Arcane Swordsage Implementation?

[DoctorGlock]

So, after participating in the Arcane Swordsage discussion and sharing my insights after having actually played one, I decided to look into the possibility of creating a handbook.

Every week or so it seems a new thread pops up asking about the class and there is sadly no RAW beyond some vague suggestions. The goal of my upcoming project will be to define what is the Arcane Swordsage and whether or not it has a place in a 3.5 game.

I would base it off the following assumptions in the attempt to create a versatile "gish in a can" that can contribute without shattering a game in half.

1: The attempt is to create a workable class based off the given suggestions that is playable. It want to adress the issue so that when a new player says "i found this class" or a DM says "One of my players found" we have a base set of assumptions. In short I want to set how the playground defines arcane swordsage as a playable class rather than pile of contradiction.

2: They are not spells but spells as maneuvers. Thus they are SU effects, provoke no AoO, have no ASF, no material, no XP, and use your IL in place of CL and are refreshed via swordsage recovery mechanic

3: The suggestions, IE abjuration, transmutation, evocation, touch/personal only is a hard and fast rule

4: The list is generic sor/wiz, arcane spells from specific classes are specific class spells. There will be a section advising expanding the list to things like the wu jen (that's the arcane one? or is it shujenja?) and sorcerer only spells for higher op games.

My question to the playground is whether or not there is enough interest in creating a go to for arcane swordsage questions to warrant creating this. So tell me, who wants an Arcane Swordsage handbook? What should be in it?

[candycorn]

Dispute title of thread. Trying to create a set of workable rules for a class isn't a handbook. It's homebrew.

Dispute point 1.
You're trying to assign a voice to the entire playground, without the unanimous voice of the playground on the matter.

Further, you're trying to essentially create a series of homebrew, and make them generally accepted, to make the adaptation playable. That would more appropriately be placed here.

Dispute point 2.

They are spells.

They may be used, activated, cast, or initiated (that's up for debate) as if they were maneuvers... That's irrelevant.

When they are learned, they are spells. Spells as spells, not spells as maneuvers.
When they are readied, they are spells. Spells as spells, not spells as maneuvers.
When they are expended, they are spells. Spells as spells, not spells as maneuvers.
It's only in the use that they are used as maneuvers. At all other times, they are spells, in any and all respects.

As for the questions, an arcane swordsage handbook should not exist, as the class is completely unplayable without homebrew. If a handbook were created based on a homebrew Arcane Swordsage ACF based on the suggested adaptation in ToB, that's one thing...

But creating the homebrew as a handbook is deceptive.

[DoctorGlock]

It isn't homebrew as it is located in a book. It is sadly open to wide interpretation so I am attempting to reach a playground consensus as to what the class should be. That should address your first 2 points. As to the third, that is one of the things that should be addressed by playground consensus. At current the are "Spells 'cast' as maneuvers", and maneuvers are either EX or SU of the effects they create are unnatural in nature, which is how I arrive at SU spell maneuvers. Your points have been noted and will be taken under consideration when the outcome of this project is determined.

[Keegan__D]

It isn't homebrew as it is located in a book. It is sadly open to wide interpretation so I am attempting to reach a playground consensus as to what the class should be. That should address your first 2 points. As to the third, that is one of the things that should be addressed by playground consensus. At current the are "Spells 'cast' as maneuvers", and maneuvers are either EX or SU of the effects they create are unnatural in nature, which is how I arrive at SU spell maneuvers. Your points have been noted and will be taken under consideration when the outcome of this project is determined.

It's homebrew because the book doesn't lay it out like other variants. A spell list has to be made, and basic rules of the class have to be formed. This is definitely more suited for the homebrew forums. The fact that you mention the fact that you're creating such things in the above post is confusing. Is the definition of homebrew not understood?

[candycorn]

It isn't homebrew as it is located in a book. It is sadly open to wide interpretation so I am attempting to reach a playground consensus as to what the class should be. That should address your first 2 points. As to the third, that is one of the things that should be addressed by playground consensus. At current the are "Spells 'cast' as maneuvers", and maneuvers are either EX or SU of the effects they create are unnatural in nature, which is how I arrive at SU spell maneuvers. Your points have been noted and will be taken under consideration when the outcome of this project is determined.

The class isn't in a book.
A suggested adaptation is briefly discussed in a book. No rules are set for it. Therefore, if you are attempting to establish rules that do not currently exist, such as points (3) and (4)?

That is house-rules, not RAW. Establishing houserules and adaptations of a class that is not defined in RAW is home brew.

