[PF/DSP] Dreamscarred Press announces ToB-inspired product II: The Rematch

[Metahuman1]

Um, I don't think 1-3 archatypes out of, by the time were done making them, 3 base classes, who knows how many magic items/properties/monsters/, a new subsystem, and what is shaping up to be a MASSIVE list of Other, unrelated and half or more the time unstack able Archatypes and/or Prestige classes, is a reason to bow out.

Just leave those three archatypes alone, let what ever happens with them happen, and then, work on other things you like better would be my though on the easy way to handle it.

[Elricaltovilla]

I think the warlord could benefit from a crafting based archetype. He'd be the leader who outfits and maintains his allies equipment.

Give him a scaling bonus to craft skills, the ability to modify enchantments on equipment on the cheap and a pool of virtual gp like the Pathfinder PRC's deep pockets ability. Call him the Supply Sergeant or Quartermaster or Warsmith.

Let the regular warlord lead from the front with charm and smiles, this is the guy who actually wins battles because he's the one who stays up all night making sure all the archers had an extra +1 slaying arrow in their quivers.

[Metahuman1]

I think the warlord could benefit from a crafting based archetype. He'd be the leader who outfits and maintains his allies equipment.

Give him a scaling bonus to craft skills, the ability to modify enchantments on equipment on the cheap and a pool of virtual gp like the Pathfinder PRC's deep pockets ability. Call him the Supply Sergeant or Quartermaster or Warsmith.

Let the regular warlord lead from the front with charm and smiles, this is the guy who actually wins battles because he's the one who stays up all night making sure all the archers had an extra +1 slaying arrow in their quivers.

The Warder could get away with it too by being the guy who "Trusts his life to his tools, because he put his own tears, sweat, blood, knowledge, skill and soul into making them exactly as he needed them to be.".

The Stalker similarly could do this on the grounds of "The cunning and insightful warrior leaves little to chance, preferring whenever possible to have and use the best tool for the task at hand when planning to begin combat, or to have it handy when combat is brought to him."

[upho]

First, it seems to me the posters here have different definitions of the word "theme" when used in this context (a RPG supplement). Personally, I believe "theme" refers to the common descriptive denominator of the content (Ultimate Magic has magic, especially caster, PC options as it's theme, Ultimate Psionic has psionic options etc). And though a theme often may be reflected in mechanics (a supplement with a fire theme would likely have lots stuff doing fire damage), there's nothing that prevents wildly different mechanics of wildly different effectiveness to share a theme and end up in the same supplement.

So "giving nice stuff (effective mechanics)" or "improving balance" isn't a theme according to me, while "fantasy martial art a la ToB" definitely is. Or to put it in other words, if the top priority or main goal of a supplement was "give effective mechanical options to mundanes", it probably wouldn't be wise to give it a theme more narrow than "non-caster options", full stop.

No, we're not going to address all of melee's problems, because frankly at the end of the day our job is not to fix the system; our job is to give gentle, affordable options to help melee concepts of any class feel heroic. And there's nothing wrong with that.

This is a very noble goal. When it comes to the options in PoW, I'm guessing there's a few changes to that goal, perhaps something like:

"present ToB-themed PC classes and give gentle, affordable and thematically suitable options to help non-caster concepts of any class feel heroic"

Please let me know if my guess is wrong.

I'm saying PoW is advertised as an OGL ToB and that crafting magical items has nothing to do with it. I'd much rather you spend time and energy making PoW-related stuff than trying to fix something I don't think is broken. In fact, that's the vibe I get from the Pathfinder fanbase as well.

This. (If "thing that doesn't need fixing" refers to crafting for non-casters.)

It has been said before, Master Craftsman works perfectly for worldbuilding purposes - now badass blacksmith can make the badass weapon. It's only a problem if you want to play the badass blacksmith and be as good at fighting as someone who did not spend half their like making weapons.
Or you could play a Soulknife.

And this. Thank you IronFist. Having powerful/varied/fun options for non-casters that improve class balance is great, but the options in PoW should also be thematically suitable. Crafting isn't IMO (and doesn't do much to improve balance either). Please put away that Soulknife, you may accidentally hurt PoW...

