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

[Da Beast]

Is there an errata file for Path of War somewhere? I've heard mention of one but google hasn't turned anything up.

Edit: Separate thought, I've noticed that the Solar Wind and Tempest Gale are kind of lacking in good boosts (with a few exceptions) and have almost no counters (only 3 between the two of them). Is this intentional for game balance or did things just sort of end up that way?

[phlidwsn]

Errata is "in progress"/"in the works" last we heard from the authors.

[EldritchWeaver]

Errata is "in progress"/"in the works" last we heard from the authors.

It would be nice to hear something more substantial. Is there any chance for a release this year?

[Swaoeaeieu]

It would be nice to hear something more substantial. Is there any chance for a release this year?

all we have heard is they are working on it. so yes there is a chance. but its not a big chance

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Is there an errata file for Path of War somewhere? I've heard mention of one but google hasn't turned anything up.

Edit: Separate thought, I've noticed that the Solar Wind and Tempest Gale are kind of lacking in good boosts (with a few exceptions) and have almost no counters (only 3 between the two of them). Is this intentional for game balance or did things just sort of end up that way?

I figure the boosts would be for balance (since archery/ranged combat is already really powerful), and the few counters is the fact that, as a ranged discipline, you aren't going to be the subject of too many attacks.

[Da Beast]

and the few counters is the fact that, as a ranged discipline, you aren't going to be the subject of too many attacks.

The thing is that a lot of counters work with a melee or ranged weapon so it really just forces you to get all your counters from another discipline. Even dedicated ranged initiators will have enough disciplines to cover tempest gale, solar wind, and at least one more to draw counters from so in the end I think I'll still have counters they just won't feel specific to my chosen weapon.

Edit: Is there a guide anywhere that covers Tempest Gale maneuvers? I've been looking and that and Piercing Thunder don't seem to be covered anywhere.

[upho]

The thing is that a lot of counters work with a melee or ranged weapon so it really just forces you to get all your counters from another discipline. Even dedicated ranged initiators will have enough disciplines to cover tempest gale, solar wind, and at least one more to draw counters from so in the end I think I'll still have counters they just won't feel specific to my chosen weapon.

Edit: Is there a guide anywhere that covers Tempest Gale maneuvers? I've been looking and that and Piercing Thunder don't seem to be covered anywhere.

I don't think there are any proper guides for any of the PoW:E stuff yet. So if you feel up for it...

[oyzar]

How does prestige classes work combined with archtypes that grant maneuvers? Do you continue the lesser progression of archtypes or do you get the normal full progression? Also, How does advanced study work for the archtypes?

[Tuvarkz]

Both PrCs and Advanced Study run on full progression.

[oyzar]

So a 15th level rogue could get an 8th level stance by picking advanced study? That does seem rather powerful.

[exelsisxax]

So a 15th level rogue could get an 8th level stance by picking advanced study? That does seem rather powerful.

If by rogue, you mean hidden blade, yes. Otherwise, no.

Well at 15th level, most primary initiators get an 8th level maneuver known and stance from their standard progression. That's on top of the many 7th and 6th level maneuvers they picked up from previous levels. It's more than fair to let archetypes burn feats to pick up a small number of maneuvers as full initiators.

[mistermysterio]

the rogue would still need to have taken the prereqs for the maneuver. i.e., for an 8th level maneuver, you'd need 3 maneuvers known from the given discipline before you can learn it (and each of those need lower level maneuvers in turn). So you'd need 1 level 1/2 maneuver, 1 level 3/4 maneuver, and 1 level 5/6/7 maneuver before you can learn your level 8 maneuver (or multiple maneuvers from the lower tiers).

[digiman619]

the rogue would still need to have taken the prereqs for the maneuver. i.e., for an 8th level maneuver, you'd need 3 maneuvers known from the given discipline before you can learn it (and each of those need lower level maneuvers in turn). So you'd need 1 level 1/2 maneuver, 1 level 3/4 maneuver, and 1 level 5/6/7 maneuver before you can learn your level 8 maneuver (or multiple maneuvers from the lower tiers).

It'd be more concise to say, the prerequisites for the higher levels maneuvers is one maneuver of appropriate discipline for 3rd & 4th level maneuvers, 2 maneuvers for 5th, 6th and 7th level maneuvers and 3 maneuvers for 8th & 9th level maneuvers So yes, you can get an 8th level maneuver, but it's balanced because a) it costs a feat, and b) you have at best two disciplines which are viable choices for the maneuver.

