Folks, there´s a big problem I´m having, but I don´t know if it´s just me, or if it has got more behind it.

When I play my Crusader, he has some very powerful moves, per-encounter-abilities.
I cannot see anything kewl in using them anymore. They do some extra damage, some do even extra ability damage or whatnot.

But it´s the designers who WANT me to make that amount of damage per round. I feel no achievement in dishing that out.

I could just as well don´t have that stuff and fight Monsters with lower HP score.

The nature of those per-encounter powers also lends itself pretty bad to combos of the kind the designers didn´t think of. So, it feels pretty much like tactical illusionism.

Now, there was a fight against some God´s Aspect that lasted longer than my per-encounter abilities. I had to pull every other trick from my arse, including using a wand of spider climb and my jumping skill to jump-charge the flying bastard. THAT was fun, I had some effect-recombination and tactical creativity going on.

Thoughts?
Does balancing always end up being tactical-combat-illusoinism?
Or do the Delve/Paizo style set-piece encounters play a bigger role in me feeling like my role at the Battlemat could be filled out by a script that Mike Mearls programmed in  far-away Seattle?

Forgive me - but what the heck is a  " B9S ' in this context?

When I saw the thread title , I thought you were referring to the Robot from the old TV series "Lost In Space". He is known as B9 as per production notes and several websites.


- Ed C.

Book of 9 Swords, supposedly a testing-ground for some ideas which are going to make it into 4E.

I assume you feel the same way about spells, then? Otherwise this makes less sense than usual, except for a classic nursing of the "Now my fighter has magic!" bullshit whinge.

I mean, I understand your objection (not so much your two questions at the end there), but if it doesn't apply to fireball or finger of death I'm afraid it makes no sense to me. Ultimately, it all falls to what the designers wanted you to have. Assuming you don't write your own spells from scratch every time you play D&D, I mean.

Quote from: WarthurBook of 9 Swords, supposedly a testing-ground for some ideas which are going to make it into 4E.

Thank you - we've been sold out of that one for more than a week or two. First time, I've seen that abbreviation for it.

- Ed C.

Xmas-Ape: Well, well. The spells, they are away after a while. And their effects used to lend themselves to creative usage. The mere fact that they are limited resources makes the decision to cast one a tactically meanigful decision.
I see a big difference there.

Quote from: KoltarThank you - we've been sold out of that one for more than a week or two. First time, I've seen that abbreviation for it.

Yeah, I suspect the B9S might be one of the few 3.5 supplements whose sales were boosted by the 4E announcements - lots of people will want to comb over it to see what they can expect from 4E (and indeed might integrate it into their campaigns to make the transition a little less bumpy).

Quote from: SettembriniXmas-Ape: Well, well. The spells, they are away after a while. And their effects used to lend themselves to creative usage. The mere fact that they are limited resources makes the decision to cast one a tactically meanigful decision.
I see a big difference there.

Alright, see, now I'm getting something out of it. You opened with a focus on their mechanical effect, rather than influence on the feel of play, so I kind of chased down that side trail for a moment. Now I'm back at the meat of it.

It's about the fact that pounding away with your good strikes and such is just a no-brainer? Take a moment, get it all back, smash some more orcs - none of the exhaustive planning involved in playing a prep, fire, and forget spellcaster. Just pick a couple moves and go to town on some poor mook.

I don't get it, but more in a "I come at RPGs from a different place than you do, and these concerns don't really affect my enjoyment of play" way than a "WTF are you on about" way. So, cool, but as I've never used ToB* in play and don't play RPGs for a tactical exercise I don't think I can offer much. Just wanted to sort it out.

I think there is some meat to your objection, but it's nestled into a web of broad change in RPG design concepts, the busted-ass math of upper-level 3.x D&D, and the legacy issue of the speedbump fighter, and certainly beyond my North American TV-watching self to fix.

The point is, it took me seven levels of play to figure it out. It wasn´t obvious to me at first.

In regards to what you want or don´t from an RPG, more power to you. But evaluating a "new" kind of combat crunch in respect to it´s tactical depth is okay, no?

