Has the wave crested? (Bo9S)

[Nifft]

Ha. You invited me here, and look, I'm still wearing your avatar.

You're even laundering it!

-- N

 

[Moon-Lancer]

well I really like bo9s but i don't think it should become d&d, but I do like that bo9s is out so i can make the choice to change the style of d&d at a whim without drastically changing the mechanical system (d20)

 

[Henry]

My central point is that I do not like the design decisions in Bo9S in general, nor much of the resultant content specifically, for a variety of reasons I have already spelled out. Thus, I am glad Bo9S is not poised to take over D&D, and I have wondered out of curiosity if any of its enthusiastic proponents here have since grown disenchanted.

I am, however, convinced that that the style of mechanics in Book of 9 Swords ARE poised to "take over" D&D, because wotC's design and development staff has been experimenting a LOT with the mechanics of late. You're likely to see MORE of the stuff as "per-encounter" rather than less of it. I have my reservations about it, myself, but I am keenly aware of the idea that 4E may heavily re-work the core classes to a "per-encounter" mechanic with all class abilities. Still not quite sure if I'll go forward with it if they do - that's why my game-tinkering has been focusing on it lately.

 

[Campbell]

OK. I'll bite. It's alright to not like the Tome of Battle. Really, it is. It may require no cognitive dissonance whatsoever. Personally, while I would hesitate to call the Book of Nine Swords wirefu I can respect the fact that its design goals and aesthetics might not gel with everyone.

However, I still believe that the Book of Nine Swords is the best thing to happen to D&D in a long time. It corrects some issues that I've had with D&D for a long time. I like that the Book of Nine Swords classes bring allow warriors to compete with spell casters in terms of flavorful unique abilities that can radically alter the nature of combat. I like the use of actions, rather than usage limits, as tactical resources. I like that the Book of Nine Swords includes some solid defensive maneuvers that allow warriors to more readily survive the rigors of high level combat. Like Hong, I throughly endorse the inclusion of any classes that emphasize personal level tactics. I like that the different disciplines do a fairly good job of representing very different ways of fighting. I like that Swordsages, Crusaders, and Warblades are walking plot hooks. I like that the Book of Nine Swords does in fact ooze flavor right out of every page. Hell, I even like that the Sublime Way reflects traditional eastern martial traditions and religions, although in a far more western context than the monk, by representing fighting styles that are a combination of mental, physical, and spiritual discipline.

Obviously, The Book of Nine Swords belongs in my D&D. However, it might not belong in yours, Pawsplay, which is fine. I'm just left wondering, why exactly this is such a big deal to you.

 

[Sejs]

Kindly explain how the presence of something in the book that is not wire fu would in any way lessen whatever is.

By demonstrating that the stated (particular) apprehension isn't encompassing of the material. I don't like B, because it is all a bunch of X. I don't like X. Well, X1, X2, and X3 are actually Y. Therefor, B is not all X.

If I say, "Psionics are too science fictional," it is not good form to retort with, "How is 5 extra skill ranks science-fictional?"

Reductio. 5 yard penalty and loss of down.

If I say, "Races of the Wild makes unfortunate comparisons between halflings and racist stereotypes of the Romani," it is not good form to retort, "Since when do gypsies ride around on super racing goats?

First off, super racing goats are awesome, second we both know this can go unpleasant places so let's just abandon this particular branch.

This does not advance the argument.

This argument is, at its core, doomed from the outset. There's no way I can convince you to start liking the Bo9S regardless of how persuasively I contend against your wire-fu assertion.

You are free to make the argument I might be able to include specific styles and maneuvers into my game without including too much stuff I do not like, although I do not find it an engaging subject.

I'm more arguing the aesthetics, and possibly looking to offer ways of seeing the material in a different, more palatable way.

My central point is that I do not like the design decisions in Bo9S in general, nor much of the resultant content specifically, for a variety of reasons I have already spelled out. Thus, I am glad Bo9S is not poised to take over D&D, and I have wondered out of curiosity if any of its enthusiastic proponents here have since grown disenchanted.

See above. It's not like I could change your mind even if I wanted to. This is the internet: the last great bastion of self-assuredness.

I don't need to specifically despise either school as "wire fu." I can disdain either on other grounds:

1) They are published in a book I wouldn't pay good money for, therefore, they aren't great enough value for me to care about
2) White Raven Tactics includes several unbalanced maneuvers and shouldn't be included for balance reasons
3) Devoted Spirit is a crusader school and I already don't like the crusader readying mechanics
4) I still don't like the expended maneuvers mechanic in general, so anything that is a maneuver I can, by definition, already dislike until it becomes something else

For the purpose of what I was driving at, yeah, ya kinda do need to despise 'em as wire fu. Some of your other points I even agree with you on - White Raven Tactics (the Initiative Mambo) has a great potential for abuse. I'm not a great fan of the crusader ready/recover mechanic either. Mechanical issues are a seperate matter, however.

