ToB Discipline-Switching

[For Valor]

So, with all the new ToB disciplines on here, I was looking for a way to switch up disciplines. Like, exchange my Tiger Claw for Falling Star or my Falling Star for Falling Anvil, etc.

I came across this in my rummaging:


Most martial adepts have a list of what are known as "alternate disciplines". The typical example of a given adept does not have access to any of these disciplines, but specific members of the class may have knowledge of the discipline in one of two ways.

The first is to have neglected training in one of that class's ordinary disciplines. Any martial adept may choose to start play having no access to one or more disciplines that the class normally has access to, having been replaced by the same number of disciplines from the alternative list.

Any character who takes an alternative discipline for a class that does not have the discipline's associated skill as a class skill, loses as a class skill the skill associated with the neglected discipline, and gains the alternate discipline's associated skill.

The character may also trade proficiencies in weapons associated with the neglected discipline in favor of those associated with the alternate discipline. They can only gain proficiency in an exotic weapon associated with the alternate discipline if they lose proficiency in an exotic weapon associated with the neglected discipline, only gain proficiency in a martial weapon associated with the alternate discipline by losing proficiency in an exotic or martial weapon associated with the neglected discipline, etc., and in all cases can only gain as many proficiencies as they lose. They cannot lose proficiency in any weapon that is associated with both disciplines. They may trade in as many or as few weapon proficiencies as they like.

The other way to gain access to an alternate discipline is to train with a master of the discipline. A master is defined as one who can initiate 5th level maneuvers from that discipline. Training requires one month and the expenditure of 1,000 XP. When training is complete, the martial adept may add the discipline to the list of disciplines from which maneuvers may be learned with levels in any class that has the discipline as an alternate discipline, and may further replace any number of maneuvers already known from any class that has the discipline as an alternate discipline with maneuvers from the new discipline. Unlike the normal method of replacing maneuvers, however, any maneuvers lost must be replaced with maneuvers of a level no higher than the lost maneuver.

The martial adept also adds the skill associated with the discipline to the class list of any classes that have the discipline as an alternate discipline. The adept does not, however, gain proficiency in any additional weapons.

TL;DR Version--switch it out if you want to. Take the class skill (if you don't already have it) by dropping the class skill from your old discipline, and (if you want) take the weapon proficiencies that come with your new discipline.

Soooooooooo everybody takes White Raven?

I don't like this idea for discipline-switching. It encourages taking the best discipline always, which is uncool. However, I also dislike not having any solid mechanic for giving Ninefold Damnation to my Swordsage. Because I like Ninefold Damnation, and it seems good enough to go on any class, really.

So: 1) Is there a different, already pioneered, way to switch out disciplines, or 2) What are some suggestions for making a discipline-switcher?

The best I can think of manually writing in "Disciplines X, Y, and Z are switchable; Disciplines T, U, V, and W are switchable; No one has any idea what the hell to do with Discipline S, etc..." But I'm hoping there's something more convenient.

[DragoonWraith]

The basis behind the "alternate disciplines" mechanic is that all disciplines are roughly equal. In Tome of Battle, this is pretty much true - Devoted Spirit's a bit better than the rest, Desert Wind and Stone Dragon are a bit worse, but for the most part they're pretty even. Homebrew usually tries to live up to this, and at least of those here that I've read, does a pretty good job.

The other options that have been tried, that I am aware of:
Spend a feat - lame.
Find a master, train with them for an extended period of time, expend money/XP - subject to DM approval, should only be allowed in-game rather than part of a backstory - but this works well.

Also, it's a little strange that you're posting this here instead of the homebrew forum, since you're talking about homebrew disciplines...

[Stompy]

Soooooooooo everybody takes White Raven?

You can make an item to get white raven tactics 1/day. It should cost 3k, 6k to make the same function into one item twice if you don't have white raven. (I am going to assume the grabbing of this feat was the entire reason for the switch. :smalltongue:)

[playswithfire]

The other options that have been tried, that I am aware of:
Spend a feat - lame.


If flaws are allowed, not so bad.

If you want to let people swap, but find 1 for 1 too good, there's always swapping two for one. Lose access to two disciplines to gain access to one new one. Not particularly viable for Crusaders, but the other two are ok.

[Draz74]

A feat to swap disciplines is lame.

A feat to add a new, flavor-appropriate Discipline is fine IMO. Assuming the character still has to split their resources (e.g. Readied maneuvers) between the old disciplines and the new one.

[DragoonWraith]

Honestly, with the exception of the Crusader, no Martial Adept I know of (certainly not Swordsage or Warblade) is in any way limited by the number of schools they have available. Thanks to the pre-reqs, and the simple fact that most character design their build around a couple of favored styles/schools, it's rare for a Warblade or Swordsage to have more than a maneuver or two from most of their schools; usually 2-3 are favored and the rest are all but ignored. The Crusader, thanks to having a large number of Maneuvers Known at level 1, and only 3 schools, actually is limited somewhat by it, but only somewhat.

In short, adding additional available schools to a Martial Adept without increasing the number of Maneuvers Known would not increase their power level appreciably, with the possible exception of the Crusader. Therefore, penalizing people over-much for adding one or swapping out disciplines is just unnecessary.

