Slayer Discussion


Class Discussion

351 to 400 of 664 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Cuàn wrote:
All I have to say is please don't give it trapfinding. If you do it basically because Rogue 2.0 and we don't want that (or at least I don't and I get the idea the designers don't either). Trapfinding isn't versatility, it's a burden.

Ah, it is a burden that someone else must/should bear by playing a rogue.

What does the slayer do? It is a full BAB class that kills stuff. Is that unique? Full BAB class that kills stuff and can deal with traps that is unique.


Zark wrote:

Ah, it is a burden that someone else must/should bear by playing a rogue.

What does the slayer do? It is a full BAB class that kills stuff. Is that unique? Full BAB class that kills stuff and can deal with traps that is unique.

Not saying someone else should or must bear that burden. Personally I think it should be a choice and not a burden that every rogue has to bear. It's why I'm very happy there are several archetypes that give it to other classes so that people can choose to have it instead of being stuck in the role by default.

That's why I say make it an archetype for the Slayer, or maybe a talent, that way you're only stuck in that trap guy role if you choose to be.

And there are full BAB options for trapfinding, just look at both the Trapper and Urban Ranger Ranger archetypes.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely love the Slayer's concept but I also feel it kind of short in a lot of aspects, but most of them were already addressed in this thread. Anyway, after testing the class (from a mere solo fighter combat perspective) at levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20, these are my suggestions:

HD: being at d10 was a must, so I'm glad dev team revised this.
Class skills: the class NEEDS bluff, really. Maybe Diplomacy would be a nice addition to the list, Heal on the other hand, I don't think it's that necessary.
Skill ranks per level: 6 ranks/level would be nice, but if the class were to mantain skills at 4/level, then we better get something better to do with INT than wait for capstone abilities (more on this below).
Weapon and armor proficiencies: I get Slayer has inherited shield proficiency from the Ranger, but it's not mandatory and may be taken away, same with medium armor proficiency. Instead, Canny Defense would fit perfectly (I think), from mechanic and flavor perspective.
Favored target: It should count as Favored Enemy for feat prerequisites.
Slayer talents and advanced talents: All combat-oriented rougue talents and advanced talents, maybe?
Sneak Attack: Since SA is situational anyway, having it as a normal Rogue, up to 10d6 wouldn't be that overpowered, even with full BAB progression. Seriously, 40% less SA than an average per attack when the class is meant to kill things is not good. Even if you get SA with all your attacks as a full-round action, your final SA damage output would be 80% of a normal rogue (also, addressing the Investigator SA issue, why not switching both classes SA?).

Here are other assorted goodies that could improve the class a lot, maybe taken as talents:
+INT bonus to AC, either as Canny Defense or otherwise.
+INT bonus to Initiative.
+INT bonus to Will saves.
+INT bonus to CMB and/or CMD against Favored targets.
+INT bonus to Attacks of Opportunity Attack and/or Damage rolls against Favored targets.
+INT bonus to number of Attacks of Opportunity per round.
+INT bonus to critical confirmation rolls.
+INT bonus as bleed damage on a critical hit.
+Sneak Attack damage when scoring a critical hit, 1/2 class levels + INT bonus times per day.
Feinting as a swift action 1/2 class levels + INT bonus times per day.
Bonus Combat feats, either as Combat Style feats or free to pick from a list.
Bonus Teamwork feats, specially if + Solo tactics (yes, it's unique to Inquisitors but Slayers would get awesome benefits of it, and also bonus points on badassery).

Silver Crusade

I wouldn't mind a talent or an archetype that gives the Slayer access to the Rangers traps, that would be cool, also I'm in favor of poison use.

Shadow Lodge

I'd ask y'all to consider allowing the "Combat Trick" Slayer talent to be taken multiple times. It's essentially where people are going to go to get their x'th level Ranger combat feats - Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, that stuff. If you do that it would help to alleviate the need to put in a separate track for slayer bonus feats.

Also, the person a few posts before me is correct. Ranger and Slayer are nearly identical at level one. Though with ranger getting Wild Empathy and the slayer getting nothing like that at the same level, the ranger kinda sorta starts off with more stuff.


Scavion wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:

Still little to no builds from level one.

Level 1 builds aren't very indicative of a class's efficacy or anything really at all.

I'll post a level 5 Ranged build here soon though.

Classes are supposed to work from level one.

Should be tested from level 1 to 20, with different PB (3, 10, 15, 20 and 25)....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Belle Mythix wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:

Still little to no builds from level one.

Level 1 builds aren't very indicative of a class's efficacy or anything really at all.

I'll post a level 5 Ranged build here soon though.

Classes are supposed to work from level one.

Should be tested from level 1 to 20, with different PB (3, 10, 15, 20 and 25)....

Combat classes don't differ from one another really at level 1. Your bonus is mostly determined by your ability scores and life at level one is mostly dependent on good d20 rolls.

I've never heard of anyone playing with 3 Pointbuy. We should be playtesting what most folks are playing. Either PFS which is 20 Point Buy and a cursory glance at Roll20 indicates most folks play 20 or 15 point buy.

Dixie if we let combat trick be taken multiple times the Slayer would just be a fighter knockoff with a few tricks. If we let Slayers take combat trick as many times as they want then they'd end up with 1 less feat than a fighter would get. And the Fighter is neither of it's hybrid components. Thats why most of us prefer giving the Slayer combat styles.


Cuàn wrote:
Zark wrote:

Ah, it is a burden that someone else must/should bear by playing a rogue.

What does the slayer do? It is a full BAB class that kills stuff. Is that unique? Full BAB class that kills stuff and can deal with traps that is unique.

Not saying someone else should or must bear that burden. Personally I think it should be a choice and not a burden that every rogue has to bear. It's why I'm very happy there are several archetypes that give it to other classes so that people can choose to have it instead of being stuck in the role by default.

That's why I say make it an archetype for the Slayer, or maybe a talent, that way you're only stuck in that trap guy role if you choose to be.

And there are full BAB options for trapfinding, just look at both the Trapper and Urban Ranger Ranger archetypes.

There. Are. No. Vanilla Core Class. Or. Vanilla Base Class. That. Got. Trapfindning. Except. For. The. Rogue.

So please stop talking about choice. If we are talking choice there is only one class: The Rogue.

I don’t think players should have to search true dozens of archetype to find a class with trapfinding.


You shouldn't have to force players to play the rouge in order to deal with traps. You can have the barbarian set off the trap, or you could have the wizard cast a spell that will allow him to earthglide or burrow around the trap.


I would love to see slayer talents based around improvised weapons usage!


Zark wrote:


There. Are. No. Vanilla Core Class. Or. Vanilla Base Class. That. Got. Trapfindning. Except. For. The. Rogue.

So please stop talking about choice. If we are talking choice there is only one class: The Rogue.

I don’t think players should have to search true dozens of archetype to find a class with trapfinding.

What's your point? I fail to see how Rogue being the only class that has Trapfinding without an archetype is relevant. Archetypes exist for a reason, to offer options. If people choose to ignore them they choose to limit themselves. That's ok if it's what they want but others should not have any consequences of that choice.

As for looking through archetypes to find trapfinding, I'd say 'Trapper' is pretty obvious.

Oh, and there is a 2nd option: Investigator. It's not a full BAB option but it is an option that works without archetypes.

I still say, make Trapfinding an option for the Slayer. Forcing it on people is not the way to go. Sure, you could go the other way around and make it baseline while having almost all archetypes trade it away, like with the Rogue, but I'd say that's far from ideal and makes one wonder why it's baseline in the first place.

EDIT: Another reason is that Trapfinding tends to be seen as a strong ability, mostly because it's seen as a must have for a successful party, and as such the Slayer will have to lose Slaying potential in order to 'pay' for the ability.


How many adventure paths use traps? My friend said he went all the way through Kingmaker without anyone with Trapfinding and came out no worse for wear.

Then in Carrion Crown the only traps worth mentioning were easily found by the wonder 30 ft cone of detect magic the caster used every 30 feet.


Cuàn wrote:
EDIT: Another reason is that Trapfinding tends to be seen as a strong ability, mostly because it's seen as a must have for a successful party, and as such the Slayer will have to lose Slaying potential in order to 'pay' for the ability.

Actually, having a character with Trapfinding has become a rarity in Pathfinder, at least in the groups I am playing with. Traps in AP's mostly are survivable and characters with good perception can spot the non-magical ones without the Trapfinding ability.


Scavion wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:

Still little to no builds from level one.

Level 1 builds aren't very indicative of a class's efficacy or anything really at all.

I'll post a level 5 Ranged build here soon though.

Classes are supposed to work from level one.

Should be tested from level 1 to 20, with different PB (3, 10, 15, 20 and 25)....

Combat classes don't differ from one another really at level 1. Your bonus is mostly determined by your ability scores and life at level one is mostly dependent on good d20 rolls.

I've never heard of anyone playing with 3 Pointbuy. We should be playtesting what most folks are playing. Either PFS which is 20 Point Buy and a cursory glance at Roll20 indicates most folks play 20 or 15 point buy.

APs and some modules assume Level 1, 15 PB.

About 3 PB, it's for non-heroic NPC. (I'm sure the developers wouldn't mind someone testing that for them)


magnuskn wrote:
Cuàn wrote:
EDIT: Another reason is that Trapfinding tends to be seen as a strong ability, mostly because it's seen as a must have for a successful party, and as such the Slayer will have to lose Slaying potential in order to 'pay' for the ability.
Actually, having a character with Trapfinding has become a rarity in Pathfinder, at least in the groups I am playing with. Traps in AP's mostly are survivable and characters with good perception can spot the non-magical ones without the Trapfinding ability.

I'd say that makes my point even more relevant as it means a Slayer would have to lose slaying potential for an ability that isn't even all that useful.


Cuàn wrote:

[...]

