Initiators and You

[Sacrieur]

I have a few questions I want to ask that I'd like to know what the answers are.

An initiator is a class that "initiates" maneuvers from the ToB or PoW systems.


Do you like and play initiator classes?


If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?



Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.

[LTwerewolf]

Do you like and play initiator classes?

They're among my favorite classes to play.


If [B]yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?[/INDENT]

As with any class, they have shortcomings of course, but certainly not to the point of being unplayable.



Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?[INDENT]
It's no harder than the spell system, and people grasp that just fine.



Which of the following things would you like to see more of?



More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.

Expanded disciplines.
More classes.

Useful stuff.

[Secret Wizard]

1. No. I don't allow them in my games either. I think the mechanics are sloppy, lots of maneuvers are poorly worded, and at some point the effects get too close to spells for me to appreciate it. Don't even try convincing me otherwise, they saw enough play in my table for me to decide the experiment had not been a success. Most of my playgroup except for one dude don't like them either.

In the case of shortcomings or flaws, I think they are not properly accentuated.

I feel that it's too easy to build around "low AC, hit like a semitruck", which removes a lot of the fun from the fights. It basically turns fights into "have high AC or suck" and removes the ability of other party members to shine, as having low AC is not a huge drawback for the player.

2. Nope, I think the system is pretty good. I don't like "per encounter" systems in general though, as it is a little bit subjective when an encounter starts or ends.

3. Errata and FAQs.

[Aegis013]

Do you like and play initiator classes?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

I do, I try to fit them into most builds I play. I've run and had a lot of fun with T1 builds, but I like the idea of not being able to solve all problems the DM throws at me with a snap of fingers and needing to use my head a bit more. Initiators are great for that, plus I expect they're less likely to make the DM give up because I accidentally all of the mcguffins straight into the positive energy plane.

I'm also fine with them as a DM. They provide a melee option that doesn't tie my hands when it comes to encounter building.


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

No, it's pretty simple. I'd like to see more options that have the potential to be complicated, but don't need to be. IE Crusader recovery mechanic allowing Idiot Crusader type of things. I like things that are good and perfectly functional as written, but can be manipulated to be even more powerful if desired.


Which of the following things would you like to see more of?

I'd like to see some initiators that use "non-magic", e.g. only extraordinary abilities that are absurd enough to keep up with T1s, created. They might have their own disciplines, but I'd like to see some real martial classes up in the T1 stratosphere with Wizard/Cleric/Druid/etc.

They might utilize disciplines in ways that other classes can't, like being able to learn all of the maneuvers regardless of school, and being able to bypass prerequisites (including their own special crazy disciplines).

If someone did it'd probably be a good idea to put a note that the class/es were intended for higher op games in the description.

[TheIronGolem]

Do you like and play initiator classes?

Love 'em.


If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

The refresh mechanic is a bit counterintuitive and gives rise to a lot of the "but it's just spells that you sword!" objections. Those objections, while wrong, are understandable in light of this.


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

Apart from the above bit about refreshing, no, not really.



Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.


Mostly, more disciplines, to cover various martial concepts and fighting styles that aren't currently supported so well. A close second would be more maneuvers that have some non-combat utility, though Path of War is already fairly good about this.

[ElderLucian]

I love initiators. Everything has flaws and initiators are no exception.

No I don't believe that it is.

I would like more of everything but if I had to pick it would be

- More Disciplines. Preferably some non magical ones though I would also like a Fey themed discipline because they don't get enough love IMO.
- More Classes. Again something Fey themed.

Apologies if this post looks bad. Posting from my phone.

[Tuvarkz]

I have a few questions I want to ask that I'd like to know what the answers are.

An initiator is a class that "initiates" maneuvers from the ToB or PoW systems.


Do you like and play initiator classes?


If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?



Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.


I love initiators to the point I'm addicted to them. Their only flaw is that they can be easily be made to cause massive damage outputs at early levels, and that some of the boosts need to be balanced around full attacks, and that a couple disciplines are outright broken in terms of their output.
System is darn easy to use, I think.
Gimme all from 1 to 7. I want to see both disciplines that reflect the maximum of physical capability, and disciplines that perform beyond what's natural. I want to see awesome stuff, and stuff that kicks ass. I want more initiators and archetypes of the previous ones.

[BWR]

Don't use them, don't like them, don't allow them in my games.

[Callin]

They are the only mundane I play. I like em that much. Nothing is perfect though and can always use a second or third look. I find their mechanics easy to grasp and only know a few people who cant grasp it or dont like it.

I would love to see a caster version of an initiator with a new disciplin based on that class. Nothing as powerful as a T1 caster but a high 3 to low 2 would be nice.

[Seto]

Do you like and play initiator classes?

Yes. I love animé, and you can do animé stuff with ToB. For some reason I'm obsessed with Warblades in particular.


If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

I haven't played them enough to really tell, but not that I know of. There are certain disciplines or mechanics I don't really like, but they're optional (such as class features), so I just play something else or select different maneuvers and call it a day.
EDIT : or well, I guess you have to be careful while playing an Initiator if there's a Fighter in your party, because you risk making them feel useless.


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

No, not once you've got some experience under your belt.


Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.

[Ellowryn]

Yes, i like ToB and PoW classes. I think that the introduction of ToB was a great boon to martials and that the people behind PoW did a very good job of expanding and editing (looking at you Iron Heart Surge!!!) the system.

