How do the Path of War classes measure up against other martial classes?

[Kol Korran]

Hi there. I'm thinking of maybe using the Path of War in a future campaign. My group uses only the SRD (Awesome resource!), and I was wondering how did these classes fare compared to other mostly (if not entirely) martial classes, foudn on the SRD (Fighter, barbarian, cavalier, ranger, paladin, and the hybrid classes)

Better? Worse? Affect balance? I heard the various arguments for ToB in it's day, I was wondering if the PF classes differ.
Note: I haven't read the book itself, and I only skimmed the classes on the SRD so far. I was hoping to hear from people who played with it.

[Renen]

Its basically ToB all over again. Though PF classes ARE better than 3.5s, but PoW is more powerful than ToB. So... id say the gap isnt AS big, but fighters are still sad about their life.

[deuxhero]

PoW base classes are considered about on par with Magus, Warpriest, (Dawnflower Dervish) Bard and maybe Bloodrager (and Inquisitor if you count it as a martial) as far as martial types go, which is considered ideal (any outclassing of, for example, fighters is more of a fault of the Fighter and its not having anything to do outside of combat than PoW's fault).

[Vhaidara]

PoW classes are generally more competent at what they do than the equivalent mundane. This is true for both fluff and crunch purposes, in my opinion.

A Warder who takes a martial tradition (let's you change out a discipline for another) to get Silver Crane and combines that with Golden Lion will out-paladin the paladin.

The Stalker who focuses on Broken Blade and Steel Serpent will out-monk the monk

The Warlord who grabs Thrashing Dragon and Solar Wind, along with Survival via traits will out-ranger the ranger, and the one who grabs Scarlet Throne will out duel his opponents.

Now, I consider the playstyle of PoW classes much better, to the point where it is one of two PF books I have actually bought, and I fully intend to buy PoW:E when it comes out, which adds in a Hexblade style class, a psionic-styled class, and a class using elemental disciplines, in addition to Class Archetypes that let you turn any of the three base PoW classes (or at least 2 per) into a samurai, a pirate, or a knight.

[upho]

I agree 100% with deuxhero's and Keledrath's posts above.


Its basically ToB all over again. Though PF classes ARE better than 3.5s, but PoW is more powerful than ToB.I'd also add that the general quality (in terms of rules mechanics as well as editing) of PoW is much higher than ToB.


So... id say the gap isnt AS big, but fighters are still sad about their life.Indeed. But as the fighter is one of the most underpowered of the Paizo classes, at least the games where the party includes PC classes with access to spells of level 6+ will have a considerably less risk of running into serious balance issues if the would-be fighter player(s) ditches the class in favor of a martial disciple from PoW. This goes for all the martial classes published by Paizo, in degrees varying from extremely so (in the case of say a vanilla monk or rogue) to probably not at all (in the case of say certain archetypes/builds of the barb, bloodrager or pally). In addition, martial characters having a choice of abilities that are actually useful in most situations, and which also actually remain relevant in higher levels (gasp!), are much more in line with the typical fluff descriptions of martial classes/characters in most settings (including Paizo's fighter and Golarion). Not to mention that the PoW classes also allows for reflecting a much wider variety of character concepts in the mechanics, without crippling performance.

Or, to put it in another way, if your game includes druids, wizards, clerics, witches, oracles, sorcerers, arcanists, summoners or shamans, it's highly unlikely that the abilities of a martial disciple class will keep hogging the spotlight. (Though it may take some time for your group to stop regarding a PoW disciple as very strong/OP if they haven't seen a mechanically effective and versatile martial character in play before, as they may instinctively compare the disciple to the weak/UP martial classes they're used to.)

[Ssalarn]

PoW base classes are considered about on par with Magus, Warpriest, (Dawnflower Dervish) Bard and maybe Bloodrager (and Inquisitor if you count it as a martial) as far as martial types go, which is considered ideal (any outclassing of, for example, fighters is more of a fault of the Fighter and its not having anything to do outside of combat than PoW's fault).

Most of the Path classes/builds have damage right on par with their peers, but they gain an action economy advantage thanks to only needing a standard action to deliver that damage. If the opportunity to full attack is very common, a Fighter can still pull ahead, but generally they'll be hard-pressed to keep pace with the much more mobile initiators.

Other classes, like those mentioned above plus classes with innate action economy advantages like the Ranger, Cavalier, and Paladin, compare much more favorably; I have yet to see a Warlord or Warder deal the kind of damage a charging Paladin or Cavalier is capable of.

[Elricaltovilla]

Okay, this question's been pretty solidly answered already but I wouldn't be me if I didn't weigh in on the subject.

Often what you'll find is that your players will be doing less damage with their attacks, but they'll be doing more with each attack. That is to say, they'll be forcing saves, moving around the battlefield, blocking attacks, healing, the kind of stuff you'd expect to see a caster pulling off. This can seem pretty scary to a DM, but unlike when dealing with a party full of Druids, Clerics and Wizards, you won't have to try to anticipate which of over a thousand different spells they'll use, instead you only have to plan around 20-30 different effects per character at most. And each of these abilities are tied pretty tightly to a set of narrow themes. It makes planning encounters around the strengths and weaknesses of your party much easier in my opinion.

