Half-Initiator Level? (Food for Thought)

[Realms of Chaos]

Having seen a few dozen homebrew classes that use maneuvers, I finally noticed an odd similarity between all of them.

Every last class seems to grant a full initiator-level progression and regularized maneuver access as you level up. If maneuvers can be likened to less powerful spells, this means that we have only full-initiators (full access up to 9th level).

I know that it's kind of taken for granted as we've never seen anything else in the ToB but considering that there are classes out there that stop spell access at 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th level (with the duskblade and factotum seeing decent play), it seems odd that nobody has seemed to consider:

1. Delayed maneuver access. If maneuvers are meant to be an auxillary part of your class, delaying access to them is one way to express this. Not the best or most balanced way, mind you, but it creates a nice bit of symmetry with similar spellcasters classes. Of course, this would likely be paired with...

2. Halved initiator levels. Although this would mean that you're just as talented as any other class with the martial study feat, an initiator class still gets more than 3 maneuvers which keeps you as a viable concept. I can see at least 2 reasons why this may be a good idea.

• With lower-level maneuvers available, it would be completely balanced to grant a class more maneuvers known, readied maneuvers, and stances known than a normal initiator class. As a result, granting access to a larger number of disciplines as well also becomes palatable.
• Some classes just don't need 9th-level maneuvers. I've seen some classes out there that have been quite formidable on their own but just needed a little bit of push as far as versatility. If the creator were to have tacked on spellcasting, it seems apparant that they'd only grant 4th- or 5th-level spells. Instead, they tack on a full initiator progression and give them 9th-level maneuvers. I know that maneuvers are weaker than spells but they still often come across (at least IMHO) as... overpowering the class sometimes. I don't mean this in terms of balance, of course, but rather that the act of tacking maneuvers onto a class may "take over" the class, making it an initiator class with class abilities as decoration rather than the other way around.

Of course, I may be completely wrong about this. Has anybody else given any thoughts to this matter? Does anybody have an opinion? Death threats?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I think the difficulty arises from the terms Tome of Battle uses.

An Initiating class has a full initiator level. A non-initiating class has an initiator level equal to 1/2 the levels in that class.

Thus, how does an initiating class with 1/2 initiator level operate? Do you actually initiate maneuvers at 3/4 of your level? And so forth.

It's further complicated by the fact that maneuver levels are, unlike spell levels, tied to initiator levels as per the table in ToB. A level 17 initiator uses 9th level maneuvers, period, end of story, unless you specify that your homebrew breaks the rules, which can get messy.

In short, I think most people don't think it's worth the effort to break the mold.

[Realms of Chaos]

But it would only require the addition of a single sentence.

"You possess an initiator level equal to half of your class level (instead of your full class level)"

How is that at all difficult? Spellcasting classes have added text altering the caster levels of others in the past so why on earth can't this translate over to initiators?

Edit: on second thought, I suppose that the sentence would have to be...

"Initiator levels gained through levels in this class are halved (minimum 1) for the purposes of determining your highest-level maneuver known"

In this way, your maneuvers would work at full effect but you'd be restricted to weaker ones. Still a single sentence addition.

[Morph Bark]

In a twisted sort of way, I have done this in the past with a base class of mine called the dabblemaster, which could get up to level 6 maneuvers.

You could make PrCs or initiating classes that add the "You possess an initiator level equal to half of your class level (instead of your full class level)" line, but people are prone to stick to how things are. Just like how most homebrew uses no medium saves, no 3 or 5 or 7 skill points, etcetera. It could work for a combo-PrC though, where it goes together with other things like invocations or binding -- or even two other things, so that it has to be weaker to make the class balanced.

[Godless_Paladin]

Hackneyed casting progressions has never been a terribly sound mechanic. Why impose it on ToB? I'm just not seeing the upshot, here.

Additionally, if you want a partial ToB initiator, that's what multiclassing is for. ToB seriously has one of the (if not the) smoothest multiclassing integrations of anything in 3.5e

[kryan]

Maneuvers also don't usually scale like spells do, so you need higher-level maneuvers rather than just scaled-up lower level spells. That's also why martial adepts can swap maneuvers for higher-level ones.

