[PF/DSP] Dreamscarred Press announces ToB-inspired product

[Novawurmson]

Edit: PLEASE JOIN US ON THE NEW THREAD! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=308912)


So pumped (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=35160.html#35160)

For the lazy:


We are proud to present a new line of products, called the Path of War, introducing martial classes and disciplines once popularized by the Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords.

The Path of War will take our dedication to balance and functionality that has graced Psionics Unleashed, Psionics Expanded and Ultimate Psionics and apply that to one of the most loved and controversial systems from the Dungeons & Dragons-era.

Chris Bennet has been brought in as Lead Designer for this ambitious project which will go into Alpha Playtesting as soon as possible. We believe in the spirit Paizo set fort when it playtested the Pathfinder Rules and we followed in their footsteps with everything we have produced since.

We look forward to your thoughts and ideas and hope that the Path of War will introduce you to new and interesting mechanics for your Pathfinder game. Naturally, there will be some new psionic material in these releases as we strive towards material that supports eachother.

New - Update as of 10-9-2013 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16184881&postcount=1433)

Another long-time GitP poster, Lord_Gareth, has been brought on board to "assist with the Warder's thematic elements, specifically on Code of Conducts" as well as mechanical elements of the classes.

Edit:

This thread has been gathering way more attention than I anticipated, so I wanted to go ahead and update the first post with some basic information:

The Classes
-The Warlord (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=3009.html), along with four disciplines, has progressed through alpha and is now in beta playtesting. A fifth discipline, Thrashing Dragon, is included in the Stalker playtest, below.

-The Stalker (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=35484.html) is in alpha playtesting. The Stalker playtest also has feats for bringing maneuvers and stances to non-initiators, as well as feats specifically for initiators. A future update will have style feats (a la Ultimate Combat) for the various disciplines. The stalker also has access to the Broken Blade discipline found in the Warder playtest and the Solar Wind discipline found in the Warlord playtest.

-The Warder (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=3021.html) is up! Make sure you have version 3 - version 2 was an early-alpha version that was accidentally released. The Warder has access to the Primal Fury and Golden Lion disciplines, found in the Warlord playtest. The Archer Lords of the White Steppes Warder sect has access to Solar Wind, also found in the Warlord playtest.

-Discussion for the Path of War is taking place primarily in three places: Right here on the forums, the DSP website (links above) and the Paizo forums (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q1ar?Dreamscarred-Press-introduces-the-Path-of-War).

-Want to playtest the material, but don't know who to play with? Elricaltovilla is doing a playtest recruitment (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=303404) right here on the forums!

-There is support for multiple weapon configurations and playstyles:

Primal Fury - Primarily two-handed weapons, heavy damage
Golden Lion - Buffing, tactical movement, pack tactics
Scarlet Throne - Einhander, high personal mobility
Solar Wind - Supernatural light/fire themed ranged
Thrashing Dragon - Two-weapon fighting
Steel Serpent - Unarmed/monk/thrown weapons
Veiled Moon - Mystic, high-mobility, illusions
Broken Blade - Unarmed, close, and monk weapons
Iron Tortoise Palisade(name possibly TBD) - Shield, defenses, "tanking"
Piercing Lance - Mounted combat

A list of possible disciplines (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16025569&postcount=992) in development has also been dropped:
Unbroken Army - defensive tactics
Descending Gale - non-supernatural ranged
Smoking Tempest - because somebody wants to make a gunslinger martial disciple, admit it.
Black Seraph - Evil.
Argent Light - Good.
Fractured Eye - Chaos.
Judicial Hammer - Law.

-There is currently not a Kickstarter planned for the Path of War (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=35168.html#35168), though of course that could change.

-Dreamscarred Press is also making an Incarnum port, currently envisioned as the "Flowshaper." The alpha can be found here (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2389.html).

-Those interested in pact magic should check out Radiance House's Pact Magic Unbound on the PFSRD. The Occultist can be found here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/radiance-house/occultist).

[Dusk Eclipse]

Really, really interested in this, I hope they do the conversion (for lack of a better term) as awesome as they did with psionics, heck if it good I might even convert to PF.

[Larkas]

Now these are terrific news! I just wonder how they will do it, since ToB isn't OGL.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Pact Magic wasn't OGL and I recall there is a 3rd party that is essentially the same with some minor changes, from the top of my head they increased the maximum vestige level (which also were called something else). My best guess it will be something similar and they won't be called maneuvers.

[Psyren]

Very, very nice. Maybe now we'll have a good archery style. :smallsmile:

So long, WotC! *waves*


Pact Magic wasn't OGL and I recall there is a 3rd party that is essentially the same with some minor changes, from the top of my head they increased the maximum vestige level (which also were called something else). My best guess it will be something similar and they won't be called maneuvers.

Radiance House (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/binding-spirits) did the Binder conversion, and it is glorious. They even got away with calling it Pact Magic. So calling these "maneuvers" could still work, both are pretty generic terms.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Even more awesome, I was having hard time figuring out terms that worked as well as "strike, counter, stance" did.

[ErrantX]

Hey guys!

Glad to see the announcement's spread over to my home away from home already! If any of you have been a fan of my Libram of Battle project that I carried out here and on my old site, SorcererStudios.com, that's what's being worked on by myself and the great staff at Dreamscarred Press as the Path of War. When the playtest data is released, I'll need everyone who's interested in it to give it a whirl and let us know what you think! Thanks in advance!

-X

[Elricaltovilla]

I can't wait to try this out. DSP really put together some quality work with their Psionics stuff.

[Fax Celestis]

Hey guys!

Glad to see the announcement's spread over to my home away from home already! If any of you have been a fan of my Libram of Battle project that I carried out here and on my old site, SorcererStudios.com, that's what's being worked on by myself and the great staff at Dreamscarred Press as the Path of War. When the playtest data is released, I'll need everyone who's interested in it to give it a whirl and let us know what you think! Thanks in advance!

-X

Oh man, it's you working on it?

With Jeremy?

Sold.

[Eldariel]

I just hope that we finally get the comprehensive ToB for all purposes martial. If that happens there's very little 3.5 I need; between Psionics Unleashed, Core and Pact Magic most of the other stuff I care about from 3.5 is already there.

[Novawurmson]

Plus, remember DSP is working on a meldshaper update/conversion (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2389.html), too. The alpha is great, if if production is paused for at least a month.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
So long, WotC! *waves*

This, for many reasons. Not sure I'll wave, though.

:smallamused:

[Larkas]

I'm really excited about this. DSP can give the book the care it deserves! Now I just wish DSP would make an Unearthed Arcana type of book to show us their vision (or even their version!) of what Pathfinder can be!

[137beth]

Very, very nice. Maybe now we'll have a good archery style. :smallsmile:

So long, WotC! *waves*



Radiance House (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/binding-spirits) did the Binder conversion, and it is glorious. They even got away with calling it Pact Magic. So calling these "maneuvers" could still work, both are pretty generic terms.

Yep, holding on to WotC is becoming less and less attractive:smallsmile:

Even if there isn't an archery discipline, I'd expect them to add one in a later supplement (since unlike WotC, DSP actually builds on previous developments). Or for that matter, once it is OGL, any other publisher could make an archery-style discipline, or disciplines to fill other (smaller) gaps.

[Renen]

ToB supplements? GIGGITY!!!

Can we haz psionic/maneuver dual progression class?

[ErrantX]

Oh man, it's you working on it?

With Jeremy?

Sold.

Yep, it's me! And with that kind of a response from Fax, I better step up my game! :smallredface: Super appreciate it! Though, I'm not sure where Jeremy is going to be fitting in on this, I'm sure his expertise will be vital in making this work in the end. :smallsmile:


I just hope that we finally get the comprehensive ToB for all purposes martial. If that happens there's very little 3.5 I need; between Psionics Unleashed, Core and Pact Magic most of the other stuff I care about from 3.5 is already there.

You let me know what you want to see and if I can make it happen for a comprehensive lineup, I'll see what we can do. I'm getting the first playtest bundle together today and definitely give it a look when it is released. If this product takes off, there will be further support down the line, instead the one book and done approach that WotC took to it.

-X

[Fax Celestis]

Yep, it's me! And with that kind of a response from Fax, I better step up my game! :smallredface: Super appreciate it! Though, I'm not sure where Jeremy is going to be fitting in on this, I'm sure his expertise will be vital in making this work in the end. :smallsmile:

I have given some serious consideration to working with DSP before, but the demands on my personal time (ie: toddler, baby on the way, full-time job, possibly a second job too in a little bit) just aren't conducive to that sort of relationship.

[Elricaltovilla]

I'd really like to see more effort put into the "unarmed swordsage" than a one off line about giving them monk unarmed damage progression and WIS to AC.

A new dedicated unarmed class would be great!

[RFLS]

Hey guys!

Glad to see the announcement's spread over to my home away from home already! If any of you have been a fan of my Libram of Battle project that I carried out here and on my old site, SorcererStudios.com, that's what's being worked on by myself and the great staff at Dreamscarred Press as the Path of War. When the playtest data is released, I'll need everyone who's interested in it to give it a whirl and let us know what you think! Thanks in advance!

-X


Plus, remember DSP is working on a meldshaper update/conversion (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2389.html), too. The alpha is great, if if production is paused for at least a month.

So...what you're saying is...it's my birthday.


This, for many reasons. Not sure I'll wave, though.

:smallamused:

I still can't believe they just dumped 3.5, and then when PF came out, they tried to get back in with a reprint that "included the errata" (it didn't include the errata in at least one book).

[ErrantX]

I have given some serious consideration to working with DSP before, but the demands on my personal time (ie: toddler, baby on the way, full-time job, possibly a second job too in a little bit) just aren't conducive to that sort of relationship.

I feel you. I have a lot of draws on my time these days too (full time job, toddler, wife) but I saw this as my chance to really just get something out there and leave my mark, however small. I respect your decision though, lots to do with that kind of stuff going on. Maybe if situation allows it in the future, it would be a great thrill to work with you on something, especially if it's with DSP!


I'd really like to see more effort put into the "unarmed swordsage" than a one off line about giving them monk unarmed damage progression and WIS to AC.

A new dedicated unarmed class would be great!

Well as I obviously can't leak info, I will say this. Unarmed is not going to be forgotten, and there will be plenty to support it.

-X

[RFLS]

Well as I obviously can't leak info, I will say this. Unarmed is not going to be forgotten, and there will be plenty to support it.

-X

I was wrong before. Now it's my birthday.

[Psyren]

This, for many reasons. Not sure I'll wave, though.

:smallamused:

Hey, it still counts as waving even if you don't use all your fingers. :smallwink:

[Squirrel_Dude]

As someone who is currently playing a swordsage in a Pathfidner PbP, this excites me greatly. I can't wait to see how they convert it, and hope they add some new adepts or styles to help the other combat styles (*cough* archery *cough*) in the game.

This might be the first time I'll actually have to swear by third party material as necessary for my RPG. Hell, the biggest problem with ToB in my eyes is the awful editing/errata that happened to that book. Fixing that alone will make it fun for me to ask to use at a table.

[ErrantX]

As someone who is currently playing a swordsage in a Pathfidner PbP, this excites me greatly. I can't wait to see how they convert it, and hope they add some new adepts or styles to help the other combat styles (*cough* archery *cough*) in the game.

Archery, throwing weapons, unarmed combat, and more will get love. I'm with you; I felt like a jilted lover after a one night stand when it came to the Tome of Battle, so much promise, and then they changed and became a totally new edition. I'm approaching this with an eye to address those points that were overlooked.

-X

[RFLS]

Archery, throwing weapons, unarmed combat, and more will get love. I'm with you; I felt like a jilted lover after a one night stand when it came to the Tome of Battle, so much promise, and then they changed and became a totally new edition. I'm approaching this with an eye to address those points that were overlooked.

-X

Oh, I get it. You're courting me. The answer is already yes.

[CTrees]

Yes. Yes. I'm sold. Cannot wait.

Oh, will my players hate me...

[Eldariel]

You let me know what you want to see and if I can make it happen for a comprehensive lineup, I'll see what we can do. I'm getting the first playtest bundle together today and definitely give it a look when it is released. If this product takes off, there will be further support down the line, instead the one book and done approach that WotC took to it.

Wall of text:
Support for ranged combat (beyond Dancing Mongoose, Raging Mongoose, Time Stands Still), both archery and thrown. Perhaps for both, mobile (skirmishing) archers and volley/artillery styles. Ranged weapons could have their own schools or most maneuvers could be usable with ranged weapons or whatever, there are certainly many options available on how to implement it but the lack of proper ranged martial adepts was the biggest "FU" ranged combat got during the whole 3.5.

I think the use of only melee weapons should be an exception, not a rule, but Warblade and Swordsage don't agree with me. Ironically, the only class with ranged weapon proficiencies from the book doesn't get either of the schools with maneuvers that work with ranged weapons. Other neglected combat styles like grappling (seriously, this system is the only way to do grappling right in D&D), unarmed combat & one-handed (fencing) combat would also warrant some love.


Other than that, Shadow Hand was a bit too magickey to me. Sure, Assassin is a caster class from core so I sorta understand it, and there's room for the master of shadows-type of magical school. However assassination itself can be done in a completely mundane manner, and ToB completely misses this great opportunity to get mundane assassination right (forgive me if I don't consider Rogue's "hide and sneak attack" the be-all end-all of gameplay), providing only couple of mundane assassination stances. You could have maneuvers requiring certain conditions (e.g. flat-footed target) to either debilitate or straight-out kill them (save-or-die or stat damage or whatever), various ways to disappear more easily (temporary Hide in Plain Sight if you will) and so on. Using Poison could be or not be implemented into such school depending on your preference, of course.

Then, it would be optimal if mounted combat was somehow covered. Normal ToB works with mounted combat to a degree but there are some weird things with rules (like can you perform the Charge-maneuvers as mounted charges while mounted? How does giving your mount extra actions via. WRT work if they normally function on your initiative when you guide 'em?) because the word "mount" appears once in the book, and that stands for a "mountain". In other words, because the rules simply don't cover it.


Oh, and couple of general things:

- It would be great to have a bit healthier number of maneuvers known, and perhaps few more readied ones. Knowing a bunch more maneuvers doesn't really increase Martial Adept power overtly much (maneuvers readied does more to that effect) but it does allow you to vary your style a bit more day-in day-out. In other words, having more maneuvers known keeps it more interesting for the martial adepts. This is doubly true if we're looking at more maneuvers than currently; the current setup is already barely sufficient for the number of schools they currently get.

- Having some sort of adaptation section (or all-out) to cover integration options for the system could also be an interesting option (that is, a strictly optional set of rules to integrate the ToB-style combat to the core of the system). PHB warrior types could get initiator level or have the option of being replaced with maneuver-using classes, half-warriors (Clerics & al.) could get a stunted maneuver progression in some schools to show they learn some combat skill but not on-par with real warriors (much like Rangers & co. get stunted casting), etc.

- Anti-casters maneuvers like Iron Heart Surge and Wall of Blades (used against Rays) could afford to be a bit more common. After all, in this world the martial adepts fight not only other warriors but also casters so it would stand to reason they develop techniques to that end also.

- More boosts in general. Currently they're a bit underpresented missing out on some of the potential the system has to "combo" maneuvers with each other for interesting results. Boosts as they stand already sort of function as "meta-maneuvers" but most of them don't actually work that well with strikes (ones that apply on each hit go better with full attacks) or they're just plain boring. There's definitely some room here for an interesting combo system of sorts, but I'd find it preferable if the focus was on standard action, move action & boost system (to keep warriors mobile). More counters are always also welcome; they make battle more dynamic (and thus interesting).

- In general, focus on stuff other than +xd6 damage. Sure, few maneuvers that just do a ton of d6s can be fun but it'd be really boring if the whole book was just a bunch of ways to do extra d6s. That's just not the most interesting addition and it doesn't really tie to your attacks, base damage, combat style or anything. It's just a boring bonus and it sorta makes the weapon itself irrelevant. It also frightens new people and in general, I think "toss a bunch of d6s" should be reserved for those damage spells, where it's the only thing they do (I don't like Sneak Attack as a mechanic either mostly 'cause it just adds up to "throw a bunch of d6s as your damage, nothing else really matters"). Doing 1d8+15+5d6 is just sorta clumsy especially since your weapon special abilities are probably already doing this.

- Consistency with regards to scaling. ToB has the system in place for scaling but only few maneuvers actually scale meaningfully. I feel it shouldn't be as half-hearted; either integrate initiator level scaling properly into the system so that it matters for more maneuvers (hell, maybe you get good enough to use two boosts with one swift action or whatever) or remove its effect on maneuvers entirely. It'd still be a good way to limit which maneuvers you can learn even if nothing scaled by it, but e.g. Leading the Charge [White Raven] is a really weird Stance and kinda out of place in a system that doesn't really scale otherwise.

- Master of One in some way, shape or form. These multitalent adepts are all cool but it'd be really nice to have some class that's the utmost master of a single discipline and learns nothing else. Maybe as a PRC or something. This'd finally give you the tools to be that fencing master or jiujitsu master or the utmost master of whatever each discipline embodies.
Sorry it's long. Of course, that's just a wishlist. ToB itself was already wonderful so doesn't matter if none of that happens; getting ToB for PF and hopefully some chance to use it officially would be more than good enough. It just seems to me this is an opportunity to improve upon it and make it even better and feel more integrated into the whole.

EDIT:
Archery, throwing weapons, unarmed combat, and more will get love. I'm with you; I felt like a jilted lover after a one night stand when it came to the Tome of Battle, so much promise, and then they changed and became a totally new edition. I'm approaching this with an eye to address those points that were overlooked.

-X

Okay. You've already mentioned many of the things I did. I'm guessing this'll be awesome.

