What is with the Broken Blade Discipline

[Sartharina]

Alright - we were discussing allowing Path of War into an online PbP game over here, when we found a doozy of a power in Path of War's Broken Blade discipline:

STEEL FLURRY STRIKE
Discipline: Broken Blade (Strike)
Level: 3
Prerequisites: One Broken Blade maneuver
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack
Target: One creature
Duration: Instant
The disciple makes a furious set of attacks upon
his foe, hammering through defenses and striking
rapidly. The initiator may make three attacks against
his foe at full base attack bonus with a -2 penalty to
hit. Successful hits inflict an additional 3d6 points of
damage per hit.


It... broke the entire book for us, because this is a maneuver available at 5th level, yet exceeds the DPR of a 16th-level Core martial character. I know that Path of War does invalidate some parts of core's martial classes thanks to offering support for martial battlefield control and skirmishing/mobile combat compared to the baseline game's options, but even then, the Full Attack Action was kept as king of raw DPR in Tome of Battle, while this seems to just piss all over that while maintaining the mobility of a strike.

Can anyone please explain what's going on here, and if there are any other problematic areas (Or if I'm overreacting?)

[Fax Celestis]

It's three attacks at -2, for +3d6 each. Compare to TWF rogue landing sneak attacks.

[Sartharina]

It's three attacks at -2, for +3d6 each. Compare to TWF rogue landing sneak attacks.TWF Rogue's damage is blown out of the water by this: Same attack penalty, requires a feat, one less attack, requires one-handed weapons and a Light weapon (As opposed to three strikes with a Two-handed weapon), and likely a lower damage bonus. And it can be repeated every other round (Giving it the same number of attacks in 3 rounds as a rogue, for greater damage each time), and doesn't require a full attack or any fancy set-up or agreeable creature types. If they use one of the discipline's weapons, each attack also has a +2 flat damage (Though it uses rogue-level weapons to do so).

Meanwhile, in the hands of a Stalker, this also can get +2d6 from Deadly Strike at level 5, in addition to the extra attacks.

On a Warlord or Warder with access to the discipline, it's No Contest - Power Attack gives it the rogue/stalker's attack bonus, +6 damage per attack with a two-handed weapon.

[Sith_Happens]

It's three attacks at -2, for +3d6 each. Compare to TWF rogue landing sneak attacks.

At the level you can first get the strike (5th) the rogue has two attacks and 3d6 sneak attack, so the strike comes out ahead.

[Anlashok]

Honestly I think it's a typo on the maneuver description, because it's basically the equivalent of a 9th level TWF slayer's full attack, which would make it a nice sixth level maneuver.

Though, you're wrong about DPR. At 16th level the attack is going to be less accurate across the board compared with the Slayer (-6/-1/-1 accuracy when compared with its' full attack) and do significantly less damage(5d6 vs 3d6 sneak attack, 5-7 attacks vs 3).

Plus, calling the rogue a martial combat character is disingenuous, not only is it not full marital (3/4ths BAB), it's also a notoriously terrible one.

[Psyren]

It's three attacks at -2, for +3d6 each. Compare to TWF rogue landing sneak attacks.

To play devil's advocate, the rogue has to full-attack to get that (as well as be flanking or concealed.) This is a standard action with no conditions required to pull it off. I agree with Sarth that +9d6 at 5th-level is a bit much.

[Sartharina]

My concern is "Are there any other doozies like this one in the book?", because as much as I love the idea behind Path of War, something like this makes it a much harder sell to DMs, especially those that don't like seeing standard classes be completely trivialized.

[Thalnawr]

On a Warlord or Warder with access to the discipline, it's No Contest - Power Attack gives it the rogue/stalker's attack bonus, +6 damage per attack with a two-handed weapon.

One quick thing about this. I know it doesn't say so on d20pfsrd.com, but, in my copy of the full PDF, it says the following:


BROKEN BLADE
Maneuvers from this discipline require the initiator to be using discipline weapons or be unarmed. Use of discipline-specific weapons with Broken Blade inflict an additional 2 points of damage.

This means, that the strike can only be used with weapons from the close and monk weapon groups, plus unarmed strikes and natural attacks.

[squiggit]

This means, that the strike can only be used with weapons from the close and monk weapon groups, plus unarmed strikes and natural attacks.

However, ErrantX has posted this..

The PDF is going through a revision (hopefully); Broken Blade shouldn't have the restriction anymore. Instead, weapons of the discipline's associated groups inflict an extra 2 damage on maneuvers and +2 to the DC's of its saves (what few there are).
-X

Though he did say that some maneuvers should still weapon group restrictions.

[Thalnawr]

However, ErrantX has posted this..

Though he did say that some maneuvers should still weapon group restrictions.

Yeah, and I realized that there are still some two-handers in the monk weapons group, anyhow, after I posted... Oh well, silly me.

[Lord_Gareth]

It's notably good. It's definitely one of the better strikes for pure damage at its level and outperforms most PC-available melee options when you acquire it (5th level). One might be able to get close with catfolk pouncing or a pouncing synthesist, but the former is niche and the latter is also perceived as potent (it's not, but, eh. What're you gonna do?). It'll be better on Warders and Warlords than anyone else.

I'm not personally too worried about it when compared to on-level monsters and boss fights, but it stands out. The concern is being taken under consideration.

If anyone would like to throw some numbers at this thing, compared to average AC and HP for CR 5/6/7 monsters (originate the strike from a 5th level character) that'd be much appreciated. I'd handle it myself but right now my life is falling apart into tattered ashes and dead dreams, and I really wish I was kidding about that, and I'm not.

As always, your feedback has been appreciated!

[Sith_Happens]

Even without crunching numbers, it's almost strictly better than a full attack until your 16th point of BAB (unless you're dual-wielding), and probably even then.

[Extra Anchovies]

One might be able to get close with catfolk pouncing or a pouncing synthesist, but the former is niche and the latter is also perceived as potent (it's not, but, eh. What're you gonna do?).

Pouncing Synthesist isn't actually that good? Sorry if I'm starting a tangent here, but why not? I know it isn't much next to a Hecatoncheires Multiweapon F**king-S**t-Up arrangement, but Pounce is pretty strong when organized properly and is pretty difficult to get ahold of in Pathfinder.

[Lord_Gareth]

Pouncing Synthesist isn't actually that good? Sorry if I'm starting a tangent here, but why not? I know it isn't much next to a Hecatoncheires Multiweapon F**king-S**t-Up arrangement, but Pounce is pretty strong when organized properly and is pretty difficult to get ahold of in Pathfinder.

Synthesist has this problem with being a strict nerf to base Summoner; to wit, base Summoner is an excellent battlefield controller who has a strong, dynamic respawning melee guy who costs nothing and eats up no XP.

Sythesist gets rid of 1/2 of that, leaving you with a strong, dynamic melee guy who does not, in fact, respawn at all.

[Extra Anchovies]

Synthesist has this problem with being a strict nerf to base Summoner; to wit, base Summoner is an excellent battlefield controller who has a strong, dynamic respawning melee guy who costs nothing and eats up no XP.

Sythesist gets rid of 1/2 of that, leaving you with a strong, dynamic melee guy who does not, in fact, respawn at all.

