Dreamscarred Press introduces the Path of War


Product Discussion

451 to 500 of 2,138 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

With several disciplines available, I hope you would consider leaving at least one with an Asian themed name, same goes for being willing to do a name with more than 3-5 syllables.


So I have started to input the Warlord and its Maneuvers into the Hero Lab software. I had to build new mechanics to support maneuvers as while similar to spells they are still different enough.

I had one question so far and a comment.

The 9th level Maneuver "Lord of the Pridelands" does not list the type (ie Boost, Strike, Stance??)

Lord of the Pridelands
Golden Lion Level: 9
Prerequisites: 4 Golden Lion maneuvers
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: 60ft
Target: You and allies
Duration: One round

My one comment is that I am seeing allot of variation in the Range and Target lines of Maneuvers. I notice as I have to enter the stuff as "tags" not text. In example look at "Lord of the Pridelands" and "Alpha's Roar" for target. One lists "Allies" while the other says "You and Allies" but don't these both mean the same thing? Pathfinder has said you count as your own Ally. So why two different wording? Is it really suppose to mean something different?

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

ShadowChemosh, you are amazing man. Just what I wanted to learn - that you're helping out on the HeroLab front.


Lord of the Pridelands is exactly that. It's not a Boost, nor is it a Strike, a Counter, or a Stance. It is an untyped maneuver. There are a few of them, not many, but a few.

Mostly yes to the second point. Golden Lion isn't intended as a self-booster all the time, it's a party booster mostly so some maneuver tags I'm still altering. I'd advise not going through all of this trouble because this is FAR from finished product and you're likely going to be having to redo more than half of it by the time I'm finished. So just my advice there.

-Chris

Dark Archive

OK, so I just finished the Stalker bit of the level 15 playtest. A few of the questions is brought up:

1. Can you add the bonus damage from Brutal Dragon Stance to touch attacks like Warp Worm?

2. Brutal Dragon Stance might be a bit on the powerful side. It does a metric butt-ton of damage. I think I'd be happy with 2d6 and half my initiator level.

3. How many attacks do I get with Eclipsing Moon? The number of attacks I have on a normal full attack action (3 at this level) or the number of attacks I have when I two weapon fight (6 at this level)?


ErrantX wrote:

Lord of the Pridelands is exactly that. It's not a Boost, nor is it a Strike, a Counter, or a Stance. It is an untyped maneuver. There are a few of them, not many, but a few.

Mostly yes to the second point. Golden Lion isn't intended as a self-booster all the time, it's a party booster mostly so some maneuver tags I'm still altering. I'd advise not going through all of this trouble because this is FAR from finished product and you're likely going to be having to redo more than half of it by the time I'm finished. So just my advice there.

-Chris

Thanks for the info.

Yea I know I will have allot to change but building the framework to allow Maneuvers in HL can be done now. Plus by putting in the Maneuvers as they are currently I am able to generate all the tags needed. This allows me to catch things like the Pridelands maneuver not being any type and to change the logic to allow for such a situation. I had not expected that so I have to change some code now to accommodate.

Hopefully what gets changed is mostly the "Text" part of the maneuvers or other things that are easy to update. =) I have to assume that the "way" the core mechanics work, which is similar to Bo9S, is NOT going to change and that is the big parts I am working on now...


YuenglingDragon wrote:

OK, so I just finished the Stalker bit of the level 15 playtest. A few of the questions is brought up:

1. Can you add the bonus damage from Brutal Dragon Stance to touch attacks like Warp Worm?

2. Brutal Dragon Stance might be a bit on the powerful side. It does a metric butt-ton of damage. I think I'd be happy with 2d6 and half my initiator level.

3. How many attacks do I get with Eclipsing Moon? The number of attacks I have on a normal full attack action (3 at this level) or the number of attacks I have when I two weapon fight (6 at this level)?

1) Nope, because a melee touch attack is not an unarmed strike for this maneuver pairing. Basically, I don't want Brutal Dragon stranging up a teleporty maneuver. I will clarify it.

2) I'm changing it to 2d6 + primary initiator attribute modifier

3) Secondary attacks and the like (off hands, secondary natural attacks, etc) do count, but I'm saying those inflict less force damage, 2d4 instead of 4d4.

-Chris


2 people marked this as a favorite.

New warlord and stalker available for alpha play testing.

The warlord is moving into FINAL alpha phase; please focus further critique on the disciplines themselves and the gambit system. The rest of the class is where we'd like it for the time being. And as a free gift, added Thrashing Dragon (found in the stalker play test) to their discipline list for greater variety in Warlords.

New Stalker is up, deadly strike has changed a bit and please focus on disciplines here too as well, but as it's not in Final Alpha, any holes or bugs you find or obvious exploits, lemme know.

Lastly, I'm making Style feats for the Stalker bundle's feat section. It will include feats for Warlord disciplines as well as Stalker disciplines. Further releases will contain their own feat sections for their discipline feats and any other related feats that might come up.

-Chris

The Exchange

Thanks Chris, I will enjoy taking a look at the new versions.

Dark Archive

Now that the Warlord has Thrashing Dragon, what happens if he multiclasses or uses a feat to get proficiency with a shield that can bash? Will he count as wielding two weapons if he has a shield spike?


YuenglingDragon wrote:
Now that the Warlord has Thrashing Dragon, what happens if he multiclasses or uses a feat to get proficiency with a shield that can bash? Will he count as wielding two weapons if he has a shield spike?

I don't see why he wouldn't. A weapon is a weapon after all, just don't expect to be using Scarlet Throne too at the same time.

