[PF/DSP] Dreamscarred Press announces ToB-inspired product II: The Rematch [Archive]

ErrantX

2013-10-14, 11:20 AM

Old thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=296871) was out to 50 pages. New thread time.

Link to Dreamscarred Press' discussion thread: Here (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=3066.html).

Link to the conversation on Paizo's forum: Here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q1ar&page=1?Dreamscarred-Press-introduces-the-Path-of-War).

I'll be updating this as we go! Links below:

Warder (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=3021/finish=20/start=0.html): A defensive martial initiator. Focusing on defensive control of a combat, protection of allies, and having good combat ability to dominate a battle. Archetypes for both normal modifications as well as 'sect' archetypes that provide background and story information with codes of conduct that are specific to the sect for more organization-based warders with group specific disciplines. Current Status: Beta done, pushed to release

Stalker (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=2972/finish=20/start=0.html): An offensive martial initiator. A class that focuses on a wide skill set, stealth, and mystic ability. Highly perceptive and capable in combat with a focus in inflicting critical damage through understanding of the opponent. Archetypes in the works, ways to focus the stalker towards differing roles. Current Status: Beta done, push to release

Warlord (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=3009/finish=20/start=0.html): A team leading martial initiator. A tactical commander, capable of boosting the abilities of his allies through teamwork feats as well as through performing his gambits and presences. A capable warrior in his own right as well. Archetypes will be angling towards making discipline specialists within this class. Current Status: Beta done, push to release

Currently Working On: Archetypes

-X

Lord_Gareth

2013-10-14, 11:46 AM

New thread already, huh?

I think folks'll be happy to see some of the stuff I've been tinkering with.

Beowulf DW

2013-10-14, 02:28 PM

Don't you just love that new thread smell?

georgie_leech

2013-10-14, 02:31 PM

You can, sure.

That still doesn't mean it's "as easy" for a non-caster to create things than a caster. There's a greater up-front feat cost, it's limited functionality (arms, armor, and wondrous only), and higher (cross-class!) skill investment. Non-casters are already lagging 3 points behind casters for using a non-class skill, and now they have between 5 and 15 extra points on top of the craft check because they don't meet prereqs. Or they can invest more skill points (that they don't generally have, due to fighter types being shafted on skill points) on UMD (another non-class skill) and spend money (multiplied per diem, mind you) to get around the increased DC for bypassing prerequisites, but this still puts non-casters behind casters due to, again, more up-front cost.

I'll grant that decreased spell knowledge means Mundanes need more investment to get the same result, but who is Craft (Whatever) not a class skill for?

Incidentally, I don't think anyone was ever complaining about Fighters couldn't make wands. It was more a complaint that by restricting creation of the necessary Magical Gear the game expects you to have to Casters, it reinforced the idea that Mundanes were dependent on Casters to have baseline functionality. The feat gives you a way to ameliorate that if that's the sort of thing you care about. Even if it's more difficult, it's at least possible now.

ErrantX

2013-10-14, 05:42 PM

Don't you just love that new thread smell?

Yes sir...

Can ya smell that?

I love the smell of copypasta in the morning.

It smells like... nerdrage.

-X

ErrantX

2013-10-14, 05:53 PM

Chained Birds

2013-10-14, 06:33 PM

It is odd if an archetype trades out something as useful as a bonus feat, but it can be done well. Mostly, if you gain a feat or feature you wouldn't be able to take normally.

Unarmed Fighter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/unarmed-fighter) and Lore Warden (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/lore-warden) do this, in that they grant certain feats regardless of what stats or other feats the Fighter has (Combat Expertise from Lore Warden; Style Feat from Unarmed Fighter).

You can also give him extra feats, but have them be specific like with the Unbreakable (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/unbreakable) archetype.

So far, X, your plan seems better suited for a Ranger and trading up his Style Feats for early entry into the maneuver training feats.

Though I do like not trading out the Armor and Weapon mastery stuff. Maybe have him gain certain maneuvers without them directly being from the martial training feats

Saidoro

2013-10-14, 07:50 PM

Too strong? Too awesome? You decide.

Insufficiently strong. I'd rather it trades away bravery and the training because those are less powerful and the fighter can use a boost.(Though if the bonuses are big enough to make the fighter actually be on par after trading the feats away I wouldn't object.)

And personally, I'd rather see the fighter getting an archetype that lets them really specialize in one discipline more than anyone else can manage than one that lets them just pick up a smattering of martial power.

Tael

2013-10-14, 08:29 PM

I am worried how this will interact with old tome of battle stuff, as it is a direct upgrade compared to the 3.5 classes.

Stalker, Warden, and Warlord are all straight up better than SS, Warblade, and Crusader. Is this intentional? Are these classes and disciplines supposed to combine with the old stuff?

Also. There's lots of combat prowess, but not much in the way of utility. Nothing close to Shadow Hand's incredible versatility and out of combat use. I'm concerned that these new initiators will be too strong in combat compared to other classes, but not versatile outside of it.

Beowulf DW

2013-10-14, 09:36 PM

Alright, so... a thought for you all:

Fighters need a little love and a martial template. So we know they've got two sides to their class in Pathfinder: Bonus Feats, and Weapon/Armor Training. Veritably every archetype under the sun trades away the weapon/armor training stuff, and bravery. Rarely does it effect the bonus feats. I also think we can all agree that fighter archetypes makes fighter actually more fun to play than normal, because it lends new abilities to make your schtick work (firm believe that all fighters must have a schtick, something that they focus on doing). So what if my archetype for fighter, instead of attacking the same old features, instead, went after some bonus feats? Pay out 6 of your bonus feats, and maybe heavy armor and tower shields to basically get Martial Training 1-6 twice.

This gives your fighter maneuvers up to 6th level, some bonus feats, and the track of fighter's abilities that you could in theory trade for one of those flavorful archetypes.

Too strong? Too awesome? You decide.

-X

Hmmm...Trading out the bonus feats...Those bonus feats have historically been what the fighter is known for. You would lose some flexibility with regards to your fighting style outside of the maneuvers, but in exchange you would gain maneuvers.

I honestly think that's a decent trade, but I think that it should only get two disciplines to choose from, chosen at 1st level. Combined with other archetypes (namely the one's based on a specific weapon style), this could really make the Fighter the specialist to the Warlord's generalist. I like.

Beowulf Seal of Approval

ErrantX

2013-10-14, 09:47 PM

Hmmm...Trading out the bonus feats...Those bonus feats have historically been what the fighter is known for. You would lose some flexibility with regards to your fighting style outside of the maneuvers, but in exchange you would gain maneuvers.

I honestly think that's a decent trade, but I think that it should only get two disciplines to choose from, chosen at 1st level. Combined with other archetypes (namely the one's based on a specific weapon style), this could really make the Fighter the specialist to the Warlord's generalist. I like.

Beowulf Seal of Approval

You just nailed exactly what I was going for.

-X

Beowulf DW

2013-10-14, 10:11 PM

You just nailed exactly what I was going for.

-X

Well. Good to know we're on the same wavelength, then.:smallbiggrin: I really think that limiting it to two disciplines (choice is completely up to the player, of course) would help to keep in it a bit more balanced relative to the other fighter archetypes, though.

MightyPirate

2013-10-14, 11:10 PM

Hmmm, he adds martial lore to class skills and maybe replaces bravery with a bonus to his disciplines' related skills? Would 1/2 class level be too much?

Also maybe restrict weapon training to the associated weapon groups of his disciplines.

He feels a little specialized because he only gets two disciplines but they have the ability to mix and match where other initiators cannot. Can this character then spend feats to pick up an additional discipline on top of the two granted by class features?

Gotta say that while having the worst recovery possible is damning I don't know that it matters unless the readied maneuvers are reduced. If you stack the feat twice it rapidly outpaces even the Stalker and it gets really crazy if you'd be able to pick up a third discipline.

ErrantX

2013-10-15, 01:22 AM

The idea is to remove some of the bonus feats that not only could be used to buy more "Martial Training" feats, but also to spend them more efficiently, effectively, and still leave options for people to take certain archetypes. If I want to play a fighter who has Thrashing Dragon and Veiled Moon, well, I would want to take the Two-Weapon Fighter archetype perhaps, and I was thinking that since most archetypes eliminate weapon and armor training and bravery almost universally for other similar features, why not go after the bonus feats instead to allow for fighters to get the best of both worlds.

Taking a step back from the whole "it will make fighter go uber", how uber will they go? Will it make them unbalanced to the point of wizards will lose sleep at night? I'm really interested in knowing. Will it improve them so far as to eclipse the martial disciple classes? I'm okay with fighter having a little wider base but a lower cap than a martial disciple if that's what you're worried about. The fighter and all other classes I do this with will never get the 9th level. They'll cap out at 6th level. That's my plan anyhow.

I wanted to bring it to you all to see how you felt about it before I started to write a ton of material and have you all hate it :P

-X

Chained Birds

2013-10-15, 07:49 AM

I doubt Fighter can ever really go Uber in PF without the 3.5 Shock Trooper and/or Fighter ACFs. But besides that,

Well, I like the idea of Fighters synchronizing their Weapon Group with that of the Disciplines. It adds some nice interconnection between the classes and the combat forms, and may help players remember where Weapon Groups came from.

How about something he gains at Level 5 (When Weapon Training kicks in) which makes his Initiator Level equal to his Fighter level -4 (For free). It then trades out his later bonus feats for a Discipline that matches with his Weapon Group, in which he gets full progression.

Maybe make it even more special by making his main Ability Stat for this Fighter Discipline something like CON.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-15, 08:34 AM

I'll grant that decreased spell knowledge means Mundanes need more investment to get the same result, but who is Craft (Whatever) not a class skill for?

Spellcraft is the skill used to craft all magical items, not Craft (Whatever), and Master Craftsman doesn't change that in the slightest.

To create magic items, spellcasters use special feats which allow them to invest time and money in an item's creation. At the end of this process, the spellcaster must make a single skill check (usually Spellcraft, but sometimes another skill) to finish the item. If an item type has multiple possible skills, you choose which skill to make the check with. The DC to create a magic item is 5 + the caster level for the item. Failing this check means that the item does not function and the materials and time are wasted. Failing this check by 5 or more results in a cursed item.

Skill(s) Required: Spellcraft or Craft (armor).

Skill(s) Required: Spellcraft, Craft (bows) (for magic bows and arrows), or Craft (weapons) (for all other weapons).

Skill(s) Required: Spellcraft or an applicable Craft or Profession skill check.

And since Master Craftsman says this...

Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks. You receive a +2 bonus on your chosen Craft or Profession skill. Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats. You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item.
...not only does it cost you more up-front, but it needlessly restricts you further: either you cross-class Spellcraft, or you put points into an actual Craft skill and can only make melee weapons or ranged weapons or armor or a certain kind of wondrous item.

Person_Man

2013-10-15, 08:54 AM

Question: Can someone explain to me why Archetypes are good class design?

If you have a cool ability, why lock it away in an Archetype? Why not just give the class the choice of several abilities, or make it a maneuver or stance (or whatever that class has - spells, powers, talents, etc)?

For example, if you took all of the Pathfinder Monk's Archetypes and distilled them down to a single class with list of abilities which you could swap out at least once per day, you'd have a fairly decent Tier 3 class. But because they're spread across Archetype, and you can't mix and match Archetype abilities, and you can't change your choice of Archetype or the abilities it grants once it's made, it's doomed to Tier 4 forever. The same could probably be done for pretty much every other Tier 4 Pathfinder class.

Corollary suggestion to ErrantX: If you are going to include Archetypes for every class, I would appreciate it if the alternate abilities are based on Skills, Bonus Feats, bonuses, and fluff related, and not the 'meat" of the class. I don't care if an Archetype grants a different +1 bonus to X or other minor variations which help the class fill a slightly different role. But if you think of an ability that is truly interesting or useful, just work it into the base class somehow.

Lord_Gareth

2013-10-15, 09:30 AM

To be fair, archetypes aren't terribly different from alternate class features. Either way, though, it's the paradigm we're working with - PF does archetypes, they're an expectation and an opportunity.

Prime32

2013-10-15, 11:38 AM

Have you given any thought to maneuvers that create dispelling effects?

Relatedly, it would be interesting to see some ability that lets non-spellcasters perform the counterspell action (maybe using their shield bonus as part of the dispel bonus), especially if there's an upgrade along the lines of the archmage's Mastery of Counterspelling. "Catch and return" also works. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCpeOwOjaYE)

If you have a cool ability, why lock it away in an Archetype? Why not just give the class the choice of several abilities, or make it a maneuver or stance (or whatever that class has - spells, powers, talents, etc)?

For example, if you took all of the Pathfinder Monk's Archetypes and distilled them down to a single class with list of abilities which you could swap out at least once per day, you'd have a fairly decent Tier 3 class. But because they're spread across Archetype, and you can't mix and match Archetype abilities, and you can't change your choice of Archetype or the abilities it grants once it's made, it's doomed to Tier 4 forever. The same could probably be done for pretty much every other Tier 4 Pathfinder class.You can reduce the effect by wording archetypes carefully. Say "this modifies, but does not replace" whenever possible, so that the modified feature can still be modified again. Or if Class Feature X references Class Feature Y, you could write into New Class Feature Y "if you have Existing Class Feature X, adjust it like this".

upho

2013-10-15, 12:45 PM

From previous thread, slightly updated:

Kyton Tyranny / "Black Hole Defender" - Melee Control Discipline / Warden Archetype

Besides more versatility, more tactically interesting options in combat and more utility in general for non-caster classes in 1-3.5/PF, I've always wanted an increased number of viable mundane/martial combat playstyles/roles as well as the option to truly specialize in such a role/style. Currently, I think all the non-caster PF classes are rather forced into taking the primary combat role of single-target striker, because that's the only role the mechanics allow them to remain effective in during all levels. Here, I think PF has a huge gap that can and should be filled by options in PoW.

Now I couldn't help noticing the PoW Warlord and Warden (unintentionally, I guess) borrow more than their names from two actually great 4e concepts/mechanics also initially based on ToB (the Warlord class and the defender role). You could say I'd like to continue in that vein of "coincidental 4e adaptations" and suggest bringing in another effective, flexible and fun martial combat focus which happens to be possible in 4e: control.

A few ideas for a discipline which hopefully explains the concept:
Kyton Tyranny
A melee discipline focusing on whips, flails, chains and similar(?) "potentially entangling" weapons to limit enemy options, primarily by covering large areas and making maneuvers that control enemy positions, hinders their mobility and disrupts both their defenses and attacks. The discipline's infernal origin does not mean a practitioner of the Kyton Tyranny is well served by hot-headedness or reckless brutality. Instead, it's the calculating tacticians and cool-headed defenders valuing teamwork that tend to master the style.

I think the most fitting related skill is Martial Lore. (Possible? Feels like it should be something to do with tactical knowledge and intelligence rather than physical prowess, IMO.)

Maneuvers
Yes:

Repositioning/pushing/pulling, tripping, disarming and/or grappling/pinning/choking (using weapon) strikes/counters, some requiring a certain weapon type or property
Some strikes/counters imposing other fitting debuff/status effects (for example staggered, entangled, slowed, AC/Reflex penalties) and/or prevents target from using certain limb(s)
Trading attack damage (sometimes defense) for bonuses to the relevant check(s), improved effects and/or occasionally free extra movement or reach
Multi-target strikes
A few high level (Su) strikes designed to counter magic/supernatural abilities, especially those related to sight/movement such as etherealness, invisibility, flight, teleportation etc. (perhaps hit enemy cannot teleport/move outside of initiator's reach, or w/o also bringing initiator along?)
Many counters triggered by enemy actions that normally wouldn't provoke AoOs and perhaps a few that don't use up immediate/swift action
Boosts focusing on attack, initiative and mobility/reach, sometimes adding movement related status effects (like slowed, staggered, immobilized) and/or free combat maneuver checks to attacks.

No:

HP damage boosts
Extra damage types
Single-target focus
Set range limitations (like "adjacent") rather than melee reach

Stances
Focus on defenses (especially CMD), mobility, reach and additional AoO triggers/effects.
I think the concept can also make an interesting and fitting Warden (or a truly unique Warlord) archetype to complement the discipline. Perhaps a kind of "black hole" defender with improved aura and marking, designed to "suck" enemies close and keep them there. I guess this concept won't fit into a standalone archetype, but on the other hand I believe it might contain enough possibilities to also base an entire adept class and quite a few combat feats on it. Personally, I surely wouldn't mind seeing such a class in a second PoW book.

Predator - Natural Attack Metamorphic Stalker Archetype

Another Stalker archetype idea, "Feral Predator", inspired by wild predatorial beasts, focusing on natural attacks, using ki to enhance natural attacks and gain minor metarmorphosis and shapeshifting-esque abilities. A few ideas:

Replaces the Monastic Weapon Training art with "Feral Combat" which grants the Aspect of the Beast, Improved Unarmed Strike and Feral Combat Training feats (w/o prerequisites).
Treats natural attacks as 19-20 x3 (?) weapons associated with the Primal Fury discipline and all disciplines normally associated with light blades (and/or unarmed/natural attacks).
Can spend ki points to grant natural attacks special material/qualities (cold iron, silver, alignment etc), add common special abilities like grab, trip, swim, climb, scent, darkvision etc (eidolon evolutions might serve as a guideline here), gain additional natural attacks/supernatural abilities (gore, pounce, eye rays, breath weapon etc) or use metamorphosis (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/m/metamorphosis) (minor) (Thanks Prime32!)

Feedback greatly appreciated, especially on the melee control (Kyton Tyranny) idea!

georgie_leech

2013-10-15, 12:57 PM

Spellcraft is the skill used to craft all magical items, not Craft (Whatever), and Master Craftsman doesn't change that in the slightest.

And since Master Craftsman says this...

...not only does it cost you more up-front, but it needlessly restricts you further: either you cross-class Spellcraft, or you put points into an actual Craft skill and can only make melee weapons or ranged weapons or armor or a certain kind of wondrous item.

It's still an ability that Mundanes have access to if they really care about it. From a World-building perspective, it means ye olde smithe doesn't have to be an arch mage to make relevant weapons and armour. I'm not advocating for it on the grounds that it's the Best Thing EVER! (tm) but just that it tries to fill a niche that went unfilled before.

Again, one of the reasons people complained about the Magic/Not-Magic divide was that the Not-Magic side still needed Magical items to achieve basic competency in the numbers the game's math expects you to have. If that's something you care about, there's now an option to address that, however imperfectly.

Honestly, I'm fine with the individuals with the very forces of creation at their beck and call being able to, you know, create things better than Mundane skill. At least now rewriting reality isn't the only way to make decent equipment.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-15, 01:06 PM

Absolutely, from a world-building perspective it's a huge leap. Same sort of thing that Eberron did with the Magewright NPC class.

From a player perspective, though, it's a spectacularly poor failure to remedy an imbalanced situation.

upho

2013-10-15, 01:15 PM

...not only does it cost you more up-front, but it needlessly restricts you further: either you cross-class Spellcraft, or you put points into an actual Craft skill and can only make melee weapons or ranged weapons or armor or a certain kind of wondrous item.Thank you for spelling it out, FC. This is what I meant with "near-certain trap feat" and there being no mundane crafting option even remotely close to what caster have. Again, in the future I wouldn't mind seeing mundane class features or similar which brings crafting up to or above the level of casters, but I really don't think it should be high on a list of "measures to balance PF".

More importantly, crafting doesn't seem to fit with the PoW theme anyway, so is this really the proper place to discuss this further?

rollforeigninit

2013-10-15, 01:40 PM

I'm actually going to advocate for craft related archetypes. Assuming there are actual items being presented in PoW, it'd be a good way to showcase said items. Maybe bypass Master Craftsman altogether with a PoW specific feat specifying initiator level or something. Bonding a beloved weapon, making more of a martial script type item, who knows?

IronFist

2013-10-15, 04:45 PM

Alright, so... a thought for you all:

Fighters need a little love and a martial template. So we know they've got two sides to their class in Pathfinder: Bonus Feats, and Weapon/Armor Training. Veritably every archetype under the sun trades away the weapon/armor training stuff, and bravery. Rarely does it effect the bonus feats. I also think we can all agree that fighter archetypes makes fighter actually more fun to play than normal, because it lends new abilities to make your schtick work (firm believe that all fighters must have a schtick, something that they focus on doing). So what if my archetype for fighter, instead of attacking the same old features, instead, went after some bonus feats? Pay out 6 of your bonus feats, and maybe heavy armor and tower shields to basically get Martial Training 1-6 twice.

