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

[BryonD]

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

To my read the Special abilities do not stack up to the Fighter's bonus feats. But they are not wildly behind.
With the manuevers and stances thrown in it seems a better than the fighter but maybe not wildly.

The thing that I really sticking on is how easy it is for them to recover their manuevers.
I mean, the sword sage has to give up a turn to get ONE back.
The war blade can get ALL back with an attack or, at worst give up just a standard action.

Add in some extra skill points and the D12 (which really seems odd) and I don't see it.

The lack of heavy armor and ranged attacks are not meaningless. But I just don't see them as enough.

Am I missing something?

 

[Cadfan]

The maneuvers aren't earth shatteringly powerful. Most of the attacks are standard actions and will deny the Warblade his full attack. Most of the stances are only situationally useful. Few are worth having on continuously in all encounters. Many of the cooler maneuvers require an extra skill check to succeed, which increases the chance that they won't do anything at all. Maneuvers are easily recovered, but a warblade trying to use lots of maneuvers will have to recover them every 3 rounds or so (you can consume 2 maneuvers per round using a strike and a swift action maneuver). Most maneuvers are also only situationally useful as compared to a standard attack, and warblade's will frequently find themselves wishing that they had 1) selected, and 2) readied entirely different maneuvers.

Its a good class, but the fighter still has his role. I personally favor the Tome of Battle classes simply because I like the variety, but if you want generically useful, always available boosts, feats are the way to go rather than maneuvers.

As for the swordsage versus the warblade, well, I try not to do ability for ability comparisons. I just look at the class and say, "is this a class I'd be willing to play?" If so, I don't worry about whether some specific ability is better or worse than another classes. I'd be very happy to play a swordsage, so I don't worry about whether its maneuver recovery is as good as a warblade's.

 

[BryonD]

The maneuvers aren't earth shatteringly powerful. Most of the attacks are standard actions and will deny the Warblade his full attack. Most of the stances are only situationally useful. Few are worth having on continuously in all encounters. Many of the cooler maneuvers require an extra skill check to succeed, which increases the chance that they won't do anything at all. Maneuvers are easily recovered, but a warblade trying to use lots of maneuvers will have to recover them every 3 rounds or so (you can consume 2 maneuvers per round using a strike and a swift action maneuver). Most maneuvers are also only situationally useful as compared to a standard attack, and warblade's will frequently find themselves wishing that they had 1) selected, and 2) readied entirely different maneuvers.

Yeah, but a warblade can still full attack and be almost as good as a fighter as a worst case scenario. They are nearly as good always and notably better frequently.

Frequency of need to recover isn't very meanignful since it is so freaking easy.

And some of them seem plenty strong to me.
9th level fighter two attacks round 1 two attacks round 2
9th level warblade one attack with +6d6 and ignore DR, two attacks and recover.

or even more likely:

9th level fighter two attacks, move to new target and 1 attack
9th level warblade: one attack +6d6, move and 1 attack and recovery

Its a good class, but the fighter still has his role. I personally favor the Tome of Battle classes simply because I like the variety, but if you want generically useful, always available boosts, feats are the way to go rather than maneuvers.

I think the fighter will retain some use just because. And I also really like the flavor of Tome of Battle. But I don't see just taking it at face value that the feats stand up to the manuvers and stances.

As for the swordsage versus the warblade, well, I try not to do ability for ability comparisons. I just look at the class and say, "is this a class I'd be willing to play?" If so, I don't worry about whether some specific ability is better or worse than another classes. I'd be very happy to play a swordsage, so I don't worry about whether its maneuver recovery is as good as a warblade's.

Actully, my point was that the sword sage's recovery seems really decent and the warblade's is to good.

 

[Particle_Man]

Well the fighter still gets Weapon Supremacy pre-epic.

But the Warblade's ability to refocus the weapon he is specializing in is pretty huge in some campaigns where you can't buy your specialty weapon of +5 Slay All Who Oppose Me at S-Mart.

 

[Solarious]

It wouldn't be too much of a hassle to houserule Fighters full Initiator progression. Then Fighters can unleash +100 damage strikes, unleash a barrage of attacks that only end when you miss, and enter stances which increase your AC by 2 each time they miss, while still being able to utilize Bounding Blitz and Combat Focus to wreak a more consistant havoc.

