Tome of Battle : The arguments

[Indon]

I dont get this. The sun is not an effect. Light from the sun is not an effect. Light from the sun is an object, no different than a sword. You cant IHS a sword away, can you?

You'd have to be in some way affected by the sun in order to IHS it away, I imagine.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Skin cancer! Sunburns! Rash!

[Myshlaevsky]

You find extensive house-ruling to be irritating?

First of all, he introduced me to DnD. He also was, until two days ago when I moved out for college, my roommate. It may sound weird but we're like brothers.

Second, the only other people in town that DM either a) hate me and refuse to associate with me or b) have less knowledge of game mechanics and are less flexible. Small town.

Third, our games have a certain mood to them. There is little or no fourth wall. Someone mentioned that feats and maneuvers mean nothing IC. Most of the time, IC and OOC are the same thing and metagaming is common. Rick Astley, Mr. T, Chuck Norris and Wilford Brimley were characters in a campaign along with Graz'zt, Sune and Elminster. I once DM'ed a game where the party was saved because Leonidas sparta-kicked a minotaur zombie, forcing it to skip a turn. (I have a rolling chart for this. It's fun.)

I realize that I had said that I was going to leave this thread alone, but I wanted to reply to this post specifically.

Well, I'm glad you replied. I don't find extensive house-ruling irritating. I find the idea that ToB is banned for being too 'weeaboo' and that the paladin is banned because 'paladins really deserve it' irritating. Those justifications are inadequate. I would not enjoy your game or your DM but that's fine; we just have different playing styles.

[Masaioh]

Well, I'm glad you replied. I don't find extensive house-ruling irritating. I find the idea that ToB is banned for being too 'weeaboo' and that the paladin is banned because 'paladins really deserve it' irritating. Those justifications are inadequate. I would not enjoy your game or your DM but that's fine; we just have different playing styles.

You misread my post. Paladins were banned for being useless, and the Crusader was allowed into games as a replacement for SRD Paladins because the class deserved a version that didn't suck.

[oxinabox]

You can't Iron heart surge out a sword.
Not for hitting you.
Being hit be a sword has a duration of <1 round.
IHS was costructed so yoru can't IHS a fireball.
By sage IHS any thign from 1 round to perminate.
the sage explcitly said perminant durationwas included.

How ever you can IHS the sword because it affects your mind, by causign you worry, which has a duration of more than one round.
or by causing you anger at the weilder.




the way my dm tried to balance IHS, was basically making it terible nerfed.
I IHS away the Poison: (which be raw +sage doesn't remove ability damage)
DM, Ok poison doesn't affect you this round. it's still in your blood, next round you take the poisions secondairy damage.

Cleric jokingly seggest she'll cast scilance on my character.
I say go ahead, i'll just IHS it.
DM: isn't scilance AoE?
Me: Yeah,
DM: Ok you'ld remove it's effect from yourself for one instant.
since your still in the area, it affects you gain, imediately.
me: but but its says Ends
Dm: it did end, then it started again

IHS could have been awesome but it needs clear wording an a large table of examples.
and gameplay examples, showing what happens when you use it.

[Sinfire Titan]

You can't Iron heart surge out a sword.
Not for hitting you.
Being hit be a sword has a duration of <1 round.
IHS was costructed so yoru can't IHS a fireball.
By sage IHS any thign from 1 round to perminate.
the sage explcitly said perminant durationwas included.

How ever you can IHS the sword because it affects your mind, by causign you worry, which has a duration of more than one round.
or by causing you anger at the weilder.


But you can IHS a Harpoon that has impaled you.




the way my dm tried to balance IHS, was basically making it terible nerfed.
I IHS away the Poison: (which be raw +sage doesn't remove ability damage)
DM, Ok poison doesn't affect you this round. it's still in your blood, next round you take the poisions secondairy damage.

Cleric jokingly seggest she'll cast scilance on my character.
I say go ahead, i'll just IHS it.
DM: isn't scilance AoE?
Me: Yeah,
DM: Ok you'ld remove it's effect from yourself for one instant.
since your still in the area, it affects you gain, imediately.
me: but but its says Ends
Dm: it did end, then it started again

IHS could have been awesome but it needs clear wording an a large table of examples.
and gameplay examples, showing what happens when you use it.


Your DM is being a prick. IHS would have prevented the secondary damage from the poison outright.

IHS would be completely useless if it worked that way. That's actually worse than letting it remove AMFs, as you just wasted a maneuver known and two or more standard actions trying to do something to conserve resources (neutralize poison and dispel).

[oxinabox]

Your DM is being a prick. IHS would have prevented the secondary damage from the poison outright.


Well after i was bord of the warblade i sorta had him drink poison (I hoped he woudl survive To be fair it had waring lables saying do not drink, but wanted to know what sort of poision it was turned out it this was instant death, saving though so easy you had to roll under 5 to fail it, type poison, i rolled 4 ).
Now i have a shiny new warlock to play with

[Sinfire Titan]

Well after i was bord of the warblade i sorta had him drink poison (I hoped he woudl survive To be fair it had waring lables saying do not drink, but wanted to know what sort of poision it was turned out it this was instant death, saving though so easy you had to roll under 5 to fail it, type poison, i rolled 4 ).
Now i have a shiny new warlock to play with

And you didn't use one of the Diamond Mind counters for your Fort save, why? Between 3rd level maneuvers, the first three are: WRT, IHS, and the Diamond Mind counter.

It's not like you can fail a skill check with a DC of 5 if you Concentration ranks are maxed out. Unless, again, your DM is being an ass.

[cfalcon]

I don't like that it obsoletes all the non-magic classes. It uses three classes that you have to "write your own flavor" for. Two of them are just nouns jammed together, the last is a "Crusader" who manages to have no connection to actual Crusaders.

All of them essentially use magic, but never run out of magical resources, which is also contrary to the rest of the game.

Iron Heroes has really good non-magical classes for a non-magical campaign. An Iron Heroes campaign sounds like it would be pretty easy to balance. This is more of an attempt to create classes that are more "caster" like, without, you know, all the disadvantages of being a caster- essentially, it's the difference between believing that the magic system is broken and overpowered and needs to be thrown out, and believing that the non-magic system is broken and terrible and needs to be thrown out.


I don't like it. I don't like there not being any non-magic options, and I definitely don't want a character that steps all over:

Fighter
Rogue
Paladin
Ranger
Ninja
Scout
Monk
Barbarian

All the prestige classes based on them.

The power level is a reset: it blows up a lot of your PHB classes, and most of your splat classes. That's reason enough for me to not have them.

[kamikasei]

"It obsoletes the core melee classes" is a fair criticism, but really, what were WotC to do? They could have published free errata that gave core melee maneuvers, but that would have been obsoleting them too. They couldn't unpublish core. Either core stayed as it was, or was made obsolete: there wasn't really a third option.

I think it's fair to say that Wizards came to a similar conclusion as many looking at balance online: casters are broken and overpowered, but standard melee was both weak and dull. Furthermore, it's a lot harder to get people to disregard powerful options already available than to avail of boosts you make available. Again, they couldn't unpublish the Big Three. They published nerfs, but they weren't necessarily widely adopted.

As to the contention that maneuvers are a form of magic or casting, I disagree. The warblade would have been a solid, mundane core class. Indeed, if the Sublime Way variants of core classes that have been homebrewed on this forum and elsewhere were how the classes had originally been published, I doubt anyone would think to make the complaint.

