The idea is to remove some of the bonus feats that not only could be used to buy more "Martial Training" feats, but also to spend them more efficiently, effectively, and still leave options for people to take certain archetypes. If I want to play a fighter who has Thrashing Dragon and Veiled Moon, well, I would want to take the Two-Weapon Fighter archetype perhaps, and I was thinking that since most archetypes eliminate weapon and armor training and bravery almost universally for other similar features, why not go after the bonus feats instead to allow for fighters to get the best of both worlds.
Taking a step back from the whole "it will make fighter go uber", how uber will they go? Will it make them unbalanced to the point of wizards will lose sleep at night? I'm really interested in knowing. Will it improve them so far as to eclipse the martial disciple classes? I'm okay with fighter having a little wider base but a lower cap than a martial disciple if that's what you're worried about. The fighter and all other classes I do this with will never get the 9th level. They'll cap out at 6th level. That's my plan anyhow.
I wanted to bring it to you all to see how you felt about it before I started to write a ton of material and have you all hate it :P
-X
|
So it's like an archetype that's geared specifically towards being combo'd up with other archetypes? Okay, I can get behind that. It might be worth mentioning somewhere in the archetype but maybe that's just me.
When I was viewing it in the context of the base class it just didn't strike me as a very good idea, but from the angle of an archetype intended to be used in conjunction with other archetypes.... I like it.
And I will be the last person in the world to try and say it's overpowered. I think it's actually pretty neat, and does a pretty cool job of helping to graft maneuvers into the base system.
Would sixth level maneuvers keep up well enough? Fighters have an effective +6/+6 over time from weapon training/gloves of dueling and +8/+10 over time from focus and specialization. I would imagine that when you hit a certain point you have all the feats you need for your weapon of choice and all the maneuvers can do is make you better at what you already do best, and not help you with whatever else you need in life. Fighters are already good at fighting, they have other things they need help with. I haven't looked over the list of maneuvers to see if that would help much there. Something to think about.
That said, I like the idea of doing something other than full attacking and trading out your bonus feats is one way to do it.
@Sin: In my games I tend to fold Psionics into Arcana, if that helps. Not sure you could fold Martial into something else, I personally haven't found anything I particularly like for it.
@Sin: In my games I tend to fold Psionics into Arcana, if that helps. Not sure you could fold Martial into something else, I personally haven't found anything I particularly like for it.
What sort of questions does that skill answer?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea is to remove some of the bonus feats that not only could be used to buy more "Martial Training" feats, but also to spend them more efficiently, effectively, and still leave options for people to take certain archetypes. If I want to play a fighter who has Thrashing Dragon and Veiled Moon, well, I would want to take the Two-Weapon Fighter archetype perhaps, and I was thinking that since most archetypes eliminate weapon and armor training and bravery almost universally for other similar features, why not go after the bonus feats instead to allow for fighters to get the best of both worlds.
Taking a step back from the whole "it will make fighter go uber", how uber will they go? Will it make them unbalanced to the point of wizards will lose sleep at night? I'm really interested in knowing. Will it improve them so far as to eclipse the martial disciple classes? I'm okay with fighter having a little wider base but a lower cap than a martial disciple if that's what you're worried about. The fighter and all other classes I do this with will never get the 9th level. They'll cap out at 6th level. That's my plan anyhow.
I wanted to bring it to you all to see how you felt about it before I started to write a ton of material and have you all hate it :P
-X
Thats cool. I think a fighter would probably use most of the maneuvers to leverage his action economy with counters and boosts. Thats what I would do anyway.
@Sin: In my games I tend to fold Psionics into Arcana, if that helps. Not sure you could fold Martial into something else, I personally haven't found anything I particularly like for it.
Yeah, that's exactly what I do atm actually. I like to treat it as a 'magic is magic' moment. Besides, giant arcane crystals have to be a trope or something and I always thought they were close enough. Local is the one I'd consider atm. Its the one they attached to martial adepts in 3.5, its a monster lore one, and its good for giving exposition I always thought. How useful it is tends to vary from campaign to campaign though.
About the fighter archetype: I think that if it looks fair to give the fighter the maneuver feats at a 2 to 1 rate, then the maneuver feats are overcosted. As I see it, those feats are already aimed at fighters, since most other classes cant afford to invest 6 feats in a feat chain.
So either the feats are too weak, or the archetype is too strong. My problem with the style feats (which I love) is the same. The pre-reqs are so made to expensive to limit access to the feats, but masters of many style monks and unarmed fighters get access to the styles super early, since the intent of the feats was allways that you could do cool things with them and build a character around that. The end result was, everyone who wants to use styles has to dip one of those classes.
About the initiator feats: Now that I think about it, I feel that the way maneuvers are balanced is that you can't combine them with full attacks. In this way, a regular class (say a paladin) does not benifite excessivly from the initiator feats because he can't make full use of his smite if he gives up his full attack.
So, I think it would probobly be ok to reduce the feat chain to maybe 4 feats at 3 bab, 6 bab, 11 bab and 16 bab.
The only thing to look out for is to limit the number of boosts that these feats give access to, since most martials have no use for their swift action and that would just be free power.
This way, the fighter archetype could trade in say 6 or 8 feats for a broader range of diciplines, more stances, or the ability to learn (more?) boosts.
Also, you could then make a ranger combat style for these feats :)
As I see it, those feats are already aimed at fighters, since most other classes cant afford to invest 6 feats in a feat chain.
Though they have the most feats, they also have the least skill points. That tax can hurt.
The skill tax is 1 point per level. Is that really worth 6 feats? Would you make the trade in the other direction?
Though I don't want to seem like I am against the idea. I love the idea of a fighter archetype that trades some bonus feats form maneuvers. I just feel that there is a missvaluation of the maneuver feats going on, cause I would also like to be able to play a maneuvering paladin and have more than 1 feat pre level 15 :p
How about instead of losing the feats, just trading something for an ability like this:
Martial Training Mastery: Every time the fighter uses a bonus feat to take the Martial Training feat or another feat of that tree, he gains the bonus twice, learning two different styles. This ability replaces...
Not sure if only replacing heavy armor is enough, maybe replace more stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also I've found the feat tree is good as is. If you want a maneuvering palading you take the archetype. These feats aren't something you make a build around, they're more like for when you have a build with an open feat at third level or when you finish your build and don't really have any feats you need. Instead of getting Weapon Focus or Cleave or someting just to fill the blank, getting Martial Training, even if only the first one, adds a whole bunch of options. One of the best things for a feat to IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still alive, working on archetypes and feats, as well as working with Knives on finishing Organizations and some custom disciplines.
Just wanted to make sure you all knew I wasn't dead. :D
-X
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep up the good work =)
Alright, first of a couple of new things to come up.
This here is part 1 of the fruits of Knives' labors working with myself on the Path of War. Three organizations and two new disciplines. Give it a look over!
More to come soon, I'm almost finished with the archetypes.
-X
|
|
Checking the goodies out now, I'll let you know what I think!
**EDIT**
So quick question here:
Are the Organizations Warder specific, or are they supposed to be valid options for any initiator class to take? I had thought this was part of the Warder package but I can't really tell either way based on the document. Thanks!
|
|
SO, first thing, loving the Black Seraph and Silver Crane disciplines. They're awesome, and I'm looking forward to testing them out.
Small note, and this has nothing to do with mechanics, but this sentence: "Black Seraph
Special Rules Note: The discipline of Black Seraph is largely to be considered a supernatural discipline and all abilities
within that are marked as such are considered supernatural abilities and follow the rules and restrictions of such, where as
maneuvers that carry no description are not supernatural."
Is just terribly structured, to the point of distraction. Maybe trim that down to:
"Special Rules Note: The discipline of Black Seraph is largely a supernatural discipline and all abilities within that are marked as such follow the appropriate rules and restrictions. Maneuvers that carry no description are not supernatural."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FYI, I'm putting in some time between Ultimate Psionics projects to get layout done on Path of War: The Stalker. It should be out next month (as early as late next week... depending on how much time I can allocate on it while still keeping progress going on Ultimate Psionics.)
HUZZAH!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So quick question here:
Are the Organizations Warder specific, or are they supposed to be valid options for any initiator class to take? I had thought this was part of the Warder package but I can't really tell either way based on the document. Thanks!
Man, lemme tell ya - there was no end to my frustrations trying to figure out how to work out these organizations. In the end, though, with help from Errant and the Bossman we opened them up to characters of any class. With that in mind, characters that don't have access to disciplines obviously can't trade any, so they don't get to enjoy that benefit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, lemme tell ya - there was no end to my frustrations trying to figure out how to work out these organizations. In the end, though, with help from Errant and the Bossman we opened them up to characters of any class. With that in mind, characters that don't have access to disciplines obviously can't trade any, so they don't get to enjoy that benefit.So quick question here:
Are the Organizations Warder specific, or are they supposed to be valid options for any initiator class to take? I had thought this was part of the Warder package but I can't really tell either way based on the document. Thanks!
Keep in mind that if you're a martial disciple or a core class that has an archetype that grants maneuvers, you can join the organization and get that benefit. ANYONE can join the org though and get the benefits of the oath, regardless of being a martial initiator.
-X
FYI, I'm putting in some time between Ultimate Psionics projects to get layout done on Path of War: The Stalker. It should be out next month (as early as late next week... depending on how much time I can allocate on it while still keeping progress going on Ultimate Psionics.)
What exactly is the plan for Path of War products? It looks like separate releases for each class - will these be PDF only or will they be available in print as well?
And then are there any plans for a Path of War compilation at some point? Any time frame on this one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FYI, I'm putting in some time between Ultimate Psionics projects to get layout done on Path of War: The Stalker. It should be out next month (as early as late next week... depending on how much time I can allocate on it while still keeping progress going on Ultimate Psionics.)What exactly is the plan for Path of War products? It looks like separate releases for each class - will these be PDF only or will they be available in print as well?
And then are there any plans for a Path of War compilation at some point? Any time frame on this one?
We're going to do it the same way we did Psionics Expanded - each class will get its own release with all supporting content, then combine it all into a single printed book once it's all done. I believe the final page count for the combined book is going to be in the ~200 range.
As material is still being written and my involvement in the project is largely limited to layout and some content review, I can't give any sort of ETA on the finished project timeline outside of that.
Thanks for the response.
Path of War is a great name for the finished product. But, if you don't want to go with that one then in order to mesh well with the name Ultimate Psionics I would suggest Ultimate Path, Ultimate War, or possibly Ultimate Path of War.
|
|
Found a small issue with one fo the maneuvers:
"Inner Demon Strike
Black Seraph (Strike)
Level: 2
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack
Target: One creature
Duration: Instant
By using the black energies within him as a weapon, the disciple may channel it through his mortal form to do devastating
damage to his foes, all the while heedless of the damage inflicted upon his body. This black energy inflicts an additional 3d6
points of damage, which also deals 1d6 points of damage to the initiator. This is a supernatural maneuver."
It says it does additional damage, but doesn't say in addition to what, and it's a strike, not a boost. I'm assuming this should be in addition to the damage from a normal melee attack, yes? It's normally spelled out a little bit better in the body of the maneuver.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Neat! i find it slightly odd that the black thorn order is restricted to lawful neutral, lawful evil and the odd one out neutral evil. so to joining the club you have be either lawful or evil or both?
Well, the thing is that you can't be Good (as Lawful Good would fit the 'be Lawful') or Chaotic either (as Chaotic Evil would fit the 'be Evil'). The Black Thorn Knights are an evil organization and they make no apologies for that fact, but their goal is to oppose chaos, not to do evil. Their essential attitude on the conflict between Good and Evil is that Good will grow up one of these days and come over to the 'adult' point of view. In the meantime, they focus their energies on what they consider to be the real threat - chaos. To this end they recruit people they can trust (Lawful Neutral), people who believe like they do (Lawful Evil), and people who they can rely on to get the job done (Neutral evil). The other alignments lack commitment, the stomach to get the job done, or Are Chaotic in their eyes.
So... How are they evil/lawful if they leave you to your own initiative and to be pragmatic? The alignment restrictions hurt more than anything imo. Best just to create expectations and leave alignment to the game master if it has to be done. As is your only showing me what your idea of alignment is, and that the black thorn knights disregard competence and good work, because not one of three alignments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Available Services: As a storied organization with direct connections to Hell, the Black Thorn is capable of trafficking in many magical services for its members – discounts on enchanted weapons and armor, access to indebted fiends, favors traded from (and to) infernal churches, and more. A Knight is expected to show results for these resources and may find them revoked if he is incompetent or, worse, lazy.
Emphasis mine.
To expand on what I said earlier - the Black Thorn isn't Evil because they oppose Good. They're Evil because they embrace Evil. The ideals of the order legitimately place Hell as the exemplar of what Law and Lawful behavior should be, and the Black Thorn Knights seek to emulate the ideals and culture of Hell in their personal lives in order to oppose Chaos and better themselves.
At its heart, the conflict between Good and Evil is an extremely violent argument as to which side is 'better' for an individual or culture. The Black Thorn Knights believe in the Infernal virtues of self-interested cooperation, punishment, revenge, self-reliance, self-motivation, ambition, discipline, enforced unity, and regimented treachery. Not particularly caring about Good beings isn't the same as wanting them around; the Black Thorn accepts individuals who either embrace their ideals or can be taught them, and those ideals are, y'know, Lawful and Evil.
An organization with a mission doesn't stop being an organization - it's still a band of like-minded individuals who have commonalities with each other. If the Black Thorn accepted anyone who hated Chaos they'd soon be torn apart by internal strife (much in the way the Cagebreakers are, who you haven't met yet). Do they lose potential recruits that way? Sure. But they believe that they gain more recruits than they could ever lose by sticking to their principles and exemplifying the dark might of Hell in their own persons.
I didn't say they should accept incompetence, I asked why they didn't accept the competent because you weren't one of three alignments. There were even hints that a good aligned character could be coerced into joining. Circumstances and whatnot. I also didn't ask whether the organization was evil or not nor why. I asked about the people.
I didn't say they should accept incompetence, I asked why they didn't accept the competent because you weren't one of three alignments. There were even hints that a good aligned character could be coerced into joining. Circumstances and whatnot. I also didn't ask whether the organization was evil or not nor why. I asked about the people.
If a good-aligned character was coerced into joining that organization I can promise you he'd not stay good for long. His orders would make him flee and hope for the best (and that's not saying much) or he would find his morals compromised by following orders.
-X
Oh, they use brainwashing now?
Edit: I should add to my point, doing evil doesn't turn you evil, and a large part of life is finding alternate solutions. Again, this goes back to gripes about alignment requirements. If they really will turn evil, you can just add a bit about how it can be compromising, but as is your just asking for alignment arguments and adding unnecessary restrictions. Leave it to the table, rather than set up an arbitrary restriction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, they use brainwashing now?
How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
I'm going to just read that as a "Please explain to me how this works."
Okay, so, you're a good aligned guy who thinks to himself, "Yeah, Hell has the right idea. Let's do this." Okay, so you've made a bad decision for your life, but let's roll with it. You go and you join up. You leave Goodguy Village (aptly named) and go Black Thorn City.
Black Thorn City is unsurprisingly being run by the Black Thorn Knights. They decide that Goodguy Village is a nuisance because they're refusing to pay their taxes and levy to them for Black Thorn City's protection and dominion of the region. They say, "We don't like Hell here, we like good stuff, and some of us are plotting over throwing you because of your draconian regime of Evil is pretty bad, mmkay?"
Black Thorn City then sends you, guy from Goodguy Village, to go and quell the uprising before it begins. They threaten the order they're trying to bring to the region because they don't like your city and ways, and they're planning to try to throw the region into Chaos. That doesn't work for the Black Thorn Knights. They say, "Kill every man, woman, and child there as a lesson. Salt the earth. Let them be a lesson to anyone who thinks they can stand against us. We do this for the sake of order and peace; pay your taxes and you're protected and you can be a cog in our great machine. Stand against us, and this is what happens."
Guy from Goodguy Village has to make a choice: 1) Follow your orders because of personal self-interest and dedication to the cause (You wanna make your new friends happy and serve your interests because you agree with their interests as its in your best interests to do so) so yay for killing your friends and family, or 2) Go against the Black Thorns because they're evil mean bullies and get your soul devoured by a devil (maybe) when it comes to collect its due.
There is no brainwashing involved with this. You wouldn't join them likely as a good guy unless you believed in their laws (as draconian as they can be), but you'd have to potential compromise your morals to uphold your ethics. That moral compromise is the slip into evil-or-at-least-neutral alignment.
Edit: I should add to my point, doing evil doesn't turn you evil, and a large part of life is finding alternate solutions. Again, this goes back to gripes about alignment requirements. If they really will turn evil, you can just add a bit about how it can be compromising, but as is your just asking for alignment arguments and adding unnecessary restrictions. Leave it to the table, rather than set up an arbitrary restriction.
No. Pathfinder doesn't do arbitrary. It has rules, it's a game of rules and it has alignment rules. Just because you don't fancy them, doesn't mean that they're invalid. You would be houseruling in your game to ignore them, and while that's fine for you, that's bad for trying to make a product that works within the structure of the rules you're writing for. Alignment is a codified thing. Doing evil acts will make you evil. That's how it works.
-X
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, they use brainwashing now?
Edit: I should add to my point, doing evil doesn't turn you evil, and a large part of life is finding alternate solutions. Again, this goes back to gripes about alignment requirements. If they really will turn evil, you can just add a bit about how it can be compromising, but as is your just asking for alignment arguments and adding unnecessary restrictions. Leave it to the table, rather than set up an arbitrary restriction.
Any table that takes issue with alignments is already house ruling things about them regardless. They (the authors) are just following in the steps of what already exists and working in the established framework. Not quite sure this is the place or product to start pushing for changing the alignment system of the game.
Updated Organizations and Disciplines part 1 uploaded, check out V2. Complete with world building chapter.
-X
Guy from Goodguy Village has to make a choice: 1) Follow your orders because of personal self-interest and dedication to the cause (You wanna make your new friends happy and serve your interests because you agree with their interests as its in your best interests to do so) so yay for killing your friends and family, or 2) Go against the Black Thorns because they're evil mean bullies and get your soul devoured by a devil (maybe) when it comes to collect its due.
Just those two choices? Why? Those are terrible options. He could take a third option and root out the dissidence, make them pay their taxes, convert them, any number of things. Why does it have to be cut down to salting the earth and killing everyone, which is probably the least useful thing to do.
Alignment is a codified thing. Doing evil acts will make you evil. That's how it works.
Alignment is probably the most arbitrary and the least objective rule to be honest. I guess you could argue you just know it better than me and that is never ever brings up any problems ever?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are completely missing the point and seem to be wanting to argue for the sake of arguing. Again, I appreciate your feedback and your interest in the Path of War, but I'm done discussing this issue with you. Feel free to continue, but I will not be responding to your objections over alignment issues from this point on. If you have other feedback on other aspects of the book, then by all means fire away and I will field those questions or observations as time allows. Thank you.
-X
You are completely missing the point and seem to be wanting to argue for the sake of arguing.
Well that's not nice. I don't think your being totally honest about appreciating my feedback.
Anyways, I'll likely just have to house rule it. At worst I'll have difficulties working with a GM of my own with it. The concept of someone working as a CN spy, straddling the line of morality, or doing something outside of the ordinary is much more difficult with restrictions built in. You'd be shocked how many people trust what's in the book as the be all, end all and how many things you shut down when you write something in as RAW.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, do you wanna know how much I despise alignment? I despise alignment so much that I wrote a replacement for it (the Color Wheel!), tried replacing it with the Vice/Virtue system from New World of Darkness, ran a game where alignment was subjective (oh that one was funny), spent a month and a half painstakingly stripping it from 3.5 only to abandon the project when I discovered it wasn't feasible and then finally moved onto playing Legend where there is no alignment system. My hatred for alignment burns with the fury of ten thousand dying suns shrieking their last curses to an uncaring universe that birthed them just to watch them die.
You may have noticed that I used the system anyway.
There's a lot of things I don't like about the alignment system; however, it is still part of Pathfinder. It's built into the classes, the spells, the cosmology, the psionic powers - it's everywhere. And it's not completely unworkable either - not even for a mature group that wants to deal with moral nuances. Asmodeus only knows that's what I like to do with my stories. Alignment means different things to different groups but that's no reason to throw it out entirely.
Now, why are the Black Thorns evil, and how do they tell if you're not?
- Magic. Detect Chaos and Detect Good go a long way. Know Alignment goes further, and if somehow you've blocked all of these measures you'll get to the point of swearing your oath with Hell, consecrate the rose with blood, and then watch it die on the spot because, hey, it turns out you're in violation of your infernal oath to maintain certain standards of belief and behavior. Deal with Hell in bad faith and Hell will deal with you in good violence.
- There is no order without punishment. The Black Thorn spits on the idea that mercy is something people deserve instead of earn. These knights are sworn to the infernal virtue of vengeance, and they pay back an eye for an eye and blood for blood. To them, the idea of letting the guilty go because of ideas like 'extenuating circumstances' or 'he's really sorry about it' is how Chaos thrives even amid order, and they hunt it down root and branch.
- Hell is Evil. You may or may not have noticed but the native population of Hell is extremely Lawful and extremely Evil. The devils of the Nine Hells of Baator exist in a society of regimented evil, of darkness forged into chains that bind one to another in an elaborate symphony of legalized betrayal, state-enforced deception and blood that turns the gears of wheels within wheels. The Nine Hells is about how the rules can be used to dominate, about the grinding crush of law that annihilates the innocent and leaves only those strong and cunning enough to exploit it. It's about cheating the rules with the rules, about the struggle of the prisoners to become the warden, about ambition married to discipline to create a self that is greater than it could possibly be. The Black Thorn seeks to emulate these beliefs, to strengthen themselves and their organization as a whole through the power of regimented, codified evil.
- So how about that Black Seraph?. I really don't think I need to explain.
- Do evil unto evil. Torturing a demon for information is still torture and it's still evil. The idea that evil beings can be redeemed is a fundamental tenet of good and it's one that the Black Thorns have no interest in. Turncoats from the enemy are by definition oathbreakers and must be slain; anyone else who serves chaos is a blight upon reality who must be ground into dust, preferably following the total destruction of their soul so that they can't go on to strengthen chaotic planes with their presence. These are bad people, and they train you to do bad things. If you're unwilling to do bad things, they either throw you out during training or you're found in breach of contract with Hell - at which point you'll really start to wish you'd just gave into evil in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, as someone who's a fan of alignment, I love what you guys have done. Keep up the good work.
doing evil doesn't turn you evil
Uhhhh.... yeah it does. It's the absolute core of what determines someone's alignment - actions and intents. Doing evil, even for good purposes, is at best a neutral act and more likely an evil one. Do enough of them and your alignment will eventually slip. And an organization like this, if you're in it long enough for this to become an issue, you'll be doing plenty of them.
Like EX and Knives said, if you do differently or ignore alignment entirely in your home games that's fine, that's a houserule, do what you want. But when you're writing for the product, you write for the product as-written. Which means, in the case of D&D/Pathfinder, using alignment. If people don't want to, or want to use alignment differently in their home games, they're free to houserule it. But when you write a product, you assume no houserules - it's just part of the business of doing a 3rd-party product for an established game system. It's the way it works.
doing evil doesn't turn you evilUhhhh.... yeah it does.
And I disagree. I don't think that it changes your intent or forces you to enjoy it or have an easier time doing it later. Counting the actions helps track it though.
I also think its an excuse to say 'its the system' when your the writer and capable of writing around, with, for, and in ways to subvert or allow open design rather than restrictive.
Ignoring the alignment discussion, I'm curious if Silver Crane and Black Seraph are balanced to be more powerful than their peers against foes of the opposite alignment, or if they just lose out when fighting neutral foes or foes of their own.
Agree to disagree then, as I likewise don't feel like getting into yet another forum alignment debate and it's doing nothing toward this particular product but giving people headaches.
Agree to disagree then, as I likewise don't feel like getting into yet another forum alignment debate and it's doing nothing toward this particular product but giving people headaches.
Agreeing to disagree is fine with me. I actually hate discussing alignment myself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, a quick question on the mechanical choices behind The Black Thorn KNights and the Black Seraph Discipline:
There's a lot of stuff that is tied specifically to a melee attack, but does it have to be? Hell has archers too you know, and you can shoot someone in the gut just as much as stab them. Thematically, I love ranged characters and it'd be fun to be able to grab some of that Lawful anti-paladin vibe for my TWF axe thrower.
I love maneuvers a lot and some of them really only make sense when tied to specific attack forms, but I feel like others are locked into one attack style (like melee or ranged) when they don't really need to be.
Not to start an edition war, but that was one of the things that I found endlessly frustrating about 4E; they had all of these power cards full of keywords dictating what weapons they could be used, and all of these other little requirements that served no purpose other than marrying an ability to the author's vision of how it should be used, even when mechanically and thematically there wasn't really any reason a druid couldn't wrap someon in thorns by shooting them with arrow as opposed to striking them with a staff.
This isn't an indictment of anything in Path of War, just trying to underscore my desire for more maneuvers to be available to multiple styles of fighting.
The name "Black Seraph" actually immediately brought to my mind the Erinyes Devil, a Devil who both resembles a black-winged angel, is described as "mocking the form of the angelic hosts in their exaction of vengeance and bloody justice. Executioners, not judges", and fights with a flaming longbow, so I'd like to be able to get some of that out of the Discipline/Order if at all possible. Everything about the Discipline other than its lack of mechanics supporting ranged characters just screams "Founded by an Erinyes".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A note on Alignment requirements:
Love them or hate them they are very much a part of Pathfinder, and have been a part of the system to some degree or another for some time. I think placing alignment restrictions in the organizations was the right place to do it. They're not telling you that you have to be a certain alignment to play a Warder, or a Warlord, or a Stalker, but they are telling you that if you want to be infused with the unholy might of Hell you have to adhere to certain hellish ideals. Kind of makes sense. At least they've opened it up to several alignments, including a non-evil one so it can fit into most campaigns. Most Prestige Classes that require alignments aren't even that forgiving. The Demoniac and the other PrC's from the Book of the Damned series require you to have one specific alignment matching the otherworldly beings you deal with (i.e. Demoniacs have to be CE), Assassins have to be of Evil alignment, Paladin's have to be Lawful Good, Monks have to be Lawful.... So the tradition is actually that alignment based classes and sub-classes are generally more restrictive than what the Path team has done here. They've created an order that requires someone to be a serious hard-ass willing and able to do dark and nasty things, including making deals with devilish beings. It makes sense that you couldn't complete that training and make that bargain without staining your own soul in the process.