As has been pointed out some of the recovery mechanics on some of the classes range from non-existent (swordsage) to kind of weird (stalker). But in general i do like how PoW tried to tie useful actions into their recover mechanics and they generally did a good job.

I think the system as a whole is as easy to understand as spells. So each persons millage may very, but personally i find it easy and convenient to use.

Of what i would like to see:
1) A few more to support more fighting styles.
2-3) I feel that disciplines should start off very mundane and by the time you get to higher they should be approaching supernatural in ability.
4) A little, but for the most part if you want to focus on one discipline then there are usually enough good stuff at each level to not feel constrained.
5) I haven't had a good chance to look at the PoW: Expanded stuff, but a few more classes focused around different combat styles would be nice.
6-7) More of this is always fun because that is why we play in the first place.

[Terazul]

Do you like and play initiator classes?

Definitely. My go-to martial solution if I'm not some sort of gish.



If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

Not any more than any other subsystem when compared to just straight casters, if we're talking from a raw power perspective. There's maybe, 2 or 3 maneuvers/stances with ambiguous wording as to how they work out over over 100. Not really any worse than spells, in that regard.



Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?
It's easy to use. If you can figure out spellcasting, you can figure out initiating.
Ready some maneuvers. Use em. Recover em. Repeat.
Initiator level is your level in classes that grant maneuvers+1/2 everything else. That's like most of it right there. Some recovery mechanics are more involved that others, but no more so than figuring out when other class features/feats/etc trigger anyway.



Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More classes.
Useful stuff.

Would prefer more disciplines to expanding current ones, since it encourages branching instead of just only loading up on one (which is done already, really). Cool is subjective, as evidenced by supernatural vs non-supernatural, so no real say there. Useful is too, but easier to justify most of the time, so is preferable.

[torrasque666]

Do you like and play initiator classes?

I like them well enough. I just wish there were more of them. And a bit more maneuvers. I mean, look at all the spells that a 1st level caster gets to pick from. 1st level wizard? 297. 1st level Cleric or Druid? 149. The class with the most maneuvers to pick from? Swordsage, with 22. That's 7.4% of a 1st level Wizard's list and 14.7% of a Cleric/Druid's. And they're stuck with those maneuvers until 4th level at least. Clerics/Druids get new ones every day. Wizards can get every single one of those ~300 spells. Granted, Sorcs and Bards have a similar issue, but I have the same gripe with them.



Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

Nope. Initiate maneuver, and do what it says. Some have funky readings though (like the fact that by RAW you can't use IHS to remove paralysis, as you can't perform actions. Or its some other status, but same thing.



Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.


I particularly want a ranged style. At least some sort of style devoted to throwing weapons. Another thing I'd like is for discipline skills to actually do something. Maybe more maneuvers readied for having a high skill bonus in your discipline skills (probably limited to those disciplines though. No "I have a diplomacy through the roof, give me more Iron Heart maneuvers!". Also, limiting it to skill ranks​, not just bonus.

[Broken Crown]

Do you like and play initiator classes?

Yes.


If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

Swordsages virtually require Adaptive Style; otherwise they recover maneuvers too slowly.

Initiators are still largely outperformed by casters of the same level, in and out of combat.


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

No, it's really straightforward. Having cue cards with all your maneuvers and their effects helps keep things organized, though it takes up a lot of table space.


Which of the following things would you like to see more of?

More disciplines. Especially something nice for ranged combatants.

More out-of-combat utility.

Mind if ask what this survey is for?

[Sacrieur]

Don't use them, don't like them, don't allow them in my games.

If you could elaborate that would be immensely helpful (:



Mind if ask what this survey is for?

That's a good question, but I guess that the only answer I have for you is that you'll find out.

[CGNefarious]

I have a few questions I want to ask that I'd like to know what the answers are.

An initiator is a class that "initiates" maneuvers from the ToB or PoW systems.


Do you like and play initiator classes?

Yes. Quite often.



If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

Sure, all systems have flaws. Overall I find them to be more balanced than standard Paizo, though your results may vary.


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

Not at all. Like any new system it has a learning curve, but it's no more complicated than magic.


Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.

[Vhaidara]

Do you like and play initiator classes?


If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

Yes, almost exclusively.

Of course they have shortcomings, but the main region that comes in is the disparity between damage and HP, which is simply exacerbated by the addition of maneuvers. In a system that was designed with them in mind, then the damage numbers throughout the game would probably be much more reasonable in scale and significantly less rocket-taggy



Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?


Not at all. It's no more complicated than vancian casting, is more user friendly, and less game breakingly irritating. The only flaws I see trace back to the issues with the game being designed around things like Fighter DPR


Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.


Well, I play using Path of War, which actually gives support to most of the non-magical fighting styles that I can think of that are broad enough for an entire discipline (Unarmed is broad enough, grappling isn't). I'm not going to object to more mundane disciplines, but I don't expect more of them.

Expanding disciplines is a tricky one. Each discipline has the same balance of maneuvers at each level. Add onto them unevenly, and you start to sway the tenuous balance between them.

More classes are very much a plus. PoW:E is already bringing in some fantastic stuff between the Harbinger (king of T3 warrior types, in my mind), the Zealot (Tank class FTW), and the Mystic (the flip side of the Stalker's "Martial with a side of Supernatural"), as well as the first party initiating archetypes.

No. Cool and useful stuff is not allowed. Ever.

[BWR]

If you could elaborate that would be immensely helpful (:t.

