If this Warlord is as awesome as the 4e Warlord, I may never play another class again. <3
Oh snap, is Chris Bennett ErrantX?
If so, then you guys have NO idea how good the hands that this project is in are. ErrantX has been tinkering with the Tome of Battle System on the Giant in the Playground Forums and beyond since, I don't know, 2010. Maybe 2009?
Same dude.
Also, from my understanding the class names are placeholders so you don't have <insert class name> scattered throughout the playtest document.
|
If this Warlord is as awesome as the 4e Warlord, I may never play another class again. <3
Have you checked him out?
His ability to share any Teamwork feat he knows with his allies, or share a teamwork an ally knows so that he can utilize it as well, is like the Cavalier's Tactician 2.0, actually done right. And the Golden Lion Discipline gives some great party buffs. I'm already building a ranged Warlord with the Solar Wind and Golden Lion disciplines, and I'm incredibly excited to start playing it.
If this Warlord is as awesome as the 4e Warlord, I may never play another class again. <3Have you checked him out?
His ability to share any Teamwork feat he knows with his allies, or share a teamwork an ally knows so that he can utilize it as well, is like the Cavalier's Tactician 2.0, actually done right. And the Golden Lion Discipline gives some great party buffs. I'm already building a ranged Warlord with the Solar Wind and Golden Lion disciplines, and I'm incredibly excited to start playing it.
Just did. Does look pretty awesome, though I'd have to try it out to see how it compares to the 4e warlord. I really miss having a quick turn by saying 'You? Hit something.'
I also liked that if the guy you gave the attack to rolls a one, everyone's disappointed in him and not you :)
Just did. Does look pretty awesome, though I'd have to try it out to see how it compares to the 4e warlord. I really miss having a quick turn by saying 'You? Hit something.'
Yeah, I *always* played a warlord if the DM was using critical fumbles, and took no abilities that required attack rolls.
Oh snap, is Chris Bennett ErrantX?
If so, then you guys have NO idea how good the hands that this project is in are. ErrantX has been tinkering with the Tome of Battle System on the Giant in the Playground Forums and beyond since, I don't know, 2010. Maybe 2009?
Very, very good hands.
Knew I recognized the name. We've recently prowled through the gems that he'd been working on, just never snagged anything for permanent use. That he's found a publisher in Dreamscarred makes me happy.
As to the "all abilities available all the time" notion, I agree with ... sort of.
It's a system of maneuvers and stances. Make stances cost Focus to adopt, then you can only use maneuvers from within a school of the stance you're currently in. So you have to adopt the right stance to executed the intended maneuver.
Higher level maneuvers and stances require more focus. you run out of fous in a day... you're done using stances/maneuvers.
It's what i'd do.
I both like and don't like this. Hm. One of the major advantages of ToB was the ability to have constant access to your maneuvers. Still, treating it like spell points/psi points does have advantages.
Perhaps some form of the rounds/day mechanic?
If the stance/maneuver school idea was used, you should probably have Dual Stance acquired at an earlier level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a look at the document and was very disappointed. Like Zaister, I liked the idea of ToB, but hated the implementation.
It's the same system with its dissociated mechanics again, complete with the pseudo-vancian spellcasting system. There can be no in-game reason for the Warlord not to have all his tricks available at any time. (Within reason, of course; a system like for spontaneous spellcasters might work better in that respect, even if it's another spellcasting system.)
And before anyone answers with something like "You are the reason why we can't have nice things" (happened to me to often while discussing this issue): new toys for martial characters would be nice (if not necessary), but please not a spellcasting rip-off that makes no sense when it comes to non-magical characters.
I am genuinely interested in the reasoning here. Pathfinder already does this!! Why are barbarian rage rounds limited per day? Why can the bard perform only so many times? Why can a monk only flurry so many times per day? Why can a rogue once per day possibly avoid going below 1 hp? Why can a cavalier do heaps of extra damage only a couple of times per day, and even more weirdly, if someone else kills your target you can't repeat it? Why can the gunslinger only do a couple of "grit" tricks per day?
