|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Batman wins not mostly through money or through GM fiat (though both play a part), but by cleverness...specifically, the kind that lets the Rogue be the most valuable member of the party because his player is just that good. That's not really quantifiable as a class feature or anything like that, though, so other means must be used to make character classes with and without magic equivalent to each other.
captain yesterday wrote:
Also Blood of Fiends and Book of the Damned vol. 1 for council of thieves (tieflings and devils)
Ooh, in that vein Book of the Damned Volume II and Demons Revisited are good for WotR, as is the Demon Slayer's Handbook. The Undead Slayer's Handbook is likely good for Carrion Crown, too.
captain yesterday wrote:
Ah! Book 2 has elements relating to CotCT and Korvosa but not in Korvosa
I disagree. The designer saw some probelms, and worked to fixed them.
Very possibly, but if so they likely went about it in something of the wrong way.
You're profoundly misunderstanding my point. My point is not that Lore Wardens aren't fun to play, or are too powerful, or that things should all be brought down to the Fighter's level. To the contrary, I'm all for a Fighter revamp that actually makes them worth playing, and feel that Lore Wardens are an excellent step in that direction.
I'm speaking purely from a technical perspective (as was the Paizo staffer cited) that what Lore Warden gives up is in no way balanced with what they receive. They give up the first +1 from Bravery for a full Feat, and one that ignores prerequisites, they give up one level of Armor Training for +8 to CMB and CMD. And so on and so forth. Nothing they give up is remotely as good as what they receive for it. It's not a balanced Archetype with existing Fighters by any measure, and it really might as well be a new class altogether. That's...generally poor archetype design in the technical sense. Which is what the Paizo staffer you mentioned was discussing, as was I. Lore Warden is a better class than Fighter. That doesn't make it a well designed Fighter archetype.
To draw an analogy, if you're asked to design a handgun and come back with an assault rifle design labeled 'handgun' which you sell for handgun prices...you have made a very poor handgun in a technical (and likely an economic) sense. The fact that it's a better weapon in many ways is irrelevant to that fact.
I dont see any problem with "patching" weaker classes with better archetypes. It worked for the Monk.
The Monk archetypes, while excellent, replace equivalent class features with equivalent class features, they improve Monk so vastly because core Monk's features lack synergy on a profound level, not because the features they give are objectively better. The same is not true of Lore Warden. Not at all.
Gotta disagree here. Bad design is making options intentionally ineffective.
I didn't say anywhere that the core Fighter was good design...just that, technically, the idea of the Lore Warden also being bad dsign was correct. Which it is.
i.e.: Monte Cook's idea of good card/bad card game design is awful and should die in fire!
Kukris are better than scimitars for this first one, being light weapons (and that Slayer and Lore Warden Fighter are also solid for that build). And Magus is definitely on par with Barbarian as your scythe guy, maybe better (especially a kensai...though use of a light pick might be better in that case).
The lore warden is my favorite fighter archetype, its make me sad that it was(is?) considered bad designed. I wonder how many great ideas for fighter were rejected just to not have more lorewarden-like archetypes.
In fairness, it is poorly designed. It's unambiguously better than core Fighter...and that's poor Archetype design. Now, given how awful core Fighters are, that's also what makes it worth using...but it's not an inaccurate statement to say that Lore Warden is bad design.
The actual Oath, which is the only thing he's actually bound to, is as follows:
Oath Against The Wyrm wrote:
Slay evil dragons, as well as other dangerous dragons whether or not they are evil. Prevent the bloodlines of other creatures from being corrupted with draconic power. Protect the innocent against the predation of dragons.
That says nothing about harming or even complaining about Good or benign dragons or draconic creatures. Debatably he'd object to her having children due to the bloodline thing...but that'd be the extent of any discrimination, and I'm not sure most GMs would enforce even that.
EDIT: Seriously ninja'd. Ah, well.
Archer Bard + Barbarian is a really solid combo. Courageous weapons all around, stacking bonuses, and utility, healing, and a lot of skills all taken care of.
As I mentioned in another thread Skald and Slayer go really well together, too, for a lot of the same reasons (though both are probably melee characters in that pairing).
Master Summoner (or any Summon focused character) and Bard or Skald also go together brilliantly, for obvious reasons.
Making seeker a sage makes him a skill monkey very easily.
His Class Skill list is still a bit shaky...but that'd certainly help, yeah.
