If a GM is not willing to represent what I can do in the actual narrative with game mechanics, then it's not a game worth playing.

Single class games are an experiment I'd love to try.

I am a little lost on what you mean here. Would you be willing to clarify that statement?

The vigilante class is all about being Batman or Zorro. It even specifies up front that it probably isn't made for traditional campaigns and needs to be crafted around.

It's great for an "all or nothing" kind of game.

IN ADDITION it provides some great tools for GMs to run cool "Hannibal" style villains who are right under the heroes noses the whole time. Because of the dual identifies it allows mechanically for heroes to not be able to divine who the real villain is and allows a villain to do a whole bunch of mudererin while just only going "out for a powder".

Finally the vigilante class allows you to splash several different kinds of vigilantes. You can be a vigilante fighter or rogue or mage...kind of.

It's the difference between Zorro, Batman, and Dr. Strange or Green Lantern.

  The way I look at it the whole Ultimate Intrigue was to allow social combat rather then just physical.. along the lines of L5R or other Court inclusive Millieu.

If I want Intrigue and 'shadow' combat, I'll stick with the game and system that does it better than anyone else... WoD's V:tM.  I can, and will, out elder, out harpy, and out prince (let alone out archbishop) everyone else in this whole group, combined, every single time, and make it look easy.

No lie.

Back to the Vigilante.

Ok.  So basically, it isn't at all necessary and it doesn't really do anything that a clever DM / group of players can't or won't do anyway?  Dangit.  Best to stick to the Ninja + Fighter Gestalted into a single class.  Or at least a Multi-class Ranger / Fighter.  I was kind of hoping to see / hear that the class would do something unique and special that made it more than just a multi-class character.

I mean it does.  The "batman" version has some amazing abilities for stealthy combat. Basically you pop out of the shadows, kill a dude, drag him back into the shadows and nobody else notices anything.

You can't do that even as a ninja just because as soon as you initiate combat people will hear because of the low difficulty on perception checks (if a GM is playing RAW). Vigilante has specific abilities that reduce those perception checks.

The Assassin Prestige Class does that though.  And Perception checks are based on the environment and stealth.  That's why they are opposed.  Your scenario you're mentioning, in my book, is assuming there is no ambient noise, no heightened paranoia, no cover of darkness, and that the scrubs are actually on par with the Batman like character.

Such is almost never the case, and were it to actually be the case, 1) Batman is the wrong character since a focus on stealth and picking off one enemy at a time by luring them away are all but worthless and 2) You need a tank +/or blaster

Yeah...you can't make that claim at all honestly. That isn't something that you would know about everyone hear. I have certainly not played with you before in a game, so the idea that what the *player* has as skills is not within the scope of your knowledge.

Please, lets leave commentary about what you are or aren't better at than everyone else around outside of a discussion of games.

From the point of the silent me-nority, I agree with LJ.

The thing is "Vigilante" is just a name how you use the powers the class has is up to you.  And the Magical split personalty is really as far as I can see the heart of the class.



But what does that have to do with the desires of the PC and the links they have to their world, the people they care about, and systems that they are in.



Can I do something as a DM.. Sure. In first edition I created the "Secret Society" Circle.  It was a special form that included amulets that if you were a mundane [zero level] member of the society was wearing it and said your member name you magically would disappear to magic scrying looking for the "real" you.  But would appear to someone activily seeking the society member you.. if they knew the name.

I also created an Ultra-class Witch Major. offensively equal to a single player but defensively equal to a whole party.

  The witch vanished in their citadel lair, could use possession to scout or communicate through animals magically under cover of the animals identity.  or could create a menu of Avatars over time that each had their own form, and even classes.  but could only change their avatar in that lair.  or a new one if a week to month long ritual circle hex was done to move the old magical construct to a new place.
Each avatar was their own person magically speaking.

But just because I did it as a DM I don't see why I should object to someone creating a split personality class formally.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:08, Mon 11 Sept 2017.

Yes, the dual identity aspect of the Vigilante, is probably the key ability tied to the class.  Just like, potentially a hobbit could be a thief, without necessarily ever having been a thief.  I've played Rogues that were anything but criminal, but none the less were quite proficient with locks and combat anatomy.

The first time I skimmed through the class, it occurred to me that its abilities would have been quite useful in a Revolution style game.  I had played one such game, with revolutionaries trying to help right the things from a city whom had a evil mage take over after marrying into a family, and the rest dying or becoming infirmmed.

Being able to almost innately hide, due to a split identity would have been an asset to such a group.  It certainly could be quite useful in a campaign for good characters in some Cheliax occupied area.

It also makes for an interesting idea for a magically 'enhanced' multiple identities character whom might actually have multiple different motivations(alignments), and whom might not magically be able to be traced between identities.  Not completely new idea for me, but the idea that the different identities would magically be separate from a tracking sense is new/facinating to me.

Game Idea: vigilantes during Cheliax rebellion. Hell's Rebels meets French Revolution!

On a side note it was Curse of the Crimson Throne that formally introduced Vigilantes with Golarions first masked hero but it was never revisited.

I am running a solo vigilante game and it's quite fun. combat encounters at night, social encounters during the day. It really is like a Pathfinder version of Batman!

Not revisited, but reprinted! :D APs bound to (nearly only) one city are quite rare, right? Introducing a vigilante is harder without that commitment to the appropriate setting.

Which is also one of the issues I've run into with the "rogue" class.   Certain people, who seem to enjoy disrupting group play, use a rogue class as a sneaking, backstabbing troublemaker.

For True Dungeon there was a dungeon that the "rogues" were led down a side quest away from the rest of the group. If they solved the puzzle in the side room they could choose.

EITHER they could pick a treasure that the whole group would get (basically everyone gets to draw from a bag for a random treasure token) OR they could get a t-shirt that says "I backstabbed my party for this t-shirt!"

Naturally every party rogue left with a t-shirt :P

That's amazing.

So, kind of have an idea I'd like to spitball with you all. It is a game that, for the record, I'd like to play rather than run, as I'm already running a fairly player heavy game. M'kay, so here's the thought.


I'd like to play a game in which the players start a community, (I put it this way because I'm completely unfamiliar with the Kingmaker rules for that side of things, and I'm already in an adventure path for the the Kingmaker) in which we slowly build the town and start factions within the town, starting from gathering resources and building the first houses, shops, etc. I'm thinking players start as just themselves, and then build their factions around them as they gain levels and are able to start recruiting followers and such.

Players, of course, would be able to work together or have some (in game, not in OOC) PVP level stuff. Not really trying to kill each other, but vying for control of things.

If you haven't checked already, you should probably take a look through Ultimate Campaign.

One thing I do heavily is borrow mechanics from other games. Not necessarily other RPGs either. Find a game (of any kind) that has the feel of what you are looking for.

Let's say you wanted to do a big nation builder game, you could look at a game like Civilization and simplify it down to it's basic parts.

Scouts identify new land
Soldiers can fight and conquer other cities
Settlers can found new cities.

Create a random map and just straight up lift the tile points from Civ. Plains produce food, forests produce food and production, mountains produce production etc.

I'm not going to go all the way with this but I've found that to be a great way of filling in mechanics rather then custom brewing them entirely from scratch myself. Let someone else do the heavy lifting of "math" and you just tailor it to your game.

In reply to Hunter (msg # 169):

A very good idea. Thanks for the link above! Unfortunately, I don't really have the wherewithal to get the Ultimate Campaign :(


In reply to praguepride (msg# 170):

Yeah, I'm wanting to play the game, not run it (again, a player heavy game already being run), but that does sound like something doable. I have a sort of game that I put together for tabletop stuff that works somewhat similar to what you're suggesting.

You can check the Paizo SRD.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

Thank you!

I'd still rather play this one time through, but it'd still be fun.

I'm not going to run it butttt....

How about a big Technology vs. Magic game. Basically the idea is that a group of clever wizards/alchemists/atificers etc. came together and created all sorts of fabulous technologies.

Magic items (or technological ones) that produce food, water, cures, and free food. They set up these stations in every major city almost completely cutting down on poverty, disease and giving everyone a decent standard of living. Even the poorest citizen can go up to a station and get a warm meal and cures for their diseases.

Society grew and adapted around these idea of limitless supplies. Farms were abandoned, clergies went empty and even worship in the walking, talking gods went lax as people realized that these machines had more impact on their day-to-day then the gods with their unending war.

THEN 3 things happend

1) Agents of evil sabotaged all the machines in a major city simultaneously. The creators of the machines were either dead or outside the plane of existence and nobody else was prepared to replace a dozen of them at the same time. Anarchy descended on the city as citizens began to starve.

2) Neglected gods decided to raise up crusades against these machines for weakening the order of things. Prompted primarily by gods of commerce and suffering, even some goodly gods were unhappy about this affront to the natural order of things.

3) In response to #1 and #2 an authoritative milita rose up to first defend the machines and then worship them as the new gods. This massive swelling of faith allowed a new god to be born, one that is purely technological and has no real roots in humanity. (I'm thinking that his clergy basically act as divine flavors of alchemists).

Would the setting allow for casters other than those that ran the food machines?

Sure. I mean otherwise it would be bog standard setting but perhaps with more technology?

To put my thoughts into Pathfinder terms it would be Curse of the Crimson Throne or Hell's Rebels type game but with Iron Gods technology scattered through it.