Nah, you guys are awesome. I'm taking some of Frerezar's advice and I'm going to bump down the maneuvers known/readied a bit too. He's been right in some of his arguments to my studying of the math, just as much as you have been right in your Sssalarn. I think the middle ground is reachable if I keep the full BAB, keep recovery the way it is (that's a decision from above me), change some of how some of these maneuvers work and and lower the maneuvers known/readied. I think we can hit the sweet spot that way.
-Chris
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A thought about style associated weapons: I think a downside of using fixed lists is that you will limit peoples options as new books come out. For example: the scimitar and the cutlass are basically the same weapon. Say in a later book there is a feat called "salty seadog" that needs a cutlass.
From a flavour stand point a discipline that works with the scimitar should also work with the cutlass.
You could use fighter weapon groups for associated weapons.
A thought about style associated weapons: I think a downside of using fixed lists is that you will limit peoples options as new books come out. For example: the scimitar and the cutlass are basically the same weapon. Say in a later book there is a feat called "salty seadog" that needs a cutlass.
From a flavour stand point a discipline that works with the scimitar should also work with the cutlass.
You could use fighter weapon groups for associated weapons.
That... is an incredible idea. Now to see how best to implement this...
-Chris
|
A thought about style associated weapons: I think a downside of using fixed lists is that you will limit peoples options as new books come out. For example: the scimitar and the cutlass are basically the same weapon. Say in a later book there is a feat called "salty seadog" that needs a cutlass.
From a flavour stand point a discipline that works with the scimitar should also work with the cutlass.
You could use fighter weapon groups for associated weapons.
I love this idea. It ties well into existing mechanics, keeps disciplines "in theme" and allows for expansion and compatibility with future products. It also kind of deepens the martial "feel" of the class, creating that tie between the Fighter and the Warlord, kind of this subtle hint that the guys are just getting to the same place through two different paths. It should smooth out the transition for classes gaining maneuvers via feats as well; a Fighter who picks up the Martial Training (or whatever) feat can actually match his Weapon Training up very nicely with his maneuver/discipline choice(s).
There's a thought; is there any plan to give feats that give access to initiator abilities the (Combat) descriptor so Fighters and other classes that proc off of that mechanic can choose them as bonus feats?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, in fact. Many of these feats will have the Combat descriptor.
-Chris
|
|
Yes, in fact. Many of these feats will have the Combat descriptor.
-Chris
Excellent!
I'm very excited to see this finished product. I know we're a ways off but I'm definitely looking forward to it. Do you know when it will be available for pre-order? Is DSP going to do a full color print run at release?
Yes, in fact. Many of these feats will have the Combat descriptor.
-Chris
Excellent!
I'm very excited to see this finished product. I know we're a ways off but I'm definitely looking forward to it. Do you know when it will be available for pre-order? Is DSP going to do a full color print run at release?
No idea, sadly not my department for knowing. I know that the more work I do on the playtest side will hasten it on the publishing side. As far as the published and finished product side, I don't know anything more than yourself, the amount I produce is determined by the wants of the people. If you buy it, I make more product for you. Simple as that. That being said, I imagine there will be color PDFs and a softcover color cover book with black and white inside, similar to the initial Psionics release, but that's just my opinion, nothing official. I think they'll likely handle it very similarly. If the initial Path of War book does really well, we may go to kickstarter and make more stuff, so if its something you like then definitely support it and you'll get more of it.
My hope is to make a complete game line of it and maybe expand into helping on the psionics side and Third Dawn, but I have to get through this part first. Path of War will always be my baby in that regard and as long as I work with DSP on the line, that's going to be my first and foremost project.
EDIT: Not to say that I don't have a dozen or two other ideas to pitch!
-Chris
I'm going to try to get it posted for Saturday. I was going to go for today but I found I had a lot more to do on Warlord and that set me back. Busy busy busy! Once I get warlord in a place I'm happy with, I'll get stalker together pretty quickly so you can all cut it to ribbons and help me make it better :)
-Chris
|
(BEWARE LONG POST)
This is the last post I will make regarding this issue (mostly since it took a lot of time) so please notice how obvious the power gap
between a barbarian (king of damage dealing) and a warlord is.
Lord Warren
Warlord 9
Str 18
Dex 12
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 14
MANEUVERS READIED 7
lvl1 Encouraging Roar (lion)
lvl2 Regal Blade, Jade lance (this could be changed for any maneuver that boosts allies or increases saves, but I got lazy XD)
lvl3 Strike of Defeat
lvl4 Perception of Jade, Golden swipe (lion)
lvl5 Strategic Blow (lion)
STANCES KNOWN 4
lvl5 Jade Duelist Attitude
*It is worth noting that I did not use any tiger maneuvers mostly because I wanetd to show how massive damage spikes are beyong that discipline,
and because I like versatyle characters.
HIT DICE. 9d10+27(favored class bonus applied)
HIT POINTS. 81
AC: 22 (7 armor, 4 Insight, 1 dex, 1 dodge)
INIT. +5
SPEED. 20ft
SAVES
fort 6
ref 3
will 3
BAB. 9
Greatsword +15/+10 2d6+7 19-20x2
CMB 13
CMD 24
FEATS
Lvl1 Power Attack
Humn Furious Focus
Lvl3 Improved Bull Rush
Lvl5 Weapon Focus Greatsword
War6 Greater Bull Rush
Lvl7 Quick Bull rush
Lvl9 Dodge (for the hell of it)
SKILLS 45 sp
EQUIPMENT (for simplicity sake this will be the standard equipment for all characters tested)
+1 Greatsword
+1 Agile Breastplate
TURN BY TURN BREAKDOWN (against CR appropiate oppoents)
First Turn: Landing the first blow in a fight is not only key but also more fun as a player. So the warlord starts by using Perception
of Jade as a boost so he can hit touch AC. With that in mind let's take a look at some of the AC differences for a CR appropiate opponent;
Fire Giant 24/8, couatl 22/13, bebilith 22/9, and s on and so forth). This boost is followed by Strategic Blow. The total bonus to hit
this turn is only +0, however hitting touch AC makes a truly massive difference. Damage Dealt is 51 (7 base weapon, 28 maneuver, 9 Power attack,
6 strenght, 1 magic weapon). Worth noting that as part of this actin an ally could move 10ft, but that is a minor extra.
Second Turn: After standing face to face with the opponent for a round, the Warlord will take some punishment, but it doesn't matter as it can
give it rigt back. The boost of choice is Encouraging Roar (which also boosts allies by the way) which lasts for the whole round. The strike
chosen this turn will be Golden Swipe. Now, Golden swipe not only makes the damage of this strike a whooping 44, but moves the opponent 10ft
automatically. This movement has two consecuences; first, the opponent will be denied the oh so important full attack (increasing warlord
survivability), second, said opponent provokes an attack of op from the Warlord. This second attack has abetter chance to hit than the secondary
attack of any cavalier, fighter or barbarian around (since it is performed at full attack bonus).
So in this second round the Wrlord not hit with a main attack at +2 but also had a secondary free attack at a higher bonus than other classes
would (+14 dealing 2d6+7+9).
Third Turn: After the opponent moved and closed on the Warlord (performing a single attack) the Warlord has A few options. In order to choose
should take a look at the average HP of CR appropiate opponents and remember that the warlord has dealt so far 118 points of damage. The
bebilith for example would be at 32hp, the fire giant at 24hp, couatl at 8hp, and a red dragon would be dead XD. Given this numbers the warlord
should just call it a day and end the encounter by using Regal Blade (+2 to attack and 4.5 damage) and Strike of Defeat (8d6 damage given the
current HP of CR appropiate opponents). This ends the combat with any foe by dealing a whooping 55.5 ponts of damage (aking an iterative attack
all but a waste of the paper it is written on.
However, if this happens to be a particularly challenging encounter and the opponent is far from dead (even thou the 75% health version of
Strike of Defeat should allow him to deal 41.5 points of damage on the third round anyway) the we have an option to go bck to the start. Since
gambits are measured by list of checks we can choose from, then a warlord can boost that single roll as much as posisble. In this case we chose
Bull rush. With a single use of Regal Blade and taking advantage of the feat quick Bull Rush we can make an attempt at a CMB bonus of +21 (9bab,
4str, 4feats, 2maneuver, 2weapon bonus) which is enought to bull rush both the fire giant and the red dragon (CR10 both) on an below average
roll.
COMPARING
Now we can take a look at an average Barbarian that is NOT optimized for damage either (like our Warlord who has a good AC).
Str 20
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 10
HIT DICE. 9d12+36(favored class bonus applied)
HIT POINTS. 99 (first edge over a warlord)
AC: 19 (7 armor, 2 dex) (17 while raging)
INIT. +2
SPEED. 30ft (second edge over a warlord)
SAVES
fort 6
ref 3
will 3
FEATS
Lvl1 Power Attack
Humn Furious Focus
Lvl3 Toughness
Lvl5 Extra rage Power
Lvl7 Extra Rage Power
Lvl9 Improved Critical
rage Powers:
Lvl2 Powerful Blow (+3dmg)
Lvl4 Superstitious
Lvl5 Guarded Stance (+2)
Lvl6 Increased Damage Reduction
Lvl7 Reckless Abandon
Lvl8 Roused Anger
Having the same equipment a barbarians rounds during the same combat would look somehting like this.
First Round: Barbarian starts raging and charges violently hitting at a +19 (9bab, 7str, 2charge, 1 weapon) during the first round dealing
30 points of damage on average (7weapon, 10str, 9power attak, 3 powerful blow). Comparatively the Warlord dealt 51 points of damage and was
MUCH more likely to hit due to the touch attack.
second Round: Now the barbarian takes a brutal beating due to having an AC of 15. This is somehow mitigated by the DR it has, however the
barbarian's defense is definetly lower when compared to the Warlord. Now, during the second round the barbarian the barbarian is supposed to
shine with a secondary attack. The barbarian will have two attacks at +18/+13 dealing an average of 27 points of damage for each hit. Now,
for the seconday attack to be effective the barbarian must use reckless abandon (reducing survivability even firther). This turn will have the
barbarian deal a grand total of 54 points of damage with a full attack. Comparatively, the Warlord also hit twice at +17 and +14 but did not
have to sacrifice survivability and dealt a total of 67 points of damage (on top of boosting allies and moving the opponent 10ft).
Third Round: By now the poor barbarian has taken the beating of a lifettime, having an average AC of 14 (due to reckless abandon) and might be down.
However, for the sake of argument let's assume he is not. So in this thirda round the barbarian will unleash it's full potential in the hopes
of making it out alive. So we end rage and reestart it in order to use Powerful Blow once more. This would make this round a repeat of the previous
one (54damage). Compared this to the Warlord who with a single strike and without sacrificing AC deals a whooping 55.5 damage at a +17 bonus.
The conclusion is inevitable, by the third round of combat with a CR appropiate opponent the Warlord has dealt more damage EVERY ROUDN than the
barbarian at an average greater to hit bonus. It had better AC through the whole combat AND boosted allies in the process. The LAST nail in the
coffin is that the barbarian has a limited number of rounds per day it can do this routine, however the Warlord can do this every single combat
all day long.
There are three areas in which the barbarian has a clear advantage; saves vs spells, speed, and hit points (but those are meaningless due to the pointless AC)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I saw when I read this was a damage and punishment optimized Warlord vs a poorly build Barbarian who was specifically stated to not be built for damage or enduring life.
This is not valid data for the purposes that you're trying to get across. I read this over three times and I see the barbarian being set up to fail. Do the reverse now, build a barbarian opt'd to murder face and make a Warlord who isn't specifically built to do it back and you're going to get opposite results. The Warlord was specifically built to destroy this Barbarian and the Barbarian wasn't built to withstand it or destroy the Warlord right back. How is this proof that the warlord is OP?
-Chris
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Switch Frerezar's barbarian to the feats Power Attack, Enforcer, Raging Vitality, Intimidating Prowess, Extra Rage Power (Ghost Rager) and the Rage Powers (in addition to Ghost Rager) of Lesser Beast Totem, Superstition, Beast Totem, Witch Hunter and you have my highly-optimized barbarian at level 9 who was the main fight-ender for the Shattered Star adventure path (by the end of the campaign, he was capable of defeating pretty much anything, including the BBEG, in the first or second round).
I think that the above Warlord Frerezar posted annihilates my barbarian's build as well in to-hit and damage, even against creatures that apply the Witch Hunter damage bonus for the barbarian (my barbarian has better AC than the above barbarian, though, due to Beast Totem and not using Reckless Abandon, and is usually making an enemy Shaken for an effective 2 more AC, but I actually have lower to-hit than Frerezar's barbarian due to lack of Furious Focus and Reckless Abandon). My barbarian has way higher saves versus spells and supernatural than the Warlord, but can't be willing for spells (which is big). It is worth noting that my barbarian gets Greater Beast Totem the very next level after the level in question, which is huge, but at least at 9, the Warlord would have been a better carry than the best carry our team had (we played Shattered Star from start to finish, with such additional characters as the "I have a DC 38 Irresistible Dance" kitsune fey sorceress and a god diviner, so the others were no slouches; we did not have an archer or a double-barreled gunslinger).
Now, the stated goal of the project is to make something akin to Bo9S for 3.5, which was agreed upon by detractors and fans alike to be overpowered compared to the core martial classes (fans generally believed that martials were "too" weak), so if that's the goal here too, then this isn't a bad thing.
