Path of War [> Tome of Battle]

[Derron42]

I love what Chris Bennett & Jeremy Smith did in converting the cool, cinematic rules from Tome of Battle into Pathfinder.

I know that many players seem to love or really struggle with the content ... which frankly has always surprised me.

This is not meant to be another "casters rule and combat oriented characters get the shaft" thread ... merely a quasi psychological question posed to other players. It's completely within the bounds of fair play and "good rules" to have spell casters that can bend, warp, and shape reality. A reality wherein the sky's literally and figuratively the limit.

Why do the players and folks who decry "combat initiators" from the aforementioned books need their fighters to be stuck in the middle ages? Why is the limit Arthurian Legends & samurai from feudal Japan?

I'd wager the same players who critique the above content LOVE the lightsaber scenes from Star Wars & the fight sequences from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

Again ... not a casters vs. combatants argument. Not trying to convince people to play something with which they're uncomfortable. Varied opinions and views can make the world a more rich place. Just so intriguing that reality bending abilities are OK for some characters and not others. It's as if Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids, etc. are allowed to evolve into "Tesla/Ferrari territory" and many players need "sword swingers" to be stuck in the Model T era.

In closing ... awesome work Jeremy & Chris. Can't wait for the next installment.

[Xerres]

Well, one of my friends that I play with regularly and I used to argue this point all the time. I liked Wuxia and Anime-Magic-Sword-Fight'in, he was in love with Conan.

When I got Tome of Battle he complained about it all the time to me, that it made Fighters seem useless, to which I'd just laugh and say "Good." because the Fighter NEVER did what I wanted it to do. Or the Monk. This was back in 3.5 so the Paladin, my favorite character archtype (I love you Superman, marry me), also really blew. So seeing these new classes that could do, I dunno, any damn interesting thing at all, blew my mind.

My friend though, as I said he loved Conan. He loved the idea of the guy who only has a sword and courage, but still has to struggle against great odds and terrifying opponents. The fact that he couldn't do anything like these Wizards and Dragons could do, but he could still win was the peak of his enjoyment of the game. And credit where credit is due, he'd really put his money where his mouth was. He played a Fighter from level 1 to 20. In 3.5. No Prestige Class, Complete Warrior wasn't even out yet, and he was Sword-and-Board. And he loved it.

I, on the other hand, never really got that. Casters in the group constantly made me feel worthless with Polymorphs and spells that blew up the room or just resolved the encounter. His DM tailored the game to make his 'Conan' feel awesome and defeat these Dragons and Wizards like I never got to.

That leads to a different point though, in that he loved the Fighter, because it worked for him. And when Tome of Battle came around, it completely replaced any need for the Fighter, his favorite class. So obviously that bothered him, and probably lots of other people who didn't have my negative experience with it.

So I think it came down to different expectations, and different ways of approaching the game. He came from the approach that he was weaker, but he was going to win anyway. I wanted to come from "I'm awesome, and I'm going to prove I'm awesome by doing awesome things." He had a generous DM that tailored the game to make his vision work out, I carried bags for the Wizards. And admittedly, he didn't sweat the numbers or where he was in relation to the other characters. He was there and contributing, and that was enough. I was and am competetive, if someone is doing my job better than I am I will use every tool I possess to ensure that I am at least even to them. I am still very much into teamwork, but if you try to do my job better than me I'll cut you.

Glad to say though, we eventually met in the middle. He wasn't really into Path of War, but when the recent errata OBLITERATED my Sacred Fist and dreams of playing a character from Street Fighter (I wanted to Shoryuken and Hadoken the Tarrasque one day man...) he let me rebuild my Samurai person into a Warder, out of pity. Now Black Seraph is SATSUI NO HADO! and Broken Blade has returned to me the Shoryuken and Tatsumaki, and I even still get to be a great swordsman with Scarlet Throne and Mithral Current. And he's branching out from Conan to another favorite fiction piece, and will be playing a Vanara Mystic based on Sun Wukong in his next game.

Plus, with Warder's incredible defenses, he gets to beat the ever loving begeezus out of me, while I still feel cool because the Warder is God's gift for a righteous life. And having other Initiators around (I convinced one of the other players to do it, hooray!) means I get epic fights that also make me feel awesome.

But, I still keep in mind our earlier fights, and that some people got everything they wanted out of the Fighter. To see it out-and-out replaced in kind of insulting to something they love. I will never share that love, only venomous disgust, but I get why they'd be upset.

[Aelryinth]

I did a point by point comparison of the Warblade to the Fighter back in the day.

Warblade ended up with like 43 Feat-equivalent points, vs the 3.5 fighter getting like 20 or so.

If you took all the fighter feats and made them into martial manuvers, it still sucked, simply because of all the empty levels (and no refresh mechanic).

The PF fighter is a 'little' better, but weapon training, armor training and bravery only add like 10 more points. Still a bunch of dead levels and underpowered abilities. Big long post on the 3.5 boards that got a LOT of views in Regdar's Repository.

If you made a Fighter with 43 points...WOW! What a class you'd have.

9-level spellcasters ended up with around 70+.

==Aelryinth

[DragoDorn]

Aelryinth wrote:

I did a point by point comparison of the Warblade to the Fighter back in the day.

Warblade ended up with like 43 Feat-equivalent points, vs the 3.5 fighter getting like 20 or so.

If you took all the fighter feats and made them into martial manuvers, it still sucked, simply because of all the empty levels (and no refresh mechanic).

The PF fighter is a 'little' better, but weapon training, armor training and bravery only add like 10 more points. Still a bunch of dead levels and underpowered abilities. Big long post on the 3.5 boards that got a LOT of views in Regdar's Repository.

If you made a Fighter with 43 points...WOW! What a class you'd have.

9-level spellcasters ended up with around 70+.

==Aelryinth

What is this point system for class abilities and where can I find it?

