Post/Author/DateTime	Post
trollbill 10-25-06, 02:41 PM	Occult Slayer is a very popular choice for Power Gamers as it give good saves, good BAB and Mettle, amongst other things. There is no arguing its value from a Power Game point-of-view. But after I read the flavor text for Occult Slayer I had to wonder about several questions. It's painfully obvious that Occult Slayers despise and even in the best of circumstances, only tollerate, spell-casters. So here are my questions: 1) When you play an Occult Slayer, do you just ignore the flavor text thinking that only the crunchy parts of the rules matter? 2) If you actually try to role-play an Occult Slayer, how do you handle dealing with the many spell-casters you must constantly deal with? 3) As a DM, what has been your experiences with Occult Slayers? Do they RP their characters or just role the dice? 4) Do you think it wrong to gain the crunchy advantages of Occult Slayer without paying the price of the flavor disadvantage? 5) If the answer to 3 above was, "No," why is it okay to only abide by the letter of the rules and not the spirit? The LGCS says you are supposed to abide by both. Now I would like to point out that even though I have been accused of being a 'damned role-player,' I am more of a Power Gamer. Heck, I have written power gaming articles for Dragon Magazine. So I sympathize with Power Gamers. But I always try to have at least a reasonable justification for why my characters are the way they are. Occult Slayer seems to push the envelope even too far for me to stomach.
Prochytes 10-25-06, 03:18 PM	I do not have an Occult Slayer, but one of the people in our group does. She sees her PC's distrust of magic as being rooted in a hatred of casters who control minds, since the character is an ardent Trithereonite. Thus, the Slayer gets on well with my sorcerer because she knows that my PC detests and refuses to use spells that take over someone's mind or summon and constrain creatures to her bidding.
Mommy was an Orc 10-25-06, 03:45 PM	When you play an Occult Slayer, do you just ignore the flavor text thinking that only the crunchy parts of the rules matter? Just to point out, the hatred of spellcasters that Occult Slayers have is actually in the crunchy part... Upon making her selection, she immediately forms a bond with the chosen weapon that imbues it with the force of her hatred for spellcasters Doesn't say 'Hatred of spellcasters that use magic in particular way'
Iswald 10-25-06, 10:38 PM	Flavor text. If their abilities were powered by hatred, then the class should have the requirement of non-good only.
Haro 10-25-06, 10:47 PM	There is an Occult Slayer in my neck of the woods who has a Unicorn Sorceror cohort that she rides into combat. I nearly spat out what I was drinking when she told me about it. That's about the worst case of ignoring flavour text that I've ever come across.
_m_ 10-26-06, 12:21 AM	yeah id be a bit put out by that last one. i was almost going to make my wizards cohort as an occoult slayer... but i really couldnt see myself survivng. id have to keep away from it :D as for 'flavour text', its not really flavour, its inherent. if you play an occoult slayer, you have to play it as an occoult slayer. its as much of a rule as 'centaurs dont like people riding on their backs'. whilst strictly technically physicaly possible, you CANT DO IT.
Lomiat 10-26-06, 12:59 AM	"'Tis nae fair tae sit aboot and dismiss the occult slayer's distrust o' the powers o' magic as a full hatred. If ye raed the requirements tae join, ye might notice that et is, in fact, necessairy tae study the ways of ye derty spellcasters tae learn our ways of no gettin' hit by yer derty spells. "Furthemare, ye'd be usin' harder werd than's right necessairy. Hatred is well near legally binding in certain places, and ye should nae toss aboot such terms lightly. Ye might want tae call it more of a 'healthy skepticism regardin' the moral standin' of anyone with a spell component pouch, holy symbol or red eyes an' horns.' "But as Ah can well see that ye've all goat spell component pouches, Ah'm goan tae have tae ask ye tae sign the Standard Not-Amir Wizard Writ of Compliance. This writ is a legally binding contract clearly statin' that shood ye try tae cast any derty spell at me, versus the good ones, Ah shall be released to perform the Holy Rite of cuttin' deep intae yer skull with ma halberd." --Renton Swan Begby Negotiator, Barrister, Bodyguard (and Pirate)
_m_ 10-26-06, 01:13 AM	i dun think it be agood idea t'be unleashin th'sorts o'accented people amongst th'poor unserspectin folk o'th'boards. espically given me poor little irish head aint sittin'on straight. as fer th'castin o'th'friendly type, if i were t'be hatin (or e'en healthily mistrustin) magic, i'd ne'r letye be castin nothin o'th'sort upon me. n'as far as hatred goes... if yer holdin a bastard sword, ye'd best start runnin, cuz i have meself a... healthy mistrust... fer folks tha'carry em. (whats scarier is, i actually do talk like that. you'd never pick it from the typing, but just ask the folk that met me at srdu :D)
Lupo 10-26-06, 03:19 AM	a lot of the prestige classes fancy some strange "flavour text", just ask pious templars where their temple actually is or what a dwarven defender does there in the open, defending some "pointy ears". even base classes are problematic, my druid maybe should bail out every module that takes place in or leads into a city where his pets are not allowed:rolleyes: . and a lot of paladins are the worst case of metagaming "flavour" ignorance, otherwise they wouldn't reach second level alive AND still with paladin status :angelhide . i run a MUTT cohort who has two levels of occult slayer, his personal experience (pit slave) and racial background (dakon) serves as an easy tool what "casters" he actually hates to the bones ;). ciao martin m.
