The Warblade Reloaded [D&D 3.5, From "The Fighter Problem & How to Fix It"]

[Ziegander]

Yes, I meant to add that. Though most of all, it screws over the poor sods who actually try to use it in a game. Every time someone tries to attack the warblghter, you go over a list of a few dozen feats at least, cross over all that wouldn't apply, recalculate the attack, AC, DC, whathaveyou numbers…

Well, I know the DM already has a lot of work to do, but, really, since the DM is attacking and/or being attacked by the fighter, it's the DM that has to worry about whether or not his creature gets to use its feats or not. Most of the time its a loss to attack rolls or damage rolls (or both). I don't imagine it would usually be a big deal tactically, and it is the capstone ability (so not likely to see much use in practical gameplay anyway).

Could make sense in either, but might be easier for people to notice if you didn't change the ability they're already familiar with. Besides, never flat-footed and never surprised are already linked in Foresight, so why not here.

Good point. I'll add it to Combat Cunning, then.

[Greenish]

Now, to maneuvers and stances…

Spoiler

Show

Steely Strike nerf may be warranted by the spammable nature of the powers, but I'm not convinced it is. Same for new Steel Wind limitations.

Lesser Iaijutsu Focus Strike (I know what it is ) is interesting, is the Greater version going to be an immediate action (maybe taxing one)?

Wolf Fang Strike is neat, but I'd rather have an in-built system for integrating TWF and strikes.

Step Leaf in the Wind is saddled with a bunch of prerequisites in addition to higher level required and nerfed effects, whoa. Your DM must love to use difficult terrain whenever possible.

Sudden Leap is still unclear; do you move the the amount of feet your result is, or do you move as far as your Jump check allows you to?

Also, I can see the thematic reason to make all the effects key to different ability scores, but I'm not sure it's a good way to go. The various feat requirements (and being a melee in general) already impose MAD, there's no reason to exacerbate the problem.


[Edit]: Also, at higher levels, you can burn your SP with swift, move, standard, and immediate actions and a quite a few other ways. Shouldn't the pool increase too (beyond the measly con mod increases)?

[Ziegander]

Lesser Iaijutsu Focus Strike (I know what it is ) is interesting, is the Greater version going to be an immediate action (maybe taxing one)?

The improved version (showing up at 4th level) will add an another special effect, deal some more extra damage, and be usable as an attack of opportunity. I'm not sure what the greater version will do yet.

Wolf Fang Strike is neat, but I'd rather have an in-built system for integrating TWF and strikes.

Yes, true, true, but such is the purview of a system overhaul which this fighter rewrite is meaning to avoid.

Step Leaf in the Wind is saddled with a bunch of prerequisites in addition to higher level required and nerfed effects, whoa. Your DM must love to use difficult terrain whenever possible.

I'm of the opinion that automatically ignoring all difficult terrain is a bit higher level ability than should be available at 1st level. But getting serious bonuses on top of that? Yeah, that should require some investment. Remember, a few prerequisite feats isn't as hard for this fighter to acquire.

sSudden Leap is still unclear; do you move the the amount of feet your result is, or do you move as far as your Jump check allows you to?

Aha, I see. I will fix it. It's supposed to let you move as far as you Jump check would normally allow. Clarifying in progress.

Also, I can see the thematic reason to make all the effects key to different ability scores, but I'm not sure it's a good way to go. The various feat requirements (and being a melee in general) already impose MAD, there's no reason to exacerbate the problem.

Well, hopefully, by the time I'm done there will be sufficient options that you can make yourself as close to SAD as you want (accepting the strain of being a warrior, as you mentioned). Remember, part of the goal is to make the basic power level lower-to-middle Tier 4 not "quite high Tier 4"/low Tier 3.

[Edit]: Also, at higher levels, you can burn your SP with swift, move, standard, and immediate actions and a quite a few other ways. Shouldn't the pool increase too (beyond the measly con mod increases)?

Well, remember the Warblade only gets 7 maneuvers readied at 20th level. Though, of course, he can recover all of his maneuvers in combat and rather easily... maybe it would be prudent to increase the base number of SP by 1 per five levels or so...

[Greenish]

Yes, true, true, but such is the purview of a system overhaul which this fighter rewrite is meaning to avoid.

I don't mean to suggest a system overhaul, but I'd like if maneuvers in general worked with TWF (since that's what you're overhauling anyway). It also gets really weird with Tiger Claw strikes requiring TWF the feat (which you've suggested) without benefiting or interacting with it in any way.

I'm of the opinion that automatically ignoring all difficult terrain is a bit higher level ability than should be available at 1st level. But getting serious bonuses on top of that? Yeah, that should require some investment. Remember, a few prerequisite feats isn't as hard for this fighter to acquire.

Hmm.

