Initiators and You

[stack]

Yes, I enjoy PoW, can't imagine playing a martial without it.

Every system has flaws, it works quite well.

Can never have too many disciplines and more cool stuff, though the PoW team is being careful, from what I understand, to make certain each discipline is unique enough to keep a strong identity.

[Lord_Gareth]

Yes, I enjoy PoW, can't imagine playing a martial without it.

Every system has flaws, it works quite well.

Can never have too many disciplines and more cool stuff, though the PoW team is being careful, from what I understand, to make certain each discipline is unique enough to keep a strong identity.

You have no idea how many ideas I veto every single week, man.

Every.

Single.

Week.

[stack]

You have no idea how many ideas I veto every single week, man.

Every.

Single.

Week.

At least two of mine since the first book, but they were ideas that you probably hear every week (anti-magic and grappling based disciplines).

[Milo v3]

At least two of mine since the first book, but they were ideas that you probably hear every week (anti-magic and grappling based disciplines).

Isn't there an anti-magic PrC? And you can use broken blade boosts and stances for grappling.

[stack]

Isn't there an anti-magic PrC? And you can use broken blade boosts and stances for grappling.

Steelfist commando with steel coils stance and some broken blade stuff works pretty well for dealing damage as a grappler. I have toyed with writing out a grappling/reposition/bullrush/enemy wielding discipline, but I don't know that I can pull it off in worthwhile form and have other protects currently.

[Red Fel]

Stop the bandwagon, because I'm hopping aboard!

I have a few questions I want to ask that I'd like to know what the answers are.

I too ask questions when I would like to know the answers. Sometimes, I ask them when I already know the answers, just to mess with people.

Do you like and play initiator classes?

If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

Yes. I like and play them. I recognize that no system is perfect, however.

1. Because ToB was introduced so late in 3.5's life, it has zero support beyond the book. It also suffers an incomplete errata. Further, the editing in the book is confusing and weak at the best of times. PoW seems to have smoothly addressed a lot of these wrinkles, having arrived while PF is still going strong, enjoying continuous revision and updates, and benefiting from very active developers who are constantly testing and improving the mechanics. So, really, this is only a flaw in ToB; PoW is great on this front.
2. Both ToB and PoW carry with them the baggage of preexisting classes. This, I think, is something that is a common complaint about Initiator classes - they have taken preexisting melee and made it more complicated. The thing is, I don't think the opposite works - if we had started with Initiator classes back in the day, and then someone came along and offered a melee-based class with no maneuvers and only feats as a class feature, we would have laughed them out of the room. Nonetheless, this baggage - the existence of classes like the Fighter and Rogue - acts as a barrier to entry.
3. They are inherently more complicated than the standard feat-based combat style. That's "more complicated," not "complicated," in much the same way that 10 is larger than 1, but is not necessarily a large number. They require more of the player than "I attack it with my sword," "I use Power Attack," or "I make a trip attempt." And admittedly, part of why I might play a Fighter or Barbarian is to get away from the complex mechanics and bookkeeping of spellcasters.

Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?

Not overly complicated, no. It is certainly similar to what spellcasters do, but is also in many ways simpler. There tends to be less interaction between abilities, for instance; you might need to see with a spell whether it stacks, or what special rules apply to its school or subschool, or a spell might refer to a different spell ("as X, but with the following changes"). Maneuvers tend to be more neatly self-contained, and as WotC showed with its web-release of maneuver cards, they can be easily tracked and managed. Trying to do the same with your spellbook could charitably be called a nightmare.

Which of the following things would you like to see more of?

1. More disciplines.
2. More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
3. More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
4. Expanded disciplines.
5. More classes.
6. Cooler stuff.
7. Useful stuff.
8. None.

Responses in bold. I like the idea of different schools of combat. I like the idea of melees being able to do cool, clever, and useful things. I like the idea of classes that approach maneuvers differently. I don't know that the existing disciplines need to expand or change, but I like the idea of more.

That's a good question, but I guess that the only answer I have for you is that you'll find out.

This kind of response always worries me.

[Jormengand]

No. If I want to play that type of character, I can play a Magus, Inquisitor, or Psychic Warrior to much the same effect. If I don't want to play that type of character, I get extremely aggravated when people try to convince me that it's a way of building a type of character that it's no good for and that any other attempt to build a character for that purpose is pointless.

