# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 >  Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Vigilante Special Edition

## pabelfly

I'm interested in starting work on a tier list for Pathfinder, in the same way that we have a tier list for 3.5 (link). This link is a collection of discussions about the power and versatility of all the base classes of 3.5 DnD, and its quite a useful resource. I think Pathfinder could do with a similar resource as a point of information and discussion.

There has been an informal attempt to do a tier list for Pathfinder, which I've also used as part of the reference to this thread: (link). But this lacks discussion on the classes and a shared consensus on how scoring works, both of which are as important as the tier number itself.

The current, work-in-progress thread for Pathfinder Tiers version of this thread is here (link). This thread has links to previous tiering threads and short summaries of thread discussions for those who missed them when they were posted. Contributions and votes for older threads are still welcome.

This thread, well be taking on Vigilante. There was some discussion about Vigilante in the previous thread before it was decided to move discussion to a separate thread. Currently, Noncaster Vigilante archetypes are tiered at around 3.6 and the caster archetypes are tiered at around 3.

So, the questions are: what should each of these be tiered at? And are there any notable noncaster archetypes that deserve separate tiering? I guess a discussion thread is the way to find out.

We started discussing Vigilante in the last thread, so here are a few discussion highlights:




> Vigilante: Highly underrated class IMO. Without casting is a strong T4, like a 3.8. It has more utility than people give it credit for, being a passable skillmonkey, decent combatant (especially as an Avenger), and having quite a few strong options in its Talents that people overlook (like being able to get Alchemist Bombs at full progression). The caster archetypes, particularly Zealot, take this up another notch, to a full T3. Imagine an Inquisitor with both Bane and a Paladin's Smite. Very killy.





> [Vigilante] subclass choice alone creates two distinctly different (though same-tiered) outcomes, but then archetypes increase that about fivefold. It may as well be 3-5 different classes with how much these choices matter.
> Base: T4 (solid combatants, useful skills and social talents on the side)
> Caster archetypes: T3-T3.5 (6/9 casting is good, but some of them only get meh wizard casting while trading out most talents rather than magus/wapriest+paladin casting with upside)
> Special mention: brute is T7. Yes, T7. a brute is literally worse than a commoner, because commoners don't need to make will saves to not attack party members. A brute is a liability and not a valid character option, akin to a character that is permanently confused.





> Vigilante (Casting types) T3
> Vigilante (non Casting types) T4. They feel like they could shine in a particular type of campaign, but that campaign (a very social sandbox maybe, with a lot of intrigue plots) doesn't seem common, isn't really something 3.PF is great at, and I can't really see them outshining something like a mesmerist even there.





> Vigilante is "Build-A-Superhero". Even the base vigilante with no archetypes is still looking at making a big class choice every single level. The number of different builds is utterly overwhelming to consider, and that's before getting into archetypes that drastically change how it performs. If I had to give base Vigilante a rating, I'd probably put it at *T3.6*. T4, in the sense that it is bare minimum a Rogue or Fighter with extra bells and whistles...but also it's got so many choices to make, so many bells and whistles, that it might have enough tools to just punch into T3 outright. I'd have to look at it deeper. Casting archetypes definitely get there.





> Vigilante by default is a tier 4, it's got decent class features, regardless of which specialisation you take, but it's basically either very similar ot a rogue or very similar to a fighter in function. The whole super hard to detect identity thing is mostly wasted, but the talents are usually better than feats.
> 
> The casting archetypes mostly hit tier 3, though I think we should exclude Magical Child.
> Magical Child is like an Unchained Summoner, except you get a Familiar instead of an Eidolon and can't even go mauler archetype.




*What are the tiers?*

The simple answer here is that tier one is the best, the home of things on the approximate problem solving scale of wizards, and tier six is the worst, land of commoners. And problem solving capacity is what's being measured here. Considering the massive range of challenges a character is liable to be presented with across the levels, how much and how often does that character's class contribute to the defeat of those challenges? This value should be considered as a rough averaging across all levels, the center of the level range somewhat more than really low and really high level characters, and across all optimization levels (considering DM restrictiveness as a plausible downward acting factor on how optimized a character is), prioritizing moderate optimization somewhat more than low or high.