EDIT: Another reason is that Trapfinding tends to be seen as a strong ability, mostly because it's seen as a must have for a successful party, and as such the Slayer will have to lose Slaying potential in order to 'pay' for the ability.

Thanks, you just proved a Point. Trapfinding is for losers because it Draws power from a class.

So, if Slayer is granted Trapfinding it will lose some Ompf and we don’t want that.
Gotcha.


Cuàn wrote:

[...]

EDIT: Another reason is that Trapfinding tends to be seen as a strong ability, mostly because it's seen as a must have for a successful party, and as such the Slayer will have to lose Slaying potential in order to 'pay' for the ability.

Thanks, you just proved a Point. Trapfinding is for losers because it Draws power from a class.

So, if Slayer is granted Trapfinding it will lose some Ompf and we don’t want that. I can sympathize with that. At least we are being honest now.

Question: Except for the cool name, what do you think is the purpose with this class?


It wouldn't be that drastic. its just better if it was an option rather than a baseline.

Like i said before, skirmisher and scout (and trapfinding is NOT a neccesary ability for a scout. if it was then by that logic ninjas make terrible scouts)


Zark wrote:
Cuàn wrote:

[...]

EDIT: Another reason is that Trapfinding tends to be seen as a strong ability, mostly because it's seen as a must have for a successful party, and as such the Slayer will have to lose Slaying potential in order to 'pay' for the ability.

Thanks, you just proved a Point. Trapfinding is for losers because it Draws power from a class.

So, if Slayer is granted Trapfinding it will lose some Ompf and we don’t want that.
Gotcha.

Raw DPR, yes. You exchange it for utility, though with limited use. I'd hardly call utility a thing for losers.

The thing is that it simply does not fit the concept of a Slayer to lose damage potential for utility. The whole thing is about dealing damage, killing stuff, offence. It isn't a toolbox nor should it be.

Utility is great but a class that even called Slayer should slay things, plain and simple, and it's abilities should help it do just that.

EDIT: The way I see it Slayers could be scouts and skirmishers as well as the guy that moves in to take out that spellcaster/archer that's hiding in the back. He should be the martial blaster of sorts.

EDIT2: And like I said, make it optional. This is how I view the class but some other might want to disarm traps so give them that option. Make it a talent that way you don't have to pay for it in another way since the cost is that you don't have another talent. The only thing that would more or less require is the addition of Disable Device to the skill list but if that's what's needed to keep options open for all then so be it.


I see the Slayer as the class that fluff wise could be fulfilling the role of Professional Monster Slayer, Bounty Hunter, and Warrior Assassin. They get a target and hunt it down then put it down for good. These are all lone wolf archetypes and unfortunately the mechanics don't really play into that imo.


OK. You may have a Point, but in that case SA is really not good, especially if you want to use a range attack.
But so far it is one of the more powerful classes although I still think it lack flavor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yea, I wouldn't mind it if the Slayer was more focused on the Monster Slaying aspect. Give it Monster Lore from the inquisitor, things like that.


I think the SA, like the Heal skill, is a way they want to represent the Slayer's knowledge on anatomy and the ability to hit where it hurts.

I agree though, it lacks some flavor. It's very one dimensional as is and could use abilities that support it's slaying.

Monster Lore would be a great fit for that I think, maybe expand it with bonuses on damage against an identified target. Maybe something like an increase in Favored Target bonuses if you identified the target. One could also look at the Kirin Style feat chain for inspiration.


Cheapy wrote:

Yea, I wouldn't mind it if the Slayer was more focused on the Monster Slaying aspect. Give it Monster Lore from the inquisitor, things like that.

Problem with this is that the Slayer has a relatively low number of skill ranks, so it would be difficult to make effective use of. That said, I think this would be ok - it's an addition that would require some investment to make full use of, but would be a minor boost to the class if no investment was given.

I was originally against this idea, but in the process of writing this post, I decided it would actually be a good thing for the class - Provided that they DO NOT get an increase to skill ranks. If the Slayer gets an increase in skill ranks, I would immediately be against giving it something like Monster Lore.

Grand Lodge

I am a big fan of playing archers in Pathfinder and I really like how the Slayer incorporates making a archer if you want to make one but the only thing that I see that I hate about the Slayer is it should get the skill "Disable Device" as a class Skills because this skill is necessary for any time of rogue even if it's a hybrid class. I'm not hating on the class but I strongly urge making "Disable Device" a class skill. I say for the fact that I don't really see this class as a half rogue without the skill as a class skill. Additionally I think the skill "Escape Artist" should be a Class Skill as I look over the Slayer, one of my personal favorites of the new Hybrid Class . Also I agree on making the class more on Monster Slaying aspect but I am just saying this regarding the class "Think Small before Thinking Big".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Playtest: Bloodcove disguise (or half of it anyway, the other half was spent making the characters). 1st level characters

Slayer was a tiefling with point blank but no precise shot. Had a move action for +1 to hit and damage running most of the time.. and thats about it. Pretty good skills skills, functional in combat (as functional as a non human non fighter archer can be at first level), but nothing to oo or ahh over at first level.


I honestly don't see the point in 1st level testing a martial class. Level 1 stat blocks are easy, boring, and predictable.

I'd focus testing on levels 3, 6, 11, and 15.

3 because most classes have a major ability at level 3.

6 because another power spike and testing with full attacks

11 because full attack

15 because most games don't get much higher.


Pet-less ranger grants half their favored enemy bonus to their allies; I'd kind of like favored target to do the same.

How did we cross rogue and ranger and get a class with 4 skills ranks/level? This class has the entire skill breadth of Ranger, plus some, it should get 6, IMO.

So, I was looking at how you might play this guy as a spear-hunter or maybe an axe-wielding maniac, but no, I think you either use a longbow or TWF. At least the rogue has career options; this guy is the Slayer, and sneak attack is how he slays.

Talent ideas:
-This is a class where having the Cavalier's Tactician ability as a talent would make a lot of sense. Assuming you work as part of a team, it would help you share your slayingness.
- Rogues and rangers get evasion, so I'm thinking Slayer should get... evasion?
- How about uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge as talents? For a more bloodthirsty, or paranoid, Slayer.
- That thing where you kill a foe and get a free demoralize against someone who sees it.
- If you don't bake it in, both versions of ranger's companion bond would be good talents.
- Minor and major magic (from rogue) would let you customize with some interesting tricks to work as an infiltrator, or let you beef up your combat presence.
- Cleave, ignoring the usual prerequisites.


MechE_ wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Yea, I wouldn't mind it if the Slayer was more focused on the Monster Slaying aspect. Give it Monster Lore from the inquisitor, things like that.

Problem with this is that the Slayer has a relatively low number of skill ranks, so it would be difficult to make effective use of. That said, I think this would be ok - it's an addition that would require some investment to make full use of, but would be a minor boost to the class if no investment was given.

I was originally against this idea, but in the process of writing this post, I decided it would actually be a good thing for the class - Provided that they DO NOT get an increase to skill ranks. If the Slayer gets an increase in skill ranks, I would immediately be against giving it something like Monster Lore.

I second this idea. You could replace the Favored Target ability with something similar to 3.5 Knowledge Devotion Feat. Of course this would include also upping the number of skill ranks and including more knowledge skills on the class list. However you'd give the slayer a bit more of a knowledgable Monster Hunter flair a role that fits quite nicely between the two classes it's supposed to fill. Also it allows the Slayer to fill a secondary party role.

Liberty's Edge

Cheapy wrote:

Yea, I wouldn't mind it if the Slayer was more focused on the Monster Slaying aspect. Give it Monster Lore from the inquisitor, things like that.

Flavor wise I like it, but we are already pushing the damage line as it is.

If you added that, I think you would need to take something else away.

I don't mind it as a bonus to favored target, but anything more is going to be getting into over shadow territory IMHO.


I would prefer a monster slaying class over an assassin but without all the nature stuff, spellcasting, animal companion, etc. the ranger is stuck with. Plus I think adding the bane and greater bane abilities of an Inquisitor would be cooler then sneak attack.

Liberty's Edge

Dragon78 wrote:
I would prefer a monster slaying class over an assassin but without all the nature stuff, spellcasting, animal companion, etc. the ranger is stuck with. Plus I think adding the bane and greater bane abilities of an Inquisitor would be cooler then sneak attack.

Swapping some of that out I could be ok with rather than sneak attack I would be ok with, but then you might be stepping on the inquisitor's toes, since they aren't full BaB.


Alex Mack wrote:
MechE_ wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Yea, I wouldn't mind it if the Slayer was more focused on the Monster Slaying aspect. Give it Monster Lore from the inquisitor, things like that.

Problem with this is that the Slayer has a relatively low number of skill ranks, so it would be difficult to make effective use of. That said, I think this would be ok - it's an addition that would require some investment to make full use of, but would be a minor boost to the class if no investment was given.

I was originally against this idea, but in the process of writing this post, I decided it would actually be a good thing for the class - Provided that they DO NOT get an increase to skill ranks. If the Slayer gets an increase in skill ranks, I would immediately be against giving it something like Monster Lore.

I second this idea. You could replace the Favored Target ability with something similar to 3.5 Knowledge Devotion Feat. Of course this would include also upping the number of skill ranks and including more knowledge skills on the class list. However you'd give the slayer a bit more of a knowledgable Monster Hunter flair a role that fits quite nicely between the two classes it's supposed to fill. Also it allows the Slayer to fill a secondary party role.

I wouldn't want the Monster Lore ability to give an automatic increase in damage to the Slayer, I just think the ability would fit thematically and conceptually. I was thinking that the addition of Monster Lore could be done without taking anything away, since it's not a power ability.

Now, if the Slayer class had the Monster Lore ability, I wouldn't mind a few Slayer talents that made the Slayer deal more damage against targets he had identified using Monster Lore. One talent could give a +1 increase to the Favored Target ability against enemies the Slayer had identified with Monster Lore, etc.

