|
So there very first time(the day the Tome of Battle hit the shelves) I saw the Tome of Battle, my buddy brought it to my house straight from the hobby store.
It was a really cool concept, with all sorts of pretty pictures...
I thought they were grossly overpowered. My brother made a Sword Sage in a 10th lvl One-Nighter we ran for funzies. It was horrible. We shelved the book afterward. It was crazy powerful. But, that was 3.5 and the Pathfinder core classes outshine their 3.5 ancestors.
But what are your thoughts?
I looked over Shuriken Nekogami's(linkified) conversion, and read many of your comments there, but my question still stands, and let me add a few.
What do you think of the classes? How do they stack up to Core and Base Pathfinder classes? Are they balanced to play alongside them? Would YOU add them in if it fit the flavor of your setting?
If not, why? What do you like, and don't you like?
Thanks in advance.
-Von
I like swordsages.
They are fun to play with the right character.
I have not found them overpowering and they are quite flexible (I created a mystical-desert-warrior and a ninja-spy).
I think that they're not overpowered and that the concept is interesting, but I never bothered playing the classes, and my DM would have been too lazy to keep up with all the stuff in that book anyway.
The link don't work.
Looked at it once or twice when my ex was running her campaign, never picked it up again
This book is so overpowered i can belive anyone surgested adding this to his pathfinder campain.
For a 1 level dip my Monk or Two Weapon using rogue becomes a healing maschine:
- Heal himself or an ally with 30. ft for 2 HP with any successfull mellee strike for free.
- +1 base attack, D10 hit die
- Some random buffs/debuff that can be used once per combat to give an opponent -4 AC for 1 Round for all my allies attacks or standard action strike that heals him 1d6+X if he hits
This is just a one level dip and can be achived with two feats instead of the dip. Some players/partys would rate this higher than fast healing 1 and no gm would allow a 1 level dip (or two feats) that could give a player fast healing 1.
Later that can become a heal 4 HP with each hit by him and one ally within 10 ft. Imagine the rogue/ToB class flanks with this monk buddy landing 4 hits each and spam a mighty 8x4 = 32 HP heal for free this round.
I like the concept of ToB but that's all this book is more than overpowered.
Breiti
It's overpowered for PF standards. In 3.5, it's pretty ok.
It's overpowered for PF standards. In 3.5, it's pretty ok.
My thoughts exactly.
|
|
This book is so overpowered i can belive anyone surgested adding this to his pathfinder campain.
For a 1 level dip my Monk or Two Weapon using rogue becomes a healing maschine:
- Heal himself or an ally with 30. ft for 2 HP with any successfull mellee strike for free.
- +1 base attack, D10 hit die
- Some random buffs/debuff that can be used once per combat to give an opponent -4 AC for 1 Round for all my allies attacks or standard action strike that heals him 1d6+X if he hitsThis is just a one level dip and can be achived with two feats instead of the dip. Some players/partys would rate this higher than fast healing 1 and no gm would allow a 1 level dip (or two feats) that could give a player fast healing 1.
Later that can become a heal 4 HP with each hit by him and one ally within 10 ft. Imagine the rogue/ToB class flanks with this monk buddy landing 4 hits each and spam a mighty 8x4 = 32 HP heal for free this round.
I like the concept of ToB but that's all this book is more than overpowered.
Breiti
I'm not really clear about that.
What powers ar you using and what class are you dipping into?
It's overpowered for PF standards. In 3.5, it's pretty ok.My thoughts exactly.I am confused by your thoughts.
Pathfinder classes are more powerful than their 3.5 equivalent, so surely something overpowered for PF would be much more overpowered in3.5?
He's referring to how powerful the characters ended up with their dips and feats and such that made 3.5 characters so good, not so much the core classes themselves.
I'm not that cool with the Tome of Battle, but it's not the classes or their balance I'm worried about, it's more specific maneuvers that bother me.
My optimizer player has a copy of that book, and our experience with it is that there are a few maneuvers that potentially break a game. Without those as available (or heavily errata'd to be something else), I think the classes might work out fine.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are less game breakers in the Tome of Battle than there are on the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list in the Pathfinder Core Rules, and the ones that are in the ToB are actually easier to deal with than a straight PF Wizard.
I agree with Swivl, the problem is the single maneuvers: I'd advise against letting free access to the book, but if you consider carefully what to allow and what not I see no problem wit it. As a whole it's one of the product I liked more of all my gaming history, but it had a few maneuvers and a few combination that really needed to be taken care of (dancing/ragin moongoose just to name one, or ironheart surge or whatever it was called).
I believe James Jacobs said that if you remove all recovery mechanisms and make the powers recover after combat is over then they're all pretty balanced classes, I tend to agree. I would also disallow the feats to gain maneuvers and stances, and I would limit stances to a number of rounds/day based on your maneuver level (I'd suggest 2*TOB class level or something) plus your con or wis. Otherwise the stances are just too good for a low level dip.
I wouldn't allow free access to the book, there are many errata issues and several horrible broken maneuvers(Iron Heart Surge to turn off the sun). However if you work with your players to yay/nay and modify a few things, you should be plenty good to go.
|
|
I believe he's talking about a Crusader stance, which sounds about right.
I'm not really clear about that.
What powers ar you using and what class are you dipping into?
Ah, I see it.
Can't use the -4 thing as well though, only one stance at level 1.
So, more generally...
I've only played swordsages and never done any cheesy-dips: I don't like fondue.
Does this look acceptable?
-No mid-encounter recovery, only post-combat recovery.
-No feats to get martial powers.
-No dipping.
-No Crusader.
-Obvious amount of powers houseruling, similar to what GMs have to do for a host of spells and corner cases.
In crunch terms, is this a broadly acceptable criteria for allowing ToB into your game?
|
|
I wouldn't allow free access to the book, there are many errata issues and several horrible broken maneuvers(Iron Heart Surge to turn off the sun). However if you work with your players to yay/nay and modify a few things, you should be plenty good to go.
How does Iron heart Surge turn off the sun?
Doesn't it just end your fatigued/exhausted/whatever condition from heat exposure?
I think we all know that the sun is not a spell, effect or condition: it is an object. It is the condition that would be removed.
Sometimes people decide that RAW is broken, when actually their ability to read and make sense of straightforward prose is broken.
If you don't allow maneuvre recovery then isn't that just one condition per encounter turned off? If you have a standard action to spend and wouldn't rather spend it as part of an attack to turn off the person who imposed the condition in the first place?
I wouldn't allow free access to the book, there are many errata issues and several horrible broken maneuvers(Iron Heart Surge to turn off the sun). However if you work with your players to yay/nay and modify a few things, you should be plenty good to go.How does Iron heart Surge turn off the sun?
Doesn't it just end your fatigued/exhausted/whatever condition from heat exposure?
I think we all know that the sun is not a spell, effect or condition: it is an object. It is the condition that would be removed.
Sometimes people decide that RAW is broken, when actually their ability to read and make sense of straightforward prose is broken.
If you don't allow maneuvre recovery then isn't that just one condition per encounter turned off? If you have a standard action to spend and wouldn't rather spend it as part of an attack to turn off the person who imposed the condition in the first place?
well, I guess turning the sun off was metaphorical, but a lot of people back then were advocating that it could suppress an antimagic field or similar effects.
I don't see why the crusader should be banned: I'd rate it as the weakest of the three...
Does this look acceptable?
-No mid-encounter recovery, only post-combat recovery.
-No feats to get martial powers.
-No dipping.
-No Crusader.
-Obvious amount of powers houseruling, similar to what GMs have to do for a host of spells and corner cases.In crunch terms, is this a broadly acceptable criteria for allowing ToB into your game?
Yes (and as said I see no reason to ban the crusader)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my game, I had my summoner's eidolon take the Martial Study and Martial Stance feats to gain the Crusader healing abilities. Given that the eidolon gets multiple attacks per round and thus many extra chances to hit and heal, this should be an overpowered abuse. However, in practice the minor healing that she grants is laughable compared to what the party cleric can do with his channeling ability -- especially now that he has the Selective Channeling feat and thus can exclude wounded foes from the effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re: TOB being "overpowered" -- that is true only in the following cases:
The thing is, the Warblade was intended to completely replace the fighter. That's the whole point of it. Because in 3.5, the fighter, monk, and paladin couldn't hold their own compared to everyone else.
Compare one of the ToB classes with a PF barbarian, and I think you'll find they're more or less at a par with each other. Compare one of the ToB classes with a PF cleric or wizard, and it's still underpowered, IMHO.
