Combining Tome of Battle and Path of War

[heavyfuel]

I'm going to run a 3.5 game that's borrowing a few things from Pathfinder. One such thing is Path of War.

Now, the absolute first order of business is re-distributing the martial disciplines. Which PoW disciplines should the Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage get? And which ToB disciplines should the Harbinger, Mystic, Stalker, Warder, Warlord, and Zealot get?

Second order of business is: PoW is generally much stronger than ToB (except for a few tricks), so how do you suggest I combine them to make sure PoW doesn't overshadow ToB?

For example, Primal Fury grants pounce as a 2nd level maneuver, compared to Tiger Claw which grants it as a 5th level one - a full 6 levels later. Sure, some ToB maneuvers are actually stronger (Iron Heart Surge comes to mind), but they are the exception. I have no idea how to make it so PoW's maneuvers don't completely overshadow ToB ones other than going maneuver by maneuver, comparing their relative power, and adjusting absolutely everything.

Note that while you might argue that granting Pounce at lv 3 is actually a good thing, this is beside the point. The point being that Pow maneuvers are pretty much objectively stronger

[Galacktic]

Replace ToB with Path of War. Much less of a headache, and without IHS, it's much easier to balance.

[exelsisxax]

Don't give any ToB disciplines to PoW classes. PoW classes are indeed stronger - on account of actually having class features.

Personally, I would not use ToB disciplines at all. They are janky and not that well balanced internally, nor against PoW. The simplest solution would be to completely replace all ToB disciplines for anyone that uses a ToB class with PoW ones, with a few extra because PoW:E exists.

Is there a compelling reason for using ToB at all? PoW is just better. I mean that both power-wise and internal balance, which is also where pathfinder's normal T3 is. It'll make every 3.5 class that uses weapons completely obsolete though, because 3.5 gave them nothing. Only a fool would use a swordsage when a stalker is the same class, but with a loads better recovery mechanic, partial fake sneak attack, a bunch of free ki abilities and the dippability that it entails, dual strike starting at level 10, and a huge list of talents that are feat-equivalent or better.

[heavyfuel]

Replace ToB with Path of War. Much less of a headache, and without IHS, it's much easier to balance.


Don't give any ToB disciplines to PoW classes. PoW classes are indeed stronger - on account of actually having class features.

Personally, I would not use ToB disciplines at all. They are janky and not that well balanced internally, nor against PoW. The simplest solution would be to completely replace all ToB disciplines for anyone that uses a ToB class with PoW ones, with a few extra because PoW:E exists.

Is there a compelling reason for using ToB at all? PoW is just better. I mean that both power-wise and internal balance, which is also where pathfinder's normal T3 is. It'll make every 3.5 class that uses weapons completely obsolete though, because 3.5 gave them nothing. Only a fool would use a swordsage when a stalker is the same class, but with a loads better recovery mechanic, partial fake sneak attack, a bunch of free ki abilities and the dippability that it entails, dual strike starting at level 10, and a huge list of talents that are feat-equivalent or better.

I want to use ToB because it gives more options. More options are never a bad thing. However, I also don't want PoW to overshadow ToB options.

So, if I'm going to do it, how can I do it?

[vilor]

I want to use ToB because it gives more options. More options are never a bad thing. However, I also don't want PoW to overshadow ToB options.

So, if I'm going to do it, how can I do it?

Take at look at the rules on the Witchdusk site. I think it provides just about everything you're looking for....

sites.google.com/site/bardawilcampaignsite/

[heavyfuel]

Take at look at the rules on the Witchdusk site. I think it provides just about everything you're looking for....

sites.google.com/site/bardawilcampaignsite/

The only thing I found was it telling me to change the maneuvers progression of the ToB classes, but I couldn't find the most important part: Which disciplines give to which class

[exelsisxax]

I want to use ToB because it gives more options. More options are never a bad thing. However, I also don't want PoW to overshadow ToB options.

So, if I'm going to do it, how can I do it?

Well, you can't do a logical impossibility, so I would suggest you do not try. PoW is better than ToB.

