| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like accursed will, but I would still like it if it only functioned as a bonus to hit. People get uptight about ability score bypassing for some reason.
Put it this way, the class would struggle to maintain effectiveness later if it required both a good caster stat and a good hitting stat, and by struggle I mean suck.
|
I like accursed will, but I would still like it if it only functioned as a bonus to hit. People get uptight about ability score bypassing for some reason.
Which is weird because almost every class features some kind of stat consolidation.
Paladins can effectively replace critical portions of DEX, CON, and WIS with abilities like Divine Grace and Lay on Hands. I recently made the argument over in the GitP forums that Paladin is probably the only melee class you can make with only two stats above 10.
Monk has some options for using WIS to replace critical portions of DEX, though he's weird in that too many of his skills are DEX reliant. Still, most of the best Monk archetypes feature some kind of stat consolidation, like the Sensei and Zen Archer who can both be made with basically nothing but WIS primary and DEX secondary.
Inquisitor gets several great stat consolidation abilities, like Monster Lore and Cunning Initiative, and they also get options that help you bypass the need for other stats, like Stern Gaze which removes the need for Charisma from builds that want to use Intimidate.
I could go on, but the general point is that stat consolidation is a very successful (and almost necessary) part of the game. It's just in how you execute it.
Accursed Will basically has two problems, one of them very legitimate, one slightly more debatable.
The first problem is that one of those Accursed Will options kicks the unholy crap out of the other two. Like I mentioned previously, the things you get from the DEX and CON options vs. the things you give up mean you can't exactly give up on putting something in those stats anyways, because there are some pretty big holes left in your defenses when taking either of those options. The STR option on the other hand, is a no brainer. You aren't giving up any combat capability, and the things you are giving up are things that are easily surmountable at fairly low levels via other means. You're in the same position that like 80% of the other characters in the game are in: you kind of suck at climbing and swimming without a little help or dropping a few ranks. Good thing we're wearing light armor and have a high INT! Odds are people aren't going to look to the creepy Magus-type to start hauling big rocks, so there's either someone else in the party who can do that, or they're in the same position they would be in otherwise of trying to find a way around.
This first problem really is a problem, because the options just aren't equal. The ability is very meta in nature and is something very keyed to optimizers, and no optimizer is going to miss the obvious choice here.
The second option falls in to perception. That is, how people perceive the overall power of the ability. Having a single stat that governs pretty much all of your abilities is very strong, and while a lot of casters are primarily SAD as well they still rely on their spells. In situations where spells are infeasible you don't have most full casters snatching up a sword or bow and wielding it with their cunning or personality as adroitly as if they were actually porportionally strong or fast (well, except some Oracles...). So there is an argument to be made on the other side of things that this is a really powerful ability, especially at low levels. The closest ability in power is probably the Paladin's Divine Grace, which doesn't kick in until 2nd level and only serves as a replacement for a very specific set of abilities. It uses a format of "replace these specific items with X" whereas Accursed Will uses a format of "replace an entire set of abilities with X with the following exceptions". It's a very open ability, which can be construed as not being particularly forward thinking (who knows what later option may come up with an entirely unpredicted use for X which this ability didn't create an exception for because it didn't know it would be a thing?).
I think scaling it and applying it to a very specific set of features will make it both viable and much more acceptable to those with concerns, as well as eliminating the issue of one option being notably superior to the others (something that's actually going to be a lot harder to fix minutely than you might think given that the three ability scores are just not evenly distributed in the importance of things they affect for each build).
I don't really disagree Ssalarn, but I think that the comparison to casters and their inability to fight is disingenuous because this class can only fight, he just goes about it in a way that is similar to a caster. I wouldn't say that the class is particularly SAD either. They still require most of the stats that other combat classes have, but can potentially ignore one.
Your first point is a valid one.