@TV-watching: I can´t stand the argument/pitch that draws validity from TV. That´s all.
 Especially if the word "story" somehow crops up in the discussion. But we shall let that rest.

I've got no objections to whatever analysis you want to subject ToB* to. You can analyze it 'till the cows come home. I just didn't see how your objections in the OP were different from equally valid and identical objections to spells. With a more complete look at your issues with them, I understand completely - in the abstract, at least.

I would, personally, find it a difficult evaluation to participate in, given I don't have any experience with the material in question, nor would our impressions of the material's failings be similar, since I happen to think D&D could strongly benefit from more at-will and per-encounter abilities, more oomph for the fighter, and a pulling away from the logistics/tactical planning aspects of the old game. 's all. I'm intrigued if you and the other Serious Discussion folks around here hash out something interesting about ToB abilities, but I doubt I have much to offer.

* It occurs to me I failed to explain this last time. Technically, the acronym for the book is ToB, being Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords. I guess ToB:Bo9S if you want to be really pedantic about it.

Let's not forget Iron Heroes in all of this. Whilst i quite like the system, some of the powers of the classes just made me scratch my head. I like at least a little bit of rationality to my games. The Armiger was hilarious IMO. You get tokens for use in special powers by being hit? Why in God's name? There were a few like that and from what i've seen in some of the 4e playtest reports there's plenty more coming in 4e. A Rogue power that lets you 'swap positions' with an enemy? I suppose you could say that's a wierd grapple/bull rush effort, but still. A Paladin 'strike' that heals your allies. How, why? I'm struggling, i must admit. This is all fine on a computer screen, but when i'm actually at the tabletop, i want some kind of rationality. That's magic, i suppose!

This is why FtA! stunts are superior to Feats.

Its Feats and special powers that cause all of this trouble; eventually you don't know what the fuck else to make up to keep up with the power creep; meanwhile, BECAUSE of the feats, you can't just have a way for a character to just "try a maneuver" without having the appropriate feat.  

So players just give the fuck up, and keep doing the same two or three attacks they always do over and over again, because that's what they have feats in.

RPGPundit

Well I get what you're saying about Bo9S.  It's not the same as spells because spells don't refresh after you use them, thus it's a long-term tactical decision when deciding what spell to use in any particular encounter.  Bo9S is different because the maneuvers aren't longterm resources and thus require little, if any actual planning in their usage.

All I can really say is if you don't like this, which I'm still on the fence about, 4e may dissapoint you even more.  My impression is long-term strategy is being thrown out the door for coolness.  The designers have stated that every class will have per-day, per-encounter and at-will abilities...they have also commented that a character who uses his per-day resources up will still be around 80% effectiveness.

To me this is going to set up a pretty predictable pattern as far as combat, I've seen it first hand with jedi in the new Star Wars game, where characters unload their most powerful per-encounter abilities first...resort to at-will abilities if the enemies aren't down yet and pull out per-day if things get hot.  Even one of the designer's playtest reports admits that this was how he was playing his rogue for nearly every encounter.

Like I said, 4e seems to be more concerned with an Exalted-esque coolness factor than actual strategic planning and usage of abilities.  The problem is I already have games for this and played D&D for something different.

For myself it's a loathing for special case rules.  Special Case Cules = bad game design and D&D's feats and spells are Special Case Rules by the bucket.  GURPS's Advantages and Disadvantages hare close to being SCRs but slip me by because there's some consistancy of method.  Not that GURPS is a game I actually end up playing much.

Rolemaster 2 is better than RMSS (if you use Talents and Flaws) in this regard though RMSS is generally more consistant in its method.  All told I prefer any version of RM's Moving Manuever Table or GURP's action with a penalty approach (you can try it but you could break your neck)  At least the new "fighter spells" will be special moves, too often feats are things lke "mighty blow" or "fighting defesively" which any idiot can try while leaving themselves wide open.

Quote from: One Horse TownYou get tokens for use in special powers by being hit?

Just like World of Warcraft warrior characters.