Oh, yes, thanks for clearing that up. I've spent enough time drooling over the cool factor of the Synthesist archetype (it reminds me of Rich Burlew's Champion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9623431&postcount=9) homebrew class, which I love to death) that I didn't even notice that you had mention Synth in particular, rather than Summoner as a whole! Yeah, Synthesist is a big nerf on the Summoner, namely its action economy. Between the Summoner and his Eidolon, you effectively have two characters, one of which can buff the other one without reducing the party's turns:characters ratio below 1:1. I don't know how I missed that you were only referencing the one archetype :smalltongue:

[Dayaz]

There's a feat that lets you add either a weapon or a whole weapon group to a discipline you know. Thus, you could pull off Falcion or Greatsword to Broken Blade.

Also, since I'm the DM of the game the OP mentions, I would like to go on record saying that it's not so much maneuvers like this that got the book banned from the game, it's simply a preference on my part to not bring a book with a system I've never used into the game, especially since this will be my first actual campaign, so I'd rather only have things that I've got experience with.

[Eldaran]

People calculating the damage are also missing boosts and stances. Just from a glance, there's a 1st Broken Blade stance that adds 1d6 to all attacks, and a 2nd level boost that adds 2d6 to all attacks for one round (and ignore DR). So you're doing 3x(6d6+weapon damage)... at level 5.

I like Path of War, I think there's a lot of nice stuff for martial characters, and many of the maneuvers are interesting. But the damage is so high, and I don't understand why. I think a lot of people are going to skip over any other options, because why bother dazing or stunning or debuffing someone when you can just slaughter then in one round.

[Anlashok]

The short version is that, with the stance, you're looking at 54.9 damage against a CR5 enemy, 50~ against CR6, and ~46 against CR7. Slightly higher than average rolls drop a CR5 enemy, CR7 enemy drops if all three attacks hit for average or better damage.

CR6 enemy is 70 HP and AC19, CR5 is 55 and 18, CR7 85 and 20.

Level 5 human warder with 20 strength, a masterwork sansetsuken and a +2 belt of strength. Quadrupling your damage over a regular full attack in a lot of places.

[angellis_ater]

Hi!

First of all, we'll take a look at if it needs revising, or if we missed something.

Anyhow, I did a quick DPR for a Summoner. Having spent 7 out of 8 Evolution Points, 6k out of 10.5k wealth the DPR against a CR5 ended up at 53.93. Only this guy can do this every round, in every combat. And then I didn't account for the Summoner's attack, any of his potential spells, and only spent 1 out of his 3 feats. A little tweaking and we could up the damage and tohit ratio, but considering that I almost ended up at the same level with it, I didn't think it was worth doing more.

That said, compared to a regular full attack by someone not adding in resources, ofcourse someone who is choosing and spending resources focused primarily on damage will outdamage them.

However, if people do feel this is problematic maneuver, we ARE looking at it. :)

[Feint's End]

It's of note that at this level your group should be rocking haste which doesn't apply to this strike.

Meaning two handed martials look at 2 attacks or 3 of you count in level 6.

I agree that this seems strong but I'm positive quite a few classes can pull this damage off .... and that every round.
Though if you are a warlord you can pull it every round with something like the acrobatic gambit (which would add 1d6+cha to each attack).

Classes with similar results are probably aegis, psywar, summoner, from level 6 brutal disrupter cryptic to just say a few (a barbarian should be able to get there too)

[lord_khaine]

So i were agree on this being seriously over the top, and a actual problem for those who wanted to sell PoW to a new GM.

I certainly know that i would give it a single glance and then laught if a new player had presented it to me as a piece of homebrew, and i loved ToB.

[angellis_ater]

I'll have to ask, if you find one singular maneuver problematic and laugh an entire system out - I take it you're not playing with casters of any form, right? ;)

That said, I said we'd look at it and if we find it problematic, then yeah we'll revise it. Not sure if it is though.

I threw together a Tengu Claw-chemist and had a non-sneak damage of 36,53 vs CR5, but sneaking at 72,75 at 5th level (average 54,64 DPR) and he can do it every round too.

[Sartharina]

I'll have to ask, if you find one singular maneuver problematic and laugh an entire system out - I take it you're not playing with casters of any form, right? ;)

That said, I said we'd look at it and if we find it problematic, then yeah we'll revise it. Not sure if it is though.

I threw together a Tengu Claw-chemist and had a non-sneak damage of 36,53 vs CR5, but sneaking at 72,75 at 5th level (average 54,64 DPR) and he can do it every round too.
The bigger concern isn't the one maneuver, but the possibility for more like it.

While I accept that an optimized and focused character can perform on this level, I'm really concerned about how it stacks up when everything the martial adept has going for it is combined with it - Haste is only available once per day for one combat, maybe two. Also - how do Rangers, Fighters, Paladins, and Barbarians fare with the maneuver?

[Fax Celestis]

Would it be better for you if it required unarmed strike?

[Feint's End]

The bigger concern isn't the one maneuver, but the possibility for more like it.

While I accept that an optimized and focused character can perform on this level, I'm really concerned about how it stacks up when everything the martial adept has going for it is combined with it - Haste is only available once per day for one combat, maybe two. Also - how do Rangers, Fighters, Paladins, and Barbarians fare with the maneuver?

Liste mentioned before this maneuver is hardly overpowered ... just strong.

The things that produce the most problems in games are rarely ever the things that just deal damage.

How many encounters does the average group has at level 5? I bet not more than 3 or even just 2. A summoner alone can deal that damage via eidolon and doesn't even need another caster for haste so there you go. (Just an example .... A natural weapon psywar gets there too).

As for the other classes. They do well with maneuvers since schools are just that versatile.
Problems with incorporeal foes? Veiled moon has some stuff.
Ranger with cover issues? Get some solar wind.
Want to play a duelist fighter? Scarlet got you covered.

So the martial classes do very well with the right schools.

[Boci]

The bigger concern isn't the one maneuver, but the possibility for more like it.

That's fair enough, but then you were able to identify this maneuvre and the DPR implications. It seems reading the rest is the best way to find out if there is any more would be to read the rest of the discipline.

[Shinken]

I've seen complaints like this many times, specially on the Paizo forums. Damage numbers add up really fast in PoW, in a very obvious case of power creep - not only regarding the core classes but regarding ToB.

Another maneuver I have issues with is Black Seraph's Glare, which as written allows you to take 24 on an Intimidate check at level 1.

[Boci]

I've seen complaints like this many times, specially on the Paizo forums. Damage numbers add up really fast in PoW, in a very obvious case of power creep - not only regarding the core classes but regarding ToB.

Another maneuver I have issues with is Black Seraph's Glare, which as written allows you to take 24 on an Intimidate check at level 1.

How?

Black Seraph's Glare

Discipline: Black Seraph (Stance)

Level: 1

Initiation Action: 1 swift action

Range: Personal

Target: You

Duration: Stance

Disciples of the Black Seraph know that half the battle is won through the mind, and by attacking his opponent's mind with fear, he can goad him to make mistakes and shatter his resolve and confidence. While in this stance, the disciple may make Intimidate checks to demoralize foes as a free action, but only against those that he has damaged that turn. He gains a +4 profane bonus (see Intimidate skill description for details) to these Intimidate checks.

Could be problematic when staked with others things, but on its own it seems fine. I'm guessing the 24 on intimidate is take 10 + 1 rank +3 class skill +4 charisma+2 trait/other bonus +4 BSG, but then its still a 20 at level 1 without it.

[Jacob.Tyr]

How?

