Author Topic: Discussion and Suggestion Thread  (Read 224477 times)

Offline Amechra

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4560
  • Thread Necromancy a specialty
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #40 on: November 22, 2011, 02:17:14 PM »
I've got a PrC or two for your system I'm working on, and I'll be able to post them in a bit.
"There is happiness for those who accept their fate, there is glory for those that defy it."

"Now that everyone's so happy, this is probably a good time to tell you I ate your parents."

Offline DonQuixote

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #41 on: November 22, 2011, 02:26:39 PM »
Huzzah!  Third-party material!   :p

Anyway, I probably won't meddle too much with anything anyone chooses to post here, unless you're really asking for it.  However, I may meddle with the exact wording of posted material, as I am a stickler for proper phrasing and the like.  Hope nobody minds.

Edit: Because I'm neurotic--and I really don't want to write this paper--I have posted a set of caveats, rules, and guidelines for people who are not me who wish to post spellshaping material.  It's pretty basic stuff, but my neurosis demanded that I make the post.  Said rules may be updated as more ideas occur to me or suchlike.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 05:02:45 AM by DonQuixote »
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline DonQuixote

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2011, 02:09:31 PM »
...and, then, my brain decided that I didn't get to be done with Codex II.

See, I was trying to figure out how exactly to attack the Warheart item issue--I don't want to just directly copy it if possible, and I'm trying to decide how I want the spellshape attack to work in there--when my brain betrayed me.

"You know," it said, "you put some Wondrous Items in Codex I, and no magic items in Codex II at all.  I guess someone isn't dedicated to his current project."

"Like hell I'm not!" I roared at my brain, trying--in futility, as always--to punch it in the snout and thereby establish my dominance.  "Just watch!  The Warheart Items could go really well in Codex II!  Yeah, there's going to be a magic items chapter in there, just for them!"

"An entire chapter, for just one thing?" my jerk of a brain asked.

...things rapidly went downhill from there.  So, I guess I'm now semi-officially announcing that, at some point, the shaper's lamen will be a thing.  You'll be able to use a lamen to enhance your spellshape attacks like they were weapons, sort of like a necklace of natural weapons.  Except that, instead of using the necklace of natural weapons way of doing it, the effects of a lamen will automatically apply to any spellshape attack you shape, unless you choose to suppress the lamen's effects.  However, a lamen costs approximately twice as much as a similar weapon of the same total enhancement bonus.

I'll give it more thought and planning when I actually feel alive.  As it is right now, I keep having to read the thread over again, as I keep almost-dozing-off.  Basically, though, modifying your spellshape attacks will be a thing that you're capable of doing.



Update (11/26/11): So, some more thinking has occurred in those rare moments that my family allows me to myself.  First of all, Still Spellshape is going to be removed--it's too good, and it lets you bypass too much.

Secondly, a new feat will be added.  This is the feat that's going to let you craft the warheart-item-equivalents, as well as crafting lamen (lamens?  Plural to be investigated).  A lamen is going to work sort of like an ioun stone, in that it won't take up an item slot, but it probably won't circle your head.  Base price currently undetermined.

It's going to work like enhancing an item, except that the enhancement bonus will apply on either checks made to overcome spell resistance or on attack rolls, depending on the spellshape attack.  Moreover, there's going to be a specific list of enhancements, rather than just being any weapon effect.

There's also going to be a nice conversion setup that lets a crafter convert pre-existing bonuses to other bonuses, making it easier and cheaper to redesign your combat style.

Pricing is still up in the air, but I'm thinking 1.5 x the cost of a weapon with the equivalent bonus level.  Spellshape attacks are a little better than weapons, after all, but I don't want it to be too cost-prohibitive.


Still trying to decide if there are any other sorts of magic item that should be included for spellshapers.



Update Again (11/29/11): So, I've written up the actual rules text for lamens and about a quarter of the special abilities.  I just need to write up the other fifteen, figure out Spellheart Items, and write the feat.

I'm then planning to make a single "Items" thread, much as there's a single thread for feats.  I expect to have it up this weekend or next.



Update the Third (11/30/11): Nothing new to report in the way of progress, as I fell asleep last night when I was planning to write more enhancements for lamens.  However, I have figured out how spellheart items are going to work.

Weapons will be capable of holding formulae that modify spellshape attacks, whereas armor will hold formulae that affect you or your allies, rather than splitting it on major and minor formulae.  This allows armor that holds things like Brilliant Radiance, which makes more sense than a sword.

They will get enhancement bonuses in the same way that warheart items do, and they won't be conventionally enhanceable, also like warheart items.

However!

A spellheart weapon will not deal damage in the way that a normal weapon of its type will.  Instead, it will always deal damage as though it was the spellshape attack contained in it.  Moreover, spellheart items do not get an enhancement bonus to damage, and you do not add your Strength modifier to damage rolls with them.

