How does a slayer learn to be a slayer?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So I've been dying to create a slayer, but haven't been able to come up with a rationale for why his background calls for him to be a slayer specifically rather than some other class.

I'm trying to figure out a difference in background, training, and mentality to distinguish between the slayer, the rogue, and an urban ranger with the skirmisher archetype and a hunter's bond to his companions instead of an animal companion (that is, one with no spells or animal companion)

They all have a gift for mundane skills. The rogue obviously has a slightly broader range of skills, but not so much that it's wildly different from the other two.

None of them cast spells or have an animal companion.

The slayer's gimmick seems to be "I can kill literally anything with the slightest preparation unless they see me coming." The ranger's gimmick is "I can Terminator the crap out of a few types of creatures, and can help a few comrades do the same." The rogue's gimmick is "I make up for a lack of formal militia training by fighting dirty. I also stereotypically look good doing it, but that's up to how the player roleplays me."

While these are all slightly different, I can't come up with a backstory that screams "this is a slayer, and not either of those other two things" without using game terms. Because to be honest, all three are perfectly capable of specializing in assassinating people, although the rogue's unfortunate mechanical design puts them at a disadvantage from a purely rules perspective. Sure, the slayer gets an actual talent called "assassinate," but unless you're thinking in game terms, a full attack with +8d8 sneak attack or a massive favored enemy bonus isn't that different than an assassinate talent; hardy targets might survive, but most people get gibbed instantly.

How would a novel or film adaptation indicate that a character is a slayer and not one of the other two, assuming an audience familiar with fantasy tropes but with no knowledge of the mechanics of roleplaying games?

---------------------------

Spoiler:
Personally, it seems to me like the slayer was just a way to outmode the assassin PrC, because the skill set an assassin develops can be used for nonevil purposes and the alignment restriction was really only there because of the silly line under the "Special" requirement.


24 people marked this as a favorite.

"In every generation there is a Chosen One. She alone will stand against the vampires, the demons, and the forces of darkness. She is the Slayer."


4 people marked this as a favorite.

A novel or film wouldn't NEED to specify a class because that sort of thing is largely transparent within the world the characters occupy. The classes are just our mechanical constructs to define a set of abilities and the characters may see them a completely different way. A paladin of Shizuru who serves a Lord would call himself a samurai and he wouldn't be wrong, even without levels in the class.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

names for collections of rules mechanics only limit you if you let them


I would recommend looking at archetypes--that is where almost all of the slayer fluff lives.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

I'm trying to figure out a difference in background, training, and mentality

Hold it right there, kemosabe.

That's not how it works.
Classes do not come with specific backgrounds, trainings, or mentality. Class is not concept, concept is not class. With rare exception (wizard, perhaps), in-game-world, there is no such thing as a class; nobody knows they even exist, much less that they have one. You could line up a slayer, a ranger, and a rogue shoulder to shoulder and nobody could go 'that's a slayer, that's a ranger, that's a rogue'.

All of them are just different ways, mechanically, to represent a certain skillset. If your background could go to any of them, then you're more than free to pick whichever one you want.


From the looks of it, slayer encompasses a few kinds of roughs that you might find. The bouncers, the enforcers, cops from rough neighbor hoods. Bounty hunters obviously.

From a lot of the archetypes, many slayers are specifically trained to serve in their roles- they are the contract killers, cleaners of crime scenes, and even hunters of dark creatures.

Overall, slayers are the ones that search for people (or people like things) among people, and then they fight with whatever methods work. While it helps to strike before anyone knows what is going on, a slayer can still do fairly well going in through the front door (unlike the rogue).

Remember, not all assassinations are in the dead of night. Sometimes is just a group of men in cloaks charging into a carriage or bursting down the door in broad daylight.

Liberty's Edge

As I recently said in a different thread, I see the slayer as elite special forces, as opposed to the fighter's heavy infantry. In fact the strongest concept I have right now for a slayer is exactly that, a Rahadoumi ex-Pure Legion special forces character.


The basic concept of slayer is a little bit rogue, a little bit ranger, so you won't see a major difference between them conceptually.

