| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After having theorycrafted the specialization that I ultimately played and then playing in a game with two vigilantes, I have some feedback on the mechanical design of the class.
The most common comment that Jbt and I had while we were playing our characters in Rise of the Goblin Guild was a half-hearted, "I can't do this even though my character is modeled after X Super Hero. I just don't get that class skill. The vigilante class is VERY broad in terms of its niche and its roll; its the first class to allow characters to opt into things like full BAB or 6th-level spellcasting, and that's really cool; the flexibility is my favorite part of the class. Why not extend that flexibility to the class skills of the vigilante? The social identity is fluffed as basically being an expert, so why not allow vigilantes to determine their own list of class skills like an expert does? (For those who don't know, an expert can pick any 10 skills as her class skills.) For the vigilante, say something like this:
A vigilante's class skills are Bluff (Cha), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Perform (Cha), and Sleight of Hand (Dex). In addition, a vigilante also adds 10 additional skills to her list of class skills. She must select all Knowledge skills individually.
This way, you get the flexible class the ability to be flexible with its skills while also maintaining the design goal: the character who is a polite, working-class member of society "by day." But what she is by night is completely determined by which skills she chooses to be proficient in.
As written, my warlock couldn't cast spells while wearing light or medium armor, so I completely ignored my ability to do with this class.
Personally, I think that the vigilante SHOULD have some ability to cast arcane spells in armor; specifically light armor, similar to a bard. To that end, I think that Medium Armor Proficiency should be removed from the vigilante and a note about how the vigilante can cast spells in light armor should be added to the class baseline; that way, if you choose to do other arcane spellcasting specializations that ability doesn't need to be reprinted over and over again.
For the avenger, medium armor proficiency should be added back as a base ability to the specialization. Let the avenger be the exception.
I think the designers are vastly overestimating how much this ability is worth to the vigilante. As written, it is an incredibly passive ability that isn't something that the vigilante can "do" so much as something that it "does," if that makes sense. For example, the ability to radiate an aura of good is something that a cleric of Sarenrae "does," she doesn't "do" it. For example, the fact that a cleric radiates an aura of good doesn't matter unless an NPC or player casts detect good, at which case it matters. Likewise, the ability to have two separate identities doesn't really matter unless an NPC or player attempts to use a divination spell or effect. In both situations, the GM has to go out of her way to mention that those abilities are relevant; "Hey players, roll Spellcraft! Success? See that cleric of Razmir? He TOTALLY just cast detect good on you!"
But scrying magic is different; it is typically done miles, if not hundreds of miles, away. If an enemy fails to scry on you, you don't necessarily know that your ability did anything. Despite how cool the concept is, this ability isn't powerful enough to warrant the significance that its given at Level One. Dual Identity is not smite evil; it is not rage and it is not inspiration or bardic performance. If you wanted to make an Amateur Vigilante feat, it would be TOTALLY balanced, because Dual Identity is definitely worth a feat at most.
This ability also doesn't really capture the whole point of having a secret identity. This ability treats the vigilante as sort of an alternate identity; a heroic mask that you point on. But psychologically, vigilantes are very much the opposite. Dexter Morgan wakes up in the morning a serial killer and he spends several minutes, "Putting his civilian face on," so to speak. Batman does the same thing; Bruce has all of Batman's martial training and abilities at the drop of a dime, but he's often got to center himself to act NORMAL. Another great example is when, at the end of Iron Man, Tony Stark is asked what he knows about Iron Man? He doesn't say, "I become Iron Man." He says, "I am Iron Man." To this regard, instead of having two separate alignments, your "true" alignment should be your vigilante alignment while your "civilian" alignment should be something that is socially acceptable for whatever social situation you're in. Your civilian alignment should mask your vigilante alignment.
