Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Halruun

Deadmanwalking's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,929 posts (6,122 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,929 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

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.

Andoran

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

Gotcha.

Andoran

captain yesterday wrote:
so close deadmanwalking! Kaer Maga and Magnimar:)

I knew about Kaer Maga, I was just thinking I'd heard somewhere that Korvosa was on the list, too. :)

Andoran

The Monsters as PCs rules are what you're looking for.

Basically, creatures start out counting as a level equal to their CR, then gain levels a little quicker than others until half their original CR counts towards effective character level.

Andoran

While I haven't played it, I believe Shattered Star has chapters in both Korvosa and Magnimar, which would make the appropriate books useful additions.

Andoran

Nicos wrote:
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.

Nicos wrote:

If we take that as a mesaure of poorly desgned, post core barbarian, ranges and paladins are horrible. Slayer and ivestigator should never get printed, remove zen archers, soheis and other 90% of monks arcehtypes and every style feat from the game.

Is that is the measure, then I am not sure how much of the work of paizo have to be considered good designed and balanced(Specially taken into consideration that a lot of optiosn are horrible underpowered).

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.

Athaleon wrote:
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.

Lemmy wrote:
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.

Lemmy wrote:
i.e.: Monte Cook's idea of good card/bad card game design is awful and should die in fire!

Oh, agreed.

Andoran

prototype00 wrote:

Might I suggest something with a lot of attacks, good accuracy and two keen scimitars (so ranger probably) with the Butterfly Sting feat

and...

Power attacking Barbarian with a Scythe.

That x4 critical will be one shotting things into your teen levels.

prototype00

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).

Andoran

Nicos wrote:
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.

Andoran

Slayer is a wonderful class. It's looking like it's gonna be the gold standard in entirely mundane classes that are nevertheless mechanically useful and effective. What specifically did you want to talk about in regards to them?

Andoran

Ah, you're right. That'll teach me to skim things...

Andoran

Adopted is the Trait you're looking for. You'll need to have been raised by Halflings, but it's doable.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

The Chain Fighter Half Orc racial trait is based on exactly this concept, and provides proficiency with flails and heavy flails, and makes spiked chains and dire flails count as martial weapons. So...clearly one of those weapons is the way to go.

Andoran

I'd just run a different AP (Iron Gods works, or do whatever else nobody's read). That said, the choice really comes down to personal preference, so do whatever you think will be most fun for you and your players. In fact, I'd get said players together and discuss which options appeal to them.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

andreww wrote:
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.

Mir wrote:

Someone could always just take the Trap Finder trait.

It gives disable device as a class skill +1 and lets you disarm magical traps.

This is a Campaign Trait for Mummy's Mask specifically, and thus not available in many games. Just for the record.

Andoran

Aranna wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Aranna wrote:
There are rabid Firefly fans? Really? Who?

I would start with the ones on syfy and other science fiction messageboards who were so bad that no threads about Firefly were allowed, and mentions of it were considered grounds for account banning.

Although now it is mostly the annoyance of fans being unable to make a top ten list of anything without having to include Firefly at least twice.

If there are fans this loyal... why on earth isn't someone cashing in by restarting the show? This is the kind of popularity most networks dream of having.

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

wakedown wrote:
We haven't had an AP chapter go into detail on Milani yet, have we?

Actually, Chapter 2 of Reign of Winter does precisely that. Just for the record. :)

Andoran

Ssalarn wrote:
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.

Ssalarn wrote:
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.

Ssalarn wrote:
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.

Ssalarn wrote:
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.

Ssalarn wrote:
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.

Ssalarn wrote:
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.

All true.

Ssalarn wrote:
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).

Andoran

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.

Andoran

Ssalarn wrote:
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.

Andoran

Voadam wrote:

Some analogues for Ancient Greece

Abadar - Hera, Hermes

Hades is actually a better match than Hermes here, both alignment-wise and as the God of Wealth.

Voadam wrote:
Asmodeus - Chronos

That's...off. Asmodeus is both still around and very different, personality-wise.

Voadam wrote:
Calistria - Aphrodite, Nemesis, Hermes

Yeah, that works.

Voadam wrote:
Cayden Cailean - Dionysus, Hermes, Heracles

Solid choices there, too.

Voadam wrote:
Desna - Morpheus, Tyche

Yeah, I guess those'll work. Maybe throw in Artemis as well.

Voadam wrote:
Erastil - Demeter, Artemis

That'll do. Maybe throw in Hestia as well, for the community thing...

Voadam wrote:
Gorum - Ares

The obvious choice.

Voadam wrote:
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.

Voadam wrote:
Iomedae - Athena

Again, the obvious choice, and likely the best one.

Voadam wrote:
Irori - Apollo

This one is deeply shaky. Athena's still a bad match, but somewhat more appropriate.

Voadam wrote:
Lamashtu - Echidna

That'll probably do.

Voadam wrote:
Nethys - Hecate

Definitely a solid call.

Voadam wrote:
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.

Voadam wrote:
Pharasma - Hades

This one's solid, though.

Voadam wrote:
Rovagug - Typhon

Yeah, that's a good choice.