Your character presumably wanted to be able to hunt down and kill bad guys (or perhaps just anyone), and gained training in doing so. This resulted in him gaining the bundle of class features we call slayer. Whether he calls himself a slayer or not is questionable.

Someone who would instead get the bundle of features we call rogue would probably be a bit less combat focused than your character, while someone who became a skirmisher/urban ranger might be particularly focused on one type of foe. However, they are certainly similar enough that most backgrounds for one would apply perfectly fine for any of the others.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

When you were young did you ever know a creepy kid who seemed to like pulling the wings off of flys or thought road kill was interesting?

That's how slayers start out ;-)


Thelemic_Noun wrote:

So I've been dying to create a slayer, but haven't been able to come up with a rationale for why his background calls for him to be a slayer specifically rather than some other class.

I'm trying to figure out a difference in background, training, and mentality to distinguish between the slayer, the rogue, and an urban ranger with the skirmisher archetype and a hunter's bond to his companions instead of an animal companion (that is, one with no spells or animal companion)

They all have a gift for mundane skills. The rogue obviously has a slightly broader range of skills, but not so much that it's wildly different from the other two.

None of them cast spells or have an animal companion.

The slayer's gimmick seems to be "I can kill literally anything with the slightest preparation unless they see me coming." The ranger's gimmick is "I can Terminator the crap out of a few types of creatures, and can help a few comrades do the same." The rogue's gimmick is "I make up for a lack of formal militia training by fighting dirty. I also stereotypically look good doing it, but that's up to how the player roleplays me."

While these are all slightly different, I can't come up with a backstory that screams "this is a slayer, and not either of those other two things" without using game terms. Because to be honest, all three are perfectly capable of specializing in assassinating people, although the rogue's unfortunate mechanical design puts them at a disadvantage from a purely rules perspective. Sure, the slayer gets an actual talent called "assassinate," but unless you're thinking in game terms, a full attack with +8d8 sneak attack or a massive favored enemy bonus isn't that different than an assassinate talent; hardy targets might survive, but most people get gibbed instantly.

How would a novel or film adaptation indicate that a character is a slayer and not one of the other two, assuming an audience familiar with fantasy tropes but with no knowledge of the mechanics of roleplaying games?...

Make up whatever background you want. :)

As an example my slayer has some martial weapon training and armor training along with the full BAB because his dad was in the military, and gave him private lesson, but he also spent time working for a thieves guild in his youth.

Now you have a slayer. He could also have been an urban ranger with this idea.

If I wanted to go rogue I would have assumed my character had less experience with martial weapons and armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When I think up of possible backgrounds for the slayer class, I almost always come back to the Assassing Creed games, which is undoubtedly what inspired the class.

Therefore, I think of slayers as generally being elite killers and trackers from secretive or highly trained organizations, such as those in the Assassin's Creed games, or the elite special forces mentioned by Shisumo above. The iconic slayers background supports this idea as well.


It often starts with bed wetting and animal torture...often there's a bit of fire setting in there too.

And I'm only kinda joking here. Slayers kill things...that's what they're good at, that's what they do. They spend their background learning how to make other things dead. The rogue is learning to pick locks so he can get in and get some coin. The slayer is learning to pick locks so he can kill everyone in the house.

Also...road kill is interesting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

for starters don't let the name of class hinder your background.

it doesn't matter if someone who grew in the wild, and learned to survive by tracking his prey, waiting for the right moment, and going for the kill is a ranger or a slayer.
there are no nametags above people saying what class they are.

now, as far as how someone becomes a slayer and not a rogue or ranger, there are some little, but fundamental, differences. a rogue imo is either a vagabond, or a thief, or a scoundrel or generally just tries to survive.

a ranger, aside from the nature thingies, is either a racist, hating a whole race and wanting to exterminate it, or a protector.

a slayer doesnt care for a whole race, he just cares about that single target of his. He isnt a vagabond, or relying on luck like a rogue. he is calculative and has a single purpose, kill his target. He isn't a general racist that will hate all elves and try to kill them in every opportunity. in fact he might actually like elves. apart from his elven target. He doesn't "protect" a place. he studies it's terrain so that he can move unseen to get to his mark.


