Dreamscarred Press - Path of War Expanded! (Thread VII)

[Lord_Gareth]

Another question, do initiator classes get the particular group of disciplines they do for the sake of balance or is it just to create thematic packages? Aside from archetypes there seems to be two ways to swap the schools you have access to: 1) a martial tradition which each character can only take one of and 2) the Unorthodox Method trait which can also only be taken once and requires one of your two traits. Is this necessary for balance or is the trait there as a backdoor when you have a DM too stingy with house rules to just let you swap for the disciplines you want?

Let's go with, "Yes."

The various Disciplines assigned to each class were assigned both to help it with the role we advertised (control, defense, leadership, etc) and to dovetail with the class's themes. In some cases, like harbinger or zealot, chunks of their disciplines were made specifically for that class and were tagged on to it because, as a result, they fit really well.

Discipline swaps were installed both because there was a demand for them and out of recognition of the fact that one of the great strengths of PF is being able to take something that advertises itself one way and turn it into a completely different thing or set of things. That in mind, you only really get enough maneuvers to invest in two and a half discs, three and a half if you sink feats into Martial Training & Advanced Study (not sure why you would, but you can). What is it you're staring down that makes you feel like you need more?

[Da Beast]

Let's go with, "Yes."

The various Disciplines assigned to each class were assigned both to help it with the role we advertised (control, defense, leadership, etc) and to dovetail with the class's themes. In some cases, like harbinger or zealot, chunks of their disciplines were made specifically for that class and were tagged on to it because, as a result, they fit really well.

Discipline swaps were installed both because there was a demand for them and out of recognition of the fact that one of the great strengths of PF is being able to take something that advertises itself one way and turn it into a completely different thing or set of things. That in mind, you only really get enough maneuvers to invest in two and a half discs, three and a half if you sink feats into Martial Training & Advanced Study (not sure why you would, but you can). What is it you're staring down that makes you feel like you need more?

It's not that I need more disciplines but that I want to know if its a balance concern to grab whichever disciplines I like to build my character a certain way (within reason, as you've pointed out some disciplines are very much made for a particular class). I'm also wondering about only being able to invest in 2.5 or so disciplines, even the classes with the fewest number of maneuvers and stances known end up with 16 maneuvers and 7 stances by level 20, totaling 23 to divvy up between various disciplines. Unless I'm missing something all ninth level maneuvers require 4 maneuvers of their discipline as prereqs so in order to take any maneuver/stance in the school you have to invest 5 into it by level 20 (4 if the permissive swapping I was wondering about in my last two posts is allowed, can I get a ruling on that? I don't know where to find the original customer service ruling for Tome of Battle, it might have been taken down with the rest of the 3.5 archives). This should allow even the classes with fewer maneuvers (Warder, Harbinger, and Zealot) to invest into 4 disciplines without using any feats and maybe cherry pick a few through mid levels in a fifth discipline if they plan their progression very carefully (this is possible, I've built Warblade progressions that can fit 9th level maneuvers from iron heart, diamond mind, and tiger claw with an 8th level stance from white raven and warblade only gets 13 maneuvers and 4 stances, 6 less than the least versatile initiators in Path of War).

As for the character I want to build, I'm trying to make a desperado warlord for an Iron Gods game. She's supposed to be an Ulfin raid captain archer who found a rifle in the alien wreckage of Numeria. I wanted to focus on tempest gale for ranged debuff/control shenanigans, golden lion to direct her allies, veiled moon cause it's cool and fits in with a runaway priestess of Desna element from her backstory, and broken blade so she can go black widow on people when the situation calls for it. I can write up a martial tradition for the her tribes religious traditions for the veiled moon access but then I still need a rules legal way to pick up broken blade. My group doesn't use traits and even if I can convince them to start I'd rather use my traits for other things, not as special permission for a discipline swap that doesn't seem unbalanced to just get for free in the first place. Furthermore, depending on what other people in the group want to play I might want to pick up silver crane maneuvers just to make sure someone has some healing, If that's not necessary I might want riven hour glass just cause its cool. I don't know of a rules legal way to swap for a third discipline like that and while I could probably convince my DM to just let me have it I'd feel better if I knew that it wasn't going to add free power to my character if I can have one of those instead of just drawing from solar wind or scarlet throne.

[upho]

I'm also wondering about only being able to invest in 2.5 or so disciplines, even the classes with the fewest number of maneuvers and stances known end up with 16 maneuvers and 7 stances by level 20, totaling 23 to divvy up between various disciplines. Unless I'm missing something all ninth level maneuvers require 4 maneuvers of their discipline as prereqs so in order to take any maneuver/stance in the school you have to invest 5 into it by level 20 (4 if the permissive swapping I was wondering about in my last two posts is allowed, can I get a ruling on that?

Explained in other words, this is how I understand the prereq maneuver rules work (and if you're a PoW writer, please correct me if I'm wrong):

Let's say you have 3 Broken Blade maneuvers/stances and want to pick a 7th level maneuver there are no problems, of course. But if you only have 2 Broken Blade maneuvers, you cannot pick the 7th level maneuver.

Let's say you do have 3 Broken Blade maneuvers, pick the 7th level maneuver, and when you later on gain a level would like to replace one of those 3 Broken Blade maneuvers for a maneuver of another discipline or an additional 7th level Broken Blade maneuver, then you can, as the 7th level maneuver can fulfill its own prereq. Meaning you still have the 3 Broken Blade maneuvers needed to meet its prereqs.

Does this help?

EDIT: This means you can indeed have four 9th level maneuvers by 20th level, without having to spend a feat slot on Advanced Study. /EDIT

[Da Beast]

Okay, here's the scenario I'm wondering about. With Tome of Battle you can use the maneuver you are trading out as the prereq for the maneuver you are trading it out for and I'm wondering if I can still do this in Path of War. For example:

My Warlord levels up from 9 to 10 and I want to swap out a maneuver for sanguine perfection (cause its awesome). I already know 2 scarlet throne maneuvers, sanguine perseverance and sanguine barrier which gives me the 2 scarlet throne maneuvers I need to qualify for sanguine perfection. Can I right then and there at level 10 swap out one of those 2 maneuvers for sanguine perfection even though I need both of them to qualify for it? I'm not wondering if I can swap one out later, I already know that I can. I'm just wondering about swapping maneuvers while using them to qualify for the new maneuver I'm swapping them for. This was allowed in Tome of Battle so I'm assuming it still is but haven't found anything specific about it in Path of War.

[Tuvarkz]

Okay, here's the scenario I'm wondering about. With Tome of Battle you can use the maneuver you are trading out as the prereq for the maneuver you are trading it out for and I'm wondering if I can still do this in Path of War. For example:

My Warlord levels up from 9 to 10 and I want to swap out a maneuver for sanguine perfection (cause its awesome). I already know 2 scarlet throne maneuvers, sanguine perseverance and sanguine barrier which gives me the 2 scarlet throne maneuvers I need to qualify for sanguine perfection. Can I right then and there at level 10 swap out one of those 2 maneuvers for sanguine perfection even though I need both of them to qualify for it? I'm not wondering if I can swap one out later, I already know that I can. I'm just wondering about swapping maneuvers while using them to qualify for the new maneuver I'm swapping them for. This was allowed in Tome of Battle so I'm assuming it still is but haven't found anything specific about it in Path of War.

Iirc Pathfinder has a ruling about things not being able to make you retroactively qualify for them. So you'd need to keep 2 maneuvers before Sanguine Perfection. To note, stances do also count for maneuvers known prerequisites.

[Da Beast]

Iirc Pathfinder has a ruling about things not being able to make you retroactively qualify for them. So you'd need to keep 2 maneuvers before Sanguine Perfection. To note, stances do also count for maneuvers known prerequisites.

Can I get a link to the ruling in question? Also I'm still kind of hoping for a developer's take on this.

[tekevil]

"I hates it but I loves it" Pretty much sums this up.
http://endzeitgeist.com/path-war-expanded/

[ATalsen]

I just finished a set of three, 8 hr/each sessions for an adventure where I took low CR undead and gave them PoW/PoW2 class levels and maneuvers.

The PCs have been built with similar PoW access, but we had only one full initiator in the group: 1 Warlord archer, 1 Holy Liberator/Zealot (only 2 zealot levels), 1 Arcanist, 1 Cleric (Sun Domain). PCs are 9th level.