Don't like the mechanics. It's too pseudo-spellcasting. I didn't like the mechanics when they were introduced and 4e basically doing that for everyone was the single greatest reason I detest 4e. If they really wanted to make mundanes more powerful they could beef up the existing schools a bit rather than make something entirely new. Feats were supposed to be a Fighter's thing, give them better feats or class abilities that improved existing ones. Monks were weak - [insert long list of fixes]. Rogues were weak - give them better things to do with their skills. Improve what you have, don't scrap it in favor of annoying mechanics.

[Milo v3]

Do you like and play initiator classes?


If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?
Yes & No. I like them because they are thematic, allow for more character types (like competent warrior :smalltongue:), and are decently balanced. But I do not play them, since doing so would require me printing out cards and that too much of a fuss.


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?

I think it is annoying to some degree with how often maneuvers swap between ready and used and back again within 2 or 3 rounds which can make it hard to keep track sometimes, but it's a necessary evil.


Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.

Bolded

[Captain Morgan]

I echo most of the positive thoughts hear. One minor complaint. The system feels more complicated than it needs to be when building a mid level character. I figured it out just fine, eventually, but I can't shake the feeling it could have been more intuitive.

[LTwerewolf]

I echo most of the positive thoughts hear. One minor complaint. The system feels more complicated than it needs to be when building a mid level character. I figured it out just fine, eventually, but I can't shake the feeling it could have been more intuitive.

How is it any different than building most other characters?

[Zanos]

1. I usually play spellcasters, so my opinions on initiators are somewhat lukewarm. I wouldn't say that I like how they turned out, but I do like the idea of giving purely martial characters more options. My biggest problem with initiator classes is numbers bloat. A lot of maneuvers just let you make an attack with bonus damage or to hit tied to it. A lot of stances are just +AC or +Hit or +Damage. This gets really bad in some of the disciplines as you get to high level maneuvers, some of which are just "make a full attack, but add +XdX damage to every hit and all attacks are at +2 to hit", or something similarly unnecessary. Martial classes never really had problems hitting and damaging things in Pathfinder, and these maneuvers solve a non-problem.

2. I don't think its particularly complicated. I think Morgan was referring to mid level characters being hard to build since you have to juggle maneuvers you want to replace with higher level ones while still making sure you meet prerequisites for others you'd like to take. Mapping out your maneuver progression as you leveled up is kind of clunky. Its a new(ish) system, so you do actually have to read the material if you aren't familiar, but nothing is hard to grasp.

3. Piggy backing off my first answer, I'd like to see maneuvers in general be more keyed to providing utility abilities. Maneuvers that are just attacks with more damage on them should be taken out back and shot, although certain ones that let you pierce DR for are fine. Maneuvers that ride off attacks should provide status effect riders rather than just damage and hit bonuses. As someone else mentioned, a lot of maneuvers interact inconsistently with other PoW material and core PF rules. More errata and FAQs for such cases would be nice.

[Alent]

Do you like and play initiator classes?


If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

Yes, but I haven't had a good chance to play one in quite a while. I've only played ToB, I haven't had a chance to try PoW yet.

I find Initiator performance is too lopsided, with their performance curve being too different from the other classes. I don't mean that in the sense of "Too powerful", I mean the sense of "strong at different times". I like the "all day every day nothing outlasts the Energizer BunnyInitiator." I also like the parity with Blaster Wizards, but I don't really feel like there's enough out of combat functionality to go with it.

I do think that the longevity and parity with Blaster Wizards works against Initiator acceptance, but there's not much you can do about willful ignorance.


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?


I think it has poorly written rules that need to be rewritten for clarity, but that the concept and mechanics are simple and easy to understand. As far as how the system is flawed, the most glaringly obvious way is how maneuvers also draw inspiration from 9ths casters. Having 9 levels of maneuvers that are mostly refluffed Blaster Wizard spells only amplifies the "This is just casting magic!" misunderstanding, and the bookkeeping that comes along with playing an initiator is subjective proof that it really is swordmagic.

I think that instead of having 9 levels of maneuvers, Initiators should choose Shadowcaster style "paths". (I've been playing around with this idea in some homebrew I'll probably never finish.) The advantages of the shadowcaster progression type would be simple: no more fiddling with "do I qualify for..." questions, maneuvers in a "path" could be put on a single page for ease of reference rather than alphabetically organized just to make life miserable, etc.

I do think the "prepare maneuvers" idea is messed up mechanically, I think a more interesting solution would be to push the idea that you don't use the same maneuver against an opponent twice for pacing's sake, reinforced by a penalty of some sort rather than "you've expended that maneuver and cannot use it". Think the Kenshin vs Shishio fight from Rurouni Kenshin where Shishio catches Kenshin's sword with one hand and says "I've already seen that move once, you can't hit me with it anymore."


Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.


Expanded Disciplines, useful stuff, and cooler stuff.

I'd really like to see an initiator bard that keeps all of it's spellcasting flavor on top of maneuvers.

[Florian]

The people I game with have very traditional views on characters and archetypes, that tend to be more grounded in local culture, peppered with a bit of hollywood cinema influence.
Initiator classes tend to break those moulds and are therefore not well liked by my fellow players and not chosen or asked for at all.

[Roog]

Do you like and play initiator classes?
Yes - using ToB and PoW


If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?[/INDENT]
Yes

[QUOTE=Sacrieur;19989559]Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If [B]yes, then in what ways is it flawed?

