Some Guy again's page

Thanks everyone for your input,

I'll take what was mentioned here into account. For now I'm going to focus on static damage, maybe katana/wakizashi or wakizashi/wakizashi and work up two weapon feint chain

My DM has a really cool house rule for feinting. It works as written but you get to roll your weapon damage twice. Gives feinting in combat way more potency valuable to all martial rather than just sneak attackers.

None of the methods you've point out will raise your wakizashi's damage.

Impact Enchantment doesn't work on light weapons. Wakizashi is a light weapon.

Ascetic style lets you apply feats with improved unarmed strike as a prerequisite to monk weapons. Wakizashi is not in the Fighter's Monk Weapon category. Also that would only let you apply feats, not class abilities like the scaling damage.

As for improving damage, you won't be able to get it to scale with your unarmed damage. Monks have a few ways to get that, Warpriests can do that. Samurai don't have a way. At least none that I am aware of.

That just leaves raising the damage via feats like any other weapon. Just about anything you do should benefit your unarmed strikes as much as your light weapon.

thx for the feedback

Hi all,

I'm currently creating a Samurai (Brawling Blademaster archetype) for a new campaign starting lvl 3 to 20th. I'm currently planning on giving him two wakizashi's along side his ability to fight barehanded. I don't have a firm lock on his overall build but the one aspect I'm trying to improve his wakizashi's base damage.

Are there any ways to improve the damage of the wakizashi or get it to scale with my unarmed strike damage?

Some of the ways I currently know about are
-Impact enchantment
-Ascetic Style

*A few parameters for the build
1) I do not want to multi class(dip) into another class
2) I would like the dmg increase to be permeant (not relying on spells or potions to increase dmg, or temporary increases)

Thank you for any insight you have.

I have a few ideas on the subject aside from the very good posts that are here.

1.) Have him take over some villainy roles, kind of a DM assistant. This would be useful because he could play the bad guy and harass the players but within a game world you control. Of course you have to make it clear that these villains he plays will eventually die at the party's hands. If he's doing some villain/monster stuff you can make an NPC to balance the party out.

2.) Change the content up a little and have the goal be to for the other players to destroy this character, or a ritual to send him off to his god's plane or something. Of course he has to be aware and agree

3. There is always the tried and true dominate person :) A little heavy handed I know but there is also charms to motivate him mechanically.

4) Adjust your content to account for his antics, a lot of work I know and your not psychic but depending on how much prep time you have you might be able to create some cause and effect bubbles concerning his character.

5.) Throw a few Good aligned outsiders in there like angels, and the rest of the party takes a knee because the refuse to raise a weapon against these angelic beings (Angels, very powerful angles haha, maybe he takes a few down and feels good then he dies and it's new character time!)

6.) Inquistor steals his gear and holds it ransom. PVP I know, but an option. Shit could go down and players may have to kill him.

7.) Players come across a power entity that provides a wish/miracle spell and his powers/class features only come on line when he's not doing chaotic stupid stuff.

That's just a few, I'm sure there is more but I do agree that you should spend a little time looking for new players or perhaps teaching a few friends/family members the game for replacement.

Once you have your table you have leverage meaning you decide if he plays or not. Also talk to your party see if they are concretely willing to continue without him, we can't assume they won't without them actually saying "Ya if he goes I'm gone too". I play just fine with a 3 man team plus dm, just adjust the difficulty or give them mythic power.

Good luck I hope things work out.

dot

One thing I like to do with well built archers is to have an enemy sunder the bow,

not break the bow entirely but hit the bowstring because it's an easy fix and it doesn't break the weapon entirely. He might go an encounter without his bow at worst and it will give him incentive to keep spare strings or a secondary weapon on hand.

It's also a mundane way of handling things without adding enemies or using magic. A lot of times an archer CMD isn't going to be very high.

B) Rework variant channeling. There's a lot of cleric players that love the class but don't have much interest in channeling energy. The variant channeling rules feel meh because they still keep the healing, so there's room to improve them.

