| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone used material from Tome of Battle in their Pathfinder games yet?
I'm thinking the book could provide quite a bit of fun material to a game. Thanks to the feats Martial Study and Martial stance, any class can have access to this material.
I used it with the Beta rules without any major problems. You do have to revamp a few things, like maneuvers that are linked to Concentration. For those, I switched it over to Perception, as the flavor text spoke more to perceiving minute changes/openings. Of course, you could also just house-rule back in the skill, or even use the new concentration mechanics. The classes themselves, and the maneuvers, have worked fine so long as everyone keeps in mind the rules for immediate/swift/standard actions. And with the power-up for PFRPG core classes, the three martial adepts are pretty much on-par with them in my view.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also recommend using the changes that Rich Baker suggested after publishing the book. Namely no recharge in battle, and crusaders have readied maneuvers the same as the other two.
General: No recharge mechanic. You use up all of your readied maneuvers in an encounter, that's it, you wait until next encounter. This one was suggested by Rich Baker himself, stating that the recharge mechanic in retrospect seems like a clunky add on, and it undermines resource management.
Crusaders: Your readied maneuvers are no different than anyone else's. No "two maneuvers randomly chosen" to start. Again, this one was suggested by Rich Baker, who said that this was the "automatic recharge" mechanic for the crusader, and it turned out to make the class more complicated than it needs to be.
Warblade: Hit dice move back down to d10. These guys are suppose to be technique fighters, and while they are front line warriors, there is no need for them to be the damage sponges that barbarians and knights are, because its not really their purpose.
Cut out Weapon Aptitude as an ability. Not only does this not make much sense, but it intentionally steals the fighters only real exclusive ability, and then makes it better. If Warblades are suppose to replace fighters in your campaign, fine, but if they both exist, let the fighter have his moment in the sun and cut this out of the Warblade.
Just be careful what you allow, it is one of the most broken books ever published. That said it does have some very neat ideas in it. One consequence of adding it is that the fighter will never get played - good, bad, I don't know you decide.
Compared to the old 3.5 Fighter, I'd agree. Compared to the PFRPG Fighter, I'm not sure this will be the case. With the greater number of feats plus weapon and armor class abilities, the Fighter is a solid, easy to play choice that can attack/defend all day. Comparatively, the martial adepts have to set up to use their actions/choose readied maneuvers/etc.
If I allowed material it would be with access via just the two feats mentioned.
This would solve any of the above mentioned issues with in combat recharge or what-have-you as you don't get that with the feats.
By picking up maneuvers and stances with the feats, I think that you'd also limit in game because you pick at a lessoned progression because of the 1/2 initiator level of any other class.
My game is currently sticking with "core-only" classes. With the conversion from 3.5 to PFRPG I think most of my players will want to stick with base classes anyway to check out all the new changes.
|
Compared to the old 3.5 Fighter, I'd agree. Compared to the PFRPG Fighter, I'm not sure this will be the case. With the greater number of feats plus weapon and armor class abilities, the Fighter is a solid, easy to play choice that can attack/defend all day. Comparatively, the martial adepts have to set up to use their actions/choose readied maneuvers/etc.
I am pretty confident that it is more powerful than a PF fighter. If you have players who do not see the potential for abuse there, then by all means use it. But... if you have players you may be concerned with then stay away far away. It really is not that hard to make a broken character out of that book. Hundreds of damage a round at mid levels, is too powerful imho. (You can even top a thousand with the right builds at mid upper)
Just be careful what you allow, it is one of the most broken books ever published. That said it does have some very neat ideas in it. One consequence of adding it is that the fighter will never get played - good, bad, I don't know you decide.Compared to the old 3.5 Fighter, I'd agree. Compared to the PFRPG Fighter, I'm not sure this will be the case. With the greater number of feats plus weapon and armor class abilities, the Fighter is a solid, easy to play choice that can attack/defend all day. Comparatively, the martial adepts have to set up to use their actions/choose readied maneuvers/etc.
I agree with you erian_7. I really like how solid the PFRPG fighter is.