(1) The way maneuvers and stances are gained is awkward
- If I'm creating a mid level character of most classes, I can just look at the class table, see what abilities I have at that level, and pick my spells (or whatever abilities). However, for an initiator I need to go through level by level, picking maneuvers and stances, and trading maneuvers out, to make sure I meet the prerequisites all the time. It would be much simpler if there was just a table like the sorcerer's spells known.
- Because initiators don't pick up stances every level, and can't retrain them for higher level ones, there's a lot of awkwardness about which level they pick up new stances.
- It bugs me that unlike most other characters, I need to keep track of what order a multiclassed initiator took their classes.
- It bugs me the way initiators often loose the ability to perform the maneuvers that they could use at low levels (due to needing to trade them out for higher level ones). I would prefer to have the characters still know them, but not normally prepare them due to having better (higher-level) options.
(2) There's some stuff around how the system exactly functions that could do with tidying up.
(3) There are some issues with individual classes. For example I would like a version of Crusader with a replacement for Steely Resolve & Furious Counterstrike, as that has made the class too complex for a player in my game.


Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.


All of the above - things like new disciples should ideally integrate into existing classes, rather than just having new classes with new disciplines.

[Captain Morgan]

Zanos and Roog covered my thoughts on it being complicated. Again, not impossible to figure out, but if you're building your first initiator at mid levels it feels like could be less clunky.

Norren: I'm not familiar with Shadow casters, but your idea about maneuver recovery being replaced with reduced effectiveness against the same opponent(s) is very interesting and immersive.

Torasque666: I think the number of spells available to T1 casters is a bad metric to use. A lot of those spells are crap or incredibly niche. Maneuvers tend to be much better balanced with each other, and as the number of maneuvers goes up, balance becomes harder to achieve. And I believe initiators are meant to be T3 classes, not T1.

That said it would be interesting if they got more of the existing maneuvers to play with. Maybe with an option like Norren describes.

[Sacrieur]

Thank you all very much for the responses. The discussion here is very engaging, especially the critical comments; they're very helpful.

I'm going to take this time to respond to a couple points that came up which can be answered.



I don't like "per encounter" systems in general though, as it is a little bit subjective when an encounter starts or ends.

This is very concretely defined in Path of War, but I understand your concern, since it can be subjective and it's hidden away in its own box.


An encounter is a period of time from when initiative begins (starting with the surprise round, if any) to the last initiative has ended and after a total time amount of one minute has elapsed without combat resuming. This means that martial disciples have had time to recover all expended maneuvers and abilities that are used and depleted within the span of an encounter.

[upho]

Do you like and play initiator classes?Love 'em. But that's partially because of how problematic I find non-initiator martials - with a few specific exceptions I find them so boring and inflexible I don't really consider them classes anymore, but more like categories of "special substitute levels" for initiators... :smalltongue:

I mostly DM for PF nowadays and though I haven't banned Paizo martials in my game, I recommend my players to only dip a few levels in them (or use a better homebrew version). But I have flat-out banned spells above 6th and spells above 3rd before 9th level, at least for PCs. Full casters instead get homebrew PrCs tailored according to the player's wishes, the PC in question and the setting, and they typically advance the most vital caster features (like CL), slow down spell progression and combine caster stuff with limited initiation. So far, this has worked wonderfully, for party balance as well as for making the game more interesting both in and out of combat.



If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?Pretty much exactly what Keledrath and Zanos said above, though I must say I find PoW to be a lot better than ToB. Still, damage is already more than well covered by Paizo's (non-class) options and don't need more support, whereas all the combat roles/specializations besides "damage dealer/striker" haven't gotten nearly enough support so far IMO. I mean, a caster can ignore damage output capacity and still be at least as good a combatant as any damage-focused PC, while there are no options allowing a martial to do the same. (I haven't played much with the PoW:E classes/disciplines yet though, so I don't know whether they can get better at this.)



Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?Nope, I generally find it easier to use than spells, largely because there are basically no variable durations to keep track of and nothing that requires more than a full-round action. My players seem to agree. Though the clunky-ness of building level 4+ initiators is a bit annoying (less so with PoW than ToB), especially for me as a DM who often have to put together more than one for each session. So in comparison to casters, I'd say I find initiators a bit more complicated to build and less complicated to play.



Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


[B]More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.*
Useful stuff.*
None.
See bolded. *Provided it's "cooler stuff" and "useful stuff" according to me... :smallbiggrin:

As mentioned, I'd especially like to see more utility/out-of-combat options and options that allow for truly specializing in a combat role other than dealing damage, to the extent that a martial can replace a caster in such a role. For example, I think the "defender" combat role in 4e and many related mechanics were quite brilliant (regardless of 4e's shortcomings in other respects), and they were fun to play and gave the game tactical options PF and all previous editions are sorely missing IMO. The warder is designed along those lines (and a personal favorite), but I'd love to see more initiator stuff that allow for more variations and specializations within that combat role.

In addition, I wouldn't mind more of the PoW:E "repair" stuff mostly unrelated to class. Such as options that bypass horribly bloated Paizo feat chains, or replace/improve the many flavorful and conceptually sound Paizo options that were badly designed into stupidly inflexible/situational/overpriced traps. So we might get a game in which a PC can for example have a decent chance at bull rushing an opponent without having invested in several specific feats and items, and can be really good at both tripping and grappling, even in higher levels!