This gives your fighter maneuvers up to 6th level, some bonus feats, and the track of fighter's abilities that you could in theory trade for one of those flavorful archetypes.

Too strong? Too awesome? You decide.

-X
While that is a good idea, it's also something than can be done without an archetype at all. Just make Martial Training a combat feat (as it should be) and every Fighter can do that.
I'd much rather see the Fighter as a one-discipline initiator.

Ironfist: I was saying I disagree with it not being Path of War related, since I got the vibe that a decent chunk of the design goal of Path of War as to give Melee/Mundanes Nice Things.

As far as I know, Path of War is about combat and martial arts, not "giving melee nive things". I don't think it's related at all.

Metahuman1

2013-10-15, 05:12 PM

As far as I know, Path of War is about combat and martial arts, not "giving melee nive things". I don't think it's related at all.

Even then, isn't "personal weapon of master So-and-so/weapon crafted by elite master So-and-So of Such-and-Such style/system/technique" a staple of Martial arts/Wuxia myth and legend? A fairly major Genera feature?

And what about this for the fighter Archatype:

Give them the ability to ALWAYS know all maneuvers of one style, chosen when they take the archetype, of an initiator equal to there fighter level.

For example, a fighter with this archatype chooses Thrashing Dragon. At third level, he knows all the first and second level maneuvers of that school, and is treated as a Stalker of 3rd level for the purpose of highest level known.

At 5th, he's treated as a 5th level Stalker for highest level known, and knows all the 1st, 2nd and 3rd level maneuvers.

How many feats you make them trade in to get this should also determine how many of these can be readied, and if it's a separate pool form one's they might gain with Martial Training (Which would be what I'd advise cause hey, hurting versatility on a fighter is just a bad design move.).

Maybe let them change the school and as a consequence, all there known maneuvers form the archatype, say, every 5 levels? That way if they make a choice and for some reason it isn't working with the game style there GM is running/the tactics the rest of the party are favoring, they aren't just so out of luck.

Lord_Gareth

2013-10-15, 05:19 PM

As far as I know, Path of War is about combat and martial arts, not "giving melee nive things". I don't think it's related at all.

I'm gonna have to say that I don't agree. Paizo may be comfortable with telling melee characters, "You don't get to participate in this fight," but as a rule we aren't. Maneuvers give a lot of things that melee's been missing, it's true, but there are some universal problems that they just can't/don't solve, and frankly I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tired of being punished because he didn't want to play a spellcaster. There are a lot of very classical enemies that resonate with powerful fantasy themes - that melee isn't allowed to fight. Evil priests, insane wizards, demons, devils, the undead - the list goes on and on and on of Things What You Cannot Slay.

No, we're not going to address all of melee's problems, because frankly at the end of the day our job is not to fix the system; our job is to give gentle, affordable options to help melee concepts of any class feel heroic. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Sith_Happens

2013-10-15, 05:20 PM

While that is a good idea, it's also something than can be done without an archetype at all. Just make Martial Training a combat feat (as it should be) and every Fighter can do that.

If you look again carefully, you'll notice that the archetype as suggested by ErrantX would net two Martial Trainings per bonus feat slot traded.

Metahuman1

2013-10-15, 05:58 PM

IronFist

2013-10-15, 06:10 PM

I'm gonna have to say that I don't agree. Paizo may be comfortable with telling melee characters, "You don't get to participate in this fight," but as a rule we aren't. Maneuvers give a lot of things that melee's been missing, it's true, but there are some universal problems that they just can't/don't solve, and frankly I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tired of being punished because he didn't want to play a spellcaster. There are a lot of very classical enemies that resonate with powerful fantasy themes - that melee isn't allowed to fight. Evil priests, insane wizards, demons, devils, the undead - the list goes on and on and on of Things What You Cannot Slay.

No, we're not going to address all of melee's problems, because frankly at the end of the day our job is not to fix the system; our job is to give gentle, affordable options to help melee concepts of any class feel heroic. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. I'm saying PoW is advertised as an OGL ToB and that crafting magical items has nothing to do with it. I'd much rather you spend time and energy making PoW-related stuff than trying to fix something I don't think is broken. In fact, that's the vibe I get from the Pathfinder fanbase as well.
Basically, what I meant is that I thought PoW was an OGL ToB. If it is not, if it is indeed a "book where we fix melee because everyone was doing it wrong before us", please let me know and I'll drop out of this thread forever.

If you look again carefully, you'll notice that the archetype as suggested by ErrantX would net two Martial Trainings per bonus feat slot traded.
Ah, that is a lot better.
Still would prefer the "one discipline" Fighter, though.

Even then, isn't "personal weapon of master So-and-so/weapon crafted by elite master So-and-So of Such-and-Such style/system/technique" a staple of Martial arts/Wuxia myth and legend? A fairly major Genera feature?
That is perfectly covered by Master Craftsman. It has been said before, Master Craftsman works perfectly for worldbuilding purposes - now badass blacksmith can make the badass weapon. It's only a problem if you want to play the badass blacksmith and be as good at fighting as someone who did not spend half their like making weapons.
Or you could play a Soulknife.

Metahuman1

2013-10-15, 06:32 PM

Um, I don't think 1-3 archatypes out of, by the time were done making them, 3 base classes, who knows how many magic items/properties/monsters/, a new subsystem, and what is shaping up to be a MASSIVE list of Other, unrelated and half or more the time unstack able Archatypes and/or Prestige classes, is a reason to bow out.

Just leave those three archatypes alone, let what ever happens with them happen, and then, work on other things you like better would be my though on the easy way to handle it.

Elricaltovilla

2013-10-15, 06:56 PM

Metahuman1

2013-10-15, 08:21 PM

I think the warlord could benefit from a crafting based archetype. He'd be the leader who outfits and maintains his allies equipment.

Give him a scaling bonus to craft skills, the ability to modify enchantments on equipment on the cheap and a pool of virtual gp like the Pathfinder PRC's deep pockets ability. Call him the Supply Sergeant or Quartermaster or Warsmith.

Let the regular warlord lead from the front with charm and smiles, this is the guy who actually wins battles because he's the one who stays up all night making sure all the archers had an extra +1 slaying arrow in their quivers.

The Warder could get away with it too by being the guy who "Trusts his life to his tools, because he put his own tears, sweat, blood, knowledge, skill and soul into making them exactly as he needed them to be.".

The Stalker similarly could do this on the grounds of "The cunning and insightful warrior leaves little to chance, preferring whenever possible to have and use the best tool for the task at hand when planning to begin combat, or to have it handy when combat is brought to him."

upho

2013-10-15, 09:10 PM

First, it seems to me the posters here have different definitions of the word "theme" when used in this context (a RPG supplement). Personally, I believe "theme" refers to the common descriptive denominator of the content (Ultimate Magic has magic, especially caster, PC options as it's theme, Ultimate Psionic has psionic options etc). And though a theme often may be reflected in mechanics (a supplement with a fire theme would likely have lots stuff doing fire damage), there's nothing that prevents wildly different mechanics of wildly different effectiveness to share a theme and end up in the same supplement.

So "giving nice stuff (effective mechanics)" or "improving balance" isn't a theme according to me, while "fantasy martial art a la ToB" definitely is. Or to put it in other words, if the top priority or main goal of a supplement was "give effective mechanical options to mundanes", it probably wouldn't be wise to give it a theme more narrow than "non-caster options", full stop.

No, we're not going to address all of melee's problems, because frankly at the end of the day our job is not to fix the system; our job is to give gentle, affordable options to help melee concepts of any class feel heroic. And there's nothing wrong with that.This is a very noble goal. When it comes to the options in PoW, I'm guessing there's a few changes to that goal, perhaps something like:

"present ToB-themed PC classes and give gentle, affordable and thematically suitable options to help non-caster concepts of any class feel heroic"

Please let me know if my guess is wrong.

I'm saying PoW is advertised as an OGL ToB and that crafting magical items has nothing to do with it. I'd much rather you spend time and energy making PoW-related stuff than trying to fix something I don't think is broken. In fact, that's the vibe I get from the Pathfinder fanbase as well.This. (If "thing that doesn't need fixing" refers to crafting for non-casters.)

It has been said before, Master Craftsman works perfectly for worldbuilding purposes - now badass blacksmith can make the badass weapon. It's only a problem if you want to play the badass blacksmith and be as good at fighting as someone who did not spend half their like making weapons.
Or you could play a Soulknife.And this. Thank you IronFist. Having powerful/varied/fun options for non-casters that improve class balance is great, but the options in PoW should also be thematically suitable. Crafting isn't IMO (and doesn't do much to improve balance either). Please put away that Soulknife, you may accidentally hurt PoW...

Lord_Gareth

2013-10-15, 09:16 PM

So "giving nice stuff (effective mechanics)" or "improving balance" isn't a theme according to me, while "fantasy martial art a la ToB" definitely is. Or to put it in other words, if the top priority or main goal of a supplement was "give effective mechanical options to mundanes", it probably wouldn't be wise to give it a theme more narrow than "non-caster options", full stop.

This is a very noble goal. When it comes to the options in PoW, I'm guessing there's a few changes to that goal, perhaps something like:

"present ToB-themed PC classes and give gentle, affordable and thematically suitable options to help non-caster concepts of any class feel heroic"

Please let me know if my guess is wrong.

Well, it's not as right as it could be. There's nothing stopping spellcasters from using some of the options available here. I can think of clerics who wouldn't mind Martial Training, for example (hell, I'd use it as one-two - enhance a theme for my priest and self-nerf!). But it's true that Path of War is for "mundanes" to a great extent and I'm certainly not deliberately throwing spellcasters any bones.

Well...okay, two spells. But you'll be happy when you see why I made them.

upho

2013-10-16, 12:33 AM

Well, it's not as right as it could be. There's nothing stopping spellcasters from using some of the options available here.That's why I kept the "for any class" at the end, meaning non-caster options for everybody, including casters and their mums! :smallbiggrin:
Eh... Well yes, see your point. Not exactly crystal clear wording, perhaps... :smallredface: But I thought "melee" or "mundane" would be off since PoW will obviously include plenty of ranged and psionic options.

Anyhow, my main point was that the ToB theme means certain options (like crafting) don't belong in PoW, regardless of whether they empower mundane classes (which crafting doesn't, particularly).

I can think of clerics who wouldn't mind Martial Training, for example (hell, I'd use it as one-two - enhance a theme for my priest and self-nerf!).The one-two nerf is definitely not a bad idea. Should result in a build with plenty of interesting and effective options in combat, while keeping the worst casting shenanigans from stealing the show. Still powerful, but thankfully miles behind to the old cleric go-to in ToB, the Ruby Knight Vindicator: 90% initiator, 90% caster, 100% overpowered... :smallyuk:

Too bad it's unlikely I'll ever find a similar easy nerf for the vanilla summoner I'm currently struggling to keep from stomping all over his tier 3 companions.

But it's true that Path of War is for "mundanes" to a great extent and I'm certainly not deliberately throwing spellcasters any bones.Good to hear you're keeping your focus and don't let those cheap caster options distract you!

Speaking of empowering mundanes, did you check out my melee control discipline / warden archetype idea (post #20)? It's basically about controlling the battlefield with melee maneuvers that have much more in common with spells like Black Tentacles, Force Cage and Web than the all too common brainless mundane "swing weapon to deal damage, repeat"-style. I'd really love to see such a flexible, tactically interesting and unorthodox combat style made available in PoW.

Well...okay, two spells. But you'll be happy when you see why I made them.What?! Stuff for the Dark Side? That'll make me happy...? Dusty, ancient-looking scroll on a string to lure wizards into melee reach? Seriously though, now I'm intrigued!

JHShadon

2013-10-16, 01:00 AM

Dusty, ancient-looking scroll on a string to lure wizards into melee reach?
...I'm going to do this one day.

upho

2013-10-16, 01:58 AM

...I'm going to do this one day.Better not keep that day waiting. Otherwise the wizard might've put his gnarly old hands on a copy of PoW and already invested his ill-gotten XP in a couple of those tasty "melee options for anybody". In which case he might slap you silly with books or throw his dangerously pointed hat at you... :smallbiggrin:

Metahuman1

2013-10-16, 02:30 AM

Better not keep that day waiting. Otherwise the wizard might've put his gnarly old hands on a copy of PoW and already invested his ill-gotten XP in a couple of those tasty "melee options for anybody". In which case he might slap you silly with books or throw his dangerously pointed hat at you... :smallbiggrin:

...

I am suddenly compelled to play Knowledge Monkey warrior who uses a stupidly big book in a Riverine protective travel case to bludgeon his foes into submission/to death.

Person_Man

2013-10-16, 08:12 AM

Alright, so... a thought for you all:

Fighters need a little love and a martial template. So we know they've got two sides to their class in Pathfinder: Bonus Feats, and Weapon/Armor Training. Veritably every archetype under the sun trades away the weapon/armor training stuff, and bravery. Rarely does it effect the bonus feats. I also think we can all agree that fighter archetypes makes fighter actually more fun to play than normal, because it lends new abilities to make your schtick work (firm believe that all fighters must have a schtick, something that they focus on doing). So what if my archetype for fighter, instead of attacking the same old features, instead, went after some bonus feats? Pay out 6 of your bonus feats, and maybe heavy armor and tower shields to basically get Martial Training 1-6 twice.

This gives your fighter maneuvers up to 6th level, some bonus feats, and the track of fighter's abilities that you could in theory trade for one of those flavorful archetypes.

Too strong? Too awesome? You decide.

-X

I have another alternative for you to consider. Just write more cool Feats, and limit them to Fighters of a certain level (like Weapon Specialization et al). That way, they can just be chosen by any Fighter, and can be more easily mixed and matched together, without the fuss of Archetype progression (having to choose certain Archetype abilities you don't want in order to get ones you do want, and not being able to select Archetypes that overlap by trading out the same class ability at the same level).

Elricaltovilla

2013-10-16, 09:11 AM

The Warder could get away with it too by being the guy who "Trusts his life to his tools, because he put his own tears, sweat, blood, knowledge, skill and soul into making them exactly as he needed them to be.".

The Stalker similarly could do this on the grounds of "The cunning and insightful warrior leaves little to chance, preferring whenever possible to have and use the best tool for the task at hand when planning to begin combat, or to have it handy when combat is brought to him."

Yes, all three of them could potentially have a crafting based archetype. But I thought of the warlord first because he has the teamwork focus, so the advantage of a crafting archetype benefits not just him, but also his teammates.

Alright, so... a thought for you all:

Fighters need a little love and a martial template. So we know they've got two sides to their class in Pathfinder: Bonus Feats, and Weapon/Armor Training. Veritably every archetype under the sun trades away the weapon/armor training stuff, and bravery. Rarely does it effect the bonus feats. I also think we can all agree that fighter archetypes makes fighter actually more fun to play than normal, because it lends new abilities to make your schtick work (firm believe that all fighters must have a schtick, something that they focus on doing). So what if my archetype for fighter, instead of attacking the same old features, instead, went after some bonus feats? Pay out 6 of your bonus feats, and maybe heavy armor and tower shields to basically get Martial Training 1-6 twice.

This gives your fighter maneuvers up to 6th level, some bonus feats, and the track of fighter's abilities that you could in theory trade for one of those flavorful archetypes.

Too strong? Too awesome? You decide.

-X

I think it could be a very good combination, especially since it lets you combine with other good archetypes (like Lore Warden). However, as the popular concept of fighter is "guy what fights good" being limited to 6th level maneuvers in only 3 disciplines is going to feel underwhelming compared to the more focused themes, wider variety of disciplines and higher level maneuvers of the three new base classes.

It's definitely throwing the fighter a bone (and a big meaty one at that), but it makes him more like a Martial Magus instead of a Focused Specialist Wizard.

Maybe give the fighter something unique like the ability to ready a maneuver more than once? That would be something only he can do.

ErrantX

2013-10-16, 09:22 AM

Elricaltovilla

2013-10-16, 09:48 AM

I feel the need to address some things.

1) I'm not planning on any kind of revolutionizing of the item crafting system for martial disciples; Master Craftsman is just fine, or make friends with a spellcaster. Magic items usually require a magic-user to make, and I'm okay with that largely, as it forces spellcasters to drop valuable feat slots into that sort of behavior. Otherwise, Master Craftsman for the win. There will be magical items and such in this book, but I'm not planning on new Item Creation feats and crazy new methods of magic item generation. I'm not there yet though, so it could change but I'm not making plans. The current system works well enough. I think we're getting crazy off topic with debating it as well.

I realize you're not out to revolutionize the system and make everything totally awesome and balanced, but if you don't want us to get excited about possibilities and jump the gun like this, then you shouldn't be putting out such good material! :smallbiggrin:

2) I am also not 100% on the idea that I had mentioned regarding a fighter archetype. It was something I was kicking around in my head. I did a progression up for it and it looks decent, gets a fair number of maneuvers at a reasonable rate. It net 14 known, 8 readied, 5 stances and 6th level maneuvers by level 16 with trades at 5th level and every 3 levels after. I'm going to play around with it, but I'm not 100% on the idea.

I think it's a viable archetype. Like I said, it feels like the Martial equivalent to a Magus, and I LOVE the Magus. But the Magus has extra abilities to make up for its restricted spellcasting, so I think that your fighter archetype could benefit from something a little extra to make up for loss of maneuvers.

3) In place of a fighter archetype, a pile of feats may work as well, but it seems a bit off to go and make archetypes for the others and not have a maneuver granting archetype for fighter, ya know?

Just some thoughts of mine.

-X

I think you should add a pile of feats in addition to archetypes for fighters, rangers, paladins, barbarians, etc.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-10-16, 10:17 AM

Well...okay, two spells. But you'll be happy when you see why I made them.

Caster Supremacy Field
School Universal; Sorcerer/Wizard 1, Bard 1, Magus 1, Cleric/Oracle 1, Druid 1, Paladin 1, Ranger 1
Casting Time 1 Standard Action
Components V
Range 10 miles/level burst
Duration 1 year/level

Within the radius of this spell's effect, all initiating of maneuvers and stances becomes impossible, as well as all manifesting of psionic powers, and the effects of all previously initiated maneuvers and stances and all previously manifested psionic powers are suppressed for the duration of the spell. All attack rolls made within the area automatically fail, unless the roll is made as part of casting a spell, or activating a spell-like ability.

ErrantX

2013-10-16, 10:29 AM

I realize you're not out to revolutionize the system and make everything totally awesome and balanced, but if you don't want us to get excited about possibilities and jump the gun like this, then you shouldn't be putting out such good material! :smallbiggrin:

Aww shucks! :smallredface: I'll make sure the rest sucks from here on out :smallbiggrin: j/k

I think it's a viable archetype. Like I said, it feels like the Martial equivalent to a Magus, and I LOVE the Magus. But the Magus has extra abilities to make up for its restricted spellcasting, so I think that your fighter archetype could benefit from something a little extra to make up for loss of maneuvers.

That's kind of why I was leaving it up to Bravery and Weapon Training/Armor Training to shore up stuff, or by trading that stuff out for new abilities through archetypes. Very customized fighter then. And I'll argue that maneuvers are just as useful if not more so than a bonus feat.

I think you should add a pile of feats in addition to archetypes for fighters, rangers, paladins, barbarians, etc.

Well, yeah :smalltongue:

-X

Elricaltovilla

2013-10-16, 10:30 AM

Caster Supremacy Field
School Universal; Sorcerer/Wizard 1, Bard 1, Magus 1, Cleric/Oracle 1, Druid 1, Paladin 1, Ranger 1
Casting Time 1 Standard Action
Components V
Range 10 miles/level burst
Duration 1 year/level

Within the radius of this spell's effect, all initiating of maneuvers and stances becomes impossible, as well as all manifesting of psionic powers, and the effects of all previously initiated maneuvers and stances and all previously manifested psionic powers are suppressed for the duration of the spell. All attack rolls made within the area automatically fail, unless the roll is made as part of casting a spell, or activating a spell-like ability, in which case the roll is treated as a natural 20 and automatically confirms a critical hit. In addition, any damage rolls associated with spells are maximized, empowered, intensified (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/intensified-spell-metamagic) (to the maximum possible benefit of the caster) without increasing casting time or level of the spell.

