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

[Craft (Cheese)]

New Warder archetypes available. Go check em out!

Zweihander Defender has one major problem: In the Alpha 5 Warder document there's no class feature listed called "Guardianship" for Zweihander Defense to replace. I can only assume Aegis is what you meant to replace.

Otherwise my main problem with these archetypes is that they're all basically strictly better than the base Warder. I can't imagine why I'd ever choose a base warder over one of these. That's not advocating a nerf; The real problem is that they all trade away the Warder's worthless AC boosts for stuff that's actually helpful. Boost the base warder.

[ErrantX]

Zweihander Defender has one major problem: In the Alpha 5 Warder document there's no class feature listed called "Guardianship" for Zweihander Defense to replace. I can only assume Aegis is what you meant to replace.

Okay, this makes no sense. There is no feature called Zweihander Defense in any of the archetypes, let alone in the base class. Additionally, the only thing that has Guardianship is Satellitium, and it replaces/augments Aegis. So... I'm confused. What are you getting here? Reference?

Edit: Took me a really hard look to find what you meant. Okay. Found it.

Otherwise my main problem with these archetypes is that they're all basically strictly better than the base Warder. I can't imagine why I'd ever choose a base warder over one of these. That's not advocating a nerf; The real problem is that they all trade away the Warder's worthless AC boosts for stuff that's actually helpful. Boost the base warder.

What 'worthless AC boosts' are you talking about?

-X

[MightyPirate]

Speaking of Satellitium's Guardianship ability, does that bonus scale as Aegis does? I doesn't ever actually mention it increasing . . .

Under Zweihander Training it's mentioned that the Warder gets a bonus to their shield equal to 1+ their Guardianship class feature bonus. Just as confused as you . . .

Gotta say I agree that the archetypes are generally more flexible than the base class. Don't know that it's good enough to buff the base class though. I'd only choose one of these if the weapon style specifically matched a character concept, powerful though they may be.

Zwiehander in particular seems to get a lot more than it gives up but I may just be biased. Reach warriors have always been my favorite so it's hard to complain when they get a boost.

[IronFist]

Since someone else mentioned it - what is the fluff for the PoW martial arts? Will you include "high martial/low martial" options, similar to how PF handles guns or are you going to take the ToB route and let the DM do all the heavy lifting?

[Metahuman1]

Personally, I'd advise listing as many different pitches for how it works fluff wise as possible, and listing to the DM/Players "Pick what ever floats your boat." as loudly and often as you can.

Reason? Cause this takes the legs out form under the argument that the supplement doesn't fit the "Flavor/Story/Fluff of the setting/world/location/game/campaign/Genera." that so many DM's/players who disliked Tome of Battle: Book of None Spell casters were allowed to not be wastes of space, used to justify denying access to it at there games and tables.


Sure, they'll likely ban it anyway, but this helps to force them to say "Because I said so.", which hurts there ability maintain that position more over a long period of time.

[IronFist]

While I agree several fluff options are a good thing (4e did it well with half-orcs), I find the reason for your suggestion awful. It sounds almost petty - "SEE?! Now you can't ban it for fluff reasons, na-na-na-na!", while any DM should be allowed to ban a book he does not like, does not own or does not have enough time/interest to read.

[Metahuman1]

While I agree several fluff options are a good thing (4e did it well with half-orcs), I find the reason for your suggestion awful. It sounds almost petty - "SEE?! Now you can't ban it for fluff reasons, na-na-na-na!", while any DM should be allowed to ban a book he does not like, does not own or does not have enough time/interest to read.

Here's the problem, if he bans a book like this, I can't play the kinds of characters I want to play. And there's only so many times I can either throw ouright magic at the problem and win, or get curve stomped and made to feel like a looser for trying to be good at hitting it with a sword, before it get's old.

As I said, the one's who will ban will still ban. They will still say "Well, I still don't like it." or "Well, I don't get the mechanics." or "Haven't read it and don't have time." or "Don't use what I don't own.".

