+1 to Sslarn. Really I have nothing to add. I like the Harbinger, and the few complaints/questions I had Yeungling already handled. Sorry for being so slow on the draw, it's busy season at work =) I won't get a decent break until February.
Okay, so, response time! Double or triple posting may occur; without a multiquote feature I kinda have to do this one post at a time.
Accursed Will: At first level, 2+ class level is a modifier of 3 (equivalent to a score of 16) not a score of 13, right?
You are correct; however, you need Int high enough to take advantage of it or you'll just use the lower score.
Grim News: Awesome. Omenwalk could use a little more description, though. If not using line of sight/effect, does she need to know her destination? What happens if she misjudges distance and end her move inside a solid object?
Yeah Omenwalk's been giving me trouble. I forgot that I wasn't designing for Legend and, additionally, that PF's teleportation descriptor is shamefully useless in terms of defining an effect. I'll get back to this.
Massacre: 4th level might be a little early for an ability this strong. It's almost like a 1/encounter dual strike. I'd consider swapping it for Ill Intentions and maybe having Ill Intentions start at a -1 penalty and increase to -2 at level 8+.
I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree. Massacre has a trigger that allows its use, which means first that it can't be used whenever it's most advantageous to you, and second that it gets less useful the fewer enemies you face. For boss fights or in battles where your foes spread out, it simply doesn't work at all. Dual Strike, on the other hand, has a use as long as something is still breathing that you want to not be breathing.
Fading Hope: How does this work with a strike that has a duration of both instant and 1 round. Look at Essence Shattering Strike, for example. What about Disturbing Blow? It has a duration of special because it effects the next d20 roll. Would it affect EVERY d20 roll for Int mod rounds?
"Instant and X" fails the 'Non-instant' test. I snagged a subtle wording change for it to only affect things with a duration of one or more rounds, though.
Breaking Glass Strike: Dazed is a pretty harsh condition to hit someone with at level 1.
The Wiz/Sorc/Bard spell lists would like a word with this statement.
Copycat Cut: What if he threatens a crit? How would this interact with Fading Hope?
Copycat Cut uses the results of their total attack roll (dice + modifiers) in place of actually making a roll. I'm...faaaaiiiiirly certain this means you can't crit with it no matter what the other guy did, but I'm not sure.
Reflected Blade Style: needs a comma after boost in the second sentence.
Fixed.
Infinity Mirror Stance: Not happy with the power level here. It seems like you could refresh your images with a swift action and be pretty hard to hit for eternity. At this level you need a more limited number of images and wording about when and how they come back. Maybe only at the end of the encounter.
As of current wording you'd have to spend two swift actions to refresh images - one to leave Infinity Mirror, and another to re-enter it. Since Pathfinder doesn't hand out bonus swifts that means spending two turns to get 'em back. Let me know if that changes your estimation any.
Fetch's Wrath: seems more powerful than Flicker Strike at the same level. You teleport farther, and deal bonus damage. If done right, you'd also get the flat-footed effect of Flicker Strike since you'll be coming out of nowhere from like a half mile away.
Will look into this. However, do keep in mind that even at Long range you have to be able to see your enemy >.> Might bump it down to Medium....
Blazing Mirror Strike: The duration should be instantaneous and 1 round/level unless you intend for the weapon to stay lightsaber-y for 1 round per level in which case, overpowered.
I felt it was pretty clear that the melee attack is a one-time thing in the wording. Somehow I was wrong >.< Anyone else confused by this? 'Cause I'll alter it if I have to but I really don't want to so that Fading Hope will keep working with it.
Carnival Swap: Does the attack still deal damage?
Why would it not? Like...honest question, why would it not?
Hollow Frame: I might change the name to Empty Frame to continue the mirror name theme. A mirror could still be held within a hollow frame.
Fixed.
Copycat's Cunning: superflous "may use" in the 3rd sentence. Also, the example doesn't make sense. It would have to be a +2 distance longbow for the result to be the enhancement bonus of the greatsword increasing by 1. Also, the enhancement is called "distance" not "distant."
