Lead Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is for discussing the Slayer. It should be used as a central location for feedback on the class as a whole. Discussion on specific topics and rules should receive their own individual thread in this forum.
Keep it civil and polite folks. Remember we are all here to make this book the best it can be.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
**OFFICIAL UPDATES**
The following official updates apply to the Slayer.
• The Hit Dice should be 1d10 per level.
• Disregard the first sneak attack paragraph. Use the second Sneak Attack entry. The slayer gets 1d6 sneak attack at 3rd, and an additional 1d6 at every 3 levels thereafter (the table is correct).
• Quarry refers to favored enemy, but should refer to a favored target.
• We are considering adding Bluff as a class skill, as it likely was an oversight.
• We will be adding more slayer talents (a potential suggestion is a talent allowing the selection of a ranger combat style feat).
Is the slayer supposed to have a d8 hit dice despite being a full base attack class?
Is the slayer supposed to have a d8 hit dice despite being a full base attack class?
With a d8 hit dice the slayer does seem weaker at level one than a ranger, even with the guide archetype.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this scenario happening a lot though:
GM: So what are you playing?
Player: A Human Slayer.
GM: Okay so what does you character have against humans?
Player: Huh? Nothing?
GM: ... then why is he going around slaying them?
Player: He's not.
GM: You just said you're playing a Human. Slayer.
Player: Slayer is the class! Im playing a Human who is a Slayer.
GM: ... oh.
:3
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First Impressions: I believe that this class could use another editing pass...but freaking awesome!
Sneak Attack is listed twice, and one of them refers to them gaining 1d6 sneak attack at 4th level and every 3 levels afterward, while the chart and the other version show 3rd and every 3 levels (I assume this is correct).
Quarry states that the creature chosen must be of your favored enemy type. Is it actually a creature you have Favored Target active on? Is it any creature? If it's one you have Favored Target active on, does it end if you change favored targets?
On the positive side!
I love the fact we have it as a full base attack class, even with a d8 Hit die. I hope to see a version with Trapfinding and Disable Device (or a talent, or an archetype, because if I'm a bounty hunter, I don't want to be stopped by a stupid locked door or trap between me and my target). The fact that the death attack ability is a choice makes me happy as well.
On the slightly negative side, the talent list seems kind of...short. I expect that will change later, but I wanted to mention it, especially after seeing that the investigator can choose most of the alchemist discoveries and all of the basic rogue talents as well!
|
Noticing a redundancy in the Sneak Attack section. Two sections, each with different text. The second one, honestly, seems like it got skipped in proofreading entirely and likely is a dangling participle from earlier development.
Elsewise, I'm seriously contemplating rebuilding my lvl 1 rogue into this!
There are two descriptions of its Sneak Attack; one starts at 3rd level (which matches the table, so I assume that's the correct version), and the other starts at 4th.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this scenario happening a lot though:
GM: So what are you playing?
Player: A Human Slayer.
GM: Okay so what does you character have against humans?
Player: Huh? Nothing?
GM: ... then why is he going around slaying them?
Player: He's not.
GM: You just said you're playing a Human. Slayer.
Player: Slayer is the class! Im playing a Human who is a Slayer.
GM: ... oh.
:3
What if I'm playing a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if I'm playing a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater?I see this scenario happening a lot though:
GM: So what are you playing?
Player: A Human Slayer.
GM: Okay so what does you character have against humans?
Player: Huh? Nothing?
GM: ... then why is he going around slaying them?
Player: He's not.
GM: You just said you're playing a Human. Slayer.
Player: Slayer is the class! Im playing a Human who is a Slayer.
GM: ... oh.
:3
Player: I wanna play a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater Slayer!
Other Players: ...
GM: *pinches nose* Get out...
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit I was surprised at the 4+INT skill ranks per level and the lack of the trap finding ability. the skills per level is lower than either of alternate classes feels a bit of a disservice, I don't know if it's a print error or the intention but it makes me leery of the class. on the Trap finding ability the idea of getting in to the opportune place suggests an infiltration theme to the class and it would be nice to have the ability available to another stealth viable class.
**OFFICIAL UPDATES**
The following official updates apply to the Slayer.
• The Hit Dice should be 1d10 per level.
• Disregard the first sneak attack paragraph. Use the second Sneak Attack entry. The slayer gets 1d6 sneak attack at 3rd, and an additional 1d6 at every 3 levels thereafter (the table is correct).
Ahhh, now that soothes the ache I was having. I will now playtest this for sure.
|
|
I'll admit I was surprised at the 4+INT skill ranks per level and the lack of the trap finding ability. the skills per level is lower than either of alternate classes feels a bit of a disservice, I don't know if it's a print error or the intention but it makes me leery of the class. on the Trap finding ability the idea of getting in to the opportune place suggests an infiltration theme to the class and it would be nice to have the ability available to another stealth viable class.
I have the same feelings on this class. The skill points are too low. As ranger 6+, and rogue 8+ you end up better off multiclassing just to get the skill points. If you split ranger6/rogue6. You have 36 more skill points over a level 12 Slayer. They will be better at tracking but they lack trap finding. They just lack the over all skill points needed to be a skilled class.
The base attack bonus, and sneak attack damage help this class out in a fight. There BAB is two higher and they have one more sneak attack dice then a r6/r6. However giving up that many skill points, and trap finding to get 2 BAB and 1 sneak dice is a bit harsh.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit I was surprised at the 4+INT skill ranks per level and the lack of the trap finding ability. the skills per level is lower than either of alternate classes feels a bit of a disservice, I don't know if it's a print error or the intention but it makes me leery of the class. on the Trap finding ability the idea of getting in to the opportune place suggests an infiltration theme to the class and it would be nice to have the ability available to another stealth viable class.
Yes a 6+Int would put it on par with the Ranger but below the Rogue, and fits the more "clever" combatant feel.
having access to a ranger's traps would be nice too.
|
|
Ahhh, now that soothes the ache I was having. I will now playtest this for sure.**OFFICIAL UPDATES**
The following official updates apply to the Slayer.
• The Hit Dice should be 1d10 per level.
• Disregard the first sneak attack paragraph. Use the second Sneak Attack entry. The slayer gets 1d6 sneak attack at 3rd, and an additional 1d6 at every 3 levels thereafter (the table is correct).
Oh wow, wasn't expecting the upgrade to HD, that's nice.
with those updates, this looks pretty good... i was also surprised by 4 skill ranks, and think it should probably be 6. i'm sure with time people will start doing side by sides with rangers and multiclass characters and we'll see how it really compares.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this scenario happening a lot though:
GM: So what are you playing?
Player: A Human Slayer.
GM: Okay so what does you character have against humans?
Player: Huh? Nothing?
GM: ... then why is he going around slaying them?
Player: He's not.
GM: You just said you're playing a Human. Slayer.
Player: Slayer is the class! Im playing a Human who is a Slayer.
GM: ... oh.
New meaning to "Buffy, the vampire slayer". Or was that Dhampyr Slayer?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand why they have 4 skill points, to make up for higher combat power but it really needs to be 6.
I'm liking the look of this one so far. The abilities went together nicely from each class, and it looks effective at what it does.
I have one BIG complaint and one suggestion:
Complaint: Why does the investigator gain access to all rogue talents while the slayer doesn't? That just doesn't seem right.
Suggestion: New Slayer Talent: Slayer Combat Style Talent. Can be taken multiple times to gain a feat from a chosen ranger combat style. Must have to select Improved Combat Style Talent which would open up the 6th level feats and must have at least one of each to get the advanced talent: Greater Combat Style Talent which would open up the 11th level combat style feats.
Really interesting premise here, but I'm not sure about it being a move action to declare a favored target. In melee, you're essentially giving up a chance to get a hit in (or more) every time you start hitting something new, which isn't really worth it unless it's going to take a VERY long time to bring it down. In my experience, combat rarely goes over 3 rounds, and once a melee type is in full attack range of something, it's going to die within the round.
If you're focused on ranged attacks, it's a perfectly reasonable restriction, so the class seems to have some degree of innate bias towards bows. Of course, we also have sneak attacks in the mix, and getting the proper benefit of those with a bow requires a lot of planning, and we're starting to drift towards there being one particular optimal way to build the class.
Possible ways to fix this:
Make it a swift action with limited uses per day, like declaring a smite.
Keep it a move action normally, but allow it to be used as a swift action if certain conditions are met- Starting your turn threatening/threatened by your desired target, against targets which have attacked you, or maybe tie it to making a knowledge check of the appropriate type. That last option would help tie it in conceptually to rangers' favored enemies. i.e. "I have studied the anatomy and behavior of [type] for years, making it easy for me to identify their weak points."
Possible ways to fix this:Make it a swift action with limited uses per day, like declaring a smite.
NO!
maybe tie it to making a knowledge check of the appropriate type.
YES! THe problem then is if you fail that enemy is safe.
|
|
YES! THe problem then is if you fail that enemy is safe.
Possible ways to fix this:
maybe tie it to making a knowledge check of the appropriate type.
THIS! I am highly favorable to having something akin to Bardic Knowledge (Slayer's Knowledge?)
Or giving them all the Monster related knowledge skills and a bump to skill points, but preferably the first option.
I'll admit I was surprised at the 4+INT skill ranks per level and the lack of the trap finding ability. the skills per level is lower than either of alternate classes feels a bit of a disservice, I don't know if it's a print error or the intention but it makes me leery of the class. on the Trap finding ability the idea of getting in to the opportune place suggests an infiltration theme to the class and it would be nice to have the ability available to another stealth viable class.
I also think that it wouldn't unbalance the class too much to add trap finding. Since it is a rogue alternate, a player who chooses this would be at a disadvantage for scouting ahead. I played a 3.5 Scout/ranger and had a blast with it, but I was glad for my trap finding.
The slayer can at 10 level activate favored target as a swift action.
At 10th level, the slayer can study an opponent as a
move or swift action.
|
I understand why they have 4 skill points, to make up for higher combat power but it really needs to be 6.
I'm liking the look of this one so far. The abilities went together nicely from each class, and it looks effective at what it does.
I have one BIG complaint and one suggestion:
Complaint: Why does the investigator gain access to all rogue talents while the slayer doesn't? That just doesn't seem right.
Suggestion: New Slayer Talent: Slayer Combat Style Talent. Can be taken multiple times to gain a feat from a chosen ranger combat style. Must have to select Improved Combat Style Talent which would open up the 6th level feats and must have at least one of each to get the advanced talent: Greater Combat Style Talent which would open up the 11th level combat style feats.
I agree completely. I don't understand why the Slayer class has LESS than both the contributing classes? At minimum it should have 6. I was also hoping for some sort of combat style feat on this to maximize the halved sneak damage. The slayer talent idea is a good one.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This class needs Bluff as a class skill. It has sneak attack which means feinting is going to be important to it. It also has Sense Motive, so it kinda makes sense to have Bluff.
Yeah the skill set seems pretty limited too. Searching out your quarry could entail gathering information and the location inside a city so some sort of social skills so bluff and diplomacy would be a good addition. Disable device is missing too, as a rogue alternative that's kind of important.
I would rather play Rogue 3/Ranger X to get the added class skills and combat style feats.
Add Bluff and more knowledge Skills (or ways to use them untrained).
+ 1 on the '6/8 + int mod by level' for skill points.
The slayer, thus far, is my favorite, and the only one I see that I can't comment on (beyond what's already been changed). I kind of agree that it needs more skill points, but that's a smallish issue compared to the problems I have with the Hunter.
This class needs Bluff as a class skill. It has sneak attack which means feinting is going to be important to it. It also has Sense Motive, so it kinda makes sense to have Bluff.Yeah the skill set seems pretty limited too. Searching out your quarry could entail gathering information and the location inside a city so some sort of social skills so bluff and diplomacy would be a good addition. Disable device is missing too, as a rogue alternative that's kind of important.
I would rather play Rogue 3/Ranger X to get the added class skills and combat style feats.
You really don't actually need feinting to make the Slayer work. By 5th level he has a +2 to all his attack and damage rolls against his target. Sneak Attack won't be a huge necessity to him as all his damage isn't coming from it. Heck a STR based Slayer could be incredibly effective. If the Slayer dual wields hes cancelling out the penalties if hes wielding light weapons with his favored target bonus alone. Not to mention he has a full BAB and a built in scaling damage bonus, that makes two weapon fighting VERY tempting. The Slayer can also pick up Power Attack or Piranha Strike to make their damage even better.
You get all of that without even considering Sneak Attack. SAs place in the Slayer is one of situational damage. The Slayer isn't a rogue who depends on his Sneak Attack. The Slayer is quite fine at killing his enemies without it, but if he can get it easily his damage just spikes up more.
Slayer capstone is garbage due to the general unlikelihood of a high CR opponent actually failing a Fort save effect vs a typical Slayer. I understand that's the standard Save DC formula but Fort is like the worst possible save to target and there really aren't a large number of ways to boost save DC on a martial character and Int isn't exactly going to be the primary stat for the slayer.
That being said I think it's a decent class to represent the rogue type that likes getting stuck in especially with the HD boost.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
This was another meh class for me. It's fine mixing ranger and rogue, but so does multi-classing. There's really not anything new here - other than making the favored enemy flexible and single target and removing spellcasting and animal companion. I'm not really sure why you wouldn't just use a ranger with an archetype and a rouge and be at about the same place.
I am wondering what does it mean the slayer can knock the target unconscious for 1d4 hours...can it be awakened like fallen to a sleep spell? if not, why 1d4 hours while paralyze has just 1d6 rounds, seeing that the former would be a stronger version of the latter. Overall, I think we simply want a better mechanic support for this newly-versioned condition.
