Proposed Path of War 2 Archetypes

[Thealtruistorc]

I have been writing content for Dreamscarred Press since December (under the username TheMalfeasantBladesman) and I have had a variety of ideas in regards to various classes, particularly for Path of War. Wanting to improve, I have decided to show you guys what I have been recently working on and analyze what you have to say. I want to improve these archetypes (built for the next PoW book) in whatever way I can, and would appreciate your help.

PoW Archetypes for the Paladin, Fighter, Barbarian, and Gunslinger
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PFmIEORqSZ0fxgba7zjNjoxnf569gmOhNXxexfec-Dc

PoW and Psionic Archetypes for the Summoner
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cyh8FBIstTAG9VfZ7q5oAainDDnRGPV9bMaCLbWzSlI/edit

[Taveena]

The Fighter one seems to have a lot of mentions of Psychic Warriors. (I'm sorry, I'll have more constructive criticism when I'm not painfully tired, this thread is pretty damn important to me.)

EDIT: summoner also makes a fair few mentions of Tacticians.

[deuxhero]

Eh, not big on dropping Smite Evil. It's THE Paladin feature and compatible with manuvers.

[Jacob.Tyr]

After a quick skim:
I feel like the Paladin and Fighter get too many maneuvers (looks like full maneuver progression). The other two seem to fit with martial-archetypes for base/core classes.

Paladin recovery seems really strong, correct me if I'm wrong but they can use Lay on Hands on themselves as a swift action? A full round action Lay on Hands + recovery would be closer to what I'd expect. It'd also allow them to use it on themselves as swift, someone else, and recover maneuvers in a turn.

Just based on some other comments I've seen on other Archetype ideas: the Fighter recovery mechanic doesn't fit with other mechanics. Recovery is supposed to be something you make happen, not a random chance occurrence. Gunslinger also falls into this grouping.

Love the Barbarian archetype, though it is incredibly MAD.


Personally I'd love to see a gunslinger Archetype that uses cha and has Golden Lion, just because on my Gunslinger/Hawkguard Golden Lion has been one of my favorite disciplines and I love Mysterious Stranger.

[Prime32]

Would be nice if gunslingers could reload their weapons as part of refreshing their maneuvers. If you're going the gun kata route, a minor shield bonus to AC could also be good.

Likewise most fighter archetypes include buffs to the attack and/or full attack actions which otherwise might not see a lot of use, so it would be good to tie maneuver recovery to those.

I would have expected a psi-summoner to specialise in astral construct - getting it as a PLA instead of summon monster, and maybe granting their eidolon the half-construct subtype and/or the option to learn astral construct menu items as evolutions...
Also, the New Eidolon Evolutions should specify who can take them - any summoner or just members of the archetype.

[Sayt]

Lionheart Knight is extremely good. My intial thought is maybe too good? It has the same maneuver progression as a Warlord or Stalker, and retains it's spellcasting. On the other hand, it's smite takes a HUGE nerf, which makes me more amendable. That said, what happens to the Paladin's capstone and the banishing smite? As a whole, despite my concerns I actually really like it.

Technique fighter has a recovery mechanic I'm not huge on, as the AC of an enemy is semi-privileged information and you have to check back with the GM to see if you actually get maneuvers back. Not much else to say. Giving up half your bonus feats is a bit of a high, but Maneuvers more than make up for it, and the Fighter doesn't have a lot to work with in the first place.

Scarlet Throne seems to be a really odd choice for a Barbarian, and the fact that they don't get a proper maneuver recovery mechanic until third level is... unusual, and I'd make the two handed Unfettered Fury 1.5 times, not double, just for consistentcy in the maths.

Trickshot Gunman... is actually pretty cool, I think. I don't think I have any complaints. I might side with of Tactical Grit being whenver you recover grit, you also recover a maneuver, or choose not to regain that grit and get Wisdom modifier back.

>Shameless Plug of my own Path of War Archetype< (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=3637.html)

Edit: Oh, Silver crane is no longer in Beta, btw.

[Jigawatts]

Lionheart Knight is definitely too strong (love the name though). I think it should keep Smite Evil as is, make the recovery method less potent and not tied to Lay on Hands, get the same progression as the barbarian and gunslinger archetypes, and fully give up its spellcasting to do so. The other problem with using Lay on Hands as the recovery mechanic is that he has a limited number of uses per day, no other initiator can "run out" of recovery.

