Path of War [> Tome of Battle]


Product Discussion

51 to 79 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

As long as there don't end up being spells that mimic this stuff, it seems to close up the gap a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
As long as there don't end up being spells that mimic this stuff, it seems to close up the gap a bit.

To be more specific, it closes up the gap a bit between martial character concepts and 1-6 spellcasters. No amount of neato-burrito maneuvers will close the abyss of difference between 1-9 casters and everything else in the system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Truth.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:

I know the topic is old and was defiled by foul necromancy, but...

Quote:
Armor & Shields Prof (+1 feat)

So the free feats they get:

Light Armor Proficiency
Medium Armor Proficiency
Heavy Armor Proficiency
Shield Proficiency
Tower Shield Proficiency (not all martials get tower shield, so it could be a feat)

Are only worth one feat to you?

Quote:
Martial Weapons Prof (+1 feat)

Isnt Martial Weapon Proficiency (Weapon Name) a single feat per weapon? So that cannot be worth 1 feat either.

Martial weapon proficiency for a single weapon is a garbage waste of a feat and really shouldn't exist. Similarly, if you're wearing heavy armor, you're not wearing light armor or medium armor. Does a wizard need "Fast Spell" and "Faster Spell" to get to Quicken Spell? Of course not. Aelryinth already explained that he didn't wrack them up as multiple feats because they're "puff pastry" - they make the class look "fuller", but they serve no purpose beyond making you feel like you're getting more than you really are. Your Strength and Dexterity are going to factor in to what weapon(s) and armor you actually end up using, and if you're actually playing a Fighter, your own feat options and class features are going to further narrow your viable choices.

Kryzbyn wrote:
As long as there don't end up being spells that mimic this stuff, it seems to close up the gap a bit.

I played around with a homebrew system to open up maneuvers for all martial classes while setting up an internal limiter that causes martial maneuvers and spellcasting to automatically self balance. Essentially, the more spellcasting you have, the fewer maneuvers you get. A few people have liked it for using PW options as a broader martial/caster disparity fix.


Skylancer4 wrote:

Not every warrior knows every move in the history of fighting.

Choosing maneuvers lets you customize how you fight, what your "style" is.

My character's style is determinded by the maneuvers he knows, not by those that he has prepared.

As for the rest:

1. Choice is inherent to the system, yes. I'm fine with that; implying I'm not is just a strawman you're putting up, right next to the one that I don't see the balance in this system (I do; I just do not agree with the manner how it is achieved) and the strawman where your imagination about my concept of balance ran away with you and that I should play something else. The last one you coated with extra BS and it stinks to high heaven. If that is what you call reasoning, please leave me alone.

2. Throne, that Warder ability comes at level 7 and requires a full-round action of being completely useless to activate. The other classes still don't have a similar way of switching readied maneuvers on the fly. And yes, I don't like the rest of the mundane 1/day abilities either, but I can chose not to take any of them. They are a core mechanic in ToB/PoW, however.

3. iDesu, the Brawler can use a move action to change their combat feat. That's exactly what initiators cannot do. It can be seen to represent thinking about what tactic would be useful next. Essentially, the Brawler knows all combat feats, but has only access to a limited amount at the same time. Initators have to think hard about why they forgot to use their tricks mid-combat to regain the same ones they prepared before.

4. Aksess, I agree that using the same trick over and over would get one killed quickly. But that only applies if fighting one opponent. The next one in an encounter would not be ready for the same trick. Also, using the same ability again and again becomes boring really fast.

To re-iterate: I do not want my characters to have unlimited access to all maneuvers at all times. I have never said that. If I did, please point it out to me. I am suggesting a different kind of resource manangement.

I'd like initiators to have access to all the maneuvers they know, like a spontaneous spellcaster. Right now, they use a prepared spellcasting mechanic, which I think does not represent a flexible combatant well.


Quote:
Martial weapon proficiency for a single weapon is a garbage waste of a feat and really shouldn't exist.