[StSword]

There's a trait to replace a discipline, martial traditions that give you access to a discipline as benefit of membership at the cost of trading out a discipline, and a feat tree that is all about learning maneuvers and stances from a discipline.

So while logically it makes sense that you should come up with what new disciplines each class gets access to, if you use PoW, then characters can already replace any two disciplines they want for whatever other two disciplines they want, and learn several stances and maneuvers from an additional discipline.

So not the end of the world if you don't bother.

[Red Fel]

I feel like we've been (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377989-Tome-of-Battle-vs-Path-of-War) here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493335-Path-of-War-vs-Tome-of-Battle) before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?539496-Is-Path-of-War-missing-anything-Tome-of-Battle-had).

The short version? Let me quote an expert.


DSP has had ample time to study and refine what ToB started, and they've done extraordinarily well. The Stalker, Warder, and Warlord are generally superior to and more effective than the Swordsage, Crusader, and Warblade; the disciplines are fun and thematic, as well as versatile. If you're running a PF campaign, just bring in PoW and keep it simple. I think you'll be satisfied with the result. If you're running 3.5e... Well, it's up to you if you think that backporting is worthwhile.

There are very few things in Tome of Battle that are missing from Path of War. Moreover, unlike ToB - which had only itself as a resource - PoW has been further integrated with other classes and mechanics in PF. There is additional material on which to draw.

The question isn't how to integrate PoW and ToB. The question is why. Using either one is a choice. They're not core mechanics by any interpretation, and omitting them isn't going to make the game unplayable. So you're clearly choosing to include either, or both. The question is therefore why you choose to include both.

Saying, "I'm playing 3.5 so I'm including ToB" isn't an answer. Because 3.5 does not require ToB. If you planned to include one - either one - you'd simply do so. So why do you feel you need to include ToB and PoW?

[Gallowglass]

I'm going to run a 3.5 game that's borrowing a few things from Pathfinder. One such thing is Path of War.

Now, the absolute first order of business is re-distributing the martial disciplines. Which PoW disciplines should the Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage get? And which ToB disciplines should the Harbinger, Mystic, Stalker, Warder, Warlord, and Zealot get?

Second order of business is: PoW is generally much stronger than ToB (except for a few tricks), so how do you suggest I combine them to make sure PoW doesn't overshadow ToB?

For example, Primal Fury grants pounce as a 2nd level maneuver, compared to Tiger Claw which grants it as a 5th level one - a full 6 levels later. Sure, some ToB maneuvers are actually stronger (Iron Heart Surge comes to mind), but they are the exception. I have no idea how to make it so PoW's maneuvers don't completely overshadow ToB ones other than going maneuver by maneuver, comparing their relative power, and adjusting absolutely everything.

Note that while you might argue that granting Pounce at lv 3 is actually a good thing, this is beside the point. The point being that Pow maneuvers are pretty much objectively stronger

All right. As you are going to ignore everyone telling you not to do it and do it anyway because you want to....

Give the Warblade and Warlord access to the same combined discipline pool
Give the Crusader and Warder access to the same combined discipline pool
Give the Stalker and Swordsage access to the same combined discipline pool.

Now when you do this, everyone is going to play a Warlord, Warder and Stalker because, well they get everything the other three get plus other class features. So you are not happy with that.

Give Warlord the Warblade class features
Give Crusader the Warder class features
Give Swordsage the Stalker class features

But wait... now swordsage and stalker are the exact same class. And warlord and warblade are as well... and Crusader and Warder. So you are not happy with that.

So now you are into homebrew area.

Option A. Give Warblade, Crusader and Swordsage access to the discipline trees of their PoW equivalents but DON'T give the PoW equivalents access to the ToB disciplines. Now someone has an option to play The ToB classes and have versatility in manuevers or play PoW and have class features. Balanced? meh. At least now there's reasons to take either.

Option B. Make up class features for the ToB classes that balance pretty well with the PoW class features. This is a lot of work.

....

As for weakening PoW maneuvers or strengthening ToB maneuvers on a maneuver by maneuver basis? Ugh. No thank you.