[Skylancer4]

I've seen a few versions through 3.x, they are typically 3pp books. 2E even had an official book for it.

[GM Rednal]

DragoDorn wrote:

What is this point system for class abilities and where can I find it?

Probably this thing?

(There's a couple different class builders based around points floating around...)

[Aelryinth]

No, No.

I just used the baseline of power as 'one feat'.

Then I started with the commoner. Keep adding feats until you make a class.

A (3e) wizard would be:
d4 hd (0)
Bad BAB (0)
Good Will (+2 Feats, 1 for +2, 1 for good progression)
Arcane Caster level +1 per level (+20)
Final Spell Tally by class (+36, = Extra Spell Known)
Bonus Spells from Int (+6-+15 or more)
Skill points 2 (+0)
Familiar (+1)
Full level progression of familiar (+1)
Ability to use Wands/scrolls on Wizard list (+1)
7 class skills (+0)
Scribe Scroll (+1)
bonus feats by level (+4)
======
Total = 72 - 81, depending on how you value the bonus spells from Int.

In contrast, a 3E fighter was:
d10 HD = 3 Improved toughness feats (+3)
Armor & Shields Prof (+1 feat)
Martial Weapons Prof (+1 feat)
Good Fort save (+2)
+11 Combat feats (+11)
Good BAB (+2 feats)
2 skill points (+0)
7 class skills (=0)
===========
Total = 18 (Maybe 20 if you value full BAB at 4 feats, 22 if you value armor and weapon profs higher.)
=============================
Which gave you a really clear view of how powerful they viewed spellcasting vs feats.

The Warblade was:
d12 hd (+4)
medium armor and shields (+1)
martial Weapons (no bows) (+1)
Manuvers Known (13)
manuvers readied (7)
Refresh Mechanic (+1)
Class abilities (Bonus feats,4 stances, battle X, etc) (+17)
4 skill points (+2)
Class skills -12 (+2)
Full Initiator level (+1)
Improve/Swap Manuver 9 times (+9) (this is equivalent to a feat upgrade!)
===========
Total = 68
As you can see, the Warblade was a MUCH more complete class then a Fighter was. Manuvers, Stances, class features, and recharge mechanics were the biggest contributors, along with the priceless ability to swap out an old Manuver for a new one that did the same thing, only better, without having to worry about pre-reqs much.

==Aelryinth

[Skylancer4]

Aelryinth wrote:

No, No.

I just used the baseline of power as 'one feat'.

Then I started with the commoner. Keep adding feats until you make a class.

A (3e) wizard would be:
d4 hd (0)
Bad BAB (0)
Good Will (+2 Feats, 1 for +2, 1 for good progression)
Arcane Caster level +1 per level (+20)
Final Spell Tally by class (+36, = Extra Spell Known)
Bonus Spells from Int (+6-+15 or more)
Skill points 2 (+0)
Familiar (+1)
Full level progression of familiar (+1)
Ability to use Wands/scrolls on Wizard list (+1)
7 class skills (+0)
Scribe Scroll (+1)
bonus feats by level (+4)
======
Total = 72 - 81, depending on how you value the bonus spells from Int.

In contrast, a 3E fighter was:
d10 HD = 3 Improved toughness feats (+3)
Armor & Shields Prof (+1 feat)
Martial Weapons Prof (+1 feat)
Good Fort save (+2)
+11 Combat feats (+11)
Good BAB (+2 feats)
2 skill points (+0)
7 class skills (=0)
===========
Total = 18 (Maybe 20 if you value full BAB at 4 feats, 22 if you value armor and weapon profs higher.)
=============================
Which gave you a really clear view of how powerful they viewed spellcasting vs feats.

The Warblade was:
d12 hd (+4)
medium armor and shields (+1)
martial Weapons (no bows) (+1)
Manuvers Known (13)
manuvers readied (7)
Refresh Mechanic (+1)
Class abilities (Bonus feats,4 stances, battle X, etc) (+17)
4 skill points (+2)
Class skills -12 (+2)
Full Initiator level (+1)
Improve/Swap Manuver 9 times (+9) (this is equivalent to a feat upgrade!)
===========
Total = 68
As you can see, the Warblade was a MUCH more complete class then a Fighter was. Manuvers, Stances, class features, and recharge mechanics were the biggest contributors, along with the priceless ability to swap out an old Manuver for a new one that did the same thing, only better, without having to worry about pre-reqs much.

==Aelryinth

While I see what you did, that still seems kind of .. Arbitrary?

[Aelryinth]

Let's contrast the PF barbarian:

Rage: rage is basically equal to 3 stacking 2nd level spells (Owl's wis, Bull's Str, Bear's End). At level 20, you have a minimum of 25 rounds of it, more then enough for 4 combats. So, = 12 Spells known, = +12
4 skill points/level = +2
10 Class skills = +2
d12 HD = Toughness x 4 = +4
Martial Weapon Prof +1
Medium Armor + Shields = +1
Full BAB = +2
Improved and Greater Rage = Improve 3 spells each time, = 3 feat upgrades, =+6
Rage Power = basically feats = +9
Damage Reduction +5 (Roll with it Feat = +2, so +3 rounding up)=+3
Trap Sense +1
5 other class features (Fast move, Tireless rage, etc) = +5
Good Fort: +2
==================
Total = 50

The additions to the PF fighter:
Class skills: 10 (+2)
Bravery +1 (eh)
Weapon Training: +4
Armor Training/Movement: +1
Armor Training, +1 to +4= +1
Weapon and Armor Mastery: +2
=+10 More
Total of: 29-33.
And so you can see why the Barbarian is generally superior.

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

Skylancer: Sure, everything is arbitrary. If you assign points to certain abilities, it is arbitrary.

I used Feat Equivalents. It's not my fault Paizo and WoTC assign the power of feats all over the place. Useful comparison tool, however.

