PDA

View Full Version : Tome of battle: too good?



Samb
2009-03-15, 02:14 AM
I'm flipping through this book and its almost too sweet. Any non spell user would benefit greatly from a few levels in any of the base classes especially since you get to add half of your non ToB classes when selecting new maneuvers. Plus the fact that you can recycle out old moves at level four initiator level (non-IL 6/ IL 1) means you will always have the best moves for your level (free psychic reformation!!!)

My rogue can get +2d6, shadow jump, CON damaging attacks, and weapon focus with just one dip into swordsage.

My psiwarrior can use his concentration check to deal massive damage, or counter any saving throw with just one dip into warblade or swordsage. Oh and instant clarity gets me my focus back as a swift action instead of a full turn.

A fighter gets even more options and damage with tiger claw when he is using leap attack.

White raven makes paladins even better support, while devoted spirit makes him even more hardy.

And all of this can be done with only 1-3 level dips. To be an effective melee it seems like you just have to do this sooner or later. Imagine if you could add 1/2 of all you non manifesting/divine/arcane levels? How did the developers sneak this though the playtesters?

Dhavaer
2009-03-15, 02:22 AM
How did the developers sneak this though the playtesters?

Because it isn't unbalanced. It's basically just a way to let characters made before the ToB came out use it without completely gimping themselves.

Also, note that a rogue will need at least 2 levels in Swordsage (or take martial stance as a feat) to get Assassin's Stance; your first stance is always level 1.

ColdSepp
2009-03-15, 02:23 AM
The ToB classes don't match a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard in power. They make melee viable, that's all.

ShadowFighter15
2009-03-15, 02:24 AM
I think part of it was that you can make an effective melee character with only a small dip into a martial class. Look at how many debates there've been saying that mid-high-level fighters and such are underpowered compared to casters of the same level. This was meant to address that without making the other classes obsolete (bit of a backfire in the case of the fighter, since most people seem to favour the warblade instead). A bit of homebrew work and you could give the PHB classes access to martial manoeuvres and then they'd really match up to the casters (well, maybe not quite, but close enough).

Samb
2009-03-15, 02:28 AM
Because it isn't unbalanced. It's basically just a way to let characters made before the ToB came out use it without completely gimping themselves.

Also, note that a rogue will need at least 2 levels in Swordsage (or take martial stance as a feat) to get Assassin's Stance; your first stance is always level 1.
I think you can get it as a rogue 8/swordsage 1 since you are effectively a lvl 5 swordsage for the what you can pick, hence you can pick level 3 stances and have 3 stances. Although getting 2 levels in SS would give you bonus to AC which may be worth it depending on your WIS.

Keld Denar
2009-03-15, 02:28 AM
It is strong, but melee really needed the boost. The total reliance on full attacking that most melee characters experience is oppressive. This gives them many fun and interesting things to do as a standard, swift, or immediate action.

And as to the 1/2 IL thing. One of spellcasters primary weaknesses is their near total inability to multiclass and still be relevant as a spellcaster. I'm guessing the devs saw this and while bringing a mechanic similar to spellcasting into the world of melee combat, saught to avoid this near total pigeonholing. This is especially true given that melee characters are already predisposed to more multiclassing than casters do, given that multiclassing is the only way for most melee characters to gain actual meaningful class features.

ToB fixes things that were broken from the beginning. Barring a few infinite loops (that exist in nearly every book), and a couple oddities that don't work the way they're supposed to (Ironheart Surge), its a very good book that provides a lot of options for melee characters to nibble or feast upon, based on the desire of the player. Warblade20 is just as fun as Fighter4/Warbade1/Barbarian1/OccultSlayer5/Warblade1/ExoticWeaponMaster1/Warblade7, but very different. Hell, Warblade20 is different from Warblade20 depending on which maneuvers you focus on. A Diamond Mind centric Warblade utilizing Greater Insightful Strike is WAY different from a Tiger Claw duelwielder.

EDIT:

I think you can get it as a rogue 8/swordsage 1 since you are effectively a lvl 5 swordsage for the what you can pick, hence you can pick level 3 stances and have 3 stances. Although getting 2 levels in SS would give you bonus to AC which may be worth it depending on your WIS.

No, go reread the section in the class about stances. The first stance for a class is ALWAYS a 1st level stance. This could be handwaved by your DM. It doesn't matter terribly for Swordsage and Crusader dips though, since they both get a 2nd stance a level 2, making a 2 level dip worthwhile. Warblades are kinda funky though.

Samb
2009-03-15, 02:30 AM
The ToB classes don't match a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard in power. They make melee viable, that's all.

Don't forget psion with metamorphic transfer.

Jack_Simth
2009-03-15, 02:31 AM
I'm flipping through this book and its almost too sweet. Any non spell user would benefit greatly from a few levels in any of the base classes especially since you get to add half of your non ToB classes when selecting new maneuvers. Plus the fact that you can recycle out old moves at level four initiator level (non-IL 6/ IL 1) means you will always have the best moves for your level (free psychic reformation!!!)

My rogue can get +2d6, shadow jump, CON damaging attacks, and weapon focus with just one dip into swordsage.

My psiwarrior can use his concentration check to deal massive damage, or counter any saving throw with just one dip into warblade or swordsage. Oh and instant clarity gets me my focus back as a swift action instead of a full turn.

A fighter gets even more options and damage with tiger claw when he is using leap attack.

White raven makes paladins even better support, while devoted spirit makes him even more hardy.

And all of this can be done with only 1-3 level dips. To be an effective melee it seems like you just have to do this sooner or later. Imagine if you could add 1/2 of all you non manifesting/divine/arcane levels? How did the developers sneak this though the playtesters?
Because a Full Caster still slaughters them all, in general?

Alternately, there wasn't all that much playtesting; it wouldn't be the first time. In Monsters of Faerun, for instance, there's a critter called a Nishruu that's got an ability that specifies any caster inside loses one spell slot at random per round. It doesn't, however, specify any method for choosing this spell slot... which would come up the very first time the ability was used. Clear case of no playtesting on that critter.

MisterSaturnine
2009-03-15, 02:31 AM
Echoing the thoughts of previous posters, one nice thing I've actually just realized about ToB is that it means you can either take that "replacement" class--Warblade instead of Fighter, Crusader instead of Paladin, Swordsage instead of Monk--but because you can get so much mileage out of just dipping a couple levels, you can still be a Fighter, or a Paladin, or a Monk (and for some people, the name of what class you're taking is very important, because it just doesn't feel the same way otherwise) but actually be on a level comparable to (though still not equal to) full casters. The ToB means you can go into a whole new exciting thing, or keep all your feel and flavor and add whole new levels of effectiveness. Basically, it means that the casters aren't the only ones who can have their cake and eat it, too.

Dhavaer
2009-03-15, 02:32 AM
I think you can get it as a rogue 8/swordsage 1 since you are effectively a lvl 5 swordsage for the what you can pick, hence you can pick level 3 stances and have 3 stances. Although getting 2 levels in SS would give you bonus to AC which may be worth it depending on your WIS.

You could get it at that level, but you would have to take the Martial Stance feat. From the Sworddsage 'stances' section:


You begin play with knowledge of one 1st-level stance from any discipline open to you.

Regardless of your initiator level, you can only get a 1st level stance from your first Swordsage level.

Keld Denar
2009-03-15, 02:37 AM
Echoing the thoughts of previous posters, one nice thing I've actually just realized about ToB is that it means you can either take that "replacement" class--Warblade instead of Fighter, Crusader instead of Paladin, Swordsage instead of Monk--but because you can get so much mileage out of just dipping a couple levels, you can still be a Fighter, or a Paladin, or a Monk (and for some people, the name of what class you're taking is very important, because it just doesn't feel the same way otherwise) but actually be on a level comparable to (though still not equal to) full casters. The ToB means you can go into a whole new exciting thing, or keep all your feel and flavor and add whole new levels of effectiveness. Basically, it means that the casters aren't the only ones who can have their cake and eat it, too.

Yea, a 2 level dip in Monk as a Swordsage nets you Evasion, +3 all saves, and 2 bonus feats while keeping your UAS damage full and only costs you 1 IL. 2 levels of Fighter as a Warblade similarly gives you 2 bonus feats while keeping your BAB full. 2-4 levels of Paladin on a Crusader nets you +cha to all saves (stacks with +cha to will saves) and maybe the Turn Undead class features which a savvy Crusader can use to power Divine Feats like Divine Vigor and Divine Might.

Jack_Simth
2009-03-15, 02:40 AM
Regardless of your initiator level, you can only get a 1st level stance from your first Swordsage level.
Note that "begin play" is not the same thing as "take the first level of the class".

If I'm a Fighter-3, and I take a level of Swordsage, I'm not "beginning play", as I've already been playing. Does a Swordsage that's created at 20th level have only 1st level stances available?

Dacia Brabant
2009-03-15, 02:40 AM
You could get it at that level, but you would have to take the Martial Stance feat. From the Sworddsage 'stances' section:



Regardless of your initiator level, you can only get a 1st level stance from your first Swordsage level.

Huh, I took that as assuming when you begin play as a first level character, not necessarily your first level in the class. Was there confirmation of this in errata or CustServ statements?

(Gah, ninja'd within seconds!)

Samb
2009-03-15, 02:40 AM
You could get it at that level, but you would have to take the Martial Stance feat. From the Sworddsage 'stances' section:



Regardless of your initiator level, you can only get a 1st level stance from your first Swordsage level.

ah that clears it up so a high WIS will be needed then to get the full benefits of the SS dip.

I guess I can see where everyone is coming from, but isn't the whole point of going full casting/manifesting is because you know you will be mighty at high levels while melee get there chance to shine at lower-mid levels? And from what I have heard it seems that this book is basically a necessity for melee since they suck already.

Also it doesn't do away with the monotony of melee. Sure its not full attacks every round but you are still standing next to the monster and hitting it with fanicer stuff.

MisterSaturnine
2009-03-15, 02:43 AM
ah that clears it up so a high WIS will be needed then to get the full benefits of the SS dip.

I guess I can see where everyone is coming from, but isn't the whole point of going full casting/manifesting is because you know you will be mighty at high levels while melee get there chance to shine at lower-mid levels? And from what I have heard it seems that this book is basically a necessity for melee since they suck already.

Also it doesn't do away with the monotony of melee. Sure its not full attacks every round but you are still standing next to the monster and hitting it with fanicer stuff.

By this definition, casting is boring, too. All you're doing is casting spells every turn, after all.

Dhavaer
2009-03-15, 02:43 AM
I guess I can see where everyone is coming from, but isn't the whole point of going full casting/manifesting is because you know you will be mighty at high levels while melee get there chance to shine at lower-mid levels?

I thought the point of playing a full caster/manifester was to play a spellcaster.

Keld Denar
2009-03-15, 02:50 AM
Also it doesn't do away with the monotony of melee. Sure its not full attacks every round but you are still standing next to the monster and hitting it with fanicer stuff.

Sure it does. Take some ranks in Tumble. Starting adjacent to your foe, hit him with a Standard Action Strike and tumble away. On your foes turn, he either has to chase you, denying him his full attack, or does something from a distance. Next round, assuming your foe doesn't close, use a maneuver like Pouncing Charge to close and full attack, or spit hot fire with something Desert Wind, or whatever. If your foe closes, hit him with another Strike and keep movin. Gives you a lot more freedom to be a real Scirmisher type. Heck, you pull it off even better than a Scout! Granted, doing a strike is generally gonna do less damage than most melee character's full attacks, but you also pick up status effects from some of them, and you reduce a lot of the risk of going toe to toe with something big and hungry.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-15, 02:54 AM
"I guess I can see where everyone is coming from, but isn't the whole point of going full casting/manifesting is because you know you will be mighty at high levels while melee get there chance to shine at lower-mid levels? And from what I have heard it seems that this book is basically a necessity for melee since they suck already."

This kind of reasoning is what made 3.5 the oddball that it was, and why 4.0 was all about giving roles and attempting to set a balance between the classes so that everyone is effective throughout the whole campaign. If Sir Hitsalot, the sword and boarder, owns early on... -that's no reason to make Mr. Sparkle, the caster, own the later ones. ToB was both a beta test of the melee with neat abilities thing that they were shooting for in 4.0 in addition to being a slight attempt at making the gap between combat and casting less severe. Calling ToB too powerful is not unlike comparing a sniper rifle to a machine gun. Both have their place where they shine, and both are effective at what they do.

KIDS
2009-03-15, 03:50 AM
Imagine if you could add 1/2 of all you non manifesting/divine/arcane levels?

I was thinking of this lately and it would be the best mechanic ever. Unfortunately, it never made it into core books (though a similar one works fine in 4E). Caster level not scaling even a bit when you multiclass is the main killer of any caster/something combinations.

ShadowFighter15
2009-03-15, 03:59 AM
Caster level not scaling even a bit when you multiclass is the main killer of any caster/something combinations.

That'd probably make such combinations overpowered and put us back where we were before the ToB.

KIDS
2009-03-15, 05:04 AM
Off handedly, I can think of a billion gish (fighter/mage) combinations that absolutely suck, and a rare few that minmax PrCs and end up fine but still not nearly overpowered and not even close to full casters at their chosen role (Spellsword 1/Abjurant 4/Dragonslayer 1 etc.).

So what I mean is: isn't an enviroment where you can play a Fighter 8/Wizard 6 and actually be effective/useful without cheesing out things something healthy, something that we should aspire to?

Zincorium
2009-03-15, 05:22 AM
Off handedly, I can think of a billion gish (fighter/mage) combinations that absolutely suck, and a rare few that minmax PrCs and end up fine but still not nearly overpowered and not even close to full casters at their chosen role (Spellsword 1/Abjurant 4/Dragonslayer 1 etc.).

So what I mean is: isn't an enviroment where you can play a Fighter 8/Wizard 6 and actually be effective/useful without cheesing out things something healthy, something that we should aspire to?

Well, it would make sense to me to allow ToB style benefits: no new spells on levels of non-spellcaster classes, but when you do gain new spells/day, you can get higher level ones. I mean, wizard gives half BAB, around half the HP, and so forth.

You could make the point that all classes partially advance fighter, even.

It would help with traditionally terrible builds, Gishes and Theurges, but add absolutely nothing to the batman wizard or CoDzilla issue.

Abstruse
2009-03-15, 07:02 AM
Because I was curious about just how the balance worked in an actual campaign, I ran the Age of Worms AP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_worms) (or at least the first three or four segments of it; we're most of the way through the 4th part now) using the ToB rules. By the middle of the second segment, at which point the characters were 3rd-level-approaching-4th, the makeup of the six-player part was a defensive crusader, two swordsages (one straight, one scout multiclass, both with Shadow Blade and high DEX), a cleric, a warmage, and a bard. (I've learned to stop asking "why a bard?" It leads to headaches. Anyways...)

With the exception of the warmage's blaster abilities, which turned a handful of fights, the martial characters were far and away the most unbalancing thing about the party. I absolutely could not, as a DM, run the book opponents or even upgraded numbers of the book opponents -- the PCs would steamroller right over them. To actually challenge them, I had to throw ever-more-intricate ToB builds or ridiculously-overpowered-for-their-level monsters to came remotely close to their damage output and threat level.

And that's not even getting to the "oh, I use shadow jaunt to teleport past what should've been a significant obstacle" annoyance. Like 'porting to top of a stone pillar to avoid an underwater confrontation with a giant octopus. Or 'porting past a arcane-locked door by peering under the jamb/between the cracks.

Finally, I got lucky, and the two swordsages got overconfident and charged off one after the other after wounded opponents at the top of a 50' vertical connecting chamber. A doppelganger got ridiculously lucky with dice rolls, put one into the negatives, and crit-killed the other one as he tried to rescue the first. As there had been substantial discussion about the power level of the Tome characters substantially outstripping the others and the ongoing PC/monster-power arms race that I was being forced to adapt to, I suggested that both the PCs and I abolish Tome of Battle from the campaign henceforth. Everyone agreed, the crusader PC went off on a quest, and all three ToB players came up with entirely new characters -- a spiked-chain fighter, a scout/ranger archer, and an elven wizard/divine oracle.

Experimenting with challenges given the new, non-ToB party structure showed that it was far easier to offer a challenge without going to extremes. Mind you, the new fighter and the archer are still putting out substantial attack rolls and damage (goliath fighter 8 w/ 22+ STR, +1 spiked chain, WF, WS, and melee weapon mastery: piercing means +19 attack and 2d6+14 damage, plus Power Attack and Cleave if need be). However, this slightly lowered damage is countered by the fact that they can do it, short of HPs being exhausted, ALL DAY LONG -- which casters can't. The problem with the ToB classes is that they could put forth heightened damage -- equalling or exceeding casters -- and abilities all day long.

For example, the crusader strike Divine Surge? +8d8 damage, pretty much every three rounds? Ridiculously overpowered, and no drawbacks to using it at all. TWF-attacking Shadow Blade on a 24 DEX level 7 character, thus inflicting upwards of 25-30 damage every round? Absolutely broken stats-wise.

So yes, I absolutely think ToB within the structure of a campaign is unbalancing. Everyone talks about how effective a one- or two-level dip can be, balancing casters vs. melee... but all I can think is that no one claiming that had to prep a long-running campaign with multiple martial adepts in it.

AslanCross
2009-03-15, 07:30 AM
Running ToB in a campaign almost requires the DM to turn a lot of the vanilla-type fighters and melee NPCs/Monsters into Martial Adepts as well. It's not so much that ToB is unbalanced, but more because most adventures were not written with martial adepts in mind. (Some, however, like Eyes of the Lich Queen, are odd in that just a single martial adept is thrown into the adventure almost at random, while throwing low-level monks at the PCs as well.)

The main consideration when allowing ToB is that wizards and other casters do run out of spells. Eventually. ToB characters can recover their maneuvers completely between encounters, and can maneuver them quite easily during encounters. (Especially if you have Swordsages with Adaptive Style.)

In any case, I have run a long term campaign (lasted almost 2 years, Lv 5-11), wherein Tome of Battle was introduced around Lv 7. Three of the 5 PCs took martial adept levels: The Paladin (took Crusader), the Ranger, and the Rogue (both of whom took Swordsage). While their builds were by no means optimized, the size of the party necessitated higher encounter levels. Often encounters would end with two PCs completely uninjured, and the cleric would often heal them back up to near full HP with Touch of Healing.

However, it's strange that in my experience, neither the PC martial adepts nor the villains that I threw at them were game-breakingly good. The PCs, at Lv 6, without any martial adept levels yet, were able to take down a Lv 11 Warblade (granted, she was on her own, and the PCs got lucky). A Lv 9 hobgoblin Crusader with a bugbear monk/fighter grappler build and four hobgoblin scouts with him was quickly neutralized as well (the rogue went up to him under the effect of a seeming spell, bluffed him into letting his guard down, and used shadow garrote to sneak him and drop him down to half HP, while the rest of the party beat him down really quickly despite his high AC and his Steely Resolve). Interestingly enough, it was the bugbear grappler who made life difficult for the PCs in that encounter. She pinned the paladin, making it impossible for him to use any maneuvers.

Incidentally, a lot of times it's the Wizard who neutralized encounters single-handedly in my case. A single black tentacles stops encounters dead cold, since all the artillery (archers, casters, etc) gets stopped instantly. Only big bruisers can ever take the fight to the PCs, but once glitterdust is dropped on them, they're effectively out of the fight. Everybody has had their moments of glory so far, and the most difficult battle the PCs have faced (Adult Black Dragon) was won with not a single martial maneuver scoring a decisive hit. The only one used was shadow garrote, which barely did anything to the dragon; the fatal blow was a readied action to attack by the paladin.

Sophismata
2009-03-15, 07:41 AM
Abtruse, there are a number of problems with your analysis, so I'm going to tackle the easiest:


By the middle of the second segment, at which point the characters were 3rd-level-approaching-4th,

For example, the crusader strike Divine Surge? +8d8 damage,

every three rounds?

How, exactly, were these characters built? You may have been allowing for higher level manoeuvres than the characters had access to.

Edit: For comparison, we seem to have a Crusader, Swordsage, Rogue, Wizard, Sorceror and Bard (I don't know why), and haven't had any problems (except for the bard).

arguskos
2009-03-15, 07:58 AM
Personally, I dislike the Tome of Battle. Not on some stupid moral grounds, since it's beautifully designed, a wonderful addition to the melting pot that is 3.5, and a fun concept over all. No, I dislike it because it... doesn't play nicely with everyone else.

Much like Abstruse, it has ruined no less than three campaigns (I ran two, and played in one) by simply steamrolling everything and making everyone else feel useless, even our casters who, while not Batmen, were still quite powerful and capable. I've found that the ruleset HAS to be designed around, and since I'm not willing to bend over that far to accommodate a single aspect of a much larger game, I disregard it. Frankly, the flavor is a bit off for me too, but that's a much more personal disconnect, and so isn't relevant here.

I can fix Vancian casting so it's less overpowering with some simple alterations. I can't twist ToB to work with everyone else w/o redesigning most of the system. Basically, the disconnect that AslanCross mentioned above has forever turned me off of it. *shrug* It's a taste thing. Some folks loved the taste of it. I, in my experience, didn't.

EDIT: Oh, and power level wise? It's fine, if you design with it in mind. If you don't, tough luck, you'll get the same taste as me and Abstruse did.

Anyr
2009-03-15, 08:04 AM
How, exactly, were these characters built? You may have been allowing for higher level manoeuvres than the characters had access to.

To expand on this, martial adepts use the same levelled progression as spellcasters when determining what maneouvres they can use. Divine Surge is a 4th level ability, so it should only be available to 7th level adepts. Giving them a power like that at level 4 would be like giving a Wizard access to Evard's Black Tentacles or Greater Invisibility at that level.

AslanCross
2009-03-15, 08:30 AM
To expand on this, martial adepts use the same levelled progression as spellcasters when determining what maneouvres they can use. Divine Surge is a 4th level ability, so it should only be available to 7th level adepts. Giving them a power like that at level 4 would be like giving a Wizard access to Evard's Black Tentacles or Greater Invisibility at that level.

This. A lot of times my players forget that Maneuver Levels are not the same as character or class levels much like spell levels are not the same as caster levels. It's up there with "You cannot augment psionic powers to cost more than your manifester level" in terms of commonly misunderstood mechanics.

Eldariel
2009-03-15, 08:45 AM
For example, the crusader strike Divine Surge? +8d8 damage, pretty much every three rounds? Ridiculously overpowered, and no drawbacks to using it at all. TWF-attacking Shadow Blade on a 24 DEX level 7 character, thus inflicting upwards of 25-30 damage every round? Absolutely broken stats-wise.

Every single Str-based meleer does that amount of damage on those levels, or even more. Heck, your average level 6 Human Fighter can charge for +24 Power Attack (Shock Trooper + Leap Attack) with weapon dealing 5-7 points of base damage and the Str of 20 offering 8 more points total, making for a total of 39 damage per hit with two attacks on a turn. Shadow Blade means you get to burn two feats to do the same every two-handed Fighter does with Power Attack & co.

And that's before even going into the fact that he can also stop all movement around him and combine Trip with the above chain giving opponent -4 to AC and forcing them to invoke yet another attack of opportunity for 39 more damage when they get up. And that's just a pure Fighter; toss in two Barbarian-levels and the reliability and damage increases by a ton. And that's before adding mounts or anything to the deal.

Divine Surge, on the other hand, means that you have to give up your iterative attack, haste attack and all that, which would easily add up to more than the average of 36 damage. The biggest benefit of Divine Surge is being able to move after the attack; standard melee still outdamages a character using Divine Surge (do note that Divine Surge is available on level 7 the earliest).

By the sound of it, your melee players are just simply playing optimized characters while your caster players are not. Which would explain everything as casters have a lot of weak spells in their list, thus needing the knowledge of which thematically appropriate spells aren't weak to be of decent power level. Having a campaign where half of the players optimize and half doesn't causes problems.

Also, ToB is indeed at its strongest around levels 1-5, which probably impacts your experience (casters really take over on level 5, unless the said caster is a Druid, in which case he's broken from level 1). But yea, the casters' limited supply of spells is counteracted by the fact that they can usually end an encounter with 1 spell.


So yes, I absolutely think ToB within the structure of a campaign is unbalancing. Everyone talks about how effective a one- or two-level dip can be, balancing casters vs. melee... but all I can think is that no one claiming that had to prep a long-running campaign with multiple martial adepts in it.

I've run two campaigns with martial adepts and casters as the two principal groups (with a Rogue in one and Factotum in the other as the resident trapfinder) and the casters still solved encounters while martial adepts mopped up. But the martial adept players have expressed enjoying the role a whole much more than when playing PHB-based melee simply because they can do so much more than previously.

Now, I'm not saying you're playing wrong or anything, but it does seem like your problem stems from the fact that a half of your players build mechanically sound characters while the other half does not, rather than ToB itself.

Dragonsdoom
2009-03-15, 09:21 AM
Every single Str-based meleer does that amount of damage on those levels, or even more. Heck, your average level 6 Human Fighter can charge for +24 Power Attack (Shock Trooper + Leap Attack) with weapon dealing 5-7 points of base damage and the Str of 20 offering 8 more points total, making for a total of 39 damage per hit with two attacks on a turn. Shadow Blade means you get to burn two feats to do the same every two-handed Fighter does with Power Attack & co.

Eldariel, I don't want to get in a debate with you today, (too sleepy:smalltongue:) but I would like to point out that 'your average fighter' is extremely unlikely to be using that combo, because it is considered one of the most powerful combos available to melee at that level. 'Your average fighter' is much more likely to have smaller things like combat reflexes, improved initiative, just power attack, or improved disarm. The 'average fighter' you speak of is more the highly above-average fighter, having chosen one of the much more powerful builds.

Project_Mayhem
2009-03-15, 09:31 AM
Eldariel, I don't want to get in a debate with you today, (too sleepy) but I would like to point out that 'your average fighter' is extremely unlikely to be using that combo, because it is considered one of the most powerful combos available to melee at that level. 'Your average fighter' is much more likely to have smaller things like combat reflexes, improved initiative, just power attack, or improved disarm. The 'average fighter' you speak of is more the highly above-average fighter, having chosen one of the much more powerful builds.

Yeah, but the weaker fighters all get killed before their 12th birthdays.

Eldariel
2009-03-15, 09:34 AM
Eldariel, I don't want to get in a debate with you today, (too sleepy:smalltongue:) but I would like to point out that 'your average fighter' is extremely unlikely to be using that combo, because it is considered one of the most powerful combos available to melee at that level. 'Your average fighter' is much more likely to have smaller things like combat reflexes, improved initiative, just power attack, or improved disarm. The 'average fighter' you speak of is more the highly above-average fighter, having chosen one of the much more powerful builds.

If you're a 2-handed Fighter, I see a little reason not to have Leap Attack + Shock Trooper on those levels provided that Complete Warrior & Adventurer are allowed. I mean, build to your advantages, etc. But this illustrates the problem with Fighter perfectly - there's one path that's just vastly superior to all others (almost all others, anyways; Dungeoncrasher and some lockdown builds are exempted from this rule).

