My Gut Reaction to Book of Nine Swords

[Thanatos]

The warblade's recovery method really is problematic imo. A swift action followed by a standard attack is pretty common occurance. So anytime a warblade requires a move to another opponet, they can easily reload their full arsenal. The recovery method should be at least a move action, but can not see why it would not be a full round action like the swordsage.

My other major problem is the d12. d12 hit points is way too much for a fighter type that has both skills and bonus feats. A d8 would be much more appriate imho.

I really disagree. It's not really shown to be unbalanced at all in our campaign, as written.

Assuming he doesn't use his swift action to change stances, do a counter or use a boost, he can reload his full aresnal. It's a tatical decision to make there, because it may be wiser to have that counter or boost available then to use it regaining your other maneuvers.

The full round feat allows them to switch out the maneuvers they prepared that morning for new ones and so its a different effect that really becomes more useful at higher levels (except for the swordsage, who can really use it right off).

Because the warblade doesn't have the heavy armor, the extra hit points somewhat offset that, though he still lacks the same level of staying power our fighter has since he gets hit more often.

Written has shown to be very different when actually played by a DM that understands the new classes.

 

[Dragonblade]

I think the Book of 9 Swords is a fantastic book. Perhaps the single greatest book WotC has published in years.

I really hope the trend towards class abilities that are balanced per encounter rather than per day is here to stay. I hope in 4e WotC retools the spell casting classes to be the same way. I HATE X per day class abilities. Enough with this tired Vancian holdover from more primitive versions of D&D. All class abilities henceforth should be balanced on a per encounter basis. I want more classes like the Warlock, and more books like Tome of Battle. Hopefully, this book is the beginning of a trend that WotC carries forward into 4e.

 

[Felon]

Ahh..I keep forgetting that both Felon and gribble have full insightful knowledge of what I am thinking by what I type... ....Just because rules may seem overpowered or broken on paper does not necessairly mean they are during play....

Nobody has full, insightful knowledge of what you're thinking, but you seem to think this means others shouldn't critique what you wind up posting. Rather, it places the onus on you to present your position in the best possible manner.

True, there are a lot of things that fall under the heading of "looks bad, plays good". I don't happen to regard the warblade as one of them. And it's not a vague, ineffable sensation I can't put my finger on so let's take it on a test run. I know exactly the things I don't like about it, and more importantly I know what the signs of "plays bad" are, so I don't fall for the "black hole" fallacy so often used in these forums.

Umm, who is being a bit rude now? The moral of the story is there are plenty of things in the game that can kill even the most "overpowered" of classes.

I understand what his moral was, but presenting character mortality as conclusive evidence of class balance is a poor arguement. In fact, among the worst ever. That's an indictment against the arguement though, not the complex human being full of flaws and virtures who issued it.

Felon, you counter arguement again shows to me that you have not spent enough time reading the book, or are just so consumed by your hatred of the Warblade, that you are spinning instead of analyzing.

Meh. I could just as easily suggest the reverse of yourself and other individuals in this thread. The ToB be so brilliant, so revolutionary, and so much time has been invested in championing it in one thread after another that it's deficiencies should be glossed over.

Not to pick on you Felon

Oh, that's quite all right--like most people I secretly yearn for someone to pay attention to me and that ol' id doesn't always care if it's approval or disapproval.

Why dont you table that? How is the book, the system, the Manuevers with out the Warblade? At this point your hatred of the Warblade has been shown. Limiting yourself to pointing out how you think one class out of 3 is unbalanced, ignores the bulk of the book, the Maneuvers.

Well, perhaps you've missed out some posts, as I've discussed more issues with the ToB than the warblade. In general, I don't see the give-and-take at work. Disciplines offer patently superior options over feats, both in terms of versatility and puissance. That is pretty much the point of them, in fact. I find the rebuttal that disciplines should be compared to spells instead of feats to be very flawed due to the disparity in their recoverability. Maneuvers are "super-feats", and the expenditure mechanics don't bridge the gap.

Of course, take without give is acceptable if it addresses some extant discrepency, but I do not see how anyone can suggest that a non-caster class such as fighter, barbarian, or rogue are underpowered. Satori, you're familiar with my regard for the resource-management element of the game. Perhaps you're also acquainted with the value I place on the related concept of party roles and interdependency. I've seen that the designation of a mage as high-offense/low-defense is already in question when a holy-keen-greatsword-wielding warrior is going to town. I do not think there needs to be a power boost.

 

[Ranger5]

I think the Book of 9 Swords is a fantastic book. Perhaps the single greatest book WotC has published in years.

I really hope the trend towards class abilities that are balanced per encounter rather than per day is here to stay. I hope in 4e WotC retools the spell casting classes to be the same way. I HATE X per day class abilities. Enough with this tired Vancian holdover from more primitive versions of D&D. All class abilities henceforth should be balanced on a per encounter basis. I want more classes like the Warlock, and more books like Tome of Battle. Hopefully, this book is the beginning of a trend that WotC carries forward into 4e.