And recovery costs actions in the midst of combat, while they already automatically recharge after 1 minute out of initiatives (I believe this includes anyone who has manuvers solely through feats). To be frank, Swordsages suck at recovery. I mean, a full action just to get a single one? They get the most readied as well as the most learned, to be sure, but they also have to ration each use out carefully, lest they run out in the middle of combat.

A Warblade has the opposite problem, with fewer manuvers to utilize, and unable to branch out effectively in their progressions, lest they be unable to meet prequisites for their high level powers. Thus, their improved recovery abilities. And it is often more effective to expend as many manuvers as possible before recovering, and being reduced to a single attack is somewhat underwhelming.

Please keep in mind that many of the most powerful (or flexible) manuvers require standard of full round actions.

 

[dvvega]

I just picked this book up and I liked it. I disagree that it is badly organised. The essence of the system is setting up the character with feats and maneuvers/stances and letting them fly. I don't see myself referencing the book too often.

The book could have done without the monsters IMHO, the weapons of legacy are there for the flavour (the nine swords themselves) but could have been left out without a problem.

The space saved from that could have added information on developing new schools if desired (for example an arctic version of the Desert Wind).

I was concerned about the Warblade 9 maneuver that does +100 points of damage on a single strike. That thing is a little overpowered ... I would have preferred something that does XdY damage like a spell.

 

[Graf]

I also got the book and think its (conceptually) awesome.
I think i'd be tempted to just replace fighter with warblade actually.

I disagree that it is badly organised.

Try to make a few characters.

The fact is that vitually all characters are going to get manuvers from different schools.
Personally I think that's very cool.
But it means they should just have alphabatized the manuvers.

The page flipping is a bit nuts even for a mid-level character. You've got your class, you've got random pages with important info (like page 39), you've got all your different manuvers each carefully hidden away in their school sections, the feats (incluidng the school related feats) in their feats seciont and finally special PrC only stances and manuvers in another section.
Is hurried DM going to remember that you look for Mountain Fortress Stance under Deepstone Sentinel and not the Stone school? Why should s/he have to?

 

[gribble]

I was concerned about the Warblade 9 maneuver that does +100 points of damage on a single strike. That thing is a little overpowered ... I would have preferred something that does XdY damage like a spell.

IMO, the one that does 2d6 Con damage is worse... especially when you're doing that every other round.

At GenCon, the WotC booth was running games of 6-8 pre-made 20th level PCs vs the collosal red dragon. There were two fighter types - a dwarven defender and a warblade 15/master of the nine 5. I didn't get a close look at the dwarven defender's stats, but in gameplay the warblade crapped all over him... a properly built 20th level warblade (i.e.: with a ring of free action to negate the grapple attacks) could probably have taken the CRD alone, which is kind of scary...

I kept a copy of the warblade character sheet - when I get home I can post the stats if people are keen. I wish now I'd grabbed a copy of the other character sheets for closer comparison.

 

[Mercule]

I kept a copy of the warblade character sheet - when I get home I can post the stats if people are keen. I wish now I'd grabbed a copy of the other character sheets for closer comparison.

Yes, please. Also, what age/CR was the dragon? (IIRC, there are a couple in the collossal size.)

 

[gribble]

Yes, please. Also, what age/CR was the dragon? (IIRC, there are a couple in the collossal size.)

Ok, I'll try and post the highlights tonight.

I don't know for sure what age/CR the dragon was, as I never got a good look at the stats the DM was using (and all the sheets were somewhat optimised for fast play - only outlining the stats needed for the adventure - I'm not even sure if the dragon stat sheet included CR on it). Given that it was groups of 6-8 20th level PCs and I saw a TPK (admittedly with fairly inexperienced players), I'm assuming it was the CR 24 great wyrm out of the MM (with some draconomicon feats/spells/etc). The DM who ran our group through it certainly played the dragon very well/intelligently, including some cool uses of abilities (like the contingent Dimension Door the first time we managed to flank the beast).

It was definitely a fun fight, and as written (with fairly sub-optimal item/spell selection for some characters) it was pretty challenging.