Opinions on the book of nine swords

[toddex]

A friend of mine has been using this book, im not all that familiar with it only what ive read of the class he plays. Most of the stuff hes done to me seems over powered, which makes me not really like this book.
What about all of you?

[Dausuul]

A friend of mine has been using this book, im not all that familiar with it only what ive read of the class he plays. Most of the stuff hes done to me seems over powered, which makes me not really like this book.
What about all of you?

Well, my number one rule on sourcebooks is not to allow anything until you've sat down and read the book in question carefully--and read it from the point of view of a "munchkin" player who's actively trying to break the system. Even well-intentioned players have a habit of remembering the rules that work in their favor and forgetting the ones that work against them.

That said, the Book of Nine Swords certainly has some powerful stuff in it. I haven't seen it enough in practice to say whether it's unbalanced, but the consensus around here seems to be that it brings melee-types up about on par with spellcasters... which puts them noticeably ahead of the traditional fighter. If you think casters are overpowered, then BoNS is overpowered too, and a BoNS character will put a normal fighter in the shade. And the large number of maneuvers and stances makes it almost inevitable that some will turn out to be "broken."

On the other hand, it does offer a lot more flexibility to the fighting classes, it helps them move out of the shadow of the casters, and it makes tanking a lot more interesting for people like me who get bored with the "stand there and hit it" fighter.

If I were the DM for your friend, I would require the player to confirm all new maneuvers and stances with me before taking them, and I'd reserve the right to nix anything that looked brokenly powerful. And I would read the rules for the class very carefully to make sure that the player's interpretation of the rules agreed with mine.

[Behold_the_Void]

I pretty much totally agree with Dausuul. I like it a lot.

[Were-Sandwich]

Its awesome. I love this book, its probably the second best supplement I ever bought (the first being the ECS). Before you look at the book and call it cheesy, remember that pretty much anything they can do, casters do better. And don't let the people crying "ZOMFG, Anime fanboi!" put you off. Its not very anime at all, more wuxia.
In short, its good.

[Ramza00]

Get it, allow it. It ups the balance of "fighter type" characters but not neccessary the fighter (note a fighter can learn manuevers since martial study is a fighter bonus feat).

Note "fighter type" are still now as powerful as casters, but it does shrink the gap alot.

[tape_measure]

Toddex - if you get a chance, you should really sit down and peruse the book thouroughly. I admit to feeling the same as you do when I first flipped through it. The abilities are ridiculous, the outcomes are insane and it seems that there can be no end to the amount of damage a warrior can bring about to enemies.

But there are some hinderances that balance it out pretty well.

-You don't get as good of a base attack as regular fighters. If you take the class that does (Warblade...me thinks) then you don't get as many manuevers as the other two.

- It's very picky about which manuevers you can have. Some require you to have a certain amount of lesser manuevers before you progress to the extremely cool ones.

- The amount of manuevers is checked and balanced. It seems, at first glance, that you can just expend all of your manuevers in one fight and then meditate to get all of them back for the next battle. However, the manuevers take a toll on the body of the warrior, fatiguing them greatly after the fight. It then falls to the DM to remind the player that, even with the cool abilities, there comes a time when your just too tired to move further.

- Flavor wise, it brings a whole new concept with the Sublime Way. It makes your character focus more on the art of battle as opposed to 'beating the snot out of people'. It also makes you look tactics and pairing certain manuevers together to have tide turning otucome.

Again, it's really a great book that ups the anti for par amongst the classes. You should sit and read if/when you get a chance. It'll be well worth your time.

[Fax Celestis]

Good book. There's a dramatic power increase in the fighter types, but the casters still pwn them all.

[Captain van der Decken]

I think it's a great book. It helps a lot with balancing casters and melees- the three classes are clearly more powerful than other classes, except the full casters. I mostly just replace the melee classes with these. It still gives a boost to the rest, but not really as much.

[Pegasos989]

The amount of manuevers is checked and balanced. It seems, at first glance, that you can just expend all of your manuevers in one fight and then meditate to get all of them back for the next battle. However, the manuevers take a toll on the body of the warrior, fatiguing them greatly after the fight. It then falls to the DM to remind the player that, even with the cool abilities, there comes a time when your just too tired to move further.

That is, because you can and should be able to. No reason for DM to start nerfing those classes.


As others have said, they are significantly more powerful than the normal warrior types. However, they are no more powerful than the casters (Actually a bit less powerful), so if you allow wizards, clerics and druids, you should have no problem with these.

I enjoy ToB because not only does it bring in melee types that are about on par with caster types but it also lets melee types do something else than just say "I attack *rolls*. Did it hit?" or "I trip *rolls*. Did he fall?" and then just... nothing else.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Like anything, some people are going to find ways to cheese up the BoNS, and I think there were a couple already. But their pretty obvious if you carefully read through the material your player wants to use.

That being said, I enjoy the BoNS greatly as a player for one of the reasons stated above. I like getting into melee combat but the vairance of spellcasters. You can get both with the BoNS classes. The nitty gritty melee combat combined with doing more then "Swing, hit. Swing, miss....WHIRLWIND ATTACK!" cause it always seemed to me that with as long, in a generic fantasy setting, as the fighter class has probably been around people would have come up with more fighting styles besides tripping, two weapons, two handed weapon, sword and board. And the BoNS does that pretty good.

[Fax Celestis]

Yeah. Don't Allow Any Thri-Kreen Swordsages.

...unless you like seeing attack patterns that look like +17/+12/+7/+15/+15/+15/+15/+12/+17

[Ramza00]

Also don't allow the "mystical" adapation of swordsage. This allows a swordsage to learn transmutation, evocation, and abjuration spells instead of maneuvers at the same time you could learn a manuever and the same rules. Spells are greater and more powerful than manuevers of the same lvl. Giving the spells the same recharge method as manuevers means you will have a sorcerer who can throw out 6 9th lvl spells per encounter. Need I point out all the time related, polymorph spells are transmuation one of the three types of spells you can learn with the adapation. Additionally 3/4s of the good buffing spells are transmuation or abjuration. If you don't you will have this encounter at

I cast Greater Celerity so I always go first.
I then cast Timestop so I always have time to buff.
I then cast Shapechange.
I then cast some more buffs of my choosing.
Timestop wears off, I kick ass, I then spend 1 minute to refresh all my manuevers and I am then ready to kick ass next battle.

Oh the mystical adapation also gives the swordsage d6 hps, 6 skill points per lvl and 3/4 bab more than a typical wizard ;) This is under adapation so you can not allow such a person you know will powergame have such a pc and you have banning powers outright.

--------------------

Note this isn't normal TOB, this is under the "adapation" of Swordsage. The Monk adapation though on the other hand is a great and balanced adapation.

[Ethdred]

Also, it only boosts melee fighting, so the characters are still pretty poor at distance - so if you found a particular character was becoming too overpowering, then you could throw in a few bow-wielding ambushers to even things up for everyone else.

[Marius]

The book is great, finally warriors can shine a bit. After XPH the best d&d book.



- The amount of manuevers is checked and balanced. It seems, at first glance, that you can just expend all of your manuevers in one fight and then meditate to get all of them back for the next battle. However, the manuevers take a toll on the body of the warrior, fatiguing them greatly after the fight. It then falls to the DM to remind the player that, even with the cool abilities, there comes a time when your just too tired to move further.


No they don't, they don't fatigue the warrior more than a normal attack. Warblades can even refresh them as a swift action.
If you like to use that as a house rule do as you wish but by the book they can use them all the time.

[illathid]

Also, it only boosts melee fighting, so the characters are still pretty poor at distance - so if you found a particular character was becoming too overpowering, then you could throw in a few bow-wielding ambushers to even things up for everyone else.

Granted, there are ways to get around this in the book. But they require more specialization than most people are willing to do.

[Aximili]

This book is the best and worse suplement I've ever read.

It has what I always dreamed of! Good melees with varied abilities and the possibility of a great will-save!

The big problem: it doesn't improve already existing melee classes (and don't come saying "martial study"), it simply introduces new classes that can reduce the original ones to shards. That was their enourmos mistake. The only way to allow this book without unbalancing the game is if you stablish that every single Fighter in the world is now a Warblade, every Monk is now a Swordsage, and so on. And suddenly the fighter/paladin/monk/barbarian/ranger have become NPC classes.

That's the big problem of this book. I'd love to use it, but I can't, 'cause if I did I'd mutilate the other melees of the group. And since some of them can't speak (and thus read) english, presenting the classes and manuevers to them (so that they can use them as well) would take an enourmos deal of work.

[Roderick_BR]

Go for it. It's an awesome book. The manuevers allows you to do, as people said, more than simply stand and hit.
Some will be just the usual "gives +x bonus to attack roll or +y do damage roll" but there are cool ones that allows you to diferent kinds of moves, making the warriors types something actualy cool to play. It's like giving them "special moves."
The only gripe I have is with the warblade, that is way more powerful than the other two classes. He's has a high hit die, little armor, but then you get a lot of class features, and his ability to take any fighter feat, at lower levels and switch back and forth what weapons he can use them makes the fighter completely useless. The crusader and the swordsage are well balanced. (particularly, my next non-paladin character will be a crusader)

[Aximili]

Just a detail:

I cast Greater Celerity so I always go first.
you can't cast (Greater) Celerity before your initiative on the first round, since you are flat-footed.

[Pegasos989]

Go for it. It's an awesome book. The manuevers allows you to do, as people said, more than simply stand and hit.
Some will be just the usual "gives +x bonus to attack roll or +y do damage roll" but there are cool ones that allows you to diferent kinds of moves, making the warriors types something actualy cool to play. It's like giving them "special moves."
The only gripe I have is with the warblade, that is way more powerful than the other two classes. He's has a high hit die, little armor, but then you get a lot of class features, and his ability to take any fighter feat, at lower levels and switch back and forth what weapons he can use them makes the fighter completely useless. The crusader and the swordsage are well balanced. (particularly, my next non-paladin character will be a crusader)

First of all, WotC Character Optimization boards think that crusaders are on par with warblades (except if crusaders use some "white raven tactics" that can give extra actions on allies or something - I don't know the details - which takes crusaders far ahead). Also, warblades are concidered lower than fighters for fighter feats, so they would get weapon spec. at 6th level, not 2nd...

[Roderick_BR]

This book is the best and worse suplement I've ever read.

It has what I always dreamed of! Good melees with varied abilities and the possibility of a great will-save!

The big problem: it doesn't improve already existing melee classes (and don't come saying "martial study"), it simply introduces new classes that can reduce the original ones to shards. That was their enourmos mistake. The only way to allow this book without unbalancing the game is if you stablish that every single Fighter in the world is now a Warblade, every Monk is now a Swordsage, and so on. And suddenly the fighter/paladin/monk/barbarian/ranger have become NPC classes.

That's the big problem of this book. I'd love to use it, but I can't, 'cause if I did I'd mutilate the other melees of the group. And since some of them can't speak (and thus read) english, presenting the classes and manuevers to them (so that they can use them as well) would take an enourmos deal of work.
One way to solve that is to simply allows the existing classes to pick one or two Paths.
Let the Fighter pick 2 or 3 paths and use all the maneuvers. The paladin, ranger, barbarian, and monk could pick one or two paths.
With this variation, you don't have the new classes, though you'll need to sacrifice a bit the backstory. The "sublime way" would just be reduced to "special moves" the existing fighting classes now can use.

[Ramza00]

Just a detail:

you can't cast (Greater) Celerity before your initiative on the first round, since you are flat-footed.
Which there are ways around such as staff of foresight, or taking the Mark of Stars. Hell you can also take Mark of the Dauntless and also be immune to the Daze of celerity.

[Pegasos989]

This book is the best and worse suplement I've ever read.

It has what I always dreamed of! Good melees with varied abilities and the possibility of a great will-save!

The big problem: it doesn't improve already existing melee classes (and don't come saying "martial study"), it simply introduces new classes that can reduce the original ones to shards. That was their enourmos mistake. The only way to allow this book without unbalancing the game is if you stablish that every single Fighter in the world is now a Warblade, every Monk is now a Swordsage, and so on. And suddenly the fighter/paladin/monk/barbarian/ranger have become NPC classes.

That's the big problem of this book. I'd love to use it, but I can't, 'cause if I did I'd mutilate the other melees of the group. And since some of them can't speak (and thus read) english, presenting the classes and manuevers to them (so that they can use them as well) would take an enourmos deal of work.


You could take the rebalanced paladin from WotC boards (paladin balanced on ToB) and Bears with lasers's fighter fix (a fighter about balanced to ToB). Then remove ranger and barbarian. (or find similar fixes for them).

[ExHunterEmerald]

The book is VERY YES.
I loves it so. It doesn't balance the caster/fighter scale, and I don't think anything ever really will. Still, it's nice to be able to play a guy with a big sword and be relevant past level ten.

[Ramza00]

You could take the rebalanced paladin from WotC boards (paladin balanced on ToB) and Bears with lasers's fighter fix (a fighter about balanced to ToB). Then remove ranger and barbarian. (or find similar fixes for them).
A barbarian x/warblade 1/frenzied berserker 10 with Iron Heart Surge (to remove frenzy after battle, Warblade 3) and Moment of Perfect Mind (Use concentration check instead of will save, Warblade 1, use this prior to going into frenzy if you get some minor damage not in battle due to traps and stufff), can be an effective one trick pony. You can use this multiclass combination as a start of an idea of a remodelled base class.

Add the upcomming skill trick nimble charge, and you even get rid of the fatal flaw of the "grease trick" that frenzied berserkers have.

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

I love the book very much. I began my D&D career loving melee classes, specifically fighter and ranger but slowly began to realise that they were weak compared to the awesome power of a spellcaster. The Tome of Battle has rekindled my love for the sword by showing me there isn't only swinging a big piece of steel at monsters when it comes to being a warrior. Now you can belt out damage, maybe not with the same destructive skill of an evoker, but combined with the sturdiness and martial skill of a Warblade it becomes a potent force and more importantly, a fun play.

[I_Got_This_Name]

I'll hahve to disagree with the idea that it makes the fighter completely obsolete. It does, however, relegate the fighter to a dip class for melee types (and not a very good one), or to an archer class.

If you want to buff the other classes, give them maneuver progressions, probably equivalent to the Warblade's, and access to a few disciplines (Paladins would get Devoted Spirit and White Raven, for example, while Fighters would get Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, and something else, maybe Stone Dragon; Rangers get Shadow Hand and Diamond Mind, maybe, and so on).

[Morty]

Meh. Personally I've never seen BoNS and everything I read about it makes me not want to see it at all. I don't like 'martial adept' flavor- such classes should be prestige- and the fact that they overshadow other melee classes, even if standard meleers are seen as 'weak'. Also, I don't care about its 'balancing' factor- it's silly to try to balance noncasters to casters by adding new, overpowered(compaed to old meleers) classes with weird flavor isntead of kicking down casters and/or fixing meleers. And if someone wants to play standard swordman, he's even more screwed. I don't know if it really good or bad, but ceratinly not something I'll spend my money on.

[Amiria]

If you want to buff the other classes, give them maneuver progressions, probably equivalent to the Warblade's, and access to a few disciplines (Paladins would get Devoted Spirit and White Raven, for example, while Fighters would get Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, and something else, maybe Stone Dragon; Rangers get Shadow Hand and Diamond Mind, maybe, and so on).

Nice idea. A little power adjustment for the old melee classes. I don't know how it would work out for fighters or rangers that specialized in ranged combat, the vast majority of the maneuvres are defensive and melee attack buffs.

[Shisumo]

I've been leaning toward allowing any full-BAB classes count as martial adept classes for the purposes of which manuevers and stances they can learn with Martial Study and Martial Stance. The only thing that bothers me about the current setup is that the highest-level abilities are not accessible to fighters due to initiator level restrictions...

[Bears With Lasers]

Toddex--as people have already said, the book is made out of awesome; it makes melee characters better, but still not as good as spellcasters.

