The Age of the Warriors - a ToB expansion book idea

[ErrantX]

It doesn't tie in the way the rest of the homebrew disciplines do however, and if we're trying to fit them into the over arching theme and lore of the Temple of the Nine Swords and the era of Reshar, then actually we do need to exclude Falling Anvil.

It just doesn't fit. If we're just making a catalog; fine. Include it. But if we're actually going to write fluff into this book about the inception of those that came before, during, and after the age of Reshar and his Temple, then I think we need to consider moving Falling Anvil to it's own special appendix at the end with a label that says, "Not for serious use, Doc."

-X

[DracoDei]

If so, then that appendix would need to say what the modifications to the history etc are.

Just as brainstorming for other alternatives to make sure we are not limiting our options:
1.) Sidebars.
2.) Color Differences (Think "Red Letter Bible", where they have the words of Christ in Red).
3.) Footnotes combined with any of the above (including the Appendix).

[Bhu]

You can always present all the disciplines and let the individual DM's decide. Thats what they're going to do anyway. Rare is the campaign I've played thats stayed absolutely true to the source material without any fudging according to the DM's personal tastes.

[Mulletmanalive]

I suggested previously a slightly off kilter editing. Certainly possible if you're using InDesign or even Publisher.

Add to that some Loony Toons writing in the titles and maybe have Renshar's words in bad typewriter font...

For reference, I don't actually consider Falling Anvil any sillier on a straight line than some of the other disciplines. I mean, there are disciplines here that seem to produce water, distort reality and cause the user to grow tentacles. Why is a discipline that causes stuff to fall from the sky and produces phantasms in the target's mind any different really?

I do, however, feel that there's a risk of humour bleed and unless the whole book is silly [not totally inappropriate considering what you can actually do compared to Fantasy Protagonists in books] then it would be best kept clear of the rest of the content, lest bad or at least mono-target humour creeps throughout like blight.

I'm actually less worried about Draco as I am about the rest of us, frankly.

[DragoonWraith]

I don't know how much it is necessary to set Falling Anvil apart. I agree with ErrantX, it doesn't fit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be excluded. I also don't think that just because it's humorous means it can't be professional, or taken seriously.

[Lord_Gareth]

For reference, I don't actually consider Falling Anvil any sillier on a straight line than some of the other disciplines. I mean, there are disciplines here that seem to produce water, distort reality and cause the user to grow tentacles. Why is a discipline that causes stuff to fall from the sky and produces phantasms in the target's mind any different really?

Really, it's all in the flavor. Saying that the discipline makes you grow tentacles is one thing; reading through the whole discipline and realizing that it turns you into a horrid, inhuman monster is a wholly different thing.

[Mulletmanalive]

You say potato, i say soup ingredient...

I'm a fan of Hong Kong movies and aside from the giggling and the fact that the anvil materialises from nowhere, it doesn't seem all that far removed from the post-Jackie Chan stuff.

Given the fact that there's already precident for Olidramma from the basic lineup of gods doing things that seem like they're taking the wee wee [the Vestige being an example], it could just be tied to him and left up in the air.

That said, i am a proponent of appendixing it or possibly saving it for a pure humour publication, simply because a) i feel the rest of the book will be more readable when played straight, rather than coloured by others trying to wedge in a funny and b) because I think it deserves to shine as the masterpiece of light-heartedness that it is.

Seriously, this was a breath of fresh air after months of "this isn't powerful enough compared to the Wizard." It deserves it's own place to shine

[DracoDei]

I don't think anyone is saying that it should be excluded completely. The MOST I hear people saying as I scroll back through the part of the thread that is showing while I type this is that it should be in an appendix. If that is what the people who know page-layouts say would work best I would be happy to go with that, provided that it included how the history etc of the world is modified by its addition.

[ErrantX]

How would history need to be modified for Falling Anvil's inclusion? Reshar went on a bender one weekend with a whacked out anthropomorphic rabbit named Bugs and learned a few tricks he wouldn't tell anyone about? :P

But in all seriousness, how would 'history' need to be modified?