Incidentally, how do you feel about warlocks? When you say

All of them essentially use magic, but never run out of magical resources, which is also contrary to the rest of the game.

after all, warlocks do use magic and never run out of resources. Do you also view them as an aberration, or is your objection more to these abilities being in the hands of melee?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Dragonfire Adepts don't run out either. Nor do Binders.


Two of them are just nouns jammed together
The Barbarian and Monk are gross stereotypes of rich and varied cultures, and the name "Fighter" is just an adjective. Your point?


the last is a "Crusader" who manages to have no connection to actual Crusaders.

Clerics have no connection to actual Clerics, Druids have no connection to actual Druids, Rogues have no connection to actual Rogues, Paladins have no connection to actual paladins, Monks have no connection to actual Monks, Sorcerers have no connection to actual Sorcerers, Wizards have no connection to actual Wizards, Barbarians have no connection to actual Barbarians, and Rangers have no connection to actual Rangers.

Your point?



The power level is a reset: it blows up a lot of your PHB classes, and most of your splat classes. That's reason enough for me to not have them.

Most of those classes were pretty poor anyways.

[olentu]

I don't like that it obsoletes all the non-magic classes. It uses three classes that you have to "write your own flavor" for. Two of them are just nouns jammed together, the last is a "Crusader" who manages to have no connection to actual Crusaders.

All of them essentially use magic, but never run out of magical resources, which is also contrary to the rest of the game.

Iron Heroes has really good non-magical classes for a non-magical campaign. An Iron Heroes campaign sounds like it would be pretty easy to balance. This is more of an attempt to create classes that are more "caster" like, without, you know, all the disadvantages of being a caster- essentially, it's the difference between believing that the magic system is broken and overpowered and needs to be thrown out, and believing that the non-magic system is broken and terrible and needs to be thrown out.


I don't like it. I don't like there not being any non-magic options, and I definitely don't want a character that steps all over:

Fighter
Rogue
Paladin
Ranger
Ninja
Scout
Monk
Barbarian

All the prestige classes based on them.

The power level is a reset: it blows up a lot of your PHB classes, and most of your splat classes. That's reason enough for me to not have them.

I think there is an objection to unlimited use magic but there are warlocks, dragonfire adepts, reserve feats, and binders.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Warlocks, DFA, and Binders are, interestingly enough, some of the most balanced classes in DnD.

[kamikasei]

I think there is an objection to unlimited use magic but there are warlocks, dragonfire adepts, reserve feats, and binders.

Indeed.

I think it's clear from the evolution of 3.5 that WotC came to feel that the initial approach to balance - some classes have mundane tricks usable at-will all day, others have supernatural face-wrecking available a limited number of times per day (effect: the face-wreckers are the limiting factor and others dance to their tune) - was a mistake and tried to steer it towards a new model of weaker, more manageable effects that could be used all day with at most short recharge cycles.

[PinkysBrain]

Fighter
Rogue
Paladin
Ranger
Ninja
Scout
Monk
Barbarian
Rogue doesn't belong in that list.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Doesn't the Ninja step on the Rogue's toes in that list? And the Scout step on the Ranger's?

[Boci]

I don't like that it obsoletes all the non-magic classes. It uses three classes that you have to "write your own flavor" for.

You do not have to write your own flavour for the classes. They have enough pre-given.


Two of them are just nouns jammed together, the last is a "Crusader" who manages to have no connection to actual Crusaders.

Yes well historically crusaders are a bit of a touchy subject. And as for the warblade and swordsage, the only reason they were not called fighter and monk is because those classes already existed.


All of them essentially use magic, but never run out of magical resources, which is also contrary to the rest of the game.

Depends on how you define magical. The warblade isn't really. Its just extraordinary.


Iron Heroes has really good non-magical classes for a non-magical campaign. An Iron Heroes campaign sounds like it would be pretty easy to balance. This is more of an attempt to create classes that are more "caster" like, without, you know, all the disadvantages of being a caster- essentially, it's the difference between believing that the magic system is broken and overpowered and needs to be thrown out, and believing that the non-magic system is broken and terrible and needs to be thrown out.

Someone once described iron heores to me. It took me a long time to realize he wasn't describing ToB.


I don't like it. I don't like there not being any non-magic options, and I definitely don't want a character that steps all over:

Fighter
Rogue
Paladin
Ranger
Ninja
Scout
Monk
Barbarian

All the prestige classes based on them.

The problem is some of those classes step on each others toes. Fighter makes a better archer than a ranger, ect.


The power level is a reset: it blows up a lot of your PHB classes, and most of your splat classes. That's reason enough for me to not have them.

But core is the incarnation of inbalance. That is were all the mistakes were amde.

[Thurbane]

Not to throw fuel on the fire, but the more I hear about IHS, the more I'm glad our group doesn't use ToB. Sounds like it causes the same kind of headaches as some of the more vaguely worded spells in the PHB. There seems to be constant debate about what it can and cannot do. Not that I'd thow out a book for one wonky feature - I've already given the reasons we don't use ToB.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I define your post as a condition affecting me and IHS its effect away!

[DragoonWraith]

Wait, wait, wait.

Seriously?

"The more I hear about {one single maneuver/spell/power/invocation} in {book}, the more I don't want to use {the entire book}."

Yes, Iron Heart Surge is very poorly written. It is not a bad maneuver, RAI, but it's incredibly vague and can be argued to cover things it was so obviously never intended to cover. That's what the DM is for.

White Raven Tactics, IMO, is actually worse. But that's like saying "Gate is broken, the more I hear about the stupid things people can do with Gate, the more I'm glad I don't use the Player's Handbook" - though, in this situation, the list is a lot longer than just Gate, and not using the PHB actually is a pretty good idea from a balance perspective.

[Thurbane]

I define your post as a condition affecting me and IHS its effect away!
:smallbiggrin:

I don't like it. I don't like there not being any non-magic options, and I definitely don't want a character that steps all over:

Fighter
Rogue
Paladin
Ranger
Ninja
Scout
Monk
Barbarian

All the prestige classes based on them.

The power level is a reset: it blows up a lot of your PHB classes, and most of your splat classes. That's reason enough for me to not have them.
This is another reason I don't use ToB - I also don't like the approach of completely replacing core classes with whizzbang new ones (not so concerned about Ninja though). It's a gamestyle preference - I like the core to be realtively intact, as it is the common ground that most everything else is built on. Sure, core has it's problems, but overwriting it is not a solution I like, since most of my group only has access to the core. I have the same problem with classes like the Factotum, who "out rogues" the Rogue. I prefer my non-core base classes to compliment the core classes, rather than retire them...YMMV...

[cfalcon]

"It obsoletes the core melee classes" is a fair criticism, but really, what were WotC to do?

Honestly? They could not suddenly, after decades, start believing that the game had to be balanced in the rules- casters by about 5th level start picking up "superpowers", and by about 14th level have enough of them to spare such that the party only sort of obeys reality, sometimes. Mostly, the groups I have run with would say, if anything, that *that* is the problem.

But mostly you just accept it. That's what D&D has been, for longer than I've drawn breath- and I was born in the late 70s.

Many of my games give work in supernatural weaknesses, or otherwise change the state of reality from the standard setup. If the game was balanced before, maybe you could claim that hey, now it's less balanced! But instead, there's no *claim* to balance. You don't pick the barbarian with the axe because you expect him to be stronger than the evil NPC wizard- but when you finally DO cleave the wizard in two, splitting his head into two equally shocked halves, it makes that all the more sweet. In other words, the lack of balance is also charming.

I mean, the power level implied by 15th level characters is already pretty off-the-charts by mortal standards.