Fixed that for you. It wasn't powerful enough for a caster.:smalltongue:

ErrantX

2013-10-16, 10:32 AM

Caster Supremacy Field
School Universal; Sorcerer/Wizard 1, Bard 1, Magus 1, Cleric/Oracle 1, Druid 1, Paladin 1, Ranger 1
Casting Time 1 Standard Action
Components V
Range 10 miles/level burst
Duration 1 year/level

Within the radius of this spell's effect, all initiating of maneuvers and stances becomes impossible, as well as all manifesting of psionic powers, and the effects of all previously initiated maneuvers and stances and all previously manifested psionic powers are suppressed for the duration of the spell. All attack rolls made within the area automatically fail, unless the roll is made as part of casting a spell, or activating a spell-like ability.

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/128/b/2/ha_ha_get_out__by_wolf_shadow77-d3fujm9.png

This is why we can't have nice things.

-X

Elricaltovilla

2013-10-16, 10:37 AM

I Win Button
School Universal; Sorcerer/Wizard 0, Bard 0, Magus 0, Cleric/Oracle 0, Druid 0, Paladin 1, Ranger 1, Summoner 0
Casting Time 1 Free Action
Components
Range Personal
Duration Instantaneous

When this spell is cast, the next time the caster attempts any action it automatically succeeds to the maximum possible benefit of the caster. If the caster does not perform any action following the casting of this spell, they may hold the charge indefinitely.

Person_Man

2013-10-16, 01:03 PM

RE: Fighter Archetype

I like the idea of adding new Fighter only Feats AND Archetypes. The more we can help out low Tier classes, the better.

And upon further consideration, I'd like to add a caveat to my previous post. I think there's a semi-clever piece of design space you could explore with a Fighter Archetype and bonus Feats, that could move the Fighter up to Tier 3.

Add a bunch of Feats that require a minimum Fighter level, that allow you to do something really cool, but only once per day. (Or some other similar hard limit, like once per point of Strength or Constitution bonus, 1 + 1/4 your Fighter class level, etc). Check the Knight Champion in my signature for a long list of such options.

Now add an Archetype that allows a Fighter to choose new Fighter Bonus Feats after 5 minutes of rest/training/focus/etc. (And maybe you give up Tower Shield Proficiency and your 2nd level bonus Feat, or some similar minor Feat related trade off).

Shazam! People who want the old Fighter get to continue using the old Fighter. Anyone who likes any of the old Archetypes, which trade off non-Bonus Feat abilities, can continue to use them. Fighter gets a bunch of new Fighter only Feat options. And the Fighter can swap out those options in between combats, giving him his own "thing" - a play style somewhere in between old Fighter and Tome of Battle, where you get to do cool things, but without having to track Recovery during combat.

If you want to make the class even more flexible, specify that if you loose and regain a Fighter Bonus Feat within a day, it also resets any daily uses or other similar limitations imposed by the Feat. (Which also ends up making a bunch of Monk Feats useful to the Fighter, and it makes a Monk/Fighter a viable option). Or if you prefer to encourage players to use a wider variety of different Feats, specify that it does not reset daily uses or other similar limitations.

Metahuman1

2013-10-16, 01:07 PM

So here's a though for a general theme for some archatypes.

What about a batch of them for different classes that have the unifying effect of getting the martal types down to 1 or 2 needed stats?

Archatypes that will automatically get the class to only need Con and one other stat (And Con really only for HP.).?

On of the big weak points of martial types seems to be they all either need to invest a lot of reasorces into reducing attribute dependency, or they need to boost a lot of attributes. So, that would maybe be helpful on that front? Just a though?

MightyPirate

2013-10-16, 02:13 PM

Gotta agree with the fighter retraining idea. Feat flexibility is one of the most powerful things I've seen floating around Pathfinder (Paragon Surge is frightening) and I'm okay with the fighter getting the ability to make all or even just some of these feats into variable feats. He should probably give up a quantity of them so it doesn't necessarily become the only way to play a fighter though.

Would a fighter giving up 6 bonus feats for the martial training tree while being able to reassign favored discipline and known maneuvers/stances be too powerful? It seems a decent mix of the two ideas without really drastically changing the core fighter as much as fully variable feats.

I'd still limit him to disciplines with an associated weapon for which he has weapon training; although looking at it it seems some categories would allow more flexibility than others. This is a little distressing for a Solar Wind fighter.

I'm not sure making initiators less dependent on a variety of abilities is the way to go. I remember playing a swordsage who could add strength and dexterity to damage via shadow blade and wisdom as well on certain strikes. I'm not saying that this is balanced but getting moderate value out of being a little MAD was kind of a first for me and not an unwelcome one at that.

It's similar to how a paladin doesn't suffer as much from being dependent on charisma because it doesn't just fuel lay on hands and spells, it also helps his to hit and saves via smite and divine grace. The core Path of War classes handed this pretty nicely.

It is however a little puzzling that initiators using martial training key off of wisdom, charisma, or dexterity unlike the wisdom, charisma, intelligence of the core classes. There are so few maneuvers that end up keying off of dexterity I don't think it really matters. It's just kind of confusing is all.

Beowulf DW

2013-10-16, 07:32 PM

Personally, I'm fine with the idea of a martial fighter (can't believe it took a third party archetype for me to say that seriously) that gives up Bonus Feats for maneuvers for the sake of combining with the weapon style archetypes. I like it, I feel that it's balanced, and it maintains the...modular(?) feel that the fighter has when it comes to how he/she fights. Though I think maybe Bravery should be replaced with something to give the maneuvers/boosts/stances the fighter uses a bit more oomph, in keeping with the specialist feel Errant was going for. By that rationale, the martial fighter, who chose to specialize, should be able to do a maneuver at least a bit better than a crusader or warlord using the same maneuver at the same level.

upho

2013-10-17, 02:17 AM

I agree with Beowulf, it's fine.

I find it hard to see how the on the fly-retraining of free combat feats would be anyway near as powerful as Paragon Surge can be, because:

this would be limited to combat feats, which
tend to eat a lot of slots before having any significant impact on combat,
often come with pesky bab/stat prerequisites, which means
a fighter often have to plan his general combat feat progression from level one and is rewarded for having a narrow focus, so less easily changeable stuff (like items, stats or the friendly caster's buff) will further limit effective options
.
I guess in nearly all cases, the most powerful thing this would enable is the retraining of maneuvers and stances, and that can be built into the other class feature.

But a feature which allowed the retraining of a small number of predefined feats as a move or swift action, that could actually make a real difference. Perhaps limiting the options to one alternative feat per level when a free feat is gained, creating a kind of "feats known" list... A Featbook! :smalltongue: That would, for example, enable the fighter to charge and trip an opponent in round one, grapple and hog-tie it in round two, and switch back into "trip mode" in round three. And since it wouldn't remove or lessen any of the limitations I listed above, it could definitely be held in check through uses/day and the limited number of options in the Featbook.

Perhaps also providing a few options (feats, naturally) allowing for some specialisation:
"Fast Feat" (switch one feat as a free action x times/day), "Triggered Feat" (automatic feat switch with predefined trigger), "Combined Switch" (another specific swift action to be included in the feat switch, allowing for example quick draw changing of weapons), and of course the obligatory "Expanded Featbook" and "Extra Feat Switches".

On a related note, isn't there something to be done about all these stinking slot-filler combat feats fighters are supposed to build their prowess on? Can PoW reserve a few feet (of space) for clean optional replacements or something? Just imagine a world where the old smelly "X - improved X - greater X" feats have been replaced by less than half as many fresh ones with level-dependent benefits! Well, the clean feat is just a dream, I guess... :smallsigh:

ErrantX

2013-10-17, 02:53 AM

On a related note, isn't there something to be done about all these stinking slot-filler combat feats fighters are supposed to build their prowess on? Can PoW reserve a few feet (of space) for clean optional replacements or something? Just imagine a world where the old smelly "X - improved X - greater X" feats have been replaced by less than half as many fresh ones with level-dependent benefits! Well, the clean feat is just a dream, I guess... :smallsigh:

Dangit upho, I'm a game designer, not a miracle worker! /mccoyvoice

I am changing tactics on the fighter archetype. I've got ideas. Stay tuned; archetypes are being worked out. My plan is to go and get my archetypes sorted out and release a big packet of em, maybe two.

-X

MightyPirate

2013-10-17, 10:25 AM

Can't wait for the rogue archetype. I'm sick of other classes being able to do what he does but better. Switching out trapfinding/trap sense for a minor skill bonus and a list of "recommended" talents does not a good archetype make. :smallmad:

Just stumbled on the swordmaster archetype for tengu, his trance ability is a remarkably dumbed down version of the flexible feat. Takes a full round to switch around but it finally give rogues a psuedo pounce option and it even stacks with scout for charge sneaking.

upho

2013-10-17, 01:36 PM

Dangit upho, I'm a game designer, not a miracle worker! /mccoyvoiceHa, ha very funny!
Wait... You're being serious, aren't you? You're actually telling me it's not the same thing? :smallconfused:
...
Oh no! Are you saying you're (coincidentally) not the real McCoy, a bad game designer and that you've just been pretending all this time?! :smalleek:

@everybody else: No, now look here, guys... Please... Awww! Yes, I know, it hurts me too! But at least we found out about it before the book got out, right?

Wipe your tears now and listen to me: I'm gonna have a little IRL chat with the boss, Andreas, and tell him exactly what has happened here. He doesn't live very far from me, after all. Hmm... Maybe also talk to him about his HR strategy...

Yes, I'm sure he'll listen, he actually cares about us, you know! And he's probably also a victim here and I'm sure he'll thank us for letting him know. Right?

I am changing tactics on the fighter archetype. I've got ideas. Stay tuned; archetypes are being worked out. My plan is to go and get my archetypes sorted out and release a big packet of em, maybe two.

-XSounds great! And please, please tell me there'll be something in there allowing a non-caster to focus on control (and defense) without crippling his usefulness!

johnnyripper

2013-10-20, 09:46 AM

So for the psychic warrior archetype were you thinking of adding different discipline for different warrior paths?

And please tell me there will be a prestige class that will combine the psychic warrior and stalker.

rollforeigninit

2013-10-20, 10:15 AM

Metahuman1

2013-10-20, 10:23 AM

upho

2013-10-20, 06:19 PM

Though for an archatype:

What about one that let's you preform more maneuvers when someone attacks and/or hits you?

Flavor it as a warrior who favors counter attacking as a tactic. One who waits for his opponent to swing, and in doing so by necessity come out of a full guard position, and then try's to capitalize on it.Uhm... Why?

Without another mechanic to benefit from the resulting enemy behavior, it seems like a waste. I mean this has a similar result as a high durability (high defenses/tons of HP/self-healing etc) has - enemies are discouraged from attacking you and will probably go for easier targets like your squishy wizard instead. And since low durability isn't exactly the primary weakness of warrior classes, this would only increase the likelihood of this archetype having to run around chasing the enemy who, in turn, attacks party members with low durability. Which is the exact opposite of what you usually would like the enemy to do (stand still and waste attacks on your high durability while ignoring your squishy friends).

But let's say this archetype also had a mechanic which hindered enemies trying to move away or attacking allies, then there would be a real point to having the "immediate maneuvers" feature. Otherwise, you're unlikely to see any benefits, especially in the form of increased damage output, improved action economy or, notably, better party survivability. So I guess there might be some use for this feature for a very defender focused Warden archetype perhaps, because that's the only class in the entire game with at least a modicum of the necessary "hit me"-mechanics to balance this and which thus might be able to put the enemy in a lose-lose situation.

On top of this, the disciplines already contain several counters, many of them having this exact function (discouraging/punishing attacks targeting you), and many of the strikes wouldn't work well as triggered actions.

Or did I misunderstand your idea?

Metahuman1

2013-10-20, 06:48 PM

Uhm... Why?

Without another mechanic to benefit from the resulting enemy behavior, it seems like a waste. I mean this has a similar result as a high durability (high defenses/tons of HP/self-healing etc) has - enemies are discouraged from attacking you and will probably go for easier targets like your squishy wizard instead. And since low durability isn't exactly the primary weakness of warrior classes, this would only increase the likelihood of this archetype having to run around chasing the enemy who, in turn, attacks party members with low durability. Which is the exact opposite of what you usually would like the enemy to do (stand still and waste attacks on your high durability while ignoring your squishy friends).

But let's say this archetype also had a mechanic which hindered enemies trying to move away or attacking allies, then there would be a real point to having the "immediate maneuvers" feature. Otherwise, you're unlikely to see any benefits, especially in the form of increased damage output, improved action economy or, notably, better party survivability. So I guess there might be some use for this feature for a very defender focused Warden archetype perhaps, because that's the only class in the entire game with at least a modicum of the necessary "hit me"-mechanics to balance this and thus might be able put the enemy in a lose-lose situation.

And on top of this, the disciplines already contain several counters, many of them having this exact function (discouraging/punishing attacks targeting you), and many of the strikes wouldn't work well as triggered actions.

Or did I misunderstand your idea?

No, I don't think you did. A mechanic to pursue opponents that try to flee once they figure out attacking you is costly/risky might well be needed.

And it's less about deterring the attacks as saying "You swing at me, and it will cost you dearly." as it's a not terribly well represented fighting style in Pathfinder to my knowledge.

This annoys me cause it's a fighting style I've notice I tend to gravitate toward.

upho

2013-10-20, 11:33 PM

No, I don't think you did. A mechanic to pursue opponents that try to flee once they figure out attacking you is costly/risky might well be needed.

And it's less about deterring the attacks as saying "You swing at me, and it will cost you dearly." as it's a not terribly well represented fighting style in Pathfinder to my knowledge.I don't really understand the difference. "Deterring attacks" is a result than can be achieved through, or a side effect of, numerous different mechanics. The most effective such mechanic typically being counter attacks or some other form of direct punishment, ie precisely "You swing at me, and it will cost you dearly."

Less effective deterrents are usually either mechanics boosting relative durability in some way or simply a side effect of poor offense (not being enough of a threat).

This annoys me cause it's a fighting style I've notice I tend to gravitate toward.OK, but how do you make that style work? What's the incentive for a monster to keep on trying to get a taste of you, despite being punished for it, having relatively poor chances of succeeding and there typically being nothing you can do to stop it from munching on the tender wizard instead? IOW, how are you supposed to either trigger your punishment frequently enough or capitalize on the threat of it?

As is, I'd say you'd sure have to wiggle one damn good-smelling tasty-looking piece of tail if the monster is even to consider you - a dish both likely to rip it's tongue out and that comes in annoying consumer unfriendly metal packaging - before that deliciously soft and easily swallowed appetizer served in colorful napkins beside you... If you're not, this feature is near pointless: the trigger won't happen frequently, and its threat/deterrent effect will simply be counter-productive for the party. To increase the incentive to attack you, I can think of a few options, for example:

Be perceived by the enemy as a more dire and immediate threat to their existence than anyone or anything else on the battlefield (for example by consistently being able to singlehandedly kill an enemy of CR=your level in the opening round, being the source of more than half of your party's total damage output).
Be perceived as considerably more squishy than your allies, but dangerous if not dealt with (by, uh, spending your durability items budget on your allies or other deliberate self-nerfing?)
Punish enemies attacking allies even more severely (by being a warden with super-boosted defender features/maneuvers/stances)
Hinder/remove the enemy's option to attempt an attack on someone other than you, ie control (again by being a boosted warden)
Buff nearby allies' durability through the roof (probably by being a caster, or possibly super-boosted buffing WL or warden)

Again, I'd recommend focusing on the warden defender features (definitely not option #2!), but I seriously doubt they can be balanced with this strong "don't hit-me" feature without also making the archetype OP. And again, the disciplines already include several counters.

Instead, I think PoW should first try making the opposite "hit me" defender features/mechanics easily available and viable focuses for other classes, especially the more "tanky" durable ones like fighters and pallys.

ErrantX

2013-10-25, 02:43 AM

Alright, first of a couple of new things to come up.

This here (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=37160.html) is part 1 of the fruits of Lord_Gareth's labors working with myself on the Path of War. Three organizations and two new disciplines. Give it a look over!

More to come soon, I'm almost finished with the archetypes.

-X

IronFist

2013-10-25, 03:27 AM

Big Fau

2013-10-25, 12:21 PM

ErrantX

2013-10-25, 01:01 PM

An idea: Have the first tier of the Martial Training feats grant that discipline's key skill as a class skill. The difference between CS and CCS in PF is negligible, and it would encourage using those skills (especially when the maneuvers call for it).

That is already the case. It's the second sentence in the benefits section. :smallbiggrin:

-X

IronFist

2013-10-25, 01:02 PM

An idea: Have the first tier of the Martial Training feats grant that discipline's key skill as a class skill. The difference between CS and CCS in PF is negligible, and it would encourage using those skills (especially when the maneuvers call for it).

+1 to this. The Fighter archetype could grant a scaling bonus to discipline skills, as well.

No wait, that's probably better on the Rogue/Ranger archetype.

Big Fau

2013-10-25, 01:11 PM

That is already the case. It's the second sentence in the benefits section. :smallbiggrin:

-X

Huh, must have missed that.

ErrantX

2013-10-25, 01:11 PM

I like what I see, but I really hope you find something better than "mechanical oath" to call oath effects.

I have a few notes, though:

- I take it Scarlet Throne is no longer a default discipline for any class?
- I don't think all of Black Seraph should do evil damage. Some of it seems pretty mundane, actually (say, Gutstrike).
- Strength of Hell (Black Seraph 1) says it increases power "at the cost of defense", but there are no penalties associated.
- Seraph's Wrath (Black Seraph 2): "causes the target to make a Reflex save (DC 12 + primary initiator attribute) to not be knocked back 5ft." I think "Reflex save or be knocked back" sounds a bit better.
- Unfettered Progression (Black Seraph 3): Can't it eat only your 5-ft step, instead of both your 5-ft step and your swift action? I mean, Crane Step is a level 1 stance and it's better in all ways.
- Devastating Riposte (Black Seraph 7): Similar to the other one, why does it cost both an immediate action and an attack of opportunity?
- Love Inner Demon Strike, Shadow Feather Strike, Sensory Rip, Razor Wings of the Black Seraph (though it could easily be Razor Wing Stance), Black Seraph's Wrath, Charge of the Ravager!

Guys, come on: "the disciple may hurl his wrath at a target with a blade of cutting hate". This is amazing. I tip my hat to you.
Will comment on Silver Crane later.

EDIT: Currently considering using a Dread NPC with Black Seraph as a recurring villain.
EDIT 2: Which artists are being considered for PoW, btw?

After a great deal of thought, why can warlords be the only one who knows how to fight with a single weapon? That being said, Scarlet Throne for anyone. It's updated as well; it has two notable changes. It drops light blades in favor of Spears and Scarlet Einhander is now Scarlet Zweihander because most people using it, honestly, are fighting two handed.
The discipline carries the evil descriptor on it because the disciple is infused with liquid evil. While the maneuver may not specifically do evil-aligned damage, it does get permeated with your evil.
That's... a mistake. I'll fix that.
And that's also better. Yoink.
And you're right here, I'll fix that.
Honestly, it was late and I don't remember leaving that part in there about the AoO, I thought I cut that one. I'll fix it.
Glad you like the rest of it! Thanks for the go-over! I'm looking forward to your review of Silver Crane.

-X

Beowulf DW

2013-10-26, 07:53 AM

[LIST=1]
After a great deal of thought, why can warlords be the only one who knows how to fight with a single weapon? That being said, Scarlet Throne for anyone. It's updated as well; it has two notable changes. It drops light blades in favor of Spears and Scarlet Einhander is now Scarlet Zweihander because most people using it, honestly, are fighting two handed.