-Chris


Just looking at veiled moon maneuvers. Here is some feedback in no particular order:

I notice that you specify the save DCs in every maneuver as "DC 1X + primary initiator attribute modifier modifier." I think you should just put how saves work in the general manuever rules section like it is for spells in the CRB. You could say: "saves are always 10 + maneuver level + primary attribute modifier" You'd save like a page of printing costs :D

Swift Claws: Do I roll 2 attack rolls or do I roll only one attack and do the damage of both weapons? Since you say "attack action" Can I use this maneuver to make attack-equivalent Combat Maneuvers like trips and disarms?

Offensive roll: Does this maneuver let me move before and after my attack? is the 10 ft of movement free? I think it should be a full round action and let the initiator move his speed.

Ghost hunting blow: Shouldn't this be a boost? Or does it give you an attack as a swift action?

Formless Dance: So this grants a divination effect, should this be blocked by Mind-Blank and similar effects? If so, you need a "divination" tag of some kind.

On that note -> The various mind-effecting maneuvers are not explicitly "enchantment" effects. Thus, creatures that have bonuses vs enchantment effects won't benefit. Is this intended?

Altered Penumbra: I think you meant "minor image." Mirror images have to share space with the caster and functionally give miss-chance. Also, duration should be "1d4 rounds." Also, this should be a figment. Glamers alter an existing object, while figments create holograms.

If I am targeted by a fireball, use this counter but fail to leave the area of effect, I'm still effected, right?

Also, I like that the ability matches its flavour. You only get to teleport if your foe can't see you :D It's subjective reality.

Ethereal Reminiscence: This is looks like an out-of-combat maneuver. Can I use it out of combat? I assume that the save DC is supposed to start at DC 18 for the first initiation. However, you could read it as "+2 of every time he has initiated this maneuver *including this initiation*"

Finally, I think instead of using "in the last 24 hours" you should way "since he last rested for 8 hours." This way you would not need to keep track of when you used the maneuver in the last day. For example, say I heal at 8AM(DC18), 11AM(DC20) and 3PM(DC22) on Monday. Then when healing on tuesday, my DCs would be: 7AM(DC24), 9AM(DC24), 11PM (DC22). Not very intuitive...

Flicker Strike: This maneuver makes me happy. I can finally play Master Yi from league of legends :D

Breath of the Moon: So confusion says that, if attacked, the creature continues attacking whoever attacked it for the spells duration. You should probobly say something to the effect that the initiator does not count as having attacked the creature for this purpose. Though that may be implied...

Stance of the Ether Gate: This stance also makes me really happy :D I love teleporting and I love the Nomad-Psion ability to teleport at will. That being said, Since this stance has strong out-of-combat implications, a few thoughts: Can I take other creatures with me? Does it work with the Dimensional Agility chain of feats? That would be cool as hell and possibly a little too strong.

Vaporform Crash: Incorporeal creatures usually have no strength score and get stuff like Charisma to AC. What happens when you make a ghost or shadow corporeal? Do they lose their incorporeal touch attack?

Being incorporeal also means the initiator can't hurt anyone for 1d4 rounds. Though I suppose the force manuvers would work...

Phantom Penumbra: I think I see what you mean by mirror images. This is a strange use for that spell since there is no real target to hit. You may be better off just reproducing the relevant text. Also I this should be a figment, not a glamer. Glamers alter an existing object, while figments create holograms.

Dispersal Strike: A powerful foe dropping all their stuff is a funny image. I have never played at really high levels, so this is speculation: For an npc foe, losing all equipment is basically a death sentence. Since pathfinder has moved away from straight save-or-die effects, does that make this ability too strong?

Flashing Ether Touch: I think terminal velocity in PF is achieved after 200ft. just a flavour/rules mismatch.

Eclipsing Moon: "Each successful attack gains a +2 circumstance bonus" I assume that this is a to-hit bonus, but an attack can't be "successful" before you roll to hit.

Lunar Penumbra: Can I use this ability to cause a foe to hit himself? :D

Anchoring Spirit: I feel that it should be possible to overcome the teleportation restriction with an opposed initiator / caster level check. Otherwise, you've shutdown almost the whole veiled moon discipline. Also, what happens when two disciples both enter this stance?

Banish to the Beyond and a general though to incorporeality / ethereal plane shenanigans: You should clarify your cosmology. Does being on the ethereal plane make me incorporeal? I seem to recall that force effect function from the material to the ethereal but not vice-versa. Its unclear to me how being incorporeal and/or ethereal interact.

Also, specific to Banish to the Beyond: How does this ability work if you use it while you are on an outer plane?

This is also a problem for a large chunk of Veiled Moon. Isn't the ethereal plane only accessible from the material plane?

</wall of text>


Just sent this to my group. Hopefully some of them will have some feedback for me, particularly the number-cruncher player =)

Keep up the good work!

Paizo Employee Design Manager

ErrantX wrote:

New warlord and stalker available for alpha play testing.

The warlord is moving into FINAL alpha phase; please focus further critique on the disciplines themselves and the gambit system. The rest of the class is where we'd like it for the time being. And as a free gift, added Thrashing Dragon (found in the stalker play test) to their discipline list for greater variety in Warlords.

New Stalker is up, deadly strike has changed a bit and please focus on disciplines here too as well, but as it's not in Final Alpha, any holes or bugs you find or obvious exploits, lemme know.

Lastly, I'm making Style feats for the Stalker bundle's feat section. It will include feats for Warlord disciplines as well as Stalker disciplines. Further releases will contain their own feat sections for their discipline feats and any other related feats that might come up.

-Chris

Lovin it! I'll be doing some more playtesting of the Warlord's maneuvers tonight and am clearing some room to give the Stalker a more thorough look-through.