Thelemic_Noun wrote:

So I've been dying to create a slayer, but haven't been able to come up with a rationale for why his background calls for him to be a slayer specifically rather than some other class.

My slayer started life in a peaceful village until some children found a dangerous magic device and started playing with it. Before it was contained, a lot of people were killed or hurt and much of the village was destroyed.
She's now on a mission to make sure that doesn't happen to others by collecting such items (for the pathfinder society) and dealing with those who are careless with them or use them to do harm.

It works for me!
Morag


Zhayne wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

I'm trying to figure out a difference in background, training, and mentality

Hold it right there, kemosabe.

That's not how it works.
Classes do not come with specific backgrounds, trainings, or mentality. Class is not concept, concept is not class. With rare exception (wizard, perhaps), in-game-world, there is no such thing as a class; nobody knows they even exist, much less that they have one. You could line up a slayer, a ranger, and a rogue shoulder to shoulder and nobody could go 'that's a slayer, that's a ranger, that's a rogue'...

Nix ranger from that and add it to the list of in-game-world identifiables with wizard. Ranger is not only a class, but a related occupation, and was/is a real thing in real life, and definitely is an identifiable occupation/class (if you will) in Middle Earth and other fantasy sources.

If you handed a standard Forgotten Realms novel to a person off the street with no experience in fantasy whatsoever, he would read the words "rogue," "slayer," and "fighter" and never know it was anything other than a shady person, a killer, and a guy who likes to fight, respectively.

But when he read the word "ranger," he would have as complete a picture in his head as if he had read the word "wizard."

Because rangers are guys who hang out in the woods, stop poachers, deal with animals, rescue the lost, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Am I The Only One? wrote:
Because rangers can be guys who hang out in the woods, stop poachers, deal with animals, rescue the lost, etc.

They can also be other things. Almost anything you want, really.

Dark Archive

As Fraust emphasized, Slayers have an obsessive focus on ending lives. Even moreso than the Assassin prestige, Slayers come across as serial killers. If you've ever played in the New World of Darkness setting, they feel almost like a d20 take on the Slashers book.

Things like Dexter, Friday the 13th, and The Shining seem like good inspirations for building a Slayer, at least more so than a traditional high fantasy story.


Rosc wrote:

As Fraust emphasized, Slayers have an obsessive focus on ending lives. Even moreso than the Assassin prestige, Slayers come across as serial killers. If you've ever played in the New World of Darkness setting, they feel almost like a d20 take on the Slashers book.

Things like Dexter, Friday the 13th, and The Shining seem like good inspirations for building a Slayer, at least more so than a traditional high fantasy story.

I disagree. Nothing in that class says they are obsessed with killing. Just that they are very good at it. Many people have argued that Slayer is the best class for Conan the Barbarian, actually.


My Slayer started off as a dungeon delver. He trained to fight anything life could throw at him, and isn't too concerned about fighting fair.

Which the class reflects perfectly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

a Slayer can also be a really martially inclined bandit or a really well trained soldier with a diverse skill set modeled after stuff like a Navy Seal or Rambo.

Silver Crusade

Am I The Only One? wrote:

Nix ranger from that and add it to the list of in-game-world identifiables with wizard. Ranger is not only a class, but a related occupation, and was/is a real thing in real life, and definitely is an identifiable occupation/class (if you will) in Middle Earth and other fantasy sources.

And... Nope. "Ranger" the class carries no invisible label for people to point to and say "that's a ranger". "Ranger" the occupation is not strictly identifiable by class-- as characters of several different classes could easily fill the occupation (both fictional and real variants thereof-- especially since the use of "ranger" in non-fiction almost always refers to various sorts of law-enforcement personnel, warders, game-keepers, or elite military units)... As well as the fact that many ranger-class builds do NOT resemble the classic "ranger" occupation...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The same way an alchemist gets better at concocting psuedo-magic scientific admixtures. By stabbing fools in the face for xp.


Here, is a slayer for you.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have two characters who are by class "Slayers" in PFS--

thought I'd mention that in-game, neither character would call him- or her-self a Slayer (as job-title or skill-set description).

