| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
As the title says, in the description of this archetype on the PRD it doesn't list any replacement for this ability. The usual pattern would be for this ability to replace the 2nd level slayer talent, but there is no language to that effect. So is this ability just a free upgrade?
Yep.
This is almost certainly an error, from the last errata. The old version of sniper had a different ability that I'm pretty sure did take the place of the talent.
So it is currently free, but most likely should be a replacement.
So it is currently free, but most likely should be a replacement.
Basically. If you are interested in taking advantage of this, it will probably be years before they get around to correcting it in an official source. It's not a FAQ candidate as far as I know, and it will likely be a long time before they print another errata.
This is almost certainly an error, from the last errata. The old version of sniper had a different ability that I'm pretty sure did take the place of the talent.
The old version of the sniper ability let you choose to gain 5 additional feet on your sneak attack range instead of taking a talent. This was pretty ridiculous because of the slayer talent that gives you 10 additional feet.
Instead of giving you a non-choice you are now able to be a stronger, more thematic, sniper without losing your slayer abilities
Let's look at the trades:
Accuracy (Ex): At 1st level, a sniper halves all range increment penalties when making ranged attacks with a bow, crossbow, or firearm. This ability replaces track.
Deadly Sniper (Ex): At 2nd level, when the sniper makes an attack against a target who is within his weapon’s first range increment and completely unaware of his presence, that attack ignores the 30 foot range limit on ranged sneak attacks, and if it is a sneak attack, he adds his sniper level as a bonus on his sneak attack damage roll. After this first attack, the target is aware of the sniper’s presence.
Accuracy: Gives a +1 to +5 on attacks out of your first range increment. This is a pretty good trade for Track which is a minor bonus to a rarely needed specific use of a skill.
Deadly Sniper: Isn't the best ability ever, since it can in late levels be replaced with Sniper Goggles; but it's still on par with other Slayer talents like Deadly Range, which is also obsoleted by Sniper Goggles.
So as written, the archetype currently gives a good trade and a free trade, which makes it a clear upgrade over the base Slayer. It's pretty clear the intent was for Deadly Sniper to cost a talent.
Perhaps the most dangerous thing about the missing trade is that this allows other good archetypes to tack on this archetype. Stygian Slayer? Might as well be a Sniper too. Deliverer or Bounty Hunter? Might as well slap on some Sniper.
yeeeeah, but the whole "might as well take another" thing is true of any stack-able archetype really. and the tradeoff for stacking sniper with those others is that you lose the talent, which is a definite power limiter.
also, you are missing the biggest limiter on the sniper archetype. the fact that those abilities can only be used with ranged weapons is a big deal. sure you have a great source of dps, but you basically lose out on your class abilities if someone does manage to get within melee range of you, even more than with normal ranged pc's.
also the bounty hunter doesn't seem stack super well with sniper with its low range ranged weapons, the sneak attack non-damage conversion, and the grappling abilities.
on the other hand i kicked myself for not looking at the stygian slayer when i made my sniper, that would have been awesome
EDIT: another good one to stack would be the executioner, get extra flat damage and a sickened effect on your successful sneak attacks? yes please
EDIT2: I'm not saying it isnt strong, just that i think its a good trade off for specializing in long range martial combat
also, you are missing the biggest limiter on the sniper archetype. the fact that those abilities can only be used with ranged weapons is a big deal. sure you have a great source of dps, but you basically lose out on your class abilities if someone does manage to get within melee range of you, even more than with normal ranged pc's.
I think you are ignoring that all you are trading for these abilities is Track. Track. Track? It's a weak situational ability that almost never comes up. Even if your build has no plans of focusing on ranged combat, the archetype is still an upgrade, because you will still be forced to use a bow way more often than Track will come up.
they are both very campaign dependent (if you don't intend to go fully ranged). you are walking right into the martial vs caster debate by saying its a no-brainer to trade general utility for combat abilities on a martial, be careful or you'll have this thread flooded in no time ha.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I think you are ignoring that all you are trading for these abilities is Track. Track. Track? It's a weak situational ability that almost never comes up. Even if your build has no plans of focusing on ranged combat, the archetype is still an upgrade, because you will still be forced to use a bow way more often than Track will come up.
Have you ever actually looked at the rules for tracking and thought about the level of information you can get on a good roll? I generally have to tone it back to avoid ticking off the GM. Considering a roll in the mid 30s can track an ant that crossed a stone floor a week ago, you can derive a tremendous amount of information about the movements and habits of creatures in a structure or lair with tracking.
Knowing where everyone goes and what they do can be great in any infiltration or rescue scenario. Yes, if your style is "kick in every door" it won't be of much use, but when faced with a hallway with three doors, knowing that one of them has had 5 people and a large quadruped enter in the last hour, while the other two have not, is great information.
Regarding the OP, not every archetype ability has a trade-off. Also, not all tradeoffs are 1 to 1 - sometimes you trade a good ability for a bad one , but later get the reverse deal.
they are both very campaign dependent (if you don't intend to go fully ranged).