Black Seraph's Glare

Discipline: Black Seraph (Stance)

Level: 1

Initiation Action: 1 swift action

Range: Personal

Target: You

Duration: Stance

Disciples of the Black Seraph know that half the battle is won through the mind, and by attacking his opponent's mind with fear, he can goad him to make mistakes and shatter his resolve and confidence. While in this stance, the disciple may make Intimidate checks to demoralize foes as a free action, but only against those that he has damaged that turn. He gains a +4 profane bonus (see Intimidate skill description for details) to these Intimidate checks.

Could be problematic when staked with others things, but on its own it seems fine. I'm guessing the 24 on intimidate is take 10 + 1 rank +3 class skill +4 charisma+2 trait/other bonus +4 BSG, but then its still a 20 at level 1 without it.

I think he's assuming you can make an unlimited number of free intimidate checks against an opponent in a single round, allowing you to essentially take 20 on it by redoing it until you roll a 20.

It is clearly RAI you get one free intimidate check.

[Boci]

I think he's assuming you can make an unlimited number of free intimidate checks against an opponent in a single round, allowing you to essentially take 20 on it by redoing it until you roll a 20.

It is clearly RAI you get one free intimidate check.

Oh right, of course, but free action abuse is hardly something new to PoW.

[stack]

I believe the issue is not limiting the attempts per person, allowing you to keep making free action checks until you get a 20.

[Fax Celestis]

"Free action" verbiage always has weird side effects, since the game says "within reason" rather than a hard numerical limit on how many you can do a round. The intent is pretty clear: if you hit someone, you get to intimidate them once at no action cost and with a +4 profane bonus.

[Shinken]

I think he's assuming you can make an unlimited number of free intimidate checks against an opponent in a single round, allowing you to essentially take 20 on it by redoing it until you roll a 20.

It is clearly RAI you get one free intimidate check.

That RAI should become RAW, then.
You could even remove the 'free action' bit - say that once per turn you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize as part of a successful attack.

[Jacob.Tyr]

That RAI should become RAW, then.
Is there ever actually a situation where you can take the same free action an unlimited number of times until you get the result you want? I'm pretty sure attempting this, by RAW, is when the DM gets to throw books at you for not understanding what the word "reasonable" means.

[Shinken]

Is there ever actually a situation where you can take the same free action an unlimited number of times until you get the result you want? I'm pretty sure attempting this, by RAW, is when the DM gets to throw books at you for not understanding what the word "reasonable" means.

"Reasonable" is not defined by RAW and "the DM can fix it" doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

[Boci]

That RAI should become RAW, then.
You could even remove the 'free action' bit - say that once per turn you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize as part of a successful attack.

There's an argument for that yes, and the fact that this isn't the first time free actions have allowed for potential abuse, but at the same time it allows DMs to customize the power levels. For example, a DM could allow two intimidation checks with BSG.

Overall, yeah free actions should be changed for clarity's sake, but its a relatively minor issue.

[Shinken]

There's an argument for that yes, and the fact that this isn't the first time free actions have allowed for potential abuse, but at the same time it allows DMs to customize the power levels. For example, a DM could allow two intimidation checks with BSG.

Overall, yeah free actions should be changed for clarity's sake, but its a relatively minor issue.

You misunderstand. "You get to try and demoralize this guys twice" is not what this maneuver is about per RAI, but it is what you suggested. It should be that each hit you get a demoralize attempt (I would make it for the first hit only, even - this is a 1st level maneuver, after all). If the maneuver wanted to allow you to reroll Intimidate checks, it should say so in the text, it shouldn't just go "yay free actions".

[Boci]

You misunderstand.

No I don't. I'm saying allowing it as a free action does allow DMs an element of customization. They can give the character 1 free intimidate check per hit, they can give 2, ect. But yes, you are right, free action mechanics are ambiguous, they should be redesigned, but its not a big issue. The simple fix would be:

"You can perform an unlimited amount of free actions on your turn, but you may not repeat the same action unless the text specifies". The latter would include drawing ammunition, speaking, and probably a few others I cannot think of right now.

[Jacob.Tyr]

Anyway, on topic, this strike looks off to me, too. I mean, if it existed on its own I wouldn't have an issue with it. But it easily stacks with all of the other methods for upping your damage. Boosts, Stances, THF, Power Attack etc. Heck, tack on a feat and you can use this at the end of a charge negating the to hit penalty, or use it with a gambit to get other boosts, or use it while flanking, or throw it out with deadly strike etc etc. Yeah a summoner can easily out-damage an initiator just using this for their damage source, but add in other sources and I can see it being problematic.

Something like greatsword, power attacking, primal warrior stance, this strike, bronze knuckle Boost (seems to work with any broken blade maneuver, or unarmed attacks), 20 Str (+5).
Looking at (9d6+13)X3 before any magical items.

[Shinken]

No I don't. I'm saying allowing it as a free action does allow DMs an element of customization. They can give the character 1 free intimidate check per hit, they can give 2, ect. But yes, you are right, free action mechanics are ambiguous, they should be redesigned, but its not a big issue. The simple fix would be:

"You can perform an unlimited amount of free actions on your turn, but you may not repeat the same action unless the text specifies". The latter would include drawing ammunition, speaking, and probably a few others I cannot think of right now.

You do understand the maneuver is quite clearly about hitting someone and intimidating that, right? That it doesn't mention rerolling anywhere, right? Intent is clear - you hit them, you demoralize them. Getting to try and demoralize several times is an exploit, one that shouldn't be possible and can be avoided by stricter wording.

[Boci]

You do understand the maneuver is quite clearly about hitting someone and intimidating that, right? That it doesn't mention rerolling anywhere, right? Intent is clear - you hit them, you demoralize them. Getting to try and demoralize several times is an exploit, one that shouldn't be possible and can be avoided by stricter wording.

Given that I agreed with you, yeah I probably did understand. I was just noting free action abuse wasn't a PoW problem, and it can allow DMs more customization without houserules, but concluded that any potential advantage from that wasn't worth the lack of clarity.

[Amphetryon]

There's a feat that lets you add either a weapon or a whole weapon group to a discipline you know. Thus, you could pull off Falcion or Greatsword to Broken Blade.

Also, since I'm the DM of the game the OP mentions, I would like to go on record saying that it's not so much maneuvers like this that got the book banned from the game, it's simply a preference on my part to not bring a book with a system I've never used into the game, especially since this will be my first actual campaign, so I'd rather only have things that I've got experience with.

This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable explanation for why a particular resource is banned for a particular campaign, regardless of that resource's perceived power level.

[Psyren]

I've seen complaints like this many times, specially on the Paizo forums. Damage numbers add up really fast in PoW, in a very obvious case of power creep - not only regarding the core classes but regarding ToB.

Another maneuver I have issues with is Black Seraph's Glare, which as written allows you to take 24 on an Intimidate check at level 1.

What, are DMs really letting people take 20 just because it says "free action?" The intent is obviously to let you just throw out a single Intimidate check without interfering with your other actions that round. This one is just ridiculous.

[ErrantX]

I'm not going to debate the merits or flaws of the maneuver. That's been done. Let's discuss potential information for errata.

Several solutions.

1) Simply put, reduce the damage to 2d6 instead of 3d6. Average damage per hit goes down by 3.5.
2) Make it unarmed only. This kind of takes the fun out of it for a lot of people, but does reinforce the fluff.
3) Make it a full round action. This reduces mobility with use of this maneuver.
4) Some combination of the previous 3.

-X

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think number 1 is the best option, though i've kicking with an idea that I planned to submit to you guys, what about maneuvers whose power varied depending on the action taken to initiate it.