[oyzar]

Since it's level 15 we are talking about, I guess the best comparison would be spell perfection. This is probably not as good as that, but it's in the discussion. It's probably more powerful than any paizo stuff for martials (though obviously only for the 6th level archtypes). Still, that's actually a good thing I think. Martials need more good high level stuff. This is certainly more balanced than the stuff a hidden blade gets at first level compared to a regular rogue.

I don't think qualifying is an issue. It's easy enough to plan it out so you qualify for the stance you want as you do get a lot of maneuvers from your regular levels anyway.

[lord_khaine]

I apologise if this has already been covered, but could not bother to read though the entire thread to check.

Under the Mystic, it seems like there might be a minor mistake with the Aurora Soul achetype.
At least i cant find anywhere that tells me what the *aurora soul initiation modifier* is. Other than that i love the mystic, and the chance it gives to create a supernatural fighter/monk.

[exelsisxax]

I apologise if this has already been covered, but could not bother to read though the entire thread to check.

Under the Mystic, it seems like there might be a minor mistake with the Aurora Soul achetype.
At least i cant find anywhere that tells me what the *aurora soul initiation modifier* is. Other than that i love the mystic, and the chance it gives to create a supernatural fighter/monk.

Archetypes don't mention the initiation modifier unless it changes. It's still wisdom.

[oyzar]

Under the current rules of pathfinder it's not possible to add the same stat to something, for example damage, twice. Given that I'm surprised at how many abilities there are that add initiation modifier to damage. There are a lot of stances (for example battle dragon's stance and tempest gale stance) as well as a lot of class abilities that does this (for example Harbringer, Gunsmoke Mystic, Desperado can pick up a deed from mysterious stranger). Are you planning to make this work smoother within the rules? It's kinda frustrating to find so many things that don't work together. It also has the potential to generate really feel bad moments for newer players who suddenly discover their cool abilities don't actually work together.

[Forrestfire]

We're well aware of that fact, and Path of War: Expanded was actively balanced around it.

However, if you go back and read the FAQ on it:

No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.

Emphasis mine. There are several abilities (such as the Harbinger's Accursed Will) that add typed bonuses equal to an ability score to things in PoW, and there's many that add untyped. If it's untyped, it was written with the fact that it doesn't stack with other untyped bonuses in mind.

[digiman619]

I know this isn't quite the right place to say this, but I just spent the last hour or so looking up the Homebrew Martial Discipline Compendium over in the homebrew section and it's interesting to see early drafts of some of the disciplines. The healing Silver Crane is famous for was actually a bit of a late addition. Wrath of Time from Riven Hourglass was originally 9th level. Iron Tortoise's Stance of the Defending Shell used to be literally twice as effective; giving a +1 for every 2 levels instead of 4. ErrantX also had an entire dueling-focused discipline that never made it to PoW, as well as an electrical/lightning based one. It's fascinating.

There's also a discipline named Broken Blade that has nothing to do with the PoW discipline of the same name; it's a counter-initiating discipline. There's also a Fool's Grip (as opposed to Errand), Eternal Glacier (as opposed to Guardian) and 4 different disciplines with the name Falling Star. It's a hoot to look through.

[Extra Anchovies]

ErrantX also had an entire dueling-focused discipline that never made it to PoW

That one actually did make it in, but with a palette swap - it's quite similar to the final Scarlet Throne discipline, at least at first glance.

[Geigan]

So I've got a question that I was trying to get answered in the RAW thread, but got nothing. I'm having trouble understanding the intended effect of the Diving Thunderbolt Stance (Piercing Thunder lvl6) in interaction with stuff like Pounce or the Martial Charge feat. Not sure if it meant to say attack action and not attack, or something completely different. Either way it reminds me a lot of Battle Jump and Roof-Jumper from 3.5, that were similarly confusing though not quite comparable RAW-wise. The bit "In addition, if you attack your opponent from a higher elevation (including after jumping towards them as a move action), you are considered to be charging that opponent for the purposes of feats and abilities you possess that would provide a beneficial effect." from the stance looks like it's missing limitations in regards to things like attacks made as a part of a full attack or as a part of a maneuver that would have troubling interactions with things like Pounce, Martial Charge, or even just a normal full attack from a "higher elevation".

