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

[BryonD]

Well the fighter still gets Weapon Supremacy pre-epic.

True. At 18th level the warblade has to settle for +100 damage every other round.
Or taking three full attacks every two rounds.

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.

You know, mechanically I really don't see this as a big deal.
The frequency of a fighter to really wish they had a different specialization is very low.
But I dislike this ability for simple flavor reasons. And I may disallow it on that basis alone.

 

[BryonD]

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.

But this isn't a problem.

You are back to the same arguement that is resolved by pointing out that they are almost as good as a fighter on the turns they have to settle for "just" full attacking. Having 4 or 5 really nice options that you can use as desired and recover for virtually no cost is not going under the "problem" heading in my assessment.

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

Never forgot it in the first place. It isn't relevant to my point.
I'll accept that a given manuever may be balanced against a full attack and the action required is part of the balance. If I were claiming the manuevers themselves were unbalanced I'd have the same problem with the Sword Sage.
It is the rapid flexibility of the War Blade that is a problem.
They are 90% as good as the fighter for 1 round out of 3 or 4 and significantly better the rest of the time.

 

[Felon]

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?

I've read all these posts, and that's what I keep thinking as well. Either we're missing something, or the designers did. Really, what made them think a warblade is worth compensating with d12 hit dice and 4 skill pts/level (hell, having access to Tumble as a class skill is tatamount to a feat or special ability in and of itself IMO)?

And what really stands out above and beyond all that is how boring most of these abilities from a tactical point of view. Adding 100 points of damage to an attack, for instance, gives my inner munchkin a joygasm, but has zero appeal to the rest of me.

 

[kigmatzomat]

The majority of low and mid-level powers (<6th) don't have a significant impact on damage output but I think they fill the same role as the Tactical Feats, in that they provide options for particular kinds of tactics at the cost of making full attacks. The only discipline that really provides significant damage boost is Desert Wind, which is limited to the 3/4 BAB Sword Sage, which mitigates it somewhat.

At higher levels you may have some fairly high damage output Strikes but they tend to include a save or involve making a regular melee (non-touch) attack. At these levels, straight fighters are pretty well down their chosen combat path and with iterative attacks will be doing comparable or superior amounts of damage. It's kind of warlock-like in that there is a potent, singular attack and some at-will abilities that are kind of so-so.

The refresh of maneuvers is a little odd but I don't think it is unreasonable. The crusader has a limitless stream of maneuvers; yay divine intervention. The Warblade can slow his number of attacks and re-ready. The Sword Sage has the largest pool of known and readied maneuvers and will probably get through most encounters without needing to use a refresh. The Sage is also compensated in having exclusive access to the most powerful maneuvers & stances.

The visual "cinema" difference in power-attackers, TWFers and martial adepts is that the power-attacker makes a couple of forceful blows that smash into their target, the two weapon fighter becomes an array of flashing blades but the martial adept considers the target and makes *ONE* very particular attack. It's the difference between a semi-automatic shotgun, an SMG, and a bolt-action sniper rifle.

 

[BryonD]

The majority of low and mid-level powers (<6th) don't have a significant impact on damage output but I think they fill the same role as the Tactical Feats, in that they provide options for particular kinds of tactics at the cost of making full attacks. The only discipline that really provides significant damage boost is Desert Wind, which is limited to the 3/4 BAB Sword Sage, which mitigates it somewhat.

You need to look again.
Try Stone Dragon: +2d6 at 2nd level; +4d6 at 3rd; +6d6 at 5th
Tiger claw has some nice ones as well.

At higher levels you may have some fairly high damage output Strikes but they tend to include a save or involve making a regular melee (non-touch) attack.

A full BAB warblade isn't going to have a problem hitting with their primary attack.

At these levels, straight fighters are pretty well down their chosen combat path and with iterative attacks will be doing comparable or superior amounts of damage. It's kind of warlock-like in that there is a potent, singular attack and some at-will abilities that are kind of so-so.

So-so????

And you are discarding that the War Blade can take the same fighter feats. The fact that the fighter gets an extra +2 for greater specialization 2 levels sooner is not close to making up for +6d6 on primary attack every other round.

The refresh of maneuvers is a little odd but I don't think it is unreasonable.

Can you back that up with some explanation of your opinion?

The crusader has a limitless stream of maneuvers; yay divine intervention.

OK.

The Warblade can slow his number of attacks and re-ready.