Dark Archive

I have a big post coming that addresses the whole stalker PDF but I was wondering what would change when we went into beta with these?

Dark Archive

I'll hopefully get to go over the Warlord tomorrow. Here's for the new Stalker version.

1. The table says Dual Strike at 10 and the text says 11. Which one is it?

2. Not a huge fan of Critical Edge. It's going to make 18-20 crit range weapons even more crazy. I wouldn't mind seeing it apply only to weapons with a crit range smaller than 18-20. Or even just 20.

3. Still don't like the power implications of Deadly Agility. I'd love to see the BAB requirement go up to +8.

4. While I agree that you could save a lot on page count if you follow Magenta's suggestion about determining saves, I admit it's handy as hell to have it right there in front of me all the time.

5. Steel Serpent, Tearing Fang: Does the bleed damage stack with itself? If so just for that round or in all subsequent rounds? If it doesn't stack it may be lightly underpowered for that level.

6. Steel Serpent, Pressure Point Break: Does the 2d6 change to d8s or d10s if I'm using an appropriate weapon?

7. Thrashing Dragon, Outer Sphere Stance: says "Trashing Dragon" in first sentence.

8. Thrashing Dragon, Wyrmling's Fang: What's a "signature Thrashing Dragon weapon?"

9. Thrashing Dragon, Fangs Strike Low: There is no DC for the Heal check.

10. Thrashing Dragon, Bend with the Wind: By RAW it looks like you could use this to take a 5' step away from your attacker and out of his reach, thereby negating any subsequent attacks. That seems better than a dodge bonus. Is this intended? If not, you may want to note that the 5' step must leave you within reach of the triggering opponent.

11. Thrashing Dragon, Hurricane of Fangs: And this one says "Thrashing Dragon specific weapons." Is that the same as "signature" and also I still have no idea what that is.

12. Thrashing Dragon, Rending Claws: By RAW I could make the attack against two separate people and still activate this ability because it doesn't specify that both successful attacks must be against the same target. Heck, you could do this with Eclipsing Moon, too.

13. Thrashing Dragon, Brutal Dragon's Stance: Good change. Wording should say that it doesn't apply to touch attacks. See Warp Worm.

14. Thrashing Dragon, Doom Talon: This is kind of useless. I confirmed almost every crit in playtesting with the +Wis bonus to confirmation.

15. Veiled Moon, Flicker Strike: Can you replace attacks with combat maneuvers like sunder and so forth in the same way you can with a full attack? I haven't seen that specified anywhere. If you can this should specify that you don't provoke for movement. Maybe it should regardless.

16. Veiled Moon, Warp Worm: You've written "lay their had" rather than "hand." The problem I have with this sentence you added is that is makes it seem like you need to have an empty hand to do it. I can't lay a hand flat against them with a kukri in my hand. Other things just ought to say that they don't work with touch attacks.

17. Veiled Moon, Eclipsing Moon: Can I teleport somewhere where there isn't a target or strike at the air and teleport after?

Dark Archive

Having done playtests for 5th, 10th, and 15th levels, I feel like I'm ready to talk about the big picture and the metagame.

First of all, I think it's unfortunate that in most discussions of "tiers" in Pathfinder there are at least five tiers. That means that there are a lot of significant differences in power in the game. I wish that there were more like three tiers or even less.

So when playtesting the Stalker I wanted to put it up against one of the better classes in the game, the Magus. They have a similar number of skills, the same hit die, and both do melee with a twist. So how did they stack up?

In the level 5 test the Stalker passed every encounter. Good AC and high damage output. The Magus had a bit of an issue in the final encounter against a raging Barbarian Elf but we can, to some extent put that up to bad luck. He only got 2 mirror images and the Barbarian bypassed them every time anyway.

In the level 10 playtest the Magus had a bit of an issue with the Guardian Gargoyle because of his slightly lower AC and CMD but it wasn't anything he wasn't able to handle. The Stalker pretty much just messed everyone up.

Level 15 was when the big differences really started to show up. The first fight was against an adult blue dragon. The Stalker's high crit range and access to critical feats let him stun the Dragon and take him out quickly. The Magus had more trouble but was heavily built around shocking grasp and blue dragons use electricity damage for tickle fights. The second fight was probably the most illuminating, though. Six CR9 Blackscale Sorcerers with quickened magic missiles and fly ready to go. There was no way for the Stalker to win. I tried a few different things and none were effective enough. The Magus on the other hand had all the versatility of a spellcaster at his disposal including greater invisibility and black tentacles. I opted for the tentacles and took 4 out of the fight while I messed up the other two.

---

Basically, they seem balanced against each other with the Magus slipping ahead in power at later levels. But it's mostly situational as many things are. In fights against only one or two enemies the Stalker is probably a bit better but the Magus has so much versatility that he can handle all that and more. Plus, with spells like haste he can do more for the party, too.

Couple notes, though. I didn't use the Deadly Agility feat because I think it's kind of overpowered. Dex does too many things to let it do damage, too (Dervish Dance notwithstanding. It's a crap feat, as well). In this case both classes would have benefited but compared to an Str-based melee class the differences would have been stark. These tests were also done with Stalker v2, not the lastest version.
Edit: I also totally screwed up and gave the Stalker Stunning Critical before he could have it legally at 17. This puts him even further down the power totem pole compared to the Magus.

Finally, I'd just like to say that I think this was a great experience, both in the testing and the discussion here. We've not had the fighting and flame wars endemic to recent Paizo playtests, just a few folks talking frankly about making this product great. Chris, you've been extrememly helpful and responsive to the community which is also great and even kind of rare. So thanks, everyone.

