Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
P.S.: Those who believe that buyng seeking bows as a secondary weapon is a viable way of becoming capable to figh wizards, should remember, that a weapon with +2 summary enhancement costs 8k GP, and at 9th level a character is supposed to get only 46k worth of bling. And that he must keep his primary weapon and armor upgraded, if he doesn't want to be squashed. Before 9th level, such expenditure on a secondary trick is not even worth considering.
An odd stance to take, given the assertion that what limits a fighter is not sheer numbers but versatility.
By making a minimal cut in the sheer numbers department (a +2 primary weapon for 8K instead of a +3 primary weapon for 18K), the fighter type gains an entire category of heretofore unavailable capability (reliably ignoring miss chance-based defenses), with money left over for a couple of potions.
And by 9th level PF wizards still get things like Scry & Fry and outsider binding, that do not break most games simply because they are so overpowered, that most GMs refuse to milk them for their full potential and screw PCs who use them by sheer fiat.
It's an interesting model of playing the game to assume that the rules and the players at the table (including the DM, who is also playing the game) are separate and individually inviolable entities. Or that rules are written without the assumption of human involvement.
Rules are written with an assumption of rational interpretation to avoid having to attach paragraphs of legalese to every spell, feat, and maneuver stipulating every possible exploit.
Take the 3.5 "selling a wall of iron" exploit - "Well, the rules say the wall is instapermataneous, and it says iron can be sold for such and so amount, so I can just sit there selling infinite WoI's and making infinite gold, because the item has a price and that means it can be sold, and the market will never be satiated and I will always obtain this price, and I can keep doing this infinitely long and will never be robbed, or have any competition from any other person doing the exact same thing, and with infinite gold I can now buy infinite magic items and become infinitely powerful."
Of course, that specific loophole was closed in PF (as WoI iron is stipulated as being valueless for sale), but the inherent mindset is that if you can imagine a scenario that COULD be true... then it not only MUST be true but it also MUST be TRUE WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONSEQUENCES, and any limitation or consequence that accrues from hitting the exploit button repeatedly is "just the DM screwing you."
I find the book incredibly useful- it lets me know who's twinking well in advance. ;-D
I find the book incredibly useful- it lets me know who's twinking well in advance. ;-D
Yeah, same sentiment. When I see a 3.5e group with a Swordmage, a Warblade, a Crusader and a druid, I know to watch out for that druid.
Warblade and crusader, with their access to White Raven Tactics, are both quite frankly the most applicable and "right" characters to play in Kingmaker. Both mechanically and fluff wise, they fit the category of the leader of men fighter sublimely. Consider - the AP is about slowly making your way up in ranks to becoming the leader of a keep, and then defending it. In this light, a class that actually simulates you slowly becoming a better leader and inspiring warlord is the perfect fit. I gurantee you won't find a martial class that fits the AP better then a warblade or crusader who focuses on White Raven Tactics.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Perhaps ironically, I don't have any love or hate for the Bo9S. Never bought it. Never read it.
It just came out too late in the 3.5 era for me to bother ever picking it up. I had reached my saturation point with new rule subsystems and was simply not interested in adding any more to my collection. No matter how cool or interesting it might have been... I had just had enough.
It's an interesting model of playing the game to assume that the rules and the players at the table (including the DM, who is also playing the game) are separate and individually inviolable entities...
Perhaps there is a layer in the Abyss where all of these zany ideas hold. It would be a realm of malfunctioning consequence, where nations are obliterated by commoners passing crossbow bolts between each other as a free action. A place where housecats pose a mortal threat.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
It's an interesting model of playing the game to assume that the rules and the players at the table (including the DM, who is also playing the game) are separate and individually inviolable entities...Perhaps there is a layer in the Abyss where all of these zany ideas hold. It would be a realm of malfunctioning consequence, where nations are obliterated by commoners passing crossbow bolts between each other as a free action. A place where housecats pose a mortal threat.
I wonder, if you had a big enough group of commoners with crossbow bolts made of copper wire passing them around a large magnet... could they generate electricity? :)
Warblade and crusader, with their access to White Raven Tactics, are both quite frankly the most applicable and "right" characters to play in Kingmaker. Both mechanically and fluff wise, they fit the category of the leader of men fighter sublimely. Consider - the AP is about slowly making your way up in ranks to becoming the leader of a keep, and then defending it. In this light, a class that actually simulates you slowly becoming a better leader and inspiring warlord is the perfect fit. I gurantee you won't find a martial class that fits the AP better then a warblade or crusader who focuses on White Raven Tactics.Marshal from Minitures Handbook?
Personally, I woild like to play as a Condottieri PrC from Mercinaries: Born of Blood, but that is a 3pp, and most DM's tend not to like random PrC's from 3pp :(
Marshal isn't really a leader of men though. Marshal is the Warrior NPC class that also gives a few terrible bonuses that make other players wish you had just made a bard.
|
I really liked the idea of the Marshal, but yeah as it stands it could easily be duplicated by a bard that takes Perform (Oratory) to simulate barking orders to give his bonuses. Not to mention that he would also have spells and other such fun stuff to do when he's not shouting at people to do his bidding.
Out of curiosity, where does this thread come from?
That is to say, was there a huge debate on Kingmaker and ToB elsewhere? o_O
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Out of curiosity, where does this thread come from?
That is to say, was there a huge debate on Kingmaker and ToB elsewhere? o_O
Yes, there was something of a threadjack going on in the Kingmaker discussion section, so this separate thread was spawned, in theory for folks to take their off-topic Bo9S yay/nay and caster/non-caster power comparison discussion to somewhere more appropriate.
Scale-wise, it wasn't really a HUGE discussion, but there was enough of it to prompt a thread-lock warning if people didn't take it outside.
I find the book incredibly useful- it lets me know who's twinking well in advance. ;-DYeah, same sentiment. When I see a 3.5e group with a Swordmage, a Warblade, a Crusader and a druid, I know to watch out for that druid.
~laughter~ Yes, Druids are Bad ASSES!!!
when the 9 swords book came out i was in love, finally a martial class that was capable of fighting toe to toe with spell casters.
i always felt that warriors were shafted compared to spell casters and when the book of 9 swords came out i could finally kick there butt's
And by 9th level PF wizards still get things like Scry & Fry and outsider binding, that do not break most games simply because they are so overpowered, that most GMs refuse to milk them for their full potential and screw PCs who use them by sheer fiat.It's an interesting model of playing the game to assume that the rules and the players at the table (including the DM, who is also playing the game) are separate and individually inviolable entities. Or that rules are written without the assumption of human involvement.
Rules are written with an assumption of rational interpretation to avoid having to attach paragraphs of legalese to every spell, feat, and maneuver stipulating every possible exploit.
I'm going to accuse you of using a strawman-argument here. There is a difference between "exploits" and the standard "setting-breaking-powers" and we both know it.
"Bag of rats" or "chain of planar bindings" are exploits. These are players obviously lawyering their way through the rules to do stupid things. These are scenarios where it is reasonable to assume that if the feat/spell description was only a little bit longer, it would cover the scenario or close the loophole. I think everyone on these boards will agree that true exploits are dumb and GMs should stop PCs from doing them.
However, there exists a seperate class of powers that are not exploits. If an exploit can be thought of as a "bug" in a software program, then I'm talking about those features that are "by design", just frankly, bad design. I'll use the term "mutually assured destruction" powers. These are tricks like "scry-and-die" or, at midgame, "flight." Because really, if the BBEG looked down at his spellbook, he'd have himself and his lieutenants using all of these powers all of the time. To not do so would be the equivilant of a large modern company saying "we're not going to use networked computers, because it's not in-character." And while it's good for the OOG economy that every company is using computers, it wouldn't be good for the IG fun if every BBEG decided to "scry-and-die" the PCs in their sleep. In the WoI exploit you alluded to the idea that the town would eventually stop buying up iron, as a way that the economy would realistically respond to being flooded with excess. This shows you are, on some level, on my side. The world should react to the things/powers that are in it. The only reason it wouldn't is mutally assured GM/PC destruction.
There aren't "patches" to these powers, at least not easy ones, these are endemic to the wizard-condition. And they make playing a non-wizard decidedly chump.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ahhh, just found it.
Anyways, to cover three points regarding ToB.
The problem is what is and isn't romanced in D&D; the emphasis is put so much on magic that they become center stage, while fighters are seen as infantry grunts and nothing more. Screw that - fighting should be awesome. Fighters should be heroes, not NPC guards.
Beyond that, the clash of east vs west comes up, and its a stupid, stupid clash. Your standard wuxia hero is a lone traveler who wanders the land to bring justice and mercy to those who deserve both accordingly. He's received extraordinary martial and spiritual training that allows him to pull off legendary and supernatural feats. He's a master with his weapon, capable of bringing justice down on bad guys, and can even channel his own spiritual energy to heal others with just the touch of his hands. His code of conduct dedicates him to honor and justice, but his religious ideals speak of mercy and the sanctity of life, causing both to clash on the inside.
Everything I just typed could've been made for a paladin. Why is one ok and the other not?
The problem is Orientalism. When people think of eastern characters, they think of cheesy ninjas in black pajamas. Rather then draw on the absolutely incredible wealth of lore and flavor that can be taken from eastern mythology, people go for the most shallow and bastardized western knock offs they can find. Often times the eastern archtype isn't made to draw an actual line to Buddhist asceticism or the drama between personal feelings and overwhelming collectivism. No, it's made in the most western-ized way they can, so a small handful of characters can feel "exotic."