Fixed.
Mirror Demon's Waltz is a little underpowered.
It's kinda robbin' from Veiled Moon's design space a little, so I'm pretty cool with this.
|
I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree. Massacre has a trigger that allows its use, which means first that it can't be used whenever it's most advantageous to you, and second that it gets less useful the fewer enemies you face. For boss fights or in battles where your foes spread out, it simply doesn't work at all. Dual Strike, on the other hand, has a use as long as something is still breathing that you want to not be breathing.
With so many abilities at your disposal which teleport you, I'm going to disagree about the supposed limits of Massacre. Sh*t, as of now I could kill someone and then kill someones else 500' away!
The Wiz/Sorc/Bard spell lists would like a word with this statement.
Oh, so Breaking Glass Strike also has an HD limit that I missed? And people are immune to it for a minute after having been dazed by it? Seriously, though, do any other initiators daze with a level 1 maneuver? I don't have time to look right now but I'm not thinking of any off the top of my head. If I'm right and there aren't other maneuvers that daze at level 1 then I advise caution and conservative development. Players and GMs are going to be arguing about these classes like ToB of old. Don't add fuel to the fire.
Copycat Cut uses the results of their total attack roll (dice + modifiers) in place of actually making a roll. I'm...faaaaiiiiirly certain this means you can't crit with it no matter what the other guy did, but I'm not sure.
I'm not sure either, which is why I asked. Lets find out. Anyone know a rule lawyer?
As of current wording you'd have to spend two swift actions to refresh images - one to leave Infinity Mirror, and another to re-enter it. Since Pathfinder doesn't hand out bonus swifts that means spending two turns to get 'em back. Let me know if that changes your estimation any.
Not really. It's not like you don't get anything for your 1st swift action. You get to drop into another stance for some other benefit and then refresh your images. It would be like if casting another buff refreshed images for a wizard.
Will look into this. However, do keep in mind that even at Long range you have to be able to see your enemy >.> Might bump it down to Medium....
Being able to see him doesn't mean he can see me. Even if he did see me, all that it takes to catch him in a surprise round is for him to not know I'm a danger until too late.
I felt it was pretty clear that the melee attack is a one-time thing in the wording. Somehow I was wrong >.< Anyone else confused by this? 'Cause I'll alter it if I have to but I really don't want to so that Fading Hope will keep working with it.
I get what you're trying to do but the duration should still be instantaneous and 1 round/level. The first duration applies to the initial effect of having a lightsaber that makes touch attacks and second duration applies to the blind effect.
Why would it not? Like...honest question, why would it not?
Because literally right above this maneuver you have another maneuver which specifies that it does damage as normal in addition to its effect. This was occasionally evident in Chris's stuff, too. You guys throw in "deals damage as normal" sometimes but not every time and I don't know whether that's intentional or not.
It's kinda robbin' from Veiled Moon's design space a little, so I'm pretty cool with this.
OK, then. I'll probably take it anyway because it's cool as hell descriptively.
|
Copycat Cut uses the results of their total attack roll (dice + modifiers) in place of actually making a roll. I'm...faaaaiiiiirly certain this means you can't crit with it no matter what the other guy did, but I'm not sure.
I'm not sure either, which is why I asked. Lets find out. Anyone know a rule lawyer?
A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together. Unless otherwise specified, the threat range for a critical hit on an attack roll is 20, and the multiplier is ×2.
Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue's sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon abilities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit.
Increased Threat Range: Sometimes your threat range is greater than 20. That is, you can score a threat on a lower number. In such cases, a roll of lower than 20 is not an automatic hit. Any attack roll that doesn't result in a hit is not a threat.
Increased Critical Multiplier: Some weapons deal better than double damage on a critical hit (see Equipment).
Spells and Critical Hits: A spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll cannot score a critical hit. If a spell causes ability damage or drain (see Special Abilities), the damage or drain is doubled on a critical hit.
