Author Topic: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs  (Read 19366 times)


Offline Garryl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4503
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #61 on: July 16, 2017, 11:28:10 PM »
So, Nanshork, got any thoughts about the martial disciplines?

Offline Nanshork

  • Homebrew Reviewer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13393
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #62 on: July 17, 2017, 12:53:05 AM »
Oh yeah, there's a whole subsystem for me to review.   :blush

Any preference about which one I start with?

Offline Garryl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4503
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #63 on: July 17, 2017, 12:56:22 AM »
Alphabetically? I don't know. Whichever catches your eye.

Offline Nanshork

  • Homebrew Reviewer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13393
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #64 on: July 17, 2017, 12:47:29 PM »
I'll just go straight down the list then.

Crushing Juggernaut

The intimidate maneuvers are the least cool things about this discipline.  I like it a lot though.


Mechanus Hand

Why Climb?

Blades of Thunder has a typo "defened".

Inevitable Pursuit needs its language adjusted.  It says "as long as the distance you cover is less than or equal to your speed.", but then says "You can use your opponent's movement mode and speed for this instead of your own, whichever is better."  The intent is obvious, use the opponent's swim/fly/climb/whatever speed instead of your own, but if you're using your opponent's speed instead of your own then that would imply for all purposes, including the distance limitation.


Mechanus's Armory - does the enhancement bonus stack or overlap?

Pithing Strike - Psionics should mention psi-like abilities.

Offline Garryl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4503
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #65 on: July 17, 2017, 02:55:34 PM »
I'll just go straight down the list then.

Crushing Juggernaut

The intimidate maneuvers are the least cool things about this discipline.  I like it a lot though.

Can you elaborate on that?

Quote
Mechanus Hand

Why Climb?

Grip strength, mostly. There's not a strong flavor connection, although there is a bit with Maug locking hands giving bonuses to Climb.

Quote
Blades of Thunder has a typo "defened".

Inevitable Pursuit needs its language adjusted.  It says "as long as the distance you cover is less than or equal to your speed.", but then says "You can use your opponent's movement mode and speed for this instead of your own, whichever is better."  The intent is obvious, use the opponent's swim/fly/climb/whatever speed instead of your own, but if you're using your opponent's speed instead of your own then that would imply for all purposes, including the distance limitation.

Are any of the following better?

When an opponent adjacent to you moves, you can initiate this maneuver to immediately move to any square adjacent to her as soon as she stops moving. You can use any movement mode available to you, or if your opponent moved normally, whichever movement mode and speed she used. The distance you cover must be less than or equal to your speed you use. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

When an opponent adjacent to you moves, you can initiate this maneuver to immediately move to any square adjacent to her as soon as she stops moving, as long as the distance you cover is less than or equal to your speed. You can use your opponent's movement mode and speed for this instead of your own, whichever is better. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

When an opponent adjacent to you moves, you can initiate this maneuver to immediately move up to your speed to any square adjacent to her as soon as she stops moving. If your opponent moved normally, you can use whichever movement mode and speed she used instead of your own, if better. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Quote
Mechanus's Armory - does the enhancement bonus stack or overlap?

Overlap, just like all typed bonuses.

Since you had this same question earlier in the thread when the disciplines were still under construction, I'm just going to add a reminder about it in the stance description.

Quote
Pithing Strike - Psionics should mention psi-like abilities.

Thanks.

Offline Nanshork

  • Homebrew Reviewer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13393
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #66 on: July 17, 2017, 05:38:09 PM »
I'll just go straight down the list then.

Crushing Juggernaut

The intimidate maneuvers are the least cool things about this discipline.  I like it a lot though.

Can you elaborate on that?

The intimidate maneuvers are just bland.  Most of the rest are either thematic from the source material of "Construct" or using existing mechanics (like overrun) that never get used and turning them into maneuvers.  I liked that last part a lot.

Quote
Quote
Mechanus Hand

Why Climb?

Grip strength, mostly. There's not a strong flavor connection, although there is a bit with Maug locking hands giving bonuses to Climb.

Fair enough, it's not like I can come up with a better flavor connection right now.

Quote
Quote
Blades of Thunder has a typo "defened".

