Dreamscarred Press Announces: Path of War Expanded

[malonkey1]

Thy image be broken.

[PsyBomb]

Thy image be broken.

From Braveheart. When I saw the broken link, I was half-expecting the page from OotS where Elan was giving the speech to Azure City.

[georgie_leech]

Thy image be broken.

Odd, I can still see it. The link, just in case. THE NEW LINK

Edit:

From Braveheart. When I saw the broken link, I was half-expecting the page from OotS where Elan was giving the speech to Azure City.

I thought it fitting, given the early context of Barbarians.

[deuxhero]

Um. Are chaotic people suddenly afflicted with the inability to lead and inspire others?

It's more that it feels too... organized. I don't really think of leading people in a coordinated tactical plan when someone says "barbarian". It's more the "barbarian" part than them not being able to be lawful (which was always weird given "barbarians" are typically obsessed with tradition, honor and all the other stuff that is assoicated with lawful)

[Vhaidara]

It's more that it feels too... organized. I don't really think of leading people in a coordinated tactical plan when someone says "barbarian". It's more the "barbarian" part than them not being able to be lawful (which was always weird given "barbarians" are typically obsessed with tradition, honor and all the other stuff that is assoicated with lawful)

Think of it more as an alpha leading the pack. Or a pride, as the case may be.

[malonkey1]

Odd, I can still see it. The link, just in case.

Just getting an error 403.

[Bad Situation]

Powerful Counterattack is oddly placed. A single +1d8 on counters/attacks of opportunity at 15th level seems rather underwhelming.

[Elricaltovilla]

Powerful Counterattack is oddly placed. A single +1d8 on counters/attacks of opportunity at 15th level seems rather underwhelming.

I'll try and sell ErrantX on upping the bonus damage (again).

[Chris Robin R2]

Ask and ye shall get an explanation

I guess I'm the odd man out because I don't like the Monk of the Silver Fist. I don't want some oddball tank monk, I want a monk with maneuvers. Are we getting more than one archtype or just the one?

[Kaidinah]

I guess I'm the odd man out because I don't like the Monk of the Silver Fist. I don't want some oddball tank monk, I want a monk with maneuvers. Are we getting more than one archtype or just the one?

I think that somewhere on this thread they said that there would be another way to get disciplines traded out on initiators, so I am certain that this will be a way to get Broken Blade on that archetype. Though if you want a "monk with maneuvers" whats stopping you from just taking Martial Discipline 1-6 on a normal monk. You have the feats.

Or heck, just playing a Stalker with unarmed combat stuff. They share so much in common with a monk ability-wise that you can fluff yourself as a monk.

[stack]

On abilities that bypass immunities, they seem to grant a +5 bonus against the save. The only existing example I can think of off the top of my head is the dread, which gives +4 in a similar case, the rest that lets you bypass immunity to mind affecting for you terrors. Would it be better to stick with this precedent, or are there other cases I am not thinking of?

[Chris Robin R2]

I think that somewhere on this thread they said that there would be another way to get disciplines traded out on initiators, so I am certain that this will be a way to get Broken Blade on that archetype. Though if you want a "monk with maneuvers" whats stopping you from just taking Martial Discipline 1-6 on a normal monk. You have the feats.

Or heck, just playing a Stalker with unarmed combat stuff. They share so much in common with a monk ability-wise that you can fluff yourself as a monk.

I guess I shouldn't have singled out the monk. What I really mean is I don't want the only way to add maneuvers to a class to be to take an archetype that takes that class in a... non-standard direction.

[Doomeye56]

I guess I shouldn't have singled out the monk. What I really mean is I don't want the only way to add maneuvers to a class to be to take an archetype that takes that class in a... non-standard direction.

Isnt that the fun of archtypes?

[stack]

Hmm, any reason not to take deep impact on a zealot? Sleeping goddess style economizes your move actions when combined with psionic meditation, so making your strikes touch attacks should be awesome.

Gave up on trying the reach/control build, deciding to just get that from maneuvers as needed instead. Essence focus would be handy for using psionic weapon and deep impact simultaneously.

[Lord_Gareth]

I guess I shouldn't have singled out the monk. What I really mean is I don't want the only way to add maneuvers to a class to be to take an archetype that takes that class in a... non-standard direction.

There'd been some internal debate about this, but ultimately, we wanted the archetypes to be distinct, to hold their own in terms of flavor and identity. I'm afraid this is the only Monk archetype getting published, my friend. I am sorry it wasn't what you were expecting, but...when there's only so much page space, we kinda favor doing something distinct over something more generic.

[Ssalarn]

There'd been some internal debate about this, but ultimately, we wanted the archetypes to be distinct, to hold their own in terms of flavor and identity. I'm afraid this is the only Monk archetype getting published, my friend. I am sorry it wasn't what you were expecting, but...when there's only so much page space, we kinda favor doing something distinct over something more generic.

I really agree with this design philosophy as well. When you're making something, one of the first questions should really be "What niche does this fill" followed by "Is there already something filling this niche". The Monk has lots of options to keep its core identity but sub in replacement components; you can make a pretty kickass monk by grabbing the Qinggong archetype and picking up some martial maneuver feats. If page space is going to be spent on an archetype, I'd really prefer it be something new to the game than just a different way of doing what's already there.

[deuxhero]

Trading away Sleeping Goddess maneuvers means you can lose the [psionic] sub-type. Seems... Odd (I remember hearing that there would be traditions for every discipline. "Falling" could mean a character no longer qualifies for any part of their build which seems a way bigger penalty than intended)

I still can't think of any reason to use Forge of Will for anything other than Bane (whatever you are fighting)

Dreaming Nomad Strike says "adjacent". Change this to something that works with reach weapons.

@stack
You can't power attack on a touch attack and you could be using your move action for other stuff.

[Seerow]

Can someone explain to me how Warpaths are not a huge boost in power to classes that don't need it at all? Domains are nice, but unless I am majorly misreading this, you trade out a single domain and nothing else, and in exchange get a 6th level maneuver progression, and basically 4 bonus feats as you level up.

A domain is generally worth around 1-2 feats. I am just not seeing how this is considered remotely balanced, and I'm hoping there's some major drawback I'm missing.

[master4sword]

Can someone explain to me how Warpaths are not a huge boost in power to classes that don't need it at all? Domains are nice, but unless I am majorly misreading this, you trade out a single domain and nothing else, and in exchange get a 6th level maneuver progression, and basically 4 bonus feats as you level up.

A domain is generally worth around 1-2 feats. I am just not seeing how this is considered remotely balanced, and I'm hoping there's some major drawback I'm missing.

The only drawback I can see is the limited number of known/readied maneuvers compared to what anyone else gets. And even there, it's only a temporary one as they end with 7 readied, the same as a Soulknife/Psychic Warrior/Barbarian/Monk/Paladin does in the end, so the downside is temporary at best.

On a related note, will there be Ranger, Fighter, or Rogue archetypes? Or at least some way to get Martial Training early as ranger style feats/fighter bonus feats/rogue talents so we don't have to wait until 3rd level for our first maneuvers?

[Vhaidara]

On a related note, will there be Ranger, Fighter, or Rogue archetypes? Or at least some way to get Martial Training early as ranger style feats/fighter bonus feats/rogue talents so we don't have to wait until 3rd level for our first maneuvers?

I'm actually considering brewing a Martilist Fighter Archetype that basically is a "build your own initiator". You choose a recovery method from an existing initiator, and end up getting roughly double the highest number of maneuvers known and readied, plus stances (I need to figure out which class that would be). These can be from any discipline, and replaces Bravery, Weapon Training, and Armor Training. The capstone is that you can initiate standard action strikes as part of a full attack (including multiple strikes in a single full attack)

[malonkey1]

On the topic of Monks and maneuvers, one thought is maybe you could allow them to take the Martial Training chain as bonus feat options? Then you could choose to have a Monk that maintains its normal class features and has limited maneuvers, or a more specialized Monk that gets more maneuvers in exchange?

[deuxhero]

Unless you blow feats, a single Warpath's incredibly slow rate of advancement for prepared (you are done initiating for an encounter after one strike and possibly a boost for a quarter of the character's life) is pretty nasty. I don't think any domain has all 9 spells be even worth the casting time, so you might as well have lost those slots if your second domain doesn't cover them.

If someone is making a battle cleric, they won't pick Gozreh (who struggles to find a single quality (sub)domain and is stuck with a simple weapon), they'll do something like Gorum (Rage+Tactics+Greatsword), Iomedae (Heroism+Tactics+Longsword) or even Lamashtu (Two of Demon, Feroicity and Madness with Falchion) even if they don't leave the core deities and core+APG for domains.

[Snowbluff]

On the topic of Monks and maneuvers, one thought is maybe you could allow them to take the Martial Training chain as bonus feat options? Then you could choose to have a Monk that maintains its normal class features and has limited maneuvers, or a more specialized Monk that gets more maneuvers in exchange?

We're on a road! Throw some orcs at us!

[Elricaltovilla]

On the topic of Monks and maneuvers, one thought is maybe you could allow them to take the Martial Training chain as bonus feat options? Then you could choose to have a Monk that maintains its normal class features and has limited maneuvers, or a more specialized Monk that gets more maneuvers in exchange?

Could we do that? Yes. Should we do that? I'm not so sure. Martial Training is a pretty subpar form of maneuver granting. Its simply never going to measure up to an archetype or a base class's ability to utilize maneuvers. Martial Training is a good way to test the waters of the system, ease people into what initiating has to offer, but really that's about it.

Giving monks access to Martial Training I-VI would give them a little more oomph, but they will never get the flexibility and versatility that makes the initiating system so great. An archetype gives the Monk a way to access maneuvers and really capitalize on them. There's nothing preventing you from trading out Steel Serpent for Broken Blade if you really want to, Path of War was designed to incorporate that kind of flexibility. But if you put a monk with Martial Training up against a Monk of the Silver Fist, I guarantee you that the MotSF is going to outperform, whereas our goal with providing maneuvers is to bring martial classes onto the same level with each other.

