The Age of the Warriors - a ToB expansion book idea

[elliott20]

Spreadsheet for completion updated

I've also added columns to check off the tactical, enhancement feats and thematic items. (Incidentally, if you know of a discipline with those two completed, drop a note here and I'll update it)

some more notes:

as far as I'm aware, I_Got_This_Name's disciplines are more or less set in stone, so I'm going to check those off too.

I want to take a look at the newer ones like Silver Crane for completion, so if you guys get the chance, go over the newer ones too just so we can start getting those wrapped up too.

[DracoDei]

I've also added columns to check off the tactical, enhancement feats and thematic items. (Incidentally, if you know of a discipline with those two completed, drop a note here and I'll update it).

I had already had done that... if you like having it on that sheet better, you could at least have copied what I had over... MAYBE leaving out my item suggestions until and unless they become set in stone...

[elliott20]

Sorry about that. I haven't been paying too much attention to everything that is been going on. My apologies. I will go through and get that all over.

[DracoDei]

The refactoring of the archery stuff is coming along pretty good...

Also: Bump.

[elliott20]

Actually, I've been thinking about that archery stuff you guys have been working on. Like I said in the other thread, I'm considering replacing the current archery stuff with those instead.

I kind of like the idea of thin-client disciplines since I think those are a good way to still allow customization while at the same time promote more niche disciplines.

[DracoDei]

"Thin Client"? You mean very narrow focus, but made to be reasonably combinable with eachother? So, for instance, it would be perfectly sensible to be in a Rising Pheonix stance (Hidden Archery for example) and using Iron Rain strikes combined with a boost from either? Or are you talking about a minimum of fluff for maximum versatility in character creations?

[elliott20]

Mostly the first interpretation, where you have reasonably fewer maneuvers in this discipline, thereby decreasing a discipline's scope. To me, that means that we can quickly boil down to the discipline's essence.

For usability purposes, this helps people using the book trying to customize, in my opinion. After all, from our stand point, we're comfortable with the combos and crunch because we're conditioned to absorb this level of knowledge and make it all work. But in reality, when new people come to the book, they'll be looking at 50 or so new disciplines to work with. You add TD1's rule of adding disciplines to a character sheet and now you're looking at a LOT of flexibility, but also a LOT of complexity and potential confusion.

This is why having smaller, efficient disciplines like the ones you've done I think could be nice whenever it is possible.

[JoshuaZ]

Hmm, most of the disciplines have about as many maneuvers as default disciplines in ToB. There are a few exceptions. Should we consider reducing their size for the book? For example, It might not be unreasonable to cut down some of the stuff in the Narrow Bridge discipline to move closer to a thin client. (This may just be my own insecurity with my disciplines coming through).

[DracoDei]

I think we should try to avoid cutting too many maneuvers out. Reorganize the disciplines if necessary (and I find elliot20's argument reasonable), but leave all the functionality to be found SOMEWHERE... note that most of my help with the Archery stuff was in ADDING maneuvers.

What this means for Narrow Bridge is that you should consider splitting it into two (I haven't looked at it recently enough to suggest what the split should be with certainty, although I do list an idea below, which might have zilch to do with the way your discipline is structured), but don't lose anything if you can help it. Also, I would say that "Archery", to me is a concept that people want to explore in multiple ways, thus multiple disciplines. "Necromancy" OTOH is MAY be a a concept that a player could see and grab, and never look back to ask themselves (but what KIND of Necromancy?). On further reflection you have at least "supernatural fear", "undead creation", "Undead Destruction", and "Negative Energy Damage"... Since undead are immune to fear, then tactically you want to mix up "Undead Destruction" and "Supernatural Fear", which leaves you with "Undead Creation" and "Negative Energy Damage" (which also work well together if you can heal the undead you create at critical moments? Of course, you should probably have them go away at the end of combat, so that isn't very useful.).

While we are on the subject, does anyone have any suggestions for how I could divide up Falling Anvil? I have been thinking I should, but that was more about balancing the power level of it versus other disciplines than about "user interface" concerns. I am still not sure I should do that, but it seems a reasonable question to ask at this point. Actually two:

1. Should I?
2. Where could I?

[JoshuaZ]

Hmm, the concern with splitting up Narrow Bridge is that the fluff is about the balance of necromancy and splitting into two disciplines like that would make one more or less the unambiguously evil side. Maybe I'll go bug the people on the forum who have used the discipline and see what they think.

[elliott20]

keep in mind, I'm not saying we need to do this to ALL or even MOST of the discipline. This is, after all, another huge undertaking. I do believe it will pay dividends if done, but certain ones like say, narrow bridge, which has a pretty niche application already, is going to be trickier to do, I believe.

Again, I'm not talking about cutting things out. I like all the content that has been presented thus far. I just think that having everything zero-ed in onto their most efficient parts will make them better products.

