Dreamscarred Press Announces: Path of War Expanded

[Taveena]

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).

Noncasters should be best, half casters should be worse, and full casters should be the worst at it. I still think they should have the OPTION to do it in a less awkward way than having to blow half their feats on Martial Training or take a dip. Clerics getting 9 maneuvers from one school in exchange for both domains isn't going to break the game or give them power they didn't have - it just gives people a thematic option to play a Cleric that's more focused on their martial side and /not/ be locked into 'i full attack again' when facesmashin'.

[malonkey1]

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

As a DM whose favorite villain to use was an Illithid Warblade, I can say that you are not alone in your opinion.

[Fax Celestis]

As a DM whose favorite villain to use was an Illithid Warblade, I can say that you are not alone in your opinion.

There's a discipline for that.

[Nihilarian]

Noncasters should be best, half casters should be worse, and full casters should be the worst at it. I still think they should have the OPTION to do it in a less awkward way than having to blow half their feats on Martial Training or take a dip. Clerics getting 9 maneuvers from one school in exchange for both domains isn't going to break the game or give them power they didn't have - it just gives people a thematic option to play a Cleric that's more focused on their martial side and /not/ be locked into 'i full attack again' when facesmashin'.

I think that making them devote their feats or levels to it is a great idea. Honestly, the feats are already more than a fighter who wants to cast spells gets; he HAS to multiclass.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I don't see a problem with giving full casters initiating archetypes, seeing as how pretty much anything significant you can trade out would end up with the caster being weaker overall. To me, my biggest wish is to see a blade scholar type archetype or class, and there's just nothing that comes even close to that in PoW or anywhere outside of one or two homebrew classes that weren't designed for PF.

[Fluffy Viking]

Just wanted to say that I have fallen in love with the Harbinger. I love teleporting melee combat (I blame DBZ growing up) and the Harbinger seems to bring that in spades, so to you Lord_Gareth, I give you my whole hearted thanks. Now if I can only find a DM willing to let me play as one...

As for the survey, I think I will echo what most are saying in that full casters should NOT get an archetype with access to maneuvers. They already can rewrite the laws of physics on a whim, let's let melee have nice things that's only for us

That being said, I would LOVE to see a Magus archetype with access to either Shattered Mirror or Cursed Razor (Maybe an archetype that originally grants Shattered Mirror, but if you are combining it with Hexcrafter, you get Cursed Razor instead?) I'm not sure what should be removed or tweaked to make it happen, I just find the idea of a Magus with one or both of those disciplines to be rather amazing.

[Taveena]

I think that making them devote their feats or levels to it is a great idea. Honestly, the feats are already more than a fighter who wants to cast spells gets; he HAS to multiclass.

The solution to overpowered abilities should not be making the abilities difficult to use. Frankly? Losing the domains is a bigger loss than losing feats and it's more thematically fun than just spending six feats.

[squiggit]

Survey Time

I could maybe see doing something with the Druid or Witch or Cleric, otherwise eh on full caster support.

But a dilettante magus who mixes both arcane and martial magic together sounds really fun to me.

[ErrantX]

I don't see a problem with giving full casters initiating archetypes, seeing as how pretty much anything significant you can trade out would end up with the caster being weaker overall. To me, my biggest wish is to see a blade scholar type archetype or class, and there's just nothing that comes even close to that in PoW or anywhere outside of one or two homebrew classes that weren't designed for PF.

Tell me more about your blade scholar interests? Mystic might fit in there.

-X

[Togath]

Working on that catfolk archetype...
Would changing save progressions for a class be too much of a change for an archetype?
Specifically reducing fortitude to a poor save, and boosting reflex to a good save.

[Lord_Gareth]

On a note that's only semi-related to Path of War, in the sense that Bloodforge has options for it, I could use some opinions here, preferably sooner rather than later.

[master4sword]

Survey Time

My two cents:

9-level casters don't really need initiation archetypes (though the "trade wild shape for initiating animal companion" archetype someone else suggested does sound nifty).

6-level casters vary from caster to caster. I can see a bard trading out spells, for instance, and I'd like to see Inquisitor/Magus/Warpriest archetypes similar to the Pathwalker, combining casting with initiating. As for the Summoner, perhaps trade spellcasting to get initiating for both you and your eidolon to get a Martial Summoner or something?

4-level casters certainly would enjoy initiating, especially if it didn't cost casting. Paladin with 4-level casting, 6-level initiating (Pathwalker progression?) in Silver Crane and one or two other disciplines, perhaps? Possibly trade out Smite, Detect Evil (which can be directly replaced with a stance anyway), and maybe some of their aura immunities? Or maybe replace Detect Evil, Divine Bond, and gain a slower Smite progression? Or even two archetypes, one that keeps casting and one that trades it out instead of trading class features.

Noncasters want archetypes so they don't have to burn feats on accessing these abilities. That much is a given, I'm sure.

[malonkey1]

My two cents:

9-level casters don't really need initiation archetypes (though the "trade wild shape for initiating animal companion" archetype someone else suggested does sound nifty).

