Path of War vs Tome of Battle?

[AslanCross]

I have been on hiatus from RPGs for a while and only realized today that Pathfinder has its own version of Tome of Battle. I've given Path of War's material a cursory read on the PFSRD, but haven't read in detail.

I'm a big fan of ToB, so I was wondering:

1. How does Path of War measure up against ToB in terms of power and balance?


2. If I decide to include both in a campaign, what redundant options should I remove? Should I run them together at all, or is it not worth the effort?

[Red Fel]

1. How does Path of War measure up against ToB in terms of power and balance?


2. If I decide to include both in a campaign, what redundant options should I remove? Should I run them together at all, or is it not worth the effort?

My answers to both questions are based more on opinion than on specific mechanics and numbers, but here we go.

1. Power and balance as compared to what? As compared to each other, I'd say that PoW has somewhat greater power, including its versatility. As compared with non ToB/PoW classes, in general, I find PF slightly more balanced than D&D. That's not to say that PF is balanced - Wizards still rule the world, Monks are still not ideal - but it's more balanced, and PoW is no exception to that. Further, unlike ToB, which had defective errata and now exists without any additional support, DSP is releasing new PoW material constantly, and actively supporting the existing material. So you can resolve any confusion or concerns over PoW material easily.

2. Honestly, I'd just leave out ToB. There's very little that it does that PoW doesn't do; generally, what overlap there is, PoW does in a very clean, well-written and reasonably effective manner. There are also PoW options that are lacking in ToB, such as the Solar Wind discipline - a discipline designed around ranged weaponry. There are also archetype options for switching out one discipline for another, for when you like a class but would rather do it unarmed or something. (Sorry, Crusader, but the Warder has you beat.)

Bottom line: DSP has had ample time to study and refine what ToB started, and they've done extraordinarily well. The Stalker, Warder, and Warlord are generally superior to and more effective than the Swordsage, Crusader, and Warblade; the disciplines are fun and thematic, as well as versatile. If you're running a PF campaign, just bring in PoW and keep it simple. I think you'll be satisfied with the result. If you're running 3.5e... Well, it's up to you if you think that backporting is worthwhile.

[Morcleon]

The biggest thematic difference I can see between them is that Path of War is very heavily focused on combat with very few utility maneuvers and its maneuvers usually add static bonuses and rider effects. Tome of Battle has more utility and less evenly spread power amongst the maneuvers. Personally, I'd just take both and allow all nine classes to select thematically appropriate disciplines from all three books.

[AslanCross]

Thanks, that makes sense---many of the disciplines appear more powerful (the Stances in general seem a lot better), and there is a ranged option. My only caveat with the classes is that the compared to the Warder, the Warblade is a lot more "pure mundane fighting skill" as opposed to "tactical tank." But then again I need to read in more detail.

[Snowbluff]

Thinking about my own experience and what Morc said, use both.

There is a trait that lets you pick up a school from another class, so there's really no issue with integrating the schools or anything.

[Gildedragon]

Also the Crusader equivalent isn't quite as paladin-y feeling

[Red Fel]

My only caveat with the classes is that the compared to the Warder, the Warblade is a lot more "pure mundane fighting skill" as opposed to "tactical tank." But then again I need to read in more detail.

Warblade is less like the Warder, and more like the Warlord. Don't be confused by the fact that both are Int-based; the Warder shares more in common with the Crusader than the Warblade.

In fact, the Warblade's fluff (about being charismatic, dashing swordsmen) fits better with the Warlord as well. They even share a capstone. But where Warblade is about "Int to everything," by using tactical knowledge to best an opponent, Warlord is "Cha to everything," by using force of personality to either overwhelm opponents or rally allies.

[leftwordmovemen]

The mystic is pretty close to the crusader. They even have the same wacky maneuver mechanic. If that doesn't float your boat, there's also the Warpath Crusader which is an archetype layered over Inquisitors or Warpriests that does the same.

And there's a few warder archetypes that do do the "pure fighting thing" better.

And there's actually two ranged disciplines; Solar Wind and Tempest Gale.

[LTwerewolf]

And there's actually two dedicated ranged disciplines; Solar Wind and Tempest Gale.

Fixed for you. If you look closely, you'll see that several of the disciplines (such as steel serpent) have a lot of maneuvers that can be used with melee or ranged.

[Pex]

Tangent curiosity.