[Thealtruistorc]

Lionheart Knight is extremely good. My intial thought is maybe too good? It has the same maneuver progression as a Warlord or Stalker, and retains it's spellcasting. On the other hand, it's smite takes a HUGE nerf, which makes me more amendable. That said, what happens to the Paladin's capstone and the banishing smite?

Technique fighter has a recovery mechanic I'm not huge on, as the AC of an enemy is semi-privileged information and you have to check back with the GM to see if you actually get maneuvers back. Not much else to say.

Scarlet Throne seems to be a really odd choice for a Barbarian, and the fact that they don't get a proper maneuver recovery mechanic until third level is... unusual.

Trickshot Gunman... is actually pretty cool, I think. I don't think I have any complaints. I might side with of Tactical Grit being whenver you recover grit, you also recover a maneuver, or choose not to regain that grit and get Wisdom modifier back.

Edit: Oh, Silver crane is no longer in Beta, btw.

I will likely alter the technique fighter's and lionheart knight's recovery systems, and the return of smite evil would make sense, I suppose (open to suggestions on how to make these function). It does not in fact retain spellcasting, but I am not sure if 4-level casting is worth 9-level or 6-level maneuvers.

The barbarian recovery mechanic came from me not wanting to ditch fast movement, as I see it as a big part of how the class plays. Scarlet Throne coincides well with how barbarians play, but I see why you would take issue with the flavor. May adjust soon.

[Thealtruistorc]

I would have expected a psi-summoner to specialise in astral construct - getting it as a PLA instead of summon monster, and maybe granting their eidolon the half-construct subtype and/or the option to learn astral construct menu items as evolutions...
Also, the New Eidolon Evolutions should specify who can take them - any summoner or just members of the archetype.

That seems like a cool idea for another archetype (ecto-summoner seems like a good name). What I wanted to accomplish with this archetype was a tactical collective summoner.

I will adjust the editing errors. Thanks.

[T.G. Oskar]

Eh, not big on dropping Smite Evil. It's THE Paladin feature and compatible with manuvers.

Meh: I don't miss the change. Think of it in these terms: you replace a mark you can do at most 7 times per day with a veritable bunch of maneuvers you can do almost every single battle, which increase in power. Even in long-drawn out battles, you can still recover by carefully using your Lay on Hands. You get bonuses from Boosts and Stances, and to top it all off, you STILL get a decent boost to damage that increases in level. You miss on a deflection bonus to AC (which requires a Charisma over 22 to top off Shield of Faith or a Ring of Protection at later levels), the huge boost to damage at every attack (you get a quarter of it instead), the automatic bypass of Damage Reduction (which isn't a thing at latter levels, between magic items and your Aura of Faith, which still exists), and the Charisma to attack (again, you get a bonus to attack, which is fairly good).

I'd moan about spellcasting, but I find this a pretty fair trade: the Paladin gets a good set of maneuvers and a good amount of choices to replace the most flexible aspect of the class: by replacing something flexible but extremely limited in use for something a bit less flexible but almost unlimited in use, you can compensate real well. The exchange of mercies for combat feats is a big plus in my book, since I always say that, even in PF, Paladins are feat-starved; this is a massive boost for them. They still get Lay on Hands AND Divine Grace AND the Divine Bond open to either the weapon or the mount, and they have all their auras untouched.

That said, I would consider finding what replaces Aura of Justice and Holy Champion, since there's no actual changes for them. Aura of Justice always turns your mark into an AoE effect; I'd do something similar to what Deepstone Sentinel and other ToB-based PrCs do and create a special stance. You need to be on X discipline stance (most likely Silver Crane, which seems to be the leader-based discipline), and you replace it to grant the bonus of Strike Down the Wicked to all allies within 30 ft. as a special aura. Holy Champion only needs to replace the bit about what happens when you hit an evil outsider, as the DR X/Evil and the double healing from Lay on Hands (but not Channel Positive Energy, which you lack) can remain as-is. Maybe the added benefit is that at 20th level you recover an amount of maneuvers when using Lay on Hands equal to 1-1/2 times your Charisma instead?

[Jigawatts]

Barbarian one should be keyed off Wisdom, for both thematic and mechanical purposes, and what I would consider its quintessential discipline, Primal Fury, uses survival/wisdom as its key skill, though I understand this might require a slight fluff adjustment of the class as is. I would also drop either Golden Lion, or Scarlet Throne and Thrashing Dragon, depending on how you want to flavor it. 5 disciplines just seems like a lot for an archetype.