In other words, a Warhammer of Crushing Slam won't deal 1d8 points of bludgeoning damage, with a x3 critical modifier.  As a Crushing Stone weapon, it will deal damage as though it were a rockslam attack shaped according to your shaper level.  As a weapon of a 5th-level formula, it will have a +3 enhancement bonus to attack rolls, and it will have an initiator level of 9th.  In total: +3 enhancement bonus on attack rolls, deals Xd8 points of bludgeoning damage, x2 critical modifier.  Once per encounter, you can shape the Crushing Slam formula through the weapon.

That's for 28,000 gp, so, not bad.  However!  There is more.  A spellheart weapon can be enhanced as though it were a lamen, which I'm going to have to figure out how to price.  Since the weapon already has the enhancement bonuses, I can't just have it priced normally--you'd pay for some of the enhancement twice.  I'm thinking you pay the amount necessary for the enhancement increase.  Thus, to enhance a spellheart weapon that already had a +3 enhancement bonus with an ability that costs a +1 bonus, you would pay the difference between +3 and +4--21,000 gp.  (I'm also making this the case for further enhancing lamens that have already been enhanced, so yay for not having to pay XP costs for already-applied enhancements.)

This means that, technically, a spellheart weapon as a lamen works out as cheaper than a normal lamen.  However, since the lamen enhancements would only apply to spellshape attacks channeled through the weapon, I'm okay with that.  Also gives something nice to spellshape champions, so, yay.

Spellheart armor has its spell failure chance reduced by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonus increased by 2, and armor check penalty decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 0).  This stacks with, say, being made of mithril, allowing for goodness.



The Updates Never End (11/30/11): Scratch much of what was said in the above update about spellheart weapons and armor.  Weapons will work like normal weapons of their kind, with an enhancement bonus to attacks and damage based on formula level.  Strength will apply to damage as normal, and all attributes will be...well...normal.  Except that, as a free action, you can choose to verb the energies of the spellshape attack, causing the weapon to deal damage as though you were channeling the appropriate spellshape attack through it.  Once per encounter, you can shape the formula inside the weapon.

If you have the ability to actually channel a spellshape attack through a weapon (because you're a spellshape champion), you can choose, when channeling a spellshape attack, to have the weapon deal damage appropriate for the spellshape attack, rather than for the weapon.  In such a case, it will basically work like a spellforged weapon.

Spellheart weapons will be enhanceable as lamens, but the enhancements will only apply when you're channeling a spellshape attack through the weapon as described in the paragraph above.

Spellheart armor is just armor with a formula inside it and an enhancement bonus.  No reduction of arcane spell failure chance or armor check penalty, and no increase of maximum Dexterity bonus.

Making a spellheart item will be a process of enhancement, not forging.

Things Left to Do:
  • Write the rest of the lamen enhancements.  They've all been planned, I just need to get off my ass and write.
  • Write up the rules for spellheart weapons and armor.  If possible, also come up with a better name.
  • Format Chapter 6 in terms of introduction, descriptions, and what have you.
  • Post!
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 01:59:18 PM by DonQuixote »
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline DonQuixote

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2011, 12:52:20 PM »
Whoo, items are up.

And, with that, I'm probably done pumping out new material for a few weeks.  Finals are coming up, so...I should probably pay attention to class again.

I will be doing odd moments of errata, whenever I come across something that needs errata-ing.  I have a list of things from Codex I that I came across, so those will probably be done in a week or two.  I'm going to be pretty low-key about it, what with those finals, so we'll see what my timetable looks like.

I'll also be responding to comments and discussion, and changing anything that needs to be changed.  So, feedback away--you'll be heard.  I just won't be writing anything entirely new for a wee bit.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 01:17:34 PM by DonQuixote »
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #44 on: December 03, 2011, 12:42:20 AM »
Woo, thats an enormous amount of material to go through at once.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline DonQuixote

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2011, 11:35:00 PM »
Yeah, the sheer volume is part of the reason that I decided to pause the deluge of material.  I think it currently weighs in at about 300 pages when formatted in the style of a D&D sourcebook.  That's an incredible amount to expect people to read.  Given that I crave feedback the way that some people crave coffee, I figured it was a good idea to stop before it became too intimidating for the uninitiated.

The current plan is to take this pause as a chance to re-read all of the material, noting inconsistencies and issues and fixing them.  I'll also be responding to any feedback and taking it into account during the extended period.  Mind you, there probably won't be any big changes--mostly, it'll be fine-tuning and fixing mistakes.  I'm only actually planning to replace one formula, and there are no class features that I currently think are huge problems.  However, if anything glaring is brought to my attention, it will be addressed.

During this period, I'll also be formatting Codex II in PDF form and making it available for download.  While I know that most people probably prefer the online version, I am vain and obsessive enough to go ahead and imitate actual material.  Ridiculously presumptuous, I know.