[ErrantX]

Wall of text:
*snip*

Okay. You've already mentioned many of the things I did. I'm guessing this'll be awesome.

A lot of your ideas are things I've definitely thought of, and I'm going to take that wall of text and other suggestions people have and copy it into a sort of a Wish List file from the fans of the system. I know I can't please everyone, but I will take this stuff to heart. Thank you for all of that! That helps sooooo much!

-X

[Eldan]

More utility and things that are applicable outside of combat, please. I was discussing starting a community rewrite of ToB in the homebrew forums that sadly collapsed pretty soon, but that was one thing we wanted. Especially a lot more stances and more stances that do things like help in travelling and exploration of dangerous terrains of various kinds or provide other boni that aren't directly related to killing things. ToB has a few: scent, short-range teleportation, moving over water and air, fire resistance... all nice, but I wish there were more.

[Squirrel_Dude]

On stances and maneuvers:

- If you're going to increase stances and manuevers, then either characters should get more to use, or they should get bonuses for specializing in a specific style.

- I would recommend maybe trying to decrease the amount of manuevers known prereqs. I actually like that in theory, but it makes it really hard to properly build a high level adept. Aka: "5 maneuvers of X style known? Could I have actually fit those in and learned everything else... time to go back and check. *40 minutes later* I still have no idea..."

Personally, I'm okay with them not having too many utility maneuvers/stances. Having some is obviously a necessity, but I would prefer if the styles of combat you studied focused on making you stronger in combat. I don't know, I guess I don't want the system to become too similar to magic is all.

[Elricaltovilla]

A lot of your ideas are things I've definitely thought of, and I'm going to take that wall of text and other suggestions people have and copy it into a sort of a Wish List file from the fans of the system. I know I can't please everyone, but I will take this stuff to heart. Thank you for all of that! That helps sooooo much!

-X

Well if you want to crowd source about TOB this is the place to do it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
Hey, it still counts as waving even if you don't use all your fingers.

I'm really glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.

:smalltongue:


Originally Posted by RFLS
I still can't believe they just dumped 3.5, and then when PF came out, they tried to get back in with a reprint that "included the errata" (it didn't include the errata in at least one book).

Yup, here's the discussion about the very definitely missing errata (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15714372) in the reprinted MIC. Note in particular that the WotC website claimed for a long while that the errata would be integrated into the reprint--and when complaints started coming out that it wasn't, the WotC website was quietly edited. Not a single *******' word of apology.

As far as I'm concerned, that pretty much ends my support of WotC.

Which is convenient, because...


Originally Posted by ErrantX
Unarmed is not going to be forgotten, and there will be plenty to support it.

See, this is how you get new customers. Color me interested.


Originally Posted by ErrantX
Archery...will get love.

That's really all I read out of that whole sentence. It's all I needed.

Now it's my birthday.



*wheee...*

:smalltongue:

[NinjaInTheRye]

I'd prefer ToB like options for the existing classes (particularly the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue) to an effort to recreate classes like Sword Sage and Warblade.

[Larkas]

I'd prefer ToB like options for the existing classes (particularly the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue) to an effort to recreate classes like Sword Sage and Warblade.

To be honest, that's what archetypes are for... Let's just wait and see. :smallsmile:

[Lord Ruby34]

Goodbye 3.5, we had a good run, you and I. Like all good things though, it had to end.

Hello pathfinder, I look forward to the start of a long and prosperous relationship.

[Kane0]

Me gusta. I am looking forward to this.

Also, could we get some sword n' board action in there too? I'd love a discipline that made good use of a shield. Maybe it could replace Stone Dragon or something.

[The Glyphstone]

Heck to the yes.

[Turion]

Oh man, it's you working on it?

With Jeremy?

Sold.

This. Totally this. I'm pretty sure people could hear me squee from two towns away.

[Wolf_Haley]

Not totally sold on PF but this could get me to run it alongside 4E.

[137beth]

Now it's my birthday.



*wheee...*

:smalltongue:


I was wrong before. Now it's my birthday.
I believe almost all d20 players have the same birthday: whenever Path of War comes out:smallsmile:

I will say that my main complaint about the mechanics of ToB (aside from the lack of support outside of the one book) was the fact that too many of the abilities did not scale. A big part of what makes Vancian casters fun to play for me is that they have a lot of options that are useful across a wide level range. A 16th level sorcerer/wizard can still occasionally get uses out of 1st to 3rd level spells, even if it is only as a quickened buff. Most ToB maneuvers, on the other hand, don't scale very well. When I get a few maneuvers every couple levels, it feels like I am also losing my old maneuvers.

[Occasional Sage]

Clearly I'll be buying two copies: one for me, and one for work (assuming we don't pick one up along the way).

[navar100]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wod-MudLNPA

Please, please fix the stance progression!

[Gigas Breaker]

I've never been interested in PF, but this is pretty cool.

[NinjaInTheRye]

To be honest, that's what archetypes are for... Let's just wait and see. :smallsmile:

I consider it -- unfortunate that archetypes are how such things would have to be applied to the martial classes that need the help the most.

I'm speaking only from my own experience of trying to convince GMs to let me play ToB classes in 3.5, which usually came down to, "Warblade?! Look at this thing, it's broken because it's better at fighting than the Fighter! The whole book is banned forever!"

[IronFist]

My awesomesense is tingling!!
This looks really good, I believe they will implement right, as choices instead of just being plain better than static bonuses.
The one thing I'm a bit on the fence about is... does archery NEED more love in Pathfinder?

[Squirrel_Dude]

My awesomesense is tingling!!
This looks really good, I believe they will implement right, as choices instead of just being plain better than static bonuses.
The one thing I'm a bit on the fence about is... does archery NEED more love in Pathfinder?Archery is the best combat style in Pathfinder, but it still falls under the boring "I full attack" every round category of combat. Most of the time.

[ErrantX]

What I will share is this from Andreas Rönnqvist, one of the owners of Dreamscarred Press:


Our intention is to apply our high standards for balance to make sure it functions just as well as our psionics. Right now we are looking at three "major" releases, each one detailing a class and its associated Disciplines, a number of minor releases, each one detailing a new discipline and finally compile it into one big book of awesome.

This material will be "stand alone" in that it will not require psionics, however, we intend to design with psionics in mind. We are striving for interoperability, not interdependability - if that makes it any clearer.

What's not mentioned is all the archetypes in the works, martial ones for normal base classes, and psionic ones for the martial classes. Individual combat styles are being addressed, i.e. single weapon, two weapons, weapon and shield, etc etc etc. Some inter-discipline relation is built into it too. We shall see what the final looks like, but I think you're gonna like it.

-X

[molten_dragon]

So pumped (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=35160.html#35160)

For the lazy:

I'm coming up with fewer and fewer reasons not to convert to pathfinder as time goes on.

Really the only one I have left is the expense.

[Big Fau]

My question is will there be a back-adaptation included in it so the adamant who wish to support DSP don't have to support Paizo? I'd like to be able to utilize this in my current 3.5 games without having to convert to PF.

[ErrantX]

My question is will there be a back-adaptation included in it so the adamant who wish to support DSP don't have to support Paizo? I'd like to be able to utilize this in my current 3.5 games without having to convert to PF.

Likely nothing official, but the adaptation wouldn't take a whole lot of work. DSP is pretty solid on the Pathfinder bandwagon as far as development of new products.

-X

[Larkas]

Likely nothing official, but the adaptation wouldn't take a whole lot of work. DSP is pretty solid on the Pathfinder bandwagon as far as development of new products.

-X

Just to reinforce what X is saying, backporting things from PF to 3.5 is really simple. Actually, it's simpler than porting things from 3.5 to PF, generally.

[erikun]

Along with archery, I would like to see grappling get some love. Not just grabbing-pinning, but also tripping, knocking down, disarming, moving and tossing opponents around. This could easily be part of the unarmed maneuvers and attacks, although I'd like to see options beyond the "unarmored eastern martial artist" concept. (People wearing armor should have the ability to grab people, too!)

I'm also a big fan of psionics, so some psionic/maneuver crossover would be nice to see as well. :smallsmile:


Arcane Swordsage was an interesting concept, but terrible idea with free use of Wizard spells. Has anyone tried it with something like Warlock invocations, by chance?

[137beth]

Just to reinforce what X is saying, backporting things from PF to 3.5 is really simple. Actually, it's simpler than porting things from 3.5 to PF, generally.

Is it easier? I'm not sure what's easier about converting backwards than converting from 3.5 to PF:smallconfused:
Eh, doesn't really matter, conversion either direction between 3.5 and PF is really easy. Heck, for a lot of people it is easier than converting between 3.5 and 3.5-with-your-house-rules.

[Novawurmson]

What's not mentioned is all the archetypes in the works, martial ones for normal base classes, and psionic ones for the martial classes. Individual combat styles are being addressed, i.e. single weapon, two weapons, weapon and shield, etc etc etc. Some inter-discipline relation is built into it too. We shall see what the final looks like, but I think you're gonna like it.

http://i.imgur.com/vwMin.gif

This is pretty much the best day ever.

[Waker]

Aside from making other weapon styles relevant, my biggest wish would be seeing some mixing of ToB-style classes with Incarnum. I'm generally of the opinion that ToB and Incarnum are like Chocolate and Peanut Butter, and having something a bit more official than Homebrew would be swell.

[137beth]

What I will share is this from Andreas Rönnqvist, one of the owners of Dreamscarred Press:



What's not mentioned is all the archetypes in the works, martial ones for normal base classes, and psionic ones for the martial classes. Individual combat styles are being addressed, i.e. single weapon, two weapons, weapon and shield, etc etc etc. Some inter-discipline relation is built into it too. We shall see what the final looks like, but I think you're gonna like it.

-X
Whoa, could there possibly be maneuvers/stances/disciplines/some sort of support for TOWER SHIELDS?!?
Those are my favorite almost-never-used piece of mundane equipment in 3.X, and while PF has a tower shield fighter archetype, it is really...weak.

[Larkas]

Is it easier? I'm not sure what's easier about converting backwards than converting from 3.5 to PF:smallconfused:
Eh, doesn't really matter, conversion either direction between 3.5 and PF is really easy. Heck, for a lot of people it is easier than converting between 3.5 and 3.5-with-your-house-rules.

Oh, it's because PF simplified things. You don't have to think about what to do with Concentration, for example. Anyways, it's like you said: it's easy anyways, so I'm discussion really minor things here.

[rollforeigninit]

As if money wasn't tight enough. DSP is gonna have to answer when I'm having to live in my van to afford their excellent products.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Oh, it's because PF simplified things. You don't have to think about what to do with Concentration, for example. Anyways, it's like you said: it's easy anyways, so I'm discussion really minor things here.

The lack of concentration is little pet peeve of mine, if they want to deal with casters auto-passing the defensive casting check they should have changed the way the DC worked, not removing the skill entirely.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by molten_dragon
I'm coming up with fewer and fewer reasons not to convert to pathfinder as time goes on.

Really the only one I have left is the expense.

Expense is often a major concern. It's a real barrier for me, especially when Pathfinder books are $39.99 or $49.99 apiece.

[ErrantX]

Expense is often a major concern. It's a real barrier for me, especially when Pathfinder books are $39.99 or $49.99 apiece.

Alas, the only concern I cannot address. All I can really do is link you to a wonderful opinion piece that Sean K. Reynolds wrote regarding that (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/rpgsaretooexpensive.html).

It's around the price of a video game but keep in mind this: INFINITE REPLAY VALUE.

Otherwise, PDF's are always a cost efficient manner of getting new books.

-X

[Larkas]

The lack of concentration is little pet peeve of mine, if they want to deal with casters auto-passing the defensive casting check they should have changed the way the DC worked, not removing the skill entirely.

Oh, I have my issues with PF's skill system too. Specifically, I group them completely differently in my games, and do away with Fly. But that's relatively minor too.

[Big Fau]

Likely nothing official, but the adaptation wouldn't take a whole lot of work. DSP is pretty solid on the Pathfinder bandwagon as far as development of new products.

-X

And at others who replied about my comment: I asked specifically because I'd like there to be an official sidebar within the book/PDF about it, that way my players would be able to learn how to convert it themselves instead of me having to explain it; they are very new to RPGs and not too familiar with PF due in no small part to my vehement opinion of Paizo.

Oh well. I know the conversion is fairly simple, I just kinda wish there were a small blurb in DSP's publications about converting things back.

[Larkas]

And at others who replied about my comment: I asked specifically because I'd like there to be an official sidebar within the book/PDF about it, that way my players would be able to learn how to convert it themselves instead of me having to explain it; they are very new to RPGs and not too familiar with PF due in no small part to my vehement opinion of Paizo.

Oh well. I know the conversion is fairly simple, I just kinda wish there were a small blurb in DSP's publications about converting things back.

Hmmm, gotcha. Well, you might be able to set up a document for them teaching how to do it!

[avr]

Alas, the only concern I cannot address. All I can really do is link you to a wonderful opinion piece that Sean K. Reynolds wrote regarding that (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/rpgsaretooexpensive.html).

It's around the price of a video game but keep in mind this: INFINITE REPLAY VALUE.

Otherwise, PDF's are always a cost efficient manner of getting new books.

-X
The math in Sean's rant rather misses out the Amazon effect - these days just about no one buys from retailers who buy from distributors who buy from the game company.

I'll certainly look into this product when it comes out anyway.

[ErrantX]

The math in Sean's rant rather misses out the Amazon effect - these days just about no one buys from retailers who buy from distributors who buy from the game company.

I'll certainly look into this product when it comes out anyway.

Don't get me started on Amazon, that company is wrought nothing but true evil to the publishing industry. :smallsigh:

-X

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by ErrantX
It's around the price of a video game but keep in mind this: INFINITE REPLAY VALUE.

I really can't remember the last time I bought a video game. Might have been 2002.

And alas, for a species with our design limitations, "infinite" is a little optimistic. "Frequent" is probably more accurate.

</editor>

[Squirrel_Dude]

Also keep in mind that most Paizo books are easily available online, not just as .pdfs, but on Paizo's own online reference document. The biggest piece of information missing online is probably the lack of specific deities for clerics/inquisitors to reference for their domains, but those can be found at other locations.

I also highly recommend that you check out .pdfs. The books pdfs are a great value. The minor golarion setting stuff and the adventure paths are admittedly less so.

[Psyren]

Is it easier? I'm not sure what's easier about converting backwards than converting from 3.5 to PF:smallconfused:
Eh, doesn't really matter, conversion either direction between 3.5 and PF is really easy. Heck, for a lot of people it is easier than converting between 3.5 and 3.5-with-your-house-rules.

In addition to what Larkas said, you also don't need to worry about CMB/CMD. Just drop the two terms entirely and rely on Str and Dex checks as 3.5 usually does.



Oh well. I know the conversion is fairly simple, I just kinda wish there were a small blurb in DSP's publications about converting things back.

I don't. Printed real estate is very valuable; every sidebar counts.. Since WotC isn't supporting 3.5 anymore, nobody else should waste their time doing so either (at least not in rulebooks), particularly in the service of a near decade-old grudge.

[Big Fau]

particularly in the service of a near decade-old grudge.

What can I say other than I don't forgive easily?

[137beth]

What can I say other than I don't forgive easily?

I'm curious, as I didn't read most of their stuff from Dungeon/Dragon magazines:
what is this grudge about?

[Big Fau]

I'm curious, as I didn't read most of their stuff from Dungeon/Dragon magazines:
what is this grudge about?

I posted a critique during the Pathfinder Open Beta on Paizo's forums and ended up with a deleted post, an IP ban, and a grudge that I've been holding for years. I had a low opinion of Paizo for their Dragon Magazine content being so wildly unbalanced, but that banning put me firmly in the "Hater" category.

Edit: Several of my associates did a similar critique, and most of them were ignored. The ones who weren't were the ones who were openly flaming and trolling, and even then their advice wasn't acknowledged.

[Psyren]

What can I say other than I don't forgive easily?

You're free to do so or not do so as you see fit, but it's not much of a reason to waste space in the book on backwards compatibility to a system that has all but abandoned its players.

Heck, such an attempt may even be dangerous; every reference to the original Bo9S, however oblique, has the potential of attracting unwanted attention from the spooky wizard who lives by the coast. DSP being forced to defend their conversion in court, no matter how it turns out, would be a loss for everyone involved.

[ErrantX]

You're free to do so or not do so as you see fit, but it's not much of a reason to waste space in the book on backwards compatibility to a system that has all but abandoned its players.

Heck, such an attempt may even be dangerous; every reference to the original Bo9S, however oblique, has the potential of attracting unwanted attention from the spooky wizard who lives by the coast. DSP being forced to defend their conversion in court, no matter how it turns out, would be a loss for everyone involved.

This exactly.

That being said, when it's all said and done and it launches, hit me up and I'll personally release an unofficial conversion if you still need one.

-X

[molten_dragon]

Alas, the only concern I cannot address. All I can really do is link you to a wonderful opinion piece that Sean K. Reynolds wrote regarding that (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/rpgsaretooexpensive.html).

It's around the price of a video game but keep in mind this: INFINITE REPLAY VALUE.

Otherwise, PDF's are always a cost efficient manner of getting new books.

-X

It's not that the books are too expensive (for me at least). I can afford them. It's just that I've already spent several hundred dollars over the years on 3.5 books, so it's hard for me to justify spending another several hundred dollars on Pathfinder books, when I like the two games for the exact same reasons.

And the infinite replay value of a system only counts if you keep playing that system.

I suspect that if Paizo wants to keep making money over time, they're eventually going to have to do what WotC did and come out with a Pathfinder V2.0.