A big issue with the original tier system is that, if anything, it was too specific, generating inflexible definitions for allowance into a tier which did not cover the broad spectrum of ways a class can operate. When an increase in versatility would seem to represent a decrease in tier, because tier two is supposed to be low versatility, it's obvious that we've become mired in something that'd be pointless to anyone trying to glean information from the tier system. Thus, I will be uncharacteristically word light here. The original tier system's tier descriptions are still good guidelines here, but they shouldn't be assumed to be the end all and be all for how classes get ranked.

Consistent throughout these tiers is the notion of problems and the solving thereof. For the purposes of this tier system, the problem space can be said to be inclusive of combat, social interaction, and exploration, with the heaviest emphasis placed on combat. A problem could theoretically fall outside of that space, but things inside that space are definitely problems. Another way to view the idea of problem solving is through the lens of the niche ranking system. A niche filled tends to imply the capacity to solve a type of problem, whether it's a status condition in the case of healing, or an enemy that just has too many hit points in the case of melee combat. It's not a perfect measure, both because some niches have a lot of overlap in the kinds of problems they can solve and because, again, the niches aren't necessarily all inclusive, but they can act as a good tool for class evaluation.

*Tier one:* Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems. This is the realm of clerics, druids, and wizards, classes that open up with strong combat spells backed up by utility, and then get massively stronger from there. If you're not keeping up with that core trio of tier one casters, then you probably don't belong here.

*Tier two:* We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

*Tier three:* Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two, here taking us to around the level of a vanilla Magus. The usual outcome is that you are very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities, for example that you might instead be competent at solving nearly all problems.

*Tier four:* Here we're in Fighter and Barbarian territory. Starting from that standard tier three position, the usual sweet spots here are very good at solving a few problems, or alright at solving many problems.

*Tier five:* We're heading close to the dregs here. Tier five is the tier of chained Monk, classes that are as bad as you can be without being an aristocrat or a commoner. Classes here are sometimes very good at solving nearly no problems, or alright at solving a few, or some other function thereof. It's weak, is the point.

*Tier six:* And here we have commoner tier. Or, the bottom is commoner. The top is approximately aristocrat. You don't necessarily have nothing in this tier, but you have close enough to it.

----------


## pabelfly

*VOTE UPDATE:*

*Vigilante (Noncaster)
*Ciopo  3
Rynjin  3.8
Exelsisxax, Gnaeus  4

_Average  3.6_



*Vigilante (Caster)
*Rynjin, Gnaeus  3
Exelsisxax  3.25

_Average  3.08_

*Vigilante (Brute)
*Rynjin  5


I'm also open to discussion about Brute being T7, but I'll see how other people feel about this idea since it's beyond the regular tier scale.

Also, the list of Vigilante caster archetypes I have is Avenging Beast (Druid/Ranger spells), Cabalist (Witch spells), Magical Child (Unchained Summoner spells), Warlock (Sorcerer/Wizard spells), and Zealot (Inquisitor spells). Are there any other caster archetypes I've missed?

----------


## exelsisxax

You have missed zealot, which has inquisitor casting.

----------


## pabelfly

> You have missed zealot, which has inquisitor casting.


Good catch, I'll add it.

----------


## Maat Mons

Somehow, I had been unaware of Avenging Beast.  Anyway, Ill rate all the caster archetypes as somewhere in Tier 3.  I continue to find Tier 3 intimidating, so I wont try to get any more specific than that.  Which, I guess, means you should put me down for a 3.0.  

Ill need to review the Vigilante class further before I can hazard a rating for the other archetypes.  I mean, Im expecting to rate the class somewhere in Tier 4.  But Ive yet to decide on the exact position in the Tier.

----------


## Wildstag

I know it's not a judgment of tiering, but I've always felt the Vigilante is the perfect example of a class the designers make to keep people playing their own game rather than finding another RPG that does that trick better. It's like the poster child for the "don't try to fit new systems into a game not designed for it, fit your group into a new system designed to do what you want".

