Dreamscarred Press Announces: Path of War Expanded

[Lord_Gareth]

Man, is it that time already? It seems like Path of War just happened! For those of you not familiar with the project, the original Path of War introduced a new paradigm of martial combat to Pathfinder by remaking, revamping, and expanding on the maneuver system introduced late in 3.5's run. I'm really happy to say that it's gained a lot of interest and support, and I couldn't be prouder to be involved with the project.

And now it's time to announce (well, technically re-announce but hey, new thread) Path of War Expanded, the first supplementary content for the Path of War line! What's up with Expanded? Just about everything! Path of War built up a super solid foundation with three base classes, new feats, martial disciplines and the new Traditions system, among other things, but it was necessarily lacking in some other ideas. Path of War Expanded will flesh out those gaps with worldbuilding advice, new items and weapons, new feats (including style feats!), new disciplines and additional Traditions. Included as well are three new base classes that combine supernatural prowess with swordsmanship: the Harbinger, Mystic, and Zealot.

What's a new thread without some links and teasers? Not a new thread at all, that's what. So here's some of ours:

- The Harbinger (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HCtvRArIRPjcClMf5KVJrDBrkV_gBoaVFuvwA4CmCew/edit?usp=sharing), a melee control class that uses superior mobility and crippling status effects to command the battlefield. These warriors understand grief and anger on a personal level and translate that understanding into deadly curses and reality-warping swordplay. Harbinger also has two archetypes (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EsgZxSmnr9mwAeZRxHdxZSAS95QeUI0RWQ3F7nm4j38/edit?usp=sharing) available in beta. The Crimson Countess emphasizes the Claim mechanic to take her rage out on her victims, while the Ravenlord creates a shadowy servant that aids him in battle. Harbinger introduces two new disciplines: Cursed Razor and Shattered Mirror

- The Zealot (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AbNq6NDkQ84JoacxMb-CxbQKwuXVWTEBpX2cIcNB7iA/edit), a psionic swordsman who leads his party into battle with the power of his passions and their own collective bond. These psionic initiators augment their maneuvers with power points and aid their party members with telepathy. Zealot introduces the Eternal Guardian and Sleeping Goddess disciplines

- The as-yet-unreleased (and to be renamed) Mystic, a melee support class that uses unstable arcane energies to unleash beneficial magic on his allies and scourge his enemies with the power of the elements. Mystics are founts of energy that they vent through martial discipline and intuition rather than through spells. Mystic will introduce the Elemental Flux and Riven Hourglass disciplines.

But wait, there's more!

- Dreamscarred Press is happy to announce Class Templates, archetypes that can be applied to more than one class. Class Templates represent ideas too broad for a single-class archetype, letting you create very different versions of the same somewhat broad idea. The three introduced in Path of War Expanded are the Bushi, Privateer, and Hussar (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hHsiSKoL2nR4oWgzPKQwXfqYENuNkDmBiX323SlTPfc/edit?usp=sharing), for all of your samurai, pirate, and mounted warrior needs. At the end of the document you'll find the Mithral Current discipline as well.

- The Riven Hourglass (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmHuI_JcLiDJ2_g0jyrP0lQ1a8wyXh-yL4-3njLpnZk/edit) discipline, available for open beta.

And last, but certainly not least, I'm previewing something that's been asked for almost since day one of Path of War; Style Feats. I must stress that these previewed feats are still in testing, and any and all feedback is appreciated.

Cursed Razor Style [Style]
You persecute those under the influence of your dark power.
Prerequisites: 1 or more Cursed Razor stances, Spellcraft 3 ranks.
Benefit: Whenever you damage a cursed creature with a melee attack, that creature suffers an additional 2 points of bleed damage, plus 2 points for every 4 character levels you possess. A DC 15 Heal check or the application of magical healing halts this damage.

Cursed Razor Plague [Style]
Your curses spread amongst your enemies.
Prerequisites: Cursed Razor Style, Spellcraft 7 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you cause an opponent to become cursed by an effect other than this feat, you may select an additional opponent within 30 ft.; the additional opponent becomes cursed for the same duration.

Cursed Razor Massacre [Style]
You tear into your victims like a plague-laced wind.
Prerequisites: Cursed Razor Plague, Spellcraft 11 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you strike a cursed creature with a melee attack you may make an additional attack against another cursed creature within your reach. This additional attack is made at your highest attack bonus and may be made up to once per round.

Iron Tortoise Style [Style]
You guard yourself and allies with your trusty shield at your side
Prerequisites: Proficiency with shields, 1 or more Iron Tortoise stances, Bluff 3 ranks
Benefit: You deal damage with shield bash attacks as though you were one size larger than you actually are. This stacks with other effects that increase size.

Iron Tortoise Shell [Style]
Your shield protects you from more than just physical assaults
Prerequisites: Iron Tortoise Style, Bluff 7 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you initiate a counter, you gain the evasion special ability until the end of your next turn.

Iron Tortoise Snap [Style]
Your sword-and-shield style is brutally efficient.
Prerequisites: Iron Tortoise Shell, Bluff 13 ranks
Benefit: You may make an additional attack at your highest attack bonus with a non-shield weapon whenever you hit a creature with a shield bash. This additional attack must be made against the creature struck by your shield bash.

Mithral Current Style [Style]
Even with your weapon still sheathed, your presence is enough to threaten enemies.
Prerequisites: 1 or more Mithral Current stances, Quick Draw, Perform (Dance) 3 ranks
Benefit: As long as you have a sheathed weapon on your person, you threaten adjacent squares and may make attacks of opportunity even if you are not currently wielding a weapon. You may draw a weapon as part of making an attack of opportunity; weapons drawn this way are sheathed after the attack is resolved.

Mithral Current Flow [Style]
The heightened senses of your bloodlust are at their greatest just before you draw your weapon.
Prerequisites: Mithral Current Style, Perform (Dance) 7 ranks
Benefit: When you begin your turn with your weapon sheathed, you gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC. You lose this bonus whenever you draw your weapon, until or unless you begin a new turn with your weapon sheathed.

Mithral Current Slice [Style]
Drawing your weapon from its sheath as you strike allows you to hit harder and faster.
Prerequisites: Mithral Current Style, Perform (Dance) 11 ranks
Benefit: When you use Quick Draw, your first attack this round treats your opponent as having vulnerability to silver, causing them to take an additional 50% damage from silver sources.

Shattered Mirror Style [Style]
You are skilled in the art of reflective combat.
Prerequisites: 1 or more Shattered Mirror stances, Craft 3 ranks
Benefit: When wielding one or more Shattered Mirror discipline weapons, increase your shield bonus to AC by +2 (even if you don’t have a shield bonus).

Shattered Mirror Waltz [Style]
Your supernatural swordplay lets you move like an illusion.
Prerequisites: Shattered Mirror Style, Craft 7 ranks
Benefit: You ignore movement penalties inflicted by difficult terrain (other forms of penalties, such as damage, still affect you).

Shattered Mirror Duality [Style]
Your reality-distorting power reflects your attacks, making it hard to defend against you.
Prerequisites: Shattered Mirror Waltz, Craft 13 ranks
Benefit: Once per round, you may expend one of your readied boosts as a swift action. If you do, roll each attack you make this round twice and use the better result.

Solar Wind Style [Style]
Your arrows glow as bright as the sun
Prerequisites: 1 or more Solar Wind Stances, Perception 3 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you make a ranged attack against a foe, you deal an extra +1 fire damage per 5 character levels. In addition your arrows (or other ammunition) emit light as a torch; this light can be suppressed or resumed as a free action.

Solar Wind Flash [Style]
The light of your arrows is blinding
Prerequisites: Solar Wind Style, Perception 7 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you succeed on a ranged attack against a creature, you may expend one of your readied boosts as a swift action. If you do, the creature must succeed on a Fort save (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your initiation modifier) or be blinded for 1 minute.

Solar Wind Inferno [Style]
The burning power of your arrows sears the flesh of even those immune to fire
Prerequisites: Solar Wind Flash, Perception 13 ranks
Benefit: Your ranged attacks which deal fire damage ignore an amount of fire resistance equal to your character level. You treat Fire Immunity as Fire Resistance 30 for purposes of this effect.

It's been an amazing ride so far, and the support from the community for this project has been overwhelming and very touching. We couldn't have gotten this far without you guys, and I hope the Path of War line can continue to be an addition to your tables. With that said, I declare this thread to be officially open!


Path of War: Expanded Archetypes Document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tbBIinA90VQW8eriM0TZTZCbHsSU6cdv7_44J8w564s/edit?usp=sharing)

All the Feats for Path of War: Expanded! (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EPARqt5jpie03MIXStgFrNK_si6g218bjT4TFbcizPY/edit?usp=sharing)

Warpaths (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FMI_tbEJHXtejBNgdDtsA09CJHskHnZQZ2N33L2HZ6A/edit?usp=sharing)

the Zealot’s archetypes (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dt0LxHWmuPr0e9z5IlnYyf1bXweGONCnwTQDUCThFPU/edit?usp=sharing)

Martial Tradition (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vX5QKzsOgPVoXqSuKdu_INbPz5x7OAL_qbH2aia14xk/edit)

[Nihilarian]

Looks pretty good!

Edit: Swash and Buckle lists Buckler among the weapons you can wield to reduce TWF penalties. Does that mean weapons that also count as a buckler, such as the Buckler Gun?

[Elricaltovilla]

Looks pretty good!

Edit: Swash and Buckle lists Buckler among the weapons you can wield to reduce TWF penalties. Does that mean weapons that also count as a buckler, such as the Buckler Gun?

Class Template writer here! Yes, the buckler gun is useable with Swash and Buckle. If it counts as a buckler, it counts as a buckler.:smallsmile:

[jjcrpntr]

Sweet, now I just need a print copy of PoW so I can get comfortable with it so that I could bring this stuff in later.

[Greenish]

Does having buckler proficiency count as having proficiency in shields?

[EDIT]: The two first Mithral Current feats seem rather underwhelming, and so do the Solar Wind ones.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Yay, I was beginning to wonder if we would have to go back to the original thread since the semi-review thread was getting way off topic.

Here's to another year of awesome!

[The Glyphstone]

Will the book include any material for Mythic characters using Path of War classes? The existing mythic paths don't support a maneuver-using character terribly well.

[ErrantX]

Will the book include any material for Mythic characters using Path of War classes? The existing mythic paths don't support a maneuver-using character terribly well.

That's up in the air currently. I've already vetoed creating a new Mythic Path, as the existing ones fit well enough, just don't have as much support for maneuver users. The likely outcome will be at most a small section on new mythic powers and the odd Mythic feat here or there.

-X

[Greenish]

First impressions of the style feats.



Cursed Razor Style [Style]
You persecute those under the influence of your dark power.
Prerequisites: 1 or more Cursed Razor stances, Spellcraft 3 ranks.
Benefit: Whenever you damage a cursed creature with a melee attack, that creature suffers an additional 2 points of bleed damage, plus 2 points for every 4 character levels you possess. A DC 15 Heal check or the application of magical healing halts this damage.

Cursed Razor Plague [Style]
Your curses spread amongst your enemies.
Prerequisites: Cursed Razor Style, Spellcraft 7 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you cause an opponent to become cursed by an effect other than this feat, you may select an additional opponent within 30 ft.; the additional opponent becomes cursed for the same duration.

Cursed Razor Massacre [Style]
You tear into your victims like a plague-laced wind.
Prerequisites: Cursed Razor Plague, Spellcraft 11 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you strike a cursed creature with a melee attack you may make an additional attack against another cursed creature within your reach. This additional attack is made at your highest attack bonus and may be made up to once per round.This looks solid. You may want to specify that the extra attack from Massacre has to have a different target, to avoid ambiguity. Plague has some weird effects if you get things like Bestow Curse with Permanent duration from somewhere, especially if used by NPC (so that you'd have to explain to the PC that they've been cursed with a curse that doesn't do anything on its own but won't go away without Remove Curse).


Iron Tortoise Style [Style]
You guard yourself and allies with your trusty shield at your side
Prerequisites: Proficiency with shields, 1 or more Iron Tortoise stances, Bluff 3 ranks
Benefit: You deal damage with shield bash attacks as though you were one size larger than you actually are. This stacks with other effects that increase size.

Iron Tortoise Shell [Style]
Your shield protects you from more than just physical assaults
Prerequisites: Iron Tortoise Style, Bluff 7 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you initiate a counter, you gain the evasion special ability until the end of your next turn.

Iron Tortoise Snap [Style]
Your sword-and-shield style is brutally efficient.
Prerequisites: Iron Tortoise Shell, Bluff 13 ranks
Benefit: You may make an additional attack at your highest attack bonus with a non-shield weapon whenever you hit a creature with a shield bash. This additional attack must be made against the creature struck by your shield bash. Base ability is okay, Shell is somewhat limited but good when everything aligns, and Snap is just lovely. You can somewhat chain Snap with Vanguard's Shield, though, for four attacks with every strike or counter.


Mithral Current Style [Style]
Even with your weapon still sheathed, your presence is enough to threaten enemies.
Prerequisites: 1 or more Mithral Current stances, Quick Draw, Perform (Dance) 3 ranks
Benefit: As long as you have a sheathed weapon on your person, you threaten adjacent squares and may make attacks of opportunity even if you are not currently wielding a weapon. You may draw a weapon as part of making an attack of opportunity; weapons drawn this way are sheathed after the attack is resolved.

Mithral Current Flow [Style]
The heightened senses of your bloodlust are at their greatest just before you draw your weapon.
Prerequisites: Mithral Current Style, Perform (Dance) 7 ranks
Benefit: When you begin your turn with your weapon sheathed, you gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC. You lose this bonus whenever you draw your weapon, until or unless you begin a new turn with your weapon sheathed.

Mithral Current Slice [Style]
Drawing your weapon from its sheath as you strike allows you to hit harder and faster.
Prerequisites: Mithral Current Style, Perform (Dance) 11 ranks
Benefit: When you use Quick Draw, your first attack this round treats your opponent as having vulnerability to silver, causing them to take an additional 50% damage from silver sources.This gets a solid meh from me. Style barely does anything Quick Draw and, say, armour spikes wouldn't already do, and if you have Mixed Combat (like most people focusing on Mithral Current probably will), there's literally no benefit from it. Flow applies, well, I guess if you move and provoke AoO before attaking, so basically like a more limited version of Mobility. Slice is a good damage boost, but not worth the cost of three feats and a swift action.


Shattered Mirror Style [Style]
You are skilled in the art of reflective combat.
Prerequisites: 1 or more Shattered Mirror stances, Craft 3 ranks
Benefit: When wielding one or more Shattered Mirror discipline weapons, increase your shield bonus to AC by +2 (even if you don’t have a shield bonus).

Shattered Mirror Waltz [Style]
Your supernatural swordplay lets you move like an illusion.
Prerequisites: Shattered Mirror Style, Craft 7 ranks
Benefit: You ignore movement penalties inflicted by difficult terrain (other forms of penalties, such as damage, still affect you).

Shattered Mirror Duality [Style]
Your reality-distorting power reflects your attacks, making it hard to defend against you.
Prerequisites: Shattered Mirror Waltz, Craft 13 ranks
Benefit: Once per round, you may expend one of your readied boosts as a swift action. If you do, roll each attack you make this round twice and use the better result.Style's a bit boring but not terrible, Waltz is nice but can be replicated by 2k gp sandals or a 1st level spell, and Duality is a solid Boost, but should probably be an actual maneuver ("if it quacks like a duck…"). I might go for this style if I was a non-stalker critfisher. Probably not, though.


Solar Wind Style [Style]
Your arrows glow as bright as the sun
Prerequisites: 1 or more Solar Wind Stances, Perception 3 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you make a ranged attack against a foe, you deal an extra +1 fire damage per 5 character levels. In addition your arrows (or other ammunition) emit light as a torch; this light can be suppressed or resumed as a free action.