[Tehnar]

What I would like to see:


multiclass support: dips into martial classes should be worthwhile. Currently, in pathfinder dipping is usually not worth it.

martial maneuvers for everyone: access to a limited amount of maneuvers for pure classes through feats/paths

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by molten_dragon
...I've already spent several hundred dollars over the years on 3.5 books, so it's hard for me to justify spending another several hundred dollars on Pathfinder books.

Sadly, some of us really can't afford several hundred dollars for a complete set of new books.

I do see the logic, from the writers' and designers' perspective...but even so, sometimes the personal math just don't add up.

[Fax Celestis]

In my experience, DSP tends to do a side-by-side release of a paperback for around $25 and a PDF for like $5.

[Psyren]

All the Pathfinder rules - even the third party stuff - is available online legally and totally free of charge. If you can't afford the books or even the much cheaper PDFs, stick with the SRD and you won't have to pay a dime. You can even print it out.

There is often a delay between the product's release and getting posted to the SRD, but avoiding that is one of the perks of paying to play.


@ Errant: Can you let us know when pre-orders open up?

[Hunter Noventa]

Archery, throwing weapons, unarmed combat, and more will get love. I'm with you; I felt like a jilted lover after a one night stand when it came to the Tome of Battle, so much promise, and then they changed and became a totally new edition. I'm approaching this with an eye to address those points that were overlooked.

-X

I've already had more fun playing your Soulknife Gestalted with a Swordsage than should be allowed, and now you're doing this?

It is truly a thing of beauty to hear about, and I look forward to getting my grubby mitts on it.

[Fax Celestis]

@ Errant: Can you let us know when pre-orders open up?

...and if you're going to do a preorder playtest like they did with PsiEx and PsiUn?

[Dusk Eclipse]

I will definitely shell out for a pre-order if it includes a playtest

[Turion]

I will definitely shell out for a pre-order if it includes a playtest

Same here, absolutely.

[Psyren]

And maybe see if WR is still available for cover art? :smallbiggrin:

[OverdrivePrime]

I'm super excited for this, and am looking forward to implementing the results in my game. /Subscribed!

[Werephilosopher]

I can't wait for ranged-focused styles. Hopefully there will be support for sword-and-shield fighters too, they could use a bit of love.

I must say, I've been faithful to 3.5 since I started playing, but this could very well convert me to Pathfinder permanently.

[Gorfnod]

@ErrantX

I would absolutely love to see “Disciplines”, or whatever you guys decide to call them, based on all four of the classic elements. Desert Wind as a decent fire theme discipline and Stone Dragon had some earth feel to it but I would have loved to have all of the elementals on a single character.

[ErrantX]

What I would like to see:


multiclass support: dips into martial classes should be worthwhile. Currently, in pathfinder dipping is usually not worth it.

martial maneuvers for everyone: access to a limited amount of maneuvers for pure classes through feats/paths


I'll try not to let you down here as far maneuvers for everyone, I have plenty of ideas for that, but at least in my opinion, dipping is kind of the bane of my existence in some regards. If you want to cherry pick from the first level or two of a class, you'll get something that's pretty decent, but the good stuff usually doesn't come until later.


In my experience, DSP tends to do a side-by-side release of a paperback for around $25 and a PDF for like $5.

True story!


All the Pathfinder rules - even the third party stuff - is available online legally and totally free of charge. If you can't afford the books or even the much cheaper PDFs, stick with the SRD and you won't have to pay a dime. You can even print it out.

There is often a delay between the product's release and getting posted to the SRD, but avoiding that is one of the perks of paying to play.


@ Errant: Can you let us know when pre-orders open up?

I'll make sure to, I've got this thread bookmarked so I'll update the Playground with information here.


I've already had more fun playing your Soulknife Gestalted with a Swordsage than should be allowed, and now you're doing this?

It is truly a thing of beauty to hear about, and I look forward to getting my grubby mitts on it.

That's awesome! Is it the Soulknife I posted on SorcererStudios.com or is the Spellblade that I wrote a while back? Either way, that's super cool! As DSP is totally in love with psionics (and rightly so!), you're likely to see a lot of psionics support from the Path of War.


...and if you're going to do a preorder playtest like they did with PsiEx and PsiUn?

I think it's going to be an open source playtest initially, not sure about after that though. Keep an eye out on the DPS forums!


And maybe see if WR is still available for cover art? :smallbiggrin:

Oh god I'd love that! Yes please! :smallbiggrin:

If this does well enough, it might get a kickstarter for it to go the same route as Ultimate Psionics, just requires the fans and supporters to want it bad enough. The more you guys love it, the more that Jeremy and Andreas will likely be willing to green light. I'm amateur-going-pro (if I'm lucky!) and so I'll definitely need fan support to make this happen.


I can't wait for ranged-focused styles. Hopefully there will be support for sword-and-shield fighters too, they could use a bit of love.

I must say, I've been faithful to 3.5 since I started playing, but this could very well convert me to Pathfinder permanently.

There's a lot of ground to cover, and I think you're going to find I have support for a lot of different methods of combat in this.


@ErrantX

I would absolutely love to see “Disciplines”, or whatever you guys decide to call them, based on all four of the classic elements. Desert Wind as a decent fire theme discipline and Stone Dragon had some earth feel to it but I would have loved to have all of the elementals on a single character.

While I can't divulge secrets or anything, I will say this is something I want to see as well, and I have ideas for this as well. Hopefully I'll be given a chance to implement them!

To everyone, you guys are so awesome! Thank you!

-X

[StreamOfTheSky]

So, is this going to be "inspired by" ToB in the same way many movies are "inspired by" or "based on" actual events? :smalltongue:

[ErrantX]

So, is this going to be "inspired by" ToB in the same way many movies are "inspired by" or "based on" actual events? :smalltongue:

Something like that! :smallcool:

-X

[Starbuck_II]

Rather than Archery (already the best style of ranged combat), how about crossbow/sling/gun maneuvers (ranged ones in general).

If crossbow got a enough boost it might be almost as good as archery (without maneuvers).

But I'm pleased to hear this. It might make ToB more allowed in PF games.

[Novawurmson]

If this does well enough, it might get a kickstarter for it to go the same route as Ultimate Psionics, just requires the fans and supporters to want it bad enough. The more you guys love it, the more that Jeremy and Andreas will likely be willing to green light. I'm amateur-going-pro (if I'm lucky!) and so I'll definitely need fan support to make this happen.

Sadly, I think Jeremy isn't thinking that way (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=35168.html#35168).

For the lazy:



subject42 wrote:
Will you be doing a kickstarter for this?

Jeremy.Smith wrote:
Nope!

We're keeping our Kickstarters to a minimum.

The next Kickstarter we're likely to do would be for Third Dawn (end of the year / early 2014, so consider yourself warned).

[Psyren]

That doesn't mean it'll be impossible, just unlikely for this release.

[ErrantX]

Sadly, I think Jeremy isn't thinking that way (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=35168.html#35168).

For the lazy:

I saw that. Who knows? At the end of the day, it's a business and businesses make money. If it doesn't happen, hey, I'm not going to be broken-hearted. If it does? I certainly don't see it happening before Third Dawn at all!

Kickstarters are a big deal and if it does go down, I don't see it happening unless the following happens: Path of War makes a HUGE splash and a successful one at that, the fans have to want it (and show it by way of sales and such), DPS has to have the want to do it, and we have enough material to warrant it and of course expanding on that. There is likely more involved than that as well. I wouldn't at all expect to see one before the end of 2014 / early 2015 at any rate (at the earliest). I don't know though, I'm just the new guy. :smalltongue:

-X

[Morbis Meh]

.....you evil evil being! Offering such temptation that no sane d20 fan could resist.... SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY! As for what I would like to see... everyone's wishlist summarises what i would like to see: more disciplines for weapon styles, better stance progression, better recovery mechanics (poor swordsage...), more utility maneuvers and MOAR prestige classes!

[deuxhero]

Sling maneuvers


Yes... Slings need more support.

[Psyren]

Oh, and can we alter the Neo-Crusader fluff? I never liked that it was tied to divine inspiration and especially not to deities at all.


.....you evil evil being! Offering such temptation that no sane d20 fan could resist.... SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY! As for what I would like to see... everyone's wishlist summarises what i would like to see: more disciplines for weapon styles, better stance progression, better recovery mechanics (poor swordsage...), more utility maneuvers and MOAR prestige classes!

Just FYI (and this may end up not being the case here) - but aside from things like theurges, PF design favors an archetype approach rather than a PrC one as far as differentiating builds that use the same class from each other.

It also makes the product unique from a copyright perspective, letting you reuse names and even core concepts from classes like the Constructor, Mindbender and Unseen Hand while being different enough to avoid trouble.

[137beth]

So, is this going to be "inspired by" ToB in the same way many movies are "inspired by" or "based on" actual events? :smalltongue:

Probably it's "inspired by" ToB in that they learned from past products and are making a better subsystem out of it, and then later are going to add expansions to it, rather than WotC's approach of simply reprinting old books and never even trying to improve stuff.

[Hunter Noventa]

That's awesome! Is it the Soulknife I posted on SorcererStudios.com or is the Spellblade that I wrote a while back? Either way, that's super cool! As DSP is totally in love with psionics (and rightly so!), you're likely to see a lot of psionics support from the Path of War.

It's the one from psionics Unleashed, same as what's listed on the SRD.

Though I played most of it before all the secondary books came out, and granted the additional archetypes and such.

The best part was using gauntlets as my Mind blade and performing Rocket Punches when i couldn't get into range.

In addition to being happy to hear about psionics support, I'm glad there's going to be some support for ranged combat styles too.

I hope you're also working to include support for firearms in this system as well. Even if the costs for them are way out of whack, out group enjoys making use of them.

[ErrantX]

It's the one from psionics Unleashed, same as what's listed on the SRD.

Though I played most of it before all the secondary books came out, and granted the additional archetypes and such.

The best part was using gauntlets as my Mind blade and performing Rocket Punches when i couldn't get into range.

In addition to being happy to hear about psionics support, I'm glad there's going to be some support for ranged combat styles too.

I hope you're also working to include support for firearms in this system as well. Even if the costs for them are way out of whack, out group enjoys making use of them.

Ahhhh, I can't take credit for that one. That's like Jeremy or Andreas' baby there. I'd love to though, they took the soulknife to a whole new level and made it amazing! Firearms will potentially be covered in a sidebar, but may not come in the playtesting.

Also... *drum roll*

Here is the first round of play testing! (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2955.html)

Go get it!

-X

[Larkas]

Also... *drum roll*

Here is the first round of play testing! (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2955.html)

Go get it!

-X

WHAT??? ALREADY??? <o> Okay, now it's my birthday!

[Hunter Noventa]

Ahhhh, I can't take credit for that one. That's like Jeremy or Andreas' baby there. I'd love to though, they took the soulknife to a whole new level and made it amazing! Firearms will potentially be covered in a sidebar, but may not come in the playtesting.

Also... *drum roll*

Here is the first round of play testing! (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2955.html)

Go get it!

-X

Ooooh playtest! *yoink!*

And please extend my gratitude to them for making the Soulknife so awesome!

EIDT- I think I found an error already.



Once a maneuver is readied, he may only use it once it has been invested into a gambit.


This would imply you have to use Gambits to even use maneuvers, but the entry for Warlord's Gambit clearly says that you invest expended maneuvers into it, and recover them if you succeed. So I think the text I quoted is a bit off, but I'm not sure what the intended meaning was.

[ErrantX]

Ooooh playtest! *yoink!*

And please extend my gratitude to them for making the Soulknife so awesome!

EIDT- I think I found an error already.



This would imply you have to use Gambits to even use maneuvers, but the entry for Warlord's Gambit clearly says that you invest expended maneuvers into it, and recover them if you succeed. So I think the text I quoted is a bit off, but I'm not sure what the intended meaning was.

Replace that line with this:

Once a maneuver is readied, he may only use it once it until has been invested into a gambit or recovered through some other means (see below).

Missed a word in there, and then just kinda reorganized the sentence. I had that proofread like, six times too and it still got missed! :smallyuk:

-X

[Hunter Noventa]

Replace that line with this:

Once a maneuver is readied, he may only use it once it until has been invested into a gambit or recovered through some other means (see below).

Missed a word in there, and then just kinda reorganized the sentence. I had that proofread like, six times too and it still got missed! :smallyuk:

-X

Thought it would be something like that. And that's why it's put out like this for us to see after all! Don't want something like the Swordsage's x6 skill points at 1st level to squeeze through after all!

[Drachasor]

Regarding things Discplines like Desert Wind. Hopefully there will be ways to be flexible about the elemental damage in some fashion. A big problem with Desert Wind in ToB is that it does a ton of fire damage, tons of stuff resist it, and they have no good tools to deal with that.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Also... *drum roll*

Here is the first round of play testing! (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2955.html)

Go get it!

-X
What?! Mine! Mine! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4BNbHBcnDI)

[Hunter Noventa]

Just reading the Maneuver names makes me happy. Unstoppable Force of the Tyrant Lord? Riddle of Steel? Searing Break? Great stuff.

I'm going to have to come up with some homebrew for this, not because it needs it, but because it inspires me!

[Psyren]

There's some great maneuver names in Wheel of Time's blademaster system too. Leaf on the Wind, River of Light, Cat on Hot Sand, Threading the Needle, Tower of Morning, Moon on the Water, Folding the Air, the Courtier Taps His Fan etc.

[ErrantX]

Just reading the Maneuver names makes me happy. Unstoppable Force of the Tyrant Lord? Riddle of Steel? Searing Break? Great stuff.

I'm going to have to come up with some homebrew for this, not because it needs it, but because it inspires me!

Nice!

There's a funny story in the name of the maneuver, Riddle of Steel. I remember when I first started conceptualizing this project with Doc Roc, he said to me, "If you can do one things for this, make a maneuver called Riddle of Steel. It sounds awesome. I don't care what it does, just make it!" :smalltongue:

-X

[Larkas]

Replace that line with this:

Once a maneuver is readied, he may only use it once it until has been invested into a gambit or recovered through some other means (see below).

Missed a word in there, and then just kinda reorganized the sentence. I had that proofread like, six times too and it still got missed! :smallyuk:

-X

To be honest, I must say that I've noticed a few mispellings and weird phrases already... Don't worry, though, nothing major! Don't have the time to note them down at the moment, though. I'll try to help when I do have it. :smallsmile:

[ErrantX]

To be honest, I must say that I've noticed a few mispellings and weird phrases already... Don't worry, though, nothing major! Don't have the time to note them down at the moment, though. I'll try to help when I do have it. :smallsmile:

Time to fire my proof readers and get some different ones! Ugh!

I write with the philosophy set down by James Thurber: "Don't get it right, get it written." There's plenty of time after the idea gets down to fix the small stuff. Get the ideas down, get em organized as best you can, and keep on trucking. Forge the road ahead THEN go back and pave it. I appreciate any small things people find, and the more the bugs are worked out the better!

-X

[Larkas]

Time to fire my proof readers and get some different ones! Ugh!

I write with the philosophy set down by James Thurber: "Don't get it right, get it written." There's plenty of time after the idea gets down to fix the small stuff. Get the ideas down, get em organized as best you can, and keep on trucking. Forge the road ahead THEN go back and pave it. I appreciate any small things people find, and the more the bugs are worked out the better!

-X

You're absolutely correct for using that approach. I usually go the other way around, trying to get things as neatly organized and written as possible before tackling the next point. The results? A campaign world that I'm never fully sure that is ready for play and a 100-page thesis that got me a year and a half to pull off. Writing errors can be annoying, but it's better to write something with errors than writing nothing at all!

[RFLS]

Time to fire my proof readers and get some different ones! Ugh!

I write with the philosophy set down by James Thurber: "Don't get it right, get it written." There's plenty of time after the idea gets down to fix the small stuff. Get the ideas down, get em organized as best you can, and keep on trucking. Forge the road ahead THEN go back and pave it. I appreciate any small things people find, and the more the bugs are worked out the better!

-X

Hey, I don't know how serious you are, but I do freelance technical editing during the school year; mostly term papers, both scientific and literary. What sort of qualifications do you look for?

[ErrantX]

Hey, I don't know how serious you are, but I do freelance technical editing during the school year; mostly term papers, both scientific and literary. What sort of qualifications do you look for?

Literacy and attention to detail, mostly, and a command of the English language. I'm not picky, just need some thorough people to go through it all. That's the point of open sourcing a playtest. Just hack it up and let me fix the bugs as we find them, then I release a 2nd version and hopefully it's clean. Then move on to the next playtest round for the next class.

-X

[Hunter Noventa]

Nice!

There's a funny story in the name of the maneuver, Riddle of Steel. I remember when I first started conceptualizing this project with Doc Roc, he said to me, "If you can do one things for this, make a maneuver called Riddle of Steel. It sounds awesome. I don't care what it does, just make it!" :smalltongue:

-X

Awesome.

I find that I do like the gambits, it's a great way to address maneuver recovery I think, and it's good that there are different gambits suited for different playstyles, and a couple that everyone should be able to make use of.

Sadly they don't quite seem too balanced against each other. Successfully breaking a weapon is a lot harder than say, making a successful charge attack. Not only does sunder have a much lower chance of success and is something most players never do, it requires a 2-feat investment to even start to be effective.

The Gambits that use grappling and Trip/Disarm have the same issue, though it's less of a problem to center a build around those than it is Sundering at least.

[Larkas]

--snip--

Actually, the sunder one is the easiest to fulfill. It just says that you must break an object. Just keep a few pieces of delicate pottery around and you refill your maneuvers very easily! Arguably, you could further power it by breaking the smashed pieces further. Hmmm... I think this might need better wording.

... And now I can't shake the image of a warrior alternating between sword-slicing and bowl-crushing. :smalleek:

[ErrantX]

Awesome.

