Dreamscarred Press introduces the Path of War

Page 11, last sentence of 2nd paragraph, "rant" instead of "grant"

And that might be (aside from my question above) the only thing I'm seeing with the beta. I'm not sure it's even worth playtesting again. The only thing's I'd change would be to ditch 3-4 combat maneuver feats recognizing that Primal/Throne Warlords don't need Gambits very much and probably remember to use Dreadful Carnage every now and again. Basically, I'd have a better Warlord.

What I do want to playtest is the new class. And once that gets settled a little, remake this Warlord to Lion and Solar Wind and playtest all three together doing even harder challenges!

Wow.

Having only perused the discussions (I've been nose-down finishing Ultimate Psionic archetypes), that's pretty significant.

Great work, Chris!

OK, this is hopefully my last nitpick for the Warlord bringing it up to a still respectable three. True Shot Stance. Does this stack with Improved Critical or Keen?

For balance I don't think it should. Think about a Stalker with a 16-20 x3 crit. He'd have a good shot at criting with every full attack and considering how easy it is to full attack with a bow that's dangerous.

I truly admired your dedication to reviving the martial maneuver system, but I believe it is for the best of the project, and the acceptance of martial maneuvers within the fan base to offer these criticisms.

I want to mention I would rather see you do weaker classes to reduce the number of over powered complaints. As you wrote the warlord now, I believe people would be justified in claiming it was over powered. As it is still in Beta, I hope it still has a chance to be saved rather than further tarnish the reputation of the martial maneuver system and classes.

My number one problem with the Warlord Is your gambit system. It is exactly like that dev or designer told you. The players will be smarter than you and come up with ways to totally negate, reduce the penalty of, or just not care at all about the rake. You also make it too easy to succeed. Their is little risk or penalty when so many of them can be accomplished so easily. When I think back about the recharge mechanic of the first 3 maneuver classes, I see they were indeed easy, but easy does not fit into your risk versus rewards idea. Things have to be hard to be a risk at all. I understand you are unlikely to ditch the gambit system entirely, I am guessing it is one of your babies as an author. Besides making it harder to accomplish, I would recommend that you change the recovery from a number of maneuvers equal to charisma bonus to a number of maneuver levels equal to that bonus. For example, charisma 16 could get you back a single maneuver of 3rd level, or three maneuvers of 1st level or both a single 1st & 2nd level maneuver. Even if this makes it very hard to regain a high level maneuver, I think that greatly cuts down on spamming the same high level stuff too frequently and also reduces going super nova. I also like that my suggestion would make it a little more valuable to keep learned and ready, some low level maneuvers. Makes it look a little more similar to how high level casters don't loose all of their low level spells. Maybe recovering a number of maneuver levels equal to double your charisma bonus would work, gives a fair chance of recharging high level stuff.

I understand the inquisitor is also guilty of this, but just because another class does it how I feel is wrong does not mean you cannot do it how I feel would be right. The inquisitor gets a bonus to skill checks for both monster lore and stern gaze, even if they do not have at least one rank in those skills. I hope you redo the warlord presence to only work if they have at least one rank invested or alternatively, skill focus in it.

I think war leader is much better than the tactician/solo tactics ability. I also feel martial maneuver are much better than a horse/dog animal companion that the cavalier is restricted to, comparable to spells. I believe you should tone done war leader. Also, why do you make it war leader instead of just giving him tactician and/or solo tactics? Giving him the already published abilities reduces how much material has be be absorbed for those who already know them. If they are reading your book, they have almost certainly already read the APG.

I see battle prowess requires both a selected weapon group and a stance combo so it will not always function but I really think this steps too much on fighters because they really need that attack(power attack feeder) and damage bonus to stay competitive with other striker classes. You will already be out damaging fighters with martial maneuvers, now you have to copy them on this also? The number one (wrong)complaint about Book of 9 Swords was that they invalidated the martial classes (easier for a new play to learn a Ftr,Pal,Mnk than evaluate all the martial maneuvers). Battle prowess makes it harder for the Ftr to keep up.