The pause will last for as long as it does, after which new material will appear according to the whims of my brain.  It will probably all be in the form of "Web Enhancements," like the dragonheart adept, rather than part of a new Codex.  Most ideas that have been mentioned here will be addressed at some point in time.
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline deanruel87

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2011, 03:02:44 PM »
Is there a way to download the work that's been done so far, primarily I am speaking of the Codex 1 material, in PDF.  It is simply unusable in it's current format here on the forum.  It really seems like genuinely interesting and potentially valuable work being done here but unless it can be read as a PDF or in the very least as a wiki I can't see anyone anywhere being able to use it.  Certainly as a beginner it is the most intimidating as to even get the basic rules and words and classes down I've had to open a dozen different forums at least.

Offline DonQuixote

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2011, 05:28:04 PM »
There's a link to a Codex I PDF right underneath the Codex I table of contents.  Check the Index thread.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 07:03:31 PM by DonQuixote »
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline DonQuixote

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #48 on: December 09, 2011, 02:46:36 AM »
    So, finals have now begun, and I should therefore be working.

    Screw that, though, I've compiled a list of errata changes that are going to be made to Codex I over break:

    • Base Classes
      • Elemental Adept
        • Elemental Companion - Your companion will scale with your shaper level, rather than your class level.  Elemental aura will no longer grant bonus damage per die on your spellshape attacks and formulae.  Instead, the elemental will be able to make a second slam attack at 7th level.
        • Elemental Empowerment - A section dealing with formulae that deal damage based on shaper level will be removed, as the formulae that would have been affected have since been removed.
        • Elemental Magic - This will be changed to actually be an interesting class feature, rather than granting you a single spell-like ability that you probably won't use.
      • Impulse Mage
        • Formulae Prepared - The rules on formulae occurring to you will be cleaned up and clarified.  I look to draw heavily on unofficial errata for the Crusader.
    • Feats
      • Precise Shaper - This should apply to ranged attacks, not ranged touch attacks.  Planning to fix that.
      • Spell-Linked Companion - Feat is to be removed, in accordance with changes to the elemental companion.  Another feat will most likely take its place, though I have no idea what it will be.
      • Spellshape Study - Trying to decide whether to remove the ruling that allows spellshape champions to use this feat to gain ranged attacks.  Even if I keep the ruling, though, I'm going to add a line break there for cleanness.
      • Tactical Shaper - This should apply to ranged attacks, not ranged touch attacks.  Planning to fix that.
    • Arcane Formulae
      • Cleansing Stream - The name of the Cleansing Waters formula should be capitalized.
      • Cleansing Waters - Planning to remove insanity from the conditions that can be removed, as well as to reword the bit on ending spell effects so that you can't end area effects just by being in them.
      • Storm Leap - The listing in the PDF has the word "Minor" bolded.  This is to be fixed.
      • Marionette - This formula is to be replaced because it is not really well-implemented and is not really a combat effect.  Something shall replace it!  What will it be?  It is a mystery to everyone!
    • Prestige Classes
      • Archmage of the Tower Conclave - I am going to reformat the table because it does not look quite right to me and I am obsessive.
      • Edgewalker Knight - I am planning to retool Service of the Suppliant so that it remains a useful and viable option.  Not sure how I'm going to do that, but that is what break is for!
      • Flamedancer - Going to give it an enhancement bonus on attack rolls, to match up with spellforge warsmith.


    That's just after a quick look-over, mind you.  I might find more to fix!  In terms of Codex II, the only thing that I really feel the need to address thus far is Sculpt Spellshape's save DC - I'm going to change it such that Spellshape Focus and Greater Spellshape Focus provide a +1 and +2 increase to the DC, respectively.  That will also apply to the dragonheart adept's breath weapon, so...yeah.

    Any other fixes to suggest?
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 03:21:54 AM by DonQuixote »
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline deanruel87

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #49 on: December 10, 2011, 02:46:07 PM »
Hello Don, I did some playtesting last night and figured I would post some thoughts that occurred to me during the process.  Obviously you have no need to use anything I write but I thought I would at least inform you of some balance considerations for the classes and the system you have clearly put a tremendous amount of effort into.

Alright let's start at the top with minor or aesthetic critiques:
*All spellshape attacks should be the same.  It should be called a spellshape attack or a spellblast.  The fact that I need to know and differentiate between whether I'm using galvanic charge, gusting zephyr, searing.....whatever or telekinetic double-whatever is a waste of time and conceptual space.  There is no benefit gained from having 12 very tremendously slightly different spellshape attacks to run probably one maneuver apiece in actual battle.  There is just not enough difference to necessitate me remembering 12 discrete pieces of information about the system where 1 would absolutely do the job.

*This one may seem unfortunate but it is absolutely true.  You have chosen to use Tome of Battle's arrangement system for maneuvers in your book.  Of breaking each school of maneuvers into their own little sub-chapter with each maneuver listed alphabetically therein.  This is terrible.  It was a terrible idea then and it's no better now.  See in something like the PHB all spells are listed alphabetically, the same with every other D&D book except ToB.  There is a reason why they only did this once.  See in the PHB format you only need to know one piece of information to be able to look up your spell; it's name.  In the ToB format you need to identify 3 pieces of information across 2 seperate steps.  You need to know the maneuver's school, it's location alphabetically in the index, and then after going to that section of the book you need to go to the spell name.  It is in every way worse and was a considerable mistake in the formatting of the ToB.  Something to consider.