Either core stayed as it was, or was made obsolete: there wasn't really a third option.

I just think that the whole thing is barking up the wrong tree. 4ed has a system that doesn't do the same stuff D&D does. D&D just can't be balanced and still be D&D- this should be apparent to *anyone* who plays, and if it matters, you houserule it.


I think it's fair to say that Wizards came to a similar conclusion as many looking at balance online: casters are broken and overpowered, but standard melee was both weak and dull.

Casters are weak and gimp at low levels, remember- while a 2nd level sorc or wizard does have some powerful effects to throw, he's done very quickly- and very frequently the dudes who can punch stuff each round contribute pretty much everything. Even by mid levels, you still find the punchers are doing most of the damage, with the caster spending spell slots to control the battle and buff them, as well as spot eliminate powerful opponents. It's only at the high levels that things get just absurd.

Also note that many characters like the idea of a character that starts weak and gets strong, whereas others like a strong character who "is what he is". There's also some metagaming going on when you create low level characters- well, will this game last the two years or whatever that it takes to get to 18th level? If I roll a wizard, will he get gibbed permanently? Do I get to create a fresh character if that happens, and is the DM ok with him being another arcane guy? These choices aren't a question in, say, World of Warcraft- everyone gets to level 80, and then you fight versus each other and with each other in dungeons, and the game needs to be balanced. But this isn't that, it's so far from that.

So coming up with a character who is out of the box able to obsolete the stock dudes means that if anyone in your group "wants to play a barbarian", they are instead learning new mechanics and trying to tell you why their "warblade" is a barbarian, and that assumes that they don't just brush the whole thing off. It's not even a *favor* to that guy. Hell, he'll like you more if you give him a greatsword that cleaves magic or reflects it, because then he's still a brown skinned version of Conan or whatever, and all the words he wrote down have meaning. We play a whole GAME of words, if we take out Fighter Barbarian Ranger from that list, we aren't even tied to reality anymore, and that tie is, originally, why most of us are here.


Furthermore, it's a lot harder to get people to disregard powerful options already available than to avail of boosts you make available. Again, they couldn't unpublish the Big Three. They published nerfs, but they weren't necessarily widely adopted.

Well, neither is the Tome of Battle. Hell, the book even warns you that it's not for everyone. But I do see your point in that if you want to create a bunch of characters to go do something at a high level, maybe you want your high level physical guys to actually have more utility and more power.

Here's a question: what did we really gain by going from multiple attacks in 2ed to the "Full Attack" of 3.0+? We suddenly have multiple hit bonuses, such that the first attack of a full BaB dude is pretty much auto-hit, followed by this cascade of stuff that you model with your calculator if you care, and just roll away if you don't. How was that honestly better than just rolling three dice and counting the ones that are above whatever your to-hit roll is? And the thing where the fighter has to hold still to get his attacks off- isn't part of his weakness due to that? I don't have any houserules here (except that I wrap a few of the feats that let the two weapon fighting dude be almost as good as the two weapon fighter together), but it seems that would be a better mechanical question to ask.



As to the contention that maneuvers are a form of magic or casting, I disagree. The warblade would have been a solid, mundane core class.

Oh *no* way. That guy has a "maneuver" he can only do every few rounds, and he refreshes himself with a flourish or a standard attack- does that sound like something from reality? If he has an awesome technique, why can't he use it every round? Etc.

You look through his attack list, then you compare it to what is allowed in general, and it's plain that he's "casting spells", even if they don't result in giant fire whirlwinds or whatever. He has a resource system that allows him to ignore the laws of physics, sometimes, and he can't do them just whenever. He's also standing there as a straight up better choice than the other dudes. Now, what if they had said that he *was* the fighter? Like, originally? I don't think I would have accepted that. Maybe if his moves were tweaked to be even more "mundane", then I would have, but he still would have a lot more mechanics than, say, the current fighter.



Incidentally, how do you feel about warlocks? When you say after all, warlocks do use magic and never run out of resources. Do you also view them as an aberration, or is your objection more to these abilities being in the hands of melee?

Warlocks are portrayed as basically *being* supernatural. They don't have a "resource system" as much as the ability to do crazy stuff all the time- sort of like a hybrid between allowing a PC to play a monster with spell like abilities. I haven't added them to my campaigns yet, however, for the reason above- he's getting "something for nothing". However, he does at least do less damage with that blast than a ranger with a bow, and he doesn't have the hit dice and such that a fighter would- in other words, his eldritch blast isn't "taking their jobs".

Warlocks seem like they would make for weird interactions though- always having 20 "earthen grasp" spells active at 10th level, or just intoning dark speech to cast "shatter" once a round, forever. Those aren't dealbreaking though.

Oh oh oh oh- I forgot the one thing I'll *never* be able to forgive Tome of Battle for:

With the spell system, it's implied that *you*, the player, are supposed to come up with some new spells. You're a wizard, wizards make spells! Your sorceror might throw a blue fireball that deals 1d4+1d6 for every two caster levels (max 5d4+5d6), and then re-flares the same area the next round for $caster_level points of damage (max 10), etc. These rules are hinted at in the DMG, along with an honest attempt to come up with what is allowable, and what spell level stuff should be. Wanna make up 5 new 9th level spells? Well, you can technically do that, one day!

Now, what if you came up with three new 9th level Iron Heart maneuvers. Uh-oh! Suddenly you open up entirely new avenues, whole new paths. There's no rule that says you can only have one 9th level maneuver for each path- there just only IS one 9th level maneuver for each path. So, do you houserule that in? Or just never allow your martial artists to actually do anything but learn existing techniques, the ones in the book? In any event, if you were to double or treble the number of available maneuvers, you would increase in an unpredictable fashion, the power level of the classes, *even if the maneuvers were at the correct power level*.

[Sinfire Titan]

Not to throw fuel on the fire, but the more I hear about IHS, the more I'm glad our group doesn't use ToB. Sounds like it causes the same kind of headaches as some of the more vaguely worded spells in the PHB. There seems to be constant debate about what it can and cannot do. Not that I'd thow out a book for one wonky feature - I've already given the reasons we don't use ToB.

It isn't that bad if you apply Common Instinct (there is no such thing as Common Sense; you have to have heard the man's argument about it to understand).

It gets a little gray when you apply it to AoEs. RAW and the Sage agree with letting it cancel them out entirely, Instinct doesn't want to agree. RAI is gray. So it's really up to the DM entirely there.

Edit: Does anyone else think the above poster's argument and his screen name don't agree with each other? (C. Falcon VS Charles Atlas Superpowers).

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Warlocks seem like they would make for weird interactions though- always having 20 "earthen grasp" spells active at 10th level, or just intoning dark speech to cast "shatter" once a round, forever. Those aren't dealbreaking though.
1. Earthen Grasp sucks at the level you first get it. At level 10, it is completely obsolete.

If it requires concentration, that would make it suck *more*.

Casting shatter at will isn't much odder than smashing something with an axe at will.

[Thurbane]

Wait, wait, wait.

Seriously?

"The more I hear about {one single maneuver/spell/power/invocation} in {book}, the more I don't want to use {the entire book}."

Yes, Iron Heart Surge is very poorly written. It is not a bad maneuver, RAI, but it's incredibly vague and can be argued to cover things it was so obviously never intended to cover. That's what the DM is for.

White Raven Tactics, IMO, is actually worse. But that's like saying "Gate is broken, the more I hear about the stupid things people can do with Gate, the more I'm glad I don't use the Player's Handbook" - though, in this situation, the list is a lot longer than just Gate, and not using the PHB actually is a pretty good idea from a balance perspective.
You might want to read my whole post there...

