Rant about ToB maneuvers in 3.x

[Koumei]

I'd be fine with it, for all that it matters, but the fact is, you're going to get MCs that argue the point. Fairly frequently (if they can be fucked reading the thing and don't just go "You're taking a PrCl? Cool, whatever.") I suppose I shouldn't have called it a dodgy ruling, as that implies I think it's wrong, but it is likely to result in table arguments and "But that's not the intent of the rules, and I happen to know their intent, because I'm psychic!" and so on.

And that can be enough from me on the matter, lest this become a thread about Hellfire Warlocks.

[HalcyonUmbra]

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

It's CharOp bullshit because I've never seen anyone even attempt to refluff either half of the problem. But if they did, that'd be fine, because, like I said, the ability is actually pretty mediocre from a mechanical standpoint. There's a similar build that swaps out Strongheart Vest for binding the Naberious Vestige, and I honestly don't have a problem with that. You can get basically the same effect by just crafting a Wand of Lesser Restoration, and that's great too. And if someone went through the effort of refluffing either the damage so it wasn't a cost, or the Vest so it paid the cost, I'd totally let them play that in my games. But it's the assumption, hell, the entitlement that some people have that "If I can find it in a rulebook, then you're obligated to let me play it" that's bullshit. I hate getting into roleplayer/rollplayer arguments, but if you only care about which pieces fit together best, then play another goddamn game (the rhetorical you, btw, not you you).

/vent

tl;dr

No, it's CharOp bulllshit to not refluff your character.

[Kaelik]

That sounds like a personal problem. I've never had anyone believe that because they can find it in a book they are entitled to use it. But of course, maybe that has something to do with the fact that I tell people a wide swath of accepted material, most of which is not from books, and then make clear that I am willing to make up any changes or new rules on the spot to accommodate them.

But sure, I guess if you tell people to build something using 3e WotC books, and then they build something with the books you told them they could use, and then you tell them their character is shit, and cannot be used. That would be a good example of when they might be justifiably upset.

[RadiantPhoenix]

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.

You're feeding other people's soul energy to the power instead of your own. Incarnum is, after all, made of souls.

[JonSetanta]

Going with Halcyon's advice I'll split these maneuvers into individual slots.


And another thought, I could use the "Spellcrafting" concept I posted earlier to make individual maneuvers, then just type those out.

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53107

[HalcyonUmbra]

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.

The problem with hitting 4d4 adjacent targets is that there can only ever be eight adjacent targets; less if you're using hexes. And in practice, you'd be incredibly lucky to find even three opponents standing right next to each other. By missing effects I mean that I know that Air Slash gets a +2 to airborne targets, and I know I can use it at range in a level 1 slot, but I don't know what the ability actually does. I'd assume that it just does normal weapon damage, but you still need to write that down somewhere.

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

Why would you ever consider it a failure? This is the normal design process.

Also:

AAAUURRGG AKUMATSU WHY WOULD YOU FINISH NEGIMA WHEN THERE ARE STILL LIKE A BILLION PLOT THREADS GOING AAAAAAAAAAAA

That sounds like a personal problem. I've never had anyone believe that because they can find it in a book they are entitled to use it. But of course, maybe that has something to do with the fact that I tell people a wide swath of accepted material, most of which is not from books, and then make clear that I am willing to make up any changes or new rules on the spot to accommodate them.

But sure, I guess if you tell people to build something using 3e WotC books, and then they build something with the books you told them they could use, and then you tell them their character is shit, and cannot be used. That would be a good example of when they might be justifiably upset.

I apologize if I gave the impression that this was some sort of regular occurence in my group. Of course I'd be an asshole if I blew up everytime someone dared approach me with inconsistent fluff and I didn't work with them on their concept. I was complaining talking about behavior I see online. My rage on this matter is really more academic than practical.

You're feeding other people's soul energy to the power instead of your own. Incarnum is, after all, made of souls.

I vaguely recall this justification from one of the many skubfests that resulted from this build. I remember not being very satisfied with it at the time because I figured the Vest was protecting you from the damage, not taking the damage for you. Thinking about it now, however, it's decently logical. I might rule that each blast causes temporary Essentia drain, or causes the Meld to dissipate after it prevented whatever amount of damage. Or I might just let it be, I dunno.

