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

[Futeko]

Thank you very much for your feedback! Though I'm a bit sad to see it really is as powerful as it sounds.

I did give the Counter a bit more thought, and it's not as potent as Counterspelling since you can't do anything against spells that don't affect you directly (like Invisibility, or the caster summoning creatures, etc.). Still, it practically makes you immune to spells affecting you directly (albeit only once per round).

I agree there are ways for enemy casters to work around it (e.g. "bluffing" with a quickened spell, having other spellcasting minions so that there are more than 1 spell per round to contend with, etc.) but it heavily complexifies the fight for them.

My main concern is that I'm playing a Zealot on a table of moderately experienced players, with a rather low ceiling of optimisation. It's something I'm a bit struggling with, because on the one hand I don't want to outshine or step on the feet of another PC (which is why I play mostly as a support role and try to limit my optimisation to mostly survival aspects), and on the other hand the DM is directing the campaign almost by the book, which means encounters can easily get deadly for low-optimisation characters. So I need to walk that fine line between "gets killed because optimisation is too low" and "outshines other PCs because optimisation is too high".

My PC has already been called out by the DM and other PCs for having such a high degree of versatility - which is basically what I love about Path of War (and the Tome of Battle). But since it's their first contact with the material, they now basically see it as "OP" and that's been sort of bugging me. I've been doing my best to clarify the system, explain everything I'm doing (and the costs behind), and provide meaningful comparisons to other classes of the same tier (3), but that label is sticking despite my best efforts.

It's not a problem by itself as my PC is not trivializing any encounter and I'm not walking on the toes of any other PC, so everyone still has their fun (I'm very attentive to that); but I just hate to see the "OP" label applied to the PoW materials. And if, at Lv11, I choose and start using Convert Intrusion, I have the feeling it won't do that case any good.

The obvious solution would be not to choose that Counter or to somehow nerf it (e.g. to limit its use to once per encounter, or to follow the same scheme as the ToB's Diamond Mind Counters by replacing the "negate a spell using an Autohypnosis check" with "replace a saving throw with an Autohypnosis check"), but my belief has always been that the PoW materials were rather well-balanced. Not that it was not possible to break the game using them, but that you'd need some craftiness and purpose to do so.

That's why Convert Intrusion looks so odd to me. Negating one direct-effect spell per round does not sound "balanced" at all, especially compared to other maneuvers of the same level. Yet if it made it all the way to published material, I feel someone at some point would have noticed that and called it out. Which is why I've been looking for the "catch" - something I'm not seeing/considering and does not make that Counter as "OP" as I feel it is. Or maybe I'm just too naive and some maneuvers really are OP x)

[phlidwsn]

A third way to consider: Go ahead and grab the counter, but don't pick up the +10 ring, so that its a chance, not a certainty to negate the spell.

[Futeko]

A third way to consider: Go ahead and grab the counter, but don't pick up the +10 ring, so that its a chance, not a certainty to negate the spell.

I thought about this, but even then I feel it's still quite strong: with 12 WIS, it's still 1d20+My level+4 vs 1d20+CL. It means I have a 70% chance to counter a spell cast by an enemy with the same level as mine, and 50% chance to counter a spell cast by an enemy 4 levels above mine - once per round. But I'll still keep it in mind when discussing options with my DM - maybe he'll prefer an "unlimited, but flip-a-coin" power to a "limited, but guaranteed" one.

[upho]

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.

Yes, it is powerful, especially in the hands of a zealot, but IME it at least initially appears far more powerful to many players than it actually is. So if for no other reason than to help you keep PoW and other DSP stuff from being wrongfully labeled as OP in your group, I'd like to add a few things which aren't necessarily as obvious from the PoV of players used to only Paizo PF material (not 3.5 initiators), and especially that of players less experienced in general.

But first off, both as a GM and as a player I must say I think your insightful and responsible attitude and approach towards this PC balance issue is worthy of praise. Which IME will also make it so much easier for you to find a good solution. However, I do also think that you're taking far too much responsibility, which ultimately risks simply being counterproductive for your game.

I did give the Counter a bit more thought, and it's not as potent as Counterspelling since you can't do anything against spells that don't affect you directly (like Invisibility, or the caster summoning creatures, etc.).

While I'd say counterspelling (without considerable investments in specific boosts) is almost universally an absolutely terrible way for casters to spend their actions and precious spell slots, I agree that its purpose is similar to that of CI.

But I think a more appropriate comparison would actually be any and all other abilities which can prevent an enemy from casting, and not necessarily only such abilities which also cause the enemy to waste the spell. This is of course simply because unlike PC casters, enemy casters are typically faced at full power and rarely have any reason for using their daily magic ammo sparingly. So with the potential exception of enemies having only a singular truly dangerous offensive spell or those relying on a few daily SLAs, the loss of a slot is typically trivial for enemy casters in comparison to the loss of a casting action, which is of course also worse the greater the action lost (typically from swift/immediate to full-round).

In effect, there are plenty of abilities which can screw over an enemy primarily relying on spells just as badly as IC, and even a few combos of Paizo martial options could be far more devastating. And I'd guess you yourself, with just a bit spare time, could build a Paizo martial PC which would be far better than your zealot with IC at the specific job of hindering/negating/defeating enemy casters and spells.

