Our group has decided to try out the Path of War. I am playing a warlord with Silver Crane. Am I right in that Enduring Crane Strike basically gives unlimited out-of-combat healing?
Making his soul a wellspring of holy power, the disciple strikes out at a foe to unleashed his holy power to restore health to himself or an ally. The initiator makes an attack against a target creature, inflicting damage as normal, and the strike restores 1d6 hit points plus his initiation modifier to the initiator or to an ally within 30-ft.
I know that out-of-combat healing is not broken per-se, but it is weird to me that after a fight, everyone stops and watches the initiator whack a tree for a bit to get healed...
What's a sensible in-world reason that this strike would only work in real combat.
If that's the full ability, then yes, that absolutely fails the bag of cats test in quite a horrendous way.
If the idea of a character performing healing with martial katas bothers you, you could allow it to be used as a touch attack as well.
Gameplay wise it's not an issue. The biggest impact it will have is that you won't have to spend time on healing wand logistics (which you probably want to do away with anyway).
Well Path of War 3rd party so the crack rocks will be built in. Just depends on how far your GM lets the crack rock roll.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well Path of War 3rd party so the crack rocks will be built in. Just depends on how far your GM lets the crack rock roll.
Except it's not Bob's Discount PDF shack, it's Dreamscarred Press. That is, a company who has been publishing 3.X material for as long as Paizo has, with a page count probably within an order of magnitude, and whose reputation for quality design is quite frankly better.
I'd say a tree is more "inanimate object" than "target creature". If it doesn't pose a threat to the initiator, I probably wouldn't allow it as a target of that sort of ability.
And frankly, any ability that is allowed to wander into bag-of-cats territory is on the DM.
By RAW, yes - you can kill kittens to fuel the strike. It really does stop mattering once CLW wands become cheap enough (or once you get Boots of the Earth).
It's definitely fair to house-rule away the bag of cats issue though.
Also, don't hate on Third Party materials. Some of the most nonsensical stuff out there are produced by Paizo themselves.
Our group has decided to try out the Path of War. I am playing a warlord with Silver Crane. Am I right in that Enduring Crane Strike basically gives unlimited out-of-combat healing?
Making his soul a wellspring of holy power, the disciple strikes out at a foe to unleashed his holy power to restore health to himself or an ally. The initiator makes an attack against a target creature, inflicting damage as normal, and the strike restores 1d6 hit points plus his initiation modifier to the initiator or to an ally within 30-ft.
I know that out-of-combat healing is not broken per-se, but it is weird to me that after a fight, everyone stops and watches the initiator whack a tree for a bit to get healed...
What's a sensible in-world reason that this strike would only work in real combat.
Looks like it.
I read through the rules on strikes, and I can't see a reason why it wouldn't work that way.
It wouldn't be a tree so much as a dude you have to hit.
Trees kind of go into the "object" territory in most games.
You could always slap a friend for 1d3 non-lethal and then target them with the healing.
"You look hurt. Let me punch it better" --Ghandi
Endzeitgeist mentioned as much in his review and yes, it is exactly how you are reading it.
Except it's not Bob's Discount PDF shack, it's Dreamscarred Press. That is, a company who has been publishing 3.X material for as long as Paizo has, with a page count probably within an order of magnitude, and whose reputation for quality design is quite frankly better.Well Path of War 3rd party so the crack rocks will be built in. Just depends on how far your GM lets the crack rock roll.
You say better as if it's in any way a problem, not a feature. :/
Trees are actually objects per RAW (with the Plant type being reserved for monster man-eating plants and whatnot), so no you can't just punch a tree.
I guess you could kill a bag of cats, but as I recall the only access to the Silver Crane Discipline is by being part of the Empyreal Guardians, which requires a Good alignment. I think most GMs would rule wholesale slaughter of a bunch of helpless, non-hostile animals is an evil act (and probably violates their oath to "protect the weak and innocent" and use their "mercy and conviction" to show others the way...), and so you'd lose access to the Discipline without Atonement after the first time it was used anyway.
And even if it does work...is out of combat healing REALLY an issue?
Some people believe it is. I can see where it can be an issue and do wish they would errata in a caveat like "it only works when attacking creatures with an evil alignment" or some such.
Having someone run around and "punch people healthy" is immersion breaking and probably not RAI.
Trees are creatures...ask any 'Ent.
A warder in my current home game had exactly that maneuver during a few levels, and if it had ever become an issue, I would've simply said the target of the strike would have to be hostile and pose a serious threat (an angry chicken doesn't, a swarm of rats might at the earliest levels). As a player, I simply wouldn't be able to do this without reducing my character - a member of the Empyreal Knights - into a joke, at least in my own mind. But if your DM doesn't complain and you don't have any problems with it, I say go ahead punch your party healthy (a tree wouldn't work RAW as far as I know).
