Path of War maneuver errata and balancing

[Eldaran]

Hello everyone, since it seems Dreamscarred Press is never going to issue errata for Path of War, I thought I'd at least go through the maneuvers and try to fix them. Here's a link to my work (http://www.bpfindley.com/PoWErrata.html). In particular I tried to lower the damage on some powerful maneuvers (especially multi-attack ones), lessen some of the no-save effects, and improve some of the weaker maneuvers. Does anyone have feedback on these changes or have other suggested changes?

[Castilonium]

Your changes look spiffy to me, especially the nerfs to Broken Blade and Primal Fury :smallsmile:

A couple things, though. Smashing Shell (Iron Tortoise 4), how long does the daze last? Frenzy Strike (Primal Fury 3) and Primal Frenzy (Primal Fury 7) are multi-attack standard action strikes that have a big damage bonus, do you think they're fine?

And are you going to do the PoW:E disciplines as well?

[Eldaran]

Thanks. Good catch on Smashing Shell, I assume it should be 1 round.

As for Frenzy Strike and Primal Frenzy, they seem like they need the kind of wording Thrashing Dragon attacks have that caps wielded weapons at two. Primal Fury is one of the only disciplines I've never seen used because my group shied away from the ridiculous damage. Otherwise I think they come out on par with comparable maneuvers like the nerfed Steel Flurry Strike or Raging Whirlpool Strike from Mithral Current.

I do want to get to PoW:E eventually, though I found the balance to be a lot better outside of Elemental Flux and a few other things. The group I'm DMing has 2 Warlords and a Warblade (updated to PF) and I wanted to get this out before they started taking maneuvers that I knew needed to be nerfed.

[stack]

The official errata was in the works last I checked, don't know the time-frame.

[Eldaran]

The official errata has been in the works for well over a year now. I don't believe it's actually coming. I've run like 5 campaigns in the time in errata has been worked on, their empty promises doesn't do people actually playing the game a lot of good.

I added a limit on attacks to Frenzy Strike, Cornered Frenzy Strike, and Primal Frenzy which should put them on par with similar maneuvers. I'm not sure if the change to Cornered Frenzy Strike works well enough, you could still do some crazy things with like 7 natural weapons, but then again you could do that without a maneuver anyway.

[Shackel]

Some of the Broken Blade nerfs could use looking at:

There really isn't a point in nerfing Pugilist Stance. 2d6 extra damage is nothing compared to Broken Blade stance, Elemental Flux, Riven Hourglass and so on: by the time it's +2d6, it has to complete with the very powerful 3rd level stances that are meant to be the bread-and-butter of anyone who gets it. Though, oddly enough, according to the PFSRD this is already the case, so take that as you will.
Steel Flurry would not be worth looking at. It's just outclassed by nigh-on every 3rd level maneuver(even by your Errata'd Frenzy Strike) when all it does is give you +3d6 damage on Flurry Strike. At this point it would be better to just cut the extra damage and make it a three-strike on a standard. At best, one might expect it to be what you swap Flurry Strike for, but, why waste your maneuver swap on 6d6 damage maximum(and still at a -2 to hit)?
Iron Axe Kick probably doesn't need a nerf. Compare to the 3rd level Vicious Swipe on Thrashing Dragon and it's only a +3d6 increase in damage. Down to 5d6, maybe? But what is 3.5 damage?
Considering the similar maneuver of Dragon Rush which deals +3d6 damage as a 4th level maneuver, +6d6 on an extra attack as a boost seems solid enough for a 6th level maneuver. The maneuver has slight differences, but then the Flash Kick of TD is 2nd level. +2 to hit and +4d6 extra damage should be fine enough for a 4 maneuver level difference.