ToB actually solves that; while the charger is still the highest damaging character, everything else also has different things going on for it. So while you have to build a Fighter in certain way to be efficient, you don't with ToB. Which might cause trouble of course, since people might not be aware of what kind of damage Fighter is capable of, therefore getting frightened by ToB characters.

Khatoblepas
2009-03-15, 09:39 AM
I've run two ToB/Psionics campaigns thus far (not run any more because 3.5 takes too long to write for and I don't really like DMing x3), and I've got to say, Tome of Battle is the best for noncasters, since it gives options, and so long as you replace all the nonToB classes with ToB classes, it's pretty sweet to run. However, you've got to balance the enemies against them. This is to say, don't give them one big bruiser and one minion. My players aren't optimisation freaks like me, but they still work together tactically. Example encounter I used:

The Cultists of the Aspect of the Mind (inside a Church type place, pews and a solid oak pulpit):
One level 8 Telepath.
Three level 4 Warriors.
6 Cultist Minions (+6 ranged touch attack, 2d6 damage as a spell like ability. 1hp.)

The Players:
Human Warblade 8
Zanukhel Crusader 8 (LA +0 Outsider)
Psiforged Erudite 8

The battle lasted a good few rounds, and the Minions served their purpose as a roadblock for the party. They didn't want 6 * 2-12 damage per turn while they tried to make their way to the pulpit (difficult terrain considering the warriors in the way, and the pews weren't easy to navigate.)

The Telepath meanwhile was attempting to Charm the Warblade, but wasn't successful as he got a throwing knife in the face trying to manifest his power. He was hiding inside the pulpit, giving him (I ruled) Tower Shield cover. While individual targets were dropping like flies, the sheer number of them posed a great threat to the party, especially since the Erudite had earlier that day been using his unique powers for a completely different situation. The (TWF Tiger Claw variant) Crusader eventually (once he got the power granted) Sudden Leaped into the Pulpit and Divine Surged the Telepath before he could do anything. Of course, the Erudite and the Warblade softened him up beforehand, but it was an awesome moment (Sword goes through telepath, and right out the other side of the oak pulpit), and throughout the entire campaign, noone felt weaker than anyone else.

Not to mention the Clockwork Armored Half Golem Troll with a Minigun. They first met that beast at level 7.

It's all in the execution. Make sure there are lots of targets, and that the melee characters can't get to the squishy characters before they get beat up a bit by the frontliners. Melee characters love slicing through weak foes to get to their target, in my experience, so give it to them! And don't be afraid to use mooks. In my campaign, it was glaive wielding tripmonkey trollkin that inconvenienced the party. Who knows what it could be for you?

Thing is, ToB doesn't just give power, it gives options, and it gives awesome. Forget anything you hear about ToB being overpowered - it's an equaliser, and it's fun. Once you give melee characters fun, balance doesn't matter anymore. Because it's fun to play martial adepts.

Also:


And that's not even getting to the "oh, I use shadow jaunt to teleport past what should've been a significant obstacle" annoyance. Like 'porting to top of a stone pillar to avoid an underwater confrontation with a giant octopus. Or 'porting past a arcane-locked door by peering under the jamb/between the cracks.

Porting to the top of a stone pillar: I'm thinking this is a saltwater thing, considering the octopus. There is seaweed on the top of the pillar. Make balance checks.

Porting past an arcane locked door: They can't do that. ToB pg 45 says: "An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 sq.ft through it does not block a manuvers line of effect." Meaning that keyholes, jambs and cracks do not count as LoE.

Glyphic
2009-03-15, 10:18 AM
It's gotta be equal optimization. It's not impossible to build a Terrible warblade or so. It's just easier to optimize out of the box. A fighter has to specifically plan 7+ feats if he wants to survive at higher levels. Not always user friendly. A wizard can end entire battles with the application of one spell.

woodenbandman
2009-03-15, 10:26 AM
Tome of battle is extremely overpowered when you compare it to normal melee classes. And that's exactly the point. People go into ToB with the wrong mindset. They're expecting new paladin stuff, but it's really a whole new system. If you compare ToB to, say, a Psychic Warrior, or a Totemist, they equalize pretty well. If you compare it to, like, a wizard or a druid, then they suck awfully compared to that. At level 1 a wizard is perfectly capable of destroying a warblade. They burn a lot of their resources, but they can kill him. A 5th level wizard will destroy a warblade.

So the people who claim ToB are overpowered have a few problems with their use of ToB. Either A: They don't usually play a caster well, so they don't know how powerful they can be; B: They are breaking the rules with ToB unintentionally by confusing intiator level and maneuver level (I never did this, but apparently it happens); C: They have not seen it in use, so they cannot really appreciate what its power level is. They just see "OMG a melee attack with +8d6 damage!" without really calculating how much damage 8d6 is, and how much damage a properly optimized full attack does (Answer: a lot more), because they usually play their casters as evokers and deal an AWESOME 10d6 damage with a fireball, or go balls-out with a MAXIMIZED fireball. They see the power of the warblade to deal a load of hitpoint damage, because they're caught up in the math of trying to extract as many multiples as possible, while ignoring the fact that A: a d6 does not equate to 6, it's more like 3.5, and B: a monster can't lose hit points if it fails its save vs death.

Woodsman
2009-03-15, 10:37 AM
ToB was designed with a purpose (IMO); At least make an attempt to balance out the difference between Spellcasters and Melee fighters. While it doesn't do it entirely, it does help. Some of those maneuvers can be pretty scary, especially if you put the skill ranks into it. Feral Death Blow is pretty ridiculous.

I'm attempting to try and give non-ToB martial classes ToB progression in disciplines, stances, and maneuvers, and I think what I have works out all right. Most classes are like warblades (given the fact the non-ToB classes were designed without ToB in mind), but some are like crusaders. I honestly couldn't think of anything for swordsage, as they're meant to fill multiple party roles at once.

woodenbandman
2009-03-15, 10:49 AM
^You know that warblades are like super good right?

If I did that I'd severely restrict the school choices they got. Paladins/clerics get devoted spirit, Fighters Iron Heart MAYBE, otherwise they get Diamond mind, etc..

The reason for this is because some schools are way more powerful than others (I'm looking at you, diamond mind!)

Woodsman
2009-03-15, 10:53 AM
I mean they gain maneuvers and stances as warblades, though I've changed the disciplines around.

Keld Denar
2009-03-15, 10:57 AM
Just take a jaunt over to the homebrew section of this very forum. Look for the Sublime Ranger, Marshal, and a few others. Now look at the shear number of extra homebrewed Sublime schools. Now look at the amazing number of specialized homebrewed PrCs which idealize different aspects of different schools and themes.

ToB changed things...for the better.

shadow_archmagi
2009-03-15, 11:23 AM
Indeed; I once played a gestalt sorc/artificer in a 2 man campaign and completely outdid my companion all the time (a paladin/fighter). I had a fair number of utility spells and could still solve combats by myself most of the time; he was useless outside of combat and didn't get to swing his sword more than one or twice before I ended any given fight.

Now he likes to play Warblade/Fighters, and he actually *can* contribute to fights and actually outdamage me. Of course, he still can't fly, disintegrate, fabricate, teleport, mind crush, or turn things into other things (except for the ever popular People Into Corpses spell)

Draz74
2009-03-15, 01:58 PM
Because I was curious about just how the balance worked in an actual campaign, I ran the Age of Worms AP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_worms) (or at least the first three or four segments of it; we're most of the way through the 4th part now) using the ToB rules. By the middle of the second segment, at which point the characters were 3rd-level-approaching-4th, the makeup of the six-player part was a defensive crusader, two swordsages (one straight, one scout multiclass, both with Shadow Blade and high DEX), a cleric, a warmage, and a bard. (I've learned to stop asking "why a bard?" It leads to headaches. Anyways...)
[snip]
So yes, I absolutely think ToB within the structure of a campaign is unbalancing. Everyone talks about how effective a one- or two-level dip can be, balancing casters vs. melee... but all I can think is that no one claiming that had to prep a long-running campaign with multiple martial adepts in it.

All I can say is that, in my recent games, the lone ToB character (a warblade) was definitely not overpowered, and was in fact the character with the most near-death experiences. This even though Levels 1-5 are supposed to be when ToB dominates the most. And the other characters in the party aren't particularly cheesy (they're not even full casters). Granted, the Warblade isn't particularly optimized (she avoided Punishing Stance until Level 4), but she's not terrible either.

Now that the warblade picked up Stormguard Warrior at Level 6, she's started doing by far the most damage in the party, so there's *some* cause for concern. But then again, shouldn't the main melee character do some of the most impressive damage in the party? I still don't feel like she singlehandedly ruins level-appropriate encounters or anything.

Thurbane
2009-03-15, 02:09 PM
The reasons I (and my group) don't use ToB are twofold:

1. It doesn't fit with our games thematically. It's just too wuxia/anime for the pseudo-medieval/Arthurian/Robert E Howardeqsue/Tolkienian games we run. And yes, I've heard all the arguments as to why ToB isn't wuxia/anime, but I just can't shake my perceptions, sorry...

2. The base classes in there render some core classes, in particular Fighters, redundant. Sure, fixes may have been required to bring Fighters up to par, but simply creating classes that are better at everything the Fighter can do isn't the fix I was looking for. The material in ToB should have complemented Fighters instead of putting them on the retirement heap. Now, I do realize that through feats and items Fighters can benefit from maneuvers and stances, but even with these options, Fighter's would still be behind the base classes in ToB. It's the same reason why I have some problems with the Beguiler and (especially) the Factotum - any new base class that renders core PHB classes all but obsolete hurt the game from my POV, rather than add to the game.

...now, having said all of that, I don't think ToB is a fundamentally bad book in itself, just not suited to the style of games I enjoy running or playing in. To each their own: I am aware that there are many, many groups out there that swear by the ToB, and to them I am truly happy that it adds to your D&D experience. :smallwink:

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-15, 02:51 PM
The main problem with ToB is that it's done in the same ham handed manner as everything else WotC squats out for our consumer needs. It's so fluff laden that it's inaccessible to certain factions and play styles. Hell, the mechanics are based around the fluff created for the theme, and even the theme is so heavily influenced by illustrated Asiatic drivel that it's a gross alteration from the rest of the material produced before it. So I can understand groups waving away the mechanical benefits because the material is so alien.

Shpadoinkle
2009-03-15, 04:23 PM
There's a sort of mantra that many 3.X players have, though many don't realize it. It goes "fighters are not allowed to have nice things." In this instance, 'fighters' also applies to monks, barbarians, and paladins, and to a lesser degree rangers, but only in 3.0.

This is why the initial reaction of many people reading the ToB the first time is "ZOMGF WTF OVERPOWERED!!!!11!!1one!", similar to the OP's opinion of it. In an actual game though, yes the ToB classes are stronger than the warrior classes in teh PHB, but those classes prety much sucked anyway, and the ToB classes STILL aren't on par with full casters like wizards and clerics, though the gap between them is MUCH smaller than it is between full casters and the PHB warrior classes.

At the least, ToB makes melee interesting to play. If gives PCs options besides "I try to hit/trip/disarm/sunder him again" or "I move here, then try to hit/trip/disarm/sunder him again."

Abstruse
2009-03-15, 04:26 PM
Every single Str-based meleer does that amount of damage on those levels, or even more. Heck, your average level 6 Human Fighter can charge for +24 Power Attack (Shock Trooper + Leap Attack) with weapon dealing 5-7 points of base damage and the Str of 20 offering 8 more points total, making for a total of 39 damage per hit with two attacks on a turn. Shadow Blade means you get to burn two feats to do the same every two-handed Fighter does with Power Attack & co.

As has been said, that's hardly an average fighter. That's a highly focused build, aiming at precisely one thing. Additionally, you can't do that thing in difficult terrain, through smoke/concealment (can't charge what you can't see), or against an opponent flying higher than you can easily reach. Moreover, once you've charged, you're engaged -- and unless you want to waste a round retreating and re-charging, your damage drops off substantially. Unless, of course, you're claiming that the opposition is conveniently spaced at charge-distances and you kill each one of your charge-targets with your first strike. I know that if I were DMing the opposition with any level of intelligence I'd swarm your ubercharger and prevent him from moving, either through numbers or tanglefoot bags.

Regardless -- your Shock Trooper Leap Attack would get (PA-6) +18 at most rather than the +12 normal from a two-handed weapon. 2d6+8, +18 -- plus maybe a few more from magical enhancement or specialization -- gives you an average of 33 points on your first hit. Then you're down to an average 15 points per hit, bogged down in melee.

The crusader can do the exact same thing, but throws on an extra +36 points from Divine Surge every three rounds because there's no reason not to. There's no drawbacks to using it at all. And it goes off every three rounds all day long. It's like the warlock, but moreso, because the added damage level is highly comparable to even the best blaster mages.

Abstruse
2009-03-15, 04:32 PM
Porting to the top of a stone pillar: I'm thinking this is a saltwater thing, considering the octopus. There is seaweed on the top of the pillar. Make balance checks.

Porting past an arcane locked door: They can't do that. ToB pg 45 says: "An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 sq.ft through it does not block a manuvers line of effect." Meaning that keyholes, jambs and cracks do not count as LoE.

Hmmmm, I didn't recall seeing anything about seaweed on top of the pillar. It wouldn't make sense, really, given that the top of the pillar never gets wet from the chamber's water.

That's good to know about the line of effect thing, though -- I hadn't realized that bit, given that it isn't mentioned in the maneuver's crunch text.

monty
2009-03-15, 04:35 PM
Regardless -- your Shock Trooper Leap Attack would get (PA-6) +18 at most rather than the +12 normal from a two-handed weapon. 2d6+8, +18 -- plus maybe a few more from magical enhancement or specialization -- gives you an average of 33 points on your first hit. Then you're down to an average 15 points per hit, bogged down in melee.