I wholeheartedly agree. Well said. Thank you.

 

[Felon]

I also don't see the warblade as broken. The bonus feat list is severely castrated from that of the fighter's, no heavy armor proficiency, most maneuvers are standard actions thereby prohibiting full-attack actions, dependence on multiple stats, can only ready 4 maneuvers...

Citing the "castrated" bonus feat list as a drawback is a bit specious. The class would be fine without any bonus feats. Bear in mind that the disciplines are the main course, and the overabundance of other class features like bonus feats are desert.

The distinction between medium and heavy armor is meager, and if desired badly enough, the warblade can acquire it easily enough. In fact, since one of the warblade's more outlandish abilities is to co-opt fighter-exclusive feats and get better utility out of them, it is extremely beneficial to dip into a fighter for a level or two to get the bonus feats.

Dependence on 4 stats? Oh, you mean they reap all those benefits from having an Int bonus. That's not a dependency, it's a perk. A stupid warblade still mops up. Strikes me as complaining about desert again.

Standard actions instead of full-atacks? That's the most debatable drawback, begging the questions A) how often can a melee warrior avail himself of iterative attacks, and B) does the output of a maneuver lag behind the output of a full round of attacks, considering that iterative attacks have a good chance of missing. Power Attack in particular in particular makes a single, concentrated attack quite appealing.

 

[Felon]

I really hope the trend towards class abilities that are balanced per encounter rather than per day is here to stay. I hope in 4e WotC retools the spell casting classes to be the same way. I HATE X per day class abilities.

I have never liked all the business with making camp and getting 8 hours of sleep. It's not a great mechanic; if you're free to rest then you get everything back at no cost, and if you're not free to rest you're hosed. It's also not that heroic IMO ("ooo, whassamatter, barbarian need his wittle nappy?").

I think Mike Mearls had a pretty great concept going with IH's token pools. True20's Conviction works pretty well too, in a manner that encourages role-playing no less. Spending action points to recover resources seems to work out pretty well IME.

The pitfall to avoid is the one often encountered with the warlock, where powerful abilities are completely free and inexhaustible. If nothing is expended to overcome a challenge, then it's not much of a challenge.

 

[Felon]

Book Of Nine Munchkins.

Wow. Such a clever and insightful inclusion into this discussion. I don't know how any post is going to even attempt to approximate the depth contained in this one.

Absolutely right! Besides, "Tome of Broken" is much catchier.

This was part of the impetus behind the book, according to Mike Mearls, who remembered the first 3E Fighter he played long-term, a TWF with occasional predisposition toward tripping that eventually (Around 8th level) hit a wall in terms of things that would further enhance the character's chosen path. Specialization being the key to D&D, this is pretty damaging. IMO, the problem lies with the fact that since Feats are non scalable, 75% of Feats suck, and since the Fighter's specialty is Feats, well....

Feats aren't intended to scale individually, but that doesn't equate to hitting a wall, just a different design strategy. Picking feats that compliment other feats is the subtle art of building a rock-solid fighter. Call it gestalt or synergy or what have you. I don't know at what point Mearls designed this 2WF trip fighter, but there are certainly plenty of feats that could take him into the stratosphere if he so desired.

I digress, however. I don't see what's so terribly unbalancing about any of manuevers in ToB, especially when compared to spellcasters of equal level (And yes, folks, that is the basis of comparison. Manuevers are effectively spells).

Maneuvers are comparable to spells in terms of what? Power? Sure. Nine-level scaling? OK. Expenditure and recovery? No, they are much more closer to feats in their availability.

 

[Aaron L]

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.

Oddly enough, every reason you give for the book being "bad" is a reason I think it's "good."

Yet another post about how the wrong flavor of fantasy isnt supposed to be in D&D.

 

[Kishin]

Well, I'm very familiar with the balance of mechanics beyond 6th and beyond (exception EPiC), and I still have balance problems with the book; but then again I have the same issues with "Vow of Poverty". The second you diverge from a high magic campaign these classes are overpowered: Remaining high powered (ala FR) and the work fine.

As a "Book of Nine Swords"... love the flavor, the maneuvers (concept if not execution), and the way it is presented.

As a "Tome of Battle" it sucks, truely. A book on the art of battle should not simply focus on one style. Granted, this i only a poor naming convention.

I will concede this point readily, but then again, you have to make adjustments for basically everything in D&D if you're not playing with the standard level of magic the core books assume.

And the Tome of Battle name is primarily to stick it in with the Tome of...series (In this case, only Magic) as something presenting an entirely new system. I agree its not an entirely accurate name.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I had a awesome post here a little while ago and it seems to be gone. very strange. So much for that Apology

i guess buda would have been prowed