In the last session where I played her, Elaine de Maris (Undine Slayer 2), when asked, told another character "I'm a scout. Amphibious, good in the water, if you fall in and can't swim too well, I can keep you afloat and fish you out. And I'm pretty good with my crossbow-- but basically, I'm a passably decent scout."

Arik (Devil-spawn Tiefling Slayer 5) describes himself as a mercenary soldier, who learned some light-fingered tricks as a necessary part of staying alive. If someone else were to call him a slayer (in-game), he'd probably just grin and accept it, but it's not a title he attaches to himself in his thoughts and words.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You dont need to say what is on your sheet in your background story. Slayer is just a bunch of rules he can be a soldier or daddys home made hero or what ever just like a figther or a wizard can.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

I'm trying to figure out a difference in background, training, and mentality

Hold it right there, kemosabe.

That's not how it works.
Classes do not come with specific backgrounds, trainings, or mentality. Class is not concept, concept is not class. With rare exception (wizard, perhaps), in-game-world, there is no such thing as a class; nobody knows they even exist, much less that they have one. You could line up a slayer, a ranger, and a rogue shoulder to shoulder and nobody could go 'that's a slayer, that's a ranger, that's a rogue'.

All of them are just different ways, mechanically, to represent a certain skillset. If your background could go to any of them, then you're more than free to pick whichever one you want.

I don't always agree with Zhayne, but I do here.

Classes with spellcasting (including non-Skrmisher Rangers of 4th level or above) have a somewhat defined in-game-world thing that they are (since spells and the way you cast them are distinctive)...but even that gets blurry in terms of how others see or define them (we've seen at least two Oracles in Pathfinder Tales...neither was ever called an Oracle). And martial classes? Nobody in world can tell, and you could have picked up the skill set anywhere.

Indeed, the latter is true of almost any Class. Wizards and Arcanists have a defined place they learned magic (somewhere Academic basically)...and that's it in terms of how they are trained being defined, even those in a very defined in-world Class.

A Barbarian could be an actual Barbarian, a guy with a temper, or a sacred disciple of a murder cult. A Slayer could be a thief who fights like a cornered rat at need, a special forces soldier, a warrior from a barbarian tribe...whatever. And while a Cleric is clearly a Cleric, but he could be trained by his order from birth, or be an uneducated farmer simply granted power by the depth of his faith. A Sorcerer could be from a long line of Sorcerers, a weird throwback to a bloodline nobody even knew was in the family, or an ordinary person who's gained power in some sort of magical accident or experimentation. Heck, a Witch could've learned all their magic from their familiar or patron, or could've just gotten a jump start from their familiar/patron and then learned the rest of their magic the same way a Wizard does, through academic study (ie: copying spells from scrolls and books).

Liberty's Edge

Albatoonoe wrote:
Rosc wrote:

As Fraust emphasized, Slayers have an obsessive focus on ending lives. Even moreso than the Assassin prestige, Slayers come across as serial killers. If you've ever played in the New World of Darkness setting, they feel almost like a d20 take on the Slashers book.

Things like Dexter, Friday the 13th, and The Shining seem like good inspirations for building a Slayer, at least more so than a traditional high fantasy story.

I disagree. Nothing in that class says they are obsessed with killing. Just that they are very good at it. Many people have argued that Slayer is the best class for Conan the Barbarian, actually.

Yup. Conan is totally a Slayer. Maybe with a Barbarian dip. :)

And people take Class Descriptions way too seriously. The Slayer one is pretty dark...but no darker than the Ranger's. Seriously, if Slayers are all serial killers so are Rangers. Read these:

Ranger wrote:
For those who relish the thrill of the hunt, there are only predators and prey. Be they scouts, trackers, or bounty hunters, rangers share much in common: unique mastery of specialized weapons, skill at stalking even the most elusive game, and the expertise to defeat a wide range of quarries. Knowledgeable, patient, and skilled hunters, these rangers hound man, beast, and monster alike, gaining insight into the way of the predator, skill in varied environments, and ever more lethal martial prowess. While some track man-eating creatures to protect the frontier, others pursue more cunning game—even fugitives among their own people.
Slayer wrote:
Skilled at tracking down targets, slayers are consummate hunters, living for the chase and the deadly stroke that brings it to a close. Slayers spend most of their time honing their weapon skills, studying the habits and anatomy of foes, and practicing combat maneuvers.