Finally, dual identity takes too long to activate. A rogue with the Quick Disguise rogue talent can assume a disguise that requires, "minor details," as a full-round action as early as Level 2. That's fair for the vigilante as well. If you want the vigilante to need time to "change," then "taking off the social identity," should be a full-round action if you're wearing your costume under your clothes (which maybe others can detect with Perception as if your costume were a concealed item) while putting your costume on if its stashed somewhere else takes 1 minute. Meanwhile "putting on the social identity" should take a five minutes, as written. It is harder to mentally balance yourself then it is to descend into the vigilante persona.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the caveat that I haven't playtested, I will say that I like the idea of choosing 10 class skills like an Expert. Seems like it'd add a lot of ability to customize your Vigilante beyond the base vigilante "type" bonus.
Full round action changing also makes sense to me, as the current version seems to be a very long time, even longer than a Summoner summoning his eidolon.
This is basically the Clark Kent, "I'm too clumsy to be Superman," ability. With that said, why doesn't it grant the same bonus to the vigilante? So that Mary Jane, who knows Peter Park REAL well, takes a penalty to associate the two when Peter's in his vigilante identity. If that's the case, this needs to be a bonus that's baked into vigilante identity rather than acting as its own ability.
The skill bonuses looks nice, but it comes REALLY late, which means at 1st level you're not any better at being social even though you're in your social identity.
I've been trying really hard not to harp too much on things that the PDT has said will be addressed in various forum posts and on Know Direction, so I'm going to focus with the one thing about the vigilante specialization that stuck out at me: the base abilities of the specializations are not enough.
At 1st level, a fighter has full BAB, a bonus feat, one Good save, and 2 skill ranks + Int.
An avenger has full BAB, dual identity (which is a passive ability that doesn't do anything at 1st level where there are no divinations to be thwarted), and social identity (which gives a +20 bonus to not be connected to your vigilante form, which is only something that comes up if the GM says it does, which means it is also not something that you "do.")
All of the specialization are like this; they all suffer a "usefulness" tax for the dual identity class feature that ultimately isn't fair. If you compare the swashbuckler to the fighter, the swashbuckler has full BAB, one good saving throw, 4 + Int spells, one specific feat (which is typically valued at half of a variable feat), panache, and three deeds. At best, dual identity and social identity are a feat, which means that you could easily give this class a feat's worth of benefits, which is something it REALLY needs. Jbt and Josh both think that changing the vigilante talent progression to 1/2/4/6/8/etc would solve the problem, which it would. However, I'd rather see each specialization get something cool, unique, and iconic of the spec at 1st level instead; like how bards get inspire courage, magi get arcane pool, or swashbucklers get their first crop of deeds. As a suggestion: giving the warlock mystic bolt, which everyone seems to love, for free at 1st level as a second base ability alongside spellcasting would go a LONG way towards improving the warlock specialization.
First level is an interesting little microcosm of the game, but it's often a weird one in terms of character ability. Here's the odd thing, though (after first pointing out that 1st level is weird and doesn't matter that much):
Assertion 1) Wizard is basically the strongest class in Pathfinder, maybe arcanist due to 3, except see 2.
Assertion 2) Getting more spells is better than getting fewer spells, by enough to eclipse most other things.
Assertion 3) Arcanist-style spellcasting is the most powerful way to do spellcasting, as it has the within-day flexibility of spontaneous and the day-by-day flexibility of prepared.
Assertion 4) One of the strongest wizard specializations from the Pathfinder RPG line of books (so not including ones from Player Companions like void) is the foresight diviner (with the teleportation conjurer as the main other one).
Now, if these assertions are true, then warlock (at level 1 only) is a strong contender for the crown; based on 1 and 4, to show this, I'll need to compare to someone else near the top, so I'll compare the differences between a foresight diviner wizard and a warlock, who make 100% of the same choices, when possible, other than their class:
HP: Warlock has 2 more hp. Strict advantage warlock, by an amount equal to 2/3 of a feat (Toughness).