I have to agree with this approach, the flavor of the cleric is in the channeling. A good rework could give the cleric the much needed versatility and thematic draw it needs without have to rework his structure.

damn no posts, oh well

Hello all,

I'm preparing for a low magic game and I'm looking for some advice on how to make it fun for my players.

A few points I already have in mind

1. Arcane and Divine magic is mythical in nature. Very rare and only possessed by powerful NPCS. Often Antagonists against my players.
2. Magic is heavy distrusted. Think black plague and witch trials
3. Semi Survival based with some horrific elements.
4. Leaning toward Occult based psychic magic as the primary form of magic. It strikes me as more subtle and balanced with the world.
5. Looking for a realistic feel, not 100% realistic but a divergence from the standard Tolkien style game we usually play.
6. More emphasis on special materials and alchemy than enchantments. Enchanted items would be reserved for special quests.
*7. THE MOST IMPORTANT, My players want this style of game and I do as well so we are all on the same page :)

Any ideas to make this world more fun is appreciated, or if there is a good thread for this I would like to see it.

Thanks

1. If you really want to change double slice, then just have it apply to power attack instead.

Have it so that characters get full str, but 1/2 power attack. Simple solution.

2. Eh. Rangers still get a lot of free feats. Even with these changes, and even if you made double slice obsolete, then they would still have 4 other feats (improved shield bash, quick draw, TWF rend, TWF defense). That should be enough to fill out their combat style. At bit wonky by the end, but I mostly worry about levels 1-10 for this, so you still have enough options there (TWF, improved shield bash, TWF rend- a decent set of feats, really).

I could do that with power attack, if we don't decide to just kick double slice all together. It is a silly feat tax.

I want two weapon fighting to be enticing like two handers are. I will say that I don't like the idea of the shield bashing feat trees in the two weapon fighting style. It has it's own style in the APG already. I want it to be it's own thing.

My personal thoughts:

1) Don't replace double slice there is no need. You're already giving everyone the benefit for free, just forget about it.
2) Help the ranger by requiring that though you only expend one feat to get TWF, ITWF, and GTWF you must still qualify for the feats regularly. I.e. you need 19 dex to get GTWF along with BAB 11. The ranger however just needs to hit BAB 11, being able to ignore the other requirements.

Consider adding two weapon defense, improved/two weapon-feint, break guard, or other feats that require Two Weapon Fighting as a prerequisite to replace the ones you've removed.

You got a good point there about still needing to qualify hitting the appropriate dex requirement, but one of the main reasons I did this was to give two weapon fighting potential to other classes as well, like the paladin, barbarian, bard, etc.

I found a few feats that might look good on a two weapon fighting ranger list.

1) Oversized Two Weapon fighting, DND Player's Handbook II
2) Two Weapon Pounce, DND Player's Handbook II
3) Hammer the blow, Ultimate Combat

Thank you for your thoughts this is helping

Hello all,

So in my home game my players and I have agreed that the two weapon fighting feat chain needed to be changed.

Its is now a scaling feat, with you taking two-weapon fighting once then at the improved and greater version lvl intervals you gain another attack.

We like it, we think it works and we are not here to debt that,

But we do need some help in the following,

A) The double slice feat, my players are not limited to using half their str. with an off hand weapon. We don't want to necessarily toss the feat but change it to keep it and give it new substance.

B) The ranger's two-weapon fighting style needs to be updated as well, was hoping to get some insight into that.

Couple of other notes about our game.
1. We allow 3rd party content with review
2. We allow dex to damage, usually using the Deadly agility feat.
3. We allow older 3.0/3.5 content within reason

Thank you for any advice you can give

I've been toying with a few ideas for this system.

Generally keep it the way it is at least for the sake of consistency and add the following

1. Counter Spelling as an immediate action for all
2. Create a new spell Called "Counter Spell" designed to disrupt enemy casting. One could have varying levels of power like lesser, standard, and greater. Maybe if you successfully counter the enemy's spell you drop a penalty on future casting until they overcome it with a save.
3. Once you successfully identify a spell instead of countering with dispel, or a higher slot, or using the "counter spell" spell, you could instead be allowed to cast a spell of your own that only allows for Target: Personal. Gives the idea of a caster immediately using defensive magic for protection in those epic spell duels

Again a work in progress, but if anyone could improve upon it I'd love to check out what they come up with.

