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

[Rystil Arden]

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.

There's a huge difference between being more powerful than a Fighter and being basically the same, but better. For example, I would not allow a class called the 'Meleer' that gave bonus feats every level but had no archery feats on its list of bonus feats. Bob (not one specific person in my actual group or anything) doesn't need to be the best, but he needs to feel that he isn't worthless or it will not be fun. I've actually seen a Bo9S character who told the other melee characters "No, don't come help me with this one. I've got this fight in the bag and you get in the way of my area strikes. You all go on ahead to the next encounter." And you know what? He won (for what it's worth, it wasn't a throw-away mook either, it was a Swordsage versus eight Warriors and one Fighter, all the same level as the Swordsage).

Also, I'll bet you've never playtested the Bo9S classes with those specific restrictions on them. If you think they are somehow 'not good enough', then I guarantee that you will be surprised. Now, they may not be right for you, but they are right for me. If you can't understand that, I recommend you try it and see. If anything, most of my players have been liking the classes more with the restrictions (they like the flavour better, and they felt bad playing the full martial adepts because they didn't want to nominalise the other scrappers).

 

[Nifft]

If Bob really enjoys fighters, he'll still play one... And he'll probably enjoy it.

There's a player like Bob in my group. He enjoys playing a Fighter.

And that's okay with me. If Bob enjoyed playing venerable Kobold Fighters, that'd be okay with me too.

I promote equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Your choices are your own. Caveat, sucker!

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rystil Arden]

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

"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

Hmm, if you say so. The Fighter/Monk (mostly Fighter) in one of my games is clearly the strongest in his group, and these are not pushover characters (At level 17, he nearly killed the CR 23? Aspect of Mammon from FC2 before it could act, without a weapon that penetrated the DR). Fighters work in my game. They are helpful, they shine, and about half the players like to play Fighters or their ilk. And that may be one of the reasons the way I play it works for me.

Clearly Fighters do not work for you. I've got that. As I said above, it is obvious to me that you have picked the correct way of ruling Bo9S in your games. I can tell you put a good deal of thought into it because you found all the same problem manoeuvres I did, among other things, so I know you're doing the right thing and not going into this with the blind attitude of 'Let's just let in the whole book without looking at it' or 'This looks too strong, let's ban it without looking at it'.

What I hope is that you can see that I've done that too. And it works. And it can work for other people like me who I've seen time and time again post to these boards. People who make a thread with something like: "I love the mechanics behind Bo9S, but I have a few issues..." The tendency is to jump on them and say "The problem is with you, not Bo9S. You can't read it well enough, or you haven't seem them in play, and you're wrong. I've played it and Bo9S is fine and you need to get with the program." But that isn't always true for every game, and I think we need to recognise that.

 

[Prophet2b]

I've actually seen a Bo9S character who told the other melee characters "No, don't come help me with this one. I've got this fight in the bag and you get in the way of my area strikes. You all go on ahead to the next encounter." And you know what? He won (for what it's worth, it wasn't a throw-away mook either, it was a Swordsage versus eight Warriors and one Fighter, all the same level as the Swordsage).

Vorput played a wizard in our last campaign, and it got to where the ENTIRE PARTY was basically telling the fighter, "No, don't rush in. He's got Summon Monster up the whazoo that can handle this just fine. Not to mention fireball, etc." She knew it, too. He could have probably beat most of the encounters toward the end of the campaign just fine without most of the party's help. Those summon monster spells (along with feats to enhance them and prestige class in Alienist) plus a few others made it so that, in the end, the party really did not need the fighter. In fact, at one point the wizard and "mercenary" (custom class - kind of like a rogue) sneaked off and took on a tomb that the party altogether probably would have failed at taking.

She never came to me once, though, and complained. She just always did what she thought would be fun, and what her character would do. She never cared that he could outshine her combat prowess in every way. She liked her fighter and she was going to play a fighter. And I would have never said, "Your wizard is too powerful... can you tone it down a bit? Or, you know, stop leveling in wizard?"

Nor would I ever ban him or anyone else from playing a wizard, even if that was a likely outcome once again.

Druids, Clerics, and Wizards are capable of outshining every single fighter class in the book. It's not even that difficult. But nobody would ever suggest banning them.

Then Bo9S comes along with melee classes that shine. As I've said - as long as it's not game breaking, I think that's GREAT. Because they need to shine. And right now, they don't. Not beside spellcasters, anyway. Even the Bo9S classes couldn't go up against a decent Wizard or Druid, I don't think. Probably not the Cleric, either. And I think that's good - spellcasters should be more powerful. That's magic.

That doesn't mean, however, that you can't have melee classes that start to reach beyond their current potential. In my opinion, they've had it coming for a long time. It's only fair...

Anyway, my point is, you've experienced that with Bo9S? I've seen it happen with a Wizard. You don't see people suggesting we ban wizards. Why is it so different with Bo9S?

