Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tectorman 03-05-08, 12:30 PM	Is it balanced or under/overpowered?
Zappy 03-05-08, 03:49 PM	I personnally like it. Although I haven't played it yet. My next character is going to be a Pshycic Warrior who goes anti Arcane. I will be taking this to further that. It seems like it's balanced well and since it's mostly for the Fighter types it doesn't seem like you'll loose much.
Count Arioch the 28th 03-05-08, 10:35 PM	It's decent compared to warrior classes. It's terrible if you actually want to be good at fighting arcane spellcasters. (Personally, the best people to fight wizards are either other wizards, or rogues.)
fenixs11 03-07-08, 04:37 PM	i'm actually currently playing one. fighter/ rogue / occult slayer overall, its a pretty fun class. the bonuses you get to saves against their spells really help, (especially playing a human character who has no such resistances) the double damage done with an attack readied to disrupt a spell sets some pretty high concentration check DC's and you also get spell turning 1/day, 2/day @4th lv. -- so basically, if you fail to disrupt the spell, you have a little spell turning. and even if that gets through, you have higher resistances against spells and spell like abilities. plus the extra d6, auravision, non-detection cloak, and blank thoughts help too. ____________________ i agree, it definatly helps being the rogue though, the extra damage die help alot. and you can tumble to get to the spellcaster's too. i'm not sure i'd want to play a strait fighter, then occult slayer
ciaran 03-08-08, 12:31 AM	A buddy of mine made a character that was alot of fun. Half-Orc Rogue (for Evasion), Hexblade (for Mettle and arcane resistance) and Occult Slayer, complete with all the mage slayer feats. He wasn't uber-powerful or anything. Fun.
MikeOcherts 03-17-08, 03:26 AM	I think it is just fine... The positives: - +3 on saves vs. spells & spell like abilities - an extra 1d6 vs. ANYTHING with spells or spell like abilities (with 1 weapon) - a form of spell turning 2X/day - 2X Damage on readied actions to disrupt casters - Detect Magic & Nondetection all the time - Immunity to mind-affecting effects like charms & compulsions (dominate) or morale effects (Dragon Fear). All are useful with #2 & #6 being my favorites. Damn near everything has a "spell like ability" after 12th level or so & an extra d6 isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things but it sure helps. Also being able to ignore a balor's dominate monster (DC 27) or stand your ground face to face with a red great wyrm (DC 38) at level 10 is just cool (not that it allows you to live through either situation). Now for the downside... The first two lines of the character description: "The occult slayer is driven to confront any arcane or divine spellcaster who crosses her path. Occult slayers believe that mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic, and that those who dare to do so must be slain." Getting this PC into a party with any sort of caster is a major problem. It can be done but the OS better have a great background with that caster or some really good reason not to kill this PC. Even if you get this PC into the party you now are "driven to confront" EVERY spell caster you run into... CE Evil necromancer = want to kill 'em. (6th LVL or higher) LG Paladin of Heironeous = want to kill 'em. Good luck getting healed in town, a magic item made for you, or even something as simple getting your fortune told... As a DM I feel that players should "get" all the advantages that a class gives you but you are also required to take any "disadvantages". Role playing your characters "class description" is just one of those negatives...
zeratulcraft 03-17-08, 03:34 AM	Flavour has always been mutable.
Pandapeep 03-17-08, 01:19 PM	Yea. Flavor isn't the be all end all. And to enforce it is.. well kinda sucky. he prc is presented as a class who must kill all casters, but could very easily be converted into say.. and elite section of an army, made to take out another nations spell casters. Or, a child who was raised by a spell caster to be his rival killing bodyguard, or a bitter, angry ex-wizard scorned by his former companions and thursting for revenge, or a specific wizard hunter, seeking the caster who killed his parents/family/dog/wife/village/best friend ect.
