Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder-Bo9S hotswapping

[Glade Riven]

So, for fun...Let's take a new Pathfinder Rogue at say, level 12. Now, there's a lot of nice things for rogue talents, but I don't see quite what I want. So, what about using the Martial Study from Bo9S as a Rogue Talent (limited to swordsage disciplines, as rogues aren't tanks)?

Now, Martial Study has limits on it - one must still qualify for the maneuver gained, said maneuver can only be used 1/encounter, and the maximum # of times the feat can be taken is 3. Granted, with the increased feats in Pathfinder one has, such a hot-swap is probably unnecessary...

Thoughts?

Addendum: Oh, wait - Combat Talent allows rogues to take fighter feats, and Martial Study qualifies as a Fighter Feat. So it's not a hot-swap bending the rules. Still though, I'd like to know people's thoughts.

 

[ruemere]

During Pathfinder Alpha/Beta period, I have allowed something similar for our Roguish character. It was interesting but not terribly exciting - a few dice of damage more, nothing else.
Though I had to drop default Bo9S classes and maneuver allotments - too much hassle for little result.

In short, use it if you feel that your character is underpowered. Works better with talents which improve mobility and saves, works so-so with abilities granting damage.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

There are three reasons I'd avoid Bo9S for 3.5 / Pathfinder:

1. Flavor of Bo9S: Bo9S and SWSE Jedi powers are clear betas for 4E. The core of melee fighting in 3.5/Pathfinder is swinging away with your sword with some special attacks learned from feats. The core of 4E melee fighting is special encounter / daily powers. Bo9S introduces special encounter powers that are very close to the 4E's style of melee combat. If you want to preserve the feel of 3.5, I can't see allowing Bo9S.

2. Power level of Bo9S: While I was a big fan of Bo9S when it debuted, I have since grown to dislike it. The power level is off the scale, especially when you compare the three base classes to their PHB originals. Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage are, for my buck, clearly much more powerful then Fighter, Paladin, and Monk/Rogue.

3. Initiator Level Problems: Related to 2 and another major problem with Bo9S. Every other caster class provides caster levels based off the number of levels in that class. Taking a level of Wizard gives the character a single caster level of wizard. Bo9S breaks this rule, allowing the initiator level to be 1/2 character level instead of tying it to the core class. This can lead to rampant abuse of by dipping into a class. Personally, this seems to be an attempt to fix the Multi-Class Caster Level problem that didn't quite work out.

 

[Walking Dad]

There are three reasons I'd avoid Bo9S for 3.5 / Pathfinder:

1. Flavor of Bo9S: Bo9S and SWSE Jedi powers are clear betas for 4E. The core of melee fighting in 3.5/Pathfinder is swinging away with your sword with some special attacks learned from feats. The core of 4E melee fighting is special encounter / daily powers. Bo9S introduces special encounter powers that are very close to the 4E's style of melee combat. If you want to preserve the feel of 3.5, I can't see allowing Bo9S.

It is as clear a beta as the tome of Magic... nobody complains about new ways of casting spells...
ToB was also 3.5. And it is a serious question, if you prefer the same attack every round, with perhaps a bit maneuver variety, each costing a full feat.

2. Power level of Bo9S: While I was a big fan of Bo9S when it debuted, I have since grown to dislike it. The power level is off the scale, especially when you compare the three base classes to their PHB originals. Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage are, for my buck, clearly much more powerful then Fighter, Paladin, and Monk/Rogue

Are Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage more powerful than Cleric, Druid and Wizard/Sorcerer? If no, Fighter, Paladin, and Monk/Rogue were just to weak.

3. Initiator Level Problems: Related to 2 and another major problem with Bo9S. Every other caster class provides caster levels based off the number of levels in that class. Taking a level of Wizard gives the character a single caster level of wizard. Bo9S breaks this rule, allowing the initiator level to be 1/2 character level instead of tying it to the core class. This can lead to rampant abuse of by dipping into a class. Personally, this seems to be an attempt to fix the Multi-Class Caster Level problem that didn't quite work out.

Please give one example of it's abuse-ability. I think it worked better than many other attempts.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

I guess I should have made it clear that my thoughts on this topic deal with Bo9S and 3.5, not specifically pathfinder. In the current 3.5 game I am running, I have banned Bo9S because of the three reasons I provided above.

It is as clear a beta as the tome of Magic... nobody complains about new ways of casting spells...

The question was about Bo9S, not Tome of Magic. I'd need to evaluate TOM before I could form an opinion on it.

ToB was also 3.5. And it is a serious question, if you prefer the same attack every round, with perhaps a bit maneuver variety, each costing a full feat.

See, I love Bo9S for this very thing, variety. However, the more I think about it, the more I find this style of melee combat out of place in 3.5. In 4E, it is clearly the norm and I do not object to it.

However in 3.5, the combat system wasn't designed for this kind of wire-fu style of combat. It clashes, IMO, with the grittier style of play I enjoy out of my 3.5 games.

In short, my personal opinion of Bo9S is that it is a wonderful book that is out of place with the 3.5 game system.

Are Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage more powerful than Cleric, Druid and Wizard/Sorcerer? If no, Fighter, Paladin, and Monk/Rogue were just to weak.

I don't think 3.5 set about balancing each class against the other, that was the realm of 4E. However, I do feel I can compare full base attack melee classes against each other and should have some balance. For my buck, I stand by my earlier assessment that the three classes totally outshine Fighter, Paladin, and Monk/Rogue.

Please give one example of it's abuse-ability. I think it worked better than many other attempts.

I'll point you to the numerous builds on the 3.5 character optimization boards that dip into various Bo9S stuff. You can decide for yourself if the book is ripe for abuse or not.

 

[Nifft]

I don't think 3.5 set about balancing each class against the other, that was the realm of 4E.

Game balance = 4e? As someone who rather enjoyed 3.5e, I find that absurd.

In my experience, the Tome of Battle classes were great: well balanced, flavorful, and fun to play. They meant you could play who you wanted (melee or magic) and actually remain useful at mid to high level.

Sure, there were some problematic maneuvers & feats, but NOTHING on the scale of the abuses available with the PHB spell list.

I'll point you to the numerous builds on the 3.5 character optimization boards that dip into various Bo9S stuff. You can decide for yourself if the book is ripe for abuse or not.

By that metric, every class should be banned -- especially Clerics. Or do Core classes get a free pass for some special reason?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Game balance = 4e? As someone who rather enjoyed 3.5e, I find that absurd.

In my experience, the Tome of Battle classes were great: well balanced, flavorful, and fun to play. They meant you could play who you wanted (melee or magic) and actually remain useful at mid to high level.

Sure, there were some problematic maneuvers & feats, but NOTHING on the scale of the abuses available with the PHB spell list.

We'll have to agree to disagree about this subject.
Also, don't worry about it too much, I can't change the game your running. Last time I tried that it didn't work out too well

By that metric, every class should be banned -- especially Clerics. Or do Core classes get a free pass for some special reason?

Cheers, -- N

Cleric, as a core class, gets a pass in the game I'm currently running . Though I've banned / put limits upon core classes before (only 1/2 level in spell casting classes, etc). I've also played in games where we were asked to make non-core stuff. Our games tend to have a lot of variety in them.

Bottom line, I don't like Bo9S in the context of 3.5. That opinion has changed completely from when I purchased the book and thought it was one of the coolest books ever. In my mind, it belongs to 4E, not 3.5/Pathfinder. If you want my reasoning, see my earlier post.

 

[Nifft]

Cleric, as a core class, gets a pass in the game I'm currently running .

See, if you allow the Cleric (which, starting around level 7, is a strictly better fighter than the Fighter), I don't see why you would ban something relatively balanced like the Warblade.

Bottom line, I don't like Bo9S in the context of 3.5.

You don't have to like it -- and you can enjoy a fine game without it! But you personally disliking it is rather different from it being mechanically broken.

In my experience -- having had Druids, Clerics, Wizards and other far, far stronger classes in the game -- the Bo9S stuff is mostly excellent. Like it or not, it's on par with the Barbarian: strictly better than the Fighter, but damn near everything is, so that's faint condemnation indeed.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Walking Dad]

I guess I should have made it clear that my thoughts on this topic deal with Bo9S and 3.5, not specifically pathfinder. In the current 3.5 game I am running, I have banned Bo9S because of the three reasons I provided above.

This is in that way important, as pathfinder boosted the (melee) classes.

The question was about Bo9S, not Tome of Magic. I'd need to evaluate TOM before I could form an opinion on it.

That is fair.

See, I love Bo9S for this very thing, variety. However, the more I think about it, the more I find this style of melee combat out of place in 3.5. In 4E, it is clearly the norm and I do not object to it.

However in 3.5, the combat system wasn't designed for this kind of wire-fu style of combat. It clashes, IMO, with the grittier style of play I enjoy out of my 3.5 games.

In short, my personal opinion of Bo9S is that it is a wonderful book that is out of place with the 3.5 game system.

Yes, it is a wonderful book, but there is no gritty style at higher levels of D&D. Your co-players can resurrect and heal you in minutes.
And the 'wire-fu' styles are swordsage only (ignoring the jumping of tiger claw). Do you also ban the monk class for it's 'wire-fu' feeling?

I don't think 3.5 set about balancing each class against the other, that was the realm of 4E. However, I do feel I can compare full base attack melee classes against each other and should have some balance. For my buck, I stand by my earlier assessment that the three classes totally outshine Fighter, Paladin, and Monk/Rogue.

You forgot Ranger as full bab class. Monk and rogue don't have full bab, nor the swordsage.
As the swordsage has the same bab as the cleric/druid, shouldn't he balanced against them?

I'll point you to the numerous builds on the 3.5 character optimization boards that dip into various Bo9S stuff. You can decide for yourself if the book is ripe for abuse or not.

They also often dip into Fighter for extra feats. And their consensus there is that cleric, druids, wizards... are still more powerful.

 

[Jhaelen]

Bottom line, I don't like Bo9S in the context of 3.5.

There is no other context, though, because it _IS_ a 3e book. Every 3e book that was published after a a certain date shows the influence of the developers already working on or thinking about 4e. Where do you want to draw the line?

How do you feel about PHB2, Dungeonscape, Complete Mage, Complete Scoundrel, MM4, MM5? All of these books introduced things that are now thought of as typical for 4e.