Using Book of Nine Swords with Pathfinder


Conversions

51 to 88 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I think it's funk counteracts its recovery speed.

I like it, but the Warblade's swift action and still get a Standard Action to do 1 attack is more useful, as you don't have to wait for all your maneuvers to pop up first.


From a similar thread on the old wotc boards:

Kevin Video wrote:

So I know that there's no official errata. At least no completed one, but someone told me that Richard Baker, the person behind ToB, had said that after having the book published, there were a few things he would have liked to have seen changed.

I personally have not seen a quote from him, like I had Mike Mearls and the Hexblade, so verification, and/or a link to what he had listed would be most appreciated.

This is what I found:

Rich Baker suggested after publishing the book what to do in 3.5. Namely no recharge in battle, and crusaders have readied maneuvers the same as the other two. There were other suggestions as well though.

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.


Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
memorax wrote:

First off I know how some on this board dislike the book. So to avoid any confusion this thread is about:

Using stuff from BO9S with Pathfinder. How would you incorporate it and how would you convert it.

NOT a thread where you tell me how you hate the book, or how broken it is or how you would not allow it at your table or anything negative about hsort of something that I may need to be careful about ion terms of game mechanics. I really do no want this thread to turn into a fight betwwen the pro and con factions who dilike and like the book. Ignore the above and you will be reported to the mods.

So enlighten me on how to use the book.

Convert Hit Dice. d6, d8, d10.

No increase to abilities...their maneuvers etc, make them equal to Pathfinder characters.

Remove any save or die abilities.

Pardon the slight necro on this post but I am curious why you say remove any save or die effects? Without going through every power i'm pretty sure there are only a few save or die effects, which are mostly in the Shadow Hand. Tiger Claw might have one or two at higher level. Swordsages are the only ones of the core 3 that can select Shadow Hand. ( for intellectual honesty, yes you can get a few maneuvers or stances from feats and magical items. )

Dark Archive

scthomas wrote:
Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
memorax wrote:

First off I know how some on this board dislike the book. So to avoid any confusion this thread is about:

Using stuff from BO9S with Pathfinder. How would you incorporate it and how would you convert it.

NOT a thread where you tell me how you hate the book, or how broken it is or how you would not allow it at your table or anything negative about hsort of something that I may need to be careful about ion terms of game mechanics. I really do no want this thread to turn into a fight betwwen the pro and con factions who dilike and like the book. Ignore the above and you will be reported to the mods.

So enlighten me on how to use the book.

Convert Hit Dice. d6, d8, d10.

No increase to abilities...their maneuvers etc, make them equal to Pathfinder characters.

Remove any save or die abilities.

Pardon the slight necro on this post but I am curious why you say remove any save or die effects? Without going through every power i'm pretty sure there are only a few save or die effects, which are mostly in the Shadow Hand. Tiger Claw might have one or two at higher level. Swordsages are the only ones of the core 3 that can select Shadow Hand. ( for intellectual honesty, yes you can get a few maneuvers or stances from feats and magical items. )

To answer your question, I would suggest that you download and read the 3.5 to PFRPG Conversion Guide. It's free, so you have no excuse not to.

On page 14, under converting Spells from 3.5 to PFRPG, it explains the reasoning why finger of death and slay living now do lots of damage on a failed save and not auto-death. This is one of the main philosophies behind PFRPG: reduce all save-or-die stuff, reduce stuff that takes things out of a fight without a saving throw, reduce things that provide blanket immunity, etc. Since manuevers are pretty much spells in a different wrapping, this would apply to manuevers if you want a balanced game and you want to use BO9S.

I would also apply every suggestion that Kadeity posted as well, bring the HD to d8/d10/d10 (swordsage/crusader/warblade), and re-think the damage ability of some of the lower-leveled manuevers. Some of the feats also are counter-intuitive to PFRPG. Use good judgment and then the people in your group who really want BO9S may be happy and working with the rest of the party instead of slicing through everything that is thrown at them like a hot knife through soft butter.

I'm not saying the book is badwrongfun or horrible or overpowered, however if you want to use it in Pathfinder you have to balance it with the way that all other things have been balanced. That said, it's not really a lot of stuff, about 5-10 things depending on how thorough you want to be, and there ya go.

Word of advice: if you do decide to use a lot of 3.5 stuff with PFRPG, DO NOT try to convert or allow any of the Devotion Feats from Complete Champion or you will be an unhappy GM (if you're a GM).


First I want to say the book of nine swords is NOT BROKEN! If you think it is broken you are just not using it right.If you actually play the characters, you find they don't do any more damage than a flanking rogue or raging barbarian. After having played a swordsage and dm'd for a warblade, i actually decided to combine the three classes. I used a rogue/barbarian style menu including the abilities from all three classes, and used the swordsage as a base. I changed to a fighters attack bonus, added shield proficiency, changed recovery to your level in levels of maneuvers.(i.e. at 6th level you can get two level 3, etc). I found that the warblade was like a certian battery-pushing bunny while the swordsage spent too much time cooling his heels. You pick four disciplines, and get proficiency in those weapons. You pick one mental ability score for your saves and concentration checks(I just used the new pathfinder concentration check system instead of a replacement skill). As for the low level devoted spirit that does 8d8, i just think that was a typo ( i use 4d8)


Rite Publishing is currently developing the Martial Arts Guide Book, which is largely a conversion of ToB: Bo9S to Pathfinder, but instead of martial adept classes (or any new classes) the goal is to use Traits, Feats, Stances, and Archetypes to create multiple concepts to better depict Bo9S to Pathfinder format. The idea is that any class should be able to select various traits, feats and archetypes to be likened to a martial adept class, while not changing their actual class, whether it's a monk, fighter, ranger, a caster, whatever.

It has already received it's funding through IndieGoGo, and tenatively will be a 64 page book on the concept.

While I too am not a fan of Bo9S, I am eager to get a balanced version that I can incorporate into my Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story setting. Since I am a developer and freelancer for Rite Publishing, I will be doing some development on this.

I want the ideas of Bo9S to work, but not the same as it was in that book itself - which I never cared for.


gamer-printer wrote:
instead of martial adept classes (or any new classes) the goal is to use Traits, Feats, Stances, and Archetypes to create multiple concepts to better depict Bo9S to Pathfinder format.

You can also check out the Kirthfinder house rules -- our [Strike] and [Stance] feats do much the same thing.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Glutton wrote:
Barbarian kept his d12, after all ;p

Ah, not in Pathfinder. The PF barbarian is HD d10, not d12.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

?

Not according to the PRD.


Did I get that wrong? Nobody is playing a barbarian in our group, so I guess I just misread that... something from Beta maybe.

Liberty's Edge

harvdog wrote:
First I want to say the book of nine swords is NOT BROKEN! If you think it is broken you are just not using it right.If you actually play the characters, you find they don't do any more damage than a flanking rogue or raging barbarian. After having played a swordsage and dm'd for a warblade, i actually decided to combine the three classes. I used a rogue/barbarian style menu including the abilities from all three classes, and used the swordsage as a base. I changed to a fighters attack bonus, added shield proficiency, changed recovery to your level in levels of maneuvers.(i.e. at 6th level you can get two level 3, etc). I found that the warblade was like a certian battery-pushing bunny while the swordsage spent too much time cooling his heels. You pick four disciplines, and get proficiency in those weapons. You pick one mental ability score for your saves and concentration checks(I just used the new pathfinder concentration check system instead of a replacement skill). As for the low level devoted spirit that does 8d8, i just think that was a typo ( i use 4d8)

I like your ideas on balance. Currently, in our home campaign, we really have not seen any issues with a swordsage either. The character sometimes shines, but at other times the character gets knocked around.


If i were to change one thing from ToB converting it to Pathfinder, it would be the class names. Crusaer is fine, but Warblade and Swordsage clash with PF class-naming conventions. Warblade being the worse offender.