Inevitable Pursuit needs its language adjusted.  It says "as long as the distance you cover is less than or equal to your speed.", but then says "You can use your opponent's movement mode and speed for this instead of your own, whichever is better."  The intent is obvious, use the opponent's swim/fly/climb/whatever speed instead of your own, but if you're using your opponent's speed instead of your own then that would imply for all purposes, including the distance limitation.

Are any of the following better?

When an opponent adjacent to you moves, you can initiate this maneuver to immediately move to any square adjacent to her as soon as she stops moving. You can use any movement mode available to you, or if your opponent moved normally, whichever movement mode and speed she used. The distance you cover must be less than or equal to your speed you use. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

When an opponent adjacent to you moves, you can initiate this maneuver to immediately move to any square adjacent to her as soon as she stops moving, as long as the distance you cover is less than or equal to your speed. You can use your opponent's movement mode and speed for this instead of your own, whichever is better. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

When an opponent adjacent to you moves, you can initiate this maneuver to immediately move up to your speed to any square adjacent to her as soon as she stops moving. If your opponent moved normally, you can use whichever movement mode and speed she used instead of your own, if better. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

I'm getting slightly different readings off of the three.  Is the intent that you can't move more than your normal movement speed as part of this maneuver?

Quote
Quote
Mechanus's Armory - does the enhancement bonus stack or overlap?

Overlap, just like all typed bonuses.

Since you had this same question earlier in the thread when the disciplines were still under construction, I'm just going to add a reminder about it in the stance description.

Sounds good.  You know I get picky. :p

Quote
Quote
Pithing Strike - Psionics should mention psi-like abilities.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Offline Garryl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4503
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #67 on: July 17, 2017, 05:52:40 PM »
Quote
Quote
Blades of Thunder has a typo "defened".

Inevitable Pursuit needs its language adjusted.  It says "as long as the distance you cover is less than or equal to your speed.", but then says "You can use your opponent's movement mode and speed for this instead of your own, whichever is better."  The intent is obvious, use the opponent's swim/fly/climb/whatever speed instead of your own, but if you're using your opponent's speed instead of your own then that would imply for all purposes, including the distance limitation.

Are any of the following better?

When an opponent adjacent to you moves, you can initiate this maneuver to immediately move to any square adjacent to her as soon as she stops moving. You can use any movement mode available to you, or if your opponent moved normally, whichever movement mode and speed she used. The distance you cover must be less than or equal to your speed you use. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

When an opponent adjacent to you moves, you can initiate this maneuver to immediately move to any square adjacent to her as soon as she stops moving, as long as the distance you cover is less than or equal to your speed. You can use your opponent's movement mode and speed for this instead of your own, whichever is better. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

When an opponent adjacent to you moves, you can initiate this maneuver to immediately move up to your speed to any square adjacent to her as soon as she stops moving. If your opponent moved normally, you can use whichever movement mode and speed she used instead of your own, if better. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

I'm getting slightly different readings off of the three.  Is the intent that you can't move more than your normal movement speed as part of this maneuver?

The intent is as you originally read it. You can move up to your speed, with whatever movement mode that speed is attached to, or you can move up to your opponent's speed, using whichever speed and movement mode they used. For example, if your opponent flew up a cliff (fly 20 ft. (good)), you could use your land speed (50 ft.) to walk up the twisting path leading up the side of the cliff, use your climb speed (20 ft.) to scale the cliff, use your swim speed (30 ft.) to swim up the waterfall, or borrow that same flight speed that your opponent used to just fly up. If that same flying opponent cast dimension door to teleport up there (not a movement mode), you'd still be able to walk, climb, or swim up there, but not fly (since they didn't fly) or teleport (since the teleportation isn't their movement mode).

Edit: To clarify, the distance you move is intended to be limited by whatever movement speed is attached to the movement mode you actually use.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 05:55:00 PM by Garryl »

Offline Nanshork

  • Homebrew Reviewer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13393
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #68 on: July 17, 2017, 07:21:46 PM »
Ohhhhhh, I thought the intent was something different.  The language is fine then!

Offline Garryl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4503
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #69 on: July 17, 2017, 11:03:59 PM »
I had some ideas for alternatives to the demoralize-based maneuvers in Crushing Juggernaut.

