Any suggestions on what to do with characters that were built with Tome of Battle rules? Two characters in the campaign we are moving to use them.
Changing the skills is no problem, but will book of nine swords characters still be unbalanced compared to pathfinder core classes? Is anyone else using these rules in their campaigns?
No they won't be unbalanced, they never were.
Yes they will be unbalanced, they always were.
Of course, this only comes from seeing all three classes in play and the mess they made of the games they were in. So it's just an opinion.
-DM Jeff
I've played characters out of this book without being unbalanced. Of course, that same game used a Hulking Hurler build and a Druid... so hard to call anything unbalanced in that mix.
As for working with pathfinder, the biggest issue is going to be re-inserting concentration as a skill, I think. Otherwise, the hp should stay the same or move up to be in line with the pathfinder hp - BAB approach. Skills lose multiplication, and you're done.
The classes should work fine.
Without entering the debate regarding balance issues, I've done the following:
1. The "core" classes from that book are not used.
2. For the fighter, Paladin, Ranger and Monk, I treat class levels as initiator levels.
3. I do away with the "3 feat limit" on the Martial Study feat for those classes.
4. For which classes have access to what disciplines; Fighter = Warblade, Paladin = Crusader, Monk = Swordsage, Ranger = Tiger Claw, Shadow Hand, Devoted Spirit, Iron Heart, Desert Wind.
For the relevant Diamond Mind manuevers I replaced the concentration skill with Knowledge (local) because looking at the skills section of the book I felt that was the best fit for knowledge of the maneuevers than anything else.
I also should note that I took everything from Martial Lore and gave it to Knowledge (local) as well because of the limited scope of that skill.
I ran a Warblade to level 11 and definitely NOT unbalanced compared to the rest of the (fairly un-optimized) party. I was good at hitting stuff like a tank should be, and had some neat "your warrior did that?" moves, but nothing game-breaking. Zip, zero.
I do play my PC as a team player and I can see how someone with a group that does not act like adults (if you are adult age natch) might not like some of the options, really it's just another, cool subsystem for 3e.
I heartily recommend adding TOB to any group that trusts and respects each other not to cheese out. A cheesy Cleric or Druid would stomp on any TOB offerings, though TOB might have more of a chance than a core Fighter. :)
Actually, I'd keep Martial Lore, and add the concentration checks to that skill, because that's consistent with the logic of Spellcraft enveloping concentration for spellcasters. This would give the skill a bit more reason for being as well.
Any suggestions on what to do with characters that were built with Tome of Battle rules?
Burn them, and then the book. ;-)
|
Another option would be using autohypnosis from the XPH and rename it to something like discipline or concentration. It would have the additional advantage of being useful to something else than casting spells and manifesting powers.
In my campaign, one of the characters is a dual wielding swordsage, so we are waiting for alpha 3 and the monk to decide if we go for a total conversion to monk or try to somehow convert the martial classes to pathfinder. (There is also a duskblade in the campaign, so I will have lots of conversion fun)
Actually, I'd keep Martial Lore, and add the concentration checks to that skill, because that's consistent with the logic of Spellcraft enveloping concentration for spellcasters. This would give the skill a bit more reason for being as well.
I thought about doing that, but didn't feel it was appropriate for my game. The player really didn't have a chance to use the other aspects of Martial Lore (since there were no Bo9S NPCs around for one) so I felt it was a dead skill for my game and didn't want him to put ranks in it just for those few manuevers.
I believe your idea is better in general though.
In one game we substituted a kinda weird, modified wisdom-based CMB check (wisdom bonus + base attack bonus + 3) for the concentration skill in regards to Diamond Mind. It seems to work fine. Having the roll based on wisdom as opposed to constitution makes more sense anyway (at least to me).
Edit: Oh, and though some folks around here would probably hate me for this, I've also created 3 variants of the Desert Wind Discipline; Arctic Wind, Storm Wind, and Swamp Gas (LOL) that are based in Cold, Electricity, and Acid respectively (though these have yet to be playtested).
Any suggestions on what to do with characters that were built with Tome of Battle rules? Two characters in the campaign we are moving to use them.
Changing the skills is no problem, but will book of nine swords characters still be unbalanced compared to pathfinder core classes? Is anyone else using these rules in their campaigns?
Other than the Martial Lore/Concentration suggestion, here is what I would do if someone wanted to use this material in my Pathfinder based games. Part of this is based on what Rich Baker himself said would be a good idea in the "you may already be playing 4th edition" podcast, where he said he would have made some changes to the classes in retrospect:
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.
