| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jakk |
Posted - 12 May 2010 : 23:44:27
(branched from the Golarion scroll)
I split this off to try to keep mechanics separate from setting, as I believe that it's important to do so (despite certain prevailing opinions these days).
Here's what Diffan, Ashe Ravenheart and I started talking about in the aforementioned setting scroll, and commentary by Brimstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So has anyone allowed or tried to use the rules from the Tome of Battle into the Pathfinder/Golarion setting?
I ask only because I'd like my rogue/swashbuckler to have a bit more diversity as to fighting and I wondered who else added ToB content to their games.
Also, I'm thinking of taking levels in Shadodancer and wanted to use the Telflammar Shadowlord PrC from Unapproachable East. The DM might allow me to gain the Shadow-walker template from the church of Achaekek (and the organization of the Red Mantis Assassins) so I was wondering if you guys would think the Red Mantis's would allow Shadowlords/shadowdancers in their organization?
Not as far as I know. But that's mostly because the changes that were made to the "fighting" classes made a lot of the benefits from Tome of Battle no longer needed to balance high-level fighters with high-level casters.
Agreed. Of course, I never thought the changes were necessary to begin with; I've always preferred to play non-spellcasters, and the rules changes in 4E just made doing otherwise an impossible choice.<snip>
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
IMO Bo9S is one of the best 3E Books WotC made.
Cause melee in 3E blew chunks after level 11.
It shouldn't be to hard to update those classes to Pathfinder. More options=more fun.
I have to agree with Brimstone's last comment. Part of the "nerfing" of melee in 3.x came from unnecessary limits on stacking. My biggest pet peeve regarding the rules as written was that the keen magical weapon property did not stack with the Improved Critical feat. One is magic, and the other is mundane training and expertise; are you telling me that the magic "knows" what training its wielder possesses and turns itself off to be "fair" to its opponent?  I say !#*@%^$ to that. A fighter (or similar class) with Improved Critical and a keen weapon has earned every right to dice his opponents like tomatoes, and should be entitled to do the same. That being said, I actually haven't looked at Tome of Battle all that much; I picked it up after the game I'm playing in was already in full swing, and my DM doesn't like to make major rules adjustments on the fly, so we just put it aside for the moment... and then the Pathfinder core book was released, and I've been reading other stuff (mostly Golarion and old Realmslore) since. I'll take a look at it this weekend, seeing as I have Friday off in addition to Saturday and Sunday. 
It's definitely an interesting idea, and as Brimstone says, you can never have too many options.  |
| 12 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 May 2010 : 21:52:29
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
No doubt, stuff from the ToB can still enhance the game. I just wanted to make sure no one was looking at it as 'needed' for high-level fighters to compete against spellcasters.
Well, I think it's needed if someone decides to run a low magic campaign. When you run down the classes, the melee (espically fighter) still need those Wondrous Items to keep them on par with what a wizard/sorcerer can accomplish with a spell or two. And normally it's not a problem because a group of PCs don't encounter NPCs with class levels and what-not and the fighter does benefit from the party's wizard spells. It only really seems to matter when you take one class and compare it to another. Still, the 3.5/Pathfinder style of play is designed for exactly this power-curve and even the ToB doesn't make it completly balanced. Either way you look at it, it pretty much depends on the game play of the group and if/how they care about keeping up with being over-shadowed by their fellow PCs.
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
And, I should say that I have a personal dislike about ToB. Not that it wasn't well-designed, but it seemed so blatantly a test of 4E mechanics to me that it's left a bad taste in my mouth.
Thats probably the reason I like it so much, lol. It does have a feel of 4E, but the maneuvers/stances are soo much like the spell-like counterparts of 3.5 that it straddles the line of both editions. My only wish is that there were more disciplines and maneuvers/stances that advanced the ToB further. I know there are a few homebrew ones out there and I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to convert 4E powers into 3.5 maneuvers, I just don't have the time to do so and hope for some sembalance of balance. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 13 May 2010 : 16:45:25
It is a blatant playtest for 4e, but like with the GHotR (in which the last 2 pages were devoted to promoting the transition to the 4e Realms), I do not let that taint my overall love for the product. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 13 May 2010 : 14:33:04
No doubt, stuff from the ToB can still enhance the game. I just wanted to make sure no one was looking at it as 'needed' for high-level fighters to compete against spellcasters.
And, I should say that I have a personal dislike about ToB. Not that it wasn't well-designed, but it seemed so blatantly a test of 4E mechanics to me that it's left a bad taste in my mouth. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 May 2010 : 14:10:15
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
Good to see that I've sparked some discussion here! I'll be back here in the next couple of days after I've had a chance to look at the ToB more closely for myself, but I'd tend to agree with both Ashe and Hawkins; from Ashe's breakdown of the Pathfinder fighter's abilities, ToB may very well no longer be needed, but unnecessary doesn't mean not fun... otherwise, we'd... meh, bite my tongue again... I had a witty comment to make about "New Coke" here (but without using the euphemism), but I'll just let that sleeping dog lie. 