And replacing Aura of Iron's Betrayal for the 3rd level Cursed Razor stance is:
Aura of Shared Misery
Cursed Razor (Stance)
Level: 3
Prerequisites: 1 Cursed Razor maneuver
Initiation Action:
Range: 20 feet
Area: 20 foot emanation centered on you
Duration: StanceThis baleful aura spreads the despair you inflict and drains at the life of your victims. Whenever a creature within 20 feet of you becomes cursed as a result of another effect, you may select another creature within 20 feet. That creature becomes cursed for a number of rounds equal to your initiation modifier. Additionally, cursed creatures within 20 feet of you suffer (¼ your initiator level, minimum 1) additional damage per die whenever they are dealt damage.
And some other replacements:
Replacing Tranquil Reflection Stance
Doppelganger Dance
Shattered Mirror (Stance)
Level: 1
Prerequisites: None
Initiation Action: 1 swift action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: StanceWith supernatural alacrity, you mimic your foes’ movements, preventing them from escaping you. Whenever an adjacent opponent attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you while you maintain this stance you may take a 5-foot step, as long as you end up adjacent to the opponent that triggered this ability. Subtract 5 feet from your move speeds during your next turn each time you use this ability.
Replacing Thirst of the Vampire
Festering Curse
Cursed Razor (Strike) [Curse]
Level: 5
Prerequisites: 2 Cursed Razor maneuvers
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack
Target: Creature struck
Duration: Special (see text)This vicious strike drains away the life force of its victims. When you initiate this strike, make a melee attack. If the attack hits, it deals normal weapon damage plus 4d6 additional damage, and its victim becomes cursed for a number of rounds equal to your initiation modifier. At the beginning of each round thereafter the victim must succeed at a Fortitude save (DC 15 + your initiation modifier) or suffer 2d6 additional damage as its body begins to decay and slough off in chunks.
I'm still contemplating if Bloodied Mirror Stance warrants replacing. Infinity Mirror Stance has been edited to hopefully bring its power into line.
I tried to fix Ricochet Weapon.
Ricochet Weapon [Combat]
When throwing weapons as part of a martial strike, you are quite capable of bouncing the weapon in such a way as to have it return to you.
Prerequisites: Point Blank Shot, Dexterity 13+
Benefit: Whenever you throw a weapon as part of a martial strike, that weapon bounces or ricochets off your target and returns to your hand at the end of your turn. You must have a free hand to be able to catch the weapon on its return, otherwise it falls into your space at your feet.
What do you think? I tried to keep it simple.
-X
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Accursed Will has been altered in line with Ssalarn's suggestions:
Accursed Will (Ex): The Harbinger is not an entirely physical being; the darkness within her supplements her bodie, impelling her to acts of stunning violence and preternatural resilience. At first level, the Harbinger adds ½ her Intelligence modifier as an insight bonus to attack rolls. At fourth level, she adds her Intelligence modifier as an insight bonus to Fortitude and Reflex saves. At seventh level, she may use the higher of her Constitution or Intelligence modifiers when determining her bonus hit points per hit die (this change is retroactive). At tenth level, the Harbinger’s bonus to attack rolls becomes equal to her Intelligence modifier, and she gains an insight bonus to damage rolls equal to her Intelligence modifier.
The document for the Quills has been taken down in anticipation of a full Organizations release in the nearby future ^_^
And that release is now. I'll note that three of these organizations grant disciplines that are not currently released - the Riven Hourglass, Elemental Flux, and Sleeping Goddess (possibly going to be renamed) disciplines, specifically. Releases for these disciplines will be very soon.
With that in mind, I present the complete organizations breakdown for PoW2: Martial Traditions.
Where are the disciplines themselves? They don't appear to be in the document, or linked in the document.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where are the disciplines themselves? They don't appear to be in the document, or linked in the document.
They're sorta...not there. Silver Crane and Black Seraph are undergoing heavy revisions but you can find the "current" versions in the last downloads link of this post (please ignore the orgs intro, please, for the love of Asmodeus, I don't know what pretentious crap I was smoking but it's being fixed). Cursed Razor, for the Quills, can be found in the Harbinger beta document here, after the class itself; Razor just got some updates and could use feedback.
