Ciara Ni Seaghdha's page

@LazarX: Problem is, he definitely does *not* want to begin the campaign as a Paladin. It's something that will happen as his character progresses (he likes to plan out these things).

Besides, a normal Intelligent Item isn't the same as the Black Blade; it's the fact that it is bound to his soul that is important. The storyline I have for his character would only fit with the Black Blade.

Don't get me wrong; I appreciate your comments, and I definitely am taking them into consideration. I don't want to come across like I'm dismissing them out of hand, it's just that I disagree in this case.

Apologies for the delay. I'm starting college soon, and there was a sudden emergency with the funding (fixed now). Was kinda hectic for the last couple weeks while I was fixing it, though.

What I'm leaning towards right now is as follows:

2nd Level: Lay on Hands: 1/3 Paladin Levels, rather than 1/2 Paladin Levels (equivalent of the Magus Arcane Pool loss).
3rd Level: Black Blade feature, replaces 3rd level Mercy (equivalent of the Magus Arcana loss). Black Blade feature remains unchanged from Bladebound Magus.
5th Level: Weapon version Divine Bond must be used on the Black Blade.

Soulbound Paladin Levels stack with Bladebound Magus for purposes of determining the abilities of the Black Blade.

I'm not entirely happy with it as it is (would like more Paladin-oriented abilities), but on the other hand, I'm almost entirely certain that it would be balanced, and there is something to be said for simplicity. However, if someone wants to come up with some good rules Black Blade specials or some other effect that would fit better with a Paladin version of the Archtype, I'd be more than happy to work with them.

1) You are advancing a class feature independent of class level, so that's shaky ground to start. However, since he cannot break the +10 enhancement cap, and needs to be at least Magus 5/Paladin 5 before he can start using both arcane pool and divine bond to give nonstandard enhancements to his blade, I'd say it's probably not a huge problem.

Maybe I didn't explain very well why I'm doing it. He's probably take a relatively low number of levels in Bladebound, so assuming he starts up as a Paladin at around level 7-8, he only really gets a +2 bonus on his primary weapon for perpetuity. Now, admittedly, I am not all that experienced, but that seems to be much lower than it should be at, say, level 18. Also, given as how Black Blades are considered Minor Artifacts in my world, I don't think it fits to allow further enchantments.

3) Only if it fits with the flavor of black blades in your world. If the black blade should work by drawing power from its wielder and gains power when their wielder gains power, regardless of what that power is, then yes you have grounds to advance the blade's other abilities. Note that it does take away a lot of the draw of being a single-classed bladebound magus and I would advance its ego as if the magus were single-classed if so. However, there are still a lot of magus features you're giving up to multiclass, so it's not totally out there.

The IC explanation for how they work is by linking to the soul of the individual using them. It draws power from the character's soul, and thus increases in power along with their soul (i.e. as they level). However, I considered the specials to be at least partly the Magus learning to use the blade as much as the blade gaining additional powers, so it could go either way. I'm primarily concerned with the balance of it. I've only been gaming for about a year (with a 2-year gap between then and now), so I don't have enough experience to judge the balance accurately.

You could just replace the divine bond with the black blade, and re-fluff your character's black blade to have some kind of divine connection. So, Magus & Paladin levels stack for purposes of black blade and he never gets a mount or second weapon...?

That idea definitely has its merits. I would have to figure out rules for the way the Divine spirit interacted with the Black Blade anyway, so this is worth considering. I'd probably replace the specials with more Paladin-oriented ones. Does anyone have any ideas?

Again, thanks to all who responded.

I have a player who wants to make a Bladebound Magus/Paladin multiclass. I've been looking over the rules, and there seem to be some balance issues as it is; specifically, that if he is using the Black Blade as his primary weapon, and he only takes 8 levels in Magus, he'll have a +2 sword as his primary weapon, plus whatever bonuses from his Arcane Pool/Divine Bond features (they seem to be comparable in the amount of bonuses they give).

So, the way I see it, I have two options. Allow him to add enchantments the Black Blade, something which not only is dubious in the rules (primarily due to item ego), and doesn't fit with *why* the blades work in my world, or have the weapon scale up based on *Character* level, rather than his Magus level.

