Rules Question: Heroics + Martial Study

[Zarion]

My question revolves around a simple scenario.

Mage A casts Heroics on himself and selects Martial Study and selects Manuever B. In an encounter Mage A uses Manuever B, after that Heroics is ended, either its duration ended or it was dispelled. Mage A then recasts Heroics on himself and reselects Martial Study and reselects Manuever B.

My question is after recasting heroics, does the 1/encounter use of that Manuever reset?

[Seppo87]

No one knows, DM decides.

[Gildedragon]

Yes
It is a new spell and a new taking of the MS feat.
Though one could argue the trick can only be done three times as Martial Study can only be taken three times

I wouldn't

But if the PC is doing this a lot... Well I'd just let them retrain into an initiator class or JPM

[Darrin]

My question is after recasting heroics, does the 1/encounter use of that Manuever reset?

I'd say yes. If the mage had selected Maneuver C, he would proceed through the rest of the encounter normally with no limitations. Since the second heroics is a separate and distinct spell effect from the first, I don't see why the limitations from the first spell effect would carry over into another casting. Once the first spell effect ends, the conditions of the feat end with it.

[Zarion]

This came up because of a theoretical excercise, a continuous item of heroics. You could theoretically activate/deactivate it to use any manuever as much as desired. I know it's incredibly cheesy but it would be cool and it works RAW. Bonus: stacking similar abilities, same spell, on a single magic item makes the second ability cost 75% and every other 50%. So you could have three for martial study and then some for martial stance, rearranging maneuvers and stances at will.

[Deophaun]

I know it's incredibly cheesy but it would be cool and it works RAW.
It works via DM fiat, not RAW. All custom magic items are DM fiat, not RAW, as there are no rules for custom magic item creation, only guidelines.

Besides, you wouldn't be able to stack multiple castings, because stacking rules prohibit gaining the same benefit (bonus fighter feat) from the same source (heroics). Only the last heroics would take effect.

[Gildedragon]

This came up because of a theoretical excercise, a continuous item of heroics. You could theoretically activate/deactivate it to use any manuever as much as desired. I know it's incredibly cheesy but it would be cool and it works RAW. Bonus: stacking similar abilities, same spell, on a single magic item makes the second ability cost 75% and every other 50%. So you could have three for martial study and then some for martial stance, rearranging maneuvers and stances at will.

It item creation guidelines are guidelines and not rules.
You are treating this like a gauntlet of true strike; ie: nope
Look at the closest similar item: Crown of White Ravens
For 45,000 gp you get 24hr attunement and use as if you knew it (refreshing happening as one is able to refresh)

To cut down the attunement time to 0hrs I'd (at least) quadruple the price (I could be convinced it is not quadrupling but thrice doubling)
Unbinding it from discipline would have it cost... At least twice as much (if not x4.5)
This has already pushed the item well into epic and I'm not done yet...

If it were a novice COWR (3000gp) it pushes it to somewhere between 24,000gp-120,000gp for an item that let's you pick a maneuver of up to level 3 every other round (two moves to put on and take off the item; one round to use it)
This isn't terrible, giving you 5-6 uses of the same maneuver in a 10 round encounter; but using up nearly all your other actions; having you provoke AoOs and leaving you next to your enemy.

What you describe is more like a use activated uncharged wand of heroics, requiring a standard action to activate not a free action

[Zarion]

Besides, you wouldn't be able to stack multiple castings, because stacking rules prohibit gaining the same benefit (bonus fighter feat) from the same source (heroics). Only the last heroics would take effect.

It's been decided before that things like heroics or resist energy stack, as long as the effect is different.

[Deophaun]

It's been decided before that things like heroics or resist energy stack, as long as the effect is different.
Compounding DM fiat on top of DM fiat does not RAW make.

Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

[Zarion]

Oh that wasn't DM fiat, that was the consensus on a number of boards regarding that issue according to RAW. In regard to custom magic items, items that obey the rules are considered RAW but can still be denied by rule 0. So the whole thing is RAW, not DM fiat.

[Deophaun]

Oh that wasn't DM fiat, that was the consensus on a number of boards regarding that issue according to RAW. In regard to custom magic items, items that obey the rules are considered RAW but can still be denied by rule 0. So the whole thing is RAW, not DM fiat.
Consensus that runs counter to RAW is not RAW. RAW is quoted above.

And as there are no rules for custom magic items to follow, they, too, cannot be RAW. RAW stands for RULES As Written, not GUIDELINES As Written.

[Gildedragon]

Oh that wasn't DM fiat, that was the consensus on a number of boards regarding that issue according to RAW. In regard to custom magic items, items that obey the rules are considered RAW but can still be denied by rule 0. So the whole thing is RAW, not DM fiat.
The magic item creation guidelines aren't An exact science and need DM's criterion to be handled:

Not all items adhere to these formulas directly. The reasons for this are several. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point ... Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staffs follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.
It just doesn't work: the worth of an item that does as you suggest is extremely high (as I previously estimated); same as an item of continuous true-strike

Additionally: a continuous item of Heroism would not be turned off, it would be a single casting of the spell. It'd have the maneuver learned not wearing off after the 10 mins per level.
If it is use activated it'd be a standard or move action at least to activate, and would not be again useable until after the effect is worn off (you can't activate something that is still active)

[Zarion]

If it is use activated it'd be a standard or move action at least to activate, and would not be again useable until after the effect is worn off (you can't activate something that is still active)

Use activated items can be activated and deactivated by the user, turning on and off the effects.

[sleepyphoenixx]

You can't actually deactivate a continuous item. You can take it off, but the effect itself is continuous, as the name suggests.
So a continuous item of Heroics would always give you the same feat if you put it on, chosen at the time of creation.

That aside there are already items that grant maneuvers. No DM in their right mind will allow you to get a custom item that is ridiculously better without significantly increasing the price.
That's pretty much the first rule of custom items.


Use activated items can be activated and deactivated by the user, turning on and off the effects.
That's not what use activated means. Use activated is for effects that happen when you use the item normally, such as triggering a spell or effect when you hit something with an enchanted sword, wear a belt or other item of clothing etc. They trigger automatically by using the item normally, you can't switch them on and off.
You can take off a worn item or not hit something with a sword, but that doesn't let you re-choose any options from a variable effect. Those are set at the creation of the item.