Destabilizing Smash
Crushing Juggernaut (Strike)
Level: Clockwork Warrior 4
Prerequisite: One Crushing Juggernaut maneuver
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack
Target: One creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial
As part of this maneuver, you make a melee attack. This attack deals an extra 5d6 points of damage. The creature struck must make a Fortitude save (DC 14 + your Str modifier). On a failure, the force of your blow breaks your opponent's stable combat stance, causing it to immediately exit any martial stance it is in. The next time the opponent tries to enter a martial stance, it takes 1 full-round action in addition to the stance's normal initiation action (1 swift action). If the opponent was not in a martial stance, it is instead knocked prone.



Hard Counter
Crushing Juggernaut (Counter)
Level: Clockwork Warrior 4
Prerequisite: Two Crushing Juggernaut maneuvers
Initiation Action: 1 immediate action
Range: Melee attack
Target: One creature
You can initiate this maneuver after an opponent hits you with a melee or ranged attack. You make a melee attack against that opponent.



Mighty Force
Crushing Juggernaut (Strike)
Level: Clockwork Warrior 1
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack
Target: One creature or object
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (object)
As part of this maneuver, you make a melee attack. This attack deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, and the target struck must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC 11 + your Str modifier) or be pushed 5 feet away from you. If the creature's path is blocked, it ends its movement in the last unoccupied square. The enemy’s movement doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.

Offline Nanshork

  • Homebrew Reviewer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13393
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #70 on: July 17, 2017, 11:17:57 PM »
Hard Counter vs Staredown

I actually think Staredown was the best of the bunch, thematic and using the skill well.  Hard Counter isn't bad at all, but Staredown is cool.


Destabilizing Smash vs Terrorizing Assault

Destabilizing Smash is cool.  Very cool. 


Mighty Force vs Imposing Assault

This makes Mighty Force feel like the beginning of a chain, I do like the feeling of progression!


My main issues with the Intimidate manuevers is that demoralizing your opponents doesn't really do anything for you.  There's no follow up.  Staredown has the demoralizing as the follow-up which makes it a non-issue for me.

The maneuvers just feel more like something that would be in a custom discipline for the Dread Champion.

Offline Garryl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4503
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #71 on: July 18, 2017, 07:33:13 PM »
The discussed changes are up. I left Staredown in, but I found a home for Hard Counter (albeit inverted) to become a new Shifting Steel maneuver instead.

So, any thought on the third discipline?

Offline Nanshork

  • Homebrew Reviewer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13393
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #72 on: July 18, 2017, 08:05:32 PM »
Shifting Steel

Battle Dancer - having the timer be 1 minute feels odd given that it's for in combat.  I'd write "(10 rounds)" after 1 minute, everyone should know that 10 rounds = 1 minute so I'm not pushy about this, it's just that minutes never equate to combat time in my brain.

Dancing Steel - Full attack as a level 4 maneuver feels too early, but that's just a gut reaction.  I don't know if it actually is a problem.

Infinite Blade Works - I was trying to figure out why this is so much better than the Diamond Mind maneuver so I looked it up and Avalanche of Blade is a level 7 maneuver so this is fine.

Swift Retort looks familiar.   :smirk


All in all this discipline looks really well put together.  The only thing that popped into my head would be a stance that invalidates the Bloodstorm Blade prestige class, the stance version of Torrent of Steel.  It isn't needed, just what popped into my head.

Offline Garryl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4503
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #73 on: July 18, 2017, 10:32:30 PM »
Shifting Steel

Battle Dancer - having the timer be 1 minute feels odd given that it's for in combat.  I'd write "(10 rounds)" after 1 minute, everyone should know that 10 rounds = 1 minute so I'm not pushy about this, it's just that minutes never equate to combat time in my brain.

I was thinking about changing the stance slightly so that you don't have to track exactly when you last attacked each creature. The current version technically requires you to track it, since 10 rounds after your last attack against a creature, you lose the +1 bonus for attacking that specific creature, even though you keep the bonuses for every other creature you've attacked in that time.

Possible new version:
While you are in this stance, you can fluidly flow from foe to foe, the momentum of battle carrying your swordplay to new heights of speed and skill. You gain a +1 bonus on melee attack rolls and melee weapon damage rolls for each enemy beyond the first that you have attacked this encounter while in this stance. This bonus stacks up to a maximum of +5 (after attacking six different enemies).

Quote
Dancing Steel - Full attack as a level 4 maneuver feels too early, but that's just a gut reaction.  I don't know if it actually is a problem.

