Ssalarn, what are the make differences between the warlord and it's corresponding Bo9S class?
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First and foremost, Bo9S classes were considered unbalanced when compared to classes that were massively weaker than the ones we have today. Feats were acquired at a slower rate, Fighters had literally no class features other than bonus feats, barbarians didn't have Rage powers, etc.
When you actually stack them against modern Pathfinder classes, they already barely stack up. People have a tendency to go "OMG! It can get an additional 2-5d6 on its attacks each round!!" forgetting that Pathfinder already includes a class that can Two Weapon Fight with a poisoned kusarigama while gaining Greater Invisibility as a swift action gaining 6d6 sneak attack damage on every single attack by level 11.
In an attempt to "balance" the Warlord, the class has been hacked and trimmed down multiple times. What has frustrated me in this thread, is that much of the argument against the Warlord has been mad via flawed theorycraft that ignores several basic principles of the game (Cheapy, this is not directed at you, I think your arguments have been valid and have acknowledged them as such while presenting my opposing view).
One major function that plays into these caculations is the critical hit. The vast majority of Maneuvers are standard actions, where the player is making a single attack roll. This means the class is actually disincentivized to perform full attacks, which means he is lowering the likelihood of gaining a critical hit. The Warlord's damage boosting capabilities, are not multiplied on a critical hit, but the bonus damage Fighters, Cavaliers, Barbarians, Rangers, in fact, nearly every class except the rogue and its archetypes, is. This means that maneuver-based classes are actually losing damage at two ends, both being less likely to accrue critical hits, and benefiting less when they do get one.
So we're taking these new classes, like the Warlord, and we're actually bringing them in at a lower power level than classes that were already outdated.
Maneuver-based classes are actually very interesting in that their power levels are actually counter-intuitive. The baseline classes hit the playing field a bit higher on the curve than core classes, by virtue of their adaptability and the fact that no matter what combination of feats you choose, you'll always have your maneuvers to fall back on to shore up your weaknesses. However, as gear and system mastery come into play, where the other classes see exponential differences in their capabilities and output, the maneuver classes see only incremental increases.
Examples:
A Warlord and a magus both pick up a +1 Keen Scimitar (or pick up Improved Crit). They now have a 30% chance to crit. However, the Warlord's strength is in his standard actions, whereas the Magus' strength lies in Spell Combat. Not only is the magus going to make more attacks, increasing the likliehood of triggering that 30% chance to hit, but when he does crit, any riders he has going, like Shocking Grasp, will also be multiplied. The Warlord will only be multiplying his static modifiers and base weapon die.
A smart human fighter has enough feats to fill out the entire Thunder and Fang combat tree by level 2. The Warlord can't complete it until 5th level at the earliest. From the moment the fighter finishes that tree, he's keeping his shield bonus to AC while attacking, and using a two-handed weapon one handed. This gives him, effectively, and additional 4 points of average damage with his main hand weapon and a constant shield bonus to AC. These benefits alone exceed the benefits of any stances available to the Warlord at similar levels, without even bringing Two Weapon Fighting and Full Attacks into the picture for consideration.
I could go on but this post is already enormous.
While really interesting position, and one I'll probably respond to tomorrow, I really was wondering about the differences :)
Although, most of your examples are of abilities I consider to be broken at a near fundamental level... well, spell combat and thunder and fang, that is.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While really interesting position, and one I'll probably respond to tomorrow, I really was wondering about the differences :)
Although, most of your examples are of abilities I consider to be broken at a near fundamental level... well, spell combat and thunder and fang, that is.
Lol, I suppose there's some truth to that, but they are legal examples, and Spell Combat is a core line option :)
So, differences between the Warlord and his Bo9S class equivalent...
First and foremost would be my point about the world they live in. Bo9S classes existed in an environment where the average power level was much lower.
My assumption based on the material so far is that the Warlord is replacing the old Warblade, so I'll address this as though that is the case. (Some might argue he's closer to teh Crusader, but I imagine the upcoming Knight will be the one to fill that role.)
1)The Warblade had a d12 hit die to the Warlord's d10, a minor difference, but one which plays into the overall power level.
2) The WL and WB have the same number of bonus feats, however the WB's bonus feats were extremely powerful (Stone Power and Ironheart were insane for the time, giving him up to 10 temp hp a round as a rider on his other abilities and boosting his and all adjacent allies saves by +2)
3) The Warblade could regain all of his expended maneuvers as a swift action as long as he followed it with a melee attack. This meant the Warlord could gain every single expended Boost, Counter, and Strike, at no cost. He didn't even need to actually hit with his attack!
4) The Warblade counted his class levels as Fighter level minus 2, and could spend 1 hour each day to change every single one of his weapon specific feats (Weapon Focus, Specialization, etc.) over to a different weapon. The Warlord has nothing that even comes close to this, can't even take Fighter specific feats.
5) The Warblade, in addition to having 4+INT skill points, also had a ton of abilities that allowed him to apply his INT bonus to attacks, damage, defenses, critical hit confirmations etc. This gave him functionally 2 good saves, skill bonuses that destroyed other melee classes by comparison, and the ability to add two primary stats to his base damage.