Seconded. My group just went the Neverwinter Nights route and made proficiency in all Martial weapons into one feat. Ditto for Simple and Exotic (though we've never had anyone use an exotic weapon who didn't get a racial proficiency, thus far).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:

I know the topic is old and was defiled by foul necromancy, but...

Quote:
Armor & Shields Prof (+1 feat)

So the free feats they get:

Light Armor Proficiency
Medium Armor Proficiency
Heavy Armor Proficiency
Shield Proficiency
Tower Shield Proficiency (not all martials get tower shield, so it could be a feat)

Are only worth one feat to you?

Quote:
Martial Weapons Prof (+1 feat)

Isnt Martial Weapon Proficiency (Weapon Name) a single feat per weapon? So that cannot be worth 1 feat either.

I covered this earlier in the thread.

You can only use 1 weapon at a time. As long as one of them is superior to a simple weapon, you're effectively getting a martial weapon prof. The ability to use all martial weapons is maybe 20% more important then the ability to use at least 1. i.e. you can pay nothing and get a decent weapon, or pay a feat and get the perfect one you want. The amount of damage is not going to vary by too much regardless.

As for armor profs - you can only wear one suit of armor at a time. The ending AC difference between light and heavy armor maxes at +2...a negligible amount towards the end of the game.
Commoners can wear light armor. However, this is INVERTED re: Touch AC.
The movement restrictions of the heavier armors are more then enough to say each is not worth a full feat.
Together, they are worth +1. Without a means to obviate the movement penalties, heavy armor is not that useful at all. Especially since it monumentally restricts your Touch AC, which becomes more and more important with time.

As for shields...tower shields are only of value to soldiers in wartime. i don't consider them worth a feat.
And you can pick up a mithral buckler and use it with no proficiency for full AC and no penalties. Ergo, I don't consider shields to be worth a feat, either...if you want Shield AC, you can just take the buckler and not spend a feat.

The massive cost of using a shield offensively effectively pays any costs I skip re: shields by requiring such a massive investment in the combat style.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Orthos wrote:
Quote:
Martial weapon proficiency for a single weapon is a garbage waste of a feat and really shouldn't exist.
Seconded. My group just went the Neverwinter Nights route and made proficiency in all Martial weapons into one feat. Ditto for Simple and Exotic (though we've never had anyone use an exotic weapon who didn't get a racial proficiency, thus far).

The only way Martial weapon prof has teeth is if it is only available at level 1.

If you REALLY want it to have teeth, require a skill point for each weapon you learn in a weapon group. So if you want to learn 4 martial Weapons, you must have martial weapon profs and spend 4 skill points.

Fighters and paladins would get prof with all martial weapons for free, one via training and the other via divine enlightenment.
I'd restrict the barb and ranger to 4 adn 6 free weapon profs (same as starting skill points), which should satisfy them for their entire careers. If they want another one...spend a skill point!

==Aelryinth


The main reason I recoil from that suggestion is because melee classes are spread thin enough with skill points as-is. Yes Barb and Ranger get a few more than the others, but they also have a lot more skills that are useful/that most parties will expect them to invest in, so they don't have much more to spare on other things.

That and I like the system as-is. (Though I could see perfect justification for Barbarians getting Catch Off-Guard as a free bonus feat just like Alchemists get Throw Anything. What do you MEAN my anger-fueled destruction machine has to spend a feat to LEARN how to bash people over the head with a spare chair efficiently?)


I'd be really interested to see an analysis, by someone who's used both, of how Tome of Battle characters stack up beside Path of War characters as far as power, utility, etc.


If I ever end up with one from each in a game, I'll do just that. =)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Orthos wrote:

The main reason I recoil from that suggestion is because melee classes are spread thin enough with skill points as-is. Yes Barb and Ranger get a few more than the others, but they also have a lot more skills that are useful/that most parties will expect them to invest in, so they don't have much more to spare on other things.

That and I like the system as-is. (Though I could see perfect justification for Barbarians getting Catch Off-Guard as a free bonus feat just like Alchemists get Throw Anything. What do you MEAN my anger-fueled destruction machine has to spend a feat to LEARN how to bash people over the head with a spare chair efficiently?)