It's a little shady here, but, the rules for Critical Hits state "When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20..."
Since you never made an attack roll, I don't think you've met the qualifications to score a critical hit. It could probably stand a little clarification though; since Copycat Cut refers to using "the result" of an opponent's attack roll there's enough room for interpretation to say "Well, his attack resulted in a crit, so now mine does too!" Maybe shift from "result" to "total value"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay:
I've uploaded the final drafts of the prestige classes and the warder and warlord archetypes. We had to go back to the drawing board several (dozen) times on the stalker archetypes, but those are coming along now (finally). Core archetypes should be ready shortly as well (these had to be redrafted and cut down a few times).
Please review the mechanics of these and tell me what you like, you don't like, and how you would suggest we fix it.
Now that the holidays are over, back to the Path of War!
-X
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice to see you back in the saddle Chris! You'll have to forgive me if I'm not as active in my reviews for the newest material, you may have heard about this other thing I'm working on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll try to pick up where you left off Sslarn =)
Nice to see you back in the saddle Chris! You'll have to forgive me if I'm not as active in my reviews for the newest material, you may have heard about this other thing I'm working on.
I had heard a few bits about that, actually ;) I'm looking into it and will provide you some feedback asap!
And Orthos, if you volunteer, I'm gonna hold ya to it :P
-X
I'm wrapping up the Warder release - it should be out Monday or Tuesday. :)
Huzzah!
|
|
I'm wrapping up the Warder release - it should be out Monday or Tuesday. :)
Fantastic! Now if I only had time to actually play with it.....
Jeremy, with the 3rd and final class .pdf released, does that mean we'll be getting an opportunity to start pre-ordering a print copy sometime in the near future?
I'm wrapping up the Warder release - it should be out Monday or Tuesday. :)Fantastic! Now if I only had time to actually play with it.....
Jeremy, with the 3rd and final class .pdf released, does that mean we'll be getting an opportunity to start pre-ordering a print copy sometime in the near future?
I'll need to see how much the additional content beyond the three classes is going to add page-count wise so I can get an idea on the print cost... I don't know if I'd say NEAR future, but soon, yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that the Warder document I just proofed? Yes it is. So very close :D
HUZZAH!!
I'm so glad I already paid for this =D
I'm so glad I already paid for this =D
Seconded.
I hope the Warder is added to the pre-purchase pack soon. Can't wait to look it over!
Any comments from developers on Endzeitgeist review?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any comments from developers on Endzeitgeist review?
Jeremy responded on the Stalker product thread that he was going to chat with Chris about it.
The thing is..... What do you do, really? I definitely respect Zeit's view, and I'm not even saying he's wrong, but pretty much every item he had issues with are legacy items of the original system. "Fixing" them is going to debone things that some players, particularly fans of the original material, don't just like, but expect.
.....
It's a tricky one.
If the hardcore fans of the original material expected the same thing, why wouldn't they just use the original material?
My point with the maneuvers was that they adhere to a 3.X design more often than not, when in PFRPG they are done differently.
You can still work WITH the system to do ALL the things the maneuvers do - whether by bonuses to CMD/CMB, bonuses to skill-checks (which are made as part of the attack against CMD) etc. - you know, adhering to the central tenets of how design for Pathfinder works instead of creating a throwback complex of abilities that do what can already be done via established rules, but suddenly via wildly different means. And I think no fan of the Bo9S would complain about not rolling competing skill-checks as part of attacks and instead rolling them against e.g. CMD + level or a fixed value like demoralize-DCs or something like that.
It's a fact that skills can be easily buffed to kingdom come, that 2 competing 20s via skills (or attacks) have more variability than 1d20 versus fixed value and that the former is not how things are done in Pathfinder.
Currently, the system purports to be for Pathfinder, when it essentially is still adhering to design-conventions of 3.X in many crucial points.