The Warlord is already magnitudes of power lower than his 3.5 counterpart. While I know the Warblade seems pretty OP based on what I've stated (and at the time, he was), when you actually run him side by side any other class now, he's actually pretty par for the course. His dual stats equate to roughly the same bonuses as Weapon Training or Favored Enemy, don't even touch Challenge or Smite, his 4+Int skills are actually pretty common now, etc. He's basically on par with the modern day Pathfinder classes, and he kicks the snot out of the current iteration of the Warlord.
As it stands, Where the old-school Warblade was a battlefield tank who completely eclipsed the Fighter and was a reasonable buffer, the Warlord with his full BAB is currently pulling every rabbit he can reach out of his hat just to stay in line with 3/4 BAB classes and archetypes like the Magus and the Arcane Duelist, and is only able to play on the same field with the Paladin and Cavalier when they're not activating their Challenges and Smites.
By a similar note, the Stalker currently is a little bit ahead of the CRB Rogue, but once more isn't even in the same league as the Ninja, Gunslinger, or even some Monk builds, and that's prior to the trimming down Chris is giving him, likely as we speak.
Ssalarn, you're making me want to just give the Stalker and Warlord cool toys. :P
But honestly, the Stalker's not getting the trim you might be expecting. Additionally, I recognize the power loss of the Warlord and I'm trying to figure out if it's maneuvers as is make up for it, or if I should improve the glass and downpower its maneuvers.
Decisions, decisions...
-Chris
|
Warlord
Devil Tiger
Tiger on the Hunt: Why is this maneuver a strike and Momentum Crash a boost? So Momentum Crash can be used when you’re limited to a standard action?
Crushing Blow: Does the fort save use the initiator’s primary attribute as written or the attribute bonus?
Tiger’s Swipe: Is there going to be a “Quicken Maneuver” feat or something similar? If so, how will this maneuver work for a double weapon? It’s being wielded in two hands.
Raging Tiger Pounce: This should be a full round action or specify that you are limited to moving up to your normal move.
Frenzy Strike: This might be a little overpowered. If the initiator is using a double weapon or wielding two weapons, does each hit do damage equal to the Survival check? Does the attack add enhancement, morale, etc bonuses as normal or is it just BAB? If you’re dual wielding you you take the normal penalties?
Blade-breaking Strike: Is it supposed to read ”…and if this sunder attempt breaks the opponents weapon, then the character suffers no damage…”
Momentum Crush: This is a little confusing because it sounds like you use a swift action to activate it and then another to add the damage and, of course, you don’t have a second swift action. Maybe change this to a strike that takes a full round action.
Meteoric Collision: When it says that it doesn't provoke AoO’s does that mean for initiation the bull rush or that the opponents movement doesn't provoke if you have Greater Bull Rush?
Dizzying Blow, Charge of the Battle Tiger, Devastating Momentum, Meteoric Crash: Another where I’m confused as to whether this should be the attribute or the attribute bonus.
Unbreakable Tiger Guard: “fines” instead of “finds”
EDIT: Looking over the whole book it really does look like you mean the entire initiator attribute. This isn't really in line with the way this tends to be handled in Pathfinder. I'd consider changing these to be 10+half level+attribute bonus as it is for other abilities like hexes.
|
|
Warlord
Golden Lion
Warning Roar: “Character” should probably be either “initiator” or “ally”depending on what this maneuver is supposed to do.
Charge of the Battle Cat, War Lion’s Charge: These use the phrase “relevant initator stat” instead of “primary initiator attribute”
Lion’s Feast: Am I to understand that the temporary HP only lasts 1 round? Not 1 round per initiator level or something more useful?
Golden General’s Victory: Uses the term “character” instead of “initiator”
Lion Lord’s Agony: No gripes with this just wanted to say it’s entirely awesome.
I would just like to caution against too many action economy penalties because these have a tremendous impact upon the effectiveness of a class. A great deal of these maneuvers are standard action AND it requires full round actions with penalties to recoup these maneuvers?
|
Design Manager
|
I would just like to caution against too many action economy penalties because these have a tremendous impact upon the effectiveness of a class. A great deal of these maneuvers are standard action AND it requires full round actions with penalties to recoup these maneuvers?
These aren't going to be actions where the guy is standing around doing nothing other than regaining his maneuvers though. He may very well be taking a specific kind of full attack or other special action that will ensure he continues to directly contribute to combat.
I dunno. Cheapy's point is a valid one.
I'm wondering if the gambit system could be re-balanced such that there's no penalty for failure, there's just lack of success. You try to recover (some of your) maneuvers by reworking your position so you're ready again. Screw up and you can't do it. Sorry, no maneuvers recovered and perhaps you can't retry for X rounds.
Set the bar high enough that it's still a "gambit" and the system is salvaged.
I would just like to caution against too many action economy penalties because these have a tremendous impact upon the effectiveness of a class. A great deal of these maneuvers are standard action AND it requires full round actions with penalties to recoup these maneuvers?These aren't going to be actions where the guy is standing around doing nothing other than regaining his maneuvers though. He may very well be taking a specific kind of full attack or other special action that will ensure he continues to directly contribute to combat.