That said, such a Paizo build would most likely have to be far more optimized and still not nearly as versatile in combat as your zealot of course, and very few Paizo martial combos can match IC in terms of action efficiency. (And having access to many strong uses of immediate actions is also an important key difference between PoW initiators and Paizo martials, and a quite significant part of the reason why the former are superior to the latter.)

Still, it practically makes you immune to spells affecting you directly (albeit only once per round).

If this would turn out to be the case in your game, I'd guess a large part of the reason would be how your GM plays enemy casters, and less with IC itself (or with any other non-broken option of equivalent cost). And at least IME and AFAIK in official APs, a large majority of spellcasting enemies faced at 11th and later levels also give plenty of reasons for assuming they'd be very tactically smart combatants, and if played accordingly IC certainly won't make you practically immune to spells. At least not without some very strong supporting options allowing you to initiate IC more than twice per round or so.

I agree there are ways for enemy casters to work around it (e.g. "bluffing" with a quickened spell, having other spellcasting minions so that there are more than 1 spell per round to contend with, etc.) but it heavily complexifies the fight for them.

At this level, I'd actually be surprised if IC would be regarded as any kind of stand-out in terms of making fights complex. But of course, only your GM can be the judge of that in the end, as they're the one who has to deal with it.

On the other hand, I think you should be prepared for the high risk IC will be perceived as something very different than whatever its actual mechanics and relative power may be at your table. If for nothing else, players are IME very likely to overestimate the power of anything that does something which they've never seen another option do. Like a martial thingy that flat-out NOPEs spells... With an immediate action! And like, never fails! AND IT'S NOT A SPELL! BLASPHEMY!

If the group had already been accustomed to things like spell sundering barbs/bloodragers (the game's far most effective dispellers) and maybe ToB from playing 3.5, I'm certain your zealot and IC would've been far less likely to cause a stir, even if remaining just as powerful in relation to the other PCs as is currently the case. And unfortunately, when it comes to how well new stuff will be accepted by less experienced players, IME an option's game mechanics and true objective power (if it can be deduced) don't count, only the table's perception does.

My main concern is that I'm playing a Zealot on a table of moderately experienced players, with a rather low ceiling of optimisation. It's something I'm a bit struggling with, because on the one hand I don't want to outshine or step on the feet of another PC (which is why I play mostly as a support role and try to limit my optimisation to mostly survival aspects), and on the other hand the DM is directing the campaign almost by the book, which means encounters can easily get deadly for low-optimisation characters. So I need to walk that fine line between "gets killed because optimisation is too low" and "outshines other PCs because optimisation is too high".

My PC has already been called out by the DM and other PCs for having such a high degree of versatility - which is basically what I love about Path of War (and the Tome of Battle). But since it's their first contact with the material, they now basically see it as "OP" and that's been sort of bugging me. I've been doing my best to clarify the system, explain everything I'm doing (and the costs behind), and provide meaningful comparisons to other classes of the same tier (3), but that label is sticking despite my best efforts.

Ouch. I'd be very careful if I was you, or you'll end up not being allowed to play any PoW stuff. And I wouldn't worry about the "gets killed because optimisation is too low", because as long as you're not weaker than your allies (highly unlikely), you're also not going to drag your party down. And if you fail and TPK, then so be it! Not your fault. I mean, you also should give both your GM and especially your players a chance to learn. Which they're unlikely to do if you protect them from dying - which really shouldn't be needed at all in a friggin' AP played as written! On top of potentially keeping your GM from realizing they should never take for granted published adventures are balanced for your table, and the sooner they learn how to tweak content to better suit the (hopefully) constantly evolving and unique particulars of your group, the better.

That's why Convert Intrusion looks so odd to me. Negating one direct-effect spell per round does not sound "balanced" at all, especially compared to other maneuvers of the same level. Yet if it made it all the way to published material, I feel someone at some point would have noticed that and called it out. Which is why I've been looking for the "catch" - something I'm not seeing/considering and does not make that Counter as "OP" as I feel it is. Or maybe I'm just too naive and some maneuvers really are OP x)

Well, take a look at the Sleeping Goddess boost of the same level: Overpowering Optimism. Now that can be extremely powerful for a zealot. Not necessarily in a similar immediately obvious way as IC, of course, but definitely in combination with various psionic focus shenanigans and the right maneuver augmentations. For example, at 12th with the protection mission, you could have both OO and IC, and also first say expend your focus to have an ally take half damage from an attack via Living Bastion, then initiate OO on your own turn and regain your focus, initiate up to a 4th level counter as a free action outside your turn and finally initiate IC as an immediate action to void a spell and grant everyone in your collective DR 6/- for 4 rounds. All without spending a single PP or anything more than a single swift action, and much of it possible every round for as long as you have a move action available. And when also considering the many options for expending focus which are much more powerful than simply using Living Bastion, it follows OO can of course also become vastly more powerful.

And also in a comparison limited to abilities closer to IC in both level and effect, there are a few equally or potentially much stronger options, such as Beat the Clock, the Awakened Blade's clairsentient counter (accessible at 12th).