But also, I feel like Avenging Beast is lower on the Tier 3 scale than the others, if only because Wild Shape doesn't improve to any other _beast shapes_. I'd say like a 3.2? 

As far as other archetypes tier, I think the Darklantern should be around 4.5, if only because the DC for a transformation can get exceedingly penalizing for some vigilante forced into a situation where they can't transform back to their non-drow form for extended periods of time. Also it's an archetype that forces Chaotic Evil onto the vigilante identity. They might as well be an NPC.

----------


## ciopo

tldr version : baseline t3, archetypes t3, Brute t5.

The worst about vigilante : if you try to do everything the class offers, you will be MAD, maybe even MADDEST. Seriously, you'll want all 6 of them, you can get away with dumping either cha or wis

From a "normal" campaign point of view, or published adventure path, you can ignore the dual identity thing at the cost of "you can be scryed just like any other party member", so all that rigamarole about intrigue you can just shrug and carry on.

So, a good 80% of the reason I'm voting t3 is on the strength of the social talent always prepared.

What it does in short: if you've been in a settlement for at least a day and spent 8 hours preparing, you can put aside some money, and 1/day spend 1 minute to "spend" a part of that money to obtain any item that would have been available in that settlement.

Why am I so enamored with this thing?

Well, you know the wizard maxim "I can solve this!tomorrow"? how often did that "tomorrow" mean "let's drop by town to buy a scroll of (X)"? Always prepared is that, except compressed to 1 minute wait instead of "8 hours of long rest"

At the bare minimum you always have "a scroll of anything" with you for 1/day solution to any and all out of combat stuff that could be solved by a spell. It gets better if your GM allows this preparation to be partially charged wands, it gets better if your GM allows you to set aside multiple of these preparations for more per day uses (I wouldn't for the record), but baseline a low creativity use of this is getting any scroll you can afford, 1/day. Anything a caster can solve with a scroll vigilante can solve with a scroll, and unlike a caster he "always" have just the right scroll with him. I'd rate this higher but that 1/day is a very sensible limitation

that's 1 out of 10 social talent the vigilante gets,

what else is there with social talent when seen from a normal campaign point of view?

potentially some SLA
skill bonuses from +4 to +8 depending on the skill and the context
social manipulation (duh)
making ("more") money trough mundane crafting/profession

Now, onto vigilante talents, and why I'm not rating the caster archetypes separately ( just put them in t3 just the same )

most of the caster archetypes sacrifice 5 out of 8 of the talents you get between level 1-16. Vigilante talents let you cherry pick a very diverse set of mechanics, from a lot of other classes and mix them up, on top of some other vigilante "special behaviors".
These are not equivalent to 6/9 spellcasting, of course, but it doesn't move it up to t2 either, so I'm not voting differently, and having only "3" vigilante talents to work with for most of the levels is quite styming form this point of view, especially when those archetypes generally introduce new vigilante talents that you might want to take.

The loss of "specialization" is also somewhat significant

----------


## pabelfly

*VOTE UPDATE:*

*Vigilante (Noncaster)
*Ciopo  3
Rynjin  3.8
Exelsisxax, Gnaeus  4

_Average  3.7_



*Vigilante (Caster)
*Rynjin, Gnaeus, Wildstag, Ciopo, Maat Mons  3
Exelsisxax  3.25

_Average  3.04_



*Vigilante (Avenging Beast)
*Rynjin, Gnaeus, Ciopo, Maat Mons  3 
Wildstag  3.2
Exelsisxax  3.25

_Average  3.08_



*Vigilante (Darklantern)*
Wildstag  4.5



*Vigilante (Brute)
*
Rynjin, Ciopo  5
AvatarVecna - 5.8
Exelsisxax  - 6 (7?)

I'm also open to discussion about Brute being T7, but I'll see how other people feel about this idea since it's beyond the regular tier scale.

----------


## exelsisxax

Vigilante archetypes are crazy. If paizo didn't intentionally prevent almost any stacking it would be a goldmine of weird combos but instead it's a pile of almost-X with social talents.