I'm also strongly inclined to strip out the bonus feats, since this too smacks of "its a fighter, but better." I actually kind of like this class, but the things that turned me off were the "it gets everything a fighter does plus . . . " concept.
Battle Skill . . . not a big change, but I'd just note that this would give the Warblade his intelligence bonus to his CMB when determining his defense against combat maneuvers from other combatants.
Now, unlike the general and Crusader changes, these are all my suggestions. I don't mind the ToB classes or the concept, but I didn't like the rather blatant "replacement" feel. Heck, if the beginning of the book had said "if you use a Warblade, get rid of fighters," I might have warmed up to it better, but the Warblade was kind of all over the place as the uber warrior.
I am curious to see how the setting sun throwing manuevers would work with the combat manuever bonus.
We went the Martial Lore route, too.
I'm hoping that the Paizo rules make the fighter a viable class in comparison to the Bo9S classes.
Which says a lot about both the 3.x fighter and the Bo9S classes.
I think I would keep the Weapon Aptitude, but take out the parts where it says they can qualify as Fighters for Fighter only feats. Or better, make it a feat that works with Fighters and Warblades get it automatically. It's a nice ability for either.
I think I would keep the Weapon Aptitude, but take out the parts where it says they can qualify as Fighters for Fighter only feats. Or better, make it a feat that works with Fighters and Warblades get it automatically. It's a nice ability for either.
I understand that this may work for other people, so I'm not speaking for anyone but myself, but it makes no sense whatsoever to me that you can choose, from day to day, what weapon you are specialized in. It always bothered me that one day you can be specialized in a longsword, and the next, you can figure out how to be specialized in a trident.
Other people may not have this sticking point, and if they don't, I'm fine with that. Its just an ability that feels very much like a game element and not a story element, i.e. the bonus exists, and you can put it where you want, not, "you are a master of the X and have spent long days and nights mastering its techniques."
I think I would keep the Weapon Aptitude, but take out the parts where it says they can qualify as Fighters for Fighter only feats. Or better, make it a feat that works with Fighters and Warblades get it automatically. It's a nice ability for either.
I'm not so sure about removing the ability to take Fighter only feats. It already is pretty limited as a Warblade gets the normal set of feats (plus the few bonus feats that can't be used on the Fighter bonus feats). They really have to burn a good number of feats to get those bonuses.
As for the bonus feats they do get. I'm not quite in favor of getting rid of them. Maybe move it down one level (to balance out dead levels) and adjust it so that it works more like a ranger or monk bonus feats (first choice you get a skill feat, second is something like Endurance or Run, then a tactical feat, and so on).
I think I would keep the Weapon Aptitude, but take out the parts where it says they can qualify as Fighters for Fighter only feats. Or better, make it a feat that works with Fighters and Warblades get it automatically. It's a nice ability for either.I understand that this may work for other people, so I'm not speaking for anyone but myself, but it makes no sense whatsoever to me that you can choose, from day to day, what weapon you are specialized in. It always bothered me that one day you can be specialized in a longsword, and the next, you can figure out how to be specialized in a trident.
Other people may not have this sticking point, and if they don't, I'm fine with that. Its just an ability that feels very much like a game element and not a story element, i.e. the bonus exists, and you can put it where you want, not, "you are a master of the X and have spent long days and nights mastering its techniques."
Maybe we could use the Fighter's weapon groups. Instead of being able to switch between any weapon they would choose a single one of the groups and then would be able to switch between weapons in that group.
Maybe we could use the Fighter's weapon groups. Instead of being able to switch between any weapon they would choose a single one of the groups and then would be able to switch between weapons in that group.
I'm still not sure I like that, but moving within the fighter groups at least makes a little more sense since they are similar weapons.
Another thought I had as far as qualifying for fighter feats is that Warblade levels count as fighter levels -2, for purposes of stacking with fighter levels. In other words, they couldn't get fighter only feats without taking a level of fighter, but once they do, Warblade levels stack with them at -2.
Still, I think the class is workable without the extra feats and Weapon aptitude. But I understand if others don't want to cut it down quite so much.
Maybe we could use the Fighter's weapon groups. Instead of being able to switch between any weapon they would choose a single one of the groups and then would be able to switch between weapons in that group.
I'm still not sure I like that, but moving within the fighter groups at least makes a little more sense since they are similar weapons.