Let's take Steel flurry strike as an example.
If you use it as a swift action (ie a boost) you get one extra attack and bonus 1d6 damage on that extra attack
Standard action: two extra attacks and 2d6 bonus damage on those extra attacks
Full round action: three extra attacks and each get the full 3d6 bonus damage.

Obviously not all maneuvers are as "granular" as SFS so it isn't something that could be errata'ed in, but perhaps a future discipline might have that as it's stichk.

[Fax Celestis]

I'd prefer #2. Unarmed gets few enough damage goodies that this should be fine.

[Psyren]

Combine 1 and 2. It doesn't need to be a full-round action I say, just toned down a touch.

[EisenKreutzer]

Honestly, the Manouver is fine. If it was a Wizards spell, nobody would bat an eyelash.

[Psyren]

Honestly, the Manouver is fine. If it was a Wizards spell, nobody would bat an eyelash.

I really wish people would put this tired comparison to bed. You can do this maneuver 50 times a day if you want, and 9d6 damage is a bit much for a level 5 caster, and it has no saving throw or SR or components or provokes etc. So yeah, if you had a wizard spell that could do all of those things you had better believe I would be batting an eyelash.

[Shinken]

I really wish people would put this tired comparison to bed. You can do this maneuver 50 times a day if you want, and 9d6 damage is a bit much for a level 5 caster, and it has no saving throw or SR or components or provokes etc. So yeah, if you had a wizard spell that could do all of those things you had better believe I would be batting an eyelash.

Yeah, comparing a per-encounter renewable resource to a daily non-renewable resource doesn't really make such sense.

[Sartharina]

I'd suggest raising the level of the maneuver to 5 or 6 - the +3d6 damage per attack starts to look weak - but by those levels, the 3 attacks on a Standard Action isn't quite as scary, and each of those attacks also carries more riders keeping the damage above-par.

I'm still trying to figure out the math and how it can be optimized with feats and class features. With all this discussion, Accuracy seems to be ignored, which can be catastrophic.


Honestly, the Manouver is fine. If it was a Wizards spell, nobody would bat an eyelash.Actually, it would be the best blast spell in the game. No other 3rd-level or lower spell slot cast by a 5th-level wizard deals 12d6+18 damage to a single target (Assuming a d6 weapon and +4 attribute modifier, and ignoring crits). Furthermore, spells are limited in use per day. This thing can be used all day every day every other round.

In the hands of a Stalker with a d6 weapon, it deals an additional 6d6 damage thanks to Deadly Strike alone. In the hands of a Warder or Warlord, the damage probably increases to a base of 2d6, crit range expands to 19-20 (Unless they use falchion, when it's 2d4 and 18-20 crit) and flat damage increases by 12 thanks to Power Attack.

[Anlashok]

I really wish people would put this tired comparison to bed. You can do this maneuver 50 times a day if you want, and 9d6 damage is a bit much for a level 5 caster, and it has no saving throw or SR or components or provokes etc. So yeah, if you had a wizard spell that could do all of those things you had better believe I would be batting an eyelash.

To be fair, that's a bit disingenuous too. Realistically you don't need to do it 50 times a day. With normal encounter numbers you're looking at 4-6.

And flashy numbers aside, only having a ~35% chance of dropping a CR appropriate enemy is much worse than what you'd hope the wizard can do because they can optimize DCs much better. And theirs is probably AoE.

The fact of the matter is though that it's still a level 11 full attack with bonus damage and better accuracy. It's not right at level 5.

[Psyren]

I'd suggest raising the level of the maneuver to 5 or 6 - the +3d6 damage per attack starts to look weak - but by those levels, the 3 attacks on a Standard Action isn't quite as scary, and each of those attacks also carries more riders keeping the damage above-par.

This is a great suggestion as well; keep it as-is but simply make it come online later. That would balance it with minimal rewrites.


To be fair, that's a bit disingenuous too. Realistically you don't need to do it 50 times a day. With normal encounter numbers you're looking at 4-6.

All that means is that it gets better and better as the number of encounters/day increase. That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for its balance relative to equivalent-level spells.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm pretty pro-martial, but this maneuver is insane. If you removed the damage bonus entirely, it'd still be pretty good. Move and make 3 attacks at full BAB -2. That's still really good. The 3d6 (plus 2, as per the Broken Blade description) per hit is going too far.

Either get rid of the damage bonus entirely, or make it unarmed only, and even then, I'd reduce it to 2d6.


I really wish people would put this tired comparison to bed. You can do this maneuver 50 times a day if you want..

Ironically, I really wish people would put THIS tired comparison to bed. "Fighter can do his thing all day long!" As if running out of spell slots is a serious problem for a caster beyond the first few levels.

[Amphetryon]

I'm pretty pro-martial, but this maneuver is insane. If you removed the damage bonus entirely, it'd still be pretty good. Move and make 3 attacks at full BAB -2. That's still really good. The 3d6 (plus 2, as per the Broken Blade description) per hit is going too far.

Either get rid of the damage bonus entirely, or make it unarmed only, and even then, I'd reduce it to 2d6.



Ironically, I really wish people would put THIS tired comparison to bed. "Fighter can do his thing all day long!" As if running out of spell slots is a serious problem for a caster beyond the first few levels.

Or as if the casters couldn't use a Save-or-Lose at this level, or a spell that wound up allowing the combined damage from the party to exceed most average calculations for this particular maneuver.

[Greenish]

It should be that each hit you get a demoralize attempt (I would make it for the first hit only, even - this is a 1st level maneuver, after all).I should point out that Black Seraph's Glare is a stance, and many of the 1st level stances scale, so I don't see any problem making it every hit.


I'm also going to agree that making three attacks as a standard action doesn't really need a free damage rider; that's what Boosts are for.

[EisenKreutzer]

Actually, it would be the best blast spell in the game. No other 3rd-level or lower spell slot cast by a 5th-level wizard deals 12d6+18 damage to a single target (Assuming a d6 weapon and +4 attribute modifier, and ignoring crits). Furthermore, spells are limited in use per day. This thing can be used all day every day every other round.

In the hands of a Stalker with a d6 weapon, it deals an additional 6d6 damage thanks to Deadly Strike alone. In the hands of a Warder or Warlord, the damage probably increases to a base of 2d6, crit range expands to 19-20 (Unless they use falchion, when it's 2d4 and 18-20 crit) and flat damage increases by 12 thanks to Power Attack.

Fair enough, I have been proven wrong. Mea culpa.

[Fax Celestis]

I'd suggest raising the level of the maneuver to 5 or 6 - the +3d6 damage per attack starts to look weak - but by those levels, the 3 attacks on a Standard Action isn't quite as scary, and each of those attacks also carries more riders keeping the damage above-par.

I'm still trying to figure out the math and how it can be optimized with feats and class features. With all this discussion, Accuracy seems to be ignored, which can be catastrophic.

Actually, it would be the best blast spell in the game. No other 3rd-level or lower spell slot cast by a 5th-level wizard deals 12d6+18 damage to a single target (Assuming a d6 weapon and +4 attribute modifier, and ignoring crits). Furthermore, spells are limited in use per day. This thing can be used all day every day every other round.

In the hands of a Stalker with a d6 weapon, it deals an additional 6d6 damage thanks to Deadly Strike alone. In the hands of a Warder or Warlord, the damage probably increases to a base of 2d6, crit range expands to 19-20 (Unless they use falchion, when it's 2d4 and 18-20 crit) and flat damage increases by 12 thanks to Power Attack.