What you're describing is a command word item with a dismissible effect. Heroics isn't dismissible, so the only way to remove it is dispel.

[Zarion]

Even disregarding whether it can be activated/deactivated at will. A continuous item of heroics would cost 18,000 gp for each feat. If the spell doesn't stack, then a command word item with 3 feats would cost 24,300 gp + 5,400 gp/additional feat, switching out feats at will.

If you abuse cost reduction:
Artificer - cast as Ur-Priest CL 2
Crafting -50%
Extraordinary Artisan -25%
Magical Artisan -25%
Artificer Only -30%
Specific Skill -10%

Continuous: 2,126.25 gp/feat
Command Word: 2,870.43 gp/3 feats + 637.88 gp/additional fear

Either way that's cheesy.

[Gildedragon]

You're not hearing what we're saying
The item creation guidelines explicitly say to price the item along it's worth, not just with the guidelines themselves
Wands, potions, scrolls: those are exact
Wondrous items are not

Heroics is one of those finicky spells that may well serve as a baseline for extrapolating the cost of a feat (particularly by increasing the CL until the caster would qualify for the feat) but that by taking it by itself is... Borked

Now the thing is: martial maneuver and stance granting items already exist, so any item that imitates that ought use those items as a base cost guideline

Also: consider item activation costs. Each swapping is (at best) a swift action (if you use quickened heroics) as the base.
But that'd probably be a standard or move to do the change.
18000 for any maneuver infinitely refreshable is too cheap without a qualifier
Consider that 15000 will get you a maneuver of up to 6th

Now I will agree that the lack of a recovery method is... troublesome and something like adaptive style ought allow anyone to recover maneuvers (and it'd be a spell that better suited making last via heroics) not just initiator classes

But that's neither here nor there
You want items that give martial maneuvers: go for CoWRs or martial scripts
Heck martial scripts give you a "baseline" by which to calculate what a wand of the maneuver would cost

[Zarion]

I'm hearing you, I'm saying forget about Martial Study/Stance, and just think about the massive list of fighter bonus feats available with this.

[Gildedragon]

A continuous item of heroics would, I'd rule, have to be keyed to a particular feat
Also most fighter feats are sort of static abilities and not per-encounter, which make swapping them out less broken

Furthermore a lot of FBFs are locked in feat chains. Items that obviated the chains would be both expensive and benefit martial classes that can cover some of the prereqs with greater ease.

[Zarion]

A continuous item of heroics would, I'd rule, have to be keyed to a particular feat
Also most fighter feats are sort of static abilities and not per-encounter, which make swapping them out less broken.

I showed a really simple low level way to drastically reduce the cost per feat. A mid level character could have ten feats keyed up to be swapped around when the situation called for it.

[Gildedragon]

You'd have to take the actions to do the swapping, at least a standard action. Or (if they're all in the same item) already have them online (in which case why swap)

Swapping the items would only get you the base feats, not the (more interesting) further down the feat-chain feats

Also artificer cost reduction is nothing new and is part of why an artificer is played. I evaluate the item's base cost (cause everything is reduced by an artificer, not just this one item)

Lastly: unless the magic item is casting heroics (like a wand), the feat given ought be chosen at time of creation (at the DMs discretion)
Otherwise sanctumspell charms of haste are commonplace

[Zarion]

You'd have to take the actions to do the swapping, at least a standard action. Or (if they're all in the same item) already have them online (in which case why swap)

There's been debate on this post whether heroics stacks with itself for different feats, if no then swapping is necessary


Swapping the items would only get you the base feats, not the (more interesting) further down the feat-chain feats.

If the spell didn't stack then no you couldn't, but if it did you could.


Lastly: unless the magic item is casting heroics (like a wand), the feat given ought be chosen at time of creation (at the DMs discretion)

Yes, that's why you'd need to have multiple heroics on the same item, one for each feat you'd want as an option.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I showed a really simple low level way to drastically reduce the cost per feat. A mid level character could have ten feats keyed up to be swapped around when the situation called for it.

You still seem to be missing or conveniently ignoring the fact that the rules for custom items are guidelines and subject to DM approval.
You're not getting 10 swappable feats for cheap no matter what they say unless you're in a campaign that has absolutely no concept of WBL or proper item pricing.
The cost for an item that grants a static feat without prerequisites is tentatively set at 10k gp (A&EG). That's the figure any DM with a clue will base his new price on, if he allows it at all.

[Zarion]

I'm just showing a cheesy method that is available within RAW, like most such things it wouldn't be allowed normally.

It's like the Body Outside Body + Psychic Reformation + Fusion trick, RAW but would almost never be allowed.

Although with my DM it might be, and I might be considered behind the curve in getting free feats. It's an extremely munchkiny group.

[Segev]

Martial Study won't let you have the same maneuver readied multiple times. Even if you lose the feat and regain it, until you take the required action (i.e. time spent out of combat) to refresh it, you can't use that maneuver again.

Though you could gain a new copy of Martial Study with a different maneuver and use it just fine. Honestly, if you're casting a 2nd level spell to gain a one-off maneuver, I don't think it's going to break anything to chain through as many of those as you want to burn 2nd level spell slots on.

A command-activated item of it would require you to spend an action restoring it, which is comparable to how Warblades already recover their maneuvers. But you'll get one maneuver at a time. (Swordsages still have it worse, admittedly.)

Still not particularly broken.

[Zarion]

This is all a theoretical excercise from a RAW perspective, and what you may not get is that in RAW, there is NO Rule 0. RAW acts as if playing a game with no DM, and with no DM to oversee guidelines, guidelines must be treated as RULES for RAW. So in this system, this method would work according to RAW, because there is no DM fiat to stop it.

Your thinking RAI, which includes a DM.

[Segev]

This is all a theoretical excercise from a RAW perspective, and what you may not get is that in RAW, there is NO Rule 0. RAW acts as if playing a game with no DM, and with no DM to oversee guidelines, guidelines must be treated as RULES for RAW. So in this system, this method would work according to RAW, because there is no DM fiat to stop it.

Your thinking RAI, which includes a DM.