 

[Nifft]

There's a huge difference between being more powerful than a Fighter and being basically the same, but better.

Ah, here's the rub.

IMHO Warblade is not the same but better. There are some things that a Fighter can do which a Warblade cannot do, particularly when it comes to pursuing feat tracks.

The classic "competitive" Fighter build is the spiked-chain trip machine. It requires thee feats:
- Exotic Proficiency (spiked chain)
- Combat Expertise
- Improved Trip

... but it benefits from (and becomes effective) with more:
- Combat Reflexes
- Power Attack
- Weapon Focus (spiked chain)
- Weapon Specialization (spiked chain)

... and if you allow PHB-II and other outside sources, it can be made significantly stronger (with the addition of yet more feats).

For example, I would not allow a class called the 'Meleer' that gave bonus feats every level but had no archery feats on its list of bonus feats.

Er, could you tie this a bit closer to the Martial Adepts? None of them have anything like the Fighter's bonus feats.

Sorry, perhaps I'm being too dense and literal.

"No, don't come help me with this one. I've got this fight in the bag and you get in the way of my area strikes. You all go on ahead to the next encounter." And you know what? He won (for what it's worth, it wasn't a throw-away mook either, it was a Swordsage versus eight Warriors and one Fighter, all the same level as the Swordsage).

Wow, cool! I want to be that guy! "You go on ahead, I'll take care of these guards."

Also, I'll bet you've never playtested the Bo9S classes with those specific restrictions on them. If you think they are somehow 'not good enough', then I guarantee that you will be surprised.

You'd win that bet.

I've certainly designed Martial Adepts focused around one school (mostly for flavor), but I usually end up running out of stuff to pick and delving into at least one other school, too.

I'm sure you can build viable single-school Warblades... just like I'm sure you can build a viable single-school Sorcerer! But IMHO it's an interesting choice, rather than a necessary constraint.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Clearly Fighters do not work for you. I've got that.

There is a fighter in my game, and it works fine. But I'd be bored to tears playing it.

Trip, trip, trip.

An effective Fighter is a highly specialized beast. A Martial Adept can be equally effective while retaining flexibility.

That's why I love them so much.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rystil Arden]

Vorput played a wizard in our last campaign, and it got to where the ENTIRE PARTY was basically telling the fighter, "No, don't rush in. He's got Summon Monster up the whazoo that can handle this just fine. Not to mention fireball, etc." She knew it, too. He could have probably beat most of the encounters toward the end of the campaign just fine without most of the party's help. Those summon monster spells (along with feats to enhance them and prestige class in Alienist) plus a few others made it so that, in the end, the party really did not need the fighter. In fact, at one point the wizard and "mercenary" (custom class - kind of like a rogue) sneaked off and took on a tomb that the party altogether probably would have failed at taking.

She never came to me once, though, and complained. She just always did what she thought would be fun, and what her character would do. She never cared that he could outshine her combat prowess in every way. She liked her fighter and she was going to play a fighter. And I would have never said, "Your wizard is too powerful... can you tone it down a bit? Or, you know, stop leveling in wizard?"

Nor would I ever ban him or anyone else from playing a wizard, even if that was a likely outcome once again.

Druids, Clerics, and Wizards are capable of outshining every single fighter class in the book. It's not even that difficult. But nobody would ever suggest banning them.

Then Bo9S comes along with melee classes that shine. As I've said - as long as it's not game breaking, I think that's GREAT. Because they need to shine. And right now, they don't. Not beside spellcasters, anyway. Even the Bo9S classes couldn't go up against a decent Wizard or Druid, I don't think. Probably not the Cleric, either. And I think that's good - spellcasters should be more powerful. That's magic.

That doesn't mean, however, that you can't have melee classes that start to reach beyond their current potential. In my opinion, they've had it coming for a long time. It's only fair...

Anyway, my point is, you've experienced that with Bo9S? I've seen it happen with a Wizard. You don't see people suggesting we ban wizards. Why is it so different with Bo9S?

Even with Alienist, etc, I am perplexed that a Wizard Conjurer could have successfully obviated the need for a Fighter. Having looked pretty closely at all the Conjurer variants out there and played a good deal of Conjurer bad guys as the GM, I don't see it as being possible barring a series of circumstances that wouldn't fit in my campaign (the Fighter player would have to be fairly suboptimal, and the enemies would have to be relatively easy and not include certain types that destroy the Conjurer's shtick easily). It does sound like your campaign would be a great one for the full Bo9S though. When you're in a game with a guy who likes to play a Fighterish short but can't build strong characters and someone who likes to play a caster and can make a good combo, Bo9S can help the newbie because you would almost have to be trying to build an incompetent Bo9S character, assuming you always pick higher-level strikes when you are allowed to do so. You also have a player who doesn't get upset at being useless, which is a good thing. Even among my roleplayers who don't care too much about combat, they would start feeling bad if their character wasn't able to help at all, and one of the several guys in my group who usually play a Fighterish sort is a Door-Kicker who really wants to be helpful in combat (doesn't need to be the best of the group, but it's his favourite part of the game as far as I can tell, and he gets upset when his character is totally useless), but he doesn't like casters, and he doesn't like the Bo9S mechanics as much as I do. He is perfectly capable of building a Fighterish sort that can do well. I daresay he could have built one that could be useful to your game's Conjurer, though I don't know the details, of course.