That first sentence of Ranger is as creepy as anything in the Slayer description.


Am I The Only One? wrote:


Because rangers are guys who hang out in the woods, stop poachers, deal with animals, rescue the lost, etc.

You have that exactly backwards. Lots of people hand out the woods and stop poachers without necessarily having levels in ranger.

Similarly, there's no reason a ranger can't work as a lifeguard at a beach.

If there is an associated profession, that's usually a pretty good sign that the class is not the profession. A class is a skill and ability set, a profession is how you get paid.


They love to rock, meet some other musicians, do some gigs, and get picked up by a label. :P

Seriously though, I see a few backgrounds that match a slayer:

The kid was small growing up, and got bullied alot. One day he had enough, and he fought back. He used his experiences, knowing where it hurt most when he was hit, and turned the tables. He liked the feeling of being in control that victory gave him, so he got into more fights as he grew older, always paying attention and learning where the soft spots, sensitive parts, and the vulnerabilities are. By the time he's come of age, it only takes him a moment to look over an opponent and figure out where to hit it for that extra oomph.

She had a strong sense of justice. Not justice like the holy order types say, but practical "fair is fair" justice. Growing up as the only sister among a pack of brothers, she was no stranger to a scrap. When a jealous boy stole her youngest brother's favourite toy, she went after the thief, following him through field and forest for an entire day, until he was too exhausted to run, and was out of places to hide. A bounty hunter passed through town and heard the story. Impressed, the bounty hunter offered to take her on as an apprentice. She accepted, eager to learn, and to help set things right.

Those are off the top of my head. Sure they could be for people of other classes as well, but that's because there's alot of ways up the mountain.

Shadow Lodge

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Am I The Only One? wrote:
Because rangers are guys who hang out in the woods, stop poachers, deal with animals, rescue the lost, etc.

You have that exactly backwards. Lots of people hand out the woods and stop poachers without necessarily having levels in ranger.

Similarly, there's no reason a ranger can't work as a lifeguard at a beach.

If there is an associated profession, that's usually a pretty good sign that the class is not the profession. A class is a skill and ability set, a profession is how you get paid.

A person who hangs out in the woods and stops poachers etc might not have levels in ranger, but he is a ranger, in the same sense that:

zefig wrote:
A paladin of Shizuru who serves a Lord would call himself a samurai and he wouldn't be wrong, even without levels in the class.

Ranger describes an iconic profession, just like samurai describes a profession/office. I'm not sure whether Am I The Only One? intended to say the class is identical to the profession or whether there's just strong overlap, but it is much more likely to exist as an in-world concept than "rogue" or "slayer" which aren't associated with iconic professions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Slayers are assassins, or just general manhunters.

Batman would count as a Slayer (probably a Slayer-Brawler multiclass).

Ezio is a Slayer.

Artemis Entreri is a Slayer (though officially he's a Fighter/Rogue/Assasin... which is almost exactly what the Slayer is)

The Punisher and Deadpool would probably be a Slayers.

The Sniper from TF2 is a Slayer (albeit a fairly chipper one)

Slayers are bounty hunters, hitmen, and anyone who efficiently kills for a living; general antiheroes make the best Slayers.

That's not to say you can't have a happy-go-lucky Slayer, it's just a class that befits an antihero the best (same with the Inquisitor).