It takes a minimum of 72 feats to make a wizard from a commoner.
It takes only 18 to make a fighter.

Tells you something about both feats and classes, doesn't it?
1) the abilities a fighter has are considered cheap and easy to get, and you don't need many.
2) the abilities a wizard gets are considered to be powerful and expensive to come by, and you need a lot of them.

==Aelryinth

[GM Rednal]

In fairness, feats as a measurement are rough... but things like the "Extra" line give a good approximate worth for a lot of things. ^^

[Aelryinth]

Yes, and relative valuations are CRAZY.

For instance, one martial weapon prof is technically a feat. There's no way I'm going to value all martial weapons at 50 feats. You can only use 1 martial weapon at a time.

Light, medium and heavy armor profs are 3 separate feats. But there is NO WAY I'm going to value them at 3, because you can't use all 3 at once, and it's actually rare to max out the dex/armor combo of lighter armors. the fact you can wear armor without a penalty is enough.

Stat to X feats also throw stuff off, because the ending value will completely overwhelm fixed feats. Cha to Will saves destroys iron will, for example. Int to Reflex saves is waaaaay better for a smart guy then Lightning Reflexes.

It's also why I value Good saves at 2 feats. Because the +2 is like Iron Will, and the second half is like a +Stat to Save instead of Default feat.

==Aelryinth

[GM Rednal]

*Nods*

Unless it's built in (like with this thing), I think assigning any hard, relative values is, as you say, a bit crazy. XD

Still, pretty much any actual valuation system makes it pretty clear that the Fighter is... lacking. That's one reason I'm glad we have Combat Stamina, since it's at least a step in the right direction.

(I don't even want to think about how the automatic inclusion of that would screw with the numeric value of abilities, though... XD)

[Aelryinth]

Pathfinder paladins!

2 skill points (+0)
10 class skills (+1)
d10 hd (+3)
Good Fort/Will (+4)
Martial weapons (+1)
H Armor + Shields (+1)
Smite Evil 7/day (=7 spells, Auto scales = 2 spells/use = +14)
Detect Evil (+2 for a spell usable all day)
LG Required/Aura of Good (-1 for behavior restrictions)
Divine Grace (+6, =3 save feats, + scales by Cha x3 and stacks)
Lay On Hands, assume 28 Cha (= +19 for uses/day and scaling fully)
Channel energy (+1, dependent on lay on hands)
Caster Level -3, 4 spell levels (+5, considered a half-caster)
Spells/day 14 + 9 Cha (+23)
Use magic items from Paladin spell list (+1)
Mercies (+1, boosts Lay)
Auras of courage resolve justice faith (+4, basically spells)
Aura of Righteousness (+2, 2 effects, grants DR and compulsion immune)
Divine health (+1)
Divine Bond (+1, basically a Greater Magic weapon of shorter duration)
Holy Champion (+3, Dr Improve, Banish, Max healing)
==============
Total: +85
There's a reason nobody talks about rewriting the Paizo paladin. Paizo paladins rock!

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

GM Rednal wrote:

*Nods*

Unless it's built in (like with this thing), I think assigning any hard, relative values is, as you say, a bit crazy. XD

Still, pretty much any actual valuation system makes it pretty clear that the Fighter is... lacking. That's one reason I'm glad we have Combat Stamina, since it's at least a step in the right direction.

(I don't even want to think about how the automatic inclusion of that would screw with the numeric value of abilities, though... XD)

Combat Stamina is a feat. +1 if automatically given to Fighters.

It doubles the value of a combat feat (you get 2 effects for the price of 1). So, +11.

So, 41-45. Note the barbarian is rightfully still considered superior overall...especially since he can blow a general feat and get combat stamina on whatever feats he takes, too.

Note that even though combat stamina doubles some general and character feats, we are talking about the effects on the fighter class alone.

Note: Advanced weapon mastery adds +3 feats, since it replaces the effectively valueless weapon groups of WM +2-+4 with actual Feats.

==Aelryinth

[Brother Fen]

I have yet to get to play a class from Path of War, but I have played in multiple campaigns alongside characters from those classes. I really enjoy the versatility they bring to the game. The maneuvers are very cinematic and move fighter types away from just being sword and board, rinse and repeat characters. Hopefully, I get the chance to play one sometime, but it hasn't happened yet.

[Aelryinth]

I looked at the characters and the Paths, and I feel some of them are a mite overpowered, especially some of the Stances...but if it feels right and everyone's cool with it, fine by me.

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

Wizard update for Paizo:

D6 HD (+1)
School powers (+2)
Note: Specializing is effectively +9 FE's for the extra spells. universalists get nothing in exchange for this boost.
Total: +3 = 75+ - Around the smallest change to a class Paizo made to a class.

==Aelryinth

[Jeremy Smith]

Just want to jump in and say while I'm glad you love the book (I'm actually working on trying to wrap up PoW Expanded now), I cannot take credit aside from green-lighting the project. Chris gets the bulk of the praise, with Andreas and later Jade contributing to the content itself. I can't claim credit for it - although I am proud of it as a Dreamscarred product.

[Jaunt]

I'm a huge fan of realism in non-caster characters from a narrative standpoint. I imagine that a large part of it is that, like you said, martial players' conceptions of martial heroes includes Arthurian knights, samurai, Conan the Barbarian, perhaps Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. The kind of characters whose heroism comes from the fact that they go up against the arcane and the occult with nothing but years of training and an iron will. Characters who weren't special, having been born with the spark of magic innate to sorcerers, or the kind of privilege that lets you spend thirty years reading tomes and practicing spells before you kill your first giant rat. If they have to coexist with "mundane" heroes who can balance on clouds, bounce a throwing knife off 6 enemies' skulls, and stop your heart by poking your forehead with their pinky, well, then Conan stops being a hero and starts being a doofus who's good at swords. Tome of Battle/Path of War characters stand for the proposition that if you practice hard enough, you can basically do magic, even if you can't do magic.

If your ideal of martial heroism is Crouching Tiger, or Neo, that works out perfectly fine for you. If your concept of a martial hero is Inigo Montoya, or Conan, or King Arthur, that's not going to be a good feeling.

Mechanically, I could sit here and argue all day both ways, but I think for most people it's a thematic and narrative issue. Knights don't have spells for the same reason that the king doesn't have a Ferrari. It's the same reason that Crouching Tiger doesn't have demon-conjuring wizards or alien spaceships: it's a perfectly fine story or game, but it's not the one that we signed up for. If you need further proof, just look at the number of people saying "I never allow gunslingers, they ruin the story/are totally overpowered/are provably, objectively horrible people" in various places over the forums. People get defensive when others try to redefine the boundaries of "their" games.

[Aelryinth]

Druids, via Paizo

HD d8 (+2)
4 skill points (+2)
12 Class skills (+3)
3/4 BAB (+2)
Good Fort/Will (+4)
Full 9 level Caster (+20)
Spells -36 (+36)
Spells/Wis 28 -(+15)
Armor/Shields (+1)
Druid Weapons (+1)
WIldshapes 9/day (+9, = Poly self spell)
Spon casting/Summons (+1)
Full Animal Companion or Nature Bond/domain (+2) (A Domain should technically be +10 for the extra spells and domain power, but whatever.)
Other class abilities (8 of them) - +8
Use Druidic Spell Items (+1)
=======
Total Feat Equivalents: 107 (Possibly 116 with Domain)

No, druids have no problem at all. I bet you thought paladins were impressive.

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

Clerics via Paizo

d8 hd (+2)
3/4 BAB (+2)
Skill points 2 (+0)
Skills: 10 (+1) Note: Knowledge # never counts for more then 2 skills.
Weapons: Deity Favored (+1)
Armor Med+shd (+1)
Good fort/will (+4)
Spells 36 (+36)
Spells/28 Wis +15 (+15)
Full 9 level caster (+20)
2 Domains (+2)
9 spells slots/domains (+9)
Channel energy 18 Cha (+7)
Spontaneous Casting - Cures (+1)
Use Cleric Spell Items (+1)
==========
Total: 106 Feat Equivs

You didn't think they'd give up much to Druids, really, did you?

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

Aelryinth wrote:

Wizard update for Paizo:

D6 HD (+1)
School powers (+2)
Note: Specializing is effectively +9 FE's for the extra spells. universalists get nothing in exchange for this boost.
Total: +3 = 75+ - Around the smallest change to a class Paizo made to a class.

==Aelryinth

I'll just outright use 28 as top stat at 20.

So +15 spells, brings base to 84.
A specialist's 9 spells brings this to 93.

If you're worried this is weaker then the cleric, the cleric is MUCH stronger all around then the wizard. The 'extra points' come down to how much you value the strength of the wizard spell list and his ability to prepare spells from it.

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

Sorcerors, via Paizo

d6 hd (+1)
Poor bab (+0)
Good Will save (+2)
2 skill points (+0)
9 Skills + Bloodline (+1)
Spells Known 34 (+34)
Full 9 level caster (+20)
Bonus spells/Bloodline (+9)
Eschew Materials (+1)
Bloodline feats (+3)
Bloodline Power (+5)
Use Wiz/Sorc spell items (+1)
Bonus spells cast/Cha 28 (+15)
===========
Total = 92

Matches up very close to a Wizard spec.
Note: I use spells known as the baseline for Versatility, as it is the smaller of the SPells Known/Spells Castable, and really determines overall power. However, from a feat standpoint, 1 spell Known = 1 spell castable, so the bonus spells from Cha are priced equal to spells known.

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

Rangers, Via Paizo

D10 HD (+3)
6 skills points (+4)
14 class skills (+3)
Good Fort/Ref (+4)
Full BAB (+4)
Martial Wpns (+1)
Med Armo/Shd (+1)
FE & Advances (+5)
FT & Advances (+4)
Lesser Animal bond (+1)
Lesser half caster (+5)
Spells 10 (+10)
Wis 18 Spells (+4)
Combat Feats 3 (+3)
Other class features -12 (+12)
Use Ranger spell items (+1)
================
Total = 64

Basically, edges out Barbs because of the spells. Without spells, basically equal.
And of course, makes the Fighter look bad.

==Aelryinth

[Milo v3]

Jaunt wrote:

Tome of Battle/Path of War characters stand for the proposition that if you practice hard enough, you can basically do magic, even if you can't do magic.

Thing is, that's not true.... Path of War can be Arthurian, Inigo Montoya, Conan-style, and Samurai-esque. Some martial disciplines of Path of War are unrealistic, they are specifically supernatural, that is true, but there is nothing that forces you to take those. When you use path of war, it does not mean you have to change from being a medieval warrior, it just makes you a powerful one. The abilities they use may not be 100% realistic, but fiction isn't realistic, it (like PoW) uses dramatic versions of what warriors can do. Sure a real world warrior cannot throw a spear through three people, but Conan or Leonidas.

Dreamscarred Press has made sure that you do not have to turn your game anime-esque in theme or narrative with it's warriors, because of all the backlash from ToB using japanese fiction and matrix as examples for how it works.

[Skylancer4]

Jaunt wrote:

I'm a huge fan of realism in non-caster characters from a narrative standpoint. I imagine that a large part of it is that, like you said, martial players' conceptions of martial heroes includes Arthurian knights, samurai, Conan the Barbarian, perhaps Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. The kind of characters whose heroism comes from the fact that they go up against the arcane and the occult with nothing but years of training and an iron will. Characters who weren't special, having been born with the spark of magic innate to sorcerers, or the kind of privilege that lets you spend thirty years reading tomes and practicing spells before you kill your first giant rat. If they have to coexist with "mundane" heroes who can balance on clouds, bounce a throwing knife off 6 enemies' skulls, and stop your heart by poking your forehead with their pinky, well, then Conan stops being a hero and starts being a doofus who's good at swords. Tome of Battle/Path of War characters stand for the proposition that if you practice hard enough, you can basically do magic, even if you can't do magic.