4 free weapons is enough to last the barbarian forever. Seriously. Most people grab the weapons they want at level 1 and never, ever change.

Rangers ditto.
And they have enough skill points that if they come across the perfect weapon, they can spare 1 or 2 to pick up a weapon...or retrain one of the free ones, if that is what it comes down to.

It is the only way to make Weapon Proficiency VALUABLE. If you want weapon prof to be something not worthy of being called a feat, keep the system the way it is...where one dip of a martial class gets you ALL the profs you could want.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Yolande d'Bar wrote:
I'd be really interested to see an analysis, by someone who's used both, of how Tome of Battle characters stack up beside Path of War characters as far as power, utility, etc.

Since they are designed to have more power and utility, they should outperform.

The Good combat style has effectively infinite in-combat heals.
The good and Evil combat styles have 2 VERY strong stances each: the first one grants unholy/holy to their weapons (instead of 'counts as good/evil') at 5th , and the second at 9th gives flight at twice base move.

Those were the biggest standouts that I saw. the rest I just shrugged, compared to a wizard could do at that level, and ignored. They were strong, and the tendency to bypass DR and Hardness means that DR becomes basically a useless defense was irritating.

==Aelryinth


I have a player who has used both, he said that overall the classes are significantly harder and stronger based on class features alone. He has noted that the team likes to use unusual buff categories and this makes it much easier to stack (ex: Morale bonus to AC).

In terms of the disciplines themselves he thinks they have much better balance between eachother. He mentioned that first level stances and boosts in Path of War do a lot more than in ToB. He said some maneuvers, like Iron Heart Surge, were outliers for ToB and generally Path of War maneuvers are better.

In terms of positives he's said that Path of War has signiuficantly better customization options since the team publishes mountains of feats and archetypes. It's much easier to create the character you want. Additionally he likes that the devs will generally answer questions quickly and view the game in a similar manner to him.

Unfortuneatly he hates forums, so most questions he has for the devs are funneled through myself or Kaidinah. He's the Tiefling Warlord x/Fighter Myrmidarch 1 in my Iron Gods game.

Edit: Forgot to mention that errata is in the works, so this only applies to the current version.


I was admittedly pretty unimpressed with Path of War. I may have not given it a fair shake, but I GM'd for a PoW character who just had fancier/more confusing names for the same s%@# a regular TWF Slayer could do. The maneuvers added damage but didn't add more things his character could do.


@Aelryinth: I would say... this is true. When I'm making a character, I usually have an idea where they'll use one particular weapon throughout the campaign. For example, my current main PC fights with a Quarterstaff, period - specifically, a fairly unique staff that grows in power as the campaign advances (so it's basically always an appropriate item for the character to have, never too strong or too weak for the level). For both personal and practical reasons, that character will not use other weapons. They specifically care about that one item, and will not give it up under any circumstances.

I suspect most characters aren't quite as obsessed with their weapon, but I do think most people have specific weapons in mind for a character, and don't diverge from that much. It... probably doesn't help that things like Weapon Focus and many archetypes kind of encourage only using one weapon. So a fighter might give up his MW Longsword... but only to get a +1 Flaming Longsword instead.

Thus, I think it's true that having "broad" training in Martial (or even Exotic) Weapons is of limited value for the majority of characters. They might swap a little (holding onto a bow for ranged-only enemies, for example), but that's about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The extent of alternate weapons I see is the spare "+1 silver Warhammer" for use against liches, skeletons, werewolves, ect.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
The extent of alternate weapons I see is the spare "+1 silver Warhammer" for use against liches, skeletons, werewolves, ect.

Are your players insane? You KNOW it's supposed to be a morningstar, not a hammer.