I find that I do like the gambits, it's a great way to address maneuver recovery I think, and it's good that there are different gambits suited for different playstyles, and a couple that everyone should be able to make use of.

Sadly they don't quite seem too balanced against each other. Successfully breaking a weapon is a lot harder than say, making a successful charge attack. Not only does sunder have a much lower chance of success and is something most players never do, it requires a 2-feat investment to even start to be effective.

The Gambits that use grappling and Trip/Disarm have the same issue, though it's less of a problem to center a build around those than it is Sundering at least.

Take into consideration also that there are maneuvers that allow you to sunder, trip, and disarm easier and without attacks of opportunity regardless of whether or not you have the feats. That does make those types of gambits more approachable. In and of themselves, if the class didn't have maneuvers at all, I would totally agree with you. But glad to get some feedback on Gambits all the same!

-X

[ErrantX]

Actually, the sunder one is the easiest to fulfill. It just says that you must break an object. Just keep a few pieces of delicate pottery around and you refill your maneuvers very easily! Arguably, you could further power it by breaking the smashed pieces further. Hmmm... I think this might need better wording.

... And now I can't shake the image of a warrior alternating between sword-slicing and bowl-crushing. :smalleek:

Adding in this caveat to the Ravager Gambit:

Any weapon, shield, armor, or object that the sunder attempt is being used against must have a minimum hardness of 5 and at least 10 hit points to count as a valid target for this gambit (weaker objects are no challenge).

Thank you for catching that!

-X

[Hunter Noventa]

Take into consideration also that there are maneuvers that allow you to sunder, trip, and disarm easier and without attacks of opportunity regardless of whether or not you have the feats. That does make those types of gambits more approachable. In and of themselves, if the class didn't have maneuvers at all, I would totally agree with you. But glad to get some feedback on Gambits all the same!

-X

Ah, that is a good point, I didn't take into account that you could activate a maneuver to execute a gambit. The Victory Gambit seems to specify that you do, the others are a little more vague. but it makes sense and improves them a great deal.

And a Gambit centered around Feinting might not be too out of place either, it's the only major combat maneuver you dont' seem to have covered. But it also seems like it might be more for the Stalker that's hinted at as well.

[Manly Man]

I really like the class, for the most part. It actually makes me want to make a character similar to Nobunaga Oda, have him focus on tactical maneuvers. Maybe level four or five, so as to let him get some of the 'war genius' feel.

[Elricaltovilla]

@Errant X: I don't know if you're looking to crowdsource ideas from people on this forum, but if it helps you come up with or flesh out ideas for Path of War, I'd definitely like to help you do it. At the very least it might help you find out what to focus on.

Currently reading the Warlord Class, I'll have some responses about it soon.

[johnnyripper]

I might be the only one who thought this, but the slower maneuvers known that most prestige classes (all but Master of Nine I believe) got didn't make sense. They are classes based on focusing in on one or two disciplines, so it doesn't seem like they would learn those one or two slower. And when put in terms of Pathfinder, where multiclassing is not encouraged, it would make sense for them to get one maneuver known per level.

Edit: post below me reminded me of another thing. Adaptive style and swordsages. Essentially swordsages need adaptive style and no one ever uses the normal recovery method because it is so bad. But judging from the Warlord recovery method, you folks are already working on unique recovery methods :smallbiggrin:

[Dusk Eclipse]

Catched a quick mistake, the Warlord's maneuver description states that he begins to play with 5 maneuvers known, while the table says 6 and as we all know "Text triumphs table"

I have yet to read in in complete detail; but from sheer numbers it is better than any of the ToB classes (Almost as many maneuvers as the swordsage, just as many ready, same amount of stances as swordsages). I am sure the gambits along with the horrible "normal" recovery are intended to fix that; but there are ways around that :cough:adaptive style:cough:

However the gambit mechanic sounds really fun and I personally would prefer to use gambits rather than recovering normally (even with adaptive style or another analogue)

Quick question though, will all classes in PoW (you heard it here folks, remember that!) use the gambit mechanic or will they use different stuff?

[ErrantX]

Catched a quick mistake, the Warlord's maneuver description states that he begins to play with 5 maneuvers known, while the table says 6 and as we all know "Text triumphs table"

I have yet to read in in complete detail; but from sheer numbers it is better than any of the ToB classes (Almost as many maneuvers as the swordsage, just as many ready, same amount of stances as swordsages). I am sure the gambits along with the horrible "normal" recovery are intended to fix that; but there are ways around that :cough:adaptive style:cough:

However the gambit mechanic sounds really fun and I personally would prefer to use gambits rather than recovering normally (even with adaptive style or another analogue)

Quick question though, will all classes in PoW (you heard it here folks, remember that!) use the gambit mechanic or will they use different stuff?

Adaptive Style? What's that? :smallamused:

The text is wrong, I fixed it for the next iteration. Thanks though! As far as known and readied and stances? That's intentional. The starving that ToB did to classes was just plain lame insofar as stuff you knew.

As far as the last question, no, the Gambit is unique to the Warlord. The other classes (Stalkers and Knights) are getting their own unique recovery methods.

-X

[Squirrel_Dude]

So far, my first impression of the class is that it seems really powerful. It seems like a combination of the swordsage and warblade, with the best features of both classes (except the reflex save) put into the class, and many of the previous versions capstones moved to much earlier in this class's progression.

Not really a criticism, yet. I don't want to judge the class's power until I see the other playtests.

[ErrantX]

So far, my first impression of the class is that it seems really powerful. It seems like a combination of the swordsage and warblade, with the best features of both classes (except the reflex save) put into the class, and many of the previous versions capstones moved to much earlier in this class's progression.

Not really a criticism, yet. I don't want to judge the class's power until I see the other playtests.

Appreciate the honest critique there. The power curve on Pathfinder is on the average a little higher to moderately higher than 3.5, so there's that to contend with. Additionally, I'd rather make a class a little too strong then reign it in a little. I definitely appreciate you reserving full judgement until the other two classes and their disciplines are released before making a full assessment.

-X

[137beth]

So far, my first impression of the class is that it seems really powerful. It seems like a combination of the swordsage and warblade, with the best features of both classes (except the reflex save) put into the class, and many of the previous versions capstones moved to much earlier in this class's progression.

Not really a criticism, yet. I don't want to judge the class's power until I see the other playtests.

I think that that is okay--
Swordsage and Warblade are really on the low end of tier three, and I know some people have argued that they are actually tier 4. Combine that with PF raising the bar for everyone somewhat (except druids), and making these classes stronger seems like a good thing.

[Blightedmarsh]

My thought:

What about supernatural disciplines?

In a world of high magic it is only natural to asume that some of it is going to fall into the hands of martial artists. It follows that these people could take the tools they find and study them in much the same way as they study their weapons to discover how best to exploit them in battle and how to improve on their use.

Take a single simple kind of supernatural ability and take it to town. Blending art with arcane in ways beyond what a mere caster could get.

Examples:

Feather fall

The ability to alter a self/targets mass is potentially very potent. You might be able to use it to achieve wuxia levels of acrobatics (run up walls, jump through treetops, extreme slow mo tumbling and walking on water). Altering how much your opponent weighs could let you throw him about more easily as well as make it hard for him to get a good footing.

Dimension door

Start with the night crawler action scene from X-Men two and go from there. Add in the ability to teleport through the ethereal plane to get some kind if insubstantial strike and you get a phase shifting teleporter who can rip out peoples hearts with his bear hands.

Inertial armor

Simply the ability to get tougher on pure willpower alone. From resisting damage to hitting harder or deflecting blows the possibilities are both subtle and relatively straight forward.

Resizing weapon

A weapon that can change its length could be deadly in the hands of a martial artist. From passing the blade, pole vaulting, long range sudden thrusting attacks to altering the speed and momentum of a strike.

Illusion

I like the thought of some kind of elven martial artist blending the ability to deceive an opponents senses with martial technique. Deception and misdirection would be such a characters watchwords.

[Metahuman1]

Hey guys!

Glad to see the announcement's spread over to my home away from home already! If any of you have been a fan of my Libram of Battle project that I carried out here and on my old site, SorcererStudios.com, that's what's being worked on by myself and the great staff at Dreamscarred Press as the Path of War. When the playtest data is released, I'll need everyone who's interested in it to give it a whirl and let us know what you think! Thanks in advance!

-X

Ahem.

*cough cough*


*Inhale.*

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY! :smallbiggrin:

[deuxhero]

"Solar Wind" sounds really out of place (they were first proposed in 1859).

The discipline weapons are a bit strange because it lists "thrown dagger", but "dagger" is just one weapon that can be thrown. If this was meant to exclude melee dagger, then something needs to be done about short spears and throwing axes being listed with no such restriction.

[Larkas]

Okay, X, I have a few minutes in my hands now, so I'll tackle two quickies:

Inconsistency


Maneuvers: A warlord begins his career with knowledge of five martial maneuvers.

Maneuvers Readied: A warlord can ready four of his six starting maneuvers (...)

Soooo... Does he start with five or six maneuvers?

Opinion

So... I don't quite like the Gambit system as it stands. Don't get me wrong, I think it has potential! It certainly helps deliver a "Soldier of Fortune"-y flavor. But, as it is now, it is high risk, low rewards recovery system, and it is a little ill-defined. A few points:

- Some Gambits are a little too vague. Take Acrobatic Gambit, for example. "The warlord must successfully avoid attacks and use an Acrobatics check on his move action, and then must also attack a foe after this move action, before his turn has finished." The warlord must use (I'd word this as "make", but I digress) an Acrobatics check... To do what? Tumble? Jump? Move at full speed on uneven surfaces? What is the save DC? This would benefit from being better defined.

- Strange rules interactions. Take Allied Gambit, for example. "The warlord must designate an ally that will aid him in this gambit. The warlord and an ally each gain your gambit bonus on damage rolls against a single foe, but both must successfully attack the opponent to allow the warlord to recover any invested maneuvers." Do you give your ally a free attack against the designated foe? Does the foe provoke an attack of opportunity from the ally? Do you have to wait until your ally's next turn to recover your maneuvers? What if the ally doesn't want to spend his turn attacking the foe? Does direct damage spells such as Burning Hands or even Fireball count as a successful attacks against the foe? Another example: Duelist's Gambit. "If the attempt fails, the character’s attempt backfires and he trips or disarms himself, and he regains no maneuvers." What if the Warlord is a two-weapon fighter? Does he lose both weapons or just one? Is it chosen at random? What if the Warlord fights with his bare hands? These are all questions that can be easily answered or suppressed by clearer wording on the Gambit.

- High risks. Some Gambits depend mostly or entirely on the foe's defenses. Without metagame knowledge, you can't reasonably be sure if those will succeed or fail. "Reasonably" is the key here: it's a Gambit, some amount of risk here is to be expected, as is the possibility of failure. But, as it stands, you might have no idea what the outcome will be, even if it tends to be negative, neutral or positive.

- Low rewards. If you succeed on a Gambit, you regain your maneuvers. If you don't succeed, not only you don't regain any maneuvers, you'll suffer some penalty or another and be unable to use the maneuvers for at least one more round, a round when you'll possibly be unable to retry the Gambit due to the wording on some of them. This is specially dire at lower levels: until lvl 5, you only have one Gambit known. If you selected one that doesn't let you retry it the next round, and you seriously need some maneuvers, you're stuck with spending a full round action to regain a single maneuver. These might border on being trap options! Let's not forget that at lower levels are exactly when you'll be maneuver-starved the most.

These issues, along with the terrible "regular" recovery mechanic (let me know if I should explain this one), might give a few headaches to the enterprising Warlord.

Aside from clarifications, I suggest a more "integrated" approach to regaining maneuvers. For example:

"For a warlord to recover expended maneuvers, he must expend a swift action and either start a Gambit (see Warlord's Gambit below) or spend a move action taking a breather. He recovers a single readied maneuver of his choosing, plus as many readied maneuvers as recovered by his Gambit."

This way, the Warlord will always recover at least one maneuver. If he fails a Gambit, he will still suffer the listed consequences, so there's still risk to be had. And the reward is still there, he can still recover more maneuvers. And he can still take the "no risk" option of recovering a single maneuver (here reduced to only move action because what the heck).

Ravager's Gambit

I liked that you are already considering a fix for this. Mind if add further input to it? I think that the limitations set to hardness and hp should only apply to unattended objects or objects worn/held by the character or his allies. Sundering an item worn by an opponent is already hard enough, and allowing this Gambit to go off by sundering a foe Wizard's component pouch would be awesome. :smallsmile: Furthermore, I though of a little bonus that might or might not be nice: an extra recovered maneuver if you decide to reduce the object's hp to 0!

Anyways, these are my opinions! But please, color them with the fact that we haven't been able to play with those rules yet! Specifically, I don't know for a fact if recovering maneuvers will be as critical to the Warlord as it is for the Warblade: the Warlord has a few more readied maneuvers at any time, after all!

... And please, take this as constructive criticism! I really want this project to succeed, and be as good as it can be! So, sorry for being so grumpy. x_x

[ErrantX]

"Solar Wind" sounds really out of place (they were first proposed in 1859).

The discipline weapons are a bit strange because it lists "thrown dagger", but "dagger" is just one weapon that can be thrown. If this was meant to exclude melee dagger, then something needs to be done about short spears and throwing axes being listed with no such restriction.

I thought it just sounded cool, and it gave me the image of the bright sun shining down on the steppes and plains.

As far as it's weapons go, I'll add in this line: All maneuvers of this discipline require the use of a ranged weapon, be it something akin to a bow, crossbow, or sling, or something thrown (such as a throwing axe or a shuriken, or a thrown melee weapon like a dagger or shortspear which has a range increment when thrown).

-X

[Squirrel_Dude]

I thought it just sounded cool, and it gave me the image of the bright sun shining down on the steppes and plains.

As far as it's weapons go, I'll add in this line: All maneuvers of this discipline require the use of a ranged weapon, be it something akin to a bow, crossbow, or sling, or something thrown (such as a throwing axe or a shuriken, or a thrown melee weapon like a dagger or shortspear which has a range increment when thrown).

-XHow about, "All maneuvers of this discipline require the use of a weapon that has a listed ranged increment, that the character is proficient with."

[ErrantX]

How about, "All maneuvers of this discipline require the use of a weapon that has a listed ranged increment, that the character is proficient with."

That's loads better. Less is more.

-X

[Squirrel_Dude]

Other comments:
I'll agree with Solar wind sounding kind of out of place. It's not because it's a bad title. It's just that when I hear "solar" in a D&D context, I don't think sun. I think really powerful angels.

I like the teamwork feats, and I'm extremely happy that you made sure the warlord had a way to share teamwork feats they pick up. Without ability getting bonus teamwork feats would be almost pointless.

I'll also add, I'm not sure if I like having class features (Dual Boost) be encounter powers. I understand that maneuvers are, but... I don't know, it just feels weird, especially when that the only class ability outside of maneuvers that acts that way.

Questions:
Presences: Do they have a point at which they expire?

[Vedhin]

Three things:

First: THIS. IS. AWESOME.

Second: Is there any chance of there being any way to learn ALL the maneuvers? The lack of any way to do that with ToB always frustrated my perfectionist desires.

Third:

Literacy and attention to detail, mostly, and a command of the English language. I'm not picky, just need some thorough people to go through it all. That's the point of open sourcing a playtest. Just hack it up and let me fix the bugs as we find them, then I release a 2nd version and hopefully it's clean. Then move on to the next playtest round for the next class.

-X

Well, if those are your requirements, I'd like to apply. I tend to do that automatically.

[ErrantX]

I'll agree with Solar wind sounding kind of out of place. It's not because it's a bad title. It's just that when I hear "solar" in a D&D context, I don't think sun. I think really powerful angels.

I guess I separate that in my head. I say So-Larr when it refers to an angel, and So-Lerr when I think of the Sun.


Three things:

First: THIS. IS. AWESOME.

Second: Is there any chance of there being any way to learn ALL the maneuvers? The lack of any way to do that with ToB always frustrated my perfectionist desires.

Third:


Well, if those are your requirements, I'd like to apply. I tend to do that automatically.

First: Thanks! :smallsmile:

Second: Umm... likely not. Sorry :( It would take a LOT of doing.

Thirdly: If you find spelling mistakes or grammar issues, etc and want to me my human spellcheck, then basically make notes of the sentence and page it's on and PM it to me. I'd appreciate it!

-X

[ErrantX]

Uploaded a new version after putting in some fixes for it. Cleaned up some of the troublesome gambits, etc.

-X

[Psyren]

Second: Is there any chance of there being any way to learn ALL the maneuvers? The lack of any way to do that with ToB always frustrated my perfectionist desires.

That sounds like an Epic motivation (like learning every psionic power, or every spell - on a spontaneous caster anyway) and so would best be left to games that go that high I'd say.'

I do think learning at least one maneuver from every discipline should be possible, a la some Master of Nine builds.

[Palanan]

It may have been drowned out by all the squeeing, but do we have a projected page count and likely price for the new book?

Or are there several books here? Re-reading the thread, I'm not sure if this will be one book or multiple items.



Originally Posted by deuxhero
"Solar Wind" sounds really out of place (they were first proposed in 1859).

For me, the term "solar wind" evokes a steady flow of charged particles through the deep reaches of a star system, streaming past solar sailers riding the gentle pressure of sunlight, outward bound and silent among the stars.

For me, at least, the term feels incredibly out of place.

[TheIronGolem]

Duelist’s Gambit – The warlord must attempt to disarm or trip an opponent, gaining his gambit bonus on the
attempt to his CMB. The character may invest up to a maximum of 3 maneuvers in this gambit. If the attempt is
successful, the warlord regains the invested maneuvers. Rake: If the attempt fails, the character’s attempt backfires
and he trips or disarms himself, and he regains no maneuvers.

