Vigilante Playtest: Why?

[Snowbluff]

I could talk about this build-it-yourself class's mechanic, but I have bigger cookies to crack.

Like why we need a class feature to be a vigilante. I mean, pretty much any class can take points in disguise. You can manage a Batman voice, Mr. Sorcerer.

You could be a Synthesist and go sentai hero on someone.

You could be a wizard and make yourself a beefy orc or something.

You could be a druid and become an amazing bear... man hero.

All of these won't take you 5 minutes. I feel like this is something that should have been a suggestion and not a mechanic.

[(Un)Inspired]

Superheroes are very popular right now. Paizo probably just wants a piece if that pie.

[Extra Anchovies]

There's apparently been mention of an Amateur Vigilante feat that grants the dual identity stuff, but you don't even need the class feature to keep a secret identity. The only thing of use that it provides is the protection from divinations, but even that isn't necessary depending on how nice your DM is (for example, I'd rule that Batman doesn't exist unless Bruce Wayne is acting as Batman, so attempts to scry on Batman fail when Wayne isn't acting as Batman).

I was initially excited about the class but that excitement faded as I noticed all the holes in both the concept and the execution.

[Othniel]

I like some of the things the class brings to the table, but some parts feel underwhelming. Zealot? Okay, so it's a stripped down Inquisitor with a secret identity. Stalker is maybe a Rogue slightly better at combat, and slightly worse at being a skill monkey. Avenger feels better, and has a few fun talents, but feels like a Brawler with a secret identity. Warlock...meh...well, it's a halfway decent caster with a lot of skill points and a secret identity? If they switch the Warlock to being a charisma-based caster, he gets even worse.

[Milo v3]

I think the intention is so that you can be a master of social skills, while still being able to hit stuff as good as a fighter.

[Amphetryon]

And why isn't Ranger just a suggestion for Fighter, instead of a mechanical choice? Why aren't Paladin and Druid just refluffings of Cleric? Why are Ninja and Rogue separated into distinct Classes?

[NightbringerGGZ]

Why have a Vigilante class? Because while there are ways to pull off the same effect (Kitsune with Realistic Likeness being my favorite) there really hasn't been a class that gives you a full set rules for pulling that concept off.

Unfortunately, there still isn't. The Vigilante class is a mess. The base line abilities are abysmally poor. The Specializations are an incredibly mixed bag, but lean towards being somewhat weaker than similar abilities from other classes. There's a complete lack of mechanics to support the "public face" concept. There's a complete lack of cohesion among all the abilities.

What we have so far is an ok concept, but's it.

[Xerlith]

The class should really be a 5 or 10 level PrC, instead of a whole new base class. If it was something akin to the Evangelist, I'd be the first to accept it with open arms. But as is, it's lackluster. One-level dip gives you everything you want to have, and then you can proceed to take levels in the actual classes you want.

[grarrrg]

Why are Ninja and Rogue separated into distinct Classes?

Nitpick: They aren't distinct classes. The Ninja is a "super-archetype" of Rogue.
[insert NBC's "the more you know" here]

[Snowbluff]

I can't help it.

So I see the rogue in the Core Rulebook. "Whatever."

Then they post the ninja. "Okay, whatever."

Hybrid classes come out. "No, stop it!"
http://wiki.evageeks.org/images/thumb/e/e5/03_C305_shinji-scream_2.jpg/245px-03_C305_shinji-scream_2.jpg

Then this. "Stop it! Your system isn't friendly to skill classes!"
http://animediet.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/tumblr_inline_nd9xubA45A1qi19p2.gif

This is where I'll be for the next release.
http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b630/Snowbluff/ezgif.com-gif-maker1_zpstf5lpuam.gif

[Amphetryon]

Nitpick: They aren't distinct classes. The Ninja is a "super-archetype" of Rogue.
[insert NBC's "the more you know" here]

Ninja appears as a distinct Class in the games that inform PF's design. Ninja is listed specifically as an Alternate Class (not under a tab or heading of "super-archetype") in PF, on the d20PFSRD. I'd link you, but I'm sure you know how The Google works.

[MyrPsychologist]

Ninja appears as a distinct Class in the games that inform PF's design. Ninja is listed specifically as an Alternate Class (not under a tab or heading of "super-archetype") in PF, on the d20PFSRD. I'd link you, but I'm sure you know how The Google works.

Taken from the SRD description on alternate classes.

"Alternate classes are standalone classes whose basic ideas are very close to established base classes, yet whose required alterations would be too expansive for an archetype. An alternate class operates exactly as a base class, save that a character who takes a level in an alternate class can never take a level in its associated class—a samurai cannot also be a cavalier, and vice versa."

It really is just a super archetype. But really, we're splitting hairs here and debating semantics.


I also wanted to echo the feeling that the vigilante is completely lackluster. Beyond a 1 level dip I don't see it as very appealing.

