quote:

---

Originally posted by dj-chuckles

V3 Feat Ideas for Divine

Spontaneous Healing
Spontaneous Harming

Spontaneous Healing/Harming lets you drop spells of that current level for cure/inflict spells of that level.

Example.
I'm changing my lvl 4 summoning spell for a cure critical wounds. Healing for 40.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deoxy

I suggest a special feat for "willing to follow" (yes, I know, it's been done - but not like this):

Not a Leader
Same benefits as Willing to Follow, but the creature taking this feat has its Commander Rating permananently and unmodifiably reduced to 0.

So, what benefit does this give? You get comander effects of other commanders, and you can put creatures in commander (useful for rallying and preventing Executuioner's Blade, useful for movement until Wardrums comes out), but you don't really give any bonuses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deoxy

I suggest a special feat for "willing to follow" (yes, I know, it's been done - but not like this):

Not a Leader
Same benefits as Willing to Follow, but the creature taking this feat has its Commander Rating permananently and unmodifiably reduced to 0.

So, what benefit does this give? You get comander effects of other commanders, and you can put creatures in commander (useful for rallying and preventing Executuioner's Blade, useful for movement until Wardrums comes out), but you don't really give any bonuses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TKort

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deoxy

I suggest a special feat for "willing to follow" (yes, I know, it's been done - but not like this):

Not a Leader
Same benefits as Willing to Follow, but the creature taking this feat has its Commander Rating permananently and unmodifiably reduced to 0.

So, what benefit does this give? You get comander effects of other commanders, and you can put creatures in commander (useful for rallying and preventing Executuioner's Blade, useful for movement until Wardrums comes out), but you don't really give any bonuses.

---

This is actually covered in the FAQ, it comes up so often :). There is an underlying intent in the EC rules to promote and encourage the advancement of LTs and eventual promotion into Warlords. Creating any form of "Willing to Follow" ability to LTs acts in direct opposition to that concept, and (without trying to seem excessively negative, but simply to respond to your suggestion) Deoxy your modified suggestion is even more aggressively opposed to the concept of encouraging Promotions.

If an LT is permanently locked at CR 0, it will almost certainly never be competitive as a Warlord, and therefore will always exist as a subordinate to your existing Warlord, meaning that you will be much less likely to level another LT to eventually become a Warlord. In short, this idea, in various forms, has been rejected many times already, and is not likely to appear in any future EC Rules. I hope this doesn't discourage you from suggesting other interesting rules upgrades in future! :)

TKort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SilentG

I think that this "underlining intent" should be reconsidered. How many units break off and become warlords under the current system? Not all that many. Among the higher level warlords who can more feasably level up lieutenants I can't think of a single Lt. that I've seen break off. There are probably a couple, but my point is that it's not like the current EC rules and "intents" make this a common practice. Zarnof's justice archon is the only unit that comes to my mind - and he simply hated the Cleric of Yondalla. This underlining intent seems to be mostly nominal.

With all the new units and the interest that already exists to try out various different Lt. Warlords there's no reason to simply disallow a willing to follow feat bc of an underlining intent that has no real effect. What gets people to try out Lts and new warlords is new and interesting units. I'm sure we'll see quite a few new warlords in the next months with or without a willing to follow feat.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TKort

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deoxy

I suggest a special feat for "willing to follow" (yes, I know, it's been done - but not like this):

Not a Leader
Same benefits as Willing to Follow, but the creature taking this feat has its Commander Rating permananently and unmodifiably reduced to 0.

So, what benefit does this give? You get comander effects of other commanders, and you can put creatures in commander (useful for rallying and preventing Executuioner's Blade, useful for movement until Wardrums comes out), but you don't really give any bonuses.

---

This is actually covered in the FAQ, it comes up so often :). There is an underlying intent in the EC rules to promote and encourage the advancement of LTs and eventual promotion into Warlords. Creating any form of "Willing to Follow" ability to LTs acts in direct opposition to that concept, and (without trying to seem excessively negative, but simply to respond to your suggestion) Deoxy your modified suggestion is even more aggressively opposed to the concept of encouraging Promotions.