I focused on Harbinger-undead with various discipline swaps to provide different play styles. One set was Piercing-Thunder based, one set was Elemental Flux based, one was Cursed Razor based, and the boss was a Poltergeist Panapoly of Blades/Mage Hunter that had both maneuvers (Veiled Moon mostly) and spells (Reach Intesifed shocking grasp). Most of them had bits of Unquiet Grave in there for thematics and Ancient Lich Parry to help against channeling.

I had fun running the NPCs and they provided very difficult challenges (boss killed one of the PCs), but the real challenge was trying to track what maneuvers each NPC had available, since I was running them in groups of 2 to 4. I think I did ok, but I'm sure I made mistakes.

Comparing this set of games to other games where the PCs were NOT up against PoW NPCs, I could really see the difference: the PCs normally just stomp the NPCs flat using their own PoW abilities, while in this game it was MUCH more difficult for the PCs to handle. The Warlord was still hard to damage due to his use of effective counters, but PCs without counters were hit by the PoW Undead for significant damage much of the time. Without the Cleric using significant healing resources both during and after each fight, the PCs would have been toast.

Given my experience so far, incorporating PoW in the the campaign has meant that either the PCs are unchallenged by level appropriate non-PoW encounters, or that I need to include PoW-buffed NPCs to challenge them.

Given that I am only one of multiple DMs running games for the group, and the other DMs simply do not have the rules-chops to include PoW NPCs, with all their fiddly bits, I find this situation a bit of a bummer.


What I'd like to see is some sort of NPC template that could easily add some PoW onto NPCs, to bring them up to challenging the PCs, which would not be hard to use or hard to apply to a baseline NPC from the monster manual. Something that DMs that are less rules savy, or simply less interested in customizing NPCs can use and apply quickly.

Barring that, I'd be interested in how to help our less rules-savvy DMs challenge the well-optimized PoW PCs that we play in the campaign.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I'll second that; I would love some easy way to throw PoW into a campaign, opposing the PCs. Also, while I haven't dealt with it myself, I foresee a nightmare trying to build a high-level initiator. It's not like spontaneous casters where you just choose spells known of each level, but you'd have to build them up from first level in regards to maneuvers known.

[Nyaa]

What I'd like to see is some sort of NPC template that could easily add some PoW onto NPCs, to bring them up to challenging the PCs, which would not be hard to use or hard to apply to a baseline NPC from the monster manual. Something that DMs that are less rules savy, or simply less interested in customizing NPCs can use and apply quickly.

Switching some of monster's feats to martial training?

[tekevil]

I just finished a set of three, 8 hr/each sessions for an adventure where I took low CR undead and gave them PoW/PoW2 class levels and maneuvers.

The PCs have been built with similar PoW access, but we had only one full initiator in the group: 1 Warlord archer, 1 Holy Liberator/Zealot (only 2 zealot levels), 1 Arcanist, 1 Cleric (Sun Domain). PCs are 9th level.

I focused on Harbinger-undead with various discipline swaps to provide different play styles. One set was Piercing-Thunder based, one set was Elemental Flux based, one was Cursed Razor based, and the boss was a Poltergeist Panapoly of Blades/Mage Hunter that had both maneuvers (Veiled Moon mostly) and spells (Reach Intesifed shocking grasp). Most of them had bits of Unquiet Grave in there for thematics and Ancient Lich Parry to help against channeling.

I had fun running the NPCs and they provided very difficult challenges (boss killed one of the PCs), but the real challenge was trying to track what maneuvers each NPC had available, since I was running them in groups of 2 to 4. I think I did ok, but I'm sure I made mistakes.

Comparing this set of games to other games where the PCs were NOT up against PoW NPCs, I could really see the difference: the PCs normally just stomp the NPCs flat using their own PoW abilities, while in this game it was MUCH more difficult for the PCs to handle. The Warlord was still hard to damage due to his use of effective counters, but PCs without counters were hit by the PoW Undead for significant damage much of the time. Without the Cleric using significant healing resources both during and after each fight, the PCs would have been toast.

Given my experience so far, incorporating PoW in the the campaign has meant that either the PCs are unchallenged by level appropriate non-PoW encounters, or that I need to include PoW-buffed NPCs to challenge them.

Given that I am only one of multiple DMs running games for the group, and the other DMs simply do not have the rules-chops to include PoW NPCs, with all their fiddly bits, I find this situation a bit of a bummer.