Wrong. He can re-ready all as a swift action with an attack. No slowing required.

The Sword Sage has the largest pool of known and readied maneuvers and will probably get through most encounters without needing to use a refresh. The Sage is also compensated in having exclusive access to the most powerful maneuvers & stances.

Ok.

The visual "cinema" difference in power-attackers, TWFers and martial adepts is that the power-attacker makes a couple of forceful blows that smash into their target, the two weapon fighter becomes an array of flashing blades but the martial adept considers the target and makes *ONE* very particular attack. It's the difference between a semi-automatic shotgun, an SMG, and a bolt-action sniper rifle.

Except your sniper rifle converts into a shotgun or smg as a free action at will.

 

[Particle_Man]

You know, mechanically I really don't see this as a big deal. The frequency of a fighter to really wish they had a different specialization is very low.

Apparently we have been exposed to different campaigns. Let's just say that for me, this is a significant difference!

 

[Vocenoctum]

But this isn't a problem.

You are back to the same arguement that is resolved by pointing out that they are almost as good as a fighter on the turns they have to settle for "just" full attacking. Having 4 or 5 really nice options that you can use as desired and recover for virtually no cost is not going under the "problem" heading in my assessment.
<snip>
It is the rapid flexibility of the War Blade that is a problem.
They are 90% as good as the fighter for 1 round out of 3 or 4 and significantly better the rest of the time.

Like I mentioned before, I think the parallels between fighter and warblade are okay, but the warblade/barbarian comparison is more accurate. The barbarian also gets 4 skill points, d12 hd, and is 90% effective as the fighter during rounds when he's not using his Rage. It comes down (for me) to whether the maneuvers balance closer to rage. (One shot manuevers vs multiround rage).

I've made single classed fighters before, but I think it's far more common to see people dip into fighter for the feats.

Also, of course, if you're using the ToB book at all, there's nothing stopping a fighter from getting manuevers through feats anyway.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Apparently we have been exposed to different campaigns. Let's just say that for me, this is a significant difference!

I can see the value, though I dislike the flavor of it. When making a character focused on a weapon, I usually would get Ancestral Relic or something like it so I could have more direct control over what happens.

 

[BryonD]

Like I mentioned before, I think the parallels between fighter and warblade are okay, but the warblade/barbarian comparison is more accurate. The barbarian also gets 4 skill points, d12 hd, and is 90% effective as the fighter during rounds when he's not using his Rage. It comes down (for me) to whether the maneuvers balance closer to rage. (One shot manuevers vs multiround rage).

I've made single classed fighters before, but I think it's far more common to see people dip into fighter for the feats.

Fair enough.

I'd say that the manuevers way outshine rage because they are so far from being one-shot.
If they were once per encounter, then I'd say ok. Maybe even a little weak.
But with the ability to use a given maneuver every other round, or one of various maneuvers 4 out of 5 rounds or better, with no upper limit at all, the scales go way to one side.

If an 18th level barbarian does a power attack with -15 to hit and scores a crit and takes down the dragon, there will be high fives all around.

If the 18th level warblade just says, I attack for +100 with my full primary attack, any hit will do, and takes down the dragon, it will be a total void of fun.

Also, of course, if you're using the ToB book at all, there's nothing stopping a fighter from getting manuevers through feats anyway.

Other than the limit of taking the feat no more than three times, which greater limits access to manuevers. And the fact that your initiator level = 1/2 your fighter level, also greatly restricting your selection.

 

[BryonD]

Apparently we have been exposed to different campaigns. Let's just say that for me, this is a significant difference!

I can see how it would come into play frequently. But does it REALLY make a big difference?

The fighter gets +2 to hit and +4 damage from the big four feats.
Being able to switch day to day won't make that big a difference.

If your fighter goes into Longsword and you find the Greataxe of godlike power, then what longswords have you found? Is the DM just hosing you?

On the other hand, if you have a +2 longsword and find a +3 greataxe are you going to switch for just +1? And even if you do, the +1 is not that big a deal at the end of the day.

And, as Vocenoctum was getting at, the idea that a longsword build warrior would suddenly forget how to use to longsword and instantly learn perfection with a greataxe is just terrible flavor. Using the rules to get around anti-fun DMing is a bad soution.

(Now if you could change weapons at will, melee one fight and ranged the next, for example, then that would be very significant. And broken)