-X

NOOOOOOO!:smallfrown:

It can still work with the one handed style, right? Farewell, Cornelius von Landinghamton, the rapier-using Rise of the Runelords stand-in. Farewell, Kirito the Black clones. T_T

IronFist

2013-10-26, 08:10 AM

OK, my thoughts on Silver Crane:

- Crane Step is a very cool ability, but sounds a bit too strong for a 1st level stance, IMHO. ToB had a similar stance at higher level.
- Flashing WIngs, on the other hand, is a bit on the weak side. Dazzled is a joke as a status effect, though at least it has no save.
- Silver Crane Waltz is a very cool name, but I think +4 is a bit too high at 1st level. No one would ever take Improved Initiative if getting +4 to initiative and reflex can be acquired throughg Martial Training.
- I also think Eye of the Crane is a bit too good for a 1st level stance. Perception is the game's best skill, after all.
- Defensive Step is like Abrupt Jaunt on steroids, since it avoids any attack. I think that's too powerful for a 2nd level maneuver.
- Emerald/Sapphire Displacement Strike has a few copy and paste issues; Listen and Search are not skills in PF.
- About Sacred/Blessed Pinions, this is more curiosity than anything else - where are the PF rules for possession found? I loved the 3.5 rules for possession, but did not know there was anything similar in PF.
- Isn't it weird that Blessed/Sacred Pinions both work better at exorcism than Exorcism Strike?
- Silver Crane Resurgence is a very cool effect. Maybe it could use some restrictions, I don't know if it should heal stuff that otherwise requires powerful magic such as curses.
- Can't Argent Knight's Banner/Argent King's Scepter scale with level? Something like healing X + initiator level could work.
- I specially liked all the damage-and-heal maneuvers and the healing boosts. Aside from early level Silver Crane looking overpowered to me, I liked it a lot.

NOOOOOOO!:smallfrown:

It can still work with the one handed style, right? Farewell, Cornelius von Landinghamton, the rapier-using Rise of the Runelords stand-in. Farewell, Kirito the Black clones. T_T
But Kirito dual wields. :smallconfused:

Beowulf DW

2013-10-26, 09:39 AM

But Kirito dual wields. :smallconfused:

He first becomes famous for using one sword with no shield.

IronFist

2013-10-26, 11:01 AM

He first becomes famous for using one sword with no shield.

But that's just him holding back.

Metahuman1

2013-10-26, 12:51 PM

But that's just him holding back.

Not at first, later it was him holding back/keep him his unique ability secret. At first he didn't have it and he just did the one handed thing.

Also, rough idea for an archatype.

What about one that gives you an ability to spend actions or a round "Powering Up" for lack of a better phrase? This would be represented by declaring that's what your doing with your action/turn, and then on your next action/turn you gain some kind of bonus(s) that scale up with level.

Sorta represents that fictional construct of building yourself up to some kinda awesome special attack/finishing move.

Chained Birds

2013-10-26, 01:22 PM

Also, rough idea for an archatype.

What about one that gives you an ability to spend actions or a round "Powering Up" for lack of a better phrase? This would be represented by declaring that's what your doing with your action/turn, and then on your next action/turn you gain some kind of bonus(s) that scale up with level.

Sorta represents that fictional construct of building yourself up to some kinda awesome special attack/finishing move.

So an Archetype that gives you bonuses for readying an action? Not many bonuses for those at the moment, besides the usual disruption related stuff that happens.

ErrantX

2013-10-26, 03:37 PM

Updated Organizations and Disciplines part 1 uploaded, check out V2 (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=37160.html).

-X

IronFist

2013-10-27, 03:49 AM

Updated Organizations and Disciplines part 1 uploaded, check out V2 (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=37160.html).

-X

I knew I should not have printed those out yet :smalltongue:

My thoughts:
World-Building
Please, tell me you have never planned on publishing this text.
"the peoples of Pathfinder"? What is that even supposed to mean? Members of Pathfinder Society? Can you even use Golarion in OGL material?
The whole paragraph in "Plot Hooks" is very arrogant and it reads borderline unethical to me. "Everyone before me did this wrong, so screw them, I'm just better!" Why do you even have to mention other supplements? Why should you badmouth other designers in your book? :smallconfused:
There is just more and more stuff like that. This is not really rulebook text here, it feels like reading a blog. It doesn't sound very professional. Sorry for the bluntness.
Please find a better name for "mechanical oath".
Silver Crane

Very elegant solution with Silver Crane Waltz, kudos.
Why would anyone take Emerald Tipped Wings, when Defensive Step is so much better and lower level?

Metahuman1

2013-10-27, 11:05 AM

So an Archetype that gives you bonuses for readying an action? Not many bonuses for those at the moment, besides the usual disruption related stuff that happens.

No quite, here's something a bit closer to how I see this working.

Player: "I'll spend a full round action activating *Insert class feature name here.*

DM: "Alright" *Proceeds to go through combat round.*

Next Turn

Player: "I'll use the boost from last round and close to attack him with *Insert highest level maneuver here.* and a full power attack, + the +2 per iniator level to hit I have form the round spent charging up."

The full round time and the amount of the bonuses would be up for adjustment, obviously, and I'm sure it would be reasonable to make different kinds of bonuses available for this as you gain levels.

Sith_Happens

2013-10-27, 12:21 PM

Also, rough idea for an archatype.

What about one that gives you an ability to spend actions or a round "Powering Up" for lack of a better phrase? This would be represented by declaring that's what your doing with your action/turn, and then on your next action/turn you gain some kind of bonus(s) that scale up with level.

Sorta represents that fictional construct of building yourself up to some kinda awesome special attack/finishing move.

Kind of like this?

http://www.freewebs.com/buuisland/dbz229-powerupg.gif
:smalltongue:

Metahuman1

2013-10-27, 12:28 PM

Kind of like this?

http://www.freewebs.com/buuisland/dbz229-powerupg.gif
:smalltongue:

Yeah, something kinda like that though not necessarily as abusive of cinematic time/ridiculous in scale.

Yeah, I know, I know, there will be people who will complain the mechanic is "too Anime" or "too weebo", but it's an archatype, if it's a game were that sorta action would be looked down on pick a different class/archatype combo, no hard at all to keep it from being a problem that way. But for those games/players/groups who like that medium/genera and those types of series, this would be a lot of fun to have around.

Beowulf DW

2013-10-27, 12:35 PM

I knew I should not have printed those out yet :smalltongue:

My thoughts:
World-Building
Please, tell me you have never planned on publishing this text.
"the peoples of Pathfinder"? What is that even supposed to mean? Members of Pathfinder Society? Can you even use Golarion in OGL material?
The whole paragraph in "Plot Hooks" is very arrogant and it reads borderline unethical to me. "Everyone before me did this wrong, so screw them, I'm just better!" Why do you even have to mention other supplements? You should you badmouth other designers in your book?
There is just more and more stuff. This is not really rulebook text here, it feels like reading a blog. It doesn't sound very professional. Sorry for the bluntness.
Please find a better name for "mechanical oath".

A bit blunt, but I have to agree with IronFist on most of these points. It really does come off as a critique of other supplements. Though I do agree with most of what you say in that section, it might be best to drop much of it, and simply focus on the implications of your product within the context of a campaign setting.

Prime32

2013-10-27, 02:48 PM

World-Building
Please, tell me you have never planned on publishing this text.
"the peoples of Pathfinder"? What is that even supposed to mean? Members of Pathfinder Society? Can you even use Golarion in OGL material?
The whole paragraph in "Plot Hooks" is very arrogant and it reads borderline unethical to me. "Everyone before me did this wrong, so screw them, I'm just better!" Why do you even have to mention other supplements? Why should you badmouth other designers in your book? :smallconfused:
There is just more and more stuff like that. This is not really rulebook text here, it feels like reading a blog. It doesn't sound very professional. Sorry for the bluntness.
Please find a better name for "mechanical oath".There were a lot of DMs who banned Tome of Battle simply because the Temple of Nine Swords didn't exist in their setting, even when it was only vaguely connected to the classes. With that said, presenting things so that you can only use them in a setting where the organisations exist, especially when there is no official setting where the organisations exist, seems... yeah.
And for "Mechanical Oath" I'd say "Allegiance" or "Allegiance Benefit".

No quite, here's something a bit closer to how I see this working.

Player: "I'll spend a full round action activating *Insert class feature name here.*

DM: "Alright" *Proceeds to go through combat round.*

Next Turn

Player: "I'll use the boost from last round and close to attack him with *Insert highest level maneuver here.* and a full power attack, + the +2 per iniator level to hit I have form the round spent charging up."I figure that could end up working as a sort of "taunt" ability, where enemies are encouraged to attack you so you can't pull off your boosts next round.

Also you can do something like that with psionic focus, and the finished PoW will include support for psionic initiators.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-10-27, 06:22 PM

This shouldn't come as a surprise considering I'm still of the opinion that the codes of conduct need to be thrown out entirely, but I think the "worldbuilding" section is unsalvageable. Throw it out. It somehow takes all the problems ToB's horrific fluff had and makes them worse. I would never use any of this in one of my own campaigns.

The chief problem is that it makes too many assumptions about what the DM and the players intend to do with the content. It has its own (brain-dead and soulless) way of doing things and offers no advice for alternatives aside from "Rule 0."

There are (at least) three approaches to integrating martial adepts into a campaign that any section on worldbuilding should give advice on:

1. Martial adepts are rare: Most people have never even heard of the fighting techniques of the martial disciplines, and they are known only by a few independent masters. Some disciplines are forgotten entirely and are only described by untranslated manuscripts, or must be invented independently by the character that wishes to learn them.

2. The organizational approach: Martial disciplines are only practiced by a number of organizations (cults, guilds, or orders) that guard their secrets closely and only teach them to inducted members. Almost all martial adepts have a relationship with one of these organizations (whether positive or negative). This is the only approach the current worldbuilding section even considers, and it does a very poor job of that: It gives no advice on building your own stuff, only on how to shoehorn the organizations of the book into an existing setting. (They arrive through a planar portal? Really?)

3. Martial adepts are ubiquitous: Everyone who learns how to fight with a weapon learns maneuvers from at least one discipline. The martial classes without maneuvers instead represent untrained NPC militiamen.

Each approach offers its own challenges and rewards, and multiple approaches can be combined into a single campaign, with different disciplines having different levels of ubiquity. The questions and concerns involved in integrating martial adepts into a setting should be addressed on all three levels.

For example, let's say a player wants to learn the Silver Crane discipline. What does this involve on the player's part, and what does it mean for their character?

- Nothing: You just take the feat and you're done. (The ubiquitous approach.)

- You must apply for membership in the Order of the Silver Crane (or whatever you've decided to call them), go through their initiation process, and abide by their rules and restrictions. (Here is where the Code of Conduct might have some valid roleplaying purpose.)

- You must venture deep into the Abyss and seek out the Silver Army, a group of angels who vigilantly guard a holy relic against an endless demonic siege. They will happily teach you how to become one of them, but if you learn their techniques, you will join the silver army when you die and fight alongside them for all eternity. (The rare approach.)

Prime32

2013-10-27, 07:29 PM

3. Martial adepts are ubiquitous: Everyone who learns how to fight with a weapon learns maneuvers from at least one discipline. The martial classes without maneuvers instead represent untrained NPC militiamen.Just noting that one of the OotS print books used a toned-down version of this concept, where fighters are still trained well but warblades are trained incredibly (and expensively, which is the only reason Roy isn't one).

- Nothing: You just take the feat and you're done. (The ubiquitous approach.)

- You must apply for membership in the Order of the Silver Crane (or whatever you've decided to call them), go through their initiation process, and abide by their rules and restrictions. (Here is where the Code of Conduct might have some valid roleplaying purpose.)There are intermediate options here. Maybe there's an Order of the Silver Crane but also the Order of the White Chalice, the Skyguard Knights, and so on, who've all developed Silver Crane maneuvers by convergent evolution. Or maybe there are retired or runaway members who teach the techniques independently, and you can either put one in your backstory or track one down.

ErrantX

2013-10-28, 11:58 PM

My thoughts:
World-Building
Please, tell me you have never planned on publishing this text.
"the peoples of Pathfinder"? What is that even supposed to mean? Members of Pathfinder Society? Can you even use Golarion in OGL material?
The whole paragraph in "Plot Hooks" is very arrogant and it reads borderline unethical to me. "Everyone before me did this wrong, so screw them, I'm just better!" Why do you even have to mention other supplements? Why should you badmouth other designers in your book? :smallconfused:
There is just more and more stuff like that. This is not really rulebook text here, it feels like reading a blog. It doesn't sound very professional. Sorry for the bluntness.
Please find a better name for "mechanical oath".
Silver Crane

Very elegant solution with Silver Crane Waltz, kudos.
Why would anyone take Emerald Tipped Wings, when Defensive Step is so much better and lower level?

I will address Emerald Tipped Wings/Defensive Step soon.

That being said, this is an early draft, so please bear with us. It's the first major collaboration between Lord_Gareth and myself and we're learning to mesh our styles. :smallbiggrin:

There were a lot of DMs who banned Tome of Battle simply because the Temple of Nine Swords didn't exist in their setting, even when it was only vaguely connected to the classes. With that said, presenting things so that you can only use them in a setting where the organisations exist, especially when there is no official setting where the organisations exist, seems... yeah.
And for "Mechanical Oath" I'd say "Allegiance" or "Allegiance Benefit".

I like that, Allegience Benefit. That's got some merit. The organizations are considered wholly optional and there will be ways to get Organization specific disciplines without having to include this stuff.

This shouldn't come as a surprise considering I'm still of the opinion that the codes of conduct need to be thrown out entirely, but I think the "worldbuilding" section is unsalvageable. Throw it out. It somehow takes all the problems ToB's horrific fluff had and makes them worse. I would never use any of this in one of my own campaigns.

The chief problem is that it makes too many assumptions about what the DM and the players intend to do with the content. It has its own (brain-dead and soulless) way of doing things and offers no advice for alternatives aside from "Rule 0."

These are just suggestions and options, they're not straight jackets, friend. DM's are encouraged to use them, not use them, change them, or anything between. They're inteded to be as active in your world as you want them to be.

There are (at least) three approaches to integrating martial adepts into a campaign that any section on worldbuilding should give advice on:

1. Martial adepts are rare: Most people have never even heard of the fighting techniques of the martial disciplines, and they are known only by a few independent masters. Some disciplines are forgotten entirely and are only described by untranslated manuscripts, or must be invented independently by the character that wishes to learn them.

2. The organizational approach: Martial disciplines are only practiced by a number of organizations (cults, guilds, or orders) that guard their secrets closely and only teach them to inducted members. Almost all martial adepts have a relationship with one of these organizations (whether positive or negative). This is the only approach the current worldbuilding section even considers, and it does a very poor job of that: It gives no advice on building your own stuff, only on how to shoehorn the organizations of the book into an existing setting. (They arrive through a planar portal? Really?)

3. Martial adepts are ubiquitous: Everyone who learns how to fight with a weapon learns maneuvers from at least one discipline. The martial classes without maneuvers instead represent untrained NPC militiamen.

While a bit simplified, again, I think martial disciples are as prevalent as you want them to be. DM's will make them more prevelant if they so choose. I think by codifying it like that sets an example that you yourself are railing against. The idea is that you can use whatever parts of this book that you want; classes, feats, archetypes, whatever you choose. If you as a DM don't like the orgs, then by all means, exclude them happily and no one here will judge you! :smallsmile:

Each approach offers its own challenges and rewards, and multiple approaches can be combined into a single campaign, with different disciplines having different levels of ubiquity. The questions and concerns involved in integrating martial adepts into a setting should be addressed on all three levels.

For example, let's say a player wants to learn the Silver Crane discipline. What does this involve on the player's part, and what does it mean for their character?

- Nothing: You just take the feat and you're done. (The ubiquitous approach.)

- You must apply for membership in the Order of the Silver Crane (or whatever you've decided to call them), go through their initiation process, and abide by their rules and restrictions. (Here is where the Code of Conduct might have some valid roleplaying purpose.)

- You must venture deep into the Abyss and seek out the Silver Army, a group of angels who vigilantly guard a holy relic against an endless demonic siege. They will happily teach you how to become one of them, but if you learn their techniques, you will join the silver army when you die and fight alongside them for all eternity. (The rare approach.)

For what its worth, I really like your ideas for ways to learn Silver Crane. I think that would make some great campaign hooks. If there's a place for them, mind if we borrow them? :smallbiggrin:

-X

Craft (Cheese)

2013-10-29, 07:17 PM

These are just suggestions and options, they're not straight jackets, friend. DM's are encouraged to use them, not use them, change them, or anything between. They're inteded to be as active in your world as you want them to be.

While a bit simplified, again, I think martial disciples are as prevalent as you want them to be. DM's will make them more prevelant if they so choose. I think by codifying it like that sets an example that you yourself are railing against. The idea is that you can use whatever parts of this book that you want; classes, feats, archetypes, whatever you choose. If you as a DM don't like the orgs, then by all means, exclude them happily and no one here will judge you! :smallsmile:

I hate to bring this argument here (it's polluted the 5E threads long enough as is), but a line that says "Hey, don't forget you can do whatever you want" is not the same thing as a system that offers actual flexibility.

For what its worth, I really like your ideas for ways to learn Silver Crane. I think that would make some great campaign hooks. If there's a place for them, mind if we borrow them? :smallbiggrin:

Of course, be my guest. If you're interested, here's a second idea I came up with and decided not to include in my examples:

Asaia was a half-celestial who wanted nothing more than an end to all evils in the world: When she met her angelic father who taught her secret magical fighting techniques he stole from the great library of mount celestia, she thought she finally had the tools to do so. Unfortunately her one-woman crusade came to an end when she failed to assassinate the Emperor of Urithania, who threw her into an anti-magic prison hidden deep under a mountain. Asaia painted the forms and techniques her father taught her on the walls and floor of her cell with her own blood. Despite the anti-magic enchantments on the prison, her blood turned to a shining, glowing gold after she had finished and try as they might the guards couldn't get it off.

Though the prison was forgotten when Urithania dissolved centuries ago and re-settled by horrors from the underdark, her paintings (and the anti-magic defenses) are still there.

Prime32

2013-10-29, 09:48 PM

I hate to bring this argument here (it's polluted the 5E threads long enough as is), but a line that says "Hey, don't forget you can do whatever you want" is not the same thing as a system that offers actual flexibility.You have long passages explaining why organisations need to be tied to mechanics for a superior gaming experience. Backing out after that reads as "Hey, you can do it the wrong way too! We won't hate you for being wrong!". Even the Adaptation section only tells you how to adapt an order into a different order devoted to the same concept, while emphasising that adaptation should only be done with great care.

Relatedly, I'd move the alignment requirements into the aligned disciplines themselves, so there's less confusion between them and the oaths (you can still list "ceases to qualify for Silver Crane maneuvers" etc. as an oath violation). If anything I'd include a clause that you don't lose your maneuvers just for leaving your order.

Lord_Gareth

2013-10-30, 05:32 PM

You have long passages explaining why organisations need to be tied to mechanics for a superior gaming experience. Backing out after that reads as "Hey, you can do it the wrong way too! We won't hate you for being wrong!". Even the Adaptation section only tells you how to adapt an order into a different order devoted to the same concept, while emphasising that adaptation should only be done with great care.

There's good news! You can save fifteen percent on your...

Wait, wrong news.

I found...no, wrong news again. You don't care about my flash drive.

Wait, got it! I've edited the orgs intro (Bossman had some suggestions to go with everyone else's). However, I do feel the need to say this: the Adaptation section is kinda supposed to be about turning it into a different thing with the same concept. I mean, that's what Adaptation in 3.PF generally is (look at Daggerspell Mage). Past a certain point of alteration you're kinda writing your own org, which is perfectly fine but pretty far outside the scope of 'adapting'.

Relatedly, I'd move the alignment requirements into the aligned disciplines themselves, so there's less confusion between them and the oaths (you can still list "ceases to qualify for Silver Crane maneuvers" etc. as an oath violation). If anything I'd include a clause that you don't lose your maneuvers just for leaving your order.

I'd actually almost considered this but decided against it for a few reasons, which I hope are good ones:

1. Putting it on the Order membership makes wording the retraining a whole lot easier.

2. It helps give the impression that the power of those disciplines is emanating from the appropriate plane/patron/slave driver.

With that in mind there's nothing stopping Advanced Study, Martial Training, or [Redacted] to pick up aligned maneuvers.

Beowulf DW

2013-10-30, 07:36 PM

If this has been brought up here already, I apologize, and I hope that someone could direct me to the relevant post, but I curious about multiclass support for the new classes. Something along those lines was included for the psionics classes, and for psionic classes and their relation to the psionic prestige classes. It may be that I missed it, but it seems to me that other than archetypes, Ultimate Psionics, while it certainly plays well with the core system, isn't very good at sharing. I think that makes sense, because psionics are a bit of a different ball game from the classic "Mundane" and "Magic" of the core system of Pathfinder. I don't think that restriction can be so easily justified in the case of Path of War, though. Psionics, at least to me, always seemed like a more inborn power. But martial adepts clearly aren't born; they're trained. As such, it doesn't seem to me that a hard separation of core Pathfinder and Path of War can be so easily justified.

Beyond Advanced Study and Martial Training, will there be any support for the PrCs already on the books? For instance, will there ever be a Warlord archetype that lets us qualify for Battle Herald, so that we might relive the halcyon days of the Bardblade? And I can't be the only one who has drooled at the thought of a martial Eldritch Knight.

I suppose then that what I'm asking is, how will classes other than initiators or martial archetypes count towards one's level for the purposes of determining the effects of maneuvers and what maneuvers and stances one qualifies for? Additionally, will the classes in Path of War include archetypes that allow them to qualify for some of the more martially inclined PrCs like Battle Herald?

ErrantX

2013-10-31, 01:23 AM

I suppose then that what I'm asking is, how will classes other than initiators or martial archetypes count towards one's level for the purposes of determining the effects of maneuvers and what maneuvers and stances one qualifies for? Additionally, will the classes in Path of War include archetypes that allow them to qualify for some of the more martially inclined PrCs like Battle Herald?

The first part of that is in the systems and use chapter, you can check out the warlord playtest for that information. It details how all that works. The second part... umm... maybe? If it does, it won't be immediately intentional but its possible? If other people want this, then definitely say so and we'll see how we can add it.

Also:

New Warder archetypes available. Go check em out! (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=37160.html)

-X

Craft (Cheese)

2013-10-31, 02:33 AM

New Warder archetypes available. Go check em out! (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=37160.html)

Zweihander Defender has one major problem: In the Alpha 5 Warder document there's no class feature listed called "Guardianship" for Zweihander Defense to replace. I can only assume Aegis is what you meant to replace.

Otherwise my main problem with these archetypes is that they're all basically strictly better than the base Warder. I can't imagine why I'd ever choose a base warder over one of these. That's not advocating a nerf; The real problem is that they all trade away the Warder's worthless AC boosts for stuff that's actually helpful. Boost the base warder.

ErrantX

2013-11-01, 11:07 AM

Zweihander Defender has one major problem: In the Alpha 5 Warder document there's no class feature listed called "Guardianship" for Zweihander Defense to replace. I can only assume Aegis is what you meant to replace.

Okay, this makes no sense. There is no feature called Zweihander Defense in any of the archetypes, let alone in the base class. Additionally, the only thing that has Guardianship is Satellitium, and it replaces/augments Aegis. So... I'm confused. What are you getting here? Reference?

Edit: Took me a really hard look to find what you meant. Okay. Found it.

Otherwise my main problem with these archetypes is that they're all basically strictly better than the base Warder. I can't imagine why I'd ever choose a base warder over one of these. That's not advocating a nerf; The real problem is that they all trade away the Warder's worthless AC boosts for stuff that's actually helpful. Boost the base warder.

What 'worthless AC boosts' are you talking about?

-X

MightyPirate

2013-11-01, 12:28 PM

Speaking of Satellitium's Guardianship ability, does that bonus scale as Aegis does? I doesn't ever actually mention it increasing . . .

Under Zweihander Training it's mentioned that the Warder gets a bonus to their shield equal to 1+ their Guardianship class feature bonus. Just as confused as you . . .

Gotta say I agree that the archetypes are generally more flexible than the base class. Don't know that it's good enough to buff the base class though. I'd only choose one of these if the weapon style specifically matched a character concept, powerful though they may be.

Zwiehander in particular seems to get a lot more than it gives up but I may just be biased. Reach warriors have always been my favorite so it's hard to complain when they get a boost.

IronFist

2013-11-01, 03:41 PM

Since someone else mentioned it - what is the fluff for the PoW martial arts? Will you include "high martial/low martial" options, similar to how PF handles guns or are you going to take the ToB route and let the DM do all the heavy lifting?

Metahuman1

2013-11-01, 03:59 PM

Personally, I'd advise listing as many different pitches for how it works fluff wise as possible, and listing to the DM/Players "Pick what ever floats your boat." as loudly and often as you can.

Reason? Cause this takes the legs out form under the argument that the supplement doesn't fit the "Flavor/Story/Fluff of the setting/world/location/game/campaign/Genera." that so many DM's/players who disliked Tome of Battle: Book of None Spell casters were allowed to not be wastes of space, used to justify denying access to it at there games and tables.

Sure, they'll likely ban it anyway, but this helps to force them to say "Because I said so.", which hurts there ability maintain that position more over a long period of time.

IronFist

2013-11-01, 04:05 PM

Metahuman1

2013-11-01, 04:24 PM

While I agree several fluff options are a good thing (4e did it well with half-orcs), I find the reason for your suggestion awful. It sounds almost petty - "SEE?! Now you can't ban it for fluff reasons, na-na-na-na!", while any DM should be allowed to ban a book he does not like, does not own or does not have enough time/interest to read.

Here's the problem, if he bans a book like this, I can't play the kinds of characters I want to play. And there's only so many times I can either throw ouright magic at the problem and win, or get curve stomped and made to feel like a looser for trying to be good at hitting it with a sword, before it get's old.

As I said, the one's who will ban will still ban. They will still say "Well, I still don't like it." or "Well, I don't get the mechanics." or "Haven't read it and don't have time." or "Don't use what I don't own.".

This however forces them to cop to why there banning it. Which in the cases of "Don't get the mechanics" and depending on some other variables "Don't own it so won't go with it." can be remedied once the issue is in the open. Yes, the other two reasons will persist, one them them will even still be legitimate, time is finite for people after all.

But if it's anything else it forces it to were it can be fixed, which is good, or to were you know what your dealing with so that you can plan accordingly to a DM who's hostile to Mundanes.

Also, it's in Dreamscarred Presses best interest to have a book that is less likely to be banned. If GM's popularly ban the book, players won't spend there money on it cause they know they won't get to use it, or use it often enough to justify the investment when they can crib it once in a blue moon that they need it form the Pathfinder SRD. So this actually helps protect there sales, cause if GM's aren't banning it cause the reason for banning it is getting fixed at the get go, fluff, don't get the mechanics (cause now someone who does can explain it and walk them through it.), don't own the book (cause the group can pool cash and buy him a copy now that they know that's the fix.), players will have fewer inhibitions about laying down the money for a copy.

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-01, 08:26 PM

Guys, guys, why don't we ask the guy writing the worldbuilding chapter?

...Well crap, that's me >.> Guess I'd better start talking.

I do intend on making fluff multiple-choice, with examples of ways a DM might choose to handle Path of War in their game and how they might refluff individual maneuvers, disciplines, or the entire initiating system. I'm doing this because, and I want this to be as clear as possible, I believe in enabling the widest number of character concepts that I can.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-11-01, 08:32 PM

Okay, this makes no sense. There is no feature called Zweihander Defense in any of the archetypes, let alone in the base class. Additionally, the only thing that has Guardianship is Satellitium, and it replaces/augments Aegis. So... I'm confused. What are you getting here? Reference?

Edit: Took me a really hard look to find what you meant. Okay. Found it.

Sorry! That's what I get for reading multiple things and mixing them up in my head. I meant to say "Zweihander Training references the Guardianship class feature, which the base warder does not have." It actually replaces the shield and tower shield proficiencies, which makes the Zweihander Defender even more of an obvious pick.

The more time that goes by the more I hate the name "Warder" and I wasn't exactly enamored with it to begin with. It doesn't sound very nice, it doesn't make any sense as to what the class actually does, and it makes me want to keep saying "Warlord" instead.

What 'worthless AC boosts' are you talking about?

-X

Aegis. If you're doing your job properly as a tank, then you want to keep the enemies tangled up and engaging you as far away from the squishies as possible, which are the people who would need the AC boost the most. Except allies can only benefit from your aegis if they're right up against you, where they're in the most danger from enemy attacks. Trying to use it is a trap.

Clad in Steel. Makes heavy armor easier to use, but heavy armor is a trap option anyway. It's only worth wearing if you dump DEX (which is a bad idea as a tank since you NEED combat reflexes), and even then it will hold you back more than anything once AC starts to become irrelevant.

Elricaltovilla

2013-11-01, 11:01 PM

Craft (Cheese)

2013-11-01, 11:14 PM

Craft Cheese brings up a good point, not to request the impossible but I think that there's a definite market for a feat that works like combat reflexes, but uses a different key stat. Like intelligence, call it Combat Insight, or wisdom and call it combat instinct? That would let heavy armor tanks more safely dump Dex and reduce a lot of MADness

I was going to suggest reworking defensive focus.

Defensive Focus (Ex): At 1st level, a Warder gains Combat Reflexes as a bonus feat. She may substitute her Intelligence modifier for her Dexterity modifier for the purposes of determining the number of Attacks of Opportunity she may take within a single round. She gains a bonus equal to her Intelligence modifier plus her Class Level to CMD for the purposes of defending against enemies trying to use an Acrobatics check to move through her threatened area.

At 10th level, the ground within her melee reach is treated as if it were difficult terrain against enemies. If an enemy tries to move within her melee reach, it is treated as if it were a double move. Other factors such as debris or poor visibility may reduce movement as well.

Metahuman1

2013-11-01, 11:40 PM

IronFist

2013-11-02, 08:19 AM

Guys, guys, why don't we ask the guy writing the worldbuilding chapter?

...Well crap, that's me >.>
Since you're encouraging us to ask you questions: why are you using this world-building chapter to bash other suplements and their designers? Do you intend to drop it?

Metahuman1

2013-11-02, 09:44 AM

IronFist

2013-11-02, 10:23 AM

He's not, he's using it to help the product sell and be enjoyed by taking away one of the more common excuses GM's used to ban Tome of Battle. And it generally was an excuse, since as is commonly known around the playground, fluff it mute but some people treat the written fluff like word of god when it's a conveniant way to say "no" to players and not have to tell them there real justification.

Now if they want to ban it they have to think about it for a bit and come up with a different one which might even be something the player can fix.

I wasn't talking about that. I thought I was clear enough, but it looks like I wasn't, so I apologize.
LordGareth outright attacked other designers and other suplements in the introduction to this world-building chapter. I am asking why he did it and if he intends to stick with it.

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-02, 10:38 AM

Y'know, you'd get a lot more mileage out of your (rather legitimate) questions and critiques if you could see your way to wording them with less...hostility, IronFist. Like, honestly, I tend to feel attacked, not critiqued.

But the question's legitimate.

Honestly? It's a holdover from my long career on forums. This may or may not be surprising but I've got precisely zero experience writing professionally and only the tiniest bit more writing academically. I'm used to handling these subjects on forums where aforementioned expressions of opinion are perhaps a little rude but socially acceptable. I'm still adjusting to a more professional paradigm after 11+ years of being able to run off at the mouth and there's some growing pains happening as a result. Certainly the Bossman's clipped a few things from my work that I didn't even realize could be interpreted as hostile.

Professionalism is the intended paradigm. My lack thereof is why the fluff chapter is in alpha instead of ready-to-publish ~_^

IronFist

2013-11-02, 10:50 AM

Y'know, you'd get a lot more mileage out of your (rather legitimate) questions and critiques if you could see your way to wording them with less...hostility, IronFist. Like, honestly, I tend to feel attacked, not critique
I'm very sorry if it seemed that way, I sincerely apologize. I tried to word it in a less blunt way, but since Metahuman seemed to have no idea what I was talking about, I imagined you could not understand as well.
I have nothing but respect towards you and this project. I'm sorry if it ever seemed otherwise.

Metahuman1

2013-11-02, 10:56 AM

I fairness I was probably a bit, too quick to draw up, with you in a lot of our exchanges. This is not an excuse, but your tone just tends to hit a reflex I've developed over one to many hostel interactions over the years.

I apologize if I've been coming across as, overly aggressive/stubborn.

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-02, 11:07 AM

I'm very sorry if it seemed that way, I sincerely apologize. I tried to word it in a less blunt way, but since Metahuman seemed to have no idea what I was talking about, I imagined you could not understand as well.
I have nothing but respect towards you and this project. I'm sorry if it ever seemed otherwise.

'Sokay, water under the bridge.

Any other questions, comments, or suggestions with regards to the overall Worldbuilding/Fluff/Miscellaneous Crap chapter?

Metahuman1

2013-11-02, 11:16 AM

Other then have as many different interchangeable fluff options as possible, nothing springs to mind. But hit me up if you want me to kick some ideas for possible fluff/flavor options to list about.

Prime32

2013-11-02, 11:52 AM

Other then have as many different interchangeable fluff options as possible, nothing springs to mind.One way to encourage adaptation could be to include an Adventure Hooks section for each group, but make the hooks incompatible with each other and/or the default fluff (e.g. In one entry they let anyone skilled enough join and every child dreams of being accepted. In another they're secretive, outlawed, or limited to a single race or family. In a third the PCs invent Black Seraph maneuvers by tapping into fiendish heritage, and end up founding the organisation.). Don't draw a lot of attention to it, just treat "changing the fluff" and "using them in your game" as the same thing.

IronFist

2013-11-02, 12:11 PM

That might allienate people who like a lot of consistency, though.

Metahuman1

2013-11-02, 12:13 PM

Maybe, but they can consistently choose the same fluff perimeters, its just allowing them first to pick what the perimeters there gonna consistently stay with are gonna be at session 1. Doesn't feel that different to me then picking which setting to use for a game at session 1/character creation and then using that setting the whole way through.

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-02, 12:14 PM

That might allienate people who like a lot of consistency, though.

Flip side is that 'multiple choice' doesn't tend to be a way to present consistently in the first place. I'm already sorta-kinda cobbling together a section for plot hooks and I'll consider Prime's idea deeply.

Prime32

2013-11-02, 12:37 PM

Metahuman1

2013-11-02, 12:54 PM

Chained Birds

2013-11-02, 02:01 PM

Random idea: a samurai archetype or PrC that gains maneuvers by "unlocking the memories in his sword", sort of like a cross between Eternal Blade and Kensai. He can use his maneuvers only with his ancestral weapon, and refreshes them by sheathing it.

Sheathing is a Move Action (If I remember correctly),
and Drawing is another Move Action (Or Free Action with Quick Draw).

So it could be possible to:
- Standard Action: Maneuver.
- Move Action: Sheath Sword (Don't remember if this provokes an AoO).
- Free Action: Draw Sword.

So you can recover a Maneuver the moment you used it.

DarkSonic1337

2013-11-02, 04:37 PM

Sheathing is a Move Action (If I remember correctly),
and Drawing is another Move Action (Or Free Action with Quick Draw).

So it could be possible to:
- Standard Action: Maneuver.
- Move Action: Sheath Sword (Don't remember if this provokes an AoO).
- Free Action: Draw Sword.

So you can recover a Maneuver the moment you used it.

Not to mention that there is also a feat in PoW that allows you to sheathe a weapon as a free action, further reducing the refresh time.

You could do a boost, full attack, put your sword away to refresh said boost, and pull it back out all in one round. That's a bit much imo.

ErrantX

2013-11-02, 05:09 PM

ArcanistSupreme

2013-11-02, 05:16 PM

Not to mention that there is also a feat in PoW that allows you to sheathe a weapon as a free action, further reducing the refresh time.

You could do a boost, full attack, put your sword away to refresh said boost, and pull it back out all in one round. That's a bit much imo.

It's an easy fix though; just make the recovery action whatever you want, and fluff it as sheathing the sword. But to be fair, that is an investment of 2 feats, which should grant some benefits (although free action recovery seems like a bit much).

Elricaltovilla

2013-11-02, 05:42 PM

It's an easy fix though; just make the recovery action whatever you want, and fluff it as sheathing the sword. But to be fair, that is an investment of 2 feats, which should grant some benefits (although free action recovery seems like a bit much).

The crusader got non-action recovery (which is better than free) and if its only one maneuver at a time its not overwhelming. You could even stipulate that the sheathing action must be done after making an attack or using a maneuver.

Prime32

2013-11-02, 05:42 PM

if its only one maneuver at a time its not overwhelming. You could even stipulate that the sheathing action must be done after making an attack or using a maneuver.Presumably with a "you can't recover a maneuver in the same round you use it" clause.

That's cool as all get out. Mind if I try to use this when it comes time to write up archetypes in that direction?Why else would I post it here? :smalltongue:

Speaking of archetypes, have you given any thought to this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16209374)?

Maquise

2013-11-02, 07:33 PM

Just to throw my 2 cp in:

A while ago, I started work on a ToB Martial Discipline called Spellreaver. It was an antimagic discipline, with maneuvers such as dispelling strike, Spell resistance stance, and such. You can find it here; (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241868) I never finished it, but if you want to use any of it, feel free. I would actually be glad to see it put to use.

IronFist

2013-11-03, 06:19 AM

Flip side is that 'multiple choice' doesn't tend to be a way to present consistently in the first place. I'm already sorta-kinda cobbling together a section for plot hooks and I'll consider Prime's idea deeply.

Well, there is the 4e half-orc example. They have a multiple choice past, but none of the options are expanded upon.

angellis_ater

2013-11-04, 05:31 PM

Just wanted to pop on by to share that I've now seen the cover and compiled PDF for the first release. It's coming tomorrow! :)

Beowulf DW

2013-11-04, 07:05 PM

Oh joy of joys! Oh dream of dreams!:smallbiggrin:

Squirrel_Dude

2013-11-05, 03:28 PM

:smallbiggrin:

I'll make sure to finally make a good reading through of all the updated rules.

Frosty

2013-11-05, 05:00 PM

angellis_ater

2013-11-06, 09:42 AM

Maquise

2013-11-10, 01:49 PM

Just had a question.

Are you going to incorporate anything with firearms? Or alternatively, how do firearms combine with Solar Wind?

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-10, 01:53 PM

Just had a question.

Are you going to incorporate anything with firearms? Or alternatively, how do firearms combine with Solar Wind?

There's currently plans to support firearms, which is about all I can say on the matter.

ErrantX

2013-11-10, 04:46 PM

Just had a question.

Are you going to incorporate anything with firearms? Or alternatively, how do firearms combine with Solar Wind?

I'll go into a little more detail, but the discipline of Smoking Tempest is still under development. Solar Wind isn't going to be compatible due to the fact that the damage on it is higher than should be allowable with firearms, as those hit their targets a lot easier than a bow or crossbow. The goal with Smoking Tempest is something akin to the fighting styles of the Grammaton Clerics from the film Equilibrium.

Stay tuned!

-X

ErrantX

2013-11-14, 02:09 AM

Warlord archetypes (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=3075/finish=20/start=0.html) have been uploaded. Sorry I've been largely absent, I'm getting over something and there was some medical drama in my immediate family that needed dealing with. Back on the books!

-X

Metahuman1

2013-11-14, 02:50 AM

Take your time, we've all waited this long, we can wait a touch longer while you tend to your health. =)

Beowulf DW

2013-11-14, 07:38 AM

Keeping you in my thoughts and prayers, Errant.

And now for some nitpicking (I do this only because I care:smallwink:):

Scarlet Duelist
Some warlords find their place in the theater of war when the find the method of combat that best expresses their nature and
daring in combat.

Pretty sure that should be they.

I really like the Steelfist Bravo and the Scarlet Duelist, so far. I think the dodge bonus on the Bravo was a very nice touch.

The-Mage-King

2013-11-14, 07:25 PM

The subscription is available here:
Path of War: Subscription (atleast 4 PDFs) (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/Store/product/pid=124.html)

And the first release (included in the above):
Path of War: Stalker (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/Store/product/pid=123.html)

Hope you like it! :D

Out of curiosity, are there plans for a physical edition? I'm tempted to get the PDF preorder, but it'd be a waste if the physical version comes with it in a bundle...

Craft (Cheese)

2013-11-14, 08:30 PM

Scarlet Duelist is just... wow. I'm speechless.

- The fluff is... weird. When I hear "CHA-focused meleer with a one-handed weapon" I think Julio Scoundrel, not some jackass waving a flag into battle (Which would make you a massive liability; There's a good reason why the banner carriers didn't actually fight, and you can't even use the "It's a fantasy" excuse because who fantasizes about waving a flag around while they swordfight?)

- You lose medium armor, non-buckler shields, and thrashing dragon. Not that these things are exactly keystone abilities of the class but I don't see any reason for it.

- Untouchable Defense trades a feat for something strictly worse than Dodge, which is not exactly a stellar feat to begin with.

- Banner trades Battle Prowess in exchange for... a depowered version of a Cavalier feature? Why would anyone ever want this?

- Heightened Defenses is the only thing the archetype gets that isn't a strict nerf from what a vanilla warlord would get, but the problem with this is that it doesn't fit the concept. This should be a Vanguard ability.

Rentaromon

2013-11-15, 10:16 AM

the banner part seems...off. It feels like a great class to play zoro or another duelist, not the leader of a charge of footmen.

Steelfist sounds perfect to make a batman type character, someone who cant lose a fist fight and uses all kinds of maneuvers and counters.

ErrantX

2013-11-16, 05:41 AM

Because I never got a terrifically clear response on warder archetypes, I made a few changes and updated that.

Lots of updates to the warlord archetypes though.

Check it out. (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=3075/finish=20/start=0.html)

-X

Beowulf DW

2013-11-16, 08:45 AM

Raven777

2013-11-16, 09:48 AM

ErrantX

2013-11-16, 11:48 AM

The Bannerman seems to be a fine improvement on the Scarlet Duelist conceptually and mechanically.

Hawkguard: I would recommend moving the notes on gaining Perception and losing bluff from the class features section to their own "Skills" section, for the sake of being concise. Ranged Defensive Focus is interesting, but I didn't know that it took any actions to reload a bow. I thought that was just for crossbows.

Dervish Defender: See above for what I think you ought to do about skill changes. I think you might want to rename Two Weapon Defense; as written, it can be used with one weapon, or one weapon and a buckler. You didn't actually make having Two-Weapons a requirement, and I fear that might be confusing to some players. Other than that, it looks like a very solid TWF archetype.

Cool. As far as Hawkguard, someone might want to play one with a crossbow, even though crossbows are the one shot wonders of the D&D world. It was included for that.

As far as skills, that would honestly be more easily missed if I put in a new skills box I think.

And I'll fix two-weapon defense. It obviously is intended for use with a pair of weapons or a double weapon.

-X

Craft (Cheese)

2013-11-16, 12:51 PM

MUCH better. The Bannerman is a great archetype. Good work!

ErrantX

2013-11-16, 01:16 PM

I think I love you.

lol, I'm glad you're enthused by the prospect. :smallbiggrin:

MUCH better. The Bannerman is a great archetype. Good work!

Thank you for your feedback, it was much appreciated and spurred that late night inspiration to make it better. :smallsmile:

-X

Prime32

2013-11-16, 01:43 PM

Defensive Prowess (Ex): The vanguard must live to inspire his troops, and by training diligently on how best to defend himself in the midst of heavy combat, he has developed techniques for higher survivability. While in a Golden Lion or Iron Tortoise stance, the vanguard reduces his armor check penalty by 1, gains a +1 competence bonus to his existing shield bonus to his Armor Class, and adds a +1 competence bonus to his CMD. This improves These bonuses improve by +1 at 12th level, and again at 19th level. This replaces the battle prowess class feature.

Courageous Defense (Ex): The bannerman is a combatant of grace and skill, and his faith in both himself as a symbol as well as in his allies assists his defense. When fighting with a one-handed or light weapon in one hand and nothing in the other (or with a buckler and/or an inspiring banner, see below) and wearing medium or lighter armor, the Scarlet bannerman gains a +1 dodge bonus to his Armor Class per four warlord levels. This replaces the bonus feat gained at 1st level.

Fearsome Presence: At 13th level, the bannerman's reputation in battle proceeds him and an aura of his many victories inspires dread in his foes. Enemies of the bannerman within 30-ft. of his position are filled with dread as if under a fear spell (use the bannerman's Charisma modifier for the Will save DC and his initiator level as his caster level) (caster level = the bannerman's initiator level, save DC = 14 + the bannerman's Charisma modifier). Foes that succeed on their saving throw are unaffected by the bannerman's fearsome presence for 24
hours.

Share Boost (Ex): At 6th level, the bannerman's ability to inspire his troops allows him to share some of his martial prowess with an ally on occasion. Once per day he is able to initiate a boost as an immediate action to utilize a boost for an ally who is initiating a maneuver or making an attack that qualifies for the use of that boost. The boost shared uses the bannerman's initiator level and saving throw DC (if applicable). He can use it one additional time per day at 12th level and again at 18th level. This replaces the dual boost class feature.What's the range of this ability? And it's not clear whether the boost affects both characters or only the ally.

Beowulf DW

2013-11-16, 05:10 PM

Cool. As far as Hawkguard, someone might want to play one with a crossbow, even though crossbows are the one shot wonders of the D&D world. It was included for that.

As far as skills, that would honestly be more easily missed if I put in a new skills box I think.

And I'll fix two-weapon defense. It obviously is intended for use with a pair of weapons or a double weapon.

-X

I only brought the skills thing up because you've spread the information across two class abilities with Hawkguard.

I know that you included the thing about reload times for the Crossbow, but the description also mentions bows having a reload time. Again, something that seemed a bit odd that I thought I ought to bring to your attention.

Vanitas

2013-11-16, 05:37 PM

Man, Battle Prowess is one boring ability. Can't you change it for somehting more interesting?
I mena, if I wanted to play a Fighter, I'd play a Fighter, ya know. :smalltongue:

Beowulf DW

2013-11-16, 07:56 PM

Man, Battle Prowess is one boring ability. Can't you change it for somehting more interesting?
I mena, if I wanted to play a Fighter, I'd play a Fighter, ya know. :smalltongue:

You realize that's just one ability right? You're getting that and maneuvers, and all the other class features.

Vanitas

2013-11-16, 08:30 PM

You realize that's just one ability right? You're getting that and maneuvers, and all the other class features.

Well, bro, starting with "you realize" is incredibly condescending. Please avoid that, it does not make you look good.
Now, the actual business at hand, having the Fighter signature class feature plus a bunch of other stuff is hardly a good point IMHO. In fact, it only makes it worse.
That wasn't even my point, mind you - what I meant is that +1 to hit and damage is boring and being boring if the FIghter's job. Please let the Fighter be boring alone.

ErrantX

2013-11-17, 06:03 AM

I'm sorry you don't feel that Battle Prowess is flavorful enough; sometimes a class feature like that needs to exist in my opinion. It helps offset the potential neglect physical attributes might find in a point buy to help the warlord do its job and still maintain a decent Charisma score to fuel his abilities. That's the purpose of it.

-X

Swooper

2013-11-17, 11:54 AM

ErrantX

2013-11-17, 01:23 PM

Speaking of Battle Prowess... is the intention there to encourage warlords to stick to using only stances that match their weapon of choice? Losing the bonus to use a stance from a different discipline will feel like being penalised for it, which feels bad for the player.

There is enough cross over that you'll find it doesn't come up as often as you think it does. Also, I strongly dislike the "feel bad mechanic" term; heaven forbid a mechanic in something make you do something you might not have been going to do anyway. If you pick up a bow and don't have a Solar Wind stance known, you're not being penalized; you're just not able to use that particular ability. It's like complaining that rogues can't sneak attack on every hit. They have to do certain things to make that ability work; battle prowess is no different.

-X

Craft (Cheese)

2013-11-17, 02:13 PM

There is enough cross over that you'll find it doesn't come up as often as you think it does. Also, I strongly dislike the "feel bad mechanic" term; heaven forbid a mechanic in something make you do something you might not have been going to do anyway. If you pick up a bow and don't have a Solar Wind stance known, you're not being penalized; you're just not able to use that particular ability. It's like complaining that rogues can't sneak attack on every hit. They have to do certain things to make that ability work; battle prowess is no different.

-X

"Wow, this situation sucks, but I'm gonna make the best of it that I can and power through." Is fine.

What we want to avoid is "Wow, this character sucks. I slit my throat and roll a new one."

I objected to the original Gambit mechanic (and threw around the term "badfeels" more than once) so strongly because one thing that tends to lead to the second situation is gameplay based around avoiding losses and penalties rather than making gains and bonuses. It's frustrating because it feels like you're fighting with your capabilities rather than utilizing them.

This is why I think (most of the) Oracle curses are pretty good design, even if they could stand to be better balanced: They come with a downside yes but they also come with additional capabilities, so it feels like you're making a choice rather than just trying to pick the curse that will affect you the least. (In practical terms though it's optimal to pick a curse that you have the ability to negate, like Lame on an oracle with a flight speed, so you only get the benefits. Not gonna say the system is perfect.)

Though this is kinda irrelevant since the gambits have been fixed up pretty nicely. Have I told you how well it's working out in play? All my players are sold on the Warlord now.

IIRC, wasn't Battle Prowess always-on at one point? I remember a rather long debate where Iron Fist was upset about that.

Beowulf DW

2013-11-17, 03:35 PM

Well, bro, starting with "you realize" is incredibly condescending. Please avoid that, it does not make you look good.
Now, the actual business at hand, having the Fighter signature class feature plus a bunch of other stuff is hardly a good point IMHO. In fact, it only makes it worse.
That wasn't even my point, mind you - what I meant is that +1 to hit and damage is boring and being boring if the FIghter's job. Please let the Fighter be boring alone.

Please excuse me. It's just that when I see a person complaining that one class feature (and not even the signature class feature at that) makes one class into another class, it doesn't inspire in me a great respect for the aforementioned person.

To Craft:

Yes, if I recall correctly, Iron Fist was concerned that the Warlord would kick the Fighter out of its niche. I believe that I argued that it didn't matter because the Fighter's niche was already eclipsed by other classes, but Iron made the point that no other class gets as many constant bonuses to weapons and armor as the Fighter. I think we had to agree to disagree in the end, but I believe that the current Battle Prowess is a decent compromise between the two views.

Vanitas

2013-11-17, 07:35 PM

Please excuse me. It's just that when I see a person complaining that one class feature (and not even the signature class feature at that) makes one class into another class, it doesn't inspire in me a great respect for the aforementioned person.

I thought the smiley would make it clear it was a joke. Apparently I was wrong.

I'm sorry you don't feel that Battle Prowess is flavorful enough; sometimes a class feature like that needs to exist in my opinion. It helps offset the potential neglect physical attributes might find in a point buy to help the warlord do its job and still maintain a decent Charisma score to fuel his abilities. That's the purpose of it.

-X
While that makes perfect sense, I doubt it's going to get much use as what it is meant to be, specially considering how PoW classes are dip-happy. Anyway, I understand why you do it and that's a lot more than we get from most designers, so thanks a lot. :smallbiggrin:

Beowulf DW

2013-11-17, 09:05 PM

I thought the smiley would make it clear it was a joke. Apparently I was wrong.

:smalleek:

Oh good God, I did not see that! Sorry! :smallfrown:

Vanitas

2013-11-18, 08:05 PM

I'll go into a little more detail, but the discipline of Smoking Tempest is still under development. Solar Wind isn't going to be compatible due to the fact that the damage on it is higher than should be allowable with firearms, as those hit their targets a lot easier than a bow or crossbow. The goal with Smoking Tempest is something akin to the fighting styles of the Grammaton Clerics from the film Equilibrium.

Stay tuned!

-X

Is it going to be compatible with the Grammaton (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/cryptic/archetypes/dreamscarred-press/grammaton) Cryptic archetype? DSP sure is milking everything they can out of this movie :smallbiggrin:

ErrantX

2013-11-18, 08:09 PM

Is it going to be compatible with the Grammaton (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/cryptic/archetypes/dreamscarred-press/grammaton) Cryptic archetype? DSP sure is milking everything they can out of this movie :smallbiggrin:

I don't see why not, but it would be multiclassed for sure at that point. And yeah, we're definitely getting some mileage there. Thanks guys! :smallcool:

-X

Elricaltovilla

2013-11-20, 11:19 AM

So I preordered the Path of War PDFs, and I'm wondering how do I download the stalker PDF, since according to DSP's website it's out?

Ilorin Lorati

2013-11-20, 11:43 AM

So I preordered the Path of War PDFs, and I'm wondering how do I download the stalker PDF, since according to DSP's website it's out?

If you preordered from the DSP site, you can just go into the shop and "buy" the stalker PDF, it should be 100% off for you.

Elricaltovilla

2013-11-20, 12:11 PM

If you preordered from the DSP site, you can just go into the shop and "buy" the stalker PDF, it should be 100% off for you.

Cool, thanks I'll try that.

ErrantX

2013-11-21, 12:29 AM

Just an update:

Working out the last of the archetypes and working on prestige classes as well. Just a heads up! More releases are coming soon.

Quick question with prestige classes: Do you all like your classes filled with fluff that ties the prestige class to a specific organization, group, place (like most of the PF PrC's or ToB classes like the Jade Phoenix or the Ruby Knight) or people or do you like your prestige classes a little more dressed down and let yourself just fill in the blanks from there and apply it as needed (think eldritch knight)

-X

Beowulf DW

2013-11-21, 12:41 AM

I like Prestige Classes with...shall we say mutable fluff? For instance, "The skills of a Shadow Platypus Instigator are the culmination of generations of knowledge and experience. As such, these skills are typically passed down from master to apprentice within rather exclusive organizations."

The implication here is that a PC needs to know somebody to gain access to this prestige class, but it's left up the GM as to exactly who that somebody is, as oppose to, say, the Hellknight PrCs. What if there are no Hellknights in this setting? In the example I gave, a GM can simply make up an organization (preferably with input from a player) and help mold the organization such that it would be more likely for the PC and the organization to meet over the course of the story, rather than having to pause the action while one PC seeks out the people he needs to see to get into the PrC in the first place.

MagnusExultatio

2013-11-21, 01:14 AM

Quick question with prestige classes:

The second one. I don't see a huge point in the first one, beyond adding it in as a sort of "if you want super specific fluff that you'll probably have to edit anyways use this".

Squirrel_Dude

2013-11-21, 01:32 AM

In the current Pathfinder tradition where prestige classes are rarely any good? I like them to at least be good at some speciality, and for there to be strong fluff. If they aren't going to give me great class features, they should at least be giving my build some tasty flavor.

Vanitas

2013-11-21, 04:06 AM

Definitely the first option for prestige classes. That is their intended goal ever since they were introduced, after all. They are called prestige classes for a reason. :smallwink:

Craft (Cheese)

2013-11-21, 09:41 AM

Quick question with prestige classes: Do you all like your classes filled with fluff that ties the prestige class to a specific organization, group, place (like most of the PF PrC's or ToB classes like the Jade Phoenix or the Ruby Knight) or people or do you like your prestige classes a little more dressed down and let yourself just fill in the blanks from there and apply it as needed (think eldritch knight)

In general? It depends. For this book? Definitely the second. PrCs with really specific fluff can work well in a book that's supposed to be tied to a specific setting but IIRC, Path of War is supposed to be setting-neutral. Fluffing things too heavily makes adapting the classes for your own setting much more work than no fluff at all because then you have fight with player expectations. Don't make the same mistake ToB did.

Vanitas

2013-11-21, 10:19 AM

In general? It depends. For this book? Definitely the second. PrCs with really specific fluff can work well in a book that's supposed to be tied to a specific setting but IIRC, Path of War is supposed to be setting-neutral. Fluffing things too heavily makes adapting the classes for your own setting much more work than no fluff at all because then you have fight with player expectations. Don't make the same mistake ToB did.

But ToB is also setting neutral and presents prestige classes in the original sense.

Eldest

2013-11-21, 10:29 AM

But ToB is also setting neutral and presents prestige classes in the original sense.

And Craft is calling that a mistake. Which I agree with, without a disclaimer stating that it's the default fluff and you don't need to follow it. Which should have been the basis of PrCs from the start, in my opinion.

Vanitas

2013-11-21, 11:11 AM

Metahuman1

2013-11-21, 12:25 PM

And Craft is calling that a mistake. Which I agree with, without a disclaimer stating that it's the default fluff and you don't need to follow it. Which should have been the basis of PrCs from the start, in my opinion.

I similarly agree since I've had DM's tell me if my Samurai (title, not the class, It was one of my first games so I was playing a fighter with the social title.) invested ranks in Craft weapons making to get into exotic weapons master that I would forever be looked down upon as having nearly no honor.

Or that Prestige Classes are Prestigeous and you can't have more then one case it's a conflict of interests.

There's a reason theses day's when I game I won't go into one with out ToB as an option and I tend to talk to the DM and make sure fluff is suitable mutable.

BTW: A question has come to my mind reguarding Path of Wars expanding on the Psionics Options.

So, Manteled Warrior and Soulbound Weapon recently came to my attention. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070214a) And they look awesome. Now, I'm not familiar with Pathfinder Psionics, so this may be a moot point, but do we have a similar/equivalent pair of AFC's in any of the archatypes?

If not, might I propose each should get an archatype and they should be engineered to be stackable?

ErrantX

2013-11-21, 12:58 PM

BTW: A question has come to my mind reguarding Path of Wars expanding on the Psionics Options.

So, Manteled Warrior and Soulbound Weapon recently came to my attention. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070214a) And they look awesome. Now, I'm not familiar with Pathfinder Psionics, so this may be a moot point, but do we have a similar/equivalent pair of AFC's in any of the archatypes?

If not, might I propose each should get an archatype and they should be engineered to be stackable?

Not really my department, but I will weigh in on it. Pathfinder psionics by DSP do not have an equivalent of the Ardent (a shame as I liked the ardent, but we've got a TON of other awesome classes to make up for it) so mantled warrior isn't really something we do. Soulbound warrior though... that I might be able to swing for the psychic warrior archetype, but who knows. :smallsmile:

Honestly, that archetype is still more or less viable for the PF Psychic warrior.

-X

Metahuman1

2013-11-21, 01:08 PM

Not really my department, but I will weigh in on it. Pathfinder psionics by DSP do not have an equivalent of the Ardent (a shame as I liked the ardent, but we've got a TON of other awesome classes to make up for it) so mantled warrior isn't really something we do. Soulbound warrior though... that I might be able to swing for the psychic warrior archetype, but who knows. :smallsmile:

Honestly, that archetype is still more or less viable for the PF Psychic warrior.

-X

That's what I'm proposing, make it a Psi-warrior archatype. Maybe to make it mesh better with the books flavor make an Archatype that get's the Psi Warrior access to a Martial Discipline or two.

Actually, you know what would be awesome? You remember 3.5 Monks and Psionic Classes had that feat to let you stack them for some things?

What if we did a feat like that for this book that let you stack a Pathfinder Psionic class manifester progression and progression on certain features (Like the above proposed Soulbound Warrior Archatype ability), with an initiator class's martial initiator and maneuvers progression? That could be really cool!

Imagine using Soulbound Warrior to summon a pair of swords made out of your own force of will and augmented exactly how you need them too be, and then going to town on bad guys with TWF disciplines like Thrashing Dragon! TWF finally getting all the love it needs in one, convenient package!

Vanitas

2013-11-21, 01:18 PM

Imagine using Soulbound Warrior to summon a pair of swords made out of your own force of will and augmented exactly how you need them too be, and then going to town on bad guys with TWF disciplines like Thrashing Dragon! TWF finally getting all the love it needs in one, convenient package!
Soulknife may want to have a word with you for stealing his toys...

Eldest

2013-11-21, 01:48 PM

Soulknife may want to have a word with you for stealing his toys...

That's like saying a Sorcerer will get jealous over a Bard taking his toys.

ErrantX

2013-11-21, 05:44 PM

Soulknife may want to have a word with you for stealing his toys...

I have to agree there... there comes a point where you might run the risk of stealing the soulknive's thunder.

That's like saying a Sorcerer will get jealous over a Bard taking his toys.

I almost spit my soda out reading this. +1 internet to you, Eldest.

-X

Metahuman1

2013-11-21, 05:48 PM

Isn't the soul knife more of a "Kill you from a shadows/don't fight fair" class though? Couldn't that difference be played up?

Alternatively, if the Soulknife as a power's list and Chassie that's good enough to get buy in straight forward melee, maybe come at this from a different angle. Work Soulbound weapon into a Archatype for Soulknife so that they can explicitly make 2 custom magic weapons appropriate to level?

Eldest

2013-11-21, 08:36 PM

I almost spit my soda out reading this. +1 internet to you, Eldest.

-X

*bows*

By the way, since I only just started to post in spite of following this from the start, I enjoy the work so far.

Beowulf DW

2013-11-21, 09:11 PM

Isn't the soul knife more of a "Kill you from a shadows/don't fight fair" class though? Couldn't that difference be played up?

The Soulknife can be made to fight that way, I guess, but the most effective use of a Soulknife I ever saw was in a game that I ran in which one of the players used a Soulknife to become one of the best frontline melee warriors I've ever seen. He was like a whirlwind of death and lightsabers.

