Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords - Things to watch out for?

[Nifft]

But from what I'm hearing (and after this thread, I looked up some others, which seem to voice the same opinions), that's not an uncommon reaction, I take it? To read the books, think they look overpowered, but then find out otherwise in actual game play?

If that's true, that's awesome to hear, because I (aside from that worry) love this book.

That's exactly the reaction of my group.

I'm of the opinion that things should be allowed, and then if found to be broken, they can be fixed. My players are mature, and don't view fixes as spiteful -- and we discuss stuff first.

My players thought that the stuff in the book was overpowered, but in play, it comes off about right. And I too love the book.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well... This has been a fascinating thread! I've never seen Bo9S in play, until our last session (which is unfortunate considering I've had the book since it first came out) - and while I absolutely love the mechanics and rules and flavor for all of it, I was very fearful that it might be unbalanced (i.e., overpowered) with the rest of D&D. In fact, I'd been wondering also if changing their supernatural abilities to spell-like abilities, or something along those lines, would be a good way to go.

But from what I'm hearing (and after this thread, I looked up some others, which seem to voice the same opinions), that's not an uncommon reaction, I take it? To read the books, think they look overpowered, but then find out otherwise in actual game play?

If that's true, that's awesome to hear, because I (aside from that worry) love this book.

It can be overpowered in some games. There is a stronger voice online of those who don't have a problem with it than I've seen face-to-face, which I take to be due to the interesting qualities of dialogue on an internet forum. Also, some, though not all will admit that the Bo9S obliterates other meleers type classes but they don't care because they wanted to see those types of classes get a power boost (There are two flavours of people who will post that there's no problem with the Bo9S--the ones I just described, which have a point, but I don't want to use full Bo9S classes in some games I play because I prefer leaving the normal fighting classes as viable options for genre emulation, and then the ones who claim that Fighters are much better than all the Bo9S classes and then illustrate by building a twinked-out munchkiny Fighter and comparing to an unoptimised Bo9S character).

Bottom line: If you are willing to rework which classes you include and/or make changes to some of the other base classes in your game to compensate, Bo9S will be a fine addition to your game that won't cause any other problems aside from a handful of manoeuvres that will wreck your game if you don't fix them.

In most of my games, I want to keep some of the other non-casters more competitive, so I restricted the Bo9S guys to one discipline only (with the ability to take selected cross-discipline manoeuvres to round out their manoeuvres known list if they can come up with a good thematic for crossing it over), and they are definitely still not underpowered compared to the other characters.

Even if you make no edits other than to fix the broken manoeuvres, it still won't break your game or cause your battles to become jokes or anything like that, but it will probably cause the Initiators to overshadow other non-caster characters which may lead to a tendency among players to always pick initiators and casters.

 

[Vorput]

Even if you make no edits other than to fix the broken manoeuvres, it still won't break your game or cause your battles to become jokes or anything like that, but it will probably cause the Initiators to overshadow other non-caster characters which may lead to a tendency among players to always pick initiators and casters.

My biggest fear/problem with it! Well-crafted post Rystil.

 

[Nifft]

IMHO, as a pro-Bo9S guy, they totally overshadow Fighters. (But that's because everything overshadows Fighters.)

IMHO, the initiators are on the level with Barbarians, archery Rangers who have access to Spell Compendium spells, Paladins with access to Spell Compendium, and Bards. They aren't on the same level as the top-tier classes (Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer), but neither are they in the low-power ghetto (Fighter, Monk).

- - -

There's a great thread around here somewhere by hong where he plays through Age of Worms with a Swordsage. It's nice to see his experience from low levels to high next to a bunch of other PCs (including a Barbarian).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Prophet2b]

Originally Posted by Rystil Arden
Even if you make no edits other than to fix the broken manoeuvres, it still won't break your game or cause your battles to become jokes or anything like that, but it will probably cause the Initiators to overshadow other non-caster characters which may lead to a tendency among players to always pick initiators and casters.

My biggest fear/problem with it! Well-crafted post Rystil.

