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

[digiman619]

I was hoping that the War Soul archetype would've been updated so to become compatible with the Nimble Blade Archetype (possibly by simply changing the War Soul's replaced blade skill from 10th to 8th level or something similar).

I'm just glad they don't require expending psionic focus anymore. Because if got forbid you needed to recharage maneuvers more than once during a fight, it would take two full-round actions to recover your maneuvers (1 to regain focus and 1 to expend it), and there wasn't anything to help lessen that problem until 5th or so when you could take the right feats to help with it.

[Geigan]

You're right with regards to a few maneuvers which only deal profane damage (such as Shadow Feather Strike/Raptor Swarm or Circle of Razor Feathers), but not with regards to maneuvers which deal bonus profane damage in addition to weapon damage (such as Ravaging Blow, Inner Demon Strike or Sharing the Dark Soul). So while I think Malevolence has become less useful overall, it also has become more useful for those focusing more on weapon strikes. But more importantly, the BS Style chain remains very strong for virtually any kind of combat demoralization build.

Unless I misread that horrendously, of course...

I’m pretty sure Black Seraph’s Malevolence does nothing now.

I can’t see how adding weapon damage in changes how the feat works.

It used to *ensure* that you got your +50% damage on “creatures that are shaken, frightened, panicked, or cowering” by treating them as good aligned. If they were already good, the feat did nothing, because the targets were already getting +50%. So it was a worthless feat in an “Evil” campaign where most enemies were good, but reasonably useful in a typical campaign where enemies were often Evil or Neutral.

The new Profane damage wording nixes the +50% damage and any references to Good alignment.


Profane damage (now) causes the weapon to bypass DR/Evil, but if the target didn’t have DR/Evil treating them as good doesn’t change anything.

Basically it boils down to:
In the new text of Profane damage, nothing is contingent on the target being good-aligned, and the wording of Black Seraph’s Malevolence allows you to treat targets as good aligned, therefore Black Seraph’s Malevolence does not interact with any of the wording under Profane damage any more.

ATalsen sees what I'm getting at. I also notice that Tuvarkz noticed the same thing earlier, so I think I'm not alone here in this concern.

So yeah, the feat does nothing, because being good aligned in regards to profane damage means nothing in and of itself anymore. Does anybody have any suggestions on what the heck it should do? I'm not saying it needs some dev approved hotfix right this instant (not that I wouldn't welcome that). Devs haven't gotten to it because it's in another book and they'll get to it when they get to it. I've been on the other side of that enough to recognize when to be patient.

But I would appreciate any suggestions they or the community might have for those of us still interested in taking the Black Seraph Style line in the meantime while we wait for them to get around to addressing it. I'll probably just go talk to my GM and work something out, but I figured I'd see if anyone else had any suggestions beyond maybe just nixing the feat altogether and treating the line like it's two feats long.

[upho]

In the new text of Profane damage, nothing is contingent on the target being good-aligned, and the wording of Black Seraph’s Malevolence allows you to treat targets as good aligned, therefore Black Seraph’s Malevolence does not interact with any of the wording under Profane damage any more.

Ah! Now I get it. I somehow managed to brush over the fact that a creature's alignment isn't mechanically tied to any DR/alignment it might have, it just tends to be linked flavor-wise. Thanks!

ATalsen sees what I'm getting at. I also notice that Tuvarkz noticed the same thing earlier, so I think I'm not alone here in this concern.

Yep, it's just me not thinking straight!

But I would appreciate any suggestions they or the community might have for those of us still interested in taking the Black Seraph Style line in the meantime while we wait for them to get around to addressing it. I'll probably just go talk to my GM and work something out, but I figured I'd see if anyone else had any suggestions beyond maybe just nixing the feat altogether and treating the line like it's two feats long.

Here's a two simple suggestions which I believe are mechanically and thematically pretty close to the old benefit, just off the top of my head:

• Any profane damage you deal to a creature that is shaken, frightened, panicked, or cowering is increased by 50%.
• Your attacks ignore any damage reduction of creatures that are shaken, frightened, panicked, or cowering.

Or maybe something a bit different, such as:

• Once per round when you successfully use the Intimidate skill to demoralize an opponent, you may also deal profane damage equal to half your initiator level (minimum 1) to that opponent.
• Once per round when you successfully use the Intimidate skill to demoralize a shaken, frightened or panicked opponent, the effects of your demoralization stacks with that of the existing fear condition. If you use this feat to demoralize a panicked opponent, it cowers instead.

I think I'd be OK with one of these in my games.

[Dac]

Can we expect the clarification in initiation modifier used that was made in this errata (to accommodate for archetypes potentially changing the initiation stat) to be the rule going forward? For classes in Expanded, archetypes like Roil Dancer, etc.

[Geigan]

Here's a two simple suggestions which I believe are mechanically and thematically pretty close to the old benefit, just off the top of my head:

• Any profane damage you deal to a creature that is shaken, frightened, panicked, or cowering is increased by 50%.
• Your attacks ignore any damage reduction of creatures that are shaken, frightened, panicked, or cowering.

Or maybe something a bit different, such as:

• Once per round when you successfully use the Intimidate skill to demoralize an opponent, you may also deal profane damage equal to half your initiator level (minimum 1) to that opponent.
• Once per round when you successfully use the Intimidate skill to demoralize a shaken, frightened or panicked opponent, the effects of your demoralization stacks with that of the existing fear condition. If you use this feat to demoralize a panicked opponent, it cowers instead.

I think I'd be OK with one of these in my games.

Ah, thank you very much. I think these will be just fine (unless a dev feels the need to weigh in), and make a fine starting point for when I can get some time to talk to my GM. I appreciate it.

[MilleniaAntares]

Weapon Mastery feats require Weapon Focus, not Weapon Training. You may wish to change Weapon Group Adaptation's new special benefit to match.

[upho]

Weapon Mastery feats require Weapon Focus, not Weapon Training. You may wish to change Weapon Group Adaptation's new special benefit to match.

I think Weapon Style feats like Slipslinger Style or Ascetic Style requires WF. Unfortunately, on d20pfsrd.com the related text seems to have been mistakenly placed on the Weapon Mastery feats page instead of the Style feats page where I think it belongs (my emphasis):

"Weapon style feats can be used only in conjunction with the weapon chosen for Weapon Focus, but count as style feats for all other purposes."

(See also for example Weapon Style Mastery.)

However, Weapon Mastery feats (like Cut from the Air or Ace Trip) generally do not require WF, but all do require the Weapon Training class feature, or the Martial Focus feat from which I assume the new Weapon Group Adaption borrowed it's wording:

"Special: The Martial Focus feat counts as the weapon training class feature with the chosen fighter weapon group for the purpose of weapon mastery feat prerequisites and what weapons you can use with weapon mastery feats."

In case you happened to get this mess of misplaced texts and way too similarly named "Weapon X" and "Martial Y" feats and features mixed up, at least I will be happy to know I'm not the only one...

[MilleniaAntares]

Oh, I see! Well, glad to see the confusion isn't completely my fault!

[angelpalm]

Glad to see you guys on this errata already.

Wishing that Pathwalker wasn't made incompatible with Mediant. Hoping that the Hidden Blade archetype doesn't get the same treatment as Warlord lol.

Glad to see Greater Unarmed strike working like Superior Unarmed strike. Also glad everyone already caught that issue with the Black Seraph style feats line. I am hoping among hope that they finally quicken the recovery mechanic for the martial training feat line or change it in some way. Also would love to see some sort of feat along the lines of Adaptive style for the initiator classes/archetypes that have no way to change their maneuvers mid-fight.

Hoping to see clarification with broken blade flurry strikes working on multiple targets to match what I was told in the old Dsp forums among other things. Honestly I am just happy to see this errata even with the nerfs. I just hope they continue to take their time and do their best to listen to the community as always.

[PsionMage]

Warder Defensive Focus: ... perimeter around himself to defend her allies ...