[Lord_Gareth]

So "giving nice stuff (effective mechanics)" or "improving balance" isn't a theme according to me, while "fantasy martial art a la ToB" definitely is. Or to put it in other words, if the top priority or main goal of a supplement was "give effective mechanical options to mundanes", it probably wouldn't be wise to give it a theme more narrow than "non-caster options", full stop.

This is a very noble goal. When it comes to the options in PoW, I'm guessing there's a few changes to that goal, perhaps something like:

"present ToB-themed PC classes and give gentle, affordable and thematically suitable options to help non-caster concepts of any class feel heroic"

Please let me know if my guess is wrong.

Well, it's not as right as it could be. There's nothing stopping spellcasters from using some of the options available here. I can think of clerics who wouldn't mind Martial Training, for example (hell, I'd use it as one-two - enhance a theme for my priest and self-nerf!). But it's true that Path of War is for "mundanes" to a great extent and I'm certainly not deliberately throwing spellcasters any bones.

Well...okay, two spells. But you'll be happy when you see why I made them.

[upho]

Well, it's not as right as it could be. There's nothing stopping spellcasters from using some of the options available here.

That's why I kept the "for any class" at the end, meaning non-caster options for everybody, including casters and their mums!
Eh... Well yes, see your point. Not exactly crystal clear wording, perhaps... But I thought "melee" or "mundane" would be off since PoW will obviously include plenty of ranged and psionic options.

Anyhow, my main point was that the ToB theme means certain options (like crafting) don't belong in PoW, regardless of whether they empower mundane classes (which crafting doesn't, particularly).

I can think of clerics who wouldn't mind Martial Training, for example (hell, I'd use it as one-two - enhance a theme for my priest and self-nerf!).

The one-two nerf is definitely not a bad idea. Should result in a build with plenty of interesting and effective options in combat, while keeping the worst casting shenanigans from stealing the show. Still powerful, but thankfully miles behind to the old cleric go-to in ToB, the Ruby Knight Vindicator: 90% initiator, 90% caster, 100% overpowered...

Too bad it's unlikely I'll ever find a similar easy nerf for the vanilla summoner I'm currently struggling to keep from stomping all over his tier 3 companions.

But it's true that Path of War is for "mundanes" to a great extent and I'm certainly not deliberately throwing spellcasters any bones.

Good to hear you're keeping your focus and don't let those cheap caster options distract you!

Speaking of empowering mundanes, did you check out my melee control discipline / warden archetype idea (post #20)? It's basically about controlling the battlefield with melee maneuvers that have much more in common with spells like Black Tentacles, Force Cage and Web than the all too common brainless mundane "swing weapon to deal damage, repeat"-style. I'd really love to see such a flexible, tactically interesting and unorthodox combat style made available in PoW.

Well...okay, two spells. But you'll be happy when you see why I made them.

What?! Stuff for the Dark Side? That'll make me happy...? Dusty, ancient-looking scroll on a string to lure wizards into melee reach? Seriously though, now I'm intrigued!

[JHShadon]

Dusty, ancient-looking scroll on a string to lure wizards into melee reach?

...I'm going to do this one day.

[upho]

...I'm going to do this one day.

Better not keep that day waiting. Otherwise the wizard might've put his gnarly old hands on a copy of PoW and already invested his ill-gotten XP in a couple of those tasty "melee options for anybody". In which case he might slap you silly with books or throw his dangerously pointed hat at you...

[Metahuman1]

Better not keep that day waiting. Otherwise the wizard might've put his gnarly old hands on a copy of PoW and already invested his ill-gotten XP in a couple of those tasty "melee options for anybody". In which case he might slap you silly with books or throw his dangerously pointed hat at you...

...

I am suddenly compelled to play Knowledge Monkey warrior who uses a stupidly big book in a Riverine protective travel case to bludgeon his foes into submission/to death.