Like it or not, you are attempting to engage in a collaborative Playground effort to establish rules for a class adaptation that doesn't have class rules. Once you change a single rule "suggestion" into a "hard and fast rule", your "handbook" is not following RAW, and ventures into the realm of design, not interpretation.

And that is Homebrew.

EDIT: I mean, all the monk and paladin "fixes" exist in homebrew, because, while those classes are printed in books, the proposal deviates from those rules. Once you make a single deviation from rules, it's not the rules anymore. And establishing guidelines and suggestions as rules is such a deviation.

[Noblesse]

Arcane Swordsage would indeed be homebrew as the written text has no indication of a spell list aside from 'arcane'. Therefore one would have to homebrew the spell list or make an arbitrary decision as to what may or may not apply.

Simply saying evocation, abjuration, and transmutation are fair game doesn't quite cut it. Not to mention it states "In general, spells of ...." thereby explicitly stating that should this adaptation be considered there would be exceptions to those three schools and the personal/touch range with absolutely no indication of what or a single example of said exceptions would be.

I'm not trying to say you can't make a handbook, but any such handbook made would be intrinsically flawed. If I were to make a suggestion, it would be to create a homebrew of the Arcane Swordsage first, and then if you really wanted to, make a handbook for that--- but that too would be homebrew as the handbooks outside of the homebrew thread are strictly for RAW

[candycorn]

If I were to make a suggestion, it would be to create a homebrew of the Arcane Swordsage first, and then if you really wanted to, make a handbook for that--- but that too would be homebrew as the handbooks outside of the homebrew thread are strictly for RAW

This... mostly.

Once the Homebrew existed, a guide for that homebrew would not be homebrew. It would be a play-guide, explaining rules interactions, and using assumed 3rd party material (as all content not produced by WotC is technically home brew... including Pathfinder). At that point, it would belong in this Forum, with a link to the home brew that the guide is being written for. However, to be a play-guide, and not a design project, it most not create, alter, or amend a single rule. It must ONLY interpret and evaluate.

All home brew is, is rules not released officially by Wizards of the Coast, but available for use.

[DoctorGlock]

I'm not trying to say you can't make a handbook, but any such handbook made would be intrinsically flawed. If I were to make a suggestion, it would be to create a homebrew of the Arcane Swordsage first, and then if you really wanted to, make a handbook for that--- but that too would be homebrew as the handbooks outside of the homebrew thread are strictly for RAW

Point conceded and title changed. Lets then discuss how a balanced build should be implemented.

[Douglas]

The text in the book is so vague as to require extensive interpretation and house ruling to even be possible to play. So, yeah, as already stated the idea of a handbook for the "RAW" version of it isn't workable because said version is not at all clear.

For possible homebrew to make it playable and reasonably balanced, you could check out my sig for one suggestion.

[hushblade]

This... mostly.

Once the Homebrew existed, a guide for that homebrew would not be homebrew. It would be a play-guide, explaining rules interactions, and using assumed 3rd party material (as all content not produced by WotC is technically home brew... including Pathfinder). At that point, it would belong in this Forum, with a link to the home brew that the guide is being written for. However, to be a play-guide, and not a design project, it most not create, alter, or amend a single rule. It must ONLY interpret and evaluate.

All home brew is, is rules not released officially by Wizards of the Coast, but available for use.

I don't think that statement is quite fair. Its homebrew as viewed by WoTC, its official material from a pathfinder perspective.

[Keegan__D]

I don't think that statement is quite fair. Its homebrew as viewed by WoTC, its official material from a pathfinder perspective.

Following this logic, everything is homebrew.
Following the logic that Pathfinder is a seperate game that blends well with other similar games, 3rd party material is often not homebrew, but can be.

[hushblade]

How does my logic imply the former?

[Keegan__D]

How does my logic imply the former?

Well, you look at Wizards material from a viewpoint of Pathfinder, and isn't it homebrew? I might not actually know what the deal with Pathfinder is.

[Helldog]

If you're using Pathfinder in your 3.5 it is at worst 3rd party, not homebrew. It is an official product, similar enough to 3.5.
If you do the opposite, mainly use 3.5 in your PF, nothing happens. You're just playing 3.P, is all.

[candycorn]

I don't think that statement is quite fair. Its homebrew as viewed by WoTC, its official material from a pathfinder perspective.

You're quite right. When you elect to play a Pathfinder game, you accept all non-WotC material produced by Pathfinder's designers. It's all released under the OGL.

All material released under the OGL is homebrew. Take the new Legend system. It's a fully developed system, and quite a slick one. But it began in the homebrew forums.

Yes, entire systems can be homebrew. It's not a dirty word. It's just a word that denotes that it's not part of WotC official RAW. As such, the homebrew that is implemented must be specified when talking about it.

For example, if someone wants help with a Paladin character, and they're playing a Pathfinder game, they typically denote that Pathfinder rules are being used. With that one statement, it lets everyone know of an entire breadth of rules that are in effect.

If we were trying to collaborate a guide based on an adaptation of Arcane Swordsage, then the specific rules assumed for the adaptation would need to be specified at the start of that guide.

There's nothing wrong with being non-official product. It's not unfair. It's accurate to call pathfinder product that. Just as it's accurate to call the design efforts of any other non-WotC agency that, whether it's a single person, or a gaming company.

If you're using Pathfinder in your 3.5 it is at worst 3rd party, not homebrew. It is an official product, similar enough to 3.5.
If you do the opposite, mainly use 3.5 in your PF, nothing happens. You're just playing 3.P, is all.

There is no distinction. The only distinction that can be made is, "did WotC license this?".

If they did, then it is official product.
If they did not, then it is not official product.
Anything designed and released by a 3rd party is homebrew. While many people may have the opinion that the word "homebrew" denotes small efforts, or individual work, the size of the content being made or the size of the agency making it has no relevance to what it is.

[Helldog]

There is no distinction. The only distinction that can be made is, "did WotC license this?".

If they did, then it is official product.
If they did not, then it is not official product.

It is an official system that is essentially the same as 3.5. I was made by a company, using WotC OGL material. It is published by a company. It isn't homebrew. Whether WotC put its stamp of approval on it or not doesn't matter. As I said, it is at least 3rd party, which means that it's not homebrew.

Anything designed and released by a 3rd party is homebrew.

No, it is 3rd party. 3rd party and homebrew are two different things.

While many people may have the opinion that the word "homebrew" denotes small efforts, or individual work, the size of the content being made or the size of the agency making it has no relevance to what it is.

But homebrew is exactly this. Fan-made. Homemade.

[candycorn]

@Helldog:

Spoiler

Show

It is an official system that is essentially the same as 3.5. I was made by a company, using WotC OGL material. It is published by a company. It isn't homebrew. Whether WotC put its stamp of approval on it or not doesn't matter. As I said, it is at least 3rd party, which means that it's not homebrew.

The size of the entity creating the creative content is irrelevant. 3rd party = home brew.

No, it is 3rd party. 3rd party and homebrew are two different things.

Please, explain the precise difference.

3rd party refers to the number of people involved. You have the original creator of the game (WotC). You have the purchaser of licensed material (private individual). And you have the third party (all parties involved in game creation that are not WotC).

Whether that 3rd party is a multinational corporation, or a college student, plugging away at a monk fix in his dorm? Irrelevant. They're both creative work that is not WotC. That's home brew.

But homebrew is exactly this. Fan-made. Homemade.

Home brew is exactly third party material.

You know, I do own a private S-corp. Does that mean that any material I release isn't home brew? Because, after all, it's been created by a company?

No. That's a distinction that you're making up.

Regardless, this entire discussion is tangental to the topic. Regardless of what Pathfinder is, any attempt by the playground (the fans) to create rules for arcane swordsage is home brew, even by your definition. The nitpicking going on here is thus irrelevant, and this is the last I'll speak of it.

[Wiggins]

I think the debate as to how official and/or homebrew it is isn't as relevant as that the variant jumps out at anyone who reads it.

I agree with Corn that they're spells, not supernatural or spell like

Spoiler

Show

And I think that in order to stop the spell list going all the way homebrew is yeah, Sor/Wiz only, and yeah, make the suggestions hard limits.

[candycorn]

I wouldn't have the degeneration of low level slots. Let level 1's go up to 7. But, instead of calling this "maneuvers known", call it "maximum maneuvers known".

Grant it so many spells per level, and the chance to periodically retrain.

But if a level 16 would like a couple level 1 spells, I fail to see why he'd be unable to have them.

Also, Arcane Swordsage, as originally written, had the option to take maneuvers as well. In other words, the buff spells augmented maneuvers. How are you taking this into account?

[Helldog]

@Candycorn:

Spoiler

Show

The size of the entity creating the creative content is irrelevant. 3rd party = home brew.

3rd party =/= Homebrew.

Please, explain the precise difference.

3rd party - things that are published (mainly with WotC logo, but it isn't required).
Homebrew - things you can find in Homebrew Forum on this site, on Minmaxboards, on D&DWiki, in your own notes, ect.

