|
5 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2007 - 8:12AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2007
|
You see, I'm entirely the opposite - I find the movement/action denying options like Crushing Vise and Irresistible Mountain Strike, and Colossus Strike as well, quite appealing. Sadly, they're the ones that have prereqs tho so in practice I never find I can fit them in.
Personal preference towards debuffs/tactical effects over damage I guess. Looking at it again at least the Mountain Hammers do more damage for their level than other disciplines, so thats a mark in their favour. But then for raw damage I'd just grab Shock Trooper personally.
I'm changing the dipping section to point out Stone Dragon as the most damaging discipline.
The Magic comparison is totally lost on me tho - never touched the game myself.
Well. Actually I do agree with you about the movement/action denying options. I forgot about them because they are so obnoxious, I feared my DM's retaliation. It does require a bigger investment in Stone Dragon though. The hammers are very dippable, and 9th lvl Tombstone Strike has no pre-reqs. I like shock trooper, but its not gonna give you +12d6 and beat DR. They would be good together. I'm not espousing these hammers as the end all be all of ToB, but they are a stock move that fills an obvious void in most warriors tactics (a good standard attack).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2007 - 8:42AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Nov 14, 2004
|
Okay then, how's this as a start for the Stone Dragon section?
Stone Dragon
The first point to make about this discipline is the easily missed requirement on page 81 (in that little bit of text at the start, you know, the one you assumed was fluff and skipped over?) that "Stone Dragon maneuvers can be initiated only if you are in contact with the ground."
Generally speaking this discipline is characterized by its large number of standard action strikes (which do good damage for their level) and by the small number of prerequisites required to take its maneuvers. A good standard action is missing from many melee characters, making this a good discipline to cherry pick maneuvers from.
Choice Maneuvers:
- (Elder/Ancient) Mountain Hammer: Combine an impressive damage boost (useful against any target) with the ability to ignore Damage Reduction. The harder your opponent is to hurt the better these strikes are.
- Crushing Vise: Stops your opponent from moving, made good by the fact that it doesn't allow a save.
- Irresistible Mountain Strike: forces your opponent to save or lose his standard action - meaning he can't full-attack you, cast a standard action spell, or make a standard action attack. A very nice debuff.
- Mountain Tombstone Strike: the only 9th level maneuver that has no prerequisite requirements, making this a useful choice to fill in a gap. Best used against opponents with lots of hit dice (Giants, Tarrasque, etc) who will lose more hit points due to the Con damage. Also useful if your party Wizard uses a lot fo Fort save spells as a way of weakening them against a save-or-die.
Balanced enough?
Any other maneuvers that people like? (None of the stances strike me as owt special)
(and y'all feel free to write me some sections for the other disciplines...)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2007 - 9:40AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2009
|
Dave, for choice maneuvers from the Iron Heart Discipline, theres the Iron Heart Surge as one of the best maneuvers in the book with that maneuver being able to remove almost any status condition or debuff affecting the hero and it even removes an anti-magic field.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2007 - 9:55AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2006
|
Any other maneuvers that people like? (None of the stances strike me as owt special)
(and y'all feel free to write me some sections for the other disciplines...)
Stone/Iron/Adamantine Bones are rather nice against foes with a lot of weak attacks, or when you need to make someone lose a round. If you somehow have a way to make another Standard Action in a round (Belt of Battle, Factotum 8...) then it gets really good, especially if you use it to protect you while you make an Avalanche of Blades (Combat Rhythm).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2007 - 10:00AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Nov 14, 2004
|
@ Avalon - Don't worry, the Surge will be on the list - as will an in-depth list of what it can and can't remove
@ Cantrip - I've never heard anyone praise them before, have you tried it in practice?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2007 - 10:04AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2006
|
Can't say that I have, sadly. But DR 20/Adamantine is nothing to scoff at, and neither is DR 5/Adamantine at low levels. It basically means you're immune to weapon damage for a round.
As for stances, I like Roots of the Mountain for the +10 to resist combat maneuvers and DR 2/-. It's not much, but it's constant.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2007 - 10:24AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Nov 14, 2004
|
As for stances, I like Roots of the Mountain for the +10 to resist combat maneuvers and DR 2/-. It's not much, but it's constant.
Fair point - the +10 on grapple checks for against anything with swallow whole ain't bad either.
And looking at the actual text there's also a -10 on tumble checks for people going through your threatened area. Could be very useful for a Crusader / MoN as a dual stance alongside Thicket of Blades.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2007 - 11:03AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2003
|
Under "Jump Check Optimization" for Tiger claw, you should note that Leaping Dragon Stance isn't a +10 bonus, it's a +10ft bonus. So, if you're making a vertical jump, it's still a +10ft bonus, which makes Battle Jump a sure thing against medium foes, and only averagely difficult against large foes (DC 20 = 5ft, +10ft).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2007 - 11:46AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2005
|
If a prestige classes progress IL then it does so for all the relevant classes. Example: Warblade 1/Swordsage 1/Crusader 3/Shadow Sun Ninja 10/Master of Nine 5
Has:
Warblade IL = 16
Swordsage IL = 16
Crusader IL = 18
Actually, that would be Warblade and Swordsage IL=18, Crusader IL =19
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2007 - 2:30PM
#60
|
|
|
But then, RKV probably merits a handbook all to itself...
If you want to distribute some of the burden of assembling this project, I've just started the framework for an RKV handbook. It won't be until tomorrow that it'll be substantive enough to post, but if you really think it merits its own handbook, I've got the time to put it together.
|
|
|
