[Dreamscarred Press] Path of War: Expanded! (Discussion Thread IV)

[Morrolan]

Well, no. If you don't have Sneak Attack Dice, you can't use sneak attack so you'd automatically fail that gambit. The other two should work fine though.

Ok, fine, but you are discussing to add this to warlord anyway right?

If the sneak attack gambit as it is now appears on the warlord gambit list, there is a gambit there that it cannot ever complete. That seems a bit.. odd, right? I was just thinking about the consequences of your discussion.

[Elricaltovilla]

Ok, fine, but you are discussing to add this to warlord anyway right?

If the sneak attack gambit as it is now appears on the warlord gambit list, there is a gambit there that it cannot ever complete. That seems a bit.. odd, right? I was just thinking about the consequences of your discussion.

Steelfist Commando can deal precision damage at 8th level. I wasn't planning on opening them all up. Sneak attack is the rogue's thing up until unchained came out, it was the only thing they were any good at. It's still basically the only thing they really shine with.

[Morrolan]

Steelfist Commando can deal precision damage at 8th level. I wasn't planning on opening them all up. Sneak attack is the rogue's thing up until unchained came out, it was the only thing they were any good at. It's still basically the only thing they really shine with.

Well, you could open them all up if you reword it, like I pointed out. Or, if you want to keep the sneak attack part of the gambit, you could make feats like the one I posted. (Feats that help multiclassing are great in my opinion, you could make a whole line of 'em)

Look, in the end, I simply like having options. I'm just trying to be helpful and think of ways for you guys to give access to these awesome new gambits to the warlord.

But hey, I'm not a writer for DSP, so I'll accept and love whatever you guys decide on. :)

[Elricaltovilla]

Well, you could open them all up if you reword it, like I pointed out. Or, if you want to keep the sneak attack part of the gambit, you could make feats like the one I posted. (Feats that help multiclassing are great in my opinion, you could make a whole line of 'em)

Look, in the end, I simply like having options. I'm just trying to be helpful and think of ways for you guys to give access to these awesome new gambits to the warlord.

But hey, I'm not a writer for DSP, so I'll accept and love whatever you guys decide on. :)

Well I can tell you for sure that I'm not going to open them up via feat tax. Especially not a feat tax that requires a dip anyway. If I allow Warlords to have access to the Sneak Attack Gambit from the start, they might not be able to use it right off the bat, but they can still make it work if they take a one level dip in rogue.

[Morrolan]

Well I can tell you for sure that I'm not going to open them up via feat tax. Especially not a feat tax that requires a dip anyway. If I allow Warlords to have access to the Sneak Attack Gambit from the start, they might not be able to use it right off the bat, but they can still make it work if they take a one level dip in rogue.

Yeah, you're probably right. Dipping and having to take the feat might be a bit too much. On the other hand, if you were dipping anyway it could be a nice bonus. Oh well.

Once last thing then, though:
Do you think you will be adding a foot/sidenote to the gambit saying that it actually requires the rogue's sneak attack class feature? Just having sneak attack in the description might otherwise be misinterpreted by some.

[Elricaltovilla]

Once last thing then, though:
Do you think you will be adding a foot/sidenote to the gambit saying that it actually requires the rogue's sneak attack class feature? Just having sneak attack in the description might otherwise be misinterpreted by some.

Highly unlikely, and probably unnecessary. Sneak Attack is a defined term in pathfinder.

[MilleniaAntares]

I do have to ask... When you take a paladin, remove it's Smite ability, it's Lay on Hands ability, and replace it with different things... Do you still have a paladin? It seems comparable to starting with a wizard and taking away the spellcasting.

Silver Crane strikes are pretty much Smites: The Maneuvering.

The change to Lay on Hands may or may not be a nerf, depending on whether you value post-injury-healing as better than damage prevention or not.

Steelfist Commando can deal precision damage at 8th level.