There are plenty of classes in Pathfinder that have precedent for this type of limited tricks. Why does this mechanic strike such a nerve?
As to the "all abilities available all the time" notion, I agree with ... sort of.
It's a system of maneuvers and stances. Make stances cost Focus to adopt, then you can only use maneuvers from within a school of the stance you're currently in. So you have to adopt the right stance to executed the intended maneuver.
Higher level maneuvers and stances require more focus. you run out of fous in a day... you're done using stances/maneuvers.
It's what i'd do.
That would be a pretty elegant way of doing it, provided it's easy to switch stances. I like it, because it makes sense.
@Alan Beven: It's not the same. What you describe is a system of uses per day which can easily be explained in game as stamina. Also, I'm not a fan of the Cavalier.
The ToB system precludes the use of some maneuvers with its readying mechanic. You don't have all of them available, which I guess makes sense when it comes to game balance, but is gorram stupid otherwise.
Further, they are meant to be encounter powers (take note here, Gorbacz). Yes, Warblade and Warlord can regain one of them mid-combat by being useless for one round or, in the latter case, by doing a stunt (which is a good idea). That doesn't change the core mechnanic, though. You forget how to use them.
@Shadowcat: Yes, Vancian magic can be explained in-game. It's magic. That's the way it works. At the start of the day, you cast the rituals you think you need for the day. When you need them, you quickly finish these prepared rituals by using the needed components. You don't need to root them in reality in any way.
I prefer my non-magical characters not working with a mechanic that someone pulled out of you-know-where just because it works mechanically and who didn't think further than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For some people, at-will non-mundane martial abilities = wuxia anime = MMOs = 4E = Hitler = dead kittens.
Ironically, its usually those "some people" who end up killing the kittens too.
Please, don't kill kittens just because you don't like the direction a 3PP took in their product. :(
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it doesn't have to be "you forget how to use them". Maybe you're just too winded to use them. Maybe using it throws you off balance. Maybe you're simply not in a position to use it unless you take a bit more time. Maybe your opponent is guarding against it.
I think that is the exact flavor text WotC gave for why maneuvers are spent, actually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PLEASE provide Hero Lab support for this. Thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looked over the Warlord, loved it. Looking forward to more.
The ToB system precludes the use of some maneuvers with its readying mechanic. You don't have all of them available, which I guess makes sense when it comes to game balance, but is gorram stupid otherwise.You realize that no ToB class (excepting crusader, which is hardly "only martial" and in crusader's place we can put the warlord to help keep this discussion on track) is really more than 6 seconds away from being able to perform a maneuver they know?
And it doesn't have to be "you forget how to use them". Maybe you're just too winded to use them. Maybe using it throws you off balance. Maybe you're simply not in a position to use it unless you take a bit more time. Maybe your opponent is guarding against it.
In my opinion, that is much more realistic than just having one move you do over, and over, and over, and that works the exact same the 50th time as it did the first time, despite your opponent having fallen for it 49 times previously.
You have confused something there. The Warblade can regain his previously readied maneuvers with a swift action that has to be followed by an attack. He can't change them on the fly. I wonder why the Warlord is so gimped in that respect, as he can only recover one maneuver by doing nothing or a stunt. The Warblade is not so bad here. The Swordsage is much worse, because he is not able to do that. (Let's not talk about the Crusader.)
What you mean is a feat, Adaptive Style. That one is a no-brainer. Everyone and their uncle are going to take it the first chance they get. (Therefore, it was a bad game design decision to make it a feat in the first place.) However, to change your readied maneuvers, you are completely useless for a whole round. Mid-combat. No, thank you.
It is the latter I have a problem with. Right out of the box, the ToB classes do not have every maneuver they know available to them. Why not? They know them, but can't use them, because of some inexplicable reaon. OOC, that doesn't matter, of course. IC, it does. Massively.