If your ideal of martial heroism is Crouching Tiger, or Neo, that works out perfectly fine for you. If your concept of a martial hero is Inigo Montoya, or Conan, or King Arthur, that's not going to be a good feeling.

Mechanically, I could sit here and argue all day both ways, but I think for most people it's a thematic and narrative issue. Knights don't have spells for the same reason that the king doesn't have a Ferrari. It's the same reason that Crouching Tiger doesn't have demon-conjuring wizards or alien spaceships: it's a perfectly fine story or game, but it's not the one that we signed up for. If you need further proof, just look at the number of people saying "I never allow gunslingers, they ruin the story/are totally overpowered/are provably, objectively horrible people" in various places over the forums. People get defensive when others try to redefine the boundaries of "their" games.

But not all initiators are doing "magic." For each discipline that is "magical" there is another that is basically "hit stuff do damage," so it doesn't have to be all crouching tiger hiddden matrix. You CAN make a character that is basically just "good with sword" like Conan out of PoW. And that is where the system is I guess "better", not just pure mechanically, but thematically.

Now, that isn't to say it isn't heads and shoulders better than core martials, as the second book started to introduce stuff that just plain makes core martials into NPC classes (the fighter basically becomes a dip class if you allow PoW). But by no means does it force martials into "poor man's casters" as you can still keep the flavor of "plain" swordsman by choosing the appropriate disciplines or even just particular maneuvers even in some of the more showy disciplines.

Saying PoW = wuxia campaign is taking and presenting the worst case scenario as the only option. And it isn't the only option. Conan is possible, knights of the round table are possible, and "basic" hero is possible. The options are there, but anyone complaining about the showy stuff isn't going to talk about that, because it doesn't help make their point. My only real complaints of the books have been 1) marked amount of power increase from the first book to the second and 2) it wasn't balanced against what exists in core rules, but what the writers believe martials should be like (AKA house rules so "martials don't suck like they do in core" to paraphrase the discussion). I believe that was something that should have been on the "label" so to speak.

[Luthorne]

I'd also note that some Arthurian knights definitely had supernatural abilities...as I recall, Sir Kay had the ability to grow in size, set things on fire with his touch, and other such, while Sir Gawain gained power from the sun, growing up to three times more powerful at high noon...I swear I remember one of them having dark powers, but I can't remember the name, so I might be wrong. Not that there weren't plenty who weren't just paragons of martial prowess...and, uh, ones that were total jokes as well (if I recall correctly, Arthur's jester was also one of his knights, and a complete coward and a lying braggart).

[Jaunt]

For what it's worth, while I am intimately familiar with ToB, I lack such familiarity with PoW and just assume it is similar.

As far as Arthurian lore goes, there are a lot of different versions, and I'll concede that it's evidence that highly supernatural warriors do exist in Westerns canons, I don't think your average Fighter player has Super Saiyan Gawain as his inspiration for his PC.

Personally, I loved my Warblade and especially his Iron Heart Maneuvers (IHS to shrug off anything, ANYTHING was a personal favorite), but I was seduced by the shiny new mechanics. I imagine a lot of diehard martial players don't want change, don't want to rebuild their characters, and don't want their previous PCs invalidated in a new rule environment.

I hope my first post didn't come across as yet another "ToB rules/sucks" argument; OP expressed genuine confusion as to why anyone would take up a position against ToB/PoW, and I did my best to explain as best I can without being in that camp myself.

[Kryzbyn]

So I've bought the book, but have yet to go through it, have a general question for the ToB audience here...

When GMing, do you incorporate PoW, or do you replace fighters outright with initiators? Do you replace anything else?

[Arachnofiend]

Aelryinth wrote:

Pathfinder paladins!

2 skill points (+0)
10 class skills (+1)
d10 hd (+3)
Good Fort/Will (+4)
Martial weapons (+1)
H Armor + Shields (+1)
Smite Evil 7/day (=7 spells, Auto scales = 2 spells/use = +14)
Detect Evil (+2 for a spell usable all day)
LG Required/Aura of Good (-1 for behavior restrictions)
Divine Grace (+6, =3 save feats, + scales by Cha x3 and stacks)
Lay On Hands, assume 28 Cha (= +19 for uses/day and scaling fully)
Channel energy (+1, dependent on lay on hands)
Caster Level -3, 4 spell levels (+5, considered a half-caster)
Spells/day 14 + 9 Cha (+23)
Use magic items from Paladin spell list (+1)
Mercies (+1, boosts Lay)
Auras of courage resolve justice faith (+4, basically spells)
Aura of Righteousness (+2, 2 effects, grants DR and compulsion immune)
Divine health (+1)
Divine Bond (+1, basically a Greater Magic weapon of shorter duration)
Holy Champion (+3, Dr Improve, Banish, Max healing)
==============
Total: +85
There's a reason nobody talks about rewriting the Paizo paladin. Paizo paladins rock!

==Aelryinth

I agree Paizo Paladins are fantastic, but I feel I should point out that the fact that your system values Paizo Barbarians at almost half the strength of the Paladin just shows this evaluation system is deeply flawed.

[Kryzbyn]

Are there modifiers for conditional abilities, like a rangers favored enemy or smite evil?

