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



## JoeGKushner (Aug 7, 2006)

I know there are some questions on the book.

Still reading it, making characters, etc... but will take some short q&a. Not typing out powers, feats, PrCs. I'm lazy. besides, info might be in proto-review. Need to go over it a few times for some clarity.

Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords
Written by Richard Baker, Matthew Sernett, and Frank Brunner
Published by Wizards of the Coast
www.wizards.com/dnd
ISBN 10: 0-7869-3922-2
160 full color pages
$29.95

The book with the confusing long title, which I’ll refer to as the Book of Nine Swords, is aimed at bringing some ‘cool’ to the combat table in giving the fighting man access to new abilities through feats, and prestige classes, but these foundations are more solidly built around the new core classes introduced.

This book is not WoTC answer to Iron Heroes. This book assumes the full range of magic and magic items in a standard campaign. Rather, if anything, this book is WoTC answer in game mechanics to the Ritual Warrior from Arcana Evolved.

The book follows the dreaded 160 page format WoTC has adopted as one of their new standards. Even with the page drop from the old 192-pages, the book is still competitively priced as it’s a full color hardback. The first page is a list of credits, and then the second page is a proper credits page, while the third page is a detailed table of contents listing the major headings for the eight chapters in the book. The book includes no index.

In terms of visual style and appearance, WoTC was paying attention to the Tome of Magic and has done an excellent job of bringing this book up to speed. Interior artists include Wayne England, who handles the headers between each chapter, as well as Michael Phillipi, one of my favorite artists since I first saw his work in AEG’s Mercenaries.  H. Lyon does some fantastic detailed work too. The illustration of the Deepstone Sentinel showcases a great amount of information ranging from etchings in the plate armor to patterns on the red cloth.In addition to strong art, the design of the book is top notch and is one of the better looking ‘generic’ books I’ve seen from WoTC.

Editing could’ve probably been better. When browsing through the table of contents for example, you’ll see a breakout for the human swordsage starting package, but not for other classes. Other little minor things that like pop up now and again but I’ll let another reviewer handle those issues. 

The first chapter, Disciples of the Sword, introduces three new core classes. These core classes include all the details that the Player’s Handbook does in terms of class features, but also includes those details found in the expanded format of the Prestige Classes such as methods of playing the character, including religion, combat, as well as ideas on how the class fits in the world, including Knowledge check with different bits of lore discovered for three stages (10, 15 and 20). Each section ends with a sample encounter.

The one thing right away that sets these classes apart from other classes is maneuvers and stances. . Maneuvers are special abilities with a wide range of game effects. In a similar vein, they also know stances. These are also special abilities but generally aren’t as powerful and are long term, not one shot abilities. Maneuvers have to be readied. This is similar to preparing spells for a wizard or cleric as opposed to a sorcerer. One of the interesting things about maneuvers is that they have a different set of circumstances than spells.

You recover them at each encounter. I wonder if that’s a peak into 4th edition spellcasting. 

In addition, during combat, each class has it’s own methodology of replenishing it’s maneuvers expended.


Crusader is a religious based core class with a good fort save, d10 hit dice, and good base attack bonus. They do not cast spells. What makes them a religious based class is that one of the schools they have access to, one of the nine, is devoted spirit. A school unique for this core class. 

Crusaders fall into the second place in terms of maneuvers known. Their one big limitation though is in terms of maneuvers readied, they have a limited number of their maneuvers that are readied accessible to them through a random method. So in some random fashion, not presented here mind you, the GM has to determine what readied methods that the character actually has access to that round until the time for new random maneuvers to be learned passes.

The flavor text behind the idea, which the crusader is divinely inspired, is solid. The game mechanic though is stupid. The d20 engine can be a complicated beast in and of itself. Adding more complications for no good reason is bad game design. If there were a few methods of ‘randomly’ determining what maneuvers were readied, it might be different but unless I’m missing something in the text…

To recover their maneuvers, the crusader must have no random abilities left to draw on. When that happens, all expended maneuvers are returned to the crusader and the whole random inspiration strikes again.

The crusader gains a few other abilities but his three ‘rising’ ones are steely resolve, furious counterstrike, and smite. His steely resolve allows him to use a delayed damage pool. This delayed hit point damage that you suffer can be used to fuel a counter strike. The hit points you’ve suffered don’t go away but they fuel your own attack. This is a +1 bonus to hit and damage for every five whole points of damage you suffer. Remember, no rounding!

Swordsage could simply be explained as a monk who does cool things with a sword. Well, not quite but that’s the idea. They get the medium bab, the d8 hit dice, but only two good saving throws, ref and will. They’re the top dogs when it comes to maneuvers known and readied and stances known. Their have a few schools that the others don’t like theDesert Wind, Setting Sun, and Shadow Hand. They have some monk abilities like an armor class bonus based on wisdom. Yup, another class that requires a lot of high ability scores to get the most out of. But that’s okay, for evasion and improved evasion latter on, we’ll live with it.

They also have some abilities that go up as they do in level like quick to act, an initiative bonus that increases once every five levels. As the masters of maneuvers, they have discipline focus that grants them different abilities depending on which level they take it. For example, at 8th level, they can gain a +2 bonus on saving throws when using a stance from the discipline. 

The swordsage though is probably one of the worst at recovering his abilities in combat. Unlike the crusader who just has to run out or the warblade that can use a swift action to recover all expended maneuvers, the swordsage has to use a full-round action to recover one expended maneuver. 

Warblade is the glory seeking melee master grunt of the lot. The lowest amount of maneuvers known and readied with the highest hit dice (d12), good fort save and good bab. Their special school is the Iron Heart school They gain a limited number of bonus feats and some special abilities as they rise in level. One of their most unique features is being treated as a fighter, similar to how a paladin turns. At 6th level for example, a warblade could take weapon specialization. 

Even more powerful though is that they can adapt their chosen weapons so that they’re not stuck with that kama specialization that they thought looked awesome at first level.

Their ability to recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action seems to push this class over the top. Sure, they have to make a melee attack or use a standard action to do nothing else in the round, but a swift action is far too generous, especially at higher levels when they’ll be recovering five or more maneuvers. Some might say that it’s okay, that their lack of melee combat will hurt them. I wonder if those people have heard of multi-classing? I also wonder if they’re read about the PrC in this book that focuses on throwing weapons, something that the warblade can use without multi-classing.

Chapter two, Skills and Feats, starts off withnew skills and uses. First off is Intimidate which brings us the Duel of Wills.  Not quite the skill duels from Oriental Advneturers but nice to see them bring some different use to the skill. More variants on using Local Knowledge are also provided.

The new skill is Martial Lore, an Int based skill that can only be used trained. It allows you to identify maneuvers and disciplines. Very bland.

In terms of new feats, many of them build off of the styles presented in the book and a few allow other characters to get in on the action. For example, Evasive Reflexes allows anyone with a Dex of 13 to take a 5’ foot step instead of an attack of opportunity. One interesting thing that it does, which is rare, is act as a replacement for Combat Reflexes in terms of qualifying for others feats, PrCs or special abilities. A very good steep as WoTC has done feats that are almost the same so many times that it gets annoying to house rule these ‘allowable’ replacements as house rules instead of being allowed from the get go.

For those who don’t want to stray from their core classes, such as the fighter, they can take Martial Study to learn a discipline and a maneuver in it. To learn more, they can follow with Martial Stance, which lets them learn a stance. 

Another favorite of mine, but probably overpowered, is Rapid Assault. All it requires is a +1 bab but gives you an extra 1d6 points of damage for your first round of combat.

The book includes nine tactical feats. One for each school. I like the idea of tactical feats as they are more than just regular feats, each capable of doing more than one thing. Shards of Granite, which requires two Stone Dragon maneuvers as well as Stone Power and a bab +6, has among it’s maneuvers the ability to ignore the target’s hardness. A great ability.

Chapter three, Blade Magic, is a bit of an aberration. It’s a quick breakdown of what ‘blade magic’ is without actually listing the powers.  Maneuvers fall into boosts, counters and strikes. Stances are never expended and are always available. Two separate concepts right? One shot abilities and semi-permanent ones. Selecting martial maneuvers is a little like selecting psionic powers. You can select certain power levels based off of you’re level. For example, at 5th level, you can select a 3rd level maneuver and at 16th, and 9th level one. 

The good news is that many of the classes allow you to swap out the maneuvers every so often but the bad news is that none of them let you swap out your stances. A little important when looking at which stances you might want to take and having to decide between a 2nd and 3rd level stance at 5th level say. 

The nine disciplines are given a solid breakdown in terms of what they stand for as well as their ‘key skill’ connected to them and the weapons associated with them. This allows a player or GM to either go with the type, such as having an agile and quick master of the Desert Wind, or play against type with a quite but noble leader who has mastered the White Raven.

Chapter four, Maneuvers and Stances, is where the organization starts to fail though. All throughout the text, maneuvers and stances have been talked about as different aspects of the same school. Here the summaries are grouped together under school in alphabetical order. So this means that the Devoted Spirit has Crusader’s Strike, followed by two stances, followed by Vanguard Strike. Not the best way in the world to organize this information.

It only gets worse when it begins to detail the game mechanics behind the rules. Everything is broken down by school first, and then level. This slows character creation down to a crawl, especially as some of these maneuvers have requirements, which aren’t mentioned in the summaries. Spells aren’t organized like this. They’re not organized by level. They’re not even organized by type in regards to divine versus arcane. Whoever was in charge of editing here should’ve said, “well, let’s follow the standards set in the Player’s Handbook and hey, since spells don’t have requirements, let’s get rid of these prerequisites on what is in effect the spells of this book okay?”

I made a character and between getting my stances and prerequisites wrong, it took me about fifteen minutes. That was for a character with no game stats and no feats, just following the level requirements, because remember, you don’t get a table that tells you which abilities of which level you can know, and then making sure that all maneuvers were maneuvers and stances were stances and that I didn’t botch it on any prerequisites.

Of course as this character was a swordsage, that might be understandable as they have access to a lot of disciplines. As it was a 5th level character though, I think it’s a little much to ask GMs or players, especially if they’re in a high level campaign. I thought wizards were bad but they don’t have to worry about what level maneuvers they can take at what level nor if they’ve met the prerequisites for their spells.

In Arcana Evolved, if you can use a ritual of that level, a ritual being a little spice you can add to your fighting, you can use any ritual of that level until you’ve used up all your rituals. Now the rituals in that game only go up to 4th level and aren’t anywhere near as cool or powerful as some of these are, but they’re infinitely easier to use. Can I use a ritual from this level? Cool, then I’m using ritual X.

Each maneuver has it’s ‘spell’ block, including name of school (which is odd since each maneuver/stance is under it’s own school and couldn’t possibly be confused for another school), level, prerequisite, initiation action (most are swift actions) range, target, and duration. Most of the ranges are personal. Most of the targets are the caster. After the spell is the description in italics, describing what the effect looks like to others.

Let’s take a look at one of the most powerful strikes, Wyrm’s Flame. It’s a 8th level Desert Wind, which means it can only be used by a Swordsage. You have to have three desert wind maneuvers. It takes 1 standard action to activate it, has a range of 30 feet and a cone area. Reflex save for half. After telling the reader that you spin your blade in italics, the book then mentions, under it’s game effects that you twirl and spin your blades. Another thing I hate about this italic description material is that if you’re going to write fluff into the book in one spot, don’t regurgitate it immediately after it in another spot when it’s supposed to be part of the game mechanics or crunch. This cone of fire deals 10d6 points of damage and requires a Reflex save (DC 18+ Wis modifier) for half damage. It’s also a supernatural ability. 

After the ‘blade magic’ ends, we get to chapter five, prestige classes. There are eight PrCs here. The first one I’ll mention is the Bloodstorm Blade. Remember someone might talk about the Warblade not being ‘equal’ to a fighter because of the lack of versatility in ranged combat?

This is a ten level PrC with full bab, d12 hit dice, and good fortitude save. They gain the throw anything ability and have returning attacks with their thrown weapons. So now that they can throw anything and have returning abilities, and can be entered from having point blank shot and knowing an Iron Heart strike and Stance (the specialty of the War Blade), who has the advantage? Oh yeah, don’t forget the d12 hit die either.

Their abilities with thrown weapons include things like ricocheting their shots as a full round action but the real winner here is not even needing quick draw as they have lightning ricochet that allows the weapon to immediately return to them allowing them full attack with thrown weapons or a mix of thrown weapons and melee attacks. Hey, throw in rapid shot and we’ve got a partial warblade better than a fighter with thrown weapons. 

One of the classes I like in it’s design, is the Eternal Blade. A requirement of bab +10, weapon focus (any) and two devoted spirit or diamond mind maneuvers shows that either it’s going to be a 10th level crusader getting into this class or a high level sword sage. It’s a showcase of the elven art of war. They gain an ability called Eternal Training, it’s uses per day goes up as they go up.  This can either give you a bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus on attack and damage rolls against a creature of a certain type or the use of a maneuver from the Diamond Mind or Devoted Spirit discipline, if you meet the requirements. Eternal Blades also continue to learn maneuvers and stances.

A shorter PrC, 5 levels, is the Master of Nine. This class requires you to have 10 ranks in four key discipline skills, a host of feats, and knowledge of one maneuver from six different disciplines. They gain new maneuvers and stances but their real benefit  is being able to use two stances at once for up to 2 rounds per class level per day. They’re abilities are also harder to avoid as the DC of their maneuvers is increased by 1 and they can change their stance as part of a counter action, even when it’s not their turn. Their final benefit is a bonus on attack rolls when initiating any strike maneuver, dealing extra damage equal to the number of disciplines that you have readied maneuvers from at the beginning of the day. 

Chapter six is one I didn’t expect to see in this book, The Nine Swords. A sword for each school, written up in Weapons of Legacy style, is included. Each weapon has a full range of abilities from 5th to 20th level with notes on the various rituals needed to unlock them. They also tie into the various back stories of the book and the Temple of the Nine Swords. 

Chapter seven, magic items, is a little weak. It doesn’t include any other magical swords, but rather, martial scripts, which in essence, are scrolls that allow the reader to use a martial maneuver. There are also a few new wondrous items, but in a ‘Tome of Battle’, I’m expecting a lot of weapons.

Chapter eight introduces Nine Swords Monsters. It’s another short chapter. The notable monster from here for me is the Reth Dekala. These outsiders betrayed their master and were cursed into horrid forms and must now finish off the reason they betrayed their master, the elimination of all their scions, which any good GM should know, can include the players. Since they advance by character class, they can easily scale with the players.

One thing I was surprised at was the book didn’t make any obvious nods to the Prince of Swords from the old Grayhawk books. I figured he’d be a perfect shoe in.

The book is weak in the monster and magic item section. The magic items should’ve been merged with the nine swords but then we would’ve lost a great illustration by Wayne England. The reduced page count from the ‘old’ 192 page format is really felt in these areas. 

In game play, when playing a spellcaster, at best you can print out the SRD spells you have. Here, there is no SRD. At worse, you can flip through the PHB in alphabetical order. Here, you have to go through each school and then alphabetical order. I can also see this as a nightmare when trying to ‘edit’ a character sheet as the GM know has to know if the player is taking any maneuvers he hasn’t qualified for.  There’s also no character sheet here. Drop a page of the ads and give me a character sheet that follows the example characters inside with lines for boost, strikes, and stances. 

If the book was organized better, I can see giving it four stars but as actual play use is going to be a huge pain. I base this on several efforts at character creation for the character class that uses this book the most, the swordsage…


----------



## Vrecknidj (Aug 7, 2006)

Thanks for the useful review.  Sounds like the extras would only really be worth it to me if a whole group of PCs were investing in those kinds of characters.  I believe I'll let this one sit on the shelf for now.

I'm also not liking the video-game aspect of things.  More and more, we're seeing non-spellcasters gaining supernatural abilities.  So a fighter trains at attacking in a whirling fashion, and then a while later he shoots fire.  What's up with that?

Dave


----------



## Styracosaurus (Aug 7, 2006)

Nice review.

I glanced over the book in the store.  This book presents a very complex system of abilities relative to the core design.

It is much more than I would want to DM, as far as keeping up with the maneuvers and when they can replenish, etc....

John


----------



## Mercule (Aug 7, 2006)

Definitely falls into the "need to peruse it, first" category.  

I'm pretty sure I dislike the new base classes, but I might let someone try one in a beer-and-pretzels game for playtesting.  If the book looks useful to PHB PCs and/or allows for a good swashbuckler/monk then I'll probably get it.


----------



## vulcan_idic (Aug 7, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Their abilities with thrown weapons include things like ricocheting their shots as a full round action but the real winner here is not even needing quick draw as they have lightning ricochet that allows the weapon to immediately return to them allowing them full attack with thrown weapons or a mix of thrown weapons and melee attacks. Hey, throw in rapid shot and we’ve got a partial warblade better than a fighter with thrown weapons.