If that was in response to me, then no, I was speaking of the RAW. Just noting that it's not even a broken application of the RAW. If it wasn't in response to me, feel free to disregard this post. :smallbiggrin:

[Zarion]

If that was in response to me, then no, I was speaking of the RAW. Just noting that it's not even a broken application of the RAW. If it wasn't in response to me, feel free to disregard this post. :smallbiggrin:

No it was responding to sleepyphoenixx.

[Renen]

This is all a theoretical excercise from a RAW perspective, and what you may not get is that in RAW, there is NO Rule 0. RAW acts as if playing a game with no DM, and with no DM to oversee guidelines, guidelines must be treated as RULES for RAW. So in this system, this method would work according to RAW, because there is no DM fiat to stop it.

Your thinking RAI, which includes a DM.

No we are thinking raw. I agree with others in this thread. Magic item creation guidelines say that they are just guidelines and need DM to rule if something is too broken to use with them. If you do a theoretical optimization where you assume you have no DM, id say you can't use such rules that specifically say they need DM to rule on them.

Further, id say that you can't have more than 1 Heroics spell active at once, since it's the same spell, and just because it gives different effects on each iteration doesn't mean you can have multiples of it.

[Gildedragon]

This is all a theoretical excercise from a RAW perspective, and what you may not get is that in RAW, there is NO Rule 0. RAW acts as if playing a game with no DM, and with no DM to oversee guidelines, guidelines must be treated as RULES for RAW. So in this system, this method would work according to RAW, because there is no DM fiat to stop it.

Your thinking RAI, which includes a DM.

RAW items that are not wands or scrolls need a DM adjudication (as quoted several times before)
Custom magic items, RAW, need a DM to rule them IN, and are assumed to not be legal.

[Zarion]

Further, id say that you can't have more than 1 Heroics spell active at once, since it's the same spell, and just because it gives different effects on each iteration doesn't mean you can have multiples of it.

I addressed this in a previous post, a command word item with multiple iterations of the spell would overwrite the previous instance, meaning only one feat at a time, but as many times as you want.

Although there is major disagreement on whether heroics stacks with itself, many similar discussions result in it stacking.

[Zarion]

RAW items that are not wands or scrolls need a DM adjudication (as quoted several times before)
Custom magic items, RAW, need a DM to rule them IN, and are assumed to not be legal.

As I said RAW assumes no DM, so when something mentions a DM decision, you have to ignore it. RAW means Rules as Written, so you need to look at what is written and try your best to figure it out without DM fiat. You have to treat guidelines as RULES, just like any other.

[Renen]

I addressed this in a previous post, a command word item with multiple iterations of the spell would overwrite the previous instance, meaning only one feat at a time, but as many times as you want.

Although there is major disagreement on whether heroics stacks with itself, many similar discussions result in it stacking.

Would you say energy resistance spell stacks with itself if you cast it twice, with one iteration protecting from fire and another from cold?

[Gildedragon]

As I said RAW assumes no DM, so when something mentions a DM decision, you have to ignore it. fair enough: one has to ignore the creation of custom wondrous items then. Otherwise I can just say: I research and design a spell that does X because the rules say I can research spells (which must be approved by the DM) and since we are ignoring the DM's existence then I can research whatever I want including but not limited to: a cantrip that makes me an overdeity with infinity divine ranks.


RAW means Rules as Written, so you need to look at what is written and try your best to figure it out without DM fiat. You have to treat guidelines as RULES, just like any other. No. Just... No
The rules say "ask your DM to do Y" if there is no DM you can't ask the DM and hence you cannot do Y
And "figure out" isn't what raw analysis is about. Looking at RAW is piecing together what the rules explicitly say one can or cannot do.

[Zarion]

Would you say energy resistance spell stacks with itself if you cast it twice, with one iteration protecting from fire and another from cold?

Personally, yes I would, because while it's the same spell the effect it imparts is different, two kinds of resistance.

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=12887.0

[Troacctid]

RAW is very clear that the first step in determining the price of a custom magic item is to compare it to similar items that already exist. If you are skipping that step and moving straight on to the chart, you are not following the RAW.

[Renen]

Well conveniently, the srd has a quote that uses similar wording you did:


The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.


So the quote they used in your link is different, but doesn't negate the above. Heroics grants an effect, and said effect is a feat. Casting it twice won't make it stack.

The part they focused on is the part that doesn't allow stacking of bonuses from varying sources. Nothing in the paragraph they focused on makes the above quote irrelevant.

[Zarion]

RAW is very clear that the first step in determining the price of a custom magic item is to compare it to similar items that already exist. If you are skipping that step and moving straight on to the chart, you are not following the RAW.

I'll give three RAW Magic Item Rules examples:

1) Arms & Equipment Guide, items giving feats have a base price of 10,000 gp

2) DMG, command word item of a spell has a base price of spell level x caster level x 1,800 gp

3) Tome of Battle, item granting a maneuver has a base price of 3,000 gp (<=3rd) 15,000 gp (<=6th) 45,000 gp (<=9th)

Just obeying straight rules the item I'm talking about doesn't give a feat or give a maneuver, the item I'm talking about casts a spell on command, the spell in question just happens to give a feat, and one possible feat just happens to give a maneuver. But in the end just going of the rules for pricing a custom magic item, no DM involved, the item would be priced based off of rule 2.

[Zarion]

Well conveniently, the srd has a quote that uses similar wording you did:



So the quote they used in your link is different, but doesn't negate the above. Heroics grants an effect, and said effect is a feat. Casting it twice won't make it stack.

The part they focused on is the part that doesn't allow stacking of bonuses from varying sources. Nothing in the paragraph they focused on makes the above quote irrelevant.

I'm aware, so I conceded to the assumption that they don't stack and laid it out as just overwriting the effects of previous castings with the item.

[Gildedragon]

I'll give three RAW Magic Item Rules examples:

1) Arms & Equipment Guide, items giving feats have a base price of 10,000 gp

2) DMG, command word item of a spell has a base price of spell level x caster level x 1,800 gp

3) Tome of Battle, item granting a maneuver has a base price of 3,000 gp (<=3rd) 15,000 gp (<=6th) 45,000 gp (<=9th)

Just obeying straight rules the item I'm talking about doesn't give a feat or give a maneuver, the item I'm talking about casts a spell on command, the spell in question just happens to give a feat, and one possible feat just happens to give a maneuver. But in the end just going of the rules for pricing a custom magic item, no DM involved, the item would be priced based off of rule 2.

