I've been playing a warlord for three levels now and I'm loving the heck out of it. It's hands down the most fun martial class I've ever played! However, we've run into a few questions along the way and I'd love any input on them:
Q1. Hunting Party states that a successful strike grants one adjacent ally an attack of opportunity. Does the ally have to be adjacent to the target creature, or adjacent to the initiator?
Q2. Panthera on the Hunt grants a +2 circumstance bonus to attack and damage while charging. Does this bonus stack with the +2 attack bonus from charging?
Q3. Scything Strike states that you make a melee attack on two adjacent enemies as a single attack. Do the enemies have to be adjacent to the initiator, or adjacent to one another?
Q4. Tactical Strike allows the initiator to grant an immediate 10-foot movement to any ally within 10 feet. Can the initiator grant himself the movement?
Q5. The Unbreakable Gambit references the warlord's ability to "resist his opponent's attack" in the reward, but the gambit only works on effects that are harmless on a failed saving throw. This seems contradictory?
Q5B. The Unbreakable Gambit allows you to add your charisma bonus to your saves. Force of Personality already lets you add your charisma to will saves, and states that you cannot gain your charisma bonus more than once. Does this mean that a warlord with Force of Personality gains no bonus by using the Unbreakable Gambit on a will save?
Q6. Is one Tactical Presence assumed to always be active, or must the warlord use a move action to activate it at the beginning of each combat?
Q7. How do the retraining rules found in Ultimate Campaign work with the initiator classes? Can you retrain a gambit or a maneuver?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Adjacent to you.
2) Charging is an untyped bonus, no reason they don't stack.
3) I believe the intent to be enemies adjacent to each other, as that is where the qualifier is mentioned.
4) You are your own ally.
5) I believe harmless means, it inflicts no damage, so you are looking at effects such as charms etc that do no damage when you fail.
5B) d20prsrd shows you as gaining temp HP, not getting additional saves. But yes in your example, a gambit that provided saves based on CHA would be a poor choice.
6) You must use a move action to activated it, though as an "encounter" isn't strictly combat it would be possible to have it active before combat starts in some cases (up to the GM).
7) Gambits and maneuvers are class features so I would imagine they would follow that process. The problem is, maneuvers are balanced based on having limited access to high level ones. Retraining allows you to bypass this and gain all maneuvers you qualify for at current, so every manuever could be highest available. This is definitely a balance issue and should not be allowed.
Thanks for the reply! I'll go through the answers I'm still not quite sure about...
5) I believe harmless means, it inflicts no damage, so you are looking at effects such as charms etc that do no damage when you fail.
Thing is, 'harmless' is a game term used to describe beneficial magic that still allows a saving throw and/or spell resistance. Haste and Shield of Faith are examples of spells with the harmless descriptor. If the Unbroken Gambit only works when you're resisting harmless spells cast on you by your allies it seems counterproductive at best. Rules language aside, I think I'd have a hard time convincing someone that failing a Charm Person spell is harmless.
5B) d20prsrd shows you as gaining temp HP, not getting additional saves. But yes in your example, a gambit that provided saves based on CHA would be a poor choice.
Whenever you use a gambit you add your charisma modifier as a luck bonus to succeed on D20-rolls to aid in accomplishing the gambit. If you're using the Sweeping gambit you'd add your charisma bonus to any trip attempts you make. For the Unbroken gambit, you'd add your charisma bonus to a fortitude or a will save.
7) Gambits and maneuvers are class features so I would imagine they would follow that process. The problem is, maneuvers are balanced based on having limited access to high level ones. Retraining allows you to bypass this and gain all maneuvers you qualify for at current, so every manuever could be highest available. This is definitely a balance issue and should not be allowed.
Hm... Easiest way to solve that is to treat Maneuvers as Spells Known or Class Features rather than Feats. You can retrain them at the standard cost, but then you can only choose another maneuver of the same level or lower.
"Harmless" is also an English word that sums up "without damage" which is what the gambit calls for. It also is what "makes sense" given that there aren't spells cast by opponents (mentioned in the gambit as what triggers the ability) that are what the game term would be. If the mechanic game term doesn't fit, the real English term does so use that.
As for stat stacking, PFRPG has made the decision that is a no-no, which is okay. You should read the FAQ to explain what does and doesn't stack in such cases. Basically, there are A LOT of options in this game and not all options mesh or will work well together. Some choices are redundant or sub par, which is why you should plan a little before making choices that are "lasting" for your characters career.
If you need more clarification you can go to Dreamscarred Press' website and ask those last three there. They are usually pretty active, but have been very busy since the kick starter (which has been more of a pain than they initially expected).
"Harmless" is also an English word that sums up "without damage" which is what the gambit calls for. It also is what "makes sense" given that there aren't spells cast by opponents (mentioned in the gambit as what triggers the ability) that are what the game term would be. If the mechanic game term doesn't fit, the real English term does so use that.