Does this evoke mental images of Captain America and his shield for anyone else?


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 7, 2006)

Joe, another thanks for the review.

Care to address what seem to be (some of) the main issues of the book

1) This seems really complicated. Is it that complicated in play? Is it worth it?

2) This seems to introduce yet another spellcasting/magic system (there are now several). Do we need it? Would it be the sort of thing you use instead of say other spellcasters (or Psions, or Warlocks or whatever)? (And couldn't this be done with multiclassing, or some PrCs or feats that faciliate that (though there are also several of those now as well). )

3) Are these classes balanced with say, a fighter?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 7, 2006)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Joe, another thanks for the review.
> 
> Care to address what seem to be (some of) the main issues of the book
> 
> 1) This seems really complicated. Is it that complicated in play? Is it worth it?




Complication is too strong a word. Unorganized would be better. I find it easier to understand that say, Magic of Incarnum, but the organization is a pain.



			
				TerraDave said:
			
		

> 2) This seems to introduce yet another spellcasting/magic system (there are now several). Do we need it? Would it be the sort of thing you use instead of say other spellcasters (or Psions, or Warlocks or whatever)? (And couldn't this be done with multiclassing, or some PrCs or feats that faciliate that (though there are also several of those now as well). )




Think of them as Exalted type maneuvers for fighter types. Note that even the 'weakest' of these three core classes, the swordsage, had d8 hit die and medium bab.



			
				TerraDave said:
			
		

> 3) Are these classes balanced with say, a fighter?




Depends. The Crusader seems to have the built in mess with factor in it's random maneuvers ready. The swordsage doesn't have the bab or hit die to go toe to toe, but has a lot of speical abilities. the war blade's 'weakness' has a PrC devoted to overcoming it and has the best recovery for any of the classes. There were a few classes/PrCs with d12 hit die in this book though. Could be the difference between rolling hit points and assigning them via 'averages' in which case a d12 isn't that much of a boost (6.5 as opposed to 5.5) but for other campaigns, like mine that do max hit points, a 10th level warblade is going to have a base 120 hp as opposed to the 100 a fighter will have.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 7, 2006)

Vrecknidj said:
			
		

> I'm also not liking the video-game aspect of things.  More and more, we're seeing non-spellcasters gaining supernatural abilities.



Wuxia films came from videogames?

Thanks for the write-up, Joe. This sounds like something I don't want anywhere near my more traditionalist game.


----------



## wayne62682 (Aug 7, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> This sounds like something I don't want anywhere near my more traditionalist game.




Pretty much exactly what I said after I read the blurb explaining in brief what the system was designed to achieve.  Don't get me wrong, I like Wuxia and anime/videogame style stuff, but not in D&D.


----------



## Kurotowa (Aug 7, 2006)

Funny, I think grouping the maneuvers by discipline is a great idea.  Most characters will only be using a couple of disciplines, and this means you don't have to hunt through the entire section to find the Diamond Mind maneuvers.  They're all right there, easy to follow.

Here's a question for you.  There's a lot of uncertainty about readied maneuvers.  Are they like spell slots, where you can ready one maneuver multiple times.  Or are they like soulmelds, where it's a count of how many of your known maneuvers can be readied at once.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 7, 2006)

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> Funny, I think grouping the maneuvers by discipline is a great idea.  Most characters will only be using a couple of disciplines, and this means you don't have to hunt through the entire section to find the Diamond Mind maneuvers.  They're all right there, easy to follow.




Unless you're a sword sage with access to six schools. My character generation suffered heavily because of that. On the other hand, for warblades and crusaders, probably not such a big issue.



			
				Kurotowa said:
			
		

> Here's a question for you.  There's a lot of uncertainty about readied maneuvers.  Are they like spell slots, where you can ready one maneuver multiple times.  Or are they like soulmelds, where it's a count of how many of your known maneuvers can be readied at once.




You know, I never even thought about that aspect of it. I'll double check but off the top of my head, I think they're like spell slots. You know so many and can 'ready' so many. I'll double check that though.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 7, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, I like Wuxia and anime/videogame style stuff, but not in D&D.




I don't like Wuxia and hate anime.  If that's all this book does, it's a no-go for me.  If it allows me to add various, generally mundane, "fencing" styles into my game, then I'm all over it.

My decision points (subject to revision) are:
*_Power level of new base classes_:  On par or below Fighter, +10 points.  Above Fighter, -5 points.
*_Power level of feats/maneuvers/stances_:  On par with other combat feats, +15 points.  Fighters should always take a few ToB feats, -20 points.
*_Flavor of styles_:  Can have a Western spin, +10 points.  Primarily Wuxia/wirework/supernatural in feel, -75 points.

So, how many points am I looking at for the book?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 7, 2006)

One of the things the book talks about in terms of flavor is that each style can had different names and origins.

I think the katana (bastard sword) is the only OA style weapon discussed in the book.

In terms of power level, the crusader and sword sage seem okay, but the warblade seems a little over powered.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 7, 2006)

Joe,

I think a lot of people felt that way and kind of do when they read the preview/excerpt for the warblade. 

In any case, in a different vein but similiar, have you gotten a hold of Dragons of Faerun yet?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 7, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Joe,
> 
> I think a lot of people felt that way and kind of do when they read the preview/excerpt for the warblade.
> 
> In any case, in a different vein but similiar, have you gotten a hold of Dragons of Faerun yet?




Up front, I'm a FR junkie. Even thought I'm running SC in Greyhawk (nominally, the 'greater' campaign setting has been very minor), the Dragons of Faerun is solid. My only complaint is that it gives the story of the Dragon Rage away.

And if people think Elminster is too powerful... there's like a CR 40 dragon here. Yeah, stay away from FR you demon lords and devil princes. You'll get your bottoms tanned and sent to bed with no cookie!


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 7, 2006)

Joe,

While I'm no junkie my love of dragons and especially Dragons of the North has been long standing. So I'm glad to see them get a good treatment. (As for the give-away, hey it's not like there's been others that haven't given it away. I site Power of Faerun as a recent example.) 

Good CR 40 dragons always good.  Btw is it true there's an appendix table in Dragons of Faerun that lists ALL Faerunian dragons?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 7, 2006)

Yup. Provides list of name, where they're at, and status (alive, dead, undead).

there's even a bit where it mentions the Wyrms of the North article (and the web site) with some minor notes on what's going on with those dragons.

Funny to see some of 'em when I ran a game where 'Old White Death' was killed many a moons ago in my FR game. I must be 'breaking' canon!


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 7, 2006)

Joe,

You are without a doubt the Breaker of all cannon in any setting.   But that's cool they made some updates about the Dragons in the North along with the status stuff. I'm very glad to see this book got a lot of love. So by minor mention you mean like two sentences or more like a short paragraph?


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 7, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Think of them as Exalted type maneuvers for fighter types. Note that even the 'weakest' of these three core classes, the swordsage, had d8 hit die and medium bab.




Maybe they should have called it Complete Monk   Thanks again


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 7, 2006)

Yeah but they might have to pay royalties to Tony Shalub(sp).  Or else people might get confused and think it has something to do with monk styles.

Seriously Tome of Battle is...odd.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 7, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Yeah but they might have to pay royalties to Tony Shalub(sp).  Or else people might get confused and think it has something to do with monk styles.
> 
> Seriously Tome of Battle is...odd.




Shalhoub.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 7, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Joe,
> 
> You are without a doubt the Breaker of all cannon in any setting.   But that's cool they made some updates about the Dragons in the North along with the status stuff. I'm very glad to see this book got a lot of love. So by minor mention you mean like two sentences or more like a short paragraph?




More like two sentences. Heck, maybe one in some cases.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 8, 2006)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I don't like Wuxia and hate anime.  If that's all this book does, it's a no-go for me.  If it allows me to add various, generally mundane, "fencing" styles into my game, then I'm all over it.
> 
> My decision points (subject to revision) are:
> *_Power level of new base classes_:  On par or below Fighter, +10 points.  Above Fighter, -5 points.



At a peripheral glance, I'd say the comparison should be Crusader vs Paladin, and Warblade vs either Fighter or Barbarian. I think in either case the 9Sword class is more powerful though.



> *_Power level of feats/maneuvers/stances_:  On par with other combat feats, +15 points.  Fighters should always take a few ToB feats, -20 points.



I don't think the feats are overpowered, I'm sort of undecided on the Rapid Assault. +1d6 damage for the first round of combat seems overpowered, but compared to more constant effect feats such as power attack or such, I'm not sure. There's no trade off to RA though, except the use of a feat.

Maneuvers look overpowered to me. a 1st level maneuver that lets you charge without provoking AoO's, and then do +10 damage on the hit, seems a bit much.



> *_Flavor of styles_:  Can have a Western spin, +10 points.  Primarily Wuxia/wirework/supernatural in feel, -75 points.
> 
> So, how many points am I looking at for the book?



I think the flavor fits fine, in what the preface terms "culture blind D&D". D&D is not Europe, as it were. Granted some of the schools are oriental feeling, a few arabian feeling. Some are just about tactics though, and the dwarf school and hobgoblin school fit those cultures IMO.

They're not "mundane", but in a world like D&D, that does not mean they're "supernatural". To put it another way, the Marshal or Bard can do stuff that pushes that border also, 9 Swords might push it a bit more, but not all the way.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 8, 2006)

For myself, I can't find any justification for the d12 Hit Dice all over the place. Granted it's only 1-2 points a level, but it still seems a little too rampant.

Also, Warblades getting bonus feats (from a very limited list) seems pointless to me too.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 8, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Maneuvers look overpowered to me. a 1st level maneuver that lets you charge without provoking AoO's, and then do +10 damage on the hit, seems a bit much.




Compare it to a 1st level spell...I don't think it's too out of line, since you have a limited number of them--how many charges will one perform per fight?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 8, 2006)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Compare it to a 1st level spell...I don't think it's too out of line, since you have a limited number of them--how many charges will one perform per fight?




Right, compare it to a first level spell that a fighter with d12 HD can use one per encounter. And he's got three of them.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 8, 2006)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Shalhoub.




Thank you but excuse me if I can't spell. It's not my greatest strength. 

Joe, thanks for that info. 

Voc,

Maybe it's just their way of trying to "keep up" with all them darn spells.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 8, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Right, compare it to a first level spell that a fighter with d12 HD can use one per encounter. And he's got three of them.




Okay, do you think it's better than rage?


----------



## ruleslawyer (Aug 8, 2006)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I don't like Wuxia and hate anime.  If that's all this book does, it's a no-go for me.  If it allows me to add various, generally mundane, "fencing" styles into my game, then I'm all over it.
> 
> My decision points (subject to revision) are:
> *_Power level of new base classes_:  On par or below Fighter, +10 points.  Above Fighter, -5 points.
> ...



Low. But...

Can I play a spellcaster in your game?


----------



## Andor (Aug 8, 2006)

Intersting sounding book. It does sound to me like the proper layout would have been 

Discipline
-By level
--Manuvers listed alphabetically
--Stances Listed Alphabetically

And then have a reference index with Manuevers listed by level and subdivided by discipline like spells with their by school breakdown, and another one for stances.

As for the use of it, it sounds pretty useless for pure-pseudo-european D&D types who prefer to ignore the economy/ecology/ethnic/cultural/geography/physics holes in that approach. For more open types of campaigns or more magical/mythological or Easterm/Middle Eastern style campaigns it sounds good. And for D&D should be internally consistent types like me where I want a reason for ANYBODY to be a purely mundane character in a world where magic is as easy and consistent as it is in D&D it sounds ideal.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Aug 8, 2006)

*No index! *  

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 8, 2006)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Okay, do you think it's better than rage?



Not sure really. I'm just not sure why they get d12s. The knight I can see, the barbarian sure, the Warblade, eh.

The Barbarian rage is a broader power since it's a strength bonus that applies to lots of stuff over a few rounds, vs the maneuvers and stances being "single use" per encounter. I think the Barbarian/warblade comparison is more appropriate then the fighter one though. Similar skills, HD, and the extra powers. It just comes down to comparing the barbarian powers (move bonus, rage, mighty rage, improve mighty rage, super duty rage, etc)

In conclusion, I dunno. I do like that you don't have to "reserve rage" for that important counter. You can use all your abilities in each combat. I also think this will be a trend in 4e, less "per day" stuff, like Warlocks, Incarnum, Binders.

I'll see if my DM will allow it and go from there. (I've currently got a Level 3 swashbuckler and was looking for the next class anyway.)

(side note: last game, I had a single class, PHB only, half orc barbarian. I'm of the mind that a warblade probably won't do more damage than him.


----------



## Nightfall (Aug 8, 2006)

Voc,

Why did you bother with Swashbuckler? I mean honestly either duelist (the pr-class) or Unfettered is way better in my book. 

Olaf, 

yeah that does suck. 

Virgil,

Rage is over-rated on PCs.


----------



## gribble (Aug 8, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Right, compare it to a first level spell that a fighter with d12 HD can use one per encounter. And he's got three of them.




Actually, he has an unlimited number of them. It's just that after using the three (or possibly only one - it's unclear whether you can prepare multiple copies of the same maneuver), he has to spend a round attacking without using an maneuvers so they all refresh.


----------



## gribble (Aug 8, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> (side note: last game, I had a single class, PHB only, half orc barbarian. I'm of the mind that a warblade probably won't do more damage than him.




Can you explain why? I tend to agree with you that the average warblade won't deal as much damage as the average barbarian purely because they need to spread their ability scores around more, but the only advantage I can see that the barbarian has in raw damage output is his raging: +4 str which equates to +2 damage *when raging*. By 6th level a warblade will have weapon specialisation and will be doing that +2 on all attacks (not just when raging), *plus* he'll have more feats than the barbarian *and* access to maneuvers which I'm sure will pump up his damage potential. In fact, by mid-level, if someone really wanted to make a brute, raw damage-dealing warblade, I'd be very surprised if it *didn't* deal more damage than an equivalent level barbarian in a round.


----------



## gribble (Aug 8, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> (side note: last game, I had a single class, PHB only, half orc barbarian. I'm of the mind that a warblade probably won't do more damage than him.




In fact, if you're interested I wouldn't mind trying a little experiment. The class comparisons in the other thread were very contrived. Post the stats for your barbarian here, and I'll make up an equivalent level warblade and see if I can better your barbarian's damage output...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 8, 2006)

> Here's a question for you. There's a lot of uncertainty about readied maneuvers. Are they like spell slots, where you can ready one maneuver multiple times. Or are they like soulmelds, where it's a count of how many of your known maneuvers can be readied at once.




Going to sound strange.

You have to ready a maneuver to use it.

Once used, it is no longer readied.

All of the sample characters only had each maneuver readied once so I don't know if it's like a sorcerer or a wizard.

Anyone else got a feel for it? Any reason why you wouldn't have to know a stance more than once to use it more than once? Or are they counting on doing a maneuver recover?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 8, 2006)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Okay, do you think it's better than rage?




When the party gets ambushed after the barbarian's spent all of his abilities?

Yes. The ability to use the maneuvers at each combat, and indeed, to recharge them with a swift action (for the warblade), seems very, very, very, powerful.

At the start of the day?

hard to say.

Using non-core books that augment what rage can do? Once again, hard to say.


----------



## Kurotowa (Aug 8, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> All of the sample characters only had each maneuver readied once so I don't know if it's like a sorcerer or a wizard.




To be honest, that's the impression I got from the Warblade and quoted bits.  A maneuver is either readied or it isn't.  Readied Maneuvers aren't slots to fill, they're how many maneuvers you can put that little "readied" checkmark next to.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 8, 2006)

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> To be honest, that's the impression I got from the Warblade and quoted bits.  A maneuver is either readied or it isn't.  Readied Maneuvers aren't slots to fill, they're how many maneuvers you can put that little "readied" checkmark next to.




Which indicates to me, and I could be reading this wrong, that you can only use each readied maneuver once an encounter no?

Quite a bit different than a spellcaster who chooses to 'double' up to to speak.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 8, 2006)

*Using maneuvers outside of combat?*

A quick question: a lot of these abilities (especially the ones that heal) would seem to be extremely useful outside of combat. Is there any mention of how that would work?

--Steve


----------



## chaotix42 (Aug 8, 2006)

Interesting stuff guys. Readied maneuvers may not actually be "slots" as some have said, but rather maneuvers can be in a state of "readied" or "unreadied," without an ability to ready a maneuver multiple times.

Sounds like it could be a bit more balanced that way. The warblade would still be very powerful, but he could only pull off his nastiest attack routine every other round.


----------



## Zaukrie (Aug 8, 2006)

How complicated are the systems presented? I am currently teaching some kids to play, and one of them seems to want a character that has manuevers like this.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 8, 2006)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> How complicated are the systems presented? I am currently teaching some kids to play, and one of them seems to want a character that has manuevers like this.




