Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*** 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,...
Continue to be interested in the Incarna Project and the Psionics project (says the lead designer of the Incarna project), and don't give up here yet, either.
Dreamscarred is expanding at a rate far beyond what Jeremy and Andreas can handle alone, and that means they're bringing in talented lead designers to pick up the projects they can't continue with. This means their efforts are focused on Psionics, and they have to trust the talented team leads they bring in to steer their projects correctly.
I can't speak for Prince, but I have a strong suspicion that ErrantX / Chris' lack of inclusion of the CMB/CMD system was less about intentional exclusion and more about trying to stay true to the legacy of the original system, which included unique ways to integrate skills into the combat system to make your characters more well-rounded and boost the value of skills, which tends to taper at high levels. I will tell you, when you're converting materials, CMB/CMD is AMAZINGLY easy to overlook. While creating a Veil designed to give bonuses to grapple checks, I almost slipped into the old 3.5 terminology without even meaning to, because that's what I was reading over and over in the original material. I fixed it as soon as I caught it, but I had the benefit of having Will McCardell and other talented Pathfinder 3pp designers lending me their feedback and insight. Chris and Jade work primarily with Giant in the Playground, a forum that is more 3.5 than Pathfinder, so no one over there is going to point out these little conversion errors to them, and I have to point out that this thread went on for well over 1000 posts without any of the experienced Pathfinder players catching this discrepancy!
Give them some time to sift through and see how the information Zeit pointed out influences the over-all design paradigm and what other systems might be attached to the ones that would be changed and I'm sure they'll make the decisions that are right for this product.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wanna preface this by thanking you for the feedback, Ken. The following is meant in the spirit of honest debate, and not as a dismissal of your concerns.
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.
This is part of what I'm talking about, though. If I offer a high enough bonus to keep it level-appropriate, it'll always work on some opponents (mostly humanoids) and sometimes work on other opponents (see: non-humanoids). If I don't, it'll sometimes work on humanoids and almost never work on non-humanoids. CMB/CMD aren't just flawed, they're downright impossible to work with - the results are just too swingy.
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.
What design paradigm are you talkin' about, though? Pathfinder and 3.5 are very close to the point of almost being the same game. We have used a lot of the stuff Pathfinder added, and I've personally only actively avoided things that would cause swingy abilities (see CM discussion above) or torturously inelegant wording. 3.5 had saving throws, DCs, and the sorts of things you're mentioning - but when Tome of Battle came out it did stuff like opposed attack rolls (Wall of Blades) and skill checks, and they were cool and thematic and fun at the table. Why shouldn't we throw back to that legacy? Unlike when Tome of Battle was released into the wild, we've got data on how it affects builds, how it can be optimized or left to drop on the floor, and how we can manipulate those numbers to keep the content as balanced as possible. 's not like we're going out on a limb here.
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,...
I'm very sorry to hear this. You should keep in mind that I, at least, am a freelancer that DSP tagged for this project. The design teams for Psionics and Incarnum are wholly different people.
@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.
I second the Ultimate Psionics review, mostly because I've been almost buying the product for a while. I want some psionic powers but I'm not sure I want a plethora of new classes, archetypes, prestige classes and races. Until my next campaign starts up I'll be on the fence.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You may consider this rules-lawyering but there's is nothing - nothing - unPathfinder about a skill check versus AC. Skills are defined, AC is defined, and it's clear that the way skills work is that a DC needs to be defined. That a developer has found that the AC of a target is a reasonable figure to set the DC at isn't unPathfinder.
I'm glad that this is starting to come out into open discussion. While there's some balance argument to be made regarding how many ways exist to pump skill scores up, I find it kind of misleading to view the raw mechanic as not being Pathfinder.
What my nitpick is about isn't the question of "is it mechanically balanced to use a skill check in this circumstance?" It's about "using a skill check in this circumstance is SO 3.0!" It isn't. It just isn't. It's a skill check, period.