I didn't think anything was particularly overpowered, although there were some things I thought were kind of dumb (e.g. "You're bleeding? I better punch this squirrel so that you'll clot faster.") and some things were kind of vague (e.g. Iron Heart Surge).
Pure gold there, Kirth. I think the same.
Im running a campaign right now with 1 player playing a Crusader. I think of the different classes the Crusader is the most balanced due to the randomization of the stances / maneuvers. He loaned me the book and I read over it a few times. Im still kind of playing it by ear wondering if anything needs to be nerfed.
My other players though are not using their abilities properly so im finding he is sort of a glue that keeps the party in pretty good shape.
I wouldn't say he is over powered at all- but I will say that they can hold their own against a number of enemies for awhile with a good party at their sides.
I don't think ToB was overpowered for 3.5, and certainly not for PF. As others have pointed out, the 3.5 fighter/monk/paladin sucked and were vastly underpowered. The ToB classes were designed to bump up the power level for people who wanted to play those melee classes.
As far as limiting maneuver recovery to after battle only...are you then going to say that certain feats can only be used once per battle and only recovered after battle? I've had Rangers do insane amounts of damage with Gravity Bow + Rapid Shot + Manyshot + Deadly Aim all day long.
I'm not really clear about that.
What powers ar you using and what class are you dipping into?
1th level Crusader
Martail Spirit Stance
In my game, I had my summoner's eidolon take the Martial Study and Martial Stance feats to gain the Crusader healing abilities. Given that the eidolon gets multiple attacks per round and thus many extra chances to hit and heal, this should be an overpowered abuse. However, in practice the minor healing that she grants is laughable compared to what the party cleric can do with his channeling ability -- especially now that he has the Selective Channeling feat and thus can exclude wounded foes from the effect.
1. You cleric spend an action to heal the Eidolon gets the healing for free..
2. The Eidolon has not reached pounce or is biped ?
Does this look acceptable?-No mid-encounter recovery, only post-combat recovery.
-No feats to get martial powers.
-No dipping.
-No Crusader.
-Obvious amount of powers houseruling, similar to what GMs have to do for a host of spells and corner cases.In crunch terms, is this a broadly acceptable criteria for allowing ToB into your game?
It's not only the Crusader its the hole book. As i said before i like the concept. So if i would allow anything then only with my review on any manover/stance the player takes. We played two compains 3.5 with classes from ToB and in both compains the players that used ToB where fun but totaly overpowered.
Some other examples
-Assassin's Stance (So a rogue can take 3 levels of Swordsage on does not loose anything, but he gains a hell lot of goodies compared to a pure rogue)
- Charger build (can get pounce + bonus on charge at low levels +10 damage, later +level damage)
The problem is that every none casterbuild only gets better by using this book....if that is cool with you gm and hole group go ahead.
Breiti
I think it is very situational as far as power was concerned. There are some really nice maneuvers that allows a lot of really nice things. The drawback of the Crusader is the randomness of their maneuvers and the number of stances/maneuvers they get. The draw back of the Swordsage is having to take a round getting a maneuver back. They suffer the second best to hit and end up becoming support/versatility. The drawback of the Warblade is the lack of stances/maneuvers as well. I have not had a chance to try and work them in in Pathfinder to compare them yet. All in all I don't think you should take away their powers top refresh their abilities in combat. You would effectively end up neutering them. It would be like saying to a fighter you can only use half your powers once per combat. The powers are not as powerful as a Wizard. What I found is that the power level at low level is a bit OP but it tapers as they level and it balances out.
|
It wasn't overpowered at all.
I'm not sure any of the TOB classes even made it to Tier 2, most of them were Tier 3, unless there was a multiclass dip somewhere.
Of course I think Frank Trollman had the right idea on all of it pretty much as far as 3.x goes.
He must be a real jerk in real life since no game company has ever hired him.
His ideas are first rate though, and he has a knack for finding the crux of an issue.
I'm not sure Paizo intended it, but some of the classes have evolved into something like TOB classes.
The Barbarian (if you do anything like the AM Barbarian) is a lot like a TOB class.
Except a lot more powerful strangely.
