Pathfinder warblade
![pathfinder warblade pathfinder warblade](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/4/4f/Gilgamesh4.jpg)
![pathfinder warblade pathfinder warblade](https://i.redd.it/cf90pfb4q7vx.png)
They are limited to 1 stance known.ġ.1.2: a fighter/barbarian could learn maneuvers/stances from one of the listed schools: diamond mind, iron heart, stone dragon, tiger claw or white raven. Exception is the non ToB classes are limited only to 1 martial school and are based on the themes that the crusader, swordsage and warblade share.ġ.1.1: a rogue/monk could learn maneuvers/stances from one of the listed schools: desert wind, diamond mind, setting sun, shadow hand, stone dragon or tiger claw. That way, nearly any martial class has the chance to take a path as a Initiator of maneuvers. Short version is - by choosing the above feats you allow your character to use your Combat Maneuver Bonus as a base element for calculating your maneuvers known/readied as well as stances known/readied.
Pathfinder warblade full#
If you are interested in these feats I will post the full text ofc as soon as I have tranlsated them into english. Beginning with "Insightful Combat Maneuvers", then "Improved Insightful Combat Maneuvers", followed up by "Disciplinized Combat Maneuvers" and "Improved Disciplinized Combat Maneuvers" as well as "Greater Disciplinized Combat Maneuvers". I've done as a DM some alternate rules, to get for my crew Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade running if they would like to choose one of them to play:ġ.Option: PF skills standardization, no empty levels, put some minor changes + bonus feats but therefore deleted completly maneuvers/stance progression - see below:ġ.1 Created 5 "Maneuver Combat" feats that provide the whole maneuver thingy. So if someone wants to learn maneuvers, all martial classes should have the same opportunity to do so if they like to. I've done by myself a progression to completely integrate at least the Maneuver System in the PFrpg in some manner, still beta but I think I am in final state. My personal opinion on the first look would be, No to ToB or ToM classes in PFrpg! But that would be the hard rule, and since PFrpg is "adaptable" to any d20 campaign setting, this late 3.5 source books were great works for most of us (I have them too) that would be a pitty not to implement them to PFrpg. Nothing to blame on, but what about the rest of non-caster or low-caster classes? The only exception is the versatility of spells from mages, but therefore Crusaders, Swordsages & Warblades have more Hitpoints, more Skillpoints, Initiator Level = Caster Level = same as Wizard/Cleric/Druid and not as much empty Levels as True Caster Classes have anyway. Why? Well, if you put all ToB Base Classes to scale with Wizards and Sorcerers, I would definitly say - no more cryouts arround the fighter/melee/tank-world because they are now even in powers. So to say the truth, yes I like them, but also I hate them too. To be honest with you all my dear PF-friends, my personal feeling about this whole thing is that the core classes in Tome of Battle are still overpowered even if you put them directly in scale with the PF core classes, despite the fact that they are nothing else than mobile walking hulks that can initiate maneuvers in other words "cast spells" like a wizard or sorcerer does.