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

[Nifft]

Well, yeah. That's what I said at the bottom of my post.

Ah, I was unsure what "tweaking" meant. I use that word to mean "change the mechanics of".

In my case, when I do get around to it, I'll just be replacing the fighter with a slightly-tweaked warblade, and making similar exchanges for the other two... and I'll be gutting them of most of the supernatural maneuvers. Part of what makes that time consuming is that then I think I'll probably need to make sure that, by ripping out the more mystical ones, I haven't completely killed the balance, and if I have, putting in less overtly-magical alternatives to fill the mechanical niche.

You will indeed have killed the balance.

IMHO, the Fighter is a necessary evil: as a "builder" class, one to four levels of Fighter can be both useful and a strong choice for many character concepts. Also, they make fine NPC classes -- and if you ever run out of feats you want an NPC to have, he can always take Skill Focus (day job).

Paladins have an at-will magical spell-like ability, they can Smite, they can heal you with a touch. Also, they cast spells and use Wands & Scrolls.

Rangers have a magical animal friend, spells, etc.

Fighters, Barbarians and Rogues are the only non-mystical classes in the PHB... and Rogues have access to Use Magic Device. It's a fantasy game. Most classes, including half of the warrior types, are mystical and magical -- more than half if you count Monks, and overwhelmingly more if you count Clerics and Druids.

But this is merely my humble opinion. I like giving Fighter-types nice things.

Cheers, -- N

 

[WarlockLord]

I find Warblades not too Wuxia flavored, and Crusaders? Hmm.

Only Wuxia guy is the swordsage. I'm playing one now. He OWNS in the first few rounds, then runs out of steam. And he can't tackle armies like a Cleave nut. But bosses have the annoying habit of dying in the first round.

 

[Vorput]

Fighters, Barbarians and Rogues are the only non-mystical classes in the PHB... and Rogues have access to Use Magic Device. It's a fantasy game. Most classes, including half of the warrior types, are mystical and magical -- more than half if you count Monks, and overwhelmingly more if you count Clerics and Druids.

That's a very interesting point...

 

[Terraism]

Ah, I was unsure what "tweaking" meant. I use that word to mean "change the mechanics of".

Gotcha. I use it a bit more generally - covers both mechanics and feel.

You will indeed have killed the balance.

Yeah, I expected that - which is why I haven't just striken out the blatantly mystical ones and said "here goes, go ahead and play with the reduced list." In many cases, I suspect I'll be able to make relatively small mechanical tweaks that remove the mystical element enough to satisfy me without changing the rules too much. I don't have my book handy right now, but changing, for example, the Desert Wind maneuvers that add fire damage to the attack to a form of precision damage would probably not be a large-scale balance change, but it'd fit the tone of my world better.

IMHO, the Fighter is a necessary evil: as a "builder" class, one to four levels of Fighter can be both useful and a strong choice for many character concepts. Also, they make fine NPC classes -- and if you ever run out of feats you want an NPC to have, he can always take Skill Focus (day job).

I know. I seem to recall debating the role of the fighter with you a few times before, every time I've suggested boosting them up a bit. Really what it boils down to is that I'm very fond of the design methodology that includes a small number of highly customizable base classes (with reason to take them to their end point,) versus many more specific classes. I don't, for instance, see any need to have both a Duskblade and a Hexblade class - one "mystical warrior" class with options that could lean either way would serve better, in my eyes. Of course, that's getting really far afield, so I'll stop now.

But this is merely my humble opinion. I like giving Fighter-types nice things.

So do I. I just tend more towards the Iron Heroes[/]-style, nonmagical nice things. That's not to say I don't like the idea of a mystical fighter, but I feel it's a niche that should be covered by only a small portion of the martially-focused classes, not the majority.

 

[Rystil Arden]

There are a number of re-flavoring projects, but those who care deeply about such things should be more than capable of doing it themselves!

Seriously, just change the names of the maneuvers. Mithral Tornado -> Crom's Scythe; Iron Heart Surge -> Crom's Rebuke. Bah-dah-bing, bah-dah-boom.

Steal names from fencing styles for Diamond Mind.

Etc., etc.

Now, I'm enough of a RP'er that I'd rename the maneuvers myself if I felt my character concept called for something different than the names that are in the book; so your work of renaming would likely be wasted on my PC. But don't let that discourage you!

- - -

Some people have similar objections to Psionics, I've found. A simple re-name and "ooo, terrible psionics" becomes "wow, a cool spell-point system".

Cheers, -- N

Meh, it still doesn't do it for me when I want a traditional setting with warrior-type Fighters, Knight/Soldier guys, etc. Some of your suggestions are okay, and I have already done this myself when I include them, though the Diamond Mind as fencing I find to be particularly offsetting (in a "Huh, I can't see how that suggestion would possibly work for anyone" kind of way). Nothing that the Diamond Mind school does comes even close to resembling Swashbuckling. You'd need to rewrite the manoeuvres in it for mechanics as well.

Other schools that wouldn't fit without also changing mechanics--

Diamond Mind: Already covered
Shadow Hand: No matter what you call it, you're doing cold damage, stepping through shadows, and draining ability scores
Desert Wind: No matter what you call it, you're doing energy damage, often in a weird area at higher levels

Two that work for Monk-type guys but still not traditional Fighters--

Setting Sun: You are making Trip and Grapple checks with these manoeuvres. This works for a Brawler or Monk, but not most fighters
Tiger Claw: You're jumping around the battlefield with this one. Again, monkish, not fighterish.

One that works for Paladins, but still not traditional Fighters--
Devoted Spirit: You're healing with some of these guys. Then again, if you have Devoted Spirit, you're a Crusader, which is more like a Paladin. However, the actual Paladin has other things that I'd want on a Paladin that the Crusader does not, though Crusader is miles stronger than Paladin mechanically. I also happen not to like Devoted Spirit healing (or any other "heal infinitely while you keep fighting" variant) due to the way it encourages you to leave one weak enemy alive so you can heal up to full, but I have my own fixes for that.


That leaves us with Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, and White Raven. Of those, White Raven only stays because there is something to be said for the 'Captain' or team-leader aspect of some Fighter or Knight paradigms. Many do not have this and would not work with White Raven (though since White Raven has some undeniably powerful manoeuvres, players who were more focused on mechanics than RP would still grab them, probably). Iron Heart is pretty much 100% fine with little or no change. Stone Dragon is conditionally useful for those who fight like a Dwarf might, or the big strong tank characters, which is a significant number of Fighters, though of course not all. Another option is to pull some of the few off-theme manoeuvres out of other disciplines (Setting Sun and Tiger Claw both have a few that could work. Even some of the others too).

But by the time you've done that, you still don't have traditional Fighters. You have some kind of hybrid western Warblade.

And while that's fine, I'm a bit different than many of the people who issue flavour comments on Bo9S. Many of them say things "I hate the wuxia/eastern/<insert their term> flavour of these classes, so I'll never use them because they can't fit in my game." I don't hate the flavour, and I do think they fit in most of my games. But I do not like the flavour of a game where they are the default. I guess that's the bottom line. I use a lot of classed NPCs with PC classes in my games. And I like the martial adepts as secret elite schools that train in unusual martial disciplines. I don't want every watch commander to be a Warblade instead of a Fighter, every lieutenant of the mad god to be a Crusader instead of a Blackguard, every commanding officer of the hobgoblin brigades to again be a Warblade instead of a Fighter, etc.

And on the other hand, I don't want four out of six PCs to be from the 'secret school that almost nobody knows about' unless there's a shared backstory reason and we've all agreed to play a Bo9S game (which would be one of the cases I mentioned where I just throw it all in).