Not meaningfully. Very few campaign can reward having Track. It's just a minor bonus to a sub-use of a skill. A majority of the time it would come up, you could just use Perception, which multiple members of your team will have maxed out.
Meanwhile, the slayer is already built for stealth. You are already encouraged to catch opponents unaware. At some point in your campaign, you will face enemies out in the open, who are very far away. This is only campaign dependent in if this will happen a lot or a little. Either way, it will come up way more often than Track.
you are walking right into the martial vs caster debate by saying its a no-brainer to trade general utility for combat abilities on a martial, be careful or you'll have this thread flooded in no time ha.
No. I am saying it's a no-brainer to trade a nearly useless ability for two guaranteed to be useful abilities. In the course of a campaign, you will want to attack an enemy with a bow from further away than its minimum range. In the course of a campaign, you will want to attack with your bow in a surprise round while within the minimum range.
you can derive a tremendous amount of information about the movements and habits of creatures in a structure or lair with tracking.
You could do most of the things you listed with a use of the Perception skill.
Most campaigns take place in enclosed spaces. A majority of the time, you'll never have an enemy more than 30 feet away in the first place
True.
it's a minor bonus that you'll likely never use, because no one cares about your 100 foot range increment when you're fighting in rooms that are twenty feet across.
False. You yourself said you are only in enclosed spaces a majority of the time. So, a minority of the time, you will be in open spaces. Meanwhile, a lot of the uses of Track already won't come up often and when it does it can often be covered by magic or the Perception skill.
It's the difference between being a subset vs being a subset of a subset.
actually you can't use perception in place of tracking, that's not a thing. if someone has let you do that they were homebrewing it. you can use perception to find a footprint, but you have to use survival to actually follow it as a trail.
No. I am saying it's a no-brainer to trade a nearly useless ability for two guaranteed to be useful abilities. In the course of a campaign, you will want to attack an enemy with a bow from further away than its minimum range. In the course of a campaign, you will want to attack with your bow in a surprise round while within the minimum range.
you may want to reread the abilities, the first one lets you do something you can already do slightly better, the second one only affects sniping, which was situational to begin with (and its only tangentially related to surprise rounds so im not sure what you were getting at there)
In any case we are getting pretty far off the topic here, and the new discussion is also not super rules related, i'll keep going if you want but can you make a new thread in general discussion?
actually you can't use perception in place of tracking, that's not a thing. if someone has let you do that they were homebrewing it. you can use perception to find a footprint, but you have to use survival to actually follow it as a trail.
Exactly. If I want to know tactical information like who has been in an area, then I can already use perception for that. Track is only useful for actually following the creature. And if I want to do that, there are other options.
you may want to reread the abilities, the first one lets you do something you can already do slightly better
That's all Track does. Anyone can follow tracks, with a rank in survival. Track just gives you a bonus on it.
the second one only affects sniping, which was situational to begin with (and its only tangentially related to surprise rounds so im not sure what you were getting at there)
I'm saying that in the course of a campaign you will want to get surprise attacks from a distance at least somewhat often. And the existence and assumption of Assassinate means you have a lot of reason to do so, even if you are not a range-focused build. This is partly a side-effect of the Slayer having a shortage of meaningful talent choices.
the second one only affects sniping, which was situational to begin with (and its only tangentially related to surprise rounds so im not sure what you were getting at there)I'm saying that in the course of a campaign you will want to get surprise attack from a distance at least somewhat often. And the existence and assumption of Assassinate means you have a lot of reason to do so. Even if you are not a range focused build.
and as i said, that is very campaign/GM/AP dependent. I am in a campaign currently where tracking has come up more than surprise rounds have.
again, trading out of combat utility for in combat abilities is caster vs martial territory and has little to do with the rules forum, please make a new thread if you want to continue the discussion.
and as i said, that is very campaign/GM/AP dependent. I am in a campaign currently where tracking has come up more than surprise rounds have.
That doesn't sound like a factor of campaign. That sounds like no one in your party is attempting to stealth. If your party isn't catching opponents by surprise, despite having characters with stealth, then you may not be using stealth correctly. Now, if no one in your party is trying to catch your enemies by surprise, then you maybe shouldn't be playing a class that encourages stealth, like the Slayer.
as a matter of fact combat has only taken place once in the campaign, but tracking has come up 3 separate times. as i said, it depends on the campaign or GM. if you are playing a traditional murder hobo rampage campaign in a dungeon it might be not be an issue, but if you are playing a campaign where your party isn't in fact the cause of all the murdering and death it might behoove you to be good at tracking.
some examples from my own experiences include: investigating murders in a city,
trying to figure out where a group of pirates/raiders who have been plaguing a town's trade are hiding,
(at later levels) having to find a flying creature's layer (like a dragon or griffon),
having to track down party members who have decided to run off in the middle of the night without explanation,
having to follow a magical beast who is leading you to something important (a gate? treasure? an oasis in the desert?) but who isnt particularly concerned with letting you stay close to it.
There are many cases where tracking is useful. Just because your experience doesn't reflect that does not mean the skill itself is sub par, and it certainly does not mean that greater combat effectiveness is objectively superior to out-of-combat utility (which is what you are implying whether you mean to or not).
for the third time, start a new thread in a different forum
as a matter of fact combat has only taken place once in the campaign, but tracking has come up 3 separate times.
You would have to admit that such a low combat campaign is far from the default assumption of the game. In fact, it's so far out of the norm, I don't believe it is meaningful to the discussion at hand.
Yes, a normally low use ability can be made useful in a campaign tailored to make it useful. I could make a campaign that's nothing but trap after trap with no monsters at all, so now Trapfinding is a strong ability. But this is far from the default assumption of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok, see thats a problem/red flag right there. you have a 'default assumption' of what an open ended role playing game should be like. that's kind of against the whole spirit of the genre, which (to my mind) is that every game should be tailored to the group that is actually playing it.
if every game you play is so similar to every other game you play, to the point that you are discounting basic skills since you know you wont have to use them, doesn't that get stale?
I'm not trying to judge your games (and failing) but if i was in that situation i'd either go find a different group or just play a video game instead, at least those are supposed to be the same every time you play them
ok, see thats a problem/red flag right there. you have a 'default assumption' of what an open ended role playing game should be like. that's kind of against the whole spirit of the genre, which (to my mind) is that every game should be tailored to the group that is actually playing it.
if every game you play is so similar to every other game you play, to the point that you are discounting basic skills since you know you wont have to use them, doesn't that get stale?
The default assumption of Pathfinder is that you will face a mix of encounters you will need to overcome in a number of ways. The classes are "balanced" around this assumption. And combat is a huge part of that assumption. There are literally thousands of pages of rules text devoted to options for combat. There was maybe a hundred pages devoted to non-combat options before the publication of Ultimate Intrigue. If your playstyle is very non-combat oriented, you could be playing better suited games. Barring that, your group should all be getting Ultimate Intrigue, ASAP.
The default assumption of Pathfinder is that you will face a mix of encounters you will need to overcome in a number of ways. The classes are "balanced" around this assumption. And combat is a huge part of that assumption. There are literally thousands of pages of rules text devoted to options for combat. There was maybe a hundred pages devoted to non-combat options before the publication of Ultimate Intrigue. If your playstyle is very non-combat oriented, you could be playing better suited games. Barring that, your group should all be getting Ultimate Intrigue, ASAP.ok, see thats a problem/red flag right there. you have a 'default assumption' of what an open ended role playing game should be like. that's kind of against the whole spirit of the genre, which (to my mind) is that every game should be tailored to the group that is actually playing it.
if every game you play is so similar to every other game you play, to the point that you are discounting basic skills since you know you wont have to use them, doesn't that get stale?
that didnt actually address my main point, which was: why do you keep playing if every game/setting is so similar that you know which skills you will or won't need beforehand?
here is the philosophy i'm referring to (if you have time to read it it's an interesting article)
that didnt actually address my main point, which was: why do you keep playing if every game/setting is so similar that you know which skills you will or won't need beforehand?
Because it's fun? And no two instances are really ever the same, even if there are similarities. Indeed you can even run the same AP multiple times and every time it will be different, because the players will take and have different options than the last time. And those options will be met with variable levels of success.
The point going back to the original discussion is that the Sniper archetype should be balanced around the default assumption as most of the game has to be. Now, is this default assumption always true? Of course not. Individual groups will always find ways to do things that are unexpected. But you have to pick a point and work from there or what's the point of having any rules at all? Why wouldn't you just do the old Vampire game thing and decide everything with rock-paper-scissors? Why do you prefer to take a game designed around combat and then not combat?
because after a certain point you have to admit that combat shouldn't be the reason you play. why do you take a game (genre) which lets you do anything you want and boil it down to combat?
roleplaying is about being the storyteller while simultaneously being part of the story. good stories have conflict of course, but conflict is not always, and should not always be, equal to combat. boiling the default view of the game down to combat simulation is incredibly limiting as far as character and world and campaign design go.
if you can honestly say you get the same experience from a roleplaying game that you get from playing an mmo (which is what your default view sounds like to me), then why differentiate between them at all?
there is no badfun, but i encourage you to try to get a little more out of pathfinder than you obviously expect to
Combat is not the only part of the game. Obviously. But the game also assumes that combat is a very big part of the game. And by necessity, rules options are balanced around this assumption.
Consider that skill focus gives a +3/+6 to a skill check, while weapon focus only gives a +1 to an attack roll. Why such wildly different values? Because combat ability is just "worth more" in Pathfinder.
I think Track is useful enough to warrant keeping it on a Slayer who has no interest in being a ranged character.
Well with the new ultimate intrigue book.. Rogues can steal a new level 10 talent from Vigilantes that gives them unlimited sneak attack range.