This however forces them to cop to why there banning it. Which in the cases of "Don't get the mechanics" and depending on some other variables "Don't own it so won't go with it." can be remedied once the issue is in the open. Yes, the other two reasons will persist, one them them will even still be legitimate, time is finite for people after all.

But if it's anything else it forces it to were it can be fixed, which is good, or to were you know what your dealing with so that you can plan accordingly to a DM who's hostile to Mundanes.


Also, it's in Dreamscarred Presses best interest to have a book that is less likely to be banned. If GM's popularly ban the book, players won't spend there money on it cause they know they won't get to use it, or use it often enough to justify the investment when they can crib it once in a blue moon that they need it form the Pathfinder SRD. So this actually helps protect there sales, cause if GM's aren't banning it cause the reason for banning it is getting fixed at the get go, fluff, don't get the mechanics (cause now someone who does can explain it and walk them through it.), don't own the book (cause the group can pool cash and buy him a copy now that they know that's the fix.), players will have fewer inhibitions about laying down the money for a copy.

[Lord_Gareth]

Guys, guys, why don't we ask the guy writing the worldbuilding chapter?

...Well crap, that's me >.> Guess I'd better start talking.

I do intend on making fluff multiple-choice, with examples of ways a DM might choose to handle Path of War in their game and how they might refluff individual maneuvers, disciplines, or the entire initiating system. I'm doing this because, and I want this to be as clear as possible, I believe in enabling the widest number of character concepts that I can.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Okay, this makes no sense. There is no feature called Zweihander Defense in any of the archetypes, let alone in the base class. Additionally, the only thing that has Guardianship is Satellitium, and it replaces/augments Aegis. So... I'm confused. What are you getting here? Reference?

Edit: Took me a really hard look to find what you meant. Okay. Found it.

Sorry! That's what I get for reading multiple things and mixing them up in my head. I meant to say "Zweihander Training references the Guardianship class feature, which the base warder does not have." It actually replaces the shield and tower shield proficiencies, which makes the Zweihander Defender even more of an obvious pick.

The more time that goes by the more I hate the name "Warder" and I wasn't exactly enamored with it to begin with. It doesn't sound very nice, it doesn't make any sense as to what the class actually does, and it makes me want to keep saying "Warlord" instead.

What 'worthless AC boosts' are you talking about?

-X

Aegis. If you're doing your job properly as a tank, then you want to keep the enemies tangled up and engaging you as far away from the squishies as possible, which are the people who would need the AC boost the most. Except allies can only benefit from your aegis if they're right up against you, where they're in the most danger from enemy attacks. Trying to use it is a trap.

Clad in Steel. Makes heavy armor easier to use, but heavy armor is a trap option anyway. It's only worth wearing if you dump DEX (which is a bad idea as a tank since you NEED combat reflexes), and even then it will hold you back more than anything once AC starts to become irrelevant.

[Elricaltovilla]

Craft Cheese brings up a good point, not to request the impossible but I think that there's a definite market for a feat that works like combat reflexes, but uses a different key stat. Like intelligence, call it Combat Insight, or wisdom and call it combat instinct? That would let heavy armor tanks more safely dump Dex and reduce a lot of MADness

[Craft (Cheese)]

Craft Cheese brings up a good point, not to request the impossible but I think that there's a definite market for a feat that works like combat reflexes, but uses a different key stat. Like intelligence, call it Combat Insight, or wisdom and call it combat instinct? That would let heavy armor tanks more safely dump Dex and reduce a lot of MADness

I was going to suggest reworking defensive focus.

Defensive Focus (Ex): At 1st level, a Warder gains Combat Reflexes as a bonus feat. She may substitute her Intelligence modifier for her Dexterity modifier for the purposes of determining the number of Attacks of Opportunity she may take within a single round. She gains a bonus equal to her Intelligence modifier plus her Class Level to CMD for the purposes of defending against enemies trying to use an Acrobatics check to move through her threatened area.

At 10th level, the ground within her melee reach is treated as if it were difficult terrain against enemies. If an enemy tries to move within her melee reach, it is treated as if it were a double move. Other factors such as debris or poor visibility may reduce movement as well.

