I loved Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords ... one of my all time favorite D&D related books (from 1st edition to the present).
I'm bummed that said material isn't open content and thus can never be a part of Pathfinder. I love Pathfinder and can't stand 4th edition...oh well.
I guess it becomes of a case of house ruling the material into a Pathfinder game and making an organic transition without the "blessing of Paizo/official publishers"...
Has anyone out there found success and luck in translating Tome of Battle to Pathfinder?
Thanks kindly for any constructive replies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if you do a search in the conversions section of the forums you may be able to find what you are looking for.
I love Tome of Battle as well! :)
I only played a few PF games with classes from ToB: the swordsage for a one-shot, and the warblade for a few sessions of a short-lived campaign.
Overall, there wasn't much to alter for those classes to fit in. However, you'll need to find a replacement for the Concentration skill, since that's been removed from PF. We decided to use Autohypnosis from the psionic rules (originally from 3.5, but the PF compatible one from Dreamscarred Press works well enough). We toyed with the idea of using Perception as a replacement as well. Discipline-associated skills need to be updated to PF as well.
Aside from that, everything else worked well enough out of the box, but again, we didn't get many sessions to work out the ToB mechanics fully. You may want to change the Swordsage's hit die from d8 to d10. My swordsage and warblade held their own among the other PF updated core classes. The disciplines and their mechanics are pretty self-contained, so we didn't see any conflict between them and PF.
My only real concern about converting ToB classes to PF is the rate at which classes gain feats. In 3.5 it was every third level, in PF it's every other level. Would the latter be the rule for PF versions of the ToB classes?
Well 4e gets pretty ridiculous because of how hard the monsters are that if you don't have a team with a tank/dpr/support they are nearly impossible to hit or take down.
When playing 4e I was often a powergamer and would try to squeeze in every bonus I could get. And I could only hit monsters still on a 19-20.
It was fun during the first few levels, then it just got to the point of.. why am i even playing this game.
Especially since, well, its hard to be "special" when everyone else is similarly "special"
BO9S though,
I loved Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords ... one of my all time favorite D&D related books (from 1st edition to the present).
I'm bummed that said material isn't open content and thus can never be a part of Pathfinder. I love Pathfinder and can't stand 4th edition...oh well.
I guess it becomes of a case of house ruling the material into a Pathfinder game and making an organic transition without the "blessing of Paizo/official publishers"...
Has anyone out there found success and luck in translating Tome of Battle to Pathfinder?
Thanks kindly for any constructive replies.
You like tome of battle but hate 4th Ed....
Tome was beta test for 4th Ed so that is funny. Lol about 80% of tome is 4th some way or another.Tome play well by it's self not well with 3.5 or 3.75 it is huge power leap.
It way stronger. A non tome PC pales beside it.
If you liked tome of battle in 3.5 then you will like it in pathfinder. They arent quite as ahead of the curve of other martial characters as they were in 3.5, so things work out a bit better. You really dont need to do much of any conversion, you can pretty much plug and play, you just have to account for skill changes for skills that powers require (like concentration for instance).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of strange to find a BO9S junkie who can't get into 4E.You've found two then. Double strangeness!
Make it three! also in before BO9S hatemail!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*waves, then holds up four fingers*Make it three! also in before BO9S hatemail!It's kind of strange to find a BO9S junkie who can't get into 4E.You've found two then. Double strangeness!
My husband and I make it 6.
As for replacing the Concentration skill; we use Martial Lore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I liked ToB too for the most part, but hate 4e. *shrugs*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really liked both ToB and The skill tricks from 3.5. It gave much more to games for mundane characters to do that was cool or awesome.
There is some nice things in APG and the like but too many of them are specific for monk (cause rogues apparently can't learn to run on walls.)
Another BO9S junkie but I dont hate 4E just have a dislike for it. When you have to fill the 4 roles that they made the game revolve around and just make it an endless grind it really turned me off.
|
I think if you do a search in the conversions section of the forums you may be able to find what you are looking for.
Here's one thread:
Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords in Pathfinder?
I'm bummed that said material isn't open content and thus can never be a part of Pathfinder. I love Pathfinder and can't stand 4th edition...oh well.
