Dreamscarred Press Announces: Path of War Expanded

[Lord_Gareth]

Survey Time

As we assemble archetypes for Path of War Expanded, a question has come up in internal development, as to if certain pre-existing classes need archetypes or other forms of support. On one side, the essential feeling is that classes like cleric, wizard, witch, magus, or inquisitor aren't really compatible with maneuvers, that their spells are both strongly thematic for them and more than enough to make them into martial characters on their own. Path of War was meant in support of martial characters, not magical ones that can stand on their own; unlike psionics, it is not a major flavor change to the expectations of a campaign setting which requires accommodation.

The flip side is that supporting those classes adds more material to fit into various campaigns and character concepts, and encourages players of those classes to take a look at our material when maybe they otherwise wouldn't. Archetypes (or clerical domains, or...) have a different cost than feats and people may want those instead of feat options in light of those differing costs or because it helps them flesh out their character concept. That kind of support makes it easier to integrate Path of War into a table that's experimenting with it, rather than forcing full immersion.

Either way, many classes are getting full archetype support, including even some dubiously martial ones like alchemist and bard. The question of, "Should we archetype or not?" is being asked only of full casters and then additionally Magus and Inquisitor, for whom spells are a strong part of their identity. We'd like the thoughts of you, the customers, on this matter.

Thank you for your time!

[PsyBomb]

I think that the dichotomy needs to be enforced. This is MARTIAL magic, they have their own to resort to. No half-BAB class should ever gain archetype access to Initiator systems, and and no full caster without giving up most (or all) or their spellcasting.

That said, I could see a Druid archetype that gives up its casting and animal companion in order to be a Beast-Form Initiator with access to Veiled Moon, Broken Blade, and Primal Fury. Then again, I'm a fan of Ranma 1/2, so I may be biased.

[Forrestfire]

I think that the thing I'd like to see the most, archetype-wise, is a Summoner archtype that swaps out Summon Monster for maneuvers for their Eidolon. My reasons for this are threefold:

1. It weakens the class a bit by removing the added versatility of the Summon Monster line (as well as the ability to be a spammy minionmancer instead of just someone with a big pet)
2. It's something useful for people whose character concept is that they just want to have the one big summon, rather than being able to summon a bunch of celestial badgers if they want to as well. If I'm building someone modeled off a Stand user or a Final Fantasy-style summoner, I don't need angelic animals, I want the big badass outsider as my main ability.
3. Maneuvers are really cool, and having an eidolon with them is doubly cool.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I personally think that Maguses (Magi?) and inquisitors should get a martial archetype, specially given that Psychic Warriors got one and they are the closest analogues to Magus and inquisitors, plus the idea of delivering spells via strikes sound delicious. Having said that, I understand that there are probably power concerns, but you can probably take a page out of the Kensai archetype reducing the spells per day and removing Spell Recall and the improved version, which can probably help a little.

[Fax Celestis]

Secondary caster types (bard, magus, inquisitor, alchemist, etc.; basically guys that get it as a 5 or 6 level progression): absolutely yes, preferably dropping them to a slower progression on spells.

Primary caster types (cleric, druid, wizard, witch, etc.): not interested. They get enough candy already. Though a PoWitch might be interesting if you use a curse/debuff based discipline or disciplines and replace their spellcasting wholesale with it, maybe bump their BAB and one of their saves, but that might end up with basically a new class.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Secondary caster types (bard, magus, inquisitor, alchemist, etc.; basically guys that get it as a 5 or 6 level progression): absolutely yes, preferably dropping them to a slower progression on spells.

Primary caster types (cleric, druid, wizard, witch, etc.): not interested. They get enough candy already. Though a PoWitch might be interesting if you use a curse/debuff based discipline or disciplines and replace their spellcasting wholesale with it, maybe bump their BAB and one of their saves, but that might end up with basically a new class.

Isn't that the basic gist of the Harbringer? Perhaps a Theurge Class that advances Hexes and maneuvers?

[Turion]

Survey Time

I personally feel like the full casters get enough Nice Things without a PoW archetype, although I could honestly see a Primal Fury druid or a Cursed Razor Witch being really interesting.

As to the others: Magus, to me, feels like a Spellcaster who happens to have a pointy stick, whereas Inquisitor is more like a fighter who happens to have spells. Don't really care one way or the other about the magus, but I'd love to see the inquisitor get access to Solar Wind and either Silver Crane or Black Seraph (maybe Eternal Guardian). Wouldn't mind seeing investigator or Skald get something, either.

[Powerdork]

Survey Time

I feel like you'd be better off not doing it. People will be throwing around complaints of identity, and I'd rather they not.