Solar Wind Flash [Style]
The light of your arrows is blinding
Prerequisites: Solar Wind Style, Perception 7 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you succeed on a ranged attack against a creature, you may expend one of your readied boosts as a swift action. If you do, the creature must succeed on a Fort save (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your initiation modifier) or be blinded for 1 minute.

Solar Wind Inferno [Style]
The burning power of your arrows sears the flesh of even those immune to fire
Prerequisites: Solar Wind Flash, Perception 13 ranks
Benefit: Your ranged attacks which deal fire damage ignore an amount of fire resistance equal to your character level. You treat Fire Immunity as Fire Resistance 30 for purposes of this effect.
Style makes me scratch my head. The illumination might actually be occasionally useful, except ammunition gets destroyed once it hits/misses, and the fire damage seems tiny. I guess a volley archer might find it useful when multiplied by a whole bunch of attacks, but then, they'd probably rather use boosts for the first few rounds. Flash is okay, but I seem to recall Solar Wind had a decent share of blinding maneuvers, ones that you could add the DC boost from discipline weapon and Discipline Expertise and whatnot. Inferno is good or great, depending on your maneuver load out.

[The Glyphstone]

That's up in the air currently. I've already vetoed creating a new Mythic Path, as the existing ones fit well enough, just don't have as much support for maneuver users. The likely outcome will be at most a small section on new mythic powers and the odd Mythic feat here or there.

-X

That was my problem...I tried my hand at homebrewing, but couldn't come up with enough Initiator-specific mythic abilities to warrant a separate path.

A means of either gaining extra swift actions in a turn, or reducing the number of things competing for an Initiator's swift action (stances, boosts, and counters, plus various class abilities) would be at the top of my very short list of Mythic must-haves for an initiator. Substituting 'melee or ranged attack' for 'Strike maneuver with a time of 1 Standard Action' for Path Abilities and Mythic Powers seems to work well as a stopgap.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I think a small list of path abilities and mythic feats would be the best bet for Mythic stuff for now, with a PoW Augmented being created with unique mythic martial disciplines similar to TDO's old ones (but with less Exalted lore) and mythic versions of current maneuvers being considered if there's enough interest later on.

My own short list would be a mythic power user that removed the melee/ranged only on maneuvers for a turn. :smallbiggrin:

[Greenish]

Notes on class templates (I like the concept):

Bushi
First, the verb is "sheathe".

Katana and wakizashi proficiency is nice fluff, though there's little mechanical reason to use either. The feats, you could honestly get both without losing two bonus feats, but given how they complement MC, it's not too bad (though there's some overlap). The maneuver recovery is basically automatic on each turn, and allows you to spam the same maneuver over and over if you like, which is lame. Of Bushidos,

Benevolence looks like you'd almost have to spam it to be effective (at which point it may be too effective).

Courage is pretty meh (are there any non-magical fear effects? Is Intimidate one?).

Honesty is pretty handy but has really short duration for an interaction effect (and could probably stand to be Immediate action enabled like Inquisitor's).

Honor will be pretty minor in most cases, but handy against boss-style enemies.

Loyalty is a neat piece of utility, even if you don't have healing to make the most of it.

Respect is nice. Combine with Tactical Assistance and Bodyguard for best effect.

Righteousness is kinda meh.

You might want to add a few more, preferably less magical than Loyalty or Righteousness. Currently you get ten out of eleven eventually, making choice matter less.


Privateer
"I was a highwayman, along the coach roads I did ride, sword and pistol by my side…"

Okay, so the target fluff is a bit narrow, I'd prefer a more generic sword & pistol style with less bolted-on piracy. Changing the core maneuver recovery mechanics is a bold move, but the replacement is somewhat boring and generic (and silly). Should probably note it counts as having the Dazzling Display feat as far as prerequisites go. Most of the class features are pretty minor.



Hussar
It's not listed on the "what warlord loses", but they lose a discipline. Most warlords have access to five disciplines, but the hussar only has 4, for some reason. It might be better to let the classes to swap what disciplines they want for Piercing Lance (and maybe make Iron Tortoise voluntary). Keeping Solar Wind in place of Iron Tortoise, for example, would give a nice light cavalry wibe.

Mounted Maneuver Expertise makes me question how maneuvers normally work whilst mounted, but I guess that way madness lies.

Formations seem a bit fiddly to use, even if many of the effects are pretty good, though I guess the hussar will always benefit since the mount should count as an ally. Guerilla formation should probably have longer range to properly qualify for the name.

[deuxhero]

I think Cursed Razor Massacre should say "a different" instead of "another". Less ambiguity.

Mithral Current Style and reach weapons in all uses.

Mithral Current Slice looks like it would pair nicely with Deadly Stroke. Hard to qualify for (5 feats+any martial training ect. Requires Fighter 11) but d*1.5*2 is pretty potent. I'm on the side of letting the fighter (and Samurai) have a nice thing if they really go for it though. May not actually beat 3/4 attacks though.

[Anlashok]

Are the bushi, privateer and hussar replacements for the previously mentioned corsair, dragoon and something else I can't remember the name of classes mentioned in another thread? Or just a separate new thing? The former seems a given but that would be a shame so I want to make sure.

Also any chance they'll be expanded for the missing class? A warder privateer or stalker bushi might be cool (etc). The aysmmetry of it gets to me.

[deuxhero]

A means of either gaining extra swift actions in a turn

There's one in the PF core rules. You can ready (for something that will occur immediately after you ready) a swift action as a standard action. Doesn't really fix anything though thanks to eating your standard.

[Greenish]

Are the bushi, privateer and hussar replacements for the previously mentioned corsair, dragoon and something else I can't remember the name of classes mentioned in another thread?Yes. ......

[Anlashok]

Yes. ......

What a shame.

[Greenish]

What a shame.Why, do you really need to have both a corsair (already several archetypes by that name) and a privateer?

[LordErebus12]

I still think ranged characters need a few disciplines of their own...

Make my dream come true and factor that into Ultimate Path of War. :smallbiggrin:

[The Glyphstone]

There's one in the PF core rules. You can ready (for something that will occur immediately after you ready) a swift action as a standard action. Doesn't really fix anything though thanks to eating your standard.

Which is why I hadn't included/considered it, because it's still worse than the default.




I still think ranged characters need a few disciplines of their own...

Make my dream come true and factor that into Ultimate Path of War.

Solar Wind isn't good enough?

[Ilorin Lorati]

At this point, between the sidebar (maybe) coming in PoW:E, and the general unrestriction of as many maneuvers as possible to allow for ranged combat use, honestly? We probably don't need it Erebus. Would it be nice? Yeah, but only if they can find a good niche.

[Anlashok]

.
Solar Wind isn't good enough?

Solar wind is great! If you wanna play a magical fire archer.

If you're looking to play something more traditionally martial you're SoL

[Greenish]

Have you thought about allowing comments directly on the docs?

[Seerow]

Solar Wind isn't good enough?

We just had this... discussion in the other thread a week or so back.

Suffice it to say opinions on that are divided, but more ranged disciplines isn't something high on priority for those whose opinions matter most.

[Prime32]

Scarlet Throne makes a pretty good "sharpshooter" discipline if you switch the melee requirements to ranged ones. (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=3617.html)

[Ilorin Lorati]

I'm taking a break from class stuff to make a list of all the ranged-capable maneuvers in PoW and their requirements (if any).

I'll post it when I'm finished, but it could take a little bit; so far I've finished Black Seraph and Broken Blade.

[Togath]

The bushi and mithril current discipline look very fun, and made me curious;
Is it possible to use natural weapons or unarmed attacks with "weapon must be sheathed" maneuvers/abilities?

[Fax Celestis]

Pretty juiced. Will pick it up when I'm not broke.

It should say something that the only PF books I own are DSP books.

[Nihilarian]

The bushi and mithril current discipline look very fun, and made me curious;
Is it possible to use natural weapons or unarmed attacks with "weapon must be sheathed" maneuvers/abilities?Wear clothes with pockets. Refer to them as hand scabbards.

About my earlier buckler question: any way we could get the wording changed so that it says "buckler weapons" or something similar instead of "buckler"? My first thought when noticing buckler there was that there was a feat or maneuvers that let you use bucklers to shield bash.

[Seerow]

So something I just noticed looking at Mithral Current: For the weapon drawing rules it specifies you must have the Quick Draw feat or a +1 BAB. Quick Draw requires +1 BAB to take it, making the Quick Draw exception pretty useless.

[Fax Celestis]

So something I just noticed looking at Mithral Current: For the weapon drawing rules it specifies you must have the Quick Draw feat or a +1 BAB. Quick Draw requires +1 BAB to take it, making the Quick Draw exception pretty useless.

I'd mention something about Soulknives and Quick Draw, but they get that well after they have BAB +1.

[Bluydee]

The riven hourglass discipline was great when I used it at my table before and it looks great here too! Really looking forward to buying the book when it comes out.

[Greenish]

Will there be new archetypes for the existing classes? Stalker in particular looks to have design space open.

[Nihilarian]

Will there be new archetypes for the existing classes? Stalker in particular looks to have design space open.I'd love to see more Stalker options that remove the supernatural abilities.

[The Glyphstone]

Regarding the Crimson Countess archetype for Harbingers; is it intentional that Vitae only goes up, and not down? I was looking for some way to 'spend' Vitae, making it a choice whether to pool points to enable the various Sanguine Empowerment abilities and boost rolls, or expend them for something - but it's entirely a passive ability.

Similarly, is it intentional for a Crimson Countess to have two (non-stacking) sources of Insight boosts to attack rolls, from Accursed Will and Sanguine Empowerment?

[malonkey1]

So something I just noticed looking at Mithral Current: For the weapon drawing rules it specifies you must have the Quick Draw feat or a +1 BAB. Quick Draw requires +1 BAB to take it, making the Quick Draw exception pretty useless.

I think they're covering their bases in case somebody got it as a bonus feat.

[PsyBomb]

Mithril Current Bushi Warder just became my new build for Kenshin Himura.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Is there anywhere I can find PF character sheets that have capacity for Psionics/PoW options? Mainly the skills.

[Elricaltovilla]

I think they're covering their bases in case somebody got it as a bonus feat.

Its actually the opposite. You can draw a weapon as a free action as part of another move action provided you have a BAB of +1. So this wording allows you to use mithral current in those edge cases, and makes quick draw less of a feat tax to use the discipline.

[malonkey1]

Is there anywhere I can find PF character sheets that have capacity for Psionics/PoW options? Mainly the skills.

Myth-weavers is compatible with Psionics, but doesn't natively includemaneuver support (although I just put the maneuvers in the "spells" section)

[Fax Celestis]

Has anyone converted Sleeping Goddess to PoW yet?

[Greenish]

Has anyone converted Sleeping Goddess to PoW yet?
I imagine some progress has been made.

Zealot introduces the Eternal Guardian and Sleeping Goddess disciplines

[Ninjaxenomorph]

It's mostly just the new skills. Yes, the most nit-picky reason to dislike these books.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Has anyone converted Sleeping Goddess to PoW yet?

Sleeping Goddess can be found near the bottom of the Zealot beta document. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AbNq6NDkQ84JoacxMb-CxbQKwuXVWTEBpX2cIcNB7iA/edit)

[PsyBomb]

Quick note: The Destruction Cause of the Zealot's level-4 ability, by the way it's written, will ignore DR/-

I do not think this is intended, since it doesn't ignore DR/epic, but wanted to note that.

[Fenryr]

Will play a Bushi Warder in a month or two but will refluff the "seathe" with a "turns upside down" or something similar. 'Cause mind you, I want to use a Halberd.

EDIT: Any way for a Warder to gain Eternal Guardian?

[Lord_Gareth]

Regarding the Crimson Countess archetype for Harbingers; is it intentional that Vitae only goes up, and not down? I was looking for some way to 'spend' Vitae, making it a choice whether to pool points to enable the various Sanguine Empowerment abilities and boost rolls, or expend them for something - but it's entirely a passive ability.

I tried nine thousand and one ways to make spendable Vitae work within CC's mechanical theme and ultimately chose to sacrifice a flavor opportunity for the current incarnation. The trouble is that building Vitae through Claims is hard to scale properly, and Countess is a direct answer to numerous requests for more meaningful Claiming. Hence the current incarnation.


Similarly, is it intentional for a Crimson Countess to have two (non-stacking) sources of Insight boosts to attack rolls, from Accursed Will and Sanguine Empowerment?

There is no war in Ba Sing Se.

[Fax Celestis]

I imagine some progress has been made.

Durrrr lern 2 reed, facks.

[Lord_Gareth]

Will there be new archetypes for the existing classes? Stalker in particular looks to have design space open.

Path of War Expanded will be handling All the Archetypes Ever, Ever, Ever. I'm pretty excited about an upcoming Warder one, actually.

[Snowbluff]

Will we be getting more gish classes? Bladeaste really has 1.5 class features worth using, and it's a strict downgrade from its psionic counterpart, AFAICT. :smalltongue:

I'm still excited for the curse school. I like curses. :smallsmile:

[Greenish]

Path of War Expanded will be handling All the Archetypes Ever, Ever, Ever. I'm pretty excited about an upcoming Warder one, actually.Warder's getting even more archetype love? Man, those guys… Anyway, any teasing details?

Also, will there be a horselord stalker, or a musketeer stalker (privateer doesn't count)?

[Taveena]

Does Truesilver Tsunami apply precision damage (and other effects that do damage on each attack, like Flaming) just once, or on each strike?

... Also, can I ask why you chose to make Harbinger int-based? Kinda confused, nothing about it says 'must be super intelligent'.

[Lord_Gareth]

... Also, can I ask why you chose to make Harbinger int-based? Kinda confused, nothing about it says 'must be super intelligent'.

This actually came up before! Permit me to quote myself:


Aaah - I was wondering when I'd get this question.

There's a lot of reasons I keyed Harbinger to Intelligence. A part of it, maybe a very big part, is the legacy from which Harbinger arises. European witches, demonic entities, cannibal hags, beings like Koschei the Deathless - they all have in common this theme of knowing things, of holding onto terrible wisdom which they bend to their own will. Harbingers are the inheritors of that grim knowledge, the heralds of pain, and though they fight on the front lines their tool and weapon is still knowing.

Which is really where we get into the emotional aspect. A Harbinger does not channel her raw emotions, and her power is not based on the strength of those emotions. It comes from understanding, accepting, and to an extent embracing fear, sorrow, loss, grief, anger, hate, despair, and powerlessness. Harbingers have had their lives shaped by the worst the world has to offer but remain alive, and they translate that pain into strength by looking at the lessons their wounds have taught them, not by bleeding upon their enemies. They approach it intellectually, with an attitude of self-improvement, of dealing with their emotions somehow.

You can see that, or at least you will, with the iconic Harbinger - Kestrel of Asheholm. She and her sister both became Harbingers of very different stripes. Kestrel draws her strength from sorrow, and more importantly from her need to prevent such sorrow in others; Kestrel meditates on grief and how it's shaped her as a sapient being and uses its power in her swordplay. Her sister Jewel, on the other hand, has chosen to embrace fury at the injustices done to them both; for Jewel, the appropriate reaction to injustice is revenge, and she dwells and meditates not only on the nature of vengeance, but in how she can express it in her life.

Either way, force of personality, of self-identity, isn't the crux of the issue. Charisma relates to the self - self-identity, self-motivation, self-confidence. Harbingers do not need these things; their focus is on a universal constant, on the role that suffering and devastation plays in their lives and the lives of others. That comprehension leads them to the secrets of power.

I hope that made sense 'cause I'm not sure it did >.>

[Dusk Eclipse]

Path of War Expanded will be handling All the Archetypes Ever, Ever, Ever. I'm pretty excited about an upcoming Warder one, actually.

[Heavt Breathing] The warder is quickly becoming my favourite PoW class so far (still have to read the PoW2 classes in depth though), so that makes me happy; also I hope the Magus Archetype is combinable with Hexcrafter which is my favourite archetype. (pretty please with sugar on top)


This actually came up before! Permit me to quote myself


Aaah - I was wondering when I'd get this question.

