| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That presumes that the GM is doing the math like we are here in the playtest thread and figures out that Dualistic is intentionally a huge power creep. What if the GM figures "Dreamscarred has always come through for me before with presenting options balanced with my core, so I'll assume that they priced this Dualistic thingy to be a neat option for someone who likes the concept of spawning a second weapon that costs roughly the same amount as it would to buy two of the same weapons. It's pretty unlike them to release creep on purpose." Then after playing for a while with Nick outshining everyone in the GM's game, particularly Eddy, the GM has to try to figure out how that happened.
On the boards, you will hear some of the most invested players respond who can do the math easily, but there's plenty of people out there buying and enjoying their DSP products who are like the example above.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That presumes that the GM is doing the math like we are here in the playtest thread and figures out that Dualistic is intentionally a huge power creep. What if the GM figures "Dreamscarred has always come through for me before with presenting options balanced with my core, so I'll assume that they priced this Dualistic thingy to be a neat option for someone who likes the concept of spawning a second weapon that costs roughly the same amount as it would to buy two of the same weapons. It's pretty unlike them to release creep on purpose." Then after playing for a while with Nick outshining everyone in the GM's game, particularly Eddy, the GM has to try to figure out how that happened.
On the boards, you will hear some of the most invested players respond who can do the math easily, but there's plenty of people out there buying and enjoying their DSP products who are like the example above.
Since (again) I'm largely out of this from a design perspective, I'd like to give my thoughts on this topic.
Dreamscarred Press's goal is to release products that are within reason of the power level of Paizo's material. Not necessarily just the CRB, but we also take into account the APG, the ARG, UM, UC, and the like. When designing material, we try to keep close to the overall balance level of that material. The Aegis, for example, used the Summoner as a big point of reference when we were designing it.
However, that design is not in a vacuum of X class to Y class.
When I was running balance numbers on the soulknife (for example), I compared 2-hand soulknife, dual-wield soulknife, TWF ranger, 2-hand wielding paladin, 2-hand wielding fighter, etc.
I didn't simply say "a dual-wielding soulknife should be comparable to a dual-wielding fighter". I said "a dual-wielding soulknife should be within about 10% damage output of the ranger, paladin, fighter, and/or barbarian." If the dual-wielding soulknife was better than a dual-wielding fighter, but was within a reasonable margin in damage output to the others, then that was fine, because most discussions I have seen on the subject (and the math confirms), dual wielding is usually inferior to 2-hand wielding. Not only due to the feat tax, but in raw damage output and options and in weapon cost.
When it comes to this weapon, the way I would test the design would be:
Take a 2hd-weapon wielding character and calculate how much damage per round he's dealing (not max damage per hit, but average damage per round, using miss chance to average CR monster AC, crit ranges vs chance to miss the crit confirmation, crit multiplier, etc.) He should have equipment based upon the normal recommendations - I think 25% to weapons, 25% to protection, 50% to the rest/consumables... although I'd have to double-check that.
Take a TWF character without this item and do the same. So weapons bought at normal price. Ranger with and without favored enemy is the best, IMO, to get a "baseline" - calculate with favored enemy bonus and then without and average the two to come up with a "baseline"
Take a TWF character with this item and do the same. So a single weapon bought at normal price.
Take a TWF soulknife and do the same, using crystal hilts.
If the guy using this item is within 10% of those (and really, it shouldn't be 10% higher than the highest of the scenarios), then I'd say it's reasonable at the cost. If it's above 10% of those scenarios, then it is power creep that needs to be addressed.
And you'll note that I included a 2-hand wielding character. The reason for that is you can't do this in a vacuum of "only TWF." You have to consider all the melee options when determining if something is "too good."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The goal of Path of War has never been to change or supplant the Core Rulebook - if we did such a project we'd be very much upfront about it. Balancing has been done against classes such as the Paladin and the Bard from the Core, and the Magus, Inquisitor and Cavalier from the expansions.
But that's what the designers have stated as the goal. At one point a few hundred posts back, they said they weren't comparing to fighter or rogue. That's powercreep. Prince was talking during the ACG playtest about how if a martial character can't solo a dragon, "or capable of heroic action" as he put it, they were too weak, and that the current non-magical martial classes can't do this. This is not the viewpoint of someone who is trying to not introduce creep.
Endz acknowledged it in his review. It's the impression you get from reading through all these posts. There seems to be a disconnect here between the aims of DSP and what's happening. DSP states they aren't going for creep compared to Core, designers actions and statements show they are. DSP states it's a book for PF, designers won't even state they aren't 3.5 players and are instead PF players (and one opened up his introduction by saying he has many issues with PF!).
Despite our disagreements on some issues, these guys are talented designers, but as an outsider looking in, there seems to be a communication problem going on.
And you'll note that I included a 2-hand wielding character. The reason for that is you can't do this in a vacuum of "only TWF." You have to consider all the melee options when determining if something is "too good.
That's a good idea, but be aware of the pitfalls when you are testing this--
When it comes to TWF, damage isn't always the only thing you do on a hit, and TWF's true strength is applying on-hit effects many many times per round. A TWF kukri build with Staggering Critical and Dazing Assault (and I've seen one of these played from level 7 to 17 with great success, the Fighter with this stuff was routinely outperforming the casters and often the superstitious spell sunder barbarian, depending on the situation, at the highest levels in any fight except when they pulled out their biggest guns) is getting more out of those extra attacks than just damage--each hit is another chance to make the enemy miss their turn (via failed save) or lose their full attack with no save to negate it unless the enemy is an inquisitor (via staggering crit). Dualistic also allows you to apply favorable on-hit properties like spell stealing, vorpal, or whatever else you like, so that's twice as many chances to land them.
If damage is the only benchmark, then it's important to know when TWF is better and when it is worse--because the players buying Dualistic are going to be using TWF in its best case. Right now, for instance, the strongest melee paladin, when smiting, is a TWF paladin (with something like Gloves of Storing to allow for Lay on Hands), since adding that extra smite damage to each hit is quite substantial. I have seen a pretty vanilla TWF paladin annihilate known difficult PFS scenarios (like King of the Storval Stairs). If she had a dualistic weapon, it would have been even crazier. So based on what you pick for a benchmark, you will see vastly different numbers for the TWF/two-handed disparity. Also, don't forget Two-Weapon Rend. I've seen numerous theorycraft attempts at damage between a TWFer and a two-hander, and few of them remember that extra rend attack for the TWFer.
Also, as I think everyone on the thread agrees when looking at the math, Dualistic as a +1 equivalent has a variable cost that causes it to start weak and become more and more powerful for the TWFer as the total enhancement bonus increases. So for instance, while at the lowest levels it is cheaper to buy two +1 weapons than a +1 dualistic, by the end, you are literally saving 124,000 gp buying a +9 dualistic over two +9s. That's a lot of gold.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's what the designers have stated as the goal. At one point a few hundred posts back, they said they weren't comparing to fighter or rogue. That's powercreep. Prince was talking during the ACG playtest about how if a martial character can't solo a dragon, "or capable of heroic action" as he put it, they were too weak, and that the current non-magical martial classes can't do this. This is not the viewpoint of someone who is trying to not introduce creep.
I'm feeling a bit misunderstood 'ere, Cheapy. The expectation was never that any given martial class would be able to solo all five of those encounters, or even most of them - especially not the dragon (fun fact: WotC originally deliberately under-CR'd dragons to make them artificially tougher). What I wanted to see was meaningful contribution in those encounters. When Arcanist stomped the first four and then solo'd the dragon? That was a bug, and I mentioned as much at the time. When I did the same tests with Brawler, I felt like I wasn't seeing a meaningful ability to influence the encounters in question.
If I've done my job to my own satisfaction, my work'll face down those same encounters and it'll find most of them extremely challenging and/or lethal, but it'll still put up a good fight. If it's a curb stomp in either direction, I've got a problem and I should address it somehow.
DSP states it's a book for PF, designers won't even state they aren't 3.5 players and are instead PF players (and one opened up his introduction by saying he has many issues with PF!).
Hi. I've got a lot of issues with 3.5 as well. Look, I'm designing for the system but does that mean I think it's perfect? No. And I'm not interested in being dishonest about my opinions either, 'cause that's not really gonna help anyone. But if I didn't care, I wouldn't be here, my friend.
Plus, flaws or gaps (not the same thing, mind you) in a system represent opportunities for design. If someone goes, "Man, I wanna do X but nothing in PF lets me," 3pp publishers have the chance to jump in and come up with something. Certainly Paizo does as well - check out Magus and Inquisitor, direct answers to gaps in the system. Flaws are trickier to address, harder to agree on (one man's bug is another man's feature) and definitely harder on 3pp publishers. It's not like we can errata first-party content (or even would, if we had that power)! So you see stuff like the slime, meant to address a problem within the scope of our power to do so. Balancing it from there is the challenge.
I know this is kinda an odd thing to be asking, but...can I get a break? There's a lot of new things here that I'm still adjusting to, from fiddly rules changes (you have no idea how shocked I was that you can't power attack with touch attacks) to an entirely new forum culture to being A Real Actual Professional to fielding questions from a paradigm of gaming that I'm straight-up not familiar with. I'm trying, and I like to think that I'm making progress, but there's years of habits and assumptions that I'm fighting against here and they come out when I talk & design at times. I mean, I'm not the only one that remembers my original Organizations intro, right? The one full of the accidental pot shots and sarcasm?
I share DSP's goal of creating options that are balanced in Pathfinder's overall meta. My personal goal is to make those options clear, intuitive, and flavorful. The idea is that if you just pick whatever sounds cool, it will be. Y'know?