We're on a road! Throw some orcs at us!

Did something just fly over my head? Yes, yes it did.

[Seerow]

Unless you blow feats, a single Warpath's incredibly slow rate of advancement for prepared (you are done initiating for an encounter after one strike and possibly a boost for a quarter of the character's life) is pretty nasty. I don't think any domain has all 9 spells be even worth the casting time, so you might as well have lost those slots if your second domain doesn't cover them.

I'm really not buying that. Even if you had to give up all domains for the Warpath (and note: if you do that you get a higher initial readied maneuver count), it would still be a really powerful trade off. One spell per day per spell level to gain eventually 11 maneuvers known, 7 readied, and 4 stances, up to 6th level. Non-casters everywhere are drooling with envy wishing they could get as much for as little of a trade.

[stack]

Really a no-brained for inquisitors. Outside of a social-heavy campaign or a build using a mount/familiar/animal companion, what are you getting out of your domain/inquisition that can compare? You don't even sacrifice spells.

The extra abilities on top of the maneuver progression I think are unnecessary, power-wise. The maneuvers are a sweet deal on their own.

[deuxhero]

Warpriests and Inquisitors also 1: Are weaker already 2: suffer from "too much stuff that works off swift actions already", meaning they actually lose a lot more than they seem to for using manuvers. They're also supposed to be more martially focused than the Cleric (though don't do a great job of it) anyways.

If there's any problem it's with clerics taking them

I'm really not buying that. Even if you had to give up all domains for the Warpath (and note: if you do that you get a higher initial readied maneuver count), it would still be a really powerful trade off. One spell per day per spell level to gain eventually 11 maneuvers known, 7 readied, and 4 stances, up to 6th level. Non-casters everywhere are drooling with envy wishing they could get as much for as little of a trade.

You don't just give up the spell per day though, you give up the domain powers.

Tactics, a good but not amazing subdomain on a good chunk of deities suitable for battle cleric doesn't just give its spells, but the ability to let an ally roll twice for initiative at a usage rate that easily lets you use it for every encounter in a day from level 1 is something none of (say) Golden Lion's tricks, let alone the ones in the first 6 levels, can match.

[Kaidinah]

Warpriests and Inquisitors are both given some leeway with their swift actions through defined warpath abilities. This makes warpaths much more efficient for them than domains and blessings, since they can use both their own class features and boosts/stances in the same swift actions.

[Ssalarn]

Warpriests and Inquisitors also 1: Are weaker already 2: suffer from "too much stuff that works off swift actions already", meaning they actually lose a lot more than they seem to for using manuvers. They're also supposed to be more martially focused than the Cleric (though don't do a great job of it) anyways.

If there's any problem it's with clerics taking them.

Umm... Warpriests and Inquisitors may be weaker than a cleric (though I'd say they both actually have a higher optimization floor), but "weaker than a fully optimized Tier 1" and "weaker than the bulk of other characters" are two totally different things. I kind of agree that Warpaths are crazy strong compared to what's traded away for them, at least as concerns the casting classes.

[Seerow]

Umm... Warpriests and Inquisitors may be weaker than a cleric (though I'd say they both actually have a higher optimization floor), but "weaker than a fully optimized Tier 1" and "weaker than the bulk of other characters" are two totally different things. I kind of agree that Warpaths are crazy strong compared to what's traded away for them, at least as concerns the casting classes.

Right. Casting classes should be getting a worse trade-off ratio than traditionally martial focused classes, not better.

I mean imagine if there was a Psionic Archetype for Wizard that lets you give up your familiar to gain a Marksman level psionic progression (scaling from 1 to 70 PP, and 0 to 12 powers known capped at 4th level powers). Yes, that progression is weak compared to the primary psionic classes. Yes there are occasional things that you can do with a familiar that make them more valuable than the pocket lint most wizards treat them as. But you're insane if you don't think that the majority of players won't make that trade simply because it is a powerful feature you are gaining in place of a feature that is tiny by comparison.

Throwing 4 bonus feats in on top of it would just be icing on the cake. The fact that you can give up a relatively minor class feature to gain a full secondary resource progression is the problem. It is fundamentally flawed. Honestly, I don't think any class that already has a resource system should be able to graft on a second resource system without giving up the first one. A class designed as a theurge with two resource systems is one thing, but being able to just decide "I want to pick up a side order of maneuvers" is something that is rarely going to be balanced, and even more rarely when you make it as something generic that any divine caster can opt into rather than tailoring the trade off on a per class basis. I understand it's a page saving measure, and is very useful to provide options to a number of classes very quickly and easily, but it is ridiculous.



Edit: Just a thought but what if War Paths were more restricted in maneuver recovery than other forms? Say rather than unlimited maneuver recovery as is the norm for maneuvers, require a character on a Warpath to expend spell slots to recover maneuvers. Solves the problem of losing a use for those domain slots that you don't have a good spell for, and makes Warpath maneuvers much more limited in use. Still disagree with the premise of giving an actual maneuver progression to a casting class, as noted above, but if you basically turn it into "Turn X Spell Slot into Y maneuvers" you could probably get something closer to balanced.