There's a lot of reasons I keyed Harbinger to Intelligence. A part of it, maybe a very big part, is the legacy from which Harbinger arises. European witches, demonic entities, cannibal hags, beings like Koschei the Deathless - they all have in common this theme of knowing things, of holding onto terrible wisdom which they bend to their own will. Harbingers are the inheritors of that grim knowledge, the heralds of pain, and though they fight on the front lines their tool and weapon is still knowing.

Which is really where we get into the emotional aspect. A Harbinger does not channel her raw emotions, and her power is not based on the strength of those emotions. It comes from understanding, accepting, and to an extent embracing fear, sorrow, loss, grief, anger, hate, despair, and powerlessness. Harbingers have had their lives shaped by the worst the world has to offer but remain alive, and they translate that pain into strength by looking at the lessons their wounds have taught them, not by bleeding upon their enemies. They approach it intellectually, with an attitude of self-improvement, of dealing with their emotions somehow.

You can see that, or at least you will, with the iconic Harbinger - Kestrel of Asheholm. She and her sister both became Harbingers of very different stripes. Kestrel draws her strength from sorrow, and more importantly from her need to prevent such sorrow in others; Kestrel meditates on grief and how it's shaped her as a sapient being and uses its power in her swordplay. Her sister Jewel, on the other hand, has chosen to embrace fury at the injustices done to them both; for Jewel, the appropriate reaction to injustice is revenge, and she dwells and meditates not only on the nature of vengeance, but in how she can express it in her life.

Either way, force of personality, of self-identity, isn't the crux of the issue. Charisma relates to the self - self-identity, self-motivation, self-confidence. Harbingers do not need these things; their focus is on a universal constant, on the role that suffering and devastation plays in their lives and the lives of others. That comprehension leads them to the secrets of power.

I hope that made sense 'cause I'm not sure it did >.>:

Hopefully some of this makes to the print version, cause that is incredible, the knowledgeable warrior, is one of my favourite tropes/archetypes. So those are major points in favour of the Harbringer. Now.... can anyone help me to come up with a way to convince my DM to allow Harbringers in his RotRL campaign?

[squiggit]

That description makes me really excited for the Harbinger (though at the same time makes me want to toss my debuff oriented stalker out the window). Class sounds amazing. Ditto for the fact that it's int based, the justification for it works really well and I'm a huge fan of smart fighter characters. Probably part of why the Warder is my favorite PoW class, so excited for the news about it too.

Shame Warders can't be Privateers though, as the only thing that I like more than int-based fighters is Pirates... so one that slapped the two together woulda been delicious (and one step closer to my very bizarre fantasy class of a sword and pistol halfcasting necromantic lightning wielding pirate lord).

Oh and the whole idea behind the class templates seems nifty, hope there's more of them (or that the current ones get expanded a bit to cover some of the new classes).

Wish I had something more to say than "Oh that looks cool" over and over though.

[Togath]

Been playing a harbinger a bit now... It's very fun:smallbiggrin:
The int synergy is great, and it's making her a surprisingly good skill monkey. ^_^
I admittedly didn't manage to make much use of the Shattered Mirror(except Breaking Glass Strike, which was quite fun) and Cursed Razor Disciplines, since we were fighting weak enemies(about 16-18* level 1 goblins, and a boss goblin[about level 3, iirc]).
On the other hand... It was fun seeing how the class preforms against weaker enemies. I was able to keep refreshing my maneuvers nearly every turn, since my claimed targets died so quickly. :3

Looking forward to seeing how it preforms in less "fight the swarm of mooks" encounters, but so I've enjoyed playing one.:smallsmile:

*in a row, they kept streaming into the area.

[Milo v3]

I saw the Harbingers Int-base as coming from the archetype of the cold smart psychopath.

[Forrestfire]

As someone currently DMing for a playtest Harbinger, I really look forward to the book being published. It's a really fun class.

[Lord_Gareth]

I saw the Harbingers Int-base as coming from the archetype of the cold smart psychopath.

This is also a very valid Harbinger ^_^

[Sayt]

Is there still time/a cutoff time for submitting archetypes to the DSP submissions board for PoW Expanded?

I have the beginings of an idea for a racial archetype for Dwarven Warders.

[Lord_Gareth]

Is there still time/a cutoff time for submitting archetypes to the DSP submissions board for PoW Expanded?

I have the beginings of an idea for a racial archetype for Dwarven Warders.

You'll be warned when the 11th hour approaches.

[Shinken]

Mithril Current Bushi Warder just became my new build for Kenshin Himura.

...but Kenshin is clearly a Stalker :smalltongue:
That's the main reason I've been pushing for some way to get Mithral Current on a Stalker, not only does it match Kenshin, it matches the hitokiri archetype.

Gareth, you might want to use a different name for the Style feats (Form feats?). In Pathfinder, Style feats are exclusively unarmed, AFAIK.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I've finished compiling the list of all PoW1 maneuvers that allow ranged combat, it's visible here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373397).

Now if you'll excuse me, my eyes are twiddlin'.

[Milo v3]

Is there still time/a cutoff time for submitting archetypes to the DSP submissions board for PoW Expanded?


Wait. That's a thing?

[Togath]

You'll be warned when the 11th hour approaches.

How open are submissions?
I've had an idea for a catfolk warlord archetype for a bit that I might try writing up, if the submissions are open to anyone ^_^

[Lord_Gareth]

Ask, and ye shall receive (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewforum/f=14.html).

They're that open.

[Elricaltovilla]

Ask, and ye shall receive (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewforum/f=14.html).

They're that open.

I can personally vouch for this, as its more or less how I got involved in the project.

[Milo v3]

Is there an Aegis Archetype that lets them use Iron Tortoise? I can't tell since I'm going off the PFSRD.

[Ilorin Lorati]

No, the only two psionic archetypes currently are for Souknife and Psychic Warrior.

[Novawurmson]

Quick note: The Destruction Cause of the Zealot's level-4 ability, by the way it's written, will ignore DR/-

I do not think this is intended, since it doesn't ignore DR/epic, but wanted to note that.

Zealot writer here! It's intended. There are a considerable number of maneuvers that allow attacks to ignore all damage reduction and/or hardness, so the DR/epic restriction is actually a step down from those.


Is there an Aegis Archetype that lets them use Iron Tortoise? I can't tell since I'm going off the PFSRD.

Unfortunately, there aren't any Aegis PoW archetypes released as of yet (that I know of). You'd need to use the Martial Training line of feats or dip/multiclass (Warder seems like an excellent choice - Int synergy and Iron Tortoise).

[Ilorin Lorati]

You can also take Clever Wordplay (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/social-traits/clever-wordplay) to make your Bluff skill work off Int.

[Vhaidara]

Okay, so my brain was bouncing ideas. Not sure if this is too late to be suggested (no idea what the release date is), but here it goes.

I kind of miss Iron Heart Surge. Yes, it took houseruling to not be broken do to bad wording, but it was one of the most thematic abilities in the book. Through sheer force of will, you overcome the magic that restrains you. So I was thinking: Is that enough to build a discipline out of?

I'm thinking an entire discipline built around fighting magic. Have different versions of IHS-like maneuvers throughout the discipline, have stances that give bonuses on saves vs spells, maybe a stance for SR and one that prevents casting defensively (High level). Have buff-steal counters, spell redirection counters, buff steal strikes, dispelling strikes, and for the capstone, a Disjunction style ability that, on a failed save, removes spellcasting for 24 hours.

Against non-magical opponents, this discipline is completely useless. But against casters, you become a terror.

[Lord_Gareth]

Against non-magical opponents, this discipline is completely useless. But against casters, you become a terror.

And that's why it'll never happen. Disciplines are arts of war, not prestige classes. A discipline without a general application dies out with its practitioners.

Also caster hunting/fighting is a lot harder than your post would suggest.

[Powerdork]

So does Piercing Lance do anything to mitigate the problems with Mount ScalingTM that make the style so... 'eh'?

Also, for multi-initiators like Warlord/Warder, what is your key initiation modifier for the purposes of non-class effects such as feats? (Same question for multi-manifesters like Psion/Vitalist.)

[Ilorin Lorati]

*snip*



If you build it, they will... look at its strengths and quality. Martial characters that wreck casters have a place in fiction, though, and I'm sure you can find plenty of inspiration for it.

That said, I wouldn't make the discipline completely useless against non-casters. Just mostly useless.

[Novawurmson]

And that's why it'll never happen. Disciplines are arts of war, not prestige classes. A discipline without a general application dies out with its practitioners.

Also caster hunting/fighting is a lot harder than your post would suggest.

Shattered Mirror does a pretty good job as an anti-caster discipline, I thought. And, speaking of prestige classes, the PoW Mage Hunter does a fine job, too (though that's a bit of a "use a thief to catch a thief" scenario, because it gets casting).

[Elricaltovilla]

Shattered Mirror does a pretty good job as an anti-caster discipline, I thought. And, speaking of prestige classes, the PoW Mage Hunter does a fine job, too (though that's a bit of a "use a thief to catch a thief" scenario, because it gets casting).

If you tacked shattered mirror onto a stalker and used that combined withveiled moon mobility and steel sserpent's WIS, INT, CHA and CON poisoning strikes you could be an absolute terror for any caster.

[Lord_Gareth]

Also, for multi-initiators like Warlord/Warder, what is your key initiation modifier for the purposes of non-class effects such as feats? (Same question for multi-manifesters like Psion/Vitalist.)

Word of Bossman says you use your highest key ability modifier for psionics. Path of War will probably follow this precedent, but don't quote me until I've poked the team repeatedly with sharp objects.

[ErrantX]

Also, for multi-initiators like Warlord/Warder, what is your key initiation modifier for the purposes of non-class effects such as feats? (Same question for multi-manifesters like Psion/Vitalist.)

So I better understand the question, could you please provide an example scenario?

-X

[Ilorin Lorati]

A character with a stat block of 10 18 12 10 14 16 and Stalker 6/Warlord 8 is using Solar Wind Flash from the style feats list. What is their primary initiation modifier for the purposes of the feat?

[Powerdork]

From Bushi in the Class Templates doc, Loyalty Bushido:

You may mark a friend or ally as a standard action a number of times per day equal to your initiating modifier (minimum 1). This mark allows you to know the relative position and general health condition of the creatures marked as if they were under the effects of a status spell (caster level equal to your initiator level). In addition, you are able to monitor their health level, as per the spell deathwatch.

So I suppose same goes for Initiator Level, as well. Warder 6/Warlord 8 (both Bushi), with +4 Intelligence and +2 Charisma modifiers. (Yes, I'm being silly with ability scores here. Don't mind that.)

Or is that an illegal multiclass?

[ErrantX]

A character with a stat block of 10 18 12 10 14 16 and Stalker 6/Warlord 8 is using Solar Wind Flash from the style feats list. What is their primary initiation modifier for the purposes of the feat?

Highest primary attribute modifier, for sure.

-X

[Ilorin Lorati]

*snip*

Well that one's easy, since it's applied to a specific class. Class features, even ones with the same name and use, count separately unless explicitly stated to stack.

Thus, a Warlord (Bushi) 8 / Warder (Bushi) 6 would have 4 from Warder and 2 from Warlord, both at IL 14 because initiator levels give full IL to all classes.

At least, this is what my coffee-less mind is telling me.

[Lord_Gareth]

From Bushi in the Class Templates doc, Loyalty Bushido:


So I suppose same goes for Initiator Level, as well. Warder 6/Warlord 8 (both Bushi), with +4 Intelligence and +2 Charisma modifiers. (Yes, I'm being silly with ability scores here. Don't mind that.)

Or is that an illegal multiclass?

I'm inclined to say that you can't take the same class template twice. Going to discuss it with team, but take that as the ruling for now. You'll be updated with the final decision (as well as the beta doc, that'll get updated).

[JusticeZero]

I wish I could see some sort of battle medic, but i'll admit to being hazy how to make the fluff of fighting moves mesh up with the role of restoring allies.

[stack]

I wish I could see some sort of battle medic, but i'll admit to being hazy how to make the fluff of fighting moves mesh up with the role of restoring allies.

Works okay if supernatural. The martial equivalent of a soulthief vitalist?

[Ilorin Lorati]

Silver Crane.

If you really want to screw with it, take a single level of Vitalist before going into.. any maneuver granting class while trading out for the discipline. The 6th level stance gives fast healing, which collective healing can reallocate.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Since the Zealot has a collective it could be possible for an an archetype to take a leaf out of the Vitalist playbook and get some sort of healing abilities, probably a Healing focused mission and zeal.

[Novawurmson]

Since the Zealot has a collective it could be possible for an an archetype to take a leaf out of the Vitalist playbook and get some sort of healing abilities, probably a Healing focused mission and zeal.

It already does! Creation. It'll get Silver Crane through an archetype, as well.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Huh.... that is what I get when I don't read everything in depth :smallredface:

[Lord_Gareth]

Survey Time

As we assemble archetypes for Path of War Expanded, a question has come up in internal development, as to if certain pre-existing classes need archetypes or other forms of support. On one side, the essential feeling is that classes like cleric, wizard, witch, magus, or inquisitor aren't really compatible with maneuvers, that their spells are both strongly thematic for them and more than enough to make them into martial characters on their own. Path of War was meant in support of martial characters, not magical ones that can stand on their own; unlike psionics, it is not a major flavor change to the expectations of a campaign setting which requires accommodation.

The flip side is that supporting those classes adds more material to fit into various campaigns and character concepts, and encourages players of those classes to take a look at our material when maybe they otherwise wouldn't. Archetypes (or clerical domains, or...) have a different cost than feats and people may want those instead of feat options in light of those differing costs or because it helps them flesh out their character concept. That kind of support makes it easier to integrate Path of War into a table that's experimenting with it, rather than forcing full immersion.

Either way, many classes are getting full archetype support, including even some dubiously martial ones like alchemist and bard. The question of, "Should we archetype or not?" is being asked only of full casters and then additionally Magus and Inquisitor, for whom spells are a strong part of their identity. We'd like the thoughts of you, the customers, on this matter.

Thank you for your time!

[PsyBomb]

I think that the dichotomy needs to be enforced. This is MARTIAL magic, they have their own to resort to. No half-BAB class should ever gain archetype access to Initiator systems, and and no full caster without giving up most (or all) or their spellcasting.

That said, I could see a Druid archetype that gives up its casting and animal companion in order to be a Beast-Form Initiator with access to Veiled Moon, Broken Blade, and Primal Fury. Then again, I'm a fan of Ranma 1/2, so I may be biased.

[Forrestfire]

I think that the thing I'd like to see the most, archetype-wise, is a Summoner archtype that swaps out Summon Monster for maneuvers for their Eidolon. My reasons for this are threefold:

It weakens the class a bit by removing the added versatility of the Summon Monster line (as well as the ability to be a spammy minionmancer instead of just someone with a big pet)
It's something useful for people whose character concept is that they just want to have the one big summon, rather than being able to summon a bunch of celestial badgers if they want to as well. If I'm building someone modeled off a Stand user or a Final Fantasy-style summoner, I don't need angelic animals, I want the big badass outsider as my main ability.
Maneuvers are really cool, and having an eidolon with them is doubly cool.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I personally think that Maguses (Magi?) and inquisitors should get a martial archetype, specially given that Psychic Warriors got one and they are the closest analogues to Magus and inquisitors, plus the idea of delivering spells via strikes sound delicious. Having said that, I understand that there are probably power concerns, but you can probably take a page out of the Kensai archetype reducing the spells per day and removing Spell Recall and the improved version, which can probably help a little.

[Fax Celestis]

Secondary caster types (bard, magus, inquisitor, alchemist, etc.; basically guys that get it as a 5 or 6 level progression): absolutely yes, preferably dropping them to a slower progression on spells.