In case that got drowned out due to the length of the review - I WANT Path of War to succeed. I think it can succeed at its task of bringing Bo9S-style combat to Pathfinder. But I also think that beyond the issues of the stalker-class, many of the maneuvers need a thorough redesign before being considered truly PFRPG-compatible.
If the hardcore fans of the original material expected the same thing, why wouldn't they just use the original material?
Why, yes, people should have just stuck with 3.5. No sense in moving to Pathfinder at all. Try to improve on what we're already fans, who ever heard of such a thing? :)
If the hardcore fans of the original material expected the same thing, why wouldn't they just use the original material?Why, yes, people should have just stuck with 3.5. No sense in moving to Pathfinder at all. Try to improve on what we're already fans, who ever heard of such a thing? :)
See, that's sort of what I was getting at. The goal was to make it so people wouldn't have to stick with 3.5 when it came to Bo9S, so that they could use it in Pathfinder. But as End points out...there are a number of places where this deviates heavily from the basics of the Pathfinder system, in favor of 3.5.
If people are going to be disappointed that the Pathfinder version of Bo9S is for Pathfinder and thus drops many of the 3.5 conventions, then they should probably just play the 3.5 version and do the superficial changes necessary to play it in PF, y'know?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing Chris, or Zeit. It's totally possible for both to be coming at this from the right spirit and angle.
Shifting the maneuvers to focus more around CMB/CMD related mechanics makes a lot of sense. It's also incredibly easy to overlook because it's such an itty-bitty but somehow also incredibly HUGE change between Pathfinder and 3.5.
I think it would be a good thing to fix; my experience is less that the current iteration is broken or anything, but more that it introduces unnecessarily complex subsystems into play. Subsystems that I, personally, didn't even really think about during playtesting, because I'm the kind of nerd who can do a lot of math really fast in his head and enjoys the challenge :)
Zeit's review pointed out things that really will make the product better, and most importantly, make the material more accessible and easy to integrate for GM's unsure of 3pp materials. It'll also make the product more Pathfinder and less 3.63 D&D. Those are definitely good things to strive for.
If the hardcore fans of the original material expected the same thing, why wouldn't they just use the original material?
Why not both? I'm using PoW right alongside Bo9S, myself. =)
So, is there an honest-to-the-gods, can -hold-in-your-hands, hard copy of this around? Or is it just on-line content?
So, is there an honest-to-the-gods, can -hold-in-your-hands, hard copy of this around? Or is it just on-line content?
We're still finishing up the content of the book. Then a printed version will be available.
OOOOO, I can not wait!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the hardcore fans of the original material expected the same thing, why wouldn't they just use the original material?
Because there isn't enough of it.
I do get where you're coming from, and where End is coming from. That said, the stuff he pointed out just doesn't matter... to me. Yeah, okay, skill vs AC is even easier to pump in Pathfinder than it was in 3.5 I get that. But really, it's part of a DM's job to keep things under control. If a player starts stacking a million bonuses in one particular direction so they can one-shot-kill on rolling a 2, the DM should be stepping in and setting things right. Not every table is about max/min, and if players are being reasonable, this issue isn't one.
I'll be honest; I haven't had time to proof this material yet. But what I'm hearing as objections just don't seem important... to me. If there's an epidemic failure here, let's get it aired out and adjusted while there's still time.
Thing is I can't really tell so far if it's some specific maneuvers that's bothering you, or the general shape of this as an extension of Bo9S.
Question: The Path of War is going to have some feats right? Will it have Style feats? If so, how about making a Flying Crane Style or something like that? Someone needs to do it, and people will buy the book just for that feat.
It will have both feats and Style feats. I'm not so sure there will be a Flying Crane feat though.
So I got the email yesterday saying the WIP PDF has been updated... anyone else been having trouble getting it to download? It keeps getting stuck on the personalizing stage for me. =/
So I got the email yesterday saying the WIP PDF has been updated... anyone else been having trouble getting it to download? It keeps getting stuck on the personalizing stage for me. =/
yeah website problems.
|
|
So I got the email yesterday saying the WIP PDF has been updated... anyone else been having trouble getting it to download? It keeps getting stuck on the personalizing stage for me. =/
Jeremy jumped in on the product thread and said it was something to do with watermarking and that he was working on getting it fixed.
