[PF] Potato Salad: A Mini-Guide to the Slayer

[Novawurmson]

LINK (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cQxqxrGfz5ynwlV032lZQnvCj96KhhbJxQaCmusThOU/edit#)

As I’ve said in the past, one of the primary reasons I make optimization guides is to promote use of a variety of classes. Pathfinder is a system so stuffed to the brim with options that it can be dizzying to sit down and puzzle through how to build a new class. Guides remove a lot of that anxiety and let players (and GMs) get to the meat of the game faster. In my time trying to GM on forums (sidenote: If you see me trying to GM a Pathfinder game on any forum run. I’m terrible at running games on forums), I routinely saw the same mix of classes submitted over and over again - the classes with good guides written for them.

For the slayer, I’ve got a bit of a different agenda. While the point of a normal guide is to highlight the strengths of a class and get you excited to play it, the point of this guide is to convince you to play something else.

What I’m not saying is that if you enjoy playing a slayer, you’re “wrong” somehow. Everyone has their own style of play and optimization level comfort zone. However, most players that go looking for optimization guides tend to enjoy tier 2-4 classes - classes that can contribute to the party in most situations without constantly overshadowing their teammates. The slayer is a tier 5 class with few to no unique abilities - just about anything you want from the slayer, you can find somewhere else better.

Finally, this guide is meant to be in good fun. I’m a random guy on the internet you’ll probably never meet who just wants you to enjoy your time playing Pathfinder.

[stack]

I am personally insulted. If you think potato salad is bland and uninspired then you have not had the right potatoe salad. Rich, creamy, with a hearty potatoe base, maybe a dash of dill, and just the right dose of mustard for flavor. You my friend are in need of a potato salad optimization guide.

As for the slayer, honestly I am far more interested in discussing potato salad on a gaming board than thinking about that class, since the very existence of this guide suggests that a secret awesomeness not obvious to my previous inspection is not lurking somewhere in its text.

[Novawurmson]

I am personally insulted. If you think potato salad is bland and uninspired then you have not had the right potatoe salad. Rich, creamy, with a hearty potatoe base, maybe a dash of dill, and just the right dose of mustard for flavor. You my friend are in need of a potato salad optimization guide.

I think I found the Kickstarter for you (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zackdangerbrown/potato-salad/description) :smalltongue:

There is a severe lack of potato-themed classes: The soulspud, the potatogun-slinger, the spudbuckler, the tuberrager, etc. - somebody get on this.


As for the slayer, honestly I am far more interested in discussing potato salad on a gaming board than thinking about that class, since the very existence of this guide suggests that a secret awesomeness not obvious to my previous inspection is not lurking somewhere in its text.

Yeah, Stygian Slayer is about as good as it gets - and if you have to throw a ton of wands at a class to make it work, that's interesting use of WBL, not interesting class design.

[legomaster00156]

Good concept, poor execution. We've seen this before.

Hello, monk.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Shame, Nova! Shame! Your lack of Lina the Slayer means that this guide is amateurish at best, and outright disingenuous at worst! In fact, let me add it for you:


Wizard - Take a level in Crossblooded Dragon/Fire Elemental Bloodline Sorcerer, then all the rest of your levels in Evocation Wizard. You get the fun toys of Wizard, and the added satisfaction of emulating the best type of Slayer, Lina the Slayer (http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Lina).

[the_archduke]

The key here is that, despite listing ranger and rogue as its parent classes, Slayer is actually a replacement for the fighter. Nearly as many feats, way better skills, better saves, comparable damage. Seriously, anybody asking to play a fighter should be handed the slayer.

As for Tier 5, I would argue it is solid Tier 4. Its shtick is being a primary melee combatant, which between sneak attack, studied combat and a pile of feats, it can do. It is above the fighter because out of combat, it has a great skill list and 6+int skills per level. Competent at its job and can contribute outside its job. Tier 4 by definition

[the_archduke]

Slayer is also nice if you want to play a ranger type that has all of the nature theme filed off. Not everyone wants a grizzly bear as a best friend.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I always saw the Slayer as 'assassin, but as a base class!'. I love it as a class; I saw someone describe it as 'If Garret from Thief is a rogue, then Ezio is a slayer'. I'd rather play a slayer than a ranger anytime; never been big into the combo of spells, favored enemy, and animal companion. I love the slayer's combination of martial ability, studied target, and sneak attack.

[Snowbluff]

Are you dissing our good buddy, the Cena? I'm insulted. Cena may be bland, but at least he's a nice dude. Slayer is openly malicious to the game. Please don't associate the good Cena with Slayer. D:

[Psyren]

The key here is that, despite listing ranger and rogue as its parent classes, Slayer is actually a replacement for the fighter. Nearly as many feats, way better skills, better saves, comparable damage. Seriously, anybody asking to play a fighter should be handed the slayer.

As for Tier 5, I would argue it is solid Tier 4. Its shtick is being a primary melee combatant, which between sneak attack, studied combat and a pile of feats, it can do. It is above the fighter because out of combat, it has a great skill list and 6+int skills per level. Competent at its job and can contribute outside its job. Tier 4 by definition

All of this. I think Tier 5 has been co-opted recently to mean "class I personally don't find interesting" rather than its actual definition, and it's a little frustrating. We should be evaluating classes objectively, based on what they can do (and kill), not based on whether we think other classes do it better.

[Anlashok]

It seems a little pretentious to call this a guide. It's more a long winded rant about why you don't personally enjoy a class that you made me click a google docs link to view.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

All of this. I think Tier 5 has been co-opted recently to mean "class I personally don't find interesting" rather than its actual definition, and it's a little frustrating. We should be evaluating classes objectively, based on what they can do (and kill), not based on whether we think other classes do it better.

I concur. 'It's better than fighter!' may not be a glowing bundle of praise but there are time I would want to go with one over the other.


It seems a little pretentious to call this a guide. It's more a long winded rant about why you don't personally enjoy a class that you made me click a google docs link to view.

Yeah, that was pretty much my reaction.

[the_archduke]

Slayer is the best purely mundane class that I have seen. We have one in my current party. He does a ton of damage, has enough skills to be relevant, and seems like fun to play. The player is also fairly new. If he had a ranger, I think the spells would be more of a hindrance than a help

[Psyren]

Slayer is the best purely mundane class that I have seen. We have one in my current party. He does a ton of damage, has enough skills to be relevant, and seems like fun to play. The player is also fairly new. If he had a ranger, I think the spells would be more of a hindrance than a help

This is an excellent point - Slayer makes a better "non-magical Ranger" than most of the actual non-magical Ranger variants do.


It seems a little pretentious to call this a guide. It's more a long winded rant about why you don't personally enjoy a class that you made me click a google docs link to view.

Thirded, though a bit harshly put.

[Nihilarian]

Slayer is the best purely mundane class that I have seen. We have one in my current party. He does a ton of damage, has enough skills to be relevant, and seems like fun to play. The player is also fairly new. If he had a ranger, I think the spells would be more of a hindrance than a helpI'd put forward the Brawler, myself, and I'm skeptical that the Slayer is better than the Unchained Rogue. Still, tier 4 seems like the best fit.

[Novawurmson]

I've been looking over the comments, and I think there's a lot of fair criticism here. I think if I'm going to call it a "guide," it should tell you how to play the class in spite of the inherent weaknesses of the class (even despite warnings, like the excellent "...and the Word Was Suck (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?214115-In-the-Beginning-Was-the-Word-and-the-Word-Was-Suck-A-Guide-to-Truenamers)").

Thinking it over, I like the comparison to the Fighter. I got blindsided by the "ranger+rogue" wording and immediately started comparing it to better classes rather than judging it entirely on its own merits.

I'll make some updates over the coming days/weeks/month.

[Psyren]

I'd put forward the Brawler, myself, and I'm skeptical that the Slayer is better than the Unchained Rogue. Still, tier 4 seems like the best fit.

Your skepticism is correct - Unchained Rogue is T3, a notch above Slayer. Even with 3/4 BAB, it packs more punch in a fight because of Finesse Training, Debilitating Injury and not needing Shadow Strike, and it's definitely superior outside of a fight too thanks to magical abilities and Rogue's Edge.

Brawler meanwhile is T4 - combat-wise, on par with a Barbarian or a well-built Lore Warden Fighter, but with limited things to do when the fight is over.