Not to throw fuel on the fire, but the more I hear about IHS, the more I'm glad our group doesn't use ToB. Sounds like it causes the same kind of headaches as some of the more vaguely worded spells in the PHB. There seems to be constant debate about what it can and cannot do. Not that I'd thow out a book for one wonky feature - I've already given the reasons we don't use ToB.

[Sinfire Titan]

Oh oh oh oh- I forgot the one thing I'll *never* be able to forgive Tome of Battle for:

With the spell system, it's implied that *you*, the player, are supposed to come up with some new spells. You're a wizard, wizards make spells! Your sorceror might throw a blue fireball that deals 1d4+1d6 for every two caster levels (max 5d4+5d6), and then re-flares the same area the next round for $caster_level points of damage (max 10), etc. These rules are hinted at in the DMG, along with an honest attempt to come up with what is allowable, and what spell level stuff should be. Wanna make up 5 new 9th level spells? Well, you can technically do that, one day!

ANd it is the most unbalanced, contrived, and utterly worthless waste of space in the DMG and PHB. They wasted an entire book around the concept, and it ended up being the most powerful ability in the game: Epic Spellcasting.


Now, what if you came up with three new 9th level Iron Heart maneuvers. Uh-oh! Suddenly you open up entirely new avenues, whole new paths. There's no rule that says you can only have one 9th level maneuver for each path- there just only IS one 9th level maneuver for each path. So, do you houserule that in? Or just never allow your martial artists to actually do anything but learn existing techniques, the ones in the book? In any event, if you were to double or treble the number of available maneuvers, you would increase in an unpredictable fashion, the power level of the classes, *even if the maneuvers were at the correct power level*.

The same rule that governs allowing a PC to research a new spell also apply to Maneuvers: If the DM doesn't want it to happen, then he is free to say "F*** no!"

Finally, there is a restriction on developing new maneuvers: You can't if you can't gain an additional maneuver known. In other words: If the Warblade is 20th level, he physically cannot research a new maneuver known unless the Epic rules are allowed (and none of the ToB classes have Epic progressions, implying that they were not intended to be used with those rules). If the DM allows them to research new maneuvers without enforcing this single restriction, then he gets what he deserves.

BTW, virtually every new casting system prior to ToB had this ability (minus the ToM). The XPH has it on page 97. Core has it in two places: ELH and DMG. Saying your problem is with Tome of Battle alone isn't even remotely fair, seeing as anyone can do it.

Hell, IRL, people are able to design new martial arts styles. So saying your grief is based on something that is unrealistic is BS.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Finally, there is a restriction on developing new maneuvers: You can't if you can't gain an additional maneuver known. In other words: If the Warblade is 20th level, he physically cannot research a new maneuver known unless the Epic rules are allowed (and none of the ToB classes have Epic progressions, implying that they were not intended to be used with those rules). If the DM allows them to research new maneuvers without enforcing this single restriction, then he gets what he deserves.
So it's sort of like Sorcerers, then?

[cfalcon]

The Barbarian and Monk are gross stereotypes of rich and varied cultures

The Barbarian is an attempt to model a primal human. I've never heard anyone offended by it, and I can't really even imagine it. The Monk is in no way a "gross stereotype"- he's just as based on reality as the Cleric, the Paladin. He's archetype is so strong that the concept of warrior-monks spans different cultures- he's a great class concept!


, and the name "Fighter" is just an adjective. Your point?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fighter


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fighter ]
1. a boxer; pugilist.
2. Military. an aircraft designed to seek out and destroy enemy aircraft in the air and to protect bomber aircraft.
3. a person who fights, struggles, resists, etc.
4. a person with the will, courage, determination, ability, or disposition to fight, struggle, resist, etc.
5. an animal, as a dog, trained to fight or having the disposition to fight.
Origin:
bef. 1000; ME; OE fēohtere.


Clerics have no connection to actual Clerics
Based on warrior-priests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleric_%28Dungeons_&_Dragons%29
(scroll down to like, the FIRST paragraph)


Druids have no connection to actual Druids
They aren't too far from a stylized and supernatural version of modern druids. Their connection to historical druids is scant, mostly because Celtic druids were just priests.


Rogues have no connection to actual Rogues
I don't see how thieves or rogues or whatever aren't connected.


Paladins have no connection to actual paladins
Now you are just being silly, of course they do.



Monks have no connection to actual Monks, Sorcerers have no connection to actual Sorcerers, Wizards have no connection to actual Wizards

These dudes all have supernatural powers of some sort. The ones we have in game are sort of, what would these guys be like in a world where this stuff works? I don't see how that's too far off.


Barbarians have no connection to actual Barbarians

They are more based on the Berserkers, and of course popular fiction like Conan.


Rangers have no connection to actual Rangers.
No, but they do come from Tolkein, which is good enough for me.



Most of those classes were pretty poor anyways.

Or maybe, the ability to fly while invisible and turning your enemies into toads while melting their city into goo or whatever could be the problem?

If you took core, pitched clerics, druids, wizards, and bards, would those classes be unfun? Would they be really more powerful than the others?

I would say, they are fun and fine classes now. But that their power level is not at the casters.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

The Barbarian is an attempt to model a primal human. I've never heard anyone offended by it, and I can't really even imagine it.


The Monk is in no way a "gross stereotype"- he's just as based on reality as the Cleric, the Paladin. He's archetype is so strong that the concept of warrior-monks spans different cultures- he's a great class concept!


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fighter
You have missed the point. I'm saying that you shoudn't be quibbling so much over semantics.

You don't like the name of the classes... is that really a reason to deride the book?

Because, you know, I don't like the fact that Monk was used as the name for a martial artist class...


Based on warrior-priests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleric_%28Dungeons_&_Dragons%29
(scroll down to like, the FIRST paragraph)

So, this is ok, but Crusaders are not? Please elaborate.


They aren't too far from a stylized and supernatural version of modern druids. Their connection to historical druids is scant, mostly because Celtic druids were just priests.
Wasn't the core of your complaint that Crusaders were unlike historical Crusaders?


No, but they do come from Tolkein, which is good enough for me.
Well swordsages come from Wuxia, and that's good enough for me.


If you took core, pitched clerics, druids, wizards, and bards, would those classes be unfun? Would they be really more powerful than the others?
Monk no, Fighter maybe, Barbarian were always ok, rogues were always ok, Rangers still are poor, Paladins no.

Some classes have design flaws that you can't fix by chucking other classes away.

[Sinfire Titan]

So it's sort of like Sorcerers, then?

Exactly. Psions too.

[DragoonWraith]

You might want to read my whole post there...
You're right, that was a knee-jerk reaction, and I missed that line (I honestly did read the whole thing, wasn't long, but I was so bewildered by that statement that I guess your subsequent clarification didn't click in my head), sorry about that.

There's really no argument against "I like melee classes being weaker than casters" or "I don't care if they are broken (strong or weak), I don't want to give up my Core classes ever" - if either of those statements are true, then I guess Tome of Battle isn't for you. But everyone who would like to see "fighters", "monks", and "paladins" perform better and contribute more to their party than they do in Core, by rights should be using Tome of Battle. If you accept these are problems, Tome of Battle is the solution.