The irony of you saying "accuracy is forgotten", and then ignoring accuracy in your damage assessment, astounds me.

You're looking at 3 attack rolls at -2. That's a 13.54% chance of rolling at least one nat 1 (granted, you have the same chance of rolling at least one nat 20). Your typical CR 6 monster (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html#_appendix-1-monster-creation) will have an AC of 19. A Warder using power attack and this maneuver will be looking at a -4 to his rolls, +6 BAB, +4 from STR, +1 masterwork or +1 enchanted...a final AB of +7, which means he hits on an 12. 55% of the attacks made by this maneuver will miss. So we're already looking at cutting the damage from (2d6+3d6+6 STR+6 PA)*3 (88.5 ave) to (2d6+3d6+6 STR+6 PA)*1.45 (42.775 ave) ((2d6+3d6+6+6)*3)*.45 (39.825 ave). Crits are irrelevant, as they are statistically negated by natural 1s (except in the case of increased threat range weapons, but you still need to confirm at a 45% pass chance) and the bonus damage from the maneuver isn't multiplied anyway, so calculating that into the damage equation is on par with a regular attack's crit spectrum.

Comparatively, a raging barbarian character making a full attack without this maneuver is looking at a final AB of +11, hits on an 8/13, so 65%/40% of his attacks pass, which means we're looking at ((2d6+10 STR+6 PA)*.65+(2d6+10 STR+6 PA)*.4)=14.95+9.2=24.15 average damage.

In a vacuum and assuming no one has spent other resources to increase their damage. Barbarian could quite easily have picked up Battle Roar or Lesser Elemental Rage, which would give him +2d6 and increase his average to 27.825. Both would increase it 31.5.

In addition, one has to keep in mind that the warder only gets to do this every other turn (ish). Assuming the same routine, the warder's attacks over two turns drops to (((2d6+3d6+6 STR+6 PA)*1.45)+((2d6+6+6)*.55)+(2d6+6+6)*.3)/2 = (42.775+10.45+5.7)/2= 29.4625 DPR, barely 5 points over the barbarian's unboosted average (24.15), two points over if the barbarian picks up any sort of damage bonus at all (27.825), and two points under if the barbarian picks up both (31.5). And that assumes that the warder somehow manages to recover maneuvers and still get a full attack. Warders typically have to spend a full-round or a standard to recover maneuvers, which means their ability to attack is completely removed, dropping the warder's DPR from 29.4625 to (42.775/2)=21.3875, which is three points lower than the barbarian's unboosted full attack (24.15), six behind a boosted one (27.825), and ten behind a focused boosted one (31.5).

I'm not really seeing a problem, now that I've run numbers. For a warder, it basically takes two turns worth of actions and damage and crams them into one turn. Mister Barbarian, on the other hand, gets to do his for as long as he's raging.

EDIT: Hell, I may or may not have made a statistical analysis error in the warder's favor here, considering a 45% land rate should be ((2d6+3d6+6+6)*3)*.45 (ave 39.825), not (2d6+3d6+6 STR+6 PA)*1.45 (44.775). This means an every-other-round-including-magically-recovering-maneuvers-while-full-attacking DPR drops to 27.9875 and every-other-round-using-the-warder's-actual-recharge-mechanic to 19.9125, far less than the barbarian's base 24.15.

[Greenish]

This is probably too late in the development cycle to be implemented, but Broken Blade could work somewhat like Mithril Current, with the maneuvers having a given effect, and then extra stuff if you use them unarmed.

[Boci]

Yeah, the closest spell comparison I can think of to this maneuver is Splinterbolt from 3.5 web supplement spells of the woodlan:
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040710a

Basically:
Splinterbolt
Evocation
Level: Druid 2, Sorcerer/Wizard 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One or more streams of splinters
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

You cause a long, thin, sharp beam of splinters to lance out of your outstretched hand to strike a target in range. You must make a ranged attack (not a ranged touch attack) to hit the target; if you hit, the splinterbolt deals 4d6 points of piercing damage. The splinterbolt threatens a critical hit on an 18-20 and deals x3 damage on a successful critical hit.

You can fire one additional splinterbolt for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three splinterbolts at 11th level). You can fire these splinterbolts at the same or different targets, but all splinterbolts must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

If you cast this spell in forested terrain, the splinterbolts are treated as cold iron magic weapons, and they deal an additional +4 points of damage on a hit.

This is a better comparison than a blast spell that deals 12d6 because that number ignores that the fact the the fighter needs to hit three times to get that number. This still isn't the best comparison, because a wizard making a non-touch attack is generally a sad thing, but it had an excellent crit stat and will eventually deal 12d6 (+12 in the woodlands), but at the level when the martial character gets Flurry Steel Strike it is only dealing 4d6 (+4 in the wood lands).

[Jacob.Tyr]

The irony of you saying "accuracy is forgotten", and then ignoring accuracy in your damage assessment, astounds me.

You're looking at 3 attack rolls at -2. That's a 13.54% chance of rolling at least one nat 1 (granted, you have the same chance of rolling at least one nat 20). Your typical CR 6 monster (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html#_appendix-1-monster-creation) will have an AC of 19. A Warder using power attack and this maneuver will be looking at a -4 to his rolls, +6 BAB, +4 from STR, +1 masterwork or +1 enchanted...a final AB of +7, which means he hits on an 12. 55% of the attacks made by this maneuver will miss. So we're already looking at cutting the damage from (2d6+3d6+6 STR+6 PA)*3 (88.5 ave) to (2d6+3d6+6 STR+6 PA)*1.45 (42.775 ave). Crits are irrelevant, as they are statistically negated by natural 1s (except in the case of increased threat range weapons, but you still need to confirm at a 45% pass chance) and the bonus damage from the maneuver isn't multiplied anyway, so calculating that into the damage equation is on par with a regular attack's crit spectrum.

Comparatively, a raging barbarian character making a full attack without this maneuver is looking at a final AB of +11, hits on an 8/13, so 65%/40% of his attacks pass, which means we're looking at ((2d6+10 STR+6 PA)*.65+(2d6+10 STR+6 PA)*.4)=14.95+9.2=24.15 average damage.

In a vacuum and assuming no one has spent other resources to increase their damage. Barbarian could quite easily have picked up Battle Roar or Lesser Elemental Rage, which would give him +2d6 and increase his average to 27.825. Both would increase it 31.5.

In addition, one has to keep in mind that the warder only gets to do this every other turn (ish). Assuming the same routine, the warder's attacks over two turns drops to (((2d6+3d6+6 STR+6 PA)*1.45)+((2d6+6+6)*.55)+(2d6+6+6)*.3)/2 = (42.775+10.45+5.7)/2= 29.4625 DPR, barely 5 points over the barbarian's unboosted average (24.15), two points over if the barbarian picks up any sort of damage bonus at all (27.825), and two points under if the barbarian picks up both (31.5). And that assumes that the warder somehow manages to recover maneuvers and still get a full attack. Warders typically have to spend a full-round or a standard to recover maneuvers, which means their ability to attack is completely removed, dropping the warder's DPR from 29.4625 to (42.775/2)=21.3875, which is three points lower than the barbarian's unboosted full attack (24.15), six behind a boosted one (27.825), and ten behind a focused boosted one (31.5).