Then it's just a wand-like item of heroics. The price works mostly. It takes a standard action to activate, and that action cost makes the whole thing eminently more reasonable and nowhere near as game breaking
An action for a feat that will last a couple tens of minutes.

As for feat costs: there's a handbook for that (the art of feat binding)
Note that feat costs vary from feat to feat; and the cost some (like magical location feats) can be pretty low

[Gallowglass]

Zarion,

I think you've gotten as much usefulness out of this topic as you are going to get.

To summarize: You wanted to know if you used Heroics (2nd level spell) to take Martial Study (which give you 1/encounter use of a maneuver), then recast heroics in the same encounter if you could supercede the 1/encounter limiter of the maneuver.

Consensus was yes you could. (as least by my count). New spell, new feat, new encounter counter.

You then revealed that it was only half the story, that you were actually planning on building a continuous custom wondrous item that would let you always have at least one maneuver available to you, hopefully shuffling it on and off with irrelevant actions, perhaps even picking and choosing different maneuvers with the same actions.

Consensus is that there are numerous reasonable pitfalls to such an item. Most of which revolve around the unforeseen complications to the "rules" that, taken in this context, would require adjudication to how they resolve.

sidenote: if you just made a wand of heroics, you'd avoid all of these pitfalls. Spend a standard to cast a spell, use your feat and its 1/encounter ability, then pull out the wand and recycle

You contend that, as a RAW thought exercise, "requiring adjudication" equates to "works as I interpret the text".

You contend that RAW your item works as you want it to work, most of your feedback is that your personal definition of RAW does not match with everyone else's definition of RAW.

You don't seem interested in any of the Rules quotes people have peppered in to try and disprove your interpretation.

At this point, in my experience, when we get to the "you don't know what RAW is!... no YOU don't know what RAW is!" part of the conversation, we've squeezed all the juice out.

[Zarion]

Then it's just a wand-like item of heroics. The price works mostly. It takes a standard action to activate, and that action cost makes the whole thing eminently more reasonable and nowhere near as game breaking
An action for a feat that will last a couple tens of minutes.

The kind of cheesy part though is that you can reuse the item, and if you had multiple iterations of the same spell but for different feats then you could switch between them, possibly resetting the counter for martial study with either the same maneuver or a different one.

[Segev]

The part they focused on is the part that doesn't allow stacking of bonuses from varying sources. Nothing in the paragraph they focused on makes the above quote irrelevant.

Technically, the spell grants a choice of feats. If you choose the same feat, it overlaps. IF you choose different feats, they're different effects.

[Renen]

Technically, the spell grants a choice of feats. If you choose the same feat, it overlaps. IF you choose different feats, they're different effects.

Well technically the spells effect is "get a feat". That's it. Just because feats are different, doesn't mean the effect changes.

[Zarion]

Technically, the spell grants a choice of feats. If you choose the same feat, it overlaps. IF you choose different feats, they're different effects.

Ah, but martial study requires you to decide on a maneuver when its taken, so each feat would be distinct from each other, so they would override.

Or stack if that's how you read the rules.:smallbiggrin:

[Gildedragon]

The kind of cheesy part though is that you can reuse the item, and if you had multiple iterations of the same spell but for different feats then you could switch between them, possibly resetting the counter for martial study with either the same maneuver or a different one.

I'm one of the few DMs (I think) that would let heroics stack. But even then I fail to see what you intend to accomplish: constant having of a bunch of feats, the activation of which needs a standard action a piece and will run out in a jiffy?

[Troacctid]

But in the end just going of the rules for pricing a custom magic item, no DM involved, the item would be priced based off of rule 2.
You cannot create this custom item with no DM involved. Period. The rules specifically call for DM involvement.

The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staffs follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some DM judgment calls.
If you are working without a DM, then you are stuck with either a basic wand of heroics (or eternal wand of heroics), or crown of white ravens et al.

[Renen]

Ah, but martial study requires you to decide on a maneuver when its taken, so each feat would be distinct from each other, so they would override.

Or stack if that's how you read the rules.:smallbiggrin:

Each feat, yes. Each heroics spell, no. Heroic's effect is still "gain a feat". Each time


I'm one of the few DMs (I think) that would let heroics stack. But even then I fail to see what you intend to accomplish: constant having of a bunch of feats, the activation of which needs a standard action a piece and will run out in a jiffy?

You want to get items that have permanent heroics effect? Because that's how you get items with permanent heroics effect. :P

[Zarion]

I'm one of the few DMs (I think) that would let heroics stack. But even then I fail to see what you intend to accomplish: constant having of a bunch of feats, the activation of which needs a standard action a piece and will run out in a jiffy?

In the case of stacking, either a continuous item as laid out in a previous post, or a command item each feat would last 20 minutes from activation. The reason, free fighter feats to fill gaps for cheap, and in the command item case reset martial study to reuse maneuvers.

[Zarion]

You cannot create this custom item with no DM involved. Period. The rules specifically call for DM involvement.

If you are working without a DM, then you are stuck with either a basic wand of heroics (or eternal wand of heroics), or crown of white ravens et al.

As I said in previous posts, going off of RAW you should ignore when it says to include the DM and treat guidelines as rules. RAW/RAI is always theoretical.

[Troacctid]

As I said in previous posts, going off of RAW you should ignore when it says to include the DM and treat guidelines as rules. RAW/RAI is always theoretical.
Ignoring what the rules say is pretty much the opposite of RAW.

[Zarion]

Ignoring what the rules say is pretty much the opposite of RAW.

Your not ignoring any rules.

Imagine that you were magically transported into a universe operating on D&D rules. There is no all-powerful DM managing everything. You decide to go and build a custom magic item in this world. You would do so by treating the guidelines given as hard and fast rules, because in this universe that's what they are, there are no grey areas in this universe. In this universe any questions would have to be answered only from what is written, no magical deciding force involved. This universe is RAW.

[Renen]

Sigh... The rule is written and TELLS you that you need a DM if you want to use the rule. If the rule tells you you need a DM to use it, that means without a DM you can't use the rule.

[Zarion]

Sigh... The rule is written and TELLS you that you need a DM if you want to use the rule. If the rule tells you you need a DM to use it, that means without a DM you can't use the rule.