Okay, let's explore that option and find out if it really makes sense. Harmless is reasonably defined as "unable to cause harm". The Cambridge Online dictionary defines 'harm' as "physical or other injury or damage". Based on that reading, any save that causes a damaging or injurious effect on a failed save is not eligible for unbreakable, and what does or does not qualify as "damaging or injurious" depends entirely on the GM. One GM may restrict it only effects that do HP damage, which means that poisons are considered harmless - but I'd say most English speakers would agree that poison is normally harmful. Another GM might restrict it to HP damage and ability score damage, which means that Energy Drain is considered harmless - and again, being drained into a lifeless husk would probably not be considered harmless by the common English speaker. A GM could argue that Charm Person is harmless (as you are) but the ramifications of being mentally dominated by another creature can be injurious in more ways than I can count.
In short, where do you draw the line between a harmless and a harmful effect? Frankly, if an opponent is targeting you with an ability while intending to defeat you in combat, odds are that ability is probably not harmless.
As for stat stacking, PFRPG has made the decision that is a no-no, which is okay. You should read the FAQ to explain what does and doesn't stack in such cases. Basically, there are A LOT of options in this game and not all options mesh or will work well together. Some choices are redundant or sub par, which is why you should plan a little before making choices that are "lasting" for your characters career.
I am aware of the FAQ, which I believe was made after the Warlord was in print. I find it puzzling that they added the note on Unbreakable when all warlords get Force of Personality automatically, but it could have been put it for future warlord archetypes that lose FoP or simply because a warlord might still want to use a gambit on a will save to recover maneuvers even though he otherwise gets no bonuses. Either way, not a big deal.
If you need more clarification you can go to Dreamscarred Press' website and ask those last three there. They are usually pretty active, but have been very busy since the kick starter (which has been more of a pain than they initially expected).
I considered posting on the dreamscarred forum, but it seems very quiet - if I don't get an answer here I might give it a shot. I've posted this question earlier at the OotS-forums (where dreamscarred writers are usually pretty active) but the only answer I got was from another poster (not associated with Dreamscarred) who argued specifically that Unbreakable only works on spells with the harmless descriptor and that the text referencing "opponents" was either erroneous flavor text or accidentally left behind after the gambit was rewritten. I wasn't thrilled with that answer because of the text referencing an opponent instead of an ally, and 'Unbreakable' doesn't really jive with an ability that's about the warlord refusing to gain buffs from his allies. The warlord is very much a team player, refusing beneficial effects from other characters makes no sense to me.
Personally I wonder if Unbreakable has a small editing snafu that completely changes how the gambit works. Take a look at this:
Risk: The warlord attempts to succeed on a Fortitude or Will save against an extraordinary ability, maneuver, power, spell, or spell-like or supernatural ability. The effect in question must be a harmless effect on a
failedsuccessful saving throw. Unlike other gambits, this one can be attempted as an immediate action instead of a swift action.Reward: The warlord is emboldened by his ability to resist his opponent's attack, and regains a number of hit points equal to three times his Charisma modifier.
By changing that one word, the ability makes a lot more sense to me. The warlord is emboldened because he's unbreakable, by completely negating the effects of the spell. He's unable to use Unbreakable on any ability that has an effect even when the warlord succeeds on his save, because even though he made the save he's still been affected by the ability. IE you could use Unbreakable on a wight's energy drain or a Stinking Cloud spell, but not on a Finger of Death spell or an Ice Tomb hex. Does that make sense?
As it stands right now we've basically just agreed not to use the Unbreakable gambit, which I think is a shame since it's really one of the most interesting gambits.
By changing that one word, the ability makes a lot more sense to me. The warlord is emboldened because he's unbreakable, by completely negating the effects of the spell. He's unable to use Unbreakable on any ability that has an effect even when the warlord succeeds on his save, because even though he made the save he's still been affected by the ability. IE you could use Unbreakable on a wight's energy drain or a Stinking Cloud spell, but not on a Finger of Death spell or an Ice Tomb hex. Does that make sense?
As it stands right now we've basically just agreed not to use the Unbreakable gambit, which I think is a shame since it's really one of the most interesting gambits.
Unfortunately that change makes no sense either, no "offensive" type spell has "harmless" as a result. They are save or negate (Save: Negates). So it remains useless even with your suggestion.
I still maintain that it is for spells that inflict no physical damage (aka harmless), as opposed to Harmless game term. At this point it is the only thing that makes sense barring completely rewriting the ability. "Harm" in this game is is determined by damage, be it hit point, ability or the like. So a spell like Charm Person does not actually "harm" a character mechanically. I won't argue that a charm could be "harmful" in certain ways, but it does not actually inflict "harm" on the character who it is cast on. Feel free to disagree but I'm a fan of K.I.S.S and this makes sense and allows the ability to actually work like is seems to be written to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oooookay folks. I just double-checked with Chris, here to resolve the debate:
Unbreakable Gambit has a pretty severe set of typos in it. It's supposed to exclude harmless effects, so that you cannot recover maneuvers by saving easily against low-level buffs slung at you by allies or provided through potions or items. It's on the list for formal errata, and I appreciate it being brought to our attention. Sorry for the time lag in getting it answered.
Other questions will be addressed Soon(tm); this one seemed important to get handled up front.
PoK - this seems as good a place to ask as anywhere else, outside of Dreamscarred Forums...
