|
Since it seems like from all the current info BoNS is very much like what we can expect to see in 4e does anyone use this material? Pros? Cons?
I wish I could prove that I thought this was one of the worst books WotC has put out to date back when it came out...now you'll just think I'm bashing 4e. But really, this is one of the only sources banned by my group. Believe it or not, most of the Complete Mage is also on the banned list...reserve feats blow.
|
|
Since it seems like from all the current info BoNS is very much like what we can expect to see in 4e does anyone use this material? Pros? Cons?
I wish I could prove that I thought this was one of the worst books WotC has put out to date back when it came out...now you'll just think I'm bashing 4e. But really, this is one of the only sources banned by my group. Believe it or not, most of the Complete Mage is also on the banned list...reserve feats blow.
Hhmm... I am positive about 4e.
But I sincerely hope that 4e won't lean too close to the BoNS.I have next to all supplementary rule books for 3.5e.
And I very consciously decided *against* BoNS. It feels too much like a bad kung fu movie - but that is just my opinion.
Hopefully 4e will manage to give these rules a new twist which feels more "core rules" like.
Greetings,
Günther
Dig around here and you'll find lots of threads talking about this supplement. I can summarize what I've gathered as the general concensus (which mirrors my view of the book). It is an intricate system that can add flavor to melee combat, but requires both BM and player to fully understand the mechanics to avoid misuse. If you're going to use/allow the system, know the system well. Don't expect it to be an easy plug-and-play option.
Now, as for how this might translate to 4e, I'm unsure. They are obviously focusing on simplifying mechanics, so I'll be surprised if they transfer the BoNS mechanics fully into 4e. Indeed, a trimmed-down OGL system that I can snag and use in my 3.5 games would be pretty nice...
Actually, I bought BoNS when it came out but started reading only yesterday! My first impression is that the whole concept behind it is totally useless in a normal campaign.
But if your groups consists only of power gamers who want to spend countless hours learning new and complicate game mechanics, that's their book.
Pros: Warrior type classes gain several new options that they can use in each battle. Other warrior classes options are rarely more complex than deciding whether or not to try to trip or disarm the opponent. They can still be a difficult and complex choice, but usually the capabilities of the enemy make the choice easy. Other than that all they do is decide where they want to swing their stick from and who to swing it at. Giving them unique abilities gives them more options which I like.
Cons: It makes them more complex. A new player may have trouble grasping the basic combat rules (melee attacks, ranged attacks, concealment, cover, etc.) and they will also have to figure out how to use many of these other abilities. Some of them have you make a trip attack and many people that I know who have been playing for a while have to double-check the tripping rules before continuing on.
Overall: I liked the mechanics presented, but it might have been too many options so that many players would spend too much time trying to pick between several powers.
I feel it is a good addition to make warriors more intristed in fights rather than having to be prodded to roll their 3 attack rolls and damage rolls.
Well, you'll likely not be too happy, because it sounds like Reserve Feats are the new Familiar in 4th edition, i.e. every spellcaster has something akin to reserve feats, so that they are never fully out of a fight.
The Book of Nine swords basically give fighters maneuvers that are structured kind of like spells in that you can use each maneuver once per encounter before you refresh them (a few more nuances, but that the basics). Different maneuvers do different things in addition to your weapon damage.
Examples include, one that lets you make a jump check and land on the other side of your opponent without taking an AoO, and doing additional damage to him because you drove your weapon into him as you landed. Or one that lets you hit someone so hard that you do Xd6 extra damage in addition to your normal damage, plus they are a +10 to have a critical confirmed because you cracked some of their bones.
A lot of these abilities are more over the top wuxia type attacks that aren't automatically "out there," just kind of improbable and flashy. Some of them are actually supernatural abilities (ones that let your weapon burst into flame or shadowstep through someone), but these are mainly the province of the "divine" martial adept the Crusader and the "arcane" martial adept, the Swordsage. Most of the Warblade's abilities are just extraordinary attacks that add something to normal damage that can only be done once each per encounter, unless he has time to do something to "give him a breather" from the fight (more or less taking a full round action to do nothing, or only taking a standard action to attack and nothing else, depending on the class).
Actually, I bought BoNS when it came out but started reading only yesterday! My first impression is that the whole concept behind it is totally useless in a normal campaign.
But if your groups consists only of power gamers who want to spend countless hours learning new and complicate game mechanics, that's their book.
"Countless" for me measured about three hours. They could have made it easier to understand and reference (And I say the same thing about magic), but it is not any more difficult than using magic.
|
|
Well, you'll likely not be too happy, because it sounds like Reserve Feats are the new Familiar in 4th edition, i.e. every spellcaster has something akin to reserve feats, so that they are never fully out of a fight.