As Xefas's excellent post confirms, however, if you are looking at this problem, but toss out Tome of Battle for fluff issues, I have to say... you're just being narrow-minded about it. Naming techniques is not a strictly Eastern thing (every martial art, Eastern or Western, does this - it's how you keep track of them and learn them), and none of the abilities of the Warblade are things that seem out of line for any heroic warrior to do - sure, they're not strictly realistic (but neither are plenty of things the plain ol' Fighter can do), but none of them really fall into the line of obviously supernatural. They're all listed as (Ex) and they all fit as (Ex), because it's simply training, strength, leadership, and precision.

Yes, the "Ready" and "Recover" methods are somewhat reminiscent of spellcasting, but we all know that's purely a mechanical reality for balance. And seriously, you can't (in reality) just do the same thing over and over. It doesn't work. You may not be in the same position at the end of a maneuver as you were to begin with, and your new position, after following through, may not be suitable for using what you just did. Sometimes it is, of course, but it's a game, there has to be a limit on these kinds of things, otherwise you'd get really complicated lists of "after using xyz, you can use abc, jkl, or def, but not xyz, bnm, or rty. After using abc, you can use xyz or def, but not jkl, bnm, or rty. After rty... etc". Yes, it's clearly there for mechanical reasons, but it is not hard to envision how this is working in reality. Rounds are really short amounts of time, and martial arts often come down to using specific strings of maneuvers in combos, because you don't have time to reposition yourself to use a different one.

Tome of Battle's biggest failing, honestly, is not properly fluffing out the recovery mechanic to explain things like that.

[cfalcon]

1. Earthen Grasp sucks at the level you first get it. At level 10, it is completely obsolete.

It's not a very good spell. But it's still 2 rounds / level. If you have to concentrate though, you don't even get the ability to always be spawning them every 6 seconds, wherever you go, and then it's just a mediocre ability.


Casting shatter at will isn't much odder than smashing something with an axe at will.

I disagree based mostly on the fact that you can't eventually knock down a castle wall with an axe!

But, if I had a warlock in the game and something really odd came up, I'd probably just deal with the warlock being good at demolition, and always being able to blow up a door in a dungeon. I mean hell, he took a special ability for it right?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I
I disagree based mostly on the fact that you can't eventually knock down a castle wall with an axe!


Hm. Well, you can't do so as a Warlock either. The wall is a single object, and you can't affect an object weighing more than 20 pounds per caster level.

[Starbuck_II]

Warlocks are portrayed as basically *being* supernatural. They don't have a "resource system" as much as the ability to do crazy stuff all the time- sort of like a hybrid between allowing a PC to play a monster with spell like abilities. I haven't added them to my campaigns yet, however, for the reason above- he's getting "something for nothing". However, he does at least do less damage with that blast than a ranger with a bow, and he doesn't have the hit dice and such that a fighter would- in other words, his eldritch blast isn't "taking their jobs".

Supernatural? You mean magical because he uses spell-like abilities...right?

[cfalcon]

ANd it is the most unbalanced, contrived, and utterly worthless waste of space in the DMG and PHB. They wasted an entire book around the concept, and it ended up being the most powerful ability in the game: Epic Spellcasting.

That's only bad if you let it be bad. I haven't attempted any "epic" games, and if I did, I wouldn't use much of the epic handbook. The epic spells don't obey the same rules. However: since it's sort of kit that 10th level spells and above are really "deity level" powers, maybe it's ok to someone who wants to run a game like that. But I've only had a few characters ascend to godhood, and I just didn't use those rules for that- nor would I.


The same rule that governs allowing a PC to research a new spell also apply to Maneuvers: If the DM doesn't want it to happen, then he is free to say "F*** no!"

I think you misunderstand me totally. My gripe is that there's *no way* that I saw to actually *create* a new maneuver. Creating a new spell is creative and awesome! The same would be true of a new psionic power, for instance. But can you even *make* one? And adding a 9th level spell that is almost like meteor swarm clearly doesn't change the game- a sorceror with it would cast it whenever he would cast meteor swarm. A wizard might have it and meteor swarm memorized for whatever reason. But the question of "is it unfair to make a 2nd 9th level maneuver, given that right now if you want two 9th level maneuvers it has to be in two different martial schools" is not addressed by the rules. The general amount of leeway we are "supposed to have" is not hinted at, and most seem to interpret this as not allowing their players to add to their maneuver list.


Finally, there is a restriction on developing new maneuvers: You can't if you can't gain an additional maneuver known.

Sure, sure. I'm saying, I don't know if a Swordsage who has, say, the one that makes everything around you burn, should be able to get a second 9th level technique the next time he is able to, that makes everything burn with BLUE fire that is slightly different, because I'm not sure if he's supposed to be able to cast that kind of ability twice in a row- in order for him to do it now, he has to have a second path that he gets his other 9th level one from, and it won't duplicate the first. Since the system encourages a diversity of moves, I'm not even sure if that *should* be allowed, etc. But nothing in the book says "hey, the dude shouldn't have two abilities that wipe status effects, if he creates a second one it's that or the first".

So most DMs would say, the list is inviolate. And that's :(


BTW, virtually every new casting system prior to ToB had this ability (minus the ToM). The XPH has it on page 97. Core has it in two places: ELH and DMG. Saying your problem is with Tome of Battle alone isn't even remotely fair, seeing as anyone can do it.

Yea, you totally didn't understand what I wrote. My issue is that ToB doesn't have this system, and might not be compatible with it- we certainly don't have nice guidelines like we normally do.


You don't like the name of the classes... is that really a reason to deride the book?
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deride

Pretty sure I didn't do that. I said why I don't have them in my games, and I also accused them of having to write your own lore for them, or basically hand them monk and fighter and paladin, while tossing lots of other classes. The fact that they have marketing speak or magic card names for 2/3 of their new base classes isn't a selling point, but of course, you *could* rename them.


Because, you know, I don't like the fact that Monk was used as the name for a martial artist class...
I dunno why. They are warrior monks, not just martial artists. The name tells you a LOT more about them, in one word!



So, this is ok, but Crusaders are not? Please elaborate.

The clerics are an attempt to be based on a group of people in the real world, who in the pretend world have access to divine magic. The Crusader is not based, at all, on Crusaders. Reading the description, they don't go on Crusades. They don't seem to be based on the Crusaders at all. All they took was the name.


Wasn't the core of your complaint that Crusaders were unlike historical Crusaders?
Yes of course. But it's still based on modern druids, or rather, the magical interpretation of them, and they in turn are based loosely on the Celtic originals. There's a lot more to be had, and the druid class is probably the most flavorful- they live in the woods, defending it, with a devotion that sometimes leads them to behave in ways we would call antisocial. They can become animals!


Well swordsages come from Wuxia, and that's good enough for me.
Man, I don't know what to say to that. I mean, once you allow float-jumpy, I'd say you are a lot further from reality than even Jack Vance. If Wuxia is your style of game, then fighters ARE obsolete- they are burdened by laws of physics that don't inconvenience hoppyboys. The book is for sure made for your style then, and obviously you should use it. But that doesn't make it appropriate for all styles of gaming- and many folks don't want the physical classes fully wiped out and replaced by dudes who don't even have remotely the same flavor.


And seriously, you can't (in reality) just do the same thing over and over. It doesn't work.
I can shoot a gun repeatedly. And many of the martial techniques described are the equivalent of that. Not all, some of them imply that you actually do a technique that couldn't necessarily be repeated. But it doesn't answer the question of doing move A that downs a guy, next round attacking dude B, who your friend downs, and then moving towards dude C- why can't you do move A to him noW? There's no good reason, beyond the resource system being interesting.