On a personal basis I feel that Body of the Night's damage boost and Powerful Pugilist's precision damage should have been designated as deadly strikes.... but I can see why you guys wouldn't do that.

Also, there's a Steel Serpent stance that grants sneak attack, and there's a Steel Serpent boost that does the same.

[Elricaltovilla]

Silver Crane strikes are pretty much Smites: The Maneuvering.

The change to Lay on Hands may or may not be a nerf, depending on whether you value post-injury-healing as better than damage prevention or not.

They're Smites and Lay on Hands, without daily limitation and comparable scaling.

[Morrolan]

Highly unlikely, and probably unnecessary. Sneak Attack is a defined term in pathfinder.

Yep probably unnecessary, but you can always err on the side of caution. :P

Well, thanks for the quick answers, can't wait for the full release of expanded!

[chaos_redefined]

So, I can make a paladin by taking a Warlord, changing out a discipline with a trait and focusing on Golden Lion, Silver Crane and Iron Tortoise. I can even provide temporary HP for the party with Deadeye Gambit and Victorious Presence. (Plus some Golden Lion maneuvers)

I even make everyone less affected by fear and the like with Rallying Presence. Sound good?

[Elricaltovilla]

So, I can make a paladin by taking a Warlord, changing out a discipline with a trait and focusing on Golden Lion, Silver Crane and Iron Tortoise. I can even provide temporary HP for the party with Deadeye Gambit and Victorious Presence. (Plus some Golden Lion maneuvers)

I even make everyone less affected by fear and the like with Rallying Presence. Sound good?

Yes? I don't really know what you're asking.

[Taveena]

I'm currently playing a Zweihander Sentinel Warder who uses silver crane. I have a +1 Merciful Gauntlet for exactly the purpose of punching my party members to heal them (or myself). There's been no complaints from our DM and it hasn't significantly changed the game for us at all.

There was also this thread not too long ago that talked about the effect that having infinite out of combat healing has on a game. Suffice it to say, starting every combat at full health is about equivalent to a 5% bump in Wealth By Level. Hardly worth worrying about in my opinion.

Oh, no, absolutely not a problem balance wise, and I agree! The issue in my mind is that I'm more encouraged to shoot helpless immobile targets than enemies. Attacking the ground or smacking a party member for out of combat healing I don't mind at all. Attacking the ground for IN combat healing... makes me feel like a dumbass.

But it's the better choice as a support character - because I'd rather take the guaranteed chance of hitting the AC 5 ground than the far from guaranteed chance of hitting the AC 15 cultist with 20% miss chance.

I am ENCOURAGED to shoot the ground and punch party members in combat. Because using a healing maneuver is all-or-nothing - you have to HIT - if you're primarily support then you'll keep smacking the ground, even in combat, because it's a more reliable heal.

[Elricaltovilla]

Oh, no, absolutely not a problem balance wise, and I agree! The issue in my mind is that I'm more encouraged to shoot helpless immobile targets than enemies. Attacking the ground or smacking a party member for out of combat healing I don't mind at all. Attacking the ground for IN combat healing... makes me feel like a dumbass.

But it's the better choice as a support character - because I'd rather take the guaranteed chance of hitting the AC 5 ground than the far from guaranteed chance of hitting the AC 15 cultist with 20% miss chance.

I am ENCOURAGED to shoot the ground and punch party members in combat. Because using a healing maneuver is all-or-nothing - you have to HIT - if you're primarily support then you'll keep smacking the ground, even in combat, because it's a more reliable heal.

I guess I don't have much in the way of accuracy issues then. I really only reserve punching the party dwarf for emergencies and out of combat healing.

Maybe tell the party wizard to prepare more dispel magics?

[Taveena]

I guess I don't have much in the way of accuracy issues then. I really only reserve punching the party dwarf for emergencies and out of combat healing.

Maybe tell the party wizard to prepare more dispel magics?

Alas, the party Witch was actually the reason I couldn't shoot anything accurately. Sight-obscuring BFC. But you might be right, I'll see how it plays further on.