[Person_Man]

Alright, so... a thought for you all:

Fighters need a little love and a martial template. So we know they've got two sides to their class in Pathfinder: Bonus Feats, and Weapon/Armor Training. Veritably every archetype under the sun trades away the weapon/armor training stuff, and bravery. Rarely does it effect the bonus feats. I also think we can all agree that fighter archetypes makes fighter actually more fun to play than normal, because it lends new abilities to make your schtick work (firm believe that all fighters must have a schtick, something that they focus on doing). So what if my archetype for fighter, instead of attacking the same old features, instead, went after some bonus feats? Pay out 6 of your bonus feats, and maybe heavy armor and tower shields to basically get Martial Training 1-6 twice.

This gives your fighter maneuvers up to 6th level, some bonus feats, and the track of fighter's abilities that you could in theory trade for one of those flavorful archetypes.

Too strong? Too awesome? You decide.

-X

I have another alternative for you to consider. Just write more cool Feats, and limit them to Fighters of a certain level (like Weapon Specialization et al). That way, they can just be chosen by any Fighter, and can be more easily mixed and matched together, without the fuss of Archetype progression (having to choose certain Archetype abilities you don't want in order to get ones you do want, and not being able to select Archetypes that overlap by trading out the same class ability at the same level).

[Elricaltovilla]

The Warder could get away with it too by being the guy who "Trusts his life to his tools, because he put his own tears, sweat, blood, knowledge, skill and soul into making them exactly as he needed them to be.".

The Stalker similarly could do this on the grounds of "The cunning and insightful warrior leaves little to chance, preferring whenever possible to have and use the best tool for the task at hand when planning to begin combat, or to have it handy when combat is brought to him."

Yes, all three of them could potentially have a crafting based archetype. But I thought of the warlord first because he has the teamwork focus, so the advantage of a crafting archetype benefits not just him, but also his teammates.

Alright, so... a thought for you all:

Fighters need a little love and a martial template. So we know they've got two sides to their class in Pathfinder: Bonus Feats, and Weapon/Armor Training. Veritably every archetype under the sun trades away the weapon/armor training stuff, and bravery. Rarely does it effect the bonus feats. I also think we can all agree that fighter archetypes makes fighter actually more fun to play than normal, because it lends new abilities to make your schtick work (firm believe that all fighters must have a schtick, something that they focus on doing). So what if my archetype for fighter, instead of attacking the same old features, instead, went after some bonus feats? Pay out 6 of your bonus feats, and maybe heavy armor and tower shields to basically get Martial Training 1-6 twice.

This gives your fighter maneuvers up to 6th level, some bonus feats, and the track of fighter's abilities that you could in theory trade for one of those flavorful archetypes.

Too strong? Too awesome? You decide.

-X

I think it could be a very good combination, especially since it lets you combine with other good archetypes (like Lore Warden). However, as the popular concept of fighter is "guy what fights good" being limited to 6th level maneuvers in only 3 disciplines is going to feel underwhelming compared to the more focused themes, wider variety of disciplines and higher level maneuvers of the three new base classes.

It's definitely throwing the fighter a bone (and a big meaty one at that), but it makes him more like a Martial Magus instead of a Focused Specialist Wizard.

Maybe give the fighter something unique like the ability to ready a maneuver more than once? That would be something only he can do.

[ErrantX]

I feel the need to address some things.

1) I'm not planning on any kind of revolutionizing of the item crafting system for martial disciples; Master Craftsman is just fine, or make friends with a spellcaster. Magic items usually require a magic-user to make, and I'm okay with that largely, as it forces spellcasters to drop valuable feat slots into that sort of behavior. Otherwise, Master Craftsman for the win. There will be magical items and such in this book, but I'm not planning on new Item Creation feats and crazy new methods of magic item generation. I'm not there yet though, so it could change but I'm not making plans. The current system works well enough. I think we're getting crazy off topic with debating it as well.

2) I am also not 100% on the idea that I had mentioned regarding a fighter archetype. It was something I was kicking around in my head. I did a progression up for it and it looks decent, gets a fair number of maneuvers at a reasonable rate. It net 14 known, 8 readied, 5 stances and 6th level maneuvers by level 16 with trades at 5th level and every 3 levels after. I'm going to play around with it, but I'm not 100% on the idea.

