I AM NOT DISCUSSING THINGS YOU THINK ARE OVERPOWERED.
What are some things that generally don't seem like they make a good addition to the party? Either for mechanical or waiver reasons.
The example that comes to mind to me the most is the Cleaner archetype for Slayer. It just seems like the kind of thing that should be for NPCs or require DM permission since it has a lot of abilities that probably won't come up in most games.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/slayer/archetypes/paizo-sla yer-archetypes/cleaner/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Vigilante class, in its entirety.
I would have loved for these things to be clearly marked.
Oh, Site-Bound Oracle... You're so funny, but so impossible to use.
The Deep Hybrid race, if your campaign is not confined to a coastal town.
There are a number of Deific Obediences that don't fit the lifestyle of an adventurer. At best you end up pissing off your fellow party members as you constantly break their things or worst you have to lug around a cage full of convicted criminals.
I'm not sure that these things were intended to be NPC only, but they are certainly only practical to do every day as an NPC. As shown by the links above this is completely independent from alignment.
There are also a bunch of archetypes that while cool, are a bit bland and weak for a pc, though that's fairly subjective.
Also, the demonic apotheosis rituals. Apart from the fact they're literally based off of Nualia, an npc, if you actually managed to get to the last one, youd be so far ahead of your party it wouldnt even be funny. Like, your a demon with a cr of you level, with your levels on top.
Additionally the requirements to get to the final ritual are so massive that you'd essentially overshadow everyone else at the table narratively in addition to power wise.
I let a player get to the third level, but they only got the fourth level in the epilogue.
The Vigilante class, in its entirety.
This.
I would have loved for these things to be clearly marked.
Oh, Site-Bound Oracle... You're so funny, but so impossible to use.
In their defense that was never presented as a player option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Vigilante class, in its entirety.
The Vigilante class, in its entirety.This.
Why? I mean, I've called Dual Identity "a badly designed, badly written class feature for Batman fanboys who are too stupid to find the disguise rules in the CRB" often enough, but if you simply don't use it, the class works fine enough. The whole secret identity stuff, and the tag-along talents like Renown, are irrelevant in 99% of all campaign anyway, so why does it matter if a PC has them? It's not like a GM has to rewrite the campaign so that it's set in one city just so that the PC can use their batcave...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Vigilante class, in its entirety.
Strong disagree. The class doesn't lend itself to every campaign, but I've had a fun with a vigilante character in the Hell's Rebels game I run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why shouldn't NPC's be built like playable characters?
I very much like to build and equip NPC's like playable characters, personally.
Building NPC's like playable characters is an easy way for me to explore classes, combinations, and concepts that I would otherwise never see. I have gained tremendous insight into classes and prestige classes that I previously had absolutely no clue about because I, personally, don't desire to play as one. However, I find it enjoyable to build characters.
I have dozens of different characters and concepts that are 90% complete 1-20 builds... just fill in the last few feats to add whatever flavor you want. Some gestalt, some multiclass, some prestige classes, monsters that have been combined in a sort of gestalt without classes (just monster abilities and features). Builds that gestalt 5-10 levels, then go into a prestige class. Lol.
|
Classes are designed to be interesting and complicated enough for one person to play and control that one character. They are designed to be able to take on a variety of different challenges. They are designed to be a PC.
Monsters are designed differently. They are designed to be manageable for one player (The GM) to be able to handle running many of them at once. When I stopped using classes for building npcs, it was such night and day positive change for my home games that I will never go back to the terrible wonky way of using character classes for enemies.
I enjoy building pcs as well, exploring combinations and so on is a lot of fun. However, when I'm designing a game for people to play, I want the enemy to have numbers in an appropriate range for the numbers of the PCs. I could just put together a character and see what its AC came out to be, or I could set that AC knowing what the players bonuses to hit should be and knowing how difficult I want this opponent to be. One way I am taking control of the design, the other I'm letting the design control me.
Vigilante probably should have been bundled with a "you only have one identity" Archetype from the start.
Why? Nothing forces you to ever adopt the "vigilante identity". It's not actually a notable power boost, so an archetype wouldn't even replace it with something noteworthy.
Seriously, Dual Identity does two things: A protection against scrying that's utterly useless unless the entire party has it, and a +20 to disguise for one specific disguise (from Seamless Guise). That's it. It's not a major class feature, it's something alike to a Druid's Woodland Stride or Trackless Step.
Vigilante probably should have been bundled with a "you only have one identity" Archetype from the start.Why? Nothing forces you to ever adopt the "vigilante identity". It's not actually a notable power boost, so an archetype wouldn't even replace it with something noteworthy.