Saves: Warlock has +2 more Reflex. Strict advantage warlock, by an amount equal to 1 feat (Lightning Reflexes).
Skills: Warlock has 4 more skill points. This is at least 50% more skill points and probably more of a skill point advantage, depending on their Int. Strict advantage warlock.
Spells and Abilities: Warlock casts like an arcanist and has 150% as many generic spells (assuming they both have at least 12 Int but don't break the bank on 20 Int) or 133% as many generic spells (if they break the bank on 20 Int), though the diviner gets 1 free divination spell (so it may be easier to describe it as the warlock having a much more flexible use of the same number of spell slots, as the diviner has to cast at least one divination spell). Foresight diviner always acts on the surprise round, has +1 Initiative, and can put up a hanging d20 roll and use it later that round instead of rolling 3+Int times per day. I'll even ignore dual identity here and say it doesn't help at all. Based on 2 and 3, and since most 1st-level divination spells are not too useful, the warlock's spell-use advantage wins some big points here, but the diviner's school powers are also good. Since I don't believe in 2 as much as average, we'll give the diviner a small edge here; to me, the warlock is a better caster by a significant amount, but the diviner might get a high hanging roll that protects from an important save and can't be surprised, which is solid utility.
From this, it's clear that the warlock is, at level 1, a solid arcane caster who can hold his own with (and perhaps is even stronger than) one of the top wizards. Now, the big issue is that this rides on assertion 1, and I personally am not convinced that wizards are actually the best at level 1. It's certainly the case that a warlock with a talent at level 1 (or with mystic bolt at level 1 as you suggest) would be pretty much better than the wizard in every way (at level 1 only), so for instance in PFS, there would be extremely little reason not to play a warlock at level 1 and then switch to wizard at level 2 with the free rebuild.
As an interesting aside, at level 2, the wizard catches up the 1st-level spells not counting the divination spell and then has the divination spell too, but the warlock gets another +1 Reflex advantage, 4 more skill point advantage, 1 more hp advantage, and a warlock talent, so this is arguably also a point where warlocks may have an edge over wizards even with assertion 2 (but of course, at 3rd, the wizard gets 2nd level spells).
I'm going to be brazen and say that popular, armchair theorycrafting is usually wrong in terms of what makes a fun character. (But since we think so much alike, I wonder if you already knew I'd say that!) In having playtested the class, getting one more spell per day is not worth loosing what I'll call "longevity abilities." As in, "I have this sorcerer ability that I can use 3 + Cha times per day," or "I have this wizard ability that I can use 3 + Int times per day."
Check out my playtesting notes; I specifically mention where and when I use my spells. We had six encounters in all, one of which lasted nearly 6 rounds. (Darn that alchemist was lucky!) Let's assume that each encounter lasted two rounds, though; that's 12 rounds of turns that I would have had, which means that generally speaking, I would have had something cool and magical and awesome to do roughly 25% of the time, assuming that at least four rounds had opportunities for my spells to be useful.
Basically what ultimately happened was that I felt like I had to optimize my opportunities to inflict maximum havoc with my spells, which for someone like me, was less fun. I would rather be doing something cool like unleashing mystic bolts or throwing bombs most of the time, even if its not always the most effective use of my time.
Because sitting back and "pinging" with acid splash or my bow or holding that the goblin failed its once-change save versus daze isn't particularly fun.
Also, if the most powerful arcane spellcaster currently is the divination wizard because of that one ability, then the question remains whether or not the many benefits of being a divination wizard (+1 divine spell slot, the two 1st-level abilities, and likely the benefits of having either a familiar or bonded item at 1st-level) outweigh having 1 extra spell slot. I would say, "No." By a lot.
Also, I'd say that as murky as Level 1 can be, its an important consideration. After all, swashbuckler finesse got moved back to 1st level during the ACG playtest because of how painful it was to wait for swashbuckler's finesse at Level 2. That's basically the same problem here, except its a joint, "lack of anything cool or niche to do," combined with a "lack of power." If the vigilante needs to be downgraded to a bard-level of spellcasting in order to give it something cool to do at Level 1, I think it would be worth it.