However, the only thing that matters in your game is, well, your game. If someone's characters are too powerful and are overshadowing other people's--for whatever reason, new book, caster, or just plain better build--you might want to talk to them and ask them to tone things down; no one likes being outdone at every turn.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Hey Bears, earlier in the thread someone mentioned that you had a redux Fighter that was BoNS compatible. Think we can get a link for it here?

[Bears With Lasers]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692

It's here.

[PinkysBrain]

fixing meleers.
That's what they did ...

There are a couple of ways of fixing martial characters.

You can give them an overwhelming potential of damage in excess to what casters can dish out (there are a couple of prestige classes which do this, but it still creates characters way more powerful than if they stuck to a single classed character). You can give them a way to gain almost as much flexibility as casters. Or you can give them the ability to truly function like a tank/meatshield.

The first makes the game boring, the second is what ToB did (MoI too to a lesser extent) and the third is what the Knight class did ... and I'd say that ends up being pretty boring too.

Some might say ToB/MoI just create casters in disguise, I'd say those people are simply too inflexible and too hung up on medieval archetypes. There is a very different flavor between the casters and ToB/MoI martial characters.

[Morty]

That's what they did ...

There are a couple of ways of fixing martial characters.

You can give them an overwhelming potential of damage in excess to what casters can dish out (there are a couple of prestige classes which do this, but it still creates characters way more powerful than if they stuck to a single classed character). You can give them a way to gain almost as much flexibility as casters. Or you can give them the ability to truly function like a tank/meatshield.

The first makes the game boring, the second is what ToB did (MoI too to a lesser extent) and the third is what the Knight class did ... and I'd say that ends up being pretty boring too.

Some might say ToB/MoI just create casters in disguise, I'd say those people are simply too inflexible and too hung up on medieval archetypes. There is a very different flavor between the casters and ToB/MoI martial characters.

ToB classes may not be casters in disguise, and I like manuever idea to counter "I roll- I hit"- I use it for my homebrewed system- but they have whole different flavor that standard meleers, at least from what i know. So if someone want to play common fighter but feels underpowered, ToB doesn't help him. And besides, can someone make an example of few ToB manuevers?

[Amiria]

And besides, can someone make an example of few ToB manuevers?

Hmm, they aren't OGL ... but I can show you this list (http://www.devinweb.com/maneuvers.htm) ... alas, it isn't short.

[PinkysBrain]

So if someone want to play common fighter but feels underpowered, ToB doesn't help him.
A common fighter is the one in the PHB, a common cleric is the one in the PHB. You could houserule to create feats which let you recreate characters like the ones from ToB or a Knight ... but I don't see how that is so different from simply using different classes. Your class does not define your character, you do ... if you find the abilities of those other classes offensive then having them turned into fighter feats is unlikely to change your mind.

If someone wants to play a martial medieval archetype then there is no helping him really. They are only useful in high fantasy stories because those stories are contrived, contrivance might make LotR work ... but the world of D&D has to be internally consistent. You either have to get rid of high fantasy/magic (at least as far as players are concerned) or get rid of the medieval martial archetype ... I personally prefer the second option.

[Morty]

A common fighter is the one in the PHB, a common cleric is the one in the PHB. You could houserule to create feats which let you recreate characters like the ones from ToB or a Knight ... but I don't see how that is so different from simply using different classes. Your class does not define your character, you do ... if you find the abilities of those other classes offensive then having them turned into fighter feats is unlikely to change your mind.

If someone wants to play a martial medieval archetype then there is no helping him really. They are only useful in high fantasy stories because those stories are contrived, contrivance migh make LotR work ... but the world of D&D has to be internally consistent. You either have to get rid of high fantasy/magic or get rid of the medieval martial archetype ... I personally prefer the second option.

Really, I don't have any problems with common medieval fighter's existence in high magic world- when high level wizard powerful reality-shaping sage, high level fighter is dragon-slaying warlord with legendary weapon. You just have to make sure he doesn't lag behind at highest levels. And that can be done without giving him things like "Island of Blades". I don't say that such things are bad. It's just impossible to use them and still retain fighter's flavor.

[Person_Man]

It's a good suppliment. Most melee based builds have a hard time keeping up with full casters once they get to high levels (or sooner, if the player really knows what they're doing and/or owns a lot of books). ToB let's melee builds be useful at any level.

Having said that, we haven't included them into our weekly game yet. Half of our players our relatively new (less then 1 year) to D&D. And the veterans are purposefully playing non-optimized builds. We might add them in our next game, but we haven't talked about it yet. I get the distinct fealing that it would seriously confuse the casual players, who have a hard enough time just dealing with magic.

Adding a new set of rules on top of the already complex D&D mechanics is unnecessary, in my opinion, unless everyone at the table really knows what they're doing and can handle it. In that way, it's a lot like psionics - fun to play, good for experienced gamers, but not crucial to D&D in any way.

[PinkysBrain]

when high level wizard powerful reality-shaping sage, high level fighter is dragon-slaying warlord with legendary weapon.
You are proving my point, you are simply saying it and backing it up with some flowery language ... but this isn't a story, this is a game.

The wizard can slay a dragon too, and so much more ... if all the warlord is good for is slaying things then has to be able to do it faster and more reliably than the wizard. Or in other words, he has to have huge single target damage output ... to the extent he could kill most creatures he ran into in a single full attack. That creates more problems than it solves IMO.

[Morty]

You are proving my point, you are simply saying it and backing it up with some flowery language ... but this isn't a story, this is a game.

The wizard can slay a dragon too, and so much more ... if all the warlord is good for is slaying things then has to be able to do it faster and more reliably than the wizard. Or in other words, he has to have huge single target damage output ... to the extent he could kill most creatures he ran into in a single full attack. That creates more problems than it solves IMO.

My point was, that there's no problem with standard, medieval fighter in high magic world. He doesn't have to use weird-sounding manuevers to be decent.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of giving meleers more options in battle than just "I hit" or "I trip". It's just it can be done without Strike of Perfect Clarity.
As for wizard, the whole problem with them is, that they can be better at killing that fighters, while they shouldn't be.

[Bears With Lasers]

It's really, REALLY hard to fix the fighter without losing the flavor. I think I pretty much managed, but still, it's hard. The flavor is extremely limiting, and that will always keep Fighters from being as good as wizards, who can do anything.

[Morty]

It's really, REALLY hard to fix the fighter without losing the flavor. I think I pretty much managed, but still, it's hard. The flavor is extremely limiting, and that will always keep Fighters from being as good as wizards, who can do anything.

Because the problem is, like I said, with wizards, not fighters. With fixes, we can make fighter good at fullfilling his role as melee combatant even on high levels. But that doesn't change fact that wizard can be powergamed to extreme.

[Bears With Lasers]

I'm not talking about powergamed wizards. I'm talking about reasonably efficient wizards without any cheese involved. No Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, no Chain Reach rod-Maximized Shivering Touch, no Polymorph or Shapechange, no Foresight/Celerity/Timestop/I Go First crap, no Gate, no Disjunction... wizards do magic. Magic doesn't really have limits. You could give just about any power to a wizard without justification. For a fighter, you're limited to Stuff A Guy Could Do By Being Impossibly Skilled But Still Magicless.

[volrathxp]

I've been playing a warblade in my buddy's campaign for a couple weeks now, and the biggest thing I have to say is, make sure you read the book pretty thoroughly.

I'm not at a Warblade 6 / Bloodstorm Blade 3 (I am truly in love with this class. The flavor of it, being able to make ranged attacks with your strength modifier, etc. and the fact that it's a coveted secret of the Githyanki makes it more interesting).

My character is extremely Stone Dragon/Iron Heart based. He uses Stone Dragon for rushing in and putting the hurt into melee with his greatsword, while maintaining an Iron Heart stance to give allies bonuses while they're adjacent to him. (Iron Heart Aura). Of course, my guy is a warlord so he's very much a barbaric fighter type, rushes in without regard to himself and kills things. Iron Heart is used mostly for blocking and for his Bloodstorm Blade techniques.