I know that if a swordsage can dual boost 3 times a day at 20, it becomes tempting to do it once a day at a much lower level. I still believe you made a terrible mistake granting dual boost at 6th. You are not even having a warlord learn how to full attack with a single boost first, you are giving them the chance to dual boost the same level they get the BAB to full attack for the first time. Swift actions let a character go nova or at least steam ahead. I fully endorse players having swift action options and the freedom to choose between long term vs short term strategies. I feel Paizo has failed miserably in this department, their are almost no swift actions outside of the magus class. Because almost no swift actions exist for non magus classes, and i expect plenty of swift maneuvers, I expect this to be a major problem this edition, 3.5 had many magic items and spells that could be used but almost none in PF. Giving dual boost at 6th strongly encourages just going Super Nova. I remember the Kingmaker campaign has a problem with any class that can go nova because it is almost always only one encounter per day, maybe two if you get a random encounter. I think giving people the chance to go Super Nova, on full attacks even, will result in so many fights over on round two that it will earn the distaste of many GMs taking a long time to prep games. At least delay past 6th. Maybe grant some sort of ability like the chance to swap the last of a full attack for another boost. Examples: +6/+1 could instead be +6 with two boosts or +11/+6/+1 could be +11/+6 with 2 boosts or if you really want to water it down to reduce the overpower cries, +6/+1 could be +1 with 2 boosts while +11/+6/+1 would become +6/+1 with 2 boosts.

I really like tactical assistance. Here are some suggestions to make it even better. Consider giving the warlord the chance to activate aid another as a move action(even if only for 1/2 cha bonus). Make this only applicable for Att/def to avoid this being abused on skill checks(two aids on a skill in a round). This could be a nice combo with your standard action martial maneuver to get the most out of all the actions you can do. This might be a great swap for dual boost at 6th. The war leader can choose between a full attack or a standard action maneuver and an aid. Either option with or without a swift action boost. Then delay dual boost to at least 8th.

Despite my complaints and almost disdain level for my feelings on the gambit system, I really do look forward to later reviewing the maneuvers and other classes.

I understand you cannot print the names of the Bo9S classes and disciplines for copyright reasons in your book but can you at least tell us unofficially on a message board what classes/disciplines you think would match up in your opinion for those of us who choose to incorporate both books. For example, the class name stalker sounds to me like it would be a fit for shadow hand. Not 100% sure since I have not yet reviewed the stalker but the names do imply such to me.

IanCB but let me offer some rebuttal points anyway.

1. Making them weaker. That's a frankly terrible idea. I said it earlier in this thread but I'll say it again here. IT is really unfortunate that when, in Pathfinder, people talks about class tiers there are at least five. That means that there are significant and unfortunate differences in power levels and usefulness. If the bar to entry for 3PP is a tier 4 class like the fighter or god forbid the monk, they shouldn't both publishing at all. The Warlord and the Stalker are both fairly well balanced against the Magus. The Magus was able to do everything the PoW classes could do but they couldn't do everything he could do.

2. The Gambit System. Playtesting has shown that certain builds don't need Gambits at all. Those who primarily use Primal Fury, Scarlet Throne, and Thrashing Dragon can pretty much just kill people. The only discipline that really finds itself using enough maneuvers to need Gambits is Golden Lion. And in that case you're giving bonuses to allies like AC and such. It's not that big of a deal.

3. I don't care if something steps a bit on the Fighter's toes. It's a bad class. Somebody ought to step on its toes. However, despite the fact the Battle Prowess looks a bit like Weapon Training, it's definitely not as good and the Fighter has advantages in armor, armor training, and feats.

4. Dual Boosts: Again, this mostly only comes up for Golden Lion users. In fact, my level 10 Primal/Throne Warlord didn't even have two boosts. My level 15 Warlord had two and would use both on an initial charge and do a metric ton of damage but that's at the same level that a Wizard can make his own plane of existence so screw it.

Also, as to your question this isn't much of a direct port with new names. It uses the maneuver system introduced in Bo9S but in mostly original ways.

Thanks for your point of view. What does IanCB and PoW refer to?

I do not totally agree on your point about not bothering to publish at all if a product is tier 4, I would still be.willing to play one if I thought I would have fun with it. Though my standards are.high enough, I think almost everything I like is tier 3 or above. Of course I would never play many of the tier 3, 2 or 1 classes either. Still, to be competitive, both in the market place and at the game table, I guess you do need to look at publishing a class competive with the good reputation classes. I also feel perfect balance is not needed. The haters are gonna hate, maybe a few more will not make.a.difference.

PoW is likely the book name.

I believe IanCB likely means "I am not Chris Bennett", the lead designer on Path of War (PoW).

Looks like others have translated my shorthand so I'll just answer your point about balance.

Making only tier four and five classes is not only a bad business model its also bad for balance of the meta game and diversity within the game. I grant you, I wouldn't want to see a knockoff of the fighter that did little more than replace bravery with two good saves. That's bad. But making a whole new system, why not aim for a solid three? I don't know where you would personally place the Magus. I've seen him as a high 3 or low 2 in most instances. These are so far just under the Magus so that's pretty much a three. That's balanced in the meta game and good for the game, too.

I've jumped in on this multiple times as well but I'll reiterate a few points here related to the comparable power levels and things like that:

First and foremost, people have to understand that initiator classes work on a completely different scale than standard classes and so the math for calculating how effective they are changes. They are based on a power system where a martial class actually becomes more powerful and effective when they are not making Full Attacks. This shifts multiple paradigms of how to play. You end up seeing a big uptick in mobility, but your overall damage is actually less than or equal to most standard martial classes over the course of a given day. Maneuver focused combat decreases the number of opportunities you have to accrue critical hits which has a large impact on your daily damage totals.
The Warlord and Stalker are also defensively weak. Throughout weeks of vigorous playtesting we've seen on multiple occasions that these classes are the most fragile, and the ones most reliant on a strong group to reach maximum effectiveness. In this way, they actually promote better group functionality and help bring everyone in the party up to that next level.
As to the comparison of relative power between the Warlord and his two closest counterparts, the Magus and the Cavalier-
Yuengling has done much more playtesting comparisons between the Magus and the Warlord and Stalker than I have, but if I'm understanding his data correctly, the Magus was pretty consistently superior in both offense and defense during his arena test. I can attest through personal experience that the Cavalier is consistently capable of higher damage through almost all tiers of play. A single mounted charge by a cavalier during levels 1-8 is often equal to two or three maneuvers worth of damage, and as the Cavalier gains access to better abilities and more powerful Challenge modifiers, this dynamic only holds. Mounted Skirmisher locks the Cavalier into a solid and near untouchable single target damage lead. The biggest advantage that the initiator classes have is that they are not reliant on a mount.
People have a tendency to think "OMG! They're bringing back that broken system!?!?" but they're forgetting the very important fact that Pathfinder is not 3.5. The original Bo9S was brought into 3.5 during its waning days as the designers were testing new systems and functionality. The Bo9S classes now are largely on par with the current Pathfinder classes, and the Warlord and Stalker are actually less powerful than their precedents.

I've talked before about the system mastery curve and how it affects initiator classes vs. core/base classes. Initiator classes have this nice cushion, in that no matter how poorly their character is built, they generally have their maneuvers to fall back on in order to shore up their weaknesses. Conversely, most base and core classes can be absolutely ruined when built by a person with poor system mastery. What you start seeing though, is that there is a system mastery play curve that starts coming into effect that changes the dynamic between the classes. As system mastery rises, the base/core classes see exponential increases in their capabilities and effectiveness. What you see with the initiator classes though, is that their individual performance improves only fractiionally. System mastery for the Warlord actually involves giving up some of its individual effectiveness to instead focus on total party improvement. A really well built Warlord won't even be competing against Fighters, Ninjas, Cavaliers, and other heavy direct damage dealers, but will see the majority of his party contributions being made in the form of party buffs and increased action economy/effectiveness via Warleader.
Similarly, while the Stalker can be a direct damage beast, he lacks the defensive properties and battlefield control aspects of classes like the Ninja, Summoner, and combat Bards, but has his own special niche in being probably the most mobile class available, able to provide flanking and combat advantages anywhere on the battlefield as needed. His greatest strength, Deadly Strike, is actually directly opposed by his biggest weakness, which is, well, the fact that he's defensively weak. Being able to pop behind enemy lines quickly and easily is great, but the Stalker is no Monk, with great saves and multiple built in AC boosters. Until recently he didn't even get the small WIS boost to AC that actually made him combat viable. The most common thing we've seen with the Stalker is that he moves into a flanking or combat favorable position, deals out a big maneuver, possibly enhanced with Deadly Strike, and then has to quickly dodge back out of combat the following round to keep from being annihilated.