-X

[DracoDei]

Good grief... my footnote ended up longer than the main part of my response... which is perfectly fine I guess.

I am not sure of the details... we know its origins (a mental illness linked to knowledge of the Sublime way*, and someone suggested Olihammara(sp?) may have been involved). I am just saying that whatever impacts it DOES end up logically having need to be spelled out somewhere, rather than just throwing out the discipline itself without noting how it interacts with other stuff... we can't know what that in is going very much detail to be until we get the general history etc more nailed down.


*Thus while you could be "taught" it, most of its practitioners just "caught" it spontaneously under the stresses of their training regime. Intentional apprenticing in it would consist as much of mutual prank wars outside the practice ring as it would combat inside it. Weapon drills would be almost non-existent I should think, and meditation is replaced by hitting the local comedy clubs (or seeking out a bard with ranks in Perform(Comedy) or whatever the setting contains instead of comedy clubs). The "history" might be limited to what the Temple of the Nine Swords' policy was on students who came down with it (expelled? Discouraged from practicing? allowed to practice, but only with eachother, to control the risk of it spreading(whether or not I decide that is actually possible, based on the advice of others)? Allowed to develop it publicly, but since it wasn't "taught", and very few of the high grade students who made the pilgrimage to be accepted ended up with it it was never counted among the nine?).

EDIT: At this time I am thinking I will entirely avoid any mention of anthropomorphic animals in relation to Falling Anvil... it seems an unnecessary element to me... a trio of Swordsages named Larry, Curly, and Moe on the other hand MIGHT show up as example characters. And perhaps a pair of archenemy Rogue/Sword Sages (or martial initiating rogues), one who wears all black, and the other all white (if anyone gives me the necessary pointers to add Spy vs Spy to the mix).

[Fail]

HOWEVER, the reason I like it is BECAUSE of the way it works in-character.

As shown below, it doesn't.

focus can not exist in the same mind as lunacy (Diamond Mind)

Joker. Dexter.

fanatical devotion to a cause can't cohabit with the relaxed flow that lets the universe take care of you (Devoted Spirit)

Arjuna.

fury is a mutually exclusive emotion to laughter (Tiger Claw)

Dilandau.

leading someone is a very different relationship from entertaining them AKA Marines have NO sense of humor (White Raven)

"I don't want to get any messages saying, 'I am holding my position.' We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls."

[ErrantX]

Reminds me of Dementation from Vampire: The Masquerade.

Okay, I'll buy that. Assuming it's an appendice to the whole thing; if not, my previous statement stands.

*tips his hat*

-X

[DracoDei]

As shown below, it doesn't.

Joker. Dexter.

Dexter I will give you(since he made it through med. school or whatever it takes to get his day job), the Joker... I really can't imagine meditating in any of his incarnations.

Arjuna.

Dilandau.

Never heard of either, please elucidate.

"I don't want to get any messages saying, 'I am holding my position.' We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls."

I shall investigate further when I have some energy to spare in that direction. I will say that I find that quote inspirational, not entertaining, and certainly not funny.

In either case, I am definitely thinking AT LEAST "optional rule" here, and maybe dropping the entire concept of "incompatible disciplines".

[Fail]

Dexter I will give you(since he made it through med. school or whatever it takes to get his day job), the Joker... I really can't imagine meditating in any of his incarnations.

Took your "focus" claim merely at face value. :( Perhaps it's hard to see Joker mastering Concentration, indeed. Still, there's Dexter, who definitely did.

Never heard of either, please elucidate.

Arjuna, Dilandau.

I shall investigate further when I have some energy to spare in that direction. I will say that I find that quote inspirational, not entertaining, and certainly not funny.

... ??? ... Still, some of the best were, say, disallowed here: "You can't run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn't fight it's way out of a piss-soaked paper bag." References to the soldiers ROFLing - as did everyone I know - included.

In either case, I am definitely thinking AT LEAST "optional rule" here, and maybe dropping the entire concept of "incompatible disciplines".

Any limitations you intended to place likely can be displaced with little effort, so the latter's advisable.