Sidenote: While it usually works just fine to use expressions like "serious threat" for a DM that can easily further define just what that means if needed, I believe it's a lot harder to pin down in game terms. At least for low level abilities as they cannot be restricted by a minimum target CR. And I think a developer really could use the space such an explanation would require for something more interesting. Like an additional maneuver. Jade Ripley (aka Prince of Knives), one of the freelance designers of Path of War, actually wrote a blog piece about this: The Bag of Kittens and You.
Endzeitgeist mentioned as much in his review and yes, it is exactly how you are reading it.
While I like Endzeitgeist and often agree with him, I think his views on this matter and PoW in general were biased by the rare play style of his group - way more numerous combat encounters per day than according to guidelines or that of Paizo adventures. This is of course a very important factor one should keep in mind when reading his reviews, but which unfortunately may not always be obvious.
Except it's not Bob's Discount PDF shack, it's Dreamscarred Press. That is, a company who has been publishing 3.X material for as long as Paizo has, with a page count probably within an order of magnitude, and whose reputation for quality design is quite frankly better.Well Path of War 3rd party so the crack rocks will be built in. Just depends on how far your GM lets the crack rock roll.
It's actually new writers brought in to work under the DSP name, who have very different thoughts on what "game balance" is supposed to mean. They come from a forum where optimization is standard and have stated outright that classes like the Fighter are bad design and feat chains are horribly bad design. They have no intent on making it play "nice" with core options.
I'm stating this as, I'm not of the opinion DSP's products aren't quality material, but to say that who is actually writing the material might be something to look at from this point on if your expectations are not being met.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's actually new writers brought in to work under the DSP name, who have very different thoughts on what "game balance" is supposed to mean. They come from a forum where optimization is standard and have stated outright that classes like the Fighter are bad design and feat chains are horribly bad design. They have no intent on making it play "nice" with core options.
I'm stating this as, I'm not of the opinion DSP's products aren't quality material, but to say that who is actually writing the material might be something to look at from this point on if your expectations are not being met.
But Fighters and Feat Chains are terrible designs, and I would expect anyone writing replacement martial classes to state this truth up front.
But Fighters and Feat Chains are terrible designs, and I would expect anyone writing replacement martial classes to state this truth up front.
It's actually new writers brought in to work under the DSP name, who have very different thoughts on what "game balance" is supposed to mean. They come from a forum where optimization is standard and have stated outright that classes like the Fighter are bad design and feat chains are horribly bad design. They have no intent on making it play "nice" with core options.
I'm stating this as, I'm not of the opinion DSP's products aren't quality material, but to say that who is actually writing the material might be something to look at from this point on if your expectations are not being met.
The point is, you now have two separate design philosophies from the same company. One which has always "played nice" with core rules and now, one that is pushing the boundaries. Depending on what you are looking for, you need to start checking who writes what from them, as the "quality" of work will be different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With regards to DSP, it's a shame so many people fear 3PP as being overpowered and such, when all DSP really does is try to bring martials into T3, while maintaining complete transparency, and heavily listening to feedback.
There's a very real reason a number of people find DSP so good, and even better than Paizo.
The point is, you now have two separate design philosophies from the same company. One which has always "played nice" with core rules and now, one that is pushing the boundaries. Depending on what you are looking for, you need to start checking who writes what from them, as the "quality" of work will be different.But Fighters and Feat Chains are terrible designs, and I would expect anyone writing replacement martial classes to state this truth up front.
It's actually new writers brought in to work under the DSP name, who have very different thoughts on what "game balance" is supposed to mean. They come from a forum where optimization is standard and have stated outright that classes like the Fighter are bad design and feat chains are horribly bad design. They have no intent on making it play "nice" with core options.
I'm stating this as, I'm not of the opinion DSP's products aren't quality material, but to say that who is actually writing the material might be something to look at from this point on if your expectations are not being met.
First, how do you come to that conclusion, when the material is practically being designed in the open by everyone and anyone interested? Second, there is no difference in "design philosophies" between for example DSPs psychics and their PoW material - they're both intended to be balanced with PF (= much more versatile than the fighter, much less almighty than the wizard). Third, you're saying the Giant in the Playground forum is "a forum where optimization is standard"? In comparison to what, exactly? The Paizo advice forum? Seriously?
I'd say GitPG is a small and cuddly place by comparison to this forum. And those who discuss PF surely don't talk nearly as much about DPR, though the regulars (=DSP freelancers) are mostly veteran gamers with a higher level of system mastery than any Paizo developer has shown so far. Which is great for the quality of the DSP stuff they design and/or discuss and post feedback on.
With regards to DSP, it's a shame so many people fear 3PP as being overpowered and such, when all DSP really does is try to bring martials into T3, while maintaining complete transparency, and heavily listening to feedback.
There's a very real reason a number of people find DSP so good, and even better than Paizo.
QFT.
The point is, you now have two separate design philosophies from the same company. One which has always "played nice" with core rules and now, one that is pushing the boundaries. Depending on what you are looking for, you need to start checking who writes what from them, as the "quality" of work will be different.But Fighters and Feat Chains are terrible designs, and I would expect anyone writing replacement martial classes to state this truth up front.