Ultimately, these classes are very well built and balanced for the Tier 3 classes they are, with abilities that are flavorful and fun. When compared to the many other Tier 3 classes that meet similar roles though, like the Cavalier, Magus, Ninja, Inquisitor, Barbarian, and Bard, they're certainly not overpowered, and nerfs or changes to them, especially ones like you propse RL, would only detract from the game as a whole.

Thanks for spelling my name right. That's uncommon. One day I'm going to have to change it, though. Not only is it hard for other folks to spell, I don't even drink Yuengling anymore.

Anyway, to talk about some of the specifics in playtesting that I did that Ssalarn referred to.

Defense: At level 5 they had the same AC but after that the Stalker was able to stay 2 ahead thanks to his dodge bonuses. However, that's only a 10% chance to hit difference. Compared with Mirror Images, the Stalker was defensively less impressive when it really counted. The Warlord had a consistently lower AC than either but rather more HP and some counters to make up the difference.

Offense: Nobody beats the Magus in burst damage. Intensified Spell with shocking grasp and Spell Perfection meant that could easily nova for 25d6+weapon damage at the cost of two spells (one cast and one from a spell storing weapon). That's crazy.

Flexibility: This is where the Magus really shined. There is probably never going to be a PoW class that can beat the encounter against 6 level 10 Blackscale Sorcerers. There simply isn't a reasonable defense against 6 quickened magic missile spells followed by the sorcerers all flying off. The Magus had Black Tentacles which was basically fight over. At higher levels, the Magus also had more skills per level and while he lacked as many class skills as the Stalker he could make up for that with sheer quantity.

---

All that to say, these classes are good but measurably worse than easily half a dozen other classes.

Hey Chris, quick question if you get a chance:
Were the maneuver list and description lists for Thrashing Dragon intentionally left out of the Warlord Beta because they're still being playtested on the Stalker? I assumed so but just wanted to make sure there wasn't a plan to change the Warlord having access to that discipline.
I scored an Hourglass of Transfiguration during our regular Tuesday night game and I'm going to completely retool my Fighter/Monk/Warlord from that game into a straight Warlord and shift from a purely ranged attacker to a switch hitter. I didn't want to do a rebuild that was going to see a massive overhaul within the next 48 hours :)

Hey Chris, quick question if you get a chance:

Were the maneuver list and description lists for Thrashing Dragon intentionally left out of the Warlord Beta because they're still being playtested on the Stalker? I assumed so but just wanted to make sure there wasn't a plan to change the Warlord having access to that discipline.
I scored an Hourglass of Transfiguration during our regular Tuesday night game and I'm going to completely retool my Fighter/Monk/Warlord from that game into a straight Warlord and shift from a purely ranged attacker to a switch hitter. I didn't want to do a rebuild that was going to see a massive overhaul within the next 48 hours :)

Oh Hourglasses... those are awesome.

I didn't include the Thrashing Dragon stuff because it's all in with the Stalker, did the same with Solar Wind for the Stalker.

---

As an aside, I wanted to get some feedback on something. There was a rather critical set of reviews of warlord and stalker on another forum I frequent. I wanted to see what a very different pool of people have to say about the factors mentioned in said reviews. Starting on page 27 and going onto the next page.

-X

Ssalarn wrote:

Hey Chris, quick question if you get a chance:

Were the maneuver list and description lists for Thrashing Dragon intentionally left out of the Warlord Beta because they're still being playtested on the Stalker? I assumed so but just wanted to make sure there wasn't a plan to change the Warlord having access to that discipline.
I scored an Hourglass of Transfiguration during our regular Tuesday night game and I'm going to completely retool my Fighter/Monk/Warlord from that game into a straight Warlord and shift from a purely ranged attacker to a switch hitter. I didn't want to do a rebuild that was going to see a massive overhaul within the next 48 hours :)

Oh Hourglasses... those are awesome.

I didn't include the Thrashing Dragon stuff because it's all in with the Stalker, did the same with Solar Wind for the Stalker.

---

As an aside, I wanted to get some feedback on something. There was a rather critical set of reviews of warlord and stalker on another forum I frequent. I wanted to see what a very different pool of people have to say about the factors mentioned in said reviews. Starting on page 27 and going onto the next page.

