Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CrushDugan 03-04-08, 06:20 PM	Hello all, I am currently in the process of adapting some of the bosses from the Red Hand of Doom campaign in order to spice things up a bit. One of these bosses, Wyrmlord Koth, originally bugbear sorc6, I intent to adapt into a variant of the swordsage (listed on page 21 in ToB) that allows the swapping out of maneuvers for sor/wiz spells of equal level, and I just want a little clarification before I proceed. _The adaptation states that it gives "the swordsage the ability to learn arcane spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent levels", and I wanted to make sure that this still allows me to learn maneuvers as well. --Secondly, as I understand it the spells I choose will then be "cast as if they were a martial maneuver". - Does this mean that their power as determined by caster level is now run by my initiator level? - Do they scale as they would as a spell gaining damage dice, etc. as my initiator level goes up? -Does casting them produce attacks of opportunity? Any help you can lend on clarifying this class alternative feature would be much appreciated. -Thanks
Otto the Bugbear 03-04-08, 07:07 PM	Hello all, I am currently in the process of adapting some of the bosses from the Red Hand of Doom campaign in order to spice things up a bit. One of these bosses, Wyrmlord Koth, originally bugbear sorc6, I intent to adapt into a variant of the swordsage (listed on page 21 in ToB) that allows the swapping out of maneuvers for sor/wiz spells of equal level, and I just want a little clarification before I proceed. _The adaptation states that it gives "the swordsage the ability to learn arcane spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent levels", and I wanted to make sure that this still allows me to learn maneuvers as well. --Secondly, as I understand it the spells I choose will then be "cast as if they were a martial maneuver". - Does this mean that their power as determined by caster level is now run by my initiator level? - Do they scale as they would as a spell gaining damage dice, etc. as my initiator level goes up? -Does casting them produce attacks of opportunity? Any help you can lend on clarifying this class alternative feature would be much appreciated. -Thanks My take on this, based on what's written combined with what is or is not balanced. You can choose spells of the listed schools or maneuvers as you wish (if you meet the prerequisites). Your caster level will be the same as your initiator level. Yes, they scale. Yes, casting a spells provokes an attack of opportunity.
no-sides-sameeth 03-04-08, 08:47 PM	When I read the Spellcasting variant for the Swordsage from ToB, my thought was that this was meant to be used for arcane spellcasters in a ToB only environment. It seems that the SpellSage (arcan Casting Swordsage) would be strictly better than an equivalent Sorcerer or Wizard (yikes). I would assume that a 1st level Spellsage would get 6 1st level Spells know and 4 Spells per day. That would make a 1st level character fairly powerful. Couple that with the skill points and skill list of a Swordsage, you have a really powerful character. if the Spellsage also has the weapon choices (all simple, martial melee) of a Swordsage, you have a readymade gish.
zeratulcraft 03-04-08, 08:52 PM	Are they still subject to the rule that you can't prepare/memorize the same maneuver twice? Cos that knocks out a bit of power from spellcaster damage.
Sinfire Titan 03-04-08, 10:03 PM	Are they still subject to the rule that you can't prepare/memorize the same maneuver twice? Cos that knocks out a bit of power from spellcaster damage. Doesn't matter if they can recover the spells. Then they just go Time Stop, 1st round recover Time Stop, buff, buff, whatever, recast Time Stop, Adaptive Style to swap spells readied, kill enemy. And that is Core only spells! The arcane variant Swordsage is ridiculously overpowered if you use it the way they suggested it. 9th level maneuvers are not equal in power to 9th level spells. They are about 5th-6th level, and even then, you are very powerful. Add in metamagic that may or may not involve slot adjustment, and you have a walking nightmare. The closest thing that has been achieved to this martial adept (as far as I am aware) is the Moon Magus in my sig. Not fully completed, but balanced enough and playable as is. It lacks the whole "Cast, Recover, Cast, Recover" brokenness, and the strongest one of the six is the Blue one from what I understand (I am partial to that one anyway). Still, you are better off not trying to adapt the Swordsage like that. But to answer your questions: 1: It states that you are able to replace the maneuvers known with spells of equal level, so that means you can choose freely between them. 2: Yes. 3: Yes. 4: Only if casting the spell in question normally would provoke the AoO. So yes for anything that isn't a Swift or Immediate action casting.