I find them more time consuming than complicated.

The organization works against you.

The initial breakdown itsn't too bad, it's in the specifics.

What is he specifically trying to do?

There are feats that can be taken to gain access to maneuvers and stances. He might for exmaple, be better off starting with those.


----------



## Kurotowa (Aug 8, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Which indicates to me, and I could be reading this wrong, that you can only use each readied maneuver once an encounter no?
> 
> Quite a bit different than a spellcaster who chooses to 'double' up to to speak.




Not really, only the Swordsage has to worry about that.  A Crusader gets a random selection that automatically refreshes when they're all gone, so they'll try to run through their maneuvers as quickly as possible.  Using more means getting more back, they never have to worry about being out.  Only about being stuck with one maneuver left they can't use.  A Warblade gets a small selection but only needs one round to get them all back, so they'll also be free with using maneuvers.  Possibly trying to have a combo or two of multiple maneuvers that combine to good effect, setting up a combo-combo-recover rythem.  I don't know enough about the maneuvers to know if that would work or if they're mostly setup to only allow one per attack.

It's the Swordsage that has to be careful about wasting maneuvers, since what they start with will have to last them through the encounter.  Instead they're all about versatility, pulling out a different trick every round from their deep list of readied maneuvers, constantly shifting tactics and layering nasty conditions on their foe.

So, not too different from casters.  The Warblade is the Sorcerer, able to keep repeating the same attack, just needing a round to recharge.  The Swordsage is the Wizard, with a wide but shallow list of tricks who tries to do just the right at the right time.  The Crusader, well, random selection is just wacky.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Aug 8, 2006)

SteveC said:
			
		

> A quick question: a lot of these abilities (especially the ones that heal) would seem to be extremely useful outside of combat. Is there any mention of how that would work?
> 
> --Steve




I don't think you can use them out of combat. Most involve you making an attack. I don't have my book in front of me here so I can't be sure though. 

Tzarevitch


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 8, 2006)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> I don't think you can use them out of combat. Most involve you making an attack. I don't have my book in front of me here so I can't be sure though.
> 
> Tzarevitch




I'm pretty sure you've hit it on the head.

Counters, boosters, and strikes.

Stances are seperate (but we'll list them together...)


----------



## R_kajdi (Aug 8, 2006)

Just got the Book of Nine Sowrds last night for the hobby shop. While I haven't been able to look it over completely, I have given it a good skim, and found some stuff that was a bit odd:

* Adaptive Style feat - It doesn't list if the abilities you choose with it start out usbale/active or not. If the can be used immediately, the feat is awesome for swordsages. A full round to recover a bunch of abilities instead of just one, and a mid-battle rebuild of them also. 

* Master of the Nine Forms PrC - Something's up with this guy. While the skill ranks and the sample character suggest that you can qualify for the class as a Swordsage 7, I can't get how the feats works out for that. The sample character even has too many feat for his level. Am I missing something?

   Overall, I think the book's pretty good. It gives a "mystical school" feel to a standard martial character, and the classes seem to range the gamut from the more eastern influenced weapon master (Swordsage) to a warrior who simply has some magic abilities (Warblade) While I see a backlash against yet another magically oriented class, I think these new ones are done pretty well, and cover new ground. The problem with doing up a new non-magical fighting class is that the fighter has the territory covered pretty well. It's very flexible, and only gets more so with every fighter feat added to the system. These new classes go out into new areas of expertise, and I am very happy with what I've seen so far. Nothing is as bizarre and underpowered as Truenaming or Shadowcasting from Tome of Magic, but I've only looked at the swordsage carefully (I may be playing one in the near future) so I may change my mind after I look over the book again tonight.

   Raymond


----------



## SteveC (Aug 8, 2006)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> I don't think you can use them out of combat. Most involve you making an attack. I don't have my book in front of me here so I can't be sure though.
> 
> Tzarevitch



Hmmn, that sounds kind of silly, and will likely lead to _Dude! Let me hit you with my battle axe, It'll heal me 100HP!_

This book sounds interesting nonetheless.

--Steve


----------



## Tzarevitch (Aug 8, 2006)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Hmmn, that sounds kind of silly, and will likely lead to _Dude! Let me hit you with my battle axe, It'll heal me 100HP!_
> 
> This book sounds interesting nonetheless.
> 
> --Steve




It does sound strange, but as I recall that is how most of that group of them work. 

Tzarevitch


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 8, 2006)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Hmmn, that sounds kind of silly, and will likely lead to _Dude! Let me hit you with my battle axe, It'll heal me 100HP!_
> 
> This book sounds interesting nonetheless.
> 
> --Steve




But it would go a long way in explaining how these warriors are getting their second winds when they look like they're just about down and out eh?


----------



## R_kajdi (Aug 8, 2006)

Double Post.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 8, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Voc,
> 
> Why did you bother with Swashbuckler? I mean honestly either duelist (the pr-class) or Unfettered is way better in my book.



Duelist is a PrC, I'm third level. Unfettered is Elsewhere.

Swashbuckler gave me good skills (decent base + good intel) and Elven Courtblade is fun.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 8, 2006)

gribble said:
			
		

> Can you explain why? I tend to agree with you that the average warblade won't deal as much damage as the average barbarian purely because they need to spread their ability scores around more, but the only advantage I can see that the barbarian has in raw damage output is his raging: +4 str which equates to +2 damage *when raging*. By 6th level a warblade will have weapon specialisation and will be doing that +2 on all attacks (not just when raging), *plus* he'll have more feats than the barbarian *and* access to maneuvers which I'm sure will pump up his damage potential. In fact, by mid-level, if someone really wanted to make a brute, raw damage-dealing warblade, I'd be very surprised if it *didn't* deal more damage than an equivalent level barbarian in a round.





I'm sure a person could maximise the Warblade and excede my damage, just like someone could maximise the barbarian better if they spent the time (I spent a lot of money on an intelligent hammer to speak for him). Granted with an intel of 6, the Warblade wouldn't see all his advantages. As for feats, I had the important one, Power Attack, that's enough. 

It was just a comment that damage isn't confined to new books, rather than a challenge to build the best.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 8, 2006)

SteveC said:
			
		

> A quick question: a lot of these abilities (especially the ones that heal) would seem to be extremely useful outside of combat. Is there any mention of how that would work?
> 
> --Steve




I guess it comes down to what you consider an "encounter", but I'd limit it to during Initiative. If the players abuse it, then don't allow the class.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Aug 9, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Duelist is a PrC, I'm third level. Unfettered is Elsewhere.
> 
> Swashbuckler gave me good skills (decent base + good intel) and Elven Courtblade is fun.




And now you have the entire useful bit of Swashbuckler, so you can find another class.  

Brad


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 9, 2006)

Unless he wants, and I'm just throwing this out there kind of as a lark because I never see anyone care about it, to have all the skills necessary to be the party face.

Its why I like the swashbuckler, at least.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 9, 2006)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Unless he wants, and I'm just throwing this out there kind of as a lark because I never see anyone care about it, to have all the skills necessary to be the party face.
> 
> Its why I like the swashbuckler, at least.




I've got diplomacy, intimidate and most of the social suite, but no real charisma because of the char-gen method. White Raven seems a good complement for it.
Also, I've got that human feat that lets you get any skill for 1 skill point, though crossclass is still half max. I've been gathering Knowledge skills (2 ranks at least) and with the intel it's decent.

For combat, the COurtblade lets me get Str X1.5, + intel (now) and power attack doubled, so I hold my own.


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 9, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I've got diplomacy, intimidate and most of the social suite, but no real charisma because of the char-gen method. White Raven seems a good complement for it.
> Also, I've got that human feat that lets you get any skill for 1 skill point, though crossclass is still half max. I've been gathering Knowledge skills (2 ranks at least) and with the intel it's decent.
> 
> For combat, the COurtblade lets me get Str X1.5, + intel (now) and power attack doubled, so I hold my own.




Where is that feat for humans, and the courtblade detailed?

Banshee


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 9, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Where is that feat for humans, and the courtblade detailed?
> 
> Banshee



The skill feat is from Races of Destiny, Able Learner.

Elven Courtblade is an exotic weapon, greatsword that can be finessed, does 1d10, 18-20X2, it's from Races of the Wild.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 9, 2006)

Pretty sure the feat is in Races of Destiny (and called Able Learner - you have to take it at first level as well), and the Courtblade is in either Complete Warrior or Races of the Wild (it's basically the 2-handed version of the Thinblade, 2d6/18-20).


----------



## Felon (Aug 10, 2006)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Okay, do you think it's better than rage?




Honestly, that's a really poor comparison, but in light of the reusability of the maneuver, then I'd say yes it is. 

In general, it sounds as if big damage bonuses are handed out pretty casually. It's interesting that the warblade is essentially a swashbuckler and the swordsage an unarmored samurai, but they don't come right out and say so.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 10, 2006)

See, I don't read the warblade as a swashbuckler at ALL.

I mean, you could build a warblade swashbuckler, but why?  You'd have to base around the Diamond Mind school, and it would be... subpar.  You'd be better off with a warblade fighter type.  A few bonuses from Int does not a swashbuckler make.

If you wanted to do a swashbuckler, the swordsage seems like SUCH a better choice.  Diamond Mind plus Setting Sun would be an excellent rapier wielding swashbuckler type build.


----------



## Victim (Aug 10, 2006)

Well, the warblade has the swashbuckling attitude, since they're often all about showing off.  But mechanically the class didn't seem very swashy.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 10, 2006)

Just got the book.  A bit of a learning curve but I think I understand it (though I have not read the specific maneuvers and stances yet, nor the 9 swords themselves) and the separation of them by discipline works for me at least.

What surprised me most?  Looking at the prestige classes and realizing that apparently there is such a thing as a Paladin of Wee Jas.  Huh.  I had always assumed that their lawful neutral clerics using the "Dark Side of the Force" (rebuking undead vs. turning undead) by default sorta precluded that, but I guess Wotc disagrees.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Aug 10, 2006)

Ok. Here's the take I get on the martial adept classes vs. the traditional fighting classes and why I disagree with the idea that the Martial Adept classes are more powerful. This is not to say that they are weaker, just not more powerful. Here is how feat users (like a fighter) compare against the new "martial adept" classes.

Feats vs. Maneuvers

1. The Action Log-Jam: Feats don't typically take actions to use. They are usually either always on or work as part of an action that is already being taken (such as a move or an attack). Maneuvers (particularly strikes) take an action to use like spells (usually full-round or standard). Plenty of maneuvers take swift or immediate actions, but they still require an action and can result in action "log-jams" which prevent multiple maneuvers being used in the same round. Martial adepts can execute at best 2 maneuvers in a round. (mainly a full-round or standard action + a swift or immediate action). Maneuvers also are spent once used until you execute the prescribed action to re-set them. You cannot simply use them over and over again even if the situation would warrant it. At best you can re-use a maneuver every other round (warblade). Classes like the Crusader can't even use them that often.

Stances don't take an action if you are already in the stance but the ability the stance allows you to use may in and of itself take an action. It also takes a swift action to change a stance (which may result in a limitation on your ability to execute a maneuver). 

Feats generally do not take time to activate. A few do but most don't. They activate as part of an attack action of some sort not as a separate standard action, consequently you can use as many as apply in the situation. 

2. Stacking: Assuming you chose them properly, feats stack with nearly everything unless something states otherwide. Martial Maneuvers don't stack very often due to short durations (usually for the round at most) and due to the limited number of actions available to activate them. 

Note also as the Book of Nine Swords states, strike maneuvers do NOT stack with special attacks (including feats) or with extra attacks such as by way of haste. Unfortunately the book is very vague on these terms. Only two examples are given of "special attacks" (Sunder and Bull Rush) but it is pretty clear that combat feats like Power Attack qualify and thus cannot be used with a strike maneuver. Basically if you can say, "I execute a <insert name of ability or feat>," it is probably a special attack and thus cannot be used with a strike. Also per the Book of Nine Swords, extra dice from maneuvers don't multiply on critical hits. 

3. Feat Limitations: Note also that many feats only work when you take an attack action of some sort. Using a martial maneuver can be a Standard, Full Round, Immediate or Swift Action, but they are rarely if ever an attack action. Note some of them allow you to take an attack as part of the maneuver but that is NOT an actual attack action. Consequently, many of the fighter-type combat feats are near useless for a martial adept. The adept can take the feats and use them instead of a maneuver but he can't use them WITH a maneuver to improve the effect. 

4. Dead-Weight abilities: This is a little hard to explain but I will try. Martial Maneuvers have levels like spells. They also have pre-requisites like feats. This results in the odd quandry where you sometimes need to stack lower level maneuvers (of which you only know a limited number) to satisfy the prerequisite for a higher level one that is sometimes merely an improved version of the low-level one. 

Yes the rules do allow for maneuvers to be swapped for new ones, yet due to the limited swapping and prerequisite rules it may not be possible to get rid of all the old maneuvers that have been superseeded by new ones. Couple this with the fact you cannot ready all of your maneuvers for use at once, this means that older low-level maneuvers will tend become "dead weight" unless they have special properties that are useful for a particular situation AND the adept knows in advance that that property will be required. 

Stances aren't as much of a dead-weight. While at high levels you can get as many as 7 stances (one active at a time) they are always ready and you can switch them as a mere swift action. (Note: Warblades can have 2 stances active at high level). 

While on the surface this may seem the same as spells, that is not the case at least for spontaneous casters for whom their entire repertoire is ready at all times. They can choose to use use a low or high level spell at any time if the situation warrants. 

Prepared casters may not have all of their repertoire ready at all times but their long-term spell selection is not encumbered by dead-weight. If the spell is no longer useful, they won't memorize it. The only real loss they suffer is the initial cost/time outlay and space in the spellbook. 

Feat-users can have a dead-weight feat problem, but that usually results from poor planning. Most feat-users choose their feats BECAUSE they work together or because they are prerequisites. Even if you only took the feat as a prerequisite, nothing stops you from using itIt just may not be helpful at the time. Dodge may seem like a dead weight feat to get to spring attack, but nothing is stopping you from using the dodge bonus anyway so long as the situation warrants. It doesn't simply sit there and take up space.

5. Summary.
Martial Adept pros: Plenty of powerful abilities at maximum current level. Abilities can also be versatile and have a nice "cool" factor to them.
Martial Adept cons: Difficult to execute more than one powerful ability per round. Maneuvers have little stackability. You tend to attack with a single powerful attack instead of several lower-powered attacks.

Feat user pros: No action log-jam. Feat combos combined with multiple attacks can be a winner.
Feat user cons: Without multiple attacks and feat combos it is hard to do anything potent. Lone unrelated feats make for a weak fighter.

Tzarevitch


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 10, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Just got the book.  A bit of a learning curve but I think I understand it (though I have not read the specific maneuvers and stances yet, nor the 9 swords themselves) and the separation of them by discipline works for me at least.
> 
> What surprised me most?  Looking at the prestige classes and realizing that apparently there is such a thing as a Paladin of Wee Jas.  Huh.  I had always assumed that their lawful neutral clerics using the "Dark Side of the Force" (rebuking undead vs. turning undead) by default sorta precluded that, but I guess Wotc disagrees.




It's worth noting that Clerics have alignment restricted by deity, but paladins don't. They usually follow LG gods, but there's no requirement.

The sample NPC neglects the rule that LN Wee Jas-arites must rebuke though.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 10, 2006)

Also for remembering which manuevers have been used or memorized, the book mentions cards, which would be handy for this. By the same token, cards would make the randomized Crusader draws easier too.


----------



## chaotix42 (Aug 11, 2006)

Tzarevitch, I think you are mistaken on one thing. After some clarification on the WotC forums, the limit on performing special attacks and strikes at the same time pertains to special attacks that can be taken in combat, such as sundering and bull rushing as you mentioned. "Special attacks" refers to the actions listed together in the PHB, pg. 154 +: bull rush, disarm, trip, sunder, overrun, etc. You are still free to use such things as Power Attack with your strikes.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 11, 2006)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> 4. Dead-Weight abilities: This is a little hard to explain but I will try. Martial Maneuvers have levels like spells. They also have pre-requisites like feats. This results in the odd quandry where you sometimes need to stack lower level maneuvers (of which you only know a limited number) to satisfy the prerequisite for a higher level one that is sometimes merely an improved version of the low-level one.
> 
> Yes the rules do allow for maneuvers to be swapped for new ones, yet due to the limited swapping and prerequisite rules it may not be possible to get rid of all the old maneuvers that have been superseeded by new ones. Couple this with the fact you cannot ready all of your maneuvers for use at once, this means that older low-level maneuvers will tend become "dead weight" unless they have special properties that are useful for a particular situation AND the adept knows in advance that that property will be required.