[Segev]

So why do you feel you need to include ToB and PoW?


I want to use ToB because it gives more options. More options are never a bad thing. However, I also don't want PoW to overshadow ToB options.

So, if I'm going to do it, how can I do it?

The reason you're having trouble, heavyfuel, is because you've actually implicitly acknowledged that "more options are always better" is false in this case. PoW overshadows ToB completely, per your analysis. Having "more options" when those options are strictly worse isn't better; it is just clutter.

Therefore, people are telling you to just use PoW, because you're not articulating an actual reason to use ToB. It is overshadowed and adds nothing.

So, the answer is: either don't include ToB, or include both as-is, and if a player finds something he really likes in ToB that he can't do better with PoW, great! But don't count on it, and certainly don't try to change either ToB or PoW to make them competitive.

[Efrate]

Pretty sure there are significantly more options in PoW compared to ToB. More disciplines, more classes, more everything. Other thsn IHS not much is missing. What exactly are you using from ToB that makes it a must include?

[Galacktic]

Pretty sure there are significantly more options in PoW compared to ToB. More disciplines, more classes, more everything. Other thsn IHS not much is missing. What exactly are you using from ToB that makes it a must include?

The only maneuver other than IHS that comes to mind as not having an equivalent is Mountain Hammer. But I'm not looking at a book and there's very likely one that does the same thing in Broken Blade or Primal Fury!

[vilor]

The only thing I found was it telling me to change the maneuvers progression of the ToB classes, but I couldn't find the most important part: Which disciplines give to which class

Look at the individual classes - everything you need is there. Effectively each class from ToB is brought up to PF level by the addition of maneuvers and stances and extra skills. In the class description it tells you how many extra disciplines are available IIRC - I think a choice of 3 with some minor wording like these must not be supernatural disciplines for the Warblade or some such.

[Hisoka]

Iron Heart Surge, White Raven Tactics, Time Stands Still, and the three maneuvers that replace saves with skill checks are the only argument I can see for keeping ToB and I would just filter those into the PoW disciplines as appropriate personally.

Possibly also the creation of an Idiot Crusader but you just shouldn’t allow that as it’s a little too strong

[gkathellar]

If you’re committed to using PoW, bear in mind that many of the core PoW disciplines are already ersatz versions of the ToB disciplines.

[Eldaran]

Here's my ToB conversion for Pathfinder. (http://www.bpfindley.com/ToB%20Conversion.html)

Here's my changes to the ToB classes:

Crusader: Increase HD to d12, move stances to 3, 9, 15. Smite works like Pathfinder Paladin Smite, but without the alignment restrictions, and they gain an additional use at 10 and 14 as well.

Swordsage: Move stance from 14 to 15. Add Quick to Act as dodge bonus to AC as well. Add Dual Boost 1/day at 10, 14, 18, 19, and 20. At 6 gain Discipline Focus(Weapon Focus) for a second discipline. They may recover maneuvers equal to their Wisdom modifier as a full-round action (minimum 2) or half that number as a standard action (minimum 1).

Warblade: Allow any combat/fighter feat for bonus feats. The Warblade may use Martial Flexibility to change their weapon specific feats as a move action at any time instead of 1 hour. At 4th level the Warblade gains Maneuver Flexibility: The Warblade may, as a swift action, exchange one maneuver known and readied for a different maneuver of the same level, which becomes known and readied as if they had selected it when leveling. They must still meet all prerequisites. At 8th level and every 4 levels thereafter they may exchange an additional maneuver at the same time. At 10th level this ability becomes a free action, usable on their turn once per round. There is no other limit on this ability's use.

[heavyfuel]

I'm finally having time to actually read the replies.

A lot of focus on the "Why". Here's the reason: Maneuvers are fun. They give options not normally available to (mostly) Martial characters. They allow players to say something other than "I full attack" and that's really cool. I love blade magic. So either system is definitely getting used here.

Then came, which PoW introduced many maneuvers/disciplines that are non-existent in ToB. Ranged maneuvers in general and Elemental Flux come to mind. These are awesome.