3) In place of a fighter archetype, a pile of feats may work as well, but it seems a bit off to go and make archetypes for the others and not have a maneuver granting archetype for fighter, ya know?

Just some thoughts of mine.

-X

[Elricaltovilla]

I feel the need to address some things.

1) I'm not planning on any kind of revolutionizing of the item crafting system for martial disciples; Master Craftsman is just fine, or make friends with a spellcaster. Magic items usually require a magic-user to make, and I'm okay with that largely, as it forces spellcasters to drop valuable feat slots into that sort of behavior. Otherwise, Master Craftsman for the win. There will be magical items and such in this book, but I'm not planning on new Item Creation feats and crazy new methods of magic item generation. I'm not there yet though, so it could change but I'm not making plans. The current system works well enough. I think we're getting crazy off topic with debating it as well.

I realize you're not out to revolutionize the system and make everything totally awesome and balanced, but if you don't want us to get excited about possibilities and jump the gun like this, then you shouldn't be putting out such good material!

2) I am also not 100% on the idea that I had mentioned regarding a fighter archetype. It was something I was kicking around in my head. I did a progression up for it and it looks decent, gets a fair number of maneuvers at a reasonable rate. It net 14 known, 8 readied, 5 stances and 6th level maneuvers by level 16 with trades at 5th level and every 3 levels after. I'm going to play around with it, but I'm not 100% on the idea.

I think it's a viable archetype. Like I said, it feels like the Martial equivalent to a Magus, and I LOVE the Magus. But the Magus has extra abilities to make up for its restricted spellcasting, so I think that your fighter archetype could benefit from something a little extra to make up for loss of maneuvers.

3) In place of a fighter archetype, a pile of feats may work as well, but it seems a bit off to go and make archetypes for the others and not have a maneuver granting archetype for fighter, ya know?

Just some thoughts of mine.

-X

I think you should add a pile of feats in addition to archetypes for fighters, rangers, paladins, barbarians, etc.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Well...okay, two spells. But you'll be happy when you see why I made them.

Caster Supremacy Field
School Universal; Sorcerer/Wizard 1, Bard 1, Magus 1, Cleric/Oracle 1, Druid 1, Paladin 1, Ranger 1
Casting Time 1 Standard Action
Components V
Range 10 miles/level burst
Duration 1 year/level

Within the radius of this spell's effect, all initiating of maneuvers and stances becomes impossible, as well as all manifesting of psionic powers, and the effects of all previously initiated maneuvers and stances and all previously manifested psionic powers are suppressed for the duration of the spell. All attack rolls made within the area automatically fail, unless the roll is made as part of casting a spell, or activating a spell-like ability.

[ErrantX]

I realize you're not out to revolutionize the system and make everything totally awesome and balanced, but if you don't want us to get excited about possibilities and jump the gun like this, then you shouldn't be putting out such good material!

Aww shucks! I'll make sure the rest sucks from here on out j/k

I think it's a viable archetype. Like I said, it feels like the Martial equivalent to a Magus, and I LOVE the Magus. But the Magus has extra abilities to make up for its restricted spellcasting, so I think that your fighter archetype could benefit from something a little extra to make up for loss of maneuvers.

That's kind of why I was leaving it up to Bravery and Weapon Training/Armor Training to shore up stuff, or by trading that stuff out for new abilities through archetypes. Very customized fighter then. And I'll argue that maneuvers are just as useful if not more so than a bonus feat.

I think you should add a pile of feats in addition to archetypes for fighters, rangers, paladins, barbarians, etc.

Well, yeah

-X

[Elricaltovilla]

Caster Supremacy Field
School Universal; Sorcerer/Wizard 1, Bard 1, Magus 1, Cleric/Oracle 1, Druid 1, Paladin 1, Ranger 1
Casting Time 1 Standard Action
Components V
Range 10 miles/level burst
Duration 1 year/level

Within the radius of this spell's effect, all initiating of maneuvers and stances becomes impossible, as well as all manifesting of psionic powers, and the effects of all previously initiated maneuvers and stances and all previously manifested psionic powers are suppressed for the duration of the spell. All attack rolls made within the area automatically fail, unless the roll is made as part of casting a spell, or activating a spell-like ability, in which case the roll is treated as a natural 20 and automatically confirms a critical hit. In addition, any damage rolls associated with spells are maximized, empowered, intensified (to the maximum possible benefit of the caster) without increasing casting time or level of the spell.

