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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 195 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

in other words, 3 Archetypes that focus on using weapons, all of which, favor using flurry with a bow because god forbid a monk simply play like the game expects them to and kick people in the face


Pummeling charge did a lot to fix the monk, but had the bad side effect of shoehorning the monk into one build.


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.
in other words, 3 Archetypes that focus on using weapons, all of which, favor using flurry with a bow because god forbid a monk simply play like the game expects them to and kick people in the face

The Sensei doesn't use weapons, if he enters combat at all he's a Stunning Fist specialist.

Sovereign Court

Huh. Not one mention of the Stormwind Fallacy that Some Guy again was making? Odd, I thought it would have been mentioned by now.

Sovereign Court

Chengar Qordath wrote:
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.

At low levels the armor a sohei can wear is beneficial. At high levels monks can get far higher AC without armor - and with pummeling style in play - monks are better off going unarmed. (unless zen of course) Just use the AoMF for abilities and grab an allying weapon to hold for straight enchancement bonus.

Though Quiggong is practically required. It was basically a stealth patch for the monk.


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?

put simply, it's the combat effective rogue we've all been waiting for.


Maybe I should rephrase - my concern about him replacing the Rogue is that I don't like having the rogue as it is next to the Slayer. I'd rather have a revised rogue than a new class that does the same, but better. Suppose I could just drop the rogue and use the Slayer as a replacement in all cases.

We'll see how the Unchained option turns out - and the other Unchained stuff. I'm especially curious as to the new action system and combat tricks.


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.

think of the Slayer as the patch to the rogue and it's less of a problem, basically, this was the devs intent. as the devs can't errata an entire class.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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?

Why? Are you looking to tell someone else that they are wrong? It's OKAY not to like a certain class or three. There's no law, written, nor unwritten that says you have to gush over every piece of text, every mechanic that a game company puts out. If you're looking for an exchange of thoughts, you need to be open to sharing your own as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see slayer as a more amusing spell-less combatant. It has more skills than a fighter, less nature ties pigeon-holing it than a ranger, and less weird rage mechanics than a barbarian. If you want a guy to pilot around and be useful while still being just a guy, then Slayer is right up there.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I don't care for the slayer. As others have said, it's kind of bland. My biggest issue with the class is that aside from the ranger combat styles none of the other talents are very interesting. Its archetypes are also dull. I'm hoping it eventually gets more interesting talents and better archetypes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

the reason the slayer is dull is because you are expected to fill in the fluff yourself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the Slayer as it can fill a number of roles easily: spell-less ranger (bounty hunter, etc), assassin, fighter/rogue, depending on what you want it to be. Or you can just say he's a skilled warrior. It's a nice, flexible, class. Who Slays people and things. I like name of the class too.


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
the reason the slayer is dull is because you are expected to fill in the fluff yourself.

That's probably the reason I like it the most.


To me as a DM, Slayer has the potential to be the most annoying class ever.

Any class that knows how many hit points my BBEG has at any given time is going to give me a sad face.

"What, you wanted him to be a recurring villain? Well, I know he started the round with 58 hit points and the barbarian just raged his face with a 62 point crit. Too bad, bud. Maybe he has a twin."


Tiaximus wrote:

To me as a DM, Slayer has the potential to be the most annoying class ever.

Any class that knows how many hit points my BBEG has at any given time is going to give me a sad face.

"What, you wanted him to be a recurring villain? Well, I know he started the round with 58 hit points and the barbarian just raged his face with a 62 point crit. Too bad, bud. Maybe he has a twin."

the status and deathwatch spells can do that. plus, players share each others hit point totals all the time.


*wanders in*


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Tiaximus wrote:

To me as a DM, Slayer has the potential to be the most annoying class ever.

Any class that knows how many hit points my BBEG has at any given time is going to give me a sad face.

"What, you wanted him to be a recurring villain? Well, I know he started the round with 58 hit points and the barbarian just raged his face with a 62 point crit. Too bad, bud. Maybe he has a twin."

the status and deathwatch spells can do that. plus, players share each others hit point totals all the time.