6-level casters vary from caster to caster. I can see a bard trading out spells, for instance, and I'd like to see Inquisitor/Magus/Warpriest archetypes similar to the Pathwalker, combining casting with initiating. As for the Summoner, perhaps trade spellcasting to get initiating for both you and your eidolon to get a Martial Summoner or something?

4-level casters certainly would enjoy initiating, especially if it didn't cost casting. Paladin with 4-level casting, 6-level initiating (Pathwalker progression?) in Silver Crane and one or two other disciplines, perhaps? Possibly trade out Smite, Detect Evil (which can be directly replaced with a stance anyway), and maybe some of their aura immunities? Or maybe replace Detect Evil, Divine Bond, and gain a slower Smite progression? Or even two archetypes, one that keeps casting and one that trades it out instead of trading class features.

Noncasters want archetypes so they don't have to burn feats on accessing these abilities. That much is a given, I'm sure.

I mostly agree. I say, though, that we could reasonably trade away casting entirely for 4th-level classes and give them full initiator status.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Tell me more about your blade scholar interests? Mystic might fit in there.

-X

Here is a blade scholar, exactly as the concept I was thinking was:

He knows his sword by heart. Not because he uses it so much (though he certainly knows it that way, too), but because he sat down when he purchased it and measured every minute detail, down to the number of grains in the metal.

The art of the blade? To him, there is no such thing, and trying to tell him otherwise will likely be answered with pity or derision. He's broken down soldiery into an exact science, and it shows with every motion he makes in battle, having poured over so many historical accounts and battle plans that the movements of people on a battlefield and units in a war are little more than a slightly more complex game of chess to him.

Maybe he trained with a master, maybe not. That doesn't matter anymore, because he is so exact in his training that he can read a manuscript describing a maneuver, keep the image of it in the back of his head, then go out and do it - possibly better than the person who wrote it down.

Disciplines are historical, not practical. As long as he understands them, he can practice them, and understanding is his strong point.


_______________

Yes, I pretty much just described a martial wizard, which was why it was attached to my comment about being fine with allowing martial archetypes for full casters. I get that most of this is completely impractical to have in an actual game, it's just some inkling of the character archetype I'd most like to see represented: the genius general, the master tactician.

[master4sword]

I mostly agree. I say, though, that we could reasonably trade away casting entirely for 4th-level classes and give them full initiator status.

I wouldn't be opposed to that either, honestly.

[Snowbluff]

Working on that catfolk archetype...
Would changing save progressions for a class be too much of a change for an archetype?
Specifically reducing fortitude to a poor save, and boosting reflex to a good save.

You can make it so it gives a bonus to the save, like the 3.5 Swashbuckler or Scout.

On a note that's only semi-related to Path of War, in the sense that Bloodforge has options for it, I could use some opinions here, preferably sooner rather than later.

Increasing the level might be a bit much.

[Togath]

Nine Lives Disciple(catfolk warlord) is up.(think the name is too cheesy?)

You can make it so it gives a bonus to the save, like the 3.5 Swashbuckler or Scout.

I had considered that... Perhaps altering Force of Personality? Either to add it in addition, or replace the will save bonus.

[Fenryr]

Survey Time

+1 to Inquisitor, Warpriest, Ranger and Paladin.

[Forrestfire]

The solution to overpowered abilities should not be making the abilities difficult to use. Frankly? Losing the domains is a bigger loss than losing feats and it's more thematically fun than just spending six feats.

Exactly. Let's look at a hypothetical archtype:

Spoiler: Initiator Cleric

Show

Holy Warrior: An Initiator Cleric has access to a single Martial Discipline, chosen when you take your first level of Cleric. At 1st level, and every two levels thereafter, the Initiator Cleric learns a maneuver from his chosen discipline. He must meet all prerequisites for this maneuver. In addition, at 1st level, he learns a single stance from his chosen discipline. At [some higher levels], he can choose to exchange this stance for a higher-level stance from his chosen Discipline. This ability replaces the Cleric's Domains. An Initiator Cleric does not have access to domains as a normal Cleric does, nor does he get Domain Spell Slots.

Maneuvers Readied: An Initiator Cleric can ready a number of maneuvers equal to one-fourth his class level (rounded up). He readies his maneuvers by meditating or praying for 10 minutes. The maneuvers he chooses remain readied until he decides to repeat this again and change them. Initiator Clerics do not need to sleep or rest for any long period of time to ready their maneuvers; any time he spends 10 minutes in prayer, he can change his readied maneuvers. He may not ready any individual maneuver more than once. He begins an encounter with all readied maneuvers unexpended, regardless of how many times he may have already used them since he chose them. When the Initiator Cleric initiates a maneuver, he expends it for the current encounter, so each of his readied maneuver can be used once per encounter (until they are recovered, see below).

In order to recover his maneuvers, an Initiator Cleric must take a standard action to [focus his mind/faith/power, whatever fluff is needed]. He may then expend a use of his Channel Energy ability to recover a single expended maneuver of his choice.