Nope. See here, Warblade.
You can ready all three of the maneuvers you know at 1st level, but as you advance in level and learn more maneuvers, you must choose which maneuvers to ready. You ready your maneuvers by exercising for 5 minutes. The maneuvers you choose remain readied until you decide to exercise again and change them. You need not sleep or rest for any long period of time to ready your maneuvers; any time you spend 5 minutes in practice, you can change your readied maneuvers.
You begin an encounter with all your readied maneuvers unexpended, regardless of how many times you might have already used them since you chose them. When you initiate a maneuver, you expend it for the current encounter, so each of your readied maneuvers can be used once per encounter (until you recover them, as described below).
You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round (such as executing a quick, harmless flourish with your weapon). You cannot initiate a maneuver or change your stance while you are recovering your expended maneuvers, but you can remain in a stance in which you began your turn.
I've bolded the relevant text.
You spend 5 minutes to decide which of your known maneuvers you ready. You recover maneuvers by taking a swift action followed by an attack. This does not change which maneuvers you have readied, it only refreshes the list of readied maneuvers you have, so that they are not expended and can be used again.
We have an opportunity and the designer's ear to improve what has been shared as a work-in-progress. I'm looking forward to hearing what the community suggests as ways to improve the design.
If you haven't gone over to Dreamscarred Press's site, you might want to contribute on that thread over there, too, just to make sure they see your concerns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guess I'm the odd man out yet again then. I loved the Crusader's recovery method and the "divine inspiration" randomness. They also got my favorite style options, minus one or two. It's far and above my favorite of the three ToB classes, Warblade second and Swordsage last.
Also of the two Crusaders and two Warblades I've had, none of them had Adaptive Style, so odd man out yet once more.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys!
Finally getting some time to pop in here. Between Dreamscarred Press' forum, Giant in the Playground, and all the comments, emails, and PM's I've gotten, I'm only just now getting to Paizo's site to talk to people.
As quick intro, I'm Christopher Bennett / ErrantX, and I am lead designer on this project. I'm stoked to see you all talking about it here, I look forward to fielding questions and comments here. So let me know what you've got, and I'll be happy to address it here. Chiefly, I'm looking for thoughts on the Gambit System, it's obviously a unique and new approach to recovery methods.
The focus ideas that have been bounced around here intrigue me, so I'll consider that as I'm making my updates and changes to the Warlord. Nothing is set in stone at this stage of the game, we're still early in this. I will say what we've got planned here is three base classes, a host of feats and archetypes, prestige class support, and a total of 13 disciplines for the over all total release. If this does exceptionally well, there is plans for another base class and four more disciplines that I can add to the total. We're working to make this fully operational with DSP's psionics system, so you'll see psionics support in this line of products, and I promise to listen and pour my heart into the project. I can't please everyone of course, but I can promise I will listen and consider what people have to say.
That being said, thank you for the warm reception to this project and I look forward to working with you all for the playtests of this product!
-Chris Bennett / ErrantX
Lead Designer for the Path of War
Dreamscarred Press
Good to see all of the years that you poured into this project paid off, man!
<--- Golden_Esque, from Giant In the Playground. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how long it will be before the fans of spellcasters cry bloody murder because a company wants to give fighters nice things.
I'm a huge fan of spellcasters and I want to give fighters nice things. :D
I just want it to work within character - if the character has a limited resource (like /day abilities. or like spells) there should be some in story reason whey it is a limited resource that the character would know he is expending when he uses that ability - something under the character's control, rather than the "the opening for that only came up once that day".
That was my only issues with the original ToB.
I wonder how long it will be before the fans of spellcasters cry bloody murder because a company wants to give fighters nice things.I'm a huge fan of spellcasters and I want to give fighters nice things. :D
I just want it to work within character - if the character has a limited resource (like /day abilities. or like spells) there should be some in story reason whey it is a limited resource that the character would know he is expending when he uses that ability - something under the character's control, rather than the "the opening for that only came up once that day".