[DracoDei]

Actually, you will find that disciplines are still associated to classes. For instance, Falling Anvil can't be swapped in for something else by a Warblade or Crusader, but a Swordsage can. I guess we must not have made that clear enough, but from what I know of the Age of Warriors project, it must be true, or we nobody would be bothering to include which classes get access to which disciplines. Thus Sword-sages (the only non-homebrew base-class without access to White Raven), still can't swap out for it.

If you are concerned about how good of a job we have done with the balancing process that DragoonWraith mentioned, please feel MORE than free to come over to the main Age of Warriors (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134088&page=21) thread and leave your comments after reading a given discipline (or three). It is a big project, and we can use all the review/reviewers we can get.

[dspeyer]

Indeed. To be swapped in, a new discipline must be compatible with the class. All (most?) new disciplines list the supported original base classes. New base classes and original prestige classes are not yet addressed.

I would suggest that an XP cost for an extra discipline only apply if taken in a backstory. Otherwise, you need to track down a teacher and spend a month studying, and that is cost enough. It's not like crafting, where you are depositing part of your soul. The backstory cost represents the time you could have been adventuring, but weren't.

[For Valor]

So this is on the premise that all disciplines are equal (which is... meh... fine. We're not comparing Wizard v. Bard casting here, I suppose), so you can switch them all out.

But now I'm seeing DracoDei and dspeyer talking about certain classes allowing/not allowing certain disciplines.

Is that all written out? Or is it just implied, since Falling Anvil isn't helpful to a Crusader or a Warblade? I can't see a single place that it's written out...

Also, Who mentioned XP costs? You can go die.

EDIT: Doesn't this also mean that Discipline-based classes could simply be written as having X number of maneuvers? That'd be cool.

[DragoonWraith]

Why? XP costs are pretty fitting, and it's 1,000 XP to add a discipline to your list, according to the fairly-popular mechanic used by The_Demented_One. You'll catch up with the party after like four encounters.

Anyway, yeah, the disciplines are supposed to be equal. Devoted Spirit is generally considered the only one substantially more powerful, but that's OK because it's a Crusader-only one.

As for which classes can swap which, each homebrew discipline should explain how it is available - though different homebrewers have been using different schemes, so they don't all work out. The Age of Warriors project is working on making them all work together, but that's not done yet, I think...

Here's a chart I made for this, though:

Here's a useful (I think) chart:
{table=head]Discipline | Source | Skill | Crusader | Swordsage | Warblade | Special
Acidic Fog | KB | Escape Artist | | Alt | |
Army of One | TD1 | Intimidate | Alt | | Alt |
Black Heron | EX | Intimidate | Alt | Alt | Alt | No training; requires demonic possession
Black Lotus | Zak | Sleight of Hand | | | | for Sublime Assassins only
Black Rain | TD1 | Spot | Alt | Alt | Alt | Requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Firearms) feat
Bladed Thoughts | Yue | Autohypnosis | | | | for Heartshapers only
Broken Blade | JZ | Martial Lore | Def | Def | Def | * Also requires maneuvers from other disciplines as pre-requisites
Chthonic Serpent | DW | Use Rope | | Alt | Alt |
Coin's Edge | TD1 | Profession (Gambler) | | Alt | |
Dancing Leaf | TD1 | Escape Artist | | Alt | Alt | Also available to Firedancers
Desert Wind | ToB | Tumble | | Def | |
Devoted Spirit | ToB | Intimidate | Def | | |
Diamond Mind | ToB | Concentration | | Def | Def |
Dread Crown | TD1 | Intimidate | Alt | | Alt | Must be Evil
Falling Anvil | DD | Bluff | Def | Def | Def | No training; lose access to Devoted Spirit, Diamond Mind, Tiger Claw, and White Raven disciplines permanently
Falling Star | Fax | Spot | Def | Def | | *
Falling Wave | Name | Swim | Alt | Alt | Alt | Requires Lesser Disciplines feat, or replacing knowledge of Desert Wind (which may be then gained through the feat)
Far Realm | JM/TLN | Knowledge (The Planes) | Alt | Alt | Alt | Requires Terrible Secrets feat
Fool's Grip | TD1 | Tumble | | | Alt |
Frozen Zephyr | KB | Balance | | Alt | |
Glacial Chill | Name | Survival | Alt | Alt | Alt | Requires Lesser Disciplines feat, or replacing knowledge of Iron Heart or Desert Wind (which may be then gained through the feat)
Golden Saint | TD1 | Diplomacy | Alt | Alt | | Must be Good
Holy Word | Fax | Truespeak | Alt | Alt | Alt | No training; Requires Truespeak Training feat
Iron Heart | ToB | Balance | | | Def |
Kaleidoscopic Dream | TD1 | Tumble | Alt | Alt | | Also available to Soul Disciples
Leaping Gale | Name | Jump | | Alt | | Requires Lesser Disciplines feat, or replacing knowledge of Stone Dragon (which may be then gained through the feat)
Lost Lyrics | Kel | Perform (Sing) or Perform (Oratory) | Alt | Alt | Alt | No training; Requires Swordsinger feat
Masked Moon | Name | Disguise | | Alt | Alt | Requires Lesser Disciplines feat, or replacing certain schools: Desert Wind or Shadow Hand for Shapechaning Swordsages, or any two of Desert Wind, Diamond Mind, or Shadow Hand for non-shapechanging Swordsages
Narrow Bridge | JZ | Knowledge (Religion) | Def | Def | Def | *
Ocean Soul | Fax | Swim | | Def | | *
Oncoming Storm | TD1 | Sleight of Hand | | Alt | Alt | Also available to Firedancers
Placid Lake | Yue | Move Silently | | | | for Guardians of the Frozen Grotto only
Quicksilver Aegis | KB | Balance | Alt | Alt | | Also available to Soul Disciples
Rending Scream | Name | Intimidate | | Alt | Alt | Requires Lesser Disciplines feat, or replacing knowledge of White Raven (which may be then gained through the feat)
Scarlet Bravura | TD1 | Perform (Oratory) | Alt | | Alt |
Scarlet Rose | Nero | Perform (Dance) | | Def | Def | *
Setting Sun | ToB | Sense Motive | | Def | |
Shadow Hand | ToB | Hide | | Def | |
Shocking Sky | KB | Intimidate | | Alt | |
Silver Pegasus | Name | Ride | Alt | | Alt | Requires Lesser Disciplines feat, or replacing knowledge of White Raven (which may be then gained through the feat). Maneuvers can only be used while mounted.
Sleeping Goddess | TD1 | Autohypnosis | Alt | Alt | Alt | Non-Swordsages require a Power Point pool
Solaris Arcanum | GE | Spellcraft | | | | for Warmages only
Stone Dragon | ToB | Balance | Def | Def | Def |
Tiger Claw | ToB | Jump | | Def | Def |
True Arrow | Name | Spot | Alt | Alt | Alt | Requires Lesser Disciplines feat, or replacing knowledge of Stone Dragon (which may be then gained through the feat)
Twin Spirit | TD1 | Ride | Def | Def | | *
Viper Fang | Name | Heal | | Alt | | Requires Lesser Disciplines feat, or replacing knowledge of Desert Wind, Setting Sun, or Shadow Hand (which may be then gained through the feat)
Way of the Gear | Imp | - | | Def | Def | *
White Raven | ToB | Diplomacy | Def | | Def |
Witch Razor | Pyre | Spellcraft | | Def | | *[/table]
Def = Available to that class without any special requirements
Alt = Available to that class by either training, replacing other disciplines, or taking a feat or similar.