Had a "Best of Dragon" flashback and find myself wish they'd called it the Bounty Hunter instead (even if it does want them more dead than alive).
(...) I would rather play Rogue 3/Ranger X to get the added class skills and combat style feats.I'm grappling with this on a character I'm playing. My bigger problem is all of the cruft at ranger 4. The character's bent is trap monkey, spelunker, and rock climber, with light camping skills. Not so much with the 'divine connection to nature', and not so much with the 'peerless bambi slayer'. I just really can't find a good way to get that flavor - I'm trying to find ( 70% rogue + 30% (ranger - druid stuff)). Slayer is closing in on that pretty quickly, particularly if the skill points bump a bit.
Slayer capstone is garbage due to the general unlikelihood of a high CR opponent actually failing a Fort save effect vs a typical Slayer. I understand that's the standard Save DC formula but Fort is like the worst possible save to target and there really aren't a large number of ways to boost save DC on a martial character
One, calling something "garbage" isn't productive. Like it says in the very first post in this thread, "Keep it civil and polite folks."
Two, the slayer capstone ability is essentially the same as the ranger's capstone ability, and we can give any of these classes a capstone that's clearly better than any of the existing capstone abilities.
and Int isn't exactly going to be the primary stat for the slayer.
True. Perhaps Wis would be a better stat for that.
I can understand Quarry being a move action, as that is meant for tracking, and not for the middle of combat. I do, however, have a problem with Favored Target being a move action, as that prevents you from getting close enough to attack the enemy unless you did so the previous round, or you are using a ranged weapon.
I have no problems with the removal of the Ranger's spells, as the class is really good without it, and Ranger and Rogue meshed together better than expected. I originally wanted to test this class out when I first heard about it, and now seeing how it turned out, this has reinforced it, as I tend to play either a Magus or Rogue.
A talent that grants a temporary invisibility would be good for this class, such as the Ninja's Vanishing Trick. Even if it could only be used in the Favored Terrain granted my Terrain Mastery, that would be good. In my opinion, the Slayer should get a single Favored Terrain without having to take Terrain Mastery, and can take Terrain Mastery for additional Favored Terrains.
An increase in skill points would be good for this class, as they have a rather large selection of Class Skills to choose from. There are two skills that I think should be added to the Skills List, however, and those are Disable Device and Knowledge (Nature).
This class is a good one, and is one of the best so far in my opinion, could be improved, but is still really good.
|
|
Full base attack bonus and sneak attack? This seems like a combination we've been doing our best to avoid since 3.0, doesn't it? It just seems like an obvious no-no.
The whole point of rogues having sneak attack is that they're super deadly, but require precision play, clever positioning, and hit-and-run tactics.
The combination of full BAB, good hit dice, good saves, and medium armor is kind of lazy, isn't it? I predict the munchkins in every group gravitating to the slayer, creating an endless army of two-dimensional murderers, min-maxed for dishing out optimal damage.
|
|
I disagree with Wis being a more important stat than Int for this class, regardless of SKR's reconsideration. Wisdom implies consideration and reflection, Slayers require cunning and smarts, assassin brains not contemplative brains.
This is a great class. Love it.
Is this the optimum entry route for Red Mantis Assassin? It looks like it...
That's odd Captain, I was thinking it's a decent entry route for Horizon Walker. Not sure that it's any better at it than the traditional Ranger/Rogue entry, but it should still work.
|
|
Yeah, Horizon Walker or RMA both work I think.
And that is no bad thing.
Slayer also looks like it would be a brilliant gun sniper, or even close combat gunman with the ability to pull sneak out of the bag. There are abilities which very much suit shooting people.
ZanThrax, Slayer/Horizon Walker have-gun-will-travel deadly wanderer appeals a lot, now.
As is, this class is good and viable in my eyes.
If I were to make any changes though, it would be these.
1. Give a greater Slayer talent that grants a greater rogue talent
2. 1-2 more skill points a level
What I'd really like to see is access to Rogue Talents as well as Ranger Combat Styles. With the Hunter losing out on combat styles, it seems like a perfect fit for the other Ranger hybrid class to have access. As is, it seems like you can make a more damaging and higher skill class using plain Ranger Str build ignoring pre-reqs on TWF.
I'm also very confused as to why the Investigator gets higher Sneak Attack progression than the Slayer. If Investigator is supposed to encompass the skill base of the Rogue, why is it also out-doing the combat focused Rogue Hybrid?
I love focusing on Wis as a secondary attribute, and definitely think basing the capstone as well as Assassinate/Slowing Strike on that would feel more cohesive. I see Slayers not necessarily going off of cunning and smarts but off of awareness and attentiveness to the way a target moves and fights, rather than the introspective side of Wis.