What I'd like to see is some sort of NPC template that could easily add some PoW onto NPCs, to bring them up to challenging the PCs, which would not be hard to use or hard to apply to a baseline NPC from the monster manual. Something that DMs that are less rules savy, or simply less interested in customizing NPCs can use and apply quickly.

Barring that, I'd be interested in how to help our less rules-savvy DMs challenge the well-optimized PoW PCs that we play in the campaign.

Back on the old DSP forums Chris said that he wanted to have such a template, but alas he is gone now and nobody wanted to make due on that template in his place.

[ATalsen]

I foresee a nightmare trying to build a high-level initiator. It's not like spontaneous casters where you just choose spells known of each level, but you'd have to build them up from first level in regards to maneuvers known.

I actually built from the top down, and eyeballed the rest. For example, I had an NPC with 5 maneuvers ready, whose top level maneuver was 5th, so I just selected two 5th, two 4th and a 3rd, as well as a couple stances, and called it good. All I really cared about was what they would have ready, so I assumed everything else unpicked fulfilled the required prerequisites. I also only selected from about 2 disciplines per NPC so I could be sure I'd have enough unselected maneuvers to actually meet the prerequisites.

The NPCs were going to be in exactly one fight each, and would never change out maneuvers, so I didn't need to know all they could potentiality do.

Switching some of monster's feats to martial training?

Certainly that would work, but I find it easier and more effective to just add class levels. Even one class level is often as good as a few Martial Training feats.

Now, if you don't want to change the creature's CR, then the feats are the way to go, but I was and am ok with a 1 to 2 CR boost to get PoW on an NPC - I was just hoping for a pre-made template for the DMs that don't want to hunt thru PoW and try to optimize or revise their NPCs, and could just throw a quick template on that would give maybe a Strike, Boost and Counter of appropriate level for the NPC.

[Elricaltovilla]

I actually talk a fair bit about PoW NPC enemies in my latest campaign journal post.

[ATalsen]

I actually talk a fair bit about PoW NPC enemies in my latest campaign journal post.

All three were built using the following rules:
• Max HP per level
• 11th level
• NPC Elite Array (Per CRB)
• Approximately NPC Wealth By Level.

Your PCs do max HP, so it makes sense for your NPCs to be built the same way; the PCs in my campaign use average HP, and similarly the NPCs do as well.

My NPCs were around CR 9 thru 11, and I used the Elite Array as well.

I didn’t really bother with assigning specific wealth for my NPCs, really, but some plot points in our game made that sort of irrelevant – the NPCs were effectively wielding plot-based Bane weapons (+2 to hit/+2d6 fire) which probably soaked some effective wealth, a couple had potions of minor buffs (mage armor), and most just had basic chain shirt armor.

Another problem that seems to come up is that some maneuvers are too damaging or too debilitating to use against PCs. Well, don't use them. Just like you (probably) wouldn't use glitterdust on a party, you shouldn't use Primal Fury against the wizard.

I can’t really agree with this part, though. I can say I certainly would use Glitterdust on the PCs, and I certainly used high end maneuvers against the PCs as well (Ether Wave: 12d6 cone, ref save ½). If it’s fair for the PCs to have and use, I think the NPCs can do it too.

It’s probably my one big complaint about PoW in general – it’s too easy to build an NPC that will really crush your players PCs, and having to ‘watch out’ and not use some things feels like bad design, or at least a failure to look at the system from the GM’s side of things. I love PoW as a player and have difficulty with it (challenging PCs using it and implementing it on NPCs) as a GM.


That said, yes, you do not just want to crush your PCs ‘just because you can’, and given I had one PC death during the boss fight of the session, I can say that *I* liked the danger and lethality of all of the fights. (The PC that died was fixed on the spot by the Cleric via Revnance+Last Breath, as I allow all 3.5 in my PF games, so the PCs are capable of fixing deaths at the table without excluding a player for a longer duration).

Intense combats like my last game are not for every table of players, or even for my own players every game – I needed an epic set of combats to complete the series and I think I got it. :)


But again, if anyone has suggestions for helping the less rules savvy GMs at my table implement PoW for NPCs, or otherwise provide appropriate challenges to PoW PCs, I’d love to hear about it.

