Path of War

[Ualaa]

With the introduction of Path of War (and it's expansion) to our game, no one is playing non-initiator martial characters.
Having a stance, selected from several, and having maneuvers which are effectively slowly scaling martial spells, rather than basic attacks is rather strong compared to basic swings of a sword or the like.

I'm contemplating changing the initiator system, to make the other classes more appealing, so we have more than just Harbinger, Medic, Mystic, Stalker, Warder, Warlord, and Zealots in the game.

If every martial class (I'll define that as 6th level casting, or worse) had their choice of any five disciplines, at the rate of stance and maneuver acquisition of an existing Path of War class, along with one of the classes maneuver recovery methods...

Are the existing Path of War classes strong enough in class features, ignoring their maneuvers and stances, when compared with the class features of a Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Psychic Warrior, Ranger, Rogue or similar?

Similarly, would adding initiator progression to almost all of the Paizo martial classes render the Path of War classes weak? I don't have an issue with the power level of martials utilizing Path of War.

If it matters, we play with Spheres of Power as the magic system (if your class has a sphere archetype, you have to take it... so sphere wizard, sphere druid, sphere bard, sphere magus etc), as well as use Spheres of Might and also Ultimate Psionics and Path of War / Path of War expanded. That is it for third party, aside from adventure paths.

[ThatMoonGuy]

Even with everyone getting some level of access to disciplines, Path of War classes still have generally better class features than the other martials, as you define them. Good enough to render the other guys in the dust. The core three are basically better versions of Fighter, Rogue and Paladin, at least as far as covering their roles goes, and the Expanded classes are simply just plain better. Mystic is a pretty good balance of DPS and support while Harbinger is great at mobility and damage potential.

[exelsisxax]

With the introduction of Path of War (and it's expansion) to our game, no one is playing non-initiator martial characters.
Having a stance, selected from several, and having maneuvers which are effectively slowly scaling martial spells, rather than basic attacks is rather strong compared to basic swings of a sword or the like.

I'm contemplating changing the initiator system, to make the other classes more appealing, so we have more than just Harbinger, Medic, Mystic, Stalker, Warder, Warlord, and Zealots in the game.

If every martial class (I'll define that as 6th level casting, or worse) had their choice of any five disciplines, at the rate of stance and maneuver acquisition of an existing Path of War class, along with one of the classes maneuver recovery methods...

Are the existing Path of War classes strong enough in class features, ignoring their maneuvers and stances, when compared with the class features of a Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Psychic Warrior, Ranger, Rogue or similar?

Similarly, would adding initiator progression to almost all of the Paizo martial classes render the Path of War classes weak? I don't have an issue with the power level of martials utilizing Path of War.

If it matters, we play with Spheres of Power as the magic system (if your class has a sphere archetype, you have to take it... so sphere wizard, sphere druid, sphere bard, sphere magus etc), as well as use Spheres of Might and also Ultimate Psionics and Path of War / Path of War expanded. That is it for third party, aside from adventure paths.

There are initiator archetypes for many of the martial core and base classes. They were released in PoW: expanded. If your players were aware of that fact and chose pure initiators anyway, nothing you do to base classes will change their choices. They specifically wanted to play Path of War classes, probably motivated in part by novelty value, so they did.

You also don't need ayn 1pp classes with all those sources. Initiators are more interesting than any martial, and SoP and psionics are better than vancian casting. There's no reason to play a paizo class, so I am unsurprised that they don't.

[Thunder999]

... SoP and psionics are better than vancian casting. There's no reason to play a paizo class, so I am unsurprised that they don't.

I really wouldn't agree with that, SoP is fun and may well be more balanced, but not better, they're not as strong as a druid or wizard, it takes a lot of investment just to duplicate many of the best spell effects and you'll never have the same variety. Unless you really want to build around a specific theme a normal caster will give you more power and versatility. As for Psionics, they're on par with spontaneous casting really, not better and not a replacement (they're not meant to be).