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.
It's good to air concerns. And hopefully with more eyes on the material any balance problems will be reviewed and eliminated. That's the massively Pathfinder way of doing this stuff... public testing.
I'm just trying to point out that this material is absolutely, positively 100% Pathfinder compatible. You don't have to do any conversion. You personally may not like the way the developers have designed some maneuvers but RAW they are utterly compatible.
I don't personally like the implementation of every spell, class, or magic item I've read by say... The Artist Formerly Known As Super Genius Games, but they're still compatible and claiming otherwise is kind of... weird to me.
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,...
Uh.
I hear your distress, but this is where the point I'm trying to make gets underlined. By your measuring stick, Ultimate Psionics can't ever possibly be even remotely Pathfinder compatible. There's absolutely, positively no power-point mechanic in Core. Augmenting powers to enhance them? Doesn't exist. Being focused or not? Nope. Heck, even 0th-level powers work differently than at-will cantrips/orisons do.
But ALL I want to convey - and I mean that honestly - is that the inclusion of unprecedented rules doesn't make things not compatible. Compatible means you can run the material with zero conversion. And you can, both in UP's case and in PoW's case.
I will defend your right to not LIKE the material. I will defend your right to not USE the material. But it should be because of specific mechanical (or flavor) issues, not because a bandwagon of unPathfinder is being formed.
**Final pseudo-related comment... Ultimate Psionics is in a very different category style-wise than PoW and using one to judge the other isn't terribly productive. The basic balance behind the mechanics of UP are now three months shy of being ten years old. Tried and true. While Dreamscarred has added some excellent extensions and additions and updates to that material, the fundamentals are well-established. PoW is more an extension of a very experimental product that was trying to break the boundaries of established and expected rules. Very, very different situation so I encourage you to investigate the products in isolation as they've got different developers.
@Ssalarn: I'm still watching the Magic of Incarna playtest, don't worry! I think a noble Vizier will be bedeviling (be-angeling in this case?)our villains in my Way of the Wicked campaign this weekend. Hopefully I'll have some useful playtest data for you.
@Prince of Knives: I don't envy ErrantX his work on the Path of War or yours on the project you've been hired for. The Tome of Battle is both reviled and beloved; working to keep fans of the Bo9S happy as well as drawing in new fans is more stress than I would want to take on. In it's current incarnation, PoW isn't working for me, but hopefully I'm in the minority. I generally remain silent about things I don't like, but I really want to like the PoW. The author clearly loves the subject. The concept is great. The writing is tight. Some of the maneuvers are awesome and evocative. It addresses the caster/non-caster disparity and gives martial characters some much needed fun stuff to do. But... I want a rules module to work relatively seamlessly within the PFRPG core rules without having to either convert the rules module to fit my game table or explain to my players why we're rolling opposing rolls to cause an opponent to fall prone, as a general example, rather than using CMB vs CMD as we usually would. I don't want to belabor my point, I can concede that this nitpick may just be me, so I won't clutter the thread further about this particular subject.
@Anguish: I will respond to your PM. I thought it was sweet that someone that goes by "Anguish" was concerned about my distress :-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ssalarn: I'm still watching the Magic of Incarna playtest, don't worry! I think a noble Vizier will be bedeviling (be-angeling in this case?)our villains in my Way of the Wicked campaign this weekend. Hopefully I'll have some useful playtest data for you.
@Prince of Knives: I don't envy ErrantX his work on the Path of War or yours on the project you've been hired for. The Tome of Battle is both reviled and beloved; working to keep fans of the Bo9S happy as well as drawing in new fans is more stress than I would want to take on. In it's current incarnation, PoW isn't working for me, but hopefully I'm in the minority. I generally remain silent about things I don't like, but I really want to like the PoW. The author clearly loves the subject. The concept is great. The writing is tight. Some of the maneuvers are awesome and evocative. It addresses the caster/non-caster disparity and gives martial characters some much needed fun stuff to do. But... I want a rules module to work relatively seamlessly within the PFRPG core rules without having to either convert the rules module to fit my game table or explain to my players why we're rolling opposing rolls to cause an opponent to fall prone, as a general example, rather than using CMB vs CMD as we usually would. I don't want to belabor my point, I can concede that this nitpick may just be me, so I won't clutter the thread further about this particular subject.
