Introducing Tome of Battle

[nyjastul69]

I just got a copy of ToB and would like to introduce some of it's concepts into our current game. I've given it a very good once over and I think I'm ready to use it. The party is currently exploring the World's Largest Dungeon(region J). The party will be 14th level(ECL14) next session. The party composition is:

-Dwarven Wizard, Master Specialist (Conjuration) (she maxed MS at lvl13)
-Minotaur Ranger(TWF path)
-Human Cleric of Hextor, his PrC is a home brew version of the Radiant Servant of Pelor. I think we settled on Corrupt Servant of Hextor as the name.
-Human Rogue, built for search & spot, not for efficient use of SA.

They are obviously not optimizers. As unoptimized as they are, melee (Ranger, Rogue) still needs a bit of help here. I doubt any of them will consider multi-classing into a martial adept class, not that it would help at this level anyhow. So it seems to me that Martial Scripts are the way to go. I was originally thinking 5th-9th level scripts. Since manuevers don't seem nearly as powerful spells I'm reconsidering. I don't think several 8-9th level manuevers would be excessive(read broken). I think a good stance for the Ranger would be Supreme Blade Parry. I'm still looking for a good stance for the Rogue.

The way I see it, allowing them access to 8-10 scripts (2 stances, one for the rogue, one for the ranger) won't intrude upon the current game balance, even if all the other manuevers are 9th level. 100 pts of extra damage or adding a 20d6 to an attack doesn't seem ridiculous. I'm pretty sure I get the balance bits accurate, but until the rubber hits the road, I'm never sure.

I guess what I'm asking is: What am I missing and what are your experiences in regards to introducing ToB to a group?

Edit: The Wizard is a Conjuration MS. The Ranger is a TWF path. Both are editited above.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You've misread something.

You have to have, otherwise you'd know that multiclassing into a martial adept class is a fine idea at almost any level.

If one of your characters took a single level of warblade they'd instantly gain access to 3 manuevers and one stance of up to 4th level. Someone could pick up moment of the perfect mind, to cover a weak will save; emerald razor, for when a hit absolutely has to land; and bounding assualt to charge in a cluttered room; and the absolute steel stance, to pick up some extra speed and ac when they use that charge.

Shadow hand maneuvers could do wonders for the rogue's rogueishness, with strikes for debuffing and boosts or a stance for misdirection and stealth.

Adding scripts into the mix before their next level up will have them drooling over these classes if they're fond of melee combat, and they can fill in the gap of higher level maneuvers until it's time to roll new characters. Fully expect your minotaur's player to make a martial adept of his next character, if that minotaur is an archetypal character for him, at the very least.

I'm not even a fan-boy for ToB. I believe that a well-built fighter can stand side-by-side with a warblade just fine, but I couldn't deny the wonders ToB's done for melee types if I tried.

[sonofzeal]

Honestly, I think the best approach is by throwing some free goodies at them. Everyone likes their character to feel special, especially if that special-ness was earned somehow. So throwing in some free training ("Martial Study" as a free bonus feat) as a quest reward would be a nice way to edge them in to it. It'll raise them up the power curve slightly, but it sounds like that's a good thing for your group.


Wizard - Diamond Mind might be best, especially the Concentration in place of Fortitude or Reflex ones.

Ranger - If he's TWF, then Sudden Leap for swift-action-movement puts that Minotaur strength to good use and lets him full-attack more. Rabid Wolf Strike might be an alternative otherwise.

Cleric - Conc-for-Ref again, or Iron Guard's Glare if he's the party tank (seems likely, being the only one with good armor prof - and yes I realize Iron Guard's Glare is a stance, but this is bonus and you can fudge it). Or Mountain Hammer or Emerald Razor if they're more combat oriented.

Rogue - Cloak of Deception or Shadow Jaunt, most likely.



Whichever they choose, it's a free little bonus on top of whatever they're already doing, will feel cool without raising their power too much, and will let them get a taste for how maneuvers feel and work without having to dive in head first.

[HunterOfJello]

Swordsage'd on the feat suggestion I see.