Seriously, Dual Identity does two things: A protection against scrying that's utterly useless unless the entire party has it, and a +20 to disguise for one specific disguise (from Seamless Guise). That's it. It's not a major class feature, it's something alike to a Druid's Woodland Stride or Trackless Step.
In a social/urban campaign, having the entire party have dual identity can be awesome.
I heard about an all vigilante party in Hell's Rebels that sounds amazing.
I was also under the impression that the identity was a much larger part of the class... like I thought you only had access to half the class in each identity. More like the Barbarian relies on Rage for their Rage Powers.
I was also under the impression that the identity was a much larger part of the class... like I thought you only had access to half the class in each identity. More like the Barbarian relies on Rage for their Rage Powers.
That's clearly the way it's intended to work.
If the vigilante uses any of these talents while in his social identity, he must succeed at a Disguise check against the Perception checks of all onlookers (without the +20 circumstance bonus from seamless guise) or the onlookers will realize that he is more than his social identity appears to be and perhaps discover the social and vigilante identities are one and the same.
Some of the social talents also try to enforce a separation between the two identities.
He loses this bonus against onlookers who have already witnessed him using a vigilante talent in his social identity within the last week.
But I guess if you don't try to maintain your secret and you're selective when it comes to your social talents, you can use all of your abilities while in your social identity.
I was operating under the impression swapping identities changed class features or something big like that. My bad.
I was also under the impression that the identity was a much larger part of the class... like I thought you only had access to half the class in each identity. More like the Barbarian relies on Rage for their Rage Powers.
LordKailas already said the gist of it, but... nope, almost nothing in the base class requires you to be in Vigilante Identity. Vigilante Talents explicitly work regardless of identity, and apart from some minor stuff that makes you better at hiding your dual identity (the scrying protection, Seemless Guise, and the Beginner's Luck, Conflicted Identity, and Morphic Mask Social Talents), all you lose out on is... Case the Joint and the Intimidate bonus from the Renown line.
Note: This doesn't necessarily apply to archetypes, which often do require the Vigilante Identity for some archetype features (Agathiel being an excellent example).
Most social talents also continue to work in Vigilante Identity, so just staying in Vigilante Identitiy 24/7 is possible, but there's basically no reason to do so, and you'd lose out on stuff like Social Grace.
Why shouldn't NPC's be built like playable characters?
I very much like to build and equip NPC's like playable characters, personally.
Building NPC's like playable characters is an easy way for me to explore classes, combinations, and concepts that I would otherwise never see. I have gained tremendous insight into classes and prestige classes that I previously had absolutely no clue about because I, personally, don't desire to play as one. However, I find it enjoyable to build characters.
I have dozens of different characters and concepts that are 90% complete 1-20 builds... just fill in the last few feats to add whatever flavor you want. Some gestalt, some multiclass, some prestige classes, monsters that have been combined in a sort of gestalt without classes (just monster abilities and features). Builds that gestalt 5-10 levels, then go into a prestige class. Lol.
Because some material does not work well for player characters.
In general vigilantes fit the flashy mostly-mundane fighter concept better than rogues, fighters and even slayers. That makes them a good thing! For the right campaign even a social talent to make your batcave undetectable is great.
There's a few abilities which seem difficult for almost any campaign. Psychedelia discipline psychics can't walk down the street from level 13 without causing a massacre. Blight druids can but only up until people point spears and crossbows at him and order him out of town, which won't take long (from L5). Anything which outright requires you to maintain an evil alignment; besides the alignment itself you're generally required to not be a team player. Look up some antipaladin codes of conduct for examples.
Why shouldn't NPC's be built like playable characters?
I very much like to build and equip NPC's like playable characters, personally.
Building NPC's like playable characters is an easy way for me to explore classes, combinations, and concepts that I would otherwise never see. I have gained tremendous insight into classes and prestige classes that I previously had absolutely no clue about because I, personally, don't desire to play as one. However, I find it enjoyable to build characters.
I have dozens of different characters and concepts that are 90% complete 1-20 builds... just fill in the last few feats to add whatever flavor you want. Some gestalt, some multiclass, some prestige classes, monsters that have been combined in a sort of gestalt without classes (just monster abilities and features). Builds that gestalt 5-10 levels, then go into a prestige class. Lol.
Because it blurs the line between player characters and everything else?
PCs are suppose to be special. Potential heroes that blossom and become the legends of their generation. In a world full of Commoners, Experts, Adepts, Warriors and Nobles being a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard or Cleric is a big deal. NPC classes were made to be a second fiddle to player classes.
Making the Monsters be player classes takes away the mystique of the monsters. Now the 'monsters' are doing what you can do. They lose the whole idea of wacky abilities that PCs just can't get. Also builds that focus on facing medium humanoid enemies all of a sudden get a lot of longevity. Trip builds normally have a lifespan of 8-12 levels before you run into the wall of growing CR that makes things you can trip a rare commodity at high level play.
