My Gut Reaction to Book of Nine Swords

[Acid_crash]

I like this book for the different feel it brings to the game, and it is even making me think of tinkering with all the core classes a bit so each of them also gain maneuvers, except the wizard and sorcerer due to their lack of martial focus. That way, the martial maneuvers becomes more standard...

but, in the end, this is just another form of magic, using three new classes, and this is D&D where the concept of game balance and trying to enfore game balance is a ridiculous notion that needs to be abolished from the game, mechanically speaking.

I like it, but it's no where near a 5 of 5. I'd give it a 3 of 5. It's not great, but it's not crap either. I can see its uses.

 

[IceFractal]

Yes, the new classes are all significantly more powerful than a Fighter (at mid to high levels, anyway). Why? Because part of the book's purpose is to correct a large flaw in the D&D rules - Non-spellcasters (especially Fighters) are much weaker than spellcasters at high levels. Try actually comparing what a spellcaster can do at high levels versus what a melee type can do, and you'll see what I mean. Even the most high-damage-dealing Barbarian has nothing on spellcasters that can end the fight before their opponents get a turn.

So this book balances that in the most direct way - by giving melee types the same elements spellcasters have - tiered and limited use abilities that get exponentially stronger at high levels. And actually, for all the boost that it gives them, it only balances melee types inside combat. Out of combat, spells still have the advantage.

Unlike some books, this is balanced for the experienced gaming group. If the spellcasters in your group still think direct damage is the best type of magic, don't think buffing spells are important, or get frustrated trying to use Save:Yes, SR:Yes spells on demons, then maybe it wouldn't be the right balance for your game. But if the warriors are getting tired of being on the sidelines, then this can put them back on the field.

Plus, it's just more fun. And it means that you can be a warrior-type and still have a lot of different options and tactical decisions, which some people enjoy, and previously had to be a spellcaster for.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Ugh, in a word. Now I confess, I have not read the book the whole way through, but from what I have read so far, it is probably one of the worst buys I have ever made and will probably never see the light of day in my campaign. (I buy everything published by WotC for D&D because I have a collector mentality, but maybe this will help someone else who isn't so obsessive.)

The first thing that tipped me off that this might not have been the best purchase I ever made was the fact that a sidebar in the first section of the book explained that the writers intentionally incorporated eastern style martial arts into the game. *raspberries* Now I like movies like Kill Bill and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but when it comes to gaming, I don't want my PCs flying around like ninjas and dancing in a whirl of blades that undresses their foe. Such things can be cinematic and entertaining when on screen but for my money, they add nothing to a roleplaying game. I have nothing specifically against Asian culture, but if a roleplaying game is going to be set in the Far East or a world with oriental style, I prefer the game to focus on the elements that make that kind of world unique, not the absurd type of fighting we see in the movies that any reasonable person knows is not very realistic. For example, the idea that dragons are all demons from a distant world who possess mortals could be an interesting bit of flavor, or the loyalty of the samurai to the daimyo could be a compelling story device. But the ninja who single-handedly slays an army of 1,000 and catches 100 arrows in his hand, all in the space of 30 seconds, and still manages to clean his blades in that time without having spilled a single drop of blood upon his person is not a motif that belongs in my games. Your mileage may vary, but it isn't my cup of tea.

Now style out of the way, I don't like the book mechanically either. Fighting has traditionally been the role of the fighter and nifty effects have traditionally been the role of the wizard, cleric, druid, or [insert spellcaster here]. The Book of Nine Swords introduces nine new disciplines which work very much like schools of magic, are even grouped into levels from 1 to 9 like spells, and have abilities (such as the ability to inflict 4d6 fire damage on an opponent who hits you as an immediate action or the ability to take two full round actions in one round once per encounter) that are well on par with spells of their level, even if they are martially oriented. I have not seen this in practice, but I cannot imagine how integrating combat maneuvers and stances into your campaign would NOT have a horrible impact upon game balance. Each class presented, the crusader, swordsage, and warblade, seem more powerful than any single martial class in the Player's Handbook, and I believe power creep like this is bad for the game. Even with the caveat that classes from the PH can learn these maneuvers and stances too, all that means is that classes from the PH WILL learn these maneuvers and stances because the abilities they grant seem, by and large, vastly superior to those gained by normal feats.