Fixed that for you. It wasn't powerful enough for a caster.

[ErrantX]

Caster Supremacy Field
School Universal; Sorcerer/Wizard 1, Bard 1, Magus 1, Cleric/Oracle 1, Druid 1, Paladin 1, Ranger 1
Casting Time 1 Standard Action
Components V
Range 10 miles/level burst
Duration 1 year/level

Within the radius of this spell's effect, all initiating of maneuvers and stances becomes impossible, as well as all manifesting of psionic powers, and the effects of all previously initiated maneuvers and stances and all previously manifested psionic powers are suppressed for the duration of the spell. All attack rolls made within the area automatically fail, unless the roll is made as part of casting a spell, or activating a spell-like ability.

Spoiler

Show

This is why we can't have nice things.

-X

[Elricaltovilla]

I Win Button
School Universal; Sorcerer/Wizard 0, Bard 0, Magus 0, Cleric/Oracle 0, Druid 0, Paladin 1, Ranger 1, Summoner 0
Casting Time 1 Free Action
Components
Range Personal
Duration Instantaneous

When this spell is cast, the next time the caster attempts any action it automatically succeeds to the maximum possible benefit of the caster. If the caster does not perform any action following the casting of this spell, they may hold the charge indefinitely.

[Person_Man]

RE: Fighter Archetype

I like the idea of adding new Fighter only Feats AND Archetypes. The more we can help out low Tier classes, the better.

And upon further consideration, I'd like to add a caveat to my previous post. I think there's a semi-clever piece of design space you could explore with a Fighter Archetype and bonus Feats, that could move the Fighter up to Tier 3.

Add a bunch of Feats that require a minimum Fighter level, that allow you to do something really cool, but only once per day. (Or some other similar hard limit, like once per point of Strength or Constitution bonus, 1 + 1/4 your Fighter class level, etc). Check the Knight Champion in my signature for a long list of such options.

Now add an Archetype that allows a Fighter to choose new Fighter Bonus Feats after 5 minutes of rest/training/focus/etc. (And maybe you give up Tower Shield Proficiency and your 2nd level bonus Feat, or some similar minor Feat related trade off).

Shazam! People who want the old Fighter get to continue using the old Fighter. Anyone who likes any of the old Archetypes, which trade off non-Bonus Feat abilities, can continue to use them. Fighter gets a bunch of new Fighter only Feat options. And the Fighter can swap out those options in between combats, giving him his own "thing" - a play style somewhere in between old Fighter and Tome of Battle, where you get to do cool things, but without having to track Recovery during combat.

If you want to make the class even more flexible, specify that if you loose and regain a Fighter Bonus Feat within a day, it also resets any daily uses or other similar limitations imposed by the Feat. (Which also ends up making a bunch of Monk Feats useful to the Fighter, and it makes a Monk/Fighter a viable option). Or if you prefer to encourage players to use a wider variety of different Feats, specify that it does not reset daily uses or other similar limitations.

[Metahuman1]

So here's a though for a general theme for some archatypes.

What about a batch of them for different classes that have the unifying effect of getting the martal types down to 1 or 2 needed stats?

Archatypes that will automatically get the class to only need Con and one other stat (And Con really only for HP.).?

On of the big weak points of martial types seems to be they all either need to invest a lot of reasorces into reducing attribute dependency, or they need to boost a lot of attributes. So, that would maybe be helpful on that front? Just a though?

[MightyPirate]

Gotta agree with the fighter retraining idea. Feat flexibility is one of the most powerful things I've seen floating around Pathfinder (Paragon Surge is frightening) and I'm okay with the fighter getting the ability to make all or even just some of these feats into variable feats. He should probably give up a quantity of them so it doesn't necessarily become the only way to play a fighter though.