Non-ToB Defaults have been marked with a *. Alts without notes use The_Demented_One's training system.

The authors:
DD = DracoDei (1)
DW = DragoonWraith (1)
EX = ErrantX (1)
Fax = Fax Celestis (3)
GE = Golden-Esque (1)
Imp = Imp_Fireball (1)
JM/TLN = John "Jack Mann" Beattie and The Logic Ninja (1)
JZ = JoshuaZ (2)
KB = Krimm Blackleaf (4)
Kel = Kellus (1)
Name = I_got_this_name (8)
Nero = Nero24200 (1)
Pyre = Pyrefiend (1)
TD1 = The_Demented_One (12)
ToB = Tome of Battle (9)
Yue = Yue Ryong (2)
Zak = Zakaroth (1)
That's 18 authors; someone should try to make sure we contact each of them and get their OK to include and potentially change their work. That's only fair.

Also, something I consider useful to know: with all of these in play, Crusaders have 8 disciplines by default, and 16 others they can get through training or feats or whatever; Swordsages have 15 defaults and 23 alternates, and Warblades have 10 defaults and 19 alternates. Quite a bit more than the 3/6/5 from ToB, but they're proportionally appropriate, I think. Some of the defaults (those marked with *'s) are not from ToB but listed as just available to one of the classes; we may want to limit some of them. There are also three disciplines that are not available to any ToB class, having been made specifically for various homebrewed classes.

This is pretty old, though; pretty sure Age of Warriors has quite a few more disciplines now...

[mrcarter11]

Off the top of my head, it doesn't have pairodice's disciplines. Which I believe are ninefold damnation and infinite torment.. And is it really that bad to just switch disciplines.. A swordsage wants the two previous mentioned disciplines, so they give up 2 that they already have. Thus they still have 6 to choose from.. I personally see nothing wrong with that system.

[DragoonWraith]

Absolutely true. The limitations are primarily fluff, and usually not balance. A 1:1 swapping is almost always fair. The only one I would hesitate about is Devoted Spirit.

[For Valor]

@Dragoonwraith: Anything that costs XP or levels is a bad idea. No putting people behind the party.

And concerning that table, I assume all the stuff that doesn't say "You must be X" is switchable with anything?

[mrcarter11]

I have never played a crusader.. Although I commonly use swordsages. So I have no real experience with devoted spirit.. Is it really that good? I have had people tell me white raven is a little over powered, but I'm not sure how true that is either.

[DragoonWraith]

@Dragoonwraith: Anything that costs XP or levels is a bad idea. No putting people behind the party.
The XP mechanics mean that anyone who is behind catches up. I could do the math for you, but I'd be happier if you just trusted me on that. The XP mechanic actually works out pretty well for a lot of things. You do catch up.


And concerning that table, I assume all the stuff that doesn't say "You must be X" is switchable with anything?
If there's no note, it uses TD1's mechanic, which is either:
During character creation, swap a Discipline normally granted to the class with the chosen Discipline, and swap the class skills if appropriate (i.e. you don't already have the new discipline's skill).
During gameplay, find a master of the discipline (knows 5th level or higher maneuvers from it), and train with him for a month, costing 1,000 XP. You add the discipline to any and all martial adept classes you have or will have, and may at that time do a one-time swap of any maneuvers or stances you like for maneuvers or stances of the same level from the new discipline.

[Greenish]

I have had people tell me white raven is a little over powered, but I'm not sure how true that is either.White Raven is all about action advantage. If your party has several solid melee'ers, White Raven might be the strongest of disciplines. If you're the sole beatstick of the party, it isn't quite so hot.

[For Valor]

The XP mechanics mean that anyone who is behind catches up. I could do the math for you, but I'd be happier if you just trusted me on that. The XP mechanic actually works out pretty well for a lot of things. You do catch up.

XP loss supposedly balances something that's "too strong", like making an item or using a powerful spell. If you can get back to the level of the party after burning XP, you're getting stronger stuff basically for free (over time). However, if you don't gain back, you're permanently behind. And that sucks too.

I could direct you to people, but I don't think they want to talk about it very much, so I'd be happier of you trusted me on that.


If there's no note, it uses TD1's mechanic, which is either:
During character creation, swap a Discipline normally granted to the class with the chosen Discipline, and swap the class skills if appropriate (i.e. you don't already have the new discipline's skill).
During gameplay, find a master of the discipline (knows 5th level or higher maneuvers from it), and train with him for a month, costing 1,000 XP. You add the discipline to any and all martial adept classes you have or will have, and may at that time do a one-time swap of any maneuvers or stances you like for maneuvers or stances of the same level from the new discipline.

Erm... I was asking if the stuff that doesn't have anything in the "Special" category was switchable with anything using TD1's mechanic. I wasn't asking if the mechanic existed--I got that bit already.

[dspeyer]

Why? XP costs are pretty fitting, and it's 1,000 XP to add a discipline to your list, according to the fairly-popular mechanic used by The_Demented_One. You'll catch up with the party after like four encounters.

Because it makes little in-game sense. Why should expanding your horizons make you less skilled overall? Having to find a teacher and take time to study is cost enough.

As for which disciplines and which classes, it seems fewer are marked than I thought. Perhaps this calls for a cleanup as well.

[DragoonWraith]

XP loss supposedly balances something that's "too strong", like making an item or using a powerful spell. If you can get back to the level of the party after burning XP, you're getting stronger stuff basically for free (over time). However, if you don't gain back, you're permanently behind. And that sucks too.
Over time, yes, but that delay matters some, too. It's an investment; put in some time now training in this new discipline; it'll slow you down a bit in the short-term, but in the long term you'll be better off.

Sort of like a new item - you slow down your leveling somewhat to craft it, but you gain a new item that you'll keep forever. Ultimately, the importance of that item will wane, however, and you should be catching up.


I could direct you to people, but I don't think they want to talk about it very much, so I'd be happier of you trusted me on that.
Huh? I don't understand what you mean.


Erm... I was asking if the stuff that doesn't have anything in the "Special" category was switchable with anything using TD1's mechanic. I wasn't asking if the mechanic existed--I got that bit already.
As I said, if there's no special note, then yes, it uses that mechanic.


Because it makes little in-game sense. Why should expanding your horizons make you less skilled overall? Having to find a teacher and take time to study is cost enough.
You don't lose a level due to XP costs; you can't, actually. It doesn't illustrate you losing power, it illustrates you spending time on something other than your regular training, which means it takes you longer to level up because some of your training time is being spent on something else. Like mastering something new, or crafting an item.

[For Valor]

Dragoon:

On experience:

So dropping experience will hurt you now, but help you later on if you're learning a new discipline. Alright, I kind of see how the new flexibility will be beneficial. But this is a big case of "Suck now, be nice later" where you're disadvantaged (no fun for you) and then overadvantaged (no fun for everyone else). Ignoring the semblances of game balance, it's not fun.

Even if it's in little increments, it's annoying. I'm sure you know about the Venerable Gray Elf Wizards...

Also on experience:

This is concerning what dspeyer said about the in-game nonsensical-ness of the XP loss. So you spend a month with a mentor, lose 1000 XP, and say that it's because you weren't training. Your argument is that you're behind the party, who has been training for a month while you were out learning things. Sooo 1) If the party was out training for a month, give them experience. You don't get worse (despite your arguments, losing XP is the equivalent of getting worse). They get better. In fact, how on earth would you know that a month of training is equivalent of 1000 XP? If everyone in the world sat around in the fetal position while you trained, there would be no XP change relative to you and the rest of humanity. If your party went out and fought dragons every day, the experience difference would certainly be more than just 1000.

So:

1) XP loss is bad. I'm not going to convince you of this, obviously. Opinions, opinions..
2) Training to lose XP doesn't make sense. Other people should be improving, instead of you getting worse.
3) If everyone has a month to do whatever they want, 1000 XP is a very poor way to estimate how much XP they gain/lose/whatever. The average leveling sequence happens in a couple weeks, if the adventurers just go from place to place killing dragons. A level 5 party could be level 20 by the time the first one ends his training. However, it's just as likely that they could all have not gained any experience. Or all be dead. Or something.

EDIT:
Huh? I don't understand what you mean.

I mean that there are people who are just as againt XP penalties as I am, and have much better arguments. I can direct them to you, but I'd rather not. It's work for both me and them.