Next we have minor design issues.
*Two minor things about the Impulse mage.  The Impulse Mage should be proficient and able to wear light armor.  Every character in D&D is expected to be able to use at least light armor because it is a mandatory part of the games expectations for the combat RNG.  Additionally the 8th level ability Shift-Slip is very good and very interesting but comes too suddenly.  You go from being 7th level and never having used the ability before in your life to making it a absolutely integral part of your combat tactics at 8th.  The ability should be gained in steps.  1 use every 3 levels or so seems reasonable.

*The Telekinetic path's third level ability "Marionette" is both far too good and too vague.  In most combat situations it is a save or die effect.  Most characters are armed with a weapon and if the character can literally just mime stabbing themselves in the eye to kill anyone who fails the first save then it's too good.  Not too good -ever- just too good for a third level effect.  It's an auto include as written so you might want to modify it. (As a note as well the comatose thing if they save is probably the real problem.  Someone who's helpless in 3.5 for 1d4 rounds is deceased so you really can't save against the suicide application of the effect)

And Finally: Major Design Concerns
The classes you've made here simply are not able to enter high level combat excepting only the spellsage.  There are three reasons for this: Lack of range, Lack of versatility, and Lack of Buffs.  The first problem is simple, the range on spellshaping effects is usually about 45 feet or so on average, generally capping at 60.  That just isn't enough to compete with real high level monsters.  By 10th level these characters are mages with mage saves, mage armor, and mage hp who are expected to get up close and personal with things like Fire Giants.  They just can't cut it.  It also means mobile threats like ranged fliers can completely shut them down by just staying out of a 40 foot bubble.  Most ranged characters are effective out to much farther range so this is a considerable problem.  Second is lack of versatility.  Thinking of ranged fliers again the only class that could let you easily handle fliers is the Spellsage.  The Spellshaping classes entire flight abilities are relegated to a couple of air maneuvers which means your average character has a good chance of being without.  Besides flying the class has no answer for lots of tactical problems that can arise because while they look like spellcasters they actually more resemble archers in terms of actual tactical diversity.  They shoot and that's about it.  Steps should be taken if you want the classes to be able to operate at high level to give them effects they can apply to themselves to troubleshoot problems.  Which leads directly to a Lack of Buffs.  This one is simple.  All high tier classes can buff.  Even Tome of Battle characters have buffs in the form of various stances that they can activate to modify their characters abilities.  Spellshapers just don't have this which means they're out of place in the "Big Dog leagues" of D&D classes.  The Spellsage can choose Buff spells which let him compete.  A spellsage can have by 8th level Stoneskin, Fly, Invisibility, and Shield.  Letting him prepare for equal leveled opponents.  I think that with increased average range to their abilities, an ability to buff in some fashion, and some access to tactical effects like spells or innate abilities the Spellshaping classes would be absolutely on par with the best material out there.  I think that adding these effects and changes is something you should at least consider.

Thanks for your time.

Offline DonQuixote

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #50 on: December 10, 2011, 05:03:46 PM »
Man, you must hate warlocks.

  • This is a design choice based on stylistic preference, and it's not going to change.  I'm sorry, but I prefer a world in which throwing a ball of fire and conjuring a ray of ice are discrete actions.  I don't view it as a waste of conceptual space because I view the alternative as barren, boring, and uninteresting.  And don't worry about remembering all twelve--even if you're a spellsage, you're maxing out at seven.
  • Again, this is really just a stylistic issue, and the fact of the matter is that I prefer the Tome of Battle sorting method.  Also, your logic is flawed--the reason that they only did it once is that Tome of Battle was the last 3.5 book to be published.  We can make no statements beyond that.
  • Yes, but not every character in D&D gets to add its primary casting stat to its AC as a deflection bonus.  There are classes upon classes with no access to armor at all, rendering this point moot.  Moreover, your concern about shift-slip seems sort of off to me.  If anything, the impulse mage's flavor is such that going from not using an ability to integrating it in every battle is incredibly appropriate.
  • Marionette is something that I decided to kill a few weeks ago.  I just haven't gotten around to it yet because I am in the middle of finals, lazy, and not terribly fond of Unseen Impetus.
  • I think that you and I are aiming at different balance points.  I'm aiming between Warlock and Tome of Battle.  I don't understand the distance concern--most spellshape attacks have a flat range of 60 feet, like an eldritch blast.  If tactics are a concern, simply take the appropriate circle at 1st level--it seems, otherwise, like a wizard taking Transmutation as his banned school and then complaining that he doesn't get fly.  And there are buffs--there are a shit-ton of minor formulae, more than I can remember, that grant everything from AC to DR.  Moreover, I'm pretty damn certain that it's possible to get things like magic items of flight--otherwise, all melee characters would be screwed forever.
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline deanruel87