[Elricaltovilla]

The point about glitterdust and Primal Fury is that there are already things that exist in 1st party Pathfinder that have the same potential to utterly destroy a PC that maneuvers do. Spells require just as much judicious selection as maneuvers. I could have easily gone with "Just like you wouldn't use an unrestricted casting of wish" as an example, or used the classic Orc Barbarian with a falchion for a lower level example. If you, as a GM, are fine with characters dying, then what I wrote has less impact for you.

It doesn't matter what subsystem you use, if you build your NPCs to be destroyers, they will be destroyers and I believe the idea that PCs and NPCs are meant to be built and played the same is a fallacy. It's apparent from reading any amount of the encounter design rules or any single monster entry that this is not the case. Pretending otherwise is detrimental to the game and leads people to draw bad conclusions from their experiences.

[phlidwsn]

Also, while I haven't dealt with it myself, I foresee a nightmare trying to build a high-level initiator. It's not like spontaneous casters where you just choose spells known of each level, but you'd have to build them up from first level in regards to maneuvers known.

I had made charts for ToB to help simplify this process for characters over 1st level. I just took a few minutes to make an updated set of charts for PoW and PoW:E. The first sheet has the instructions.

[ATalsen]

The point about glitterdust and Primal Fury is that there are already things that exist in 1st party Pathfinder that have the same potential to utterly destroy a PC that maneuvers do.

Ok, yes there are 'killer spells', but what I'm looking at is through the lens of level-appropriate opponents. So what I'm not talking about is hitting a low level party (5th level) with Weird (9th level spell), or using similarly high level maneuvers against low level parties.

Given that, I feel that the defenses for spells of appropriate level are ‘baked in’ to the base system better than PoW is – and spell defenses should be, because they are part of the core system that has been around for a while, while PoW is new.

I can take PoW NPCs vs PoW PCs and come out with a fairly balanced session – even without careful maneuver selection.

But I cannot so easily place PoW PCs against non-PoW NPCs, and provide a challenge to the PCs. Similarly I cannot take PoW NPCs and place them against NON-PoW PCs and expect those PCs to not be crushed. And I cannot use PoW NPCs in every encounter for both of the above reasons (not all my player’s PCs use PoW).

Spells require just as much judicious selection as maneuvers. I could have easily gone with "Just like you wouldn't use an unrestricted casting of wish" as an example, or used the classic Orc Barbarian with a falchion for a lower level example. If you, as a GM, are fine with characters dying, then what I wrote has less impact for you.

As above, I’m looking at level appropriate encounters; in general I would not use unrestricted castings of ANY spell during a game, because I play and run at the tactical level – any ‘larger’ use of spells is more in the realm of world building (which I do, of course, it just doesn’t impact the tactical game in any way I could not just declare as a DM anyway).

I would use whatever the most powerful or harmful spells for the appropriate level against my PCs, but again, not unrestricted, just whatever the caster-NPC can generate for themselves. I suppose I self-censor more when it comes to magic items; I don’t generally give my NPCs full wealth and would never consider giving them a staff or wand of their most devastating spells, because that IS effectively unrestricted use of the spell.

Maybe I’m just getting my sea-legs when it comes to PoW balance, but because a PoW NPC can potentially recover their moves, the maneuvers become an effectively unlimited resource, where the PCs cannot just drag out the fight to an attrition battle like they can with casters.

So far, in my play experience I am seeing maneuvers deal more damage than spells.

I believe the idea that PCs and NPCs are meant to be built and played the same is a fallacy. It's apparent from reading any amount of the encounter design rules or any single monster entry that this is not the case. Pretending otherwise is detrimental to the game and leads people to draw bad conclusions from their experiences.

Right now, to use PoW on NPCs, I need to build them up using feats and class levels, which makes them build similar to PCs. They may have different purposes and design goals, sure. To really make them different than PCs, NPCs need some bolt-on PoW abilities (template or the like).

Maybe I will design some sort of “quick PoW template” for my game. Something like a 2 strikes, 1 counter and 1 boost, but useable without the need to track or recover them, so the DM work is less. Just enough to give a PoW flavor and the ability to block/dodge/mitigate attacks that PoW PCs have, with some modest damage or debilitation strikes, etc.

[upho]

Certainly that would work, but I find it easier and more effective to just add class levels. Even one class level is often as good as a few Martial Training feats.