The manuevers definitely seem overpowered at first, but then you realize that unless you take Adaptive Style you can't use them that much unless you refresh a lot.. and if you're a swordsage then it's even tougher (1 manuever refreshed for a full round action)

[Behold_the_Void]

I am failing to see how being able to pull of great feats of martial prowess makes you lose the Fighter flavor. Your character is exceptionally skilled with (insert weapon here) and he uses it masterfully. He can also perform daring feats of skill and dexterity during combat to give him a definitive edge, although he can't use these techniques all the time because they cause a certain strain on the body so he needs to take a bit of time to recover himself before he can use them again. Not all of the maneuvers are highly visible "magic-like" effects. Some of it is just something really cool that a high level fighter-type SHOULD be able to do anyway to reflect their true weapon mastery.

[TSGames]

It's about time that there was a book that allowed melee characters to possess anime(not DBZ)-like abilities. Non-magic/psionic/incarnum/system x from supplement y characters can have cool abilities, but they lack flare, customization, and tend to be one-dimensional. This makes melee classes have either a plethora of weak abilities that do very specific tasks, like the fighter, or classes that have very few powerful abilities of little use outside of combat, such as the barbarian. It's rare that a class has a unique combination of weak and powerful abilities that make it balanced, such as the monk, but they tend to be underpowered.

The Book of Nine offers a way to have melee characters with interesting and unique abilities without have a few strong ones or many weak ones. In addition it allows for a non-linear use of melee combat abilities, increasing potential for RP, interesting character back-story, and more interesting combat.

Although I have not had much opportunity to test the balance of the material in the book, it appears, thus far, that the classes(barring Crusader)* are the opposite of the monk; balanced, but a little on the powerful side.

In conclusion, I give Tome of Battle a 5 out of 5 because it breathes new life into a one dimensional melee system, allows for easier expression of creativity, and introduces a system that blends with combat without over-complicating or bogging down game play.



*The Crusader, like the Ardent, made me realize that someone at Wizards needs to put down the crack pipe, and so I did not bother giving it more than the cursory glance it did not deserve.

[Bears With Lasers]

You're underestimating the Crusader, I think.

[Fax Celestis]

Yeah, Crusader's actually pretty good.

[Khantalas]

The Crusader, like the Ardent, made me realize that someone at Wizards needs to put down the crack pipe, and so I did not bother giving it more than the cursory glance it did not deserve.

Hey! No insulting the Ardent! It just needs a better fluff. And bonus feats.

I've never seen what's great about Crusader, though. Oh well, I think it's just me. I couldn't see why VoP was underpowered at first, either.

[TSGames]

You're underestimating the Crusader, I think.
No, no, no... I'm not commenting on the power of the class, I'm am commenting on my immense dislike of classes that are based off "Ye Gods hath granted it!" even if it's psionics or all of your melee capabilities; as such I skipped over it and cannot comment on its balance.

[Raum]

I don't like the mechanics of the Crusader. But that's just because I don't want to randomize choices of action...I never really like the various wildmages either.

Overall I like ToB / BoNS. Though I will say the flavor reminds me more of monks than of fighters.

[Person_Man]

From what I know Crusaders are the best melee tanks in the game (except for CoDzilla, which we all know beats everything). Though I've only playtested them in a few combats, I was amazed by what they could handle. Their ability to heal while dishing out damage is awesome. The randomness of their manuevers sucks, but I think it added a lot of fun to combat.

[TheOOB]

Crusaders are great, you just need to make little cards for your manuvers (which makes it really easy to randomly determine which manuvers are ready), and a piece of scratch paper for the delayed damage.

They have some nasty bookeeping, but no more then a wizard.

[doorknobdeity]

Surprise! Wizards just released maneuver cards as a web enhancement.

[Punokel Kaessir]

Personnaly, I dig the book. It is the only book from Wizards apart the three basic book for 3.0, PHB 3,5 that I have bought.

And I'm not disappointed. It is the way that I have alway imagined fighters. Not dumb meat shield that absord damage because, well, they can, they have HP and armor, but because he know how to fight (Parry, Stone Dragon manouver ect)

I alway loved the imagerie of fighters, proud fighters steel claded in armor, wielding weapons with skill and power. And now it is possible to do so AND be effective :smallwink:

[Druid]

I've read through most of this book but haven't gotten a chance to really play it. That said I see initiators as being stronger than the traditional melee types but still a few levels below the full casters.

[Roderick_BR]

No, no, no... I'm not commenting on the power of the class, I'm am commenting on my immense dislike of classes that are based off "Ye Gods hath granted it!" even if it's psionics or all of your melee capabilities; as such I skipped over it and cannot comment on its balance.
Actually, it's NOT "Ye Gods hath granted it!" The flavor says that he uses his inner strength and the power of his convictions. So, while he can be a church's soldier, he can be a lone warrior fighting wars for his country, or to "find a place for him in the world". More like a godless zealot. His powers are not granted by a god.


First of all, WotC Character Optimization boards think that crusaders are on par with warblades (except if crusaders use some "white raven tactics" that can give extra actions on allies or something - I don't know the details - which takes crusaders far ahead). Also, warblades are concidered lower than fighters for fighter feats, so they would get weapon spec. at 6th level, not 2nd...
I stand corrected...

[Behold_the_Void]

Not to mention Warblades don't get a lot of feats, and their bonus feats aren't the Fighter feats one generally likes taking. I made a build recently that involved getting an epic character who started Warblade Weapon Supremacy, but I still wasn't able to get it to him until level 21.

[Aximili]

To Roderick_BR and Pegasos989: thanks for the help, I'll try to suggest the idea to my DM gently. He's never been receptive to suff that give something without taking away.:smalltongue:


Which there are ways around such as staff of foresight, or taking the Mark of Stars. Hell you can also take Mark of the Dauntless and also be immune to the Daze of celerity.
:smallsmile: Where can I find this stuff?

[geez3r]

I did a quick one shot adventure with a few friends after BoNS came out. Our DM had, and we could use it if we so wanted. However, most of the group had already decided on which archtype they wanted to fill, and I was the only one who decided on melee smashification. I played a warblade. It was the best character I ever played. Just everything about the class seemed to scream "awesome" to me. Since that game I've gone to the gaming store about 4 times looking for the book, but everytime they're sold out. They're getting another shipment next week, so hopefully I can get my hands on my own copy.

We were playing around mid-high level, so everyone was more or less balanced with one another.

[Amiria]

:smallsmile: Where can I find this stuff?

Ask Google. I did and lo, they can be found in Dragonmarked (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12654.phtml), an Eberron Campaign Supplement.

[selfcritical]

It's really, REALLY hard to fix the fighter without losing the flavor. I think I pretty much managed, but still, it's hard. The flavor is extremely limiting, and that will always keep Fighters from being as good as wizards, who can do anything.


If i wanted to have a non ToB-flavored competent fighter, I would crack open Iron Heroes.

[Hurlbut]

If i wanted to have a non ToB-flavored competent fighter, I would crack open Iron Heroes.
Except that Iron Heroes is supposed to be for a low-magic setting.

[Abardam]

So I just found out now that martial adepts can't ready more than one copy of a maneuver per encounter.

This makes me sad.

...and, on a side note, Vaunred the Walker (Swordsage 7/Master of Nine 3) should not have been able to get into Master of Nine at his level. Unless he retrained stuff or something.

[Fax Celestis]

...and, on a side note, Vaunred the Walker (Swordsage 7/Master of Nine 3) should not have been able to get into Master of Nine at his level. Unless he retrained stuff or something.

Whyever not?

[Abardam]

Master of Nine, IIRC, needs 5 feats. By 7th level he'd only have 4.

[Fax Celestis]

Take a flaw.

[Abardam]

Yeah, you could probably do that.

[jayphonic]

I really like the flavor of the ToB. It is a neat idea that has been executed to less than perfection. Take Crusader for example. Look at their level 8 stance in Devoted Mind Discipline. How can a Crusasader 20 ever get that stance if his last stance is received at level 14?! Poor playtesting if you ask me.