Despite our disagreements on some issues, these guys are talented designers, but as an outsider looking in, there seems to be a communication problem going on.
I'll claim some credit here. I come from a different place, with a different paradigm not just of gaming but of communication at all, and years of those habits have been hard to shake. I'm tryin' to meet'cha halfway here, Cheapy, I really am. But the hardest habits to shake are the ones you don't even notice.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The designers hate TWF users (or, generalized to martials).
I certainly hope that anyone with the ability to think can easily see why this is an utterly ridiculous claim. This first requires some ulterior motive on the part of the designers, which is just laughable. "I hate TWF so much I'm going to add it to the game, and just SCREW THEM OVER! YEA! THAT'LL TEACH THEM! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
...Hi, you must be new to these forums and/or the PF system! Here's a secret: Monks suck, Rogues are near useless, Fighters can't have nice things. Every time a good change happens to one of these classes it gets nerfhammered so hard it breaks the feat standing next to it.
At one point a few hundred posts back, they said they weren't comparing to fighter or rogue.
And that is a good thing. You should balance against the barbarian and the paladin, against the bard, the inquisitor and the alchemist. You want to compare to the well designed classes, not with the bottom of the pile.
If Rogue is your measure stick you end up with the same problem the Investigator got in the playtest, and go from 'good class' to 'will never be able to meaningfully contribute in combat'.| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The goal of Path of War has never been to change or supplant the Core Rulebook - if we did such a project we'd be very much upfront about it. Balancing has been done against classes such as the Paladin and the Bard from the Core, and the Magus, Inquisitor and Cavalier from the expansions.
But that's what the designers have stated as the goal. At one point a few hundred posts back, they said they weren't comparing to fighter or rogue. That's powercreep. Prince was talking during the ACG playtest about how if a martial character can't solo a dragon, "or capable of heroic action" as he put it, they were too weak, and that the current non-magical martial classes can't do this. This is not the viewpoint of someone who is trying to not introduce creep.
Endz acknowledged it in his review. It's the impression you get from reading through all these posts. There seems to be a disconnect here between the aims of DSP and what's happening. DSP states they aren't going for creep compared to Core, designers actions and statements show they are. DSP states it's a book for PF, designers won't even state they aren't 3.5 players and are instead PF players (and one opened up his introduction by saying he has many issues with PF!).
Despite our disagreements on some issues, these guys are talented designers, but as an outsider looking in, there seems to be a communication problem going on.
As the lead designer on this project, let me weigh in on this post.
We are not comparing these classes, or future classes for that matter, to fighter. Why? Because no one should. Frankly, its underpowered and bad and it is a commonly acknowledge flaw in the system. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room and just call it what it is. If we're being called 'agents of power creep' then I accept that title gladly and will add it to my signature files on every forum. Honestly, this is a tiring statement. That's like saying because the Ford Pinto is a car that is available, that all other cars must be balanced against it to not out perform it. The Ford Pinto is a terrible car, and the Fighter is the Pinto of the CRB. Paizo's design team doesn't balance its fighting classes against the fighter either; look at the Magus. The gunslinger. Ranger, paladin, and barbarian are strictly better in all ways. DSP's works in the fighting arena as well. Soulknife, psychic warrior, tactician, marksman. Again, tiring argument. I see what you're saying, but again. Ford Pinto. Creep is good sometimes. Be a zerg. Enjoy the creep!
There is no disconnect between the Path of War and what DSP stands for. Everything Knives and I have done has been run across Andreas; he is very actively involved in our conversations, and if he is not present, he is always kept aware of what's going on. DSP is on board with what we're doing, and Andreas will definitely step in and tell me if we're straying from the path. This is a book for Pathfinder; it is certainly designed as such. When I drafted it out originally, I was writing in 3.5 because I didn't own Pathfinder books yet. That was 4 years ago. I got Pathfinder books, and things changed. I run a Pathfinder game every week, and I have run one every week solid for the last 4+ years. In the last 4 years I have not played in a game that was NOT a Pathfinder game. Before that? I was a 3.5 player, yes. Do I believe in some 3.5 theories? Yes. Where on this planet or any other you got the impression that I at least "won't even state they aren't 3.5 players and are instead PF players" is just left field material. No one's asked me. I presume everyone here is a Pathfinder player. I'd presume you'd feel the same for me. My interest is Pathfinder, and adding something to the game that is of both value, quality, and of reasonable merit. I want to enrich this game, not tear it down from some misanthropic desire to bring 3.5 back.
I know I won't be everyone's cup of tea. I know that Path of War is following in the footsteps of the most tumultuous product from 3.5's lineup, and I know that it will be met with mixed feelings. I'm totally okay with it. Cheapy, yourself, you've been a strong opponent of a lot of what we're doing here. I respect that, it's cool. I like having people with the obvious talent and intelligence you possess pointing when something I've made has flaws. You do so constructively, offering feedback on how YOU would do it differently. I thank you for that.