The point is that by RAW you need to assess what material is available and determine what the rules say without the DM, because RAW assumes no DM but that all rules still function.
See many previous posts.

[Renen]

Well that's what everyone has been telling you. Without a DM this rule is not avaliable. In effect, you need to have a DM to activate the rule.

[Segev]

Well technically the spells effect is "get a feat". That's it. Just because feats are different, doesn't mean the effect changes.


Ah, but martial study requires you to decide on a maneuver when its taken, so each feat would be distinct from each other, so they would override.

Or stack if that's how you read the rules.:smallbiggrin:

The rules being referenced are dealing with situations where applying a spell would conflict with its predecessor, or would create a stacking of numeric bonuses where they shouldn't be allowed. The case we're looking at here is one where the spell grants a bonus feat. One bonus feat has nothing to do with another, or the "effect" of a second level fighter getting a second bonus feat would be to override his first level bonus feat.

If you try to have the spell give the same bonus feat, then it overrides. If you try to give contradictory ones, the later one overrides (though I don't know that that's even possible). If you have a spell give a bonus feat, then a spell give a bonus feat, and you choose different bonus feats for each, they "overlap" in that both apply...but that just is the same as "stacking," since they're somewhat inapplicable terms anyway.

Which is to say: the bonus feats from heroics can pile on just fine, because a bonus feat is not "the same" benefit. It's a new benefit each time. Because it's a different feat each time, unless it has stacking rules which make it, again, a distinct effect.

[Troacctid]

I believe the example the text gives for that rule is a polymorph spell overriding alter self, or something like that?

[Zarion]

Well that's what everyone has been telling you. Without a DM this rule is not avaliable. In effect, you need to have a DM to activate the rule.

What I am telling you is that your statement is wrong, in RAW there are no unused rules. You cannot use there being no DM as a reason to ignore some rules, because in RAW there is never a DM, EVER. So you need to ignore that part and look at what is written to infer the rules. There being no DM means nothing, the custom magic item rules are still there and you can't ignore them.

Treat it like a rule referencing a table, but because of a mess-up the table doesn't exist, you would need to read the rules and infer, this is the same as the absence of the DM.

Please see many previous posts so I don't have to keep repeating myself or I'll just end up copying and pasting what I wrote previously.

[Renen]

So if the rule is written and says "You need a DM to make this work" you just ignore that bit and use the rule without a component part that the rule itself tells you it needs in order to be used?

[Gildedragon]

What I am telling you is that your statement is wrong, in RAW there are no unused rules. You cannot use there being no DM as a reason to ignore some rules, because in RAW there is never a DM, EVER. So you need to ignore that part and look at what is written to infer the rules. There being no DM means nothing, the custom magic item rules are still there and you can't ignore them.

Treat it like a rule referencing a table, but because of a mess-up the table doesn't exist, you would need to read the rules and infer, this is the same as the absence of the DM.

Please see many previous posts so I don't have to keep repeating myself or I'll just end up copying and pasting what I wrote previously.

So by your reckoning one could research any spell one wants for any level, as the only hard rules are the damage caps. I could research a level 1 version of Heroics and then use that to make items; because the advice for generating new spells is "Ask your DM", and according to you that means that RAW I can create a lvl 0 No Save spell that sends all my enemies into an inescapable pocket dimension because I don't need DM input.

[Zarion]

So by your reckoning one could research any spell one wants for any level, as the only hard rules are the damage caps. I could research a level 1 version of Heroics and then use that to make items; because the advice for generating new spells is "Ask your DM", and according to you that means that RAW I can create a lvl 0 No Save spell that sends all my enemies into an inescapable pocket dimension because I don't need DM input.

No, the rule for researching new spells is not just ask a DM, the only rules that exist for it compare its effects to other spells to determine its spell level.

[Zarion]

So if the rule is written and says "You need a DM to make this work" you just ignore that bit and use the rule without a component part that the rule itself tells you it needs in order to be used?

It says to get advice from a DM on the final product, it never says you need him for designing the item itself, it just says the DM can choose to allow it or not. Otherwise it's the same as the missing table, you make do as best you can.

[nyjastul69]

It says to get advice from a DM on the final product, it never says you need him for designing the item itself, it just says the DM can choose to allow it or not. Otherwise it's the same as the missing table, you make do as best you can.

Just to be clear, as others have said, absent a DM, the rules that directly reference a DM simply can't be used. That's what the RAW is. There is no RAW declaration that if there is no DM, ignore said rule.

[Zarion]

Just to be clear, as others have said, absent a DM, the rules that directly reference a DM simply can't be used. That's what the RAW is. There is no RAW declaration that if there is no DM, ignore said rule.

RAW means to infer everything from what is written, you can't ignore a written rule for ANY reason.

[nyjastul69]

RAW means to infer everything from what is written, you can't ignore a written rule for ANY reason.

Inferences are exactly what RAW isn't.

[Troacctid]

Inferences are exactly what RAW isn't.
Actually, the RAW does explicitly tell the DM to make inferences in some scenarios. Page 6 of the DMG, for example. Of course, if you are not the DM, you obviously don't have the authority to do this.

[Zarion]

Actually can you point to the exact place it mentions requiring DM input, because I've been looking through my DMG and haven't found anything. The only thing I've found mention judgement by the DM, but that the pricing of the items themselves follow the guidelines laid out. So according to that the pricing and use of these items is completely within the rules, but might or might not be accepted by a DM. So still RAW.

[Troacctid]

I quoted it above (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21012576&postcount=46). It is from the sidebar on page 282 (the same sidebar that instructs you to look at similar items before consulting the price estimation table—a very important rule for custom items).

[nyjastul69]

Actually, the RAW does explicitly tell the DM to make inferences in some scenarios. Page 6 of the DMG, for example. Of course, if you are not the DM, you obviously don't have the authority to do this.

Fair enough, I guess. RAW tells the DM to make inferences. Lacking a DM, inferences cannot be made by RAW.

[Renen]

Rule demands DM adjudication, but you are running a scenario where you have no DM? Use rule anyways, because that's clearly what the rule itself tells you to d... Wait a second...

I mean really, multiple people are telling you you got it wrong, and you still disagree?

[Necrov]

Throwing in my two pence. Mostly because I've read this thread and you've had some fantastic buy-in and response from very knowledgeable posters, and your response has been very... blinkered?

So. If a rule states, 'In order to do X you must consult Y'. It's pretty clear that in order to do X, you must consult Y.

If Y is unavailable?

Then you cannot do X.

Y is a qualifier required to achieve X, thus you cannot do X without Y.

In this example, X is create a custom wondrous item. Y is consulting the GM. The language is 100% explicit. There is no confusion here. You're twisting the matter because you want to achieve something. Conveniently ignoring qualifiers in RAW is not RAW. It's house-ruling or home-brewing.


Also, I have absolutely no idea where you got the idea that RAW is interpreting the rules as if a GM doesn't exist. It isn't. A DM is not simply the arbitrator of Rules as Intended. They have the final say in how RAW will be interpreted at the table, and they provide actual game functions. Such as the game, for one.

If you have further questions to ask, I'd suggest you ask them. But there's only so many times we can point out that your interpretation of this particular RAW is wrong. There's no value in it.

[Zarion]

My reason for disagreeing is because it doesn't state you NEED a DM, just that DM fiat controls if an item is accepted. Even if it specifies a DM as I explained there are no disqualified rules, so you have to work around the absence. I've explained this in multiple posts, however it requires you to look past the immediate thought upon seeing the mention of DM fiat, that being that the DM is absolutely required. This has been the unanimous agreement by every group I've ever worked with regarding RAW.

[Zarion]

I understand what your saying, at one point I thought that the DM was the ultimate arbiter, and that without one any non-exact rules couldn't be used. Then someone in one of my groups explained to me the D&D universe thought experiment, as laid out in a previous post, which changed my mind.

To understand what I'm saying, you need to follow your own advice and attempt to see my viewpoint. Try to think through the thought experiment, that's what it's for.

If you still don't understand than that's fine, but collectively the groups I've worked with number between 40-60 people who agree on this matter, so 5-6 people here disagreeing isn't likely to change my view. Sorry.

[Thurbane]

Is it just me, or has this thread devolved into some kind of Abbott and Costello sketch (http://www.psu.edu/dept/inart10_110/inart10/whos.html)?

RAW's on first?
No, consult is on second!
DM? Oh, that's our shortstop.

[Aldrakan]

Then sure, in your self-defined "RAW" box so far removed from the actual playing of the game you are theoretically discussing you cut out specific segments of the rules because they refer to the other non-optional player, this trick probably works. Grats!

[Hal0Badger]

No, the rule for researching new spells is not just ask a DM, the only rules that exist for it compare its effects to other spells to determine its spell level.

Where does it state that you should compare to other spells in the same level exactly?

Besides, from SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm):

Not all items adhere to these formulas directly. The reasons for this are several. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staffs follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.

How are you so sure, that your item falls into category something like a wand/potion, but not something which does not adhere to these formulas directly? Without a DM input, how can you determine this part?

[Necrov]

If you still don't understand than that's fine, but collectively the groups I've worked with number between 40-60 people who agree on this matter, so 5-6 people here disagreeing isn't likely to change my view. Sorry.

...This is -very- schoolyard debate. Can we keep the discussion based on the merit of interpreting the rules? Not how many theoretical people who agree with us. That way madness lies and debate dies.

I still have no idea, how you're justifying any of this. The entry on magic items is incredibly explicit. Items that don't directly follow the formula require 'at least' some DM approval. If you can't satisfy the conditions of the qualifier, you can't have the thing.

Though, Aldrakan probably summarizes the entire thing best. To put my own spin on it;

Yes. Under your (completely baseless) definition of RAW. There is absolutely no problem with what you're doing. Because you've structured your definition of RAW so that there isn't. I too like to play pretend with the universe on occasion. It's merely that I generally leave that level of fantasy to the roleplaying portion of the game.

[Zarion]

I still have no idea, how you're justifying any of this. The entry on magic items is incredibly explicit. Items that don't directly follow the formula require 'at least' some DM approval. If you can't satisfy the conditions of the qualifier, you can't have the thing.

It does follow the formula exactly, a command activated item of a spell with infinite uses. Multiple similar use don't stack so price for each additional spell is reduced. The formula is clear, all the DM would do is decide whether or not to allow this item, like they can do with any item, even existing ones.

[Gallowglass]

Is it just me, or has this thread devolved into some kind of Abbott and Costello sketch (http://www.psu.edu/dept/inart10_110/inart10/whos.html)?

RAW's on first?
No, consult is on second!
DM? Oh, that's our shortstop.

Yeah I called that like two days ago, but I was summarily ignored. Now I'm just keeping track of how long this can go on before everyone realizes that Zarion is too self-sure to listen to any advice that isn't just affirmation of his own viewpoint.

Well... his viewpoint and his "40-60" friends who he plays with who uniformly and universely agree with him about it. *nods*

[Necrov]

It does follow the formula exactly, a command activated item of a spell with infinite uses. Multiple similar use don't stack so price for each additional spell is reduced. The formula is clear, all the DM would do is decide whether or not to allow this item, like they can do with any item, even existing ones.

I don't know of any other way to show you that you're wrong. We've posted the SRD that specifically calls for DM involvement. We've explained how and why you're being selective with your application of what you call 'RAW'. Is there a trigger phrase? Are we being punked?


Well... his viewpoint and his "40-60" friends who he plays with who uniformly and universely agree with him about it. *nods*

All hail the cult of Zarion? The Cult of 'RAW' (*Wink Wink Nudge Nudge*)

[Gildedragon]

It does follow the formula exactly, a command activated item of a spell with infinite uses. Multiple similar use don't stack so price for each additional spell is reduced. The formula is clear, all the DM would do is decide whether or not to allow this item, like they can do with any item, even existing ones.

No they would say if the price is right for what the item does: as the rules say that the formulas are not exact.
The price for other spells would not be reduced (there's no reduction in the chart)

But I've repeatedly stated my peace and backed my arguments with analogies to other rules, analogies to magic items that clearly would violate the game if the tables were strictly followed (ring of truestrike, vest of haste), and the rules text.
If that, alongside the various skilled RAW analysts that have chimed in, doesn't answer your question (what is it even anymore anyway?) or convince you that you're not going by the rules as written in your item creation process... Well you're not going to be convinced

So I dont see the point to this discussion anymore. Arrivederci

[Gallowglass]

Yeah I called that like two days ago, but I was summarily ignored. Now I'm just keeping track of how long this can go on before everyone realizes that Zarion is too self-sure to listen to any advice that isn't just affirmation of his own viewpoint.