Love the Fighter archetype. Fighters should be the only non PoW class to have access to full 9th level maneuvers. I agree that the recovery method could use some tweaking though.

I'm looking forward to the Ranger one.

[Anlashok]

Love the Fighter archetype. Fighters should be the only non PoW class to have access to full 9th level maneuvers.

Disagree with this one. Overarching statements like this just hamstring your ability to design fun and unique classes. If the class trades off enough and it fits the archetype's design, no reason for it not to have full maneuver progression. Generally I lean toward most archetypes working toward full progression, since the system doesn't really lend itself well to partial progression.

[Jigawatts]

I think it works quite well with 6/9 progression, and we already have published archetypes with that progression setting a design paradigm. Either way, the paladin of all classes should not be the one with full maneuver progression, as far as the Paizo martial classes go, its already one of the strongest ones.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I don't know that I'd grant any archetype Stalker/Warlord progression, by the point where you've given up enough for that you'd have to rather thoroughly gut the class. Warder progression is probably worth half the fighters bonus feats. They could easily dump all of them into martial training and get slightly less of a progression, but losing the flexibility of their feats seems like it'd be a worthwhile balance point.

I have no idea what sort of recovery mechanic I'd grant them, maybe something tied to making a full attack or a total defense action?

Barbarians can, depending on stats, recover zero maneuvers on a successful recovery usage. This should probably be a minimum of two. If you're recovering X-Mod maneuvers on a recovery, I think minimum two is standard. I didn't check if this was the case with other archetypes in here, but it stood out to me with them.


Paladin recovery being Recover Cha Mod maneuvers (Minimum 2) as a full round action, during which you gain one free action usage of Lay on Hands, using a charge as usual, would work. It doesn't require lay on Hands, but still permits you to heal someone else and your self if you have charges left and spend your swift.

[Taveena]

Doesn't Lionheart Knight lose all spellcasting?

[T.G. Oskar]

Doesn't Lionheart Knight lose all spellcasting?

The Fighter loses a great deal of its bonus feats (more than half of them), the Barbarian loses a bunch of its Rage Powers, and the Gunslinger loses a good deal of its deeds. You forgot to mention that.

Anyways: the Paladin being strongest by virtue of its Mark (disclaimer: I steadfastly refuse to call it Smite) isn't a strong argument. A good half of its power comes from its spellcasting: spells like Divine Favor, Deadly Juggernaut, Holy Sword, Bloodsworn Retribution, etc. greatly improve its damage potential, and spells like Vestment of the Champion, Guardian of Faith and others provide solid defensive potential. Those spells (and even their accessibility via wands and scrolls) is lost by culling their entire spellcasting ability. They don't sacrifice one or two spell slots; they sacrifice their entire spellcasting. This is the equivalent of Fighters sacrificing ALL of their feats, rather than only over half their feat progression, or the Barbarian sacrificing Rage and everything that improves Rage. Note that the Barbarian still keeps its Rage (which is best equated to the Paladin's Mark), but its Rage Power progression (which is similar to an extent, but never truly equal to the Paladin's spellcasting) is limited by half (or nearly so); thus, they gain a stunted progression. Saying that they should gain the same progression as a Barbarian that only sacrificed a portion of its Rage Powers, when the Fighter gets full progression by sacrificing only HALF of its bonus feats, only because "the Fighter has to be superior" is unnecessarily nerfing the Paladin. Full maneuver progression is only allowing the Paladin to access their class features in an alternative way. Remember they also lose their Mark AND their Mercies, so they aren't at full strength. Partial maneuver progression and returning them their Mark (but not their Mercies) will end up in a weaker, hardly ever equivalent, alternative to the core Paladin. I strongly oppose Warrior of the Holy Light and Temple Guardian because they replace an extremely flexible class feature for minor boons; if I want to replace spellcasting, make it worthwhile.

As it stands, I would definitely consider shifting to Lionheart Knight (though I'd change the name, IMO), but by no means I would stop playing the vanilla Paladin (given the chance) because I find the spells, when used correctly, provide a huge amount of power. Nerfing the progression would make even the bonus feats they gain by means of Mercies the only worthwhile reason to change.