No, they don't--neither deathwatch nor status gives you exact hit point totals. Deathwatch gives you a very vague idea of what the creature's hp is, and only barely accurate when they have 3 or less hp. Status is pretty similar.

I'm curious why you mentioned the status spell--did someone in your games actually walk up to the BBEG and touch them with this spell?

The Slayer's ability is at range, exact on hit point number, and has no daily limit. Status requires you to touch the target, and deathwatch basically just tells you if they are wounded or not.

I don't know why you mention players sharing their hp totals. That's not even a part of what I was talking about.


It is a rogue replacement for me. I like sometimes to play skill-monkeys without magic or certain other themes (otherwise I'd go ranger or bard). I could be a rogue, but then, would be ill-able to keep up with the characters everyone else is playing when it came to anything aside from skills.

I'm glad Paizo is fixing the rogue in unchained though, if that is decent enough I may use it instead of the slayer next time I make a roguish character.


Tiaximus wrote:

To me as a DM, Slayer has the potential to be the most annoying class ever.

Any class that knows how many hit points my BBEG has at any given time is going to give me a sad face.

"What, you wanted him to be a recurring villain? Well, I know he started the round with 58 hit points and the barbarian just raged his face with a 62 point crit. Too bad, bud. Maybe he has a twin."

This can actually go bad for the GM two ways.

1. "OK, guys, he's got like 30 HP left. Fry him."

2. "Sorry, guys, he's got like 400 HP. Brace for TPK."

Can't bump up the HP to keep a fight long enough not to be an anticlimax, can't let the boss be surprisingly close to death when you miscalculate and he devastated the party and is still going strong.

On the other hand, for PCs it's a terribly useful talent to have some idea if you're doing at all well in the fight and if you are at the point you can grind the enemy down or if you've gotta bust some serious power to drop this guy anytime soon. Since enemies don't give any indication how much health they've got left until they're dead, it can be handy to know that the thing the wizard's about to throw his last fireball at can be dropped with an Acid Splash instead.


Oh yeah, it's definitely handy, I'm not arguing that at all. It's just a brand new toy that does something we've never seen before. It just makes the battle feel like more of a math exercise than a life and death encounter, and requires more planning on the DM's part.

Nothing sucks more than giving the monster too much of a boost and squishing the party on accident. :-P I like it to be a challenge, and having the HP secret allows me a little buffer room to make them feel like heroes.


Tiaximus wrote:
Nothing sucks more than giving the monster too much of a boost and squishing the party on accident. :-P I like it to be a challenge, and having the HP secret allows me a little buffer room to make them feel like heroes.

If it's a home game, you can change the ability to simply informing the PCs that their foe is "bloodied" once they are below half their full HP total. This gives them a ballpark without giving away the exact number, and gels with immersion somewhat.

I grant those trained in Heal this information if they can make a check following a successful Knowledge check.

But we were talking about the Slayer. I think Paizo was just delivering to market demand. I like it because it's like a more generalized Ranger without magic.


I don't know. Every time I try to read the Slayer I fall asleep.

Okay, that's overbearing, I honestly just haven't had a sneaky-sneak character idea bouncing around in my head that sparked my interest for a long time. Ultimately, character is what it's about. There are a enough guides and I know enough of the general rules that building a character who is decent at her job is fairly easy. And if the party has a hole that needs filling, I can usually dream up a character backstory and setup that does the job fairly easily. But since I haven't been in a party that needed a sneaky-stabby character for over decade I can't think of anything I want to play.

Without that, without some sort of broken ground to put a root into, I can't grow a character with the class and can't really get into exploring the concept.

That said, I remember 3.5 and I remember playing rogues that can't hit anything, spend most fights trying desperately to get a flank buddy and failing, and looking at their "amazing" sneak attack damage and the regular boring damage done by the party martial and realizing they're better.

Slayer fills the bill of sneaky stabby guy. That is an incredibly common trope, it is rogue but trading a few damage dice and abilities for full BAB. It is bland, open, and can fit the bill for anyone from Aragort the Ranger to Zenzer the devil-may-care anti-hero with friends in low places to Malfeasiol the horrible hit man from the brutal Lotus Cartel. It's like tofu, you add the flavor.