Well, hopefully, by the time I'm done there will be sufficient options that you can make yourself as close to SAD as you want (accepting the strain of being a warrior, as you mentioned). Remember, part of the goal is to make the basic power level lower-to-middle Tier 4 not "quite high Tier 4"/low Tier 3.

Alright. Personally I think it's a silly goal that only results in traps for less experienced players, while experienced players could "underplay" their character anyway if they wanted, but each for their own.

Well, remember the Warblade only gets 7 maneuvers readied at 20th level. Though, of course, he can recover all of his maneuvers in combat and rather easily... maybe it would be prudent to increase the base number of SP by 1 per five levels or so...

Well, SP are used to things other than maneuvers and it seems the current trend is for the higher level maneuvers to be Taxing.


[Edit]: Hey, I just noticed, where's the Weapon Aptitude?

[Ziegander]

I don't mean to suggest a system overhaul, but I'd like if maneuvers in general worked with TWF (since that's what you're overhauling anyway). It also gets really weird with Tiger Claw strikes requiring TWF the feat (which you've suggested) without benefiting or interacting with it in any way.

Hmm, well, do you have any suggestions, because I'm not quite sure what you're talking about when you mention incorporating TWF into strikes.

Alright. Personally I think it's a silly goal that only results in traps for less experienced players, while experienced players could "underplay" their character anyway if they wanted, but each for their own.

It's easy to underplay a Wizard. Your base level of competence is, "guy with no skill in anything unrelated to magic who has some spells," with spells that vary in power from useless to game-wrecking at basically all levels. It's a bit harder to underplay a Warblade, for example, since the base competence there is, "guy with some useful skills and serious combat training as well as maneuvers and stances" where maneuvers and stances are all generally good no matter what you pick.

Well, SP are used to things other than maneuvers and it seems the current trend is for the higher level maneuvers to be Taxing.

Oh, no, higher level maneuvers aren't necessarily going to be Taxing, that's just all I have up at the moment. There will certainly be higher level non-Taxing maneuvers. Pretty much everything that's from Tome of Battle will be non-Taxing, even if it is slightly altered or further restricted. While original content that's not from ToB will usually be Taxing (though, not necessarily).

[Edit]: Hey, I just noticed, where's the Weapon Aptitude?

I figured it wasn't necessary given the fighter can learn "infinite" feats.

[Mighty_Chicken]

I don't understand what you find inelegant about it, though I can see why DMs might be reticent to include this class because of it. But, to me anyway, it's that nagging voice in the back of your head that says it's a crazy power increase that make the Fighter whoa-em-gee broken. Once you learn to stop listening to that, and understand that the difference is very small between a Warblade 20 with 4 fighter feats and a Warblade 20 with 40 fighter feats, I think you'll not mind the feature so much.

I don't think feats are ever OP when they're limited by the requirements :) They're "lateral progression", as the E6 guys use to say.

To me it just makes more sense to give the fighter an organic learning method in the same way a wizard has one. They both study their fields of excellence their whole lives. A fighter's breadth of combat knowledge shouldn't be capped, but that's just my opinion.

I agree with the concept and your opinion. But even the Wizard, who knows infinite spells, must choose some of them to cast each day. Of course, a 20th level wizard has at least 40 spells prepared, but they're not active all the time.

40 active feats at any given time is very complex. Not overpowered, not at all, but complex. It's a level of complexity that, AFAIK, wouldn't exist with others classes at 10th level.

The thing I agree with is that the fighter's breadth of combat knowledge shouldn't be capped. I don't think that knowing 4 feats per level is that complicated. I think your fighters could have the big Repertoire you envisioned, but would have only a number of them prepared at each time.

"As an alternative approach, nix all of the rules for using Martial Lore to train new feats. Replace them with something more simple.

Allow the Fighter to train a single new feat at a time with 12 hours of practice (that needs not all be taken consecutively). The new feat takes the place of an old one; in effect the fighter loses an old feat to gain a new one after practicing for the required time."

This option is more powerful than having to pick your fighter feats from your repertoire... but having a repertoire is more flavorful :)

Also, "Damned Sujiro, my hated nemesis, I can't dominate his combat techniques!" :D

But I don't know about the sweet spot of how many Fighter Feats should be active at any points... you'd probably use 4 per level for your campaigns, but what would you suggest for other campaigns? For example, if only the Fighter is revamped and the Paladin and Ranger are PF, do you think up to 2 active feats per level would be right? Or too much?


Another question: what about Toughness? Can it be learned from copying another warrior? Can it be selected several times?

On Green's comments:

Why oh why does the warblghter pay two weapon groups for exotic weapons, especially since it can become proficient with any weapon at no cost (beyond a bit of time)?