[Username17]

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

If you're having magic items displace activated character abilities, then yes it is.

-Username17

[Eikre]

Carrying a sword is having it assigned to a slot, unless you think having a sword in your hand shouldn't preclude having another sword in that same hand at that same moment. Whether you need the tiered system where you can preform chakra binds and then be wearing your vest or holding your sword super hard is left to question, as is the time investment on switching assets out of their slots, but I don't think it's important to resolve if you're only pursuing the concept.

I really appreciate that this discussion is getting some play, here. I really dig the conceptual schedule in Incarnum, something about how boldly it characterizes both the preparation and ad-hoc minigames that everyone plays in D&D appeals to me. The notion of working it out into the basis for a whole game's magic items is compelling.

You guys think that this could be used as part of the approach to character buffs and the caster disparity? This isn't a refined example and I would never make it work exactly like this, but bear with me: You consider a situation in which a Wizard can use an innate ability to generate a spell for Flight, and where a Rogue has to rely on something external to get the same effect; if the rogue still can't generate the effect himself but has something innate, like a deeper pool of Blue Mana, which makes him the more favorable recipient of the buff than the wizard himself, then both guys have a reason to stick around because they can collectively make an asset go farther than just one guy on his own.

Clearly you already had things like this before with the interaction between other subsystems, like Sneak Attack and Invisibility, but this is just another thing.

[Eikre]

On another read, I guess what I should promote isn't that carrying the sword counts as slot occupation, it's that empty-handed techniques can and should exist so that the sword has a valid player ability that it's displacing.

But the first thing I thought of was that there doesn't have to be bother with the nomenclature of "being bound," which is metaphysical and maybe not immediately obvious, when you've got "hey man I've got a shirt on, no more room for shirts," at least not initially. Which is possibly to be counted as a strength.

[JonSetanta]

Also:

AAAUURRGG AKUMATSU WHY WOULD YOU FINISH NEGIMA WHEN THERE ARE STILL LIKE A BILLION PLOT THREADS GOING AAAAAAAAAAAA

I'm re-reading it, I should say.
Chapter 130 right now. During the festival with the giant tree and Chao's time travel.
By the time I got to the end recently, I forgot the middle.



Here's my latest writeup.


Maneuver Types

Melee Strike
Action: 1 Melee attack action
Recharge: End of turn
Range: Melee
Area: Single target
Saving Throw: As by maneuver, upon hit (successful save negates)

Ranged Strike
Action: 1 Thrown or Fired Projectile attack action
Recharge: End of turn
Range: Use range of projectile
Area: Single target
Saving Throw: As by maneuver, upon hit (successful save negates)

Counter
Action: 1 Immediate Melee attack action, once each round
Recharge: End of turn
Range: Melee
Area: Single attack





Special Values

Combat Check
Level + STR bonus + size modifier + other bonuses for the weapon you wield

Combat DC
10 + ½ Level + DEX bonus + STR bonus + size modifier + other bonuses for the weapon you wield






Slot Level 1

AIR SLASH
Maneuver Slot 1
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Slashing damage
Your melee attack is changed into a Force projectile that deals Slashing damage.
The projectile’s range is Close, but is otherwise treated as a melee attack with reach.

FISHER SPEAR
Maneuver Slot 1
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Piercing damage
If your target is Prone or swimming, you get +4 to attack.
If they are hit they can’t make Move actions for 1 round.

WING PIN
Maneuver Slot 1
Ranged Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Piercing damage
If your target is in the air or flying, they can’t jump or fly for 10 rounds and fall at a rate of 60 feet each round.

HALTING STRIKE
Maneuver Slot 1
Melee Strike
Your target stops all movement for the round and can’t make Move actions until the end of the round.

LUNGE
Maneuver Slot 1
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Piercing damage
Increase your reach by 5 feet per maximum maneuver slot level for this maneuver.

SAVAGE BLOW
Maneuver Slot 1
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Slashing or Bludgeoning damage
Add 2 per maximum maneuver slot level to damage dealt with this maneuver.

FULL DODGE
Maneuver Slot 1
Counter
Make a Reflex save, also adding all Deflection and non-Dexterity bonuses that normally go to your AC, against the attack roll or area effect DC that targets you. If you succeed, the attack misses.

BLOCK
Maneuver Slot 1
Counter
Requires: Wielding a weapon or shield
Make a Combat Check against the attack roll or area effect DC that targets you or an ally within melee reach. If you succeed, the damage portion of the attack or the area effect does not harm you or your ally.



Slot Level 2

LANCE IMPALE
Maneuver Slot 2
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Piercing damage
If your target is Prone or against a wall, the target is Impaled to the surface. You can’t make further attacks with that weapon used but the target can’t make Move actions until either you or they spend an Attack action to remove this condition.
Removing the Impaled condition readies your weapon for use again.

WHIRLWIND BLADE
Maneuver Slot 2
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Slashing damage
Your attack hits all targets surrounding you that have an AC no higher than your attack roll.

HEADSLAP
Maneuver Slot 2
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Bludgeoning damage
If your attack roll beats your target’s AC by at least 5, you may cause one of the following status effects to your opponent for 2 rounds;
• Deaf
• Blind
• Can’t speak

CRITICAL STAB
Maneuver Slot 2
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Piercing damage
Using this maneuver is an Immediate action if you made a successful critical hit against an opponent.
You deal 2 Constitution damage to your opponent.

HIT AND RUN
Maneuver Slot 2
Melee Strike
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, Provokes, or denied their Dexterity bonus to AC for the round. This movement uses your Move action for the next round.

VOID MOVEMENT
Maneuver Slot 2
Melee Strike
You may make a Move action as part of this maneuver. You are invisible for the movement, until either you attack or the Move action is complete.
If you are hit while making your invisible Move action, you become immediately visible.

SUNDERING BLOCK
Maneuver Slot 1
Counter
Requires: Wielding a weapon or shield
Make a Combat Check against the attack roll or area effect DC that targets you or an ally within melee reach. If you succeed, the damage portion of the attack or the area effect does not harm you or your ally, and you may make a Sunder attempt against the weapon attacking you or your ally if it is within melee reach.


Slot Level 3

SEVER SLASH
Maneuver Slot 3
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Slashing damage
Using this maneuver is an Immediate action if you made a successful critical hit against an opponent.
You sever an opponent’s limb of your choice.

PULVERIZE
Maneuver Slot 3
Melee Strike
Requires: A two-handed weapon attack that deals Bludgeoning damage
You ignore the Hardness of an object, or the Damage Reduction of a target denied their Dexterity bonus, and deal an additional 10 damage.
You may sacrifice any number of melee attacks before using this maneuver. For each attack you sacrifice, this attack deals an additional 10 damage.

REBOUND TOSS
Maneuver Slot 3
Ranged Strike (Thrown only)
Requires: An attack that deals Bludgeoning damage
After your thrown attack, the weapon bounces back to your hand if it hit your target.

CRATER BLOW
Maneuver Slot 3
Melee Strike
You make a normal attack, but also create a burst that deals an equal amount of damage as a Force effect to everything within 5 foot radius per level other than you. Everyone else within that area gets a Reflex save against your Combat DC for half damage.

AIR PATH
Maneuver Slot 3
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Slashing damage
Your melee attack is changed into a Force projectile that deals Slashing damage.
You damage everything within a 10-foot wide line created out to Medium distance. Everyone else within that area gets a Reflex save against your Combat DC for half damage.


Slot Level 4

WHIRLWIND BLADE, GREATER
Maneuver Slot 4
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Slashing damage
Your attack hits all targets surrounding you that have an AC no higher than your attack roll.
Opponents hit must make a Fortitude save against your Combat DC or be knocked Prone.

DIMENSION STRIKE
Maneuver Slot 4
Melee Strike
You briefly open a Dimension Door that only your attack travels through.
You may attack a single target within Close distance that you can see.
If your attack is made unarmed with a grasping limb, you may attempt to grapple your target for 1 round or grab an unattended item that fits in your palm.