That was my only issues with the original ToB.
Agreed. I don't have a huge issue with it myself, but the feedback from some seems to show that the fluff needs to justify the crunch for some folks.
|
I should no have generalized and said some fans of spellcasters. As I know that some like both and want both to get nice things. The reason why I'm worried is that a lot of flak that the TOB received made it clear at least to me that some that disliked it did not read the book. Relying on secondhand information. As well too many "how dare you give fighters nice things and take away caster superiority" manner of posts. I rather not see this book be altered in a significant way because of a few very vocal fans. Don't like what the books is about then don't buy it.
I should no have generalized and said some fans of spellcasters. As I know that some like both and want both to get nice things. The reason why I'm worried is that a lot of flak that the TOB received made it clear at least to me that some that disliked it did not read the book. Relying on secondhand information. As well too many "how dare you give fighters nice things and take away caster superiority" manner of posts. I rather not see this book be altered in a significant way because of a few very vocal fans. Don't like what the books is about then don't buy it.
Well as with alot of 'subsystems' theres alot of misimformation and alot of knee jerk reactions to new things. You can do 10d6 damage? Thats rediculous, thats like a level 10 fireball, forgeting that that only averages to around 35 damage, and at 10th level, the 2handed fighter might well be doing more then that in one swing of his sword.
Personally I am a big fan of spellcasters, but just because I like magic, but because of the variety it grants. I can do lots of different things in different situations, this kind of system lets me do it with martial characters, that makes me quite happy (assuming it is well done). I liked tome of battle, though I think it could have used more polish and probably some additional support post book (but then again it was at the tail end of 3.5 and wizards never supported splat material anyway), so I really hope dreamscarred does a good job with this, and I can make use of it at my table.
Except that they can use them on the fly. It takes 6 seconds. Seriously. 6 seconds.
Apart from the expenditure of a feat, that means you're standing still, being a target, doing nothing to win the fight, not doing your job. Given how fast fights are usually over in D&D/Pathfinder, that's huge.
@Orthos: The Crusader's recovery mechanic is fine for the follower of a chaotic deity (or philosophy, if you will). However, why would any other deity - especially a lawful one - provide a follower with random maneuvers?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys!
Finally getting some time to pop in here. Between Dreamscarred Press' forum, Giant in the Playground, and all the comments, emails, and PM's I've gotten, I'm only just now getting to Paizo's site to talk to people.
As quick intro, I'm Christopher Bennett / ErrantX, and I am lead designer on this project. I'm stoked to see you all talking about it here, I look forward to fielding questions and comments here. So let me know what you've got, and I'll be happy to address it here. Chiefly, I'm looking for thoughts on the Gambit System, it's obviously a unique and new approach to recovery methods.
The focus ideas that have been bounced around here intrigue me, so I'll consider that as I'm making my updates and changes to the Warlord. Nothing is set in stone at this stage of the game, we're still early in this. I will say what we've got planned here is three base classes, a host of feats and archetypes, prestige class support, and a total of 13 disciplines for the over all total release. If this does exceptionally well, there is plans for another base class and four more disciplines that I can add to the total. We're working to make this fully operational with DSP's psionics system, so you'll see psionics support in this line of products, and I promise to listen and pour my heart into the project. I can't please everyone of course, but I can promise I will listen and consider what people have to say.
That being said, thank you for the warm reception to this project and I look forward to working with you all for the playtests of this product!
-Chris Bennett / ErrantX
Lead Designer for the Path of War
Dreamscarred Press
Chris,
Thanks for spear-heading this project!Tonight will be my first night playtesting the Warlord and I'm eager to see how it executes in real play. I love that you guys added in the Solar Wind discipline, it's allowing me to try a ranged combat build quite a bit different than anything I've done previously. The change up in action economy and the reduced reliance on full attacks for damage is going to be fun to mix with an archery based character.