Have they released any archetypes that are compatible with the unchained version of the monk?

If not how have you been handling archetypes for unchained monk?

Hello everyone,

Been away from pathfinder for a few months. Have they released an update or something for how to incorporate the old monk archetypes to the newer unchained model?

If not how has everyone been handling the idea?

Thanks

Hello all,

I had a thought, more of a question really, but where does the concept of the monk ability "Tongue of the Sun and Moon" come from?

Thematically speaking I do not believe it fits the class concept especially with the ability kicking in at lvl 13 where many classes start getting particularly nice things.

In all of the mythos, history, legends, entertainment, movies, comics, novels and other stuff, I have never seen a monk like hero use this type ability or something like it. Maybe i have missed something, but it seems weird to me, ever since I first saw it in the 3.0 days.

Anyway just a thought, wondering if anyone could enlighten me.

Thanks

Some Guy again wrote:

Hello everyone,

I've got some players interested in the arcane archer prestige class but we all feel like it's time it got a face lift to a full base class. Couple of reasons why we think this,

1. its been around for a long time and was fine in older additions where prestige classes were a greater focus but now base classes and archetypes are the mainstay.

2. It simple takes to long to get into the meaty part of the class and actually feel like an arcane archer.

3. Finally, I personally think it's a cool concept that should be given it's due.

I believe this is best done in the form of an archetype for the magus. We are almost there with the mymidarch but more focus on the archery part.

What do you folks think? Is there a base class out there someone has created that I missed, I've check around but was not overly satisfied with what I found. Perhaps someone has some good advice.

Thanks

I'm actually doing the final playtests on just such a class right now :)

awesome will you post it when you are done?

Hello everyone,

I've got some players interested in the arcane archer prestige class but we all feel like it's time it got a face lift to a full base class. Couple of reasons why we think this,

1. its been around for a long time and was fine in older additions where prestige classes were a greater focus but now base classes and archetypes are the mainstay.

2. It simple takes to long to get into the meaty part of the class and actually feel like an arcane archer.

3. Finally, I personally think it's a cool concept that should be given it's due.

I believe this is best done in the form of an archetype for the magus. We are almost there with the mymidarch but more focus on the archery part.

What do you folks think? Is there a base class out there someone has created that I missed, I've check around but was not overly satisfied with what I found. Perhaps someone has some good advice.

Thanks

Ring of Revelation - Ultimate Equipment - oracle only item that grants access to an additional revelation in their mystery. If your oracle has worked on Use Magic Device, you may be able to grant him revelations from other mysteries. If not, still useful for a bonus revelation or additional uses of one he already has.

If he has worked on use magic device, consider prophetic armor revelation from the lunar mystery. Then you can drop celestial plate armor for him and make him a formidably tanky character.

Stats, feats, play style, spell selection, etc. would be beneficial for additional assistance to be easily offered.

thanks for the tips

She goes for disarming with reach and crowd control mostly. She does use power attack and furious focus to put damage out against weak enemies.

Don't know stats specifically but id sat 18 str and 20 char are her top stats. worse is dex with a 10

Hello everyone,

I was hoping to get some suggestions on some good loot drops specifically geared toward oracles for one of my players. Really looking for something specifically helpful to oracles. Also please list the book or player companion its in if you know

some background on her build;

LVL 11 battle oracle (specialized but not min/maxed)
uses reach weapons, and heavy armor
str/cha focused

Thanks for the help

i would also like to know this

Hey folks. It looks like I'm about to GM my very first long term campaign so a few random concerns have popped into my head. It boils down to two questions:

1. What are some very powerful/annoying builds you've come across as a player or GM? (i.e. summons focused casters clogging up the battle field)

2. How did you or the GM counterbalance the build? (anti-summoning magic, readied actions to force a concentration check, etc.)

I don't want to outright deny my players things they want to play, but I want to walk in prepared with compromises and/or an agenda in order to ensure everyone at the table has a good experience and not just the min/max'd shenaniganer.