[AGrinningCat]

Honestly I feel that a +1 merciful gauntlet of beating party members for health feels a bit... gamey. A stick of infinite cure light wounds is cheaper than a +1 merciful gauntlet anyways, and makes sense in-universe.

Balance reasons aside, how do you even begin to justify that in game?

'Hold still Thog while I beat you with my fist.'
'Thog already bleeding, why you try to finish Thog off?'
'You'll feel better after this! Trust me!'
'Thog may speak in third person to represent Thog's low intelligence, but Thog think this a bad idea...'

[Callin]

Call it a "Massaging Gauntlet"

"Here let me rub the hurt away."

[Elricaltovilla]

Honestly I feel that a +1 merciful gauntlet of beating party members for health feels a bit... gamey. A stick of infinite cure light wounds is cheaper than a +1 merciful gauntlet anyways, and makes sense in-universe.

Balance reasons aside, how do you even begin to justify that in game?

'Hold still Thog while I beat you with my fist.'
'Thog already bleeding, why you try to finish Thog off?'
'You'll feel better after this! Trust me!'
'Thog may speak in third person to represent Thog's low intelligence, but Thog think this a bad idea...'

Well then I've invested more resources than I should have for an effect, meaning that it should still be balanced compared to a want of infinite cure light wounds.

In game we justify it by our party members knowing how each others abilities work, trusting each other and not having a single INT score below 12. Sure, the first time I punched the party dwarf he was a bit leery about it, but since I did it without asking permission, and used it to heal him he stopped complaining about the same time his kidneys stopped bleeding.

[Extra Anchovies]

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. The merciful gauntlet isn't used for attacking your allies. It's used for attacking your allies' injuries. He punches the wounds so hard that the wounds disappear.

[Mehangel]

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. The merciful gauntlet isn't used for attacking your allies. It's used for attacking your allies' injuries. He punches the wounds so hard that the wounds disappear.

I would prefer to see it as a zealot laying hands on someone with the fear of their god in them.

[AGrinningCat]

In game we justify it by our party members knowing how each others abilities work, trusting each other and not having a single INT score below 12.

But how does it work as apart of the setting? At what point did Al'asadriel say 'Yeah, defend the innocent by pummeling them softly.'?

It's weird cases like this which makes it hard to sell PoW to reluctant GMs. Infinite healing can be replicated a dozen or so ways, but the moment you mention 'Yeah, my punch-mans can punch-walls and heal the group forever. Lay on hands? More like Lay your Eyes on this sick elbow drop!', GMs tend to raise eyebrows.

Combined with PoW lacking a strong ruling on how out-of-combat maneuvers work, the infinite-lay-on-hands seems overpowered when comparing like-classes, like the Cleric or Paladin who spend resources per day to utilize this kind of stuff, despite the only 5% WBL gain cited in the above source. This, with the power discrepancy between Core Fighter/Barbarian (Which GMs are used to) to any maneuver utilizing class, and you're fighting an uphill battle just to get them to open the book to read it, much less allow it at their table.

[Elricaltovilla]

I would prefer to see it as a zealot laying hands on someone with the fear of their god in them.

Well yeah, that's fine too. But I'm playing a Warder, not a zealot

EDIT:

But how does it work as apart of the setting? At what point did Al'asadriel say 'Yeah, defend the innocent by pummeling them softly.'?

It's weird cases like this which makes it hard to sell PoW to reluctant GMs. Infinite healing can be replicated a dozen or so ways, but the moment you mention 'Yeah, my punch-mans can punch-walls and heal the group forever. Lay on hands? More like Lay your Eyes on this sick elbow drop!', GMs tend to raise eyebrows.