-X

Reading it now, I'll give you my response once I've worked my way through.

**EDIT** Are we referring to the Gambit stuff here, or have I not read far enough yet?

As a note, Combat Maneuver Gambits are absolutely our favorites, and they helped bring a whole dimension of the game that had been previously ignored or minimized back to the fore. PLease DO NOT get rid of these.

As I've mentioned before, I think that Gambits should entail a sense of risk. I don't think that system actually needs any tweeking. I and others in my gaming group have played the Warlord EXTENSIVELY and the Gambit system is just one of those things that looks weird on paper but actually executes very well.

I'm not against its activation being changed to something else, like a Swift action though. I was never one of the ones that thought Gambits needed to be nerfed in the first place, but agreed that changing them to special full round actions was better than scrapping the system altogether.

If rolling them back to a lesser action is going to make people start screaming that the class is over-powered again, I have a suggestion:

Make Gambits into a subsystem of a Stance that all Warlord's have access to. A Warlord could enter his "Risk-taker's Stance" or his "Battlefield Inspiration Stance" and while in that stance, successfully completing any action for which he has the appropriate Gambit allows him to recover 1 maneuver. If he's taken the Called Shot feats and makes 3 attacks all as Called Shots, he could potentially net 3 maneuvers back. If he uses a Maneuver that increases the likelihood he'll successfully complete one of his Gambits, then great! Since it's a maneuver he'll only be getting one maneuver back and you've got a net gain of 0. The system is now balanced to itself, completely contiguous, and the change required is near minimal.

Well, all of the classes are having two recovery methods. A full round action that recovers ability mod in maneuvers and a standard action one that recovers only one. The stalker must stop killing for a minute and ponder life, where as the warlord only has to dive into something headlong and risk failure... because nothing stops the rock where a warlord is concerned. They get to keep acting and contributing, where stalker does not.

-X

On the subject of the Stalker and some of the things brought up about him:

Ki pool equal to 1/2 level plus WIS mod porbably would be better if it said "Ki pool is equal to 1/2 your Stalker level (minimum 1) plus your WIS mod".

There was a note about certain maneuvers (Hunting Serpent, Disturbing Blow, and Dimensional Strike) being limited to melee and that they should be useful with ranged as well. While I'm all for more ranged maneuvers, the Stalker has an absolutely retarded amount of mobility combined with wicked high damage potential. His only drawback in play that I've witnessed is the fact that he has to get in the midst of things to really leverage his full capabilities. The more you take these melee attacks and make them melee or ranged, the more you're going to be hearing instances of the Stalker being seen as ridiculously OP. I will already tell you Chris, that right now I can create a firearm wielding Stalker who makes some of the Pistolero builds look tame. Removing the melee restrictions is going to be a bad thing.

I don't think you should give the monk Unarmed Strike damage like a monk. What would be cool instead, is give him a Stalker art that allows him to increase the crit multiplier for his unarmed strike by 1. MAybe even allow him to take the art up to two times. This means he'll have normal unarmed strike damage like any other non-monk but when he Deadly Strikes he'll be applying his big dice to the attack. This gives him a potent unarmed strike that works completely differently than any other classes, synchronizes well with the Stalker's abilities, and since it's tied to either a critical or expenditure of a limited resource, it stays well-balanced through all levels of play.

Well, all of the classes are having two recovery methods. A full round action that recovers ability mod in maneuvers and a standard action one that recovers only one. The stalker must stop killing for a minute and ponder life, where as the warlord only has to dive into something headlong and risk failure... because nothing stops the rock where a warlord is concerned. They get to keep acting and contributing, where stalker does not.

-X

No, I feel you Chris. You just asked for feedback on what they were saying, so I thought I'd give it. I wasn't sure how you were feeling on the subject so I thought I'd expand a bit on options.

So I finally managed to get my two year old settled with some Bubble Guppies and chocolate milk and read the GitP stuff.

From what I can tell they are all bandying theory around and not a one has actually played. I might try to make an account over there and set them up with actual data.

Frakking armchair play testing.

Chris, don't think I don't see you over there posting on GitP instead of getting me a warder to playtest.

I've got my eye on you, mister and I'm not made of patience. In point of fact I'm mostly made of caffeine and Scotch.

Chris, don't think I don't see you over there posting on GitP instead of getting me a warder to playtest.