I was just mentioning it because I felt someone should state the obvious. If you have too many action economy issues, you end up with a class that no one will play.
|
Design Manager
|
I was just mentioning it because I felt someone should state the obvious. If you have too many action economy issues, you end up with a class that no one will play.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you, but I don't really see it being an issue here. Remember, initiator classes are actually gaining a move action every other round by virtue of the fact that, much like a spell-caster, their most effective abilities are activated as standard actions, or swift actions (like Boosts and Counters) married to a particular action.
|
|
Warlord
Solar Wind
Solar Sting: Figuring out who has heavy enough footwear is going to be a pain. It’s also un-fun bookkeeping to have to figure out what their new AC is without certain parts. KISS. I’d suggest trying to rebalance it without it having to be quite so finicky.
Solar Meteor Blow: The parenthetical statement in the second to last sentence is confusing. The part after the semi-colon doesn’t seem to belong there.
Twisting Wind Shot: It says that it does double perception in lieu of weapon damage. Does this mean you skip the d8 (in the case of a longbow) but still add enhancement bonuses, damage from feats, etc?
True Shot Stance: Does this stack with keen or the improved crit feat?
|
|
Warlord Thoughts
I like the Warlord in general. There's a good feeling of leading the battle from class features even if you don't use Golden Lion stuff much. I like the idea of the gambits and want them to stay in some form.
I don't have much in the way of concerns with balance except for Solar Wind. Solar Wind has a lot of swift action bonuses that allow them to make full attacks, which are already insane. This seems pretty different from the melee disciplines who are heavily reliant on standard actions for their attacks.
|
Design Manager
|
Warlord Thoughts
I like the Warlord in general. There's a good feeling of leading the battle from class features even if you don't use Golden Lion stuff much. I like the idea of the gambits and want them to stay in some form.
I don't have much in the way of concerns with balance except for Solar Wind. Solar Wind has a lot of swift action bonuses that allow them to make full attacks, which are already insane. This seems pretty different from the melee disciplines who are heavily reliant on standard actions for their attacks.
One thing you'll notice in playtesting with the Solar Wind school, their bonuses are both
a) smaller than meleeand
b) burn through much quicker if you focus on the Swifts and Boosts.
It seems like you're squeezing more out of it with more full attack opportunities, but side-by-side with any other archery focused class or archetype like the Archer or Zen Archer they're at or a little below par.
|
Design Manager
|
Even with the Stalker, maneuver management is an issue? It seems to me that with a feat like Extra Ki and an already decent number of Ki points, they'll be able to use all their swankiest maneuvers, use a ki point, and then go back to kicking butt, every single combat.
Taking an entire full round in combat to regain maneuvers and dip into a limited resource is still telling. A Ninja (or Rogue who grabs a Ninja Trick) can Vanich as a swift action and get his sneak attack automatically. By 10th level, his Vanish can work like Greater Invisibility effectively granting him his Sneak Attack damage on every attack, as well as making him very difficult to locate and hit. Combine this with his automatic proficiencies in nasty weapons like the kusarigama, built in posion use, etc. and you've got a nasty combination. An invisible ninja with a kusarigama and the Trip feat chain can absolutely destroy a room pushing damage through the roof, and doing big damage both on and off turn. He's not the only class capable of massive damage both during and off his turn either. Gunslingers and archers with the Snap Shot feats, Cavaliers with the appropriate Teamwork feats, etc.
I think the Stalker is largely good as is, don't get me wrong, but he's not some auto-machine doing massive damage every round without limit. He's got the same wave pattern damage type as the Warlord, and runs off a limited resource that he uses as fuel for a variety of abilities.
|
Hey guys, I have a quick rules question but figured I'd ask it here rather than in rules since it has to do with the maneuvers. Can I use Spring attack with some of the strikes?
As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn
I am wondering if I could couple that with strikes like:
Steel Serpent (Strike)
Level: 4
Prerequisites: One Steel Serpent Maneuver
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack or ranged attack
Target: One creature
Duration: Instant, two rounds
Saving Throw: Fortitude (partial)
Striking with surety and precision, the disciple attacks the chakra of wisdom on his foe with his ki in an attempt to cloud his foe’s mind. The disciple makes an attack against a target; if successful the strike inflicts an additional 5d6 points of damage and 1d4 points of Wisdom damage (Fortitude save DC equal to 14 + primary initiator attribute to halve this Wisdom damage). On the following round on a failed save, the corrupted ki energies inflict an additional 1d6 points of damage and 2 additional points of Wisdom damage. This is a supernatural ability.
I am wondering if like Vital strike, it is a specific action that can't be used with Spring Attack or if it'd be possible with maneuvers.
|
|
Stalker
Obfuscation: I really wish this used a spell from core Paizo materials. Although it won’t be a problem for me or other fans of your work with psionics, not everyone will have access to that or want it in their games.
Style Access: Good idea here. I like making the style feats more accessible.
Feats:
Deadly Agility: Kind of hate this. I have issues with Dervish Dance, too, so you’re hardly alone. While it’s true that you have two feats as a prerequisite, both are feats that a dedicated finesse fighter is going to get anyway. Consider adding a third feat prerequisite or replacing Piranha Strike with something that is a bit more of a tax like Athletic, Acrobatic, or Nimble Moves.
Greater Unarmed Strike: This feat has been a long time coming and I've no idea why it hasn't before. I assume you know that the table only shows small stalker.
Martial Disciplines
Steel Serpent summary: Currently says “…become a supernatural poison in and off itself.”
Thrashing Dragon summary: Currently says “Trashing Dragon’s associated skill is…” Which is funny but probably not right.