[Eldaran]

Some of the Broken Blade nerfs could use looking at:

There really isn't a point in nerfing Pugilist Stance. 2d6 extra damage is nothing compared to Broken Blade stance, Elemental Flux, Riven Hourglass and so on: by the time it's +2d6, it has to complete with the very powerful 3rd level stances that are meant to be the bread-and-butter of anyone who gets it. Though, oddly enough, according to the PFSRD this is already the case, so take that as you will.
Steel Flurry would not be worth looking at. It's just outclassed by nigh-on every 3rd level maneuver(even by your Errata'd Frenzy Strike) when all it does is give you +3d6 damage on Flurry Strike. At this point it would be better to just cut the extra damage and make it a three-strike on a standard. At best, one might expect it to be what you swap Flurry Strike for, but, why waste your maneuver swap on 6d6 damage maximum(and still at a -2 to hit)?
Iron Axe Kick probably doesn't need a nerf. Compare to the 3rd level Vicious Swipe on Thrashing Dragon and it's only a +3d6 increase in damage. Down to 5d6, maybe? But what is 3.5 damage?
Considering the similar maneuver of Dragon Rush which deals +3d6 damage as a 4th level maneuver, +6d6 on an extra attack as a boost seems solid enough for a 6th level maneuver. The maneuver has slight differences, but then the Flash Kick of TD is 2nd level. +2 to hit and +4d6 extra damage should be fine enough for a 4 maneuver level difference.


Uh... I didn't nerf Pugilist Stance, all I did was add scaling it lacked, so I buffed it.

Can you explain how Steel Flurry Strike is worse than Frenzy Strike? Assuming you're dual wielding light weapons for Frenzy Strike you're making two attacks at -2 to hit with +2d6 damage, exactly the same as Steel Flurry Strike except you had to spend a feat (two weapon fighting) to do it. Now, if you're in Battle Dragon Stance you're not taking the -2, but you can use Steel Flurry Strike with a two handed weapon, or get a damage bonus when unarmed, so it's still superior. That's also not counting the inherent +2 damage from using Broken Blade maneuvers with discipline weapons. Just shows how ridiculous Broken Blade was.

Upgrading a maneuver to get more dice of damage (Flurry to Steel Flurry) is prevalent throughout Path of War.

Iron Axe Kick dazes for 1d4 rounds on a failure, 2-3 rounds of daze can be a whole combat. Vicious Swipe had its daze duration toned down, but I decided to leave the daze duration on Iron Axe Kick since at least you need to invest in unarmed, but that's pretty easy for a lot of characters. Frankly, the excess of damage on Broken Blade (and other) maneuvers is a major problem. Why does something that can daze for 1d4 rounds need all that extra damage? If they fail that save they're dead anyway.

You're probably right about Finishing Kick, since it is pretty restrictive in when you can use it.

[Rynjin]

The official errata has been in the works for well over a year now. I don't believe it's actually coming. I've run like 5 campaigns in the time in errata has been worked on, their empty promises doesn't do people actually playing the game a lot of good.

Dreamscarred Press are a small team working on a lot of different projects. It understandably takes them a while to do things. Look how long PoW: Expanded was in development. And yet, it's out.

Plus in my opinion (and most others I know) not a whole lot of the PoW stuff urgently needs errata with the exception of Broken Blade's absurd damage. So it's on the backburner most likely.

Calling someone a liar because they haven't put everything on hold to work on the project you personally prefer is just petty.

[Mithril Leaf]

Dreamscarred Press are a small team working on a lot of different projects. It understandably takes them a while to do things. Look how long PoW: Expanded was in development. And yet, it's out.

Plus in my opinion (and most others I know) not a whole lot of the PoW stuff urgently needs errata with the exception of Broken Blade's absurd damage. So it's on the backburner most likely.

Calling someone a liar because they haven't put everything on hold to work on the project you personally prefer is just petty.

I mean DSP makes some great stuff and I do love them dearly, but I don't think I've ever seen any errata released by them.

[Ssalarn]

I mean DSP makes some great stuff and I do love them dearly, but I don't think I've ever seen any errata released by them.

They used to have a dedicated errata section on their old website, but it was devoured when they switched to a different host and I don't think it ever really got reinstated anywhere. Every now and then I get an update through DriveThruRPG when a specific release gets an errata update, but I think the biggest issue is that they have a really small staff and they're trying to keep the lights on, which means patreon projects and new releases will pretty much always get bumped ahead of errata on their priority list.