I've got my eye on you, mister and I'm not made of patience. In point of fact I'm mostly made of caffeine and Scotch.

Then you better share that stuff, because I need some of it too! :P

I'm working on it, I had to take a few things back to the board. Sorry :(

-X

Let's see, current driving time to Oklahoma is about 21 hours. So maybe not sharing. But if you ever find yourself in Maryland, scotch and a cigar on me.

Anything we can help with?

Because, realistically, all that either of us does is playtest your products and drink.
Sometimes I work, but considering we just got bought out, only my winning personality will allow that to continue :)

God, I want a drink now.

Oh, scotch. You complete me.

Because, realistically, all that either of us does is playtest your products and drink.

I don't drink >_>

(Granted, I haven't gotten a chance to sit down and playtest either so...) =)

Ssalarn wrote:

Because, realistically, all that either of us does is playtest your products and drink.

I don't drink >_>

You must not have kids.

Orthos wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Because, realistically, all that either of us does is playtest your products and drink.

I don't drink >_>

You must not have kids.

Nope! Single and childless and happily so.

YuenglingDragon wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Because, realistically, all that either of us does is playtest your products and drink.

I don't drink >_>

You must not have kids.

Nope! Single and childless and happily so.

Nobody likes a braggart :P j/k!

-X

There should be a paizo babysitting forum for gamer moms and dads to find local area people to come baby sit their kids while they game/ playtest/ drink

or maybe that is a horrible idea

There should be a paizo babysitting forum for gamer moms and dads to find local area people to come baby sit their kids while they game/ playtest/ drink

or maybe that is a horrible idea

I feel like there's a valid business plan somewhere in this proposal...

As for an update, I was approaching Warder with a certain sort of modular nature for some of its class features and after conversing with my Creative Director Andreas, I have a different idea that basically creates a Core Warder who has set class features. He's just that, a Warder, and after that, I create Sect Based archetypes that could fit for Warder that takes set class features away to create the modular feel that I wanted to make for the class to begin with. Similar to Cavalier Orders but more variable with its class features, and after beating my head against the wall with it and being frustrated, it just kind of clicked. Assuming I get the thumbs up from above me, I will have a Warder this weekend as well as several archetypes for it and time permitting, maybe an archetype or two for some of the others.

-X

As for an update, I was approaching Warder with a certain sort of modular nature for some of its class features and after conversing with my Creative Director Andreas, I have a different idea that basically creates a Core Warder who has set class features. He's just that, a Warder, and after that, I create Sect Based archetypes that could fit for Warder that takes set class features away to create the modular feel that I wanted to make for the class to begin with. Similar to Cavalier Orders but more variable with its class features, and after beating my head against the wall with it and being frustrated, it just kind of clicked. Assuming I get the thumbs up from above me, I will have a Warder this weekend as well as several archetypes for it and time permitting, maybe an archetype or two for some of the others.

-X

Excellent! Looking forward to seeing what you've come up with Chris.

Exciting stuff! I'll be on the lookout!

Ninja and Monk do NOT have a minimum of 1 on Ki pool, while Stalker's Ki Pool does. This isn't a bad thing (other abilities either have a minimum, or have a bonus on top of ability score based uses, so they are the odd ones out) but should be noted.

There simply isn't a reasonable defense against 6 quickened magic missile spells followed by the sorcerers all flying off.

Actually there is, but it puts things even further in the Magus's favor

I assume you're talking about Shield. That's an even better option than the Black Tentacles he used but it wasn't prepared. I'm not sure anyone except a caster could survive that fight.

Putting the finishing touches on the Warder right now. Obtuse question, but how do you feel about turtles?

I have a shield fighting discipline called Iron Tortoise which will be making it's debut with the class, and as always, names are placeholders, but I'm not sure how people will feel with the name. Give it a look over when I post it and give me suggestions/advice as to how to name it. Or if you like turtles, show your love maybe? :P

-X

You know what's funny I was just thinking about researching turtles in religious and philosophical contexts for a character idea.

The short story is I'm kind of digging them.

They are shell-tacular, seems like a decent name for it. I am excited to see this, I think we've all been a little quiet in this thread in anticipation for the Warder.

And here it is, after a long wait. The Warder.

Enjoy.