Tordak 03-18-08, 10:31 AM	It is quite good a PrC in my opinion. The mind blank in 5 level is already worth it, especially if you're the brute type (they tend to be targeted by domination a lot). Nice bonus to save that stacks with other bonuses, and add the mage slayer feat tree to that to be really good against spell slayer. With a solid fighter built as base, and perhaps level in rogue, you'll be quite versatile in fights. Another good built for Occult Slayer is Hexblade/Rogue/Occult Slayer; you get mettle, evasion, charisma bonus to your saves vs spells/spell-likes, and bonus from the Occult Slayer. If you take the mage slayer feat you'll have a sucky caster level for your Hexblade spells however, but you probably don't care so much with that built. As for slaying caster, I think an Occult Slayer can still differenciate from a friendly Paladin and an enemy Invocater. It's just that the Occult Slayer won't make many 'new' caster friends (he doesn't have to instantly kill the his old friends); they'll have to prove they are responsible, and he probably won't hesitate to killed any mage he witnesses doing something he deem irresponsible (and probably give a good warning to his friend).
1 ton ghost 03-18-08, 01:51 PM	-as you lvl, you're running into more critters w/ (Su)'s and (Sp)'s, more magi, more everything. this is their bread and butter. -traditionally at first glance, the tank of the party is quickly zeroed by the enemy caster w/ the stereotype of "low Will", etc. this helps shatter that illusion and gives a much needed 1st strike weapon good credibility. -a fun and fairly easy to use class (no one wants to sit there for 15 min while you figure out some obscure move, attack, spell). idea is dynamic and simple. my g/f played one (Hexblade/some Ftr/OS) to horrific effect. having such well balanced Saves and Mettle to boot, she was very difficult to hurt much less kill. she was still pretty green at the time too and not terribly proficient as a PC, but nevetheless, she handled it admirably. i shudder to think what she would have performed like if she had her current experience in game. The occult hatred cliche'...yeah, that's open to alot of interpretation. Stipulating that they must engage every caster, magical critter, etc., they come across is the pinnacle of stupidity and bad RP. Not only that, it's terribly selfish and unfair to your friends, you know, the other players... I'm of the opinion that you can translate this a number of ways; for my g/f and the others in that campaign, it was understood as the "reckless and irrespeonsible use of magic". Wild mages, unsanctioned magics, alot of abberations, things like that. Do not presume for this PrC all magic = bad. I mean, isn't the hypothetical Slayer in question going to have some magic items and possible abilities of their own even at low PrC lvl? Besides, if they were to engage every caster and so forth in the realm, there wouldn't be any Slayers ever...they'd all have been killed off toot suit for such haphazard and wreckless dogma/rhetoric.
MikeOcherts 03-19-08, 02:21 AM	"Yea. Flavor isn't the be all end all. And to enforce it is.. well kinda sucky." - PandaPeep By that logic I shouldn't require a paladin or cleric to RP his "code of conduct"??? It states "Every regimen she performs is an exercise that refines her anger against spellcasters into martial skill". If "her anger against spellcasters" is the source of her ability to do extra damage to spell users, use spellturning and her immunity to domination/fear etc... then I'm going to require (much like a priest or paladin) that you role play this. "Stipulating that they must engage every caster, magical critter, etc., they come across is the pinnacle of stupidity and bad RP. Not only that, it's terribly selfish and unfair to your friends, you know, the other players..." & "Do not presume for this PrC all magic = bad." - 1 ton Ghost "I think an Occult Slayer can still differenciate from a friendly Paladin and an enemy Invocater." - Tordak I thought I made my post pretty clear but I guess not from these responses.:( Nowhere in my post did I say the OS was "required to engage" every caster they come across. If you reread my original post it says "driven to confront any arcane or divine spellcaster who crosses their path". Webster defines confrontation as "a: a face-to-face meeting b: the clashing of forces or ideas". So you've never gotten into a "confrontation" with someone with whom your views are in serious opposition and didn't try to kill them??? ...of course you have. "Confrontation" simply requires the PC to inform the NPC/PC of his view that "mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic, and those that dare do so must be slain". Specifically how this happens and where the action goes from there is up to the DM & the PCs... I also never said that the OS is required to attempt to kill (despite wanting them dead) every caster your OS comes across. I'm sure there are plenty of NPCs that you PCs want to kill but don't. It is the same for the OS he isn't compelled by something as rigid as the paladins CoC to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" where he is REQUIRED to act it is just another person you want dead. It simply states you think that mortal casters "must be slain". It never says by who... Translation: "Somebody should kill that #$%er". I don't "presume all magic = bad"..... just mortal magic & it isn't "bad" it is "irresponsible" two totally different things... I also think the OS can tell the difference between a friendly paladin & an evil caster. The very next line in the class description is "Spellcasters who become occult slayers are considered to have seen the error of their ways". So obviously the OS doesn't view all mortal uses of magic to be equally offensive or unforgivable (again up to the DM & PC). Those who are less "offensive" to the OS will be given more opportunities to "see the error of their ways" but are still going to be treated in a less than friendly manner by the OS. Hence my examples of: Good luck walking into town telling the (priest of Pelor/wizard making swords/fortuneteller) that what he does is irresponsible & unacceptable to you & that he should be killed for this... oh yeah could you (heal me/make me a sword/tell my future) now???:rolleyes: If you look at it as such a restriction then so be it. I see it as entertainment forcing a PC into situations they wouldn't normally be in & requiring some effort on the part of the PC to "be true" to his character.