And here's a constructive reply: don't mention can't stand/hate/dislike 4E, especially couched in a polite request on these boards. Makes you look like another form of troll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of strange to find a BO9S junkie who can't get into 4E.You've found two then. Double strangeness!
Add me also.
There isnt anything wrong with BO9S, and the basics for 4th edition arent bad, imo WotC just went too far with it. Otherwise I can imagine a caster type following a BO9S system quite well too.
The BO9S can be dropped into PF without much problems I think, possibly watch out for strange feat combination more than anything else, also watch out for having other characters use material from BO9S.
Sword Sage could use some slight upgrading increasing AC bonus per 4 levels as per the monk, and I'd give him flurry of blows as well.
Warblade, needs no real adjustment I think, it was already the strongest option in BO9S I'd probably add bravery as per the fighter ability and be done with him.
Crusader I never liked, so no real opinion on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also like Bo9S but hate 4e. With a burning murderous passion I do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We like it. We don't allow the classes, bit you can take the martial study feat or martial stance.
Got a Two Weapon Warrior who took the low level healing stance (you or ally heal 2HP per strike) along with Rolibar's Gambit, Combat Vigor.
Getting fast healing 4 and another 2HP per strike has this dude healing 12-20 HP every round makes the Paladin cry....
Folks - I really appreciate the constructive and thoughtful responses!
I respectfully disagree with the assertion that loving TOB means one should automatically enjoy 4th edition.
I also tend to figure that TOB could work quite well with Pathfinder. While the Pathfinder fighter class is a great upgrade over 3rd edition, if one was to include martial adept classes I'd suggest the fighter be given 4-5 new power ups or abilities.
|
I'm running a game of PF with full ToB in it. We run the whole thing as written, save that we're using the condensed skills, etc.
ToB classes did seem a bit more powerful in play than melees in core 3.5. Converting to PF halfway through a ToB-using campaign showed me that PF melees stepped up to being in line with the power of the ToB. It's actually more even now to just run it all as written.
We're not trying to start an edition war battle by mentioning our dislike of 4E. We're just trying to counter reactionary ToB hate that equates it to 4th edition which many people here including myself think is patently untrue. I've played 3.5/PF using ToB and I've played 4E. in my experience they are nothing alike in actual play.
My problem with Bo9S is exactly the same reason I'd have few problems with it in Pathfinder. The balance compared to 3.5 martial classes was jaked up and with very little in the way of actually helping those classes out. Move to PF and I drop my balance issues.
I'd say use as is with only modifications to skills and CMB where needed. IMO E
even the Sword Sage doesn't quite need the bumps on AC and Flurry (although I would likely use a PF Monk Flurry just stay consistent). I'd rather see the classes under powered compared to Pathfinder Core class then being slightly over powered.
Yeah, as others have said, ToB can be run almost entirely as written with exceedingly few practical problems. It'll look a little rough around the edges in some places. For example, the condensed skill system means that there is suddenly significant overlap to the key skills of the various disciplines, and it feels wrong to say that Acrobatics is the key skill of Stone Dragon. However, with a handful of exceptions, key skills are mostly fluff. The only practical concern there is finding a skill to replace Concentration as key to Diamond Mind. I would suggest either Perception or borrow Autohypnosis out of psionics rules.
Depending on how much work you want to do, you might want to edit the handful of Save or Die effects--mainly the capstone Tiger Claw maneuver--to inflict ten damage per initiator level, in line with Pathfinder alterations to Save or Dies.
The classes more or less fit in with the current paradigm in terms of BAB and HD; I might swap the Warblade's d12 and the Crusader's d10.
On the whole, you can plug and play with little extra effort. The hard work comes if you start pondering ways to expand maneuver options to other classes and employing homebrewed disciplines.
|
|
We seriously considered switching the Warblade and Crusader's HD. The Crusader Maneuvers really lends the class to a damage absorber role.
All things considered though, in a world with Rage Powers, Weapon Training, and the Magus, the ToB classes start to feel a bit more sane power-wise, not to mention that ToB will never get any more official support, while PF classes will get more and more content that plays with their PF-only abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did switch the crusader and warblade HD. It makes more sense to me for the crusader to have a D12.