I give my players bonus feats at times as rewards for certain events. You could have them help or hang out with a NPC who has levels in one of the classes from the ToB for a little while so they get an idea of how it works in practice. Once they've accomplished some specified degree of helpfulness, they could each be somehow magically taught 1 maneuver of your choice through the Martial Study feat. The feat gives you an ability that can only be used once per encounter, but that's pretty cool for as a reward feat.

~~~


Contrary to the above poster, I would suggest giving them each active abilities, and not reactive or passive ones. I would however, keep all the free maneuvers at 1st level and no higher. Pick stuff that is effective enough to use, but not effective to the point that it will visibly increase their power level. Give out some "cool new toys" not some "cool new weapons". There's a big difference.


Cleric - Crusader’s Strike. He can attack and heal with the same action. That's awesome for a cleric and could pique their interest even at a high level. The healing amount would be only 1d6+5, but that's better to use than wasting a spell on casting Cure Light Wounds during the middle of a fight.

Rogue - Sapphire Nightmare Blade or Distracting Ember. If he's TWF then definitely Distracting Ember. It makes an opponent flanked for a turn and allows for the use of sneak attacks. Sapphire Nightmare Blade is similar, but only for 1 attack.

Ranger - Wolf Fang Strike is the most likely. Another one could be better. This doesn't follow the traditional rules of how the feat works because it normally requires 1 prerequisite maneuver beforehand, but this is all DM fiat anyway. If he uses a 2hander do Steel Wind. Leading the Attack could be good if he's normally a team player, especially since +4 to attack is massive for wizard throwing around ranged touch attacks. Mighty Throw is good too.

Wizard - Mighty Throw. Because a wizard running up to someone and then throwing them just sounds too awesome.

[only1doug]

ToB specifically covers having Magic items that grant maneuvers.

The group's first encounter with ToB stuff can be a NPC with several items, each granting a different manuever so that when the party defeat him they have a bunch of item granted manuevers available to them.

The next encounters could then be with NPCs with actual ToB classes.

[Salanmander]

I would advise against giving them 9th level maneuvers. As others have said, many of the maneuvers stay relevant throughout the game (sudden leap is /excellent/ for any full-attacker with ranks in jump).

More to the point, if you want to introduce someone to a new mechanic, don't make it take over their character, make it augment their character. Giving them several 9th level maneuvers would absolutely dominate the way they play their characters, whereas things like moment of perfect mind and cloak of shadows would allow them to more effectively use their current abilities.

[Novawurmson]

Before I say anything else, I have to say: Island of Blades for the Rogue. I DM a 3.5/PF game, and it's such a huge bonus to be able to activate sneak attack without dancing around all the time.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

One quick correction to Kelb_Panthera. Even if your first level of swordsage isn't your first character level, you never get a stance above level 1 as your first stance known. Quoting the Warblade description:

Stances Known: You begin play with knowledge of one 1st-level stance from any discipline open to warblades.(And Swordsage and Crusader say the same thing.)

That being out of the way, my players all built their characters using core classes from the start. At about 7th level, another friend was in town and wanted to join the game for a week as a swordsage. I looked over the rules and gave the go-ahead. His character ended up sticking around a little longer than he did, long enough to give the party's ranger enough training for the ranger to take her next level in swordsage, and direct the ranger to the swordsage who trained him so she could take more levels if she went for more training and managed to impress the mentor figure (which she did).

[Andorax]

I also like the idea of using martial scripts to introduce the concept...though stick with the ones that are comparable to what they'd be able to do now...a few well chosen 3rd, 4th, or 5th level scripts should definately get their interest.

[Loki_42]

One quick correction to Kelb_Panthera. Even if your first level of swordsage isn't your first character level, you never get a stance above level 1 as your first stance known. Quoting the Warblade description:
(And Swordsage and Crusader say the same thing.)

That's a huge point of contention, because nowhere does the game define what begin play means. I've never once met a person who actually played as if that was the intent, and it can't work as pure RAW if it's so open to interpretation. Reaching 14th-15th level is hardly beginning play.

[Madwand99]

Don't use Martial Scripts. They are pretty awful, so useless I'd probably never use one. Instead, give them one of the various items based off of Crown of the White Raven. Those, at least, are useful. A few of the low-level versions are cheap and allows a PC to use several low-level maneuvers per encounter (one per such item).

[Lord Il Palazzo]

That's a huge point of contention, because nowhere does the game define what begin play means. I've never once met a person who actually played as if that was the intent, and it can't work as pure RAW if it's so open to interpretation. Reaching 14th-15th level is hardly beginning play.I've seen plenty of people use this interpretation and it seems to fit with other classes that "begin play" with certain things (wizards who "begin play" with spellbooks that contain a certain number of beginning spells, druids who may "begin play" with animal companions, etc.)

Either way, the rules don't say you can start with a stance above first level so one should probably at least mention that there's some contention rather than just declaring that you can take a fourth level stance.

[nyjastul69]

