Martial invocations.

[Talakeal]

So the warlock is a T3 caster who can use their powers at will without limit.

The ToB classes are all T3 martial characters who can only use a very limited selection of their powers at a given time and require some sort of recharge before using them again.

A lot of people don't like the "semi vancian" or "fire and forget" nature of the ToB classes.

I am wondering, is there any reason why you couldn't have a Class that combines the two? A martial initiator who has a decent pool of maneuvers they can use at will? Would that really be unbalanced? Wouldn't the existence of such a class solve a lot of peoples issues with the ToB both for and against?

[OldTrees1]

Looks yummy. It doesn't solve all of my personal preference mechanical issues, but it does fix the only one in its scope. The other requires more passive maneuvers to be printed.


Wizard -> Warlock
9th level spells with vancian casting with amost spells known -> roughly 6th spell level in power (with some variance like Foresight), with At Will invoking and with 12 invocations known.

Warblade -> ???
9th level manuevers, with Warblade Refresh frequency, with 17 maneuvers/stances know(8 readied) -> ?th level manuevers, with At will usage, with ?? known?

[Shinken]

As far as I understand, the point behind maneuvers not being at will is not about it being overpowered or not - it's about it being boring or not. The point of martial maneuvers is to do different stuff in combat, not to spam the same maneuver over and over. Point in case, the Crusader has at-will maneuvers. He never runs out. It's just that he doesn't have all his maneuvers available to him all the time.

[Talakeal]

As far as I understand, the point behind maneuvers not being at will is not about it being overpowered or not - it's about it being boring or not. The point of martial maneuvers is to do different stuff in combat, not to spam the same maneuver over and over. Point in case, the Crusader has at-will maneuvers. He never runs out. It's just that he doesn't have all his maneuvers available to him all the time.

Why does that problem not exist for a warlock though?

[Shinken]

Why does that problem not exist for a warlock though?

Different concepts. Doing the same thing, over and over, is what the Warlock was designed to do - transforming a limited resource into an unlimited one.
Maneuvers are not really a limited resource, to start with.

[Inevitability]

Warlocks are T4. /nitpick

[Talakeal]

Warlocks are T4. /nitpick

Sorry, I misremembered. Although, that actually strengthens my case. Warlocks have a lot of decent powers useable at will, surely a martial character could get in on that action without breaking the game?

[RegalKain]

I think the big issue here is that a lot of Warlock invocations are 24 hour buffs or very situational things outside of EB I think it would be harder to make a martial class invocation list. That said... Take the fighter slap half progression on him give hi. Half the readied (not known) list of warblade maneuvers with the same disciplines to choose from at will. How well does that work?

Sorry if I seem lazy in this but AFB and on my phone right now

[Gemini476]

Sorry, I misremembered. Although, that actually strengthens my case. Warlocks have a lot of decent powers useable at will, surely a martial character could get in on that action without breaking the game?

Sure they can. Here, have an NPC class (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=49.0). It's probably not that high-tier. At all.

Do note that most of the initiators are pretty at-will with their abilities as-is - the only real reason for needing to regain maneuvers is so that you don't just spam the same thing turn after turn like a Fighter would with a Full Attack. Crusaders never run out but have a random pool available, and Warblades and Swordsages are at worst 1 use per 2 turns but have enough readied to last longer than that between refreshing maneuvers.
Making them just have a bunch of at-will abilities would certainly be possible and probably wouldn't break the game at all, but would also lead to them being both more boring and (strangely enough) less 'realistic'. A fighter in real life is rarely in the position to use the same maneuver over and over again without pause, after all.

[OldTrees1]

Making them just have a bunch of at-will abilities would certainly be possible and probably wouldn't break the game at all, but would also lead to them being both more boring and (strangely enough) less 'realistic'. A fighter in real life is rarely in the position to use the same maneuver over and over again without pause, after all.

Or less boring and more realistic (since a fighter in real life is limited by outside factors not arbitrary internal factors) it depends on your point of view(and the angle you tilt your head :smallbiggrin: ).

That solidier NPC class looks useful.

It still seems strange that removing an action economy tax and allowing synergistic repetition would not be a large enough buff to warrant corrective balancing.

