Path of War: Should it be added?

Is Path of War from Super Genius Games different from the Path of War from Dreamscarred Press?

My only concern with the overlap of PoW with core Paizo materials is the 1/2 of your non initiator levels adding to your total initiator level. Initiator levels need to be measured like Caster Levels which makes the decision to go in and out of either set of classes an actual decision to weaken the original skill set. If a level 8 fighter could go one level into druid and get up to Third level spells that's be a huge problem, but saying a level 8 Druid going to one level of an initiator and getting third level maneuvers is ok is a little baffling.

PoW will definatly result in increase in damage for martials though.

and yeah, natural attacks are kinda stupid, but mainly natural attacks from non-martials is what is really stupid.

for starters, tying the homerule of #of attacks to levels should have been switched to bab instead of level, giving full bab classes a little edge vs summoners and druids and whatnot

1.) No it wont. The classes are no stronger than any other tier 3 class, say the magus for a good comparison, and they already exist.
2.) They are already inferior, the only thing changed by PoW is that now they can either dip or take martial study to be somewhat relevant again.
3.) I have yet to see anyone actually show how this is true, and am waiting for someone to prove it.
4.) Yea, that is pretty much the point. I would however point out that the closest comparison class, the Magus, is also highly unlikely to ever run out of spells with all of its recovery mechanics and most sessions I see either on DG or other places rarely actually hit the caps of most caster classes so the fact that Initiators swords never stop working is irrelevant.
5.) Could you cite an example please?
6.) And that is a bad thing?

Mostly replying to B.) but that overlap comes from the fact that the feats they replaced were rather awful in the first place. The PoW ones come with fewer crappy feat taxes and add some real benefit.

Fencing grace and slashing grace are good examples of poorly designed feats, heck the creators admitted that Slashing Grace only got dex to damage at the last second because they were worried that the feat didn't give enough and it happened in such a haphazard way that they left out the rapier, the signature weapon of the class. Then they had to make the other feat, Fencing Grace, to fix that but left it so late they hadtto add it to a whole different book. They way I look at it the swashbuckler doesn't get nerfed by deadly agility it gets buffed. It gets dex to damage on the rapier at first level without being forced to be human and if they really want to use a slashing its not a terrible wait on slashing grace for dex to damage, just call it a oppertunity cost for using the slashing weapons on the Swash. Or if you wanted to take the dex to damage off slashing grace remove most of the prerequisite and make a straight slashing weapon feat that is easier to get. I think if you have concerns about some, generally bad, pathfinder feats being outclassed why not try and bring them up to the PoW level than bring the PoW stuff down.

Also what other concerns did you have for making changes. Most of the stuff people have talked about in the IRC has been the result of a lot of rules misunderstandings with the new system. Such as the rules blocking the whole dipping for 3rd level maneuvers.

Oh and weapon specialization is a trash feat anyways, and most fighter feats are kind of bad as well.

But that would remove the point of having a dex to damage feat that wouldn't an obscene feat tax. What is badly scaled about getting dex to damage?

As for the maneuvers and stances I would need to look over the ones that bother you specifically but I still only count 4 attacks at level 5. 2 for two weapon fighting and 2 for the stance. Also remember that Broken Blade is highly restrictive on what weapons can be used for it.

Don't count iterative attacks, they are awful and that -5 means they will probably never hit. Also weapon focus is a pretty bad feat, and while it isn't totally worthless it is still a feat tax and giving all classes a way to just skip it sounds like a great idea to me.

I disagree, dex to damage is a strong option but the boost of getting to also raise defense is countered by the fact that your damage will always be lower that someone power attacking with STR. I have yet to see math that showed otherwise. Also whats so wrong with buffing TWF since it sits next to sword and board and thrown weapons as one of the worst combat styles in pathfinder. Throw weapons, are awful as well so whats wrong with letting someone get some dex to damage on them its not like in the end it will make it good. Hell it just might have the benefit of opening thrown weapons up as an actual option for people instead of being a trap.

My Level 6 martial would like the extra +3 to hit yours is getting.  An actual normal martial at level 6 will have 6 BAB + 5 Stat +1 or 2 weapon +1 weapon focus for +12 or +13 to hit on the first swing and 7/8 for the second.  Now if you take a perfectly min maxed martial you can hit those numbers by dropping 12,000 of their 16,000 expected wealth to make their to hit number higher.  A CR 6, equal challenge creature has an average AC of 19 so your first swing has a 70%/75% chance to hit and your second swing has 45%/50% chance to hit.

That second set of iteratives looks impossible. I double checked to make sure I didn't miss something somewhere in the rules but I can't find any abilities that lets you have extra attacks and make iterative attacks in PoW, or that completely negates the TWF penalty, can you explain how you got that?  Best I can see for a TWF at level 6, again assuming the completely twinked out build you're talking about, is +6 BAB + 6 Stat +2 Weapon +1 Weapon Focus -2 TWF +13/+13/+8/+8 on a full attack, charge with Raging Hunter Pounce is +15/+15/+10/+10, not bad at all but not super rediculous.  All of this is assuming you got Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Deadly Agility, Weapon Focus  which means you have to be human warlord since you only have 3 feats by 6 and need 5 with a class that's +1 BAB and full Initiator.  18 Dex at start ate 17 of you point buy so your Warlord abilities are going to be garbage unless you're using a build along the lines of 8 STR 18(20) DEX 12 CON 8 INT 10 WIS 14 CHA but even with that line your charisma mod is still pretty pitiful and your HP is going to be a little sad for someone that runs into combat full attacks and then has to stand there and hope the enemy doesn't decide to hit you back. 8 STR means you can't really wear heavy armor, you can barely wear the lighter end of medium armor without going into medium encumbrance.  So going with a Breastplate and Inner Sphere Stance you're looking at 10 +6 dex +3 stance +6 Armor -2 Charge for 23AC meaning the average CR6 hits you 50% of the time, if you use Outer Sphere Stance which is where the damage is really going to come from with this build then they hit you 55% of the time.    

So to recap your character has  85%/85%/55%/55% chance to hit for an average of 11.5 damage, meaning you need to hit the creature ~6 times to kill it.  The creature has lets say 3 attacks since that's pretty reasonable, at 55%/55%/55% to hit you, averaging 25 Damage a hit and your warlord has 49HP assuming you used FCB for HP.  You die in ~2 hits, it dies in ~6 hits.  You have a better chance to actually land attacks, but monsters do more damage per attack and tend to have more passive defenses, DR 5/whatever isn't rare at this level. Doesn't sound super broken to me, you might be able to with good rolls charge an equal CR creature and blow them up, if you don't that creature has a pretty decent chance of making a vaguely Min-Maxed Warlord shaped smear on the ground on it's turn.  Seems fair.

lvl7 build:
7 bab +6 dex (19starting dex, lvl up here +2belt) -2 itwf +1focus +1competance (dragon fury) +1 weapons = +14/+14/+14/+14/+9/+9 all attacks gain +1 trait bonus to attack after the 1st one hits (finish the fight trait).

starting stats are (human dual stated):
8str
19dex
13con
18int (could probably drop it to 16 to gain 1 feat but extra initiator modifier is cool)
10wis
7chr

feats are:
lvl1)finesse
lvl3)(bonus) agility
lvl3)weapon focus
lvl5)discipline focus
lvl7)itwf

bonus feats:
lvl1 dervish: twf, combat reflexes,
lvl1 dragon fury: power attack



the two extra attacks at full bab are from broken blade stance (lvl3 stance)


for 1d6+6(dex)+1(weapon)+1(competance)+2(discipline) = 13.5 average damage 19-20/x2 damage each.

that doesnt sound much. but given abilities like brass knuckle (+2d6 damage on each hit, all hits bypass dr) this can go up to ~20average damage each that bypasses dr.
add in pa for:
vs an average cr 7 monster you have ~80% (70%when pa) chance to hit (5+above) with 4 of your attacks and another 55% (45%when pa) (10and above) to hit with another 2.

disregarding crits, that is ~88 dpr without pa, ~91dpr with pa active both enough to kill cr appropriate in 1 round.

but the power of a lot of attacks is the ability to split them and have them enough chances to put effects, like armiger's marks, on a lot of creatures (remember you can 5ft step once within the full attack action)

if you want less attacks but more damage, you can always switch to something like the thrashing dragon stance for +10% to hit and +~7.5 damage/hit for ~87dpr/87dpr but easier hits (+17/+17/+12/+12)

and that is assuming minimal gear for a lvl7, only +2stat and 2* +1weapons (8k gear)

(btw this is a non cheese build. a cheese build would be using dagger with river rat trait and deific obedience and 16int instead of 18, +4belt instead of +2, and will probably have something like +15/+16/+16/+16/+11/+11 1d4+16 for average 18.5 damage power attacking, with a dpr of 85 without any boosts, 117 damage with boosts) (assuming first attck lands, which has like 80% to do so)

p.s.:
if using a boost that affects your attacks from broken blade stance counts as "Use of discipline-specific weapons with Broken Blade inflict an additional 2 points of damage." (which i honestly dont think so, i think it applies only to strikes) then it would have even more dpr

keep in mind that this is a suboptimal scenario where you have no flanking, no buffs going on and etc, which should provide in average around +2to attack in a normal combat (even if you only have 1 round prior to engaging, your own boosts should provide a party wide, 3 round +2att/+2damage buff)

my "real" planned build is nowhere near this optimal, i've went sylph cause i like them, swapped out some combat feats so i could have fly later on (cause flying is awesome), most of my maneuvers that i've planned are utility/party support and etc. just pointing out, that SOME things in that book are clearly OP (at least in my mind)

last edit (i hope): pseudo pounce is from thrashing dragon's 1st lvl boost that allows a +10 jumb as a swift. it is not constant, and it will hurt your damage, but it's there for when you really need it (the above build, at that lvl, should have at minimum a +26 acro for that jump, meaning that on a 4+ you basically move your speed and full attack bypassing any and all hard terrain along the way and also semi-positioning yourself for flank (given that you also have like +23 acro vs the aoo that jumping 1-2 squares by your opponent's side will provoke, and you can follow with a 5ft step to position yourself directly behind your opponent, positioning you for flank)

So I love me some good character op, but I have to put things into perspective. It is entirely possible that we may need to reevaluate what should be under the attack cap when path of war is allowed. However I don't actually think that character is OP at all in the grand scheme of all things paizo. Infact, for something that is supposed to be stupidly powerful I think it’s rather tame.