The errata for Leap Attack changed it to +100% PA damage, for some reason. 100% of 12 is 12, and 12+12=24, not 18. And even if you don't get to charge, you're still getting pretty good damage from regular PA. Also, if you have Combat Brute, that goes off in the second round. Also also, Divine Surge limits you to one attack, whereas even without Pounce and the like, the iterative attack you're getting from your non-charge attack will still probably out-damage it on average.


It's like the warlock, but moreso, because the added damage level is highly comparable to even the best blaster mages.

No, the "best blaster mages" put out hundreds if not thousands of damage with their attacks. If you're not abusing metamagic, then blaster mages are pretty weak. Is that supposed to be impressive?

nightwyrm
2009-03-15, 05:46 PM
The thing with ToB is that it takes a lot less player skill and system mastery to make an effective ToB melee character. You can make a fighter or barb who can deal a ton of damage (I think it's been proven on the CharOp boards that an optimized barb can deal more damage than an optimized warblade), but at the very least you'll need power attack, shock trooper from CWar, Leap Attack from CAdv and PrCs and feats from many books. ToB is virtually self-contained. Everything a person needs to make a good melee char is inside that book.

My stat metaphor for ToB is this: The average power of a ToB chars is a bit higher than the average power of fighters and barbs, but fighters and barbs have a much higher variance in power that depends on player skill. Thus the upper end of fighters and barbs can be equal to or higher than the upper end of ToB, while the bottom end of ftrs and barbs can be much lower than the lower end of ToB.

MeklorIlavator
2009-03-15, 06:01 PM
The first time I played with Tome of Battle, my Crusader was easily the most powerful person in the party during the first(and only) encounter we played.

This was a good thing. We were at ninth level, and the Wizard started by casting 0th level save spells (he did start using better spells, though), the cleric had un-errated DMM but didn't know how to play the game, and pretty much the same with the beguiler.

Besides this, I've never really had trouble with Tome of Battle, nor have I been in any games where they caused trouble. Personally, I agree with nightwyrm in terms of balance, and as for flavor, well, my favorite class, the Crusader, has the same flavor as a Paladin, so I can't see a reason not to allow one or the other for flavor reasons.

Lycanthromancer
2009-03-15, 06:01 PM
"Flavor" is mutable. Anybody that absolutely cannot come up with anything to change the flavor of a class (other than those like the binder that are tied so tightly to their respective flavors that you simply cannot change the flavor without changing the mechanics dramatically) has very little imagination whatsoever.

But if you can't play a warblade because of the flavor, then you can't play a fighter either. And the same goes with crusaders and paladins/blackguards/clerics. Or swordsages and eldritch knights/monks/psychic warriors. Because they have the same basic flavor, and even then the ToB classes are more flexible with their mechanics, leading to a wider variety of default archetypes (and therefore, flavors) you can play.

The warblade can be a gritty mercenary for hire in a sleazy tavern, or the grizzled lieutenant following orders on the battlefield, or the blademaster working to teach trainees of the City Guard how to apprehend criminals and protect the city.

The crusader can be the impeccable knight in shining armor, or the warlord who rallies his troops to his cause for good or ill, or the treacherous second-in-command of the BBEG who commands the terror and respect of an entire nation, or the battlepriest who bolsters his allies against the forces of good/evil.

The swordsage can be the bent old man sitting on top of a mountain in his monastery whom thousands of pilgrims each year come to glean wisdom from through the arts of war, or the canny trickster who confounds his enemies through deceit and cleverness and is more of a rogue than any rogue you care to name, or the arcane blade who trolls the docksides in various cities looking for a good fight, or the apprentice of the wizard's guild who found that his talents lay as much with his blade as with his spellbooks.

If you can't see how you can wrap the mechanics of a class around your character concept, maybe you don't have the imagination to play this game in the first place.

Zaq
2009-03-15, 06:05 PM
Tome of Battle lets meleers and fighter-types have more options than "the same, only better." A full caster gets new spells (and thus new tricks) at every level. A skillmonkey gets the ability to use their skills with more flair. What does your average beatstick get? Well, they get more BAB. So they can hit a little more often. And they might get a couple things that increase their damage... smite power goes up, or they get a strength boost or something. But generally speaking the options that a fighter has around level 5-6ish are the options that they'll have around 14-15ish. Full attack if you can, charge if you can't. Power Attack for as much as is viable. Trip, disarm, grapple, sunder. You have your options all laid out for you, and then you slowly get better at them. There are exceptions and break-points, of course (an ubercharger gains a huge jump in power when they get shock trooper, for example), but generally speaking there's not a lot you can do at high levels that you couldn't try to do at low levels. You can just do it better. (When your partymates are telling reality to sit down and shut up in new and exciting ways every level and the enemies are doing the same, this is rarely enough, but that's not the point. Even if you're in a non-optimized party, you still don't get anything NEW. Just more of what you already have.)

ToB fixes that. It lets the melee-types think about what they're doing beyond just "how much should I Power Attack for?" It lets them get new things they can do every level. It makes each turn different. It gives them a reason to take their characters off of autopilot. This is a good thing. A player without new options is a bored player. If not now, they will be in three levels, when they still can't do anything new and their allies and enemies can.

The fact that it lessens (though doesn't eliminate) the gap between beatsticks and casters is huge, of course, but the new options are just as important in my book.

Lycanthromancer
2009-03-15, 06:08 PM
And as for those who are complaining that the ToB classes make the core martial classes obsolete...

Really, core is the most unbalanced set of books in the entire game. It contains three of The Big Five (six?), and also contains several of the weakest non-NPC classes in the entire game.

You just can't fix something like that without completely rewriting the foundation of the game, and turning the classes into something nigh-unrecognizable from what they once were.

...which is exactly what ToB did.

Call the warblade the 'fighter fix.' Call the crusader the 'paladin fix.' Call the swordsage the 'monk fix.'

Replace all of those classes with their respective fixes, relegate the old classes to NPC classes (as that's what power level they're closest to), and call it a day.

Because, frankly, those classes were obsolete long before ToB even hit the shelves. Heck, they were obsolete before we left 3.0.

lsfreak
2009-03-15, 11:55 PM
I didn't even look at the fluff for ToB my first time through; I went straight to the mechanics. And doing that, I find it difficult to see why fluff is an issue - just drop the fluff all together. They are not special schools or disciplines that require special training any more than a wizard with illusion as their specialization versus one with conjuration. There, no more fluff problems.

Philistine
2009-03-16, 02:18 AM
Indeed; I once played a gestalt sorc/artificer in a 2 man campaign and completely outdid my companion all the time (a paladin/fighter). I had a fair number of utility spells and could still solve combats by myself most of the time; he was useless outside of combat and didn't get to swing his sword more than one or twice before I ended any given fight.

Now he likes to play Warblade/Fighters, and he actually *can* contribute to fights and actually outdamage me. Of course, he still can't fly, disintegrate, fabricate, teleport, mind crush, or turn things into other things (except for the ever popular People Into Corpses spell)

Has anyone ever explained to your friend what gestalt is and how it works? Because it sounds like he's laboring under some fundamental misconceptions there. Even Paladin//Monk would do more than Paladin//Fighter - and most other possible choices would be better than that. Then there's Warblade//Fighter, which is entirely redundant. Seriously, someone should point out to him that he doesn't gain any benefit from having full BAB on both sides of the gestalt. If he doesn't want to play a caster, perhaps you could suggest he try Warblade//Rogue or something.

Kaiyanwang
2009-03-16, 05:41 AM
Even if I don't like so much ToB, and I don't use it for my campaings (at least, at the moment), I think that's a good book, can be very useful at several levels.

I didn't had the need of it, because (I realized in these forums) my gamestyle is singular. Maybe because I use mechanics making spellcasting dangerous, or for some particular way to handle treasure and items, or my players are particulary good even if I'll continue to repeat them the opposite, my player had a lot of fun even with fighters and monks, even in epic (40th).

More, what Thurbane said about the book is very similar to a lot of my feelings.

Anyway, even if a lot of thing I hear about spellcasting and psionics are, IMHO, silly, or broken, and the things you can do in a full attack are a lot, is true that casters and similar classes see their options (spells) levitate through level, while meleers, even if is IMHO false that do the same things at all the levels, see their options grow at a slower rate.

Just a silly, silly example: epic spellcasting. If is broken or beautiful, is up to players and DMs. But is an option for Epic Spellcasters And Epic Manifesters. Period. My players had a lot of fun with Overwhelming Critical, but is not the same thing.

IMHO, ToB can introduce mechanics that help players feel "over the top". Feel they discovered something special.

For my tastes, is a little bit too cheesy start at 1st level with ToB, even if is true that some apparently broken maneuver cannot be compared to a proper full attack.

But, even if IMHO overcome Damage Reduction automatically or avoid completely AOOs is IMHO too much at a certain level, I' fine with similar things levels after. This is my point.

You have to understand when ToB can be introduced. 1st? 6th? 15th? 31st? It depends from how the Dm runs the campaing. From other players.

You can introduce maneuvers in several ways (I don't like so much this options, like I don't like so much monk's belt). With feats, if you consider maneuvers so powerful. Or with Multiclass. And these thing are, IMHO, matemathically well handled about initiator level.

The only things I dislike from ToB are "a la 4th edition" (or late 3.5):

- maneuver automatic retrain (but even PHB sorcerers retrain, and some maneuver is the nautural evolution of a previous one, so it makes sense), so this can be handled very well, maybe with PHII.

- Maneuvers (Ex) granting healing. This makes no sense. But I can use the book for Tiger Claw and Iron Heart, and goodnight.

- Silly names but this is a minor issue. You can, inside certain limits, refluff almost anything and "Girallion Yadda Yadda" becomes "Rend". Easy.

More, I play gestalt, now, so, instead of Fighter? Warblade? Fighter/Warblade? I can have Fighter//Warblade. 13 maneuvers, 4-8 tactical feats and a lot of fun!

shadow_archmagi
2009-03-16, 05:47 AM
Has anyone ever explained to your friend what gestalt is and how it works? Because it sounds like he's laboring under some fundamental misconceptions there. Even Paladin//Monk would do more than Paladin//Fighter - and most other possible choices would be better than that. Then there's Warblade//Fighter, which is entirely redundant. Seriously, someone should point out to him that he doesn't gain any benefit from having full BAB on both sides of the gestalt. If he doesn't want to play a caster, perhaps you could suggest he try Warblade//Rogue or something.

He likes the feats. Also, now that I think of it, it wasn't paladin/fighter; that was what he *wanted* to do but I talked him into paladin/cleric. That way he'd be able to do healing, some casting, be a meatshield, and have extra divine flavor.

He ended up completely forgetting about it and never cast a single spell, so he was basically just a paladin. Since then I've stopped complaining when he takes fighter; at least he doesn't just ignore his feats (and since he picks roughly half of them for flavor, he's always looking for an excuse to show off how all dragons are his friends.)

Person_Man
2009-03-16, 09:50 AM
My group loves the ToB. We were all hoping that ToB was going to be the template for 4E. In a way it was, in that they kept the whole at will/per encounter/daily thing. But they threw out the best stuff - namely all the cool, interesting, and fluffy manuevers, stances, and feats, in favor of X[W] damage + minor effect powers. And they essentially threw out multi-classing, which prevents any serious customization by keeping everyone tightly in their assigned roles.

Prime32
2009-03-16, 10:42 AM
- Maneuvers (Ex) granting healing. This makes no sense. But I can use the book for Tiger Claw and Iron Heart, and goodnight.
Hp is supposed to be an abstraction - it represents fatigue and will to fight as much as physical damage. In that sense, I don't see anything odd with a maneuver which causes a warrior to regain some of his energy.


More, I play gestalt, now, so, instead of Fighter? Warblade? Fighter/Warblade? I can have Fighter//Warblade. 13 maneuvers, 4-8 tactical feats and a lot of fun!
Umm... why not Feat rogue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogue)//Warblade?

Kaiyanwang
2009-03-16, 11:27 AM
Hp is supposed to be an abstraction - it represents fatigue and will to fight as much as physical damage. In that sense, I don't see anything odd with a maneuver which causes a warrior to regain some of his energy.


Pretty much as they are in 4th. And I don't like 4th edition HPs, as I pointed out several times.

It's true that Devoted Spirtit (and so Crusader) it's easy to fix: you say that similar effects are (Su) and mantain coherency. But as it's written, I don't like it at all :smalltongue:



Umm... why not Feat rogue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogue)//Warblade?

Thank you for pointing it out, but I knew it. used it for a Gestalt class with the fighter and other alternative class features from both classes. Very Fun, 32 feats, a lot of skill points and anti-caster things.

And in my games, Heavy armor, Tower Shield and ranged weapons are still valuable so gestalt with fighter is anyway good - and I like the flavor of "teh warrior".

More, that was an example, I have the intention of introduce ToB, but later in levels (as a sorta high level or Epic advancement of classes. In truth, the whole thread gave me a lot of ideas... thank you playgrounders :smallwink:)

Thank you for the advice, anyway..

*bow*

woodenbandman
2009-03-16, 12:05 PM
If you can't see how you can wrap the mechanics of a class around your character concept, maybe you don't have the imagination to play this game in the first place.

:smallsmile::smallsmile::smallsmile:

Shpadoinkle
2009-03-16, 05:56 PM
Pretty much as they are in 4th. And I don't like 4th edition HPs, as I pointed out several times.
Take a look at your 3e PHB. That's how HPs are described there too- morale, determination, and actual will to fight, or sometimes the grace of the gods or even just sheer luck. Oly the last couple hits that bring a character down to negative HP are considered actual physical wounds (although that could really be as much flavor text as anything.)