Switching sex in the middle of the sentence, was in the original as well, so...

[upho]

Switching sex in the middle of the sentence, was in the original as well, so...

Confirms my suspicion that warders don't have sex; they have extended defense. They also tend to apply their trademark "all over the place" defense philosophy to everything in life, including pronouns.

[Lord_Gareth]

And just in case you missed it, meet the Rajah.

[Da Beast]

Warlord looks to have been nerfed hard. Is it really necessary? As someone who's been waiting for a while to try one, I can definitely say this has killed my enthusiasm for it a bit.

[Zulwarn]

Agreed there seem to be too many nerfs to the Warlord like the changing of Tactical Flanker and some of the gambits like how someone on the Reddit post about the errata mentioned how Pinhole Gambit gives you a bonus to AC for making a ranged attack against an opponent in melee with your ally and you're not likely to really get a benefit from that for being at ranged.

I think turning the luck bonus down to half initiation mod was fine but I find those changes along with the changes to Profane and Sacred to be unneeded.

[skaddix]

First the came for the Harbinger, then the Warlord...Who is next?

[Draacul]

First the came for the Harbinger, then the Warlord...Who is next?

Pharaoh comes to mind.I'm pretty sure it's worse than Harbinger.Substantially.

[Wartex1]

The Rajah seems to be in a pretty good spot. I mean, it's no powerhouse, but it's a very effective support which can utilize touch attacks to deliver strikes.

[Draacul]

The Rajah seems to be in a pretty good spot. I mean, it's no powerhouse, but it's a very effective support which can utilize touch attacks to deliver strikes.

Oh,Rajah is playable and fun.I literally started a new Kingmaker campaign because one of my players wanted to play it in it's native environment.
Pharaoh is a different beast.Full BAB class with 30 essence but no veilweaving,and similar investment of essence into maneuvers except you're taking burn when using.
It never left the playtest,i believe.And i'm pretty sure that you'll be better playing ambulancer with mount that took Burlaq archetype.

[Da Beast]

Why is hidden blade a rogue archetype instead of a rogue/slayer class template? It seems like it would work for a slayer without any modification, just dropping half of your slayer talents instead of half of your rogue talents. Is there an important reason why a slayer should not be allowed to take hidden blade?

[exelsisxax]

Why is hidden blade a rogue archetype instead of a rogue/slayer class template? It seems like it would work for a slayer without any modification, just dropping half of your slayer talents instead of half of your rogue talents. Is there an important reason why a slayer should not be allowed to take hidden blade?

I think the releases of PoW:E and the advanced class guide were too close together, so most hybrid classes don't have anything, when they would normally be expected to, and have some naming wierdness (brutal slayer stalker archetype, ambush hunter ranger archetype).

From a balance perspective, a hidden blade slayer is strictly better than hidden blade rogue. Better HD, BaB, and saves make it a significantly better initiator platform, and the reduced sneak attack isn't enough to compensate. Still nowhere near being overpowered, but it's a consideration. Mostly an argument for rogues being kind of bad.

[IZ42]

I encountered an odd contradiction in the Void Prophet archetype for the Zealot. Endless Hunger (gained at 3rd level) says that I may "...may attempt to add a creature who fails its saving throw against one of her strikes to her collective..." and if the strike does not normally allow for a save "...the creature must instead succeed at a Will save...", which is all fine and dandy, but then it states "The void prophet can only use this ability with strikes that allow a saving throw," which is a direct contradiction to the previous statement IMO.

I'm also seeking clarification that with Endless Hunger, strikes that target multiple creatures would require each one hit to make a saving throw, rather than just one of my choosing.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

I think the releases of PoW:E and the advanced class guide were too close together, so most hybrid classes don't have anything, when they would normally be expected to, and have some naming wierdness (brutal slayer stalker archetype, ambush hunter ranger archetype).

From a balance perspective, a hidden blade slayer is strictly better than hidden blade rogue. Better HD, BaB, and saves make it a significantly better initiator platform, and the reduced sneak attack isn't enough to compensate. Still nowhere near being overpowered, but it's a consideration. Mostly an argument for rogues being kind of bad.