Yes. I love animé, and you can do animé stuff with ToB.
Just a sidenote: I'm not much for animé or "kung-fu fightan majick" in D&D/PF and honestly don't see much at all of that in PoW. I think even the highly supernatural options, like Veiled Moon maneuvers, don't feel out of place in any way in my current rather gritty and decidedly "not-animé" setting, though I guess such options have a more subtle and "realistic" in-game feel than they would in an animé-inspired game. I believe people calling ToB "too eastern" and giving it condescending nicknames like "Dunginé 'n' Dragonball" are simply too stuck on the fluff, and besides I haven't heard/read anyone saying such things about PoW. So if anyone hesitates to include PoW in their game because they've read that ToB is "animé combat": it's not, don't hesitate!

[charcoalninja]

I have a few questions I want to ask that I'd like to know what the answers are.

An initiator is a class that "initiates" maneuvers from the ToB or PoW systems.


Do you like and play initiator classes?


If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?



Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.


I love the PoW system. It adds the much needed "complex martial" to Pathfinder in a variety of ways and really brings out the tactics I loved from 4E.

I don't feel it has any serious shortcomings.

I'd like to see more classes, more Archetypes, more disciplines... Just more.

[137beth]

Do you like and play initiator classes?
yes


If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?
Yes, I do. In particular, I dislike that the maximum maneuvers you can ready at once is less than the number of maneuvers you know. My preference would be to allow you to start an encounter with all maneuvers you know readied, provided you are in a combat style that allows you to use them.
Alternatively, just make them all at-will.

Which of the following things would you like to see more of?
1. More Disciplines is something I'd like to see.
4. I'm not sure what this one means
5. Not really.
6-7. Too vague to answer.

[stack]

Yes, I enjoy PoW, can't imagine playing a martial without it.

Every system has flaws, it works quite well.

Can never have too many disciplines and more cool stuff, though the PoW team is being careful, from what I understand, to make certain each discipline is unique enough to keep a strong identity.

[Lord_Gareth]

Yes, I enjoy PoW, can't imagine playing a martial without it.

Every system has flaws, it works quite well.

Can never have too many disciplines and more cool stuff, though the PoW team is being careful, from what I understand, to make certain each discipline is unique enough to keep a strong identity.

You have no idea how many ideas I veto every single week, man.

Every.

Single.

Week.

[stack]

You have no idea how many ideas I veto every single week, man.

Every.

Single.

Week.

At least two of mine since the first book, but they were ideas that you probably hear every week (anti-magic and grappling based disciplines).

[Milo v3]

At least two of mine since the first book, but they were ideas that you probably hear every week (anti-magic and grappling based disciplines).

Isn't there an anti-magic PrC? And you can use broken blade boosts and stances for grappling.

[stack]

Isn't there an anti-magic PrC? And you can use broken blade boosts and stances for grappling.

Steelfist commando with steel coils stance and some broken blade stuff works pretty well for dealing damage as a grappler. I have toyed with writing out a grappling/reposition/bullrush/enemy wielding discipline, but I don't know that I can pull it off in worthwhile form and have other protects currently.

[Red Fel]

Stop the bandwagon, because I'm hopping aboard!


I have a few questions I want to ask that I'd like to know what the answers are.

I too ask questions when I would like to know the answers. Sometimes, I ask them when I already know the answers, just to mess with people.


Do you like and play initiator classes?


If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

Yes. I like and play them. I recognize that no system is perfect, however. Because ToB was introduced so late in 3.5's life, it has zero support beyond the book. It also suffers an incomplete errata. Further, the editing in the book is confusing and weak at the best of times. PoW seems to have smoothly addressed a lot of these wrinkles, having arrived while PF is still going strong, enjoying continuous revision and updates, and benefiting from very active developers who are constantly testing and improving the mechanics. So, really, this is only a flaw in ToB; PoW is great on this front. Both ToB and PoW carry with them the baggage of preexisting classes. This, I think, is something that is a common complaint about Initiator classes - they have taken preexisting melee and made it more complicated. The thing is, I don't think the opposite works - if we had started with Initiator classes back in the day, and then someone came along and offered a melee-based class with no maneuvers and only feats as a class feature, we would have laughed them out of the room. Nonetheless, this baggage - the existence of classes like the Fighter and Rogue - acts as a barrier to entry. They are inherently more complicated than the standard feat-based combat style. That's "more complicated," not "complicated," in much the same way that 10 is larger than 1, but is not necessarily a large number. They require more of the player than "I attack it with my sword," "I use Power Attack," or "I make a trip attempt." And admittedly, part of why I might play a Fighter or Barbarian is to get away from the complex mechanics and bookkeeping of spellcasters.

Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?


Not overly complicated, no. It is certainly similar to what spellcasters do, but is also in many ways simpler. There tends to be less interaction between abilities, for instance; you might need to see with a spell whether it stacks, or what special rules apply to its school or subschool, or a spell might refer to a different spell ("as X, but with the following changes"). Maneuvers tend to be more neatly self-contained, and as WotC showed with its web-release of maneuver cards, they can be easily tracked and managed. Trying to do the same with your spellbook could charitably be called a nightmare.


Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.


Responses in bold. I like the idea of different schools of combat. I like the idea of melees being able to do cool, clever, and useful things. I like the idea of classes that approach maneuvers differently. I don't know that the existing disciplines need to expand or change, but I like the idea of more.


That's a good question, but I guess that the only answer I have for you is that you'll find out.

This kind of response always worries me.

