# Has the wave crested? (Bo9S)



## pawsplay (May 18, 2007)

I'm beginning to see copies of B09S show up at Half Price books. Who's jumped ship and why?

Personally, I'm not a big fan of its approach to D&D, so it's heartening to see the love fest isn't going to run continuously.


----------



## CarlZog (May 18, 2007)

B09s?


----------



## Piratecat (May 18, 2007)

Book of Nine Sword: the Tome of Battle.

I wanted to hate it, and ended up loving it.


----------



## Sejs (May 18, 2007)

I'm in a similar boat to PC.

I was very trepidatious at first, thought it was going to be a really bad example of power inflation, etc.  In the end, I love it.  It lets melee characters do a lot more now than just swing.. hit.. damage, etc.  It used to be if you wanted to pull off cool special effects you had to be a spellcaster.  Bo9S reshifts that balance some.


----------



## Grymar (May 18, 2007)

I scanned it briefly but didn't buy it.

I like the concept of giving advanced moves to melee characters to keep them balanced against high level casters, but the fact that so many of the effects were mostly spells-but-we-won't-call-them-that drove me away.

I'd like more mundane options for non-casters rather than just making non-casters more caster like (if that makes any sense).


----------



## wakedown (May 18, 2007)

Hasn't the book always been about half price at Amazon (~$18 when list is almost $30)?  This isn't really any different than the PHB (~$19 when list is almost $30)...

I'd think it's just books going through their normal course in life...


----------



## Voadam (May 18, 2007)

Grymar said:
			
		

> I scanned it briefly but didn't buy it.
> 
> I like the concept of giving advanced moves to melee characters to keep them balanced against high level casters, but the fact that so many of the effects were mostly spells-but-we-won't-call-them-that drove me away.
> 
> I'd like more mundane options for non-casters rather than just making non-casters more caster like (if that makes any sense).




Then I'd suggest checking out Iron Heroes or Book of Iron Might


----------



## Edheldur (May 18, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Then I'd suggest checking out Iron Heroes or Book of Iron Might



Seconded.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (May 18, 2007)

I'm in the same boat as PC. I bought it took a quick look and went "huh.... nothing interesting here". Couple of months later I pulled it out and made a few characters with it and now I'm a fan. There are a few manuevers that I dislike and I wish there were more manuevers and stances available, but aside from that I'm really liking it.


----------



## Nyaricus (May 18, 2007)

I really wish we had Half-Priced Books in Canada. While I was in Texas earlier this year on a trip, I stopped into one and bought DLCS for 13 bucks - an absolute _steal_!

--N


----------



## Zaukrie (May 18, 2007)

I've seen almost every title at Half Price at one point or another. They often get books from other stores/distributors.

As for Bo9S, I too was unsure about it when I picked it up, but I really, really like the concepts. Not all of them are executed the way I'd do it, but I recommend the book.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (May 18, 2007)

wakedown said:
			
		

> Hasn't the book always been about half price at Amazon (~$18 when list is almost $30)?  This isn't really any different than the PHB (~$19 when list is almost $30)...



The price isn't the significant factor.  Amazon is a "standard" retailer that can cut prices to the bone because of economies of scale and total overhead factors.  But the books are still obtained through regular retail distribution.   New books that appear in Half-Price Books are usually there because someone is unloading them into the "discount" distribution channels.  The most common reason to do that is an oversupply of the book, which usually means not enough buyers.


----------



## pawsplay (May 18, 2007)

Moreover, I saw a copy on the shelves for more than a week, which means my fellow vultures left it alone.


----------



## Khairn (May 18, 2007)

The Bo9S is slowly becoming a favorite.  I haven't let it be used as a core class yet, but about 2 months ago I started working on a small campaign / mini AP, with that book at its core.  I love the fluff.

There are a couple of things that I'm less content with such as ... it continues the traditional power-creep that each book brings, and it clearly (at least to my eyes) has a strong MMORPG flavor to it.  But aside from those 2 points I like the book.


----------



## GreatLemur (May 18, 2007)

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> There are a few manuevers that I dislike and I wish there were more manuevers and stances available...



Yeah, I concur.  I dig the book quite a lot, but man, is it ever a slim volume.  If they'd given it half again as many pages, and all that full of manuevers and stances, I'd have been happy to pay for the extra material.


----------



## Hjorimir (May 18, 2007)

You can add me as another fan of TOB: Bot9s. I've got both a warblade and a swordsage in my campaign now and love them both.


----------



## Psion (May 18, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> I'm in a similar boat to PC.
> 
> I was very trepidatious at first, thought it was going to be a really bad example of power inflation, etc.




I still think it's a really bad example of power inflation.


----------



## Wolfspider (May 18, 2007)

Wait a minute....

What is that hurtling down towards me?

Could that be the sky falling?

Ack!  Must have been hit by a good chunk of anecdotal evidence....


----------



## jrients (May 18, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I still think it's a really bad example of power inflation.




I think it's a totally awesome example of power inflation.  Bo9S is exactly the kind of crazy crap I want in my campaign.  But I can see why some folks would think it's too much.


----------



## Mort (May 18, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I still think it's a really bad example of power inflation.




Funny, to me this book really seems like good power inflation (though it's nowhere near as much inflation as some people attest). It lets mid-high level warrior characters be something other than magic-item dependent single schtick hitters and/or meat shields for the casters.


----------



## EyeontheMountain (May 18, 2007)

I got the book from Amazon JP because I was interested in it and it was dirt cheap, even compared to normal Amazon Japan pricing. 

And I both like and dislike it.

I like it because it does give options to characters, and it makes melee fighters more powerful.

And I dislike it because it is just too easy for a warblade especially to abuse a single overpowered power. Over and over and over again. Every other round. With some of he abilities, that is too much.


----------



## Nifft (May 18, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I'm beginning to see copies of B09S show up at Half Price books. Who's jumped ship and why?



 Why do you think the existence of an overstock implies lack of popularity?



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm not a big fan of its approach to D&D, so it's heartening to see the love fest isn't going to run continuously.



 Really? It seems like more and more stuff is balanced per-encounter. It seems like the philosophy behind ToB:Bo9S is taking over D&D.

And I like it. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Prince of Happiness (May 18, 2007)

I've noticed other stacks of books that would/should be popular such as the various Complete, or the Lords of... series that have ended up at Half-Price. It's just overstock. Don't mean nuthin'.


----------



## Ambrus (May 18, 2007)

Bo9S single-classed characters may be balanced by themselves but I suspect that it's a serious can of worms when allowed for multi-classing characters. I haven't tried using it with typical character builds, but when my gold dragon PC (dragon magazine 320) finally reached 12th level and was able to multi-class freely I compared the advantages of over a half-dozen classes (paladin, fighter, cleric, sorcerer, dragon shaman, duskblade, etc) along with continuing to advance in my dragon class. All in all the advantages and disadvantages between the classes were comparable (+1 BAB vs better saves,  a feat vs a first level spell or two, better saves vs more skill points, etc).

Then I compared them all to taking a level of Swordsage. Wow! No contest. My hit dice allowed me to take up to third level manoeuvres, but I didn't even need to go that high; the first and second level manoeuvres were awesome. The class offered good saves, good skill points wrapped up with a nice assortment of four manoeuvres and a stance. Next game I manged to increase my dragon's single-round-damage-output by over a 100%; far better than any fighter feat I could have gained instead. My DM agrees that the book is somewhat broken. He's allowing me to keep the class levels since the campaign will be wrapping up soon. When I started running my new campaign recently, Bo9S was the only book I outright forbid the use of.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 18, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I'm beginning to see copies of B09S show up at Half Price books. Who's jumped ship and why?
> 
> Personally, I'm not a big fan of its approach to D&D, so it's heartening to see the love fest isn't going to run continuously.




By this logic, my own local Half-Price Books indicates that people are no longer reading Stephen King, Michael Moorcock, Spiderman comics, or the Bible.


----------



## Psion (May 18, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> By this logic, my own local Half-Price Books indicates that people are no longer reading Stephen King, Michael Moorcock, Spiderman comics, or the Bible.




While I'm not so optimistic to hope that people are abandoning Bo9S in droves, I don't think that logic follows. You only need to read a Stephen King novel once. If you are using a gaming book, you pretty much need to keep it around.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 18, 2007)

Grymar said:
			
		

> I scanned it briefly but didn't buy it.
> 
> I like the concept of giving advanced moves to melee characters to keep them balanced against high level casters, but the fact that so many of the effects were mostly spells-but-we-won't-call-them-that drove me away.
> 
> I'd like more mundane options for non-casters rather than just making non-casters more caster like (if that makes any sense).




I understand what you mean, and tend to agree with you.  However, if you read it, there are many abilities which are less "caster-like" that it appears on first glance.  You just have to ignore some of the schools, like the Desert Wind one.  The ones like Iron Heart and Diamond Mind, as well as, I think the one that's all about grappling etc. are all more "physical", and less spellcaster-like.

Banshee


----------



## Nepenthe (May 19, 2007)

Grymar said:
			
		

> I scanned it briefly but didn't buy it.
> 
> I like the concept of giving advanced moves to melee characters to keep them balanced against high level casters, but the fact that so many of the effects were mostly spells-but-we-won't-call-them-that drove me away.




I think that is a somewhat false impression most people who just scan the book get - mostly because Desert Wind, one of the two more "magical" schools. You actually have to look at the book pretty closely to realise that most of the magic stuff is just for the swordsage, a monky character class. The abilities of Warblades and Crusaders are quite a bit more grounded (with a slight divine magic touch for Crusaders).

I quite like the book, it gives exclusive abilities to fighters (as opposed to feat chains that everybody can follow to a certain degree). The maneuvers are designed (intentionally, I believe) to appear quite flashy, but I don't think they are really that out of whack, they just seem over the top at initially.

/N


----------



## Razz (May 19, 2007)

I love the book and I love the way it's executed. I love the anime-style it brings, but I have to say I am rather disappointed in a few things.

1) No ranged-type martial discipline

2) Should've been as thick as Tome of Magic and added a ton more of maneuvers and stances, the book is really thin on that.

3) No energy type attacks other than fire. What happened to electricity, acid, sonic, and cold?

Here's to hoping WotC provides us more material for Bo9S with their Digital Initiative!


----------



## Kesh (May 19, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> While I'm not so optimistic to hope that people are abandoning Bo9S in droves, I don't think that logic follows. You only need to read a Stephen King novel once.




*HERESY!*


----------



## comrade raoul (May 19, 2007)

It's a neat book for mature groups, I guess, but nobody should deny that it's a source of massive power creep.


----------



## Nifft (May 19, 2007)

comrade raoul said:
			
		

> It's a neat book for mature groups, I guess, but nobody should deny that it's a source of massive power creep.




Well... I'd argue it's not power creep, it's power catch-up.

Anything that boosts Clerics or Druids is power creep! All this book did was give melee fighter dudes a reason to exist.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## FireLance (May 19, 2007)

comrade raoul said:
			
		

> It's a neat book for mature groups, I guess, but nobody should deny that it's a source of massive power creep.



For me, at least, the power creep is balanced by the fun creep.


----------



## Destil (May 19, 2007)

Aside from one or two abusable things (i.e. the same disclaimer I'd have to make about ANY D&D book when talking balance), I don't see it as as much power creep. Warblade - Barbarian/Fighter, Swordsage - Monk and Crusader - Paladin compare fairly well. 

What is is is flavor creep, making things cooler for the fighter types.


----------



## Hjorimir (May 19, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Well... I'd argue it's not power creep, it's power catch-up.
> 
> Anything that boosts Clerics or Druids is power creep! All this book did was give melee fighter dudes a reason to exist.
> 
> Cheers, -- N



What he said.


----------



## Imruphel (May 19, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> (snip) I wanted to hate it, and ended up loving it.




Likewise. It was a series of posts by Hong on these boards that converted me over.

Once again I am amazed at Rich Baker's creativity. He gave us the warlock as well, as far as I know, and he seems to be the most capable of the WotC when it comes to really tinkering with the rules (he's also a rather good author... and I don't even normally like FR novels).


----------



## Sejs (May 19, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> 1) No ranged-type martial discipline
> 
> 2) Should've been as thick as Tome of Magic and added a ton more of maneuvers and stances, the book is really thin on that.
> 
> 3) No energy type attacks other than fire. What happened to electricity, acid, sonic, and cold?




There's a passing mention of how one can develop your own maneuvers, disciplines, etc much in the same way you can do personal spell research.


That needs to be developed more.  Guidelines, etc for what's appropriate at each level.  


I want to develop a fighting style that's based on Mimics (the creature), that uses disguise as the key skill.  It would be awesome.


----------



## Psion (May 19, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Well... I'd argue it's not power creep, it's power catch-up.




Catching up to the druid and cleric is power creep to everyone else.

Two brokens don't make a fixed.


----------



## Sejs (May 19, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Catching up to the druid and cleric is power creep to everyone else.
> 
> Two brokens don't make a fixed.




That, actually, is quite arguable.


----------



## FireLance (May 19, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Catching up to the druid and cleric is power creep to everyone else.
> 
> Two brokens don't make a fixed.



The problem is, something can't be broken in isolation. It has to be with reference to something. 

If you think the cleric and druid are broken in relation to the power level you prefer to game at, then increasing the power level of the other classes breaks them, too. 

If you think the cleric and druid are broken in relation to the power level of the other classes, allowing the other classes to catch up doesn't break them, and reduces the "brokenness" of the cleric and druid.


----------



## Psion (May 19, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> The problem is, something can't be broken in isolation. It has to be with reference to something.




Precisely my point. You are letting the upper end of the power scale become a new standard. That's creep.



> If you think the cleric and druid are broken in relation to the power level you prefer to game at, then increasing the power level of the other classes breaks them, too.




That's reference dependent too. If everyone is powered up, it will then seem ordinary.

With the additional problem that you have unnecessarily created churn, but obligating the audience to change all the other classes.



> If you think the cleric and druid are broken in relation to the power level of the other classes, allowing the other classes to catch up doesn't break them, and reduces the "brokenness" of the cleric and druid.




That's the tail wagging the dog. The proper solution here is to FIX the cleric and druid.


----------



## Sejs (May 19, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> That's the tail wagging the dog. The proper solution here is to FIX the cleric and druid.




Six of one, half dozen of the other.  If the goal is to bring the two sides into parity, it's kind of hard to lower the CoD half given that it was ahead of the curve right out of the gate.

The two options would then be:

1) Put out material that raises the other half.  Redefines the upper end as the norm, like you said.

2) Put out material that nerfs the CoD half.  I honestly can't see that taking well.  The shapechange druid variant was probably the best example, but that's optional.. you don't have to use it.  The cleric's even trickier to rebalance.


----------



## Razz (May 19, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> There's a passing mention of how one can develop your own maneuvers, disciplines, etc much in the same way you can do personal spell research.
> 
> 
> That needs to be developed more.  Guidelines, etc for what's appropriate at each level.
> ...




I totally agree. 

A set of guidelines for figuring out how to pin a maneuver level on new maneuvers would be a great asset. It's a little difficult, but me and my friends managed to come up with new ones. One of my players created a unique 1st-level maneuver for the Tiger Claw discipline called _Lion's Pride Takedown_ for his Shifter Swordsage. Basically, you make an attack with a standard action and if you hit, you can make a free trip attack, can use either Strength or Dexterity to knock foe down, and cannot be tripped in return on a failure. I was thinking of putting in a +2 or +4 bonus, as well, in there but I think I'm saving that for a more powerful version or maybe a new stance.

We've also created maneuvers to cover the lack of energy types. We've made lightning, cold, and sonic type attacks. We also allow Desert Wind maneuvers taken to be substituted with a different energy. He took _Burning Blade_ and renamed it _Roaring Staff_ and we changed the energy type from fire to sonic damage.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 19, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I still think it's a really bad example of power inflation.



Probably because it is. 

It's just that some people believe that the ol' melee types were kinda shafted previously, I suppose. Or they don't much care, and basically want to hit thing harder. I dunno.

Me, I think reserve feats are rather amusing as well. But that's for another thread. . .


----------



## Pants (May 19, 2007)

Bo9S is pretty cool. Warblades seem pretty capable if using the right maneuver combos, but then my party wasted an enemy warblade after he dealt a buttload damage basically blowing his maneuver wad. The party fighter dealt near that same amount of damage back... using Power Attack.   

So I'm not sure if they're as bad as some people claim, granted this is one example, but I found it interesting.


----------



## DreadArchon (May 19, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> While I'm not so optimistic to hope that people are abandoning Bo9S in droves, I don't think that logic follows. You only need to read a Stephen King novel once. If you are using a gaming book, you pretty much need to keep it around.



That or people are just making illegal copies and selling the originals.



> That's the tail wagging the dog. The proper solution here is to FIX the cleric and druid.



Feh, don't agree.  I like D&D specifically because it's got the whole "massively powerful superheoes--in a fantasy setting!" thing going on.  The proper solution is to make everything comparable to the Cleric and Druid, IMAO.


----------



## hong (May 19, 2007)

What I especially like about Bo9S is not the per-encounter thing, or the beefing-up-the-warriors thing, but the fact that it shifts the emphasis and detail in combat to the characters, not groups. Well, okay, I ALSO like the per-encounter thing and the beefing-up-the-warriors thing, but the shift in emphasis is still good.

D&D combat for 25 years has primarily been designed around the skirmish level. You have the tank, the medic, the bomb-disposal guy and the artillery. Everyone is part of a team, and your tactics are to do with terrain, fire and movement. It doesn't matter so much how the tank hits the giant, as long the giant gets hit; hence 1 roll to attack, 1 roll for damage. 3E provides more details at the individual level, but ultimately most combats still come down to churning out the damage: it's still the fastest, most reliable way to defeat an opponent.

Contrast this to games like GURPS and HERO, where it's all about tactics at the individual level. GURPS takes combat down to 1-second rounds, where you literally roll for every swing and block. HERO isn't quite so fine-grained, but it's close. Bo9S doesn't provide as much character-level detail in combat as that, but it does provide more than vanilla D&D.

IMO it's still got some way to go, though. There aren't enough counters (or not enough good counters), so that one hit can still take a guy down. All that tactical complexity doesn't do much good if a fight can be decided by who wins init. Most strikes are basically just big damage bonuses, with some window-dressing so they're not all clones of each other. Some of these problems are because the book still has to work with the existing D&D combat system, but other things should be fixable without having to wait for 4E.

So, yeah, Bo9S is the first step in the Soul Caliburization of D&D. This can be contrasted with GURPS, which is more like Tekken, or pre-Bo9S D&D, which is Age of Empires/Warcraft.


----------



## daemonslye (May 19, 2007)

I have it - It's certainly interesting.  Flavor-wise and rules-wise, I'm treating it like Tome of Magic.  When I decide to create a campaign that uses these rules (with the appropriate campaign/world history), I will allow them in the game.

Just have not gotten around to it yet.

~D


----------



## Nepenthe (May 19, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Probably because it is.
> 
> It's just that some people believe that the ol' melee types were kinda shafted previously, I suppose. Or they don't much care, and basically want to hit thing harder. I dunno.




Well, in the transfer from 2e to 3e, warrior types lost their main defining combat ability (multiple attacks). Making multiple attacks an automatic result of having certain BAB (and tying it to full attacks only, removing mobility) significantly boosted the melee power of the following tier of melee fighters (clerics etc.). 

The designers' intention apparently was that the addition of bonus feats/smites/weapon styles would even this change out... which brings us to the core problem, the fighter. The problem with feats is that, like the new multiple attacks, they are basically available to anyone. Wizards has been unwilling to make "fighter only" feats (and I fail to see why, plenty of spells seem to carry "cleric", "wizard" or "paladin" in them without creating any problems). To make feats viable only for fighters, they've added either high BAB requirements or made extremely long feat chains that give you a plus here and there. High BAB feats are good and well, but they are only available to higher level fighters, leaving the mid-level fighter to nab up his ~15 feat weapon mastery feat tree... And I don't think that weapon specialization and its effects are even close to what they were in 2e.

The second problem the fighter has relates to his skills... Not only does he get a meager 2+int in skill points every level, he is doubly punished by having an absurdly poor skill selection. It's been a while since I played 2e, but I am under the impression that the fighter got the same amount of non-weapon proficiencies as everybody else did.

These two combined lead to a situation where the fighter is simply not as much fun to play as other classes. Especially if your campaign features heavy skill-use over straight combat, the fighter is indeed completely shafted. And in combat, his choices are either the infamous "I full attack again!" or using one of the special combat maneuvers... that everybody else can do as well, albeit with a penalty of some kind unless they have spent one of their fewer feats on it (unlikely, since they have dozens of better feats to use that build on their strengths).

What I see in ToB (and what is the reason for that particular book bringing me back last summer 4 years after "quitting" D&D) is that it just adds _fun_ to the melee types. This is not just "anime combat" as some fans and detractors like to point out (There is "anime" in the warblade and crusader only if you choose to put it there), it also adds to warrior-types as characters via the boosted skill points and skill selections.

Power wise... Yes, it does add to the power of the melee classes, mostly by improving their possibilities to deal out damage and move at the same time. Is this bad? In my opinion, it is an overdue fix for a problem that has existed since the birth of 3e. Is this the right way of fixing it? Maybe not, adding warblade skills and skillpoints with the same martial progression to a straight fighter might have fixed both, currently even I, a massive fan of the book, have some trouble swallowing all of the warblade's special abilities (it's the one class I've spent most  time looking at, since it seems to be the one at the heart of most controversy).

Is the book perfect? No, and I get the feeling that it has at least some cut material (and the inclusion of the legacy weapons is just... not good, web enhancement material if I ever saw it). It would certainly benefit from a more in-depth guide into creating new disciplines and maneuvers. As for the way the maneuvers and their recovery is handled... well, at least it does differentiate them from spells a bit. I'm not sure if its the correct way of handling it, but at least it doesn't just create another type of caster with recovery identical to the base caster classes.

/N


----------



## RichGreen (May 19, 2007)

Hi,

I like the book and my next PC will be one of the classes in it.

Cheers


Richard


----------



## Greg K (May 19, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> That's the tail wagging the dog. The proper solution here is to FIX the cleric and druid.




That would have been my preference.

As for Bo9S, not my flavor.  I prefer Mr. Mearl's Book of Iron Might.


----------



## mxyzplk (May 20, 2007)

DreadArchon said:
			
		

> That or people are just making illegal copies and selling the originals.




Heh, spare me, work for the RIAA much?  When you sell a book to Half Price, you don't even get a quarter price for it.  Copying a whole book costs more than that.  If by some happenstance they're stealing the copies too - who in their right mind goes to all the work of copying a big hardback to sell it for $5?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2007)

> By this logic, my own local Half-Price Books indicates that people are no longer reading Stephen King, Michael Moorcock, Spiderman comics, or the Bible.




Actually, people are stealing the Bible from hotels and selling them for cash.  



> While I'm not so optimistic to hope that people are abandoning Bo9S in droves, I don't think that logic follows. You only need to read a Stephen King novel once. If you are using a gaming book, you pretty much need to keep it around.




But your logic doesn't follow for the Bible...at least, not so far as I can tell.


----------



## Psion (May 20, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> But your logic doesn't follow for the Bible...at least, not so far as I can tell.




I chose my counter example purposefully. 

Bibles are a different case, I would think. It's not under copyright, so anyone can print one, and it's still the bestselling book of all time, so there will be a variety of publishers stamping them out in a variety of forms, and some portion of these will have reclaimed warehouse stocks, etc., so it's inevitable that you'd see some show up at book resellers.


----------



## pawsplay (May 21, 2007)

I'm not dissing those whole like the Bo0S, but to me, personally, the suggestion that this was what exactly what d&D needed to beef up the melee fighter hits me about the same as would powered armor. 

Sure, a flying, invisible suit of armor with a heat ray and superstrength would go a long way toward making a fighter the equal of a wizard, but you've now balanced the wrong game.

Whatever the problems, a fighter should fight... he should not have to fly through the air and cut walls in half in order to remain a meaningful contributor after 8th level. And the last thing the combat system needs are extra actions, interruptions, and other oddities not found elsewhere in D&D, not even in spells. 

Bottom line: if I wanted to play Exalted, I would. D&D + Bo0S = a second class homage to Exalted, Hero System, Feng Shui, and the like.

If there are no blokes in chainmail hacking things up with longswords in it, it's not D&D and I probably don't want it.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (May 21, 2007)

Playing my lvl 2 Crusader is more complex than any caster class I've leveled up, except my epic Bladesinger/Conjurer gish. 
I have a stack of maneuver/stance cards to shuffle and manage in up to 4 piles, and 3 sets of hit points to keep track of.  Then there's the tactical aspect and attack roll math.
Fun class to play, the third of the classes from the book I've tried.  I must've taken 3 times my total hit points in damage one fight, and the healer's spells didn't get used at all.  Sometimes playing the piñata is fun..


----------



## IceFractal (May 21, 2007)

Actually, despite people's initial reactions, I've found the Bo9S, in both theory and practice, doesn't outdamage traditional warrior-types much.  

First off, don't use a Fighter as a base for damage-dealing, use a Barbarian.  The Fighter has _never_ been the master of damage-dealing - it's master of feat intensive things like tripping.  I believe a study was done on the CO board comparing manuevers to standard rage/power attack/full attack tactics, and it was found that manuevers were actually less damaging in many cases.

That isn't to say manuevers are useless - they're more versatile, more movement-friendly, and overall just more fun than "full-attack, rinse, repeat".  In fact, ToB single-handedly fixes a whole list of issues I previously had:
1) Warrior-types become increasingly marginalized at high levels.
2) Moving around is combat is discouraged by the full-attack mechanics.  Leaping between tables or swinging on chains to attack from above?  Forget it, unless you want to suck.
3) The way feats specialize a character, using a variety of attack-types is very suboptimal.  For instance, most warriors either never use Trip, or _only_ use Trip.
4) Warriors are dependant on specific magic items to deal with common types of opponents.
5) There's no in-game support for stuff like last-ditch heroic sacrifices, or making that one vital leap to block the BBEG's attack.  



And as for saying that the fighting styles are "too magicky", that's almost entirely Desert Wind and Shadow Hand, two out of nine schools.  This is somewhat like saying that magic is all about destroying stuff because the Evocation school exists.

You want a "bloke in chainmail hacking things up with a longsword"?  Try a Warblade using Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, and White Raven manuevers.  Everything you do is training, focus, and leadership - no magic required.  

Heck, for that matter, Tiger Claw is pretty much entirely non-magical as well, as is much of Setting Sun and Stone Dragon.


----------



## Nepenthe (May 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Whatever the problems, a fighter should fight... he should not have to fly through the air and cut walls in half in order to remain a meaningful contributor after 8th level.




I don't have the book with me, but I am fairly sure that neither of the warrior-type classes (crusader or warblade) qualifies for any of the "air walking" powers; those are strictly the swordsages domain, who has basically nothing to do with the fighter (and a lot to do with the monk). As for cutting walls in half... I'm not sure that anything in this book really changes that from the way it was before?



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> And the last thing the combat system needs are extra actions, interruptions, and other oddities not found elsewhere in D&D, not even in spells.




Ah, and now I see your point, "not even in spells". Apart from not really agreeing on adding stuff that spells can't do (didn't somebody earlier in this thread say that they didn't like it because it was just spells for fighters?), I'm not sure what you mean with the rest. I am assume that you mean that all the swift actions interrupt the rhythm of the combat and slow it down? Maybe... but I'd rather be interrupted, than "full attack again!".



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> If there are no blokes in chainmail hacking things up with longswords in it, it's not D&D and I probably don't want it.




At this point I have to ask, have you read the book or are you just going by what you've read on the forums? I mean, IIRC, the warblade illustration has a guy with a longsword in chainmail about to hack things up...   

The reason I'm singling out your post for what might seem like some fairly harsh replies is the reason that I honestly believe your opinions are based on misconceptions. If you own the book, have carefully read it and think the above, then I am ok with you thinking that way. But if you have just read bits and pieces and built the above image from it, then I think you are just plain misinformed.

Cheers,

/N


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 21, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> That's the tail wagging the dog. The proper solution here is to FIX the cleric and druid.



Impossible. Why would any player buy a book that reduces a class's power?


----------



## megamania (May 21, 2007)

sheesh... based on the comments... I ought to check the book out again.


----------



## hong (May 21, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Impossible. Why would any player buy a book that reduces a class's power?



 Heck, IIRC someone here mentioned that all the spellcasting PrCs since Complete Divine (well, the great majority of them) have been WEAKER than a single-classed spellcaster. So it would appear WotC has noticed that casters are strong, and are trying to ensure they don't become stronger. But the result is that people basically don't use those PrCs. So asking people to accept a nerfed base class seems very much like Canute vs tide.


----------



## FireLance (May 21, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Impossible. Why would any player buy a book that reduces a class's power?



There are a few reasons: greater simplicity, whether in character creation, character advancement, pre-game preparation, or during play. Alternatively, better flavor, or class abilities that mesh more closely with the player's concept of the class, or that better suit his favored play style.

Sheer power is not the only thing that makes a class fun for a player.


----------



## hong (May 21, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> There are a few reasons: greater simplicity, whether in character creation, character advancement, pre-game preparation, or during play. Alternatively, better flavor, or class abilities that mesh more closely with the player's concept of the class, or that better suit his favored play style.
> 
> Sheer power is not the only thing that makes a class fun for a player.



 Hey, whose side are you on anyway?


----------



## Nepenthe (May 21, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> There are a few reasons: greater simplicity, whether in character creation, character advancement, pre-game preparation, or during play. Alternatively, better flavor, or class abilities that mesh more closely with the player's concept of the class, or that better suit his favored play style.
> 
> Sheer power is not the only thing that makes a class fun for a player.




But, short of a new edition, how would this be accomplished? Inside the current edition, the only feasible long-term solution IMHO is to balance everything to the level of the most powerful core class  :\ 

That said, I prefer the Warblade over the fighter to a great deal not because of his power, but due to the fact that his diplomacy and 2 knowledge skills with the higher skill points give him at least a theoretical possibility of weighing in outside of combat.

/N


----------



## satori01 (May 21, 2007)

For all the claims of Clerics & Druids being overpowered, I still rarely see people play them, especially Clerics.  The class just does not seem to appeal to a certain type of personality, and apparently my friends have it.

I like Bo9S,  I think it does increase fun creep more than power creep, but again it is book of classes that require alot of management, which is not going to appeal to some people.

Anything that takes away, move, Attack, Full Attack, move.  Some D&D combats feel more like watching an old comedic boxing match, where both participants either run away, until they reach a point were either they are cornered, or hit the spot of their choosing and full attack.

Activities Like Sundering, Bull Rushes, Tripping etc are more flavorful when handled by maneuvers and instead of by precious feats.