[Gemini476]

Or less boring and more realistic (since a fighter in real life is limited by outside factors not arbitrary internal factors) it depends on your point of view(and the angle you tilt your head :smallbiggrin: ).
By "less boring", I meant that you are no longer doing the same thing every single turn (be that charge, Full Attack, both, starting up some tripping engine). One turn you're using Maneuver A, next turn it's Maneuver B, and if you want to use A again then you need to spend a full action/swift+attack to get in position for doing so again.

Because, let's face it, positioning in D&D 3.5 is entirely abstract beyond "which 5'x5' square is he in?" Is he facing left, right, is his stance wide or thin, is he leaving any openings and what are those? That's not something the rules care about, but are a big reason for why you can't just try to stab your opponent in the face 24/7. Along with them wising up to it and specifically avoiding leaving any openings in the facial area, that is.


That solidier NPC class looks useful.

It still seems strange that removing an action economy tax and allowing synergistic repetition would not be a large enough buff to warrant corrective balancing.
Maneuvers are basically at-will as-is and are at roughly the right powerlevel for the level you acquire them at. Not to mention that the Soldier is plenty limited in his number of maneuvers known - I'd be hesitant to say that he even reaches Tier 3, to be honest. It's an NPC class and the at-will nature is there because that's less bookkeeping for the DM. The same goes for the maneuvers it knows.

It's a somewhat weak class, to be honest. Maybe more interesting than a Fighter, but it has a pretty low ceiling. There's only so much you can do with a small amount of maneuvers from a single discipline.

[Ilorin Lorati]

If one were to make a class with pure at will access to maneuvers, you would need to be careful how you balanced it; some of the high level maneuvers are basically "target one person. If you hit, that person is dead - even if they don't know it yet."

That said, I wouldn't say it can't work or that it would be "boring", but I do think some sort of incentive for switching it up would be warranted.

[OldTrees1]

By "less boring", I meant that you are no longer doing the same thing every single turn (be that charge, Full Attack, both, starting up some tripping engine). One turn you're using Maneuver A, next turn it's Maneuver B, and if you want to use A again then you need to spend a full action/swift+attack to get in position for doing so again.

Because, let's face it, positioning in D&D 3.5 is entirely abstract beyond "which 5'x5' square is he in?" Is he facing left, right, is his stance wide or thin, is he leaving any openings and what are those? That's not something the rules care about, but are a big reason for why you can't just try to stab your opponent in the face 24/7. Along with them wising up to it and specifically avoiding leaving any openings in the facial area, that is.
What you find less boring(wasting actions and restricted options) others may find more boring. Hence my "depending on your point of view" statement.

The round is long enough that D&D abstracted out the normal series of feints and adjustments. It is not Maneuver 1 to the head, Maneuver 2 to the spine. It is series of feints and adjustments to land Maneuver 1 in any of the applicable locations followed by a series of feints and adjustments to land Maneuver 2 in an applicable location. Very few(I am being generous and assuming some exist) maneuvers are written in a way where they could be negated in fluff without there also being a mechanical difference.

Again this perspective results from a different point of view. Your point of view would lead to the different perspective you listed above.


Maneuvers are basically at-will as-is and are at roughly the right powerlevel for the level you acquire them at. Not to mention that the Soldier is plenty limited in his number of maneuvers known - I'd be hesitant to say that he even reaches Tier 3, to be honest. It's an NPC class and the at-will nature is there because that's less bookkeeping for the DM. The same goes for the maneuvers it knows.

It's a somewhat weak class, to be honest. Maybe more interesting than a Fighter, but it has a pretty low ceiling. There's only so much you can do with a small amount of maneuvers from a single discipline.

Oh Soldier is definitely weak, but it is an NPC class.


If one were to make a class with pure at will access to maneuvers, you would need to be careful how you balanced it; some of the high level maneuvers are basically "target one person. If you hit, that person is dead - even if they don't know it yet."

That said, I wouldn't say it can't work or that it would be "boring", but I do think some sort of incentive for switching it up would be warranted.
The higher level maneuvers were a concern of mine.

There should be an incentive to change up. There already is* but it might not be enough by itself.

*What this round may be good, next round when circumstances change, may be bad. Or in other words, as the combat progresses circumstances naturally change. Tactical opportunities open up to be exploited, the shift of power changes, the enemy composition changes, even the terrain can change from the corpses that lie therein.