I'm not really seeing a problem, now that I've run numbers. For a warder, it basically takes two turns worth of actions and damage and crams them into one turn. Mister Barbarian, on the other hand, gets to do his for as long as he's raging.
AC 19 is what we're aiming at, then? Cool.
My entrant: Warder 5
Feats
Level 1: Power Attack
Level 3: Martial Charge
Level 4: Discipline Focus: Primal Fury
Level 5: Idunno, weapon focus
Str: 20
Weapon +1 probably Greatsword. He uses
Stance: Primal Warrior
Boost: Bronze Knuckle
Power Attacking on a charge
To hit: +9
Damage: 9d6+14 For three attacks.
VS
AC Damage
15 114
18 92.625
19 85.5
20 78.375
22 64.125

[Fax Celestis]

AC 19 is what we're aiming at, then? Cool.
My entrant: Warder 5
Feats
Level 1: Power Attack
Level 3: Martial Charge
Level 4: Discipline Focus: Primal Fury
Level 5: Idunno, weapon focus
Str: 20
Weapon +1 probably Greatsword. He uses
Stance: Primal Warrior
Boost: Bronze Knuckle
Power Attacking on a charge
To hit: +9
Damage: 9d6+14 For three attacks.
VS AC Damage
15 114
18 92.625
19 85.5
20 78.375
22 64.125

((9d6+14)*3)*.55)=75.05 ave, 37.5375 DPR using warder's standard-action recharge.

Someone want to do a comparative barbarian? I'm not very good with kitting them out.

[Boci]

AC 19 is what we're aiming at, then? Cool.
My entrant: Warder 5
Feats
Level 1: Power Attack
Level 3: Martial Charge
Level 4: Discipline Focus: Primal Fury
Level 5: Idunno, weapon focus
Str: 20
Weapon +1 probably Greatsword. He uses
Stance: Primal Warrior
Boost: Bronze Knuckle
Power Attacking on a charge
To hit: +9
Damage: 9d6+14 For three attacks.
VS
AC Damage
15 114
18 92.625
19 85.5
20 78.375
22 64.125

Is martial charge allowing you to use a standard action maneuvre instead of the regular attack at the end of a charge?

[Greenish]

Is martial charge allowing you to use a standard action maneuvre instead of the regular attack at the end of a charge?I can't see how else it could be read.

[Fax Celestis]

Is martial charge allowing you to use a standard action maneuvre instead of the regular attack at the end of a charge?


Martial Charge (Combat)

You have learned how to initiate a martial strike on the move, delivering them at the end of a charge attack.

Prerequisite(s): Base attack bonus +3, ability to initiate a martial strike.

Benefit(s): You may initiate a strike instead of making an attack at the end of a charge.

Basically.

[Boci]

I can't see how else it could be read.

I couldn't find the wording of the feat ("pathfinder martial charge" turned up nothing in gogle), which is why I asked.

[Greenish]

Then this (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/feats) might be helpful.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Martial Charge by RAW sounds like it allows any strike maneuver, including full round action ones (which are often, but not necessarily always, charges themselves). Not familiar w/ PoW stuff, but in ToB, you had full action strikes like Avalanche of Blades, Flashing Sun, and Feral Death Blow.

I'm sure it's intended to be standard action strikes only...

[Anlashok]

You know I'm not sure that pointing out that you have comparable DPR to a raging barbarian when you're only attacking once every two turns helps at all.

[Psyren]

You know I'm not sure that pointing out that you have comparable DPR to a raging barbarian when you're only attacking once every two turns helps at all.

What if you don't bother recharging it, and simply use another maneuver? Then you have one big damage spike above a barbarian followed by maintaining parity for the rest of the combat. Then when it's over, you refresh everything for the the next fight and are raring to go, while he is down several rage rounds.

Also Jacob's calculation doesn't include Deadly Strike or the Broken Blade discipline weapon bonus.

[Jacob.Tyr]

What if you don't bother recharging it, and simply use another maneuver? Then you have one big damage spike above a barbarian followed by maintaining parity for the rest of the combat. Then when it's over, you refresh everything for the the next fight and are raring to go, while he is down several rage rounds.

Also Jacob's calculation doesn't include Deadly Strike or the Broken Blade discipline weapon bonus.
Well, I had assumed a Warder using a Greatsword. So those don't really apply. I'd love to see your build for a stalker, though.

[Fax Celestis]

You know I'm not sure that pointing out that you have comparable DPR to a raging barbarian when you're only attacking once every two turns helps at all.

I'm not trying to "help", I'm trying to show baselines and let other people come up with their own answers.

My opinion has been made clear earlier in the thread: I think it's fine if it's restricted to unarmed strikes only.

[Ssalarn]

I'm not going to debate the merits or flaws of the maneuver. That's been done. Let's discuss potential information for errata.

Several solutions.

1) Simply put, reduce the damage to 2d6 instead of 3d6. Average damage per hit goes down by 3.5.
2) Make it unarmed only. This kind of takes the fun out of it for a lot of people, but does reinforce the fluff.
3) Make it a full round action. This reduces mobility with use of this maneuver.
4) Some combination of the previous 3.

-X

The ability is basically Pounce on a recharge + Rhino Hide armor, only better, so I'd probably agree with toning it down. Option 1 and 2 together seem like the best solution. Really, given the level this comes online, it would still be really good if it didn't give any bonus damage at all.

[Psyren]

I'd suggest raising the level of the maneuver to 5 or 6 - the +3d6 damage per attack starts to look weak - but by those levels, the 3 attacks on a Standard Action isn't quite as scary, and each of those attacks also carries more riders keeping the damage above-par.


The ability is basically Pounce on a recharge + Rhino Hide armor, only better, so I'd probably agree with toning it down. Option 1 and 2 together seem like the best solution. Really, given the level this comes online, it would still be really good if it didn't give any bonus damage at all.

I think these are the best suggestions so far.



Ironically, I really wish people would put THIS tired comparison to bed. "Fighter can do his thing all day long!" As if running out of spell slots is a serious problem for a caster beyond the first few levels.

But that's a problem the DM can easily fix (and, I would argue, is expected to fix.) If your casters have dozens of spells left over at the end of the day, have more fights. The best part is that this solution more heavily impacts the caster's resources than those of the martials, and it even makes the game more fun for most folks - win/win.

DSP themselves included a sidebar about boosting encounters/day or reducing caster resources in UPsi. I would expect their design philosophy to be, if not universal, at least not unique to one person's mindset over there.

[Sartharina]

Ironically, I really wish people would put THIS tired comparison to bed. "Fighter can do his thing all day long!" As if running out of spell slots is a serious problem for a caster beyond the first few levels.

Running out of specific spells and your highest-level spell slots is a problem at all levels.

[StreamOfTheSky]

But that's a problem the DM can easily fix (and, I would argue, is expected to fix.) If your casters have dozens of spells left over at the end of the day, have more fights. The best part is that this solution more heavily impacts the caster's resources than those of the martials, and it even makes the game more fun for most folks - win/win.

DSP themselves included a sidebar about boosting encounters/day or reducing caster resources in UPsi. I would expect their design philosophy to be, if not universal, at least not unique to one person's mindset over there.

More fights isn't a realistic option many times, there's just no reason there would be more creatures to fight. Even when you can do it, it's really annoying and impractical to pad out the adventuring day with throw away fights just to make the casters sweat. And potentially leads to them leveling up much faster than you would like, because those fights are still giving xp (and possibly treasure). And it's only ok for melee characters if the party has near-infinite out of combat healing. As DM I'm fine with that, but many DMs don't like the party having multiple healing wands I've noticed, and I can sympathize...the only way to "wear down" such a party is ability damage or status effects.

And we're talking a lot of fights. 3-4 is the baseline assumed by the rules and is already not true on many adventuring days, never mind that it's not enough. You need 6+ encounters to make the casters worry. If they don't just decide to call it a day early. Only so many instances can there be "time sensitive" missions where they can't afford to waste 8 hours. Heck, I just put my (then level 6) party through 8 time-sensitive encounters to cap off the story arc they were on and it wasn't till the final one that the psion ran out of pp, and even then.... it was clearly the boss fight so he knew he could really let loose, and the encounter ended 1 round after he ran out.
Casters get a LOT of daily resource in 3E/PF!


Running out of specific spells and your highest-level spell slots is a problem at all levels.

Not really. Spells are so wonderfully imbalanced that you can win encounters with low level ones like Glitterdust even many levels past first being able to cast it. If you're having that problem, perhaps you nova too hard or spam too many short duration buffs. I've played casters, in games where the DM would have super-long dungeons and expect us not to rest at all, and gotten through literally a dozen fights at mid levels and not had a problem. There is also the option of wands and scrolls if this is an issue to you.

Did I step into the Twilight Zone? People are saying casters don't have a giant loadout of spells in 3E/PF all of sudden. What's going on?

[Ssalarn]

The more I think about it, the more I feel like the "3 attacks as a standard action" bit doesn't need any bonus damage at all. The Two-Weapon Warrior archetype gets Doublestrike which allows him to make 2 attacks as a standard action at level 9, Beast Totem, Greater comes online at 10 and is still probably only allowing 2 attacks (fighting style dependent, it could be 3+)... So I think the issues are twofold:
1) That's 4-5 levels earlier than comparative abilities come online
2) Not only is it coming online earlier, it's offering more attacks and a nice helping of bonus damage.

Earlier I was thinking that letting the number of attacks granted key off your BAB in some way might mitigate it a bit, but I know that makes it scale in a weird way that isn't exactly consistent with other maneuvers. I think it pretty much has to either have its level bumped up to being a 5th level maneuver, or the bonus d6's should probably be stripped out of the ability altogether (at which point it will still be really, really good, but at least your investment in other things will be determining exactly how good that is).

[Boci]

The more I think about it, the more I feel like the "3 attacks as a standard action" bit doesn't need any bonus damage at all. The Two-Weapon Warrior archetype gets Doublestrike which allows him to make 2 attacks as a standard action at level 9, Beast Totem, Greater comes online at 10 and is still probably only allowing 2 attacks (fighting style dependent, it could be 3+)... So I think the issues are twofold:
1) That's 4-5 levels earlier than comparative abilities come online
2) Not only is it coming online earlier, it's offering more attacks and a nice helping of bonus damage.

Earlier I was thinking that letting the number of attacks granted key off your BAB in some way might mitigate it a bit, but I know that makes it scale in a weird way that isn't exactly consistent with other maneuvers. I think it pretty much has to either have its level bumped up to being a 5th level maneuver, or the bonus d6's should probably be stripped out of the ability altogether (at which point it will still be really, really good, but at least your investment in other things will be determining exactly how good that is).

What about no bonus damage, unless the attacks are performed unarmed? (in which case +2d6 should be sufficient).

[Psyren]

Casters get a LOT of daily resource in 3E/PF!

Then reduce those resources, as DSP recommends doing, if more fights are not an option. But even if you think "well, spellcasters never run out of resources, so that is not a balancing point for initiators either" - the fact still remains that 9d6-12d6 at ECL 5 is excessive even if both groups have equal ammunition.


Not really. Spells are so wonderfully imbalanced that you can win encounters with low level ones like Glitterdust even many levels past first being able to cast it.
{Scrubbed}

[Jacob.Tyr]

What about no bonus damage, unless the attacks are performed unarmed? (in which case +2d6 should be sufficient).
I like this idea. Someone mentioned earlier (maybe it was you) setting it up like the bushi drawing mechanic, but added boosts for unarmed. That seems like a solid way to do it. If you're a class that is boosting a rounds worth of attacks, and can key other class abilities off multiple attacks (deadly strike), or even uses core damage boosting, three attacks for a -2 as a standard action is pretty damned solid for level 5.

[Psyren]

What about no bonus damage, unless the attacks are performed unarmed? (in which case +2d6 should be sufficient).

I like this (though be sure that it's unarmed strike only and not natural attacks.)


The more I think about it, the more I feel like the "3 attacks as a standard action" bit doesn't need any bonus damage at all.

I think it should have at least some bonus damage. It's still a strike, and thus needs to be refreshed between uses, so it's not quite on the level of a standard attack routine. It just has a little too much right now.

[Fax Celestis]

Yeah, I'm down with that.

[Greenish]

I like this idea. Someone mentioned earlier (maybe it was you) setting it up like the bushi drawing mechanic, but added boosts for unarmed.I was suggesting that for the whole discipline in general, since it'd make it easier to balance the maneuvers so that they're useful for both the standard big two-handers and unarmed strikes.

But given that it's already in print (so to speak), I guess it's late for anything but light errata.


I like this (though be sure that it's unarmed strike only and not natural attacks.)I thought the selling point of natural attacks was how many of them you could use with only a minor penalty, not that they'd do much more damage than unarmed strikes.

[Boci]

I like this (though be sure that it's unarmed strike only and not natural attacks.)

Is that a big issue? In my limited the experience the draw of natural attacks is how many you get, so using that with SFS (which should probably be renamed if we follow this approach, at least the steel part) wouldn't have much advantage over unarmed attacks.

Edit: Thanks for the link Greenish.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Then reduce those resources, as DSP recommends doing, if more fights are not an option. But even if you think "well, spellcasters never run out of resources, so that is not a balancing point for initiators either" - the fact still remains that 9d6-12d6 at ECL 5 is excessive even if both groups have equal ammunition.

I agree the maneuver is too much, I said so. I was the first to even say it shouldn't even do bonus damage at all, I think. It's too strong, just as MANY spells are, and I support nerfing the entire lot of them.
I said your argument was trite and weak, that the martial can "do this all day" is a major factor. And ironic, as you complained about someone else's over-used rhetoric in the same sentence.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

What post? I didn't see any post from her on this thread.

[squiggit]

I think it should have at least some bonus damage. It's still a strike, and thus needs to be refreshed between uses, so it's not quite on the level of a standard attack routine. It just has a little too much right now.

Your bonus damage is getting two extra attacks on a standard action even full BAB characters have one attack in their routine.

Even with no d6s that's still an awesome level 5 ability

Agree with Anla and Sarth that, as written, it's basically a level 5th or 6th maneuver, so simply changing the one number could balance it too.

[Psyren]

I was thinking of things like, "how would this work if you have 2 claws/slams" or "this would be pretty silly with Strongjaw and a bite" but I guess it's not major.

[Boci]

I was thinking of things like, "how would this work if you have 2 claws/slams" or "this would be pretty silly with Strongjaw and a bite" but I guess it's not major.

For the first, presumable the same way it would work if someone was duel wielding: they get 3 attacks and can freely choose which ones to make with which weapon, taking the apropriate penalties for attacking with multiple weapons in the same action, for the second one YOU FOOL WE JUST HAD AN ENTIRE THREAD ABOUT THAT! WHY WOULD YOU BRING IT UP HERE!...er, I mean, each group will have to deal with that. As you said, its nothing major.