I am playing a Slayer in "Rise of the Drow" Super Module (Adventure Path) and my character and his brother's back drop involves being a slave of type, that was ultimately rescued. Though not privy to all of their background to date, the twins will end up finding out much more with the help of the GM, so let me explain.
Our party has a Dwarf that has in the passed been open to adopting various races that have been rescued, by some of his own race. This has lead him to adopt two Tiefling twin brothers, that were rescued a few years back. Both with their own personalities and some baggage, as they are privy that they were at one point under the tutelage of the Drow (for their own greedy reasons yet to come out).
Well the one I am playing has some anger issues and for this reason has took up the Slayer(Deliverer) Archetype, due to the nightmares and some torture that have stayed with him visa vie the Drow.
As time goes on the twins will learn that they were experiments of the Drow, in which the Drow had summoned demons and give these demons helpless slaves to rape and impregnate. Then they would train and use them for some secret weapons that would be a lot harder to trace directly back to Drow themselves.
I will be adding some more as time goes on but am looking forward to expanding this storyline and using some of the new feats from The Advanced Class Guide such as "Seething Hatred" and eventually "Extreme Prejudice".
For anyone interested the other Party Members are:
Dwarf:Psychic Warrior
Tiefling:Fighter
Aasimar:Cleric
Human:Psion
?:Summoner


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Practice.


Zhayne wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

I'm trying to figure out a difference in background, training, and mentality

Hold it right there, kemosabe.

That's not how it works.
Classes do not come with specific backgrounds, trainings, or mentality. Class is not concept, concept is not class. With rare exception (wizard, perhaps), in-game-world, there is no such thing as a class; nobody knows they even exist, much less that they have one. You could line up a slayer, a ranger, and a rogue shoulder to shoulder and nobody could go 'that's a slayer, that's a ranger, that's a rogue'.

All of them are just different ways, mechanically, to represent a certain skillset. If your background could go to any of them, then you're more than free to pick whichever one you want.

Hence why a group of kobold sorcerers are referred to in one of my games as oracles rather than sorcerers because of their role in interpreting the signs of their god, rather than because of some curse or what-have-you. They fit under the big tent of "Mystics who guide our tribe" and got the word oracle ascribed to them.


Thelemic_Noun wrote:
How does a slayer learn to be a slayer?

mutilating cats as a small child...


Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

I'm trying to figure out a difference in background, training, and mentality

Hold it right there, kemosabe.

That's not how it works.
Classes do not come with specific backgrounds, trainings, or mentality. Class is not concept, concept is not class. With rare exception (wizard, perhaps), in-game-world, there is no such thing as a class; nobody knows they even exist, much less that they have one. You could line up a slayer, a ranger, and a rogue shoulder to shoulder and nobody could go 'that's a slayer, that's a ranger, that's a rogue'.

All of them are just different ways, mechanically, to represent a certain skillset. If your background could go to any of them, then you're more than free to pick whichever one you want.

Hence why a group of kobold sorcerers are referred to in one of my games as oracles rather than sorcerers because of their role in interpreting the signs of their god, rather than because of some curse or what-have-you. They fit under the big tent of "Mystics who guide our tribe" and got the word oracle ascribed to them.

That's a great example. Tribal leaders who commune with the gods can be Clerics, Shamans, Druids, Oracles, Sorcerers, Spiritualists, or even Witches. If you're willing to stretch how much they can actually speak to the gods, they can be anything. It's all flavor.


My PFS Slayer is an agent of the Taldan government in concept. She was based on the idea of Black Widow or Jason Bourne type character. The training of a Slayer could be something as simple as that.

Scarab Sages

Am I The Only One? wrote:
Because rangers are guys who hang out in the woods, stop poachers, deal with animals, rescue the lost, etc.

...stop Yogi and BooBoo stealing Pik-a-nik baskets...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

I'm trying to figure out a difference in background, training, and mentality

Hold it right there, kemosabe.

That's not how it works.
Classes do not come with specific backgrounds, trainings, or mentality. Class is not concept, concept is not class. With rare exception (wizard, perhaps), in-game-world, there is no such thing as a class; nobody knows they even exist, much less that they have one. You could line up a slayer, a ranger, and a rogue shoulder to shoulder and nobody could go 'that's a slayer, that's a ranger, that's a rogue'.

All of them are just different ways, mechanically, to represent a certain skillset. If your background could go to any of them, then you're more than free to pick whichever one you want.

Depends on your concept of RPGs. For example, with your post...