I am pretty confident that it is more powerful than a PF fighter. If you have players who do not see the potential for abuse there, then by all means use it. But... if you have players you may be concerned with then stay away far away. It really is not that hard to make a broken character out of that book. Hundreds of damage a round at mid levels, is too powerful imho. (You can even top a thousand with the right builds at mid upper)
Compared to the old 3.5 Fighter, I'd agree. Compared to the PFRPG Fighter, I'm not sure this will be the case. With the greater number of feats plus weapon and armor class abilities, the Fighter is a solid, easy to play choice that can attack/defend all day. Comparatively, the martial adepts have to set up to use their actions/choose readied maneuvers/etc.
If the player seeks to abuse the rules yes. Most of those builds though require allot of set-up that can be mitigated by a strong DM saying "No".
I once toyed with the idea of pulling "magic" from my games and using the material from Tome of Battle instead. Never got around to it though.
Over all... its never been that much of a issue with my players as I can "out-build" all my players anyway.
|
I am pretty confident that it is more powerful than a PF fighter. If you have players who do not see the potential for abuse there, then by all means use it. But... if you have players you may be concerned with then stay away far away. It really is not that hard to make a broken character out of that book. Hundreds of damage a round at mid levels, is too powerful imho. (You can even top a thousand with the right builds at mid upper)
Compared to the old 3.5 Fighter, I'd agree. Compared to the PFRPG Fighter, I'm not sure this will be the case. With the greater number of feats plus weapon and armor class abilities, the Fighter is a solid, easy to play choice that can attack/defend all day. Comparatively, the martial adepts have to set up to use their actions/choose readied maneuvers/etc.
I have ToB:Bo9S, I hadn't seen the ability to do over 1000 dmg in 1 round at mid-level...how can they do that?
|
|
I also recommend using the changes that Rich Baker suggested after publishing the book. Namely no recharge in battle, and crusaders have readied maneuvers the same as the other two.
General: No recharge mechanic. You use up all of your readied maneuvers in an encounter, that's it, you wait until next encounter. This one was suggested by Rich Baker himself, stating that the recharge mechanic in retrospect seems like a clunky add on, and it undermines resource management.
Crusaders: Your readied maneuvers are no different than anyone else's. No "two maneuvers randomly chosen" to start. Again, this one was suggested by Rich Baker, who said that this was the "automatic recharge" mechanic for the crusader, and it turned out to make the class more complicated than it needs to be.
Warblade: Hit dice move back down to d10. These guys are suppose to be technique fighters, and while they are front line warriors, there is no need for them to be the damage sponges that barbarians and knights are, because its not really their purpose.
Cut out Weapon Aptitude as an ability. Not only does this not make much sense, but it intentionally steals the fighters only real exclusive ability, and then makes it better. If Warblades are suppose to replace fighters in your campaign, fine, but if they both exist, let the fighter have his moment in the sun and cut this out of the Warblade.
You know what, with those fixes I actually like the warblade a lot better and could see allowing the book in my games, I'll just place a sticker with those changes on the cover :)
If the player seeks to abuse the rules yes. Most of those builds though require allot of set-up that can be mitigated by a strong DM saying "No".
I once toyed with the idea of pulling "magic" from my games and using the material from Tome of Battle instead. Never got around to it though.
Over all... its never been that much of a issue with my players as I can "out-build" all my players anyway.
This has been my experience with the system as well. Now, I am fortunate in that our group is pretty much focused on having fun rather than combat-tweaking. But I've not found any way using the base system to make the ToB so unusable. The minute someone comes to me with some "if I mix classes X, Y, and Z, with magic items 1, 2, and 3)...well, I just tell them to go away frankly. I've never had anyone show me a "broken" ToB build that didn't involve such shenanigans.
I also recommend using the changes that Rich Baker suggested after publishing the book. Namely no recharge in battle, and crusaders have readied maneuvers the same as the other two.
General: No recharge mechanic. You use up all of your readied maneuvers in an encounter, that's it, you wait until next encounter. This one was suggested by Rich Baker himself, stating that the recharge mechanic in retrospect seems like a clunky add on, and it undermines resource management.
Crusaders: Your readied maneuvers are no different than anyone else's. No "two maneuvers randomly chosen" to start. Again, this one was suggested by Rich Baker, who said that this was the "automatic recharge" mechanic for the crusader, and it turned out to make the class more complicated than it needs to be.
Warblade: Hit dice move back down to d10. These guys are suppose to be technique fighters, and while they are front line warriors, there is no need for them to be the damage sponges that barbarians and knights are, because its not really their purpose.
Cut out Weapon Aptitude as an ability. Not only does this not make much sense, but it intentionally steals the fighters only real exclusive ability, and then makes it better. If Warblades are suppose to replace fighters in your campaign, fine, but if they both exist, let the fighter have his moment in the sun and cut this out of the Warblade.
You know what, with those fixes I actually like the warblade a lot better and could see allowing the book in my games, I'll just place a sticker with those changes on the cover :)
I do like these Warblade tweaks--I gave Fighters Weapon Aptitude prior to PFRPG and will probably continue to do so. As for the recharge mechanic, I'm actually playing with a system whereby the maneuvers cost HP (similar to a point system for magic). So, a character can use the maneuvers all they want, but they actually cost the character in turn. Of course, this lays on top of my system where HP represent fatigue and all real damage is Con damage/drain, so that diverges a good bit from the topic of this thread...
This has been my experience with the system as well. Now, I am fortunate in that our group is pretty much focused on having fun rather than combat-tweaking. But I've not found any way using the base system to make the ToB so unusable. The minute someone comes to me with some "if I mix classes X, Y, and Z, with magic items 1, 2, and 3)...well, I just tell them to go away frankly. I've never had anyone show me a "broken" ToB build that didn't involve such shenanigans.If the player seeks to abuse the rules yes. Most of those builds though require allot of set-up that can be mitigated by a strong DM saying "No".
I once toyed with the idea of pulling "magic" from my games and using the material from Tome of Battle instead. Never got around to it though.
Over all... its never been that much of a issue with my players as I can "out-build" all my players anyway.
True... most of the "broken" builds do require such shenanigans.
I also like my games rather organic. The tendency for such builds to happen in a game where the characters are leveling up from 1st level tends to be low as the players tend to shape their characters to be more fun for them in the game as run.
Hmm, my reaction to the changes:
Keep the recharge mechanics. The Warblade needs the ability to recharge, with his limited maneuver selection, and the Swordsage's recharge mechanic has a high opportunity cost, so it's hardly overpowered. And if you keep recharge mechanics, than the randomness of Crusader's granted maneuvers should be kept as well.
I could get behind bringing the Warblade down to d10--if their d12 was given to the Crusader, in turn, whose fluff supports them being the hardiest around.
Weapon Aptitude: Keep it! It's not like Weapon Specialization is worth taking without it anyway, and since the Warblade is considered a lower-level fighter for such purposes anyway, they're not very likely to take it, anyway. By all means, give the retraining part to fighters as well. They're not taking away anything that made the Fighter special--the problem with the 3.5 Fighter is that he didn't have anything that made him special!
Really, all that needs to be done in terms of converting the Tome of Battle is altering the skill selection of the classes, and deciding on a key skill for each of the disciplines. The big hurdle is that the Concentration skill no longer exists, and that the skill consolidation means that straight replacement would give you four or five disciplines with a key skill of Acrobatics. Of course, 'Key Skill' is only mechanically relevant to Desert Wind, Tiger Claw, and Diamond Mind maneuvers, in the first place...
I liked ToB, and with new improved super shiny figther (I <3 the fighter again =) ), I've been thinking about ToB again.
I was thinking of converting the mechanics over this way...
Remove the recharge mechanic in its entirity. It is/was a little clunky and counter intuitive, to me at least.
Instead of readying a certain amount of manuevers every day, a character has access to all manuevers they know all the time. When using a manuever, they take non-lethal damage equal to twice the level of the manuver used.
Theres some other things I had thought about as well, but they need a little bit more fleshing out (like rewriting some of the class features for Warblade, and maybe swordsage and crusader, boosting up some of the manuever requirements, and maybe increasing manuevers known by a hair).