PURE TOUGHNESS
Maneuver Slot 4
Counter
Requires: You are aware of the attack
Make a Fortitude save adding your Strength bonus, or Combat Check against the attack roll or save DC of an attack or effect targeting you.
If you succeed, the attack or effect is negated, and any non-magical weapon used to attack you is destroyed.


Slot Level 5

DIAGONAL SLICE
Maneuver Slot 5
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Slashing damage
Your target makes a Fortitude save against your Combat DC. If they fail, they take an amount of Precision damage equal to half their maximum Hit Points.
If this attack drops a target to 0 HP, they are cut cleanly in half.

Slot Level 6

DIMENSION STRIKE, GREATER
Maneuver Slot 6
Melee Strike
You briefly open a Dimension Door that only your attack travels through.
You may attack a single target within Long distance that you can see.
If your attack is made unarmed with a grasping limb, you may attempt to grapple your target for 5 rounds or grab an unattended item that fits in your palm.




Slot Level 7


DEATH SLICE
Maneuver Slot 7
Melee Strike
Requires: An attack that deals Slashing damage
Your target makes a Fortitude save against your Combat DC. If they fail, they take an amount of Precision damage equal to their maximum Hit Points.
If this attack drops a target to 0 HP, they are cut cleanly in half.




EDIT: Added some Counters. The use of Combat Check and DC was somewhat necessary to cut down on extraneous text, using shorthand just like Pathfinder does, otherwise I'd be writing out the formula every time it's mentioned.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You know, I always wondered.

From a strict narrative perspective, do people just not like having their abilities and superpowers carved up and categorized up to and including the schedule for use? I find that kind of hard to believe personally since people LOVE Dragonball and Naruto and Marvel Universe databooks which does just that.

Or is what they're rebelling against the schedule? I personally find that much more plausible, actually. One of the most common 'tweaks' to the resource management system of games with spell charges is implementing spell points or just making everything At-Will.

[JonSetanta]

I've played with per-day mechanics since 15 years ago, back in AD&D.

It's always been stupid and annoying and never made sense.

Sometimes a DM would fix the spells (as you say Lago, rebelling.... by making it mana or at-will) but most usually they wouldn't. Then comes running out of spells (most sessions were low level play) and the 8-hour nap, which doesn't usually come with most fantasy tropes.

In fact I'd say the one-encounter-per-day thing is uniquely D&D, and I've always hated it.

So, yes, I'm rebelling.

[HalcyonUmbra]

On another read, I guess what I should promote isn't that carrying the sword counts as slot occupation, it's that empty-handed techniques can and should exist so that the sword has a valid player ability that it's displacing.

But the first thing I thought of was that there doesn't have to be bother with the nomenclature of "being bound," which is metaphysical and maybe not immediately obvious, when you've got "hey man I've got a shirt on, no more room for shirts," at least not initially. Which is possibly to be counted as a strength.

What he means is (if he's building on Koumei's example, anyway) is that a sword isn't always going to be displacing a hand-to-hand combat ability. It might be replacing your Orc Toughness or your Rogue Evasion. But I'm still not sure why you need slots. It seems like you'd get the same effect by just sufficiently limiting the mana available, particularly since you're only spending one mana per slot. So having 2 red mana and 3 blue mana is equivalent to having 5 slots. It's not identical, of course; you get to have 3 "blue mana type" abilities running simultaneously, but that's not a bad thing.

edit: I do understand why you need slots and mana if you want 3 "tiers" of investment, what I'm wondering is if 3 tiers is as streamlined as you can get.

From a strict narrative perspective, do people just not like having their abilities and superpowers carved up and categorized up to and including the schedule for use? I find that kind of hard to believe personally since people LOVE Dragonball and Naruto and Marvel Universe databooks which does just that.

An aspect of my ideal system is the assumption that a player is going to decide what he wants to do and then look to the rulebook to adjucate how his action turns out. That's the thing I dislike most about 4e; you never look at the battlemap first. You're always looking at what powers you have left, and which will do the most damage.

So I don't think it's that people are opposed to having categorized super techniques per-se, it's that people are opposed to only having categorized super techniques. I mean, Sasuke can only use the Chidori twice per day (okay, probably more than that now), and Naruto can only stay in Sage mode for five minutes at a time, but they're both still perfectly capable of just running up and punching a guy, and it's such a valid technique that that they often do.

@Sigma

It's been a bit since the beginning of the thread; I think it'd be worthwhile to restate your design goals. It's my understanding that all martial characters will have access to these, and that they're meant to at least lessen the disparity between them and casters, correct?

I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding earlier. At the time, I thought that these were more similar to the ToB maneuvers, in that they were basically spells, with damage rolls and effects independent from how "strong" your character was. But now I see they're meant to replace melee attacks, not supplement them, and that changes some of my assumptions.

[JonSetanta]

@Sigma

It's been a bit since the beginning of the thread; I think it'd be worthwhile to restate your design goals. It's my understanding that all martial characters will have access to these, and that they're meant to at least lessen the disparity between them and casters, correct?

I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding earlier. At the time, I thought that these were more similar to the ToB maneuvers, in that they were basically spells, with damage rolls and effects independent from how "strong" your character was. But now I see they're meant to replace melee attacks, not supplement them, and that changes some of my assumptions.

In a classless system where "slots" means maneuvers or spells, yes, anyone can have any mix of the two.
But that's not the case with D&D RAW. You need a "martial class" such as Warblade, so that's pretty much what I designed the maneuvers for. It's an OK chassis.

Anything that increases the power of noncasters is fine by me.

Maneuvers still don't entirely replace attacks. You can't "full attack" with an array of diffferent maneuvers each round; you only get one, unless you can defy that inherent recharge limit.
You also get 1 counter, which can be used as an Immediate action once each round.
I took note of the action economy.

Unsure of what to do with boosts. I could make some that duplicate spell buffs, but at that point I'd just say "use a spell buff as a boost that lasts as long as you spend a Swift action each round" such as Bull's Strength or Divine Power and done. Saved a lot of work there.

[Eikre]

But I'm still not sure why you need slots. It seems like you'd get the same effect by just sufficiently limiting the mana available, particularly since you're only spending one mana per slot. So having 2 red mana and 3 blue mana is equivalent to having 5 slots. It's not identical, of course; you get to have 3 "blue mana type" abilities running simultaneously, but that's not a bad thing.

edit: I do understand why you need slots and mana if you want 3 "tiers" of investment, what I'm wondering is if 3 tiers is as streamlined as you can get.

If you don't have slots then everyone will still wear every single magic item they can get their hands on and wizards will still place every single buff they have in their spellbooks. Magic Christmas Tree is intact and all you've implemented is a new short-term resource, when Incarnum, both in its original conception and the use we're adapting it for here, is about the interplay between the long-term preparation and the short-term management.

If you have a shoulder-slot innate character ability, like the "Quarterback's Forced Imposition Technique," and then the Wizard has a wing-growing Flight spell and you find an Armadillo Cloak, you can retain all of those in your repertoire of neat shoulder-slot effects, but you still have an obligation to make choices because you can only have one on at once and switching them is a time commitment that you don't want to invest in combat.

You are then less likely to be characterized as a walking list of magic items, because you don't even need a single one to be bringing the same number of tactics to any discreet fight, and you're less likely to resent the Wizard for his power because when he uses a buff it's a tactical decision and possibly made jointly with another player, it's not just some extra thing out of a list of dozens of extra things which come free with the infinite kindness of his very presence.

[Lago PARANOIA]

An aspect of my ideal system is the assumption that a player is going to decide what he wants to do and then look to the rulebook to adjucate how his action turns out.

Unless you're doing things heavily MTP or strictly mundane, this is an Incredibly Bad Idea. Pyro and Slade and Zuko all broadly fall under the category of 'fire manipulators', but they're different characters. Slade summoning up a wall of fire from nothing is okay, Zuko doing it is highly suspect, Pyro is right out. Pyro creating loyal fire demons is highly out of character for him to do, but the only way we can stop him from doing this is to define limits to his fire powers.