Now I could be entirely wrong about this, but my current opinion is that this book might be interesting to mine for flavorful ideas, but I will hardly ever consider it a potential option for my game mechanics.

You should have read about the book before you bought it. If you would have, you may have realized this book was never for you. Letting your mistake sway your judgment over the book is another thing entirely though. The book isn’t bad because of what it is, to you the book is bad because of what it was not. I hope your prejudices of this book to not turn others away.

Hopefully next time you will be more responsible in what you purchase. and perhaps next time you wont let your predetermined feelings effect your opinions of what is good and what is not.

This is a good book, as long as you can accept that fighter stereotypes can have some style, just like their magical brothers.

 

[Alceste]

The book has worked out for us pretty well so far. Of course, I think most of us are fans of Asian martial arts movies too. Not to mention, having run European centric campaigns since the dawn of time.

Having seen a crusader in play now for a few times, they are definitely not more powerful than our party's paladin (using divine might, divine sacrifice, etc) at dealing raw damage. However crusaders are very good at helping to setup other characters attacks as well as defending other characters.

Most moves in the the book are standard actions which means that they can not be used with a full attack. A hasted, raging high level fighter can deal an amazing amount of damage with a full attack.

Are there problems with the book? Yes, the warblade in particular is very troubling. But the rest of the book is filled with some of the best ideas from Wizards in a long time.

 

[airwalkrr]

You should have read about the book before you bought it.

And you should have read my post more clearly. I buy things because I am a collector, not because of any inherent value in the purchase. I am an obsessive compulsive person. I do these kinds of things and they do not make sense to any but myself and those like me.

That said, although I am glad to have the book because it "completes my collection," for those who are not of the same mindset, I am offering my insight so that they might make an informed decision. Additionally, I believe you are quite wrong about several things.

If you would have, you may have realized this book was never for you.

As I said, I am a collector and the book is part of the 3.5 edition. Therefore it is for me because of that reason alone. Even if I never use it in my campaigns or use it minimally, I still want to have it because it is part of the collection. I really can't explain it any more than that and if you don't understand then you do not have a collector's mentality, which is fine if you don't, but don't let it cloud your judgment of why I purchase things. The very fact of the matter is I did not purchase this book for its inherent uses, however I would like to offer my two cents to those who do make the purchase for such reasons.

Letting your mistake sway your judgment over the book is another thing entirely though.

It wasn't a mistake. Nor could the decision to purchase this book possibly sway my judgment whether I view it as a mistake or not. I view it as a poor purchase because I do not like the content. You may like the content. If what I describe is something the reader likes, then by all means the reader should purchase it. But if the reader values the same kinds of content that I do and is NOT of a collector mentality, then such a reader probably should not purchase the book, which is why I wrote this review.

The book isn’t bad because of what it is, to you the book is bad because of what it was not.

Quite incorrect. The book is bad TO ME because of what it is. To others who like the same things I like and dislike the same things, it will be bad to them as well. I had no expectations about this book so your assertion that I did not like what the book is not have absolutely no grounds. I didn't expect anything in particular from this book, other than it expecting it to be a splatbook for warriors that gives them a lot of options. It does that very well, too well in my opinion. By saying that I did not like the book because of what it is not, it sounds to me like you are regurgitating empty rhetoric you do not understand because you wish to sound informed. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I'm just calling it like I see it. Since your post was fairly rude, I think that's fair.

Hopefully next time you will be more responsible in what you purchase. and perhaps next time you wont let your predetermined feelings effect your opinions of what is good and what is not.

I'll ignore the fact that this is downright insulting and simply note once again I had no predetermined feelings either for or against this book. If anything, I am what some would call a WotC fanboy, and I think the vast majority of the books they publish are worth their weight in gold. It is for this reason I was so surprised to be disappointed with the Book of Nine Swords, and I wished to relay my feelings to the gaming populace.

This is a good book, as long as you can accept that fighter stereotypes can have some style, just like their magical brothers.

As long as you can accept that not everyone likes to play the game the same way you do, not everyone has to agree that this is a good book. I for one, do not.

 

[gribble]

Are there problems with the book? Yes, the warblade in particular is very troubling. But the rest of the book is filled with some of the best ideas from Wizards in a long time.