Just out of curiosity, what level would you peg it at?

Quote
Infinite Blade Works - I was trying to figure out why this is so much better than the Diamond Mind maneuver so I looked it up and Avalanche of Blade is a level 7 maneuver so this is fine.

I actually ran the numbers in the past and with the kind of numbers that I expect to come up around level 17 without serious optimization (specifically, that your attack bonus roughly equals your target's AC), the average number of hits winds up pretty close to Diamond Mind's time stands still. Time stands still is better if you get bonus attacks or use multiple weapons (which provide no benefit for infinite blade works), are facing miss chances, or just have a lower attack bonus, while infinite blade works scales really well with a higher attack bonus.

Quote
Swift Retort looks familiar.   :smirk

 :sh

Quote
All in all this discipline looks really well put together.  The only thing that popped into my head would be a stance that invalidates the Bloodstorm Blade prestige class, the stance version of Torrent of Steel.  It isn't needed, just what popped into my head.

Thanks.

I already feel like Shifting Steel is stepping on the Bloodstorm Blade's toes with those two boosts. I don't really want to outdo the class as a whole (even if it would still have a few neat things, like thrown attacks counting as melee).
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 11:53:57 PM by Garryl »

Offline Nanshork

  • Homebrew Reviewer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13393
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #74 on: July 19, 2017, 12:19:22 AM »
Shifting Steel

Battle Dancer - having the timer be 1 minute feels odd given that it's for in combat.  I'd write "(10 rounds)" after 1 minute, everyone should know that 10 rounds = 1 minute so I'm not pushy about this, it's just that minutes never equate to combat time in my brain.

I was thinking about changing the stance slightly so that you don't have to track exactly when you last attacked each creature. The current version technically requires you to track it, since 10 rounds after your last attack against a creature, you lose the +1 bonus for attacking that specific creature, even though you keep the bonuses for every other creature you've attacked in that time.

Possible new version:
While you are in this stance, you can fluidly flow from foe to foe, the momentum of battle carrying your swordplay to new heights of speed and skill. You gain a +1 bonus on melee attack rolls and melee weapon damage rolls for each enemy beyond the first that you have attacked this encounter while in this stance. This bonus stacks up to a maximum of +5 (after attacking six different enemies).

I don't see any issues with this.

Quote
Quote
Dancing Steel - Full attack as a level 4 maneuver feels too early, but that's just a gut reaction.  I don't know if it actually is a problem.

Just out of curiosity, what level would you peg it at?

It's fine, I forgot about everyone getting pounce with a 1 level dip.

Quote
Quote
Infinite Blade Works - I was trying to figure out why this is so much better than the Diamond Mind maneuver so I looked it up and Avalanche of Blade is a level 7 maneuver so this is fine.

I actually ran the numbers in the past and with the kind of numbers that I expect to come up around level 17 without serious optimization (specifically, that your attack bonus roughly equals your target's AC), the average number of hits winds up pretty close to Diamond Mind's time stands still. Time stands still is better if you get bonus attacks or use multiple weapons (which provide no benefit for infinite blade works), are facing miss chances, or just have a lower attack bonus, while infinite blade works scales really well with a higher attack bonus.

I'm glad somebody ran the numbers because I never want to do serious math again for the rest of my life.  :P

Quote
Quote
Swift Retort looks familiar.   :smirk

 :sh

 :tongue

Quote
Quote
All in all this discipline looks really well put together.  The only thing that popped into my head would be a stance that invalidates the Bloodstorm Blade prestige class, the stance version of Torrent of Steel.  It isn't needed, just what popped into my head.

Thanks.

I already feel like Shifting Steel is stepping on the Bloodstorm Blade's toes with those two boosts. I don't really want to outdo the class as a whole (even if it would still have a few neat things, like thrown attacks counting as melee).

Eh, I never actually see anyone use Bloodstorm Blade (which is all about Ironheart anyway) so it should be fine.

Offline Garryl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4503
    • View Profile
Re: Gears of War: Tome of Battle for Constructs
« Reply #75 on: July 19, 2017, 12:44:59 AM »
Alright. The new wording is in.

If you're feeling up to it, I'd like to direct your attention to the martial discipline I finished up a couple days ago, Phantom Battleground. It's all about mirror images, although it has less general illusion stuff than I'd originally expected. Go figure.