Tome of Battle Conversion [PEACH]

[Llama513]

I have the base classes with three archetypes each made, I am working on transferring over the maneuvers, as there are a lot of them please bear with me, I hope to get a lot of them up this weekend as it is a long weekend, until then, take a look at the base classes and see if there is anything that seems glaringly wrong.

Direct to Homebrewery here (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/ryejTJ2Ox)

[Gr7mm Bobb]

Page 7, for your swordsage, your text is being eating by your table. Same thing is happening to your warblade page as well.

I do love what you have so far, I'll give it more than a glance later. Huge fan of ToB, hopefully the basic shenanigans can be nipped early. The fact that your material is not "per encounter" w/e that was worth in 3.5, bodes well for your design approach to me.

[Llama513]

Page 7, for your swordsage, your text is being eating by your table.
I do love what you have so far, I'll give it more than a glance later. Huge fan of ToB, hopefully the basic shenanigans can be nipped early. The fact that your material is not "per encounter" w/e that was worth in 3.5, bodes well for your design approach to me.

Try refreshing the page, I'm not sure why but sometimes that helps, if you are not on google chrome check on their and see if it works, because it looks fine on the preview that I am looking at.

Thank you very much, I really hope I do it justice, as this is my first time delving into balancing abilities that I am treating as spells, and I love the ToB material as well.

[aimlessPolymath]

Your Crusader Maneuvers Known column is borked.
Refreshed the page, am using Chrome; problem persists.

Warblade, page 12: Extra Attack appears to be bleeding into a third column, somewhere off the page.

I haven't worked much with 5e so I don't know how well these are balanced.

[Llama513]

Your Crusader Maneuvers Known column is borked.
Refreshed the page, am using Chrome; problem persists.

Warblade, page 12: Extra Attack appears to be bleeding into a third column, somewhere off the page.

I haven't worked much with 5e so I don't know how well these are balanced.

Thank you I will take a look at that and fix it

I've got it to where you can read the abilities, I will clean it up and make it look nice and pretty when I finish the class

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Some really cool stuff here. That said, also some BIG red flags.

Zealot's Wrath feels pretty overpowered though. It kind of breaks bounded accuracy apart, as it's easily capable of giving +4 to +6, which is basically doubling your proficiency. And you don't need that, as a Divine Blade already has both bonus damage from Crusader's Fury, from Smite, from Crusader's Defenses, and from Diving Blade, not even counting the +hit bonus from Smite.

The Eternal Blade has a similar problem with Diving Insight and Eternal Training, which are hugely overpowering against one big monster or fights with many of the same. Again, breaking bounded accuracy this much (and especially this early) isn't a good thing.

Stone Mountain Stance is another problem, since it reads "Use a bonus action to make every adjacent enemy make an unusually high early-game saving throw lock them in melee combat over and over again." WAY too strong for repeatable CC, let alone AoE CC, and especially since it doesn't follow the normal save DC formula (8+proficiency+stat).

Similar thing feels true for Stone's Curse, which is rather reliable lock-down. Again, if limited? Wouldn't be an issue. At-will it's pretty strong, especially since the hit already deals damage.

Dragon's Tooth appears to be 6d6 damage as a bonus action at-will in any building, which is frankly completely and utterly obscene.

Swordsage seems better balanced. Haven't looked at the Warblade yet.

-------------

Edit:

As listed, Predator Instinct has no duration, letting you keep it running forever with no penalty.

Superior Two Weapon Fighting feels rather strong for seventh level. Would have to test that.

Bloodstorm Blade feels pretty weak, as the first three abilities are really just letting your class FUNCTION with a thrown weapon.

[Llama513]

Some really cool stuff here. That said, also some BIG red flags.
Zealot's Wrath feels pretty overpowered though. It kind of breaks bounded accuracy apart, as it's easily capable of giving +4 to +6, which is basically doubling your proficiency. And you don't need that, as a Divine Blade already has both bonus damage from Crusader's Fury, from Smite, from Crusader's Defenses, and from Diving Blade, not even counting the +hit bonus from Smite.

I forgot about that, for furious counterstrike I am going to go with divide by 10 round up, for the plus to damage.
As for Zealots Wrath, I am going to have it remove the cap on steely resolve, what I am going to do is have it give advantage while the damage pool is above 30 (or a quarter of your Max HP, not sure which) and allow you to once per day, add half the damage that you have stored in your pool as damage to your next hit.