-X
ErrantX--Without weighing in one way or another on the persistent meme that fighters (or martials) are useless, I don't think anyone who is saying that thinks they are useless because they don't do enough damage to monsters when they get a full attack. There's dozens of reasons they list, but that is never among them. So, are a lot of the things in your work creep on the fighter in terms of versatility and utility? Absolutely. But in a way that addresses most of those people's complaints with the situation, whether you agree with them or not (as it seems you do). Giving fighters mystical powers that handle unusual situations is exactly the kind of thing that people are finding lacking.
However, the Dualistic property is a different animal than the rest. It exists for no other reason than to increase full attack damage. You almost literally cannot get use out of it other than for that purpose. It increases some real combat monster builds at the part they are already more than good enough at: full attack damage, rather than looking into those other areas of the game like the other options in your work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, the Dualistic property is a different animal than the rest. It exists for no other reason than to increase full attack damage. You almost literally cannot get use out of it other than for that purpose. It increases some real combat monster builds at the part they are already more than good enough at: full attack damage, rather than looking into those other areas of the game like the other options in your work.
Does it? I feel as though the weapons will remain at relatively the same power level; the goal of Dualistic isn't to make the weapons themselves better, but to free up gold for other kinds of problem solving.
Then again I haven't run the intensive numbers suggested by Jeremy either so I may well be wrong here.
However, the Dualistic property is a different animal than the rest. It exists for no other reason than to increase full attack damage. You almost literally cannot get use out of it other than for that purpose. It increases some real combat monster builds at the part they are already more than good enough at: full attack damage, rather than looking into those other areas of the game like the other options in your work.Does it? I feel as though the weapons will remain at relatively the same power level; the goal of Dualistic isn't to make the weapons themselves better, but to free up gold for other kinds of problem solving.
Then again I haven't run the intensive numbers suggested by Jeremy either so I may well be wrong here.
It depends. If we go strictly as Jeremy recommends and budget an exact percentage of our WBL to weapons in every build, then necessarily dualistic is going to result in more DPR. Certainly at any step of the process, someone can choose to get less DPR and more problem-solving (in fact, my most successful PFS fighters usually do this anyway, making sure that they have at least an expendable to cover all of the typical "bad day" situations I can think of), but many people rarely stop to do so (which is at least partially responsible for the problem in the first place).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the idea of having some cash on my two weapon fighters to pursue some utility instead of spending every copper piece trying to keep up (and inevitably failing) with the barb with a greatsword.
Dualistic in no way makes a person deal more damage, it just reduces the cost of a combat style that routinely underperforms.
I love the idea of having some cash on my two weapon fighters to pursue some utility instead of spending every copper piece trying to keep up (and inevitably failing) with the barb with a greatsword.
Dualistic in no way makes a person deal more damage, it just reduces the cost of a combat style that routinely underperforms.
Everybody loves the idea of having extra cash to do this or that. Everyone would love more money on their characters, this is a certainty.
Given the actual number crunches done with the DPR olympics, it would seem you are choosing to under-perform if you are "inevitably failing to keep up" to the "competition" involved. This is something everyone can do too, make a fail character who doesn't squeeze out their maximum DPR, to prove the character as less than it could be and not be competitive if built differently. Being utilitarian costs something, those are choices made when you make the character. If we don't choose to make the character competitive, you can't really complain that it isn't now can we? We also cannot honestly complain that our characters aren't "keeping up" if we choose to make them more utilitarian, we don't get to have our cake and eat it too.
The TWF'er with the dualistic weapon as a +1 bonus, literally just bought a +5 to hit and more damage with the gold it saved. TWF is a dex based character and if you are making them realistically "competitive" a manual of DEX +5 costs 131k gp. Each attack is now getting +5 to hit (finesse, because it is a dex character right?) and bonus to damage (piranha strike/power attack) fed by the extra "to hit" as well as any rider effects from the weapon (feats or abilities). A +5 to hit also means that the next set of attacks gets bumped up and hits as well. Chances are its DPR will increase quite a bit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The enhancement bonus would be the same as another fighter with one weapon. A manual of dex adds 2 points to your hit chance and the same manual is available to the guy with money to burn because he has a big sword instead of two little ones.
Whatever the outcome here, this money that the two weapon fighter saves in no way makes the two weapon fighter a better fighter, it just makes it so that the money available to one class for utility isn't diverted into the second weapon. It's the same as having a greatsword fighter in every way, they just don't have two years of a nations capital tied into there weapon choice. I don't know why the feat investment isn't enough of a tax on what amounts to flavor.
FWIW, it's best not to think of TWFers as damage dealers, but rather as people specializing in On-Hit effects. While they lag behind Two-handers in pure damage, they're much, much better than two-handers when it comes to inflicting status effects through the various Critical feats that Pathfinder added, utilizing combinations of combat maneuvers to hinder the enemy, or a mixture of both.