Primary caster types (cleric, druid, wizard, witch, etc.): not interested. They get enough candy already. Though a PoWitch might be interesting if you use a curse/debuff based discipline or disciplines and replace their spellcasting wholesale with it, maybe bump their BAB and one of their saves, but that might end up with basically a new class.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Secondary caster types (bard, magus, inquisitor, alchemist, etc.; basically guys that get it as a 5 or 6 level progression): absolutely yes, preferably dropping them to a slower progression on spells.

Primary caster types (cleric, druid, wizard, witch, etc.): not interested. They get enough candy already. Though a PoWitch might be interesting if you use a curse/debuff based discipline or disciplines and replace their spellcasting wholesale with it, maybe bump their BAB and one of their saves, but that might end up with basically a new class.

Isn't that the basic gist of the Harbringer? Perhaps a Theurge Class that advances Hexes and maneuvers?

[Turion]

Survey Time



I personally feel like the full casters get enough Nice Things without a PoW archetype, although I could honestly see a Primal Fury druid or a Cursed Razor Witch being really interesting.

As to the others: Magus, to me, feels like a Spellcaster who happens to have a pointy stick, whereas Inquisitor is more like a fighter who happens to have spells. Don't really care one way or the other about the magus, but I'd love to see the inquisitor get access to Solar Wind and either Silver Crane or Black Seraph (maybe Eternal Guardian). Wouldn't mind seeing investigator or Skald get something, either.

[Powerdork]

Survey Time

I feel like you'd be better off not doing it. People will be throwing around complaints of identity, and I'd rather they not.

(People take elfgames too seriously.)

[ErrantX]

I'm inclined to say that you can't take the same class template twice. Going to discuss it with team, but take that as the ruling for now. You'll be updated with the final decision (as well as the beta doc, that'll get updated).

I'm inclined to agree and say a class template can only be taken once.

But anyhow, I think Gareth and I are on the same page when I say that if it has more casting than a magus, bard, or inquisitor, the answer is a solid "No."

We'll see how everyone feels about it, but by and large, I don't think it is needed. Let's look at that gunslinger wizard archetype and shiver.

-X

[Taveena]

My first thought was.... what if Clerics could swap out their Domains for access to maneuvers? Not many - maybe the same number of maneuvers as they get domain spells. (Or maybe trade both domains for access to 9 maneuvers to keep the appeal of going full-initiator?) It wouldn't ramp up the power, and as Clerics are already quite a martial class thematically, I feel like it works. Give clerics of each god schools based on their domains. (Like Pelor giving Solar Wind, if this were 3.5e) Maneuvers, in this case, aren't adding anything thematically - it's just a different expression of their mundane martial training. A more exciting one than '3/4 BAB and medium armor proficiency'. I'll admit - I'm basically seeing it as the Crusader fluff. Divine flashes of inspiration.

Druids, similarly, I could see trading away their animal companion - or something similar - for Primal Fury/Thrashing Dragon/etc maneuvers. (Or maybe Wildshape? I'm not sure about balance here.)

Wizards, Witches, and Sorcerors are... harder, thematically, because you'd also be changin' the core fluff of the class by making them martial. Which could be fine, but it's not as simple as the 3/4 BAB casters.


TL;DR - clerics and druids should get it as it doesn't change the fluff, not sure about others.

EDIT: Though I do agree with the sentiment of Cursed Razor Witches. Trade out a Hex for a maneuver known? Could be fun.

[Snowbluff]

Survey Time


Summoner should totally get an archetype. If anything, they should get an option to make the eidolon an initiator, and can use their spells slots to recover the maneuvers on the eidolon. To balance it out, the eidolon should have crappy recovery, otherwise. That way, a summoner will have to use spell slots to give back maneuvers normally, but will have an option for when they exhausted their slots.

Of course, a synthesist compatible archetype would be awesome. As a just for fun option (not a well balanced one), swap summon monster (and maybe add Diminished Casting) for an initiator progression. The net result would be that you could have a summoner and its eidolon both use maves, or have a hulked out summoner. :smalltongue:

Still irked about Bladecaster.

[Forrestfire]

Summoner should totally get an archetype. If anything, they should get an option to make the eidolon an initiator, and can use their spells slots to recover the maneuvers on the eidolon. To balance it out, the eidolon should have crappy recovery, otherwise. That way, a summoner will have to use spell slots to give back maneuvers normally, but will have an option for when they exhausted their slots.

Of course, a synthesist compatible archetype would be awesome. As a just for fun option (not a well balanced one), swap summon monster (and maybe add Diminished Casting) for an initiator progression. :smalltongue:

Still irked about Bladecaster.

Those are pretty great ideas. A Synthesist initiator would be awesome. Go full Dragonball Z with your character :smallamused:

[Fax Celestis]

My first thought was.... what if Clerics could swap out their Domains for access to maneuvers? Not many - maybe the same number of maneuvers as they get domain spells. (Or maybe trade both domains for access to 9 maneuvers to keep the appeal of going full-initiator?) It wouldn't ramp up the power, and as Clerics are already quite a martial class thematically, I feel like it works. Give clerics of each god schools based on their domains. (Like Pelor giving Solar Wind, if this were 3.5e) Maneuvers, in this case, aren't adding anything thematically - it's just a different expression of their mundane martial training. A more exciting one than '3/4 BAB and medium armor proficiency'. I'll admit - I'm basically seeing it as the Crusader fluff. Divine flashes of inspiration.

Druids, similarly, I could see trading away their animal companion - or something similar - for Primal Fury/Thrashing Dragon/etc maneuvers. (Or maybe Wildshape? I'm not sure about balance here.)

Wizards, Witches, and Sorcerors are... harder, thematically, because you'd also be changin' the core fluff of the class by making them martial. Which could be fine, but it's not as simple as the 3/4 BAB casters.


TL;DR - clerics and druids should get it as it doesn't change the fluff, not sure about others.

EDIT: Though I do agree with the sentiment of Cursed Razor Witches. Trade out a Hex for a maneuver known? Could be fun.

Actually, trading out Wildshape to give your Animal Companion maneuvers might be pretty cool. That'd make you a caster and your pet a meleer, rather than you a caster and meleer and your pet a meleer. Probably an overall step down, but one I'd take.

[Forrestfire]

Honestly, most sane additions of maneuver progressions to the full casters would be a step down. This would still be a good thing, though, because of the existing rift between noncasters and casters in power level.

[The Glyphstone]

I tried nine thousand and one ways to make spendable Vitae work within CC's mechanical theme and ultimately chose to sacrifice a flavor opportunity for the current incarnation. The trouble is that building Vitae through Claims is hard to scale properly, and Countess is a direct answer to numerous requests for more meaningful Claiming. Hence the current incarnation.



And it does that very well, I think. The scaling of Crimson Claim might need some work - 1d4 at level 1 is significantly more impactful than 5d4 at Level 20, in most cases, but I'm already petitioning my current GM to let me retrofit the Crimson Countess onto my existing Harbinger beta-test.

Incidentally, as far as Harbinger beta feedback, the only conflict I've found is the swift action glut. Any Initiator in PF is going to have multiple demands on the Swift slot between Boosts, Counters, and various mundane things, but Harbingers get it a bit worse than others because their Recovery mechanism is also a Swift action. It's definitely a limitation that works well for mechanical balance, but "Strike 1+ Claim, Strike 2+Claim, Strike 1+Claim" is a little monotonous, and the only way I can see to break that routine is a multi-opponent fight with the Grasp of Darkness feat. There is (Int Mod) regain when you drop an enemy, but so far we've only fought single-target opponents so I haven't been able to judge if that helps fight longevity. Allowing the number of maneuvers regained by Dark Claim to scale with level somehow might be a stopgap, but I don't know.

[Snowbluff]

Those are pretty great ideas. A Synthesist initiator would be awesome. Go full Dragonball Z with your character :smallamused:
You know, if maneuvers are considered special abilities, swapping Summon Monster for Mave for the Eidolon (modifies Summon Monster, not Eidolon) like you said, then taking synthesist would work without a second archetype. I couldn't make a Vegeta Goku team, though. :smalltongue:

Honestly, most sane additions of maneuver progressions to the full casters would be a step down. This would still be a good thing, though, because of the existing rift between noncasters and casters in power level.

Druid with maneuvers and without spells would be pretty interesting.

An initiator domain that grants 1 or 2 maneuvers (chosen at the time of activation) once you spend some channel energy would be good, too.

[Fax Celestis]

initiator domain

Haha. Domain powers are recharge mechanics, no granted spells, just specific granted maneuvers. Subdomains for different disciplines that grant different sets of maneuvers. Not sure if you were joking, but that's an excellent idea.

[Elricaltovilla]

I'm going to weigh in on survey time too!

I want a bard archetype with martial initiating from Mithral Current and Golden Lion (at least). Because yes.

In general I am against full casters getting martial abilities, because they can already do all of that but better. I can see the justification for clerics though, and I'm not against some feats to help martial/magical synergy... but if you get better than 6th level spells you don't need any more help.

[Snowbluff]

Haha. Domain powers are recharge mechanics, no granted spells, just specific granted maneuvers. Subdomains for different disciplines that grant different sets of maneuvers. Not sure if you were joking, but that's an excellent idea.
Initiator Domain
Deities: Snowbluff
Subdomains: "Maves," Insistent Terminology
I mean like "Once per day, when you prepare your spells, you may grant an ally 1 maneuver of x school and ready it. They must meet the prequites and have a high enough initiator level to use the maneuver. Once it is used, it is consider expended until you spend a use of Channel Energy to recover it. At level 8 and 13, you increase the number of maneuvers you are granted with this by 1. You may change the maneuvers granted and the ally when you prepare spells again."

EDIT: Changed it so you can add maves to your buddies. "Maves" does this at a higher IL. Insistent Terminology may grant Gambits.

Your ideas are awesome, though.

[The Glyphstone]

Regarding the survey...

I'm definitely against Initiation archetypes for full-casters. They have their own sandbox, keep their grubby fingers out of ours. Maaaaaaybe a Channel Feat that lets you Recharge a maneuver learned through Martial Study. The proposed Druid concept of losing Wildshape to make your companion an Initiator is mechanically balanced, but flavor-wise I just can't rationalize kung fu grizzly bears.

An Inquisitor who gives up Spellcasting for select Initiation wouldn't be too bad, balance or mechanics-wise, trusting in his blade to Hunt The Witch rather than potentially fallible magic. Not sure about the Magus, though - its whole gimmick is blending casting with melee combat, trying to blend initiation with melee combat is....initiation, and we have 6 classes that do this already.

[Lord_Gareth]

And it does that very well, I think. The scaling of Crimson Claim might need some work - 1d4 at level 1 is significantly more impactful than 5d4 at Level 20, in most cases, but I'm already petitioning my current GM to let me retrofit the Crimson Countess onto my existing Harbinger beta-test.

I'm glad to hear it! With Harbi racing towards PDF, CC might need to wait for the final release to get balance tweaks fully done, but in all honesty that was about as elegant a solution as I could find. Damage = character level scales weird in PF.


Incidentally, as far as Harbinger beta feedback, the only conflict I've found is the swift action glut. Any Initiator in PF is going to have multiple demands on the Swift slot between Boosts, Counters, and various mundane things, but Harbingers get it a bit worse than others because their Recovery mechanism is also a Swift action. It's definitely a limitation that works well for mechanical balance, but "Strike 1+ Claim, Strike 2+Claim, Strike 1+Claim" is a little monotonous, and the only way I can see to break that routine is a multi-opponent fight with the Grasp of Darkness feat. There is (Int Mod) regain when you drop an enemy, but so far we've only fought single-target opponents so I haven't been able to judge if that helps fight longevity. Allowing the number of maneuvers regained by Dark Claim to scale with level somehow might be a stopgap, but I don't know.

You are aware that Grasp of Darkness gets you 2 maneuvers back even if you don't tag multiple creatures, yes? Or do I need to fix wording there?

[Elricaltovilla]

flavor-wise I just can't rationalize kung fu grizzly bears.

Do you even need to rationalize kung fu grizzly bears?

What about Kung fu Pandas?

[The Glyphstone]

You are aware that Grasp of Darkness gets you 2 maneuvers back even if you don't tag multiple creatures, yes? Or do I need to fix wording there?

No, I wasn't - the wording 'recovering an additional maneuver in the process' I took to imply the feat needed to be used, requiring the extra opponents. I guess that makes it a little better, and I'm already familiar with the precedent of the Swordsage Feat Tax.



Grasp of Darkness [Combat]
Your malicious intentions ensnare many creatures at once, placing them under your power.
Prerequisites: Dark Claim class feature
Benefit: You may Claim up to 2 additional enemies (for a total of 3 enemies) at one time when using your Dark Claim. When you Claim one or more enemies, you recover up to 2 expended maneuvers.


Something like that might be better, or possibly the existing is fine and I'm just bad at the readings.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Do you even need to rationalize kung fu grizzly bears?

What about Kung fu Pandas?

You need the the Dragon Warrior Scroll feat before you are able to summon them though



Dragon Warrior Scroll




.

[Elricaltovilla]

Dragon Warrior Scroll


There's nothing written on it!

[The Glyphstone]

You need the the Dagon Warrior Scroll feat before you are able to summon them though

I think you mean the Dragon Warrior scroll. The Dagon Warrior Scroll just summons Kung Fu Deep Ones.

[Sayt]

I'm throwing my voice in with the no initiation archetypes for full casters. Magus, Bard, Warpriest? Sure, but probably only sixth level maneuvers, like the Pathwalker gets, and it should have a significant cost. Reduced fervor, worse spellstrike/spell recall, stuff liek that.

Also, it feels inappropriate to post WIP stuff in the submission board, is there someone I could bounce stuff off?

[Dusk Eclipse]

.... is it bad that I find Kung Fu Deep ones incredibly awesome?

[Taveena]

Trading spells, or wildshape, or domains for maneuvers is already a willful nerf. As long as they're worse at it than the full initiators, I don't really see the problem - especially if it works thematically.

[Nihilarian]

Regarding the survey...

I'm definitely against Initiation archetypes for full-casters. They have their own sandbox, keep their grubby fingers out of ours. Maaaaaaybe a Channel Feat that lets you Recharge a maneuver learned through Martial Study. The proposed Druid concept of losing Wildshape to make your companion an Initiator is mechanically balanced, but flavor-wise I just can't rationalize kung fu grizzly bears.

An Inquisitor who gives up Spellcasting for select Initiation wouldn't be too bad, balance or mechanics-wise, trusting in his blade to Hunt The Witch rather than potentially fallible magic. Not sure about the Magus, though - its whole gimmick is blending casting with melee combat, trying to blend initiation with melee combat is....initiation, and we have 6 classes that do this already.Kung fu grizzly bears sound awesome. Give Rangers or Hunters kung fu grizzly bears.

I agree with not wanting full casters to get initiating archetypes. Half casters are fine, but non-casters should be better at it (because half casters close the gap with spells).

[Taveena]

I agree with not wanting full casters to get initiating archetypes. Half casters are fine, but non-casters should be better at it (because half casters close the gap with spells).

Noncasters should be best, half casters should be worse, and full casters should be the worst at it. I still think they should have the OPTION to do it in a less awkward way than having to blow half their feats on Martial Training or take a dip. Clerics getting 9 maneuvers from one school in exchange for both domains isn't going to break the game or give them power they didn't have - it just gives people a thematic option to play a Cleric that's more focused on their martial side and /not/ be locked into 'i full attack again' when facesmashin'.

[malonkey1]

.... is it bad that I find Kung Fu Deep ones incredibly awesome?

As a DM whose favorite villain to use was an Illithid Warblade, I can say that you are not alone in your opinion.

[Fax Celestis]

As a DM whose favorite villain to use was an Illithid Warblade, I can say that you are not alone in your opinion.

