Explain to me why you love the slayer, I don't


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 195 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello everyone,

I believe myself to be a pretty inclusive guy concerning pathfinder material, and prefer to say yes to my players, within reason. I allow 3rd party content from time to time as long as I have time to review it and I even include 3 party base classes. I'm largely in favor of just about anything but there is a few things that rube me the wrong way, specifically the the Slayer.

Now I know I'm sticking a bloody hand in a tank full of great whites by voicing my distaste for the class, but I wish to expand my knowledge pool.

So, I would like to hear from my esteemed colleagues in the art of the pathfinder rpg why the slayer is good, should be allowed to freely participate in reindeer games with everyone else, not broken, and or why you like this class.

My reasons are my own for not liking the class and I'm not looking for someone to tell me why I am wrong, I just want to know why you like the slayer?


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

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


The slayer is a solid class, but I feel the class rather bland. Once paizo deliver much more unique slayer talent I probably would like the class much more.


Matthew Downie wrote:

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

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

To expand on this guy, he not only deals good damage, he has great/better to hit.

Full BAB helps a lot.


Nicos wrote:
The slayer is a solid class, but I feel the class rather bland. Once paizo deliver much more unique slayer talent I probably would like the class much more.

Do you feel like he is a bland murder hobo designed to fill every power gamer's fantasy of the awesome assassin sitting in the corner of the tavern?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The name is awesome and I can put on my Slayer Vinyl at home during combat!


Matthew Downie wrote:

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

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

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


Some Guy again wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

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

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

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

haha solid point


I don't like how questionable its use of ranger combat styles is. But overall the class is adequate at what it does, which is being a non-spell using skills and combat class.


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

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


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*shrug* I don't care either way about it, but the reasons others like it are pretty simple. They are rogues for people who prefer a martial bend, and rangers who don't have to focus.

Full BAB, martial proficient rogues, at the expense of some skill ability and utility. Your party needs a traps-guy but you really just wanted to hit things with a big sword? Slayer.

The stalker/assassin skill set of a ranger without the focus of one. Want to play your Assassin's Creed inspired character, but you aren't sure what race your targets will be, nor what terrain you'll be in when you find them? Slayer.

Then there's the pop-culture tie in that people love. With games like Assassin's creed, Thief, Metal Gear, Skyrim's Dark Brotherhood, and other stealth kill games, there's a desire to play the BA who hides in the shadows and slits people's throats. The Slayer allows a Pathfinder to play just that.


Some Guy again wrote:
Some Guy again wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

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

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

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

munch... munch...


I don't see your problem with it. It's just a ranger without spells, animal companion and gives studied target instead of favoured enemy. It does what a combat focused rogue should do


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont know if i love it. But to me the slayer is a better, Classic fantasy hero, that Can both figth and Think, than any of the core classes. I dont see the OP perfect killing machine that some guys seem to see. But if any body Can see him in the slayer i am willing to learn:)


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

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

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


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, simply put, it's the best way to play a battling rogue-type, and rogue-types have been more important to PF as a game than the rogue CLASS for a very long time.

It offers a completely nonmagical alternative to the ranger without requiring third-party versions or archetypes like the skirmisher that might not appeal to everyone.

It and the ninja are the only ways in the game to play non-evil assassins, and the Slayer lacks the inherently eastern flavor that makes some people dislike the ninja. On top of that, the Slayer is the best class overall for actually landing death attacks because it's the most accurate of the classes with death attacks. I don't consider this a make-or-break point because death attacks are still difficult as crap to pull off in pathfinder so if you can actually set one up I think you kinda deserve to at least have it come down to the enemy's saving throw rather than you just missing the target after you've managed to study it without being discovered and caught it flat-footed.

It's a martial class that encourages a more skill-based, tactical approach than many others with its large and versatile skill list. Someone that is good in a fight but can also do more than just intimidate when it tries to participate in the social aspects of role-play. It's kind of nice to have a warrior that can also scout and help out the party face with social encounters. It can be frustrating to play a class like the fighter and the barbarian and feel useless and out of place when your only way to contribute to the role-play between fights skill-wise is to try and scare the guy. I like that the Slayer doesn't just get damage bonuses from its study, but can participate when the fighting's over by being pretty good at sensing motive and tricking people with bluffs and disguises.

If you wanna play an Assassin's Creed style assassin, the Slayer is your man.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:
Some Guy again wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

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

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

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

Uh... You do realize you're agreeing with yourself, right?

Anyway...

I don't love the class. But I like it.

It's a good mix of martial and skills. A solid class who can contribute meaningfully in a variety of ways without ever being overpowered. It has decent options both in and out of combat, but will never break the game like a caster can do...

As far as mundane classes go, Slayer is probably the best balanced one (assuming you aren't counting Barbarians as mundane). It doesn't have the awful weaknesses of Rogues or the extreme narrow-mindedness of Fighters.


Melkiador wrote:
I don't like how questionable its use of ranger combat styles is. But overall the class is adequate at what it does, which is being a non-spell using skills and combat class.