It's actually new writers brought in to work under the DSP name, who have very different thoughts on what "game balance" is supposed to mean. They come from a forum where optimization is standard and have stated outright that classes like the Fighter are bad design and feat chains are horribly bad design. They have no intent on making it play "nice" with core options.
I'm stating this as, I'm not of the opinion DSP's products aren't quality material, but to say that who is actually writing the material might be something to look at from this point on if your expectations are not being met.
First, how do you come to that conclusion, when the material is practically being designed in the open by everyone and anyone interested? Second, there is no difference in "design philosophies" between for example DSPs psychics and their PoW material - they're both intended to be balanced with PF (= much more versatile than the fighter, much less almighty than the wizard). Third, you're saying the Giant in the Playground forum is "a forum where optimization is standard"? In comparison to what, exactly? The Paizo advice forum? Seriously?
I'd say GitPG is a small and cuddly place by comparison to this forum. And those who discuss PF surely don't talk nearly as much about DPR, though the regulars (=DSP freelancers) are mostly veteran gamers with a higher level of system mastery than any Paizo developer has shown so far. Which is great for the quality of the DSP...
You are welcome to your opinion. But the core psionic books mesh seamlessly with core PFRPG. The new PoW material is significantly more powerful and plays less nicely. Some of the new PoW material completely removes the need for entire feat trees, like one maneuver can be used for any combat maneuver feat lines. ONE maneuver, replaces the need for a pair of multiple feats and can be used for whatever is more advantageous at the time. Why take the feats if you can do that? NOTHING in the psionic books does anything remotely like that.
"QFT"
The core DSP material is significantly more "balanced" with the core in such a respect. PoW is essentially stealth fixes to martial classes. Numerous people suggest using it instead of core martial classes. And if that is what you want, well that is the product for you. I'm not looking to replace core classes, I know others aren't either. Welcome to your niche products.
I have always pushed DSP products up until now. I expect plug and play, material that is effortless in use with the core rules. That is no longer the case with the "new blood", and they are okay with it being so. The "new" material being put out isn't measuring up to my "expectations" from DSP for that reason alone. If you like it, good for you, but I don't care for it, nor do others. The only reason they have gotten my money to date, is I paid for the subscriptions expecting the "typical" DSP quality. I was disappointed.
Considering a STR Warder can 2WF far and away more competently than anything Paizo has ever designed while having greater defenses and group buffs/protections I don't believe for a second that the Path of War materials replace only the fighter. The Paladin only can outshine any Path of War character in very specific situations. Ranger almost never and Barbarian only if they go with a top build.
Statements that Path of War Martials are intended to be on the same power level as previous DSP martials are grossly exaggerated.
They are on the same power level as previous DSP MATERIALS, if not martials.
The only difference here is that instead of producing a nerf to casters (Psion, Wilder, Vitalist, Tactician), or new, versatile 4-6 level caster analogues (Aegis, Soulknife, Psychic Warrior) they have produced replacements for the Rogue/Monk (Stalker), Fighter/Cavalier (Warlord), and Barbarian/Paladin (Warder).
The difference being that wherein the previous cases making the full caster analogues weaker was the goal, and making the 4-6 level casters roughly the same was the goal, making the martials stronger was the goal here.
Psionics and Path of War play very well together, with all of the classes operating on a roughly Tier 2-4 (and a high 4) scale. The seeming jump in power or producing "overpowered" materials comes from the jump in strengths. Full casters were moved down 1 Tier (1 Tier difference), 4-6 level casters were left the same (T4 for Soulknife/Aegis, T3 fro PsyWar, Cryptic, Dread), the martial classes jumped in some cases from T5 to T3 or even a tentative T2.
Maybe it's not balanced with Paizo material of the same "archetype", but it's balanced with DSP's previous offerings, and with the effective Tier they're meant to occupy (compare a Stalker to an Inquisitor and both to a Psychic Warrior and you get a much more valid comparison spot than Stalker to Monk or Rogue/Ninja).
They hit the exact target they were aiming for, and if they seem overpowered it's because you're comparing them to things they're not meant to be compared to as far as inter-class balance goes.
Then they probably shouldn't be saying they used Paizo classes, exceptions being Rogue, Monk, and Fighter, as the balance point.
Edit: I once said they were using a different balance point and was corrected by the Path of War staff.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our group has decided to try out the Path of War. I am playing a warlord with Silver Crane. Am I right in that Enduring Crane Strike basically gives unlimited out-of-combat healing?
I know that out-of-combat healing is not broken per-se, but it is weird to me that after a fight, everyone stops and watches the initiator whack a tree for a bit to get healed...
What's a sensible in-world reason that this strike would only work in real combat.
Mornin' friend. Writing Team Answer Time.
So the really short and nitpicky version is that the strike only works on "creature struck". That may or may not be satisfying to you; I mean, players are players (and adventurers, even and sometimes especially the Good-aligned ones, trend towards creative insanity) and you'll probably just see a shift to Betrayer Tactics at that point, where they slap their allies around for nonlethal to get free swag.