And, well, you know. People always say that casters are best because they shutdown enemies before they can do harm, and TWFers are among the best martials at shutting down enemies, as long as they focus on that. Especially at higher levels, when the Critical feats come into play. Dazing Assault, Sickening Critical, Dirty Trick, Trip. That'll shut down someone's day right quick.
I mean, people often try to make them damage dealers (often capitalizing on on-hit effects like Sneak Attack or a cavalier's Challenge), and they come out OK. But it's not necessarily the best use of them. Not quite as bad as trying to be a two-hander that's focused on defenses, but you get the idea :)
Speaking of combat maneuvers, I think it'd be really interesting to see some maneuvers focusing on the combat maneuvers drag, push, and reposition. Those ones aren't used too often, and some nice ways to use those would be cool. Maybe something where when you use Reposition, the path the guy took becomes alight in a blaze, creating a wall of fire, along the lines of the paladin spell Wake of Light.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I have with these kinds of arguments is largely that you have to tick off a dozen feat boxes to make this happen, which has nothing to do with the weapon property. I can't fathom why things like extra attacks and critical features are being attributed to it.
If you have to invest all of your feats to make a cool weapon based debuff effect, is that not an appropriate return? Not to mention the fact that by the time you are actually pulling this sort of build off you can afford to have two plus 10 weapons, which makes this weapon property accomplish exactly nothing for the efficacy of a two weapon fighting debuffer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A "crit fishing" two weapon fighting build requires
Two Weapon Fighting
Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Greater Two Weapon Fighting
Double Slice
Two Weapon Rend
Critical Focus
Critical Feat of Choice
Possibility of "Xing Strike" feats
Critical Mastery and another Critical Feat, if you're a fighter
And if you want to TWF with a shield, you also need
Improved Shield Bash
Shield Slam
Shield Master
Bashing Finish
Plus your damage types are restricted to 18-20 weapons (mostly just slashing, other DR makes you sad), and you need either Improved Critical or Keen weapons.
Seven feats minimum. That's 70% of your feats, for a normal character. If you're a fighter using Critical Mastery that jumps up to nine feats (though you also get a lot more feats... but you're a fighter). Using the "Xing Strike" feats like Tripping Strike adds another feat to the pile. Using a shield adds four feats to the list. And another if you want Dazing or Stunning Assault
That is a lot of feats. If you're investing that many feats (and remember, you still need Power Attack and other staples) into just pure offense, you should be better at offense than people who haven't.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A "crit fishing" two weapon fighting build requires
Two Weapon Fighting
Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Greater Two Weapon Fighting
Double Slice
Two Weapon Rend
Critical Focus
Critical Feat of Choice
Possibility of "Xing Strike" featsCritical Mastery and another Critical Feat, if you're a fighter
And if you want to TWF with a shield, you also need
Improved Shield Bash
Shield Slam
Shield Master
Bashing FinishPlus your damage types are restricted to 18-20 weapons (mostly just slashing, other DR makes you sad), and you need either Improved Critical or Keen weapons.
Seven feats minimum. That's 70% of your feats, for a normal character. If you're a fighter using Critical Mastery that jumps up to nine feats (though you also get a lot more feats... but you're a fighter). Using the "Xing Strike" feats like Tripping Strike adds another feat to the pile. Using a shield adds four feats to the list. And another if you want Dazing or Stunning Assault
That is a lot of feats. If you're investing that many feats (and remember, you still need Power Attack and other staples) into just pure offense, you should be better at offense than people who haven't.
This yo. TWF is rough. It's generally not great and the characters and classes with the most reason to do it often have the poorest returns, or don't see those returns until very high levels. I think that part of the problem with the discussion involves the original "messy stuff" from the early iteration of the enhancement. Had it been something as simple as "Whenever a wielder draws a Dualistic weapon, a semi-real copy appears in their off-hand. This copy lacks the Dualistic property but is identical in all other ways. This duplicate disappears if either it or the original weapon leaves the wielder's possession" it would have been pretty close to perfect. Because TWF characters do get hosed. They've got to spend multiple feats just to get damage that kind of resembles what THF gets automatically, and they pile a penalty to hit on top of that. The return for this fighting style typically doesn't kick in until 10th to 15th level, and even then it is reliant on their ability to actually make a full attack. A weapon that at least gives them an option to save a little bit of cash and not lose on that front as well is perfectly reasonable, and honestly something I imagine we will see from Paizo eventually.
The enhancement bonus would be the same as another fighter with one weapon. A manual of dex adds 2 points to your hit chance and the same manual is available to the guy with money to burn because he has a big sword instead of two little ones.
Whatever the outcome here, this money that the two weapon fighter saves in no way makes the two weapon fighter a better fighter, it just makes it so that the money available to one class for utility isn't diverted into the second weapon. It's the same as having a greatsword fighter in every way, they just don't have two years of a nations capital tied into there weapon choice. I don't know why the feat investment isn't enough of a tax on what amounts to flavor.