Classes do not come with specific backgrounds, trainings, or mentality. Class is not concept, concept is not class. With rare exception (magician, perhaps), in-game-world, there is no such thing as a aclass; nobody knows they even exis, much less that they have one. You could line up a doctor, a ranger, an engineer, an airline pilot shoulder to shoulder and nobody could go that's a doctor, that's an engineer, that's a ranger, that's an airline pilot.

All of them are just different ways, mechanically, to represent a certain skillset. No need to have a doctor or surgeon actually operate on you, afterall, the garbage man could do it...right? No need to have an engineer design your car or skyscraper, afterall, I'm certain it will still work if your English teacher who adventured last week by going to tombs in London and took her car to the mechanics could actually build one from the ground up himself. No need to have someone who has no idea how to find their way through the forest, or had any police training to fill the role of a ranger...afterall...who needs forest caretakers in a world where drug makers grow things in the woods and kill those who come close, or people start forest fires, or kids get lost in the woods. No need at all.

I mean, why have the airline pilot with 5000 hours of pilot in command time fly a large aircraft...wouldn't you think that kid with 40 hours of flying and a private pilot from a Cessna would be able to fly you on your flight overseas (hint, flying a large aircraft is as different from flying a small prop as riding a bicycle is to driving a semi with three trailers attached).

Afterall, that type of archtype, class, or training is all in your imagination. Those little certificates and degrees...nothing at all but your imagination. A week in the dungeon can give you the skill set as well...

OR NOT...

IT all depends on HOW you roleplay the game and how you perceive the game.

So if class doesn't exist in your game and you see them as a set of skills...good for you.

But it doesn't mean everyone does that...afterall...I at least want a trained mechanic doing the changing out of my vehicle's engine...much less designing and building one from the ground up.


On the original OP,

Buffy the Vampire is what I see as their inspiration as a slayer. For me, if it wasn't so, I'd consider it more of a bounty hunter or tracker class. With that, you could use it as someone who specializes in a certain type of tracking and hunting, an age old profession trained by another tracker/hunter of these things. Things which are threats to the greater civilization as a whole (or maybe a threat to the forests and natural tendency of things)...and it is you and your kind that have to set things right.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Try reading the backstory of the slayer pregen. Or alternatively, rewatch the pilot of Buffy, Vampire Slayer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just look at every character any one ever played where the concept was a rogue that can figth.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

I'm trying to figure out a difference in background, training, and mentality

Hold it right there, kemosabe.

That's not how it works.
Classes do not come with specific backgrounds, trainings, or mentality. Class is not concept, concept is not class. With rare exception (wizard, perhaps), in-game-world, there is no such thing as a class; nobody knows they even exist, much less that they have one. You could line up a slayer, a ranger, and a rogue shoulder to shoulder and nobody could go 'that's a slayer, that's a ranger, that's a rogue'.

All of them are just different ways, mechanically, to represent a certain skillset. If your background could go to any of them, then you're more than free to pick whichever one you want.

Depends on your concept of RPGs. For example, with your post...

Classes do not come with specific backgrounds, trainings, or mentality. Class is not concept, concept is not class. With rare exception (magician, perhaps), in-game-world, there is no such thing as a aclass; nobody knows they even exis, much less that they have one. You could line up a doctor, a ranger, an engineer, an airline pilot shoulder to shoulder and nobody could go that's a doctor, that's an engineer, that's a ranger, that's an airline pilot.

All of them are just different ways, mechanically, to represent a certain skillset. No need to have a doctor or surgeon actually operate on you, afterall, the garbage man could do it...right? No need to have an engineer design your car or skyscraper, afterall, I'm certain it will still work if your English teacher who adventured last week by going to tombs in London and took her car to the mechanics could actually build one from the ground up himself. No need to have someone who has no idea how to find their way through the forest, or had any police training to fill the role of a ranger...afterall...who needs forest caretakers in a world where drug makers grow things in the woods and kill those who...

The hilarious thing is, is you're completely missing his point and doing the exact thing he's saying isn't true, and using it to claim he was wrong.

Classes are skill sets, not backstories.

So, yes, you hire an Engineer to design your building.

It doesn't matter where the Engineer got his degreee, as long as he's just as skilled as the alternative.

