Brilliant Gameologists Forum
The Thinktank => Homebrew & House Rules => Unofficial Errata Project => : Prime32 May 10, 2011, 01:50:45 PM
-
One of the most infamous books for its (lack of) errata, what do we need to do here? Iron Heart Surge needs clarification first of all...
-
The 9th level manuever for Stone Dragon has no pre-reqs of other manuevers known, unlike basically every other high level manuever.
Perhaps a note on whether anything can ever trump Thicket of Blades. There are a handful of higher level manuevers that indicate they do not provoke AoO's for movement. Should even those still provoke AoO's from Thicket?
-
I know there are a couple minor typos like Desert Sun, or something. Other than that, I'd have to look at my ToB again, because I remember seeing more.
There are random balance issues I'd like to tackle, but that's likely beyond the scope of errata.
-
Gimme a bit, I'm going to sift through the classes chapter and find some inconsistencies.
-
The 9th level manuever for Stone Dragon has no pre-reqs of other manuevers known, unlike basically every other high level manuever.
Don't Stone Dragon maneuvers have low prereqs in general?
-
The 9th level manuever for Stone Dragon has no pre-reqs of other manuevers known, unlike basically every other high level manuever.
Don't Stone Dragon maneuvers have low prereqs in general?
I always got the impression that Stone Dragon was the easiest of the styles to "master", seeing as any true martial adept can master it.
-
Well the level 8 manuever, Adamantine Bones, has a pre-req of 3 other Stone Dragon manuevers. Yet the level 9 manuever has no pre-reqs. *shrug*
-
The 9th level manuever for Stone Dragon has no pre-reqs of other manuevers known, unlike basically every other high level manuever.
Don't Stone Dragon maneuvers have low prereqs in general?
It's also the weakest school since you need to be with your feet touching the ground(and you can't move at all with their stances). Being unable to use them while flying is a major restriction.
Also, what's exactly the problem with them needing to burn feats to learn the higher level stances? Feats are aparently extremely weak! I would expect ToB players to be delighted to be able to use their feats to get even more class features! :rollseyes
-
It's also the weakest school since you need to be with your feet touching the ground(and you can't move at all with their stances). Being unable to use them while flying is a major restriction.
I forget, can you get away with having earth in your boots? Or was that Sand Shaper?
What about a clause that you can also use the maneuvers if you have the [Earth] subtype or while mounted on such a creature? It doesn't go far from the intent.
Maybe you must begin your turn on the ground? I can a Stone Dragon/Tiger Claw type firing themselves up with a pillar of earth to attack an enemy above them.
-
Exact quote
Unlike with other disciplines, adepts
of this school rely on an external force—
the power of the earth and stone—to
help power their maneuvers. As a
result, Stone Dragon maneuvers can
be initiated only if you are in contact
with the ground.
-
I seem to remember that some of the maneuvers have wonky entries in their Initiation Action field. Searing Blade, for instance, is a boost that, as written, takes 1 standard action to initiate...despite the lower- and higher-level versions of the same effect being swift actions.
Also, the earth serpent style shape of the naityan rakshasa has a stupid flaw in it. The Style Shapes ability specifies that, if the rakshasa cannot maintain the stance associated with the form, it automatically reverts to its natural form. Well, earth serpent puts the rakshasa in the strength of stone stance, which--like many Stone Dragon stances--ends if you move more than 5 feet. Earth serpent also gives the rakshasa the ability to use the charging minotaur strike, which requires you to make a charge attack. Something seems off about this combination.
These are just things off the top of my head. I'll sift through again later. It might also be worth it for such an errata project to make it clear exactly how Adaptive Style works--the whole "also refreshes maneuvers" thing wasn't very intuitive to me when I first looked at it.
-
The Valkyrie's manuevers and stances need to be clarified / corrected. For example, they are given IL 10, but they know a 7th level stance. Perhaps it would be better to just give them the manuevers known & readied of a 10th level Swordsage?
-
Here is a House Rule Clarification that my group uses for Iron Heart Surge
[spoiler]Iron Heart Surge
Your fighting spirit, dedication, and training allow you to overcome almost anything to defeat your enemies. When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or condition currently affecting you with duration of 1 or more round. That effect ends on you immediately. If the effect was caused by an ongoing area effect you will be subject to the effect again at the end of your next turn if you are still in the area of effect.
You also surge with confidence and vengeance against your enemies, gaining a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls until the end of your next turn.
Q Can Iron Heart Surge remove:
1. Poison.
2. Disease.
3. The spell "Bestow Curse".
4. Ability score damage.
5. Level drain.
6. The influence of an antimagic field. (*)
Lastly,
7. If you use Iron Heart Surge against an effect which does not solely target you, but also affects an area, do you end the entire effect or do you just dismiss it from yourself?
Answers
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No for actual ability damage. Yes for a spell that may temporarily apply stat penalties.
5. No for actual Level Drain
6. Yes, but only til the end of your next round if you stay within it’s area
7. No, you only remove it’s effect upon you until the end of your next round. It will reapply if it is ongoing and you are in the area.[/spoiler]
Searing Blade (Boost) and Swordsage starting skills I see have already been mentioned.
-
For IHS, if it only works on effects with a duration of days or less, that should do the trick.
-
Most of the post-Core books, have sample NPCs or builds in them.
They all "need" errata.
I'd bet every single one has at least one biff.
These oughta just be ignored.
-
Most of the post-Core books, have sample NPCs or builds in them.
They all "need" errata.
I'd bet every single one has at least one biff.
These oughta just be ignored.
Seconded. The time spent fixing examples is better spent writing new books. There is just that many >.>
***
The Crusader
[spoiler]- Under Weapons and Armor Proficiencies, no mention is made of a Crusader being proficient with a Tower Shield or not. WotC has been largely consistent with saying wether a class is or is not proficient with TSs.
I'd go with no (per Paladin, as Crusader's likened core class).
- Clarifying the Maneuvers Readied section so it doesn't sound like you can only ever be granted 2 maneuvers each time you recover them.
Per Raw and reinforced for intent by "and a new pair of readied maneuvers is granted to you." you do in fact have 2 maneuvers granted each time you recover.
- Altering the Stances Known to allow a Crusader access to level-appropriate stances instead of needing to spend feats.
Suggestion: Omittence of of irreplaceable line for "Stances may be swapped for other stances on a level that you are allowed to trade a maneuver. Trading a stance this way counts as your traded maneuver for that level (thus you cannot trade a maneuver and a stance upon taking your 4th level as a warblade).
- Die Hard should have the "Even if you don't meet the prerequisites" clause, as has been the case for several other classes that gain specific bonus feats without needing their requirements.
Suggestion: Seconded.
- Triple-check the Sample Encounter to ensure it is a legal build.
Ignore it.[/spoiler]
The Swordsage
[spoiler]- Obviously fix the "X6 at 1st level" (I can't believe WotC actually missed that in the original; IT'S BEFORE THE EFFING MANEUVERS!)
Suggestion: x4 at first level per all other classes.
- Clarify the AC Bonus so that it works unarmored, and resolve the issue of if it stacks with a Mok's bonus or not.
Suggestion: It works unarmored, does not stack with Monk or other abilities that apply your wisdom modifier to AC. ~Per Sage idea that multiple bonuses don't stack and this includes class features
- Give a duration to the +2 saving throw bonus granted by Defensive Stance.
Suggestion: The benefit should end when you are no longer in a stance of your chosen discipline(s).
- Again, check the sample encounter for errors.
See Crusader.
[/list][/spoiler]
Warblade
[spoiler]- Clarify if the Warblade is able to use a Full Attack on using his Recovery Mechanic or not (it's vague).
Melee Attack isn't defined no more than Attack Action. Clause of Swift Action prevents AoOs and other such things anyway.
- Again, stance acquisition should be modified.
See Crusader.
- Remove the stupidity that causes Weapon Aptitude to subtract from your Fighter levels. Seriously.
Suggestion: Weapon Aptitude is gained at the 2nd level (like ranger's animal compion or paladin's turn undead).
Clarification: You may use Martial Aptitude cannot be stupid abused - "change the designated weapon in any feat you have that required you to choose one weapon to apply it's bonus to."
- Clarify the Bonus Feats (it should mention Ironheart Aura, but it only has the word Ironheart there).
Correction: Add the word "Aura".
- Clarify if Battle Cunning works on enemies denied their Dex to AC for reasons other than being FFed or Flanked, and if that ability is Precision damage.
Suggestion: Ignore.
Who said it has to use Sneak Attack rules? IE it says it works for Flat-Footed or Flanked and is based on tactical advantage, why try to apply SA's rules of precise strikes to venerable areas to it when clearly effects such as Higher Ground's attack bonus having ZERO concerns on if critical hits work or not?
- Reword Battle Skill (as-written, it provides the bonus when you are performing the Bull Rush etc).
Clarification: "any check made to oppose an enemy's X attempt" means exactly that. for example: The bonus applies to oppose an enemy's bull rush attempt, not a bonus to your bull rush attempt.
- Check the sample encounter again.
Blah, ignore all NPC examples. If they are wrong chalk it up to DM Fiat if you are too lazy to fix them on the fly. Way to time consuming otherwise. >.>
[/spoiler]
-
Suggestion:
Weapon Aptitude (Ex): Your training with a wide range of weaponry and tactics gives you great skill with particular weapons. You qualify for feats that usually require a minimum number of fighter levels (such as Weapon Specialization) as if you had a fighter level equal to your warblade level -2 (minimum 0). For example, as a 6th-level warblade, you could take Weapon Specialization, since you're treated as being a 4th-level fighter for this purpose. These effective fighter levels stack with any actual fighter levels you have. Thus, a fighter 2/warblade 4 would also qualify for Weapon Specialization.
[...]
Granting it from 3rd level on would require rearranging the blocks of text to clarify that you can still do the weapon-swapping from lv1. Which wouldn't really work.
I seem to remember that some of the maneuvers have wonky entries in their Initiation Action field. Searing Blade, for instance, is a boost that, as written, takes 1 standard action to initiate...despite the lower- and higher-level versions of the same effect being swift actions.
Definite error, I think it might have even got an official response. Boosts are always swift actions by definition.
Also, the earth serpent style shape of the naityan rakshasa has a stupid flaw in it. The Style Shapes ability specifies that, if the rakshasa cannot maintain the stance associated with the form, it automatically reverts to its natural form. Well, earth serpent puts the rakshasa in the strength of stone stance, which--like many Stone Dragon stances--ends if you move more than 5 feet. Earth serpent also gives the rakshasa the ability to use the charging minotaur strike, which requires you to make a charge attack. Something seems off about this combination.
Remove the "cannot maintain the stance" line entirely, or replace with "is always in this stance while in that form" or "cannot use any other stances while in that form"?
-
I'd go with no (per Paladin, as Crusader's likened core class).
Agreed.
Per Raw and reinforced for intent by "and a new pair of readied maneuvers is granted to you." you do in fact have 2 maneuvers granted each time you recover.
I do not believe the intent was to gimp the Maneuver Recovery for the Crusader, as evidenced by the last lines stating you get more maneuvers granted.
Suggestion: Omittence of of irreplaceable line for "Stances may be swapped for other stances on a level that you are allowed to trade a maneuver. Trading a stance this way counts as your traded maneuver for that level (thus you cannot trade a maneuver and a stance upon taking your 4th level as a warblade).
That is a house rule, as it goes against the established Stances Known style. I meant how the FAQ recommended delaying the Crusader's Stances Known by 1 level.
Melee Attack isn't defined no more than Attack Action. Clause of Swift Action prevents AoOs and other such things anyway.
Still, there are two types of Attack Action (Full and Standard). Clarifying that you can use either would make the Warblade less confusing.
Suggestion: Weapon Aptitude is gained at the 2nd level (like ranger's animal compion or paladin's turn undead).
Clarification: You may use Martial Aptitude cannot be stupid abused - "change the designated weapon in any feat you have that required you to choose one weapon to apply it's bonus to."
Weapon Aptitude is clearly intended to be obtained at 1st level. But as written, a Fighter 4/Warblade 1 with Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization no longer qualifies for Weapon Specialization. That is what needs to be errataed.
Clarification: "any check made to oppose an enemy's X attempt" means exactly that. for example: The bonus applies to oppose an enemy's bull rush attempt, not a bonus to your bull rush attempt.
Except you oppose their check when you attempt to initiate one of those actions. It should say "you add your Int modifier to checks made to resist an enemy's Bull Rush, Trip, etc."
-
That is a house rule, as it goes against the established Stances Known style. I meant how the FAQ recommended delaying the Crusader's Stances Known by 1 level.
Rename subform from "Errata" to "FAQ"?
Still, there are two types of Attack Action (Full and Standard). Clarifying that you can use either would make the Warblade less confusing.
I'm for both.
Weapon Aptitude is clearly intended to be obtained at 1st level. But as written, a Fighter 4/Warblade 1 with Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization no longer qualifies for Weapon Specialization. That is what needs to be errataed.
Prime suggested a minimum 0 add in. It works.
Clarification: "any check made to oppose an enemy's X attempt" means exactly that. for example: The bonus applies to oppose an enemy's bull rush attempt, not a bonus to your bull rush attempt.
Except you oppose their check when you attempt to initiate one of those actions. It should say "you add your Int modifier to checks made to resist an enemy's Bull Rush, Trip, etc."
That is what I mean, and what I read from the entry. The difference is you say resist rather than opposed roll, but both agree on enemy's bull rush attempt. Which ever makes it more readable works. *shurgs*
-
Most of the post-Core books, have sample NPCs or builds in them.
They all "need" errata.
I'd bet every single one has at least one biff.
These oughta just be ignored.
Seconded. The time spent fixing examples is better spent writing new books. There is just that many >.>
:D ... all in favor say: "AYE !"
???
EDIT --- maybe this would be better off, on the Organization thread (or it's own).
-
Per Raw and reinforced for intent by "and a new pair of readied maneuvers is granted to you." you do in fact have 2 maneuvers granted each time you recover.
I do not believe the intent was to gimp the Maneuver Recovery for the Crusader, as evidenced by the last lines stating you get more maneuvers granted.
I also do not believe the intent was to gimp the maneuver recovery for the crusader. However a very, very strong case can be made that RAW you never get more than two (except if you have the feat extra granted maneuver which specifically states you get one more whenever you recover your maneuvers). Unfortunately, it appears that the sage inadvertently (or purposefully I suppose) sides with the two maneuver side.
Q: Dear Sage,
When a crusader's maneuver recovery mechanic (Tome of Battle, p.9) activates, what happens to any maneuvers he still had ready and granted?
--Dan
A: If at the end of the crusader’s turn he cannot be granted a maneuver because he has no withheld maneuvers remaining, the process starts over from scratch. All maneuvers (whether expended or not) once again become withheld, and two of those maneuvers are randomly granted.
-
Per Raw and reinforced for intent by "and a new pair of readied maneuvers is granted to you." you do in fact have 2 maneuvers granted each time you recover.
I do not believe the intent was to gimp the Maneuver Recovery for the Crusader, as evidenced by the last lines stating you get more maneuvers granted.
I also do not believe the intent was to gimp the maneuver recovery for the crusader. However a very, very strong case can be made that RAW you never get more than two (except if you have the feat extra granted maneuver which specifically states you get one more whenever you recover your maneuvers). Unfortunately, it appears that the sage inadvertently (or purposefully I suppose) sides with the two maneuver side.
Q: Dear Sage,
When a crusader's maneuver recovery mechanic (Tome of Battle, p.9) activates, what happens to any maneuvers he still had ready and granted?
--Dan
A: If at the end of the crusader’s turn he cannot be granted a maneuver because he has no withheld maneuvers remaining, the process starts over from scratch. All maneuvers (whether expended or not) once again become withheld, and two of those maneuvers are randomly granted.
It's still strikes me as an oversight. A 20th level Crusader can get up to 5 maneuvers granted at the start of an encounter, but once he hits his Readied limit it resets to 2 instead of 5. A Warblade of the same level burns through maneuvers slower than that, but gets to recover all of them at once without missing out of the fun for that turn.
It's at least intentional with the Swordsage's limited recovery method, as they aren't expected to run out of maneuvers readied at higher levels.
There's just such a huge difference if the Crusader can only recover 2 at a time that it completely changes the class at the mid-high levels.
-
This is why no one listens to the sage. :p
-
Are we largely in agreement on Chapter 1's changes? If so, I'll begin work on compiling the changes.
Chapter 2
- Clarify Adaptive Style's wording so it either does or does not recover the maneuvers.
- Reword Snap Kick so it doesn't produce infinite attacks.
- Distant Horizon references Falling Sun attack, but does not utilize it. Suggesting removing that requirement, as it requires either multiclassing or a BAB of +8 (something none of the other tactical feats require).
- Gloom Razor implies that other opponents can still see you when using Lingering Gloom. Clarify wording either for or against this.
- Perfect Clarity of Mind and Body requires Unnerving Calm, but it's Press the Advantage option requires an Intimidate check. Potentially change this to Concentration to mimic the requisite feat.
- Scorching Sirocco requires a Spellcraft check, but Spellcraft is not a class skill for any of the Martial Adepts. Change to Tumble, the Desert Wind skill.
-
Are we largely in agreement on Chapter 1's changes? If so, I'll begin work on compiling the changes.
No one hit a sore spot yet. :)
- Clarify Adaptive Style's wording so it either does or does not recover the maneuvers.
Note: Raw, Intent (see normal 5 min reset likeness), & Sage agree yes.
Observation: I realize Adaptive Style is an absolute must for a Swordsage, but no more than Wild Shape to a Druid.
- Reword Snap Kick so it doesn't produce infinite attacks.