Avenging Beast: T3.2
Hunter casting: excellent. limited wildshape: great. witch patron bonus spells: nice. You're almost a hunter with no animal companion features/focus but with vig talents - this is definitely weaker, but not by much and there's a lot more bits to work with.

Cabalist: T3.3
Magus casting, but from the witch list: great. Otherwise, you don't get much - most of the talent options are bad beyond the familiar. some interesting bleed/intimidate synergy but it's intentionally handicapped. One of the less intrusive archetypes by not screwing with dual identity or having alignment mechanics.

Magical child: T3.4
magical girl suffering. Usumm casting isn't great and now switching guise is LOUD AND OBVIOUS AND CINEMATIC. If the game made intrigue important that would be more of a real downside i guess. However, you do get a turbo familiar that auto-upgrades and can eventually shapeshift, gets sometimes worthless DR/magic, but it also copies all your appearance/vengeance strike benefits. This would be better if you could pull a second round of debuffing, but you can't do that so it's barely anything. Being an Usumm but worse isn't super great.

Warlock: T3.2
Magus casting but wizard list is great, and that's important because that's kind of it. Warlock bolts aren't that great and fall off hard unless you use the archetype talent to bring them back online. The other two relevant talents are just stealing from the cabalist. No shenanigans with identity though, so no weird potential downsides.

Zealot: T3.1
build-your-inquisitor. Seriously, you can get so close to an entire inquisitor feature list this may as well be an inquisitor archetype. You can also get smite [alignment you hate], which is great. But in the end you're just not an actual inquisitor. no bane, judgement, no solo tactics, no initiative, and poaching your way to almost inquisitor with almost smite costs all your vig talents. !inquisitor with social talents is good, but it's not as good as an inquisitor.

Honorable mentions:
Psychometrist: T3.8 - trades out the opposite vig talents as the casters for occultist implements and focus powers, as well as psychic sensitivity. Doesn't replace specialization so there's actually some stacking potential and even base you can take it a lot of different ways.
Experimenter: T3.8 - mostly loses low-value appearance to get craft construct/brew potion, and specialization for mutagen and mutagen discoveries. Unfortunately no extracts. Has a combat downside superficially the same as brute, but it only confuses the experimenter and only occurs when they eat a hard CC effect like daze/confusion/frightened and the save is no harder so it's dramatically less of a penalty. Becomes T0 with craft construct if you allow trompes.


Dishonorable mentions:
Agathiel - T4.5 lose as many vig talents as avenging beast but ONLY gain DRASTICALLY MORE LIMITED wildshape. It's garbo.
Brute: T7. yes, brute is literally worse than a commoner. commoners are approximately worthless, brutes are actively a detriment.
Gunmaster: T4.2 you get to be a much worse gunslinger, but you still have a bunch of talents so you're technically also better than a gunslinger. makes me mad though.
Serial Killer: T4 but NPC. Locks hard into a specific murdery stalker that must be evil, but hidden strike counting as sneak attack is very nice. but this should have been built in!
Mounted fury: T4. you're a bad cavalier with talents, so you're better than a cavalier. again, this causes me great anger.

----------


## Bucky

> I'm also open to discussion about Brute being T7, but I'll see how other people feel about this idea since it's beyond the regular tier scale.


I will reiterate what I said previously. If you aren't accepting Tier 0 votes then you shouldn't accept Tier 7 either. Just put them in the "don't play this" Tier 6.

----------


## PoeticallyPsyco

I would argue that T6 is already in the "detriment to the party" zone, by eating up a fraction of the loot, XP, and probably healing. No need for a T7 that is just "even more detrimental".

That said, it might be funny to play a commoner WBLmancer and see how long it takes for the party to notice that you have no class features.

----------


## pabelfly

> I would argue that T6 is already in the "detriment to the party" zone, by eating up a fraction of the loot, XP, and probably healing. No need for a T7 that is just "even more detrimental".
> 
> That said, it might be funny to play a commoner WBLmancer and see how long it takes for the party to notice that you have no class features.


For comparison purposes, the other archetype that ended up in T6 so far, currently rated 5.54 is Oozemorph Shifter. Here are the drawbacks of playing an Oozemorph Shifter - when you lose humanoid form, which will be really quick outside of high levels, you can't change back for eight hours. While out of humanoid form, you can't use or hold items, wear equipment, cast spells, or even speak. I'd say in a lot of ways that's worse than a Commoner, since at least Commoner is guaranteed to be able to communicate and coordinate with other party members, wear gear, use items, andcast spells if they somehow have access to them through feats or whatever.

----------


## pabelfly

Comments and critiques welcome.



Vigilante (Brute Archetype) (5.45)

Do you want a size increase without any stat bonuses to offset your size increase penalties? Do you like getting extra penalties on top of that, just because? Do you want a character that has a chance of attacking your allies, but normal considerations like being a good team member or just general courtesy were holding you back? Well, do I have the archetype for you.

Vigilante is quite a complex class, with many archetypes trading away features in exchange for various upgrades. Brute trades away a lot of these features too, but largely forgets the upgrade part. Worse saves, poorer weapons and armor, a vigilante form that can be unmasked against their will, and while in that form, it has a risk of attacking allies, rather than just enemies. You do have full BAB, a decent amount of skill points and some bonuses to unarmed combat, but there are better ways to get these benefits on a character without risking killing your allies.

Another solid contender for worst Pathfinder archetype, straddling the divide between T5 and T6.

----------


## Logalmier

> Comments and critiques welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante (Brute Archetype) (5.45)
> 
> Do you want a size increase without any stat bonuses to offset your size increase penalties? Do you like getting extra penalties on top of that, just because? Do you want a character that has a chance of attacking your allies, but normal considerations like being a good team member or just general courtesy were holding you back? Well, do I have the archetype for you.
> 
> Vigilante is quite a complex class, with many archetypes trading away features in exchange for various upgrades. Brute trades away a lot of these features too, but largely forgets the upgrade part. Worse saves, poorer weapons and armor, a vigilante form that can be unmasked against their will, and while in that form, it has a risk of attacking allies, rather than just enemies. You do have full BAB, a decent amount of skill points and some bonuses to unarmed combat, but there are better ways to get these benefits on a character without risking killing your allies.
> ...


Maybe a way to split the difference in the "should there be a tier 0/7 debate" is not to create these new tiers, but rather mention in their specific writeups that an archetype is so busted/bad as to have prompted such an argument in the first place? Something like "Another solid contender for worst Pathfinder archetype", one that has raised questions as to whether a tier 7 should exist for classes that actively create problems instead of solving them. This strikes me as an elegant way to acknowledge the arguments for tier 0/7, which I find convincing, without having to dramatically alter the longstanding tier system just to accommodate a few stinkers.

----------


## Serafina

Vigilante Archetypes that have not been listed or rated, and that are significant enough to do so here:

In general, I call many of these T3. If you think that non-caster Vigilantes are T4, then rate them there instead. I personally think that Vigilantes are baseline good enough at combat and solving a couple other problems that they count as T3, but YMMV.

*Experimenter:* Mutagen and very good Brew Potion. I would rate this T3 (or T4) - thanks to being a Vigilante you can fight well, the Mutagen can help with that, Discoveries (which you can take) can help you spread out there a bit, you are good with Knowledge-skills, and you gain enough access to Potions to make them a notable party contribution. Lower end of T3 perhaps, but still.

*Mutated Defender* Full BAB and Eidolon Evolutions. This makes for a nasty natural attack build - e.g. use a one-handed weapon, grab Pincers for two secondary attacks in your other hand, and then stack Bleed, Pull, Reach, and Extra Damage onto them.
I'd once again say that this stays Tier 3 (or T4).

*Teisatsu* A Stalker, but with a Ki Pool and Ninja Tricks/Unchained Monk Ki Powers rather than Rogue Talents. So really, a much better Stalker. Because with Forgotten Trick you can have every Ninja Trick, and a Ring of Ki Mastery makes that very affordable provided you have enough Ki - and you can have a large Ki Pool.
This, I would just stricly rate T3, because it throws in sufficiently many tools to do so, and Vanishing Trick + Hidden Strike + a talent to augment that is just a good combat combo.