[Amphetryon]

Taken from the SRD description on alternate classes.

"Alternate classes are standalone classes whose basic ideas are very close to established base classes, yet whose required alterations would be too expansive for an archetype. An alternate class operates exactly as a base class, save that a character who takes a level in an alternate class can never take a level in its associated class—a samurai cannot also be a cavalier, and vice versa."

It really is just a super archetype. But really, we're splitting hairs here and debating semantics.


I also wanted to echo the feeling that the vigilante is completely lackluster. Beyond a 1 level dip I don't see it as very appealing.

It appears what you're doing is trying to prove that someone is Wrong on the Internet, by seeing Alternate Classes as something other than Alternate Classes. Not sure what that will get you, exactly.

[grarrrg]

It appears what you're doing is trying to prove that someone is Wrong on the Internet, by seeing Alternate Classes as something other than Alternate Classes. Not sure what that will get you, exactly.

It can take Rogue archetypes that it otherwise qualifies for. Just like an archetype for a Rogue could. And it can't also take levels of Rogue, because it already IS a Rogue.
I don't see how you don't see it as a Super-archetype.
You can put whatever label you want on it "alternate class" "slightly different than normal class", but it still functions just like an archetype would.

[Deadkitten]

For me at least, the Vigilante is the first Class that I have seen that is almost universally hated on the Paizo forums. That's kinda saying something in my opinion.

[137beth]

I'm just going to quote someone on the Paizo forums who summed up what I think about the Vigilant class:


Have you heard about the Vigilante playtest for the Ultimate Intrigue book? I don't know about you, but I f****** hate the class. It's got about as much forced flavor in it as the Paladin, but doesn't have the awesome mechanics to make it worth it.

The Vigilante gets 2 identities, his social identity and his vigilante identity. While in one identity, if one were to scry on the other, it's impossible to find him unless one knows both identities belong to the same person. For example, if Batman were wearing his mask of Bruce Wayne, and someone were to scry on Batman, they would be unable to find him at all, unless they knew that Batman and Bruce Wayne were the same person.

The vigilante gains bonuses for being in his social identity that he can't access as his vigilante identity and gains bonuses as a vigilante that he can't access as his social identity.

I really hate this dual identity bit as that used to be an aspect of roleplaying but they've given it mechancis and rules and now it's rollplaying instead. ಠ_ಠ

At second level, they have to pick a specialzation that allows them to differentiate themselves from other Vigilante. At every even level, they get a Vigilante talent chosen from their specialization.

Avenger Vigilante gets to use class level as BAB, so even though it's a d8 class, it gets full BAB. Also it gets lots of feat potential. Basically, your Fighter Vigilante. Stalker Vigilante gets not!sneak attack called Hidden Strike (it's sneak attack by another name); lots of stealth related abilities, basically intends to be the 'stealthy' part of Batman. Being able to take out enemies without a sound, fade into shadows, disappear and reappear elsewhere etc.

Warlock Avenger is, essentially, the worst arcane caster in the game. They gain access to spells and the Wizard spell list, but need to take Warlock talents to gain access to higher level spells (2nd level spells at 4th, 3rd at 8th, 4th at 10th, 5th at 14th, 6th at 16th). They have the Arcanist spellcasting mechanic of prepare spells, then spotaneously cast from those prepared. But they have a base spells per day progression of 4/3/3/3/3/1 plus their bonus from their intelligence modifier. Meanwhile, they have no other class features that really helps them out that much. All of their class features are sunk into the Vigilante talents or they interact with the dual identities thing, and they sacrificed nearly all of their talents for spell casting. They do have the option of getting a 'Mystic Bolt' that deals 1d6+vigilante level in damage and they can use the bolt in place of any attack roll, so full attacks with a magical bolt at-will at least. But if they want their spells A.S.A.P. they can't get it until 6th level.

Zealot Avenger is basically the same as Warlock, except divine casting instead with the Inquisitor spell list. They have several abilities stolen from Inquisitor and Cleric, but they won't be able to take them if they want their spell casting.

Anyway, I like the "idea" behind the modular class (as it's much like what you are designing), but the execution is horrible. Also, I really, really, hate the forced flavor of the class. Being a vigilante hero was something you acted out as a character, not took a blasted class for. This whole class is basically 4 different prestige classes shoe-horned and stretched out over 20 levels. Half of the classes features are completely worthless unless they stay within 1 city or town for the majority of their adventuring career.

[Honest Tiefling]

Am I the only one not liking the fluff of the two different alignments? And the fact that certain abilities aren't usable in both forms? Why can't the vigilante use Social Graces as a Vigilante? Not like vigilantes aren't known for going undercover or something. This seems less like Batman and more like The Ventriloquist.