Home brew is exactly third party material.

Homebrew isn't 3rd party.

No. That's a distinction that you're making up.

No. That's a similarity you're making up.

/off-topic

[DoctorGlock]

Are we cutting stances entirely or replacing them with long duration buffs? When I played it we just cut the whole thing but that was sloppy.

I'm thinking a transmutation or abjuration of up to certain level as a constant, seem ok? I want to say personal only for this but even regular stances often enhance allies. Still makes more sense than touch.

[candycorn]

@Candycorn:

Spoiler

Show

3rd party =/= Homebrew.


3rd party - things that are published (mainly with WotC logo, but it isn't required).
Homebrew - things you can find in Homebrew Forum on this site, on Minmaxboards, on D&DWiki, in your own notes, ect.


Homebrew isn't 3rd party.


No. That's a similarity you're making up.

/off-topic

@Helldog:

Spoiler

Show

Not really. Anything on a site is published. Published material is not a requirement. You're published here. Your own text contradicts itself. You're not able to make a clear definition of homebrew that doesn't include both groups.

The game: D20.
The owner: WotC.
Official editions: D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, d20 Modern

Anything else? It might be Officially Pathfinder, but the owner of the game itself is what determines what is official. Thus, Officially Pathfinder is Officially Unofficial.

It's like the Official FAQ. It may be official, but it's not Rules. It's independent creative content, owned by a company, but created by individual people.

In other words, home brew. You've not shown even a hint of information that distinguishes homebrew as anything other than creative work that falls outside the licensing of WotC. In fact, this site itself doesn't go any farther than that.

Because that's as far as the definition goes.

[Wiggins]

I'd try to keep it as close to As Written as possible, so keep the Stances as normal, and keep the option to forget lower level spells in favour of higher level ones (I assumed in my table that you'd always want to forget a level 1 spell, but that might not be true if you took some maneuvers to qualify for higher level stances)

[Helldog]

@Helldog:

Spoiler

Show

Not really. Anything on a site is published. Published material is not a requirement. You're published here. Your own text contradicts itself. You're not able to make a clear definition of homebrew that doesn't include both groups.

The game: D20.
The owner: WotC.
Official editions: D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, d20 Modern

Anything else? It might be Officially Pathfinder, but the owner of the game itself is what determines what is official. Thus, Officially Pathfinder is Officially Unofficial.

It's like the Official FAQ. It may be official, but it's not Rules. It's independent creative content, owned by a company, but created by individual people.

In other words, home brew. You've not shown even a hint of information that distinguishes homebrew as anything other than creative work that falls outside the licensing of WotC. In fact, this site itself doesn't go any farther than that.

Because that's as far as the definition goes.

Are paying for the stuff from this board? Huh?
No? Yeah. I didn't think so.

[candycorn]

You're not paying for Pathfinder, either, since they have to make it freely available under the OGL.

Well, you might be, but that would mean you're paying money for a free product. Probably not my first choice for defining a "wise investment".

[Helldog]

You're not paying for Pathfinder, either, since they have to make it freely available under the OGL.

Well, you might be, but that would mean you're paying money for a free product. Probably not my first choice for defining a "wise investment".

You don't get everything for free. Most of the fluff is in the books and you still have to buy the adventure modules (if you want them, of course).

[candycorn]

Whether or not someone decides to charge for their work doesn't change the circumstance of its creation. You're just grasping at straws now, presumably out of a love for Pathfinder.

I get that. It's a good system. There's a lot of good homebrew out there. It's one example of the better stuff.

[Helldog]

Get your facts straight. PF isn't homebrew.

[hushblade]

Its silly to call an entire game system with a company behind it homebrew. If you call Pathfinder homebrew, why not call 3.5 homebrew? PF is an entire game system with a good degree of compatibility with 3.5

[Ivellius]

Wow. First I've heard of someone trying to define an officially published* ruleset as homebrew. I've never noticed that all those Pathfinder threads get moved over to the homebrew forum.

About the Arcane Swordsage...I'm not sure we can get much farther than what's already here. I'd say there should just be a "total spells known" category. Maybe someone could look at the whole Sor/Wiz spell list and pick out some that seem to fit "swordsage" without necessarily being the listed schools? I dunno.

*It's arguing over definitions, but the term "published" as commonly used carries a different connotation than merely being "publicized," as information on this board would be. Publication involves formatting and release of material for public consumption generally with a profit motive behind it. Even things released for free RPG day are an attempt to get more profit and spur sales of the particular line. And yes, if you create something and put it up as a PDF on DriveThru, you just created a third-party something-or-other.