Sorry it took a bit of time for me to respond to this thread. I don't have time time every single day to devote to message boards. That being said, I did read the responses, they are all greatly appreciated and they've given me a better understanding of the material.

@ Kelb_Panthera, I didn't actually misread anything, I just had huge brain fart with the 'not that it would help at this level anyhow.' bit. Yeah, I actually understand that non-martial adepts are considered 1/2 character level for initiator purposes. Please excuse the noxious vapors emanating from my ears. :smallredface:

I actually went with the scripts instead of permanent magic items. For one, I didn't want to give out a permanent item, taking an over powered item away is different than dealing with an over powered one-off. I wasn't sure how they'd 'take' to the flavor of ToB either. Maybe it was overly cautious, but that's how I generally am as a DM. They did like it though. And, as I thought, none of them really wanted to muli-class into a martial adept class. They seem to be enjoying the paths they've chosen.

The Ranger expressed interest in the martial study/stance feats though. I argued that muti-classing would be a much more efficient option, but I think he's dissuaded by the whole known/readied element of the classes. To paraphrase him: 'If I wanted to be a caster I'd have chosen to be a caster'. I don't think he wants to bother himself with 'prepping stuff'. He wants simple direct options. I'll work on that a little bit. What I don't want to do is force the options from this book down their throats. They choose their paths and I DM around that.

I decided to give them some single encounter choices, the stances notwithstanding.

The scripts I gave them were:

Dancing Blade Form
Assasins Stance or Aura of Chaos (their choice)
Finishing Move
Raging Mongoose
Soaring Throw
Ghost Blade
Ancient Mountain Hammer
Pouncing Charge

If my understanding is correct, the 2 stances can be had indefinitely. The other maneuvers can only be used once, ever. Is this correct per RAW?

Edited for clarity, grammar and punctuation. As well as I can anywho.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sorry it took a bit of time for me to respond to this thread. I don't have time time every single day to devote to message boards. That being said, I did read the responses, they are all greatly appreciated and they've given me a better understanding of the material.

@ Kelb_Panthera, I didn't actually misread anything, I just had huge brain fart with the 'not that it would help at this level anyhow.' bit. Yeah, I actually understand that non-martial adepts are considered 1/2 character level for initiator purposes. Please excuse the noxious vapors emanating from my ears. :smallredface:

I actually went with the scripts instead of permanent magic items. For one, I didn't want to give out a permanent item, taking an over powered item away is different than dealing with an over powered one-off. I wasn't sure how they'd 'take' to the flavor of ToB either. Maybe it was overly cautious, but that's how I generally am as a DM. They did like it though. And, as I thought, none of them really wanted to muli-class into a martial adept class. They seem to be enjoying the paths they've chosen.

The Ranger expressed interest in the martial study/stance feats though. I argued that muti-classing would be a much more efficient option, but I think he's dissuaded by the whole known/readied element of the classes. To paraphrase him: 'If I wanted to be a caster I'd have chosen to be a caster'. I don't think he wants to bother himself with 'prepping stuff'. He wants simple direct options. I'll work on that a little bit. What I don't want to do is force the options from this book down their throats. They choose their paths and I DM around that.

I decided to give them some single encounter choices, the stances notwithstanding.

The scripts I gave them were:

Dancing Blade Form
Assasins Stance or Aura of Chaos (their choice)
Finishing Move
Raging Mongoose
Soaring Throw
Ghost Blade
Ancient Mountain Hammer
Pouncing Charge

If my understanding is correct, the 2 stances can be had indefinitely. The other maneuvers can only be used once, ever. Is this correct per RAW?

Edited for clarity, grammar and punctuation. As well as I can anywho.

I just reread my post. Sorry, that was a bit more abrasive than I intended. :smallredface:

You appear to have the RAW correct. However, I wouldn't allow the use of a martial script to give a character a stance forever-after.

I've always house-ruled it that you start an encounter with no active stance and that, unless the player states otherwise, he drops out of whatever stance he's in 5 rounds after combat ends. He also loses the stance if he's rendered unconcious, though that might be in the RAW.

It just doesn't make any rational sense, for even the most dedicated martial artist, to always be in a stance unless he's unconcious.

[nyjastul69]

I just reread my post. Sorry, that was a bit more abrasive than I intended. :smallredface:

You appear to have the RAW correct. However, I wouldn't allow the use of a martial script to give a character a stance forever-after.

I've always house-ruled it that you start an encounter with no active stance and that, unless the player states otherwise, he drops out of whatever stance he's in 5 rounds after combat ends. He also loses the stance if he's rendered unconcious, though that might be in the RAW.

It just doesn't make any rational sense, for even the most dedicated martial artist, to always be in a stance unless he's unconcious.

I didn't find your comment abrasive in the least. I was just clarifying my lack of clarity. :smallcool:

I am incorrect about the forever bit. It's not the Unconcious condition that ends a stance, it's the Helpless condition that ends a stance. :smalleek: Which means that when one sleeps for the night they lose their stance. D'Oh! I've got a bit of 'splainin/'pologizin to do to my players. Crappity Crap 'N' the Crapinoids! My fault for being all gung-ho on the intro to ToB. They'll get over it though. I still feel foolish. Dagnabit, that should not have escaped my attention. :yuk: Thanks though. :smallsmile: