| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think UMD fits at all, but Diplomacy makes perfect sense. When you get sent to Cheliax to kill John Hancock you need to be sure you get the right John Hancock.Remember, there is a difference between
1) "I think skill X is iconic and essential for this class," and
2) "I think the class could find skill X useful in some circumstances."
The first translates to "the class should have skill X as a class skill."
The second translates to "skill X isn't an essential part of this class concept," so if you want it as a class skill you can choose to take a trait for that, or take Skill Focus in it.
UMD is kind of in the middle here; for balance let's call it #2.
Diplomacy is essential for the Slayer class. They need it for gather information, for gaining access to targets, and for coordinating with other characters. Also, of course, for making optimal use of Betrayer. :) The Slayer isn't a traditional kind of "face" character but if they are in any way more assassinate-y than a Rogue, they ought to share Diplomacy as a class skill. No fancy rerolls, no adjusting more than one attitudes, just basic, vanilla skill bonuses to do their job. I cannot imagine how a slayer would function in an urban environment without this skill.
I'm picturing a slayer going door to door in suburban Cheliax.
*knock knock*
"Are you John Hancock?"
"Yes"
*stab*
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can be sure to get the right John Hancock by getting ALL the John Hancocks.
On the third hand, it's adding a bunch of spell-like abilities to a class that is otherwise completely nonmagical.
Just curious , you seem to be pretty pointedly not commenting on all the suggestions for ways to either synergies abilities with SA or add talents that would improve its success rate. Is that indicative that the line of thinking is a non starter? It would be nice to know if we are barking up the wrong tree is why I ask. It is definitely a popular opinion, but if it's not going anywhere it's silly for us all to keep bringing it up.
|
Please keep sneak attack. A ranger/rogue build doesn't make sense without it. 6 skill points is essential - the class shouldn't have less than both ranger or rogue. Good idea adding ranger feats to slayer talents. Ranger/rogue is a favorite combo of mine. The "original" slayer seemed too underpowered, with not enough options. I am looking forward to trying this new version.
|
Why do people compare Slayer damage to fighter? Of course the Slayer's damage is not meant to match a fighter. The Slayer has way more skill points and lots of things to do outside of combat. Yes the Slayer will be behind on DPR compared to another heavy melee class, but only a little bit. Meanwhile paladins and fighters will be behind the Slayer in skill use, but by more than a little.
Because the class is called "slayer" so it should be better at killing it's favred target than a two-handed fighter, ranger, barbarian, bloodrager, ninja,alchemist, etc. As it stands now, it is worse at killing than all of them.
|
|
I would never play a non caster for more than a few levels and usually the fewer the better. The slayer is still an option though. I wanted you to know I felt it only looked good for dipping it you were desperate for skills. Otherwise, I think ftr(2 feats, 3 if you count heavy armor) & bbn(rage, everyone trades out uncanny dodge right?) are still much.more attractive for a dip. I like favored target a lot, mostly because it is only a.move action and secondly, because it works on everything but the really funny thing is that by writing this, I just convinced myself I should try the class at least once the same way I like to do melee focused alchemists, yes, alchemists, the investigator has zero access to the good discoveries in UM and their study opponent is competing with actions against favored target. That investigator study combat/strike also comes way to late. This comes from a player who does not even like bombs but plays several alchemists just cause I love the good discoveries from UM and the 2/3 brewing progression. And I just changed my mind again because since I will have an extra/third hand to hold a shield, I might as well go with ftr for heavy armor or the bbn archetypes that gets heavy armor. So add heavy armor to the slayer if you want it to be competitive for dips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slayers shouldn't be the number one best DPR class in the game to a favored target just because the class is called Slayer. That's absurd. A class that gets to move around in heavy armor and do good damage, with no spells and 2 skill points a level should probably have something above and beyond subpar DPR to contribute when weighed against a class with substantially the same martial ability, sneak attack, triple the skills, the ability to skip feat prereqs, tracking perks, and on and on.
Incidentally, that's the whole reason I liked Slayers right where they were at 4 skills/level. It gave them more room to be good at slaying.
As far as dips, Pathfinder's design philosophy tends to actively discourage that sort of thing.
Why do people compare Slayer damage to fighter? Of course the Slayer's damage is not meant to match a fighter. The Slayer has way more skill points and lots of things to do outside of combat. Yes the Slayer will be behind on DPR compared to another heavy melee class, but only a little bit. Meanwhile paladins and fighters will be behind the Slayer in skill use, but by more than a little.Because the class is called "slayer" so it should be better at killing it's favred target than a two-handed fighter, ranger, barbarian, bloodrager, ninja,alchemist, etc. As it stands now, it is worse at killing than all of them.
Because at first glance, when I looked at the slayer I thought: Wow, they made the better fighter I was hoping for.
He's rather similar with all the feats he can get and full BAB but he gets more skills, better saves and other nice abilities. Only the lack of armor training can be felt. But apart from that he is just an upgraded fighter.
Why do people compare Slayer damage to fighter? Of course the Slayer's damage is not meant to match a fighter. The Slayer has way more skill points and lots of things to do outside of combat. Yes the Slayer will be behind on DPR compared to another heavy melee class, but only a little bit. Meanwhile paladins and fighters will be behind the Slayer in skill use, but by more than a little.Because the class is called "slayer" so it should be better at killing it's favred target than a two-handed fighter, ranger, barbarian, bloodrager, ninja,alchemist, etc. As it stands now, it is worse at killing than all of them.Because at first glance, when I looked at the slayer I thought: Wow, they made the better fighter I was hoping for.
He's rather similar with all the feats he can get and full BAB but he gets more skills, better saves and other nice abilities. Only the lack of armor training can be felt. But apart from that he is just an upgraded fighter.
Except that, you know, the fighter can deal more damage.
And has more feats. And better AC.Still, I'd play this over both fighters and rogues, because I don't enjoy playing fighter characters, and my rogues never seem to hit things consistently.
Honestly? I'll take 4 extra skills over Full Plate any day.
Also, how much more damage does the Fighter do than the Slayer?
All things considered they should be roughly equal (assuming Favored Target is used...and especially after 7th, why wouldn't you?) barring the two point difference from gloves of dueling, and MAYBE Weapon Spec (still not clear on whether the Brawler counting as both Fighter and Monk for Feats is an exception of the rule) unless you're pulling damage from elsewhere I dunno about.
A 4 point damage difference for more utility seems like a good trade.
As Rynjin said the fighter doesn't deal that much more damage.
The number of feats he gets is higher but the slayer can ignore prerequisites for some which, often, is worth much more than an additional feat.
Just to be clear, the slayer can take several feats by selecting a ranger combat style, one to get weapon focus, one to get weapon finesse and one combat trick as talents and later one feat as advanced talent.
The AC bonus is the only real benefit of being a fighter. Especially because of armor training to reduce armor penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Favored Target and Sneak Attack interaction
Add to the Sneak Attack entry:
"If a Slayer deals Sneak Attack damage to a favored Target she studied, her damage dies for the Sneak Attack increase from d6 to d8."
As I see it, it's just a moderate bump of 1 point of damage per Sneak Attack die, but still a nice and simple interaction.
Thoughts?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
RE: Favored Target and Sneak Attack interaction
Add to the Sneak Attack entry:
"If a Slayer deals Sneak Attack damage to a favored Target she studied, her damage dies for the Sneak Attack increase from d6 to d8."As I see it, it's just a moderate bump of 1 point of damage per Sneak Attack die, but still a nice and simple interaction.
Thoughts?
I like it. I'd prefer something a little more... active, but even this at least makes it feel like the class is a hybrid rather than a pair of halves. A blended sauce rather than a salad, if you will.
I posted a review of my 6th level slayer. I did say it would be good to see talents tied to favored target. My build for this game though was to be both deadly at ranged or melee. Was getting shatter defenses next level either way but especially after finding out in the game session the warpriest has Cornugon Smash. :)
|
|
RE: Favored Target and Sneak Attack interaction
Add to the Sneak Attack entry:
"If a Slayer deals Sneak Attack damage to a favored Target she studied, her damage dies for the Sneak Attack increase from d6 to d8."As I see it, it's just a moderate bump of 1 point of damage per Sneak Attack die, but still a nice and simple interaction.
Thoughts?
Perhaps lowering sneak attacks vs non-favored target to d4 would be a good balancing factor, and be thematic. The rogue is more of the opportunist, doing good damage at all opportunities. The Slayer can take some advantage of opportunities, but at reduced effectiveness compared to the rogue. However, they are more effective when given time to properly prepare their attack and study their opponent.
Slayer should gain low prepared spells (per day like ranger), but only know a limited number (spells known like the bloodrager)
Slayer is meant to be non magical. Perhaps an archetype with spells like an Assassin. It would probably drop Slayer Talents.
I like the idea of a Slayer's SA dice being d4s against non-favored targets and d8s against selected favored targets.
You could also make all Slayer Talents maked with an asterisk only functional against Favored Targets. Or perhaps just weaker than normal against non-favored targets and a little stronger than normal against favored targets.
In the revision the Slayer has access to Swift Poison and Lasting Poison as talents. Shouldn't the Slayer also be able to take Deadly Cocktail as an Advanced Talent?
Just curious , you seem to be pretty pointedly not commenting on all the suggestions for ways to either synergies abilities with SA or add talents that would improve its success rate. Is that indicative that the line of thinking is a non starter? It would be nice to know if we are barking up the wrong tree is why I ask. It is definitely a popular opinion, but if it's not going anywhere it's silly for us all to keep bringing it up.
I've made a note of it. The trick is to make it good enough as a default ability that the class can make use of it, but not so good that we'd have to make it a talent (which would make it a "talent tax" because everyone would take it).
Slayer Talent~
Slayer's Focus: Against Favored Targets a Slayer may deal Sneak Attack damage even if he cannot clearly see his opponent (concealment), however, he still cannot deal Sneak Attack damage against Favored Targets that he cannot see (total concealment).
::EDIT:: This may have already been covered, I haven't been reading everyones Slayer Talent submissions.
Just curious , you seem to be pretty pointedly not commenting on all the suggestions for ways to either synergies abilities with SA or add talents that would improve its success rate. Is that indicative that the line of thinking is a non starter? It would be nice to know if we are barking up the wrong tree is why I ask. It is definitely a popular opinion, but if it's not going anywhere it's silly for us all to keep bringing it up.I've made a note of it. The trick is to make it good enough as a default ability that the class can make use of it, but not so good that we'd have to make it a talent (which would make it a "talent tax" because everyone would take it).
One way to do it is just make all the talents good enough that everyone will want all of them like the Barbarian. =P
Just curious , you seem to be pretty pointedly not commenting on all the suggestions for ways to either synergies abilities with SA or add talents that would improve its success rate. Is that indicative that the line of thinking is a non starter? It would be nice to know if we are barking up the wrong tree is why I ask. It is definitely a popular opinion, but if it's not going anywhere it's silly for us all to keep bringing it up.I've made a note of it. The trick is to make it good enough as a default ability that the class can make use of it, but not so good that we'd have to make it a talent (which would make it a "talent tax" because everyone would take it).
Awesome...to me it's the only thing left that I am really hoping for. Either an interaction with favored target or a set of abilities similar to the Scout archetype are my favorites.
Just curious , you seem to be pretty pointedly not commenting on all the suggestions for ways to either synergies abilities with SA or add talents that would improve its success rate. Is that indicative that the line of thinking is a non starter? It would be nice to know if we are barking up the wrong tree is why I ask. It is definitely a popular opinion, but if it's not going anywhere it's silly for us all to keep bringing it up.I've made a note of it. The trick is to make it good enough as a default ability that the class can make use of it, but not so good that we'd have to make it a talent (which would make it a "talent tax" because everyone would take it).
you mean like quick study for the investigator?
Just curious , you seem to be pretty pointedly not commenting on all the suggestions for ways to either synergies abilities with SA or add talents that would improve its success rate. Is that indicative that the line of thinking is a non starter? It would be nice to know if we are barking up the wrong tree is why I ask. It is definitely a popular opinion, but if it's not going anywhere it's silly for us all to keep bringing it up.I've made a note of it. The trick is to make it good enough as a default ability that the class can make use of it, but not so good that we'd have to make it a talent (which would make it a "talent tax" because everyone would take it).
And what about the idea of slayer specific combat styles? If good enough, it could compete for "talent space"
you mean like quick study for the investigator?
Cannot tell if bitter or sincere.
Slayer Talent~
Slayer's Focus: Against Favored Targets a Slayer may deal Sneak Attack damage even if he cannot clearly see his opponent (concealment), however, he still cannot deal Sneak Attack damage against Favored Targets that he cannot see (total concealment).
::EDIT:: This may have already been covered, I haven't been reading everyones Slayer Talent submissions.
I guess I'd rather take shadow strike as a feat then this as a talent.
Benefit: You can deal precision damage, such as sneak attack damage, against targets with concealment (but not total concealment).
You can get enough feats as talents to afford this.
Slayer Talent~
Slayer's Focus: Against Favored Targets a Slayer may deal Sneak Attack damage even if he cannot clearly see his opponent (concealment), however, he still cannot deal Sneak Attack damage against Favored Targets that he cannot see (total concealment).
::EDIT:: This may have already been covered, I haven't been reading everyones Slayer Talent submissions.
I guess I'd rather take shadow strike as a feat then this as a talent.
** spoiler omitted **
You can get enough feats as talents to afford this.
I am aware of the feat. If added to the Blind Fighting feat chain it's pretty excellent. A talent like this could be another option though. I guess I'd rather not take Shadow Strike as a feat.
You know what else would be cool, a Slayer Style kind of advancement of the Ranger Style talents for the Advanced Talent list.
Slayer's Art: Upon reaching 16th level the Slayer may begin to learn the techniques of his most deadly fighting style. At 16th level he may choose Dastardly Finish as an Advanced Slayer Talent. At 18th level he may choose Stunning Critical as an Advanced Slayer Talent. The Slayer need not meet any other prerequisites for the Stunning Critical feat.
You could even throw Critical Focus in there if you don't want to remove TWO prerequisite feats from Stunning Critical. That might look more like this.
Slayer's Art: Upon reaching 14th level the Slayer may begin to learn the techniques of his most deadly fighting style. At 14th level he may choose Critical Focus as an Advanced Slayer Talent. At 16th level he may choose Dastardly Finish as an Advanced Slayer Talent. At 18th level he may choose Stunning Critical as an Advanced Slayer Talent. The Slayer need not meet any other prerequisites for the Stunning Critical feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again I want to jump in and say that Full-BAB + sneak attack raises some weird issues.
Not that either of these two are bad things to have on any level... I am not saying that.
But having a full BAB with reduced sneak attack dice doubly reduces the efficacy of sneak attack.
What I mean is this. Take a level 11 slayer that has grabbed TWF, Imp TWF and Two Weapon Rend as combat style feats. They have double slice, 18 str, power attack favored target etc. Now put them in a position that says that they can choose one of two options:
1. They can take a 5ft step/stay still and make a full attack.
2. They can move into a flanking position and make one attack.
Pretty obvious choice right? You could get 3d6 sneak attack on one attack, or make an extra four attacks with a shot at two-weapon rend. Clear choice here that the full-attack is better than moving in to flank.