You know, I think this would be interesting. Exotic weapons are slightly stronger. It's a cool character option. Also, knowing ony 2 weapons groups plus their exotic similars OR 4 weapon groups is balanced for 1st level, which was Ziegander's reason to tweak weapon and armor proficiencies in the first place.

If the fighter's learning powers were reason to give up on any 1st level limitation, why not give them all proficiencies like the original? No, the fighter begins limited and gets more and more unlimited, just like a wizard. I think the weapons and armor part are fine as they are.

Also, I can see the thematic reason to make all the effects key to different ability scores, but I'm not sure it's a good way to go. The various feat requirements (and being a melee in general) already impose MAD, there's no reason to exacerbate the problem.

But wouldn't this work to differenciate agile fighters from tough fighters from smart fighters etc? Putting a good stat in Dex at first level would be like being a wizard specialist.

I know the fighter doesn't need this nerf balance wise. But on the fun side, it makes each fighter feel more unique. I'll admit that it may also feel like an arbitrary limitation.

Shouldn't the pool increase too (beyond the measly con mod increases)?

I second that. "Half his figher level (minimum 1) plus Con modifier" is easy to undersand, and wouldn't be much more powerful than the Warblade, since the Fighter can't recover all his points in a full round action. Well, maybe at level 15+, but balance that by offering more taxing maneuvers?

Good job so far!

[Greenish]

Hmm, well, do you have any suggestions, because I'm not quite sure what you're talking about when you mention incorporating TWF into strikes.

Well, something like Snap Kick effect on strikes so you'd attack with both of your weapons instead of just one when you do strikes, for example. Or if you said "Attack with your weapons". Or just any bone so you don't feel silly standing there with two swords only ever using one.

I figured it wasn't necessary given the fighter can learn "infinite" feats.

4*level fills up pretty fast if you want WF -> Weapon Mastery on more than one weapon, and it still takes time. Weapon Aptitude was one of the best features of warblade when it came to usability.


[Edit]:

Another question: what about Toughness? Can it be learned from copying another warrior? Can it be selected several times?

It's not a fighter feat, is it? Improved Toughness is, but you can't select that one multiple times.

You know, I think this would be interesting. Exotic weapons are slightly stronger. It's a cool character option.

Only slightly, and you still need the base weapon group to get to exotics (and don't get me started on exotic double weapons).

Also, knowing ony 2 weapons groups plus their exotic similars OR 4 weapon groups is balanced for 1st level, which was Ziegander's reason to tweak weapon and armor proficiencies in the first place.

What's so unbalanced with having 3 weapon groups and exotic weapons? Damn, the warblghter doesn't even get basic weapons thrown in, unlike every other class (except wizard). And why should the weapon groups work differently on warblghter than on any other character?

But wouldn't this work to differenciate agile fighters from tough fighters from smart fighters etc? Putting a good stat in Dex at first level would be like being a wizard specialist.

Except specialist wizard still uses Int to determine everything related to all of his spells. And they're spells.

I don't see how untying the key modifier would decrease the differences between characters, not increase it. If there's a subset of maneuvers that work on Dex, then Dex-focused characters are all going to have a very similar selection, while all Str-focused characters have their selection, and so forth.

And apparently you can focus on Charisma? No, you can't, some abilities are just randomly tied into tertiary stat.

[Ziegander]

The thing I agree with is that the fighter's breadth of combat knowledge shouldn't be capped. I don't think that knowing 4 feats per level is that complicated. I think your fighters could have the big Repertoire you envisioned, but would have only a number of them prepared at each time.

I am loathe to do that as "preparing" feats draws immediately unfavorable comparisons to preparing spells which is part of what I wanted to avoid with this rewrite/redressing.

This option is more powerful than having to pick your fighter feats from your repertoire... but having a repertoire is more flavorful :)

But is it more powerful than having all of the feats in a repertoire all the time? Because I can't see myself making fighters prepare feats from their repertoire.

For example, if only the Fighter is revamped and the Paladin and Ranger are PF, do you think up to 2 active feats per level would be right? Or too much?

If you're using PF feats and the PF Paladin and Ranger, well the PF Paladin is more powerful than the PF Ranger, but I'd still limit the fighter to 1 feat/level. But maybe 2. I'm not as familiar with PF, sorry.

Another question: what about Toughness? Can it be learned from copying another warrior? Can it be selected several times?

Since it's not a fighter bonus feat, no, it can't be added to the repertoire.

Anyway, all this talk of repertoires and proficiencies has reminded me that I'm trying to make this fighter a more broadly applicable stand-in for the Warblade, or, to put it another way, the fighter fix the Warblade always should have been. In that light, the repertoire and weapon groups proficiency rules have been relegated to alternatives given in the designer's notes and not the default rules.