Tome of Battle gives martial characters the chance to be heroes. Instead of just boring guardsmen, they can become the figures of myth and legend that exist in all cultures, both western and eastern. Unfortunately, western post-mythology has damned their own previous warrior-caste, while eastern post-mythology praises theirs, so any figure that does anything extraordinary is decried as being "anime." Were you to make a warblade based on Odysseus, with his mix of combat prowess, strong leadership capabilities, and wily tactics, you'd have people whining that you stole a character from Bleach. If you can't make a western mythological hero without someone claiming you're ripping off anime, the problem isn't with the book.
ToB gives martial classes what the other classes had - things to do. Instead of just charging and full attacking all the time, you have all kinds of things to pull out of your sleeve. Yes, a Pathfinder fighter will probably outdamage a warblade - but the warblade will have more fun, because he's doing more things. If you took away all of wizards' spells but one spell that did 50d6 damage, yes, it would be pretty damn powerful. But it would be boring as hell.
The Fun also ties into the fluff. White Raven Tactics brings back the 2e-ism of fighter being the leader of men. Iron Heart make you the tough guy fighter, the powerful warrior who shrugs off the enchantments and arrows thrown at him and charges into battle. Stone Dragon is unmovable, the dwarf who plants his feet firmly into the ground and howls that none will pass by him so long as he still stands. Diamond Mind is the master of speed and concentration, the fencer that seems to dodge away from your every attack and twirls his rapier faster then the eye can see.
Sounds a lot cooler then just "guy with halberd," doesn't it?
In the end, I have no problems with people not really liking Tome of Battle. I don't care if someone decides not to read it. If you love the fighter in either 3.5 or Pathfinder format, then you've found something you enjoy, and I neither could nor should take that away from you.
But me?
I like my Tome of Battle :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
+1 to ProfessorCirno, I do believe he hit the nail on the head as far as how I feel about the book.
It's a good explanation.
Honestly, and this may seem silly to some folks, one of the things that turned me off to Bo9S when I heard about it and it came out, and to 4th Ed when I ran a campaign with it, was actually the naming conventions. It's not "I attack with my sword," it's "I use Thorn Rattling Bonethrust" and "Pouncing Tiger-Cat Walk." Oh, he counters with "Swinging Gate Shot" and "Blink of the Eye."
I don't play Magic, but I have played the Pokemon card game and seen the show, where they call out their attacks by name, and it does feel kind of like that.
Whether it has anything to do with card games is really neither here nor there, but for some reason those kinds of call-out titles for Every Single Thing You Do (exaggeration for emphasis) just grate on me. Perhaps it's the grognard in me, but that very superficial element of flavor went a long way toward killing my interest, such as it was. Shouldn't I just be able to "get over it" and look at the mechanics without the kooky names? Oh, I suppose I should... but given a finite amount of time and mental energy available for gaming, it's one step farther than I care to travel.
FWIW, I absolutely agree with the argument that stuff gets called "unrealistic" all the time when a warrior does it but that casters get away with whatever they want without worrying about that conceptual limit.
I also agree that making giant numbers (which your PF fighting classes can certainly do) is a poor substitute for infinite variety... since casters can make giant numbers too AND a bajillion other things.
I also agree that the "fighters can do it all day long, casters have a limited number of spells per day" is a weak argument, given that the adventuring day, quite rationally, ENDS when the casters run out of spells, except on rare occasions when the PCs are stuck in a race against time (and even then wands and staves and the like keep casters in the game). The theoretical balance of a fighter still kicking people in the gnads while the casters tromp along without spells ALMOST NEVER HAPPENS.
I don't agree that warrior types are nearly as helpless or that casters are nearly as omnipotent as some will go on about at length and with ABSOLUTE AND INARGUABLE CERTAINTY (tm), especially when you are talking about actual D&D campaign gameplay rather than one-on-one PvP deathmatch scenarios, but that's enough for now. Back to work.
Bo9S has its uses. It'd make my "books to have on a desert island list". After all, it's not like there's going to be any toilet paper on a desert island...
For those keeping score at home, I'm in the "Bo9S Sucks" camp. :)
See, you don't need to yell the name of the attack while you do it. I never understood that complaint, because I never understood why anyone would do that. My rogue doesn't shout "I'M BLUFFING YOU" every time he uses feint, after all. Well, unless he rolls a 1.
Bo9S has its uses. It'd make my "books to have on a desert island list". After all, it's not like there's going to be any toilet paper on a desert island...
For those keeping score at home, I'm in the "Bo9S Sucks" camp. :)
If you don't mind, could you actually state why?
For what it's worth, the reason I talk a lot and at times gush over ToB is because I genuinely think it's a good addition to D&D as a whole. Not just that it's fun mechanics or that it's a cool idea, but that Dungeon and Dragons itself is elevated by it. It kills off the almost ages old thought process that fighters are meant to be grunts, and turns them into heroes.
Edit: Perhaps this could help: the way I see it, D&D isn't a magical game, D&D is a fantasy game. Wizards, clerics, druids, and other casters are fantastic. Why shouldn't martial classes be allowed to be fantastic too? It's a fantasy game. Nobody wants to be the NPC grunt in the team of heroes.
I like the Bo9S. I worked at a gaming store when it was released and I had quite a few conversations about it. Suffice it to say it's a controversial supplement. Personally I like the feel of it. I don't think of it as "magic for fighters" I think of it as something that makes playing a fighter more fun and more strategic at high levels than either charging or rolling a full attack.
There's nothing wrong with the power level of Bo9S. There's nothing wrong with the flavor either, and for Jason who thinks the abilities sound like trading cards you should read some Wuxia fiction or the Wheel of Time series.
I've always been of the camp that the fighters feats do one of two things, make him hit harder (boring) or give him cool moves (exciting). Spring Attack, Cleave, and Robilar's Gambit are all examples of cool moves. Bo9S is all based around giving you a ton of cool moves to keep you interested in combat especially in higher levels.
and for Jason who thinks the abilities sound like trading cards you should read some Wuxia fiction or the Wheel of Time series.
Or The Princess Bride. "Oh, so you're using Bonetti's Defense against me, eh?" "I thought it was fitting given the rocky terrain." "Naturally, you must expect me to attack with Capa Ferro --" "-- naturally, but I find Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro, don't you?"
Because The Princess Bride is so Wuxia-anime-MtG-Yugioh. It's nothing at all like D&D.
... wait, what?
See, you don't need to yell the name of the attack while you do it. I never understood that complaint, because I never understood why anyone would do that. My rogue doesn't shout "I'M BLUFFING YOU" every time he uses feint, after all. Well, unless he rolls a 1.
Bo9S has its uses. It'd make my "books to have on a desert island list". After all, it's not like there's going to be any toilet paper on a desert island...
For those keeping score at home, I'm in the "Bo9S Sucks" camp. :)
If you don't mind, could you actually state why?
For what it's worth, the reason I talk a lot and at times gush over ToB is because I genuinely think it's a good addition to D&D as a whole. Not just that it's fun mechanics or that it's a cool idea, but that Dungeon and Dragons itself is elevated by it. It kills off the almost ages old thought process that fighters are meant to be grunts, and turns them into heroes.
Edit: Perhaps this could help: the way I see it, D&D isn't a magical game, D&D is a fantasy game. Wizards, clerics, druids, and other casters are fantastic. Why shouldn't martial classes be allowed to be fantastic too? It's a fantasy game. Nobody wants to be the NPC grunt in the team of heroes.
Because I like my fantasy games to emulate swords-n-sorcery not wuxia. If you're all about class balance at high-level play, the answer is not to make warriors mystical necessarily but perhaps recognize that spellcasters have too much power. Stock D&D is already too heavily slanted in the Fantasy-SuperFriends direction. The default solution is to always scale up the fantastic. ("but these go to 11...")
Mystical warriors have there place in fantasy, of course, but I don't think it should be a default assumption or requirement. I also was generally turned off by the proto-4e powers.
I'm sure Bo9S has its place in certain kinds of campaigns. The biggest problem I have with it is that since WotC published it, some players insist it has a place in every campaign. YMMV.
I like the Bo9S. I worked at a gaming store when it was released and I had quite a few conversations about it. Suffice it to say it's a controversial supplement. Personally I like the feel of it. I don't think of it as "magic for fighters" I think of it as something that makes playing a fighter more fun and more strategic at high levels than either charging or rolling a full attack.
There's nothing wrong with the power level of Bo9S. There's nothing wrong with the flavor either, and for Jason who thinks the abilities sound like trading cards you should read some Wuxia fiction or the Wheel of Time series.
I've always been of the camp that the fighters feats do one of two things, make him hit harder (boring) or give him cool moves (exciting). Spring Attack, Cleave, and Robilar's Gambit are all examples of cool moves. Bo9S is all based around giving you a ton of cool moves to keep you interested in combat especially in higher levels.
I'm all for having warriors do more cool things in combat. I just don't like the implementation as presented in the Bo9S.
If I swing a sword, I should be able to attempt a disarm, a called shot, etc. If I trained in a particular style of fighting, perhaps I'm better at something, but it shouldn't grant me the ability to do something anyone else should be able to try. Also, I'm pretty sure that specialized training is what feats are supposed to represent and building a fighting style is better served through feat-selection/chaining.
Give me combat options ala Iron Heroes Combat Maneuvers (which any class can use) over Bo9S mechanics any day.
Because I like my fantasy games to emulate swords-n-sorcery not wuxia. If you're all about class balance at high-level play, the answer is not to make warriors mystical necessarily but perhaps recognize that spellcasters have too much power. Stock D&D is already too heavily slanted in the Fantasy-SuperFriends direction. The default solution is to always scale up the fantastic. ("but these go to 11...")
Mystical warriors have there place in fantasy, of course, but I don't think it should be a default assumption or requirement. I also was generally turned off by the proto-4e powers.I'm sure Bo9S has its place in certain kinds of campaigns. The biggest problem I have with it is that since WotC published it, some players insist it has a place in every campaign. YMMV.
Then you should LOVE Bo9S, because only one of the classes is mystical/wuxia. Warblades have nothing even vaguely mystical, and Crusaders have essentially identical flavor to Paladins.
Then you should LOVE Bo9S, because only one of the classes is mystical/wuxia. Warblades have nothing even vaguely mystical, and Crusaders have essentially identical flavor to Paladins.Because I like my fantasy games to emulate swords-n-sorcery not wuxia. If you're all about class balance at high-level play, the answer is not to make warriors mystical necessarily but perhaps recognize that spellcasters have too much power. Stock D&D is already too heavily slanted in the Fantasy-SuperFriends direction. The default solution is to always scale up the fantastic. ("but these go to 11...")
Mystical warriors have there place in fantasy, of course, but I don't think it should be a default assumption or requirement. I also was generally turned off by the proto-4e powers.I'm sure Bo9S has its place in certain kinds of campaigns. The biggest problem I have with it is that since WotC published it, some players insist it has a place in every campaign. YMMV.
No, because I found the implementation of the mechanics unsatisfying in general.
Then you should LOVE Bo9S, because only one of the classes is mystical/wuxia. Warblades have nothing even vaguely mystical, and Crusaders have essentially identical flavor to Paladins.Because I like my fantasy games to emulate swords-n-sorcery not wuxia. If you're all about class balance at high-level play, the answer is not to make warriors mystical necessarily but perhaps recognize that spellcasters have too much power. Stock D&D is already too heavily slanted in the Fantasy-SuperFriends direction. The default solution is to always scale up the fantastic. ("but these go to 11...")
Mystical warriors have there place in fantasy, of course, but I don't think it should be a default assumption or requirement. I also was generally turned off by the proto-4e powers.I'm sure Bo9S has its place in certain kinds of campaigns. The biggest problem I have with it is that since WotC published it, some players insist it has a place in every campaign. YMMV.
This is irritating me a lot, since I just said that in the post right above him and he just completely ignored it.
Go back up to my post, read the spoilers under "fluff" and "fun." Warblades can be closer to 2e fighters then 3e fighters.
This is irritating me a lot, since I just said that in the post right above him and he just completely ignored it.Go back up to my post, read the spoilers under "fluff" and "fun." Warblades can be closer to 2e fighters then 3e fighters.
Whether it's irritating you or not is, frankly, irrelevant. I don't like the mechanics presented in the Bo9S. End of story. I believe there are other supplements in RPG-land that provide interesting options for warriors in a fashion I find to be superior to Bo9S.
You like/love Bo9S. That's cool. I'm not telling you you're wrong. It works for you.
That said, you're not going to convince me. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't use the book in a 3.5 game and I'm certainly not going to use it in a Pathfinder game.
That's it. The End. You asked me to explain why I thought it sucks and I did. I don't wish to be argumentative, but if you don't like my reasons, that's your problem. I'm not impacting your game or your enjoyment of the book.
and for Jason who thinks the abilities sound like trading cards you should read some Wuxia fiction or the Wheel of Time series.Or The Princess Bride. "Oh, so you're using Bonetti's Defense against me, eh?" "I thought it was fitting given the rocky terrain." "Naturally, you must expect me to attack with Capa Ferro --" "-- naturally, but I find Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro, don't you?"
Because The Princess Bride is so Wuxia-anime-MtG-Yugioh. It's nothing at all like D&D.
... wait, what?
I would have to say that saying, "Bonetti's Defense" feels different to me than saying, "Pearl of Black Doubt." Just because each has a name doesn't mean that they are the same like you seem to assume in your argument.
Your argument doesn't seem to hold water and my reaction to it would have to be ... wait, what?
|
I do like the Book of Nine Swords because the book does increase the options and adds additional flavor for melee classes. Now, there are issues with particular abilities (for example the Warblade's swift recovery method). However, those abilities can be easily house ruled. The Book of Nine Swords characters certainly do not feel more powerful than their spell casting counterparts.
I'm with the "Bo9S is cool" crowd. There are a handful of maneuvers that need to be houseruled a bit, but other than that it is all gravy.
What flavor is associated with any of the classes is irrelevant to me - I tend to make a character concept and fill it up with the class(es) needed to make the concept come alive; rather than enslave the character concept to whatever flavor its constituent classes are made of.
That said, I find that Bo9S is not relevant to my Pathfinder gaming.
|
|
So, you have a problem with players announcing what maneuver they are going to use, BPorter? Or are you imagining that their characters are shouting them out? I, for one, don't think it's any different for a swordsage player to say "I use emerald razor" than for a wizard player say "I cast Acid Arrow".
Here's the flavor of Tome of Battle: You're a fightan man. That's it. That's the whole flavor.I actually have to disagree here. Flavor and mechanics go hand in hand, and the mechanics of ToB is wildly different from Core.
Mechanics and flavor are not joined at the hip as you seem to think they are. That is the whole idea behind things like the OGL. Mechanics are completely seperate from the fantasy world, only it's results are seen in the campaign. Mechanics are something none of the "characters" or "npcs" ever see or understand. It is all "behind the scenes" when mechanics are concerned, the flavor has no actual binding to the mechanics. Paizo uses the OGL so that we can rip out the game mechanics, reflavor it to how you would like and then place it into another setting of our choice. There was a very long post where this was brought up before if you'd like even more indepth explanation.
I dislike the flavor. The use of stances and special maneuvers reeks to me of casters. I like there to be a divide, and ToB completly obfuscates the line between magical and non-magical.
Flavor is completely mutable and the mechanics of anything can be redone so the flavor fits. Too often though the "flavor doesn't fit" argument is a cop out - "I really don't like it and I don't want to say that so I'm going to say the flavor doesn't fit" is what it ends up being when people really start to get into a discussion about it. Not saying that is what you are doing, just saying more often than not that is what is really happening.
FWIW, I also subscribe to the idea that the monk abilities are keyed to latent psionics or the mysterious Ki energy.
Complete and total fluff, and the Bo9S could easily be represented the same way. You don't even have to redo the entire book, just redo the abilities that are going to be used by a character. A very simple fix that doesn't take up much time or resources if your time is in demand.
However, I fully admit that the points on power are probably spot on. I have not been aboe to test this, mostly because nobody ever asked to play something from the book in my games and I never found anything in the book I wanted to play. My issue was I read the book and could not think of a single character concept I wanted to make using the book. Many of the stances and powers I just found silly or obviously better choices.So, the issue is probably that the mechanics were not generic enough. That, and it violated a basic divide (magic) I would prefer to see maintained. But other than a few feats, I found the whole book to just be blah.
Again it isn't a matter of the mechanics being general enough, it is a point of view that because of the way the book was published, that it is supposed to be "this way". Problem is it isn't, just about everyone I know has taken something from a published book and reworked it to fit in a custom world, people on the boards here say they do it all the time as well. Mechanics are published with a flavor by the author of the book, sometimes it is hit and miss. If you gut the flavor from the book you have no real reason to get stuck on the author's interpretation and are left with some decent game mechanics (that are actually pretty well balanced in comparisson to the core rules it was published under) to use in this case. Not trying to change your mind, just giving a counter argument in case you are of the "open minded" type and willing to see things might not be as you think they are and open to change your opinion if given enough reason to.
I love Bo9S in play, but there are some things about it that drive me bonkers. Look at all the "Mountain This" and "Elder Mountain That" and "Supreme Awesome Elder Mountain The Other" strikes. There are like a zillion of them, and all of them could have been presented as a single optional class feature that scales with level. Likewise for the 756 maneuvers that consist of "jump really high in the air and make a single melee attack with your kukri!" or the dozen or so that consist of "as a standard action, grab your opponent and chuck him X squares for Y damage." Instead of modeling them as spells, I'd've modelled them after sneak attack or rage -- as class options that scale with level, which is basically what they boil down to.
Would this have ended the endless claims of "Bo9S is overpowered!" Not in the least. But it would have prevented the frequent (and incorrect) assertion that Warblades are "too magical."
Renaming the maneuvers something more Euro-centric (or just to something more flavorless) would have eliminated the "It's too Wuxia!" claims as well. Instead of a secret fire ancient yeti combination slice maneuver or whatever, if you got a Penetrating Attack maneuver that did the same thing, a lot of people would have been a lot more accepting of the whole package.
Too many people get hung up on 9 Swords 'facts' that just aren't true.
1) They do too much dmg.
No, Uber-Chargers do too much dmg. Martial Adepts do the dmg of full attacking fighters and barbs. But they also do a lot of other stuff.
2) They are magical.
The only 'magical' effects are in the Swordsage school and Crusader school. The first is a Monk analogy, and monks dont get magical-like skills, right? The second is a Paladin analog, and Paladins don't have magical healing powers, do they?
3) Too anime.
As someone mentioned, "I throw my fabulous fireball!" is no different then "I hit him using Emerald Razor." I hereby posit spellcasters should refer to spells only by level and number. "I hit him with spell 3-17" sounds sooooo much more dramatic.
What 9 Swords really did was:
1) Allowed melees to move and attack for full damage.
2) Gave them the defenses they should have had to withstand attacks, instead of being gear dependent.
3) Gave them some alternatives for movement and awareness in combat, and some very cool high-end combat techniques.
4) Gave you a real and true appreciation for what a 'school' of fighting men was like...totally unlike anything today.
And that's it. Complaining about stances just blows my mind...there are actually feats that do what stances do, but that are on ALL the time, not just when you swap in or out. Amazing myopia.
You could take 90% of the coolness factor of T09S back by just going back to a couple old rules.
1) The only attack action is a full attack. Boom, melees are now always at their best, not just archers. Everyone can move and attack. The whole neccessity of getting Pounce or Vital Strike evaporates...Melees are wholy effective with standard actions, just like spellcasters are! Amazing concept.
2) Go back to Melee all good saves. That gives them the defenses they should have, anyways. In 1e and 2E, Fighter-types had the best saves in the game, not monks.
3) Make attacks/rd a class ability, not a BAB ability. Melees would once again dominate all in melee. No major spellcaster should ever get more then 2 attacks.
===Aelryinth
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I would have to say that saying, "Bonetti's Defense" feels different to me than saying, "Pearl of Black Doubt." Just because each has a name doesn't mean that they are the same like you seem to assume in your argument.and for Jason who thinks the abilities sound like trading cards you should read some Wuxia fiction or the Wheel of Time series.Or The Princess Bride. "Oh, so you're using Bonetti's Defense against me, eh?" "I thought it was fitting given the rocky terrain." "Naturally, you must expect me to attack with Capa Ferro --" "-- naturally, but I find Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro, don't you?"
Because The Princess Bride is so Wuxia-anime-MtG-Yugioh. It's nothing at all like D&D.
... wait, what?
I would agree with this.
Also, I have only a general notion of what Wuxia means and have never referred to it. Nor to anime. Nor to Yugioh (doesn't it have hyphens). So... I'm not sure what you're talking about there.
I did refer to the MtG design team influencing the 4th Ed RPG team within the company on the specific point of naming conventions, which is not an opinion but a fact from people who worked there in games R&D at the time. You can believe it or not believe it as you choose.
My mention of Pokemon was to explain that I had played that card game but not Magic and had no particular comment on Magic as a game, since I don't really know anything about it. Those more familiar have offered their opinions that there are some card-like mechanics present in 4th Ed, but I'll leave that for others to debate if they like since I ain't got no dog in that fight.
I don't refer to players calling out the names of their attacks; I mean, they would use them "My warlock uses Avernian Eruption" or "Star of the Black Moon" or what have you, but they weren't shouting them out like "Squirtle! Squirt-squirt-squirtle! Water gun!"
I am just referring to reading the book. And good, bad, or indifferent, I don't like the style of names that they use for the powers. People like what they like, and for me the types of names common in at least the first year or so of 4th Ed supplements (which sound to my ears similar to the ones proffered from the Bo9S) fall into the "don't like" bin.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
There's nothing wrong with the power level of Bo9S. There's nothing wrong with the flavor either, and for Jason who thinks the abilities sound like trading cards you should read some Wuxia fiction or the Wheel of Time series.
I have read the WoT series. Lan and Rand refer to their Blademaster moves by name, it's true. Almost nobody else in the book does. As an accent piece, I'm okay with it. As standard operating procedure for everybody? Not so much.
A handful of weaves of the One Power have florid names (Rolling Ring of Earth and Fire or something like that). Most are pretty mundane or descriptive (e.g., Traveling, Delving, Healing, Lines of Fire).
I haven't read nor have any particular time or desire to seek out Wuxia fiction.
I've always been of the camp that the fighters feats do one of two things, make him hit harder (boring) or give him cool moves (exciting). Spring Attack, Cleave, and Robilar's Gambit are all examples of cool moves. Bo9S is all based around giving you a ton of cool moves to keep you interested in combat especially in higher levels.
I have no objection to cool moves. As stated, I just didn't like the names. You may think that's a dumb thing not to like, but I can live with that.
So could someone quote the part of the book that mandates you yell out the name of the maneuver as you use it?
'Cause apparently it has to be mandatory with how people hate it so much.
Kick his ass! KICK HIS ASS!!!
I'm all for having warriors do more cool things in combat. I just don't like the implementation as presented in the Bo9S.
If I swing a sword, I should be able to attempt a disarm, a called shot, etc. If I trained in a particular style of fighting, perhaps I'm better at something, but it shouldn't grant me the ability to do something anyone else should be able to try. Also, I'm pretty sure that specialized training is what feats are supposed to represent and building a fighting style is better served through feat-selection/chaining.
Give me combat options ala Iron Heroes Combat Maneuvers (which any class can use) over Bo9S mechanics any day.
FWIW I appreciate your candor. I don't think there are any 3.5 supplements I have 100% liked or endorsed, and alternate systems are even harder to swallow than new feats/PrCs. I just feel that the idea of having stances and maneuvers, and specifically being able to micromanage your combat round to parry this dodge that thrust here etc involves a combat character in a way that standard D&D combat doesn't. D&D combat at higher levels becomes a tedious numbers game IMO.
I dug it. We can disagree on the degree to which it achieved its goals, but as an idea farm I give it A+ distinction. Iron Heroes is a different way to achieve the same goal with a different flavor and I dig it as well.
I can't make you like it, nor would I care to try, but I thought I would respond civilly to your well-put objections to the Bo9S.
FWIW I appreciate your candor. I don't think there are any 3.5 supplements I have 100% liked or endorsed, and alternate systems are even harder to swallow than new feats/PrCs. I just feel that the idea of having stances and maneuvers, and specifically being able to micromanage your combat round to parry this dodge that thrust here etc involves a combat character in a way that standard D&D combat doesn't. D&D combat at higher levels becomes a tedious numbers game IMO.I dug it. We can disagree on the degree to which it achieved its goals, but as an idea farm I give it A+ distinction. Iron Heroes is a different way to achieve the same goal with a different flavor and I dig it as well.
I can't make you like it, nor would I care to try, but I thought I would respond civilly to your well-put objections to the Bo9S.
Much thanks. As I said, to each their own and if the books works for some people, more power to them.
The title of the thread had me thinking this was going to be more tongue-in-cheek argument than a debate on the merits and flaws of the book. My initial post was meant in good fun. If it rubbed people the wrong way, I apologize.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
So could someone quote the part of the book that mandates you yell out the name of the maneuver as you use it?
'Cause apparently it has to be mandatory with how people hate it so much.
Are there people that yell out their attacks as they use them? Strange. I've never encountered that.
People did use the names of the maneuvers in 4th Ed games, in the same tone of voice as they'd say magic missile, but I haven't heard of any yellers. Except for Old Yeller. :)
So could someone quote the part of the book that mandates you yell out the name of the maneuver as you use it?
'Cause apparently it has to be mandatory with how people hate it so much.
Are there people that yell out their attacks as they use them? Strange. I've never encountered that.
People did use the names of the maneuvers in 4th Ed games, in the same tone of voice as they'd say magic missile, but I haven't heard of any yellers. Except for Old Yeller. :)
People keep saying "Look at how stupid the names are, can you imagine someone shouting that in combat?"
And I don't understand the complaint. No, I can't imagine someone shouting that in combat. That's because they don't. Likewise, the fighter doesn't yell in his 8 int voice "HURRRR POWER ATTAAAAAAAACK" every time he does that.
I would have to say that saying, "Bonetti's Defense" feels different to me than saying, "Pearl of Black Doubt." Just because each has a name doesn't mean that they are the same like you seem to assume in your argument.
Your argument doesn't seem to hold water and my reaction to it would have to be ... wait, what?
You do realize that "Capa Ferro" means "Iron Head", right? By that logic, "Perla nera del dubbio" is a perfectly legitimate name. (Hint: that's "Pearl of Black Doubt" in Italian, according to Google Translate)
|
|
Musashi said like, when you're making a fire-and-stones cut, to take your opponent and his blade and break them both in two,
don't go shouting, "harHAR! her har HAR har!!! NOW I make my CUT by FIRE-AND-STONES!!!" because he'll know what you're doing.
Unless you're bluffing and you're going to do some other punk move.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
So could someone quote the part of the book that mandates you yell out the name of the maneuver as you use it?
'Cause apparently it has to be mandatory with how people hate it so much.
Are there people that yell out their attacks as they use them? Strange. I've never encountered that.
People did use the names of the maneuvers in 4th Ed games, in the same tone of voice as they'd say magic missile, but I haven't heard of any yellers. Except for Old Yeller. :)
People keep saying "Look at how stupid the names are, can you imagine someone shouting that in combat?"
And I don't understand the complaint. No, I can't imagine someone shouting that in combat. That's because they don't. Likewise, the fighter doesn't yell in his 8 int voice "HURRRR POWER ATTAAAAAAAACK" every time he does that.
Really? Which people keep saying that?
I don't like the names as they read in a book. A game book. Which I, Jason, am looking at.
Not something with Torrrg the Valiant shouts on the imaginary battlefield of the campaign. Or which Bob the plumber says or yells at the table.
Maybe this is the counter-complaint that *I* don't understand - it's got nothing to do with in-character or out-of-character roleplaying and RPG gameplay. It's about not liking the way it looks/sounds in the book.
The claim that "people keep saying that" seems kinda odd.
Maybe I just haven't been around enough Bo9S flamewars.