Tome of Battle - Book of the Nine Swords

[EternalSword]

Well, I just wanted to start the discussion on allowing things from this book. I've played both swordsages and warblades at low levels face to face, and they are in my observations pretty balanced against everything except straight fighters, which is kind of weak, as always. Comments?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Wow, has it really been six months yet? Either way, I vote NO. The system for BoNS is cool, but it will negatively impact your game's balance unless you specifically rebalance everything for its inclusion. We want things to be as GM-friendly here as we can to continue to attract enough games.

 

[GwydapLlew]

Meh, as with a lot of other things that conventional EN wisdom lists as 'broken,' I've played around with the system and don't see it as being overpowered in relation to the standard classes. Quite a few people I know have tried them out, and other than a few combinations that can be abused (and few classes don't have such occasional combos) I haven't seen it as a problem.

Of course, I don't know that LEW should accomodate Bo9S. The classes are cool 'n all, but I don't know that they fit in well unless limited on a regional/organizational basis.

 

[Someone]

(non-judge here) I think Rystil is right about the system: balancing issues aside, it's entirely new and DMs and players that don't have the book will have a tough time keeping with the new rules in the book. Psionics, at least, are SRd and can be read online for whoever wants to check a character's ability, and spells and feats from other books follow existant rules. The Crusader's rules are particulary awful.

Also, the books uses heavily Immediate actions, which I believe don't mix well with pbp.

However I don't think it's a matter of dismissing the book out of hand; I've seen many rules that look very powerful on paper but that have unexpected limitations and balancing issues in real play. Maybe a couple judges could play a very short adventure, creating two charactrs each, and test how the new classes and abilities behave with a DM that doesn't own the book. I don't have it, just skimmed over the book once, so I could be the guinea pig if the idea goes through.

 

[Rystil Arden]

(non-judge here) I think Rystil is right about the system: balancing issues aside, it's entirely new and DMs and players that don't have the book will have a tough time keeping with the new rules in the book. Psionics, at least, are SRd and can be read online for whoever wants to check a character's ability, and spells and feats from other books follow existant rules. The Crusader's rules are particulary awful.

Also, the books uses heavily Immediate actions, which I believe don't mix well with pbp.

However I don't think it's a matter of dismissing the book out of hand; I've seen many rules that look very powerful on paper but that have unexpected limitations and balancing issues in real play. Maybe a couple judges could play a very short adventure, creating two charactrs each, and test how the new classes and abilities behave with a DM that doesn't own the book. I don't have it, just skimmed over the book once, so I could be the guinea pig if the idea goes through.

It would be hell in PbP with a GM who doesn't own the book, which is part of what I was alluding to.

As to the balance part--there are two kinds of balance I worry about:

For my home game, I usually allow things based on whether it will destroy my game and follow a good-for-the-goose-good-for-the-gander principle that usually has my players all agreeing with me on every ban I make. I am *much* more lax there than I am here, and I do allow a variety of the Bo9S classes in my game--they are nerfed to know fewer schools prevent the craziness from cherry-picking across schools, but I don't actually physically retard the classes in their abilities beyond that, and they are still at least as powerful as everyone else.

For a Living Campaign balance, however, we have to deal with the fact that some people do not have the book. If the book makes characters objectively better in certain archetypes, then it ain't good for the gander for the player who doesn't have the book. I'm sorry for those who disagree, but I've playtested the BoNS classes in various situations against straight-out Fighters that I've optimised pretty well, and the BoNS classes kick the Fighter's ass. Does that make them better than, say, a Wizard? It depends highly on strategy, but they don't have to be better than the Wizard to devastate and marginalise the player of a Fighter, particularly if the player of the Fighter feels sadness or resentment due to not being able to afford the book to compete (as some in balance threads have mentioned, in a home game, the Fighter can take feats to get a few manoeuvres, but it is not so in a Living Campaign if he doesn't have the book).

 

[Someone]

(Notice that I'm arguing for the sake of it; I'm OK for not allowing the book if only because of the complication it'd cause to DMs who don't own it)

If the book makes characters objectively better in certain archetypes, then it ain't good for the gander for the player who doesn't have the book

That'd work for Living ENworld, but not for Living Eberron, since the same can be said for other books out there currently allowed, IIRC. Particulary, I remember a PrC in Five Nations that's like the Eldritch Knight, only much better.

I've playtested the BoNS classes in various situations against straight-out Fighters that I've optimised pretty well, and the BoNS classes kick the Fighter's ass

After hearing the same, only with clerics, druids, monks, wizards, rogues, barbarians, psion, psywarriors, wilders, duskblades, warlocks, and virtually all prestige classes ever published, that argument has a lot less weight that it usually had.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Particulary, I remember a PrC in Five Nations that's like the Eldritch Knight, only much better.

I only approved the Knight Phantom because it is available via a free web preview.

 

[Patlin]

In my opinion, the Eldritch Knight is sub-par, and is unbalanced on the weak side. Also, Knight Phantom has some aditional prerequisites, which helps balance it. And yet finally, they nerfed the Knight Phantom's HD to D6 for LEB, making it more on par with the Eldritch Knight.

As to the Book of Nine Swords, I agree with Rystil. Love the book, can't wait to try it in play, but it looks unbalanced. I may be right or wrong on that, but one thing I can tell you for sure: it's *very* non standard in several ways, and would be tricky to DM without having access to it.

 

[Erekose13]

I'm with Patlin and RA, No. The introduction of a completely new rules set is beyond the scope of this because it would require more than just paraphrasing a feat or spell (or even PrC ability) for DMs to deal with them.

I'd go so far as to include no's on Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum right now for exactly the same reason.