Is it a good class? Seems to be. Rogue's main problem is they can't hit spit. Everything else that is "weak" about them can either be mitigated or was essentially a feature rather than a bug. But you can't do anything about a monster with a high flat-footed AC, which is most of them.

I mean, it might be nice if there was a talent that let you sneak up on unsneakables like critters with tremorsense, and/or something that gave "skill tricks" that did supernatural (or at least impossible) things with skills because they're just that awesome and it slows down the "casters are too powerful" complaints a tiny bit. But that comes up less often than, "oh boy! I brought a bunch of d6s to this fight so I can finally do some damage and...I can only hit most of these dudes on a 19+..."


I'm not actually sure why people consider it bland. It's much less bland than a fighter or rogue.


Nah, everybody loves fighters, they're like football stars. Just pick a weapon you think is shiny and cool and gush about it. And rogues, well they ARE slayers, just with lower stats. Honestly, they're not less bland, they're exactly the same bland. "Me kills da things wit da killin'."


Milo v3 wrote:
I'm not actually sure why people consider it bland. It's much less bland than a fighter or rogue.

they probably think they're bland too, even though they're specifically made to not be heavily associated with anything such as a paladin or druid.


I somewhat consider fighters more customizable, at least in the feat/talents department (obviosly not in the skill department), as a slayer if you don't take the ranger combat style you are basically doing it wrong. The slayer need way more unique talents IMHO.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
I somewhat consider fighters more customizable, at least in the feat/talents department (obviosly not in the skill department), as a slayer if you don't take the ranger combat style you are basically doing it wrong. The slayer need way more unique talents IMHO.

Not to mention fighters have a lot of archetypes that actually make meaningful changes to the class.


Xexyz wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I somewhat consider fighters more customizable, at least in the feat/talents department (obviosly not in the skill department), as a slayer if you don't take the ranger combat style you are basically doing it wrong. The slayer need way more unique talents IMHO.
Not to mention fighters have a lot of archetypes that actually make meaningful changes to the class.

There is the tactician, the one that lets you use some alchemist things, and the one that lets you trade feats out. All of the others are still based around damage to a large extent. What others make meaningful changes?


wraithstrike wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I somewhat consider fighters more customizable, at least in the feat/talents department (obviosly not in the skill department), as a slayer if you don't take the ranger combat style you are basically doing it wrong. The slayer need way more unique talents IMHO.
Not to mention fighters have a lot of archetypes that actually make meaningful changes to the class.
There is the tactician, the one that lets you use some alchemist things, and the one that lets you trade feats out. All of the others are still based around damage to a large extent. What others make meaningful changes?

Lore warden? Eldritch Guardian?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
There is the tactician, the one that lets you use some alchemist things, and the one that lets you trade feats out. All of the others are still based around damage to a large extent. What others make meaningful changes?

That right there is more than the slayer has. It just feels like an incomplete class. Every time I look at it as a candidate for a character concept I inevitably find another class that better fits it. I think what it needs is a lot more unique talents in order for it to stand out.

For example, I was in need of a class for an NPC assassin to send against the PCs in my game, and slayer seemed like a strong choice. However when I started actually making the character I found I was leaning so much in a ranger-like direction with the build that I realized I might as well just make it a ranger instead.

I also have need to stat up a couple of officers for an NPC army, but fighters and cavaliers better fit what I want. One of the officers is going to be the leader of a commando-type elite unit, but I have a feeling I'll probably just end up making that character a ranger with the guide archetype.


master_marshmallow wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I somewhat consider fighters more customizable, at least in the feat/talents department (obviosly not in the skill department), as a slayer if you don't take the ranger combat style you are basically doing it wrong. The slayer need way more unique talents IMHO.
Not to mention fighters have a lot of archetypes that actually make meaningful changes to the class.
There is the tactician, the one that lets you use some alchemist things, and the one that lets you trade feats out. All of the others are still based around damage to a large extent. What others make meaningful changes?
Lore warden? Eldritch Guardian?

Yeah Lore Warden is what I meant, not tactician.

The other two are Martial Master and Mutation Warrior.

I don't know what Eldritch Guardian does. What book is it in?


wraithstrike wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I somewhat consider fighters more customizable, at least in the feat/talents department (obviosly not in the skill department), as a slayer if you don't take the ranger combat style you are basically doing it wrong. The slayer need way more unique talents IMHO.
Not to mention fighters have a lot of archetypes that actually make meaningful changes to the class.
There is the tactician, the one that lets you use some alchemist things, and the one that lets you trade feats out. All of the others are still based around damage to a large extent. What others make meaningful changes?
Lore warden? Eldritch Guardian?

Yeah Lore Warden is what I meant, not tactician.

The other two are Martial Master and Mutation Warrior.

I don't know what Eldritch Guardian does. What book is it in?

Familiar folio, it gives you a familiar.


Xexyz wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
There is the tactician, the one that lets you use some alchemist things, and the one that lets you trade feats out. All of the others are still based around damage to a large extent. What others make meaningful changes?

That right there is more than the slayer has. It just feels like an incomplete class. Every time I look at it as a candidate for a character concept I inevitably find another class that better fits it. I think what it needs is a lot more unique talents in order for it to stand out.

For example, I was in need of a class for an NPC assassin to send against the PCs in my game, and slayer seemed like a strong choice. However when I started actually making the character I found I was leaning so much in a ranger-like direction with the build that I realized I might as well just make it a ranger instead.

I also have need to stat up a couple of officers for an NPC army, but fighters and cavaliers better fit what I want. One of the officers is going to be the leader of a commando-type elite unit, but I have a feeling I'll probably just end up making that character a ranger with the guide archetype.

The fighter cant use all 3 archetypes at once though so in a game the slayer is still ahead.

The mutation warrior is the only one that might be better at a combination of in combat and out of combat utility, and that is still a maybe.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

The fighter cant use all 3 archetypes at once though so in a game the slayer is still ahead.

The mutation warrior is the only one that might be better at a combination of in combat and out of combat utility, and that is still a maybe.

Yeah, I'm not talking about mechanical ability; I don't deny that the slayer is generally mechanically sound. I just haven't yet found a spot for one in my campaign. I haven't yet come up with an NPC that really screams, "slayer!" to me, and the slayer's class abilities aren't interesting enough on their own for me to want to make a character specifically to see them in action.

Maybe I'll make a slayer when I have need for a rogue-type NPC that I want to be a bigger threat than an actual rogue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I quite like the slayer. I think in some ways it's a better ranger than a ranger—lacking that flavor-specific nonsense rangers get saddled with like "huge racist" and "worships nature"—and a better rogue than a rogue. No, I'm not doing a dash-aside for that one. You know why.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hahaaha, sick burn, me. Well played. Solid points. I think you deserve a round of applause!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why, thank you, me. And might I say, what a fine use of that Birdemic clip!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Nice job getting the reference! Guys, this guy...this guy gets it. I love this guy.


Xexyz wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The fighter cant use all 3 archetypes at once though so in a game the slayer is still ahead.

The mutation warrior is the only one that might be better at a combination of in combat and out of combat utility, and that is still a maybe.

Yeah, I'm not talking about mechanical ability; I don't deny that the slayer is generally mechanically sound. I just haven't yet found a spot for one in my campaign. I haven't yet come up with an NPC that really screams, "slayer!" to me, and the slayer's class abilities aren't interesting enough on their own for me to want to make a character specifically to see them in action.

Maybe I'll make a slayer when I have need for a rogue-type NPC that I want to be a bigger threat than an actual rogue.

I tend to run for optimized gamers so I often replace rogues, and rogue/fighters with slayers.

As for a PC it works for me because I have always wanted a ninja-type non magical guy that does not suck like the assassin PrC does.

Other than that I dont really use the class either. I am really waiting for it get some better talents. I am thinking about rewriting some rogue talents, but the slayer still needs something official so that it does not require the ranger abilities to work.

edit: removed the second "work"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ours is a forbidden love. Strange, yet enticing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Little Kobold you have had way too much to drink.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

I tend to run for optimized gamers so I often replace rogues, and rogue/fighters with slayers.