[DragoonWraith]

Another thing: I'm not certain that the limitations on which disciplines each class has access to are necessarily based on balance. Seems to me that they are fluff-first, and player-friendliness second. By the latter, I mean that it makes it easier for new players to choose, and it prevents people from scattering their choices around so much that they have difficulty meeting pre-reqs. I think the limited number of disciplines was supposed to help players more than anything.

[Golden-Esque]

In either case, I am definitely thinking AT LEAST "optional rule" here, and maybe dropping the entire concept of "incompatible disciplines".

One of the beauties of Dungeon and Dragons, in my opinion, is that its a game of exceptions. Whereas something might not be common or even allowed among a typical race's population, players can often play those options regardless, as it makes for a more interesting story.

Using the example of Dexter, he's most certainly a serial killer, but he poses the same conundrum that Belkar imposes with civilization's logic; is it any less terrible simply because the victims are those who aren't valued by society? Dexter kills child molesters, abusers, and other serial killers. But once you look back those people's backgrounds and actually look what he's doing to another person, does that still make him a hero? Naturally, Dexter's an extremely likable character, and any who listen to him feel sympathetic to his bloodlust and his code of conduct that prevents him from killing anyone whom we'd considered "valued" in society.

Is it not that strange paradox of lunacy and focus that makes Dexter such an interesting character? Would his story not be worse if he was just another hack-and-slash serial killer; making evil and good alike deftly disappear neatly under the doormat? Its because of the oddball character like Dexter that absolute restrictions don't work in DnD in most cases.

[Sereg]

While I have thus far merely been lurking, DracoDei has requested my opinion on Falling Anvil's inclusion. As a fan of the discipline, I decided to indulge his request.

While I appreciate the humour of Falling Anvil and realised that it was designed primarily for silly campaigns, that was not actually what drew me to it the most. I see Falling Anvil as a fighting style designed to draw power from insanity, or at least the emulation thereof. I see this as similar to how other fighting styles emulate drunkeness or the wild ferocity of a predator, or even how a barbarian uses his anger to fight (in a mechanic we call "rage").

I found this idea an interesting flavour which I did not consider infeasible in world where one finds the kind of things found in a D&D campaign.

As far as the incompatability mechanic is concerned, I understand DracoDei's reason for writing it though I believe that Golden-Esque has a point about how adventurers can find reasons to have odd combinations of features, which shouldn't be discouraged in my opinion. For instance, I see that DracoDei has been considering making Kaleidoscopic Dream and Coins Edge incompatable with Falling Anvil whilst I've been considering making an NPC with maneuvers from all three of those disciplines.

[DracoDei]

Regardless of the specific disciplines that are compatible or incompatible does anyone LIKE that mechanic? Because unless I hear some support for it, I am going to go ahead and re-write it into a role-playing suggestion (including specific mention of the advantages of going AGAINST those usual associations), with perhaps a single sentence at the end mentioning the concept that SOME GMs MIGHT want to make a player get approval from them regarding their back-story's ability to support them having say, both Falling Anvil and Diamond Mind...

My work won't go to waste, but it was a rather daring maneuver on my part, and especially in light of the great number of disciplines in this project might fall rather flat... not every radical idea pays off and that is a large part of the point of critique.

[Fail]

Regardless of the specific disciplines that are compatible or incompatible does anyone LIKE that mechanic? Because unless I hear some support for it, I am going to go ahead and re-write it into a role-playing suggestion (including specific mention of the advantages of going AGAINST those usual associations), with perhaps a single sentence at the end mentioning the concept that SOME GMs MIGHT want to make a player get approval from them regarding their back-story's ability to support them having say, both Falling Anvil and Diamond Mind...

Mostly, it seems to legitimate the GM troubling the player over nonexistent problems. It's a much more legitimate GM decision to ban the style itself than it and some other being practiced by the same person.

[Eldan]

Same here, actually, I don't see the problem. I still think that in DnD, basically, everything should be possible, if the fluff can be provided by the player. Therefore, if you want a style consisting of madness (falling anvil) and concentration (diamond mind), you'd have to explain it, but if you do, it works.
If you still think that the style is better than others because of it's greater variety, then just say that to learn it, you have to give up two other schools of your choice. That should work.