Mommy was an Orc 10-26-06, 08:26 AM	Flavor text. If their abilities were powered by hatred, then the class should have the requirement of non-good only. The rule I quoted is in the crunchy text and is therefore not flavor text. You can't simply choose to ignore a rule because you don't think it makes roleplaying sense. Given the actual flavor text and rule mechanics, the writer clearly thinks that an Occult Slayer who goes around slaughtering every spellcaster he meets can be good, even by how he interprets it.
Prochytes 10-26-06, 08:52 AM	Flavor text. If their abilities were powered by hatred, then the class should have the requirement of non-good only. Although alignment is one of those notorious areas where hardly anyone ever agrees, I think it would be possible to argue that a good-aligned character in D&D can hate. They are not Jedi knights. From the SRD: A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. (Of a chaotic good character) He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. It might validly be objected that these quotations are about hating a state of affairs, whereas a Slayer hates individuals. The notion that "hatred is a sin" is still rather culturally specific, though. Some of the Classical Greeks thought that it was entirely virtuous and sensible to hate one's enemies.
Iswald 10-26-06, 10:20 AM	The rule I quoted is in the crunchy text and is therefore not flavor text. You can't simply choose to ignore a rule because you don't think it makes roleplaying sense. It's just flavor text. They needed some kind of adjective. Some version of 'hate' just happened to work best. There are no actual rules at play here. Some of the Classical Greeks thought that it was entirely virtuous and sensible to hate one's enemies. I can't account for all the issues that the Greeks had. I have to work with the morals I have.
Prochytes 10-26-06, 10:25 AM	I can't account for all the issues that the Greeks had. I have to work with the morals I have. But you still have not explained why a "good" PC has to share your view that hate is inherently "non-good".
Iswald 10-26-06, 10:31 AM	Because expending that amount of energy towards hate is going to warp your viewpoint to where you are more concerned with taking action on it instead of placing the value of others above it. In other words, you become too obsessed with your hatred. I don't think a character could remain good in such a situation.
trollbill 10-26-06, 12:43 PM	It's just flavor text. They needed some kind of adjective. Some version of 'hate' just happened to work best. There are no actual rules at play here. Even if it is just flavor text, why is it not part of the rules? The purpose of flavor text is to give the reader a better understanding of the intent and spirit of the accompanying crunchy rules. They are an explanation and justification of them. To ignore the fluffy is to fail to understand the context of the crunchy. Remember, one of the crunchy parts of the LGCS explicitely states DMs are supposed to follow both the letter and the spirit of the rules. You can't do that by ignoring flavor text.
Randall Montgomery 10-26-06, 04:39 PM	This is actually an interesting topic for me, because I play a Wizard/Fatespinner, and my wife plays a Barbarian/Fighter/Occult Slayer. She pretty much plays it straight, with a suitable hatred of all spellcasters. She only tolerates me because my spells have saved our party's butts many times, and I consider her hatred of spellcasters to simply be a silly misunderstanding caused by ignorance on her part. I really think she took the class because she liked the idea of having an in-game reason to talk crap about my character :rolleyes:, but in the end it's made for some interesting role-playing. As for other NPC spellcasters we have to deal with, well, it's one of many reasons we don't let her do the talking! ;)
Randall Montgomery 10-26-06, 04:44 PM	Even if it is just flavor text, why is it not part of the rules? The purpose of flavor text is to give the reader a better understanding of the intent and spirit of the accompanying crunchy rules. They are an explanation and justification of them. To ignore the fluffy is to fail to understand the context of the crunchy. Remember, one of the crunchy parts of the LGCS explicitely states DMs are supposed to follow both the letter and the spirit of the rules. You can't do that by ignoring flavor text. This is similar to the argument over why evil PCs in the Cabal of Shadows can't just kill other players. Yes, it's in the spirit of the character, but it causes serious problems both in-game and out-of-game. So if you need to justify it, just look at it as the CoS does; the Occult Slayers are just using the other spellcasters to help them do there job. I mean, if my spellcasting PC fries an evil spellcaster (or five) with a fireball, which has happened, it's like I'm just doing the Occult Slayer's job for her. Yes, she'd rather wipe me from the face of Oreth, but she's willing to let me take a few other mages out before she does it....