This is a Campaign Trait for Mummy's Mask specifically, and thus not available in many games. Just for the record.
You'd need Joss Whedon and pretty much the whole original cast back in order to please said fans (something involving different people in the same universe might be cool, but wouldn't inherently tap fully into the same popularity)...and a lot of the people on that list are rather busy doing other things. Nathan Fillion's starring in Castle, Joss Whedon's busy with a host of projects, Gina Torres is doing Suits and Hannibal, and so on and so forth. Getting them all back together is...less than likely.
Also, they already sorta did this for the movie, which didn't do too well commercially, making it a lot harder to get the financial backing to do this even if they could get the people.
Good Rogue replacements include, as mentioned, Trapbreaker Vivisectionist Alchemists and Archaeologist Bards, they also include Urban (or Trapper) Rangers, and (if the ACG playtest is allowed) Slayers and Investigators.
But none of those seem to fit what the party really needs. With that in mind, I'd go Seeker Sorcerer. That doesn't really do the skill-monkey thing or combat roe of a Rogue...but all you need from the Rogue is Trapfinding, and the Seeker gets that.
The Slayer's selection of combat feats end up fairly "on rails". He's only a few feats short of what the Fighter gets in sheer number of feats, but they're very specific choices, not as open-ended as the Fighter's.
That's true to some degree, but given the identical needs of all archery builds and the necessity of Power Attack for pretty much all melee ones, the number of options is high enough that the difference will rarely matter.
The Fighter build has more ways to move pieces around within the build to accomplish different things in combat (combat maneuvers in particular are something the Fighter can play with to a much larger degree). The Fighter's ability to branch out or re-focus within his build exceeds the Slayer's.
The Slayer can easily play with a couple of combat maneuvers if they want. They can get bonus maneuver Feats if they like, along with their basic Feats via the Combat Style and their normal Feats to grab some more. Yeah, Fighter technically gets more...but not enough more that it makes a huge difference.
Do I think the Slayer is a better class than the Fighter? Yes. Do I think it does everything the Fighter does well enough to completely replace that class for the people who want to play it? No.
I think it does for the vast majority of builds. There are certainly a few niche builds that Fighter can do but Slayer can't...but they're really limited in number, not the default.
The Slayer still can't pick up Thunder and Fang as early as level 2.
They can grab it at 3rd. That's not a meaningful difference.
He can't cover the breadth of combat modification feats (critical feats, maneuver feats, etc.) that the Fighter can over the course of his career.
He can over the first 12 levels or so...most of the time anyway. That's close enough for most builds.
The Slayer is a new class that's better at killing things than the Fighter, has better saves, and is better at skills, so yeah, he's a better class than the Fighter, but so are the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger and they've been around forever.
He's not actually replacing the Fighter for the people who like the Fighter though or want to do some of those things that only the Fighter can do, and there's still reasons to do things like grab 2 levels of Fighter and then go Slayer the rest of the way.
Technically this is true. But it's only true for very niche builds involving really weird Feat combinations (and not involving things like Power Attack and Weapon Focus).
Personally, I'm hoping for a Barbarian based on the AD&D version from the Complete Barbarian's Handbook. Less berserker, more self-sufficient barbarian warrior. Not that I don't seriously enjoy the current version, but doing this seems like the best reason to actually include it in Unchained that I've thought of, and would create a neat class we don't quite have as of yet.
Slayer kills things better (assuming he gets his sneak attack damage in), but he's got generally lower AC and versatility than the Fighter, so not exactly a straight up replacement.
Wait...what? I'll grant you the AC, but how is Fighter more versatile than Slayer? Slayers have vastly better skills, aren't tied down to a specific weapon, and are just generally vastly more versatile than Fighters on almost every level. And does equally well offensively even sans Sneak Attack, for the record.
Hades is actually a better match than Hermes here, both alignment-wise and as the God of Wealth.
Asmodeus - Chronos
That's...off. Asmodeus is both still around and very different, personality-wise.
Calistria - Aphrodite, Nemesis, Hermes
Yeah, that works.
Cayden Cailean - Dionysus, Hermes, Heracles
Solid choices there, too.
Desna - Morpheus, Tyche
Yeah, I guess those'll work. Maybe throw in Artemis as well.
Erastil - Demeter, Artemis
That'll do. Maybe throw in Hestia as well, for the community thing...
Gorum - Ares
The obvious choice.