Suggestion: Add something like, "When you make a melee attack (including a standard attack, full attack, or even a strike maneuver but not individual attacks such as an off hand attack), you can make an additional attack at your highest attack bonus."
- Distant Horizon references Falling Sun attack, but does not utilize it. Suggesting removing that requirement, as it requires either multiclassing or a BAB of +8 (something none of the other tactical feats require).
Observation: Some metamagics require another metamagic feat but don't make use of it and Cleave's requirement of Power Attack is based on this idea of extra effort and nothing else. Falling Sun is basically a Ninja in theme, how does a nerve strike (lasting weak spot) not synergism with Stunning Fist, rapid throwing, and a counter charge (perhaps the 5 inch punch?) be so off the wall that One Last Strike's opposition of Devoted Bulwark goes unnoticed? At least the Passive Way Monk is ideal for a Setting Sun user.
- Gloom Razor implies that other opponents can still see you when using Lingering Gloom. Clarify wording either for or against this.
Observation: Concealment != Total Concealment. They can still see you prior to use of this feat. The benefit of an invisibility spell would suggest they don't after words. The use of invisibility rather than just sticking to the results of the free hide check is a bigger weakness than benefit as Invisibility Spells are bypassed by See Invisibility and True Seeing which do nothing against a normal successful hide check. The flavor of Ki based even makes this 'flaw' follow the idea.
- Perfect Clarity of Mind and Body requires Unnerving Calm, but it's Press the Advantage option requires an Intimidate check. Potentially change this to Concentration to mimic the requisite feat.
Quite willing to take opinions on this one.
- Scorching Sirocco requires a Spellcraft check, but Spellcraft is not a class skill for any of the Martial Adepts. Change to Tumble, the Desert Wind skill.
Except for the Jade Phoenix Mage who happens to be Desert Wind and very Fire focused you mean.
Err. Observation: A JPM's Desert Strike would set up both Empowering Strike & Mark of Fire. Round 2 you bake them with a spell completing the requirements for the tactical maneuver.
[/list]
Further note on Scorching Sirocco & Distant Horizon. I see nothing wrong with a feat that has greater use if you multi-classed. In fact, more feats like that should have been printed. These two ToB's multiclass feats are simple tactical in nature which is something new (and remains unique?) as well.
-
Note: Raw, Intent (see normal 5 min reset likeness), & Sage agree yes.
Observation: I realize Adaptive Style is an absolute must for a Swordsage, but no more than Wild Shape to a Druid.
I'm for AS being an alternative recovery mechanic myself.
Suggestion: Add something like, "When you make a melee attack (including a standard attack, full attack, or even a strike maneuver but not individual attacks such as an off hand attack), you can make an additional attack at your highest attack bonus."
That could work. Personal suggestion:
Whenever you initiate a strike or use the attack or full attack action, you may take a -2 penalty to attacks made this round gain an additional attack at your highest attack bonus (the -2 applies to this attack as well). This attack is an off-hand unarmed strike, and deals damage as appropriate.
Observation: Some metamagics require another metamagic feat but don't make use of it and Cleave's requirement of Power Attack is based on this idea of extra effort and nothing else. Falling Sun is basically a Ninja in theme, how does a nerve strike (lasting weak spot) not synergism with Stunning Fist, rapid throwing, and a counter charge (perhaps the 5 inch punch?) be so off the wall that One Last Strike's opposition of Devoted Bulwark goes unnoticed? At least the Passive Way Monk is ideal for a Setting Sun user.
Its just that it breaks the trend the other Tactical feats follow: It requires you to multiclass or requires a feat with a +8 BAB requirement. I feel that this is out of place.
Observation: Concealment != Total Concealment. They can still see you prior to use of this feat. The benefit of an invisibility spell would suggest they don't after words. The use of invisibility rather than just sticking to the results of the free hide check is a bigger weakness than benefit as Invisibility Spells are bypassed by See Invisibility and True Seeing which do nothing against a normal successful hide check. The flavor of Ki based even makes this 'flaw' follow the idea.
I think you misunderstand me. The feat turns you invisible to the opponent you had concealment against, but other opponents can still see you.
Except for the Jade Phoenix Mage who happens to be Desert Wind and very Fire focused you mean.
Err. Observation: A JPM's Desert Strike would set up both Empowering Strike & Mark of Fire. Round 2 you bake them with a spell completing the requirements for the tactical maneuver.
JPM doesn't get Spellcraft as a class skill either (will be addressing this later).
Further note on Scorching Sirocco & Distant Horizon. I see nothing wrong with a feat that has greater use if you multi-classed. In fact, more feats like that should have been printed. These two ToB's multiclass feats are simple tactical in nature which is something new (and remains unique?) as well.
While I agree that there's nothing wrong with tactical feats that require you to multiclass, the tactical feats presented in the Bo9S seem to imply that they are tactical feats designed for the nine styles, not for multiclassing Martial Adepts. For this reason, I would like more opinions on those two feats in particular.[/list]
-
Whenever you initiate a strike or use the attack or full attack action, you may take a -2 penalty to attacks made this round gain an additional attack at your highest attack bonus (the -2 applies to this attack as well). This attack is an off-hand unarmed strike, and deals damage as appropriate.
I like this wording.
-
That could work. Personal suggestion:
Whenever you initiate a strike or use the attack or full attack action, you may take a -2 penalty to attacks made this round gain an additional attack at your highest attack bonus (the -2 applies to this attack as well). This attack is an off-hand unarmed strike, and deals damage as appropriate.
Are you aiming to remove the ability to use Snap Kick on things like AoO's and other granted free attacks (such as Snakes Swiftness)?
Its just that it breaks the trend the other Tactical feats follow: It requires you to multiclass or requires a feat with a +8 BAB requirement. I feel that this is out of place.
It is out of place, but this isn't magic and not everything is a neat little cycle written by intelligent people.
I think you misunderstand me. The feat turns you invisible to the opponent you had concealment against, but other opponents can still see you.
And the problem?
JPM doesn't get Spellcraft as a class skill either (will be addressing this later).
Good.
Further note on Scorching Sirocco & Distant Horizon. I see nothing wrong with a feat that has greater use if you multi-classed. In fact, more feats like that should have been printed. These two ToB's multiclass feats are simple tactical in nature which is something new (and remains unique?) as well.
While I agree that there's nothing wrong with tactical feats that require you to multiclass, the tactical feats presented in the Bo9S seem to imply that they are tactical feats designed for the nine styles, not for multiclassing Martial Adepts. For this reason, I would like more opinions on those two feats in particular.[/list]We're not even talking about one odd man out of a long list. We're talking about two out of nine in one section. Divine Spirit, Instant Clarity, Psychic Renewal, Shadow Trickster, and Song of The White Raven are all multiclass based feats printed right before the feats you call into question.
Martial Study & Martial Stance are all about nonmartial classes picking up feats btw. Did you know as Distant Horizon is written a 6th level pure monk can take it? Stunning Fist as a bonus feat, then take Martial Study at 1st & 3rd level. Cool benefit is a 6th level Monk can pick up Improved Trip (skipping Combat Expertise). And when you stop and look at the other tactical feats like this. Were they ever really written exclusively for martial classes? For instance, they all require two maneuvers and you to be 6th level, two maneuvers is something a martial class meets at the 1st level. Further of the tactical feats, only one of them ever requires you to actually use a maneuver (mark of fire). Lastly, recall how your initiator level as a nonmartial class? How about maneuver granting items? The chapter on introducing maneuvers to nontob based worlds that highlights those two things and the previously mentioned feats? ToB is the least dedicated to it's own system book ever written and tossed the concept of selfish unsharing out the window. And you sure your idea these two feats should be martial adapt exclusive has any foundation to begin with?
-
Are you aiming to remove the ability to use Snap Kick on things like AoO's and other granted free attacks (such as Snakes Swiftness)?
I simply forgot it could be used on AoOs. The problem with letting it stack with stuff like Snake's Swiftness is that it becomes more complex to word it without letting it trigger off of itself.
And the problem?
Nothing really. I just wanted to make the wording more clear so players don't get that mixed up.
We're not even talking about one odd man out of a long list. We're talking about two out of nine in one section. Divine Spirit, Instant Clarity, Psychic Renewal, Shadow Trickster, and Song of The White Raven are all multiclass based feats printed right before the feats you call into question.
The point I'm trying to make is that I feel the Tactical feats should follow the same formula. Both SS and DH are Swordsage-exclusive feats, but a pure-swordsage cannot make efficient use of them.
As for SS' Spellcraft check, the FAQ and the Sage have both said it was an error, IIRC.
Martial Study & Martial Stance are all about nonmartial classes picking up feats btw. Did you know as Distant Horizon is written a 6th level pure monk can take it? Stunning Fist as a bonus feat, then take Martial Study at 1st & 3rd level. Cool benefit is a 6th level Monk can pick up Improved Trip (skipping Combat Expertise). And when you stop and look at the other tactical feats like this. Were they ever really written exclusively for martial classes? For instance, they all require two maneuvers and you to be 6th level, two maneuvers is something a martial class meets at the 1st level. Further of the tactical feats, only one of them ever requires you to actually use a maneuver (mark of fire). Lastly, recall how your initiator level as a nonmartial class? How about maneuver granting items? The chapter on introducing maneuvers to nontob based worlds that highlights those two things and the previously mentioned feats? ToB is the least dedicated to it's own system book ever written and tossed the concept of selfish unsharing out the window. And you sure your idea these two feats should be martial adapt exclusive has any foundation to begin with?
See above. I just think it is odd that those two feats are the only ones that require levels in a non-Martial Adept class (or a serious investment in two things a Swordsage wouldn't normally invest in).
To put it another way, take a look at Distant Horizon itself. The only ability a Monk would be interested in is Lasting Weak Spot. The rest of the feat is largely useless to a Monk. Why would they design the feat this way if they intended it to be for a Monk?
Same thing with Scorching Sirocco. Even assuming it was designed with the JPM in mind, why didn't they make it a prerequisite for the PrC? And why does it use Tumble for two abilities (both of which involve setting someone/something on fire), but not for the third (again, both of the Tumble-based abilities involve setting something on fire, something Tumble should not be physically capable of).
-
The Martial Study and Martial Stance feats can be taken by 1st level non-initiators. Since they have one level and not in an initiating class, their total initiator level is 1/2, rounded down to 0. Table 3-1: Highest-Level Maneuvers Known (page 39) doesn't have anything for 0th level, but it only allows 1st level maneuvers starting at 1st level. This could mean that the maximum level is 0 (thus preventing you from selecting any maneuvers at all with the feat). It could also mean that you don't have a maximum level, thus allowing you to select any maneuver whose prerequisites you meet, but that seems a fair bit further from the intent.
This is also an issue for chapter 3: Blade Magic, but it's worth mentioning here as well because it only comes up with these feats.
-
The Martial Study and Martial Stance feats can be taken by 1st level non-initiators. Since they have one level and not in an initiating class, their total initiator level is 1/2, rounded down to 0. Table 3-1: Highest-Level Maneuvers Known (page 39) doesn't have anything for 0th level, but it only allows 1st level maneuvers starting at 1st level. This could mean that the maximum level is 0 (thus preventing you from selecting any maneuvers at all with the feat). It could also mean that you don't have a maximum level, thus allowing you to select any maneuver whose prerequisites you meet, but that seems a fair bit further from the intent.
This is also an issue for chapter 3: Blade Magic, but it's worth mentioning here as well because it only comes up with these feats.
I overlooked the Martial Study part.
Should we put in a "Round up" clause or not?
-
I'd just go with adding "(minimum 1)" to the section in Chapter 3 that talks about your IL if you have no adept levels. Rounding up has more far-reaching consequences, giving an IL one higher than normal at half of a non-initiator's character levels.
-
I simply forgot it could be used on AoOs. The problem with letting it stack with stuff like Snake's Swiftness is that it becomes more complex to word it without letting it trigger off of itself.
Indeed, but someone has to do it :p
The point I'm trying to make is that I feel the Tactical feats should follow the same formula. Both SS and DH are Swordsage-exclusive feats, but a pure-swordsage cannot make efficient use of them.
Personally, I think why not just allow the unarmed SS variant to take Stunning Fist at the 1st level? You're speaking of changing things anyway and those variants need to be defined better. At least the IL to CL issue.
As for SS' Spellcraft check, the FAQ and the Sage have both said it was an error, IIRC.
Ahh excellent. Change it to what though?
I just think it is odd that those two feats are the only ones that require levels in a non-Martial Adept class (or a serious investment in two things a Swordsage wouldn't normally invest in).
To put it another way, take a look at Distant Horizon itself. The only ability a Monk would be interested in is Lasting Weak Spot. The rest of the feat is largely useless to a Monk. Why would they design the feat this way if they intended it to be for a Monk?
I think all the feats minus one are a waste to begin with. I also think all but Comet Throw (only one capable of damaging a second foe) and the 9th level Setting Sun maneuver are largely useless to everyone. Those things aside, are we fixing ambiguous rules and preventing stupid interpretation of stuff, or rewriting feats (and classes? spells?).
Yes using Tumble to create fire in those terms seems dumb, but Fan the Flames (btw never take a name for token value) does seems to suggest that you tumble around them after incinerating them, smoldering embers to fire? Well now that makes sense. Nothing to 'fix' here outside of writing new feats because their theme doesn't seem to match the others printed around it and we're not here doing that as far as I know.
***
I second minimum 1. For virtually everything that 0 creates unintended problems.
-
Personally, I think why not just allow the unarmed SS variant to take Stunning Fist at the 1st level? You're speaking of changing things anyway and those variants need to be defined better. At least the IL to CL issue.
Well, that's more of a house rule than errata (and yes, I know what we are doing is technically a house rule).
Ahh excellent. Change it to what though?
Tumble, to keep it in line with the style and the rest of the feat.
I think all the feats minus one are a waste to begin with. I also think all but Comet Throw (only one capable of damaging a second foe) and the 9th level Setting Sun maneuver are largely useless to everyone. Those things aside, are we fixing ambiguous rules and preventing stupid interpretation of stuff, or rewriting feats (and classes? spells?).
We rewrite the ones that absolutely cannot work as written, but otherwise all we are doing is clarifying. This isn't an attempt at fixing the book; it's an attempt at finishing what WotC started.
-
Let's keep this thing moving. If we slow down, then it gets dropped and we'll never get anything accomplished.
Desert Wind
[spoiler]Death Mark: Remove the "See Text" line in the Saving Throw, as there's nothing in the text indicating something could be denied a save.
Firesnake: Delete the last two sentences of the text (as stated in the official "errata"). We need to debate what the second paragraph needs to say, seeing as that's where the errata cuts off.
Ring of Fire: Include a clause about the initiator being immune to the effects of this strike, as its very easy to enclose yourself by accident.
Rising Phoenix: Fix the wording so you can hover away from shorelines (as written, you can't go more than 10ft out on a lake or other body of water).[/spoiler]
Devoted Spirit
[spoiler]Aura of Chaos: Should we fix the stance so the d2 Crusader doesn't work?
Aura of Triumph: Change "both" to "each", so it affects every ally and yourself, not just two characters.
Castigating Strike: Change it so multiple uses don't stack (it's implied because it is the same source, but clarifying that prevents mis-interpretations).
Crusader's Strike: Should we mess with this? Like, at all? I'm personally for infinite out-of-combat healing, but I know it's a sore-spot for less-experienced DMs. Additionally, should this have the Su tag or not (I'm against it, but there's people out there who think it should).
Divine Surge and Greater: Should we swap the base damage dice on these two? It seems very odd that the greater version does 2 less dice worth.
Immortal Fortitude: Should we include a clause about Disintegrate? As is, it's up to the DM if the stance can protect you from it or not, and it would be helpful to include such a clause.
Rallying Strike: See Crusader's Strike.
Revitalizing Strike: See Crusader's Strike.
Strike of Righteous Vitality: Should we just change the wording to copy most of Heal outright? Should we remove the cap, so a 20th level Crusader heals up to 200 points of damage? Should we add the Su tag, since it copies a spell's effect?
Thicket of Blades: Should we include a Tumble clause, as the FAQ and Sage have stated?
Vanguard Strike: SHould there be a range limit on this? As-written, allies hundreds of miles away get the bonus, which seems rather stupid. I think 30ft or 60ft would be fine.[/spoiler]
Diamond Mind
[spoiler]Action Before Thought: It needs the "You may still fail the save if your Concentration check's results are lower than the save DC". It really doesn't matter, but it is for consistency's sake.
Disrupting Blow: It seems to neglect that Immediate actions are actions, and the wording is a little confusing as a result.
Insightful Strike and Greater: Should there be a clause about Criticals?
Mind over Body: See Action Before Thought.
Moment of Perfect Mind: See Action Before Thought.[/spoiler]
Iron Heart
[spoiler]Absolute Steel: It needs the same clause that Skirmish/Desert Wind Dodge have.
Dazing Strike: It says Fortitude partial, but has no additional effects if they make the save. I know making the save doesn't negate the damage you dealt to them, but it needs new wording.
Iron Heart Surge: We may need to make a separate thread for this, but it NEEDS clarification.[/spoiler]
Setting Sun
[spoiler]All of the throwing maneuvers: Should they be restricted by size category? Almost all of them work off of Trip attempts, which can't be used on creatures too much bigger than yourself, but the maneuvers make no mention of this.
Clever Positioning: It says Save Partial, but again makes no mention of what happens on a successful save.
Feigned Opening: It says it is a Counter, it reads like a Counter, but uses a Swift action. Fix or no?
Shifting Defense: It can be easily misinterpreted that this stance's ability requires an immediate action to use. Clarify that it requires no action to take the 5ft step.