@Anguish: I will respond to your PM. I thought it was sweet that someone that goes by "Anguish" was concerned about my distress :-)
I just want to point out, using a skill in an "opposed roll" in combat is something that exists in PFRPG. Escape Artist in a Grapple.
The PoW crew has essentially expanded on that, an existing mechanic. It isn't a "3.0/3.5'ism"... It is a PFRPG'ism at this point if we're going to be honest about it. A CMB roll is still an attack roll, it just has a handful more modifiers that will possibly be added. PoW still uses the fundamental mechanics of the current Pathfinder rule set, AC, attack rolls, saving throws and skill rolls. A handful of the maneuvers use them in abnormal ways, just like the Pathfinder core/expanded rule set occasionally does.
If you take issue with that, well you are also taking issue with the system we are playing with. That isn't something another publisher can do anything about, all they can do is take a look at the existing mechanics and say "What else can we do with it?", "What rules are interesting, thematic, and can be expanded on?", "What roles in a party can be better defined and/or improved on that hasn't been done before?", etc.
PFRPG set the precedent to allow skills in combat situations in the current rule set, PoW is just taking that a 5' further.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of Path of War, it seems like a great product and I look forwards to using it to make my Fighter much more interesting and viable in the long term.
Seeing that you guys have a more thorough understanding of it than me, what do you guys think of mixing classes? Like taking one level of Warlord for the bonus feat and the Gambits, and then putting the rest of the levels into Warder for the leadership utility?
I love multiclassing! Pathfinder, as a system, can be a little unforgiving about it in some senses, though. But hey, a dip of Warlord for some things you want and then snagging Warder? Fine by me. Only real concern is keeping track of the separate recoveries, but past low levels that'll stop being a headache.
|
This has been really interesting discussion to catch up on! I agree with other posters that this is fully Pathfinder compatible. EZG may wish that were more inclusion of some Pathfinder aspects that were approached from different ways but this is wholly Pathfinder. There are stances which boost your CMD, a ranged disarm maneuver (Disarming Gust) that rolls an attack against CMD and so forth. Some people might wish that the ranged disarm maneuver was treated as a normal disarm CMB v CMD but from a "making sense" point of view, the maneuver in question is as attack against the weapon or maybe the hand holding it. An attack roll makes sense here.
Askren, your Gambit will only be able to recover Warlord maneuvers so I'm not sure how useful it would be in the long run. In my experience, I got rid of the 1st level maneuvers about as soon as I could replace them. You can only ready so many and eventually they're all going to higher level maneuvers. But bonus feat! That's nice!
Alright. This is not yet official or necessarily going into Path of War. However, it's something I'm interested in seeing happen, and I wanted feedback on the concept of it, if it should be a feat or another kind of option, and how much it should cost.
Fencer's Reflexes [Combat]
Your reactions and economy of motion are stunningly efficient.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, [Quick Draw maybe?], Base Attack Bonus +6 or higher.
Benefit: You may take an additional swift action each round on your turn. You may only take one immediate action each round.
Normal: You may only take one swift action each round on your turn.
Alright. This is not yet official or necessarily going into Path of War. However, it's something I'm interested in seeing happen, and I wanted feedback on the concept of it, if it should be a feat or another kind of option, and how much it should cost.
Fencer's Reflexes [Combat]
Your reactions and economy of motion are stunningly efficient.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, [Quick Draw maybe?], Base Attack Bonus +6 or higher.
