No, a higher op party has no place for characters that can't cast spells. Even one true barbar builds become excluded do to tactical simplicity.
For low op parties, the slayer is OP. Middling groups are where slayers belong.
Edit: I've been in parties where starting with 18 strength broke the game. I've also been in parties where you were either a spellcaster or irrelevant.
True I said High op, but I meant mid op according to the forums. I forget that my group practices "do high op things on lower op chassis." So we see less god wizards and more super Sorcerers n such.
Yeah a higher op party doesn't want a Slayer, they want a super Magus/Hunter/Inquisitor/Summoner.
|
I would rather play the fighter. But I would rather have the slayer in my party.
I can see that, I suppose. The question is why.
I would also want a slayer to cover both the rogue and fighter roles rather than try for complete parody. That would give the party a rogue and a round one meat shield. Let a cha caster cover social skills.
Well, the Slayer I posted actually does all of that except traps, I tend to think.
But that's my main problem with the fighter. If I added +10 to his AC, Saves, to-hit, and damage, I'd still rather have a druid in the party. It's because I don't value the fighter's role all that much from a tactical or strategic perspective. Advance weapon training boosted both his defenses and utility such that he is a more well rounded character. But that only brought him up to a point that he competes with competent mundanes like ubarbars, slayers, urogues, cavaliers and gunslingers.
What kinda Fighter (or other martial)? There is always an archer, after all. And that character does something a Druid doesn't. Admittedly, not something several other casters don't, but something useful and reliable.
A caster is certainly better, at least the vast majority of the time, but if someone wants to play a martial, it's not a vast drain on party resources or anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is engineering the best knowledge skill?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is engineering the best knowledge skill?
It specifically covers buildings, but is also the skill that handles general engineering.
As an engineer I'm biased, but it isn't all that serious of a statement.
I can see that, I suppose. The question is why.
Mainly personal preferences.
Thematically I see the fighter as more King Arthur or Lancelot (though sometimes Monty Python version), while your slayer reminds me more of Geralt of Rivia.
Mechanical prejudices:
1. I hate sneak attack. Gives me flash backs of playing a rogue. Just having it on my sheet is depressing.
2. I hate weapon focus. I only grab it on the fighter at 16 because he can generalize those feats to his weapon group (more tolerable level of restriction). The slayer needs this feat for martial focus and smash from the air. Less of an issue with automatic bonus progression, though if some sort of artifact longsword drops, I'd rather be able to use it properly.
3. 7 cha. Personally I don't like dumping. Also most GMs I play with will have NPCs start put off by low cha characters. What you did to get around low cha has some flaws which brings me to the last point.
4. Niche cases. Cleaving more than studied target limit? Gather information? Sending a coded message? Rare situation requiring feinting (fighting the god of dexterity)? Antagonize diplomacy check? What if some NPCs take studied target as a hostile action, thus denying some skill bonuses? This is the consequence of doing backflips parody.
Now the reason I'll take the slayer as the party member is because he serves the scout role with the meat shield role and is more likely to die and be replaced. I said that preference from purely a tactical standpoint not a general "I prefer to play with certain classes holistically". Who I wanted in an actual party would depend more on how the player played them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is engineering the best knowledge skill?It specifically covers buildings, but is also the skill that handles general engineering.
As an engineer I'm biased, but it isn't all that serious of a statement.
ok. I thought you were completely being serious since I didn't see am emoticon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mainly personal preferences.
Thematically I see the fighter as more King Arthur or Lancelot (though sometimes Monty Python version), while your slayer reminds me more of Geralt of Rivia.
Slayer doesn't need to be any less King Arthur than Fighter. That's a personal decision about character focus more than it is class.
Mechanical prejudices:
1. I hate sneak attack. Gives me flash backs of playing a rogue. Just having it on my sheet is depressing.
That's fair.
2. I hate weapon focus. I only grab it on the fighter at 16 because he can generalize those feats to his weapon group (more tolerable level of restriction). The slayer needs this feat for martial focus and smash from the air. Less of an issue with automatic bonus progression, though if some sort of artifact longsword drops, I'd rather be able to use it properly.
Yeah, I suppose, though retraining a single Feat isn't the end of the world.
3. 7 cha. Personally I don't like dumping. Also most GMs I play with will have NPCs start put off by low cha characters. What you did to get around low cha has some flaws which brings me to the last point.
Well, again, that one's not inherent in the Class. You can grab a 10 easily enough if it's super important.
4. Niche cases. Cleaving more than studied target limit? Gather information? Sending a coded message? Rare situation requiring feinting (fighting the god of dexterity)?
I guess. None of those are common enough to be a huge deal, though.
Antagonize diplomacy check?
I think it's debatable that Student of Philosophy works on these. It specifies not working on gathering information and nothing else.
What if some NPCs take studied target as a hostile action, thus denying some skill bonuses? This is the consequence of doing backflips parody.
Uh...Studied Target has no visual effects beyond looking at the person. There is literally no way for them to get offended by it.
Now the reason I'll take the slayer as the party member is because he serves the scout role with the meat shield role and is more likely to die and be replaced. I said that preference from purely a tactical standpoint not a general "I prefer to play with certain classes holistically". Who I wanted in an actual party would depend more on how the player played them.
Sure.