Well... his viewpoint and his "40-60" friends who he plays with who uniformly and universely agree with him about it. *nods*

Zarion,

I"m being unnecessarily snarky, I apologize about that.

The few people in this thread who bothered to address your original question have all agreed that subsequent castings of heroics would allow you to use the same maneuver twice in an encounter. The 1/encounter counter does not pass from one casting of the spell to the other.

disclosure: I personally believe that, yes, multiple castings lets you avoid the 1/encounter counter.

Its more split on the sub-point that came up as to whether you can stack multiple heroics on yourself to get multiple feats. Its even more split on whether you could have multiple heroics with the same feat (martial study) that are keyed to provide you different maneuvers.

disclosure: I personally would let them stack. you spend the resource (the spell) you can get the benefit. I also let resist energy: cold and resist energy: fire stack, until this discussion I didn't even realize that was contentious. I learned something!

exactly no one in this forum has agreed that you can build the item you want at the price you want by any reasonable interpretation of the rules. Everyone in this forum disagrees with your definition of RAW and no one is interested or willing to meet you halfway to indulge you in your thought exercise, because we find the premise you are subscribing to ridiculous. No one can further help you with your original question because, as multiple people have pointed out, your premise leaves no ambiguity.

Your question now parses as "Can I build this item if the rules work exactly as I need them to in order to build this item?" The answer is yes. Of course you can. You aren't interested in whether we think the rules actually work that way, you want us to posit that they do, then there is no room for discourse.

disclosure: I am with the majority (well, totality) who disagree with you.

Good luck with whatever you are trying to do!

[Zarion]

The price for other spells would not be reduced (there's no reduction in the chart)

Items with multiple similar abilities that draw from the same source, one spell functioning at a time, reduces price.

[Zarion]

I don't know of any other way to show you that you're wrong. We've posted the SRD that specifically calls for DM involvement.

I've looked right in my DMG and online, and no where does it specify the DM, it states that the DM can be involved in things with no basis in the rules, and that the DM can veto a custom item, like they can with any item. But it doesn't say the DM arbitrates the rules.

[Zarion]

I would just like too know if anyone has even considered or thought through the experiment I mentioned, or if you are just as unwilling to even consider a viewpoint other than your own.

[Zarion]

exactly no one in this forum has agreed that you can build the item you want at the price you want by any reasonable interpretation of the rules.

I agree, as priced it's ridiculously underpriced. Most DM's would never allow it, mine might but all of us are OP munchkins, I'm just stating that according to the rules for custom items laid out in the DMG that is the price.

[Gallowglass]

I would just like too know if anyone has even considered or thought through the experiment I mentioned, or if you are just as unwilling to even consider a viewpoint other than your own.

let's see...


Then sure, in your self-defined "RAW" box so far removed from the actual playing of the game you are theoretically discussing you cut out specific segments of the rules because they refer to the other non-optional player, this trick probably works. Grats!


Yes. Under your (completely baseless) definition of RAW. There is absolutely no problem with what you're doing. Because you've structured your definition of RAW so that there isn't. I too like to play pretend with the universe on occasion. It's merely that I generally leave that level of fantasy to the roleplaying portion of the game.


No one can further help you with your original question because, as multiple people have pointed out, your premise leaves no ambiguity.

Your question now parses as "Can I build this item if the rules work exactly as I need them to in order to build this item?" The answer is yes. Of course you can. You aren't interested in whether we think the rules actually work that way, you want us to posit that they do, then there is no room for discourse.

So, there's three people who "considered or thought through the experiment (you) mentioned". As all three of us pointed out, your thought experiment leaves no ambiguity to be discussed.

You are now just fishing for someone, anyone, to give you validation. And attempting to belittle us for not doing so.

[Zarion]

You are now just fishing for someone, anyone, to give you validation. And attempting to belittle us for not doing so.

Honestly I don't care, I've been in many D&D groups, like in any such group each persons view on certain rules has come up, I've explained my opinion to them and after thinking through the thought experiment, they've all agreed that that is an extremely effective method of visualizing RAW.

The rules as written are the laws of physics, and there's no one to mediate them. So any instance of confusion must be inferred directly from the written rules, and that no rules can be ignored or disqualified for ANY reason. If their written in a book, they must apply.

[Gallowglass]

Honestly I don't care, I've been in many D&D groups, like in any such group each persons view on certain rules has come up, I've explained my opinion to them and after thinking through the thought experiment, they've all agreed that that is an extremely effective method of visualizing RAW.

The rules as written are the laws of physics, and there's no one to mediate them. So any instance of confusion must be inferred directly from the written rules, and that no rules can be ignored or disqualified for ANY reason. If their written in a book, they must apply.

Well, no one on this thread agrees that your method is an effective method of visualizing RAW.

But the fault must not be with your opinion or method, it must be that all of us are incapable of seeing a viewpoint other than our own.

If only we were as capable of being as un-close-minded as the 40-60 people you've imparted your wisdom upon in real life. Or all those in the many, many internet forum discussions of RAW you've continually referenced in the course of this thread.

Poor us. Weep for the blinded for they cannot be made to see.


/this is not unnecessarily snarky like my other post.
//this is totally necessary.

[Zarion]

Maybe we all can't, or maybe we're all just idiots fighting over the interpretation of a method of interpretation of a confusing system of rules of a made-up game.

All I know I know is that without meaning to, I got a majority of the thread to agree on the original question, and on stacking rules for heroics. Cool.

[Sir_Chivalry]

And on the subject of the magic item too.

You just refuse to accept the answer.

[Zarion]

I don't care to try and convince you anymore. I and my current and probably future groups will use this method, and you can use yours. Cause that's what it is, just a method, which unfortunately doesn't have a sourcebook to reference.

Cause if it did then RAW would be RAW. RAWCEPTION!!

[Gallowglass]

Maybe we all can't, or maybe we're all just idiots fighting over the interpretation of a method of interpretation of a confusing system of rules of a made-up game.

All I know I know is that without meaning to, I got a majority of the thread to agree on the original question, and on stacking rules for heroics. Cool.