I noticed this when prepping my levels. BUT, not all higher level powers actually have prereqs. Also, the powers generally say "2 white raven manuevers". So, theoretically, you can swap out a low level power for a higher level one, and still have the number of maneuvers. In practice, it's a bit of a limitation, but not game breaking for me.


----------



## Felon (Aug 11, 2006)

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Tzarevitch, I think you are mistaken on one thing. After some clarification on the WotC forums, the limit on performing special attacks and strikes at the same time pertains to special attacks that can be taken in combat, such as sundering and bull rushing as you mentioned. "Special attacks" refers to the actions listed together in the PHB, pg. 154 +: bull rush, disarm, trip, sunder, overrun, etc. You are still free to use such things as Power Attack with your strikes.




That certainly makes a great deal more sense.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Aug 11, 2006)

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Tzarevitch, I think you are mistaken on one thing. After some clarification on the WotC forums, the limit on performing special attacks and strikes at the same time pertains to special attacks that can be taken in combat, such as sundering and bull rushing as you mentioned. "Special attacks" refers to the actions listed together in the PHB, pg. 154 +: bull rush, disarm, trip, sunder, overrun, etc. You are still free to use such things as Power Attack with your strikes.




That would make sense particularly since certain maneuvers duplicate the effects of a feat.

Tzarevitch


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 11, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I noticed this when prepping my levels. BUT, not all higher level powers actually have prereqs. Also, the powers generally say "2 white raven manuevers". So, theoretically, you can swap out a low level power for a higher level one, and still have the number of maneuvers. In practice, it's a bit of a limitation, but not game breaking for me.




I wonder if you can end up with a "circular" prerequisite chain after swapping out.

If you start with a 1st (no prereq) and 2nd (1 prereq) and swap out the 1st (no prereq) for a 2nd (1 prereq) can the two 2nd (1 prereq) maneuvers act as the prereqs for each other?


----------



## Kurotowa (Aug 11, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I wonder if you can end up with a "circular" prerequisite chain after swapping out.
> 
> If you start with a 1st (no prereq) and 2nd (1 prereq) and swap out the 1st (no prereq) for a 2nd (1 prereq) can the two 2nd (1 prereq) maneuvers act as the prereqs for each other?




I believe you can and that's it's even the intended result.  You don't get enough maneuver exchanges that you can do that will all of your low level maneuvers, but it does help keep you from getting loaded down with obsolete ones.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Aug 11, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I wonder if you can end up with a "circular" prerequisite chain after swapping out.
> 
> If you start with a 1st (no prereq) and 2nd (1 prereq) and swap out the 1st (no prereq) for a 2nd (1 prereq) can the two 2nd (1 prereq) maneuvers act as the prereqs for each other?




Nothing that I saw prohibits it, as long as you don't try to claim someting as prerequisite for itself.

Tzarevitch


----------



## Tzarevitch (Aug 11, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Also for remembering which manuevers have been used or memorized, the book mentions cards, which would be handy for this. By the same token, cards would make the randomized Crusader draws easier too.




It seems almost necessary for the crusader. Honestly, the crusader is the only one of the new classes that I would seriously never play. I think the randomization and the reasoning behind it is idiotic, and that is not a word I use lightly. It makes no sense to me to give someone a set of abilities then force him to randomly determine which ones he actually gets to use. When did a spark of the divine suddenly equate to randomness. What was that old saying; something about God not playing at dice?

Tzarevitch


----------



## Andor (Aug 12, 2006)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> Ok. Here's the take I get on the martial adept classes vs. the traditional fighting classes and why I disagree with the idea that the Martial Adept classes are more powerful. This is not to say that they are weaker, just not more powerful. Here is how feat users (like a fighter) compare against the new "martial adept" classes.
> 
> Feat user pros: No action log-jam. Feat combos combined with multiple attacks can be a winner.
> Feat user cons: Without multiple attacks and feat combos it is hard to do anything potent. Lone unrelated feats make for a weak fighter.
> ...




I'm curious as to how the classes stack up against each other. How would Swordsage vs Warblade stack up at 5th and 10th level, assuming humans and 28 points buys?

Incidently, does it strike anyone else as odd that by far the fastest way into Master of the 9 is with a few levels of fighter to speed up the feat aquisition?


----------



## Zarnam (Aug 13, 2006)

I've two questions to lucky owners of the ToB:
1) I was wondering about the Snap Kick (??) feat - how does it work with Monk's Flurry of Blows ?? Can you make 3 attacks with -4 to each ??
2) Since I forgot to look at the Superior Unarmed Strike - a friend told me it increases the damage to 1k6, is that true ??

Thanks !!


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 13, 2006)

Andor said:
			
		

> Incidently, does it strike anyone else as odd that by far the fastest way into Master of the 9 is with a few levels of fighter to speed up the feat aquisition?




People keep saying "Fighters are useless!" and it doesn't ever seem to be true!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 13, 2006)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> It makes no sense to me to give someone a set of abilities then force him to randomly determine which ones he actually gets to use.
> 
> Tzarevitch





I don't mind it as much, simply because you generally do get a few powers anyway. You may not always have the right one at the right moment, but you do have plenty of options.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 13, 2006)

Zarnam said:
			
		

> I've two questions to lucky owners of the ToB:
> 1) I was wondering about the Snap Kick (??) feat - how does it work with Monk's Flurry of Blows ?? Can you make 3 attacks with -4 to each ??



It would seem so.


> 2) Since I forgot to look at the Superior Unarmed Strike - a friend told me it increases the damage to 1k6, is that true ??
> 
> Thanks !!



unarmed damage starts at d4, scales up by level from there. If you're a monk it gives you a +4 level bonus for determining unarmed damage.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 13, 2006)

You also get the guaranteed use of at least one maneuver per round.

I like the system.  It encourages thinking on your feet.

One of the things about books that include new mechanics is that some of the material will be new.  Lots of people will therefore find it "scary" or "illogical" or whatever, when in reality, its no scarier or more illogical than the current systems.  Just accept it for what it is.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 13, 2006)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> What was that old saying; something about God not playing at dice?
> 
> Tzarevitch




That was Einstein.  He was wrong.  

I like the "playing cards" idea to get the random effect dealt with quickly.  If you want an in-game explanation, it only *seems* random to your character.  The character's God has a reason to give the character that particular maneuver at that particular time, but the reason is ineffable to mere mortals.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 13, 2006)

One oddity.  The 9 swords in question are "legacy weapons" but it doesn't list what levels you have to be to do the three rituals to "unlock" the successive powers of the weapons.  Typo?  Or am I simply blind?


----------



## Staffan (Aug 13, 2006)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Hmmn, that sounds kind of silly, and will likely lead to _Dude! Let me hit you with my battle axe, It'll heal me 100HP!_



The healing strikes all say:
"As part of initiating this strike, you must make a successful melee attack against an enemy whose alignment has at least one component different from yours. This foe must pose a threat to you or your allies in some direct, immediate way."


----------



## JustKim (Aug 13, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> The healing strikes all say:
> "As part of initiating this strike, you must make a successful melee attack against an enemy whose alignment has at least one component different from yours. This foe must pose a threat to you or your allies in some direct, immediate way."



Have an ally cast _summon monster I_ and order the monster to attack you. Spirit of the rules averted!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 13, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> One oddity.  The 9 swords in question are "legacy weapons" but it doesn't list what levels you have to be to do the three rituals to "unlock" the successive powers of the weapons.  Typo?  Or am I simply blind?



The Weapons of Legacy rules are not exactly the best example of "clear". 

the levels are 5th, 11th, 17th.


----------



## Kurotowa (Aug 13, 2006)

JustKim said:
			
		

> Have an ally cast _summon monster I_ and order the monster to attack you. Spirit of the rules averted!




Highly debatable.  A creature that's under your ally's complete control hardly counts as a direct threat.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 13, 2006)

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> Highly debatable.  A creature that's under your ally's complete control hardly counts as a direct threat.



A summoned monster whose language you don't speak is uncontrolled. If the caster then moves out of the spell's range, he loses the ability to dismiss the summoned monster as well. Whew! That was a close one, but I'm pretty sure we have successfully nullified the spirit of the rules.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 13, 2006)

No, it's not. A summoned monster by default attacks your *enemies*. If you can communicate with it, you can tell it to do something else though.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 13, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> No, it's not. A summoned monster by default attacks your *enemies*. If you can communicate with it, you can tell it to do something else though.



You designate who an ally or enemy is when you cast a spell, the same way you don't have to include the cleric of Vecna in your _bless_ spell if you think he's a jerk. The caster, not the spell, determines who the enemies are.

You guys are really sticklers for rules that make sense, but I'm telling you, this one is totally open for abuse.


----------



## Kurotowa (Aug 13, 2006)

JustKim said:
			
		

> You guys are really sticklers for rules that make sense, but I'm telling you, this one is totally open for abuse.




There is a point in any torturously reasoned abuse of the rules where a DM worth his salt will say, "No, that's stupid.  Now sit down and shut up about it or I'll dock you 1000xp."  A less experienced DM might try to counter the torturous reasoning, erroneously believing that this will resolve the matter.  When really all that's needed is to point out in a firm way that this is against the spirit of the rules, is obviously against the spirit of the rules, and pressing the point will not get you anywhere.

This is one of those times.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 13, 2006)

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> against the spirit of the rules



Hey, that sounds familiar. I think I said that no less than twice in my posts.

Yes, yes, I definitely did. I also emphasized with exclamation points. I don't know how you could have missed that.


----------



## Felon (Aug 13, 2006)

JustKim said:
			
		

> Hey, that sounds familiar. I think I said that no less than twice in my posts. Yes, yes, I definitely did. I also emphasized with exclamation points. I don't know how you could have missed that.




Kurotawa's not the one being obtuse here. You're trying to show how a rule can be abused and the spirit of the rules can be averted, initially under the premise that the ability in question had a wording that was too open-ended. It was then demonstrated that the wording is fairly specific, to the point where a DM would have to be pretty slack to allow such a perverse interpretation of the rules. Apparently, you dismiss the role of the DM in averting such abuse.

Can't really see what point you're trying to make. Most rules are open to exploitation. Summon Monster I in particular could always create feedbags (for use with vampiric touch, for instance).


----------



## Kurotowa (Aug 13, 2006)

JustKim said:
			
		

> Hey, that sounds familiar. I think I said that no less than twice in my posts.
> 
> Yes, yes, I definitely did. I also emphasized with exclamation points. I don't know how you could have missed that.




No, I didn't miss it.  I just found it rather amusing to claim to have "successfully nullified the spirit of the rules."  I mean, honestly now.  Do you really expect it to go differently than this.

Player: I am the l33t rulz master!  See, I've nullified the spirit of the rule.  Now I can do whatever I want!

DM: No!  Bad player, no biscut. *Smacks Player with the DM screen*

Player: *whines* But I nullified the spirit of the rules!  You can't stop me.

DM: The spirit of the rules says, "Thou shalt not be an ass."  And I say, "I'm the DM around here, that means I'm the law."  Now quit clowning around or else I'm running Tomb of Horrors next week.  *Smacks Player with the DM screen again*

Player: Waah!  Not the Tomb of Horrors!  I'm sorry.  I'll be good.


----------



## Zarnam (Aug 13, 2006)

Hmmm...something's not right here



> unarmed damage starts at d4, scales up by level from there. If you're a monk it gives you a +4 level bonus for determining unarmed damage.




From what I know, you deal 1d3 unarmed damage (unless you are bigger/smaller then Medium) ?? Or perhaps it is the Feat (Superior Unarmed Strike) that sets the damage to 1d4 ?? I'm confused now...



> I was wondering about the Snap Kick (??) feat - how does it work with Monk's Flurry of Blows ?? Can you make 3 attacks with -4 to each ??





> It would seem so.




Really  Can someone cofirm this  Do you get an additional unarmed strike that stacks with Monk's Flurry ??


----------



## Staffan (Aug 13, 2006)

Zarnam said:
			
		

> From what I know, you deal 1d3 unarmed damage (unless you are bigger/smaller then Medium) ?? Or perhaps it is the Feat (Superior Unarmed Strike) that sets the damage to 1d4 ?? I'm confused now...



Yes, that's what the feat does. It basically gives you the unarmed damage of a monk 4 levels lower than you (with 1d4 being the step below 1d6), or if you're already a monk it increases your unarmed damage by 4 levels (= 1 step).

It's a neat feat, but I would definitely not allow a monk to take both this *and* Improved Natural Attack.



> Really  Can someone cofirm this  Do you get an additional unarmed strike that stacks with Monk's Flurry ??



Doesn't say whether it stacks with flurry or not, so I guess it does. You need BAB +6 to get it though, so a monk couldn't get it until 9th level.

You only get half Str bonus on this attack as well, unlike a monk's flurry where all attacks get full Str bonus.

But you could make a decent monk approximation by playing a Swordsage and taking Improved Unarmed Strike, Superior Unarmed Strike, and Snap Kick. Though you wouldn't get to "near-full monk mode" until 9th level (they also get 3/4 BAB), but on the other hand you can wear light armor AND get Wis bonus to AC (but not the level-based Monk bonus). On the other hand the maneuvers of the swordsage are way cooler than the monk's other stuff.


----------



## NilesB (Aug 13, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> t's a neat feat, but I would definitely not allow a monk to take both this *and* Improved Natural Attack.



Why Not? I's not like Monks deal particularly good Melee Damage for a Character who has dealing melee damage as their only effective combat role.

And if you let them have a monk's belt the feat stops doing anything at level 15.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 13, 2006)

I don't mind monks beefing up their melee abilities with either INA or SUS, it's just that the two feats pretty much do the same thing. It's like allowing Weapon Focus twice for the same weapon (and yeah, I know about Greater WF, but that only comes in at high levels).

Plus, I'd rather not have 8th level (where a monk's belt would be reasonable) monks doing 3d6 damage per attack.


----------



## Andor (Aug 13, 2006)

I see room for a monkish martial adept class.

Good BAB, Good Reflex and Will save, Monk HtH damge and AC, no armour or weapons. Stunning fist.
Give them access to the disciplines that have unarmed as a favored weapon. Manuvers known, readied and stances as Crusader, Recover used manuvers as a move action by spending a stunning fist usage. Probably need to give them some bonus feats too.

I'm liking this book for the aditional options and flavor it provides.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 13, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> You're trying to show how a rule can be abused and the spirit of the rules can be averted, initially under the premise that the ability in question had a wording that was too open-ended.



I'm not trying, I'm succeeding effortlessly. If you don't agree with the _summon monster I_ thing, and you really can't while sticking to the letter of the rules, there are hundreds of ways to make a weak threat give you instant healing.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> It was then demonstrated that the wording is fairly specific, to the point where a DM would have to be pretty slack to allow such a perverse interpretation of the rules. Apparently, you dismiss the role of the DM in averting such abuse.



I dismiss the role of the DM because the DM does not enter into what the book says and that is all we are discussing here. You make a mistake by assuming that my argument would ever be presented to a DM to rationalize this abuse (although it's certainly no bag of rats). I'm simply playing devil's advocate.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Can't really see what point you're trying to make. *Most rules are open to exploitation.*



See, I knew it. You did understand the point. You really had me fooled for a minute there, I thought that everyone who read my posts would only see the argument and completely ignore what I was not-so-subtly implying about the spirit of the rules. We have had a breakthrough here. I'm sorry I yelled at you.



			
				Kurotowa said:
			
		

> No, I didn't miss it. I just found it rather amusing to claim to have "successfully nullified the spirit of the rules." I mean, honestly now. Do you really expect it to go differently than this.



What? No. I expected it to go like this.

JustKim: You guys are silly, it's still open to abuse.

EN Worlders: Wow Kim, you are totally right! You rock!!!!!​
But instead it seems to be going like this.

JustKim: You guys are silly, it's still open to abuse.

EN Worlders: No you can't.

JustKim: Yes you can, here are the rules to back it up.

EN Wordlers: A good DM would never allow this. You're a bad DM or player. Also, your mother.​


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 13, 2006)

> EN Worlders: Wow Kim, you are totally right! You rock!!!!!




Allow me to say it. I was laughing from the first post. 

Wow, Kim, you are totally right! You rock!


----------



## Kurotowa (Aug 13, 2006)

You're missing two essential points.  First, many of us see rules abuse as a bad thing to be prevented, not a good thing to celebrated.  You need to go to the WotC CO board for that.  Second, as proud as you are of it, your reasoning is tissue thin and very easily ignored by any DM who doesn't want to see rules abusingly powerful PCs in their game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 13, 2006)

> You're missing two essential points. First, many of us see rules abuse as a bad thing to be prevented, not a good thing to celebrated. You need to go to the WotC CO board for that. Second, as proud as you are of it, your reasoning is tissue thin and very easily ignored by any DM who doesn't want to see rules abusingly powerful PCs in their game.




