My (negative) impression of the vigilante

[nicholas storm]

I advocated for a faster change time between social and vigilante identities or access to abilities with a penalty to reputation. In my mind it doesn't make sense to split abilities to only be used in one identity.

The developers changed the change time to 1 minute, which in my opinion is still way too long. The talents which speed up the change time are so required by the class that they should not be talents and should be in play at first level.

In any pathfinder game I have played, there is no way I would ever be in social identity with a 1 minute change time. As such in my opinion the entire social side of the class would cease to exist. You may as well dump all those social abilities into the trash can as far as I am concerned.

The power level of the 4 specializations is still too low. Of the four, the only one I would consider playing is the stalker because it has some neat abilities.

The avenger is a weak fighter with 6 skill points per level. Nothing about this class currently would make me play it over a slayer or ranger. The slayer gets the same amount of talents plus sneak attack, a D10 HP, studied target and a few other class features.

The spellcasting progression of the warlock and zealot is in my opinion dumb and takes up too many of their talents. Like the avenger not comparing favorably to the slayer, I don't see these classes as being comparable to the magus, bard or inquisitor.

Part of my issue with this class as a whole is that it doesn't fit into the pathfinder genre. If you are playing one of Paizo's adventure paths, it is likely that you will never have to be in social identity and you won't want to be, because of the 1 minute change time.

And therefore balancing the class power with a feature (split identity) that will never be used makes for a weak class.

[Archomedes]

iirc you can now use all powers when in social identity, you just reveal yourself as something more than you present yourself as.

[nicholas storm]

Archomedes wrote:

iirc you can now use all powers when in social identity, you just reveal yourself as something more than you present yourself as.

On page 3 it says "Many of the class features of the vigilante are usable only when the vigilante is in one of his two identities, as noted in the ability."

[pH unbalanced]

nicholas storm wrote:

Part of my issue with this class as a whole is that it doesn't fit into the pathfinder genre. If you are playing one of Paizo's adventure paths, it is likely that you will never have to be in social identity and you won't want to be, because of the 1 minute change time.

Existing APs where a Social Identity would be very useful, despite the 1 minute change time:

Curse of the Crimson Throne
Council of Thieves
Kingmaker

There may be others, but those are the ones I'm sure of.

[nicholas storm]

pH unbalanced wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

Part of my issue with this class as a whole is that it doesn't fit into the pathfinder genre. If you are playing one of Paizo's adventure paths, it is likely that you will never have to be in social identity and you won't want to be, because of the 1 minute change time.

Existing APs where a Social Identity would be very useful, despite the 1 minute change time:

Curse of the Crimson Throne
Council of Thieves
Kingmaker

There may be others, but those are the ones I'm sure of.

I played kingmaker and we never did any of the social interactions in the AP. Maybe it's the group I play with.

[Thrawn007]

pH unbalanced wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

Part of my issue with this class as a whole is that it doesn't fit into the pathfinder genre. If you are playing one of Paizo's adventure paths, it is likely that you will never have to be in social identity and you won't want to be, because of the 1 minute change time.

Existing APs where a Social Identity would be very useful, despite the 1 minute change time:

Curse of the Crimson Throne
Council of Thieves
Kingmaker

There may be others, but those are the ones I'm sure of.

We are in the middle of Shattered Star. If I was playing a vigilante, I'd have probably spent about 1/4 to 1/3 of my time in social identity. I'm pretty sure rise of the runelords would go about the same for me.

[GroovyBoy]

nicholas storm wrote:

I played kingmaker and we never did any of the social interactions in the AP. Maybe it's the group I play with.

That's just odd. I mean, didn't you guys ever receive visitors to your lands, or interact with people in your cities during investigations, or go to a certain festival?

[Zwordsman]

nicholas storm wrote:

Archomedes wrote:

iirc you can now use all powers when in social identity, you just reveal yourself as something more than you present yourself as.

On page 3 it says "Many of the class features of the vigilante are usable only when the vigilante is in one of his two identities, as noted in the ability."

Read the specialization section

"The base ability and bonus class skills
apply when the vigilante is in either of his identities without
restriction, but if the vigilante uses any other abilities while
in his social identity, he must succeed at a Disguise check
against the Perception checks of all onlookers, without the
+20 bonus from social grace, or the onlookers will realize
that he is something more than his social identity, and
perhaps discover that the social and vigilante identities are
one and the same."

This is what that passage refers to. You can freely use them in vigilante mode, but using it in social requires a check. Specific beats general and all.
and failure doesn't (baring gm fiat) auto make them figure out how you are. It's a check to feel something about you is "off" The guy who presented himself as a homely geeky librarian who is meek and niave. Just jump kicked that book theif, flipped and caught the book in midair. How unusual, maybe I need to pay more attention to him.
Where as a successful save would have been my librarian fumbling towards them trying to get the book slipping badly where my foot hits the back of their head, and I happen to roll where the book lands in my lap.

In the case of my failed roll, they just think i'm more than meets the eye. WHich isn't always a bad thing, but it makes them less apt to accept my social self at face value.
If I used say... the well known (as it has been seen and reported) tripple spin jump kick that the vigilante used, and they knew about it. THey may become more suspicious. Depending on gm and how badly you wiffed it. THey may thnk your related, or they may think your a super crazy fan (if you just barely fail for instance)
bit if I use Mystic Tattoo to pull something out. I succeed that disguise check it looks like i had it in my sleeve, or it looks like i pulled it out from a pocket. I fail that. That sure is unique ability. If the vigilante has been seen doing that, that would be a much stronger connection for them to look at.
==========
1min is a pretty good time change. I mean its not going to help with a bar room brawl. but thats what disguise checks will now be for. If you need your vigilante stuff.
Most of the time you have a min before going "full social" or "full battle"
Its not really made for say a dungeon crawl. you'd change before you went in and stay that way. 'after all it wouldn't make sense to be social in a dungeon. but you'd change back before you go to town.