The closest I've come to an answer is to have the Black Blade's stats (but not the specials), increase based on Character Level. However, I'd like to get opinions from some other people, as I'm not the most experienced gamer ever. My questions are as follows:

1) Are there any major balance issues with this rule, particularly in how it relates to a Bladebound Magus/Paladin multiclass?

2) How would you change the rule so that a Bladebound Magus can multiclass into another class that has a low Will Save without allowing the Black Blade to control him whenever they disagreed?

3) Would you extend the increase to the special abilities of the Black Blade, such as Teleport Blade and Transfer Arcana, and if so, why?

4) Are there any other solutions that I am missing?

Any comments or advice would be greatly appreciated.

@Hank Woon: I'll definitely post notes on my world's wiki (here), but I'm not certain how useful they'll be to you. It's an alternate history setting, so I won't be able to stick too closely to reality (King Arthur or Henry II might find Roman armies too to close to Britain as a threat, Vikings might attack, etc.). I also won't be running that campaign for quite a while, so you very well might put out a supplement before I start it anyways.

Other than that, I can't think of anything else to add to the rulebook besides what I've already mentioned. Not to say I won't keep thinking about it, but all the easy ones are out there.

*Facepalm*

I'm sitting here typing up the last post, and cross referencing stuff on that page and I completely miss it. Apologies. Being stupid can suck sometimes. ;)

As for your idea about the supplements, that actually is pretty cool. I'd already been planning a campaign based on Caesar's conquest, so I'd definitely buy it.

@Hank Woon: More on supply lines. If I start getting irritating, please say so. I never have been able to tell when to shut up. ;)

Calvin Roder wrote:

Raids on supply lines might be a bit more difficult. The best way I can think of to represent it is to add information on precisely how many supplies are stored in the camp or otherwise accessible to the army at one time, and how long these supplies would last. If the army cannot regain control of the supply lines or find another way of getting supplies (such as capturing enemy supplies) before their stores run out, they begin taking penalties as per your rules on lack of food and desertion.

The section on the baggage train goes into how much gold, food, etc. an army on campaign needs. It even goes into how long a baggage train is.

The rules on the baggage trains only mention how many men each carriage can support, with no mention of how long they can support them. Now, I'm by no means an expert on military matters, but unless I've misunderstood everything I've ever read about it, an army of any substantial size is incapable of carrying all the supplies they'll need on an extended campaign with them from the time they set out. To this end, they must maintain supply routes with their homeland, which both limits how far into enemy territory they can invade, as well as giving defending armies plenty of opportunities to ambush supply wagons away from the main camp. This, of course, is what I was talking about.

In addition, the rules on support of units seem slightly cumbersome. While listing precisely the amount of gold required to support each soldier is interesting, it might not work well as a rule system. While 3 units of, say, 150 1st level warriors is pretty easy to calculate, after a battle each unit will take casualties. A unit of 93 warriors, one of 69, and another of 123 is slightly more difficult to figure out. Given as how armies can consist of dozens of units, with thousands of men, it might take quite a while to determine how much you have to pay to support your troops, particularly for beginning player (might work as an optional rule, though).

Thus far, the best system I've been able to work up is a "Supply Point" system. I'm not sure how many months worth of supplies you intended each supply wagon to hold, or if you even thought about it, but that's the number of supply points they can carry. Each supply point is worth about 60gp, and the number of troops it can support can easily be figured out based on the information in the book.

Admittedly, it's not much better for considering casualties than your "individual gold" system, but it simplifies it somewhat, and makes it much easier to represent raids. To illustrate the differences, I've cooked up an example. Bonus points to whoever gets the reference.

OK, admittedly, it's somewhat slanted towards my viewpoint, but difficult to write something that isn't. In addition, I got bored during the writing, so I had to put a joke or two in. Sue me.

At this point, if you still disagree, I'll let the matter rest. Also, I honestly don't know any chatroom etiquette, so if I'm posting too long of comments, please say so. I do tend to write novels.

@Calvin: Ah, I see, and it's a valid point. If I ever get a chance to revise the sourcebook, I'll definitely see what I can add in that regard. In the meantime, if you ever get a chance to run this system and/or you have some suggestions for incorporating those ideas for use with this sourcebook, I would love to see them!

Thanks again!

Well, espionage is easy; just put a bonus to the scouting roll based on the information the PCs bring back, or a penalty to the opponent's roll if they capture an enemy spy or otherwise hinder their opponent's scouting.

Ambushes are almost as simple. For small scale ambushes (i.e. the PCs, maybe with a few small allied squads, against a troop or two), whatever losses the two sides take would carry over to the next major battle, unless they could be replaced. The main difficulty would be that on such a small scale, it might be hard to get the troop cards system to work; perhaps treat it as a normal encounter, as in Core Rulebook?

Larger scale ambushes would be even easier; the ambushing party automatically wins the scouting roll (unless detected, of course), gains bonus to initiative, and maybe even receives an additional maneuver, probably in an adaptation of the surprise round. In addition, the ambushing party would be able to place units anywhere on the map, enabling them to easily surround their opponents formations. Also, supply wagons might be on the battlefield, causing minor disruption to the supply lines if they can be captured or destroyed (see next).

Raids on supply lines might be a bit more difficult. The best way I can think of to represent it is to add information on precisely how many supplies are stored in the camp or otherwise accessible to the army at one time, and how long these supplies would last. If the army cannot regain control of the supply lines or find another way of getting supplies (such as capturing enemy supplies) before their stores run out, they begin taking penalties as per your rules on lack of food and desertion.

Other things you might want to add:

• Rules on using monstrous creatures as siege engines. Giants can throw stones as well as any catapult, and perhaps better.
  
• Larger list of Siege engines. While not all should necessarily have unique rules, there should definitely be a larger list of siege weaponry, if only to list how much each costs. Admittedly, there wouldn't be much more (things like Onagers can be considered Catapults), but there are some things not covered, such as the repeating ballista (Polybolos) and light ballista (aka Scorpion).
  
• Additional ways of increasing/decreasing morale. While a huge monster might cause your forces to rout, seeing that same monster slain by the PCs will hearten the troops. You even have one idea in the short story at the beginning; seeing the standard flying high above the fray can put courage into a man's heart during the most terrifying of situations.
  
• Rules on what happens when a unit loses contact with its commander during a battle. This is a particularly useful one because, in addition to adding the problem of communication between units, it also opens up the tactic of disrupting enemy communications, something which can be done by the PCs about as easily as units.
  
• Put a cap on the Discipline bonus for the number of battles the unit has been in, at least for Morale checks; even veterans of dozens of battles will run in many situations, and a +37 bonus to Discipline (and thus, if I understand the rules, Morale checks) doesn't represent that.
  
• Rules for gaining experience and leveling, both for Characters and units. Lists of new, battlefield-oriented Feats and Spells would be particularly useful.
  
• Additional rules for individual characters/monsters, particularly Huge and larger monsters. Maybe I just missed something, but the rules seem a bit vague on how a single dragon or giant would fight against a unit.

Some of these might be harder to add than others, and some might slow the game down, particularly for new players. Perhaps you could introduce a section on optional rules?

@Calvin: Thanks for the review!

Keep in mind that these rules are designed to be more realistic and in keeping with historical ancient and Medieval warfare (albeit with magic and monsters thrown into the mix). Players do not have to be generals; the rules state that even if a PC is in a unit, he adds a significant bonus to morale by his presence. That, and his actual damage on the battlefield, is how he influences the battle.

If a PC is a captain or even a general in the army (or if the GM allows the players to control X amount of units), then he also can influence the battle by controlling unit formations and tactics, which is how it worked in real battles.

Warpath provides GMs with rules for how PCs can influence battles or lead them.

I agree, which is why I mentioned that it actually is a good system, and recently changed my rating to 4 stars. Still, I would have liked more rules on how the PCs can influence the battle outside of leading the troops. The problem is not that Warpath is not that it is a bad sourcebook, but that there are much better ones for only slightly more money.

While I do like how they made the rules of battle realistic (something which Heroes of Battle didn't have), highly skilled individuals are more than capable of influencing the battle through espionage, raids, and ambushes that larger groups couldn't accomplish, something Warpath didn't even touch upon.