Dark Archive

Looking over the Warlord, does Primal Warrior Stance stack with or overlap spells and effects which enlarge you? What about the Impact weapon quality?


First off, let me say THANK YOU SO MUCH for your indepth playtest data. It has been super helpful.

Also, thank you to everyone who has gone through these classes and provided either play test info, spelling/grammar checks, syntax checks, and of course Discipline and rules checks to make sure that I got it right. You guys have been awesome!

YuenglingDragon wrote:
Looking over the Warlord, does Primal Warrior Stance stack with or overlap spells and effects which enlarge you? What about the Impact weapon quality?

I don't see any reason why it would not. I don't have a problem with it.

-Chris

Dark Archive

ErrantX wrote:
First off, let me say THANK YOU SO MUCH for your indepth playtest data. It has been super helpful.

Happy to do it. I want it to be an awesome and balanced product so whoever GM's my next game will approve it. =)

ErrantX wrote:
YuenglingDragon wrote:
Looking over the Warlord, does Primal Warrior Stance stack with or overlap spells and effects which enlarge you? What about the Impact weapon quality?

I don't see any reason why it would not. I don't have a problem with it.

You may want to put a clarifying sentence in there, then. Lead Blades and Impact doesn't stack, and there's been some confusion as to if Enlarge Person and Lead Blades or Impact stacks. Anyway, best to decide one way or another and make it clear.


surely the feat investment required to make dexterity your damaging statistic is enough to dissuade many from that route. It may make two weapon fighting effective for combat characters, but you will never see the damage multiplication that strength benefits from.

I think that two weapon fighting is such a below par way to go at this point that dex to damage will only prop it up towards even.

Finally, the only real benefit from a high dex score is reflex and initiative due to the way armor functions.

Dark Archive

Dex also benefits skills that are quite valuable in combat like acrobatics (and fly and ride sometimes). There are a number of other out of combat skills which use Dex, too. Str, on the other hand, benefits only two skills and climb and swim are both basically negated by spells in mid and late game play (8-17) and neither scale in the same way that tumble checks do.

Strength is basically only valuable for its ability to do damage. Taking that away makes it all too easy to ignore.

In any case, look at the playtest I just did. These guys were soloing CR 13-15 encounters at level 15. I didn't need Dex to damage to succeed. And the way armor works doesn't change that. My Stalker had a pretty high AC of 34 at 15th level. That's the same as a PC with no dex using +5 full plate and +5 heavy shield and 3 more AC from rings and amulets. And that poor bastard has touch AC for &^*$.

Dark Archive

OK, so just finished level 10 Warlord going through the same stuff the other two did. Chris, I sent you my notes.

The Warlord pretty well pummeled all of them. He took a bit more damage than the Magus or Stalker tended to but I gave him a pretty low AC (which he can boost with Scarlet Duelist Attitude)so that he'd have plenty of opportunities to use counters. My thought was that if I used up my counters and strikes quick I'd be able to use a Gambit and get them back quick, too. That plan...well, see number 1 below. It should also be said that I expect him to do a little worse than the Magus and Stalker since he has a number of class abilities that just won't work without another character around.

1. This may change at level 15 but it turns out that my biggest gripe about Gambits is that I just didn't need them. I had enough maneuvers that I just killed people with the ones I had. Maybe my testing is not indicative of the experiences of group play when there can be more benefits to the combat maneuvers. If other people are having the same experience then something might need to change because it's a wasted mechanic in that case. If this is being seen elsewhere, I'd suggest lowering the number of maneuvers readied and providing more passive benefits like Battle Prowess and Presence.

2. Blade-Breaking Counter is either too strong or confusingly written. Is the damage meant to be capped at half the items hit points, giving it the broken condition or can I shatter it completely? Because I did the latter every time I used it with no problems. Also,can I cary over excess damage to the attacker as normal if I have the greater sunder feat?

3. Did you ever come down one way or the other on what damage gets added to skill check damage maneuvers? If so where did it get written because I missed it. Can you add the bonus damage from Stance of Aggression for example?

3. What determines if a weapon is being "wielded" for the purposes of Cornered Frenzy Strike and things like it? Do armor spikes count even if I'm using a two-handed weapon?

4. Dual Boosts seems like a sop for Golden Lion users because I don't think my Fury and Throne Warlord even knows any boosts.

I do plan to do a level 15 one but I also really need to prep for the Reign of Winter game I'm GM'ing this weekend so I may not be able to get to it until next week. On the plus side, you'll have plenty of time to get to the next class you release before I start whinging about something or another again.


I am very, VERY interested.


Ideally I would like to submit the final alpha for movement into Beta by the end of the week; anyone and everyone, please look at the disciplines and gambit systems for the Warlord and let me know what you find (if anything) is a problem or has obvious abuses that I missed.

If I get this submitted by the end of the week, I will try to make the Warden available this weekend. Sound good? Awesome.

-X

Dark Archive

ErrantX wrote:

Ideally I would like to submit the final alpha for movement into Beta by the end of the week; anyone and everyone, please look at the disciplines and gambit systems for the Warlord and let me know what you find (if anything) is a problem or has obvious abuses that I missed.

If I get this submitted by the end of the week, I will try to make the Warden available this weekend. Sound good? Awesome.

-X

if you don't hear from me next week, it's because my players murdered me for not being prepared.

Avenge meeeeeeeee!