There's a discipline for that. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=3410915&postcount=5)

[Nihilarian]

Noncasters should be best, half casters should be worse, and full casters should be the worst at it. I still think they should have the OPTION to do it in a less awkward way than having to blow half their feats on Martial Training or take a dip. Clerics getting 9 maneuvers from one school in exchange for both domains isn't going to break the game or give them power they didn't have - it just gives people a thematic option to play a Cleric that's more focused on their martial side and /not/ be locked into 'i full attack again' when facesmashin'.I think that making them devote their feats or levels to it is a great idea. Honestly, the feats are already more than a fighter who wants to cast spells gets; he HAS to multiclass.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I don't see a problem with giving full casters initiating archetypes, seeing as how pretty much anything significant you can trade out would end up with the caster being weaker overall. To me, my biggest wish is to see a blade scholar type archetype or class, and there's just nothing that comes even close to that in PoW or anywhere outside of one or two homebrew classes that weren't designed for PF.

[Fluffy Viking]

Just wanted to say that I have fallen in love with the Harbinger. I love teleporting melee combat (I blame DBZ growing up) and the Harbinger seems to bring that in spades, so to you Lord_Gareth, I give you my whole hearted thanks. Now if I can only find a DM willing to let me play as one...

As for the survey, I think I will echo what most are saying in that full casters should NOT get an archetype with access to maneuvers. They already can rewrite the laws of physics on a whim, let's let melee have nice things that's only for us :smallfrown:

That being said, I would LOVE to see a Magus archetype with access to either Shattered Mirror or Cursed Razor (Maybe an archetype that originally grants Shattered Mirror, but if you are combining it with Hexcrafter, you get Cursed Razor instead?) I'm not sure what should be removed or tweaked to make it happen, I just find the idea of a Magus with one or both of those disciplines to be rather amazing.

[Taveena]

I think that making them devote their feats or levels to it is a great idea. Honestly, the feats are already more than a fighter who wants to cast spells gets; he HAS to multiclass.

The solution to overpowered abilities should not be making the abilities difficult to use. Frankly? Losing the domains is a bigger loss than losing feats and it's more thematically fun than just spending six feats.

[squiggit]

Survey Time

I could maybe see doing something with the Druid or Witch or Cleric, otherwise eh on full caster support.

But a dilettante magus who mixes both arcane and martial magic together sounds really fun to me.

[ErrantX]

I don't see a problem with giving full casters initiating archetypes, seeing as how pretty much anything significant you can trade out would end up with the caster being weaker overall. To me, my biggest wish is to see a blade scholar type archetype or class, and there's just nothing that comes even close to that in PoW or anywhere outside of one or two homebrew classes that weren't designed for PF.

Tell me more about your blade scholar interests? Mystic might fit in there.

-X

[Togath]

Working on that catfolk archetype...
Would changing save progressions for a class be too much of a change for an archetype?
Specifically reducing fortitude to a poor save, and boosting reflex to a good save.

[Lord_Gareth]

On a note that's only semi-related to Path of War, in the sense that Bloodforge has options for it, I could use some opinions here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2riww?Brief-Review-Requested-Favored-Class-Bonus), preferably sooner rather than later.

[master4sword]

Survey Time

My two cents:

9-level casters don't really need initiation archetypes (though the "trade wild shape for initiating animal companion" archetype someone else suggested does sound nifty).

6-level casters vary from caster to caster. I can see a bard trading out spells, for instance, and I'd like to see Inquisitor/Magus/Warpriest archetypes similar to the Pathwalker, combining casting with initiating. As for the Summoner, perhaps trade spellcasting to get initiating for both you and your eidolon to get a Martial Summoner or something?

4-level casters certainly would enjoy initiating, especially if it didn't cost casting. Paladin with 4-level casting, 6-level initiating (Pathwalker progression?) in Silver Crane and one or two other disciplines, perhaps? Possibly trade out Smite, Detect Evil (which can be directly replaced with a stance anyway), and maybe some of their aura immunities? Or maybe replace Detect Evil, Divine Bond, and gain a slower Smite progression? Or even two archetypes, one that keeps casting and one that trades it out instead of trading class features.

Noncasters want archetypes so they don't have to burn feats on accessing these abilities. That much is a given, I'm sure.

[malonkey1]

My two cents:

9-level casters don't really need initiation archetypes (though the "trade wild shape for initiating animal companion" archetype someone else suggested does sound nifty).

6-level casters vary from caster to caster. I can see a bard trading out spells, for instance, and I'd like to see Inquisitor/Magus/Warpriest archetypes similar to the Pathwalker, combining casting with initiating. As for the Summoner, perhaps trade spellcasting to get initiating for both you and your eidolon to get a Martial Summoner or something?

4-level casters certainly would enjoy initiating, especially if it didn't cost casting. Paladin with 4-level casting, 6-level initiating (Pathwalker progression?) in Silver Crane and one or two other disciplines, perhaps? Possibly trade out Smite, Detect Evil (which can be directly replaced with a stance anyway), and maybe some of their aura immunities? Or maybe replace Detect Evil, Divine Bond, and gain a slower Smite progression? Or even two archetypes, one that keeps casting and one that trades it out instead of trading class features.

Noncasters want archetypes so they don't have to burn feats on accessing these abilities. That much is a given, I'm sure.

I mostly agree. I say, though, that we could reasonably trade away casting entirely for 4th-level classes and give them full initiator status.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Tell me more about your blade scholar interests? Mystic might fit in there.

-X

Here is a blade scholar, exactly as the concept I was thinking was:

He knows his sword by heart. Not because he uses it so much (though he certainly knows it that way, too), but because he sat down when he purchased it and measured every minute detail, down to the number of grains in the metal.

The art of the blade? To him, there is no such thing, and trying to tell him otherwise will likely be answered with pity or derision. He's broken down soldiery into an exact science, and it shows with every motion he makes in battle, having poured over so many historical accounts and battle plans that the movements of people on a battlefield and units in a war are little more than a slightly more complex game of chess to him.

Maybe he trained with a master, maybe not. That doesn't matter anymore, because he is so exact in his training that he can read a manuscript describing a maneuver, keep the image of it in the back of his head, then go out and do it - possibly better than the person who wrote it down.

Disciplines are historical, not practical. As long as he understands them, he can practice them, and understanding is his strong point.


_______________

Yes, I pretty much just described a martial wizard, which was why it was attached to my comment about being fine with allowing martial archetypes for full casters. I get that most of this is completely impractical to have in an actual game, it's just some inkling of the character archetype I'd most like to see represented: the genius general, the master tactician.

[master4sword]

I mostly agree. I say, though, that we could reasonably trade away casting entirely for 4th-level classes and give them full initiator status.

I wouldn't be opposed to that either, honestly.

[Snowbluff]

Working on that catfolk archetype...
Would changing save progressions for a class be too much of a change for an archetype?
Specifically reducing fortitude to a poor save, and boosting reflex to a good save.
You can make it so it gives a bonus to the save, like the 3.5 Swashbuckler or Scout.

On a note that's only semi-related to Path of War, in the sense that Bloodforge has options for it, I could use some opinions here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2riww?Brief-Review-Requested-Favored-Class-Bonus), preferably sooner rather than later.

Increasing the level might be a bit much.

[Togath]

Nine Lives Disciple (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=43786.html#43786)(catfolk warlord) is up.(think the name is too cheesy?)


You can make it so it gives a bonus to the save, like the 3.5 Swashbuckler or Scout.
I had considered that... Perhaps altering Force of Personality? Either to add it in addition, or replace the will save bonus.

[Fenryr]

Survey Time

+1 to Inquisitor, Warpriest, Ranger and Paladin.

[Forrestfire]

The solution to overpowered abilities should not be making the abilities difficult to use. Frankly? Losing the domains is a bigger loss than losing feats and it's more thematically fun than just spending six feats.

Exactly. Let's look at a hypothetical archtype:


Holy Warrior: An Initiator Cleric has access to a single Martial Discipline, chosen when you take your first level of Cleric. At 1st level, and every two levels thereafter, the Initiator Cleric learns a maneuver from his chosen discipline. He must meet all prerequisites for this maneuver. In addition, at 1st level, he learns a single stance from his chosen discipline. At [some higher levels], he can choose to exchange this stance for a higher-level stance from his chosen Discipline. This ability replaces the Cleric's Domains. An Initiator Cleric does not have access to domains as a normal Cleric does, nor does he get Domain Spell Slots.

Maneuvers Readied: An Initiator Cleric can ready a number of maneuvers equal to one-fourth his class level (rounded up). He readies his maneuvers by meditating or praying for 10 minutes. The maneuvers he chooses remain readied until he decides to repeat this again and change them. Initiator Clerics do not need to sleep or rest for any long period of time to ready their maneuvers; any time he spends 10 minutes in prayer, he can change his readied maneuvers. He may not ready any individual maneuver more than once. He begins an encounter with all readied maneuvers unexpended, regardless of how many times he may have already used them since he chose them. When the Initiator Cleric initiates a maneuver, he expends it for the current encounter, so each of his readied maneuver can be used once per encounter (until they are recovered, see below).

In order to recover his maneuvers, an Initiator Cleric must take a standard action to [focus his mind/faith/power, whatever fluff is needed]. He may then expend a use of his Channel Energy ability to recover a single expended maneuver of his choice.


There. This hypothetical cleric archetype trades his domains (a very versatile pile of options for adding spells to his list), his domain powers (which are often great), and a spell per day (on account of having no domains). In exchance, he gets a grand total of nine maneuvers over 17 levels, and a single stance (which, depending on how the writer wanted it, may or may not be swappable at higher levels). He's limited to a single discipline, even.

It is, for all intents and purposes, a straight nerf to the class. I would still love for something like this to be an archetype, because if I'm playing a cleric, I want to play a holy crusading warrior. I don't want to stand in combat trading full attacks with someone any more than the fighter does. I would be fine doing that, power-level-wise, but it wouldn't be as fun. The whole point of the martial maneuvers, even more than bringing non-full-casters up to par, balance-wise, is to be fun and cool. If I can finagle them into a character without having to spend all of my feats or multiclass and take a prestige class (which wouldn't normally be a problem, I like multiclassing, but it's nice to do this sort of thing from level 1, even if it's very limited for the entire campaign), then that's fun and cool.

I think that adding archetypes that swap things out for limited maneuver progressions would be a great benefit, if only because it makes character concepts easier to make.

(On a side note, though, I also think that there are classes that shouldn't be touched. Wizard, for example, doesn't need an archetype for this. They have half BAB and are very squishy, they're not meant to go into melee at level 1. If you want a magic knight-style wizard, then there's a really cool PrC for that. There's also one for divine spellcasters, but I don't think that it comes online nearly early enough for it to work. Waiting until level 5 to even reach my character concept isn't very fun. That's probably going to take months of time in a game that started at level 1, whereas an archetype could make it happen immediately is very possible).

[Taveena]

Not going to quote it, but yeah, FIRM AGREEMENT WITH FORREST AND HOPE THAT OTHERS WILL AGREE THAT A NERF FOR FUN OPTIONS WITHOUT OVERSHADOWING OTHER MORE DEDICATED MELEE IS ACCEPTABLE.

[Ilorin Lorati]

While my agreement isn't quite as... capslock... yeah, basically this is my opinion on it.

[Taveena]

Fun fact: I was actually holding down shift. That's how you /know/ I'm serious.

EDIT: OH. Also. Idea. Which was that what if Summoners could take a Maneuver or Stance known as an evolution on their eidolon?

[PsyBomb]

Fun fact: I was actually holding down shift. That's how you /know/ I'm serious.

EDIT: OH. Also. Idea. Which was that what if Summoners could take a Maneuver or Stance known as an evolution on their eidolon?

Giving Maneuvers/Stances as an evolution would have to be constrained to an Archetype or else restricted HEAVILY, or else the Evolution Surge spell will become the one-stop shop for every combat solution forever.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Eidolons already get access to maneuvers without much trouble, they qualify for Martial Training at Summoner level 3 and they can get the other feats as soon as they qualify.

Edit: Granted that takes all but two of the Eidolon's feats so there is that; concerning Maneuvers/stances as evolutions, perhaps adding a pre-requisite or caveat that the Summoner can't add that evolution to the eidolon unless he himselfs know the maneuver (which forces them to get Martial training) and the archetype would presumably give the Summoner maneuvers directly or a way to bypass said requirement for the evolution.

[Shinken]

Path of War was meant in support of martial characters, not magical ones that can stand on their own; unlike psionics, it is not a major flavor change to the expectations of a campaign setting which requires accommodation.
I disagree strongly with this. I think all the backlash against ToB makes it clear it is a major flavor change for a lot of people.


I personally feel like the full casters get enough Nice Things without a PoW archetype, although I could honestly see a Primal Fury druid or a Cursed Razor Witch being really interesting.

It's funny you should mention that...
(http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=3336.html)
I've done a few changes from that version, mainly giving it medium base attack bonus with the cursed weapon instead of attack bonuses, but can't edit Google Docs from work, so I'll only be able to update it when I get home.

[Forrestfire]

Giving Maneuvers/Stances as an evolution would have to be constrained to an Archetype or else restricted HEAVILY, or else the Evolution Surge spell will become the one-stop shop for every combat solution forever.

Yeah, that'd be really dangerous. An archetype that gave the eidolon a maneuver progression that locked in would be neat, though. After all, maneuvers are a learned thing, and you don't really change its mind when you change its form, presumably.

[Nihilarian]

I'm fully aware that they could use this as an opportunity to Nerf casters a bit. I'm not opposed to the idea on a balance stance, I'm opposed to it because this is cool stuff that martials get and I'd like it if casters didn't have as easy a time getting it. Let them pay through the nose for it through feats or drop caster levels to snag them. I'd much rather see the Paladin, Inquisitor or Warpriest get a Holy Crusader Initiator archetype than the cleric.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Honestly Shinken, I think you missed the point of what Gareth was saying. In pretty much any standard campaign setting for D&D, there's nothing that would need to be changed to allow for martial initiators. You can drop them in and there doesn't need to be any sort of adjustment done to the setting to compensate. This is unlike Psionics, which is a very specific kind of power that not all types of settings really have room for.

People not liking the flavor has nothing to do with the flavor being incompatible with any given setting.

[JusticeZero]

I'm all for Druid variants that are blatant nerfs in favor of rule of cool. Others not so much.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Why do you draw the line at druids?

[Shinken]

Honestly Shinken, I think you missed the point of what Gareth was saying. In pretty much any standard campaign setting for D&D, there's nothing that would need to be changed to allow for martial initiators. You can drop them in and there doesn't need to be any sort of adjustment done to the setting to compensate. This is unlike Psionics, which is a very specific kind of power that not all types of settings really have room for.
That's exactly what I disagree with - and so did Wizards of the Coast (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070911).
If martial arts give you supernatural powers, like they do in Path of War, then martial arts are a very specific kind of power that not all types of settings really have room for.


People not liking the flavor has nothing to do with the flavor being incompatible with any given setting.
I don't get it. It's okay to not have room for psionics in a setting (that is, people that teleport because they are thinking very hard that they can), but it's not okay if that same hypothetical setting doesn't have room for supernatural martial arts (that is, people that teleport because they did a lot of kata)? I'm not seeing how one is justifiable and the other is dismissed as 'not liking the flavor'.

[squiggit]

I can sort of agree with Nihil, but a kung fu bear or some sort of hexblade that mixes stuff like cursed razor, steel serpent and.. uh, hexes... both just seem super duper cool, too much so to simply brush aside.

Kungfudolon sounds great too: Trade away your summon monster SLAs for martial maneuvers and other goodies. Terrible trade mechanically but could be good fun despite that.

Honestly not sure what the previously mentioned initiator Alchemist would look like though.


Here is a blade scholar, exactly as the concept I was thinking was.

I like the concept here, but I feel like it'd be better served as its own class and I feel like as described it steps on the toes of warders and harbingers a bit (not necessarily in terms of mechanics, but thematically: Two int based initiators but this is the REAL smart one. Feels a bit weird).


That's exactly what I disagree with - and so did Wizards of the Coast (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070911).

"No room for anime style combant"

*glances at basically every wizard in the fiction* uh huh.


I'm not seeing how one is justifiable and the other is dismissed as 'not liking the flavor'.

Personally, declaring "This can't possibly fit in my setting!" For something as potentially unobtrusive as either of these subsytems feels more like a lack of effort or an excuse. But that's just me. I can think of a few extremely niche scenarios in which it might be justifiable, but only then just barely.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Supernatural is still just magical. Not spell like, but it still works through whatever version of the weave exists in the setting. If the setting has room for gishes, supernatural martial artists take up the exact same space. Tome of Battle was as much a setting book as anything else, while Path of War has absolutely no lore or anything of the sort in it except for the traditions. It's comparing apples to oranges.


Psionics is explicitly and specifically something entirely different. It can be made to be "just more magic", but that's not the default and would need changes.

[Nihilarian]

I can sort of agree with Nihil, but a kung fu bear or some sort of hexblade that mixes stuff like cursed razor, steel serpent and.. uh, hexes... both just seem super duper cool, too much so to simply brush aside.

Kungfudolon sounds great too: Trade away your summon monster SLAs for martial maneuvers and other goodies. Terrible trade mechanically but could be good fun despite that.

Honestly not sure what the previously mentioned initiator Alchemist would look like though.



I like the concept here, but I feel like it'd be better served as its own class and I feel like as described it steps on the toes of warders and harbingers a bit (not necessarily in terms of mechanics, but thematically: Two int based initiators but this is the REAL smart one. Feels a bit weird).I love the idea of kung fu bears and I would love to see a Ranger or Hunter archetype that got them. And maybe give Hexes to Harbinger's as an archetype?

[squiggit]

I love the idea of kung fu bears and I would love to see a Ranger or Hunter archetype that got them.
Well, I was looking at wildshape when I was talking about that specifically, but that could work too.


And maybe give Hexes to Harbinger's as an archetype?
I'd definitely be down for that, seeing how I was basically describing a harbinger with hexes anyways.

In fact, I really want that now.


For some reason though whenever someone mentions full casters and maneuvers, the idea of a "Kung Fu Bloodline" pops into my head. Probably because it's so ridiculous sounding... but strangely more and more cool the more I think about it.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I like the concept here, but I feel like it'd be better served as its own class and I feel like as described it steps on the toes of warders and harbingers a bit (not necessarily in terms of mechanics, but thematically: Two int based initiators but this is the REAL smart one. Feels a bit weird).

It also steps conceptually on the toes of the actual Tactician class. *shrug* My main concern is with character archetypes, not with class thematics. Don't take any of my "I hope this exists at some point" as "I demand this be published".

If it comes about as an archetype of some other study-based class, or somewhere down the line ends up being its own thing or whatever, cool. Putting it as an archetype of a smart class is just the easiest way of doing it - and letting the wizard prepare maneuvers like spells is the thing I'm most likely to see without making my own class. Of course, "most likely" is relative. I know the chances are one in about seven million.

[JusticeZero]

Psionics is explicitly and specifically something entirely different. It can be made to be "just more magic", but that's not the default and would need changes.
No, it doesn't. Psionics is already explicitly a magic subsystem. It is dispelled by Dispel Magic, the language is very close to other magic sources - it's just a magic subsystem that is fluffed as being channeled through the user. Seriously, what do you need to change? The fact that it uses Bronze Age Greek words for its spells?
If I am cutting subsystems "because flavor", as a rule, the first thing to hit the cutting room floor is some or all of the PHB casters and classes.

[Ilorin Lorati]

You just listed off a whole bunch of mechanical and balance concepts, and one flavor concept that isn't even correct.

Sorcery is channeled through - psionics is expelled from. The power is all the manifester's in psionics. Transparency is in place for game balance, not flavor, and the wording is typically the similar because the mechanics are similar and there's a certain level of word economy that can be assumed.

[Shinken]

No, it doesn't. Psionics is already explicitly a magic subsystem. It is dispelled by Dispel Magic, the language is very close to other magic sources - it's just a magic subsystem that is fluffed as being channeled through the user. Seriously, what do you need to change? The fact that it uses Bronze Age Greek words for its spells?
If I am cutting subsystems "because flavor", as a rule, the first thing to hit the cutting room floor is some or all of the PHB casters and classes.

Yes, that's pretty much it. Not putting PoW or psionics in a game is simply a matter of not wanting to. The psionics material goes out of its way to explain how it fits with the established game world. I wish PoW (and Akashic Mysteries) did the same, that's all.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think that kind of stuff got "delayed" to PoW 2, since the core of the first book was to introduce the mechanics, though I think the tradition are a good way to start world building.

[Shinken]

I think that kind of stuff got "delayed" to PoW 2, since the core of the first book was to introduce the mechanics, though I think the tradition are a good way to start world building.

Yeah, I thought so too, but that last post from Gareth kind of states the opposite (that is, that it's not gonna be in any book period). Hopefully it's just a misunderstanding.

[squiggit]

Transparency is in place for game balance, not flavor
That seems like a big assertion. Though either way, transparency has a significant impact on the flavor of psionics because it makes it, by default, simply a variation on traditional magic rather than something entirely new (to the point where it's the least different subsystem around realistically).

Really the only thing that makes a psion stand out from traditional magic is the naming conventions. Reskin powers into spells and PP into MP and suddenly the Psion is more wizardly than the actual wizard.

[Elfkin_King]

I'm waaaaaay excited for this :) You've got my pledge. I think I actually enjoy DSP over Paizo.

[JusticeZero]

Sorcery is channeled through - psionics is expelled from. The power is all the manifester's in psionics.
So you're looking at a choice of synonym in the fluff and using it to justify that the two systems are irreconcilably different? That's laughable. And even if you did hold to it, it still would not stop it from being a form of magical expression. "I expel the natural magic that I build up within myself to cast spells!" is a completely understandable and legitimate form of magic.
And yes I listed off some mechanical and balance concepts that demonstrate that psionics behave as magic to support the fact that psionics is a form of magic. It's called 'evidence'. You use it to back up the correctness of your claims. All you have stated is an assertion that the system cannot be considered to be a form of magic, based on a choice of synonym that you dislike.

[Ilorin Lorati]

You seem to think we're talking about something other than the fluff, the whole fluff, and nothing but the fluff - so help me fluffy.

Not all settings have room for a kind of magic that's not blood or training, but Path of War is literally just martial training made more granular. There's no need for a flavor change for Path of War to work wherever you set it, but your argument is that the fact you can treat psionics as something it isn't is a good argument about that fact, when that's the point I'm making here.


You can do that with psionics. You don't have to do that with Path of War.

[Shinken]

You seem to think we're talking about something other than the fluff, the whole fluff, and nothing but the fluff - so help me fluffy.

Not all settings have room for a kind of magic that's not blood or training, but Path of War is literally just martial training made more granular. There's no need for a flavor change for Path of War to work wherever you set it, but your argument is that the fact you can treat psionics as something it isn't is a good argument about that fact, when that's the point I'm making here.


You can do that with psionics. You don't have to do that with Path of War.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Your argument is that "swinging a sword well enough allows you teleport, heal and shee through walls" has less consequences to a setting than "magic comes from within"? :smallconfused:

[Ilorin Lorati]

It's not "swinging a sword well enough allows you teleport, heal and see through walls", it's "I'm trained in a school of martial thought that has taught me a magical technique that allows me to do these while swinging a sword".

[squiggit]

I really want an initiating investigator that trades alchemy for maneuvers and somehow incorporates inspiration and/or studied combat into is maneuver shenanigans.


You can do that with psionics. You don't have to do that with Path of War.

I just don't see it. It's literally just magic without material or somatic components, that's it. It has some fancy names and crystals taped up to it, but this earthshattering, setting breaking distinction you keep referring to simply doesn't exist as far as I can tell... because again, it's literally just magic.

Frankly, I don't see it for blade magic either, but between the two I'd say maneuvers and the concept of special, unique martial attacks are a greater deviation from the norm than psionics, especially when you start looking at the supernatural ones.

I'll simply restate that insisting that either "can't work in the setting" seems more like a smokescreen for some other issue than anything else, because neither are particularly disruptive unless you go out of your way to make them so.


It's not "swinging a sword well enough allows you teleport, heal and see through walls", it's "I'm trained in a school of martial thought that has taught me a magical technique that allows me to do these while swinging a sword".

Ok, but why is that perfectly fine but "I'm trained in a school of magic that doesn't require gestures or components" so much less acceptable?

This probably needs its own thread though, it's getting offtopic.

[Shinken]

It's not "swinging a sword well enough allows you teleport, heal and see through walls", it's "I'm trained in a school of martial thought that has taught me a magical technique that allows me to do these while swinging a sword".
That is the exact same thing.


I really want an initiating investigator that trades alchemy for maneuvers and somehow incorporates inspiration and/or studied combat into is maneuver shenanigans.
Agreed! That could be really cool. Which disciplines, though?



Ok, but why is that perfectly fine but "I'm trained in a school of magic that doesn't require gestures or components" so much less acceptable?

This probably needs its own thread though, it's getting offtopic.
Agreed and agreed.

[Ilorin Lorati]

No, it's not. One is saying that swinging the sword is what caused it, the other is not. Tome of Battle may have made the assumption that it was "blade magic", but that same assumption isn't in place with Path of War.

[Togath]

Evasion on top of charisma to reflex seem too potent as part of a warlord archetype?
It does trade out the Force of Personality ability, and will saves do often have worse effects on a failed save than reflex saves.

[Arkhaic]

No, it's not. One is saying that swinging the sword is what caused it, the other is not. Tome of Battle may have made the assumption that it was "blade magic", but that same assumption isn't in place with Path of War.

Heck, even in Tome of Battle nothing actually prevents you from using things that aren't blades—it's just the name.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Ok, but why is that perfectly fine but "I'm trained in a school of magic that doesn't require gestures or components" so much less acceptable?

This probably needs its own thread though, it's getting offtopic.

I disagree that it's off topic - the "psionics" stuff isn't the point of this, and we're in direct discussion of something that the developer and OP asked.

That said, please stop making strawman arguments against me. Reflavoring psionics isn't unacceptable. That's not the point of what I'm saying in either case; what I'm saying is that reflavoring Path of War isn't necessary like it is with psionics in some cases. Someone saying "well I'm not using psionics, I'm using a type of magic that doesn't need command words or somatic components" is reflavoring psionics, but the same statement doesn't need to be made about Path of War.

Remember, this is the point of discussion:


Path of War was meant in support of martial characters, not magical ones that can stand on their own; unlike psionics, it is not a major flavor change to the expectations of a campaign setting which requires accommodation.

[Shinken]

No, it's not. One is saying that swinging the sword is what caused it, the other is not. Tome of Battle may have made the assumption that it was "blade magic", but that same assumption isn't in place with Path of War.

The difference is irrelevant to the point I am making, which you have yet to address.

[Arkhaic]

The difference is irrelevant to the point I am making, which you have yet to address.

Your point is a misrepresentation (possibly a misinterpretation) of their argument which they just pointed out.


Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

You were wrong, they corrected you, and you responded by saying that you were not wrong about what they said.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I'm sorry, if there was another point you were making I missed it. Could you rephrase and/or restate it?

[Arkhaic]

So, Shinken. A question for you. Is your argument that the Magus has a greater impact on the setting than the inclusion of Psionics?

Is dancing so well that you can teleport any more impactful than learning a magical technique that lets you teleport?

[squiggit]

I disagree that it's off topic - the "psionics" stuff isn't the point of this, and we're in direct discussion of something that the developer and OP asked.
Well, this thread is an announcement that DSP is releasing a new PoW book. So talking about how setting friendly psionics may or may not be does seem a bit off topic.


That said, please stop making strawman arguments against me.
It's not. You're the one saying that psionics is setting redefining. I'm jut disagreeing and attempting to restate my argument.


Someone saying "well I'm not using psionics, I'm using a type of magic that doesn't need command words or somatic components" is reflavoring psionics, but the same statement doesn't need to be made about Path of War.
I'm not reflavoring anything though. That's exactly what Psionics is. There's no refluffing required because, by default, Psionics is treated as magic.

It's a super cool mechanical subsystem, but it's still magic and has only as much impact on a setting as you want it to. Just like martial disciplines. The two are more or less interchangeable. If Elminster were a psion you wouldn't really have to change anything about him except find and replacing a few key words. I'm just not seeing how this is super disruptive at all.

The point I'm getting at is that, ignoring mechanics, what separates a Wizard and a Psion? Other than somatic and material components?


Remember, this is the point of discussion:
Yeah. I remember. I just don't think either require very much work to integrate into any setting unless you go out of your way to try to do so.

[JusticeZero]

More importantly, in a Core Only Game, you already have no less than four completely different and inherently irreconcilable by fluff ways to cast spells. If your concern is with the addition of people doing magic differently, well, that ship sailed LONG ago.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I'm not reflavoring anything though. That's exactly what Psionics is. There's no refluffing required because, by default, Psionics is treated as magic.


Psionics isn't magic. People treat psionics like magic because it's mechanically easier and you can explain it to people with "it's like magic, but with mana", but actually saying that psionics is magic shows a severe and complete misunderstanding of what it is or its place in myth and popular culture.

If it ever actually said anything close to "psionics is a type of magic" in any psionics supplement I've ever seen I'd agree, but the only people who ever say that are players and DMs who have never actually put thought into researching the concept.

In fact, here's what Ultimate Psionics says when asked what psionics is:


Psionics, in its simplest form, is harnessing the power of the mind and using it to perform tasks, feats, and aweinspiring acts. It is the act of using the mental power innate in a psionic character to perform actions that others deem impossible.
While all characters have the capacity to harness this power of the mind, it is only by tapping into this potential that psionic characters are created. A psionic character has learned to tap into and utilize this internal energy, using it to expand their abilities or even to learn more about themselves. Once a psionic character has learned this pathway of psionics, it often becomes a path they cannot help themselves from further exploring. Like a moth drawn to a flame, so too is the mind drawn to the power of psionics once it has learned to tap into it.

And here's the preface to the transparency rules. Emphasis mine.


If you’re new to psionics, you still might have heard the term transparency thrown about. Transparency refers to the level at which magic and psionics interact, and how the two sources of energy behave with each other. In the default rules, psionics and magic are considered to be mechanically the same, just as divine magic and arcane magic interact as if the same. That means, among other things, that effects like dispel magic works on psionics, and vice versa. By keeping transparency intact, you limit the potential for unforeseen side effects of blending magic and psionics in the same game.

Seems to me like they go out of their way in the book to make sure there's no confusion that psionics isn't magic. It's a power that is superficially similar and is mechanically represented in a way close to magic.



Yeah. I remember. I just don't think either require very much work to integrate into any setting unless you go out of your way to try to do so.

I don't really think so either. It's easy to say "psionics is a newly discovered power" or "psionics is just a type of magic", and neither of them cause significant problems.


(By the way, now we're getting off topic, because this is just about psionics and not involved with whether or not setting changes are needed to make room for Path of War.)

[Milo v3]

Compare:

Psionics, in its simplest form, is harnessing the power of the mind and using it to perform tasks, feats, and aweinspiring acts. It is the act of using the mental power innate in a psionic character to perform actions that others deem impossible.
While all characters have the capacity to harness this power of the mind, it is only by tapping into this potential that psionic characters are created. A psionic character has learned to tap into and utilize this internal energy, using it to expand their abilities or even to learn more about themselves. Once a psionic character has learned this pathway of psionics, it often becomes a path they cannot help themselves from further exploring. Like a moth drawn to a flame, so too is the mind drawn to the power of psionics once it has learned to tap into it.


Spellcasting, in its simplest form, is harnessing the power of the mind and using it to perform tasks, feats, and awe inspiring acts. It is the act of using the mental power innate in a spellcasting character to perform actions that others deem impossible.
While all characters have the capacity to harness this power of the mind, it is only by tapping into this potential that spellcasting characters are created. A spellcasting character has learned to tap into and utilize this internal energy, using it to expand their abilities or even to learn more about themselves. Once a spellcasting character has learned this pathway of magic, it often becomes a path they cannot help themselves from further exploring. Like a moth drawn to a flame, so too is the mind drawn to the power of magic once it has learned to tap into it.


Manoeuvres, in its simplest form, is harnessing the power of the mind and using it to perform tasks, feats, and awe inspiring acts. It is the act of using the mental power innate in an initator character to perform actions that others deem impossible.
While all characters have the capacity to harness this power of the mind, it is only by tapping into this potential that initiator characters are created. An initator character has learned to tap into and utilize this internal energy, using it to expand their abilities or even to learn more about themselves. Once an initiator character has learned this pathway of manoeuvres, it often becomes a path they cannot help themselves from further exploring. Like a moth drawn to a flame, so too is the mind drawn to the power of manoeuvres once it has learned to tap into it.

Now, spellcasting and psionics are basically interchangeable with this. They both function as mental powers that let you do impossible stuff. Manoeuvres on the other hand.... not as insertable as psionics, because it's physical magic, not mental. Since it is much further mechanically from standard spellcasting it requires an explanation for why it exists and is separate to those sources of magic.

[Shinken]

So, Shinken. A question for you. Is your argument that the Magus has a greater impact on the setting than the inclusion of Psionics?

Is dancing so well that you can teleport any more impactful than learning a magical technique that lets you teleport?

No, my point is that those elements influence settings in more or less the same ways.

You seem to be under the impression that I mean against the inclusion of PoW in settings - nothing could be farther from the truth. All I want is some building blocks for it to work. I want some go-to answers in the book as to why not all guards are trained in Iron Tortoise. I want discussions about how the world would work if all guards were trained in Iron Tortoise. We have actual rules for high psionics - I'd like rules for high martials (or however you call it), settings similar to the ending of Shaolin Soccer.

Capisce?

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Please return on-topic, regarding Dreamscarred Press's Path of War material. If people wish to continue the tangent discussion regarding psionics, open a new thread to do so.

[Greenish]

I'm going to agree with people saying full casters shouldn't get maneuvers through archetypes. It just feels wrong.

For medium casters, I'd say it's okay. I'd like to see a bard archetype that just trades casting (all of it!) for initiating.

[Ilorin Lorati]

No, my point is that those elements influence settings in more or less the same ways.

You seem to be under the impression that I mean against the inclusion of PoW in settings - nothing could be farther from the truth. All I want is some building blocks for it to work. I want some go-to answers in the book as to why not all guards are trained in Iron Tortoise. I want discussions about how the world would work if all guards were trained in Iron Tortoise. We have actual rules for high psionics - I'd like rules for high martials (or however you call it), settings similar to the ending of Shaolin Soccer.

Capisce?

You're talking about different things. No one's saying that high-martial settings can't exist, the question that's been posed is whether or not a hypothetical setting in use needs to be modified at all to use Path of War material. In fact, your statement that "those elements influence settings in more or less the same ways" suggests that you're agreeing with the assessment that it wouldn't have to be, even though your statement that started this conversation was literally you disagreeing with that point from Gareth. Please, you're not being clear to me.

As far as why the average guard doesn't know Iron Tortoise in said generic setting, the martial disciplines are rare and difficult to learn schools of martial thought, and I had been operating under the assumption that it was implied well enough. A well trained fighter will likely have a martial school, but it won't be one that's advanced enough to be mechanically unique like the disciplines shown in Path of War are - maybe it was just the fighter school in their small city, or something similar.

Edit: (I've made a thread for further psionics discussion here.) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373510)

[squiggit]

I think the Privateer should have some provision in his class features to make sword and pistol TWF more workable. It's a fun and very thematic fighting style, but as it stands it's probably one of the worst in the game.

More important for PoW, you're basically just playing einhander with another weapon around. There are very, very few maneuvers the template has native access to (just a few steel serpent and golden lion ones) that you can use with the pistol and you don't really get much TWF mileage out of it either for the same reason (no thrashing dragon). It ends up just being a trap option.


Also, Dazzling Gambit having the exact same effect as their maneuver recovery feels a bit awkward.

[Sayt]

I think there's actually room for a nature themed initiator, gets Thrashing Dragon, Broken Blade, it's own unique discipline, and maybe primal fury. Gets natural weapons as it levels up, maybe an animal companion?


Edit: This (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1itYQl62L904Ig_6AevHsmG5RaWOGRMK23EAJQPLiuOw/edit) is what I have on the Warder archetype I've been working on. I'm pretty happy with it, but I'm worried it's a bit to much of a straight-up improvement over the base warder. Anyone have comments on the whole, or suggestions for the Homes Under Siege: Drow?

[Shinken]

You're talking about different things. No one's saying that high-martial settings can't exist, the question that's been posed is whether or not a hypothetical setting in use needs to be modified at all to use Path of War material. In fact, your statement that "those elements influence settings in more or less the same ways" suggests that you're agreeing with the assessment that it wouldn't have to be, even though your statement that started this conversation was literally you disagreeing with that point from Gareth. Please, you're not being clear to me.
Breaking the quotes will make this answer kind of hard to follow, but I think it's clearer this way.
It's not said anywhere that the PoW material is rare. There are explanations in the magical using classes about why they might be rare - training is extensive and expensive (Wizard, Magus), the class chooses you (Paladin, Oracle), you require favor from higher beings (Witch, divine classes), it's a closed society (Druid), it's an innate ability that not everyone has (Sorcerer, psionic classes) - the list foes on.
The PoW classes are just training-based. They shouldn't be any rarer than Fighters or Rogues, according to their description. Without making assumptions that are not in the book, there is no reason for all the wardens in the game world to not be Warders (which really should have been called Warden :p). That is my one beef with Gareth's post - it hints that things are fine as they are in the world building sense and I don't think it is.


As far as why the average guard doesn't know Iron Tortoise in said generic setting, the martial disciplines are rare and difficult to learn schools of martial thought, and I had been operating under the assumption that it was implied well enough. A well trained fighter will likely have a martial school, but it won't be one that's advanced enough to be mechanically unique like the disciplines shown in Path of War are - maybe it was just the fighter school in their small city, or something similar.
But that's my whole point - why must it be implied? Why can't it be said somewhere in the book? Why don't we get more info about who created the disciplines and where? For most of the questions, the answer "we didn't have space" is fine, really. Like Dusk Eclipse mentioned, I thought these questions would be answered in PoW2. That line gave me pause because it hints that they are not getting answered.

[squiggit]

Warders (which really should have been called Warden :p)
Oh my god, yes.

[Taveena]

I'm going to agree with people saying full casters shouldn't get maneuvers through archetypes. It just feels wrong.

For medium casters, I'd say it's okay. I'd like to see a bard archetype that just trades casting (all of it!) for initiating.

Can I ask why you find it more objectionable than getting maneuvers through feats?

[Greenish]

Can I ask why you find it more objectionable than getting maneuvers through feats?Because archetypes are class specific. That a full caster can pick up some maneuvers through feats is but an unfortunate side effect of said feats existing. Archetypes specifically tailored to grant full casters easy access to the crown jewel of martial prowess just doesn't sit well with me.


Why should full casters have martial archetypes? There's usually a medium caster who can fit into the same theme, have those have martial archetypes. Warpriest for toned down cleric, magus for toned down wizard/sorcerer, hunter for toned down druid…

[Taveena]

Why is it so unfortunate? What is thematically problematic about a Cleric - an already martially trained class - learning more complicated techniques than CLERIC SMASH? Certainly they should be less adept than a Paladin or Ranger, but they are a martial class - why not use the new, more interesting martial system?

[Greenish]

Why is it so unfortunate?They're full casters, let them cast.


[Clerics] are a martial classNope. Try warpriest.

[Taveena]

A warpriest is /more/ martially focused than a Cleric, certainly - that doesn't mean a Cleric isn't martial at all. That's like saying that a Fighter shouldn't get an archetype because the Warlord exists. They have medium armor and BAB for a reason, and that's because Clerics are trained for combat.

EDIT: Found the goddamn quote I was lookin' for. "Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods"

Strength of arms kind of implies martial abilities, doesn't it?

[Greenish]

[Edit]: I'm not articulating this very well. Let's try again.

Full casters are defined by their casting. This is stating the obvious. They do not need, nor should they have, an easy way to dapple at different subsystems.

Medium casters are dapplers by nature, so it makes sense for them to dapple in initiating. This is why medium casters exist, to have spellcasting and another focus.

Low- and non-casters tend to be more martial in nature, so PoW archetypes fit them like a fist in the face, as they say.

[Taveena]

They already have access to the feats, which aren't difficult to get access to. They already HAVE spellcasting and melee as focuses. They already focus on martial training and strength at arms. Wizards are defined by their casting - Clerics by their casting /and martial ability/. Nothing is changing fluffwise. Hell, I'd argue that mechanically losing domains would be a bigger loss than losing some feats. Clerics are just as martial as Rogues or Magi. Arguably, even moreso in some ways.

[Greenish]

When have I ever said anything about fluff?

[Edit]: I feel I have adequately explained why full casters getting PoW archetypes feels wrong to me. If you don't see my point of view, or disagree with it, fine, but lets drop this here. We're probably talking cross to each other anyway, since nothing you've said feels in any way relevant to me.

[Taveena]

"Dabbler" certainly implied it, given that mechanically multitasking wasn't brought up.

EDIT: Sorry. Dropping it here.

[Squirrel_Dude]

But that's my whole point - why must it be implied? Why can't it be said somewhere in the book? Why don't we get more info about who created the disciplines and where? For most of the questions, the answer "we didn't have space" is fine, really. Like Dusk Eclipse mentioned, I thought these questions would be answered in PoW2. That line gave me pause because it hints that they are not getting answered.I agree with Shinken on this. Martial Disciples, and IMO most any new subsystem should come with some information for how to build them in a world. While I understand that the old criticism of "ToB is too anime" doesn't make sense when held up to what the spell-casters are doing, that claim should also be weighed in the paradigm of the stereotypical adventuring party. You know, the one where the spell-caster isn't entering melee, declaring powers every round and smashing the enemy. The mechanics and feel of ToB classes is very different than previous martial characters in that they declare use of unique powers, and different from spell-casters in that they can use those powers every combat.

Condsidering the ToB paradigm is the mechanics that are "I do something other than full-attack every round," and the feel is "I'm contributing in dynamic ways," the changes are a positive IMO. However, I do think that it's a significant change when every character in a party and a not-insignificant number of NPCs have switched to that paradigm. Some world building advice would be helpful.

[Novawurmson]

Condsidering the ToB paradigm is the mechanics that are "I do something other than full-attack every round," and the feel is "I'm contributing in dynamic ways," the changes are a positive IMO. However, I do think that it's a significant change when every character in a party and a not-insignificant number of NPCs have switched to that paradigm. Some world building advice would be helpful.

Something like this (written over the course of a few minutes, extremely rough):


It is ultimately the game master's decision how any new content added to their game will function or effect their world. Here are a few ideas on how to integrate initiating into your campaign:

Initiating has always been there. The initiating disciplines are just new descriptions of the way people fight. When the barbarian enters a rages and uses Power Attack, it is functionally equivalent as when a warlord uses a Primal Fury maneuver. Though some players and NPCs may start taking ranks in Knowledge (martial), the core concept of how fighting looks and feels to the inhabitants of the world hasn't changed; maneuvers are just a different expression of how combat has always looked.

Initiating is new (or very, very old). For the first time, the greatest warriors of the planes are discovering and finessing a new form of martial combat. One of the players (or one of the primary villains) is the first to uncover an ancient scroll that describes the art of the Black Seraph. Only a few very long-lived races (such as dragons or elans) still remembers the all-but lost arts of the Shattered Mirror. In this paradigm, very few initiators would exist outside of the places established by the world, and the players might play a key role in the distribution of these new forms of martial might.

Initiating has always been somewhere, just not here. In a kingdom beyond the sea, warriors have always been skilled disciples on the path of war, but only recently have sailors begun making the perilous journey to the area the players are familiar with. Do these outsiders bring a method of strengthening and improving the lands the players protect, or are these advanced scouts preparing an invasion? In this paradigm, the players might travel to distant lands (or train with foreign masters who immigrated nearby) to unlock initiating.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I'm certainly not saying they're not good to have, but that's not the same thing as saying that they're necessary for Path of War to fit into an existing campaign setting. I'll concede that perhaps there's nothing in Path of War that suggests they're rare - but the lack of granularity in the base Pathfinder combat system for martials means that you can still just drop it in and be done with it if you don't want to worry about it, because all you're doing is turning something that was left undefined into something that is well defined.

[Elricaltovilla]

In an effort to get some more focused discussion going, and to make it easier for me to answer questions and hear requests about them, I've created a thread specifically to talk about the Class Templates in Path of War Expanded. You can follow this finely crafted link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373580-DSP-POW-Class-Templates-Discussion-Thread) to join the discussion.

[Togath]

Think these abilities are too vague?;
Polearm Alacrity(Ex): The quicksilver lance can treat all weapons in the polearm and spear weapon groups as if they were light weapons for the purposes of the Weapon Finesse feat, as well as similar feats, abilities, and effects.

Inner Focus(Ex): At 1st level, a quicksilver lance may focus themselves, and ready a wielded polearm or spear as a move action. Once readied it is treated as sheathed for the purposes of the mithril current discipline for one round, or until the silver lance attacks.

Trying to decide if I should try rewording them(basic idea is: mithril current without having to sheathe a polearm or spear, and the ability to use dexterity for them).

[Shinken]

Something like this (written over the course of a few minutes, extremely rough):

EXACTLY! That's just what we need.
Though some crunch for 'high martial' campaigns would also be appreciated.

[Fax Celestis]

Maybe I'll update my Ocean Soul discipline for PoW.

This has inspired me. (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/18)

[Togath]

Scarlet Throne or Primal Fury for a spear(or polearm)wielder archetype?(or both?)
I'm currently using a stalker as a base, and they gain the use of Mithril Current(and a mechanic that lets them treat their weapon as sheathed by spending a move action[or later on, a swift action]).

Currently, they give away solar wind and trashing dragon, but trying to pick a third to give away(to give them both scarlet throne and primal fury) is proving to be harder. Broken Blade perhaps?

[Arkhaic]

I think I see where the breakdown is here, Shinken. I see classes as purely metagame constructs that represent certain abilities, with inherently mutable fluff. Thus, demographics make very little sense—you can get a demographic of "people who fight", but not of "people who are important enough to the story to represent using an initiating class rather than an NPC class (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter)." Your statements like those talking about teleportation due to doing a lot of kata seem to confirm this—you are tying fluff to the ability itself in a situation where it does not impact how the ability functions.

[Shinken]

I think I see where the breakdown is here, Shinken. I see classes as purely metagame constructs that represent certain abilities, with inherently mutable fluff. Thus, demographics make very little sense—you can get a demographic of "people who fight", but not of "people who are important enough to the story to represent using an initiating class rather than a Fighter."

"Mutable fluff" doesn't mean there isn't a default fluff. You can ignore that, change it or whatever, but it exists and some people care about it. {{scrubbed}}

[Vhaidara]

Scarlet Throne or Primal Fury for a spear(or polearm)wielder archetype?(or both?)
I'm currently using a stalker as a base, and they gain the use of Mithril Current(and a mechanic that lets them treat their weapon as sheathed by spending a move action[or later on, a swift action]).

Currently, they give away solar wind and trashing dragon, but trying to pick a third to give away(to give them both scarlet throne and primal fury) is proving to be harder. Broken Blade perhaps?

Please make Steel Serpent an option. Let us make Oberyn Martel (Scarlet Throne/Steel Serpent)

[deuxhero]

Inner Focus(Ex): At 1st level, a quicksilver lance may focus themselves, and ready a wielded polearm or spear as a move action. Once readied it is treated as sheathed for the purposes of the mithril current discipline for one round, or until the silver lance attacks.