I dunno, what do you all think?
When using a manuever, they take non-lethal damage equal to twice the level of the manuver used. I dunno, what do you all think?
I think as a DM I'm going to make an undead swordsage who can use all his maneuvers at will, without limitation, recharge, or damage.
When using a manuever, they take non-lethal damage equal to twice the level of the manuver used. I dunno, what do you all think?I think as a DM I'm going to make an undead swordsage who can use all his maneuvers at will, without limitation, recharge, or damage.
I think (as a DM) I generally do whatever is going to provide a fun challenge for my players.
That being said...I suppose I should add into that a phrase along the lines of: Initiators who are immune to non-lethal damage instead take lethal damage equal to the level of the manuever used.
Like I said...Its what I've been toying qwith...still a very rough set of rules/ideas at the moment...good to have peopel to help catch those things.
I liked ToB, and with new improved super shiny figther (I <3 the fighter again =) ), I've been thinking about ToB again.
I was thinking of converting the mechanics over this way...
Remove the recharge mechanic in its entirity. It is/was a little clunky and counter intuitive, to me at least.
Instead of readying a certain amount of manuevers every day, a character has access to all manuevers they know all the time. When using a manuever, they take non-lethal damage equal to twice the level of the manuver used.
Theres some other things I had thought about as well, but they need a little bit more fleshing out (like rewriting some of the class features for Warblade, and maybe swordsage and crusader, boosting up some of the manuever requirements, and maybe increasing manuevers known by a hair).
I dunno, what do you all think?
This is similar to the system I'm thinking on that turns HP into a measurement of fatigue. As Kirth points out, you do have to deal with the situation of constructs/undead/etc. that might have some mechanical way of breaking the system. For my approach, I simply ruled that HP truly functions differently for such creatures--representing physical damage from the 1st HP lost to the last. As they are creatures that are immune to Con damage, it makes sense that they continue to function despite such damage. For these creature types, I am indeed considering allowing them unlimited use of the abilities in encounters with the party. Now, the minute a player wants to go with an undead concept, I'll have to come up with a better ruling, but for now this works for me from an NPC perspective. Another approach I've considered was a sort of "arcane spell failure" variant for such creatures such that they have a percentage chance of failing activities that normally produce nonlethal damage (or fatigue HP in my system). This would emulate such creatures' bodies not reacting as quickly as others. However, it ultimately seems too clunky to use on a regular basis.
I think as a DM I'm going to make an undead swordsage who can use all his maneuvers at will, without limitation, recharge, or damage.
Nasty! It'll be like running into a Sith master. Consider this yoinked...;)
Has anyone used material from Tome of Battle in their Pathfinder games yet?
I'm thinking the book could provide quite a bit of fun material to a game. Thanks to the feats Martial Study and Martial stance, any class can have access to this material.
I just wrote concentration in the skills section, if the build needed it. It works pretty well so far. I have yet to optimize a meleer* in PF so I don't know if they can do more damage than a meleer now.
* Paladin, Barbarian, Fighter
I am pretty confident that it is more powerful than a PF fighter. If you have players who do not see the potential for abuse there, then by all means use it. But... if you have players you may be concerned with then stay away far away. It really is not that hard to make a broken character out of that book. Hundreds of damage a round at mid levels, is too powerful imho. (You can even top a thousand with the right builds at mid upper)
Compared to the old 3.5 Fighter, I'd agree. Compared to the PFRPG Fighter, I'm not sure this will be the case. With the greater number of feats plus weapon and armor class abilities, the Fighter is a solid, easy to play choice that can attack/defend all day. Comparatively, the martial adepts have to set up to use their actions/choose readied maneuvers/etc.
Any class can be broken and the ToB classes can not out damage a fighter or barbarian if either one of them focuses on damage.
This was shown on the WoTC boards a while back.