That said: I would reconsider the replacement for Gunslingers. They replace nearly everything, and in exchange they get a very stunted progression. They only get three maneuvers, and of those, only one can be used at range (the Trickshot Gunman doesn't specifically allow the Gunslinger to use maneuvers with their firearms, from what I can see). Broken Blade requires using a Discipline Weapon (firearms are not considered Broken Blade discipline weapons at range), Solar Wind and Steel Serpent can't be used with firearms either, so they can't use their signature weapon at all. Even with the ability to use these maneuvers with firearms, they still lose a great deal of their deeds and even some of their bonus feats. I feel they could use 9th level maneuvers and the vanilla Gunslinger wouldn't suffer, since you'd be probably hard-pressed for feats and you lack access to some of the better deeds).

[Anlashok]

Just a note, in the main PoW thread it's been stated that Solar Wind not being usable with firearms is a typo.

That said, yeah, the archetype feels awkward. In part simply because there's only one dedicated ranged discipline and a few other disciplines that just happen to have a couple ranged maneuvers (which for some reason DSP considers a feature rather than a bug).

[Snowbluff]

So can I be a synthesist planar commander summona with eidolon abilities for further initiation? Sweeet.

Additionally, top users of Scarlet Throne 2014. While they do not need int as a stat, a synthesist 1) does not need a lot of melee stats and 2) can take Skilled for +8 to sense motive.

[Thealtruistorc]

So can I be a synthesist planar commander summona with eidolon abilities for further initiation? Sweeet.

Additionally, top users of Scarlet Throne 2014. While they do not need int as a stat, a synthesist 1) does not need a lot of melee stats and 2) can take Skilled for +8 to sense motive.

I specifically made synthesist incompatible with Planar Commander (notice that both archetypes replace merge forms and transposition). Sacrificing nearly half your evolution points to get 8 levels of maneuvers seems like a fair trade for the Eidolon.

[Thealtruistorc]

I've made a couple changes in light of your comments.

-Trickshot Gunman can recover one maneuver and one grit point at the same time, and now has access to the Thrashing Dragon discipline. I clarified that guns can now be used with any maneuver that would use a ranged weapon or thrown weapon.

-Lionheart Knight now has Warder progression and possess a new form of maneuver recovery: Holy Bulwark. Additional, it now retains Smite Evil.

-Technique Master also has Warder progression and altered method of recovery. It now regains maneuvers when applying the total defense action or fighting defensively on a full attack.

-Ferocious Warmaster's maneuvers are now tied to Wisdom rather than charisma, and Scarlet Throne is no longer a class discipline.

Additionally, all classes now have a (minimum 2) on their ability score-based recovery abilities.

[Snowbluff]

So I've thought about it, and a Synthesist summoner would be a great option here.

What I've been mulling over is Warlord 1 (Unbreakable gambit! Your choice of Pinhole Gambit or Whatever!)/Bladecaster 1(Arcane steel stance to rack up extra damage)/Synthesist18. It makes you a power ranger (or sentai dude).

I've choice unbreakable gambit because it allows you to have an immediate option to make a save with a bonus. It probably does not allow you to recover your eidolon maneuvers. You want to be avoid swift action/immediate maneuvers with your limited recovery method, and I think this makes good filler.

Evolution surge can be used to teach yourself new maneuvers. For race, I would suggest Helf of for the extra 4 EP. You need nine to get the 7th level maneuvers this build allows.

I think the primary concern at this point is whether or not you can tumble while pouncing, and which maneuvers would best benefit the Power Ranger.

Traits: Fate's Favored is a must for Luck-happy warlords. Magical Knack will help the CL of the summoner.

Feats:
Power Attack would improve damage.
Skill Focus is good for initiators, especially scarlet thrones or tumbling warlords. Helves get it for free.
Dex feats would be good for a multiweapon fighting build. A quad build may have some value here.
Extra evolution is good for synthesists, but is best used for filling out EP if you've run short.
Multiattack is good, since you have a natural attack regardless of how you are built.
Arcane Strike is bad, because you need those swift actions.
Martial Charge: Nice. This might be good if you are not a quad.
Eldritch Heritage: A good variety of options


Gambits:

Generally, the best ones are the ones that are easy or give the benefit that lasts past one attack for your team. Synthesist Cha can be very high, so it's easy to provide large benefits.
Acrobatic: If you can get a full attack afterwards, or you can tumble during a pounce with something like Acrobatic Charge. There might be a stance for this. :D
Brave Gambit: Weaker than acrobatic, but better for quad pouncers.
Calvary: You're not on a horse.
Dastardly: Meh. It's better if you have the ability to do this as an attack action, but I think that's at then end of a feat chain.
Deadeye: Temp HP does not stack with being a Synthesist.
Duelist: Typical complaints about disarming apply.
Gatecrasher: Heavily penalize saves and attacks. Woah. :D
Grappling: It seems only you benefit. Meh.
Outriders gambit: No horse. What are you going to do? Have the mount spell?
Pinhole: Tank their AC by throwing acid in their eyes at point blank! :D
Rascals: Feint is a skill use, making you a strong contender with your high Cha and Skilled Evolution (via evolution surge). It's much better if your entire teams is rogues. :)
Ravager's: Break some loot... or don't. I mean don't do it.
Sweeping: Old school Improved Trip once per turn. Good and bad. :)
Unbreakable: Makes you unbreakable. Synthesists are already scary and already have crazy good will saves (being casters and having the eidolon's Devotion Ability and Helf's being resistant to enchantmet). It's a large bonus to the save, and it gives back HP. Makes you resistant to banishment, too. :D
Victory: Eh... not a team bonus.



The end result: You have made a 6/9 initiator, an 26 to 30 point eidolon, a 6/9 caster that's really a full T2 spontaneous caster, and a tanky melee fighter with a hint of skill monkey. You have made more meaningful choices otherwise possible.

[Taveena]

Regarding the Trickshot Gunman - aren't firearms already Solar Wind discipline weapons? (My PDF may be out of date, but s'definitely what it says.)

[Jigawatts]

I still maintain that the Lionheart Knight should get the same maneuver progression as the Barbarian and Gunslinger archetypes. As it stands now I wouldn't think twice about not taking this over the standard Paladin, whereas 6th level maneuvers is that sweet spot where I am pondering the trade off back and forth.

Trading 4 levels of spells for 9 levels of maneuvers is a no brainer (and you are already recieving a boost in the form of being able to take feats in place of mercys).

[Thealtruistorc]

More new archetypes on the way. Namely, the ranger, antipaladin, and slayer classes.

The reason I view 4-level spellcasting as on par with 9-level maneuvers is because both allow the wielder to retain d10 hit die and full bab. Maneuvers rely upon combat ability, while spells transcend them. Besides, a Lionheart Knight would never have many of the incredibly versatile support abilities that come with spells, namely Dispel Magic, Cure Serious Wounds, Bless Water, and the wide variety of Litany spells.

Besides, I attempted a 6-level maneuver paladin and it would up being quite underpowered, given that Martial Training could effectively get you much of that while retaining your spells. Overall, the tradeoff of 4-level magic for full maneuvers seems fair and balanced to me, given how they seem to equate in power.

[PsyBomb]

I have to insert a shameless plug here. I've done a Monk archetype up, and it's playtesting well. Still needs some wording work, but the ideas are all laid out.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?375433-Sage-of-the-Open-Hand-(Monk-PoW-Archetype)

I also have a thread up at DSP for it in Submission

[Thealtruistorc]

Added two more archetypes, the Doombringer (antipaladin) and Foereaver (Ranger).

For the rogue and slayer, I am considering making maneuver progression a series of talents rather than an archetype. Do you guys think that would be a good idea?

[Taveena]

Well, they can KIND of do that already - Combat Talent -> Martial Training etc.
I mean if you were suggesting an archetype that trades talents for maneuvers that'd be kinda cool.

[Lord_Gareth]

The reason I view 4-level spellcasting as on par with 9-level maneuvers is because both allow the wielder to retain d10 hit die and full bab. Maneuvers rely upon combat ability, while spells transcend them. Besides, a Lionheart Knight would never have many of the incredibly versatile support abilities that come with spells, namely Dispel Magic, Cure Serious Wounds, Bless Water, and the wide variety of Litany spells.

Besides, I attempted a 6-level maneuver paladin and it would up being quite underpowered, given that Martial Training could effectively get you much of that while retaining your spells. Overall, the tradeoff of 4-level magic for full maneuvers seems fair and balanced to me, given how they seem to equate in power.

This will be my only comment on your work. Take it as you will.

The quoted text is wrong. The current plans for Paladin and Ranger archetypes involve 6th-level maneuver progression. D10 hit dice and full BAB are nearly meaningless in terms of a class's overall balance, as Stalker and Harbinger should have already shown you.

That is all.

[T.G. Oskar]

The reason I view 4-level spellcasting as on par with 9-level maneuvers is because both allow the wielder to retain d10 hit die and full bab. Maneuvers rely upon combat ability, while spells transcend them. Besides, a Lionheart Knight would never have many of the incredibly versatile support abilities that come with spells, namely Dispel Magic, Cure Serious Wounds, Bless Water, and the wide variety of Litany spells.