I also think it can reduce in some ways the damage output of melee characters.  First off, the high level maneuvers have saving throws, which is something that does not apply to the Hasted, Divine Might, Power Attacking Paladin with a Holy Keen Falchion and Bless Weapon.... there was not a power deficiency for melee-ist at high level, melee-ist are more powerful than casters at that level in terms of DPS, but a coolness gap.

The second main balancing factor is alot of those strikes are standard or full round actions, which will take itterative attacks out of the equation.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (May 21, 2007)

I love Bo9S:ToB so bad it hurts!


----------



## pawsplay (May 21, 2007)

Nepenthe said:
			
		

> I don't have the book with me, but I am fairly sure that neither of the warrior-type classes (crusader or warblade) qualifies for any of the "air walking" powers; those are strictly the swordsages domain, who has basically nothing to do with the fighter (and a lot to do with the monk). As for cutting walls in half... I'm not sure that anything in this book really changes that from the way it was before?




There are a number of ways of doing some really insane stuff, like +100 to damage. Has it ever occured to you that maneuver could be used to cut an adamantine wall in half?



> Ah, and now I see your point, "not even in spells". Apart from not really agreeing on adding stuff that spells can't do (didn't somebody earlier in this thread say that they didn't like it because it was just spells for fighters?), I'm not sure what you mean with the rest. I am assume that you mean that all the swift actions interrupt the rhythm of the combat and slow it down? Maybe... but I'd rather be interrupted, than "full attack again!".




I'd rather not deal with, "another full attack.... again, again." Swift actions are relatively easy to deal with; immediate actions, additional move actions, additional standard actions, and additional full actions are more problematic.



> At this point I have to ask, have you read the book or are you just going by what you've read on the forums? I mean, IIRC, the warblade illustration has a guy with a longsword in chainmail about to hack things up...




I've spent a substantial amount of time paging through it. I'm not in the habit of rejecting something without understanding it.

Yes, there are guys with longswords in the illustrations. I wasn't mentioning a specific weapon and armor combination because I'm personally attached to that combination, but as something symbolic of the swords-and-sorcery genre. 



> The reason I'm singling out your post for what might seem like some fairly harsh replies is the reason that I honestly believe your opinions are based on misconceptions.




You may have some misconceptions about my misconceptions. It's always dangerous to assume that because someone has different opinions, they are less knowledgeable.



> If you own the book, have carefully read it and think the above, then I am ok with you thinking that way. But if you have just read bits and pieces and built the above image from it, then I think you are just plain misinformed.
> Cheers,
> /N




I think I'm about as informed as I'm going to be without spending money on a product I do not believe I want.


----------



## hong (May 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> There are a number of ways of doing some really insane stuff, like +100 to damage. Has it ever occured to you that maneuver could be used to cut an adamantine wall in half?




Heh. Strike of Perfect Clarity is actually relatively weak, big numbers notwithstanding. As for cutting an adamantine wall in half, you can already Power attack for -20/+40 and do it with a regular full attack. It's not like the wall is going to try to dodge you.


----------



## pawsplay (May 21, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Heh. Strike of Perfect Clarity is actually relatively weak, big numbers notwithstanding. As for cutting an adamantine wall in half, you can already Power attack for -20/+40 and do it with a regular full attack. It's not like the wall is going to try to dodge you.




Hong, that won't even break down an iron wall.


----------



## pawsplay (May 21, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Heh. Strike of Perfect Clarity is actually relatively weak, big numbers notwithstanding. As for cutting an adamantine wall in half, you can already Power attack for -20/+40 and do it with a regular full attack. It's not like the wall is going to try to dodge you.




Let me also add that I didn't say the maneuver was useful or overpowered, or even medium-powered, simply that it allowed you to do something I don't want _ever to happen_ in my D&D game without good reason.


----------



## hong (May 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Let me also add that I didn't say the maneuver was useful or overpowered, or even medium-powered, simply that it allowed you to do something I don't want _ever to happen_ in my D&D game without good reason.



 And like I said, you can already do that in pre-Bo9S D&D. So if it isn't happening in your game, either your players are of like mind and don't do things like whacking holes in adamantine walls for no good reason, or you've banned them from doing it. And both of these can just as easily apply to Bo9S strikes.


----------



## hong (May 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Hong, that won't even break down an iron wall.




Say what? DMG p.60: Iron wall: hardness 10, 90 hp per 10' x 10' section.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Hong, that won't even break down an iron wall.




...a full 20th-level melee type's all-Power Attack full attack won't break an iron wall, but a +100-point damage Strike will cleave an adamantine wall in twain?

Brad


----------



## Nepenthe (May 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> There are a number of ways of doing some really insane stuff, like +100 to damage. Has it ever occured to you that maneuver could be used to cut an adamantine wall in half?




No. I was under the impression that maneuvers could only be used against "enemies", and while I've met some offending walls in my day, my emotions have never quite reach enmity. Of course if I'm wrong, I'll just keep house-ruling it that way



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> I'd rather not deal with, "another full attack.... again, again." Swift actions are relatively easy to deal with; immediate actions, additional move actions, additional standard actions, and additional full actions are more problematic.




But not exactly plentiful, IIRC. You have a point there, though.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Yes, there are guys with longswords in the illustrations. I wasn't mentioning a specific weapon and armor combination because I'm personally attached to that combination, but as something symbolic of the swords-and-sorcery genre.




Ok... But now I have completely no idea why you said it. I'm assuming this somehow deals with ToB not representing the sword and sorcery genre, but I'm just failing to make the connection here. 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> I've spent a substantial amount of time paging through it. I'm not in the habit of rejecting something without understanding it.
> 
> You may have some misconceptions about my misconceptions. It's always dangerous to assume that because someone has different opinions, they are less knowledgeable.
> 
> I think I'm about as informed as I'm going to be without spending money on a product I do not believe I want.



Fair enough. And I would like to point out that I was in no way assuming you were less knowledgeable, I was just going on what you were saying - some parts of which I still have trouble connecting to the book. 

I'm really trying to understand your point of view here; You're saying that the ToB is somehow outside the conventional Sword and Sorcery genre that "basic" D&D represents?

Cheers,

/N


----------



## GlassJaw (May 21, 2007)

I liked the concept of the Bo9S (per encounter, renewable actions) but found the mechanics lacking and clumsy and balance virtually nonexistent.  The flavor wasn't general enough for it to be used in a wide-range of settings either, at least not without significant editing.


----------



## Odhanan (May 21, 2007)

I love the_ Book of Nine Swords_. Great stuff increasing tactical choices for melee characters. A must for people who like tactical D&D like I do. Plus, the flavor's really good. I'm a huge fan of the Crusader, and plan on playing one as soon as the occasion presents itself.


----------



## Henry (May 21, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Say what? DMG p.60: Iron wall: hardness 10, 90 hp per 10' x 10' section.




Actually, I don't think that either one will break down either an iron wall OR an adamantine wall.

What is the most damage a tricked out 20th level barbarian or warblade do in one hit with NO criticals? I can't see him doing much more than about 40 damage in that one hit, not counting the power attack. (I'm thinking greatsword (12) + 15 for 30 STR, +5 magic weapon, maybe +6 for an energy property like acid, and maybe anot +2 or +3 for those advanced weapon masteries out of PHB2? Any others?)


Now, the strike of perfect clarity, does +100 damage, right? So that's about 140 damage, let's say? Now add in the -20 two-handed power attack, and you get about 80 damage or so? The Warblade with his strike might get through the 10 x 10 iron wall, but I know he's not getting through the adamantine wall...


----------



## pawsplay (May 21, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't think that either one will break down either an iron wall OR an adamantine wall.




Adamantine has a hardness of 20 and 40 hit points per inch... the same hit points as iron, in other words, with more hardness. So he needs to do 140 points of damage.

+100 damage from maneuver, +40 from Power Attack... provided his weapon does at least one point of damage, a 20th level warblade with any two-handed or one-handed weapon wielded in two hands can easily cut an adamantine wall in half.


----------



## pawsplay (May 21, 2007)

Nepenthe said:
			
		

> No. I was under the impression that maneuvers could only be used against "enemies", and while I've met some offending walls in my day, my emotions have never quite reach enmity. Of course if I'm wrong, I'll just keep house-ruling it that way
> /N




Well, if you insist, the cleric can always animate the wall first, then the warblade can declare his undying hatred and cut the adamantine wall in half.


----------



## Nepenthe (May 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Well, if you insist, the cleric can always animate the wall first, then the warblade can declare his undying hatred and cut the adamantine wall in half.




I am starting to see why it's not a problem in my campaign but it could be in yours.   

Regards,

/N


----------



## pawsplay (May 21, 2007)

Nepenthe said:
			
		

> I'm really trying to understand your point of view here; You're saying that the ToB is somehow outside the conventional Sword and Sorcery genre that "basic" D&D represents?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> /N




Substantially. It's like nothing I ever imagined when I started playing D&D, and it's certainly not a milieu I would imagine from reading D&D inspired fiction.

It's wire fu/Final Fantasy type stuff.


----------



## Henry (May 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Adamantine has a hardness of 20 and 40 hit points per inch... the same hit points as iron, in other words, with more hardness. So he needs to do 140 points of damage.
> 
> +100 damage from maneuver, +40 from Power Attack... provided his weapon does at least one point of damage, a 20th level warblade with any two-handed or one-handed weapon wielded in two hands can easily cut an adamantine wall in half.





Ah, I see -- I was thinking adamantine had a lot more hit points than iron did... anyone is going to get through that wall eventually, as long as they're doing at least 21 points of damage per hit. I thought we were comparing the two, not combining them -- although that would have a very effective way to drill through.


----------



## jrients (May 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Yes, there are guys with longswords in the illustrations. I wasn't mentioning a specific weapon and armor combination because I'm personally attached to that combination, but as something symbolic of the swords-and-sorcery genre.
> 
> I think I'm about as informed as I'm going to be without spending money on a product I do not believe I want.




I had similar misgivings about 9 Swords, but in actual play I've found that a Warblade is at least as good a Conan as the core Barbarian.


----------



## Nepenthe (May 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It's wire fu/Final Fantasy type stuff.




Not more than the core Monk is. It just looks like the whole book is like that, because a large number of the disciples are *just* for the swordsage (and some PRCs).

But I guess me repeating that won't make you change your mind... AFAIK the flavour difference between the swordsage and the other two classes has been repeatedly pointed out in every thread on the subject, including this one.

Cheers,

/N


----------



## Razz (May 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> There are a number of ways of doing some really insane stuff, like +100 to damage. Has it ever occured to you that maneuver could be used to cut an adamantine wall in half?




See, something like that my players would see as "cool". And would want to emulate stuff like that. Watching FFVII: Advent Children helped inspire Bo9S combat with them, too. According to the way D&D works, it's not about what the DM wants and it should NEVER be about what the DM wants. It should be about what the players want. Or you quickly lose players. Unless your players go for stone-age super-realistic stuff than more power to you.


----------



## Arkhandus (May 21, 2007)

Core barbarian: half-orc, level 20, Strength 18 + 2 racial + 5 levels + 6 belt + 1 manual + 8 raging = Str 40, full power attack, vicious +5 greataxe, full attack action = four attacks against the adamantine wall for an average of 79 damage per hit = 316 damage to the wall, -60 points for the adamantine's hardness, so 256 damage.

Warblade: half-orc, level 20, Strength 18 + 2 racial + 5 levels + 6 belt + 1 manual = Str 32, full power attack, vicious +5 greataxe, weapon specialization, Strike of Perfect Clarity = one attack against the adamantine wall for an average of 175 damage to the adamantine wall, -20 for the hardness, so 155 damage.

I am failing to see how the core-only half-orc barbarian is anything but _superior_ to the warblade at chopping through adamantine walls in 1 round.  Of course I don't have the book on hand so I can't factor in whatever Boost the warblade might add in, but it's not likely to make up the difference of 101 damage.  Though I'm forgetting if the warblade would also get greater weapon specialization, which is a pittance of extra damage by comparison.

Sure, the Warblade could potentially chop it apart in one hit compared to the barbarian's 3 hits (the 4th is really unnecessary), but it would be a difference of about 1-2 seconds in D&D combat times (Warblade chops through with a strike in 3-1/2 seconds of focusing and making a single attack, Barbarian chops through in 5 seconds with a rapid series of 3 attacks).



And, really, there are only a few disciplines that are really magical in their results.  Some of the maneuvers from Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw, and White Raven might be supernatural or the like, but most of them are not, IIRC, and few if any would even _appear_ supernatural to an observer.  Although, Tiger Claw has a few that are definitely unusual, but no biggie, they don't have to learn the few really unusual TC maneuvers and stances.  Devoted Spirit for a Crusader makes perfect sense with its divinely-granted mystical effects, it's just like a variant of the Paladin, using moments of divine inspiration and brief surges of divine power rather than spells.

And as mentioned, the core Monk and suchlike already present similar supernatural martial arts stuff in D&D.  It seems like most folks who dislike the Bo9S from a flavor or style standpoint just don't like any kind of non-European influence in D&D, and are monk-haters already as a result.  I can understand not liking the added complexity of manuevers, though it's really just giving warriors something fun to do besides full-attack or spring attack.  But I can't fathom the rabid Eurocentrism that some people have regarding D&D.  Even Greyhawk itself has some notable Middle Eastern influence in its setting, by way of the Baklunish people, their nations, and some aspects of their faith.



Also, the brokenness of a few maneuvers does not make the whole book broken; sure White Raven can be broken, and a few maneuvers from other disciplines perhaps, but so can some of the spells in the core rules.  Really, core spells are more likely to cause problems with a DM's campaign/adventure design (Scry/Buff/Teleport anyone?) than martial maneuvers will; the maneuvers are almost exclusively combat effects, barring a few Shadow Hand maneuvers and some others, many of which aren't even normally available to Crusaders or Warblades.


And regarding things maneuvers can do that spells cannot: like what?  A wizard's Time Stop is generally as much or more effective than a 17th-level Swordsage or Warblade using Time Stands Still, depending on what the wizard does with his bundle of extra turns.  And unlike the wizard, the swordsage or warblade is just attacking really quickly in a series of rapid hits, not even special hits, just flailing away rapidly; not actually stopping time to unleash a barrage.


And an aside: Who doesn't like _Final Fantasy_?!?!  I'll kick your butts for that!!!    j/k


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 21, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> See, something like that my players would see as "cool". And would want to emulate stuff like that. Watching FFVII: Advent Children helped inspire Bo9S combat with them, too. According to the way D&D works, it's not about what the DM wants and it should NEVER be about what the DM wants. It should be about what the players want. Or you quickly lose players. Unless your players go for stone-age super-realistic stuff than more power to you.




Both DM and players should be happy, of course.

But when the DM wants Exalted and the players want Harvest & Hernia, or vice versa, conflict will ensue.

Brad


----------



## MerricB (May 22, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> There are a number of ways of doing some really insane stuff, like +100 to damage. Has it ever occured to you that maneuver could be used to cut an adamantine wall in half?




I'm just interested: how much high level play have you seen? I haven't seen that much (just the final few sessions of my AoW campaign), but the 17th-20th level fighter in our group was doing a significant amount of damage each round; at time up to 300 points in one round, aided by haste and power attack. Against that, the +100 damage isn't so great.

Cheers!


----------



## Kmart Kommando (May 22, 2007)

My swordsage in AOW was doing maybe 75 damage on a single strike, or about 140 on a full attack, if the target wasn't really hard to hit.
Meanwhile, the Ranger/Monk dip was hammering out 250 on a full attack with his bare hands, and the Wizard/Master Transmogrifer, using the examples straight out of the PrC section for his form, was belting out 350+ damage per round, most of the time missing only on a 1 or 2.  And also had an AC about 15 points higher than my swordsage.  :\  Even the Fighter/Outcast Champion was putting out 180 damage on a full attack.

I could do the most on a single hit, due to a few choice maneuvers, but my output was far behind the power curve.  It wasn't until I picked up that broken amulet from BoED that halves your melee damage taken and shares it with the hitter, and the Robilard's Gambit feat, then my swordsage became a powerhouse melee machine, but mostly the monsters stopped attacking me and just pelted me with spells.
I did, however, have a few maneuvers that would save a party member for one more round, such as the one that prevented a target from making a full attack for one round.
My favorite one though, was the Setting Sun throw maneuver, where you trip them, throw them up to 60ft, and hurt them and anyone in the way.  Only got to use that one once though, most things were way too big to throw.     That orc barbarian wasn't happy though.


----------



## Destil (May 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I'm just interested: how much high level play have you seen? I haven't seen that much (just the final few sessions of my AoW campaign), but the 17th-20th level fighter in our group was doing a significant amount of damage each round; at time up to 300 points in one round, aided by haste and power attack. Against that, the +100 damage isn't so great.
> 
> Cheers!



_Haste_ is another good one to mention, one more attack you miss out on with strikes (likewise with weapons of speed).

Also, in the adamant wall example, give them both an Adamantine greatsword to ignore hardness and the disparity is even greater.


----------



## Khuxan (May 22, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> I want to develop a fighting style that's based on Mimics (the creature), that uses disguise as the key skill.  It would be awesome.




When you make some progress, tell us. There are some big fans of the book that would be happy to help.


----------



## Razz (May 22, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Core barbarian: half-orc, level 20, Strength 18 + 2 racial + 5 levels + 6 belt + 1 manual + 8 raging = Str 40, full power attack, vicious +5 greataxe, full attack action = four attacks against the adamantine wall for an average of 79 damage per hit = 316 damage to the wall, -60 points for the adamantine's hardness, so 256 damage.
> 
> Warblade: half-orc, level 20, Strength 18 + 2 racial + 5 levels + 6 belt + 1 manual = Str 32, full power attack, vicious +5 greataxe, weapon specialization, Strike of Perfect Clarity = one attack against the adamantine wall for an average of 175 damage to the adamantine wall, -20 for the hardness, so 155 damage.
> 
> I am failing to see how the core-only half-orc barbarian is anything but _superior_ to the warblade at chopping through adamantine walls in 1 round.  <snip>




Thanks for the mechanical work, I never noticed that but that just proves Bo9S isn't as broken as everyone makes it out to be.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> And as mentioned, the core Monk and suchlike already present similar supernatural martial arts stuff in D&D.  <snip>




All too true. I am really tired of the elitist Eurocentric D&D gamers out there. It's because of them that we have yet to see a REAL set of Oriental Adventures product line and Arabian Adventures.   



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> And regarding things maneuvers can do that spells cannot: like what?  A wizard's Time Stop is generally as much or more effective than a 17th-level Swordsage or Warblade using Time Stands Still, depending on what the wizard does with his bundle of extra turns.  And unlike the wizard, the swordsage or warblade is just attacking really quickly in a series of rapid hits, not even special hits, just flailing away rapidly; not actually stopping time to unleash a barrage.




Yeah, I have yet to see any class be as powerful as a 20th-level Cleric or Wizard. None can match them...and the Mystic Theurge takes the cake, especially taking it a couple of levels into epic level! (where you'll have access to 9th-level spells from Cleric and Wizard)



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> And an aside: Who doesn't like _Final Fantasy_?!?!  I'll kick your butts for that!!!    j/k




I love it...well...most of it, a few of the games were average and one of them was horrible. It has its share of awesomeness...and who doesn't like Advent Children?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 22, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> When you make some progress, tell us. There are some big fans of the book that would be happy to help.




Hrm, I wonder if picking up Exalted 2e's Scroll of the Monk might help in that regard, mostly for ideas.

Brad


----------



## hong (May 22, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Adamantine has a hardness of 20 and 40 hit points per inch... the same hit points as iron, in other words, with more hardness. So he needs to do 140 points of damage.
> 
> +100 damage from maneuver, +40 from Power Attack... provided his weapon does at least one point of damage, a 20th level warblade with any two-handed or one-handed weapon wielded in two hands can easily cut an adamantine wall in half.




Ahem. FULL attack. You hit it AGAIN, if one hit doesn't make a hole.

... Or is there something that makes walls get up and run away after being hit?


----------



## hong (May 22, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't think that either one will break down either an iron wall OR an adamantine wall.




A 6th level fighter with a greataxe can bash through an iron wall, given ~5 rounds or so. A 20th level fighter hitting the wall 4 times can do it in 3 seconds (2 hits).


----------



## Nepenthe (May 22, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Ahem. FULL attack. You hit it AGAIN, if one hit doesn't make a hole.
> 
> ... Or is there something that makes walls get up and run away after being hit?




I assume it's that same animate spell that makes them susceptible to strikes in the first place.

Cheers,

/N


----------



## Henry (May 22, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> A 6th level fighter with a greataxe can bash through an iron wall, given ~5 rounds or so. A 20th level fighter hitting the wall 4 times can do it in 3 seconds (2 hits).



Yeah, after checking Iron and Adamantine walls, I'm struck by how few hit points they have. (remembering the 5 ft 900 hit point stone walls)... It's harder to cut down a 20th level character than it is a 3-inch thick adamantine wall. Maybe the banks should start lining their vault walls with 20th level fighters and barbarians...


----------



## Nifft (May 22, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Maybe the banks should start lining their vault walls with 20th level fighters and barbarians...




Banks have options that are not dissimilar... 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Corsair (May 22, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Yeah, after checking Iron and Adamantine walls, I'm struck by how few hit points they have. (remembering the 5 ft 900 hit point stone walls)... It's harder to cut down a 20th level character than it is a 3-inch thick adamantine wall. Maybe the banks should start lining their vault walls with 20th level fighters and barbarians...




Again: Walls don't generally fight back.  A commoner with an adamantine dagger and some time on his hands could do it.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (May 23, 2007)

At some point or another I am sure every book (from D&D to Dan Brown) ends up and a bookseller like Half Price Books. BO9S has sold well and continues to do well. There are any number or reasons why it may be there but most likely distributor, retailer, or retail chain  needed to clear inventory and sold the product. It could also be due to someone going out of business. Remaindering is the industry term for selling excess inventory to a discount seller and is a common practice in the book business. I would not read much into this and assume this makes any sort of statement about the health of D&D.


----------



## Nightfall (May 23, 2007)

Eh it might not have crested, but I might have to get PCs to watch House of Flying Daggers (undubbed!) to fully appreciate the power of Bo9S. 

Scott,

So that means you're not selling me Dragon like you promised?!  *is kidding*


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 23, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> I love it...well...most of it, a few of the games were average and one of them was horrible. It has its share of awesomeness...and who doesn't like Advent Children?




Raises hand.

Not that I didn't *like* Advent Children, mind you - it's an absolute visual feast, the motorcycle sequences were pure concentrated awesome, and the 



Spoiler



Sephiroth vs. Cloud


 battle at the end was truly epic.  If it were Exalted: The Motion Picture, I'd have been all over it.

But it's not *at all* how I've always pictured combat between Final Fantasy characters.  Advent Children pretty much assumed that what the characters did in their limit breaks was what they, or at least Cloud, could do _all the time_, rather than the way they fought in cut scenes or their cameos or more action-oriented games.

I see most FFs as much, much lower-magic than typical D&D, much less the Exalted-like power level of Advent Children, and I think that's backed up by what's shown of the characters fighting in cut scenes.

Mind you, I totally think Sephiroth or Auron could cut through an adamantine wall if it were a necessary demonstration of badassitude - but Auron, unlike Sephiroth, could not do it while flying.  Because Auron *doesn't fly.* :\


----------



## Arnwyn (May 23, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> According to the way D&D works, it's not about what the DM wants and it should NEVER be about what the DM wants. It should be about what the players want. Or you quickly lose players.



I'm cool with that. I'm not a charity.



> Unless your players go for stone-age super-realistic stuff than more power to you.



Cute false dichotomy. And wrong, of course.


----------



## Hussar (May 23, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> At some point or another I am sure every book (from D&D to Dan Brown) ends up and a bookseller like Half Price Books. BO9S has sold well and continues to do well. There are any number or reasons why it may be there but most likely distributor, retailer, or retail chain  needed to clear inventory and sold the product. It could also be due to someone going out of business. Remaindering is the industry term for selling excess inventory to a discount seller and is a common practice in the book business. I would not read much into this and assume this makes any sort of statement about the health of D&D.




Humph,  Buzzkill.      Shame on you for injecting reality into people's theories.


----------



## Chiaroscuro23 (May 23, 2007)

I wouldn't read anything into it. There have been PHBs and Spell Compendiums in my local HPBs in recent months, and I don't think the _PHB_ has suddenly gotten less popular among D&D players.


----------



## DreadArchon (May 23, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> At some point or another I am sure every book (from D&D to Dan Brown) ends up at a bookseller like Half Price Books.



Anecdote: The last time I was at Half Price Books, they had _seven copies_ of Complete Psionic and no more than one copy of any other 3.5 book.  When I see something like that, I get a little suspicious, but one or two copies of something is certainly not cause for concern.


----------



## Razz (May 23, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> But it's not *at all* how I've always pictured combat between Final Fantasy characters.  Advent Children pretty much assumed that what the characters did in their limit breaks was what they, or at least Cloud, could do _all the time_, rather than the way they fought in cut scenes or their cameos or more action-oriented games.




I thought it made perfect sense for Final Fantasy games. Just look at the creatures they deal with in all the games. You'd have to be able to battle like the characters in Advent Children to defeat such monstrosities. FFIV and the Babel Tower, FFVI and the Floating Island, Atma Weapon, the Ghost Train, the Gods of Magic, and Kefka. And, of course, FFVII and their fights against all sorts of technological weaponry and creatures as colossal as the Weapons Ruby, Emerald, Ultima, and Diamond (I think Diamond was one of them?). As I recall, the battle with Squall and Bahamut in FFVIII was very Advent Children-like.

It drove me nuts playing FFVII and I see something like Barret getting blasted by laser beams, Red XIII getting zapped with 10 thunderstorms worth of electricity, and Cloud getting owned by plasma breath weapons...but when I watch Advent Children I realize,"Ohh...the way they fight totally explains the challenges they were able to overcome."

It works and it made the Final Fantasy series much more believable.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 23, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> It drove me nuts playing FFVII and I see something like Barret getting blasted by laser beams, Red XIII getting zapped with 10 thunderstorms worth of electricity, and Cloud getting owned by plasma breath weapons...but when I watch Advent Children I realize,"Ohh...the way they fight totally explains the challenges they were able to overcome."
> 
> It works and it made the Final Fantasy series much more believable.



For some reason, that sounds totally like D&D... I mean most characters have survived their fair share of dragon breath's, fireballs, lightning bolts, negative energy and magic missiles, eh?

At least that's my impression...


----------



## Razz (May 23, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> For some reason, that sounds totally like D&D... I mean most characters have survived their fair share of dragon breath's, fireballs, lightning bolts, negative energy and magic missiles, eh?
> 
> At least that's my impression...




Which is _exactly_ why I model my D&D games off of japanime...not all of it, just the atmosphere of it.  

I mean, surviving a disintegrate spell and still fighting as if nothing happened; getting swallowed whole and managing to fight your way out its gizzard; having 20 goblin archers with Precise Shot shoot at you and not have one single scratch on you while you're in the middle of fighting a horde of orc berserkers as you avoid and take them down copeira-style...and you're a ROGUE...yeah...I've already accepted the fact that when 3E began, WotC would be taking the more japanime/comic book approach to D&D. 

Heck, Eberron has that graphic novel approach to it and it's working wonders for that setting.  

Not that I have any problem with it, I was born and raised in the DBZ-era (not that DBZ is spectacular anime, it was just a starting point) so anime is already infecting my brain everyday. Stuff like Naruto, Bleach, Samurai Champloo, and Death Note aren't making it any easier


----------



## Arkhandus (May 24, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> But it's not *at all* how I've always pictured combat between Final Fantasy characters.  Advent Children pretty much assumed that what the characters did in their limit breaks was what they, or at least Cloud, could do _all the time_, rather than the way they fought in cut scenes or their cameos or more action-oriented games.




Odd.  IIRC they didn't use limit breaks more than once in a while in Advent Children.  Barret seemed to have opened up with one against Bahamut-SIN but couldn't get another such blast charged up afterward, likely cuz he hadn't regained enough energy or re-absorbed enough mako from the area yet.  Cloud used a few limit breaks over the course of the movie, but he was fighting a lot and never used more than one per battle or so (building up to it each time).  I may be forgetting some point where he may've used a limit break at both the beginning and end of a fight, but I don't recall ATM.  And of course, Cloud was taking a serious beating sometimes, so it's not implausible he wouldn't have been able to execute two limit breaks over the course of his last battle or the earlier one at the Forgotten Capitol of the ancients, where he was fighting all of Kadaj's gang at once.

Anyway, I don't recall that much being done in there that was too over-the-top for normal stuff.  Vincent of course isn't even really human anymore, and always had strange abilities since Hojo's experiments, so his aerial movements in Advent Children are perfectly in tune with his floating around in FF7.  Though, I'm kinda disappointed he can't float/glide/whatever in Dirge of Cerberus.  :\   Cloud's got inhuman abilities of course as a psuedo-Sephiroth-clone-experiment subject.  And Kadaj's gang were using materia most of the time to augment themselves and unleash magic attacks once in a while, mostly materia they stole from Cloud.

Still, I could see the limit breaks as being kinda like Bo9S maneuvers, possibly stuff like from the Martial Study feat, so only useable once per battle each.



> I see most FFs as much, much lower-magic than typical D&D, much less the Exalted-like power level of Advent Children, and I think that's backed up by what's shown of the characters fighting in cut scenes.
> 
> Mind you, I totally think Sephiroth or Auron could cut through an adamantine wall if it were a necessary demonstration of badassitude - but Auron, unlike Sephiroth, could not do it while flying.  Because Auron *doesn't fly.* :\




I don't remember these cut scenes you're talking about, where Final Fantasy characters are fighting like normal people with little or no magic at their disposal....  Then again, I haven't played any of the FF games for the past year or two, except for some FFVII and FFIX a few months ago, so I may just be forgetting.

Also, it seems odd that you'd consider FF lower-magic than D&D....  FF games often include magic-powered technology, magic crystals or other items that are fairly significant in numbers (...even North Corel in FF7 had some guy trying to sell a bit of materia, right?  And Corel was dirt-poor), absurdly abundant populations of monsters running amuck in the wilderness.......and people who can fight such monsters and even mecha, using their own combat skills and a bit of magic.

I think D&D and the Book of Nine Swords pretty well compare to the level of magic in many Final Fantasy games.



Anyway, backon topic, errrmm.......I agree with Razz.  Characters in D&D are pretty extraordinary in their combat abilities, given the monsters and such that they fight and defeat regularly, so the Book of Nine Swords doesn't seem all that unusual given the amount of exceptional skill, toughness, and magical power wielded by typical D&D characters.  Or something like that.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 24, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> I really wish we had Half-Priced Books in Canada. While I was in Texas earlier this year on a trip, I stopped into one and bought DLCS for 13 bucks - an absolute _steal_!--N



It's all part of the Grand Scheme to Keep Canada from Taking Over. I would tell you more about it, but there's someone knocking on my door. Hold on a m--"


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 24, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> I don't remember these cut scenes you're talking about, where Final Fantasy characters are fighting like normal people with little or no magic at their disposal....  Then again, I haven't played any of the FF games for the past year or two, except for some FFVII and FFIX a few months ago, so I may just be forgetting.