[LTwerewolf]

I get extremely aggravated when people try to convince me that it's a was of building a type of character that it's no good for and that any attempt to build a character for that purpose is pointless.

I have no idea what this part of the sentence is trying to say. I think my brain broke.

[Jormengand]

I have no idea what this part of the sentence is trying to say.

Try again now.

I think my brain broke.

You're welcome.

[Milo v3]

No. If I want to play that type of character, I can play a Magus, Inquisitor, or Psychic Warrior to much the same effect. If I don't want to play that type of character, I get extremely aggravated when people try to convince me that it's a way of building a type of character that it's no good for and that any other attempt to build a character for that purpose is pointless.

.... could have at least answered questions beyond number 1.

[Jormengand]

.... could have at least answered questions beyond number 1.

That answer basically sums up all my thoughts on ToB/PoW, though. I don't really care whether it's too complicated or not (of course, it isn't, because it's basically the same thing as vancian spellcasting), and I would like to see more things that are not like that.

[Sayt]

[B]Do you like and play initiator classes?
If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?[/INDENT]

I play and enjoy initiators. The shortcomings, I think (in terms of path of War, at least), are over or under-tuned disciplines. Generally speaking the multi-attack disciplines are a bit overtuned (Thrashing Dragon, Broken Blade) are overtuned (Though Primal Fury is somewhat as well). On the other hand, some disciplines are undertuned, like IMO Scarlet Throne, which is largely single strikes with one-handed weapons, has boosts which don't easily stack (insight bonuses). Furthermore, it's stronger strikes key of sense motive, but is native to the Warlord which is encouraged to dump Wisdom somewhat (Cha to will saves), and Warder, which slightly superiorly has Wis as a 'neutral' stat.

Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

Not particularly. I'd say that it's simpler than the vancian system. The main complicated element is selecting maneuvers known, at a level higher than 1, and that's more fiddly than difficult.

Which of the following things would you like to see more of?

1. More disciplines.
2. More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
3. More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
   
4. Expanded disciplines.
5. More classes.
6. Cooler stuff.
7. Useful stuff.
8. None.

I think there's room for expanding the disciplines, at the moment there are a few long-running themes and maneuver lines, but there are also several Good/Bad option dichotomies which I think should use some competition, and some Discipline levels that just don't do very well (Scarlet Throne 6 isn't, I think a good maneuver level, compared to ST7, which has Ruby Battle Lord's Strike (Fantastic), Sanguine Proclamation (Pretty damn good) and Royal Blade (A fairly strong damage boost with a nasty save or suck rider). Furthermore, the dipsciplines taper off, most only having one 9th, two 8ths, and three 7ths, to my knowledge. And while you obviously get fewer higher level maneuvers, there aren't that many high level options within a discipline.

[Vhaidara]

Furthermore, the dipsciplines taper off, most only having one 9th, two 8ths, and three 7ths, to my knowledge. And while you obviously get fewer higher level maneuvers, there aren't that many high level options within a discipline.

As a point, I'm pretty sure this is an intentional design decision. The number of maneuvers at each level is fairly constant (stances get kind of weird, since there was the disconnect about level 5 vs level 6, and Golden Lion only having 1 level 1 stance)

[Elricaltovilla]

As a point, I'm pretty sure this is an intentional design decision. The number of maneuvers at each level is fairly constant (stances get kind of weird, since there was the disconnect about level 5 vs level 6, and Golden Lion only having 1 level 1 stance)

We're standardizing stances. It's going to be 1/1/3/5/6/8 for every discipline.

[Vhaidara]

We're standardizing stances. It's going to be 1/1/3/5/6/8 for every discipline.

Oh, 5 and 6?

How are you handling stance progression then? Because the 5th level stances become available at 9, but the 6th levels have to wait until 11.

[Sayt]

As a point, I'm pretty sure this is an intentional design decision. The number of maneuvers at each level is fairly constant (stances get kind of weird, since there was the disconnect about level 5 vs level 6, and Golden Lion only having 1 level 1 stance)

Oh I understand why it's so for the initial release product, working with limited print-space and reinforcing identity to disciplines, I'm just hoping for further expansion.

[mostholycerebus]

B]Do you like and play initiator classes?