This will be my only comment on your work. Take it as you will.

The quoted text is wrong. The current plans for Paladin and Ranger archetypes involve 6th-level maneuver progression. D10 hit dice and full BAB are nearly meaningless in terms of a class's overall balance, as Stalker and Harbinger should have already shown you.

That is all.

This is the reason why I didn't take the approach of using full BAB and HD as the reasoning. My reasoning is different: you have to compare the worth of the spells to the worth of the maneuvers, and what you lose by replacing those.

If you perceive a Paladin strictly on terms of its combat capabilities, placing importance only on spells that improve combat, then giving them maneuvers (even 6th level maneuvers) is a no-brainer: you're replacing the methods by which they approach combat effectiveness from spells limited per day but with longer durations to maneuvers that can be used several times per day (or as many times as you've got encounters, if not more) and that provide them different ways to assist in combat.

However, by perceiving the Paladin as more than just a warrior, and evaluating which spells are more useful out of combat, you can see the difference. A good example, if simple, is the Paladin's healing potential. A normal Paladin has Lay on Hands and Channel Positive Energy, alongside access to a variety of healing spells; while you most likely won't place Cure Light Wounds on your spell slots, the ability to use the wand version of it and do cost-efficient out of combat healing is a strong plus; that also goes by saying that Paladins have access to spells like the line of Remove X spells, Break Enchantment, Neutralize Poison and Lesser Restoration. You replace that breadth of healing with a different amount of healing; of those, you get two boosts and three strikes that provide almost as much healing. The best options are Argent Knight's Banner (which never heals as much as your ability to Channel Positive Energy, only half of it) and Silver Crane's Mercy (heals as much as your Lay on Hands while making an attack). All of those only heal hit point damage, so you're replacing the ability to heal status effects (via spells and Mercies) with the ability to heal more efficiently in combat. Still won't compare to the healing of a Cleric, IMO, and while I'm not exactly a fan of Mercies, I still like to have the wands for those nasty conditions such as Poison and Paralysis ready for when they're necessary; losing them is a big thing to deal with, and I need something just as worthwhile to consider the replacement.

Let's go to defenses. Vanilla Paladin has access to spells like Protection from Evil, Magic Circle against Evil, Guardian of Faith (a new one, which is surprisingly good), Resist Energy, Corruption Resistance, Delay Poison, Stunning Barrier (and its Greater incarnation), etc. Here, Iron Tortoise takes the banner, but a good bit of them depend on using a Shield. Thus, you're sacrificing flexible defenses (and valuable defenses, since you can't ignore energy resistance is a valuable defense, much more if it's resistance vs. alignment damage to which you are particularly vulnerable). Considering that the feat selection for being a proper Shield user can be a bit frustrating (at least Iron Tortoise makes shield bashes worthwhile, but you can't get Shield Master without getting TWF)...

How about offensive buffs? Here Golden Lion and Silver Crane divide honors, and here you can see the maneuvers easily outclass the buffs. Deadly Juggernaut, one of the best spells on the Paladin's spell list, can be accessed via Pauldrons therefore minimizing the impact. Holy Sword is somewhat replaced with the Silver Crane stance...Stance of the Silver Crane (:smallsigh:). Not very difficult to miss Bull's Strength, Divine Favor, Prayer and others, so here's a point for maneuvers being a no-brainer.

Tank-wise...I've got divided opinions on this one, since while Lockdown tanking is somewhat more efficient via maneuvers (though, to be fair, Dazing Assault and Steady Engagement are insanely good feats that make Lockdown via normal attacks a thing), it simply can't compare to the Paladin's prowess in Damage Redirection. Once your boosts and strikes are out, you still rely on good old full attack/attack actions and feats to sustain; on the other hand, spells like Shield Other and specifically Sacrificial Oath will be sorely missed, particularly because of how efficient they are at protecting an ally (no matter where, they take no damage, and with Sacrificial Oath, almost no harm at all).

This leaves only one thing which maneuvers simply can't grant, at least those the Lionheart Knight has access to: out of combat functions. Certainly, you wouldn't think of placing those on your precious, limited spell slots, but that's thinking only on terms of combat; when you start considering that you also have access to said spells as wands and scrolls, and that when you're outside of combat those spells gain a measure of worth, the balance tips off to spells.