Good point


Darkheyr wrote:

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

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

That's a huge deal for me too


Mortag1981 wrote:

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

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

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

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


Some Guy again wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The slayer is a solid class, but I feel the class rather bland. Once paizo deliver much more unique slayer talent I probably would like the class much more.
Do you feel like he is a bland murder hobo designed to fill every power gamer's fantasy of the awesome assassin sitting in the corner of the tavern?

I mostly feel the class uninteresting. The ranger combat style are a must have because rogue talents basically sucks. Once the salyer more slayer talents I probably would like the class more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:

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

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

That's a huge deal for me too

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


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

Thanks but not helping

Dark Archive

11 people marked this as a favorite.

The sooner you stop comparing new classes to the Fighter and Rogue, the sooner you'll be able to actually enjoy PF.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:
Do you feel like he is a bland

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

Some Guy again wrote:
murder hobo

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

Some Guy again wrote:
designed to fill every power gamer

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

Some Guy again wrote:
fantasy of the awesome assassin sitting in the corner of the tavern?

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


Some Guy again wrote:


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

This is fromøde another thread. But it is still very funny;)


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

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

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Oh, brother... If you're worried about the Rogue being replaced, you're going to have a bad time with Pathfinder... That ship has sailed a looooong time ago.
Thanks but not helping

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

Some Guy again wrote:
I do apologize I am heavily biased against the slayer because it is every martial players wet dream.

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

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


Seranov wrote:
The sooner you stop comparing new classes to the Fighter and Rogue, the sooner you'll be able to actually enjoy PF.

That's arguable. A person like me makes this comparison and is pleased that Paizo seems to finally be willing to slowly shake off some of the crusty old ideas that just didn't work as well as planned.

As for why I like the slayer. It feels like well before I started playing Pathfinder is was figured out that though they were designed to be Dex builds a rogue works a lot better if you focus on strength. Unfortunately for the rogue this leads to some hard trade offs.

Do you want to hit hard or hit consistently?
Do you want an easier time bypassing DR without having the right weapon or using sneak attacks or do you want a high AC?
Do you want to just full attack your enemies or risk AOOs by looking for a flank?

By giving slayers full BAB and medium armor proficiency it feels like the class just shrugs it shoulders and says why not do both. I'll admit that the class features for slayers aren't as exciting as a lot of the ACG classes but as other people have pointed out slayers seem really effective, balanced and straight forward to build well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame archetypes, specifically the Sanctified Slayer inquisitor and Nature Fang druid. The slayer has very few meaningful class features, and yet two other classes can grab all the best ones by trading out a relative handful of their native power. The slayer's unambiguously better than the rogue, but unless I have a strictly no-magic concept, I can't imagine playing one while two flavors of slayer++ are available.

Also, on the other side of things, the slayer's own archetypes have some serious issues. Stygian Slayer, it's cute that you get a handful of invisibility castings a day and the ability to use wands, but the ninja already did all of those things with vastly better mechanics. Your superior class chassis doesn't give you a free pass on the rusty bumpers and faded paint job.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Some Guy again wrote:
Do you feel like he is a bland

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

Some Guy again wrote:
murder hobo

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

Some Guy again wrote:
designed to fill every power gamer

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

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

All good points to consider, thanks for the post


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:

Hello everyone,

I believe myself to be a pretty inclusive guy concerning pathfinder material, and prefer to say yes to my players, within reason. I allow 3rd party content from time to time as long as I have time to review it and I even include 3 party base classes. I'm largely in favor of just about anything but there is a few things that rube me the wrong way, specifically the the Slayer.

Now I know I'm sticking a bloody hand in a tank full of great whites by voicing my distaste for the class, but I wish to expand my knowledge pool.

So, I would like to hear from my esteemed colleagues in the art of the pathfinder rpg why the slayer is good, should be allowed to freely participate in reindeer games with everyone else, not broken, and or why you like this class.

My reasons are my own for not liking the class and I'm not looking for someone to tell me why I am wrong, I just want to know why you like the slayer?

If we dont know why you dont like it is more difficult to help. Many times someone not liking the class is based on misconceptions and a wrong idea of how the rules work, or they read something online and thought it was true.

I like the slayer because it fills the ninja/assassin/fighty-skill position well, and the assassin PrC sucks, and I don't care for the actual ninja class. He also does it without relying on magic.

He fights well in combat, and he does skills well so I am never just twiddling my thumbs during a combat or non-combat scene. Some people just dont like the name, and I feel like fluff is mutable. I dont see what is not to like.


Runelord Apologist wrote:
Also, on the other side of things, the slayer's own archetypes have some serious issues. Stygian Slayer, it's cute that you get a handful of invisibility castings a day and the ability to use wands, but the ninja already did all of those things with vastly better mechanics. Your superior class chassis doesn't give you a free pass on the rusty bumpers and faded paint job.

I imagine that they could have done things like make a proper ninja slayer or zen archer brawler but then there would probably even stronger calls that the ACG invalidates older classes as well as others who would howl over the lack of creativity of the recycled archetypes. A full BAB ninja would be nice though...


strumbleduck wrote:

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

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

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

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


Some Guy again wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


Lemmy wrote:
Some Guy again wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Oh, brother... If you're worried about the Rogue being replaced, you're going to have a bad time with Pathfinder... That ship has sailed a looooong time ago.
Thanks but not helping

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

Some Guy again wrote:
I do apologize I am heavily biased against the slayer because it is every martial players wet dream.

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

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

Thank you that was helpful


Some Guy again wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:

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

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

That's a huge deal for me too

There are several classes that do this. Investigators, alchemist, bards, inquisitor, and so on can all out damage, and out skill the rogue at the same time. If that is your primary reason you will have to get rid of a lot of classes.


strumbleduck wrote:

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

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

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

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Some Guy again wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

forgive the mechanical mess ups, new at this posting stuff


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


I like the slayer.
It is one of the weaker classes, but it is a functioning mundane class without crazy stuff like the barbarian or spells like the ranger and paladin.

The only classes weaker than the slayer are the rohue and the fighter which are both horribly underpowered in their secondary role.


I like the Slayer because it does exactly what I was already doing by multi-classing the rogue with the ranger. It does it better as I don't have divine spell and at lot of the nature stuff.


The fighter does ok for damage. Especially with archetypes. The fighter's problem is that it serves little purpose outside of combat.


Just a Guess wrote:

I like the slayer.

It is one of the weaker classes, but it is a functioning mundane class without crazy stuff like the barbarian or spells like the ranger and paladin.

The only classes weaker than the slayer are the rohue and the fighter which are both horribly underpowered in their secondary role.

you forgot monk, which is on par with or weaker than rogue at everything except running away and jumping really high due to being extremely MAD and having to spend more money on magical damage boosters than most other classes because they tried to remove the gauntlet or greave as an option for cheaply enchanting monk unarmed strikes


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:
Honestly I think the name, SLAYER, just annoys me, but that is a minor grip haha

Then call it something else. I'm inclined to refer to it as Stalker.

Years ago, in a world where Warcraft was only an RTS, there was a cute little MORPG (it wasn't all that massive) called Ragnarok Online. It featured a branching job system, and the two jobs that branched off from "Thief" were Assassin and Stalker. Stalker continued the use of tricks, stealing, and misdirection that the Thief used, but with a better combat focus. That's what I like about this class in Pf.

I can play a fast talking con artist type who can actually hold their own in a fight. Someone who can be both sneaky and brash. Skilled as a thief, but tough enough to be cocky.

Also, considering another type of Stalker, the class is also excellent to use for a bounty hunter. Whether a grumpy True Grit type, or a Punisher esque vigilante.


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

I like the slayer.

It is one of the weaker classes, but it is a functioning mundane class without crazy stuff like the barbarian or spells like the ranger and paladin.

The only classes weaker than the slayer are the rohue and the fighter which are both horribly underpowered in their secondary role.

you forgot monk, which is on par with or weaker than rogue at everything except running away and jumping really high due to being extremely MAD and having to spend more money on magical damage boosters than most other classes because they tried to remove the gauntlet or greave as an option for cheaply enchanting monk unarmed strikes

I'd say certain Monk builds are stronger than the Slayer, the Sensei, Zen Archer, and Sohei in particular.

Sovereign Court

Melkiador wrote:
The fighter does ok for damage. Especially with archetypes. The fighter's problem is that it serves little purpose outside of combat.

Especially as an archer. I'd argue that a fighter archer is arguably the best archer in the game. Though in melee there are certainly stronger choices.

The three best archers are almost certainly fighter/ranger/zen archer. Fighter probably needs the most support casting to work at optimum - but with it he can churn out the most damage. Fighters just have so much static damage to add to all those shots. Ranger has spells - and zen has better defenses/mobility.


I don't like the name "slayer" just because it focuses on the killing too much. The class has 6 skill points. That's a lot of free space for all kinds of non-killing character concepts. I still can't come up with a more inclusive name though. Probably because all of the good names have already been taken. Maybe Commando?


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

I like the slayer.

It is one of the weaker classes, but it is a functioning mundane class without crazy stuff like the barbarian or spells like the ranger and paladin.

The only classes weaker than the slayer are the rohue and the fighter which are both horribly underpowered in their secondary role.

you forgot monk, which is on par with or weaker than rogue at everything except running away and jumping really high due to being extremely MAD and having to spend more money on magical damage boosters than most other classes because they tried to remove the gauntlet or greave as an option for cheaply enchanting monk unarmed strikes

Yeah, it is rather telling that the strongest monk archetypes are the ones that drop the traditional monk flavor in favor of using weapons and even wearing armor. As much fun as I had with my Sohei last time I played him, I got some funny looks for playing a "monk" who wore armor, used a huge sword, and specialized in mounted combat.


I'm pretty fond of the slayer as I am in the camp which considers it to be the rogue done right.

I don't much care about names, so that doesn't bug me.

My advice- drop the rogue, and swap in the slayer and forget the name ever existed.

1 to 50 of 195 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Explain to me why you love the slayer, I don't All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.