Does Path of War fix the stance problem? In Tome of Battle, a single class crusader does not get a 3rd level stance until level 8, a 5th or 6th level stance until level 14, and cannot get an 8th level stance at all. The levels he gets a new stance do not coincide with the levels a stance is available. To correct for this the crusader has to multiclass two levels or spend a feat. The warblade and swordsage also have this problem but to a lesser extent.

Can an adept change a stance known in Path of War?

Does Path of War's version of White Raven clarify whether or not you can use maneuvers on yourself, such as their version of White Raven Tactics or Order Forged From Chaos if they exist?

Is there a version of Iron Heart Surge and specific clarity of what conditions it can end? If nausea and paralysis can still be ended, does the maneuver say you can still do so despite those conditions normally not allowing an action or movement respectively?

[Snowbluff]

Tangent curiosity. I'll try to help.


Does Path of War fix the stance problem? In Tome of Battle, a single class crusader does not get a 3rd level stance until level 8, a 5th or 6th level stance until level 14, and cannot get an 8th level stance at all. The levels he gets a new stance do not coincide with the levels a stance is available. To correct for this the crusader has to multiclass two levels or spend a feat. The warblade and swordsage also have this problem but to a lesser extent. Crusader isn't in the PoW, so you can say it does, I guess. As far as I remember that kind of editing gaffe in the tables isn't present in PoW.
*apply confetti as necessary*


Does Path of War's version of White Raven clarify whether or not you can use maneuvers on yourself, such as their version of White Raven Tactics or Order Forged From Chaos if they exist? You are your own ally. This is a hard as fast rule in d20, unlike 4e.


Is there a version of Iron Heart Surge and specific clarity of what conditions it can end? If nausea and paralysis can still be ended, does the maneuver say you can still do so despite those conditions normally not allowing an action or movement respectively?
No, you can't use it while paralyzed or otherwise unable to move. By RAW, there are only a few things described as conditions or effect, and using it on anything past that is 100% DM fiat, if not for what the questionable "condition," for the result being impossible to be described by the rules.

[ATalsen]

Is there a version of Iron Heart Surge and specific clarity of what conditions it can end? If nausea and paralysis can still be ended, does the maneuver say you can still do so despite those conditions normally not allowing an action or movement respectively?

PoW does have effects similar to those in ToB White Raven Tactics and Iron Heart Surge. The PoW versions are very clear in what they do, and thought was put into their balance.

The condition-relieving one is an immediate action that you used as you get the condition, so it works even for conditions like daze/stun.

The WRT one grants your action to another PC - sure you can use it on yourself but its pointless to do so.

[Da Beast]

Tangent curiosity.

Does Path of War fix the stance problem? In Tome of Battle, a single class crusader does not get a 3rd level stance until level 8, a 5th or 6th level stance until level 14, and cannot get an 8th level stance at all. The levels he gets a new stance do not coincide with the levels a stance is available. To correct for this the crusader has to multiclass two levels or spend a feat. The warblade and swordsage also have this problem but to a lesser extent.

Can an adept change a stance known in Path of War?

Does Path of War's version of White Raven clarify whether or not you can use maneuvers on yourself, such as their version of White Raven Tactics or Order Forged From Chaos if they exist?

Is there a version of Iron Heart Surge and specific clarity of what conditions it can end? If nausea and paralysis can still be ended, does the maneuver say you can still do so despite those conditions normally not allowing an action or movement respectively?

Stances are handed out at sensible levels, ie the ones where schools actually have stances.

To my knowledge stances can't be changed after you pick them but I could be mistaken and either way a lot of stances scale with level so they remain relevant as you level up.

You count as your own ally but many maneuvers that affect allies specify "adjacent ally" which cannot be used on yourself since you can't stand next to yourself.

Path of Wars closest analogue to Iron Heart Surge is Sanguine Perfection (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/disciplines-and-maneuvers/scarlet-throne-maneuvers/sanguine-perfection) which gives a specific list of conditions it can remove and only lasts for so many rounds. I will admit however that I'm not sure if Sanguine Perfection can remove all of these conditions at once or only one condition per use.

[LTwerewolf]

The WRT one grants your action to another PC - sure you can use it on yourself but its pointless to do so.

Pretty sure that's not how it works and works instead like this


Direct the Pride

Discipline: Golden Lion (Boost); Level: 4
Prerequisite(s): 1 Golden Lion maneuver
Initiation Action: 1 swift action
Range: Adjacent ally
Target: One creature
Duration: Instant

DESCRIPTION

Cooperation and teamwork form the backbone of tactical warfare, and through his knowledge of all of these things, the Golden Lion disciple may help direct the actions of his ally to greater effectiveness. As a swift action, the initiator targets an adjacent ally who has not yet acted this turn. That initiator may now act immediately following the Golden Lion disciple's action as if his initiative result was one lower than the disciple. The following round, the target of this boost returns to his previous initiative result.