[Coretron03]

I am confused that you saw need to nerf bronze knuckle, so for one round you get the benifit of pulgist strike (other then piercing damage reduction) and the nerf doesn't really seem to make sense when its equal to pulgist strike.

[Sayt]

I don't myself think that the PoW errata is a false promise so much as lower than I'd like on DSP's priorites.

Anyway! I'ma just make a few comments where I differ from what you establish

Shards of iron Strike should have a save tacked on, IMHO.

Flurry strike does not need a -2 to hit, especially seeing as there is 1. a weapon type requirement, and 2. no such requirement put on Swift Claws.

I'm not sure if I agree with your FAQ for Broken Blade Stance, but I think I'll come down on 'sure'

Steel Flurry Strike: How about +3 attacks, +1d6 damage, additional +d6 if those attacks are UAS?

Iron Axe Kick: +6d6 is in parity with other 4th level single strike maneuvers with a rider, see Iron Lancet charge

Golden swipe, +6d6 seems to be the benchmark for lvl 4 maneuvers.

Primal Fury Charge maneuvers: I kinda think you're being a little harsh on these, considering they damage can't be multiplied. I don't honestly think they need the nerfs you're giving them

Primal Fury Frenzy Maneuvers: On one hand, I see where you're coming from, on the other hand, I think you're taking them in a direction which reminds me when Paizo makes something cool and then goes "EXCEPT you can only use it by spending three full rounds, and it only works one per year if performed on a full moon".

Battle Dragons stance: Why do you need to clarify "Fighting with two weapons"?

Twist and Frenzy: I honestly don't think the adjascent only is merited or necessary. I'd keep the natural weapon /UAS, but put them at -5 compared to the other attacks. This is also a better solution than was applied t the Primal Fury frenzy attacks, IMHO.

Deadly Dragon Strike: Not sure this one needed any changes, to be honest.

Ghostwalk: Magical weapons should be able to deal half-damage.


I am confused that you saw need to nerf bronze knuckle, so for one round you get the benifit of pugilist strike (other then piercing damage reduction) and the nerf doesn't really seem to make sense when its equal to pugilist strike.
Broken Blade had the problem of going "In Pugilist Stance, I activate Bronze Knuckle and Steel Flurry Strike, +3, +3, +3, 1d4+Str+6d6". And then you get feats

[phlidwsn]

They used to have a dedicated errata section on their old website, but it was devoured when they switched to a different host and I don't think it ever really got reinstated anywhere.

Not on their site, but I pulled a copy out of the wayback for the errata they had up and tossed it up here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lilIxKjGptaj0cDvz-TgHOTW9_LEk955aZ8sdtNGCV8/edit?usp=sharing) It covers mostly Ultimate Psionics material

[Eldaran]

I am confused that you saw need to nerf bronze knuckle, so for one round you get the benifit of pulgist strike (other then piercing damage reduction) and the nerf doesn't really seem to make sense when its equal to pulgist strike.

Ignoring DR is usually at least +5 damage, and it even ignores DR /- which is quite powerful. Most of the other ways to ignore DR are strikes, whereas being a boost means it can be combined with more powerful strikes, especially multi-attack strikes. I've DMed a number of Broken Blade users, and Bronze Knuckle is good from level 1 to level 20, even nerfed.




1) Shards of iron Strike should have a save tacked on, IMHO.

2) Flurry strike does not need a -2 to hit, especially seeing as there is 1. a weapon type requirement, and 2. no such requirement put on Swift Claws.

3) I'm not sure if I agree with your FAQ for Broken Blade Stance, but I think I'll come down on 'sure'

4) Steel Flurry Strike: How about +3 attacks, +1d6 damage, additional +d6 if those attacks are UAS?

5) Iron Axe Kick: +6d6 is in parity with other 4th level single strike maneuvers with a rider, see Iron Lancet charge

6) Golden swipe, +6d6 seems to be the benchmark for lvl 4 maneuvers.

7) Primal Fury Charge maneuvers: I kinda think you're being a little harsh on these, considering they damage can't be multiplied. I don't honestly think they need the nerfs you're giving them

8) Primal Fury Frenzy Maneuvers: On one hand, I see where you're coming from, on the other hand, I think you're taking them in a direction which reminds me when Paizo makes something cool and then goes "EXCEPT you can only use it by spending three full rounds, and it only works one per year if performed on a full moon".

9) Battle Dragons stance: Why do you need to clarify "Fighting with two weapons"?

10) Twist and Frenzy: I honestly don't think the adjascent only is merited or necessary. I'd keep the natural weapon /UAS, but put them at -5 compared to the other attacks. This is also a better solution than was applied t the Primal Fury frenzy attacks, IMHO.

11) Deadly Dragon Strike: Not sure this one needed any changes, to be honest.

12) Ghostwalk: Magical weapons should be able to deal half-damage.


1) Good idea.

2) Swift Claws does have a -2 to hit, because you're dual wielding, and it requires you to spend a feat or otherwise gain Two Weapon Fighting. The restrictions on weapons for Broken Blade is largely meaningless since you get +2 damage, which puts them on par with some of the best weapons. Also you can two hand a weapon with Flurry Strike, it easily outdamages Swift Claws even with the -2.

4) I'm concerned that still makes it the most damaging of any level 3 maneuver. Even my nerfed version might still be the best, unless you're fighting an enemy with very high AC. The inherent synergy of multi-hit maneuvers with stances and boosts is very powerful, as well as their ability to do partial damage making them more effective against enemies that die in one hit.

5) Knocked prone is not remotely comparable to 1d4 rounds of daze. Daze is an extremely powerful condition that few things have immunity to (though being a fort save does balance that some). A maneuver that imposes up to 4 rounds of daze honestly does not need any bonus damage at all, if they fail that save they're pretty much toast.

6) The Swipe maneuvers are deceptively powerful. If you get at least one ally to make the opp attack you're going to outdamage most other maneuvers, let alone if you get two or more allies. I've seen them used to great effect, they really do not need as much extra damage.

7) This is tough to say, I haven't had much experience with Primal Fury, but charge already has inherent advantages that make it pretty strong. Also I play 3.P so Leap Attack is a feat I have to balance around. It's possible that for most groups these nerfs are excessive.

8) I don't think it's bad as all that. The problem with leaving it uncapped leads to a huge imbalance between the baseline assumption (two weapons) vs the optimized version (using many weapons and natural weapons). In particular with the standard action ones, they don't really need to have that massive potential damage.

9) Dreamscarred themselves said that "fighting with two weapons" needs to be defined, since a lot of people believe that you just need to be holding two weapons to get the bonuses. I decided to extend the benefit to any Thrashing Dragon maneuvers, to make the non multi-attack ones more appealing.

10) Most of the other whirlwind maneuvers attack adjacent enemies, other than maybe the Primal Fury ones, which kind of makes sense given that Primal Fury users want to be very big. Without the unarmed attack they do similar damage to other whirlwind maneuvers from Primal Fury, Mithral Current, Riven Hourglass, etc. I don't really see why they need the additional bonus on top.

11) I changed all the save or die maneuvers, I don't like them and Pathfinder got rid of most of that stuff as well.

12) I believe my change to the incorporeal maneuvers is only a clarification, but the rules don't quite spell out what happens when someone with weapons goes incorporeal though it seems strongly implied that they don't do normal weapon damage. I think it works out ok because Veiled Moon has a number of maneuvers that don't do weapon damage, so this synergizes well with them. Also the benefits of incorporeal for utility (walking through walls, etc) is immense.

[Forrestfire]

Hey, I got linked this thread and I felt like it might be a good idea to step in and say “hi.” I’m mostly here to help shed a light on the Path of War errata project.

Some other posters in this thread have touched on various reasons for this delay, so I won’t restate them in full. The combination of having a small team, a large project scope, and writers having their own obligations such as jobs, school, and hospitalization have slowed it.

But overall, it is coming. I can sympathize with the impatience here; the PoW errata has been a long, arduous project that’s just as frustrating for us on our end as it is to you all as a customer and player of the game. We’re working on it, and hope to get it released to the public as soon as humanly possible.

However, I have some requests and clarifications I’d like to make, speaking as a company voice, instead of a personal one:


Eldaran, we would like to ask you to prominently indicate that this is an unofficial work neither endorsed nor vetted by Dreamscarred Press. An adjustment to the thread title and a disclaimer in the top post, likewise in the doc filename and at the beginning of the doc as well. It is important to us that this is clear, firstly because you are balancing with 3.5 in mind and that is not an ecosystem we publish for, and secondly because one of the things that has delayed the errata in significant ways is the need to very carefully balance the needs and preferences of different segments of the audience. It’s impossible for DSP to officially vet your work (both because of this different ecosystem, and the staff/manpower issues), so while you can certainly make your own house rules and we encourage making changes for your own games, we have to consider many different playstyles, and we do not want anyone with playstyles different from yours to get the wrong impression about Path of War based on your work.

We recommend using the following disclaimer, to help make it fully clear:
“This is an unofficial errata incorporating and balancing around aspects of D&D 3.5 as well as the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. The views and opinions expressed in this project are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Dreamscarred Press, nor do they imply a collaboration with or endorsement by Dreamscarred Press.”


While DSP did used to have that page for errata on the old site as phlidwsn noted, most of the errata that we’ve put out (which we occasionally have; I’ve written a lot of it myself) hasn’t been with fanfare, but as updates to the individual PDFs and some notes about what changed. When the Path of War errata is finally a thing, we’ll be releasing it separately for a playtest of it, so that will be way more visible and publicized.


There’s a couple things I’d say are worth including in any errata for PoW, official or otherwise, that I’m gonna share from our own files right here. A few places in the rules function super unintuitively, particularly the definition of fighting with two weapons, and the way Acrobatics for jumping functions.




Additional Special Rules
Some maneuvers allow the initiator to perform actions that they may not be able to, or interact differently with the basic rules for combat.
Acrobatic Movement: Whenever a maneuver calls for an Acrobatics check to jump or otherwise move, the initiator can move the distance indicated by their roll as part of the action of the maneuver, regardless of how far they have moved this turn.
Two-Weapon Fighting: Some maneuvers allow the initiator to attack with multiple weapons. Unless otherwise noted, the initiator does not take the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons (as they are not gaining additional attacks during a full attack), and does not gain any benefits they might have normally gained when fighting with two weapons. Any maneuver that specifically imposes penalties for fighting with two weapons does gain such benefits, however.

(In the latter case, we’ll be making sure to specifically note which maneuvers and abilities care about those penalties. “You get a free unarmed strike” isn’t something we want to penalize heavily, but “you stab with multiple swords” is.)

[Eldaran]

But overall, it is coming. I can sympathize with the impatience here; the PoW errata has been a long, arduous project that’s just as frustrating for us on our end as it is to you all as a customer and player of the game. We’re working on it, and hope to get it released to the public as soon as humanly possible.

Here is the first time (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19002340&postcount=1161) I asked about errata for Path of War 21 months ago. ErrantX said it would be posted that week. That's pretty darn late don't you think? Here a month later (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19159838&postcount=30)ErrantX says that they have extra people working with them and are actively collecting the errata. A month after that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19241457&postcount=828) I ask again and get told by a different PoW developer (there sure are a lot of them not making errata) that it's being worked on. A month or so later (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19467862&postcount=333) ErrantX talks about the list of errata they have and says once PoW:E is out they'll be posting a thread about the errata. Here one of the developers says (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19843713&postcount=1476) that the errata is going to be their next release, which we know for sure is a lie. A whole year of nothing passes and I ask once more (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20474010&postcount=613) and get told patience patience patience. They could have just started a thread and let the community do all the work for them.

So... I've given up on DSP and am trying to do your work for you, because even if the errata does come out at this point, it's only because you get embarrassed into doing it.



Eldaran, we would like to ask you to prominently indicate that this is an unofficial work neither endorsed nor vetted by Dreamscarred Press. An adjustment to the thread title and a disclaimer in the top post, likewise in the doc filename and at the beginning of the doc as well. It is important to us that this is clear, firstly because you are balancing with 3.5 in mind and that is not an ecosystem we publish for, and secondly because one of the things that has delayed the errata in significant ways is the need to very carefully balance the needs and preferences of different segments of the audience. It’s impossible for DSP to officially vet your work (both because of this different ecosystem, and the staff/manpower issues), so while you can please yourself and we encourage making changes for your own games, we have to consider many different playstyles, and we do not want anyone with playstyles different from yours to get the wrong impression about Path of War based on your work.

The core rulebook of Pathfinder talks about how it is backwards compatible with 3.5 stuff. I'm playing Pathfinder, we just use some 3.5 content in it, which is quite common so maybe you should consider that. Ultimately my work is for me and my group, because that's the only balance point I have. It's certainly not coming from DSP after all.

Edit: Also, I state in the very first sentence that I'm not DSP.

[Powerdork]

Also, I state in the very first sentence that I'm not DSP.

http://i.imgur.com/hseCudM.png

http://i.imgur.com/AlyKXSE.png

Which first sentence, sorry?

[Coretron03]

I thought that first one pretty clearly implies the fact he is not them as he says They don't seem to be releasing a errata document.

[Mehangel]

Also, I state in the very first sentence that I'm not DSP.

You dont have to get defensive about it, DSP isn't asking that you remove your document or anything dramatic like that. All they are asking is that you copy and past the following disclaimer into your first thread post and document:


“This is an unofficial errata incorporating and balancing around aspects of D&D 3.5 as well as the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. The views and opinions expressed in this project are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Dreamscarred Press, nor do they imply a collaboration with or endorsement by Dreamscarred Press.”

[zergling.exe]

I thought that first one pretty clearly implies the fact he is not them as he says They don't seem to be releasing a errata document.

DSP may not be yet, but to viewers, maybe Eldaran is doing it for them in some official capacity which he isn't. DSP just wants it to be made crystal clear that this project is in no way supported by them.

[Eldaran]

You dont have to get defensive about it, DSP isn't asking that you remove your document or anything dramatic like that. All they are asking is that you copy and past the following disclaimer into your first thread post and document:

I'm not defensive, I just don't see any reason. I make no claim that I work for Dreamscarred Press, and there's no reason to assume I do. The page on my website is intended for my players, so I definitely don't need to put any disclaimer on it. I wanted to solicit feedback because I know a lot of people here play with PoW, and anyone who has used PoW probably sees at least some need for errata.

Frankly this whole discussion is pointless, this is not the official DSP forums. The only thing we need to be discussing is the changes to maneuvers.

[zergling.exe]

I'm not defensive, I just don't see any reason. I make no claim that I work for Dreamscarred Press, and there's no reason to assume I do. The page on my website is intended for my players, so I definitely don't need to put any disclaimer on it. I wanted to solicit feedback because I know a lot of people here play with PoW, and anyone who has used PoW probably sees at least some need for errata.

Frankly this whole discussion is pointless, this is not the official DSP forums. The only thing we need to be discussing is the changes to maneuvers.

Think of this: someone creates a duplicate of your document. They then share it with a friend, who shares it with a friend. Now these later people don't know who made the document originally and may assume it is an official DSP document. That is the problem with not putting in the disclaimer when you make the document publicly available like this.

[Castilonium]

I noticed something else while working on my guide. Iron Defender's Riposte (Iron Tortoise 7) doesn't list a duration for its daze effect.

[Powerdork]

I noticed something else while working on my guide. Iron Defender's Riposte (Iron Tortoise 7) doesn't list a duration for its daze effect.

Mind that the dazed condition suggests its own default duration and this isn't automatically dysfunctional, per Appendix 2: Conditions:
Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.

[Eldaran]

But there are many maneuvers that do list a 1 round daze duration, and two that don't. It's just inconsistent, so they should have a duration listed.