[GM Rednal]

Among other things, I do allow Path of War classes in several of my games. To me, they're basically just a better version of the Fighter, usually with more out-of-combat stuff - and given the normal Fighter's lack of non-combat options to begin with, this isn't a bad thing. XD As things currently stand, I generally only like Fighter at all when it's part of a gestalt build (in which case it's occasionally fantastic for supporting a character idea).

[Orthos]

Kryzbyn wrote:

When GMing, do you incorporate PoW, or do you replace fighters outright with initiators? Do you replace anything else?

I don't force them to, but I try to strongly encourage people who might be interested in Fighter, Cavalier, or Swashbuckler toward one of the ToB or PoW (we use both) classes. Just like I try to encourage people who want to play Rogues toward Bard, Alchemist, or Slayer.

Fighters, Rogues, and Cavaliers in my games are pretty much exclusively NPC Classes unless the players REALLY REALLY REALLY want to play one.

[Aelryinth]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I agree Paizo Paladins are fantastic, but I feel I should point out that the fact that your system values Paizo Barbarians at almost half the strength of the Paladin just shows this evaluation system is deeply flawed.

If you look at the numbers, it is all because of the magic.

Spells is +23.
Half caster is +5.
Paladin Magic items is +1.

85-29 is 56...right in the range of the Barbarian.
If the barbarian got bonus rage feats for high stats like the paladin gets for his lay on hands and spells, they'd be equal. And you know, Superstitious is every bit as powerful as Divine Grace, which is +6...but Superstitious is ONE rage power/feat, and so at +1. Superstitious valued at its true power would put the Barbarian at 55...the same as a Paladin with no spells.

In other words, in terms of feats, Spells are hugely valuable, with each spell being comparable to a feat. (Yes, this is flawed because 2 feats are very, very often not equal in power. This isn't a point system.)

If you take the default Charisma from 28 down to 24 or so, that reduces the numbers as well (down to 78 for the paladin, since it affects Lay on Hands as well). It's just it's a primary attribute for paladins, and I can't see them NOT maxing it at 20th. ALthough a 28 does mean they'd have to start with a 17.
meh. I should have used 24.

In the end, it means that if you took away a paladin's spells - you'd have a character about as powerful as a barbarian.

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Are there modifiers for conditional abilities, like a rangers favored enemy or smite evil?

Extra Favored Enemy is a 3E feat. So, FE is a feat equivalent.

Note that all a Ranger cares about is getting ONE FE to the highest number, so that at later levels he can Instant Enemy if desired for maximum killing power. In short, FE gets better with time. This turns FE into an at-will bonus.

even so, I kept each at +1, because they are situational, even if they can be tailored to the campaign.

Smite Evil is extremely powerful, and Extra Smites are available via feats. I can't see anyone rating a smite less then a feat, and in actuality each smite is probably stronger then a 1-3rd level spell, all things considered equal. The fact the paladin chooses when to use it means it is never wasted or 'useless'. So, I keep it at +1 per Smite.
If the enemy is not evil, the paladin can instead invoke a Sword Bond bonus, or cast a spell. Thus, he always has alternatives and is never left hanging.

Now, Sneak Attack is conditional, and unlike Smites or FE, is often dependent on the DM, the enemy, or other players to come into play.

In 3E ,there's a feat which increases your SA by +2d6, and another that gives you +1d6 (Mostly only important if qualifying for PrC's). Given how situational it is to kick in, and the amount of investment needed to do so, I basically set SA to +1 per 3d6, rounding down to +1 Minimum. So for the average Rogue, SA is worth 3 feats. This is about the same as full BAB (+2 feats) and Power Attack (+1 feat), if it were applicable.
========

I'd also like to point out that another reason Caster Level is valued so much more then mere BAB is that it allows you to take Item Creation feats freely. Caster level is just plain game-changing power that BAB doesn't have. BAB you can 'replace' with high Str and +1-3 natural attacks, and even do BETTER then high BAB. There's no such 'sub' for Item Creation.

===Aelryinth

[Luthorne]

Jaunt wrote:

For what it's worth, while I am intimately familiar with ToB, I lack such familiarity with PoW and just assume it is similar.

As far as Arthurian lore goes, there are a lot of different versions, and I'll concede that it's evidence that highly supernatural warriors do exist in Westerns canons, I don't think your average Fighter player has Super Saiyan Gawain as his inspiration for his PC.

Personally, I loved my Warblade and especially his Iron Heart Maneuvers (IHS to shrug off anything, ANYTHING was a personal favorite), but I was seduced by the shiny new mechanics. I imagine a lot of diehard martial players don't want change, don't want to rebuild their characters, and don't want their previous PCs invalidated in a new rule environment.

I hope my first post didn't come across as yet another "ToB rules/sucks" argument; OP expressed genuine confusion as to why anyone would take up a position against ToB/PoW, and I did my best to explain as best I can without being in that camp myself.

It's not a problem, I do to some extent understand where you're coming from - though I think a setting like many of the ones you describe tend to be rather low-magic, at least as far as humanity is concerned - it's just a pet peeve of mine that many people describe warriors with supernatural abilities as being unique to Japanese or Eastern mythology, when there's plenty of crazy stuff happening in European mythology...especially Celtic mythology.

[Aelryinth]

Paizo Bard

HD: d8 (+2)
6 skill points (+4)
20 class skills (+5)
Good WIll/reflex (+4)
Some martial wpns (+1)
Light armor/shd (+1)
Spells Known (+34)
Bonus spells 28 Cha (+12)
3/4 Caster (+10)
Inspire Courage (+6) - Upgrades to +6 and basically good for all encounters.
Versatile Performance (+5 for extra skill points)
Use bardic spells items (+1)
Countersong/distraction/fascinate (+3, because they scale)
Well versed (+2...a massive skill point bonus to knowledge skills)
Lore master +1 (Minor ability)
Other 7 Bardsong/skill powers (+7)
=============
Total = 98

Yeah, bards ain't suffering none, either.

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

The Paizo rogue!