Squall vs. Seifer in the FF8 opening (a level 1 Fire is used in the fight, but it's mostly swords), the battle of the Gardens in FF8, Auron's reintroduction to the party in FF10, the battle of Nalbina in FF12, the Resistance attack on the palace in FF12... I'm specificially talking about CGI-only; there are a lot more in-game cut scenes that would back this up.



			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Also, it seems odd that you'd consider FF lower-magic than D&D....  FF games often include magic-powered technology, magic crystals or other items that are fairly significant in numbers (...even North Corel in FF7 had some guy trying to sell a bit of materia, right?  And Corel was dirt-poor), absurdly abundant populations of monsters running amuck in the wilderness.......and people who can fight such monsters and even mecha, using their own combat skills and a bit of magic.
> 
> I think D&D and the Book of Nine Swords pretty well compare to the level of magic in many Final Fantasy games.




In FF4, one of the most powerful mages in the world (Tellah) can't cast the equivalent of an 8th or 9th level spell without draining his own life force.  The likes of Raistlin, Elminster or Mordenkainen, a Dark Lord of Ravenloft or a Dark Sun Dragon King could toss a meteo-equivalent spell at least a couple of times a day.  Even at their highest levels, the PCs still require an airship to cross long distances (between a planet and a moon, for example), whereas mid- to high-level D&D PCs could easily teleport such a distance.  Resurrection is impossible.  Gods are non-interactive, if they exist at all.

In FF6, magic hasn't been seen for centuries, and when it does appear in relatively limited amounts in the form of early magitech armor, it's the ultimate military trump card.  As far as we know, only the people of Thamasa (most of whom would be, at best, 1st or 2nd level Sorcerers), Terra (who has a powerful inherited template), Celes and Kefka (who have a acquired template) can cast spells innately, and their ability to do so is stunning to other people.  PCs never acquire the ability to teleport.  Resurrection is impossible.  Such gods as exist are much less powerful and active, requiring their combined power to work planet-scale magic.

In FF7, magic does permeate the world, magic is used as a power source, and low-level magic is widely available.  All of this appears to be fairly recent, however; twenty years before the start of the game, the magic in the world would basically have been accessible only to the vanishingly small number of Cetra.  Also, high-level magic is extremely rare.  Sephiroth seems to have a full suite of high-level magic, but is literally the only character who does.  Resurrection is impossible.  Gods are non-interactive, if they exist at all; if you count Planet, it remains basically non-interactive, and like Meteor can only be controlled by a single artifact.  Perhaps approaching D&D level, but with wide magic rather than high magic; I can see Eberron as being at this magic level, albeit in a different way.

In FF8, humans have no innate magical abilities whatsoever, and can only use magic at all by drawing on extremely dangerous outside entities (GFs).  The ability to use magic innately is restricted to only Rinoa, Edea, Adel and Ultimecia and is a source of terrifying, plot-vital power.  The two great empires of the world, Esthar and Galbadia, are purely technological.  Technology appears to run off normal means rather than magical means.  Teleportation and resurrection are impossible.  Gods are non-interactive, if they exist at all.

In FF9, moderate magic is known and accessible, and at least one country has an Epic or near-Epic magical trump card protecting its capital.  However, fielding a magical military force, even a fairly weak one (not above 4th level Sorcerers, I'd guess) allows one country to assume complete imperial power over a continent.  Teleportation and resurrection are impossible.  Gods are non-interactive, if they exist at all.

In FF10, moderate- to high-magic is known and accessible.  If there is one FF setting on par with D&D, it's FF10, since the summoners, who use extremely powerful magic to fight a colossal and obviously magical creature, are an integral part of the culture, and other magical training is apparently available.  Even so, teleportation and resurrection are impossible, and gods are non-interactive, if they exist at all.  Probably about as high magic as Dragonlance, Greyhawk or Ravenloft, less than Dark Sun or Forgotten Realms.

In FF12, magic is used to power technology, but the technology itself is not explicitly magical.  Large scale combat appears to be largely magic-free, except when filtered through technology.  Teleportation is available via items, though not to any individual.  Resurrection is impossible, and gods are weak enough to be challenged by their creations or ordinary mortals who have duplicated their powers.  Personal power is much, much reduced from D&D levels - Vayne, probably the highest-level character, is a non-magical martial artist and strategist without the use of Nethicite - but the relatively large number of powerful artifacts drags it up to perhaps Greyhawk or Ravenloft levels.


----------



## hong (May 24, 2007)

A lot of other high-powered settings could be handled in D&D as having 20th level characters, but only 8th level spellcasters.


----------



## Piratecat (May 24, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> In FF4...



That's an excellent summary. Thanks!


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 24, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> I've already accepted the fact that when 3E began, WotC would be taking the more japanime/comic book approach to D&D.
> 
> Heck, Eberron has that graphic novel approach to it and it's working wonders for that setting.



I see Eberron as being subject to almost every adventure fiction influence _apart from_ japanime.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (May 24, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> That's an excellent summary. Thanks!




Most welcome!

However, I think hong...



			
				hong said:
			
		

> A lot of other high-powered settings could be handled in D&D as having 20th level characters, but only 8th level spellcasters.




... summarized most of the FFs, and frankly almost all JRPG settings, even better.


----------



## WizarDru (May 24, 2007)

I'm just curious....does the need to split an adamantine wall in twain occur that often in some folks games?


----------



## hong (May 24, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm just curious....does the need to split an adamantine wall in twain occur that often in some folks games?



 We were doing it quite a lot in Dragotha's fortress in AOW.  Well, not adamantine walls, but doors covered in worms that tried to eat the brains of those who came too close.


----------



## Henry (May 24, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm just curious....does the need to split an adamantine wall in twain occur that often in some folks games?




Probably not - but dungeons become *really* fun when you decide that you can go in ANY direction you want to, not just where the halls take you.


----------



## pawsplay (May 24, 2007)

I'm not that concerned with high level fighters hewing through iron walls, particularly if they're wielding magical weapons, magically strong, enlarged, etc. That's quite a bit different than someone going "kiai!" and chopping a a frickin' adamantine wall in frickin' half with a battle axe looted off a dead derro. I'd at least like to see more than one chop. 

Not a monk hater. Not an Eastern influence hater... I've had shugenja in my games, and have used a disguised ogre mage as a villain.

I am familiar with wire fu... not only am I well versed in crouching tigers, hidden dragons, and flying knives, but I used to watch an hour of Kung Theater every Sunday as a kid, I've read substantial amounts of martial arts history and myth, and I've read stories about Krsna killing people by throwing a chariot wheel. I'm actually quite a kung fu afficiando.

However, that is not what I'm looking for from my D&D. The system does not support the style well without substantial modification... right off the bat, the relationship between BAB and naked defenses is backwards from the wuxia genre. When I started playing, I was engrossed by Elmore's art, by the history of the crusades, by various species of polearms, and so forth. Although formidable, and even superheroic, such as Conan's strength, Beowulf's bravery, Grey Mouser's agility, and Lancelot's prowess... such characters stretch but do not break the laws of reality. They are individuals of flesh and bone. 

When a warrior balances on the end of a blade of grass and kicks someone's head off, that's not agility, that's enlightenment.

The D&D monk is not a wuxia character. He is closest to the protagonist of Kung Fu (starring David Carradine), a character with formidable skills who occasionally finds himself outgunned in terms of sheer firepower. Most of the monk's abilities are visually believable. At higher levels, they acquire a few miraculous abilities, mainly related to fighting monsters. The more esoteric abilities of very high level monks are those of many martial arts legends... not necessarily wuxia, with its wire-flying combat. A D&D monk is not likely to perform any physical feats beyond what an Erol Flynn character or Batman is capable of. The monk is capable of feats of mind over matter, but is no match even for a cinematic Jedi, much less Beatrix from Kill Bill.


----------



## pawsplay (May 24, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I see Eberron as being subject to almost every adventure fiction influence _apart from_ japanime.




*cough* Castle in the Sky *cough*


----------



## Nepenthe (May 24, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That's quite a bit different than someone going "kiai!"




I thought that Kiai (or ki shouts or whatever) were a feat from one of the other splatbooks. The maneuver you are referring to (Strike of Perfect Clarity) certainly doesn't have any referrences to Ki (unless you consider concentration to be a purely Eastern concept). If you want to criticize the book for something, please just focus on its failings (it does have them, quite a few of them, IMHO) instead of, well, adding stuff that isn't there 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> and chopping a a frickin' adamantine wall in frickin' half with a battle axe looted off a dead derro. I'd at least like to see more than one chop.




Ok, so you think it's ok to chop down an adamantine wall in ten seconds, as long as you hit it more than once in that time frame as opposed to just concentrating and giving it a really big whack (which is what Strike of Perfect Clarity does)...   




			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> I am familiar with wire fu... not only am I well versed in crouching tigers, hidden dragons, and flying knives, but I used to watch an hour of Kung Theater every Sunday as a kid, I've read substantial amounts of martial arts history and myth, and I've read stories about Krsna killing people by throwing a chariot wheel. I'm actually quite a kung fu afficiando.
> 
> However, that is not what I'm looking for from my D&D. The system does not support the style well without substantial modification... right off the bat, the relationship between BAB and naked defenses is backwards from the wuxia genre. When I started playing, I was engrossed by Elmore's art, by the history of the crusades, by various species of polearms, and so forth. Although formidable, and even superheroic, such as Conan's strength, Beowulf's bravery, Grey Mouser's agility, and Lancelot's prowess... such characters stretch but do not break the laws of reality. They are individuals of flesh and bone.
> 
> When a warrior balances on the end of a blade of grass and kicks someone's head off, that's not agility, that's enlightenment.




Ok, I don't get that part at all (but English is my third language, so it could just be my failings). I suppose it would make perfect sense if ToB was a book of Street Fighteresque fireballs or something (weren't those already in PHB II as monk feats, too?). I have a hard time connecting any of what you said to the abilities of the warblade or crusader classes, at any rate. 



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> The D&D monk is not a wuxia character. He is closest to the protagonist of Kung Fu (starring David Carradine), a character with formidable skills who occasionally finds himself outgunned in terms of sheer firepower. Most of the monk's abilities are visually believable. At higher levels, they acquire a few miraculous abilities, mainly related to fighting monsters. The more esoteric abilities of very high level monks are those of many martial arts legends... not necessarily wuxia, with its wire-flying combat. A D&D monk is not likely to perform any physical feats beyond what an Erol Flynn character or Batman is capable of. The monk is capable of feats of mind over matter, but is no match even for a cinematic Jedi, much less Beatrix from Kill Bill.




So your point is that the monk is D&D but ToB isn't?   

You're saying that Quivering Palm, Wholeness of Body, Diamond Soul and Abundant Step all fit perfectly into Sword and Sorcery D&D, but parrying your opponent's blow so that it hits his adjacent ally, swinging your weapon in a wide arc so that it hits two enemies or dropping a single condition affecting you are all balancing-on-a-blade-of-grass-wuxia?   

I have seen a lot of good arguments against ToB (and like I said before, I don't think its entirely without problems), but I am just scratching my head right now.

/N


----------



## pawsplay (May 24, 2007)

Nepenthe said:
			
		

> You're saying that Quivering Palm, Wholeness of Body, Diamond Soul and Abundant Step all fit perfectly into Sword and Sorcery D&D, but parrying your opponent's blow so that it hits his adjacent ally, swinging your weapon in a wide arc so that it hits two enemies or dropping a single condition affecting you are all balancing-on-a-blade-of-grass-wuxia?
> 
> /N




Using those examples is a straw man argument, as I have placed no objections to any of the maneuvers you have given as examples. Two of the three are already represented as feats.

Cutting walls of adamatine in half with a single stroke, jumping twenty feet straight into the air, shrugging off axe blows and then healing the damage when you counter attack, throwing your sword in such a fashion that it returns to you, and so forth are what I'm talking about. 

It does not feel right to me.


----------



## Thaedrus (May 24, 2007)

Why is all this unbeleivable, but fireballs and teleport perfectly understandable? D&D has tons of unbeleivable stuff, why can't warriors have any? If it doesn't make you happy, don't use it, but stating that it does't belong in D&D is stupid. Escapism is the name of the game in fantasy, especially RPGs. I for one like it, and find it very fun. I think that it is the best addition to D&D in 3E.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 24, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *cough* Castle in the Sky *cough*



But there's no mecha, or pokemons, or naughty tentacles, or Gatchaman-type superheroes, or bumbling idiots being pursued by a bevy of beautiful women, or schoolgirls with pink hair and magic powers. 

The leader of the Church of the Silver Flame is kind of a magical girl admittedly.


----------



## DreadArchon (May 24, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Cutting walls of adamatine in half with a single stroke, jumping twenty feet straight into the air, shrugging off axe blows and then healing the damage when you counter attack, throwing your sword in such a fashion that it returns to you, and so forth are what I'm talking about.
> 
> It does not feel right to me.



"Feel right?"  How do you justify something that vague from the standpoint of a mechanically functional game system?  I had a DM who removed AC from the game and just made enemies hit or be hit "when it feels like they should," to the point where my mage with 25 AC got hit with several consecutive attacks made at +3--without threatening a crit--because "big monsters shouldn't miss a mage."  It's an absurd basis for game rules.

A human who can step into a cat's shadow and teleport herself 400 feet away is acceptable, and a man who throws a flaming sword made of metal that can cut _time_ doesn't become unreasonable until that sword is enchanted so as to fly back to him after he throws it?  Living out in the wilderness and not being able to read is sufficient justification for being able to fall from orbit and not get seriously injured, and flying by force of will is just fine, but jumping less than two stories straight up is all wrong?

Yeah, there's a reason I refuse to play in games with DM's who go by "what feels right."


----------



## WizarDru (May 24, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> But there's no mecha, or pokemons, or naughty tentacles, or Gatchaman-type superheroes, or bumbling idiots being pursued by a bevy of beautiful women, or schoolgirls with pink hair and magic powers.




Riiiight.


----------



## Nifft (May 24, 2007)

Thaedrus said:
			
		

> Why is all this unbeleivable, but fireballs and teleport perfectly understandable?




Because I've been throwing _fireballs_ around since I was twelve, that's why! Familiar = natural. Same reason Wizards can't cast _cure_ spells, when you get right down to it. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (May 24, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> But there's no mecha, or pokemons, or naughty tentacles




Er... golems, Paladins & Conjurers, and a guy named Evard would tend to disagree. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nepenthe (May 25, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Using those examples is a straw man argument, as I have placed no objections to any of the maneuvers you have given as examples. Two of the three are already represented as feats.




Well, I didn't feel like paraphrasing the flavour of all the Iron Heart maneuvers (even though I probably should have included some of the ones you were opposing to - not that I still can figure out which they are, apart from the Iron Heart capstone ability). But going on from what you're saying, it seems like a handful of powers "that don't seem right to you" just automatically nix the whole book.

 I'm not going to argue this further with you, as I see you are convinced in your position. I am merely wondering if this conviction was born before you ever laid your eyes on the book, or only after. 



			
				DreadArchon said:
			
		

> "Feel right?"  How do you justify something that vague from the standpoint of a mechanically functional game system?




Or that the flavour feels right in one book but not in the other?   

Cheers,

/N

EDIT: I had a few mistakes, fixed.


----------



## Zaruthustran (May 25, 2007)

I really like some of the concepts in Bo9S. Just wish the book had received a bit more polish. The organization of information is a bit scattered, the colored page backgrounds is hard on the eyes, the art is... bad--just plain bad, and the Crusader's recovery mechanic is confusingly retarded.

I'm hoping the next Tome of Battle (assuming there is one) will keep with the per/encounter vibe but move to a token system.


----------



## Nepenthe (May 25, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I really like some of the concepts in Bo9S. Just wish the book had received a bit more polish. The organization of information is a bit scattered, the colored page backgrounds is hard on the eyes, the art is... bad--just plain bad, and the Crusader's recovery mechanic is confusingly retarded.




Agreed. I wouldn't call it just "a bit scattered", either, some of the stuff is downright hidden (like the fact that stances count as maneuvers for prerequisites). 

I'm also quite unsure about the way non-ToB classes access the maneuvers and stances, I can't help but get the feeling that it could have been handled in some more elegant way.

/N


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 25, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Cutting walls of adamatine in half with a single stroke, jumping twenty feet straight into the air, shrugging off axe blows and then healing the damage when you counter attack, throwing your sword in such a fashion that it returns to you, and so forth are what I'm talking about.
> 
> It does not feel right to me.



I feel similar with the "Desert Wind" school (i.e. the fire-esque discipline) and the _dimension jump_ manoeuvres in Shadow Hand, but all other schools, except the text in italics and the strange glowy artwort, strike me as very mundane... the "chopping adamantine walls" isn't bad, because the wizard can reduce them to a heap of dust, the barbarian can hack it to toothpicks in the same time and... you get the gist.
Shrugging axe blows off... many fighters and barbarians withstand _much, much more_ - heck your average barbarian can take a short bath in fire and jump down from the orbit (incl. surviving)!
Throwing and returning swords? There is one single manoeuvre that does that. And a PrC, but then D&D has far, far worse PrCs. And if PCs are actually interested in doing this at all, they'll get a returning weapon on 6th - 7th level, because then they're rich enough to get a returning weapon.

Eh, the Book isn't that supernatural flavoured - with the exception of one school. The rest is very mundane, only exaggerated by the wire-fu inspired descriptions. But the effects... well, they are just stretching the mundane, while the average wizard will bend the laws of physics, when he casts _magic missile_ the first time, and then on 5th (with fly) he doesn't even listen to gravity at all...

But meh... the main good point of the book is: I suddenly like to play melee characters. Previously I was an almost spellcaster-exclusive player, because - frankly - "I do full attack" is boring. Now I get my tactics and resource-allocation/planning fix.


----------



## Alceste (May 25, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> But meh... the main good point of the book is: I suddenly like to play melee characters. Previously I was an almost spellcaster-exclusive player, because - frankly - "I do full attack" is boring. Now I get my tactics and resource-allocation/planning fix.




Yup, I am enjoying playing a melee character again myself. My tank (crusader) is a blast to play but not more powerful than the paladin / cleric / druid / wizard etc. A couple of abilities should not disqualify any book. We set some houserules on the warblade but was pretty much it.


----------



## Henry (May 25, 2007)

Y'know, just reading this last week, it occurred to me that there is one error that stands out to me; the fact that there are no (or almost no) Devoted Spirit maneuvers described as non-extraordinary, yet most every one of them either heals someone, or is described as "divine power" this, "holy that", etc. In other words, most of the devoted spirit maneuvers REALLY should be supernatural, like the desert wind stuff, but NONE of them are that I saw...


----------



## Nifft (May 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Y'know, just reading this last week, it occurred to me that there is one error that stands out to me; the fact that there are no (or almost no) Devoted Spirit maneuvers described as non-extraordinary, yet most every one of them either heals someone, or is described as "divine power" this, "holy that", etc. In other words, most of the devoted spirit maneuvers REALLY should be supernatural, like the desert wind stuff, but NONE of them are that I saw...




Depends how you see hit points. Can a morale boost give you the drive to continue fighting despite having dodged, parried, and blocked sword blows that would have killed a lesser man? 

If HP are abstract, why is "curing" them always supernatural?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Kmart Kommando (May 25, 2007)

While the Crusader mentions 'flashes of divine insight', the first stance you can get that heals says "this healing represents the vigor, drive, and toughness you inspire in others.  your connection to the divine causes such inspiration to have a real, tangible effect on your allies' health."

So, it's kind of like a morale bonus..to your hit points.  Mind over body doesn't translate too well into hit point totals.   You see allies getting hammered, your morale and confidence may go down, you see an ally kicking ass, you might push through your pain and try to keep up.

"I want to be heroic, but I only have 3 hit points left.."


----------



## Sejs (May 25, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Cutting walls of adamatine in half with a single stroke, jumping twenty feet straight into the air, shrugging off axe blows and then healing the damage when you counter attack, throwing your sword in such a fashion that it returns to you, and so forth are what I'm talking about.





Question - 

Do you have a problem with psionics?

Particularly the psychic warrior class, both in conception and execution.

Because under the ki/psionics-are-the-same transparancy, martial initiates are doing the exact same thing.  They're physical adepts.  Channeling magic in a particular way to enhance their fighting.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 25, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I really like some of the concepts in Bo9S. Just wish the book had received a bit more polish. The organization of information is a bit scattered, the colored page backgrounds is hard on the eyes, the art is... bad--just plain bad, and the Crusader's recovery mechanic is confusingly retarded.




What pictures specifically are you referring too? I really liked the picture of the war blade under the war blade class. The one with all the cloth and looks like he has a readied action. The artist is on concept art.com and has even gotten on the front page a few times. It cant be that bad.


----------



## gamecat (May 25, 2007)

jrients said:
			
		

> I think it's a totally awesome example of power inflation.  Bo9S is exactly the kind of crazy crap I want in my campaign.  But I can see why some folks would think it's too much.



w3rd


----------



## hong (May 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Y'know, just reading this last week, it occurred to me that there is one error that stands out to me; the fact that there are no (or almost no) Devoted Spirit maneuvers described as non-extraordinary, yet most every one of them either heals someone, or is described as "divine power" this, "holy that", etc. In other words, most of the devoted spirit maneuvers REALLY should be supernatural, like the desert wind stuff, but NONE of them are that I saw...



 I just assume they're all supernatural. The book's editing isn't that great.


----------



## Sejs (May 25, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> What pictures specifically are you referring too? I really liked the picture of the war blade under the war blade class. The one with all the cloth and looks like he has a readied action. The artist is on concept art.com and has even gotten on the front page a few times. It cant be that bad.





What gets me about the art in Bo9S is the page background.  

I know it's supposed to be a serpent or something, but the damn thing just looks like a coffee stain.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 25, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> I know it's supposed to be a serpent or something, but the damn thing just looks like a coffee stain.



Yeah. It's weird. And the fact, that stuff _glows_. A warblade makes a "death from above" (essentially jumping into the air and trying to pummel your foe for more damage, ülus you can move a bit): He's lined in a purplish aura.
A bugbear throwing his opponent away: His hand glows yellowish.
Dwarf in "Strength of Stone"-stance: Has greenish glowing hands.

Yeah... and the fact that supernatural stuff is sometimes not marked as such and vice versa is not so good. The flavour of Bo9S has to be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 25, 2007)

ah I see what you mean. I think more so the text color then the background paper. I really like the background paper but the texts color is to light and to green. it might be creating a slight scintillation.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 25, 2007)

I took a second look at the artwork and it seems to be all over the board. Some is really good, others not so good. the styles are also very different from each other. Kind of sad. I haven't really had a chance to look at this book because i know if i do, I wont want to play my current character.


----------



## Henry (May 25, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Depends how you see hit points. Can a morale boost give you the drive to continue fighting despite having dodged, parried, and blocked sword blows that would have killed a lesser man?
> 
> If HP are abstract, why is "curing" them always supernatural?
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Because _"Your body shakes and spasms as unfettered divine energy courses through it. This power sparks off your weapon and courses into your foe, devastating your foe but leaving you drained"_ is a terrible way to describe an extraordinary ability.  I'll grant, flavor text shouldn't be the end-all and be-all to intrepreting something, but practically every single devoted spirit maneuver is described similarly. Plus, healing is magical in pretty much every other form in D&D, so having it extraordinary in the devoted sprit maneuvers that give it is contrary to previous game design.


----------



## Nifft (May 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Because _"Your body shakes and spasms as unfettered divine energy courses through it. This power sparks off your weapon and courses into your foe, devastating your foe but leaving you drained"_ is a terrible way to describe an extraordinary ability.  I'll grant, flavor text shouldn't be the end-all and be-all to intrepreting something, but practically every single devoted spirit maneuver is described similarly. Plus, healing is magical in pretty much every other form in D&D, so having it extraordinary in the devoted sprit maneuvers that give it is contrary to previous game design.




Hey, I'm not saying the *book* is consistent -- just that you can choose a view (supernatural + divine or mundane + morale) which fits your campaign, and find an internally consistent way to justify either.

Me, I say it's bad editing, and it's not restricted to just that school -- Shadow Hand [Teleportation] maneuvers should be (Su), too.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Henry (May 25, 2007)

Hong probably has it right - just rule they're ALL supernatural, and be done with it. The funny part is, if you do that, Martial Adepts are going to be looking in horror at antimagic fields the same way mages do.


----------



## Nifft (May 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Hong probably has it right - just rule they're ALL supernatural, and be done with it. The funny part is, if you do that, Martial Adepts are going to be looking in horror at antimagic fields the same way mages do.




Just ban _antimagic field_. 

 -- N


----------



## Drowbane (May 25, 2007)

Casters no longer need to fear Anti-magic Fields, for the cost of two feats (martial study: Iron Heart Surge and martial study: prereq for Iron Heart Surge) they can bring one down 1/encounter.  Worth it everytime?  I think so.


----------



## Henry (May 25, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Casters no longer need to fear Anti-magic Fields, for the cost of two feats (martial study: Iron Heart Surge and martial study: prereq for Iron Heart Surge) they can bring one down 1/encounter.  Worth it everytime?  I think so.




If I understand it right, an antimiagic field doesn't affect YOU; it only affects your items and spells. So no dice there, if that's true.


----------



## Drowbane (May 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> If I understand it right, an antimiagic field doesn't affect YOU; it only affects your items and spells. So no dice there, if that's true.




Thats how I would run it.  IMC, Iron Heart Surge is far more limited than what WotC CustServ would have you believe.


----------



## Henry (May 25, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Thats how I would run it.  IMC, Iron Heart Surge is far more limited than what WotC CustServ would have you believe.




WotC CUSTOMER SERVICE gave that interpretation? Yeesh. If so, that's... silly. That's a 3rd level effect from a 5th level character trumping a 6th level area effect from a character over twice its level. No way...


----------



## pawsplay (May 25, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Question -
> 
> Do you have a problem with psionics?
> 
> ...




No, because psionics has an explanation that makes sense in the setting. I.e. if you include psionics, it works off psionic energy. 

Whereas Bo9S basically says, "Wouldn't it be cool if fighters could go all Matrix?"

The fireball argument is just not relevant. A fireball is a spell. The whole problem with maneuvers is that they exist in a world of spells, but are not themselves spells, although they sure look like them sometime. Does something like a Spellsword even make sense in a world of warblades and crusaders? Does a _wizard_ even make sense when someone can learn to use supernatural powers to be almost as destructive, while also gaining great physical prowess? 

I'm just not into Street Fighter: Underdark edition as my D&D. I'm fine with Bo9S for what it is, but to me it's something I can imagine a third party coming out with as their own d20 offering, not something I think should be added to D&D.

And it's not a great book. It's named after nine weapons which use rules from another book which is just about the worst product in D&D. The style is poor man's Exalted. The design is about on par with the 3.0 psionics handbook. Balance is in the neighborhood of Masters of the Wild. The milieu has no place in a conventional Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Krynn or Mystara. The Knights of Solamnia and Neraka, for instance, do not know kung fu.


----------



## Drowbane (May 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> WotC CUSTOMER SERVICE gave that interpretation? Yeesh. If so, that's... silly. That's a 3rd level effect from a 5th level character trumping a 6th level area effect from a character over twice its level. No way...




Agreed.


----------



## Henry (May 25, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The milieu has no place in a conventional Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Krynn or Mystara. The Knights of Solamnia and Neraka, for instance, do not know kung fu.




Not even among the Bakluni (Desert Wind)? or the Scarlet Brotherhood (Setting Sun)?
Or the Shou Lung? or the Jungles of Chult (Tiger Claw)?

I could, however, definitely see The Solamnic Knights pulling off some of the White Raven stuff - group tactics, group charges, enemy flanks, morale-boosting cries, etc.

There's more to it than martial-arts shouts and mile-high leaps. I have problems with it myself, but not on flavor.


----------



## Nifft (May 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> WotC CUSTOMER SERVICE gave that interpretation? Yeesh. If so, that's... silly. That's a 3rd level effect from a 5th level character trumping a 6th level area effect from a character over twice its level. No way...




With the WotC CustServ ruling, you could also end _storm of vengeance_ ... it is a silly ruling.

 -- N

PS: Perhaps knights don't know kung-fu (Setting Sun). But they may have the ability to inspire others (White Raven), to call upon the blessings of their faith through prowess and bravery (Divine Spirit), or to do tricks requiring nothing more than skill and guts (Tiger Claw), or to draw on their personal pool of awesome to open a can of badass (Iron Heart).


----------



## Nepenthe (May 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I could, however, definitely see The Solamnic Knights pulling off some of the White Raven stuff - group tactics, group charges, enemy flanks, morale-boosting cries, etc.




Yep. White Raven is quite good for any fighter type emphasising group tactics, Iron Heart for consummate weapon skill and Diamond Mind for determination. I could see faith-based knights (to stick with Dragonlance, Skull Knights and some Solamnics) use Devoted Spirit as well.

I was looking at one point at creating some DL PrCs with maneuver progressions for the DL Nexus, but frankly I no longer see the point in it, the base classes are flexible enough if you burn a few feats on flavour. I do hope this book gets a little love in the future,  if nothing else I'd settle for a more comprehensive guide into creating new maneuvers/schools... Or some flavoury alternative class features or something 

If nothing else, dropping a maneuver or stance or two through feats on some NPCs will at least spice them up a bit 

As for what the Iron Heart Surge can end, I think that the new 3.5 FAQ clarifies that...

/N


----------



## hong (May 25, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Just ban _antimagic field_.
> 
> -- N



 I do that too.


----------



## hong (May 25, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The fireball argument is just not relevant. A fireball is a spell. The whole problem with maneuvers is that they exist in a world of spells, but are not themselves spells, although they sure look like them sometime. Does something like a Spellsword even make sense in a world of warblades and crusaders? Does a _wizard_ even make sense when someone can learn to use supernatural powers to be almost as destructive, while also gaining great physical prowess?




Breath weapon is supernatural. Dragon shamans have breath weapons. Does being a wizard make sense when you could just be a dragon shaman?


----------



## Nepenthe (May 25, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Breath weapon is supernatural. Dragon shamans have breath weapons. Does being a wizard make sense when you could just be a dragon shaman?




It's not just that, why would you be a wizard when you could be a sorcerer is basically the same argument 

It just boils down to "fighters can't have nice things", not that the book is BWOKEN!(tm) or that it is "too Japanese" 

/N


----------



## hong (May 25, 2007)

Reminds me of the saying, "it's not broken as long as the fighter can't do it". Can't remember who said it here.


----------



## Henry (May 25, 2007)

Nepenthe said:
			
		

> As for what the Iron Heart Surge can end, I think that the new 3.5 FAQ clarifies that...




I read over it, and it really doesn't specify one way or the other. Thing is, I can't see it being negated by Iron Heart Surge, both because of aesthetics, and because of legal wrangling. (It affects items and spells, not creatures - it technically doesn't even affect creatures that use magic for sustenance, such as undead and golems...)


----------



## hong (May 25, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> What gets me about the art in Bo9S is the page background.
> 
> I know it's supposed to be a serpent or something, but the damn thing just looks like a coffee stain.



 It actually says "D&D".


----------



## Nepenthe (May 25, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I read over it, and it really doesn't specify one way or the other. Thing is, I can't see it being negated by Iron Heart Surge, both because of aesthetics, and because of legal wrangling. (It affects items and spells, not creatures - it technically doesn't even affect creatures that use magic for sustenance, such as undead and golems...)




Yeah, I should have read it before posting, I even had that pdf open   

I'd definitely say that area-effect spells are outside the scope of that ability 

/N


----------



## Sejs (May 25, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> *snip*




If that's really what you think, then no you did not give the book a fair shake.


----------



## Thaedrus (May 25, 2007)

Basically the argument about whether Bo9S belongs in D&D comes down to the 

"fighters should not get to have nice abilities", or the "melee characters should not do anything they couldn't do in real life" camp 

verses the 

"if casters can do cooler things, why can't melee characters" and the "I like this kind of cinematic crazy crap" camp.

I personally don't see why, in a world of duskblades, PsiWarriors, and paladins who can cast spells, not to mention the physics suspending things that full casters can do, would have no place for warriors who have taken their martial skills into the fantastic realms. 

D&D attracts people who are almost fanatically creative and open minded, and if you are on these boards it places you in the nerdy extremes of this already fringe group. Take up the challenge, bring your near godlike creative powers to bear, and admit that you can bring this new creative and fantastic expression of nerdhood into your own personal metaverse. We all know that flavor is imminently mutable, so spice to ones taste, but do not say that this interesting, fun, and creative new mechanic "has no place in REAL D&D". What does real even mean in D&D? 

Bo9S expresses the crappy editing of most of WotC products these days. Get over it and use the creativity that it brings out.  Even with the editing and even slight mechanical vagueries (sp?) it is still the most interesting thing to come out of WotC since 3E.


----------



## Mort (May 25, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Using those examples is a straw man argument, as I have placed no objections to any of the maneuvers you have given as examples. Two of the three are already represented as feats.
> 
> Cutting walls of adamatine in half with a single stroke, jumping twenty feet straight into the air, shrugging off axe blows and then healing the damage when you counter attack, throwing your sword in such a fashion that it returns to you, and so forth are what I'm talking about.
> 
> It does not feel right to me.




My current fighter-mage can do every one of those things easily, with the exception of cutting an admantine wall in half with one blow (but seeing as he can passwall it or any number of other things, the result is the same).

As for not "feeling right" that's an opinion and simply can't be argued with. 

It doesn't "feel right" to me, however, to let Wizards, psionicists, Druids etc. get more and more mythic as level increases, but to continue to relegate the fighter to just hitting things with a sword from level 1-20.


----------



## Razz (May 25, 2007)

Thaedrus said:
			
		

> Basically the argument about whether Bo9S belongs in D&D comes down to the
> 
> "fighters should not get to have nice abilities", or the "melee characters should not do anything they couldn't do in real life" camp
> 
> ...




*cheers* Right on!


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 26, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> And it's not a great book. It's named after nine weapons which use rules from another book which is just about the worst product in D&D.



But this doesn't affect the rest _at all_, right? I mean WoL may be a stinker, but just because some fluff and less important part of the book incorporates it, it doesn't invalidate the rest, right? Please, don't try to pull such a _strawman_


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> The milieu has no place in a conventional Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Krynn or Mystara. The Knights of Solamnia and Neraka, for instance, do not know kung fu.



Yeah, but look at the Warblade. Not Kung-Fuish stuff. Let's see:

*Diamond Mind*: The thing about Concentration is the only thing that sticks out, as well as the save-counters (i.e. replacing a save with Concentration). But the rest embodies to archetypical Swashbuckler *very* well. I mean massively powerful attacks with a Rapier (a  favoured weapon of the school), that are well-planned and precise? TOTALLY wire-fu. If it really bothers you, change the key skill to bluff, and it is a Dashing Swordsman!

*Iron Heart:* Hardly supernatural stuff. It consists of hitting harder (akin to a pre-packaged power attack), hitting two or more foes at once (a Whirlwind Attack, that doesn't suck), disarming foes (totally new, riiight?), and some AC-helping counters (i.e. classical parrying of attacks). I can totally see that as "Knight School".

*Stone Dragon*: Again, the most supernatural thing is getting DR for a round... and the Barbarian has perma-DR. The rest: Damage-boosting (Hitting stuff harder). Impeding actions (basically "Ouch, this hit HARD"). Totally Dwarven, really.

*Tiger Claw*: Okay, this discipline ONLY consists of jumping over your foe and dealing more damage or attacking with two weapons or more weapons at once. The perfect Drizzt Do'Urden/Ranger/Two-Weapon Fightning embodiment. Again, I assume that two-weapon fighting rangers (Core-D&D) are standard-fantasy.

*White Raven*: Just stuff to support charging or giving some extra actions/help to your allies. Just like the marshal done right. Nothing with jumping, flying or something over the top, except if you thing it's over the top, that a general can spur his army to excellent prowess and do some fearsome charging.

So... the Warblade, if you ignore the italics and the strange artwork in the book, is totally mundane and represents mastery of skill very well. With Iron Heart and White Raven, such a warblade would totally represent a knowledgeable, solemn knight, who can battle fearsome dragons and command his army.
The crusader is pretty Paladin. He gets the Devoted Spirit, which is basically full of healing, charging and alignment-based bashing. The typical holy warrior.
The swordsage... well he _is_ supernatural, I admit this. VERY supernatural, because of the Desert Wind school... but now just say that these are monks. Heck, replace monks with 'em... the flavour is pretty much the same. And if it really bothers you, cross out the firethrowing stuff there, and you're golden - because Setting Sun basically resembles the real world Martial Arts with throws and counters - it's just "monk" without the "suck".

In fact, in my game, I've thrown out the book-flavour. I've redone it that way: No manoeuvre is supernatural, except the ones from Desert Wind and the "Dimension Jumps" and "Flying" from Shadow Hand. And I renamed the schools to fit more typical fantasy:
Desert Wind -> Way of Staff and Sword
Devoted Spririt -> Divine Teachings
Diamond Mind -> Fencing and Swashbuckling
Iron Heart -> Mastery of Swordsplay
Shadow Hand -> Assassin's Lore
Stone Dragon -> Dwarven Stances
Tiger Claw -> School of Two Weapons
White Raven -> Battle Tactics

Better? Yes or No?

And for game balance... the spellcasters in the group still rule, if they _want to_ rule. But since melee characters can do more than stupid bash. In fact, since the melee characters can do stuff better than usual, they are less buff-reliant, easing the load on the spellcasters. Now spellcasters can enjoy spellhurling more, because they don't need to buff the meleeists, and the meleeists can do more interesting stuff than "whackwhack". 

I mean, in fantasy novels, I never read that fighters just whack. They dodge, they tumble, they disarm their opponents, they duck for cover, eke out an opening for their friends - they do other things than "full attack". ToB emulates Wheel of Time, R.A. Salvatore, and Midkemia stuff so much better than "full attack" - because in novels they actually do very daring and bold stuff. Just like in ToB.

I begin to feel, that the decision to "blend genres" (as it was called in the introduction) was bad... presenting the stuff with a decidedly less wire-fu inspired stuff, but with the same mechanics would've been far more efficient. Then the "flavour-group" could make their claims, and the cinematic folks... would still have interpreted it as cinematic. Talk about missed opportunity.

Phew, that was long.
(and rhymes with hong.)


----------



## pawsplay (May 26, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Breath weapon is supernatural. Dragon shamans have breath weapons. Does being a wizard make sense when you could just be a dragon shaman?




I don't use dragon shamans.


----------



## pawsplay (May 26, 2007)

_But this doesn't affect the rest at all, right? I mean WoL may be a stinker, but just because some fluff and less important part of the book incorporates it, it doesn't invalidate the rest, right?_

Merely because something has material worth chery-picking out of it does not make it wortwhile. I mean, Races of Destiny has a good rewrite of the half-ogre, but yuck. 

Basically, the rest comes down to, "Why didn't they publish Tome of Battle: The Book of Useful Feats?"

I don't like wire fu in my D&D.

I don't like "per scene" abilities that have no sensible explanation why they can't be used repeatedly. The refresh mechancis are also pretty sad. The crusader refresh is a clunky, time and attention intensive pain. 

The book is badly edited and superficially playtested.

Every setting specific element included removes the game further from familiar D&D game worlds.

I already own a half dozen books that do it all better, faster, and easier, starting with Hero System and Exalted.


----------



## Nifft (May 26, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Basically, the rest comes down to, "Why didn't they publish Tome of Battle: The Book of Useful Feats?"




They did, they just called it *PHB-II*. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## DreadArchon (May 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I don't use dragon shamans.



Freakishly pedantic.  Dragon Disciples and Half-Dragons are core, and they get breath weapons, as do sundry other classes and prestige classes (Dragon Samurai, etc.).


----------



## pawsplay (May 27, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> They did, they just called it *PHB-II*.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




SHO NUFF!


----------



## pawsplay (May 27, 2007)

DreadArchon said:
			
		

> Freakishly pedantic.  Dragon Disciples and Half-Dragons are core, and they get breath weapons, as do sundry other classes and prestige classes (Dragon Samurai, etc.).




Dragon Disciples transform magically into dragons. Half-dragons are dragons. I don't think I've stated anywhere that I have a problem with dragons breathing fire in D&D.


----------



## Sejs (May 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I don't like wire fu in my D&D.




Do me a favour.

Kindly explain how anything in, say, the White Raven or Devoted Spirit styles are wire-fu.


----------



## hong (May 27, 2007)

Cognitive dissonance takes time. Give pawsplay about 2 years, and he'll come around.

Just like... HENRY!


----------



## pawsplay (May 28, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Do me a favour.
> 
> Kindly explain how anything in, say, the White Raven or Devoted Spirit styles are wire-fu.




Kindly explain how the presence of something in the book that is not wire fu would in any way lessen whatever is.

If I say, "Psionics are too science fictional," it is not good form to retort with, "How is 5 extra skill ranks science-fictional?"

If I say, "Races of the Wild makes unfortunate comparisons between halflings and racist stereotypes of the Romani," it is not good form to retort, "Since when do gypsies ride around on super racing goats?

This does not advance the argument. 

You are free to make the argument I might be able to include specific styles and maneuvers into my game without including too much stuff I do not like, although I do not find it an engaging subject. 

My central point is that I do not like the design decisions in Bo9S in general, nor much of the resultant content specifically, for a variety of reasons I have already spelled out. Thus, I am glad Bo9S is not poised to take over D&D, and I have wondered out of curiosity if any of its enthusiastic proponents here have since grown disenchanted.

I don't need to specifically despise either school as "wire fu." I can disdain either on other grounds:

1) They are published in a book I wouldn't pay good money for, therefore, they aren't great enough value for me to care about
2) White Raven Tactics includes several unbalanced maneuvers and shouldn't be included for balance reasons
3) Devoted Spirit is a crusader school and I already don't like the crusader readying mechanics
4) I still don't like the expended maneuvers mechanic in general, so anything that is a maneuver I can, by definition, already dislike until it becomes something else


----------



## pawsplay (May 28, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Cognitive dissonance takes time. Give pawsplay about 2 years, and he'll come around.
> 
> Just like... HENRY!




Ha. You invited me here, and look, I'm still wearing your avatar.


----------



## Nifft (May 28, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Ha. You invited me here, and look, I'm still wearing your avatar.




You're even laundering it! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 -- N


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 28, 2007)

well I really like bo9s but i don't think it should become d&d, but I do like that bo9s is out so i can make the choice to change the style of d&d at a whim without drastically changing the mechanical system (d20)


----------



## Henry (May 28, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> My central point is that I do not like the design decisions in Bo9S in general, nor much of the resultant content specifically, for a variety of reasons I have already spelled out. Thus, I am glad Bo9S is not poised to take over D&D, and I have wondered out of curiosity if any of its enthusiastic proponents here have since grown disenchanted.




I am, however, convinced that that the style of mechanics in Book of 9 Swords ARE poised to "take over" D&D, because wotC's design and development staff has been experimenting a LOT with the mechanics of late. You're likely to see MORE of the stuff as "per-encounter" rather than less of it. I have my reservations about it, myself, but I am keenly aware of the idea that 4E may heavily re-work the core classes to a "per-encounter" mechanic with all class abilities. Still not quite sure if I'll go forward with it if they do - that's why my game-tinkering has been focusing on it lately.


----------



## Campbell (May 28, 2007)

OK. I'll bite. It's alright to not like the Tome of Battle. Really, it is. It may require no cognitive dissonance whatsoever. Personally, while I would hesitate to call the Book of Nine Swords wirefu I can respect the fact that its design goals and aesthetics might not gel with everyone. 

However, I still believe that the Book of Nine Swords is the best thing to happen to D&D in a long time. It corrects some issues that I've had with D&D for a long time. I like that the Book of Nine Swords classes bring allow warriors to compete with spell casters in terms of flavorful unique abilities that can radically alter the nature of combat. I like the use of actions, rather than usage limits, as tactical resources. I like that the Book of Nine Swords includes some solid defensive maneuvers that allow warriors to more readily survive the rigors of high level combat. Like Hong, I throughly endorse the inclusion of any classes that emphasize personal level tactics. I like that the different disciplines do a fairly good job of representing very different ways of fighting. I like that Swordsages, Crusaders, and Warblades are walking plot hooks. I like that the Book of Nine Swords does in fact ooze flavor right out of every page. Hell, I even like that the Sublime Way reflects traditional eastern martial traditions and religions, although in a far more western context than the monk, by representing fighting styles that are a combination of mental, physical, and spiritual discipline. 

Obviously, The Book of Nine Swords belongs in my D&D. However, it might not belong in yours, Pawsplay, which is fine. I'm just left wondering, why exactly this is such a big deal to you.


----------



## Sejs (May 28, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Kindly explain how the presence of something in the book that is not wire fu would in any way lessen whatever is.



 By demonstrating that the stated (particular) apprehension isn't encompassing of the material.  I don't like _B_, because it is all a bunch of _X_.  I don't like _X_.  Well, _X1, X2, _and _X3_ are actually _Y_.  Therefor, _B_ is not all _X_.



> _If I say, "Psionics are too science fictional," it is not good form to retort with, "How is 5 extra skill ranks science-fictional?"_



 Reductio.  5 yard penalty and loss of down. 



> _If I say, "Races of the Wild makes unfortunate comparisons between halflings and racist stereotypes of the Romani," it is not good form to retort, "Since when do gypsies ride around on super racing goats?_



  First off, super racing goats are awesome, second we both know this can go unpleasant places so let's just abandon this particular branch.



> _This does not advance the argument._



 This argument is, at its core, doomed from the outset.  There's no way I can convince you to start liking the Bo9S regardless of how persuasively I contend against your wire-fu assertion.  



> _You are free to make the argument I might be able to include specific styles and maneuvers into my game without including too much stuff I do not like, although I do not find it an engaging subject. _



 I'm more arguing the aesthetics, and possibly looking to offer ways of seeing the material in a different, more palatable way.



> _My central point is that I do not like the design decisions in Bo9S in general, nor much of the resultant content specifically, for a variety of reasons I have already spelled out. Thus, I am glad Bo9S is not poised to take over D&D, and I have wondered out of curiosity if any of its enthusiastic proponents here have since grown disenchanted._



  See above.  It's not like I could change your mind even if I wanted to.  This is the internet: the last great bastion of self-assuredness.



> _I don't need to specifically despise either school as "wire fu." I can disdain either on other grounds:
> 
> 1) They are published in a book I wouldn't pay good money for, therefore, they aren't great enough value for me to care about
> 2) White Raven Tactics includes several unbalanced maneuvers and shouldn't be included for balance reasons
> ...



For the purpose of what I was driving at, yeah, ya kinda do need to despise 'em as wire fu.  Some of your other points I even agree with you on - White Raven Tactics (the Initiative Mambo) has a great potential for abuse.  I'm not a great fan of the crusader ready/recover mechanic either.  Mechanical issues are a seperate matter, however.

I'm just here to offer a "nyuh uh" to the idea that if you do use the material, your game automatically turns into Kung Fu Hustle or House of Flying Daggers d20.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (May 28, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> They did, they just called it *PHB-II*.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Heh, yep. I designed a lot of the feats for PHB II and a lot of the maneuvers for Bo9S. Happy to answer any questions about either. But yes, basically, a huge goal with both for me was to get fighters back on par with other classes when it came to high-level combat.

The wire-fu flavor of Bo9S was an interesting choice made at a level above me. An interesting point, though, is that the warblade and crusader had a chance at somewhat mititgating that. The warblade was called something else throughout development. I don't know when it was changed; it was a surprise to me when I finally saw the hardcover. Its other title carried with it, by that name and a lot of cut flavor text, a very non-wire-fu flavor (think 300, honor, and glory). The crusader originally had with it a lot of flavor that was cut from the book either because the editors and developers thought it was no good or because they didn't want to open the politically charged can of worms that comes with modeling a character class on a defender of her religion's Holy Land. Anyway, my point is that the designers were trying to keep the book appealing to lots of people, and I was trying to include both wire-fu fighting and other types of mythology/history/movie-inspired fighting to go along with it. In fact, two of the three classes were drawn from Western, not Eastern, history.

I think three things happened to allow the wire-fu stuff to dominate or at least stand out more than the rest. One is that the two Western classes themselves changed flavors, as I just mentioned. Two is that the maneuvers were changed for mechanics reasons in the development process so much that they lost some non-wire-fu-ness. Three is that classes are always defined more by their abilities than their flavor text, and the abilities here are the maneuvers. The maneuvers always had a flavor that was more wire-fu than anything Western. Speaking for myself, I probably could have done a better job of that in design.

Well, that's about it for my two cents, but maybe I'll throw out one more example. In PHB II, one of my design goals was to keep it traditional D&D all the way. That's why Robilar's Gambit is named after Robilar instead of being called Temptation of the Emerald Dragon. In Bo9S, we were specifically setting out to make something different from traditional D&D combat, and in my part of the work, the names and flavor were designed to support that goal.

EDIT: Just changed some pronouns and corresponding verb tenses to make it clear that I'm speaking only for myself, not Rich, Matt, Joe, Mike, WOTC, or anyone else.


----------



## Piratecat (May 28, 2007)

Thanks, Frank! That does a wonderful job of putting the book in perspective. I'd certainly welcome any more insight into the design process that you can offer.


----------



## hong (May 28, 2007)

I'm just wondering, how much do the Bo9S maneuvers/feats/classes draw from previous work by Mike Mearls? If you look at the crusader, for instance, you can see a certain resemblance to the Iron Heroes armiger, which is another class that's meant to soak damage and keep going. Some of the White Raven maneuvers are also reminiscent of the hunter abilities and tactical feats in IH. They're not direct copies obviously, but the theme and effects are broadly similar.

This could just be my undying pee-pee love for Mearls affecting my judgement, though.


----------



## Razz (May 28, 2007)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> Heh, yep. I designed a lot of the feats for PHB II and a lot of the maneuvers for Bo9S. Happy to answer any questions about either. But yes, basically, a huge goal with both was to get fighters back on par with other classes when it came to high-level combat.




I have a few questions for you about Bo9S if you don't mind?

1) Why was ranged combat omitted? This book could've delved into a "10th Discipline" using that as its theme. I saw maybe one or two maneuvers involving ranged attacks and one prestige class, but it's based only on throwing weapons. Any reason for this? Will there be more maneuvers and/or a discipline focusing on ranged combat?

2) Epic level material. Why wasn't there none of this for those that wanted to take *Tome of Battle* past 20th-level? Will there be a Web Enhancement or some other such project written to incorporate Bo9S into epic-level play? Posted on the website or maybe in WotC's Digital Initiative?

3) The lack of other energy-type maneuvers. The maneuvers are lacking in cold, electricity, acid, and sonic attacks. All we see is fire, fire, and more fire. Electricity and Sonic was just screaming for maneuvers involving these energy types, and Cold would come in a close second (for the Shadow Hand discipline, obviously). Acid I can see getting the short-end of the stick.

4) Will there be more support for this in WotC's Digital Initiative? If so, will you be writing them or someone else? If you're going to be writing some of the material, please take in mind the lack of ranged, epic, and energy types in the system. 

Thank you for your time.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (May 28, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering, how much do the Bo9S maneuvers/feats/classes draw from previous work by Mike Mearls?




I really don't know. Mike was the lead developer, so he had a huge amount of input. But the development took place after the design, and it was in-house, so I wasn't in the discussions.

PC, as far as more insight into the design process, that's pretty much it. Except this: It was a whole lot of fun.  Where else could you design a maneuver called Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip?


----------



## Ycore Rixle (May 28, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> I have a few questions for you about Bo9S if you don't mind?
> 
> 1) Why was ranged combat omitted?




That's a good question. I can only speak for myself. When I was brought on, the title of the book was already in place, minus the "Tome of Battle" part. It was a book about swords, and, in my view, a book about melee fighting. Given the word-count restraints and the size of the design space that had to be explored (the new mechanics), I thought it was reasonable to just focus on swords. In fact, I wrote the first draft of my stuff with only swords, and no other melee weapons, in mind. But it's a great point. I would love to see another book in the Tome of Battle series that focused on ranged combat. And here comes the standard disclaimer that I have no idea if WOTC is planning such a book, and I don't speak for them at all. 




			
				Razz said:
			
		

> 2) Epic level material. Why wasn't there none of this for those that wanted to take *Tome of Battle* past 20th-level?




My guess - and it's only a guess - is space. It was never in the Bo9S that I remember seeing, in my work or any of the other designers' work. But I don't speak for WOTC, so the real answer is, I don't know.




			
				Razz said:
			
		

> 3) The lack of other energy-type maneuvers.




For the maneuvers I worked on, I was consciously trying to stay away from energy effects as much as possible because I wanted martial maneuvers to be more martial and less overtly magical than a wizard's spells. Fire might have snuck in there somehow, but again, beyond what I initially worked on, I can't say what the developers thought about this.




			
				Razz said:
			
		

> 4) Will there be more support for this in WotC's Digital Initiative?




I don't know. I don't work for WOTC, I'm just a hired gun. But that's another good question. I sure hope so!


----------



## Khuxan (May 29, 2007)

I'm curious... what was the warblade's original name? I've always thought "warblade" is a particularly silly name.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (May 29, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I'm curious... what was the warblade's original name? I've always thought "warblade" is a particularly silly name.




I don't think I can say because it's legally the intellectual property of WOTC. That's why I didn't mention it before. Rich Baker came up with it, and maybe he can jump in here and say. But I don't want to put anything out there that WOTC might not like, so I'm going to err on the side of caution and keep mum.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 29, 2007)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> For the maneuvers I worked on, I was consciously trying to stay away from energy effects as much as possible because I wanted martial maneuvers to be more martial and less overtly magical than a wizard's spells. Fire might have snuck in there somehow, but again, beyond what I initially worked on, I can't say what the developers thought about this.




Perhaps fire was used because its one of the weakest elements (alot of creatures have resistance), So in a way it could be testing water for fighter based energy attacks. It also has a really nice connection the desert and Arabian flavor, so that was also a factor. 

just making a quasi educated guess though.


----------



## Arkhandus (May 29, 2007)

I just want to say 'thank you' to Frank for the Book of Nine Swords.  And those other guys too I guess, whatstheirnames, that worked on it some but haven't popped in here.


----------



## pawsplay (May 29, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> By demonstrating that the stated (particular) apprehension isn't encompassing of the material.  I don't like _B_, because it is all a bunch of _X_.  I don't like _X_.  Well, _X1, X2, _and _X3_ are actually _Y_.  Therefor, _B_ is not all _X_.




I don't recall making any such absolute statement.



> Reductio.  5 yard penalty and loss of down.




What rules are you playing? In my neighborhood, if you say "reductio," we pull your shorts up. What have you got against reductio? It ain't fallacious.



> This argument is, at its core, doomed from the outset.  There's no way I can convince you to start liking the Bo9S regardless of how persuasively I contend against your wire-fu assertion.




"Who are you going to believe ... me, or your own eyes?"



> I'm more arguing the aesthetics, and possibly looking to offer ways of seeing the material in a different, more palatable way.




... while laboring under the belief I can't look at the same book and draw different conclusions than you do.



> See above.  It's not like I could change your mind even if I wanted to.  This is the internet: the last great bastion of self-assuredness.




*cough* I'm sorry, is there an echo in here?



> For the purpose of what I was driving at, yeah, ya kinda do need to despise 'em as wire fu.




I understand the words, but not the meaning. 

Why, if I may ask?



> Some of your other points I even agree with you on - White Raven Tactics (the Initiative Mambo) has a great potential for abuse.  I'm not a great fan of the crusader ready/recover mechanic either.  Mechanical issues are a seperate matter, however.
> 
> I'm just here to offer a "nyuh uh" to the idea that if you do use the material, your game automatically turns into Kung Fu Hustle or House of Flying Daggers d20.




Is too!

Wow, didn't expect a dev to come diving into this. Very interesting stuff, and thanks, Ycore Rixle!


----------



## pawsplay (May 29, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I'm curious... what was the warblade's original name? I've always thought "warblade" is a particularly silly name.




"Peaceblade" was already taken, obviously.


----------



## Thurbane (May 29, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Book of Nine Sword: the Tome of Battle.
> 
> I wanted to hate it, and ended up loving it.



I was the opposite. I recently traded in Bo9S and Magic of Incarnum for a discount on Cityscape and Dungeonscape.


----------



## pawsplay (May 29, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I was the opposite. I recently traded in Bo9S and Magic of Incarnum for a discount on Cityscape and Dungeonscape.




Aha! I knew there had to be some out there.


----------



## Khuxan (May 29, 2007)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> I don't think I can say because it's legally the intellectual property of WOTC. That's why I didn't mention it before. Rich Baker came up with it, and maybe he can jump in here and say. But I don't want to put anything out there that WOTC might not like, so I'm going to err on the side of caution and keep mum.




Fair enough. I've shot Rich a private message, so hopefully he'll pop in and tell us.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I am, however, convinced that that the style of mechanics in Book of 9 Swords ARE poised to "take over" D&D, because wotC's design and development staff has been experimenting a LOT with the mechanics of late. You're likely to see MORE of the stuff as "per-encounter" rather than less of it.




That notion, more than anything else, is what I view as the biggest problem with the book.

One (IMO weak) argument that has been advanced for elevating the power level of melee types in Bo9S is that it finally gives them something "neat" to do. Okay. Wizards can do a few nifty things, agreed. But they can't do them continually.

This is what I view as role-balancing. Making everyone feel important by giving them different circumstances in which to shine. If you make everyone balanced per-encounter, you remove one axis of different situations to let them shine. The game becomes that much closer to all PCs being essentially the same under the hood, with different window dressing.

If that's what you came to the table for, then fine, Bo9S is the book for you. I can happily not use it.

But if you institute these changes to the base of the game, then you have damaged the playability of the game AFAIAC, and it becomes more difficult for me to avoid.

All I can say, Henry, is that I hope you are totally and completely wrong, that like so many other mechanical variations the game has seen in the past, most of the changes get forgotten, and the fundamental strengths of the game are preserved.

I fear otherwise.


----------



## Thurbane (May 29, 2007)

The problem for me with Bo9S and MoI was that most of my group have only just come to grips with the 3.5 ruleset (having come from a 1E/2E background). Introducing books that have whole new mechanics and rulesets (manouvres & stances, Essentia) just does not fit in with our game. They also didn't sit too well flavorwise. For those same reasons, I have no plans to include Psionics.

I have found things like PHBII, Miniatures Handbook, Tome of Battle and Tome of Horror to be much more useful for our games. YMMV.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> But yes, basically, a huge goal with both for me was to get fighters back on par with other classes when it came to high-level combat.










As far as I have ever seen, there is nothing weak about the continual damage stream producing double-damage power attack fighters in the environment of "high-SR but totally vulnerable to melee after the 3.5 nerfing of DR" creatures that wasn't addressed by the high level feats in the PHBII.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> That notion, more than anything else, is what I view as the biggest problem with the book.




No. It is the second biggest strong point of the book, after the shifting of emphasis to personal-level combat tactics.



> This is what I view as role-balancing. Making everyone feel important by giving them different circumstances in which to shine. If you make everyone balanced per-encounter, you remove one axis of different situations to let them shine. The game becomes that much closer to all PCs being essentially the same under the hood, with different window dressing.




In D&D there are 1e6 different axes for situations to vary from each other. Removing one isn't going to make things crash and burn. Even in Iron Heroes there are far fewer ways in which situations can vary, and nobody ever complained that IH characters were all the same.



> If that's what you came to the table for, then fine, Bo9S is the book for you. I can happily not use it.




Oh well.



> But if you institute these changes to the base of the game, then you have damaged the playability of the game AFAIAC, and it becomes more difficult for me to avoid.




No. You have improved the playability of the game, because no longer is it beholden to the vagaries of different classes having different schedules to keep to.



> All I can say, Henry, is that I hope you are totally and completely wrong, that like so many other mechanical variations the game has seen in the past, most of the changes get forgotten, and the fundamental strengths of the game are preserved.
> 
> I fear otherwise.




Oh well.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> The problem for me with Bo9S and MoI was that most of my group have only just come to grips with the 3.5 ruleset (having come from a 1E/2E background).




It took you seven years to come to grips with 3.5?


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> As far as I have ever seen, there is nothing weak about the continual damage stream producing double-damage power attack fighters in the environment of "high-SR but totally vulnerable to melee after the 3.5 nerfing of DR" creatures that wasn't addressed by the high level feats in the PHBII.




Contrary to popular belief, not everybody uses wacky monsters exclusively as high-level opponents.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Contrary to popular belief, not everybody uses wacky monsters exclusively as high-level opponents.




Nay, nay. These aren't wacky monsters. These are pretty much the norm, both in terms of appearance in new monster books and utilization in adventures.

Indeed, I find that in order to keep from pissing off the mage players and give them a chance to shine in combat over the melee combat monsters, I have to go out of my way to make openings for the mages and play up the weaknesses of melee types.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Nay, nay. These aren't wacky monsters.




Yes, yes. They are wacky monsters.



> These are pretty much the norm, both in terms of appearance in new monster books and utilization in adventures.




No, it may be a D&Dism to use lots of wacky monsters, but that doesn't make it any less of a D&Dism. Just like resting for 8 hours once you're out of spells for the day.