The Eternal Blade has a similar problem with Diving Insight and Eternal Training, which are hugely overpowering against one big monster or fights with many of the same. Again, breaking bounded accuracy this much (and especially this early) isn't a good thing.

I will have those be a +1, and increase overtime


Stone Mountain Stance is another problem, since it reads "Use a bonus action to make every adjacent enemy make an unusually high early-game saving throw lock them in melee combat over and over again." WAY too strong for repeatable CC, let alone AoE CC, and especially since it doesn't follow the normal save DC formula (8+proficiency+stat).

Similar thing feels true for Stone's Curse, which is rather reliable lock-down. Again, if limited? Wouldn't be an issue. At-will it's pretty strong, especially since the hit already deals damage.

I will drop the Stone Mountain Stance to be DC 10, and for Stone's Curse I am thinking going with two or three a short rest


Dragon's Tooth appears to be 6d6 damage as a bonus action at-will in any building, which is frankly completely and utterly obscene.

I forgot to put the same rules as Stone Mountain Stance for when you can form the pillars, as for the action, would it be better if it took a standard action, or is it that there is not a limit to the amount of times that you can use the ability.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I forgot about that, for furious counterstrike I am going to go with divide by 10 round up, for the plus to damage.
As for Zealots Wrath, I am going to have it remove the cap on steely resolve, what I am going to do is have it give advantage while the damage pool is above 30 (or a quarter of your Max HP, not sure which) and allow you to once per day, add half the damage that you have stored in your pool as damage to your next hit.

The damage isn't really the issue -- it's the reliable free bonus to attack rolls.


I will have those be a +1, and increase overtime

Again, increasing over time is...dangerous. The highest consistent bonus to attacks I can think of is Archery's +2 bonus, usually because archery in 5e isn't as good an option. Anything more is...dangerous, at best.


I will drop the Stone Mountain Stance to be DC 10, and for Stone's Curse I am thinking going with two or three a short rest

Stone Mountain's issue is the reliability of the effect. At DC 10 it's a lot of unnecessary dice rolls AND a DC that doesn't fit the standard format. It might be better as a limited use ability with a normalized DC.


I forgot to put the same rules as Stone Mountain Stance for when you can form the pillars, as for the action, would it be better if it took a standard action, or is it that there is not a limit to the amount of times that you can use the ability.

The issue is that there's no limit on the pillars AND no limit on the number of times AND that it deals Fireball level damage as a bonus action. So there's a three-fold issue going on here.

[Llama513]

The damage isn't really the issue -- it's the reliable free bonus to attack rolls.
Made it just apply to damage, thinking about having it give advantage if the damage in your pool is equal to or greater than a quarter of your max hp




Again, increasing over time is...dangerous. The highest consistent bonus to attacks I can think of is Archery's +2 bonus, usually because archery in 5e isn't as good an option. Anything more is...dangerous, at best.
Changed Eternal Training to be just damage, and run off of Charisma, not Int, as well as their other abilities, changed tactical strike to give your allies advantage on attack rolls.



Stone Mountain's issue is the reliability of the effect. At DC 10 it's a lot of unnecessary dice rolls AND a DC that doesn't fit the standard format. It might be better as a limited use ability with a normalized DC.
I am going to remove the save from Stone Mountain, and just make it create difficult terrain, should I make the radius bigger since I am removing the knock down.



The issue is that there's no limit on the pillars AND no limit on the number of times AND that it deals Fireball level damage as a bonus action. So there's a three-fold issue going on here.
I will make it be a standard action, and 6 times a day, is that okay




As listed, Predator Instinct has no duration, letting you keep it running forever with no penalty.

Superior Two Weapon Fighting feels rather strong for seventh level. Would have to test that.

Bloodstorm Blade feels pretty weak, as the first three abilities are really just letting your class FUNCTION with a thrown weapon.

My bad on Predator Instinct, it is supposed to be for a minute

Would swapping superior two weapon fighting and pouncing strike be better

For Blood Storm Blade, I could fuse Lightning Ricochet into the first Level ability, have martial throw allow you to throw heavy weapons, and then at 10th level give them the ability to once per short rest for a minute have their attacks cause a creature to bleed, the creature must pass a constitution saving throw equal to your manuever DC, or take 3 damage on the start of its turn until it passes the save, or another creature makes a medicine check DC equal to your manuever DC to stop the bleeding. If you hit a creature that is already bleeding the damage does not stack.

[Llama513]

I have finished putting in the Desert Wind Maneuvers, 1 down 8 to go

[jitzul]

So first things first never played 3e so I have no experience with Tome of battle but with that said. Inferno Blast is insane when you are done with converting the spells you may want to look into making it less insanely powerful. Good first step would probably be 20d6 or if you want to keep it as a "supernatural" version of meteor storm make it something like 15d8. Still less powerful then Meteor Swarm's max damage but 150 fire damage on a successful save seems to be a much even for a 9th level ability.

[Llama513]

So first things first never played 3e so I have no experience with Tome of battle but with that said. Inferno Blast is insane when you are done with converting the spells you may want to look into making it less insanely powerful. Good first step would probably be 20d6 or if you want to keep it as a "supernatural" version of meteor storm make it something like 15d8. Still less powerful then Meteor Swarm's max damage but 150 fire damage on a successful save seems to be a much even for a 9th level ability.

If i were to chsng it to a dice roll i would go with 30d8, as meteor swarms is 40d6 double the number you have, or i would set the flat damage to be 240

[jitzul]

If i were to chsng it to a dice roll i would go with 30d8, as meteor swarms is 40d6 double the number you have, or i would set the flat damage to be 240

30d8 seems better then flat damage.

[Llama513]

30d8 seems better then flat damage.

Okay I'll go with that

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I am going to remove the save from Stone Mountain, and just make it create difficult terrain, should I make the radius bigger since I am removing the knock down.

You could probably go with a 10 foot radius if you REALLY wanted, but I'd be inclined to make it 5 and maybe expand to 10 later.


I will make it be a standard action, and 6 times a day, is that okay

Aside from the fact that that's a weird number for a long rest ability you just gained? I guess. I'd be more inclined to make it an attack replacement, usable, say, 3 times per long rest, that deals weapon damage at a range of up to 60 feet and raises a pillar, dealing base weapon damage again and restraining the creature if the creature is pinned. That way you can weave it into your normal combat routine nicely, and it fits the theme of someone who mixes bladework with magic.

DO NOTE THAT I AM NOT A 5E BALANCE EXPERT, BY THE WAY. I tend to be decent with approximations, but razor-edge balance in this edition isn't my forte. I aim for more unity of design, gameplay feel, and approximate balance. So apologies if I'm a bit off in places.


Would swapping superior two weapon fighting and pouncing strike be better

Not sure. I do know the way you have it written seems OP though -- as written, if your charge knocks them prone, you may then make the two bonus attacks (since they are prone, and you have a bonus action remaining), giving you, at level 7, a reliable Movement + Damage + Prone + Attack + Attack combo and making the Superior Two Weapon Fighting feature effectively invalidate the second half of Pouncing Strike.

Personally, I'm actually okay with you removing Superior Two Weapon Fighting entirely, and making either the first ability "When you make an attack with an off-hand weapon against a prone target, you may make an additional attack," making the second ability the pounce + knockback. Then work Prone into some Tiger Claw maneuvers and call it a day. Less raw power, still a lot of flavor. There's no reason this should be that much better than another two-weapon fighter, and I think this makes it clear that it's better in a SPECIFIC instance rather than always.


For Blood Storm Blade, I could fuse Lightning Ricochet into the first Level ability, have martial throw allow you to throw heavy weapons, and then at 10th level give them the ability to once per short rest for a minute have their attacks cause a creature to bleed, the creature must pass a constitution saving throw equal to your manuever DC, or take 3 damage on the start of its turn until it passes the save, or another creature makes a medicine check DC equal to your manuever DC to stop the bleeding. If you hit a creature that is already bleeding the damage does not stack.

Eh? You could. But, again, that's adding a lot of saves for relatively small amounts of damage. Imagine that plus Blade Storm into a crowd, and the DM having to track all of that.

I'd be tempted to see something like, say, the Ranger's Horde Breaker: "Horde Breaker: Once on each of your turns when you make a weapon Attack, you can make another Attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and within range of your weapon." Alternatively, the Ranger's Volley: "Volley: You can use your action to make a ranged Attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range. You must have ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate Attack roll for each target." Both seem in keeping with the Bloodstorm Blade's ricochet concept.


If i were to chsng it to a dice roll i would go with 30d8, as meteor swarms is 40d6 double the number you have, or i would set the flat damage to be 240

Fire damage is almost always represented by a d6. I'd keep it that way. I also don't like that this is so comparable to Meteor Swarm. I get that you like fire, and this has always been Desert Wind's big nova spell, but having a martial class with a more durable chassis and more class features have a nuke that nearly matches (average damage is off by 6) the most powerful AoE caster nuke in the game feels wrong. I'd be tempted to go straight with the original Inferno Blade text, and make it 100 damage flat. Maybe let you also attack a foe into the bargain. That makes it still QUITE powerful, but means it doesn't feel as much like a slightly different Meteor Swarm. Alternatively, make it 10d6 bonus fire damage to the target on the attack, and everything in range (target included) must save or take 30d6 fire damage (save half). That makes it a MUCH more potent single-target finisher with AoE damage as a bonus to everything around? Not sure. It just feels weird that way it's written -- like you may as well have just given them Meteor Swarm.

On the other maneuvers...

Burning Blade is almost certainly overpowered on most builds. It's now Weapon Damage + Modifier + 1d6, more on multiple attacks, when cantrip damage is usually XdX with no modifiers. There's literally no reason not to use this unless you have a better bonus action. Not a fan of bonus action cantrips for this reason unless, like Burning Brand, they're mainly utility options.

Blistering Flourish should specify that it doesn't stack. Otherwise this can get frustrating when Swordsages have free first level maneuvers. Or it should stack, but only up to a certain amount (-2 at 7th, -3 at 11th, -4 at 17, for example).

Death Mark is hilarious and I love it.

Distracting Ember is WAY too strong. Free advantage for a bonus action? No. Or, rather, acceptable (but strong -- compare to True Strike) until you can do it at-will. Then? Way too strong.

Fire Snake is downright broken. No concentration to the effect, 6d6 damage per round to multiple targets, 10 round duration, flexible shape, and the ability to move it. No, no, no, no, no. Damage is WAY too high for the duration, lack of focus needed, and flexibility of the spell. At 3d6 I'd probably be okay with it: then it's just a better Burning Sphere that occupies more space, but requires an action to move.

Flames Blessing is weird, only because Fiery Assault invalidates it completely.

Flaming Cloak is probably too much free damage? Not sure though. Would be willing to test it, but I'm wary.

Leaping Flame seems...pretty bad. You get a teleport that's limited to adjacent to an opponent, AFTER they hit you. Maybe useful, but this seems worse than several of the other higher level abilities.

Lingering Inferno is similar. 8d6 damage over 3 rounds is solid, but your version of Firesnake exists. That said, I'd rather aim for the Lingering Inferno balance point. It still competes only somewhat well with Searing Charge though, which gives movement, temporary flight, and 5d6 bonus damage. Consider making Lingering Inferno deal its damage a little quicker, perhaps? Or even more damage over a longer time -- something like 2d6 damage per round for 5-6 rounds. Not sure what the ideal solution is here.

Salamander Charge is the right place for this sort of ability. Note that this is a level 7 ability that is actually WORSE than Firesnake save that proximity to it deals some damage, since you can't move it. I'd add the standard wall caveat that you can only take damage once per turn though.

Inferno Blade I dislike -- the others all work on a per-round basis, so this should as well. As currently written you could Inferno Blade one round, then Searing Blade + Flashing Sun for 5d6 bonus fire damage on every attack, which seems...too good? Especially since you probably have +1d6 from your stance.

Ring of Fire is well done. No complaints there.

Wyrm's Flame creates all sorts of issues. PICK a damage estimate, already! Salamander Charge and Ring of Fire can outdamage this 1-2 levels earlier, and have more precision. Salamander Charge also has more utility. Meanwhile your Inferno Blade currently has TRIPLE the damage and a bigger area at only one level higher. The inconsistency is real. :smallbiggrin:

Rising Phoenix should specify -- do you consume your Attack action to deal that damage, or is that damage in ADDITION to your normal attack? Does it trigger on every attack you make, or only on taking an action to make attacks? Those are important balancing points to specify.

Zephyr Dance I'll admit concerns me a little. It's the spell Shield, yes, but on a class with higher base AC than the Wizard. I'd want to see exactly how out of hand this can reliably get. I *think* it's fine, but, again, it's one I'd want to test in play, especially with a Dex/Wis maxing Shadow Sun ninja.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I should also clarify -- I do love this quite a bit. That's why I'm dissecting it so vigorously. :smallbiggrin:

[Llama513]

I should also clarify -- I do love this quite a bit. That's why I'm dissecting it so vigorously. :smallbiggrin:

I can tell and I really appreciate it, as this is my first time taking on a combination of spell like abilities and a class like this.

At the moment I am planning on not having the cantrips scale in damage, do you think that this is a good option or should I have them scale in damage

[Llama513]

Blistering Flourish should specify that it doesn't stack. Otherwise this can get frustrating when Swordsages have free first level maneuvers. Or it should stack, but only up to a certain amount (-2 at 7th, -3 at 11th, -4 at 17, for example).


Where does it say that they get free first level maneuvers, cause I need to remove that, because they don't, it costs them a slot just like everybody else



Eh? You could. But, again, that's adding a lot of saves for relatively small amounts of damage. Imagine that plus Blade Storm into a crowd, and the DM having to track all of that.

If I specified that it didn't work with Blade storm would that be better, or up the damage and have last for less time

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Where does it say that they get free first level maneuvers, cause I need to remove that, because they don't, it costs them a slot just like everybody else

The level 17 or 18 Swordsage ability, no?

As for cantrip scaling? They should scale if they deal damage (in which case they should take an action), and remaining utility like Burning Brand is fine otherwise. I do think the +1d6 fire damage cantrip as a bonus action is somewhat problematic though. It's VERY strong early, and falls off in later levels.

[Llama513]

I fixed it to be a standard action, that is one single attack with plus 1d6 extra damage, that will scale over time


The level 17 or 18 Swordsage ability, no?

Oh right, my bad I forgot about that one, it's not all manuevers of first level, just one that you choose, however if you feel it is to powerful I could remove it, the ability itself is simply a rewording of the wizards spell mastery, to be used with maneuvers instead of spells, same with signature maneuvers.


went through and made the fixes you suggested, take a look and see what you think

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I fixed it to be a standard action, that is one single attack with plus 1d6 extra damage, that will scale over time

That's the problem with cantrips: when you get multiple attacks, this will be useless now, probably. Either that or the second attack will be. The balance is tricky. It's still WAY stronger than a basic attack early on (since it's an attack +1d6 vs an attack). Will have to think on it a bit.


Oh right, my bad I forgot about that one, it's not all manuevers of first level, just one that you choose, however if you feel it is to powerful I could remove it, the ability itself is simply a rewording of the wizards spell mastery, to be used with maneuvers instead of spells, same with signature maneuvers.

Nah. The ability is fine. You just have to remember it when designing effects. Free bonus action advantage and stacking debuffs up to a potential -10 are simply too strong. That's all. So mitigate those edge cases and you're fine.

[Llama513]

That's the problem with cantrips: when you get multiple attacks, this will be useless now, probably. Either that or the second attack will be. The balance is tricky. It's still WAY stronger than a basic attack early on (since it's an attack +1d6 vs an attack). Will have to think on it a bit.



Nah. The ability is fine. You just have to remember it when designing effects. Free bonus action advantage and stacking debuffs up to a potential -10 are simply too strong. That's all. So mitigate those edge cases and you're fine.

Yeah balancing cantrips is going to be one of the trickier parts of this

I really do appreciate you pointing that out, as I don't play full caster a lot, I tend to miss little things like that, I hope the changes made help with this problem

[Llama513]

I am thinking about having the devoted spirit maneuvers that have a alignment descriptor, require you to be of that alignment to use, but there is no precedent for that in 5e, so I am not sure

[jitzul]

I am thinking about having the devoted spirit maneuvers that have a alignment descriptor, require you to be of that alignment to use, but there is no precedent for that in 5e, so I am not sure

Yeah just don't bother with alignment. At this point alignment is a optional feature whose importance is dependent on dm. Most of all 5e class features have nothing to do with alignment so there is no point in adding it back.

[Llama513]

Yeah just don't bother with alignment. At this point alignment is a optional feature whose importance is dependent on dm. Most of all 5e class features have nothing to do with alignment so there is no point in adding it back.

I am keeping, the crusader non neutral alignment, as I feel it is better for the class to keep that requirement, since there aren't any neutral descriptor maneuvers, I am keeping the maneuvers that specifically state the alignment as a prerequisite, as I feel that they fit the class better, and are matched by certain aspects of other classes

[Llama513]

I have finished putting in the Devoted Spirit Maneuvers, moving on to Diamond Mind Finished putting in Diamond Mind, will start on Iron Heart in morning

[Llama513]

I am working on putting in the final three disciplines, I should finish them up tonight, if you want to take a look at the other 6 please feel free to, I will most likely not see advice on what to fix until after I finish putting in the other three disciplines

[Llama513]

The maneuvers are all in please take a look through them and tell me what you think, as I can truly start to balance out the classes fully now that I have everything to work with.

I will be putting a class maneuver lists, after I finish getting the maneuvers re-balanced, just in case some maneuvers are removed and others end up being shifted to different levels.

[jitzul]

I won't be that much help with the nitty gritty of maneuver balance. But I think right out the gate something that should be changed is the flat + and - bonuses. 3.5e seems to operate on a lot of floating bonuses and negatives and 5e has all but done away with those bonuses in favor for advantage and disadvantage. Plus you may need to rework the maneuvers that remove the dex mod from enemy ac since from my knowledge dex does not factor into most monsters ac.

[Llama513]

That's fair, I'll take a look at fixing that in the morning with fresh eyes, I am going to change the maneuvers to be advantage and disadvantage, but as the stances do not have duration I will be leaving them as plus minus, as having infinite advantage or disadvantage would be busted

[Llama513]

I went through and removed a lot of the pluses and minuses, there are a few here and there among stances, but most of them are gone, and I removed the ignore dexterity from maneuvers where it existed

Dropped health of classes to help with balance

[jitzul]

Wolf Pack Tactics may need to be changed. From what I understand of 3.5 attacks and movement shared the same action so doing both the same turn was impossible except for ability like this right? In the current action economy 5e has a maneuver like this being a level 8 maneuver makes no since. To be fair I don't know how to change this move to fit 5e but just for future reference you may want to look into moves simler to Wolf Pack Tactics.

[Llama513]

Wolf Pack Tactics may need to be changed. From what I understand of 3.5 attacks and movement shared the same action so doing both the same turn was impossible except for ability like this right? In the current action economy 5e has a maneuver like this being a level 8 maneuver makes no since. To be fair I don't know how to change this move to fit 5e but just for future reference you may want to look into moves simler to Wolf Pack Tactics.

Thanks for Pointing that one out, I am going to remove it and make Prey on the Weak the 8th level stance as it is the only 7th level stance

Adjusted some class features, and maneuvers, and figured out how to work cantrips, they began at 5th level, and their damage scales accordingly

[jitzul]

Just want to say you are doing amazing work on this.

[Llama513]

Just want to say you are doing amazing work on this.

Thank you very much

Will put in the class maneuver lists either later today or tomorrow

Should i put the class lists before or after the maneuver descriptions, I am thinking before to follow the normal style of class "spell" lists, but in terms of the homebrewery it will probably be faster to put them in after so that it looks good sooner

[Llama513]

Added a maneuver list and a Stances known Column, I have realized that multiclassing into some of the player's handbook classes can lead to unclear interactions, one is for the purposes of Paladin's Divine Smite maneuver slots can be used just as spell slots can. The other is with Barb, I am having them be able to activate maneuvers while raging, if you feel this is too powerful please let me know. As well as if there are other class interactions that I need to clarify

I also believe that the class is ready for play-testing to find and fix any issues that are not obvious from reading through the abiities

If you want a pdf of the material, this link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9UbqKZqToIkNmo0RHJ5MkR5VFE/view?usp=sharing)will take you to it, there are a couple of typos but they have been marked with the fix for what they should be

The pdf has a couple of typos that I fixed, there are a few that I noticed after forming the pdf, as making another is annoying because of formatting, I will make another one when I have time to work with, but there is a major typo that I missed, for Pearl of Black Doubt, the Diamond Mind Stance, the maneuver and stance list is correct the stance is 3rd not 5th as it states in the stance description in the pdf

[Llama513]

I will be playtesting a level 10 Master of Nine on Saturday, I will post the results and any changes that result, if you have had a chance to playtest please let me know your thoughts.

[Llama513]

I got to playtest the class, and found that my damage output was matched by that of a paladin Barbarian multiclass, except that the palli barb crushed my health and tanking ability, as such I do feel like the class is fairly well balanced where it is, there are a few interactions between multiple characters that lead to shenanigans, but wizards themselves don't deal with these, as they exist in the player's handbook. as such I feel good about where the class is sitting at this point, I haven't gotten to test low level, and high level, but it is in the right area of power for the mid-levels