trollbill 10-26-06, 05:42 PM	This is similar to the argument over why evil PCs in the Cabal of Shadows can't just kill other players. Yes, it's in the spirit of the character, but it causes serious problems both in-game and out-of-game. So if you need to justify it, just look at it as the CoS does; the Occult Slayers are just using the other spellcasters to help them do there job. I mean, if my spellcasting PC fries an evil spellcaster (or five) with a fireball, which has happened, it's like I'm just doing the Occult Slayer's job for her. Yes, she'd rather wipe me from the face of Oreth, but she's willing to let me take a few other mages out before she does it.... I understand the need to 'bend' behavior for the needs of the game. I'm more concerned with people who don't even try to behaive the way an Occult Slayer should. Occult Slayers don't have to be mad butchers. They can be taciturn, haughty, insulting and even sometimes beligerant to spellcasters without actually attacking them. But considering how many people take levels of Occult Slayer for power gaming, rather than RP reasons, I really would like to know if they try to at least put on a show of being one or just ignore the whole, I can't stand spellcasters bit because that flavor text wasn't why they picked the class.
Randall Montgomery 10-26-06, 06:12 PM	Occult Slayers don't have to be mad butchers. They can be taciturn, haughty, insulting and even sometimes beligerant to spellcasters without actually attacking them. Wow, when did you meet my wife? :D Seriously, I'm in complete agreement with you. Taking a class and ignoring all the flavor behind it is high on my list of pet peeves. Sadly, there really isn't much you can do about it, except to avoid playing with that person. I seriously don't think I could play with an Occult Slayer with a spellcasting cohort, unless of course they constantly belittled and demeaned them. ;)
RedKnightofKet 10-26-06, 06:32 PM	I haven't played an Occult Slayer, but I have played a Wood Elf from Ket with Int 6 who have favoured enemy: human. Now, I know that 3.5 favoured enemy doesn't necessarily take this to the same extent as the Occult Slayer's mage-hatred, I play it that he can be quite fearful of humans sometimes, particular xenophobic ones - unless he knows he can take them...:D I also have a cleric of Gendwar Argrim, and I've played him in a mod all about saving a half-orc - big personal conflict. While I RP'ed this as far as I could, I had to justify staying with the party to continue the adventure. To me, having a character with an inherent distrust/hatred can make for a lot of fun - just don't RP your way out of the module 1/2 hour into it....
Haro 10-26-06, 08:00 PM	To me, having a character with an inherent distrust/hatred can make for a lot of fun - just don't RP your way out of the module 1/2 hour into it.... Exactly. Nothing I've seen or heard of has come close to a diplomacy module I played set in Ekbir (predominately Baklunish) with my Suloise, Scarlet Brotherhood member Alienist. Due to the crazy table make up, he also happened to be the party 'face' with a diplomacy modifier of 0. After much thought about how we can actually complete the mod, it was decided I would don a hat of disguise and look Baklunish. The fun came in how he perceived Baklunish people to talk and act, err...probably not how they see themselves. Cue hilarity etc. etc. Joe
JamesMaissen 10-26-06, 10:04 PM	as for 'flavour text', its not really flavour, its inherent. if you play an occoult slayer, you have to play it as an occoult slayer. its as much of a rule as 'centaurs dont like people riding on their backs'. whilst strictly technically physicaly possible, you CANT DO IT. There are lots of these things to be found with most PrCs and even base classes. They describe the stereotypical member of the class to give an idea about how the player can choose to portray them. Occult slayers suffer the brunt of this, mainly because, on conversion, they became very popular and that finds itself abhorrent for some in its own right. Personally I find it more distasteful for people to presuppose to play other people's characters for them, but that's just me. Anyway, when playing an occult slayer one can expect to encounter this prejudice almost exclusively. Other classes won't normally find themselves bound by such, though Templars did hold that place when they were popular, so shifting winds of popularity may effect such perceptions more than any change in actual text, James
_m_ 10-26-06, 10:15 PM	i know how it feels to be mistrusted... ive got the dark template, and im a shadow caster, both of which have flavour texts detailing that pc's and npc's alike will face me with mistrust, or even hostility. very rarely actually happens though, to be honest. i always tell the dm's, but i just kinda get treated normally.
Lomiat 10-26-06, 10:55 PM	I get the occasional comment from the DM (or sometimes from a player), "So *now* your occult slayer wants the wizard to cast a spell on him?" But, for the most part, I don't get that. I think I've earned some credit by regarding nearly every "derty wizard" with open hostility since day one and some more credit by handing out one of two writs to every caster at my table. Either I hand out the Standard Not-Ameir Wizard Writ of Compliance which states that my occult slayer would not like to be targeted by any harmful spell (listing a bunch as examples) and that he feels it would be fair--in return--to kill the caster if he was thus targeted. Or he hands out the Ameir Wizard Writ of Compliance with terms specially prepared for a friend's PC who, from day one, was willing to spend most of his rounds of combat buffing my PC (necromancers at low-level who took conjuration and evocation as banned schools don't have much better to do... at higher levels, of course, it's a totally different situation). Generally, the contracts provoke a chuckle from other players and either disdain from the PCs (getting things off to the right terms) or a casual agreement, in which case my occult slayer (a Zilchite) feels fairly comfortable about his companions. After all, the goal is to kill the really tricky and evil casters... (Meanwhile, how about those druids who toss animals out of their Bags of Tricks as trap fodder? Hmmm...?)