Anyone else slightly worried that these classes have similar ability score requirements to the monk?
Feats like deadly agility help, but I am just not super certain about having maneuvers keyed off an ability modifier that is not your hitting stat. Are these guys supposed to be combat characters or not? I realize that they are going to be using standard actions more which may mitigate the hitting issue, but how are they supposed to be doing any kind of respectable damage as compared to a class like a ranger or paladin? Are they supposed to be glass cannons? They both look as though they're going to have lowish armor class, but I can't see them competing with high damage classes... Am I missing something?
Looking forward to seeing how this comes out.
I'm looking forward to this product, too. People who don't use any 3PP stuff don't know what they're missing. This product will be worth purchasing, in all likelihood.
|
|
So I just got home from a lengthy session of playing in the Jade Phoenix Tournament at level 11 with a Stalker, focusing mainly in Crescent Moon and Steel serpent maneuvers. We wanted to also get some decent play test data for this so in the party there was also a ninja, which is seen as the main competitor for role and damage to the stalker.
While I greatly enjoyed playing the stalker, absolute blast to play, I got trounced in almost every area by the ninja. The ninja had a better AC, Better damage, better battlefield control, Usually better to hit as she was often attacking opponents that were flat-footed against her. Slightly better hitpoints and only a few skill points less. In almost every encounter she was out-damaging me consistently, to a point of almost no contention, meaning I wouldn't be able to come close to her damage even if I tried.
My biggest "beef" I guess with the Stalker is the focus on Critical hits. I was using a weapon that when improved would crit on a 15-20. I didn't Crit once. Just one of those nights where I could still hit with bard buffs active but the few times I did get above a 15, even with my Wisdom to confirm I would just roll poorly and miss the confirm. I felt really frustrated with me losing out on so much over something I had no way of controlling. I wasn't a fan of that lack of control over several class features. Some might suggest that I simply roll better and while that is a viable tactic sometimes it just doesn't work that way. I was still effective but never critting once I felt really detracted my ability to contribute. I had spent feats and stalker talents to give bonuses when I crit even enchanting my weapon to have the Thundering property which does an additional 1d8 sonic damage on a crit. I poured resources into what I thought was a focus of the class and really felt like I lost out by having just a tiny bit less luck than needed. I guess if I were play it again in a campaign I would just throw the crit focus to the wind and ignore it almost all together. I could have spent my feats and talents elsewhere to improve my effectiveness all around.
*Edit After a second read through I realized I came off pretty harsh. I want to stress, I had a blast playing this class and would definitely play it again, easily. I loved Crescent Moon and all the teleportation abilities. Felt very theme-y and almost night stalker-esque, no pun intended.
I also dabbled this weekend with the class in a quasi-tournament style and had almost the exact same thing happen. I was up against a barbarian and got thoroughly trounced. maneuvering was my biggest issue. I couldn't properly set myself up for certain attacks because the barbarian player countered really well. I did land a couple criticals but not enough to win the battle.
This weekend I had the chance to get a playtest in, and I ran my group, all 1st level (I plan on going 1-20), consisting of an oracle (Battle/Tongues), a pair of Knights (jealous? :P), a stalker, and a Warlord. During the course of the adventure they rescued and befriended a witch and a barbarian and I had them fight through a few battles and one long, extended combat that required them to refresh maneuvers a couple of times.
The two knights and the warlord did pretty decently, but it's still a little early to tell at level 1. Against a tough random encounter, the oracle got some bad rolls and had trouble, but the stalker definitely shined with a pair of starknives using Steel Serpent, Solar Wind, and Crescent Moon. The stalker managed to get several crits in (her lucky weekend) and got use her deadly strike, Sting of the Rattler, and Horizon Wind Lancet pretty effectively, while using Leaping Spirit Dance to help defend herself. The Warlord ran really well, but he was more focusing on Golden Lion and a dash of Devil Tiger with a greatsword so damage at level 1 wasn't really a problem. Against the barbarian, he did comparable, as did the Knights (a TWF and a sword and board). At first level, I'm not seeing an immediate disparity of power. More notes on this to follow of course as the game goes on.
As for you all who got to get some playtesting in this weekend and get some actual play in: What do you think needs adjusting? Deadly strikes doesn't activate enough I see is a common thread, but what else are you seeing? An older version of stalker netted Wisdom to AC permanently at 2nd level, for example, and it once had a Deadly Strikes with Deadly Ambush built in (and older versions still had Sneak Attack!)
Same question goes to the Warlord players. I know I did some nerfing to that class I found that some liked and some didn't like. Now for actual game data, what would improve the Warlord's playability (if necessary)?
-Chris
Remember to test with non PoW classes. Having four of them in one game shows there relative strength, when a big concern will be how they interact with non-PoW classes. It sucks that this means playtesting is takes so much longer, but it provides much more useful data. Minimizing variables to a known state helps a lot, and that's what playtesting just one PoW class at a time helps with.