However, I'm not at all comfortable with the power levels established by PoW. I do think the designers went overboard in some areas, and I'd like help to bring this level down to about the level ToB set.


I feel like we've been (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377989-Tome-of-Battle-vs-Path-of-War) here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493335-Path-of-War-vs-Tome-of-Battle) before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?539496-Is-Path-of-War-missing-anything-Tome-of-Battle-had).
[...]

Not really the same thread, now is it? I'm not making a thread of one versus the other, I'm asking how to combine both, while acknowledging that PoW is definitely stronger. Too strong, in fact.

Now, I do like your expert's opinion. I think I'll backport only what I think is missing and leave the rest. Definitely not backporting the classes and only a few disciplines


The reason you're having trouble, heavyfuel, is because you've actually implicitly acknowledged that "more options are always better" is false in this case. PoW overshadows ToB completely, per your analysis. Having "more options" when those options are strictly worse isn't better; it is just clutter.

I don't like this argument. Is like saying "Why are you playing a Favoured Soul when Cleric is clearly better?" Not every option has to be optimal. Saying something shouldn't exist simply because there are better options is not a philosophy I share.


Here's my ToB conversion for Pathfinder. (http://www.bpfindley.com/ToB%20Conversion.html)

I was actually hoping for the opposite. Lol

[Gallowglass]

However, I'm not at all comfortable with the power levels established by PoW. I do think the designers went overboard in some areas, and I'd like help to bring this level down to about the level ToB set.

I was actually hoping for the opposite. Lol

Ah. I see.

Well, I very much doubt you'll find anyone, on this forum, interested in going through the PoW classes with a fine-toothed comb and figuring out how to hamstring them back to ToB levels. If I've learned anything from this forum its that the userbase is PASSIONATE about never giving up or losing an option once given. Queue the endless scrawl of threads about "no, we won't cut back wizards in power to even the playing field with mundanes, its up to the mundanes to figure out how to rise in power to the wizards"

And, to do what you want to do, that's what you'd have to do. Go through the disciplines, maneuver by maneuver, cut out the ones that you feel are overpowered, modify those that you think need modification, then hope you left the classes worth playing and somewhat balanced.

Personally, my advice, would be to leave that to the players and let them play the ToB as is, or the PoW as is. You say "more options are always good"? fine. give the players the options and let them hash it out.

[Red Fel]

I'm finally having time to actually read the replies.

A lot of focus on the "Why". Here's the reason: Maneuvers are fun. They give options not normally available to (mostly) Martial characters. They allow players to say something other than "I full attack" and that's really cool. I love blade magic. So either system is definitely getting used here.

That only answers half the question, though. It answers "why maneuvers," not "why both."


Then came, which PoW introduced many maneuvers/disciplines that are non-existent in ToB. Ranged maneuvers in general and Elemental Flux come to mind. These are awesome.

However, I'm not at all comfortable with the power levels established by PoW. I do think the designers went overboard in some areas, and I'd like help to bring this level down to about the level ToB set.

Now, this answers "why both." But it's also self-defeating.

If you're uncomfortable with PoW power levels (PoWer levels?) then you don't use PoW. You use ToB and your problem is solved. It sounds like you're creating an incredibly convoluted system, because you want to use PoW, but you also don't want to use PoW, so you're going to add in ToB, but you know nobody will use ToB because PoW is there, but you don't want to use PoW... It's a mess. Keep it simple.


I don't like this argument. Is like saying "Why are you playing a Favoured Soul when Cleric is clearly better?" Not every option has to be optimal. Saying something shouldn't exist simply because there are better options is not a philosophy I share.

But that's not the argument. The argument isn't "Cleric is better." Cleric is better, but it's also different, and there are legitimate reasons to choose Favored Soul instead. Same way one can argue that Barbarian is "better" than Fighter, but since both are distinct classes with their own features (or "features" in Fighter's case), there are legitimate reasons to pick one or the other. Rather, the argument is "I have hypothetical Class X that has every feature of Favored Soul and then some. If both are at the table, there is literally no reason to play a Favored Soul."

