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

[Vocenoctum]

It is pretty well established and (I believe) accepted that the barbarian is fairly matched with the fighter. The paladin is a more complicated case with so many outside combat abilities, but I think the same general conclusion holds.

But all that aside, I have never seen anyone try to show that the barbarian is equal to the fighter by forcing the barbarian to give up interative attacks when the barbarian is in no way obligated to.
This was the cornerstone element of kigmatzomat's argument. So it isn't to do with any of the classes. It is a flaw in the arguement.

Actually, it's a limitation on manuevers, not the warblade. As has been stated, some of the maneuvers have a built in downside of not being usable with a full attack. A smite is usable with a full attack, as is Rage. How can we judge that overall the warblade is more than the fighter without extensive playtesting, and even then it's subjective?

Correction:
At 6th level, the fighter will have 4 Fighter Bonus Feats + heavy armor prof + more ranged weapons, the Warblade will have 1 Warblade Bonus Feat + the manuevers + stances + uncanny dodge + improved uncanny dodge + battle clarity + weapon aptitude + battle ardor + more HP + more SP.

From there the fighter gets a feat every other level and the warblade gets a feat or a special ability pretty much every other level (they each get seven more "specials" between 7th and 20th). PLUS the warblade gets better and better manuevers and stances and continues to get more hp and sp.

And the barbarian gets more and more rages and they get better and better.

It is possible to show that one class is clearly more powerful than another.
I think that has been done and the counter examples have been significantly flawed. (frex: forcing the war blade to make sub optimal tacitcal choices)

That's my point, what is "clear" to one person is not "clear" to another, because of differences in campaigns and outlooks. You're seeing flaws in arguements, when it's not a matter than can be objectively debated. Even the usefulness of being able to switch what weapon you're specialized in is open to debate, how can you judge a class?

What do you say to gribble's comments above?

I would say Dwarven Defenders suck.

 

[weiknarf]

I think the sword sage is more of a monk with different powers. Their powers do more but reset less. Mind you, I'd take a swordsage over a monk any day of the week.

Me too. With the right feats, maneuvers, and stances, the swordsage would make a spiffy monk. It's probably no accident that unarmed strike is a favored weapon in the styles exclusive to swordsages.

 

[Particle_Man]

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.

All I can say is it has happened and every time it has happened the players thought it was a big difference, and a sacrifice, and a waste of feats. Those pluses for every attack in every round of combat do add up, over time.

 

[kigmatzomat]

You are only part right.
It doesn't say anything about being forced to start your turn with the swift action.
It only says you must attack or burn a standard right after the swift.
There is nothing to prevent move - swift - standard.

My primary arguement was that they could not refresh and take a full attack. As I said, I wasn't entirely sure if they could or could not take a move action.

But again you neglect the main point I have repeatedly made.

The warblade can do the same iterative attacks as the fighter if he wishes OR add the bonus damage to the main attack. Because the war blade can select which option to use on a case by case basis he has a giant advantage.

A War blade 6 would easily have the EXACT same +7 bonus to damage. And can choose to take the second attack at -5 OR roll another +4d6 on top of the +7.
Also, a crit with a longsword will do 5.5+7 extra damage for +12.5 less than 10% of the time. Or you can just tack on an extra +14 avg with a normal hit.
An Axe crit is better, but only half as common, so the math still favors the warblade. Greatly. All that ON TOP of the warblades option to ignore this ability and fight just like the fighter.
Big bonus, no downside.

Note that I did give both the warblade and the fighter the same BAB and damage out of fairness. The value of criticals is highly variable, depending in the weapon selection and foes encountered, however the fact remains that bonus dice are not modified by crits and that interative attacks increase the odds of getting those crits. This is an unquantifiable but definite advantage to the fighter.

Yes, the warblade can choose to do extra damage if they have that maneuver. Since maneuvers can be wasted if the attack misses and maneuvers are a specific action that includes an attack (1 standard -"as part of this maneuver you may make an attack...") the warblade must declare that he is using it before making the attack, not wait until he sees if he hits.

But your arguement is one sided. The 6th level Fighter can have both power attack, cleave, two-weapon fighting, and weapon focus+specialization with both a primary and off-hand weapon. The 6th level Warblade can have focus+specialization plus either PA+cleave or TWF+weaponfocus-small.

In those cases where the bonus dice are preferrable (i.e. needing high rolls to hit the AC or high damage to punch through DR) the fighter has the option of taking max power attack with a 2-handed to maximize damage rolls, using TWF for maximum attack rolls or combining the approaches maximum power attack and fighting with both weapons.