Anyways, it sound to me like your game would benefit from adding the Bo9S, which is the question you came to the thread with. I highly recommend adding it!

 

[Rystil Arden]

Ah, here's the rub.

IMHO Warblade is not the same but better. There are some things that a Fighter can do which a Warblade cannot do, particularly when it comes to pursuing feat tracks.

The classic "competitive" Fighter build is the spiked-chain trip machine. It requires thee feats:
- Exotic Proficiency (spiked chain)
- Combat Expertise
- Improved Trip

... but it benefits from (and becomes effective) with more:
- Combat Reflexes
- Power Attack
- Weapon Focus (spiked chain)
- Weapon Specialization (spiked chain)

... and if you allow PHB-II and other outside sources, it can be made significantly stronger (with the addition of yet more feats).

Oh, it certainly isn't exactly the same. I don't suggest that the Warblade is going to take all the feats a Fighter can take. But the Warblade is still going to be better because what he has that is different from the Fighter is better than what the Fighter has, by a large amount, particularly for sufficiently-high Point Buy (I usually play 4d6 drop lowest, the standard PH rolling method, which averages around 31). And why talk about the Warblade when we can bring in the Crusader?

Er, could you tie this a bit closer to the Martial Adepts? None of them have anything like the Fighter's bonus feats.

Sorry, that was an ad absurdum meant in answer to castro's strawman to ban all classes stronger than the Fighter. You can ignore it

Wow, cool! I want to be that guy! "You go on ahead, I'll take care of these guards."

Yep. But this isn't your typical mook encounter. The EL for that encounter was significantly high (I can't remember what level the Initiator was, but since there were 8 Warriors and a Fighter of the same level, that would be (level - 1) doubled three times for a level + 5 from the Warriors, and then the Fighter added in too. Suffice it to say, I did handle it by improvising in an even harder encounter for the others and letting the Paladin of Freedom/Spymaster's UMDed magic item play a big part in it. If I had been an inexperienced GM who couldn't improvise an EL 20+ encounter out of thin air, I would have been screwed!

You'd win that bet.

I've certainly designed Martial Adepts focused around one school (mostly for flavor), but I usually end up running out of stuff to pick and delving into at least one other school, too.

The running-out-of-stuff is why I let the player add a few extra handpicked manoeuvres if they can give flavour justifications for how it now fits in the new school.

I'm sure you can build viable single-school Warblades... just like I'm sure you can build a viable single-school Sorcerer! But IMHO it's an interesting choice, rather than a necessary constraint.

The interesting flavour choice is a part of why I rule that way. I have experimented with other sorts of changes that work for me, but the flavour of that one is cooler--it actually seems to add to the flavour of the character in every case we've experimented with so far.

 

[Prophet2b]

Even with Alienist, etc, I am perplexed that a Wizard Conjurer could have successfully obviated the need for a Fighter.

It could be that her fighter wasn't quite optimal. I also know I allowed things to take place in the campaign that I shouldn't have (especially the wizard getting hold of a very... large... spell book from another dead wizard, thus a lot of "free" spells known). It was my first campaign ever DMing, and I know I was far from a good DM in it. There are many mistakes I hope not to repeat...

Regardless of that, though, the Wizard still out shined the Fighter. She did not want to take the standard feat chains that every fighter takes. She wanted flexibility. Sadly, that hurt her character more than helped. That's not to say she wasn't a good fighter - she was! (Especially after getting reincarnated as a Lizardfolk.) But the Wizard was still quite capable of handling most every encounter, I'm sure.

 

[Rystil Arden]

There is a fighter in my game, and it works fine. But I'd be bored to tears playing it.

Trip, trip, trip.

An effective Fighter is a highly specialized beast. A Martial Adept can be equally effective while retaining flexibility.

That's why I love them so much.

Cheers, -- N

The interesting thing is that I think we are much the same as players, you and I. I too like playing the martial adepts but am bored to tears playing a Fighter. On the other hand, I don't want to force that upon my players, who don't hold the same opinions. And for at least one, pulling the carpet out from under him by adding new classes that make his obsolete would be like that. Now, he wouldn't get mad and rail out against that decision or anything like that, but I can tell he doesn't enjoy the sessions as much when his character is marginalised.

The nearly-single-school Bo9S Martial Adept is still a powerful and fun option to play, but because it focuses on a smaller set of choosable manoeuvres, it makes it harder to build a scary character through cherrypicking of the best of several schools. My players are pretty good at picking fun (for them, at least) and viable options for their characters to take care of the rest.