Crusader had healing ability and heavy armor. Made more sense for the Warblade to have the higher HD...he was going to get hit more (balance, not thematic).
I did a big long post on Regdar's Repository about Warblades, and the actual number of feat-equivalents the Warblade got was 45. Note that 'manuver upgrades' were 8 of those all by themselves, +5 Stances, +13 Manuvers Known, etc gets you instantly to 26, and then just tack on the fact they basically got something new every level and a couple gimmes at 1st.
The Pathfinder fighter gets 21 feat equivalents (I'm sorry, you can get fear IMMUNITY with a feat, so Bravery is not worth a feat). Note that I am ignoring the per-level character feats.
This works out okay in damage and AC because the fighter buffs directly affect his combat role, and the combat feats in PF are generally pretty good.
However, the PF fighter falls down in ability to make saves, hit the unhittable, sensory capability, move and attack, and generally just have a lot of options. The very simple ability to move your spec to the 'weapon of the day' is incredibly valuable.
On full attacks, the PF fighter will likely outdo a Warblade who hasn't managed to set up some incredible combo move with feats (which the PF guy could do, too). On standard actions move and attack, Strikes blow Vital Strike out of the water, and do not take 3 feats to get decent, and Warblades will NEVER fail a key save if they've got the Diamond Mind Manuvers...and Iron Heart surge insures that some caster isn't going to have them out of the fight more then one round.
=======
Add another 9Swords lover who doesn't much care for 4e!
==Aelryinth
Crusader had healing ability and heavy armor. Made more sense for the Warblade to have the higher HD...he was going to get hit more (balance, not thematic).
I did a big long post on Regdar's Repository about Warblades, and the actual number of feat-equivalents the Warblade got was 45. Note that 'manuver upgrades' were 8 of those all by themselves, +5 Stances, +13 Manuvers Known, etc gets you instantly to 26, and then just tack on the fact they basically got something new every level and a couple gimmes at 1st.
The Pathfinder fighter gets 21 feat equivalents (I'm sorry, you can get fear IMMUNITY with a feat, so Bravery is not worth a feat). Note that I am ignoring the per-level character feats.
This works out okay in damage and AC because the fighter buffs directly affect his combat role, and the combat feats in PF are generally pretty good.
However, the PF fighter falls down in ability to make saves, hit the unhittable, sensory capability, move and attack, and generally just have a lot of options. The very simple ability to move your spec to the 'weapon of the day' is incredibly valuable.
On full attacks, the PF fighter will likely outdo a Warblade who hasn't managed to set up some incredible combo move with feats (which the PF guy could do, too). On standard actions move and attack, Strikes blow Vital Strike out of the water, and do not take 3 feats to get decent, and Warblades will NEVER fail a key save if they've got the Diamond Mind Manuvers...and Iron Heart surge insures that some caster isn't going to have them out of the fight more then one round.
=======
Add another 9Swords lover who doesn't much care for 4e!==Aelryinth
How are you getting immunity to fear with a feat?
I think one thing to do with the warblade is remove his Weapon Aptitude ability, or at least change it to work like the Fighter Training ability of the magus. The warblade getting fighter only feats and being able to use them in a way the fighter can't is too much.
I think one thing to do with the warblade is remove his Weapon Aptitude ability, or at least change it to work like the Fighter Training ability of the magus. The warblade getting fighter only feats and being able to use them in a way the fighter can't is too much.
The fighter training ability would up his DPR, and the weapon aptitude rarely comes into play. I actually consider the weapon training the better of the two deals. The weapon aptitude would be really handy if it ever came up, but most GM's are pretty good about making sure you get a weapon you can use or want.
Death Trance, OA, is a WoTC product. level 1, too. I actually think there's 2-3 other feats that do the same thing.
Or one level of chevalier, from PF. Bravery is a completely nonsense ability...it's not even as good as a good Will save, and fighters are 'brave'?