> Indeed, I find that in order to keep from pissing off the mage players and give them a chance to shine in combat over the melee combat monsters, I have to go out of my way to make openings for the mages and play up the weaknesses of melee types.




Whereas I have to go out of my way to use wacky monsters with SR instead of just using normal (evil) people as villains. Like everyone else does who doesn't view things through the lens of D&D.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

(Chronologically altered for juxtaposition...)



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Yes, yes. They are wacky monsters.
> (...)
> Like everyone else does who doesn't view things through the lens of D&D.




So, we are talking about D&D and I'm not supposed to be defining things in terms of D&D?

 



> No, it may be a D&Dism to use lots of wacky monsters, but that doesn't make it any less of a D&Dism. Just like resting for 8 hours once you're out of spells for the day.




Well, if giving different character types capabilities that are different beyond their names and cosmetic effects is a D&Dism, I'll stick with the D&Dism. kthxbye.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> (Chronologically altered for juxtaposition...)
> 
> 
> 
> So, we are talking about D&D and I'm not supposed to be defining things in terms of D&D?




Exactly. You are supposed to be determining things in terms of the base genres that D&D seeks to emulate, rather than mistaking idiosyncrasies of the ruleset for things of substance. Else we'd still be using THAC0.



> Well, if giving different character types capabilities that are different beyond their names and cosmetic effects is a D&Dism, I'll stick with the D&Dism. kthxbye.




D00d, everything is a cosmetic effect. In the end it's all random scratches on character sheets.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. You are supposed to be determining things in terms of the base genres that D&D seeks to emulate, rather than mistaking idiosyncrasies of the ruleset for things of substance.




I'll keep my own counsel on what I am supposed to be doing. It has long been my contention that emulation is, if not an empty cup, at best half full. RPGs are a different medium from movies and novels, and we should be doing things in RPGs that are best supported by the medium.

And again, if you can think back a few posts, I disagree with the notion that there is no substance in differing refresh rates between different character types. It's going to take an argument more convincing than "nuh uh" to change my mind on that score.

Keep trying though. Maybe you'll come up with another 20 ways to say "nuh uh" that still won't matter more than the observations I make in actual play.


----------



## Razz (May 29, 2007)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> For the maneuvers I worked on, I was consciously trying to stay away from energy effects as much as possible because I wanted martial maneuvers to be more martial and less overtly magical than a wizard's spells. Fire might have snuck in there somehow, but again, beyond what I initially worked on, I can't say what the developers thought about this.




The problem is many people are associating Bo9S with stuff like "Street Fighter", "Fatal Fury" and other fighting games and I say this is definitely a really good route to take. But with the tons of fire maneuvers, it only makes sense to have the other energy descriptors.

Especially Sonic and Electricity. Think of a maneuver where you strike so fast you produce electric shock into your opponent or you use a maneuver where you speed by an opponent so fast that you emulate lightning, bursting through your opponent and damaging them (something like you deal electricity damage when you successfully Tumble through an opponent). Sonic damage also makes sense: swinging your blade (or your arms, like Guile from Street Fighter) with precision and speed to produce a sonic boom that flies into your opponent or creating a burst of sound from a kiai shout followed by a sweep of your weapon. I can think of a million others, but it's obvious that maneuvers like this are cooler...

...and we are going for a "cool factor" with Bo9S, correct?


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I'll keep my own counsel on what I am supposed to be doing.




No, no, you are posting your counsel on a messageboard. Therefore, I will feel free to give you my own counsel on what you are supposed to be doing.



> And again, if you can think back a few posts, I disagree with the notion that there is no substance in differing refresh rates between different character types. It's going to take an argument more convincing than "nuh uh" to change my mind on that score.




Of course there is substance, in the sense of having a tangible impact on gameplay. However it's a negative substance, in that the downsides outweigh the upsides. It's also entirely different to substance in the sense of emulating genre conventions from anywhere outside D&D-derived material. Which, if you'll notice, is the sense in which I was using the word.



> Keep trying though. Maybe you'll come up with another 20 ways to say "nuh uh" that still won't matter more than the observations I make in actual play.




But I'll sure have fun saying it.


----------



## Thurbane (May 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> It took you seven years to come to grips with 3.5?



*RME* Nope. We had a long break in gaming, we only resumed about a year ago, some of the group less than that.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> It has long been my contention that emulation is, if not an empty cup, at best half full. RPGs are a different medium from movies and novels, and we should be doing things in RPGs that are best supported by the medium.




... you mean, like per-encounter balancing is supported by Bo9S?


----------



## Nifft (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> As far as I have ever seen, there is nothing weak about the continual damage stream producing double-damage power attack fighters in the environment of "high-SR but totally vulnerable to melee after the 3.5 nerfing of DR" creatures that wasn't addressed by the high level feats in the PHBII.




You did get that by "with both" he means Tome of Battle and *PHB-II*, right? They're both doing basically the same thing, just in different ways.

So why the gnash?

 -- N


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> You did get that by "with both" he means Tome of Battle and *PHB-II*, right? They're both doing basically the same thing, just in different ways.
> 
> So why the gnash?
> 
> -- N



 Psion finds it very difficult to let go of the 1E/2Eism that wizards are broken.


----------



## Nifft (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> One (IMO weak) argument that has been advanced for elevating the power level of melee types in Bo9S is that it finally gives them something "neat" to do. Okay. Wizards can do a few nifty things, agreed. But they can't do them continually.




Have you seen these new [Reserve] feats?  Now everyone has something cool to do every round, even if they're not opening a can of Wizard Nova (tm) first thing in the morning.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Andor (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> That notion, more than anything else, is what I view as the biggest problem with the book.
> 
> One (IMO weak) argument that has been advanced for elevating the power level of melee types in Bo9S is that it finally gives them something "neat" to do. Okay. Wizards can do a few nifty things, agreed. But they can't do them continually.
> 
> ...




I'm not clear what your point is. Do you dislike per-encounter deisign, or role bluring? The fighter is and has always been the ultimate encounter balanced character. From the second he wakes up, till the adventure is over, is abilities are the same in every round. The Rogue is in the same boat, pretty much every other (core) class has some expendable reasources that wear down throughout the day, usually spells, but also Turn attempts, Wildshapes, and other use per day abilities.

So D&D has always had a continuum of endurance from Wizards to Fighters.

Role-wise, it depends on what you're viewing roles as. Pretty much everyone in a party is expected to be able to kill things. There are differences in technique and tactics, but if you're not racking up the tombstones, you're usually not seen as pulling your weight in the party. So let us ignore lethality for a moment. 

What other roles do we have in D&D (generically speaking?)

Face Man - Mostly the role of skill monkies, at higher levels spells start to take over. None of the new classes really shine here, although Binders can hold their own. 

Lore Master - Useful but undervalued because you can almost alwayd find an NPC to do it. Skill based, untill high-level divinations.

Transporter - Again skill based untill spells take over. Flight becomes pretty critical at higher levels, so almost everone can do it eventually through items or pets.

Healer - Cleric is the lord of healing. Several classes can help but no one can match them.

Special Monster Hunter - Dealing with monsters with funky abilites like incorporeality and possesion. Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, anybody with the right magic items. 

Huh. My brain fails me at coming up with other roles. So back to combat we go.

Here we have: 

Single target specialist - Role of the big melee guys, Fighter, Barbarian, maybe rogue if it's susceptible and can be flanked. Later superceded/supplanted by save or die spells.

Weenie Hoarde slaying - Spells rule here, Fighter types can cleave pretty well if built to do it.

Meat Shield - HP and AC defined. Usually the role of Fighters and Barbarians, clerics can tank well if built for it. Summons can stand in at higher levels.

Mobility guy - Runs around the battle field and annoys mages and flankers. Mostly a monk role, but again, at higher levels summons can do it.

Hmmm... As I see it, The 9 swords classes don't really hog any of these roles, at best they can fill in a bit for mages once they have run out of spells. Is it a bad thing that the party is less crippled when the big guys run out of spells? Some people seem to think so, I always found the adventuring mode of "Well, we've been at this for 10 minuetes, but we're out of spells so I guess it's time to retreat again." to be pretty damm annoying.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> You did get that by "with both" he means Tome of Battle and *PHB-II*, right? They're both doing basically the same thing, just in different ways.
> 
> So why the gnash?




_So far as there may be a problem_, I believe PHBII corrects it in the right way, whereas Bo9S corrects in a poor/detrimental way with the additional drawback of countering the good that PHBII fighter feats did.

IME, the fighter keeps up pretty well with overall game contribution... perhaps too well, given (as I previously explained) that I typically have to compensate in favor of wizards. So for starters, I disagree with the overall premise.

But I do agree that the fighter's feat selection becomes less appealing towards the top end. Thus for the problem I _do_ see, PHBII addresses it well.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Have you seen these new [Reserve] feats?  Now everyone has something cool to do every round, even if they're not opening a can of Wizard Nova (tm) first thing in the morning.




Yep. I like reserve feats conceptually, though I think some specifics could use more attention.

I _often_ find that wizards have no meaningful way to contribute to a combat, and stand around bored after that. I find that using reserve feats is good compromise. They still let the wizards live up to their design aesthetic of being the expendable heavy artillery, but not have to sit on their hands the rest of the time. It may be a pittance, but I think it has the potential to work well as a minor player-mollifier without making them fall back on the (now is where that emulation aesthetic comes up) crossbow.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yep. I like reserve feats conceptually, though I think some specifics could use more attention.
> 
> I _often_ find that wizards have no meaningful way to contribute to a combat, and stand around bored after that.




Exactly. And once D&D is working fully on a per-encounter basis, this problem will disappear.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> I'm not clear what your point is. Do you dislike per-encounter deisign, or role bluring?




I dislike the idea of _across the board per-encounter design_ because of the likelihood that t will contribute to role-blurring.



> Hmmm... As I see it, The 9 swords classes don't really hog any of these roles,




Look at the context of my response. It wasn't in response to the mere idea of per-encounter design as it appears in Bo9S, but Henry's idea that per-encounter design could become an across the board design principle.

As it is now, if a player wanted to play a class for Bo9S, with a few nips and tucks, I could see doing it. Making every class operate like Bo9S classes is another issue.


----------



## Piratecat (May 29, 2007)

Don't substitute snark for content and interesting discussion, please.


----------



## FireLance (May 29, 2007)

I would prefer across-the-board per-encounter design for one simple reason: it's usually a lot easier to multiply than to divide.

If I want to run a standard per day game, based on an average of four encounters per day, I can multiply all per encounter resources by four and state that they recharge on a daily basis. I can also mix it up - perhaps some classes operate on a per day basis and others on a per encounter basis, and have days where there are only three encounters to favor the per day classes, and days when there are five encounters to favor the per encounter classes in addition to days with the standard four encounters. Working from per encounter to per day in this way helps a DM to establish his own baseline assumptions, and makes it obvious why having one big fight per day generally favors psions more than fighters.


----------



## pawsplay (May 29, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> The problem is many people are associating Bo9S with stuff like "Street Fighter", "Fatal Fury" and other fighting games and I say this is definitely a really good route to take.




Oh, my poor heart.


----------



## Razz (May 29, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Oh, my poor heart.




Hey, now, that's how I like the flavor of MY Bo9S and you have your like for the type of flavor for YOUR Bo9S. What I like about Bo9S is it's generalized enough to allow many different types of flavor. Change the names around, change the backgrounds, change the weapons, etc. and tweak the classes and ruleset around and you have your own brand of Bo9S.   

(Heh, it's only a matter of time when either one of my players or myself creates a "Hadoken" or "Shoryuken" attack via Bo9S maneuvers...I've already crafted a maneuver based on Cloud Strife's 3rd set of limit breaks, the one where he swings his sword and meteors strike on the opponent)


----------



## Odhanan (May 29, 2007)

I am totally supporting a per-encounter design. For the rest, I'm pretty much in 100% agreement with Hong. The man explains the thing in a much better way than I ever would, if not for pointing out once again, like he did here...

_It has long been my contention that emulation is, if not an empty cup, at best half full. RPGs are a different medium from movies and novels, and we should be doing things in RPGs that are best supported by the medium.

HONG:
... you mean, like per-encounter balancing is supported by Bo9S?_

... that I believe like Psion, indeed, that RPGs should come to terms with their movies/novels parenting and assume a design philosophy based on what they are instead of what they "are like". A RPG campaign is made of sessions. Sessions are made of encounters. It just makes sense to define abilities "per session" and "per encounter" to stay true to the actual practice of RPGs around the table instead of basing it on elements of the fiction (per day, per year) which may vary ENORMOUSLY from one DM to the other, and thus affect the balance tremendously.


----------



## Piratecat (May 29, 2007)

Good summary, Odhanan.

My personal frustration with per-encounter balancing is that per-day balancing adds greater granularity in the variety of the play experience. By that, I mean that many players are forced to vary their tactics over the course of an adventuring day; because they quickly use (or save for an emergency) their most effective spells, they are required to handle things differently from fight to fight. 

When your character is balanced on a per-encounter basis, I suspect the game gets less interesting -- at least for me. I'll know exactly what tactic works best in the first, second, and third round of combat, and that's not typically going to vary much because my resources won't fundamentally change until I level.

I'm basing this opinion on my own experience, of course. My most interesting and exciting games have been where the PCs were almost tapped out, because that heightened the tension level and the excitement. Declining resources encourages clever, creative play. I don't want to see that change.


----------



## pawsplay (May 29, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> ... that I believe like Psion, indeed, that RPGs should come to terms with their movies/novels parenting and assume a design philosophy based on what they are instead of what they "are like". A RPG campaign is made of sessions. Sessions are made of encounters. It just makes sense to define abilities "per session" and "per encounter" to stay true to the actual practice of RPGs around the table instead of basing it on elements of the fiction (per day, per year) which may vary ENORMOUSLY from one DM to the other, and thus affect the balance tremendously.




I'd rather have an intelligible narrative of time and events than "balance."


----------



## Odhanan (May 29, 2007)

> When your character is balanced on a per-encounter basis, I suspect the game gets less interesting -- at least for me.




I understand the concern, and think it's true in essence. However, a "per-encounter" design would also mean a "per game session" correlation. A "per day" ability translates in my games as "per game session" in fact. This means there is still resource management per encounter in practice.

Point in case: I have a PC who died and became a ghost (as per Ghoswalk Campaign Option). I needed the PC to be able to switch between corporeal and incorporeal states since there's no "manifest ward"/gimmic to allow switches with Ptolus. I designed a magic item (bracers) that allow a switch from corp. to Incorp. OR the revers three times a day. It created some problems almost instantly, and I changed the ability to 3/game session. Since then, it's been working admirably, because the time management is based on a concrete game aspect instead of a fluctuent element of the fiction.


----------



## pawsplay (May 29, 2007)

To me, dealing with those problems would be part of the game.


----------



## Odhanan (May 29, 2007)

> I'd rather have an intelligible narrative of time and events than "balance."




What do you mean with "intelligible narrative"?


----------



## Nifft (May 29, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> What do you mean with "intelligible narrative"?




"Railroading".

Cheers, -- N

PS:  

PPS: Content (per moderator request above): Action Points and the like allow you to have a declining resource mechanic that renews every so often, as determined by story or (whatever the DM chooses). This is more flexible than forcing the daily resource management thingy into every class's initial design.


----------



## Odhanan (May 29, 2007)

LOL. I'm serious though. I don't understand what pawsplay's trying to say here. 

Specifically, I don't understand what one would not be able to understand (=intelligible) with "per encounter" and "per game session" design. As for the narrative, the term itself redirects towards the notion of "story", i.e. movies and novels, exactly what I think RPGs should no longer refer to (my games depict actual fictional events as they occur, they are no stories). 

I'm not sure it answers pawsplay's remark, so I'd like him to elaborate, if he pleases.


----------



## GreatLemur (May 29, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The milieu has no place in a conventional Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Krynn or Mystara.



Last time I checked, the Forgotten Realms still included Kara-Tur.  But, aside from a lot of the fluff text, I honestly don't understand all the wailing and moaning about the wuxia flavor of the book.  Mechanically, the vast majority of it seems to fit pretty nicely in your basic Generic Fantasy Setting.  I mean, you can call it the "Iron Heart discipline" if you really want, but all the rules say to me is "really good with a sword".



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> My personal frustration with per-encounter balancing is that per-day balancing adds greater granularity in the variety of the play experience. By that, I mean that many players are forced to vary their tactics over the course of an adventuring day; because they quickly use (or save for an emergency) their most effective spells, they are required to handle things differently from fight to fight.
> 
> When your character is balanced on a per-encounter basis, I suspect the game gets less interesting -- at least for me. I'll know exactly what tactic works best in the first, second, and third round of combat, and that's not typically going to vary much because my resources won't fundamentally change until I level.



I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it here: Resource management can definitely be fun.  But it definitely ain't fun for everybody.

So I'd say that what we have right now is a pretty decent situation: We've got classes that can do things a certain number of times a day, classes that can do things a certain number of times per encounter, and we've got classes that can just keep doing things all day.  And there are plenty of characters out there with abilities balanced on _multiple_ scales.  Those who want to worry about when they pull out their big guns can play wizards, and those who don't can play warlocks.


----------



## Nepenthe (May 29, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> I'm not clear what your point is. Do you dislike per-encounter deisign, or role bluring? The fighter is and has always been the ultimate encounter balanced character. From the second he wakes up, till the adventure is over, is abilities are the same in every round. The Rogue is in the same boat, pretty much every other (core) class has some expendable reasources that wear down throughout the day, usually spells, but also Turn attempts, Wildshapes, and other use per day abilities.




Good point, I hadn't actually thought of that!

/N


----------



## GlassJaw (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> But if you institute these changes to the base of the game, then you have damaged the playability of the game AFAIAC, and it becomes more difficult for me to avoid.




Well get ready because I'm practically convinced it's coming.

I'm strongly believe that the per encounter mechanic (and the "something cool every level" article that was posted on the WotC site a while back) started as a marketing initiative rather than a design intiative.  

I also believe that this is the direct result of MMO's.

 - WotC knows they need to continue to gain new players.
 - WotC knows they must "compete" (not necessarily in terms of dollars but certainly with respect to gameplay) with MMO's.
 - WotC is aware of how people are actually playing D&D.

Players want to do something cool every round and get something cool every level.

I see the Bo9S as a nice first attempt and a glimpse at things to come, but it's far too fluff-specific to be viable as a universal system.


----------



## Andor (May 29, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> What do you mean with "intelligible narrative"?




It means that a game session could cover 10 minuetes of game time one session, and 2 weeks the next. If you were reading a book based on that campaign it would make little sense to you as the reader why Dead Bob could switch 3 times during the brief fight in the caverns of the Hag Queen but only 3 times during the next 2 battles on the road and the trade fair at Hogblight put together. If the bracer had been organized by uses per day no such counter intuitive narrative would have occured.


----------



## GreatLemur (May 29, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> LOL. I'm serious though. I don't understand what pawsplay's trying to say here.



I think his objection is to using out-of-character circumstances--such as when a game session begins and ends--to regulate in-game circumstances--such as when your wizard can cast his big spell.  What does that situation literally mean to the wizard, in the game world?  Sometimes he can only fireball once in a couple days, sometimes he can do it several times in a day?

I can understand his feelings, here.  Per-session balancing bugs my simulationist side.  Per-encounter is a lot easier to swallow, though I do have to admit that it's weird to think that non-magical abilities like a warblade's maneuvers should ever be exhausted, however briefly, by anything other than the total _physical_ exhaustion of their user.  Still, I think I can reconcile it as opponents not allowing openings for the same thing to be done twice in a row, as the warblade needing to find the proper moment or position to execute an advanted technique, and as the momentart literal exhaustion or straining of the specific muscles needed to perform a given maneuver.


----------



## Henry (May 29, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it here: Resource management can definitely be fun.  But it definitely ain't fun for everybody.
> 
> So I'd say that what we have right now is a pretty decent situation: We've got classes that can do things a certain number of times a day, classes that can do things a certain number of times per encounter, and we've got classes that can just keep doing things all day.  And there are plenty of characters out there with abilities balanced on _multiple_ scales.  Those who want to worry about when they pull out their big guns can play wizards, and those who don't can play warlocks.




What happens, however, if the whole system gets balanced on that "doing things all day" motif, though? I think PCat has a good point here: Using Nine Swords Maneuvers as an example, it seems that what's likely to happen is: 

Swordsage/Warblade has his 3 or 4 maneuvers picked.
Round 1: He opens with his Ancient/Elder/Regular Mountain Hammer.
Round 2: Follows with his Adamantine/Mithral/Steel beatdown.
Round 3: Next comes his throw/strike of choice.
Round 4: Etc.
Stance might change, but more often remains where it is. Next combat, he does it again, in that same order of power.

On the other hand, you can't throw fireballs or meteor swarms all day long, because you run out after the first or second combat, if you're not careful. When you do run out, the next fight has to open with some other spells. And when you're last resource is a Knock and a phase door, you REALLY have got to come up with a crafty plan.


----------



## Odhanan (May 29, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> It means that a game session could cover 10 minuetes of game time one session, and 2 weeks the next. If you were reading a book based on that campaign it would make little sense to you as the reader why Dead Bob could switch 3 times during the brief fight in the caverns of the Hag Queen but only 3 times during the next 2 battles on the road and the trade fair at Hogblight put together. If the bracer had been organized by uses per day no such counter intuitive narrative would have occured.




But then, at our game table, myself and the players aren't playing out a "narrative". We're experiencing actual events as they occur, once again. Sometimes, you have people who have surges of power, sometimes not, use their abilities, or not, so on, so forth.  

Besides, it can make sense that Bob can switch three times during one combat and then just a few times during a succession of others, because when you are experiencing the events themselves you're not thinking in terms of "Oh, I used this maneuver two times already! Maybe I shouldn't do it again!" On the contrary, a "per encounter/session" design keeps meta-game thinking with the actual game practice, out of the fiction, which makes more sense for immersion from my point of view.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 29, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I'm basing this opinion on my own experience, of course. My most interesting and exciting games have been where the PCs were almost tapped out, because that heightened the tension level and the excitement. Declining resources encourages clever, creative play. I don't want to see that change.




Declining resources also encourages a slow pace.  If a group blows their load in the first battle of the day, why would they continue knowing full well that they are completely tapped out?  "But you just rested, you can't rest again!", replies the DM.

I also don't find it very fun to wait to do something cool because I only get one shot at it per day.  And there's also the chance that by playing conservatively, I miss out on my chance to do something cool.

The better design lies somewhere in the middle.  Per encounter design raises some problems: healing, utility magic, divination/info gather, rage, etc.  Some of these things might have to stay per day.

But giving players more per encounter options would speed up play in my opinion and just be more fun.  What's the difference between giving a wizard a permanent 1d8 energy blast and firinga crossbow?  Which one is cooler and has more flavor?


----------



## GreatLemur (May 29, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Well get ready because I'm practically convinced it's coming.
> 
> I'm strongly believe that the per encounter mechanic (and the "something cool every level" article that was posted on the WotC site a while back) started as a marketing initiative rather than a design intiative.
> 
> ...



I agree completely, except with the assertion that this direction has more to do with marketing people than design people.  It's definitely a possibility, but I ain't convinced.  It's not an idea that feels at all _alien_ to the current D&D/d20 player zeitgeist, if that makes any sense.  Frankly, I've wanted D&D to end the "I sleep for eight hours" bit for the whole two decades or whatever that I've been a gamer.  And I've been annoyed by "dead levels" since 3E first came out.  It just seems like good game design sense to give players not even just "something cool" but an actual _decision_ every time they earn a new character level (open multiclassing is nice, certainly, but I'm thinking more along the lines of feats and optional class features).



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I see the Bo9S as a nice first attempt and a glimpse at things to come, but it's far too fluff-specific to be viable as a universal system.



Hell, I wouldn't _want_ a universal system.  I like having loads of little subsystems with different balancing mechanics.  But I could definitely imagine a lot of effects with very different fluff using the maneuver system.  Frankly, I think it'd work pretty damned nicely for the combat-specific half of a new magic system.


----------



## GreatLemur (May 29, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> What happens, however, if the whole system gets balanced on that "doing things all day" motif, though? I think PCat has a good point here: Using Nine Swords Maneuvers as an example, it seems that what's likely to happen is:
> 
> Swordsage/Warblade has his 3 or 4 maneuvers picked.
> Round 1: He opens with his Ancient/Elder/Regular Mountain Hammer.
> ...



I agree, more or less.  But while I'm not hoping for a universal per-encounter / unlimited use paradigm, I could imagine how tactical complexity and varied combat dynamics might be re-achieved if that were the case.  There'd be a lot more shiftable modes (such as stances) that render some tactics much more viable than others, a lot more immunities and resistances, a lot more active and usable environmental features, and so on.  Basically, ways for the _circumstances_ of combat to vary, even though the PCs' personal capabilities remain relatively static.

Of course, all this is neglecting the whole, wide world _outside_ of combat, which develops its own glaring issues once you stop doing the uses-per-day thing, but I'm not going to try and take that on now.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 29, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> The better design lies somewhere in the middle.  Per encounter design raises some problems: healing, utility magic, divination/info gather, rage, etc.  Some of these things might have to stay per day.



True - and a good mix encourages a good mixture of the classes. ToB is a good example: It furthers the fighter paradigm of "doing it allthe  day, as long as Hit Points last", thereby defining the caster niche as "some times per day BIG(tm)" far better than before.

Adding some all-day stuff for spellcasters (fighters don't need it, since they're already daily limited by hp - and so much more than spellcasters), and you can probably get:
1) The fun of per-encounter: You don't need to rest all the time, you can always do more than twiddling your fingers.
2) The strategic thrill of per-day: Long-term planning and adjusting is a fun game in itself, and should stay in some kind, beyond "run out of hit points". Combining with 1), we don't need resting that often, but can still restrict "stoopid" stuff.

This thread 's generates a big deal of insight, at least in me


----------



## Odhanan (May 29, 2007)

> The better design lies somewhere in the middle. Per encounter design raises some problems: healing, utility magic, divination/info gather, rage, etc. Some of these things might have to stay per day.




Just to be clear, I agree with this and in this sort of instance I think that the corollary of "per day" shouldn't be "per encounter" but "per game session". This keeps the resource management intact and puts the reference frame on the same point of view. I sincerely believe that'd be the middle ground you're talking about GlassJaw.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 29, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I see the Bo9S as a nice first attempt and a glimpse at things to come, but it's far too fluff-specific to be viable as a universal system.




Star Wars Saga Edition looks like it may be an even nicer second attempt, from all the things I'm reading from people who've got early access to the books. Not D&D, but a nicer, smoother way of balancing things than Bo9S AFAICS at the moment.

OK, it's not D&D... but I could imagine some quite interesting fantasy campaign possibilities based around SWSE.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 29, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, I agree with this and in this sort of instance I think that the corollary of "per day" shouldn't be "per encounter" but "per game session". This keeps the resource management intact and puts the reference frame on the same point of view. I sincerely believe that'd be the middle ground you're talking about GlassJaw.



But the problem with "per game session" is, that it destroys the narrative. In-game, there is no "per session".
Furthermore (besides making verisimilitude harder), it is counter-intuitive. Why? Let's see: The PCs further the plot, have a fun session, and make good progress? Then they get less "per-session" abilities - it punishes the PCs for forwarding the plot.
If anything, then such a "refreshing" should be tied to:
a) Time in game (current solution).
b) Plot points (so it actually rewards players for furthering the plot, but then, players who "don't get it" will suffer even more, because they cannot use their tools to further the plot).
c) In-game "refreshment points". Mystic circles, ley-lines: The DM can place that stuff as a reward, and it gives the PCs a way to "backup" - they actually have a reason to buy a house at a ley-line cross, keeps will be built there, and so on.
d) Any combination of the above, probably a) and c).


----------



## Odhanan (May 29, 2007)

I rather think the "per session" makes verisimilitude easier by keeping game mechanics out of the fiction. 

Furthermore, I have not seen, in my experience, the players actually slowing down the game because their abilities would be "per session". Mechanics being cleanly separated from the fiction, one does not come to mind as influencing the other in our minds. 

In fact, the "per encounter" design is similar to, for instance, the "per scene" design elements of World of Darkness games, and I've never seen anybody tell me it was counter-intuitive to game immersion. Ever. In essence, though, that's just a change of word, the game unit being the same!


----------



## mmu1 (May 29, 2007)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> The wire-fu flavor of Bo9S was an interesting choice made at a level above me.




I was going to say, having played in your game, that Eastern-style wire-fu is definitely _not_ your style, at all. (and the Sword Sages you had show up didn't really come across as Oriental, either) Which in a way shows how much of what's in Bo9S is flavor text.

Actually, since you're a hard man to reach by e-mail these days, I figured I'd shamelessly use this to get your attention, and ask about what your GenCon plans are this year, since Chris mentioned something about invitationals and such... 

(Matt)


----------



## Andor (May 29, 2007)

Odhanan I gotta disagree with you on that. Per session usages would _vaporize_ my immersion. It's the ultimate intrusion of meta-game concerns affecting in game events for _no freaking reason_ that is perceptible in game.

Bob: Okay since we have some free time I want to craft another potion of healing.
GM: Nope. You crafted a potion in the dungeon, only one potion per session.
Bob: But our characters have been on the road for 2 weeks since then. I crafted 3 potions in the dungeon and that our took our characters 4 hours.
GM: Yeah but it took 3 sessions. No more crafting till next session.
Bob: Right.
GM: Why are you picking up your books? 
Bob: Because I want to craft a potion. See you next session.

On the other hand, what do people feel about per encounter limits as a design feature? For example suppose a spellcasters top tier of spells were only useable once every 5 minuetes in game. (I can come up with a dozen fluff explanations for this and I bet you can too.) That way there is some assurance that the wizard and cleric will have at least a couple of big guns preserved for multiple encounters per day encourageing the party to boot more than one door per rest session.


----------



## pawsplay (May 29, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Declining resources also encourages a slow pace.  If a group blows their load in the first battle of the day, why would they continue knowing full well that they are completely tapped out?  "But you just rested, you can't rest again!", replies the DM.




But resting for a eight hours actually only takes thirty seconds, or maybe thirty minutes if you get ambushed by gnolls. So the per day paradigm actually refreshes abilities faster, and still offers the possibility of fighting gnolls while at less than full strength. 

It seems to me that actual time (which can be condensed into camera changes) is in every way more flexible than scene-based time (which has a fixed rate).


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> When your character is balanced on a per-encounter basis, I suspect the game gets less interesting -- at least for me. I'll know exactly what tactic works best in the first, second, and third round of combat, and that's not typically going to vary much because my resources won't fundamentally change until I level.
> 
> I'm basing this opinion on my own experience, of course. My most interesting and exciting games have been where the PCs were almost tapped out, because that heightened the tension level and the excitement. Declining resources encourages clever, creative play. I don't want to see that change.