_m_ 10-27-06, 12:21 AM	you know, i never thought of that, but the whole contract thing sounds like a really good idea! as for trap fodder: my newest toon... CN mindbender. use random monsters to open doors :D
Jay_Ibero_911 10-27-06, 12:28 AM	Do you guys remember the Forsaker from Masters of the Wild? Now that class actually had RULES governing the hatred of magic. Unable to voluntarily recieve spells. Occult Slayer is like Forsaker light. Half the class, half(read:none of) the magic restrictions.
trollbill 10-27-06, 10:10 AM	There are lots of these things to be found with most PrCs and even base classes. They describe the stereotypical member of the class to give an idea about how the player can choose to portray them. Occult slayers suffer the brunt of this, mainly because, on conversion, they became very popular and that finds itself abhorrent for some in its own right. Personally I find it more distasteful for people to presuppose to play other people's characters for them, but that's just me. Anyway, when playing an occult slayer one can expect to encounter this prejudice almost exclusively. Other classes won't normally find themselves bound by such, though Templars did hold that place when they were popular, so shifting winds of popularity may effect such perceptions more than any change in actual text, James So you are saying an Occult Slayer doesn't have to hate spellcasters even though that's the entire basis of the class and its abilities?
Prochytes 10-27-06, 10:57 AM	Because expending that amount of energy towards hate is going to warp your viewpoint to where you are more concerned with taking action on it instead of placing the value of others above it. In other words, you become too obsessed with your hatred. I don't think a character could remain good in such a situation. I can see where you are coming from, but I still do not think that I agree. In my view, Occult Slayers do not “expend energy” towards hate. The hate IS the energy – and it is focussed towards a goal, which is the destruction of spell-casters. Unless hate itself is inherently non-good –which, as I have already indicated, does not seem to be supported by the SRD –what matters is therefore the moral status of the goal, not the hate itself. This goal, the destruction of spell-casters, is only an activity that does not consider the "value of others" if Slayers are wrong in their belief that mortals inevitably abuse magic with catastrophic results. In the Flanaess, that belief is probably wrong; but Occult Slayers were not designed as an Oerth-specific class. It is easy to imagine them operating within a game world where all spell-casters are chaotic evil nutjobs and all that stands in the way of black magic and tyranny is honest steel and a strong right arm. In such a setting, devotion to the destruction of casters is not only not immoral; it is the highest service anyone can perform for the common good. True, one can imagine circumstances where a Slayer in such a world would have to face a conflict between the demands of their mission and the chance to do good in another way. But paladins have to face choices like that too, and it does not stop them being Lawful Good. One man's crusader can be another's fanatic. In short, I still do not think that the “flavour text” for Occult Slayer excludes the possibility of a good alignment. Whether that “flavour text” allows for the possibility of a good-aligned Occult Slayer in the particular context of the Flanaess is a different question. Even on Oerth, the doctrine that mortal misuse of magic is the highest evil is not one that is obviously absurd. Lest we forget, this is a world where mortal magic vaporized two huge civilizations in the space of an hour; where necromancy facilitated a Flan dictator’s ascension from tyrant to lich to evil god; and where power-crazed mage-lords are a growth industry (Yagrax, Acererak, Shattados, Tuerny the Merciless, Reydrich, Lakaster, some of the Ivids, Rary…). However, the existence of strongly good-aligned spell-casters cannot be denied, which presents a big problem. Good-aligned Occult Slayers with full flavour text are not, in my view, impossible. But the Flanaess is not the sort of place where one would expect to see many of them.