Strike of the Broken Shield: Remove last two sentences of maneuver’s text, as the actual errata says.[/spoiler]
Shadow Hand
[spoiler]Bloodletting Strike: Supernatural or not? It's understandable either way.
Child of Shadow: Delete the words "Melee" and "Ranged". It applies to any attack, so why bother differentiating?
Dance of the Spider: Clarify the second-to-last sentence, because it's just worded stupidly. And Supernatural tag needed (seriously).
Death in the Dark: See Bloodletting Strike.
Drain Vitality: See Bloodletting Strike.
Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike: As the actual errata says: Delete the duration.
Hand of Death: See Bloodletting Strike. Stronger argument for being Su, as this involves Ki by the fluff (even if it is mutable).
One With Shadow: OK, how the fuck does this NOT have the Su clause?
Shadow Blink/Jaunt/Stride: See Bloodletting Strike.
Step of the Dancing Moth: See Bloodletting Strike. Seriously, WTF were the editors thinking?[/spoiler]
Stone Dragon
[spoiler]First and foremost: Should we remove that whole "On the ground" restriction? It seems like a Supernatural restriction, and this style is 99% mundane. It also has a lot of restrictions on the stances as-is, so that one seems redundant. It's possible that the Devs intended this style to be Su, like Desert Wind and Shadow Hand, but changed their minds and never fixed it.
I know that's more a fix than errata, but it really looks out of place.
[/spoiler]
Tiger Claw
[spoiler][/spoiler]
White Raven
[spoiler][/spoiler]
More to come.
-
A few concerns about Chapter 3: Blade Magic. I only combed through the first half of the chapter (up to about page 40), the rest I just perused.
Page 38
Readying Maneuvers
- "It is possible for a character to gain the Martial Study feat before entering a class that grants a progression for powers readied." should say "maneuvers readied" instead of "powers readied"
Page 39
Initiator Level
- "...(if you haven't already traded them out for higher-level stances, as described in the martial adept class descriptions...)" should say "higher-level maneuvers" instead of "higher-level stances"
Table 3-1: Highest-Level Maneuvers Known
- Line 7: "13th-4th 7th" should say "13th-14th" instead of "13th-4th"
- Does not account for 0th level initiators, as can be the case for 1st level characters without levels in initiating classes. Starting access to 1st level maneuvers at IL 0 or lower (instead of IL 1) is an even smaller change than adding "minimum 1" to a character's IL, but solves the problem as well or better.
Miscellaneous Concerns
- It is possible for a character to have more maneuvers readied than known. What happens then? (See the Idiot Crusader build, type 1. Multiclassed martial adept with PrCs.)
- It is possible for a character to know more maneuvers than are available for him to learn. What happens then? (See the Idiot Crusader build, type 2. Multiclassed martial adept with Crusader 1 having fewer learn-able Crusader maneuvers than the normal known. Note that this is predicated on the ruling that a character can learn a given maneuver or stance only once.)
- Can a maneuver be learned multiple times? Can it be learned multiple times across multiple classes?
-
Let's keep this thing moving. If we slow down, then it gets dropped and we'll never get anything accomplished.
Good luck there, we've hit our first hang up.
Firesnake: Simple deletion. the last two lines are the snake's inability to fly and it being penalized for terrain.
Ring of Fire: *shrugs*
Rising Phoenix: It states ABOVE a solid of liquid surface, not sure how you came up with moving laterally breaks the range. Either you misread it or gravity works differently where you live. In which case, pics or it didn't happen. Eer I mean "down" is always defined as the way you fall (see planar handbook I think).
Aura of Chaos: idk, TO material is TO?
Aura of Triumph: You bring up nerfing d2 abuse then suggest healing a world's worth of halfings... >.>
I say keep it as is.
Castigating Strike: Aye, clarify stacking only rests the duration for the attack penalty.
Crusader's Strike: It's fine as written (Ex based) to me.
Divine Surge and Greater: Seconded for swapping at this point. If 8d8 is 'normal' for a 4th level strike then my lack of sleep is getting to me. Which is also the whole lack of suggestion tags this go. I'm feeling lazy.
Immortal Fortitude: Initial text states, you cannot be killed by anything that reduces your HP blah blah blah. Further rules elaborating on that don't actually contradict that statement. Further Disintegrate's to dust effect requires the target to drop to 0 HP, something a successful save would have prevented anyway.
Strike of Righteous Vitality: And here is the hang up I mentioned. I personally think anyone who says X granting Y change's Y's nature should stfu. SoRV gives the benefit of a spell cast by a spellcaster, RAW the damn benefit is spell based - get over it. Backed by intent (no specifically dispelling ex abilities granted by polymorph/wild shape) and examples (mental pinnacle) just becuase the source granting the ability isn't of the same type; the granted ability still keeps it's type. There was a huge aurgument from one of our local trolls claiming otherwise with nothing but his opinion. Likely he'll post in here soon.
Thicket of Blades: Sure.
Vanguard Strike: I'd go with 30ft., relative to the target hit. Just because 30ft. happens to be the same range that precision damage requires.
Action Before Thought: lol, if you think it needs it *shrugs*.
Disrupting Blow: To me it brings up Immediate Actions due to allowing AoOs (which are not an immediate action, but behave like one). Sentence revision is needed.
Insightful Strike and Greater: Criticals stack their multiplier like all others are stacked is logical.
Absolute Steel: It needs the same clause that Skirmish/Desert Wind Dodge have.
Which is?
Dazing Strike: Fortitude partial is accurate, a fort save prevents dazed but not the damage. See also Finger of Death.
Iron Heart Surge: Think people are really going to sit down and claim you can end the sun with this? *shrugs*.
Make it just in case, what harm could it do?
All of the throwing maneuvers: Super ninjas throw people no matter their size. Like the famous roll backwards with a foot to the stomach throw. Inside the 4th wall, you can't trip a colossal creature because you can't reach both of it's feet. and while we're inside it, if you physically out powered someone, knew martial arts, and planned on knocking them off balance, should you auto fail? Rule wise alone, dunno.
Clever Positioning: *yawn* I need sleep I think. What was this one again?
Feigned Opening: Probably not. See part about you provoking an AoO? Can you name a way to provoke an AoO when it's not your turn without using your one and only immediate action? And if so, that 1%er there, is it really worth changing the rules to deal with it?
Shifting Defense: It can be hardly be misinterpreted that this stance's ability requires an immediate action to use. Clarify it just in case.
Strike of the Broken Shield: The errata made it that far? Cool.
ok stopping for nap time.
-
A few concerns about Chapter 3: Blade Magic. I only combed through the first half of the chapter (up to about page 40), the rest I just perused.
Page 38
Readying Maneuvers
- "It is possible for a character to gain the Martial Study feat before entering a class that grants a progression for powers readied." should say "maneuvers readied" instead of "powers readied"
Page 39
Initiator Level
- "...(if you haven't already traded them out for higher-level stances, as described in the martial adept class descriptions...)" should say "higher-level maneuvers" instead of "higher-level stances"
Table 3-1: Highest-Level Maneuvers Known
- Line 7: "13th-4th 7th" should say "13th-14th" instead of "13th-4th"
- Does not account for 0th level initiators, as can be the case for 1st level characters without levels in initiating classes. Starting access to 1st level maneuvers at IL 0 or lower (instead of IL 1) is an even smaller change than adding "minimum 1" to a character's IL, but solves the problem as well or better.
Miscellaneous Concerns
- It is possible for a character to have more maneuvers readied than known. What happens then? (See the Idiot Crusader build, type 1. Multiclassed martial adept with PrCs.)
- It is possible for a character to know more maneuvers than are available for him to learn. What happens then? (See the Idiot Crusader build, type 2. Multiclassed martial adept with Crusader 1 having fewer learn-able Crusader maneuvers than the normal known. Note that this is predicated on the ruling that a character can learn a given maneuver or stance only once.)
- Can a maneuver be learned multiple times? Can it be learned multiple times across multiple classes?
You bring up good points. I really didn't pay attention to that chapter as I wasn't familiar with things like the Idiot Crusader.
As for that last point you made: The sage has ruled against that. Makes sense.
Firesnake: Simple deletion. the last two lines are the snake's inability to fly and it being penalized for terrain.
The editors seemed to have something planned for the errata, but I'm fine with just deleting the last two lines.
Rising Phoenix: It states ABOVE a solid of liquid surface, not sure how you came up with moving laterally breaks the range. Either you misread it or gravity works differently where you live. In which case, pics or it didn't happen. Eer I mean "down" is always defined as the way you fall (see planar handbook I think).
Except that it is possible to be more than 10ft away from the ground if you try to cross a lake. I dunno, I'm just being picky here.
Aura of Chaos: idk, TO material is TO?
I view TO as a thing to avoid when designing something.
Aura of Triumph: You bring up nerfing d2 abuse then suggest healing a world's worth of halfings... >.>
I say keep it as is.
Except as-is, it fluctuates between healing two characters or you and all allies in 30ft. There's a distinct difference between this and the d2 Crusader. One is clearly stupid, and the other is possibly intentional.
Strike of Righteous Vitality: And here is the hang up I mentioned. I personally think anyone who says X granting Y change's Y's nature should stfu. SoRV gives the benefit of a spell cast by a spellcaster, RAW the damn benefit is spell based - get over it. Backed by intent (no specifically dispelling ex abilities granted by polymorph/wild shape) and examples (mental pinnacle) just becuase the source granting the ability isn't of the same type; the granted ability still keeps it's type. There was a huge aurgument from one of our local trolls claiming otherwise with nothing but his opinion. Likely he'll post in here soon.
That's the kind of thing errata should make clear. Personally, I'd like to reword it and remove the level cap on it.
But I agree that it is Ex, just for the record.
Which is?
10ft away from where you started the turn.
Iron Heart Surge: Think people are really going to sit down and claim you can end the sun with this? *shrugs*.
Make it just in case, what harm could it do?
Well, the thing is people will be expecting this to get errata'ed and at minimum clarified on what it can and can't remove. If we leave it as-is, it makes it look like we aren't trying. If we do errata it, and people don't agree with our discussion, then they will just house rule it. Not that they all ready aren't doing that, but it would be nice to have the House Rules on the same page in regards to IHS.
All of the throwing maneuvers: Super ninjas throw people no matter their size. Like the famous roll backwards with a foot to the stomach throw. Inside the 4th wall, you can't trip a colossal creature because you can't reach both of it's feet. and while we're inside it, if you physically out powered someone, knew martial arts, and planned on knocking them off balance, should you auto fail? Rule wise alone, dunno.
Well, being a Negima fan means I'm partial towards letting Setting Sun adepts throw things eight times their height.
Clever Positioning: *yawn* I need sleep I think. What was this one again?
Lets you switch places with the target.
Feigned Opening: Probably not. See part about you provoking an AoO? Can you name a way to provoke an AoO when it's not your turn without using your one and only immediate action? And if so, that 1%er there, is it really worth changing the rules to deal with it?
Well, there are, but they are rare (Evasive Reflexes+Thicket of Blades for starters).
Shifting Defense: It can be hardly be misinterpreted that this stance's ability requires an immediate action to use. Clarify it just in case.
There is someone out there who thinks a Monk is playable with 15PB. I'm not putting it past Humanity to misinterpret that stance.
-
The Idiot Crusader is a build I invented (I like to think of it as my CO thesis). It works by having a Crusader with more maneuvers readied than maneuvers known such that he refreshes his maneuvers for free every round. It dips into areas that the rules don't cover, but the rules are general enough that I think it actually works (maybe, new developments have made me rethink some parts of it). In any case, you can read more about the Type 1 version here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=8218.0). I never wrote up details of Type 2 anywhere, and I think it was actually Amechra who discovered it while making a character for a PbP game. In any case, I can give you the full details if you want.
Desert Wind
[spoiler]
Burning Brand - Should clarify that the fire damage is in place of your normal melee damage, not in addition to it. Should clarify other sources of damage to the attack (such as the energy damage from a frost or shock weapon) are also converted to fire damage.
Desert Tempest - Your attacks occur in response to the same event that provokes an attack of opportunity. It should clarify whether your attacks come before or after the AoO is resolved.
Distracting Ember - Should specify an unoccupied space within range, rather than just any space. Alternatively, any space the elemental can occupy (since it may be able to share a space with larger creatures). This is important since unlike the Summon Monster line of spells, this maneuver does not inherit the usual summoning criteria from the Summoning subschool. We should check that to see what else may need to be specified about the summoning.
Flashing Sun - Should specify that the extra melee attack should come during the maneuver (as opposed to just any time you feel like during the round, such as not even during your turn).
Hatchling's Flame - Save DC is undefined. Should be DC 12 + Wis mod.
Holocaust Cloak - Probably doesn't need to be changed, but it winds up with the weird situation where an adjacent opponent hitting you with a spiked chain doesn't take damage (since the chain is also a reach weapon). I just thought I'd mention it.
Inferno Blast - Save DC is undefined. Should be DC 19 + Wis mod.
Rising Pheonix - Clarify that it must be a (roughly) horizontal surface? It allows you to fly near walls and ceilings (they are surfaces too). The other issues can be fixed by explaining that a solid or liquid surface it what this stance refers to by saying "ground."
Salamander Charge - Specify that you are not damaged by your own Salamander Charge's fire wall.
Searing Blade - As previously mentioned, initiation action should be a swift action, not a standard action.
Zephyr Dance - Clarify that improving your AC after the attack roll has been resolved may cause it to miss.
[/spoiler]
Devoted Spirit
[spoiler]
Note: Unlike the aligned charges, the aligned Aura stances don't have alignment prerequisites, despite having alignment descriptors. Just thought I'd mention it.
Aura of Chaos - Add "You may..." in front of "... reroll each such die and add its result to the original damage total" to prevent arguments about d2 Crusaders and infinite loops in the metagame.
Aura of Triumph - As written, you select the ally to pair with for healing when you initiate the stance (note the targeting line). Might want to either clarify that (and thus that you can reselect the ally by reinitiating the stance as a swift action) or changing it to something more general, since a single ally healing 4 (and 4 to you) isn't that much for a 6th level stance. On the other hand, since you can be evil and take this, Aura of Triumph does happen to be an indisputable method of "free" out of combat healing (Martial Spirit has that annoying clause about switching allies for healing whenever you hit an opponent).
Immortal Fortitude - Should specify that only the saving throws granted by the stance count towards the three saves before it ends, and possibly that you can refresh it as a swift action even if it's already active. Some clarification on the interactions with Disintegrate would be helpful, since by the wording of the stance you drop to negative HP for a moment before returning to 1 HP, but since Disintegrate deals HP danage it can't kill or incapacitate you and remain alive an conscious with 1 hp remaining. Immortal Fortitude should probably win out, but it's not as clear as it could be.
Thicket of Blades - Interaction with effects that prevent AoOs from being provoked due to movement should be clarified (including Tumble). I think Thicket of Blades would win over most of those, but it's about as clear as mud at best and really, I'm just guessing with a pinch of wishful thinking.
[/spoiler]
Diamond Mind
[spoiler]
Disrupting Blow - Formatting issue: Duration should be immediately before Saving Throw, not after.
[/spoiler]
Iron Heart
[spoiler]
Absolute Steel - While it is inconsistent with similar abilities, I don't think that is enough to warrant changing this stance's functionality. However, for clarity's sake, I agree with adding "from your original position" to the line about 10 feet of movement, or a similar clarification on what 10 feet of movement actually involves (or doesn't involve).
Dazing Strike - Uses the Fort Partial save to indicate that only the dazing is negated, not the melee damage. It should probably use Disrupting Blow's text (DM 5) and that of similar strikes with saves instead for consistency, but that's not really important.
Exorcism of Steel - Should clarify that the opponent suffers the damage penalty, not the weapon (so the opponent changing weapons still suffers the penalty). Should clarify that the weapon attack is a sunder attempt.
Iron Heart Surge - Needs clarifications on what constitutes an effect or condition affecting you.
Lightning Recovery - For consistency and clarity, should specify that you must keep the result of the reroll, even if it's worse than the original.
Lightning Throw - Should clarify how the weapon returns to you (and possibly what can stop it, like a Returning weapon; see also page 102, Sidebar: Stopping a Returning Weapon), and also what happens to it until then (such as where it lands and what happens to it if it's one of those weapons that are destroyed when thrown, like shuriken, although shuriken aren't applicable since you still need to make a melee attack).
[/spoiler]
That's all I have for the first 4 disciplines. I'll see about doing the remaining five later.
-
There is someone out there who thinks a Monk is playable with 15PB. I'm not putting it past Humanity to misinterpret that stance.
It's playable, in that you are physically capable of playing one, it's just not useful or survivable. :p
-
Except that it is possible to be more than 10ft away from the ground if you try to cross a lake. I dunno, I'm just being picky here.
Oooh I see what you mean. Change "ground" to solid & liquids as it mentions several times before hand.
I view TO as a thing to avoid when designing something.
Well what is the TO part really? The infinite loop? I'm reminded of Empower's interaction with Maximize. IE Empower does state it improves all variable effects (akin to the stance's effect based on a variable value), if something comes along and removes said variable value which is what Maximize does (akin to no 1s, w/e), you still have to roll for the effect. Fixed by examples else where.
Except as-is, it fluctuates between healing two characters or you and all allies in 30ft. There's a distinct difference between this and the d2 Crusader. One is clearly stupid, and the other is possibly intentional.
Still don't see that. Target says you and one ally. Description says you and one ally. we're talking Aura of Triumph right?
But I agree that it is Ex, just for the record.
The strike is Ex.
What I'm saying is the Heal spell isn't. Take my more recent example: Mental Pinnacle. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/spells/mentalPinnacle.htm)Here you are given power points, powers known and psionic manifesting to use them but are prevented from all forms of spellcasting.
If you are correct in X granting Y changes Y's type to X's. The granted power points are not psionic, they are magical. the powers granted are not psionic based, they are spell based. The block of spellcasting would then block your magical power points, magical powers known, and magical ability to manifest your magical powers.
Or you know, you're half-right. Granted effects retain their types. Mental Pinnacle bestows psionic abilities (not magical), Assume Supernatural Ability bestows Supernatural effects (not pick one su ability and change it to a magical spell or w/e), Wild shape gives you Ex abilities (not Su versions of Ex abilities) and when something says you gain the benefit of a spell cast by someone you gain the frigging benefit of a spell cast by someone, not some made up bullshit.
It probably needs clarification (such as yes a spell cast by someone is magical, yes this benefit allows a save for half, no this doesn't heal ability burn, no you didn't cast it so no AoO, etc.), see Shifting Defense right?
Well, the thing is people will be expecting this to get errata'ed and at minimum clarified on what it can and can't remove. If we leave it as-is, it makes it look like we aren't trying. If we do errata it, and people don't agree with our discussion, then they will just house rule it. Not that they all ready aren't doing that, but it would be nice to have the House Rules on the same page in regards to IHS.
So make it and we'll all chime our input over there and see if we can get a decent mash up out of things.
Well, being a Negima fan means I'm partial towards letting Setting Sun adepts throw things eight times their height.
Anyone up for disagreeing then?
Well, there are, but they are rare (Evasive Reflexes+Thicket of Blades for starters).
Hmm, wouldn't hurt to change it to intimidate I don't think.
There is someone out there who thinks a Monk is playable with 15PB. I'm not putting it past Humanity to misinterpret that stance.
I misinterpret your post. PB15 Monks are very playable.
As NPCs. :D
I'll offer some input on Shadow Hand later tonight or so. It is good that no one is posting thus we are doing a fine job, or bad because everyone isn't joining in cus we suck? Maybe since the 1st topic is ToB, a knee jerk banned book, there simply is less people with strong opinions about it. If so, good choice in which to cut our teeth on.
-
The strike is Ex.
What I'm saying is the Heal spell isn't. Take my more recent example: Mental Pinnacle. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/spells/mentalPinnacle.htm)Here you are given power points, powers known and psionic manifesting to use them but are prevented from all forms of spellcasting.
If you are correct in X granting Y changes Y's type to X's. The granted power points are not psionic, they are magical. the powers granted are not psionic based, they are spell based. The block of spellcasting would then block your magical power points, magical powers known, and magical ability to manifest your magical powers.
Or you know, you're half-right. Granted effects retain their types. Mental Pinnacle bestows psionic abilities (not magical), Assume Supernatural Ability bestows Supernatural effects (not pick one su ability and change it to a magical spell or w/e), Wild shape gives you Ex abilities (not Su versions of Ex abilities) and when something says you gain the benefit of a spell cast by someone you gain the frigging benefit of a spell cast by someone, not some made up bullshit.
It probably needs clarification (such as yes a spell cast by someone is magical, yes this benefit allows a save for half, no this doesn't heal ability burn, no you didn't cast it so no AoO, etc.), see Shifting Defense right?
The analogy isn't quite so simple. It doesn't give you a heal spell. It gives you the benefit of a heal spell. So you aren't casting a spell; you look at what a heal would do, and then the strike does the same thing (except any detrimental effects, because it says "benefit"; an undead would not be affected by this ability, for instance). But it isn't the same effect, and it's not noted as inheriting the method of accomplishing the benefit of a heal spell (being a spell). So it's extraordinary.
-
Well what is the TO part really? The infinite loop? I'm reminded of Empower's interaction with Maximize. IE Empower does state it improves all variable effects (akin to the stance's effect based on a variable value), if something comes along and removes said variable value which is what Maximize does (akin to no 1s, w/e), you still have to roll for the effect. Fixed by examples else where.
While the loop itself is a concern, the TO portion is that you can "reroll" when you take average damage. I guess the problem is more of CC's issue than the Bo9S'.
Still don't see that. Target says you and one ally. Description says you and one ally. we're talking Aura of Triumph right?
OK, found the problem: I had somehow mixed up Rallying Strike with Aura of Triumph.
The strike is Ex.
What I'm saying is the Heal spell isn't. Take my more recent example: Mental Pinnacle. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/spells/mentalPinnacle.htm)Here you are given power points, powers known and psionic manifesting to use them but are prevented from all forms of spellcasting.
If you are correct in X granting Y changes Y's type to X's. The granted power points are not psionic, they are magical. the powers granted are not psionic based, they are spell based. The block of spellcasting would then block your magical power points, magical powers known, and magical ability to manifest your magical powers.
Or you know, you're half-right. Granted effects retain their types. Mental Pinnacle bestows psionic abilities (not magical), Assume Supernatural Ability bestows Supernatural effects (not pick one su ability and change it to a magical spell or w/e), Wild shape gives you Ex abilities (not Su versions of Ex abilities) and when something says you gain the benefit of a spell cast by someone you gain the frigging benefit of a spell cast by someone, not some made up bullshit.
So should we change it to Su and leave the wording alone, or should we leave it as Ex and change the wording so it doesn't "cast a spell"?
So make it and we'll all chime our input over there and see if we can get a decent mash up out of things.
K.
The analogy isn't quite so simple. It doesn't give you a heal spell. It gives you the benefit of a heal spell. So you aren't casting a spell; you look at what a heal would do, and then the strike does the same thing (except any detrimental effects, because it says "benefit"; an undead would not be affected by this ability, for instance). But it isn't the same effect, and it's not noted as inheriting the method of accomplishing the benefit of a heal spell (being a spell). So it's extraordinary.
See above. If we make it Su, it removes one hell of a headache (Antimagic negating the effects of a spell, despite the source being Ex). But if we leave it Ex and change the wording (merely reprinting the spell's text, altering so it doesn't mention being a spell), then we retain the original effect without risking it being negated.
Really, why they didn't just say "The target heals 10hp per Initiator level you possess" is beyond me.
-
Really, why they didn't just say "The target heals 10hp per Initiator level you possess" is beyond me.
Because Heal does more than just give HP. Marking it supernatural should quell the arguments (which are based primary off SoRV healing ability burn) but then we would still present misinterpretation. If they cannot accept Ex giving magic then they would never accept Su giving magic. Someone would wine about if you provoke an AoO for using the strike, someone else would claim it's Su, etc. all because of personal limitations of understanding.
Word revision may be a better solution but you can't spell things out better than the benefit of a spell cast by a spellcaster. So where to go from here?
-
Really, why they didn't just say "The target heals 10hp per Initiator level you possess" is beyond me.
Because Heal does more than just give HP. Marking it supernatural should quell the arguments (which are based primary off SoRV healing ability burn) but then we would still present misinterpretation. If they cannot accept Ex giving magic then they would never accept Su giving magic. Someone would wine about if you provoke an AoO for using the strike, someone else would claim it's Su, etc. all because of personal limitations of understanding.
Word revision may be a better solution but you can't spell things out better than the benefit of a spell cast by a spellcaster. So where to go from here?
I'm going to be honest: Whenever someone in my campaigns used that strike, they almost never cared about the rest of the Heal spell's text. They didn't even realize that it can cure Ability Damage, poison, or disease, remove blindness.
I don't think the strike actually needs all of that extra baggage. The average player who reads that strike is going to be excited over healing 150HP. The more experienced players will be a little irritated by this, but it's still a good maneuver even without those extras.
Though if you find this to be a horrible idea, I'm not going to push it.
Edit: Should we get more opinions on this?
-
Though if you find this to be a horrible idea, I'm not going to push it.
Actually I don't. I do however think the choice to nix everything but healing HP is, well.
As you said.
Edit: Should we get more opinions on this?
-
Though if you find this to be a horrible idea, I'm not going to push it.
Actually I don't. I do however think the choice to nix everything but healing HP is, well.
As you said.
Edit: Should we get more opinions on this?
All right, what parts of the Heal spell should stay? Ability restoration? Should it still pose a threat to undead?
-
I'd suggest that anything that affects numbers should stay, things that affect conditions should be removed, just as a kind of arbitrary distinction to save on space. So keep ability damage healing and suchlike. Not strongly opinionated on that one. Also, since I strongly doubt that interactions with undead were considered when writing it (I mean, who has an undead party member, right? Undead are evil![/parody), it's probably best not to carry that over and let them heal from it just fine. It's not like they don't have hit point maintenance problems to begin with thanks to their absent Con score (barring Unholy Toughness-having individuals).
-
Though if you find this to be a horrible idea, I'm not going to push it.
Actually I don't. I do however think the choice to nix everything but healing HP is, well.
As you said.
Edit: Should we get more opinions on this?
All right, what parts of the Heal spell should stay? Ability restoration? Should it still pose a threat to undead?
Benefit's usage over "effect" seems to imply the negative aspects (Harming undead) wouldn't apply. That being said the save halves should remain if we keep it spell based. For 1%'s sake that somewhere someone has something that needs to refuse healing. I'm sure I've seen inverted heal affects before and since the hp loss aspect isn't part of nor the result of Heal its self, the result should HP loss.
SoRV is the only strike maneuver capable of healing ability damage, removal of that is loss of the ToB being able to cure ability damage at all. I'm a little reluctant to spit in the face of both that benefit and author intent of granting ability healing (and other affects) with the choice of Heal over simply noting an amount of HP healed.
It would seem, if you wanted to drop the inherent weaknesses of being spell based, to create that Ex only based affect, while still preserving Heal's other affects would be to type out the effect into the strike rather than coping out to a spell cast by someone. with this rewording you can incorporate Bauglir's suggestion of healing undead (as the rest of the strikes can) as well as drop the other curative effects.
If that idea appeals to you I strongly suggest to use that min/max foresight and nix healing ability burn, even though psionics has dozens of ways to give you infinite power points, I'm sure that is on someone's docket and best deal with it now. Perhaps with a clause of "Anything that alters magical healing and Conjuration(Healing) effects apply to this maneuver's curative effects" would work. And it's not positive energy based :)
-
Death Mark: Remove the "See Text" line in the Saving Throw, as there's nothing in the text indicating something could be denied a save.
Actually, from context, I think they originally intended for the creature you hit to have no save(what with having already had an attack roll and being the origin for the blast)
Aura of Chaos: Should we fix the stance so the d2 Crusader doesn't work?
Limit rerolling any given dice once?
Crusader's Strike: Should we mess with this? Like, at all? I'm personally for infinite out-of-combat healing, but I know it's a sore-spot for less-experienced DMs. Additionally, should this have the Su tag or not (I'm against it, but there's people out there who think it should).
Intent seems to be against infinite healing(whatever we 'CO weirdos' do with it) at this level, but Su would seem to gel better. Heck, do that to all the healing strikes and you cut out the bulk of the noise. It doesn't really change anything in most games unless AMFs are a daily feature.
All of the throwing maneuvers: Should they be restricted by size category? Almost all of them work off of Trip attempts, which can't be used on creatures too much bigger than yourself, but the maneuvers make no mention of this.
Clarify to make it use it's own mechanic(which would be surprisingly similar to Trip)?
Stone Dragon
Take out the 'on the ground' restriction is my personal preference, but its really not that strong as to warrant that sort of limiter.
-
Stone Dragon
Take out the 'on the ground' restriction is my personal preference, but its really not that strong as to warrant that sort of limiter.
As I said, changing to "you must begin your turn on the ground" opens up more options without stripping the original flavour. Plenty of people would be annoyed if that was just taken out. ("This stuff is being written by munchkins who can't stand not being the best at everything!") Maybe "on a solid surface".
As for the heal Strike, what about "this strike restores hit points regardless of whether its target is powered by positive or negative energy, but cannot cure any condition which cannot be remedied by a heal spell."?
-
I would leave all the healing strikes as Ex, a large part of their value is that they are basically the only ways of healing without magic (in an AMF or dead magic zone especially).
I also wouldn't touch aura of chaos, it works exactly how it should and one TO trick that will never see actual play shouldn't warrant a change.
-
Stone Dragon
Take out the 'on the ground' restriction is my personal preference, but its really not that strong as to warrant that sort of limiter.
As I said, changing to "you must begin your turn on the ground" opens up more options without stripping the original flavour. Plenty of people would be annoyed if that was just taken out. ("This stuff is being written by munchkins who can't stand not being the best at everything!") Maybe "on a solid surface".
Look, people who want irrelevant penalties are already claiming you can put ground in your shoes and call it a day. "On a solid surface" or anything equally vague will still lessen the flavour and munchkins will still find ways to bypass it, probably even easier (I put solid metal plates under my shoes nyar nyar!)
As for the heal Strike, what about "this strike restores hit points regardless of whether its target is powered by positive or negative energy, but cannot cure any condition which cannot be remedied by a heal spell."?
Because then you cannot declare that lich covered by buffs your ally and burn it with the power of your faith. :p
-
Stone Dragon
Take out the 'on the ground' restriction is my personal preference, but its really not that strong as to warrant that sort of limiter.
As I said, changing to "you must begin your turn on the ground" opens up more options without stripping the original flavour. Plenty of people would be annoyed if that was just taken out. ("This stuff is being written by munchkins who can't stand not being the best at everything!") Maybe "on a solid surface".
Personal favored intermediate solution, "You must be in contact with at least 1 pound of stone or earth."
As for the heal Strike, what about "this strike restores hit points regardless of whether its target is powered by positive or negative energy, but cannot cure any condition which cannot be remedied by a heal spell."?
I favor copying the Heal spell straight and just skip the mention of negative energy or the living only limitation for healing.
-
I favor copying the Heal spell straight and just skip the mention of negative energy or the living only limitation for healing.
Seconded
As for SoRV and Abuluty Burn, I did retract my statement that it would heal that (still not "natural healing"), although the entire manuver (as it currently is) is completely nonmagical. If quoting the exact text to argue a point makes me a troll, then this is site has more trolls than 4chan.
Iron Heart Surge is an easy one:
"This manuver can remove any status or effect affecting the Initiator (and only the Initiator), so long as he is still allowed to move and use standard actions. If he is still exposed to the source of the effect at the beginning of his next turn, he once again suffers its effects as normal."
This will, for example, let a Warblade to shake off a fear effect or Dominate spell, but not blot out the sun (although he could ignore any penalties associated with a weakness to the sun he has for 1 round).
-
Strictly speaking, status isn't a defined term within the rules, and there's a whole laundry list of conditions you should probably exclude (such as ability damaged, etc). I mean, depending on how nice a thing you think Warblades should get.
-
Point taken. Perhaps it should be changed to "condition"? That is actually defined in the rules. Ability Damage/Drain is excluded then.
Although I do feel that vampire Warblades should be able to use it to buy themselves an additional round of sunlight exposure before dying violently, and that isn't considered a "condition".
-
Actually, "conditions (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm)" does include a lot of things, including Ability Damage and Drain, as well as some weird shit like Blown Away, Grappled, Incorporeal, Invisible, Pinned, Stable, and dead.
A better approach would be defining what exactly you can get rid of. My list would be:
- Blinded
- Confused
- Cowering
- Dazed
- Dazzled
- Deafened
- Entangled
- Exhausted
- Fascinated
- Fatigued
- Flat-Footed
- Frightened
- Grappling
- Helpless
- Nauseated
- Panicked
- Paralyzed
- Petrified
- Pinned
- Shaken
- Sickened
- Stunned
- Turned
Although, without a note saying otherwise, some of these conditions prevent you from using IHS in the first place. A few of these are debatable.
-
Good point. Things like dead, obviously, shouldn't be removable, nor should Helpless (that's brought on by some other situation).
Your list does, however, not include Immobilized (Tome of Magic made that one a condition), which really should be removeable (only effect is that you can't leave your square(s)). Also, it might be a good idea to let it prematurely end spells with a duration.
-
Actually, "conditions (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm)" does include a lot of things, including Ability Damage and Drain, as well as some weird shit like Blown Away, Grappled, Incorporeal, Invisible, Pinned, Stable, and dead.
A better approach would be defining what exactly you can get rid of. My list would be:
- Blinded
- Confused
- Cowering
- Dazed
- Dazzled
- Deafened
- Entangled
- Exhausted
- Fascinated
- Fatigued
- Flat-Footed
- Frightened
- Grappling
- Helpless
- Nauseated
- Panicked
- Paralyzed
- Petrified
- Pinned
- Shaken
- Sickened
- Stunned
- Turned
Although, without a note saying otherwise, some of these conditions prevent you from using IHS in the first place. A few of these are debatable.
You need to be able to take actions to initiate IHS, and those deny you actions.
This brings up another good question: Can a Martial Adept initiate maneuvers/stances while grappling/grappled/pinned/pinning? The FAQ has ruled against it when the adept is on the receiving end, but a Stone Dragon stance works when the adept is the one doing the grappling.
-
Iron Heart Surge is an easy one:
"This manuver can remove any status or effect affecting the Initiator (and only the Initiator), so long as he is still allowed to move and use standard actions. If he is still exposed to the source of the effect at the beginning of his next turn, he once again suffers its effects as normal."
This will, for example, let a Warblade to shake off a fear effect or Dominate spell, but not blot out the sun (although he could ignore any penalties associated with a weakness to the sun he has for 1 round).
What about this?
Choose any negative effect or condition with a duration of 1 or more rounds, or a negative racial trait (eg. the special weakness of a vampire). The initiator is unaffected by that condition for 1 round. In addition, if it can be dispelled then the effect is targeted by a greater dispel magic effect with a caster level equal to your initiator level, as long as it is within range.
