Rant about ToB maneuvers in 3.x

[tussock]

What would have happened is that magic items would be something that would go into a slot and require mana to activate.

But that's a build-time option rather than a game-time option. It's a good one, make up for randomised non-fungible items a bit by having classes let you build pseudo-items to cover all their important tricks, and long-duration buffs can use the same pseudo-item slots, but meh.

You still need a separate in-combat option and short-duration buff/scuff system, because I don't want to have to know which slots the Paladin has open mid-combat before I cast something with my Wizard, nor turn off my gloves to cast Fireball. Interesting choices are not fun if I have to miss out on icecream all the time to get them; they have to work on top of the build process.

Even though Magic of Blue was the worst test balloon book

I've not seen it in action, but it reads like an NPC-class Warrior is as good as anything in there. Maybe they're slightly better than a Soulknife. It's full of "A 1d8 melee attack!" and "+2 to two skills!". Like you have learn a whole new language that uses synonyms for blue for all major concepts and all you get out of it is 3 free crappy feats at 10th level. Throw out the book, have some free feats, and lets go.

[Kaelik]

There is some weird bullshit you can do, I think the sum total of things that are better than NPC warrior are:

1) You can me a multiple natural attack fighter and tank at once with pounce. So basically, slightly better than the average fighter in numbers game, but as usual, subject to all the usual problems with that.

2) While you are that fighter, or anything else, you can also get some decent detection methods or break the RNG on some skills, or teleport a short distance, so you can do some things the fighter can't.

3) I once saw a build that focused on Manticore spike throwing that was passably decent in damage, and then added Con damage to each spike, and there were somehow lots of spikes. Basically just a ranged version of the first thing.

4) Dippable feats to get airspeed/teleport/bonus to skills on top of your skills stuff for character otherwise not using the book.

5) Some kind of bullshit cheese that gives you infinite spells for dipping a bit into incarnum, the optimization here is just seeing what the absolute minimum you can dip is to get this.

[Lago PARANOIA]

By the way, if you're a 5th level or higher martial adept and you don't have White Raven Tactics, you're a fuckup that fails at life.

Seriously, it's the best maneuver ever. Even a 10th-level Forsaker is allowed a spot on my team as long as he has access to at least three uses of that in a combat session. ... okay, maybe that's going a bit far. A 10th-level soulknife. Like, the conversation would go something like this:

Monk: Dude, you're a fuckup that fails at life. You don't belong here, you're dragging us down.
Hexblade: Seriously, stop sucking so goddamn hardcore or we're kicking you out. WHAT DO YOU DO FOR US?
Soulknife: Uh... uh... UHHH! White Raven tactics! Times three!
Swashbuckler: ... okay, damn, you got us. Welcome aboard.

[RobG]

How about your opponent getting a +3 dodge bonus against a maneuver if you use it against him again (stacks, up to +9).

Spam it against mooks if you want but the BBEG wont be fooled when you make the exact same move with your sword over and over.

Fair?

[Username17]

The only thing I've ever seen accomplished with Magic of Blue is dipping to get short distance teleport on a Rogue. That was fairly effective. Every Rogue player would rather play Nightcrawler, so having to be blue to get the bamf isn't even really a problem.

Anyway, the really cool thing about ToB is the resource management systems. Crusader has a little WoF thing going on, and Warblade has the mid-battle recharge thing. Both are interesting. And when they announced that they were using ToB as a template for 4e, I (along with most people) was cautiously optimistic. After all, my assumption was that it meant that:

• Fighters were getting nice things.
• Players were getting non-daily resource management systems that would make them make real choices on a turn by turn basis.

Turns out what they actually took from ToB was:

• Maneuvers should have dorky anime names attached to them.
• Everyone should be put on the Move, Minor, Standard paradigm.
• There should be 1 turn buffs and debuffs everywhere.

Tome of Magic and Magic of Blue never took off because they were way too complicated and the results were incredibly underpowered. But to my mind the Totemist and the Shadowcaster were asking much more interesting questions, and it would have probably been better for 4e had they been taken into consideration.

The Shadowcaster was like "What if your abilities became less resource limited as you advanced beyond them?" To use the 4e paradigm, it would be like if today's Dailies were tomorrow's Encounter powers and today's Encounter powers were tomorrow's At-Wills. The actual chart of the Shadowcaster was a fucking crazy nightmare, but with 4e's unified level progression chart it would have been fine. The second thing that the Shadowcaster was testing was putting class abilities into little railroaded trees where you select one and then as you level you get a couple of preselected abilities that are nominally related until it runs out and it's time to pick a new tree. This was again way too complicated, but for 4e it would have been a huge improvement - pick an Encounter and a Daily together, and when you level up a few times the Encounter goes at-will and the Daily becomes Encounter, and you get to choose a new Encounter and Daily combo. That would have been much better than what they actually did.

The Totemist wasn't just out there to test powers being blue or getting monster powers like a blue mage (both of which have my cautious support). It was also there to test having magic items compete for special ability slots (great idea) and to have abilities and magic items scale to your level (also great idea). Now it did this through an incredibly convoluted chakra and essentia point accounting system that there was no reason for, and almost all of the abilities were horrendously weak at any level and those few that were worth taking had no reasonable correlation with the level they came online on. But again, the core concept was fine. The problem is mostly that it was written by James Wyatt, and he sucks.

-Username17

[tussock]

Re: James Wyatt. To play devil's advocate, one might suggest his brief was to write a full BAB class that had free items but wasn't any better than the core 3.5 Fighter, and let everyone get access through feats without breaking anything.

That couldn't help but be useless junk with a couple of cheesy dip options, could it? Though there's no excuses for the races in that book.

Plus, the Totemist has nothing to do with the other two, thematically. Pulling animal spirits from the ether and tying them to the "things" items hang their magic on could be good fluff. Forging semi-real items from the spirits of old suits of armour? Not so much.

The Shadowcaster was like "What if your abilities became less resource limited as you advanced beyond them?" To use the 4e paradigm, it would be like if today's Dailies were tomorrow's Encounter powers and today's Encounter powers were tomorrow's At-Wills.

That's exactly what I thought of when they first talked about 4e, that a Wizard would basically end up casting low level spells as at-will, mid-level spells as encounter powers, and high level spells as daily. You'd need far less slots hanging around, can fix all the durations, conditions, and damage to suit, change your at-wills and other powers as you desire.

Hell, you could run a high level caster on about 10 slots and let them choose how many are daily, encounter, or at-will. Keep empty slots and fill them as the day unfolds.

[ModelCitizen]

The Binder seems like what Incarnum would look like with the mechanics streamlined back to sanity. Granted, binders have a lot of their vestiges set to too high a level and they'd be more interesting if they could swap vestiges more easily during the day, but their rules are incarnum without all the bullshit.

[JonSetanta]

Here's the layout for maneuvers:

Maneuver Name
School (optional)
Slot Level: 1
Action: 1 attack action
Recharge: End of turn
Range: Melee
Area: Single target
Duration: boost only
Saving Throw: Reflex Fortitude Will negates added effect

Level 1:
Level 6:
Level 11:
Level 16:
Level 21:

User Is Bloodied:
User Is Affected By :
Target Bloodied:
Target Is Walled:
Target Is Grounded:
Target Is In Air:
Target Is Affected By :


This is a template.
The action cost is a single attack but can only be used once each round by default. This is to not penalize higher level characters for using maneuvers; they can do a full attack routine, insert a maneuver attempt as one of those attacks, and resume full attack at any point.

I'll also make some ranged maneuvers. Eventually.

[HalcyonUmbra]

Actually, that probably just replaces the second point. I mean, what is "after you use this attack, you can't use it for four more rounds" if not a penalty?[/i]

It's a different kind of penalty from "after you use this attack, you're at -2 AC for three rounds". Since you could potentially have the attack back right away and still take -2 to AC for three rounds, it pretty much counts as a third dial.

Well, kinda. Actually, no, not really.

Yes, you can adjust the three round delay between attacks separately from the -2 the attack imposes on AC, but they're both still penalties. Though, it is still an important distinction to make, so you might want to make subcategories, or something. Actually...

How an ability comes online

• Unlimited: The ability is always online (e.g. at-wills, basic attacks).
• Event based: The ability comes online a certain amount of time after *some event*, such as the start of battle, or the beginning of the day (e.g. Magic items with per day uses).
• Action based: The ability comes online a certain amount of time after *some player action*, such as a different attack, flanking an enemy, or even resting (e.g. sneak attack, Vancian magic).
• Counter based: The ability comes online a certain amount of time after *some enemy action*, such as walking past you or casting a spell (e.g. Attacks of opportunity, counterspelling).
• Roulette based (WoF): The ability comes online randomly, or semi-randomly (e.g. the Crusader, Winds of Fate).