A'Talsen 10-27-06, 02:39 PM	Occult Slayer is a very popular choice for Power Gamers as it give good saves, good BAB and Mettle, amongst other things. There is no arguing its value from a Power Game point-of-view. But after I read the flavor text for Occult Slayer I had to wonder about several questions. It's painfully obvious that Occult Slayers despise and even in the best of circumstances, only tolerate, spell-casters. So here are my questions: 1) When you play an Occult Slayer, do you just ignore the flavor text thinking that only the crunchy parts of the rules matter? No I do not ignore the flavor text, but as for me *all* prestige classes are simply mechanics wrapped up in story, and if that story needs to be tweaked or outright changed, then I do so. Now this opinion of mine works much better in a home game than in LG. Specifically in LG the occult slayer has some internal inconsistencies which mean I *have* to make story decisions providing for consistency and allowing my character to remain an active PC within the LG rules and restrictions. Minor note: Occult Slayer does not provide Mettle. 2) If you actually try to role-play an Occult Slayer, how do you handle dealing with the many spell-casters you must constantly deal with? First, Occult slayers are 'driven to confront' spellcasters, not to kill or fight them. Confrontation can occur in a variety of different ways, as has been noted in other replies (ie the contracts, disparigment, etc). Second, Occult Slayers may be casters themselves, and may *continue to use their casting* as specified in the Occult Slayer write up. This means they don't like magic, but can retain the benefits of using it. Based on those, I confront all PC spellcasters and give them a stern talking to. Due to the rules of LG that is the most I can ever do. Of course at a Con with very limited time, then RP slips and I abbreviate the process. I do allow PCs to cast spells on me, providing they are beneficial spells. With maxed out Spellcraft at character level 10, it would be hard for anyone to 'pull one over' on my PC anyway, not to mention the standard LG rules about not hurting other characters. NPCs I handle as they come, and RP with them as appropriate. 3) As a DM, what has been your experiences with Occult Slayers? Do they RP their characters or just role the dice? Haven't DMed for any, but when I do DM I let people run their characters they way they want. As a DM I an serving the players and it is my job to challenge them and to give them a fun time. Good RP can be a challenge, and fun, but criticizing or even being judgmental about how someone RPs does not add to the fun. 4) Do you think it wrong to gain the crunchy advantages of Occult Slayer without paying the price of the flavor disadvantage? There is no *price* for the Occult Slayer class. There are portions of the class that require 'confrontation' as well as portions that allow the use of magic. I'd recommend finding an articulate-able philosophy for the character that reconciles these. My PCs philosophy: My character likes to kill 'evil' spellcasters, with a very broad definition of 'evil.' Once he removes all the 'evil' casters, then the *need* for 'good' casters will be gone and he can convert them over to his way of thinking. During his battle with 'evil' casters he freely employs magic items and the spells of other PCs because this is the most expeditious way to defeat his opponents. So long as the player doesn't break any rules, I assume that they have read the class, noted these issues and have simply not articulated their philosophy to me. 5) If the answer to 3 above was, "No," why is it okay to only abide by the letter of the rules and not the spirit? The LGCS says you are supposed to abide by both. The 'spirit' of many rules/PrCs/Spells/ect. are often debated, so generally I stay away from debates on that. I hope that with my replies above you can see that there are different ways to interpet the Occult Slayer presteige class, and that the 'spirit' of the class may not always be what one person wants it to be. See, I have this flaw: I'm a total rules monkey that was spoiled by several years of LARPing. I build the most mechanically advantageous characters I can, and then naturally assume that there *will* be roleplaying. I am disappointed when there isn't RP, but in my experience this only happens at Cons or when otherwise pressed for time. Given the opportunity and the freedom people will role play. Sometimes, thought, you may not like *how* people choose to do it, or what aspects they emphasize. Overall I am not fond of the Chaotic Neutral alignment, for example, but I recently played with someone who exemplified that alignment, but not in a way that was negative. I had no question about his alignment by the end of the game (didn't know it to start with), but had a lot of fun. Were the other people I have encounted who played a Chaotic Neutral alignment doing it wrong? No, they were simply choosing aspects of it to emphasize that I didn't like; they were still acurately playing Chaotic Neutral. The Occult Slayer player has some choices to make about what they emphasize in the class, and which of the multiple parts they deemphasize/subjugate to another part of the flavor text. And if you find an Occult Slayer you don’t think is ‘RPing’ the class right, ask yourself if the class can be interpreted that way, or even MUST be interpreted that way to exist within the confines of a Living Greyhawk game.
trollbill 10-27-06, 03:23 PM	That was well said and I pretty much agree with it. In fact, is sounds like you build your characters a lot like I do. I made this post because I keep seeing certain PrCs show up on a regular basis for optimized builds. So much so that I started wondering if people got so focused on the numbers they forgot all about the character. I picked Occult Slayer in particular because its flavor text was so obviously problematic when role-playing. So far it looks like most players do a fairly good job of melding both, which is encouraging.
Prochytes 10-27-06, 03:45 PM	First, Occult slayers are 'driven to confront' spellcasters, not to kill or fight them. Confrontation can occur in a variety of different ways, as has been noted in other replies (ie the contracts, disparigment, etc). Umm... immediately after the sentence where it says "The occult slayer is driven to confront any arcane or divine spellcaster who crosses her path", it adds "Occult slayers believe that mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic, and that those who dare to do so must be slain". This does not suggest a stern talking-to to me. Pretty much the only wriggle-room in the flavour text as written is to suggest that although slayers think that casters should be slain, they do not think that they have to be the ones who do the slaying, which smacks a little of desperation. That said, I think your message is a very good summary of the problems associated with the class. It sounds to me as though you are doing a great job at retaining as many elements as possible of the class's specified flavour while still leaving it playable in a LG-context. This thread has opened up my eyes to some of the contradictions and inconsistencies in my own thinking about character-builds. On the one hand, occult slayers who ditch all the "flavour" seem to me to be not cricket; but on the other, accepting all the flavour makes a Core class unplayable, and it is not as though I am a paragon of taking on board all the flavour for all my PCs' prestige classes. Like you, if I understand you correctly, I try to find the right mechanic to do what the character concept suggests, but this may entail a very different attitude to the mechanic from that in the associated class description.
JamesMaissen 10-27-06, 10:26 PM	So you are saying an Occult Slayer doesn't have to hate spellcasters even though that's the entire basis of the class and its abilities? Please look at, say, the core class' descriptions.. 'it's the fighter's job to man the front lines' for example.. should my archer that is a fighter need to be in the front then and must he melee with others support with missle fire? Am I missplaying my CN gnome wizard for not 'approaching adventuring with care and forethought'? Should such things be carelessly disregarded? No. But is it a requirement or substitute for developing my own character? Certainly not. It's a nice stereotyping of 'typical' members of the mechanical class in question, but PCs are certainly 'atypical'. Anything that should be required of them is represented in mechanical rules (e.g. clerics and casting) and should be kept to an absolute minimum (as variety is what makes the game great). Third edition D&D changed multiclassing into design your own class. The molds from prior editions were thereby cast off where you could pick out the classes of characters immediately by their appearance. It is a move, imho, for the better. A character's personality and outlooks are not predetermined by the mechanics of their class makeup nor should they be. If I want to play a cautious barbarian or a reckless wizard who should tell me I doing it wrong? PrCs are given flavor, but in my opinion if you need your character to be defined by the mechanics of their class then perhaps you need to focus upon how you are playing your own characters. One of my characters is a paladin in outlook while mechanically he's an ex-bard/fighter mutt. Meanwhile another of my characters is more or less a 'mob based' character (with a name like 'Fat Tony' I, personally, blame society) but has no rogue levels and is in fact a pure caster with a 'vanilla' mechanical build. Have I been wrong with these characters? I don't think so (others may disagree). I think the mechanics of the game are something mostly separate from developing one's character's persona. Where they cross over it needs to be expressly stated and explained. These things should be minimal as the whole point of roleplaying is making up a personality on your own for your own character. I think in the case of the Occult Slayer, and before it the Templar, you also have a case of cross-over from people disliking the specific classes as 'too popular' and 'too powergamerish' bleeding over into unconsciously adding in restrictions that they desire to be there to 'balance' what they see as unredeemable faults. That's fine as a home campaign GM, but out of place in a living campaign, yet it occurs with a zealous resilience, so beware. -James
Iswald 10-28-06, 02:35 AM	Even if it is just flavor text, why is it not part of the rules? The purpose of flavor text is to give the reader a better understanding of the intent and spirit of the accompanying crunchy rules. They are an explanation and justification of them. To ignore the fluffy is to fail to understand the context of the crunchy. Remember, one of the crunchy parts of the LGCS explicitely states DMs are supposed to follow both the letter and the spirit of the rules. You can't do that by ignoring flavor text. Flavor text is just there for people who are having difficulty coming up with ideas. When making characters, I start with a general concept. From there, I look at how I can use the game mechanics to reach that concept. Fluff is not so important.
trollbill 10-28-06, 11:21 PM	I think in the case of the Occult Slayer, and before it the Templar, you also have a case of cross-over from people disliking the specific classes as 'too popular' and 'too powergamerish' bleeding over into unconsciously adding in restrictions that they desire to be there to 'balance' what they see as unredeemable faults. That's fine as a home campaign GM, but out of place in a living campaign, yet it occurs with a zealous resilience, so beware. -James How do you know the original intent was not to balance an overpowered character with it's flavor? If your character doesn't think and act like an Occult Slayer, why the heck are taking level in the class? It's one thing to say you were a Barbarian that was brought up to love art and music. It's another to say you've been adventuring for the last 5 or 6 levels and then decided to join an advocation you don't really have any desire to be a member of.
trollbill 10-28-06, 11:26 PM	Flavor text is just there for people who are having difficulty coming up with ideas. I disagree. Flavor text is also there to clarify the crunchy parts. It is often difficult to understand how a rule may work if you do not understand why the class has that rule applied to it. And you can't understand why without knowing the flavor of the class.
Iswald 10-29-06, 07:11 AM	How do you know the original intent was not to balance an overpowered character with it's flavor? Probably, since there are no rules attached to this hatred aspect, it's not there for balance in the same way that paladins have to be lawful good or lose their abilities.
