Blurg's page

Stalker doesn't fit either. This is a full-blown Bandit class if I've ever seen one.

Sneak Attack is always going to feel tacked on unless the class has more things that interact with it. Give the Slayer ways of getting the extra damage without catching them flat-footed a couple times per day, or include talents that make totally awesome things happen when you Sneak Attack your Favored Target, or make Slayer's Advance kick in earlier or more often. Something. Anything.

A talent that let you immediately use Favored Target if your Favored Target dies during Not Your Turn would be an enormous boon.

What, exactly, is a level 1 Swashbuckler supposed to do? He's not going to take Weapon Finesse, because he's getting it for free next level. He's not going to invest in Strength, because he's getting Weapon finesse next level and this is a class that's obviously supposed to prioritize Dexterity anyway. Beyond Paizo's fear of dip levels (which is completely unfounded in this case, as a two level dip in Fighter beats a one level dip in Swashbuckler any day of the week and twice on Sunday), is there any particular reason the Swashbuckler shouldn't get Finesse at first level?

Blurg's probably got the best succinct statement of the Slayer's issue in 12 pages: the slayer's mechanics pull him in too many different directions, and it hurts his combat ability, especially prior to L10.

It's not just that. Something's been bugging me about the Slayer, and I'm just going to say it out loud: the Slayer IS the 4e Ranger, conceptually and mechanically. Both are lightly armored skirmishers with a single-minded focus on murder over utility with a slight focus on stealth and mobility, and they tend to come in either the two swords or archery variety.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you. The Ranger was one of the most popular classes in 4e, arguably more popular than the Ranger ever was/is in 3.5 or Pathfinder. The problem is that the Ranger's core mechanic (Quarry) was tied to that particular system: 4e was built on the idea that every single round of every single combat, every single character could maneuver (move action) AND attack (standard action) AND some other third thing (minor action). Quarry works reasonably well in this system because it has a place to go: the Ranger's never going to be forced into a position where he has to choose between quarrying a dude and closing the distance, because the decision is almost always going to be between quarrying a dude or drinking a potion or opening a door or pulling a lever or what have you. Pathfinder lacks a meaningful place for Favored Target to go, so it has to be a move action, which is clunky and awkward, especially in that critical 6-9 range. Then you hit 10 and it becomes a free action, which ironically means it effectively stops being an actual mechanic and starts being free modifiers. Which is great and all, but is also boring because it makes the class' core mechanic suddenly non-interactive because it's always on because there's no reason for it ever to be off.

Also, as a person who played quite a bit of 4e I should probably mention that Quarry was never quite as interesting as the designers thought it would be. The decision to who Quarry was always an easy one, and the scenario of "oh no I Quarried the wrong dude and it turns out he's tougher than I thought" is one that just never, ever came up. Favored Target suffers from largely the same problem, only because it costs something valuable (a move action) as opposed to something only kind of valuable (a minor action), you're going to run into the issue of potentially handicapping yourself for nothing. It's going to be pretty terrible to give up your turn to both Favored Target a dude AND move into to melee with him only to have the Barbarian charge him, crit, and one-shot him with a scythe.

Again, I get that this is supposed to be a class that's all about the ambush. A Slayer that gets to start combat with one or more targets already favored has a huge advantage one that doesn't, and that's fine. But currently that comes at the cost of the one that doesn't having to deal with a clunky and awkward mechanic.

I repeat: this class is crying out for the ability to use Favored Target for free a set number of times per day.

TWF Slayer Plan

1) Study a target, move into position
2) 5ft step to hopefully flank, full attack
3) Repeat 2, then go back to step 1 when the target dies.

A class that requires a full round of not attacking anything, not to mention eating a full attack before getting any sort of shot in, in order to get the most out of it's class features is a class that isn't very well designed.

Slayer has full BAB and a sneak attack progression; people wanting to make a TWF build is something anyone could have seen coming. Instead of forcing people to work with an awkward set of mechanics, the devs should steer into the skid and make it more TWF friendly.

Favored Target, as a mechanic, has some serious, serious action economy problems. It works well enough(...ish) at levels 1-5, but the extra attack from a full attack at 6-9 is almost always going to be more important than getting your bonuses. I get that this is a class that's supposed to excel at ambushes, but that probably shouldn't come at the expense of being effective when you're not in an ambush. You get it for free at 10, but at point it ceases to be an interesting mechanic because it becomes free damage.

Compounding this is that Favored Target doesn't really mesh all that well with Sneak Attack. SA is much easier to set up with melee weapons, but once you reach that awkward 6-9 range you're probably eating a full attack or two if you try to set it up (Round 1: Move into melee, swing Round 2: Favored Target, swing Round 3: Full Attack). Going ranged is slightly better, but getting consistent sneak attacks off with ranged weapons is an exercise in frustration.

