Book of Nine Swords -- okay?
kigmatzomat
Hero
I don't think it is overpowered as a 1-class character. I think including non-adept levels does make it too appealing for multiclassing. I'm simply going to add a limiter on total Initiator level based on adept levels to require some time in class before they get the ultra-spiffy powers.
For campaign consistency reasons, I will probably introduce them as PrCs with low pre-reqs (BAB +5, 3 feats off the fighter list).
For campaign consistency reasons, I will probably introduce them as PrCs with low pre-reqs (BAB +5, 3 feats off the fighter list).
spunky_mutters
First Post
I'm going to let the mechanics in, but probably not the classes. I foresee the fighter in my current group using feats to get maneuvers and stances (and I'll let him use his BAB as his initiator level). This way there is no recharge, he's probably just going to experiment with one of the disciplines, and we'll get to see how things go.
I like the system. I do not feel it is overpowered, either. I like the ease of multi-classing, and the goodness that can come with others taking the feats to get some martial manuevers.
One of the biggest concerns that many have are the warblade's seeming replacement of the fighter. I think that it very well can replace the fighter, if you want. I don't think I'll be doing that, as I think the fighter is best relegated to the role it suits, a dip class.
Others don't like the supernatural type manuevers. I think they fit in d&d very nicely. The swordsage for instance can be an elven sword-monk, or (as I will soon play,) a psychic warrior. It depends on what flavor you wanna use.
I think you could also do some cool things by just using the manuevers and not the classes, as Spunky is doing. It could give some cool boosts to the melee classes.
One of the biggest concerns that many have are the warblade's seeming replacement of the fighter. I think that it very well can replace the fighter, if you want. I don't think I'll be doing that, as I think the fighter is best relegated to the role it suits, a dip class.
Others don't like the supernatural type manuevers. I think they fit in d&d very nicely. The swordsage for instance can be an elven sword-monk, or (as I will soon play,) a psychic warrior. It depends on what flavor you wanna use.
I think you could also do some cool things by just using the manuevers and not the classes, as Spunky is doing. It could give some cool boosts to the melee classes.
DungeonmasterCal
First Post
When I've had time to sit down and read through it, I'm really impressed by the classes and maneuvers. IMO, it adds a really exciting twist on combat oriented classes.
The Forsaken One
Explorer
Works fine for me but everyone I play with are mostly powergamers so that needs to be said.
minor complaint but I like the system
My biggest complaint about the system is that it doesn't plug into an established game without some extra work. Allowing everything as presented in the book could certainly create nightmarish powergaming problems. I like the flavor it will add, but will probably not allow the classes into my current game. I think my fighter will like the abilities enough to take feats to get stances and manuvers. Taken this way, he should never get enough juice to qualify for the +100 damage ability. I'm looking forward to seeing it in game.
My biggest complaint about the system is that it doesn't plug into an established game without some extra work. Allowing everything as presented in the book could certainly create nightmarish powergaming problems. I like the flavor it will add, but will probably not allow the classes into my current game. I think my fighter will like the abilities enough to take feats to get stances and manuvers. Taken this way, he should never get enough juice to qualify for the +100 damage ability. I'm looking forward to seeing it in game.
Similar Threads