Iron Tortoise (Defenders of the Realm) is featured in the Warder release.
This may have been pointed out, but Scarlet Sentinels getting immunity to compulsion is really very strong. Also can a character, say a Warlord, trade out Scarlet Throne to become a Scarlet Sentinel and get Scarlet Throne back?
This may have been pointed out, but Scarlet Sentinels getting immunity to compulsion is really very strong. Also can a character, say a Warlord, trade out Scarlet Throne to become a Scarlet Sentinel and get Scarlet Throne back?
You /can/, but you don't have to; discipline trades are optional, and do not need to be pursued.
Fading Hope has been replaced by:
Bleak Prophecy (Su): Those claimed by the Harbinger are filled with dreadful visions of their own demise; starting at 12th level, creatures Claimed by the Harbinger are also shaken while the Claim persists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The discipline of the Lords of the Wheel, known as Riven Hourglass, is ready for people to look over. It will also feature as one of the disciplines for one of the new base classes, working title being the Mystic.
-X
I tried to fix Ricochet Weapon.
Ricochet Weapon [Combat]
When throwing weapons as part of a martial strike, you are quite capable of bouncing the weapon in such a way as to have it return to you.
Prerequisites: Point Blank Shot, Dexterity 13+
Benefit: Whenever you throw a weapon as part of a martial strike, that weapon bounces or ricochets off your target and returns to your hand at the end of your turn. You must have a free hand to be able to catch the weapon on its return, otherwise it falls into your space at your feet.What do you think? I tried to keep it simple.
-X
You could simplify it further to:
Ricochet Weapon (Combat)
Your martial skill allows you to ricochet thrown weapons off opponents.
Prerequisites: Point-Blank Shot, ability to perform martial maneuvers.
Benefit: Whenever you make a martial strike with a thrown weapon the weapon gains the returning weapon quality.
Improved Ricochet Weapon (Combat)
You are able to effortlessly strike foes with the same thrown weapon.
Prerequisites: Point-Blank Shot, Point-Blank Master, Weapon Specialization, ability to perform martial maneuvers.
Benefit: While assuming a martial stance treat all thrown weapons with which you have Weapon Specialization as though they possessed the returning weapon quality.
And who says fighters can't have nice things?
The discipline of the Lords of the Wheel, known as Riven Hourglass, is ready for people to look over. It will also feature as one of the disciplines for one of the new base classes, working title being the Mystic.
-X
Heh. I did a Mystic class for the Amora Games Kickstarter, though mine is a crazy mix of Avatar: The Last Airbender and Star Wars. ;-P
Personally I think the current wording for richochet weapon should be used as a feature of all disciplines that use ranged attacks. Just have it be an intrinsic part of disciplines like Solar Wind and Steel Serpent.
Fading Hope has been replaced by:
Bleak Prophecy (Su): Those claimed by the Harbinger are filled with dreadful visions of their own demise; starting at 12th level, creatures Claimed by the Harbinger are also shaken while the Claim persists.
This should probably allow for a save. Swift action persistent and unavoidable shaken is a bit on the powerful side. Don't forget shaken can be "stacked" to eventual fear.
Give it a save & it will probably be right on the mark.
|
|
Personally I think the current wording for richochet weapon should be used as a feature of all disciplines that use ranged attacks. Just have it be an intrinsic part of disciplines like Solar Wind and Steel Serpent.
My favorite part about 4E was that all magic weapons were automatically returning. From a mechanical perspective, it's kind of dumb that characters who choose to use thrown weapons have to have special abilities written up just for them or pay exponential gp costs to carry multiple enchanted weapons. Returning in PF isn't even that great since you get exactly one attack with it and then can't threaten with it for the rest of the round, negating pretty much the one benefit of thrown vs. ranged.
That's actually why I would prefer Chris not change these feats to just grant returning; under their current wording the wielder can still only make one attack, but he gets the weapon back at the end of his turn instead of just before his next one so he can continue to threaten and make AoO with it.
Paizo cannot invalidate core material, even if it's demonstrably inferior; this is one of those rare instances where I kind of think a 3pp can and should go ahead and create an option that's just better than the core option.
I don't advocate for doing something that is flat out better than core material very often. I actually went on a huge tirade asking Prince to be a little more respectful of the material he was integrating with like a dozen pages ago. But sometimes, whether due to legacy issues or a gap in foresight, something makes its way in that just isn't good and blocks the existence of what could be a good option, and I think in those instances you shouldn't let the existence of an inferior option prevent you from moving forward with an option that is beneficial to the game. That's been one of the reasons I've loved Path of War since they started releasing the playtests. My players started doing things that they never would have done previously. Suddenly combat maneuvers were cool again, players were using double chicken-sabres instead of falchions, archers were using builds that played off of single awesome attacks instead of squeezing every full attack humanly possible out of a round, etc. If these feats lead to more players (who aren't Rogues) running builds where they TWF with hand axes, daggers, starknives, or lungchuan tamo because there are actual reasons to do so instead of grabbing a greatsword or falchion (and I know for a fact that they do), then I'd really rather not have them changed for conformity to an ability that is actually more limiting than enabling.
Still having to take a feat or obtain an item to do something an archer couldbdo syraight out the gate is saddening.
Thats why I'd like to see this feat be something like a bonus feat for having enough maneuvers from a discipline using thrown weapons.
Archers still have their woes; but yeah, they're certainly far better off than throwers and the poor sods who use crossbows exclusively. You pay feats to use a non-standard style of fighting to make it more effective. It's realistic, honestly. People used swords and shields because they were practical and made sense. People did not use double swords or dire flails because they weren't. People used bows because they were easy to make deadly and were faster than crossbows. Throwing knives or axes don't have the range, nor the mass, to easily kill someone, thus, they're not as effective in D&D. Rule of Cool only goes so far.
Prince wrote the feat initially to try to help. Then I simplified it based on feedback. He tried to help. I tried to help. We really did. Nothing is stopping you from throwing multiple things in a round with that feat, but you're only going to catch two of them (unless you have more hands than two). >_<
-X
Isn't that weaker style already facing realistic hurdles such as range increments, quick draw feat req, and in the case of ammunition the destruction of ammo?
Isn't that weaker style already facing realistic hurdles such as range increments, quick draw feat req, and in the case of ammunition the destruction of ammo?
Yes.
But you are choosing a weaker style, and if you want to make it as effective, you need to put in for the price of it. You are choosing to fight that way; the game doesn't force you to, but if you want to fight that way, here are the rules.Cool does not always equal potency. A bow will always be more deadly, and for good reason. It's a superior weapon. People stopped throwing spears to hunt when they made bows for a reason.
Blind sword fighters in samurai flicks are awesome; in practice, not so much. D&D doesn't make it easy for you to play that trope, and for good reason. Blind people can't see very well, we can all agree there, so it's hard to fight with a sword that way. Throwing weapons aren't as deadly as a bow, so they're inferior in all respects. To make them as good, you need to invest more.
We can only do so much to make it easier and better, but think about this. Dude is throwing knives at an enemy; how are they returning to his hand with this feat? The sheer amount of skill and practice to accomplish that sort of thing with a weapon that needs to pierce an opponent to injure them is astonishing.
-X
|
|
Isn't that weaker style already facing realistic hurdles such as range increments, quick draw feat req, and in the case of ammunition the destruction of ammo?
Not to mention the absolutely craptastic stats of pretty much every throwing weapon. Generally very low damage die, low crit modifiers, itty-bitty range increments, etc.
That being said, I think Chris and Jade have done pretty much everything they can be realistically expected to do in addressing the woes of that particular fighting style. They've made it viable and effective, and at a cost that is reasonable and doesn't directly conflict with Paizo materials (the feats are specific to strikes after all, so there's still a reason to use the returning property).
Do I think that the limitations on throwing weapons and specifically the returning property are a little dumb? Yeah, I kind of do.
Do I think that the Path of War team should do more than they've already done? Probably not. There's a demographic that they want to get playing this material that are going to view it with a certain amount of suspicion while nefarious whispers echo "OP! OP!" in their ears, and that means that they have a certain responsibility to avoid "fixing" too much. They're not here to "fix" the system, they're here to introduce a cool subsystem for playing in it, with some options that'll allow martials to tip-toe a little bit into territory that normally has big "CASTERS ONLY!!!!" signs out front. The most effective way to do that is to respect the material that's out there so they stay appealing to the widest number of players possible, including GMs and players who are traditionally pretty conservative in their estimates of what makes something powerful.
Ok, I see where you guys are coming from much better now thank you. Rule of cool can really only accomplish so much before reality kicks it in the face.
Also having seen some grognards who have very conservative views on power for non-magic characters I can understand the trepidation.
It seems I must serenely skedaddle!
Btw was that Item you guys were working on a few pages back still in development? The one that you insert ranged ammunition/weapons and it makes clones or something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious, why did you guys decide to keep the in-combat recharge mechanics in the system? Especially given what Rich Baker, creator of the original product, went on record saying about it.
Rich Baker suggested after publishing the book what to do in 3.5. Namely no recharge in battle, and crusaders have readied maneuvers the same as the other two. There were other suggestions as well though.
General: No recharge mechanic. You use up all of your readied maneuvers in an encounter, that's it, you wait until next encounter. This one was suggested by Rich Baker himself, stating that the recharge mechanic in retrospect seems like a clunky add on, and it undermines resource management.
Crusaders: Your readied maneuvers are no different than anyone else's. No "two maneuvers randomly chosen" to start. Again, this one was suggested by Rich Baker, who said that this was the "automatic recharge" mechanic for the crusader, and it turned out to make the class more complicated than it needs to be.
Warblade: Hit dice move back down to d10. These guys are suppose to be technique fighters, and while they are front line warriors, there is no need for them to be the damage sponges that barbarians and knights are, because its not really their purpose.
Cut out Weapon Aptitude as an ability. Not only does this not make much sense, but it intentionally steals the fighters only real exclusive ability, and then makes it better. If Warblades are suppose to replace fighters in your campaign, fine, but if they both exist, let the fighter have his moment in the sun and cut this out of the Warblade.
I thought it would be interesting for martial initiators to have to use their maneuvers wisely, knowing that once they expend them they are gone until the next battle. This echos what Rich said about resource management. Where don't get them back until you can rest out of combat for 1 minute.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not the first time this question has come up. Personally, I feel that Rich was being too conservative with the above. Honestly, did you ever run out of Fighting? Largely, that's what it comes down to. Can you run out the "Fight" command. The answer is no; for as often as you see a supernatural maneuver, there are many non-supernatural maneuvers out there and it would be a nightmare to have paired systems for magical and non-magical maneuvers. Additionally, it allows for traditionally non-magical characters to be able to compete at higher levels with their more magical party members.
That's why maneuver recovery is important; it's like saying a fighter or a barbarian has run out of Power Attack. Maneuvers are a natural extension of feats and standard combat maneuvers that moves these generally non-magical classes and the abilities that they have available (we're talking abilities like disarm, grapple, sunder, charging, feinting, and other combat maneuvers) that casters rarely, if ever, take upon themselves to use and super-charges them in a meaningful way. You never run out of the ability to disarm, you can keep trying. Thus, maneuver recovery.
Even with the overall increase of power in Pathfinder, and the overall increase of power in Path of War, you still don't get so many maneuvers readied that a spellcaster or a manifester has available to them for the day, and having a recovery mechanic mid-fight is important because you can't ready the same maneuver twice (unlike prepping multiple castings of some spells or simple spontaneous casting). The real problem with the recovery systems of the Tome of Battle is that Rich's statement of maneuver recovery being tacked on is very accurate; it was tacked on.