[Anlashok]

taking the apropriate penalties for attacking with multiple weapons in the same action.
Are you sure about that? I thought penalties only applied if you were actually two/multiweapon fighting. Two slashes and a slap with a spiked gauntlet shouldn't incur any special penalties if you actually have three attacks you can legally make.

[Boci]

Are you sure about that? I thought penalties only applied if you were actually two/multiweapon fighting. Two slashes and a slap with a spiked gauntlet shouldn't incur any special penalties if you actually have three attacks you can legally make.

Right you are, since Pathfinder never seems to define off hand outside the context of wielding two weapons. It was 3.5 that had the term in their glossary.

[Psyren]

I agree the maneuver is too much, I said so. I was the first to even say it shouldn't even do bonus damage at all, I think. It's too strong, just as MANY spells are, and I support nerfing the entire lot of them.
I said your argument was trite and weak, that the martial can "do this all day" is a major factor. And ironic, as you complained about someone else's over-used rhetoric in the same sentence.

It is a major factor at actual tables, where players don't know what's coming and so manage their resources. CharOp boardwankery may see it differently.


What post? I didn't see any post from her on this thread.

That's because it's not in this thread.


Right you are, since Pathfinder never seems to define off hand outside the context of wielding two weapons. It was 3.5 that had the term in their glossary.

What PF does is specifically define (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules#TOC-Natural-Attacks) which natural attacks are primary and which are secondary. If you only attack with natural weapons, primaries never take penalties (no matter how many you have), while secondaries always take -5 (-2 with multiattack.)

So if I have a bite, 2 claws and a sting, in PF they are all primary and so I take no penalties, even if I don't have Multiattack. But if I have a gore and 4 hooves, the hooves are all secondary while the gore is primary.

[Ssalarn]

Your bonus damage is getting two extra attacks on a standard action even full BAB characters have one attack in their routine.

Even with no d6s that's still an awesome level 5 ability


Very much this. I actually had a really hard time finding higher level abilities that I would be willing to take in place of this, it's so good.

Possibly of some relevance, the Paizo team just released a FAQ for the Pummeling Style (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gw#v5748eaic9sfs) feat clarifying that it only works for unarmed strikes. That might help provide some insight into where they placed the balancing point on a similar ability.

[Boci]

What PF does is specifically define (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules#TOC-Natural-Attacks) which natural attacks are primary and which are secondary. If you only attack with natural weapons, primaries never take penalties (no matter how many you have), while secondaries always take -5 (-2 with multiattack.)

So if I have a bite, 2 claws and a sting, in PF they are all primary and so I take no penalties, even if I don't have Multiattack. But if I have a gore and 4 hooves, the hooves are all secondary while the gore is primary.

I know that, it was 2 weapon fighting I was confused about.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It is a major factor at actual tables, where players don't know what's coming and so manage their resources. CharOp boardwankery may see it differently.

I'm....just dumbfounded.

The very resource management and anti-nova'ing that causes one to be able to fight through half a dozen plus fights a day is now "CharOp boardwankery," and assuming a caster is blowing his strongest spells every single round and finding new and creative ways to get off even more spells per turn is "actual table" experience. What the &*^% world did I fall into?! :smalleek:

Also quite classy, telling me my actual table play experience isn't actual table play experience.


That's because it's not in this thread.

Right, I guess it's my bad for not memorizing every random post on this forum, or psychically knowing which ones you deem important. Clearly no reason to provide a link to what you're talking about or even just say I should read X post, rather than snarkily tell me to re-read something I may or may not have even read in the first place.

[Eldaran]

I don't even see that it's relevant that casters are ridiculous. Should the wizard really be your target balance point when making new content? Most people I think would rather see a good martial character that has fun, interesting, and useful options, not one that needs to out-compete a metamagic reducing no-save and lose wizard.

[icefractal]

A Wizard shouldn't be your only balance point. Neither should a Fighter. Really, the foes you're facing are the most important balance point, but failing that, I would probably go with a martial class that (IME) can pull its weight quite handily - the Gunslinger.

The Gunslinger does a pile of damage, both as a single high-damage shot and as a bunch of separate attacks, at range (long range, if spending grit), that hits almost anything (touch attack). They can punch through DR, through concealment, they can shoot without provoking, as well as a number of other tricks. That's something you could balance by.

Now in comparison, a 6th level Gunslinger with Rapid Shot makes three attacks, six with a double-barreled gun, and they all hit because they're touch attacks. No bonus damage, but you are adding Dex to damage, and that's without any deeds. And with a single gun - TWF would amp it up more, assuming you have a method to reload. Now if you want to be a bit more brutal, a Gunslinger 1 / Ninja 5 with the right feats makes the same six attacks, but adding +6d6+12 sneak attack damage to each one.

Conclusion: Not feeling like this maneuver is too crazy. Maybe it should be L4 (so 7th level) instead of L3, given nobody is quite matching that at 5th.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think martial characters actually do enough damage already, at least 2H ones. Other than giving a boost to TWF, unarmed, and other underpowered styles, and having decently damaging maneuvers to use on the move effectively....martials really don't need more damage. ToB focusing a bit too much on damaging abilities is probably my biggest issue with that great book, I would've rather seen more utility and new options. And from what I've skimmed of PoW...it looks like they went even harder on the increasing damage train, in general. That is...disappointing.

And I don't think gunslinger is a good balance point for damage. Full attack touch attacks with (ranged) power attack, possibly TWFing, is not what typical damage output should be... Gunslinger's a horrible balance point for anything. It does bs high damage, and has no other appealing qualities.

[icefractal]

No other appealing qualities? Mysterious Stranger has a reason to pump Charisma! I'm sort of joking, but sort of not. Having a good bonus to social skills is often the key to a lot of spotlight time, more so than nominally more useful abilities that get resolved without interaction.

Anyway, I've not found their actual damage that much more than other competent martial types like Barbarians or well-equipped Monks (moderately optimized, in all cases). The different is that while those classes can usually be hard-countered, Gunslinger mostly can't. It's the Mailman of non-casters.

[Greenish]

Well, PoW does have more counters and more utility boosts than ToB, if only by the virtue of having far more maneuvers.

[Anlashok]

Re: Damage and Gunslinger.

Last I checked the Fighter was winning Paizo DPR Olympics. Admittedly that measures endgame.

[Sayt]

Speaking of third level maneuvers with damage potential, what about frenzy strike?

I'm putting together a Vanguard commander that could go longsword, heavy spiked shield, armour spikes unarmed strike (Although I'll likely drop out of the uas). It doesn't have the additional d6, but you can get more attacks.

[Erian]

Were these guys aware that the maneuver wasn't gonna be used every single turn? Because it is then expended

[Felyndiira]

Were these guys aware that the maneuver wasn't gonna be used every single turn? Because it is then expended

This is thread necromancy, but the question should be answered.

People are aware; maneuver recovery is mentioned in the first two posts that mention that this can only be used every other turn. However, even in the original PoW (no Expanded) era of 2014, if you are a Warlord you are still attacking every other turn when you're not using this maneuver (potentially with another ultra powerful maneuver like RZS, or full attacking with the BB third level stance).

That's not counting feats like Victorious Recovery that gave you free recoveries if you killed someone (which you should do if you're using this maneuver). Broken Blade also has plenty of boosts that spikes this even further, like Bronze Knuckles one level earlier.

Since then, many methods to achieve free or swift maneuver recoveries are released. Bushi gets one at level 6; Mystics can use it as one of their always on maneuvers, Zealots are zealots, etc. These make it so that you can just spam this forever.