The thing about the pathfinder Fighter is that while it gets great, and I mean GREAT, benefits and a sh!t ton of feats it still is missing that certain flair IMO. And I love playing fighters too. What the ToB gives a character is that extra added special FX feature. Emerald Blade (Diamond Mind) allows for 1 attack to be a touch attack. So, a character with this maneuver charges the enemy and Power Attacks for everything he's worth. I don't know any feats that allow a fighter to make touch attacks. And then theres Searing Charge (Desert Wind) which allows a character the ability to fly towards their target and deal an additional 5d6 fire damage! And I'm pretty sure there isn't anything a fighter can choose to get that ability. Even with the up-grades, a fighter still has to rely heavily on items for those effects. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 13 May 2010 : 05:08:44
Good to see that I've sparked some discussion here! I'll be back here in the next couple of days after I've had a chance to look at the ToB more closely for myself, but I'd tend to agree with both Ashe and Hawkins; from Ashe's breakdown of the Pathfinder fighter's abilities, ToB may very well no longer be needed, but unnecessary doesn't mean not fun... otherwise, we'd... meh, bite my tongue again... I had a witty comment to make about "New Coke" here (but without using the euphemism), but I'll just let that sleeping dog lie. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 May 2010 : 03:34:27
With my rogue/swasbuckler I really looking at the Shadow Hand and Tiger Claw disciplines. The ability to move AND attack with two-weapons is really, really appealing. Plus, who doesn't love Shadow Jaunting?
But besides the versatility of the maneuvers there are the stances. Island of Blades is just made full of win as is the Thicket of Blades. You get a crusader, fighter, or paladin using a glaive or some sort of pole-arm or Spiked Chain with the Thicket of Blades and you just lock down your enemies in place.
As for the skills set, I saw that some people replaced Spellcraft for Concentration. While it's an easy fix, I don't think it really grasps the flavor of the martial adept. I love the idea of the Meditation skill but I could also see the use of Martial Lore and Concentration too. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 13 May 2010 : 02:55:53
I know the threads at Paizo were using Martial Lore as the Concentration Skill. You could always add Concentration back.
Diamond Mind is one KICK *** School. Iron Heart is also a fav.
Yeah, I like ToB! It's a Natural 20... |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 13 May 2010 : 00:17:28
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Well, since the Spellcaster's Concentration check is now a simple caster level check (1d20 + level + spellcasting ability modifier). For non-spellcasters I'd make it a level check with a modifier from the below ability scores:
Barbarian - Constitution
Fighter - Strength/Constitution
Monk - Wisdom
Rogue - Intelligence
The thing is, to be better at your chosen discipline(s), you need to put ranks into your chosen discipline's skill. This gives those who choose a discipline with Concentration for the skill a "by" so to speak. That is why I brought up the alternate skill, Meditation. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 13 May 2010 : 00:14:45
No longer needed does not mean no longer fun. And don't forget that Warblades get access to Fighter feats as Fighter two levels lower than their Warblade level. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 13 May 2010 : 00:14:24
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
I am playing a Dragonwraught (sp?, Races of the Dragon) Kobold Swordsage with a focus on Desert Wind and Shadow Hand maneuvers. I have not run into any problem with it so far. Basically, any maneuvers that allow a +4 to grapple, trip, et cetera only get a +2 now. I have not found a good replacement skill for Concentration (a skill required for at least the Diamond Mind discipline) so, I have not used any Diamond Mind maneuvers yet. Some friends and made (but have not implemented) a homebrew skill called Meditation that combines the non-spellcaster parts of Concentration with the Autohypnosis skill. I think that that would work.
Well, since the Spellcaster's Concentration check is now a simple caster level check (1d20 + level + spellcasting ability modifier). For non-spellcasters I'd make it a level check with a modifier from the below ability scores:
Barbarian - Constitution
Fighter - Strength/Constitution
Monk - Wisdom
Rogue - Intelligence |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 13 May 2010 : 00:09:51
My whole stand on the Tome of Battle for Pathfinder is that the fighting classes, especially the Fighter, no longer need those 'tricks' at higher levels to keep up with spellcasters.
In Pathfinder, a 20th level human fighter has 22 feats, a +4 to attack/damage to one weapon group, a +3 to attack/damage to a second weapon group, a +2 to a third and a +1 to a fourth. He also automatically confirms all criticals for a single chosen weapon and has that multiplier increased by one step (x2 to x3, x3 to x4, etc.). There's also the benefits to armor (no movement penalty for heavy armor, Armor Check is decrease by 4, max Dex increased by 4 and gains DR 5/- while armored). Add to that the ton of abilities from the feats (doubling or tripling base weapon damage, ignoring damage reduction, harriering spell-casters) and I don't think that the ToB is needed as much. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 13 May 2010 : 00:02:29
I am playing a Dragonwraught (sp?, Races of the Dragon) Kobold Swordsage with a focus on Desert Wind and Shadow Hand maneuvers. I have not run into any problem with it so far. Basically, any maneuvers that allow a +4 to grapple, trip, et cetera only get a +2 now. I have not found a good replacement skill for Concentration (a skill required for at least the Diamond Mind discipline) so, I have not used any Diamond Mind maneuvers yet. Some friends and made (but have not implemented) a homebrew skill called Meditation that combines the non-spellcaster parts of Concentration with the Autohypnosis skill. I think that that would work. |
|
|