Now that may seem like an edge case but it REALLY isn't. That situation will come up in nearly every combat as a possibility (assuming you have at least one other melee class around). What is interesting, to me, is that given that same choice, the rogue is almost always better off choosing option #2. At 11th level, even with TWF feats, they are missing out on 3 attacks... but with all the access to sneak attack riders (like offensive defense) and the fact that they are dealing 6d6 sneak attack damage makes this a real option.
Often it is actually the better option. Their first attack has theh best chance of hitting (especially without the -2 for TWF, and with the +2 from flanking +2 more with a headband of ninjitsu) and the question becomes... is a higher hit chance single attack that deals 21 extra damage on average going to make up for the damage lost by their last three iteratives.... and the answer is usually: yeah.
So, sneak attack is simply less valuable for a class with a full-bab and good static damage increases. Particularly when that sneak attack progression is cut in half.
Since sneak attack isn't really tied in to any of the slayer's other abilities, it ends up feeling a bit out of place.... like a Rogue-Shaped bumper sticker being slapped on to a ranger archtype. It isn't a bad thing to have... it is a nice ability, and can be very useful in some situations... but it doesn't really mesh well with the rest of the design.
For a rogue, it works because that is their thing. That is, actually, their only thing. Rogues live or die with sneak attack and their builds are made with a laser focus on supporting it. Without sneak attack, or when they can't set it up, rogues are pretty much useless. Slayer's are quite the opposite. Sneak attack for a slayer is an odd little conditional bonus. For the most part, a Slayer is played just like a ranger without spells or a companion. Sneak attack is not the main focus of the class, and if you try to make it one, you will be disappointed.
The example of full-attack versus moving to flank is a good example of that. The rogue knows that without sneak attack, his full-attacks aren't worth much. The slayer knows that without a full-attack his effectiveness is massively reduced.
I am not sure what the exact solution here is... but something like a limited use per day Bane seems like it would be more thematically appropriate and functionally better. The damage added would be less, but the conditions would disappear.... and then we could actually have a ranged slayer that didn't feel like they were giving up on a supposedly major class feature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, please remember to update your survey responses for this and the other ACG classes now that the playtest period is coming to a close: survey link.
In a little bit I'll be posting a final update on some changes I'll be implementing in this class.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a heads-up on some slayer changes I'll be implementing:
* Ranger combat style talent should say you can ignore the selected feat's prereqs, just as a ranger can.
* Add a "throwing weapon" combat style for rangers, which would be available for slayers, too.
* Add a couple more appropriate rogue talents to the list, like powerful sneak and unwitting ally.
* Replace Cha-based ninja assassinate talent with Int-based talent that does the same thing.
* Create more slayer talents.
* Find a balanced way to synergize favored target and sneak attack.
* Add a "throwing weapon" combat style for rangers, which would be available for slayers, too.
...I find this to be almost more interesting than anything else. Very interested in seeing what options that has.
* Create more slayer talents.
Yessss...
New Throwing Weapon Feats to go with that, or just a medley of what we already have with early entry/pre-req bypass?
I assume (hope) it means new Feats, since there really aren't a whole bunch of throwing weapon Feats.
There's...Close Range Thrower and uh...that's actually it I think.
Yessss...
* Create more slayer talents.
Also going ahead with that class name change to Ssslayer? ;-)
I assume (hope) it means new Feats, since there really aren't a whole bunch of throwing weapon Feats.
There's...Close Range Thrower and uh...that's actually it I think.
Distance thrower...throw anything maybe...deadly aim.
* Add a "throwing weapon" combat style for rangers, which would be available for slayers, too.
Well that's, lackluster. I'm glad for the new style, but I don't see the need to play it so conservative. A combat style can be about more than what kind of weapon you use, and so far that's all every style is. Feinting is a style. Fighting dirty is a style. I get that doing them that way is conducive to expected feat selection, but anybody can take power attack and furious focus anyway (two handed style). Getting those doesn't show a commitment to a way of fighting anymore than anyone else. Now getting IPS at level 6 does, and I think there are other ways of doing that, such as non-weapon specific styles. Dare I say, they're more stylish?
