you're the only one.
Vigilante is currently aimed towards a very solid place, it's just that its class features are mostly terrible and it's only as good as it is because it can get 6th level spellcasting.
Really, it shouldn't be a class at all, but since it is, they just need to make it so it can actually contribute in its various roles, instead of just being an outright inferior Rogue/Fighter/Inquisitor or a meh Magus.
People generally love to play T3 classes (Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, etc.). The problem is that the Vigilante is currently at the absolute bottom of T3, and only if it takes either of the spellcasting specializations. Mostly because the majority of its class features are boring and uninspired, in addition to not being very good on top of that.
The only real solution is just give it its own spell list, then redo the specializations entirely. Or, alternatively, don't give it spells at all, and make it something along the lines of a Paladin, Barbarian or Ranger: good at its job, but doesn't have a solution for everything.