Hmm... Well, my only real worry is things getting overpowered (game breaking, etc). If the Initiators simply "overshadow" the other fighters, then I wouldn't ban the other fighters from a game - however, I would make sure that players knew this before they started playing. I'd say, "Hey, just so you know, if you decide to pick a Barbarian, you might be overshadowed a bit in combat by the other guy playing the Warblade."

From what I'm reading, this really may or may not be true, depending on how they both build their characters, even if it is more likely than not. But as long as the Barbarian knows the Warblade might outshine him a bit, and he picks that class knowing full well what that means, I wouldn't have a problem with them playing side-by-side.

In the end, it'd just be player's choice. I just don't want anything that's game breaking brought into the campaign...

----------

EDIT: It'd be kind of like a player in a non-Bo9S game deciding to play a straight Swashbuckler. Well... so it's not a very powerful class. In fact, it pretty much sucks mid-to-high levels. But, hey, if that's his choice, that's his choice. And if he's fine with that choice, more power to him. (I, personally, love Swashbucklers - even though I KNOW they are at a severe disadvantage next to most every other fighter counterpart. I just like them!) That doesn't mean you ban fighters because they overshadow a different kind of fighter. You just make players aware of what they're doing, and let them decide if they're alright with it or not.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Hmm... Well, my only real worry is things getting overpowered (game breaking, etc). If the Initiators simply "overshadow" the other fighters, then I wouldn't ban the other fighters from a game - however, I would make sure that players knew this before they started playing. I'd say, "Hey, just so you know, if you decide to pick a Barbarian, you might be overshadowed a bit in combat by the other guy playing the Warblade."

From what I'm reading, this really may or may not be true, depending on how they both build their characters, even if it is more likely than not. But as long as the Barbarian knows the Warblade might outshine him a bit, and he picks that class knowing full well what that means, I wouldn't have a problem with them playing side-by-side.

In the end, it'd just be player's choice. I just don't want anything that's game breaking brought into the campaign...

----------

EDIT: It'd be kind of like a player in a non-Bo9S game deciding to play a straight Swashbuckler. Well... so it's not a very powerful class. In fact, it pretty much sucks mid-to-high levels. But, hey, if that's his choice, that's his choice. And if he's fine with that choice, more power to him. (I, personally, love Swashbucklers - even though I KNOW they are at a severe disadvantage next to most every other fighter counterpart. I just like them!) That doesn't mean you ban fighters because they overshadow a different kind of fighter. You just make players aware of what they're doing, and let them decide if they're alright with it or not.

Exactly--if that is your opinion, full speed ahead! (while looking out for the few problem manoeuvres). Myself, in most of my games I want to keep Fighters and their ilk as the more common character class and have the initiators be rare masters of a special exotic and elite school because it fits most of my settings best, so I usually impose the one-school rule. In some games where I want everyone to have over-the-top action all the time and I don't care about genre, I just allow them as-is.

On another interesting note, the initiators stack up moderately-well to gestalt classes in my playtests. There are some gestalts that are much better than initiators, and there are a lot of gestalts that are worse. This is because the initiators generally have a very rich number of powerful passive class features and relatively high HD and skill points per level, which is the main attraction of certain gestalts.

EDIT: It'd be kind of like a player in a non-Bo9S game deciding to play a straight Swashbuckler. Well... so it's not a very powerful class. In fact, it pretty much sucks mid-to-high levels. But, hey, if that's his choice, that's his choice. And if he's fine with that choice, more power to him. (I, personally, love Swashbucklers - even though I KNOW they are at a severe disadvantage next to most every other fighter counterpart. I just like them!) That doesn't mean you ban fighters because they overshadow a different kind of fighter. You just make players aware of what they're doing, and let them decide if they're alright with it or not.

True--the issue in some cases is one of genre emulation. If you are playing a Three Musketeers game where players are expected to be Swashbucklery characters and you give Swashbuckler no compensations and allow the players to pick any old class, you may wind up with the ones who helped you emulate your genre and picked Swashbuckler being overshadowed by the classes that you considered exotic for Three Musketeers but allowable.

In other words, I don't want players to feel like they have to sacrifice their character's effectiveness if they pick the Fighter if I'm playing a campaign where I want there to be Fighters.

 

[Prophet2b]

There's a great thread around here somewhere by hong where he plays through Age of Worms with a Swordsage. It's nice to see his experience from low levels to high next to a bunch of other PCs (including a Barbarian).

Which can be found here. In case anyone else reading this thread wants to read that one, too...

 

[castro3nw]

IMHO, as a pro-Bo9S guy, they totally overshadow Fighters. (But that's because everything overshadows Fighters.)

IMHO, the initiators are on the level with Barbarians, archery Rangers who have access to Spell Compendium spells, Paladins with access to Spell Compendium, and Bards. They aren't on the same level as the top-tier classes (Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer), but neither are they in the low-power ghetto (Fighter, Monk).

QFT

Basically, the "problem" here is that there are lots and lots of books with options for your fighters, barbarians, rangers, and paladins. There are alot of good options, but they're spread thin enough that you have to go looking for them. If you don't, your power-level might suffer a bit. There's only one book for initiators. It has all the maneuvers in one place. It's easier to look at them, and decide which ones are the good ones/which ones you want.

All this leads to initiators looking more powerful, because they're easier to build. If WotC put out a single book with all of the good options for say... barbarians... from over the years, and maybe a couple of new ones to round it out, people would just end up dubbing that book broken 'cuz suddenly barbarians were unbalanced and way too powerful.

 

[Nifft]

In other words, I don't want players to feel like they have to sacrifice their character's effectiveness if they pick the Fighter if I'm playing a campaign where I want there to be Fighters.

I would allow a player to choose to play a kobold PC. That kobold dude would have sacrificed (at least a portion of) his effectiveness.

I allow players to choose those lame +2/+2 skill feats for their PCs. They are taken; the PCs have sacrificed (at least a portion of) their effectiveness.

I allow Fighters. I warn my players not to take too many levels (once). But in the end, their PCs are their problem.

It's not my place to make sure each player builds an optimized PC. It's my place to make sure all PCs have the potential to shine, and in this regard, ToB:Bo9S is liquid awesome drizzled over lightly toasted solid awesome -- because Martial Adepts can often do lots more than just hit things with pointy sticks.

And Fighters? They suck.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rystil Arden]

I would allow a player to choose to play a kobold PC. That kobold dude would have sacrificed (at least a portion of) his effectiveness.

I allow players to choose those lame +2/+2 skill feats for their PCs. They are taken; the PCs have sacrificed (at least a portion of) their effectiveness.

I allow Fighters. I warn my players not to take too many levels (once). But in the end, their PCs are their problem.

It's not my place to make sure each player builds an optimized PC. It's my place to make sure all PCs have the potential to shine, and in this regard, ToB:Bo9S is liquid awesome drizzled over lightly toasted solid awesome -- because Martial Adepts can often do lots more than just hit things with pointy sticks.

And Fighters? They suck.

Cheers, -- N

The point is that it matters whether or not you want your game to have traditional Fighter-types. You do not, as is clear from that post. In some games, I either specifically do not want them or else don't care. In many games, I do want to have them and I would rather Fighter/Ranger/Paladin be a standard for meleers than Swordsage/Warblade/Crusader, which I would like to be exotic.

To extend your kobold example, let's say you made a new campaign and called it "Kobold Adventures". One player says "I have this really cool idea for a Human who was raised by kobolds as a pet/slave and tries to emulate the dragons" so you allow it. One player says "It says in Races of the Dragon that kobolds and <insert one of those scaly races in RotD that is better> are allies. I'd like to be the emissary from them" so you allow it. One player winds up being a Half-Dragon Orc who has fallen in with the kobolds (yay for massive Strength adjustments!). Only the staunch roleplayer actually plays a kobold. And her character sucks. I would feel bad for her, since the stated adventure was supposed to have kobolds, and she played one, but everyone else was playing these weird things that were better. (For the sake of example, let's assume that you agree all my example choices are better than kobold. If not, feel free to replace them all with something that is).