As for a PC it works for me because I have always wanted a ninja-type non magical guy that does not suck like the assassin PrC does.

Other than that I dont really use the class either. I am really waiting for it get some better talents. I am thinking about rewriting some rogue talents, but the slayer still needs something official so that it does not require the ranger abilities to work work.

Funny you say that. I run for mostly optimized gamers as well, and because of that I never actually used rogues in any encounter I meant to be truly threatening. Though I still use rogues, mainly to represent street hoodlums and other common thugs. To be perfectly honest, I pretty much think of rogues as an NPC class.

But I digress; this is a thread for discussing slayers, not bashing the poor old rogue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Nice job getting the reference! Guys, this guy...this guy gets it. I love this guy.

you failed to like your own posts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xexyz wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The fighter cant use all 3 archetypes at once though so in a game the slayer is still ahead.

The mutation warrior is the only one that might be better at a combination of in combat and out of combat utility, and that is still a maybe.

Yeah, I'm not talking about mechanical ability; I don't deny that the slayer is generally mechanically sound. I just haven't yet found a spot for one in my campaign. I haven't yet come up with an NPC that really screams, "slayer!" to me, and the slayer's class abilities aren't interesting enough on their own for me to want to make a character specifically to see them in action.

Maybe I'll make a slayer when I have need for a rogue-type NPC that I want to be a bigger threat than an actual rogue.

the Slayer to me fits the archtypical adventurer best. medium armor, no focus on magic, likes tactics that are less charge things. basically, I'd play a non-magical archaeologist with a slayer, or I'd play a general adventurer, or a mercenary, or any other guy that won't be walking around in full plate and not casting spells or being an ultra rage head. also, intelligent melee non-magical combatants are usually slayer for me.


Yeah the slayer is the most typical fantasy-hero-guy. Mobile medium armor. Good at a lot of things. Works better in a team.

I think it depends on how you create your characters. If you are more of "What mechanics can I get to fit this character?". Or, "What kind of character can I wrap around this mechanic?" Personally, I'm more often the second one but a lot of people prefer the first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiaximus wrote:

Any class that knows how many hit points my BBEG has at any given time is going to give me a sad face.

"What, you wanted him to be a recurring villain? Well, I know he started the round with 58 hit points and the barbarian just raged his face with a 62 point crit. Too bad, bud. Maybe he has a twin."

Gygax forbid players actually achieve a flawless victory, right? It’s a GM’s right to keep a fight going until you judge they’ve suffered enough.

But seriously, if Paizo ever publishes a class or archetype that forces GMs to roll their dice in the open, I will play that and nothing else forevermore.


You're exaggerating there. It's not about suffering, it's about giving player an epic end battle that they have been looking forward to for many sessions.

I'm all for rewarding players, especially for well-thought out tactics. Sometimes though, you miscalculate during encounter design, and adjust a little on the fly to make it more memorable. It's not something that should happen often, so that particular slayer ability does not worry me all that much - but I understand the sentiment.

And honestly, if you don't trust your GM enough to do hidden rolls, you should consider finding another group. The GM is not your opponent.


Keep Calm and Carrion wrote:


But seriously, if Paizo ever publishes a class or archetype that forces GMs to roll their dice in the open, I will play that and nothing else forevermore.

That's pretty childish.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I quite like the slayer. I think in some ways it's a better ranger than a ranger—lacking that flavor-specific nonsense rangers get saddled with like "huge racist" and "worships nature"—and a better rogue than a rogue. No, I'm not doing a dash-aside for that one. You know why.

Favored Enemy doesn't really have anything to do with racism. It's just a type of creature the Ranger studied, the same way a hunter will study his prey. It's not hatred, just effectiveness. I'd wpuldn't say they worship nature either... They are obviously attuned to it to a degree, but they don't worship it like Druids do. It's more about knowing the enviroment ans using it to survive and thrive in the wilds, and in a magical world, that includes the mystical aspects of nature as well (therefore, spells).

51 to 100 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.