| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the Slayer class abilities, Monster Lore & Tip of the Tongue.
1. It feels unsuitable as a given that all Slayers know something about what they're slaying. Jack knew jack about giants, Buffy had to learn about vamps the hard way, the Dragonslayer from the movie hardly understood dragon stats, and the characters from the hit manga/anime Demon Slayer struggle to learn more about said demons. Others that do possess broad know-how like Van Helsing or The Witcher, have accumulated decades (or lifetimes) of knowledge. Far beyond 1st level, they've also made specific investments that perhaps their peers haven't.
2. It feels unsuitable that all Slayers might know facts about what they're NOT slaying. As well as options for ignorant Slayers, there should be options for more focused Slayers. Why would my Giant Slayer know much about cosmic horrors? Or big game hunter know much about automatons? (And I have to mention the awkward gap for humanoids that are monsters, so a dedicated Giant Slayer might not even gain anything from this.)
3. The abilities lack synergy. Tip of the Tongue gives Assurance for Monster Lore, assuring you won't know anything about your Quarry except in fluke instances. Isn't learning about one's archfoes the whole point? And unlike the other classes with similar abilities, nothing builds off this; one can't simply Reinforce Arsenal to suit the target. Slayers have no other uses for Int. It's not worth the action, nor any feats to compress the action. It's a dead end that makes me feel like some of the class's power budget has gone to waste.
4. The abilities lack distinction. Thaumaturge's vibe the cosmos with Cha, Investigators use Int to understand and outwit their targets, and Rangers accumulate deep principles of physiology they can apply in combat with their Wis. Slayers...use Int too, to kinda show they've done some reading like they're a junior investigator? Or monster hobbyist? How about we use a different route for Slayers acquiring knowledge of their enemies, like say by slaying them? Or having a journal? Vibing with their trophies?
5. Do keep Monster Lore on the table, yet make it optional and better than sub-optimal as it is now. Yes, as a feat it poses a problem w/ poaching, but a basic prereq could nix that pretty easily (maybe opening it up when the PC has deeply invested in Slayer-ness). Right now it just invites Dubious Knowledge to come in an get the Slayer spouting half nonsense so the party can glean something from the Slayer's ramblings. (And we have enough classes encouraging that.)
---
As for alternatives, maybe something akin to Gnome Obsession. Choosing a more specific Lore would often drop the DC to reasonable levels, maybe even making Tip of the Tongue functional w/ one's Quarry.
Or maybe tie it to some post-Strike action, touching the enemy's wound or grabbing a scale to examine; maybe automatically for specific details, i.e. which weapons work best. (This vibes with Bloodscent's themes IMO.)
Maybe post-slaying even, applying some bonus vs. the enemy's kin, perhaps until next preparation. Yes, this might even include eating/applying a portion of the corpse (or just hair or a patch of clothing if humanoid, right?). "Become the prey to know your prey" or other woo-woo hunter deepities could work here.
Hoping this sparks some innovative ideas. Cheers.
Feels like there should be less mental, more martial options for a class called Slayer to gather data on their enemies. If they even prioritize foreknowledge rather than just hacking it (chopping) or hacking it (ad libbing).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the last thing the Slayer needs is add even more specific restrictions to the class like forcing you to pick an enemy type.
Monster Hunter knowing things about Monsters is pretty reasonable, I don't really agree that any of these things are an issue. Especially the Int criticism. It working like a normal lore in that respect grounds it a lot more imo than Thaumaturges knowing everything about every subject because they're good at socializing or something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna disagree pretty strongly.
1. The class doesn't work if the character doesn't know what they do. If you rip out the "knowing about monsters" part, then you have somebody who is prepping to fight something while remaining ignorant, and then taking a trophy that they don't know the function of. That's a mess.
If you want to make somebody that hunts monsters without knowing about monsters, they shouldn't be using trophies that depend on the monsters' characteristics. Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue are all excellent choices to represent that.
2. Knowing about undead means knowing about all the gods, learning how to tame animals means being knowledgeable about both fey and elementals, and reasonable preparation for sewer slimes means being similarly prepared for cosmic horrors. Knowledge skills covering at least some out of character things is a function of the game system. Just don't roll for things that aren't relevant. It's fine, and restricting everyone else to mechanically support ignorance is... unlikely to result in a better net experience.
3. I'll refer you back to point #1 on this. Even if the scaling lore doesn't have a bunch keying off of it specifically, it's what enables the class to work without being entirely metagame-dependent.
I'm fine with not caring for the Assurance/Automatic Knowledge. But it does go out of its way to say that it is for recalling "basic information", as opposed to something to use on difficult quarry. You don't have to use them all the time.
4. It's a scaling versatile lore on a physical-stat martial class. Yeah, it's not your key stat, but you get a +2 from quarry to help make up for it.
5. No thanks. I don't want this pulled out to a feat- it's too central for the class to make sense, and I don't want a feat tax. It's also not overly weak, it's just not Thaumaturge... which is fine.
---
Main thing I care about is the first point. I think it's just not a class thematically built for winging it from a place of complete ignorance, even aside from the Monster Lore itself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, this is a game, not a simulation.
A knight IRL likely knew how to use 3 or 4 weapons at best, while in Pathfinder a fighter is proficient with literally every weapon known in the universe. That's obviously not realistic, but it would be a chore to make classes proficient in specific weapons or make people create their own list of proficiencies.
Second, the problem with Monster Lore is that's boring. Thaumaturge, commander, and (eventually) ranger have universal auto-scaling lores, and necromancer (at least in the playtest) has an auto-scaling lore for undead. I feel we have reached a point where auto-scaling lores are becoming less and less interesting because everyone seems to be getting one nowadays, so I feel that if the slayer is going to be "the quintessential monster hunter" of this edition it should have something more unique.
Assurance and Automatic Knowledge hint at the idea that Paizo seemingly wants the slayer to be a class that always knows things about the creatures they are fighting against, so IMO it would be way more interesting and unique if the RK aspects of the class were moved to Mark Quarry instead, allowing you to ask questions about your quarry and probably about other foes in the same encounter as well. I'd go a bit further and buff Mark Quarry to target encounters rather than a specific creature, allowing you to know the highest level creature in an encounter and few other things.
I think the last thing the Slayer needs is add even more specific restrictions to the class like forcing you to pick an enemy type.
Monster Hunter knowing things about Monsters is pretty reasonable, I don't really agree that any of these things are an issue. Especially the Int criticism. It working like a normal lore in that respect grounds it a lot more imo than Thaumaturges knowing everything about every subject because they're good at socializing or something.
I never suggested forcing into one type (see #5). I suggested single-theme should be an option as it reflects a large portion of slayer portrayals in media. Research, inquiry, post-combat understanding, journaling, vibing the remains, and other options should be considered too.
1. The class doesn't work if the character doesn't know what they do. If you rip out the "knowing about monsters" part, then you have somebody who is prepping to fight something while remaining ignorant, and then taking a trophy that they don't know the function of. That's a mess.5. No thanks. I don't want this pulled out to a feat- it's too central for the class to make sense, and I don't want a feat tax. It's also not overly weak, it's just not Thaumaturge... which is fine.
As is, Monster Lore teaches more about weak monsters than the monsters to Mark Quarry on, which would be the ones you're arguing are important. (Note also the scarcity of marked monsters and inability of the Slayer to adapt to info learned.) Wouldn't you prefer the Slayer could rely on getting that info over the 50/50 roll it is now? Like say they learn all the aspects pertinent to their Trophy Case when they examine the Quarry's remains. That's what seems necessary and central to the class to me, not sub-par RK rolls during combat. (And I say this as a GM who's generous with info.)
It seems you and I have different impressions on how Slayer works. I don't think the Slayer should or does rely on RK checks before placing the creature in their Trophy Case. I think RK checks (i.e. critical failures) could lead to miserable outcomes. The Slayer might swap out a more valuable Trophy! Even just rolling ignorance would be awkward, leading the Slayer to carry corpses to people who can identify them before committing. Right now Assurance assures ignorance of Quarry.
Which is to say Monster Lore does not deliver, so would hardly be a tax. To me it feels like a cost in the class's budget.