I thought about this, but even then I feel it's still quite strong: with 12 WIS, it's still 1d20+My level+4 vs 1d20+CL. It means I have a 70% chance to counter a spell cast by an enemy with the same level as mine, and 50% chance to counter a spell cast by an enemy 4 levels above mine - once per round. But I'll still keep it in mind when discussing options with my DM - maybe he'll prefer an "unlimited, but flip-a-coin" power to a "limited, but guaranteed" one.

Honestly, I'm certain the thing that the people at your table will take issue with is IC's immediate action and total spell negation. So trying to make the maneuver more humble by modifying the success chance simply won't work well, as it'll unfortunately only result in IC being either too unreliable to be of much use in order to be regarded as "balanced" to its powerful effect, and if it remains reliable enough to actually be useful, there's a very high risk it'll be met by cries of "OP!".

It's not a problem by itself as my PC is not trivializing any encounter and I'm not walking on the toes of any other PC, so everyone still has their fun (I'm very attentive to that); but I just hate to see the "OP" label applied to the PoW materials. And if, at Lv11, I choose and start using Convert Intrusion, I have the feeling it won't do that case any good.

The obvious solution would be not to choose that Counter or to somehow nerf it (e.g. to limit its use to once per encounter, or to follow the same scheme as the ToB's Diamond Mind Counters by replacing the "negate a spell using an Autohypnosis check" with "replace a saving throw with an Autohypnosis check"), but my belief has always been that the PoW materials were rather well-balanced. Not that it was not possible to break the game using them, but that you'd need some craftiness and purpose to do so.

It is rather well-balanced. But generally speaking, while the PoW options have considerably less "standard deviation" in terms of power than Paizo stuff, it doesn't mean there aren't clear power differences between especially disciplines/maneuvers. Which many people actually want, as it allows PoW to also be used in more high-op games where Paizo martials are simply not even remotely close to viable. But it does also mean that you simply cannot expect to use the stronger options in a low-op game without issues, true in an objective mathematical sense or not. (And btw, a major reason for using skill checks in place of attack roll or especially CMB is that skill bonuses are typically vastly more controlled (unlike in 3.5). Meaning aside from perhaps Intimidate and Climb, the designers have a very much clearer view of the rather tight span where skill bonuses end up each level, whereas things like a PC's CMBs for different combat maneuvers can pretty easily vary between +40 and +90 at 20th.

With this in mind, if I were to play a zealot in your game, as a rule of thumb I'd hesitate to pick more than perhaps a couple of options rated above green in Castilonium's zealot guide.

HTH!

[Ninjaxenomorph]

As someone that got PoW banned for playing a moderately-optimized warlord, tread carefully. Though thankfully, we have people in our group who are reasonable.

[Feint's End]

Though thankfully, we have people in our group who are reasonable.

It still got banned though right?^^

On a more serious note I'm sorry to hear that. PoW is completely fine balance-wise and to see people still debate this makes me sad.

[Elricaltovilla]

There is such a variance of thought on what is considered "OP" that it really becomes impossible to guess where the line is. I've spoken with players who claimed fighters were OP because they got twice as many feats as every other class, and also played with groups who thought that "bag of rats + death knell" was just a neat trick.

Still, it's probably better to play it safe than just go for it, this is a team sport after all. You could suggest adding the level of the spell you're trying to counter to the DC of Covert Intrusion's effect as a reasonable house rule.

[ThatMoonGuy]

Hey, hello. I'm not quite sure if this is the right place to do this but it's something I've always been curious about and I just don't feel like the FAQ topic is the right place to ask it. So, I really love PoW and have been using it whenever I could but I've always thought it a bit weird that there's no Wisdom based Full BAB initiator. I know there are archetypes, like the Myrmidon, who are both full BAB and use Wisdom as their IM but they follow the archetype progression and not the full Initiator progression.

I was thinking of homebrewing a class like that but first I wanted to hear from the people who actually built the system if there's any particular reason for that. Thanks in advance.

[Elricaltovilla]

Hey, hello. I'm not quite sure if this is the right place to do this but it's something I've always been curious about and I just don't feel like the FAQ topic is the right place to ask it. So, I really love PoW and have been using it whenever I could but I've always thought it a bit weird that there's no Wisdom based Full BAB initiator. I know there are archetypes, like the Myrmidon, who are both full BAB and use Wisdom as their IM but they follow the archetype progression and not the full Initiator progression.

I was thinking of homebrewing a class like that but first I wanted to hear from the people who actually built the system if there's any particular reason for that. Thanks in advance.

There is no particular reason I can recall for there not being a WIS based full BAB initiator that I can recall other than because we didn't make one.

That being said, the Ordained Defender archetype for the Warder makes it a WIS based initiator and it retains its full BAB. The archetype is generally considered an upgrade to the base Warder as well.

[ThatMoonGuy]

There is no particular reason I can recall for there not being a WIS based full BAB initiator that I can recall other than because we didn't make one.

That being said, the Ordained Defender archetype for the Warder makes it a WIS based initiator and it retains its full BAB. The archetype is generally considered an upgrade to the base Warder as well.