"HP as your will to fight, not actual physical hardiness" is not a concept originating in 4e. Hell, they might even be described in some 2e book like that.

ShadowFighter15
2009-03-16, 06:38 PM
Hell, they might even be described in some 2e book like that.

According to TV Tropes; it's been like that since first edition. See for yourself. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor)

Thurbane
2009-03-16, 07:36 PM
And as for those who are complaining that the ToB classes make the core martial classes obsolete...

Really, core is the most unbalanced set of books in the entire game. It contains three of The Big Five (six?), and also contains several of the weakest non-NPC classes in the entire game.
I think what you and a lot of others may be missing, are these 2 points:

1. Many people dispute the fact of just how “broken” the core really is. It depends heavily on several factors that vary widely from group to group, including level of play (character level), type of game/setting, houserules and how heavily into optimizing the group/individuals are. I for one concede that some core classes are more powerful than others at certain levels, but the specifics of how great this balance is vary hugely from group to group, due to the variables I just mentioned plus others I haven’t either thought of.

2. Many others accept the core “imbalances”, and are fine with them. Having all classes with the exact same/very similar power levels at all character levels (ala 4E) is a style of play that works great for some groups, while other couldn’t give two hoots that “casters = pwnage” at higher levels. Neither style is right or wrong – some groups prefer unilateral balance, others really don’t care. Some people also believe that the only meaningful way for a PC to contribute to a group is through Raw combat power – this is something else that varies widely between groups (and it’s also been debated to death on these very forums).

Frosty
2009-03-16, 08:28 PM
Then we need a definition of "too good." If you LIKE games where casters are the pwnzors and other people shine much less, then ToB is likely not for you.

Lycanthromancer
2009-03-17, 01:25 AM
Then we need a definition of "too good." If you LIKE games where casters are the pwnzors and other people shine much less, then ToB is likely not for you.

The same goes for people who like doing the exact same thing Every. Single. Round.

After all, mundane martial classes only have two things they can do. "I move," and "I hit its AC." Really, that's it. And most can't even do both effectually at the same time. Whether that's touch AC, flat-footed AC, or regular AC, that's it. Whether it's a 5' space, a run, a move action or a charge, that's it. Regardless of whether it's a Sunder/trip/bull-rush/overrun/smite/charge/full-attack, that's it.

Meanwhile, casters are telling reality itself to bend over and take it like a man.

It's sad.

krossbow
2009-03-17, 01:38 AM
The same goes for people who like doing the exact same thing Every. Single. Round.

After all, mundane martial classes only have two things they can do. "I move," and "I hit its AC." Really, that's it. And most can't even do both effectually at the same time. Whether that's touch AC, flat-footed AC, or regular AC, that's it. Whether it's a 5' space, a run, a move action or a charge, that's it. Regardless of whether it's a Sunder/trip/bull-rush/overrun/smite/charge/full-attack, that's it.

Meanwhile, casters are telling reality itself to bend over and take it like a man.

It's sad.





This i think stems from the failing of the grapple/sunder/disarm system.

Were fighters able to perform a bevy of tricks and more mundane actions without having to sink a boatload of feats into it, it'd be a bit more useful.

unfortunately, Humanoids are the only ones these tactics truly work on, and humanoids are the weakest foes you can find generally. High level monsters are too large or strong for a fighter to work upon.

Kaiyanwang
2009-03-17, 05:14 AM
unfortunately, Humanoids are the only ones these tactics truly work on, and humanoids are the weakest foes you can find generally. High level monsters are too large or strong for a fighter to work upon.

Well, at first levels they are. After a while, these tactics work even on Monstrous Humanoids and Fey. After a while, with Giants, and Oustiders. Nota all Giants and outsiders are out of reach of a mid-hiagh level warrior, expecially if party works as a team and not a bunch of geeks hurring to show who has the better combo.

Obviously, not everything always work... is better not to grapple a goristro, use another tactic with him. But this is obviosu with spells too - death effects on constructs, as an example.


Take a look at your 3e PHB. That's how HPs are described there too- morale, determination, and actual will to fight, or sometimes the grace of the gods or even just sheer luck. Oly the last couple hits that bring a character down to negative HP are considered actual physical wounds (although that could really be as much flavor text as anything.)

"HP as your will to fight, not actual physical hardiness" is not a concept originating in 4e. Hell, they might even be described in some 2e book like that.

One thing is say that are part morale, and one thing is say that one says to me to resist, and i take an HEAL effect.

There is another (Ex) healing effect in the game - an herb in forgotten healing 1d8 or so. But is not the same thing. And the herb is an healing herb, not a placebo.

Shpadoinkle
2009-03-17, 11:39 AM
There is another (Ex) healing effect in the game - an herb in forgotten healing 1d8 or so. But is not the same thing. And the herb is an healing herb, not a placebo.

Morale, determination, and will to fight are placebos? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Kaiyanwang
2009-03-17, 12:29 PM
Morale, determination, and will to fight are placebos? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Fast and simple: it's an (Ex) heal effect, and heal is one of the greater healing spell. IMHO, this is a heasily-fixable-and-useful-in-game-terms crap.

If a rogue [ambush] me with a Lacerate or a Barbazu deep wounds me, my wound does not close because a cool-ass says to me "if you continue to bleed, you will strongly fail me".

They close becasue a an healing effect, extraordinary (heal skill, healing herb) or magical (a kind of (Sp) or (Su)) it's applied on the wound or similar.

If you are directly fine with the maneuver , I think I can go bed happy. For me, it's crap.

Edit: more, this is an incoherency within the book itself. Think about Shadow Hand and Desert Wind. Why some maneuvers of them must be (Su) and the healing effect is not?

Lycanthromancer
2009-03-17, 12:38 PM
Another issue on the 'flavor' part of the equation is that people think martial-types (especially fighters) have to be totally mundane in real-world terms. They see mechanics for punching through brick walls and running faster than a freight train as totally beyond what a fighter should be able to do.

And that's ridiculous.

Real-world people rarely get beyond 1st or 2nd level, and perhaps the best, brightest, toughest, most insanely talented and powerful people ever to have lived throughout the course of human history have only been perhaps 6th level. Maybe 7th (for legendary figures of utter renown). And that's stretching it. And yet martial artists (not even up to par with Bruce Lee, who is arguably one of the most physically capable humans in recorded history) can shatter solid concrete blocks with their fists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTqDJDNLoc0).

6th-level+ is getting into beyond-the-realm-of-physics territory. You cannot be a 10th level character and still be 'mundane,' by definition. And yet fighters are.

Giving martial characters the ability to break reality with their fists is totally in line with where they should be. We're talking mutant-level powers here. Wolverine is certainly not a barbarian; Nightcrawler isn't a monk; and Deadpool isn't a fighter. And yet that's the level that martial characters have to compete at if they're going to remain relevant at anything about level 5.

Tome of Battle gives them that. And it's something they desperately need.

Kaiyanwang
2009-03-17, 12:44 PM
Another issue on the 'flavor' part of the equation is that people think martial-types (especially fighters) have to be totally mundane in real-world terms. They see mechanics for punching through brick walls and running faster than a freight train as totally beyond what a fighter should be able to do.

And that's ridiculous.

Real-world people rarely get beyond 1st or 2nd level, and perhaps the best, brightest, toughest, most insanely talented and powerful people ever to have lived throughout the course of human history have only been perhaps 6th level. Maybe 7th (for legendary figures of utter renown). And that's stretching it. And yet martial artists (not even up to par with Bruce Lee, who is arguably one of the most physically capable humans in recorded history) can shatter solid concrete blocks with their fists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTqDJDNLoc0).

6th-level+ is getting into beyond-the-realm-of-physics territory. You cannot be a 10th level character and still be 'mundane,' by definition. And yet fighters are.

Giving martial characters the ability to break reality with their fists is totally in line with where they should be. We're talking mutant-level powers here. Wolverine is certainly not a barbarian; Nightcrawler isn't a monk; and Deadpool isn't a fighter. And yet that's the level that martial characters have to compete at if they're going to remain relevant at anything about level 5.

Tome of Battle gives them that. And it's something they desperately need.

I agree with you - long time before ToB, i described action of epic meleers as more than extraordinary - and that was a matter of flavour.

But there are things IMHO akward, in a matter of coherency with the game world itself.
Maybe they not render the book less enjoyable, but see the growing disinterestedness of the designers toward this aspect is sad.

Se above: you want that after a while, a martial characters develops supernatural powers: It's fine, is coherent with what you said.

BUT at that point, I want that the rules of these powers match with the mechanics of the world of the character.

It happens with some Desert Wind, but not with some Devoted Spirit. This is what I mean.

Theodoriph
2009-03-17, 12:55 PM
Take a look at your 3e PHB. That's how HPs are described there too- morale, determination, and actual will to fight, or sometimes the grace of the gods or even just sheer luck. Oly the last couple hits that bring a character down to negative HP are considered actual physical wounds (although that could really be as much flavor text as anything.)

"HP as your will to fight, not actual physical hardiness" is not a concept originating in 4e. Hell, they might even be described in some 2e book like that.





Haha...the problem is the concept completely fails when it comes to doors and other inanimate objects having HP :smallbiggrin:


*bang* *bang*
"Let me in damnit"
Door: *slowly losing my will to resist...must open*

shadow_archmagi
2009-03-17, 02:39 PM
Haha...the problem is the concept completely fails when it comes to doors and other inanimate objects having HP :smallbiggrin:


*bang* *bang*
"Let me in damnit"
Door: *slowly losing my will to resist...must open*

True, but obviously inanimate objects operate under difference rules.

Anyway, an extraordinary manuever granting bonus HP is just fine for me. The literary world is full of examples of people who say "Admittedly, I really should be dead at this point, but I'm really angry so I should be able to hang on for a bit" like, say, Boromir.

Eldariel
2009-03-17, 02:43 PM
True, but obviously inanimate objects operate under difference rules.

Anyway, an extraordinary manuever granting bonus HP is just fine for me. The literary world is full of examples of people who say "Admittedly, I really should be dead at this point, but I'm really angry so I should be able to hang on for a bit" like, say, Boromir.

Rather the whole "second wind"-part; after all, we're talking about gaining permanent HP rather than just for the fight.

Darth Stabber
2009-03-17, 03:19 PM
Your nitpicking the hp abstraction in a game where rules as written allows

Per RAW
1. Monks and Barbarians fall faster than everyone else
2. A first lvl wizard fears housecats
3. Beginning to drown can bring you back from the brink of death (beginning to drown sets you hp to 0)
4. Anything Tippy has posted.

Do hp seem like an unreasonable an abstraction when you consider just these (and I could list these off all day). When you write a game system you are trying to abstract the laws of reality into a single (or in D&D's case 3+) book. And if you absolutely have a hard time reconciling HP and need to do so, here is The Official Darth Stabber Explanation(ODSE):

HP is a combination of your characters physical resilience, ability to minimize the effects of taking a blow, will to keep fighting, and ability to just deal with sharp implements affecting your corpus. A Fighter, when hit by an attack, loses a smaller percentage of his hitpoints than a wizard for several reasons. A) The fighter is accostomed to getting hit, and can better react to minimize the effect it would have on his body
B) The fighter having spent years being hit, and given that he makes his living by getting in people's faces and hitting them with metal objects, he accepts it as something that's going to happen, and is not as shocked by it happening, whereas the wizard expects the fighter to take most of the hits and the Psychological impact is much greater.
C) The fighter's body has been beaten mercilessly over the years and as a result his body is conditioned to take these hits, his thicker skin absorbs the blows better.
D) After you have been stabbed enough times, The physical sensation of a blade separating your ribs, just doesn't hurt as much.


It is for all these reasons that a fighter has many hitpoints, and a wizard has fewer, even given the same CON score.

Healing magic, herbs and potions heal the physical wounds and deaden the pain of these injuries, thus the non physical aspect of the wounds is gone as well, since the injury is no longer there, the other aspects are renewed.

Con damage represents something more akin to internal injuries, they hurt(hence the HP loss from reduced con score), but the full extent of damage is not determinable by sensation alone.

Wounds that don't heal, are a continued weak spot for opponents, and they are a tax as they keep hurting and don't get better.

Objects have hp but they are different abstraction. They are purely the objects physical ability to withstand blows. Given that a door is solid wood, and wood doesn't have squishy bit inside of it, it has more hp than a human with no determination, but the wood does not have the ability to roll with blows, or determination to go on so these effects are not pronounced in the objects hp.


Has the ODSE made the whole thing clearer?

Thurbane
2009-03-17, 05:34 PM
The same goes for people who like doing the exact same thing Every. Single. Round.

After all, mundane martial classes only have two things they can do. "I move," and "I hit its AC." Really, that's it. And most can't even do both effectually at the same time. Whether that's touch AC, flat-footed AC, or regular AC, that's it. Whether it's a 5' space, a run, a move action or a charge, that's it. Regardless of whether it's a Sunder/trip/bull-rush/overrun/smite/charge/full-attack, that's it.

Meanwhile, casters are telling reality itself to bend over and take it like a man.

It's sad.
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that.

A melee based character has quite a lot of options that simply do not play out as "swing, hit, swing, miss, swing again..." Trip, disarm, sunder, bullrush, overrun, grapple, power attack, combat expertise, attack defensively, stunning fist...and that's just core. There's also feats like Intimidating Strike, and all the others that give characters the option of adding other effects (nauseating, stunning, dazing etc.) to his attacks.

To boil down all 3.5 non-ToB combat to a binary series of hit or miss attacks is just flat out ignoring the plethora of options that exist.

Eldariel
2009-03-17, 05:46 PM
To boil down all 3.5 non-ToB combat to a binary series of hit or miss attacks is just flat out ignoring the plethora of options that exist.

To do any of them well though, you tend to need feats. I mean, Trip without Improved Trip just comes up rarely as it means you spent your turn not even dealing damage provided that you did win the opposed Str-check. It's decent use for your last iterative but that's about it.

Grapple...maybe against a caster you somehow got into an anti-magic field, but there're so many things wrong with that idea it's not even funny (and if you did manage it, why would you grab him and risk AMF running out instead of just killing him?).

And Bull Rush, well, it's actually occasionally useful...but mostly on chasms by the core rules as the damage from basically every other environmental hazard is just minimal (I mean, lavapools deal 1d6 fire per turn, WTF?). However, you need to beat opponent's result by a lot to push them more than 5' and that's just plain hard without non-Str based bonuses on Bull Rush. Also, the AoO is a bitch to deal with.

And Disarming is the most sitiuational ability ever; if you don't have Improved Disarm, it's very rarely worth using and that's mostly against roguey types, who just happen to very probably have a crapton of knives and auxillary weapons hidden away so disarming them only slightly inconveniences them.

And everyone knows why Sunder isn't a good idea even when trained; and if not trained, those AoOs are going to hurt you a lot as generally when you want to Sunder anything, you're in melee with another melee combatant which by definition means tons of melee damage.


Point being, none of the abilities are worth using unless you specialize in them through spending multiple feats improving your related abilities, which means that most characters just don't have more than 1-2 realistic options in any given sitiuation simply because they don't have the feats to be proficient in more stuff (besides choosing for how much to PA/CE, which frankly isn't very interesting even if it does allow you to insert a mathematical skill element into the game).

Mr.Moron
2009-03-18, 04:50 PM
Tome of battle: too good?

No. If you see any room for discussion, chances are you understanding of 3.5 as a game system is extremely incomplete. I'm not claiming to be a master, far from it. However even a passing glance at the capabilities of the different classes, puts martial adepts FAR from the top of the power pile.

Graymayre
2009-03-18, 07:54 PM
Point being, none of the abilities are worth using unless you specialize in them through spending multiple feats improving your related abilities, which means that most characters just don't have more than 1-2 realistic options in any given sitiuation simply because they don't have the feats to be proficient in more stuff (besides choosing for how much to PA/CE, which frankly isn't very interesting even if it does allow you to insert a mathematical skill element into the game).

Is that not what the fighter is all about? If there was an easier way to get these abilities, than everyone could find some use for them. Feat form is really one of the simplest way to restrict classes from gaining these abilities while still giving them the capability to obtain them. The fighter class, though always argued as weak, is one of the few classes that can break through the feat barrier, which is what most melee classes basically attempt to do. I really don't think fighters get enough respect for this.

Eldariel
2009-03-18, 08:45 PM
Is that not what the fighter is all about? If there was an easier way to get these abilities, than everyone could find some use for them. Feat form is really one of the simplest way to restrict classes from gaining these abilities while still giving them the capability to obtain them. The fighter class, though always argued as weak, is one of the few classes that can break through the feat barrier, which is what most melee classes basically attempt to do. I really don't think fighters get enough respect for this.

All of them boil down to "opposed strength-check or bad stuff happens" (except Sunder, which sucks for obvious reasons against everything but Hydras). So all of them work against low Str guys rather well and poorly against high Str-types, especially big ones. So how many abilities that force a Str-check do you really need?

Generally it's the best idea to pick the best one (Trip, 'cause it gives you significant bonuses to attacks, significant penalties to opponent's attacks, an attack of opportunity and complete destruction of opponent's mobility without giving up the actual attack and its damage when it succeeds) and make the most of it by picking feats that support it.

Basically, it sucks to have to spend feats that don't increase your actual power at all. With them, you can do the same thing in a few more ways; that kind of stuff should come as free class features, not something you burn your only class feature on.

Aquillion
2009-03-18, 09:21 PM
Some people also believe that the only meaningful way for a PC to contribute to a group is through Raw combat power – this is something else that varies widely between groups (and it’s also been debated to death on these very forums).I would like to point out that nobody seriously argues that.

The problem is not raw combat power, the problem is mechanical capabilities period. In the core classes (heck, in terms of PC classes, period, out of every PC class ever printed), Fighters almost indisputably have the fewest mechanical abilities that are relevant outside of combat -- their feats are almost all focused on combat; they only get 2 skill points and a weak skill list; no spellcasting, and very little else. Fighters have fairly limited mechanical options in combat relative to other classes, but they are the absolute weakest PC class there is in terms of mechanical options outside of combat.

Very few people think that only combat power matters -- but the people who do think that only combat power matters are likely to be fighter fans, because as limited as the fighter is in combat, it is even more limited else.

Now, some people say that mechanical capabilities don't matter, because hey, I can always say 'screw mechanics' and use my Catapult Turtle to launch my Dragon Champion towards your castle, shattering its flotation ring thereby causing it to collapse on top of your monsters -- but other classes can do that, too, and they teleport to the other side of the planet with their summoned Angels while stopping time. If you're talking mechanical balance, you can't really ignore mechanics...

monty
2009-03-18, 09:25 PM
Now, some people say that mechanical capabilities don't matter, because hey, I can always say 'screw mechanics' and use my Catapult Turtle to launch my Dragon Champion towards your castle, shattering its flotation ring thereby causing it to collapse on top of your monsters -- but other classes can do that, too, and they teleport to the other side of the planet with their summoned Angels while stopping time. If you're talking mechanical balance, you can't really ignore mechanics...

Damn it, you almost made me go to TV Tropes. Last time I was there, I didn't leave for three hours!

Thurbane
2009-03-18, 09:26 PM
To do any of them well though, you tend to need feats.
Indeed - and remind me again, what is the much maligned Fighter's primary class ability? Oh yes, bonus feats... :smalltongue:

I would like to point out that nobody seriously argues that.
...hmm, must have been my imagination...NOT! :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, when I get a spare half-hour, I'll dig you up at least a dozen or so instances where this exact argument was being made, in all seriousness.

Anyway, with all the bonus Fighter feats out there, as well as Alternate Class Features, and PrCs, you can make a Fighter decent in a lot of areas other than just combat

...but as you point out, the core Fighter is designed first and foremost as a combat machine, and there's nothing wrong with that. If I wanted a combat-based caster, I'd play a Duskblade. If I wanted a stealthy striker and alert guard, I'd play a Ranger. If I wanted a face-man with full BAB, I might play a Duskblade. If I wanted a holy warrior, I'd play a Paladin. If I wanted a nimble swashbuckler I'd play, well, a Swashbuckler.

I don't know why a Fighter would need to fill niches already covered by other full BAB base classes.

Aquillion
2009-03-18, 09:34 PM
A melee based character has quite a lot of options that simply do not play out as "swing, hit, swing, miss, swing again..." Trip, disarm, sunder, bullrush, overrun, grapple, power attack, combat expertise, attack defensively, stunning fist...and that's just core. There's also feats like Intimidating Strike, and all the others that give characters the option of adding other effects (nauseating, stunning, dazing etc.) to his attacks.
1. Trip requires a significant feat investment to be worthwhile, and only works on a fairly small subset of enemies.

2. Disarm requires a significant feat investment to be worthwhile, and only works on a fairly small subset of enemies.

3. Sunder requires a significant feat investment to be worthwhile, and only works on a fairly small subset of enemies. (Noticing a pattern here?)

4. Using combat expertise requires a feat investment and is never worthwhile. Attack defensively is likewise useless. AC is not that useful (there's a reason why the most powerful fighter strategy by far involves dumping all their AC to get an attack bonus.)

5. Power Attack requires significant feat investment and is, granted, not useless. But that feat investment (as well as a commitment to a two-handed weapon) means that if you want to be doing serious damage, you're not going to be doing much else.

The others are situational and not very effective when other classes can force save-or-dies / save-or-sucks much more easily. Stunning Fist is absolutely terrible compared to anything a spellcaster can use, for instance, and far less versatile. The grappling rules are a horrible pile of fail in terms of design, and that aside most of the really nasty monsters are bigger than you and better at grappling than you could ever hope to be (unless you're polymorphed, in which case your advantages from your class are minimal, and a Rogue or Cleric could be nearly as good while retaining lots of other valuable abilities.)

No fighter-type character can be good at all the things you've listed. That's silly. I'm an expert, experienced swordsman, and I can't be skilled at tripping, disarming, sundering, and hitting really heard with leap-attacks?

At first glance, making feats into 'passive' bonuses that can stack with each other looks like it helps the fighter. But in the long run it's weakened them -- because everything balanced around damage assumes you have the full Power Attack line; everything balanced around tripping assumes you have a full set of Trip feats and a strategy for them, etc. Whereas a ToB character or a mage who wants to be good at a new thing can just grab the relevant maneuver, stance, spell or whatever and be done with it. Why shouldn't fighters work the same way, and get their abilities in complete 'packages' instead of having to spend several levels just getting enough feats to put together a combo good enough to make tripping useful?

The Tome of Battle lets fighters do things similar to the things you mentioned above, but with a single maneuver or stance instead of a massive feat chain, and with actually functional mechanics. It lets them do things that approximate tripping, disarming, and so on without having to waste a significant portion of their character development mastering that one trick. It lets fighters be a master of a broad range of strategies, without forcing them to commit to a few situational things.

It's just better. They replaced the Fighter with the Warblade in 4e, essentially, and nobody complained. 3.5's fighter mechanics died alone and unmourned in a filthy alley somewhere. The only reason people defend the 3.5 fighter and attack the 3.5 ToB is because of sentimentality; they like what they're used to, and view things outside of Core with suspicion. But as soon as WotC published the Warblade in a core book with 'Fighter' hastily scrawled at the top, everyone loved it.

Thurbane
2009-03-18, 09:44 PM
Now hang on, I'm apparently a little unclear on exactly what we are debating - are we talking about a Fighter having any options other than swing-and-hit/miss, or are we talking about the relative merit of tactics in combat other than swing-and-hit/miss?

Aquillion
2009-03-18, 10:19 PM
Now hang on, I'm apparently a little unclear on exactly what we are debating - are we talking about a Fighter having any options other than swing-and-hit/miss, or are we talking about the relative merit of tactics in combat other than swing-and-hit/miss?
I mean, I think they're related issues. Obviously the fighter has more options than just swing-and-hit/miss... but they don't have very many good options beyond just swing-and-hit/miss.

Sure, you can take a Total Defense action, say, but that's not much help. The others are a bit better, but you really have to commit yourself to one for it to shine, and in that case you just have that one option instead (since you sort of have to commit yourself to swing-and-hit/miss if you want to do decent damage with that, too.)

Lady Tialait
2009-03-18, 10:48 PM
*snip*

Funny thing is, my 3.5 game runs a little backwards. Magic requires feat investments. It was my fix. And it worked out really well.

Then again, it was a total rework of the rules and lowered the other all power of the game by leaps and bounds.

Talya
2009-03-18, 10:49 PM
It's just better. They replaced the Fighter with the Warblade in 4e, essentially, and nobody complained. 3.5's fighter mechanics died alone and unmourned in a filthy alley somewhere. The only reason people defend the 3.5 fighter and attack the 3.5 ToB is because of sentimentality; they like what they're used to, and view things outside of Core with suspicion. But as soon as WotC published the Warblade in a core book with 'Fighter' hastily scrawled at the top, everyone loved it.

Now, now. Let's be fair. They haven't replaced fighter. Even in campaigns allowing TOB, fighter sees fairly heavy use. You can find 2 levels of it in half the melee characters ever built. ;)

Frosty
2009-03-18, 11:09 PM
Now, now. Let's be fair. They haven't replaced fighter. Even in campaigns allowing TOB, fighter sees fairly heavy use. You can find 2 levels of it in half the melee characters ever built. ;)

Well yes but we're talking about Fighter the class that one would (theoretically) take 20 levels of vs Fighter the 2-level "prestige" class.

Talya
2009-03-18, 11:14 PM
Well yes but we're talking about Fighter the class that one would (theoretically) take 20 levels of vs Fighter the 2-level "prestige" class.

I know, i was just being silly. That said, I think Druid is about the only class I'd ever take a full 20 levels of. Maybe Factotum, too.

Ladorak
2009-03-18, 11:22 PM
Well yes but we're talking about Fighter the class that one would (theoretically) take 20 levels of vs Fighter the 2-level "prestige" class.

I don't know, if you're building a feat heavy concept, such as my current melee fighter, the crusader (Thicket of blades rocks!) agile shield fighter dwarf defender (Requiring: Combat reflexes, Shield specialization, Agile shield fighter, Improved shield bash, Dodge, Endurance and Toughness) and are not using the flaws from unearthern arcana (Which, while I liked them initally, no longer allow when I DM) then Fighter's still pretty handy.

I mean nobody takes 20 levels in any class do they? Wizards have some tasty prestige classes and druids get warshaper/beastmaster (Admittedly one level dips).

I really like ToB, my only complaint is it doesn't do enough to balance melee vs. non-melee when you bring in stuff from the 'Complete' books

Eldariel
2009-03-18, 11:26 PM
I mean nobody takes 20 levels in any class do they? Wizards have some tasty prestige classes and druids get warshaper/beastmaster.