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ErrantX and community,

maybe all Gambit Rolls ought to fail on a natural 1, or on a natural X, where X = the number of maneuvers the warlord attempts to recover (this number never exceeding his CHA, naturally). (your CHA 16 warlord wants to try to regain 3 maneuvers? don't roll a 1, 2, or 3!)

this way there is at least a 5%+ chance of failure no matter how many tricks the player tries to pull, per Cheapy's advice, and, the player can choose their own stakes!

this would require an additional clause for the risk paragraph, as it calls for a special break with the 'no auto-fail for skill checks' legacy, and for some gambits a rewording of the gambit itself (example, Acrobatic Gambit, is it the skill check or the attack roll that is the Gambit Roll? - i say go with the skill check...).

finally, i would then add a final clause that the Gambit Roll itself (the en-risked d20 roll, be it an attack roll or skill check) may not be subject to any power or ability that allows for re-rolling or twice-rolling (such as the Peerless Maneuver rogue talent), unless such an ability is detrimental and requires the warlord to take the worst of the two rolls, etc...

what do you think?


Hello, I have just found this thread and OMG OMG OMG WANT!!!

Verdant Wheel

Natural X Gambit:
also, if this method is adopted, maybe the X can also be the number of rounds the rake penalty persists (instead of 1d4)? this would seal off the Triple R System (risk, reward, rake) into a quick single d20 roll, keeping the pace of combat brisk.

The Exchange

rainzax wrote:

ErrantX and community,

maybe all Gambit Rolls ought to fail on a natural 1, or on a natural X, where X = the number of maneuvers the warlord attempts to recover (this number never exceeding his CHA, naturally). (your CHA 16 warlord wants to try to regain 3 maneuvers? don't roll a 1, 2, or 3!)

this way there is at least a 5%+ chance of failure no matter how many tricks the player tries to pull, per Cheapy's advice, and, the player can choose their own stakes!

what do you think?

I actually like really like this, I hate suggesting change to the gambit system as its already gone through so much but this could be pretty good. I do like that it adds that extra aire of failure to the system. The wording would have to be "The player treats X as if he rolled a natural 1" that way its really just increasing the number of natural 1's a player rolls, helps signify that even if someone rolled a 3 its an automatic miss and failure.

Also ErrantX, I was wondering what the Warden is you mentioned? Is this maybe a prestige class or a new name for the Knight? I've never seen you mention a Warden class before.

Dark Archive

Just finished the Level 15 Warlord.

1. So once again, I didn't bother using a single Gambit. It just wasn't necessary. That's disappointing.

2. Scarlet Riposte is kind of lame. I had it on my original build for the character, read it again and swapped it out for Riddle of Steel (which was handy). It might get those bonus d6's but it's basically a 50% or less chance to make it work unless you invest feats or items into making Sense Motive better. +18 is really only good against mooks when a lot of enemies have the same attack modifier or better. I kept Bloody Riposte from back in the level 2 maneuvers. At least that gives me a bonus to hit and, frankly, I power attacked for so much damage that the extra d6's weren't enough of an enticement.

3. Scarlet Throne doesn't have a level 6 or 7 stance. Every other discipline has one. This stuck me with the Primal Fury Stance which I never used because Scarlet Duelist Attitude was for more useful for its AC and initiative bonuses. I guess it does have that at 5 which the other's don't. Still bugged me. I kind of hope for advancement, not status quo. I didn't experience the same thing with the Stalker.

4. I specifically picked up a couple boosts to use when charging with Dizzying Blow to use Dual Boost. Holy crap! You can really bust someone's chops with that.

I think that's it. I'll try to talk about some big picture stuff tonight or tomorrow.

Verdant Wheel

Warlord’s Gambit (Alternate):

A warlord's thriving ground is where he is pushed to the edge of his physical and metaphysical outer limit. By tempting fate he actuates his inner warrior spirit, placing his body in mortal peril in search of his next martial breakthrough. It is the diametric prospect of utter defeat counterbalanced by vainglory that is the razor edge that hones his formidable combat abilities.

At 1st level, a warlord selects two gambits as methods by which the warlord can recover expended maneuvers. Each gambit possesses
three aspects—a risk, a rake, and a reward. Each gambit is tied to either an attack roll or a skill check, and requires a full round action to perform, whereby the warlord is effectively diving recklessly into the act he is attempting.

A gambit's risk involves first declaring the number of expended maneuvers the warlord is attempting to recover - this number may not exceed the warlord's charisma modifier. Once this number is declared, he makes his gambit roll (either an attack roll or a skill check). If on this gambit roll the warlord rolls a natural 1, or a natural number equal to or less than his declared risk number, he automatically fails and suffers the consequences of his rake (see below). If he succeeds, he recovers that many expended maneuvers as his reward.

A gambit that fails by the rolling of a natural 1 or a natural number equal to or less than his declared risk number causes the warlord to suffer a penalty or other detrimental condition for a number of rounds equal to the risk number. This is called the gambit's rake, and each gambit has a different negative consequence (penalty or condition) as it's associated rake.

Finally, as gambit rolls are special high-stakes attack rolls and skill checks, no ability that allows re-rolling or twice-rolling of dice may be used in conjunction to mitigate the inherent risk - once a warlord rolls his single gambit roll, he is bound to it's results.

At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, the warlord selects an additional gambit.

Spoiler:

Acrobatic Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts an Acrobatics check to move through an opponent’s threatened area.
Rake: The warlord suffers a -4 AC to attacks of opportunity made against him, effective immediately.

Brave Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts to make a successful charge attack against an opponent.
Rake: The warlord suffers a –2 penalty to his AC in addition to the penalty for charging.

Cavalry Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts a mounted charge attack or overrun maneuver against a target creature.
Rake: The warlord cannot negate hits to his mount using the Ride skill.