So is there a consensus on a reasonable interpretation that I'm missing, or is this a known bug?

[exelsisxax]

So I've got a question that I was trying to get answered in the RAW thread, but got nothing. I'm having trouble understanding the intended effect of the Diving Thunderbolt Stance (Piercing Thunder lvl6) in interaction with stuff like Pounce or the Martial Charge feat. Not sure if it meant to say attack action and not attack, or something completely different. Either way it reminds me a lot of Battle Jump and Roof-Jumper from 3.5, that were similarly confusing though not quite comparable RAW-wise. The bit "In addition, if you attack your opponent from a higher elevation (including after jumping towards them as a move action), you are considered to be charging that opponent for the purposes of feats and abilities you possess that would provide a beneficial effect." from the stance looks like it's missing limitations in regards to things like attacks made as a part of a full attack or as a part of a maneuver that would have troubling interactions with things like Pounce, Martial Charge, or even just a normal full attack from a "higher elevation".

So is there a consensus on a reasonable interpretation that I'm missing, or is this a known bug?

Depends on one thing: does a natural attack turn into a full attack when it turns into a charge? Or, once you've declared the use of your X natural attack, you're locked in and only get other charge bonuses? RAI it's probably just to get the +2 to hit and charge-specific feats(for lances or mounted combat bonus damage). Once you're attacking, you can't change it into something else, only have the original attack you made to take advantage of charge-based bonuses. Pounce probably isn't supposed to work.

[Geigan]

Depends on one thing: does a natural attack turn into a full attack when it turns into a charge? Or, once you've declared the use of your X natural attack, you're locked in and only get other charge bonuses? RAI it's probably just to get the +2 to hit and charge-specific feats(for lances or mounted combat bonus damage). Pounce probably isn't supposed to work.

Not quite sure I understand where you're coming from there given that you can get pounce with a manufactured weapon user via stuff like Psionic Lion's Charge or Greater Beast Totem. Though given Piercing Thunder's design I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't intended to be used with pounce, though that still leaves the question of something like a regular full attack (not necessarily via pounce) from a higher elevation then getting to treat all its attacks as charge attacks for the purposes of the type of feats/abilities you just mentioned.

Via the current RAW you have possible misinterpretations such as:
1) You make a full attack with pounce, every attack then is treated as a charge which triggers pounce again. Definitely not intended.
2) You make an attack from a higher elevation, trigger martial charge activating some sort of strike that hits more than once, trigger martial charge again on subsequent attacks. Probably not intended, given the weird chaining effect that creates.
3) You make a full attack from a higher elevation, triggering pounce/martial charge/charge feats on every attack. I can't think any of those were intended.

I can only guess that they expected you to make a single attack like an attack action or something, but nothing in the RAW suggests a limitation that would only make you attack once per turn at a higher elevation unless it's only meant to be used after some movement/jump, which is still worded as more of a suggestion than a limitation. I think this could use another look by the errata team.

[exelsisxax]

Not quite sure I understand where you're coming from there given that you can get pounce with a manufactured weapon user via stuff like Psionic Lion's Charge or Greater Beast Totem. Though given Piercing Thunder's design I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't intended to be used with pounce, though that still leaves the question of something like a regular full attack (not necessarily via pounce) from a higher elevation then getting to treat all its attacks as charge attacks for the purposes of the type of feats/abilities you just mentioned.

Via the current RAW you have possible misinterpretations such as:
1) You make a full attack with pounce, every attack then is treated as a charge which triggers pounce again. Definitely not intended.
2) You make an attack from a higher elevation, trigger martial charge activating some sort of strike that hits more than once, trigger martial charge again on subsequent attacks. Probably not intended, given the weird chaining effect that creates.
3) You make a full attack from a higher elevation, triggering pounce/martial charge/charge feats on every attack. I can't think any of those were intended.

I can only guess that they expected you to make a single attack like an attack action or something, but nothing in the RAW suggests a limitation that would only make you attack once per turn at a higher elevation unless it's only meant to be used after some movement/jump, which is still worded as more of a suggestion than a limitation. I think this could use another look by the errata team.