What I saw when I read this was a damage and punishment optimized Warlord vs a poorly build Barbarian who was specifically stated to not be built for damage or enduring life.
This is not valid data for the purposes that you're trying to get across. I read this over three times and I see the barbarian being set up to fail. Do the reverse now, build a barbarian opt'd to murder face and make a Warlord who isn't specifically built to do it back and you're going to get opposite results. The Warlord was specifically built to destroy this Barbarian and the Barbarian wasn't built to withstand it or destroy the Warlord right back. How is this proof that the warlord is OP?
-Chris
Could you please point out the ways in which you see the barbarian as intentionally gimped?
And remember...your detractors are far more important for the quality of your work than those praising you. They help you see the issues with your work that you yourself cannot see as you are so steeped in it. Those just praising, rightly or wrongly, do not help with this. Just dismissing criticism outright...I don't think that's the wisest.
Praise is wonderful. Criticism is useful.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(BEWARE LONG POST)
This is the last post I will make regarding this issue (mostly since it took a lot of time) so please notice how obvious the power gap
between a barbarian (king of damage dealing) and a warlord is. . .
I really didn't want to get involved in this discussion as I thought it was pointless. I think that you have proven your argument that the level 9 Warlord can out-damage the Barbarian in three rounds. I think the important thing, you list the barbarian excelling in three areas but really only one matters and that's saves. The Warlord have 6/3/3. As a GM more than player that guy sounds like mind control gold. You talk about the Barbarian taking a beating with his low AC but that's what the barbarian does. They are save-tanky and HP tanky. Your glass cannon warlord is weak to a number of spells and that makes him weaker in a fight period. Unless your world exists in a realm without spells/poisons/traps I'd choose the barbarian surviving an adventuring day easy. You talk about killing a Red Dragon in 3 rounds. What about the Red Dragons Intimidating presence or their breath weapon?
Again the barbarian is expending only 3 rounds of rage for your "Simulation" while the Warlord is almost exhausting himself. The Barbarian can do that damage for every round for some 30 rounds of combat. The warlord may excel for a few fights damage wise but the Barbarian is gonna come out on top and thats okay because thats what a Barbarian does. They don't have to do the most damage because a Barbarian can last long enough to just do more in a day. The fighter is that way as well.
I think simulation's like this are a poor attempt at justifying a play-test. Number's don't make a character. They set the baseline but not every situation is going to be the "ideal" pen-to-paper simulation and I think that arguing that as being the case is an injustice to the class and to play-testers that take the risk to play the characters in a game. I think that detailing and playing a character for a night of play in an AP/Module/Scenario is much mroe valuable than just describing its strengths in a mock-simulation that really is more of a mockery to the system and the class then it is to anything else.
Play test a warlord/stalker in a module/AP/scenario which are balanced for the core material and that'll give better play data than anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could you please point out the ways in which you see the barbarian as intentionally gimped?What I saw when I read this was a damage and punishment optimized Warlord vs a poorly build Barbarian who was specifically stated to not be built for damage or enduring life.
This is not valid data for the purposes that you're trying to get across. I read this over three times and I see the barbarian being set up to fail. Do the reverse now, build a barbarian opt'd to murder face and make a Warlord who isn't specifically built to do it back and you're going to get opposite results. The Warlord was specifically built to destroy this Barbarian and the Barbarian wasn't built to withstand it or destroy the Warlord right back. How is this proof that the warlord is OP?
-Chris
His statement of an intentionally non-optimized Barbarian who is not using archetypes or other specific things that would improve it's odds of survival. He said it himself.
And remember...your detractors are far more important for the quality of your work than those praising you. They help you see the issues with your work that you yourself cannot see as you are so steeped in it. Those just praising, rightly or wrongly, do not help with this. Just dismissing criticism outright...I don't think that's the wisest.
Praise is wonderful. Criticism is useful.
Also, I understand this. One thing that both praisers and detractors alike need to realize, is that the author is allowed to respond back to refute detractors or praise alike. I have acknowledged many of Frerezar's points and have made some adjustments accordingly. He's been very vocal about wanting to nerf the Warlord and I've acknowledged points where I felt he was right and refuted him where I disagreed with him and provided reasons for this. His input has been very valuable thus far as has his passion in making sure it's not too OP, but this above mock battle was not. I don't have to agree with all of the detractors until playtesting proves otherwise. This is the only statement of his that I've outright disagreed with.
-Chris
|
|
(BEWARE LONG POST)
This is the last post I will make regarding this issue (mostly since it took a lot of time) so please notice how obvious the power gap
between a barbarian (king of damage dealing) and a warlord is. . .I really didn't want to get involved in this discussion as I thought it was pointless. I think that you have proven your argument that the level 9 Warlord can out-damage the Barbarian in three rounds. I think the important thing, you list the barbarian excelling in three areas but really only one matters and that's saves. The Warlord have 6/3/3. As a GM more than player that guy sounds like mind control gold. You talk about the Barbarian taking a beating with his low AC but that's what the barbarian does. They are save-tanky and HP tanky. Your glass cannon warlord is weak to a number of spells and that makes him weaker in a fight period. Unless your world exists in a realm without spells/poisons/traps I'd choose the barbarian surviving an adventuring day easy. You talk about killing a Red Dragon in 3 rounds. What about the Red Dragons Intimidating presence or their breath weapon?
Again the barbarian is expending only 3 rounds of rage for your "Simulation" while the Warlord is almost exhausting himself. The Barbarian can do that damage for every round for some 30 rounds of combat. The warlord may excel for a few fights damage wise but the Barbarian is gonna come out on top and thats okay because thats what a Barbarian does. They don't have to do the most damage because a Barbarian can last long enough to just do more in a day. The fighter is that way as well.
I think simulation's like this are a poor attempt at justifying a play-test. Number's don't make a character. They set the baseline but not every situation is going to be the "ideal" pen-to-paper simulation and I think that arguing that as being the case is an injustice to the class and to play-testers that take the risk to play the characters in a game. I think that detailing and playing a...
The warlord I created is NOT a glass cannon (has AC comparable to that of a fighter). The saves it has are equal to those of a fighter, cavalier, ranger and still outdamages them all AND boosts allies as well.
Now, the barbarian created is NOT optimized for damage because I also added some survivability (because the warlord is NOT optimized for damage either since he does worry for having a good AC), Increasing saves is hard for any martial class, however keep in mind that the warlord still has other 7 maneuvers known (and we all know that there are some maneuvers that allow the warlord to make a sense motive check instead of a save and remove conditions for rounds per cha mod). Worth noting that the warlord can be immune to fear as well (since frightful presence was mentioned). Honestly, the maneuvers used were only one half of the total known available to a warlord of that level (not even counting stances that can be used against enemies with lower to hit).