Hd d8 (+2)
3/4 BAB (+2)
Some martial weapons (+1)
Light armor (+0)
Good Reflex (+2)
8 Skill points (+6)
21 class skills (+5)
SA to 10d6 (+3)
Rogue Talents (+10)
Trapfinding (+1)
Trap Sense (+1)
Evasion/Imp Ev (+2)
Uncanny Dodge (+1) - Imp Uncanny dodge is so minor an upgrade I'm not giving it another +1
Master Strike (+1)
===================
Total: 37

And you wonder why the rogue has problems. If you doubled the value of sneak attack, it would match up against a fighter.
Note that 'advanced rogue talents' is dumb. It's just a pre-req saying 'you must be 10th level to take this feat.'

==Aelryinth

[Fabius Maximus]

Disclaimer: I never played with the Path of War rules. I have only read some of the playtest documents and never bothered to dive further into the system because it uses the same basic mechanics as described in the Tome of War, with which I am familiar.

I have a problem with the system because of its dissociated mechanics, i.e. the vancian fire-and-forget approach for something as mundane as combat abilities that are acquired through training. There simply is no in-game reason for a non-magical character using an ability and then not having it available for the rest of an encounter.

A quick and dirty fix for that problem with my Warblade was making a Sorcerer out of what used to be a Wizard before. The spontaneous spellcasting system emulates fatigue better than the memorisation system while keeping the spellcaster flexible in the application of his maneuvers. It worked equally well.

[Skylancer4]

Fabius Maximus wrote:

Disclaimer: I never played with the Path of War rules. I have only read some of the playtest documents and never bothered to dive further into the system because it uses the same basic mechanics as described in the Tome of War, with which I am familiar.

I have a problem with the system because of its dissociated mechanics, i.e. the vancian fire-and-forget approach for something as mundane as combat abilities that are acquired through training. There simply is no in-game reason for a non-magical character using an ability and then not having it available for the rest of an encounter.

A quick and dirty fix for that problem with my Warblade was making a Sorcerer out of what used to be a Wizard before. The spontaneous spellcasting system emulates fatigue better than the memorisation system while keeping the spellcaster flexible in the application of his maneuvers. It worked equally well.

But they do have it, either through a standard action recovery or special class based recovery. That amounts to, take a breath and recover after the strenuous combat action, and do it again. Same encounter.

Your problem with the system isn't a problem, because it doesn't exist. And that was in the playtest documents IIRC. I believe all initiator classes have dual recovery mechanics, some might have been altered from playtest, but they had it. Most of the PoW stuff is on d20pfsrd if you want to take a better look and see what you seemed to have missed in the playtest docs.

[Fabius Maximus]

Skylancer4 wrote:

Fabius Maximus wrote:

Disclaimer: I never played with the Path of War rules. I have only read some of the playtest documents and never bothered to dive further into the system because it uses the same basic mechanics as described in the Tome of War, with which I am familiar.

I have a problem with the system because of its dissociated mechanics, i.e. the vancian fire-and-forget approach for something as mundane as combat abilities that are acquired through training. There simply is no in-game reason for a non-magical character using an ability and then not having it available for the rest of an encounter.

A quick and dirty fix for that problem with my Warblade was making a Sorcerer out of what used to be a Wizard before. The spontaneous spellcasting system emulates fatigue better than the memorisation system while keeping the spellcaster flexible in the application of his maneuvers. It worked equally well.

But they do have it, either through a standard action recovery or special class based recovery. That amounts to, take a breath and recover after the strenuous combat action, and do it again. Same encounter.

Your problem with the system isn't a problem, because it doesn't exist. And that was in the playtest documents IIRC. I believe all initiator classes have dual recovery mechanics, some might have been altered from playtest, but they had it. Most of the PoW stuff is on d20pfsrd if you want to take a better look and see what you seemed to have missed in the playtest docs.

What do they have? An in-game reason?

I had a look. For starters, every class doesn't have all known maneuvers available to it at any time, which is simply inacceptable. They also can only ready any given maneuver once, to boot. That's part of why it is a variant spellcasting system.

The recovery mechanics are part of the problem, actually. All three classes have to either only move or be passive to recover one or more maneuvers. In know that is better than in the ToB, where you had to stand still for a round being useless in the midst of battle (and only the Warblade could do that), but it still is disappointing.

And that includes only the maneuvers they had previously prepared. They can't change them on the fly. You can probably take a feat for that, which is frankly ridiculous for an ability that should be a class feature.

The system is really rigid. I had high hopes that DSP would fix that.

[Skylancer4]

Not every warrior knows every move in the history of fighting.

Choosing maneuvers lets you customize how you fight, what your "style" is.

You are pretty much stating, the system is "rigid" because it makes you choose. News Flash: The game is all about making choices, quite literally everything you do every time you advance is a systematic choice, which in turn leads to more choices (feat chains, class abilities, you name it).

I can only imagine what your concept of "balanced" is if NOT having every option available and usable whenever you want it is, is unacceptable...

I can just state that it seems you are unwilling to see the benefits of the system, how it is balanced within itself (if not the core martial classes) and how your reasoning is rather flawed. Because making it the way you seem to want it would leave any semblance of "balance" weeping in the corner.

I'm by no means a fanboi of the system, I've been vocal about how it pushes too far past what the core rules have and so becomes a "bandaid" for a perceiced problem the writers see instead of a nice system that plays well in the game it was made for. But what you want is just... You are better off in another system honestly.

[HFTyrone]

Path of War has its flaws, namely that Broken Blade is horrendously overtuned (which DSP themselves admit). But as a whole I think it's a fantastic system that does a great job of letting people realize character concepts without being total garbage (yeah yeah yeah rollplay vs. roleplay, I've heard it all). It lets martials be more independent from the caster party members with access to healing, movement abilities, buffs, defensive abilities, see invisibility, etc. PoW:E is also shaping up to be fantastic, and I'm very excited to get my hands on the book.