Benefit: You may take an additional swift action each round on your turn. You may only take one immediate action each round.
Normal: You may only take one swift action each round on your turn.
Print that and you will soon see the following exchange--
Stalker: OK, we know the sorcerer has a deadly touch spell on his hand, but he just already used his attack of opportunity this round. I should be alright, unless he has combat reflexes.
Warlord: Dude! He cast a 6th level spell right? Of course he has Combat Reflexes, he's a spellcaster. They all have Combat Reflexes. What's next, you won't be sure that the druid has Natural Spell?
Alright. This is not yet official or necessarily going into Path of War. However, it's something I'm interested in seeing happen, and I wanted feedback on the concept of it, if it should be a feat or another kind of option, and how much it should cost.
Fencer's Reflexes [Combat]
Your reactions and economy of motion are stunningly efficient.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, [Quick Draw maybe?], Base Attack Bonus +6 or higher.
Benefit: You may take an additional swift action each round on your turn. You may only take one immediate action each round.
Normal: You may only take one swift action each round on your turn.
I can see a lot of potential balance issues with such a feat, especially with classes designed using swift action abilities.
I have a question, why is uses per combat a superior mechanic to a # rounds or #minutes refresh?
Per encounter - it's a subtle, yet important, difference. And honestly, from my end, it's partially just Legacy Content. However, the /encounter dynamic helps keep the feeling that initiators are warriors and not spellcasters. You'll note that none of them can ever actually run out of maneuvers for the day? Part of what makes the concept of a warrior appealing is this idea that you can keep going until wounds and sheer exhaustion forces you to stop. By granting maneuvers at the top of an encounter, we ensure for a fact that you walk into it with a spread of thematic options for your character.
Okay, so when does an encounter begin and end? I mean, if you are taking part in a large battle, then you'll be able to use your ability once and then not again until the major battle is over. That doesn't seem to match up against "keep going until wounds and sheer exhaustion forces you to stop".
Wouldn't a system based on opener, follow-ups, and finishers (where you can always use an opener, but to use a follow-up an opener must have come before, and a finisher must follow a follow-up) be better at modeling a non-caster warrior who can have all sorts of fantastic abilities and keep going until wounds/sheer exhaustion stops them?
Encounters begin with the introduction of a challenge. For example, when the party steps into the royal ball where they need to impress Count Oriander, or when they detect the trap blocking their way in a hallway, or when combat opens up. An encounter 'ends' when there's a 'reasonable' period during which there are no significant challenges - about a minute or so - to be confronted. The idea of setup-advantage-finish is interesting (and you can see me play with it in Razor) but ultimately inelegant and difficult to work with. Clarity at the table is kinda a thing, y'know?
Also - been getting some feedback on Fencer's Reflexes on GitP, where similar concerns have been raised. Expect an edited version shortly.
An encounter 'ends' when there's a 'reasonable' period during which there are no significant challenges - about a minute or so - to be confronted.
... <snip> ....
Clarity at the table is kinda a thing, y'know?
Doesn't this imply that a rounds or minutes per day mechanic would be far better for this as it's clear, as opposed to the admittedly nebulous end of an encounter used in "X per encounters"?
Doesn't this imply that a rounds or minutes per day mechanic would be far better for this as it's clear, as opposed to the admittedly nebulous end of an encounter used in "X per encounters"?An encounter 'ends' when there's a 'reasonable' period during which there are no significant challenges - about a minute or so - to be confronted.
... <snip> ....
Clarity at the table is kinda a thing, y'know?
Partially? Legacy content. Partially because this is the first time I've gotten this feedback from anyone - indeed, when complaints about Tome of Battle were made no one ever touched on the idea of 'encounter' being vague or difficult to understand. Maybe because I've been at this and White Wolf for so long, I'm having some trouble understanding how they could ever get confused.
It's also to ensure that initiators have their tools available when they need them (i.e at the start of challenges) instead of being caught out without their maneuvers ready. They still might be unprepared for a challenge - by having readied the wrong maneuvers, say - but they won't be without options.
Also rounds/minutes per day is not a thing that will happen ever. You don't run out of fightan'.
So let's try it like this:
Fencer's Reflexes [Combat]
Your reactions and economy of motion are stunningly efficient.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, able to initiate 5th level or higher maneuvers
Benefit: You may take an additional swift action each round on your turn. You may only take one immediate action each round.
Normal: You may only take one swift action each round on your turn.
Just straight-up like that. The new requirement - maneuver initiation - was suggested by the folks at GitP to keep it out of the hands of casters without significant up-front costs. It also means it comes online for initiators at 9th level.
So let's try it like this:
Fencer's Reflexes [Combat]
Your reactions and economy of motion are stunningly efficient.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, able to initiate 5th level or higher maneuvers
Benefit: You may take an additional swift action each round on your turn. You may only take one immediate action each round.
Normal: You may only take one swift action each round on your turn.Just straight-up like that. The new requirement - maneuver initiation - was suggested by the folks at GitP to keep it out of the hands of casters without significant up-front costs. It also means it comes online for initiators at 9th level.
I'm going to have to say that I don't feel this feat is appropriate. When I read over it I knew that it didn't feel right but then I went back and double checked and my feelings were confirmed. This feat steps all over the toes of the Warlord's dual boost class ability, which is limited to a number of times per day (once at 6th level and maxing at thrice at 18th) while this can be used every round. During early playtests of the Warlord dual boost was able to be used a number of times per encounter but was toned down after data came in.
I guess my main question would be: what is the intention of this feat?
So let's try it like this:
Fencer's Reflexes [Combat]
Your reactions and economy of motion are stunningly efficient.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, able to initiate 5th level or higher maneuvers
Benefit: You may take an additional swift action each round on your turn. You may only take one immediate action each round.
Normal: You may only take one swift action each round on your turn.Just straight-up like that. The new requirement - maneuver initiation - was suggested by the folks at GitP to keep it out of the hands of casters without significant up-front costs. It also means it comes online for initiators at 9th level.
I'm going to have to say that I don't feel this feat is appropriate. When I read over it I knew that it didn't feel right but then I went back and double checked and my feelings were confirmed. This feat steps all over the toes of the Warlord's dual boost class ability, which is limited to a number of times per day (once at 6th level and maxing at thrice at 18th) while this can be used every round. During early playtests of the Warlord dual boost was able to be used a number of times per encounter but was toned down after data came in.
I guess my main question would be: what is the intention of this feat?
Giving hideously swift-starved Warders, Stalkers, and Harbingers a helping hand, frankly. Those three - but especially Harbinger - would sacrifice their mothers over an Abyssal altar to get another swift/round.
Giving hideously swift-starved Warders, Stalkers, and Harbingers a helping hand, frankly. Those three - but especially Harbinger - would sacrifice their mothers over an Abyssal altar to get another swift/round.
That might not be doable while still creating a balanced feat unless there are massive restrictions to how often it can be used. I say this because action economy is king in combat. It's not just Warders, Stalkers, and Harbingers that want another swift action, any class could benefit from one. Paizo themselves recognize this and gave a way to mitigate it a bit, but that's mainly at the Mythic power level that it occurs and costs you Mythic points to activate.
I'll think it over a bit to see if I can offer you a solution as opposed to just raising more issues, I'm sure you get enough negative feedback as it is.
It's a massive power boost to the many classes that use the 1-swift-action-per-turn limitation as a balancing factor.
For the record, casters can't get more than one quickened spell off/turn. It's right there in the core PF rules.
Casting TimeA spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.So I guess they could still use it for stuff (Magus has a lot of swift actions to spend), but it doesn't seem that gamebreaking that I'd pick it up with a caster 100% of the time. Definitely not Natural spell level.