If you want to compare another warlord vs barbarian or cavalier or fighter at lvl 11 (when a third attack becomes available) then let's do it, but at level 9 the warlord is a better combatant that the barbarian the fighter and the cavalier (in to hit chance, damage, AC and versatility).
So please if you want to present another barbarian that is more optimized for damage dealing, I'm all ears (eyes). Just please avoid any 7 cha cheese or similar things.
I noticed a weird side effect of the maneuver progression. A level 20 warlord will know (with maneuver retraining) 5 level 9 manuvers and 2 each of level 6, 7 and 8. However, there are only 4 level 9 manuvers in existence.
I realize that the play-test is focused on low levels (and my group never plays to 20) but I thought this was funny :D
Well said response.
FWIW, I'm a big fan of comparing to core. It doesn't cause an escalation in power that you'd get if you include all available Paizo sources. So long as a moderately optimized new class doesn't get anywhere near the consistent damage of a fighter or the burst damage of a barbarian, again moderately optimized as you'd expect from the average player, you're on the right track.
And then you can start to worry about optimal cases :)
|
|
First, as cheapy mentioned, you cannot balance a base class with archetypes, it is just bad design. So the warlords must be compared (as a base class) with the base for any given class. Second, equipment should be taken into account as little as possible because we are comparing the CLASS ABILITIES they have (as well as their efficiency). Otherwise we would get into crazy arguments like "but there is a cleric in the party so hit points and AC on't matter much". Third, toughness helps mor than you care to see as the barbarian will die in this simulation before he can do his job. For example, a CR appropriate opponent like the fire giant would be attacking at +18+13+08 (counting power attack) and deal an average of 37.5 damage per hit. With an AC of 15 (first to second round) and 14 (second to third round) the barbarian will get hit even by the third attack. So assuming the fire giant missed one attack per round (statistically likely) by the time a third round comes by the barbarian would have taken 146 points of damage and be far from alive. The barbarian being so squishy is why I literally tried to take a more balance approach to the build and give it some survivability. This only makes the scenarrio worst because the warlord is sitting pretty with an AC of 22 (making hits even less likely and stopping the enemies from using full power attack as long as they want to hit). If you would like I could do (later today) the round per round breakdown of your more damage oriented barbarian who statistically would not survive the second round of combat, but i'd rather not really since it would prove pointless (the extra AC from best totem would still make survival unlikely, DR helps a little bit more).
Now regarding the rounds, on the first one the warlord is hitting touch AC, so he basically hits on anything but a one and deals more damage by a considerable amount..
On the second round you could argue that furious focus could apply to the attack of op because it is at the highest attack bonus (and the highest bonus of the turn was using FF), however that is cheesy. So the warlord's secondary attack would take the PA penalties normally for a total of 14 (9bab, 4str, 1 magic, 1focus, 2maneuver, -3power attack), while the main attack of the round which I did fail to write down would be at +17 (barbarian would be at +18 to be fair by sacrificing AC, otherwise the to hit would be pathetic). If you were to give the barb weapon focus and take away abandon the attacks would be performed at +15/+10 (9bab, 1focus, 7str, 1magic, -3pa). and you could also give it furious focus to make it a little bit better +18/+10. But regardless of what combination you use, the warlord still comes up on top in AC damage and to hit bonus.
On the third round the warlord does NOT need to regain maneuvers as he still has one boost and one strong strike available (just look at the post where I talked about the recharge just to exemplify how easy it was to do). During the third round the warlord can use Regal Blade and Strike of Defeat to deal 55.5 points of damage with a single attack at a +17 (9bab, 4str, 1focus, 1magic, 2maneuver). This is enough damage to kill any CR appropriate opponent since the warlord has been dealing more damage than any other martial class for the first two rounds of combat.
every single round the warlord has hit more often and harder, that is a fact. I will concede however that you could optimize the barbarian for pure damage by using witch hunter and giving ti some extra tricks with spell sunder. However, the extra damage from witch hunter would be situational and still not enough to match the warlord's (while the warlord can do this routine against every damn enemy, not only spellcasters). But without reckless abandon the barbarian will not hit often enough to make a dent (unlike the warlord, and beast totem does not make enough of an AC difference to justify the investment (he will still take every damn blow on average from CR appropriate opponents).
Finally regarding the +1 furious weapon, I ask you, when is the last time that in a real game you got to pick and choose how your purchased equipment is customized? If your GM let's you build your equipment as you level up, that is cool for you, but in most games (including APs) the equipment you get is not whatever tailor fitted piece of gear you need to make your build. This is one of the reasons i used the very very basics of magical equipment. Customized equipment availability is not a given, so it should not be taken into account for a mechanical comparison..
Now if you want to show I am wrong and make a round by round breakdown of your barbarian's AC, attack and amage free. I look forward to it. Just stick to realistic parameters of most games where character's equipment is not built by design and surviving is as important as hitting.
PD: I completely forgot to take into account the extra damage from crits from the improved critical the barbarian had. That is my bad and apologize. By the second round thou the warlord had dealt 118 points of damage, boosted allies and moved the opponent 10ft in any direction, while the barbarian hit the enemy for only 84 points of damage. Extra damage from a 17-20 crit range (opposed to the 19-20 crit from the warlord) will NOT be enough to, on average, make up for the 33 points of extra damage the warlord dealt.
I do not know what 'mythic abilities' are, so I can't really comment.I agree, that's not good, but it's painfully clear that PF is not going to lay a nerf smackdown on the casters, no matter how much they need it. So the only ways to get the martials even within Tom Brady pass range of the casters is either:
1. A massive errata that would re-write the martial classes (and possibly half of the book in general) from the ground up, or
2. Creating new classes that effectively obsolete the old ones,or
3. A new edition.Sort of 1 or 2 - Give all martial mythic abilities, 1 Rank per 2 levels, and that is just part of the class. Casters do not get this.
It was the first "weird way" to use the Mythic Rules when I saw the playtest. I don't have a pathfinder group, but wonder how balanced that would be.
Back primary topic - even if the implementation may not be to my taste, I will buy this book just because Dreamscarred does such great work, and I know I'll find some things in it I can use.
It' from the new Mythic Adventures book from Paizo. It is to allow play with more powerful characters, that have a very different theme - i.e. "Mythic" - some mythic abilities are "you automatically stabalize below 0 and you don't die until x2 your con" and "you gain a +5 on all iterative attacks, but not above your main attack" - basically making second attack at full. That can be taken multiple times. Those are just middle of the road examples. The actual mythic is for everything, but my thought was one of the first things I thought of.
End Digression.
Frerezar, You can't compare class DPR without full builds. Its like comparing a naked monk vs a naked fighter and declaring monks too strong.
The barbarian will have more AC from rings of protection, amulets of natural armour and magic armor. At level 9, he should easily be able to afford +3 armour. This will shift the barbarian to at least +4 to +6 more AC than you gave him. This will prevent him from dying.
Also, when doing theory-craft comparison, you can't say "oh, they don't get to pick their weapons." This is because this depends on the DM. Some DMs will allow you to find equipment you want in cities, some won't. The CR system assumes that characters at level 9 will have 46k of equipment that is useful to them.
Finally, the warlord does not benefit from haste as much as the barbarian. For the DPR Olympics, we can't depend on a friendly caster, but boots of speed are pretty affordable at level 9.
Edit: The barbarian will also be able to afford a minor cloak of displacement soon.
Perhaps someone else should post a barbarian that is suitably optimized, since people only seem to care about that.
Rogue Eidolon? You're one of the best optimizers, so let's see it.
|
|
Magic items can be bought by both of them, so their AC should increase accordingly. This means that the warlord will still have up to 8 points of AC above the barbarian (that is a whooping 40% greater chance of being hit).So the survivability of the barbarian when compared with the warlord still looks quite bad (even if you increase AC for both of them by using magic items). same applies for magic weapons, both would get an equal benefit from +x to attack and damage,so the basic comparison of their class abilities does not change (if they both had a +3 weapon the to hit and damage would increase by 3 for both of them, so the comparison stands)
Funny thing is that an armored fighter vs a monk still has the fighter beating the monk to a bloody pulp XD
I did give them both generic magic items because that is what is more likely to be had in any given game. Generous GMs aside, I am basing this situation on the standard for PFRPG which are the Paizo adventure paths (in which one does NOT get to cherry pick build oriented items). You said it yourself, characters of level 9 will have 46k worht of usefull items, but not necessarily worth of custom made build specific items (two very different things).
You also mentioned haste, which is to some extent fair because it boosts full attacks. However, as soon as we let in abilities and effects from other party members we run into a lot of trouble. In fact, in this scenario, haste would allow the barbarian to deal an extra 27 points of damage on the second round before dying, putting him only 3 points behind the warlord (who still outdamages him, but whatever). But, by using the same principle (adding imaginary party members) i would point out the massive extra DPR the warlord is providing on the second round by not only giving all other imaginary combatants +2atk and +2dmg but a free attack of op as the opponent is flung 10ft into the air (mechanically possible, thou cheesy). This random scenario with imaginary Schrodinger PCs only complicates matters further and makes finding balance almost impossible. So the most objective way of measuring said balance is by analyzing the classes with as little outside bias s possible (which is what I did).
Again, if someone would like to bring into the table a barbarian that, at this level, not only hits harder than the warlord but also has better survivability (AC) (by virtue of the class and not some outside interference that could apply to either of them) then I am all eyes. if you can't then we could move on into higher levels (11 sounds good) when most classes would get a third attack and see if the warlord still remains supreme as a damage dealer that does not have to sacrifice defense (personally don't think so, but haven't tested it yet).
Query: Are you going to be introducing Discipline Weapons with this book? (+3 TH if in stance/using maneuver from discipline x, +1 enhancement).
That would then be a viable comparison against a Furious weapon.
Note that one of the great problems with the damage comparison above is simply having an attack that resolves against Touch AC...this has always been a tactic for damage abuse (it's why Brilliant Weapons are murder against PC's but not monsters...they effectively hit TOuch AC's on PC's, but not on monsters).
Considerably less abusive would be an attack that resolves against Flat-Footed AC (so swift it can't be dodged). Since Touch attacks are almost always going to be huge damage dealers, turning them into reusable Flat Footed strikes would be a way around your dilemma.
==Aelryinth
The barbarian should have as an absolute minimum a mithral BP+2, ring of prot +1, ring of nat armor +2, and jingasa of the fortunate soldier, for an ac of 23 + Dex - rage. The warlord should have identical AC making gear.
the barb might have additional AC from rage powers, and certainly DR. His saves are also going to be hugely better.
Are there any maneuver/disiciplines that are defensive/affect saves? Because right now, the Warlord is going to get crushed as soon as he hits a will or reflex save. He's going to fail that Intimidate check against the Fire Giant and the powerful presence of the dragon every time, and that's another -2 TH he's got to put up with.
==Aelryinth
|
|
the AC increases are likely, but since they would be applying to both the comparison stands (8 AC difference is huge). However if the barbarian wnats toboost AC through rage powers he has to sacrifice something else.Please if you can provide a better balanced list of powers that does not weaken his to hit too much i'm quite interested (reckless abandon is the bst for that but it kills survivability).
Warlords also have some neat class abilities to boost, including a presence that makes them immune to fear.
And yes the warlord has maneuvers that allow him to make a sense motive check instead of save and/or turn off any condition affecting them for a few rounds. And, as I said before, the specified warlord has 7 more known maneuvers (and 3 stances) that I did not touch upon because the challenge was to show how a warlord did not even have to use it's full class abilities to outdamage the king of smack that is the barbarian.
I also agree that the barbarian's saves would be better in general(more so vs spells since most ppl use superstitious anyway), however one does not play a barbarian to say "i wanna have the guy with the better saves", one plays a barbarian to smack the schnizzle out of things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does not matter much mow much total AC you have, as long as you live through the battle. Also, the barbarian benifites more from flat to hit and damage bonuses because he makes more attacks.
Well, I'll make a barbarian build then. My system mastery of upper levels is not too great. I'll also stick to level 9, since that's what you chose.
I'll aso build core only.
Human barbarian 9
Abilities
Str 26 (16 +2 racial +2 level +2 belt +4 rage), Dex 14, Con 18 (14 + 4 rage) Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
Feats
Power attack, Toughness, Iron Will, Weapon focus (claw), Improved natural attack (Claw), 1 feat of your choice
Rage Powers
24 rounds of rage
Animal Fury, Lesser Beast Totem, Beast Totem, 1 of your choice
Equipment
+3 breastplate (9350gp), +2 strength belt (4000gp), +2 cloak of resistance (4000gp), +2 amulet of mighty fists (16000), +1 greatsword, 10300gp left over for haversacks, wands, etc...
Note: any item less than 16k can be bought in a metropolis sized city on the material plane, so is fair game.
Defences
HP: 114 (favoured class + toughness)
Fort: 10 (12 rage)
Ref: 7
Will: 8 (3 base + 1 wis + 2 cloak +2 iron will) (10 rage)
AC: 24 (10 + 2 dex + 9 armour +2 ring +3 beast totem, -2 rage)
AC(not raging): 23
AC touch: 14 (12 rage)
AC Flat footed: 21 (22 rage)
DR 1/-
Improved Uncanny Dodge
Attacks
Fred always power attacks. He is not a wuss.