no-sides-sameeth 03-04-08, 10:18 PM	Yes, my point was not that it was overpowered (although I think it is) but rather that it is an illconceived idea. At low levels, its a gish nightmare, 3/4 BAB, excellent weapon selection, weapon focus, Wis to AC, ok it is overpowered. Still, at 20th level, with 25 manueuvers readied converted to 25 spell slots is not a lot if you can only use 12 per day. Now if you can utilize 12 spells per encounter, every encounter, it gets absurd. And with the way Initiator level stacks with other classes, you can multiclass and you loose far less than a traditional spellcaster.
Sinfire Titan 03-04-08, 10:28 PM	Yes, my point was not that it was overpowered (although I think it is) but rather that it is an illconceived idea. At low levels, its a gish nightmare, 3/4 BAB, excellent weapon selection, weapon focus, Wis to AC, ok it is overpowered. Still, at 20th level, with 25 manueuvers readied converted to 25 spell slots is not a lot if you can only use 12 per day. Now if you can utilize 12 spells per encounter, every encounter, it gets absurd. And with the way Initiator level stacks with other classes, you can multiclass and you loose far less than a traditional spellcaster. Exactly. It was a poorly thought out suggestion, and it should never be used in an actual campaign.
Lawkeeper 03-05-08, 08:37 AM	Well, remember what you said first : "The adaptation states that it gives "the swordsage the ability to learn arcane spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent levels"". Emphasis mine. This means you only get to know those spells - 25 spells in all, and many are from low-level. I don't have the table in front of my eyes, but IIRC that's 7 1st-lvl maneuvers/spells, and then mostly 2 from each level above. Every 4th level, you get to swap one, so it mostly gives you one 9th-lvl in place of one of those 1st-lvl maneuver/spells. At most, it's 3-4 9th-lvl spells, and 2 of each lower levels. This isn't much variety. And the abuse only comes from one 9th-lvl spell - one and only one 9th-lvl spell. I'm wondering how this variant would really fare in front of another spellcaster at such a high level...;)
no-sides-sameeth 03-05-08, 08:57 AM	Like I said, in lowlevel campaigns, the Spellsage is a pretty potent gish build. It would have, I beleive, only 12 spells per day at 20th level. Assuming that spells could be used once per day, that isn't worldbeating for a primary caster. If, however, you ruled that Spellsages recovered spells, then you are setting yourself up for trouble. I just think it is an illconceived idea. Further, because of the way Initiator Level scales with multiclassing, you could keep a pretty high caster level and spells known while multiclassing or going into PrCs. I would be interested in how one of these interacted with, say Sublime Chord, a class that resets casting. I will think up a build and post back, but, like Sin and I were saying, its just not a well-thought-out idea.