(People take elfgames too seriously.)

[ErrantX]

I'm inclined to say that you can't take the same class template twice. Going to discuss it with team, but take that as the ruling for now. You'll be updated with the final decision (as well as the beta doc, that'll get updated).

I'm inclined to agree and say a class template can only be taken once.

But anyhow, I think Gareth and I are on the same page when I say that if it has more casting than a magus, bard, or inquisitor, the answer is a solid "No."

We'll see how everyone feels about it, but by and large, I don't think it is needed. Let's look at that gunslinger wizard archetype and shiver.

-X

[Taveena]

My first thought was.... what if Clerics could swap out their Domains for access to maneuvers? Not many - maybe the same number of maneuvers as they get domain spells. (Or maybe trade both domains for access to 9 maneuvers to keep the appeal of going full-initiator?) It wouldn't ramp up the power, and as Clerics are already quite a martial class thematically, I feel like it works. Give clerics of each god schools based on their domains. (Like Pelor giving Solar Wind, if this were 3.5e) Maneuvers, in this case, aren't adding anything thematically - it's just a different expression of their mundane martial training. A more exciting one than '3/4 BAB and medium armor proficiency'. I'll admit - I'm basically seeing it as the Crusader fluff. Divine flashes of inspiration.

Druids, similarly, I could see trading away their animal companion - or something similar - for Primal Fury/Thrashing Dragon/etc maneuvers. (Or maybe Wildshape? I'm not sure about balance here.)

Wizards, Witches, and Sorcerors are... harder, thematically, because you'd also be changin' the core fluff of the class by making them martial. Which could be fine, but it's not as simple as the 3/4 BAB casters.


TL;DR - clerics and druids should get it as it doesn't change the fluff, not sure about others.

EDIT: Though I do agree with the sentiment of Cursed Razor Witches. Trade out a Hex for a maneuver known? Could be fun.

[Snowbluff]

Survey Time

Summoner should totally get an archetype. If anything, they should get an option to make the eidolon an initiator, and can use their spells slots to recover the maneuvers on the eidolon. To balance it out, the eidolon should have crappy recovery, otherwise. That way, a summoner will have to use spell slots to give back maneuvers normally, but will have an option for when they exhausted their slots.

Of course, a synthesist compatible archetype would be awesome. As a just for fun option (not a well balanced one), swap summon monster (and maybe add Diminished Casting) for an initiator progression. The net result would be that you could have a summoner and its eidolon both use maves, or have a hulked out summoner.

Still irked about Bladecaster.

[Forrestfire]

Summoner should totally get an archetype. If anything, they should get an option to make the eidolon an initiator, and can use their spells slots to recover the maneuvers on the eidolon. To balance it out, the eidolon should have crappy recovery, otherwise. That way, a summoner will have to use spell slots to give back maneuvers normally, but will have an option for when they exhausted their slots.

Of course, a synthesist compatible archetype would be awesome. As a just for fun option (not a well balanced one), swap summon monster (and maybe add Diminished Casting) for an initiator progression.

Still irked about Bladecaster.

Those are pretty great ideas. A Synthesist initiator would be awesome. Go full Dragonball Z with your character

[Fax Celestis]

My first thought was.... what if Clerics could swap out their Domains for access to maneuvers? Not many - maybe the same number of maneuvers as they get domain spells. (Or maybe trade both domains for access to 9 maneuvers to keep the appeal of going full-initiator?) It wouldn't ramp up the power, and as Clerics are already quite a martial class thematically, I feel like it works. Give clerics of each god schools based on their domains. (Like Pelor giving Solar Wind, if this were 3.5e) Maneuvers, in this case, aren't adding anything thematically - it's just a different expression of their mundane martial training. A more exciting one than '3/4 BAB and medium armor proficiency'. I'll admit - I'm basically seeing it as the Crusader fluff. Divine flashes of inspiration.

Druids, similarly, I could see trading away their animal companion - or something similar - for Primal Fury/Thrashing Dragon/etc maneuvers. (Or maybe Wildshape? I'm not sure about balance here.)

Wizards, Witches, and Sorcerors are... harder, thematically, because you'd also be changin' the core fluff of the class by making them martial. Which could be fine, but it's not as simple as the 3/4 BAB casters.


TL;DR - clerics and druids should get it as it doesn't change the fluff, not sure about others.

EDIT: Though I do agree with the sentiment of Cursed Razor Witches. Trade out a Hex for a maneuver known? Could be fun.