The issue from a design standpoint is that there's not a lot of great ways to define an ability that create a clear combat/not combat divide. Essentially, you can either designate it to affect opponents only - which runs into the issue where each creature defines their own opponents, for the sanity of the system and player agency - or you can do the 4e thing where you try to define a "real" combat. That worked out fairly well for 4e but it's not a thing PF has ever done and it'd look a lot weirder than smacking dwarves for healing, trust me.
Balance-wise, unlimited out-of-combat healing is 2,500 GP (Boots of the Earth), 3,750 if you want it combined with another set of boots. Cheap as dirt - and wands are cheaper still. If it's just the image that bugs ya and not the balance, the above suggestion to refluff it to a healing touch works. Or you can just tell the group that you find it a bit silly and come to a mutual agreement. The issue, such as it is, is a bit sticky as far as design goes; we can either have these problems, or not have healing maneuvers at all. We chose to have the problems.
It's actually new writers brought in to work under the DSP name, who have very different thoughts on what "game balance" is supposed to mean. They come from a forum where optimization is standard and have stated outright that classes like the Fighter are bad design and feat chains are horribly bad design. They have no intent on making it play "nice" with core options.
I'm stating this as, I'm not of the opinion DSP's products aren't quality material, but to say that who is actually writing the material might be something to look at from this point on if your expectations are not being met.
We keep havin' this runaround, don't we Sky?
The Path of War line is rooted in a supplement that was controversial; the maneuver system provides a different paradigm of martial action, one where class features (like maneuvers) form the main crux of a character's abilities, with feats spent to augment the class features or to compliment them. If that sounds like spells and powers, well, welcome to subsystems. That's what they do.
My experiences shaped me as a designer and player before I came to Giant in the Playground, and quite frankly I'm starting to feel a bit insulted about this repeated statement. I came to Giantitp looking to understand problems that I could see but not touch. My participation there taught me a lot of things about 3.5 and later PF, including and especially the metagame in which both live and breathe - that is, the breadth of options and how to quickly winnow away ones not relevant to one's concept, how to utilize the breadth of the game to bring a character in my head to life and what it meant to insert a new option into the complex and shifting mix.
It also taught me to balance to problems.
Is, say, Warlord balanced to Fighter or Monk? No. Not even close. You know what it is balanced to? Demons. Wights. Cultists. Dragons. Social challenges, non-combat obstacles. The sweet spot we keep talking about - tier three - is best summarized as "has a clear specialty, may participate outside of it." It's where bard, magus, inquisitor, most alchemists, and skalds live.
I grew up steeped in "classic" enemies and encounters. I played a lot of Ravenloft and a lotta Undermountain. I still love those classic enemies and encounters, but it's hard to feel like a hero when you go to do the only thing your class can do and get no-sold harder than a Pinto salesman at a Porsche convention. That, much more than my "native" forum (which I'm going to object to again; if I'm "from" anywhere it's the WotC boards), shapes my design.
If you've got a problem with me and the team, I'd appreciate you expressing it in a clear and concise manner rather than continuing to stalk into threads about the subject and make insinuations. I promise, we're grown adults and can handle criticism and folks not liking us. I'd rather have everything out in the clear where it can be discussed. If you'd prefer to handle that sorta thing via PM, my box is always open on two different forums. Send a message any time.
Considering a STR Warder can 2WF far and away more competently than anything Paizo has ever designed while having greater defenses and group buffs/protections I don't believe for a second that the Path of War materials replace only the fighter. The Paladin only can outshine any Path of War character in very specific situations. Ranger almost never and Barbarian only if they go with a top build.
Statements that Path of War Martials are intended to be on the same power level as previous DSP martials are grossly exaggerated.
Some of this is already being addressed; as has been noted before, we've already identified problem disciplines and are handling them (for those who don't know, the biggest issues to date are Broken Blade and Primal Fury, with an ever-so-slight side note of Black Seraph. We're sorry >.>). Other than that, though? I'm afraid the majority of the math doesn't bear this statement out. You're far from the only person who's provided sims for us and as far as we can tell, paladin, ranger, magus, etc continue to be fine. Barbarian is "fine" insofar as its niche remains intact, but to be frank Barb was never actually fine, it was just the best of a bunch of really painfully awful options and one of the few with beyond-combat utility.
I also want to note that Ssalarn's reply, while handy, was in his capacity as a private citizen; that is, he's not PoW Dev. Which is not to devalue his thoughts! But he was speaking as a tester, not a developer; a player of the game who has frequent conflicts with my team, not as a member of the company.
Whew. Okay, all that's replied to. Do we have further questions while I'm here?
You are welcome to your opinion. But the core psionic books mesh seamlessly with core PFRPG. The new PoW material is significantly more powerful and plays less nicely.
No, the psionics obviously don't mesh well at all with core(?) Paizo material, not according to your reasoning. I mean, why ever play a psion when you could play a wizard? Psionics are clearly underpowered and poorly balanced, right?
Some of the new PoW material completely removes the need for entire feat trees, like one maneuver can be used for any combat maneuver feat lines. ONE maneuver, replaces the need for a pair of multiple feats and can be used for whatever is more advantageous at the time. Why take the feats if you can do that?
So, a couple of (or very rarely more than three) times per encounter, an initiator with access to a certain discipline can make a combat maneuver without provoking an AoO and having a decent chance of success. Tell me, how does that strike grant him the benefits of for example Dirty Trick Master, Rapid Grappler, Riptide Attack, Greater Trip and/or Greater Bull Rush? If it doesn't, does it at least allow him to qualify for those feats and/or to use the combat maneuvers on AoOs without provoking, like the guy having the corresponding "Improved X" feats? And if he did have say the "Improved X" feats of those combat maneuvers, would they provide no benefit when used with his strike?
Finally, you do know that you can get the same benefits for ALL combat maneuvers permanently, qualify for the feats higher up in the chains, while also bypassing any Int or Combat Expertise prerequisites, for the cost of ONE feat with NO prerequisites?
And you do know which publisher released that feat, right?
If you don't, here's a hint: the name starts with a "P" and ends with an "O"...
I think I get what you were trying to say, believe me. But you probably couldn't have picked a worse example to try and prove your point. Instead, it speaks volumes that Paizo has released a feat that in one go invalidates a bunch of combat maneuver feats. Could it be because they realized the same thing the PoW designers and a lot of players have, namely that even the considerably better 3.5 versions of those feat chains were bloated and full of unreasonable and useless prerequisite taxes that shouldn't have been there to begin with?
NOTHING in the psionic books does anything remotely like that.
Really? What about for example enlarge person, Improved Trip, and physical stat enhancement bonus belts, ALL of them being potentially replaced or completely invalidated by using one of the powers in the metamorphosis line? Not to mention the standard version is available as a permanently active item, augmented and ready to use by anyone straight out of the box.
And speaking of, in a game with psionics, why would anyone ever play a melee-focused character of the fighter, ranger, rogue, monk or cavalier class when the psychic warrior can be both better at melee combat and more useful outside of combat?
The core DSP material is significantly more "balanced" with the core in such a respect.
I suspect you're using one selection of PF classes/options (all?) for you comparison and balance evaluation of DSP's psionic material, and a different selection (martials/related options?) for DSP's PoW material. If so, why?
More importantly, it appears your definition of "balance", at least when looking at new DSP options, is whether or not you believe the option to be more powerful than (and "removes the need for") any previously existing and in your view similar Paizo option. But whether or not a new option is more powerful than a previous one does not by itself necessarily tell you anything about whether the new option is OP or not.
I get the feeling you keep missing the bigger picture, using a limited selection of underpowered or even horribly imbalanced crap options in your comparisons instead of looking at the average power level of all the available options.
PoW is essentially stealth fixes to martial classes. Numerous people suggest using it instead of core martial classes. And if that is what you want, well that is the product for you. I'm not looking to replace core classes, I know others aren't either. Welcome to your niche products.
And just how would you make new martial options that are balanced with the "average" of current Paizo options, but NOT more powerful than the underpowered Paizo martial options?
And if you think PoW is "essentially stealth fixes to martial classes", how on earth does that make it worse than no fixes?
I have always pushed DSP products up until now. I expect plug and play, material that is effortless in use with the core rules. That is no longer the case with the "new blood", and they are okay with it being so. The "new" material being put out isn't measuring up to my "expectations" from DSP for that reason alone. If you like it, good for you, but I don't care for it, nor do others. The only reason they have gotten my money to date, is I paid for the subscriptions expecting the "typical" DSP quality. I was disappointed.
Wait, you're saying you're disappointed with DSP because they released good martial options, well balanced with the entirety of player options in PF?
I have to say this does actually sound very "caster-supremacist" to me, something I've never suspected anyone of being on this forum. But you've definitely made me curious, and I would really appreciate if you could help me understand your reasoning, because right now I don't get it at all.
We keep havin' this runaround, don't we Sky?
/snip/
...continuing to stalk into threads about the subject...
Oh crap, a repeating time-stealing trap! I sure walked straight into that one...
Do we have further questions while I'm here?
Well, since you asked, I might have a little request (did anyone tell you how lovely you look today, by the way?):
Can we please get an option to allow using trip on flying creatures, regardless of flight method used (wings, pointy-hatted ally, magic carpet, really good pesh, whatever)? Preferably not a magic item and not a maneuver, but a mundane, permanently active ability to mess up the balance of airborne stuff using the trip combat maneuver (and associated feats/abilities/items etc).
While I really like the gravity-slime-pet-watsitcalled-ooze-thingy-in-a-jar, it's just too unreliable and needlessly complex to keep track of and use in combat simply in order to be able to make trips. And most importantly, it hurts my sensitive soul that you have to actually hurt the adorable little quivering cutie to "use" him/her/it as intended/suggested... :(
Can we please get an option to allow using trip on flying creatures, regardless of flight method used (wings, pointy-hatted ally, magic carpet, really good pesh, whatever)? Preferably not a magic item and not a maneuver, but a mundane, permanently active ability to mess up the balance of airborne stuff using the trip combat maneuver (and associated feats/abilities/items etc).
Beyond the scope of any of our current projects, sadly. I've felt your pain in my life though.
A friend of mine swears that all of DSP stuff is OP. But he has never seen any proper analysis of it. Is anyone aware of such an analysis being done? Mathematical comparisons, etc...
The biggest complaints I've seen is that maneuvers can be used all day long while the comparative classes - barbarian, inquisitor, etc, all have abilities that are use/day. My suspicion is that this doesn't really matter because Pathfinder recommends 3-4 encounters per day and the Paizo classes have enough uses to last that long (especially at mid levels and higher). But I'd still like to see such analysis.
Does it exist?
A friend of mine swears that all of DSP stuff is OP. But he has never seen any proper analysis of it. Is anyone aware of such an analysis being done? Mathematical comparisons, etc...
The biggest complaints I've seen is that maneuvers can be used all day long while the comparative classes - barbarian, inquisitor, etc, all have abilities that are use/day. My suspicion is that this doesn't really matter because Pathfinder recommends 3-4 encounters per day and the Paizo classes have enough uses to last that long (especially at mid levels and higher). But I'd still like to see such analysis.
Does it exist?
Wellll....that's kinda tricky. There's been tons of analysis, but it's scattered across no less than eight threads on two forums and that's if I'm counting just here and giantitp. Additionally, most of it's in playtest threads where the objects being analyzed then changed in response to the analysis and thus is questionable in terms of formal comparison (since it doesn't match current versions). Elric had guides going but after he got hired those slowed down and became less current as well.
I might be able to persuade someone to take a formal look after PoW: E comes out (and/or after the PoW errata) but to acquire such a person I may need to speak to the darkest and most terrifying nether-realms of the internet. It may be faster for you to find a guy who's good at math on your own.
Of all the Disciplines I've used, Broken Blade probably gets that complaint the most from me. It does have a smidge of a problem (Broken Blade Stance is so ridiculously good that I can't justify using any other Stance in combat for the most part), but even that Discipline is fairly well balanced by not having NEARLY as much utility as other Disciplines, being more based around attacks that ignore DR and some extra damage, with a bit of tripping action.
@Prince of Knives: Which segues into, when you rework Broken Blade, make sure it gets some other cool stuff in place of the massive damage boosts, since other than that all it has going for it is combat maneuvers mostly. =)
So far I enjoy Path of War but I do have problems with failed kitten tests. Less for any sort of out of combat utility and more for dumb situations, questions and interactions, like punching someone to life or attacking trees to heal and teleport.
I do feel like they outright replace martials and feel like vancian martials which isn't really Path of War's fault because the mission statement is to make better martials. I've had my own work-around for that for other martials but outside of infinite teleports and healing PoW isn't THAT powerful.
@ Prince
so is
And back. Okay, the PW team has never stated that PW or PW:E has a different balance expectation than other DSP materials, but they have stated that the classes are designed to out perform core classes they have found to be lacking, are instead intended to perform at the level of classes they view as well-designed, such as the Magus, Inquisitor, Bard, and a few others.
applicable or not since it was the only part of Ssalarn's post that was applicable to the situation?
Since a 'Path of War dev' hasn't chimed in yet I guess we can ask you.
A. Paizo in Mind
B. Ultimate Psionics in mind (which was itself balanced with Paizo in mind)
or
C. A separate balance point
The answer to this question is very important to people looking to review Path of War material in any serious capacity.
Personally, I find the idea of a 'failed kitten test' equivalent to saying Pathfinder is badly designed because it doesn't specify dead people can't take actions.
A. Paizo in Mind
B. Ultimate Psionics in mind (which was itself balanced with Paizo in mind)
or
C. A separate balance pointThe answer to this question is very important to people looking to review Path of War material in any serious capacity.
This wasn't directed at me, but I just got to ask: I assume you don't believe Ssalarn described mutually exclusive scenarios in any way, and neither that the alternatives in your list necessarily are (depending on what you mean by "a separate balance point"). Am I right?
Because as far as I can tell, the balance point for PoW definitely fits with both A and B. In fact, I don't even see how it could possibly fit with one but not the other. Both the psionics material and the PoW material has the PF (Paizo) balance in mind, meaning the balance of all Paizo and DSP player options and the system as a whole (not just martial-related options).
And one of the logical conclusions of this is that the balance point for PoW can be described exactly as the PoW designers themselves have (quoting Ssalarn's post):
...the classes are designed to out perform core classes they have found to be lacking, are instead intended to perform at the level of classes they view as well-designed, such as the Magus, Inquisitor, Bard, and a few others.
The balanced point being defined by a comparison to the Paizo T3 classes, all pretty much in the middle on the Paizo class power scale, also excludes that the balance point for PoW is higher than DSP's psionics or that it's even close that of Paizo's most powerful classes.
So why do you do believe you question hasn't already been answered (in pretty much as precise and clear manner as is possible IMO)?
I don't see Path of War as being balanced with A or B. I instead see it as being balanced to a point above them. So we disagree on where Path of War fits into this continuum.
Additionally as Prince of Knives already stated Ssalarn is not a Path of War designer, so he does not speak for designers.
a few posts up I also want to note that Ssalarn's reply, while handy, was in his capacity as a private citizen; that is, he's not PoW Dev. Which is not to devalue his thoughts! But he was speaking as a tester, not a developer; a player of the game who has frequent conflicts with my team, not as a member of the company.
If Path of War ever had a balance point targeted by a dev then it happened a long time ago or in one of the 7 threads on GitP, so I wouldn't even know what to search for.
Also to assume that something is balanced just by the merit of it being T3 shows a misunderstanding of what the tier lists actually mean. In addition it's a terrible to say that something is balanced just because Wizards.
Do you have any SPECIFIC complaint or are you just ragging to rag?
I'm really not seeing the point to this line of questioning.
stuff
No, I'm disappointed that the new PoW and possibly more material will be contributing to rocket tag. Slow power creep is pretty much inevitable as you produce more material, you have to accept that (and I do). Pushing the skill floor up to "toss all the possible options into a hat and randomly choose, you'll still be effective"/AKA not making trap options, is okay. But the side effect of that is absolutely pushing the power ceiling up as well. That isn't necessarily good for the "game." Prior to this point, DSP material didn't contribute to rocket tag, it just played well with what was there already. That is what I expect from them, as that is what they have done in the past.
I'm okay with the martials getting decent abilities. But at our table the martial caster disparity is a joke, if there is an issue with the rules, we are capable of fixing it, for our group. Feeding stronger, more powerful classes, that make great dip classes doesn't do anything for us. Just more options that make rocket tag that much more apparent.
It has nothing to do with "caster centric" BS. It has everything to do with not obliterating core rules with something so much better you are stupid not to take it.
That was where DSP absolutely shined before. It was balanced to core rules, to the point of you actually had to think about your choices. There were both pro's and con's. It wasn't there to "fix" the martial caster BS that gets brought up, it did give martials choices they didn't have before, but the core classes still had their place.
PoW, doesn't do this. It is a wrecking ball opposed to a scalpel, that is my "problem".
I'm sorry I don't share your opinion that PoW is the holy grail of the martial - caster disparity. If I truly thought the game was so bad about that issue, I'd find another system that did what I wanted it to do. Not gripe about the system not doing what I want it to do.
*cough*monks*cough*
Do you have any SPECIFIC complaint or are you just ragging to rag?
I'm really not seeing the point to this line of questioning.
Pretty much just so I can decide how to weigh in on my reviews of the upcoming PDFs since I'm subscribed to them.
Is less strong words and with a little disagreement, what Skylancer said applies to me as well. I think Path of War did a lot of things right, but also did a lot of things wrong. Additionally there is significant and hostile disagreement over what exactly is wrong with Path of War to the point that offering negative feedback isn't worth the time anymore.
No, I'm disappointed that the new PoW and possibly more material will be contributing to rocket tag. Slow power creep is pretty much inevitable as you produce more material, you have to accept that (and I do). Pushing the skill floor up to "toss all the possible options into a hat and randomly choose, you'll still be effective" is okay. But the side effect of that is absolutely pushing the power ceiling up as well. That isn't necessarily good for the "game."
I'm okay with the martials getting decent abilities. But at our table the martial caster disparity is a joke, if there is an issue with the rules, we are capable of fixing it, for our group. Feeding stronger, more powerful classes, that make great dip classes doesn't do anything for us. Just more options that make rocket tag that much more apparent.
It has nothing to do with "caster centric" BS. It has everything to do with not obliterating core rules with something so much better you are stupid not to take it.
That was where DSP absolutely shined before. It was balanced to core rules, to the point of you actually had to think about your choices. There were both pro's and con's. It wasn't there to "fix" the martial caster BS that gets brought up, it did give martials choices they didn't have before, but the core classes still had their place.
PoW, doesn't do this. It is a wrecking ball opposed to a scalpel, that is my "problem".
Not seeing how PoW classes are "obliterating core rules with something so much better you are stupid not to take it". There are stronger things in Core. There are roughly equivalent things in Core (Bard and paladin).
But regardless of that, why are you only comparing it to Core? Are 3PP options supposed to limit themselves to only what options exist in the CRB? Why?
PoW classes sync up very well with classes like the Inquisitor, Warpriest, Hunter, magus, Alchemist, Investigator, etc. etc. very well. Why does it matter if they then don't compare well to some of the CRB classes?
And still again, how can you say Psionics was better, here? Soulknife, Aegis, and Psychic Warrior make the Fighter, Rogue, and Monk look like a f+&#ing joke. The Psychic Warrior is generally better than a Ranger and possibly a Paladin as well.
Your entire complaint is just...odd. Especially the bits about how PoW promotes "rocket tag", somehow.
If anything, PoW promotes the opposite. The majority of Maneuvers provide OPTIONS rather than increased damage, or encounter enders, besides the already acknowledged to be problematic (and in the queue for a rework) Broken Blade Discipline.
I'm sorry I don't share your opinion that PoW is the holy grail of the martial - caster disparity. If I truly thought the game was so bad about that issue, I'd find another system that did what I wanted it to do. Not gripe about the system not doing what I want it to do.
...But you're literally, right now, griping about a system not doing what you want it to
|
FWIW, my group has been playing with psionics and path of war options available for my current game, and we've seen no balance issues whatsoever. We have a Swashbuckler, Skald, Stalker, and Aegis. They've played from 1 to 11 so far and there has never been a point where I could say any one of them was obviously better than the others. They've each had their victorious moments and each had their close calls/failures. And that's perfect.
In my experience playing tabletop RPGs, the key to balance isn't how powerful they are on paper, it's spotlight time. Their power definitely leads to that, but isn't all of it. They can be infinitely powerful, but if they spend 90% of real-world session time with nothing to contribute then the class is still boring.
The "has a clear specialty, may participate outside of it" paradigm sounds perfect to me. I want each PC to have something I can challenge in order to call them into the spotlight, but don't want them playing Nintendo to wait for their next turn when the current scene isn't in line with that specialty. I've seen far too many fighters sitting bored for hours because we happened to have a low combat session; there's no way I can think they're balanced, even if they could deal infinity damage. Using them as a balance point is failing before you started.
CRB classes weren't balanced. Between the design of martials present in ACG and the redos published in Unchained, it seems obvious that Paizo has acknowledged this as well, at least to some extent.
CRB classes weren't balanced. Between the design of martials present in ACG and the redos published in Unchained, it seems obvious that Paizo has acknowledged this as well, at least to some extent.
I have to admit I find people holding up the CRB as the paragon of balance puzzling.
Some of the biggest excesses of power gaming come directly from the book. As well as its biggest dumps.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to preface this by saying that I've managed to have one of the most wretched shifts at my place of employment, making the Top Ten list that includes the "no bathroom for nine hours" shift and "Black Friday at the only retail outlet for 80 miles, as a cashier, in a state with open carry." I am still endeavoring to remain professional. Please, I beg of the various folks addressed here, grant me the benefit of the doubt and presume frustration before malice.
[Section redacted by Prince]Since a 'Path of War dev' hasn't chimed in yet I guess we can ask you.
A. Paizo in Mind
B. Ultimate Psionics in mind (which was itself balanced with Paizo in mind)
or
C. A separate balance pointThe answer to this question is very important to people looking to review Path of War material in any serious capacity.
I'm not sure how this wasn't answered by my post above, but I'm gonna say this again: The T3 band & Bestiary content, with a side order of Adventuring Problems. If one wants a more formal breakdown:
The T3 Band - The power band of classes that ranges from low T2 (Wilder w/o PsyRef) to high T4 (Barbarian); notably includes the full range of T3 classes including but not limited to: Alchemist (usually; see Simulacrum-based tactics for a T2 Alchemist), Magus, Inquisitor, Paladin (some builds; wand use not optional), Ranger (some builds; archetypes and wand use not optional), Slayer (low T3), Investigator (low-mid T3), Bard (High T3), Skald (see Bard), Psychic Warrior, Marksman (mid-low T3, dorje & power stone use encouraged), Cryptic, Dread (some; see Psybomb's guides) and Gifted Blade Soulknives. Notice something about that list - like how everyone there has subsystem access? The non-modified combat & skill system is very far from enough on its own to carry a class into T3 and often not even to carry them through an adventuring career. Which brings me to...
Bestiary Content - Amazingly enough, there are clearly observable trends in monsters-by-CR; there are meaningful averages not just of their saves, attacks, and armor class, but also of their abilities. These trends are known to us and well-known to the optimization community as a whole. Paired with knowledge of classes - since that gives you an idea both of how players interact with/react to these abilities and when they might face down such abilities form enemies with class levels - one can produce a progression of Horrible Soul-Burning Crap that you'll probably have to face down on any given adventuring day. This list of diverse and lethal tactics - both attacks and defenses - form obstacles meant to be solved by class features, potentially including spells, powers, or maneuvers. They also form a good slice of...
Adventuring Problems - Amazingly enough, killing things and stealing their material possessions is only one part of how adventurers interact with a campaign world on a regular basis. Even in a world that is somehow one gigantic dungeon there's locked doors, deadly traps, puzzles (potentially), and rough terrain. In worlds inhabited by more sapient beings than just the PCs, you also potentially have politics, social situations to be navigated, investigations, research, artifacts to identify and/or destroy, rituals to disrupt, and more. You know how much of that, say, Fighter is useful for? If you answered "Jack all," you'd be completely correct. Do I expect PoW classes to solve all of those problems? No. But I'd like their players to not hear a non-combat problem and immediately check out to go pick up the pizza because they'll be about as handy as a drunk monkey during the affair.
If any part of that is unclear, I welcome you to express your difficulties more fully.