And the other thing that dumping PC-built monsters into a campaign is it highlights gear. PCs without PC level gear don't tend to be a challenge. Giving monsters PC level gear quickly causes inflation. There are ways to solve that, but it means you're monsters with classes aren't build...
I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but that's not what I was talking about.
A fourth level expert who is supposed to represent a non-magical but highly competent naturalist might have skill focus knowledge nature, skill focus survival, and endurance. And it totally makes sense for the Crunch and the flavor the mash-up like that, it was the guy overcome the problems they have in game. That can even be relevant to the game, because an urban party might need to hire this guy.
It's not a good situation for that combination of feats to almost ever be taken by a player character.
My Commoners (lv3) have Catch Off-Guard and Toughness. The Experts (lv5) have Catch Off-Guard and Master Craftsman, with an open feat for flavor and because it doesn't really matter. Aristocrats (lv8) have Persuasive, Weapon Finesse, and Piranha Strike, with an open feat for flavor. The Warriors I have filled out to level 12, and have Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Mounted Combat, Improved Initiative, Point Blank Shot, and Mounted Archery.
I sincerely hope that the players at my table are capable of outshining the generic peasants and NPC's.
Named NPC's and high level minions will absolutely be built like player characters in order to be unique, stand a chance, and portray the flavor I am going for.
I frequently have players try and dissect and replicate npc abilities in character. Telling players "that's an off limits monster only wacky fun maneuver" is a bit on the silly side of things. If I want my players to be interested in the world, and engage with it critically, then I can't have black boxes everywhere telling them to stop looking.
There are a few archetypes that are very dubious for PCs, such as Pack Mule Fighter. Whether it was actually meant to be for NPCs, or whether it's just bad is another question.
In the same way, there are oh so many feats that are so situational or weak of just downright odd that no PC has a meaningful reason to take them. See also equipment, spells, traits, etc.
You can take the vigilante talents, companion to the lonely, and Faceless Enforcer and Masked Maiden archetypes when you pry them from my cold dead hands.The Vigilante class, in its entirety.This.
You can also just ignore the double identity aspect and not give a s&%! who knows. Just pick different social talents.
|
You can also just ignore the double identity aspect and not give a s&*& who knows. Just pick different social talents.You can take the vigilante talents, companion to the lonely, and Faceless Enforcer and Masked Maiden archetypes when you pry them from my cold dead hands.The Vigilante class, in its entirety.This.
Could, yes. One of the neat things about the class.
Could, yes. One of the neat things about the class.You can also just ignore the double identity aspect and not give a s&*& who knows. Just pick different social talents.You can take the vigilante talents, companion to the lonely, and Faceless Enforcer and Masked Maiden archetypes when you pry them from my cold dead hands.The Vigilante class, in its entirety.This.
Frankly vigilante is probably the best designed martial class. Much like the alchemist is one of the best designed 2/3 casters
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On topic. There are dozens of archetypes that should be npc only. things like siege mage, torchbearer. They're just too limited to be an adventurer class.
Opinions will vary, just as games and play styles will vary.
Personally, nothing should or shouldn't be PC or NPC only. The longer you play the game, the more things you're going to want to try. It's all just tools to tell a fun story. If a GM finds using PC builds works for his supporting cast of characters, no problem. Others like to work from bestiaries; and some mix and match. Similarly, a player may see an NPC do something that really makes an impression on them and want to build a character to do the same thing. As long as the character can contribute to the game in a fun way, no big deal. Some material has broad application for nearly any game, and other stuff is designed to be more niche. This is where "level 0" conversations or sessions come back into play.
Wanting to try is not a great reason to let people try.
I disagree completely, that's the perfect reason to let people try.
The Vigilante class, in its entirety.Why? I mean, I've called Dual Identity "a badly designed, badly written class feature for Batman fanboys who are too stupid to find the disguise rules in the CRB" often enough, but if you simply don't use it, the class works fine enough. The whole secret identity stuff, and the tag-along talents like Renown, are irrelevant in 99% of all campaign anyway, so why does it matter if a PC has them? It's not like a GM has to rewrite the campaign so that it's set in one city just so that the PC can use their batcave...The Vigilante class, in its entirety.This.
Yeah, if you ignore the Dual Identity thing the class is perfectly fine and better balanced than many of the other classes.
It just got a class feature for a specific kind of campaign, that basically can't be played unless everybody is a Vigilante, and so it's mostly a meaningless class feature. But that's not really a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group has considered Kimgmaker with an all vigilante party, with each having a noble identity and an adventurer one.