Some characters may have abilities that make them unable to be tripped or disarmed. You may want to consider adding some text that tells whether such abilities are overridden by the rake penalty.

Also, I need to find a new bank, because I just got off the phone with mine and they apparently won't let me write you a check that says "ALL OF IT".

[CIDE]

I think I'm going to cry

[killem2]

Just curious as I don't play PF, are the PF player base as stuck up when it comes to allowing 3rd party material like d&d players are?

Because this is a great thing you are making and it would be a shame if that's the attitude :(

[Squirrel_Dude]

I'm less cautious with PF 3rd party material because I can normally pretty easily access it online, and look at it myself.

[Turion]

I'm less cautious with PF 3rd party material because I can normally pretty easily access it online, and look at it myself.

To expand on this, most publishers putting out PF material post it on d20pfsrd. I don't know of any 3rd party 3.5 that I'd give a second glance at, but having the material right alongside the core rules usually gets me to give it a second look. My upcoming campaign has both DSP's Psionics and Radiance House's Occultist on the whitelist, for example.

Aside from which, this is Dreamscarred Press. I'm pretty (i.e. 99%) sure they understand 3.5/Pathfinder better than WotC/Paizo.

[Sith_Happens]

Adding in this caveat to the Ravager Gambit:

Any weapon, shield, armor, or object that the sunder attempt is being used against must have a minimum hardness of 5 and at least 10 hit points to count as a valid target for this gambit (weaker objects are no challenge).

Thank you for catching that!

-X

This is Link. You just made him sad:

http://www.infendo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/link-sad.jpg
You monster.:smalltongue:


How about, "All maneuvers of this discipline require the use of a weapon that has a listed ranged increment, that the character is proficient with."

That still doesn't preclude using such a weapon as a melee weapon.

[The Glyphstone]

In the "Key Abilities' section, is it intentional that Wisdom was left out entirely?

[Hunter Noventa]

My thought:

What about supernatural disciplines?



I think so far they've only presented the disciplines available to the Warlord, there are two other classes to go through after all.



Resizing weapon

A weapon that can change its length could be deadly in the hands of a martial artist. From passing the blade, pole vaulting, long range sudden thrusting attacks to altering the speed and momentum of a strike.


I feel like I could almost make a whole school that focuses on this and using it in all sorts of different ways...a school specific to the Soulknife perhaps...who knows...

Or some tricks that let me treat my sword like it's made of liquid memory metal would be nice too. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGpmEO60wWU)

[Squirrel_Dude]

That still doesn't preclude using such a weapon as a melee weaponShould the wording of weapon proficiency make that restriction? There's no reason that picking a style should prevent me from using my dagger to stabbing people in the back. If they're worried that the manuevers would be used in melee instead of at ranged, state that a strike/boost/whatever gives bonuses on the next ranged attack instead of the next attack.

[Novawurmson]

Just curious as I don't play PF, are the PF player base as stuck up when it comes to allowing 3rd party material like d&d players are?


Aside from which, this is Dreamscarred Press. I'm pretty (i.e. 99%) sure they understand 3.5/Pathfinder better than WotC/Paizo.

I use DSP, and I've seen games on the forums allowing DSP. Hell, Paizo has used DSP in an adventure path (http://www.dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2909.html)! Turion hit the nail on the head: Usually, DSP stuff is better balanced than Paizo material.


I think so far they've only presented the disciplines available to the Warlord, there are two other classes to go through after all.

From the pdf:


There are two other disciplines that may come to be available to the warlord that will be released later, but for now we'll focus on the first four presented here.

[avr]

From my first glance at the Warlord - Winsome Presence? One of us is wrong about what the word winsome means.

[Squirrel_Dude]

After taking more time to read through the .pdf:

- If you're going to comment on how maneuvers are (not) affected by spell resistance/power resistance because they are supernatural or extraordinary abilities, I would like, for completeness sake, that it also mentioned how the supernatural and extraordinary abilities would be effected by antimagic fields and similar effects.

If you're going to (very helpfully) repeat information about how ability types interact with magic, it might as well be complete.

- I like that the Martial Study skill was replaced with Knowledge (martial), and would like to see if you would be able to do more with that skill than you could Martial Study.

- Note on the Warlord's class skills list: If you're going to give the class Ride, you should probably also give it Handle Animal so that a character could train a mount if they wished.

- I wasn't a fan of Charisma being the second most important stat, but I've come around to that. I'd honestly like to see it impact more of their abilities. Perhaps have gambit bonus tied to charisma somehow? I just hope that one of the adepts also uses intelligence, that may have been my favorite part about the warblade, that he wasn't just a big dumb fighter.

Discipline Associated Weapons:
For the most part, the lists is fine, but I have my random quibbles. Mostly, I would really like to see more exotic/atypical weapons on these lists. Maybe a khopesh, katana, or dueling sword for Jade Thrown. How about some chakram or pilum for Solar Wind? Dwarven Waraxe or Guisarme for Golden Lion.


The Gambit System:
Continuing on about Gambits, I really like the system, but my biggest problem is that it feels like a system still entirely separate from the warlord. They aren't affected by his key initiator skill, and other than the capstone, none of his other class abilities impact them. They aren't tied to any of the schools.

"Correcting," any one of those things would help it feel like more of the class, to me.

Questions:
- Team Player Gambit: I'm not really sure how this works. It honestly seems a little OP, when some of the teamwork feats out there are just straight bonuses they provide you.

For example, what rolls would we be making to take advantage of the teamwork feat, Back to back (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/back-to-back-teamwork)?

- There's some weird wording in the Victory Gambit. Spoilered, with the odd part bolded. Victory Gambit – The most basic of a warlord’s gambits, the warlord simply places his conviction into a final blow
again an enemy. The warlord must initiate a strike against a foe (or foes), and he gains a bonus to attack and to damage equal to his gambit bonus +1 per maneuver invested (up to three, and the warlord may not include the strike he is using), that reduces his foe’s hit point total to 0 or less. If successful, he recovers his invested maneuvers. Rake: If unsuccessful, the warlord recovers nothing and suffers a -1 penalty per maneuver invested on initiating strikes for one round per invested maneuver (minimum of 1). I would replace "and he gains a bonus" with "gaining a +1 bonus...", and the second bolded section with "not including..."

For the third bolded section, I would change it to "and reduce a foe's hit points to 0 or less." I think that would make the sentence a little easier to read, and get what (I think) the point is across a bit more clearly.

[avr]

A few notes on maneuvers:

Shield-breakers Strike absolutely should not be level 6. Level 1 maybe, you're spending a standard action which does nothing else other than reducing AC by 4, it only works on a hit, and many monsters cannot usefully be targeted.

Can Endurance of the Strong or Lion's Feast (or similar) help unconscious allies? It probably needs to be explicit if they can do so.

Weeping Jade Razor specifies a Heal check or cure spell to end the bleed. Is it the intent to exclude other spells which heal damage, psionic healing, fast healing, regeneration, healing items and anything else which can normally stop bleed damage in PF?

Perfection of Jade has a similar problem to Iron Heart Surge in the ToB - it doesn't work if the condition disallows a standard action. Nauseated for example. If that isn't the intent it needs rewording. Also, "number of rounds equal to the disciple's primary initiator attribute" seems needlessly complicated, just make it 1 minute duration.

Range Increasing Exercise "increases range of his ranged attacks by an additional 30ft for one round." Does this mean the range increment or something else? If the latter does it apply to spells?

I'm guessing Feel the Wind should apply to attack penalties. The phrasing " The character may ignore environmental variables, magical or natural, when making raged attacks for one round." is however asking for some of the same silly interpretations that Iron Heart Surge spawned. Also, as written it may work underwater which goes against the fluff.

[Jon Everyman]

First off, I would like to say that I love everything about what is happening here. I'll ignore the proofreading, everyone else seems to have that covered, and just throw out the things that popped out on my first read through the pdf.

This first one's kind of a nitpick, not sure much can be done about it. Strength and Charisma are really unpleasant to have as your most important stats. Most races I think of when I hear the word Warlord (dwarf, orc, goblin) even have charisma as a dump stat. It's a small gripe, just annoying that the first 2 races of I thought of using when I read Warlord have charisma penalties. Guess it's time to roll another human. At least with cha synergy we can grab Eldritch Heritage for the Orc Bloodline. :smallbiggrin:

It's a pretty amazing 2-level dip. You get bonus feats at 1 and 2, making it fighter+ if you can make use of the teamwork feat. Warblade was fighter+, of course, but it didn't also give the fighters' saving grace of 2/2 feats right off the bat. I suppose teamwork feats are pretty terrible in general, though, and martial builds really need bonus feats whenever they can get them.

I'm gonna playtest this in a few days, here. One thing I bet will be annoying is only having 1 gambit to choose from all the way to 5. Maybe it'd be a good idea to have Victory Gambit be given for free alongside your level 1 choice. The charging one, Gatecrasher, would be really unreliable as a first level choice, but I'd love to have it from the start since this guy's gonna be dungeoncrashing.

The class seems squishy, actually. Medium armor, optional shield, low importance placed on dex, lowered HD to d10, and lacking the saving throw replacers. The new wall of blades, Jade Barrier, means you can't use a shield. The Jade Throne disciple states :This aggressive path means that the Jade Throne user focuses fully on his weapon, precluding him using a shield with this discipline. A level 3 Warlord, even one ignoring Jade Throne, would have a much lower AC than both heavy armor classes and finesse classes. Getting the trip gambit rake of going prone would be a death sentence in a tough fight.

[Korahir]

First and foremost: very excited about this.

Some minor nitpick: DC xx + primary initiator attribute. I assume you ment bonus to primary initiator attribute? otherwise it would be insanely good ;)

[Squirrel_Dude]

Looking through the maneuvers. Starting with Devil Tiger.

Devil Tiger doesn't seem quite all the way there yet. On just the rough overview:
- There is a noticeable lack of early boost maneuvers in the discipline (5 for all 9 levels, none at levels 1 and 3)
- Tiger's swipe and Stance of Agression are very similar, with the swipe probably being better if you think you could reasonably refresh that maneuver
- All the stance's names have the word "stance" in them. :smalltongue:
- Raging Tiger Pounce. This may be too strong as a level 2 maneuver, especially since it can be combined with momentum crash for +10 to damage on every attack you'd be making.
- Frenzy Strike. Am I attack with both weapons at once, or am I making separate attacks with each weapon?
- Blade-breaking strike. Do I still provoke an AOO for making a sunder attempt?
- Shrug it off. The only thing that confuses me here is the note that the attack has to do "hit point damage." I'm guessing this is to prevent me from enervation or ray of exhaustion? Could I still deflect scorching ray, though?

I could probably go on more with little nitpicks, but that's all they would be. But yeah, the damage this discipline can dish out is nutz. Someone feel free to tell me that I'm wrong about how strong this is compared to other options at this level (cause I'd like to be wrong).

At level 10, using 2 maneuvers I can add +35 damage +10d6 damage +nauseated to one attack a charge, or I can add pounce and +35 damage to all my attacks. At 11th level, I can make that +35 damage, +14d6 damage + knocked prone.

[avr]

One thing I bet will be annoying is only having 1 gambit to choose from all the way to 5. Maybe it'd be a good idea to have Victory Gambit be given for free alongside your level 1 choice. The charging one, Gatecrasher, would be really unreliable as a first level choice, but I'd love to have it from the start since this guy's gonna be dungeoncrashing.
My copy says "At 1st level the warlord selects two gambits and every four levels after, the warlord may select a new gambit from the following choices"

[avr]

I could probably go on more with little nitpicks, but that's all they would be. But yeah, the damage this discipline can dish out is nutz. Someone feel free to tell me that I'm wrong about how strong this is compared to other options at this level (cause I'd like to be wrong).

At level 10, using 2 maneuvers I can add +35 damage +10d6 damage +nauseated to one attack a charge, or I can add pounce and +35 damage to all my attacks. At 11th level, I can make that +35 damage, +14d6 damage + knocked prone.
If they use their 1/encounter dual boost they can use 3 maneuvers to top that I think.

[ErrantX]

I've gotten a lot of feedback and that's awesome! I'm going through it and hopefully tonight or tomorrow I'll have a new and cleaner version of the warlord and its disciplines up!

Did anyone get a chance to actually play it this weekend?

Also, I've gotten mixed feelings on Gambits and I'd love to hear what people have to say about it!

Thanks in advance!

-X

[navar100]

Sadly my DM, both groups I'm in, won't allow it. The first was bothered with Tome of Battle when I played a Master of Nine. To be blunt, he's a firm believer in "Fighters don't deserve nice things". It's ok for spellcasters to reshape reality, but heaven forbid a warrior teleports 50 ft or gets through DR with a non-magical weapon. In our Pathfinder game he has banned the Master Craftsman feat because only spellcasters are entitled to craft magic weapons.

The second DM is wary of non-official Paizo Pathfinder stuff. Everyone in this group already deemed Dreamscarred Press's psionics as way too powerful over wizards. No way they're going to allow Tome Of Battle type stuff over fighters, paladins, and monks.

[Novawurmson]

My group plays this Thursday. I'll try to whip up an encounter for them. Would you prefer a Warlord allied with the party (more data on how it fits into a party) or a Warlord opponent?

[ErrantX]

Sadly my DM, both groups I'm in, won't allow it. The first was bothered with Tome of Battle when I played a Master of Nine. To be blunt, he's a firm believer in "Fighters don't deserve nice things". It's ok for spellcasters to reshape reality, but heaven forbid a warrior teleports 50 ft or gets through DR with a non-magical weapon. In our Pathfinder game he has banned the Master Craftsman feat because only spellcasters are entitled to craft magic weapons.

The second DM is wary of non-official Paizo Pathfinder stuff. Everyone in this group already deemed Dreamscarred Press's psionics as way too powerful over wizards. No way they're going to allow Tome Of Battle type stuff over fighters, paladins, and monks.

I have had a DM like that before, it's frustrating to the extreme when people won't even try something or refuse to budge on something. It's a game we play for fun, and restrictions like that ruin it for people. Doubly so because DSP's psionics are actually amazingly well balanced; probably the most balanced system to hit d20 for a long time.


My group plays this Thursday. I'll try to whip up an encounter for them. Would you prefer a Warlord allied with the party (more data on how it fits into a party) or a Warlord opponent?

Whatever fits best in your game. If the warlord is an enemy, please pair it with some fighty-types that can make use of teamwork feats and benefit most from Golden Lion type things. If with the party, then whatever works best for you! :smallsmile:

-X

[Palanan]

I might have missed it somewhere in here: will the Path of War be a single large release, or a series of smaller installments? And either way, do we have an estimate on the price?

[Psyren]

This first one's kind of a nitpick, not sure much can be done about it. Strength and Charisma are really unpleasant to have as your most important stats. Most races I think of when I hear the word Warlord (dwarf, orc, goblin) even have charisma as a dump stat. It's a small gripe, just annoying that the first 2 races of I thought of using when I read Warlord have charisma penalties. Guess it's time to roll another human. At least with cha synergy we can grab Eldritch Heritage for the Orc Bloodline. :smallbiggrin:

For one, the Orc Cha penalty is minimal and the Half-Orcs don't even get one anymore.
For two, Suli!


Sadly my DM, both groups I'm in, won't allow it. The first was bothered with Tome of Battle when I played a Master of Nine. To be blunt, he's a firm believer in "Fighters don't deserve nice things". It's ok for spellcasters to reshape reality, but heaven forbid a warrior teleports 50 ft or gets through DR with a non-magical weapon. In our Pathfinder game he has banned the Master Craftsman feat because only spellcasters are entitled to craft magic weapons.

The second DM is wary of non-official Paizo Pathfinder stuff. Everyone in this group already deemed Dreamscarred Press's psionics as way too powerful over wizards. No way they're going to allow Tome Of Battle type stuff over fighters, paladins, and monks.

That's rough dude.


I have had a DM like that before, it's frustrating to the extreme when people won't even try something or refuse to budge on something. It's a game we play for fun, and restrictions like that ruin it for people. Doubly so because DSP's psionics are actually amazingly well balanced; probably the most balanced system to hit d20 for a long time.

Heh, don't know that I'd go that far. An optimized Egoist or Shaper is still going to leave the Fighter sitting on his thumbs in PF, and Psywars will absolutely mop the floor with them too, particularly once they get their hands on the neo-War Mind. It's more balanced than magic, certainly, but it ain't 4e.

Anyway, getting off topic. Reading through the playtest now; if anything leaps out at me I'll chime in.

[darkdragoon]

The swordsage recovery style is the first thing that needs to go. It's been well-noted as an issue since ToB came out, and no other class should be saddled with it. Similarly I'm not sure the "can't trade stances" rule should still be in effect even if there aren't any more issues in the level progression.

Gambits-- the rakes have a slippery slope problem where one bad roll can lead to several wasted rounds. Depending on what gambits are learned Twin Gambit may not occur much at all. Gatecrasher is pretty close to recursive, while the others are lesser effects, harder to trigger, or both.

No Sense Motive as a class skill despite the jade style using it quite a bit?
It also seems quite a bit MAD in general.

[Jon Everyman]

I'll get my first playtest experience in tomorrow. I couldn't find a build I was happy with until I decided to dump strength in favor of dexterity. I feel like the class wants me to have a positive modifier in all 6 stats, but then decided that you get so much free damage that you could effectively dump strength. I'll just focus on solar wind, which doesn't need it with all the good damage boosts it gets on top of deadly aim, and devil tiger, which has so much damage in it that your +6 damage from strength hardly even matters past level 3 maneuvers. Get weapon finesse on small size character to get a solid to-hit in melee and at range, retain the ability to trip and disarm well, and fix your AC all at once. :smallsmile:

Halfling Warlord master race!