I have ToB:Bo9S, I hadn't seen the ability to do over 1000 dmg in 1 round at mid-level...how can they do that?I am pretty confident that it is more powerful than a PF fighter. If you have players who do not see the potential for abuse there, then by all means use it. But... if you have players you may be concerned with then stay away far away. It really is not that hard to make a broken character out of that book. Hundreds of damage a round at mid levels, is too powerful imho. (You can even top a thousand with the right builds at mid upper)
Compared to the old 3.5 Fighter, I'd agree. Compared to the PFRPG Fighter, I'm not sure this will be the case. With the greater number of feats plus weapon and armor class abilities, the Fighter is a solid, easy to play choice that can attack/defend all day. Comparatively, the martial adepts have to set up to use their actions/choose readied maneuvers/etc.
There is a trick to get infinite attacks, but if the DM allows that.....
The scariest meleer(damage wise)I know however is the pouncing barbarian.
There is a trick to get infinite attacks, but if the DM allows that.....
And in that case, it's not really the Bo9S that's broken, but a magical item that was already known as being broken long before Bo9S (night sticks, to replenish turn undead uses).
The scariest meleer(damage wise)I know however is the pouncing barbarian.
Correct. A pouncing charger will do more damage more consistently at longer ranges than any Bo9S character. I find that the people who cry about Bo9S being broken are the ones who don't bother actually reading the book. Almost every damaging maneuver in the book is a standard action. That means they replace a full attack (there are a very few exceptions). Full attacks are almost always going to be more damage than a single maneuver.
|
When using a manuever, they take non-lethal damage equal to twice the level of the manuver used. I dunno, what do you all think?I think as a DM I'm going to make an undead swordsage who can use all his maneuvers at will, without limitation, recharge, or damage.
Dude, you pull that stuff, and you had BETTER know all that kung fu you go on about!
;)
|
I once toyed with the idea of pulling "magic" from my games and using the material from Tome of Battle instead. Never got around to it though.
I played in such a campaign. Asian fantasy, loosely based off Shogun by Clavell. Reached 3rd level. Only our PCs, our sensei, and maybe a few powerful NPCs, knew the secrets of the Tome of Battle. There were no other forms of magic: no arcane, divine, nada, zilch. And ToB wasn't that powerful. Remember, you only had a few actions at a time; multiple opponents could take you out quickly. Same with ranged. And do you use one of your "healing" strikes to quickly replenish your hit points, or save it?
Dude, you pull that stuff, and you had BETTER know all that kung fu you go on about!
If none of the players pull any broken crap out of the air, then I'm spared the effort of having to one-up them all the time. Less trouble for everyone.
P.S. Did you see that Telling Blow feat? A rogue must-have!
As early as 6th level a fighter could take Martial Study to pick up a 2nd level Shadow Hand manuever (Shadow Jaunt or Cloak of Deception come to mind)
As early as 10th level a fighter could then take Martial Stance to pick up Assassin's stance to gain a +2d6 sneak attack.
This gives you a "stealthy" fighter without having to take a level dip in rogue.
A fighter could take Martial Study at 2nd level to pick up Steel Wind and gain a once per combat attack against two opponents at full BAB.
At 10th you then could pick up Absolute Steel Stance via Martial Stance feat to give a boost to movement and ac.
Dude, you pull that stuff, and you had BETTER know all that kung fu you go on about!If none of the players pull any broken crap out of the air, then I'm spared the effort of having to one-up them all the time. Less trouble for everyone.
P.S. Did you see that Telling Blow feat? A rogue must-have!
Off-topic: Why not just tell them how you feel instead of breaking the rules, or just say no you cant do that. Of course they will ask why. Just tell them that anything they do to the NPC's is a valid tactic against them if they claim the tactic is rules legal, which it may be. If they refuse to listen at least you tried. :)
One last post then off to bed...
In the case of including Diamond Mind Maneuvers, I do have one advantage by only allowing the inclusion of Tome of Battle Material through feats.
The act of taking Martial Study also gives a skill as a class skill. Simply need to add "Concentration" or "Focus" or some-such as a class skill and then little change is needed to be made to the maneuvers.
