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

[tekevil]

I think they said they were aiming for December, but not to be surprised if it runs into January.

[Nyaa]

How soon out should the third part be if anyone has heard anything?

If you mean Path of War 3: Just How Long is this Path, I've heard no sooner than half a year after PoW:Ex release.

[PsyBomb]

If you mean Path of War 3: Just How Long is this Path, I've heard no sooner than half a year after PoW:Ex release.

Once PoW:Ex releases, we have a TON of projects to work on and catch up with, not the least of which is the errata for PoW (and possibly also PoW:Ex immediately thereafter if time finds holes we didn't see during production and seven threads of playtest). We don't have a set time for it (nor do we like to EVER set hard times), but it would require those be done, enough good ideas accumulate, plus having the other projects under at least some form of control.

[MilleniaAntares]

Question: the Omen Rider's mount can use the Omen Rider's boosts as long as they don't add damage die. How does this interact with boosts to gain extra attacks such as the Riven Hourglass and Thrashing Dragon boosts?

Also for a boost like pride movement how would that interact? Rider uses pride movement to move mount, mount uses pride movement to give another adjacent ally a move?

Extra attacks work fine by RAW.

Given that the rider is in the mount's squares, that seems rather roundabout. However, any rider can use Pride Movement on their mount, so that gives quite a bit of maneuverability.

[tekevil]

4th level Black Seraph Counter Vengful Riposte is missing a trigger.

We assume it's for melee attack rolls based on flavor text, but can't tell if it's meant to come after the enemy's first swing or before they even begin their attack.

Does the attack inflict damage?

Also most counters that can negate an entire full attack normally have more difficult triggers, such as stealth opposed by perception, instead of simply hitting the enemy with a full BAB attack.

[Captain Morgan]

Here's a question. Does the Msytic PDF contain the Shattered Mirror discipline like it describes on the DSP website, and if so, were any changes made between that and the Harbi printing?

[Corrik]

Query: Does the healing gained from Silver Crane maneuvers count as Positive Energy (thus damaging undead and simila entities instead of healing them) or does it effectively generate 'untyped' healing?

The healing does not count as Positive Energy and can be used on undead and creatures with negative energy affinity.

[CGNefarious]

Here's a question. Does the Msytic PDF contain the Shattered Mirror discipline like it describes on the DSP website, and if so, were any changes made between that and the Harbi printing?

Yes, but I didn't really check for differences.

[Vhaidara]

So I just noticed an awesome interaction. Pikeman's Training + Prodigious TWF means you can actually TWF with Spartan gear. Which, given how dangerous their shields were, is sweet.

[Falxu]

Was asked to post this here from another thread about the new Stalker Art: Killer's Implement.

If any Dreamscarred Press people follow this thread, I would recommend to them to change Killer's Implement in one of two ways:

Require level 3 stalker to choose it
or
Make it work like the Unchained Rogues version of DEX-to-Damage (finesse at 1, dex-to-damage at 3)

This makes the ability much more on par with the UnRogue version. Otherwise, you will have very little or no reason NOT to take a level of Stalker for ANY Dex build.

Spoiler: Finesse Training (for reference)

Show

At 1st level, a rogue gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat. In addition, starting at 3rd level, she can select any one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse (such as rapiers or daggers). Once this choice is made, it cannot be changed. Whenever she makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll. If any effect would prevent the rogue from adding her Strength modifier to the damage roll, she does not add her Dexterity modifier. The rogue can select a second weapon at 11th level and a third at 19th level.

[Vhaidara]

I doubt they'll make that change, since the entire point of Finesse Training is to get you both of them at level 1.

[Falxu]

I doubt they'll make that change, since the entire point of Finesse Training is to get you both of them at level 1.

I assume you mean the "... entire point of Killer's Implement is to get you both of them at level 1."

I disagree. I think the point of the art is to alleviate the feat tax for the Stalker as he does not get bonus feats (aside from his arts). Either method I proposed still alleviates the feat tax while at the same time preventing the class becoming the end-all-be-all-DEX-dip.

Hell, even full casters can dip Stalker and pick up Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, a stance, and 4 maneuvers to not only add to their repertoire of spell casting but maybe even enhance it further.

Making a class better is a good thing™ but turning a class into a 1-dip marvel is something that should never happen.

[Elricaltovilla]

I assume you mean the "... entire point of Killer's Implement is to get you both of them at level 1."

I disagree. I think the point of the art is to alleviate the feat tax for the Stalker as he does not get bonus feats (aside from his arts). Either method I proposed still alleviates the feat tax while at the same time preventing the class becoming the end-all-be-all-DEX-dip.

Hell, even full casters can dip Stalker and pick up Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, a stance, and 4 maneuvers to not only add to their repertoire of spell casting but maybe even enhance it further.

Making a class better is a good thing™ but turning a class into a 1-dip marvel is something that should never happen.

Stalker is usually better as a 2 or 3 level dip rather than just 1, but the truth is that every PoW and PoW:E class is a great dip because of how front loaded their class features are. Anyone can get a bunch of useful stuff from a PoW dip, casters are not exclusive in this and ​​this is not a bad thing​.​ This is important because of how difficult it is to get up and go right at level 1 if you're ​not​ a caster. You need a lot of feats to complete most builds and they're spread out across twenty levels. With only a limited number available to any given character, it can take 3, 5 or even 10 levels before you have a character that's competent at the thing you're building them to do. Nobody wants to play as "The greatest halfing wrestler who ever lived" and spend the first third of their adventure without the feats necessary to even attempt to grapple a bull without taking a horn to the face (not to mention failing automatically because of size differences). The same holds true for people who want to be a lightning fast character that reles on their speed and agility to fight instead of brute strength, or a sharp eyed archer that can shoot the wings off a fly at a hundred yards.

[MilleniaAntares]

I rather like Jailer of the Damned for removing fear immunity, but I do have a slight concern that the secondary aspect of it is rather weak for a fifth level stance.

While it's probably mainly intended to mostly be used against paladins and mindless creatures - to allow the use of all the fear-based maneuvers in this discipline - the CMB part could use some buffing.

One possibility would be to have the bonus be increased by the initiation modifier instead a measly +2...

Another could be having the shaken/frightened/panicked foes count as one size category lower for most purposes (CMB checks, CMD, abilities like swallow whole), thereby providing some defensive benefits for the initiator's allies... Or even adding the initiation modifier to allies' CMD against shaken/frightened/panicked foes.

[Vhaidara]

You know who can currently get dex to damage at level 1? Warlord and warder. Level 1 feat on finesse, class bonus feat on agility. Why is it that the Stalker, the most natural dex inclined class in the original PoW, has the hardest time getting dex to damage?

[Falxu]

You know who can currently get dex to damage at level 1? Warlord and warder. Level 1 feat on finesse, class bonus feat on agility. Why is it that the Stalker, the most natural dex inclined class in the original PoW, has the hardest time getting dex to damage?

And those classes pay for the dex-to-damage with feats, all of their feats at first level (barring race). A stalker can get the equivalent AND two-weapon-fighting, or something else for a total of three feats equivalency at first level.

Hardest? you make it sound I am proposing a five step feat chain or something. I am simply saying put the art at a class level 3 entrance requirement or stagger the dual feat nature over several Stalker levels (like the Unchained Rogue).

Stalker is usually better as a 2 or 3 level dip rather than just 1, but the truth is that every PoW and PoW:E class is a great dip because of how front loaded their class features are. Anyone can get a bunch of useful stuff from a PoW dip, casters are not exclusive in this and ​​this is not a bad thing​.​ This is important because of how difficult it is to get up and go right at level 1 if you're ​not​ a caster. You need a lot of feats to complete most builds and they're spread out across twenty levels. With only a limited number available to any given character, it can take 3, 5 or even 10 levels before you have a character that's competent at the thing you're building them to do. Nobody wants to play as "The greatest halfing wrestler who ever lived" and spend the first third of their adventure without the feats necessary to even attempt to grapple a bull without taking a horn to the face (not to mention failing automatically because of size differences). The same holds true for people who want to be a lightning fast character that reles on their speed and agility to fight instead of brute strength, or a sharp eyed archer that can shoot the wings off a fly at a hundred yards.

It's not a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either when a single class dip solves nearly all your problems and gives you maneuvers to boot. I guess what I am saying is that you should want to dip Stalker to be Stalker-ish, not for single class ability (I suppose you can do the same thing by taking a level of fighter for the 2 feats *shrugs*). Theme over mechanics.

[Lord_Gareth]

It's not a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either when a single class dip solves nearly all your problems and gives you maneuvers to boot. I guess what I am saying is that you should want to dip Stalker to be Stalker-ish, not for single class ability (I suppose you can do the same thing by taking a level of fighter for the 2 feats *shrugs*). Theme over mechanics.

I'm sorry, you still haven't actually given us a reason this is supposed to be bad. I know Paizo treats dipping like it's going to break the seven seals imprisoning evil, but we're not precisely in agreement with that idea. To be frank, finesse fighting is archetypical enough that level-gating it isn't just annoying, it's inexcusable. Entire schools of combat in the real world are built around being fast and clever instead of strong, and it's absolutely absurd that players are expected to wait 3 levels to play their concept.

PoW dips are good because of the nature of maneuvers and multiclassing. However, dipping is a method - an important method - by which players are able to bring their concepts to life and make the character they want to play, not the one their class handed to them. The numbers have hashed out acceptably on PoW dips, and we're pretty happy about where they are right now.

If you've got a concrete mechanical reason that this is supposedly too good, I'd be happy to chew that over. "Great dip for finesse builds" just...doesn't seem like a problem to me, honestly.

[Alea]

It's not a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either when a single class dip solves nearly all your problems and gives you maneuvers to boot. I guess what I am saying is that you should want to dip Stalker to be Stalker-ish, not for single class ability (I suppose you can do the same thing by taking a level of fighter for the 2 feats *shrugs*). Theme over mechanics.

That’s a lovely idea, but it’s unrealistic in the system we’ve got. Paizo could have (should have) fixed it, coming from 3.5 and learning from all the problems in that system, to cover the problems in it so that classes could be chosen purely for thematic value, but DSP is not in a position to do that.

All DSP can do is try to make their classes work the best they can in the system that exists. From my way of looking at things, the stalker is the way it is so that a 1st-level stalker can be stalker-ish. Unfortunately, that requires numerous taxes, and if they’re not yet paid, you can’t do those things. As far as I can tell, DSP has made the choice to favor ensuring that a 1st-level stalker functions as it’s supposed, rather than worry about the potential value of that level to people uninterested in being stalker-ish. If there was an actual problem with that dip, if that would be something worth worrying about, but just the fact that the level is useful beyond stalker’s own theme isn’t, itself, a problem.

But then, in my opinion, multiclassing is a wonderful thing, and dips are important to the game. I think Paizo made a huge mistake attacking that aspect of the game, because frankly, neither 3.5 nor Pathfinder is a good system. The only advantage that they have is an enormous amount of material, and a system that allows you to easily mix and match the different parts. If you’re not using that, well, there are better systems for your purposes.

[EldritchWeaver]

That’s a lovely idea, but it’s unrealistic in the system we’ve got. Paizo could have (should have) fixed it, coming from 3.5 and learning from all the problems in that system, to cover the problems in it so that classes could be chosen purely for thematic value, but DSP is not in a position to do that.

All DSP can do is try to make their classes work the best they can in the system that exists.

Let me get this straight: Generalizing your statement, you are against 3rd party people trying to solve issues, because only Paizo is allowed to do that? If Paizo doesn't want to do it, either because they'd invalidate too much of their books or they simply do not believe it to be a problem, people should just suck it up or switch to a completely different system?

[Captain Morgan]

Let me get this straight: Generalizing your statement, you are against 3rd party people trying to solve issues, because only Paizo is allowed to do that? If Paizo doesn't want to do it, either because they'd invalidate too much of their books or they simply do not believe it to be a problem, people should just suck it up or switch to a completely different system?

That's not how I interpreted that quote at all.

[Vhaidara]

It's not a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either when a single class dip solves nearly all your problems and gives you maneuvers to boot. I guess what I am saying is that you should want to dip Stalker to be Stalker-ish, not for single class ability (I suppose you can do the same thing by taking a level of fighter for the 2 feats *shrugs*). Theme over mechanics.

I'm kind of curious what exactly makes a stalker "stalker-ish". At level 1 they have
Maneuvers: Actually never going to be defining of a class in contrast to other initiators, due to the ease of swapping disciplines via tradition, trait, archetype, and nice GMs
Ki pool: Okay, so we have the only class to actually get a level 1 ki pool. Still, an ability shared with Monk and Ninja is hardly going to be your iconic feature.
Deadly Strikes: I personally don't really like this ability, but that's personal bias against crit reliance and the idea of "you get more damage, but only if you crit" when crits, pretty much by definition, do stupid damage, strikes me as a bit off
Stalker Art: Several of these are feats. About half of the others are situational at best. About half of the ones remaining after that are either really broken imo (combat precognition) or powerful but not interesting (Critical Edge and Deadly Insight). And, most importantly, these are variable, and therefore can't really be class defining on their own.

Other than that, you get a Rogue Chassis with fewer skill points and class skills.

There are two reasons why I always use Steelfist Commando for my light armor initiators. The first is a personal dislike of Wis based characters/love of Cha based characters. The second is that I just feel Steelfist usually does it better.

[Kudaku]

While we're on the topic, Combat Precognition is one of very few things we decided to ban from our games after seeing it in play. While I personally think the art is very good but not quite broken, having to roll all attack rolls vs the stalker twice and continually check which roll was the lower slowed the pace of combat dramatically at medium to high levels. Really not a fan of this stalker art.

Making it a +4 Dodge bonus to AC akin to the monk option would have roughly the same power level but much easier to run. Another option is to base it around Murderous Insight and limit it to a single attack each round, but that would be a significant power drop.

[Powerdork]

Maneuvers: Actually never going to be defining of a class in contrast to other initiators

Recovery method says hello.

[Vhaidara]

Recovery method says hello.

So you're advertising what is probably the weakest full initiator recovery method in PoW to date as a feature?

Stalker: Full Round, AC bonus and move
Warder: Zone of Nope, good enough to see use as something more than recovery
Warlord: Pseudo-boost with extra rewards
Harbinger: Swift for one, kill for more
Mystic: The most hotly debated maneuver recovery in PoW
Zealot: Probably the second worst now, since the update lost a lot of the support for Aid Another and Zeal doesn't provide as much active buff. But at least you spend a standard action doing something to help your team win the fight.

[neversterling]

So you're advertising what is probably the weakest full initiator recovery method in PoW to date as a feature?

Stalker: Full Round, AC bonus and move
Warder: Zone of Nope, good enough to see use as something more than recovery
Warlord: Pseudo-boost with extra rewards
Harbinger: Swift for one, kill for more
Mystic: The most hotly debated maneuver recovery in PoW
Zealot: Probably the second worst now, since the update lost a lot of the support for Aid Another and Zeal doesn't provide as much active buff. But at least you spend a standard action doing something to help your team win the fight.

Oversight: Stalker gets Deadly Strike damage on the first attack afterward, which is great for those Scythe wielders.

[Alea]

Let me get this straight: Generalizing your statement, you are against 3rd party people trying to solve issues, because only Paizo is allowed to do that? If Paizo doesn't want to do it, either because they'd invalidate too much of their books or they simply do not believe it to be a problem, people should just suck it up or switch to a completely different system?

They can solve issues, but they cannot rewrite the system. If they do that, it won’t sell. So they can only solve issues with respect to their own material.

To wit: they can “solve” the problem of the stalker’s schtick requiring far too many feats, and there not being enough feats available at 1st level to do it, by giving the stalker a lot of stuff at 1st. They cannot change the feat progression, or rewrite core feats. That would alienate too many customers.

It has nothing to do with what I am “for” or “against.”

[Vhaidara]

Oversight: Stalker gets Deadly Strike damage on the first attack afterward, which is great for those Scythe wielders.

Eh, 1d10 damage is okay at first level, but it doesn't really age all that well. And you still spent a full round action doing functionally nothing. That's my biggest objection. Warlord, Warder, and, to a lesser degree, Zealot, all recover by doing things you would do anyways (matching gambits, BFC, supporting allies). Harbinger ultimately recovers by killing enemies, which is of course a wonderful thing. Mystic takes no actions to recover. Only Stalker has to effectively sacrifice a turn.

[EldritchWeaver]

They can solve issues, but they cannot rewrite the system. If they do that, it won’t sell. So they can only solve issues with respect to their own material.

To wit: they can “solve” the problem of the stalker’s schtick requiring far too many feats, and there not being enough feats available at 1st level to do it, by giving the stalker a lot of stuff at 1st. They cannot change the feat progression, or rewrite core feats. That would alienate too many customers.

It has nothing to do with what I am “for” or “against.”

Another try, this time using Vancian Magic as example. Assuming only core rules, we have a wizard - high flexibility for the pool of spells, but strict for assigning spells to spell slots - and the sorcerer - strict for the pool of spells, but high flexibility for assigning spells to spell slots. An issue a number of people have is that they want to have a class sharing the strengths of both Wizards and Sorcerers. There are at least two ways this issue has been attacked already: The first is the Arcanist, a class which still uses the Vancian Magic as base. The second is Spheres of Power, which is a rewrite of the magic system.

To reduce customer alienation, it would have been a 3PP's only sensible option to create an Arcanist-like class, leaving a Spheres of Power-like rewrite for Paizo only?

I think that it is backwards. Paizo is too big to be able to risk the kind of backlash a complete rewrite would cause. Not to mention that the people in power are also the people who don't find fault with a number of things in the first place, so a PF 2.0 would be unlikely to address such issues. In fact, 3PP is the place where such rewrites can originate, are even more likely because unsatisfied players have no other way to scratch their itches. Granted, rewrites have unforeseen interactions with existing material, but Paizo material isn't better off here in principle. Still, if alienation is such huge problem, why are PoW and SoP so popular as they are? I can only explain this by having quite a number of people feeling the same as the designers of these supplements.

[EldritchWeaver]

Only Stalker has to effectively sacrifice a turn.

Actually, using Martial Training feats instead of the stalker class has the same issue. This makes me hesitate the most using them in a character. You pay a number of feats for being less efficient, as1 turn maneuver use - 1 turn readying halves the damage you can do. Or keeping the maneuver in reserve until you might need it, which overall makes the character even less worthwhile. Why isn't it an option to spend e.g. 3 swift actions for readying as well? That way, a non-initiator can still reliably use the maneuvers every third round while filling the two turns in between with normal attacks.

[Vhaidara]

Actually, using Martial Training feats instead of the stalker class has the same issue. This makes me hesitate the most using them in a character. You pay a number of feats for being less efficient, as1 turn maneuver use - 1 turn readying halves the damage you can do. Or keeping the maneuver in reserve until you might need it, which overall makes the character even less worthwhile. Why isn't it an option to spend e.g. 3 swift actions for readying as well? That way, a non-initiator can still reliably use the maneuvers every third round while filling the two turns in between with normal attacks.

I'm specifically talking about the initiator classes. It's been stated that, by design, Martial Training has a garbage recovery method.

Also, how would you spend 3 swifts? You only get 1 per turn, and that also locks out any class ability that uses swifts or any use of Boosts.