If an LT is permanently locked at CR 0, it will almost certainly never be competitive as a Warlord, and therefore will always exist as a subordinate to your existing Warlord, meaning that you will be much less likely to level another LT to eventually become a Warlord. In short, this idea, in various forms, has been rejected many times already, and is not likely to appear in any future EC Rules. I hope this doesn't discourage you from suggesting other interesting rules upgrades in future! :)

TKort.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darksteed

I know this might have been said before. Though I`d really like to see more spells added to the spell lists. Maybe even alignment specific spells. Like Divine Protection (Divine, 2nd) (LG/CG), Legions Shield of Faith (Divine 4th) (LG), or Legions Magic Weapon (Divine 4th) (CG)....I`ve got a note file with all the DDM spells upon it. Organized into which alignment can cast which spells. If this thread is interested any further. Cause I know lots of people wish to keep sorten spells contained within there given alignments. I just don`t see why a figure of that sort alignment couldn`t acquire these spells. Just a quick thought. Thanks.

Darksteed.

And on another note I think chimes, drums, and other such "musical Instruments". Should be removed from the mafic items list. For I belive CG is the only alignment with Bards in it, who can play these things. Just another quick thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AesophDarkfable

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SilentG

quote:

---

Originally posted by AesophDarkfable

---

Well there is Clank, there is Vina, there is the new JA, new Catfolk Wilder. Im working on a Duergar Champ to break off.

---

quote:

---

I admitted that there were probably several I didn't know about. Still, that's 5 out of 30? How many would not have broken off if there were some willing to follow feat? My overall point is that a willing to follow feat isn't going to kill the "somewhat rare" Lt promotion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AesophDarkfable

Rogue class progressions to be finished off based off the great work done by myself and Dariustad. Some combo will be reached and will have a full proposal by then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AesophDarkfable

quote:

---

Originally posted by SilentG

I think that this "underlining intent" should be reconsidered. How many units break off and become warlords under the current system? Not all that many. Among the higher level warlords who can more feasably level up lieutenants I can't think of a single Lt. that I've seen break off. There are probably a couple, but my point is that it's not like the current EC rules and "intents" make this a common practice. Zarnof's justice archon is the only unit that comes to my mind - and he simply hated the Cleric of Yondalla. This underlining intent seems to be mostly nominal.

With all the new units and the interest that already exists to try out various different Lt. Warlords there's no reason to simply disallow a willing to follow feat bc of an underlining intent that has no real effect. What gets people to try out Lts and new warlords is new and interesting units. I'm sure we'll see quite a few new warlords in the next months with or without a willing to follow feat.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TKort

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deoxy

I suggest a special feat for "willing to follow" (yes, I know, it's been done - but not like this):

Not a Leader
Same benefits as Willing to Follow, but the creature taking this feat has its Commander Rating permananently and unmodifiably reduced to 0.

So, what benefit does this give? You get comander effects of other commanders, and you can put creatures in commander (useful for rallying and preventing Executuioner's Blade, useful for movement until Wardrums comes out), but you don't really give any bonuses.

---

This is actually covered in the FAQ, it comes up so often :). There is an underlying intent in the EC rules to promote and encourage the advancement of LTs and eventual promotion into Warlords. Creating any form of "Willing to Follow" ability to LTs acts in direct opposition to that concept, and (without trying to seem excessively negative, but simply to respond to your suggestion) Deoxy your modified suggestion is even more aggressively opposed to the concept of encouraging Promotions.

If an LT is permanently locked at CR 0, it will almost certainly never be competitive as a Warlord, and therefore will always exist as a subordinate to your existing Warlord, meaning that you will be much less likely to level another LT to eventually become a Warlord. In short, this idea, in various forms, has been rejected many times already, and is not likely to appear in any future EC Rules. I hope this doesn't discourage you from suggesting other interesting rules upgrades in future! :)

TKort.

---

---

Well there is Clank, there is Vina, there is the new JA, new Catfolk Wilder. Im working on a Duergar Champ to break off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dariustad

1) A Barbarian is melee and nothing but melee. It cannot join a stealth class without at least one level in a class that provides it (Rogue, Scount, Ninja).

But a barbarian does get evade or similair "stealth" abilities. that is why I listed STL

2) Bards are arcane with a few divine spells added in. In all honesty, if the Artificer gains its own spell list, the Bard should as well. It is a unique range of spells.

I agree, I think the Spell lists need to be updated as well. If the decision to make more lists is made, then bard should be as well.

3) Monks should really get stealth levels, either. Sure, they can run fast and stun, but their heavy dedication (addiction) to law tends to preclude it from being super stealthy. It has no attacks that could benefit from a [sneak attack] increase.

I think you meant monks should NOT get stealth levels, but again, Monks do get Evade Damage, and feats like fient, or hide in Plain Sight might be possible.