-------
or hell.. Currently I see no real downside (other than gm taking away renown abilities etc) mechanically to revealing most abilities in social mode. Gameplay wise you might be connected and anything the viglante did can make problems for you.

But with the line I quoted above, where you can use it in social mode with a digsuise check..

there is honestly nothing saying you ever have to become a vigilante. You could be a social guy with a lot of abilities. If and when you change into a vigilante, it's going to be far more obvious that your fighting styles are simiilar and anyone seeing both gets to make checks agianst you though.

Basically, you get a whole lot more balance now with what you can do in each persona. and best of all, its set by degrees. Degree of which you chose and work with your gm. So you risk what you want to risk.

[Rub-Eta]

nicholas storm wrote:

In any pathfinder game I have played, there is no way I would ever be in social identity with a 1 minute change time.

That's your group.

nicholas storm wrote:

The avenger is a weak fighter with 6 skill points per level.

Well it can't be as strong as a fighter and still get 6 skill ranks, can it? It's just one combat feat behind the fighter. The HD means 1 less hp/lvl on avg. And the aveneger has better saves. No weapon and armour training but access to some other abilities instead. And also a social side.

nicholas storm wrote:

Nothing about this class currently would make me play it over a slayer or ranger. The slayer gets the same amount of talents plus sneak attack, a D10 HP, studied target and a few other class features.

Neither the ranger or the slayer gets as many feats as the avenger (the slayer can only pick combat trick once) and the slayer talents are in general not as good. Sneak attack isn't that good and as I said, that's an avg of 1 hp each level. Studied traget is a clear boost to the slayer, makes up for the loss of feats. And the avenger does also have a lot of other class feats and another side to the class as well.

nicholas storm wrote:

The spellcasting progression of the warlock and zealot is in my opinion dumb and takes up too many of their talents. Like the avenger not comparing favorably to the slayer, I don't see these classes as being comparable to the magus, bard or inquisitor.

Just looking at the Warlock, I don't see how a 6th level arcane caster with the biggest spell list available, bombs, a familiar, the ability to negate spells, medium armour and martial weapons can't compare to those. I'd say that could just be outright better.

And again, the avenger can take feat hungry builds (like the regular ranged build), the slayer can't.

nicholas storm wrote:

Part of my issue with this class as a whole is that it doesn't fit into the pathfinder genre. If you are playing one of Paizo's adventure paths, it is likely that you will never have to be in social identity and you won't want to be, because of the 1 minute change time.

The likelihood really depends on what type of game you play. In my games, there is time for information gathering and social events without the need of combat. You just need to make that time, just like how it takes 4mins to put on heavy armour you need the time to change. But if you play that kind of game where everyone wears and carries their armour and weapons around 24/7 because combat may happen, I totaly understand that 1min is WAY too long.

And btw, the Anti-Paladin isn't playable in any of the APs.

nicholas storm wrote:

And therefore balancing the class power with a feature (split identity) that will never be used makes for a weak class.

Can't say that there is any logic behind this statement or connection to what you've said earlier.

I'm also really stunned by the fact that nobody seems to notice that the vigilante is the only class able to have more than one identity, making the class the most optimal for a lot of character concepts.

[Snowblind]

Rub-Eta wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

In any pathfinder game I have played, there is no way I would ever be in social identity with a 1 minute change time.

That's your group.

In round 1, a huge number of people said that a 5 minute change time was crippling to the point of making it nigh useless in most campaigns. I doubt that lowering it to 1 minute would change this a huge deal. It might be his group, but it's certainly not just his group. At least you can just eat the disguise check now and fight in social mode at full power or close enough now, which I think is actually a bigger improvement than the 1 minute reduction. Getting jumped isn't a big deal so long as none of the attackers survive long enough to spill the beans on your real identity and there aren't any observers.

Rub-Eta wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

The avenger is a weak fighter with 6 skill points per level.

Well it can't be as strong as a fighter and still get 6 skill ranks, can it? It's just one combat feat behind the fighter. The HD means 1 less hp/lvl on avg. And the aveneger has better saves. No weapon and armour training but access to some other abilities instead. And also a social side.

The Fighter is a bad class. The avenger should be much better than it.

Rub-Eta wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

Nothing about this class currently would make me play it over a slayer or ranger. The slayer gets the same amount of talents plus sneak attack, a D10 HP, studied target and a few other class features.

Neither the ranger or the slayer gets as many feats as the avenger (the slayer can only pick combat trick once) and the slayer talents are in general not as good. Sneak attack isn't that good and as I said, that's an avg of 1 hp each level. Studied traget is a clear boost to the slayer, makes up for the loss of feats. And the avenger does also have a lot of other class feats and another side to the class as well.

The slayer gets combat trick, 3 ranger feats and weapon training by level 10. That's 5 feats, 3 of which ignore prereqs (Str based TWFers love this).

Rub-Eta wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

The spellcasting progression of the warlock and zealot is in my opinion dumb and takes up too many of their talents. Like the avenger not comparing favorably to the slayer, I don't see these classes as being comparable to the magus, bard or inquisitor.

Just looking at the Warlock, I don't see how a 6th level arcane caster with the biggest spell list available, bombs, a familiar, the ability to negate spells, medium armour and martial weapons can't compare to those. I'd say that could just be outright better.