Anyway, you can tell if something tends towards the overpowered if it becomes a requirement for EVERY SINGLE non-pure caster build on the CO boards. and why not... xx 19/matial adept class 1 gives you an initiator level of 5...um, ok

[Bears With Lasers]

Jay: the Crusader can get it with, um, Martial Stance.

XX 19/Martial Adept Class 1 is not a requirement. You get... three or four maneuvers readied, with an IL of 10... and you lose your class' capstone ability, if it has one. I'm a Knight? Or taking a PrC? Oh, look.
Furthermore, at level 10, IL 10 is pretty good. At level 20, a couple of fifth-level maneuvers are far from overpowered.

[jayphonic]

yeah, I know you can spend a feat to get a stance. You can spend a feat and get a manuever also if you wish. The point I was making is that a crusader cannot get thier own stance through their class mechanic itself unless they multi-class or as you have pointed out spend one of their 7 feats to get it.

Again, you can always tell those certain classes that are tipped towards the overpowerful by glancing at the Character Optimization boards at wizards.com. As I said, with few exceptions (Usually because the GM doesn't allow the book or because the player in question doesn't know about its' awesomeness) all non-caster builds contain martial adept levels. It is a very telling phenomenon.

That all being said, I said in the first paragraph that I do really like the flavor and the ideas presented in ToB. I still think they could have been executed better. When they create a set of classes where the question becomes why would you *not* ever have these classes in your character build, that is a problem.

[Ramza00]

I really like the flavor of the ToB. It is a neat idea that has been executed to less than perfection. Take Crusader for example. Look at their level 8 stance in Devoted Mind Discipline. How can a Crusasader 20 ever get that stance if his last stance is received at level 14?! Poor playtesting if you ask me.
Multiclassing. Remember all your non initiator lvl classes give you 1/2 initiator lvl, thus there are reasons to take Paladin 2 or 4 or throw in some knight.

[Bears With Lasers]

Again, you can always tell those certain classes that are tipped towards the overpowerful by glancing at the Character Optimization boards at wizards.com. As I said, with few exceptions (Usually because the GM doesn't allow the book or because the player in question doesn't know about its' awesomeness) all non-caster builds contain martial adept levels. It is a very telling phenomenon.
That's like saying that Fighter is overpowered because with a few exceptions, all melee builds contain two fighter levels. All but a few Rogue builds contain Weapon Finesse. All but a few Fighter Builds contain Power Attack.

Yes, the ToB classes are more powerful than other melee classes.
No, this is not the same as being overpowered.


That all being said, I said in the first paragraph that I do really like the flavor and the ideas presented in ToB. I still think they could have been executed better. When they create a set of classes where the question becomes why would you *not* ever have these classes in your character build, that is a problem.Except there are plenty of reasons, such as class abilities, especially capstone abilities. Sure, the Rogue's got nothing to lose by dipping Swordsage at 20th, but the lack of capstone ability for a rogue is the poor design issue here. If you're, say, a Knight? Or an optimized build that needs its class levels? Not so much.

Edit: the Crusader 20 can get that stance *with a feat*. For all we know, it's an intentional design decision.

[MaN]

:smallfurious: PET PEEVE ALERT:smallfurious:

A big NO! My problem with BoNS is the same problem I have with every other book of its kind: it destroys the D&D game.

*First off, this book is simply another installment of the power-creep that splat books have unfortunately come to be.
*Secondly, creating new classes is the wrong way to go about expanding the game, period. The core classes -especially the fighter- are vague enough in their general descriptions to allow any of the splat book classes to be made from them (especially with such generous multi-classing rules) with the simple addition of new feats, skills, equipment, and spells.
*Lastly, again with more rules to learn? Disciplines? Stances? WTFs? Version 4.0 may be a long way away, but with all the new crap WOTC has added (i.e. swift actions, immediate actions) which muck up the basic rules of the game we are probably on version 3.9.4 by now.

UGH! No More! Please, WOTC, improve the game don't change the game.

[Bears With Lasers]

:smallfurious: PET PEEVE ALERT:smallfurious:

A big NO! My problem with BoNS is the same problem I have with every other book of its kind: it destroys the D&D game.
Really? Funny. I find it makes the D&D game better. So do a lot of people who use it.


*First off, this book is simply another installment of the power-creep that splat books have unfortunately come to be.Actually, no. This book doesn't increase overall power. It increases the power of a particular archetype--Melee Guys--who needed it really badly. You can play your core-only game, but clerics and druids WILL stomp all over the place burning things with their atomic breath, and they WILL be better Melee Guys than Fighters if they put even half their minds to it.
Oh, and let's not pretend that core is balanced, shall we? Some of the most broken things in the game are core only (Polymorph Any Object, Shapechange, Wish abuse via Spell-Like Abilities, using Gate to summon an infinite number of titans to fight for you).


*Secondly, creating new classes is the wrong way to go about expanding the game, period. The core classes -especially the fighter- are vague enough in their general descriptions to allow any of the splat book classes to be made from them (especially with such generous multi-classing rules) with the simple addition of new feats, skills, equipment, and spells.It sounds fine to me. A new class is just a package of skills and abilities. Maybe you'd like to play a point-buy system, instead of D&D?


*Lastly, again with more rules to learn? Disciplines? Stances? WTFs? Version 4.0 may be a long way away, but with all the new crap WOTC has added (i.e. swift actions, immediate actions) which muck up the basic rules of the game we are probably on version 3.9.4 by now.Oh noes! A pretty simple mechanic that's for the most part much like spellcasting and easy to learn! This will surely break my brain!

Swift/Immediate actions are, incidentally, a useful addition.


UGH! No More! Please, WOTC, improve the game don't change the game.Tome of Battle does improve the game. For one thing, it is made out of Stylin' and Awesome. For another, it helps make balanced parties where the fighter of the group doesn't feel useless and marginalized because the cleric's doing his job for him and everyone else is supporting the cleric because he *is* better at it.

[Roderick_BR]

I kinda agree. They could have made combat variants to be added to Fighters. Yes, there would be new rules, but not whole new classes. As I said earlier, one could try to adapt the maneuvers for Fighters, just so they can avoid the "stand still, rolling attack and damage, hoping to not have his own hit points reduced to 0."

[Bears With Lasers]

There's nothin' wrong with new classes. Does it really matter that your character sheet says "Warblade" not "Fighter"?
The Fighter was pretty much given up on, and rightfully, since fixing the fighter would make the class unrecognizeable; I speak as someone who's done it.

New classes are just a part of D&D. They've always been here. Hey, remember 2nd edition and kits? Yeah. If you don't want a class-based system with lots of classes, try a different game.

[Matthew]

Now, now. There are plenty of ways to play D&D and Tome of Battle merely adds yet another aspect to the game. It does power up the Melee Classes, as that was the intention. It doesn't 'destroy' D&D, but it does make things different and more than is comfortable for some people.

Kits were not Classes or Sub Classes, mind. They probably should have been, but they weren't.

I would rather reduce the power of Spell Casters than increase the power of Non Spell Casters, but that's just my preference. I wouldn't be inclined to use Tome of Battle as a matter of course, but then that goes for a lot of other material as well and is a perfectly reasonable stance.

Short answer: it is not for everyone.

[Bears With Lasers]

Now, now. There are plenty of ways to play D&D and Tome of Battle merely adds yet another aspect to the game. It does power up the Melee Classes, as that was the intention. It doesn't 'destroy' D&D, but it does make things different and more than is comfortable for some people.
Ah, yes. "It's different, therefore it's bad."


Kits were not Classes or Sub Classes, mind. They probably should have been, but they weren't.They served all the same functions, really.


I would rather reduce the power of Spell Casters than increase the power of Non Spell Casters, but that's just my preference. I wouldn't be inclined to use Tome of Battle as a matter of course, but then that goes for a lot of other material as well and is a perfectly reasonable stance. But WotC isn't going to take away Divine Power or Wild Shape, say, so that isn't really an option. Go ahead, tone spellcasters down; Tome of Battle classes are not on the same level as druids or wizards. They're not rolling around in dung like the Core-Only Fighter is, though, either.