There you go! See! You didn't need us to validate you, you found your validation all by yourself!

Everybody's happy!

[Zarion]

There you go! See! You didn't need us to validate you, you found your validation all by yourself!

Everybody's happy!

Yay, happiness for everyone.

To sadly get off my happy horse and onto a similar but hopefully not as contentious topic. As a faster if you could use this method to get fighter feats, not martial study/stance, either with stacking or not. What would you get?

In my case as an artificer:
Combat Focus
Combat Awareness
Combat Vigor (fast healing ftw)
Mounted Combat
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot
Improved Precise Shot
Steadfast Determination?
Veteran Knowledge? (knowledge devotion?)

[Zarion]

All hail the cult of Zarion? The Cult of 'RAW' (*Wink Wink Nudge Nudge*)

Unfortunately there isn't currently a cult of zarion, yet. But if your interested in forming one, I'd give you my blessing.

[Gallowglass]

Yay, happiness for everyone.

To sadly get off my happy horse and onto a similar but hopefully not as contentious topic. As a faster if you could use this method to get fighter feats, not martial study/stance, either with stacking or not. What would you get?

In my case as an artificer:
Combat Focus
Combat Awareness
Combat Vigor (fast healing ftw)
Mounted Combat
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot
Improved Precise Shot
Steadfast Determination?
Veteran Knowledge? (knowledge devotion?)

That's an interesting question. Because there isn't really all that many cases or scenarios where having a fighter bonus feat for the duration of an encounter is all that helpful to the single classed wizard. They just don't do what the fighter is doing with their actions.

That's why the key to heroics is in its versatility. You can access a specific feat in the rare situation where it is useful to you rather than spending a feat slot on a feat that normally is useless to you.

If the wizard finds himself in a situation where he has no choice but to choke up on his quarterstaff and start swinging, then power attack is better to have than not to have.

But really, neutral of knowing what the scenario is, its hard to rank fighter feats by usefulness to the wizard.

I would start with ranged feats like precise shot because the wizard is LIKELY to make some ranged (touch) attacks over the course of his normal adventuring day.

Combat Focus
+2 will save after your first hit. That's useful.

Combat Awareness
requires +12 BAB, so you dont' qualify until epic levesl.

Combat Vigor (fast healing ftw)

requires +9 BAB so for a wizard, they can't get it until 18th level? at 18th level fast heal 2 isn't much of a factor.

Mounted Combat

well... that's nice for the horse.

Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot
Improved Precise Shot

these are all nice for the ranged blaster type. But you are usually dealing with touch attacks so they are only somewhat useful.

Steadfast Determination?

I think all my wizards have had better wisdom than constitution but it could be helpful.

Veteran Knowledge? (knowledge devotion?)

I admit I play pathfinder so I don't know how this mechanic works.

So, to me, Heroics is MORE useful for a Gish type than a pure caster... and its really useful to cast on another party member who can access higher end feats when they already have some prerequisites and high BAB taken care of.

[Zarion]

Combat Vigor (fast healing ftw)

requires +9 BAB so for a wizard, they can't get it until 18th level? at 18th level fast heal 2 isn't much of a factor.

Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot
Improved Precise Shot

these are all nice for the ranged blaster type. But you are usually dealing with touch attacks so they are only somewhat useful.

Steadfast Determination?

I think all my wizards have had better wisdom than constitution but it could be helpful.

As mentioned my character is an artificer so just going pure artificer I would get BAB +9 at 12th level. I like mounts for casters, it's easy to get around concentration, and then you have two free moves. The ranged feats work great for wands and scrolls. Wis is completely useless to me except for Will. Also the point of this item is to get easy access to feats that suit your play style.

[Zarion]

You don't have to be a caster either, I'm just asking what fighter feats would you put in your build if you could have a lot of them for cheap.

[Renen]

Well... his viewpoint and his "40-60" friends who he plays with who uniformly and universely agree with him about it. *nods*

And the best part is that if that is actually true, then that is an argument AGAINST him. Since having that many people agree on something looks like bandwagon effect rather than actual critical thinking about rules.

When you ask many people the same question and they all give the same answer, when the question can potentially be interpreted in variety of ways, then something is wrong. I mean, I'd be more convinced if 80% of his friends agreed with him, than 100%

[Deophaun]

There actually is an existing magic item that functions a bit like a reusable wand (stuck with a standard action activation, however). It's called an eternal wand, it's in the MIC, and it does not follow the pricing guidelines. But, on the bright side, an eternal wand of heroics is a thing that exists in RAW; no DM adjudication required.

And the best part is that if that is actually true, then that is an argument AGAINST him. Since having that many people agree on something looks like bandwagon effect rather than actual critical thinking about rules.
I played with a large group where everyone believed that each attack in a full attack was a standard action, which is why no one allowed ToB, because using four strikes in a single turn was totally broken and WotC were idiots to make something like that. Don't bother trying to convince anyone otherwise, because that was how they always played it, and that's how everyone else in the group was playing it, so it must be correct.

[Thurbane]

I think the two sides of the RAW debate have agreed to disagree, which is a good thing. Sometimes it's the best compromise that can be reached.


You don't have to be a caster either, I'm just asking what fighter feats would you put in your build if you could have a lot of them for cheap.

Not sure how good they are for your particular build, but some of my favorite (less common) Fighter bonus feats include:
Brutal Strike
Combat Intuition
Constant Guardian
Find Flaw
Goad
Intimidating Strike
Melee Evasion
Reckless Charge
Shield Ward
Short Haft
Vexing Flanker

...some have hefty reqs, and some aren't all that powerful, but I like those for various reasons.

[Zarion]

Not sure how good they are for your particular build, but some of my favorite (less common) Fighter bonus feats include:
Brutal Strike
Combat Intuition
Constant Guardian
Find Flaw
Goad
Intimidating Strike
Melee Evasion
Reckless Charge
Shield Ward
Short Haft
Vexing Flanker

...some have hefty reqs, and some aren't all that powerful, but I like those for various reasons.

Got a build in mind that would use these, or are they just ones you like in general?

[Thurbane]

Got a build in mind that would use these, or are they just ones you like in general?

Just in general - things like Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Robilar's Gambit, Martial Study etc. get mentioned all the time, those are just a few of the lesser used ones that I like.