I don't think this would be an automatic increase in the Slayer's damage, nor do I think it would be something every Slayer would build towards, since skill points are precious. (I like that the class only has 4+Int skill ranks.) Essentially, one build option would be to consider Int your primary mental stat (start with a 14, etc.) and then place your skill points into Knowledge skills. You would then be able to make regular use of a +1 bonus on Favored target, but it would cost you many skill ranks and a talent, rather than being an automatic part of the class.

I'm in favor of more options being given the class through talents and options that increase the damage of the class are fine by me, as long they have some cost - ideally more than just a single Slayer talent for (nearly) guaranteed increases.

EDIT:

ciretose wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I would prefer a monster slaying class over an assassin but without all the nature stuff, spellcasting, animal companion, etc. the ranger is stuck with. Plus I think adding the bane and greater bane abilities of an Inquisitor would be cooler then sneak attack.
Swapping some of that out I could be ok with rather than sneak attack I would be ok with, but then you might be stepping on the inquisitor's toes, since they aren't full BaB.

I second that giving the class Monster Lore, Bane, and Greater Bane may step on the Inquisitor's toes quite a bit.


A fun idea would be that succesful identification of monsters allows you to apply Sneak attack against them cause you know their weaknesses...

It would prolly be OP so maybe this would make for a good high level ability/advanced talent.


Ya know what? Given the things already talked about (such as a broader option of Talents to pick from, Poison Use being one of them) I think I actually like this class right where it is.

I'm a fan of Talents and the Capstone keying off of Int and keeping the Skills/lvl at a 4+Int. (Same sort of logic why 2+Int is okay for a Wizard, just less extreme.)

I do think the capstone is bad, but every capstone that involves a save DC that's based on a secondary stat is bad (Ranger included) so there's really kinda no way around that. (Besides, it's a capstone ability - who ever uses those anyway?)

So kudos DT! Excellent work on the Slayer. :)
(And ya know what? EXTRA kudos for giving me a combat class that doesn't feel bad for not caring about criting! Finally I can use x3 weapons without feeling like an idiot, since SA doesn't crit! xD)

Actually, one thing I'd add: "Any non-Good." That whole "respect for life" bit about the Good side of the alignment axis seems to go directly against this class concept. ;)


Neo2151 wrote:

Ya know what? Given the things already talked about (such as a broader option of Talents to pick from, Poison Use being one of them) I think I actually like this class right where it is.

I'm a fan of Talents and the Capstone keying off of Int and keeping the Skills/lvl at a 4+Int. (Same sort of logic why 2+Int is okay for a Wizard, just less extreme.)

I do think the capstone is bad, but every capstone that involves a save DC that's based on a secondary stat is bad (Ranger included) so there's really kinda no way around that. (Besides, it's a capstone ability - who ever uses those anyway?)

So kudos DT! Excellent work on the Slayer. :)
(And ya know what? EXTRA kudos for giving me a combat class that doesn't feel bad for not caring about criting! Finally I can use x3 weapons without feeling like an idiot, since SA doesn't crit! xD)

Actually, one thing I'd add: "Any non-Good." That whole "respect for life" bit about the Good side of the alignment axis seems to go directly against this class concept. ;)

The good alignment slayers would probably be more Bounty Hunters with a no kill policy


2 people marked this as a favorite.

With regard to Favored Target: How will the slayer "study" the target? Does the slayer need to see the target? See it from 30 ft away? See it from 1 kilometre away? See it through scrying? Have seen it before? Have seen it 10 years ago? Hear it? Have heard it before? Know its name? Read its description from a book? Know that it exists?

I don't think the class's alignment should be restricted. A Good character can be devoted to the art of death, they just then kill to protect others from serial killers or something and give the enemies chances to surrender.


I'm going to guess visibly perceiving it in real time, or with some other equally good sight-like sense.

I'm still with Wraithstrike and Malkov in saying that Slayer needs something more in order to keep up with Rangers relative to their versability. I don't know if a knowledge-devotation-like is the way to do it, but it's got to be something. I don't see how the class is currently pushing the DPR line when all it's got is a marginal edge over Rangers who we assume don't use spells.


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

[...]

EDIT: Another reason is that Trapfinding tends to be seen as a strong ability, mostly because it's seen as a must have for a successful party, and as such the Slayer will have to lose Slaying potential in order to 'pay' for the ability.

Thanks, you just proved a Point. Trapfinding is for losers because it Draws power from a class.

So, if Slayer is granted Trapfinding it will lose some Ompf and we don’t want that.
Gotcha.

Raw DPR, yes. You exchange it for utility, though with limited use. I'd hardly call utility a thing for losers.

The thing is that it simply does not fit the concept of a Slayer to lose damage potential for utility. The whole thing is about dealing damage, killing stuff, offence. It isn't a toolbox nor should it be.

Utility is great but a class that even called Slayer should slay things, plain and simple, and it's abilities should help it do just that.