Off the top of my hand I would be prepared for powerful archery builds, specifically the ranger. While not OP they are potent and can catch a DM off guard if he is not fully aware of the power archery brings in pathfinder. But it's simple enough to counter; weather, sundering, deflect arrows, etc.

Hello everyone,

I'm just killing time right now so I wanted to present a question and a possible on going discussion.

What are some feats, pathfinder core only, including player compendiums, do you think might be a little on the powerful side. You know the ones that make you say, "Ah...well it's core but it seems...potent maybe too potent".

I'll start off,

Divine Protection, over powered or just really potent?

Me personally, I think it is borderline, first you infringe on a paladin class feature and it's been in my experience that class features usually have a little more power to them than feats, admittedly not all the time. Also, I feel like they wasted effort on a feat that helps classes that don't really need a big boost. Lets focus on classes that do need the help.

Don't want to criticize, just looking for a legitimate discussion on the topic. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts

I've been looking at all of your posts and there is some good suggestions here.

Yes many of you are right, I could just go with a long sword or similar weapon, but I guess I'm just a sucker for those extra two points of damage haha.

Also, I've always been a fan of the bastard, would like to see it more. I will look into the wandering monk arch type sounds interesting.

In that case why do you need proficiency?

You can use a bastard sword in two hands as a martial weapon. Heck-- why not use a greatsword if your DM is letting you do that?

Speaking from a mechanical point of view, I think it is for the sake of balance. Yes I could theoretically kick and still use everything two handed but we think that may be abusing the rules. Two weapon fighting while wielding a two handed weapon has the potential to be abusive to balance, though we have not tested it yet.

There is enough of ambiguity in the rules here for this to work, but I don't want to cause any problems for my dm and fellow players.

Some of you are asking about my build idea and I wanted avoid that because it may be a little controversial and I wanted avoid this thread turning into a rules debate on whether this is legal or not. But here it goes anyway.

Main idea, human fighter, archetype...can vary still thinking it over.

Use bastard in one hand, then in the other use an unarmed strike, with the feat improved unarmed strike, maybe put a spiked gauntlet on.

Here is the kicker, Use the bastard sword in two hands to deliver a two handed power attack with one or multiple attacks, then with two weapon feating feat release the grip as a free action to deliver an unarmed strike as a off-hand attack.

Now doing this requires a declaration of the attack so to apply the two weapon fighting penalties, but essentially using the bastard sword to make use of both two weapon and two handed attacks in one build.

It is costly so I was looking into finding loop wholes to reduce feat costs.

In the game I am in my dm has ruled this legal according to our interruption of the rules, again I'm not here to argue whether this is legitimately legal, not legal, abuse of rules, RAW, etc.

But I'm sure we will get into that discussion anyway.

More ideas are welcome and I appreciate the interest in putting this together.

Hey all,

I am creating a character concept and it revolves around the bastard sword (yes the bastard sword, I know who new right?). My race will be human and my class will be a fighter.

Anyway I want to acquire proficiency with it without having to spend a feat slot and I was hoping for some advice on how to do that.

Initial ideas are,

Trait- adoption from tengu (Leaning this way)
Older edition material- proficiency enchantment (not desired)
Potion of bestow proficiency (not desired)

Thank you for your suggestions

It replaces strength, no proviso's, no conditions, no limitations. Until there is an FAQ/errata to the contrary it is a direct 1:1 replacement. If you would get 1.5 strength you get 1.5 dex.

i agree with this man right here

Good stuff here, I'll be coming back

Hello Everyone,

So I am working on my ranger and he is the standard core ranger level 11 with a two-handed combat training style. I'm looking at the class and it has considerable stealth capabilities. I am wondering is there a mechanic like a feat, spell, or anything else that can give him a damage boast or other advantage when attacking from stealth, like sneak attack?

I do things like set traps, and move into position in stealth but I would like to get some other benefits as well. Perhaps you fine people could give me some advice on the matter.

I would prefer to not mulitclass but I'm not 100% against it.

As a whole class - Daring Champion is somewhat superior. (Challenge & Precise Strike stacking? Yes please.)

As a dip, the Swashbuckler is better as its abilities are a bit more front-loaded.

I can't argue with you on that, the challenge plus precise strike is gravy, especially if your campaign doesn't allow for a lot of mount usage.

The daring champion does get some good swashbuckler deeds but he doesn't get as much as I thought. I still think the swashbucklers niche is still there, especially at higher levels where he gets uncanny dodges, and evasions all in one lump sum.

Hey all,

I have come across the topic of the daring champion archetype being more powerful than the swashbuckler class itself on multiple threads but no discussion threads on why?

I don't have a great deal of experience with either class yet, some of my players have some low level swashbucklers but we haven't got into deeper levels yet so ya little experience in the class. Cavaliers I have played with before so I know them reasonably well.

So in conclusion I was wondering what peoples opinions were on the matter?

Thanks Dave,

This method warrants exploration, and I think I will play around with this method in either a new campaign or explain it to my barbarian player see what he thinks.

Maybe even make it a feat and call it, Dual Weapon Strike. Still thanks

Dave: your idea is interesting, I never thought of that, I'm a little confused on how it would work, could you give me a more detailed explanation?

I do use third party content with heavy review first, and i allow deadly agility. I like dex to damage builds and so does my group. One of my players was interested in doing TWF but did not want to do a dex based build. He's a barbarian so the feat tax is high for a strength build.

Charon: I'm not here to bash opposing ideas, I appreciate your opinion. in your experience when did it start to get out of hand for you in your games?

There are some really good options here, Saldiven has some great points on tactics and Downie's weather and environment ideas are great too.

I like sundering but if you are afraid of destroying the player's weapon just have the enemies target the bow string. It could also easily be a botch ruling when the archer roles a 1.

I've done this to a couple of my players with powerful archer builds. Smart players come with extra bow strings and it takes awhile, at least a full round action to restring a bow.

Also make sure he keeps up with his ammunition, firing all of those arrows eats up ammunition and can get expensive.

The Pilfering hand spell would be fun to use against his quiver.

Hello everyone,

I'm thinking of doing away with the Double Slice feat because I feel like it is an unnecessary feat tax in a mechanic that is already quite difficult make effective (not impossible, but difficult, I have read many guides on the subject).

I love the idea of two weapon fighting but I think it is too heavily restricted with all of the feats that are necessary and discourages str builds from taking them. Two handers are all ready really effective and the style doesn't cost as much in feats, I just think two weapons need a little love too.

I'm ok with the dex requirements, but only being able to drop half of your str. in your off hand is a discouraging tax, when you can only weird an off hand weapon in it in the first place.

So in conclusion I'm thinking of A) allowing players to add there full str. to off hand weapons, and B) loose the Double Slice feat and not worry about it being required as prerequisites in other feats like two weapon rend.

Thoughts, comments, cares, or concerns?

I think your use of the charm person spell and spell-like ability is what players should strive for. Charming spells are great opportunities for players to be creative and take the story in new directions.

I do admit inexperienced DMs and DMs that are running published material may become annoyed with the spell, I love it when players use it creatively.

My regular group doesn't mind being charmed, at first it is like "Oh crap it's a charm spell, I hope I don't fail my save". Then, "Oh shit I failed my save, well this gives me the opportunity to mess with the other players".

When I charm a player, I give him a broad idea I want them to complete then they carry that idea out how they want to.

I buffed up Monks via third party products.

1) Way of Ki: because of other ki using classes boggarding the Monk's groove I also houseruled that the Monks can take the feat that grants a ki pool at first level. RAW he can't. I also houseruled that Ki feats grant a bonus ki point per day because ki points in general are hard to come by for what they do. Overall having a huge arsenal of ki specific feats that a monk can take for it's bonus feats is pretty amazing. The result has been monks that resemble Street Fighter characters. Hadokens have been very popular.