Pandapeep 03-19-08, 03:53 AM	"Yea. Flavor isn't the be all end all. And to enforce it is.. well kinda sucky." - PandaPeep By that logic I shouldn't require a paladin or cleric to RP his "code of conduct"??? It states "Every regimen she performs is an exercise that refines her anger against spellcasters into martial skill". If "her anger against spellcasters" is the source of her ability to do extra damage to spell users, use spellturning and her immunity to domination/fear etc... then I'm going to require (much like a priest or paladin) that you role play this. Well... number one, the priest, ie Cleric code of conduct has been shown to be highly mutable, see Ebberon, and as for the OS, I don't remember seeing a mechanical reference to a code of conduct in the OS description. It there was it would state that violating said could would strip said character of some or all class features, See, Pally, Kensai, Samurai et all. Since OS does not in fact have this stipulation, well, then that flavor text is pure fluff, put there to take up space, add more words to the book, and hook people into playing the class. It however has next to NO bearing on how the class MUST be used.
1 ton ghost 03-19-08, 11:34 AM	firstly, that wasn't a direct attack or anything and i think it is pretty clear to say that some misinterpretation has taken place. if i may, i'd like to clarify and keep the, even remote chance, of bad blood to a minimum. By that logic I shouldn't require a paladin or cleric to RP his "code of conduct"??? It states "Every regimen she performs is an exercise that refines her anger against spellcasters into martial skill". If "her anger against spellcasters" is the source of her ability to do extra damage to spell users, use spellturning and her immunity to domination/fear etc... then I'm going to require (much like a priest or paladin) that you role play this. you could but i wouldn't IMO. the emphasis is on YOU, it being YOUR campaign and not mine. to each his own in other words, so resepct and all. CoC for a paladin and priest is an approximation at best vs. OS. that implies scriptural accuracy, religious conviction, dogma, etc., whereas OS's righteousness is not divine in nature. more open-ended. ie)not set in stone. your penchant to encourage the RP aspect of this perceived hatred is admirable, however, it's in the trip to that point that we disagree i suppose. though i do not stipulate "1 specific type of OS and no others". it's all improv really; 2 Ftrs w/ the same stats and feats could be completely different in their justification or RP in this case. OS's are not automatons. -you could argue that they are simply highly trained weapons vs. magic -you could argue that they take the B/W outlook and "hate all magic" -you could argue that they are more like arcane/divine police, etc. i tend to prefer a more open and liberal interpretation as opposed to a blanket policy of magical/martial confrontation that would lead to alot of party static. given the typical party maxim of 1 tank, 1 scoundrel, 1 divine, 1 arcane...that's potentially 1/2 the party they could lock horns w/ and possibly kill over a discrepancy of PC 'x's application of a character ability. devil's advocate in me says though, "conflict is the essense of drama", so... "Stipulating that they must engage every caster, magical critter, etc., they come across is the pinnacle of stupidity and bad RP. Not only that, it's terribly selfish and unfair to your friends, you know, the other players..." & "Do not presume for this PrC all magic = bad." - 1 ton Ghost i should've illustrated this more clearly, to which i apologize. engage does not purely mean martial confrontation. you can engage a child mentally just as enemy soliders can engage each other in battle. yeah, it typically has aggressor conotations so i should refine my language i suppose. sorry. i imagine though, that many-an-OS wouldn't necessarilly "engage" a caster they felt was