It's "not for everyone", sure. If you just want to have some simple fun and not think too much about it, go ahead and play core-only. But that's different from "zomg brokenoverpowered" and "this is DESTROYING D&D!"

[Tibor]

I don't understand. Every one comments that the fighter is underpowered and needs to be rebuilt, so they make a new class that is like fighter but more balanced to other classes and this somehow is a bad thing?

Isn't that what people wanted?

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Well hell, I certainly do. I'ma buy this one now.

[Bears With Lasers]

Do it. Tome of Battle is one of the best D&D splatbooks ever published; it's right up there with the PHB II.

[Tibor]

I love ToB. It's a great book.

[Jarlax]

i would add this book certainly, but have a read through first and understand it before you allow it into your game because it is a completely new mechanic and if you dont understand how it works your asking for trouble.

and to all DM's out there i strongly suggest allowing this book, i have a lot of trouble in my games with no-one wanting to be the fighter becuase after so many years of playing and every book wizards has released allowed in the games the tanks if a pretty boring option. but book of nine swords has changed that, you can still build a tanks but he is anything but boring, using a system of stances and manuvers that is perhaps MORE complicated then regular spellcasting.

[Matthew]

Ah, yes. "It's different, therefore it's bad."

I certainly didn't say that. I said some people may not be comfortable with it.


They served all the same functions, really.

I don't agree. Most Kit alterations were minor. The Player's Option Series, however, presented ways to rebuild Sub Classes.


But WotC isn't going to take away Divine Power or Wild Shape, say, so that isn't really an option. Go ahead, tone spellcasters down; Tome of Battle classes are not on the same level as druids or wizards. They're not rolling around in dung like the Core-Only Fighter is, though, either.

It doesn't really matter what Wizards do or don't do with regard to this. It's hardly difficult to House Rule down the power level of Spell Casters.


It's "not for everyone", sure. If you just want to have some simple fun and not think too much about it, go ahead and play core-only. But that's different from "zomg brokenoverpowered" and "this is DESTROYING D&D!"

Some of the best fun is simple. I'm not talking about playing "Core Only", far from it. I'm just talking about picking and choosing what is best suited to the style of game you want to play. Tome of Battle may or may not be suitable for Campaign X].

[MaN]

Actually, no. This book doesn't increase overall power. It increases the power of a particular archetype--Melee Guys--who needed it really badly.I'm curious then as to how you would define "power-creep".


You can play your core-only game. . .Where in my post did I say I play a core-only game? Where did I say I wanted to play a core-only game? The game I DM every Friday allows any and all 3.5 edition D&D books. In my post I specified the type of non-core material I would like to see added: new feats, skills, equipment, etc.


Oh, and let's not pretend that core is balanced, shall we?At this point are you actually replying to my post? Where did I say the core rules were balanced?


A new class is just a package of skills and abilities. Maybe you'd like to play a point-buy system, instead of D&D?Having a wider selection of skills and abilities is exactly what I said I wanted. Why are you bringing up point-buy systems while replying to my post? I specifically wrote that I wanted more of the same D&D mechanics: feats, skills, spells, etc.


Swift/Immediate actions are, incidentally, a useful addition.The usefulness of any such changes is irrelevant to my post. They were given as examples of WOTC changing the fundamental mechanic of the game when not necessary.


Tome of Battle does improve the game. For one thing, it is made out of Stylin' and Awesome. For another, it helps make balanced parties where the fighter of the group doesn't feel useless and marginalized because the cleric's doing his job for him and everyone else is supporting the cleric because he *is* better at it.Huzzah! The actual disagreement instead of the ones you hallucinated! If your opinion is that making the fighter class (or any core class) even more irrelevant or that replacing a perfectly good and serviceable mechanic with something new just because it's "Stylin' and Awesome" improves the game I'll disagree with you until the multiverse implodes.

[Bears With Lasers]

I'm curious then as to how you would define "power-creep".
When the overall power level increases significantly with each release. This inevitably happens in D&D as in pretty much any game with expansions, but to a far more limited extent than it usually does. For examples of real power creep, try RIFTS, or Magic: the Gathering.



Where in my post did I say I play a core-only game? Where did I say I wanted to play a core-only game? The game I DM every Friday allows any and all 3.5 edition D&D books. In my post I specified the type of non-core material I would like to see added: new feats, skills, equipment, etc.
You... said you hate books like ToB, and that splatbooks are all about the power creep (generally seen as a negative thing), and that you don't like new classes (something splatbooks pretty much all have).
Since you don't like these things, I presumed you, y'know, wouldn't use them.


At this point are you actually replying to my post? Where did I say the core rules were balanced?
If splatbooks have power creep--i.e. are overpowered compared to core--then presumably core is at a balanced power level.


Having a wider selection of skills and abilities is exactly what I said I wanted. Why are you bringing up point-buy systems while replying to my post? I specifically wrote that I wanted more of the same D&D mechanics: feats, skills, spells, etc.
Because classes and class abilities are the same kind of D&D mechanics. It's a totally arbitrary distinction. If you like having a variety of options from a limited set of bases, then point-buy is pretty much the way to go, since you don't even have "fighter" or "ranger", you have "100 points" and then you buy the abilities you want.


The usefulness of any such changes is irrelevant to my post. They were given as examples of WOTC changing the fundamental mechanic of the game when not necessary.
"Allow not nature more than nature needs, / man's life is cheap as beast's."

"Necessary"? No change is necessary. The change from 2E to 3E wasn't necessary. No rules are necessary. The Paladin class isn't necessary (be a Fighter/Cleric). The Bard class isn't necessary (be a Rogue/Sorcerer, with maybe a dash of Fighter). Feats aren't necessary either (2E managed without'em). New feats--which you said you like--are most definitely not necessary. New feats have new abilities and do new things, and change gameplay as much as immediate actions do. Really, all swift/immediate actions did was give a name to "once/round free actions" and "once/round free actions useable on other people's turns", which were already around, and defined how they worked more clearly.
So... why is it that new feats and spells (some of which will do things that could not be done before) are good, but new mechanics are bad?
And... why is it that lengthily defining new crunch in terms of old mechanics is good, but new mechanics are bad?


Huzzah! The actual disagreement instead of the ones you hallucinated! If your opinion is that making the fighter class (or any core class) even more irrelevant or that replacing a perfectly good and serviceable mechanic with something new just because it's "Stylin' and Awesome" improves the game I'll disagree with you until the multiverse implodes.
Except that the old mechanic wasn't good. The Fighter isn't good and serviceable.
Furthermore, if you have Thing X, and then you have Thing Y, which is like Thing X but more Awesome... HOW is replacing Thing X with Thing Y (or rather, making both availible, since fighters still exist and are better off, not worse, than before ToB) a bad thing?

[MaN]

When the overall power level increases significantly with each release.A significant increase would more accurately be described by "jump" as the word "creep" suggests gradual progress.


If splatbooks have power creep--i.e. are overpowered compared to core--then presumably core is at a balanced power level.That is indeed a presumption. The power level of the contents of one book have no effect on the balance issues of a completely different book.


Because classes and class abilities are the same kind of D&D mechanics.Classes and class abilities are indeed the same D&D mechanics. Disciplines, maneuvers, or whatever new mechanics a book may contain are new mechanics. I wrote that new classes were not needed and that new mechanics were not only not needed, they destroy the original game.


If you like having a variety of options from a limited set of bases, then point-buy is pretty much the way to go, since you don't even have "fighter" or "ranger", you have "100 points" and then you buy the abilities you want.D&D at its core already offers a variety of options for a limited set of base characters. You may customize your base character with a wide selection of feats. You customize your base character further by selecting which skills to invest points in. You customize your base character by assigning ability scores however you want. Expanding the number of feats available to choose from, for example, will not change the game mechanics or turn D&D into a point-buy system (power-creep being a separate issue).


The Fighter was pretty much given up on, and rightfully, since fixing the fighter would make the class unrecognizeable; I speak as someone who's done it.
The Fighter isn't good and serviceable. . . . since fighters still exist and are better off, not worse, than beforeIf the fighter isn't serviceable, how could it have been made better off than before and better yet *gasp* still be recognized by you as the fighter?

