Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords: Proto-Review

[weiknarf]

Something I find interesting about these classes is that they are extremely dip friendly, and even more interestingly the later you dip the more powerful that dip becomes. For example a Rogue who dips into Swordsage at 9th level has an initiator level of 5 and can take up to level 3 manuvers and stances. Hello Shadow Hand goodness.

Huh?

 

[Andor]

Huh?

Manuvers are like spells. They are organized into 9 levels and access to them is based in initiator level with the same progression as a wizard.

IE: Initiator level 1 = Level one manuvers
-- Initiator level 3 = Level two manuvers
-- Initiator level 5 = Level three manuvers
and so on...

The difference is that while caster levels are granted only by casting classes, levels in any class grant .5 initiator levels.

So a level 8 Rogue Level 1 Swordsage has a SwordSage initiator level of (8/2) + 1 = 5 and can take level 1,2, or 3 manuvers. Fun, huh?

 

[coyote6]

Manuvers are like spells. They are organized into 9 levels and access to them is based in initiator level with the same progression as a wizard.

IE: Initiator level 1 = Level one manuvers
-- Initiator level 3 = Level two manuvers
-- Initiator level 5 = Level three manuvers
and so on...

The difference is that while caster levels are granted only by casting classes, levels in any class grant .5 initiator levels.

I suspect that caster levels may work something like that, someday. And I think I'll like it.

 

[Staffan]

So a level 8 Rogue Level 1 Swordsage has a SwordSage initiator level of (8/2) + 1 = 5 and can take level 1,2, or 3 manuvers. Fun, huh?

However, most maneuvers above 1st level have prerequisites that have to be satisfied first. So one level of a martial adept class won't help that much, but you'd get a lot more mileage out of a Rogue 8/Swordsage 3 than a Rogue 8/Sorcerer 3.

 

[Particle_Man]

YOu know, a magic item that did nothing but act as a "floating maneuver prerequisite" could be very handy. Like a ring that lets you take maneuvers that ordinarily require another maneuver of that discipline as a prerequisite, but the ring serves as the prerequisite, despite not itself providing a maneuver.

 

[vulcan_idic]

Having actually gotten my hands on it and had a chance to read it now, I really really like it. I believe folks when they say there is a potential for abuse, but more important in my own humble view, since my group doesn't seem overly abusive, is the potential for storytelling - and I think this stuf has amazing storytelling potential!!

 

[Particle_Man]

Let's compare that Damage to a Warriors Shall we. Not a Barbarian in his rage, not a Fighter with his Feats, not an evil-smiting Paladin, But the humble NPC Class Warrior.

9350 gold will purchase a +1 shocking greatsword, leaving 3650 gold unspent.
using this sword and increasing his power attack penalty to compensate for the monks flurry of blows penalty and his own enhancement bonus, the warrior now deals 3d6+11, a hair more than twice as much as the monk.

This is core only, it's not some secret twink build, and it's an NPC class for crying out loud! But it still beats the Monk.

Good argument, although to be fair an NPC class has less gold to spend than a PC class of the same level.

This reminds of me of the argument that a monk would be better off using a great sword, despite not being proficient in it, than attacking unarmed with a flurry at low levels.

 

[NilesB]

Good argument, although to be fair an NPC class has less gold to spend than a PC class of the same level.

That's just a Guideline for creating encounters, it wouldn't apply if a player actually wanted to create a character with an NPC class.

 

[kigmatzomat]

One of the gamers in my group handed me a copy of ToB on Saturday b/c he thought it would be something we might be able to incorporate into our campaign. This should be prefaced with: our game has been running for 6 years, it as 20th level and uses 3.0 rules. I use a very small smattering of 3.5 mechanics (primarily the XPH over PsiHb) but generally only where there is no overlap with 3.0. This also means that power balance is a big issue. I personally disagree with the assumptions made in the 3.5 revision, which means I am a harsh reviewer of anything 3.5.

The fighter10/"dervish"10 and the "scout" 20 (house variants of dervish & scout classes, very close to 3.5 by chance) are both candidates for Martial Adepts as neither shows any interest in magic. if they took a martial adept class at 21st level they would have an Initiator level of 11 (20/2 + 1) and qualify for 6th level feats.

Something I find interesting about these classes is that they are extremely dip friendly, and even more interestingly the later you dip the more powerful that dip becomes. For example a Rogue who dips into Swordsage at 9th level has an initiator level of 5 and can take up to level 3 manuvers and stances. Hello Shadow Hand goodness.

Yes this is a very dip-friendy class but primarily only at higher levels where the Initiator level from other classes comes into play. Dipping into a Martial Adept at low level does little, especially since there is no mechanism for non-Adepts changing their Manuevers.

The Initiator level being based on more than the adept classes is a sound one: people who know how to fight tend to be good at doing things that involve fighting. I personally might have made it based on BAB rather than pure level but I guess there is the Epic side of things to worry about.

The quick build of the scout20/warblade1 (diamond soul) resulted in someone who could do one horribly damaging attack (concentration check x2 damage = 2d20 + 24 based on dumping all the warblade skill points into Concentration) instead of a full-round attack, could take 2 attacks of opportunity on a person for performing one provoking action, make one attack as a touch attack (I think), and whose AC goes up when foes miss him (black pearl of doubt).

So: is doing 2d20+24 worth giving up multiple melee attacks? Maybe, maybe not. It's great for the scout who is a finesse fighter but less useful for a high-strength character. The touch attack is not significantly different than the Deep Impact psionic feet. Being able to make 2 AoOs against a mage for casting a spell is darned handy but not a deal breaker, especially since it requires a "refresh" action before you can do it again. The AC thing is nice but it hinges on the opponents' skill or luck.

The d12 HD perhaps a bit much but that's the only thing I can see wrong with warblade.

I'm going to have trouble integrating the Martial Adepts into my game due to story concerns but mechanically I have no problem with it. The maneuvers are powerful but generally on par what a paladin/ranger's spells might provide at equivalent levels and doesn't have the "pearl of power" option that the casters have. Maneuvers are, IMO, one of the best new mechanics I've seen in quite some time.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I'll also suggest comparing the Scout20/warblade1 with a scout20/psiwarrior1 or a scout20/warmage1. Those classes can result in shield/armor/insight AC bonuses, truestrike, bonuses to grapple checks, natural weapons, DR, and special senses.

I think they are essentially equivalent increases in power. The 1st level warblade has 3 maneuvers, each limiting the wb to 1 attack/round, before he has to refresh, again limiting him to 1/attack/round. The casters can burn a single spell and gain the effect for the duration of virtually all encounters while taking multiple attacks the remaining rounds.