Most Bo9S classes will be tapped out about 3-5 rounds into the fight, depending on class and level. (Some, like the crusader, never really "tap out" but that's a deliberate design decision.) Therefore, if you want to have declining resources, you should find a way to have fights that go beyond 3-5 rounds. This isn't too hard, but does require bigger fights.

Last month I ran Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde for a crusader, warblade and wizard. The wiz had a reserve feat so he could throw mini-fireballs all day, and I also used reserve points so that people could heal in between fights without a cleric. Thus there wasn't that much call for stopping and resting. During the session, they fought a running battle with swarms of drow. They'd drop a few, and then a round or two later, some more would attack from out of the darkness. They ran out of maneuvers, hit points were getting low, and they were looking for a way to escape from these drow who kept coming at them. Eventually the attacks ceased and they were able to heal up; by this time IIRC the wiz was at single-digit hp.

2 months ago in the last AOW session, we fought a massive fight with a bunch of evil guys at the base of Kyuss' ziggurat. First there were a couple of tanks and some vampire ninjae in the entrance; then, while half the group was finishing them off, the other half went into the main hall and found Lashonna and her minions. It's fun fighting a CR 25 vampire silver dragon and several amped-up erinyes when half the group is missing, let me tell you.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 29, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> But resting for a eight hours actually only takes thirty seconds, or maybe thirty minutes if you get ambushed by gnolls. So the per day paradigm actually refreshes abilities faster, and still offers the possibility of fighting gnolls while at less than full strength.




Aside from being lame and unrealistic, what if you are trying to run something that is time-dependent?  If the PC's know they are going to get stomped by continuining, are you going to force them?

And if your players are resting after every battle, why not just refresh their abilities after every battle and just go with it?  I would bet that your game wouldn't suffer for it at all.



> On the other hand, what do people feel about per encounter limits as a design feature? For example suppose a spellcasters top tier of spells were only useable once every 5 minuetes in game. (I can come up with a dozen fluff explanations for this and I bet you can too.) That way there is some assurance that the wizard and cleric will have at least a couple of big guns preserved for multiple encounters per day encourageing the party to boot more than one door per rest session.




This is absolutely what I would do.  There can be many variants, even on a per ability basis, of what "per encounter" means.  Abilities could be usable every round, every other round, once, twice, three times, per encounter, etc.

A barbarian could rage once per day,
A paladin can smite evil once per encounter,
A wizard can cast fire bolt once per round,
and so forth.


----------



## Odhanan (May 29, 2007)

> Bob: Okay since we have some free time I want to craft another potion of healing.
> GM: Nope. You crafted a potion in the dungeon, only one potion per session.
> Bob: But our characters have been on the road for 2 weeks since then. I crafted 3 potions in the dungeon and that our took our characters 4 hours.
> GM: Yeah but it took 3 sessions. No more crafting till next session.
> ...




That's where you introduce caveats to the particular uses of abilities ("unless there is a rest/fast forward segment to the adventure in which case the ability is usable under the DM's adjudication"), and probably another, intermediary term between encounter and session, like an "adventure segment" (designing actions in the same broad stroke of the adventure involving several encounters, like investigating a person, visiting a section of the dungeon, traveling for two weeks, etc). 

Honestly though, if I had a player just pick up books and saying stuff like that at the game table, he wouldn't be welcomed back for next session without a serious discussion about what he did.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 29, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Per session usages would _vaporize_ my immersion.




Yeah, I definitely don't advocate per session.  That's too vague of a unit of "time", and it doesn't correlate to in-game time at all.

You could spend where the players travel for weeks of in-game time and another that consists of a single battle that doesn't last a minute of game time.

Per session mechanics don't work.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Per-session drama/hero/action points, I could get behind. It's a fundamentally metagame concept anyway.


----------



## Odhanan (May 29, 2007)

What about replacing "per session" with "per adventure segment/chapter" then?

PS: by the way, I think the "per session" unit works for tactical abilities specifically. For instance, the bracers allowing an incorporeal/corporeal or vice versa switch 3/game session I was talking about earlier allow this change to happen quickly. The bracers also allow an unlimited amount of changes with a minute of concentration.


----------



## WizarDru (May 29, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Furthermore, I have not seen, in my experience, the players actually slowing down the game because their abilities would be "per session". Mechanics being cleanly separated from the fiction, one does not come to mind as influencing the other in our minds.




It sounds more like it would change the focus of game-flow, but not necessarily break it.

I would hazard that in most games (including my own) 'per day' resource management, at least at lower levels, is a heavy influence on player actions.  In my experience, it always has been.  If the wizard only has two third-level slots and only one of them has a fireball, he's going to save it until he's sure it's going to get the best outing.  The cleric will keep some healing spells in reserve and even the rogue and fighter are making judgment calls about when to use that healing potion.

When Complete Champion was announced with it's healing reserve feat (which I have not read yet), it raised quite a lot of discussion in my group.  This had the dramatic ability to alter the cleric's role and healing as a factor in general.  Let's face facts: players retire from the field whenever they are either tapped out of spells, hit points or both.  Altering that dynamic can have far-reaching consequences....whether they would be good or bad, I don't know.

I'm thinking that maybe the problem with per-session or per-encounter abilities is that they change the dynamic in untold ways.  If a fighter can pull out a single uber-strike once a combat, does that shift the 'cool things' balance?  Are CRs now completely over-valued?  Do mages get these abilities?  What I am mostly concerned with is how this affects the whole group.

A few years back, one of my players, the cleric, staged a in-game protest during a fairly involved combat with some Frost Giants and winter wolves.  The battle took place mostly under cover and involved lots of ranged combat.  The rogue and cleric, feeling useless in this situation, sat down and began cooking soup.  I resolved to try and not let that happen again.  My main concern is that something like per-combat resets would heighten that problem, not remove it.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> A few years back, one of my players, the cleric, staged a in-game protest during a fairly involved combat with some Frost Giants and winter wolves.  The battle took place mostly under cover and involved lots of ranged combat.  The rogue and cleric, feeling useless in this situation, sat down and began cooking soup.  I resolved to try and not let that happen again.  My main concern is that something like per-combat resets would heighten that problem, not remove it.




Huh? How does that heighten the problem?


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 29, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> What about replacing "per session" with "per adventure segment/chapter" then?



I've addressed that above, but perhaps not very clearly:

It creates a kind of strange conundrum: Players who achieve their goal, will be fine, but it makes defeat even more hurting.

An exaggerated example: A wizard needs to overcome a monster to get to the next chapter/segment. He loses, but escapes with his life. Now he cannot rest and make a new advance, because he hasn't ended the last chapter. See the problem?

Basically, it takes the players' freedom to plan away, at least to a certain amount.

Of course, the DM could call that a "chapter", but now we are getting closer and closer to arbitrary DM fiat. Good for story-based games... but it's not so much D&Dish.

Therefore, I've posted my idea above: Combine a time-limit with an in-game "refresh", like a ley-line, a mystic circle, whatever. This would allow the DM to set story-keeping points, but would still allow the players to decide their time plan.


----------



## WizarDru (May 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Huh? How does that heighten the problem?




The Bo9S is primarily a fighter book, correct?  Suddenly giving them additional per-combat manuevers that heighten their effectiveness would throw the balance even wider in some respects, wouldn't it?  That's probably not the best example without further explanation, but what I'm wondering is that unless you begin giving everyone per-combat replenishable abilities, doesn't this give the fighter a lot more mojo while effectively de-powering the support character types, at least within combat?  I'm not saying it does, I'm asking the question.


----------



## Nifft (May 29, 2007)

Tome of Battle isn't really giving the Fighter anything. It's saying, instead of feats which you can use at-will, here are some cool things you can do slightly less frequently (which may be stronger than feats).

The Fighter still has a reason to live (thanks to *PHB-II* and dipping in for 2 to 4 levels), but now there's a melee character that blends the melee power of a Barbarian with the tactical flexibility of a prepared-slot spellcaster.

Sure, the raging Barbarian will probably out-damage the Martial Adept in a straight up fight, but the Martial Adept isn't limited to x/day rages, and he's also not limited to "charge" and "full attack".

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Odhanan (May 29, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I've addressed that above, but perhaps not very clearly:
> 
> It creates a kind of strange conundrum: Players who achieve their goal, will be fine, but it makes defeat even more hurting.
> 
> An exaggerated example: A wizard needs to overcome a monster to get to the next chapter/segment. He loses, but escapes with his life. Now he cannot rest and make a new advance, because he hasn't ended the last chapter. See the problem?




I think I see what you mean, yes. It all depends on how you define a chapter/segment and how it's implemented by the DM. If it's clearly defined as linked encounters that reach a form of resolution or benchmark (resolution meaning it can be positive or negative), with specific examples provided with the guide as to how you design these segments and how they combine to create a full adventure, I think it wouldn't be a problem, though, but for the most stubborn/uncaring/incompetent DMs out there.



> Therefore, I've posted my idea above: Combine a time-limit with an in-game "refresh", like a ley-line, a mystic circle, whatever. This would allow the DM to set story-keeping points, but would still allow the players to decide their time plan.




But isn't it still DM fiat in essence? Instead of saying when effectively the adventure segment ends, he decides when the gimmic comes into play. In practice, this allows the same type of abuses. For that matter, is it different from the DM fiat in saying when the days end and start in the game?


----------



## Zaruthustran (May 29, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> My personal frustration with per-encounter balancing is that per-day balancing adds greater granularity in the variety of the play experience. By that, I mean that many players are forced to vary their tactics over the course of an adventuring day; because they quickly use (or save for an emergency) their most effective spells, they are required to handle things differently from fight to fight.




Seems like reserve feats may be a good middle ground between per-encounter "let the player do cool stuff all the time" permissiveness and per-day "save the big spell for the final round" drama.

Also, wouldn't per-encounter powers just make the drama of "save the big ability for the right moment" happen more often? If I've got a killer gee-whiz 1/day ability that makes everyone cheer when I finally let rip for the day, wouldn't it be more fun if I could use the ability--and get my party cheering--once per encounter? 

-z


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Odhanan I gotta disagree with you on that. Per session usages would _vaporize_ my immersion. It's the ultimate intrusion of meta-game concerns affecting in game events for _no freaking reason_ that is perceptible in game.




Since most resources that are typically handled in a "per session" manner aren't perceptible within the milieu of the game, it doesn't disturb my immersion greatly, at least not any more that the author's hand in novels that you are all telling me I should be emulating above.

And to me, immersion is more about manipulating the emotional state of the players during the game. The real world meatspace concerns of getting the players at the table, getting them involved in the game, and getting them emotionally engaged is to me a much more meaningful measure to control immersion in than most in-milieu measures of time.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Per session mechanics don't work.




As alluded to above, my experience differs.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> ... you mean, like per-encounter balancing is supported by Bo9S?




No, precisely unlike that. But I'll thank you not to presume what I mean when you know quite clearly that is not what I mean.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Seems like reserve feats may be a good middle ground between per-encounter "let the player do cool stuff all the time" permissiveness and per-day "save the big spell for the final round" drama.




Precisely. It lets the arcane types keep their nova abilities, but not make them feel totally useless at other times.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> No, precisely unlike that. But I'll thank you not to presume what I mean when you know quite clearly that is not what I mean.



 Well, it helps if you say what you mean.

This is what you said.

It has long been my contention that emulation is, if not an empty cup, at best half full. RPGs are a different medium from movies and novels, and we should be doing things in RPGs that are best supported by the medium.​
So, since we were talking about stuff that appears IN AN RPG SUPPLEMENT, I can only conclude that you believe Bo9S has nothing to do with RPGs. If this conclusion is mistaken, feel free to expand.


----------



## Andor (May 29, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> What about replacing "per session" with "per adventure segment/chapter" then?
> 
> PS: by the way, I think the "per session" unit works for tactical abilities specifically. For instance, the bracers allowing an incorporeal/corporeal or vice versa switch 3/game session I was talking about earlier allow this change to happen quickly. The bracers also allow an unlimited amount of changes with a minute of concentration.




That's a much better system than what I recieved as an initial impression of the sort of system you were describing. Perhaps the best term would be 'Per scene'? 

The big problem with systems such as you are fond of is that they work great, as long as you have a sensible GM. Most of us however have occasionaly been stuck with a GM who desperately needed a radical rectalcraniectomy. 

As long as the book spells out a good set of guidelines for what constitutes a scene (And mentions that anything that would be a red arrow moving over a map in an indiana jones movie is not a single scene) it would work, you just have to beware that lowest common DMinator.


----------



## pawsplay (May 29, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Aside from being lame and unrealistic, what if you are trying to run something that is time-dependent?  If the PC's know they are going to get stomped by continuining, are you going to force them?




They have the option of pulling back, and of course, the risk of being destroyed.



> And if your players are resting after every battle, why not just refresh their abilities after every battle and just go with it?  I would bet that your game wouldn't suffer for it at all.




My players aren't resting after every battle. Sometimes, they get attacked while recuperating, and other times, they push ahead because they want to stay ahead of reinforcements or discovery. 

My PCs do NOT get eight hours of rest between each battle. And if I wish them to, I can give them a night's rest any time I wish to. So I still have the option you are suggesting, but I also have at my disposal the use of time and risk as a challenge to my players.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Well, it helps if you say what you mean.
> 
> This is what you said.
> 
> ...




That conclusion is mistaken. My statement was not a direct commentary on any game supplement, but rather, on your assertion to a supposed guiding principle that I do not agree with.

To wit, my statement quipped above was in direct response to your statement: "You are supposed to be determining things in terms of the base genres that D&D seeks to emulate". 

My response amplifies that not only do I not accept that as a central or sole guiding principle in game design, but using such a guiding principle will, quite often, result in a less satisfactory end result. The game which does the best at emulating the source material is not necessarily the best game; considerations which work well in literature or film often work poorly when implemented in the context of an RPG. Likewise, considerations that would not work well in film or literature work great in RPGs.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> That conclusion is mistaken. My statement was not a direct commentary on any game supplement, but rather, on your assertion to a supposed guiding principle that I do not agree with.




... IOW, your statement had nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, as far as I can tell.



> To wit, my statement quipped above was in direct response to your statement: "You are supposed to be determining things in terms of the base genres that D&D seeks to emulate".




Yes. Because in the end, there are still genre conventions to be held to. Without some sort of external constraint on what's possible in the game, we might as well use lightsabers and starships. Or THAC0.



> My response amplifies that not only do I not accept that as a central or sole guiding principle in game design, but using such a guiding principle will, quite often, result in a less satisfactory end result. The game which does the best at emulating the source material is not necessarily the best game; considerations which work well in literature or film often work poorly when implemented in the context of an RPG. Likewise, considerations that would not work well in film or literature work great in RPGs.




... like this had anything to do with per-encounter balancing. VERY FEW other RPGs have anything like the elaborate framework D&D has built around abilities usable per day. There is nothing that REQUIRES an RPG to have abilities that are rationed per day. It is a construct that has everything to do with D&D and its historical idiosyncrasies, and nothing to do with "the context of an RPG". Next thing you know, you'll be saying that RPGs must have hit points and alignments or something.


----------



## DreadArchon (May 29, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> I wouldn't _want_ a universal system.  I like having loads of little subsystems with different balancing mechanics.



I agree.  A universal system is a good way to get me to buy another game entirely--there's just no point playing a game for very long when everything you can possibly do is functionally identical.  (I'm looking at you, Unisystem!)



			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> That's where you introduce caveats to the particular uses of abilities ("unless there is a rest/fast forward segment to the adventure in which case the ability is usable under the DM's adjudication"), and probably another, intermediary term between encounter and session, like an "adventure segment" (designing actions in the same broad stroke of the adventure involving several encounters, like investigating a person, visiting a section of the dungeon, traveling for two weeks, etc).



_We have that now_.  It's called "encounters per day."

"Because you slept for 8 of the previous 8.5 hours and just aren't tired enough to do it again" is a perfectly good reason for the party to be incapable of resting after each and every encounter, and in anything even vaguely resembling a time constraint it tends to force sessions (or large chunks thereof) into divisions by day.  For example, my current game has the players in a Yugoloth fortress.  They've dropped a few guards and explored a few areas, but the whole story segment is going to happen in one day (unless they retreat entirely to start over) because the 'Loths will discover the intrusion and replace their guards (and go on alert) if the PC's screw around.  (That and the PC's just recently got a full night of sleep.)



> Honestly though, if I had a player just pick up books and saying stuff like that at the game table, he wouldn't be welcomed back for next session without a serious discussion about what he did.



"You won't let us do anything until we quit the game" sounds like a pretty good reason to me.  (This would be especially silly in my current game--the Succubus with 3/day teleportation suddenly gets to teleport six times in as many minutes because her player got called in to work in real life?)  I suppose that what works for you works for you, but I'm pretty sure that if I started distributing rewards for quitting the game, I'd get to play a whole lot less.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

DreadArchon said:
			
		

> I agree.  A universal system is a good way to get me to buy another game entirely--there's just no point playing a game for very long when everything you can possibly do is functionally identical.  (I'm looking at you, Unisystem!)




Until such time that fighters can teleport halfway around the globe, rogues can resurrect dead people, or barbarians can gate in demons, we're going to be a long way from "functionally identical".


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> ... IOW, your statement had nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, as far as I can tell.




It was a direct response to a premise you offered why I should be agreeing with your position.

So long as you believe that what you had to say had to do with the topic at hand, the relation to the topic should be pretty apparent.



> Yes. Because in the end, there are still genre conventions to be held to. Without some sort of external constraint on what's possible in the game, we might as well use lightsabers and starships. Or THAC0.




Excluded middle.

Because I accept that there needs be some conventions that D&D needs to have if it is going to properly be a fantasy RPG does not mean that the ones you have chosen to levy on it are particularly needful or helpful. Especially considering it seems to have done so quite successfully for on the order of 30 years.



> ... like this had anything to do with per-encounter balancing. VERY FEW other RPGs have anything like the elaborate framework D&D has built around abilities usable per day.




And? Other than some weird take on the bandwagon fallacy, I'm not seeing what conclusion you think I should draw from this.



> There is nothing that REQUIRES an RPG to have abilities that are rationed per day.




I never said it did. Just because I find something functional and effective in some games doesn't mean I necessarily find it appropriate for all games, all situations, and all playstyles.



> It is a construct that has everything to do with D&D and its historical idiosyncrasies, and nothing to do with "the context of an RPG". Next thing you know, you'll be saying that RPGs must have hit points and alignments or something.




You have a real penchant for trying to say "what I mean" or "what I'll be saying next", don't you? Again, I'll thank you refrain from trying to put words in my mouth.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> It was a direct response to a premise you offered why I should be agreeing with your position.




It was a direct response which was irrelevant to the topic at hand.



> So long as you believe that what you had to say had to do with the topic at hand, the relation to the topic should be pretty apparent.




Nope, not really. As far as I can tell, it was just a prepackaged soundbite.



> Excluded middle.




Don't make absolute statements based on iffy premises, and there will be no excluded middle.



> Because I accept that there needs be some conventions that D&D needs to have if it is going to properly be a fantasy RPG does not mean that the ones you have chosen to levy on it are particularly needful or helpful. Especially considering it seems to have done so quite successfully for on the order of 30 years.




Clearly "successful" is a contingent belief. It would appear that at least a substantial minority, if not a majority, have problems with the way D&D handles ability rationing, else we wouldn't have had a whole slew of per-encounter abilities coming out in the last few years, mostly to a positive reception. That's more than just Bo9S, but also warlocks, reserve feats, etc.

Furthermore, going on about stuff D&D has done successfully for 30 years applies just as much to all the other idiosyncrasies of D&D that 3E swept away. Things like THAC0, separate XP charts for different classes, and so on. In this regard, the grognards at Dragonsfoot did this better than you.




> And? Other than some weird take on the bandwagon fallacy, I'm not seeing what conclusion you think I should draw from this.




It indicates that objections to per-encounter balancing on the grounds that it goes against what RPGs do best are wooly-minded at best. Since plenty of RPGs do perfectly well without having abilities rationed per day, your statement

not only do I not accept that as a central or sole guiding principle in game design, but using such a guiding principle will, quite often, result in a less satisfactory end result. The game which does the best at emulating the source material is not necessarily the best game; considerations which work well in literature or film often work poorly when implemented in the context of an RPG. Likewise, considerations that would not work well in film or literature work great in RPGs.​
is vacuous, unless by "RPG" you mean "D&D". In which case, see previous comments about D&Disms and idiosyncrasies of the ruleset.




> I never said it did. Just because I find something functional and effective in some games doesn't mean I necessarily find it appropriate for all games, all situations, and all playstyles.




Does this mean you'll cease waffling about "the context of an RPG" like it was some sort of universal declaration?



> You have a real penchant for trying to say "what I mean" or "what I'll be saying next", don't you? Again, I'll thank you refrain from trying to put words in my mouth.




It's called a logical deduction. The fact that your argument can be applied to produce silly results is an indication that the argument is flawed. And that in turn is your problem, not mine. So, do you believe hit points and alignments are a key part of the roleplaying experience, or not?


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Clearly "successful" is a contingent belief. It would appear that at least a substantial minority, if not a majority, have problems with the way D&D handles ability rationing,




"It would appear"? According to what? I don't think that I should need to tell you the correlation between intarweb hype and the actual state of satisfaction of the customer base.

Even if it is so, that has very little to do with what I find functional in creating an entertaining RPGing experience. For example, "it would appear" that the "back to the dungeon" design aesthetic is very popular and all too telling in shaping the design of D&D, but I get more enjoyment out of a campaign that is not so fixated on dungeon crawls.

So strike two for the bandwagon fallacy.



> else we wouldn't have had a whole slew of per-encounter abilities coming out in the last few years, mostly to a positive reception. That's more than just Bo9S, but also warlocks, reserve feats, etc.




Okay? Since _some people_ like _some measure_ of per-encounter abilities, it should follow that we should institute it across the board and/or that all people like it or would like to see it instituted across the board? That remains to be demonstrated.



> Furthermore, going on about stuff D&D has done successfully for 30 years applies just as much to all the other idiosyncrasies of D&D that 3E swept away. Things like THAC0, separate XP charts for different classes, and so on.




And yet, other things that people regularly decry like classes, levels, and hit points, remain.

Some classical conventions of the game have authentic value in producing an enjoyable game. Some do not.



> It indicates that objections to per-encounter balancing on the grounds that it goes against what RPGs do best are wooly-minded at best.




Nope. I never even so much as claimed that per-encounter balancing is "against what RPGs do best". So far as I have seen, nobody has made a case to me why "per encounter balancing" is better "emulating the source material" at all.

I'm just saying that even if that turns out to be the case, that alone is not a sufficiently compelling argument for me to accept a mechanic or convention into a game design.



> It's called a logical deduction.




No, pretending that I hold positions that I do not hold, is called _strawmanning_. Not to mention rude.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 30, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Hell, I wouldn't _want_ a universal system.  I like having loads of little subsystems with different balancing mechanics.  But I could definitely imagine a lot of effects with very different fluff using the maneuver system.  Frankly, I think it'd work pretty damned nicely for the combat-specific half of a new magic system.




By universal system, I meant a mechanic that all classes would use, regardless of ability.

I gave of an example of it in a previous post in that a wizard might have a spell they could use a certain number of times per encounter and a fighter could have a special attack or stance they could use a certain number of times per encounter.

Whatever ability the player decides upon each round - spell, special attack, magic blast, etc - doesn't really matter.  What matters is that each class has various choices that are on various timers and are balances accordingly.  Something a fighter can do once per encounter should be on the same power level as what a wizard can do once per encounter.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 30, 2007)

> > Originally Posted by GlassJaw
> > Per session mechanics don't work.
> 
> 
> ...




Perhaps I should clarify my statement: you can't design a core ruleset that uses a per session core unit of time.  

Can you imagine 4ed (which is really what we are all talking about here) implementing this type of mechanic?  That's opening up an extremely uncontrolled environment to design to.  There are just way too many variables to consider.  

Now I'm not saying per session mechanics, whether they are variants, house rules, etc, won't work, just that it can't be a core mechanic.

I can imagine the players coming to BBEG but saying, "no, let's wait until next session so I'll get all my abilities back".  Yeah, that's great for gameplay.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Perhaps I should clarify my statement: you can't design a core ruleset that uses a per session core unit of time.
> 
> Can you imagine 4ed (which is really what we are all talking about here) implementing this type of mechanic?  That's opening up an extremely uncontrolled environment to design to.  There are just way too many variables to consider.
> 
> Now I'm not saying per session mechanics, whether they are variants, house rules, etc, won't work, just that it can't be a core mechanic.




What do you mean by a core mechanic here?

I wouldn't have claimed experience to the contrary if it weren't for the fact that I am actually playing a third party D20 game that uses per-session mechanics. That game is Spycraft 2.0.

For comparison's purposes, if you aren't familiar, Spycraft 2.0 uses per-session ratings of abilities in that:
It provides an action dice allotment that refreshes every session. FWIW, I find this much more satisfactory than the per-level allotment of action points.
Several class abilities are rated in number of uses per session. (Several abilities AREN'T as well, but if there is a per-time period sort of thing, it's usually per-session.)

I don't know the scope of problems you expect or if this is even the sort of mechanic you speak of, but I haven't found it to work out poorly in play. Quite the contrary.



> I can imagine the players coming to BBEG but saying, "no, let's wait until next session so I'll get all my abilities back".  Yeah, that's great for gameplay.




(Shrug) Not many of the people I play with, honestly. They come to play. Getting that last hour of play in before they have to return to the real world and/or putting an ending to things is probably a bigger motivator for a more typical player to me.

I do think catering to the most munchkin common denominator can make games less fun for the non-munchkins.


----------



## Piratecat (May 30, 2007)

Okay. Hong, Psion - enough. Stop addressing points at one another. When you start to address arguments to a *person *instead of to the subject at hand, it's time to either leave the thread or start being civil.  

If you wrote a reply and then saw this announcement at the top of the new page, please go edit your post.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (May 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> I was going to say, having played in your game, that Eastern-style wire-fu is definitely _not_ your style, at all. (and the Sword Sages you had show up didn't really come across as Oriental, either) Which in a way shows how much of what's in Bo9S is flavor text.
> 
> Actually, since you're a hard man to reach by e-mail these days, I figured I'd shamelessly use this to get your attention, and ask about what your GenCon plans are this year, since Chris mentioned something about invitationals and such...
> 
> (Matt)




Hey Matt! Sent you some email.  GenCon should be awesome as usual; I hope you can make it (details in email).

And yep, I guess we can't post our whole campaign here, but thanks for pointing that out. The Land of Nine Swords was exotic but not Eastern-style wire-fu.


----------



## Khuxan (May 30, 2007)

For my own group, I've started to create a Tome of Battle-esque system for warriors, adventurers and spellcasters, with reserve points and a few other third-party elements. The entire system was supposed to consist of maneuvers. Reading over this thread, however, I've begun to wonder if per-level or per-day or per-session action points could also be handed out - and those action points used to accomplish really big things. I'm thinking rituals, contacts, powerful spells, recovering all your reserve points, healing half your hit points, doing heroic things at the GM's discretion and so on.


----------



## Odhanan (May 30, 2007)

> Can you imagine 4ed (which is really what we are all talking about here) implementing this type of mechanic? That's opening up an extremely uncontrolled environment to design to. There are just way too many variables to consider.




Why would it be "uncontrolled", and what are these "many variables" to consider, GlassJaw? I just don't understand what you mean here. Some precise examples/issues would help me conciderably. Thanks!


----------



## GlassJaw (May 30, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Why would it be "uncontrolled", and what are these "many variables" to consider, GlassJaw? I just don't understand what you mean here. Some precise examples/issues would help me conciderably. Thanks!




Well I alluded to some potential problems earlier, most notably in-game elapsed time per session.

But let's say you are designing a module for a system where the core unit of time for "recharge" is per session.  By core I mean it's the main controlling unit of time that the system is based upon.

The first challenge is determining how many challenges the party can overcome before needing to recharge.  This has a great effect on EL.  The rule of thumb is that a party has a 50% change to overcome an encounter of equal CR _and _only spending 100% of their resources.  So I know in my module design, I want to space those difficult challenges out so the party is not overwhelmed.  I know that by placing such a challenge, I can space it out within the module so the party will be fully rested before encountering it.  I can do this because the rule of thumb for encounters is based on in-game time and resources expenditure.

Enter per session recharge.

As a designer, how do I know how many encounters a particular gaming group will get through in a session?  How do I know if a group plays in 2 or 4 hour blocks?  It also creates a system in which combat is weighted more heavily in terms of real time (because combat tends to take longer) than out of combat challenges (like disarming traps).  

I could drain a group's resources quickly by throwing a lot of non-combat challenges at them versus one or two combat encounters.  

It only compounds when the in-game time during a particular session isn't linear.  What if the party starts a session with a big battle (equal CR or higher) and then has to travel a week to another area and fight another big battle?  In a per day or per encounter system, the party will be at full strength for each encounter.  Will they be in a per session system?  Perhaps not unless you further complicate the system by adding expceptions to the rule (refresh per session unless in-game time elapsed is greater than a day, etc), in which case a per session mechanic does nothing to serve actual gameplay.

The only thing that would work on a per session basis is something that is closely tied to the story itself - per scene, chapter, etc.  But per session _can't _be a core mechanic.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 30, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> But isn't it still DM fiat in essence? Instead of saying when effectively the adventure segment ends, he decides when the gimmic comes into play. In practice, this allows the same type of abuses. For that matter, is it different from the DM fiat in saying when the days end and start in the game?



(yeah, I've read GlassJaw's post above, which addresses similar points)

1) The per-day mechanic _gives the players the potential_ to choose, when they regain their stuff. It gives them a sense of control, unlike "pure DM-fiat". It's like railroading - it's only bad, if the players recognize it. An in-game times gives them the illusion to know how long they will last.

2) The per-day mechanic is a deterrent. While it's DM fiat to say when a day starts or ends, it is a relatively intuitive concept to us - days. We know it. And since it is something we're very used to, it deters (especially unexperienced DMs) to screw with it - new DMs will rather screw up with a "per chapter/session", than with "per-day", because the "per-day" is more intuitive to you as human.

Granted, it is _still_ DM fiat, but veiled and dressed in an intuitive concept, even if it sounds silly.

However, the results are good: Honestly, when I've DM'd first (I'm a 3rd editioner), I understood CR, and expected encounters per day very well. My players knew, that "per day" gave them the possibility to set their time plan.

I don't know, what would've happened with "per-scene" - perhaps it would've been better, but I know that "per-day" was intuitively enough for me to grasp easily, without "metagame-thinking". And for new DMs, that's good, at least IMHO.


----------



## Henry (May 30, 2007)

I can see what GlassJaw is talking about. To use Spycraft 2 as an example, imagine a session consisting of a dramatic break-in, dodging guards, bypassing code-locks, sleep-gassing dogs, gunfights with security, etc. -- Now, ignoring the dramatic conflict rules a second, because we're talking "big show-down" here, during such a session the pressure would be high NOT to waste your once or twice a session abilities until the end or close to the end, because of all the round-by-round action going on.