[ATalsen]

Pretty sure that's not how it works and works instead like this

Yeah, Direct the Pride may be a better match for WRT than the one I was thinking of which was:


GIFT OF TIME
Discipline: Riven Hourglass (Boost)
Level: 4
Prerequisite: One Riven Hourglass maneuver
Initiation Action: 1 swift action
Range: Touch
Target: One ally
Duration: Instantaneous
By focusing and carefully gathering glittering grains
of quintessence from within your Hourglass into your
hands, you can donate time to another with a touch.
You can only initiate this boost at the start of your turn,
before taking any other actions. Select an adjacent ally
you can touch. You can choose to grant them a standard,
move, or full-round action. That ally can take the action
you selected, and must use them immediately, changing
their place in the initiative order as if they had readied
an action. You lose the chosen action, and cannot take
it this turn. You cannot grant more actions than you
could normally take during your turn, thus if you are
staggered you could not grant an ally a full-round action,
only a standard or move action.

I was wrong about it being useable on yourself since its one of the "adjacent ally" ones.

So, there may be more than one new PoW maneuver that fulfills the same or similar areas to several of the older ToB maneuvers!

[Tuvarkz]

Tangent curiosity.

Does Path of War fix the stance problem? In Tome of Battle, a single class crusader does not get a 3rd level stance until level 8, a 5th or 6th level stance until level 14, and cannot get an 8th level stance at all. The levels he gets a new stance do not coincide with the levels a stance is available. To correct for this the crusader has to multiclass two levels or spend a feat. The warblade and swordsage also have this problem but to a lesser extent.

Can an adept change a stance known in Path of War?

Does Path of War's version of White Raven clarify whether or not you can use maneuvers on yourself, such as their version of White Raven Tactics or Order Forged From Chaos if they exist?

Is there a version of Iron Heart Surge and specific clarity of what conditions it can end? If nausea and paralysis can still be ended, does the maneuver say you can still do so despite those conditions normally not allowing an action or movement respectively?

Stances: The full initiators get stances in one of two progressions (and come errata it's likely they will all switch to the latter): 1,2,5,8,11,15,19 or 1,2,5,9,13,15,19. All disciplines have either one or two level 1 stances, a level 3 stance, and a level 8 stance; plus one or more stances across maneuver levels 4, 5, and 6 (DSP devs have mentioned stance levels will be normalized come PoW errata). You cannot swap stances known while levelling up.

You count as your own ally, so many maneuvers will work on yourself, unless they specify "adjacent ally" or something to the same effect.

There's two IHS-equivalents, Sanguine Perfection (Scarlet Throne 5) and Temporal Body Adjustment (Riven Hourglass 4), and as immediates, both can be used immediately or mid-duration of the condition.

Sanguine Perfection supresses the effect for a number of rounds (not stopping their duration, so if you supress an effect for 5 rounds and it only had 3 rounds of duration left it's automatically negated), and can be used on one of the following: blinded, confused, cowering, dazed, dazzled, deafened, disabled, dying (though he still suffers hit point damage each round), energy drained, exhausted, fascinated, fatigued, frightened, helpless, nauseated, panicked, paralyzed, petrified, shaken, sickened, staggered, stunned, or unconscious.

Temporal Body Adjustment is the closer one to IHS, and works as following: You can initiate this counter when you would be affected by a negative condition (such as being cursed, dazed, paralyzed, or sickened), or are affected by a negative condition. You ignore the condition that would affect you, or end any one such condition currently affecting you. You cannot negate your death with this counter.

[Eldaran]

To address the original questions: PoW is way more powerful, mostly well designed, but the first book in particular has some internal balance issues, such as Broken Blade and Primal Fury. There's also lots of errors in both books, if you thought ToB had problems with things like Iron Heart Surge, there's a ton more stuff like that in PoW.

If you want to run them together, here's my conversion. (http://kdmurphy.site/ToB%20Conversion.html) I wrote it before PoW:E, but not too much would change really.