Another thought I had as far as qualifying for fighter feats is that Warblade levels count as fighter levels -2, for purposes of stacking with fighter levels. In other words, they couldn't get fighter only feats without taking a level of fighter, but once they do, Warblade levels stack with them at -2.
Still, I think the class is workable without the extra feats and Weapon aptitude. But I understand if others don't want to cut it down quite so much.
While I disaagree if a game has both fighters (Why though I don't know) and Warblades this is a good idea.
The one Warblade I have seen took a couple Fighter levels to be able to better afford the Weapon Focus and Specialization he wanted.
|
I personally, would rather just see the warblade be the new fighter, with some of the minor tweaks listed in this thread. The only problem I can see, and maybe I misread the powers, would be the problem of creating ranged fighters. Alot of the abilities seem tied with melee attacks. However this might steal a little thunder back a little to those who should be making ranged attacks, ie. the ranger and rogue types.
|
I found that the swordsage in our group was able to do massively more damage than the other players, constantly, due to recharges, and since the abilities have no resistances and are not magic, there is little to prevent them from constantly dominating the game compared to the poor straight fighter. The fighter does a fine job, but being flashier, AND being better at killing stuff means the fighter always feels second fiddle.
I thought the Swordsage recharge mechanic was punitive enough that it rarely got used (full-round action). You'd have to retreat, recharge, then get back to combat - thus wasting 2-3 rounds of hitting stuff.
And then you weren't that likely to hit with the middle-ranking BAB...
oh, and past a point fighters feel second fiddle to everyone.
Removing the Warblade recharge mechanic is going to seriously hamstring them. They get the lowest # of maneuvers known and readied. That was the primary reason for having it be a swift action and a standard action to do nothing or make an attack.
How about this for a recharge mechanic (for all).
Action: Swift and Standard.
Make a Martial Lore check vs. DC 10 (or 15 if it is too easy) + Encounter level. If successful, you gain one expended maneuver to use starting the following round. Take a Standard action to attack (no maneuver) or do nothing.
Seems balanced, and has a chance of failure.
|
Any suggestions on what to do with characters that were built with Tome of Battle rules? Two characters in the campaign we are moving to use them.
Changing the skills is no problem, but will book of nine swords characters still be unbalanced compared to pathfinder core classes? Is anyone else using these rules in their campaigns?
Truth be told, it is a DM's job to make all things work smoothly.
My advice.
First, please your friends and allow them to use the source material as written. Measure up their successes in the initial encounters and then decide for yourself if they are overpowering. If you think the answer is "yes", than boost "the numbers" and/or "hit points" of creatures in encounters. At the same time, remove "generic magic items" that would normally "boost them" till you notice they are handling encounters as they are written.
Simple as that.
Cheers,
Zuxius
|
But the discussion is Conversion to Pathfinder...
I would bring the Warblade in line with fighter Hit Dice wise.
The Concetration ---> Martial Lore change sounds like a good idea.
I would leave the recharge mechanic alone, since a Swordsage won't be able to stand against a rogue of equal level without it.
Monks still need to be fixed tho.
I've played a few months with my group now PFRPG in combination with the "Tome of Battle Rules" with one difference.
The core "non-spellcaster" classes are restrticted to two fighting schools from which they draw their maneuvers known, per day, and stances known.
The CMB "Combat Maneuver Bonus" defines how much Maneuvers they know, use per day, and they can only have 1 stance active at any time.
For me personaly it fitted well.
The Rules that I used are as follows:
barbarian,fighter,monk,rogue: can learn up to 9th level maneuvers.
paladin,ranger: can learn up to 6th level maneuvers (exception they give up there spellcasting ability to be able to learn 9th level maneuvers).
bard: can learn up to 3rd level maneuvers.
druid: can't learn maneuvers(exception multiclassing with other classes).
cleric: can't learn maneuvers(exception multiclassing, or wardomain able to learn up to 3rd level maneuvers).
sorcerer,wizard: can't learn maneuvers(exception multiclassing with other classes).
So far I tried that rules and now the CMB:
CMB : 2 = Maneuvers Known
CMB : 3 = Maneuvers Readied
CMB : 6 = Stances Known
example:
BAB = 10
Str = 18 (with a Feat possible to use Dex instead Str)
CMB = 10 + 4 (18Str/Dex) = 14
CMB = 14 : 2 = 7 Maneuvers Known
CMB = 14 : 3 = 4 Maneuvers Readied
CMB = 14 : 6 = 2 Stances Known (only 1 can be active at any time)
The group is happy and no complains about wizards are overpowered and the like.
Greets
ultimate_illusionist