This isn't about optimal. It's about the fact that, aside from IHS and Master of Nine, PoW gives you basically everything ToB does, plus more. If you put both at the table, there is simply no point to take ToB anything. It's a false dichotomy, and if one player chooses ToB and another chooses PoW, the ToB character will - rightfully - feel constantly overshadowed. It's a recipe for resentment.

Now, it's your table. You're gonna do what you're gonna do. And that's good. But I just don't want you making unnecessary work for yourself, reinventing the wheel, hodgepodging together a messy kludge of a system when you don't have to - just take ToB because it has the power level you want, or PoW because it has the versatility you want. Don't outsmart yourself by creating messy rules that ruin both, and don't create resentment at your table by inviting players to overshadow one another.

[Buufreak]

I came here to explain how and why if both POW and TOB were on the table that someone is going to pick options from POW every single time, but it really looks like that has been explained time and time again. If you are having trouble accepting the logic of most everyone here, perhaps you should seek out help elsewhere. Perhaps a facebook group?

On the subject of what level you get a pouncing ability, Sudden Leap is available at 1.

[Arkain]

As has been pointed out already, it's a lot of effort (and kinda tricky) to do what you aim for, so maybe go for a minimalist solution instead: give Solar Wind to the Crusader, Tempest Gale to the Warblade and both to the Swordsage. Consider giving full martial proficiency to the latter two while you're at it. My reasoning is that the Swordsage is Tempest Gale is a bit more "realistic" so it goes to Warblade and the more supernatural Solar Wind goes to the Crusader (or maybe both to all of the classes, your call). That's about it, you can have fun with ranged maneuvers without being forced into a very specific build. The rest of PoW stays out of the game, for simplicity's sake.

[Segev]

I don't like this argument. Is like saying "Why are you playing a Favoured Soul when Cleric is clearly better?" Not every option has to be optimal. Saying something shouldn't exist simply because there are better options is not a philosophy I share.You actually missed my point, but now that I see how I misunderstood what you were asking and what your goal was, I can understand why.



A lot of focus on the "Why". Here's the reason: Maneuvers are fun. They give options not normally available to (mostly) Martial characters. They allow players to say something other than "I full attack" and that's really cool. I love blade magic. So either system is definitely getting used here.

Then came, which PoW introduced many maneuvers/disciplines that are non-existent in ToB. Ranged maneuvers in general and Elemental Flux come to mind. These are awesome.

However, I'm not at all comfortable with the power levels established by PoW. I do think the designers went overboard in some areas, and I'd like help to bring this level down to about the level ToB set.Okay, so you're not trying to make ToB competitive with PoW; you're trying to introduce some of the maneuvers in PoW to ToB, and tone them back to the power level of ToB.

I trust you're running a 3.5 game, rather than a PF game? If so, go for it. If you're running PF, I recommend just using the "overboard" powers of PoW; you'll likely find they're not actually overboard compared to other things in PF. But, that's not what you're asking for, so....


Now, I do like your expert's opinion. I think I'll backport only what I think is missing and leave the rest. Definitely not backporting the classes and only a few disciplinesWhat I suggest here is identifying the disciplines in PoW that are analogs/ersatz clones of ToB equivalents, and then picking the stand-out extra option maneuvers you like. Port those back, and trim them down if they seem over-the-top to you. Or boost them by a level or two, to make them less over-the-top for where they show up.

[CactusAir]

I'd be more concerned about transparency. Can you only have one stance, or can you have a TOB stance and a POW stance?

The latter would at least make ToB worth getting, since otherwise PoW blows it out of the water except for a few select things. (White Raven Tactics, Iron Heart Surge, Blood in the Water, maaaaybe War Leader's Charge and that no save 9th level Stone one)

[radthemad4]

Since ToB is weaker than PoW and PoW classes have more class features as well as having better disciplines, how about giving ToB classes PoW disciplines, and giving PoW classes ToB disciplines (and taking away PoW disciplines from the PoW classes)?