Lawkeeper 03-05-08, 12:34 PM	The way I understand the variant, they are used exactly like maneuveurs - including recovery. But they also lose light armor proficiency and 1hp/lvl. And they don't get to apply metamagic feats, since they cast the spells like maneuvers - and MM doesn't apply on maneuvers. No caster level, no true spellcasting - meaning no juicy PrC (incantatrix ? nope. Archmage ? nope. Etc, etc), but no spellcasting feats either, nor item creation. And they don't have Spellcraft, Know(arcana) or UMD as class skills. And no spell list (wands, scrolls ? nope). You just can learn some spells in place of maneuvers. 12 spells per encounter might be much ? Well, perhaps. But remember that they have a much limited versatility. People who complain about a particular abuse of a chain of spells/powers, when it actually takes so much of the spells/powers known, are people who don't understand the game. It's not all about who makes the uber-gish, about who does the most damage in a fight. Spellcasters are not only useful in combat. Combat is not ALL in the game. And in all other aspects of the game, and in versatility, the variant swordsage is lacking. Lacking in efficiency, and lacking in fun. Look above for all the things any caster, except them, can exploit. Besides, when you do exactly the same thing in each battle, because that's the way you designed/optimized your character, you end up not having much fun after the second dozen fights. This has to be considered when you talk about the thoughtfulness of a variant. Some people play straight fighters, even if it's a badly thought class - it's the fun that matter. When as a DM you allowed such a focused character to be developped & abused with no end, either you're DMing badly by really not doing much outside combat and never taking any steps to derail the routine, or the player will soon complain because you put up situations where his lack of versatility proved fatal. You can only be abusive when the DM allows it - willingly or not. It's the DM's work to ensure everything is fair for all. For a long time, I DMed with the Magic Recharge variant. And I'll probably soon use it again. Quite similar to the variant swordsage - worse in fact, since you have greater flexibility due to more spells known, and none of the disadvantages of the first paragraph. Spells flew wildly, yes - but characters are still mostly limited to one action per round. It takes a few different kind of challenges - not harder, just different. Same kind of problem here. Just remember the DM has the power to accept a variant, or reject it if he doesn't think he's able to handle it. Per se, it's not more unbalancing than having a spellcaster able to browse among hundreds of different spells to find just the one spell that specifically applies to the opponent/challenge. PS: in low-level campaigns, the sorcerer or wizard will cast sleep every combat, and end the fight by an easy win. The problem doesn't come from the variant, but from the nature of D&D's magic.;)
Sinfire Titan 03-05-08, 01:16 PM	Well, remember what you said first : "The adaptation states that it gives "the swordsage the ability to learn arcane spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent levels"". Emphasis mine. This means you only get to know those spells - 25 spells in all, and many are from low-level. I don't have the table in front of my eyes, but IIRC that's 7 1st-lvl maneuvers/spells, and then mostly 2 from each level above. Every 4th level, you get to swap one, so it mostly gives you one 9th-lvl in place of one of those 1st-lvl maneuver/spells. At most, it's 3-4 9th-lvl spells, and 2 of each lower levels. This isn't much variety. And the abuse only comes from one 9th-lvl spell - one and only one 9th-lvl spell. I'm wondering how this variant would really fare in front of another spellcaster at such a high level...;) 3-4 9th level spells, from any list. "Hello Maw of Chaos! How would you like to be broken in half?" See my point? If a class is capable of casting spells, then they have a caster level and are fully capable of creating items. In this case, the CL is debatable, but it is probably Full CL. And they wouldn't cast their spells like maneuvers, they would follow the same rules as normal spellcasters, with the exception being that they can recover their spells at will.
Lawkeeper 03-06-08, 04:10 AM	3-4 9th level spells, from any list. "Hello Maw of Chaos! How would you like to be broken in half?" See my point? If a class is capable of casting spells, then they have a caster level and are fully capable of creating items. In this case, the CL is debatable, but it is probably Full CL. And they wouldn't cast their spells like maneuvers, they would follow the same rules as normal spellcasters, with the exception being that they can recover their spells at will. Please read the ToB. They use them like maneuvers. Not like spells. And they use their initiator level to determine the effects - they don't get a caster level, they don't actually cast the spells. And you don't address the fact that it's a suggestion of a variant : the DM has all rights to accept, reject or modify/curtail it. He must do it, in fact, since so few changes are fleshed out. It's a suggestion. And it tells of three schools that are appropriate - it doesn't tell that necessary all spells from all class lists are by right open. In fact, the understanding of it leaves me the impression (as DM) that the spells that should be authorized should be those that give the same "flair" to the class. Hear me well : I do not say it's not overpowered if you're a foolish DM who allows any spell without restriction, and all MM-cheese and magic items design, etc. I say it's an interesting idea of a variant, not as "poorly thought out" as you claim. It's a suggestion, and it requires the work of the DM to bring it on the table. By the way, have you tried that suggestion, before calling it overpowered ? If not, which is under most probabilities the answer, I suggest you try it, or the magic recharge variant, to get the feel of what "unlimited magic" reallly is. Lastly, Maw of Chaos, really ?:rolleyes: If that is your idea of a fantastically powerful 9th-lvl spell, I won't say anything more...
no-sides-sameeth 03-06-08, 09:32 AM	Law, I really must have done a poor job of explaining my point, becausae you missed it entirely. My point was, in fact, a series of points leading me to the conclusion that this was an illconceived idea. The Spellsage would have 4 Spells per encounter, a ton of skill points, and excellent weapon choices, plus Weapon Focus. I am dubious as to how Wis to AC would work since Spellsages loose Light Armor Proficiency, but give it or take it away, it doesn't really matter. This class can still do a lot of things. It is beyond versatile. It doesn't need abuse to stand head and shoulders above other arcane spellcasters at low levels, it pretty much does that out of the box. You yourself point to sleep as a win button spell at low levels. This has not always been my experience (mindless creatures such as vermin and oozes are immune to most of the first level win spells, Sleep, Color Spray, perhaps Grease, although the impact of Grease on an ooze is debateable) but let us grant that Sleep is powerful; it is often a save-or-die at levels 1-2. You have 4 chances to cast it, each encounter. As the player of a SpellSage, I like those odds. Alot. So much so that I can't see why I would play anything else in a low level game. As the game progresses beyond the early levels, the Spellsage retains an awful lot of diversity. She fights as well as a Cleric, but with vastly superior weapon choices, has two good saves, and, continues to rack up spells that can be used per encounter. But, in terms of broken mechanics and abusable rules, the thing that worries me most is not the recovery mechanism, but instead the ease of multiclassing. Since Initiator/Caster Level increases at half-speed for a Spellsage, the temptation to multiclass into a full BAB class for a few levels is very high (The opportunity cost for the dip is very low when comapred to the potential gain) . You could even multiclass into something like Warblade that would give you full BAB and Manuevers on top of spells. A three level dip into Warblade grants you armor proficiency (there is no mention of ASF in the Swordsage Variant discription, so I would assume that the Spellsage can cast in armor), maneuvers, and you loose almost nothing in your Spellsage advancement. You will get 9th level spells eventually. This is why I initially thought it would make a good gish class. The other reason I thought it would make a good gish is that most of the gish builds I have made cast the same spells over and over, which is ripe for exploitation in a class that can recover spells and use them every encounter. And any DM that allows a Spellsage's spells to power Arcane Strike gets what he deserves whet the Spellsage PrCs into Arcane Duelist (normally a worthless class, but in a Spellsage17/Arcane Duelist 3 Build with Arcane Strike, it becomes bad fast). I was initially going to conceed that a Wizard makes a better utility caster that a Spellsage. I thought that, despite its numerous advantages, the spells per day and the knowing only 25 spells would be a significant disadvantage to the Spellsage when compared to the almost infinite versatility of the Wizard. However, the more I thought about it, the more convinced I became that I really only need 25 or so spells known if I can cast 12 of them each and every encounter. My point is this... This was just not a well thought out idea. Spells (especially upper level spells) should not have a recovery method. However, this, I think, will be a moot point because I think that the this is the direction that 4th edition is headed. I wouldn't be suprised if the Sword Mage that has been hinted at looks an awful lot like this Spellsage.