Hm. Well, you can't do so as a Warlock either. The wall is a single object, and you can't affect an object weighing more than 20 pounds per caster level.
Good catch! That's the sort of thing I'd have to read carefully if I had a lock in any of my games, or in the game I'm playing in right now.


Supernatural? You mean magical because he uses spell-like abilities...right?
Yea yea. I'm not using spell / spell-like / supernatural distinction here. I just mean that he *is* magical in a way that like, a demon or devil is, and not in the way a wizard is.

[olentu]

Hmm this whole maneuver time limitation makes me wonder if people have a similar problem with the limit on stunning fist uses in a round and in a day.

[SparkMandriller]

I dunno why. They are warrior monks, not just martial artists. The name tells you a LOT more about them, in one word!

Monk doesn't exactly make me think of a guy who can turn invisible and walk through walls for a little over a minute each day, or is immune to disease, or can speak with squirrels.

I dunno, maybe I'm not reading the same dictionary you did.

[Hat-Trick]

I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone, but since the DM in question is safely anonymous I can use this to discuss something that's really been bothering me without criticizing any particular forum poster. I've seen a lot of, erm, enthusiastic dislike of ToB, 4E, and similar on these grounds. "Too weeaboo" or "too wuxia" or in general "too Asian". :smallfrown: This really rubs me the wrong way.

I grew up in a time and place where many people around me refused to listen to jazz music, because most jazz bands had black musicians. An uncle of a friend of mine had collected LPs from a vocalist he loved for decades, but smashed every one in a rage when he eventually learnd the singer was black. I had hoped to see the end of such nonsense, but all over this forum I see people reject game mechanics (which can of course be given any desired flavor) specifically because they remind someone of Asian fantasy instead of Western fantasy. :smalleek:

I've heard this sort of thing before, and it was very ugly then. Someone give me some hope here that this isn't really whats going on?

As I've said, I just think the mechanic is used too much as a "Screw it, play X". I'd rather overhaul the classes than replace them, personally.

[Starbuck_II]

Hmm this whole maneuver time limitation makes me wonder if people have a similar problem with the limit on stunning fist uses in a round and in a day.

I do. Why can I only stun a guy so many times/day... what did I forget?

And what is with the restriction of once/round? Is it too hard?

[Indon]

Indeed.

I think it's clear from the evolution of 3.5 that WotC came to feel that the initial approach to balance - some classes have mundane tricks usable at-will all day, others have supernatural face-wrecking available a limited number of times per day (effect: the face-wreckers are the limiting factor and others dance to their tune) - was a mistake and tried to steer it towards a new model of weaker, more manageable effects that could be used all day with at most short recharge cycles.

Indeed - a solution that functions as the prelude to a game in which every class is, mechanically, a watered-down Vancian caster in which the distinctions between entire sets of classes is reduced to a single word describing flavor.

Maneuvers represent a form of revised, weakened Vancian casting that Wizards eventually comes to apply to their entire next version of D&D, and not everyone likes that.

Though, if you're a fan of 4th edition, but you don't want to give up the rich mechanical development of other sources in 3rd edition, ToB is one of the best books you can have.

To elaborate on cfalcon's complaint:

Basically, ToB is designed with RAW gameplay in mind, rather than encouraging creativity even as modestly as 3.x core does, so it has less support for that creativity.

As a video game aficionado might say, it doesn't support modding as well as the vanilla game.

[Teron]

As I've said, I just think the mechanic is used too much as a "Screw it, play X". I'd rather overhaul the classes than replace them, personally.
The ToB classes are overhauls. They need to be as different as they are from the old versions to be at all playable in the hands of anyone but a master optimizer. The different names are just a token attempt to hide the truth from people blissfully unaware of the need for a fix, and to allow the old versions to be used alongside the new to the limited extent of their usefulness (two level dips, mainly).

[cfalcon]

Hmm this whole maneuver time limitation makes me wonder if people have a similar problem with the limit on stunning fist uses in a round and in a day.

You're presumably expending your ki, and as you level up (especially as a monk), you have more of that. They didn't want to explicitly call out a "ki pool" in core, of course.

But I'm not sure if the "stunning fist" is supposed to just be, you know, a thing you do, with your fist. Sure, it's a feat, but it's also a feat that talks about monks, right in the wording. Presumably they wanted that monk ability to be able to be shared by others.

[Eldariel]

Basically, ToB is designed with RAW gameplay in mind, rather than encouraging creativity even as modestly as 3.x core does, so it has less support for that creativity.

I don't know, coming up with creative uses for the maneuvers, with plain new maneuvers for what you want to do and with interesting descriptions for your maneuvers doesn't feel stifling to creativity.

Sure, if you can represent everything you want represented with the maneuvers you've got, I suppose you won't be generating new ones on the fly as things change. However, the vast amounts of homebrew available for ToB makes me feel like the ToB template offers people a means to channel all the different "cool", "awesome" martial abilities they've wanted to give their characters but haven't known how.

I suppose people aren't innovating under ToB in the sense that they aren't coming up with new systems, but there's certainly plenty of innovation people are doing in the system. Building Robilar as a Warblade, for example, would have me remake a bunch of new maneuvers to suit him and if my character was in a fight missing some type of an avenue of attack that feels like the best way to win, he sure as hell would try to come up with one on the fly and start working on the matter later on if he fails.

Rules don't exist for this any more than they exist for any other kinds of on-the-fly variations of melee combat styles, but as rules exist for maneuvers, coming up with new styles of attack on the fly with ToB feels easier and more natural than doing it with a Fighter (especially since there's a lot more freedom with what a maneuver can do as an effect vs. what an attack can do as an effect when going by the base systems for comparison).


And sure, it's "vancian casting" in the sense that you have leveled abilities. But it's anything but vancian casting in any other way. For example:
- Boosts represent maneuvers that can be combined with other maneuvers to create alternate outcomes.
- Stances represent base states that can be altered to alter your combat role entirely.
- Levels represent the level of acquisition rather than the level of power and availability of the maneuvers (sure, higher level maneuvers are often more powerful than lower level ones, but many low-level maneuvers are worth keeping and readying all the way over higher level options)
- Rather than being expended, your abilities are unavailable for few seconds after using them.

I think the important part of Vancian casting is that spells aren't really understood and as such, instead of freely manipulating magic, Wizards just study a single spell by heart until it sticks. Instead of understanding magic, they seek to replicate a single manifestation of magic and instead of understanding why certain somantics and verbals produce the effect, they just study those verbals and somantics until they can replicate the ability. I find the defining features to be:
- Abilities being divided to levels depending on their difficulty of use.
- Unmodifiable spells that require certain slots to prepare.
- Slots being expended after use, requiring new rest and new preparation to use again.
- Always having less higher level slots than lower level equivalents.

Out of these, maneuvers only fit one (abilities divided to levels depending on their difficulty of use); I feel it's pretty safe to say that vancian casting and maneuvers really have very little in common.

Maneuvers are modified on the fly by combat maneuvers and boosts, the abilities are never expended rather than just unavailable for a time, and the level of an ability doesn't matter after you know it; you can use abilities of any level on any level and your slots don't have level-by-level codings.


Basically, to call maneuvers Vancian casting, you have to call every level-based system using a bunch of individual, pre-defined abilities in various ways Vancian casting.

[Sinfire Titan]

I dont get this. The sun is not an effect. Light from the sun is not an effect. Light from the sun is an object, no different than a sword. You cant IHS a sword away, can you?

Read Lords of Madness, then think about how long Tome of Battle has been out.


The real question is: Why didn't the Mind Flayers see this sooner, considering it's a meme over here?