But this is an effort that I think the authors are best suited to say whether or not a discipline should be split. Some, like Cthonic Serpent, for example, were written up very much to be a counterpart to another discipline from the original 9. Anything on that kind of scope deserves to be as big as that.

The thin-client approach is something we reserve for disciplines that we feel can be more generic in fluff. To me, this speaks to things that have a specific niche, ie. a shoot faster discipline, a shoot more precise discipline.

A good guideline is that if you're basically taking the concept/fluff of a feat, and extending it, it's eligible for thin-client approach. Such disciplines will almost always be considered part of a larger curriculum.

If the discipline can almost be treated as a more holistic approach with a more philosophical fluff rather than application of mechanics, it doesn't need to be done this way.

So what of the existing disciplines deserve to split apart? I'm still thinking on that one.

[dspeyer]

Brevity is not of great importance for a discipline. The purpose of the archery refactoring was to make the disciplines more coherently based on a single idea. I haven't looked at either in great detail, but I think both Falling Anvil and Narrow Bridge are pretty coherent.

After archery, my next target will probably be either poison or mounted combat. In either case, I will probably produce a single large discipline by dropping or combining a few maneuvers.

[DracoDei]

Brevity is not of great importance for a discipline. The purpose of the archery refactoring was to make the disciplines more coherently based on a single idea. I haven't looked at either in great detail, but I think both Falling Anvil and Narrow Bridge are pretty coherent.

Thematically, Falling Anvil is quite coherent... mechanically? You have

1. trip attacks
2. bludgeoning damage
3. Fire damage
4. lightning damage
5. Sanity damage
6. a host of defenses (almost all of which harm or disadvantage you in some way or another)
7. a smattering of debuffs (including forcing your opponent to attempt to sunder their own weapon)
8. the ability to turn your opponent's attacks against them
9. the ability to replace 3 different skills with Bluff checks (Hide and Move Silently for Be Wary Wary Quwiet, and Disguise for Paper-Thin Disguise.)
10. moderate range transportation of a painful nature
11. Passwall (that you might occasionally also get to do large amounts of damage to one or more creatures.)
12. the capstone buries your opponent alive (which, now that I think about it is surprisingly horrific, for a comedy themed concept... but I think it works).

And the associated non-tactical feat buffs your allies... which none of the maneuvers do (with the arguable exception of Dustcloud Melee).

Conclusion: Eh, it is thematically coherent... it can almost certainly stay as a single discipline, especially since everyone keeps insisting to me that nobody is going to care very much about game balance in any game where it sees use.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Just how big is the rough target number for new schools? I ask because I have one draft at around 21 maneuvers and another that's set in stone at 13.

[DracoDei]

Someone (don't remember who) and I actually posted some charts earlier in this thread that cover stuff like this.

But as for interpretation, rather than just than straight up numerical comparisons:
Nothing is set in stone I should say, we are trying to make everything WORK... and that doesn't always map to hard numbers. That having been said, one capstone at 9th leaves you with 12 maneuvers to distribute over the other 8 levels, so 4 with 1 and 4 with 2... if that DOESN'T include any stances you might have, then that should be about the same as some of the smaller of the 9 ToB disciplines... OTOH 23 is enough that a sword sage would be able to only take 2 maneuvers from other disciplines if, for some reason, he wanted every maneuver in that discipline.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

The one at 21 is really just a collection of themes that will get condensed down drastically as it is to be a Crusader exclusive based on Diablo 2 paladin skills. The 13 one is meant as a Swordsage exclusive bow style mechanically based around a focused anti-caster theme.

I recall you swatting me with the stick of reason in the Vanguard Sentinel thread, thanks for that by the way.

[DracoDei]

Eh, I generally try to poke gently with it, but whichever... and FWIW, depending on how long the 4th level assassin spell lasts, 4th level might be the right level for the "can't heal this" strike.

[DracoDei]

Have finally added D1's mechanic to Falling Anvil. I had to modify some of the wording to fit the fluff I envision, so I thought I would reproduce it here for other people to look at since the fluff is going to0 be included in the appendix, and will have to jive with the pre-existing history that we set up.

Because the Falling Anvil discipline was never taught at the Temple of the Nine Swords or any similar center of training (although a few adepts even at the temple "contracted" it), most martial adepts do not know any maneuvers from it, or even know it exists. Any martial adept can learn maneuvers from the Falling Anvil discipline. Mechanically, there are two ways to master the discipline. The first is to have been trained in it intentionally, via the inclusion of prank-wars and seeking the services of bards or experts with ranks in Perform(Comedy) (often on the stages at various taverns), or to have "contracted" it from the stress of your training regime as a novice. If you choose to make a martial adept that has already been trained in or contracted the Falling Anvil discipline, you simply replace one discipline that adept could normally learn with maneuvers from with the Falling Anvil discipline. He loses the associated skill of the replaced discipline as a class skill, but gains Bluff as a class skill.