My apologies, it was late when I was typing. The manual does end up granting +2 to +3 modifier (depending on the stat being even or odd) not +5. Not as drastic as +5 but FAR from being dismissible. While the 2h might be able to get the bonus, the TWF is getting it on two weapons if not more (depending on feat choices etc.)
Feat tax isn't even an appropriate title now that PFRPG increased the number of feats you get versus 3.5, essentially they made it so whatever you wanted to do you had the feats to do it appropriately. Feats give you options, spend them how you like. When you have enough feats to do what you want and do it well, how is it a tax? Those were choices you made to have that option available.
This isn't "just" flavor. This is an ability that is so good it isn't an option to not take it at this and any similar price point. That is a problem mechanically. For it to be a fair option, the price point should be someplace around "this is good but there are other options I might want to spend the money on" and honestly that is probably around +3 if we are going to be conservative about it. Even +2 is pushing "must have" for any TWF type character.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Over the bracers, why not introduce the "imbuing ammunition carrier of X" And would take the form of the appropriate ammo carrier. Dart pouch, Javelin quiver, Shuriken holster, ect.
Ex: Imbuing Ammunition carrier of Javelins
Cost 2000g (+1) then as weapon (+2000 gold to have it continually produce ammunition)
Imbues javelins within as per the enchantments on the ammunition carrier.
At this point it would fuction exactly like a magical bow does. If someone enchants Javelin before placing them in said ammo carrier it would act exactly as with bows.
This would allow throwing weapon users to become almost as good as archers (they still are using tiny baby range increments and have less feat support)
It could be used for Chakrams, darts, shurikens, ect so that they can be viable.
Remember that before you could even use rapid shot in a throwing build you would need Quick Draw feat, which is uneccessary for archers.
EDIT:
Some have suggested keeping them as Bracers, but I feel that since throwers are already going to be taxed the quick draw feat and can never take many shot, that there was no need to further tax a thrower by forcing them to use wrist slots. I like the idea of this item being "slotless" and rules wise similar to how magic bows interact with magic arrows
P.S. Errant, Jeremy Smith, and Prince of Knives I love your work in PoW. I look at Warlord and think "This is the class that exemplifies the warrior we see in fiction. Not some guy who may as well be mute because all he's good for is swinging a sword, but a man who's force of will draws others to him. A real Spartacus, Date Masamune, Leonidas, ect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I've got a bit of an announcement to make.
A little while back, the Bushi showed up in DSP's submissions forum. I'd already seen it, of course, but it got me & the boss talking about things. I mentioned that I didn't like the class, he asked why, and the conversation sorta snowballed from there.
To make a somewhat long story that's full of me using 'casual' (read: unprintable because I have a foul mouth even when I'm happy) language short, PoW is going to be experimenting with the concept of Class Templates. Class templates are like archetypes in that they modify a class's abilities by replacing some and changing others. Unlike archetypes, though, class templates can be applied to more than one class - in the case of our test case, the Bushi, the template can be dropped onto Warder or Warlord, modifying each class to go for a different archetype of samurai warfare. Ericaltolvilla, the Bushi's original author, is handling the transition and the moment it's done we'll have some exciting stuff to show ya.
So you're saying it has a heavy resemblance to Genius Games Archetypes.
...Maybe? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with their work. Or indeed with most third-party work that isn't from a free homebrew forum.
So, I suppose I should take this opportunity to introduce myself. I'm Elricaltovilla, the guy that Prince introduce who will be spearheading this Class Template idea.
I look forward to sharing my work with you all and hearing your questions, comments and feedback.
Happy Gaming!
Nice to meet ya.
Sounds very cool. I had been entertaining similar concepts after hearing about the genius archetype thing on a sort of basic chassis of full half and three quarter bab progression along with basic qualities tied to those concepts.
... I think that is probably the worst explanation I have ever attempted.
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
Bad taste quoting myself here - but I bought the subscription this week and have read and fairly digested the books.
I love them. Even the whole encounter based thing, which I have always found a little odd, my mind has made a shift that I can have some good justification in it.
I have a Gestal Monk/Fighter that I swapped out for Monk/Stalker. The character has even more Ki based stuff, and a really flair. Can't wait for everything to come out.
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. :DBad taste quoting myself here - but I bought the subscription this week and have read and fairly digested the books.
I love them. Even the whole encounter based thing, which I have always found a little odd, my mind has made a shift that I can have some good justification in it.
I have a Gestal Monk/Fighter that I swapped out for Monk/Stalker. The character has even more Ki based stuff, and a really flair. Can't wait for everything to come out.
You know, I'd been having a pretty wretched night, and this really brightened it up. I'm glad to hear you've enjoyed it so far! Do feel free to leave us critique, ideas, questions, anything.