I think it was totally planned. Gunslingers and samurais being able to recharge some of their abilities is a clear indication of this. I thought this was the proper path to go down, as we have the no ability fighter is fine, but now Paizo added some different mechanics to see how well they mesh. I think the fighter should have gotten one or two abilities to do this from the start, instead of just tons of feats.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Does this look acceptable?-No mid-encounter recovery, only post-combat recovery.
-No feats to get martial powers.
-No dipping.
-No Crusader.
-Obvious amount of powers houseruling, similar to what GMs have to do for a host of spells and corner cases.In crunch terms, is this a broadly acceptable criteria for allowing ToB into your game?
Actually we found in our game that you can allow the feats to get martial powers to the standard classes and it helps avoid dipping and it's not over powered. In one 3.5 game we played I had a warmage / rogue who used Distracting Ember which was nice and thematic. Other members of the party dipped (mostly via the feats) into the book as well and none of it broke the game. To be fair though I don't think any of us combined the extra maneuver's feats with a martial class from the book.
In my game, I had my summoner's eidolon take the Martial Study and Martial Stance feats to gain the Crusader healing abilities. Given that the eidolon gets multiple attacks per round and thus many extra chances to hit and heal, this should be an overpowered abuse. However, in practice the minor healing that she grants is laughable compared to what the party cleric can do with his channeling ability -- especially now that he has the Selective Channeling feat and thus can exclude wounded foes from the effect.1. You cleric spend an action to heal the Eidolon gets the healing for free..
2. The Eidolon has not reached pounce or is biped ?Breiti
1. The action is not the point -- the amount of healing is. 2 hp per hit to one person is less likely to make a difference than d6 per 2 levels to most of the party. Still, it has made a difference when allies get really low on hit points.
2. The eidolon is serpentine, which also rules out pounce.
From this, I've decided not to allow them, as I think their flavor is a bit more than I want for my campaign setting.
Wait... you lost me. The trend of the commentary was, "no need to ban it; it's not overpowered," to which you replied "Great! I'll ban it for flavor reasons!"
My question is, if you knew you were going to ban it before you asked, why change excuses, or even offer an excuse at all? Just ban it and be done with it.
Wait... you lost me. The trend of the commentary was, "no need to ban it; it's not overpowered," to which you replied "Great! I'll ban it for flavor reasons!"
My question is, if you knew you were going to ban it before you asked, why change excuses, or even offer an excuse at all? Just ban it and be done with it.
I don't think anything he said particularly suggested he was on the fence about allowing it; he was just wondering what other people's thoughts were.
Going from "I don't like it for flavour and balance reasons" to "I don't like it for flavour reasons" is perfectly cromulent, if you ask me. And I've asked questions about Arcana Evolved (for instance) in the past, even though 99% of the "fluff" leaves me cold.
Going from "I don't like it for flavour and balance reasons" to "I don't like it for flavour reasons" is perfectly cromulent, if you ask me.
I see nothing at all in the OP that suggests a dislike of the flavor:
It was a really cool concept, with all sorts of pretty pictures... I thought they were grossly overpowered.
To me it reads that he went from "I thought it was cool but totally overpowered," to "Well, even if it's not overpowered I suddenly don't like the flavor and am banning it for that reason."
Of course, he has every right to change his mind, but this specific case suggests to me a change of rationalization rather than a change of opinion.
|
|
Keep in mind that the book was meant to "field test" some concepts that made it into 4e. It was never really meant to play well with core 3x.
Having said that, they're in now way overpowered compared with the upgraded PF classes, and are a bit under powered compared to the house rules I play under (quite a few ToB ideas made it into our houserules, afaict).
I dislike the whole concept behind the "recharge" stuff (seriously, if the stuff isn't magic, why can't they do it all the time? I will never like x/day for mundane powers), and some of the powers are just silly (kicking something's butt to make allies heal faster, as someone mentioned above, stands out), but the core concept behind the stuff isn't bad. Making martial classes better is always a good thing in the face of a core Wiz/CodZilla in 3x.
The book is not OP, and it is really nice. Every time I have seen it called OP was because of a rules misreading or the GM allowed some bad editing, to be used in most liberal way.
Edit:oops, an old thread. Oh well.
Kirth, I missed this comment from a couple of months ago:
I don't have any grievance with you, and I never noticed a particular trend of any kind, personally. In this case, I just thought you were jumping to conclusions a bit, but I reserve the right to be wrong at all times. Frequently. :-)