I would never take this because magic sheeths that allow you to actually sheath polearms are pretty cheep. Also it doesn't interact with Mixed Combat

[Togath]

Please make Steel Serpent an option. Let us make Oberyn Martel (Scarlet Throne/Steel Serpent)

Not familiar with Oberyn, but as it's a stalker base, the archetype does indeed get Steel Serpent.


I would never take this because magic sheeths that allow you to actually sheath polearms are pretty cheep. Also it doesn't interact with Mixed Combat

It's less "how do you sheathe a polearm?" and more, "let you not have to sheathe your weapon to use mithril current"(in it's current form, it also activates their deadly strike ability, though only until the start of their next turn):smallsmile:

[Beowulf DW]

In case anyone's interested, I have an anecdote regarding some of the new Path of War material.

We're all at level 5. My character is a Cleric 4/Warlord 1 Dwarf (I'm going for Battle Templar the next time I level up). We meet a level 5 Undine Bushi Warlord that specialized in using Mithral Current. So the Watery Battousai challenges our gunslinger to a duel in an area that all but assures lots of melee combat, so my dwarf steps forward as the gunslinger's champion. The Moistened Samurai wins initiative and starts in on me, while I self-buff using my spells (Divine Favor and Bull's Strength) and Golden Lion (Encouraging Roar). He managed to hit me three times (one was a counter) that dropped me down to 17 health. At the same time, I'd hit him three times, once for max damage, one critical, one miss and one hit that was more on the average side. So I dealt the equivalent of 4 attacks overall. At the same time, I feel that I should note that he missed my dwarf more than he connected. My character's AC at the time was 19, so make of that what you will. Additionally, my dwarf's max hp is 54; I had 50 going into the fight. It felt like a lightning bruiser (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightningBruiser) going up against a mighty glacier (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyGlacier). In this instance, the glacier won.

[Greenish]

It felt like a lightning bruiser (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightningBruiser) going up against a mighty glacier (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyGlacier). In this instance, the glacier won.And which one was which?

[Shinken]

And which one was which?

Have you learned nothing, Greenish?! The dwarf is always the glacier!

[Beowulf DW]

Have you learned nothing, Greenish?! The dwarf is always the glacier!

Actually, come to think of it, my dwarf may have been a lightning bruiser, too. Travel Domain+Dwarf=moving 30 feet per round even in plate armor.


And which one was which?

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that, didn't I? My dwarf won.

[Shinken]

Actually, come to think of it, my dwarf may have been a lightning bruiser, too. Travel Domain+Dwarf=moving 30 feet per round even in plate armor.


A mobile dwarf?! SHUN THE DISBELIEVER!

But yeah, Travel Domain is so cool.

[Greenish]

Have you learned nothing, Greenish?! The dwarf is always the glacier!Them shifty little buggers, I bet they're just pretending to have 20 ft. move speed, to lull everyone into complacency…

I mean, they're medium creatures, stands for a reason they'd have 30 ft. move speed, so obviously they're faking it, and you don't engage in such a widespread deception unless you're planning something big.

[Beowulf DW]

Them shifty little buggers, I bet they're just pretending to have 20 ft. move speed, to lull everyone into complacency…

I mean, they're medium creatures, stands for a reason they'd have 30 ft. move speed, so obviously they're faking it, and you don't engage in such a widespread deception unless you're planning something big.

Turns out they're natural sprinters. Very dangerous over short distances.:smallwink:

[malonkey1]

A mobile dwarf?! SHUN THE DISBELIEVER!

But yeah, Travel Domain is so cool.

Now don' ye be talking 'bout Dwarves. They be jus' as fas' as they nee'ta be ta break thro' th' rock!

[Togath]

How do these sound for recovery mechanics? Is the large one too random?(for reference, inner focus starts as a move action, and becomes a swift action later on)


Maneuvers Readied: A quicksilver lance readies his maneuvers as a normal stalker would, but her recovery methods are different. In order for a quicksilver lance to recover maneuvers, she can recover a single expended maneuver of her choice by either sheathing her weapon or using her inner focus ability.
She also regains her wisdom modifier in expended maneuvers(minimum of 2) whenever she rolls a natural 20 on a melee attack.

This replaces the stalker's normal methods of recovering maneuvers.

edit: think adding primal fury would go against the dex heavy theme I'm going for? Replacing either broken blade or veiled moon if I added it alongside scarlet throne.

[The Glyphstone]

A mobile dwarf?! SHUN THE DISBELIEVER!

But yeah, Travel Domain is so cool.

They're still faster than their ancestral enemies, the trees.

[Shinken]

They're still faster than their ancestral enemies, the trees.

I stand humbled by your expertise, master. :smallbiggrin:

[Ilorin Lorati]

Togath: It's incredibly easy to be able to sheathe and draw your weapon as a free action.

[Greenish]

Togath: It's incredibly easy to be able to sheathe and draw your weapon as a free action.Bushi also recovers a maneuver when it sheathes it's weapon. That's limited to 1/round, though, this could be the same.

[Togath]

Did not realize that. I'll revise the wording a bit. Intended it to work like the bushi's recharge.:smallsmile:

[Ilorin Lorati]

Hm... is there any chance that we could see some kind of actually good version of Dervish Dance, that lets you finesse 2-h weapons?

Something like:


Blade Dancer

Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, Perform (Dance) 2 ranks.

Benefit: You gain the benefits of weapon finesse with any weapon you wield two-handed. Additionally, while wielding a weapon in this manner, you may use your Perform (Dance) skill in place of your Acrobatics or Fly skills when initiating a maneuver.

Of course, no discipline uses Fly currently - but that could be expanded upon in the future. It ties in well with Broken Blade when using Weapon Group Adaptation and with Mithral Current, and since Deadly Agility already calls out that it wouldn't gain 1-1/2 to damage it would be a thematic feat, never a "necessary" one.

On a related note, has anyone noticed how well Mithral Current would tie in with 2 levels in Bard for Versatile Performance?

[Togath]

On a related note, has anyone noticed how well Mithral Current would tie in with 2 levels in Bard for Versatile Performance?

Now I've noticed it ^_^
Very fun looking combo.


Blade Dancer

Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, Perform (Dance) 2 ranks.

Benefit: You gain the benefits of weapon finesse with any weapon you wield two-handed. Additionally, while wielding a weapon in this manner, you may use your Perform (Dance) skill in place of your Acrobatics or Fly skills when initiating a maneuver.

Looks like it could be an interesting option. Perhaps making piranha strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/piranha-strike-combat) work with it as well?(then again, deadly agility can fairly easily provide just as much of a benefit, but without the attack reduction)

[Snowbluff]

Now I've noticed it ^_^
Very fun looking combo.

I still kind of wish that there was a trait that would do that for skill checks for 1 school.

[Greenish]

Hm... is there any chance that we could see some kind of actually good version of Dervish Dance, that lets you finesse 2-h weapons?There should probably be a feat (or at least a stalker art) that just said something to the effect of "pick a weapon you're proficient with: you can now finesse that weapon". Probably needs something extra, but as a baseline it'd be lovely.

[Novawurmson]

Note that there are finesse-able two-handed weapons. The elven curve blade (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/curve-blade-elven) comes to mind (though it might possibly be the only one).

[Ilorin Lorati]

It's one of the things that I was looking at, but it's too limited for my taste. If you're an elf you can easily get it without a feat, non-elf with one.

*Points up* With that two, but you also get more flexibility and a kicker.

[Taveena]

Not super helpful here, but the Karmic Revolution ability of the Transformation mission might need to be clarified to say that it stacks (when draining from the one target). It's implied that that's the intention, but it's rather unclear.

[Novawurmson]

Not super helpful here, but the Karmic Revolution ability of the Transformation mission might need to be clarified to say that it stacks (when draining from the one target). It's implied that that's the intention, but it's rather unclear.

I was going to say that penalties always stack, but apparently the PF text (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary#TOC-Penalty) is less clear than I thought. Put in a note that it stacks with itself. Thanks!

[Powerdork]

So I have a rules question that needs clearing up. Can you use a high-level maneuver (retrained from a low-level maneuver, by leveling) to qualify for a mid-level maneuver's "X [discipline] maneuvers"?

[PsyBomb]

Yep, nothing prevents it. Same goes with any of the retraining.

[Novawurmson]

So I have a rules question that needs clearing up. Can you use a high-level maneuver (retrained from a low-level maneuver, by leveling) to qualify for a mid-level maneuver's "X [discipline] maneuvers"?

Just to be clear. Let's say you know a 1st level maneuver, a third level maneuver, and a 5th level maneuver, all of the same discipline. You lose the 1st level maneuver to gain another 5th level maneuver.

Even after losing the first level maneuver, you still know 2 maneuvers of the discipline, so you're fine. Knowing a 3rd and two 5th level maneuvers of a discipline, you could take anything except the 9th level maneuver of the discipline (as it requires 4 maneuvers of that discipline).

[Anlashok]

This actually came up before! Permit me to quote myself:

This is a cool way to look at a fear/sorrow/grief/wrath oriented character, but you guys might want to play with their fluff a bit before they're released, because the class description does talk a lot about their inner "sorcerous malice" or "darker urges" or "inner negativity", which frankly sounds a lot more like a wilder (i.e. charisma-y) than anything else. In fact, their opening blurb literally says they channel their emotions into their fighting style.

Personally not a fan of the term "inner negativity" in general but that's another issue.

Also. Would like to see a heavy armored archetype for these guys, the black knight/dark samurai whose mere presence and reputation makes even brave knights tremble is just too good and too thematic a character archetype to avoid, and just slapping black seraph on a warder doesn't really cut it (though it does help).

[Lord_Gareth]

This is a cool way to look at a fear/sorrow/grief/wrath oriented character, but you guys might want to play with their fluff a bit before they're released, because the class description does talk a lot about their inner "sorcerous malice" or "darker urges" or "inner negativity", which frankly sounds a lot more like a wilder (i.e. charisma-y) than anything else. In fact, their opening blurb literally says they channel their emotions into their fighting style.

I'll look into it. Probably won't be fixed in the release doc, though.


Also. Would like to see a heavy armored archetype for these guys, the black knight/dark samurai whose mere presence and reputation makes even brave knights tremble is just too good and too thematic a character archetype to avoid, and just slapping black seraph on a warder doesn't really cut it (though it does help).

This one isn't happening, though. At this point I'd be intruding on territory that Warder, Zealot, and Warlord own. I'm not a fan of archetypes that try to turn one class into another; Harbis are mobile strikers, and their archetypes won't change that essential identity.

[Anlashok]

This one isn't happening, though. At this point I'd be intruding on territory that Warder, Zealot, and Warlord own. I'm not a fan of archetypes that try to turn one class into another; Harbis are mobile strikers, and their archetypes won't change that essential identity.

Makes sense, figured I'd ask though simply because it's a cool archetype that's always been hard to express in d20 without just going anti paladin (which has its own issues doing it etc. etc.) and since we have stuff like a light armored damage oriented dual wielding warder blurring the lines might happen more.

You are right though, the idea is basically half a warder and half a harbinger smooshed together.

I'll go homebrew a PrC or something.

[The Glyphstone]

I see Sanguine Empowerment is a Morale bonus now.:smallsmile:

Glyphstone used Feedback! It's super effective!



Another suggestion, though in a different direction. Would there be room for a feat that increases the duration of Dark Claim? With all the in-class synergy for Claiming as many creatures as possible, a feat-based means of making it easier to max out your Claim cap might be fitting.


Also, does Exsanguinate have the [Death] descriptor? As much as I want to be able to rip all the blood out of a vampire's body, doing the same thing to a skeleton fails the logic test. It probably should, since the Avasculate spells from Libris Mortis/Spell Compendium, almost identical in form/function, were tagged as [Death] despite not being instantly lethal.

[Prime32]

Makes sense, figured I'd ask though simply because it's a cool archetype that's always been hard to express in d20 without just going anti paladin (which has its own issues doing it etc. etc.) and since we have stuff like a light armored damage oriented dual wielding warder blurring the lines might happen more.

You are right though, the idea is basically half a warder and half a harbinger smooshed together.I figure it might work as a martial archetype for the dread (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/dread).

Speaking of dread, this homebrew (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9437) might interest you.

[Anlashok]

I figure it might work as a martial archetype for the dread (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/dread).
I've mostly written off the Dread at this point, but could be.


Speaking of dread, this homebrew (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9437) might interest you.
I do like this class though. Very spiffy.

[PsyBomb]

I have a Dread in a game I'm running (Kingdom Hearts setting, he's playing Jack Skellington). Don't dismiss them out of hand, they can be dangerous and very tough to kill. Perhaps not as cleanly done and strong as the other manifesters, but still far from truly bad.

[Anlashok]

I have a Dread in a game I'm running (Kingdom Hearts setting, he's playing Jack Skellington). Don't dismiss them out of hand, they can be dangerous and very tough to kill. Perhaps not as cleanly done and strong as the other manifesters, but still far from truly bad.

Well, monks can be dangerous and tough to kill too. Just can't help but feel like the class did not get nearly as much attention as others. No racial archetypes, asynergistic manifesting, half casting -and- 3/4ths BAB, relatively underwhelming terrors, feat taxes, only class without a racial archetype... and all propped up by one really great class feature.

Not unworkable, but feels like a beta rather than a finished product.

[Relinara]

So if overlapping archetypes are a problem, do you consider the Soul Hunter a mistake? Not only does it share themes and equipment with the Harbinger, but both of their claiming features are nearly identical.

Second question, are you going to put the class templates on the new classes at all? A Zealot Bushi seems so obvious I'm surprised you can't do it right now and I suppose Harbingers might make decent Privateers.

[Snowbluff]

When are you guys planning to fix Bladecaster?

[Lord_Gareth]

So if overlapping archetypes are a problem, do you consider the Soul Hunter a mistake? Not only does it share themes and equipment with the Harbinger, but both of their claiming features are nearly identical.

Not overlapping; transformative. Harbinger's not a heavy armored tank. Turning it into one would be quite the expense of effort. Frankly I wasn't too sold on doing Ravenlord at first but it was...shall we say, insisted upon, and I've grown to like it. A heavy-armored tank focused around debuffs and/or evil is a Warder or a Zealot, not a Harbinger. Soul Hunter works fine; it doesn't change Stalker's essential role/identity, it just refines it in a different direction. A Soul Hunter is still a damage-oriented striker whose chief tools are mobility, single strikes and ki.

What bothers me is when you see archetypes that take a class and turn it into a cheap imitation of another class. I'd rather see, oh, bardic music on a paladin than I would a "divine bard" archetype that adds more martial features and changes up the spell list. For me, personally, it's a question of elegance. Why change almost everything about Class X when Class Y only needs a few things changed to fit your concept?


Second question, are you going to put the class templates on the new classes at all? A Zealot Bushi seems so obvious I'm surprised you can't do it right now and I suppose Harbingers might make decent Privateers.

We miiiiiight. This is still under discussion/internal development, but it's not as simple as it looks, strictly. We may also, or instead, do class templates made with the new classes in mind.

[squiggit]

Been trying to make a strength harbinger with a giant weapon. Stat juggling is a bit annoying and Accursed Will is an absolute godsend because of it, but more importantly I've discovered that there's very, very few strength/int races.

Seriously, looking at jiang-shi dhampir, werecrocodile skinwalkers or male lashunta and that's it. Almost makes me want to lobby for you guys to change your stance in PoW races.

Starting to warm up to the idea of a giant angry harbinger crocodile though.

Though mostly I wanted to say I love the class, both of the new disciplines are all kinds of awesome (though on every one I've been making I've traded away primal fury for something else). The movement types are awesome. The debuffs are awesome. The idea of a super-speedster smart debuffer is a bit of an odd one, but it ends up coming together really well (sort of reminds me of the cryptic in that regard, love the class but it's a very strange hodgepodge to sum up to someone).

[Ilorin Lorati]

Human can also get double +2, by trading out their skill and feat.

Probably wouldn't want to do that, though.

[Chris Robin R2]

Is there some reason you can't have heavy armor AND be mobile?