I'm also coming up on level 5 with the group I was planning on running through Red Hand of Doom. Definately opportunities to fit a warlord in, there. Someone big like Kharn would be months away, though.

I wonder if martial discipline weapons are being kept? That was a massive attack bonus if you were doubling up on it. I also made a lot of builds that relied heavily on the shadow blade feat, it'd be a shame to see that go.

I love solar lance, by the way. Even if it turns out terrible in play it's remaining my go-to for style points.

[joca4christ]

Having read the ToB, but never actually played anything from it, and having just recently purchased a few PF books...

Yeah, I'm excited. Now if only I can nudge one of my players to be GM for awhile so I can play when this comes out...

Then! It would MY birthday.

[freduncio]

I posted this on DSP forum, but I'm reposting there too to get more food for thought.

Hello ErrantX

One of my players and I were revising your warlord and preparing for a playtest. Talking about the martial maneuver system, we agreed that this pseudo-vancian system is not exactly fitting (as some people already pointed in GiantITP and Paizo forums). Why couldn't I use again a 3rd level maneuver that I just used, but I can use a 4th level one that I haven't used yet? 'Stamina' systems makes much more sense to deal with a physical maneuvers. Toying around with the idea, we come with this:

- Martial disciples have a stamina pool that they tap into to initiate maneuvers. This pool have a number of points equal to their initiator level.
- In order to being initiated, maneuver consume a number of stamina points equal to their level (a 1st level maneuver consume 1 stamina point, a 2nd level maneuver consume 2 points, and so on). Edit: After used a maneuver cannot be used again for 2 turns. (Thanks Gigas Break. I'm not sure that this will fix...)
- This pool is replenished after 5 minutes of uninterrupted rest. (not automatic after an encounter, as we avoid questions as "What defines an encounter?", and allows the DM to put some pressure on them, if needed)
- The martial disciple can also focus, and regain his breath, using a full-round action to regain X stamina points. (not sure with the number here, something between half his initiator level and his full pool, if the latter, we go away with the rest time)
- Each martial disciple class also learns as he advances to focus quickly, regaining some focus, as teached by his tradition. Look at each class entry to learn more. (Around level 5 each class gain a "quick recovery mechanic, in addition to the full-round one. Probably something like a swift action or move action, recovering his initiator primary attribute in stamina points. Each class has something fitting to the class. For example, warlords have the gambits, if he succeed he recovers one-and-a-half times his initiator primary attribute, but only half it if he fails)

I expect this to be a more organic and intuitive maneuver use system. Thoughs?

[RFLS]

I posted this on DSP forum, but I'm reposting there too to get more food for thought.

There are two separate points here. The first concerns why DSP and WotC went with the maneuver system, and the second concerns why they didn't go with a stamina system.


As it is, the maneuver system is a fairly accurate depiction of martial arts through the medium of an RPG. You perform a specific set (or equivalent) to cause a specific outcome. This will leave you in a very particular position, from which you're presented another set of choices. It's very, very rare that executing a particular set (or equivalent) will leave you in the position to do absolutely anything you want. The maneuver system, as-is, does a good job of modeling the flowing nature of martial arts, wherein each set leaves you ready for another, but not necessarily ready to do the same thing again.


The stamina system (for my purposes defined as any system wherein a martial character spends points of some sort to perform an action) is bad at depicting a talented swordsman or other martial artist. It encourages the player to pick one thing to do and spam it, as though simply repeating the same thing over and over again. As stated above, this isn't really how martial arts work, and the system is working to provide a (semi) accurate depiction of that.

Secondly, the maneuver system is actively trying to avoid getting players into this mindset, so allowing them the option to spam the same thing over and over again during combat would be counter to the system's intentions and design.

Thirdly, stamina is actively bad at depicting what it's trying to do. If a martial character is winded or tired thirty seconds into combat, he's very clearly not among the best of the best, and is very likely to end up dead in short order. However, the ability to make full attacks all day, as well as the ability to recover stamina points, blows even that shred of verisimilitude out of the water.

[Lateral]

...You're kidding.

Well, I might have to start thinking about transferring to PF. Literally the only reason I haven't is because it doesn't have the piles and piles of content 3.5 does, and now they're getting ports of ToB and binding and Incarnum?!

(If only Words of Power didn't suck so hard, for the most part.)

[Larkas]

...You're kidding.

Well, I might have to start thinking about transferring to PF. Literally the only reason I haven't is because it doesn't have the piles and piles of content 3.5 does, and now they're getting ports of ToB and binding and Incarnum?!

(If only Words of Power didn't suck so hard, for the most part.)

Another subsystem I quite like is Sutra Magic (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/sutra-magic), aka limited spellcasting for everyone. It is a very neat idea! (And yeah, I'm trying to increase awareness about it, since it is such a nice subsystem :smallredface: )

[Lateral]

Another subsystem I quite like is Sutra Magic (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/sutra-magic), aka limited spellcasting for everyone. It is a very neat idea! (And yeah, I'm trying to increase awareness about it, since it is such a nice subsystem :smallredface: )

That's pretty much awesome.

[Psyren]

...You're kidding.

Well, I might have to start thinking about transferring to PF. Literally the only reason I haven't is because it doesn't have the piles and piles of content 3.5 does, and now they're getting ports of ToB and binding and Incarnum?!

The Binding port is done actually, in "Pact Magic Unbound" by Radiance House. The system is pretty solid and captures the Binder's feel while staying safely in OGL territory. I like the system a lot and I've been mocking up an Occultist handbook during my spare time :smallsmile:

[Person_Man]

If it's at all helpful to you, feel free to just flat out take any part of the Vanguard Class & Lightning Fox Discipline (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13098583). (Though I'd appreciate a mention buried somewhere in the credits if you do). I've always wanted to play a class that focused on being mobile, hit and run tactics, and tactical movement in general, but the base rules don't really allow for that. So I homebrewed it using ToB as a framework.

More broadly, I love the idea of importing Tome of Battle into Pathfinder. The basic ToB framework is great, and lends itself to creating endless creative permutations while still keeping a balanced framework. I'm very sad that they didn't adopt it for 4E or D&D Next - but I guess this is the next best thing.

[Lateral]

The Binding port is done actually, in "Pact Magic Unbound" by Radiance House. The system is pretty solid and captures the Binder's feel while staying safely in OGL territory. I like the system a lot and I've been mocking up an Occultist handbook during my spare time :smallsmile:
Yeah, I know, that's what I was talking about. I thought I heard something about DSP making an Incarnum port in the future?

[Novawurmson]

Yeah, I know, that's what I was talking about. I thought I heard something about DSP making an Incarnum port in the future?

I feel like I should put the links to everything in the first post. Here's the alpha of the Incarnum port (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2389.html).

Edit: Put some links and information in the first post. Feel free to suggest anything else that needs to go there.

[Person_Man]

I also have an Incarnum Pathfinder port written (with entirely new fluff!), that I've been play testing for a while. Initially I thought I might be able to get Pathfinder to publish it, but at this point, if this actually becomes a community thing, I'd like to contribute, since I consider myself a bit of an Incarnum aficionado, and my own individual work probably won't get published by itself.

[Novawurmson]

I also have an Incarnum Pathfinder port written (with entirely new fluff!), that I've been play testing for a while. Initially I thought I might be able to get Pathfinder to publish it, but at this point, if this actually becomes a community thing, I'd like to contribute, since I consider myself a bit of an Incarnum aficionado, and my own individual work probably won't get published by itself.

I remember talking with you about that when I was considering doing my own PF Incarnum port. You might want to throw a line Jeremy's way, especially if Paizo doesn't seem interested.

[freduncio]

As it is, the maneuver system is a fairly accurate depiction of martial arts through the medium of an RPG. You perform a specific set (or equivalent) to cause a specific outcome. This will leave you in a very particular position, from which you're presented another set of choices. It's very, very rare that executing a particular set (or equivalent) will leave you in the position to do absolutely anything you want. The maneuver system, as-is, does a good job of modeling the flowing nature of martial arts, wherein each set leaves you ready for another, but not necessarily ready to do the same thing again.
Even when this another set of choices was defined by you, at the start of the day? Why yesterday, after doing A and the B, I became in position to do C or D, and today, after A and B, I could do X or Y? Or better yet, why in the first fight of day, when I'm in top condition, I couldn't do that maneuver that was perfect for this moment, but I didn't readied it?
Would it fell better that after using a maneuver, the martial disciple rolled a dice to determine which maneuvers are available for me in this position?



The stamina system (for my purposes defined as any system wherein a martial character spends points of some sort to perform an action) is bad at depicting a talented swordsman or other martial artist. It encourages the player to pick one thing to do and spam it, as though simply repeating the same thing over and over again. As stated above, this isn't really how martial arts work, and the system is working to provide a (semi) accurate depiction of that.
Like a barbarian, or fighter, or ranger, who discovered that the best way to defeat an enemy is to whack him over and over with a sword? Despite there are some very other really nice things to do, like trip or disarm an enemy. But no, doing that is to waste your turn, just keep full-attacking the poor bastard. That's pretty much a D&D 3.X problem, not one exclusively of the maneuver system. Well, as it is, a high level warblade could just ready half of his slots with Time Stands Still, and whack enemies over and over TWICE per turn.



Secondly, the maneuver system is actively trying to avoid getting players into this mindset, so allowing them the option to spam the same thing over and over again during combat would be counter to the system's intentions and design.
I agree with you. The actual system allows it pretty much (see the Time Stand Still thing). This "limited stamina" incentives you to use different maneuvers, mainly low level ones, the same ones that high level martial disciples ditched in favor to use their big shots.



Thirdly, stamina is actively bad at depicting what it's trying to do. If a martial character is winded or tired thirty seconds into combat, he's very clearly not among the best of the best, and is very likely to end up dead in short order. However, the ability to make full attacks all day, as well as the ability to recover stamina points, blows even that shred of verisimilitude out of the water.
Sorry, I keep using that stamina word and people get linking it to fatigue/exhaustion. There's no such connection. I think a better word would be focus. After using maneuvers your character wouldn't become winded or tired, he just lost combat focus, and need to regain it before he can do his best moves. And about the full attack thing, we could stand giants blows, dragon breaths, but full attacking all day will end your suspension of disbelieve only because it's the only thing we could relate to our real life.

[Gigas Breaker]

You can only ready a maneuver once. You can't fill your slots with Time Stands Still. You use it once and then you need to refresh it.

[freduncio]

Oh! Did not know about this part. It was a dumb assumption, my apologies. :smallfrown:
Now I get the thing with go nova... Okey, let's see... I'll make one edit on my original post...

[RFLS]

Even when this another set of choices was defined by you, at the start of the day? Why yesterday, after doing A and the B, I became in position to do C or D, and today, after A and B, I could do X or Y? Or better yet, why in the first fight of day, when I'm in top condition, I couldn't do that maneuver that was perfect for this moment, but I didn't readied it?
Would it fell better that after using a maneuver, the martial disciple rolled a dice to determine which maneuvers are available for me in this position?

The question I think you're asking is "If you can't set up to do exactly what you want every single time, why is maneuver prep not random? Why does what I can do change from day?"

The answer breaks down into a few pieces, so here they are:


A martial artist can generally have a good guess at where a fight is going in the next few seconds. What he does in a fight is very, very dependent on how he's standing, how his opponent is standing (or grappling), how he's holding his weapon, where his weapon is, where his opponent's weapon is, and a half dozen other things. He makes contact, parrying once or twice and spinning back out of reach. He came in high, slashed once, blocked twice, and came out low. He's now in a completely different position. It flat-out doesn't make sense for him to come in high again, he'd have to stand straight up to get there.
That leads to the next bit: Why does what he's doing change on a daily basis? The answer's pretty simple: Because he wants to. For instance, the martial art I practice, called escrima (focused on machete fighting), has 20 styles within it, covering long blades, open hands, blade and knife, dual blades, as well as styles concerned entirely with defense, either through moving your body or deflecting with your own blade. Each particular style has its own rhythm, but they're all interconnected, with bits of each being found in all the others. This is where the maneuver mechanic comes in: the martial artist in question can practice a particular style that he knows, composed of a subset of the maneuvers he knows. His stance and movement in combat are dependent on the mindset and the weapon he brings to the fight; therefore, preparing your maneuvers and having different options available on a daily basis makes sense.



Like a barbarian, or fighter, or ranger, who discovered that the best way to defeat an enemy is to whack him over and over with a sword? Despite there are some very other really nice things to do, like trip or disarm an enemy. But no, doing that is to waste your turn, just keep full-attacking the poor bastard. That's pretty much a D&D 3.X problem, not one exclusively of the maneuver system. Well, as it is, a high level warblade could just ready half of his slots with Time Stands Still, and whack enemies over and over TWICE per turn.

You can only ready a maneuver once. You can't fill all of your slots with one maneuver.


I agree with you. The actual system allows it pretty much (see the Time Stand Still thing). This "limited stamina" incentives you to use different maneuvers, mainly low level ones, the same ones that high level martial disciples ditched in favor to use their big shots.

I don't think you do agree with me, no. Yes, Time Stands Still is "roll a lot of attacks." However, and here's the key: You can't spam it. The maneuver represents putting yourself in a position to cover your opponent in a brutal beatdown of attacks, in the hopes that some or most of them get through; it's about attacking so often, very briefly, that he can't absorb or dodge all of them.


Sorry, I keep using that stamina word and people get linking it to fatigue/exhaustion. There's no such connection. I think a better word would be focus. After using maneuvers your character wouldn't become winded or tired, he just lost combat focus, and need to regain it before he can do his best moves.

Okay. My mechanical argument against stamina, or focus, stands: it incentivizes repetition, which, as stated, is terrible for representing a martial art. The "best moves" bit shows a lack of understanding about how exactly a martial art works. There is no "best move." There is "win button." The best move for a given situation is the one that responds best to the given situation. If you have a choice between just tripping a guy to end the fight, or flipping him over your hip and pile driving him to end the fight, you're probably better off just tripping him, despite the flip taking much, much more practice on your part.

There are maneuvers or sets or forms or "moves" that take more practice to pull off, but once you know them, have practiced them to perfection, they should come as easily as a very basic form. They're not always better than your most basic skills.


And about the full attack thing, we could stand giants blows, dragon breaths, but full attacking all day will end your suspension of disbelieve only because it's the only thing we could relate to our real life.

This is a rather silly argument. The whole point of either system is to remove the monotony of full attacking every single round. Full attacking doesn't break verisimilitude, it's just really boring for the player sometimes.

[Psyren]

As a compromise position, how about a stamina/focus mechanic (points system) that refreshes at the start of every encounter, as well as whenever you use your recovery mechanic. Each maneuver you use increases in cost each time you repeat it (like the Law of Resistance, but on an encounter rather than daily basis), with your recovery mechanic resetting the toll. Crunchwise this gives the initiator incentive to have a varied loadout and not spam the same ability over and over because each time is less efficient; however, should he really want to use the same ability repeatedly he can accept the price and do so.

Fluffwise this would be represented by how unnatural it feels. When you watch a professional dancer, they don't repeat the same movements over and over, they change it up as they move and their balance shifts. They may cycle through a set of moves in succession but rarely will they focus on just one. The recovery mechanic is a form of "catching your breath," allowing you to launch into another cycle with your mind/muscles cleared.

[freduncio]

I'm sorry. A great part of this option that I came with and what I said was based on a wrong assumption (one could read a maneuver more than once). Being corrected, you conviced me that the actual ready system could be better than a stamina/focus system. Forget about that thing I came with.
Yes, I do not know how martial art works, never did any. But a rework on the maneuvers, especially low level ones (making them scalable, etc), could help to eliminate the bit of repetitive behaviour we get with martial classes, and even the warblade (big shots, attack/recharge, big shots, attack/recharge, ...), in favor of more options, be it tripping, flipping over hip or pile driving. Do you agree?
For last, sorry, I think you said that the ability to make full attacks all day breaks verisimilitude. But I obviously misunderstand you.

Edit:

As a compromise position, how about a stamina/focus mechanic (points system) that refreshes at the start of every encounter, as well as whenever you use your recovery mechanic. Each maneuver you use increases in cost each time you repeat it (like the Law of Resistance, but on an encounter rather than daily basis), with your recovery mechanic resetting the toll. Crunchwise this gives the initiator incentive to have a varied loadout and not spam the same ability over and over because each time is less efficient; however, should he really want to use the same ability repeatedly he can accept the price and do so.

Fluffwise this would be represented by how unnatural it feels. When you watch a professional dancer, they don't repeat the same movements over and over, they change it up as they move and their balance shifts. They may cycle through a set of moves in succession but rarely will they focus on just one. The recovery mechanic is a form of "catching your breath," allowing you to launch into another cycle with your mind/muscles cleared.
I actually like it. Something like costing 150% as much to use it again? Only problem is that may get some extra track work.

[ErrantX]

To weigh in on the idea of a point based or stamina or focus or whatever have you system, I need to point out first the elephant in the room. Hit Points. If there was ever a bigger "how does this even work??" mechanic in the game, it's this one.

All the discussion thus far has boiled down to trying to apply and balance real world mechanics to this game, and I felt it necessary to point this out. I'm Joe the 5th level Warlord. I have 50 hit points. Mechanically, I have the same fighting prowess and capability at 50 hit points as I do at 1 remaining hit point, even though technically I'm beaten to a pulp and nearly dead. This does not hinder me in the slightest. I take one more hit point of damage, and I'm on the ground ground in a wreck. I take 2 points, and I'm bleeding out and dying finally.