[Metahuman1]

Craft Cheese brings up a good point, not to request the impossible but I think that there's a definite market for a feat that works like combat reflexes, but uses a different key stat. Like intelligence, call it Combat Insight, or wisdom and call it combat instinct? That would let heavy armor tanks more safely dump Dex and reduce a lot of MADness

I'm with you, Base it on Strenght and call it combat momentum or Con and Call it Combat Stamina, or use Cha and call it Combat Presence or Combat Force.


Heck, do all five of them. That way no matter what stat your using, you can find a version of combat reflexes that fits what you want to do an doesn't require you to not dump dex or unnecessarily prioritize dex just to be able to make reasonable use of Attacks of Opportunity.

[IronFist]

Guys, guys, why don't we ask the guy writing the worldbuilding chapter?

...Well crap, that's me >.>

Since you're encouraging us to ask you questions: why are you using this world-building chapter to bash other suplements and their designers? Do you intend to drop it?

[Metahuman1]

He's not, he's using it to help the product sell and be enjoyed by taking away one of the more common excuses GM's used to ban Tome of Battle. And it generally was an excuse, since as is commonly known around the playground, fluff it mute but some people treat the written fluff like word of god when it's a conveniant way to say "no" to players and not have to tell them there real justification.


Now if they want to ban it they have to think about it for a bit and come up with a different one which might even be something the player can fix.

[IronFist]

He's not, he's using it to help the product sell and be enjoyed by taking away one of the more common excuses GM's used to ban Tome of Battle. And it generally was an excuse, since as is commonly known around the playground, fluff it mute but some people treat the written fluff like word of god when it's a conveniant way to say "no" to players and not have to tell them there real justification.


Now if they want to ban it they have to think about it for a bit and come up with a different one which might even be something the player can fix.

I wasn't talking about that. I thought I was clear enough, but it looks like I wasn't, so I apologize.
LordGareth outright attacked other designers and other suplements in the introduction to this world-building chapter. I am asking why he did it and if he intends to stick with it.

[Lord_Gareth]

Y'know, you'd get a lot more mileage out of your (rather legitimate) questions and critiques if you could see your way to wording them with less...hostility, IronFist. Like, honestly, I tend to feel attacked, not critiqued.

But the question's legitimate.

Honestly? It's a holdover from my long career on forums. This may or may not be surprising but I've got precisely zero experience writing professionally and only the tiniest bit more writing academically. I'm used to handling these subjects on forums where aforementioned expressions of opinion are perhaps a little rude but socially acceptable. I'm still adjusting to a more professional paradigm after 11+ years of being able to run off at the mouth and there's some growing pains happening as a result. Certainly the Bossman's clipped a few things from my work that I didn't even realize could be interpreted as hostile.

Professionalism is the intended paradigm. My lack thereof is why the fluff chapter is in alpha instead of ready-to-publish ~_^

[IronFist]

Y'know, you'd get a lot more mileage out of your (rather legitimate) questions and critiques if you could see your way to wording them with less...hostility, IronFist. Like, honestly, I tend to feel attacked, not critique

I'm very sorry if it seemed that way, I sincerely apologize. I tried to word it in a less blunt way, but since Metahuman seemed to have no idea what I was talking about, I imagined you could not understand as well.
I have nothing but respect towards you and this project. I'm sorry if it ever seemed otherwise.

[Metahuman1]

I fairness I was probably a bit, too quick to draw up, with you in a lot of our exchanges. This is not an excuse, but your tone just tends to hit a reflex I've developed over one to many hostel interactions over the years.

I apologize if I've been coming across as, overly aggressive/stubborn.

[Lord_Gareth]

I'm very sorry if it seemed that way, I sincerely apologize. I tried to word it in a less blunt way, but since Metahuman seemed to have no idea what I was talking about, I imagined you could not understand as well.
I have nothing but respect towards you and this project. I'm sorry if it ever seemed otherwise.

'Sokay, water under the bridge.