Also, I know this is beating a dead horse a bit, but man is there a dearth of interesting buttons to press.

You know what would work out great and solve all three problems at once? A pool of points a la ki or grit. Spend a point, get favored target for free. Spend two points, get sneak attack damage for a single attack when you normally wouldn't. This way you're still prioritized for trying to set up ambushes (to save points), but you're less dead in the water when bad guys get the jump on you.

Design space is a tricky thing and sometimes reinventing the wheel is just not worth it (you almost always end up making a better wheel or a worse wheel, never a different but equal wheel). We kept a number of class features because we know they work, and know how they work. 10 classes is a lot for the game to absorb and a mountain of entirely new mechanics would cause havoc (which I am sure we will have enough of as it is, even with a number of tried and true mechanics forming the spines for these classes).

...so add less than ten classes?

I'm sorry, but this sounds an awful lot like "we know we're being formulaic, but hey, being formulaic makes us money, so why not". Everything I've seen from the playtest packet thus far leads me to believe that the Advanced Race Guide is the Pathfinder equivalent of Iron Man 2: the same stuff we've seen before in a fancy new shell. Show me something different, or at the very least show me something new in a way I haven't seen it before. Why are we getting a Ranger/Druid when Rangers are already just Druid/Fighters? Why are we getting a Warpriest when every single divine class already gets 3/4 attack progression and medium armor proficiency, making them all perfectly capable of smashing faces on the front line?

This feels like filler. It all feels like filler.

Nicos wrote:

quote?

Called Shots Do Bad Things to the Game

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Fortunately, D&D does have a system for handling especially well-placed hits against enemies: the critical hit. The game even has a system for characters to learn how to place such blows more often: the Improved Critical feat. So there's already stuff built into the game to handle the effects of called shots without having to introduce the complexity or the problems of actually requiring specific called shots. Trying to build more complex stuff into the game introduces some problems, slows down gameplay, and either makes armor even more valuable than it already is (by dealing more damage to armorless characters as compared to armored characters) or makes armor much weaker than it should be (by allowing attackers to easily bypass armor's protection).

The rest of the article indicates that he can't think of any possible use for called shots that aren't just "attack exactly like normal except the AC is slightly lower than normal due to number shenanigans" - shooting out the wings is inconceivable to him.

Admittedly, it's an old post - ten years old at this point - but it's still displayed proudly on his website with no "UPDATE: by the way all of this is completely wrong" tacked on.

If we're just going to rehash terrible Sean K Reynolds opinions we're going to be here all day.

Very interesting thread. In a sense it seems that Feats have become Gates defining what characters are able to do and how well to do them. This very ordering of the game then limits the feat based characters. Spells are like Doors, they open options and are made to circumvent limits.

Kind of. The vast (vast) majority of feats, especially combat feats, are just +2 to this or that. Even the more complicated combat feats like Power Attack (which is practically mandatory) or Combat Expertise (which is terrible and usually a feat tax) aren't all that complicated. Sure, the Fighter gets a truckload of feats, but nine times out of ten he's going to go with "+2 to this or that" when he levels up. Granted, sometimes enough feats focused towards a specific thing can turn quantity into quality, but in general the Fighter isn't getting new things, he's just getting better at the things he can already do.

By contrast, the Wizard gets either more spells or new spells at every level, both of which greatly influence his ability to affect the world around him.

This isn't just a problem with Fighters, either. Every non-caster class (Bards and Inquisitor count as casters) gets a handful of abilities within the first five or so levels, then just has those abilities get better or become usable more often. Rogues are the exception, but most of the talents still fall under the umbrella of "+2 to this or that". The problem isn't that these classes aren't effective (they aren't, but that's another discussion entirely). The problem is that they're boring to play. They're about as complex at level 1 as they are at level 20, and good tactics at level 1 remain good tactics at level 20. That's fine if you want your character to be simple and remain simple as he gains levels, but what if you don't? What if I want to play a Fighter, but also want to have my character grow more complicated as I level up?

I'd like to see non-casters do things other than full attacking, charging, and whatever maneuver they've dumped enough feats/traits/gold/whathaveyou into in order to make it relevant.

Is this yet another rehashing of the old argument that it's not fair that a guy who spent his entire life researching and mastering the arcane mysteries of the universe and can manipulate space and time with words and gestures should be able to do more than a guy who swings a pointy stick at other people?

Just not getting that argument.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of what a Fighter is supposed to be. Let me explain it to you.