And since it's much either to define a character's powers with 'you can do 1, 2, 3, and 4' than 'you can do everything BUT 36, 420, 441, 98, etc.' that's why powers are carved up like they are.

I believe that overly narrow power usage is bad. It stifles creativity and leads to repetitive and boring tactics. However, the solution to this being 'think of your tactic first, THEN see if you have the power' just cannot work. Either you end up being constantly cockblocked by your restrictions or you have an argument over whether Cyclops is allowed to twist his eye lasers like Omega beams.

So I don't think it's that people are opposed to having categorized super techniques per-se, it's that people are opposed to only having categorized super techniques. I mean, Sasuke can only use the Chidori twice per day (okay, probably more than that now), and Naruto can only stay in Sage mode for five minutes at a time, but they're both still perfectly capable of just running up and punching a guy, and it's such a valid technique that that they often do.

If you don't put some kind of restriction on power use, you'll just have Naruto spamming Ultimate Rasengan over and over again and maybe switching up tactics if you arbitrarily or tactically cockblock him.

However, keep in mind that even if you put in restrictions like spell charges or mana points, people will still gravitate towards the best perceived option. I mean, that's kind of the point behind resource management, but do keep in mind that the reason why characters in single-author fiction switch up character powers is because they control the narrative. In a game, sometimes your incredible crowd-pleasing Scooby Doo plan outright fails and it's necessary for this to happen. Not only that, it's often the case where an incredible crowd-pleasing Scooby Doo plan would outright fail but a boring and obvious use of a power would not.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I also heavily disagree with the ideas of fungible magic slots and chakras insofar as it's supposed to be a way to balance casters and non-casters while still allowing the latter to keep VAH flavor. But we've been down that road before.

[Username17]

But I'm still not sure why you need slots. It seems like you'd get the same effect by just sufficiently limiting the mana available, particularly since you're only spending one mana per slot.

There are two things you are trying to balance. The first is active buffs (slots), and the second is super moves per unit time (mana). The idea with Incarnum was that your active buff slots could be your option list for mana-costing super moves. That the cards in your hand would have an effect when "played" but also be your list of active buffs when simply laid out in front of you.

It represents a huge simplification over the current system of having unlimited active buffs and quasi-limited magic items and a disordered list of special options that might or might not be on the same power schedule. But I don't think you would want to simplify it any more.

I also heavily disagree with the ideas of fungible magic slots and chakras insofar as it's supposed to be a way to balance casters and non-casters while still allowing the latter to keep VAH flavor. But we've been down that road before.

I think it's mostly a way to balance character abilities against magic items. If Tiger Style is weak enough that everyone trades it out for a belt or magic helmet or something, then you're on good grounds to call it objectively underpowered.

Of course, you're still going to have problems like however bullshit the passive benefits of Sleep Magic are, if when spending mana on it you win the fucking game, it's still over powered. But Sleep Magic has been like that for the last 6 editions of the game, so whatever.

-Username17

[ModelCitizen]

An aspect of my ideal system is the assumption that a player is going to decide what he wants to do and then look to the rulebook to adjucate how his action turns out. That's the thing I dislike most about 4e; you never look at the battlemap first. You're always looking at what powers you have left, and which will do the most damage.

I agree with you for things a normal mundane person can do. In real life a six year old without any "powers" can knock another six year old down, repeatedly, so if 4e is going to make a mechanical distinction between Prone and Not Prone then it's unacceptable to tell players they can't knock enemies down in combat. Fuck 4e etc but that seems more like a case that powers and power schedules should be reserved for things a normal person can't do. Nobody comes into an RPG expecting to shoot fire out of his hands or throw boulders just because; he needs the Fireball or Super Strength powers to tell him he can do that.

I think it's mostly a way to balance character abilities against magic items. If Tiger Style is weak enough that everyone trades it out for a belt or magic helmet or something, then you're on good grounds to call it objectively underpowered.

Would you do specific item slots for class powers, or would slotting a class power just mean one less magic item total? Say a PC finds Orion's Starbelt of Fuck You Game Balance. He currently has Tiger Style and doesn't have room to slot a belt item. Is Tiger Style a "belt power" that will always compete with Orion's Starbelt, or can he put on the belt and keep Tiger Style by giving up a lower level class power or his Torc of Use Rope +2 instead?