I do this with virtually every sentient opponent who could reasonably have had a chance to get PC class levels, although I don't always use initiator classes, of course. And depending on the base creature and class, I may not boost class relevant stats as much as the rules say. This is usually the case if I give more melee inclined creatures (like giants) initiator class levels, since they often have excellent physical stats, many hd and synergizing abilities from start, so an initiator level will thus often increase their combat prowess tremendously anyways.

Now, if you don't want to change the creature's CR, then the feats are the way to go, but I was and am ok with a 1 to 2 CR boost to get PoW on an NPC - I was just hoping for a pre-made template for the DMs that don't want to hunt thru PoW and try to optimize or revise their NPCs, and could just throw a quick template on that would give maybe a Strike, Boost and Counter of appropriate level for the NPC.

This would be nice, I agree.

If you wanna go by the rules, you could just make 1-level templates for martial classes which the other DMs could use. For example a (non-simple) warder class template could look something like this:

Spoiler: Creating a Warder

Show

The warder class template is an acquired template which can be applied to any creature with an Intelligence of 3 or more (referred to hereafter as the base creature). Most warders are humanoid or similar with a well-developed martial culture (such as bugbears, giants, most intelligent undead and many outsiders).

CR: Same as base creature +1.

Hit die: A warder gains one d12 hit die (and thus 6.5 + the warder's new Constitution modifier additional hit points). Modify any of the base creature's abilities which are dependent on hit dice but independent of class or creature (such as the warder's number of feats and ability score increases from hit dice).

Saving Throw Bonuses: A warder gains +2 to Fortitude and Will saving throws.

Special Attacks: A warder gains an initiator level equal to half the base creature's hit dice +1, and the following:

• Disciplines: A warder gains access to the Broken Blade, Golden Lion, Iron Tortoise, and Primal Fury disciplines, plus either Eternal Guardian or Piercing Thunder.
• Maneuvers: A warder knows 5 maneuvers of her chosen disciplines she qualifies for, and may ready 3 of those. She may recover one maneuver as a standard action, or a number of maneuvers equal to her Intelligence modifier by using the Extended Defense ability as a full round action.
• Stances: A warder gains one stance of her chosen disciplines she qualifies for.

Special Qualities: A warder gains the following:

Aegis:
Allies who are within 10 ft. of the warder's position gain a +1 morale bonus to Armor Class and to Will saves under the warder's defensive aegis, her presence bolstering and shepherding the defenses of her allies. The warder does not receive this bonus, but may receive the benefits of this ability from another warder. If the ally cannot see or hear the warder, then the ally does not gain the benefits of this ability (such as if the warder is concealed or invisible).

Extended defense:
The warder gains the Combat Reflexes feat as a bonus feat, using her Intelligence modifier in place of her Dexterity modifier to determine the number of additional attacks of opportunity she may make each round. When recovering maneuvers as a full round action, the warder sets up a defensive perimeter around himself to defend her allies, increasing her threatened area by 5 ft. for every 5 initiator levels she possesses. Until the beginning of her next turn, she may make attacks of opportunity against any opponent in this threatened area that provokes attacks of opportunity. She may move as part of these attacks of opportunity, provided her total movement before her next turn does not exceed her speed (her movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal). Additionally, while using defensive focus, the warder adds her Intelligence modifier +1 to her CMD for the purposes of defending against enemies trying to use the Acrobatics skill to prevent her from getting attacks of opportunity against them.

Ability Scores: +2 to whichever is the highest of the base creature's Strength, Constitution and Intelligence scores, and +4 to the lower two of those ability scores, plus Wisdom +2 and Charisma -2.

Base Attack Bonus: A warder gains +1 base attack bonus.

Skills: A warder gains 4 + Intelligence modifier skill points and Acrobatics, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Knowledge (history), Knowledge (martial), Knowledge (nobility), Profession, Ride, Survival, Swim, and the skills of her chosen disciplines as class skills.

Feats: A warder gains Combat Reflexes (as part of the Extended Defense ability), Martial Weapon Proficiency (all), Simple Weapon Proficiency (all), Armor Proficiency (light, medium and heavy), and Shield Proficiency (all, including tower shields).