[olentu]

You're presumably expending your ki, and as you level up (especially as a monk), you have more of that. They didn't want to explicitly call out a "ki pool" in core, of course.

But I'm not sure if the "stunning fist" is supposed to just be, you know, a thing you do, with your fist. Sure, it's a feat, but it's also a feat that talks about monks, right in the wording. Presumably they wanted that monk ability to be able to be shared by others.

Well it is a fighter bonus feat so it is as close to a class feature as fighters only get bonus feats in core.

Also since fluff is a factor in this discussion the fluff just says that you know how to strike opponents in vulnerable areas and as far as I know it is completely nonmagical.

Though if it is a monk ability that can be shared by others then all the baggage of said ability should apply to all classes that can take the feat.

[Sinfire Titan]

I think you misunderstand me totally. My gripe is that there's *no way* that I saw to actually *create* a new maneuver. Creating a new spell is creative and awesome! The same would be true of a new psionic power, for instance. But can you even *make* one? And adding a 9th level spell that is almost like meteor swarm clearly doesn't change the game- a sorceror with it would cast it whenever he would cast meteor swarm. A wizard might have it and meteor swarm memorized for whatever reason. But the question of "is it unfair to make a 2nd 9th level maneuver, given that right now if you want two 9th level maneuvers it has to be in two different martial schools" is not addressed by the rules. The general amount of leeway we are "supposed to have" is not hinted at, and most seem to interpret this as not allowing their players to add to their maneuver list.

Then we both need to read better. Page 46, under the heading Adding Maneuvers and Stances, the page before chapter 4, has the exact rules for creating a new martial maneuver. If the Warblade hits level 17, then takes Martial Study at 18th, that feat could go towards an entirely new martial strike.

It takes 3*(Maneuver's level) to research it, a DC 25+(2*Maneuver's level) Martial Lore check, and 50 XP per day spent researching it. A 9th level maneuver takes a DC 33 check, 27 days, and 1350 XP. Just slightly more than the average casting of Gate.

It even has no restrictions on what level, or even what style the maneuver has to be. The book's fluff hints at a 10th style (why do you think most Home Brew for the book is called "The 10th Style:"?) throughout the fluff, and it leaves the exact context wide open.



Sure, sure. I'm saying, I don't know if a Swordsage who has, say, the one that makes everything around you burn, should be able to get a second 9th level technique the next time he is able to, that makes everything burn with BLUE fire that is slightly different, because I'm not sure if he's supposed to be able to cast that kind of ability twice in a row- in order for him to do it now, he has to have a second path that he gets his other 9th level one from, and it won't duplicate the first. Since the system encourages a diversity of moves, I'm not even sure if that *should* be allowed, etc. But nothing in the book says "hey, the dude shouldn't have two abilities that wipe status effects, if he creates a second one it's that or the first".

A minor variation in flavor doesn't call for an entirely new maneuver. If you alter the actual effect, or the rules behind that maneuver, then it's considered a new maneuver outright.


So most DMs would say, the list is inviolate. And that's :(

Such DMs need to read page 46.

[DragoonWraith]

So most DMs would say, the list is inviolate. And that's :(
And would any of those DMs simultaneously allow the wizard to research spells? I strongly doubt it. In fact, I agree, most DMs will not allow new maneuvers - or new spells. Because it's very difficult to be sure that a given thing is balanced without going to the Internet to get a nice broad peer-review, and I suspect the vast majority of players and DMs have never been to any D&D forum. I'd be amazed if there is any DM who will allow the wizard to invent new spells and forbid the swordsage from inventing new maneuvers.

[Starbuck_II]

My brother (who was DMing) let me homebrew a psionic power once.

But that was it.

[Grumman]

Casters are weak and gimp at low levels, remember- while a 2nd level sorc or wizard does have some powerful effects to throw, he's done very quickly- and very frequently the dudes who can punch stuff each round contribute pretty much everything.
A druid serves as a perfectly good bruiser at low levels, if you don't cripple your physical scores while you wait for Wild Shape. Once you're doing insta-gib damage, it hardly matters if you've got +3 B.A.B. or +4.

[kamikasei]

A lot of your post seems kind of incoherent to me. You're saying that balance doesn't matter, but seem to be under the false impression that I think all classes have to be perfectly balanced against one another and that the only reason for ToB is to achieve that - in fact, it's that picking class X shouldn't leave you unable to usefully contribute at all half the time, and ToB was supposed to fix that, not make fighters and mages perfectly equal. You're also saying that ToB shouldn't have been brought in as a fix to core 3.5, but at the same time saying that core 3.5 screwed up some things for melee in the transition from 2ed - so if they broke melee, should they not have fixed it? How differently should they have gone about doing so?


I mean, the power level implied by 15th level characters is already pretty off-the-charts by mortal standards.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the rest of what you're saying. That high-level characters are already capable of superhuman feats surely means abilities from ToB are less out of place, if the objection is that they're not mundane enough.


Oh *no* way. That guy has a "maneuver" he can only do every few rounds, and he refreshes himself with a flourish or a standard attack- does that sound like something from reality?

Yes.

Sorry. It sounds perfectly realistic to me that, in a battle, you can't just pull off the same move over and over and over.


You look through his attack list, then you compare it to what is allowed in general, and it's plain that he's "casting spells", even if they don't result in giant fire whirlwinds or whatever. He has a resource system that allows him to ignore the laws of physics, sometimes, and he can't do them just whenever.

What exactly do you have in mind here? I've unfortuantely not gotten to play with ToB as much as I'd like, I mostly play PbP and games tend to die young without much opportunity for playtesting, but my impression of Warblade manuevers is that they break down as roughly:
- hit things hard. (Stone Dragon)
- hit things carefully. (Diamond Mind)
- hit a bunch of things at once. (Iron Heart)
- hit one thing a bunch of times. (Tiger Claw)
- manipulate the battlefield so your friends can hit things better. (White Raven)
- just be, like, totally badass, dude. (IHS, the Moment of * counters, various defensive or buff maneuvers)

Most of these don't even interact with the laws of physics, just the abstractions of the combat system. If gaining temporary HP or pentrating DR or using blindsight are, in your mind, things to be reseved for magic, I find your view blinkered. And if not, I'm not sure what your objection is.

(Preemptive note: yes, Lightning Throw is silly.)


He's also standing there as a straight up better choice than the other dudes. Now, what if they had said that he *was* the fighter? Like, originally? I don't think I would have accepted that. Maybe if his moves were tweaked to be even more "mundane", then I would have, but he still would have a lot more mechanics than, say, the current fighter.

I don't see "having more mechanics" as a fatal flaw.


Warlocks are portrayed as basically *being* supernatural. They don't have a "resource system" as much as the ability to do crazy stuff all the time

So... ToB is bad, because its effects are "magical", and they can do them all day long. But Warlocks are okay, because their effects are really "magical", and they can do them every round?

Is your objection a) the abilities are, in your view, magical (I disagree), b) the abilities are too freely available (which you seem to be applying inconsistently), or c) they're not available often enough (perfectly justified in my view, and not really compatible with (b))?

[elliott20]

kamikasei, a little nitpick, diamond mind is more like hitting things really fast while iron heart is hitting things really carefully

[Teron]

Diamond Mind is definitely the "single perfect stroke" discipline, with its many Concentration-based strikes (Avalanche of Blades and Time Stands Still being exceptions), while Iron Heart is a bit of a generic fighter discipline with several maneuvers analogous to Cleave and Whirlwind Attack.