Bluh, well at least it isn't just me.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I just read Endzeitgeist's review. While I respect him a great deal and use his reviews CONSTANTLY when deciding if I want to buy a product, I think he missed the mark here.
I take issue with weasel words like "widely considered" when he talks about skill vs AC. By whom is it considered bad design and is that list long enough to call it "wide."
Second is the balance concerns noted. God knows I don't have time to playtest everything I review and that means EZG definitely can't. But that means that making broad statements of relative power level is difficult to do accurately. Myself and others put in many hours to test balance and found these classes to be about inline and maybe a bit below the Magus. If that makes them overpowered, then anything that is ever written about Wizards or Clerics ought to get that "OP" stamp, too.
As for deviations from "traditional" Pathfinder tenets, I'm unconcerned. Death effects happen so far down the line that they're pretty much ignorable and they happen after the point where a Wizard can just shunt some jerk off to a plane made entirely of poo so who cares?
I think it's a great product (I review it in the upcoming Open Gaming Quarterly). Sure, it's an advanced product. Probably not for new players or those that can't keep their sheet straight. But if you want melee types to "have nice things" I think this product is the way forward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also read Endzeitgeist's review and for a good chunk I agree. I'm still evaluating the pdfs I have, trying to decide whether or not to let them in my games, but I can see where a GM can be turned off from it. Before buy the product I read Book of 9 Swords and Path of War has a lot of legacy terminology that I think doesn't fit well with the pathfinder mold. For example; there's a section on concentration, but as far as I can tell the idea of concentration doesn't really come up in any rules situations. Then there's things like defining 'per encounter' which becomes pointless because we have a means of regaining maneuvers that is measured in rounds making the whole idea legacy gobblty-gook that I didn't really need. After that it's just a long list of insignificant things that just irk me (and I guess Endzeitgeist).
In the end I find myself more quickly allowing a book from Necromancer of the Northwest because it presents a similar result with considerable less complications.
I need more thinking, reading and building before I can say for myself whether or not I'll allow Path of War in my games but so far I understand more than half of Endzeitgeit's sentiment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes down to it, it's a divisive product if only because it's following in the footsteps of one of the most divisive products of 3.5. It's really a love it or hate it scenario, and I haven't seen anyone yet who really seems to fit into neither category.
That Necromancers book is going on the wishlist, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes down to it, it's a divisive product if only because it's following in the footsteps of one of the most divisive products of 3.5. It's really a love it or hate it scenario, and I haven't seen anyone yet who really seems to fit into neither category.
That Necromancers book is going on the wishlist, though.
I'm going to write a review on it when I can. I was kind of iffy about it because it involves point costs that seem random but is actually balanced towards what it is.
Basically you take Technique feats, which are combat feats that spend points from a martial pool. The martial pool itself, you get with a feat and scales with BAB. The pool refreshes if you take a minute to rest but you can gain some back with full round actions to catch your breath/focus/whatever, or some other kind of thing that the Technique based archetypes do. I haven't done a deep analysis of every technique but they're mostly cool from what I read.
Path of War has an edge on it by having specific styles that key off of different weapons and styles, and stances are always fun not to mention the sheer scope of it. However I am still a little daunted by having to introduce more base classes in order to introduce a bunch of 'spell lists' for martial classes and am very on the fence about the whole thing until I look at everything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit I'm fairly biased myself in favor of it for two reasons, one I loved Bo9S and have wanted an expansion to it for years, and two I like having tons and tons of base classes to choose from, it makes the world and the potential PC options much more varied and gives me a larger pool of resources to pull from for NPCs and enemies (my group lives very strongly by "if the players can use it the GM can use it and vice versa" rule).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hej YuenglingDragon!
Thank you for your kind words!