----------


## Bucky

> *Teisatsu* A Stalker, but with a Ki Pool and Ninja Tricks/Unchained Monk Ki Powers rather than Rogue Talents. So really, a much better Stalker. Because with Forgotten Trick you can have every Ninja Trick, and a Ring of Ki Mastery makes that very affordable provided you have enough Ki - and you can have a large Ki Pool.


The base Stalker can take the "Ninja Trick" Rogue talent, but doesn't have the innate Ki Pool scaling that a Teisatsu would.

----------


## Kurald Galain

The Vigilante spends a lot of word count on the social identity, which doesn't really apply in most campaigns, and which primarily gets fluff or ribbon abilities. But you can safely ignore all of that and still be left with a competent combatant and skill user, with a decent number of powerful and unique abilities along its combat talents.

Tier 4, and the spellcasting archetypes qualify for tier 3.5. (edit) and the Avenging Beast is also 3.5, and it should probably just be listed among the casters, not separately.
(edit) and it's worth mentioning that _all_ spellcasting archetypes drop Vig Specialization, meaning you can have EITHER full bab, OR sneak attack, OR spellcasting. This also means that the spellcasters cannot pick most of the _good_ combat talents (as those require vig spec).

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I will reiterate what I said previously. If you aren't accepting Tier 0 votes then you shouldn't accept Tier 7 either. Just put them in the "don't play this" Tier 6.


This.

Hm, I wasn't familiar with the Brute before, but it looks like PF's equivalent of the Frenzied Berserker, as both get a decent amount of combat buffs but have a good chance of attacking their allies. I've never heard anyone call the FB "tier 7" before though, so I don't think it's fair to rate the brute that low either. It's a clear downgrade over regular Vigilante, but probably manageable with a decent party. I'd put the brute down for Tier 5.

----------


## ciopo

I want to add that a lot of the vigilante identity talents are "you gain (feat), and also this extra special thing with that feat", some but not all specify you can ignore prerequisites, except they all actually ignore prerequisites per the pathfinder faqs

this can be quite the hijinks, more so those that say (paraphrasing) "also ignore some of the prerequisites of feats down the chain"

that's not a low optimization thing to pay attention to, however.

----------


## Thunder999

The big difference between Frenzied Beserker and Brute is that Frenzied Beserker gives you far greater benefits.  

Frenzied Beserker is getting doubled power attack benefits, a huge +10 strength, the ability to give Frenzy to allies, and a extra attack as per haste.  

Brute caps out at a +3 to hit and damage (worse than FB's starting +6 strength if you have a 2-hander), wastes an entire turn to transform rather than a free action to frenzy, has higher DCs to end, takes an entire minute to end when you do manage it, breaks your armour by default, and isn't even full BAB for the purposes of taking feats.  

Brute has more downsides and far worse benefits. Brute doesn't even outdo a normal barbarian

----------


## pabelfly

*VOTE UPDATE (GENERAL LIST):*

*Vigilante (Noncaster)
*Ciopo  3
Rynjin  3.8
Exelsisxax, Gnaeus  4

_Average  3.7_

*Vigilante (Caster Archetypes)
*Rynjin, Gnaeus, Wildstag, Ciopo, Maat Mons  3
Exelsisxax  3.25
Kurald Galain  3.5

_Average  3.11_

*Vigilante (Brute)
*
Rynjin, Ciopo, Kurald Galain  5
AvatarVecna - 5.8
Exelsisxax  - 6 (7?)

_Average  5.35_



*VOTE UPDATE (DETAILED LIST):*

*Vigilante (Avenging Beast)
*Rynjin, Gnaeus, Ciopo, Maat Mons  3 
Wildstag, Exelsisxax  3.2
Kurald Galain  3.5

_Average  3.13_

*Vigilante (Cabalist)
*Rynjin, Gnaeus, Wildstag, Ciopo, Maat Mons  3
Exelsisxax  3.3
Kurald Galain  3.5

_Average  3.11_

*Vigilante (Magical Child)
*Rynjin, Gnaeus, Wildstag, Ciopo, Maat Mons  3
Exelsisxax  3.4
Kurald Galain  3.5

_Average  3.13_

*Vigilante (Warlock)
*Rynjin, Gnaeus, Wildstag, Ciopo, Maat Mons  3
Exelsisxax  3.2
Kurald Galain  3.5

_Average  3.1_

*Vigilante (Zealot)
*Rynjin, Gnaeus, Wildstag, Ciopo, Maat Mons  3
Exelsisxax  3.1
Kurald Galain  3.5

_Average  3.09_

*Vigilante (Experimenter, Mutated Defender, Teisatsu)
*Serafina  3

*Vigilante (Psychometrist)
*Exelsisxax  3.8

*Vigilante (Darklantern)*
Wildstag  4.5

*Vigilante (Agathiel)*
Exelsisxax  4.5

*Vigilante (Gunmaster)*
Exelsisxax  4.2

*Vigilante (Serial Killer and Mounted Fury)*
Exelsisxax  4

----------


## pabelfly

Comments and critiques are welcome.



Vigilante (Caster Archetypes) (3.11)

Specifically, this rating is for the Avenging Beast, Cabalist, Magical Child, Warlock and Zealot Archetypes.

Vigilante is quite a complex class that can be built in a lot of different ways. The most powerful way to build a Vigilante is with spellcasting, and all the archetypes here gain sixth-level spellcasting, giving them a great deal of build versatility. You trade away Vigilante Specialization for access to these spell lists, which means you lose full BAB or Vigilante's version of Sneak Attack, as well as access to Avenger and Stalker-only Vigilante talents. However, that trade is what makes the caster archetypes of Vigilante so much more capable than their noncaster counterparts. Not to mention you have a decent skill list with a good amount of skill points, and a bunch of social talents to help with those skills.

Besides that, you have the Vigilante's distinguishing feature, Dual Identity. It has some complicated mechanics that allows you to play a secret identity hero character, but you probably won't use it in most campaigns, and losing the benefits of the feature or ignoring it means you can be scried just like the rest of your party members. It will probably be ignored in a typical campaign.

All up, a Vigilante built with casting in mind is a solid Tier 3 class.



Vigilante (Noncaster Archetypes) (3.7)

Specifically, this rating excludes the Avenging Beast, Cabalist, Magical Child, Warlock and Zealot Archetypes. Those gain sixth-level spellcasting. 

Vigilante is quite a complex class that can be built in a lot of different ways. Vigilante Specialization allows you to either gain the Avenger specialization, for a full BAB martial experience, or the Stalker specialization, which gives you Vigilante's version of Sneak Attack, as well as access to rogue-style talents. Not to mention you have a decent skill list with a good amount of skill points, and a bunch of social talents to help with those skills. Both of these build options are roughly equal in power, and both are much weaker than a Vigilante that uses a casting archetype.

Besides that, you have the Vigilante's distinguishing feature, Dual Identity. It has some complicated mechanics that allows you to play a secret identity hero character, but you probably won't use it in most campaigns, and losing the benefits of the feature or ignoring it means you can be scried just like the rest of your party members. It will probably be ignored in a typical campaign.

All up, a high T4 character.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Vigilante is quite a complex class with a lot of moving pieces.


I don't think it's complex at all, I wonder why you say that?




> Or inconvenient, depending on your viewpoint.


I don't think the Always Prepared ability deserves a mention, because it largely copies the Brilliant Planner feat, which any character can take. It's clearly not a vig-only ability.
The secondary "stash" ability points out that when you withdraw an item _you lose the rest of the stash_, meaning 500 gp per level down the drain. That's... rather expensive. Plus it only works in single-city campaigns anyway. BP is a good feat but the rest of the AP ability, not so much.

----------


## pabelfly

> I don't think it's complex at all, I wonder why you say that?


Because of how build choices mean you can end up with vastly different types of Vigilante, even without spellcasting.




> I don't think the Always Prepared ability deserves a mention, because it largely copies the Brilliant Planner feat, which any character can take. It's clearly not a vig-only ability.
> The secondary "stash" ability points out that when you withdraw an item _you lose the rest of the stash_, meaning 500 gp per level down the drain. That's... rather expensive. Plus it only works in single-city campaigns anyway. BP is a good feat but the rest of the AP ability, not so much.


Okay, I'll get rid of it. Thanks.

----------


## ciopo

> I don't think it's complex at all, I wonder why you say that?
> 
> 
> I don't think the Always Prepared ability deserves a mention, because it largely copies the Brilliant Planner feat, which any character can take. It's clearly not a vig-only ability.
> The secondary "stash" ability points out that when you withdraw an item _you lose the rest of the stash_, meaning 500 gp per level down the drain. That's... rather expensive. Plus it only works in single-city campaigns anyway. BP is a good feat but the rest of the AP ability, not so much.


four things stand out about always prepared vs brilliant planner, I'll address it since I'm the one that harped about it

In order of relevance

1)the double budget of 100gp/level is not just a doubling of relative power, say we're at 5th level, always prepared can pull 3rd level scrolls, brilliant planner cannot; Or if we go by hiring spellcasting services, at 5th level always prepared vigilante can call in a 5th level spellcasting service, brilliant planner is capped to 3rd level spellcasting service at that time. I'm using 5th level for the example because that's when brilliant planner first becomes available otherwise; the breakdown for spellcasting service availability per class level/spell level is like this for always prepared : 1st and 2nd level spell at 1st level; 3rd level spell at 2nd level; 4th level spell at 3rd level; 5th level spell at 5th level; 6th level spell at 7th level; 7th level spell at 10th level; 8th level spell at 12th level; 9th level spell at 16th level. In comparison Brilliant planner gets "caps out" at 7th level spell at 16th level. Note that there are ways to make settlements count as larger than they are if one want to optimize this. Generally I'd stick to scrolls/wands  because spellcasting services are much more iffy to adjudicate in the context of brilliant planner/always prepared

2) you can take always prepared at first level, that's 4 levels of play where a normal character couldn't do those asspulls. Somewhat related, it's always having the correct restorative solution to a debuff problem, at the levels where those kind of problem are still an issue. Rummage in your backpack for 1 minute to pull out the batsignal instead of having to trek back to town for that (remove X) spellcasting service at the temple

3)1 minute to enact is different enough from the 10 minute of brilliant planner, not much of a difference, not an order of magnitude like going from an hour to a minute, but still significant

4) the INT 13 prerequisite of brilliant planner is not insignificant as far as build resources go; at low op, those that most likely would qualify for it are the least likely to fully benefit from it, whereas those that would milk the most "tier increase" from having it are those most likely to consider INT a dump stat; Giving shrodinger scroll to wizards is only a change from "I can solve this tomorrow" to "I can solve this now, 1/day"; shrodinger scroll to any martial (and vigilante IS a martial at his core) is going from "Nope, I can't solve this" to "I can solve this now, 1/day". a vigilante can still dump INT if it wants, Always prepared is one social talent with no prerequisite, the optimization level for taking it is no more than recognizing the value of what gold can buy, and the opportunity cost of what the other social talents would offer.

the stash mechanic: Note that it doesn't say you need to be within the settlement you created the stash to retreive it. The most use I've made for this is as an alternative to normal buying of magic items. This is iffy because it hinges on how that "would have been available" gets adjudicated by your GM. if it's any item below the GP limit of the settlement, you're good to go to pull out a (nonconsumable) item you or someone else on your party didn't have the foresight of wanting. The hour to pull it is a significant barrier to entry here. 
The most relevant actual use is making a stash and pull expensive spell components at need, with any leftover gold that would have been there be either gems if your GM allows the resale of them at 100%, or diamond dust/other common spell component.
Note you don't have to make the stash be as big as your level allows, it's up to 500gp/level, not exactly 500gp/level.

----------