[HalcyonUmbra]

In a classless system where "slots" means maneuvers or spells, yes, anyone can have any mix of the two.
But that's not the case with D&D RAW. You need a "martial class" such as Warblade, so that's pretty much what I designed the maneuvers for. It's an OK chassis.

So you're currently using a classless system? Or are you using D&D RAW and replacing the Fighter with the Warblade?

Maneuvers still don't entirely replace attacks. You can't "full attack" with an array of diffferent maneuvers each round; you only get one, unless you can defy that inherent recharge limit.
You also get 1 counter, which can be used as an Immediate action once each round.

Ah, see this is why it's good to clearly state design goals. I was under the impression (and your current write up seems to allow) that maneuvers could replace each individual attack in a full attack. If you want to limit it to one a turn, then it should cost a Standard action. Unless you mean that using any maneuver "uses up" the charge for all your maneuvers; so you Air Slash for the first attack of your routine, and then regular attack for the rest. You should probably give an example of how you want an average combat to go.

Unsure of what to do with boosts. I could make some that duplicate spell buffs, but at that point I'd just say "use a spell buff as a boost that lasts as long as you spend a Swift action each round" such as Bull's Strength or Divine Power and done. Saved a lot of work there.

Some quick ideas: You are surrounded by a vortex of wind, gives you bonus AC vs Ranged attacks; if submerged in water, gives you blindsense out 30 ft; gives you a 5 foot increase in threat range for 1 turn; gives you a fear aura, enemies who enter your threatened area must make a will save or become shaken/frightened/panicked; you are cloaked in shadow, giving you partial concealment; you attune yourself to the earth, giving a bonus against trip/grapple/bullrush attempts; you exude an antimagic field out 15 ft; you grow/shrink a size category; you are surrouded by flames, burns nearby dudes; you are surrounded by lightning, shocks nearby dudes; you are surrounded by sharks, bites nearby dudes.



[quote="Eikre]If you have a shoulder-slot innate character ability, like the "Quarterback's Forced Imposition Technique," and then the Wizard has a wing-growing Flight spell and you find an Armadillo Cloak, you can retain all of those in your repertoire of neat shoulder-slot effects, but you still have an obligation to make choices because you can only have one on at once and switching them is a time commitment that you don't want to invest in combat.[/quote]

What I'm suggesting is that "Quarterback's Forced Imposition Technique" and the Flight spell both cost 1 Blue Mana to activate, so if you only have 1 Blue Mana to spend, then you still have to choose between the two.

Unless you're doing things heavily MTP or strictly mundane, this is an Incredibly Bad Idea. Pyro and Slade and Zuko all broadly fall under the category of 'fire manipulators', but they're different characters. Slade summoning up a wall of fire from nothing is okay, Zuko doing it is highly suspect, Pyro is right out. Pyro creating loyal fire demons is highly out of character for him to do, but the only way we can stop him from doing this is to define limits to his fire powers.

I think I tried to make my point too concise, and ended up warping it a bit. What I mean is I want Zuko to just have a general ability to shoot fire out of his hands, and general rules for fire damaging stuff; not a specific technique called "Fiery Flame Fist" that deals 2d8 damage.

I believe that overly narrow power usage is bad. It stifles creativity and leads to repetitive and boring tactics. However, the solution to this being 'think of your tactic first, THEN see if you have the power' just cannot work. Either you end up being constantly cockblocked by your restrictions or you have an argument over whether Cyclops is allowed to twist his eye lasers like Omega beams.

I agree with you on this; that's why I don't want too many techniques. So I don't mean "think of a cool tactic, then check your character sheet and hope you can pull it off." I mean "check your character sheet for abilities, and then apply those abilities however you want (within the rules)."

If you don't put some kind of restriction on power use, you'll just have Naruto spamming Ultimate Rasengan over and over again and maybe switching up tactics if you arbitrarily or tactically cockblock him.