Actually, trading out Wildshape to give your Animal Companion maneuvers might be pretty cool. That'd make you a caster and your pet a meleer, rather than you a caster and meleer and your pet a meleer. Probably an overall step down, but one I'd take.

[Forrestfire]

Honestly, most sane additions of maneuver progressions to the full casters would be a step down. This would still be a good thing, though, because of the existing rift between noncasters and casters in power level.

[The Glyphstone]

I tried nine thousand and one ways to make spendable Vitae work within CC's mechanical theme and ultimately chose to sacrifice a flavor opportunity for the current incarnation. The trouble is that building Vitae through Claims is hard to scale properly, and Countess is a direct answer to numerous requests for more meaningful Claiming. Hence the current incarnation.

And it does that very well, I think. The scaling of Crimson Claim might need some work - 1d4 at level 1 is significantly more impactful than 5d4 at Level 20, in most cases, but I'm already petitioning my current GM to let me retrofit the Crimson Countess onto my existing Harbinger beta-test.

Incidentally, as far as Harbinger beta feedback, the only conflict I've found is the swift action glut. Any Initiator in PF is going to have multiple demands on the Swift slot between Boosts, Counters, and various mundane things, but Harbingers get it a bit worse than others because their Recovery mechanism is also a Swift action. It's definitely a limitation that works well for mechanical balance, but "Strike 1+ Claim, Strike 2+Claim, Strike 1+Claim" is a little monotonous, and the only way I can see to break that routine is a multi-opponent fight with the Grasp of Darkness feat. There is (Int Mod) regain when you drop an enemy, but so far we've only fought single-target opponents so I haven't been able to judge if that helps fight longevity. Allowing the number of maneuvers regained by Dark Claim to scale with level somehow might be a stopgap, but I don't know.

[Snowbluff]

Those are pretty great ideas. A Synthesist initiator would be awesome. Go full Dragonball Z with your character

You know, if maneuvers are considered special abilities, swapping Summon Monster for Mave for the Eidolon (modifies Summon Monster, not Eidolon) like you said, then taking synthesist would work without a second archetype. I couldn't make a Vegeta Goku team, though.

Honestly, most sane additions of maneuver progressions to the full casters would be a step down. This would still be a good thing, though, because of the existing rift between noncasters and casters in power level.

Druid with maneuvers and without spells would be pretty interesting.

An initiator domain that grants 1 or 2 maneuvers (chosen at the time of activation) once you spend some channel energy would be good, too.

[Fax Celestis]

initiator domain

Haha. Domain powers are recharge mechanics, no granted spells, just specific granted maneuvers. Subdomains for different disciplines that grant different sets of maneuvers. Not sure if you were joking, but that's an excellent idea.

[Elricaltovilla]

I'm going to weigh in on survey time too!

I want a bard archetype with martial initiating from Mithral Current and Golden Lion (at least). Because yes.

In general I am against full casters getting martial abilities, because they can already do all of that but better. I can see the justification for clerics though, and I'm not against some feats to help martial/magical synergy... but if you get better than 6th level spells you don't need any more help.

[Snowbluff]

Haha. Domain powers are recharge mechanics, no granted spells, just specific granted maneuvers. Subdomains for different disciplines that grant different sets of maneuvers. Not sure if you were joking, but that's an excellent idea.

Initiator Domain
Deities: Snowbluff
Subdomains: "Maves," Insistent Terminology
I mean like "Once per day, when you prepare your spells, you may grant an ally 1 maneuver of x school and ready it. They must meet the prequites and have a high enough initiator level to use the maneuver. Once it is used, it is consider expended until you spend a use of Channel Energy to recover it. At level 8 and 13, you increase the number of maneuvers you are granted with this by 1. You may change the maneuvers granted and the ally when you prepare spells again."

EDIT: Changed it so you can add maves to your buddies. "Maves" does this at a higher IL. Insistent Terminology may grant Gambits.

Your ideas are awesome, though.

[The Glyphstone]

Regarding the survey...

I'm definitely against Initiation archetypes for full-casters. They have their own sandbox, keep their grubby fingers out of ours. Maaaaaaybe a Channel Feat that lets you Recharge a maneuver learned through Martial Study. The proposed Druid concept of losing Wildshape to make your companion an Initiator is mechanically balanced, but flavor-wise I just can't rationalize kung fu grizzly bears.

An Inquisitor who gives up Spellcasting for select Initiation wouldn't be too bad, balance or mechanics-wise, trusting in his blade to Hunt The Witch rather than potentially fallible magic. Not sure about the Magus, though - its whole gimmick is blending casting with melee combat, trying to blend initiation with melee combat is....initiation, and we have 6 classes that do this already.