It's also why actual playtesting is such a rare thing amongst any designers for any company.
|
|
As for you all who got to get some playtesting in this weekend and get some actual play in: What do you think needs adjusting? Deadly strikes doesn't activate enough I see is a common thread, but what else are you seeing? An older version of stalker netted Wisdom to AC permanently at 2nd level, for example, and it once had a Deadly Strikes with Deadly Ambush built in (and older versions still had Sneak Attack!)-Chris
I know there is the stalker art to spend a Ki point as a swift action to increase my AC and CMD but felt like I'd never take it because my swift action is one of my most vital resources and I could never see myself taking it and then burning a resource like for some thing so limited. If they did get Wisdom modifier to AC or even half Wisdom Modifier to AC that'd go a long way. Because I had a lower AC I was really trying to save my swift actions for counters when I could.
Deadly strikes can be activated as a swift action and add Xd6 to damage but again I just didn't feel like it justified the little bit of extra damage I'd get from my one attack a round. If there was a mechanic where if its activated and then I crit the dice gets multiplied as well, maybe, but doesn't sound feasible from a balance aspect. If I were to play it again I might see about combining the Crescent Moon style with the Thrashing Dragon two-weapon fighting style to see how that works out.
Remember to test with non PoW classes. Having four of them in one game shows there relative strength, when a big concern will be how they interact with non-PoW classes. It sucks that this means playtesting is takes so much longer, but it provides much more useful data. Minimizing variables to a known state helps a lot, and that's what playtesting just one PoW class at a time helps with.
That's my plan. I'm hoping with a Battle Oracle (who's going to attempt to CoDzilla), a barbarian, and eventually going to cycle through a paladin, a monk, a ranger, a rogue, and a fighter into battles with people who are playing the three initiator classes, I'll get a good side by side comparison. Combine that with data from people actually playing the classes and reporting how they've done with it, the finished product should be pretty good.
-Chris
|
Design Manager
|
I was GMing the Ruby Phoenix Tournament module that Codanous was playing in this weekend, and we definitely had some fun. Our party consisted of-
A halfling Ninja
An Oni-spawn tiefling Stalker
A Nagaji Warlord
A Musetouched aasimar Bard (Arcane Duelist)
and
A Dwarf Cleric (Forgemaster)
The Ruby Phoenix Tournament is an 11th level module, and all characters were single classed. The halfling Ninja specialized in Tripping and Two Weapon Fighting with a wakisashi and kama; the tiefling Stalker had some crit feats and specialized in fighting with a Nodachi; the Warlord focused on Devil Tiger discipline and fought with a Double Chicken Saber, and in addition to having the Greater Disarm and Greater Dirty Fighting feat chains, he had the Coordinated Maneuvers, Back to Back, and Coordinated Charge feats to share with his Warleader ability; the Aasimar Arcane Duelist used a rapier, had the Discordant Voice feat with Weapon Finesse and Piranha Strike, and used the Virtuoso Performance and Exquisite Accompaniment spells to keep Inspire Courage and Blade Thirst running simultaneously; the Dwarf Cleric used a battleaxe and wore adamantine full plate and basically just did what dwarven clerics do.
The Ruby Phoenix Tournament was a fantastic module for playtesting, because in addition to a heavy combat focus, there's several underlying skill challenges, some intrigue, and a variety of combat challenges where each fight involves different techniques being used, different defenses being targeted, and different strategies being more and less effective.
The Ninja was our damage-dealing star. She opened up each encounter by spending a ki point as a swift action to use Vanish and Invisible Blade and then moving in to fighting position. She generally spent her main turns full attacking to drop her extra 6d6 sneak attacks on each attack, and tried to keep herself positioned so that during her off turn she could use Lunge to threaten a strong area and use her AoO's to trip with her kama and follow up with the attack granted by Greater Trip to land a Sneak Attack enhanced attack with her wakisashi. She accounted for a stunning 40% of all damage dealt by the party (32% if you attribute the bonus damage from buffs like Inspire Courage and Encouraging Roar to the buffers instead of the buff-ee). Being Invisible and using Offensive Defense made her nearly unhittable, even with the penalties for using Lunge. She also had the best skills in the group by a fair margin.
The Stalker tended to use Stance of the Ether Gate to move in and out of combat, setting up flanks and delivering big maneuver enhanced blows with his Nodachi. He tended not to stay in direct combat over much because he was the squishiest party member. He was the party member to come closest to death on several occasions, but also did a great job of facilitating combat positioning. As mentioned upthread, he was working with a 30% chance to crit but never did execute one, meaning many of his abilities went under-utilized. I had suspected going in to the evening that this might be the case and wasn't surprised to see my suspicions born out. Critical hits really on frequency of attacks to execute regularly, and initiators just make fewer attacks than their PF core and base class counterparts. The Stalker was still an excellent contribution to the group though, and I think the controlling player had a great time with the class.
The Warlord and Arcane Duelist were probably the most similarly matched characters in the group, and actually were extremely complimentary. Matching the Golden Lion boosts to Bard buffs meant the entire party was generally running with some pretty strong combat bonuses, and both classes did an excellent job of ringing the most out of the other party members. The Warlord cleared about an extra 10% direct damage over the Arcane Duelist over the course of the night, but when you start counting in the non-direct contributions (extra attacks, damage, etc. granted to other party members by buffs) the Arcane Duelist actually contributed 87 more points of damage (roughly 30% of her total direct damage) over the course of the evening. The Arcane Duelist brought more damage to the table, though some of the Warlord's combat contributions like Disarmed and disabled enemies likely equated to roughly the same contribution
Ultimately, I'd say the Arcane Duelist and Warlord were near perfectly matched, and actually were fantastically complimentary. This was something I rather expected to see during the course of play.
I'd talk about the dwarf, but like I said, she did what dwarf clerics do. She laid claim to the highest AC and best saves in the group and acted as the rock that kept the rest of the party up and running.
|
Design Manager
|
A note on the Stalker and Deadly Strike- while Deadly Strike is a really cool idea, it just doesn't seem to mesh well with the entire maneuver system. By the end of our playtest, I really felt like the Stalker would have been better served by just having a half progression Sneak Attack. The potential for an extra 10 average damage was virtually never worth the swift action and ki point, and the Stalker really didn't appear to be in any danger of eclipsing anyone in damage potential.
I recall a few pages so ago a discussion about a barbarian that was purposefully sandbagged vs a highly damage optimized warlord. It seems fair that the same claims, but reversed, would apply very so much to the ninja vs warlord/stalker in the playtest, wouldn't it?
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recall a few pages so ago a discussion about a barbarian that was purposefully sandbagged vs a highly damage optimized warlord. It seems fair that the same claims, but reversed, would apply very so much to the ninja vs warlord/stalker in the playtest, wouldn't it?
I would very much disagree. Taking a class built to focus on critical hits and giving him feats to improve his chances to crit and get more out of his crits is a far cry from sandbagging. Especially when you're giving him the best martial weapon for executing critical hits (the nodachi). Power attack and Furious Focus are, once more, a far cry from sandbagging for a class that is focused on succeeding on single hard-hitting attacks. Nor is picking a race that gives bonuses to both the classes primary stats "sandbagging". I'm actually very offended by your insinuation. Both classes were built with equal levels of system mastery accounting for the strengths, weaknesses, and abilities of each class.
The Warlord, also, far from "sandbagged". Devil Tiger gives the largest damage bonuses, and the Warlord utilizing +2 Rhino Hide armor combined with Coordinated Charge and Devil Tiger abilities like Charge of the Battle Tiger is one of the most powerful combos executable with the class at that level.If that isn't enough for you to withdraw your fairly ignorant accusation, let me know and I'll post the builds, stats, gear, and maneuvers for the entire group. Every character was built with the same high degree of system mastery and given the same 20 point buy and WBL.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was more so referring to the Warlord than the stalker, as I haven't even read the stalker yet. Almost anything compared to a ninja with TWF and at-will greater invisibility is going to be looking lacking damage-wise, which is what I was going for :)
I was more so referring to the Warlord than the stalker, as I haven't even read the stalker yet. Almost anything compared to a ninja with TWF and at-will greater invisibility is going to be looking lacking damage-wise, which is what I was going for :)
Ninja just kinda bring the cannon-fire doesn't it?
I'm not going to let the stalker get that potent, what with maneuvers and all on top of it.
-Chris
Traded my 10 level paladin for a 10 level warlord for this sunday and probably the next. Focused on Jade Throne and Golden Lion. His damage was good but nothing awesome, the gunslinger and magus on the party managed to keep even and even outdamage me. The really cool stuff were the Golden Lion buffs, Roar of Battle and Strategic Blow are plain awesome, my group loved them. Prediction, here and now, Golden Lion will be the most used discipline fow Warlords.
Traded my 10 level paladin for a 10 level warlord for this sunday and probably the next. Focused on Jade Throne and Golden Lion. His damage was good but nothing awesome, the gunslinger and magus on the party managed to keep even and even outdamage me. The really cool stuff were the Golden Lion buffs, Roar of Battle and Strategic Blow are plain awesome, my group loved them. Prediction, here and now, Golden Lion will be the most used discipline fow Warlords.
I am seeing a similar thread in my playtest, my Warlord is Devil Tiger and Golden Lion focused (we call his character Liger!) and he's all about the party buffs from GL and awaiting his tactical advantages from Warleader.
-Chris
A lot of playtests seem to be on the Devil Tiger and Golden Lion. Can anything be done to make the others more attractive?
|
Design Manager
|
I am seeing a similar thread in my playtest, my Warlord is Devil Tiger and Golden Lion focused (we call his character Liger!) and he's all about the party buffs from GL and awaiting his tactical advantages from Warleader.
-Chris
That's a very similar build to ours, lol! Big Devil Tiger charges, lots of Golden Lion buffs, feat optimization to ensure his Duelist and Dastardly Gambits have a good chance of succeeding and inflict some extra penalties.
I really like the Warlord a lot, the biggest thing I've noticed is that you kind of have to move away from the expectation of him being a Striker or Tank, and understand that he really is a combat capable Leader. He's really much more about squeezing that extra bit of oomph out of the other characters while dishing out some big flashy moves every couple of rounds.
You could get pretty nasty with Jade Throne/Devil Tiger builds and shift more towards that Striker build, but you're just too squishy (what with giving up your shield slot) at most levels of play for me to really be comfortable with that combo, especially when other builds bring so much more to the party overall.
I suppose you could tank pretty well with a Jade Throne/Golden Lion combo...? Focus on lots of counters, maybe. That might be my next try.
Golden Lion is just so much that perfect second discipline though. It's ideal for shoring up pretty much any other discipline you focus on and really brings that element of "I AM a Warleader" to the character.
|
Design Manager
|
A lot of playtests seem to be on the Devil Tiger and Golden Lion. Can anything be done to make the others more attractive?
Solar Wind is solid, but Chris has made some changes that have made it... less attractive. I've mentioned those previously, but they have a lot to do with the reductions in damage it saw. Adding in Pinhole Gambit helped bring it back up to par.
That was the primary discipline I personally playtested (and am continuing to playtest in our RotRL campaign every Tuesday), and it's really good, but it's almost a completely different class from the core Warlord.Jade Throne is... complicated.
It has solid damage and unique methods of attack, but you give up your shield slot when using it which is pretty risky for a class that already has limited armor proficiencies and will be fighting in melee. Even with it's bonuses to AC, it's very much the riskiest of the disciplines. Devil Tiger may seem a little more reckless, but you're not actually charging every round and usually when you do charge you're either doing enough damage or dropping the right effect to help negate the risk of that charge penalty to AC. I'm thinking of trying a greatsword wielding Warlord with Jade Throne, maybe look at taking Shield of Swings or something.... Might be a good build for actually using Combat Expertise instead of having it as a feat tax.
A lot of playtests seem to be on the Devil Tiger and Golden Lion. Can anything be done to make the others more attractive?
I'm thinking for someone who wants to focus in Jade Throne, a set of Style feats is going to be a great way to assist the Warlord. Additionally, I'm working on Style feats for all of the Disciplines, 3 each, that build on the philosophies of the Discipline and give bonuses when fighting in a stance of that discipline or using maneuvers from it, as well as using weapons related. I think that might help give incentives to be more open with discipline choice.
Personally, when I started writing Warlord, Jade Throne and Golden Lion were the disciplines I thought of as the first ones to give to the class, but I'm glad that everyone is finding their own luck with the class too.
-Chris
|
Design Manager
|
A lot of playtests seem to be on the Devil Tiger and Golden Lion. Can anything be done to make the others more attractive?I'm thinking for someone who wants to focus in Jade Throne, a set of Style feats is going to be a great way to assist the Warlord. Additionally, I'm working on Style feats for all of the Disciplines, 3 each, that build on the philosophies of the Discipline and give bonuses when fighting in a stance of that discipline or using maneuvers from it, as well as using weapons related. I think that might help give incentives to be more open with discipline choice.
Personally, when I started writing Warlord, Jade Throne and Golden Lion were the disciplines I thought of as the first ones to give to the class, but I'm glad that everyone is finding their own luck with the class too.
-Chris
I was wondering when Style feats would be showing back up :)
They were a big part of Bo9S and definitely help build on the feel of a certain discipline playstyle.I think the biggest reason that Devil Tiger and Golden Lion are the most commonly seen is that
a) Golden Lion is the perfect secondary discipline. It gives you good party buffs and abilities, but the strikes are aren't as cool as the other disciplines.
and
b) Devil Tiger has a certain "OMG!!" factor to it. While the big handfuls of d6's aren't actually that uber, they definitely make you feel like you're about to be a damage beast.
Jade Throne is a little more technical and requires a certain amount of fine tuning for each player to make it their own. Devil Tiger and Golden Lion are disciplines where pretty much any build can use them and they make perfect sense. Jade Throne, while outwardly seeming fairly straightforward, has a lot of variables in it and actually requires a certain finesse and system mastery to play well.
Solar Wind is an archery tree with several standard action abilities, and I think that just kind of throws people off a bit. It's just an archery build with some unique damage types and a wider array of choices. I think it's going to appeal a bit more to veteran players which is probably why it is showing up less in other playtests. Personally, it is my favorite discipline.
Hey guys, I have a quick rules question but figured I'd ask it here rather than in rules since it has to do with the maneuvers. Can I use Spring attack with some of the strikes?
As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turnI am wondering if I could couple that with strikes like:
I am wondering if like Vital strike, it is a specific action that can't be used with Spring Attack or if it'd be possible with maneuvers.Steel Serpent (Strike)
Level: 4
Prerequisites: One Steel Serpent Maneuver
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack or ranged attack
Target: One creature
Duration: Instant, two rounds
Saving Throw: Fortitude (partial)
Striking with surety and precision, the disciple attacks the chakra of wisdom on his foe with his ki in an attempt to cloud his foe’s mind. The disciple makes an attack against a target; if successful the strike inflicts an additional 5d6 points of damage and 1d4 points of Wisdom damage (Fortitude save DC equal to 14 + primary initiator attribute to halve this Wisdom damage). On the following round on a failed save, the corrupted ki energies inflict an additional 1d6 points of damage and 2 additional points of Wisdom damage. This is a supernatural ability.
Strikes are standard actions, not attack actions, so they're not compatible with Spring Attack, very much like Vital Strike.
-Chris
After giving it some more time to percolate, here is the second part of my playtest info:
1) Warlords are great face characters. With cha as a secondary attribute and nice class bonuses to two skills he can rival a paladin or sorcerer, behind only the bard. With feinting as one of the possible gambits he also has a good incentive to have high bluff. I didn't even notice during the character building, but I ended with 24 bluff, 29 for feinting with a mask of stony demeanor, 34 for lying. It was when we had to pass some guards that I noticed "I can tell them I'm the moon!"