[ThatMoonGuy]

I really wouldn't agree with that, SoP is fun and may well be more balanced, but not better, they're not as strong as a druid or wizard, it takes a lot of investment just to duplicate many of the best spell effects and you'll never have the same variety. Unless you really want to build around a specific theme a normal caster will give you more power and versatility. As for Psionics, they're on par with spontaneous casting really, not better and not a replacement (they're not meant to be).

Better can mean a lot of things in that context and "stronger" is only one of them. Spheres tend to thematically stronger and also to let you do more of whatever you do while trading out versatility. And since you don't have to tie things to slots, you get more free form. Those are all things that can be taken as "better", some way or another.

[exelsisxax]

I really wouldn't agree with that, SoP is fun and may well be more balanced, but not better, they're not as strong as a druid or wizard, it takes a lot of investment just to duplicate many of the best spell effects and you'll never have the same variety. Unless you really want to build around a specific theme a normal caster will give you more power and versatility. As for Psionics, they're on par with spontaneous casting really, not better and not a replacement (they're not meant to be).

weaker is better, because "better" means being a better whatever the concept is. SoP does every spellcasting concept better than 1pp except some of those that are strictly derived from D&D itself.

[Andor13]

If every martial class (I'll define that as 6th level casting, or worse) had their choice of any five disciplines, at the rate of stance and maneuver acquisition of an existing Path of War class, along with one of the classes maneuver recovery methods...

Are the existing Path of War classes strong enough in class features, ignoring their maneuvers and stances, when compared with the class features of a Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Psychic Warrior, Ranger, Rogue or similar?

If you are talking about offering the other martials full initiation rather that the archetype progression, then they would certainly be competitive. Simply being able to pick any 5 disciplines is strong, and if that came with a choice of any recovery method...

Imagine a Barbarian with Thrashing Dragon, Primal Fury, Broken Blade, Riven Hourglass, and Veiled Moon using Harbinger recovery. That would be terrifying.

Ignoring initiation, I think the PoW classes are roughly on par with the base classes. Probably a shade below, frex a Stalkers Deadly Strike is obviously inferior to a Rogue's Sneak Attack.

What I'm not clear on, is your motivation. If someone in full plate is swinging a two-handed sword in the Red Zephyr's Dance while in a Primal Warrior's stance, does it matter if their character sheet said "Fighter" or "Zweihander Sentinel"? For my 2¢ the difference between classes, particularly non-casters, is not something terribly visible in world. A rogue, a stalker, and a ninja could all be trained in the same assassin's temple and think of themselves in brothers in arms with a different emphasis in training. Conversely a knight on horseback and a peasant archer might think themselves utterly different in spite of both having "Fighter" on their sheet.

[Elricaltovilla]

There are initiating archetypes and class templates for most Paizo martial classes. They only get up to 6th level maneuvers natively, but in a game where initiators are common you could give them the Warder maneuver progression without any trouble.

The only other recommendation I'd make is that if the class has both maneuvers and casting/manifesting, they should be limited to 6th level maneuvers + 6th level casting. Or mid-casting (whatever it's called) if using spheres.

[NomGarret]

To be fair, I certainly wouldn't play a Paizo martial in that game, as I wouldn't waste an opportunity with a table to play PoW, Spheres, or Psionics. I can run that barbarian idea I've been kicking around at the next PFS. I don't know when the next time someone will let me run a Mystic will be.

[Peat]

I doubt handing PF 1st party Martials full initiating would end up making them so much more superior to the DSP classes as to simply recreate the lack of variety, just with different classes... but by Martials I mean full BAB 4th level spellcasting at best. If you meant anything with 6th level spellcasting at best (i.e. Magus/Bard/Warpriest etc.etc.) that could get a little uneven (although I'm no expert and may be wrong).

Its possible that there's a few corner case builds that'd look a bit OTT (Sacred Servant Paladin comes close to T3 through arcane power, maybe some Barbarian builds, maybe Zen Archer) but I doubt it'd be anything dramatically bad.

[Ualaa]

Thanks for the opinions, guys.