Especially since I have people who like playing the regular melee classes. Now it's one thing to throw in a weaker class (like the Swashbuckler given in an example above) and say: "Hey gang, here's a new class. It's a bit weaker, but if you like it, go for it!" It is quite another to say "Hey gang, I'm throwing in these new classes that are better than a lot of the current ones. Specifically you, Bob. I know you enjoy playing Fighter types and your favourite character was your Fighter/Monk. These new classes will destroy those two classes in every way." And Bob responds "You mean the Bo9S classes? I said they aren't really fun for me to play, so you had to know I'm going to stick with Fighters." I contend that there is not symmetricality here--by adding in options that make a player's favourite basic core options (and ones you want to see represented anyway) obsolete, I think you are doing that player a disservice. On the other hand, if you add in weaker classes and they want to try one, that's a different story. The key is that the Bo9S guys are the newcomers here.

Anyway, my restriction of 'One school only, we'll convert a few manoeuvres from other schools to your school to add in a good mix and give you enough to fill out manoeuvres known' has led to Martial Adepts that are still among the stronger characters in their groups (one is arguably the strongest in a group that includes a Druid, and is certainly better than the Druid). And it fits with my flavour of 'secretive schools that teach you a special style of technique', as you only know the one schools of techniques. And it allows Fighters to maintain semi-viable (Martial Adepts are still better, but the Fighter isn't humiliated). This is win-win-win for me.

However, as I said many times above, it is almost certainly true that the way it works will vary for everyone across each of their styles and games (in fact, it varies across the games I run ).

I can accept that the way you use the Bo9S is the correct one for your group and your games. In fact, I'm sure of it. Can you accept that what I've done is correct for my group and my games?

 

[Rystil Arden]

You will indeed have killed the balance.

Suffice it to say, I disagree. I have found that, for appropriate selection of school, you can even limit these classes to one school with selected add-ons and still have them be competitive, and in some cases the strongest character. And before it is suggested, my other players who don't use Bo9S are not at all bad at building effective characters. Indeed, they are better at it than the guy who always plays the Bo9S classes. Admittedly, I don't know if Terraism means to selectively cut out a few manoevures here and there from each school, but if he just kills Diamond Mind, Devoted Spirit, Desert Wind, and Shadow Hand (the most supernatural of the bunch) and leaves all the other schools, he should be quite fine.

EDIT: If he, as he suggested, replaces all references to fire damage with precision damage, that's fine too!

 

[Terraism]

Admittedly, I don't know if Terraism means to selectively cut out a few manoevures here and there from each school, but if he just kills Diamond Mind, Devoted Spirit, Desert Wind, and Shadow Hand (the most supernatural of the bunch) and leaves all the other schools, he should be quite fine.

EDIT: If he, as he suggested, replaces all references to fire damage with precision damage, that's fine too!

Probably a bit of both. I tended to agree with most of your breakdowns of how each school could be fit into a "more standard" paradigm (not all, but most.) What I suspect I'll end up doing is changing the ones I feel I can, and leaving some of them (Shadow Hand comes to mind,) but have the latter harder to pick up - feat req., or PrC only, or some such. Probably the latter, since a PrC for it, if built right, doesn't have an overall cost to the character the way a feat requirement would.

As far as Desert Wind, fire damage, and precision stuff, that was just a throwaway example - I think I'd have to take a harder look, with my books present, to make that decision. I certainly think the idea works when I'm thinking about it casually, but that's different from using it in play.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Probably a bit of both. I tended to agree with most of your breakdowns of how each school could be fit into a "more standard" paradigm (not all, but most.) What I suspect I'll end up doing is changing the ones I feel I can, and leaving some of them (Shadow Hand comes to mind,) but have the latter harder to pick up - feat req., or PrC only, or some such. Probably the latter, since a PrC for it, if built right, doesn't have an overall cost to the character the way a feat requirement would.

As far as Desert Wind, fire damage, and precision stuff, that was just a throwaway example - I think I'd have to take a harder look, with my books present, to make that decision. I certainly think the idea works when I'm thinking about it casually, but that's different from using it in play.

Yeah, there are a few that would be very very weird with precision damage (the 'trail of fire' one and the 'make a circle and the middle explodes in fire' one come to mind. If you made those precision blade damage, it would be a bit weird )

As for Shadow Hand, yeah, I agree that it seems to have its own kind of niche. If you want to try allowing a Swordsage with only access to Shadow Hand and a few manoeuvres taken from other schools to give them enough manoeuvres known (for instead Desert Wind converted to shadowy cold), they are still quite powerful (I call that character's class, Shadowsage), particularly if they pump Dex and take the Shadow Blade feat with Weapon Finesse.

 

[castro3nw]

Especially since I have people who like playing the regular melee classes. Now it's one thing to throw in a weaker class (like the Swashbuckler given in an example above) and say: "Hey gang, here's a new class. It's a bit weaker, but if you like it, go for it!" It is quite another to say "Hey gang, I'm throwing in these new classes that are better than a lot of the current ones. Specifically you, Bob. I know you enjoy playing Fighter types and your favourite character was your Fighter/Monk. These new classes will destroy those two classes in every way." And Bob responds "You mean the Bo9S classes? I said they aren't really fun for me to play, so you had to know I'm going to stick with Fighters." I contend that there is not symmetricality here--by adding in options that make a player's favourite basic core options (and ones you want to see represented anyway) obsolete, I think you are doing that player a disservice. On the other hand, if you add in weaker classes and they want to try one, that's a different story. The key is that the Bo9S guys are the newcomers here.

So, it seems to me that you're saying that you're letting your worries over whether or not Bob will enjoy his character determine available choices for the rest of your group... Do you then go to the rest of them and say "Sorry guys, Bob wants to play a fighter again... So could nobody play anything more powerful than a fighter? I really want Bob to feel like he's shining in this one"

It seems to me that if you're nuking options to keep one player happy, you're doing the rest of your players a disservice. If Bob really enjoys fighters, he'll still play one... And he'll probably enjoy it.

 

[Nifft]

But by the time you've done that, you still don't have traditional Fighters. You have some kind of hybrid western Warblade.

Of course you don't have traditional Fighters. Traditional Fighters suck!

Especially since I have people who like playing the regular melee classes. Now it's one thing to throw in a weaker class (like the Swashbuckler given in an example above) and say: "Hey gang, here's a new class. It's a bit weaker, but if you like it, go for it!" It is quite another to say "Hey gang, I'm throwing in these new classes that are better than a lot of the current ones. Specifically you, Bob. I know you enjoy playing Fighter types and your favourite character was your Fighter/Monk. These new classes will destroy those two classes in every way."

"You mean the Barbarian, Cleric and Druid?"

"Yes, Bob. Sorry."

My point is that the Fighter sucking has nothing to do with the ToB:Bo9S. He's beaten like a red-headed stepchild by 3/4 of the classes which proceed him in the PHB.

None the less, there is a Fighter in the group for which I DM. That player wanted one, and he got one. He also likes the Martial Adepts. ToB:Bo9S hasn't killed Fighters in my game. But now we're able to model far more concepts than Fighters could alone.

Last thing: you say "will destroy ... in every way". IMHO the Fighter is unchanged. Its level of suckitude is constant. The fact that you can better see the Fighter's relative weakness isn't the fault of the Martial Adept -- don't shoot the messenger!

- - -

The Swordsage is mystical. He's the "blade wizard" of the group. (Much like the Monk is mystical.) No real way around that. He does supernatural stuff. He's like a Warlock or Binder in many regards. (Or a Ranger... )

You could remove the Swordsage (and his three special schools) without damaging the game at all. You could give Setting Sun to Warblades (in trade for any of their regular schools) without affecting balance very much -- it's not the strongest school.

Cheers, -- N