abusive and dangerous w/ their magic, prefering to smile and nod in feigned diplomacy, etc, then strike them down quickly/professionally. they are often portrayed as obviously (socially) full of bluster and hate which would get them killed off by rogue magi quickly. they're a very dangerous threat. nevertheless, CompWarrior's rhetoric kinda' pigeonholes them in a bad light which is counterproductive to party growth. it's a team sport, no room for showboaters or special interests in other words. my g/f's OS raised a few eyebrows in this fashion, but would not brook reanimation, wreckless evocations, etc. had she attacked all (Sp), (Su), and caster types, that would've been a short campaign, you know? some magic is necessary and many OS's would recognize that. many OS's would have magic weapons too i'd wager, gauntlets of ogre strength, need of healing magic, etc. so, yeah, there's alot of grey area... Nowhere in my post did I say the OS was "required to engage" every caster they come across. If you reread my original post it says "driven to confront any arcane or divine spellcaster who crosses their path". i was speaking for the popular interpretation of CompWarrior's, not your's. even confrontation seems unwise to me in some lights. if they were to truly find ire w/ "any arcane/divine caster who crosses their path" i'd think a professional would bite his tongue and watch them carefully before "confronting" them so as not to betray himself as an OS and thusly, lose his greatest advantage. others are lose cannons and would confront immediately. i just don't think they'd confront all casters. some are totally reasonable and greatly needed. that is, the OS isn't going to last long (in a party mindset) w/out some magic on behalf of his allies i guess. necessary evil or practicality? I don't "presume all magic = bad"..... just mortal magic & it isn't "bad" it is "irresponsible" two totally different things... that's what i've been saying. most OS's of decent Int would understand and accept this, it's just in any setting there's alot of irresponsible magics and dangeorus magic critters that need to be put down, hence OS's inception...(IMO) there's gonna' be friction w/ even responsible casters even for tolerant OS's, but that's good RP if the PC is up to it. they shoudl be if they're committing to this PrC anyway. my position is, "they are not necessarilly (PC discretion) driven to hunt down and slay all magic users, sentient or otherwise." I see it as entertainment forcing a PC into situations they wouldn't normally be in & requiring some effort on the part of the PC to "be true" to his character. well said. good RP first, rules lawyering 2nd. i'm not for overhauling the core of this PrC, just a reasonable interpretation under the purview of critical thinking and realism, not a dogmatic reading of what CompWarrior says is right...and to be honest, it's not very good overall as a supplement or accurate (seen Samurai lately?).
MikeOcherts 03-19-08, 11:36 AM	"Since OS does not in fact have this stipulation, well, then that flavor text is pure fluff, put there to take up space, add more words to the book, and hook people into playing the class. It however has next to NO bearing on how the class MUST be used." If that is how you see it that is how you see it... However that would allow for a Hunter of the Dead who commands an army of undead??? So...as a DM you would be OK with a PC taking levels in OS while being friendly & cordial to all new casters he/she meets? If not then those words are not just "fluff, put there to take up space" & they serve a purpose... directing how the character should be played (which is what I think they are there for). Is there one set way to play the PC? No, since (as I explained earlier) there are lots of ways to be "confrontational" & wish non-repentant spellcasters dead. IMO if it is part of the description of the character it is part of your class... just how I see it.