I mean compare it to what a druid can do:


Level 6 Half Orc Druid/ 20 Point Buy/Saurian Shaman Archetype


19+1 STR/14 DEX/14 CON/8 INT/13 WIS/7 CHA


Feats: Natural Spell, Power Attack, Open Feat 
Traits: Finish the Fight, Axe to Grind

+2 strength belt, Rod of Extended Greater Magic Fang (+1 to all natural weapons)


Attack Routine on the Pounce in Allosaurus Wildshape:


Hit Chance:

+9 from Strength, +4 BAB, +1 Magic Fang, +2 Charge, -2 Power Attack, -2 Size, +1 to remaining with Finish the Fight

+12/+12/+12/+12/+12 (With Finish the Fight, its +1 to any after he connects, also gets a free grab if the bite connects)

Need 7+ to hit average CR armor with power attack, 5+ without


Damage:

+9 from Strength, +1 Greater Magic Fang, +4 Power Attack, +1 Axe to Grind

2d6+15/1d8+15/1d8+15/1d8+15/1d8+15 (With Axe to Grind)


Average Damage per hit:

~22/~19.5/19.5/19.5/19.5


Now I hate calculating DPR, mostly because I roll like shit in real games, but come on. The Druid does 80% of  the cheesy path of war characters damage. Granted this is assuming a pounce, but if you blow up CR appropriate enemies on the charge remaining damage doesn’t matter, this is also with 1 Hour/lvl buff and not including his animal companion or any other items he may have besides the belt (Menacing or Elemental Amulet of Mighty fists). If he has to go medium, the Deinonychus has 5 attacks, it hurts his damage sure, but he still casts and has an animal companion so meh.  On Top of this he has the utility of wild shape and 9th level prepared casting.
 

He's also completely DG legal.


Now is this a good example? Not really, a tier 1 will always trounce tier 3s, and there are even cheesier things you can do with paizos base classes.

But honestly, I can't in good conscious say that path of war is so OP it shouldn't be allowed based purely on a high op pouncing build. Casters do it better, that being said, at least the path of war character has no casting what so ever and still can lay down the hurt at that level, a lot better than most existing Martials.


Getting ranty, but the complaining about pouncing builds is rather annoying considering most casters do it better still.

oh trust me i know.

the thing isn't if he is powerful damage wise.

the thing is that the bulk of that power comes from a 2 free attacks at max att bonus

even without all the shenanigans, a pretty tame, 0 effort for damage build. going from +14/+14/+9 to +14/+14/+14/+14/+9 is massive for a single always on power.

the build itself is a tank ffs!

whomever he hits, he gives -4 to attack other, he also gives +2 to ally ac (making enemies in effect attack with a -6 vs his allies). to add to that, he has good saves, 28-29 ac at lvl7, he gets free AoO when he uses his counters (which my actual build has a lot more than boosts) he has a bit of self healing, has ways to give save rerolls and ac boosts to allies, save bonuses, attack and damage bonuses, and etc

That package isn't a "machine ment for dpr" it is a tank/support/whatever that actually uses a SINGLE stance to more or less double his damage output.

In general as i said, i'm pretty fine with PoW, it's just that i think that specific powers (like the aforemented one) should be limited (like making it like haste, adding only 1 attack) and etc.

(also using a t1 druid for comparison isnt really fair, he IS a martial after all:P)
(also looking again at your numbers, you don't even come close to dpr to the optimized build, even when it's not using boosts (you have 69 dpr, it has 84)
+15/+16/+16/+16/+11/+11
vs your 
+12/+13/+13/+13/+13
for 
18.5 19-20/x2
vs your
~22/~19.5/19.5/19.5/19.5  20/x2
)





as for attack cap.
the way you guys have it worded, it really, really needs clarifications.
p.e., if it is the absolute maximum number of attacks, you just mad every single archer who isnt zen archer cry, since at lvl 6 he already has 3 attacks due to rapid shot, and now he cannot benefit from haste at all.
and other stuff like that.
mainly my pov is:
the cap should be about base attacks (like the archer having 2 from bab and 1 from rapid, he hit the cap, or someone with 3 natural attacks, and etc)
but it SHOULDN'T incorporate effects that directly add to that number (haste, blessing of fervor, a stance, a swift action attack, etc)