;)

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

GM Rednal wrote:

@Aelryinth: I would say... this is true. When I'm making a character, I usually have an idea where they'll use one particular weapon throughout the campaign. For example, my current main PC fights with a Quarterstaff, period - specifically, a fairly unique staff that grows in power as the campaign advances (so it's basically always an appropriate item for the character to have, never too strong or too weak for the level). For both personal and practical reasons, that character will not use other weapons. They specifically care about that one item, and will not give it up under any circumstances.

I suspect most characters aren't quite as obsessed with their weapon, but I do think most people have specific weapons in mind for a character, and don't diverge from that much. It... probably doesn't help that things like Weapon Focus and many archetypes kind of encourage only using one weapon. So a fighter might give up his MW Longsword... but only to get a +1 Flaming Longsword instead.

Thus, I think it's true that having "broad" training in Martial (or even Exotic) Weapons is of limited value for the majority of characters. They might swap a little (holding onto a bow for ranged-only enemies, for example), but that's about it.

That's been my experience, too.

Like the ranger: Historically in the game, rangers were prof in a sword, dagger, spear, bow, and axe. That covers ALL the classic ranger weapons. Why do they need to be proficient with a flail? That's a hugely specialized, very clumsy weapon designed basically only to be used against shield-wielding heavily armored men. Out in the wilds, it is dead weight.
Pikes?
Halberds?
Rapiers?

:P

Barbs are even worse. They don't train, they rage. If they come from primitive tribes, they should not HAVE an unlimited plethora of martial weapons to choose from. They'd pick something thematic for the tribe to fight with, and they'd have weapons used to hunt.

So, main weapon, spear, missile weapon, secondary weapon. ANd that's probably all they'll need forever.

:P

But ONLY at level 1.
Starting the game as a martial should have some benefit other then +2 or +4 HP. Not giving away the armor and weapon profs the fighter spent basically his whole childhood learning (supposedly) is a good start.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like a fantastic way to limit the character concepts that can be achieved with a class chassis and not get any other value out of the change. A Ranger who selects the bond-with-companions Hunter's Bond option makes for a pretty good city guard, and a pike makes good sense for that character's weapon. And even though Barbarian is my favorite class and I've played many and built even more I think I've only done the primitive savage angle once in my career.


Fabius Maximus wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

Not every warrior knows every move in the history of fighting.

Choosing maneuvers lets you customize how you fight, what your "style" is.

My character's style is determinded by the maneuvers he knows, not by those that he has prepared.

As for the rest:

1. Choice is inherent to the system, yes. I'm fine with that; implying I'm not is just a strawman you're putting up, right next to the one that I don't see the balance in this system (I do; I just do not agree with the manner how it is achieved) and the strawman where your imagination about my concept of balance ran away with you and that I should play something else. The last one you coated with extra BS and it stinks to high heaven. If that is what you call reasoning, please leave me alone.

2. Throne, that Warder ability comes at level 7 and requires a full-round action of being completely useless to activate. The other classes still don't have a similar way of switching readied maneuvers on the fly. And yes, I don't like the rest of the mundane 1/day abilities either, but I can chose not to take any of them. They are a core mechanic in ToB/PoW, however.

3. iDesu, the Brawler can use a move action to change their combat feat. That's exactly what initiators cannot do. It can be seen to represent thinking about what tactic would be useful next. Essentially, the Brawler knows all combat feats, but has only access to a limited amount at the same time. Initators have to think hard about why they forgot to use their tricks mid-combat to regain the same ones they prepared before.

4. Aksess, I agree that using the same trick over and over would get one killed quickly. But that only applies if fighting one opponent. The next one in an encounter would not be ready for the same trick. Also, using the same ability again and again becomes boring really fast.

To re-iterate: I do not want my characters to have unlimited access to all maneuvers at all times. I have never said that. If I did, please point...

They are closer to spontaneous then prepared any day of the week. They can choose which maneuvers they have immediate access to throughout the day unlike a prepared spell caster.

Taken further the only reason they need to perform "these useless actions" is if they 1) Run out of maneuvers to use OR 2) want to swap out multiple manuevers they readied for other manuevers in the midst of combat.