Is it too late to suggest ideas for Stalker archetypes?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm currently DMing a game of kingmaker. It's one of my player's, and a really close personal friends, first time playing Pathfinder. He created a fun background and character concept, but picked Fighter. His character is very involved in the politics of the story, but all his skills, stats, and feats say that he's terrible at social encounters and decent at hitting things.
Tonight I showed him the Warlord and walked him through the class a bit and he loves it. He wanted to feel like a brave, powerful, and charismatic general leading from the front and Warlord is giving that to him. For the last 6 levels it has been disheartening to see his character fail in so many social situations despite how he envisions his character simply because he picked the "beginner" class.
I'll be helping him rebuild his character as a Warlord before next game and assisting him in understanding maneuvers.
I didn't know about ToB or PoW until someone mentioned this project. Now I'm happy I looked it up because it is allowing my friend to play a character that makes sense for him!
He wants to be Leonidas, not a Persian Footsoldier!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My 20 year old son is playing a 7th level Stalker in one my campaigns. He's convinced the character is broken because it's an organic murder machine. He took on two trolls by himself and practically made pudding out of them. I personally don't think it's broken; just darned good class design.
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. :DBad taste quoting myself here - but I bought the subscription this week and have read and fairly digested the books.
I love them. Even the whole encounter based thing, which I have always found a little odd, my mind has made a shift that I can have some good justification in it.
I have a Gestal Monk/Fighter that I swapped out for Monk/Stalker. The character has even more Ki based stuff, and a really flair. Can't wait for everything to come out.
You know, I'd been having a pretty wretched night, and this really brightened it up. I'm glad to hear you've enjoyed it so far! Do feel free to leave us critique, ideas, questions, anything.
Couple of odd question - do you have, in playtest or something, extended Favored Class options? Didn't see them, but I may have been blind.
And the second is not actually important, but I'm curious: Pathfinder spells are written second person "You do this" as are the Maneuvers in Tome of Battle - but the Maneuvers in Path of War are in third person. Was that a conscious design choice?
The only reason I noticed is that I keep a "spellbook" of the spells (or now, Maneuvers)for that character - with the full description of the spells. My monk has some Sorcerer spells (defined as Ki)and I noticed the difference when I copies some of the maneuvers into that document I keep. No big deal, but curious.
Couple of odd question - do you have, in playtest or something, extended Favored Class options? Didn't see them, but I may have been blind.
Not yet. I've been kicking around some ideas for my class (the Harbinger, currently in open beta and slated for Book 2) but no favored class options have been released yet for anything.
And the second is not actually important, but I'm curious: Pathfinder spells are written second person "You do this" as are the Maneuvers in Tome of Battle - but the Maneuvers in Path of War are in third person. Was that a conscious design choice?
I...don't...knooooow. And now I'm going to have to peel through all of mine and see what I wrote >.>
My 20 year old son is playing a 7th level Stalker in one my campaigns. He's convinced the character is broken because it's an organic murder machine. He took on two trolls by himself and practically made pudding out of them. I personally don't think it's broken; just darned good class design.
If I was a DM, seeing a single character take on two trolls, presumably in melee combat, and easily beat them, might worry me. 2 Trolls are equivalent to a CR 7 encounter, so it should have been more than a little tricky for one Level 7 character beat them down. Especially in melee against a troll, though the bog-standard Troll's to-hit is pretty low.
My 20 year old son is playing a 7th level Stalker in one my campaigns. He's convinced the character is broken because it's an organic murder machine. He took on two trolls by himself and practically made pudding out of them. I personally don't think it's broken; just darned good class design.If I was a DM, seeing a single character take on two trolls, presumably in melee combat, and easily beat them, might worry me. 2 Trolls are equivalent to a CR 7 encounter, so it should have been more than a little tricky for one Level 7 character beat them down. Especially in melee against a troll, though the bog-standard Troll's to-hit is pretty low.
This might be more of an issue with the trolls; creatures of the Giant type typically have low-AC and high hit points, a holdover from 3.5's attitudes on the matter. Stalker hears 'low AC' and gets all excited; their bonus damage and maneuvers mean that 'high HP' is not a thing they get worried about.
|
|
Not to mention the fact that a CR 7 encounter should be a cakewalk for a level 7 party, using 1/4 of their resources or less. A 7th level dpr expert probably should be able to deal with them fairly handily. In PFS I once took out 2 CR 4 Otyughs with my Fighter 2 / Mad Dog Barbarian 1 and his war panda, and neither he nor the panda was in particularly bad shape afterwards. Given a Stalker's mobility and access to maneuvers that deal fire or acid damage, I could see him handling a pair of CR 5 trolls at 7th level pretty easily. I'd expect the same performance from an Alchemist, Inquisitor, or Magus, the core equivalents of the Stalker.
My 20 year old son is playing a 7th level Stalker in one my campaigns. He's convinced the character is broken because it's an organic murder machine. He took on two trolls by himself and practically made pudding out of them. I personally don't think it's broken; just darned good class design.