4) You should add:
Ninja: STL
Scout: CTL, STL (The Skirmish ability is nice, but moving isn't always an option. Besides, it does not follow the pattern of melee or ranged "sneak attack" damage. Skirmish damage applies to all attacks after movement. Limiting it to either one would affect that entire class ability in a "bad" way.)

There would be alot need to be added. I worked up the basic list for people to get an idea what I meant. Not sure where you are pulling the Skirmish ability from (current book? X-whatever Champ?) perhaps making Skirmish a Stealth feat?

5) As far as the Stealth Training Level, I designed my version after the player's handbook. The BAB advancement follows closely to it without being overly complicated.

I don't have a players handbook with me, but i was trying to put a simple repeating pattern together where, where someone following a stric CTL will be a better commander and combatant over someone to took strictly STL, and the Strict STL path was a better Commander and combatant over a strict MTL path. May personal thought, someone focusing on advancing their magic is not going to be as go in combat or as a commander as the fighter who has focused on leading troops in battle.

6) I am loathe to giving too many feat/class feat choices to any class, since they can overpower the characters a bit too much. Eventually, you'll have players with "power" warbands with few explotable weaknesses. This would basically make these fights nothing but extremely long mass combats with the person who has the best dice luck the winner. Skill should always affect combat, not just items, abilities, and good dice.

I can understand this, and if it was desided to cut back on the number of feats you could choose from that would be a EC enviroment decision, but as I have it, a strict CTL at level 10 would have 5 feats, +10/+5 attack, +100 HP and +5 cmdr rating, a strict STL will have at level 10 four feats, three stealth feats, +7/+2 attack, +40 HP, and +3 cmdr rating and the strict MTL would havethree feats, three magic feats, +2 attack, +35 HP, +2 cmdr rating and +10 SPL. Some switching/work on the patterns could happen, but again, people get the idea.

7) Combat Archery: Can use ranged attacks while in melee.<-- How many times do I have to say no? This is an EPIC feat from the ELH or the ability gained by a 2nd level Order of the Bow Initiate. It should NOT become a common ability, ever. It's rare in the RPG, and should remain such in skirmish. The only way I would vote fr it: Application in some form of EPIC EC or as a feat for an lt. HEBI, but I don't entirely know if that's possible.

I would have not problem with droping this feat.

That's all I'll rant about for now. [:P][)]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zippy

The idea of Epic Warlords is awefully cool, and is essentially a separate campaign that would use the existing EC rules and community with minor modifications.

This would mean we'd probably need an admin just for the Epic part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AesophDarkfable

Part of the problem with the willing to follow is it is for those who just want to build lts up to ridiculous power levels and not have ANY negatives for that (losing commander effects). You still get to use the higher CR for morale saves for lts with CR 0. I think part of the discussion and argument (and its not a new argument its been around for along long long time) is what the purpose of lts are. They are not there to be super power monsters. The side-goal of keeping lts the way they are, other than promotion, is to keep the focus on the warlords themselves.

As for Willing to Follow, I have no problem not allowing any such feat. (As it, willing to follow is NOT a feat). I don't think Lts are really super power monsters. As I was saying before, they would have half the XP of the warlord, if the warlord only works on one Lt. If he works more, they are all going to be lower. Maybe it is simply I am so new to this i don't realize how powerful Lt can become yet.

As for progressions I think there should be 3.
Warrior
Caster
Stealth

That is what I was working toward as well. I was just putting in that the ones you can take depend on what classes your warlord would have.

Now spell lists for different casters is fine but 3 general progressions. Also on the monks/barbarians etc with stealth. Ive gone back and forth on this, and I started in your camp. But in the end I think to keep powerful barbarian/monk types from getting access to things like sidestep we need to limit stealth to thjose with SA, Skirmish, and Sudden Strike. Though I love the idea of my scorpion clan drow with hide, etc, I really only want it so he becomes sick and broken, but that hurts the game more than it helps. And I sure as hell dont want Krawd with Sidestep.

I think I can understand this, (not happy with it, but understand), it seems a little restrictive to me, but i will bow to your larger experience in EC and what works/happens at higher levels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AesophDarkfable

Part of the problem with the willing to follow is it is for those who just want to build lts up to ridiculous power levels and not have ANY negatives for that (losing commander effects). You still get to use the higher CR for morale saves for lts with CR 0. I think part of the discussion and argument (and its not a new argument its been around for along long long time) is what the purpose of lts are. They are not there to be super power monsters. The side-goal of keeping lts the way they are, other than promotion, is to keep the focus on the warlords themselves.

---