I see. That does free my conscience so I think I may try my hand at that homebrew after all. As for the Ordained Defender, I must've missed that archetype somehow. I will give it a look then.

Thanks for the answer.

[Elricaltovilla]

I see. That does free my conscience so I think I may try my hand at that homebrew after all. As for the Ordained Defender, I must've missed that archetype somehow. I will give it a look then.

Thanks for the answer.

You should never feel guilty about homebrewing. Have fun with it.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

It still got banned though right?^^

On a more serious note I'm sorry to hear that. PoW is completely fine balance-wise and to see people still debate this makes me sad.

We rotate GMs, and the other member of our dev group is just as much a fan of PoW as I am; in his upcoming game I'm more than likely going to play an ordained defender/cleric/battle templar. But the other guy is very... reactionary. He bans psionics because his only experience with them was a near-TPK from a high-level psion, even though that was both another game, and wasn't even a PC. His reasoning for banning PoW, from a PF subreddit:

Path of War, or anything Dreamscar Press puts out. Just...holy hell no.

Personal bias from my own experiences. I’m sure it’s balanced when the whole party is rocking PoW, but when it’s only one high-op PoW player and the rest are base PF (no 3rd party) then as the DM it becomes a headache. You start having to adjust for the PoW character, thus making the fights super lethal for the non PoW character. Something that can tank a 110 damage punch with a 55 damage blast-back is gonna be tough for everyone involved except the guy putting out the Saitama level damage.

Edit: Also the abilities are not indicative of what they do like spells are. "Wall of Iron", "Magic Missile", "Black Tentacles"? All give SOME idea of what they do. "Cursed Mirror Stance", "Septennial Seal", and "Shattered Mirror Strike" tell me nothing and either require me to constantly look up what they do as a DM or have a cheat sheet to keep track of that sort of stuff. It's a logistical nightmare for me.

[Feint's End]

We rotate GMs, and the other member of our dev group is just as much a fan of PoW as I am; in his upcoming game I'm more than likely going to play an ordained defender/cleric/battle templar. But the other guy is very... reactionary. He bans psionics because his only experience with them was a near-TPK from a high-level psion, even though that was both another game, and wasn't even a PC. His reasoning for banning PoW, from a PF subreddit:

Jesus. Alright I see it now. Yeah that's unfortunate. I personally have a problem with people like this if they are not open to at least talk about it. I have thus far never encountered somebody that wasn't at least open to giving it a try. DSP's books are some of the best balanced stuff out there (with some outliers ... Dread looking at you). They do however overshadow Sword and Board Fighters ... then again that's one of the worst archetypes out there in PF and well below Wizards, Druids, etc.
It really annoys me to constantly defend those books and purposefully hold back in-game since they are 3rd party. Especially if the people in question have a preexisting bias. On the other hand the same people have no problem letting somebody run a fully optimized Wizard since it's first party. (sorry for the small rant)


On another note. Are there any plans for more Path of War products or will DPS focus on PF 2ed content from now on? Sorry if I missed something. I've been absent from the community for a while.

[Futeko]

Thank you very much for your insight everyone! And thank you very much upho for taking the time to write all that advice - it provided me with depth, perspective and reassurance :)

It actually feels cheap to just say that, but I simply agree with everything you put forth x). My main takeaways are:

• Being attentive to balance within a group is important, but overdoing it can be counter-productive; if it's fun for everyone, it's fun for everyone - I should avoid trying to tweak every little thing.
• I compared CI to just "Counterspelling", which by itself is one of the worst option to "Counter a spell being cast". There are many simpler and more effective ways to do so, such as simply readying an action to attack and damage the spellcaster as they're casting the spell, forcing a concentration check they're unlikely to pass. Any Lv1 goon can do so; and CI is essentially a Lv11 class feature, and only applies to a limited range of spells.
• If the challenge of the encounter rests on the fact that there's a single spellcaster who has to be able to cast one direct-effect spell every round, it's actually not a challenging encounter at all (at least at Lv11+). There are many tools to make an encounter with a spellcaster more interesting and more challenging. CI would only "break" the trivial encounters - just like anyone with a crossbow and a readied action would.

Also, I'd like to rebound on the following:

If for nothing else, players are IME very likely to overestimate the power of anything that does something which they've never seen another option do.

If the group had already been accustomed to things like spell sundering barbs/bloodragers (the game's far most effective dispellers) and maybe ToB from playing 3.5, I'm certain your zealot and IC would've been far less likely to cause a stir, even if remaining just as powerful in relation to the other PCs as is currently the case.

This is the "issue" I have at my table, spot-on. The players literally said they know of nothing else that offers such versatility, and by extension find the materials "powerful".
What I missed however, is that tactics trump power any day (unless there's a really disproportionate difference, and then even ...). Versatility gives me a lot of tools I can use to "play smart" and develop interesting tactics, which would be harder if my martial PC was simply reduced to "if (distance to target >= 10ft), pounce, else 5ft step+full attack". This is one of the main reasons why I like PoW/ToB - it gives me a lot of meaningful choices I can make during an encounter to play smart. Nothing is really a "no-brainer".