A Fighter is not "the guy who swings his pointy stick at people". They already have class for that: the Warrior. The Fighter isn't even "the guy who's really, really good at swinging his pointy stick at people". That's just a high-level Warrior. A Fighter is the guy who spends every waking moment turning himself into a living, breathing weapon. While the Wizard is locked away in his tower studying ancient tomes, you're honing your body the old-fashioned way: cardio, push ups, stretches, crunches, drills, pull-ups, over and over and over again until you're so tired you can barely stand. Every day. No exceptions. For every book the Wizard's poured over for the thousandth time, you've taken that stick of yours and shoved into all manner of practice dummies. You've sparred with partners, or with your master, so many times you've lost count. By the time the Wizard's gotten down cantrips, you've spent so much time with a weapon in your hand that using it comes as naturally to you as breathing, as complicated as walking and chewing gum at the same time.

And then comes the killing. Because being a first level Fighter doesn't just mean you're pretty good with a stick, it means you're pretty damn good with that stick. It means that you've already gotten used to using it on living things. Nothing terribly dangerous, generally speaking. Kobolds or goblins, mostly, maybe some wolves, but killing living, breathing things isn't easy by any stretch of the imagination. Each and every one of them was quite literally fighting for their lives, and the only thing you had to rely on was that pitiful little stick of yours. But you're a Fighter. You haven't just done well, you've excelled. When it comes time to hit that magical first level, the Wizard's cast his spells more than a handful of times, but is terribly lacking in real world experience. Not you. You've already seen plenty of combat, been in dozens of fights, and you've already got blood on your hands.

And that's just level 1. As you grow in levels the threats you face become larger and more powerful. Luckily, so do you. You get better at fighting, become more and more adept at taking lives. You're not using that stick to kill kobolds anymore; you're driving it between the eyes of things two, three, four times your size. You're using that stick in ways you didn't even thing was possible when your first started along this path. You're doing things most folk couldn't do with a stick even if they trained for it their entire lives. And you're doing these things effortlessly, over and over again, dozens of times a day. Every day.

And you just keep.

Getting.

Better at it.

You're not just a guy that swings a pointy stick at things. You're a guy that swings a pointy stick at gods.

And then those gods die.

Every hour that Wizard's worked at becoming better at magic? The Figher's put it that same amount of time, only he's worked at becoming better at killing things rather than better at magic. Their investment is identical. You can argue (if you want, I guess) that what the Wizard's working at is more fantastical or whatever, but to the common man being able to single-handedly put down an ice devil is just as impressive, if not more impressive, as shooting fire from your hands.

There's a game that does that though. It's called 4e.

You're right, but not in the way that you think you are. 4e specifically goes out of its way and tells you, point blank, that being a Fighter means more than just being Dude What Has Sword. Hell, according to 4e fluff Fighter is actually a rarer class than Wizard. After all, anyone can learn magic. Being a Fighter, even a 1st level Fighter, implies a level of skill, mastery and (most importantly) potential that straight up is not there in the vast majority of the population.

Why does everyone only want to compare the power of the archetypes at level 20? How about comparing the holy gun paladin at level 5 to a normal paladin using a gun at level 5? I know which one I'd take.

Is it normal paladin? Because for me, it's normal paladin at every level.

Well, to be blunt you're nether qualified nor experienced enough to pass judgment on them. When you publish something for the public to tear apart then you get to judge the attitudes of your fellow authors. When you try to give your defense of something you've spent hundreds of hours on only to be attack from all sides then you get to comment on another author being flippant. Your words are like so much vitriol in a vacuum of hate.

By this logic, I'm not allowed to point out that a table only has three legs because I'm not a carpenter.

Two things.

1. The Vital Strike feat chain is strictly worse than a full attack damage wise. All Vital Strike brings to the table is mobility, so things other than charging and full attacking look more attractive. Death or Glory is a full round action, so by utilizing it, even if you are using Vital Strike with it, you are sacrificing both damage AND mobility. And, in exchange, an ogre gets to backhand you across the face.

This is a terrible feat, guys. This is Vow of Poverty terrible.

2. How in the hell is "it's for roleplayers" a defense of this, let alone anything? Setting aside the fact that we're all familiar with the Stormwind Fallacy, all I can see this feat bringing to the table roleplaying-wise is the ability to say "I'm reckless around Large monsters because it says so on my character sheet". And that's not roleplaying. Staying in melee longer than is healthy with the dragon because dragons destroyed your village? That's roleplaying. Refusing to retreat from a group of giants, buying your friends enough time to escape? That's roleplaying.

Taking a feat that makes you worse at fighting while letting monsters nom on you for free, just so you can have mechanical options for being headstrong? That's...pretty much the definition of rollplaying, relying on mechanics to do the work for you.