-
Although, without a note saying otherwise, some of these conditions prevent you from using IHS in the first place. A few of these are debatable.
You need to be able to take actions to initiate IHS, and those deny you actions.
That's why I made a point of mentioning that unless we say otherwise, some of those conditions will prevent you from using IHS. I wouldn't mind seeing a higher level version that would let you initiate it regardless, but that's outside the scope of errata. ;)
-
Well, I seem to remember a Tiger Claw manuver that let you attack with any weapon in a grapple.
-
OK, so for starters, this is the new SoRV:
When you hit with this strike, select either yourself or an ally within 10ft. This strike immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting either you or the chosen ally: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, disabled, dying, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned. It also cures 10 hit points of damage per level initiator level you possess, to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level.
You cannot initiate this maneuver to remove the Stunned or Dazed condition from yourself, as you must be able to take actions in order to initiate this maneuver.
The red text is still a concern of mine. Should the level cap stay for this maneuver or not? This IS a 9th level strike we are talking about.
And this is my proposition for IHS:
Iron Heart Surge [Clarification]
Iron Heart Surge is capable of removing any one of the following conditions each time it is initiated:
Blinded, Confused, Dazzled, Deafened, Energy Drained, Entangled, Exhausted, Fatigued, Flat-Footed, Frightened, Immobilized*, Knocked Down, Nauseated, On Fire, Prone, Shaken, Sickened, Slowed, Staggered, Turned.
Any spell/power with a duration lasting longer than one round, provided you are either being targeted by the spell or are within the spell's radius. Any Spell-Like/Psi-like ability with a duration lasting longer than one round, provided you are either being targeted by the spell-like ability or are within the ability's radius. Any Supernatural ability with a duration lasting longer than one round, provided you are either being targeted by the ability or are within the spell's radius.
Any racial trait currently affecting the initiator (such as Light-Sensitivity or a vampire's weakness to sunlight). The source of this detriment is not removed; only the condition caused by the racial trait. Any extraordinary ability currently affecting the initiator (such as the Frenzy ability of the Frenzied Berserker, or the "Bleeding" ability caused by certain creatures). Any ability hindering the initiator caused by an item (alchemical, mundane, magical, or otherwise), such as a Caltrop wound.
Any effect not listed above is outside of Iron Heart Surge's range of influence. These conditions cannot be removed, even if their source is a spell's effect or similar ability (such as being dazed by a Psionic power, or being affected by a Bard's Fascinate ability).
Additionally, some effects can be reinstated at any point during the rest of the round, after you have initiated Iron Heart surge (for example, a Vampire's weakness to sunlight will reinstate its effects at the end of the Vampire's turn, unless he uses his Move action to exit the sunlight. The move action would be possible immediately after initiating Iron Heart Surge).
In case of Iron Heart Surge affecting a spell or other ability that affects an area (such as the Web spell), the entire effect is ended for everyone involved when Iron Heart Surge resolves.
Stone Dragon
[spoiler]First and foremost: Should we remove that whole "On the ground" restriction? It seems like a Supernatural restriction, and this style is 99% mundane. It also has a lot of restrictions on the stances as-is, so that one seems redundant. It's possible that the Devs intended this style to be Su, like Desert Wind and Shadow Hand, but changed their minds and never fixed it.
I know that's more a fix than errata, but it really looks out of place. Seriously, read the exact text:
Unlike with other disciplines, adepts of this school rely on an external force-the power of earth and stone-to help power their maneuvers. As a result, Stone Dragon maneuvers can be initiated only if you are in contact with the ground.
Mountain Tombstone Strike is referred to as Tombstone Mountain Strike on the list. Just a typo, but still very stupid editing.[/spoiler]
Tiger Claw
[spoiler][/spoiler]
White Raven
[spoiler][/spoiler]
-
Can't IHS only remove one thing anyway?
And the limitation on SoRV is stupid, since the minimum IL for the manuver is 17 and thus above the cap. Remove it or, at the very least, bump it to 250 (as Mass Heal's cap).
-
Can't IHS only remove one thing anyway?
True. Fixing post.
-
The FAQ actually indicated you can use manuevers while grappling, but not while pinned. The reason being that to initiate manuevers you must be able to move somewhat (that is in ToB somewhere). So normal grappling still allows you to move enough to be able to use them, but when pinned your are more or less held immobile.
-
Things look like they are coming together here. I like the rewording on SoRV, IHS's text is a little bulky but probably needed. Tombstone Mountain Tombstone Strike's typo is the reason I can't ever remember the name of the strike >.>
-
IHS's text is a little bulky but probably needed.
Would bullet points help?
Iron Heart Surge is capable of removing any one of the following conditions each time it is initiated:
- Blinded, Confused, Dazzled, Deafened, Energy Drained, Entangled, Exhausted, Fatigued, Flat-Footed, Frightened, Immobilized, Knocked Down, Nauseated, On Fire, Prone, Shaken, Sickened, Slowed, Staggered, Turned.
- Any spell/power, spell-like/psi-like ability or supernatural ability with a duration lasting longer than one round, provided you are either being targeted by the spell or are within the spell's radius.
- Any racial trait currently affecting the initiator (such as Light Sensitivity or a vampire's weakness to sunlight). The source of this detriment is not removed, only the condition caused by the racial trait.
- Any extraordinary ability currently affecting the initiator (such as the Frenzy ability of a Frenzied Berserker, or the "Bleeding Wounds" inflicted by certain creatures).
- Any ability hindering the initiator caused by an item (alchemical, mundane, magical, or otherwise), such as a caltrop wound.
Any effect not listed above is outside of Iron Heart Surge's range of influence. These conditions cannot be removed, even if their source is a spell's effect or similar ability (such as being dazed by a psionic power, or being affected by a bard's Fascinate ability).
Additionally, some effects can be reinstated at any point during the rest of the round, after you have initiated Iron Heart Surge (for example, a vampire's weakness to sunlight will reinstate its effects at the end of the vampire's turn, unless he uses his move action to exit the sunlight. The move action would be possible immediately after initiating Iron Heart Surge).
In case of Iron Heart Surge affecting a spell or other ability that affects an area (such as the web spell), the entire effect is ended for everyone involved when Iron Heart Surge resolves.
-
On Fire isn't a condition. At least not as far as the SRD is concerned.
-
On Fire isn't a condition. At least not as far as the SRD is concerned.
I know, it's covered by the Items/Spell section. But I felt like putting that there.
-
Haven't read the whole tread in detail and I am not sure if it has been discussed; but I think the "A martial initiator begins playing with a level 1 stance" line should be clarified to say if that only matters to level 1 initiators or if it applies to characters dipping into a martial initiator class.
-
about iron heart surge, these are the guidelines I use in my games
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142166 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142166)
-
Iron Heart Surge is capable of removing any one of the following conditions each time it is initiated:
I'd like to see a note about some of the effects you usually probably don't want to remove, such as hasted (say you take damage for each spell currently on or something), and I would like to see a note that if you can somehow initiate and have a standard action and still want to while dazed, petrified, charmed etc then IHS can remove those too. This would mostly apply to some of the races with split minds and such but I think there are some feats/powers that let you delay the onset of some of those things, or otherwise let you act normally for a round.
Also I'd like some clarity on if IHS can exempt you from planar effects for a round.
-
Iron Heart Surge is capable of removing any one of the following conditions each time it is initiated:
I'd like to see a note about some of the effects you usually probably don't want to remove, such as hasted (say you take damage for each spell currently on or something), and I would like to see a note that if you can somehow initiate and have a standard action and still want to while dazed, petrified, charmed etc then IHS can remove those too. This would mostly apply to some of the races with split minds and such but I think there are some feats/powers that let you delay the onset of some of those things, or otherwise let you act normally for a round.
Also I'd like some clarity on if IHS can exempt you from planar effects for a round.
IHS is selective as-written (you pick one and end it). As for being able to end petrification/dazing and such, only a Dvati could do so in theory (there are problems with this, the foremost being that Dvati is Dragon Mag material and horribly written). You actually have to be able to move your body to initiate a maneuver, so merely having a Schism (or similar effect) up wouldn't be enough to help you.
As for Planar Effects, yeah, we kinda do need to clarify it (since by RAW you can extinguish the Plane of Fire).
-
Actually, Sinfire, I believe one of the things Catty was making mention of to be a Mad Foam Rager effect. A Barbarian, using Mad Foam Rager could delay a daze/petrify/paralyze effect for 1 turn, and I'd think an Iron Heart Surge in the intermittent time should be able to remove the delayed condition. I believe there are a few other effects like Mad Foam Rager to do similar things.
-
Actually, Sinfire, I believe one of the things Catty was making mention of to be a Mad Foam Rager effect. A Barbarian, using Mad Foam Rager could delay a daze/petrify/paralyze effect for 1 turn, and I'd think an Iron Heart Surge in the intermittent time should be able to remove the delayed condition. I believe there are a few other effects like Mad Foam Rager to do similar things.
That is possible. Forgot that feat even existed. I guess it would fall under whatever the source of the Dazing/Petrification/Stunned is.
-
Iron Heart Surge is capable of removing any one of the following conditions each time it is initiated:
I'd like to see a note about some of the effects you usually probably don't want to remove, such as hasted (say you take damage for each spell currently on or something), and I would like to see a note that if you can somehow initiate and have a standard action and still want to while dazed, petrified, charmed etc then IHS can remove those too. This would mostly apply to some of the races with split minds and such but I think there are some feats/powers that let you delay the onset of some of those things, or otherwise let you act normally for a round.
IHS is selective as-written (you pick one and end it). As for being able to end petrification/dazing and such, only a Dvati could do so in theory (there are problems with this, the foremost being that Dvati is Dragon Mag material and horribly written). You actually have to be able to move your body to initiate a maneuver, so merely having a Schism (or similar effect) up wouldn't be enough to help you.
bkdubs123 has the right of it. There are a few effects that would let you act even though you shouldn't be able to, but I would have to dig for them. But as a quick example take the sanctified mind ability: Partition Mind. You can act while stunned or dazed. Yet in the errata listed for IHS stunned and dazed are specifically excluded.
Similarly other effects IHS should be able to end (such as Hasted) are also not listed. I don't know why someone would want to IHS away a buff, but it should be a possibility nonetheless.
-
Similarly other effects IHS should be able to end (such as Hasted) are also not listed. I don't know why someone would want to IHS away a buff, but it should be a possibility nonetheless.
Those effects usually fall under Spell, Magic Item, or Spell-like Ability.
-
As for Planar Effects, yeah, we kinda do need to clarify it (since by RAW you can extinguish the Plane of Fire).
Maybe, I mean the planar of fire is always hot (and high amounts of heat deals fire damage) so it could maybe possible lack a duration.
And if you go with that, Prime's write up works fine even if the planar trait is super natural.
And Sin, you were right on ISH taking up a lot of space. We're kinda bogged down on it >.<
-
As for Planar Effects, yeah, we kinda do need to clarify it (since by RAW you can extinguish the Plane of Fire).
Maybe, I mean the planar of fire is always hot (and high amounts of heat deals fire damage) so it could maybe possible lack a duration.
And if you go with that, Prime's write up works fine even if the planar trait is super natural.
And Sin, you were right on ISH taking up a lot of space. We're kinda bogged down on it >.<
Controversial effects are always hard to work with for this exact reason. At least we've gotten this far.
-
Not really an errata, but IHS could just allow another save against an ongoing effect. If the effect did not have a save, IHS could allow a save at the same DC that the effect would have if it did have a save.
It'd probably be a good idea to make this only work on magically induced effects.
-
Not really an errata, but IHS could just allow another save against an ongoing effect. If the effect did not have a save, IHS could allow a save at the same DC that the effect would have if it did have a save.
It'd probably be a good idea to make this only work on magically induced effects.
Yeah, that falls too far into house rules, as it goes against the wording entirely. I'd like to reserve rewrites for things like SoRV, Snap Kick, and other effects that needed that level of clarification, but that's completely altering the way the ability works.
-
I've updated post 5 with the errata for Devoted Spirit-Setting Sun maneuvers and stances. Time for Shadow Hand-White Raven:
Shadow Hand
[spoiler]Bloodletting Strike: Supernatural or not? It's understandable either way.
Child of Shadow: Delete the words "Melee" and "Ranged". It applies to any attack, so why bother differentiating?
Dance of the Spider: Clarify the second-to-last sentence, because it's just worded stupidly. And Supernatural tag needed (seriously).
Death in the Dark: See Bloodletting Strike.
Drain Vitality: See Bloodletting Strike.
Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike: As the actual errata says: Delete the duration.
Hand of Death: See Bloodletting Strike. Stronger argument for being Su, as this involves Ki by the fluff (even if it is mutable).
One With Shadow: OK, how the fuck does this NOT have the Su clause?
Shadow Blink/Jaunt/Stride: See Bloodletting Strike.
Step of the Dancing Moth: See Bloodletting Strike. Seriously, WTF were the editors thinking?[/spoiler]
Stone Dragon
[spoiler]Reiterating my desire to remove the "On the ground" restriction.
Charging Minotaur: Slight rewording "As part of this maneuver, you charge and must replace the melee attack with a bull rush attempt" Add in a Pounce clause, because it is a Charge.
Crushing Vise: Should we mess with the last few lines (such as removing them, so this maneuver can be used to stop Flyby Attackers)?
Earthstrike Quake: Su or no? I'm inclined to say "yes" since this is Ki-related, but Stone Dragon isn't an SU school (and this maneuver really isn't that strong).
Elder Mountain Hammer: The fluff implies it can be used for sundering. Should we add that in, since the Mountain Hammer line really is the Fighter's Lockpick?
Giant's Stance: A clause for natural weapons is, well, natural.
Irresistible Mountain Strike: As with Crushing Vice, but this also needs a little clarification (can the target still take Full Round actions?).
Mountain Hammer: Again, Sunder clause (heh, that's actually pretty funny)?
Overwhelming Mountain Strike: Again, remove the "on the ground" clause or no?
Stone Dragon's Fury: The counterpart to this (Bone Crusher) cannot deal damage to undead, oozes, or anything immune to Criticals. This cannot deal damage to any of those, with the exception of objects and Constructs. I feel we should fix that for this strike.
Stone Vise: They really like that "on the ground" clause, huh? If we do remove that clause, I'll be sure to mention something for Flying creatures and minimum forward movement/Hovering (I can easily imagine using this on some guy's mount, and then watching them fall to the ground or lose altitude).[/spoiler]
Tiger Claw
[spoiler]Blood in the Water: Reword the last part like this "This stance ends if you go for one minute without scoring a critical hit."
Claw at the Moon: Here's something I never understood; The Jump check isn't specified as requiring a Running Start (long and high jumps do). Should that be changed (since it's implied with Leaping Dragon Stance's wording), or should they be unique to the style (thus making it easier on low level Tiger Claw adepts, but diminishing the usefulness of LDS)?
Dancing Mongoose: A clause about TWFing penalties would be nice (this line of maneuvers was meant to be an alternative, according to the FAQs, so mentioning that the penalties don't apply to this boost would be the way to go).
Death From Above: Unlike Claw at the Moon, this involves movement. Failing the check means you still get to attack, but don't get to move. The other problem is the extra damage: Do you still get it if you failed the check (I'm inclined to say no, and apply that to the errata). Swooping Dragon Strike has better wording.
Raging Mongoose: See Dancing Mongoose.
Wolf Fang Strike: TWFing Penalties should be mentioned. Again, the FAQ mentioned this one as ignoring the normal TWFing penalties.
Wolverine Stance: The last sentence is incorrect, since it makes it sound like the other creature initiated the grapple.[/spoiler]
White Raven
[spoiler]Covering Strike: That last line bugs me. Should it stay as-is, or should we fix it so you can use multiple Covering Strikes, but only once the previous one has worn off?
Flanking Maneuver: Clarifying that the allies who can attack need not be the ones you are currently flanking with would be nice.
Leading the Attack: Again, a range limit is needed. Sheesh, they just copy-pasta'ed this from Devoted Spirit…
Leading the Charge: Should it affect the initiator or not? It becomes so much better if it does, and it makes Warblade/Crusader 1 dips more useful for a Charger build.
Orders Forged from Chaos: Add the Boost tag, since this really is a Boost (but with a Move action initiation).
Press the Advantage: Clarifying that it works with any 5ft step (such as Shifting Defense) is a good idea in my book.
Tactical Strike: A 5ft Step doesn't provoke anyway if it was worded properly.
White Raven Tactics: The "I'm my Own Ally" thing needs to be addressed.[/spoiler]
-
And as a preemptive measure, I'd like to state my opinion on White Raven Tactics as-written.
This is for future reference, BTW.
[spoiler]We look at this maneuver as being poorly written, and this goes without saying. As-is, you can target yourself and just take an extra turn. But what are the implications of letting a White Raven Adept use WRT on himself? Simple: Ungodly broken side effects. While a single Warblade or Crusader using WRT on himself isn't too powerful of a buff (except in the Crusader's case, where there is the potential for more than one extra turn), the fact is we cannot simply overlook this potential.
Why? Page 149: The Crown of White Ravens. An item explicitly designed for use on the White Raven school. For a mere 3,000gp and 24 hours, you have WRT open to you 1/encounter. Not 1/day, 1/encounter. Now let's buy 3 of them. 9,000gp. Now put them together using the DMG's rules for combining magic items (page 288). The final price is 3,000gp+4,500gp+4,500gp, or 12K for those who don't want to add right now.
You now have an item that works 3/encounter, grants a full turn each use, and can be used in rapid succession so you effectively take 4 turns at the start of your first turn. The Belt of Battle, an item widely considered a must-have, has just been replaced by an item that is only 20% more expensive, and works all day long. This is almost strictly superior to the Celerity line of spells (the advantage there is the Immediate action casting time, allowing you to avoid dangerous opponents).
I, for one, never want to see something like that exist.[/spoiler]
-
So... your saying "remove this item" right?
I'm thinking WRT has been deliberated etc. We know that it targets yourself.
People don't like that but it does. Thats the only rub of it. items.
Manythings that exist that jimme with the action economy for many classes and the Tob "magic" should be no different. On par with the other action economy things that people don't like. Maybe NONE of them should exist... excluding this one as opposed to limiting its use as an abusable item. Ymmv.
-
So... your saying "remove this item" right?
I'm thinking WRT has been deliberated etc. We know that it targets yourself.
People don't like that but it does. Thats the only rub of it. items.
Manythings that exist that jimme with the action economy for many classes and the Tob "magic" should be no different. On par with the other action economy things that people don't like. Maybe NONE of them should exist... excluding this one as opposed to limiting its use as an abusable item. Ymmv.
Except deleting that item goes beyond the scope of this project (errata, not house rules).
And WRT isn't on par with other action economy abusers: It's superior to everything that isn't down-right INFINITE. 200,000gp, the maximum possible value of a magic item pre-Epic, buys 44 extra actions every encounter. Never mind that a 1 level dip into Warblade turns it into 44 extra actions every round (you use the final turn granted by the Crown to recover your maneuvers, instantly renewing 44 extra actions), this is something beyond even a Nova Spellcaster.
The Factotum is capable of getting a huge number of actions every encounter as well, but not on this level, nor can it do much damage. With this, even a lowly Warrior becomes a down-right threat (43 Full Attacks, give or take charging between opponents). Imagine a spellcaster with this kind of item.
There are two ways to deal with it: Add in a clause that prevents it from targeting the initiator, or restrict the Crown from Boosts. The latter causes all kinds of problems, as the item's all ready got a debate on Stances. The former is much less problematic, as a good number of DMs all ready outlaw that interaction anyway.
-
Well then the errata for White Raven Tactics should include this tag line: "This manuever does not work more than once per round."
-
Well then the errata for White Raven Tactics should include this tag line: "This manuever does not work more than once per round."
:clap
-
Well then the errata for White Raven Tactics should include this tag line: "This manuever does not work more than once per round."
Agreed.
-
Are there any issues with the Shadow Hand, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw, and White Raven maneuvers other than the ones addressed here that you guys want to bring up?
If not, I'll apply the errata and move onto the PrCs section.
-
Shadow Hand
[spoiler]
Balance on the Sky - Replace "You gian the ability to use air walk" with "You gain the benefits of air walk".
Enervating Shadow Strike - Clarify that the negative levels, which disappear after 24 hours, do so before causing permanent level loss (which also occurs after 24 hours). See the Enervation spell for the right wording.
Shadow Jaunt - Clarify that you take your equipment with you. Probably up to your maximum load, to be consistent with other teleportation effects.
Shadow Noose - "A successful save negates the stun, but not the extra damage." Since the maneuver deals its own damage but does not add it to a base amount, remove the word "extra" from the sentence.
I could have sworn there was one maneuver with a range of 6 ft. instead of 60 ft.
[/spoiler]
Stone Dragon
[spoiler]
Boulder Roll - Change initiation action to 1 swift action in accordance with boosts and so you can actually use it with an overrun.
Colossus Strike - Replace "hurled 1d4 squares" with "hurled 1d4x5 feet".
Earthsrike Quake - Replace "you are immune to the effect of the earthstrike quake maneuver" with "you are immune to the effect of your earthstrike quake maneuver".
Irresistible Mountain Strike, Overwhelming Mountain Strike - Clarify the wording to indicate that you actually lose one of the actions (and are thus reduced to a move+swift or a standard+swift), as opposued to just being unable to take actions of that type (thus allowing, say, a creature hit by Irresistible to full-attack or a creature hit by Overwhelming to use a withdraw or run action).
Stonefoot Stance - Clarify whether or not the +2 bonus to Strength checks applies to everything or only to larger creatures.
[/spoiler]
Tiger Claw
[spoiler]
Blood in the Water - Replace the last sentence in the first paragraph with "This bonus increases by 1 with each subsequent successful critical hit you score." As an untyped bonus from the same source, this would one of the few cases where it does not stack, so no need to give people the wrong idea.
Dancing Mongoose, Raging Mongoose - Either clarify that the boost-granted attacks occur immediately (even if you aren't otherwise attacking), or change it to soemthing similar to Snap Kick, where you initiate it while making one or more attacks and you get the extras as part of the same action. As written, this lets you attack as a swift action, regardless of whatever else you are doing in the round.
Death From Above - Note that you still provoke attacks of opportunity from this movement.
Feral Death Blow - Add the following to the last sentence of the second paragrapgh: "but still suffer the extra damage."
Numerous Tiger Claw maneuvers - Clarify whether or not the DC of the Jump check doubles if you don't move at least 20 feet first.
[/spoiler]
White Raven
[spoiler]
Covering Strike - Clarify the duration with respect to you. Does it only modify your attacks for the turn, or for 3 rounds?
Order Forged from Chaos - Clarify that the move action granted does not count against your allies' normal complement of actions on their upcoming turns. Maybe also state explicitly that this does not affect you (or at least clarify whether or not).
Swarm Tactics - Clarify that only allies within range of the stance gain the attack bonus (different from Leading the Attack and the DS one).
Numerous White Raven maneuvers - Clarify whether or not you count as your own ally for the various effects.
[/spoiler]
-
Numerous Tiger Claw maneuvers - Clarify whether or not the DC of the Jump check doubles if you don't move at least 20 feet first.
As I noted above, this is something that has been bugging me. I almost instinctively avoid those maneuvers (except Sudden Leap) because I don't know how to rule them.
I'm thinking that requiring the 20ft would nerf those maneuvers down pretty hard until you get Leaping Dragon, and that requiring a specific stance to use those maneuvers is unnecessarily harsh towards the players. On the other hand, removing the 20ft requirement diminishes the value of the Leaping Dragon stance.
-
If you had to ask me to rule on it, I'd say that the maneuvers that specify their DC (fixed DC and also DC = enemy AC maneuvers) are exactly that (ie: not multiplied even if you don't move), but the ones that make reference to the normal rules for moving with a Jump check (Sudden Leap and two or three others) work as those rules are normally (ie: the DC is doubled for them if you move less than 20 feet).
Leaping Dragon is a decent option in its own right if you plan on jumping a lot. The +10-foot enhancement bonus (which should be a straight +10 enhancement bonus on the check, otherwise the units don't match and the bonus is meaningless) still helps you succeed on your checks for the TC maneuvers and the standing leap/running jump thing still comes up from time to time around 5th level when you get it (you know, before everyone just flies around all the time). Not all stances have to be useful all the time.
-
Request for a change in the consensus: Swordsage AC Bonus as our written erratta works does not stack with things like the Dervish AC bonus or the Fist of the Forest. Suggest altering it so it specifically does not stack with Monk or Ninja AC Bonus abilities (or anything that states it does not stack with those abilities) as opposed to "AC Bonus" in general.
-
Request for a change in the consensus: Swordsage AC Bonus as our written erratta works does not stack with things like the Dervish AC bonus or the Fist of the Forest. Suggest altering it so it specifically does not stack with Monk or Ninja AC Bonus abilities (or anything that states it does not stack with those abilities) as opposed to "AC Bonus" in general.
That's right, those two are different. Changing.
-
Before I update the consensus:
Page 94 - White Raven Tactics [Addition and Clarification]
You cannot target yourself, despite being your own ally (as doing so results in an infinite penalty to your initiative count). Add "A creature can only be affected by one White Raven Tactics per encounter." to the end of the maneuver's text.
Are there any objections to those two changes to WRT?
-
Hmm, I'd have made it once per round instead, personally.
-
Hmm, I'd have made it once per round instead, personally.
I just based it on the Covering Strike wording really.
-
Well, its just very nice at half at 1/round. It becomes hax when you can apply it over and over and over.
-
I just found a couple of typos in the feats table on page 30-31.
[spoiler]
Extra Granted Maneuver - It doesn't let you ready more maneuvers. The benefit should say something like "Grant an additional maneuver from your maneuvers readied".
Shadow Blade - Requirements are one SH stance, not just any maneuver.
Shadow Trickster - Requirements are CL 1 and one SH strike, not a SH stance. Gives a +2 bonus to Illusion save DCs, not +1.
White Raven Defense - Requirements are one WR stance, not just any maneuver
[/spoiler]
Also, for future reference when we get to the PrCs
[spoiler]
Bloodstorm Blade lacks the text of other PrCs adding the full level to IL, but this should be made clear in the PrCs and IL section or something.
Shadow Sun Ninja - Flame of the Shadow Sun's fire bolt can never actually be used. To use it, you need to spend a swift action on the turn after you spend an immediate action, which consumes the swift action by definition. I'd suggest changing the swift action fire bolt to a free action.
Darkness Within Light makes an erroneous reference to being deafened in the first line of the final paragraph. Nowhere else in the ability does it mention being deafened, only blinded (and ignoring pinpoint-capable senses, of which hearing/the Listen skill only applies if you beat the opponent's Move Silently by 20).
[/spoiler]
-
I'd like to add to Garryl's corrections that the short description of the Shadow Blade feat disagrees with the text.
-
Has anyone mentioned the BAB on the Swordsage table being messed up? It gains +1 BAB at level 13, not at level 14 like normal for a 3/4 BAB class.
-
Moving onto the PrCs now.
Does anyone find it odd that three of the eight PrCs in this book do not offer stance advancement (BCM, BSB, and DSS do not have a stance progression)?
And then there's the whole problem with the Idiot Crusader builds. Those need clarifying, but I'm very unfamiliar with the exploits involved, and need some help with that.
Bloodclaw Master
[spoiler]Superior Two Weapon Fighting makes no mention of Multiattack, one of the possible entries into the PrC (and claws are a Tiger Claw weapon).
Rending Claws has no action listed, and should either require a Swift action (making it optional) or no action (making it mandatory).[/spoiler]
Bloodstorm Blade
[spoiler]The skill list seems a little light for 4+Int.
Clarifying if BSB advances IL (it clearly does not have a maneuver progression).
Should Returning Attacks cost a maneuver to use? The advanced version doesn't (or should we reverse this?).
Reword Martial Throw so it actually works with Ranged attacks (because as-written, it just says you can use Strikes with Thrown weapons).
Reword Blade Storm so it actually works.[/spoiler]
Deepstone Sentinel
[spoiler]Mountain Fortress Stance can provide high ground, but doesn't mention it.
Crashing Mountain Juggernaut allows you to charge, but the enemies affected prevent it. Change this to enable charging.
Dragon's Tooth has no duration, and can be used at will. Seems a little stupid (although it's largely useless outside of constructing buildings or creating obstacles). Also add in a limitation on occupied spaces (to prevent it from being used to damage buildings).
Awaken the Stone Dragon only affects enemies. I'd like to clarify it so there's no possible misunderstanding here.[/spoiler]
Eternal Blade
[spoiler]Clarify the Eternal Training's insight bonus to attack rolls so that it's either determined when you gain the ability or when you activate it. It also has a typo on the second benefit (mentioning a Crusader/Eternal Defender instead of Eternal Blade).
Clarify Guided Strike's uses/day (it looks like it is meant to be unlimited, but I'm not sure).
Armored Uncanny Dodge literally serves no additional purpose, since Uncanny Dodge can be used even when wearing heavy armor anyway.
Clarify Eternal Knowledge so it's actually useful for something (as written, it can never provide more than a DC10 Knowledge check because it's untrained).
Should we change Defensive Insight to an Immediate action? It would be more useful that way.[/spoiler]
Jade Phoenix Mage
[spoiler]First and foremost, fix the Skills.
Include a clause in Empowering Strike so that it doesn't alter the casting time of the spell for Spontaneous Casters. Same with Quickening Strike.[/spoiler]
Master of Nine
[spoiler]I'm not seeing any problems here. Is there anything wrong with it?[/spoiler]
Ruby Knight Vindicator
[spoiler]Should there be a per round limit on Divine Impetus?
Divine Fury should be a part of the action required to initiate the strike, not a free action (since it's abusable as a free action).[/spoiler]
Shadowsun Ninja
[spoiler]The Monk Abilities class feature mentions not having Monk levels, but still progresses Stunning Fist without providing it. Add in a clause about it granting Stunning Fist without the prerequisites to fix that.
I feel we need to clarify something on Touch of the Shadow Sun's damage value, be it for increased size categories or against them. As written, its either based on your racial Unarmed Strike value or on your Monk Unarmed Strike. Also clarify that you cannot use it in reverse order (heal first then negative damage). And a clause about not discharging the healing should be added (since it is possible to not have the Swift action or Standard action needed to use it).
Darkness Within Light has extra text that implies something, but has no additional effects.[/spoiler]
Did I miss anything major here?
-
About stance progressions, no it does not seem odd to me. Of the three that you mention, two are 5-level PrCs and one doesn't progress maneuvers at all. Not granting stances over 5 levels is not absurd as, other than the Swordsage, the base classes rarely get a new stance every 5 levels, and even the 10-level PrCs usually only grant 1 stance over their levels (RKV being the exceptions). D&D does have a strong tendency to round things down, rather than up. Notably, however, these stance-less classes do grant stance-like abilities (Mountain Fortress Stance, Shifting (a bit of a stretch), and Eye of the Storm/Blood Rain).
About the Idiot Crusader, it comes from having more maneuvers readied to your Crusader progression than you have maneuvers known, thus putting you into the grey area of not being able to ready all of your maneuvers and, more importantly, bringing your functional maneuvers readied closer to your maneuvers granted on each reset. You can actually pull off the same mechanically acrobatics with Warblade and Swordsage progression, but you don't get anything for it. The simplest change to fix it is to change how the amount of granted maneuvers (both initially and after resetting) are defined. Instead of being a specific amount that is coincidentally 3 less than your normal allotment of readied maneuvers, actually define it at 3 fewer than your total readied Crusader maneuvers. That also makes adding extra readied/granted maneuvers from other sources really easy to define (you don't have to even mention the special case of Crusaders and granted maneuvers any more as changing the number readied automatically changes the number granted).
Bloodclaw Master
[spoiler]
Claws of the Beast also should apply the full Strength bonus to secondary natural attacks with TC weapons (ie: claws) if you're planning on letting Superior TWF work with Multiattack.
[/spoiler]
Bloodstorm Blade
[spoiler]
BSB does not, as written, advance full IL. It lacks the text that other PrCs have indicating that you add your full PrC level to your IL.
How does Blade Storm not work? You make one attack against each of any number of opponents. Normally, you'd run out of thrown weapons after the first attack, but Lightning Ricochet takes care of that for you.
Oh, it's only a single attack, not one for each enemy. That's... strange. If I had to change it, I'd change it to letting you make one ranged attack with a thrown weapon against each enemy within range, similar to Whirlwind Attack letting you attack each enemy within your reach.
[/spoiler]
Deepstone Sentinel
[spoiler]
Agreed on all counts except Dragon's Tooth. I kinda like it as is (permanent duration). Clarifying the interactions (if any) with existing structures may be a good idea.
[/spoiler]
Eternal Blade
[spoiler]
Blade Guide should clarify what happens to it when it reappears. Does it still have as many hit points as before (ie: possibly less than 0)? What about spell effects that may be on it (I can suddenly imagine casting an aura-type effect on it and having it use that to damage enemies around corners, or casting Death Throes-type spells on it and "suiciding" it like an eternal Baneling).
Things without a limit on their uses usually have no limit on their uses. This is as true of Guided Strike as it is of Defensive Insight, Tactical Insight, at will abilities, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, skill uses, etc.
Armored Uncanny Dodge's references to wearing armor are indeed erroneous and irrelevant. However, the ability should still be differentiated from the normal form of Uncanny Dodge as relies on the presence of your Blade Guide.
[/spoiler]
Jade Phoenix Mage
[spoiler]
If by fix the skills you mean adding Spellcraft and some or all Knowledges (at least arcana, history, and religion), I agree.
[/spoiler]
Master of Nine
[spoiler]
I might remove the "at the beginning of the day" part from Mastery of Nine. You can change your maneuvers readied throughout the day pretty easily, so the bonus should probably be either based on what you know (which is as good as how many you readied at the beginning and then changed to what you want) or how many you have readied (including expended and withheld) at the moment.
Dual Stance should clarify that the maneuvers need to be from different disciplines. It says it with the "from another discipline" part, but it's easy to miss.
[/spoiler]
Ruby Knight Vindicator
[spoiler]
I just want to mention that Divine Impetus is so much better than the Swordsage's 20th level ability, Dual Boost.
I always figured that spending multiple uses of turning for Divine Fury was the equivalent of spending higher level spell slots on the JPM's Arcane Wrath.
[/spoiler]
Shadow Sun Ninja
[spoiler]
If you don't have Stunning Fist, you don't gain uses of it for your Monk levels. I don't see how SSN changes that. Similarly, I don't see why SSN should let you take Stunning fist without meeting its prerequisites.
[/spoiler]
-
After a month's break, I have updated the consensus (why am I calling it that? Hardly anyone is providing input here). Moving on, there are three chapters left: The Nine Swords, Magic Items, and Nine Swords Monsters. Should we really even bother with that last chapter? WotC's creatures are notorious for being screwed up.
All of the Legacy Items: The maneuvers they grant are different from the ones granted by the Martial Study feat, since they can be used repeatedly each encounter. Should this be mentioned?
Desert Wind
[spoiler]Fiery Blade allows the wielder to initiate the Burning Blade maneuver as an Immediate action, but makes no mention of if that is through itself or through the wielder's readied maneuvers. Basically, should it allow you to do so only if you have the maneuver readied, or should it be in addition to your normal readied maneuvers?[/spoiler]
Faithful Avenger
[spoiler]Should there be some additional stipulations on the third ritual?
The 10th level ability seems to be a mistake. Perhaps replace it with Dispel Evil/Good?
Boundless Determination does nothing for non-Crusaders who know the Immortal Fortitude stance (not that this really matters).
Resiliency is stupidly worded, and needs revising. How the fuck did that leave the editing room unchecked?[/spoiler]
Supernal Clarity
[spoiler]I feel the duration needs to be mentioned for the Haste effect.
The Uncanny Dodge should upgrade as normal if you all ready had it.[/spoiler]
Kamate
[spoiler]I cannot find anything wrong with it (other than the obvious optimization problems).[/spoiler]
Eventide's Edge
[spoiler]This is the only one of the items that requires maneuvers known. Should this be removed, seeing a the Legacy Items were meant to be a way to introduce the Bo9S to a new party?
The AC bonus is not only redundant, it is inferior to the Swordsage's class feature since it is lost if armor is worn. I feel it needs to be clarified, since it mentions stacking.[/spoiler]
Umbral Awn
[spoiler]Shadowstep needs to mention something about equipment.[/spoiler]
Unfettered
[spoiler]Should we mess with the capstone ability (ala Boots of Speed) to make it more useful?[/spoiler]
Tiger Fang
[spoiler]Reword the Haste ability so it is easier to read.
Change the Power Critical ability so it just grants the feat as a bonus feat (since that really is all it is).[/spoiler]
Blade of the Last Citadel
[spoiler]I see no problems here.[/spoiler]
-
The simplest thing with Umbral Awn's Shadowstep is to reference a similar effect, such as One with Shadow.
Edit: Also, not necessarily a problem, just an inconsistency. Desert Wind (being a modified reprint of the version found in Weapons of Legacy) is the only weapon that requires Weapon Focus instead of just proficiency.
-
Haven't been watching this thread lately, been busy since I spend most of my time on the go during the summer, but I did catch this.
Well then the errata for White Raven Tactics should include this tag line: "This maneuver does not work more than once per round."
Agreed.
FYI, Sin's 44 uses per round example is misleading.
Q: Can you know the same maneuvers (from Tome of Battle) more than once? Can you ready the same maneuver more than once at a time?
A: Actually no, you cannot learn the same maneuvers more than once, nor can you ready the same maneuver more than once at a time.
Without one turn recovery, such as Adaptive Style or Crusader, you cannot WRT multiple times even if you start talking about custom items.
-
FYI, Sin's 44 uses per round example is misleading.
Q: Can you know the same maneuvers (from Tome of Battle) more than once? Can you ready the same maneuver more than once at a time?
A: Actually no, you cannot learn the same maneuvers more than once, nor can you ready the same maneuver more than once at a time.
Without one turn recovery, such as Adaptive Style or Crusader, you cannot WRT multiple times even if you start talking about custom items.
Its still better than the Belt since its usable each encounter instead of 1/day. That's something that really needs to be avoided.
-
Numerous Tiger Claw maneuvers - Clarify whether or not the DC of the Jump check doubles if you don't move at least 20 feet first.
As I noted above, this is something that has been bugging me. I almost instinctively avoid those maneuvers (except Sudden Leap) because I don't know how to rule them.
I'm thinking that requiring the 20ft would nerf those maneuvers down pretty hard until you get Leaping Dragon, and that requiring a specific stance to use those maneuvers is unnecessarily harsh towards the players. On the other hand, removing the 20ft requirement diminishes the value of the Leaping Dragon stance.
Simple, it didn't override Jump's rules. Double the DC if you didn't move. What is diminished here given it never worked the other way? It's like ignoring the 2/3s BAB progression of the Psychic Fighter all because you simply wanted 1:1 progression.
At level 1 you can easily have 4 ranks & +4 Strength which comes out at a 40% chance for a swift action 5ft. step if used alone, or a reliable bonus of +10ft. to speed for one round which is pretty balanced towards things like Fast Movement & Monk's Speed I'd think and the maneuver scales slow enough not to become your primary method of movement later on.
-
FYI, Sin's 44 uses per round example is misleading.
Q: Can you know the same maneuvers (from Tome of Battle) more than once? Can you ready the same maneuver more than once at a time?
A: Actually no, you cannot learn the same maneuvers more than once, nor can you ready the same maneuver more than once at a time.
Without one turn recovery, such as Adaptive Style or Crusader, you cannot WRT multiple times even if you start talking about custom items.
Its still better than the Belt since its usable each encounter instead of 1/day. That's something that really needs to be avoided.
I didn't cover that, but I can: Except you are forgetting the Belt of Battle can readily be used by anyone of any class. Whereas a Maneuver Granting items still check prerequisites meaning you cannot use a Crown of white Raven to obtain WRT unless you are level 10 and already have a White Raven Maneuver from a class dip or Feat. Unless you get into custom made items and merging two Crowns together to grant two White Raven Maneuvers at once (as you can't wear two hats).
In which case I would like to remind you those are the DM's rules, not the Players, and those very guidelines explicitly call out paying attention to the problems that can arise from misusing them. It isn't this thread's job to take into account items such as those. Simply because we would be bogged down pretending to be DMs and trying to handle problems like 24/7 True Strike, Wraithful Strike, and anything else that would be flat out bat-poo insane if you just made up custom items.
-
I would like to point out a small problem I faced sometime ago: I had a hobgoblin warblade use Charging Minotaur against the party's Crusader, using Thicket of Blades. Thicket of Blades states that all movement in your threatened area provoke AoOs, but Charging Minotaur (and other charge maneuvers) do not provoke AoOs when moving.
Should Thicket of Blades trigger on this situation? I ruled no at the time, but I want to know what you guys think about this.
-
The 9th level manuever for Stone Dragon has no pre-reqs of other manuevers known, unlike basically every other high level manuever.
Don't Stone Dragon maneuvers have low prereqs in general?
I always got the impression that Stone Dragon was the easiest of the styles to "master", seeing as any true martial adept can master it.
All maneuvers have prerequisite initiator levels regardless, so the point is kinda moot.
-
Simple, it didn't override Jump's rules. Double the DC if you didn't move. What is diminished here given it never worked the other way? It's like ignoring the 2/3s BAB progression of the Psychic Fighter all because you simply wanted 1:1 progression.
At level 1 you can easily have 4 ranks & +4 Strength which comes out at a 40% chance for a swift action 5ft. step if used alone, or a reliable bonus of +10ft. to speed for one round which is pretty balanced towards things like Fast Movement & Monk's Speed I'd think and the maneuver scales slow enough not to become your primary method of movement later on.
These maneuvers are the only ones with that big of a failure chance. None of the Diamond Mind maneuvers have this problem, and the same goes for the other handful of maneuvers that use skill checks. Whats more, some of these maneuvers do not involve movement at all, and require the Jump check to gain a specific bonus. Why should those maneuvers have their DCs increased?
Secondly, those modifiers are exclusive for the Long and High Jump checks. Quote:
All Jump DCs given here assume that you get a running start, which requires that you move at least 20 feet in a straight line before jumping. If you don’t get a running start, the DC for the jump is doubled.
None of the maneuvers mention this, nor is there a note in the Discipline's opening lines like there is for Stone Dragon.
Finally, consider the fact that with the exception of Sudden Leap, the DCs are based on the Armor Class of the target, not the distance you move. I, for one, feel that this separates these maneuvers from the normal Jump rules.
I didn't cover that, but I can: Except you are forgetting the Belt of Battle can readily be used by anyone of any class. Whereas a Maneuver Granting items still check prerequisites meaning you cannot use a Crown of white Raven to obtain WRT unless you are level 10 and already have a White Raven Maneuver from a class dip or Feat. Unless you get into custom made items and merging two Crowns together to grant two White Raven Maneuvers at once (as you can't wear two hats).
In which case I would like to remind you those are the DM's rules, not the Players, and those very guidelines explicitly call out paying attention to the problems that can arise from misusing them. It isn't this thread's job to take into account items such as those. Simply because we would be bogged down pretending to be DMs and trying to handle problems like 24/7 True Strike, Wraithful Strike, and anything else that would be flat out bat-poo insane if you just made up custom items.
I missed the whole "must meet the requirements" part. That weakens it a bit, but it is still incredibly more cost-efficient than a Belt of Battle. And I really do not want to leave that part to Oberoni. Yes, the DM can just house rule it or deny the item altogether, but this is meant to be an Errata, and is supposed to remove the need to house rule those out. I am very much aware that this thread is just a bunch of house rules compiled into a list that resembles official errata, but why not nip the problem in the bud so more people will be inclined to use this?
-
These maneuvers are the only ones with that big of a failure chance.
Umm... You do know most Setting Sun strikes are dependent on you succeeding with a Trip check right? Also, I could be wrong on this but a lot of people bash the Monk because he totally requires Wisdom for that worthless AC stat, a Shadow Hand user uses that worthless combat ability for his Save DCs so something on his end is going to be a big heap of failure. Thank Pelor none of the Devoted Spirit stuff doesn't have those problems, I mean it works 100% of the time and doesn't check some arbitrary alignment thing right? The only other one I can think of is Stone Dragon being worthless if you are in the air, but you are fixing that, just like you want to fix Tiger Claw ^_^
<snip>unreasonable validation and BS here</snip> Finally, consider the fact that with the exception of Sudden Leap, the DCs are based on the Armor Class of the target, not the distance you move. I, for one, feel that this separates these maneuvers from the normal Jump rules.
When something states it is the DC of your check, then it is the DC of the check (duh). But Feral Death Blow says the DC is your opponent's AC while Sudden Leap says the distance you can move is based on your Jump check (aka see Jump skill for distance covered by your check) and there is such a huge difference there you may as well be comparing it with grapple checks.
And I really do not want to leave that part to Oberoni.
The problem was already nipped with the once per encounter limit which isn't what I spoke of, merely that you in fact CANNOT gain 43 maneuvers in a row with made up custom items... Oh wait you can, see below! Anyway, and things have turned to a Belt of Battle vs Custom White Raven Crown.
Well really. I use a Candle of Invocation, enchant thine cloth with Armor Bonuses rather than buy Bracers of Armor, said bite me to Ghost Touch and own a True Death Crystal, picked up a Wand of Celerity (only 420gp per use!) which I later sold off and simply paid 50,400gp for an unlimited Celerity item to gain two Standard Actions per round of every round. Man I am saving gold and totally under cutting various items. Not to mention my custom item is amazing, my super item that gives like 400 uses a day when I'm bored and if I went BoB I couldn't afford a third one off that kind of budget.
You'll probably want a subforum on it's own just to handle what you can craft and not, and why you should banhammerz items printed in books for being better than other items that are used to the same affect. I wish you good luck.
-
skill checks versus ac is awkward anyhow: it's a totally broken mechanic (as is skill check versus save dc). that's why i personally never use these maneuvers.
-
skill checks versus ac is awkward anyhow: it's a totally broken mechanic (as is skill check versus save dc). that's why i personally never use these maneuvers.
...
...no, really, that's all you get.
-
skill checks versus ac is awkward anyhow: it's a totally broken mechanic (as is skill check versus save dc). that's why i personally never use these maneuvers.
Why is that broken? Past a certain point literally all that will do is remove the chance of failing on a one. Nice to have, but not fantastic.
-
skill checks versus ac is awkward anyhow: it's a totally broken mechanic (as is skill check versus save dc). that's why i personally never use these maneuvers.
Why is that broken? Past a certain point literally all that will do is remove the chance of failing on a one. Nice to have, but not fantastic.
Skill checks do not autofail on nat ones.
-
i guess you two misunderstand me. i am not talking about gamebreaking.
i say it is a broken mechanic because skills, ac and saves scale totally different. it's like making a skill check versus caster level check, that would be equally wrong. the special use of the ride skill with mounted combat, btw, falls under this category, too: skill check versus attack roll.
-
Skill checks do not autofail on nat ones.
Right. Past a certain point, AC increases much more slowly than attack bonus. In either case, you're likely to have the numbers to hit no matter what, but making the roll a skill check removes the failure chance.
i say it is a broken mechanic because skills, ac and saves scale totally different. it's like making a skill check versus caster level check, that would be equally wrong. the special use of the ride skill with mounted combat, btw, falls under this category, too: skill check versus attack roll.
Yes, that would be true if AC and attack bonuses scaled at similar rates. However, the disparity between them is so great that turning an attack roll into a skill check actually has very little effect besides making the end result more reliable, since you remove that 5% chance of failure. You use them when you absolutely, positively need to succeed.
-
Skill checks do not autofail on nat ones.
Right. Past a certain point, AC increases much more slowly than attack bonus. In either case, you're likely to have the numbers to hit no matter what, but making the roll a skill check removes the failure chance.
i say it is a broken mechanic because skills, ac and saves scale totally different. it's like making a skill check versus caster level check, that would be equally wrong. the special use of the ride skill with mounted combat, btw, falls under this category, too: skill check versus attack roll.
Yes, that would be true if AC and attack bonuses scaled at similar rates. However, the disparity between them is so great that turning an attack roll into a skill check actually has very little effect besides making the end result more reliable, since you remove that 5% chance of failure. You use them when you absolutely, positively need to succeed.
Unless you're routinely making touch attacks against flatfooted opponents, but either way, yeah, the difference is relatively minimal.
-
well, for me it's still horrible gamedesign.
-
Actually, unless you obssessively control how much you get to add to a given roll, the very concept of DCs are horrible gamedesign.
If you start changing that, then it's not the same game anymore. It's easier to work with what we got.
-
I'm not sure about this new tangent at all, it's not even based on anything.
Skill Check vs Save is the Intimidate Skill, not ToB.
Skill Check vs AC for Tiger Claw stuff is for additional bonuses that still require you to hit using your Attack bonuses as normal.
Skill Check as AC is the Ride Skill, not ToB and it isn't your AC just for attacks against your mount.
There is no Skill to Hit in the ToB and as for hating the d20 system, well why are you here?
-
I do think, though, that for the Tiger Claw manuvers requiring a Jump check (minus Sudden Leap), that the DC shouldn't be doubled just because you haven't moved 20ft. You're not really jumping, so why should that increase apply?
-
I do think, though, that for the Tiger Claw manuvers requiring a Jump check (minus Sudden Leap), that the DC shouldn't be doubled just because you haven't moved 20ft. You're not really jumping, so why should that increase apply?
Agreed, as I said here
When something states it is the DC of your check, then it is the DC of the check (duh). But Feral Death Blow says the DC is your opponent's AC while Sudden Leap says the distance you can move is based on your Jump check (aka see Jump skill for distance covered by your check)
-
I took care of that a while ago. Sudden Leap follows the doubling rules, the rest only care about the target's AC. Why are we having this conversation if that was what I all ready did?
-
I took care of that a while ago. Sudden Leap follows the doubling rules, the rest only care about the target's AC. Why are we having this conversation if that was what I all ready did?
I haven't read page 1(?) since seven pages ago.
I think we're on PrCs, off the top of my head.
BoB: doesn't advance IL as a Marital Class. Mindfil under Advancing IL in the PrC chapter doesn't even say all PrCs here fully advance IL.
Eternal: FYI your Blade guide isn't a real creature (it has no ability scores). AlsoKnowledge directly states your Guide can make Knowledge checks, pretty damn sure it doesn't need to be Trained. Typo aside the 2nd paragraph seems to mean you gain the benefit of an extra maneuver known X times a day.
JPM: Needs Spellcraft (is that the skill I'm thinking of?) and Empowering/Quickened Strike shouldn't increase casting time. Using these abilities doesn't require you to know the feat nor is the metamagic cost applied, the spells simply gain the benefit thereof and it would seem intent wise they shouldn't increasing casting time.
MoN: The bonus from strike types known should change though out the day rather than being set in the morning and immediately swapped.
Shadow Sun Ninja: Srsly this PrC sucks, with WotC you can be sure of a few things.
If it has the word "wizard" in it, it's a rockstar, just jaming out and kicking ass.
If it has the word "ninja" in it, its a rock, just laying there being worthless.
-
I think we're on PrCs, off the top of my head.
Actually, we are on the Nine Swords themselves (the Legacy items).
Eternal: Typo aside the 2nd paragraph seems to mean you gain the benefit of an extra maneuver known X times a day.
I'll review that paragraph and see what needs to be clarified. Thanks for pointing it out.
Shadow Sun Ninja: Srsly this PrC sucks, with WotC you can be sure of a few things.
If it has the word "wizard" in it, it's a rockstar, just jaming out and kicking ass.
If it has the word "ninja" in it, its a rock, just laying there being worthless.
Off-topic, but I disagree. I have defended that PrC in the past. The abilities can be put to very good use if you use them in the right combination, but it eats up your Swifts like you wouldn't believe.
-
I would like to point out a small problem I faced sometime ago: I had a hobgoblin warblade use Charging Minotaur against the party's Crusader, using Thicket of Blades. Thicket of Blades states that all movement in your threatened area provoke AoOs, but Charging Minotaur (and other charge maneuvers) do not provoke AoOs when moving.
Should Thicket of Blades trigger on this situation? I ruled no at the time, but I want to know what you guys think about this.
Since no one replied to this, I assume the way I ruled is correct, but I think this is something worth going back to maneuvers and clarify on Thicket of Blades...
-
I think we're on PrCs, off the top of my head.
Actually, we are on the Nine Swords themselves (the Legacy items).
Oh. You know, as the original author of Building a Legacy Weapon For Dummies, you would think I have input there. But no, not really. I just stole the abilities the best I could think of and went with that.
I'll review that paragraph and see what needs to be clarified. Thanks for pointing it out.
You gain an extra maneuver (immediately granted if a crusader) and at the end of the encounter you forget it. The ability can be used an extra time per whatever levels. Yeah, pretty sure it boils down to an extra maneuver for an encounter X times a day.
Off-topic, but I disagree. I have defended that PrC in the past. The abilities can be put to very good use if you use them in the right combination, but it eats up your Swifts like you wouldn't believe.
My take on it.
[spoiler]The healing is lame and wands do the same job without wasting levels, the cold resist sucks since you can permanently gain immunity to fire/cold and 2d6 is out scaled at level 3 and remains fundamentally worthless at level 7. I'd rather not Blind my teammates and prior to the Monk's super concealment ability I felt the double blind means bonuses ability was cool, but I can name a dozen other better classes as a 5 level dip and now I just don't care for it at all. The fun capstone ability of become an NPC pretty much describes who this class is intended for.[/spoiler]
But if you can sell it to me better than that I'm interested.
-
Since no one replied to this, I assume the way I ruled is correct, but I think this is something worth going back to maneuvers and clarify on Thicket of Blades...
I don't think it would, since Thicket says:
Your foes provoke this attack before leaving the area you threaten.
Unless the Crusader had a melee reach longer than 5ft, Charging into his threatened reach does not provoke. Now, if the Warblade charged past him to hit someone else, I'd say Thicket would take precedence due to being a higher level maneuver.
Would anyone object to adding a maneuver level-based or opposed IL-based exception to Thicket?
About Shadowsun Ninja: Taking it to PMs to avoid cluttering the thread (since this is on viability).
-
I don't think it would, since Thicket says:
Your foes provoke this attack before leaving the area you threaten.
Unless the Crusader had a melee reach longer than 5ft, Charging into his threatened reach does not provoke. Now, if the Warblade charged past him to hit someone else, I'd say Thicket would take precedence due to being a higher level maneuver.
The crusader had a spiked chain...
So, Thicket of Blades is THAT awesome, huh :rollseyes
Would anyone object to adding a maneuver level-based or opposed IL-based exception to Thicket?
I see no problem with it.
-
Since no one replied to this, I assume the way I ruled is correct, but I think this is something worth going back to maneuvers and clarify on Thicket of Blades...
I don't think it would, since Thicket says:
Your foes provoke this attack before leaving the area you threaten.
Unless the Crusader had a melee reach longer than 5ft, Charging into his threatened reach does not provoke. Now, if the Warblade charged past him to hit someone else, I'd say Thicket would take precedence due to being a higher level maneuver.
Would anyone object to adding a maneuver level-based or opposed IL-based exception to Thicket?
I'd prefer something like a +/-/default arrangement (which is an absolutely horrible name for what I'm thinking of, but it's all that comes to mind). Unfortunately, its scope requires it to be a systemic change rather than something specific to ToB's maneuvers.
[spoiler]
Basically, any time two absolute statements that are exceptions to the normal rules disagree, whichever applies is based on how many of them are functioning, or the default (normal rules) if there's an equal amount in opposition. Naturally, effects that apply an absolute and specify that they override other absolutes ignore the overridden absolutes when checking this. (Eg: "This damage cannot be prevented by any means, even by resistances or immunities" would not be prevented no matter how many ways you had to be immune or resistant to it.)
In the above case of Thicket vs. No AoO charging (say, War Leader's Charge), there would indeed be an AoO provoked under this system. +1 provoking from Thicket, -1 provoking from the charging maneuver, resulting in the default of AoOs being provoked for leaving a threatened space.
Some other examples:
- Thicket vs. 5 foot step: +1 Thicket, -1 5' step, default is AoO.
- Thicket vs. Boulder Roll + Tumble: +1 Thicket, -1 Boulder Roll, -1 Tumble, so no AoO.
- Thicket vs. Cover or Total Concealment: Cover and Total Concealment don't stop AoOs from being provoked, they just prevent you from taking them. This is already the case according to the wording in the SRD.
And, a few more complicated interactions...
- Thicket w/ spiked chain-style reach + Hold the Line vs. War Leader's Charge: When the charger enters your first threatened space, Thicket is irrelevant (charger isn't leaving a threatened space), so +1 Hold the Line, -1 War Leader's Charge results in the default of no AoO for entering (but not leaving) a threatened space. When the charger enters your second threatened space, both Thicket and Hold the Line apply, so it's +2-1, and an AoO is provoked.
- Thicket w/ normal reach (threatening at 10' but not 5') + Hold the Line vs. War Leader's Charge: As above, no AoO for entering the threatened space at 10', but no AoO either for moving closer since while Thicket counts (leaving a threatened space), Hold the Line doesn't (not entering an area you threaten).
[/spoiler]
-
I'd prefer something like a +/-/default arrangement (which is an absolutely horrible name for what I'm thinking of, but it's all that comes to mind). Unfortunately, its scope requires it to be a systemic change rather than something specific to ToB's maneuvers.
[spoiler]
Basically, any time two absolute statements that are exceptions to the normal rules disagree, whichever applies is based on how many of them are functioning, or the default (normal rules) if there's an equal amount in opposition. Naturally, effects that apply an absolute and specify that they override other absolutes ignore the overridden absolutes when checking this. (Eg: "This damage cannot be prevented by any means, even by resistances or immunities" would not be prevented no matter how many ways you had to be immune or resistant to it.)
In the above case of Thicket vs. No AoO charging (say, War Leader's Charge), there would indeed be an AoO provoked under this system. +1 provoking from Thicket, -1 provoking from the charging maneuver, resulting in the default of AoOs being provoked for leaving a threatened space.
Some other examples:
- Thicket vs. 5 foot step: +1 Thicket, -1 5' step, default is AoO.
- Thicket vs. Boulder Roll + Tumble: +1 Thicket, -1 Boulder Roll, -1 Tumble, so no AoO.
- Thicket vs. Cover or Total Concealment: Cover and Total Concealment don't stop AoOs from being provoked, they just prevent you from taking them. This is already the case according to the wording in the SRD.
And, a few more complicated interactions...
- Thicket w/ spiked chain-style reach + Hold the Line vs. War Leader's Charge: When the charger enters your first threatened space, Thicket is irrelevant (charger isn't leaving a threatened space), so +1 Hold the Line, -1 War Leader's Charge results in the default of no AoO for entering (but not leaving) a threatened space. When the charger enters your second threatened space, both Thicket and Hold the Line apply, so it's +2-1, and an AoO is provoked.
- Thicket w/ normal reach (threatening at 10' but not 5') + Hold the Line vs. War Leader's Charge: As above, no AoO for entering the threatened space at 10', but no AoO either for moving closer since while Thicket counts (leaving a threatened space), Hold the Line doesn't (not entering an area you threaten).
[/spoiler]
So check to see if they cancel, and if not, then resort to the rest of the rules? Sounds good, but that would fall squarely under house rules, and I've been very hesitant about that. I'm fine with it personally, but it really hurts the image this project should be projecting.
-
So check to see if they cancel, and if not, then resort to the rest of the rules? Sounds good, but that would fall squarely under house rules, and I've been very hesitant about that. I'm fine with it personally, but it really hurts the image this project should be projecting.
Exactly. Hence why I said it was beyond the scope of this project.
-
So check to see if they cancel, and if not, then resort to the rest of the rules? Sounds good, but that would fall squarely under house rules, and I've been very hesitant about that. I'm fine with it personally, but it really hurts the image this project should be projecting.
Exactly. Hence why I said it was beyond the scope of this project.
Note to self: Write that down as a permanent house rule for my campaigns. My players play Magic primarily, so rules like this are very easy for us to learn.
-
Page 9 - Crusader Weapons and Armor Proficiencies [Addition]
Add to the end, "(except tower shields)".
Any particular reason for this? Seems an oddly specific and nitpicky thing. Who cares if they can use Tower shields?
-
Page 9 - Crusader Weapons and Armor Proficiencies [Addition]
Add to the end, "(except tower shields)".
Any particular reason for this? Seems an oddly specific and nitpicky thing. Who cares if they can use Tower shields?
Because every other class in the game that specifies proficiency with shields includes either an exception to Tower Shields (anything that isn't Fighter), or mentions being proficient with them (Fighter).
-
I always assumed they were intended to be able to use tower shields, because it doesn't say otherwise and crusaders are the tank class of the initiators.
-
I always assumed they were intended to be able to use tower shields, because it doesn't say otherwise and crusaders are the tank class of the initiators.
It's possible. My only counter-arguments are that they usually explicitly mention it as they did with the Fighter and that none of the sample Crusaders own one (only one has a Shield though, and he's 4th level). Not much of an argument.
Found something: Shield Counter uses the shield bash action, but makes no mention of if the bash deals damage normally or not. Changing.
Oh, fuck. I somehow managed to completely overlook Desert Wind during the Maneuvers section. I'll fix it soon.
-
It is rather difficult to have usually when there is only one other class in the game with tower shield proficiency (as far as I know)
-
It is rather difficult to have usually when there is only one other class in the game with tower shield proficiency (as far as I know)
Not that it makes much difference from an optimization standpoint, but I get the idea.
-
Control Shape is not necessary for Bloodclaw Master's as a class skill. The only reason for Control Shape to be used is for Afflicted Lycanthropes, but they get it as an automatic class skill.
-
Control Shape is not necessary for Bloodclaw Master's as a class skill. The only reason for Control Shape to be used is for Afflicted Lycanthropes, but they get it as an automatic class skill.
I put that in there to see who was paying attention. Congrats, you're the only one who said something about it.
-
Any Planar Trait. Since Planar Traits are ongoing effects, the effect of Iron Heart Surge only suppresses the Planar Trait until the end of the initiator's next turn (when the benefits of Iron Heart Surge technically end).
Additionally, some effects can be reinstated at any point during the rest of the round, after you have initiated Iron Heart Surge (for example, a vampire's weakness to sunlight will reinstate its effects at the end of the vampire's turn, unless he uses his move action to exit the sunlight. The move action would be possible immediately after initiating Iron Heart Surge).
In case of Iron Heart Surge affecting a spell or other ability that affects an area (such as the web spell), the entire effect is ended for everyone involved when Iron Heart Surge resolves.
:lmao
I see you still have not fixed the fact that IHS can suspend gravity on the prime material, if only temporarily. Give it a max radius for the suppressed effect like 60 ft or something, so that it will cover the party, but usually not entire planes. :eh
-
Why is IHS even affecting planar traits? It never did before (they aren't conditions and they don't have durations of 1 round or more, assuming they even have durations at all it would be instantaneous).
On a related note, I finished a first draft of a revised definition of effects (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10068.msg436376#msg436376) for a "simple" fix to Iron Heart Surge. It's beyond the scope of this project, but I still wanted to mention it.
Officially, we're on to items, now, right? The Martial Discipline weapon enhancement should clarify explicitly whether it counts being in a stance as being enough to give the full bonus (especially since I think we made stances even more explicitly different form regular maneuvers, but I don't remember and am too lazy to confirm). Ditto for the Martial Scripts and maneuver items (Crown of White Ravens and friends), they ought to be explicit about allowing or not allowing the granting of stances (I vote for not; stances are more powerful than individual maneuvers, generally).
-
Chalk the IHS problems to no editing. I'll fix that problem.
We're actually on the Legacy items, but there isn't much that I can see that needs it.
-
What is up with Fire Snake and it's duration? It has an instantaneous duration, but it also says "It can move up to 60 feet each round".
-
I thought that was among the few things that were actually addressed in the real errata. I was right, sort of. The issue about moving each round was addressed, but the errata cuts out in the middle of the next paragraph's first sentence. Given the context, I think the remaining, cut errata was meant to clean up the remaining bits about movement over multiple rounds instead of being an instantaneous standard line that the initial bit modified. It might even have removed the restrictions about difficult terrain hampering its movement/length, or just clarified it with respect to length instead of movement (just speculation on my part).
-
I have a question which doesn't seem to have been adressed yet: If you take up a PrC that grants martial progression, does it also allow you to exchange lower-level maneuvers for higher-level ones at regular intervals (like the martial base classes do)? It kinda sucks to have a Cleric 1/Crusader 4/Ruby Knight Vindicator with only one of each 3rd, 4th, and 5th level maneuvers, but a ton of 1st level ones which won't be much use anymore and will clutter up your maneuvers readied/granted.
Since there is no actual rules text that PrCs allow this maneuvers known-swapping, I assume you can't do it - but that's evidence ex negativo, which I'm not comfortable with.
-
I have a question which doesn't seem to have been adressed yet: If you take up a PrC that grants martial progression, does it also allow you to exchange lower-level maneuvers for higher-level ones at regular intervals (like the martial base classes do)? It kinda sucks to have a Cleric 1/Crusader 4/Ruby Knight Vindicator with only one of each 3rd, 4th, and 5th level maneuvers, but a ton of 1st level ones which won't be much use anymore and will clutter up your maneuvers readied/granted.
Since there is no actual rules text that PrCs allow this maneuvers known-swapping, I assume you can't do it - but that's evidence ex negativo, which I'm not comfortable with.
The FAQ has addressed this in the past, and I'm honestly on the edge with their opinion. The FAQ states that PrCs do not allow swapping. I want to side with it because it makes the PrCs less attractive. I want to side against it because the PrCs aren't required for most martial adepts (seeing as even Swordsage 20 is a decent build, and is capable of contributing to numerous situations whereas Shadowsun Ninja isn't always capable of the same thing).
-
Updates:
Reworded Firesnake (again), deleting any mention of it's duration from the text.
Removed the Planar Trait trick from IHS, so no more shutting off gravity. You'll need a Shadow Hand or Desert Wind stance for that.
Finished the Legacy Item section.
Split the errata's post due to word count. Yeah, there was more than 40,000 characters worth of errata for the Bo9S.
Onto the magic item section.
Martial Scripts
[spoiler]Would anyone object to just straight-up deleting these? Seriously, they make absolutely no sense at all.[/spoiler]
Weapon Special Abilities
[spoiler]I'm very hesitant about tweaking Aptitude at all. The Lightning Maces combo is just a case of poor foresight on WotC's behalf, and all it does is create an attack combo.
Other than providing clearer text for the Discipline Weapon ability, I really don't see anything wrong here.[/spoiler]
Crown of White Ravens
[spoiler]And it's ilk.
Should they grant stances?
Are the maneuvers granted by it in addition to your maneuvers known?
Should they count towards prerequisites for other maneuvers?
Should they require you to ready the maneuver as normal, or should they work like Martial Study?
At the very least, I think these items should not be allowed to stack with ones from the same discipline (thus you can't combine two Crowns of White Ravens and get two White Raven maneuvers.[/spoiler]
I'm probably going to take that last section to the Min/Max forums for more discussion.
-
Martial Scripts
[spoiler]Would anyone object to just straight-up deleting these? Seriously, they make absolutely no sense at all.[/spoiler]
I strongly object. It may not be to everybody's tastes, but I love how it can replicate the concept of instantly learning super moves trough sacred sheets of paper written by masters.
-
While I've never used them, I don't see the point in deleting them. I have to agree with Oslecamo.
-
I strongly object. It may not be to everybody's tastes, but I love how it can replicate the concept of instantly learning super moves trough sacred sheets of paper written by masters.
And then instantly forgetting them, combine with leaving the sheet blank afterwards.
Scrolls at least make sense if you've read Jack Vance's works (the inspiration for the Vanican casting system). It makes 0 sense that maneuvers work the same way.
-
Isn't this beyond the purview of errata, though? If you don't want to use them in your games, then don't.
-
Isn't this beyond the purview of errata, though? If you don't want to use them in your games, then don't.
True enough.
-
Yes, they're somewhat bizzarre, but half the D&D material out there is. Plus, for once, nobody seems to have come up with some crazy combo for them. If it isn't broken, no need to fix it.
-
Yes, they're somewhat bizzarre, but half the D&D material out there is. Plus, for once, nobody seems to have come up with some crazy combo for them. If it isn't broken, no need to fix it.
That's because the Restore Item utterance doesn't work on Scripts.
-
I've applied the errata for the Magic Items section.
Should we even bother with the monsters? I know the Rakshasa has at least one error in it's text, but I've never seen anyone use these monsters...
-
Should we even bother with the monsters? I know the Rakshasa has at least one error in it's text, but I've never seen anyone use these monsters...
The Stone Dragon form not being able to use its maneuvers was it?
They're rare, but using them is a matter of personal preference rather than anything else. If you were running a ToB campaign they might show up.
-
On Aptitude: If you want to clear up Lightning Maces and change it to what I suspect was intended, change the wording to
"If the wielder of an Aptitude weapon has any feats or abilities that grant a special benefit with a particular type of weapon, and the type of weapon to gain the benefit can be chosen (and must be chosen) upon gaining the feat or ability, then the Aptitude weapon gains the same benefit just as if it were a weapon of the same kind as the wielder's choice for the feat or ability. Furthermore, if the Aptitude weapon actually is of the same type as the wielder's choice for the feat or ability, attacks with the weapon gain a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.
Thus, the wielder of an Aptitude spiked chain who had Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) would not take a nonproficiency penalty for wielding the chain, but would not gain the benefits of a feat such as Superior Unarmed Strike that grants a benefit to a specific weapon."
Or something like that - the examples are a bit odd, I admit, but hopefully get the point across without using any material other than ToB and Core (you could change the EWP example if you wanted).
-
Updated the errata and ported it into a PDF file. Included in this update are the revised statblocks for the three Blade Magic monsters.
We stated the opinion on this a while ago, but I feel the need to repeat it: The NPCs presented in the book are not going to receive errata.