Since I have a bit more experience than the players at the table, I come prepared to face a lot more different situations, and make sure to build my PC to have the means to do so. PoW just facilitates that - initiator classes are by essence more versatile than the average martial class. But it doesn't mean I just couldn't do the same with non-PoW classes and still be perceived as "versatile". If I had simply chosen e.g. purely damaging maneuvers & class options with no utility/support features, it's likely no one would have batted an eye.

And unfortunately, when it comes to how well new stuff will be accepted by less experienced players, IME an option's game mechanics and true objective power (if it can be deduced) don't count, only the table's perception does.

It's sadly true, and I have the impression I'm spending a lot of energy trying to convince the other players the material is not "OP", when it's actually not really possible (because their perception is already set) unless I come with another non-PoW PC that support my explanations, and most importantly when it's actually not really necessary - because they don't have an issue with my PC at all, they just find the material powerful. I take issue with the latter, but perhaps I should choose my battles better and move on x)

I mean, you also should give both your GM and especially your players a chance to learn. Which they're unlikely to do if you protect them from dying - which really shouldn't be needed at all in a friggin' AP played as written!

Well, my aim as a Zealot and as a support character is that no one dies unless I allow them to x). We actually don't have a "real" healer in our group, which is currently consisting of a Swashbuckler, an Arcanist, a Storm Druid, and my PC (a Knight-Disciple Paladin / Zealot) - all ECL6. I traded the Solar Wind discipline for Silver Crane through a Martial Tradition, and use mostly Silver Crane strikes (e.g. Silver Knight's Blade) to keep our HPs up, with Sleeping Goddess boosts (e.g. Reactive Reversion) as utility/defense.

The AP we're playing is Skull & Shackles, and honestly some encounters can get tough for a group such as ours x). Our most recent close-call with death came from a Canopy Creeper. This is why I'm focusing on keeping my support toolbox rich and diversified.

It is rather well-balanced. But generally speaking, while the PoW options have considerably less "standard deviation" in terms of power than Paizo stuff, it doesn't mean there aren't clear power differences between especially disciplines/maneuvers. Which many people actually want, as it allows PoW to also be used in more high-op games where Paizo martials are simply not even remotely close to viable. But it does also mean that you simply cannot expect to use the stronger options in a low-op game without issues, true in an objective mathematical sense or not.

I had never thought about this, but it's actually obvious in retrospect - it would be very difficult to have over 20 disciplines and over 10 classes all perform in exactly the same narrow band. My understanding is that PoW material is generally solid tier 3, but I guess it goes through the full range from "low-tier 3" to "high-tier 3".

I just had a look into Castilonium's (very extensive, in-depth and interesting) guide, and I guess I'm guilty of taking quite many blue options. I'm not currently using or planning to take any purple-rated maneuver though (except Silver Crane's Resurgence, but only because I'm terrified of rolling a 1 on a save-or-die effect).

In any case, I'm monitoring the situation carefully with my DM; I'll try to worry less about tweaking balance while still being transparent and clear about my future choices with the DM so that we can anticipate any potential issue and ensure there are no surprises for anyone. Thank you very much again for all your insight :)

[Feint's End]

In any case, I'm monitoring the situation carefully with my DM; I'll try to worry less about tweaking balance while still being transparent and clear about my future choices with the DM so that we can anticipate any potential issue and ensure there are no surprises for anyone. Thank you very much again for all your insight :)

That's generally a good philosophy to go with. I am currently playing a Soulknife War Soul in a group with a Barbarian, a Paladin, A Rouge (writing it this way is a choice) and a Ranger. It has worked out well so far. It's all about not overshadowing other people and finding your niche. I should mention that most of the classes have received quite significant buffs as part of our larger gaming society (most of them cooked up by my brother and me). Barbarians automatically gain Pounce at lvl 6, Rangers have a full companion and more powerful class featurs, Paladins have PF Smite and Lay on Hands and better features, Rouges gain feats on top of sneak attack (every 4h level I believe).

As long as everyone has a good time and you are open about your choices you'll be able to fit in. In our group we have a pretty good distribution of skill sets:

Barbarian: Combat Beast obviously. Deals way more dmg than I ever could and can take more of a beating
Paladin: Tanky, Utility and has some decent aoe due to a special breath weapon he got (paladin of bahamuth)
Rogue: Our Agent / Skillmonkey ... recently changed into Swordsage so now he also got some more combat utility
Ranger: Our best ranged member. He is fairly new so doesn't utilize his companion fully but still useful due to his skills and combat support
Soulknife War Soul: That's me. I have pretty good spike dmg and very good mobility (going into reworked Elocator) but can't really tank much (even though high AC). I offer mostly support dps for our Barbarian and utility from maneuvers (mostly adaptability instead of straight up dmg)

Overall we don't really overshadow one another and everybody has a good time.

[upho]

Thank you very much for your insight everyone! And thank you very much upho for taking the time to write all that advice - it provided me with depth, perspective and reassurance :)

You're welcome! I hope it'll be helpful both to you and the rest of your group, even if they remain unaware.