Have you not read like...anything about the warlock said on these boards. TWO TALENTS OVER 11 LEVELS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A CRIPPLED CASTER. You don't have those abilities. By level 11, the warlock can have the spell cancellation talent or mystic bolt, and either a familiar, arcane strike or casting in armor. And mystic bolt is a trap compared to a bow- they get better numbers just playing an archer with arcane strike(Yes, I can back this up with numbers). Just....no. This is terrible compared to all the other 6th level casters.

Rub-Eta wrote:

And again, the avenger can take feat hungry builds (like the regular ranged build), the slayer can't.

A class with ranger feats plus a bonus feat, weapon focus and possibly weapon finesse. Can't take feat hungry builds...What? Go read the slayer again.

Rub-Eta wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

Part of my issue with this class as a whole is that it doesn't fit into the pathfinder genre. If you are playing one of Paizo's adventure paths, it is likely that you will never have to be in social identity and you won't want to be, because of the 1 minute change time.

The likelihood really depends on what type of game you play. In my games, there is time for information gathering and social events without the need of combat. You just need to make that time, just like how it takes 4mins to put on heavy armour you need the time to change. But if you play that kind of game where everyone wears and carries their armour and weapons around 24/7 because combat may happen, I totaly understand that 1min is WAY too long.

And btw, the Anti-Paladin isn't playable in any of the APs.

If the vigilante could seriously stand on it's own as a class without the social stuff, this wouldn't be a problem. A bard or an inquisitor or any of the other 3/4 bab skill monkeys can never make a single non-combat skill roll and still be a fun, flexible, highly versatile class. "Good for the right campaign" doesn't cut it as an excuse.

Rub-Eta wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

And therefore balancing the class power with a feature (split identity) that will never be used makes for a weak class.

Can't say that there is any logic behind this statement or connection to what you've said earlier.

I'm also really stunned by the fact that nobody seems to notice that the vigilante is the only class able to have more than one identity, making the class the most optimal for a lot of character concepts.

Sure, other classes can have another identity. It's called the Disguise skill, with a dash of roleplaying. You don't need the "has multiple identities" ability written on your character sheet to have multiple identities. Your character is not their stat sheet.

[Kegdrainer]

How about changing the period to change identities to 5 rounds and for every even level (When you gain a vigilante talent), it reduces by one round. After a while, the role you play has become second nature to you.

[Thrawn007]

OR you take a social talent or two after the required number of levels and get the same result.

[Kegdrainer]

Why take a talent for something that should be part of your class? Same with Renown. They should be built into the class as you level up and the social talents could be used to help gather information if your area or help have additional persona. Maybe allies that help get you the information you need but not wanting to put their lives in danger.

[Atarlost]

GroovyBoy wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

I played kingmaker and we never did any of the social interactions in the AP. Maybe it's the group I play with.

That's just odd. I mean, didn't you guys ever receive visitors to your lands, or interact with people in your cities during investigations, or go to a certain festival?

My Kingmaker group collapsed after the third book, but there was never any point at which anyone could have had a secret identity. You carve a kingdom out of the wilderness and then you're publicly known for doing so. You can't help carve a kingdom out of the wilderness and still have anyone with two brain cells to rub together accept that you're a harmless fop.

[The Inheritor]

I can totally see some Zelda/Shiek Styled Kingmaker mischief with the vigilante.

[Thrawn007]

Kegdrainer wrote:

Why take a talent for something that should be part of your class? Same with Renown. They should be built into the class as you level up and the social talents could be used to help gather information if your area or help have additional persona. Maybe allies that help get you the information you need but not wanting to put their lives in danger.

It was built into the class before social talents became a thing. I like this method far more. Now I can make a vigilante that doesn't want or need renown, or one who cares about building a reputation. If it's built into the class, those aren't both options.

[M1k31]

Thrawn007 wrote:

Kegdrainer wrote:

Why take a talent for something that should be part of your class? Same with Renown. They should be built into the class as you level up and the social talents could be used to help gather information if your area or help have additional persona. Maybe allies that help get you the information you need but not wanting to put their lives in danger.

It was built into the class before social talents became a thing. I like this method far more. Now I can make a vigilante that doesn't want or need renown, or one who cares about building a reputation. If it's built into the class, those aren't both options.

why would you not want "Renown"... when it would Gimp your 11th level ability "frightening appearance" regardless of Spec, as well as anything else based on intimidation...

The fact is Renown shouldn't even be a talent, it should be a base ability that is taken out by later Archetype options, at a minimum all 3 renown should be 1 social talent, freeing social talents for actual flavor/choice options; like the ability to deputize others(giving them a pseudo SI or VI as needed), or an ability to create a "fence" to help the party get rid of high end loot at more favorable price... even if you would normally be unable to sell it in your location. You know... actual options for making your social identity useful, as opposed to taking most options just so that the SI is not just absolute s+%#, with only 1 or 2 real flavor choices.

[mourge40k]

Eh, I'm of the camp that Warlock and Zealot are just fine with their casting, considering that they have to be balanced against their own class. I realize this is not a popular opinion, but hey, don't have to be popular to have what I think. However, I will agree that Avenger needs to be buffed, because as it stands, it falls way behind all the other martial classes and desperately needs help.

Also, I've seemed to notice a distinct trend. Most of the people who complain about the social identity seem to be playing in games where social aspects don't come up, while those who support it play in games where social aspects do. Considering the sourcebook this is going to be from, I consider this perfectly on course for flavor, and putting it in there with other classes that don't see use in every group.