It has nothing to do with a limitations on actions. It has to do with the fact that the order of operations doesn't let you change your attack into a different attack after you make it. Pounce requires you be making a charge, but pounce allows you to make an attack at the end of that charge. This is unusable with that stance, because you've already declared an attack. You can't decide to make a different one during your attack. You can't decide to use power attack during an attack, you declare it beforehand. The stance tacks on beneficial effects as if you've charged to attacks you ARE making. You can't use that to qualify for pounce, because you're busy making an attack. Lion charge, psionic charge, and the various charge full-attacks are incompatible. Otherwise, you'd have issues like the infinite loops there.

[Geigan]

It has nothing to do with a limitations on actions. It has to do with the fact that the order of operations doesn't let you change your attack into a different attack after you make it. Pounce requires you be making a charge, but pounce allows you to make an attack at the end of that charge. This is unusable with that stance, because you've already declared an attack. You can't decide to make a different one during your attack. You can't decide to use power attack during an attack, you declare it beforehand. The stance tacks on beneficial effects as if you've charged to attacks you ARE making. You can't use that to qualify for pounce, because you're busy making an attack. Lion charge, psionic charge, and the various charge full-attacks are incompatible. Otherwise, you'd have issues like the infinite loops there.

Alright, I can better see where you're coming from. That more or less makes sense, but it still doesn't address the issue of a full attack from a higher elevation then getting to treat all its attacks as attacks made while charging for purposes of feats like Spirited Charge. Stuff like a lance + Spirited Charge resulting in x3 to every attack on a full attack doesn't seem any more intended than pounce or martial charge interactions. Unless were going to pick and choose what restrictions from the charge action apply to this, that still seems like shaky RAW.

[exelsisxax]

Alright, I can better see where you're coming from. That more or less makes sense, but it still doesn't address the issue of a full attack from a higher elevation then getting to treat all its attacks as attacks made while charging for purposes of feats like Spirited Charge. Stuff like a lance + Spirited Charge resulting in x3 to every attack on a full attack doesn't seem any more intended than pounce or martial charge interactions. Unless were going to pick and choose what restrictions from the charge action apply to this, that still seems like shaky RAW.

Well, easy by RAW.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
You didn't use the charge action.

Lances, however, don't need the charge action, you need to be on a mount that counts as charging. If you make a full attack with a lance, you've got a full attack with double damage. Unless the "abilities" mentioned by the stance doesn't include weapon properties, which would be weird. This is the part where it could easily be RAI to spirited charge though, just by saying that the stance lets you pretend you made the attack as the charge action.

[Geigan]

Well, easy by RAW.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
You didn't use the charge action.

Lances, however, don't need the charge action, you need to be on a mount that counts as charging. If you make a full attack with a lance, you've got a full attack with double damage. Unless the "abilities" mentioned by the stance doesn't include weapon properties, which would be weird.

Actually it doesn't specify weapons, so it won't work with a lance either. If this stance is really some weird pseudo-charging ability that doesn't count as the action, but still counts as "charging" for the purposes of feats, then what feats/abilities actually do apply? I'm not aware of what feats would work the way you're describing it considering a lot seem to make the assumption that you're taking an action to charge and everything that goes with it. That's not necessarily saying your interpretation is wrong, just that I'm ignorant of the breadth of charging feats/abilities that apply here. I think the charging boosts like Iron Lancer's Edge or Momentum Crash would apply at least to the first attack? I guess if you don't technically count as using the charging action, then anti-charging abilities/effects don't trigger? What feats or class features are worded broadly enough to apply to this interpretation?

[exelsisxax]

Actually it doesn't specify weapons, so it won't work with a lance either. If this is stance is really some weird pseudo-charging ability that doesn't count as the action, but still counts as "charging" for the purposes of feats, then what feats/abilities actually do apply? I'm not aware of what feats would work the way you're describing it considering a lot seem to make the assumption that you're taking an action to charge and everything that goes with it. That's not necessarily saying your interpretation is wrong, just that I'm ignorant of the breadth of charging feats/abilities that apply here. I think the charging boosts like Iron Lancer's Edge or Momentum Crash would apply at least to the first attack? I guess if you don't technically count as using the charging action, then anti-charging abilities/effects don't trigger? What feats or class features are worded broadly enough to apply to this interpretation?