Don't be a playa hata. It's only a game.


----------



## Kurotowa (Aug 13, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Don't be a playa hata. It's only a game.




I got no problems with playas as long as they play the game.  But only if they play the game by the rules.  Anyone can "win" if they break the rules or make up their own.  It takes a real playa to get ahead by the same rules everyone else uses.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 13, 2006)

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> I got no problems with playas as long as they play the game.  But only if they play the game by the rules.  Anyone can "win" if they break the rules or make up their own.  It takes a real playa to get ahead by the same rules everyone else uses.



I do not understand this distinction you are making.
Bad players make up rules and good players use the same by-the-book rules as everyone else, this is what I'm getting here. I think a problem arises because at the same time you're dismissing a loophole in the rules because you say so. You are house ruling, that is, making up a rule.

It seems like you're calling yourself a bad player. I don't agree with that, Kurotowa. I think you're probably a very good player. Don't be so hard on yourself.


----------



## Kurotowa (Aug 13, 2006)

You say valid loophole in the rules, I say wishful thinking and willful misreading.  Just because you want there to be a way to exploit the rules doesn't make it so.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 13, 2006)

JustKim said:
			
		

> I do not understand this distinction you are making.
> Bad players make up rules and good players use the same by-the-book rules as everyone else, this is what I'm getting here. I think a problem arises because at the same time you're dismissing a loophole in the rules because you say so. You are house ruling, that is, making up a rule.
> 
> It seems like you're calling yourself a bad player. I don't agree with that, Kurotowa. I think you're probably a very good player. Don't be so hard on yourself.






			
				Beurocrat 1.0 said:
			
		

> Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct - the best kind of correct




.....Aaah, there's a Futurama quote for every occasion.


----------



## Andor (Aug 14, 2006)

Something I find interesting about these classes is that they are extremely dip friendly, and even more interestingly the later you dip the more powerful that dip becomes. For example a Rogue who dips into Swordsage at 9th level has an initiator level of 5 and can take up to level 3 manuvers and stances. Hello Shadow Hand goodness.


----------



## NilesB (Aug 14, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> I don't mind monks beefing up their melee abilities with either INA or SUS, it's just that the two feats pretty much do the same thing. It's like allowing Weapon Focus twice for the same weapon (and yeah, I know about Greater WF, but that only comes in at high levels).
> 
> Plus, I'd rather not have 8th level (where a monk's belt would be reasonable) monks doing 3d6 damage per attack.




Let's compare that Damage to a Warriors Shall we. Not a Barbarian in his rage, not a Fighter with his Feats, not an evil-smiting Paladin, But the humble NPC Class Warrior.

Your monk has spent 2 feats and 13 thousand gold on enhancing his damage, let us see what damage a Warrior with a similar level of dedication.

We will ignore strength bonuses for this demonstration, this slightly disadvantages the Warrior but it simplifies the comparison.

Let us choose for the 2 feats the Warrior will use to enhance his damage. How about Power attack? it has the additional Virtue of allowing us to equallize the Warrior and the Monk's attack bonuses. along the same line of inquiry we will also choose weapon focus greatsword.

Power attacking by 3 to copensate for weapon focus and his higher base attack bonus the warrior deals 2d6+6 damage averaging 2.5 above the monk.

But wait you claim, the monk can use flurry of blows to make 3 attacks to the warriors 2. Let us spend some of the warriors money.

9350 gold will purchase a +1 shocking greatsword, leaving 3650 gold unspent. 
using this sword and increasing his power attack penalty to compensate for the monks flurry of blows penalty and his own enhancement bonus, the warrior now deals 3d6+11, a hair more than  twice as much as the monk.

This is core only, it's not some secret twink build, and it's an NPC class for crying out loud! But it still beats the Monk.


----------



## weiknarf (Aug 14, 2006)

Andor said:
			
		

> Something I find interesting about these classes is that they are extremely dip friendly, and even more interestingly the later you dip the more powerful that dip becomes. For example a Rogue who dips into Swordsage at 9th level has an initiator level of 5 and can take up to level 3 manuvers and stances. Hello Shadow Hand goodness.





Huh?


----------



## Andor (Aug 14, 2006)

weiknarf said:
			
		

> Huh?




Manuvers are like spells. They are organized into 9 levels and access to them is based in initiator level with the same progression as a wizard. 

IE: Initiator level 1 = Level one manuvers
--  Initiator level 3 = Level two manuvers
--  Initiator level 5 = Level three manuvers
and so on...

The difference is that while caster levels are granted only by casting classes, levels in _any_ class grant .5 initiator levels.

So a level 8 Rogue Level 1 Swordsage has a SwordSage initiator level of (8/2) + 1 = 5 and can take level 1,2, or 3 manuvers. Fun, huh?


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 14, 2006)

Andor said:
			
		

> Manuvers are like spells. They are organized into 9 levels and access to them is based in initiator level with the same progression as a wizard.
> 
> IE: Initiator level 1 = Level one manuvers
> --  Initiator level 3 = Level two manuvers
> ...




I suspect that caster levels may work something like that, someday. And I think I'll like it.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 14, 2006)

Andor said:
			
		

> So a level 8 Rogue Level 1 Swordsage has a SwordSage initiator level of (8/2) + 1 = 5 and can take level 1,2, or 3 manuvers. Fun, huh?



However, most maneuvers above 1st level have prerequisites that have to be satisfied first. So one level of a martial adept class won't help that much, but you'd get a lot more mileage out of a Rogue 8/Swordsage 3 than a Rogue 8/Sorcerer 3.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 14, 2006)

YOu know, a magic item that did nothing but act as a "floating maneuver prerequisite" could be very handy.  Like a ring that lets you take maneuvers that ordinarily require another maneuver of that discipline as a prerequisite, but the ring serves as the prerequisite, despite not itself providing a maneuver.


----------



## vulcan_idic (Aug 14, 2006)

Having actually gotten my hands on it and had a chance to read it now, I really really like it.  I believe folks when they say there is a potential for abuse, but more important in my own humble view, since my group doesn't seem overly abusive, is the potential for storytelling - and I think this stuf has amazing storytelling potential!!


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 14, 2006)

NilesB said:
			
		

> Let's compare that Damage to a Warriors Shall we. Not a Barbarian in his rage, not a Fighter with his Feats, not an evil-smiting Paladin, But the humble NPC Class Warrior.
> 
> 9350 gold will purchase a +1 shocking greatsword, leaving 3650 gold unspent.
> using this sword and increasing his power attack penalty to compensate for the monks flurry of blows penalty and his own enhancement bonus, the warrior now deals 3d6+11, a hair more than  twice as much as the monk.
> ...




Good argument, although to be fair an NPC class has less gold to spend than a PC class of the same level.  

This reminds of me of the argument that a monk would be better off using a great sword, despite not being proficient in it, than attacking unarmed with a flurry at low levels.


----------



## NilesB (Aug 14, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Good argument, although to be fair an NPC class has less gold to spend than a PC class of the same level.



That's just a Guideline for creating encounters, it wouldn't apply if a player actually wanted to create a character with an NPC class.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 14, 2006)

One of the gamers in my group handed me a copy of ToB on Saturday b/c he thought it would be something we might be able to incorporate into our campaign.  This should be prefaced with: our game has been running for 6 years, it as 20th level and uses 3.0 rules.  I use a very small smattering of 3.5 mechanics (primarily the XPH over PsiHb) but generally only where there is no overlap with 3.0.   This also means that power balance is a big issue.  I personally disagree with the assumptions made in the 3.5 revision, which means I am a harsh reviewer of anything 3.5.  

The fighter10/"dervish"10 and the "scout" 20 (house variants of dervish & scout classes, very close to 3.5 by chance) are both candidates for Martial Adepts as neither shows any interest in magic.  if they took a martial adept class at 21st level they would have an Initiator level of 11 (20/2 + 1) and qualify for 6th level feats.  



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> Something I find interesting about these classes is that they are extremely dip friendly, and even more interestingly the later you dip the more powerful that dip becomes. For example a Rogue who dips into Swordsage at 9th level has an initiator level of 5 and can take up to level 3 manuvers and stances. Hello Shadow Hand goodness.




Yes this is a very dip-friendy class but primarily only at higher levels where the Initiator level from other classes comes into play. Dipping into a Martial Adept at low level does little, especially since there is no mechanism for non-Adepts changing their Manuevers.  

The Initiator level being based on more than the adept classes is a sound one: people who know how to fight tend to be good at doing things that involve fighting.  I personally might have made it based on BAB rather than pure level but I guess there is the Epic side of things to worry about.  

The quick build of the scout20/warblade1 (diamond soul) resulted in someone who could do one horribly damaging attack (concentration check x2 damage = 2d20 + 24 based on dumping all the warblade skill points into Concentration) instead of a full-round attack, could take 2 attacks of opportunity on a person for performing one provoking action, make one attack as a touch attack (I think), and whose AC goes up when foes miss him (black pearl of doubt).

So: is doing 2d20+24 worth giving up multiple melee attacks?  Maybe, maybe not.  It's great for the scout who is a finesse fighter but less useful for a high-strength character.   The touch attack is not significantly different than the Deep Impact psionic feet.   Being able to make 2 AoOs against a mage for casting a spell is darned handy but not a deal breaker, especially since it requires a "refresh" action before you can do it again.  The AC thing is nice but it hinges on the opponents' skill or luck.   

The d12 HD perhaps a bit much but that's the only thing I can see wrong with warblade.  

I'm going to have trouble integrating the Martial Adepts into my game due to story concerns but mechanically I have no problem with it.  The maneuvers are powerful but generally on par  what a paladin/ranger's spells might provide at equivalent levels and doesn't have the "pearl of power" option that the casters have.   Maneuvers are, IMO, one of the best new mechanics I've seen in quite some time.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 14, 2006)

I'll also suggest comparing the Scout20/warblade1 with a scout20/psiwarrior1 or a scout20/warmage1.  Those classes can result in shield/armor/insight AC bonuses, truestrike, bonuses to grapple checks, natural weapons, DR, and special senses.  

I think they are essentially equivalent increases in power.  The 1st level warblade has 3 maneuvers, each limiting the wb to 1 attack/round, before he has to refresh, again limiting him to 1/attack/round.  The casters can burn a single spell and gain the effect for the duration of virtually all encounters while taking multiple attacks the remaining rounds.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 16, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> The d12 HD perhaps a bit much but that's the only thing I can see wrong with warblade.



To my read the Special abilities do not stack up to the Fighter's bonus feats.  But they are not wildly behind.
With the manuevers and stances thrown in it seems a better than the fighter but maybe not wildly.

The thing that I really sticking on is how easy it is for them to recover their manuevers.  
I mean, the sword sage has to give up a turn to get ONE back.
The war blade can get ALL back with an attack or, at worst give up just a standard action.

Add in some extra skill points and the D12 (which really seems odd) and I don't see it.

The lack of heavy armor and ranged attacks are not meaningless.  But I just don't see them as enough.

Am I missing something?


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 16, 2006)

The maneuvers aren't earth shatteringly powerful.  Most of the attacks are standard actions and will deny the Warblade his full attack.  Most of the stances are only situationally useful.  Few are worth having on continuously in all encounters.  Many of the cooler maneuvers require an extra skill check to succeed, which increases the chance that they won't do anything at all.  Maneuvers are easily recovered, but a warblade trying to use lots of maneuvers will have to recover them every 3 rounds or so (you can consume 2 maneuvers per round using a strike and a swift action maneuver).  Most maneuvers are also only situationally useful as compared to a standard attack, and warblade's will frequently find themselves wishing that they had 1) selected, and 2) readied entirely different maneuvers.

Its a good class, but the fighter still has his role.  I personally favor the Tome of Battle classes simply because I like the variety, but if you want generically useful, always available boosts, feats are the way to go rather than maneuvers.

As for the swordsage versus the warblade, well, I try not to do ability for ability comparisons.  I just look at the class and say, "is this a class I'd be willing to play?"  If so, I don't worry about whether some specific ability is better or worse than another classes.  I'd be very happy to play a swordsage, so I don't worry about whether its maneuver recovery is as good as a warblade's.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 16, 2006)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The maneuvers aren't earth shatteringly powerful.  Most of the attacks are standard actions and will deny the Warblade his full attack.  Most of the stances are only situationally useful.  Few are worth having on continuously in all encounters.  Many of the cooler maneuvers require an extra skill check to succeed, which increases the chance that they won't do anything at all.  Maneuvers are easily recovered, but a warblade trying to use lots of maneuvers will have to recover them every 3 rounds or so (you can consume 2 maneuvers per round using a strike and a swift action maneuver).  Most maneuvers are also only situationally useful as compared to a standard attack, and warblade's will frequently find themselves wishing that they had 1) selected, and 2) readied entirely different maneuvers.




Yeah, but a warblade can still full attack and be almost as good as a fighter as a worst case scenario.    They are nearly as good always and notably better frequently.

Frequency of need to recover isn't very meanignful since it is so freaking easy.

And some of them seem plenty strong to me.
9th level fighter two attacks round 1 two attacks round 2
9th level warblade one attack with +6d6 and ignore DR, two attacks and recover.

or even more likely:

9th level fighter two attacks, move to new target and 1 attack
9th level warblade: one attack +6d6, move and 1 attack and recovery



> Its a good class, but the fighter still has his role.  I personally favor the Tome of Battle classes simply because I like the variety, but if you want generically useful, always available boosts, feats are the way to go rather than maneuvers.



I think the fighter will retain some use just because.  And I also really like the flavor of Tome of Battle.  But I don't see just taking it at face value that the feats stand up to the manuvers and stances.



> As for the swordsage versus the warblade, well, I try not to do ability for ability comparisons.  I just look at the class and say, "is this a class I'd be willing to play?"  If so, I don't worry about whether some specific ability is better or worse than another classes.  I'd be very happy to play a swordsage, so I don't worry about whether its maneuver recovery is as good as a warblade's.



Actully, my point was that the sword sage's recovery seems really decent and the warblade's is to good.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 16, 2006)

Well the fighter still gets Weapon Supremacy pre-epic.

But the Warblade's ability to refocus the weapon he is specializing in is pretty huge in some campaigns where you can't buy your specialty weapon of +5 Slay All Who Oppose Me at S-Mart.


----------



## Solarious (Aug 16, 2006)

It wouldn't be too much of a hassle to houserule Fighters full Initiator progression. Then Fighters can unleash +100 damage strikes, unleash a barrage of attacks that only end when you miss, and enter stances which increase your AC by 2 each time they miss, while still being able to utilize Bounding Blitz and Combat Focus to wreak a more consistant havoc.

And recovery costs actions in the midst of combat, while they already automatically recharge after 1 minute out of initiatives (I believe this includes anyone who has manuvers solely through feats). To be frank, Swordsages _suck_ at recovery. I mean, a full action just to get a single one? They get the most readied as well as the most learned, to be sure, but they also have to ration each use out carefully, lest they run out in the middle of combat.

A Warblade has the opposite problem, with fewer manuvers to utilize, and unable to branch out effectively in their progressions, lest they be unable to meet prequisites for their high level powers. Thus, their improved recovery abilities. And it is often more effective to expend as many manuvers as possible before recovering, and being reduced to a single attack is somewhat underwhelming.

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


----------



## dvvega (Aug 16, 2006)

I just picked this book up and I liked it. I disagree that it is badly organised. The essence of the system is setting up the character with feats and maneuvers/stances and letting them fly. I don't see myself referencing the book too often.

The book could have done without the monsters IMHO, the weapons of legacy are there for the flavour (the nine swords themselves) but could have been left out without a problem.

The space saved from that could have added information on developing new schools if desired (for example an arctic version of the Desert Wind).

I was concerned about the Warblade 9 maneuver that does +100 points of damage on a single strike. That thing is a little overpowered ... I would have preferred something that does XdY damage like a spell.


----------



## Graf (Aug 16, 2006)

I also got the book and think its (conceptually) awesome.
I think i'd be tempted to just replace fighter with warblade actually.



			
				dvvega said:
			
		

> I disagree that it is badly organised.



Try to make a few characters.

The fact is that vitually all characters are going to get manuvers from different schools.
Personally I think that's very cool.
But it means they should just have alphabatized the manuvers.

The page flipping is a bit nuts even for a mid-level character. You've got your class, you've got random pages with important info (like page 39), you've got all your different manuvers each carefully hidden away in their school sections, the feats (incluidng the school related feats) in their feats seciont and finally special PrC only stances and manuvers in another section.
Is hurried DM going to remember that you look for Mountain Fortress Stance under Deepstone Sentinel and not the Stone school? Why should s/he have to?


----------



## gribble (Aug 16, 2006)

dvvega said:
			
		

> I was concerned about the Warblade 9 maneuver that does +100 points of damage on a single strike. That thing is a little overpowered ... I would have preferred something that does XdY damage like a spell.