Finally, in Pathfinder Society, I'd say that Level 1 is just as important as any other level, considering that all of the levels have the same length of play. (Three four-hour sessions or one eight-hour module.)
I'm going to be brazen and say that popular, armchair theorycrafting is usually wrong in terms of what makes a fun character. (But since we think so much alike, I wonder if you already knew I'd say that!) In having playtested the class, getting one more spell per day is not worth loosing what I'll call "longevity abilities." As in, "I have this sorcerer ability that I can use 3 + Cha times per day," or "I have this wizard ability that I can use 3 + Int times per day."
Check out my playtesting notes; I specifically mention where and when I use my spells. We had six encounters in all, one of which lasted nearly 6 rounds. (Darn that alchemist was lucky!) Let's assume that each encounter lasted two rounds, though; that's 12 rounds of turns that I would have had, which means that generally speaking, I would have had something cool and magical and awesome to do roughly 25% of the time, assuming that at least four rounds had opportunities for my spells to be useful.
Basically what ultimately happened was that I felt like I had to optimize my opportunities to inflict maximum havoc with my spells, which for someone like me, was less fun. I would rather be doing something cool like unleashing mystic bolts or throwing bombs most of the time, even if its not always the most effective use of my time.
Because sitting back and "pinging" with acid splash or my bow or holding that the goblin failed its once-change save versus daze isn't particularly fun.
Yep! And it's also fair to note that, in my experience, early levels for a wizard in general basically come down to those few color spray moments (it's part of my disagreement with Assertion 1). I actually played a foresight diviner to Seeker level in PFS who was built around Diplomacy and other social skills, including in the same scenario (Rise of the Goblin Guild) by happenstance, and she was pretty much strictly less useful than your warlock was for that scenario (she had fewer color sprays, and less versatility on how to use her spell slots, and her familiar wasn't super useful that time). I did lots and lots of acid splash. She went on to become possibly my most powerful PFS character at higher levels, though. Most of the good wizard powers (foresight and teleportation included, and maybe admixture for a blaster build) are swift or free actiom utility anyway, so those wizards are still gonna usually be lobbing acid splash, not using their school power as a standard action.
Yep! And it's also fair to note that, in my experience, early levels for a wizard in general basically come down to those few color spray moments (it's part of my disagreement with Assertion 1). I actually played a foresight diviner to Seeker level in PFS who was built around Diplomacy and other social skills, including in the same scenario (Rise of the Goblin Guild) by happenstance, and she was pretty much strictly less useful than your warlock was for that scenario (she had fewer color sprays, and less versatility on how to use her spell slots, and her familiar wasn't super useful that time). I did lots and lots of acid splash. She went on to become possibly my most powerful PFS character at higher levels, though. Most of the good wizard powers (foresight and teleportation included, and maybe admixture for a blaster build) are swift or free actiom utility anyway, so those wizards are still gonna usually be lobbing acid splash, not using their school power as a standard action.
It might very well just be my gamer personality. I'm very much a, "Conserve resources. Spend your powers wisely," sort of player. I often fall into the trap of, "BUT WHAT IF THE NEXT ENCOUNTER NEEDS THIS MORE?!?!" This is why I typically favor spontaneous casting over prepared spellcasting; nothing makes me more anxious in-game then playing a cleric or a wizard because of the importance of timing in their playstyle.
So hey, I might not be the absolute best choice for feedback in this regard! That said, I think I was expecting to play this character less like a sorcerer/wizard and more like a bard or a mesmerist, so that could be a problem too. Regardless, I'm sticking to my guns and saying that either a talent at 1st level or a second base ability for all specializations would go a long way towards making this character a LOT more fun at 1st level.