The fighter, therefore, has multiple combat options available that are not an option for the warblade. Unlike maneuvers, these do not require any refresh action and the feats can be used in concert freely while maneuvers have more limited compatability.

 

[ohGr]

My primary arguement was that they could not refresh and take a full attack.

I'm not seeing that.

You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round (such as executing a quick, harmless flourish with your weapon).

You can make a "melee attack" as part of a Standard or Full-round action and i see nothing here that implies you must make your melee attack to recover as a Standard action. In fact, it seems pretty carefully worded so as not to make that implication.

 

[Victim]

Well, a melee attack implies just one.

Chances are the Dwarven Defender just sucked. The class isn't bad, but it's too easy to design that type of character into a corner. An excessive focus on defense can leave them a non-factor offensively. Plus a dragon fight is likely going to be too mobile for them to use their stance.

 

[Andor]

There are a lot of intrigueing possibilities in the ToB system. I'm contemplating using The Desert Wind and Stone Dragon paths as a basis for a class built around the 4 elements, making up another two paths for Air and Water. Does anyone think that would be worth the effort? I'm half tempted to submit it for Dragon.

 

[Kishin]

Personally, I think the Tome of Battle presents some of the most mechanically interesting systems put forth by WoTC in years. YMMV, but myself and the group of folks I usually game with are hugely pleased with, given that it allows us to design the sort of melee characters we've hungered after for years. Plus (and this a relatively minor fact), we're unabashed skill point chasers, so its nice to have melee characters with more than 2+Int.

With regards to the Warblade, bear in mind that the relatively limited number of total known manuevers (only 13 by 20th) is a substantial balancing factor, given that later manuevers begin to require X number of manuevers from that Discipline as prerequisites. The 9th level manuevers require 4 from their Discipline, which accounts for a significant fraction of the Warblades total known manuevers. You basically end up focusing in on two or maybe three styles.

Also, I honestly don't feel +100 damage to be a terribly overpowered ability when compared to say, the effectiveness of your average 9th level spell. Granted, an arcane or divine caster can't refresh those spells quite like the Warblade can, but they're sure probably packing more than enough for that one particular encounter. In any event, the basis of comparison is far better understood when measured against spellcasters, rather than Fighters.

 

[Graf]

In any event, the basis of comparison is far better understood when measured against spellcasters, rather than Fighters.

While I generally agree with you about the quality (in both the sence of “goodness” and the sense of “having more qualities to add to your game than before”) the new classes should not be compared to spellcasters.

While they are hybridized and have magical abilities the fact is that they are all martial weapon using high-hit-point primary or secondary-BAB classes.
They’re fighter-types.
The novelty is that they’ve given up some things (mostly armor proficiency and bonus feats) in exchange for spell-like attack options.

 

[gribble]

Well, a melee attack implies just one.

Wrong. There is the attack action which is a standard action and allows you to make one melee attack or one ranged attack. There is also the full attack action, which is a full round action and allows you to make multiple melee attacks or multiple ranged attacks (if BAB or other factors - TWF, etc allow). As currently worded, it would be perfectly legal to take a swift action to replenish your maneuvers, followed by a full attack action. This would meet the prerequisite of making a melee attack immediately after the swift action - the wording specifically doesn't say that you must take the attack action, or that the melee attack you must make can't be followed by further melee attacks. This is either an oversight or intentional on the part of WotC. If the former, it will soon be errated as (IMO) it just makes the warblade too good. With the limitation of having to follow the swift action with only a single melee attack (i.e.: the standard action attack action) the warblade is still a very good, but probably not broken, class. In fact, this is something I'll probably houserule, if anyone wants to play one in a game I run.

Chances are the Dwarven Defender just sucked. The class isn't bad, but it's too easy to design that type of character into a corner. An excessive focus on defense can leave them a non-factor offensively. Plus a dragon fight is likely going to be too mobile for them to use their stance.

Wrong again. Being based on a fighter, the DD had more feats than the warblade, and certainly wasn't based purely around defence (though one of the few advantages he had over the warblade was a higher AC - not that it really mattered against a CRD, which was pretty much hitting on 1s anyway). While he certainly seemed to suck compared to the druid, cleric, wizard and warblade, he was definitely better than the rogue, and I think he was about what I'd expect from a 20th level warrior type in terms of power scale. He just didn't stack up to the warblade, which as the other fighter-type is the best thing to compare him to. Even the DM (who presumably had seen the warblade in action all day) said that the class was broken.

Oh, and sorry about not getting the stats up. I haven't been home the last couple of evenings, but I'll make sure I get it done tonight or over the weekend.