Has anyone used it? I'd be very interested to know how swordsages etc play alongside Pathfinder RPG characters.
I dont see why you could not. It would need no reworking
Not in Golarion yet, but I am using PRPG classes with martial adepts as we finish out Savage Tides--the power levels match up well enough and I haven't had any problems there. I will be allowing Bo9S once we get into Golarion gaming.
You will have to tweak some of the mechanics--maneuvers that work off of Trip, for instance, function differently with the introduction of CMB. Some of the maneuvers are also tied to skill checks that may require tweaking--Concentration comes to mind in relation to the Diamond Mind maneuvers. For that one I went with Perception, as all the maneuvers really seemed to be more about noticing small environmental factors.
Not in Golarion yet, but I am using PRPG classes with martial adepts as we finish out Savage Tides--the power levels match up well enough and I haven't had any problems there. I will be allowing Bo9S once we get into Golarion gaming.
You will have to tweak some of the mechanics--maneuvers that work off of Trip, for instance, function differently with the introduction of CMB. Some of the maneuvers are also tied to skill checks that may require tweaking--Concentration comes to mind in relation to the Diamond Mind maneuvers. For that one I went with Perception, as all the maneuvers really seemed to be more about noticing small environmental factors.
Good point, thanks.
|
Interesting. Own Bo9S but never used it. I'm glad to hear it's not underpowered in reference to PRPG boosted core classes. Thanks guys!
I'm pretty sure it was with classes from books like Bo9S in mind that Pathfinder RPG boosted the core classes in an effort to keep up. No need to fear your Bo9S characters will be "under-powered" compared to Pathfinder characters - maybe just a little more balanced now, which can only be a good thing - of all of the new base classes introduced, Bo9S were the only ones I wouldn't allow in my games.
Many think of it as so. I dont allow it myself
Ouch! that book is *that* munchkin hey?
No, as a matter of fact the Book Of Nine Swords base classes were far more balanced than some of the 3.5 core classes. I doubt if you would experience any problems with them over shadowing your Pathfinder pc's. Very flavorful and interesting classes as well imho. Try it at the very least i think you will like it.....
|
|
To be fair, Bo9S might not be so munchkin. I bought it, and was really keen on seeing a more supernatural wuxia or Diablo II style of fighter, and the abilities within the book do reflect this - eg, running and leaving a trail of fire behind you.
However, it was more the execution of the rules that killed it for me. The new Bo9S classes didn't seem to sit comfortably alongside other core classes, they were a little bit too different - not so much in terms of flavour, which I quite liked, but the way their abilities worked. With Bo9S, I felt that WotC had lost it, they'd tried some experimental new thing, and as much as I wanted it, it didn't really work.
It was almost as if Bo9S had been written for some other game ... and of course it had - 4E. If Bo9S had been written with the design goals of 3E firmly in mind, I'm sure it would have been much more of a success, but at that point WotC had already abandoned 3E and were trying new 4E techniques.
I'd very much like to see a re-write of Bo9S, retaining most of the flavour, but staying truer to 3.5 rules. Though that will never happen, unless a fan-project or something I house-rule myself, it could prove inspiration for possible Pathfinder base classes in the future, particularly of an Qadira, Osirion or TianXia flavour.
If you play it and enjoy it, don't let me stop you. Bo9S has a lot of fun stuff in it. This is just my experience.
Cheers :-)
We've used plenty of Bo9S in our campaigns, including the Rise of the Runelords - had a swordsage/swashbuckler/rogue, and the cleric took one Warblade level and the ranger took a couple. It's balanced compared to core classes with Complete splatbooks, and frankly a lot of fun.
In our current Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, no one's taken any Bo9S yet, since we're running Pathfinder beta and that has plenty of shiny new powers to play with.
With Bo9S, I felt that WotC had lost it, they'd tried some experimental new thing, and as much as I wanted it, it didn't really work.
It was almost as if Bo9S had been written for some other game ... and of course it had - 4E. If Bo9S had been written with the design goals of 3E firmly in mind, I'm sure it would have been much more of a success, but at that point WotC had already abandoned 3E and were trying new 4E techniques.
I'm not really sure what you are talking about, frankly I think WotC was trying out new things throughout 3.5.
The ninja, with a point system used to activate abilities.
The warlock, with only at-will abilities.
The incarnum classes.
The entire tome of magic.
As far as I'm concerned if all the books had been written with the design goals of early 3E firmly in mind, then the 3E would have been a much more depressing place.
Hate to brake it to ya blaze but it has been stated a few times that Bo9s was meant to test out 4e mechanics and design.
Hate to brake it to ya blaze but it has been stated a few times that Bo9s was meant to test out 4e mechanics and design.
Where exactly? I've found a quote saying that the Book of Nine Swords was used for testing concepts, but nothing saying anything like it was designed with 4e in mind.
From what I'm seeing, to make the Bo9S classes fit into 4e, you would need as much work converting them as any other classes. They only real unique thing that I can think of that ties the mechanics of 4e to the Bo9S is the use of the word "encounter." I can find as much of a connection between the wizard mechanics and in the 4e mechanics.