As it currently stands, with 6th - 7th level maneuvers, I'd think about replacing spellcasting, particularly since the other attempts to replace spellcasting are horrible beyond belief; would you like to replace arguably what's the most flexible class feature of the Paladin for a minor set of buffs (Warrior of the Holy Light) or Blessings (Temple Guardian)? What makes Lionheart Knight interesting is that you're replacing a flexible set of powers for a less flexible set of techniques, in that you have only a bag of maneuvers known and a much smaller amount readied. To me, it's definitely not a no-brainer, even if it's 9th level maneuvers or 11th level maneuvers, because I can't do with maneuvers what I can do with spells, nor do I have access to the ways on how to make those spells even more worthwhile.

Finally: it also depends on how much support, in the way of new maneuvers, has Path of War Expanded. Even then it won't compare to the support spellcasting gets through Paizo: chances are Occult Adventures will add new spells to Core classes, which will include Paladins; doubtful that Paizo will stop releasing new splats with Occult Adventures, and since Adventure Paths and Player Companions will often add new spells, that means spells will almost always have more support than Maneuvers will.

Thus, while I fully support the idea of Lionheart Knight as an archetype that replaces spellcasting, I feel that limiting it to 6th level (or 7th level) maneuvers is a disservice to what you're replacing. Replacing Mercies with feats isn't compensation: it's fixing a grave mistake in the system itself, and thus I can't consider it "compensation" at all. If an archetype were to replace Mercies with feats alone, I would consider it a no-brainer; if an archetype were to replace ONLY the spells with the maneuvers, I'd think about it. Considering that the idea of replacing the Paladin's Mark was scrapped (I actually liked the idea, since it applied at all times!).

Say: if the Paladin's Mark was scrapped entirely, would the Paladin gain 9th level maneuvers? After all, the maneuvers and stances are already far stronger than the Mark itself, at least the higher level ones... Furthermore, the Paladin replaces a 4th level class feature at 1st level, with no other kind of exchange afterwards. If people are willing to defend their Mark, I should be capable of defending the right of having 9th level maneuvers, Mark be darned.

[Lord_Gareth]

[TEXT OMITTED]

Say: if the Paladin's Mark was scrapped entirely, would the Paladin gain 9th level maneuvers? After all, the maneuvers and stances are already far stronger than the Mark itself, at least the higher level ones... Furthermore, the Paladin replaces a 4th level class feature at 1st level, with no other kind of exchange afterwards. If people are willing to defend their Mark, I should be capable of defending the right of having 9th level maneuvers, Mark be darned.

Paladin is definitely on our high list of priorities, but it will not be getting ninth level maneuvers for any reason, and this is not negotiable. However, we're...very aware...of the data in your post and the flexibility offered by the paladin's spell list. The idea is to create an overall even trade, but that even trade will be accomplished with a combination of class features and maneuvers, not by offering nines.

And before anyone asks, no one else is getting nines either.

[PsyBomb]

And before anyone asks, no one else is getting nines either.

Drat, need to rework the Monk submission, then. Pity, thought they'd deserve it, but I think I can make it work with 6ths.

[T.G. Oskar]

Paladin is definitely on our high list of priorities, but it will not be getting ninth level maneuvers for any reason, and this is not negotiable. However, we're...very aware...of the data in your post and the flexibility offered by the paladin's spell list. The idea is to create an overall even trade, but that even trade will be accomplished with a combination of class features and maneuvers, not by offering nines.

And before anyone asks, no one else is getting nines either.

May I increase the data?

I know you're well aware (not DSP, you as a poster) that I have my qualms with the Paladin's Mark in terms of concept (not function), but here I'll make a solid explanation why it has to go: Maneuvers, quite frankly, overwhelm the benefit of the Mark. Even if you plan to keep it to 6th level as a limit (I still say it's not the best idea, but I don't belong to DSP), the Mark simply won't provide that much help.

The Mark works by providing a massive bonus to damage against a single opponent, up to 7 times per day (or more if you have Oath of Vengeance). It works against one character, and it HAS to be Evil. Of course, the bonus applies to all attacks and you get other quirks (+attack bonus, +deflection bonus to AC), which is why I say I don't oppose its function. However, even if compared to the lowest level maneuver, its effect simply can't compare to a single strike, let alone one boosted by a Stance. Quite frankly, adding a +10 ~ +20 bonus to damage on a maneuver that already deals about 12d6 points of damage and with a stance that adds even more damage is asking for a ban in any table, because it's just WAY TOO MUCH DAMAGE. As an example: say, an 18th level Paladin, with Stance of the Silver Crane and making a Silver Crane attack that deals 12d6 damage deals around 67 points of damage before adding anything else on a single attack. Considering that the Paladin has access to two maneuvers that allow full attacks with additional bonuses (the one I recall has a +2 to attack rolls), the damage might be enough to defeat any creature in one blow. In fact, just by removing the benefit of the smite, you still are within range of insta-killing a target without the need of a critical hit, just by your choice of feats (Power Attack, for example). You don't have the spells to boost you anymore, but that's mostly unnecessary: the damage might reach a point where it starts to overflow, and all the damage you deal from the smite becomes worthless due exactly to that overflow. Given that you only have up to 7 uses of it, you'll use maneuvers far more than you use smites, since you're always "saving it for a rainy day", meaning that you're saving it for the specific occasion where you're facing a really strong monster, and judging by how powerful the maneuvers are (certainly higher in terms of damage dice to ToB maneuvers, barring some exceptions), you're most likely to use maneuvers more than you'll use the Mark.

Thus, here's the conflict: most of the time, maneuvers will cover up the extra damage from the Mark, and even make the damage you can deal pretty much obsolete. However, when you combine the two (which you can), the synergy between the two makes the Paladin obscenely powerful in terms of damage dealing. I'm fine with the Paladin dealing respectable damage, but not to the point where it exceeds the damage potential of a Barbarian or Fighter, which are the damage specialists, while having the immunities and defenses these classes lack. That kinda flies in the face of balance, and that's removing the most flexible ability the Paladin has, essentially sacrificing out of combat potential for absolute combat potential. In other words: it's either pointless, or overpowered, but rarely within the balance. The addition of feats is a good move towards giving more flexibility to the Paladin, since it allows for a multitude of benefits (completing huge combat styles like Sword & Board, leaving feat slots open for General, Racial or Teamwork feats, etc.), and it's perfectly reasonable that spells and maneuvers are replaced (after all, they're mostly equivalent), but it's the dangerous overlap with the Paladin's Mark what concerns me.

Using the words of Jigawatts: Paladin's Mark + Maneuvers + Stances = no-brainer. Of course, it's a no-brainer if all I'm interested is in damage spikes rather than flexibility, and judging by the maneuvers of Silver Crane and Scarlet Throne, those spikes are rather high. Removing the Mark makes people think about it, but when they think closely, the loss of the Mark's benefits is more than compensated by the gain of Maneuvers; it is when combining it with the loss of spellcasting where people may be inclined to think whether it's worthwhile or not. It's not the same for the Barbarian because, while they also get a boost to damage via Rage, they lose a good deal of Rage Powers from the exchange with maneuvers, AND it wouldn't be rare to think that Rage could be gone as well. The Fighter is losing the largest bit of its flexibility by losing a whole bunch of feats, so it seems a bit unequal that the Fighter loses combat flexibility for the same maneuvers as the Paladin, who gets feats and maneuvers on top of a Mark that increases power and defense, while the Barbarian gets only two of the three (damage booster + maneuvers). If campaigning for 6th level maneuvers is acceptable (and campaigning for 9th level maneuvers is a lost cause as it's an unalterable design principle, one I have no control over and one I respect), then I feel that campaigning for a degree of equality between the archetypes should be equally acceptable.

[Thealtruistorc]

Paladin is definitely on our high list of priorities, but it will not be getting ninth level maneuvers for any reason, and this is not negotiable. However, we're...very aware...of the data in your post and the flexibility offered by the paladin's spell list. The idea is to create an overall even trade, but that even trade will be accomplished with a combination of class features and maneuvers, not by offering nines.

And before anyone asks, no one else is getting nines either.

In this case, would it be at all possible to integrate my ideas if by any chance I altered the archetypes to accomodate this ultimatum? Also, what is your stance on the eidolon's 8-level maneuver progression?

[deuxhero]

Basing things on Eidolon level is weird. If you aren't using the summoner's level (as is standard) use HD (only difference is if Inspire Courage is used).

Improved Initiation gives "the ability to initiate maneuvers of 2nd level or lower" but its prerequisite never actually restricts what can be taken (you could just Expanded Initiation or Advanced Study up any level of manuver once you have Martial Initiation and enough HD).

"not receive and additional discipline " should be "an additional"

Ultimate Psionics is a bit of an odd name when there's a book by that name and it's not in that book.