Lawkeeper 03-06-08, 10:46 AM	Let's be clear on a few things. First, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't understand you. I can both understand you and disagree with you at the same time. You were clear in your position earlier, and you still are - I just still doesn't agree. ;) Second, I mostly play casters since I started D&D, and that was more than twenty years ago. Versatility is the single most misunderstood ability of casters. Number of times per day that you can use your spells is close to irrelevant, but knowing the right tool is the thing that matters. That's why wizards, artificers, druids, clerics & archivists are the top 5 - they can know everything, and adapt. Sorcerers are behind. Warlocks are farther behind. I know many people freak out when they hear about limitless-use abilities, but it isn't such a nightmare. I've toyed with 20th-lvl spellcasters in a magic recharge system, and it's really not much more powerful than with the normal rules. Third, off course this class would have its own advantages, but also its own disadvantages, most of which I listed earlier. The wizard will have the specialization, the familiar, the MM-cheese, the magic item creation, the PrCs, the feats, etc. Fourth, to address one of your specific points : multiclass. The answer lies in one feat : Practiced Spellcaster. Or in Abjurant Champion, or any number of PrCs that already give the same large martial weapon prof and a bit of full BAB. No change in power-level there - or if there is, it's detrimental to the spellsage. By the way, I use the magic rating variant, and it doesn't increase that much the power of spellcasters. On paper, oh yeah, it appears so - but not in real life (or real game, rather). Fifth, Arcane Strike won't work, period : you don't cast arcane spells, you initiate them. That's one of the goodies the spellsage wouldn't get, while his competitor would. But speaking of the DM, if you were exploiting it like you say you would, odds are high (a full 1, in fact) that I'd smack you several times with situations where versatility would have been necessary. Exploitation doesn't go one-way, like too many optimizers too often forget. 'got grease or sleep, and thoroughly used them ? No problem, what do you do against a small air elemental, a spider swarm, a skeleton wolf or a large monstrous centipede ? Half of your repertoire is useless, and you can't have any back-up scroll or wand to keep specific spells on-hand. Another caster will have those, or have the uncanny forethought feat. A good DM tailors his adventures so that they present a challenge for the players. A challenge, meaning they need to face some difficulties to win, but are expected to win at least. A challenge, for the whole gaming group - not the kind of which a lone character will overcome without letting the other players play. If only one player delights in combats that he easily wins on his own, only one-fourth of the challenges, at most, should consist of combats that he easily wins on his own. Adventures are the part of the life of an adventurer that matter, because those were challenging times - easy fights, of the kind that have no consequences, are for the background. Which leads to... ...sixth and last, if you win fights without sweating, that's ground for reduced rewards (XP and treasure). CR, EL and game-mechanics are not the things that matter more : situational challenge is. If a lone kobold with a crossbow proved a challenge because he was out-of-reach of any conventional weapon or magic, he's worth lot of reward. But if there was no challenge, there's no reward to hope for. ;)
no-sides-sameeth 03-06-08, 02:06 PM	First, the points I conceed. 1) Arcane Strike. I agree it shouldn't be used, but a lenient DM might let it in. Like I said, I think it would be a bad idea. 2) Can't use MM. Yep. I agree (if the Factotum can't, then neither should the Spellsage). 3) OK, thats about it. You are not the first person to say that at high levels the number of times you can use a spell is nearly irrelevant, even WotC says this. This has not been my experience at all. At high levels I almost always prepare more than one of my key spells each morning, and I almost always leave spell slots open so that after I scout ahead (ok, I don't scout, I send in the Rogue or maybe the Druid's Animal Companion) I can cherrypick the spells I need. I find something always makes an unexpected save and I am either glad I prepared a backup or bummed that I don't have a spare. I usually have contingencies, but because I plan everything out (lots of spell combos) my contingencies are never as effective as my first line. Perhaps I rely too much on my openning salvo, but my point is, if I could use a feat Like Adaptive Style to recover a spell and launch my attack again... well then I would be even more effective, and even more effective than a Wizard is not a good thing. As I read back over what I just wrote, I sort of think I may get your point (but I will leave it just for posterity). The Spellsage works the way the Sorcerer should. Lots of uses of the spells it knows, but a limited total number of spells known, hence less versatility in spellcasting. I am still not convinced that its not an overpowered mechanic. Being able to recover and swap out my spells with Adaptive Style still seems to give unprecedented staying power. The thing about other ToB classes (and the Warlock, which is sort of a ranged ToB-style character) is that maneuvers (and Eldritch Blast, and Invocations) is they are pretty weak. I would say ToB 9th level maneuvers are analogous to 7th level spells, and Dark Invocations are 6th level spells, more or less, and even then, they don't mimic the effects I find most useful. Being able to use spells (of any level) over and over again is the thing that keeps sticking for me. As I said before, I think I could make great use of the ability to cast high level spells over and over. I am not just thinking of 9th level spells either, there are some gems at lower level that, if I could cast 10-12 times a game, I would use to crush almost anything. Sure, you could fire save-or-dies over and over (the BBEG will eventually fail a save). But you could also constantly buff and debuff, I am thinking about the few no-save rays that you could fire over and over to slash an opponent to ribbons (from a metagame standpoint) and you could constantly change and augment the terrain to suit your groups everchanging needs. I guess my gaming experience is different than others because I can see a use for casting Wall of Force 5 or 6 times in a single encounter, and with Adaptive Style, I would. I wouldn't have to worry about using up all my slots if I knew I had a recovery mechanism.
