We've Been Reading It Wrong!

[James Langley]

I just realized that everyone has been reading the vigilante class wrong!

It is required to be gestalted with other classes!

Think about it:
The class is (currently and will probably remain) a mish-mash of various things that are just weaker than other classes with a "social persona" tossed on so that you can play a superhero.

Now, play a gestalt character with the vigilante-

Your fighter now has some social capabilities and gains the added perk of being a warlock.
Your rogue becomes even better at blending into society and better at sneaking through shadows to hunt bad guys.
Even your cleric gets better because, not only do they help people by daylight, they also have divine firepower when defending the down-trod by moonlight.

So, I would like to thank Paizo for this contribution to what can be an awesome game play experience.

(P.S. This is not meant to be ironic in any capacity. Text doesn't convey meaning well. Don't start a flame war, unless you are a member of the Fire Nation.)

[DominusMegadeus]

I... I can't tell if your post-script is supposed to be sarcastic or not.

[Thrawn007]

I've said from the start, and still believe, this is an excellent dipping class, and an excellent NPC class. What needs to be balanced out is the reasons to play it deeper as a single class.

[James Langley]

@Dominus: truly, no sarcasm or anything. I just find that there are folks that need things expressly pointed out to avoid offence.

[Weirdo]

Very interesting use of the class - would make a good theme game.

I don't think that's the intent.

[Skylancer4]

James Langley wrote:

@Dominus: truly, no sarcasm or anything. I just find that there are folks that need things expressly pointed out to avoid offence.

Gestalt isn't ever the "basic premise" as a optional rule. As they never make mention of it, I don't believe that is the case lol.

[Castilonium]

There aren't even any rules for gestalt in any pathfinder books, are there? I think it's purely a 3.5e thing that people port over.

[Zwordsman]

As far as I know no, but I haven't gotten unchained.

This is one class that would be lovely gesulting in general though. No doubt.
my last to go was alchemist, but this'd be my new one.

Not that those games come up much

[Snowblind]

There aren't any gestalt rules.

Unchained has variant multiclassing, but that's different.

Although I would much rather gestalt something like fighter and bard, assuming I didn't go for power options like druid/empyreal sorcerer(tier 1/2 classes probably shouldn't be used with gestalting anyway).

[James Langley]

I know there aren't any rules for gestalt in Pathfinder, but thanks to the folks that said that for pointing it out for anyone who wasn't sure.
Keep in mind that Pathfinder is also supposed to be backwards compatible, however.
And that this class is bad right now and would do better as a feat or trait rather than its current incarnation.

@Wierdo/Skylancer: I didn't say it was part of the basic premise or design intent, just that it was required to make this class actually worth taking levels in. Or that was my point. Guess it wasn't clear enough.

@Zwordsman: yeah, gestalt is pretty uncommon overall. Except for where I game (online and Spokane area), which is odd in a general strangeness way.

@Snowblind: bard/fighter is a great combo. I was trying to play one once but didn't get accepted into the game. Sad times ensued.

[Bandw2]

this is so true it hurts

[Juda de Kerioth]

we dont need more npc classes (adept, warrior, expert, aristocrat, commoner, magewriter, prophet)... also, the game dont need this class.
Paizo should have to sell a super hero like campaign suplement or something.
maybe if the class were more open withing itself (you can take diferent perks from all the archetypes the class have)

i.e. avengerm and at some level i chose spells from warlock... and the extra vigilante talent feat could work better in this case... but the class, as it is already, is a very lame and unnecesary class.

I prefeer to emulate this vigilante class from my rogue, my cleric, or such than emulate a rogue or cleric with this class.

[Juda de Kerioth]

James Langley wrote:

I know there aren't any rules for gestalt in Pathfinder, but thanks to the folks that said that for pointing it out for anyone who wasn't sure.

Keep in mind that Pathfinder is also supposed to be backwards compatible, however.
And that this class is bad right now and would do better as a feat or trait rather than its current incarnation.

@Wierdo/Skylancer: I didn't say it was part of the basic premise or design intent, just that it was required to make this class actually worth taking levels in. Or that was my point. Guess it wasn't clear enough.

@Zwordsman: yeah, gestalt is pretty uncommon overall. Except for where I game (online and Spokane area), which is odd in a general strangeness way.

@Snowblind: bard/fighter is a great combo. I was trying to play one once but didn't get accepted into the game. Sad times ensued.

do not argue with rulelawyers... it is pointless... They event dont understand that PF IS a 3rd party product.

Also, in PF unchained are a secondary class option... perhaps that could work as gestalt.