A prepared spell caster is completely unable to to do that, when they make their choices they are STUCK with them for the day. An initiator has complete and total access to ALL known abilities whenever they want them and on top of it can recharge pretty much all readied maneuvers (normally initiator mod) at will for a "less effective" action round. None of the recharge actions are actually useless and play off the abilities and theme of the class. Some might be better than others, but the action is still a legitimate choice of action when you have no manuevers to use. AKA all your fancy stuff is gone, do this action you probably would do anyways to get all your fancy stuff back.

I'm tired of the Strawman argument and it gets so overused, and has been for YEARS. Seeing it makes me want to retch.

You are just flat out making a false and incorrect comparison with "prepared spell casters" because the reality is, initiators are absolutely nothing like them. A simple action is all it takes to change their effective load out if YOU the player makes crappy choices. Or you could just make intelligent choices and be effective from round one. They have pretty much eliminated all trap choices from the characters, you could probably pick out manuevers at random and have a functional character. But your sticking point is they cannot have everything readied at all times? All I can do is shake my head at the ridiculousness of it, your complaints and the false comparison.


Quote:
i don't consider them worth a feat

By the time i can Time Stop or Create Dimensional Pocket i dont consider most 1st and 2nd level spells as worth a feat either.


shadowkras wrote:
Quote:
i don't consider them worth a feat
By the time i can Time Stop or Create Dimensional Pocket i dont consider most 1st and 2nd level spells as worth a feat either.

Bless, Longstrider, Featherfall, and really most utility spells.

All worth a feat, even at level 20.

Feat: Awesome Teamwork! (Combat)
Benefit: Once per day increase your allies attack bonus by +1 for your level in minutes. Giving the bonus for this feat is a standard action.

Yeah, that's actually just slightly above the power curve for Paizo combat feats.


shadowkras wrote:
Quote:
i don't consider them worth a feat
By the time i can Time Stop or Create Dimensional Pocket i dont consider most 1st and 2nd level spells as worth a feat either.

If you tried to account for the log(n) nature of spells and feats, do you really feel like that would make the non-casters look ANY better? :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Derron42 wrote:
In closing ... awesome work Jeremy & Chris. Can't wait for the next installment.

I'm a few days late to the party, but I did want to stop in and say thank you for the kind words (yourself and everyone talking about the book), and definitely looking forward to getting the next book out to you all soon. As Jeremy said, it's in layout right now and us developers are really itching to get it to you all soon.

So again, thank you! :)

-X

The Exchange

shadowkras wrote:
Quote:
i don't consider them worth a feat
By the time i can Time Stop or Create Dimensional Pocket i dont consider most 1st and 2nd level spells as worth a feat either.

So you take the good ones. That are worth a feat.


That's always been the funny thing about how spells and spellcasters (especially clerics and druids) work.

If there were 2000 first level spells, and 50 of them were situational and only 10 of them were amazing, that would still be more than the spellcaster could use per day anyway. Spellcasters just need to make sure they have access to those 10 that are amazing, and pick and choose among the 50 that are situational. That choice can then change every day-ish, depending on equipment and scrolls etc. They can then repeat this at every level of spell casting, ad nauseum.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Arachnofiend wrote:
Sounds like a fantastic way to limit the character concepts that can be achieved with a class chassis and not get any other value out of the change. A Ranger who selects the bond-with-companions Hunter's Bond option makes for a pretty good city guard, and a pike makes good sense for that character's weapon. And even though Barbarian is my favorite class and I've played many and built even more I think I've only done the primitive savage angle once in my career.

EH?

you couldn't make that ranger variant with 6 weapon profs?

You couldn't make your other barb variants with 4 weapon profs?

I find that hard to believe. The fact it's based on historical tropes isn't going to change the mechanics actually fitting what is there.
Rangers and barbs shouldn't be as weapon prof as fighters. It's not their strength.

==Aelryinth


Thanks for the spirited and robust responses guys ... fair play!

51 to 79 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / Path of War [> Tome of Battle] All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Product Discussion