As is quite obvious when looking at the above "template", adding one class level very often increases the actual threat the creature poses considerably more than what the +1 CR indicates (even when the modified creature's statistics still largely match those of the corresponding CR found in the monster creation rules). Adding the above to a melee competent creature, the template would in many cases likely increase the actual threat at least as much as that of adding one of Paizo's +2 CR templates. So less experienced and system-savvy DM's would still have to learn to properly judge special abilities, class features, feats etc and the party's abilities, which the CR system largely doesn't take into account, and that "+1 CR" may translate into virtually anything from +0 to +5 or more in actual challenge difficulty increase. But this is true regardless of initiators.

It doesn't matter what subsystem you use, if you build your NPCs to be destroyers, they will be destroyers and I believe the idea that PCs and NPCs are meant to be built and played the same is a fallacy.

So much this.

I had made charts for ToB to help simplify this process for characters over 1st level. I just took a few minutes to make an updated set of charts for PoW and PoW:E. The first sheet has the instructions.

Thanks! This will be useful, although I think it's multiclass NPCs and/or monsters with racial HD, not to mention the abundance of options and prerequisite rules for maneuvers, that typically make initiators such a hassle for a DM.

[Elricaltovilla]

Ok, yes there are 'killer spells', but what I'm looking at is through the lens of level-appropriate opponents. So what I'm not talking about is hitting a low level party (5th level) with Weird (9th level spell), or using similarly high level maneuvers against low level parties.

Nor am I discussing using 9th level spells against a 5th level party. There are "killer spells" at every level. I'm not going to go through every spell list and pull out example spells at every spell level, you know what they are as well as I do and I don't want to patronize you by assuming you don't. The thing I see repeatedly when it comes to using PoW material on monsters is that people don't apply that same level of instinctive scrutiny they do to spells or other 1st party material when making their selections, then get upset when they see PoW material taking players out of the game.

But I cannot so easily place PoW PCs against non-PoW NPCs, and provide a challenge to the PCs. Similarly I cannot take PoW NPCs and place them against NON-PoW PCs and expect those PCs to not be crushed. And I cannot use PoW NPCs in every encounter for both of the above reasons (not all my player’s PCs use PoW).

You shouldn't be using any one thing every encounter anyway. It gets boring and predictable if you do. PoW monsters have all the same weaknesses that PoW characters have: they're vulnerable to focused fire, they can be debuffed, counters don't work 100% of the time, their abilities usually require attack rolls to hit, flat-footing outright denies counters... the list goes on.

Obviously the material is new, and this stuff isn't always apparent. That's why I wrote what I did in my campaign journal, to highlight ways to use the material as a GM and as a player. If you look at other encounters, several of those are modified with PoW as well, and not in the same way as this boss encounter.

As above, I’m looking at level appropriate encounters; in general I would not use unrestricted castings of ANY spell during a game, because I play and run at the tactical level – any ‘larger’ use of spells is more in the realm of world building (which I do, of course, it just doesn’t impact the tactical game in any way I could not just declare as a DM anyway).

I can't speak to level appropriateness without being given a specific level around which to be appropriate, so I am forced to give examples in a more general sense. In addition, I can't comment on your home game because I am not familiar with how it works, so I am limited to a combination of my own experience and RAW. There is a reason that nobody tries to capitalize on this line from the Wish spell:

You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment, at the GM's discretion.)

But strictly speaking, there's nothing actually preventing the BBEG from wishing for the entire party to just drop dead except the GM's desire for them to not do so. It's part of the gentleman's agreement of the game that this is not the case. And it's that same gentleman's agreement that requires one to be careful in how and what maneuvers they select for their monsters.

I would use whatever the most powerful or harmful spells for the appropriate level against my PCs, but again, not unrestricted, just whatever the caster-NPC can generate for themselves. I suppose I self-censor more when it comes to magic items; I don’t generally give my NPCs full wealth and would never consider giving them a staff or wand of their most devastating spells, because that IS effectively unrestricted use of the spell.

If you restrict and self censor when it comes to magic items and spells, but consciously don't do the same for maneuvers, then we are at an impasse. Because my entire argument is that you need to apply that same standard you apply to spells and items that you do to maneuvers. It's a double standard to do otherwise and puts my material in an unfair position.

Maybe I’m just getting my sea-legs when it comes to PoW balance, but because a PoW NPC can potentially recover their moves, the maneuvers become an effectively unlimited resource, where the PCs cannot just drag out the fight to an attrition battle like they can with casters.