Voadam wrote:
Sarenrae - Apollo

That'll do, yeah.

Voadam wrote:
Shelyn - Aphrodite, Apollo, Muses

Yeah, those'll work.

Voadam wrote:
Torag - Hephaestus

Very good call, as well as the obvious one.

Voadam wrote:
Urgathoa - Apollo, Eris

Neither of these really fit. At all. I dunno who does...let me think a bit.

Voadam wrote:
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.

Andoran

Anzyr wrote:
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.

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Secane wrote:

Humm... I feel I should clarify my original question as I have played and played with good fighter and rogue characters.

By relevant, I mean it in a why would players still want to play these core classes? When there are much better and similar themed options out there?

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.

Secane wrote:

It is not as if the core classes are flawed or are unusable options.

The Fighter and Rogue can work fine in a game, but it seems like the advanced Classes can do it much BETTER.

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?

Secane wrote:
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.

Secane wrote:

Really? I always thought that the fighter works fine... the rogue could be a little weak at times, but I have seen some scary fighters.

Like a pure crit fighter that was downing the entire room of mons. (The scary part was that is was build with just the CRB, only his weapon was from UE.)

Or the Fighter Archer, which could be mainly due to how powerful archery is and fighter gives it all the extra feats it needs to be scary.

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.

Andoran

Claxon wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The Abyss hath no fury like a Succubus scorned.
Which is why this plan usually ends with her as garden statuary. It's still not really a good plan, but it's doable.
That would only end with other, greater demons, taking notice that their play thing has gone missing. It might take time, but such actions would eventually have unpleasant consequences.

Oh, agreed. Just noting.

Anzyr wrote:
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.

Andoran

Claxon wrote:
The Abyss hath no fury like a Succubus scorned.

Which is why this plan usually ends with her as garden statuary. It's still not really a good plan, but it's doable.

Andoran

Shfish wrote:
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.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Secane wrote:

So are the Core Classes (Figher, Rogue, Ranger) still relevant at all?

Or are they being demoted to NPC classes?

Ranger is still very useful, and overall, actually more powerful than Slayers.

Fighter has always been underwhelming and Rogue were made obsolete before you even reached their chapter in the CRB.

Mostly this.

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.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

Ashiel wrote:
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.

Andoran

Ashiel wrote:

Gee, I had no idea people were going to get so testy over this. Okay, here ya go, from the Pathfinder Wiki (which has citations for those interested).

Quote:
Despite the church's promotion of drink, the faithful draw a line between drinking for merriment and drinking to excess. The latter is seen as the abuse of one of the deity's favored things, and as such is frowned upon. Similarly, although the faithful of Cayden Cailean are known to actively seek out danger and adventure, they recognize the need to withdraw when a situation turns sour. Stupidity does not equal bravery, and bravery should never be sought at the bottom of a keg.[2]
Said deity is only a deity because he drank in excess. Hence my point. Jeebus though, you'd think I had slighted someone's actual deity or something. *eyerolls*

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.

Andoran

GM Xabulba wrote:
Zark wrote:
GM Xabulba wrote:
Do you guys really want troll shaming to be thing?

what is troll shaming?

It's like slut shaming but with neck-beards.

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.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Andoran

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.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SAMAS wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Spook205 wrote:

Now I'm going to go home and sleep with my wife!

Every time I say that at work I get the strangest looks.
Why, are you a plant?

A plant? I thought men like that were usually called a fruit.

Andoran

Pendagast wrote:
except that the technic league are chaotically aligned

You think drug cartels are Lawful?

Pendagast wrote:
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.

Andoran

Ashiel wrote:
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.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Troodos wrote:
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.

Troodos wrote:
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).

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Troodos wrote:
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.

Andoran

You're quite welcome. I'm always happy to be of assistance. :)

Andoran

They get all the stuff every class gets (Feats, Stat points every four levels, etc.). Found here.

They don't get maxed HP at 1st level, their class kinda sucks, and they have lower stats if using the default NPC rules, but that's about the only differences.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
You only need 4 levels, and only lose 1 BAB. In exchange, you get offensive defense, and something else that's maybe good.
still think knife master is better for "assassin" type builds.

Why not both? They stack.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Tirisfal wrote:
Sounds like I'm gonna want to multiclass a Slayer and Investigator! :D
I think there's your PF Batman.

Eh. I think he's easily doable as a straight Investigator. Indeed, I see no reason to add in Slayer for Batman, Investigator does it all.

Andoran

Nicos wrote:
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...

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:
@ 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...

Wrathgar_The_Warlord wrote:
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.

Andoran

Arachnofiend wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Nicos wrote:
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.
Cavaliers, Gunslingers, Brawlers, and Swashbucklers fill more specific niches than the very generalized Slayer. The rest all use spells and/or supernatural abilities. Perhaps he isn't "the" martial, but he certainly is "the" mundane.

I was just clarifying the situation.

I'd certainly accept calling them out as the "default mundane class" or something like that. :)

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
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.

Zark wrote:
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.

Zark wrote:
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. :)

Andoran

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.

1 to 50 of 5,929 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.