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

[Prophet2b]

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).

Hmm... I'm kind of actually thinking that this is the same thing, but a different thing.

In this scenario, I'd definitely say it was up to the DM to say, "Hey, I said this was 'Kobold Adventures' - you need to play a kobold." He is, in effect, allowing the players to change what he originally planned for his campaign. If he does that, then he needs to let all the players know that his campaign has changed. It is not what he originally planned.

But in a campaign where he says, "Here's the world, it's all open, create what you want, aaaaand... go!" Well... That shifts a lot from the DM's hands to the player's hands - in which case, the players should be informed of what other players are playing, but there aren't really the same expectations (and thus let-downs).

I'm definitely not disagreeing with your example - it's a good one, and obviously something is wrong with what's happening in it. But really all that's saying is Bo9S is no different than any other supplement out there. If the DM has a very specific idea for a campaign, he should limit players' choices to reflect his plans. This includes any supplement, not just Bo9S.

So, yeah, you're right, some campaigns won't be good for it! But, then again, if you're playing a mage campaign, you probably won't allow Complete Warrior, either. That's the responsibility of the DM to enforce those rules. In an "open system" (as it were) where all of the supplements are allowed, it's up to the DM to see that things don't get broken and abused, but character creation becomes much more player responsibilities than it does DM, I think.

So I don't think anyone's disagreeing with your examples. At least, I know I'm not. And I'm assuming you're not disagreeing with ours... It really just all comes down to the DM's responsibility depending on the campaign being played. Which, as I said, means every book needs to be judged accordingly - not just Bo9S.

So your advice is just good advice all around, depending on the campaign being done.

 

[Arkhandus]

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.

Yep. It helps to use the warrior-oriented splatbooks too.

And y'know, you could make a really sweet Swashbuckler by multiclassing just a bit into Swordsage and one or two other classes, and probably taking the Shadow Blade feat, while sticking primarily with the Swashbuckler class.....

In the one and only game where I was going to have the chance to play a Swordsage, before the DM disappeared (I still have no idea why he stopped showing up at the gamestore), one of the PCs was a female Sun Elf Swashbuckler who had taken a few levels in other classes, to gain the advantage of adding all three of her mental stats (Int, Wis, Cha) to damage or Armor Class. And I think she was dual-wielding rapiers.... Unfortunately I can't remember what the other classes or feats were that she had taken. They were from WotC 3.5 books, but I can't remember specifics.....

 

[AnonymousOne]

one of the PCs was a female Sun Elf Swashbuckler who had taken a few levels in other classes, to gain the advantage of adding all three of her mental stats (Int, Wis, Cha) to damage or Armor Class. And I think she was dual-wielding rapiers.... Unfortunately I can't remember what the other classes or feats were that she had taken. They were from WotC 3.5 books, but I can't remember specifics.....

Yeah, I'm running a 6th level Swash/Rogue in my next campaign at college. The Int+Str to damage is already a +6 (yay for high stat rolls!) But I would be very interested to find out what she took to add something like Cha to damage.

 

[RigaMortus2]

You can't power attack on maneuvers?

Yes, you can Power Attack using maneuvers. I have no idea what Arkhandus was talking about.

 

[RigaMortus2]

There's also a special ability the warblade has that lets him attune any of his feats to match a new weapon early in the day. So a Fighter spends years training with his greataxe to gain weapon focus (greataxe), while the warblade picks up a greataxe one monring says "this looks fun" and changes his feat from weapon focus (longsword) to weapon focus (greataxe). This can be used on any feat improved critical, great weapon focus, etc. by just spending a few hours concentrating

Just to clarify here... the Warblade ability Weapon Aptitude can not be used with just any old feat. It has to be a feat which applies to one specific weapon. The feats you list are correct, Improved Critical, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc. But let's not confuse anybody by saying it works on any feat. It doesn't, for example, work with Weapon Finesse or Power Attack...

I do believe it works with Exotic Weapon Proficiency as well, since it is a feat which specifies a single specific weapon. That could be problematic as other have mentioned.

 

[Arkhandus]

It's possible I may've misremembered about Power Attack, when thinking of the rule that disallows use of certain feats and special attacks in combination with any kind of Strike maneuver..... I can't remember the full list of things right now, and don't have a copy of the book with me.

Now I do remember, though, what added Charisma to damage. The Marshal base class, from Miniatures Handbook. It's also in a preview for that book, on the WotC website. Check it out, AnonymousOne.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030906b

Note that a Marshal's auras affect him/her as well as his/her allies.

Unless otherwise noted, a marshal's aura affects all allies within 60 feet (including himself) who can hear the marshal. An ally must have an Intelligence score of 3 or higher and be able to understand the marshal's language to gain the bonus. A marshal's aura is dismissed if he is dazed, unconscious, stunned, paralyzed, or otherwise unable to be heard or understood by his allies.

It's limited though. You need the Minor Aura for "Master of Tactics" to add Charisma to damage when flanking, or the Minor Aura for "Over the Top" to add Charisma to damage when charging. The Major Aura of "Motivate Ardor" adds +1 to damage, but it only improves slowly as you advance further in levels as a Marshal.

Still, taking 2 levels of Marshal for Master of Tactics and Motivate Ardor will give you a nice damage boost as a Swashbuckler-type, along with your allies, and you'll just need to flank enemies to get the full effect (and as a Swashbuckler you'll probably want to be flanking anyway, especially if multiclassing into Rogue).

 

[Nifft]

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.

Then I'm mis-communicating. I think the class Fighter is underpowered, and has been since before ToB:Bo9S. I think that the Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin were already stronger than the Fighter, and that's not to mention all the other classes...

Ironically, I view inclusion of ToB:Bo9S as a means of revitalizing melee combat as a fun and viable option in a mid-to-high level game. The other option was (and still is) Rage + Full Attack... viable, but boring.

I honestly can't imagine Martial Adepts destroying "traditional fighter-types". Quite the opposite. They make melee matter again.

To extend your kobold example, let's say you made a new campaign and called it "Kobold Adventures". [...] 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.

Two mistakes here:

1/ The idea that Ms. "staunch roleplayer" is going to have less fun if her character is mechanically inferior to another PC in combat. Hopefully, she's enjoying the part of the game for which her character is actually optimized! (Though I do feel bad that she's stuck in a group of such non-RP munchkins.)

2/ The idea that the players are talking me into something to munchkin out their own PCs. Good god, if only! I actually bought ToB:Bo9S for two of my players to jump-start its use in my game. And one of them built a Fighter anyway (as a cohort).

Cheers, -- N

 

[FireLance]

Yeah, I'm running a 6th level Swash/Rogue in my next campaign at college. The Int+Str to damage is already a +6 (yay for high stat rolls!) But I would be very interested to find out what she took to add something like Cha to damage.

If you're planning to run a swashbuckler/rogue, you should check out Daring Outlaw from Complete Scoundrel.

 

[Muddman]

I've played a Warblade, a Swordsage and a Swordsage/Warblade/Master of the Nine and I love this freaking book! But I don't LOVE everything:

1. Iron Heart Surge needs better wording. In my game, I just defined explicitly what it stops and it hasn't been a problem.

2. Jade Pheonix Mage - out. Full attack bonus, seven levels of spells and some more maneuvers, too much and too much better than the Eldritch Knight with less prereqs.

3. White raven tactics gets down right crazy.

I agree with the statement that this improves combat rather than hurting it. Funnily enough, I'm allowing this book and no one is playing one. The fighter prefers playing a guy with a bunch of feats and the other fighter type likes playing a ranger.

 

[AnonymousOne]

If you're planning to run a swashbuckler/rogue, you should check out Daring Outlaw from Complete Scoundrel.

Already done. The build looks very nice running a pair of Keen Weapons, with some non-WotC goodness (mostly from Mongoose Publishing's The Quintessential Rogue, and a splash from a book called Gryphon's Armoury which basically takes and expands the different weapons and weapon properties to bring them into a more truly historical context).

Damage we're looking at is:
Rapier: 1d6+6 14-20/x2 (using non WotC Gryphon's Armoury + Keen Property)
Dagger: 1d4+6 16-20/x2 (using non WotC Gryphon's Armoury + Keen Property)

A matching pair of Serrated Rapier & Serrated Main Gauche.