I couldn't agree more. I love the book (especially the sword sage). It's a shame that the warblade is just a little bit too powerful, though it tends to be more at the powergaming fringes of the game where the warblades ease of replenishing maneuvers can be far to easily abused. I do disagree with the d12 HD as well though - there's absolutely nothing in the fluff that indicates they should have d12, none of the their abilities suit it (unlike, say, the crusader), and I find it hard to believe they looked at the class and went "hmmm... seems a bit weak, lets bump up the HD!"...

 

[Felon]

The Tome of Battle is predicated on the notion that warrior classes--the guys with the good BAB, the most hit points, and the attacks that don't burn up slots--need a power boost to be competitive with caster classes. If you flat-out don't agree with that premise, it's no-sale.

Are there problems with the book? Yes, the warblade in particular is very troubling. But the rest of the book is filled with some of the best ideas from Wizards in a long time.

Yeah, the warblade's problematic, and the only defense I hear for it is a sophism along the lines of "well, we tried one and it didn't cause the campaign to implode". I don't keep over-the-top charaes out my campaign because I think they'll cause the gaming room to collapse into a miniature black hole. There are more subtle ways to detract from the gaming experience.

The worst part of it is, the class has all the flavor of packing peanuts. It seems to serve a purely utilitarian purpose. It's a martial-discipline vehicle with no real concept attached. Check it out:

"The warblade was born for conflict. Swift, strong, enduring, and utterly confident in his martial skills, he seeks to test himself against worthy foes. Battle is beautiful to him -- a perfect moment in which life hangs suspended on the bright edge of a sword. Sheer combat skill is important to a warblade, so he trains intensely with his chosen weapons. But even more important are his athleticism, endurance, daring, recklessness, and joy in the hour of danger. Warblades, often called sword princes, live for the chance to test themselves in battle -- the stronger the foe, the greater the glory once an enemy is defeated."

So, he's a warrior that....likes war. No, scratch that. Other warriors merely like war, the warblade loves war, wants to make mad, filthy love to it in a Pepe Le Pew-like manner. That's deep. They should've just called it a cavalier and been done with it. People can swallow an over-the-top class a little more easily if they know you're trying to emulate Sir Lancelot.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

You can surely can not like the book. The book is a good book, regardless of weather it fits for you. It’s like music. I can tell good music from bad music, but i don’t always like the music I know is good, and sometimes I like bad music. You’re judging on an esthetic, rather then qualities of composition, editing, ideas, balance, and many other things that go into making a d&d book good. You’re getting wrapped up in its flavor, when you should have known what that was before you bought the book.

It’s like ordering food you didn’t like, because you want everything on the menu, but then complain because you ordered some food you didn’t like.

I did read your post, but I didn’t want to point out that if you buy a book because you’re a collector, and you don’t like what that book has to say, well maybe you should be more selective about what you collect? I don’t think being compulsive about what you buy helps to validate your opinion because you came across something that doesn’t suite you.

Now if you looked at it, and it was riddled with editing mistakes, and was unplayable or some how all the reviews said one thing, while when you got the book, you felt differently. I would understand I think.

I didn’t intent to be mean in my previous post, it just came out wrong. The book does what it is and does it well doesn’t make it a bad book, it just means you dislike what it does, and in that case you shouldn’t have gotten the book, collector or no.

Hopefully you will change you mind about the book, and use it someday. It’s a fun book to say the least.

 

[amethal]

Ugh, in a word. Now I confess, I have not read the book the whole way through, but from what I have read so far, it is probably one of the worst buys I have ever made and will probably never see the light of day in my campaign. (I buy everything published by WotC for D&D because I have a collector mentality, but maybe this will help someone else who isn't so obsessive.)

I like it that WotC are bringing out books like the Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle etc. for those people who are looking for something different.

I can see it must be a nuisance for any completist who prefers mainstream D&D

However, since you are going to buy it anyway it makes sense for WotC to try and target my preferences rather than yours.

For what its worth, my 4th level binder is definitely going to take martial study as his 6th level feat (if he lives that long).

 

[Moon-Lancer]

what do people think needs to be done to balance the books main flaw, the warblade?