[Jormengand]

No. If I want to play that type of character, I can play a Magus, Inquisitor, or Psychic Warrior to much the same effect. If I don't want to play that type of character, I get extremely aggravated when people try to convince me that it's a way of building a type of character that it's no good for and that any other attempt to build a character for that purpose is pointless.

[LTwerewolf]

I get extremely aggravated when people try to convince me that it's a was of building a type of character that it's no good for and that any attempt to build a character for that purpose is pointless.

I have no idea what this part of the sentence is trying to say. I think my brain broke.

[Jormengand]

I have no idea what this part of the sentence is trying to say.
Try again now.


I think my brain broke.

You're welcome.

[Milo v3]

No. If I want to play that type of character, I can play a Magus, Inquisitor, or Psychic Warrior to much the same effect. If I don't want to play that type of character, I get extremely aggravated when people try to convince me that it's a way of building a type of character that it's no good for and that any other attempt to build a character for that purpose is pointless.
.... could have at least answered questions beyond number 1.

[Jormengand]

.... could have at least answered questions beyond number 1.

That answer basically sums up all my thoughts on ToB/PoW, though. I don't really care whether it's too complicated or not (of course, it isn't, because it's basically the same thing as vancian spellcasting), and I would like to see more things that are not like that.

[Sayt]

Do you like and play initiator classes?
If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?[/INDENT]

I play and enjoy initiators. The shortcomings, I think (in terms of path of War, at least), are over or under-tuned disciplines. Generally speaking the multi-attack disciplines are a bit overtuned (Thrashing Dragon, Broken Blade) are overtuned (Though Primal Fury is somewhat as well). On the other hand, some disciplines are undertuned, like IMO Scarlet Throne, which is largely single strikes with one-handed weapons, has boosts which don't easily stack (insight bonuses). Furthermore, it's stronger strikes key of sense motive, but is native to the Warlord which is encouraged to dump Wisdom somewhat (Cha to will saves), and Warder, which slightly superiorly has Wis as a 'neutral' stat.



Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

Not particularly. I'd say that it's simpler than the vancian system. The main complicated element is selecting maneuvers known, at a level higher than 1, and that's more fiddly than difficult.



Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


[B]More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.



I think there's room for expanding the disciplines, at the moment there are a few long-running themes and maneuver lines, but there are also several Good/Bad option dichotomies which I think should use some competition, and some Discipline levels that just don't do very well (Scarlet Throne 6 isn't, I think a good maneuver level, compared to ST7, which has Ruby Battle Lord's Strike (Fantastic), Sanguine Proclamation (Pretty damn good) and Royal Blade (A fairly strong damage boost with a nasty save or suck rider). Furthermore, the dipsciplines taper off, most only having one 9th, two 8ths, and three 7ths, to my knowledge. And while you obviously get fewer higher level maneuvers, there aren't that many high level options within a discipline.

[Vhaidara]

Furthermore, the dipsciplines taper off, most only having one 9th, two 8ths, and three 7ths, to my knowledge. And while you obviously get fewer higher level maneuvers, there aren't that many high level options within a discipline.

As a point, I'm pretty sure this is an intentional design decision. The number of maneuvers at each level is fairly constant (stances get kind of weird, since there was the disconnect about level 5 vs level 6, and Golden Lion only having 1 level 1 stance)

[Elricaltovilla]

As a point, I'm pretty sure this is an intentional design decision. The number of maneuvers at each level is fairly constant (stances get kind of weird, since there was the disconnect about level 5 vs level 6, and Golden Lion only having 1 level 1 stance)

We're standardizing stances. It's going to be 1/1/3/5/6/8 for every discipline.

[Vhaidara]

We're standardizing stances. It's going to be 1/1/3/5/6/8 for every discipline.

Oh, 5 and 6?

How are you handling stance progression then? Because the 5th level stances become available at 9, but the 6th levels have to wait until 11.

[Sayt]

As a point, I'm pretty sure this is an intentional design decision. The number of maneuvers at each level is fairly constant (stances get kind of weird, since there was the disconnect about level 5 vs level 6, and Golden Lion only having 1 level 1 stance)

Oh I understand why it's so for the initial release product, working with limited print-space and reinforcing identity to disciplines, I'm just hoping for further expansion.

[mostholycerebus]

B]Do you like and play initiator classes?

[/B]

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

Yes, and I quite enjoy them. Shortcomings, depending on the build I feel they can be more complicated than some spellcasting classes. Wizards, you usually throw a Standard Action spell and its done, then maybe move, powerful effect on the battlefield. Initiators are usually layering effects and using every single action available, sometimes getting and using more actions. A typical round you may be using a Standard Action Strike, a Move Action, possible another actual Move, a Swift action Boost, and probably an Immediate action Counter. Any or all of these could have multiple effects that last a number of turns.

Then you have AOOs on others turns...


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

To me it is equivalent to a Druid or Cleric, maybe some Witches. Like those classes, Initiators seem to focus on damage AND buffs and/or debuffs with some utility. So, somewhat complicated, but no worse than existing classes. The only main difference is, unlike casters, the scenario I posited above comes online from pretty much level 1. Casters have to get Schism, Quicken Spell, and other hijinks that come online at mid+ level.


Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.


Probably none. Dreamscarred has covered so much that I cant think of a concept I cant build with Ultimate Psionics and PoW:Expanded.

[ComaVision]

1. Yes, I have played an initiator class and they're quite popular in the games I've run. I don't think there any major shortcomings.

2. I think it's a very simple system.

3. I would like to see more niche disciplines, maybe one for flying races and one for mounted combat. I would also like to see half-initiator classes (my apologies if PoW already covers any of this because I only have a basic knowledge of PoW so far).

[Subaru Kujo]

I have a few questions I want to ask that I'd like to know what the answers are.

An initiator is a class that "initiates" maneuvers from the ToB or PoW systems.


Do you like and play initiator classes?

If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

Play them pretty much all the time when I want to play a melee class unless I have a really good reason for doing otherwise (I want to play a skillmonkey, for instance).

And of course there are shortcomings, but I'll get to that next.

Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?


Not really so much flawed as poorly edited. Know ToB has some maneuvers with no requirements other than being a high enough level, and I really doubt that's intentional.

I suppose also, I have people trying to pull out 6th level maneuvers at level 6. Like, not the fault of the system, but I thought it was amusing.

Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.


Yes.
Responses in italics.

[Vhaidara]

3. I would like to see more niche disciplines, maybe one for flying races and one for mounted combat. I would also like to see half-initiator classes (my apologies if PoW already covers any of this because I only have a basic knowledge of PoW so far).

Mounted discipline ended up getting scrapped, mostly because mounted combat is already really really strong. Flying races are unlikely because Gareth is on the veto board.

2/3 initiating archetypes are available in the PoW:E playtest thread for damn close to everyone who doesn't have 9th level spells/powers/is a Magus

[Lord_Gareth]

Mounted discipline ended up getting scrapped, mostly because mounted combat is already really really strong. Flying races are unlikely because Gareth is on the veto board.

You're damn straight. It'd be a gigantically niche discipline, and the Fly skill is a wretched, twisted abomination that needs to be cast back into whatever pit of Hell from which it was spawned.

[ComaVision]

Mounted discipline ended up getting scrapped, mostly because mounted combat is already really really strong. Flying races are unlikely because Gareth is on the veto board.

2/3 initiating archetypes are available in the PoW:E playtest thread for damn close to everyone who doesn't have 9th level spells/powers/is a Magus

That's a shame but understandable. Thanks for the info.

[Elricaltovilla]

Oh, 5 and 6?

How are you handling stance progression then? Because the 5th level stances become available at 9, but the 6th levels have to wait until 11.

It's all getting standardized to work based on the stance progression I posted. You'll see the end result when PoW:E gets released.

[Bucky]

Do you like and play initiator classes?


If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?



I like initiator classes. I do not play initiator classes because my DM banned them after my first one.



Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?

This banning was the direct result of how easy it is to get better than 3d6* damage dice on a strike at level 1. I was one-shotting level appropriate enemies even after the DM ruled that my one-handed discipline weapons couldn't be used two-handed during a strike.

Accordingly, the obvious flaw is that level 1 strikes and stances do too much damage.

I didn't get into the 'overly complicated' part because that character was killed with prejudice at a low level, before getting any decent counters; playing with only one stance and a small maneuver library is fairly straightforward. However, I'd be more concerned about complexity if I were trying to loop maneuvers as a Warlord.



*I didn't go higher than 3d6+lots on that character. But a Black Seraph out of the box can go as high as 4d6+1d8 (+ 1.5*Str) using only level 1 maneuvers, enough to routinely one-shot most CR2 monsters.



Which of the following things would you like to see more of?

Insufficient data. But I'm not fond of 'MORE STUFF' as a design principle; I'd rather see utility modded into existing maneuvers.

[Morbis Meh]

Do you like and play initiator classes?


If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?
If I am not playing a caster I will usually attempt to play one of these but that is hit and miss on this forum, they are generally my favourite classes to play.

As for short comings well like any system there are some rough patches, internal balance between disciplines (some are too good while others are alright) but for the most part the PoW team is doing a stellar job on working out the bugs.


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?


Not at all, like many of have said it is somewhat easier to use than the casting system though I would agree that having requirements on maneuvers is a tad irritating at times and requires a little more rigorous book keeping.


Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.


I love variety and this is the reason why I haven't moved passed 3.5/PF since they grant far more character creation options for fine tuning and I feel PoW/ToB capitalize on this since it allows martials to use the complete round rather than simply standard/move or just full attack.

[Kudaku]

Do you like and play initiator classes?

Fort the first time my GM somewhat reluctantly allowed the use of PoW for a Mummy's Mask campaign that started in April, that's currently level 13. We've had one character go straight warlord, with two other characters (Druid, Battle Oracle) taking dips in Stalker and Warlord, respectively. As the warlord player, it's easily the most fun martial character I've ever played. We're big fans and are eagerly awaiting Path of War: Expanded. :smallsmile:


If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

While we did choose to play PoW, the main issue our GM had was the perceived power level of Path of War compared to straight Pathfinder. This concern was somewhat justified with things like teleport (Fading Strike) and pounce (Raging Hunter Pounce) available as early as level 3. That said, after getting used to the novelty of a teleporting martial we found that the warlord was well matched with his main competition in melee, a Bladebound Kensai Magus. The Magus puts out slightly better numbers when he burns resources and generally has better utility, but the Warlord is still contributing greatly and is much more willing to engage with all his toys in each fight. It feels like the "sprinter v endurance runner" balance is just about where it should be.


If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

While we were overall quite happy with the power level, we felt like there were some maneuvers that were problematic in one way or another. For example Frenzy Strike has the potential to make a truly ridiculous amount of attacks and feels wildly overpowered compared to other level 3 strikes. The various Penumbra maneuvers could use some more elaboration of how the illusion effects are intended to work.

