The mercenary (base class)

[aimlessPolymath]

What I'm thinking for maneuvers-

Combat Style: Martial Superiority. Increase your initiator level by two. You gain two copies of Martial Study. You may take the Martial Study or Martial Stance feat any number of times.
You may take this Style multiple times, each time gaining two additional copies of Martial Study, and increasing your initiator level by two more points.

At low levels, maneuvers significantly buff damage beyond what's needed, but those are also the levels where people will be taking the styles they want for their build. At higher levels, they've already grabbed the key styles like Archery + Imp. Archery, and have the room to take the more advanced maneuvers, and start catching up damage output a bit.

If you do this, I would actually advise cutting down the number of styles a bit- keep in mind that the player also has normal feat slots to take desired feats, and that the current rate of 2 feats every four levels is about the same as the fighter. Specifically, I'm calling out Advanced Board, which takes the number of style slots needed for S&B to 3 (in combination with Intervening Shield and Sword and Board). I'm wondering how you're trying to balance or measure the combat styles, actually? My general assumption has been that a build will roughly consist of:

2 style slots spent on their main combat styles, which reinforce their main set of weapons (i.e. the basis of their build). A couple copies of Martial Study will be gained off this, due to useful feats that the player took early.
3 style slots spent on supplementary styles- a mix of 1-of dips (like unarmed in case they are disarmed, or throwing/archery in case of ranged battles) and secondary styles like Teamwork or the Swift Strike tree. No Martial Study copies will be gained off this unless it's triggered intentionally, since it's all feats that you wouldn't have taken otherwise.

Is this accurate? If so, Combat Style: Martial Superiority fits well as a "supplementary" style- a way to broaden abilities by picking up useful maneuvers. It also doesn't have the build cost of taking feats directly that the normal technique of "take feats, then grab the combat style to get free Martial Study!" might.


I don't like the idea of tying disciplines to contracts or combat styles, because the class has the Martial Study thing to deal with redundant feats, which doesn't have limits about what disciplines you choose from.
Furthermore, I don't see strong value in limiting the maneuvers gained in general- players will normally pick relevant maneuvers to their build (Tiger Claw for TWF, Stone Dragon for TH, and so on)

[MalikLucius]

I've got to throw my lot behind there being an almost absurd level of numerical bonus to this class, to be honest.
One of the first things I look at in determining whether a class is broken is "Is there a logical justification to [I]ever[I] pick a similar class over this one? It regularly outpaces other "Fighty" classes in the things those classes are supposed to specialise in.
I'm not going to get super-in-depth here, but I think it would be of great benefit to try splitting this down into two or more classes that are a little more narrowly-focused.

For example, I once put together a class for a player of mine which was based on the Knight, from PHB2, but whose challenge and abilities were closer to your "Guard" and "Bodyguard" mercenaries.
In 3.x edition especially, the game is really not designed with the intention of any single class being able to solo the world. The challenge rating system is built around a party of roughly four well-balanced characters, whose abilities complement one another. If your character is set up to potentially cover everybody's bases, you're missing the point.

It's the same reason why, for instance, the core Ranger/Barbarian/Paladin aren't one class called the "Warrior", where you can choose whether to be a "Holy Warrior", a "Berserk Warrior", or a "Nature Warrior".
Focusing in on the specifics of what you want the class to do gives you the opportunity to add backstory to the class that explains and complements its abilities, to emphasize the ROLE-playing aspect.

Just some thoughts.

[Westhart]

What I'm thinking for maneuvers-

Combat Style: Martial Superiority. Increase your initiator level by two. You gain two copies of Martial Study. You may take the Martial Study or Martial Stance feat any number of times.
You may take this Style multiple times, each time gaining two additional copies of Martial Study, and increasing your initiator level by two more points.

At low levels, maneuvers significantly buff damage beyond what's needed, but those are also the levels where people will be taking the styles they want for their build. At higher levels, they've already grabbed the key styles like Archery + Imp. Archery, and have the room to take the more advanced maneuvers, and start catching up damage output a bit.

If you do this, I would actually advise cutting down the number of styles a bit- keep in mind that the player also has normal feat slots to take desired feats, and that the current rate of 2 feats every four levels is about the same as the fighter. Specifically, I'm calling out Advanced Board, which takes the number of style slots needed for S&B to 3 (in combination with Intervening Shield and Sword and Board). I'm wondering how you're trying to balance or measure the combat styles, actually? My general assumption has been that a build will roughly consist of:

2 style slots spent on their main combat styles, which reinforce their main set of weapons (i.e. the basis of their build). A couple copies of Martial Study will be gained off this, due to useful feats that the player took early.
3 style slots spent on supplementary styles- a mix of 1-of dips (like unarmed in case they are disarmed, or throwing/archery in case of ranged battles) and secondary styles like Teamwork or the Swift Strike tree. No Martial Study copies will be gained off this unless it's triggered intentionally, since it's all feats that you wouldn't have taken otherwise.

This is correct, I am going to take down the advanced board style, and I think I will use the martial superiority style:
Martial Superiority: The mercenary gains two copies of the Martial Study² feat, and their initiator level is considered two higher. In addition they may choose the martial study² and martial stance² feat as many times as they choose. Unlike most other classes that do not have a martial progression you can renew your maneuvers readied by taking a swift action and following with an attack. Special: This combat style may be chosen more then once, and the bonuses to initiator level stack.

But I am thinking maybe give them martial stance in there?

Is this accurate? If so, Combat Style: Martial Superiority fits well as a "supplementary" style- a way to broaden abilities by picking up useful maneuvers. It also doesn't have the build cost of taking feats directly that the normal technique of "take feats, then grab the combat style to get free Martial Study!" might.


I don't like the idea of tying disciplines to contracts or combat styles, because the class has the Martial Study thing to deal with redundant feats, which doesn't have limits about what disciplines you choose from.
Furthermore, I don't see strong value in limiting the maneuvers gained in general- players will normally pick relevant maneuvers to their build (Tiger Claw for TWF, Stone Dragon for TH, and so on)

Yes, I like your idea better

I've got to throw my lot behind there being an almost absurd level of numerical bonus to this class, to be honest.
One of the first things I look at in determining whether a class is broken is "Is there a logical justification to [I]ever[I] pick a similar class over this one? It regularly outpaces other "Fighty" classes in the things those classes are supposed to specialise in.
I'm not going to get super-in-depth here, but I think it would be of great benefit to try splitting this down into two or more classes that are a little more narrowly-focused.

For example, I once put together a class for a player of mine which was based on the Knight, from PHB2, but whose challenge and abilities were closer to your "Guard" and "Bodyguard" mercenaries.
In 3.x edition especially, the game is really not designed with the intention of any single class being able to solo the world. The challenge rating system is built around a party of roughly four well-balanced characters, whose abilities complement one another. If your character is set up to potentially cover everybody's bases, you're missing the point.

It's the same reason why, for instance, the core Ranger/Barbarian/Paladin aren't one class called the "Warrior", where you can choose whether to be a "Holy Warrior", a "Berserk Warrior", or a "Nature Warrior".
Focusing in on the specifics of what you want the class to do gives you the opportunity to add backstory to the class that explains and complements its abilities, to emphasize the ROLE-playing aspect.

Just some thoughts.

Well, they can not "solo the world" as you say, they still need someone to heal, they have no spell casting, so there are two right there. They choose hat they want to be, if they are guard they "are on the job" so to speak. The class is exposed to be highly versatile, representing the fact that what the mercenary needs to do varies from job to job. Also, the styles may give a bonus to AC or reduce the cost of using the feats *but* they do not stack, so you might say have two swords that give a bonus to AC or unarmed that does so, and in the end they do not stack ('cept unarmed needs to be fixed )
Also for Solo they can specialize in something or be good at a bit of most things. Their choice of vocation (contractor focus) determines their role most the time. So the sergeant may be able to help out allies but he is not going under cover and disabling the enemy's siege engines and so on. Thus you could put a bard for support and he would rarely overlap with the mercenary, as he can inspire, and he has spell casting still.

[Westhart]

Well, unless you guys have anything else to add I believe it is done. Although suggestions are still available

ALSO: Should they get evasion/improved evasion or uncanny dodge/improved uncanny dodge ?

[artimus261]

DO NOT GIVE THEM ANY OF THOSE xU

They already get a +10 shield bonus for NOT having a shield, that better than a freakin +5 tower shield xP

[Westhart]

DO NOT GIVE THEM ANY OF THOSE xU

They already get a +10 shield bonus for NOT having a shield, that better than a freakin +5 tower shield xP

Yes, but AoE can still do them in as they have nothing towards it 'cept reflex save...
...Eh, I guess it is fine