Starting newbies off with Path of War?

[Thealtruistorc]

I recall a while back when a new player joined our group for the first time and wanted a simple character to play. We had a fighter character sheet on hand (among others), and he said that he would be interested in trying that (power attacking greatsword fighter. The party was level 4). Throughout the whole game, the new player didn't seem to be having much fun with his character, given that all he was doing was attacking on his turn in combat while the wizard and cleric were off doing the crazy-cool things that the classes are known to do. The fighter never returned to the group after that meeting, and I feel that he sort of got into the game on the wrong foot.

Nowadays, I know all about Path of War, and am quite familiar with its workings to the point where I can teach people how to utilize and master the maneuver system. I'm starting a new group up in a couple of days, and several players will be entering the world of Pathfinder/D&D for the first time. That got me thinking, should I avoid repeating the same mistake I did with the newbie and present some different options for fresh military-inclined players. Rather than even mentioning the fighter or monk for classes, I would offer them the possibility of playing a Stalker, Warder or Warlord. Rather than just sitting there power attacking repeatedly, I would introduce the maneuver system right alongside the magic system and have them naturally experiment with tons of cool combat tactics in the game.

What do you folks think? Are new players capable of handling Path of War, and what could I do to better introduce it to them? Is it entirely healthy for them to get to know maneuvers given how many DMs there are out there who shoot down the subsystem in a heartbeat (I know several personally)? Please help me with this.

[Renen]

Personally, id give them the fighter, run em solo through a battle or two, where he learns what saves are, that to-hit and damage rolls are separate (I'm telling you, I actually had to think for a good while before I got that one when I just started D&D).

Then once the person knows how attacks work, full round actions vs standard and move, etc, then show him PoW.
He will learn about Swift and immediate actions, since he probably won't use them as a fighter, he will learn the makeovers and such, but doing so as a first character might be abit tough.

My 1st D&D character was a sorcerer, and I remember I struggled alot, trying to get everything at once. Start easy.

[Mehangel]

Or, what you could do, is write up a Myrmidon Fighter and then if all they want to do is Power Attack, they can, but they will have specific maneuvers that they can use aswell, while not being nearly as complicated as the Path of War Classes...

[Red Fel]

What do you folks think? Are new players capable of handling Path of War, and what could I do to better introduce it to them? Is it entirely healthy for them to get to know maneuvers given how many DMs there are out there who shoot down the subsystem in a heartbeat (I know several personally)? Please help me with this.

Well, here's my position. Take it for what you will.

Once I familiarized myself with Tome of Battle in 3.5, I determined that it was basically what the original base classes should have been, and, if 3.5 had been done from scratch, I would have preferred that the Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade replaced the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue (and possibly the Ranger and Paladin as well). The base classes had some cute abilities, but no real versatility in combat; the ToB classes offered actual options, mechanics, and fun.

But PF isn't 3.5. Style feats and archetypes are a thing, and your typical Fighter doesn't just have to choose between regular attack and Power Attack anymore. Is PoW awesome? You bet. But in my mind, it doesn't completely obviate the core classes the way ToB did in 3.5. So where I would be fine with a 3.5 DM skipping over the PHB melee classes and giving new players a copy of ToB to peruse, I don't know that it's necessary to do the same in PF.

Or, to put it concisely: If a 3.5 DM decided never to tell his players about the Fighter, and instead told them about the Warblade, I'd be cool with that. If a PF DM decided never to tell his players about the Fighter, and instead told them about the Warlord, I'd think his players were missing out, and deserved the chance to choose for themselves.

As to whether they can handle it, I have a simple answer: It depends. Some players are up for it, some aren't. If a player gets overwhelmed trying to figure out whether sneak attack applies, maneuvers might be a bit too much for him at first. If he finds things like trip or grapple confusing, maneuvers are likely to be even harder. By contrast, if his first character is a spellcaster, he's used to tracking multiple abilities with various effects; tracking maneuvers is much like tracking spells, and he should be fine.

My advice? Gauge your players. If they appear bored with the options of attack or Power Attack, offer them PoW. If you get a new player at the table who is smart and quick on the uptake and wants a fun, versatile non-caster combatant, offer her PoW. If you get a player who has done casters before, and wants something different, but doesn't want something ordinary, offer him PoW. By contrast, if you get a player at your table who is still in the "which die do I roll" stage, keep things simple.

As to how other DMs respond to PoW, who cares? You're not other DMs. You're not responsible for teaching your players right (e.g. PoW) from wrong (e.g. non-PoW). Your concern should be ensuring that everyone has a fun time at your table. And if Path of War does that for you, go for it.

[MyrPsychologist]

I really, really don't like it when people presume that just because someone is new to a system that they should be handed a completely vanilla character with minimalist abilities.

