What's new and could use a perusal?Hm. I think... the new version of the Blademaster prc? And the published PrC stuff in the same thread.
Edit: Anything besides the ACF's that is.
Share Training power has a misplaced tag in the Augment.Whoops, thank you.
Furious Gladiator seems effectively worse than normal Rage until level 17 when it becomes amazing.This came about from me wondering how to integrate Bladecraft & barbarian without continuing to make barb way better than fighter. The answer I came up with was: stealth-nerf rage with some minor Bladecraft bonuses. I'm not super happy with the result. Any ideas?
I see no issue with the other ACFs.Awesome! Except that I've now removed Raging Bladeform in favor of that barb ACF. So... yeah.
I actually really like the adaptation for Bear Warrior.
All the other adaptations look nice.Rock on.
On the Blademaster, Duty is heavier than a mountain is mettle and evasion combined which sets of alarm bells but at that level I don't think it's a legitimate problem.That was my thought as well. It's a capstone on a 5-level prc, sure, but you still have to make your saves.
I'll think about ways to improve Furious Gladiator.What if, for the Tireless Rage thing, instead of having it be automatic, you can make a Bladecraft check to have the round not count towards duration in place of retaining a tag? That should help with the huge jump in power at 17th level.
I'll think about ways to improve Furious Gladiator.What if, for the Tireless Rage thing, instead of having it be automatic, you can make a Bladecraft check to have the round not count towards duration in place of retaining a tag? That should help with the huge jump in power at 17th level.
ACFs:sparta
Animatrix of War looks fine except why would a Dread Necromancer want to be in the thick of things with it's horrible BAB?
Blade Dancer has some typos (see you dance/see you sing are used interchangeably).Derp. Fixing.
Deadly Hunter doesn't say Deadly Hunter in the spoiler. As a side note, I like the idea of this replacing combat styles from a thematic standpoint.Blah. Also, yay!
Devious Assailant could get a little high with damage dice. At 9th level it's 5d6 sneak attack vs 4d8 bladecraft which isn't bad. But at 14th level you're talking 7d6 sneak attack vs 12d6 bladecraft dice (and it gets worse from there).Ok, but I will remind you that a rogue doing this is doing it in melee. And in a Basic Form. It becomes more situational as you get higher in level.
Devoted Soldier looks just fine.You know it... :smirk
Eremite looks fine. However, it brings up some questions. Does an off-hand unarmed attack count for the Rend tag? There should probably be a "Bladecraft while unarmed" section.Uh.... yeah. OK I'll add that section.
Mobile Duelist brings up the same potential damage issues as Devious Assailant now that I'm thinking about it.Indeed. Though significantly less so, because it's just less damage.
Furious Gladiator DiscussionYes, I was aware of all that. The problem I have is that Barb is the best non-ToB pure melee class, and adding Bladecraft to the mix just powers it up, which is problematic.
More ACFsWhoops, fixed.
Analytical Mystic looks very good.
Captain looks better than normal Marshal. This isn't a bad thing. Also your list is broken.
Cunning Versatility looks fine.:D
Curse-Slayer looks better than normal Hexblade. Again, not a bad thing.
Daimyo - Holy crap a samurai option that isn't godawful.
Fox is interesting.Derp, also fixed.
Furious Gladiator - Aww, you used my example alernative. That makes me happy.
Ithron has too much bolding! Again, this one is actively interesting.
Soul Assassin looks fine.Most of it came from the Cavalier's Bladeform feat, yes.
Uhlan looks good but familiar. Was this created to replace a feat?
Have you integrated whatever changes came from the temporary board back into this?Not yet - it was just a couple of edits for the techniques, right?
I'm pretty sure it was just a couple of technique edits.Sweet. Either way I'll get on this, it's super easy.
I don't have any style feat suggestions. What do you want the Bladecraft Weapon Focus tree to do?The point of the normal WF tree is to give you bonuses for using (focusing on) a particular weapon. It's just that the bonuses are so, so terrible. So I'd like to do something like that, but make it actually interesting.
I think I'm okay with Mystic Blade being a feat. It makes things that aren't actually weapons count as weapons, making it a feat tax makes sense from a logical perspective (if they don't count as weapons for anything else they don't count as weapons for Bladecraft automatically) and will probably make it easier for DMs to stomach because it isn't another thing that spellcasters can just be awesome at because reasons for no extra effort.OK, cool. Is it ok as written? Or does it need any clarification?
For the Special Rules, IMO unarmed just needs a section on TWF with unarmed strikes for the purposes of Bladecraft (because honestly I don't think there are any actual rules on the subject). I'm not sure what you would do for Aerial, but for Aquatic you could steal from Pathfinder.Excellent, thank you for that source. I was actually most concerned about Aquatic.
Pathfinder has a condition called "off-balance" (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/environment/wilderness/terrain/aquatic-terrain/). Aquatic Adventures has the following rule in it: "Being prone
doesn’t mean much for a swimming creature, so instead, a successful trip against a swimming creature forces that creature to attempt a Swim check at a DC equal to the result of the combat maneuver check to trip; failing the Swim check causes the creature to become off-balance. Many aquatic creatures can’t be tripped or have a high Swim bonus and thus can always take 10, so this tactic isn’t always effective, but when it is, it can make dexterous foes much easier to hit. However, being off-balance doesn’t affect most of the target’s attack rolls, and the target can regain its balance simply by succeeding at a Swim check to move on its next turn as normal."
Style feats already exist, so you might want to find another name. They were introduced in Complete Warrior and showed up in a few books afterwards. They give you a mediocre benefit for using a specific combination of weapons, armor, shields, etc. and usually require a bunch of feats as prerequisites. Some are actually okay, but most are kinda wasteful.UGH I forgot about those. Stuff like Lightning Mace, right?
Style feats already exist, so you might want to find another name. They were introduced in Complete Warrior and showed up in a few books afterwards. They give you a mediocre benefit for using a specific combination of weapons, armor, shields, etc. and usually require a bunch of feats as prerequisites. Some are actually okay, but most are kinda wasteful.UGH I forgot about those. Stuff like Lightning Mace, right?
I really am not sure what else to call them. Blade Style feats? Adding Blade to everything is getting tedious.
What about the whole "you can't learn more than one of each complexity" part? Should I just throw that under "special" and specify the exclusions?Style feats already exist, so you might want to find another name. They were introduced in Complete Warrior and showed up in a few books afterwards. They give you a mediocre benefit for using a specific combination of weapons, armor, shields, etc. and usually require a bunch of feats as prerequisites. Some are actually okay, but most are kinda wasteful.UGH I forgot about those. Stuff like Lightning Mace, right?
I really am not sure what else to call them. Blade Style feats? Adding Blade to everything is getting tedious.
Why not make them Tactical feats? They already have the same format. Just give each of the three sub-effects a little name of its own and you're done.
What about the whole "you can't learn more than one of each complexity" part? Should I just throw that under "special" and specify the exclusions?
No worries, I'll remove that and just make them tactical feats.What about the whole "you can't learn more than one of each complexity" part? Should I just throw that under "special" and specify the exclusions?
Why is that limit there in the first place? What purpose does it serve for the game balance or the bladecraft fantasy/concept?
Regardless, if you keep it, you should spell it out more explicitly. Something like "This feat is a Basic/Moderate/etc. bladecraft tactical feat. You cannot select it if you already have another bladecraft tactical feat of the same complexity." Mind you, if the limit stays, I'd rather it be something along the lines of being unable to use them simultaneously, rather than being barred from multiples entirely.