[DragoonWraith]

So dropping experience will hurt you now, but help you later on if you're learning a new discipline. Alright, I kind of see how the new flexibility will be beneficial. But this is a big case of "Suck now, be nice later" where you're disadvantaged (no fun for you) and then overadvantaged (no fun for everyone else). Ignoring the semblances of game balance, it's not fun.
Except you don't really lose anything. You retain every bit of power that you had. Your party-mates will just level up a little sooner.

You seem to be ascribing XP with some mystical value divorced from its role in leveling up, which is just confusing for me. You never lose a level due to XP costs. You lose absolutely nothing, immediately. When your party-mates level up and you don't, you won't be very far behind, and you'll gain XP faster. You'll level up in a battle or two. In a level or two, you'll be on exactly the same XP as your party-mates. It's really not a very big deal.


Even if it's in little increments, it's annoying. I'm sure you know about the Venerable Gray Elf Wizards...
What about them? I mean, I know of the race "Gray Elf", and I know of the age category "Venerable", and I know of the class "Wizard", and the fact that you can combine all of these things, but I fail to see what it has to do with this.


This is concerning what dspeyer said about the in-game nonsensical-ness of the XP loss. So you spend a month with a mentor, lose 1000 XP, and say that it's because you weren't training. Your argument is that you're behind the party, who has been training for a month while you were out learning things. Sooo 1) If the party was out training for a month, give them experience. You don't get worse (despite your arguments, losing XP is the equivalent of getting worse). They get better. In fact, how on earth would you know that a month of training is equivalent of 1000 XP? If everyone in the world sat around in the fetal position while you trained, there would be no XP change relative to you and the rest of humanity. If your party went out and fought dragons every day, the experience difference would certainly be more than just 1000.
It's just an arbitrary mechanical number! What on earth are you getting so worked up about? The XP costs are for "fast-forward" time; if your DM likes to hand out free XP, fine, but most don't. And again, you do not get any worse as a result of XP loss. And numerically, you -1000 XP versus your party +1000 XP is absolutely equivalent, why on earth is one OK but the other not?


1) XP loss is bad. I'm not going to convince you of this, obviously. Opinions, opinions..
I have yet to actually understand what you were complaining about, so no, I'm not convinced.


2) Training to lose XP doesn't make sense. Other people should be improving, instead of you getting worse.
You're not getting worse. It's an abstraction. Just like XP is to begin with.


3) If everyone has a month to do whatever they want, 1000 XP is a very poor way to estimate how much XP they gain/lose/whatever. The average leveling sequence happens in a couple weeks, if the adventurers just go from place to place killing dragons. A level 5 party could be level 20 by the time the first one ends his training. However, it's just as likely that they could all have not gained any experience. Or all be dead. Or something.
It's an arbitrary number for balance's sake...? You're seriously reading into this way too much.


I mean that there are people who are just as againt XP penalties as I am, and have much better arguments. I can direct them to you, but I'd rather not. It's work for both me and them.
OK, my comment was "trust me that the numbers worked out", yours is "trust me, I'm right, because there are totally people who agree with me" - excuse me for not considering these two equivalent. I'm talking about object mathematics. You could do the same calculations and you'd come to the same conclusion.

However, asserting the existence of better arguments really is not even remotely convincing.

Anyway, on a hunch, I'll guess you are likely referring to Frank & K, since they would seem to be the most notable commentators on 3.5, and I remember their issues with XP costs. And I'll buy that; if I was working on the system from the ground up, I probably wouldn't include them. But I'm not, I'm working with 3.5 as it exists currently, and it currently exists with XP costs for certain things. Training to learn a new discipline easily fits within the purview of the kinds of things that XP costs are used for, and mechanically/numerically/flavor-wise, it works out nicely enough. It's an easy to use, easy to understand mechanic, which makes it elegant and simple.


Seriously, you're way more invested in this than I am. I feel that XP costs work out "well enough" for this purpose. You apparently think they're the greatest crime against D&D ever, for reasons I cannot fathom. Fine, don't use them. Why are we arguing about this?

[For Valor]

AH-HAH!

You just said 2 things in your first reply. The first, that your party will be leveling up sooner. And the second, that the balance won't change. To my knowledge, being a level behind isn't fun, even if it's just for an encounter or two. Which is why the idea is bad. You also said that the balance wouldn't change, which seems contradictory to "You'll be a level lower than the rest of your party for an encounter".

2nd reply--You don't know the wizards... OK, nevermind. Forget I said anything about it.

3rd reply, 4th reply, and 5th reply--Wow... this is nearly sad.

"you do not get any worse as a result of XP loss."

Sooo... why are we including it? Case and Point. Done deal. No change in balance = No reason to have the change in there.

5th reply--Yes, people who know how to play the game explaining things is about as relevant as you throwing around some numbers. Is there a problem with that? You being able to say "people catch up" is about as good as people saying "they still have to catch up. That sucks."

[Zeful]

"you do not get any worse as a result of XP loss."

Sooo... why are we including it? Case and Point. Done deal. No change in balance = No reason to have the change in there.

Because by that logic one should remove the XP costs for magic items. After all it doesn't mean anything...

As for why, it's there to keep unscrupulous players from abusing the system. If XP costs didn't exist for magic items why is there a reason to go out and look for them, give the Party wizard all the money and he makes everything for you. Or in the case of starting a game at a higher level than first: The party wizard could start with no money and have two times as many magic items as the rest of the party, because he made them "Before the game began" (or alternativly twice his starting cash and he made the party all their magic gear). This cost prevents players from simply adding all the disciplines to his character "Before the game begins" and simply add four or so years to his character.