[Merk]

One idea: IL = BAB. Exception: Swordsages get IL = HD (much like pathfinder monks with respect to CMB).

[Ziegander]

Edit: on second thought, I suppose that the sentence would have to be...

"Initiator levels gained through levels in this class are halved (minimum 1) for the purposes of determining your highest-level maneuver known"

In this way, your maneuvers would work at full effect but you'd be restricted to weaker ones. Still a single sentence addition.

I've done exactly this before on one of the old homebrew classes I wrote though I can't remember what the class was or why I did it...

[Violet Octopus]

I would be very interested in seeing a well-thought out, fairly watertight mechanic of this sort. I have a manifesting/initiating class currently on hold because the way it learns maneuvers currently necessitates learning its first at 4th level, and having your first maneuver known be second level is silly.

Delayed casting (e.g. pathfinder paladin, whose caster level = paladin level - 3) would be fairly easy, something along the lines of:
"Unlike other initiating classes, your initiator level equals your class level - X (plus half your combined level in other classes, as normal)"

Bard-rate initiating would require a new table, but otherwise doesn't seem to complicated.
"Unlike other initiating classes, your initiator level grants you access to new maneuver levels as the following table indicates: [insert table]"

Am I missing something?

[kryan]

I would be very interested in seeing a well-thought out, fairly watertight mechanic of this sort. I have a manifesting/initiating class currently on hold because the way it learns maneuvers currently necessitates learning its first at 4th level, and having your first maneuver known be second level is silly.

What's silly about that? A lot of people delay taking their first initiator level til 5th or til 9th to start with 2nd or 3rd level maneuvers.

Delayed casting (e.g. pathfinder paladin, whose caster level = paladin level - 3) would be fairly easy, something along the lines of:
"Unlike other initiating classes, your initiator level equals your class level - X (plus half your combined level in other classes, as normal)"

But delayed casting a la Paladin is generally awful. And maneuvers don't have the OP-ness of spells to balance that out...

Bard-rate initiating would require a new table, but otherwise doesn't seem to complicated.
"Unlike other initiating classes, your initiator level grants you access to new maneuver levels as the following table indicates: [insert table]"

Am I missing something?

I think so: that would necessitate writing entirely new disciplines for the class. I don't think the existing maneuvers would be well-balanced for this sort of thing.

[Violet Octopus]

What's silly about that? A lot of people delay taking their first initiator level til 5th or til 9th to start with 2nd or 3rd level maneuvers.

I have no problem with getting level-appropriate features if you multiclass, and it's a very great thing that ToB did (even if it makes certain orders of taking levels strictly better than other orders, which I dislike). But as a single class it's strange to suddenly go from no initiating to 2nd level maneuvers.

But delayed casting a la Paladin is generally awful. And maneuvers don't have the OP-ness of spells to balance that out...

Paladin spellcasting is awful because it's delayed, is half-caster level, only goes up to level 4 and has few spells in core worth casting. If initiating is delayed by 3 levels but is otherwise full, that's still a 9th level maneuver at level 20.

I think so: that would necessitate writing entirely new disciplines for the class. I don't think the existing maneuvers would be well-balanced for this sort of thing.

Why would it require writing new disciplines? It just means you can only learn maneuvers up to, say, level 6 in the disciplines you have access to. Also, I may be wrong, and I don't have my copy of ToB at hand to check, but my impression from talk on the forums is that while strikes tend to become obsolete fairly quickly, low-level boosts and counters remain fairly effective.

Note I've never had the opportunity to actually play a ToB character, so my understanding is naturally limited.

[kryan]

ToB scales differently than spells. Very few maneuvers scale with Initiator Level as spells do with Caster Level. You generally are supposed to be using only your level-appropriate stuff. Yes, some boosts and especially some of the 3rd level Stances are usable well past their own level, but every martial adept needs to be using Strikes early and often to be effective, and Strikes need to be the correct level to work.

I mean, I guess if you have a class that's effectively a multiclass martial adept but as a single class, it might sort of work out, but I think the system works much better with actual multiclassing.

[DracoDei]

Well, I would like to actually weigh in on this, but my session at the public terminal I am currently at is running short, so instead(EDIT: Got another session now). I will simply link y'all to my True Master of Nine, which started out with 1/2 initiator progression. I later changed that, but that is irrelevant, since the commentary on the subject in the following posts might prove instructive. I might even go back and change it to 3/4 initiation if this thread works out a usable mechanic or what-not since as it currently stands I THINK a Sword-sage 2/Crusader 2/Warblade 1/TMo9 10/Swordsage +5 can get more 9th level maneuvers than a straight sword-sage I think, plus more total known and readied maneuvers.... of course that requires a VERY precise build.

And now for my actual thoughts: I think the concept is very much worth trying, and I prefer to make homebrews that assume that the readers are highly intelligent and adaptable, and thus don't sacrifice my creative vision for simplicity (although simplicity is something I strive for within the prior restraint). As such, I am interested to see what people (including perhaps me revisiting my True Master of Nine), can do with it. I think that 3/4 (rather than the existing 1/2 or 1) progression would likely be the place to start ideally, but if someone has an idea that really would work best as "Non-initiator class for purposes of calculating highest level maneuver available." Then they shouldn't let that hold them up at all... in fact, that reminds me... I actually had something that was potentially WEIRDER that that in my Sublime Form Master PrC: It was all about Stances, with no non-stance maneuvers, and as such it counted as non-initiating for determining strike/boost/counter/miscellaneous access, but full-initiator level for purposes of determining access to stances.

[Realms of Chaos]

A few quick notes on the lack of scalability that ToB is accused of having.

1. Most boosts, counters, and stances seem to remain useful for a relatively long time, all things considered. The only problem here, if there is one, is with strikes.

2. If we talk about giving maneuvers to characters with only an average BAB, the type that gets one fewer attack with its full attack option and which typically doesn't rely on shock trooper tactics to get tons of damage through, even a 4th or 5th level strike may have some appeal, especially as most of them let you move and then attack (something you don't get with full attacks unless you possess pounce). As such, if there are problems with strikes, it's only with giving them to full BAB classes.

3. Even to an average full BAB character, there are things that certain 4th-5th level strikes do that may be worthwhile as an alternative to the same old full attack (such as Searing Charge, Bounding Assault, Ruby Nightmare Blade, Hand of Shadows, Obscuring Shadow Blade, Overwhelming Mountain Strike, all of the alignment-based 5th-level Devoted Spirit strikes, Elder Mountain Hammer, and Pouncing Charge, not to mention a few gems in the lower levels). Retraining has already been brought up so you could easily get a good number of these utility abilities. The only time they'd be completely worthless is if someone was tricked out enough (shock trooper pouncing leap attack madness) that nothing other than a full attack even mattered.

4. The maneuvers would not be the main feature here. We'd have a base class that happens to have maneuvers, not an initiator class that happens to have other class features. Weakining the maneuvers keeps them sometimes relevant while keeping the character focused and reliant upon your primary class features. All that adding the maneuvers does is provide a bit of versatility.

[kryan]

The system would seem to favor having fewer maneuvers known/readied, and a weaker recovery mechanic, to meet those goals. Changing the system to have the halved IL doesn't sit right with me when you could just tweak the numbers that are asking to be tweaked.

What if you only got a maneuver every 3 levels? You 'skip' some maneuver levels, and you have drastically fewer than a true martial adept, but you can probably manage to have at least one level-appropriate maneuver available at the start of a fight.

[Realms of Chaos]

The entire purpose of this alteration would be to avoid giving "level-appropriate abilities".

If you give a class any number of 6th+ level maneuvers, they generally end up becoming your character's battle strategy. No matter how few you have, how few you have prepared, or how inconvenient it may be to recharge them, they would still become your primary battle strategy (as you regain them at the start of an encounter anyways).

My goal is to make them merely "utility" abilities, something you could use if you need the specific effects tacked onto one. It makes no sense to me that initiators are restricted to class-appropriate abilities or absolutely nothing at all.

I've seen people on these boards make classes without saving throw progressions, that don't gain any skill points at all, and that use d20s as their HD. Because the classes were well-made and the changes were aesthetically justified, nobody called foul. Can you honestly say that you see no instance where it might be appropriate to nerf this ability in this way?

If so, I guess that I simply disagree. This technique seems aesthetically sound and I can't see any reason why a nerfed ability would seem so odd.

[kryan]

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that I find it aesthetically displeasing and think there are better ways to have the same result. If you're level 15 and have one 7th level maneuver, and say, you can't recover at all, that is not going to be your entire strategy. It might be a part of your strategy, but you would need some other class features to build upon what you're doing with that maneuver. I disagree with your assessment that having level-appropriate maneuvers automatically overshadows any other class features.

[Thrawn183]

I think this is definitely a good idea. Right now a lot of initiating classes are defined almost entirely by their maneuvers rather than by their other class features. Hey, this is great, I'm not saying it isn't. It just would be nice to also have some classes that are designed to dabble in initiating, but where it doesn't completely define them.

You could even try to take a completely different tack on a recovery mechanic at the same time. Something where a class' maneuvers are recovered without actions required, but lower level maneuvers are recovered faster than higher level ones.

Really, the maneuvers created by ToB are really cool, but there's no reason to stick only to the precedents set there.

Edit: I'm not sure how you would handle multiclassing in the OP's example.

[kryan]

You could even try to take a completely different tack on a recovery mechanic at the same time. Something where a class' maneuvers are recovered without actions required, but lower level maneuvers are recovered faster than higher level ones.

Now this is an interesting idea. "You gain back a maneuver expended as a Free Action after a number of rounds equal to the maneuver's level," for example, would really encourage heavy use of low-level maneuvers.

[Violet Octopus]

...using unique tokens for every maneuver you know and sliding them along a line marked with numbers. Fairly workable I guess. Cool idea.

One niche I can see for an initiator limited to lower level strikes (other than having primary class features that are unrelated to initiating) is the combomaster: someone who is able to use standard action strikes as part of a full attack routine. That somewhat defeats the point of ToB's deemphasis of the full-attack action though.

[Thrawn183]

Yeah, I was thinking about how the Blademaster only knows maneuvers from a single discipline, but just straight up knows them all. That's awesome. So why not try kind of the same thing but with different aspects of the mechanic. The class with absolutely the best recovery mechanic, or the best access to different schools.

See how far you can push one aspect, while restricting the rest so as to keep it balanced.

Still, I'd really like to see some kind of Charisma based initiator class where their maneuvers known doesn't really define them. Just something really useful that you don't need to spend all your feats on (martial study).

[DracoDei]

One niche I can see for an initiator limited to lower level strikes (other than having primary class features that are unrelated to initiating) is the combomaster: someone who is able to use standard action strikes as part of a full attack routine.

My True Master of Nine stuck its toe in the water(in as much as it was a per day ability and there were some other limits) on that count with its No Contradictions ability... which I have pasted into the spoiler below... the part about non-attack-roll based maneuvers is important, otherwise you could do better with AoE's and so on than Iron Heart type stuff for example. It isn't QUITE so much using your SECOND attack that is the problem, as much as it is using your LAST attack (especially if TWF, I just realized).

Spoiler

Show

No Contradiction(Ex): From 4th level on once per day you when you use the full attack action you may treat two of the attacks as strikes that normally have standard action initiation actions. The strikes must be from different disciplines, you must have the strikes readied, and this usage expends them normally. At least one of the maneuvers must be of a level at least one less than the highest level maneuver your initiator level allows you to learn. If you use a strike that requires an alternate check in place of an attack roll on your part (such as replace an attack roll with a concentration check or some such) your check result is reduced by the same amount that that interative attack would be (so -5 if you use the second attack in a normal full attack to deliver the strike). If the strike involves a save on your opponents part(s) the DC is reduced by half this amount (so -3 for the second attack in a normal full attack, -5 for the third, or -8 for the fourth).
At 7th level you may use this ability twice per day, but no more than once per round.
At 9th level you may use this ability three times per day, but still no more than once per round.

That somewhat defeats the point of ToB's deemphasis of the full-attack action though.

Yeah, but occasionally you are going to be duking it out with an enemy and not have much to do with your move-action... besides which, there are a few full-round action maneuvers.