IMO, the one that does 2d6 Con damage is worse... especially when you're doing that every other round.

At GenCon, the WotC booth was running games of 6-8 pre-made 20th level PCs vs the collosal red dragon. There were two fighter types - a dwarven defender and a warblade 15/master of the nine 5. I didn't get a close look at the dwarven defender's stats, but in gameplay the warblade crapped all over him... a properly built 20th level warblade (i.e.: with a ring of free action to negate the grapple attacks) could probably have taken the CRD alone, which is kind of scary...

I kept a copy of the warblade character sheet - when I get home I can post the stats if people are keen. I wish now I'd grabbed a copy of the other character sheets for closer comparison.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 16, 2006)

gribble said:
			
		

> I kept a copy of the warblade character sheet - when I get home I can post the stats if people are keen. I wish now I'd grabbed a copy of the other character sheets for closer comparison.




Yes, please.  Also, what age/CR was the dragon?  (IIRC, there are a couple in the collossal size.)


----------



## gribble (Aug 16, 2006)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Yes, please.  Also, what age/CR was the dragon?  (IIRC, there are a couple in the collossal size.)




Ok, I'll try and post the highlights tonight.

I don't know for sure what age/CR the dragon was, as I never got a good look at the stats the DM was using (and all the sheets were somewhat optimised for fast play - only outlining the stats needed for the adventure - I'm not even sure if the dragon stat sheet included CR on it). Given that it was groups of 6-8 20th level PCs and I saw a TPK (admittedly with fairly inexperienced players), I'm assuming it was the CR 24 great wyrm out of the MM (with some draconomicon feats/spells/etc). The DM who ran our group through it certainly played the dragon very well/intelligently, including some cool uses of abilities (like the contingent Dimension Door the first time we managed to flank the beast).

It was definitely a fun fight, and as written (with fairly sub-optimal item/spell selection for some characters) it was pretty challenging.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 16, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Well the fighter still gets Weapon Supremacy pre-epic.



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




> But the Warblade's ability to refocus the weapon he is specializing in is pretty huge in some campaigns where you can't buy your specialty weapon of +5 Slay All Who Oppose Me at S-Mart.



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


----------



## BryonD (Aug 16, 2006)

Solarious said:
			
		

> A Warblade has the opposite problem, with fewer manuvers to utilize, and unable to branch out effectively in their progressions, lest they be unable to meet prequisites for their high level powers. Thus, their improved recovery abilities. And it is often more effective to expend as many manuvers as possible before recovering, and being reduced to a single attack is somewhat underwhelming.



But this isn't a problem.  

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



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



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


----------



## Felon (Aug 16, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The war blade can get ALL back with an attack or, at worst give up just a standard action.
> 
> Add in some extra skill points and the D12 (which really seems odd) and I don't see it.
> 
> ...




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

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


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 16, 2006)

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

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

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

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


----------



## BryonD (Aug 16, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

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



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



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



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



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



So-so????

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



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



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



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



OK.



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



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



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



Ok.



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



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


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 16, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

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




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


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 16, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

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




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

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

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


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 16, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## BryonD (Aug 16, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

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



Fair enough.

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

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

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



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



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


----------



## BryonD (Aug 16, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 16, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

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




I think it's a good solution.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 16, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

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




+2d6 is a nice adder for a 3rd level character who only gets one attack but the +4d6 comes at the cost of the 2nd attack at 6th+level and the +6d6 burns two iterative attacks.  If you consider trading +7 damage/iterative attack to be overpowering, well, I don't think we use the same scale game.  The fighter IMC at 6th level had a +7 damage/spec bonus, which unlike bonus dice is multiplied by criticals.  



> A full BAB warblade isn't going to have a problem hitting with their primary attack.
> 
> And you are discarding that the War Blade can take the same fighter feats.  The fact that the fighter gets an extra +2 for greater specialization 2 levels sooner is not close to making up for +6d6 on primary attack every other round.




Let's see: the fighter can make 6 attacks (+16\11\6 x2) doing, say d8+8 each vs. the warblade making a +16 doing d8+8+6d6 and a +16 d8+8 when he refreshes the maneuver.  So, trading 4 attacks at 11\6 for maybe 21 points of damage.  If two of those attacks hit they will likely exceeds the bonus of the feat, neglecting any crits. 



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




I consider "slowing down" being "not making full attacks."  




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




The fighter already has access to being the shotgun and SMG as well as more feats.  The fighter is hard to discuss b/c the strength of the fighter is not being tied to a particular concept; fighters have flexibility.   A fighter can be both power attack/greatcleave and Imp/TWF while anyone else is typically limited to one or the other.  (side note: I hate the 3.5 fighter feats' stat requirements as it removes the fighter's flexibility)

Comparing the Barbarian (limited use Rage, improved movement, evasion, DR) to the Warblade (a few bonus feats, 1 or 2 stances, maneuvers) in my mind comes out reasonable.  

The paladin (smite, turn, mount, spells, disease resistance, fear resistance, Cha to all saves but has Code) vs the crusader (smite, Cha to one save, counterstrike, ready supply of maneuvers) also does well.  

Sword sage I need to read in more detail b/c I have not read the ability to create adept items in much detail yet so I'm not sure how useful that is.  Sage should probably be compared to Warlock or Warmage, given the number of Maneuvers with saves.


----------



## Victim (Aug 16, 2006)

Really, even the +100 damage moves didn't seem overpowered.  A decent fighter at those levels can probably do alot more damage on a full attack.  But the damaging manuevers greatly increase the initiator's manueverability - he can do some nasty stuff on a standard action, and many of the full round moves offer movement too - since he's not locked into requiring full attacks.  Also, the damage versus AC curve is much smoother for manuevers.  Because extra attacks come in at lower and lower bonuses, a fighter loses tons of damage as AC increases - even more so with a two weapon guy.  The 20th level fighter barbarian might do 250+ unbuffed versus AC 35, but only say 50 versus AC 50.  Having one big attack, like mounted combat, makes damage vary far less with AC.


----------



## Lackhand (Aug 16, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> I consider "slowing down" being "not making full attacks."




They actually still can make full attacks, though :-D


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 16, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> Sword sage I need to read in more detail b/c I have not read the ability to create adept items in much detail yet so I'm not sure how useful that is.  Sage should probably be compared to Warlock or Warmage, given the number of Maneuvers with saves.



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


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 16, 2006)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> They actually still can make full attacks, though :-D




Umm, no, no they can't.  While refreshing the warblade can only make a single attack.  If you read the full text it takes a swift action PLUS the warblade is limited to only making a single attack OR making a non-combat flourish gesture.  I'm not 100% sure they can take more than a 5' move.  

And IIRC the text on virtually all the strikes restricts the Martial Adept to making a single attack as well, though Boosts allow full attack actions.  Counters are, of course, Immediate actions and happen outside the normal action chain.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 17, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> +2d6 is a nice adder for a 3rd level character who only gets one attack but the +4d6 comes at the cost of the 2nd attack at 6th+level and the +6d6 burns two iterative attacks.  If you consider trading +7 damage/iterative attack to be overpowering, well, I don't think we use the same scale game.  The fighter IMC at 6th level had a +7 damage/spec bonus, which unlike bonus dice is multiplied by criticals.



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

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

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




> Let's see: the fighter can make 6 attacks (+16\11\6 x2) doing, say d8+8 each vs. the warblade making a +16 doing d8+8+6d6 and a +16 d8+8 when he refreshes the maneuver.  So, trading 4 attacks at 11\6 for maybe 21 points of damage.  If two of those attacks hit they will likely exceeds the bonus of the feat, neglecting any crits.



The math on the crits is already shot down above.
Even more significant, the fact that, if tactically favorable the warblade can do exactly as well as the fighter is also pointed out above.
You are giving the fighter credit for abilities that the warblade shares.



> I consider "slowing down" being "not making full attacks."



The warblade will have 4 to 6 manuevers, dependign on level.
So he only has to "slow down" every 5th or 7th round.
How often do fighters get to make full attacks on seven consecutive rounds?
And THAT assumes that the war blade never has to settle for being just a fighter for a round and make a normal, no maneuver full attack.  Not exactly a good assumption.  And if he DOES run out of manuevers he can still continue to full attack as long as he wants.  There is zero obligation to EVER slow down.  He will only do so when it is tactically sound.
Which is real likely to come up very soon.
As soon as you need to move you simply move, reactivate with a swift action and then either make your attack or burn your standard action ii there is nothing to attack.  The tactical cost of this is near to zero.




> The fighter already has access to being the shotgun and SMG as well as more feats.



Agreed.

The warblade has access to being the shot gun and the smg AND the sniper rifle.  And gets more HP and more SP in addition to a both stances and maneuvers.  (We have not even touched on stances yet)  You claim the feat make up for all this.  but I've yet to see an example that actually shows it.



> The fighter is hard to discuss b/c the strength of the fighter is not being tied to a particular concept; fighters have flexibility.   A fighter can be both power attack/greatcleave and Imp/TWF while anyone else is typically limited to one or the other.



Agreed.  But the war blade will outshine him.



> Comparing the Barbarian (limited use Rage, improved movement, evasion, DR) to the Warblade (a few bonus feats, 1 or 2 stances, maneuvers) in my mind comes out reasonable.



show it



> The paladin (smite, turn, mount, spells, disease resistance, fear resistance, Cha to all saves but has Code) vs the crusader (smite, Cha to one save, counterstrike, ready supply of maneuvers) also does well.



show it



> Sword sage I need to read in more detail b/c I have not read the ability to create adept items in much detail yet so I'm not sure how useful that is.  Sage should probably be compared to Warlock or Warmage, given the number of Maneuvers with saves.



So far I think I like the sword sage.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 17, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> Umm, no, no they can't.  While refreshing the warblade can only make a single attack.  If you read the full text it takes a swift action PLUS the warblade is limited to only making a single attack OR making a non-combat flourish gesture.  I'm not 100% sure they can take more than a 5' move.




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


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 17, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But again you neglect the main point I have repeatedly made.
> 
> The warblade can do the same iterative attacks as the fighter if he wishes OR add the bonus damage to the main attack. Because the war blade can select which option to use on a case by case basis he has a giant advantage.




The paladin and barbarian can also do the same thing, plus other abilities. So basically the problem is with the fighter, rather than the warblade?

At 6th level, the fighter will have 4 Fighter Bonus Feats, the Warblade will have 1 Warblade Bonus Feat + the manuevers. The fighter can use a full attack at the same time as his feats, the Warblade often can not.

Either way, it's another repetitive ENWorld arguement. There's no way to "show" balance between two seperate classes, so it's pointless to debate too far along the same paths.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 17, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The paladin and barbarian can also do the same thing, plus other abilities. So basically the problem is with the fighter, rather than the warblade?



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

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



> At 6th level, the fighter will have 4 Fighter Bonus Feats, the Warblade will have 1 Warblade Bonus Feat + the manuevers. The fighter can use a full attack at the same time as his feats, the Warblade often can not.



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

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



> Either way, it's another repetitive ENWorld arguement. There's no way to "show" balance between two seperate classes, so it's pointless to debate too far along the same paths.



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

What do you say to gribble's comments above?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 17, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It is pretty well established and (I believe) accepted that the barbarian is fairly matched with the fighter.  The paladin is a more complicated case with so many outside combat abilities, but I think the same general conclusion holds.
> 
> But all that aside, I have never seen anyone try to show that the barbarian is equal to the fighter by forcing the barbarian to give up interative attacks when the barbarian is in no way obligated to.
> This was the cornerstone element of kigmatzomat's argument.  So it isn't to do with any of the classes.  It is a flaw in the arguement.



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



> Correction:
> At 6th level, the fighter will have 4 Fighter Bonus Feats* + heavy armor prof + more ranged weapons*, the Warblade will have 1 Warblade Bonus Feat + the manuevers* + stances + uncanny dodge + improved uncanny dodge + battle clarity + weapon aptitude + battle ardor + more HP + more SP*.
> 
> From there the fighter gets a feat every other level and the warblade gets a feat or a special ability pretty much every other level (they each get seven more "specials" between 7th and 20th).  PLUS the warblade gets better and better manuevers and stances and continues to get more hp and sp.



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



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



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



> What do you say to gribble's comments above?



I would say Dwarven Defenders suck.


----------



## weiknarf (Aug 17, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

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




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


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 17, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I can see how it would come into play frequently.  But does it REALLY make a big difference?
> 
> The fighter gets +2 to hit and +4 damage from the big four feats.
> Being able to switch day to day won't make that big a difference.
> ...




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


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 17, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

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




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



> But again you neglect the main point I have repeatedly made.
> 
> The warblade can do the same iterative attacks as the fighter if he wishes OR add the bonus damage to the main attack. Because the war blade can select which option to use on a case by case basis he has a giant advantage.
> 
> ...




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

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

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

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

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


----------



## ohGr (Aug 17, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

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



I'm not seeing that.



			
				Tome of Battle said:
			
		

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



You can make a "melee attack" as part of a Standard or Full-round action and i see nothing here that implies you must make your melee attack to recover as a Standard action.  In fact, it seems pretty carefully worded so as _not_ to make that implication.


----------



## Victim (Aug 17, 2006)

Well, _a_ melee attack implies just one.

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


----------



## Andor (Aug 18, 2006)

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


----------



## Kishin (Aug 18, 2006)

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

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

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


----------



## Graf (Aug 18, 2006)

Kishin said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## gribble (Aug 18, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> Well, _a_ melee attack implies just one.



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



			
				Victim said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## gribble (Aug 18, 2006)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Personally, I think the Tome of Battle presents some of the most mechanically interesting systems put forth by WoTC in years.




I actually agree.



			
				Kishin said:
			
		

> With regards to the Warblade, bear in mind that the relatively limited number of total known manuevers (only 13 by 20th) is a substantial balancing factor... You basically end up focusing in on two or maybe three styles.




This I disagree with. You only *need* to get the top level maneuvers from one or two disciplines - you don't need them all. IMO, the brokenness isn't in the number of different things you can do, it's the number of times you can perform the limited number of maneuvers you know.



			
				Kishin said:
			
		

> Also, I honestly don't feel +100 damage to be a terribly overpowered ability when compared to say, the effectiveness of your average 9th level spell.




Again, I agree, but again, I don't think it's the power of the individual maneuvers that are the problem - I like the flavor and even the mechanics for the maneuvers, and I don't think they're necessarily unbalanced. The problem (IMO) is with the warblade class and how easily they can regain maneuvers. A warblade can use a maneuver that gives him +100 damage, +2d6 con drain, etc, along with a standard attack, the next round he can full attack pretty much as well as an equivalent level fighter (possibly even better when you consider stances), then the following round he can use his maneuver again. From what I've read and what I've seen of them in play, they're clearly superior to equivalent level fighter types. Even compared to spellcasters, a sorceror can only cast his 9th level spell a maximum of 7 times in an encounter (and even then only if he has at least 28 Cha), and then after that he's hosed for any other encounters in the same day. Not only can a warblade do it an unlimited number of times per encounter, he can turn around and do it just as effectively in the following encounter... and the next... and the next. So even comparing to spellcasters I'm not sure the warblade is balanced.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 18, 2006)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Personally, I think the Tome of Battle presents some of the most mechanically interesting systems put forth by WoTC in years.



I agree completely.



> YMMV, but myself and the group of folks I usually game with are hugely pleased with, given that it allows us to design the sort of melee characters we've hungered after for years. Plus (and this a relatively minor fact), we're unabashed skill point chasers, so its nice to have melee characters with more than 2+Int.



That is all fine, but none of it makes the WB balanced.



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



How excatly is it that this creates balance?
You can't take a single manuever out of context and declare the class using it balanced.



> Also, I honestly don't feel +100 damage to be a terribly overpowered ability when compared to say, the effectiveness of your average 9th level spell.



I agree.  But there is no SR or saving throw here.  That is somewhat offset by the need to be in melee range.

Again, I don't really have a problem with the balance of individual manuevers.  (with some exceptions, but hey, the same goes for spells and psi powers, so nothing new there)

It is the overall package of the warblade class that is problematic.

The +100 could be anti-fun.  Which was a concern I mentioned before.  That does not make it broken.  Just the nature of how it accomplishes the same thing could come across as anti-climatic.



> Granted, an arcane or divine caster can't refresh those spells quite like the Warblade can, but they're sure probably packing more than enough for that one particular encounter.



What about the next encounter?  And the one after that?
The caster has to consider some conservation from the word go of the very first encounter.
Even if the second encounter never happens, the caster needs to hold some back just in case.