[/B]

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

Yes, and I quite enjoy them. Shortcomings, depending on the build I feel they can be more complicated than some spellcasting classes. Wizards, you usually throw a Standard Action spell and its done, then maybe move, powerful effect on the battlefield. Initiators are usually layering effects and using every single action available, sometimes getting and using more actions. A typical round you may be using a Standard Action Strike, a Move Action, possible another actual Move, a Swift action Boost, and probably an Immediate action Counter. Any or all of these could have multiple effects that last a number of turns.

Then you have AOOs on others turns...

Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

To me it is equivalent to a Druid or Cleric, maybe some Witches. Like those classes, Initiators seem to focus on damage AND buffs and/or debuffs with some utility. So, somewhat complicated, but no worse than existing classes. The only main difference is, unlike casters, the scenario I posited above comes online from pretty much level 1. Casters have to get Schism, Quicken Spell, and other hijinks that come online at mid+ level.

Which of the following things would you like to see more of?

1. More disciplines.
2. More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
3. More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
4. Expanded disciplines.
5. More classes.
6. Cooler stuff.
7. Useful stuff.
8. None.

Probably none. Dreamscarred has covered so much that I cant think of a concept I cant build with Ultimate Psionics and PoW:Expanded.

[ComaVision]

1. Yes, I have played an initiator class and they're quite popular in the games I've run. I don't think there any major shortcomings.

2. I think it's a very simple system.

3. I would like to see more niche disciplines, maybe one for flying races and one for mounted combat. I would also like to see half-initiator classes (my apologies if PoW already covers any of this because I only have a basic knowledge of PoW so far).

[Subaru Kujo]

I have a few questions I want to ask that I'd like to know what the answers are.

An initiator is a class that "initiates" maneuvers from the ToB or PoW systems.


Do you like and play initiator classes?

If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

Play them pretty much all the time when I want to play a melee class unless I have a really good reason for doing otherwise (I want to play a skillmonkey, for instance).

And of course there are shortcomings, but I'll get to that next.

Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?

Not really so much flawed as poorly edited. Know ToB has some maneuvers with no requirements other than being a high enough level, and I really doubt that's intentional.

I suppose also, I have people trying to pull out 6th level maneuvers at level 6. Like, not the fault of the system, but I thought it was amusing.

Which of the following things would you like to see more of?

1. More disciplines.
2. More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
3. More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
4. Expanded disciplines.
5. More classes.
6. Cooler stuff.
7. Useful stuff.

Yes.

Responses in italics.

[Vhaidara]

3. I would like to see more niche disciplines, maybe one for flying races and one for mounted combat. I would also like to see half-initiator classes (my apologies if PoW already covers any of this because I only have a basic knowledge of PoW so far).

Mounted discipline ended up getting scrapped, mostly because mounted combat is already really really strong. Flying races are unlikely because Gareth is on the veto board.

2/3 initiating archetypes are available in the PoW:E playtest thread for damn close to everyone who doesn't have 9th level spells/powers/is a Magus

[Lord_Gareth]

Mounted discipline ended up getting scrapped, mostly because mounted combat is already really really strong. Flying races are unlikely because Gareth is on the veto board.

You're damn straight. It'd be a gigantically niche discipline, and the Fly skill is a wretched, twisted abomination that needs to be cast back into whatever pit of Hell from which it was spawned.

[ComaVision]

Mounted discipline ended up getting scrapped, mostly because mounted combat is already really really strong. Flying races are unlikely because Gareth is on the veto board.

2/3 initiating archetypes are available in the PoW:E playtest thread for damn close to everyone who doesn't have 9th level spells/powers/is a Magus

That's a shame but understandable. Thanks for the info.

[Elricaltovilla]

Oh, 5 and 6?

How are you handling stance progression then? Because the 5th level stances become available at 9, but the 6th levels have to wait until 11.

It's all getting standardized to work based on the stance progression I posted. You'll see the end result when PoW:E gets released.

[Bucky]

Do you like and play initiator classes?

If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

I like initiator classes. I do not play initiator classes because my DM banned them after my first one.

Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?

This banning was the direct result of how easy it is to get better than 3d6* damage dice on a strike at level 1. I was one-shotting level appropriate enemies even after the DM ruled that my one-handed discipline weapons couldn't be used two-handed during a strike.

Accordingly, the obvious flaw is that level 1 strikes and stances do too much damage.