Would a fighter giving up 6 bonus feats for the martial training tree while being able to reassign favored discipline and known maneuvers/stances be too powerful? It seems a decent mix of the two ideas without really drastically changing the core fighter as much as fully variable feats.

I'd still limit him to disciplines with an associated weapon for which he has weapon training; although looking at it it seems some categories would allow more flexibility than others. This is a little distressing for a Solar Wind fighter.

I'm not sure making initiators less dependent on a variety of abilities is the way to go. I remember playing a swordsage who could add strength and dexterity to damage via shadow blade and wisdom as well on certain strikes. I'm not saying that this is balanced but getting moderate value out of being a little MAD was kind of a first for me and not an unwelcome one at that.

It's similar to how a paladin doesn't suffer as much from being dependent on charisma because it doesn't just fuel lay on hands and spells, it also helps his to hit and saves via smite and divine grace. The core Path of War classes handed this pretty nicely.

It is however a little puzzling that initiators using martial training key off of wisdom, charisma, or dexterity unlike the wisdom, charisma, intelligence of the core classes. There are so few maneuvers that end up keying off of dexterity I don't think it really matters. It's just kind of confusing is all.

[Beowulf DW]

Personally, I'm fine with the idea of a martial fighter (can't believe it took a third party archetype for me to say that seriously) that gives up Bonus Feats for maneuvers for the sake of combining with the weapon style archetypes. I like it, I feel that it's balanced, and it maintains the...modular(?) feel that the fighter has when it comes to how he/she fights. Though I think maybe Bravery should be replaced with something to give the maneuvers/boosts/stances the fighter uses a bit more oomph, in keeping with the specialist feel Errant was going for. By that rationale, the martial fighter, who chose to specialize, should be able to do a maneuver at least a bit better than a crusader or warlord using the same maneuver at the same level.

[upho]

I agree with Beowulf, it's fine.

I find it hard to see how the on the fly-retraining of free combat feats would be anyway near as powerful as Paragon Surge can be, because:

1. this would be limited to combat feats, which
2. tend to eat a lot of slots before having any significant impact on combat,
3. often come with pesky bab/stat prerequisites, which means
4. a fighter often have to plan his general combat feat progression from level one and is rewarded for having a narrow focus, so less easily changeable stuff (like items, stats or the friendly caster's buff) will further limit effective options

.
I guess in nearly all cases, the most powerful thing this would enable is the retraining of maneuvers and stances, and that can be built into the other class feature.

But a feature which allowed the retraining of a small number of predefined feats as a move or swift action, that could actually make a real difference. Perhaps limiting the options to one alternative feat per level when a free feat is gained, creating a kind of "feats known" list... A Featbook! That would, for example, enable the fighter to charge and trip an opponent in round one, grapple and hog-tie it in round two, and switch back into "trip mode" in round three. And since it wouldn't remove or lessen any of the limitations I listed above, it could definitely be held in check through uses/day and the limited number of options in the Featbook.

Perhaps also providing a few options (feats, naturally) allowing for some specialisation:
"Fast Feat" (switch one feat as a free action x times/day), "Triggered Feat" (automatic feat switch with predefined trigger), "Combined Switch" (another specific swift action to be included in the feat switch, allowing for example quick draw changing of weapons), and of course the obligatory "Expanded Featbook" and "Extra Feat Switches".

On a related note, isn't there something to be done about all these stinking slot-filler combat feats fighters are supposed to build their prowess on? Can PoW reserve a few feet (of space) for clean optional replacements or something? Just imagine a world where the old smelly "X - improved X - greater X" feats have been replaced by less than half as many fresh ones with level-dependent benefits! Well, the clean feat is just a dream, I guess...

[ErrantX]

On a related note, isn't there something to be done about all these stinking slot-filler combat feats fighters are supposed to build their prowess on? Can PoW reserve a few feet (of space) for clean optional replacements or something? Just imagine a world where the old smelly "X - improved X - greater X" feats have been replaced by less than half as many fresh ones with level-dependent benefits! Well, the clean feat is just a dream, I guess...