Allow me to clarify some points:
I did not wish to insinuate that the WHOLE Stalker-class is OP - as I've mentioned in my review, it is stronger than melee core classes, but that's the design maxim and not something I rated the pdf down for. My criticism regarding the class is based mostly on failing the kitten-test twice and getting ranged melee attacks too soon/easily, thus outclassing its own capstone. I never called the whole class OP.
Of course, you may take issue with "Weasel words" like "widely considered" - to reiterate: Look at what options are used in insane min-max builds and how easily you can min-max skills in PFRPG. It was easy in 3.X, it's perhaps even easier now. There are quite a few threads out there regarding feat/skill maximizing I assume you may have seen - plus, there are a lot of items that provide significant bonuses to skills; bonuses which would be much harder to achieve for any other rules component. There is also the luck-component of competing d20 attack-rolls; You get a different curve than from one roll versus fixed value - you get a much higher fluctuation. Hence also: Different design-tenet.
I respect your opinion that this is a non-issue FOR YOU. I have to take various campaigns into account when writing a review and campaigns where skill-buffing items are not limited in some way may be influenced in a detrimental way by these mechanics.
Regarding deviations from traditional pathfinder-tenets: My point is that the pdf doesn't need them - it could just as easily work WITH the system instead of using its own subsystem of rules-syntax/establishing how things are done. Think about it - wouldn't you be confused if a new class threw a fireball at you and you wouldn't save with a ref-save, but an acrobatics-check? Good design breaks the system/expands it when it's flawed/not enough for a component, but tries to otherwise adhere to the language and conventions of the rules. Death effects are just one obvious, little example. Skill vs. AC is the most prevalent of these cases.
That being said, I REALLY want this to work - I like PoW and want it to work. I don't consider the class too "advanced" or complex. In fact, as I've tried to show in my review, I really, really like the system - the basic system WORKS - awesomely so. But the accumulation of non-standard design-decisions means that I *had* to address this or lose my integrity: I've always called issues like these out, it just happens that here, they are part of a much beloved system. These *might* be considered massive problems - not for everyone, but for a significant amount of persons they are.
I honestly dreaded the fallout of this review; I know that a lot of people love this - a group to which I'd love to belong. As written, it is my opinion that the system is flawed an won't work for every group that likes the idea, mainly due to aforementioned anachronistic design-decisions. As a reviewer, it is kind of "my job" (haha, if only...) to point stuff like that out. I've done so in the past and I will continue to do so.
That being said, I never considered my opinion the only valid one - it is, in the end, just that - an opinion. I'm looking forward to reading your review!
Cheers!
You're probably going to find the same avoiding of CMB/CMD once you get to my stuff (Cursed Razor, Shattered Mirror, and the Harbinger class). To be quite frank, I did it on purpose; the CM math is 'cleaner' than what it used to be, but it's also deeply and fundamentally flawed, with the scaling on CMD rapidly and hideously outstripping CMB. If I wanted to work with that system, I'd either end up with useless maneuvers or ones that always work except on the biggest/most defensive enemies...or I can key them to a number whose scaling I can predict and control better.
Speaking just for myself, not all of Pathfinder's changes were terribly great, and in the interests of elegance I try to avoid the parts of the system that are going to bog me down. Y'know?
So I got the email yesterday saying the WIP PDF has been updated... anyone else been having trouble getting it to download? It keeps getting stuck on the personalizing stage for me. =/Jeremy jumped in on the product thread and said it was something to do with watermarking and that he was working on getting it fixed.
BTW this appears to be fixed as per Chris Lambertz yesterday.
|
|
EZG, just to clarify your opinion is yours and as valid as that of anyone else. I'm merely pointing out that "overpowered" is seen by many to be less a statement of opinion as one of measurable fact. Thus, statements like that require evidence, the kind you get from playtesting or statistical analysis.