Give new people a chance. Work WITH them if they're having difficulty understanding things but understand that a challenge is not a bad thing. I wholeheartedly support letting anyone, even a new player, use a Path of War class.

[Xerlith]

I really, really don't like it when people presume that just because someone is new to a system that they should be handed a completely vanilla character with minimalist abilities.


Seconded, hard. I had my new player jump into a gestalt game, with a whole subsystem (Spellshaping Codices, ToB-based) that was rather complex. She exploited the hell out of it, grasping it naturally. The only help she needed was a small assistance with the character sheet beforehand.

Really, if a player does the very least bit of homework (i.e. reads the basic rules of the system they're going to be playing - which is, really, obligatory in my opinion) and they have a working brain, there should be literally no problem. Don't be afraid to give new players options. That doesn't drive them away, that drives them in.
Don't make them feel like you think they're stupid. Instead, let them figure what they want by themselves, while showing them the options that make their concept work.

[Extra Anchovies]

If it's someone's first character? No, don't start them with an initiator. Initiating is one of the more complex subsystems, more complicated than spellcasting or manifesting but not as complicated as incarnum/akasha. Start them off with a sorcerer, oracle, inquisitor, or paladin, since all four are strong with a variety of options for in and out of combat, and none of them are particularly complex unless you're trying to make them that way. Once they've got the system down, introduce them to PoW but don't force them into it if they aren't interested.


Really, if a player does the very least bit of homework (i.e. reads the basic rules of the system they're going to be playing - which is, really, obligatory in my opinion) and they have a working brain, there should be literally no problem.

Not everyone can absorb every piece of information in a 570-page rulebook on their first read-through. That doesn't make them brainless or lazy. There are still things that I get wrong about the system from time to time, and I'm far from being new to d20 in general or to Pathfinder in particular.


Don't be afraid to give new players options. That doesn't drive them away, that drives them in.

I do, however, agree with this (but I don't really have anything to add, because you summed it up well).

[Xerlith]

Not everyone can absorb every piece of information in a 570-page rulebook on their first read-through. That doesn't make them brainless or lazy. There are still things that I get wrong about the system from time to time, and I'm far from being new to d20 in general or to Pathfinder in particular.


But you do know how to create a character, how attack and damage rolls, saving throws and Initiative work, right? That's what I consider basic. It's not remembering all pages of a handbook to the letter, it's knowing how to play the game on the very basic level. The players can stil have options and simply not use them - but they're there, and if needed, can be used. There is no forced restriction. That was my point.

[MyrPsychologist]

If it's someone's first character? No, don't start them with an initiator. Initiating is one of the more complex subsystems, more complicated than spellcasting or manifesting but not as complicated as incarnum/akasha. Start them off with a sorcerer, oracle, inquisitor, or paladin, since all four are strong with a variety of options for in and out of combat, and none of them are particularly complex unless you're trying to make them that way. Once they've got the system down, introduce them to PoW but don't force them into it if they aren't interested.


Not everyone can absorb every piece of information in a 570-page rulebook on their first read-through. That doesn't make them brainless or lazy. There are still things that I get wrong about the system from time to time, and I'm far from being new to d20 in general or to Pathfinder in particular.


I do, however, agree with this (but I don't really have anything to add, because you summed it up well).

You're not wrong. But you're not right. At the end of the day you don't know the unique situation of each and every player. You don't know their dedication or what they want out of the game. You don't know what they are willing to do or learn.

And because you don't know these things it's best to just not create a blanket rule and take each situation as it arises. But don't rule something out.

[Vhaidara]

The way I introduced my players was as follows
Tell me about your character. What kind of, if any, magic do they use? How do they fight? Which ability scores sound right to you? Do they wear armor?

From those basics, I help them construct a character. I generally pull from DSP, Radiance House, Drop Dead Studios, and Ascension Games. The only Paizo classes I have ever recommended to a player without third party archetypes are Alchemist (vivisectionist for a mad scientist, am actually going to add on polymath) and Summoner. Inquisitor might come up, and UnMonk has potential, but that's it.

I then make allowances to further their concept. Casting/manifesting/initiating stats are completely flexible among mentals. For initiators, discipline access is completely fluid, no need for traits or traditions (though I do tend to recommend traditions that sound like a good match). Custom things are also go with discussion (vivisectionist bought back bombs on the condition of no sneak attack bombs).

[AzraelX]

Maybe you'd prefer a balance, where you introduce them to the options provided by maneuvers, but still allow them to play non-initiator classes.

I forwarded this system to my DM, and he implemented it immediately: Martial Class Balance (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?418881-Initiator-Alternate-Rule-Balance-Fix)

It's been working out exceptionally so far. It makes non-casters a lot more fun to play, and being able to look through disciplines/maneuvers feels a lot like getting to pick out spells.