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #51 on: December 11, 2011, 11:38:11 AM »
I do dislike warlocks.  Warlocks were very close to being one of the most interesting classes produced in 3.5 and as a class concept it had tremendous traction.  People wanted to play the warlock.  Warlocks are conceptually awesome.  But they were bland, underpowered, and under-capable of performing at an appropriate level in a party.  They were also a miss in the sense that their abilities can be far too easily separated into "Good" and "Shit" piles which means any three Warlocks will probably run just about the same.  This is not really a personal opinion either as Warlocks underpowered nature was a regular forum point in late 3.5.  In fact I will cite that the third result that you get in google when you type in "3.5 Warlock" after the two Warlock wiki entries is the forum topic "Is the 3.5 Warlock underpowered".
Source: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/243648-3-5e-warlock-underpowered.html

But as to our points
1: Sure, your system, do your thing.
2: It is a pretty clearly worse system.  I mean one can be pretty objective about this in the sense that, again, in a traditional index you simply look up one piece of information in one step and in the ToB method you look up two across two steps.  And you are incorrect.  Their are 13 books published after the Tome of Battle in 3.5.  They are Dragon Magic, Cityscape, Complete Mage, The Fiendish Codex 2, Dungeonscape, Complete Scoundrel, The Magic Item Compendium, Complete Champion, Drow of the Underdark, The Monster Manual 5, Exemplars of Evil, The Rules Compendium, and Elder Evils.  All of these used the more traditional index system for ordering their spells.  But YMMV.
3: But getting to add an extra stat to armor is a feature that is thrown around all over the place and it is almost always accompanied by the ability to just also wear light armor.  Swordsage does it in the book you are trying to replicate and he wears light armor.  When designers give out an extra stat to AC bonus it is to help lightly armored characters use their shtick and be just as effective as at least medium armored characters.  In DnD Armor is a standard so not wearing armor is a big loss, this is one of the primary reasons why a good Swashbuckler class has never really been done.  Armor has very few negatives, huge positives, and was a conceptual standard for the designers when making the game.  So the name for characters who don't wear armor is not "Fencer" but "NPC".
4: Cool. Shame your not a fan of Impetus though.  I thought that finally being able to make a cool force using characters was one of the big selling points of what you had.  DnD just somehow never ever managed to get it right.  Primarily I think because they repeatedly shackled the entire concept to the telekinesis spell which is terrible.
5: Perhaps we are.  But the balance point I'm aiming for for your classes is the same I aim for for all classes; equal to monsters.  People who make classes fight each other are sort of missing the point.  Equal CR Monsters are something a class should be competitive against and that's really all that matters.  I have no doubt that your classes would do really nicely in the beginning 5 levels or so but then they will start losing ground and they won't stop until whatever campaign ends.  And to your two points about range and buffs; In range I actually added up the average range of powers in the Shocking Current Discipline which I chose at random.  The average range all totaled for ranged powers is 56 feet, so I was under by 10 with my guess.  I still believe the point stands perfectly however that the class suffers from a lack of good ranged options.  If you are trying to emulate the Warlock then I would recommend including things to improve their actual ranged capability, as the Warlock has a single effect which makes all his attacks 400 feet long.  As to buffs I will assume you know more than I.  I don't feel like they have enough powerful buff capability but despite my fondness for testing rigor I'm not gonna go through every maneuver.  The maneuvers I've seen on my read through tend to be not quite powerful enough for the characters level, situational, possessing a short duration, and need to be pre-chosen for encounters which means taking up space from directly effective combat choices.  So  your flight troubleshooting maneuver and your teleportation troubleshooting maneuver both compete with space with your awesome doing-things maneuvers.  And magic flight or teleportation items do exist, but yes you are correct.  Melee characters WERE screwed forever in 3.5.  Famously so.  It was all anyone really ever talked about.  We even had phrases for it.  DMF: Dumb melee fighter comes to mind.  High level monsters didn't have to interact with fighter characters that just swung swords, you really had to bring a lot more to the fight or else you literally couldn't play in the big leagues.  And the idea that this imbalance is in any way fixed by the idea of making every 1oth level barbarian spend 27,000 gold of his total 49 on some boots of flying and a cape of the mountebank is pretty offensive.  I mean at that point your really talking about a huge handicap being put onto what are already the worst and least performing classes in the game.  But as I said, if you think your classes buff paradigm is up to snuff I won't argue it further as I will assume, rightly, you have a finer mastery of your system than I do.  However I do urge you to at least look at some of these concepts, any one really roll a dice, when revising your product.  I think you have something that has a lot of potential here.  That's why I've written like 3 billion words over just 3 days of playtesting.  I think you could produce something that could be seen on a lot of tables and I would like that.  The concepts that you are attempting to realize are strong ones but I think some revision is required, and if I may be somewhat forward here, I think the concept of reading a tremendously lengthy series of in depth critiques on your product and saying that every single one of them is without merit is....well....really unlikely.  It's dishonest to the idea of publishing the strongest product you can to slough off critique.  At least consider these things, strong products require revision and require rigor.  And I think you could have one.
Happy designing, and good luck on your finals bromie.