Bite: 16 (9 bab + 8 str + 2 amulet -3 PA) -> 18.5 damage (1d4 + 8 str + 6 PA + 2 amulet)
2xClaws: 17 (9 bab + 8 str + 2 amulet +1 WF -3 PA) -> 20.5 damage (1d8 + 8 str + 6 PA + 2 amulet)
Greatsword: 15 (9 bab + 8 str + 1 Sword -3 PA) -> 29 damage (2d6 + 12 str + 9 PA + 1 weapon)
When out of rage:
Greatsword: 13 (9 bab + 6 str + 1 Sword -3 PA) -> 26 damage (2d6 + 9 str + 9 PA + 1 weapon)
Total potential full attack damage: 57.5
Total normal damage: 20.5 or 29
Assuming an AC 21 creature, which is the average for CR 9 creatures. When power attacking, fred has an 80% chance to hit with his bite.
DPR of sword /w charge and rage: 25
DPR of Claw: 18.3
DPR of Bite: 15.54
DPR of full attack: 52.14
Battle strategy goes like this:
Round 1: Fred rages and charges with his great-sword.
Round 2: Fred throws the sword away and begins to rend and tear!
Round 3: Am I dead? If not, go to round 2.
Next level, Fred takes pounce and becomes even stronger.
Even if Fred loses initiative, or gets ambushed, he has improved uncanny dodge and is likely to survive any attacks. Then he can full attack right away.
---------------------
Now lets compare to your numbers:
Round 1: Your attack is at +0, The fire giant has a touch ac of 8, the couatl 13 and the bebilith 9.
oh, and the coutl has Prot. Evil up (you are evil to fight a LG outsider, right?) and is invisible, but w/e
Lets assume that touch AC 10 will be the average. That means you are doing 51 * 0.55 damage, or 28.5. Slight advantage warlord.
Round 2: Lord warren attack for 44 + 23 damage. The main attack has a lower bonus than Fred's, and the secondary is even lower. We can amend this after you make a full build, but lets say your chance to hit is 0.85 and 0.7 for a total damage of 53.5. Its a Wash
Keep in mind, your opponent has 10 ft of reach. The move does not stop him from full attacking.
Round 3: Last attack for 55 damage at .85 to hit gets 44. Advantage barbarian.
Round 4: I think you are out of maneuvers. What now? What about the next enemy?
---------------------------
I don't think my barbarian was particularly optimal, but I wanted to build a claw/claw/bite guy. But there you go.
If anything, Golden Swipe should probably not provoke from the initiator, as that does not seem to fit the flavour.
In any case, its about what I expected, the barbarian is more consistent, and the warlord can apply various status effects.
At higher levels, the barbarian will be able to pounce, and use the various *assault feats to apply status effects, but I don't play at those levels so I can't make a build for that :)
I am not sure what to do with my last 2 feats. the Imp. Nat. attack seems weak, and I don't want to spend any more time on this looking for numbers. Maybe someone has a better idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is my slightly optimized build for a Barbarian (or actually, it's a friends that he used in our game, downgraded from level 11 to how it looked at lvl 9). He seems to provide fairly well for around 50+ damage output every round (for around 20 rounds per day).
Lvl 9 Barbarian
15 pt build.
Str 22 (Base 16, Human 2, Level 2, Enh 2)
Dex 14
Con 12
Int 8
Wis 12
Cha 8
HP: 73 (DR1/-)
AC: 23 (24 when Raging)
Base attack: +9
Weapon of Choice: +2 Large Bastard Sword
Base Attack: +16/+11 (2d8+11) avg 20 per attack
Rage Attack: +18/+13 (2d8+14) avg 23 per attack
Power Attack with Rage: +18/+10 (2d8+1d6+23) avg 35,5
Extra Bite: +12 (1d4+1d6+4) -> with PA: +9 (1d4+1d6+10) avg 16
Standard Full-Round:
VS AC23: 80% * 35,5 and 40% * 35,5 = 43 dmg
Bite: 35% * 16 = 5 dmg
Crit chance: 20%*80%*35,5 = +6 and +3 (total: 57 dmg)
Standard Charge:
On Charge: 90% * 38 = 34 dmg (extra 1d6 from LER)
Crit chance: 20%*90%*38 = +7 dmg (total: 41)
Feats:
1: EWP: Bastard Sword
H: Power Attack
3: Weapon Focus: Bastard Sword
5: Furious Focus
7: Heavy Armor Proficiency
9: Improved Critical
Rage Powers:
2: Lesser Beast Totem
4: Lesser Elemental Rage
6: Beast Totem
8: Elemental Rage
Interesting pieces of equipment:
Mithril Full-plate +2 (AC+11)
+2 Large Bastard Sword
+2 Belt of Strength
Average CR9 monster AC: 23
Now, that said, at level 10 his damage goes ballistic with Beast Totem. Also, he is fairly competent attacking with just his Claws+Bite (his fluff is actually that he is a werewolf, and raging is him transforming).
P.S. Furious focus is really, really, good with initiators, since they only make one attack per round, they get power attack for free. This means that Furious focus is almost a must-have feat, and it makes THW even stronger.
I don't know how to exclude Furious Focus without making maneuvers not count as "melee attacks."
Also, @Frerezar, you can't use Power attack with touch attacks.
|
|
Cool, a few things thou. I see that everyone was given full equipment. I will then have to fully equip Lord warren cordingly (which will take a while).I still believe a single piece of armor and a ingle magic weapon kept the comparison parallel, but it is what it is.
Another thing, it saddens me to see that both barbarians dumped thei cha (and even int for one of them yikes) in order to keep up damagewise. Doesn´t that tell you guys anything?
Now, regarding the fourth round of combat after whatever CR appropiate monster would be dead, the warlord can either charge another opponent and recover his maneuvers (still has one more strike ready just for this ocassion, jade spear which ignores DR to boot) in the process. Or if he is in melee already can use quick bull rush to recover maneuvers, move the opponent (letting his allies get another free attack of op) and still perform sa secondary attack (thou admitedly with a mediocre bonus). That looks like a damn good round.
I will give lord warren magic items that boost his AC, strenght and damage. However the funny thing is that even with only 3000gp worth of equipment his ofensive power and defense are competitive with the builds posted (which all have 46k worth of items) XD
PD: Power Atack not applying to touch attacks, i did not know that. That does change things a bit. I will recalculate them :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Str 20
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 10HIT DICE. 9d12+36(favored class bonus applied)
HIT POINTS. 99 (first edge over a warlord)
AC: 19 (7 armor, 2 dex) (17 while raging)
INIT. +2
SPEED. 30ft (second edge over a warlord)SAVES
fort 6
ref 3
will 3FEATS
Lvl1 Power Attack
Humn Furious Focus
Lvl3 Toughness
Lvl5 Extra rage Power
Lvl7 Extra Rage Power
Lvl9 Improved Criticalrage Powers:
Lvl2 Powerful Blow (+3dmg)
Lvl4 Superstitious
Lvl5 Guarded Stance (+2)
Lvl6 Increased Damage Reduction
Lvl7 Reckless Abandon
Lvl8 Roused Anger
You don't know how to uild a barbarian. "NOT optimized for damage because I also added some survivability". BS, you did neither.