EDIT: There are some weird things that I missed in all the edits in the opening text. Be patient, I'm aware of them. Specifically stuff with starting wealth/age. As paladin with that.

The Code of Honor unintentionally got pushed to be more and more Good oriented because the focus of the class was unintentionally shifted. It will get some work.

-X

I think the "fourth discipline from his sect" bit is from an older version.

I don't care much for the alternate recovery mechanism. It seems silly easy. Actually, they kind of both are. With Warder's`Defense I bet I'll be able to just use my best, wait one tic and not get hit because of his sheer bad@$$ery and then wail on them again. Gambit's have a chance of failure. Ki points are limited and have other uses. This doesn't even really cost an action because I doubt he'll get hit much so opponents actions are just as wasted trying to hit him. Consider the addendum, "As long as the Warder is not hit by a melee or non-magical ranged attack, he recovers a number of maneuvers equal to hit int modifier at the start of his next turn. Otherwise he recovers only one [or half int mod?]."

I get that the Code of Honor needs work and it does. It's important to remember that PCs are basically murder-hobos wandering from town to town committing homicide and other crimes with impunity. It's a pain when a classes RP restrictions conflict with that. Something along the lines of protecting friends and innocents.

Armiger's Mark is cool.

Do Warders have to qualify for their Bonus Feats or sect feats? I assume they don't need to qualify for Shield Fighter or its archetype equivalent?

Tactical Acumen and Forged in Iron are swanky.

Adaptive Tactics are a no-go for me. It isn't a huge number of feats to swap out but anything like that done on the fly can be bad for game pacing.

Extended Defense is neat but I haven't had a chance to look at the counters available to the class, yet.

Clad in Steel is fine so long as you understand that a small amount of DR at this level is basically useless. A lot of the damage that you take at this point is magical or energy based in the latter half of levels. I once bought adamantine full plate for a paladin and spent the rest of the game regretting the insane expense for such a small benefit.

---

100% chance that the insular and racist archer lord archetype shouldn't be the "white" anything. Maybe pick a color that people aren't like green. These guys sound like the Mongolian KKK.

There's to be a bit of mounted encouragement here and Veiled Moon doesn't fit with that at all. You presumably can't teleport yourself and your horse.

---

Isn't "Cimmeran" a Conan thing? Is it IP?

The Empyreal Guardian Code is way too complicated. Decide if they can use a big weapon or not. Don't make me and my GM figure out APL and do math and stuff.

If anyone should get Veiled Moon, it's this guy. Probably at the cost of Primal Fury or Golden Lion

---

Errant, huh? I see what you did there.

---

It would be nice of medium Dragoons had 8th level options too, but I also don't know why anyone would choose a dog or boar over a wolf.

---

I've only glanced at the maneuvers but I'll provide some commentary on them in the next couple days. I have a bit of a problem with the counters I've seen, though.

See, at least a few of them seem to require getting hit. You know what is unlikely when you're a Warder? Getting hit. Quick Snap is a waste, as is Iron Shell and probably a couple more I haven't seen yet. Snapping Riposte is a winner.

I'm noticing that in Archer lOrd of the White Steppes, his proficiencies say "White Steppe Training (Ex): The warder gains proficiency with all martial ranged weapons, and he may
select one ranged weapon to be his favored; he gains Weapon Focus as a bonus feat with this weapon. He is
proficient with light and medium armor, and with shields (except tower shields). The character adds
Perception and Stealth to his class skills. This replaces the warder's standard weapon and armor proficiencies and augments his class skills known"

But in Empyreal Guardian it just says "Weapon and Armor Proficiencies: Empyreans are proficient in all simple weapons and martial weapons,
and with light armor and bucklers."

I assume the intent is for these proficiencies to also replace the base class'?

I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to just remove the proficiency line from the base class altogether since it seems like every order comes with its own specialized set of proficiencies?

"Mount (Ex): At 5th level, the dragoon gains the service of a loyal and trusty steed to carry him into battle,
given to him by the Order. This mount functions as a druid’s animal companion, using the warder's level
minus five as his effective druid level. The creature must be one that he is capable of riding and is suitable
as a mount. A Medium dragoon can select a camel or a horse. A Small dragoon can select a pony or wolf,
but can also select a boar or a dog if he is at least 8th level. The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts."