2) The Talented Monk: This I've seen used less often when I allow Way of Ki as no one is terribly willing to use both at once but the results have been good the few times I see it in action. Way of Ki has been more popular because the Kiai feat solves too many monk problems at once but from my reading they eventually achieve the same result meaning that having both can be pretty redundant, but if you are more comfortable with changing the class into a super modular talented class then Talented Monk is better off. I tend to prefer Way of Ki because it allows access to a ton of interesting and cool third party archetypes by not changing the class.

3) I reinstated that Unarmed strike weapons deal unarmed strike damage rather than the listed damage. People like it so I let it stick around. This includes gloves/handwraps so people can easily switch up fist enchantments but no one ever does that really. For the most part Str is dumped and some kind of base damage or status effect is added to the fists and with the ki-based attack booster feats from Way of Ki the Monk Flurries with accuracy near a fighter. Additionally I allowed for enchanted tatoos for armor and natural weapons. They are priced as per Amulet of Mighty Fists but don't eat a slot. The tattoos have been well received.

4) I meantioned...

I'm a fan a dex to damage as well, I allow the Deadly Agility feat for my players, this helps the monk in my games a lot. I love street fighter I'll have to look into the way of ki sounds fun. I hope Unchained focuses on the monk's ki abilities, I feel like that is what makes a monk a monk and differentiates him from other classes.

i re-did monk, rogue, fighter here. Click the google-doc link.

Unfortunately my monk PC died last game so this version of the monk only saw playtest levels 1-2...

There is some good stuff here. Some things like the mystic paths may be better as an archetype but the improvements to the ki strike have potential. It would cut down on magic item expenditures and then players could focus on obtaining items that would really improve their power rather than trying to keep up with other martials

Hello everyone,

The monk is probably my favorite class in pathfinder and I have played one since I first started with 3.0 when I was 16. My very first character was a monk. Despite not being considered an optimal class I always had fun playing him or her.

With the focus of pathfinder today being pushed toward optimization and potency I was wondering what other DMs out there have done to modify, add, change, rewrite, or any other home game change to enhance the monk.

I know Unchained is coming out but for now I wanted to see what everyone has done to their monk class.

Here is what I have done thus far.

1) Expanded the list of bonus feats a monk can select from
2) Added an additional ki power, (As a swift action the monk can spend 1 ki point to add an insight bonus equal to his wisdom modifier to his attack roles for one round).
3) Allowed gauntlets to be used as weapons that do the monks unarmed damage, so players can enchant like regular weapons.

I look forward to hearing your ideas

I'd like to thank everyone for their posts, You have all given me a lot to think about for the time being I don't know if I'll give the old slayer a team uniform but I have seen a lot of compelling arguments for liking him.

Some Guy again wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

I like that it is can fight rogue-style, yet (unlike the rogue) inflict fairly good damage.

Why shouldn't it be allowed to participate with everyone else? Do you think it's too powerful? Too weak? It's hard to defend it against accusations no-one has made.

That's true, no one has made any accusations that I have seen, maybe it is the perfect martial killing class with no flaws

No flaws? It is still not as good as a ranger or paladin. Overall the inquisitor and bard may also be better classes. It has a weak will save compared to a paladin or barbarian which can be built to excel on all saves, and paladins and barbarians can also bring utility to the party and 2 round your BBEG's on their own. So why do I still like the slayer? It bring utility in its own way while still being useful in combat.

And why are you liking and replying to your own post?

forgive the mechanical mess ups, new at this posting stuff

The slayer is just a rogue that works well mechanically. Almost everyone agrees that the Pathfinder rogue was poorly designed, and playing one is almost always a disappointment. People play slayers because they want to play a rogue-like character that contributes to the party in a significant way.

If your problem with the slayer is that it seems better than the rogue, well . . . that's by design. The designers don't feel comfortable just upgrading the rogue, so instead they gave us the slayer, which has basically the same flavor as a rogue, but actually works.