In Path of War, we've tried to implement recovery mechanics that make sense for the class itself, and built in a reward system that fits the roles that the classes excel at. Warders with their defensive focus are capable of running around in an area and locking it down to defend their allies; warlords run their Gambits for themselves but still provide benefits to their party mates, and stalkers are able to flee from potentially bad situations easier and become more deadly for doing so. The recovery methods of the Path of War classes are built into the class from the ground up and considered just as important as their ability to use maneuvers in the first place.
Now you can of course, feel free to limit or simply cut out recovery in battle. This will affect the potency of the classes, both as far as the benefits from maneuver recovery being lost and the mechanic's bonuses themselves, but then you'd get the feeling you're looking for: limited ability to fight, forcing more tactics to be used by martial disciples. Personally, that doesn't sound fun to me, but to each their own. If it works for you and your group, and you guys like that, then ride that pony into town and have a drink on me. :)
-X
Sometimes, realism has to take a backseat to balance. "Do you ever run out of fighting?" is...not a good reason for unbalanced material. At all.
Well, he was offering suggestions on how to make his classes that are widely known to be overpowered to be not so overpowered. But we know that that wasn't really a goal with PoW, and rather it was to provide a "Pathfinder experience" of the classes, so...secondary concern :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes, realism has to take a backseat to balance. "Do you ever run out of fighting?" is...not a good reason for unbalanced material. At all.
Well, he was offering suggestions on how to make his classes that are widely known to be overpowered to be not so overpowered. But we know that that wasn't really a goal with PoW, and rather it was to provide a "Pathfinder experience" of the classes, so...secondary concern :)
I'd challenge 'widely known' pretty hard. The culture on this forum is that the ToB classes are/were above the curve for 3.5, but this is one forum, one community, that plays 3.PF. Other communities have differing opinions. When ToB first hit my table it was like a gift from God to the melee fans there, and as a DM I found that I didn't have to change my game, my plots, or my enemies at all (though eventually I did change my enemies because I wanted to explore some cool new tactical options ToB opened up to change how fights against certain monsters worked). It was introduced and didn't alter how the game worked. Seems fine to me.
When ToB first hit my table it was like a gift from God to the melee fans there, and as a DM I found that I didn't have to change my game, my plots, or my enemies at all
This was my experience as well, other than pretty much dropping the Fighter and Monk from most of the game.
Also hi, and not surprised to see the tenor of conversation here has not changed a whit since I became a less frequent participant.
When ToB first hit my table it was like a gift from God to the melee fans there, and as a DM I found that I didn't have to change my game, my plots, or my enemies at allThis was my experience as well, other than pretty much dropping the Fighter and Monk from most of the game.
Also hi, and not surprised to see the tenor of conversation here has not changed a whit since I became a less frequent participant.
Well, to be fair - here lately I/we have been tossing out a bunch of experimental mechanics, thought experiments, and revisions, so seeing the balance discussion come back isn't necessarily unexpected or even bad. A couple of pages back I was trying to workshop a feat that would hand out another swift action (not still working on this, entire concept has been dropped as impossible to balance correctly).
Yeah I'm going back a few pages trying to catch up. Still, it seems an unavoidable fact that this thread will be forever plagued with the fears and doomsaying of martials getting nice things being OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't looking at it as "running out of fighting", more like using maneuvers, whether supernatural in nature or not, is an expenditure of energy.
I also challenge the running out of the "fight command", being that the attack option is never disabled, merely that instead of utilizing maneuvers (after he runs out), the initiator is using full attack actions.
And a Barbarian cant run out of Power Attack, but he can run out of Rage, and I think that's the better analogy there.
Personally, I like that they have something instead of full-attacks to do and can never run out of it. Because believe me, nothing has slowed down my game after about 8th level like having to wait on the meleers to do full attacks. I'm very, very tempted in my next game to restrict all melee-focused characters to maneuver users, if only to force them to have something they can do each round that does not take all the time of a full-attack. It streamlines the game so much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't looking at it as "running out of fighting", more like using maneuvers, whether supernatural in nature or not, is an expenditure of energy.