That rule is referencing the swift action limit of once per round. If you alter that limit, then the specific overrules the general.
It literally says "you may cast such a spell only once a round". It doesn't say "because you only have 1 swift action/round, you may only cast such a spell once".
So I could see the RAI working like that, but by RAW you get 1 swift spell/round, and that's it.
It doesn't have to explain why you may only cast one swift action per round (because of the limits on swift actions to once per round) in that subsection. It is clearly explained elsewhere. If you look at the core rulebook and bestiary, you can see that there are huge numbers of places like that where they explain things in multiple places and only include important details in one place but not another (one that came up at my venue recently was critting and sneak attacking incorporeal creatures, which can only be done with a ghost touch weapon, but that fact is only present in one of the three places where you can find the rules about ghost touch weapons or incorporeal creatures).
Hopefully, by all interpretations of the rules, you will only ever get one swift spell per round because you will only ever get one swift action per round, as designers have generally learned from the results of abilities to get more actions in past incarnations and don't release a way to give multiple swift actions in a round.
It'll cause issues of balance regardless of whether it will let casters cast extra swift action spells, so this tangent isn't too useful :) It removes a fundamental and hard limit that many classes and abilities rely on. It's a cool idea, but the system is written to assume it would never be the case, and there are some rules that even things that break the rules are meant to not break.
It's a massive power boost to the many classes that use the 1-swift-action-per-turn limitation as a balancing factor.
This completely. The classes are already very potent now that I've had the chance to play test them a bit. Giving them this would indeed be a major boost in power and could have many unforeseen consequences otherwise too.
It'll cause issues of balance regardless of whether it will let casters cast extra swift action spells, so this tangent isn't too useful :) It removes a fundamental and hard limit that many classes and abilities rely on. It's a cool idea, but the system is written to assume it would never be the case, and there are some rules that even things that break the rules are meant to not break.
Yes--paladins with Fey Foundling and double Lay on Hands jump to mind right away. They will probably be able to heal themselves pretty much from staggered to full health on the two swifts alone. And that's just the first thing that flew to my mind.
It'll cause issues of balance regardless of whether it will let casters cast extra swift action spells, so this tangent isn't too useful :) It removes a fundamental and hard limit that many classes and abilities rely on. It's a cool idea, but the system is written to assume it would never be the case, and there are some rules that even things that break the rules are meant to not break.Yes--paladins with Fey Foundling and double Lay on Hands jump to mind right away. They will probably be able to heal themselves pretty much from staggered to full health on the two swifts alone. And that's just the first thing that flew to my mind.
Or the insanity of a paladin going: litany of righteousness, smite evil, charge.
And I call out the paladin specifically because I remember at one point ErrantX saying he had plans to make initiator archetypes for all the martial base class, paladin included.
It'll cause issues of balance regardless of whether it will let casters cast extra swift action spells, so this tangent isn't too useful :) It removes a fundamental and hard limit that many classes and abilities rely on. It's a cool idea, but the system is written to assume it would never be the case, and there are some rules that even things that break the rules are meant to not break.Yes--paladins with Fey Foundling and double Lay on Hands jump to mind right away. They will probably be able to heal themselves pretty much from staggered to full health on the two swifts alone. And that's just the first thing that flew to my mind.Or the insanity of a paladin going: litany of righteousness, smite evil, charge.
And I call out the paladin specifically because I remember at one point ErrantX saying he had plans to make initiator archetypes for all the martial base class, paladin included.
I was also considering that one, especially on a target that gets double smite damage, and charging with a lance. That could easily kill any creature in the game if it struck, even Cthulhu.
Opinion Poll:
The Harbinger is testing out some different ideas insofar as how disciplines are assigned to classes, and how to make them a bit more customized. For moving into the final compilation, I wanted to gauge some interest in applying this to the stalker, warder, and warlord.