[Lord_Gareth]

And it does that very well, I think. The scaling of Crimson Claim might need some work - 1d4 at level 1 is significantly more impactful than 5d4 at Level 20, in most cases, but I'm already petitioning my current GM to let me retrofit the Crimson Countess onto my existing Harbinger beta-test.

I'm glad to hear it! With Harbi racing towards PDF, CC might need to wait for the final release to get balance tweaks fully done, but in all honesty that was about as elegant a solution as I could find. Damage = character level scales weird in PF.

Incidentally, as far as Harbinger beta feedback, the only conflict I've found is the swift action glut. Any Initiator in PF is going to have multiple demands on the Swift slot between Boosts, Counters, and various mundane things, but Harbingers get it a bit worse than others because their Recovery mechanism is also a Swift action. It's definitely a limitation that works well for mechanical balance, but "Strike 1+ Claim, Strike 2+Claim, Strike 1+Claim" is a little monotonous, and the only way I can see to break that routine is a multi-opponent fight with the Grasp of Darkness feat. There is (Int Mod) regain when you drop an enemy, but so far we've only fought single-target opponents so I haven't been able to judge if that helps fight longevity. Allowing the number of maneuvers regained by Dark Claim to scale with level somehow might be a stopgap, but I don't know.

You are aware that Grasp of Darkness gets you 2 maneuvers back even if you don't tag multiple creatures, yes? Or do I need to fix wording there?

[Elricaltovilla]

flavor-wise I just can't rationalize kung fu grizzly bears.

Do you even need to rationalize kung fu grizzly bears?

What about Kung fu Pandas?

[The Glyphstone]

You are aware that Grasp of Darkness gets you 2 maneuvers back even if you don't tag multiple creatures, yes? Or do I need to fix wording there?

No, I wasn't - the wording 'recovering an additional maneuver in the process' I took to imply the feat needed to be used, requiring the extra opponents. I guess that makes it a little better, and I'm already familiar with the precedent of the Swordsage Feat Tax.

Grasp of Darkness [Combat]
Your malicious intentions ensnare many creatures at once, placing them under your power.
Prerequisites: Dark Claim class feature
Benefit: You may Claim up to 2 additional enemies (for a total of 3 enemies) at one time when using your Dark Claim. When you Claim one or more enemies, you recover up to 2 expended maneuvers.

Something like that might be better, or possibly the existing is fine and I'm just bad at the readings.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Do you even need to rationalize kung fu grizzly bears?

What about Kung fu Pandas?

You need the the Dragon Warrior Scroll feat before you are able to summon them though

Dragon Warrior Scroll




.

[Elricaltovilla]

Dragon Warrior Scroll

There's nothing written on it!

[The Glyphstone]

You need the the Dagon Warrior Scroll feat before you are able to summon them though

I think you mean the Dragon Warrior scroll. The Dagon Warrior Scroll just summons Kung Fu Deep Ones.

[Sayt]

I'm throwing my voice in with the no initiation archetypes for full casters. Magus, Bard, Warpriest? Sure, but probably only sixth level maneuvers, like the Pathwalker gets, and it should have a significant cost. Reduced fervor, worse spellstrike/spell recall, stuff liek that.

Also, it feels inappropriate to post WIP stuff in the submission board, is there someone I could bounce stuff off?

[Dusk Eclipse]

.... is it bad that I find Kung Fu Deep ones incredibly awesome?

[Taveena]

Trading spells, or wildshape, or domains for maneuvers is already a willful nerf. As long as they're worse at it than the full initiators, I don't really see the problem - especially if it works thematically.

[Nihilarian]

Regarding the survey...

I'm definitely against Initiation archetypes for full-casters. They have their own sandbox, keep their grubby fingers out of ours. Maaaaaaybe a Channel Feat that lets you Recharge a maneuver learned through Martial Study. The proposed Druid concept of losing Wildshape to make your companion an Initiator is mechanically balanced, but flavor-wise I just can't rationalize kung fu grizzly bears.

An Inquisitor who gives up Spellcasting for select Initiation wouldn't be too bad, balance or mechanics-wise, trusting in his blade to Hunt The Witch rather than potentially fallible magic. Not sure about the Magus, though - its whole gimmick is blending casting with melee combat, trying to blend initiation with melee combat is....initiation, and we have 6 classes that do this already.

Kung fu grizzly bears sound awesome. Give Rangers or Hunters kung fu grizzly bears.

I agree with not wanting full casters to get initiating archetypes. Half casters are fine, but non-casters should be better at it (because half casters close the gap with spells).