Any other questions, comments, or suggestions with regards to the overall Worldbuilding/Fluff/Miscellaneous Crap chapter?

[Metahuman1]

Other then have as many different interchangeable fluff options as possible, nothing springs to mind. But hit me up if you want me to kick some ideas for possible fluff/flavor options to list about.

[Prime32]

Other then have as many different interchangeable fluff options as possible, nothing springs to mind.

One way to encourage adaptation could be to include an Adventure Hooks section for each group, but make the hooks incompatible with each other and/or the default fluff (e.g. In one entry they let anyone skilled enough join and every child dreams of being accepted. In another they're secretive, outlawed, or limited to a single race or family. In a third the PCs invent Black Seraph maneuvers by tapping into fiendish heritage, and end up founding the organisation.). Don't draw a lot of attention to it, just treat "changing the fluff" and "using them in your game" as the same thing.

[IronFist]

That might allienate people who like a lot of consistency, though.

[Metahuman1]

Maybe, but they can consistently choose the same fluff perimeters, its just allowing them first to pick what the perimeters there gonna consistently stay with are gonna be at session 1. Doesn't feel that different to me then picking which setting to use for a game at session 1/character creation and then using that setting the whole way through.

[Lord_Gareth]

That might allienate people who like a lot of consistency, though.

Flip side is that 'multiple choice' doesn't tend to be a way to present consistently in the first place. I'm already sorta-kinda cobbling together a section for plot hooks and I'll consider Prime's idea deeply.

[Prime32]

Random idea: a samurai archetype or PrC that gains maneuvers by "unlocking the memories in his sword", sort of like a cross between Eternal Blade and Kensai. He can use his maneuvers only with his ancestral weapon, and refreshes them by sheathing it.

[Metahuman1]

Random idea: a samurai archetype or PrC that gains maneuvers by "unlocking the memories in his sword", sort of like a cross between Eternal Blade and Kensai. He can use his maneuvers only with his ancestral weapon, and refreshes them by sheathing it.

That sounds cool as hell.

[Chained Birds]

Random idea: a samurai archetype or PrC that gains maneuvers by "unlocking the memories in his sword", sort of like a cross between Eternal Blade and Kensai. He can use his maneuvers only with his ancestral weapon, and refreshes them by sheathing it.

Sheathing is a Move Action (If I remember correctly),
and Drawing is another Move Action (Or Free Action with Quick Draw).

So it could be possible to:
- Standard Action: Maneuver.
- Move Action: Sheath Sword (Don't remember if this provokes an AoO).
- Free Action: Draw Sword.

So you can recover a Maneuver the moment you used it.

[DarkSonic1337]

Sheathing is a Move Action (If I remember correctly),
and Drawing is another Move Action (Or Free Action with Quick Draw).

So it could be possible to:
- Standard Action: Maneuver.
- Move Action: Sheath Sword (Don't remember if this provokes an AoO).
- Free Action: Draw Sword.

So you can recover a Maneuver the moment you used it.

Not to mention that there is also a feat in PoW that allows you to sheathe a weapon as a free action, further reducing the refresh time.

You could do a boost, full attack, put your sword away to refresh said boost, and pull it back out all in one round. That's a bit much imo.

[ErrantX]

Random idea: a samurai archetype or PrC that gains maneuvers by "unlocking the memories in his sword", sort of like a cross between Eternal Blade and Kensai. He can use his maneuvers only with his ancestral weapon, and refreshes them by sheathing it.

That's cool as all get out. Mind if I try to use this when it comes time to write up archetypes in that direction?

-X

[ArcanistSupreme]

Not to mention that there is also a feat in PoW that allows you to sheathe a weapon as a free action, further reducing the refresh time.

You could do a boost, full attack, put your sword away to refresh said boost, and pull it back out all in one round. That's a bit much imo.

It's an easy fix though; just make the recovery action whatever you want, and fluff it as sheathing the sword. But to be fair, that is an investment of 2 feats, which should grant some benefits (although free action recovery seems like a bit much).