Well, something like Snap Kick effect on strikes so you'd attack with both of your weapons instead of just one when you do strikes, for example. Or if you said "Attack with your weapons". Or just any bone so you don't feel silly standing there with two swords only ever using one.

That's a good call, and I will be changing Wolf Fang ever so slightly so that it interacts favorably with TWF and less favorably without it.

4*level fills up pretty fast if you want WF -> Weapon Mastery on more than one weapon, and it still takes time. Weapon Aptitude was one of the best features of warblade when it came to usability.

And, lo, I have added it back into the new default Bonus Feats rules.

And apparently you can focus on Charisma? No, you can't, some abilities are just randomly tied into tertiary stat.

Well, not all of the Arts of War are currently added or written. Plus, you say this as if I really am just randomly putting an attribute into the Key Ability entries. Part of the Fighter is that it's the everyman class. Not every man is Strong or Dextrous or Smart. If all of the Arts of War keyed off of one ability score, then the Fighter is shoehorned into being the Strong Guy or the Smart Guy or some other "Ability Score Guy." Part of what people want from a fighter fix is being able to use whatever ability scores they want (some acceptance of MAD aside).

[nonsi]

There's one thing you suggested in the past that I believe should be in this remake: alleviated ability requirements when qualifying for feats.
Reminder: it was +2 at 1st, increasing by +1 at levels 6/11/16.

[Greenish]

If you're using PF feats and the PF Paladin and Ranger, well the PF Paladin is more powerful than the PF Ranger, but I'd still limit the fighter to 1 feat/level. But maybe 2. I'm not as familiar with PF, sorry.

PF feats tend to be uniformly worse and have longer feat chains.

That's a good call, and I will be changing Wolf Fang ever so slightly so that it interacts favorably with TWF and less favorably without it.

Aww, I meant, have maneuvers reward having TWF, not having them punish for the lack of it.

Spoiler

Show

Well, not all of the Arts of War are currently added or written.

Are you really going to write up enough Arts that every attribute ever gets enough that all of the given specialization don't feel the same?

Part of the Fighter is that it's the everyman class.

Historically, yeah, you picked fighter if you didn't roll well enough on your ability scores to play a real class, but I don't think that's something to be emulated.

Not every man is Strong or Dextrous or Smart. If all of the Arts of War keyed off of one ability score, then the Fighter is shoehorned into being the Strong Guy or the Smart Guy or some other "Ability Score Guy."

But now you're shoehorning all fighters into being Ability Score Guy.

Part of what people want from a fighter fix is being able to use whatever ability scores they want (some acceptance of MAD aside).

What does that have to do with keying everything into different scores? That just restricts people into picking the ability score they need for the tricks they want.

[Edit]: Actually, let me put it this way: You're always going to be Ability Score Guy. That is, you can only afford to really focus on one or two scores, maybe put a bit in third. So if you want people to choose which ability score they want to focus on, you don't slap a lot of restrictions on, you take them off. A simple "Select Ability Score to be your Key Ability Score. All maneuver DCs will be based on this score." would do it. Obviously any score but Str or Con is not a very good choice, but such is the price of freedom.

[Ziegander]

There's one thing you suggested in the past that I believe should be in this remake: alleviated ability requirements when qualifying for feats.
Reminder: it was +2 at 1st, increasing by +1 at levels 6/11/16.

Ah, yes, I think I like that much better than the Physical Prowess thing I forced in there...

Aww, I meant, have maneuvers reward having TWF, not having them punish for the lack of it.

It's not a punishment. Basically, now it does exactly what it used to do if you have the TWF feat and if you don't it sort of gives it to you for the span of one standard action.

Actually, let me put it this way: You're always going to be Ability Score Guy. That is, you can only afford to really focus on one or two scores, maybe put a bit in third. So if you want people to choose which ability score they want to focus on, you don't slap a lot of restrictions on, you take them off. A simple "Select Ability Score to be your Key Ability Score. All maneuver DCs will be based on this score." would do it. Obviously any score but Str or Con is not a very good choice, but such is the price of freedom.

Except that just picking whatever score you want makes no logical sense, so, going with the next best thing, the player can choose to focus on whichever ability scores they want and they can be confident in knowing that there will be Arts of War for them to pick up and kick ass with. Obviously if they choose poorly, or at random, they are likely to not be as strong as a player that fully optimizes. But then again, that's a goal I'm trying to achieve with this class is greater power level variance than the Warblade, not less.

[Greenish]

Except that just picking whatever score you want makes no logical sense

Why not? I mean, in the game, you can learn to use your wisdom or your charisma to hit people already, and that's what most of the maneuvers do.

so, going with the next best thing, the player can choose to focus on whichever ability scores they want and they can be confident in knowing that there will be Arts of War for them to pick up and kick ass with.

I'm going to quote myself: Are you really going to write up enough Arts for every attribute that everyone of the given specialization doesn't feel the same?