I also challenge the running out of the "fight command", being that the attack option is never disabled, merely that instead of utilizing maneuvers (after he runs out), the initiator is using full attack actions.
And a Barbarian cant run out of Power Attack, but he can run out of Rage, and I think that's the better analogy there.
I don't really agree. Maneuvers are a combat style; they're a method of fighting, a way of creating your character's personal martial arts training. Each is an individual technique that, when blended together, paint a picture about the kind of combatant you are. Being forced into using full attacks kinda sucks the soul out of that and suggests that your martial artist can be forced to stop using his training - which is, well, kinda not a thing either realistically or thematically.
I don't really agree. Maneuvers are a combat style; they're a method of fighting, a way of creating your character's personal martial arts training. Each is an individual technique that, when blended together, paint a picture about the kind of combatant you are. Being forced into using full attacks kinda sucks the soul out of that and suggests that your martial artist can be forced to stop using his training - which is, well, kinda not a thing either realistically or thematically.
Fair enough senor, that is actually a pretty good point.
And Orthos, I'm not against martials having nice things, I played a Warblade in a 3.5 game several years ago, and loved it! I'm really excited about this product (even more than I was for Ultimate Psionics).
Honestly, I was just playing devils advocate to broker some discussion on the topic. ;)
Fair enough =) I can never tell the difference between honest objection and devil's advocate, sadly.
Personally, I like that they have something instead of full-attacks to do and can never run out of it. Because believe me, nothing has slowed down my game after about 8th level like having to wait on the meleers to do full attacks. I'm very, very tempted in my next game to restrict all melee-focused characters to maneuver users, if only to force them to have something they can do each round that does not take all the time of a full-attack. It streamlines the game so much.
This is off topic, but part of me misses the simplicity of AD&D, where most characters got a single attack per round, and only warrior classes got slightly more at higher levels. That was a big thing that made fighter types (or "mundanes") special, which got lost in translation to d20 (the other being exceptional strength).
I started in 3.5 so that's before my time. =)
I started in 3.5 so that's before my time. =)
I grew up playing 2e for 7 years. I do not miss it. Not even a little.
Just curious,
what is you guy's opinion on granting Maneuvers to other Base classes through archetypes? you know something like "trade your Ranger spells for to initiate like a Warlord? (but with a different recovery mechanic Initiator ability.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious,
what is you guy's opinion on granting Maneuvers to other Base classes through archetypes? you know something like "trade your Ranger spells for to initiate like a Warlord? (but with a different recovery mechanic Initiator ability.)
This is very much on the list of Things What We Are Doing In PoW 2 ^_^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious,
what is you guy's opinion on granting Maneuvers to other Base classes through archetypes? you know something like "trade your Ranger spells for to initiate like a Warlord? (but with a different recovery mechanic Initiator ability.)
To expand on what I said above, one of the awesome things about Tome of Battle is that it's very friendly to non-intiators using maneuvers and multiclassing with maneuver-using classes. We've already re-created both of those, but Pathfinder's archetypes let us go the extra mile with letting pre-existing classes play around with the awesome new subsystem.
I started in 3.5 so that's before my time. =)I grew up playing 2e for 7 years. I do not miss it. Not even a little.
I started 2E in 1989... when it came out... after I had been into 1E the year before. -_-;
Feeling a little old now.
Just curious,
what is you guy's opinion on granting Maneuvers to other Base classes through archetypes? you know something like "trade your Ranger spells for to initiate like a Warlord? (but with a different recovery mechanic Initiator ability.)
We are going to be creating a lot of archetypes for PoW2. Like, a real lot. All of the more martial base classes are going to be getting some, as well as psionic classes, and at least a new archetype or two for the new trio of classes. It's on my to do list after I finish Mystic.
-X
Started with 2E, played it, loved it, didn't switch until after 3.5 was out. While we use Pathfinder as our main system, we still run pretty regular 2E campaigns also. It's nice because it lets us play a lot character concepts that are hard to properly fit in PF. Going back and forth is a nice balance of complexity vs simplicity, and I enjoy both.