[Age of Warriors] extended discipline P.E.A.C.H.ing

To avoid some severe necrotic thread problems, I'm making a single thread where I'm hoping to continue critiquing ToB material of ages past.

How I'm working:
-I'm using this list: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...&postcount=348
-My intentions are to PM authors of the various disciplines and, pending their approval, I'll list them as "open to discussion" and do some critiquing.

Of course, I'm hoping others will join in with anything constructive to add. Let's see if we can make this stuff even better!

Right now, the only person I've contacted is JoshuaZ, so I'll start with some shaping up of the Broken Blade discipline.

Source thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122533

I suppose I'll dive right in...

Bloody Fascinating! I had seen the overview of this a few times and thought "meh. Too specific." But you've done a good job of supplying effects that are always useful.

Additionally, I like your prereqs of "one other maneuver" and so on. It helps with the above problem further: "you're not allowed to be just an anti-ToB specialist!" However, I think you should revisit the prereqs for the 1st level maneuvers. I don't believe any of the 9 mains have prereqs for 1st level maneuvers, let alone requiring maneuvers from themselves (i.e. a level 1 Devoted Spirit never requires you to know another Devoted Spirit). In this case, I can understand a prereq of "1 maneuver from another school required".

Anywho, moving on...

Level 1: Watch While Unseen is a level 1 stance, granted, but still seems like a bit of a boost to it wouldn't be amiss. For starters, a bonus higher than +1 on Martial Lore. I'm not entirely sure on the mechanical effects of what this will do for the player (presumably, some of the later abilities use Martial Lore?).

Level 2: Guard Against the Coming Blade: would this be too potent to simply be +4 AC against not only strikes, but attacks made under the influence of a boost, as part of a counter, or while in a martial stance? I'm a bit iffy on the last, but I think the others would be ok.

Level 3: Give the Adept Harm: Just because I'm actually revisiting older stuff, I may as well point out a small typo: "Tot he" = "To the". Incidentally, I don't think it would be overpowered to change the damage/maneuver level to xd6 damage (x=level of maneuver lost). Or perhaps d4. However, I see how this could step on the toes of Tale of the Double-Edged Blade.

Level 3: Stop the Soldier: perhaps include the clause that this can cut off access to their highest level maneuvers? If that's too much bookkeeping, I'd suggest upping the penalty.

Level 4: Tale of the Double... could use some clarity. What damage type do the other disciplines do? This is a pretty big can of worms once you include the other homebrew disciplines. Then again, maybe not. Just saying "DM decides what's appropriate for a given discipline or simply metes out 1d6 untyped damage" works well enough.

Level 5: Return the Favor and Conflict of Equal Forces: how do these interact with full round action maneuvers? Particularly the latter, as it dictates that you still take damage from the simple attack action (if I read that right). Something like Avalanche of Blades gets... hairy. And then there are the whirlwind maneuvers... if they hit someone before you, I assume it just stops it when it gets to you, but you could say you initiated as soon as you saw what they were doing and stopped them dead in their tracks. Who gets the single attack? Perhaps opposed initiator checks and just saying "you lose the action" would be cleaner?

---

Ok, this is already very long, so I'll give this some time to digest (or regurgitate) and be back to visit the higher level maneuvers.

Thanks for the cool discipline and keep up the good work!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pechvarry

Source thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122533

I suppose I'll dive right in...

Bloody Fascinating! I had seen the overview of this a few times and thought "meh. Too specific." But you've done a good job of supplying effects that are always useful.

Additionally, I like your prereqs of "one other maneuver" and so on. It helps with the above problem further: "you're not allowed to be just an anti-ToB specialist!" However, I think you should revisit the prereqs for the 1st level maneuvers. I don't believe any of the 9 mains have prereqs for 1st level maneuvers, let alone requiring maneuvers from themselves (i.e. a level 1 Devoted Spirit never requires you to know another Devoted Spirit). In this case, I can understand a prereq of "1 maneuver from another school required".

---

Glad you like it. Regarding having first level have prereqs, level 1 stances can normally have prereqs I believe (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). And other homebrew disciplines have special generic requirements. See for example Sleeping Goddess which requires you to be psionic. If it helps at all, think of the requirement at level 1 to already have a maneuver in another discipline as flavor for "to learn stuff in this discipline you must already have some martial skill and know a maneuver." I'd be curious as to what other people think about this.

Quote:

---

Level 1: Watch While Unseen is a level 1 stance, granted, but still seems like a bit of a boost to it wouldn't be amiss. For starters, a bonus higher than +1 on Martial Lore. I'm not entirely sure on the mechanical effects of what this will do for the player (presumably, some of the later abilities use Martial Lore?).

---

Yes, some do. The main bonus is really the penalty to people recognizing your maneuvers. Hmm, maybe making the martial lore bonus 1 + 1 for every 5 initiator levels? So at 20 it would be a respectable +6 bonus? If that sits well with you I'll change it to that.

Quote:

---

Level 2: Guard Against the Coming Blade: would this be too potent to simply be +4 AC against not only strikes, but attacks made under the influence of a boost, as part of a counter, or while in a martial stance? I'm a bit iffy on the last, but I think the others would be ok.

---

I'm not sure. Anyone in a martial stance sounds potentially too powerful since pretty much every martial adept is going to be almost always in a stance so that would amount to simply +4 AC against adepts. But the boost and counter part seem good. Modifying accordingly.

Quote:

---

Level 3: Give the Adept Harm: Just because I'm actually revisiting older stuff, I may as well point out a small typo: "Tot he" = "To the". Incidentally, I don't think it would be overpowered to change the damage/maneuver level to xd6 damage (x=level of maneuver lost). Or perhaps d4. However, I see how this could step on the toes of Tale of the Double-Edged Blade.

---

Hmm. Not sure. This would then only remove a single maneuver unlike Double-Edged Blade and doesn't get to do the cool damage type back to you thing. But this is one level lower. But it would be weird to have it do d4s and and staring as a d6. Hmm, maybe d4s and start the initial part as d4s? Modified accordingly. If you or anyone else thinks that's too weak let me know.

Quote:

---

Level 3: Stop the Soldier: perhaps include the clause that this can cut off access to their highest level maneuvers? If that's too much bookkeeping, I'd suggest upping the penalty.

---

Was intended that way. Made explicit how it should work.

Quote:

---

Level 4: Tale of the Double... could use some clarity. What damage type do the other disciplines do? This is a pretty big can of worms once you include the other homebrew disciplines. Then again, maybe not. Just saying "DM decides what's appropriate for a given discipline or simply metes out 1d6 untyped damage" works well enough.

---

Hmm. Made an explicit list. Probably the best way. If there are other damage types that would be obvious to include let me know and I'll add them. I'd rather have a list than leave it up to DM issues.

Quote:

---

Level 5: Return the Favor and Conflict of Equal Forces: how do these interact with full round action maneuvers? Particularly the latter, as it dictates that you still take damage from the simple attack action (if I read that right). Something like Avalanche of Blades gets... hairy. And then there are the whirlwind maneuvers... if they hit someone before you, I assume it just stops it when it gets to you, but you could say you initiated as soon as you saw what they were doing and stopped them dead in their tracks. Who gets the single attack? Perhaps opposed initiator checks and just saying "you lose the action" would be cleaner?

---

Well, easiest thing to do with Return the Favor is to just make it only work with things that target a single being. And added explicitly that it always takes an immediate action if even the strike would normally take longer. So clarified that way.

Also modified Conflict per your recommendation.

Quote:

---

(i.e. a level 1 Devoted Spirit never requires you to know another Devoted Spirit)

---

Actually all but one of the 1st level Tiger Claw maneuvers require you to know a Tiger-claw maneuver to learn them. Opinions may differ on if WotC erred in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DracoDei

Actually all but one of the 1st level Tiger Claw maneuvers require you to know a Tiger-claw maneuver to learn them. Opinions may differ on if WotC erred in that.

---

It makes some sense if there is some belief that the other maneuvers are marginally more powerful than the other one but not nearly powerful enough as to be level 2 maneuvers.


Edit: This is just going here to avoid double posting. Thought for Stop the Soldier. Would it be unbalanced to also make it include a small penalty to attack rolls so it has some usefulness against non-adepts? Say a -2 penalty to attack rolls for the duration?