I wonder how long it will be before the fans of spellcasters cry bloody murder because a company wants to give fighters nice things.
Too late. WAY too late.
Agreed. I don't have a huge issue with it myself, but the feedback from some seems to show that the fluff needs to justify the crunch for some folks.I wonder how long it will be before the fans of spellcasters cry bloody murder because a company wants to give fighters nice things.I'm a huge fan of spellcasters and I want to give fighters nice things. :D
I just want it to work within character - if the character has a limited resource (like /day abilities. or like spells) there should be some in story reason whey it is a limited resource that the character would know he is expending when he uses that ability - something under the character's control, rather than the "the opening for that only came up once that day".
That was my only issues with the original ToB.
They can just re-fluff it however they like, though. That isn't an argument at all.
@Orthos: The Crusader's recovery mechanic is fine for the follower of a chaotic deity (or philosophy, if you will). However, why would any other deity - especially a lawful one - provide a follower with random maneuvers?
Heh, even funnier because both the Crusaders I've played have been LG. Never crossed my mind, really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will their be an equivalent prestige class similar to Jade Phoenix? I loved it both for its blending but also because it had a really cool story behind it. Thanks.
Agreed. I don't have a huge issue with it myself, but the feedback from some seems to show that the fluff needs to justify the crunch for some folks.I wonder how long it will be before the fans of spellcasters cry bloody murder because a company wants to give fighters nice things.I'm a huge fan of spellcasters and I want to give fighters nice things. :D
I just want it to work within character - if the character has a limited resource (like /day abilities. or like spells) there should be some in story reason whey it is a limited resource that the character would know he is expending when he uses that ability - something under the character's control, rather than the "the opening for that only came up once that day".
That was my only issues with the original ToB.
I tend to refluff as necessary (I play a lot of HERO where assigning "fluff" to your generic ability is part of the game). But when I look at rules I also look at how I play. I play completely within character - so if there is a limited resource then the character should know that it is a limited resource, so the character knows when to use it.* I don't use things like that as a player, unless the character does (not unsurprisingly I don't use Hero points). The ToB didn't do that very well, so I just make all the limited resource things thematically not unlike a Ki pool or something.
Pathfinder does a great job of having that character knowledge of limited ability (Grit, Ki, etc). I was just hoping that this project keeps to those standards.I'd love it if martial at high levels could do something that rivalled a 9th level wizards spell, I'd just need an in game justification on why the fighter could only do it once a day.
* That is probably my biggest issue with 4E - how does a fighter know he has a daily, and why can he only do it once a day, at his choice. I've never found a non "ki/magic/energy/etc" definition I could live with. If it were a Point system (like Psionics, or ki pool) then I could easily justify it with stamina - I've done martial arts for years, I understand about just running out of oomph and relying on basic simple stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* That is probably my biggest issue with 4E - how does a fighter know he has a daily, and why can he only do it once a day, at his choice. I've never found a non "ki/magic/energy/etc" definition I could live with. If it were a Point system (like Psionics, or ki pool) then I could easily justify it with stamina - I've done martial arts for years, I understand about just running out of oomph and relying on basic simple stuff.
You get to pick the reason why. Maybe your opponent is now guarding against the fiery sword-lash of death and there is no opening for you to hit them with it. Maybe you are lacking the "ooph" and you need an adrenaline rush (Hint: the recovery action) to gain the surge of strength needed to do it again. Its all up to you, broski!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* That is probably my biggest issue with 4E - how does a fighter know he has a daily, and why can he only do it once a day, at his choice. I've never found a non "ki/magic/energy/etc" definition I could live with. If it were a Point system (like Psionics, or ki pool) then I could easily justify it with stamina - I've done martial arts for years, I understand about just running out of oomph and relying on basic simple stuff.
Arbitrary cat is arbitrary. <Grin>
Where I come from ki is the line in the sand where it all falls down. If someone can accept monks having this weird points-per-day pool that explicitly isn't magic or divinely sourced, then I don't get having an issue with martial maneuvers having a limited-use model.
In my mind it comes down to recognizing that this is a game first and foremost. Mechanical balance and interest must be the backbone that everything else is built upon. If we accept that - for instance - the crusader's recovery mechanic is interesting because the player needs to think and adapt each round based on chance, then we merely need to find a means to justify the mechanic.
I have a much harder time wrapping my head around strikes where "you hit the target and they burst into flames" than anything to do with recovery mechanics.
You can justify them a lot of ways.
Your enemy has seen your pretty trick and working said trick into the fight again is much, much more difficult now. You need to do X in order to rework your setup so the enemy doesn't see it coming.
These maneuvers are so intricate and complicated that they are more art than math and your training has taught you that combat is a flowing dance. It is jarring and unnatural to repeat the same move frequently... it goes against your training and while it is sometimes necessary to depart from the philosophies your teachers imparted, it takes effort.
There's two examples. I'm sure more creative individuals could come up with more. But you have to want to. You have to accept that the mechanic is new and interesting and that it's worth generating supporting fluff for.
If you don't accept it, you're left in a world where strangely a barbarian can get mad exactly the same number of seconds every single day. No variance. None. Oh, and a bard can sing just this other number seconds per day, no more. Never. Well, not until they kill a few creatures or disable a few traps. 'Cuz yeah, disarming traps makes your voice more powerful. Let's also not forget in this perfect "makes sense" world, a trained fighter can go hand-to-hand with a bear and win. Or he can fall off a cliff and be mostly unharmed at the end of it. Or he can catch on fire and just stand there and burn for upwards of five minutes before he needs to think about doing anything. 'Cuz yeah, hit points make sense.
See? This is a game of imagination. Not everything suits everyone, but per-encounter martial abilities are no less psycho than a bunch of other stuff we all (mostly) take for granted.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
To weigh in on the idea of a point based or stamina or focus or whatever have you system, I need to point out first the elephant in the room. Hit Points. If there was ever a bigger "how does this even work??" mechanic in the game, it's this one.
All the discussion thus far has boiled down to trying to apply and balance real world mechanics to this game, and I felt it necessary to point this out. I'm Joe the 5th level Warlord. I have 50 hit points. Mechanically, I have the same fighting prowess and capability at 50 hit points as I do at 1 remaining hit point, even though technically I'm beaten to a pulp and nearly dead. This does not hinder me in the slightest. I take one more hit point of damage, and I'm on the ground ground in a wreck. I take 2 points, and I'm bleeding out and dying finally.
I think at this point we all need to step back and re-evaluate this here. I understand where people are coming from, shouting for non-Vancian mechanics, shouting for a fatigue system or focus, or whatever else. But I want you all to realize, that reality sometimes has to take a back seat when ti comes to the rules. You just gotta accept that and move on. Falling from the sky at terminal velocity does 10d6 points of damage. A level 1 ANYONE dies (almost always). A level 12 anyone? Piece of cake. There is just a point where you need to disconnect and recognize this is a game of dice-augmented competitive algebra and you need to let your immersion level sink a bit to make a system that's fair and playable. I mean, you're pretending to be a halfling wizard for cryin' out loud, you're not really here for realism. You're here for escapism! :)
At the end of the day, my goal is simple. I'll take into consideration what people have said, and if enough people are wanting it? I'll bring it up and design a system and show to the brass. It may be a secondary system, like Words of Power, if they like it and want to include but don't want to change the core rules of the system. If Jeremy and Andreas want me to change the whole maneuver mechanic to this sort of thing, then by golly I will and I'll be happy to do it. But at least on the initial playtests and for the foreseeable future, I am going to stick to the basic maneuver mechanics of readying only one of one type, limited numbers of readied and known, and so on. It's not terribly realistic in some respects, but it makes sense for logic and game balance's sake. The mechanics as written can be managed simply by using a few index cards, not a track of numbers that fluctuate or something more esoteric, like maneuvers having their own cooldowns. You can fluff it however you want to, call it what you want, but it's one of those tongue-in-cheek things you just accept to play the game and have it be fair!