I would include Quickdraw, Rapid Fire, +other applicable Ranged Feats, and most 2wf Feats as currently applicable Feats for Thrown Weapons.
But new Thrown Weapon Feats would be a great idea, and for more than just Rangers/Slayers' benefit.
STR to-hit? Hurled Caltrop AoE? Alchemical Item Synergy? (Tanglefoot Bags, etc)
Here's a heads-up on some slayer changes I'll be implementing:
* Ranger combat style talent should say you can ignore the selected feat's prereqs, just as a ranger can.
* Add a "throwing weapon" combat style for rangers, which would be available for slayers, too.
* Add a couple more appropriate rogue talents to the list, like powerful sneak and unwitting ally.
* Replace Cha-based ninja assassinate talent with Int-based talent that does the same thing.
* Create more slayer talents.
* Find a balanced way to synergize favored target and sneak attack.
Sean, I thank paizo for all the hard work everyone is doing there.
More slayer talents - like it
Synergize FT and sneak - like it
Here's a heads-up on some slayer changes I'll be implementing:
* Ranger combat style talent should say you can ignore the selected feat's prereqs, just as a ranger can.
* Add a "throwing weapon" combat style for rangers, which would be available for slayers, too.
* Add a couple more appropriate rogue talents to the list, like powerful sneak and unwitting ally.
* Replace Cha-based ninja assassinate talent with Int-based talent that does the same thing.
* Create more slayer talents.
* Find a balanced way to synergize favored target and sneak attack.
Sean, I thank paizo for all the hard work everyone is doing there.
More slayer talents - like it
Synergize FT and sneak - like it
+1 to this - hopefully all the devs get some much needed time off for the holidays!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A combat style can be about more than what kind of weapon you use, and so far that's all every style is.
Yes, like the notorious I hit you with my mount combat style in APG... ;)
A combat style can be about more than what kind of weapon you use, and so far that's all every style is.Yes, like the notorious I hit you with my mount combat style in APG... ;)
Okay now we need a "Living Weapon" Combat Style.
All about being a master of the Gnome Chucks and other forms of Grievous Harm With a Body
A combat style can be about more than what kind of weapon you use, and so far that's all every style is.Yes, like the notorious I hit you with my mount combat style in APG... ;)
Mechanically, pretty much. But good use of deflection to ignore the issue. 1 out of 5 (6) is enough to make my statement moot I guess.
In the future please try to remember the most important rule. It's right there every time you post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically, pretty much. But good use of deflection to ignore the issue. 1 out of 5 (6) is enough to make my statement moot I guess.
I think someone is being a grumpus! :)
Mechanically, pretty much. But good use of deflection to ignore the issue. 1 out of 5 (6) is enough to make my statement moot I guess.I think someone is being a grumpus! :)
Can't we all just get along! Lol
Why do people compare Slayer damage to fighter? Of course the Slayer's damage is not meant to match a fighter. The Slayer has way more skill points and lots of things to do outside of combat. Yes the Slayer will be behind on DPR compared to another heavy melee class, but only a little bit. Meanwhile paladins and fighters will be behind the Slayer in skill use, but by more than a little.Because the class is called "slayer" so it should be better at killing it's favred target than a two-handed fighter, ranger, barbarian, bloodrager, ninja,alchemist, etc. As it stands now, it is worse at killing than all of them.
And this is why I think they should change the name. The flavor doesn't really describe something that kills more effectively than a fighter per se, but that targets something and stalks it down or kills it.
PS: Also like the idea of more talents.
Also, please remember to update your survey responses for this and the other ACG classes now that the playtest period is coming to a close: survey link.
In a little bit I'll be posting a final update on some changes I'll be implementing in this class.
Are the surveys strictly for those who have playtested the class?