Soulknife, Eat Your Heart Out-[Bladesworn Feats, 3.5, PEACH]

[Garryl]

This feat chain seems weak. The resulting weapon is worse than what you can buy (even without breaking the bank), and cash is almost always cheaper than feats. The critical threat range feats give it potential as for combos as part of an Incarnum build, but the feats needed to activate even that make such combos prohibitively difficult.
The above assume that the various abilities that ask you to invest points once per encounter only last until the end of the encounter, as seems to be the intent. Since many of the feats don't specify a duration, the effect seems to have no limit as written, however, which makes it somewhat more viable.

Bladebound weapons never get to affect incorporeal creatures or even bypass DR/magic. Requiring a move action to manifest is already a disadvantage over normal weapons, which can be drawn as a move action or with no action as part of a move action made to move. Spending another feat to do so as a swift action is still worse than spending a feat on Quick Draw (the one in the PHB) to draw weapons as free actions.

Blade's Impact appears to be a numerical replacement for the enhancement bonus a weapon would normally get. This (along with the a larger pool of Blade Points) should be baseline. As it stands, you don't get enough Blade Points for even this to keep up, let alone if you want to spend them on any other Bladesworn feats.

At present, Blade's Edge and Soul Edge are the only parts of this feat chain that are attractive. They have the potential for very large critical threat ranges, which can make some useful combos. However, most critical combos are feat intensive, which makes it very difficult to pull off. The Incarnum connection feels a bit out of the blue for me, but I'll buy it.

The save DC on Sudden Blow is very low, as Zarasen mentioned. The effect itself is inferior to the Blurstriking weapon property (+2 equivalent), which lets you treat an opponent as flat-footed on the first attack per round for 10 rounds per day, no save.

Path of Destruction is interesting, but its very few uses per day cripple it. When you can use it, the ability itself is slightly better than a certain Desert Wind maneuver whose name escapes me at the moment (no bonus on attack and damage rolls, movement still provokes AoOs but can be negated with Tumble), though still not enough to be worth 4 feats.

Enhance the Blade may be worthwhile at low to mid levels, although using Blade's Edge and Power Attack instead gives a 3:1 bonus to damage on all attacks instead of 4.5:1 on a single attack and doesn't cost any actions, so this will lose a lot of value very quickly, likely becoming eclipsed as soon as you can make multiple attacks on a full attack. I'm not sure about the wording, but it might have a good use to effectively double your blade points (invest for an attack, spend the points refreshed at the start of an encounter, then get back and use the points you had stored in the blade on your first attack). I doubt that's intended, though.

Imbue the Blade asks for a move action at the beginning of each encounter, which is a sure-fire way to lose a battle. Soulknife weapon properties are also notoriously limited and are generally on the weak side.

I don't quite get the fluff connection between making a mind blade and turning yourself into a half-dragon or whatever, but I'll buy it. This feat is the hardest to evaluate due to the varying nature of templates. you can only (effectively) spend up to half your Blade Points on this, so you'll generally be limited to LA +1 and LA +2 templates. You do, however, get all of the LA +0 templates you want for free for the first [feats] rounds per encounter.

I'm not familiar with Eidolons, so I can't evaluate Blade's Soul at all.

[Deviston]

How is that bad? Because that is testament to something being stronger than it should be.

And yes i was talking about th eBook of Exalted Deeds. The name escaped me at the time. My point was that there is a feat that "grants you a magic item". Mind you it can still be taken from you, and money must be invested into it, but I still feel a precedence has been made. But I guess they are so far different I guess one could ignore it really.

12-20 is ok?! What about tossing it on a Scythe and having it be a 14-20 x4 and then as you gain a few more levels make it 13-20 x4. That's ok????

Keep this in your mind, you say all adjacent squares on the Path of Destruction. Lets put unlimited creeps in a 15 foot wide and 105 foot long line. And this is only at 100 speed btw. If he uses Path of Destruction, he can make attacks on 40 targets. Even more if they aren't in a line and he can hit on those diagonal threat ranges. Even MORE if he has a reach weapon with the ability to attack adjacent squares.... Wait nevermind. His weapon being reach or not doesn't matter, with a reach weapon or a even a bow, he only hits things in adjacent squares, not threatened squares... wait I'm not sure how that works out either. Please do tell.

Mind you this is only by feats. So, 40 targets, dealing 2d4 each (plus Strx 1.5, plus whatever else he can get in) at 13-20 x4.... and this is balanced and ok?

Ooooh, I forgot about the bonus to damage for every two hit. target 3/4 takes a bonus 1, T5/6 +2, T7/8 +3, T9/10 +4, T11/12 +5, T13/14 +6, T15/16 +7, T17/18 +8, T19/20 +9, T21/22 +10, T23/24 +11, T25/26 +12, T27/28 +13, T29/30 +14, T31/32 +15, T33/34 +16, T35/36 +17, T37/38 +18 and ending with Targets 39 and 40 taking a bonus 19 damage each. Let us tally and total this all up as if he hit all of these attacks, just for fun. Let's also just goof around and say he has a Strength score of 18, should be low at that level but we'll stick with it.

EDIT AFTER FINALLY POSTING AND REREADING:: Whoa... my mistake... expect to hit every single attack except the rolls of 1. Which if you went by numbers you would hit anyway... the bonus to every 2 targets hit is to damage rolls AND attack rolls. Let's toss 1 Fighter level instead of full Soulborn and take power attack, after you get up to about +10, knock that off your Attack Roll for some bonus damage, which will of course bump your crits by an additional 40 damage per. But of course... this is balanced.

Average dice rolls at 4 damage each, STR x 1.5 for 6 damage per attack. Let me do some math..... 400 damage just from weapon + Strength, and an additional 380 from the bonus damage of the feat. That's a total of 780 damage, useable a few times a day, with his 13-20 x4 weapon making ZERO crits. Seeing as how the number we are dealing with is 40, let's say he hits 16 of those as crits.... 640 crit damage + 240 normal for a total of 880 from weapon and Strength.

1260 average damage output in one round, usable a few times per day, with no resource expended. You know what, never mind. Leave the feats as they are. If I can hide my own posts, and convince my DM these feats are balanced, I'll never wonder about what feats to pick ever again lmao!

[Pyromancer999]

The above assume that the various abilities that ask you to invest points once per encounter only last until the end of the encounter, as seems to be the intent. Since many of the feats don't specify a duration, the effect seems to have no limit as written, however, which makes it somewhat more viable.

Well, they are intended to last until the end of the encounter. Perhaps I should change the wording.

Bladebound weapons never get to affect incorporeal creatures or even bypass DR/magic. Requiring a move action to manifest is already a disadvantage over normal weapons, which can be drawn as a move action or with no action as part of a move action made to move. Spending another feat to do so as a swift action is still worse than spending a feat on Quick Draw (the one in the PHB) to draw weapons as free actions.

Hmmm....valid points, although Ghost Touch can be replicated through Imbue the Blade, although perhaps such weapons should be listed as penetrating DR/magic. Just got do figure out the place to put it, as it might not fit well with the first feat, although I can't be sure of that. I've been thinking that perhaps I should change the default action to manifest the weapon as a swift action, as well as a swift action to allocate Blade Points to Bladesworn feats. Thoughts?

Blade's Impact appears to be a numerical replacement for the enhancement bonus a weapon would normally get. This (along with the a larger pool of Blade Points) should be baseline. As it stands, you don't get enough Blade Points for even this to keep up, let alone if you want to spend them on any other Bladesworn feats.

The weapon gains the enhancement for each point invested in the weapon, not the feat. So as long as Blade Points are invested in it, it gets the enhancement from Blade's Impact. My apologies if that was not clear.

The save DC on Sudden Blow is very low, as Zarasen mentioned. The effect itself is inferior to the Blurstriking weapon property (+2 equivalent), which lets you treat an opponent as flat-footed on the first attack per round for 10 rounds per day, no save.

True. That feat does need to be changed. I've been thinking about changing the uses to per encounter, as well as either changing the DC to either 15 + number of Bladesworn feats, or to 10 + 2 per Bladesworn feat you have.