My 2 cents on the matter!
-X
Chris Bennett
Lead Designer and Developer for Path of War
for Dreamscarred Press
|
|
Thanks for your input Chris!
Just my two cents, I like the maneuver system largely as is and am a HUGE fan of the Warlords Gambit system (at least in theory, after tonight's playtest I'll have a better idea of how I feel in practice).
I'm loving the direction this product is taking, and am looking forward to seeing more.
Thanks for your input Chris!
Just my two cents, I like the maneuver system largely as is and am a HUGE fan of the Warlords Gambit system (at least in theory, after tonight's playtest I'll have a better idea of how I feel in practice).
I'm loving the direction this product is taking, and am looking forward to seeing more.
Let me preface the Gambit System with the warning label of: HUGELY EXPERIMENTAL! It's subject to change (and maybe removal if I can't get it to work in a simple, easy way). I love the concept, but personally I've never been 100% happy with it, so I'd love to hear what you have to say about it.
-X
|
|
Thanks for your input Chris!
Just my two cents, I like the maneuver system largely as is and am a HUGE fan of the Warlords Gambit system (at least in theory, after tonight's playtest I'll have a better idea of how I feel in practice).
I'm loving the direction this product is taking, and am looking forward to seeing more.
Let me preface the Gambit System with the warning label of: HUGELY EXPERIMENTAL! It's subject to change (and maybe removal if I can't get it to work in a simple, easy way). I love the concept, but personally I've never been 100% happy with it, so I'd love to hear what you have to say about it.
-X
So, one question for you:
The Gambit - Deadeye Gambit – "The warlord makes a deadly barrage of ranged attacks against a foe, each one invested with thehope of victory. The warlord may invest one maneuver per ranged attack to a maximum of 3 invested maneuvers.
He gains a damage bonus equal to his gambit bonus to these attacks. To succeed, he must successfully strike with
one attack per invested maneuver, success for each attack recovering the invested maneuvers. If the character
invested three maneuvers, he must succeed in three attacks to avoid the rake of this gambit. Rake: Failure to
succeed in this gambit results in the warlord being disheartened in his skill, causing him to be unable to make a full
attack with a ranged weapon for 1 round."
If I miss on the first shot, do I lose the ability to make additional attacks that round? If I make 2 attacks and miss one, do I get 2 maneuvers back?
For the record I like the gambit system as a recovery method. I think the individual gambits may need revisiting but as a system it's a great idea. Risk, reward. Good stuff.
Thanks for your input Chris!
Just my two cents, I like the maneuver system largely as is and am a HUGE fan of the Warlords Gambit system (at least in theory, after tonight's playtest I'll have a better idea of how I feel in practice).
I'm loving the direction this product is taking, and am looking forward to seeing more.
Let me preface the Gambit System with the warning label of: HUGELY EXPERIMENTAL! It's subject to change (and maybe removal if I can't get it to work in a simple, easy way). I love the concept, but personally I've never been 100% happy with it, so I'd love to hear what you have to say about it.
-X
So, one question for you:
The Gambit - Deadeye Gambit – "The warlord makes a deadly barrage of ranged attacks against a foe, each one invested with the
hope of victory. The warlord may invest one maneuver per ranged attack to a maximum of 3 invested maneuvers.
He gains a damage bonus equal to his gambit bonus to these attacks. To succeed, he must successfully strike with
one attack per invested maneuver, success for each attack recovering the invested maneuvers. If the character
invested three maneuvers, he must succeed in three attacks to avoid the rake of this gambit. Rake: Failure to
succeed in this gambit results in the warlord being disheartened in his skill, causing him to be unable to make a full
attack with a ranged weapon for 1 round."If I miss on the first shot, do I lose the ability to make additional attacks that round? If I make 2 attacks and miss one, do I get 2 maneuvers back?