So far, in my play experience I am seeing maneuvers deal more damage than spells.

Certainly a lot of people are getting used to using PoW and PoW:E. They're new on the scene and stuff is still being learned about them all the time. That's completely understandable.

I have never seen a combat with a caster last long enough for attrition to matter for one side or the other, unless it already begins lopsided. Most combats don't last more than 3-5 rounds, that's about 10 spells at the most. And if it does last long enough for attrition to come up, the PCs are likely just as out of resources as the enemy. In that case, I think being a PoW PC is an actual advantage to someone who likes attrition gameplay because the recoverable nature of maneuvers means that you can actually create a difference in ability over the course of the combat by wearing down your opponent. That's something you can't do if both sides are using limited resources.

Right now, to use PoW on NPCs, I need to build them up using feats and class levels, which makes them build similar to PCs. They may have different purposes and design goals, sure. To really make them different than PCs, NPCs need some bolt-on PoW abilities (template or the like).

Maybe I will design some sort of “quick PoW template” for my game. Something like a 2 strikes, 1 counter and 1 boost, but useable without the need to track or recover them, so the DM work is less. Just enough to give a PoW flavor and the ability to block/dodge/mitigate attacks that PoW PCs have, with some modest damage or debilitation strikes, etc.

You should look at the other PoW modified combats in that campaign journal. There are multiple times where I just slap 1-3 maneuvers onto a monster and call it done. It works fine like that, and I advise GMs to do that pretty regularly though most don't seem to take the advice very well. I assume it's because we didn't bother writing it in the book, but in all seriousness that's all you need to do: "Hey I like Sanguine Perfection for this guy, and I'll add Noble Blade to buff his accuracy a bit... cool. I'm done."

[MilleniaAntares]

My GMs tend to have map-based combat using Google sheets (since it's online). Oftentimes battles have secondary goals/mechanics to mix things up. Like our carriage and horses getting attacked, having to ensure the safety of our escort NPC, or saving prisoners in cages that may be dipped into mutation-causing goo.

Add in multiple opponents, and you come to something that could be challenging, simply because the pcs can't necessarily gang up and slaughter foes.

In the last scenario presented, my aegis/warder only performed one attack (an AoO), simply because she was busy flying from cage to cage, freeing the captives and holding them in her secondary set of arms until she could take them to safety. The cave had like two dozen goblinoid enemies, same number of captives, and like three ballista. It was one of the most fun encounters I've ever had.

Also, inflating HP values can help.

[Bucky]

Does Path of War Expanded have anything for Martial Training Fighters? (aside from new disciplines)

[ATalsen]

Does Path of War Expanded have anything for Martial Training Fighters? (aside from new disciplines)

Let me point you over to another thread where the various class archetypes presented in PoW:E are being discussed, such as the Myrmidon:

Fighter(Myrmiddon) - Tier 3 - Gives up 5 fighter bonus feats for 2 more skill points, a better skill list, maneuvers and Grit with way better abilities than the old grit. HUGE BUFF

[Bucky]

Let me point you over to another thread where the various class archetypes presented in PoW:E are being discussed, such as the Myrmidon:

Yes, that's a maneuver-using Fighter archetype. It's also mostly incompatible with the Martial Training feat chain.

[Forrestfire]

It's not incompatible at all—Martial Training and its associated feats can be taken by initiators and work as normal, giving you a second set of maneuvers.

[MilleniaAntares]

A new trait gives you a level 1 maneuver of any discipline, so you can use it to dip something from a second discipline.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I appreciate how the update makes it play better with the martial training feats, but it irks me that if you have the trait, its downgraded when you take the feat.

[angelpalm]

I appreciate how the update makes it play better with the martial training feats, but it irks me that if you have the trait, its downgraded when you take the feat.

What do you mean?

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Okay, with the trait, you have a maneuver. It works pretty fine, and you can recover it as a standard action. You take the Martial Training I feat. Now, your trait maneuver. It's now a full-round action to recover, if you decide to ready it at all, since you still only get one readied with the first feat. It is a step forward in my opinion, but it's almost (but now quite) offset by the fact that it only tides you over until third level, and then it's probably going to be forgotten.

[Elricaltovilla]

It's also just a trait.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

A combat trait. You say that like it's worthless.