MikeOcherts 03-19-08, 12:17 PM	To 1 ton: You & I seem to be closer to the "on same page" than off. I as a DM I like conflict (I think it drives the game). After talking to my OS this morning I think I like his personal interpretation as a better tool for explaining how he plays these requirements: ALL mortal spellcasting is the equivalent of a 10 year old with a loaded gun or a nuclear/biological weapon. It is simply too powerful a tool for the 10 year old to have. Magical items OTOH have no "intent" & are thus not "irresponsible" it is up to the people who use them them determine "responsibility". "my position is, "they are not necessarilly (PC discretion) driven to hunt down and slay all magic users, sentient or otherwise."" & "good RP first, rules lawyering 2nd." - 1 ton Nor is it mine. It is simply my thought that if the OS's "anger against spellcasters" is the source of his power... well then there damn well better be some serious role playing of "anger against spellcasters" (whatever form that takes) and in a world where spellcasters hold most of the keys (Raise Dead, Wish, Control Weather, etc...) this is a serious downside (& about the only "downside" I can see) to the PrC IMO... that was really my only point in the original post... There is no one "right" way to play any PC class IMO but there are some "wrong" ones... "and keep the, even remote chance, of bad blood to a minimum." - 1 ton If I let some words typed by someone on a message board whom I've never met make me angry... well then I've got issues.:D If you didn't come here to seek differing opinions & ideas then why are you here???:confused:
1 ton ghost 03-19-08, 12:41 PM	It is simply my thought that if the OS's "anger against spellcasters" is the source of his power... well then there damn well better be some serious role playing of "anger against spellcasters" (whatever form that takes) and in a world where spellcasters hold most of the keys (Raise Dead, Wish, Control Weather, etc...) this is a serious downside (& about the only "downside" I can see) to the PrC IMO... that was really my only point in the original post... There is no one "right" way to play any PC class IMO but there are some "wrong" ones... anger is the source of his/her power? i thought being the protege of a previously trained OS was what groomed them for the power of the PrC, anger just being a possible motivator. pretty sure you need a mentor, right? i guess i just don't like stereotyping them all as angry, disillusioned badasses that must find conflict w/ magic in all their travels and interactions. that is to say, i like personal freedom and liberty in RPGs, not RAW verbatim. i find it limiting and hackneyed. it's a building block, not a definitive IMO. but, having immense combat potential must have a catch (game balance) to which i concede that a measure of hostility and aggression must be portrayed, and accurately too...i can't stand bad RP when it's (the role) fairly well implied where you should lean dramatically, if not act outright. "and keep the, even remote chance, of bad blood to a minimum." - 1 ton If I let some words typed by someone on a message board whom I've never met make me angry... well then I've got issues.:D If you didn't come here to seek differing opinions & ideas then why are you here???:confused: you kinda' dropped the ball here. :( that was my attempt at the olive branch of diplomacy...that is, different opinions, especially OS for some reason, have the propensity of starting some flames if not some static. i was trying to disarm that preemptively. best foot forward and all that; not indicate correctness, find fault w/, or pick a fight over something as trivial as a game interpretation or rules implementation. we're adults, yes? that's why i was trying to be civil. why did i come here? thought that was pretty clear too or perhaps that quesitons is a byproduct of the misread "bad blood" statement of peace.
MikeOcherts 03-19-08, 01:05 PM	"but, having immense combat potential must have a catch (game balance) to which i concede that a measure of hostility and aggression must be portrayed, and accurately too...i can't stand bad RP when it's (the role) fairly well implied where you should lean dramatically, if not act outright." All I was trying to say & put much better than I have...:D As for: "You kinda' dropped the ball here." - I'm not sure how??? that was my attempt at the olive branch of diplomacy...that is, different opinions, especially OS for some reason, have the propensity of starting some flames if not some static. i was trying to disarm that preemptively. best foot forward and all that; not indicate correctness, find fault w/, or pick a fight over something as trivial as a game interpretation or rules implementation. we're adults, yes? that's why i was trying to be civil. Isn't me saying that "If I let some words typed by someone on a message board whom I've never met make me angry... well then I've got issues." & "If you didn't come here to seek differing opinions & ideas then why are you here???" kinda the same thing??? OK I'll restate them then... 1) If I let a message board influence my emotions to the point of anger..... I'm an idiot (no fear of bad blood here) 2) What is the point of a message board system but to share thoughts & ideas. If I wanted to listen to the same 10 or so opinions I wouldn't be here... Discussion, arguing, debating... "confrontation" even;) is the purpose of this forum. Allowing a poster to rile you is just plain...silly. Not sure how that wasn't pretty much the same thing...but sorry anyway...:confused:
1 ton ghost 03-19-08, 02:06 PM	it's cool man, i'll buy you a beer or something.