[Dr. Cliché]

By "less boring", I meant that you are no longer doing the same thing every single turn (be that charge, Full Attack, both, starting up some tripping engine). One turn you're using Maneuver A, next turn it's Maneuver B, and if you want to use A again then you need to spend a full action/swift+attack to get in position for doing so again.

To me though, having to spend a full round doing so-all (or, at the bery least, not using a maneuver) in order to recover a 'spent' maneuver is infinitely more boring than just being able to use the same one multiple times in a row.

I guess I'd just rather have the option to be diverse or repetitive as I choose (or as the situation dictates), without being arbitrarily limited. I think it's even weirder that the swordsage and warblade can 'run out' of maneuvers - even temporarily. It just seems like a really weird concept. :smallconfused:


Out of interest, how would people feel about doing away with expending and recovering maneuvers, and instead statinge that, once you use a maneuver, you have to wait at least one round before you can use that same manaeuver again.

[Xerlith]

Out of interest, how would people feel about doing away with expending and recovering maneuvers, and instead statinge that, once you use a maneuver, you have to wait at least one round before you can use that same manaeuver again.

Eh, it's okay I guess. I've been playing with the Recharge Magic system in my group and it's kind of similar. It's a small boost in-combat and a kind of nerf to the Crusader. Nothing big, but it's a LOT more to keep track of. Recovering/expending maneuvers like slots is a lot more streamlined - in my book, better.
Because simplicity really rules when you want to have a dynamic, edge-of-the-seat combat. Then again, this is group-specific as well.

On-topic: The Spellshaping Codices (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=64.0) are the magic maneuverified.

[OldTrees1]

Out of interest, how would people feel about doing away with expending and recovering maneuvers, and instead stating that, once you use a maneuver, you have to wait at least one round before you can use that same maneuver again.

I my opinion it would be an improvement but I have to agree with what you said before:

I guess I'd just rather have the option to be diverse or repetitive as I choose (or as the situation dictates), without being arbitrarily limited.
Sometimes the situation would provide opportunity for and require a 2 turn repetition. The transition from favoring chaos to favoring stability* in a battle is a good example of where a 2 turn repetition is called for.

*The tipping point.

[Dr. Cliché]

Eh, it's okay I guess. I've been playing with the Recharge Magic system in my group and it's kind of similar. It's a small boost in-combat and a kind of nerf to the Crusader. Nothing big, but it's a LOT more to keep track of. Recovering/expending maneuvers like slots is a lot more streamlined - in my book, better.

I don't understand how it could possibly be more work to keep track of.

How is 'did you use that maneuver last turn?' more work than keeping track of a pool of maneuvers (which is also separate from your known maneuvers), and noting down which ones you've used this encounter and which ones you haven't?


I my opinion it would be an improvement but I have to agree with what you said before:

Sometimes the situation would provide opportunity for and require a 2 turn repetition. The transition from favoring chaos to favoring stability* in a battle is a good example of where a 2 turn repetition is called for.

Yeah, I'd prefer having no limits on at all on repeating maneuvers. I just thought a less restrictive system would be a better compromise than no restrictions at all.


On a related note, how do people feel about only being able to use your readied maneuvers - as opposed to having access to all the maneuvers you know?

[OldTrees1]

On a related note, how do people feel about only being able to use your readied maneuvers - as opposed to having access to all the maneuvers you know?

Yeah I can see ways to make that work.
Known maneuvers are all the maneuvers you have learned theoretically.
Readied maneuvers are all the maneuvers you have practiced and maintained at combat speed.
I would probably increase the time it takes to exchange maneuvers though. Perhaps you can only exchange maneuvers at the start of the day(defined by when you do your martial practice).

[Shinken]

Warlocks are T4. /nitpick

This is a hotly debated topic, actually.

[Zale]

The Bellator (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?336731-quot-Today-is-victory-over-yourself-Tomorrow-is-your-victory-over-lesser-men-quot) is capable of, with enough investment, learning every non-supernatural, non-boost maneuver at will up to level 6. That's just a small part of the abilities it gets, too.

And it's considered about tier two or so.

Just the first thing that sprang to mind.