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



Ok.  
Please identify for me the spellcaster with the following:
4 sp
D12 HD
Improved uncanny dodge
Full BAB
medium armor prof (and easy access to heavy armor if desired)
No armor penalty
something to balance stances
4 bonus feats
something to balance the various "battle XXX" abilities

Joe mentioned way back that the ranged attack limitation is solved by taking the specific PClass.  It occurs to me that just taking a single level of fighter would be even easier.
Or barbarian even.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 18, 2006)

The full warblade text is:


			
				Tome of Battle p.22 said:
			
		

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






			
				gribble said:
			
		

> Wrong. There is the _attack action_ which is a standard action and allows you to make one melee attack or one ranged attack. There is also the _full attack action_, which is a full round action and allows you to make *multiple* melee attacks or multiple ranged attacks (if BAB or other factors - TWF, etc allow).




You'll note I bolded some of your comment as it highlights the difference between "a melee attack" and "multiple melee attacks."   I believe they did not limit the action type (standard/full/move) to allow charges or coup de graces that are single attacks but not a standard action.  



> As currently worded, it would be perfectly legal to take a swift action to replenish your maneuvers, followed by a full attack action.




You can *take* a full attack action but you can't make more than "a melee attack" with it.  Maybe under some special circumstances due to feats that require a "full attack action" that would be worthwhile but you still can't make more than "a melee attack."  

As far as house ruling the ToB, the only thing that's worrying me is that I have a 20th level party so they would immediately qualify for 6th level maneuvers.  I'm tempted to say that the total Initiator level cannot exceed Adept Levels x 4 or x5.  That would give them 2nd or 3rd level maneuvers right off the bat.  

Part of this is the fact that the pure fighter character is most suited to sword sage (10 cha, 10 int, 14 wis) and as a scimitar specialist he's likely to take Desert Wind, chock full of supernatural powers which doesn't exactly seem to flow from being a high ranked fighter.  "Yeah, last month I was totally incompetent with magic but today all my sword attacks gain fire damage (Fiery Assault Stance), I can create a flame strike (ring of fire), I can dim-door as a move action (Shadow Stride),  and teleport next to people who attack me (Leaping Flame) plus the other maneuvers I learned to qualify for those."  

Nope, doesn't quite seem right to me.  The power attacks, critical strikes, martial-arts type stuff I can deal with easier than a fighter using his knowledge of combat to cause fire to explode from his weapons or shadowy nooses to attack his opponents from above.


----------



## gribble (Aug 18, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> You can *take* a full attack action but you can't make more than "a melee attack" with it.  Maybe under some special circumstances due to feats that require a "full attack action" that would be worthwhile but you still can't make more than "a melee attack."




I'll have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation here. I'm fully aware of the full text (I have the book), and nowhere does it state that you're limited to the attack action, or even that you're limited to taking a single melee attack in the round that you take the swift action plus a melee attack.

Surely if they'd meant for it to be interpreted that way, they would have stated an _attack action_, or even a _single melee attack only_, neither of which is specified. As for them wording it that way to include charge/etc, I say that by the way they word it specifically _excludes_ charge, because in making a charge you're technically taking the swift action, then a move, then a melee attack, hence by a strict reading of the rules it's not _immediately followed_ by a melee attack.

If you have some specific examples that might show how something like swift action, full attack (consisting of melee attack, melee attack, assuming a 6th level warblade) doesn't constitute _a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack_, please share.


----------



## Andor (Aug 19, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> As far as house ruling the ToB, the only thing that's worrying me is that I have a 20th level party so they would immediately qualify for 6th level maneuvers.  I'm tempted to say that the total Initiator level cannot exceed Adept Levels x 4 or x5.  That would give them 2nd or 3rd level maneuvers right off the bat.
> 
> Part of this is the fact that the pure fighter character is most suited to sword sage (10 cha, 10 int, 14 wis) and as a scimitar specialist he's likely to take Desert Wind, chock full of supernatural powers which doesn't exactly seem to flow from being a high ranked fighter.  "Yeah, last month I was totally incompetent with magic but today all my sword attacks gain fire damage (Fiery Assault Stance), I can create a flame strike (ring of fire), I can dim-door as a move action (Shadow Stride),  and teleport next to people who attack me (Leaping Flame) plus the other maneuvers I learned to qualify for those."
> 
> Nope, doesn't quite seem right to me.  The power attacks, critical strikes, martial-arts type stuff I can deal with easier than a fighter using his knowledge of combat to cause fire to explode from his weapons or shadowy nooses to attack his opponents from above.




They're 20th level. Are you really worried that this is a significant powerboost?   

I can see room for disbelief problems, but I think you suggested your own solution. This is one of the greatest swordsman in the world, he isn't learning magic like a wizard, he's being taught how to use what he already knows to unlock magic. It's as though you could cast a spell by dancing in a precise pattern. A tap dancer would have a leg up on learning to cast over the rest of us. Frankly a 20th level fighters abilities to carve his way through a stadium full of armed men or to survive atmospheric reentry are pretty supernatural already. There is also the point that the amount of experience needed to get that 21st level represents an amount of training that would have gotten a starting Swordsage to 6th level...

Of course it's your campaign, and you can do it however you like.


----------



## satori01 (Aug 19, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I agree completely.
> 
> 
> That is all fine, but none of it makes the WB balanced.
> ...




Joe also jumped to alot of conclusions w/out really thinking it thru, which is understandable from a proto 1st look review btw.

1) The PrC mentioned does not increase your intiator level.  So a Warblade taking the PrC to its fullest is going to be some guy who's pretty good at combat, and has some nifty powers, but nothing overpowered.  Dwarven Fighter with Ranged Weapon Mastery slashing can be imho almost as potent with axes as the PrC

2) so many of the Warblades features are situational base, I wont say the class is on the powerful side, but I cant say from just reading it, the class is overpowered.

Iron Mind is a powerful discipline, but not sure if it ranks #1 in power.

Regaining all manuevers as swift action is bogus however!


----------



## weiknarf (Aug 19, 2006)

Warblades need extra skill points to buy the skills tied to martial schools.


----------



## gribble (Aug 20, 2006)

*GenCon 20th lvl Warblade*

Ok, so as promised, here are the stats for the Warblade used in the scenario against the Colossal Red Dragon at GenCon:

*Arzimon*
human warblade 15/master of the nine 5
Str 31, Dex 12, Con 25, Int 19, Wis 10, Cha 8
AC 36 (touch 16, ff 36); HP 260; Fort +22, Ref +12, Will +14

*Stances *(Dual Stance - may have 2 stances active at once for up to 10 rnds/day):
_Stance of Alacrity_: Can make 2 counters/rnd instead of one.
_Swarm Tactics_: If you are adjacent to a foe, all allies gain +5 attack vs that foe.
_Press the Advantage_: After a 5ft step, you may immediately take another one.
_Stance of Clarity_: +2 AC vs one foe, -2 AC vs all others.
_Blood in the Water_: +1 attack, +1 damage cumulative for every crit you make in 1 minute.

*Maneuvers* (Mastery of Nine - +2 attack +6 damage on all strikes):
_War Master's Charge (Strike, full-round action)_: you charge, and all allies within 30ft immediately charge too. No oppos. All chargers gain +2 attack per charger. If you hit, deal +50 damage, and your allies deal +25 damage each. If at least 2 chargers hit, target is stunned.
_Feral Death Blow (Strike, full-round action)_: Jump +29 vs. foes AC. If you succeed foe is flat-footed and you attack at +1 damage (this is taken directly from the sheet, but looks like a typo). If you hit, foes dies (Fort DC 31 partial) or takes 6d6+50 damage.
_Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike (Strike)_: Make a melee attack. If you hit, you deal an extra 5d6+35 damage. Roll 1d20:
1-7:    foe takes 2d6 Dex damage and spd reduced to 0 for 1d6 rnds.
8-14:  foe takes 2d6 Str damage and -6 atk for 1d6 rnds.
15-20: foe takes 2d6 Str, Dex, Con damage
Fort DC 20 for half ability damage, no special effect.
_Mountain Tombstone Strike (Strike)_: Make a melee attack. If it hits, you also deal 2d6 Con damage.
_Strike of Perfect Clarity (Strike)_: Make a melee attack. If it hits, you also deal +100 damage.
_Time Stands Still (Strike)_: Take a full attack action, then take another full attack action.
_One with Shadow (Counter)_: You become incorpreal until the start of your next turn.
_Diamond Defense (Counter)_: You gain +20 bonus to you next saving throw.
_Adamantine Hurricane (Strike)_: Make two melee attacks against each foe at your highest attack bonus +4.
_Raging Mongoose (Boost)_: Make two additional attacks at your highest attack bonus; you have +1 damage.
_Avalanche of Blades (Strike)_: Attack a foe in melee, then repeat the attack at cumulative -4 until you miss.

Basic +5 keen bastard sword attack: +34/+29/+24 (1d10+17). Crit on 17-20. +4 attack and damage with oppo attacks. +4 damage vs flat-footed or flanked foes.

Initiative +1; Speed 30ft. (run x3).

This is pretty much exactly the same format as the character sheet given (i.e.: it didn't list out skills, feats, equipment, etc). There was a section at the bottom giving rules for detecting enemies (spot, listen), sneaking (hide move silent) and jumping, that I haven't included above. Definitely a "quick start" style character sheet.

Notes:
1) Each readied maneuver is only listed once, heavily implying that you *can't* ready more than one copy of a maneuver at once.
2) The sheet explicitly states: _These maneuvers function like spells. Once you've used one, check it off. But when you make a basic melee attack (at the bottom of the section), you can erase all those checkmarks._ The only basic attack listed is the full attack above (and also an unarmed full attack, which I haven't bothered to list above). I.e.: using your swift action in conjunction with a full attack is valid to recover all expended maneuvers. This is certainly the way it was played at the demo.

Oddly, the master of the nine PrC doesn't get a full BAB, so this warblade doesn't get 4 attacks/rnd. A straight warblade would be even nastier, as he could use _Time Stands Still_ to do:
rnd 1: Full attack, full attack (8 attacks).
rnd 2: Recover maneuvers, full attack.
rnd 3: repeat rnd 1.
rnd 4: repeat rnd 2.
...

Each full attack would be as effective as a straight fighter, possibly even more effective with a stance like _Blood in the Water_ active - with one warblade you effectively have 1.5 fighters in the party... and that's without even considering some of his other nasty maneuvers.

Scary stuff indeed.


----------



## Graf (Aug 21, 2006)

Not to say the warblade isn’t a powerful class but



			
				gribble said:
			
		

> Each full attack would be as effective as a straight fighter, …



This isn’t factually true.
Because the warblade is getting 4 bonus feats from a limited list. 
The fighter is getting -11- bonus feats from a much bigger list. 
Especially with feats from books like the _Complete Warrior_ and _Player’s Handbook II_ a reasonably well constructed fighter will be doing more damage with a full attack.

People like to talk about the balance of a fighter as if it’s got no feats. Which is tempting because it’s easier but deceptive.


----------



## resistor (Aug 21, 2006)

I think if I were to allow the Warblade, I'd houserule its recharge to be a move action.  So they're still recharging pretty fast, but without the ability to squeeze full attacks in there.


----------



## chaotix42 (Aug 21, 2006)

^^^ Oh, a very interesting idea. A player of mine is running a gestalt warblade/scout in an upcoming game and I'm sure he'd be upset with that use of the nerf bat.  We're gonna run it as-is for now, so we'll see if a change is needed, but I'm gonna keep that one in mind.


----------



## gribble (Aug 21, 2006)

Graf said:
			
		

> This isn’t factually true.
> Because the warblade is getting 4 bonus feats from a limited list.
> The fighter is getting -11- bonus feats from a much bigger list.




Oh, I wasn't glossing over that at all. I just disagree that by 20th level a warblade is going to be substantially worse than a fighter in raw attack/damage bonuses.
How many feats add to raw damage output as part of a full attack? weapon focus, weapon spec, the improved versions from the PHB 2, power attack (I'm probably missing some, but those are the key ones, right)? By 20th level a warblade can have all those feats, and in conjunction with something like the stance above, I'd argue he'd be at least as effective in raw attack/damage bonuses. Plus, the "make 2 full attacks" maneuver is a strike, meaning the character above gets +2 to hit and +6 to damage on all of those melee attacks (yes, thats right, all 6 attacks!). What feat does a fighter have that would make him equivalent to that?

Sure, a fighter would have more options in terms of trip, disarm, cleave, etc (but the warblade would have access to maneuvers to compensate). And in terms of raw, basic attacks I fail to see how an approprtiately built warblade wouldn't be at least as effective...


----------



## Dark Psion (Aug 24, 2006)

I decided to pick this one up after looking at it and while I think the classes have some definite potiential, but once again, it's the editing and design of the book are where I have problems.

*Problem One: The Flip Book Factor:* Here I am trying to create a Swordsage, but I am constantly having to flip back and forth from this page to that one. The Swordsage table is on page 16, but to find out what level maneuvers you can use, you have to go to page 39. One of the Swordsage's abilities, Discipline Focus, is based off weapons favored by a chosen discipline, see chapter 4. But oops, the Art department did not include numbers on the  chapter pages, so it is back to the index to find where chapter 4 starts, but don't bother. Why? Because the information you need is not in chapter 4, it is in Chapter 2 under Blade Meditation feat (pg 28) and in Chapter 3 under Maneuvers and Stances (pg 41).

Confused yet?

*Problem Two: Complex NPCs:* Let's say you need a 5th level Wizard. No problem! 4 zero level, 3 first level, 2 second level and 1 third level spells and while most of us can choose them from memory, you can use the spell list as well.   

Now let's say you need a 5th level Swordsage. OK, you get 10 maneuvers, but without that vancian chart most spellcasters have, you are going to have to go back and figure out at what class level he had access to what maneuver level. So that means 7 first level, 2 second level and 1 third level, plus take into account that you can take lower level maneuvers and you can upgrade one at 4th. Now you can pick them, but remember that some maneuvers have prerequisites of other maneuvers from the same discipline and the same applies to most of the Swordsage feats.

And that is just a 5th level Swordsage, imagine a 10th level one. NPC design should not be this complex. If they are planing a web enhancement for this book, some prestated NPCs would be a good choice.

*Problem Three: The Closed Book:* It is called the Book of Nine Sword because there are nine disciplines, but what if I want more? We have a fire based discipline in the Desert Wind, but what about an Electrical or Cold based one? We have a Stealthy Ninja discipline in the Shadow Hand, but what about a Pirate/ Corsair, water based discipline?

Part of the fun of D&D is that you can shape and add to your world by creating new spells and monsters. But many of these recent books are trying to be everything in one book. I have yet to find anything on adapting or changing the disciplines nor is there rules on adding new maneuvers and stances to the disciplines.

If I was to use this book in D20 Rokugan for example, I would change Desert Wind into Fury of Osano-Wo by changing fire to lightning. The weapon groupings are a bit weird too, Diamond Mind has Rapier, Short Spear, Trident and Katana. That's several different cultures combined, what if I want to keep it in one culture? I was also surprised that this book did not include a section of how to use it in Eberron or Forgotten Realms as most books do.

So far both Tomes (Magic & Battle) do present some new and intriguing concepts, but they need to do a better job in how they present them. 

Either that or put the "Advanced" back in front of the D&D.


----------



## hamishspence (Sep 11, 2006)

*Lone-character play*

I've been doing some DM-ing with a buddy: single character, wilderness crawling. He plays a Stone Dragon/Iron heart warblade. So far, at low levels, the warblade chews through creatures of the same CR and can just about handle single encounters with a creature of higher CR. I am tight-fisted with treasure, but let him buy magic items in town with the little loot he's got.

In a one-on-one, 5th level warblade vs 6th level swordsage (Crimson Mask, Desert Wind specialist from book) he chewed up and spat out his opponent.

He is fairly moderate strength and Dex, but VERY high intelligence.

I found myself thinking: Ouch! when he used Stone Dragon powers to bash through monsters with damage reduction.

Read literally, these Mountain Hammer powers can chew up demons, elementals, and epic monsters.

I enjoy DM-ing it, but I must admit it is very lethal. Even the weakest powers are on a par with feats, the strongest are....nasty!
Mind you, I felt the same about the Never Runs Out warlock. IMO, its at the low levels that such powers really shine, as you can face more enemies than a spellcaster can.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Sep 12, 2006)

That Warblade15/Master of Nine5 isn't legal.  Some of the maneuvers you took, you don't have the prereqs to take them. No wonder he's overpowered. Play him from level 1 up and his power level won't be so over the top.


----------



## Alceste (Sep 12, 2006)

hamishspence said:
			
		

> I've been doing some DM-ing with a buddy: single character, wilderness crawling. He plays a Stone Dragon/Iron heart warblade. So far, at low levels, the warblade chews through creatures of the same CR and can just about handle single encounters with a creature of higher CR. I am tight-fisted with treasure, but let him buy magic items in town with the little loot he's got.
> 
> In a one-on-one, 5th level warblade vs 6th level swordsage (Crimson Mask, Desert Wind specialist from book) he chewed up and spat out his opponent.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I am of the opinion that the warblade is much more powerful than the other classes in the same book. His recovery method is way too fast. The warblade also has no need of a d12 for hit points.