[Roxxy]

With the caveat that I've been using variants of this feat system for a while now (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?390726-Roxxy-s-Feat-Consolidation-and-Improvement), and am not opposed to helping players pick and choose pieces of archetypes or find ways to stack archetypes that normally don't stack, the differences are manageable. Compared to vanilla martials, they do seem more flexible, but a more lenient archetype system really helps the Paizo get cooler. Compared to Rogue Genius talented classes, the initiator seems more flexible do to action economy, but the talented classes have enough variety and straight power to hold their own, especially if they can keep the enemy in one place.

[Kol Korran]

Thanks a lot for all of the replies. So in all, the general effect is similar to the ToB... cool, I'll look more closely at try he book now.

[Renen]

Well, I dont know if you expected it to be significantly different when its literally a copy of ToB.

[Ssalarn]

Well, I dont know if you expected it to be significantly different when its literally a copy of ToB.
Not literally; the classes, disciplines, feats, etc. are original. It just uses the same initiator system, and there's a lot of room for variations in there.

[Elricaltovilla]

Not literally; the classes, disciplines, feats, etc. are original. It just uses the same initiator system, and there's a lot of room for variations in there.

No, no Ssalarn. I spent weeks painstakingly copying and pasting text from the original TOB doc. Its literally an exact copy. You just didn't see how many edits they went through before ToB got published. :smalltongue:

[Vhaidara]

No, no Ssalarn. I spent weeks painstakingly copying and pasting text from the original TOB doc. Its literally an exact copy. You just didn't see how many edits they went through before ToB got published. :smalltongue:

Wait, you've been withholding the mythical ToB Eratta? You are the person who stole the rest and replaced it with Complete Mage?

[Elricaltovilla]

Wait, you've been withholding the mythical ToB Eratta? You are the person who stole the rest and replaced it with Complete Mage?

No, I didn't take the Errata. I stole the original copy so they couldn't make errata. That's why they were forced to replace it with the Errata with the one from Complete Mage.

In all honesty though, how do they screw up that badly?

[137beth]

No, I didn't take the Errata. I stole the original copy so they couldn't make errata. That's why they were forced to replace it with the Errata with the one from Complete Mage.

In all honesty though, how do they screw up that badly?

Basically, what they did was superior to errata.
Just trying to break up the chain of blue text with a different color...

[Snowbluff]

Though PF classes ARE better than 3.5s

What, like the fighter? Where's a picture of Willy Wonka when you need it...

[Roxxy]

What, like the fighter?Not a fan of the PF Fighter at all, but better than 3.5? Yes, I would say so. PF Fighter is bland. 3.5 Fighter is extra bland.

[Kol Korran]

There are some classes in PF that have become much more interesting than the 3.5: Barbarian thanks to rage powers, rogues thanks to rogue talents, oracle thanks to mysteries and revelations (Compared to favored soul"), Sorcerers due to bloodlines. Bards I think are quite mroe interesting as well, though that is debatable.

The fighter is better, but by very little, and lackluster. But on the whole I too like many PF classes more than 3.5

The main advantage for my gaming group in choosing PF over 3.5 is the PFSRD. It's so damn convenient! All in the same place, links to everything, better rules wording, and no needing to check over tons of books or PDFs. It feels much neater, and helps play a lot.

[DarkSonic1337]

Are people talking core only when saying that "PF classes are better in general" or are they factoring the plethora of alternative class features from 3.5?

[Elricaltovilla]

Are people talking core only when saying that "PF classes are better in general" or are they factoring the plethora of alternative class features from 3.5?

I usually refer directly to class analogues between PF and 3.5 when I make that statement. And yeah, there are some good ACFs available in 3.5 but for the most part they don't even come close to the kind of stuff that the right archetypes can do in Pathfinder.

Take the fighter for example. The PF fighter and 3.5 fighter are pretty identical, although the PF fighter is able to put up better numbers. But throw some archetypes on the PF fighter, like Lorewarden (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/lore-warden) (or Mutation Warrior (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/mutation-warrior)) and Martial Master (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/martial-master) and you end up with a fighter who's numbers and versatility can pretty easily blow the 3.5 fighter out of the water.

This is pretty much the case for most analogues between the two systems.

[Snowbluff]

The problem is that numbers are really bad class features (this includes most of the mutagens they have available). The 3.5 fighter had access to much better feats, which were the only things worth mentioning for the class in either edition aside from the Dungeoncrasher (for hilarious reasons).

For the record, rogues always had talents, they just had fewer in 3.5. And, for the record, the PF rogue is the saddest single class in PF. Entirely obsolete in every way for every reason.

Not a fan of the PF Fighter at all, but better than 3.5? Yes, I would say so. PF Fighter is bland. 3.5 Fighter is extra bland.Screw fighters.

I like the warlord. A high Cha warlord works like a... well, a 4e warlord. Martial based support isn't really well supported, so I think it's a nice addition. If you were to use a strong Bullrush build, with Fate's Favored, and maybe use Unicorn Arrow if you have 3.5 available, you can completely trash d20 rolls for an opponent. >:D