JamesMaissen 10-29-06, 12:58 PM	How do you know the original intent was not to balance an overpowered character with it's flavor? Intent doesn't mater. That sounds harsh, but it's true. We can assume that many PrCs weren't meant to be useless or useless after certain levels, yet they are. The intent might have been for PrC X to be the master of this combat style or that ability when a non-PrC'd character actually is better suited for that role. Had mechanics been introduced to encompass this, or even loosely detailed then it wouldn't be an issue. But as they didn't include such things as say the Forsaker did, then they are not present as rules items. You may wish to include them in a home campaign and the circle may see fit to add such rules in LG, but currently it's simply not the case. If your character doesn't think and act like an Occult Slayer, why the heck are taking level in the class? It's one thing to say you were a Barbarian that was brought up to love art and music. It's another to say you've been adventuring for the last 5 or 6 levels and then decided to join an advocation you don't really have any desire to be a member of. That would be for the player to decide for his/her character and not random other people in the campaign. If the character wished to learn how to 'hunt down witches' or the like, why wouldn't they want to get the training of an occult slayer? Now such occult slayer NPCs may not wish to train them, but that is not a factor in LG anymore than saying to a character 'I'm sorry you can't be a sorcerer because you don't have the blood of dragons running in your veins'. It is something for the player to decide for his/her character. How they roleplay the character is also their choice, and to a great degree should be respected. To me that is the basis for this game. And again as an aside I still think that we see this come up with the Occult Slayer fairly often yet we don't have any outside occurances of people complaining about other classes. This has me believe that it is predicated by the perception of the class itself more than anything else. Perhaps as it is the 'replacement' for the Forsaker (which it is certainly not) that people want to recapture the mechanical limitations of the former class, I'm not sure. -James
Genghis Cohen 10-29-06, 01:15 PM	...the writer clearly thinks...Considering the poor state of WotC editing, especially at the time that CW was released, I doubt that anyone can read a writer's mind simply by reading the text.
Mommy was an Orc 10-29-06, 03:16 PM	Considering the poor state of WotC editing, especially at the time that CW was released, I doubt that anyone can read a writer's mind simply by reading the text. Complete Warrior doesn't have significant edit problems. There's a minor feat issue here and there, but it is by far the best of the Complete books in terms of editing. This isn't a case of needing to read the writer's mind. He talks about how Paladins find the Occult Slayer's preoccupation with spellcasters stifling. Not that they're unwilliing to take it or find it repugnant. Pretty much every other sentence in the description is about just how much they hate spellcasters and like to hunt them down and kill them. There shouldn't be a question of what the writer's intent was - the question is whether or not a player of an Occult Slayer has to follow it and to what degree.
_m_ 10-29-06, 05:10 PM	what i cant work out is why anyone would want to take such an obviously flavourfull class, that will clear be so much fun to role play, and then not role play it? hell, this is RPga, who cares if the rules specifically say you have to do the whole spellcaster hatred or not? i cant believe people would bother to play a class with so much amusing flavour, and not take advantage of it.
Genghis Cohen 10-29-06, 10:03 PM	Complete Warrior doesn't have significant edit problems. There's a minor feat issue here and there, but it is by far the best of the Complete books in terms of editing. This isn't a case of needing to read the writer's mind. He talks about how Paladins find the Occult Slayer's preoccupation with spellcasters stifling. Not that they're unwilliing to take it or find it repugnant. Pretty much every other sentence in the description is about just how much they hate spellcasters and like to hunt them down and kill them. There shouldn't be a question of what the writer's intent was - the question is whether or not a player of an Occult Slayer has to follow it and to what degree.There are serious editing contextual errors throughout CW with regard to specificity. The Occult Slayer is perfect example. There is no alignment or code of conduct requirement, which is in sharp contrast to the flavor text. Once past the flavor text, "hatred" is mentioned once, and hunting down spellcasters is not mentioned at all. In addition, there is a complete ommision about how a PC occult slayer gets along with PC spellcasters. This leaves a wide range of interpretation, all of which are credible, and none of which represent an absolute truth about how an occult slayer should behave.
Iswald 10-29-06, 10:28 PM	what i cant work out is why anyone would want to take such an obviously flavourfull class, that will clear be so much fun to role play, and then not role play it? hell, this is RPga, who cares if the rules specifically say you have to do the whole spellcaster hatred or not? i cant believe people would bother to play a class with so much amusing flavour, and not take advantage of it. There are more players with more ideas than can be fit into all of WotC's products, regardless of how many books they release. There are bound to be some who have ideas on how to RP a character and would like to include OS without the fluff, since they don't need it.
boogahwoof 02-13-07, 12:31 AM	well here goes my responce i will admit that there have been times i have taken buffs when absolutly needed. but i will say this as for flavor there have been times when someone wanted to cast haste or some spell on me i felt unnessisary and i refused and made a save against it or outright denied the spell due to flavoring of my character. i take pride in my build that i dont need to rely on anyone for magical aid (except divine healing of course) at times. but i do try to adhear to the flavor of my build as much as possible human 1 barbarian 1st/imp init human feat/ wep foc g sword 2 fighter f1 power attack 3 fighter 3rd lev extra rage f2 imp buck def 4 fighter 5 fighter f4 reckless rage 6 fighter 6th lev weapn specilazation g sword 7 fighter f6 close quarters fighting 8 occ slayer 9 occ slayer 9th lev true believer 10 occ slayer 11 occ slayer 12 occ slayer 12 lev true believer 13 piouse templar 14 fighter
Jay_Ibero_911 02-13-07, 12:51 AM	On another note, in the flavor text it mentions that the only way to become an occult slayer is to be trained by another one, yet there is no such special requirement listed in the actual pre-reqs. Also, what about Occult Slayers that are spellcasters themselves? Most commonly in the form of Pious Templar or Paladin, or even ranger builds.
