Two Questions regarding POW/TBO9S and balance

[Fatal Rose]

Ok I'm allowing players in my campaign access to these classes. I have some simple questions regarding the role of these classes. I'm a bit worried that they'll replace the counterpart classes they're similar to.

For example if someone could play either a warlord or fighter would they ever pick the fighter?

Same with Crusader/Warder, do they entirely replace the paladin?

How do they compare to other melee classes? Do they totally outshine them?

I'm all about flavor and fun, balance is not to much of a issue for me, we hose rule a lot. However I'd never want to totally make some of the core classes useless.

Second question: How far behind are the 3.5E Book of 9 swords classes when compared to The POW classes in terms of tiers/power?

If someone added the 9s and POW classes into the Pathfinder classes tier ranking where would they be?

Sorry about the constant annoying questions. I'm a n00b DM/player. Still trying to learn how to play.

[AmberVael]

Path of War and Tome of Battle pretty much do replace the standard classes. However, even putting aside balance I'd argue that this is a good thing and a move for fun rather than against it. Games need at least some amount of variation to keep things interesting and enjoyable, and most of the mundane classes that are going to be replaced do not do a good job at providing that. You often end up doing the same thing turn after turn, because you don't really have much other choice. In contrast, the initiator classes provide a much wider array of abilities and a system that encourages changing tactics and somewhat more dynamic combat.

And when you do come to balance, while they might outshine their non-initiator counterparts, its a power boost that really helps make such characters more relevant in comparison to the spellcasting classes.


As for comparison between Path of War and Tome of Battle, my (admittedly brief) look into PoW indicates that it is somewhat more powerful than Tome of Battle, but not so much that there would actually be a tier difference. All the classes in those two books should hit tier 3.

[Xerlith]

Fighter is outshone by literally everything martial, so no reason to worry here. No one should take more than 2-4 levels anyway.

PF Paladin is a great class, so no, neither Crusader nor Warder should be stepping on its toes. They're a totally different niche (well, conceptually Crusader and 3.5 Paladin were nearly identical. Luckily that's not the case in Pathfinder).

A thing to note: PoW classes are much more powerful than ToB ones - more class abilities, fleshed out ones, much more powerful maneuvers - but mostly what's different is that PoW classes chuck around bigger numbers.

I've had a player run a Warblade in a PF group, ported as-is. No problems at all (we were playing mid-low OP).

I've never had a PoW class on the table (not many opportunities to play, sadly), but my (somewhat educated) guess is they may be more powerful out of the box, with the difference lessening when optimization kicks in.

[Manly Man]

Pretty much everything that Amber has said. Admittedly, by Pathfinder standards, the Tome of Battle classes are just a biiit on the lower end of Tier 3 compared to Path of War classes, but they do get the advantage of their maneuver schools covering more bases, even though the Path of War ones are slightly stronger.

Either way, the fact remains that you can make melee fun again with any of the classes from those two books. There are also more classes for Path of War coming out in a second book eventually, so there's going to be more to look at soon enough! Seriously, knock yourself out on these.

[Fatal Rose]

Thanks for the responding everyone.

For me personally it would kinda stink for let's say Paladin to lose its desirability because of classes like Warder/Crusader. Holy Knight/Paladin is my favorite fantasy class/trope (Cecil Harvey is my all time favorite character). However if I was a PC and I had to choose I'd pick Crusader/Warder. They fit the master knightly holy swordsman flavor I'm looking for far better.

I don't understand why Paizo/Wizards continue to make the melee classes so weak.

I honestly prefer the fighter from the Black Company setting.

[Elricaltovilla]

Ok I'm allowing players in my campaign access to these classes. I have some simple questions regarding the role of these classes. I'm a bit worried that they'll replace the counterpart classes they're similar to.

Good, you totally should allow these classes! I'm not biased in any way!


For example if someone could play either a warlord or fighter would they ever pick the fighter?

They do different things. Warlords can crank out the damage, yes, but fighters will still beat them out on average. What Warlords really bring to the table is action economy manipulation and team support.


Same with Crusader/Warder, do they entirely replace the paladin?