Go back and redownload the playtest, I did an initial bugfix of a few things, gambits hugely got some wording fixed. It might make this easier for you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
* That is probably my biggest issue with 4E - how does a fighter know he has a daily, and why can he only do it once a day, at his choice. I've never found a non "ki/magic/energy/etc" definition I could live with. If it were a Point system (like Psionics, or ki pool) then I could easily justify it with stamina - I've done martial arts for years, I understand about just running out of oomph and relying on basic simple stuff.You get to pick the reason why. Maybe your opponent is now guarding against the fiery sword-lash of death and there is no opening for you to hit them with it. Maybe you are lacking the "ooph" and you need an adrenaline rush (Hint: the recovery action) to gain the surge of strength needed to do it again. Its all up to you, broski!
The way I play, it's not up to me the player - I am completely immersed in the character - why does the character - in story - know he has 1 use of this ability and what it can do. If it is an oomph thing, why can I use a different Daily - they use the same oomph. As I try an make every decision in the came from the character's point of view (and I don't make any decisions about any other character or the world - I see that as the GMs job) the "the opponent is guarding against the attack" isn't something I can define - as it is part of the story/world, whereas I control only my character.
It's why I can deal with Martial "spellpoint" systems like Ch'i or Grit, as it can easily be defined as something the character knows, but encounter/daily ones are much more difficult to justify that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* That is probably my biggest issue with 4E - how does a fighter know he has a daily, and why can he only do it once a day, at his choice. I've never found a non "ki/magic/energy/etc" definition I could live with. If it were a Point system (like Psionics, or ki pool) then I could easily justify it with stamina - I've done martial arts for years, I understand about just running out of oomph and relying on basic simple stuff.Arbitrary cat is arbitrary. <Grin>
These maneuvers are so intricate and complicated that they are more art than math and your training has taught you that combat is a flowing dance. It is jarring and unnatural to repeat the same move frequently... it goes against your training and while it is sometimes necessary to depart from the philosophies your teachers imparted, it takes effort.
There's two examples. I'm sure more creative individuals could come up with more. But you have to want to....
That one I can almost deal with.
Roleplaying games for me isn't about the game really - it's a way I can get completely inside the skin of another person (the character) - and anything that takes me of that for decision making (such as I am deciding what an opponent is doing for fluff) completely takes me out of immersion.
See? This is a game of imagination. Not everything suits everyone, but per-encounter martial abilities are no less psycho than a bunch of other stuff we all (mostly) take for granted.
And every other mechanic I have no issues with, but that one single one is the one I can't make work in my way of playing. It's just weird.
At the end of the day, my goal is simple. I'll take into consideration what people have said, and if enough people are wanting it? I'll bring it up and design a system and show to the brass. It may be a secondary system, like Words of Power, if they like it and want to include but don't want to change the core rules of the system. If Jeremy and Andreas want me to change the whole...
I understand. And thanks for listening. That particular mental block was the only thing that kept me from really enjoying the ToB.
I know I'll buy this when it is done, even if my concerns are not catered to (I mean I am one person), I just wanted to speak my peace, and try and explain - as much as anything because I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord Mhoran, You're not alone - though for me, it's never been the fact that such tricks are limited, but that they were limited _per encounter_ - the one thing I hated about To9S (I loved the book and used it excessively), were those per encounter abilities. They always felt unnatural to me and still do - 5 small encounters? 5 times the ability. 1 long one? Only one. Never mind that the 1 encounter may be longer than the 5 small ones. Just makes no sense to me - resources that need rest? Can get behind that. Those that are defined by arbitrarily entering combat mode and dropping out of it? Not so much.
So yeah, that's just my 2 cents. ^^ Glad to see this mechanic, though I also look forward to Rite Publishing's Martial Arts Guidebook.