This isn't an indictment of anything in Path of War, just trying to underscore my desire for more maneuvers to be available to multiple styles of fighting.
The name "Black Seraph" actually immediately brought to my mind the Erinyes Devil, a Devil who both resembles a black-winged angel, is described as "mocking the form of the angelic hosts in their exaction of vengeance and bloody justice. Executioners, not judges", and fights with a flaming longbow, so I'd like to be able to get some of that out of the Discipline/Order if at all possible. Everything about the Discipline other than its lack of mechanics supporting ranged characters just screams "Founded by an Erinyes".
+1 so very much.
@Ssalarn: And everyone agrees with all those alignment requirements and we've never ever had an argument over them, and its certainly worth the space in the book to put requirements rather than leave it out right? Adds more to the game to leave something out sometimes. Not worth talking about though. Its apparently not up for discussion and people don't claim responsibility for it anyway.
|
|
On another note-
What do you guys think about creating a kind of customizable archetype that can be easily grafted onto a non-Initiator Martial class allowing them access a Discipline of their choice? There isn't really anything like that anywhere currently, but I was thinking if you just picked like 3 or 4 classes that would be good to give order access to, you could create an archetype that allows you to trade out a class ability from a list (example: Fighter gives up Weapon Training, Cavalier gives up their normal Order and Challenge, Rogue gives up Sneak Attack, and/or Monk gives up Flurry). Call it like "Soldier of the Order" and in return they get access to an Order of their choice and access to its Maneuvers at a progression determined by the archetype?
Not only would that be a nice way to graft a specific bit of flavor in, it's as versatile as the number of Orders you guys create, and it allows for a large variance in the make-up of the NPC memebers of the Orders that a character might interact with.
...Thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, a quick question on the mechanical choices behind The Black Thorn KNights and the Black Seraph Discipline:
There's a lot of stuff that is tied specifically to a melee attack, but does it have to be? Hell has archers too you know, and you can shoot someone in the gut just as much as stab them. Thematically, I love ranged characters and it'd be fun to be able to grab some of that Lawful anti-paladin vibe for my TWF axe thrower.I love maneuvers a lot and some of them really only make sense when tied to specific attack forms, but I feel like others are locked into one attack style (like melee or ranged) when they don't really need to be.
Not to start an edition war, but that was one of the things that I found endlessly frustrating about 4E; they had all of these power cards full of keywords dictating what weapons they could be used, and all of these other little requirements that served no purpose other than marrying an ability to the author's vision of how it should be used, even when mechanically and thematically there wasn't really any reason a druid couldn't wrap someon in thorns by shooting them with arrow as opposed to striking them with a staff.This isn't an indictment of anything in Path of War, just trying to underscore my desire for more maneuvers to be available to multiple styles of fighting.
The name "Black Seraph" actually immediately brought to my mind the Erinyes Devil, a Devil who both resembles a black-winged angel, is described as "mocking the form of the angelic hosts in their exaction of vengeance and bloody justice. Executioners, not judges", and fights with a flaming longbow, so I'd like to be able to get some of that out of the Discipline/Order if at all possible. Everything about the Discipline other than its lack of mechanics supporting ranged characters just screams "Founded by an Erinyes".
I see that someone else has an appreciation for my favorite ladies ^_^
[Private Citizen, Not Official Commentary]I'm inclined to say that Hellish archers utilize Solar Wind and [Redacted] for their ranged disciplines. Melee combat is by far the norm for the Legions Below, not to mention for the ravening hordes of the Abyss and the various fiends and horrors spawned by the intermediate alignment planes (in 3.5 those would've been Pandemonium, Carceri, Acheron, etc). [/Private Citizen]
Do remind me to post this vignette I've been working on sometime, though, about an Erinyes Warder paying back a life debt.