Crusader and Warder do different things than the Paladin, and different things from each other. The Warder is a tank, one focused on controlling enemy actions and active ability negation (counters), while the Crusader relies more on being too durable to kill and healing allies with maneuvers.

The paladin still has their role as smite master and self healer.


How do they compare to other melee classes? Do they totally outshine them?

Nope. If a PoW or ToB character mostly relies on strikes and boosts to do damage, they won't be putting out high numbers with the consistency that core martials do. They have more versatility and can do things besides damage in combat, but their numbers are actually a bit lower on average.


I'm all about flavor and fun, balance is not to much of a issue for me, we hose rule a lot. However I'd never want to totally make some of the core classes useless.

If you houserule a lot, just give the core classes you're worried about a buff. They need it anyway.:smallwink:


Second question: How far behind are the 3.5E Book of 9 swords classes when compared to The POW classes in terms of tiers/power?

The PoW classes and disciplines are more focused and defined in their roles than the ToB classes. They've got more (and usually better) class features, and recovery mechanics that are worth using. But the ToB classes should still sit at high tier 4, low tier 3.


If someone added the 9s and POW classes into the Pathfinder classes tier ranking where would they be?

All of them are solidly tier 3. The PoW classes are a little more robust, and maybe the Warblade is actually Tier 4, but I hate tier debates. They're strong in combat but won't overpower the campaign and break your world in half.


Sorry about the constant annoying questions. I'm a n00b DM/player. Still trying to learn how to play.

I have guides, lots of guides, they're in my sig. Also, I almost always have computer access and love being a know it all, so feel free to PM me with questions.

[AmberVael]

I don't understand why Paizo/Wizards continue to make the melee classes so weak.

I can't speak for Wizards, but Paizo did absolutely nothing in this case. Path of War is made by Dreamscarred Press.

In any case, the real problem is that the melee classes started weak, and people realized that and tried to rectify it later.

[Manly Man]

Thanks for the responding everyone.

For me personally it would kinda stink for let's say Paladin to lose its desirability because of classes like Warder/Crusader. Holy Knight/Paladin is my favorite fantasy class/trope (Cecil Harvey is my all time favorite character). However if I was a PC and I had to choose I'd pick Crusader/Warder. They fit the master knightly holy swordsman flavor I'm looking for far better.

To be honest, I've actually managed to better emulate Cecil (favorite FF main protagonist for me!) with a Crusader than with a regular Paladin. Went and used some homebrew disciplines to do it, but it worked. It really makes me wish that there was a way to basically make Agrias Oaks as well...

[Fatal Rose]

I can't speak for Wizards, but Paizo did absolutely nothing in this case. Path of War is made by Dreamscarred Press.

In any case, the real problem is that the melee classes started weak, and people realized that and tried to rectify it later.

I know that POW is made by Dreamscarred press. I just thought that Paizo would improve the melee classes knowing that most people feel they're too far outshone by full casters.

[Elricaltovilla]

I know that POW is made by Dreamscarred press. I just thought that Paizo would improve the melee classes knowing that most people feel they're too far outshone by full casters.

That would require

1) most people to actually feel that way. Paizo's forums are full of complaints about how fighters and barbarians are too powerful because they can do so much damage, but not a peep about Wizards and Clerics casting spells that make rogues obsolete after 5th level. Honestly, unless you're on a forum like this one, most people don't play with the level of optimization and understanding that the average poster here has.

2) Paizo to actually care about this imbalance. They've stated before that they don't really see it as a problem, and that its actually a good thing.

[Psyren]

Personally I consider Warblade and Crusader to be high T4, though some argue for T3. They dish out a lot of damage and have great defenses, but outside of a fight their contributions are limited. Swordsage meanwhile are strong fighters and also bring a lot of out-of-combat utility to the table like stealth and skills, so they are solidly in T3.

PoW has more supernatural effects which gives it a bit more thematic freedom to stir in utility. Things that are helpful outside of a fight, like alignment detection, charm/compulsion protection, constant flight, teleportation, bonuses and rerolls to skill checks, enhanced senses etc.