No clue one of them mind numbing pod casts i listened to but zoned it out after a while. I don't play either so I can't say how close they are. But they said alot of odd things. They mostly pointed to it and saga rules set as test beds for 4e mechanics.
Listen to the "You May Already Be Playing 4th Edition" podcast. The Book of Nine Swords started out differently than it ended up, and when the editors felt is wasn't working, they decided to rewrite some portions heavily and "introduce" some 4E concepts with it, but Rich Baker said that the 4E elements didn't mesh as well with 3.5 as they would have liked.
Ty for pointing that out knight. I cant never recall where or which one it was in
Ouch! that book is *that* munchkin hey?
The point is not that the Tome of Battle is "munchkin" so much as the fighter class is "anti-munchkin".
Personally, I think some of the stuff is kind of dumb (e.g. "If I punch this squirrel, that'll heal my buddy"), but overall it was a good attempt to give higher level melee characters some impressive abilities.
If I remember it right, I think the WotC CharOp boards established that a Fighter optimized as much as possible would do better than a Warblade optimized as much as it could be. The book really shines with less optimization. It's harder to break the game with Bo9S, but it's also harder for the game to break you. You have to deliberately try to build a martial adept to suck in order to be able to suck, whereas with the Fighter, you can't afford to waste a feat.
So, not munchkin.
Personally, I'd have preferred something more akin to the Tactical feats over the maneuvers mechanics. It'd probably end up still being 1/encounter frequency, but at least there's an explanation why built right into the mechanics (there are specific setups you have to complete, things you have to do before you can use a Tactical feat).
If I remember it right, I think the WotC CharOp boards established that a Fighter optimized as much as possible would do better than a Warblade optimized as much as it could be. The book really shines with less optimization. It's harder to break the game with Bo9S, but it's also harder for the game to break you. You have to deliberately try to build a martial adept to suck in order to be able to suck, whereas with the Fighter, you can't afford to waste a feat.
Not only that, but an optimized fighter will generally have one thing they do really well (e.g. tripping foes or having some kind of powerful charge), and then they do that thing over and over and over again. Whereas a Tome of Battle character can easily have a bunch of different attacks that they can cycle through instead of being just a one-trick pony.
We've played with some book of nine swords characters. We had trouble with the Crusader being too overpowered, but the swordsage and warblade were fine. The swordsage is rather squishable at low levels, but makes up for it later with great versatility.
Actually, I've been playing a Crusader in one of my groups recent campaigns, and I have to say, I'm in love with it. My group has found it a fun and flavorful class, with plenty to do. The only mechanic I'm not sold on is the damage soak / counterattack ability, as for some reason, I always forget I have it, LOL. I think if that were replaced with a few more Paladin-esque abilitites, then the class could easily replace Paladin as a Holy Warrior altogether, but for all alignments, not just LG. Gotta say, all in all, I love me some Bo9S.
|
I think that with the new boosts that spellcasters in Pathfinder have received the classes from Bo9S would still be a bit weaker, but they'd still be somewhat stronger thant the Pathfinder martial classes.
The Bo9S classes are only overpowered if one compares them to the Monk, Fighter and Paladin, which are all weak classes to begin with anyway. If one compares them to full spellcasters one realizes that the classes from Bo9S still don't have the ability to wreck everything in existence like only a Wizard, Cleric or Druid can, but they still remain viable throughout their existence.
Bo9S did open up at least one infinite damage loop combo, but that combo requires material outside of the Bo9S and one must keep in mind that Bo9S was one of the last sourcebooks made for 3.5, so the designers had quite a lot of material behind them to keep track off.
The said infinite damage loop combo is pretty hilarious actually: it can only be pulled off at high levels if I recall correctly, and it uses a halfling Cleric/Crusader. Using one of the Cleric options the halfling sacrifices a healing spell to gain a luck ability for one minute which allows him to reroll all rolls that come up to 1, and he can keep on rerolling as long as he gets a number other than 1. This is combined with a Crusader strike that allows for exploding damage dice (i.e. if the character rolls the highest number available he can reroll the damage and add it to his previous damage, and he can keep on doing this until he fails to roll maximum damage).
Then the halfling punches you with a gauntlet... for infinity damage.
The trick to the Bo9S is to make sure *YOU* the *DM* know the rules in the book.
A Ton of people think it's OP because they don't read it, and some mischevious PC pulls the proverbial wool over their eyes about how maneuvers work, or some item or ability, or whatnot.
Make sure -you- know the rules, and it'll go more or less smoothly.
(it also tells you what to expect from the character- which helps you more effectively build encounters, which in turn keeps it balanced. Afterall, not knowing what s/he can do, can lead to some false-overpowered situations).
That, and folks make mistakes :) Even someone not Trying to break it can do so if they misunderstand something. Not all errors are intentional- but you need to know the book yourself to spot them. Just like any other book, really.
-S