===
Note that his Fighter Training was basically a sign that the Warblade was supposed to be replacing the fighter, not a slam on the fighter (although we all took it that way, because Fighters didn't get -2 Initiator level in return!)
Weapon Aptitude is a SOCIAL thing.
Have to leave your weapon at the door? No problem...I'm a GWS in my belt dagger today...or maybe Unarmed Strike.
Serving with the Lancers? lance spec.
WIth the pikemen? Spears R Me.
Beating on skels? Gimme that flail, or unlimber the mace of disruption.
Archers? No problem, I'm GWS Bow today.
Etc etc. It meant you weren't tied to one weapon for ANY reason. If you got a Weapon Aptitude weapon in your base weapon, you were rewarded with another +1/+1, but that was hardly mandatory. The very best thing for a Warblade was to have IUnarmed Strike, and just change it to whatever weapon of the day was needed. If he was captured and his weapons taken away, well, guess what? heh.
And then there was the fact Superior Unarmed Strike stacked with APtitude Weapons to scale their damage by level...
==Aelryinth
I think one thing to do with the warblade is remove his Weapon Aptitude ability, or at least change it to work like the Fighter Training ability of the magus. The warblade getting fighter only feats and being able to use them in a way the fighter can't is too much.The fighter training ability would up his DPR, and the weapon aptitude rarely comes into play. I actually consider the weapon training the better of the two deals. The weapon aptitude would be really handy if it ever came up, but most GM's are pretty good about making sure you get a weapon you can use or want.
IIRC, Weapon Aptitude let the warblade get fighter bonus feats too, just like Fighter Training, but instead of 1/2 total level, its his total level -2. So, a 20th level warblade can get feats as a 18th level fighter AND change the weapon they apply to on a daily basis.
IIRC, Weapon Aptitude let the warblade get fighter bonus feats too, just like Fighter Training, but instead of 1/2 total level, its his total level -2. So, a 20th level warblade can get feats as a 18th level fighter AND change the weapon they apply to on a daily basis.I think one thing to do with the warblade is remove his Weapon Aptitude ability, or at least change it to work like the Fighter Training ability of the magus. The warblade getting fighter only feats and being able to use them in a way the fighter can't is too much.The fighter training ability would up his DPR, and the weapon aptitude rarely comes into play. I actually consider the weapon training the better of the two deals. The weapon aptitude would be really handy if it ever came up, but most GM's are pretty good about making sure you get a weapon you can use or want.
The Ranger or a Cleric with the Animal domain gets a Druid's Animal Companion at a reduced level. Some Ranger combat styles give otherwise fighter-only feats. Getting abilities from thematically similar classes at a reduced rate is a longstanding mainstay of 3.x and PF, so I really have no problem whatsoever with the warblade qualifying for Weapon Specialization--most times, I wouldn't even care to take it, anyway.
If you really feel the fighter must have a unique advantage in these feats I would suggest this alteration: give the fighter his own version of Weapon Aptitude, which allows him to take Weapon Focus in Weapon Groups, qualifying for Weapon Specialization in any weapon in that Weapon Group, and retrain both freely in the same way the Warblade does.
No real need. Weapon training for the PF fighter takes care of a lot of this. Weapon Mastery in a group sort of helped in 3.5 (+2/+2 to a weapon group), but didn't have quite the power of Weapon Aptitude.
Still, would be nice to have for flexibility.
==Aelryinth
.
Still, would be nice to have for flexibility.
==Aelryinth
Which I hope will come in Ultimate Combat. Something other then pure combat a Fighter can spend his Character feats on. As class the Fighter has all it needs to focus on a single weapon style, I mostly see character feats going to secondary styles or super-sizing the chosen style.
It's why liked where some of the feats in Expanded Psioncs went. "Cool" utility options with a bit of a buy in. Up the Walls and Mental Leap are two that stand out.
The Ranger or a Cleric with the Animal domain gets a Druid's Animal Companion at a reduced level. Some Ranger combat styles give otherwise fighter-only feats. Getting abilities from thematically similar classes at a reduced rate is a longstanding mainstay of 3.x and PF, so I really have no problem whatsoever with the warblade qualifying for Weapon Specialization--most times, I wouldn't even care to take it, anyway.If you really feel the fighter must have a unique advantage in these feats I would suggest this alteration: give the fighter his own version of Weapon Aptitude, which allows him to take Weapon Focus in Weapon Groups, qualifying for Weapon Specialization in any weapon in that Weapon Group, and retrain both freely in the same way the Warblade does.
Actually, I've been using a similar house rule, allowing Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (and Greater versions), to be taken in weapon groups.
I know this is silly, but even with the precedent in other classes, Weapon Aptitude seem a bit wrong to me. It's like giving the ranger the druid's Animal Companion at level -3 but with the ability to change the selected animal each morning.
Silliness aside, I agree that there is not much problem with the warblade being able to take the current fighter-only feats. Maybe Ultimate Combat changes that, who knows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like 4e and I used ToB in my 3.5 campaings*. I just houseruled Devoted Spirit heals as (Su) to have them make sense.
*We are quite a lot, aren't we? ;)
BTW, I think that in the book there are sevaral things PF fighter should have as class feature, like IHS.
.
Still, would be nice to have for flexibility.
==Aelryinth
Which I hope will come in Ultimate Combat. Something other then pure combat a Fighter can spend his Character feats on. As class the Fighter has all it needs to focus on a single weapon style, I mostly see character feats going to secondary styles or super-sizing the chosen style.
It's why liked where some of the feats in Expanded Psioncs went. "Cool" utility options with a bit of a buy in. Up the Walls and Mental Leap are two that stand out.
Sudden LEap in To9S basically allowed a leap and full attack. All you needed was a high jump score.
==Aelryinth
What about feat progression? In 3.5, each class received a new feat every third level. In Pathfinder, it's every other level. So, considering this, would converting a ToB class to the PF feat progression make it unbalanced, as it seems they mostly are as is?
edit: Oops, I forgot I already asked this. Damned Vicodin.......
.
Still, would be nice to have for flexibility.
==Aelryinth
Which I hope will come in Ultimate Combat. Something other then pure combat a Fighter can spend his Character feats on. As class the Fighter has all it needs to focus on a single weapon style, I mostly see character feats going to secondary styles or super-sizing the chosen style.
It's why liked where some of the feats in Expanded Psioncs went. "Cool" utility options with a bit of a buy in. Up the Walls and Mental Leap are two that stand out.
Sudden LEap in To9S basically allowed a leap and full attack. All you needed was a high jump score.
==Aelryinth
Tat maneuver was awesome. a layer of mine used it with combat brute + shocktrooper for a 1:6 ratio gain in power attack the second round of combat. Was great fof overcome corners and similar things.
I indeed think that maneuvers like that should be covered by skill system :/
Fighters get borked on skill points, so, no, skill system shouldn't do it, unless Fighters pay half cost or something.
The PF vs 3.5 character level feats amounts to +3 feats over 20 levels. 1 feat pre-10th isn't going to break anything.
==Aelryinth
Fighters get borked on skill points, so, no, skill system shouldn't do it, unless Fighters pay half cost or something.
The PF vs 3.5 character level feats amounts to +3 feats over 20 levels. 1 feat pre-10th isn't going to break anything.
==Aelryinth
Point being, I feel unconceivable still seeing after 10 years classes with 2 skills/level. But that's another thing entirely, I would separate powers and class features basing on use (combat, utility, movement, defense).
BTW, we played a lot with core classes too in 3.5 and barring save maneuver I don't feel the book SO needed.
What I liked the most of Warblade was the int synergy and the 4 skills/level go figure! :D
@Tim: I knew the GitP version, but tank you for sharing. I think that currently a class or another in PF has several thing equivalent to maneuver: the departments truly "lacking" are the defensive ones (diamond mind saves as an example, and IHS) and the movement ones like sudden leap.
For the Concentration skill, I would just use the character's Initiator level (in place of caster level) and constitution modifier (in place of spellcasting stat modifier). That could be extended to prestige class prerequisites -- any prerequisite of "Concentration x ranks" would conver to "Initiator level x". I think that approach should cover nearly all Book of 9 Swords references to the Concentration skill.