Gambits is easily the best recovery option of the three initiator classes we've seen in play so far. It feels much more organic and fun than either the Warder or the Stalker options. The stalker option in particular feels a little strange. Generally speaking you want to get into position early on in the fight, which is when you'd have all your maneuvers ready. By the time you're running low on maneuvers odds are that you're in the thick of it, so spending a full round action moving and recovering but not attacking is less than ideal. We'd much prefer to see recovery mechanics such as Gambits and Soul Claiming (Soul Hunter archetype) in the future.

There are some powers that are only available to a select few or even a single discipline, and probably shouldn't be. An example of this is that while just about all disciplines have some kind of defensive counter, only Black Seraph and Silver Crane provide maneuver options to obtain flight - something most martial characters are extremely likely to need. It'd be nice if there was a little bit more overlap between disciplines for things as crucial as flying.

Finally, and this might be a pet peeve, but I'm not crazy about the advantages of dipping PoW classes at higher levels. In our game both the Battle Oracle and the Druid dipped a single level of PoW initiator classes around level 9 in order to pick up 3rd level maneuvers, but ignored the Strikes (that were very underwhelming compared to level 10 full attacks) and opted instead for Boosts and Counters to round out their action economy. PoW classes tend to give significantly higher rewards for dipping than most other classes, and the rewards grow the later in the game you dip.


Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

Overall I think the system is elegant and not particularly complicated. One thing I will note however, is that the "replace a maneuver every even level" makes it unnecessarily complicated to make a high-level initiator class from scratch. As a GM I frequently rebuilt AP fighters and rogues into warlords and stalkers, and this was a constant issue. You have to build the character more or less level by level, adding and then replacing maneuvers every two levels. It's quite easy to screw this up and I've seen multiple PoW characters with illegal builds because the player accidentally screwed up replacing maneuvers. This mechanic could really do with some streamlining.


Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
More classes.
Cooler stuff.
Useful stuff.
None.


More Disciplines for sure. While I personally really like Veiled Moon, I think a lot of people look to PoW to make the "non-magical" martial so I can understand increased support for non-SU disciplines.

Expanded Disciplines would be interesting, but it's not quite as important to me. I like the idea that two warlords will play significantly differently depending on what disciplines they choose to specialize in.

More Classes - sure, why not?

Useful Stuff - while the Warlord has a host of incredibly useful abilities in combat, I sometimes feel that he has a harder time contributing outside of combat. Low-level utility stances like Eyes of the Crane and Running Hunter Stance are great for helping out even outside of combat, I'd love to see more like this.

I'd like to add one more thing that wasn't listed in the options - archetypes to incorporate PoW maneuvers into existing classes. We know there are already some in the pipeline, which is great! I hope to see one for every class Paizo has put out. :smallsmile:

[Faily]

I have played with ToB, but not with PoW, so answers will be accordingly.



Do you like and play initiator classes?


If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

I like Initiator classes as I like playing melee characters from time to time as well, but I am unhappy with the power-level difference between an Initiator warrior and a non-Initiator warrior. While I enjoy playing Initiators myself, I do feel that any Initiator warrior will outshine any non-Initiator warrior most of the time which can cause some difficulties if a party consists of regular classes and then one player rolls up an Initiator.




Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?


I don't think it's overly complicated or difficult to use. It's a bit clunky at first, as there are some things that are a bit unclear (effective Initiator-levels when multi-classing with non-Initiator classes is one that comes to mind). Others have mentioned the progression of Maneuvers and Stances when making a higher-level character.

Not overly complicated or difficult, but has its flaws that's for sure. Red Fel's point about ToB's lack of support and proper errata is also a good point.



Which of the following things would you like to see more of?


More disciplines.
More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
Expanded disciplines.
Useful stuff.





Regarding differences in power-level: While casters are still more powerful than Initiators and non-Initiators, the Wizard or the Cleric's power-level is often more acceptable for players to deal with at the table, I've found. Some of it is because some players are just so used to the power of casters, they don't really second-guess it, or at least so I think. However, when playing say a Fighter, and someone rolls a Warblade, the Fighter might boast that he has more feats, but the Warblade will still out-perform the Fighter at almost every turn: better HP (d12 vs d10), can achieve better damage-output (super-easy with Initiators, I've found), can tank better (something as simple as Stone Bones can do the trick for that).
So I kinda feel that if everything should feel "fair" for the warriors, you either have to rule out ToB or make every warrior play an Initiator.

And yes, various other classes and builds can somewhat emulate the "magic" of Initiators (or Initiators emulate them?), like Duskblade, Magus, Psychic Warrior, various Gish-builds, etc, but it just doesn't feel right to compare them, imo, as those kind of characters still operate on limited amount of resources (spells and power-points), while Initiators can keep going all day. Not only because of their "once per encounter"-mechanics, but also because of the built-in mechanics of regaining maneuvers in combat. A Magus can do tons of damage with an Intensified Maximized Shocking Grasp, but he is limited to how often he can do it because of the Vancian-casting system. Psychic Warrior burns through Power Points like candy if he wants to really shine. The Initiator does his thing, then goes back to regaining his tricks right away.

[Captain Morgan]

The Energizer Bunny aspect of Initiators is definitely a thing. But its not a simple one. Standard play allows for like 4 CR appropriate encounters a day, but many campaigns go above or below that. If your DM likes to throw really long days or gauntlets at you, the Initiator is going to shine. But on a short day they still can't match the full caster.