Sinfire Titan 03-06-08, 02:28 PM	First, the points I conceed. 1) Arcane Strike. I agree it shouldn't be used, but a lenient DM might let it in. Like I said, I think it would be a bad idea. 2) Can't use MM. Yep. I agree (if the Factotum can't, then neither should the Spellsage). 3) OK, thats about it. You are not the first person to say that at high levels the number of times you can use a spell is nearly irrelevant, even WotC says this. This has not been my experience at all. At high levels I almost always prepare more than one of my key spells each morning, and I almost always leave spell slots open so that after I scout ahead (ok, I don't scout, I send in the Rogue or maybe the Druid's Animal Companion) I can cherrypick the spells I need. I find something always makes an unexpected save and I am either glad I prepared a backup or bummed that I don't have a spare. I usually have contingencies, but because I plan everything out (lots of spell combos) my contingencies are never as effective as my first line. Perhaps I rely too much on my openning salvo, but my point is, if I could use a feat Like Adaptive Style to recover a spell and launch my attack again... well then I would be even more effective, and even more effective than a Wizard is not a good thing. As I read back over what I just wrote, I sort of think I may get your point (but I will leave it just for posterity). The Spellsage works the way the Sorcerer should. Lots of uses of the spells it knows, but a limited total number of spells known, hence less versatility in spellcasting. I am still not convinced that its not an overpowered mechanic. Being able to recover and swap out my spells with Adaptive Style still seems to give unprecedented staying power. The thing about other ToB classes (and the Warlock, which is sort of a ranged ToB-style character) is that maneuvers (and Eldritch Blast, and Invocations) is they are pretty weak. I would say ToB 9th level maneuvers are analogous to 7th level spells, and Dark Invocations are 6th level spells, more or less, and even then, they don't mimic the effects I find most useful. Being able to use spells (of any level) over and over again is the thing that keeps sticking for me. As I said before, I think I could make great use of the ability to cast high level spells over and over. I am not just thinking of 9th level spells either, there are some gems at lower level that, if I could cast 10-12 times a game, I would use to crush almost anything. Sure, you could fire save-or-dies over and over (the BBEG will eventually fail a save). But you could also constantly buff and debuff, I am thinking about the few no-save rays that you could fire over and over to slash an opponent to ribbons (from a metagame standpoint) and you could constantly change and augment the terrain to suit your groups everchanging needs. I guess my gaming experience is different than others because I can see a use for casting Wall of Force 5 or 6 times in a single encounter, and with Adaptive Style, I would. I wouldn't have to worry about using up all my slots if I knew I had a recovery mechanism. Reread the Factotum, they can use Metamagic on their spells/day, they just have to do it the same way a Wizard does.
no-sides-sameeth 03-06-08, 02:32 PM	Are you sure that the Factotum can apply MM to spell-like abilities? I thought that this was very much up for debate.
Sinfire Titan 03-06-08, 02:44 PM	Are you sure that the Factotum can apply MM to spell-like abilities? I thought that this was very much up for debate. Arcane Dilettante (Sp): Blah blah blah, skipping to the relevant part. If you wish to enhance a spell with a metamagic feat, you must apply the feat when you prepare the spell. In addition, you must be capable of using a spell of the modified spell's level Yes, they can.
no-sides-sameeth 03-06-08, 02:56 PM	Fair enough. I stand corrected. I still don't think a Spellsage can use MM. I do think she could cast in Armor if she has the proficiency.