Talk:Occult Sovereignty (3.5e Martial Discipline)

That's a very interesting concept I've been thinking about a while ago. I can't wait to see what this will result in. ( Rather useless comment otherwise, I know. Just encouragement. ) -HarrowedMind 20:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you. Any commentary that makes me smile is never useless.  :) I'll be finishing this up shortly, the whole things written but not formatted. I'll do it when I get a day off. -- Eiji-kun 09:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind if I contribute some maneuvers to help fill this in? --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

By all means. Complete Epic's got my balls in a time-grinder. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ideas for maneuvers and stances

This discipline got me interested, even if I'd just limit to expand maneuvers via feat choices.

I mentioned my qualm about its 1st level maneuver, Disrupt the Weave, but this can be a valuable maneuver chain. One easy 7th-8th level maneuver could duplicate the effects of Holy Smite from Dragon Age: Origins, which causes area of effect damage based on the target's modifier (Int in this case) within an area and, if the character is a spellcaster, it loses spell slots and takes damage based on the lost spell slots. It could start as an early maneuver affecting one person, and then improve. Think of Reciprocal Gyre for it.

Another one could easily hold a banishment effect on a melee attack, with an earlier maneuver dealing extra damage to summoned or called creatures, for example. T.G. Oskar (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Balance

I'm partly bringing this up, as Tarkis did, because the discipline and some of the maneuvers within don't have listed Balance Points. I just wanted to say that I feel as though something made specifically to defeat casters (who tend to be Very High level balance) should probably have the same balance level. I feel it pertinent to bring up because most of Eiji's disciplines tend to be High level; this isn't a bad thing by any stretch, but not necessarily up to snuff with what the discipline is meant to fight against. - TG Cid (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

H casters do certainly exist though -- it's just a matter of keeping spell availability/choice within the H range. While it is certainly true that putting this VH discipline would give it broader appeal, keeping it H isn't necessarily a bad thing, because there is a place for that. There is also the argument that martial adepts are, generally, the very paradigm of H, and consistency is good. --DanielDraco (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I retain the mantra of H level. H can take on the VH without going up to its level if its tailored to it (which this is). I imagine this to be the warmage of abjuration, relying on physical strikes, their class, and other maneuvers for straight up damage against non-casting sorts, the pidgeonholing is intentional. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)