Let me show you how it is done:Str 20
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 10
HIT DICE. 9d12+27(favored class bonus applied)
HIT POINTS. 91 (first edge over a warlord) (your mistake, your barbarian should have 100 HP)
AC: 20 (7 armor, 2 dex, 1 dodge) (21 in rage, -2 while raging, +3 natural)
INIT. +2
SPEED. 30ft (second edge over a warlord)
BAB +16/+11 2d6+8
in rage +18/+13 2d6+11+1d6
SAVES
fort 6
ref 3
will 3
FEATS
Lvl1 Power Attack
Humn Furious Focus
Lvl3 Weapon Focus
Lvl5 Extra rage Power
Lvl7 Extra Rage Power
Lvl9 Dodge (noone wants to mess with crit math, it's a headache)
rage Powers:
Lvl2 Lesser Beast Totem
Lvl4 Superstitious
Lvl5 Witch Hunter (3+ dmg)
Lvl6 Beast Totem (+3 AC)
Lvl7 Lesser Elemental Rage (+1d6 energy damage)
Lvl8 Elemental Rage (+1d6 energy damage)
Comparing: he still has more HP, his armor is almost as good while in rage, he has DR 1 and he has +4 in saves against almost everything. Barbarian wins defense hands down.
Damage, Round 1
The barbarian rages, activates PA and chooses the energy type for his extra damage, whatever the opponent is vulnerable against or electric if nothing else then actvates lesser elemental damage with an energy the enemy isn't resistant to, acid probably. He then charges hitting at +20 for 34 damage (7 weapon 10 str 1 enhancement 9 PA 3,5 one energy+ 3,5 the other), 37 if the target has any magic, like a dragon, an outsider, some undead, etc. A little more if the target is weak, say to cold, like red dragons and fire giants.
Round 2, 3 and so forth the barbarian is hitting at +18/+10 for 30,5 damage a pop, 33,5 if the enemy has magic, doing around 61 or 67 damage if he hits the second attack. More if the enemy has any energy vulnerability.
Better equipment will help the barbarian much more than the warlord, since anything that improves his to hit also increases the chances of his second attack hitting and making his damage bigger than the warlords.
And if you really want, I can up this build to level 12, show what a real damage dealer can do. Hint: he kills the enemy on their own turns.
I did not dump mentals. I have more wis than Warren :)
I also only used 3/4 wealth and had free feats and powers for player customization.
btw my build was 20pb. Forgot to mention that
I think we're all getting side tracked here. (And I apologize for my part in that.) This thread isn't about who can design the best barbarian, it is about initiators. (Of course, how they stack up against the current martials is a part of that.)
I was just demonstrating that barbarians can match if not surpass the damage and defenses of the warlord. Where the warlord does shine is that his boosts also help the party. I think all in all it's pretty well balanced. I could prove the same with a paladin or ranger if necessary.
If I wanted to show who builds the best barbarians I could have used other builds, with less damage but with more staying power or battlefield control. If I just wanted to show who blows that damage out of the water I would make a fighter, they can only do one thing but they are the best at it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ShadowcatX I don't think Frerezar is intentionally trying to sabotage the barbarian. I am willing to bet that he is arguing in good faith. He probably just has less system mastery than you, so there is no need to be aggressive.
That being said, I think what we are coming to is that martial adept classes will probobly have lower system mastery requirements than the core martials. Really, theory-crafting can only go so far. We needs actual play-test data. I may have a friend playing a warlord next weekend :)
|
|
If we are getting to the point in which it is actually unpleasant to post because of aggressive tones then I believe I have caused greater distress than intended, and I apologize for that.
I do not wish to get into a char op competition as it would end up with the conclusion that nothing is overpowered because RAGELANCEPOUNCE exists. All I will add is that if the warlord was really meant to be optimized it would focus on maneuver recovery through charging and dropping enemies to 0hp instead of investing feats on bull rush (which sucks) and using a keen nodachi instead of a greatsword. Dropping int to 0 will also add some fighting power and, finally make him a heaven born aasimar instead of human (he really does not need the feats) for better str and cha. Then you should compare it to the optimized (thou not fully) barbarians posted. But again, the point was not to create the strongest damn character possible, but to show an average non optimized warlord vs a non optimized barbarian and se how one outperformed the other in most areas.
I would remove the part that mentions the Warlord starting with all his "readied maneuvers unexpended, regardless of how many times he may have already used them since he chose them." and just have the maneuvers stay expended until 'recharged' manually. I would also remove the ability to recover any maneuvers outside of using gambits and have them all recovered after sleeping so that the Warlord's Gambit ability is more integral to the class. It would keep with the flavor of someone who is an adrenaline junkie and only feels inspired, charged, primed, juiced, whatever you will, when he's doing these crazy acts of derring-do. I love the idea of a character that rides on adrenaline and crazy luck, using it to fuel some pretty badass acts of martial awesome.
While I loved the Bo9S, if the spirit of this ruleset is being updated to Pathfinder, it should fall a bit more in line with how classes in Pathfinder work. The whole per encounter thing doesn't really feel "right" so to speak, even though it was a big part of how some of the maneuvers worked back in 3.5. There really has to be another way of doing it to make it seem more like Pathfinder.
All I will add is that if the warlord was really meant to be optimized it would focus on maneuver recovery through charging and dropping enemies to 0hp instead of investing feats on bull rush (which sucks) and using a keen nodachi instead of a greatsword. Dropping int to 0 will also add some fighting power and, finally make him a heaven born aasimar instead of human (he really does not need the feats) for better str and cha. Then you should compare it to the optimized (thou not fully) barbarians posted. But again, the point was not to create the strongest damn character possible, but to show an average non optimized warlord vs a non optimized barbarian and se how one outperformed the other in most areas.
I'm not actually sure that makes it better. Your damage comes from maneuver adds, not crits, so the nodachi actually lowers your damage. Also, the quick bull rush is actually pretty good when you can full attack, since it provokes and gives you a free attack (Interestingly, that AoO would benifite from Furious Focus :p)
The heaven-born assimar is nice, but does not fit every campaign. In any case, I'd rather save a feat-slot for iron will, or what ever martial maneuver feats will be in paths of war.
Also, if you are fighting enemies that you can drop in one round, you don't really need to recover maneuvers.
We are not getting into a char-op competition, (or at least I was not). I just wanted to see a meaningful comparison between two characters that might actually see play. I made a barbarian because I thought that I, personally, would not have built the barbarian the way you did.
|
|
But again, the point was not to create the strongest damn character possible, but to show an average non optimized warlord vs a non optimized barbarian and se how one outperformed the other in most areas.
Except that you tried to show an optimized Warlord vs an un-optimized Barbarian. People are asking for play data. Before Frerezar's attempts at showing an over-powered Warlord ruining the game, Ssalarn was actually giving real play-test data and it seemed more valuable than anything we've simulated. I'd like to ask that we for go further nonsense and stick to what play-test data can bring to the table.
I like hearing about people's experience playing them in AP/Module/Scenarios because I think it allows for more valid data. It accounts more easily for the chaotic nature in an RPG. I hope that when the Stalker is released we can see actual play test more often than theory craft data.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm going to read thru this and do a mini-review of it as I go. I don't remember much from Bo9S as I wasn't as into D&D at the time it was big as I am now.
Charisma based martial, sweet. We need more of those.
Looking at the table, none of the specials make sense to me right now. But that's to be expected :) The thing that pops out to me is that due to the number of readied maneuvers and stances, I expect there to be no static damage boosts that they always get. If there are any beneath here, it's infringing far more on the fighter than is good for a balanced class. Well, I actually haven't read the goals for this project, so maybe one of them is to replace the fighter.
Skill wise, 4+int feels right. The skill list is pretty strong, with Acrobatics, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Perception in there. Acrobatics is pretty weird, as not only do they have a poor reflex save, the class itself says that Dexterity is one of the least important stats for them. Right now, I would consider axing that because everything I've read to up until this point points to it not making sense.
Maneuvers: A bit concerned that they are from the bat said to be (Ex), as I was under the impression these classes were all about giving primary martials some magical oomph. If it's magical or augmented, it's not (Ex) :)
First sentence of Maneuvers Readied needs some rework. It's not a 'but' thing, he needs to do that from the start :) Perhaps take a look at the tome in Ultimate Equipment that allows fighters to change their last bonus feat for a precedent on how long re-readying maneuvers should take?
A discussion of what a GM should say an encounter is would be appropriate somewhere. I really dislike the Inquisitor's Judgement's aspect of saying 'yea, these just work in combat.' The game uses encounter to also mean things like social encounters where you're using diplomacy. Will they recharge for that?
I dig the FRA required to get it back. I like choices other than 'I full attack'. Maybe there could be an ability that gives you a minor bonus when you do this?
Bonus Teamwork feats are mostly wasted unless they have an ability like the Cavalier or Inquisitor.
Gambits: hmmm. You were asking for feedback on these specifically. I don't think they work. The tasks are too easy to game, and they will grant an easy way to regain the maneuvers. With the ease with which you can regain them through here (hello Demoralizing Gambit and Cornugan Smash), I certainly expect the maneuvers to be very minor. These all seem much easier than a FRA would be. It's certainly an interesting idea, but I'll go into why I don't think it'll work in the end a bit later.
I'll finish reading the class, and posting my thoughts, sometime tomorrow. I'll also be doing a playtest with it tomorrow night.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The gambit system should do more.
Let me explain. Take the magus class. It's signature ability is spell combat, letting it do something that no other class can do without expensive metamagic feats and rods: namely busting out a spell and then whomping someone in the same round. Sure, the spells are an integral part of the class but it's the ability to use them while swinging a weapon that's unique. It even has a limited recharge mechanic with spell recall. What's the warlord's spell combat?
The gambit system, flavor wise, is awesome. Problem is, it's only a method to recharge maneuvers with a slight risk depending on what gambits you choose. Still cool, but I'm guessing the other classes are going to be able to recharge their abilities in different ways as well. The gambit should stand out as something more and, I'd argue, the other recharge mechanics for the other classes should too.
The other problem is that, despite having a nice list of ways to recharge your abilities, people will gravitate towards a less risky action such as using Intimidate to demoralize. There should be some other incentive for someone to do something especially risky, like using Acrobatics to get through the threatened squares of a creature that has a high CMD while moving full speed for example. Mechanically speaking, using a gambit to successfully charge an opponent and using a gambit to move through a threatened square have the same result, though the first has a better chance to succeed.
Something simple like when you succeed on a gambit you get a point of some kind that stays for 1 round which can be used to recharge one of your maneuvers or you can risk it on another gambit to get a bigger payoff. Maybe allow more points for less assured gambits to encourage players to take those risks. Perhaps you can use these points to power some sort of cool ability, recharging even more maneuvers depending on how many points you have available, grant yourself some kind of bonus on a roll, etc. However, if you risk these points and fail, the results are more catastrophic depending on how many were wagered. Risk vs. reward.
Really make these classes as unique as possible! Take inspiration from the Bo9S but really make it different in the feel of the system, not just with the terms, disciplines and maneuver names.
New warlord document available. See original post.
Hopefully I've closed up some more of the holes in the class and made it work a little better than before. I feel pretty confident about the class chassis at this point. I'm going to focus on finishing the Stalker release next and get that out ASAP, and once we have both of those out, we can start comparing notes. When all three are out, then we can really get to start balancing disciplines out between each other and find a healthy place to fit.
My balance point for these classes and the maneuvers is using the wonderful psychic warrior in Dreamscarred Press' Psionics Expanded book, for those of you who are wondering. If it's a tough fight between a martial disciple and that class, I'm doing my job right.
Regards,
-Chris
|
Woo, Tome of Battle! I'm very curious to see how this goes.
Some thoughts:
- I realise this is only alpha, but there's a lot of rewording of abilities that needs to be done. Some of them read really awkwardly. (e.g., most of the 'Presences'. I hate that ability name, by the way.)
- Demoralizing Gambit is still too easy. Please look at Cornugon Smash when you consider balancing this.
- What happens with Duelist's Gambit if the warlord is using unarmed strikes or other "cannot be disarmed" weapons such as gauntlets? If the weapon is attached to a weapon cord?
- What happens with Ravager's Gambit if the warlord is using unarmed strikes?
Still need to go through the maneuvers, but I will definitely do so as I have a chance. Looking forward to see the Stalker.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are the reasons for using the PW rather than Core material as the balancing point?
What are your plans to deal with the advantage that versatility grants? In Pathfinder, the more versatile versions of classes get less abilities than the less versatile classes (see! Wizard vs sorcerer, cleric vs sorcerer), and these guys will be more versatile than Core non-caster martials, so this is something that needs to be controlled for. Versatility is power.
And unfortunately due to personal issues, I'm not able to playtest this today.
I was going to name him FerezantX too :(