There. This hypothetical cleric archetype trades his domains (a very versatile pile of options for adding spells to his list), his domain powers (which are often great), and a spell per day (on account of having no domains). In exchance, he gets a grand total of nine maneuvers over 17 levels, and a single stance (which, depending on how the writer wanted it, may or may not be swappable at higher levels). He's limited to a single discipline, even.

It is, for all intents and purposes, a straight nerf to the class. I would still love for something like this to be an archetype, because if I'm playing a cleric, I want to play a holy crusading warrior. I don't want to stand in combat trading full attacks with someone any more than the fighter does. I would be fine doing that, power-level-wise, but it wouldn't be as fun. The whole point of the martial maneuvers, even more than bringing non-full-casters up to par, balance-wise, is to be fun and cool. If I can finagle them into a character without having to spend all of my feats or multiclass and take a prestige class (which wouldn't normally be a problem, I like multiclassing, but it's nice to do this sort of thing from level 1, even if it's very limited for the entire campaign), then that's fun and cool.

I think that adding archetypes that swap things out for limited maneuver progressions would be a great benefit, if only because it makes character concepts easier to make.

(On a side note, though, I also think that there are classes that shouldn't be touched. Wizard, for example, doesn't need an archetype for this. They have half BAB and are very squishy, they're not meant to go into melee at level 1. If you want a magic knight-style wizard, then there's a really cool PrC for that. There's also one for divine spellcasters, but I don't think that it comes online nearly early enough for it to work. Waiting until level 5 to even reach my character concept isn't very fun. That's probably going to take months of time in a game that started at level 1, whereas an archetype could make it happen immediately is very possible).

[Taveena]

Not going to quote it, but yeah, FIRM AGREEMENT WITH FORREST AND HOPE THAT OTHERS WILL AGREE THAT A NERF FOR FUN OPTIONS WITHOUT OVERSHADOWING OTHER MORE DEDICATED MELEE IS ACCEPTABLE.

[Ilorin Lorati]

While my agreement isn't quite as... capslock... yeah, basically this is my opinion on it.

[Taveena]

Fun fact: I was actually holding down shift. That's how you /know/ I'm serious.

EDIT: OH. Also. Idea. Which was that what if Summoners could take a Maneuver or Stance known as an evolution on their eidolon?

[PsyBomb]

Fun fact: I was actually holding down shift. That's how you /know/ I'm serious.

EDIT: OH. Also. Idea. Which was that what if Summoners could take a Maneuver or Stance known as an evolution on their eidolon?

Giving Maneuvers/Stances as an evolution would have to be constrained to an Archetype or else restricted HEAVILY, or else the Evolution Surge spell will become the one-stop shop for every combat solution forever.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Eidolons already get access to maneuvers without much trouble, they qualify for Martial Training at Summoner level 3 and they can get the other feats as soon as they qualify.

Edit: Granted that takes all but two of the Eidolon's feats so there is that; concerning Maneuvers/stances as evolutions, perhaps adding a pre-requisite or caveat that the Summoner can't add that evolution to the eidolon unless he himselfs know the maneuver (which forces them to get Martial training) and the archetype would presumably give the Summoner maneuvers directly or a way to bypass said requirement for the evolution.

[Shinken]

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.

I disagree strongly with this. I think all the backlash against ToB makes it clear it is a major flavor change for a lot of people.

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.

It's funny you should mention that...

Spoiler

Show

I've done a few changes from that version, mainly giving it medium base attack bonus with the cursed weapon instead of attack bonuses, but can't edit Google Docs from work, so I'll only be able to update it when I get home.

[Forrestfire]

Giving Maneuvers/Stances as an evolution would have to be constrained to an Archetype or else restricted HEAVILY, or else the Evolution Surge spell will become the one-stop shop for every combat solution forever.

Yeah, that'd be really dangerous. An archetype that gave the eidolon a maneuver progression that locked in would be neat, though. After all, maneuvers are a learned thing, and you don't really change its mind when you change its form, presumably.

[Nihilarian]

I'm fully aware that they could use this as an opportunity to Nerf casters a bit. I'm not opposed to the idea on a balance stance, I'm opposed to it because this is cool stuff that martials get and I'd like it if casters didn't have as easy a time getting it. Let them pay through the nose for it through feats or drop caster levels to snag them. I'd much rather see the Paladin, Inquisitor or Warpriest get a Holy Crusader Initiator archetype than the cleric.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Honestly Shinken, I think you missed the point of what Gareth was saying. In pretty much any standard campaign setting for D&D, there's nothing that would need to be changed to allow for martial initiators. You can drop them in and there doesn't need to be any sort of adjustment done to the setting to compensate. This is unlike Psionics, which is a very specific kind of power that not all types of settings really have room for.

People not liking the flavor has nothing to do with the flavor being incompatible with any given setting.

[JusticeZero]

I'm all for Druid variants that are blatant nerfs in favor of rule of cool. Others not so much.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Why do you draw the line at druids?