It actually feels cheap to just say that, but I simply agree with everything you put forth x). My main takeaways are:

Yes, seems you got the main points just right, despite my wordy ramblings...

This is the "issue" I have at my table, spot-on. The players literally said they know of nothing else that offers such versatility, and by extension find the materials "powerful".

The guys at your table seem to be in what I like to think of as "phase 2 of system mastery development", where they've largely understood that "big numbers", "loads of dice" or "potentially silly high damage" doesn't necessarily translate into real power in an actual game, but are still working on becoming aware of and questioning their expectations of things like different kinds of classes. Once they do, the next phase is typically understanding team tactics, action economy and the fluid differences between "versatility in methods/mechanics" and "versatility in results/applications". PoW initiators are btw typically far more versatile in the former sense than in the latter (while the opposite is often more true in the case of prepared full casters).

What I missed however, is that tactics trump power any day (unless there's a really disproportionate difference, and then even ...). Versatility gives me a lot of tools I can use to "play smart" and develop interesting tactics, which would be harder if my martial PC was simply reduced to "if (distance to target >= 10ft), pounce, else 5ft step+full attack". This is one of the main reasons why I like PoW/ToB - it gives me a lot of meaningful choices I can make during an encounter to play smart. Nothing is really a "no-brainer".

Exactly. But it's easy to to get a bit myopic and stuck in an overly limited "white-room analysis" when looking at a single option, especially if the option's mechanics are highly unique (primarily strengthening "versatility in methods/mechanics").

(For several IMO very good examples of this, look at the Golden Lion discipline. Many of its maneuvers can range from "near useless" to "wins the day" largely depending on the party's ability to work as a team and the player groups' tactical skills. Some players and groups find Golden Lion weak and don't see how the setups for making the maneuvers truly sing could be done with any reliability, even if they have more than one other melee oriented party member. Others find Golden Lion very powerful, and regularly manage to use the maneuvers with average results close to the maximum theoretically possible for their particular party. You can read a quite interesting discussion about this here, starting with post #276 and continuing to post #301 or so.)

Since I have a bit more experience than the players at the table, I come prepared to face a lot more different situations, and make sure to build my PC to have the means to do so. PoW just facilitates that - initiator classes are by essence more versatile than the average martial class. But it doesn't mean I just couldn't do the same with non-PoW classes and still be perceived as "versatile". If I had simply chosen e.g. purely damaging maneuvers & class options with no utility/support features, it's likely no one would have batted an eye.

IME and AFAICT from what you've said, that does seem very likely.

It's sadly true, and I have the impression I'm spending a lot of energy trying to convince the other players the material is not "OP", when it's actually not really possible (because their perception is already set) unless I come with another non-PoW PC that support my explanations, and most importantly when it's actually not really necessary - because they don't have an issue with my PC at all, they just find the material powerful. I take issue with the latter, but perhaps I should choose my battles better and move on x)

Yes. It's also easy to forget that these things take time to learn (and that some people simply never will), and that it's often difficult to quicken the process as a single more experienced player.

Likewise, it's easy to forget that less experienced players often have very different concrete reference points. For example, they may very well have no real idea how the god-like versatility of a well-built and played wizard affects the game past 10th level or how that versatility is actually achieved, or even a rough estimation of what the upper limits of theoretical and practical DPR are for Paizo martials at various levels (likely much higher than they think). As the single most experienced player, you're in the tricky situation of both helping your players learn so that you may play what you prefer without a constant fear of feeling OP or being regarded as some kind of munchkin, and having to adapt to your table by replacing your own reference points with those generally used by the table.

Well, my aim as a Zealot and as a support character is that no one dies unless I allow them to x). We actually don't have a "real" healer in our group, which is currently consisting of a Swashbuckler, an Arcanist, a Storm Druid, and my PC (a Knight-Disciple Paladin / Zealot) - all ECL6. I traded the Solar Wind discipline for Silver Crane through a Martial Tradition, and use mostly Silver Crane strikes (e.g. Silver Knight's Blade) to keep our HPs up, with Sleeping Goddess boosts (e.g. Reactive Reversion) as utility/defense.

Just to be clear, my point was that if your zealot had been about on par power-wise with the other PCs, still having the same support and healer focus as your current PC, your party would of course be much more likely to suffer serious setbacks or even crash hard into the letters "T" "P" and "K"...

In other words, while your current (I assume) quite a lot stronger zealot build protects the party from such setbacks, it may also keep the other players from learning that their PC's aren't really pulling their weight in order for the party to be successful.

The AP we're playing is Skull & Shackles, and honestly some encounters can get tough for a group such as ours x). Our most recent close-call with death came from a Canopy Creeper. This is why I'm focusing on keeping my support toolbox rich and diversified.

Oh, Paizo AP's can definitely include tough challenges for less experienced players, especially during the earlier levels. But on the whole, very modest character optimization levels and player skills are IME needed for a party to be successful. In contrast, more experienced players playing a party of PCs barely considered "mid-op" are IME highly likely to breeze through APs if the GM run them as written.

I had never thought about this, but it's actually obvious in retrospect - it would be very difficult to have over 20 disciplines and over 10 classes all perform in exactly the same narrow band. My understanding is that PoW material is generally solid tier 3, but I guess it goes through the full range from "low-tier 3" to "high-tier 3".

Well, sorta. At least if we're simply treating Tiers only as a general "game power" ranking, rather than being needlessly nit-picky and treating them also as categories with specific game definitions.

I just had a look into Castilonium's (very extensive, in-depth and interesting) guide, and I guess I'm guilty of taking quite many blue options. I'm not currently using or planning to take any purple-rated maneuver though (except Silver Crane's Resurgence, but only because I'm terrified of rolling a 1 on a save-or-die effect).

Heh, everybody loves Castilonium's guide! And for good reason, I might add. So yeah, I think you can safely use that to help avoid accidentally getting PoW banned.

In any case, I'm monitoring the situation carefully with my DM; I'll try to worry less about tweaking balance while still being transparent and clear about my future choices with the DM so that we can anticipate any potential issue and ensure there are no surprises for anyone. Thank you very much again for all your insight :)

Oh, here's that text-book fantastic attitude speaking again! Love it!

You're doing everything you should, and there's really nothing more you can do. Well, except maybe write a "How to Be a Good Player" guide on this forum... It would be awesome.

[StrengthofMany]

Hi, first time posting in these threads. I had a question that might be a little contentious and I've been afraid to ask it before, but..

Has anyone else felt like Veiled Moon has been a no-brainer option for their players? In my own campaigns the amount of freedom it gives them with movement has made it a staple of everyone's chargen even if it doesn't fit their character concept. It has made moving very 'safe' for PCs and positioning enemies almost pointless as a Warder can get where they want to lockdown enemies, a Stalker can jump on a squishy skirmisher or caster type, etc.

Of course I know the obvious answer will be 'dimensional anchor' but this level of safe movement activates by level 3 on most PoW classes and it feels very, well, dumb if I have to shut down this player option with another hard counter. At that point, if that is my only recourse, I have considered either making Veiled Moon harder to access (one PC with it is fine but the whole party is when it gets silly imo) or ban its teleportation maneuvers entirely but I am very much against denying player options on principle. I just don't like how it distorts movement in my games. A primal fury charger build is already hell on wheels and hard to deny when they have so many ways to sidestep AoOs and later on, movement penalties. For us Veiled Moon practitioners have almost universally been 'I am going where I want and you can't stop me' in practice.

What is a more interesting and positive way I can challenge my hyper mobile PCs, and also encourage them all to vary it up more with other disciplines?

[Kris Moonhand]

If it's a no-brainer, then most of my play group mus have no brain, cuz I don't think any of us have any Veiled Moon maneuvers.

Jokes aside, the point of PoW is to get rid of the "I stand there and hit the guy" style of combat by allowing characters to be more mobile. That said, if it's really so egregious, remember that if the players have access to PoW... so do you. Get some other Veiled Moon users in there. Get some Tempest Gale or Solar Wind adepts to shoot them. Lock them down with Fool's Errand by making them realize there's No Escape. Use that level 10 Warder feat that was removed in the playtest that prevents teleportation when you're in their zone. Hell, Eternal Guardian is basically made to mess with Veiled Moon users. Guard's Oath, Binding Fetters, Shackles of the Condemned, Inescapable Fetters, Inescapable Grasp... Start throwing Warders or Harbingers with that into your fights. Back 'em up with a Rajah or Medic.

[upho]

Has anyone else felt like Veiled Moon has been a no-brainer option for their players?

No, far from it. If there are any disciplines that approach being universally great I'd say it's Riven Hourglass for fantastic action economy, and Radiant Dawn for superior party protection and essence for Akashic shenanigans (like essence forged weapons).

What is a more interesting and positive way I can challenge my hyper mobile PCs, and also encourage them all to vary it up more with other disciplines?

In addition to what Kris mentioned, have the PCs face say a Fiendbound Marauder warder 5+ BBEG with boosted size, reach, grapple CMB and Stance of the Thunderbrand (Piercing Thunder 5). All the Veiled Moon teleportation and incorporeal mobility/escape tricks will be shut down hard.

If you really want to make certain your players get the message, combine 5 warder levels as above with 4 levels of Tetori monk and Seize the Opportunity so each attack against a non-adjacent PC can both initiate (grab) and immediately maintain the grapple. (Here's a similar but more dangerous 13th level example build I made a couple of years ago that might give you some ideas - check out especially the "Combined Mechanics" spoiler. Just be careful with the hard lock-down and grapple damage shenanigans so you won't cause a TPK.)

The players/PCs will hopefully soon discover they can't move in any way at all within the great reach radius of the warder and they'll be be forced to change tactics or simply run away. Afterwards, your players will hopefully also realize that the warder could've been a lot more deadly, most likely enough so to threaten a TPK all by itself against the equal level party. And they'll probably have a much more realistic view of Veiled Moon.

[legomaster00156]

The Path of War giveth, and the Path of War can taketh away.

[upho]

And thus the Legomaster spoke the truth.

[StrengthofMany]

Thank you everyone! This has given me so much to work with. I was really worried I would have to set up fields of Dimensional Anchor in every fight just to slow my players down. Now I can challenge their mobility without outright denying it.

[Drackstin]

So i just started playing an Epic game. The Dms told me PoW was aloud and all of the martial players had stuff in their build. I was unable to use any of the classes or archetypes for my build. I was wondering if you ever considered making a PrC that stacked with Monk levels, and added to casting wail still getting maneuvers?
The Battle Templar was the closest thing i found, but taking it would have handicapped me. Playing a Warpriest sacred fist, the already slow spell progression and the lack of stacking monk hurt too much.
I also saw there is a feat that let your Ki Pool class levels stack with Kineticist. maybe a feat that would do something like that for Art of the blade classes.

[StSword]

So i just started playing an Epic game. The Dms told me PoW was aloud and all of the martial players had stuff in their build. I was unable to use any of the classes or archetypes for my build. I was wondering if you ever considered making a PrC that stacked with Monk levels, and added to casting wail still getting maneuvers?

You want essentially a triple theurge style prestige class? Don't hold your breath.

However, if your DM is open to it, there's Alternate Paths: Prestige Classes by Little Red Goblin Games, that adds groundwork feats.

Groundwork feats are a replacement for "prestige class stacks with blah for advancing class features" mechanics in pathfinder.

So in that system, every prestige class stacks with Monk, if you shell out the feats to make it so.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

You could also just buy a Monk's Robe, grab a few levels of a casting class, and take all 10 levels of Bladecaster

[Drackstin]

You want essentially a triple theurge style prestige class? Don't hold your breath.

However, if your DM is open to it, there's Alternate Paths: Prestige Classes by Little Red Goblin Games, that adds groundwork feats.

Groundwork feats are a replacement for "prestige class stacks with blah for advancing class features" mechanics in pathfinder.

So in that system, every prestige class stacks with Monk, if you shell out the feats to make it so.

I mean technically isn't battle templar triple theurge. Having casting, maneuvers, and added abilities.

There is a great drought of PrC that actually stack with monk. And even less that stack with warpriest.
3.5 had PrC named sacred fist. It has casting and monk stacking, but felt lackluster because it had almost nothing with it. Having a PrC that stacks Warpriest might actually work just as well.

[Rynjin]

Hi, first time posting in these threads. I had a question that might be a little contentious and I've been afraid to ask it before, but..

Has anyone else felt like Veiled Moon has been a no-brainer option for their players? In my own campaigns the amount of freedom it gives them with movement has made it a staple of everyone's chargen even if it doesn't fit their character concept. It has made moving very 'safe' for PCs and positioning enemies almost pointless as a Warder can get where they want to lockdown enemies, a Stalker can jump on a squishy skirmisher or caster type, etc.

Of course I know the obvious answer will be 'dimensional anchor' but this level of safe movement activates by level 3 on most PoW classes and it feels very, well, dumb if I have to shut down this player option with another hard counter. At that point, if that is my only recourse, I have considered either making Veiled Moon harder to access (one PC with it is fine but the whole party is when it gets silly imo) or ban its teleportation maneuvers entirely but I am very much against denying player options on principle. I just don't like how it distorts movement in my games. A primal fury charger build is already hell on wheels and hard to deny when they have so many ways to sidestep AoOs and later on, movement penalties. For us Veiled Moon practitioners have almost universally been 'I am going where I want and you can't stop me' in practice.

What is a more interesting and positive way I can challenge my hyper mobile PCs, and also encourage them all to vary it up more with other disciplines?

I would not discourage them from taking Veiled Moon; it's not actually as strong as it seems, it's merely very FUN, because it breaks the overly restrictive movement rules of base PF a bit.

I'd say 90% of the time, let your players do as they will. The other 10%, Path of War it up right back. Eternal Guardian I believe has some lockdown options that work on teleports from very low levels.

Plus throw in enemies that are simply fast or are good at "sticking" to enemies through various means. Teleporting 60 feet away doesn't much matter when the enemy can Charge to pursue.

[Andor13]

So i just started playing an Epic game. The Dms told me PoW was aloud and all of the martial players had stuff in their build. I was unable to use any of the classes or archetypes for my build. I was wondering if you ever considered making a PrC that stacked with Monk levels, and added to casting wail still getting maneuvers?
The Battle Templar was the closest thing i found, but taking it would have handicapped me. Playing a Warpriest sacred fist, the already slow spell progression and the lack of stacking monk hurt too much.
I also saw there is a feat that let your Ki Pool class levels stack with Kineticist. maybe a feat that would do something like that for Art of the blade classes.

Why not swap out monk for Steelfist Commando or one of the other PoW archetypes that favor the boot-to-the-head approach?

If that doesn't work there is the Trinity Knight PrC from City of the Seven Seraphs. It does not explicitly advance monk abilities but I would ask your GM if they would let the "Path of the Knight" ability apply to monk. I can't imagine one turning that down since Monk is weaker than all the classes that ability does apply to.

[Kris Moonhand]

If a Stalker has an initiation modifier of 0, do they simply not receive any Deadly Strikes when they crit? Most class features like that have a "(minimum 1)" in there, but Stalker doesn't.

[Rynjin]

Looks like it, yeah. Good incentive not to dump your primary stat.