As for the Rogue/Ninja thing, I actually don't really see why they need to be separate classes. The Rogue could probably use being able to poach the options from the Ninja class and being a bit more flexible in my opinion.

[Psyren]

I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses the term "rollplaying" unironically.

Having said that I don't like the class either, because they could have done it with a dual-identity variant/subsystem and then slapped that onto an Inquisitor, Ninja or some other 6+Int class that engages in underhanded deeds to achieve its goals. Hell, I could have put it on an illusion-focused Bard and made Jem.


I'd link you, but I'm sure you know how The Google works.

Is this really necessary? :smallsigh:



Hybrid classes come out. "No, stop it!"

I know we won't see eye-to-eye on this but I love the hybrids. I thought they all added neat new design space.

[Milo v3]

Am I the only one not liking the fluff of the two different alignments?
This kept coming up on the playtest forum as if you had to have two different alignments. You don't. It's an option for characters who have the flavour that does fit an alignment change, but it is not a necessity, allowing you to keep your alignment the same in both if that is how it would be flavoured. This helps the fluff, not weakens it.

[NightbringerGGZ]

I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses the term "rollplaying" unironically.

Having said that I don't like the class either, because they could have done it with a dual-identity variant/subsystem and then slapped that onto an Inquisitor, Ninja or some other 6+Int class that engages in underhanded deeds to achieve its goals. Hell, I could have put it on an illusion-focused Bard and made Jem.

You get +1 Internets for the Jem reference.

[Honest Tiefling]

This kept coming up on the playtest forum as if you had to have two different alignments. You don't. It's an option for characters who have the flavour that does fit an alignment change, but it is not a necessity, allowing you to keep your alignment the same in both if that is how it would be flavoured. This helps the fluff, not weakens it.

I guess my question is, why is the fluff geared to kooks instead of Batman type characters? Why is this not an archetype instead of the main class? Given the problems that mental instability cause in groups, I don't think I'm really going to like this fluff, but that is my personal opinion.

[Starbuck_II]

I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses the term "rollplaying" unironically.

Having said that I don't like the class either, because they could have done it with a dual-identity variant/subsystem and then slapped that onto an Inquisitor, Ninja or some other 6+Int class that engages in underhanded deeds to achieve its goals. Hell, I could have put it on an illusion-focused Bard and made Jem.


But that would be outrageous. Truly, truly, outrageous.

[Extra Anchovies]

But that would be outrageous. Truly, truly, outrageous.

You forgot a "truly" in there. (http://images.wikia.com/leagueoflegends/images/6/60/Taric.joke.ogg)

How would we stat that guy out? I'm pretty sure there's some gem-focused psionic PrC...

[Blackhawk748]

You forgot a "truly" in there. (http://images.wikia.com/leagueoflegends/images/6/60/Taric.joke.ogg)

How would we stat that guy out? I'm pretty sure there's some gem-focused psionic PrC...

Stop it! (https://youtu.be/VdEpPLwsaww?t=4m10s) WHIIIITE TEXXXXTTTT!!!!!

[NeoPhoenix0]

You forgot a "truly" in there. (http://images.wikia.com/leagueoflegends/images/6/60/Taric.joke.ogg)

How would we stat that guy out? I'm pretty sure there's some gem-focused psionic PrC...

totally some kind of psionic paladin.

[Molosse]

I'm sure this is a deep seated character flaw but Classes have always been less about the flavor and more about the mechanics for myself, not from any deep seated dislike of roleplay but more due to the notion that I can apply any flavor I can come up with on top of what is presented to me with the class. To this end, simply looking at the mechanics of the Vigilante I have to say it looks interesting.

The Social Identity aspect is strange to me and I could almost see myself doing away with that aspect of the class entirely and simply wrapping the abilities granted by either the social form of the Vigilante form together. (Why does, for example, the Vigilante change alignment and lose access to knowledge regarding certain skills when he changes his/her persona?)

The specializations, and attached talents, all look pretty decent and really do build the Vigilante up into a multitude of directions and for example I really like the Warlock as an example of a decently low-powered arcane user that still has a multitude of options to offer beyond it's spell casting.

My main criticism therefore has to be that I could happily see a few of the specializations working as either PC or NPC classes in their own right, detached from the Social aspect of the class and this, of course, before we see any attached archetypes or specialized feats or any of the new options from U.Intrigue. Hell I'm already adapting my Dark Folk campaign to make use of the Warlock portion of the class as it's own Class to make some stronger Dark Slayers.

All in all an interesting class that I look forward to seeing how U.Intrigues full release will bulk out.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Personally I think the vigilante would be more interesting and palatable as a series of archetypes for various classes.

[Honest Tiefling]

Personally I think the vigilante would be more interesting and palatable as a series of archetypes for various classes.

I actually have to agree. This thread has made me want to get a group together to do Jem like antics with lights and illusions. Bards by day, crime fighting illusionists by night!