The Myth of the Bo9S's Popularity

[Darth Cyric]

It seems the general consensus on Tome of Battle is "love the mechanics, hate the flavor," a position which I happen to share.

I'm not particularly keen on the flavor of ToB, either, but only two schools could even be argued to have a cheesy anime feel to them (Desert Wind and Shadow Hand), and even those, with adjustments to flavor text, could be perfect fits for Paladins and Rangers (Desert Wind) and Rogues (Shadow Hand). The PHBII Swordmage might have some Desert Wind-esque powers.

I think the term "blade magic" used in the book made a lot of people judge it prematurely. Definitely not the best choice in terminology.

Cut Swordsages and the Swordsage-only maneuvers from the book, and you have a wonderful melee fighter and paladin replacement, that scale well against spellcasters and are fun to play at all levels. You also don't have melee spellcasting, other than some Crusader powers that allow healing and the like. What you do get is people being able to pull off cool tricks and maneuvers in battle, rather than just chanting "I full attack. I full attack. It's dead? I move and single attack. I full attack.".

--Seule

Heck, a Setting Sun-focused Swordsage was a far better Monk than the real 3.5 Monk could ever hope to be.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

In a wiorld with high enough magic, why no peoples with both might and magic skills wouldn't have tried mixing the two? It sounds to me logical a warrior-mage would like pratical 'blade magic'.... ENhancing his fighting with applied magic...

 

[Wolfspider]

rather than just chanting "I full attack. I full attack. It's dead? I move and single attack. I full attack.".

--Seule

I've never seen a fighter in combat run like this. Could this be a strawfighter?

 

[IanB]

I've never seen a fighter in combat run like this. Could this be a strawfighter?

I've seen literally dozens of them played this way. ...since 1982. But 3E/3.5E didn't really change things much. B9S has made the melee character much more interesting, I love it in my game.

 

[Wolfspider]

I've seen literally dozens of them played this way. ...since 1982. But 3E/3.5E didn't really change things much. B9S has made the melee character much more interesting, I love it in my game.

Heh. Fighters never had too many options in the older editions, but they have quite a bit more in 3.5 than they ever had again. I'm sure 4e will give them oodles of more things to do in combat. I just hate to hear that fighters had no options other than full attack or single attack. It's more of that 3.5 is badwrongfun nonsense.

That being said, I have no problems whatsoever with adding more powers to fighter-types, even magical ones.

 

[Voss]

I've never seen a fighter in combat run like this. Could this be a strawfighter?

I've never seen one not played like this. If they weren't swinging a weapon (or shooting a bow, or for a period in 1e, throwing darts) they were dead/held/paralyzed.

The combat rules in all editions of D&D have discouraged creative action in combat, especially the fighter. Disarming and whatnot might look or sound cool, but if a fighter type isn't stabbing it in the hit points, he isn't really helping

 

[BryonD]

It seems the general consensus on Tome of Battle is "love the mechanics, hate the flavor," a position which I happen to share.

I saw a lot of exactly the opposite. "Like/love the flavor, very serious concerns about the mechanics". I'm not going to argue which is right, but I'll dispute the consensus claim. However, if it really was coming from both ends then WotC should be that much more careful, because that is where you end up trying to please everyone and find everyone dislikes the changes made to please the other guy more than they like the changes made to please them.

 

[Dausuul]

I've never seen one not played like this. If they weren't swinging a weapon (or shooting a bow, or for a period in 1e, throwing darts) they were dead/held/paralyzed.

The combat rules in all editions of D&D have discouraged creative action in combat, especially the fighter. Disarming and whatnot might look or sound cool, but if a fighter type isn't stabbing it in the hit points, he isn't really helping

Aside from stabbing in the hit points, fighter options mostly consist of:

Tripping: Good in theory, but the hefty size modifiers combined with opposed Strength checks make this all but useless against Large and Huge foes. Most of the nastier opponents, where tripping would be most useful, fall into this size range.
Grappling: Same as tripping.
Bull Rushing: Same as tripping.
Sundering: Only works against opponents who use equipment, which most monsters do not; plus it destroys potential loot.
Disarming: Only works against opponents who use weapons, and size modifiers apply.

Basically, fighters can learn several cool tricks for taking on other fighters, but they're unreliable for taking on monsters. Since D&D is built around player versus monster combat, this does not pan out very well.

 

[Wolfspider]

In other words, fighters have a fair number of combat options, some of them which may not work in every situation. Being a good fighter requires some tactical thinking.

I don't see a problem with this.

 

[IanB]

In other words, fighters have a fair number of combat options, some of them which may not work in every situation. Being a good fighter requires some tactical thinking.

I don't see a problem with this.

I would say it is more like they have a *few* combat options, most of which lose their usefulness at high levels, and also require feats to make them usable.

Feats that could otherwise be spent on improving their core ability of 'full attack, full attack, move and single attack, full attack.'