Please do not forget that there is an archive thread where you can find all of the related info. also, there are the spreadsheets in my sig that some of the AoW team members have done for references too.

Of course, don't feel compelled to take my suggestions. I'm a humble human bean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Regarding having first level have prereqs

---

It's fine as is. I wasn't aware of the Tiger Claw methodology. As I said before, I really like the "must know one other maneuver" requirement. I'd definitely keep that. Now that I notice the 2 level 1s that require another broken blade are both the stances, I'd have to say this sits well with me (Tiger Claw has no reqs on the level 1 strike, but both stances and the boost have another Tiger Claw req).

Quote:

---

Yes, some do. The main bonus is really the penalty to people recognizing your maneuvers. Hmm, maybe making the martial lore bonus 1 + 1 for every 5 initiator levels? So at 20 it would be a respectable +6 bonus? If that sits well with you I'll change it to that.

---

Alternatively, you could switch this around. Give a bonus -- say a +2 bonus on Martial Lore checks, and then give opponents a -1 per 2 initiator levels or something. Don't if you don't want to. Anyway, it's your call.

Quote:

---

Hmm. Not sure. This would then only remove a single maneuver unlike Double-Edged Blade and doesn't get to do the cool damage type back to you thing. But this is one level lower. But it would be weird to have it do d4s and and staring as a d6. Hmm, maybe d4s and start the initial part as d4s? Modified accordingly. If you or anyone else thinks that's too weak let me know.

---

I think we missed each other here. I see that with a damage buff to this, it makes Double-Edged Blade seem proportionately weaker.

Which is good, because it looks like Double-Edged is rather weak for a level 4. I'm not so great at placing level-equivalence power, but it looks like +4d6 damage is pretty normal at level 4. Those who do less damage grant a debuff or increase mobility.

Granted, high number of damage types makes it almost impossible to protect against all the additional damage, but it's still a rather low damage.

If you don't simply want to up the damage to d10s or something, I have an idea for a buff to Double-Edged Blade: In addition to the smorgasbord of damage types, perhaps give the opponent a -1 to attack whenever they use a strike per school readied. Thus, a warblade with Iron Heart and Stone Dragon maneuvers would take a -2 to attack during strikes. Humorously, this maneuver hurts the already-low-BAB swordsages more than other classes with less schools to pull from. So maybe this wouldn't be an ideal route.

Too powerful? Too convoluted or otherwise disinteresting? Don't worry about using it. My feelings will not be hurt.

---

All looks well and thanks for being willing to come back to this project.

I put in a very unusual prestige class that is focused around Broken Blade Masters of One on the Master of One thread.

Ok, maneuvers 6 through 9.

Level 6: Disarm the Master should be a Counter, not a Strike

Level 8: Steal Maneuver: are you fine with initiates using this repeatedly? i.e. use, steal a maneuver, refresh, repeat. An odd sort of lockdown, i suppose (the opponent's still a highly capable melee, so probably not too bad). If you want to limit this to only 1 maneuver at a time, I might suggest even changing duration to simply: "until the end of the encounter." Anyway, no need to change this.

Level 8: Walk the True Path: would it be overpowered to add DR against maneuvers to this? Would be neat, and it is level 8. But I understand this stacked with Lore of the True Path is already very impressive. Alternatively, adding an Evasion/Mettle effect on successful saves would be cool (so that Shadow thing that does 4 con damage on a failed save and 2 con damage on a successful save would instead do 0 con damage). So once again, your call and anyone else' who cares to opinionate.

Level 8: Unexpected Counter is buff. I would say overpowered as you're perfectly choosing your defenses, but the prereqs are still incredibly hefty. I think in practical gameplay, a well-versed Broken Blade Swordsage has still given up a lot of potential Counters to obtain this. So this is something where we'd really need play-testing to tell, but I'm going to say I think it'd be fine.

2 level 9 strikes, eh? Makes sense, considering what Strike of the True Path does. I always felt the "only 1 level 9 and it's a strike" was just because they ran out of ideas, so it bothers me none to see 2.