I think at this point we all need to step back and re-evaluate this here. I understand where people are coming from, shouting for non-Vancian mechanics, shouting for a fatigue system or focus, or whatever else. But I want you all to realize, that reality sometimes has to take a back seat when ti comes to the rules. You just gotta accept that and move on. Falling from the sky at terminal velocity does 10d6 points of damage. A level 1 ANYONE dies (almost always). A level 12 anyone? Piece of cake. There is just a point where you need to disconnect and recognize this is a game of dice-augmented competitive algebra and you need to let your immersion level sink a bit to make a system that's fair and playable. I mean, you're pretending to be a halfling wizard for cryin' out loud, not the Stu the Best Buy employee.

At the end of the day, my goal is simple. I'll take into consideration what people have said, enough people crying for it? I'll bring up and design a system and show to my bosses. It may be a secondary system, like Words of Power, if they like it and want to include but don't want to change the core rules of the system. If Jeremy and Andreas want me to change the whole maneuver mechanic to this sort of thing, then by golly I will! But at least on the initial playtests and for the foreseeable future, I am going to stick to the basic maneuver mechanics of readying only one of one type, limited numbers of readied and known, and so on. It's not terribly realistic in some respects, but it makes sense for logic and game balance's sake. The mechanics as written can be managed simply by using a few index cards, not a track of numbers that fluctuate or something more esoteric, like maneuvers having their own cooldowns.

My 2 cents on the matter,
-X

[Occasional Sage]

Why is Tiger on the Hunt a standard action, when the Charge it includes requires a full round?

Edit: this action-text discrepancy is found in many entries, not just one.

[Elricaltovilla]

@ErrantX: You don't have a starting gold amount listed in the class. I'm going to assume it's same as fighter for now.

I'm doing a few builds (1st, 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th) That I'm going to test out tonight. I'll link the mythweavers sheets for them when I finish them in case others want to play them. All are using Human and 25 Pt buy.

[ErrantX]

@ErrantX: You don't have a starting gold amount listed in the class. I'm going to assume it's same as fighter for now.

I'm doing a few builds (1st, 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th) That I'm going to test out tonight. I'll link the mythweavers sheets for them when I finish them in case others want to play them. All are using Human and 25 Pt buy.

Yup, use fighter.

And in my playtests I've been using 25 pt buy as well. Definitely let me see what stuff looks like! Appreciate it!

-X

[Occasional Sage]

Orichalcum Swipe (and other iterations): how much control do I have over their movement? Can I force them to interact with environmental hazards like cliffs, or raging fires, or prismatic spheres?

Scything Strike: must the two targets be adjacent to each other, or must both be adjacent to me?

Curving Ray Shot: is this really intended to be an opposed roll, or do you mean for the Perception DC to be equal to the target's AC?

ETA:
True Shot Stance: this lacks the standard crit-doubling clause, do you really mean for it to stack?

[Just to Browse]

ErrantX, I may be re-treading old ground, but is there somewhere we can read your success story? How did you go from writing up the Libram of Battle as homebrew to being in charge of your own book?

I'm interested in it because it'll give me warm fuzzies, and because maybe I can use it to get a lift for the future.

[angellis_ater]

Since more than just one person has asked - you either pitch us (Jeremy is going to GenCon, so find him there or email me at [email protected] with your pitch) if you got something, or... Chris' story is better - he spent years creating something and we found it, liked it and searched him out for it.

Now, I won't steal the rest of his glory here - but we might consider new stuff, either pitches for Psionic material, or standalone material. What we're not looking for is campaign settings or adventures (right now).

But I'll be brutally honest here and say that most stuff won't match what we are looking for. If your stuff does have potential, we'll be relentless in whipping it into shape. We'll work closely with you until what you have shines... then we'll unleash our fans on what you've written. We have the best fans in the world (and that includes many of you here) and they do a terrific job of tearing rules apart. For the benefit of all of us.

--
Andreas Rönnqvist
Dreamscarred Press

[ErrantX]

Wish I was going to GenCon! I'd love to meet Jeremy!

That being said, my "success story" was honest dumb luck. Pure and simple. I approached the forums here like a billboard. Make my mark, make the best homebrew I can, show passion in what I create, and maybe I'll get noticed. If not? Then I still made some good homebrew that people enjoyed. I try to be active in the community on top of that with the PrC contest. But yeah, pure dumb luck. That's what I'm going with!

Oh, dumb luck and be thick-skinned about your work and take nothing personally. For one of the base classes I've been writing for this project, I think I've sent 4-5 versions of it to Andreas already! :smallbiggrin: People like him and really, the wonderful people in forums like this, is what makes an idea polished and shiny. Every time I send something in and I get feedback on things that could use more or work or should be done differently, I get better for it. So yeah.

That's what I got.

-X

[ErrantX]

Okay, major update and changes to the Warlord and it's disciplines. I didn't knock down it's number of known / readied (I might still) but I did change a lot in the disciplines and the whole gambit system has largely been modified. Check out the change log and look it over. See the original post for the file (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2955.html).

Also made it so discipline weapons make a difference, adding +2 to the DC of saving throws when using them with their specific disciplines.

-X

[JusticeZero]

The mechanism that comes to mind that I would consider is to have the moves have triggers, a bit like styles in the Dark Age of Camelot MMO. In that, fighters have lots of special techniques, but they need certain things to happen before they can use them.
One technique might only be usable after they block an attack with a shield, and another can only be used if they just hit with the technique that you have to block to do, another one can only be used from the side and so on....
The implementation would be a bit different obviously - you would instead have things like "only when flanking" "only if you made an AoO in the previous round on that target " and so on, and they might need cooldowns of some sort on top. If recharge was a special effect from a different technique and/or the best moves needed either setup or serendipity, then combat wouldn't be repetitive in the way that a basic full attack is.

[Hunter Noventa]

All right, taking a look at the latest version...

I like the new format for the gambits, it's a lot easier to read, thought there are some interesting ones, that might not work as you intended or need some clarification.

For example, the Acrobatic Gambit, you could technically fail the Acrobatics check, but not get hit by the attack of opportunity and still recover your maneuvers, making it more lenient than some of the others. Not necessarily a bad thing, just thought I'd point that one out.

And with the Educated Gambit, I assume you merely have to get the minimum DC in order to learn anything at all about the creature (5, 10 or 15 plus CR, depending on rarity), and not have to worry about the fact that you learn more for every 5 over the DC you achieve?

It seems like it might be fair to let the Warlord qualify for Fighter-specific feats based on his level, even if just for the bonus feats. They aren't the greatest feats we all know, but it would be silly for someone so martially-focused to be unable to take Weapon Specialization if they wanted to.

Finally, Twin Gambit seems like a somewhat mediocre capstone. Not because recovering more maneuvers is a poor feature, but because so many of the gambits are mutually exclusive, because they require separate standard actions. Granted, you can technically succeed on only one and get the rewards for both, it just feels somewhat weak lackluster for a capstone. Really, I can't see much of a difference between doubling the amount of maneuvers you can invest in a single gambit.

Granted, the Twin Gambit might work better if there are maneuvers that allow you to combine some of the actions used for Gambits, but it just seems off to me I guess.


Another note, related to the Maneuver Schools, is that it would be nice if the preferred weapons for a school weren't limited to core. I'm not sure of the legalities of the situation there, but it would be nice if it could be expanded to include appropriate weapons from those added in Ultimate Equipment, for example. Especially considering that we all know that the whole system has a slight Easter flair to it, and most of the Eastern weapons are present there.

[ErrantX]

New warlord document available. See original post (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2955.html).

Hopefully I've closed up some more of the holes in the class and made it work a little better than before. I feel pretty confident about the class chassis at this point. I'm going to focus on finishing the Stalker release next and get that out ASAP, and once we have both of those out, we can start comparing notes. When all three are out, then we can really get to start balancing disciplines out between each other and find a healthy place to fit.

My balance point for these classes and the maneuvers is using the wonderful psychic warrior in Dreamscarred Press' Psionics Expanded book, for those of you who are wondering. If it's a tough fight between a martial disciple and that class, I'm doing my job right.

-X

[Squirrel_Dude]

Looks like I'll need to refamiliarize myself with the Psionic Warrior. I only really glanced at the class and the handbooks at 3.5, and haven't checked back with it since DSP released the new books. It's something I've been wanting to do for a while, anyway. It's on my list of classes yet to play in game or experiment build for a while now. For now, you'll just have to take my observations as what they are.

I'll just take a second look at the new chassis instead.
- I like the idea of weapon groups. The only change I might suggest is defining them slightly less broadly (3 disciplines has heavy blades as a choice). Maybe state One handed heavy blades or two-handed heavy blades. Minor nitpick, I know. I really like the change from before.

- I'll agree with others who have said that the new format is much cleaner. It's much easier to look through now. I'll just look at some wordings.
* The Table needs to be edited. It still lists dual boost as a per-encounter thing.


At 11th level, the warlord may add his Charisma modifier to saving throws to resist fear, compulsion, mind-affecting, and death effects to allies within 30ft of his position as a circumstance bonus.Would he not get this save, and would this be an action? Is it an action for the Warlord, or would it be better to say that "all allies within 30 ft. of the Warlord may add Charisma to X...."?

- Victorious Presence: It might better for the Warlord to have the option to gain another creature's hit dice as temp HP, isntead of automatically gain it. I'm having hard times when I would say no to gaining temp hp, though.

- Remember my comments that there isn't enough use of the Charisma ability score with this class? The Warleader ability is a perfecte example to me. Instead of making it 5+1/2 Warlord level, make it 1/2 Warlord Level + Çha Modifier rounds, or make the number of uses tied to Charisma in some way.

Maneuver Removals: Nothing seems to heinous about them, but I like what they were replaced by. Attacks that do something other than straight damage? Cool.

Maneuver Changes:
- Solar Lance: Like.
- Focused Solar Lance: Like.
- Solar Hailstorm Stance: I don't see any change?

New Maneuvers:
- Solar Sting: Like.
- Disarming Wind: Like.
- Solar Storm: Like.
- Solar Meteor Blow: Like.

Random wording suggestion for the Solar Wind discipline: Some word other than "phantom" to describe the effect. Mirage perhaps? Something that doesn't make it sounds like you are firing ghost ammunition?

[Jon Everyman]

It looks to me that the newest version has you learning new maneuvers at even levels, despite gaining access to them at odd levels. Maneuvers are learned at 6, 8, 10, etc.

Stance of piercing rays says 1d6 fire damage on the overall table, but the specific text on it says 1d4 fire damage.

I like solar sting, at-will caltrops on an archer is pretty sick. But it doesn't specify the area, I'm assuming just one 5' square.

Gambits are much easier to understand and use, I like it. But I'm definately not taking pinhole gambit on my warlord archer, too easy to kill allies that way. New deadeye is sick, I'll start using called shots on guys I think I can do 50% hp to.

I like the cleaned-up feats, adding the teamwork feat to the ability that lets you share them makes it much more intuitive. The group I'm playtesting in has 2 warlords and a buff cleric. We had chosen different teamwork feats, so that we could double share them at 4. It was kinda weird.

I might be in the minority, here, but I actually think Jackpot gambit is pretty boring. Not a big deal, though, who plays at level 20 anyway?

More stuff later.

Edit: Jade Einhander still has the old version on the big list as well.

[ErrantX]

Part Two of the Path of War playtest is up. The Stalker. Go check it out (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=35484.html).

-X

[Jon Everyman]

Well, I can see why I was having such a hard time making perception checks on my warlord archer. I was supposed to go stalker if I wanted to be a kobold archer.

From the document:
At 4th level, the stalker can spend 1 point from his ki pool to make one additional attack at his
highest attack bonus, but he can do so only when making a full attack.

Forgive me if I'm missing something simple, here. But is there a limit on that ability? I know it would wreck you for the rest of the day, since there's so many things you need ki for, but it doesn't seem to specify that you can't use all your ki to nova a guy with 10 attacks at level 4.

Gonna read some more.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Oh, I want to read that so badly, but I am expected to take people to the airport in 8 hours. It'll have to wait.

[Jon Everyman]

All right. So I read the whole thing. And it's very cool. Usually I don't go out for rogue classes, but this one's pretty stellar.

So I proofread the whole document, but that's a huge, huge post, so I'll just PM it. I got 85% of the way through the document critiquing, but when I got the Thrashing Dragon, I just started reading. So if there's any typos there I wasn't paying attention. Because Thrashing Dragon is perfect.

So, first of all, the guy I made to playtest this all is a Mixed Scales kobold who thinks he's a half dragon, but isn't. So, yeah, Thrashing Dragon. Secondly, it's a D&D system that finally realized the glory that is the breakdancing fighter. So, yeah, I'll be making Mugen at some point. Also, it's a throwing weapon stance that heavily incentivizes you to be able to cut, throw, dodge, and just generally be the badass all dagger-throwers have wanted to be. So, yeah, I'll be doing all of that. Thirdly, it's theming is great. It ties a lot of stuff together, like the feats Deadly Agility and Greater Unarmed strike feats you put in, using Acrobatics to dodge attacks. Just generally get a lot of free swings, and use your dex to overcome your middling strength the whole time. So yeah, it all works within its own system, or at least appears to at first glance. Feat heavy, though, certainly. Final note: Battle Dragon Stance is awesome, I hope it doesn't change.

The only issue I'd bring up is that many of the strikes mention throwing the Thrashing Dragon signature weapons, but I didn't see anything to change the normal rules for throwing improvised weapons. If you have to take throw anything to do that, sure, but maybe put it in somewhere that the normal rules apply.

Formless Dance [Glamer]
Level: 3
Crescent Moon (Stance)
The Crescent Moon disciple immerses himself into a sort of dimensional flux, causing himself to be able to see what cannot be perceived and be in many places seemingly at once. While in this stance, the character
gains the benefits of a see invisibility spell and the mirror image spell with one caveat; when images are destroyed, they do not come back on their own. Dispersed images are restored at the cost a swift action for any and all images that are currently dispersed.

The mirror image spell part is probably going to have to be explained in fuller detail. Mirror image has a variable, 1d4 images+1 per 3 caster levels. How do you calculate the 1d4, when you adopt the stance or whenever you swift it? And do they have the usual duration? And also, is your initiator level your caster level? And maybe some other stuff. Just needs more information.

Ethereal Remeniscence is all-day self healing. I think. Unless I'm missing something obvious. You can just standard action it back and go again, right?

Maybe you could look at Knowledge, rather than Heal, being the skill for Steel Serpent? You probably have already. I know it'd be a LOT harder to pull off, maybe impossible, but it makes more sense, and ties in the Kirin Stance from Ultimate Combat, if you like that angle. I do. It's probably easier to just keep it in heal, unless you gave a class bonus to all knowledges, or had one of the arts spread them around, kind of like how versatile performer was for bards. I'm just saying if you can think of something that makes it work, it'd fit a lot better.

Does the free sneak attack dice from Hooded Killer Stance qualify you for PRC's? And do you want it to? And is it a big deal at all if it does?

Could stalker be made into a reasonable mage-killer? They get Anchoring Spirit with 8th's (I know that's late). They have a lot of good range options, several ways to attack physical stats, a very nice level of stealth, teleport options on all 3 action types, and a lot of sick grapple options in steel serpent. they also get evasion (kinda), a REALLY good will save after wis, and saving throw boosters. I don't know if that's enough, especially without Anchoring Spirit, but I'd like to think a properly-build Stalker would at least have a chance at wizard killing. Silencing Strike after a swift-action teleport, or optimized grapple+Anchoring Spirit. I don't know enough about high-level D&D, especially with paranoid casters, to know if any of it means anything. It's certainly enough to ruin the day of an NPC caster, which is good enough for me.

Addendum: Wish stalkers had some way to remove Freedom of Movement, that kills it, really.

[Sith_Happens]

Formless Dance [Glamer]
Level: 3
Crescent Moon (Stance)
The Crescent Moon disciple immerses himself into a sort of dimensional flux, causing himself to be able to see what cannot be perceived and be in many places seemingly at once. While in this stance, the character
gains the benefits of a see invisibility spell and the mirror image spell with one caveat; when images are destroyed, they do not come back on their own. Dispersed images are restored at the cost a swift action for any and all images that are currently dispersed.

The mirror image spell part is probably going to have to be explained in fuller detail. Mirror image has a variable, 1d4 images+1 per 3 caster levels. How do you calculate the 1d4, when you adopt the stance or whenever you swift it? And do they have the usual duration? And also, is your initiator level your caster level? And maybe some other stuff. Just needs more information.

Also, the images from a Mirror Image spell don't normally replace themselves over time, so the "caveat" is unnecessary.

Oh, and at-will Quickened Mirror Image is insanely powerful on a 5th level character. Just pointing that out.

-----

Something else I noticed reading through the PDFs myself: You've kept the 3.5 wording on picking your first stance, and by extension the infamous "If I multiclass into a martial adept class, can I pick a higher-level stance?" problem. For the love of Gygax, PLEASE fix this.

[Hunter Noventa]

Oh, and at-will Quickened Mirror Image is insanely powerful on a 5th level character. Just pointing that out.


Oh god Stalker might just be my new favorite class, that is AMAZING.

You should probably nerf that a little bit.

Some quick thoughts-

The Stalker
The Stalker is VERY feature rich, which is far from a bad thing, dead levels are such a drag. It's somewhat interesting that it only gets a single good save, and that it's Will.


Good skill pool and a lot of skill points, I like that.

I like the recovery mechanics for their maneuvers, nice and simple, and quite fair to be honest.

I've never actually played a class with a Ki Pool, but you seem to have provided plenty of options to spend it on. I agree that the 'extra attack' might want to be clarified to suppress the ability to nova.

Deadly Strike is an interesting twist on precision damage, and I like the ability to 'lock on' to make it more consistent. if it didn't have that, I'd say make it activate on any critical threat. heck, making that an option through a Stalker Art might not be a bad idea, like you did with flat-footed targets.

Combat Insight is very nice, though it seems like the 18th level ability should be under the list of Ki Pool abilities, since you spend ki to activate it, and it's not a passive bonus like the rest of them.

Stalker Arts are great, providing variety and utility. Some seem like they're very powerful compared to others, like Alacrity, Ki Vampirism, Deadly Ambush, Mind Bending, Phantom Reach and precocious Step. Which is probably why you only get 5 of them over your progression.

Stalkers' Mantle is a nice level filler. not super powerful, but still quite useful.

Dual Strike is amazing as always. Good choice in not allowing boosts to be used with it.

Critical Mastery is a decent capstone, and you could really build the stalker to crit farm to focus on this.


Suggestions:

You could add a Stalker Art or other ability to let the Stalker spend Ki to be able to crit against foes you normally couldn't, given how much of their talent is focused on making critical hits.

Skills and Feats:

Knowledge(martial) is a skill. At least it has some use aside from dealing with maneuvers.


Advanced Study is awesome, by allowing you to choose from other schools it really ramps up versatility without being unbalanced.

Discipline Specialization would probably be fair if it added that damage all the time with the specific weapon, to be honest.

Deadly Agility. Shadow Blade lives! Bit more of a feat tax to pull off the combo, but when you're eliminating an attribute dependence that's understandable. It's also more powerful than Shadow Blade, as it's not limited to one discipline's weapons.

Greater Unarmed Strike, should it give a bonus to a monk's damage too?

I LOVE what you've done for the martial training feats. Those will be the perfect way to test out these feats in our current campaign.


I'll have to add more about the maneuvers later, when i get a chance to look over them more.

[IronFist]

Something else I noticed reading through the PDFs myself: You've kept the 3.5 wording on picking your first stance, and by extension the infamous "If I multiclass into a martial adept class, can I pick a higher-level stance?" problem. For the love of Gygax, PLEASE fix this.

From what I've seen, Path of War does not use the 1/2 initator level from other classes thing, so that wouldn't be a problem.

Things I've noticed:
1) Flash kick (Thrashing Dragon 2, Strike) says it uses a standard action, but the text says it is used during a full-attack.
2) It might be just me, but Sun Dips Low looks too powerful for a 2nd level maneuver. Maybe make it so it does not work on critical hits?
3) Battle Dragon Stance also looks like too big of a bonus compared to other material. A Fighter just got +2 damage the level before from Weapon Specialization, the Ranger just upgraded his damage potential from +2 to +4 from Favored Enemy. Batle Dragon Stance is just plain better than any other alternative for TWF in that level, with extra initiative and a bonus to hit, as well.
5) Ancient's Fang text leads me to believe it can be used with non-throwable weapons, but does not list the range increment such weapons would use.
6) I love Dragon Assault. It's cool, powerful (but not overpowered) and simple. Congratulations.
7) Dragon Rush looks like a better worded Flash Kick. The effects are very similar, though, and Dragon Rush comes online two levels later. The damage from Dragon Rush should be higher, especially because otherwise it will always be weaker than Sharpened Talons.
8) The wording on Thrashing Dragon Twist could use some work.
9) Reversing Thrust could use better wording. 'counter attack' makes it seem as though it negates the attack, which doesn't seem to be your intention. I'd use attack of opportunity instead, since you don't have to define anything that way (the system has already defined it).
10) Bend With The Wind is the new Pearl of Black Doubt ^^ you don't need to say a 5-ft step with no attack of opportunity, but I would add something along the lines that it does not spend your regular 5-ft step, simply because that's what Pathfinder seems to do.

All in all, I love the concept but I'm a bit worried about the numbers. Will give more feedback soon.

[Hunter Noventa]

From what I've seen, Path of War does not use the 1/2 initator level from other classes thing, so that wouldn't be a problem.

Incorrect.



If you are a multiclass martial disciple, and you learn a new maneuver by attaining a new level in a martial disciple class, determine your initiator level by adding together your level in that class + ½ your levels in all other classes.


Emphasis Mine.

So yes, this is a thing that should be fixed.

[Eldariel]

From what I've seen, Path of War does not use the 1/2 initator level from other classes thing, so that wouldn't be a problem.

Huh. I'm not sure I like that; one of the great advantages ToB had over much of 3.5e was that it was a scaling system that was multiclass friendly. While Cleric 10/Wizard 10 is basically shooting himself in the foot with a bazooka and is barely CR 12, Warblade 10/Swordsage 10 is actually a reasonable option to Warblade 20 or Swordsage 20.

The ½ advancement of Initiator Level enabled multiclassing without PRCs for every combination enabling PRCs to act in their original function, as special classes to cover some specific niches not covered by the general classes (in case of ToB, e.g. Master of the Nine).

EDIT: Phew. Had me frightened there for a moment. Also, that line could use a mention of how Racial HD interacts (or does not interact) with it. That was always a bit unclear in 3.5 ToB.

[Novawurmson]

Updating the first post with the new class.

[IronFist]

I must say I don't like Knight as the class name. I understand he can't use Crusader, but we already have Cavalier in Pathfinder, after all. Champion could work better, IMHO. It would also fill other roles - tribal protector, viking warrior-priest, stuff like that. Knight is too specific and too close to Cavalier.

[Psyren]

I must say I don't like Knight as the class name. I understand he can't use Crusader, but we already have Cavalier in Pathfinder, after all. Champion could work better, IMHO. It would also fill other roles - tribal protector, viking warrior-priest, stuff like that. Knight is too specific and too close to Cavalier.

Seconding Champion! That definitely fits the archetype.

[IronFist]

Seconding Champion! That definitely fits the archetype.

Yay, Psyren agrees with me, this made my day :smallcool:

[Novawurmson]

Seconding Champion! That definitely fits the archetype.

Champion is the name of one of the Mythic lines. Time to crack open the thesaurus again.

[IronFist]

Champion is the name of one of the Mythic lines. Time to crack open the thesaurus again.

The mythic lines get plenty of overlap with existing names already, don't they?

[Novawurmson]

The mythic lines get plenty of overlap with existing names already, don't they?

Nope. Archmage, Champion, Guardian, Hierophant, Marshal, and Trickster: None of the names are used in Pathfinder (though obviously Marshal and Archmage got play in 3.5).

[Fax Celestis]

I like Challenger, Victor, and Guardian.

[Eldariel]

Vindicator?

[Novawurmson]

I like Challenger, Victor, and Guardian.

Guardian is in Mythic. 2/3 ain't bad!


Vindicator?

I'll throw in Soldier, Templar...I really wish we could turn the NPC class into "Conscript" and use "Warrior," but that's out, I'm sure :P

[Psyren]

Templar/Victor/Vindicator would be my top three.

[The Glyphstone]

Vindicator sounds good.

[Palanan]

Vindicator has a firm, resounding ring to it.

[Manly Man]

I'll sixth the name Vindicator. It just sounds awesome.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Templar/Victor/Vindicator would be my top three.I do believe there is already a (Low) Templar prestige class, and obviously there is the Holy Vindicator. Of course, they're using "Trickster" as a class name when there is already the Arcane Trickster PrC

[Psyren]

I do believe there is already a (Low) Templar prestige class, and obviously there is the Holy Vindicator. Of course, they're using "Trickster" as a class name when there is already the Arcane Trickster PrC

There's a Wild Stalker too; at some point you just have to accept there's only so many words that capture a given concept and forge onward anyway.

[Manly Man]

So, having a look at the Stalker, I gotta admit that I'm a fan of the fact that you don't have the worst action economy ever for recovering maneuvers.

However, the class having bad reflex saves makes little sense to me; an assassin or ninja, slinking about in the shadows, and he isn't instinctually reflexive? Yes, I realize that there's the Wisdom bonus to his Reflex save, but that's only when he has ki available. I realize that you might have done that to help separate the Stalker from the Swordsage, but honestly, it seems like you've already given them enough distinctions in terms of class features.

[137beth]

I'm also going to throw in my metaphorical hat for the name Vindicator. I doubt it will make much difference at this point, but ya never know.

[Hunter Noventa]

I agree that Vindicator sounds good.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Comments on the class' chasis.

Ki points
Would ki points from the stalker class stack with or be seperate from ki points gained from other class levels (monk, ninja)?
Would the level 4 ki power stack with haste? I'm assuming that it does
Level 6 power: Is this an immediate action?

The character spends one ki point and may trade a readied maneuver for a maneuver of the same or lower level from any discipline that the character has access to and have it immediately readied and accessible for his use as a swift action. Does this mean that if I took a level of Warlord I could use this ability to (E.G.) gain access to a Devil Tiger maneuver equal to the level of Crescent Moon maneuver I gave up?
This is probably just me, but I would probably like to see some more Ki abilities gained after level 10. Maybe just have the flat bonuses increase over time?

Deadly Strike
Looks good to me. I would like it to apply automatically more often (flat-footed), but the ability to make the extra damage apply whenever you want it to is nice.

Combat Insight
I like the 8th level ability, except that there is a 12 level time limit on how useful it is. At level 20 it's a completely pointless ability. I'd rather just get the critical focus feat.
Blindsense and True Seeing? Cool.
The True Seeing ability probably should be put under Ki Powers

Rogue Talents Stalker Arts
Alacrity is awesome
Combat Precognition is alright.
I'd much rather be able to make evasion a constant ability than have to spend ki points to use it. Of course I'd also like good reflex saves
Ki Vampirism is okay. It's kind of a resource hog (Ki points, Max number a day, requires a martial strike, swift action) for a moderate benefit.
Obfuscation: It's... interesting. I go back and forth on how great it is. No listed duration?
Phantom Reach & Blindsense. I can be Kenshi! (http://webguyunlimited.com/pixelperfectgaming/wp-content/gallery/mortal_kombat_kenshi_dlc/mortal_kombat_kenshi_dlc_screenshot_012.jpg)
Precocious steps look like a potential must-get for some characters. But it will be a Ki tax at higher levels when acrobatics checks become so hard to make against monsters' CMDs.

Stalker's Mantle
Simple question on wording. Does this mean that if I have a wisdom mod of +4 that I could reroll sense motive 4 times and stealth 4 times (for a total of 8 rerolls) or does it mean that I get 4 rerolls a day that I could use for either skill?

Dual Strike
It seems fun. I'd like the option to use a boost, but there are other uses for that swift action.

Critical Mastery
It's good. It seems best when your TWF crit-fishing, like some of the classes other abilities.

I'll add, as others already have, that the class will need a way to gain extra ki points, with so many of their abilities based on using it. Human seems like it's going to be a very strong pick for anyone playing this class because it may end up being a bit feat starved/MAD.

[IronFist]

There is also Gnome Trickster feat and a Kitsune Trickster Rogue archetype, two magic items named after Hierophant and the Robe of Archmagi (which actually becames weird considering Magus).Between Knight, Champion and Vindicator, I'd still use Champion, though. Mythic is an alternate ruleset, after all.
Dunno if ErrantX will even bother considering this, anyway ^^


Posted from Giantitp.com App for Android

[Nohwl]

were you going to put in an engineer discipline based off of explosives, gadgets, and similar things?

[Sith_Happens]

were you going to put in an engineer discipline based off of explosives, gadgets, and similar things?

I was going to make a joke about this, but then I realized the class with access to such a discipline would be Batman.

[Lateral]

I was going to make a joke about this, but then I realized the class with access to such a discipline would be Batman.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
if you don't do this I will destroy you all

[ErrantX]

were you going to put in an engineer discipline based off of explosives, gadgets, and similar things?


I was going to make a joke about this, but then I realized the class with access to such a discipline would be Batman.


YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
if you don't do this I will destroy you all

...Originally was not intended, but... umm... maybe yeah? That's kind of incredibly awesome in theory. :smallbiggrin:

Alright, I let stalker marinate so far, I've gotten responses on several forums. I'm going to address this over the course of the day and make some alterations and edits, try to get a v2 up. I still would appreciate new people coming into this to also check out the Warlord playtest to see if they find anything else in that class.

I'll let everyone know when I post the new version of the stalker. You guys are awesome, thank you!

-X

[Hunter Noventa]

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
if you don't do this I will destroy you all

Could always do it yourself.

Ages ago I made a prestige class that combined 3.5 ToB with PF Soulknife and basically made you into Nanoha, with all the overpoweredness that entails. I might have to make a discipline that does that now.



...Originally was not intended, but... umm... maybe yeah? That's kind of incredibly awesome in theory. :smallbiggrin:

I smell archetypes.

[Psyren]

Agreed, the engineer/batgadget guy would be good as an archetype, just as "Gunmage" was made a wizard archetype. Almost different enough to be a new class, but much less work that way.

[Hunter Noventa]

Agreed, the engineer/batgadget guy would be good as an archetype, just as "Gunmage" was made a wizard archetype. Almost different enough to be a new class, but much less work that way.

Yes exactly, archetypes that replace class features AND grant access to a specialized school of maneuvers based on the concept?

Why no, I'm not thinking up excuses to be able to shout DIVIIINE BUSTERRRR! in our campaigns again, why would you ever think that?

I'm clearly thinking up excuses to be able to shout CROSSS SMASHERRR! when I make the archetype that's a Super Robot in all but name. And well, not a robot.

[Psyren]

If it's a robot you want, DSP is coming out with the Forgeborn in Ultimate Psionics. I have no doubt everything in this book will be compatible with their other works :smallsmile:

[Dusk Eclipse]

Forgeborne=PF Warforged?

[Psyren]

Forgeborne=PF Warforged?

More or less, and with the proclivity for psionics built in rather than needing a feat to access. Think more "cyborg" than "robot" though.

[Fax Celestis]

More or less, and with the proclivity for psionics built in rather than needing a feat to access. Think more "cyborg" than "robot" though.

Waitwaitwait.

So you're telling me I can play a forgeborne aegis/armored (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/soulknife/archetypes/dreamscarred-press/armored-blade) shielded (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/soulknife/archetypes/dreamscarred-press/shielded-blade) soulknife/metaforge and be basically psionics incarnate? Not to be confused with psion uncarnate, that's a different prestige class (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-prestige-classes/psion-uncarnate).

[Psyren]

*checks Forgeborn fluff/crunch*

Yeah, they're pretty much animated by psionics, so that would be accurate. Though to an extent you could probably say the same of Elans/Blues.

[Fax Celestis]

Next character concept: get.

Been meaning to find an excuse to play a armored, shielded soulknife anyway.

[Psyren]

Next character concept: get.

Been meaning to find an excuse to play a armored, shielded soulknife anyway.

Armored, Shielded, with Gifted Blade :smallbiggrin:

And to reconnect this to the topic at hand - maybe there will be a Martial Study equivalent such a character could use? Preferably with a sword-and-board style.

[Hunter Noventa]

Armored, Shielded, with Gifted Blade :smallbiggrin:

And to reconnect this to the topic at hand - maybe there will be a Martial Study equivalent such a character could use? Preferably with a sword-and-board style.

Well now all I need is roller blades and a limit break ability. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjQO2vrEd8I)

[Greenish]

This is most interesting, and I'll probably have to start looking into PF seriously. One thing, though, and I've only started looking at the stuff, but it seems the disciplines have way more maneuvers than the ToB ones, and it seems there's some overlap and same-but-bigger-numbers stuff.

I understand there's probably enough ideas to fill all the 13 (20? :smalleek:) disciplines with cool stuff, but wouldn't it be easier to make the disciplines a bit tighter and more thematic just by shrinking them?

[Eldariel]

This is most interesting, and I'll probably have to start looking into PF seriously. One thing, though, and I've only started looking at the stuff, but it seems the disciplines have way more maneuvers than the ToB ones, and it seems there's some overlap and same-but-bigger-numbers stuff.

I understand there's probably enough ideas to fill all the 13 (20? :smalleek:) disciplines with cool stuff, but wouldn't it be easier to make the disciplines a bit tighter and more thematic just by shrinking them?

I always felt there was a bit too little variety in the ToB disciplines. Like, plenty of Strikes, sure, but many were really lacking in terms of Counters & Boosts, which are what really makes combat more dynamic with ToB. These seem to mostly fall into that territory; every school has more than just strikes.

[Greenish]

I always felt there was a bit too little variety in the ToB disciplines. Like, plenty of Strikes, sure, but many were really lacking in terms of Counters & Boosts, which are what really makes combat more dynamic with ToB. These seem to mostly fall into that territory; every school has more than just strikes.Fair enough.


In unrelated news, I notice the "begin play with knowledge of one 1st level stance" verbiage has resurfaced. For the peace of mind of GitP regulars, if for no other reason, could that be rephrased. :smalltongue:

[Novawurmson]

Aww, man. I just remembered all the The Demented One's ToB homebrew. Sleeping Goddess (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5408276), Black Rain (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5471518), Dancing Leaf (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85614)...so much good stuff. I guess homebrew will still be an option for my groups, anyway.

[Fax Celestis]

Aww, man. I just remembered all the The Demented One's ToB homebrew. Sleeping Goddess (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5408276), Black Rain (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5471518), Dancing Leaf (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85614)...so much good stuff. I guess homebrew will still be an option for my groups, anyway.

Good lord man, how can you leave out Army of One (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5710173)?

PS: ErrantX, if you need or want to rob Holy Word (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71422) or Ocean Soul (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45205), you have my permission.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I am rather sad-faced that there hasn't been something similar in concept to the rushes that Garryl did some years back on MMX. I really liked the concept of a move action maneuver that made... well, movement more interesting than just 30' this way or that, but I know the balance point would be hard to pin down when combined with strikes that also move.

(Edit) Apparently there is a move action maneuver in Crescent Moon, but it's a pretty simple short range teleport.

[The Glyphstone]

It is relatively minor, but the Abilities section for the Warlord still makes no mention of Wisdom. Strength and Charisma are his highest-priority stats, Constitution is second, and Intelligence/Dexterity are last.