|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So everybody is complaining about how long it takes to change and how this should be a feat instead of a class and yadda yadda yadda.
But it seems like almost no one is talking about the fact that the Vigilante class seems to pretty much require soloing in your other identity. If part of the purpose of the dual identity is to create separation between your identities, and to enter places/situations that your other identity can't get to... How on earth does that work with the rest of the party hanging with you regardless of which identity you're in?
Party can't get to a formal ball, so the vigilante switches out to social to enter it -- but the other party members don't have such an option. So the vigilante has to solo the ball.
What about blowing your secret identity when Don Diego and Zorro both hang out with the same bunch of people all the time?
Doesn't the existence of a party and party-based gameplay sort of cripple the vigilante idea? Either everybody has to be vigilantes so they can switch out at the same time, or the vigilante has to be constantly in one identity while with the party?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Option three: the Vigilante utilizes his Dual Identity to get into the ball and his other party members use various creative applications of existing skills such as Bluff, Disguise, Knowledge (local), and Gather Information (and let's not forget just plain bribing) to get in as well.
Now take a guess what freaking obvious question this raises...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there are plenty of other threads arguing the "the ability seems pointless" and "should be skill use instead of class ability" points, I wanted to really focus in this thread on the dual identity thing really seeming to sort of force you into playing parts solo.
Incognito infiltration tends to leave other players bored when it's an occasional thing, but when one of the players has a whole class ability encouraging them to do it again and again, it seems like it would bog down the table pretty quickly.
Yeah when GMing I wouldn't really ever do anything solo that lasted more than a few minutes tops, excepting when doing PbP, as the pace of the game allows me to just PM out what is going on with one player while I can keep the story moving for the others simultaneously.
This further reinforces the Vigilante to be an all or nothing thing with a party, as either everyone is going to do their spy routine, or it will simply be hand waived in some form, or risk really slowing down the game.
My players split up all the time so I don't really understand the issue.
My players split up all the time so I don't really understand the issue.I wonder how common that is. At least in tabletop, I find juggling split up parties very cumbersome.
Agreed. There's the problem of keeping everyone at the table engaged in the story when some of them aren't actually participating, remembering all the important details in two different scenes going on, and all the other little problems that inevitably crop up.
One of my eternal pet peeves when it comes to split up parties is all the metagaming that happens when one of the split off people gets in trouble. "So, can we say that the rest of the party happens to be passing by and they hear my character screaming in pain?"
My players split up all the time so I don't really understand the issue.I wonder how common that is. At least in tabletop, I find juggling split up parties very cumbersome.Agreed. There's the problem of keeping everyone at the table engaged in the story when some of them aren't actually participating, remembering all the important details in two different scenes going on, and all the other little problems that inevitably crop up.
One of my eternal pet peeves when it comes to split up parties is all the metagaming that happens when one of the split off people gets in trouble. "So, can we say that the rest of the party happens to be passing by and they hear my character screaming in pain?"
Had a DM once who basically went mobile with the game whenever this happened. When the party split, the players split accordingly, usually into entirely-different rooms, so that preservation of non-information could be kept.
It's especially easy if you have a double-DM setup.
My players split up all the time so I don't really understand the issue.I wonder how common that is. At least in tabletop, I find juggling split up parties very cumbersome.Agreed. There's the problem of keeping everyone at the table engaged in the story when some of them aren't actually participating, remembering all the important details in two different scenes going on, and all the other little problems that inevitably crop up.
One of my eternal pet peeves when it comes to split up parties is all the metagaming that happens when one of the split off people gets in trouble. "So, can we say that the rest of the party happens to be passing by and they hear my character screaming in pain?"
Had a DM once who basically went mobile with the game whenever this happened. When the party split, the players split accordingly, usually into entirely-different rooms, so that preservation of non-information could be kept.
It's especially easy if you have a double-DM setup.
It's not a bad way to handle the situation in some cases (I did it for really plot-sensitive stuff) but as you said it really needs a secondary GM if you don't want to leave half your players out of the game at any given moment.