Level 9: Break the Blade, Wipe the Mind is definitely interesting, but I have a problem with it: it's better used as a DM Low-Blow than a PC readied maneuver. As a PC, you're spending a level 9 strike to effectively use an inferior Steal Maneuver with some extra damage tacked on as a consolation prize. Of course, you providing another option for level 9 helps a lot. Still, I'd consider taking away the "Permanent" part and replacing it with more sealed maneuvers. Something like "2d4 maneuvers are treated as expended and cannot be refreshed or prepared for 24 hours". But that's my take.

-----

There's one thing you didn't touch in your maneuvers which I think would be fitting: Damaging the opponent's ability to refresh. Something that jams or otherwise hinders their ability to refresh, use Adaptive Style, or be granted maneuvers.

If you can't work it in, that's fine (I, for one, can't think of a good way to implement this).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pechvarry

Alternatively, you could switch this around. Give a bonus -- say a +2 bonus on Martial Lore checks, and then give opponents a -1 per 2 initiator levels or something. Don't if you don't want to. Anyway, it's your call.

---

You know. I'm just going to make both bonuses equal and scale. 1 +1 for every 4 initiator levels. That keeps the bonuses reasonable I think.

Quote:

---

I think we missed each other here. I see that with a damage buff to this, it makes Double-Edged Blade seem proportionately weaker.
Which is good, because it looks like Double-Edged is rather weak for a level

4. I'm not so great at placing level-equivalence power, but it looks like +4d6 damage is pretty normal at level 4. Those who do less damage grant a debuff or increase mobility.

Granted, high number of damage types makes it almost impossible to protect against all the additional damage, but it's still a rather low damage.

If you don't simply want to up the damage to d10s or something, I have an idea for a buff to Double-Edged Blade: In addition to the smorgasbord of damage types, perhaps give the opponent a -1 to attack whenever they use a strike per school readied. Thus, a warblade with Iron Heart and Stone Dragon maneuvers would take a -2 to attack during strikes. Humorously, this maneuver hurts the already-low-BAB swordsages more than other classes with less schools to pull from. So maybe this wouldn't be an ideal route.

---

Hmm. How about d6s for Give the Adept Harm, d8s for Double-Edged Blades and your penalty as well for Double-Edge Blade? What do you think of that?

Edit: Also, just saw your comments on the high level maneuvers. But need to go now, will look at them in more detail probably tomorrow night.

In reference to this

I'm dropping the project. I do plan on a rewrite of the associated class. Potentially linking it with the actually finished, Piercing Point discipline.
I'd like the class to be more than an alteration of the OA class and more its own animal as it were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pechvarry

Ok, maneuvers 6 through 9.

Level 6: Disarm the Master should be a Counter, not a Strike

---

Right.

Quote:

---

Level 8: Steal Maneuver: are you fine with initiates using this repeatedly? i.e. use, steal a maneuver, refresh, repeat. An odd sort of lockdown, i suppose (the opponent's still a highly capable melee, so probably not too bad). If you want to limit this to only 1 maneuver at a time, I might suggest even changing duration to simply: "until the end of the encounter." Anyway, no need to change this.

---

Hmm, I don't like things that last until the end of an encounter. It just seems awkward to me. But made explicit that one can't steal more than 1 maneuver at a time which should help keep it reasonable. If they are stealing a maneuver each round (which is about as fast as they can do so) the others can still probably get some maneuvers off before you get all of them stolen, even if they are failing every single save. And if that occurs over 4 or 5 rounds, the battle will likely be over again by the end of that.

Quote:

---

Level 8: Walk the True Path: would it be overpowered to add DR against maneuvers to this? Would be neat, and it is level 8. But I understand this stacked with Lore of the True Path is already very impressive. Alternatively, adding an Evasion/Mettle effect on successful saves would be cool (so that Shadow thing that does 4 con damage on a failed save and 2 con damage on a successful save would instead do 0 con damage). So once again, your call and anyone else' who cares to opinionate.

---

Yeah, as is probably pretty apparent from the set-up, I have a lot more of an idea of how to balance lower level stuff than higher level so I don't know. Some amount of DR like DR 2/- might not be unreasonable but I like the idea of the equivalent of Evasion/Mettle. Something like "While in this stance and you makes a successful saving throw against a maneuver that normally deals half damage on a successful save, you instead takes no damage. This applies only to maneuvers initiated with initiator level at most your own + 5."
Does that seem reasonable?

Quote:

---

Level 8: Unexpected Counter is buff. I would say overpowered as you're perfectly choosing your defenses, but the prereqs are still incredibly hefty. I think in practical gameplay, a well-versed Broken Blade Swordsage has still given up a lot of potential Counters to obtain this. So this is something where we'd really need play-testing to tell, but I'm going to say I think it'd be fine.

---

I think it is ok also because the counter needs to be of 4th level or below and so you don't get any of the really sweet counters this way.

Quote:

---

Level 9: Break the Blade, Wipe the Mind is definitely interesting, but I have a problem with it: it's better used as a DM Low-Blow than a PC readied maneuver. As a PC, you're spending a level 9 strike to effectively use an inferior Steal Maneuver with some extra damage tacked on as a consolation prize. Of course, you providing another option for level 9 helps a lot. Still, I'd consider taking away the "Permanent" part and replacing it with more sealed maneuvers. Something like "2d4 maneuvers are treated as expended and cannot be refreshed or prepared for 24 hours". But that's my take.

---

I don't know. I really like the idea of permanently removing maneuvers. But I see the balance issue. Maybe on a failed save they have 2d4 maneuvers sealed and if they fail the save by 10 or more one of them becomes permanently removed per the current mechanic? How would that sound?

Quote:

---

There's one thing you didn't touch in your maneuvers which I think would be fitting: Damaging the opponent's ability to refresh. Something that jams or otherwise hinders their ability to refresh, use Adaptive Style, or be granted maneuvers.

If you can't work it in, that's fine (I, for one, can't think of a good way to implement this).

---

No obvious way to do it that works generally enough. If someone else has a suggestion for this I'll think about it.

Edit: I've also worked out some Broken Blade feats including filling in the missing tactical feat. I'll post them in another thread when I finish formatting them (so this thread can stay dedicated for a specific purpose).

Sorry I missed this. If I don't comment on a portion of your posts, assume agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Something like "While in this stance and you makes a successful saving throw against a maneuver that normally deals half damage on a successful save, you instead takes no damage. This applies only to maneuvers initiated with initiator level at most your own + 5."
Does that seem reasonable?

---

I'd make it a bit more broad: 'If a martial maneuver allows a save for half or partial effect, you instead suffer no additional effects. This does not negate or affect the damage of the standard attack made as part of any strikes. Only the additional benefits of such a maneuver are negated." If you want to limit it to IL+5, go for it. Personally, I think it's not really worth it -- a higher level character will (theoretically) have higher DCs anyway. On a failed save, you'll still take full effects.

Quote:

---

I think it is ok also because the counter needs to be of 4th level or below and so you don't get any of the really sweet counters this way.

---

Right you are. Leave as is. It's a beautiful thing.

Quote:

---

I don't know. I really like the idea of permanently removing maneuvers. But I see the balance issue. Maybe on a failed save they have 2d4 maneuvers sealed and if they fail the save by 10 or more one of them becomes permanently removed per the current mechanic? How would that sound?

---

Could splash into Level Drain mechanics. Something like "at the end of the 24 hour period, the target must make a Will save against the original DC. If this save fails, randomly determine one of their sealed maneuvers. This maneuver is now permanently sealed and can only be restored by...." bla bla bla insert healing clauses here. And if you want it to seal more than 1, lose the random part if you want. Comparing to Energy Drain which doesn't even allow an initial save, I'm not sure 2d4 permanently sealed maneuvers is terrible (considering they would get 2 chances to negate it). If you go this route, I'd suggest using the Level Drain mechanic again: make a new save to avoid permanent sealing once for each manuever.

Anyway, I think I'm happy with it. Any decisions left, I'm sure you know where to take it and have faith you'll make it superb. I might PM you some grammar stuff if I find some. Happy hunting (for rogue initiators)!

Ok. Modified as per your points. That was very helpful thanks. Any idea which discipline you are going to look at next?

In reference to this (look at the spoiler).

I find issue with the prerequisites as stated (but not as intended). I suggest revising to "At least one level in a martial adept class and at least one level in any other class."

That feat might be too good for a sword-sage dip...