Well, the best Druids are Druid 20. In fact, there're two, and exactly two classes that tend to become worse when multiclassed: Druid & Artificer (Planar Shepherd not withstanding anyways, but that class does not exist) - everything else tends to benefit of multiclassing at certain point, although most casters just take full casting PrC, but fact is that Wizard's bonus feats don't match up to any of the fullcasting PrCs or even Artificer's abilities after Dread Secret vs. Sacred Exorcist, Contemplative or similar. ToB is pretty close though; Warblade 20 is by all accounts a competitive build for great many things, as is Crusader & SS 20.

monty
2009-03-18, 11:27 PM
I mean nobody takes 20 levels in any class do they? Wizards have some tasty prestige classes and druids get warshaper/beastmaster.

Not familiar with Beastmaster, but the problem with Warshaper is that it doesn't actually advance any of the druid's class features (well, it improves wildshape, but doesn't give you more HD). Druid is still usually a 20-level class, as far as I know.

gabado
2009-03-18, 11:34 PM
i think that saying too good is understating it, the book is just brimming with overpowered rules to make your DMs squeal as the brains of their monsters are burned up in shear shame at how awesomely powerful the book of nine swords is. i once played a 12th level drow sword sage (only 11 levels of the class 'cause of multi-classing) the DM's boss fight was with some foul demon of the abyss, who took the first round, as i was running toward him, to down half the party. it then took me only two rounds to down the CR 15 monster all by my lonesome.
admittedly the characters that come out of that book are fun to play, but seriously kid don't do that to your DM.

Talya
2009-03-18, 11:38 PM
i think that saying too good is understating it, the book is just brimming with overpowered rules to make your DMs squeal as the brains of their monsters are burned up in shear shame at how awesomely powerful the book of nine swords is. i once played a 12th level drow sword sage (only 11 levels of the class 'cause of multi-classing) the DM's boss fight was with some foul demon of the abyss, who took the first round, as i was running toward him, to down half the party. it then took me only two rounds to down the CR 15 monster all by my lonesome.
admittedly the characters that come out of that book are fun to play, but seriously kid don't do that to your DM.

Heh. So you didn't have a competent sorcerer, cleric, wizard, or druid in your party? Because at level 12 they are all more powerful by far than a swordsage.

MeklorIlavator
2009-03-18, 11:40 PM
Well, maybe not if you made the arcane variant swordsage, but that one's so over the top I can't think of anyone allowing it.

Cedrass
2009-03-19, 01:15 AM
Mhh, this is coming out of nowhere but, the thread is there so... Yeah :P

There's one thing I'm wondering: When you are initiating a Strike, do you get your Full-Attack (if you can do it this round of course) or is it always a single attack?

Cause last time I played a Swordsage (and the first time I used ToB too) my DM allowed it but told me that Strikes only allowed me to do a single attack. I'm not much of a power gamer, but it seems to me that I was really weak, only dealing 40 damage/round when using my Insightful Strike ability.

Mr.Moron
2009-03-19, 01:22 AM
Mhh, this is coming out of nowhere but, the thread is there so... Yeah :P

There's one thing I'm wondering: When you are initiating a Strike, do you get your Full-Attack (if you can do it this round of course) or is it always a single attack?

Cause last time I played a Swordsage (and the first time I used ToB too) my DM allowed it but told me that Strikes only allowed me to do a single attack. I'm not much of a power gamer, but it seems to me that I was really weak, only dealing 40 damage/round when using my Insightful Strike ability.

A Strike is a strike. They take the action listed, and have the effect listed, just as spell, power or anything else with an action and listed effect. This overwhelmingly, but not universally, a single melee attack with an added effect as a standard action. There are only a few (Flashing Sun, Time Stands Still, Any others?) that include a full-attack as part of the action.

If you use a strike, that's your standard action for the round. You can't string into a full-attack, or anything like that.


Yes, strikes on average do less than damage a full-attack. What makes them appealing is they don't require a full-round action (mostly) and aren't boring, and can sometimes have a bit of effect beyond damage.

Of course if you just wanna be rockin' the full attacks, there are always boosts to help with that.

sonofzeal
2009-03-19, 01:23 AM
Mhh, this is coming out of nowhere but, the thread is there so... Yeah :P

There's one thing I'm wondering: When you are initiating a Strike, do you get your Full-Attack (if you can do it this round of course) or is it always a single attack?

Cause last time I played a Swordsage (and the first time I used ToB too) my DM allowed it but told me that Strikes only allowed me to do a single attack. I'm not much of a power gamer, but it seems to me that I was really weak, only dealing 40 damage/round when using my Insightful Strike ability.
Check your strike entry. Many (not all, but most) Strikes are "1 standard action". In those cases, you use a standard action, you get the effect. You still have a move action to play with, but yeah no full attack. There are exceptions though.

ShadowFighter15
2009-03-19, 01:27 AM
Mhh, this is coming out of nowhere but, the thread is there so... Yeah :P

There's one thing I'm wondering: When you are initiating a Strike, do you get your Full-Attack (if you can do it this round of course) or is it always a single attack?

Cause last time I played a Swordsage (and the first time I used ToB too) my DM allowed it but told me that Strikes only allowed me to do a single attack. I'm not much of a power gamer, but it seems to me that I was really weak, only dealing 40 damage/round when using my Insightful Strike ability.

Well, strikes use up either your standard action or your full round (depends on the specific move). If you use a strike; it would work the same as a wizard casting a spell. If a wizard used acid splash (a standard action) then he wouldn't be able to use a full round action (like a full attack) that turn, would he? Likewise, if he cast a spell with a full round casting time (can't think of any off the top of my head) he wouldn't be able to do anything else that turn.

EDIT: Damn, double-ninja'd

Cedrass
2009-03-19, 01:32 AM
Didn't expect replies (3 O_O) that fast haha. But thanks I think it'll help me choose my Maneuver efficiently with my characters the next time.

Frosty
2009-03-19, 01:43 AM
Well, the best Druids are Druid 20. In fact, there're two, and exactly two classes that tend to become worse when multiclassed: Druid & Artificer (Planar Shepherd not withstanding anyways, but that class does not exist) - everything else tends to benefit of multiclassing at certain point, although most casters just take full casting PrC, but fact is that Wizard's bonus feats don't match up to any of the fullcasting PrCs or even Artificer's abilities after Dread Secret vs. Sacred Exorcist, Contemplative or similar. ToB is pretty close though; Warblade 20 is by all accounts a competitive build for great many things, as is Crusader & SS 20.

Well I also like Beguiler 20 if it's not a Gnome.

Zaq
2009-03-19, 01:54 AM
On the topic of 20-level classes, Spellthief 20 is respectable. I know, people claim that Master Spellthief makes Spellthief a 1-level class, but I disagree. If you want to reliably steal spell effects, steal SLAs, or make use of the spells you steal, you want your spellthief level as high as possible. The raw Steal Spell ability is great, but it's just the start, in my mind, of what the Spellthief's all about.

Wilder is another example of a class where very few other classes advance its salient features... I can only think of one PrC offhand (Anarchic Initiate) that actually advances Wild Surge. Sure, you can keep your manifester level up with PrCs, but if all you cared about was full manifesting, you probably wouldn't be playing a wilder in the first place, now would you?

I can also see a strong argument for Knight 20.

Fizban
2009-03-19, 01:57 AM
Very specific responses from a page ago:


(I mean, lavapools deal 1d6 fire per turn, WTF?)
Lava deals 2d6 for a splash, or 20d6 for waist-full submersion, and deal half that for another 1d3 rounds after you get away. Link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm). I don't know who told you that, but they are so wrong. Maybe they were thinking of mundane fire, which deals 1d6 per round, ref DC15 to put out.


Damn it, you almost made me go to TV Tropes. Last time I was there, I didn't leave for three hours!
Only three hours? Your willpower is the envy of the gods.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-03-19, 02:16 AM
Well I also like Beguiler 20 if it's not a Gnome.
On the topic of 20-level classes, Spellthief 20 is respectable. I know, people claim that Master Spellthief makes Spellthief a 1-level class, but I disagree. If you want to reliably steal spell effects, steal SLAs, or make use of the spells you steal, you want your spellthief level as high as possible. The raw Steal Spell ability is great, but it's just the start, in my mind, of what the Spellthief's all about.

Wilder is another example of a class where very few other classes advance its salient features... I can only think of one PrC offhand (Anarchic Initiate) that actually advances Wild Surge. Sure, you can keep your manifester level up with PrCs, but if all you cared about was full manifesting, you probably wouldn't be playing a wilder in the first place, now would you?

I can also see a strong argument for Knight 20.
Eldariel specified classes that become worse when assigned a prestige class, not "they're pretty decent even when not multi-classed", and the only two classes that have that are Druid and Artificer.

sonofzeal
2009-03-19, 02:27 AM
More 20-level (or near enough) classes: Dragonfire Adept (breath is hard to advance otherwise) and Factotum (stealing class features is gold). Binders can also be entirely reasonable when played straight.

...that said, there's more than one way to use any class, and all sorts of dips can work (Druid20 vs Druid17/Monk1/Saint2 vs Druid16/Swordsage2/Saint2 = a hard call to make)

Zaq
2009-03-19, 02:39 AM
Eldariel specified classes that become worse when assigned a prestige class, not "they're pretty decent even when not multi-classed", and the only two classes that have that are Druid and Artificer.

And I would argue that Spellthieves and Knights suffer from the loss of advancement of their primary class feature or features in the same way that Druids do. They can get a couple tricks from prestige classes (as can a druid, after all... that's kind of the point of prestige classes, isn't it?), but they're measurably weaker in their primary areas of expertise afterward. Nothing at all advances Steal SLA (which depends on class level), Steal Spell Effect (which also depends on class level), or the "retain and use stolen spells" aspect of Steal Spell (which, again, depends on class level).

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-19, 03:37 AM
"...that said, there's more than one way to use any class, and all sorts of dips can work (Druid20 vs Druid17/Monk1/Saint2 vs Druid16/Swordsage2/Saint2 = a hard call to make)"

What the heck is the point of those blends?

Keld Denar
2009-03-19, 04:26 AM
What the heck is the point of those blends?

I'd imagine the ability to abuse your wisdom score while munching on faces as a GINORMOUS FREAKIN BEAR. Both Monks and Swordsages gain +wisdom to AC which a druid would retain while WSed or Shapechanged. Saint is just silly stupid, but more of the same.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-19, 04:39 AM
... So natural spell and Kuma fu? >_< I have no idea what PrC the saint is though. What makes the two levels so important?

Keld Denar
2009-03-19, 04:41 AM
Its a +2 LA template from BoED. Gives some rediculous stat bonuses and cha to AC, among other things. Generally considered one of the most rediculously abusable template for its LA cost.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-19, 05:02 AM
I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads up.

Douglas
2009-03-19, 06:12 AM
Its a +2 LA template from BoED. Gives some rediculous stat bonuses and cha to AC, among other things. Generally considered one of the most rediculously abusable template for its LA cost.
You mean Wisdom to AC, not charisma. Adding one of a Druid's dump stats to AC would be near pointless, adding his main casting stat to AC is powerful and potentially worth the LA. Oh, and it's an insight bonus and quite clearly a different ability from Monk/Swordsage AC Bonus, so it unambiguously stacks with with those class abilities.

Uin
2009-03-19, 06:55 AM
I made a Whisper Gnome Swordsage for a friend for our game this week. It is made of pure win and I am jealous.

But I am playing a Rock Gnome Illusionist with Racial sub and PHB2 material. This is made of many times more win. If anyone complains about Tomb of Battle I do intend to spew forth tentacled death in a duel to prove them wrong.

Fixer
2009-03-19, 06:59 AM
Well yes but we're talking about Fighter the class that one would (theoretically) take 20 levels of vs Fighter the 2-level "prestige" class.Yeah, I am considering allowing a playtest version of the Fighter that grants feat-related bonuses at every odd level. I will let you know how it goes. I believe in game balance, and so far I think it's pretty balanced. Someone had issue with its level 17 ability, but considering wizards are getting Wish at that point I think the two balance out nicely.


... So natural spell and Kuma fu? >_< I have no idea what PrC the saint is though. What makes the two levels so important?
Its a +2 LA template from BoED. Gives some rediculous stat bonuses and cha to AC, among other things. Generally considered one of the most rediculously abusable template for its LA cost.
Yeah, people only tend to look at the crunch and not notice that BEING a saint requires you never, ever, commit an evil act or you lose your sainthood permanently. You also need to have two exalted feats and be recognized by the POWERS THAT BE in order to become a saint. That ain't easy.

Kaiyanwang
2009-03-19, 07:30 AM
I mean, I think they're related issues. Obviously the fighter has more options than just swing-and-hit/miss... but they don't have very many good options beyond just swing-and-hit/miss.

Sure, you can take a Total Defense action, say, but that's not much help. The others are a bit better, but you really have to commit yourself to one for it to shine, and in that case you just have that one option instead (since you sort of have to commit yourself to swing-and-hit/miss if you want to do decent damage with that, too.)

:smallconfused: I realize that people experience in the game is different, and each group plays in different way (and this makes the game more interesting) but at least in my experience a lot of times the options above (disarm trip and the like) are better than hit and miss, expecially if other party members play with the fighter supporting him.

I don't mean a mere useful enlarge person, I am thinking, as an example, to two friends of mine. She has a Fighter//Knight he has a Rogue//Psywarrior. She has charge feats, but even combat expertise feats. She is front line, he is second line Kusari gama wielder. The Rogue Psywarrior is built around combat reflexes tier, and the Fighter//Knight tripping and flanking enemies allows the Rogue/Psy wreak havoc.

They are gestalt, but you can do these things even with a Rogue and a Fighter. I realize that they are built with CW (her) and dragon magazine (him) mainly, but their base class features (SA and a lot of feats) make them very effective in melee. I realize that some tactic is feat intensive, but a lot top tier feats share prereq. As an example, Dungeoncrash, Charge Feats, Three Mountains (+stun feats for bludgeoning weapons), Power throw.