2) Warleader. I didn't use it. It's a standard action. Could be useful f we had had a turn to buff before a fight, but since we didn't for the whole session I didn't get to use it. I have better things to do with a standard action, mainly hitting people in te face. I could pay a feat to turn it into a move action. Initiators need more things to do with their move actions.
3) Warlord wants Perseverance of Jade. Poor will progression, wis is not much of a priority... using a skill check instead can be a godsend. The fact that it can only be used during fights is a great balancing factor. Many times we had to do saves because of an enviromental thing, and it could've been abused so hard...
4) The save DCs are high. The save DC for my Crushing Blow is 11 + my attribute? Mine was cha 17 for a whooping 28 save DC. Is it supposed to be like this?
5) Since everybody is using Golden Lion and Devil Tiger, here are my first thoughts on Jade Throne: It stops you from going with a shield. It doesn't stop you from using a two handed weapon. From the four warlord disciplines it's the one that uses it's skill the most, so if you're going heavy into it wis goes up in importance. Perfection of Jade lists the conditions it can be used on. Someone learned from the mistakes of their ancestors. Tough the duration is equal to attriute so thats seveneen rounds. Are you sure you don't mean the modifier?
Well, yeah, but that is not what the RAW says. I'm just pointing out the wording is wrong. I've checked every maneuver on all disciplines on both documents, and they all say, 'primary initiator attribute'. It lacks a 'modifier' at the end of that. Gotta point those things on playtest, it's what playtests are for.
Edit: Grammar. I've expended all my focus on the first post. Should go to bed.
|
|
Well, yeah, but that is not what the RAW says. I'm just pointing out the wording is wrong. I've checked every maneuver on all disciplines on both documents, and they all say, 'primary initiator attribute'. It lacks a 'modifier' at the end of that. Gotta point those things on playtest, it's what playtests are for.
Edit: Grammar. I've expended all my focus on the first post. Should go to bed.
You uh obviously didn't check hard enough because:
Essence Shattering Strike [Force]
Crescent Moon (Strike)
Level: 5
Prerequisites: Two Crescent Moon maneuvers
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack
Target: One creature
Duration: Instant, one round
Saving Throw: Fortitude (negates)
With a powerful strike, the Crescent Moon disciple attacks at the very spirit of his foe with his silver-blue light. The character makes a melee attack against a target creature, and inflicts an additional 6d6 points of force damage and dazes his foe for one round from the disturbance on a failed Fortitude save (DC 15 + primary initiating attribute modifier).
Ether Wave [Force]
Crescent Moon (Strike)
Level: 6
Prerequisites: Two Crescent Moon maneuvers
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: 40ft
Area: Cone-shaped emanation
Duration: Instant
Saving Throw: Reflex (half)
The Crescent Moon disciple concentrates his spiritual energies to his hand and tears into the barrier between the Ethereal and the Material, and releases the energies that form from this in a wracking wave of silvery-blue energy. The character unleashes a 40ft cone of dimensional energy which inflicts 10d6 points of force damage to all targets within its area with a Reflex saving throw (DC 16 + primary initiating attribute modifier) for half damage.
Dispersal Strike [Force]
Crescent Moon (Strike)
Level: 7
Prerequisites: Two Crescent Moon maneuvers
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack
Target: One target
Duration: One round
Saving Throw: Will (partial)
With a powerful strike and flash of silver-blue light, the disciple slams their foe directly into the Ethereal for a few moments, causing them to become ghostly and unreal. The character makes a melee attack on a target creature and if successful, the strike inflicts 12d6 points of force damage in place of normal damage, and the target gains the incorporeal subtype for round. The target must make a Will save (DC 18 + primary initiating attribute modifier) or only his body becomes incorporeal and his equipment does not, falling to the ground at their feet. This strike does not function on targets who already possess the incorporeal subtype.
Flashing Ether Touch [Teleportation]
Crescent Moon (Strike)
Level: 7
Prerequisites: Two Crescent Moon maneuvers
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack, 60ft
Target: One target
Duration: Instant
Saving Throw: Will (negates)
With but a touch the Crescent Moon disciple may send a foe hurtling through the Ethereal to reappear with frightening velocity to hit the ground. The character makes a melee touch against a target, and the target makes a Will save (DC 17 + primary initiating attribute modifier) or is teleported up to 60ft away, successful saving throw negating the maneuver. Upon a failed saving throw, the target suffers 10d6 points of damage from effectively reaching terminal velocity and slamming hard into the ground. If teleported into the air, consider the character to have already have fallen 100ft. Effects like feather fall halve this damage if used, and characters who are immune to falling damage take no damage from this maneuver, and those who reduce falling damage by increments of 10ft may subtract 1d6 points of damage per 10ft they may reduce falls.
I guess I could continue but I'd rather not embarrass you any further. No ability in the game goes off the score and that'd be dumb if it did because it could get rocketed into the "impossible-to-save" zone. Lacking the word "modifier" was an oversight probably along the lines of "I am sure people will understand Key Attribute means the modifier because that is how it is for Pathfinder". I of course can't speak for ErrantX because I am not him, I can merely postulate on his reasoning. The warlord also might have been updated since the last time you downloaded the play test document, are you still using the most recent version as there has already been many changes to the Warlord that could be important to consider.
I want it noted that I do appreciate your play testing data and I think its valuable and I agree with your points. The Warlord makes a great party face and is quite similar in his role as a psuedo-paladin out of combat.