----------



## gribble (Sep 12, 2006)

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> That Warblade15/Master of Nine5 isn't legal.  Some of the maneuvers you took, you don't have the prereqs to take them. No wonder he's overpowered. Play him from level 1 up and his power level won't be so over the top.




Well, just to clarify, it isn't mine, it's WotCs. It was one of the pre-gen characters used for the fight vs collossal red/gargantuan black dragons at GenCon.

But, I think you're wrong anyway. I thought so at first too, but then I realised that the maneuvers shown above are only his *readied* maneuvers. Being a warblade 15/MoN 5, he will *know* a lot more than that, and I'm guessing that with the remaining known maneuvers you could meet all the pre-reqs. Of course, I don't have the book on me to verify, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.


----------



## gribble (Sep 12, 2006)

hamishspence said:
			
		

> I enjoy DM-ing it, but I must admit it is very lethal. Even the weakest powers are on a par with feats, the strongest are....nasty!
> Mind you, I felt the same about the Never Runs Out warlock. IMO, its at the low levels that such powers really shine, as you can face more enemies than a spellcaster can.




Thats my thoughts too, based on reading the book, making some sample characters (NPCs) and seeing the 20th level character above played at GenCon.

It's interesting to hear what you say though, as the 5th level warblade would still be limited to a single attack a round, so you wouldn't even get to the point where he'd be doing the "maneuver"/full attack and replenish/maneuver combo...
Why do you think the warblade was some much more powerful than the swordsage?
What do you think could be done to bring it more in line with the power level of other classes (both in the Tome and in other books)?


----------



## Alceste (Sep 12, 2006)

gribble said:
			
		

> Well, just to clarify, it isn't mine, it's WotCs. It was one of the pre-gen characters used for the fight vs collossal red/gargantuan black dragons at GenCon.
> 
> But, I think you're wrong anyway. I thought so at first too, but then I realised that the maneuvers shown above are only his *readied* maneuvers. Being a warblade 15/MoN 5, he will *know* a lot more than that, and I'm guessing that with the remaining known maneuvers you could meet all the pre-reqs. Of course, I don't have the book on me to verify, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.




Make no doubt that I am not a fan of the warblade, but the wording is pretty clear on maneuver recovery. The recovery must be followed by an attack (ie standard), not a full attack. There is a huge difference there.

To be honest, warblades should have the same recovery method as a swordsage (ie full round action to recover). That would go a long way towards balancing them.


----------



## gribble (Sep 12, 2006)

Alceste said:
			
		

> Make no doubt that I am not a fan of the warblade, but the wording is pretty clear on maneuver recovery. The recovery must be followed by an attack (ie standard), not a full attack. There is a huge difference there.




I respectfully disagree. The RAW are 100% clear that the warblade does in fact get to replenish his maneuvers with a swift action and then take a full attack action. I won't repeat my reasoning, but see posts #160 and #164 in this thread.
I won't start a debate on what WotC's *intent* was (as that's kind of pointless), but the rules interpretation above was confirmed by the WotC DMs at GenCon, who allowed the warblade to replenish his maneuvers with a swift action in a round that he full attacked without using maneuvers.



			
				Alceste said:
			
		

> To be honest, warblades should have the same recovery method as a swordsage (ie full round action to recover). That would go a long way towards balancing them.




Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree 100% here. I kind of like the fact that all the recovery mechanisms are different, and I like that fact that the swordsage has a larger number of maneuvers he can ready, but must replenish them more slowly, whereas the warblade has a lot less readied maneuvers, but can replenish them more easily. Gives them some "rules-based" flavour.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Sep 12, 2006)

gribble said:
			
		

> Well, just to clarify, it isn't mine, it's WotCs. It was one of the pre-gen characters used for the fight vs collossal red/gargantuan black dragons at GenCon.
> 
> But, I think you're wrong anyway. I thought so at first too, but then I realised that the maneuvers shown above are only his *readied* maneuvers. Being a warblade 15/MoN 5, he will *know* a lot more than that, and I'm guessing that with the remaining known maneuvers you could meet all the pre-reqs. Of course, I don't have the book on me to verify, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.



That list is longer than the actual number of readied maneuvers available, but less than the total known.  So I guess they left off the other 4 shadowhand maneuvers.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 13, 2006)

Some Customer Service Questions and Answers regarding the warblade:

Q. Is it possible to ready multiple copies of the same maneuver, like you can with spells? If I am playing a 1st-level warblade, for instance, and I am allowed to ready 3 maneuvers, can I ready 3 copies of a single maneuver, or do I have to ready 3 separate maneuvers?

A. No, you can only ready each individual maneuver once! 

Originally Posted by Iry
Customer (Iry) 08/29/2006 12:02 AM 
My group has a great deal of confusion as to what is possible during the recovery action of the Warblade, a base class in the new Tome of Battle book recently released.

Our current interpretation is as follows:
The Warblade can recover maneuvers with two methods. A) He can use a swift action to begin recovery, then make a melee attack. Or, he can B) Use a swift action to begin recovery, then use a standard action to do nothing in a round.

We assume that A allows us to use either a Standard Attack, a Full Attack, Fight Defensively, or a Charge Attack or otherwise allows us to make any of the basic attack actions that involve a 'melee attack' and do not include any kind of Maneuver or Stance. We also assume that so long as you make that melee attack, you can use a Move Action or a 5' step at any appropriate point during your turn depending on the type of action you took as normal.

We assume that B allows us to use a Standard Action to 'Do Nothing' except some minor thematics. However, we believe we can still use our Move Action to move, use any skill or feat that takes a Move Action or opt to take a 5' step so long as none of the above involves a maneuver.

Originally Posted by CustServ
Response (Brandon) 08/29/2006 10:07 AM 
Hello Iry,

You are correct in each of your assumptions save for the charging after the swift action for recovery. You wouldn't be able to charge as you wouldn't be immediately following the swift action with an attack, but a move as you character charged toward the enemy in order to strike him. But so long as the first thing you do after making the swift action is attacking, then you are fine!

In short, you can move then follow with a swift action and finally an attack, or give up your move and turn that attack into a full attack, fight defensively, disarm, and most other attack moves.

Good Luck and Game On!

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 13, 2006)

Now that I have the book and have actually sat down and given the book a good read-over, not to mention taking it for a test drive by making some characters, here's my $.02. For what it's worth, this is for someone who's initial reaction was "this is interesting, if overpowered." I specifically disallowed these classes from the Shackled City game I'm running, for example. Everything in this post is just my opinion, so, in the words of Conan O'Brien: _be cool, my babies!_

Now that I have some experience with it, I'd say the book fits with my style of play and will likely help me make D&D more the kind of game I want. What does that mean? I am not overly excited by the number of magic items that make their way into a typical powered D&D campaign at high level, and much prefer characters to be able to rely on their class abilities as opposed to their items. 

For spell casting characters, this is not too much of a problem: a high level spell caster has many ways to be perfectly viable with minimal magical items. For non casters, however, this gets to be a problem, as a high level fighter needs to either be supremely cheesed out with feats and prestige classes, have a huge amount of magic, or both in order to be competative. I think this is a somewhat contraversial opinion on ENWorld, but I've never really understood why: the games designers have talked about the fact that there's still a lot of "suck at low levels, rule at high levels" in terms of spell casters.

To my mind, the Tome of Battle does a good job of bringing fighting characters up to the level of the spell casters at the higher levels in a relatively simple and straightforward manner.

That last part is the key. One of my players routinely posts to and reads from the optimization boards on the WotC boards, so I *know* fighter-type characters can be effective at high levels, *believe me*. When you see people talking about the ability for a high level character in Tome of Battle to do 100 damage with an attack, you see people breaking into two camps: those who say "OMG! That's crazy!" ... and those who say "meh, amateurs!"

So for me, if I were running a campaign where I was keeping a lid on the number of magic items in the game yet I still wanted to run it at the power level of a standard D&D game, Tome of Battle would be just the thing.

In a traditional campaign with normal items, I think these characters might be more prone to abuse. It is really hard to say, though, because the characters I've written up were really not that earth-shattering. Part of my realization of how this works was actually creating and leveling up some sample characters. 

The warblade is really limited in what maneuvers he can select due to the prerequisites system, which is something you see in leveling up characters but you don't necessarily see when you try and quickly create something at an artificially high level. If you want to learn *one* particular maneuver, it's easy to do a build, but this is an extremely limited character, and also one that will not level up terribly well. 

For this reason alone, I'd strongly suggest not jumping to any conclusions about the classes until you actually have the book and use it to make up some characters (unless, of course, you hate the very idea of fighting styles and maneuvers for your game).

Maneuvers are a genuinely new mechanic for D&D. You can't talk about them as being balanced with feats or spells, because they're really something *new*: they're half way between a feat and a spell, and the method used to limit how often they can be used is something that will take a while to get used to. A maneuver is more powerful than a feat, but it's also limited in how often it can be used (in our warblade example, every other round as a best-case scenario) so it's generally less powerful than a spell. Almost all of the maneuvers affect a single target and can't have the effects of other feats such as meta magic applied to them. There's no "quicken maneuver" ability out there (at least not yet...) They also are one round effects that typically use a standard action to use (for strikes anyway). That is a huge limitation, because you can't use them with any feat that talks about the attack action, nor do they stack with effects like haste. With all that put together, I'd have to say that a maneuver is the new guy in town, and we will have to see how it balances out over time.

So overall:

Personally, I think the mechanic for balancing powers by the encounter is the right direction to head D&D towards. Tome of Battle is just the beginning of any movement in that direction, and it's something I'd like to see more of.

The only thing I'm going to be super critical of is the book's organization. I'll join with many others who say that it is just way too hard to actually set up a character under the maneuver system. A master table *including the all-important pre-reqs* would be a godsend.

So there you go.

--Steve


----------



## gribble (Sep 13, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> We assume that A allows us to use either a Standard Attack, a Full Attack, Fight Defensively, or a Charge Attack or otherwise allows us to make any of the basic attack actions that involve a 'melee attack' and do not include any kind of Maneuver or Stance. We also assume that so long as you make that melee attack, you can use a Move Action or a 5' step at any appropriate point during your turn depending on the type of action you took as normal.
> 
> ...
> 
> You are correct in each of your assumptions save for the charging after the swift action for recovery. You wouldn't be able to charge as you wouldn't be immediately following the swift action with an attack, but a move as you character charged toward the enemy in order to strike him.




Yay! My interpretation a couple of pages back (including that charge wasn't a legal option, as it wasn't *immediately* following the swift action with an attack) has been vindicated (or at least supported by another quasi-official source).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 13, 2006)

I've noticed people doing comparisons against fighters, barbarians and others, but I've not seen anyone make comparisons with Psychic Warriors, and there might be some mileage in that.

Not because of the psionic powers that the psywar gets, although they are pretty good they are not infinitely reusable during the day.

I was thinking of psionic feats - some of which you can use as long as you maintain your psionic focus, and others which require you to expend your psionic focus (e.g. psionic weapon, greater psionic weapon, deep impact). Regaining psionic focus is a full round action which provokes AoO, there is a feat which allows it as a move action. It does require a DC20 concentration check, so it is by no means a sure thing.

Psywars get 3/4 BAB, d8 hit dice, 2 skill points per level and a small number of powers that can be used a few times per day, some combat and some utility.

A casual glance at the two suggests to me that the warblade is substantially better off than the psywar in terms of damage causing ability, speed of recovery and risk of recovery of special abilities and so forth, but I wonder whether someone who actually has experience with ToB and XPH might be interested in doing a comparison?

Cheers


----------



## boolean (Sep 13, 2006)

gribble said:
			
		

> Yay! My interpretation a couple of pages back (including that charge wasn't a legal option, as it wasn't *immediately* following the swift action with an attack) has been vindicated (or at least supported by another quasi-official source).




Can't you take a free action at any time during your turn? (Swift actions use the same limits as free actions, with the added limit of only one per turn.)

So, couldn't you declare a charge, perform the movement portion of the charge, then take the swift action to recover maneuvers, then make the attack at the end of the charge?


----------



## gribble (Sep 13, 2006)

boolean said:
			
		

> So, couldn't you declare a charge, perform the movement portion of the charge, then take the swift action to recover maneuvers, then make the attack at the end of the charge?




Not by the RAW. There is no "start a charge" free action. A charge is an atomic full round action which consists of a move followed by an attack, and seeing as actions are atomic (you can't break them up by interspersing other actions between parts of an action) this isn't legal. Sensible? Not really, but it still can't be done.


----------



## Gargoyle (Sep 13, 2006)

boolean said:
			
		

> Can't you take a free action at any time during your turn? (Swift actions use the same limits as free actions, with the added limit of only one per turn.)
> 
> So, couldn't you declare a charge, perform the movement portion of the charge, then take the swift action to recover maneuvers, then make the attack at the end of the charge?




What you're asking is "can I take a free or swift action in the middle of another action?".  A charge is a special action that combines a move with an attack.  

I don't think so.

edit: yeah, what gribble said.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Sep 13, 2006)

actually, free and swift actions _can_ be taken at any point in your turn.

SRD:







> _Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. _




You can charge someone and cast a quickened true strike during the charge, which is also a swift action.


----------



## Gargoyle (Sep 13, 2006)

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> actually, free and swift actions _can_ be taken at any point in your turn.
> 
> SRD:
> 
> You can charge someone and cast a quickened true strike during the charge, which is also a swift action.




Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 13, 2006)

I spent an amusing hour+ reverse engineering the Warblade/Mo9 earlier in the thread... and can more or less replicate it with initial stats of 15/14/13/12/10/8, 760K gold and the assumption that maneuvers granted by Crown of the White Ravenesque items cannot be used to fulfill prereqs.  More or less because the stats listed neglected Improved Initiative (Mo9 prereq) and Battle Clarity (Warblade 1).  My reconstruction does require 3 Master level Crown type items and the build is horrifically unoptimised (Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike with a wis of 10?!  Heavy Armor proficiency?!).  I'm pretty sure the random +1 damage listed for the Tiger Claw strikes is a misreading of Blade Meditation, if anyone cares.

Perhaps more relevantly, I think ToB is quite well balanced.  Firstly, realize that the Warblade should be compared to the barbarian (both get d12 hp, medium armor, uncanny dodge and 4 skillpoints/level) rather than a fighter.  Compared to a Barb, the Warblade seems less intimidating: Time Stands Still is *quite* impressive... but, believe it or not, Mighty Rage is as big a damage boost (more or less, depends on the AC of the opponent, the scarier the opponent the better rage is) and Mighty Rage does not need to be refreshed every other round.

If you take a careful look at the ToB, you will note that ToB does very little to increase Martial Adept *full attack* damage above that of the Fighter/Barb, if in fact it does so at all.  Time Stands Still/Raging Mongoose/Inferno Blade are very powerfull indeed, but so are rage and even stacked weapon spec/mastery.  The big difference between Fighters/Barbs and Martial Adepts is in their effectiveness *if restricted to standard attacks*.  Fighters and Barbs are reduced to utter impotence while Martial Adepts can use standard action strikes to match unoptimized fighter/non-raging barb full attack damage.  This is the (only, huge) power boost that the martial adepts recieve, and it is not a game breaking problem, but rather fixes one: getting full attacks against competant foes is somewhere between difficult and impossible at high levels (unless the foe is a melee monster, in which case he can afford to trade full attacks and will probably get the first one in because he has greater reach and then *you* want to avoid getting full attacks); and without reliable full attacks fighters/barbs aren't worth the party slot.

Are ToB classes more powerful that fighters/barbs?  Yes, but their maximum damage output is the same.  When both are perfoming at their best, they are equivalent.  ToB classes are just more flexible in combat (i.e. not frequently reduced to impotence), and thanks to some actual skill points not utterly useless outside of it.

-Kraydak


----------



## gribble (Sep 14, 2006)

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> actually, free and swift actions _can_ be taken at any point in your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not sure that is really the intent of the quote from the SRD. It's in the context of only being able to perform a standard + move action or a full round action during a round, and is (in my reading of it at least) clarifying that you can take a free action *as well as* your normal action allowance.

While it's legal to cast a quickened true strike, and then charge, I don't believe it's legal to cast the quickened true strike _between_ the move and the attack included in the charge action.

At least, I'm not aware of any direct rule in the SRD (or even any examples) which state that you can take a free action between the constituent parts of another action. The closest example I can find is a 5ft step, which while it is a free action, is also explicitly called out under full round action stating you can take one _during_ your action, indicating to me that it's an exception to the normal rule (otherwise, why call it out?)


----------