Offline DonQuixote

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #52 on: December 12, 2011, 01:34:04 AM »
3: But getting to add an extra stat to armor is a feature that is thrown around all over the place and it is almost always accompanied by the ability to just also wear light armor.  Swordsage does it in the book you are trying to replicate and he wears light armor.  When designers give out an extra stat to AC bonus it is to help lightly armored characters use their shtick and be just as effective as at least medium armored characters.  In DnD Armor is a standard so not wearing armor is a big loss, this is one of the primary reasons why a good Swashbuckler class has never really been done.  Armor has very few negatives, huge positives, and was a conceptual standard for the designers when making the game.  So the name for characters who don't wear armor is not "Fencer" but "NPC".

5: Perhaps we are.  But the balance point I'm aiming for for your classes is the same I aim for for all classes; equal to monsters.  People who make classes fight each other are sort of missing the point.  Equal CR Monsters are something a class should be competitive against and that's really all that matters.  I have no doubt that your classes would do really nicely in the beginning 5 levels or so but then they will start losing ground and they won't stop until whatever campaign ends.  And to your two points about range and buffs; In range I actually added up the average range of powers in the Shocking Current Discipline which I chose at random.  The average range all totaled for ranged powers is 56 feet, so I was under by 10 with my guess.  I still believe the point stands perfectly however that the class suffers from a lack of good ranged options.  If you are trying to emulate the Warlock then I would recommend including things to improve their actual ranged capability, as the Warlock has a single effect which makes all his attacks 400 feet long.  As to buffs I will assume you know more than I.  I don't feel like they have enough powerful buff capability but despite my fondness for testing rigor I'm not gonna go through every maneuver.  The maneuvers I've seen on my read through tend to be not quite powerful enough for the characters level, situational, possessing a short duration, and need to be pre-chosen for encounters which means taking up space from directly effective combat choices.  So  your flight troubleshooting maneuver and your teleportation troubleshooting maneuver both compete with space with your awesome doing-things maneuvers.  And magic flight or teleportation items do exist, but yes you are correct.  Melee characters WERE screwed forever in 3.5.  Famously so.  It was all anyone really ever talked about.  We even had phrases for it.  DMF: Dumb melee fighter comes to mind.  High level monsters didn't have to interact with fighter characters that just swung swords, you really had to bring a lot more to the fight or else you literally couldn't play in the big leagues.  And the idea that this imbalance is in any way fixed by the idea of making every 1oth level barbarian spend 27,000 gold of his total 49 on some boots of flying and a cape of the mountebank is pretty offensive.  I mean at that point your really talking about a huge handicap being put onto what are already the worst and least performing classes in the game.  But as I said, if you think your classes buff paradigm is up to snuff I won't argue it further as I will assume, rightly, you have a finer mastery of your system than I do.  However I do urge you to at least look at some of these concepts, any one really roll a dice, when revising your product.  I think you have something that has a lot of potential here.  That's why I've written like 3 billion words over just 3 days of playtesting.  I think you could produce something that could be seen on a lot of tables and I would like that.  The concepts that you are attempting to realize are strong ones but I think some revision is required, and if I may be somewhat forward here, I think the concept of reading a tremendously lengthy series of in depth critiques on your product and saying that every single one of them is without merit is....well....really unlikely.  It's dishonest to the idea of publishing the strongest product you can to slough off critique.

Quoting these for later perusal.  Don't really have time to examine them in-depth at the moment, but I can already tell that these two points are the main actual arguments at this point, as opposed to simple philosophical differences.  Taking a final in an hour or two, so...yeah.


Errata Update! So, I've found the time to tweak a lot of the things that were bugging me.  At this point, everything in that list up there has been accomplished except for replacing Spell-Linked Companion and Marionette and retooling the Service of the Suppliant ability.  I'm not completely happy with the change to Elemental Magic, but it'll do for now.  All of said errata has also been tweaked in the posts--though no new PDF has been compiled yet, since I figured I might as well finish doing this stuff, first.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 11:00:17 AM by DonQuixote »
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #53 on: December 12, 2011, 09:44:14 PM »
I'd like to adapt spellshaping for my Magipunk setting that I'm working on.  My idea was to do something called the Psykin as a base class that's like a spellshaper version of an X-Men mutant.

Thoughts?
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline DonQuixote

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #54 on: December 13, 2011, 11:46:32 AM »
deanruel87 - Haven't forgotten about you, I'm just still slogging through the finals process.  The issue of impulse mages and armor is a fairly simple one, just one I haven't been able to come down on yet.

The other point, for obvious reasons, is much more in-depth.  Especially given my rather limited experience with D&D, I don't fully understand all of the sides of your argument--I rolled my first character in September of 2010, and I've only played in two campaigns.  One ended at level ten, and the second was a level six gestalt game in which no levels were gained.  Of the two campaigns that I DMed, one also ended at level ten and the other one was more built around an engaging story than around super-challenging encounters--indeed, I tend to have a habit of building encounters to suit players' abilities, so there's that.

Basically, what prevents spellshapers from performing on the same level as Tome of Battle characters?  With all of the minor formulae options--as well as the possibilities inherent in Extend Formula and Persistent Formula--I feel that spellshapers can certainly match the self-buffing potential of boosts and stances.


sirpercival - Sounds interesting, though I'm not exactly sure what a "spellshaper version of an X-Men mutant" would entail mechanically.  Or were you talking more about flavor with that one?

(I'm also not terribly familiar with the X-Men, unfortunately.  All I know is that some are psychic, some shoot lasers, and some have metal claws and freakish healing capacities.)
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #55 on: December 13, 2011, 12:18:53 PM »
sirpercival - Sounds interesting, though I'm not exactly sure what a "spellshaper version of an X-Men mutant" would entail mechanically.  Or were you talking more about flavor with that one?

(I'm also not terribly familiar with the X-Men, unfortunately.  All I know is that some are psychic, some shoot lasers, and some have metal claws and freakish healing capacities.)

It was more of a flavor thing.  Rather than "learning formulae", having the ability to bend reality around themselves due to a genetic quirk or mutation.  My idea was to reflavor one or two of your classes this way, so as not to flood the setting with spellshaper-analogs.  However, I'm not sure which ones to take, which would make the most sense.  Probably Impulse Mage would work, or Anchorite.
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline DonQuixote

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #56 on: December 13, 2011, 12:48:15 PM »
Impulse mage and anchorite are good choices, yeah.  Their mechanics aren't terribly attached to their fluff, making them easy conversions.  Spellshape champions might also make some sense, depending on how you interpret spellshape channeling.  I can't really say I know much about the campaign setting, but--if the powers are genetic--the stoichen elemental adept might also make some sense.

Flavorwise, it also might make sense to have pregenerated groups of related circles.  I'm not sure how a genetic quirk would arbitrarily grant you powers of moonlight, rocks, and wood.  Of course, that may also be too arbitrarily restrictive.
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline deanruel87

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2011, 02:24:37 AM »
The other point, for obvious reasons, is much more in-depth.  Especially given my rather limited experience with D&D, I don't fully understand all of the sides of your argument--I rolled my first character in September of 2010

HOLY CRAP!!!

That is goddamned astounding Don! I seriously just need to lead off by saying that.  I mean it is seriously an absolutely astonishing feat to have only been playing for a year and to have already put together and (essentially) completed a project of this magnitude.  That is amazing and I think that is speaks of a bright future in game design for you from here forward.  Really: Bravo.

Alright on to the actual questions posed.

First of all I'll say I didn't read through or use codex 2 so I didn't use any metashaping feats.  Honestly those seem incredibly important in bridging the gap.  The difference in being able to fly for 3 rounds with being able to fly for 6 is huge (or potentially all rounds, at later levels).  That is a really really big deal and a good way to go about it.  The only thing I would say now is move it into the main book.  I think you can push one product to people as "Your cool homebrew thing" but not 2 with anywhere near the rate of success.

So if you move the metashaping feats into the main rulebook the only problem you really have left in terms of power is a lack of available slots for your troubleshooting powers (I.E. your flight, ghost touch, invisibility type powers).  See if by 12th level you only have some 4 prepared slots for about half of your classes they just can't use them up with troubleshooting options AND valid combat spellshapes.  I think this is a problem.  I believe you could solve this either by increasing the number of available prepared slots to people OR an option I like better: Allowing people to do some sort of swift action, once per encounter switch out of some (or all) maneuvers.  That way you are always able to handle a flying opponent by suddenly switching in your flight spell instead of always keeping it on as one of your 4 ready maneuvers.

My apologies for this post being so brief, more later.  It is quite late here, but I think there's some semblance of a point there so far : )

Offline DonQuixote

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #58 on: December 15, 2011, 08:58:33 PM »
Mainly because I can't think of a reason not to, I'll probably also end up giving light armor to Anchorites, Impulse Mages, and Savants.  This will happen in the future, at some point.

First of all I'll say I didn't read through or use codex 2 so I didn't use any metashaping feats.  Honestly those seem incredibly important in bridging the gap.  The difference in being able to fly for 3 rounds with being able to fly for 6 is huge (or potentially all rounds, at later levels).  That is a really really big deal and a good way to go about it.  The only thing I would say now is move it into the main book.  I think you can push one product to people as "Your cool homebrew thing" but not 2 with anywhere near the rate of success.

So if you move the metashaping feats into the main rulebook the only problem you really have left in terms of power is a lack of available slots for your troubleshooting powers (I.E. your flight, ghost touch, invisibility type powers).  See if by 12th level you only have some 4 prepared slots for about half of your classes they just can't use them up with troubleshooting options AND valid combat spellshapes.  I think this is a problem.  I believe you could solve this either by increasing the number of available prepared slots to people OR an option I like better: Allowing people to do some sort of swift action, once per encounter switch out of some (or all) maneuvers.  That way you are always able to handle a flying opponent by suddenly switching in your flight spell instead of always keeping it on as one of your 4 ready maneuvers.

If the metashaping feats will handle it, I think I'll go ahead and port over Extend, Maximize, Persistent, and Quicken into Codex I.  To compensate, I'll write four new metashaping feats for Codex II, based on Empower Spell, Fortify Spell, Heighten Spell, and Line of Shadow.

I'm not sure what you're talking about in terms of lack of available slots.  One class--spellshape champion--has only 5 prepared formulae at level 12.  Everything else has around 8 or 9.  However, given my realization that Brilliance of Flame doesn't really make sense in a Codex of Spellshaping, I decided to axe it and replace it with an Adaptive Shaper feat that let you change your prepared formulae as a swift action 1/encounter.  After a bit of thought, though, I realized that there was no reason not to make it a freebie.  Everyone will have the ability to change their prepared formulae once--and only once--per encounter.  Spellsages aren't included in "everyone" here, primarily because their recovery mechanic already involves changing their prepared formulae.  Given that they kind of have a leg up on everyone, I see no problem with restricting them to their full-round action.

(Brilliance of Flame is still getting the axe, but it will probably reappear when I do more stuff that combines spellshapers and martial adepts.)

Also, a note on the "two products" issue--I don't tend to differentiate in my mind between Codex I and Codex II.  In fact, the distinction between the two books can be traced back to one thing: ease of PDF editing.  I compile these PDFs in Microsoft Word because I don't know how to use anything else.  It is an absolutely atrocious process, and anything that changes page count results in a crapton of formatting work.  For example, if I add enough feats that I need another page for them, I have to move everything down one page.  Text boxes, tables, everything has to be done by hand.  It is hellish, and is the main reason that I haven't updated the Codex I PDF with the recent errata.

This issue is compounded by the fact that I tend to prefer the subforum to the PDF for the purpose of consulting my material.  The subforum system just syncs up with the way that I think about things--I can immediately jump to what I want to look at.  I recognize that this is not true for everyone--and might have more than a little to do with the fact that I tend to know what I'm referring to and what things are intended to do.  That's why the Codex I PDF exists and why the Codex II PDF is in progress.

This is probably the last thing that I'm going to get the chance to say before Saturday night.  I have three papers to write by then, so I'm going to be a little occupied.

Recent Errata Updates: Spell-Linked Companion was removed.  Sculpt Spellshape and Dragonheart Adept now benefit more from Spellshape Focus and Greater Spellshape Focus--to compensate for the loss of the +1/+2 on attack rolls, spellshape attacks that affect an area now get a +1/+2 increase to their Reflex save DCs.  Edgewalker Knight's Service of the Suppliant ability is now a swift action that can be used once per encounter.


Finally, to address my vanity!

HOLY CRAP!!!

That is goddamned astounding Don! I seriously just need to lead off by saying that.  I mean it is seriously an absolutely astonishing feat to have only been playing for a year and to have already put together and (essentially) completed a project of this magnitude.  That is amazing and I think that is speaks of a bright future in game design for you from here forward.  Really: Bravo.

As I've said before, I still really don't know how it happened.  Bauglir asked me one night what I thought about the idea of Tome of Battle-style magic.  Now, he was talking about allowing caster level to increase in the same way that initiator level does, but I thought that he was talking about...well...something like the spellshapers.  His idea led me to build a pyromancer base class that was, looking at it now, pretty awful.  However, it led me to the idea of setting up rules, which eventually resulted in multiple circles, which slowly grew into what we have here today.

If I'm going to be honest about the spellshapers, though, most of the credit belongs with others.  Most abilities and mechanics are adapted from pre-existing ones, and a lot of things have been salvaged only because forum-goers and friends were able to point out exactly how terrible they were.  My main role in this process has been a willingness to go through every maneuver, power, and spell in the game in search of abilities to adapt--or, in some cases, flat-out steal.

Because, honestly?  I do not have an intuitive sense of balance.  When I first started building the spellshapers, I thought that flat damage increases were more interesting than penalties to saving throws.  This system is only what it is today because people have been willing to tell me what is good and what is not, and that information allows me to re-evaluate where things stand.  Often, this process will lead to complete newness, but that generally comes about through the manipulation and tweaking of adapted material.  For example, the lavamancer's pool of magma was originally a slightly-changed version of the deepstone sentinel's mountain fortress stance.  Similarities are still there, but it's pretty much its own ability at this point.
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline DonQuixote

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« Reply #59 on: December 16, 2011, 03:17:31 PM »
Okay, the feats have been moved, Marionette has been replaced, a little tweaking has been performed on the Impulse Mage's progression of occurred formulae, and various other small erratas have been errata-ed.

A new version of the PDF, reflecting all the recent changes, is also up.

Currently, all of the errata left on my plate is writing the new metashaping feats for Codex II, followed by the not-errata-but-related task of compiling the Codex II PDF.

Now, if only my brain would let me work on my papers...

Update: New feats have been added to Codex II to offset the loss of those metashaping feats.  Next step, unless anyone raises any other points, will be to compile the Codex II PDF.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 09:13:16 PM by DonQuixote »
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”