I'm just here to offer a "nyuh uh" to the idea that if you do use the material, your game automatically turns into Kung Fu Hustle or House of Flying Daggers d20.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

They did, they just called it PHB-II.

Cheers, -- N

Heh, yep. I designed a lot of the feats for PHB II and a lot of the maneuvers for Bo9S. Happy to answer any questions about either. But yes, basically, a huge goal with both for me was to get fighters back on par with other classes when it came to high-level combat.

The wire-fu flavor of Bo9S was an interesting choice made at a level above me. An interesting point, though, is that the warblade and crusader had a chance at somewhat mititgating that. The warblade was called something else throughout development. I don't know when it was changed; it was a surprise to me when I finally saw the hardcover. Its other title carried with it, by that name and a lot of cut flavor text, a very non-wire-fu flavor (think 300, honor, and glory). The crusader originally had with it a lot of flavor that was cut from the book either because the editors and developers thought it was no good or because they didn't want to open the politically charged can of worms that comes with modeling a character class on a defender of her religion's Holy Land. Anyway, my point is that the designers were trying to keep the book appealing to lots of people, and I was trying to include both wire-fu fighting and other types of mythology/history/movie-inspired fighting to go along with it. In fact, two of the three classes were drawn from Western, not Eastern, history.

I think three things happened to allow the wire-fu stuff to dominate or at least stand out more than the rest. One is that the two Western classes themselves changed flavors, as I just mentioned. Two is that the maneuvers were changed for mechanics reasons in the development process so much that they lost some non-wire-fu-ness. Three is that classes are always defined more by their abilities than their flavor text, and the abilities here are the maneuvers. The maneuvers always had a flavor that was more wire-fu than anything Western. Speaking for myself, I probably could have done a better job of that in design.

Well, that's about it for my two cents, but maybe I'll throw out one more example. In PHB II, one of my design goals was to keep it traditional D&D all the way. That's why Robilar's Gambit is named after Robilar instead of being called Temptation of the Emerald Dragon. In Bo9S, we were specifically setting out to make something different from traditional D&D combat, and in my part of the work, the names and flavor were designed to support that goal.

EDIT: Just changed some pronouns and corresponding verb tenses to make it clear that I'm speaking only for myself, not Rich, Matt, Joe, Mike, WOTC, or anyone else.

 

[Piratecat]

Thanks, Frank! That does a wonderful job of putting the book in perspective. I'd certainly welcome any more insight into the design process that you can offer.

 

[hong]

I'm just wondering, how much do the Bo9S maneuvers/feats/classes draw from previous work by Mike Mearls? If you look at the crusader, for instance, you can see a certain resemblance to the Iron Heroes armiger, which is another class that's meant to soak damage and keep going. Some of the White Raven maneuvers are also reminiscent of the hunter abilities and tactical feats in IH. They're not direct copies obviously, but the theme and effects are broadly similar.

This could just be my undying pee-pee love for Mearls affecting my judgement, though.

 

[Razz]

Heh, yep. I designed a lot of the feats for PHB II and a lot of the maneuvers for Bo9S. Happy to answer any questions about either. But yes, basically, a huge goal with both was to get fighters back on par with other classes when it came to high-level combat.

I have a few questions for you about Bo9S if you don't mind?

1) Why was ranged combat omitted? This book could've delved into a "10th Discipline" using that as its theme. I saw maybe one or two maneuvers involving ranged attacks and one prestige class, but it's based only on throwing weapons. Any reason for this? Will there be more maneuvers and/or a discipline focusing on ranged combat?

2) Epic level material. Why wasn't there none of this for those that wanted to take Tome of Battle past 20th-level? Will there be a Web Enhancement or some other such project written to incorporate Bo9S into epic-level play? Posted on the website or maybe in WotC's Digital Initiative?

3) The lack of other energy-type maneuvers. The maneuvers are lacking in cold, electricity, acid, and sonic attacks. All we see is fire, fire, and more fire. Electricity and Sonic was just screaming for maneuvers involving these energy types, and Cold would come in a close second (for the Shadow Hand discipline, obviously). Acid I can see getting the short-end of the stick.

4) Will there be more support for this in WotC's Digital Initiative? If so, will you be writing them or someone else? If you're going to be writing some of the material, please take in mind the lack of ranged, epic, and energy types in the system.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I'm just wondering, how much do the Bo9S maneuvers/feats/classes draw from previous work by Mike Mearls?

I really don't know. Mike was the lead developer, so he had a huge amount of input. But the development took place after the design, and it was in-house, so I wasn't in the discussions.

PC, as far as more insight into the design process, that's pretty much it. Except this: It was a whole lot of fun. Where else could you design a maneuver called Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip?