|
Tome of Battle went a bit over the top in some places, but it did so flavor wise (magic for fighters and anime feel), not mechanically. The book is hardly broken except in breaking the paradigm of "Melee characters can't have nice things. EVER!"
Some of the flavor may be off putting, but mechanically it was what the melee classes were looking for to keep up with the casters.
Wizards kept per encounter abilities mechanic but otherwise threw the baby out with the bathwater. Their loss of me as a player and my/our gain of Pathfinder. I'll always wonder about the D&D Saga Edition with maneuvers and stances for melee classes that never was. Maybe I'll put one together some day.
Sure, thats perfectly okay, considering that Bo9 completely breaks the "fifteen minute workday" that all the other classes were balanced around. Even Pathfinder doesn't break it to the degree that Bo9 does...
I'll give you a hint, no matter what a Warblade could be made to go forever...with at most...4 feats.
|
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.
Edit: Yes I will post this in every ToB discussion. Just so people can see that certain things SHOULD be fixed. :P
|
|
Edit: Yes I will post this in every ToB discussion. Just so people can see that certain things SHOULD be fixed. :PGeneral: 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.
Oh yes, I agree with those changes, but some people are arguing even that's too much. It really is stupid how some people cling to that book, which I loathe for a number of design reasons...I've already said my piece on that book, but I will never, EVER think that book was anywhere near "balanced and fair".
I could not bring myself to read the whole thread so let me present another solution for the group that feels that new concentration rules+new fighter feats are too much for casters.
Solution is called Acrobatics. Yes, you can max Acrobatics (and you should anyways, I always did max Tumble with my wizards in 3.5e) and tumble your way our of your opponents reach and out of his 5foot step feat.
You dex is low? Take Skill Focus:Acrobatics and get an item that gives +5 to Acrobatics. Problem solved.
A cleric in even the thrice cursed medium armor with shield with his massive 2 skill points per level and a 2 feat tax already is somehow spending half his base skill points another feat and then hoping he tumbles out of reach to cast.
I'm sorry I don't think this is really a reasonable solution. I don't mean to make fun of it but can you see a line of metal armor and shield wearing clerics tumbling around training to cast in combat.
Well, my example was for wizard, sorcerers and to a lesser degree druids. Clerics usually have a high enough AC to reasonably count most of their opponents even missing them. Clerics can take Mobility instead and just move out of the area (most opponents will miss them). Clerics also have better HP then wizard and can suck up a hit or two they gain from AoO.
|
|
Or we could just point out that giving feats like step up to NPC's is bad form on the GM, except in the case of boss monsters or Mage Hunting NPC's.
I mean, yes in the optimized situation a fighter is more than a fly for a wizard to swat.
That's a good thing.
If the wizard can't figure out how to fix the problem, expect him to lose combat effectiveness. There are plenty of tricks they can do to solve their problems, be it swift etherealness or the like.
Well, certainly not every NPC fighter should have these feats same as not every has Dodge or Power attack or Vital Strike.
But a reasonable number will have it as they might have figured out by their level that spellcasters are dangerous and they need to take them down. If said fighters lived in area with no spellcasters then I do no see a reason for them to have those feats.
|
|
Well, certainly not every NPC fighter should have these feats same as not every has Dodge or Power attack or Vital Strike.
But a reasonable number will have it as they might have figured out by their level that spellcasters are dangerous and they need to take them down. If said fighters lived in area with no spellcasters then I do no see a reason for them to have those feats.
That goes back into my "How much do they know?"
I say if they have a few ranks of spell craft, they're smart enough to know if they whack a wizard while he's doing the mumbo jumbo, they can stop the spell. Without that knowledge, they're just going to play whack a wizard, because while they know wizard = bad, they don't know hitting them mid casting could stop them. They're going to pound the wizard till it stops being funny, and hope they drop HIM before they get dropped.
Wizard: 5' step.
Fighter: Step Up.
Wizard: Step Up.
Fighter: Oh f...
Can't do it twice in a row, of course. But then, you shouldn't need to.
Step Up requires that:
A. The foe triggering the Step Up is moving away from you,
B. You end up adjacent to the foe after moving.
It works for remaining inside the minimum range of a foe's reach weapon, but not for getting out of the range of a melee weapon.
Edit: Yes I will post this in every ToB discussion. Just so people can see that certain things SHOULD be fixed. :PGeneral: 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.
Fascinating. I'd agree on the Warblade's hit die, but I rather like the recharge mechanic and the way Crusaders get their maneuvers. It never struck me as too complicated, and it made playing a crusader a bit of fun, really. Of course, I never had the problem of initiators spamming recoveries just to get their one maneuver back a second time.
And I like anime. If a wizard can blow up a mountain or stop time, I don't see why an accomplished warrior in a fantasy universe couldn't leap tall buildings or various other things of that nature. They're still Gourry Gabriev to Lina Inverse.
|
|
Fascinating. I'd agree on the Warblade's hit die, but I rather like the recharge mechanic and the way Crusaders get their maneuvers. It never struck me as too complicated, and it made playing a crusader a bit of fun, really. Of course, I never had the problem of initiators spamming recoveries just to get their one maneuver back a second time.
And I like anime. If a wizard can blow up a mountain or stop time, I don't see why an accomplished warrior in a fantasy universe couldn't leap tall buildings or various other things of that nature. They're still Gourry Gabriev to Lina Inverse.
I'm for trying out the 'no recharge' rule. I played a Warblade for a session, and a Swordsage for another. I kind of got tired of using the same techniques with the Warblade, but not as much for the Swordsage. Could have been the difference in their styles. The Crusader's wierd mechanics made me stay away from the class.
I guess I spoke in a blanket, strong statement, which wasn't my intent. the d12 and Weapon Aptitude were my main points. The single 'encounter power' suggestion is something I'd like to try a playtest to see how it compares. I like my fighters being epic as much as anybody, and have no problems with ToB in my game. I just want to tweak it a little.
Me personally, the next time I use it, won't even mention the maneuver names. I'll just be a fighter or a monk who's attacks deal different damage sometimes. Someone asks how I can do Con damage or whatever, my answer is 'because I'm that good with a sword'.
I liked that stuff just fine. My big annoyance was the tiger style maneuvers -- "Jump way up in the air for no apparent reason, and if you hit, you deal +4d6 damage and your opponent must move 1 square diagonally, and all your allies who see you heal 1d4 damage!" WTF?
The monolithic repetitiveness of the stone dragon maneuvers got me down a bit -- "As a standard action, make one attack that deals +Xd6 damage and overcomes DR." Had no problem with the results, but a little variety would have been nice -- otherwise it could just as easily have been a feat chain (Vital Strike?).