Dastardly Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts a dirty trick maneuver against an opponent.
Rake: ???

Deadeye Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts a called shot maneuver on a target opponent.
Rake: The warlord's suffers a -2 to attack that opponent with a ranged or thrown weapon.

Duelist's Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts to disarm maneuver against an opponent.
Rake: The warlord suffers a -2 to his CMD against that opponent.

Educated Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts a Knowledge check to identify the special abilities of a creature (must meet the minimum required DC or greater).
Rake: The warlord suffers a –2 penalty to his AC and on saving throws against the creature’s abilities.

Escapist's Gambit
Risk: You attempt a CMB or Escape Artist check to free yourself from a grapple or the entangled condition.
Rake: The warlord suffers a -4 to his CMD against attempts made by his opponent to pin him.

Gatecrasher Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts a bull rush maneuver against an opponent.
Rake: ???

Grappler Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts a grapple maneuver against an opponent.
Rake: The warlord suffers a -2 to his CMD against grapple or escape artist checks made by that foe.

Outrider's Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts a ranged attack while on a moving mount.
Rake: The warlord must make a make a Ride check (DC 22) or fall prone from his mount.

Pinhole Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts to use a ranged attack against an opponent engaged in melee with an ally.
Rake: The warlord suffers an additional -2 penalty to shoot into a melee with that foe.

Rascal's Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts to feint an opponent.
Rake: The warlord is flat-footed against all of the opponent’s attacks.

Ravager’s Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts a sunder maneuver against an opponent.
Rake: ???

Sweeping Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts a trip maneuver against an opponent.
Rake: ???

Unbreakable Gambit
Risk: The warlord attempts a Fortitude or Will save. Unlike other gambits, this one can be attempted as an immediate action instead of a full round action.
Rake: The warlord treats the user of the effect that the warlord failed to save against as though its caster level or Hit Dice were 4 higher when affecting the warlord.

Victory Gambit
Risk: The warlord successfully reduces an opponent to 0 or few hit points with a melee or ranged attack on his turn from either a standard attack or full attack action.
Rake: ???


i'm not married to the changes i made to the rakes, but i wanted to just throw some ideas around to supplicate the 'X rounds' thing... finally, as an aesthetic opinion, i am not crazy about the name 'warlord' or the names of several of the gambits, and when i have more time i may propose alternate names if that would be helpful... maybe going so far as to take a cooler name's concept as a way to fuse a gambit or two together. we'll see...


To make gambits more core to the class, you can have the warlord start combat with his maneuvers expended. At higher levels, he would instantly recover some small fixed number of maneuvers when he rolls initiative.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Knight Magenta wrote:
To make gambits more core to the class, you can have the warlord start combat with his maneuvers expended. At higher levels, he would instantly recover some small fixed number of maneuvers when he rolls initiative.

I think how dependent the Warlord is on his Gambits has a lot to do with where he focuses his maneuvers. If he's Strike heavy, he probably won't actually use his maneuvers all that much. If he's got a good mix of Boosts, Counters, and Strikes though, he might find himself burning through his resources much more quickly. When you're using two maneuvers a round (or three if you're using an immediate action in between turns) you'll find you run out a bit quicker. Typically any combat that runs more than 3-4 rounds involves Gambit usage for me.

Dark Archive

I was just thinking along those same lines, Ssalarn. I'm going to look and see if I can make aneven split bbetween strikes boosts and counters and still like the build.

My problem is that it isn't very intuitive. Clearly a perfectly good build can be made which totally ignores Gambits. Seems a shame.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuenglingDragon wrote:

I was just thinking along those same lines, Ssalarn. I'm going to look and see if I can make aneven split bbetween strikes boosts and counters and still like the build.

My problem is that it isn't very intuitive. Clearly a perfectly good build can be made which totally ignores Gambits. Seems a shame.

Yeah, my primary Warlord has been a ranged support/damage character using Solar Wind and Golden Lion, so I blow through my maneuvers like nobody's business. Meanwhile, our Devil Tiger (or Primal Fury now) focused character had to use exactly two Gambits through the entire Ruby Phoenix Tournament module. Now, I think this is actually not terrible, because I feel like Strike focused characters actually end up contributing less overall to the party since they're not utilizing their Swift actions as much. The Warlord really shines not just in how much he tears up the battlefield, but when he elevates and protects all of his companions while tearing it up.

That's the one thing that system mastery can really bring to the class. What the Warlord himself is doing is hard to screw up, the class gives you this very natural path to being a mobile damage dealer. It's when you take that next step up and really start combining disciplines and maneuvers to become a real party leader that the class hits its high notes.


Ssalarn wrote:
YuenglingDragon wrote:

I was just thinking along those same lines, Ssalarn. I'm going to look and see if I can make aneven split bbetween strikes boosts and counters and still like the build.

My problem is that it isn't very intuitive. Clearly a perfectly good build can be made which totally ignores Gambits. Seems a shame.

Yeah, my primary Warlord has been a ranged support/damage character using Solar Wind and Golden Lion, so I blow through my maneuvers like nobody's business. Meanwhile, our Devil Tiger (or Primal Fury now) focused character had to use exactly two Gambits through the entire Ruby Phoenix Tournament module. Now, I think this is actually not terrible, because I feel like Strike focused characters actually end up contributing less overall to the party since they're not utilizing their Swift actions as much. The Warlord really shines not just in how much he tears up the battlefield, but when he elevates and protects all of his companions while tearing it up.

That's the one thing that system mastery can really bring to the class. What the Warlord himself is doing is hard to screw up, the class gives you this very natural path to being a mobile damage dealer. It's when you take that next step up and really start combining disciplines and maneuvers to become a real party leader that the class hits its high notes.