Also the changes I made to the individual classes:

Crusader: Increase HD to d12, Smite works like Pathfinder Paladin Smite, move stances to 3, 9, 15.
Swordsage: Move stance from 14 to 13. Add Quick to Act as dodge bonus to AC as well. Add Dual Boost 1/day at 10, 14, 18, and 20. At 6 gain Discipline Focus(Weapon Focus) for a second discipline. Use the Stalker maneuver recovery mechanic.
Warblade: Allow any combat/fighter feat for bonus feats. At 4th level the Warblade may, as a swift action, exchange one maneuver known and readied for a different maneuver of the same level, which becomes known and readied as if they had selected it when leveling. They must still meet all prerequisites. At 8th level and every 4 levels thereafter they may exchange an additional maneuver at the same time. At 10th level this ability becomes a free action, usable on their turn once per round. There is no other limit on this ability's use.

The Warblade got the biggest buff because I find them to be much less versatile than the other initiators, even though they hit hard.

[AslanCross]

To address the original questions: PoW is way more powerful, mostly well designed, but the first book in particular has some internal balance issues, such as Broken Blade and Primal Fury. There's also lots of errors in both books, if you thought ToB had problems with things like Iron Heart Surge, there's a ton more stuff like that in PoW.

If you want to run them together, here's my conversion. (http://kdmurphy.site/ToB%20Conversion.html) I wrote it before PoW:E, but not too much would change really.

Also the changes I made to the individual classes:

Crusader: Increase HD to d12, Smite works like Pathfinder Paladin Smite, move stances to 3, 9, 15.
Swordsage: Move stance from 14 to 13. Add Quick to Act as dodge bonus to AC as well. Add Dual Boost 1/day at 10, 14, 18, and 20. At 6 gain Discipline Focus(Weapon Focus) for a second discipline. Use the Stalker maneuver recovery mechanic.
Warblade: Allow any combat/fighter feat for bonus feats. At 4th level the Warblade may, as a swift action, exchange one maneuver known and readied for a different maneuver of the same level, which becomes known and readied as if they had selected it when leveling. They must still meet all prerequisites. At 8th level and every 4 levels thereafter they may exchange an additional maneuver at the same time. At 10th level this ability becomes a free action, usable on their turn once per round. There is no other limit on this ability's use.

The Warblade got the biggest buff because I find them to be much less versatile than the other initiators, even though they hit hard.

Greatly appreciated. I'm still just reading through the SRD, so I haven't read everything, but the stances are indeed significantly more powerful in PoW. ToB's stances were modest and didn't scale well. Punishing Stance vs Stance of Aggression is a clear example.

[Pex]

Goody.

Now if only I can find a group that would allow me to play it. As if it wasn't tough enough trying to find a group that would let me use psionics. :smallsigh:

[Snowbluff]

Goody.

Now if only I can find a group that would allow me to play it. As if it wasn't tough enough trying to find a group that would let me use psionics. :smallsigh:

It's okay, Pex. It'll all be okay. T.T

[Da Beast]

the first book in particular has some internal balance issues, such as Broken Blade and Primal Fury.

Can you elaborate on this? I haven't had much time to play test the book yet but broken blade is something that jumped out at me as maybe too big a buff for unarmed combat.

[Bucky]

Broken Blade isn't strictly unarmed; it also works with the Close weapon group, including saps, gauntlets, shield bashes and the 1d10 scizore, and with Monk weapons.

The main issue I'm aware of is the damage stacking at level 1. Even with only a shield bash (1d6) as the base, a broken blade adept can adopt a Pugilist Stance (+1d6) and gets an additional +2 damage with strikes. The result is that they're doing comparable damage to a 2 handed weapon. Then they get the Strike itself on top of that, which means they can use Flurry Strike to make two attacks as a pseudo-pounce.

[Tuvarkz]

Can you elaborate on this? I haven't had much time to play test the book yet but broken blade is something that jumped out at me as maybe too big a buff for unarmed combat.

Broken Blade and Primal Fury, and Thrashing Dragon to a lesser degree, have a massive DPR potential. DSP devs have mentioned that the disciplines will get their numbers curbed come the errata.

[Sayt]

Broken Blade isn't strictly unarmed; it also works with the Close weapon group, including saps, gauntlets, shield bashes and the 1d10 scizore, and with Monk weapons.

The main issue I'm aware of is the damage stacking at level 1. Even with only a shield bash (1d6) as the base, a broken blade adept can adopt a Pugilist Stance (+1d6) and gets an additional +2 damage with strikes. The result is that they're doing comparable damage to a 2 handed weapon. Then they get the Strike itself on top of that, which means they can use Flurry Strike to make two attacks as a pseudo-pounce.

Really? I thought the problem was steel flurry strike+bronze knuckle, for three attacks at -2, but +5d6 damage each?

That said, you can get significant overkill at level once as well.

[Red Fel]

Broken Blade and Primal Fury, and Thrashing Dragon to a lesser degree, have a massive DPR potential. DSP devs have mentioned that the disciplines will get their numbers curbed come the errata.

Which comes back to a major point - PoW has devs and errata. PoW is a living expansion of a living system; it continues to see new material and revisions and balances to existing material, and the devs are active in the community and reasonably responsive to concerns.

ToB, much as I love it, is dead. It arrived in the twilight of 3.5, a system which hasn't seen new material or support in years. ToB itself had no expansions or additional materials, and its only errata devolves partway in into errata for another book entirely, leaving some glaring editing issues and unbalanced mechanics completely un-addressed.

The fact that DSP is continuing to update and expand on PoW cannot be overstated.

[LTwerewolf]

^and has taken enough effort to answer 7 threads worth of pages of questions.

[Snowbluff]

Which comes back to a major point - PoW has devs and errata.

Vastly overrated. Errata is nice, but really a lot of the stuff is just going to retread itself, and a lot of the actually nerfs are aggravating. I wonder if there's an actual fallacy here, because it's the same kind of argument people made for PF.

[Red Fel]

Vastly overrated. Errata is nice, but really a lot of the stuff is just going to retread itself, and a lot of the actually nerfs are aggravating. I wonder if there's an actual fallacy here, because it's the same kind of argument people made for PF.

The point either way is that a living system - one which is continually being made - has at least the potential for revision and improvement, irrespective of whether said potential is acted on. A dead system - one which is no longer supported in any way - is simply what it is, warts and all.

I won't say PF is perfect; it still has warts. But it, and PoW, are supported, which means that some of those concerns could be addressed. To my knowledge, at least some have been. Which is more than ToB will have. And I won't say all of the changes have been positive - I think there are arguments either way - but the fact is that there has been change, and will be more.

That, in and of itself, is a good thing. The system may be flawed, but it continues to evolve.

[Snowbluff]

The point either way is that a living system - one which is continually being made - has at least the potential for revision and improvement, irrespective of whether said potential is acted on. A dead system - one which is no longer supported in any way - is simply what it is, warts and all.

I won't say PF is perfect; it still has warts. But it, and PoW, are supported, which means that some of those concerns could be addressed. To my knowledge, at least some have been. Which is more than ToB will have. And I won't say all of the changes have been positive - I think there are arguments either way - but the fact is that there has been change, and will be more.

That, in and of itself, is a good thing. The system may be flawed, but it continues to evolve.

Which speaks nothing of the current state of the system, so using that in an assessment would be foolhardy. Not to mention your argument is just your statement reiterated in a less pithy manner. .-.

[Tuvarkz]

Vastly overrated. Errata is nice, but really a lot of the stuff is just going to retread itself, and a lot of the actually nerfs are aggravating. I wonder if there's an actual fallacy here, because it's the same kind of argument people made for PF.

Except that DSP devs have shown much more openness to white-room calculations and general number-crunching, as well as the fact that their content has a far higher optimization floor than most of what is in PF, which means that stuff being nerfed into unplayability is quite unlikely. Also, I believe they have mentioned that the errata will be subject to a playtest before being 'official'.

[upho]

Vastly overrated. Errata is nice, but really a lot of the stuff is just going to retread itself, and a lot of the actually nerfs are aggravating. I wonder if there's an actual fallacy here, because it's the same kind of argument people made for PF.Absolutely not. This is DSP, not Paizo. And just by looking at their many playtest threads in this forum alone, it's easy to understand this makes a world of difference. Over-nerfs as well as retreading are unlikely to be issues, as the DSP devs actually understand a lot more about the system they're writing for, actually welcome critique and have frequently shown they're prepared to change their minds accordingly. And besides, their errata decisions aren't primarily influenced by the myopic views of weirdly biased organized play groups using their own house rules (like PFS).

[LTwerewolf]

It's important to note that DSP aren't the people that somehow thought 3.5 vanilla fighter=3.5 vanilla wizard. Having decades of experience with a system means something. I feel like the damage that broken blade and primal fury can do aren't really a big deal even when combined, and feel it's an overnerf, but that doesn't mean I don't for the most part like their decisions.

[Milo v3]

It's important to note that DSP aren't the people that somehow thought 3.5 vanilla fighter=3.5 vanilla wizard.
Admittedly, by the time ToB was made, WotC no longer thought 3.5e fighter = 3.5e wizard.