[Thrawn007]

M1k31 wrote:

why would you not want "Renown"... when it would Gimp your 11th level ability "frightening appearance" regardless of Spec, as well as anything else based on intimidation...

Flavor. I want to more options for interesting characters. The idea here is to make the mechanics loose and flexible enough to handle different builds. Mandatory renown is something I definitely want to see go, although I think it's great as an option. I'm working on a rewrite suggestion for the appearance abilities, just don't feel I have it right you. (I'm actually compiling one comprehensive list for the changes I'd suggest for the whole class as a package. I've been grabbing bits and pieces of that to post on the more specific topics, like the social thread.)

Quote:

The fact is Renown shouldn't even be a talent, it should be a base ability that is taken out by later Archetype options, at a minimum all 3 renown should be 1 social talent, freeing social talents for actual flavor/choice options; like the ability to deputize others(giving them a pseudo SI or VI as needed), or an ability to create a "fence" to help the party get rid of high end loot at more favorable price... even if you would normally be unable to sell it in your location. You know... actual options for making your social identity useful, as opposed to taking most options just so that the SI is not just absolute s&+$, with only 1 or 2 real flavor choices.

I've already posted a short version of what I think needs to happen with social stuff here. I want to keep that discussion over there so it's easier to discuss each topic in one place.

[pH unbalanced]

M1k31 wrote:

why would you not want "Renown"... when it would Gimp your 11th level ability "frightening appearance" regardless of Spec, as well as anything else based on intimidation...

In campaigns like PFS you move around so much Reknown is almost worthless.

But a Vigilante can still be a good option for PFS because some scenarios are almost entirely social, whereas others are dungeon crawls -- having a single character that can do either of those well is pretty cool.

[Terminalmancer]

If you playtest the class enough in PFS you can get a boon letting you get renown throughout all of Absalom, which might be enough to make it a sort of useful class feature in PFS. I don't know what a post-playtest vigilante would do though. Pick a neighborhood or the PF lodge or the Blakros museum and hope for the best I guess.

[Zwordsman]

mourge40k wrote:

Eh, I'm of the camp that Warlock and Zealot are just fine with their casting, considering that they have to be balanced against their own class. I realize this is not a popular opinion, but hey, don't have to be popular to have what I think. However, I will agree that Avenger needs to be buffed, because as it stands, it falls way behind all the other martial classes and desperately needs help.

I'm not fully convinced warlock or zealots casting does wel leven compared to the other specialties.

longer than I meant to reply and reasoning on why I think they are not just fine with their casting, with regards to the other specialties:

Either Stalker is too good, or it's the level they want. In both cases, as it stands the stalker would be my preference over warlock or zealot. Admitidly I never play zealot like characters. But the warlock has all the parts of my favorite classes, 3/4 6th level spells, unique fighting thing. oh and I hate rogues (due to well the pathfinder rogue. so this might redeem the idea since it has a lot of ability to still be useful in a fight and actually ko things)

Except it just doesn't work very well. Mystic bolt can not break through even basic low level resitance very well. It basically requires arcane striker (which in of itself I dont' think is a bad thing, I think it's arcane striker is a wonderful thing) but there simply isn't space for anything. If your taking casting from lv 4, You get bascially 1 or 2 free talents, unless your game goes very high level. Higher than most games I've ever played. Yet to make casting fit better, there are 2-3 talents you really want for casting. which nudges out other stuff. Particularly if you'd like to be a warlock who tries to capture criminals alive.

Effectively you get "3/4th bab, 6thlv spells; and maybe msytic bolt (possibly arcane striker at lv 1 if you dont want most other things, like the tatoo or armour casting). Usually requiring you to either postpone mystic bolt till high level, or postponing a whole spell level until far later. (both start available at lv 4. It's a long time from then till you can unlock the other. Unless your ina fast exp game. It's a long time of being a near usless caster at that level, with mystic bolts vs resistance, or trying to keep up with casting, and I guess using acrossbow? possibly a sword, if you picked up armour casting at lv 2 instead of other things)
Or you get a good mystic bolter with intersting abilities, but almost no casting abilities.

Basically, going pure 6 th level casting, you don't have the castings per day to do nothing but that. Though you can grab a crossbow or something but then your hitting "old school rogue" hitting issues.

Mystic bolt side, your basically a 3/4th gunslinger, with low base damage, no damage bonuses, no to hit bonuses, with slight casting (that you have to chose, another spell level or casting in armour) but might have some cool abilities I guess. But your still shut down by resistance so you need to pick up another element or two.

It's workable, Hell it's probably fun.
But playing a stalker would be more fun, because you'd be much more effective in combat; which a large portion of most games are. Either the casting talents need to be lessened (2 for 1, stretch them out a bit) or some things need to be baked into the class more like; automatically unlock mystic bolt at 4, or lv 1 start with light armour casting, Then that talent woudl give combat casting and medium armour casting (at the current level) and possibly heavy casting (at a higher level; but you'd still have to get profiency yourself). and likely feat or later talents that improve upon mystic bolt

Currently Warlock just can't fulfil any specific space very well or fully. Which means in games that aren't "vigilante only" they'll be seen as a detriment and hurting the party. Sad to say, but yes there are many folks who are so power gamer they get angry at any character not built well. Say Sound sTriker bard. I have been gripped at, and complained at because i was playing a damage dealing bard, and not a bard boosting the party. and it wasn't that I didn't tell them I was making it so they assumed i would be buffing them. It was because objectively a sound striker bard/caster is much less effective than a dps sorcerer or ranged combat guy. It was a lot more fun for me than any of those but it was seen as a stupid thing. Now the jerky folks aren't everywhere. but they do exist and currently the warlock would fall into that situation where they look down on the player for choosing that class. It happens to the old core rogue too. It's got a stigma on it whether you have fun with it or not. As it stands the warlock likely will fall int othe stigma of "why not alchenmist, why not magus, why not stalker" except in games where the choices are more limited.