More, knowing that melees have lesser options, I allowed weapon categories from UA. With exotic proficency, The F//K can choose from a Great Falchion to a Mercurial Greatsword for her charges, as an example.In certain issues is not secondary, expecially if you are looking for a desperate chance of high damage output, or instead an effect linked to a crit.

Further, sometimes I think that a fighter overall and a melee in general must be like a wizard in some extent: for certain jobs (trip disarm sunder) there is the right tool, or the right weapons . Weapon Categories IMHO help in this a lot, expecially swords fighters and chain fighters in my experience.

About the full attack / charge limitation, I remember a friend of mine and the thing he was able to do in a full attack. At epic (he reached fighter 40) he had 8 attacks or more (TWF), a lot of feats and he was able to disable a mob of enemies in several ways, quickdrawing a whip, throwing weapons, switching from sacrifice stances like KS to superior combat expertise round after round, basing his moves on enemies' ones. Preparing actions to interpose between enemies and casters, changing weapons. He was very smart and imaginative. I miss him a lot on the tabletop.

I have to point out that he had a Psion, a Sorcerer, a Wizard, a Shaman, a Druid and a Cleric buffing him, and full buffed he was awesome. He and the Wizard were good friends, and the Wiz always crafted for the Fighter the right weapons for each situation. They weren't only buffers, but in a lot of istances preferred buff the meleers and do battlefield control to resolve situations and save spell (I'm a Vile DM).

Maybe our gamestye wasn't so optimized, and I'm a restrictive DM in some things, but we everybody had a lot of fun in that campaing, and none felt useless.

I have to point out that, as I said before, ToB, even if I have concerns about some of its content, is a very good book, and can add a lot of fun to your table. You only have to understand what you want, and at what level. More, I think that maneuvers can be great with the right feats combinations, (I can just imagine my friend's fighter with a time stands still) and I'm goin to add it to the campaign in the future.

Maybe will be a quest for the Epic "rediscover" the ruins of Temple of t9S, recover the swords from the Rakshasas and a legion of Demons, and gain some dip in Bot9S class, and high level maneuvers. I want to talk with my players :smallconfused:

Anyway, IMHO, the problems with meleers is what is considered a "sane" level of optimization in a campaing. Because after a while, by the mere game mechanics, casters has more thing to modify, more options and "combos" (what a sadness) so...

About the fighter: (and meleers in general) could have a lot of feats more without be OP, IMHO, but my personal problems with the fighter are Skillspoints, not feats. At least in my games and with my players, fighters rocks. Said this I recognize that some feat chain is too expensive, and one of the few things I like of 4th edition is the "automatic advance" of some power without you have to buy an "improved something" (as an example, turn undead scales with cleric level, you don't have to buy a feat or so tu pimp because otherwie is useless.

About healing: do you relalizeze that an (Ex) can remove taint (heroes of horror)?

I mean, ok, HP anr not only the amount of flesh on bones, but the will, stubborness and resistance, as well the ability to not take the blow as a whole, are linked to the flesh. I relaize that HP are morale, too, but they seem to me in recent times, we can say, treated as morale only, in some istance, leading to issues (poisoned weapons as an example).

Thrawn183
2009-03-19, 08:21 AM
I've found that ToB often is accused of being overpowered because it allows classes some small defense where they used to have none at all or they could address the problem but it was a real pain.

Examples:
1) Hearing the Air stance. Gives blindsense 30 ft. This doesn't actually stop invisible creatures from sneak attacking etc. It also doesn't do anything, at least in terms of invisible creatures, that a character couldn't already do with a bag of flour (though my group has never actually decided how a bag of flour should be ruled and therefore never used it) As you can only be in one stance at a time, it's not hugely powerful but it's really nice to have a character that can address issues of invisible creatures without magic items.

2) Maneuvers that overcome damage reduction and/or hardness, ie. Elder Mountain Hammer. Adamantine weapons already ignore hardness less than 20, so frankly, the part about ignoring hardness really isn't a big deal. And if you're doing something that wouldn't be affected by an adamantine weapon than it would make sense for Elder Mountain Hammer not to work as well. Additionally, a character that puts in a bit of effort can already overcome most forms of DR. Some vials of silversheen alone go a long way towards overcoming common DR's. Yeah, I've heard people complain about Iron Golems getting killed, but really the thing is a CR 13, of course melee characters are going to beat DR adamantine by that point. This doesn't change the outcome, but it also means you don't have to carry around 6 different weapons all the time.

3) Counters that replace saves with concentration checks. Okay, I think its great that a melee character can actually defend themselves against magic without taking the terrible Lightning Reflexes type feats. At the same time, there's a significant cost: you can only have so many maneuvers readied at any time and you start using up immediate actions which means you can't use swift actions (which are actually somewhat useful to melee'rs after the Magic Item Compendium)

4) The level 5/level 6 switcheroo. Think about a Fighter 4 who goes to Fighter 5, what does he get? Not a whole heck of a lot. Now think about a Warblade 4 who reaches Warblade 5, he gets spiffy third level maneuvers. This is pretty dang significant. It's easy to see how someone could feel a bit jealous. But wait! What happens when the Fighter goes from level 5 to 6? He gets a bonus feat (which, at this level is useful because he can start finishing complex feat combinations) and a second iterative attack. The warblade? Improved Uncanny Dodge and an iterative. Now, this may not sound very different, but it most definitely is. A Fighter 6 with Haste gets 3 attacks on a full-round attack. Compare that to the warblade: he can either use a single maneuver, which almost certainly won't be as good, or he can full-round attack as well in which case he's just a Fighter without bonus feats.

Long story short: ToB character's effectiveness is often overstated because their reliance on standard actions is comparable to that of casters rather than the full-round actions of conventional tanks and because melee'rs have rather jumpy increases in power from things like whenever they complete a feat combination or gain an iterative, though again this usually only applies at lower levels.

Lycanthromancer
2009-03-19, 11:54 AM
Wilder is another example of a class where very few other classes advance its salient features... I can only think of one PrC offhand (Anarchic Initiate) that actually advances Wild Surge. Sure, you can keep your manifester level up with PrCs, but if all you cared about was full manifesting, you probably wouldn't be playing a wilder in the first place, now would you?
Oh, hell no.

Wilder is one of the absolute worst classes to take 'til level 20.

Tell me, what percentage chance are we looking at for enervating when you wild surge at wilder 20? And how much else do you lose when you do so? Also, most of the wilder's other class abilities are nearly useless. Especially if you have immunity to mind-affecting effects (which most characters do by that point).

Compare to the enervation of a psion10 /anarchic initiate10, which is vastly more powerful on the manifesting side, even without the wilder's class features.

Zaq
2009-03-19, 01:13 PM
Oh, hell no.

Wilder is one of the absolute worst classes to take 'til level 20.

Tell me, what percentage chance are we looking at for enervating when you wild surge at wilder 20? And how much else do you lose when you do so? Also, most of the wilder's other class abilities are nearly useless. Especially if you have immunity to mind-affecting effects (which most characters do by that point).

Compare to the enervation of a psion10 /anarchic initiate10, which is vastly more powerful on the manifesting side, even without the wilder's class features.

I didn't say Wilder 20 was good. I just said that if you're already a Wilder, I can see an argument for going all the way, because the only thing a Wilder can do better than a Psion is surge. If you're sacrificing the Surge, why even bother with the Wilder in the first place? Yeah, Wilder 20 isn't a great character by any stretch, but at least it can do something that a Psion 20 (Whether that's a 20th level Psion, or just someone with 20th level Psion manifesting) can't. However, a Wilder X/Full Manifesting PrC X really can't do much that a Psion of the same level can't.

Wilders get one major advantage. If you PrC out, you're voluntarily giving up that one advantage. It's kind of like taking Bard into a full-casting class (OTHER than Chord) that doesn't advance music. You've still got some magic, but you're really sacrificing what makes a Bard unique and interesting.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-03-19, 01:23 PM
And I would argue that Spellthieves and Knights suffer from the loss of advancement of their primary class feature or features in the same way that Druids do. the difference is that knight and spellthief both will often be better off with some sort of prestige class attached, despite the loss of class features. The druid on the other hand does not benefit at all, they're stronger without (Planar Shepherd not withstanding), same goes for artificers.

Draz74
2009-03-19, 01:23 PM
(though my group has never actually decided how a bag of flour should be ruled and therefore never used it)

Check out the Dungeonscape equipment section.

Frosty
2009-03-19, 07:06 PM
ToB characters NOT relying on full attacks is one of the main reasons they are good. Like wizards, they can now utilize their FULL POWER with a Standard Action! Holy crap!

In the past, the Fighter can move and do...one attack. While the Wizard can tumble-move, do cartwheels, and at the same time, cast Wish. Not exactly fair.

At least now the Warblade can move (and tumble if he wants. it's a class skill!) up to an opponent can do +100 bonus damage with a maneuver!

gabado
2009-03-19, 07:32 PM
Heh. So you didn't have a competent sorcerer, cleric, wizard, or druid in your party? Because at level 12 they are all more powerful by far than a swordsage.

with all due respect we had too many wizards and druids, thus the reason i was left standing, and yes i did exaggerate a little they did a collective 120 points of damage out of the boss' 700 or so. also take into account that a smart swordsage would have taken the two shadow hand feats and as such would only need to focus on three main stats as opposed to four. also the creature didn't have much in the way of ac so it was pretty easy to unload a lot of hatred for the stupidly twisted rules onto it. one last factor; spell resistance, we only had two good melee fighters in a caster heavy party, that day the barbarian couldn't come, so it was just me, a fail cleric, a fail sorcerer, and an over powered wizard who rolled abysmal on his spell penetration rolls.
so you see, it is in fact possible to execute this particular boss in the previously mentioned manner.


oh and with all my feats and class bonuses i had an AC of 40

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-19, 07:58 PM
they did a collective 120 points of damage out of the boss' 700 or so.

As opposed to, you know, assaulting his saves? Cause that's what they're for. Assaulting hit points is your job.

Talya
2009-03-19, 08:15 PM
with all due respect we had too many wizards and druids, thus the reason i was left standing, and yes i did exaggerate a little they did a collective 120 points of damage out of the boss' 700 or so. also take into account that a smart swordsage would have taken the two shadow hand feats and as such would only need to focus on three main stats as opposed to four. also the creature didn't have much in the way of ac so it was pretty easy to unload a lot of hatred for the stupidly twisted rules onto it. one last factor; spell resistance, we only had two good melee fighters in a caster heavy party, that day the barbarian couldn't come, so it was just me, a fail cleric, a fail sorcerer, and an over powered wizard who rolled abysmal on his spell penetration rolls.
so you see, it is in fact possible to execute this particular boss in the previously mentioned manner.


oh and with all my feats and class bonuses i had an AC of 40

Why were they trying to do damage? Damage is the last thing any spellcaster should be trying to do. Why were they failings pell penetration rolls? Assay Spell Resistance generally means against an appropriate CR opponent, you're only failing to breech SR when you roll a natural 1? Why were the opponents even able to get close to them?

shadow_archmagi
2009-03-19, 08:20 PM
Also, exactly what build were you using that does 300 damage a round at level 10?

Just to clarify. There's so many confusions that could have easily resulted in cheesey levels of damage.

Starbuck_II
2009-03-19, 10:11 PM
Also, exactly what build were you using that does 300 damage a round at level 10?

Just to clarify. There's so many confusions that could have easily resulted in cheesey levels of damage.

Let me see full attack: Haste + 2 from bab= 3 attacks round...meaning he deals 100 with each attack...

Assuming two handed Greatsword: He can get at least +3 damage from enhancement (Greater Magic Weapon, my Wu Jen could at least) 7 average damage. So he accounts for 40 with leap attack/pounce by PA for 10?

That makes 150 damage, but that leaves 150 from other sources...

MeklorIlavator
2009-03-19, 10:21 PM
That doesn't work. He was a Swordsage, supposedly using maneuvers. This would limit him to one attack per round. Also, his Bab is less than full, thus he can only PA for a maximum of 8.

Oh, and how was your AC that high? I don't see AC's that high at this point in the game very often.

Starbuck_II
2009-03-19, 10:24 PM
Gah, I was thinking if he wasn't a Swordsage.

However, he could be a Swordsage using a boost maneuver and full attacking.

Although, 300 is kinda extremely unbelievable.

Mr.Moron
2009-03-19, 11:07 PM
That doesn't work. He was a Swordsage, supposedly using maneuvers. This would limit him to one attack per round. Also, his Bab is less than full, thus he can only PA for a maximum of 8.

Oh, and how was your AC that high? I don't see AC's that high at this point in the game very often.

TWFing with the Burning-Blade line, & Assassins stance can produce some fairly high peak numbers at that level. Your hit-rate kinda nukes your average, but with a short run of good luck on the dice it can produce some very lethal results. ~150 in a round, without any real optimization besides the TWF feats, and said stance/maneuvers would possible. That assumes you're hitting with all of your attacks though, some of which would probably have a bonus of all of +3-+5.

EDIT: Does it really matter how high is AC? You could just declare it an arbitrarily high number, he's still gonna get in the fort. AC just isn't very valuable because it doesn't protection from anything but physical attacks, which are the weakest possible mechanic in the game you could have thrown at you.

Well touch AC, in large enough amounts is fairly helpful. But That wasn't specified.

MeklorIlavator
2009-03-19, 11:14 PM
Well, it could affect other things: for instance, if he was using Combat Expertise, then his AB would be even lower, thus lessening chances. On the other hand, if it was due to highly superior items, it could help explain why he was extremely effective: having good items is very important for some classes.