Book of Nine Swords -- okay?

[wayne62682]

I liked the way it looked, but I hate the "Let's add kung-fu, videogame-ish maneuvers to D&D" stuff. I like anime and videogames as much as the next geek, but I think it's corny to have it in a D&D game. That and my group frowns on me using whatever the latest splatbook is because they think it's overpowered (translation: They choose not to use it, so if I do I'm the powergaming bad guy)

Just for the record, the maneuvers that add +100 damage is a 9th level one, so that's what, 17th level? At that level, you should be able to do that kind of damage.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

You can also make an Iron Heroes-ish game with just the classes from that book.

 

[Thanatos]

add +100 damage to your next attack

Lets be fair, this is an ability that is equal (more or less) to a 9th level spell. The system is a parallel system to the vancian 9 level magic system with (essentially) 9 levels of maneuvers. The lower level maneuvers are comparible to your general single-target caster spells of similiar levels.

That being said it's still not going to be good for every campaign. It has a nice replacement for the monk though, which is a little off-flavor for most europeanesque campaigns.

Nine Swords works very nicely in a more high powered or high magic campaign because of all the supernatural elements.
Iorn Heroes works very nicely in a more lower-magic style campaign.
None the less, both are adaptable to either styles of play.

I don't believe the Warblade would really replace the fighter. There was plenty of discussion on the WotC boards about that as well and looking over the arguements, it seems to me that sunce its debated like it is, there is likely balance there and room for both. If one is truly worried, a solution in the form of restricting some of the juicier fighter feats to fighter only is elegant.

I think the book was a great purchase, though I was disappointed in the Legacy weapons in the back, but I am *not* a fan of the legacy system where characters are penalized with main stats, skills and saves.

It does require a little bit of work to fit them into the campaign world and I don't think they are really any more or less abusable then anything else WotC puts out. I think they SEEM overpowered because for so long, our concept of fighters was more static and not fluid like that of casters. None-the-less as long as the DM doesn't give the player free reign, I don't think any grand imbalance is likely to occur.

And I see the trend with D&D moving along this lines...more parallel abilities between casters and melee so they can do appreciably more damage, with casters still having the utility, AoE and healing superority, but melee getting more combos in combat. Less downtime for resting (recharging maneuvers...faster charging spells with optional rules).

The threads here definitely put me off the book...but after alot of painstaking reading on the WotC site, my mind was changed. Now I've gotten it and read through it and I am overall, impressed.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not only do I think it's balanced, but I don't think it necessarily adds a kung fu/wuxia element to the game. While many of the powers do that, a whole mess of them don't. I can easily see creating a purely "standard" (read: roughly Western) D&D character with this book, and in fact am planning to do so for an upcoming campaign.

 

[daemonslye]

My general feeling, since you asked, is that this falls along the same lines as Magic of Incarnum (and, for that matter Psionics); If you allow into your game, your campaign should have a place for these powers - NPCs, bad guys, monsters, history, background, etc. The problem with inserting into an existing campaign is that, assuming you have an established background and direction, you must change this for the powers represented in the book.

This is not to say that your story arcs are rigid and unchanging - Change and the unexpected is the primary characteristic of the game; But that these powers, introduced mid-stream are primarily for players to add extra crunch (with appropriate backstory, plot, etc.). If the DM initiates the change, fine - but do the work to make it credible.

A new campaign based on the new rules can be better thought out and the powers rolled into a more central theme - This (I believe) gives the DM a much better chance to balance out the powers by having the opponents, comerades and NPCs with similar powers/abilities. Additionally, the background and history can be tooled to make them a credible part of the world (rather than inserting mid-campaign, the "valley of the lost" or "secret cabal" or "ancient discovered tome" - all of which, while they can be made interesting, they feel (IMO) somewhat forced).

Short Answer - It Depends; If you (the DM) do the work, they are balanced and can add to your campaign. If not, you have simply added more junk to a players arsenal without modifications to the world around them (which can create unbalance). Perhaps more important than the "powers" aspect is the loss of credibility to the campaign at large if not accomadating for the extra batman sounds during combat (Pow! Baff! Biff!).

On the positive side, by purchasing the book you support the industry. On the negative, you are teaching the publishers which products to create in the future - and you may not agree with that direction.

~D

 

[brehobit]

My general feeling, since you asked, is that this falls along the same lines as Magic of Incarnum (and, for that matter Psionics); If you allow into your game, your campaign should have a place for these powers - NPCs, bad guys, monsters, history, background, etc. The problem with inserting into an existing campaign is that, assuming you have an established background and direction, you must change this for the powers represented in the book.
~D

Agreed. That said, for this purpose I'm just wondering if the power-level of these classes overshadows tradiational warriors (or other characters) too badly...

Mark

 

[DM_Jeff]

x6 at first level?!

Has it been addressed anywhere yet why or how the Swordsage class gets 6+ Int bonus x6 (SIX?!) at first level instead of x4 like every other class on the planet? I'm assuming it's a type. Just wondering if there had been any official word on it yet.

-DM Jeff

 

[Beckett]

I've been using a crusader in one game I play in- nifty class, some nifty abilities, but so far (at 9th level) it doesn't seem game breaking. And there's no kung fu to what my character does; it's a combination of divine might, inspiration, knowing where to hit and how to hit hard.

For my Age of Worms game, I've opened the book up except for the classes, so everyone is free to grab feats and pick up maneuvers that way.

When I start up my Savage Tides game (gestalt), I plan on allowing free access to the book. My only concern is the warblade; D12 hit die, Full BAB, maneuvers, lots of special abilities, and able to grab weapon specialization at 6th. I'm concerned about the class, but I want to give it a fair shake before I change it. Any player who chooses Warblade will be warned that I may make changes to the class at some point, reducing HP or something.

 

[Beckett]

Has it been addressed anywhere yet why or how the Swordsage class gets 6+ Int bonus x6 (SIX?!) at first level instead of x4 like every other class on the planet? I'm assuming it's a type. Just wondering if there had been any official word on it yet.

-DM Jeff

I'm pretty sure it should be x4 like every other class, and looking at the character package bears this out.

 

[Thanatos]

Brehobit - Whether these classes overshadow the fighter is a hotly debated topic on the WotC forums. The fact that it is hotly debated likely means there is some level of balance between them. A core only, without feats from the PHB II or Complete Warrior would definitely be overshadowed...with those additional products, I agree...its an issue of debate, much like the barbarian vs. the fighter threads...

DM Jeff - It's X4 -- Customer Service has said it will be fixed in errata.