I am withholding judgement until I see it. Researve feats are not a mechanic I choose to embrace. However, this is different than having encounter and daily based allotments of power. I think a Wizard should be able to cast Light whenever he wants...
I am not opposed to change. You would be amazed if you could see how many PDFs from third parties I've bought specifically to explore alternative magic systems.
You know, the idea of different weapons doing vastly different things and having totally different maneuvers is kind of fun in a cinematic or anime kind of way... but, realistically, if you can hit someone with a sword in real life, you can pretty well poke 'em with a spear, too-- from that standpoint, the hints about the new system suggest that it's pretty silly. Then again, D&D was never meant to be at all realistic. Dunno how I feel about it yet. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
|
|
Dithering Fool, you might like to see this youtube video interview with James Whyatt/ WotC at GenCon (about 1:10 min. before the end):
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=welcome/conventions/gencon07
According to this BoNS as much as the StarWars Saga Edition were draughts which were heavily influenced by the (by then) current state of development for 4e.
4e will differ from both books, though.
Greetings,
Günther
|
They've already said that the Tome of Battle and the Star Wars Saga RPG are the testing grounds for 4e. So expect them, or something similar, when 4e comes out.
I love the Tome of Battle. I love kung-fu movies and RPG's too. I know some people think that the ToB blows, but it doesn't. Really. It may not be your 'cup of tea' which is totally rockin'. It's a well written and thought out system. I don't like the Weapons of Legacy, in ToB and it's own book, though.
I have always had a problem with the way things are done now in 3+e. It makes no sense that a spellcaster runs out of spells and can't do anything else for the rest of the day. If a party is in a dungeon the monsters don't attack just because the spellcaster(s) have to rest to get their spells back. I've never understood that whole thing. With Reserve feats and ToB you do not have this problem. It actually makes adventuring make sense.
I've played in games where they only had 1 battle a day so the spellcasters could rest and recharge. It's such an odd way to go about playing. Think about it. Look at the Lord of the Rings. Gandalf contributed to the combats even without casting spells. When the time came and a spell was needed he had it ready. However, he didn't cast all his spells right at the begining leaving himself 'empty'. It seems that this is the case in most of the games I play in (outside of a regular group).
Anyways... I rambled a bit.
|
They've already said that the Tome of Battle and the Star Wars Saga RPG are the testing grounds for 4e. So expect them, or something similar, when 4e comes out...
I gotta say, I hate the physical dimensions of the SW RPG book simply because it doesn't sit well with any of my other books on the shelf. But I love the rules! ToB is another winner, so if 4e builds off those two--awesome! I can't wait!
|
|
The BoNS is the only book that the group I DM officially dispises. not because of the mechanics, but becasue they feel that the way it works would draw attention away from everyone else. It turns the character into the kung-fu movie steriotype. who needs to pick a lock anymore when a maneuver can break them all down? who needs a mage that can't even match their power output? etc. and in the game I play in that does use the book, this is exactly what happens. the mage and favored sould only serve to buff the Warblade. that's it. in and of itself, it is actually not a bad book, and it is unique. it's just not my cup of tea, nor that of my players. and unfortunately, we don't play any other games, so we havn't tried SW. but if BoNS is any indication of 4E, then chances are we're going to have no part of it.
i think its amazing, i really like the pulp action flare in my games so this works very well for me. i mean sure you can only see the combat in your head....well the bloody gory parts so why wouldnt you want to visualize your blade bursting into flames to sear off an ogers face or do a front flip stabby maunver, haha i think it gives the game that nice flare. sure its a tad complicated to grasp but once you understand it its a no brainer
|
|
The BoNS is the only book that the group I DM officially dispises. not because of the mechanics, but becasue they feel that the way it works would draw attention away from everyone else. It turns the character into the kung-fu movie steriotype.(...)
Seconded.
Kung-fu like mechanics might be fun for Oriental Adventures, but my campaign plays in a classical fantasy setting.I don't want to see anything kung-fu like in Faerûn or Greyhawk. Period.
Moreover I am against quasi magical abilities of martial characters. Fighters are underpowered in comparision to spell casters, so give them supernatural abilities?!?
Malhavoc's Book of Iron Might was already headed the wrong way, BoNS even more so.
Greetings,
Günther
|
|
(...)
I have always had a problem with the way things are done now in 3+e. It makes no sense that a spellcaster runs out of spells and can't do anything else for the rest of the day. If a party is in a dungeon the monsters don't attack just because the spellcaster(s) have to rest to get their spells back. I've never understood that whole thing. With Reserve feats and ToB you do not have this problem. It actually makes adventuring make sense.I've played in games where they only had 1 battle a day so the spellcasters could rest and recharge. It's such an odd way to go about playing. Think about it. Look at the Lord of the Rings. Gandalf contributed to the combats even without casting spells. When the time came and a spell was needed he had it ready. However, he didn't cast all his spells right at the begining leaving himself 'empty'. It seems that this is the case in most of the games I play in (outside of a regular group).