EDIT: The way I see it Slayers could be scouts and skirmishers as well as the guy that moves in to take out that spellcaster/archer that's hiding in the back. He should be the martial blaster of sorts.

EDIT2: And like I said, make it optional. This is how I view the class but some other might want to disarm traps so give them that option. Make it a talent that way you don't have to pay for it in another way since the cost is that you don't have another talent. The only thing that would more or less require is the addition of Disable Device to the skill list but if that's what's needed to keep options open for all then so be it.

I've been giving this post of yours some thought and I agree with you.

One could create a “Trapfinder light” Slayer talent. You get Disable Device as a class skill and you can disarm magical traps, but you don’t get a bonus equal half your class level on perception and disable device checks. This would be perfect. Or perhaps it only lets you disable magical traps.

I also want to promote the idea of a talent or talent tree that let you feint as a swift action. This would solve a lot of problems connected to SA. This would also help the rogue and the investigator.
I’ve seen the problem with SA again and again when a rogue (or similar class) gets one-on-one with a foe (or can't flank). It happens when:

1) the rogue scout ahead of the party, 2) the rogue hunts after a foe that tries to run away, 3) the party gets divided battle for various reason, 4) the rogue can’t flank the foe/monster because the foe has positioned itself cleverly so rogue can't flank or use Gang Up feat 5) or because of other reasons.

When a rogue can’t flank it usually can’t sneak attack unless it is invisible, and even being invisible might not work. When a rogue can’t SA in battle it sucks. True it can pick two feats and feint as a move action, but I see problems with this solution:

  • a) When the rogue (or other SA class) use improved feint it only get one attack that round. At higher levels a full attack with haste can be anything from 2 attacks per round up to 7 attacks per round (using TWF). Spending 2 feats and maxing bluff and still only get one attack per round is not a good deal.
  • b) If the rogue needs to move or use a move action it can’t use SA even with improved feint.
  • c) Spending two feats and the Int prereq is very costly this ability.
  • d) Success isn’t automatic, and it should not be automatic, but it is weak even though it isn’t automatic. In plain words. You need to succeed with you feint, you need two feats, int 13 and decent charisma score. You may even need skill focus bluff. On top of this you also need to make a attack roll. Despite this you can’t move or use a move action if you want to use it.

    My suggestion is create a new feat called swift feint or/and create a Rogue and slayer talent called swift feint.

    Either the Slayer (and the rogue) can take it as a feat and it will cost it three feats or you take it as an advanced rogue talent without meeting the prereqs.

    If the ability seems to good there are different ways of nerfing it.

    Here are some examples how to nerf it (if such as thing is needed):

  • 1) Add a cumulative -1 penalty on the skill check equal to any additional attacks after the first. So if you only make one attack, no penalty. If you make two attack, you get a -1 penalty. If you make three attacks, the penalty is -2. The penalty could perhaps be higher, (double or even tripled?).

  • 2) Or you can be forced to roll a bluff check for each attack, so more rolls.

  • 3)Or one bluff check per attack and add a penalty to each attack after the first. No penalty on the first, -1 on the second, -2 on the third, -3 on the forth and so on.

  • 3a) Or you could start with a penalty on the first attack. -1 on the first check, -2 o the second and so forth. Extra attack such as attacks from haste should probably have no penalty.

  • 3aa) Or the penalty could just follow BAB. No penalty on the first attack (or two first attacks if you use TWF), -5 on the second (if TWF -5 on 3rd and 4th attack), -10 on the third check and no penalty to hast attacks etc. I probably only roll one check per BAB otherwise a hasted TWF level 10 Rogue has to roll 5 bluff checks at that will slow down the game.

    I really think a swift faith Rogue/Slayer talent could be good and balanced thing for the game and I think it should be an advanced talent. What one could to is to let the Slayer and rogue pick improved feint as a normal rogue/slayer talent without the prerecs and make the improved feint talent be a prereq to the Swift faint talent. I think that would be balanced.

    Regardless how the Devs choose to design a Swift Feint talent I really hope they do design such a talent.


  • Just some random ideas how about adding 2 talent along theses lines

    Single Out
    Benefit: You may deal your Sneak Attack damage to your Favored Target even if they are not flanked and retain their Dexterity bonus to AC. You may apply a total number of Sneak Attack die equal to your maximum die - 1 die. Additionally for each Favored Target you have past 1, you reduce you Sneak Attack damage dice buy an additional die.

    Slayer's Defense
    Benefit: You gain a insight bonus to armor class equal to 1/2 your Intelligence modifier against your Favored Target.


    Zark wrote:
    Cuàn wrote:
    Zark wrote:
    Cuàn wrote:

    [...]

    EDIT: Another reason is that Trapfinding tends to be seen as a strong ability, mostly because it's seen as a must have for a successful party, and as such the Slayer will have to lose Slaying potential in order to 'pay' for the ability.

    Thanks, you just proved a Point. Trapfinding is for losers because it Draws power from a class.

    So, if Slayer is granted Trapfinding it will lose some Ompf and we don’t want that.
    Gotcha.

    Raw DPR, yes. You exchange it for utility, though with limited use. I'd hardly call utility a thing for losers.

    The thing is that it simply does not fit the concept of a Slayer to lose damage potential for utility. The whole thing is about dealing damage, killing stuff, offence. It isn't a toolbox nor should it be.

    Utility is great but a class that even called Slayer should slay things, plain and simple, and it's abilities should help it do just that.

    EDIT: The way I see it Slayers could be scouts and skirmishers as well as the guy that moves in to take out that spellcaster/archer that's hiding in the back. He should be the martial blaster of sorts.

    EDIT2: And like I said, make it optional. This is how I view the class but some other might want to disarm traps so give them that option. Make it a talent that way you don't have to pay for it in another way since the cost is that you don't have another talent. The only thing that would more or less require is the addition of Disable Device to the skill list but if that's what's needed to keep options open for all then so be it.

    I've been giving this post of yours some thought and I agree with you.

    One could create a “Trapfinder light” Slayer talent. You get Disable Device as a class skill and you can disarm magical traps, but you don’t get a bonus equal half your class level on perception and disable device checks. This would be perfect. Or perhaps it only lets you disable magical traps.

    I also want to promote the idea of a talent...

    +1

    completely agree


    Agree on “Trapfinder light” Slayer talent or Swift Feint talent or both? ;)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    both


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Hmm, looking over the playtest reports, it seems the move action-activation is a great deterrent to its use.

    Perhaps a system where it's a move action to start, but then a swift to change for the encounter? I'm not sure.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Cheapy wrote:

    Hmm, looking over the playtest reports, it seems the move action-activation is a great deterrent to its use.

    Perhaps a system where it's a move action to start, but then a swift to change for the encounter? I'm not sure.

    Not a bad thought. A move action to place, then an immediate when the target is slain to choose another target within line of sight.


    Cheapy wrote:

    Hmm, looking over the playtest reports, it seems the move action-activation is a great deterrent to its use.

    Perhaps a system where it's a move action to start, but then a swift to change for the encounter? I'm not sure.

    For martial characters, action economy is everything.

    Waiting until 10th level to turn this into a swift action is brutal.
    Even then, swift actions are not free and this DOES limit you. People have been talking about a 'swift action feint' talent. Well the joke there becomes that you still can't swift action twice in a round (unless you downgrade a move action).

    Favored Target is just a variant of Weapon Training. The fighter is 3 levels behind the Slayer, so the Slayer will usually have +1 more hit/damage, but the fighter keeps his actions.

    As a thought experiment, allow those playtesting Slayers to use Favored Target as a free action if they take -1 to the bonuses... I bet that option will dominate at level 5 and all the way until 10th. That is sad.

    Frankly, if there was a feat that gave +1 to hit and +1 damage on one target for a move action, it would not be popular.

    And sneak attack is still the Ikea Furniture version of a Class Feature. You don't actually get a desk, you get a task to put that desk together. With enough time and effort, you can build a desk, but how sturdy that desk is will depend on how well you build it. Similarly, sneak attack doesn't provide any implicit benefit unless you put the feats and skill points and effort in your build into making it work. If you don't, then it doesn't serve its function, just like an unassembled desk.

    This is okay for a rogue, because they have a 3/4 BAB. They struggle to hit with their last iterative attack and they aren't meant to be combat juggernauts. They fill their roll as a secondary combatant just fine by focusing on one good attack each round. This lets them move to flank or move-action feint without or take one good snipe shot per round without feeling gimped. They also get more out of this attack since their SA progression is faster.

    Think of it this way. If I made a rogue archtype that didn't get sneak attack, but could make a single attack each round as a standard action at his highest BAB, and that attack dealt flat damage based on level. This would not be a bad option. Say a level 12 rogue simply hits for 50 with one attack.

    Now give that option to a fighter who is in position to make a full attack. Is he taking that option? Probably not.

    The value of sneak attack is altered based on who has it and what their other combat options are. You can't just slap it onto a class and say that it is just as valuable to them as it is to a rogue.


    Cheapy wrote:

    Hmm, looking over the playtest reports, it seems the move action-activation is a great deterrent to its use.

    Perhaps a system where it's a move action to start, but then a swift to change for the encounter? I'm not sure.

    The trouble is that a Slayer with Favored Target up at any given level from 1-12 (except for 9, randomly) has at least the same accuracy as a Fighter with the same weapon style and a tiny bit less damage even before counting Sneak Attack (until the Fighter buys Gloves of Dueling if we bring in every book and have magic item marts). And in fact, a Sneak Attacking Slayer with Favored Target will always be superior to a Fighter of the same style in DPR. So it's important to keep Favored Target from being too easy to apply at low levels, unless we desire Slayers to be better than Fighters at damage. If we do want Slayers to outdamage the Fighter as their thing (because they are "Slayers" so they are all about damage), then an action reduction in Favored Target is a good idea. It depends on the intent. My Slayer Tiffany in the playtest we did annihilated First Steps Part 1's notorious-for-party-deaths final encounter, not that level 1 is a good playtest, even without being able to apply Favored Target until the third target. She was doing exactly the same damage as a Fighter would have been doing at level 1 though even without Favored Target--Favored Target would have just given her a small but strict damage advantage.

    Silver Crusade

    Change Sneak Attack to Skirmishing attack ala Spell-Ranger. Skirmish damage is precision damage that is based on movement rather than flanking or catching your opponent flat footed. keep the same damage progression as the slayer has now.


    Lord_Malkov wrote:
    The value of sneak attack is altered based on who has it and what their other combat options are. You can't just slap it onto a class and say that it is just as valuable to them as it is to a rogue.

    We probably play in very different groups. In the groups I've seen, getting a flank or other sneak attack is usually not an action imposition. Whether it's somebody summoning buddies on the other side that they would have summoned anyway, or somebody with one of the animal companions that gets only one attack and uses vital strike, or even at worst just waiting one round without a flank while everyone jiggles 5-foot-steps until the flank happens, flanks are pretty common, and they usually don't break full attacks. Menacing is common in my area in both PFS and home games, which brings flanking bonuses to at least +4, which is another incentive for it. It's even more common if you're a Slayer partied with a ninja or someone else who makes the flanks for you. Anyway, I would say that you are right that Sneak Attack is different to different classes, but while it may proportionally add more to a rogue, an equal amount of Sneak Attack in total damage per round is actually far more powerful on a full BAB class with high accuracy because you can reliably hit with more attacks. Having seen one of those weird 3.5 Unearthed Arcana Fighters that trade all the feats for Sneak Attack, I can say that pretty definitively from a position of playtesting that fact.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Rogue Eidolon wrote:
    Cheapy wrote:

    Hmm, looking over the playtest reports, it seems the move action-activation is a great deterrent to its use.

    Perhaps a system where it's a move action to start, but then a swift to change for the encounter? I'm not sure.

    The trouble is that a Slayer with Favored Target up at any given level from 1-12 (except for 9, randomly) has at least the same accuracy as a Fighter with the same weapon style and a tiny bit less damage even before counting Sneak Attack (until the Fighter buys Gloves of Dueling if we bring in every book and have magic item marts). And in fact, a Sneak Attacking Slayer with Favored Target will always be superior to a Fighter of the same style in DPR. So it's important to keep Favored Target from being too easy to apply at low levels, unless we desire Slayers to be better than Fighters at damage. If we do want Slayers to outdamage the Fighter as their thing (because they are "Slayers" so they are all about damage), then an action reduction in Favored Target is a good idea. It depends on the intent. My Slayer Tiffany in the playtest we did annihilated First Steps Part 1's notorious-for-party-deaths final encounter, not that level 1 is a good playtest, even without being able to apply Favored Target until the third target. She was doing exactly the same damage as a Fighter would have been doing at level 1 though even without Favored Target--Favored Target would have just given her a small but strict damage advantage.

    This is just not true, and its important that this doesn't spread as a belief.

    Here is what is really going to happen.
    (I am ignoring weapon focus since both will probably have it)

    level 1:
    Fighter has no extra bonus
    Slayer gets +1/+1 if he spends a move action

    Level 4:
    Fighter gets weapon specialization for +0/+2
    Slayer is still at +1/+1

    Level 5:
    Fighter has weapon training 1 he is now at +1/+3
    Slayer gets +2/+2 if he spends a move action

    Level 8:
    Fighter gets Greater Weapon Focus, he is now at +2/+3
    Slayer is still at +2/+2 for a move action

    Level 9:
    Fighter gets more weapon training, he is at +3/+4
    Slayer is still at +2/+2 for a move action

    Level 10:
    Slayer gets swift Favored target and is at +3/+3
    Fighter remains at +3/+4

    Level 12:
    Fighter gets greater weapon spec, he is now at +3/+6
    Slayer can still spend a swift for +3/+3

    Level 13:
    Fighter gets Weapon Training 3, he is now at +4/+7
    Slayer is still at +3/+3 for a swift

    Level 15:
    Slayer goes up to +4/+4 for a swift action
    Fighter is still at +4/+7

    Level 17:
    Slayer is still at +4/+4
    Fighter gets weapon training 4, he is at +5/+8

    we can ignore capstones

    So, how is the Slayer outdoing the fighter here?

    The fighter is "behind" until level 5, but not really, because the fighter doesn't have to spend a move action to get his bonus. Every AoO or cleave attack or what-have-you will get this bonus.

    Once the Slayer gets a swift action Favored Target (which still effectively limits him to one per round) the fighter is ahead and stays there for the rest of their careers.

    Sneak attack is the only dividing line here, and sneak attack is conditional. If you are okay making one attack per round, its great. If you have a lousy BAB to begin with, its helpful. If you have a bunch of feats to throw at it, sure. Otherwise, its a super conditional bonus that depends entirely on other players flanking for you or casting greater invis on you.

    351 to 400 of 664 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / Class Discussion / Slayer Discussion All Messageboards