As to skills instead of saves, why shouldn't I be able to dodge a fireball with my incredible acrobatic ability? Fiction is full of characters impossible to hit because of their nimbleness. The fundamental problem is that in the real world, reflexes (in terms of dodging) and acrobatics (in terms of dodging) are similar. But because they are completely unlinked in Pathfinder we have to treat the ideas as if there is a firewall between them. In no case does a maneuver require someone else to make an acrobatics check, it's just the Stalker. The maneuvers take the ideas and images we associate with acrobatics and put them in the combat crunch. That's what I love most about PoW and Bo9S. The vivid imagery and action of the maneuvers stand in sharp contrast to the staid stand about and full attack routine that makes fighter so bloody boring.
So, yeah, you can spend feats and whatever to pump your acrobatics or survival or whatever associated skill there is for the school or schools of your choosing. But the maneuvers associated with the skills are not usually that crazy. The ones that were generally got caught and fixed. You should have seen Cornered Frenzy before it got scaled back to a reasonable level. In any case there are opportunity costs associated with any skill boosting choices.
Finally, I'll just say that I'm against designing that tries to eliminate every single way a player could abuse it. I think it's cumbersome and leads to worse products. Tables can decide what to use and the acceptable ways to play. I have very few limits on 3PP at my table but no one tries to break the game because that's not what the game is about for us. For the tables where that IS the point of the game, they get the option to optimize the crap out of it.
Whew. This was not meant to be this long. My fingers are tired...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're probably going to find the same avoiding of CMB/CMD once you get to my stuff (Cursed Razor, Shattered Mirror, and the Harbinger class). To be quite frank, I did it on purpose; the CM math is 'cleaner' than what it used to be, but it's also deeply and fundamentally flawed, with the scaling on CMD rapidly and hideously outstripping CMB. If I wanted to work with that system, I'd either end up with useless maneuvers or ones that always work except on the biggest/most defensive enemies...or I can key them to a number whose scaling I can predict and control better.
Speaking just for myself, not all of Pathfinder's changes were terribly great, and in the interests of elegance I try to avoid the parts of the system that are going to bog me down. Y'know?
Flawed or not, the CMB/CMD rules are core rules from the Core Rulebook. Rather than establishing a throwback to 3.0/3.5, this material could have worked within the PFRPG framework, perhaps by having maneuvers grant a bonus to CMB rather than using opposed skill checks or skill checks vs CMD.
In my opinion, by choosing to work outside the resolution system established for such actions, the designers of this system are being disingenuous about its PFRPG compatibility. I realize I can houserule the system to fall more within PFRPG's design paradigm as I see it, but if I wished to do that, I'd just pull my Bo9S off my shelf, do the conversion work, and not spend the money on the Path of War subscription.
As it stands, I won't use this material at my table because I don't want multiple competing rules in my game. The real loser here, at least in my case, is Dreamscarred Press. I can swallow the $15 I spent on the subscription, but I now no longer trust that Ultimate Psionics or the upcoming update to Incarnum (both of which I'm very interested in) are/will be truly PFRPG compatible, and am wary to spend more money on books I don't feel I can use. If this was my first foray into 3PP for Pathfinder, it very well could have scared me away for good...
I don't post a lot, and I prefer to only post positvely, but these are my thoughts on the Path of War thus far. I really love the concept behind this and the Bo9S; Iwant this to be something I can use at my table.
@Ken Pawlik: Ultimate Psionics is fully PFRPG-compatible, in spirit and design. I have the pdf and all component books and while I might take a bit to get the review done, I have seen no design anachronisms. Also: Thank you for putting more eloquently to paper what I wanted to reply re CMB/CMD.
Also: I have not written PoW off - as always, should there be revisions, I'll update my review to reflect the changes made.
@Endzeitgeist: I'm looking forward to your review of Ultimate Psionics!
I haven't given up on, Path of War either; Dreamscarred Press seems really good at revising their products based on the feedback they receive. My hope is that many of the 3.0/3.5isms in this material can be massaged out and that it meets success with a wide audience. I'd love to eventually have a nice fat Ultimate Path of War hardback on my shelf.