Incidentally, the upcoming Pathfinder Unchained is going to have a new, optional version of the rogue class, which will presumably make rogues viable again. The designers have specifically stated that they're unhappy with the design of certain classes, which is why they're publishing new versions of the rogue, barbarian, monk, and summoner in Pathfinder Unchained. Until then, the slayer is the closest thing we have to a functioning rogue.

with that frame of thought I'm wondering if giving the rogue the axe and rename the slayer the Rogue. I never like the name they gave the slayer, a minor gripe, but eh whatever

Some Guy again wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Oh, brother... If you're worried about the Rogue being replaced, you're going to have a bad time with Pathfinder... That ship has sailed a looooong time ago.

Thanks but not helping

You see... The thing is... Fighter and Rogues are very limited and underpowered classes. My advice to you is... Stop using them as a standard to what any class should be capable of. Otherwise, you're condemned to think everything is overpowered.

Some Guy again wrote:

I do apologize I am heavily biased against the slayer because it is every martial players wet dream.

The Slayer is not even in the top 10 classes when it comes to power. Hell! It's not even in the top 3 martial classes! The Slayer is a Fighter/Rogue that works. That's it.

Barbarians, Bloodragers, Paladins and Rangers are considerably more effective! Swashbuckler and Brawler are up there too.

Thank you that was helpful

The slayer is just a rogue that works well mechanically. Almost everyone agrees that the Pathfinder rogue was poorly designed, and playing one is almost always a disappointment. People play slayers because they want to play a rogue-like character that contributes to the party in a significant way.

If your problem with the slayer is that it seems better than the rogue, well . . . that's by design. The designers don't feel comfortable just upgrading the rogue, so instead they gave us the slayer, which has basically the same flavor as a rogue, but actually works.

Incidentally, the upcoming Pathfinder Unchained is going to have a new, optional version of the rogue class, which will presumably make rogues viable again. The designers have specifically stated that they're unhappy with the design of certain classes, which is why they're publishing new versions of the rogue, barbarian, monk, and summoner in Pathfinder Unchained. Until then, the slayer is the closest thing we have to a functioning rogue.

With this frame of though, I'm wonder, at least until unchained comes out, if I should give the rogue class the axe, rename the slayer the Rogue and he shall serve as the new rogue class. Honestly I think the name, SLAYER, just annoys me, but that is a minor grip haha

Some Guy again wrote:

Do you feel like he is a bland

Some classes have strong built-in flavour, like the alchemist. Others are innately bland, like the fighter, in which case it's up to the player to make them interesting. A Slayer could be Aragorn or The Hound or any other fictional hero who doesn't go around casting spells.

Some Guy again wrote:

murder hobo

Any class can be a murder hobo. It's an equal-opportunities profession.

Some Guy again wrote:

designed to fill every power gamer

Pretty much all classes can be power-gamed. Barbarian, Alchemist, Magus, Zen Archer, Sorcerer... I'm not convinced Slayer is in the top 10.

Some Guy again wrote:

fantasy of the awesome assassin sitting in the corner of the tavern?

Is that bad? The Wizard is designed to fulfil a gamer's fantasy of being an awesome spell-slinging wizard. The Barbarian is designed to fulfil a gamer's fantasy of being an awesome barbarian picking fights in a tavern. The Assassin was probably designed to be the awesome assassin sitting in the corner of the tavern, but turned out not to be particularly awesome except in highly favourable circumstances. The Ninja fulfils that role better. The Slayer is a Ninja for people who don't want mystical ki powers and shuriken.

All good points to consider, thanks for the post

Oh, brother... If you're worried about the Rogue being replaced, you're going to have a bad time with Pathfinder... That ship has sailed a looooong time ago.

Thanks but not helping

I tend to play primarily PFS, and my slayer is one of my favorite PCs.

It tends to play similar to a fighter, but I get the talents that let me have a bit more versatility.

Honestly, being a slayer lets me play like the light armored dual wielding rogue I wish the rogue would be. It reminds me very much of a 2E Fighter/Rogue, and those have always been one of my favorite play styles.

I can see your point on that, I had a character back in 3.0 that was fighter/rogue and I enjoyed him a great deal

I'm more concerned about the rogue being too weak, and thus the Slayer replacing him completely, if I'm honest.

There's not much the Rogue can do others (especially the slayer) do not do better.

That's a huge deal for me too