Combined with PoW lacking a strong ruling on how out-of-combat maneuvers work, the infinite-lay-on-hands seems overpowered when comparing like-classes, like the Cleric or Paladin who spend resources per day to utilize this kind of stuff, despite the only 5% WBL gain cited in the above source. This, with the power discrepancy between Core Fighter/Barbarian (Which GMs are used to) to any maneuver utilizing class, and you're fighting an uphill battle just to get them to open the book to read it, much less allow it at their table.

How does it work as part of the setting? My 22 INT Warder says "Hey, when I punch bad guys (actually, I use an earthbreaker for more offensive actions, but same dif) I can use divine energy to heal an ally. If there's no bad guys around though, who can I punch?" So I hit the Dwarf Warder with my merciful earthbreaker. The healing effect went off, and the 18 INT Dwarf and 22 INT Half-Orc deduced that the Half Orc could heal more damage than he dealt out by switching to a less damaging weapon to use specifically for healing.

It was a logical conclusion based on a hypothesis and tested via scientific methods by two very smart and probably drunk individuals. Y'know like most other scientific discoveries.

EDIT MY EDIT: I forgot to mention the animal testing phase, where we tested the hypothesis on a trio of badgers our party druid summoned.
-------------------------

There are plenty of nonsense interactions in core pathfinder, but as soon as it's no longer core these interactions become a reason to ban a book. If you don't think your DM will like the conclusions you draw, then don't use them at that table. I could have played a wizard or an arcanist and tipped the game on its head way worse, but I didn't.

[Extra Anchovies]

Well yeah, that's fine too. But I'm playing a Warder, not a zealot

You prevent so much damage that would have been dealt to your allies that it actually rolls around into the negatives and starts healing them?

Lay on hands? More like Lay your Eyes on this sick elbow drop!

I think this needs to replace the sorcerer quote in my sig. Would you mind if I did that?

[AGrinningCat]

I think this needs to replace the sorcerer quote in my sig. Would you mind if I did that?

Consider it yours!

[Doomeye56]

I don't see the issue. The fluff is already that you channeling the energy of good through your attack to heal at the same time as damage. Maybe I'm just not get the "process?" On how that is seen as weird when you use it as pure support punch healing.

[Lord_Gareth]

Guys, I think you're failing to appreciate the beauty of this.

"Wait - stop, don't ambush these ones."

"Why?" the second bandit asked, incredulously.

"That's Mora the Betrayer. Look - there's a pair of displacer beasts attacking. Watch what happens."

The assault was swift and savage, but the adventurers overcame their foes in the end. And then, incredibly, the knight at the forefront of the group began hitting her allies with her gauntlet-clad fist - savage blows that echoed across the valley. And yet, each punch released a wave of bright, silver energy that flowed over their wounds, healing all but their pride.

"By the gods," the second bandit breathed.

"Exactly. We don't attack anyone that crazy."

[Nihilarian]

Steelfist Commando can deal precision damage at 8th level. I wasn't planning on opening them all up. Sneak attack is the rogue's thing up until unchained came out, it was the only thing they were any good at. It's still basically the only thing they really shine with.

To be honest, the Chained Rogue wasn't that good at sneak attack. Ninjas and Vivisectionists were miles better, and the only ones I can think of that are just flat out worse are... I think there was a bard that got like 3 die of sneak attack, and a magus that had to pay for each die with Arcane Points? They were worse. My favorite part of the Unchained Rogue is simply that you don't have to take Weapon Finesse and Deadly Agility, though.

Honestly I feel that a +1 merciful gauntlet of beating party members for health feels a bit... gamey. A stick of infinite cure light wounds is cheaper than a +1 merciful gauntlet anyways, and makes sense in-universe.

Balance reasons aside, how do you even begin to justify that in game?

'Hold still Thog while I beat you with my fist.'
'Thog already bleeding, why you try to finish Thog off?'
'You'll feel better after this! Trust me!'
'Thog may speak in third person to represent Thog's low intelligence, but Thog think this a bad idea...'

I have 0 patience with an argument that starts with "even though a caster can already do it, and better, this seems like too much for a non-caster to have."

Regardless, the Healing Shiv concept has been around for a while. If the DM has a problem with it, he can house rule it.

[Elricaltovilla]

To be honest, the Chained Rogue wasn't that good at sneak attack. Ninjas and Vivisectionists were miles better, and the only ones I can think of that are just flat out worse are... I think there was a bard that got like 3 die of sneak attack, and a magus that had to pay for each die with Arcane Points? They were worse. My favorite part of the Unchained Rogue is simply that you don't have to take Weapon Finesse and Deadly Agility, though.

I just said it was his thing, I didn't say he was good at doing his thing.

[RedOndjage]

Elric! I brought this suggestion to Errantx, and he said that he forwarded it to you and that you were considering it. Did you ever reach a conclusion?

Would the devs consider changing this:

Scarlet Throne Style [Combat, Style]
Your skill with a single blade allows you to strike with the same force as those much stronger than you.
Prerequisites: 1 or more Scarlet Throne stances, Sense Motive 3 ranks
Benefit: When wielding your weapon one handed with nothing in your off hand, you treat your weapon as being wielded in two hands for purposes of feats and abilities which would benefit from this change.

To this:

Scarlet Throne Style [Combat, Style]
Your skill with a single blade allows you to strike with the same force as those much stronger than you.
Prerequisites: 1 or more Scarlet Throne stances, Sense Motive 3 ranks
Benefit: When wielding your weapon one handed and not two-weapon fighting, you treat your weapon as being wielded in two hands for purposes of feats and abilities which would benefit from this change.

What this would do is allow more offensive sword and board types not to have to take TWF feats to do decent damage. Using it would also mean that they couldn't simultaneously use the Iron Tortoise Style feats without a dip in MoMS. Do you guys think this is a worthwhile change, or are you devs pretty set on this being specifically for free hand fighters?

[AGrinningCat]

I have 0 patience with an argument that starts with "even though a caster can already do it, and better, this seems like too much for a non-caster to have."

Casters should not be the balance point for the game. Considering DnD is a game where all players need to have some sort of role, players should be 'T' shaped. One area of competent specialization, with a broad area of supporting abilities and skills. These support areas should overlap with other players, but specializations should not. This is generally considered the Tier 3 area, and achieves balance by allowing every player to be in the spotlight every now and then, while making sure no player hogs the spotlight, while also making sure that no one ever feels useless in situations.

The problem with casters is that they're Box shaped. They have a broad area of abilities and skills with enough power behind them that they overshadow other players. Terms like 'Answers for everything' is what 'box' shaped characters mean.

A quick comparison of a 2 man party: Rogue and Fighter vs Rouge and Wizard or Wizard and Fighter.

Rouge and fighter are a 'Good' party(Relatively speaking). Rogue's specialization is Skills. Fighter specialization is Combat. Rogue can Combat. Fighter can Skills. But each player has their own specialization. 'T' shaped characters achieves balance.

Wizard and Fighter/Rogue are a 'bad' party. Anything either specializes in, the Wizard can do better. The Rouge/Fighter becomes marginalized in this party. This is because the Wizard is too strong. The Wizard is the problem.

Two options here is that you can either A) Bring down the Wizard or B) Bring up the Fighter.
Bringing up the Fighter causes the same issue: The Fighter becomes a box shaped character, which means you got the same problems. Really the fix here is to bring down the Wizard to a Tier 3 area, but that's never going to happen with Pazio at the helm (As we've seen with their new DOUBLE WIZARD wizard archetype).

Yes, I know Rogue/Fighter aren't tier 3, but Fighter/Rogue have their own design flaws and I'm just using them for an example

What I'm trying to say is that the argument 'A caster can do it better' shouldn't be an argument cause a Caster shouldn't be able to do everything better in the first place unless it's the caster's area of expertise.

[Extra Anchovies]

(As we've seen with their new DOUBLE WIZARD wizard archetype)

I haven't heard of this before. What's its actual name, and is it on the PFSRD?