Metahuman1

2013-11-21, 09:27 PM

*Shrug.* If you say so.

Though the idea of one that can make 2 custom magic weapons and change them when the need arises still sounds like it would be awesome.

ErrantX

2013-11-22, 01:50 AM

*Shrug.* If you say so.

Though the idea of one that can make 2 custom magic weapons and change them when the need arises still sounds like it would be awesome.

Then let's leave that to the Soulknife then? I'm going to make archetypes for both the psychic warrior and the soulknife. The psi-warrior I will say is going to get options for Paths based on its discipline access. It has the potential to be quite awesome :smallsmile:

-X

Vanitas

2013-11-22, 04:23 AM

Metahuman1

2013-11-22, 11:35 AM

I'm sorry if I'm stepping over any boundaries here, but I advise you to become more familiar with the Soulknife class before discussing it.

I'm not familiar with it, that's why I was asking. That wasn't a "I am being ironic asking this cause as far as I'm concerned I already know the answer." that was "I'm asking cause I actually and looking for a answer."

Beowulf DW

2013-11-22, 12:57 PM

I'm not familiar with it, that's why I was asking. That wasn't a "I am being ironic asking this cause as far as I'm concerned I already know the answer." that was "I'm asking cause I actually and looking for a answer."

Well I suppose the easiest way to put it would be that the soulknife is like a psionic fighter. It's more limited than the other psionic classes, but it is very effective in combat, and it can be built to cover a variety of fighting styles. It's full BAB, good hit dice, good armor...Very geared towards being a warrior type character. I hope that helps.

Vanitas

2013-11-22, 01:20 PM

Well I suppose the easiest way to put it would be that the soulknife is like a psionic fighter. It's more limited than the other psionic classes, but it is very effective in combat, and it can be built to cover a variety of fighting styles. It's full BAB, good hit dice, good armor...Very geared towards being a warrior type character. I hope that helps.

This link (www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/soulknife/) will probably help Metahuman1. Soulknife, this is Metahuman1. Metahuman1, this is Soulknife. This might be the beginning of a wonderful friendship.

Metahuman1

2013-11-22, 01:21 PM

Well I suppose the easiest way to put it would be that the soulknife is like a psionic fighter. It's more limited than the other psionic classes, but it is very effective in combat, and it can be built to cover a variety of fighting styles. It's full BAB, good hit dice, good armor...Very geared towards being a warrior type character. I hope that helps.

Hm, alright then.

In that case, I propose the Archatype for making 2 weapons you can customize and alter instead of one for soul knife, and then that feat to let them stack with a Martial Adept for advancing 1 or 2 key class features and psionic Manifesting/Martial Maneuver advancement.

That would be the TWF feat that would actually make TWF every inch as good as THF.

Novawurmson

2013-11-22, 01:53 PM

Hm, alright then.

In that case, I propose the Archatype for making 2 weapons you can customize and alter instead of one for soul knife, and then that feat to let them stack with a Martial Adept for advancing 1 or 2 key class features and psionic Manifesting/Martial Maneuver advancement.

That would be the TWF feat that would actually make TWF every inch as good as THF.

You can make two weapons with the Soulknife. You can explicitly make two weapons with the Soulknife, and there are plenty of blade skills that improve TWF.

That being said, I would like a Gifted Blade-style initiator who gives up psychic strike for limited initiating.

Vanitas

2013-11-22, 01:59 PM

You can make two weapons with the Soulknife. You can explicitly make two weapons with the Soulknife, and there are plenty of blade skills that improve TWF.

That being said, I would like a Gifted Blade-style initiator who gives up psychic strike for limited initiating.

I think just taking Martial Training would work better than that. Psychic Strike has strong synergy with martial strikes.

Greenish

2013-11-22, 10:52 PM

I think just taking Martial Training would work better than that. Psychic Strike has strong synergy with martial strikes.For slightly more burst damage, which maneuvers already amply provide.

And more importantly, only two archetypes currently trade out Psychic Strike, meaning a martial archetype that traded on those would work with most of the others (which is one of the best features of Gifted Blade). I'd wish a maneuver-granting archetype being compatible with, say, Nimble Blade and Deadly Fist.

Metahuman1

2013-11-23, 02:07 AM

This link (www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/soulknife/) will probably help Metahuman1. Soulknife, this is Metahuman1. Metahuman1, this is Soulknife. This might be the beginning of a wonderful friendship.

Spiffy, but needs one thing. The ability to manifest 2 one handed weapons and TWF with them!

And a feat to let it stack with things like Stalker or Warlord for Maneuvers/weapons/psionic powers/ext.

Ilorin Lorati

2013-11-23, 02:12 AM

Spiffy, but needs one thing. The ability to manifest 2 one handed weapons and TWF with them!

You should take another look:

If the soulknife's chosen form is a light weapon, she may choose to form two light weapons when forming her mind blade if she so chooses, but she suffers the standard penalties for two-weapon fighting.

Greenish

2013-11-23, 02:16 AM

And a feat to let it stack with things like Stalker or Warlord for Maneuvers/weapons/psionic powers/ext.Multiclass feats (a la Swift Hunter) aren't really a thing in PF. Things that progress manifesting also work on the blade, though, so Manifester/Initiate PrC would work.

You should take another look:Well, technically, Soulknife can't get two one-handed weapons, only two light or one-handed and light. I'm not sure why one would want to eat the higher penalties, but eh.

Vanitas

2013-11-23, 05:30 AM

Well, technically, Soulknife can't get two one-handed weapons, only two light or one-handed and light. I'm not sure why one would want to eat the higher penalties, but eh.

Actually you can get even that with the Emulate Melee Weapon blade skill - just choose a one-handed weapon.

Greenish

2013-11-23, 06:34 AM

Actually you can get even that with the Emulate Melee Weapon blade skill - just choose a one-handed weapon.Hmm, I guess it could be read that way, but it strikes me as a stretch.

Metahuman1

2013-11-23, 09:57 AM

Duel Katana's, that's why one might want it. And Emlutate blade skill huh? Sounds good.

ErrantX

2013-11-23, 03:14 PM

Duel Katana's, that's why one might want it. And Emlutate blade skill huh? Sounds good.

Eh, I'd rather wakizashi and katana, less penalty for only on average 1 point of damage less.

-X

Craft (Cheese)

2013-11-23, 04:53 PM

Eh, I'd rather wakizashi and katana, less penalty for only on average 1 point of damage less.

-X

Yeah, but the cool factor is worth more than all the to-hit penalties in the world.

Metahuman1

2013-11-23, 04:58 PM

Yeah, but the cool factor is worth more than all the to-hit penalties in the world.

I'm with you. I'm not doing it cause I want to make the attacks uber more powerful (That's the job of other things like maneuvers, stat boosts, Psi-powers, so on.), I'm doing it cause duel full length katanas drawn up on someone while you tell them "Come." just oozes cool factor. And it would be awesome not to have to have major mechanical draw backs to doing something cause it's cool.

Raven777

2013-11-23, 05:17 PM

I feel this picture is relevant :

http://fdzeta.net/subir/images/C058P.jpg

Metahuman1

2013-11-23, 05:21 PM

As is this.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1919&bih=958&q=Erza+Scarlet+duel+Katana%27s&oq=Erza+Scarlet+duel+Katana%27s&gs_l=img.3...1259.8642.0.9297.28.10.1.17.18.0.446. 1313.7j1j1j0j1.10.0....0...1ac.1.32.img..14.14.128 9.sXRJ6T6SmhI#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=cqPD9LoQSyRBYM%3A%3BHSKs_NJJ_1GdxM%3Bhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fmedia.animevice.com%252Fuploads%252F0% 252F3695%252F257265-episode_38_screencap_19.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fw ww.animevice.com%252Fdestiny%252F12-127783%252Fepisode_38_screencap_19%252F83-257265%252F%3B856%3B482

Raven777

2013-11-23, 05:34 PM

Now I realize this game really needs a way to dual wield One-Handed Weapons with a penalty to defense rather than attack.

Beowulf DW

2013-11-23, 05:39 PM

While I concede the Lloyd Irving point, please keep in mind that twin katanas tend to be a favorite of Mary Sue characters. Also, Musashi used wakizashi and katana. So there's that.

Sith_Happens

2013-11-23, 05:55 PM

Also, those are straight-swords in the image.:smalltongue:

Metahuman1

2013-11-23, 06:15 PM

Sith: I know, but STILL!

Beowulf: Like who?

And I'm not doing is cause Mary Sue, I'm doing it cause freaking LOOK'S awesome. Maybe in a real fight I'd feel differently and get a different option. But it's D&D, Cinematography, rule of cool and style should count as much for anything.

Chained Birds

2013-11-23, 06:24 PM

Beowulf: Like who?

The Weeboo is not strong in this one.

He was one of the most infamous ronin of all time, who bested everyone he met using his cunning and unusual tactics. He serious only had a tie against one Bo wielder and that was the closest he ever really came to losing. Many samurai anime base at least 1 character around him.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-11-23, 06:26 PM

While I concede the Lloyd Irving point, please keep in mind that twin katanas tend to be a favorite of Mary Sue characters.

I don't really see your point.

Metahuman1

2013-11-23, 06:33 PM

The Weeboo is not strong in this one.

He was one of the most infamous ronin of all time, who bested everyone he met using his cunning and unusual tactics. He serious only had a tie against one Bo wielder and that was the closest he ever really came to losing. Many samurai anime base at least 1 character around him.

I like Miyamoto Mushashi as much as the next guy but he didn't use duel katana. He used single sword, spear, Ju-jitsu, Iai-jutsu, Wakazashi, Katana + Wakazashi and just a freaking stick or boat ore, but he didn't really do Katana + Katana.

So, how would this be relevant, if I wanted to be Mushashi I'd just be content with one handed sword or sword + short sword. That's not what I'm angleing for here.

Also, I like the idea of a feat that lets you duel wield 1 handed weapons at no extra penalty. Maybe go a step further and make it let you duel wield at a -2 to AC instead of attack as Raven777 suggested.

And while were at it, as a special deal, if a soul knife takes this feat, he can manifest 2 one handed swords instead of just two lights or a light and a one handed.

Chained Birds

2013-11-23, 07:04 PM

I like Miyamoto Mushashi as much as the next guy but he didn't use duel katana. He used single sword, spear, Ju-jitsu, Iai-jutsu, Wakazashi, Katana + Wakazashi and just a freaking stick or boat ore, but he didn't really do Katana + Katana.

I thought you were asking who he was? Though I guess you were questioning his name drop in an ironic sense or something.

Beowulf DW

2013-11-23, 07:38 PM

I like Miyamoto Mushashi as much as the next guy but he didn't use duel katana. He used single sword, spear, Ju-jitsu, Iai-jutsu, Wakazashi, Katana + Wakazashi and just a freaking stick or boat ore, but he didn't really do Katana + Katana.

So, how would this be relevant, if I wanted to be Mushashi I'd just be content with one handed sword or sword + short sword. That's not what I'm angleing for here.

Also, I like the idea of a feat that lets you duel wield 1 handed weapons at no extra penalty. Maybe go a step further and make it let you duel wield at a -2 to AC instead of attack as Raven777 suggested.

And while were at it, as a special deal, if a soul knife takes this feat, he can manifest 2 one handed swords instead of just two lights or a light and a one handed.

I bring it up as a point in favor of what Errant said.

Also:

Jotungrip (Ex)

At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like.

This ability replaces uncanny dodge.

I've been theorycrafting a Cloud Strife build using lots of dex, Weapon Finesse, two Elven Curved blades, Improved Crit and the Beast Totem powers to achieve total dual-wielding ridiculousness. I sincerely hope that any martial archetype for the Barbarian will be compatible with Titan Mauler.

*TotallynotlookingatErrant*

Metahuman1

2013-11-23, 07:49 PM

No Irony, and stupidly oversized final fantasy weapons are fun and all but once more, not really what I was aiming for.

ErrantX

2013-11-24, 12:27 AM

Honestly, the current Paizo archetypes are kind of a mess. I am going to try my best to make it so at least SOME of each class' archetypes are compatible with PoW archetypes.

-X

Beowulf DW

2013-11-24, 01:17 AM

Honestly, the current Paizo archetypes are kind of a mess. I am going to try my best to make it so at least SOME of each class' archetypes are compatible with PoW archetypes.

-X

I appreciate your efforts, yet I do not envy them in the slightest. They really are a bit of a mess. Unless you use that chart on one of the threads here.

Greenish

2013-11-24, 01:16 PM

Eh, I'd rather wakizashi and katana, less penalty for only on average 1 point of damage less.

-XWell, that'd require taking Emulate Melee Weapon twice, for a soulknife (if you wanted the crit range).

And since Piranha Strike doesn't work with one-handed weapons, using an one-hander and a light weapon adds a bit of MAD. So, yay for everyone using paired wakizashis?

I appreciate your efforts, yet I do not envy them in the slightest. They really are a bit of a mess. Unless you use that chart on one of the threads here.This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12555815) one?

Vanitas

2013-11-24, 01:19 PM

Well, that'd require taking Emulate Melee Weapon twice, for a soulknife (if you wanted the crit range).

And since Piranha Strike doesn't work with one-handed weapons, using an one-hander and a light weapon adds a bit of MAD. So, yay for everyone using paired wakizashis?

Can you even take Emulate Melee Weapon twice?

Greenish

2013-11-24, 01:27 PM

Can you even take Emulate Melee Weapon twice?Yes: "This blade skill may be taken multiple times; each time, it allows the soulknife to form her mind blade to replicate a different melee weapon."

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-24, 02:00 PM

Beowulf DW

2013-11-24, 02:00 PM

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12555815) one?

That's the one.

Edit: and it looks like Titan Mauler can't combine with anything.

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-24, 03:03 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm very pleased to announce the release of the Quills and their associated discipline Cursed Razor. Razor's my very first full discipline and I'm pretty nervous about letting it out into the wild; lemme know where the problems are so I can get them fixed up.

Follow this link to see the servants of Whisper. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mi4P6phP8N5r1xumTmq7WpXscRTP2ZF3EpXrfbis08Y/edit?usp=sharing)

Greenish

2013-11-24, 03:47 PM

Hmm, Save vs. Skill check seems slightly out of place, since most maneuvers use the simple (10 + maneuver level + 1/2 stat) formula. Doesn't using skill check make the save DCs a bit too high?

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-24, 03:50 PM

Hmm, Save vs. Skill check seems slightly out of place, since most maneuvers use the simple (10 + maneuver level + 1/2 stat) formula. Doesn't using skill check make the save DCs a bit too high?

That...maaaaay be a feature and not a bug >.>

In all seriousness I had to incorporate Spellcraft into a specific number of maneuvers to keep the discipline in line with some of the others and I was wracking my brain trying to figure it out, so I ended up tagging that onto Huntsman's Curse. The save DC will be pretty high but on the other hand it's already a nerfed version of slow, so I thiiiink it works out okay. Hopefully?

Greenish

2013-11-24, 04:05 PM

Bad Karma (2nd level) also uses skill. And having two separate ways of determining save DCs for stuff from the same discipline seems like an unnecessary complication.

Also, the default wording is "primary initiator attribute modifier", for whatever reason.

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-24, 04:11 PM

Bad Karma (2nd level) also uses skill. And having two separate ways of determining save DCs for stuff from the same discipline seems like an unnecessary complication.

Aye...that'll need to get fixed, then. I may leave it on Huntsman's just b/c Nerfed Slow but I'll look into fixing that on Bad Karma/Warlock's Stride.

Also, the default wording is "primary initiator attribute modifier", for whatever reason.

This one I might try to get changed >.> It's not a 'caster' attribute modifier, it's a 'casting' attribute modifier, after all.

Greenish

2013-11-24, 04:37 PM

This one I might try to get changed >.> It's not a 'caster' attribute modifier, it's a 'casting' attribute modifier, after all.While you're at it, a shorter, snappier term would be welcome. "Primary initiator/initiation attribute modifier" is a mouthful. :smallamused:

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-24, 05:57 PM

DCs fixed.

Greenish

2013-11-24, 06:07 PM

ErrantX

2013-11-24, 06:55 PM

It's weird that a technique taught by Devils (the Black Seraph) for the purposes of opposing Chaos deals half damage to Demons and Slaads.

Actually, the whole idea that "Evil deals half damage vs. Evil or Neutral" is odd, and the reverse is also a bit tricky.

I was looking at effects like holy smite and weapon qualities like unholy or anarchic with how they do differing damage amounts to alignments and such. Suggestions?

-X

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-24, 07:00 PM

I was looking at effects like holy smite and weapon qualities like unholy or anarchic with how they do differing damage amounts to alignments and such. Suggestions?

-X

Personally I'd let Alignment Disciplines do increased (+50%?) damage to the appropriate alignment, with no such bonus vs. other alignments. That sells the idea and gives a reason to take the disc still (since against, say, Good beings Black Seraph is now better than, oh, Scarlet Throne) without making it suddenly worse either. Seraph and its brethren follow the normal bonus damage progression for strikes and the like as far as I can see so it's not like you have to compensate for them dealing unusually high amounts of damage.

The thing about effects like holy smite or axiomatic is that they're super-duper optional. You can prep another spell instead of Smite, you buy a weapon to kill chaotic beings if you expect to fight a lot of chaotic beings. Disciplines are a for-life character commitment that can't be changed in the morning so they're a bit of a Bigger Deal, yeah?

Greenish

2013-11-24, 07:31 PM

I was looking at effects like holy smite and weapon qualities like unholy or anarchic with how they do differing damage amounts to alignments and such. Suggestions?

-XI'd let Seraph do full damage vs. everyone, with Crane maybe doing no damage vs. Good. Maybe tag extra damage vs. alignment on some of the maneuvers where appropriate (Crane already has something to that effect).

How'd the disciplines work against a character that's Good-aligned but with [Evil] subtype (like the famous succubus paladin)?

Beowulf DW

2013-11-24, 07:40 PM

So, Ssalarn brought up something pretty interesting (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q1ar&page=22?Dreamscarred-Press-introduces-the-Path-of-War#1068) on the Paizo thread with regards to humanoid opponents and weapon-dependency on the part of initiators. I'd like to ask:

1. Is this consistent with your observations?

2. Is weapon dependency consistent with your observations? How hurt are initiators by having to fall back on unarmed strikes? What about a backup weapon such as a dagger?

3. Does it matter if the weapon you're holding is magical/mundane?

Didn't see this earlier, so if I may?

I think the person that made that post is exaggerating a bit. While it's true that battle verses humanoids with base class levels tends to be a bit more difficult than usual, I genuinely think that's how it should be. As for combat maneuvers, I will admit that fighting a tripping opponent can be difficult an infuriating for a melee character. The post you linked to mentions Disarm attempts specifically, however there are ways to counter disarming opponents (weapon cords, locked gauntlets, etc.) and keeping a back up weapon is standard practice in my group ever since one of our barbarians got swallowed twice in the same fight (and managed to cut his way out both times...). As long as an initiator is still able to use maneuvers with a back up weapon, he/she isn't out of the fight. They might suffer a slight downturn in effectiveness, but they're not an opponent to be ignored. I've seen the same thing happen with a Magus of mine. I was still able to use spell strike with my dagger, so I was still in the fight.

Barbarians can grab a tree and rage, Paladins can channel the might of the gods into a chair leg, Monks can headbutt you, Inquisitors can Judge you and make that soup bowl a soup bowl of [whateveristickingmeoff]Bane, Magi can use spell strike, and the POW classes can use maneuvers. Yes, they all suffer a slight decrease in effectiveness, but they're still in the fight. Fighters and Rangers on the other hand...

Novawurmson

2013-11-24, 07:47 PM

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-24, 07:49 PM

How'd the disciplines work against a character that's Good-aligned but with [Evil] subtype (like the famous succubus paladin)?

Handled by subtype rules - succubus paladin counts as all four alignments and gets tagged by anything that deals bonus damage to any of them.

Greenish

2013-11-24, 07:55 PM

Handled by subtype rules - succubus paladin counts as all four alignments and gets tagged by anything that deals bonus damage to any of them.But not tagged by something that doesn't deal damage to one of them?

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-24, 07:57 PM

But not tagged by something that doesn't deal damage to one of them?

Well, that makes it kinda odd. Imagine this for a moment:

"Silver Crane maneuvers deal nonlethal damage to Good-aligned beings."