I didn't get into the 'overly complicated' part because that character was killed with prejudice at a low level, before getting any decent counters; playing with only one stance and a small maneuver library is fairly straightforward. However, I'd be more concerned about complexity if I were trying to loop maneuvers as a Warlord.



*I didn't go higher than 3d6+lots on that character. But a Black Seraph out of the box can go as high as 4d6+1d8 (+ 1.5*Str) using only level 1 maneuvers, enough to routinely one-shot most CR2 monsters.

Which of the following things would you like to see more of?

Insufficient data. But I'm not fond of 'MORE STUFF' as a design principle; I'd rather see utility modded into existing maneuvers.

[Morbis Meh]

Do you like and play initiator classes?

If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

If I am not playing a caster I will usually attempt to play one of these but that is hit and miss on this forum, they are generally my favourite classes to play.

As for short comings well like any system there are some rough patches, internal balance between disciplines (some are too good while others are alright) but for the most part the PoW team is doing a stellar job on working out the bugs.

Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?

Not at all, like many of have said it is somewhat easier to use than the casting system though I would agree that having requirements on maneuvers is a tad irritating at times and requires a little more rigorous book keeping.

Which of the following things would you like to see more of?

1. More disciplines.
2. More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
3. More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
4. Expanded disciplines.
5. More classes.
6. Cooler stuff.
7. Useful stuff.
8. None.

I love variety and this is the reason why I haven't moved passed 3.5/PF since they grant far more character creation options for fine tuning and I feel PoW/ToB capitalize on this since it allows martials to use the complete round rather than simply standard/move or just full attack.

[Kudaku]

Do you like and play initiator classes?

Fort the first time my GM somewhat reluctantly allowed the use of PoW for a Mummy's Mask campaign that started in April, that's currently level 13. We've had one character go straight warlord, with two other characters (Druid, Battle Oracle) taking dips in Stalker and Warlord, respectively. As the warlord player, it's easily the most fun martial character I've ever played. We're big fans and are eagerly awaiting Path of War: Expanded.

If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

While we did choose to play PoW, the main issue our GM had was the perceived power level of Path of War compared to straight Pathfinder. This concern was somewhat justified with things like teleport (Fading Strike) and pounce (Raging Hunter Pounce) available as early as level 3. That said, after getting used to the novelty of a teleporting martial we found that the warlord was well matched with his main competition in melee, a Bladebound Kensai Magus. The Magus puts out slightly better numbers when he burns resources and generally has better utility, but the Warlord is still contributing greatly and is much more willing to engage with all his toys in each fight. It feels like the "sprinter v endurance runner" balance is just about where it should be.

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

While we were overall quite happy with the power level, we felt like there were some maneuvers that were problematic in one way or another. For example Frenzy Strike has the potential to make a truly ridiculous amount of attacks and feels wildly overpowered compared to other level 3 strikes. The various Penumbra maneuvers could use some more elaboration of how the illusion effects are intended to work.

Gambits is easily the best recovery option of the three initiator classes we've seen in play so far. It feels much more organic and fun than either the Warder or the Stalker options. The stalker option in particular feels a little strange. Generally speaking you want to get into position early on in the fight, which is when you'd have all your maneuvers ready. By the time you're running low on maneuvers odds are that you're in the thick of it, so spending a full round action moving and recovering but not attacking is less than ideal. We'd much prefer to see recovery mechanics such as Gambits and Soul Claiming (Soul Hunter archetype) in the future.

There are some powers that are only available to a select few or even a single discipline, and probably shouldn't be. An example of this is that while just about all disciplines have some kind of defensive counter, only Black Seraph and Silver Crane provide maneuver options to obtain flight - something most martial characters are extremely likely to need. It'd be nice if there was a little bit more overlap between disciplines for things as crucial as flying.

Finally, and this might be a pet peeve, but I'm not crazy about the advantages of dipping PoW classes at higher levels. In our game both the Battle Oracle and the Druid dipped a single level of PoW initiator classes around level 9 in order to pick up 3rd level maneuvers, but ignored the Strikes (that were very underwhelming compared to level 10 full attacks) and opted instead for Boosts and Counters to round out their action economy. PoW classes tend to give significantly higher rewards for dipping than most other classes, and the rewards grow the later in the game you dip.

Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

Overall I think the system is elegant and not particularly complicated. One thing I will note however, is that the "replace a maneuver every even level" makes it unnecessarily complicated to make a high-level initiator class from scratch. As a GM I frequently rebuilt AP fighters and rogues into warlords and stalkers, and this was a constant issue. You have to build the character more or less level by level, adding and then replacing maneuvers every two levels. It's quite easy to screw this up and I've seen multiple PoW characters with illegal builds because the player accidentally screwed up replacing maneuvers. This mechanic could really do with some streamlining.

Which of the following things would you like to see more of?

1. More disciplines.
2. More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
3. More disciplines, but more fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
4. Expanded disciplines.
5. More classes.
6. Cooler stuff.
7. Useful stuff.
8. None.

More Disciplines for sure. While I personally really like Veiled Moon, I think a lot of people look to PoW to make the "non-magical" martial so I can understand increased support for non-SU disciplines.

Expanded Disciplines would be interesting, but it's not quite as important to me. I like the idea that two warlords will play significantly differently depending on what disciplines they choose to specialize in.

More Classes - sure, why not?

Useful Stuff - while the Warlord has a host of incredibly useful abilities in combat, I sometimes feel that he has a harder time contributing outside of combat. Low-level utility stances like Eyes of the Crane and Running Hunter Stance are great for helping out even outside of combat, I'd love to see more like this.

I'd like to add one more thing that wasn't listed in the options - archetypes to incorporate PoW maneuvers into existing classes. We know there are already some in the pipeline, which is great! I hope to see one for every class Paizo has put out.

[Faily]

I have played with ToB, but not with PoW, so answers will be accordingly.

Do you like and play initiator classes?

If no, then what reasons do you have for not using them?

If yes, then do you believe there any shortcomings or flaws?

I like Initiator classes as I like playing melee characters from time to time as well, but I am unhappy with the power-level difference between an Initiator warrior and a non-Initiator warrior. While I enjoy playing Initiators myself, I do feel that any Initiator warrior will outshine any non-Initiator warrior most of the time which can cause some difficulties if a party consists of regular classes and then one player rolls up an Initiator.

Do you think the initiator system is overly complicated and difficult to use?

If yes, then in what ways is it flawed?

I don't think it's overly complicated or difficult to use. It's a bit clunky at first, as there are some things that are a bit unclear (effective Initiator-levels when multi-classing with non-Initiator classes is one that comes to mind). Others have mentioned the progression of Maneuvers and Stances when making a higher-level character.

Not overly complicated or difficult, but has its flaws that's for sure. Red Fel's point about ToB's lack of support and proper errata is also a good point.

Which of the following things would you like to see more of?

1. More disciplines.
2. More disciplines, but none of that fancy magic stuff like Veiled Moon.
3. Expanded disciplines.
4. Useful stuff.
   

Regarding differences in power-level: While casters are still more powerful than Initiators and non-Initiators, the Wizard or the Cleric's power-level is often more acceptable for players to deal with at the table, I've found. Some of it is because some players are just so used to the power of casters, they don't really second-guess it, or at least so I think. However, when playing say a Fighter, and someone rolls a Warblade, the Fighter might boast that he has more feats, but the Warblade will still out-perform the Fighter at almost every turn: better HP (d12 vs d10), can achieve better damage-output (super-easy with Initiators, I've found), can tank better (something as simple as Stone Bones can do the trick for that).
So I kinda feel that if everything should feel "fair" for the warriors, you either have to rule out ToB or make every warrior play an Initiator.

And yes, various other classes and builds can somewhat emulate the "magic" of Initiators (or Initiators emulate them?), like Duskblade, Magus, Psychic Warrior, various Gish-builds, etc, but it just doesn't feel right to compare them, imo, as those kind of characters still operate on limited amount of resources (spells and power-points), while Initiators can keep going all day. Not only because of their "once per encounter"-mechanics, but also because of the built-in mechanics of regaining maneuvers in combat. A Magus can do tons of damage with an Intensified Maximized Shocking Grasp, but he is limited to how often he can do it because of the Vancian-casting system. Psychic Warrior burns through Power Points like candy if he wants to really shine. The Initiator does his thing, then goes back to regaining his tricks right away.

[Captain Morgan]

The Energizer Bunny aspect of Initiators is definitely a thing. But its not a simple one. Standard play allows for like 4 CR appropriate encounters a day, but many campaigns go above or below that. If your DM likes to throw really long days or gauntlets at you, the Initiator is going to shine. But on a short day they still can't match the full caster.