Just a few tweaks would make the 'pay for casting" costs workable. while still maintaining the core idea of what they want from the warlock. (most of the ideas would probably apply to the zealot too)
---------
I do agree the avenger could use a little boost, it should be made durable guy gaining dr or bonus hp per level of vigilante. Or it should become the battle support. Give him aura's that improve allies and himself in some way. I already consider him a better "fighter" like construct. Giving him some high end durability would serve to define what he is more, and give him the role in every super hero group of "the guy who seems to survive anything" He can be the powerman of groups. Nothing seems to kill him. He'll be the guy who runs through a collapsing building to save a child, or to throttle the vilian who caused his spiral into vigilantism, and somehow just walk right out with a few scratches. Or jumps off abuilding to cut a guy in half, and ignores a lot of the fall damage.
--------------
(I'm ignoreing the social considerations because if your playing in a game that has a lot of social you'll adjust your character no matter which Spec you are. I personally love the social persona and the current benfeits whether your spec into it or not). and love the current changing time and dynamics. )

[JoelF847]

pH unbalanced wrote:

M1k31 wrote:

why would you not want "Renown"... when it would Gimp your 11th level ability "frightening appearance" regardless of Spec, as well as anything else based on intimidation...

In campaigns like PFS you move around so much Reknown is almost worthless.

But a Vigilante can still be a good option for PFS because some scenarios are almost entirely social, whereas others are dungeon crawls -- having a single character that can do either of those well is pretty cool.

You mean playing a bard? :)

[Rub-Eta]

Snowblind wrote:

It might be his group, but it's certainly not just his group.

Never said so.

Snowblind wrote:

he Fighter is a bad class. The avenger should be much better than it.

If bad = almost on par and sometimes better than other matrial classes, then fine. I really, really don't care for the fighter hate that's going on, you've obviously not had a good Fighter in your group. As I have, I can say that they're far from bad when done and played good.

Snowblind wrote:

The slayer gets combat trick, 3 ranger feats and weapon training by level 10. That's 5 feats, 3 of which ignore prereqs (Str based TWFers love this).

Yes. So can the avenger and the levels after that as well, unlike the slayer. The prerequisit skipping is only really usefull for TWF or a switch hitter.

Snowblind wrote:

This is terrible compared to all the other 6th level casters.

I must admit that I did miss the frequency that they needed to pick their spell progression.

Snowblind wrote:

A class with ranger feats plus a bonus feat, weapon focus and possibly weapon finesse. Can't take feat hungry builds...What? Go read the slayer again.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider one custom combat feat, weapon focus and maybe three more good ranger style feats (not even the two-handed style have three useful feats) as a huge contribution for feat hungry builds. It's at max 5 feats, some feat hungry builds could only use 3 of them and needs other combat feats.

Snowblind wrote:

If the vigilante could seriously stand on it's own as a class without the social stuff, this wouldn't be a problem

Well, yes, but then the vigilante would be a double class. By then I'd see no point in the vigilante being its' own class and not a tack-on system to other classes.

I don't see the problem with trading away some combat capabilities for the social side.

Snowblind wrote:

"Good for the right campaign" doesn't cut it as an excuse.

Neither does "It doesn't work in my game". You don't play an Anti-Paladin in a good aligned party, you don't play a combat focused character in a low-combat game and you don't play the social side in a combat heavy game.

Snowblind wrote:

Sure, other classes can have another identity. It's called the Disguise skill, with a dash of roleplaying.

PLEASE point to the rules in Disguise that lets you do close to all the things the vigilante can.

[Tuyena]

1) The Slayer is better than the Avenger could ever hope to be in its current form, in any combat style. This isn't even remotely debatable.

Suggesting otherwise at best shows a lack of system mastery, and at worst is deliberate disingenuity.

2) In order for the terrible lack of power to be made up by the social aspect they'd need be practically walking social Dues Ex Machinas, and as it is other classes who don't give up power to be social are better than them at it. Bards, Rogues, Sorcerers, Investigators, Inquisitors can all be as good, and usually BETTER in social interactions.

3) Disguise, Disguise Self and Alter Self can all do what the Vigilante can do pretty much to a Tee. And the one thing they do get, Immunity to scrying isn't even useful. I'll demonstrate for you.

I am a powerful and vengeful lich. I want to find that blasted vigilante.

Hmm I can't find him for some reason? What about his other three friends? Oh there they are! They have some random guy with them too. No biggie, I'll kill him too, that should draw out the other guy from hiding.

[DM Beckett]

Or, you know, just hire someone to follow them the next time they go fight crime on that street corner they are known for.

[Tuyena]

DM Beckett wrote:

Or, you know, just hire someone to follow them the next time they go fight crime on that street corner they are known for.

Well this is all really moot anyways as it assumes the Vigilante actually survives combat with a BBEG.

[nicholas storm]

Zwordsman wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

Archomedes wrote:

iirc you can now use all powers when in social identity, you just reveal yourself as something more than you present yourself as.

On page 3 it says "Many of the class features of the vigilante are usable only when the vigilante is in one of his two identities, as noted in the ability."