This. This right here. RIGHT HERE.

Thank you Ssalarn.

As far as instituting additional failure chance into the gambit system, I think making it unnecessarily harder for something that already has a built in failure chance is asking for trouble. At most, I might put in a clause that if you roll a 1 it's an automatic failure. Since most of the gambits are attack based that's the case anyway, but this will ensure 100% failure if a natural 1 is rolled.

-X

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErrantX wrote:


This. This right here. RIGHT HERE.

Thank you Ssalarn.

***

Hey man, you made it, I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

My statement above is why I've loved the class since the first playtest document. The name Warlord and his Warleader abilities, plus the Golden Lion discipline, were the things I immediately seized on about the class. The Gambit system helped create this idea that you've got a character who leads by intuition and force of will as much as tactical acumen, much in the vein of Mat Cauthon and his Band of the Red Hand in the Wheel of Time books; a character who makes the call, and then takes a roll of the dice and leads the charge into the fray. I think this thematic undertone is conveyed throughout the class and it's one of my favorite things about it.

The class definitely has some easy outs given throughout (the fact that he can use his bonus feats to take a combat feat (easy!) or a Teamwork feat, which is more difficult to execute, but with a bigger payoff when you actually get your group working as a unit), but that really just gives you a strong learning curve. You can make a Warlord who deals out powerful blows and tanks or dprs effectively, but that's only half the class. It's when you surrender a little bit of that individual damage and start boosting the group, deflecting blows from the casters, and leading coordinated attacks that you're actually wringing the most out of the class and getting what it really has to offer.


I'm a bit of a no-name here in this thread but what Ssalarn says really seems to reflect the intent of the class and really makes for one of the stronger combos it seems. Definitely seems like he enjoys playing the Warlord which is really one of the best judges of a class. Doesn't have to be the strongest or the best at one thing, as long as its fun that makes it a good class in my book.

I've played the Stalker and that one is definitely some incredible amounts of fun. I don't remember I enjoyed playing such a mobile character.

I am excited to see whats coming this weekend.

Oh also, I think the gambits are great where they are at. Anything that was said has been said about them, or so it seems.

Dark Archive

I get what you're saying, Ssalarn. But I can't do solo arena testing with that kind of Warlord. In fact, 4 out of the 5 disciplines available to the Warlord don't really let you do that. The class might as well be required to use Golden Lion if they want to play it to the hilt.

Which is fine, it's just not entirely obvious when only one discipline really gives you the tools to do it.

Rather than getting Thrashing Dragon, I wish the Warlord had another team boosting discipline. Like Golden Lion did offensive boosting stuff and Iron Lion boosted defensive stuff.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

YuenglingDragon wrote:

I get what you're saying, Ssalarn. But I can't do solo arena testing with that kind of Warlord. In fact, 4 out of the 5 disciplines available to the Warlord don't really let you do that. The class might as well be required to use Golden Lion if they want to play it to the hilt.

Which is fine, it's just not entirely obvious when only one discipline really gives you the tools to do it.

Rather than getting Thrashing Dragon, I wish the Warlord had another team boosting discipline. Like Golden Lion did offensive boosting stuff and Iron Lion boosted defensive stuff.

The Warlord isn't really intended for solo arenas though :) (Truthfully, no class is)

And the Warleader ability doesn't require any specific discipline at all to function properly. Coordinated Charge shared with Warleader was probably the most powerful ability in our Primal Fury focused Warlord's arsenal.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:


The Warlord isn't really intended for solo arenas though :)

Yeah, I know. I almost didn't put him through the arena because of this but I thought I ought to since it was in Final Alpha.

Anyways, big picture stuff.

Level 10 was hardly an issue. Everything got killed or nearly killed by an opening charge and whenever he got surrounded like he did against the Crusaders and big cats, Cornered Frenzy Strike had them bleeding from all of their orifices. The General was the only one who could have been challenging but even his magic glaive was no match for the Warlord's Blade-breaking Counter, which made the fight a little less than challenging.

At level 15 the Warlord did ok against the Blue Dragon. He took a few hard hits and needed a Heal spell at the end but pulled it off. The ability to stun with a few of his abilities and do huge damage helped.

Like the Stalker there was just no way to defend against a zillion magic missiles from the Blackscale Sorcerers.

He handled the Gongorinan and his cave giant flunkies well. The Gongorinan just barely survived a massive charge but died soon thereafter to a Bloody Riposte. The cave giants weren't a challenge without him around.

The Taiga Stalker Druid was similarly handled by a tremendous charge using dual boosts. The Treant went down just a moment later.

---

It seems basically balanced against the Magus and Stalker. The Primal Throne build (as I like to call it) does a metric butt ton of damage when it wants to but suffers from really depressing AC and saves.

Because Ssalarn is actually getting to do this in a module, he's in a better position to talk about how well Gambits work. If he's happy, I'm happy enough.

I'm not entirely happy with Skirmisher's Stance. When you do the Primal Throne build it's the only option available to you for the level 14 stance and frankly, I didn't need the extra damage that much and the +4 to AC and CMD from Scarlet Duelist Attitude was just better.

That's basically it. Now to finish watching my beloved Ravens get mulched by the Broncos.

Dark Archive

Oh, and going back to the Stalker real quick, I should have mentioned in my summary for these boards that I didn't use Deadly Ambush despite its obvious symmetry with a number of abilities. I could have easily. Move Alacrity to 11 and skip Ki Vampirism which I really didn't need.