Change over to a session where the investigators are taking half or two-thirds of the session role-playing, digging for clues, item-shopping, etc. before a big show-down at the session end. There's less pressure on using abilities, because you're going to lose them at the end of the session, anyway, so it's time to blow an ability ANY and EVERY time it's appropriate.

I've found playing Spycraft (haven't played it as much as Psion, mind you), that it can be a bit of a pain planning and orchestrating the dramatic tension, and making sure that people don't run out of "per session"abilities long before the end (or conversely, MAKING SURE that they're running on fumes when the end comes! ) The great things, though, are the abilities fueled by action points, because a GM can make sure that the players have as many of those as they need, because he can award them throughout the game.


----------



## DreadArchon (May 30, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> By universal system, I meant a mechanic that all classes would use, regardless of ability.
> 
> I gave of an example of it in a previous post in that a wizard might have a spell they could use a certain number of times per encounter and a fighter could have a special attack or stance they could use a certain number of times per encounter.



Yeah, that's what I think should be avoided.  I'd much rather it be varied*--Fighters and Warlocks who are weaker in a single encounter but who can go full-tilt all week,  Wizards and... I don't know, maybe Paladins, who can do the "red-lined table saw" thing but take a while to recharge, Bards and Barbarians, who take a long time to recharge but also a long time to use their abilities, and now Martial Adepts and the like who have fast recharge times but still have to actively recharge.  And, of course, a whole mess of stuff in splatbooks that smears these up into each other at the player's option.



			
				Odhanan said:
			
		

> Why would it be "uncontrolled", and what are these "many variables" to consider, GlassJaw? I just don't understand what you mean here. Some precise examples/issues would help me conciderably.



It's far easier to enforce metagame balance on in-game events than it is to force in-game events onto metagame balance.  Take your "per session" rules, for example.  With my group, one session can last anywhere from one to seven hours, and story arc length can vary wildly even accounting for actual play time (e.g. one module can take four hours, which might even be two sessions, whereas another, equally-long module can take fifteen hours... which still might end up being only two sessions, though that's a stretch).  Apparently, some groups play for a whole day at a time, or one whole weekend a month, or a certain set time limit, etc.

Balancing by totally metagame considerations, such as session length, would thus be functionally impossible.  The best you could do would be to have a scaling table dictating how often something can happen based on both session time and story arc length, with (as you mentioned) rules for fast-forwarding if need be.  Even then, each module would need an intro page detailing how one should should modify things based on sessions length.

On the other hand, "per day" or "per encounter" is an in-game concept that one can metagame fairly easily if need be.  As a DM, it's entirely reasonable (in many cases) to simply put your foot down and say "No.  You can't rest here.  The world is not waiting for you; this session/arc/adventure takes place within a single day/week/etc., unless you retreat completely and start over.  No, I don't _care_ if you know Rope Trick, you woke up 40 minutes ago and you're just not tired enough to go back to sleep."





*All comparisons from here out are meant to be compared to each other in a hypothetical 4th Edition, not to their current forms.


----------



## Odhanan (May 30, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> As a designer, how do I know how many encounters a particular gaming group will get through in a session?




Oh, right! I see what you mean now! Completely right, indeed! 

So, instead of "per session", we can still have "per encounter" and "per scene/segment" instead, right? Designers can manage these time units, after all.


----------



## Odhanan (May 30, 2007)

> I don't know, what would've happened with "per-scene" - perhaps it would've been better, but I know that "per-day" was intuitively enough for me to grasp easily, without "metagame-thinking". And for new DMs, that's good, at least IMHO.




Thanks for your points, Tirian. Food for thought! As for the quote text above, well, all I can say is that, again, I've never seen a "storyteller" (God, I loathe the name) complain about "Scenes" and "Scenes duration" in World of Darkness games. I think it's just as intuitive. It just uses a different frame of reference.


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 30, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Thanks for your points, Tirian. Food for thought! As for the quote text above, well, all I can say is that, again, I've never seen a "storyteller" (God, I loathe the name) complain about "Scenes" and "Scenes duration" in World of Darkness games. I think it's just as intuitive. It just uses a different frame of reference.



You have problems with "storyteller" but not, say, "Dungeon Master"? (Gosh, I feel embarrassed just typing that phrase!)


----------



## GlassJaw (May 30, 2007)

DreadArchon said:
			
		

> I'd much rather it be varied*--Fighters and Warlocks who are weaker in a single encounter but who can go full-tilt all week,  Wizards and... I don't know, maybe Paladins, who can do the "red-lined table saw" thing but take a while to recharge, Bards and Barbarians, who take a long time to recharge but also a long time to use their abilities, and now Martial Adepts and the like who have fast recharge times but still have to actively recharge.  And, of course, a whole mess of stuff in splatbooks that smears these up into each other at the player's option.




Well that's essentially what core 3ed is.  Fighter can swing his sword all he wants but the wizard has to save his nuke bomb for the BBEG.  Recent WotC products, most notably Bo9S, all hint at getting away from this model.  It also doesn't fit common MMO gameplay - which I equate to the "do something cool every round/get something cool at every level" gameplay philosophy.

Heck, that should be the tagline for 4ed:

*D&D 4th Edition*​Do something cool every round
Get something cool every level​


----------



## GlassJaw (May 30, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Oh, right! I see what you mean now! Completely right, indeed!




Not sure if this is sarcasm.  The smiley face makes me want to say no but I'm not sure...


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> As a designer, how do I know how many encounters a particular gaming group will get through in a session?  How do I know if a group plays in 2 or 4 hour blocks?




I think that the assumption is that a session is 4 hours, or a tolerable variation of that.

If a designer is concerned about it, a designer can offer adjustments for exceptionally long or short sessions. I'm not seeing this as a huge design challenge.



> It only compounds when the in-game time during a particular session isn't linear.  What if the party starts a session with a big battle (equal CR or higher) and then has to travel a week to another area and fight another big battle?




As I allude to earlier, I don't think that in game time is an especially compelling timeframe to base ability times around unless simulationism strongly compels such a timing. For arbitrary metagame constructs like action points/dice, there is no in-game logic for them. They exist purely as a dramatic construct. It makes more sense to me to relate their doling out to the time flow at the table -- where the dramatic highs and lows are happening -- than in-game time flow.


----------



## Nifft (May 30, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Heck, that should be the tagline for 4ed:
> 
> *D&D 4th Edition*​Do something cool every round
> Get something cool every level​




*Hell. Yes.*

 -- N

PS: "Kill something cool every session."


----------



## Odhanan (May 30, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> You have problems with "storyteller" but not, say, "Dungeon Master"? (Gosh, I feel embarrassed just typing that phrase!)



No. The Dungeon Master literally is the "master" (the one in a position of authority over) of "the dungeon" (the environment where adventures of D&D happen). As a matter of fact, I prefer DM to GM, since the former speaks of authority over the environment, and the latter authority over the whole game (not that it isn't true, but DM is more accurate, IMO).


----------



## Odhanan (May 30, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Not sure if this is sarcasm.  The smiley face makes me want to say no but I'm not sure...



No sarcasm involved.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 30, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think that the assumption is that a session is 4 hours, or a tolerable variation of that.




You could do "per hour," but I think that would be messy.


----------



## Nifft (May 30, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> You could do "per hour," but I think that would be messy.




"Per Scene" as a term is one of the few things I really miss from Storyteller.

 -- N


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> You could do "per hour," but I think that would be messy.




Not only would it be messy, but I think we begin to zero in on the point of why I dislike per-encounter across the board: I find the contribution to the tenor of the game from the feeling of being strapped for resource, contrasted with the feel of being "on top of the world" (easy challenge, plenty of resources) or "pulling out all the stops" (deploying all your resources against a tough challenge, etc.).


----------



## DreadArchon (May 31, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Well that's essentially what core 3ed is.



Yes, and that's a good thing, IMAO.  The only real problem (again, IMAO) is that it's a bit haphazard right now, as though they couldn't quite make up their minds.  Building it that way from the ground up--with the inclusion of things like Bo9S--could solve that.



> Recent WotC products, most notably Bo9S, all hint at getting away from this model.



Perhaps.  I vaguely hope that they're merely diversifying further, but perhaps I hope in vain.


----------



## Dragonblade (May 31, 2007)

I love the Bo9S. I always keep it in front of me at the game table. It never leaves my sight. Its my precious birthday present. Those filthy gamersss wants it. They wants it, don't they preciousss? But its mine! Yes, my preciousss... *strokes Bo9S lovingly*


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 31, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> No. The Dungeon Master literally is the "master" (the one in a position of authority over) of "the dungeon" (the environment where adventures of D&D happen). As a matter of fact, I prefer DM to GM, since the former speaks of authority over the environment, and the latter authority over the whole game (not that it isn't true, but DM is more accurate, IMO).



"Dungeon master" does also have some rather... err, racy connotations in other contexts, though.

I'd much prefer mentioning at, say, a cocktail party that I were the Storyteller in my friends' gaming group than that I were a friend's Dungeon Master. YMMV.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 31, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Not only would it be messy, but I think we begin to zero in on the point of why I dislike per-encounter across the board: I find the contribution to the tenor of the game from the feeling of being strapped for resource, contrasted with the feel of being "on top of the world" (easy challenge, plenty of resources) or "pulling out all the stops" (deploying all your resources against a tough challenge, etc.).



And what about per-hour recharge of some or partial abilities, like 1 spell slot per hour, 1 hit point per hour and so on? A bit messy, but less artificial than per-scene... and it would keep the some benefits of per-day, combining it with some paradigms of per-scene/per-encounter.

Basically, it's just per-day, just a bit smoother. Hmm... 


			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> "Dungeon master" does also have some rather... err, racy connotations in other contexts, though.



What connotations?
Meh, I'm happy, that the German version is pretty neutral - "Spielleiter", meaning something close to "Game Conductor" or "Game Director" (rather "conductor", but the second one is also a viable translation, though I think it's less accurate in this context).


----------



## Arkhandus (May 31, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> *Hell. Yes.*
> 
> -- N
> 
> PS: "Kill something cool every session."




Do we need fiendish ogre swordsage/ninjas flipping out in our games?

Yes, we do!


----------



## Arkhandus (May 31, 2007)

On-topic though.....

I really do prefer the standard D&D "per day" mechanics for general balancing, with "per encounter," "per session," or "per in-game hour" stuff being secondary and used just for certain kinds of mechanics.  I like a good mix of stuff, and would like to see every character do something effective all the time, but would prefer many of them having a focus on really cool stuff they can do only once in a while, being only mildly effective when they use up that limited resource (it makes for good tension and helps balance the use of really-cool stuff like Wishes, Fireballs, Teleports, etc.).

Especially since, for instance, hit points are the one great limiting factor for Player Characters, that which defines how long they can fight.  Infinite full-healing breaks D&D, especially if it's in a campaign where the other PCs also have infinite power reserves (Warlocks, Dragon Shamans, martial adept classes, etc.).  Example: A 5th-level Cleric with the reserve feat from Complete Champion that gives infinite healing capacity could proceed to multiclass into Crusader afterward, then the group essentially has infinite fighting capacity.  They are unstoppable juggernaughts that heal up quickly between battles and never stop marching forward.  A party of Cleric 5/Crusader X, Warlock X/Swordsage 1, Dragon Shaman X/Swordsage 1, and Warblade X, could be pretty scary.

Reserve feats can be troublesome, moreso than a Dragon Shaman's auras, like their infinite fast healing aura (cuz it's got a hard limit on how far it can heal someone at any given time, and it's a relatively slow rate of healing in-combat).  I don't have much of a problem with Dragon Shamans, because of their limits and because I've played one to see how they work in actual play.  Their fast healing will lessen a Cleric's load in the healing department but going into battle half-healthy is half-likely to get you killed if that happens to be the 'grand melee of the day', so to speak.

So it's not a bad ability.  But reserve feats or similar seem like they'd mess up D&D's functioning to some extent.  If your HP are fully replenished for every fight, when do your heroes ever get tired and stop blundering through the dungeon or whatnot?  When do they start to behave realistically in getting tired?  I demand a certain minimum, vague, modicum of realism in my D&D.  The Unstoppable Juggernaught (X-Men villain) is not a D&D character.


A lot of abstraction is fine, but I'm not going to believe that Tim the Wizard can trudge through a dungeon all day, cranking his crossbow endlessly to fire bolts, or calling on some infinite reserve of magical energy to blast everything into oblivion time and again.  There's gotta be some limit.  Otherwise why isn't everything else going at them full-bore?  And if there's some infinite reserve of stamina or magical energy, why doesn't every archmage handily destroy all opposition by drawing on an obscene amount of that infinite reserve all at once?  It just gets silly at that point.

Anyway, I just prefer to have mages and such limited to harnessing so much power in any given day, week, or whatever, before they need to stop straining their minds to bend reality to their will, so as not to make their heads 'splode.  And to be capable of awe-inspiring magic when they do have enough energy at their disposal.  And not just 'awe-inspiring to the sight of Joe Commoner who rarely sees magic in the first place', but 'awe-inspiring to the warriors and knaves who ply more mundane skills primarily'.


I like the Book of Nine Swords, and I like anime-type stuff (I'm one of those wierdos who actually likes FF7: Advent Children despite some of its flaws as a movie), but even in anime and video games the characters have limits.  Cloud doesn't unleash one Blade Beam limit break after another when he fights Kadaj's gang, for instance; he builds up some steam, fighting normally, then has enough energy for a special attack after a few minutes of intense combat.  And he didn't do everything in one day, either.  Each time, he fought a little while, got beaten up some (rather badly in some cases), then retreated or got pulled out of the fight by a comrade, going to rest and recoup for the next day's chasing and battles.

It'd make a good case for a Warblade, probably.  Some maneuvers available for one fight, running outta steam, losing most of their hit points, then retreating.  Next fight of the day they have all their maneuvers back, but they're still low on hit points, so they can't fight very long and have to make the battle short.  Then find a healer or something, rest up for a day before doing it all again.


But I'd still like to see the mages flinging spells with a hard limit on their number of 'cool tricks and explosions' per day, even if they may have some infinite-use minor abilities too.  I'd have no problem with, for example, a Wizard who possessed some 1st and 2nd level maneuvers, maybe even a few 3rd level maneuvers at upper class levels, so he could do something effective and cool in every fight (assuming he has a maneuver recovery mechanic that's less sucky than the swordsage's).

He just shouldn't be able to _nuke everything to holy h3LL_ in every fight, yet he *should* be able to do so every once in a while, cuz he's devoted his time and efforts to mastering the arcane arts, sacrificing physical development and personal combat skills toward that goal of unmatched eldritch power.


Per-scene, per-session, or similarly abstract time mechanics can be really odd and unbalanced (or just plain nonsensical from an in-character standpoint) for a game like D&D.  They'd be fine for some kind of action points or hero points, assuming it's a limited set (like, you can do 3 kinda-cool stunts per session, or you can do 1 crazy stunt per scene/adventure segment/episode/chapter), but not for most general mechanics, like special attacks or special powers.  At least not so well when it's on the scale of D&D's wizard spells, dragon breath, or whatnot.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> So it's not a bad ability.  But reserve feats or similar seem like they'd mess up D&D's functioning to some extent.  If your HP are fully replenished for every fight, when do your heroes ever get tired and stop blundering through the dungeon or whatnot?  When do they start to behave realistically in getting tired?




When the DM decrees that, realistically, they would get tired, of course. At the moment, there is nothing stopping a party of fighters and rogues from trudging through a dungeon all day if the opposition is weak/nonexistent. If you want people to set up camp every 24 hours, that's still perfectly doable. Just because the rules don't mandate stopping to rest doesn't mean it doesn't happen, the way that just because the rules don't mandate toilet breaks doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


----------



## Nepenthe (May 31, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> "Dungeon master" does also have some rather... err, racy connotations in other contexts, though.
> 
> I'd much prefer mentioning at, say, a cocktail party that I were the Storyteller in my friends' gaming group than that I were a friend's Dungeon Master. YMMV.




"Hi folks, this is my Dungeon Master, I'm having a 'session' with him later tonight!"   

/N


----------



## FireLance (May 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> I really do prefer the standard D&D "per day" mechanics for general balancing, with "per encounter," "per session," or "per in-game hour" stuff being secondary and used just for certain kinds of mechanics.



While I also think that there should be a mix of at will, per encounter and per day abilities (I'm not particularly keen on per game session or per game hour abilities), I'd rather have per encounter as the basis for general balancing.  This is because when balancing per day, you have two variables to consider: the number of encounters in a day, and the difficulty of each encounter. When balancing on a per encounter basis, you only have to consider encounter difficulty. 

Also, as I mentioned previously, it is relatively easy to convert from per encounter abilities to per day abilities: all you have to do is to multiply the number of uses by the average number of encounters there will be in a day. On the other hand, it is not always easy to divide uses per day by the expected number of encounters.


----------



## Arkhandus (May 31, 2007)

Not so much.  Should a 17th-level Wizard be considered balanced with having 1 Wish/Gate/Meteor Swarm/Wail of the Banshee/Power Word Kill/Summon Monster IX per encounter, and as such 4 such spells per day when multiplying that to account for a typical adventuring day?  Whereas a normal 17th-level Wizard actually only has maybe 1, 2, or at best (assuming obscene Int and school specialization) 3 such spells per day?

And really, getting in 1 PWK or similar in every encounter would probably, in and of itself, overshadow the warriors pretty badly, unless the encounters were rather long and drawn out.  And then what about the 20th-level Wizard's allotment of 9th-level awesomeness per encounter/per day?  I think Meteor Swarm kicks Strike of Perfect Clarity's _butt_, don't it?

Going with purely/primarily encounter-based balancing would either diminish the power or amount of cool for mages (who actually give up physical power and survivability) by weakening their spells, or overpower them by maintaining the same level of power but with inifnite reuseability each day.


Possible example: High-level evil wizard flies over a town, casts Time Stop, then releases several Delayed Blast Fireballs or similar.  TS ends, and he flies back out of the town, massive explosions blooming behind him after a few seconds.  Wizard flies off to rest a few minutes, recouping his arcane energies.  Then flies back and does it again, and again, and again.  Town is a smoking heap of rubble one hour later, and high-level wizard continues his rampage until someone similarly high-level finds him and stops him, despite the wizard's access to mucho Teleportation magic, especially on an encounter-based mechanic.

In normal D&D, any wizard who tries such a thing will run out of real nasty explosions after the first big town or two that he obliterates, and will run low on teleports shortly afterward when escaping pursuers.  Then he gets scry-buff-teleport-killed after he's used up most of his best mojo, assuming nobody managed to stop him earlier, since he'd have limited battle magic to bring to bear.


Also, how would you balance healing magic this way?  If it's per encounter, the healers would probably be able to fully heal the group after every battle, and the group would be unstoppable.  That doesn't really create any dramatic tension, either.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Not so much.  Should a 17th-level Wizard be considered balanced with having 1 Wish/Gate/Meteor Swarm/Wail of the Banshee/Power Word Kill/Summon Monster IX per encounter, and as such 4 such spells per day when multiplying that to account for a typical adventuring day?  Whereas a normal 17th-level Wizard actually only has maybe 1, 2, or at best (assuming obscene Int and school specialization) 3 such spells per day?




This is easily done by the strategem of blowing your load in every fight, and then resting. The onus is on the DM to force the pace, and that's not always easy to do without it feeling contrived or adversarial.



> In normal D&D, any wizard who tries such a thing will run out of real nasty explosions after the first big town or two that he obliterates, and will run low on teleports shortly afterward when escaping pursuers. Then he gets scry-buff-teleport-killed after he's used up most of his best mojo, assuming nobody managed to stop him earlier, since he'd have limited battle magic to bring to bear.




If people could scry/buff/teleport the guy after 1 fight where he's blown his wad, they could also scry/buff/teleport him after 4 fights where he's followed the guidelines for expending resources. The ability to punish people via broken magic has nothing to do with it.



> Also, how would you balance healing magic this way?  If it's per encounter, the healers would probably be able to fully heal the group after every battle, and the group would be unstoppable.  That doesn't really create any dramatic tension, either.




Why do people keep trotting out this furphy about lack of dramatic tension? If you are Nth level, an encounter of EL (N+4) will be pretty damn dramatic, full resources or no.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Why do people keep trotting out this furphy about lack of dramatic tension? If you are Nth level, an encounter of EL (N+4) will be pretty damn dramatic, full resources or no.




Indeed. In fact, I will make the observation that at EL (N) - certainly when N>5 or so - there are certain monsters that can kill PCs outright if they begin the combat with less than full hp.

What is quite interesting is the use of healing magic *within* combat - I did so extensively with my Radiant Servant of Pelor to keep our high-level barbarian going... I disliked how it required all of my actions.

Cheers!


----------



## FireLance (Jun 1, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Not so much.  Should a 17th-level Wizard be considered balanced with having 1 Wish/Gate/Meteor Swarm/Wail of the Banshee/Power Word Kill/Summon Monster IX per encounter, and as such 4 such spells per day when multiplying that to account for a typical adventuring day?  Whereas a normal 17th-level Wizard actually only has maybe 1, 2, or at best (assuming obscene Int and school specialization) 3 such spells per day?
> 
> And really, getting in 1 PWK or similar in every encounter would probably, in and of itself, overshadow the warriors pretty badly, unless the encounters were rather long and drawn out.  And then what about the 20th-level Wizard's allotment of 9th-level awesomeness per encounter/per day?  I think Meteor Swarm kicks Strike of Perfect Clarity's _butt_, don't it?
> 
> Going with purely/primarily encounter-based balancing would either diminish the power or amount of cool for mages (who actually give up physical power and survivability) by weakening their spells, or overpower them by maintaining the same level of power but with inifnite reuseability each day.



Under a per encounter balancing system, a 17th-level wizard will probably not be able to use the equivalent of what is currently a 9th-level spell once per encounter. I'm sure that there is some middling point between nerfed wizard and overpowered wizard where a wizard with a per-encounter 9th-level spell is more or less the equal of a warblade with a per-encounter 9th-level maneuver.



> Also, how would you balance healing magic this way?  If it's per encounter, the healers would probably be able to fully heal the group after every battle, and the group would be unstoppable.  That doesn't really create any dramatic tension, either.



One simple idea I've had along these lines is a VP/hp system. At the start of each encounter, each character gets VP equal to his full normal hp. When he is damaged in combat, he starts losing VP first, and when all he VP are expended, damage is taken off his hp. Most spells and effects that heal hp damage restore VP instead (this actually makes more sense, at least to me, for the Devoted Spirit healing maneuvers). Spells and effects that actually restore hp damage are rare, and probably should have a per day limit.

If you want to increase dramatic tension, you could couple this with some kind of condition track - perhaps characters are fatigued at less than half hp, and exhausted at less than one-quarter hp, or the amount of VP the characters get at the start of each fight is equal to their current hp, so that fights in which you take hp damage weaken you in subsequent fights.


----------



## humble minion (Jun 1, 2007)

My single massive problem with per-encounter abilities (magic especially) is that it breaks horribly when non-combat abilities come into the picture.  D&D's spell list is already enormously combat-focused, almost to the point of implausibility imho.  Going to per-encounter magic would break this even further.  How many times per day can a 3/encounter spell be used outside of an encounter environment?  Any numerical answer to that question makes 'per-encounter' meaningless, but simply saying 'infinite' has massive implications for the implied setting.  Take Wall of Stone as an example.  It's damn useful outside of combat - a moderately industrious wizard could rebuild and reinforce an entire keep in an afternoon if he put his mind to it.  A city might take a few months - and that's assuming there's only one guy doing it.  Who'd be a builder under those circumstances?  And what about Create Food and Water?  Why would anyone bother to farm?  Remove disease?  There'd never be a plague again.  And even thinking about how this would interact in a political setting with enchantments like Charm Person gives me a headache.

Have to admit, I like the per-encounter paradigm as a way of keeping things moving in an adventuring situation, and not compelling the PCs to run away and heal/recover spells every half an hour.  It makes DMing a lot easier - I have a Dragon Shaman in my current group and the unlimited healing ability has been an absolute godsend.  It's great not having to deal with how the various dungeon denizens react to the PC intrusion and beef up their security/traps/etc for next time.  Per-scene abilities worked in World of Darkness because there's only a rather small number of critters than can use them (in relation to the total population of the world), and they have other external limitations on their use such as the need to keep hidden from humanity, and a 'mana' cost in blood points or whatever.  But in D&D, where everyone knows magic exists and an awful lot of people can use it, I'm worried that going per-encounter would either require utility, non-combat magic to be weakened even further beyond its current wretched state, or would mean that Eberron-esque magitech would be pretty much standard in every setting, as an inevitable result of a lot of wizards with a lot of time on their hands and unlimited magic at their disposal.  Not that I dislike Eberron-esque magitech, but it really doesn't fit in Krynn.  Or Athas.  Or Ravenloft...


----------



## FireLance (Jun 1, 2007)

humble minion said:
			
		

> My single massive problem with per-encounter abilities (magic especially) is that it breaks horribly when non-combat abilities come into the picture.  D&D's spell list is already enormously combat-focused, almost to the point of implausibility imho.  Going to per-encounter magic would break this even further.  How many times per day can a 3/encounter spell be used outside of an encounter environment?  Any numerical answer to that question makes 'per-encounter' meaningless, but simply saying 'infinite' has massive implications for the implied setting.  Take Wall of Stone as an example.  It's damn useful outside of combat - a moderately industrious wizard could rebuild and reinforce an entire keep in an afternoon if he put his mind to it.  A city might take a few months - and that's assuming there's only one guy doing it.  Who'd be a builder under those circumstances?  And what about Create Food and Water?  Why would anyone bother to farm?  Remove disease?  There'd never be a plague again.  And even thinking about how this would interact in a political setting with enchantments like Charm Person gives me a headache.



Of course, per encounter balancing means that there will be some changes needed to the spells. One simple fix that will solve quite a few of these problems is for any spell with a duration to continue to occupy its slot until its duration runs out, and to have few spells that create permanent effects instantaneously. Add in a restriction that a spellcaster can only maintain one of any spell of any kind, and that means that a wizard can only have one _wall of stone_ around at any one time - good for sealing a breach in a wall in an emergency, but no real threat to the construction industry. If you want to retain the flavor of permanent magic-constructed _walls of stone_, you can tweak the spell in other ways: perhaps the caster must spend XP to make the _wall of stone_ permanent, or the ritual to make it permanent requires a 24-hour ceremony to complete.

As for _create food and water_, perhaps the spell merely delays the onset of hunger and thirst (the spell will need renaming, though). A cleric who is keeping his companions alive despite the lack of food and water will need to continuously devote one of his spell slots to that (and in a per encounter system, it is likely that he will not have many spell slots). Incidentally, this is also a good way to control the number of active buffs - a spellcaster needs to maintain each buff in one of his spell slots, so that sets a natural limit on them. 

A similar restriction for _charm person_ means that each spellcaster can have only one person charmed at a time.

_Remove disease_ is trickier. I doubt it would create much gameplay problems if allowed on a per encounter basis. The real issue is how it would affect society as a whole. As noted, it would significantly reduce the impact of a plague scenario. If the DM is okay with that (i.e. he does not intend to run any plague-themed adventures), the effects can be ignored. Otherwise, it could be reduced in power, e.g. it simply grants the target an extra saving throw against disease, and each target can only be affected by the spell once per day. Alternatively, perhaps the spellcaster can only remove the disease by absorbing it himself - a sacrifice that most clerics may be unwilling to make unless they had access to higher level spells that could cure the disease completely (such as _heal_).


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Under a per encounter balancing system, a 17th-level wizard will probably not be able to use the equivalent of what is currently a 9th-level spell once per encounter. I'm sure that there is some middling point between nerfed wizard and overpowered wizard where a wizard with a per-encounter 9th-level spell is more or less the equal of a warblade with a per-encounter 9th-level maneuver.




Hell, you could still have plot-device magic like gate, resurrection and whatnot: just make it take longer than a standard action to cast. Changing teleport to an hour and true res to 12 hours casting time, for instance, pretty much takes them out of the realm of per-encounter _and_ per-day balancing.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

humble minion said:
			
		

> My single massive problem with per-encounter abilities (magic especially) is that it breaks horribly when non-combat abilities come into the picture.  D&D's spell list is already enormously combat-focused, almost to the point of implausibility imho.  Going to per-encounter magic would break this even further.




Didn't we already have this argument when the warlock came out?


----------



## FireLance (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Hell, you could still have plot-device magic like gate, resurrection and whatnot: just make it take longer than a standard action to cast. Changing teleport to an hour and true res to 12 hours casting time, for instance, pretty much takes them out of the realm of per-encounter _and_ per-day balancing.



Or restrict *when* the spells can be cast. I recall someone mentioned a house rule that all teleports resolved at midnight, so that was when all guards were on full alert and all important people made sure their basic defences were active. Similarly, it might only be possible to cast _resurrection_ at dawn, or _animate dead_ at twilight.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 1, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Or restrict *when* the spells can be cast. I recall someone mentioned a house rule that all teleports resolved at midnight, so that was when all guards were on full alert and all important people made sure their basic defences were active. Similarly, it might only be possible to cast _resurrection_ at dawn, or _animate dead_ at twilight.




That's brilliant.

Reminds me of the restrictions on Exalted's demon-summoning spells. Least demons could be bound at midnight, middle demons could be bound on the midnight of the new moon, and greater demons could be bound only on midnight of the new year. (Thus the new year's eve party -- so mages could keep an eye on each other.  )

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 1, 2007)

> I recall someone mentioned a house rule that all teleports resolved at midnight



That's silly.  And absurdly arbitrary.  Do a lot of really wierd, arbitrary, corner-case limitations have to be put in place to achieve some small semblance of balance with a per-encounter system?

What about Dimension Door then, or other such spells?  Dim Door is primarily a 'get outta monster's reach' spell, yet if you could do it at will, you'd have no trouble crossing the globe in a rather short time with it.  If it gets changed to have a more limited distance, it will still be pretty effective.  If it gets changed to a longer casting time or something, it loses its primary purpose.

Having only one copy of a spell active at any given time would really suck for some spells, too.  'Sorry, my wizard can't give the whole party Water Breathing so we can actually have an adventure in that shipwreck at the bottom of the lake, I can only maintain one at a time, and I'm not nearly high enough to cast a Mass Water Breathing, and it'd be pretty dangerous for just one of us to go down there alone.'  Or 'Sorry, we can't all Fly across the gaping maw of the abyss, so I'll have to leave all you mundanes behind.'  Or 'Well, I can't Mind Blank the entire party, so we better be on our toes 24/7, cuz that lich we couldn't stop last time is gonna Scry us and teleport in some kind of death squad at some point in the future, and probably come himself to Dominate one of you, since I can only keep myself protected against Scrying and Enchantments.'  Etc.