The other way is to seek out a master of the Falling Anvil discipline–a martial adept capable of using at least 5th-level maneuvers from the discipline–and training under him. You must train for a month under the master, and spend 1,000 xp at the end of your training. Alternatively you must suffer a psychotic episode, and spend at least a month confined to a sanitarium, or other mental institution, being unsuccessfully treated. This costs the same 1,000 xp. In either case, you gain the ability to learn maneuvers from the Falling Anvil discipline, and add Bluff to your martial adept class’s list of class skills. In addition, you may exchange your maneuvers known for maneuvers of the Falling Anvil discipline. You may exchange one maneuver of each level, and the new maneuvers you learn must be of the same level as the exchanged maneuvers, unlike normal.

[DragoonWraith]

Someone (don't remember who) and I actually posted some charts earlier in this thread that cover stuff like this.

I did - though didn't you also?

Desert Wind
{table=head]Level | Strike | Boost | Counter | Stance | Other | Total
1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5
2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4
3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4
4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3
5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3
6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3
7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2
9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
Total | 15 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 27[/table]

Devoted Spirit
{table=head]Level | Strike | Boost | Counter | Stance | Other | Total
1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4
2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2
3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3
4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5
6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 5
7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2
8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2
9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
Total | 15 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 26[/table]

Diamond Mind
{table=head]Level | Strike | Boost | Counter | Stance | Other | Total
1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3
2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2
3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3
4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3
5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3
6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3
9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
Total | 11 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 22[/table]

Iron Heart
{table=head]Level | Strike | Boost | Counter | Stance | Other | Total
1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3
2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2
3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3
4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2
5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3
6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2
7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3
9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
Total | 10 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 21[/table]

Setting Sun
{table=head]Level | Strike | Boost | Counter | Stance | Other | Total
1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3
2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2
3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3
4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
5 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4
6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2
7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2
9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
Total | 9 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 20[/table]

Shadow Hand
{table=head]Level | Strike | Boost | Counter | Stance | Other | Total
1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4
2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3
3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4
4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3
6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3
7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2
8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3
9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
Total | 14 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 25[/table]

Stone Dragon
{table=head]Level | Strike | Boost | Counter | Stance | Other | Total
1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3
2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4
4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3
5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3
6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3
7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3
9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
Total | 19 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 24[/table]

Tiger Claw
{table=head]Level | Strike | Boost | Counter | Stance | Other | Total
1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4
2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4
4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3
8 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3
9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
Total | 12 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 23[/table]

White Raven
{table=head]Level | Strike | Boost | Counter | Stance | Other | Total
1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4
2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3
4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2
6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2
7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2
9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
Total | 11 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 20[/table]

Chthonic Serpent
{table=head]Level | Strike | Boost | Counter | Stance | Other | Total
1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4
2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2
3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4
4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4
5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3
6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2
9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
Total | 14 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 24[/table]

[DracoDei]

Thus the "and I" part of my statement...

Someone (maybe me) should probably copy those charts into one of the spread-sheets at some point...

[dspeyer]

I've posted the cleaned up results of the archery refactoring on three threads: Rising Phoenix, Iron Rain and Falcon's Eye

I propose that these three replace True Arrow and Falling Star for this project.

[elliott20]

seconded.

These archery disciplines actually focus more on one aspect of archery, which makes it more focused fluff wise.

[Sereg]

Thought that I should let you all know that the Base Class Challenge thus far includes two martial adepts (the dawntreader and the lightbringer) with disciplines.

[Sereg]

Ok, this post is partially to bump the thread and partially to inform you all that another entry (the harshlight warrior) in the base class challenge, has been altered to become a martial adept.

[Golden-Esque]

After a lot of contemplation, I finally finished the two feats associated with the Solaris Arcanum discipline. If you want to pop over to take a peak, here's a super convenient link.

[DracoDei]

Added some DR by-passing ability to Piano Drop (chaotic and magic), Viking Long-boat Drop(chaotic and magic), and Paint Tunnel (Cold Iron, Chaotic, and Magic)... I am considering dropping the damage on Anvil Drop to 5d6, as compared to the similar Desert Wind strike that does 6d6 (fire, not bludgeoning), but since Desert Wind is considered underpowered, I guess I will keep it.

[LunarWolfPrime]

The Beast King

[elliott20]

I'll comment on the beast king entry directly, but I think you can tie that in with the Rakasha monster in the TOB itself.

[DracoDei]

I'll comment on the beast king entry directly, but I think you can tie that in with the Rakasha monster in the TOB itself.

That would be especially nice since Rakasha's were part of the Shadow Horde that conquered the Temple of Nine Swords.

[DracoDei]

Come on people... let's keep moving...