Yeah, idk if they're even worth fixing at this point tbh. I'm considering just upgrading all the UnRogue's features to the equivalent Envoy/Operative features from Starfinder at this point. Hidden Blade UnRogue with Trick Attack, Debilitating Trick, and better saves sounds pretty competitive.

[DarkEternal]

This was probably asked and answered somewhere in these threads, but I couldn't find it.

Say you are a warlord with Circling the prey maneuver that grants everyone a free five foot step. Does that mean that if the others used a five foot step in their round, then came the warlord's turn, they can take another five foot step for free? Or for instance, could they take a five foot step, ready an action to attack when the warlord uses his circling the prey maneuver if the warlord is after them to get another five foot step?

[upho]

Say you are a warlord with Circling the prey maneuver that grants everyone a free five foot step. Does that mean that if the others used a five foot step in their round, then came the warlord's turn, they can take another five foot step for free?

Yes, because CtP grants a free 5' step.

Or for instance, could they take a five foot step, ready an action to attack when the warlord uses his circling the prey maneuver if the warlord is after them to get another five foot step?

Depends on when the ally intends to take their own 5' step. For example, during their turn, they could ready an action to attack and then take their normal 5' step, and then when the warlord uses CtP take the free 5' step and make their readied attack. They could not, however, ready an action to both attack and take their own 5' step.

I hope this answers your question.

[Gnaeus]

4th level Black Seraph Counter Vengful Riposte is missing a trigger.

We assume it's for melee attack rolls based on flavor text, but can't tell if it's meant to come after the enemy's first swing or before they even begin their attack.

Does the attack inflict damage?

Also most counters that can negate an entire full attack normally have more difficult triggers, such as stealth opposed by perception, instead of simply hitting the enemy with a full BAB attack.

I didn't see an answer on this. Is this a counter to a melee attack? Our stalker is claiming that he can just use it as an immediate action attack against anyone who has attacked anyone in the party because they are attackers and he wants vengeance against them and since there is no trigger he can just take a free attack whenever.

[Elricaltovilla]

I didn't see an answer on this. Is this a counter to a melee attack? Our stalker is claiming that he can just use it as an immediate action attack against anyone who has attacked anyone in the party because they are attackers and he wants vengeance against them and since there is no trigger he can just take a free attack whenever.

The trigger is being attacked. As in the stalker must be targeted by an attack directly. It doesn't work for attacks against allies, or it would specify that it can be used whyan ally is attacked.

[WorstPlayerEver]

The trigger is being attacked. As in the stalker must be targeted by an attack directly. It doesn't work for attacks against allies, or it would specify that it can be used whyan ally is attacked.

I felt this was a case of confusing fluff text and common language terms with crunch text and specifically defined game terms. The maneuver does not have the terminology commonly used in a dozen other maneuvers to clarify when you can initiate it. Most counters will specifically call out that they are used "when struck in melee combat" or "when targeted by a hostile attack or effect". They will specifically reference the term "attack roll". In Vengeful Riposte it describes how the initiator is trained "to look for openings while enemies attack, then respond with agonizing retorts" and it says the "disciple makes an attack at his full base attack bonus against his attacker which if successful...". Clearly the first reference to "attackers" is just as a common language term because the initiator is not expected to simultaneously attack multiple targets ("attackers" plural) with the maneuver, the second use of the term in the phrase "his attacker" I thought could also be interpreted as equivalent to "his opponent" or "his enemy" or "his target".

The lack of language used in other Counter maneuver descriptions that have specific trigger conditions makes it confusing here that the usage of the word "attacker" is fluff or flavor text, not meant to be read with some strict definition (i.e. "the guy that just made an attack roll against me"). In any event from a balance standpoint, I thought it was in line with an improvement over similar maneuvers. Minute Hand allows a single attack as a swift action for a 1st level maneuver, Vengeful Riposte as a 4th level maneuver I thought warranted the improvement in action economy (swift -> immediate) and the added debuff effect (staggered for 1 round). Bloody Riposte as a 2nd level maneuver allows an attack with +2d6 damage, but requires that the initiator be hit in combat first (where it clearly says "Upon being struck in combat by an enemy, the initiator may make an immediate counter attack...").

Edit: Sorry for the edits and confusion over verb tenses, I should clarify that I am the stalker in question that plays with Gnaeus.

[Zulwarn]

Sorry for the Thread Necromancy but this seems like a better place to ask than the FAQ thread. Are there plans to make an Unquiet Grave Style feat chain? As of now it seems to be the only Discipline without a Style feat Fool's Errand and Radiant Dawn getting them with the products that have them in it but Unquiet Grave does not have any.

[Futeko]

There's something that's bugging me about the Lv6 Counter "Convert Intrusion" from Sleeping Goddess. It sounds extremely powerful to me as it could almost automatically counterspell one spell per round.

Convert Intrusion:

Spoiler

Show

Discipline: Sleeping Goddess (Counter); Level: 6
Prerequisites: Two Sleeping Goddess maneuvers
Initiation Action: 1 immediate action
Range: Personal and 30′
Target: Self
Duration: 1 round

With a practiced flourish of your weapon and a surge of spiritual might, you tear magic asunder and redirect its power to assist your allies. You can initiate this counter when in response to being targeted by or within the area of a power, psi-like ability, spell, or spell-like ability. Make an Autohypnosis check with a DC of 11 + the effect’s caster or manifester level. If you succeed, the effect is negated, and all allies within 30 feet of you gain a competence bonus on saving throws equal to 1/2 your initiation modifier for one round.

Augment: You can augment this maneuver in one or more of the following ways:
• For every 2 power points you spend, the bonuses granted by this counter last an additional round.
• If you expend your psionic focus while initiating this counter, you can use it in response to an ally within 60 feet being targeted by or within the area of a power, psi-like ability, spell, or spell-like ability. If you do, make an Autohypnosis check as normal, then apply the effects of this counter to that ally rather than yourself. Your allies within 30 feet of that ally gain the bonus on saving throws from this counter.

Let's say I'm playing a Zealot. I max out Autohypnosis, and I buy a Ring of Self-Sufficiency (10k gp, gives a +10 competence bonus to Autohypnosis checks).
It means that when I use Convert Intrusion, I make a check of d20 + (My Level, since I max out Autohypnosis) + 3 (class skill bonus) + 10 (competence bonus) + WIS against a DC of 11 + (Caster Level).

Even with a result of 1 on my roll, even with just 10 in Wisdom (+0), before counting my level my bonuses are already at 1+3+10 = +14. So, with my level +14 I have to beat a DC of Caster level + 11. It means with a roll of 1, I auto-beat any Caster whose Caster Level is equal or lower to my level + 3.

And being a Zealot, I can recover my maneuvers as a Move Action, meaning I can use Convert Intrusion once per round every round as long as I'm able to take a Move Action.

So by expending a fully renewable resource as an Immediate Action, once per round I can automatically counterspell the vast majority of casters I'll encounter, making them lose generally their Standard Action, and a daily resource.
And if they decide to target my allies instead, I can expend my psi focus to initiate the counter on behalf of one of my allies and still counter the effect.

This sounds immensely powerful. Is there something I'm missing or misunderstanding somewhere?

[Castilonium]

This sounds immensely powerful. Is there something I'm missing or misunderstanding somewhere?

Nope, you're not missing anything. That's the nature of skill check based maneuvers in PoW. It's very easy to pump up your skill checks compared to other d20 roll. And you've also discovered one of the main reasons Zealots are so powerful, their move action recovery. Take a look at the Zenith strike maneuvers from Scarlet Throne for high damage attacks that don't even miss on a natural 1, because they're a Sense Motive check instead of an attack roll.

There are several ways for enemies to deal with Convert Intrusion, though. Attacking your allies instead of you, tapping out your action economy and psionic focus management, using non-spell attacks, etc.