The proposed changes would leave those classes with the following discipline selection:
Stalker: Veiled Moon and Steel Serpent. Pick two from: Solar Wind, Broken Blade, Thrashing Dragon, and Primal Fury.
Warder: Iron Tortoise and Broken Blade. Pick one from: Golden Lion, Primal Fury, and Solar Wind.
Warlord: Scarlet Throne and Golden Lion. Pick one from: Primal Fury, Thrashing Dragon, and Solar Wind.
What do people think? It gives the classes a solid base to work from (disciplines that let them do their job) and an offering or two from a list to customize with.
-X
What about some kind of action blending?
If you could designate two swift actions that you could activate as one swift upon choosing the feat? Its less open ended that way, though you may have to include language that makes spells an invalid option. Just a thought.
Works for me. I don't mind the idea that there's some built-in variance from one (class) to another, even if they share the same class. And if someone really wants something outside the disciplines they have, there's a feat for that.
@ErrantX - I like the idea, if you adopt it would you also adjust skill lists so they pick up class skills or weapon proficiencies tied to the individual martial disciplines? Gives a way for each individual character to be a bit different from the others, helps smooth out choice paralysis, and has baked in flavor.
What about some kind of action blending?
If you could designate two swift actions that you could activate as one swift upon choosing the feat? Its less open ended that way, though you may have to include language that makes spells an invalid option. Just a thought.
Something like - "Choose an extraordinary or supernatural ability that you possess which may be activated as a swift or immediate action. You may activate that ability as part of another swift action on your turn (for example, a Harbinger that selected Grim News for this feat could activate her Grim News as part of activating a Boost as a swift action)."
Obviously wording would need cleaning...
@ErrantX - I like the idea, if you adopt it would you also adjust skill lists so they pick up class skills or weapon proficiencies tied to the individual martial disciplines? Gives a way for each individual character to be a bit different from the others, helps smooth out choice paralysis, and has baked in flavor.
That's largely unnecessary, as all three classes are proficient with martial weapons. Exotic weapons will still eat the feat (I seethe over the whole EWP feat existing, but I don't want to rock the boat further, Knives and I were talking about it yesterday actually). The class skills will get modification accordingly, and we're relaxing the rules on disciplines as well. Broken Blade, for example, has some specific unarmed attacks in it, but you can use maneuvers that don't specify with weapons. Scarlet Throne is no longer concerned with what you do with your life regarding shields (but Iron Tortoise does still demand you have a shield or its equivalent if you wanna use the shield bash attacks). Things like that. Solar Wind is really the only one that still has the restriction of needing a ranged weapon, but we're playing a little bit with that for the final version as well to try to be a bit more inclusive with firearms and crossbows (mostly regarding their reload times).
-X
Even then, wouldn't people just choose the most advantageous swift action? Certainly is less open ended than just any swift action, so that's good :) but the major power concerns are still there, especially since many classes would find the feat to get an initiator to be worthwhile.
What's the need for the feat, what's driving your desire to see it in?
Errant, I think that's a cool idea! One thing that sprouted to mind was to follow the PF Wizard in how they choose an opposition school of magic, and those spells, while still able to be prepared, count as two spell slots.
Maybe you can do something like that? So then you'd have something like this:
Stalker: Veiled Moon and Steel Serpent. Pick two from: Solar Wind, Broken Blade, Thrashing Dragon, and Primal Fury.Warder: Iron Tortoise and Broken Blade. Pick one from: Golden Lion, Primal Fury, and Solar Wind.
Warlord: Scarlet Throne and Golden Lion. Pick one from: Primal Fury, Thrashing Dragon, and Solar Wind.
The disciplines you did not pick <are at some disadvantage, but not off limits>
Apologies if this was brought up but I missed it, but what was the reasoning behind changing the discipline names from devil tiger to primary fury?
I'm thinking there should be a 9th level maneuver called Triumphant Howl of the Devil Tiger.