Is the PoW hard copy updated with errata? I do remember reading that there were some amount of typos, irregularities and problems here and there. I love the concept, and would like to get a hard copy, but I also want to make sure I get a…more "working correctly" version...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unbreakable Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts to succeed on a Fortitude or Will save against an extraordinary ability, maneuver, power, spell, or spell-like or supernatural ability. This gambit is used on effects where the result of a successful saving throw either negates the effect or results in partial or halved effect. This gambit may not be used on effects where the result includes the (harmless) result. Unlike other gambits, this one can be attempted as an immediate action instead of a swift action.
This is on the errata list - that will be tackled when we're in the fine tuning stage of PoW:Expanded and Knives and I can split attention between the new content and actually fixing the old.
Use the above changes (I bolded it to make it a bit easier to see it).
-X
Sounds good!
By the way, as a dev what part of Path of War would you like feedback on most? I've stated my opinion on a lot of the stuff that really popped out at me, so it's less obvious where I should focus for now.
A luck bonus equal to your Charisma modifier stacks with an ability that adds your CHA to X. That is consistent with the FAQ and allows the two benefits to stack.
Great catch, thanks!
Oooookay folks. I just double-checked with Chris, here to resolve the debate:
Unbreakable Gambit has a pretty severe set of typos in it. It's supposed to exclude harmless effects, so that you cannot recover maneuvers by saving easily against low-level buffs slung at you by allies or provided through potions or items. It's on the list for formal errata, and I appreciate it being brought to our attention. Sorry for the time lag in getting it answered.
Other questions will be addressed Soon(tm); this one seemed important to get handled up front.
Use the above changes (I bolded it to make it a bit easier to see it).
-X
Thanks for the replies and the clarification, really appreciate it!
PoK - this seems as good a place to ask as anywhere else, outside of Dreamscarred Forums...
Is the PoW hard copy updated with errata? I do remember reading that there were some amount of typos, irregularities and problems here and there. I love the concept, and would like to get a hard copy, but I also want to make sure I get a…more "working correctly" version...
It currently is not. The errata's been an ongoing project while we work on Path of War: Expanded. At some juncture we're gonna sit down with an afternoon and just peel through the book word-by-word, but that hasn't happened yet.
PoK - this seems as good a place to ask as anywhere else, outside of Dreamscarred Forums...
Is the PoW hard copy updated with errata? I do remember reading that there were some amount of typos, irregularities and problems here and there. I love the concept, and would like to get a hard copy, but I also want to make sure I get a…more "working correctly" version...
I always hate seeing people say this, especially to a smaller company. "I am interested in the product but don't want to buy it unless it is perfected." So instead of purchasing the product, providing incentive and showing demand for the product, you don't buy it, lessening the income of the company and making a next run less likely or impossible...
I mean, I understand the desire but it just makes no sense to me. Even the best products tend to have some issues, it is part of the dealing with "smaller" companies doing this type of work. If people did this, these companies would make no money and so wouldn't exist :(
In terms of errors the Path of War book that's complete now is actually pretty well edited with very few textual mistakes and errors. The books biggest problems are Broken Blade, Primal Fury, and Steel Serpent disciplines which are either over-tuned or underpowered, but relatively editing error free.
I'd say it's worth purchasing since the book is fully functional and quite well written. I have one and it looks nice and feels good in my hands.
The eventual errata wont diminish you books quality in the least and any hardcover compilation is at least 2 years away since they'd presumably do a Kickstarter for it. If I remember correctly their next kickstarter is for a Third Dawn Reboot and they are unlikely to do simultaneous kickstarters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Skylancer4: You are of course welcome to your opinion. I will elaborate upon my saddening post.
My desire is perhaps errantly fuelled by the information that has come out on the Paizo threads that there are some problems, and that they will be remedied.
I understand *every* product contains flaws from the minor to the ginormous - and have bought plenty with that tacit understanding. The irony here is that I'm merely enquiring about something I thought was in motion. Which it is, though perhaps not soon.
I was simply trying to ascertain the likelihood of that "soon" for a hardcopy - a PDF is eminently updateable, a hardcover much less so. I'm fine sticking errata in my books - no preciousness there - but if it was going to be updated soon, I would wait.
This is in direct opposition to "larger" companies who often vacillate or maintain that there are no problems or inconsistencies right up until they produce a NEW product to "correct" the "non-mistakes" or admit there is a problem but neglect to do anything about it.
It currently is not. The errata's been an ongoing project while we work on Path of War: Expanded. At some juncture we're gonna sit down with an afternoon and just peel through the book word-by-word, but that hasn't happened yet.PoK - this seems as good a place to ask as anywhere else, outside of Dreamscarred Forums...
Is the PoW hard copy updated with errata? I do remember reading that there were some amount of typos, irregularities and problems here and there. I love the concept, and would like to get a hard copy, but I also want to make sure I get a…more "working correctly" version...
Thanks PoK. I guess I'll get the hardcover soonish rather than later...
As long as we don't have to pay more filthy lucre one day for PoW:ER. [Path of War: Expanded (Revised)]. ;)