Tome Of Battle Book Of 9 Swords Pdf Download
Theodora Glime
I used it with the Beta rules without any major problems. You do have to revamp a few things, like maneuvers that are linked to Concentration. For those, I switched it over to Perception, as the flavor text spoke more to perceiving minute changes/openings. Of course, you could also just house-rule back in the skill, or even use the new concentration mechanics. The classes themselves, and the maneuvers, have worked fine so long as everyone keeps in mind the rules for immediate/swift/standard actions. And with the power-up for PFRPG core classes, the three martial adepts are pretty much on-par with them in my view.
Just be careful what you allow, it is one of the most broken books ever published. That said it does have some very neat ideas in it. One consequence of adding it is that the fighter will never get played - good, bad, I don't know you decide.
General: No recharge mechanic. You use up all of your readied maneuvers in an encounter, that's it, you wait until next encounter. This one was suggested by Rich Baker himself, stating that the recharge mechanic in retrospect seems like a clunky add on, and it undermines resource management.
Crusaders: Your readied maneuvers are no different than anyone else's. No "two maneuvers randomly chosen" to start. Again, this one was suggested by Rich Baker, who said that this was the "automatic recharge" mechanic for the crusader, and it turned out to make the class more complicated than it needs to be.
Warblade: Hit dice move back down to d10. These guys are suppose to be technique fighters, and while they are front line warriors, there is no need for them to be the damage sponges that barbarians and knights are, because its not really their purpose.
Cut out Weapon Aptitude as an ability. Not only does this not make much sense, but it intentionally steals the fighters only real exclusive ability, and then makes it better. If Warblades are suppose to replace fighters in your campaign, fine, but if they both exist, let the fighter have his moment in the sun and cut this out of the Warblade. AUC.register('auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay'); AjaxBusy.register('masked', 'busy', 'auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay', null, null) Boggle Aug 26, 2009, 08:55 am A T wrote: Just be careful what you allow, it is one of the most broken books ever published. That said it does have some very neat ideas in it. One consequence of adding it is that the fighter will never get played - good, bad, I don't know you decide. I totally agree with the aboveI have had several players wanting to play one in a previous campaign however there are issues be careful.
Compared to the old 3.5 Fighter, I'd agree. Compared to the PFRPG Fighter, I'm not sure this will be the case. With the greater number of feats plus weapon and armor class abilities, the Fighter is a solid, easy to play choice that can attack/defend all day. Comparatively, the martial adepts have to set up to use their actions/choose readied maneuvers/etc. AUC.register('auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay'); AjaxBusy.register('masked', 'busy', 'auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay', null, null) Lokie Aug 26, 2009, 09:05 am Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber If I allowed material it would be with access via just the two feats mentioned.
I am pretty confident that it is more powerful than a PF fighter. If you have players who do not see the potential for abuse there, then by all means use it. But... if you have players you may be concerned with then stay away far away. It really is not that hard to make a broken character out of that book. Hundreds of damage a round at mid levels, is too powerful imho. (You can even top a thousand with the right builds at mid upper) AUC.register('auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay'); AjaxBusy.register('masked', 'busy', 'auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay', null, null) Lokie Aug 26, 2009, 09:09 am Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber erian_7 wrote: A T wrote: Just be careful what you allow, it is one of the most broken books ever published. That said it does have some very neat ideas in it. One consequence of adding it is that the fighter will never get played - good, bad, I don't know you decide. Compared to the old 3.5 Fighter, I'd agree. Compared to the PFRPG Fighter, I'm not sure this will be the case. With the greater number of feats plus weapon and armor class abilities, the Fighter is a solid, easy to play choice that can attack/defend all day. Comparatively, the martial adepts have to set up to use their actions/choose readied maneuvers/etc. I agree with you erian_7. I really like how solid the PFRPG fighter is. AUC.register('auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay'); AjaxBusy.register('masked', 'busy', 'auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay', null, null) Lokie Aug 26, 2009, 09:14 am Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber A T wrote: erian_7 wrote:
Compared to the old 3.5 Fighter, I'd agree. Compared to the PFRPG Fighter, I'm not sure this will be the case. With the greater number of feats plus weapon and armor class abilities, the Fighter is a solid, easy to play choice that can attack/defend all day. Comparatively, the martial adepts have to set up to use their actions/choose readied maneuvers/etc. I am pretty confident that it is more powerful than a PF fighter. If you have players who do not see the potential for abuse there, then by all means use it. But... if you have players you may be concerned with then stay away far away. It really is not that hard to make a broken character out of that book. Hundreds of damage a round at mid levels, is too powerful imho. (You can even top a thousand with the right builds at mid upper) If the player seeks to abuse the rules yes. Most of those builds though require allot of set-up that can be mitigated by a strong DM saying "No".I once toyed with the idea of pulling "magic" from my games and using the material from Tome of Battle instead. Never got around to it though.
I have ToB:Bo9S, I hadn't seen the ability to do over 1000 dmg in 1 round at mid-level...how can they do that? AUC.register('auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay'); AjaxBusy.register('masked', 'busy', 'auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay', null, null) lastknightleft Aug 26, 2009, 09:23 am TriOmegaZero wrote: I also recommend using the changes that Rich Baker suggested after publishing the book. Namely no recharge in battle, and crusaders have readied maneuvers the same as the other two.
Cut out Weapon Aptitude as an ability. Not only does this not make much sense, but it intentionally steals the fighters only real exclusive ability, and then makes it better. If Warblades are suppose to replace fighters in your campaign, fine, but if they both exist, let the fighter have his moment in the sun and cut this out of the Warblade.You know what, with those fixes I actually like the warblade a lot better and could see allowing the book in my games, I'll just place a sticker with those changes on the cover :) AUC.register('auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay'); AjaxBusy.register('masked', 'busy', 'auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay', null, null) erian_7 Aug 26, 2009, 09:27 am Lokie wrote:If the player seeks to abuse the rules yes. Most of those builds though require allot of set-up that can be mitigated by a strong DM saying "No".
Over all... its never been that much of a issue with my players as I can "out-build" all my players anyway. This has been my experience with the system as well. Now, I am fortunate in that our group is pretty much focused on having fun rather than combat-tweaking. But I've not found any way using the base system to make the ToB so unusable. The minute someone comes to me with some "if I mix classes X, Y, and Z, with magic items 1, 2, and 3)...well, I just tell them to go away frankly. I've never had anyone show me a "broken" ToB build that didn't involve such shenanigans. lastknightleft wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: I also recommend using the changes that Rich Baker suggested after publishing the book. Namely no recharge in battle, and crusaders have readied maneuvers the same as the other two.
Cut out Weapon Aptitude as an ability. Not only does this not make much sense, but it intentionally steals the fighters only real exclusive ability, and then makes it better. If Warblades are suppose to replace fighters in your campaign, fine, but if they both exist, let the fighter have his moment in the sun and cut this out of the Warblade.You know what, with those fixes I actually like the warblade a lot better and could see allowing the book in my games, I'll just place a sticker with those changes on the cover :)
7fc3f7cf58