I think Deadly Ambush really takes away from the crit focus of the class and ups the power level unnecessarily.

Verdant Wheel

ErrantX wrote:
As far as instituting additional failure chance into the gambit system, I think making it unnecessarily harder for something that already has a built in failure chance is asking for trouble. At most, I might put in a clause that if you roll a 1 it's an automatic failure. Since most of the gambits are attack based that's the case anyway, but this will ensure 100% failure if a natural 1 is rolled.

"...is asking for trouble" is not really a response to my post.

nevertheless, Cheapy's point stands. my question is "how can the concern behind the critique be addressed without trashing the whole concept?"

on the one hand, having the hard and fast design rule "never balance an ability with a drawback" probably works for 99% of game mechanics. i think that gambits can be an exception to this fine rule.

my proposal does not make succeeding at a gambit harder, nor make ordinary failure easier. it makes suffering the rake a possibility which cannot be reduced to 0% by organically connecting the risk with the reward. it also goes heuristically further to draw the rough equation: risk = reward = rake.

it therefore makes the system inherently harder to 'game' for two reasons. first, it is not only based upon relative success but also on objective failure. second, it leaves the ball (dice) in the character's court. (i can try to elaborate these points further if there is interest...)

this opens the door for either softening the rakes (falling off your horse, really?!?), or for adding an additional boon to the reward beyond just recovering maneuvers.

just some ideas guys. like the work going on here and thought i'd chime in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is, is that the d20 system is entirely designed around benefit vs drawback.

You make an attack roll, and if you roll a "1", you miss. Always. That's the penalty. Another prime example is the Wilder class with it's Wild Surge class feature and potential for enervation. This is a widely accepted thing. I see the gambit system as being no different.

Additionally, your suggestion causes a break from the convention I'm establishing with maneuver recovery. Perform X full round action, recover Y Ability modifier in expended maneuvers. Adding in additional caveats complicates matters. A simple, streamlined system is what I'm going for here, and while I like your idea (because it's really quite brilliant) I think it adds an unnecessary degree of complication to the system.

Also, I think if someone is going to 'game' the system by buying items and spending feats/skills on something to make their gambits easier to pass, well, that's resources they could spend doing other things. I don't have a problem with that, because its self-balancing. They're good at succeeding on their gambits, but they've focused their attention away from doing something else that well.

And what's wrong with falling off your mount? :P

-X

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErrantX wrote:


Also, I think if someone is going to 'game' the system by buying items and spending feats/skills on something to make their gambits easier to pass, well, that's resources they could spend doing other things. I don't have a problem with that, because its self-balancing. They're good at succeeding on their gambits, but they've focused their attention away from doing something else that well.

I have to agree here. This is what economists call an "opportunity cost." For example, my warlord had Improved and Greater Bull Rush and Improved and Greater Sunder for Gambits. Without them (and my build didn't need them) I could have bolstered my crappy saves and gotten skill focus feats to bolster my survival and sense motive skills to make maneuvers that use them more viable (or just better in the case of Cornered Frenzy Strike).

Let's look at a Wizard using True Strike, too. The resource expended is less since the Wizard has plenty of spells and they refresh daily, but the action resource used is pretty huge. The Wizard could have done any number of things with that standard action, buffing the whole party, killing an enemy, etc. Instead he helped his buddy shine.

I think this is perfectly legitimate.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuenglingDragon wrote:
ErrantX wrote:


Also, I think if someone is going to 'game' the system by buying items and spending feats/skills on something to make their gambits easier to pass, well, that's resources they could spend doing other things. I don't have a problem with that, because its self-balancing. They're good at succeeding on their gambits, but they've focused their attention away from doing something else that well.

I have to agree here. This is what economists call an "opportunity cost." For example, my warlord had Improved and Greater Bull Rush and Improved and Greater Sunder for Gambits. Without them (and my build didn't need them) I could have bolstered my crappy saves and gotten skill focus feats to bolster my survival and sense motive skills to make maneuvers that use them more viable (or just better in the case of Cornered Frenzy Strike).

Let's look at a Wizard using True Strike, too. The resource expended is less since the Wizard has plenty of spells and they refresh daily, but the action resource used is pretty huge. The Wizard could have done any number of things with that standard action, buffing the whole party, killing an enemy, etc. Instead he helped his buddy shine.

I think this is perfectly legitimate.

I was making this same argument like 3 pages ago. Gambits "balance" the system by imposing action economy costs to regain maneuvers. The Risk/Rake factor furthers this by imposing additional feat/skill/equipment costs if you choose to try and minimize the chances for failure. It does what it should do while creating cool flavor.

And you know, I actually posted a build for a Warlord who built to minimize risks on his Gambits, and the same person who had claimed that people would just find ways to minimize the risks accused me of sandbagging so..... You can't have it both ways, and the Gambit system works exactly how it should as is.

Dark Archive

I'm excited about.the Sentinel. I suspect it's either going to be the one with Iron Rampart or a giant mutant hunting robot.

I'm in either way.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So quick question Chris: Are the Sentinel, the Knight, and the Warden all the same class just evolving through different names to find one that sets the right tone, or are there 3 different class/PrC/archetypes being discussed?

Also, Dreamscarred Press got an honorable mention in our interview with Erik Mona so I thought I'd let you know about it. Erik had some great things to say about Dreamscarred and thought your Path of War project was cool :)


I've settled on the name for the 3rd class as the Warder. *looks around shiftily* Yes. That.

I'm gonna try to get it out this weekend. :)

Also, Erik Mona has heard of my book?!?! *squee!!!!*

-X

1 to 50 of 2,138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / Dreamscarred Press introduces the Path of War All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.