Level minus 5 at fifth level? So it's an animal companion with effective level.. 0? I know that's not the case, but it also creates a weird situation where your mount doesn't progress for the first two levels you have it. Have you thought about maybe making it level -4 instead?

"Tortoise Trip
Iron Tortoise (Strike)
Level: 2
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack
Target: One creature
The turtle, when it on it’s back, is helpless to defend itself and is immobilized unless it can right itself. The
disciple of this discipline learns to use this inspirational creature’s weakness as a potent weapon by making
a low and powerful strike that may knock his opponent prone. Make a successful melee attack and
automatically gain a free trip attempt against that target without provoking attacks of opportunity."

This maneuver seems a little... clunky somehow. The verbage should probably be adjusted to something more like "As part of this maneuver, make a single melee attack. If this attack is successful, you may initiate a free trip attempt against your opponent that does not provoke an attack of opportunity"

I might also consider giving him his INT mod as a bonus on the trip attempt, otherwise this is a really weak power power for a second level maneuver.

I've only glanced at the maneuvers but I'll provide some commentary on them in the next couple days. I have a bit of a problem with the counters I've seen, though.

See, at least a few of them seem to require getting hit. You know what is unlikely when you're a Warder? Getting hit. Quick Snap is a waste, as is Iron Shell and probably a couple more I haven't seen yet. Snapping Riposte is a winner.

I'm seeing this as well. Maybe shift the focus of his counters to an ally being hit instead and shift him more into that guardian role? This class is such a defensive powerhouse it seems like there's quite a few counters that might be under-utilized. I haven't had a chance to playtest it out or run the defense vs. CR numbers yet though, so I could be wrong here.

I also just want to say that even though this is probably the most critical I've been of any of the classes up to this point, it's because I'm so excited by the potential I'm seeing here. I really like where this class is going and am excited to see how it polishes up.

Significant changes to Warder.

CHANGELOG 9/15/13
-changed some of the opening fluff to reflect slight shift in focus
-changed alignment restriction to any, but indicating most are lawful
-changed starting wealth and age to as per paladin because dragoons don't exist *facepalm*
-changed code of honor to Code of the Defender with some upgrades
-fixed wording in Maneuvers Known section
-made changes to Armiger's Mark
-opened up bonus feats to all combat or teamwork feats
-upgraded aegis to include a boost to saving throws
-changed adaptive tactics to have a set list of bonus feats to reduce hunt time
-made deathless protector clearer
-huge changes to all codes of conduct to all sects
-more or less rewrote White Steppe and Empyreans, made some changes to the others
-made rule tweaks to Broken Blade discipline, fixed a couple of words in Iron Tortoise

Also, THANK YOU!

-X

Also, while I'm working on Style feats, please consider the Broken Blade discipline (see Warder playtest) officially added to the Stalker. :)

-X

Also, while I'm working on Style feats, please consider the Broken Blade discipline (see Warder playtest) officially added to the Stalker. :)

-X

When I was reading the Broken Blade discipline I was really bummed out I didn't see anywhere that it was added to the stalker list. Now I am really excited cause I think its an awesome discipline.

Reading on the Warlord Beta, I have a question: You took off Intimidating Gambit because of that feat that would make it a free action, but now that Gambits are their own full round action, is there any reason to not bring it back?

Rising Zenith Strike, Ruby Zenith Strike, Descending Sunset Strike all have the same problem, in that they simply multiply the damage without any of the usual restrictions against multiplying precision damage or the extra damage from magical weapon properties. Is this intentional?
I noticed it when playing with other classes and the Martial Training feat tree. A melee rogue, specially a scout rogue, can use two feats to take it and deal double sneak attack damage on a single attack per battle, and as I was typing this I realized that this is not a problem, rogues need all the help they can get. Nevermind. It does make a flaming weapon MUCH better. Wonder if you can make a flaming shocking weapon...

Rising Zenith Strike, Ruby Zenith Strike, Descending Sunset Strike all have the same problem, in that they simply multiply the damage without any of the usual restrictions against multiplying precision damage or the extra damage from magical weapon properties. Is this intentional?

Those types of damage are never multiplied - not on using a brace weapon against a charge, not on a crit, never.

But it could be spelled out more clearly in the maneuver's description.

Intimidating gambit isn't coming back because of Cornugon Strike and the grief it brought me :P

-X