Personally, I think spirited charge SHOULD apply (should have made that clearer). It's not OP to have 3x damage on a full attack, with the stipulations that you:
1. Be mounted
2. Be using a particular weapon
3. Have a particular feat
4. Be in this particular stance
5. be at a higher elevation than your opponent
6. Be able to make a full attack at that particular elevated location within range of your opponent

Iron lancer edge and momentum crash only applies to one attack as stated in its description, and also isn't multiplied by either lance or spirited charge multipliers. Basically no maneuvers can have their bonus damage multiplied anyway.

[Geigan]

Personally, I think spirited charge SHOULD apply (should have made that clearer). It's not OP to have 3x damage on a full attack, with the stipulations that you:
1. Be mounted
2. Be using a particular weapon
3. Have a particular feat
4. Be in this particular stance
5. be at a higher elevation than your opponent
6. Be able to make a full attack at that particular elevated location within range of your opponent

Iron lancer edge and momentum crash only applies to one attack as stated in its description, and also isn't multiplied by either lance or spirited charge multipliers. Basically no maneuvers can have their bonus damage multiplied anyway.

Are you stating a personal opinion about the intent there or an interpretation of the RAW, because I can't tell. If the former, it seems weird that they would write the specific rules on charging mounts and strike/boosts to disallow use with spirited charge, and then turn around and design a stance that specifically makes use of it. Especially given the design of Piercing Thunder seemingly being focused around very strong single strike attacks. That just seems like a very contradictory design choice. If the latter, then what you just said a post before contradicts it, because you're not taking the charge action. If you were then that would have us back to the infinite pounce and martial charge chaining nonsense.

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that the charging boosts would apply more than once, as I was more questioning whether they would apply at all. If the attack is treated as a charge attack then they would, which is consistent with your interpretation as I understand it.

Balance-wise I don't think something as powerful as a general multiplier to all your attacks on a full attacks is balanced by making it require a specific build to use. If it's powerful it's powerful. Requiring a specific situation that becomes so optimal that you would then see entire builds centered around it, doesn't change the core problem in that that's an absurd multiplier to apply to every attack. I will agree to disagree on this bit though, because I don't care as much about debating the balance of the option as getting to an interpretation that makes sense by what I still see as very confusingly written RAW.

Again, are we aware of any other things that would apply for the purposes of this stance's trigger?

[exelsisxax]

Are you stating a personal opinion about the intent there or an interpretation of the RAW, because I can't tell. If the former, it seems weird that they would write the specific rules on charging mounts and strike/boosts to disallow use with spirited charge, and then turn around and design a stance that specifically makes use of it. Especially given the design of Piercing Thunder seemingly being focused around very strong single strike attacks. That just seems like a very contradictory design choice. If the latter, then what you just said a post before contradicts it, because you're not taking the charge action. If you were then that would have us back to the infinite pounce and martial charge chaining nonsense.

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that the charging boosts would apply more than once, as I was more questioning whether they would apply at all. If the attack is treated as a charge attack then they would, which is consistent with your interpretation as I understand it.

Balance-wise I don't think something as powerful as a general multiplier to all your attacks on a full attacks is balanced by making it require a specific build to use. If it's powerful it's powerful. Requiring a specific situation that becomes so optimal that you would then see entire builds centered around it, doesn't change the core problem in that that's an absurd multiplier to apply to every attack. I will agree to disagree on this bit though, because I don't care as much about debating the balance of the option as getting to an interpretation that makes sense by what I still see as very confusingly written RAW.

Again, are we aware of any other things that would apply for the purposes of this stance's trigger?

no, i mean a complete description of what that part of the stance does is "your attacks are treated as if they were made on a charge", which lances and spirited charge benefit from and pounce does not. The stance does NOT provide "you may make attacks as if you had charged" which allows pounce. I am unaware of anything that such wording does not fix.

Can you think of anything that doesn't work in that framework?

It isn't too powerful. It's an immense investment of feats, maneuvers, gold, and expenditure of strategic resources to create the situation that provides a very strong benefit. Alternatively, 2 size increases on a barbarian with an Impact weapon can be dealing significantly MORE damage with a 60' range as soon as he gets raging hunter pounce. Less set-up, works everywhere (primal fury can also make charges flight-capable), probably the same gold investment.