Ancillary 02-13-07, 01:45 AM	I believe that your character's crunchy and fluff need not be related if you do not want them to be. You never need to justify your crunch choices with roleplaying any more than you need to justify your roleplaying with crunch. If you envision an Argorn like ranger character, you do not have to play him differently if you take a couple of levels of fighter, or even if you have only one or no levels of ranger. Classes, stats, feats, etc are just there to balance the game. As for Occult Slayer in particular, Occult slayers believe that mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic, and that those who do so recklessly must be slain, the key is recklessly. Since this is subjective, your character could think using any type of magic is reckless. Or only using shadow magic. It is your character and your choice. As for The occult slayer is a single-minded warrior, driven to rid the world of both arcane and divine spellcasters this is obviously a long term goal. With the stated precedent of caster/ Occult Slayers, an Occult slayer has no reason to be hostile towards his friends. After all, they could become Occult Slayers themselves. As far as NPCs, as long as they are not using magic recklessly, the Occult slayer can treat with them in whatever way he feels like. After all, they may become Occult Slayers themselves. Their class abilities reflect a specilized training vs magic. For the most part it does not even need roleplaying justification. The exception is spell turning, if an enemy wizard tries to dominate you and ends up your thrall, you need a role-playing reason to justify it. This could be the protection of your god, being lucky about miscasts, or having a hatred of magic. The last actually makes the least sense as you are now actively controlling a spell. For the most part though Occult slayer is just like almost every other class or PrC, it contains little reason for you to play the character any way except the way you want to.
pimeister 02-13-07, 02:44 AM	When I looked at occult slayer, I got the idea that that PrC could be thought of as something along the lines of foe specialist. Sort of a <insert occult beast or class> slayer, sort of like saying Orc Specialist. I took my marshal into it to slay vampires. Its part of my title now, Vampire Slayer. On a side note, its sort of funny that I have this preoccupation as a player to want to kill undead, but never want to go the obvious or better way to do it. I am even building a Skullclan hunter.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-13-07, 03:59 AM	Occult slayers believe that mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic, and that those who do so recklessly must be slain, the key is recklessly. It might be the key to your main argument, but the version I'm looking at has the phrase "and those who dare to do so must be slain." Nothing about recklessness. We might have different printings or something, which could lend some sort of insight into the situation. My version is pretty clear on the hatred for all spellcasters though. I believe that this is a PrC that would have been better served with a spell resistance that went up with level, but with the stipulation that they couldn't turn it off. Or something else. I'm only guessing here, but I think what's written in the flavor text was intentional, but just never made it into the mechanics for some reason or other. If the writer intended it as a warrior with specialized anti-magic training, the flavor text would read, "The are people who seek a better way to oppose wielders of magic. Often these people become occult slayers, warriors whose skills and specialized training give them an advantage in battling those use magic. etc." Instead, they have text that paints them as mage hating. Ignoring the flavor text is not something I'd do lightly. Example: A 7th level templar goes nuts, switches alignment, and burns down his temple. RAW, I can't find anything that would prevent him from losing class abilities or even gaining additional levels. Any DM worth his salt in a home game would step in. In LG we have the deities document. It's an extreme example, but it illustrates that the flavor text demands certain things. I'd be interested if you'd take the same position if you ran into a hunter of the indeed who faithfully served a necromancer fighting off a holy crusade or a knight of the chalice that made bargains with demons. I'm not suggesting that occult slayers got out and try and kill PCs or plot centric NPCs, but I cringe when you try and play it off as "Oh, I just hate all spellcasters who try and harm me or oppose my interests." Congratulations, you have the same opinion of 95% of all fighter types out there. There's enough room in LG that you can make the hatred work, but don't ignore it. I believe that your character's crunchy and fluff need not be related if you do not want them to be. You never need to justify your crunch choices with roleplaying any more than you need to justify your roleplaying with crunch. I disagree. They shouldn't have to be too intertwined, but take a look at clerics for example; if their roleplay isn't right, they could lose class abilities. You can't play a gnome and claim to be a 6 foot hulking brute. The way the game's set up, fluff is related to crunch.
Potato Weasel 02-13-07, 07:34 AM	Well, I dunno, I'm taking the class for a pc of mine, and it's not because of the wizards/clerics abusing magic and all (though there is that too, especially when he adventures with a mystic theurge of zagyg) it's actually because of his intense paranoia and hatred of dopplegangers, and other shapechangers and beasties trying to get into his precious brain and steal his secrets. I encountered doppelgangers in two consecutive mods, one of which had four different ones with seperate agendas. (stupid bard doppelgangers) and before and after that he was in vampire infested mansions, drow infested caves, etc. Seeing all these 'occult' things, with spell like abilities- it sorta gives you the hint that the ability to be under a mindblank and reflect spells is a good thing. Stupid doppelgangers.