If I saw Devil Tiger AND Thrashing Dragon I'd start looking for Bone Flowers, Thousand Whispers and Resplendant Cranes.
Bone Flower and Thousand Whispers actually sounds pretty cool to me.
Otherwise, is this a reference I'm not catching?
If I saw Devil Tiger AND Thrashing Dragon I'd start looking for Bone Flowers, Thousand Whispers and Resplendant Cranes.Bone Flower and Thousand Whispers actually sounds pretty cool to me.
Otherwise, is this a reference I'm not catching?
It was a completely unintentional symmetry that accidentally came about when I was drafting the disciplines initially. I had a Devil Tiger (now Primal Fury) and Thrashing Dragon. There is a White Wolf product that uses those names as well for something completely unrelated and Asian-themed. To tone down the weeaboo aspect, we changed Devil Tiger and left Thrashing Dragon because, well, it had nothing to do with the White Wolf product and Dragons are iconic to this game. Bone Flowers and Thousand Whispers comes from that game too (Kindred of the East).
-X
That explains it, my White Wolf experience is a single game of Mage+Werewolf that went nowhere and nothing else.
Errant, I think that's a cool idea! One thing that sprouted to mind was to follow the PF Wizard in how they choose an opposition school of magic, and those spells, while still able to be prepared, count as two spell slots.
Maybe you can do something like that? So then you'd have something like this:
Stalker: Veiled Moon and Steel Serpent. Pick two from: Solar Wind, Broken Blade, Thrashing Dragon, and Primal Fury.Warder: Iron Tortoise and Broken Blade. Pick one from: Golden Lion, Primal Fury, and Solar Wind.
Warlord: Scarlet Throne and Golden Lion. Pick one from: Primal Fury, Thrashing Dragon, and Solar Wind.
The disciplines you did not pick <are at some disadvantage, but not off limits>
Speaking as someone who hates opposition schools and always played a Generalist to avoid them (the rare few times I've played a Wizard at all - I vastly prefer spont-casters), if we must do this, can we please make it optional? A sort of "discipline focus" thing that ups one and penalizes another or two would be fine, so long as there is still the option to ignore both the benefit and the penalty and go a more Generalist route.
Speaking as someone who hates opposition schools and always played a Generalist to avoid them (the rare few times I've played a Wizard at all - I vastly prefer spont-casters), if we must do this, can we please make it optional? A sort of "discipline focus" thing that ups one and penalizes another or two would be fine, so long as there is still the option to ignore both the benefit and the penalty and go a more Generalist route.
I'm a bit confused...the original version that ErrantX posted that you said you were fine with meant that the ones you didn't pick would be ones you could never use. The one I proposed was one where the ones you didn't pick could still be used, and that's a lot more flexible than the one you agreed was fine?
For some reason I thought you meant "you get a penalty of some sort to the ones you didn't pick, if you spend a feat/multiclass/otherwise get access to them". Not "you get them anyway, but at reduced effectiveness".
I'm not sure how I feel about that, in that case. I'll think about it and hopefully have more to say when I get home (and hopefully my headache has passed by then).
If I saw Devil Tiger AND Thrashing Dragon I'd start looking for Bone Flowers, Thousand Whispers and Resplendant Cranes.Bone Flower and Thousand Whispers actually sounds pretty cool to me.
Otherwise, is this a reference I'm not catching?
It was a completely unintentional symmetry that accidentally came about when I was drafting the disciplines initially. I had a Devil Tiger (now Primal Fury) and Thrashing Dragon. There is a White Wolf product that uses those names as well for something completely unrelated and Asian-themed. To tone down the weeaboo aspect, we changed Devil Tiger and left Thrashing Dragon because, well, it had nothing to do with the White Wolf product and Dragons are iconic to this game. Bone Flowers and Thousand Whispers comes from that game too (Kindred of the East).
-X
Ah yes, the "Too Celtic Mythology" complaints. Sigh.