Off-topic: Why not just tell them how you feel instead of breaking the rules, or just say no you cant do that. Of course they will ask why. Just tell them that anything they do to the NPC's is a valid tactic against them if they claim the tactic is rules legal, which it may be. If they refuse to listen at least you tried. :)
You misunderstand -- Derek and I constantly give each other a hard time. We've both been playing long enough, and in similar enough styles, that he and I both know the situations we're threatening consequences for won't actually ever come to pass.
As far as things being "rules legal," I had rewritten almost all of Pathfinder within a week of the final rules becoming available.
You are scary
No; just very particular in what games I play :)
|
|
Dude, you pull that stuff, and you had BETTER know all that kung fu you go on about!If none of the players pull any broken crap out of the air, then I'm spared the effort of having to one-up them all the time. Less trouble for everyone.
P.S. Did you see that Telling Blow feat? A rogue must-have!
Man, I have so many feats that I "must have" now, I'm sure I'll be Rogue 3/Fighter 2 soon...
|
|
Off-topic: Why not just tell them how you feel instead of breaking the rules, or just say no you cant do that. Of course they will ask why. Just tell them that anything they do to the NPC's is a valid tactic against them if they claim the tactic is rules legal, which it may be. If they refuse to listen at least you tried. :)You misunderstand -- Derek and I constantly give each other a hard time. We've both been playing long enough, and in similar enough styles, that he and I both know the situations we're threatening consequences for won't actually ever come to pass.
Yeah, 99% of the time, if you see an exchange between Kirth and I like this, it's either an inside joke or good-natured ribbing. Plus, to be honest, I don't like To9S as it is so far from the low fantasy style I enjoy it isn't even funny.
But, to each their own.
Off-topic: Why not just tell them how you feel instead of breaking the rules, or just say no you cant do that. Of course they will ask why. Just tell them that anything they do to the NPC's is a valid tactic against them if they claim the tactic is rules legal, which it may be. If they refuse to listen at least you tried. :)You misunderstand -- Derek and I constantly give each other a hard time. We've both been playing long enough, and in similar enough styles, that he and I both know the situations we're threatening consequences for won't actually ever come to pass.Yeah, 99% of the time, if you see an exchange between Kirth and I like this, it's either an inside joke or good-natured ribbing. Plus, to be honest, I don't like To9S as it is so far from the low fantasy style I enjoy it isn't even funny.
But, to each their own.
ok
|
|
We've been using ToB with beta and full with no problems, and it plugs a few holes my group has found in 3.5/PF as written. We tend to favor Dex fighters over Str fighters in my group, and we're also using the Armor as DR rules from UA, so Dex fighters need some way to do damage other than every finesse fighter in the setting just spamming improved feint-sneak attack over and over again. The ToB fills the void with the Shadow Blade feat, and all of the one-action-for-crazy-damage maneuvers (the fencer NPC is one of the deadliest fighters in the setting because of Insightful Strike).
We just houseruled Concentration back in, and everything else basically works as written (though we cut the Warblade back down to d10 HD and are seriously considering taking out Uncanny Dodge altogether, or at least delaying it so WBs get it at the same level Rogues do).
At the middle levels, the ToB PCs feel pretty balanced with the spellcasting ones. Granted, there's less combat and more exploration and intrigue in my Eberron game, so anybody who burns all his/her feat slots, maneuvers, and magic item money on a crazy damage combo will actually be spending 80% of the game on the sidelines. My group's justification is that the mid and high levels are supposed to be "cinematic" anyway, working off the assumption that Gandalf was a 5th level Magic-User, so it's okay to approach Exalted levels of power in the low to mid teens.
One interesting thing about ToB maneuvers is, since most are standard actions, they're much more effective than a full attack against high-AC characters who would only get hit by one out of two or three iterative attacks anyway. It becomes less important now that Vital Strike and friends are around, but for our game, that actually helps to bring the other warrior classes back into some degree of parity with the ToB trio.
On the subject of balance, we did have a duel between a Crusader PC and a PFRPG Fighter NPC recently. The Crusader won, but not by enough to feel safe. Weapon training gave enough of a to-hit buff that even the Crusader's maxed out ac (magic armor and shield) and healing strikes were hard-pressed to keep up with an angry dwarf lady with weapon training, focus, and specialization, and a +1 dwarven waraxe...and she wasn't even using vital strike.