What an ability costs

• Nothing: Self descriptive (e.g. talking).
• Actions: The ability costs some amount of in game time. Using the ability means that you do can now do less 'things' before the enemy does his 'things' (e.g. damn near everything).
• Charges: The ability can be used a limited amount of times before it runs out and must come "online" again. Using the ability means that you can now use the ability less in the future. (e.g. Vancian magic, Daily and Encounter powers)
• Mana: Similar to Charges, except multiple abilities draw from the same pool of resources. Using the ability means that you can now use several abilities less in the future. (e.g. 3.5 Psionics, Mana point variant from UA).
• Cool Down: The ability becomes unavailable for a period of time after use. Sometimes you can bring it online during this interval to use it, sometimes you can't. Using this ability means that you have one less option in the near future (e.g. a dragon's breath weapon).
• Committed: Another ability (or set of abilities) becomes unavailable for a period of time after use. Sometimes you can bring them online during this interval to use them, sometimes you can't. Using this ability means that you have less options (possibly far less options) in the near future. (e.g. Rage).
• Drain: You receive some sort of penalty to this ability or another ability or set of abilities for a period of time. Using this ability means that you will be performing at subpar capacity for some period of time. (e.g. Rage, running)
  (yes technically this should be split up like the previous 2 abilities but i couldnt think of good titles)

Phew. That's all I could think of. It's worth noting that while certain implementations of the Cool Down cost are identical to certain combinations of Event Based and Charges, not all implementations are. I got stuck on that for a while.

Also, feel free to suggest better examples. Some of mine are pretty meh. Or nonexistent.

[JonSetanta]

Winds of Fate.... and all this time I thought WoF meant "Wheel of Fortune"

[Stubbazubba]

Fortunately for you, they're related concepts. Winds of Fate is Wheel of Fortune as a resource system.

[Username17]

4e has numerous triggered abilities that could be thought of as Event-based. A Reaction can be used only when you're attacked with a melee attack or only when an enemy leaves your threatened area, for example. That these abilities often are also on charge-restrictions is simply an example of 4e being way too complicated for how simple it is.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

I always thought WoF was the comedic sound effect added in post production every time Lago fails to convince someone that it's a good idea to make all your players roll a 1d6 to decide their character's actions for them.

[HalcyonUmbra]

4e has numerous triggered abilities that could be thought of as Event-based. A Reaction can be used only when you're attacked with a melee attack or only when an enemy leaves your threatened area, for example. That these abilities often are also on charge-restrictions is simply an example of 4e being way too complicated for how simple it is.

-Username17

Those would be classified under Counter-based, considering that they activate on "enemy action" rather than "gameworld event." I think the problem is that Event-based and Counter-based are, technically, the same thing, as the MC is in control of both. Plus, most of the stuff I originally had as Event-based examples, like Vancian Magic and the regaining of hit points, ended up as Action-based, because even though you get your spells back every day, you specifically need to rest to do it. I did have more time to think, though, and items with charges per day fit the requirements. In fact, stuff that recharges per day is the only thing I can think of that fits those requirements.

Regardless, the fact that there was any confusion over a trigger probably means that the categories aren't defined well enough.

BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD

[Koumei]

Despite my not knowing what colour represents what "stuff" in MtG, I like that idea of all abilities fitting different mana colours and the general idea of binding items and abilities to slots.

Presumably such a thing would have:
"Magic Sword (Any Colour): it's magic, so it's harder to break. Also, if you bind it to a Chakra, it gets the scaling-with-level bonus to attack and damage, and you can (once per time unit) (do a cool sword thing, whether it be make attacks at stupid ranges or deal ability damage and ongoing bleeding)."

Which would compete with:
"Orc Rage (Red): binding this to a Red Chakra grants you a constant scaling bonus to Intimidate and Damage Reduction. Also, once per (time unit) you can (do something like healing a bunch of damage on the spot and making an extra attack, or growing a size category or whatever)."

Or it competes with:
"Hypnosis (Blue): binding this to a Blue Chakra lets you make any of your effects deal Non-lethal damage at no penalty if you want, and characters who would normally be knocked out by them are placed in a suggestive trance (page XX, "Conditions and Status Effects"). Once per (time unit) you can cast Hypnosis, which does X".

So the level 1 Orc Enchanter who only has 1 Red and 1 Blue can decide whether he wants to be an angry dude with a magic sword, a hypnotist with a magic sword or an angry hypnotist with a mundane sword (not including any other abilities he has)?

The only thing I've ever seen accomplished with Magic of Blue is dipping to get short distance teleport on a Rogue.

I've mostly seen it used for the dodgy ruling of "1-1 = 0, but reducing something to zero isn't the same as being immune to it!" used to get (via a Feat, not a class level) the Strongheart Vest so that a Warlock with a Major Bloodline can enter Hellfire Warlock and take 0 Con damage to add +12d6 Hellfire to all of his Eldritch Blasts.

Why yes, yes it was a Charop board thing. How could you tell, was it the "Feeling good about dealing ~18d6 damage per round at level 12", the "Actually using those awful bloodlines" or the "It hinges on your MC making one specific ruling"?

The Shadowcaster was like "What if your abilities became less resource limited as you advanced beyond them?"

I really liked that aspect, it's a shame it never really went anywhere.

The second thing that the Shadowcaster was testing was putting class abilities into little railroaded trees where you select one and then as you level you get a couple of preselected abilities that are nominally related until it runs out and it's time to pick a new tree. This was again way too complicated, but for 4e it would have been a huge improvement - pick an Encounter and a Daily together, and when you level up a few times the Encounter goes at-will and the Daily becomes Encounter, and you get to choose a new Encounter and Daily combo. That would have been much better than what they actually did.

They almost did - getting players to choose a subset of the class abilities and stick with that bunch - are you a Feylock, a Starlock or an Inferlock? But they did it for the whole class, not just little bits at a time, and they couldn't even be fucked fully supporting each one.

[Username17]

I did have more time to think, though, and items with charges per day fit the requirements. In fact, stuff that recharges per day is the only thing I can think of that fits those requirements.

What about the stuff like a Monk's daily uses of Stunning Fist? It can be used X/day, but there's nothing listed on what they have to do or not do to get the uses back. There are a fuck tonne of classes and creatures with daily use limits on their powers like that.

Presumably such a thing would have:
"Magic Sword (Any Colour): it's magic, so it's harder to break. Also, if you bind it to a Chakra, it gets the scaling-with-level bonus to attack and damage, and you can (once per time unit) (do a cool sword thing, whether it be make attacks at stupid ranges or deal ability damage and ongoing bleeding)."

Well, the original Magic of Incarnum stuff tracked whether it was melded to your soul or not, whether it was bound to your chakra or not, and how many essentia points it had in it. That is clearly too damn complicated.

If you were streamlining things, you'd give a magic item a thing it did without being assigned to one of your slots, a thing it did when it was assigned to one of your slots, and a thing it did if you spent a mana point on it (only available if it is currently slotted). So your magic sword is a "superior sword" (whatever that means in your system), if you put it in a slot, you get enhanced swordiness, and when you spend a mana you can make your sword burst into flame (or whatever) for some amount of time.

And yeah, you could have things like The One Ring, where not having it slotted did really horrible things, so someone had to carry it all the time.

-Username17

[Starmaker]

the dodgy ruling of "1-1 = 0, but reducing something to zero isn't the same as being immune to it!"

I couldn't care less about warlocks and their 18d6s, but this ruling is quite correct. When piddly shit damage is negated by damage reduction or hardness, the target is not suddenly "immune" to damage. The zero ACP on mithral pants doesn't mean the character is immune to ACPs. Rather, a harmful effect is reduced by a fixed amount down to its allowed minimum, which happens to be zero.

Thus, if there was an affliction that, say, doubled all ability damage, the warlock would take 1 point of Con damage, while an immune character would still be immune.

Now, if there was a damage reduction ability that negated a runtime-variable amount of damage and that variable amount happened to be "all of it", an argument to the tune of "this breaks established conventions of what a reduction can do" would be valid, but holy fuck, if an ability reduces a penalty by one to a min of zero, of fucking course it should reduce one point to zero points.

[JonSetanta]

Here's a hasty writeup of what I think better maneuvers should be.
Subject to change.
I altered "levels' to "slots" so that, if a DM so chooses, they can slot-tax a character rather than have a single slot 1 maneuver be that powerful. Im leaning towards not taxing like that though, since I might make more powerful ones with higher starting slot levels.


Air Slash
Slot Level: 1
Action: 1 attack action
Recharge: End of turn
Range: Melee
Area: Single target

Target Did Not Make A Move Action In Their Previous Turn or Is In Air: +2 attack with this maneuver.
User is Wielding a Slashing Weapon, Critical, and Target Bloodied: A critical hit severs an opponent’s limb of your choice.

Slot Level 1: Range becomes 10 feet as a Force projectile that deals Slashing damage
Slot Level 3: Range becomes Close, and hits 1d4 adjacent targets
Slot Level 5: Range becomes Medium, and hits 2d4 adjacent targets
Slot Level 7: Range becomes Long, and hits 3d4 adjacent targets
Slot Level 9: Range becomes 1000 feet, and hits 4d4 adjacent targets


Lance Impale
Slot Level: 1
Action: 1 attack action
Recharge: End of turn
Range: Melee
Area: Single target

Target Is Prone or In Water: +2 attack with this maneuver.
User is Wielding a Piercing Weapon and Target Is Walled: Target is impaled, you can’t make further attacks with weapon used but target can’t make Move actions until they spend a Standard action to undo this condition.
Target Is In Air: Target hit falls to ground at a rate of 60 feet per round.

Slot Level 1: +5 Reach, opponents behind target are attacked if the first target is missed
Slot Level 3: +10 Reach, targets hit during their turn lose all movement for the rest of that round
Slot Level 5: +15 Reach, when thrown the polearm returns to your hand after the maneuver
Slot Level 7: +20 Reach, opponents can not enter or leave your melee reach without Provoking
Slot Level 9: +25 Reach, using this maneuver is an Immediate action once each round if you choose that uses one of your attack actions from the next round


Crater Blow
Slot Level: 1
Action: 1 attack action
Recharge: End of turn
Range: Melee
Area: Single target

Target Is Prone or Walled: +2 attack with this maneuver.
Critical and Target Bloodied: A critical hit crushes an opponent’s limb of your choice.
User is Wielding a Bludgeoning Weapon and Target is an Object: Ignore as many points of Hardness equal to twice your level.

Slot Level 1: Hits 1d4 adjacent targets
Slot Level 3: Area becomes 10 foot radius burst hitting all targets with AC less than your attack roll
Slot Level 5: Area becomes 30 foot radius burst, targets hit are pushed back to this distance
Slot Level 7: Area becomes 50 foot radius burst, targets hit are pushed back to this distance and knocked prone
Slot Level 9: Area becomes 100 foot radius burst, objects directly hit with the melee attack are destroyed


Dark Stab
Slot Level: 1
Action: 1 attack action
Recharge: End of turn
Range: Melee, or a Ranged weapon within 30 feet
Area: Single target

Target is Flanked or Denied Dexterity Bonus to AC: +2 attack with this maneuver, target takes user’s Level x2 Precision damage.
User is Wielding a Piercing Weapon and Target Bloodied: Target bleeds for +1 damage each round.
Critical: Target takes 2 Constitution damage.

Slot Level 1: You may make a Move action as an Immediate action after using this maneuver as long as the target you attempted to hit is flanked for the round
Slot Level 3: Target can not make Move actions for 1 round and gets -4 to hit you for 1 round
Slot Level 5: Target is Stunned for 1 round
Slot Level 7: Target is Paralyzed for 1 round
Slot Level 9: Target hit makes Fortitude save vs. your attack roll or drops to half HP and is Bloodied

[Username17]

If you're taking 158 words to explain a single maneuver with no flavor text, you have failed.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

At slot level 1 Dark Stab is 99 words, which is less than most spells.

[HalcyonUmbra]

What about the stuff like a Monk's daily uses of Stunning Fist? It can be used X/day, but there's nothing listed on what they have to do or not do to get the uses back. There are a fuck tonne of classes and creatures with daily use limits on their powers like that.

Yeah, that would definitely apply. I think per day SLAs apply too, though it seems like there'd be some obscure caveat in the back of some appendix that rules they're similar enough to spells that resting is required. That also brings to mind Pathfinder's love affair with pool based resources. Turns out, only the Barbarian and the Monk need to rest to get their pools back. The Bard and the Paladin get their Performance rounds and Lay on Hands points back automatically. The Magus technically gets his Arcane Pool back when he prepares his spells, and the Alchemist doesn't need to rest to get anything back. Which made me want to make an Alchemist with Polypurpose Panacea that never had to sleep ever, which made me realize that Pathfinder doesn't have rules for sleeping! Nowhere in the SRD could I find a rule that required any amount of sleep per day. All sleeping does is repenish hit points. I apologize if this is old news to anyone, it just surprised me.

In looking for sleeping rules, I did come across falling/suffocating/starving/catching fire/etc rules, and realized that events could trigger off of any of these, as well. I just can't think of any that actually do. I also figured that positional based (flanking, AoOs) should be their own group, as they rely on input from at least two parties (Player/MC or Player/Player). An ability could also have a cost of giving a bonus to enemies, which got me thinking that there should probably also be a list for "What an ability does," with a list of all beneficial effects. So, yeah, drawing board, returning, etc.

If you were streamlining things, you'd give a magic item a thing it did without being assigned to one of your slots, a thing it did when it was assigned to one of your slots, and a thing it did if you spent a mana point on it (only available if it is currently slotted). So your magic sword is a "superior sword" (whatever that means in your system), if you put it in a slot, you get enhanced swordiness, and when you spend a mana you can make your sword burst into flame (or whatever) for some amount of time.

Is "assign to a slot" even necessary, though? Couldn't you just have "Carrying a Sword" and "Carrying a Mana-Infused Sword?"

I couldn't care less about warlocks and their 18d6s, but this ruling is quite correct. When piddly shit damage is negated by damage reduction or hardness, the target is not suddenly "immune" to damage. The zero ACP on mithral pants doesn't mean the character is immune to ACPs. Rather, a harmful effect is reduced by a fixed amount down to its allowed minimum, which happens to be zero.

Thus, if there was an affliction that, say, doubled all ability damage, the warlock would take 1 point of Con damage, while an immune character would still be immune.

Now, if there was a damage reduction ability that negated a runtime-variable amount of damage and that variable amount happened to be "all of it", an argument to the tune of "this breaks established conventions of what a reduction can do" would be valid, but holy fuck, if an ability reduces a penalty by one to a min of zero, of fucking course it should reduce one point to zero points.

The problem with it is that the Con damage is supposed to be a cost, so if the Stronheart Vest prevents the damage, then the cost never gets paid. Yeah, it's totally allowed, but any MC that gives even the slightest fuck about RAI would never allow it, so it's typical CharOp bullshit.

I altered "levels' to "slots" so that, if a DM so chooses, they can slot-tax a character rather than have a single slot 1 maneuver be that powerful. Im leaning towards not taxing like that though, since I might make more powerful ones with higher starting slot levels.

So does a a "Slot level 5" maneuver take 5 slots, or does it take one level 5 slot? I'm not tremendously fond of either. If it takes up multiple slots, then you're forcing players to choose between a variety of weak effects, or spamming strong effects. If it takes higher level slots, then there's no autoscaling, and low level slots become useless as you gain levels.


And yeah, I can't help you with wordiness, but these abilities do seem overly complex. Some maneuvers gain effects if you have a specific type of weapon, some gain effects if the target is in a certain position, some gain effects if the target has a certain condition, and some gain effects if you're wielding a bec-de-corbin while the enemy is bloodied, immobile, and encased in ice.

I'd limit it so that every maneuver has exactly one effect that activates if you have a specific weapon, and exactly one effect that activates if the enemy has exactly one condition. That lets players learn one more generalized template that they can apply to all maneuvers. While you're at it, you might want to consider what else you can make constant across all maneuvers. I mean, all of yourexample manuevers took 1 attack action and recharged at the end of the turn, and I can't think of any maneuvers that I wouldn't want to have these attributes, so I'd just make those inherent rules about maneuvers in general.

Also, on a nitpicky note (I know you wrote these abilities quickly), "hits 4d4 adjacent targets" is a terrible effect. You also seem to have forgotten to add the actual effects of each ability; there a whole bunch of riders, but nothing for them to apply to.

[Kaelik]

The problem with it is that the Con damage is supposed to be a cost, so if the Stronheart Vest prevents the damage, then the cost never gets paid. Yeah, it's totally allowed, but any MC that gives even the slightest fuck about RAI would never allow it, so it's typical CharOp bullshit.

Paying a feat or level to get Strongheart vest is also a cost. So because paying the cost in a different way is not universally forbidden, it's totally reasonable that someone might choose to do so.