Plus:

"[MANEUVER NAME] deals 50% additional damage to Evil-aligned beings."

She takes 150% non-lethal damage. The ability itself will say if it calls out an alignment (search for X) or if it excludes an alignment (if X, then Y). Which means that, for example, some of the alignment-blasting spells would exclude her by virtue of her counting as an alignment but others wouldn't.

Yeah it's a mess.

Greenish

2013-11-24, 08:02 PM

"Silver Crane maneuvers deal nonlethal damage to Good-aligned beings."Now that's the way to do it.

Novawurmson

2013-11-24, 08:20 PM

I'd also like to add that the Martial Training line of feats is a great way to add some flavor to a boring monster. A few orcs/hobgoblins become deadly with some Golden Lion maneuvers to turn them into a real cohesive fighting force (try giving half them Tactical Strike and half Hunting Party).

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-24, 09:13 PM

Announcement: PIAM (Primary Initiation Ability Modifier) has been shortened to IM (Initiation Modifier). Expect changes in documents when we can get around to it ^_^

Beowulf DW

2013-11-24, 09:24 PM

Announcement: PIAM (Primary Initiation Ability Modifier) has been shortened to IM (Initiation Modifier). Expect changes in documents when we can get around to it ^_^

Yay efficiency!

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-24, 09:26 PM

Didn't see this earlier, so if I may?

I think the person that made that post is exaggerating a bit. While it's true that battle verses humanoids with base class levels tends to be a bit more difficult than usual, I genuinely think that's how it should be. As for combat maneuvers, I will admit that fighting a tripping opponent can be difficult an infuriating for a melee character. The post you linked to mentions Disarm attempts specifically, however there are ways to counter disarming opponents (weapon cords, locked gauntlets, etc.) and keeping a back up weapon is standard practice in my group ever since one of our barbarians got swallowed twice in the same fight (and managed to cut his way out both times...). As long as an initiator is still able to use maneuvers with a back up weapon, he/she isn't out of the fight. They might suffer a slight downturn in effectiveness, but they're not an opponent to be ignored. I've seen the same thing happen with a Magus of mine. I was still able to use spell strike with my dagger, so I was still in the fight.

Barbarians can grab a tree and rage, Paladins can channel the might of the gods into a chair leg, Monks can headbutt you, Inquisitors can Judge you and make that soup bowl a soup bowl of [whateveristickingmeoff]Bane, Magi can use spell strike, and the POW classes can use maneuvers. Yes, they all suffer a slight decrease in effectiveness, but they're still in the fight. Fighters and Rangers on the other hand...

1-2. Not really. I'd generally say a Fighter is more screwed if it gets disarmed than an initiator, because the Fighter doesn't have class features, except, say Weapon Training...which mostly requires him to be using his favored weapon. A Warlord or Warder at least is providing buffs to his allies, while the Stalker's abilities can often be used unarmed. However, I would say that humanoids are often more interesting encounters than monsters for OP's reasons.

3. Generally not. The Soulknife explicitly doesn't make specific weapons without the blade skill (which I think has already been discussed), but if you were to make a weapon with, say, Call Weaponry (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/c/call-weaponry) or anything else that allows something to be treated as a specific weapon, I'd say it's good to go.

Also thanks for this guys, we'll keep it in mind, talk to folks on the Paizo end to see where the perception is coming from.

Novawurmson

2013-11-24, 09:37 PM

Just to make sure before: initiation modifier or initiator modifier?

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-24, 09:39 PM

Just to make sure before: initiation modifier or initiator modifier?

Initiation modifier.

Greenish

2013-11-24, 10:03 PM

Hey guys, you remember how back when there was talk of 13 disciplines? Well, they're here, and it seems more are to come.

ErrantX

2013-11-25, 01:19 AM

Hey guys, you remember how back when there was talk of 13 disciplines? Well, they're here, and it seems more are to come.

Distinctly.

These are some names from some that potentially may be seen in Book 2 that are just in my own project folder:

Defiant Scream, Tempest Gale, Judicial Hammer, Piercing Lance (it's coming back!), Riven Hourglass, Raging Storm, Consuming Flame, Unyielding Stone, Tidal Flux and...

Metadisciplines.

Chew on that :smallcool:

-X

Greenish

2013-11-25, 01:38 AM

Defiant Scream, Tempest Gale, Judicial Hammer, Piercing Lance (it's coming back!), Riven Hourglass, Raging Storm, Consuming Flame, Unyielding Stone, Tidal Flux and...Hmm, those would be Chaos, Air (archery?), Law, Time, Electricity, Fire, Earth, and Water. No Void? :smalltongue:

Metadisciplines.My mind, she boggles.

I should hope there's an einhander-supporting school somewhere in there, too.

Vanitas

2013-11-25, 06:07 AM

I'd let Seraph do full damage vs. everyone, with Crane maybe doing no damage vs. Good. Maybe tag extra damage vs. alignment on some of the maneuvers where appropriate (Crane already has something to that effect).
That sounds like a better idea. Black Seraph looked badass when I first read it, until I realized I would probably never play a Black Seraph character.

OK, my impressions:
1. I thought you guys were going to drop "mechanical oath" and use a different name. Even "oath benefits" works better. "Mechanical" is forum lingo, not something you should reak in a book.
2. As Greenish said, skill checks to set up DCs are not a good idea. That would make the PoW classes horrible at this style, for starters, while possibly making it overpowered in a skillmonkey's hands.
3. It should be spelled that curses don't work in objects. Otherwise, you can get a bag of rats effect from some maneuvers (say, Luck Shifting) by cursing a mook's sword, then his armor, then his boots, then his underwear...
3. Spilled Salt is weird. When you get it, it's next to useless. It will only come up when someone else targets that creature with a spell - and at low levels, you could probably save that guy a slot by killing this very creature with a normal attack. When opponents start getting multiple attacks, it basically ruins full-attacks, which is pretty good - in fact, a bit too good for a 1st level counter (other "full-attack messer" counters were at least 2nd level). I just don't like it. Doesn't look like elegant design, picking a maneuver now that will only be useful later or having a lower level maneuver be better than a higher level maneuver.
4. Aura of Misfortune seems a bit too strong for its level. Most similar effects in the game enter play at 3rd character level at the earliest and have smaller range.
5. Instead of mentioning "the cursed condition" all the time, isn't it easier to say "if the creature is cursed"?
6. Torment the Weak's flavor text suggests bleed damage, instead it has nothing of the sort.
7. What does the Spellcraft check in Bad Karma actually do?
8. Hunstman's Curse should mention "Acrobatic checks to jump". There is no Jump skill in PF. It also feels like too powerful a debuff. Staggered is a very nasty condition, adding more stuff on top of that is just too much. What does the Spellcraft check do here?
9. I'm not sure how useful Sorcerer's Sidestep is going to be. Specially if maneuvers are common, you're bound to face opponents who identify your maneuvers - they would just use spells with attack rolls. I could see it working better as a counter (specially since it's called Sidestep) or a Stance (if it had flat bonuses).
10. Aura of Iron's Betrayal creatures some interesting situations. Objects can be cursed, but maybe they are not opponents. What about sentient items? Should they be granting extra bonuses to Luck Shifts and the like?
11. The wording in Hangman's Curse is a lot cleaner than in the other maneuvers, it should be used as an example.
12. Withfinder's Brand DC is too high. When you get it, it's around DC 26 on a check where casters get only level + casting ability modifier. +11 vs DC 26, so they fail 70% of the time. You probably forgot that concentration is not a skill in PF.
13. What does the Spellcraft check in Warlock's Stride do, anyway?
14. More explanation on how Shadow Pin works would be good. How do you "harm" the shadow? Do you throw an actual pin at it, Sarutobi Sasuke-style?
15. The Dragon Knows sounds too powerful. Blindsight all the time is a game breaker, which is the reason it was never introduced in PF, I suppose.
16. Warlock's Blow should have the [Teleportation] descriptor and it should allow for a save.
17. Eye for an Eye is overpowered. The save should still be there.
18. Warlock's Mirror! Finally a maneuver in which I know what the Spellcraft check does.
19. If flying creatures fall to the ground when you use Festival of Shadows, why do they lose their Fly ranks? It's not like they are going to be able to use it.

Greenish

2013-11-25, 10:58 AM

So I've been thinking of the archetypes. My favourites from the current ones are Zweihander Defender (why bother with shield when you have full plate) and Steelfist Bravo (the name alone is great), but two that I'm missing are light-armoured shield fighter (stalker archetype ahoy! They already have Broken Blade for smacking people with a shield, they just need the proficiency and a bit of tweaking), and heavy-armoured unarmed/brawler (Dervish Defender sorta kinda works, but is clearly aimed at light armour, like most every unarmed class there is).

[Edit]: Is the new Knowledge skill nailed down already, or could you be induced to incorporate it to, say, History (which at least in 3.5 was the knowledge for strategy and tactics)?

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-25, 02:09 PM

1. I thought you guys were going to drop "mechanical oath" and use a different name. Even "oath benefits" works better. "Mechanical" is forum lingo, not something you should reak in a book.

Damnit I knew I was forgetting something.

2. As Greenish said, skill checks to set up DCs are not a good idea. That would make the PoW classes horrible at this style, for starters, while possibly making it overpowered in a skillmonkey's hands.

This has already been fixed, but thanks for catching it.

3. It should be spelled that curses don't work in objects. Otherwise, you can get a bag of rats effect from some maneuvers (say, Luck Shifting) by cursing a mook's sword, then his armor, then his boots, then his underwear...

I don't think this is an issue since it specifies 'creature struck' and other similar wordings; 'creature' rather explicitly indicates that objects are not on the list of targets.

3. Spilled Salt is weird. When you get it, it's next to useless. It will only come up when someone else targets that creature with a spell - and at low levels, you could probably save that guy a slot by killing this very creature with a normal attack. When opponents start getting multiple attacks, it basically ruins full-attacks, which is pretty good - in fact, a bit too good for a 1st level counter (other "full-attack messer" counters were at least 2nd level). I just don't like it. Doesn't look like elegant design, picking a maneuver now that will only be useful later or having a lower level maneuver be better than a higher level maneuver.

I might respectfully suggest that you've mis-read or misunderstood Spilled Salt. It affects a single attack or skill check, and thanks to how Immediate actions work that means you can foul an attack or skill check being aimed at you. Good for preventing hostile touch spells, incoming maneuvers, etc.

4. Aura of Misfortune seems a bit too strong for its level. Most similar effects in the game enter play at 3rd character level at the earliest and have smaller range.

I'll take it into consideration

5. Instead of mentioning "the cursed condition" all the time, isn't it easier to say "if the creature is cursed"?

'Cursed creatures' are referenced; in cases where someone becomes cursed I do use 'gains the cursed condition' or similar wording, mostly for clarity. If there's a case where a creature's not gaining the cursed condition but I still say 'the cursed condition' couldja let me know which maneuver it's in so I can fix it up?

6. Torment the Weak's flavor text suggests bleed damage, instead it has nothing of the sort.

I do need to fix that but the additional progressive damage vs. cursed creatures is the 'bleed'.

7. What does the Spellcraft check in Bad Karma actually do?

There is no war in Ba Sing Se >.>

Thanks for the catch, relic from previous wording. It's been fixed.

8. Hunstman's Curse should mention "Acrobatic checks to jump". There is no Jump skill in PF. It also feels like too powerful a debuff. Staggered is a very nasty condition, adding more stuff on top of that is just too much. What does the Spellcraft check do here?

Ba Sing Se!

As far as the actual debuff goes, see slow (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/slow); the wording is almost directly copied from the spell. Huntsman's in general is a nerfed (see: single-target) slow, which for casters starts the game hitting five people at a time and just gets nastier from there.

9. I'm not sure how useful Sorcerer's Sidestep is going to be. Specially if maneuvers are common, you're bound to face opponents who identify your maneuvers - they would just use spells with attack rolls. I could see it working better as a counter (specially since it's called Sidestep) or a Stance (if it had flat bonuses).

I'll consider it. At the moment Sorcerer's Sidestep is also useful if you expect to plunge into auras or the like, but...thanks to how immediate actions work that function wouldn't vanish from it if it became a counter.

10. Aura of Iron's Betrayal creatures some interesting situations. Objects can be cursed, but maybe they are not opponents. What about sentient items? Should they be granting extra bonuses to Luck Shifts and the like?

Iron's Betrayal targets the creatures, not the items. For example, an Asura would be immune to Aura of Iron's Betrayal (see their entry in the SRD; they're immune to curses) no matter what it was wearing. Note that while it inflicts the Broken condition it doesn't actually break the items, just impair their function.

11. The wording in Hangman's Curse is a lot cleaner than in the other maneuvers, it should be used as an example.

Danke, danke.

12. Withfinder's Brand DC is too high. When you get it, it's around DC 26 on a check where casters get only level + casting ability modifier. +11 vs DC 26, so they fail 70% of the time. You probably forgot that concentration is not a skill in PF.

I think you may overestimate exactly how high an initiation modifier is going to be; initiators NEED str/dex/con very badly and IM is going to lag behind casting modifiers at all levels. That being said, it's supposed to be difficult and this is currently a feature, not a bug. It may end up revised based on further feedback and testing.

13. What does the Spellcraft check in Warlock's Stride do, anyway?

It wages a fake war in Ba Sing Se.

14. More explanation on how Shadow Pin works would be good. How do you "harm" the shadow? Do you throw an actual pin at it, Sarutobi Sasuke-style?

I probably should revise the flavor a bit, but it's inspired by (real world!) magicians/sorcerers who throw knives into your shadow to hold you in place.

15. The Dragon Knows sounds too powerful. Blindsight all the time is a game breaker, which is the reason it was never introduced in PF, I suppose.

I firmly but respectfully disagree; the blindfold of true darkness didn't break any campaigns and it came online at, what, fourth level? Blindsight is a powerful anti-stealth tool but has little narrative power and no special advantages against creatures that don't utilize stealth or gaze attacks. We'll see what further feedback indicates, though, and I do appreciate the concern.

16. Warlock's Blow should have the [Teleportation] descriptor and it should allow for a save.

Thanks for the catch. I'm not sure I agree on allowing the save since it requires setup (your target must be cursed) but we'll see what further feedback indicates (god I feel like a broken record with this 'further feedback' line - I swear to all Nine Hells that I'm not trying to fob you off).

17. Eye for an Eye is overpowered. The save should still be there.

Eye for an Eye also has a pretty painful restriction - it only works when you've already gotten hit or already failed your save. That both limits its utility (since you have to bait people into attacking with something you're weak again) and means that by definition it's only as powerful as whatever you've reflected. I'm pretty confident about it at this level of maneuvers but we'll see what further feedback indicates.

18. Warlock's Mirror! Finally a maneuver in which I know what the Spellcraft check does.

Finally, a war in Ba Sing Se!

19. If flying creatures fall to the ground when you use Festival of Shadows, why do they lose their Fly ranks? It's not like they are going to be able to use it.

Thanks for the catch!

I appreciate the in-depth feedback, especially the editing catches. Power level concerns are also nice and will be taken seriously (Witch's Revenge got edited last night for those reasons, actually). Thanks for taking the time to help me out.

Vanitas

2013-11-26, 11:58 AM

I might respectfully suggest that you've mis-read or misunderstood Spilled Salt. It affects a single attack or skill check, and thanks to how Immediate actions work that means you can foul an attack or skill check being aimed at you. Good for preventing hostile touch spells, incoming maneuvers, etc.
But that's the thing, that means you have to declare it's use before it's rolled, while with other immediate actions you can wait until after the roll but before success was declared.

'Cursed creatures' are referenced; in cases where someone becomes cursed I do use 'gains the cursed condition' or similar wording, mostly for clarity. If there's a case where a creature's not gaining the cursed condition but I still say 'the cursed condition' couldja let me know which maneuver it's in so I can fix it up?
What I mean is that "is cursed" looks like a good shorthand for "gains the safety condition". It reads more naturally and less legalese and attains the same objective, IMHO.

I do need to fix that but the additional progressive damage vs. cursed creatures is the 'bleed'.
I understand, I just mentioned it because bleed effects are quite common in PF.

As far as the actual debuff goes, see slow (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/slow); the wording is almost directly copied from the spell. Huntsman's in general is a nerfed (see: single-target) slow, which for casters starts the game hitting five people at a time and just gets nastier from there.
My bad, then.

Iron's Betrayal targets the creatures, not the items. For example, an Asura would be immune to Aura of Iron's Betrayal (see their entry in the SRD; they're immune to curses) no matter what it was wearing. Note that while it inflicts the Broken condition it doesn't actually break the items, just impair their function.
So it wouldn't work on, say, a magus' blacke blade.

I think you may overestimate exactly how high an initiation modifier is going to be; initiators NEED str/dex/con very badly and IM is going to lag behind casting modifiers at all levels. That being said, it's supposed to be difficult and this is currently a feature, not a bug. It may end up revised based on further feedback and testing.
Well, with abilities such as this one, the discipline becomes very attractive for characters such as Magi or Bards, who have high mental stats.

I probably should revise the flavor a bit, but it's inspired by (real world!) magicians/sorcerers who throw knives into your shadow to hold you in place.
Sarutobi Sasuke, then. He was a real world ninja. :smalltongue:

I firmly but respectfully disagree; the blindfold of true darkness didn't break any campaigns and it came online at, what, fourth level? Blindsight is a powerful anti-stealth tool but has little narrative power and no special advantages against creatures that don't utilize stealth or gaze attacks. We'll see what further feedback indicates, though, and I do appreciate the concern.
IIRC, blindfold of true darkness cost 9000gp, so it would be available at 4th level. I'm also not saying it breaks anything, I'm saying it is not in line with other similar abilities.

Eye for an Eye also has a pretty painful restriction - it only works when you've already gotten hit or already failed your save. That both limits its utility (since you have to bait people into attacking with something you're weak again) and means that by definition it's only as powerful as whatever you've reflected. I'm pretty confident about it at this level of maneuvers but we'll see what further feedback indicates.
I think I missed this about only working when you fail the save.

I appreciate the in-depth feedback, especially the editing catches. Power level concerns are also nice and will be taken seriously (Witch's Revenge got edited last night for those reasons, actually). Thanks for taking the time to help me out.
No problem, always willing to help.

Greenish

2013-11-26, 07:19 PM

The description for Scarlet Sentinels mentions how they are "renowned for their skill with polearms", which seems a bit weird given they aren't discipline weapons for Scarlet Throne (though IMO it'd be better fit than spears).

Snowbluff

2013-11-26, 07:21 PM

I took a look at Warden and Warlord, and tears welled up in my eyes. These classes are sooooo getting a 3.5 welcome. I think Warlord will work out so well with my upcoming homebrew PrC.

Lord_Gareth

2013-11-30, 12:45 PM

But that's the thing, that means you have to declare it's use before it's rolled, while with other immediate actions you can wait until after the roll but before success was declared.

True, but...does that impede the function all that much? It's a bit more of a gamble but I feel that's appropriate for a discipline themed around curses. I dunno, we'll see.

What I mean is that "is cursed" looks like a good shorthand for "gains the safety condition". It reads more naturally and less legalese and attains the same objective, IMHO.

Eh...I'm leery of this, as a veteran of RAW vs. RAI arguments. I'll take slightly 'uglier' wording for the sake of clarity most of the time. That being said I'll kick this in the direction of the boss and poll some other playtesters about their feelings about it.

I understand, I just mentioned it because bleed effects are quite common in PF.

Is it a defined condition? No sarcasm here, honest question. If there's a defined thing that 'bleed' does (unlike, say, 'fire) then I'll see about revision.

So it wouldn't work on, say, a magus' blacke blade.

Correct! The black blade is created by a creature but not held or attended by one and IIRC isn't even an item.

Well, with abilities such as this one, the discipline becomes very attractive for characters such as Magi or Bards, who have high mental stats.

For the feat investment I think I'm comfortable with this, especially since in the absence of an initating archetype they're only rocking 1/2 their level in initiator level and as a result getting everything much later than they 'should'.

IIRC, blindfold of true darkness cost 9000gp, so it would be available at 4th level. I'm also not saying it breaks anything, I'm saying it is not in line with other similar abilities.

I'm not...always...interested in that bolded line. My priorities place flavor first, balance second, and tradition about as last as it can possibly be. If it's not going to unbalance the campaign I'm inclined to leave it alone.

No problem, always willing to help.

Again, MUCH appreciated.