Likewise, it doesn't matter what background your character came from as long as he has the skills to back it up.

Your Rogue can be a back alley thug, or a gentleman thief, or a bored noble who learned how to pick locks for fun. It doesn't matter.

Likewise, your Rogue could be a Slayer. He's just as good at all the Rogue-ish things, but better at fighting.

He can likewise be all of those things, and more.

Limiting that is discouraging RP, not doing it well.


I'm pretty sure you can play a totally non-stealthy LG shining knight using hte slayer class.

If the role does not require magic, then odds are you can play it using the slayer (with a little of multiclassing at most).

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:

I'm pretty sure you can play a totally non-stealthy LG shining knight using hte slayer class.

If the role does not require magic, then odds are you can play it using the slayer (with a little of multiclassing at most).

The Slayer interacts poorly with non-mithral full plate. But aside from that...yeah, no reason you can't use the Slayer for almost anything.

Dark Archive

Ain't nothin' says you can't be a shining knight with just a breastplate! :)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seranov wrote:
Ain't nothin' says you can't be a shining knight with just a breastplate! :)

Oh, agreed. I was just noting the one, very specific, exception to the 'Slayers work well for all non-magical characters' rule.


Rynjin wrote:

The hilarious thing is, is you're completely missing his point and doing the exact thing he's saying isn't true, and using it to claim he was wrong.

Classes are skill sets, not backstories.

So, yes, you hire an Engineer to design your building.

It doesn't matter where the Engineer got his degreee, as long as he's just as skilled as the alternative.

Likewise, it doesn't matter what background your character came from as long as he has the skills to back it up.

Your Rogue can be a back alley thug, or a gentleman thief, or a bored noble who learned how to pick locks for fun. It doesn't matter.

Likewise, your Rogue could be a Slayer. He's just as good at all the Rogue-ish things, but better at fighting.

He can likewise be all of those things, and more.

Limiting that is discouraging RP, not doing it well.

Well, we'll disagree to disagree. We see roleplaying styles as differently in many instances, at least how the game is involved.

In regards to the engineer, the difference between a skill set and a class is the class HAS to have the degree, the skillset is Joe off the street who says he's an engineer but never went to school and couldn't pass calculus.

You really want Joe designing you skyscraper because he has the supposed skills? He may...actually, he may have studied architecture...but he's not licensed, and he doesn't have a degree. He may have the skills, but he doesn't have the class.

The point is, YOU KNOW what a surgeon is...you KNOW what an engineer is.

They take TIME, EFFORT, and TRAINING. You don't want someone trained as an engineer as your airline pilot with it being only a "skill set."

Can you have an airline pilot/surgeon...sure...but then they fill BOTH classes and stereotypes. Chances are, that they are not going to be the best in either, because of how much training, time, and effort it takes to be at the top of either one.

Same as with classes...

If they were merely skillsets, you could have max ranks in 10 different skills while being a pure fighter...but you can't...because it's a class and not a skill set in the way I view the game.

But, we'll agree to disagree, not only because we view the world differently, but we have DIFERENT RPG styles.

This is why you have the Ninja called the Ninja...fluff isn't just fluff, it's actually part of the rules. This is why classes have names instead of...skill set one...skill set two...because it's more than skillsets...the descriptions and such CAN be and ARE considered part of the rules by some.

Obviously not all, and I have no problem with any who play it as simply part of a skillset and not a class per se.

But to try to tell someone else that they are bad wrong because they have a different playstyle?

If you can't accept that people have a different style of play...

Well, I can't go there.

Dark Archive

Considering the Fighter's skillset is "hits stuff with his weapon", the Slayer's skillset is "hits stuff with his weapon and also does other things", the Barbarian's skill set is "gets mad and hits stuff with his weapon and also does other things", I don't see how your argument is even remotely relevant.

There are no niches that are so narrowly defined that you can only play it with a single class (or at least no martial ones). If you were to say "only a Fighter can be X," or "only a Paladin can be Y" I'd laugh in your face. You are the one who is trying to deny people other styles of play - ones where the class field is not the end-all-be-all of who and what you are playing.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How does a slayer learn to be a slayer? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.