I really, really just don't think going full-bore "per encounter" for balancing in D&D is a good idea.  You'd have to totally rework the entire dang system and then everyone would have to wrap their brains around all the complicated new mechanics, whether they like them or not.  And da%$it, I want wizards nuking stuff with Meteor Swarms!  Not some nerfed, mangled mini-meteor cluster 'because it would be unfair to the warblade if wizards could do as much or more damage, and to a much larger area at once'.  Per-day balancing works well for some stuff, dangit, and at least it makes some sense, unlike some of the other balancing methods.

Everything in moderation, y'know?


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> That's silly.  And absurdly arbitrary.




What, like using bat guano to create balls of fire isn't arbitrary?



> What about Dimension Door then, or other such spells?  Dim Door is primarily a 'get outta monster's reach' spell, yet if you could do it at will, you'd have no trouble crossing the globe in a rather short time with it.




Somehow, I suspect most players have better things to do with their characters than go on dim-dooring tours of the countryside.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 1, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> That's silly.  And absurdly arbitrary.  Do a lot of really wierd, arbitrary, corner-case limitations have to be put in place to achieve some small semblance of balance with a per-encounter system?




I don't know... It's not that much of a stretch to say that, once per day and once per day only, the natural forces of the universe align in such a way that it is possible to use magic to teleport from one place to another. It could make for an interesting campaign background.

Althought to be honest, I don't think it's the sort of thing I'd want to see for a "default" setting.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Hell, you could still have plot-device magic like gate, resurrection and whatnot: just make it take longer than a standard action to cast. Changing teleport to an hour and true res to 12 hours casting time, for instance, pretty much takes them out of the realm of per-encounter _and_ per-day balancing.





			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Or restrict *when* the spells can be cast. I recall someone mentioned a house rule that all teleports resolved at midnight, so that was when all guards were on full alert and all important people made sure their basic defences were active. Similarly, it might only be possible to cast resurrection at dawn, or animate dead at twilight.




IMNSHO, both of the above are damn fine ideas even outside the whole question of "per encounter" and "per day" balancing of spells. Adds some nice flavor and also minimizes/removes a number of the mechanical issues some people have with higher level magic, such as the scry-teleport-and-fry approach.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 1, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> I don't know... It's not that much of a stretch to say that, once per day and once per day only, the natural forces of the universe align in such a way that it is possible to use magic to teleport from one place to another. It could make for an interesting campaign background.
> 
> Althought to be honest, I don't think it's the sort of thing I'd want to see for a "default" setting.




Except it's stupid and doesn't fit any of the common examples of teleportation or other such things in movies, games, or books.  It'd be incredibly lame to be restricted to teleportation once per day, especially as a mighty archmage.  And it'd be terribly setting-specific in its nature; it doesn't make sense that it would be that way universally, in every world, just because.  Especially since in D&D, the Astral Plane is always there, always timeless.  The Astral Plane don't care what time it is on Random Unimportant Measly Material Plane #12537817369137460417361013.

It's a silly, unnecessary, and unnecessarily limiting rule.  It may fit into some wierd, quasi-low-magic campaign setting, but that would not be standard D&D.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> What, like using bat guano to create balls of fire isn't arbitrary?




It's completely inconsequential and just a _minor detail_.  It doesn't affect the big picture or a typical adventuring wizard's activities one bit.  Not real hard to find a cave with bat guano out in the wilderness, anyway, they live in big screeching hordes that rise from the cave like a black or brown cloud of fuzzy, winged rodents at sunset, don't they?  It's not going to mess with the game to remove that material component or to insist that the wizard pick up some fresh bat guano (ick) from the wizardly reagents shop every week.  Or just, y'know, get a bat familiar for an infinite supply.   



> Somehow, I suspect most players have better things to do with their characters than go on dim-dooring tours of the countryside.




But when you can't Teleport yet, it's still a good means to getting in and out of situations or getting through a dangerous area relatively safely.  And if they can Dimension Door at will, why don't they use it most of the time rather than Teleport or ships or horses for travel?  It'd certainly be easier and cheaper, right?  And if Teleport takes 12 hours to cast, you can probably cover much more ground in the same amount of time by casting Dimension Door every 10 seconds or so.  Or whatever.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Except it's stupid and doesn't fit any of the common examples of teleportation or other such things in movies, games, or books.




... I can't think of any common examples of teleportation in movies, games or books. Well, unless you mean those derived from D&D, and even those usually impose big limits on what you can do with teleport (no bamfing direct to the BBEG's bathroom, for instance).



> It'd be incredibly lame to be restricted to teleportation once per day, especially as a mighty archmage.




Why do people keep coming up with this "it's magic therefore I can do anything" argument? Even a mighty archmage can only cast 1-4 9th level spells per day.



> And it'd be terribly setting-specific in its nature; it doesn't make sense that it would be that way universally, in every world, just because.




But it _would_ make sense for every world to require fireballs to use bat guano? Or for every world to require 25000 gp of diamonds to cast true res? Or for every world to have such a thing as Quicken Spell?



> It's a silly, unnecessary, and unnecessarily limiting rule.  It may fit into some wierd, quasi-low-magic campaign setting, but that would not be standard D&D.




First you want magic that's limited per day. Now you want no limits on magic. Sheesh.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> It's completely inconsequential and just a _minor detail_.  It doesn't affect the big picture or a typical adventuring wizard's activities one bit.




Arbitrariness has nothing to do with practicality.



> Not real hard to find a cave with bat guano out in the wilderness, anyway, they live in big screeching hordes that rise from the cave like a black or brown cloud of fuzzy, winged rodents at sunset, don't they?  It's not going to mess with the game to remove that material component or to insist that the wizard pick up some fresh bat guano (ick) from the wizardly reagents shop every week.  Or just, y'know, get a bat familiar for an infinite supply.




So using 25000 gp of diamonds to cast true res isn't arbitrary?



> But when you can't Teleport yet, it's still a good means to getting in and out of situations or getting through a dangerous area relatively safely.  And if they can Dimension Door at will, why don't they use it most of the time rather than Teleport or ships or horses for travel?  It'd certainly be easier and cheaper, right?  And if Teleport takes 12 hours to cast, you can probably cover much more ground in the same amount of time by casting Dimension Door every 10 seconds or so.  Or whatever.




So life's tough. Deal with it with all your per-encounter spells.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 1, 2007)

*Magic is already arbitrary.*

Why can I only prepare spells 1/day as a Cleric? My god has fixed "office hours"?

Why can't a Sorcerer unlearn / relearn spells between adventures? Why can a Sorcerer unlearn / relearn spells between levels?

The game gives arbitrary powers, and the powers have arbitrary restrictions. So let's pick restrictions that suit our game. And in some cases, all else being equal, that means restrictions which *feel more magical*.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 1, 2007)

Also: I think it's being forgotten that the wierd time restrictions and such being suggested for spells like Teleport are, essentially, the same as advocating a uses-per-day mechanic, just with a much wonkier and more arbitrary measurement/limitation.

So in essence, those arguing for that aren't really arguing for the 'per-encounter' balance paradigm, not exactly.  They're generally arguing for a mix of balancing elements, as I am, but arguing over it with me and others anyway for no particular reason.   

At least per-day stuff can be justified somewhat in game (or per-eight-hours, or whatever).  A magic-user may not have the energy to do this or that all day, and the movements of the heavens just might matter in some settings, to where it actually could have some effect on someone's use of particular abilities.  At least potentially.  But I really dislike wierd, random limitations on this stuff, it's just an added burden when a simpler mechanic will do just fine.

Summoning rituals and suchlike make sense from the point of view of _some_ material that D&D draws from, but they're not exactly indicative of all the other kinds of magic-use the game mimics from other sources.  Most stuff shouldn't be limited by really unusual matters unless you're going for more of an occult feel for your game, which would be a matter of sheer personal preference rather than objectivity in game design.



Anyway, I'm done.  I'm not gonna waste more time trying to argue for moderation or open-mindedness.  I mean _obviously_, variety is *badwrong*, duh!!  :\


----------



## FireLance (Jun 1, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> That's silly.  And absurdly arbitrary.  Do a lot of really wierd, arbitrary, corner-case limitations have to be put in place to achieve some small semblance of balance with a per-encounter system?



To be fair, the person who came up with that house rule probably had problems with _teleport_ even on a per day basis, so it's not a problem that would arise simply because of a per encounter mechanic.



> What about Dimension Door then, or other such spells?  Dim Door is primarily a 'get outta monster's reach' spell, yet if you could do it at will, you'd have no trouble crossing the globe in a rather short time with it.  If it gets changed to have a more limited distance, it will still be pretty effective.  If it gets changed to a longer casting time or something, it loses its primary purpose.



Note that per encounter does not necessarily mean at will. A recharge time of, say, a minute means that a 10th-level wizard, who could move about 800 ft. per casting of this spell, travels at a little less than 10 miles per hour. That's hardly globe-crossing speed.



> Having only one copy of a spell active at any given time would really suck for some spells, too.  'Sorry, my wizard can't give the whole party Water Breathing so we can actually have an adventure in that shipwreck at the bottom of the lake, I can only maintain one at a time, and I'm not nearly high enough to cast a Mass Water Breathing, and it'd be pretty dangerous for just one of us to go down there alone.'  Or 'Sorry, we can't all Fly across the gaping maw of the abyss, so I'll have to leave all you mundanes behind.'  Or 'Well, I can't Mind Blank the entire party, so we better be on our toes 24/7, cuz that lich we couldn't stop last time is gonna Scry us and teleport in some kind of death squad at some point in the future, and probably come himself to Dominate one of you, since I can only keep myself protected against Scrying and Enchantments.'  Etc.



I'll address the main point raised instead of just pointing out that _water breathing_ can be cast on multiple targets, but the duration is reduced proportionately.  Some DMs might actually like the fact that not every PC can have the same defences and abilities, or that multiple copies of a single spell could remove the challenge posed by an obstacle for the entire party. I think someone mentioned a point upthread about dramatic tension...  



> I really, really just don't think going full-bore "per encounter" for balancing in D&D is a good idea.  You'd have to totally rework the entire dang system and then everyone would have to wrap their brains around all the complicated new mechanics, whether they like them or not.  And da%$it, I want wizards nuking stuff with Meteor Swarms!  Not some nerfed, mangled mini-meteor cluster 'because it would be unfair to the warblade if wizards could do as much or more damage, and to a much larger area at once'.  Per-day balancing works well for some stuff, dangit, and at least it makes some sense, unlike some of the other balancing methods.
> 
> Everything in moderation, y'know?



Exactly. I was under the impression that the discussion was whether the game should be primarily balanced on a per encounter basis or a per day basis, and not whether it should be exclusively balanced on a per encounter basis or a per day basis. I personally am in favor of primarily per encounter balance because it's easier to convert from per encounter balance to per day balance if you want to do so.

After all this discussion, however, I'm starting to see what could be another advantage to per encounter balancing. Characters should have less resources to juggle (three spells instead of twelve, for example) and this could make the game easier for novice players. Once they have become more experienced they can convert to a per day balancing model if they find that the additional complexity adds to their game.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 1, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Anyway, I'm done.  I'm not gonna waste more time trying to argue for moderation or open-mindedness.  I mean _obviously_, variety is *badwrong*, duh!!  :\



No, variety is generally good, so mechanics that are are inherently able to handle variety better are generally superior. That is why per encounter mechanics are generally better than per day mechanics, because it is relatively simple to convert from per encounter to per day.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 1, 2007)

Sure, let's throw all reason out the window and fight each other unarmed in the arena of logic, to semi-quote 8-Bit Theater.  :\ 

Real nice taking things to the extreme and mixing up everything I say to make it seem like I'm an idiot, guys.  Real mature of ya.  Thanks for reminding me again that the Universe hates me just because.

I just had to post this because by the time my previous response posted, there were already a few people building straw men and non sequitors with my posts.

/me abandons the hopeless cause of moderation


----------



## Nifft (Jun 1, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Sure, let's throw all reason out the window and fight each other unarmed in the arena of logic, to semi-quote 8-Bit Theater.  :\
> 
> Real nice taking things to the extreme and mixing up everything I say to make it seem like I'm an idiot, guys.  Real mature of ya.  Thanks for reminding me again that the Universe hates me just because.
> 
> ...




Uh... can we get back to non-personal? Just because people refuse to accept your self-characterization -- like your claim to be the voice of moderation -- it's still not an attack on you. Well, no more than implicitly claiming others are *immoderate* is an attack on them. And it wasn't, right? 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## DreadArchon (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Somehow, I suspect most players have better things to do with their characters than go on dim-dooring tours of the countryside.



Clearly you've never played a game with someone who had a Blink Dog cohort.

("Okay, so if we cast Expeditious Retreat on him, and he does a full run action every turn, and he does a max-range D-Door every turn, how long will it take him to cross what should be a three-day carriage ride?  Will he get there before tiring or running out of Expeditious Retreat?"  Yeah, good thing math is my best subject.  This crap comes up virtually every session.  Had a battle once where the dog was doing tactical aerial combat by controlling his fall speed via Blink activation and deactivation, D-Dooring back into the fight every round.  It got really hairy when he had to start "treading air" while the party discussed how to get him down without all of his built-up momentum bringing him crashing into the ground... I declared that he could simply teleport _into_ the ground and take damage from the shunting but suffer no ill effects due to momentum, which stretches the rules a bit but let us go on with the game.)


----------



## Sejs (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> ... I can't think of any common examples of teleportation in movies, games or books. Well, unless you mean those derived from D&D, and even those usually impose big limits on what you can do with teleport (no bamfing direct to the BBEG's bathroom, for instance).




I can think of only a few examples, and for the most part they share restrictions such as...

- Can only teleport to somewhere the caster has been before.  Unless the BBEG let you in to use the restroom at one point, no 'porting in and ganking him while he's in the tub.  Not even line of sight is sufficient, you have to have personally experienced the space in question.

- Can only teleport to one specifically pre-designated point at a time.  You mark or bind the area, then you can go back there.  Makes teleporting much more a defensive action, rarely offensive outside of the occasional elaborate ambush.

- Can only teleport to a significant location.  Ley line nexus, teleport point, mystic gateway, etc.  Sometimes teleportation is even restricted further in that you can only leave _from_ one of these locations, as well.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 1, 2007)

You know, I just have to jump in here to point out that restrictions on the time of day that certain spells can be cast, especially teleport, sounds like a very interesting campaign idea.

With the right window dressing, this could make for a very cool campaign. Perhaps a campaign that has a sort of dimension lock put on it, that weakens at certain points in the solar or lunar cycle. Could be fun. Not a default sort of game, mind you, but still fun. But then I tend to not be one for the vanilla in my gaming anymore...

--Steve


----------



## Someone (Jun 1, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> And it'd be terribly setting-specific in its nature; it doesn't make sense that it would be that way universally, in every world, just because.  Especially since in D&D, the Astral Plane is always there, always timeless.  The Astral Plane don't care what time it is on Random Unimportant Measly Material Plane #12537817369137460417361013.




Not only is the Astral plane terribly setting specific: the whole Vancian magic is terribly setting specific. It appears only in one author's books; D&D would be closer to the vast majority of other fantasy settings by a recharging mana / per encounter magic system.


----------



## Sejs (Jun 1, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> You know, I just have to jump in here to point out that restrictions on the time of day that certain spells can be cast, especially teleport, sounds like a very interesting campaign idea.
> 
> With the right window dressing, this could make for a very cool campaign. Perhaps a campaign that has a sort of dimension lock put on it, that weakens at certain points in the solar or lunar cycle. Could be fun. Not a default sort of game, mind you, but still fun. But then I tend to not be one for the vanilla in my gaming anymore...




Link it to stellar conjunctions and heavenly bodies.

Classic magical flavor right there.


----------



## Thaedrus (Jun 1, 2007)

You know, I personally hate Vancian Magic because it is not represented in much fantasy literature, but I love Bo9S, which is vaguely Vancian, but on a per encounter basis! Weird, but the arbitrary "one time Ancient Mountain Hammer" seems more plausible to me and has more literature/movie/comic precedent than the spellcaster's equivalent. Well, here's to arbitrary preferences!


----------



## Baby Samurai (Jun 1, 2007)

My only problem with _ToB_ was too little fluff.  I wanted more background on Reshnar (sp?) and the legend/history behind blade magic.  I also want more background on the hobgoblins that founded blade magic and the evil rakshasas.


----------



## Khuxan (Jun 1, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> I can think of only a few examples, and for the most part they share restrictions such as...
> 
> - Can only teleport to somewhere the caster has been before.  Unless the BBEG let you in to use the restroom at one point, no 'porting in and ganking him while he's in the tub.  Not even line of sight is sufficient, you have to have personally experienced the space in question.
> 
> ...




And "Nauseated for a few rounds after teleporting" seen in Stephen Brust's books, which are the only times I've read about teleport being used regularly.


----------



## Razz (Jun 1, 2007)

Don't worry, *Arkhandus*, I've read your posts and I totally understand and agree with what you're saying. But some folks just either don't seem to get, don't want to get it, or would really like to see D&D implode on itself with stupid changes like "per encounter", "per in-game hour", "per pee-break", "per everytime-someone-fiddles-with-their-dice-because- it- means-they're-bored-so-recharge-their- character-to-full-and-they'll-get-in-the-mood-again".

The whole "cast spells at certain times of the day" is too much book-keeping. Isn't D&D trying to limit bookeeping here?! That might fly with a specific campaign setting, but D&D has to stick with a system that's not only common to most people, but easier bookeeping, easier to understand (there's a lot of dummies out there getting into D&D now, thanks to WotC's rise with the game), and easier to base future rulesets on.

Heck, even RPG video games do it. You lose your MP, go back to town and rest for the night and replenish. There're ways to avoid resting, but it's arduous and time-consuming and no one in their right mind would do it. D&D MMORPGs require the same thing. DDO: Stormreach? Go back to a TAVERN and relax to replenish yourself. (well, it's been changed to when you're in town, but you get the point).


----------



## Baby Samurai (Jun 1, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> But some folks just either don't seem to get, don't want to get it, or would really like to see D&D implode on itself with stupid changes like "per encounter",




_D&D_ has been imploding on itself since the existence of the silly higher-level spells that are supposedly balanced because of "per day" restrictions – crap.

Tone down the overpowered, antiquated, Gygaxian holdover that is the _D&D_ magic system and redesign it from the ground up, "per encounter" based.

Almost every aspect of this game has evolved and moved on, except for the clunky, pseudo Vancian magic system.

I guarantee 4th edition will clean up the mess, and go for encounter based.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 1, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> That's silly.  And absurdly arbitrary.




I would say it's neither.

However, it's not practical for a generic setting/ruleset.  For a campaign-specific magic system, I think it sounds pretty cool.


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> _D&D_ has been imploding on itself since the existence of the silly higher-level spells that are supposedly balanced because of "per day" restrictions – crap.




My game seems to be weathering years of "imploding" just fine now.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Jun 1, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> My game seems to be weathering years of "imploding" just fine now.




Mine too, but there is always room for improvement/evolution etc.


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Mine too, but there is always room for improvement/evolution etc.




Sure, but you can see how I might have taken the assessment that the game is "imploding" as just a bit hyperbolic?


----------



## Baby Samurai (Jun 1, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Sure, but you can see how I might have taken the assessment that the game is "imploding" as just a bit hyperbolic?




If you go back you'll see that I was just responding to the person who originally used the phrase "imploding".

I too think imploding is exaggerating; sorry, gamer message boards have made me loathe the words "hyperbole/hyperbolic", but I do think the _D&D_ magic system could do with a bit of a facelift.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jun 1, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> I too think imploding is exaggerating; sorry, gamer message boards have made me loathe the words "hyperbole/hyperbolic", but I do think the _D&D_ magic system could do with a bit of a facelift.



Yeah, I think it's gotta mean something when the House Rules forum gets even more "Check out my new magic system!" posts than "Check out my new cat-people race!" posts, when half the D&D campaign settings released by third-party developers have a new magic system, when D&D's main customer crossover opportunity--MMORPGs--are _universally_ designed for far less downtime, when I _still_ ain't comfortable with Vancian magic after all these goddamned years . . . yeah, you get the picture.

I definitely like that we've got a mix of different subsystem with different balancing paradigms, these days.  It's just that there are a whole lot of compelling reasons not to keep the old "per day" paradigm as the standard.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 1, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> ...when I _still_ ain't comfortable with Vancian magic after all these goddamned years . . . yeah, you get the picture.



It's really strange. Magic systems are the ultimate house ruling-thing. I wonder if there is somewhere such a "Holy Grail of Game Design", a magic system, that works, is easy, usable on the fly, and reflects the average magic in many novels...  Guess not.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 1, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Yeah, I think it's gotta mean something when the House Rules forum gets even more "Check out my new magic system!" posts than "Check out my new cat-people race!" posts




Let's be honest here: the Cat People wave crested in 2003. 

 -- N

PS: Magic is really what makes a fantasy game *fantasy*. It's also one of the few game elements for which there is no real-world analogue.


----------



## Henry (Jun 1, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> PS: Magic is really what makes a fantasy game *fantasy*. It's also one of the few game elements for which there is no real-world analogue.




And that's the thing: There IS no standard way to depict magic in fantasy; every fantasy handles magic and its character differently. It's how we got Vance in the first place; he was one of the few that actually detailed how magic worked enough for Gary to riff off of.


----------



## jolt (Jun 1, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> PS: Magic is really what makes a fantasy game *fantasy*. It's also one of the few game elements for which there is no real-world analogue.




And this is why, IMO, there will be complaints no matter what "model" you use for your magic system.  And even if all the changes presented here happen, magic will still be the most house-ruled aspect fo the game.  In the end, many of the people who aren't currently happy will be and many who are currently happy, won't be.  All this changes is who's happy and who isn't; the overall result is still pretty much the same.

jolt


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 1, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> It's really strange. Magic systems are the ultimate house ruling-thing. I wonder if there is somewhere such a "Holy Grail of Game Design", a magic system, that works, is easy, usable on the fly, and reflects the average magic in many novels...  Guess not.




I've struggled with this as well, and my answer is no.  There are just too may campaign and setting-specific variables.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jun 1, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> It's really strange. Magic systems are the ultimate house ruling-thing. I wonder if there is somewhere such a "Holy Grail of Game Design", a magic system, that works, is easy, usable on the fly, and reflects the average magic in many novels...  Guess not.



I wouldn't really say novels are the best thing to emulate, here.  I won't bother to repeat the narrative-entertainment-vs.-interactive-entertainment comparison, because I think most of us already know that one.  But even aside from that, magic in fantasy novels--okay, the ones _I've_ read, anyway, and I have to admit that's not an impressive list--usually seems a little bit more scarce than what I'd want in an RPG.  Depends on the book, though, of course.  Oddly, I kinda think the only novels with magic systems worth emulating in an RPG would be the ones that might have been strongly RPG-influenced, themselves.  I'd rather play a game with magic based on the Black Company books than on Tolkien's work, for example.  (And, indeed, Green Ronin's Black Company campaign setting has a really nice magic system.)



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> Let's be honest here: the Cat People wave crested in 2003.



Lucky me: I only registered in 2005, and I've _still_ seen too many of them.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I've struggled with this as well, and my answer is no.  There are just too may campaign and setting-specific variables.



This is extremely, inevitably true.  Personally, I like magic to be about the pseudoscientifically-believable manipulation of exotic, possibly extradimensional energies through training and will.  Other folks like it to be about the classical four elements, or pacts with spirtual entities, or the true names of things, or cauldrons full of newt eyes.

The only kind of magic system that could support everybody's wildly-different flavor preferences would be one that's extremely generic, flexible, and modular, more of a meta-system than anything else.  And I'd dig that.  But I know damn well it would scare off more people than it would bring in.


----------



## Andor (Jun 2, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> The only kind of magic system that could support everybody's wildly-different flavor preferences would be one that's extremely generic, flexible, and modular, more of a meta-system than anything else.  And I'd dig that.  But I know damn well it would scare off more people than it would bring in.




Yup. It's called the HERO system, and it does indeed scare many people off.


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Yup. It's called the HERO system, and it does indeed scare many people off.




Heh... at a time when I had become dissatisfied with the AD&D 2e game, I converted my game to Fantasy Hero. With a few tweaks and customized magic systems, I had it purring like a kitten and preserved the feel of my setting all in the same stroke.

But the thing I noticed that was some players (namely, the business majors and non-college students) never played mages anymore, because they were to intimidated by the nature of the power system, which you sort of had to court if you wanted to use magic under HERO.

I think that's when I began to realize that the Vancian-style system wasn't so bad. In many ways, it was very clever and very well suited for gaming. Most people never realize it, though, because it has always been there for most gamers.


----------



## Brazeku (Jun 2, 2007)

That thing about certain spells only going off at certain times of day?

That is freakin'  AWESOME.  The implications on a campaign world are extensive.  If you set it up that way in D&D, though, you'd probably have to drop the level of the limited spells, and then introduce higher level versions that ignore the restriction.  Say, you could have a 3rd level teleport spell that functions once per day at midnight or sundown or whatever, and then maybe an 8th level one that works whenever.

Think of the impact of teleporting deep into enemy territory, and then not having an easy escape for a day- having to hold off enemies until you can cast your spell again.  And they'd be aware of it, too, so it would just become more and more tense.

Quality gaming.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 2, 2007)

Brazeku said:
			
		

> That thing about certain spells only going off at certain times of day?
> 
> That is freakin'  AWESOME.  The implications on a campaign world are extensive.




Word. 

Seems to me that such limited effects would become Incantations (or Invocations or whatever you call magic that just takes a skill check, not a spell slot).

Plane Shift can only happen at Dawn.

Teleport can only happen at Noon. And you show up at Noon in your new location.

Shadow Walk? Dusk. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## FireLance (Jun 2, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think that's when I began to realize that the Vancian-style system wasn't so bad. In many ways, it was very clever and very well suited for gaming. Most people never realize it, though, because it has always been there for most gamers.



I'll be the first to admit that the Vancian-type system is very well suited for gaming. Its advantages are:

1. Every spell is a discrete, reasonably well defined (of course, there are exceptions ) effect, so it is usually quite clear what the spell does, and there is no element of putting the spell together from a variety of base effects on the fly. This speeds up spell resolution.

2. Less in-game tracking. Unlike spell point or fatigue systems, a player only needs to keep track of what spells he has left.

The major difference between a per day system and a per encounter system is how often your spells refresh, not the base characteristics of the Vancian system itself - whether a wizard spends an hour at the start of each day to prepare his full complement of 24 spells, or whether he spends fifteen minutes after each encounter to refresh his six spell slots.

In fact, from the perspective of point 2 (less in-game tracking) a per-encounter system requires less book-keeping on the part of the player.

Of course, there are some effects that may get out of hand under a per encounter system, but these can be managed by placing additional restrictions, e.g. longer casting times, time of day requirements, location requirements, xp/gp/action point costs, changing the effects of the spells, maybe even an explicit number of times per day restriction. 

It seems to me that it would be better for the problem spells to balance themselves than to remain with a per day balance just to accomodate them. And, as mentioned, if you want to retain a per day balance, you can just multiply per encounter resources by the average number of encounters per day.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 2, 2007)

I like how dimension door at will is being used as an example of something game breaking.

I guess the Horizon Walker is way more powerful than I thought.


----------



## DreadArchon (Jun 2, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I like how dimension door at will is being used as an example of something game breaking.



I suspect that there's a reason there have been no Dimension Door references for a while.  (Blink Dog is even a suggested cohort option, after all).



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> But the thing I noticed that was some players (namely, the business majors and non-college students) never played mages anymore, because they were to intimidated by the nature of the power system, which you sort of had to court if you wanted to use magic under HERO.



What, only for mages?  It took me over half an hour to make a simple spear, and I was using the computer-aided system.  How disarmable is it?  How obvious/concealable is it?  How identifiable is it?  How big is it?  How much damage does it do?  How does it interact with armor?  How well can I throw it?  How durable is it?  Etc., etc., etc.  And then I still had to determine how good I was with it...


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2007)

DreadArchon said:
			
		

> What, only for mages?  It took me over half an hour to make a simple spear, and I was using the computer-aided system.  How disarmable is it?  How obvious/concealable is it?  How identifiable is it?  How big is it?  How much damage does it do?  How does it interact with armor?  How well can I throw it?  How durable is it?  Etc., etc., etc.  And then I still had to determine how good I was with it...




Well, they weren't designing weapons, they were taking them from the book, which is pretty much the same as most modestly-detailed oriented games. They even had the martial arts system down, which really isn't any more complex than the array of combat feats in 3e.

Nope, the power system was where the biggest chunk of my players seemed to be unwilling or unable to deal with the system.


----------



## DreadArchon (Jun 2, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> Nope, the power system was where the biggest chunk of my players seemed to be unwilling or unable to deal with the system.



But aren't martial arts a function of the power system?  I thought the basic premise was that the only difference between a circle kick and a fireball is the specific modifiers you buy for that power.  (That there are a couple dozen such modifiers is what gives the system its diversity.)


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2007)

DreadArchon said:
			
		

> But aren't martial arts a function of the power system?  I thought the basic premise was that the only difference between a circle kick and a fireball is the specific modifiers you buy for that power.  (That there are a couple dozen such modifiers is what gives the system its diversity.)




No. You can buy martial arts like multipowers, but there is a simpler system in place where a given fighting style is represented by a series of 3-5 point "maneuvers" with different modifiers. You might give them different names for different martial arts, but for the most part, they are pulled from a table of standard maneuvers. The Ultimate Martial Artist gives you a way to design your own maneuvers, but that still stands apart from the power system.

(Maneuvers are technically skills and can actually be pulled into the power system if the GM so desires. But as with most skills, you don't see it much and it's ripe for abuse if you allow it.)


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 4, 2007)

Brazeku said:
			
		

> That thing about certain spells only going off at certain times of day?
> 
> That is freakin'  AWESOME.  The implications on a campaign world are extensive.  If you set it up that way in D&D, though, you'd probably have to drop the level of the limited spells, and then introduce higher level versions that ignore the restriction.  Say, you could have a 3rd level teleport spell that functions once per day at midnight or sundown or whatever, and then maybe an 8th level one that works whenever.
> 
> ...




Agreed.  I really like the campaign-specific implications of such a magic system, particularly in the culutural and gameplay ramifications.  You can carry the idea quite a ways.  Midnight becomes the 'Hour of Cowards" or sunrise becomes the time when wizards "Step into the Sun".  Monarchs never rise early, as they stay up late with their guardsmen to defend against the potential of a midnight attack by their enemies during wartime.  

The idea could even be extended further, with certain colleges functioning better at certain times.  And a potential massive shakeup might occur during a lunar or solar eclipse, with the laws of magic changing (or perhpas changing between two events).

There's lots to love in that concept, frankly.


----------