Gozreh - Poseidon
Solid call, there. Zeus should probably be thrown in here, he's a decent match, and should certainly be on the list somewhere.
Iomedae - Athena
Again, the obvious choice, and likely the best one.
Irori - Apollo
This one is deeply shaky. Athena's still a bad match, but somewhat more appropriate.
Lamashtu - Echidna
That'll probably do.
Nethys - Hecate
Definitely a solid call.
Norgorber - Hades
Hermes, as a murderer and God of Thieves, is an infinitely better choice here. Hades really isn't a criminal deity...quite the opposite, really.
Pharasma - Hades
This one's solid, though.
Rovagug - Typhon
Yeah, that's a good choice.
Sarenrae - Apollo
That'll do, yeah.
Shelyn - Aphrodite, Apollo, Muses
Yeah, those'll work.
Torag - Hephaestus
Very good call, as well as the obvious one.
Urgathoa - Apollo, Eris
Neither of these really fit. At all. I dunno who does...let me think a bit.
Zon Kuthon - Hades
Definitely wrong. Hades is, as mentioned, one of the nicer Greek Gods. I'm pretty sure there is no good equivalent here, and if there were it sure as hell wouldn't be Hades.
So every PC that has disrupted a cult and killed a few demons I assume naturally suffers from these attacks by clever, ruthless opponents. It's weird, I've never seen a single AP where killing off an outsider has such consequences. You'd think somebody would have been missing that Pit Fiend in the Runelords AP for quite some time and done something about it, but I guess he must just have not been important. So is it only Succubi that are important? Not Pit Fiends? Avaxial just didn't owe anyone a favor? Had no minions despite being a pit fiend?
I'm not arguing this kinda thing would be universal. Or that doing this once with one succubus is even necessarily gonna result in retribution. An isolated incident might easily slip under the radar, actually. A pattern of such behavior, on the other hand...
And the fiends you run into in APs are out in the world doing stuff, not sitting at home in the Abyss. There's a matter of principle and self-interest at play here, Demons who are killed for stuff they've actually done are one thing, that doesn't mean those people are necesarily gonna target other demons who were uninvolved, but those killed simply for power (like this) create a threat to all Demons of that type...one that they'll respond to, if they become aware of it (and, since these are all seducer demons, they can do so by proxy).
As a matter of policy, Succubi (or Lilitu, or whatever) simply couldn't allow this particular variety of behavior or they're all targets and potential victims. It's the difference between dying because you're in a gang (or a cop, or because you slept with a guy's wife, or whatever), and dying because someone is killing all women who live in a specific area. That first, your neighbors are unlikely to form a vigilante squad to avenge you...the second, they have to do something or they too might be killed.
This is not a new problem. There's already really no reason to play a Rogue rather than an Urban Ranger, Archaeologist Bard, or Trapbreaker Vivisectionist Alchemist, for example.
So can a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian. Or the ones I list above. Every objective analysis people do says that Slayer is slightly worse than Ranger, mechanically speaking...how much worse would it need to be for you to feel it wasn't overshadowing things?
Shouldn't the newer classes be made to complement the core classes? And not over-shadow them?
"Less powerful than a Ranger" seems to fall very thoroughly into this description actually. Trying not to overshadow Fighter and Rogue results in classes that are no good to basically anyone.
Fighter does damage pretty effectively. Its issue is that, unlike every other class there is, it does absolutely nothing else (with the exception of decent AC, I guess). Even Barbarians can manage good saves and a decent skill selection, plus Spell Sunder and Pounce...Fighters just deal damage. They have no saves, no utility options, no nothing. Unlike every other Class that can pretty much equal them in damage, they have nothing else.
Oh, agreed. Just noting.
So free xp and loot? I can live with those consequences. Better spread the word to all those adventurers who interrupt all the evil cults around the world. "Mess with this demons plans and a bigger one will show up to give you even more XP and loot." Hell the adventure sells itself.
Attacks by clever, ruthless, opponents are seldom gonna be as simple as giving you free stuff.
Umm no. Read planar binding, once the task is done they instantly go back to their plane. You get one service. As soon as it has given the gift it has completed its service. Poof gone. It's next action is to do 2d6 points of cha drain, which doesn't heal naturally. Sure pull this out at a PFS table, and watch the drama unfold. There is no way to back stop a protection on this. I would love a wizard with a low cha to do this...average cha of 8...good chance he is in a coma now.
Actually...you can make the task "Give everyone in the party a Profane Gift, and don't withdraw any for the next five days." and then incapacitate the Succubus immediately after the first one's given. That works fine. It's not necessarily a good plan, but it can be done.
Though I'd argue it was actually the APG that really made Rogues completely obsolete. They at least had Trapfinding as their exclusive right before that...it wasn't much but it was something. And Fighter's been pretty much obsolete at least as long as that (Barbarian and Ranger both got much better in the APG...while Fighter didn't, and wasn't really on par even before that). That's nitpicking more than disagreement, though.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Skalds and Slayers would get along beautifully don't you think?
Yep. And not just because of the heavy metal reference, the mechanics synch up very well, too. Stacking Rage on top of a Slayer is very nice and the two combined can take care of pretty much all of your skill needs, plus many (if not most) of the utility spells you'll find useful as well.
I'd argue the 'poisons the will' thing is pretty clearly talking addiction, not getting really drunk. There's a distinction there.
And I'm not gonna argue that Cayden Cailean's perfect, and he does indeed advocate drinking a lot...but hypocrisy is quite a bit worse than that, IMO, and not a vice he seems to suffer from.
I wasn't aware that he was ret-conned. First I've heard of it really. Do you have a source saying that this is no longer true?
As edited in above, I'm wrong there. It appears to never have been true. The only citation I have for that is the fact that the two bits I quoted from Inner Sea Gods are the only citations I was able to find in either version of Cayden Cailean's deity article involving the abuse of alcohol. Neither uses the wording you cite, and the wording they do use doesn't imply that all 'drinking to excess' is problematic (the second has similar wording, but is clearly talking addiction, not just getting really drunk)...which removes the hypocrisy thing as a problem.
That reference if from Cayden Cailean's 3.5 article in Second Darkness. As of Inner Sea Gods, it's as obsolete as Asmodean Paladins or Erastil's sexism.
EDIT: And, looking at the article in question, I'm wrong. It has identical wording to what I cited above from Inner Sea Gods. In short, the quote in question is just flat-out wrong regarding anything actually published by Paizo regarding Cayden Cailean. Or at least wrong regarding the source cited.
GM Xabulba wrote:
I'm not sure how this thread qualifies as that.
Or how that's a bad thing inherently...slut shaming is bad because it's shaming people for something they shouldn't be ashamed of. Troll-shaming would not have that same problem. It's generally insulting and thus understandably against forum rules, but that's not the same thing as being inherently bad per se.
Wow, people are mentioning me. I'm choking up here, folks.
Also, I'll agree with almost all of the vast number of people who've been brought up since my original post being wonderful people and excellent to talk with. I'm terrible with names or I certainly would've included more of you folks in my original list.
Yeah, Gods lack absolute authority over, well, anything. Sarenrae, Shizuru, Nurgal, and a number of other Gods are all solar deities, but killing one or all of them wouldn't put out the sun. Nor would destroying the sun necessarily kill them. They're affiliated with it more than they are masters of it. Ditto deities of war, or magic, or whatever.
As for how a worshiper of Shizuru would feel about those of Sarenrae...probably pretty good, actually. The two deities have a fair bit in common, really. Shizuru is a lot more focused on honor and tradition, as well as following one's ancestors, and less concerned with mercy and redemption, but the two are both nice people and would probably get along pretty well.
except that the technic league are chaotically aligned
You think drug cartels are Lawful?
and sourcebooks specifically state they are NOT organized.
Where? There's certainly infighting and such, but I've always got the impression they could manage a fair degree of organization for the purposes of dealing with external threats.
Pretty sure irresponsibility is a chaotic thing. That would definitely have to do with his being chaotic good. Drinking responsibility would be lawful (trustworthiness, reliability), while drinking irresponsibly is one of the common vices (recklessness, unreliability) of the chaotic alignment.
I'm not sure that's a generally applicable statement (though it is to Cayden Cailean specifically). But far more importantly Cayden Cailean isn't a hypocrite because he doesn't advocate responsible drinking in the way you're defining it. He advocates only drinking in certain moods or for certain reasons...but never advocates only drinking limited amounts.
Because it doesn't make sense thematically. A knight isnt going to be sneaking around in the shadows, and a proud warrior isn't going to train for skills that favor assassination and "dishonorable" conduct, he's going to learn to fight fair and skilled.
How are Acrobatics, Climb, Craft, Heal, Intimidate, some Knowledge skills, Perception, Profession, Ride, Sense Motive, Survival, and Swim dishonorable? And that's literally only three or four skills less than their whole skill list. Less than a quarter of their Class Skills match your description.
It isn't about what abilities are needed, it's about what abilities MAKE SENSE. When would a soldier who fights in formation have time to learn sneak attack? Why would a gladiator want to make less of a spectacle?
Except that almost universally their class abilities, while potentially useful in sneaky situations, don't require stealth or subtlety at all. Even Sneak Attack just represents some knowledge of vulnerable spots. Along with that, they have the ability to study an opponent and fight him better, and the ability to track.
How is any of that inappropriate to being a soldier? Or a gladiator? Indeed, the 'studying an opponent' thing seems spot on for a gladiator (the tracking's a bit superfluous, but not unbelievable, and not a huge deal anyway).
This class has a different theme than a fighter. Classes aren't about power they are about different play styles and character archetypes. A soldier, knight, or proud warrior isn't going to be a slayer, they are going to be fighters, cavaliers, and similar classes.
Actually...Slayer probably works better for most soldiers (especially special forces or the equivalent) or most versions of 'proud warrior' than Fighter does (see my mention of Conan above). Knight, admittedly, doesn't work at all...but Cavalier is better than Fighter for that anyway.
Asumming you do not care stealth at all, how good would be the salyer taking heavy amrmor proficiency and just pretend he is a fighter?
Sadly, not workable with the Ranger Combat Style Feats (well, not without Mithral Full Plate), the duplication of which is a large part of what allows the Slayer to pull a Fighter impression. In short, it's doable...but seriously suboptimal at anything but higher levels (when you can afford the Mithral).
EDIT: Ninja'd! At least it was by someone with authority...
@ Deadmanwalking. Ok, you got a point. We just have to wait and see what the ACE offers to the fighter.
Yep. Though personally, I'm hoping for Pathfinder Unchained to do something...
Full B&B, Favored enemy when ever he/she wants? This seems like power creep, I'm quite concerned. I did see someone state that the fighter gets more feats, but this guy seems to just over power the damage potential. With that said there will still be fighter feats this guy can never get so maybe that's a bit of balance there? Maybe?
They don't get full Favored Enemy. Favored Target is half that bonus (so +1 at 1st level, maxing at +5). They also lose almost all Ranger Class Features (including spells and Animal Companion) for Sneak Attack and some Rogue Talent type stuff. The general consensus is that Ranger is actually somewhat better mechanically.
I was just clarifying the situation.
I'd certainly accept calling them out as the "default mundane class" or something like that. :)
Ok. The guy hit harder than a fighter, have better saves and 6+int skill points per level, and skip prereq for combat feats. I suppose the slayer is now THE martial.
Eh. Rangers, Barbarians, Cavaliers, Monks, Gunslingers and Paladins (as well as Bloodragers, Brawlers, and Swashbucklers) still definitively do stuff the Slayer doesn't. It's really only Fighter and Rogue who the Slayer steps on the toes of in any meaningful sense.
The fighter and the slayer don’t really cover the same niches.
In many ways they do. As of the Playtest, they can get 6 bonus Feats over the first 12 levels (one less than a Fighter)...meaning that pretty much the only thing Fighters do that Slayers don't is wear Heavy Armor. That's...a really weak niche all by itself.
That said, there is a thrown weapon ranger combat style in the book so let's hope there are some stuff for the fighter in the book as well.
That would certainly be very nice. :)
The existing Knowledge Skills seem sufficient for this to me. Knowledge (Engineering) for math seems both logical and sufficient, for example. Adding skills is also a bad call for many reasons, since any expansion of the skill list devalues skill points and makes the game more complicated in a way that's seldom useful.
And, partially for that reason, a lot of skills (including all Knowledge skills) involve multiple disparate fields of study. Arcana includes an exhaustive knowledge of dragons along with spells and magic, while Religion includes an exhaustive knowledge of the undead along with information on various churches and theology, and Linguistics includes forgery along with knowing many languages.
That said, one way to decouple particular skills from fields like math without adding skills is allowing multiple skills to be used for them. For example, the Trait that references being a math prodigy is tied to two Knowledge skills (Arcana and Engineering), so you could say that people could use either of those for math.
Additionally, the forthcoming Technology Guide will have additional, tech-based, skill uses for a number of skills, which might help codify which skills are used with which fields in areas like this.