[Marius]

Classes and class abilities are indeed the same D&D mechanics. Disciplines, maneuvers, or whatever new mechanics a book may contain are new mechanics. I wrote that new classes were not needed and that new mechanics were not only not needed, they destroy the original game.

ToB doesn't destroy the "original" d&d, it simply modifies d&d into a better system, with more possibilities, style and balance. Learning a new set of mechanics isn't good but the ToB system is really really worth the little time it takes.



If the fighter isn't serviceable, how could it have been made better off than before and better yet *gasp* still be recognized by you as the fighter?

The fighter can learn maneuvers and stances from ToB so it can be better and cooler even if it can't be as good as a Warblade or a Crusader.

[PinkysBrain]

If the fighter isn't serviceable, how could it have been made better off than before
You can polish a turd ... it's just not a good use of your time.

[Aximili]

ToB doesn't destroy the "original" d&d, it simply modifies d&d into a better system, with more possibilities, style and balance. Learning a new set of mechanics isn't good but the ToB system is really really worth the little time it takes.

I love learning new mechanics, and I love the mechanics from ToB.They just used it wrong. Instead of applying it to the original classes, they created new classes that destroy the original ones.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Hey, some people choose fighter for roleplaying purposes. If they don't want to cast spells because spells are the best at winning fights easiest, then why should they? Since these people are gimping themselves for RP purposes, stuff like this, while maybe just a little more polish, helps make the game more fun for them and less like "Oh goody, I get to watch the wizard 'win' while I'm completely worthless".

[Rigeld2]

Choosing a crappy class because you want to roleplay being crappy is a bad excuse.

[TheOOB]

Even with ToB fighters are by no means bad (assuming you pick feats well). Sure they don't have any fancy spells or manuvers, but a fighter can do amazing things with feats, and do them with early and often. A fighters elusive target/improved trip combo (or any other combo of feats) is just as good and easy to use the first time as it is the second, third, and eighty-eighth time a day. Even a warblade at most can only use their favorite manuver once every other round (and by doing so they greatly reduce their damage output) but with rare exception a fighters feats can be used again and again and again.

I'm not saying fighters couldn't get a boost to power, I'm saying they are allready powerful as it is.

[Rigeld2]

I'm not saying fighters couldn't get a boost to power, I'm saying they are allready powerful as it is.

If youre saying thier power is in the same ballpark as a full caster, youre fooling yourself.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

It isn't to "roleplay being crappy". It's to play as a class that fits in with the kind of character you want to be. Barbarian might be a better melee class than fighter, but flavor-wise it's not something you want if you're trying to be something like a wandering swordsman or gallant knight. And not everyone wants to roleplay as a caster just so that they can have access to the most powerful moves in the game. I know at least one constant PC of mine that refuses to play as a caster because he doesn't like being "magicy" characters. He'd rather be a fighter, with all it's inherent flaws, then stoop to metagaming himself into an unbeatable vortex.

[Rigeld2]

Mechanics are 100% seperable from roleplay. Your PC is rollplaying, not roleplaying. The accusation can be towards both a munchkin/person who squeezes every ounce of optimization, and also towards someone who does no optimization but refuses to accept that a Fighter can be just as barbaric as a Barbarian.

[TheOOB]

If youre saying thier power is in the same ballpark as a full caster, youre fooling yourself.

I never said they where, but just because fighters arn't near as powerful as full casters doesn't mean they still are not extreamly useful.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

That example's actually seperate from my caster-distanced PC. He has no problems with barbarians, and they seem to be one of his favorite classes. He likes playing strong or clever characters out to prove themselves by becoming the greatest _____ possible, or stoic survivors that see magic as the source of power for cowards and weaklings. These partially reflect himself and his views on magic, of course.

[Jack Mann]

Then he can play a warblade, with exactly the same flavor, and won't suck utterly. Frankly, what you're describing is exactly the flavor presented for the warblade class. And you can play it with a different flavor too, if you wanted.

[Rigeld2]

I never said they where, but just because fighters arn't near as powerful as full casters doesn't mean they still are not extreamly useful.
I cant think of any situation that a Cleric cannot fill just as well if not better. Not. One.

[Jack Mann]

In an antimagic field. Because we all know that they're absolutely everywhere, just waiting to let the fighter shine.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Or at the end of a long day of fighting, when something ambushes the party right before they can get the eight hours of sleep the cleric so desperately needs...

[PinkysBrain]

Ehm, Viscount ... clerics don't need rest to be able to prepare spells :)

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Ah, so they don't. Strange, I thought they did.

Still, they have some time limits. Along with spell limits, if the DM just throws enough stuff at them over a long enough period of time, the melee guys are going to start becoming very useful :)

[Rigeld2]

Ah, so they don't. Strange, I thought they did.

Still, they have some time limits. Along with spell limits, if the DM just throws enough stuff at them over a long enough period of time, the melee guys are going to start becoming very useful :)
Until they need a heal. Ya know.. one of those spell thingys you keep talking about. And those situations are so far outside the norm they really arent worth considering - once youre down to only potions to heal, youre dead. You just havnt found whats going to kill you yet.

[Jack Mann]

Rigeld is right. When the casters are running out of spells, the fighter types are running out of hit points.

[ArmorArmadillo]

ToB came about because casters were considered more powerful and flexible than fighters, and this was a balance.

That's really bad, because all you're doing by introducing this book is instilling a power creep, in which charactes are just forced into even more overpowering builds.

Besides, Tome of Battle just turns fighters into Tier 2 casters.

[PinkysBrain]

How are the casters forced into even more overpowering builds by ToB?

[Jack Mann]

Casters are not considered more powerful than fighters. They are more powerful. And I don't know how you could possibly argue that they aren't more flexible, given the sheer number of options spells give the caster classes.

There were two choices to achieve some manner of balance. One was to make casters less powerful. The other was to boost fighter-types. They opted for the latter, since it would be impossible to nerf casters without completely changing the magic system (i.e. taking out all of the spells in the PHB and introducing new spells and spell lists). Now, maybe they were wrong to do this by making new combat classes instead of boosting up the old ones, but this does not boost the overall power level of D&D. The new classes still aren't as powerful as a competently played wizard. But now they aren't useless at high levels, as a fighter becomes.

[Behold_the_Void]

I cant think of any situation that a Cleric cannot fill just as well if not better. Not. One.

Tripping, Disarming, Mounted Combat, etc., essentially, things that require a lot of feats to be able to do effectively.

[PinkysBrain]

Trip is nice for battlefield control, wall/grapple/summon/etc spells are a lot nicer.

Mounted combat is a bit meh, you can make a decent charger with a lance but it's nothing special ... especially not in core. I'd rather just fly. Besides, only paladins and druids have mounts which can survive AoE spells at higher levels.

[Matthew]

Here we go again with Spell Casters are great, Fighters suck.

Fighters are good at Levels 1-5. After that, they lose out to Spell Casters.

Tome of Battle presents Melee Classes that are better than the Fighter at higher levels, which is the aim of the book and a laudable one.

However, (and I don't know if this is entirely true, as I haven't play tested Tome of Battle) Tome of Battle Classes are better than Fighters at levels 1-5. If true, I would consider that undesirable.

[Bears With Lasers]

I wouldn't say they are. Low-level maneuvers aren't particularily great. At level 5 the Martial Adepts start to win out with stuff like White Raven Tactics and Iron Heart Surge, but aren't significantly ahead; at level 4, the fighter is three feats up, letting him have, say, Expertise/Imp. Trip/Stand Still in addition to Power Attack as a human bonus, Dodge at level 1, and mobility at level 3, letting him snag the great Elusive Target tactical feat at 5.

Low-level maneuvers just plain aren't that great.

[Rigeld2]

Tripping, Disarming, Mounted Combat, etc., essentially, things that require a lot of feats to be able to do effectively.
The first two are debateable, since you only really need one feat to not suck at them. Mounted Combat is meh - thats what summons are for. The rest of the feat chains can be done better with spells.

I'll stop posting about the magic vs fighters debate if people want me to (in this thread) but saying that fighters are a useful class is not correct. ToB brings them up into the realm of not sucking as much, which is a very good thing.

