How balanced is "Path of War"?(Dreamscarred Press)

[Togath]

Now first off, I'm not looking for hut reaction type opinions. I've seen a lot both way, and heard many arguments for and against the systems, sometimes form the same people at different times.
What I'm more curious about is... Well, how it actually stacks up mechanically.
For the purposes of this thread, I'm including books 1 and 2(Since both are on pfsrd.com (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war) now), and the classes and archetypes within.
I'm also assuming no 15 minute "burn all spells asap and sleep" type adventuring days, and prepared casters not being perfectly prepared for the challenges they might face(if nothing else, if the players can prepare exactly the right spells when they need them, the GM is either letting them read their notes or doing an intentionally one-solution-to-the-puzzle type of deal). Buuut I'm also not assuming "blaster" is the only way to play a caster either.
How you feel about the fluff is also not what I'm looking for since that can be viewed, twisted, tweaked, and interpreted a thousand different ways.

So with that wall-o-disclaimers out of the way, what do people think of the system from a mechanical standpoint? Do any classes(or archetypes, either for the new classes or Paizo ones) or schools of maneuvers stand out as particularly well balanced or poorly balanced?

[legomaster00156]

Well, what are you balancing against? If balanced against wizards and clerics, you'll find that most initiators contribute in smaller amounts, but more frequently, especially in regards to damage. If balanced against core fighters and rangers, you will find that most initiators will have both a higher floor and a higher ceiling, and will thus likely obsolete those classes.

[Togath]

"an average party". An even mix of stuff. "the options available". In other words.
Not any specific class. Just "how does being able to do [x] compare to the options(ranger, wizard, vigilante, occultist, bard, etc) available from 1st party content?"
So including but not limited to core content. A skinwalker vigilante using psychic magic is as valid as a human fighter for this discussion.

[Anlashok]

They will wholly eclipse traditional martials in basically all ways, far beyond the 3.5 iteration if you're familiar with tome of battle (as unlike TOB classes they also tend to be better than regular martials at damage too). If the class doesn't have spellcasting it's very hard to justify in a game with PoW content.

But I find they play fairly nicely with moderately well built 6th level casters and well build casters. The latter can be a bit trickier, because full casters tend to have a much wider optimization range than 6th level casters or initiators.


One of the big things to remember when dealing with balance is that initiators tend to have a very high floor. So even if their ceiling ends up being beneath many other classes, it tends to make them look dramatically more powerful than anyone else if your group isn't optimized very well. Similar to how shocking grasp magi or kinetiicsts tend to look very scary in inexperienced groups.



On potential changes, I will say that there's really no reason the initiating archetypes for non intiating classes should be stuck with the 6th level maneuver schedule they're on. They're generally already worse than pure initiators anyways, so I suggest giving them full progression.

[legomaster00156]

I'll just offer a few ideas of how they stack up against classic martials.

Fighter vs. Warlord: The Fighter, unless specifically built for one purpose, will often be outshined by the Warlord on every front. The Warlord has far more options, both personal and support, and will almost always have more utility outside of combat as well.
Paladin vs. Warder: The closest match-up I could find. Paladins will likely beat out the Warder in raw damage, as well as having the ability to heal themselves and allies. On the other hand, the Warder is a dedicated tank, and does its job extremely well. The Warder is proficient with stopping a foe's attack before it harms their allies, or else absorbing the blow themselves with their d12 HD.
UnRogue vs. Stalker: The Unchained Rogue will feature prominently when it comes to outright damage, and it will have a good few more skill points to throw around compared to the Stalker. The Stalker will have better Will saves, and a couple utility abilities to throw around. While their version of "Sneak Attack" is inferior, the Stalker will be able to make up for it with damaging maneuvers. With access to Veiled Moon, the Stalker will probably have superior mobility.

[Sayt]

At low levels they are capable of dramatically (and pointlessly) high damage, but as you start to work past level 6 or so, I think generally they will fall roughly in line with 'modern' martials (Unchained classes, Fighters with Advanced Trainings, 6th level spellcasters)

[Togath]

Very interesting input so far... definitely sound like there's usually a low level spike, but that it evens out after 3-6 levels.
Is there much difference between the book 1 and 2 content?

[Castilonium]

If you play a PoW class like a normal Paizo martial, I.E. using full attacks every round for maximum damage, it will be better in every way compared to a Paizo martial, since PoW classes often have better mobility and utility. See, they can increase the damage of their full attacks with stances and boosts. The damage disparity of PoW classes vs Paizo martials does not even out at any level, because stances and boosts are just that good. Warlords, Stalkers, Mystics, and Harbingers have an optimal playstyle when doing full attacks. Only Warders and Zealots really have significant benefits when not doing full attacks, and that's why I like Zealots enough to make an entire guide about them.

The two books are pretty much the same in terms of content, but PoW:E has better editing, polish, and consistency in its discipline structure. PoW:E's disciplines have stances at levels 3, 5, 6, and 8, whereas in the first book, they could be at just about any level, making stance progression awkward. The first book also has Broken Blade and Primal Fury, widely considered to be too powerful compared to other disciplines. Elemental Flux in PoW:E borders on being too powerful, but isn't as egregious as Broken Blade or Primal Fury.

[Rainshine]

More options. Some nice debuff/trick/guardian focused disciplines. I like it. And it doesn't have Primal Fury, so it's probably less deadly than the base PoW.

[Tuvarkz]

I'll just offer a few ideas of how they stack up against classic martials.

UnRogue vs. Stalker: The Unchained Rogue will feature prominently when it comes to outright damage, and it will have a good few more skill points to throw around compared to the Stalker. The Stalker will have better Will saves, and a couple utility abilities to throw around. While their version of "Sneak Attack" is inferior, the Stalker will be able to make up for it with damaging maneuvers. With access to Veiled Moon, the Stalker will probably have superior mobility.

Would disagree on this front. Stalker can easily outdamage Unrogue, particularly with the right disciplines.

To note, the Broken Blade discipline is far overtuned on damage, and so is Thrashing Dragon at higher levels. Primal Fury can go crazy with natural attack builds. A few of the other disciplines have some overtuned maneuvers, but it's not a trait of the entire discpline. Eflux is overtuned, but on available options rather than sheer damage (it's strong on that aspect too).
Oh, and attrition is not really a thing unless you can consistently deal an initiator unavoidable damage and he doesn't have any healing maneuvers at hand.

[Coretron03]

Broken blad is hella disicpline for damage, it gives a flat +2 to damage, a level 1 stance that gives 1d6 more damage and has a level 1 manuaver that makes 2 attacks as a standard action means at level 1 (with unarmed strikes!) you are looking at 1d3+1d6+6 all day with the potential to double it once/encounter or do some other stuff like auto stagger the opponent. Pretty decent and even though a fighter could have 2d6+6 with ease you have a much better burst thats on a per encounter basis and if they were using some weapon other then unarmed strikes it would put them further then the fighter for all damage all day becacause you don't need to spend your feat on improved unarmed strike and

[exelsisxax]

"balance" depends on the gameplay style.

The 15 minute adventuring day you mention is important, as it can significantly change how POW options perform. If the party stops every time a caster runs out of any spell slot level, you basically turned all your casters into per-encounter casters and shifted balance in favor of those types of abilities. POW classes will not seem very powerful. If, on the other hand, the adventuring day is a slog through many different and varied obstacles that quickly drain party resources with no opportunities to rest, POW classes will be more relatively powerful because everything refreshes in 10 minutes or less. It's not a huge difference, but it matters.

The other really important factor is party optimization. Simply, no POW class even approaches Tier 1. A well-built wizard will never feel outclassed by a POW class. However, if your party contains no optimizers, POW classes will appear to be overpowered in many respects. POW classes are somewhat idiot proof, because there's a strict set of maneuvers to choose from and very few trap options per discipline. A cleric on the other hand has dozens of trap options, but may also prepare good spells that happen to be worthless that day. POW classes have a very sturdy floor that many paizo counterparts lack. You never run out of maneuvers, all the classes have a good chassis, stances last forever, and most of them have more skill points and class skills. To the "what do you mean, there are non-damage spells?" kind of player, POW will seem OP.

But really it's balanced better than paizo stuff. Fighters being invalidated is because fighters suck, not because POW is unbalanced. It's the same with ultimate psionics.

[mistermysterio]

If you are allowing PoW in your game, you probably want to push people away from fighters, standard rogues, monks, and rangers. Many of the non-base-class martials can hold their own, but people playing one of those base classes in a game with DSP material will often feel like their character isn't contributing.

[Florian]

There is no easy answer to this. The core balance assumption is based on the number of encounters before a rest, so the core classes are pretty much balanced when an infinite number of encounters is the base assumption, as the resource handling changes to be more maintenance friendly and keep the at-will classes at peak performance.

With PoW classes, this changes to how long each encounter is and how many participants there are. The "per encounter" mechanics offer a higher ceiling as well as a sharp drop, should individual encounters take long enough to exhaust their abilities, then they perform lower than your regular classes.

[mistermysterio]

There is no easy answer to this. The core balance assumption is based on the number of encounters before a rest, so the core classes are pretty much balanced when an infinite number of encounters is the base assumption, as the resource handling changes to be more maintenance friendly and keep the at-will classes at peak performance.

With PoW classes, this changes to how long each encounter is and how many participants there are. The "per encounter" mechanics offer a higher ceiling as well as a sharp drop, should individual encounters take long enough to exhaust their abilities, then they perform lower than your regular classes.

Which mechanics are you referring to? most of their abilities are refreshed fairly easily (i.e. warlords refresh most of their maneuvers with a successful gambit). Only a few abilities are limited in their per day uses (i.e. the warlord's ability to use 2 boosts at once).

[Florian]

Which mechanics are you referring to? most of their abilities are refreshed fairly easily (i.e. warlords refresh most of their maneuvers with a successful gambit). Only a few abilities are limited in their per day uses (i.e. the warlord's ability to use 2 boosts at once).

Most abilities work with the maneuvers known/readied mechanic and can be used per encounter before a refresh is necessary.

That in turn changes how "balanced" things are in a given individual encounter. You basic 10th level Harbinger can activate some 6 maneuvers before "being empty" and performing lower than one of the "at-will" classes, but before that point, to has a higher ceiling than those, after that point they perform even lower compared to the higher tier classes, and so on.

[mistermysterio]

Most abilities work with the maneuvers known/readied mechanic and can be used per encounter before a refresh is necessary.

That in turn changes how "balanced" things are in a given individual encounter. You basic 10th level Harbinger can activate some 6 maneuvers before "being empty" and performing lower than one of the "at-will" classes, but before that point, to has a higher ceiling than those, after that point they perform even lower compared to the higher tier classes, and so on.

True to a point, but all of the initiator classes have decent ways to gain those maneuvers back (and thus rarely get empty). For example, a warlord who has expended most of her maneuvers can use a gambit, say deadeye, and gain back all but the maneuvers she used this turn... and gain temporary hit points to boot. A level 6 bushi-archetype can gain back maneuvers every turn by sheathing her weapon (mixed combat). In the harbinger example, she can regain expended maneuvers by claiming enemies or, if one of her claimed enemies dies, she can regain maneuvers up to her initiation modifier. Against a single strong enemy, a harbinger might be disadvantaged late in the fight though.

[exelsisxax]

Most abilities work with the maneuvers known/readied mechanic and can be used per encounter before a refresh is necessary.

That in turn changes how "balanced" things are in a given individual encounter. You basic 10th level Harbinger can activate some 6 maneuvers before "being empty" and performing lower than one of the "at-will" classes, but before that point, to has a higher ceiling than those, after that point they perform even lower compared to the higher tier classes, and so on.

No, not at all. Harbingers recovery 1 maneuver as a swift action by claiming, or initiation modifiers maneuvers if a claimed creature is downed. You're a failure if you run out of maneuvers as a harbinger. You might run out of good ones or useful ones for certain situations, but you'll never have 0.

edit: stalker'd.

[Florian]

No, not at all. Harbingers recovery 1 maneuver as a swift action by claiming, or initiation modifiers maneuvers if a claimed creature is downed. You're a failure if you run out of maneuvers as a harbinger. You might run out of good ones or useful ones for certain situations, but you'll never have 0.

edit: stalker'd.

As with playing other classes with recovery mechanics, you can not base any assumption on them working any time or at all.

[squiggit]

Harbingers can struggle a bit to recover maneuvers in an encounter with a small number of exceptionally tanky enemies. Though Pathfinder is usually a fairly rocket taggy game.


Stalkers and Warders have the issue of being stuck with full round action recovery, which sucks. Stalkers especially, by far the worst recovery mechanic in the book.

Warlords, Mystics and Zealots though can keep going forever. Though I guess Zealots would run into trouble if they're alone.

[Florian]

Harbingers can struggle a bit to recover maneuvers in an encounter with a small number of exceptionally tanky enemies. Though Pathfinder is usually a fairly rocket taggy game.


Stalkers and Warders have the issue of being stuck with full round action recovery, which sucks. Stalkers especially, by far the worst recovery mechanic in the book.

Warlords, Mystics and Zealots though can keep going forever. Though I guess Zealots would run into trouble if they're alone.

Let me ask you a simple question: When talking about the potential merits and flaws of a casting class, do you keep pearls of power/pearls of puissance in mind, and if yes, how many of them?

See, that is the issue when trying to take recovery mechanics into account, which simple can not work out in any reasonable way.

[exelsisxax]

As with playing other classes with recovery mechanics, you can not base any assumption on them working any time or at all.

Yes, you can. Mystics literally cannot ever have no maneuvers readied, and by extension warpath followers. Everyone else except the stalker has highly reliable and useful recovery mechanics. Outside of combat, maneuvers aren't expended at all. There is no situation where you can wish you had maneuvers readied and also be unable to ready them.

[mistermysterio]

Let me ask you a simple question: When talking about the potential merits and flaws of a casting class, do you keep pearls of power/pearls of puissance in mind, and if yes, how many of them?

See, that is the issue when trying to take recovery mechanics into account, which simple can not work out in any reasonable way.

They're fairly different. Pearls require you to go out and buy them. Recovery mechanics in PoW are built in to the concepts of the classes. Having a warlord who has a charisma modifier of ~6 (3 from a headband and 3 from having a cha of 16 is reasonable) could use a brave gambit and charge an opponent with a +6 to his charge attack from his cha, and another +2 from the charge itself... so a +8 to hit (pretty hefty on a melee class). Assuming he hits, he would gain back 6 expended maneuvers and +6 to damage on the next attack for the warlord and his allies. EVEN if the warlord fails, he gains back 1 maneuver.

The recovery mechanics in PoW are built in to the classes themselves and most of them are pretty easy to utilize (though some are admittedly better than others)... either way, I think making the assumption that a PoW class gets worse as a battle progresses because you supposedly can't rely on recovery mechanics is not really logical.

[Florian]

*Shrugs*

You know, guys, you make it worse right now...

[Tuvarkz]

To boot, even in the situation where an initiator can't recover his maneuvers and has run out of strikes, the damage bonuses from the stance can still make for a very nasty full attack.

[Togath]

Very interesting so far.:smallsmile:

What effect would it have on PoW 1/2 classes(and archetypes) if their maneuver recovery was slower/more limited?

[mistermysterio]

Very interesting so far.:smallsmile:

What effect would it have on PoW 1/2 classes(and archetypes) if their maneuver recovery was slower/more limited?

Then they would be weaker in longer fights, but stronger in shorter fights... basically what Florian implied initially. However, in longer fights, as long as they are near their targets they are still fairly effective with full round attacks using a decent stance.

[DungeonDelver]

The recovery mechanics are engineered in a way where a PoW character will have maneuvers to use on most of their turns. Even in cases where they somehow don't, their stances keep their overall effectiveness pretty high. They're simply not going to have an issue with stamina like a caster can.

Initiators have flexibility and power over mundane martial classes. They just plain do. Depending on the specific builds and maneuvers a warlord might, say, lose a damage contest to a fighter, but for versatility and flexibility, there simply is no competition.

That's not because the warlord is OP, but because the fighter just isn't as good.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

In my experience, initiators tend to be slightly better at first level when compared to other martials because of a combination of the various '+1d6 damage' level 1 maneuvers, plus early level combat in general being very swingy. That, and some of the more efficient playstyles don't hit their stride until later levels.

[Ualaa]

With the Path of War options, martial types are a lot closer to casters as far as balance goes than a non-PoW martial character is.
The martial character still isn't at the level of a half decent optimized caster, but the disparity is a lot less, which makes balancing encounters a lot easier since the average level of capability is similar across the party.
With non-PoW martials in the mix, balance is less or the disparity is greater between half optimized casters and the martial characters... and at higher levels, the casters carry the party with the martials doing little besides eating hits.

[Togath]

That's not because the warlord is OP, but because the fighter just isn't as good.

What about in comparison to a more recent first party martial, like an avenger vigilante?(or skald, or investigator)

[Tuvarkz]

What about in comparison to a more recent first party martial, like an avenger vigilante?(or skald, or investigator)

The skald and the investigator are around the same level, the vigilante is a bit behind but as close as it gets from Paizo martials.
Also-regarding tinkering with the maneuver recovery-I'd reccomend against it, have yet to see an attempt at nerfing it that is decently made.

[Florian]

What about in comparison to a more recent first party martial, like an avenger vigilante?(or skald, or investigator)

Tough question, as the older material, especially the Fighter, also got some very serious love - see WMH/AMH or Unchained.

It comes down to adventureand encounter design and how close you stick to basic monsters and ECL calculations.
Right now, it's hardto not create a build that is able to defeat a standard encounter under standard conditions (like presented in APs). With classes like the Skald, which has so many indiviual powers, it's morethe question of what kind of encounter they can do when allowed to go nova on it

[exelsisxax]

What about in comparison to a more recent first party martial, like an avenger vigilante?(or skald, or investigator)

Basically everything PoW is tier 3-4. All primary initiators are T3, along with basically every paizo 6/9 caster. If you optimize well, you can push them up to the bottom of tier 2, as you can with several paizo classes if you build them right.

There is no situation where PoW will actually unbalance your game. A warlord doesn't make a fighter useless, he was already useless because of the druid. The balance issue is core, not DSP. Using their materials might accidentally flood all the players to T3 as a bonus, though.

[dude123nice]

Basically everything PoW is tier 3-4. All primary initiators are T3, along with basically every paizo 6/9 caster. If you optimize well, you can push them up to the bottom of tier 2, as you can with several paizo classes if you build them right.

There is no situation where PoW will actually unbalance your game. A warlord doesn't make a fighter useless, he was already useless because of the druid. The balance issue is core, not DSP. Using their materials might accidentally flood all the players to T3 as a bonus, though.

I think Warders and maybe even Harbingers are more like a Tier 4 classes that are so hyper focused on combat that they can beat most Tier 3 classes. All PoW classes have good damage and a lot of tactical options, but out of combat most of them can contribute only through skills and a handful of maneuvers.

[exelsisxax]

I think Warders and maybe even Harbingers are more like a Tier 4 classes that are so hyper focused on combat that they can beat most Tier 3 classes. All PoW classes have good damage and a lot of tactical options, but out of combat most of them can contribute only through skills and a handful of maneuvers.

Harbingers i think are low T3, but not strong T3/borderline T2 like a good zealot. Warders are definitely a prototypical T3. The sheet amount of "you can't do anything to my allies while they win" is a form of utility that eve most full casters struggle to match, while being otherwise slightly tougher fighters.

[Togath]

So I'm seeing WMH and AMH thrown around...
What do they stand for? And what do they do to improve stuff?

[digiman619]

So I'm seeing WMH and AMH thrown around...
What do they stand for? And what do they do to improve stuff?

They stand for Weapon Master's Handbook and Armor Master's Handbook. They provide a whole bunch of options for fighters to swap out slight numerical bonuses from their armor mastery and weapon mastery class features for actually worthwhile things. Seriously, look up "Muscle Mage", which lets a fighter essentially be a CON based caster.

[dude123nice]

Harbingers i think are low T3, but not strong T3/borderline T2 like a good zealot. Warders are definitely a prototypical T3. The sheet amount of "you can't do anything to my allies while they win" is a form of utility that eve most full casters struggle to match, while being otherwise slightly tougher fighters.

Being able to protect alies is still only useful in combat. It doesn't matter how many useful things Harbinger and Warder can do in combat, if they can barely contribute outside of it they don't really qualify for Tier 3, despite how good they are at fighting.

[Florian]

So I'm seeing WMH and AMH thrown around...
What do they stand for? And what do they do to improve stuff?

Weapon Master / Armor Master Handbook and they basically reworked the basic Fighter framework to swap and exchange individual small packages, like using BAB for bonus skills, ability to get some SLA that cover those things most often cited as lacking, from flight to teleport, as well as finally giving an option for scaling weapon damage. Tangentially, this and some material from Ultimate Intrigue has the tendency to actually favour Fighters that have a higher CHA.

Overall, the changes are well done, especially because you're open to use as few or many of them as fits your comfort level.

But: It's still your basic Fighter and does not change that you'll charge and then spam Full Attacks instead of using mobility and maneuvers, what you get instead is more riders and triggers to work with (ex: free dirty trick after charging or using AoO, blinding maneuver when böocking with a shield, and so on)


Being able to protect alies is still only useful in combat. It doesn't matter how many useful things Harbinger and Warder can do in combat, if they can barely contribute outside of it they don't really qualify for Tier 3, despite how good they are at fighting.

As always, answering a simple question works as a fine lackmustest here: "Do you want to play that character or is it better as your leadership cohort?"

[Elricaltovilla]

When tiering PoW classes, you have to remember that all PoW classes can swap out up to 2 disciplines with almost no investment, or pick up specific maneuvers with lots of utility for the cost of a feat. And that maneuvers are useable outside of combat.