Anyways... I rambled a bit.
Your Gandalf example is correct. But in D&D terms Gandalf just grew such a powerful and old wizard due to his self discipline in hostile encounters. Spell casters (especially at higher levels) never were underpowered. One of the few things a player needs to keep in mind are spell selection and spell ressources.
The first one was taken care of by the introduction of sorcerers. The latter one is the one thing players have to take care of. Actually in my adventures having to keep an eye on your available spells was one of the few things which prevented the party's sorcerer from blasting everything standing in the party's path.
On the other hand this seems to be the way the game is headed: easier play, less ressource management, less thinking, more play. Hopefully 4e won't grow too arcade game like (i.e. just hack and slash and blasting). I always liked the thought that there was a class for everyone: wizards for tinkerers and strategists, fighters for action loving players...
Greetings,
Günther
On the other hand this seems to be the way the game is headed: easier play, less ressource management, less thinking, more play. Hopefully 4e won't grow too arcade game like (i.e. just hack and slash and blasting). I always liked the thought that there was a class for everyone: wizards for tinkerers and strategists, fighters for action loving players...
I agree with both your assessment of class preferences, and of the direction things seem to be headed. I share your hopes as well in this case. Now, if only anyone else agreed with us...
Our group embraced the Book of Nine Swords as something to try when we started a new campaign back around January, and we had a pair of warblades and a crusader. We also had a cleric, druid, barbarian/frenzied berserker, wizard and a rogue. (Not all at the same time, as a couple were replacement characters)
The campaign played for around 6 months before it concluded, and we just hit 9th level when we ended. (So we had access to 5th level manuevers and spells, albeit only for a few encounters and the BBEG.)
My overall thoughts? (I played one of the two warblades)
It wasn't overpowered*, and the mechanics weren't very difficult to learn, although the book itself was in serious need of a better index and/or some more organizational editing.
*Now while I say that the book itself wasn't overpowered, there still were some "broken" abilities. But there are broken spells for standard classes too, etc. Either houserule them or ban them or just live with it. (The Crusader in particular had a 4th level manuever that did an insane 8d8 extra damage. But that wasn't anymore "broken" than a wizard firing off Power Word:Pain every round, etc)
There were also some nice synergies between feats, manuevers, class abilities, etc. But the same can be said for pretty much everything. (See the CO board on WotC for more broken examples if necessary ;-) )
** When I said above the book wasn't overpowered, keep in mind that this campaign allowed pretty much any WotC sourcebook. So we had the Complete Series (including Mage & Scoundrel) as options, Dragon Compendium, Spell Compendiu, PHB II, etc
A Warblade would probably win 8 times out of 10 against an equivalent level Fighter built only using the SRD. But if you allow Complete Warrior, Complete Adventurer & PHB II into the mix, so the Fighter can do more with all his bonus feats, I think it would be far more even, with it coming down to individual tactics and dice luck... call it 6/10 for the Warblade.
The two weapon wielding, sneak attacking Rogue & the Barbarian built to take advantage of the other sourcebooks weren't overshadowed by the 3 martial adept characters from the book of Nine Swords. And once the Barbarian hit Frenzied Berserker, she was the best damage dealing warrior in the party most fights. (Of course, some of the massive damage that she dealt went to other PCs, but thats typical for a Frenzied Berserker)
*** Most importantly to me, playing a Warblade was fun. Granted that I'm a little jaded with playing standard warrior types, but I had more fun planning and using manuevers than I did in the previous campaign when I had a fighter/ranger/dread commando with a ton of tactical options from his huge list of feats.
In short, we essentially "play-tested" the book of Nine Swords for 6 months and 9 levels in our last campaign, and it was NOT any more overpowered than the other supplemental WotC books that we allowed in the campaign. We had fun with the characters, and they didn't overshadow the other "mundane" type characters like the Barbarian and Rogue, or the Cleric, Druid or Wizard.
My group loves it. I was not that big of fan, but only of the flavor. If you read the wotc site now, it mentions how fighters draw from hard work, dedication, etc . . .which means in my mind they will be using some bo9s stuff minus the supernatural . . .which I think is great.
|
|
I guess I am ready for something new. I liked the book, except for the weapons of legacy. The warblade at least had some interesting combat options, but you sacrifice the iterative attacks to use most maneuvers. We found that it sped up combat rounds because there were less dice rolls normally involved with multiple attacks.
I guess I have just gotten so used to fighters launching fireballs, probably from playing Street Fighter II a bit too much, from p that the things in the book didn’t seem too weird.