Dangit upho, I'm a game designer, not a miracle worker! /mccoyvoice

I am changing tactics on the fighter archetype. I've got ideas. Stay tuned; archetypes are being worked out. My plan is to go and get my archetypes sorted out and release a big packet of em, maybe two.

-X

[MightyPirate]

Can't wait for the rogue archetype. I'm sick of other classes being able to do what he does but better. Switching out trapfinding/trap sense for a minor skill bonus and a list of "recommended" talents does not a good archetype make.

Just stumbled on the swordmaster archetype for tengu, his trance ability is a remarkably dumbed down version of the flexible feat. Takes a full round to switch around but it finally give rogues a psuedo pounce option and it even stacks with scout for charge sneaking.

[upho]

Dangit upho, I'm a game designer, not a miracle worker! /mccoyvoice

Ha, ha very funny!
Wait... You're being serious, aren't you? You're actually telling me it's not the same thing?
...
Oh no! Are you saying you're (coincidentally) not the real McCoy, a bad game designer and that you've just been pretending all this time?!

@everybody else: No, now look here, guys... Please... Awww! Yes, I know, it hurts me too! But at least we found out about it before the book got out, right?

Wipe your tears now and listen to me: I'm gonna have a little IRL chat with the boss, Andreas, and tell him exactly what has happened here. He doesn't live very far from me, after all. Hmm... Maybe also talk to him about his HR strategy...

Yes, I'm sure he'll listen, he actually cares about us, you know! And he's probably also a victim here and I'm sure he'll thank us for letting him know. Right?

I am changing tactics on the fighter archetype. I've got ideas. Stay tuned; archetypes are being worked out. My plan is to go and get my archetypes sorted out and release a big packet of em, maybe two.

-X

Sounds great! And please, please tell me there'll be something in there allowing a non-caster to focus on control (and defense) without crippling his usefulness!

[johnnyripper]

So for the psychic warrior archetype were you thinking of adding different discipline for different warrior paths?

And please tell me there will be a prestige class that will combine the psychic warrior and stalker.

[rollforeigninit]

So for the psychic warrior archetype were you thinking of adding different discipline for different warrior paths?

And please tell me there will be a prestige class that will combine the psychic warrior and stalker.

Seconded! Swordsage/PW was awesome. Stalker/PW would own.

[Metahuman1]

Though for an archatype:

What about one that let's you preform more maneuvers when someone attacks and/or hits you?

Flavor it as a warrior who favors counter attacking as a tactic. One who waits for his opponent to swing, and in doing so by necessity come out of a full guard position, and then try's to capitalize on it.

[upho]

Though for an archatype:

What about one that let's you preform more maneuvers when someone attacks and/or hits you?

Flavor it as a warrior who favors counter attacking as a tactic. One who waits for his opponent to swing, and in doing so by necessity come out of a full guard position, and then try's to capitalize on it.

Uhm... Why?

Without another mechanic to benefit from the resulting enemy behavior, it seems like a waste. I mean this has a similar result as a high durability (high defenses/tons of HP/self-healing etc) has - enemies are discouraged from attacking you and will probably go for easier targets like your squishy wizard instead. And since low durability isn't exactly the primary weakness of warrior classes, this would only increase the likelihood of this archetype having to run around chasing the enemy who, in turn, attacks party members with low durability. Which is the exact opposite of what you usually would like the enemy to do (stand still and waste attacks on your high durability while ignoring your squishy friends).

But let's say this archetype also had a mechanic which hindered enemies trying to move away or attacking allies, then there would be a real point to having the "immediate maneuvers" feature. Otherwise, you're unlikely to see any benefits, especially in the form of increased damage output, improved action economy or, notably, better party survivability. So I guess there might be some use for this feature for a very defender focused Warden archetype perhaps, because that's the only class in the entire game with at least a modicum of the necessary "hit me"-mechanics to balance this and which thus might be able to put the enemy in a lose-lose situation.

On top of this, the disciplines already contain several counters, many of them having this exact function (discouraging/punishing attacks targeting you), and many of the strikes wouldn't work well as triggered actions.

Or did I misunderstand your idea?