And I don't want to give the impression that I don't want any techniques ever. I'd love for Goku to have "Spirit Bomb: Daily Power You gather the Chi of every lifeform on the planet, focusing it into one massive attack. 20d6 damage." Just as long as it's not every single combat option that's a technique.



edit:

There are two things you are trying to balance. The first is active buffs (slots), and the second is super moves per unit time (mana). The idea with Incarnum was that your active buff slots could be your option list for mana-costing super moves. That the cards in your hand would have an effect when "played" but also be your list of active buffs when simply laid out in front of you.

Ah. "Super moves" was throwing me, then. I thought you were just working with buffs.

[Lokathor]

tags, someone.

[Username17]

Would you do specific item slots for class powers, or would slotting a class power just mean one less magic item total?

One thing that was an unmitigated failure of 3e in general and Magic of Incarnum in particular was attempting to keep track of specific body slots. Trying to explain how you have a shoulder slot free, but not a free neck, arm, or chest slot. Or why you can't wear rings on your toes or your penis.

It's too complicated, and it doesn't do anything good. At no time should a player say "I need a magic pair of eyeglasses for my eyes slot!". When you total up all the places someone could potentially wear a magic item, it's way too many magic items to keep track of. And yet, it still ends up being stupidly restrictive at the same time. Magic of Incarnum had like 10 fucking chakra slots, which is too damn many, but it was still telling me that I couldn't try to benefit from contact lenses and a hat at the same time.

Much better to just give people a small arbitrarily capped number of slots to fill with things. And then possibly have the cap rise as players go up in level.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

In a classless system where "slots" means maneuvers or spells, yes, anyone can have any mix of the two.
But that's not the case with D&D RAW. You need a "martial class" such as Warblade, so that's pretty much what I designed the maneuvers for. It's an OK chassis.

So you're currently using a classless system? Or are you using D&D RAW and replacing the Fighter with the Warblade?

I design with classless in mind, then when reminding myself that 99% of D&D players prefer classes, hone it down into stupid little class restrictions.
But really, I didn't split up maneuvers into schools because noncasters have a hard enough time as it is. The character in itself is already limited in the number of maneuver slots; why tell a player no to what they want to use further than that?

Otherwise yes, replace Fighter with Warblade. Fuck Fighter. Fuck it hard.

Some quick ideas: You are surrounded by a vortex of wind, gives you bonus AC vs Ranged attacks; if submerged in water, gives you blindsense out 30 ft; gives you a 5 foot increase in threat range for 1 turn; gives you a fear aura, enemies who enter your threatened area must make a will save or become shaken/frightened/panicked; you are cloaked in shadow, giving you partial concealment; you attune yourself to the earth, giving a bonus against trip/grapple/bullrush attempts; you exude an antimagic field out 15 ft; you grow/shrink a size category; you are surrouded by flames, burns nearby dudes; you are surrounded by lightning, shocks nearby dudes; you are surrounded by sharks, bites nearby dudes.

I'll get to boosts eventually, but look closely.... those are all already spells! Every single one.

[ishy]

The lead designer on Tome of Battle already said the entire project was to design martial spells.
Honestly the only thing you need to do it obfuscate the fact that your manoeuvres are spells and people will love it.

[ModelCitizen]

One thing that was an unmitigated failure of 3e in general and Magic of Incarnum in particular was attempting to keep track of specific body slots. Trying to explain how you have a shoulder slot free, but not a free neck, arm, or chest slot. Or why you can't wear rings on your toes or your penis.

Personally the only thing I care about item slots doing is preventing you from putting two items into the same physical space on your body. I'd have no problem with allowing a human to wear magic goggles, a Third Eye, and a Brow incarnumbullshit all at the same time, so long as it's not two actual pairs of glasses or goggles. I just don't want to have the argument over whether the Monocle of Ultimate Evil small enough to fit inside the Goggles of Glue Some Gears On It.

Incarnum falls on its face extra hard there because the one place it does need slotting to keep you from putting two melds in the same physical space, it doesn't use it. The rules make you keep track of which meld is bound to your "hands" slot but somehow don't even try to stop you from growing three pairs of claws on each hand.