[Fax Celestis]

"Necessary"? No change is necessary. The change from 2E to 3E wasn't necessary.

DON'T SAY THINGS LIKE THAT. You hurt my brain when you do so.

[Merlin the Tuna]

...but this does not boost the overall power level of D&D. The new classes still aren't as powerful as a competently played wizard. But now they aren't useless at high levels, as a fighter becomes.Now I want to start by saying that I agree with pretty much everything you said up until this line. I like ToB for what it attempted to do (give melee types some "signature moves" with more impressive effects rather than just sitting and making an attack roll or three each turn), even if I don't necessarily like the mechanics behind it.

But it is power creep. Intentional, pretty well-done power creep, but power creep nonetheless. That the most extreme scenarios (CoD What-have-you) remain on top does not change that the average case scenario is significantly above what it used to be. In fact, this is a pretty good example of why power creep is not an inherently dirty word; in this case, it was borderline necessary to keep the game working well and interesting.

Think of it like a caterpillar moving or something. Sure the very furthest bit of its reach hasn't gone anywhere, but it's pulled the rest of its body forward quite a bit. The front of its body is still out in front, but the tail isn't quite so far away anymore.

[Jack Mann]

A party of two clerics, a wizard and a rogue is still more powerful than a party with a martial adept, a cleric, a rogue and a wizard. That's why I don't think the overall power level has increased. Casters still win. Actual fighters still lose. It's just that we now have some fighter types who can fall between the two extremes, even at higher levels.

[geez3r]

Looking at what WoTC has been doing for the past several years, they've been gradually making the classes more and more powerful. If you compare the 3.0 edition classes to their 3.5 edition version of themselves, you will note that most of them recieved a power boost. I haven't been playing D&D long enough to know what 2E was like, but I assume the classes were a bit less powerful back then too. Even on the WoTC website there was a recent article addressing the issue of classes having "dead levels" and offered up new abilities to fill in the blanks. The entire Complete series, along with all of the splat books, was designed to gradually increase the power of the classes, in addition to giving the player new options for their characters.

The problem many people (read: not all) have with BoNS is that it is the least gradual change WoTC has ever released, and everything within its pages is for the melee warrior type. It is simply giving the fighter type alot more power in one shot than we are used to seeing.

If a normal splat book did this for a different archtype, everyone, myself included, would be screaming "broken", "overpowered" and the like. However, this particular splat book is trying to remedy the fact that the average fighter type's power plateau's in the neighborhood of 10th level, when the full casters start getting scary powerful.

Could WoTC have made fullcasters weaker instead of fighter types stronger? You bet they could. However, as we've seen in the past, WoTC would rather increase power than take it away. Honestly, who is going to spend good money to buy a book that makes classes weaker? It just doesn't work that way.

I love the BoNS. Do the classes contained within stomp the core melee classes up and down? In my opinion, they most certainly do, but that doesn't make BoNS wrong. It makes the weakest archtype more powerful. In any game that I am in from this point on, I will use the BoNS if my DM allows it.

After you have heard what I have to say, if you still wish to call me a "powergamer", a "munchking", a "gamebreaker", "one that destroys all of D&D" or any such colorful term that you deem appropriate, then please do so. If it means that I love the BoNS, then I will wear all of those titles proudly.

[Merlin the Tuna]

Could WoTC have made fullcasters weaker instead of fighter types stronger? You bet they could.Not feasibly. If they try to change things in a new book, they've got circumstantial errata that varies from group to group. (See Complete Psionic. Incidentally, this also violates the primary source rules.) If they just do errata, they've got to do incredible overhauls on the system as well as print a new batch of PHBs; and they don't turn any profit from putting up freely downloadable errata. Alternatively, they just release weaker classes. But unless they keep the classes somewhat interesting (Warlock, etc.), players and groups will just ignore the new classes and stick to the old ones. (When was the last time you saw a Samurai? A Swashbuckler with more than 3 levels in the class?)

The most effective way of paring casters down is through the use of house rules; effectively, errata by someone who doesn't have to worry about cost-effectiveness. It'd be absurdly difficult to get official action by WotC on the matter, and thus they give us Tome of Battle instead.

[Fax Celestis]

The most effective way of paring casters down is through the use of house rules; effectively, errata by someone who doesn't have to worry about cost-effectiveness. It'd be absurdly difficult to get official action by WotC on the matter, and thus they give us Tome of Battle instead.

And ToB isn't bad anyway.

I've been thinking about running a game where the only classes available appear in Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic. Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, Binder, Shadowcaster, and Truenamer.

I think it'd be an interesting take.

[ImperiousLeader]

Interesting, but you'd have to allow a class with trapfinding too, wouldn't you?

Besides, Tome of Magic classes are all kinda weak. There are some neat stuff you can do with them, but they're rather miopic classes.

I do like ToB, it's my favourite of the new cap systems (far superior to Incarnum or all the ToM systems).

[Shisumo]

(When was the last time you saw a... Swashbuckler with more than 3 levels in the class?)

Wait until Complete Scoundrel starts working its way into the system. Full BAB and sneak attack progression? Yes please! (And yes, I am aware that the SA fighter substitution exists. It's also dull as all hell, so forgive me if I don't consider it worth noting.)

[Fax Celestis]

Interesting, but you'd have to allow a class with trapfinding too, wouldn't you?

Besides, Tome of Magic classes are all kinda weak. There are some neat stuff you can do with them, but they're rather miopic classes.

I do like ToB, it's my favourite of the new cap systems (far superior to Incarnum or all the ToM systems).

Yeah, I'd probably drop in the rogue, because there's no roguelike inall of those.

The ToM classes aren't "weak", per se, they're just weaker than what we're used to seeing as casters, and in some cases don't act like casters at all (binder).

[Raum]

Not feasibly. If they try to change things in a new book, they've got circumstantial errata that varies from group to group. (See Complete Psionic. Incidentally, this also violates the primary source rules.)
Actually they are changing some of the more abusable powers as books come out. Look at the Polymorph subschool and all the changes to both wild shape and polymorph for an example.


The most effective way of paring casters down is through the use of house rules; effectively, errata by someone who doesn't have to worry about cost-effectiveness. It'd be absurdly difficult to get official action by WotC on the matter, and thus they give us Tome of Battle instead.You indirectly touch on a reason WotC approaches nerfing things very carefully. Profit. They need (and we need them) to sell books. By selling books they stay in business and continue supporting the game we argue so much about.

Every book released will bring changes. I doubt many would purchase books without new material in it. And most of those changes will bring power creep. It's the easiest way to make the new material useful, interesting, and desireable.

[ImperiousLeader]

I like Binders, but until they can bind two vestiges, they're rather very limited.

Shadowcasters are great conceptually, but the class is hobbled by having fewer known spells than a sorcerer, horrible spell choice from the path system, more limited in spells/day than the wizard, and due to having two casting stats, is gimped in getting decent DCs on their mysteries. The creator proposed a fairly major overhaul over on the ENworld forums that I prefer, but it's still not that fun a class.

Truenamers are either utterly pathetic or utterly broken at high levels, depending on your min/max-fu.

[Fax Celestis]

I like Binders, but until they can bind two vestiges, they're rather very limited.

Shadowcasters are great conceptually, but the class is hobbled by having fewer known spells than a sorcerer, horrible spell choice from the path system, more limited in spells/day than the wizard, and due to having two casting stats, is gimped in getting decent DCs on their mysteries. The creator proposed a fairly major overhaul over on the ENworld forums that I prefer, but it's still not that fun a class.

Truenamers are either utterly pathetic or utterly broken at high levels, depending on your min/max-fu.

I personally alter the Shadowcaster to down to a d4 hd, gets two mysteries a level, and uses a wider collection of paths (http://corporation.walagata.com/fax/wiki/index.php/Planar_Adept)

[Ethdred]

Interesting, but you'd have to allow a class with trapfinding too, wouldn't you?


Only if you're going to have traps - it is possible for a DM to tailor his/her campaign to the party, despite what most people seem to think