Also I agree, it's hardly a rigid system. Just because prepared casters can be batman doesn't mean that's a reasonable approach.

[iDesu]

Fabius Maximus wrote:

For starters, every class doesn't have all known maneuvers available to it at any time, which is simply inacceptable.

I mean, brawlers also forget their tactics when they switch it up, don't they?

[Throne]

Fabius Maximus wrote:

What do they have? An in-game reason?

I had a look. For starters, every class doesn't have all known maneuvers available to it at any time, which is simply inacceptable. They also can only ready any given maneuver once, to boot. That's part of why it is a variant spellcasting system.

The recovery mechanics are part of the problem, actually. All three classes have to either only move or be passive to recover one or more maneuvers. In know that is better than in the ToB,...

I know at least that the Warder does get a mechanic for swapping out readied manoeuvres for unreadied ones that they know. I'd be surprised if the other Initiating classes didn't.

I get what you're saying about the disassociated nature of the mechanics, but, that's something present in the base system. There's plenty of non-magic fire-and-f-you junk scattered around, from the many, many 1/day feats, 1/day rogue talents, to the swashbuckler who parried last round but can't even attempt it this round (because he's just not feeling fancy enough?).

Taking a Feng Shui, Chow Yun Fat moment of cool to mentally reload is far less egregious than most of the already existing 'you can't do that again. Why? Because f* you, that's why' blocks already in the game.

Personally, I think the DSP stuff tends to be better produced and balanced than regular Pathfinder, especially with Paizo's recent rounds of 'here's something nice for martials, buy this book...... LOLERRATA!' bait-and-switch, but it's a nice change to see someone complaining that their stuff just doesn't go far enough.

[GM Rednal]

*Glances in*

Honestly, a sort of "I can't get so caught up in the heat of battle I forget to remain calm - all right, let's focus and plan for a sec" isn't too bad - especially because Pathfinder is partially a resource-management game.

(Really, I think it'd be a bit boring if you had unlimited access to all maneuvers at all times...)

[shadowkras]

I know the topic is old and was defiled by foul necromancy, but...

Quote:

Armor & Shields Prof (+1 feat)

So the free feats they get:

Light Armor Proficiency
Medium Armor Proficiency
Heavy Armor Proficiency
Shield Proficiency
Tower Shield Proficiency (not all martials get tower shield, so it could be a feat)

Are only worth one feat to you?

Quote:

Martial Weapons Prof (+1 feat)

Isnt Martial Weapon Proficiency (Weapon Name) a single feat per weapon? So that cannot be worth 1 feat either.

[Gambit]

Xerres wrote:

Well, one of my friends that I play with regularly and I used to argue this point all the time. I liked Wuxia and Anime-Magic-Sword-Fight'in, he was in love with Conan.

When I got Tome of Battle he complained about it all the time to me, that it made Fighters seem useless, to which I'd just laugh and say "Good." because the Fighter NEVER did what I wanted it to do. Or the Monk. This was back in 3.5 so the Paladin, my favorite character archtype (I love you Superman, marry me), also really blew. So seeing these new classes that could do, I dunno, any damn interesting thing at all, blew my mind.

My friend though, as I said he loved Conan. He loved the idea of the guy who only has a sword and courage, but still has to struggle against great odds and terrifying opponents. The fact that he couldn't do anything like these Wizards and Dragons could do, but he could still win was the peak of his enjoyment of the game. And credit where credit is due, he'd really put his money where his mouth was. He played a Fighter from level 1 to 20. In 3.5. No Prestige Class, Complete Warrior wasn't even out yet, and he was Sword-and-Board. And he loved it.

I, on the other hand, never really got that. Casters in the group constantly made me feel worthless with Polymorphs and spells that blew up the room or just resolved the encounter. His DM tailored the game to make his 'Conan' feel awesome and defeat these Dragons and Wizards like I never got to.

That leads to a different point though, in that he loved the Fighter, because it worked for him. And when Tome of Battle came around, it completely replaced any need for the Fighter, his favorite class. So obviously that bothered him, and probably lots of other people who didn't have my negative experience with it.

So I think it came down to different expectations, and different ways of approaching the game. He came from the approach that he was weaker, but he was going to win anyway. I wanted to come from "I'm awesome, and I'm going to prove I'm awesome by doing awesome...

This was a very interesting story, I quite enjoyed it.

Have either you or your friend ever play old school D&D? Because I think he would love some 2E AD&D, a system where while warriors are technically still "mundane", they actually have a lot of special features and really good things going for them (weapon specialization, exceptional strength, best saving throws/armor/hit points, only ones who get multiple attacks, etc). Tell him to check it out if he hasn't. Plus AD&D multiclassing is super fun, he can play a multiclassed fighter/thief and pretty much actually play Conan.

[Aksess]

Fabius Maximus wrote:

Disclaimer: I never played with the Path of War rules. I have only read some of the playtest documents and never bothered to dive further into the system because it uses the same basic mechanics as described in the Tome of War, with which I am familiar.

I have a problem with the system because of its dissociated mechanics, i.e. the vancian fire-and-forget approach for something as mundane as combat abilities that are acquired through training. There simply is no in-game reason for a non-magical character using an ability and then not having it available for the rest of an encounter.

A quick and dirty fix for that problem with my Warblade was making a Sorcerer out of what used to be a Wizard before. The spontaneous spellcasting system emulates fatigue better than the memorisation system while keeping the spellcaster flexible in the application of his maneuvers. It worked equally well.

Or flavor-wise a good martial combatant would know that performing the same maneuver repeatedly would be risky because he would be predictable (in a swordfight it would be unwise to perform the exact same twice, especially back-to-back), so he prefers to go through his repertoire of attack angles etc.