Read the specialization section

"The base ability and bonus class skills
apply when the vigilante is in either of his identities without
restriction, but if the vigilante uses any other abilities while
in his social identity, he must succeed at a Disguise check
against the Perception checks of all onlookers, without the
+20 bonus from social grace, or the onlookers will realize
that he is something more than his social identity, and
perhaps discover that the social and vigilante identities are
one and the same."

This is what that passage refers to. You can freely use them in vigilante mode, but using it in social requires a check. Specific beats general and all.
and failure doesn't (baring gm fiat) auto make them figure out how you are. It's a check to feel something about you is "off" The guy who presented himself as a homely geeky librarian who is meek and niave. Just jump kicked that book theif, flipped and caught the book in midair. How unusual, maybe I need to pay more attention to him.
Where as a successful save would have been my librarian fumbling towards them trying to get the book slipping badly where my foot hits the back of their head, and I happen to roll where the book lands in my lap.

In the case of my failed roll, they just think i'm more than meets the eye. WHich isn't always a bad thing, but it makes them less apt to accept my social self at face value.
If I used say... the well known (as it has been seen and reported) tripple spin jump kick that the vigilante used, and they knew about it. THey may become more suspicious. Depending on gm and how badly you wiffed it. THey may thnk your related, or they may think your a...

I missed this section. I like this implementation. Though with this implementation, I don't see any need personally to spend any talents on quick change as I wouldn't care if people know that my identities are the same.

[nicholas storm]

mourge40k wrote:

Eh, I'm of the camp that Warlock and Zealot are just fine with their casting, considering that they have to be balanced against their own class. I realize this is not a popular opinion, but hey, don't have to be popular to have what I think. However, I will agree that Avenger needs to be buffed, because as it stands, it falls way behind all the other martial classes and desperately needs help.

Also, I've seemed to notice a distinct trend. Most of the people who complain about the social identity seem to be playing in games where social aspects don't come up, while those who support it play in games where social aspects do. Considering the sourcebook this is going to be from, I consider this perfectly on course for flavor, and putting it in there with other classes that don't see use in every group.

In the group I play in, most of the social aspects of the vigilante would be of little use.

The concern I have is that if the developers balance the power level of the class based on the social aspect - this class, as it is in round 2 of the playtest - is lacking.

[Alexander Augunas]

Atarlost wrote:

GroovyBoy wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

I played kingmaker and we never did any of the social interactions in the AP. Maybe it's the group I play with.

That's just odd. I mean, didn't you guys ever receive visitors to your lands, or interact with people in your cities during investigations, or go to a certain festival?

My Kingmaker group collapsed after the third book, but there was never any point at which anyone could have had a secret identity. You carve a kingdom out of the wilderness and then you're publicly known for doing so. You can't help carve a kingdom out of the wilderness and still have anyone with two brain cells to rub together accept that you're a harmless fop.

Social doesn't mean harmless, first of all.

Second, the class ability literally says that anyone with two brain cells will except that your social identity isn't your vigilante identity. You'd be surprised the lengths that people will go to in order to keep a false sense of normalcy for themselves.

Third, you could have helped carve out your kingdom in your vigilante identity and occupy your leadership role in your social identity. Kingmaker is literally among the best APs for the vigilante; its right up there with Hell's Rebels and Council of Theives. Heck, it'd even be great in Carrion Crown: win over the the people of Ravengrow by acting relatively normal, nevermind that weirdo vigilante using the arcane magic that they don't like.

[Thrawn007]

The whole point of the class is it's coming out in a book on social intrigue. It's introducing new systems for social combat... Of course it's based on it's advantages in social campaigns. If you don't care about the social aspects of the game, and your group is all about combat without social interaction, then of course the class isn't going to fit your needs. There are 30+ other classes out there.

[nicholas storm]

Thrawn007 wrote:

The whole point of the class is it's coming out in a book on social intrigue. It's introducing new systems for social combat... Of course it's based on it's advantages in social campaigns. If you don't care about the social aspects of the game, and your group is all about combat without social interaction, then of course the class isn't going to fit your needs. There are 30+ other classes out there.

That's true, but the ultimate series has generally been content applicable to most people. I would happily play any of the classes in the other ultimate books.

I won't necessarily write this class off as I thought the worse class in the play test ACG was the hunter. The developers made changes from the play test version of the hunter to make it into a class I would play.

This post really was to emphasize that there are consumers that are of the opinion that the developers are way off in the power level of this class. I don't have to play a class at the top of the power level, but on the other hand I don't want to play a class with the core rule book rogue power level.

[Tuyena]

Thrawn007 wrote:

The whole point of the class is it's coming out in a book on social intrigue. It's introducing new systems for social combat... Of course it's based on it's advantages in social campaigns. If you don't care about the social aspects of the game, and your group is all about combat without social interaction, then of course the class isn't going to fit your needs. There are 30+ other classes out there.

That's neat. So uhhhh....Where are all these abilities the Vigilante gets to out Socialize the aforementioned Inquisitor, Investigator, Bard, Sorcerer, Rogue?

Oh?...It doesn't have any?...I see...

[graystone]

Tuyena wrote:

Thrawn007 wrote:

The whole point of the class is it's coming out in a book on social intrigue. It's introducing new systems for social combat... Of course it's based on it's advantages in social campaigns. If you don't care about the social aspects of the game, and your group is all about combat without social interaction, then of course the class isn't going to fit your needs. There are 30+ other classes out there.

That's neat. So uhhhh....Where are all these abilities the Vigilante gets to out Socialize the aforementioned Inquisitor, Investigator, Bard, Sorcerer, Rogue?