Path of Destruction is interesting, but its very few uses per day cripple it. When you can use it, the ability itself is slightly better than a certain Desert Wind maneuver whose name escapes me at the moment (no bonus on attack and damage rolls, movement still provokes AoOs but can be negated with Tumble), though still not enough to be worth 4 feats.

Maybe that could also be changed to uses per encounter? Although I'd be slightly hesitant to do so, I could be convinced if that would be balanced.

Enhance the Blade may be worthwhile at low to mid levels, although using Blade's Edge and Power Attack instead gives a 3:1 bonus to damage on all attacks instead of 4.5:1 on a single attack and doesn't cost any actions, so this will lose a lot of value very quickly, likely becoming eclipsed as soon as you can make multiple attacks on a full attack. I'm not sure about the wording, but it might have a good use to effectively double your blade points (invest for an attack, spend the points refreshed at the start of an encounter, then get back and use the points you had stored in the blade on your first attack). I doubt that's intended, though.

Not entirely sure of the problem here. Could you clarify?

Imbue the Blade asks for a move action at the beginning of each encounter, which is a sure-fire way to lose a battle. Soulknife weapon properties are also notoriously limited and are generally on the weak side.

Yeah, as I said, I'm thinking of having stuff changed so you can allocate Blade Points to whatever effect as a swift action at the start of each encounter.

I don't quite get the fluff connection between making a mind blade and turning yourself into a half-dragon or whatever, but I'll buy it. This feat is the hardest to evaluate due to the varying nature of templates. you can only (effectively) spend up to half your Blade Points on this, so you'll generally be limited to LA +1 and LA +2 templates. You do, however, get all of the LA +0 templates you want for free for the first [feats] rounds per encounter.

It's more of a manga-type thing. Being infused with the spirit of the blade and whatnot. Plus it's cool.

As for the LA +0 stuff, that should be fine.

I'm not familiar with Eidolons, so I can't evaluate Blade's Soul at all.

There's a link to the piece of homebrew that makes use of it within the feats. Note that it is different from the Eidolon of the Summoner class from Pathfinder, in case you've seen that.

*snip*

I.....can't read this. It appears to be interspersed with snippets of past comments, and doesn't really have structure. If it were to be formatted, I could probably respond to this better.

The only thing I managed to make out is the example of 40 opponents. Never have I seen or heard of any DM putting their players against such a number of creatures, with the maximum I've heard of being 10. It seems to be a bit unrealistic example of an encounter, although if one were to be put against such an extreme number of opponents, I'd be fine with that, were it to even occur, which I doubt would be often if that were the case.

[Garryl]

Well, they are intended to last until the end of the encounter. Perhaps I should change the wording.

Hmmm....valid points, although Ghost Touch can be replicated through Imbue the Blade, although perhaps such weapons should be listed as penetrating DR/magic. Just got do figure out the place to put it, as it might not fit well with the first feat, although I can't be sure of that. I've been thinking that perhaps I should change the default action to manifest the weapon as a swift action, as well as a swift action to allocate Blade Points to Bladesworn feats. Thoughts?

If you just change the bonus from Blade's Impact to an enhancement bonus instead of untyped, that should take care of the DR/Magic and incorporeality issue nicely.

The weapon gains the enhancement for each point invested in the weapon, not the feat. So as long as Blade Points are invested in it, it gets the enhancement from Blade's Impact. My apologies if that was not clear.

So, the points are invested entirely in the weapon (barring Creature of the Bladesworn, which invests them into you, and Imbue the Blade, which appears to spend them), which then grant the full benefit for all of the various feats that ask you to invest Blade Points? That makes a lot more sense, and makes things work a lot better. I'd recommend spelling out explicitly in the Bladesworn feat how this works, including when and how you invest points.

"You have a pool of Blade Points containing 1 point + 1 per 2 Bladesworn feats you possess. At the beginning of each day and again at the beginning of each encounter, these points refresh, restoring any lost Blade Points and allowing you to reassign them amongst your Bladesworn weapon, you Blade Pool, and any other Blade Point receptacles you may possess (this takes no action on your part). Many Bladesworn feats grant additional bonuses based on the number of Blade Points invested in your Bladesworn weapon."

True. That feat does need to be changed. I've been thinking about changing the uses to per encounter, as well as either changing the DC to either 15 + number of Bladesworn feats, or to 10 + 2 per Bladesworn feat you have.

Standard save DCs are 10 + 1/2 character level (or HD or class level or other equivalent) + an ability modifier. Observe the Stunning Fist feat, for example. For this effect, however, I would recommend removing the save entirely. Rendering an opponent flat-footed for a single attack is a very minor effect. In most cases where it does anything, it's only 2-3 points of AC lost. Rogues appreciate it, but even so it's still not a reliable method of attaining Sneak Attack (Uncanny Dodge and immunity to critical hits still prevent it).

Enhance the Blade may be worthwhile at low to mid levels, although using Blade's Edge and Power Attack instead gives a 3:1 bonus to damage on all attacks instead of 4.5:1 on a single attack and doesn't cost any actions, so this will lose a lot of value very quickly, likely becoming eclipsed as soon as you can make multiple attacks on a full attack. I'm not sure about the wording, but it might have a good use to effectively double your blade points (invest for an attack, spend the points refreshed at the start of an encounter, then get back and use the points you had stored in the blade on your first attack). I doubt that's intended, though.

Not entirely sure of the problem here. Could you clarify?

Mostly just analyzing it for myself. There are two issues there, although part or all of them may be incorrect if I understand your other comments correctly. However, as written, the feat only grants bonus damage for the Blade Points you invest as part of the move action to charge the weapon, which means your other attacks won't benefit from those points for Blade Impact or Enhance the Blade.

1) Competing with both move/full-round actions and with Blade's Impact. Since the points in the blade apply to all feats equally, the Blade's Impact issue is a non-issue. The loss of your move actions, however, are significant. At low levels, when you have only a single attack (BaB < 6), spending a move action for extra damage is a very reasonable trade. At higher levels, however, it falls behind the additional damage from a second (or third or fourth) attack in a full-attack. With 4 Bladesworn feats, you still only add 3d8 damage, average 13.5, whereas an extra attack would easily deal more damage (2d6 greatsword + 6 for 18 Strength + 3 Blade Impact = 16 average as a bare minimum, and by level 6 you should be doing much more).

2) I misunderstood how the points worked. I thought you spent them, then got them back each encounter, except with Enhance the Blade which gave back those points once you made your attack. But the way it works as you've explained it to me isn't compatible with what I thought, so never mind.

I'll reiterate that these feats really feel weak to me. They're only useful if you take multiples in the chain (barring niche situations, Bladebound is just a mundane, unenchantable, non-masterwork weapon, and it takes at least 4 feats to even approximate a weapon you can buy with level-appropriate cash). Feats are a rare and valuable resource. The average character gets only 7 from level 1 to 20 (10 with flaws and Human). There are far more than that many worthwhile feats to take once you step outside of Core, vastly more so once you include homebrew. Any new feats don't need to be as good as the best of them, but they do need to be on the same scale.

[Deviston]

I.....can't read this. It appears to be interspersed with snippets of past comments, and doesn't really have structure. If it were to be formatted, I could probably respond to this better.

The only thing I managed to make out is the example of 40 opponents. Never have I seen or heard of any DM putting their players against such a number of creatures, with the maximum I've heard of being 10. It seems to be a bit unrealistic example of an encounter, although if one were to be put against such an extreme number of opponents, I'd be fine with that, were it to even occur, which I doubt would be often if that were the case.

::throws hands up and walks out, subscription removed::

[Milo v3]

::throws hands up and walks out, subscription removed::

This is your response when someone asks you to clarify a jumble of text which no one can understand....

[Pyromancer999]

If you just change the bonus from Blade's Impact to an enhancement bonus instead of untyped, that should take care of the DR/Magic and incorporeality issue nicely.

That's a good option. Also thinking that perhaps it should be that it counts as a magic weapon so long as Blade Points are invested in the weapon. Think that should work fine.

So, the points are invested entirely in the weapon (barring Creature of the Bladesworn, which invests them into you, and Imbue the Blade, which appears to spend them), which then grant the full benefit for all of the various feats that ask you to invest Blade Points? That makes a lot more sense, and makes things work a lot better. I'd recommend spelling out explicitly in the Bladesworn feat how this works, including when and how you invest points.

"You have a pool of Blade Points containing 1 point + 1 per 2 Bladesworn feats you possess. At the beginning of each day and again at the beginning of each encounter, these points refresh, restoring any lost Blade Points and allowing you to reassign them amongst your Bladesworn weapon, you Blade Pool, and any other Blade Point receptacles you may possess (this takes no action on your part). Many Bladesworn feats grant additional bonuses based on the number of Blade Points invested in your Bladesworn weapon."

Hmmmm...not exactly how I'd word it, but it's a good start, and it would appear the wording should be altered a little.

Standard save DCs are 10 + 1/2 character level (or HD or class level or other equivalent) + an ability modifier. Observe the Stunning Fist feat, for example. For this effect, however, I would recommend removing the save entirely. Rendering an opponent flat-footed for a single attack is a very minor effect. In most cases where it does anything, it's only 2-3 points of AC lost. Rogues appreciate it, but even so it's still not a reliable method of attaining Sneak Attack (Uncanny Dodge and immunity to critical hits still prevent it).

Valid point, although I'd still sort of like a save to be there.

Mostly just analyzing it for myself. There are two issues there, although part or all of them may be incorrect if I understand your other comments correctly. However, as written, the feat only grants bonus damage for the Blade Points you invest as part of the move action to charge the weapon, which means your other attacks won't benefit from those points for Blade Impact or Enhance the Blade.

1) Competing with both move/full-round actions and with Blade's Impact. Since the points in the blade apply to all feats equally, the Blade's Impact issue is a non-issue. The loss of your move actions, however, are significant. At low levels, when you have only a single attack (BaB < 6), spending a move action for extra damage is a very reasonable trade. At higher levels, however, it falls behind the additional damage from a second (or third or fourth) attack in a full-attack. With 4 Bladesworn feats, you still only add 3d8 damage, average 13.5, whereas an extra attack would easily deal more damage (2d6 greatsword + 6 for 18 Strength + 3 Blade Impact = 16 average as a bare minimum, and by level 6 you should be doing much more).

2) I misunderstood how the points worked. I thought you spent them, then got them back each encounter, except with Enhance the Blade which gave back those points once you made your attack. But the way it works as you've explained it to me isn't compatible with what I thought, so never mind.

So, now I'm thinking I definitely should have Blade Points be allocated as a swift action. Perhaps have the weapon manifest as a swift action as well.

I'll reiterate that these feats really feel weak to me. They're only useful if you take multiples in the chain (barring niche situations, Bladebound is just a mundane, unenchantable, non-masterwork weapon, and it takes at least 4 feats to even approximate a weapon you can buy with level-appropriate cash). Feats are a rare and valuable resource. The average character gets only 7 from level 1 to 20 (10 with flaws and Human). There are far more than that many worthwhile feats to take once you step outside of Core, vastly more so once you include homebrew. Any new feats don't need to be as good as the best of them, but they do need to be on the same scale.

Part of the point of these feats is to increase in power with more feats taken.

Also, the power level of these feats can somewhat change based on how readily available magic weapons are available. In most games I've been in, magic items were normally sort of rare, and were appreciated and not relied upon. I'd suppose that in a campaign where getting a magic item is as easy as spending money, these feats might lose some of their impact. Still, I think I will keep the feats the same, other than a few adjustments to wording and such that seem to be called for.

[Garryl]

No objections here about the feats scaling. I just think they should have a stronger baseline to scale from. Your work, your call, after all.

[Pyromancer999]

Alright, changes made:

-Clarified the investment of Blade Points
-Can allocate Blade Points as a swift action
-So long as you've got at least one Blade Point invested in the Bladesworn weapon, it counts as a magic weapon.
-Sudden Blow still has a DC, but is now changed to 10 + 2 x the number of Bladesworn feats you have.

[Deviston]

This is your response when someone asks you to clarify a jumble of text which no one can understand....

Odd, no where in his post did I read such a request.

12-20 is easily attainable. In the next example we will make the specified feat count for a weapon called a Scythe. We will take the base 14-20 x4 and then as you gain a few more levels, remember that it can be 13-20 x4.

In this example we will fill each square in a 15 foot wide and 105 foot long line. If he uses Path of Destruction, he can make attacks on the 40 targets within the range.
If the targets are spread out versus in a line, even more targets may be hit with the available move speed.

To make note at this point, more than 40 targets, dealing 2d4 to each (plus Str X 1.5) at critical multiplier and range 13-20 x4.

Add in the bonus to damage and attack rolls for every two hit. The spoiler block below details the damage from the consecutive attacks.

Spoiler

Show

Targets 3/4 takes a bonus 1, T5/6 +2, T7/8 +3, T9/10 +4, T11/12 +5, T13/14 +6, T15/16 +7, T17/18 +8, T19/20 +9, T21/22 +10, T23/24 +11, T25/26 +12, T27/28 +13, T29/30 +14, T31/32 +15, T33/34 +16, T35/36 +17, T37/38 +18 and ending with Targets 39 and 40 taking a bonus 19 damage each.

Let us tally and total this all up as if he hit all of these attacks, assume he has a Strength score of 18, should be low at that level but we'll stick with it.

Additionally, if we consider power attack, it would be easy to forsee reducing your attack roll by 10 at Targets 23/4 to bump your crits by an additional 40 damage per.

The spoiler below details average damage of this situation.

Spoiler

Show

Average dice rolls at 4 damage each, STR x 1.5 for 6 damage per attack.
400 damage from weapon + Strength, and an additional 380 from the bonus damage of the feat.
This is a total of 780 damage, useable a few times a day, with his 13-20 x4 weapon making ZERO crits.
Let's say he hits 16 of those as crits....
This is roughly 640 crit damage + 240 normal for a total of 880 from weapon and Strength.

If we add the critical damages with the bonus damage from the consecutive feats, we get 1260 average damage output in one round.
This damage output is usable a few times per day, with no resource expended.

Maybe a DM would not normally put a character against this number of enemies, however the point is that it can easily be abused. This feat would be extremely useful to a Chaotic Evil character who attempts to wipe out citizenry in a town for example. 40 targets within his range would be extremely easy to conceive.

I summary, it is not the intended use, nor the expected use, but the extremely easy to see and highly possible abuse. I was critical before and under the effects of several VERY potent cups of coffee. My apologies for being so... negative?

EDIT: I want to note that the tons-o-damage spamming can be done by a sorcerer spamming fireballs of course. Assuming the sorcerer has 18 Charisma and not special items or special optimization, middle damage is about 660 damage using 22 fireballs to a single target. Total squares within could be up to 44 targets equalling 29,040 damage (roughly) but that is over 22 rounds. A single round would be about 1320 to the 44 targets.

The melee character can only do his twice per day at this level but... I don't know. It just seems a bit much.

[Milo v3]

Odd, no where in his post did I read such a request.

I.....can't read this. It appears to be interspersed with snippets of past comments, and doesn't really have structure. If it were to be formatted, I could probably respond to this better.

Whitetext.

[Deviston]

Definition.

Turns out, still not a request.

[Milo v3]

Definition.

Turns out, still not a request.

Firstly, I never said it was a Request.

Secondly, it was obvious what you were saying needed clarification. From his reaction.

Thirdly, he directly stated that

"I.....can't read this. It appears to be interspersed with snippets of past comments, and doesn't really have structure. If it were to be formatted, I could probably respond to this better.
"

Which means: If you formatted it, he could respond to it properly, as now he cannot understand what you mean.

[Deviston]

It wasn't obvious to me. I reread my post and it made perfect sense. I honestly can't understand how someone CAN'T understand what was said. All the pieces and parts exist and can quickly be put together.

That being said, I am not certain how my examples could be formatted to be "more understandable". Like I said, it's all so extremely simple and obvious to me, but as the originator of the thought/post I guess that makes sense.

In my eyes his comment meant "I don't WANT to spend the time or effort to read and understand what you are saying. It could be formatted so that it is easier for me to comprehend. I won't be able to respond properly until your information has been made easy for me to quickly comprehend without much effort on my part."

That's what it meant to me.