Having played with Bo9S extensively, and having recently been looking at builds for a new game that I'm going to be starting up, I can confidently say that Bo9S is balanced against everything in 3.5 EXCEPT the dedicated warriors (and with paladin/barbarian lvl subs and unique feats in the completes, well, they are pretty much at parity), and that they balance with Pathfinder exceptionally well all around.
The basic warrior classes deal their damage through raw, scaling numeric advantages and feats (some of which are VERY similar to maneuvers; see Lunge, Vital Strike, and the Stances). These are permanent, low maintenance/effort abilities that are highly spammable. The ToB character on the other hand has tricks, lots of tricks, but these require recharge (reducing efficiency, even for the Crusader if only via the randomness factor), set up, and good resource management skills on the part of the player. For the most part, ToB just gives you situational advantage, whereas the Pathfinder Core classes give you dependable high damage output across the board.
So, as to the "Fixes" in relation to Pathfinder, I don't agree. Perhaps for 3.5, but not for Pathfinder, as the core classes are so much better now.
1) No recharge would cripple the maneuver users, especially those other than Swordsage.
2)Weapon Aptitude fits the versatility and trickiness of the Warblade.
3)The only "Fix" that would actually be beneficial imo is switching the D12 over to the Crusader, as it didn't make much sense in my eyes to begin with.
|
book of 9 swords doesn't need changes.
just key diamond mind off of perception.
the only really "Magical" disciplines were desert wind and shadow hand, both being swordsage exclusive. and the swordsage is described as being a blade "Wizard".
devoted spirit is the awesome power that is intense belief.
and belief is a truly powerful concept.
belief is power.
How about these?
Dessert wind = acrobatics
Devoted Sprite = Intimidate
Diamond Mind = Perception
Iron Heart = Sleight of hand
Setting sun = Sense Motive
Stone Dragon = Escape Artist
Shadow hand = Stealth
Tiger claw = fly
White Raven = Diplomacy
How about these?
Dessert wind = acrobatics
Devoted Sprite = Intimidate
Diamond Mind = Perception
Iron Heart = Sleight of hand
Setting sun = Sense Motive
Stone Dragon = Escape Artist
Shadow hand = Stealth
Tiger claw = fly
White Raven = Diplomacy
Iron Heart and Sleight of Hand don't really fit together at all. Escape Artist is more or less the opposite of Stone Dragon.
With the smaller skill list, I'd honestly say don't be afraid of doubling skills
How about these?
Dessert wind = acrobatics
Devoted Sprite = Intimidate
Diamond Mind = Perception
Iron Heart = Sleight of hand
Setting sun = Sense Motive
Stone Dragon = Escape Artist
Shadow hand = Stealth
Tiger claw = fly
White Raven = DiplomacyIron Heart and Sleight of Hand don't really fit together at all. Escape Artist is more or less the opposite of Stone Dragon.
With the smaller skill list, I'd honestly say don't be afraid of doubling skills
I understand about stone dragon with escape artist, however I do think iron heart with sleight of hand is appropriate. Using balance seems a bit awkward to me, seeing as the school focuses on causing opponents to over reach, or a quick yet subtle motion for other maneuvers in the Iron heart school.
The biggest problem is simply a matter of how each skill is perceived to be used. Stone Dragon can use escape artist to narrowly avoid a strike, but I see the school more as the warrior who can take a hit. Also, though I'm aware that it has not been challenged yet, I will defend Tiger claw using fly as it's key skill. Any one who is used to striking from above, can get used to doing the same while in flight. Using fly seems more appropriate anyway, seeing as any one using such a maneuver is exerting at least some measure of control over their movement while in the air.
Fly is a bad choice because it has special rules about taking ranks in it. No fly speed = impossible to take ranks in Fly.
I don't see any need to have each school have its own unique skill, especially since they didn't even in the original source. Just group 'em together with the appropriate consolidated skill.