| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been looking at the vigilante and I think I realized the origin of some of the problems that we've seen, but also a bit of the problem with the view. The thing is that the vigilante doesn't just have to be be balanced against other classes (to make sure that the vigilante isn't ridiculously over or under powered) but it also has to be compared to itself.
I am wondering if the problems from the warlock and zealot that we're seeing is from them trying to balance caster versions versus non caster versions. The thing is that so far it looks like the warlock and zealot are looking less interesting and maybe even less effective than say the stalker version. The Avenger version has its own issues but that mostly has to do with the fact that in some ways it's actually playing against type.
What I would suggest is that it might be a good idea for the designers to focus on class intangibles. Stuff that a class can do but that isn't a clear power comparison. IE things like the warlocks mystic bolts versus a different class ability. The thing is right now part of the problem with the vigilante is that the options feel limited, and worse they feel BORING. Most of the other classes feel dynamic when I am building and designing and instead we're seeing something kinda iffy with the vigilante.
The vigilante needs to feel less cookie cutter and more dynamic, it also needs to be able to do its job at least as well as another class trying to copy it. Remember, there is a masked hero version of the swashbuckler for example, and I'd be pretty sure that it will probably fight better than the avenger vigilante and might even be able to do the secret identity stuff better too. What we need for the class is more than raw power, we need options. I had mentioned the idea of something like the shadow companion from a 3.5 book that couldn't fight, couldn't flank, but gave all enemies around it a penalty to hit, saves and AC. Something like that could be really cool for the warlock as an option, or something that lets them use wands and staves better.
I also figure that people here have ideas for different versions of the vigilante that would be interesting and fun. What I guess I'm wondering is what you guys think on this and, if my idea on what part of the core problem is ways we might be able to fix or adjust it.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
In my view, the issue with the Warlock and Zealot is the element of false choice. Right now, you have the "choice" to select spell levels or not to, but there is no incentive whatsoever to not to maximize your spellcasting. If there is going to be some actual choice, there needs to be talents that are worth (or at least make you consider) giving up or delaying spellcasting for them. On the other hand, you can't put strong talents out there to just cherry pick, or you create balance issues, so what is needed for both specialties is chains of talents that require commitment and investment to maximize. (Arcane/Divine casting is are chain talents requiring commitment, although it's an easy commitment when compared to the alternatives.)
If some decent talent chains are set up with some payoff at the higher ends, then you might see some warlocks and zealots who decide being a 4th level caster instead of 6th might be a fun way to build, or even some who give up the advanced casting altogether because they want to invest in a couple deep chains instead of just one.
The results I want are warlocks and zealots where they won't all use the exact same build (or just a slight variation).
Right now as I see it there are 3 different builds you can go with the warlock for your primary combat style: spellcasting, mystic bolts, or bombs
Bombs are terrible though. Build an alchemist, or even a rogue if you want to go that route. So currently you have 2 routes that make any sense.
Agreed. With no int to damage and bomb talents limited to * ones you'd be hard pressed to make a second rate bomb focused character. At best it's something to do until mystic bolts can be taken or to hit swarms with.
The reality is if you go Warlock you're doing it for Mystic Bolts. It's the only reason the class even exists right now. No one is going to opt into a terrible spells tax for any other reason. If I cared that much about dual identity id play a Magus 11/Vigilante 1.
And let's be clear too, I'd never do that because dual identity will never be worth it for me as a PC.
The reality is if you go Warlock you're doing it for Mystic Bolts.
We must live in different realities then, because I can play this class, not take mystic bolts, and be effective in combat.
It's the only reason the class even exists right now.
actually, the specialization (I assume that you mean that, as opposed to the entire class) exists because the created presumably felt that there was a need for a class that allowed a player to have concrete rules for playing someone like Zorro. With the specializations, this class can actually represent a rather wide variety of play styles.
No one is going to opt into a terrible spells tax for any other reason.
It's good that you can both see the future and speak for all players ever. Although it does raise the question of why we even have forums, except for you to tell us what we will do. [/sarcasm]
The reality is if you go Warlock you're doing it for Mystic Bolts.We must live in different realities then, because I can play this class, not take mystic bolts, and be effective in combat.
It's the only reason the class even exists right now.actually, the specialization (I assume that you mean that, as opposed to the entire class) exists because the created presumably felt that there was a need for a class that allowed a player to have concrete rules for playing someone like Zorro. With the specializations, this class can actually represent a rather wide variety of play styles.
No one is going to opt into a terrible spells tax for any other reason.It's good that you can both see the future and speak for all players ever. Although it does raise the question of why we even have forums, except for you to tell us what we will do. [/sarcasm]
If I saw a player who wanted to join my game. As a Warlock, right now. Without Mystic Bolts. I'd advise them to put ranks into Disguise and kindly direct them to this page, you may be unfamiliar with it.
If I saw a player who wanted to join my game. As a Warlock, right now. Without Mystic Bolts. I'd advise them to put ranks into Disguise and kindly direct them to this page, you may be unfamiliar with it.
Oh, I know about the magus. I retired one in pathfinder at level 13, because it was boring as hell to play.
Also, can you point me to the magus archetype that uses bombs? I'm pretty sure I missed that one.
Or wait a little bit for the kineticist. No reason to play a class that's between expert and a PC class when there are viable alternatives
Also, can you point me to the magus archetype that uses bombs? I'm pretty sure I missed that one.
If you want bombs, there are plenty of classes that do that better than a warlock. In fact it's pretty much at the bottom.
I'd also be curious to see what you find much more interesting in the warlock over a magus. I'm not seeing it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also be curious to see what you find much more interesting in the warlock over a magus. I'm not seeing it.
I like that there is a duality about the class. I like that this class, unlike any other class in the game, can fill the niche for me where I only want to have a little bit of spellcasting, as opposed to nine full levels of it. I like that I can play the same class multiple times, and have it play differently each time. I like that for most intents and purposes, you can play two characters in one class. Mostly, I like that it offers you protection from divination magic, one of the most powerful schools, especially when combined with the amounts of money that such characters tend to have.
I like that the social persona is not an expert, but could take up the role of the fighter, while changing to the role of the caster/skirmisher/healer as the group needs. I like that it's a versatile class, instead of a class that sits on one set of rails.
All of the above said, I think there are things that could be made better in the class, but are not getting as much attention because people can't get over the fact that the class is not *insert other class here*, and so that makes it horribad.
I like that this class is not a bard, which while frankly is the class in most need of toning down in the game and is the least likely to get it; and I like that it's not a wizard, who after 9th level only has like 6 classes that can directly compete with it. I like that it's not a rogue, with all the baggage that comes along with it. I like that it's not a cleric tied down to a specific god, but that it makes pacts with other powers to get it's spellcasting.
In short, I like it's differences.
Sorry, didn't mean to jump up on the soapbox.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to say, you see thing WAY differently than I. I see an interesting idea that falls down in the execution. I don't think it's social persona is enough to make up for it not filling the rolls of fighter/caster/skirmisher/healer as well as any of the non-npc classes. It's not that it's not "*insert other class here*" but "*insert other class here*" + vigilante 1-4 can do a vigilante better than the straight vigilante.
Bomb? Vigilante 2 + alchemist better than vigilante.
Mystic bolts? vigilante 4 plus fighter beats them out.
Casting? Pick a *insert other caster class here* plus warlock/zealot 1
That's what makes it "horribad". it's a better dip than it is a full class. The differences are nice but the combined whole has to stand up on it's own compared to other classes and right not it doesn't.
And feel free to use the soapbox. plenty of people use it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also be curious to see what you find much more interesting in the warlock over a magus. I'm not seeing it.I like that there is a duality about the class. I like that this class, unlike any other class in the game, can fill the niche for me where I only want to have a little bit of spellcasting, as opposed to nine full levels of it. I like that I can play the same class multiple times, and have it play differently each time. I like that for most intents and purposes, you can play two characters in one class. Mostly, I like that it offers you protection from divination magic, one of the most powerful schools, especially when combined with the amounts of money that such characters tend to have.
I like that the social persona is not an expert, but could take up the role of the fighter, while changing to the role of the caster/skirmisher/healer as the group needs. I like that it's a versatile class, instead of a class that sits on one set of rails.
All of the above said, I think there are things that could be made better in the class, but are not getting as much attention because people can't get over the fact that the class is not *insert other class here*, and so that makes it horribad.
I like that this class is not a bard, which while frankly is the class in most need of toning down in the game and is the least likely to get it; and I like that it's not a wizard, who after 9th level only has like 6 classes that can directly compete with it. I like that it's not a rogue, with all the baggage that comes along with it. I like that it's not a cleric tied down to a specific god, but that it makes pacts with other powers to get it's spellcasting.
In short, I like it's differences.
Sorry, didn't mean to jump up on the soapbox.
1) Disguise skill. That is literally what jsut about every DM did before this. This class actually HURTS classes because it codifies something behind a class ability that before was handled by Disguise (look at the master Spy after all)
2) Bloodrager, Magus, Bard, Summoner all cry at your presumption at classes that are lower magic that full casters
3) It does NOT offer protection from divination. It just makes it so that your Social and Vigi personas literally ping as two completely different people. If you want true protection from Divination, only the Master Spy really offers that.
4) You are not "changing up your role".. Once you have a specialization you stick with it.
5) Just about every problem with this class has been mentioned. and is getting a lot of attention. The reason WHY people are saying "Its not like X class" is because X class is almost strictly better all around.
6) Why does the Bard need to get toned down? It is one of the best made classes in the game. The only other classes that match it are the Alchemist and the Inquisitor when it comes to being solidly built. Just because the rogue (pre unchain) was horrid means nothing about the bard. And if you don't like the diety thing with clerics you can always worship and ideal (it says so in the description) of there is the Oracle OR the Shaman... or inquisitor... or war priest...
There is not much "seperating" this class... The Stalker is finally getting somewhere sure, but its essentially a Rogue+Master Spy (lite)+ Full sneak attack. The Avenger still has problems trying to distinguish itself from classes like Slayer (who is also a D10, full BAB, 6+int skills class focused on stealth and skills..) who is pretty much just all around better. The Zealot has improved but still suffers from being very tied down due to its spellcasting. And the warlock got hammered with the inability to bypass resistances effectively and being one of the most cookie cutter classes in the game.
1) Disguise skill. That is literally what jsut about every DM did before this. This class actually HURTS classes because it codifies something behind a class ability that before was handled by Disguise (look at the master Spy after all)
How does having actual concrete rules for secret identities hurt classes? I don't know if you ever played any edition of dnd before 3.0, but table variation was a MF, especially if you played with several different groups. Some groups would only let rogues be sneaky or try to hide themselves, others said that anyone could try, and still others said that the rogue had to made the skill check for you. Even when chatting with other gamers at local game shops, you could hear the stories about bad gms who (in retrospect) weren't bad per se, but had table variation or weren't "easy" gms.
2) Bloodrager, Magus, Bard, Summoner all cry at your presumption at classes that are lower magic that full casters
and yet show me one at the same level who can stand up to a 10th level wizard in single combat, assuming that they are equal level. how about a 15th level wizard?
3) It does NOT offer protection from divination. It just makes it so that your Social and Vigi personas literally ping as two completely different people. If you want true protection from Divination, only the Master Spy really offers that.
Sure it does. pinging as two different people IS protection against divination. That is to say nothing of having two different alignments. You just have to be careful how you go about your business. For starters, your social persona should probably not interact in a meaningful way with your group.
4) You are not "changing up your role".. Once you have a specialization you stick with it.
So a zealot who has max levels of casting can't have his social persona, who is bob the mercenary, act as the fighter of the group?
5) Just about every problem with this class has been mentioned. and is getting a lot of attention. The reason WHY people are saying "Its not like X class" is because X class is almost strictly better all around.
Actually, that assertion is entirely subjective, not objective. Setting that aside for the moment, however, go and look at all of the complaints of the class, then take away all of them that are "this class is not X class" and what does that leave you with? almost no complaints.
6) Why does the Bard need to get toned down? It is one of the best made classes in the game. The only other classes that match it are the Alchemist and the Inquisitor when it comes to being solidly built. Just because the rogue (pre unchain) was horrid means nothing about the bard. And if you don't like the diety thing with clerics you can always worship and ideal (it says so in the description) of there is the Oracle OR the Shaman... or inquisitor... or war priest...
Bards can break games. Moreso than just about any other class. Most people don't see it because the bard has traditionally been the "Girlfriend" class (i.e. it's the class that people always seem to make for the girlfriend of one of the players who wants to join the game). You're also assuming that in all games you can play a divine caster who doesn't have to have a deity. In PFS for example, the only classes from your list that DON'T have to worship a deity are the oracle and shaman.
There is not much "seperating" this class... The Stalker is finally getting somewhere sure, but its essentially a Rogue+Master Spy (lite)+ Full sneak attack. The Avenger still has problems trying to distinguish itself from classes like Slayer (who is also a D10, full BAB, 6+int skills class focused on stealth and skills..) who is pretty much just all around better. The Zealot has improved but still suffers from being very tied down due to its spellcasting.
See my comments above about comparing to other classes.
And the warlock got hammered with the inability to bypass resistances effectively and being one of the most cookie cutter classes in the game.
the barbarian, zen archer, magus, alchemist, and investigator would all like to have a word about you trying to bestow their title on one part of a class.
|
Disguise skill. That is literally what jsut about every DM did before this. This class actually HURTS classes because it codifies something behind a class ability that before was handled by Disguise (look at the master Spy after all)
Be aware, that the *main* purpose of Ultimate Intrigue is to give very concrete rules for what skills can and can't do. Multiple pages per skill worth of definition. So Disguise may come out the other side of the ruleset doing very different things than what it does right now by consensus.
Don't lay that at the feet of the Vigilante.
|
|
Specialize means to choose one single thing you are good at and stick to improving only that. In the case of an Alchemist choosing Bombs to specialize in, or the Warlock choosing Mystic Bolts to Specialize in. The problem comes from the fact that the Avenger is supposed to specialize in Combat and the Stalker is supposed to Specialize in being stealthy and getting SA without the worry of magic, once you throw being able to cast magic into the mix people auto assume that they should get the progression for free "like X class does". but the reality is that it is still called a Specialization and thus if you want to Cast Spells you need to Specialize in casting spells and leave all other abilities alone.
To be honest if that the case with the warlock and zealot then the need to change the base ability to something else to give it the full effect... Just cause they are magical doesn't mean they have to be define by spells
|
|
I'm agree with that it just having there base ability be first level spell it automatically making people think the need to specialize in casting as Pixie keep proving above.
spells automatically = magic I mean from what I leaned from pathfinder so far is magic also = bombs, demon, angels, you inner ability... Not just casting a spell.
What I believe is they should make something new that defines magic with the warlock/zealot and not just go to the default.
I really think that both the warlock and the zealot would benefit from having their casting be spell-like abilities instead of casting. It would remove the need for both concealed casting and caster's defense from the warlock, and make for something that hasn't been seen before: a class that gets to choose the spell-likes they get (as opposed to the current system of granting specific spell-likes).
|
|
To be honest when I picture a warlock I see someone who throws fire and is kinda dark and scary looking.
And a Zealot in my eyes is someone who is devoted and religious crazed that they will destroy any nah water anyway possible.
With this in mind, yes I believe the the warlock base ability should probably be the mythic bolt with a damage increase every 2 lvl or increase dice size every 5 with damage bonus equal to Int mod or increase how many dice every 3/4 lvls
the zealot probably should have it ability be something more gear toward their belief (like an inquisition of the sort seeing how they want to give them the inquistor spell list anyways) instead of the divine powers
Hmm... upon actually reading spell like abilities I dont think this would work out the way you think. since you cant augment them with metamagic feats. people might find it lacking.
True, you can't augment them with metamagics, but you could augment them with the metamagic sla abilities from the beastiary. offering those as an option specific to the casting of your warlock/zealot abilities and you would have a character who does things differently than a traditional caster.
|
|
Hmm... upon actually reading spell like abilities I dont think this would work out the way you think. since you cant augment them with metamagic feats. people might find it lacking.True, you can't augment them with metamagics, but you could augment them with the metamagic sla abilities from the beastiary. offering those as an option specific to the casting of your warlock/zealot abilities and you would have a character who does things differently than a traditional caster.
I was hoping to give them something along the line of a SU ability instead and just have anything casting-base as talent so that way they really are specializing into what you really wanna do.
Disguise skill. That is literally what jsut about every DM did before this. This class actually HURTS classes because it codifies something behind a class ability that before was handled by Disguise (look at the master Spy after all)Be aware, that the *main* purpose of Ultimate Intrigue is to give very concrete rules for what skills can and can't do. Multiple pages per skill worth of definition. So Disguise may come out the other side of the ruleset doing very different things than what it does right now by consensus.
Don't lay that at the feet of the Vigilante.
Where is this "main purpose of UI" stated??? Seems I missed the memo.
Where is this "main purpose of UI" stated??? Seems I missed the memo.Disguise skill. That is literally what jsut about every DM did before this. This class actually HURTS classes because it codifies something behind a class ability that before was handled by Disguise (look at the master Spy after all)Be aware, that the *main* purpose of Ultimate Intrigue is to give very concrete rules for what skills can and can't do. Multiple pages per skill worth of definition. So Disguise may come out the other side of the ruleset doing very different things than what it does right now by consensus.
Don't lay that at the feet of the Vigilante.
I would also like to see it.
For that matter, I would like to see what the devs have said about what they are going to do with skills. I would expect that for it to make a huge difference, they would have to overhaul the entire system. Which isn't impossible - they have most of a book to do it in if they are so inclined. It just seems like something they would be sure to advertise very vocally about, since skills not being second fiddle to spells is something that a lot of people want enough to fork out for a book over.
|
|
Where is this "main purpose of UI" stated??? Seems I missed the memo.Disguise skill. That is literally what jsut about every DM did before this. This class actually HURTS classes because it codifies something behind a class ability that before was handled by Disguise (look at the master Spy after all)Be aware, that the *main* purpose of Ultimate Intrigue is to give very concrete rules for what skills can and can't do. Multiple pages per skill worth of definition. So Disguise may come out the other side of the ruleset doing very different things than what it does right now by consensus.
Don't lay that at the feet of the Vigilante.
One of the PaizoCon panels I listened to via Know Direction.
EDIT: Looking at the list, I *think* it was "the Future of Paizo"