If a class exists that allows you to take for example ability damage, in exchange for regaining spell slot, you wouldn't say that it's not allowed, because it allows a Wizard to get the benefits without spending a spell slot. You'd recognize that he's paying the cost differently. And so is the Warlock with strongheart vest.

[HalcyonUmbra]

The problem with it is that the Con damage is supposed to be a cost, so if the Stronheart Vest prevents the damage, then the cost never gets paid. Yeah, it's totally allowed, but any MC that gives even the slightest fuck about RAI would never allow it, so it's typical CharOp bullshit.

Paying a feat or level to get Strongheart vest is also a cost. So because paying the cost in a different way is not universally forbidden, it's totally reasonable that someone might choose to do so.

If a class exists that allows you to take for example ability damage, in exchange for regaining spell slot, you wouldn't say that it's not allowed, because it allows a Wizard to get the benefits without spending a spell slot. You'd recognize that he's paying the cost differently. And so is the Warlock with strongheart vest.

Ah. There's the disconnect. See, when I said cost, I didn't mean it from a game design, mechanical balance, cost/effect ratio way. For that definition of cost, yeah, Strongheart Vest/Hellfire Warlock is absolutely fine. If anything, it's underpowered, considering you have to spend a feat, your torso slot, and a buncha skill points and character levels for hit-point damage that's still subject to Spell Resistance, of all things.

No, what I meant was the fluff cost. The ability is specifically described as "demand[ing] part of your essence in exchange for [...] granted power," and it prevents you from using the ability at all if you don't have a Constitution score or are immune to Constitution damage. That's why it's typical CharOp bullshit. The build is great as a theoretical exercise, or as an example of why a lack of any underlying framework for fluffy abilities like these always leads to problems. What the build is not, however, is a functional entity in any actual game world.

[Kaelik]

Wait, so now it's CharOp bullshit to refluff your character? Fuck you.

[JonSetanta]

I altered "levels' to "slots" so that, if a DM so chooses, they can slot-tax a character rather than have a single slot 1 maneuver be that powerful. Im leaning towards not taxing like that though, since I might make more powerful ones with higher starting slot levels.

So does a a "Slot level 5" maneuver take 5 slots, or does it take one level 5 slot? I'm not tremendously fond of either. If it takes up multiple slots, then you're forcing players to choose between a variety of weak effects, or spamming strong effects. If it takes higher level slots, then there's no autoscaling, and low level slots become useless as you gain levels.


And yeah, I can't help you with wordiness, but these abilities do seem overly complex. Some maneuvers gain effects if you have a specific type of weapon, some gain effects if the target is in a certain position, some gain effects if the target has a certain condition, and some gain effects if you're wielding a bec-de-corbin while the enemy is bloodied, immobile, and encased in ice.

I'd limit it so that every maneuver has exactly one effect that activates if you have a specific weapon, and exactly one effect that activates if the enemy has exactly one condition. That lets players learn one more generalized template that they can apply to all maneuvers. While you're at it, you might want to consider what else you can make constant across all maneuvers. I mean, all of yourexample manuevers took 1 attack action and recharged at the end of the turn, and I can't think of any maneuvers that I wouldn't want to have these attributes, so I'd just make those inherent rules about maneuvers in general.

Also, on a nitpicky note (I know you wrote these abilities quickly), "hits 4d4 adjacent targets" is a terrible effect. You also seem to have forgotten to add the actual effects of each ability; there a whole bunch of riders, but nothing for them to apply to.

For slot requirements, I never decided on multiple or singular. I guess singular would be easier.
ToB has no scaling and effectively requires multiple slots for similar maneuvers if you want versatility, so I would at least want better than that... yet the solution leads to word-bloat.


About making maneuver rules universal (such as attack action cost) I just realized, right before reading your comment, that summarizing with tags would indeed cut down on wordiness.
There would be two kinds; Melee (1 melee attack action, recharge at end of turn or round) and Ranged (attach to any thrown or shot weapon, same recharge), then just refer to the tags.


For Air Slash would you prefer a static number of targets? You aim for one target, and also hit XdY number of additional targets, unless you'd prefer an area effect that forces a save for half?
And what's wrong with missing effects? Some maneuvers simply provide range or reach.


Ultimately I don't consider this failure. It's just another step in progress.
Back to MS Word, and reading Negima.