[DracoDei]

If you still think that the style is better than others because of it's greater variety, then just say that to learn it, you have to give up two other schools of your choice.

I think it MIGHT be, but I don't really know for sure. What do people think? EDIT: For one thing, if someone makes a class that only gets 3 or 4 disciplines that might need to be changed back to a 1 for 1 trade in such a case.

[DragoonWraith]

I'm not convinced that having a somewhat larger number of maneuvers is going to be hugely unbalancing. After all, your number of maneuvers known isn't getting any higher. So I don't really think a 2-for-1 trade is necessary.

[Golden-Esque]

I'm not convinced that having a somewhat larger number of maneuvers is going to be hugely unbalancing. After all, your number of maneuvers known isn't getting any higher. So I don't really think a 2-for-1 trade is necessary.

I agree with that. Barring other Disciplines isn't going to do anything but promote sticking with Falling Anvil.

[Lord_Gareth]

Y'know folks, it's looking like this debate is derailing the project (which, to me, would indicate the need to cut Falling Anvil - imagine the debates at the table). Personally, if it were up to me, I'd put FA's inclusion to a vote and just stick with the majority result.

[DracoDei]

Ummm... the most I have heard anyone saying right now is that it should be in an appendix. The issue of if MAYBE one should need to 2-for-1 for it is something seperate in my mind.

[elliott20]

Well, just got back from Bali, and wow, a lot of discussion has ensued since then. I'll give in my two cents right now:

1. on FA: While I do like the discipline a lot, I get the sense that a lot of you are not comfortable with it being included as a "serious" discipline due to the fluff. That is to say, the fluff is primarily what bothers you guys. Being a fan of it though, I don't want to just toss it out on it's behind and not have it in the book at all. So I personally will vote for putting it in the appendix, with sidebars saying how it can be modified to make it a "serious" discipline. In fact, I feel that if we're going to go this route, we might as well do this for all disciplines that we feel was meant to be for a specific kind of game or requires some modification to make it jive well.

So, yeah, nothing personal to DracoDei, I really want to keep this in the book somehow, but I think the crowd has spoken.

2. on the "incompatible" mechanic": My gut instinct tells me this only needlessly complicates things a little. Standardization is once again, something I would like to encourage. While exception to this CAN exist, I feel that those are once again handled best via sidebar "variant" rules.

[DragoonWraith]

OK, I think this sort of depends on how the book is laid out. If its laid out like ToB, where all the maneuvers are sort of listed together, then yeah, I guess an appendix. On the other hand, if we have a separate section for each discipline, or each 'group' of disciplines, it would not strike me as weird to have it be among the last of those, rather than all the way at the end of the book.

So like, the Table of Contents could be like this (chapter names totally made up on the spot)
VI. The Lost Tenth Discipline(s)..................................53
VII. The Martial Prowess of the Planes..........................77
VIII. Masters of Their Weapons...................................90
IX. SPECIAL: Humorous and Otherwise Niche Disciplines...111

[elliott20]

That's essentially what I was thinking. We would just group them by their respective "niche" and just treat them appropriately. That way, we can simply label the appropriate stuff and GMs can quickly flag which stuff will fit into their campaign. The niche entries will naturally be the ones that are flagged as not canonically considered part of the setting.

[Jenrock]

Perhaps, for a timeline, you could use Unified Schools (US), then After Schism (AS) or Reshar's Tutelage (RT) and Collapse (C)

Alternatively, you could have ages that correspond not to the Temple at all, but rather to other, outside, events.

For instance, in one campaign I had a monotheistic religion that worshiped a being called Turios. The age before his agent came and freed the people was called Before Emancipation (BE). Anytime after that was the Age of Turios (AT).

Also, don't feel limited to only two different eras. You could have Unified Schools (US) followed by the Scattered Disciplines (SD) and ending with New Dawn (ND).

[Eldan]

Well, I'd definitely add one more distinction. Perhaps in the style off:

"Ancient Schools- Age of the Temple - After the Schism"

Basically, a distinction between before, during and after Reshar's work.