"I'm a warblade." - "You don't look like a sharpened length of metal to me."


I consider Swardsage unplayable in PF. Which is a shame, it's my favorite (albeit the weakest of the 3) class from that book. They're so squishy for a primary melee (ie, same as rogue, but rogue has full attack SA as a reason to brave sustained melee and social skills for out of combat versatility) and utterly built around skirmishing with maneuvers. Which in 3E was fine, cause Tumble was DC 15. In PF, they're getting whacked every other turn for doing that, on average, and it won't work at all against the big monsters.

I would never play a swordsage in PF. Which again, is a shame.


I'm for replacing Concentration with another skill. Autohypnosis, Knowledge (Martial Lore), anything EXCEPT perception.

One, because Perception is already a good skill, and if we make it better, than it's really just superior to other skills. that's poor balance.

Two, because there are magic items like Eyes of the Eagle that increase your perception. Adding +5 to maneuver checks is a WHOLE 'nother thing.


I've noted in the past that we went with replacing Concentration with Martial Lore. It makes sense with the concept of the classes and all of them get it.


Threeshades wrote:

If i were to change one thing from ToB converting it to Pathfinder, it would be the class names. Crusaer is fine, but Warblade and Swordsage clash with PF class-naming conventions. Warblade being the worse offender.

"I'm a warblade." - "You don't look like a sharpened length of metal to me."

The name of a class is a metagame thing. Characters don't normally introduce themselves with their class name, unless the class name coincidence with the characters in-game profession.


and yet, at the end of the day, casters are still stronger then anything in the nine swords. It invokes a type of "uncanny valley" where abilities that make these relatively "normal" classes seem far too outlandish. "That monk just deflected a bullet with his fist? broken!, that wizard is now flying and casting fireballs? seems legit." The biggest reason I always found out why ToB was consider broken was because no one ever read the rules to the abilities, much like most spells and casters "O I thought this meant I charm person and it meant I could do it on anyone as long as I though of them as a person, and that they would help me in combat .:P", and with like spells, some maneuvers are just more powerful then others. :p but anyway

I think any ability that allows for concentration checks should be replaced by your HD + 3 + con, and combat casting should act like skill focus. Since you could have done that normally originally, and concentration checks got replaced by caster levels.


Lockgo wrote:
I think any ability that allows for concentration checks should be replaced by your HD + 3 + con, and combat casting should act like skill focus. Since you could have done that normally originally, and concentration checks got replaced by caster levels.

Currently, concentration is based on 'Level + casting stat modifier' so I would keep the same mechanic for a character from the Bo9S, just replace the 'casting stat' with whatever stat he used to hit. It might not be perfect, but it is the most in-line with how the old skill currently works that I can think of quickly.


Grey Lensman wrote:
Lockgo wrote:
I think any ability that allows for concentration checks should be replaced by your HD + 3 + con, and combat casting should act like skill focus. Since you could have done that normally originally, and concentration checks got replaced by caster levels.
Currently, concentration is based on 'Level + casting stat modifier' so I would keep the same mechanic for a character from the Bo9S, just replace the 'casting stat' with whatever stat he used to hit. It might not be perfect, but it is the most in-line with how the old skill currently works that I can think of quickly.

That's also a legit option, and one that fits with PF guidelines.


gamer-printer wrote:

Rite Publishing is currently developing the Martial Arts Guide Book, which is largely a conversion of ToB: Bo9S to Pathfinder, but instead of martial adept classes (or any new classes) the goal is to use Traits, Feats, Stances, and Archetypes to create multiple concepts to better depict Bo9S to Pathfinder format. The idea is that any class should be able to select various traits, feats and archetypes to be likened to a martial adept class, while not changing their actual class, whether it's a monk, fighter, ranger, a caster, whatever.

It has already received it's funding through IndieGoGo, and tenatively will be a 64 page book on the concept.

While I too am not a fan of Bo9S, I am eager to get a balanced version that I can incorporate into my Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story setting. Since I am a developer and freelancer for Rite Publishing, I will be doing some development on this.

I want the ideas of Bo9S to work, but not the same as it was in that book itself - which I never cared for.

I am not sure I like the idea of converting the nine swords abilities to feats,etc. The book was meant to provide interesting options for new fighting classes. An entire new system was created (a system which at it's core works well, and is very fun to play) for this purpose. It's like saying we are dropping the wizard and just making each spell a feat, that any class can take.


As far as the concentration thing goes, you can also just reinstate concentration as a special skill for martial character (maybe call it something else). If you use the pathfinder concentration system, i suggest adding 3 (as some of the ideas above suggest) to keep it in line with the skill values expected at each level. You would also probably want to reduce skill points of the classes, since dumping concentration as a skill and combining a bunch of others reduces the need for the high skill points given to the classes. I would also use whatever mental ability score each class has for it's special abilities as the modifier.


harvdog wrote:
As far as the concentration thing goes, you can also just reinstate concentration as a special skill for martial character (maybe call it something else). If you use the pathfinder concentration system, i suggest adding 3 (as some of the ideas above suggest) to keep it in line with the skill values expected at each level. You would also probably want to reduce skill points of the classes, since dumping concentration as a skill and combining a bunch of others reduces the need for the high skill points given to the classes. I would also use whatever mental ability score each class has for it's special abilities as the modifier.

No other class got their skill points reduced in the process of being converted to Pathfinder, and plenty of other classes benefited even more than Bo9S would from skill consolidation.


StreamOfTheSky wrote:

I consider Swardsage unplayable in PF. Which is a shame, it's my favorite (albeit the weakest of the 3) class from that book. They're so squishy for a primary melee (ie, same as rogue, but rogue has full attack SA as a reason to brave sustained melee and social skills for out of combat versatility) and utterly built around skirmishing with maneuvers. Which in 3E was fine, cause Tumble was DC 15. In PF, they're getting whacked every other turn for doing that, on average, and it won't work at all against the big monsters.

I would never play a swordsage in PF. Which again, is a shame.

My experience with the swordsage is that even in 3.5 the character was too easy to knock down. I would suggest making changes to the class (there are many good ideas on this forum) to make it playable. Just be ready to tweak your adjustments if you find they are too weak or too strong. There is no need to give it up, as it is one of the most fun classes to play (in my opinion). NEVER SURRENDER!!!


Chengar Qordath wrote:
harvdog wrote:
As far as the concentration thing goes, you can also just reinstate concentration as a special skill for martial character (maybe call it something else). If you use the pathfinder concentration system, i suggest adding 3 (as some of the ideas above suggest) to keep it in line with the skill values expected at each level. You would also probably want to reduce skill points of the classes, since dumping concentration as a skill and combining a bunch of others reduces the need for the high skill points given to the classes. I would also use whatever mental ability score each class has for it's special abilities as the modifier.
No other class got their skill points reduced in the process of being converted to Pathfinder, and plenty of other classes benefited even more than Bo9S would from skill consolidation.

good point


meatrace wrote:
joela wrote:
meatrace wrote:

I'm running for a Swordsage right now and it is a nightmare. He's a very smart player, and it is a very cool class. I happen to like the concepts in Bo9S but don't think it plays very well with basic combat.

A level 6 swordsage took out a Stone Golem in like 3 rounds with nonsupernatural abilities that do great amounts of damage, thereby bypassing DR and its magic immunity.

Interesting.

Wait. How'd the swordsage's nonsupernatual abilities bypass DR? Is that a specific maneuver? (I don't have the B09S book in front of me.) The DR applies to everything except adamantine and magic, which it doubly deals with its immunity.

This was a few weeks ago, but one was the Mountain Hammer as mentioned (15 dmg), Insightful Strike (concentration check to damage, which is 1d20+class level+wisdom. 25 dmg right there on his roll) and Fire Riposte which, while Supernatural, AFAIK doesn't allow SR so still bypassed it (he rolled 16 on his 4d6). That's just 2 actions really.

It was just one encounter, and I have no problem letting players shine, but it genuinely took me aback how quickly they were able to take out an APL+4 encounter, after 4 previous encounters, without blinking an eye.

I have actually seen this type of thing with other characters classes as well. My own wizard took out a roper with a fireball in one hit (and another monster as well in a different adventure). Sometimes the character have exactly what they need to do the job, and other times they get their butts kicked from what should be easy encounters. The game just rolls that way sometimes.


As for Richard Bakers idea of no recovery method, I disagree completely. Thats like telling the rogue he can only get a handful of sneak attacks per encounter. Keep in mind that encounters can take a VERY long time to overcome, especially at higher levels. These maneuvers are the classes primary ability. If there is no recovery method, than the classes become much weaker than their core counterparts. Even the spellcasting classes would last longer in an encounter. No class should be "one hit wonders", as this is hardly fun to play. "resource management" comes from which maneuvers you have readied. Not that any class is required to have resource management(fighters can use their feats without having to recover them, rogues can sneak attack all day long. remember, these are not spells), it's about GAME BALANCE. Over the long haul, the core classes will do more damage than swordsages (though not warblades, since they can have their maneuvers and expend them too). My experience is having a recovery method between the swordsage and warblade would be best for game balance. The maneuvers are strong, but not THAT strong. I think my method of your level in levels of maneuvers should be about right (you get more of the weaker ones and less of the stronger ones). I hope to playtest it soon.


harvdog wrote:
My experience with the swordsage is that even in 3.5 the character was too easy to knock down. I would suggest making changes to the class (there are many good ideas on this forum) to make it playable. Just be ready to tweak your adjustments if you find they are too weak or too strong. There is no need to give it up, as it is one of the most fun classes to play (in my opinion). NEVER SURRENDER!!!

Yes, even in 3.5, it was the weakest of the 3 classes by a wide margin. Worst recovery, worst HD and BAB, and lacked access to both of the best maneuvers in the whole book (IH Surge and WR Tactics). Got 2 more skill points than the others, but lacked the class skillset to be a "skill monkey."

All that said, it was my favorite ToB class. I agree, making it playable in PF would be great.

Also, that Rich Baker thing about taking away recovery....I agree, that's bs. I don't think anyone that liked ToB agrees with that.


harvdog wrote:
I am not sure I like the idea of converting the nine swords abilities to feats,etc. The book was meant to provide interesting options for new fighting classes. An entire new system was created (a system which at it's core works well, and is very fun to play) for this purpose. It's like saying we are dropping the wizard and just making each spell a feat, that any class can take.

It's not a direct conversion of Bo9S, most people don't want that at all, I certainly don't. The fact that it was an entire new system is what most (including me) do not like about the Bo9S. To make something usable with existing mechanics (ie: traits, feats, archtypes) would be the only way I'd allow Bo9S concepts into my game, and is the purpose of this patronage project. My participation is only to make sure the system works with my Kaidan setting - which is also a Rite Publishing productline.

I'm not interested in a Bo9S direct (as is) conversion, ever.


I think one way to use this, which would take a lot of work, is to use this book as inspiration. I would rebuild the classes completely. Instead of using the mechanics there, I would use mechanics that exist in Pathfinder. Give each class a Maneuver Pool. Use these points like other classes use their respective pools. They would fuel the weapon maneuvers.

I would say that the Crusader would be an alternate Cavalier, and the Warmain an alternate Fighter. The Swordsage would need to be something all unto itself. It has the flavor of a Monk, and a little bit of Bard.


It is not that much to learn. The manuevers are straight forward. The only thing that really had to be learned was each class's recharge mechanic.
I have never seen anyone have an issue with it mechanically that understood how it worked. Some have had fluff issues with it, but fluff is mutable.
In order to get away from the ToB name since people have a habit of not reading(see psionics fallicies) I would use a ki pool, and have special abilities availible to choose from.


I think the Tomes of Battle was seen as overpowered just because they were better then the core fighters. Now that the Fighter and Paladin were given some needed improvements, these melee fighters don't seem to have a clear advantage.

I basically threw out all the Prestige Classes and allowed the Core Classes, but I made the Warblade's hit dice a d10. Most the Prestige Classes in the Suppliments were either poorly thought out, or poorly executed.

I was wondering if there was any additional features anyone added to the core classes. I kind of hope Paizo makes a revision of these classes, so we could get a few additions. These classes are good overall, but still have their dead levels (which is one thing Paizo helped cure in Pathfinder).


Most of the ToB prestige classes were actually weaker than the base classes. Only exceptions were Ruby Knight "Win"dicator, which was just plain broken (who wants infinite swift actions? I do!), and Eternal Blade. The latter still wasn't broken or overpowered, it was just better than Crusader or Warblade 20.


StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Also, that Rich Baker thing about taking away recovery....I agree, that's bs. I don't think anyone that liked ToB agrees with that.

I'm not for taking away recovery, but the Warblade ability to recover ALL his maneuvers while making a full attack action or a standard attack action seems a little weird to me. Otherwise, I'm 100% fine with the ToB classes as written.

EDIT: The only think I don't like about ToB is its size: it's too small and I would like to have more stuff in it!


Crusader recovers all his maneuvers w/o even having to do anything, though.

Warblade was fine, the problem was how abysmal swordsage's recovery was. You could mostly fix it w/ Adaptive Style, at least....


Yeah, but the Crusader has the downside of maybe not getting the maneuver he really needs for the situation and can end up doing mundane attacks for the whole fight, it's like a gamble. The Warblade, on the other hand, will probably use a single full-attack action in a typical battle (5 rounds) at mid-level to regain his maneuvers, something that I find hardly restrictive for a class that has access to all Fighter feats. That being said, I never saw a mid to high-level Warblade in play, so my worries may be unfounded.


I find with any adept, you don't just have one uber move. You have a handful. Obviously swordsage will have the most due to sheer maneuvers known, but crusader will certainly have a few. You take Extra Granted Maneuver, and you're never missing more than 2 of your readied maneuvers, at most. So long as you have at least 3 good ones, you're never at a loss for something useful to do. There can be annoyances, of course. Like how my last Crusader (who didn't take EGM) seemed to only get Battle Leader's Charge in situations where he was already in melee, enemy was around a corner, or the like. :(


Oh yeah I forgot EGM. Crusaders seem more badass to me now! :)

Dark Archive

My DM made concentration into sense motive. I was cool with that. I recall there was a change to the monks ac bonus in PF. We added that to the swordsage. I think it was adding wisdom to CMD.

I played a swordsage in pf beta and we quickly moved into the hardcover final up to level 8. I split from the group at that point since my rule lawyering did not mix well with their care free attitude. I was very happy with that swordsage. I built him unusually focusing on str to make sure I hit and did damage instead of spending feats on finess and the dex damage feat in the book. I found ways to stay standing from various tricks like concealment, dr and self healing. Some were class maneuvers, others were purchased from the magic item compendium. I also had the good fortune of a clr in the party. I also found that I could sometimes just kill the enemy faster then they could me, especially when facing multiple nooks.

I also really enjoyed playing a duskblade6/warblade1/Jade Phoenix Mage4 before he was killed in the most outrageously ridiculous combat I had ever seen in over a decade of frequent play brought on by a DM who did not understand several things he was doing. At least it was fun while it lasted.

I actually like the idea of not improving them much on the premises that they are too much better than the revamped core classes. I suspect less people will keep on hating.

I think the biggest problem with people complaining about non core material is that they do not read the stuff to see how it should work. Even worse, the players useing the stuff don't read it all or misunderstand it making it look terrible.

51 to 88 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Conversions / Using Book of Nine Swords with Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.