[Mighty_Chicken]

Only slightly, and you still need the base weapon group to get to exotics (and don't get me started on exotic double weapons).

What's so unbalanced with having 3 weapon groups and exotic weapons? Damn, the warblghter doesn't even get basic weapons thrown in, unlike every other class (except wizard). And why should the weapon groups work differently on warblghter than on any other character?

You're right. Also I didn't notice they weren't getting basic weapons.

I agree about trading just one weapon group for exotics, now.

But about basic weapons... (or rather, starting with 4 or 5 weapons groups) you know, wizards start slightly weaker than sorcerers. I don't mind revamped fighters getting only four weapon groups, like Pallies and Rangers. And basic weapons aren't obligatory, so they're better than others anyway.

Except specialist wizard still uses Int to determine everything related to all of his spells. And they're spells.

I don't see how untying the key modifier would decrease the differences between characters, not increase it. If there's a subset of maneuvers that work on Dex, then Dex-focused characters are all going to have a very similar selection, while all Str-focused characters have their selection, and so forth.

And apparently you can focus on Charisma? No, you can't, some abilities are just randomly tied into tertiary stat.

As I said, I understand that it is a limit to power that fighters don't need. My perspective is from someone who thinks power isn't that important. I mean, being absolutely powerless is a problem, but this is fixed already, isn't it? But I see we have different views on that.

All Dex fighters will look (relatively!) the same, right, but they'll be different from Wis fighters. So during character creation, when I put a good score on an ability I'm deciding what kind of fighter I am. Because I could have all fighter Dex feats, or all fighter Wis feats. I can be a different Dex fighter everyday, but I'll be never as able with different styles as I am with Dex.

The fix allows a level of customization that wasn't possible before, and ironically the reason for this is the versatility. But I digress. Versatility is more powerful, but many people feel customization - being able to succesfully represent with mechanics the archetype you're thinking about - is more fun.

Power x Flavour discussions aside, are you sure using Con for everything is the best option, power wise? If I want to be the agile fighter, I am putting that high score on Dex anyway, so I can fill in prerequisites for the feats. So I spend that 17 on Dex so I can do my TWF, but there is another ability I must take care of so I can be efficient at it!

Maybe "Con for everything" is SAD for the "universalist fighter", but it's MAD for fighters who want to be an specific kind of fighter.

Unfortunately I have to agree about Charisma. But I think that fighters focused on either Strenght, Dexterity, Constitution or Intelligence can be very interesting. Not all of them would be "competitive", I know, but you could actually make all of them work like fighters.

[Ziegander]

Why not? I mean, in the game, you can learn to use your wisdom or your charisma to hit people already, and that's what most of the maneuvers do.

While that may be what most maneuvers do, that's not what stances or utilities do. Allowing your Dexterity to determine how persuasive you are or if you're able to detect the presence of invisible creatures just doesn't make any sense no matter how you slice it. Yes, there is going to be a few Charm utilities and a few Fear utilities. There are going to be Detect X utilities. There are going to be lots of Arts that do lots of things that fighters have traditionally been unable to do.

I'm going to quote myself: Are you really going to write up enough Arts for every attribute that everyone of the given specialization doesn't feel the same?

If you're asking me, will two Dex-based fighters be able to not look and feel the same, then the answer is definitely yes. There really, really are going to be a LOT of Arts. Yes, there are going to be more that are Str or Dex based than anything else, but that's not a bug. What fighter is not Str or Dex primary, Con secondary, and either one of the above or some mental stat tertiary?

[Greenish]

And basic weapons aren't obligatory, so they're better than others anyway.

Oh, yeah, the basic weapons suck. It's just weird if you're this great warrior guy and someone hands you a club or a dagger and you go "hur dur, how does this work?" which is why most everyone gets them.

As I said, I understand that it is a limit to power that fighters don't need. My perspective is from someone who thinks power isn't that important. I mean, being absolutely powerless is a problem, but this is fixed already, isn't it? But I see we have different views on that.

My perspective is of someone who wants to use the powers the class has. Not "fail at", but use.

Power x Flavour discussions aside, are you sure using Con for everything is the best option, power wise? If I want to be the agile fighter, I am putting that high score on Dex anyway, so I can fill in prerequisites for the feats. So I spend that 17 on Dex so I can do my TWF, but there is another ability I must take care of so I can be efficient at it!

Oh be serious. Nobody dumps Con, and especially not the warblghter whose use of class features is capped by the score.

Maybe "Con for everything" is SAD for the "universalist fighter", but it's MAD for fighters who want to be an specific kind of fighter.

There's no SAD for fighters. Just like no one can ignore Con, no one can focus solely on it, so I don't know what you're talking about.


[Edit]:

While that may be what most maneuvers do, that's not what stances or utilities do. Allowing your Dexterity to determine how persuasive you are or if you're able to detect the presence of invisible creatures just doesn't make any sense no matter how you slice it. Yes, there is going to be a few Charm utilities and a few Fear utilities. There are going to be Detect X utilities. There are going to be lots of Arts that do lots of things that fighters have traditionally been unable to do.

If you're asking me, will two Dex-based fighters be able to not look and feel the same, then the answer is definitely yes. There really, really are going to be a LOT of Arts. Yes, there are going to be more that are Str or Dex based than anything else, but that's not a bug. What fighter is not Str or Dex primary, Con secondary, and either one of the above or some mental stat tertiary?

Very well then, lets drop this tangent (at least until there's some more meat to the grinder system).

[Ziegander]

Oh, yeah, the basic weapons suck. It's just weird if you're this great warrior guy and someone hands you a club or a dagger and you go "hur dur, how does this work?" which is why most everyone gets them.

Ack! I keep forgetting to put that back in. Yes, fighters are supposed to be proficient with basic weapons.

[Greenish]

What happens to your SP if you have no Con score (construct/undead)?

[Ziegander]

What happens to your SP if you have no Con score (construct/undead)?

That is a good question. I'll have to think about that.

[Mighty_Chicken]

Haha, you answered and I didn't even notice, sorry.

I am loathe to do that as "preparing" feats draws immediately unfavorable comparisons to preparing spells which is part of what I wanted to avoid with this rewrite/redressing.

Well, I didn't mean like that. More like what they can already do with the Bonus Feats, but limited a Repertoire instead of drawn of any possible source.

You know, Warblades already do that: they choose which maneuvers they have prepared out of a limited list. Couldn't this be done with feats?

But maybe it's just me unnecessarily complicating things.

So just to make sure I got this right: when you talk of a Repertoire, you're talking of a collection of feats that are always active, right?

the repertoire and weapon groups proficiency rules have been relegated to alternatives given in the designer's notes and not the default rules.

This makes more sense, thank you, though now I want to use weapon groups :D


Another thing isn't clear. Some Arts of War have a Key Ability. I don't see anything saying what is it for. Logically, it would to calculate the DCs, but there is no mention about how I calculate them.

Is it going to be like Psionics (10+half CL+modifier), since unlike ToB Maneuvers Arts of War don't have a level?

[Greenish]

Holy lightning maces abuse, Batman. So you went and gave the warblghter Aptitude weapon shenanigans instead of Weapon Aptitude? I'm not sure that's a good way to go.


[Edit]: Well, yes, ideally everyone would use weapon groups.

[Ziegander]

So just to make sure I got this right: when you talk of a Repertoire, you're talking of a collection of feats that are always active, right?

Yes.

Another thing isn't clear. Some Arts of War have a Key Ability. I don't see anything saying what is it for. Logically, it would to calculate the DCs, but there is no mention about how I calculate them.

Is it going to be like Psionics (10+half CL+modifier), since unlike ToB Maneuvers Arts of War don't have a level?

Yeah, it says at the top of the Arts of War post that that's how you calculate the save DCs. That's where it first mentions Key Ability and says what it does.

Holy lightning maces abuse, Batman. So you went and gave the warblghter Aptitude weapon shenanigans instead of Weapon Aptitude? I'm not sure that's a good way to go.

Yeah, I figure, why not. It let's the optimizers optimize if they want, or those that don't, can just use it for Weapon Aptitude if they want (or just not at all).

[Greenish]

Yeah, I figure, why not. It let's the optimizers optimize if they want, or those that don't, can just use it for Weapon Aptitude if they want (or just not at all).

What. I don't even.

[nonsi]

Ah, yes, I think I like that much better than the Physical Prowess thing I forced in there...

Actually, Physical Prowess seems a solid factor for robustness and survivability to me, and I really don't see how Advanced Training is worth 5 slots of class features. If you allow tomes and stuff, it'll be meaningless by 10th level or so.

[Ziegander]

Actually, Physical Prowess seems a solid factor for robustness and survivability to me, and I really don't see how Advanced Training is worth 5 slots of class features. If you allow tomes and stuff, it'll be meaningless by 10th level or so.

Tomes are expensive. I've never played a game where I bought one except when I played at 20th level, and even then I bought one maybe two and they were for my primary stats. But there are still feats that require decent scores in stats that Fighters might not traditionally put the points into and definitely not spend money to improve.

@Greenish: I mean that you can easily play down the feature, just you were talking about before. Sure, you can take full advantage of it and add Daze to all of your Greatsword attacks if you like, or you can just get a few +'s to atk/dmg, or you can go somewhere in between. Or you can not use it at all. It's a seemingly innocuous feature with lots of legroom.

@Errybody: Sorry I've been absent for days, guys. I've been thinking about Arts of War! My life has been really stressful lately, and I don't know when I'll be able to get back to this. Saturday, maybe. Cheers!

[Greenish]

Are you planning on reducing the feat requirements on the maneuvers now that the class no longer gets four extra feats a level? Or are you bringing that back in some shape or form (that is, in some shape or form more comprehensive than a bonus feat every four levels)?

[Ziegander]

Are you planning on reducing the feat requirements on the maneuvers now that the class no longer gets four extra feats a level? Or are you bringing that back in some shape or form (that is, in some shape or form more comprehensive than a bonus feat every four levels)?

Well... it never automatically got four extra feats a level. And expecting that to occur every level, at least for useful/desirable feats anyway, seems a little disingenuous to me. I would like to see the repertoire rules playtested just to verify how they play though.

But, yeah. I mean to once I get really down and dirty. The basic idea I have at the moment is to do with feats what ToB did with prerequisites of the same discipline. The number will scale based on the level of the Art in question and vary slightly between taxing and non-taxing (with taxing arts requiring more feats).

So, while your non-taxing maneuvers won't ever require more than 4 feats for the highest level ones, taxing maneuvers could require 6 or more. I have to reign in my desire to have things make as much sense as possible and remember that I'm working with a fundamentally flawed game and trying to make it as fun as I can without actually fixing the broken parts of it. It's a precarious balancing act.

I have so many ideas (and written material actually) for Arts of War, I just really wish I had a solid few hours to put them up here and work out all the organization. I did add a few Arts tonight and I'm about to put a couple more. I want to collaborate with Xefas on some mid to high level content to bring the class more into the Tier 2 realm (you can already see some of the trappings of this in mid-level taxing Arts). I'm hoping to achieve some more serious versatility than was granted with the Warblade with the utilities, even the non-taxing ones, although the few I have up at the moment don't especially reflect this.

EDIT: Added the Iron Perfection and Void Parry maneuvers, the Roaring Avalanche stance, the After-Image Illusion and Quicksilver Motion utilities, and the Improved Guts, Improved Warning Shout, Minor Timeslice, Perfect Timeslice, Practiced Timeslice, and Warning Shout taxing utilities.

EDIT#2: Added a few more stances and a couple Taxing stances.

[Yakk]

Why tie arts of war to stamina points?

Could you not have a character with special abilities that are just always on?

Your arts of war have a myriad and multiple set of perquisites. Why not have a Fighter level prerequisite, and maybe at most 1 other requirement for flavour? That would make it easier to design them.

You can then have low level Arts of War that are weak to mediocre in power, and higher level ones that get ridiculous. Instead, you have a whole pile of mediocre Arts of War.

Scale what the Arts of War can do based off of the kinds of feats a similar level wizard or cleric can do with spells. If a cleric can raise dead (something gods in our world do) and a wizard can teleport, a fighter can do similarly ridiculous things (run effectively forever, perfectly defend against hails of arrows from lesser foes, swim for a week in full armor while killing seamonsters that attack him, wrestle a troll to the ground, rip the trolls arm off, and use it to beat the troll into submission -- all seem like reasonable things for a Beowulf scale warrior).

About the only one like that is "Perfect Timeslice", which basically gives you an extra full-round action in exchange for a swift action, at level 15. And it is burdened with the "Taxing" keyword, I think without cause.

By level 20, you have 10 to 15 stamina points, and they recover after a short rest. So you can burn 2-4 per round and still not run out in a combat.

Why restrict the Fighter to such a low number of Arts Known -- the Fighter could instead automatically teach themselves a certain number of Arts, and could find treasure or training to learn other Arts, sort of like a Wizard. (Why needlessly restrict the class)

Bonus Feats
Suppose that instead of your system, the Fighter had a set of Bonus Feats Known. The Fighter can have at most a certain number active at once.

To replace an active feat with another, the Fighter has to spend a standard action, or some other nominal cost.

The Fighter learns Bonus Feats automatically, and can be trained in Bonus feats (with some nominal market cost), and can pick up Bonus feats by defeating foes who have that feat (so long as the Fighter knows the perquisites).

Ie, fewer restrictions. Does this make the class too strong?

[Ziegander]

Why tie arts of war to stamina points?

Could you not have a character with special abilities that are just always on?

Basically because I'm trying to keep the overall power level variable based on player skill as well as player preference. Some players and groups aren't cool with certain levels of power. Your suggestions seem tantamount to, "make the Warblade equivalent to a DMM Persist Cleric that exchanges the rest of his spell slots for even moar martial dakka and even moar persisted effect." That's not what I'm going for.

Your arts of war have a myriad and multiple set of perquisites. Why not have a Fighter level prerequisite, and maybe at most 1 other requirement for flavour? That would make it easier to design them.

It's still a direction I'm looking to move toward in the future. As I mentioned in the Designer's Notes, the design of the Arts is constantly evolving.

You can then have low level Arts of War that are weak to mediocre in power, and higher level ones that get ridiculous. Instead, you have a whole pile of mediocre Arts of War.

A lot of them are intentionally mediocre. Those are there for people that are into the Tier 3 fighter. But in addition to the mirror image/concealment busting Iron Perfection and the parry anything Void Parry in maneuvers, there's stuff like Shield Wall in stances, and Dust Up (move action save or lose?) in utilities. And we haven't even touched the Taxing Arts, which are supposed to be the Arts that rival spells. They are limited because if they weren't you'd have a Warlock with access to double the amount of Tier 1-2 invocations at a time.

Scale what the Arts of War can do based off of the kinds of feats a similar level wizard or cleric can do with spells. If a cleric can raise dead (something gods in our world do) and a wizard can teleport, a fighter can do similarly ridiculous things (run effectively forever, perfectly defend against hails of arrows from lesser foes, swim for a week in full armor while killing seamonsters that attack him, wrestle a troll to the ground, rip the trolls arm off, and use it to beat the troll into submission -- all seem like reasonable things for a Beowulf scale warrior).

And that's exactly what I'm going to do with the Taxing Arts (and even some of the non-Taxing ones).

About the only one like that is "Perfect Timeslice", which basically gives you an extra full-round action in exchange for a swift action, at level 15. And it is burdened with the "Taxing" keyword, I think without cause.

Because, yes, I should be handing out Greater Celerity 10+ times per encounter.

By level 20, you have 10 to 15 stamina points, and they recover after a short rest. So you can burn 2-4 per round and still not run out in a combat.

True.

Why restrict the Fighter to such a low number of Arts Known -- the Fighter could instead automatically teach themselves a certain number of Arts, and could find treasure or training to learn other Arts, sort of like a Wizard. (Why needlessly restrict the class)

I might, as an alternative, but I will have to think long and hard about a way to do this without making it crazy too good. I think I am already going to need to fix how the class retrains its Arts.

Bonus Feats
Suppose that instead of your system, the Fighter had a set of Bonus Feats Known. The Fighter can have at most a certain number active at once.

To replace an active feat with another, the Fighter has to spend a standard action, or some other nominal cost.

The Fighter learns Bonus Feats automatically, and can be trained in Bonus feats (with some nominal market cost), and can pick up Bonus feats by defeating foes who have that feat (so long as the Fighter knows the perquisites).

Ie, fewer restrictions. Does this make the class too strong?

Aside from the scratched out portion of your text this is exactly the sort of system I had the class using from the beginning, but it has been relegated to a Designer's Note posted directly after the current Bonus Feats section. It's just complex and makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

This class is about offering lots of power in varying levels of potency, and making the basic rules as acceptable and adaptable as possible. It's meant to more accessible than the Warblade to more groups. It's not meant to be a Tier 1 fighter. It's meant to be a Tier 4 thru 2 fighter, based on comfort level and competency. It's constantly evolving, and I will likely continue to add Designer's Notes to it as sidebars for people looking for a slightly different take on the mechanics.

EDIT: Added a whole bunch of original maneuvers (and a few stances and utilities). I'm up to exactly 80 Arts altogether at the moment and I still have the highest level ones to get to. I'm only through about 1/3 of the material that's going to be put up!

[eftexar]

The class seems pretty sound, but I'm wondering a little about the Repertoire idea you have spoilered. My biggest concern is that it does the same thing for the Fighter as it did the Wizard (though obviously not at the same power level).

While you have placed limits on the number of feats he can hold onto at once that doesn't really limit him in using them and, unlike spellcasters, this class doesn't have limited uses per day. Maybe requiring stamina or something to limit these extra feats would be a good idea. You have to keep in mind that there are quite a few odd and end feats more powerful than class features if you look hard enough.

But, besides that, your arts of war actually leave me feeling like I could play a tactician instead of just hitting things harder and I'm rather impressed with the Stamina system.

[Ziegander]

You have to keep in mind that there are quite a few odd and end feats more powerful than class features if you look hard enough.

Well, that would add to the optimizability of the class, which I would considered to be a feature, not a bug, but are there really any Fighter Bonus Feats out there that are more powerful than class features? I mean even considering the great ones like Shock Trooper and Robilar's Gambit.

But, besides that, your arts of war actually leave me feeling like I could play a tactician instead of just hitting things harder and I'm rather impressed with the Stamina system.

That's great to hear. Thank you! I've yet to arrive at a system of prerequisites for the Arts of War that I'm keen on, but once I do, I'll be very satisfied with the class myself. I still have a lot of work to do, but it's already starting to look like something special.