63 HP on a Troll? AC 16? Those are easy to hit and damage.
So a level 7 character.
Let us assume Barbarian or Paladin at level 7.
Barbarian has
+2 weapon lets say Great sword
+2 str belt
so 18+4+2=24 str
to hit when power attacking
7+7+2-2=14/9
possibly higher if weapon focus or other random assistance
Damage
7*1.5=10+6+2=18
so 14/9
at 2D6+18 (average 24)
Animal fury rage power for an additional bite at
7 to hit d4+5 damage
Assuming hits a Barbarian is dealing 56ish damage a round to these guys
Comparatively a Paladin
7+5+2(let's say 14 cha)+2-2=14/9 to hit
give or take weapon focus or flank
Damage
2d6+7(str)+7(smite)+2+6(Power attack)=2d6+22+1d6(fire)
14/9
2d6+22+1d6(fire)
on average 61 damage a round.
Both of these guys are capable of dropping a Troll in one round if they roll slightly above average.
My basic build for Stalker with a +1 dualistic Kukri does
Hit
11/11
Damage
Sharpened talon Boost (this specifies 2 weapon fighting, so it can't be done on strikes that do no contain that language)
Battle Dragon Stance
Assuming Deadly strikes active
d4+12+4d6, d4+12+4d6
Assuming both hit an average total of 52 damage.
This is DEFINITELY a lot of damage and decently accurate, but it is not comparable to a full BAB class as shown by my examples. In terms of the damage race Stalkers contribute, but shouldn't outshine a proper martial like the Barb, Paladin, Ranger, Cavalier, or Warlord. Stalkers do however provide great skill coverage, access to utility maneuvers unique to the class thanks to the Steel Serpent and Veiled moon maneuvers, and a strong ability to protect themselves from being hit in combat (Dem counters and Combat Precognition). Gotta love dem Stalkers.
Trolls as written in the books are SUPER weak against a level 7 character who likely has over 22 AC, 52-ish hp, and laughs at d6+5 damage attacks. If a level 7 PC dies to trolls then they're building bad characters.
This was somewhat mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread, but I would really like to see a class that emulates the role of the Warblade, something that neither the Warlord or Warder really does. A glory seeking, tactical minded, intellect based class that uses his abilities, maneuvers, stances to obliterate his foes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was somewhat mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread, but I would really like to see a class that emulates the role of the Warblade, something that neither the Warlord or Warder really does. A glory seeking, tactical minded, intellect based class that uses his abilities, maneuvers, stances to obliterate his foes.
'Glory seeking' was always part of Warblade's fluff and was never really backed by his abilities. 'zat in mind, while neither Warlord or Warder are perfect fits they both fit archetypes that the Warblade embodied. A Warlord who focuses on, say, Scarlet Throne/Golden Lion looks a lot like a White Raven/Diamond Mind Warblade might have.
The thing is, re-creating the previous three classes is not part of this project. Partially this is because, well, they already exist. You can port them forward just fine. Mostly it's because Path of War is a big chance to expand on the concepts Tome of Battle introduced. Why re-tread old ground?
wouldn't mind seeing some sort of int based archetype in the future though. just saying. Tactics based melee dude or something.
|
|
wouldn't mind seeing some sort of int based archetype in the future though. just saying. Tactics based melee dude or something.
In his own way the Warder is very much an Int focused Tactics based melee dude. He just uses marking, defensive abilities, and maneuvers to express his tactics.
I was playing around with a homebrew archetype to give the Warder some of the Warlord's warleader abilities and there's some really good possibilities there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well for one, many DM's dont allow things from 3.5, they want it Pathfinder specific. I know one who will allow Ultimate Psionics all day long but if you went to him and asked to play a prestige class from Complete Arcane he would just flat out say no.
Glory seeker, mercenary, tactical genius, the fluff can be mutable, ideally what I'm seeking is a class that is offensive focused and doesn't bother with teamwork feats or marking.
Your best bet is a possible future archetype. Though remember that these classes are intended to be comparable to optimized Barbarians and Paladins.
It's possible a full BAB offensive focused initiator would be too far above the target curve? You can play a Warlord, choose to ignore the teamwork feat thing till 15th level, and still have tons of fun while being an offensive powerhouse.
Also an archetype for Warder trades out Broken Blade for Scarlet Throne and allows you to use Iron Tortoise with polearms and heavy blades (2 handed). That archetype may be what you're looking for?
An archetype will work. I'll look into it, thanks Insain. :)
Glad I could help :)
The next book, if I remember correctly, should have archetypes and Prestige classes.
I got to read and play a bit with them and I think you will find them very fun!
My personal favorite was Steelfist Commando. It trades out Scarlet throne and Primal Fury for Broken Blade and Steel Serpent, gets some alternate class features, and overall makes a very cool looking unarmed class (though I run it with Cestus)