Oh?...It doesn't have any?...I see...

LOL They said those rules haven't been made yet...

[PIXIE DUST]

graystone wrote:

Tuyena wrote:

Thrawn007 wrote:

The whole point of the class is it's coming out in a book on social intrigue. It's introducing new systems for social combat... Of course it's based on it's advantages in social campaigns. If you don't care about the social aspects of the game, and your group is all about combat without social interaction, then of course the class isn't going to fit your needs. There are 30+ other classes out there.

That's neat. So uhhhh....Where are all these abilities the Vigilante gets to out Socialize the aforementioned Inquisitor, Investigator, Bard, Sorcerer, Rogue?

Oh?...It doesn't have any?...I see...

LOL They said those rules haven't been made yet...

but if they have anything to do with Bluff, Diplomacy, intimidate then the bard/investigator/inquisitor has he upperhand with their buffs all over the place. Oh and remember, the bard had renown before it was cool

[nicholas storm]

Thrawn007 wrote:

The whole point of the class is it's coming out in a book on social intrigue. It's introducing new systems for social combat... Of course it's based on it's advantages in social campaigns. If you don't care about the social aspects of the game, and your group is all about combat without social interaction, then of course the class isn't going to fit your needs. There are 30+ other classes out there.

It also comes to mind that if Paizo starts putting out stuff that targets a fraction of their player base; that seems like a poor decision. I want this class to be something I could play even if my group has little social intrigue.

[Thrawn007]

Tuyena wrote:

Thrawn007 wrote:

The whole point of the class is it's coming out in a book on social intrigue. It's introducing new systems for social combat... Of course it's based on it's advantages in social campaigns. If you don't care about the social aspects of the game, and your group is all about combat without social interaction, then of course the class isn't going to fit your needs. There are 30+ other classes out there.

That's neat. So uhhhh....Where are all these abilities the Vigilante gets to out Socialize the aforementioned Inquisitor, Investigator, Bard, Sorcerer, Rogue?

Oh?...It doesn't have any?...I see...

Actually, there was mention there will be some aspects that work with the new systems...however since those new systems aren't part of the playtest, neither are those abilities. We have to wait and see on those.

[graystone]

nicholas storm wrote:

Thrawn007 wrote:

The whole point of the class is it's coming out in a book on social intrigue. It's introducing new systems for social combat... Of course it's based on it's advantages in social campaigns. If you don't care about the social aspects of the game, and your group is all about combat without social interaction, then of course the class isn't going to fit your needs. There are 30+ other classes out there.

It also comes to mind that if Paizo starts putting out stuff that targets a fraction of their player base; that seems like a poor decision. I want this class to be something I could play even if my group has little social intrigue.

And even if you like intrigue, you have to enjoy how they work it. If you like how you do it now, the sparkly new social combat is going to collect dust like words of power. The class should be viable on it's own and not rely on the intrigue part to be cool.

[Snowblind]

Thrawn007 wrote:

Tuyena wrote:

Thrawn007 wrote:

The whole point of the class is it's coming out in a book on social intrigue. It's introducing new systems for social combat... Of course it's based on it's advantages in social campaigns. If you don't care about the social aspects of the game, and your group is all about combat without social interaction, then of course the class isn't going to fit your needs. There are 30+ other classes out there.

That's neat. So uhhhh....Where are all these abilities the Vigilante gets to out Socialize the aforementioned Inquisitor, Investigator, Bard, Sorcerer, Rogue?

Oh?...It doesn't have any?...I see...

Actually, there was mention there will be some aspects that work with the new systems...however since those new systems aren't part of the playtest, neither are those abilities. We have to wait and see on those.

Well, maybe there will be. However, they gave us this class to playtest as is, without any other rules. With what we have, the vigilante has major problems. If there are supposed to be other rules that fix or mitigate problems, maybe Paizo should have maybe given us these rules. Because at the moment we can only give feedback on what we have, and what we have isn't very good. That was feedback right there. The copious explanations as to why are also feedback. That's what this playtest is for. Giving feedback. If constructive criticism is going to be dismissed with "well there are rules that we don't have and so we can't tell how good the class is", then either a) the people are wrong and we *can* tell, and those people are dismissing valid criticism for no good reason and potentially harming the final product by producing useless noise when others are trying to make a class better for everyone, or b)this playtest is an nearly complete waste of time, since we can't tell how good the class is without those rules.

[Tuyena]

Snowblind wrote:

A huge logic bomb.

That was beautiful.

There is some sincere lack of objectivity and way too much sentimentalism coming from some people who would rather argue semantics and to what degree of terrible the class is, rather than work on making it better.

[PIXIE DUST]

I offered my suggestions last Round.

Warlock and Zealot need basic progression of spells (like every other 6 level caster)

If they want to keep the whole talent thing they should have combined the two into a sort of Mystic Theurge Class that gets both progression charts as they are, but the talents of same level would be combined (so instead of Arcane I and Divine I they would have SPELL TRAINING I which would grant both sides).

Teh Stalker really should have had the shadow jump ability... i really don't see why the warlock has it...

Shadow Body I feel fits better with the Stalker (he is so stealthy he can literally become a shadow to stalker you all the better...)

[Tuyena]

Well if they did do the Mystic Theurge gish in a box with the class, they'd have to normalize how their spells operate as they're currently two different systems.

Also, while I think the idea is interesting, I'm really not sure about how it would operate. I've seen Thuerge attempts swing very wildly in play from game-breaking, to pre-unchained rogue.

Also wouldn't the new spell training just become the new mandatory talent selection?

There isn't a doubt the two classes could be merged and be immediately viable. But what about just letting the class pick from any talents at all?

If we can do Theurge in a box, why not Arcane Trickster?

[Zwordsman]

nicholas storm wrote:

I missed this section. I like this implementation. Though with this implementation, I don't see any need personally to spend any talents on quick change as I wouldn't care if people know that my identities are the same.

Yeah if your character doesn't care about some stuff. You can play it as iron man. Nothing that i saw removes the bonuses you can get from the work.

Sure people might be a bit weirded out that your talking yourself up (say in order to get that flatfooted ac scare and intimidation bonuses)
but.. tony stark does that all the time. and like tony you'll become a much bigger target than normal.
Which is the trade off. and its a choice I think is great that they let you the player make.

[chbgraphicarts]

Tuyena wrote:

Well if they did do the Mystic Theurge gish in a box with the class, they'd have to normalize how their spells operate as they're currently two different systems.

Also, while I think the idea is interesting, I'm really not sure about how it would operate. I've seen Thuerge attempts swing very wildly in play from game-breaking, to pre-unchained rogue.

Also wouldn't the new spell training just become the new mandatory talent selection?

There isn't a doubt the two classes could be merged and be immediately viable. But what about just letting the class pick from any talents at all?

If we can do Theurge in a box, why not Arcane Trickster?

A few weeks ago I posted a setup that would work for the Mystic Theurge. The idea was that you're a spontaneous caster, and literally half your Spells Known are Divine, and the other half Arcane - you have to keep an even amount, or as close as possible (sometimes you'll have 1 more than the other, but that's that).

You can cast in Light Armor, and you cast your spells freely with a single pool of spell slots.

From there, the class could be built around modifying spells or doing crazy antics based on the nature of the spells you cast.

The only downsides to this is that the class would require a unique list of divine and arcane spells so that there's no overlap between them. Also, there would be plenty of bookkeeping for those who use the class, but maybe that's no worse than a normal Theurge.

---

What I wanted to see more than even a Theurge, though, was the devs REALLY going at it with the design stick, like implementing a Spontaneous Alchemist specialization, where you throw Extracts together on the fly like a boss, and possibly do plenty of other MacGuyver nonsense.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Stalker be re-written as a Shadowdancer, the Avenger be re-written as a Stalwart Defender, and the Warlock/Zealot folded in to a Mystic Theurge, but I'd want a wholly-unique specialization as well, honestly.

Oh, also, Arcane Trickster could totally be a 5th specialization - a Psychic one. It wouldn't be exactly the same 'ol Trickster we know and love, but if we're going on a Warrior-Martial > Sneak-Martial > Arcane/Divine > Alchemist design, then the last bit would probably do well to be a Psychic to round things out, rather than double up on the Arcane.

---

Either way, they need to do away with this whole "you have to pay for your spellcasting" crap - it's just hurting the specializations in a way no other class does. Give the specializations free casting and give the Martial specializations more active abilities than just 1 persistent one, and suddenly the level of power evens out.

[GroovyBoy]

Atarlost wrote:

GroovyBoy wrote:

nicholas storm wrote:

I played kingmaker and we never did any of the social interactions in the AP. Maybe it's the group I play with.

That's just odd. I mean, didn't you guys ever receive visitors to your lands, or interact with people in your cities during investigations, or go to a certain festival?

My Kingmaker group collapsed after the third book, but there was never any point at which anyone could have had a secret identity. You carve a kingdom out of the wilderness and then you're publicly known for doing so. You can't help carve a kingdom out of the wilderness and still have anyone with two brain cells to rub together accept that you're a harmless fop.

Your initial post didn't say anything about secret identities; you said that your group didn't have any social interactions. That's what I found shocking, because that's kinda hard to do when you run a kingdom. If there was any misunderstanding on my part, I apologize...

[Bloodrealm]

In addition to the Vigilante being able to choose between being a powered-down version of other classes as the OP mentioned, I also feel like the social things could just as easily be done with decent roleplaying without needing built-in rules. I have the same issue with some archetypes. A couple I can think of off the top of my head are for bards; you shouldn't need a special ability for people to gather and watch your performance or to be well-known in an area; a good DM should be able to figure out when that will happen.
Oh, also, "Another Day" can fool Deathwatch? Really? Give poor Deathwatch a break; it's really only good for seeing through things like that ability or seeing whether something is alive, dead, or undead WITHOUT poking it with a stick, so instead of making an ability that can fool it, why not take the opportunity to make it slightly more useful?

[PIXIE DUST]

The Chelish diva had a better version of renown LONG before the vigi was ever a thought... heck, I would almost argue the Chelish Diva is potentially better than the Warlock at the Warlocks own thing...

[Thrawn007]

PIXIE DUST wrote:

The Chelish diva had a better version of renown LONG before the vigi was ever a thought... heck, I would almost argue the Chelish Diva is potentially better than the Warlock at the Warlocks own thing...

I think that because the warlock gets sorcerer/wizard spell selection there is an argument for the warlock too, but it would definitely make an interesting discussion.

I'd certainly expect the Diva to be the better overall contributor to the party.

[Bloodrealm]

PIXIE DUST wrote:

The Chelish diva had a better version of renown LONG before the vigi was ever a thought... heck, I would almost argue the Chelish Diva is potentially better than the Warlock at the Warlocks own thing...

Yeah, the Diva one was one of the ones I was thinking of. I'd have to look at it again to see whether it's better than a Vigilante's Renown (I'll just take your word for it), but I still maintain that all of it can be done through competent roleplaying and some skill rolls.