[DragoonWraith]

AH-HAH!
Really? Really? You weary me.


You just said 2 things in your first reply. The first, that your party will be leveling up sooner. And the second, that the balance won't change. To my knowledge, being a level behind isn't fun, even if it's just for an encounter or two. Which is why the idea is bad. You also said that the balance wouldn't change, which seems contradictory to "You'll be a level lower than the rest of your party for an encounter".
I said the balance won't change between you losing 1,000 XP and the rest of your party gaining 1,000 XP. I also said nothing changes immediately, because you kept ranting about how you hate losing power, which really is an inaccurate way of looking at things.


2nd reply--You don't know the wizards... OK, nevermind. Forget I said anything about it.
Whoo, dismissal!


3rd reply, 4th reply, and 5th reply--Wow... this is nearly sad.

"you do not get any worse as a result of XP loss."

Sooo... why are we including it? Case and Point. Done deal. No change in balance = No reason to have the change in there.
The random ad hominem attacks, taking things out of context, and strawmen standing in for arguments? Yes, I agree, quite sad.

You don't get worse - effectively, as you said, your party gets better, relatively speaking. It's a minor penalty. 1,000 XP is worth a whole lot less than a feat. You don't complain about things costing feats, do you?


5th reply--Yes, people who know how to play the game explaining things is about as relevant as you throwing around some numbers. Is there a problem with that? You being able to say "people catch up" is about as good as people saying "they still have to catch up. That sucks."
Right, but your implication is that they had better argument than "that sucks" - if not, then fine. But you seemed to say "there's really good reasons why I'm right, so you should just agree with me without me telling them to you". Which is simply preposterous.

A 1,000 XP cost is a minor penalty, a slight delay in how long it takes you to level up. This is intended to be a nice, temporary penalty that allows you to expand your character without making it a freebie, and without gimping yourself by losing one of your finite, non-refundable, non-renewable resources (like a feat).


Anyway, I don't really care. You're not convincing, probably because you don't actually address anything I say. XP costs are not really that important to me. I don't think they're nearly as bad as you say they are, and I really don't appreciate being told to "go die" because I suggested them. But it's really not that important. You're the one who's making this a big deal.

We can continue this debate, but only if you cease the thinly veiled insults, cease the obfuscation and run-around, and actually address the points I raise. Otherwise, please, just don't. Continued insults will be handled with the Report button.

[For Valor]

Because by that logic one should remove the XP costs for magic items. After all it doesn't mean anything...

As for why, it's there to keep unscrupulous players from abusing the system. If XP costs didn't exist for magic items why is there a reason to go out and look for them, give the Party wizard all the money and he makes everything for you. Or in the case of starting a game at a higher level than first: The party wizard could start with no money and have two times as many magic items as the rest of the party, because he made them "Before the game began" (or alternativly twice his starting cash and he made the party all their magic gear). This cost prevents players from simply adding all the disciplines to his character "Before the game begins" and simply add four or so years to his character.

Um... that's already a problem... EXP loss doesn't hurt caster item-crafters at all. A Wizard can gain EXP by sitting around reading books (I'm not sure what book that's from... but it's somewhere). And if that doesn't work for you, a Wizard could call up a monster, kill it, and regain EXP before it's detrimental to him.

So the "Before the game begins" problem that you've posed isn't anything new. Getting rid of EXP costs would just mean characters wouldn't have to make up B.S. excuses for staying the same level, and that non-casters would be able to go through the same processes as Batman and his cohorts, preserving at least a semblance of balance in the item-creation process.

[For Valor]

@Dragoon:

Alright, first of all, tell me Do EXP penalties hurt a character at all?

You seem to believe they don't, but then argue that they do while saying they don't... it's all very confusing and full of straw.

EDIT: Double Post... my bad.

[DragoonWraith]

It's a matter of the timing.

On the long term, minor XP costs do not hurt at all, no. You've caught up.

Immediately, they also don't hurt - you lose nothing except that your XP number gets smaller, which doesn't affect anything.

The only time it matters is for the handful of fights where your level is lower than your party's. If whatever you got with that XP cost was worthwhile, this shouldn't be a major problem.


How is this any different from someone not getting as much experience from an encounter because they had a few bum rolls that got them knocked out, so they couldn't get RP experience in the part afterwards?

[For Valor]

It's a matter of the timing.

On the long term, minor XP costs do not hurt at all, no. You've caught up.

Immediately, they also don't hurt - you lose nothing except that your XP number gets smaller, which doesn't affect anything.

The only time it matters is for the handful of fights where your level is lower than your party's. If whatever you got with that XP cost was worthwhile, this shouldn't be a major problem.

How is this any different from someone not getting as much experience from an encounter because they had a few bum rolls that got them knocked out, so they couldn't get RP experience in the part afterwards?

Yes, the handful of fights where you're worse than the rest of the party.

Which means that's you're less competent for those fights. That's not enjoyable, especially if someone's casting spells and doesn't gain access to a spell of appropriate level. And even more so when you're already a level or two behind because of LA. And even more so when you want to try out multiple disciplines before picking your favorite or when you're trying to change your whole scheme because you need a new party role.

So it screws over some people sometimes, while other people aren't disadvantaged at all.

[mrcarter11]

That sounds like basic dnd to me.. Some get screwed by certain things. others don't at all..

[DragoonWraith]

Yes, the handful of fights where you're worse than the rest of the party.

Which means that's you're less competent for those fights. That's not enjoyable, especially if someone's casting spells and doesn't gain access to a spell of appropriate level. And even more so when you're already a level or two behind because of LA. And even more so when you want to try out multiple disciplines before picking your favorite or when you're trying to change your whole scheme because you need a new party role.

So it screws over some people sometimes, while other people aren't disadvantaged at all.
"Screws over"? Hardly. It's a minor point. If you want to do it more than once, you should work something out with your DM anyway, since that's pretty unusual.

Basically, out of the hundreds of fights you'll have an average adventuring career, you'll be on the wrong side of a level breakpoint for maybe half a dozen. Would you have rathered spend a feat? I wouldn't. You'll catch up in short order anyway, and it won't make a difference.

Basically, you don't disagree with me about what happens (you end up a level lower for a handful of battles, maybe, if you're unlucky with how the XP gets distributed), and you don't disagree that you'll catch up pretty quickly and be exactly where you should have been, you just think this is an utterly agonizing experience that no one should ever have to go through. And I think you're being melodramatic. It's just not that big a deal.

Again, how is it different from a few bum rolls leading you to getting knocked out so you miss out on some bonus XP for RPing? Hell, how is it any different from a few bum rolls getting you killed and costing you an entire level? An entire level hurts a lot more than 1,000 XP (unless you're level 2, but you shouldn't be taking this option as a level 2 character, especially since you'll need to be trained by one who is at least 9th level). Does dying suck? Sure. Is it the end of the world? Not by a long shot. And it's a lot worse than paying 1,000 XP for a bonus.

[playswithfire]

Not to disrupt the debate over the XP cost option, but another alternative occurred to me. What if, instead of a feat, it were a trait?

Well-Traveled [Trait]
You have seen the world and found new and interesting styles of combat, which you have added to your repetoire.
Benefit
You add another discipline to your available disciplines and gain its associated skill as a class skill if it is not already a class skill.
Drawback
You lose access to one of your normally available disciplines and, if you added a new skill to your class skill list, remove this discipline's associated skill from your class skill list.
Special
Can only be taken if your first level is a martial adept. Can be taken multiple times, each time applying the drawback to a different discipline.

Most games only allow one or two traits, which puts a limit on the number of possible swaps. Traits are generally supposed to be overall neutral; better at one thing, worse at another, which fits with most disciplines being equivalent. And most adepts, as also mentioned above, don't really need a new discipline and so they might just as happily pick one of the other traits.

Just a thought. Maybe a bad one.

[For Valor]

Alright, so it's not that big a deal, which is why it's OK. It's fine that, every once in a while, you're behind the party. So back to the point I had above (now slightly modified), if it's not that big a deal--it probably won't affect boss battles or any major encounters--why include it? Just get rid of it.

Secondly, you started citing things like losing RP Experience or losing a whole level, as though they're OK things to do. Part of the argument: They're not. Being behind the party is a bad thing--part of the fundamental idea in D&D is that the people who are weaker are cohorts, backdrops to the bigger picture. If you're weaker, you're more of a backdrop in comparison to all your buddies. Now, if you think it's fine and fun to do that, I guess it's all a matter of opinion. I just like being able to contribute the same as all my fellow gamers.

EDIT: To playswithfire. A feat is not a good idea for something like discipline-switching. Feats are usually more worthwhile, which is why the suggested idea is just to switch discplines out.

[playswithfire]

EDIT: To playswithfire. A feat is not a good idea for something like discipline-switching. Feats are usually more worthwhile, which is why the suggested idea is just to switch discplines out.

Yes, that was established a while ago. That's why what I posted was a trait, (a la Unearthed Arcana) not a feat, which provides a more concrete mechanic for giving the option to swap one or two disciplines at the only cost of not picking one of the other available traits. A trait may also be a bad idea; just making sure it's clear what I posted.

[For Valor]

Yes, that was established a while ago. That's why what I posted was a trait, (a la Unearthed Arcana) not a feat, which provides a more concrete mechanic for giving the option to swap one or two disciplines at the only cost of not picking one of the other available traits. A trait may also be a bad idea; just making sure it's clear what I posted.

Oooh... I didn't notice that. 2 suggestions.

1) Throw "[Trait]" next to the title, so no one else makes a fool out of themselves because they only glanced at the big text and everything below it... I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

2) Wouldn't it be nicer if the trait applied to multiple disciplines? "Well-Traveled" sounds like a good enough excuse to replace your whole repertoire with new discplines.

[playswithfire]

Oooh... I didn't notice that. 2 suggestions.

1) Throw "[Trait]" next to the title, so no one else makes a fool out of themselves because they only glanced at the big text and everything below it... I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

2) Wouldn't it be nicer if the trait applied to multiple disciplines? "Well-Traveled" sounds like a good enough excuse to replace your whole repertoire with new discplines.

1. Done.
2. I thought there had been some concern about too much switching. Making the trait only replace one allows the DM to limit the number of swaps. Though, I do need to append the Special section to say that you can take the trait multiple times, each time unlearning a different discipline. Also, I like the idea of disciplines being predominantly associated with certain adepts. If you want to use a version of the trait that allows for any number of switches, be my guest, though I don't think more than two would be necessary very often. YMMV.

[DragoonWraith]

...what?

The mechanics I listed already posed that as an option, with no trait. You could either swap one discipline with another or pay 1,000 XP to gain a new one.

Did we seriously have this entire argument because you didn't read my post?

[DracoDei]

A few points:

1.) Falling Anvil now uses the standard mechanic used by Age of Warriors. Anything that mentions my original mechanic as anything but a very marginal optional rule is outdated. I was pushing the envelop, and it didn't pay off in this case.

2.) The limitation to Swordsages (I still haven't edited for other base classes, and even ToB itself doesn't list the discipline access for PrCs with the disciplines, only with the PrCs), is listed on every individual maneuver.

To wit:Piano Drop[/size]
Falling Anvil (Strike) [Chaos]
Level: Swordsage 5
Prerequisite: 2 Falling Anvil maneuvers, non-lawful alignment
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: 90 feet
Target: 10 foot square
Duration: Instantaneous/End of Combat
Saving Throw: Reflex Half

Crash! (In C sharp, B Flat, and F minor)

A master-workgrand piano (or an upright if solid walls connected by a ceiling block off part of the area) falls in the area, becoming smashed to peices in the process (althoughMake Whole or similar effects may restore it), making the area difficult terrain, and dealing 11d6 damage to each creature in the area. The piano counts as a Chaotic aligned magic weapon for the purposes of damage reduction, regeneration, etc etc. If the initiator level is 21 or greater, the piano also counts as an Epic weapon. A reflex save is permitted for half damage and the DC is 15 + your wisdom modifier. The piano (usual in the form of wreckage, but even if repaired) disappears at the end of combat.
This maneuver is a supernatural ability.

3.) (perhaps I should resist... but I think I may have some insight here) At their most basic use, XPs represent the ability to get better at something... to LEARN, using them for spells and item creation is an add-on (and a good one from what I can see)... but the business about the add-ons is irrelevant to my point. Person A gets better by adding a class level. Person B decides to take a bit of their learning and apply it to gaining some versatility by adding another discipline to their list. This slightly delays their advancement on their primary course of study. One might even think of it as micro-scale multiclassing.

[dspeyer]

It has occurred to me that there's another problem with an XP cost. The time you get new maneuvers is when you level, and that's the time you can't pay a cost. That means you can only gain access to a new discipline when you get nothing for doing so. This doesn't sound good.

How about skill points? They're available when you level, much more plentiful than feats, and vaguely thematic. Say 5 skill points to learn an additional discipline. Swordsages will do this more easily than warblades more easily than crusaders, but that seems about right, and none of them will find it extremely difficult.

I imagine first-level swapping will be the more common case anyway.

[Tavar]

It has occurred to me that there's another problem with an XP cost. The time you get new maneuvers is when you level, and that's the time you can't pay a cost. That means you can only gain access to a new discipline when you get nothing for doing so. This doesn't sound good.


The XP option allows you to trade up to one maneuver known per level out for one of the new discipline.

[DragoonWraith]

How about skill points? They're available when you level, much more plentiful than feats, and vaguely thematic. Say 5 skill points to learn an additional discipline. Swordsages will do this more easily than warblades more easily than crusaders, but that seems about right, and none of them will find it extremely difficult.

I imagine first-level swapping will be the more common case anyway.
As Tavar said, the XP thing had rules for handling that, but that said... I do like this idea. Could even have it be like "for every 5 ranks in Martial Lore", since, ya know, pretty much no one uses that. EDIT: But that'd be much too good for that Broken Blade discipline, wouldn't it? Heh, nevermind.

[DracoDei]

It has occurred to me that there's another problem with an XP cost. The time you get new maneuvers is when you level, and that's the time you can't pay a cost. That means you can only gain access to a new discipline when you get nothing for doing so. This doesn't sound good.

How about skill points? They're available when you level, much more plentiful than feats, and vaguely thematic. Say 5 skill points to learn an additional discipline. Swordsages will do this more easily than warblades more easily than crusaders, but that seems about right, and none of them will find it extremely difficult.

I imagine first-level swapping will be the more common case anyway.

Skill-points are actually more expensive in the long-run, and you can always do it just BEFORE you level if you like... a fight or three later (or some good roleplay) and you catch up to the party.

[For Valor]

...what?

The mechanics I listed already posed that as an option, with no trait. You could either swap one discipline with another or pay 1,000 XP to gain a new one.

Did we seriously have this entire argument because you didn't read my post?

Um, no. You reference TD1's mechanic, which says you swap them out for free at character creation, but you pay the EXP at any other time. The paying of EXP is what I'm arguing against... goodness, maybe you should read the OP.

On another note, spending skill points seems like a nice idea. The only problem is, would you put it in a pool when leveling (in the case of, say, a Crusader with 10 Int who only gains 4 points when he levels), or could you pull ranks out of your other skills to pay for it? I dislike the idea of putting skill points into a pool until you've got 5, because it reeks of "wait to [maybe] become better", but I kind of enjoy the concept of pulling out skill points (retraining for a week?) from other skills and throwing them into Martial Lore.

Honestly, I think the best option is to just say "You spend a few weeks working out. You've lost White Raven, and now know Stone Dragon," but that might just be me.