[elliott20]

I generally agree with that, but iron heart also has stuff just plain increases your damage to an obscene amount or gives you stuff that are effectively encounter finishers. Diamond mind, one the other hand, while seems like it can also be the "perfect strike" discipline, it also has a huge number of speed stuff. i.e. Jet Li from Hero.

[kamikasei]

That's true, I was skipping over the I-am-the-Flash stuff in DM and forgetting the damage-boosters in IH. Still and all, whether my lists breaks down cleanly along discipline lines is irrelevant to what is and isn't on it. Did I miss anything important that warblades are capable of? (Genuine question.)

[Yora]

Hmm this whole maneuver time limitation makes me wonder if people have a similar problem with the limit on stunning fist uses in a round and in a day.
Yes. It makes no sense.

[elliott20]

That's true, I was skipping over the I-am-the-Flash stuff in DM and forgetting the damage-boosters in IH. Still and all, whether my lists breaks down cleanly along discipline lines is irrelevant to what is and isn't on it. Did I miss anything important that warblades are capable of? (Genuine question.)

oh no. I was just being nitpicky is all. (and not very good at that.)

[kamikasei]

Yes. It makes no sense.

Makes sense to me in a round, not in a day. With much the same justification as maneuver recovery, actually.

[Indon]

Eldariel:


I don't know, coming up with creative uses for the maneuvers, with plain new maneuvers for what you want to do and with interesting descriptions for your maneuvers doesn't feel stifling to creativity.
Core mentions all of these, and elaborates upon them with mechanical support, for casting.

Maneuvers, which have already been established as Wizards' definitive response to how powerful Vancian casting was, don't have that.

The system has a Spellcraft ability, scrolls, and it's the same system that all casters use in 4th edition. As far as D&D system itself is concerned, maneuvers are Vancian Magic v2.0.

It's only not casting insofar as Wizards wants to apply it to everyone, not just casters, as a generic ability use system.


- Boosts represent maneuvers that can be combined with other maneuvers to create alternate outcomes.
Jump, True Strike, Pierce Spell Resistance (I think that's what the spell's called). Spells provide more powerful augmentations to standard actions and to other spells because core casting offers a more powerful casting system.


- Stances represent base states that can be altered to alter your combat role entirely.
Stances are buffs that don't stack with each other, because Wizards wanted a weaker casting system.


- Levels represent the level of acquisition rather than the level of power and availability of the maneuvers (sure, higher level maneuvers are often more powerful than lower level ones, but many low-level maneuvers are worth keeping and readying all the way over higher level options)
Higher-level maneuvers are weaker than higher-level spells because Wizards wanted a weaker casting system.


- Rather than being expended, your abilities are unavailable for few seconds after using them.
Because the system is so much weaker, the system can be designed to allow greater ability use frequency. Even then, spontaneous casters can generally use their abilities as frequently as they would want.


- Abilities being divided to levels depending on their difficulty of use.
- Unmodifiable spells that require certain slots to prepare.
- Slots being expended after use, requiring new rest and new preparation to use again.
- Always having less higher level slots than lower level equivalents.
Maneuvers fit three of these, and only miss the fourth because maneuvers have been nerfed in so many ways compared to conventional casting.

In fact, with metamagic feats, spells are more modifiable than maneuvers (do maneuvers have meta-maneuver feats? I'd be surprised if they did, since metamagic feats were one of the things that made vancian casting so powerful, and 4ed has very few feats even resembling them). And maneuvers require less rest and prepration, but they still require those things (Exception: The Crusader, whose maneuver refresh system is, admittedly, novel).


Basically, to call maneuvers Vancian casting, you have to call every level-based system using a bunch of individual, pre-defined abilities in various ways Vancian casting.

Individual, pre-defined, one-time-use before rest or refresh, with a skill tied to ability identification, divided into thematic schools, and I'm sure there're others but I don't think I need to keep going on.

Maneuvers are different than spells because they are systematically made weaker than conventional spells - also, they were made Ex.


Then we both need to read better. Page 46, under the heading Adding Maneuvers and Stances, the page before chapter 4, has the exact rules for creating a new martial maneuver. If the Warblade hits level 17, then takes Martial Study at 18th, that feat could go towards an entirely new martial strike.
Well, that's nifty.

[Eldariel]

Core mentions all of these, and elaborates upon them with mechanical support, for casting.

Maneuvers, which have already been established as Wizards' definitive response to how powerful Vancian casting was, don't have that.

The system has a Spellcraft ability, scrolls, and it's the same system that all casters use in 4th edition. As far as D&D system itself is concerned, maneuvers are Vancian Magic v2.0.

It's only not casting insofar as Wizards wants to apply it to everyone, not just casters, as a generic ability use system.

Or maybe it's just convenient to level abilities you can learn when the game is based on getting better stuff as you level up. If all the maneuvers were listed as class features when you level-up, multiclassing couldn't be written as smoothly and neither could Martial Study and the like.

To me it looks like the superficial similarities between casting and maneuvers are only a consequence of leveling abilities being the best way to list them without crowding the class descriptions and working the best with 3.X style multiclassing.

Look at psionic powers, they use the same leveling system for similar reasons; not because it's vancian casting but because such leveling just happens to be very conveniently functional in 3.X. Vestiges are likewise arranged in levels as are all the other systems of 3.5.

Basically everything not listed in class description needs to be leveled as such to function with multiclassing and to have some sensible functioning with level advancement.


Jump, True Strike, Pierce Spell Resistance (I think that's what the spell's called). Spells provide more powerful augmentations to standard actions and to other spells because core casting offers a more powerful casting system.

Assay Spell Resistance is actually an offensive spell, not a modifier. Jump...huh? True Strike is the only thing that modifies the next action somehow and it's really in no ways dedicated to supporting spells - indeed, more often do I see True Strike go along with melee attacks. But it's true that one spell exists that helps your next action.

That isn't the tone by and large though, and it doesn't really seamlessly tie into other spells to generate new spells given that it's a standard action normally to cast and that most spells ignore the bonus it grants and because it goes with whatever action is going to come up.


Stances are buffs that don't stack with each other, because Wizards wanted a weaker casting system.

I think this is an important distinction; buffs don't last forever and different buffs can be used together and most importantly, buffs require resources to acquire.

Stance is a state you're in, not some buff. You can be in an aggressive stance (say Punishing Stance), you can be in an ally-supporting stance (say Bolstering Voice), you can be in a defensive stance (say Pearl of Black Doubt), etc. Stances can be used to define your role on the battlefield.


Higher-level maneuvers are weaker than higher-level spells because Wizards wanted a weaker casting system.

I don't see what maneuvers have to do with spells here. Where are you coming from with this? What do spells have to do with all this in the first place? Do spells use a bunch of slots that can be used for any spell you know? Would you prepare low-level spells in those slots?


Because the system is so much weaker, the system can be designed to allow greater ability use frequency. Even then, spontaneous casters can generally use their abilities as frequently as they would want.

Doesn't matter, spontaneous casters have a daily limit and level-based limit making them very distinct from martial adepts.


Maneuvers fit three of these, and only miss the fourth because maneuvers have been nerfed in so many ways compared to conventional casting.

In fact, with metamagic feats, spells are more modifiable than maneuvers (do maneuvers have meta-maneuver feats? I'd be surprised if they did, since metamagic feats were one of the things that made vancian casting so powerful, and 4ed has very few feats even resembling them). And maneuvers require less rest and prepration, but they still require those things (Exception: The Crusader, whose maneuver refresh system is, admittedly, novel).

See, they don't require rest and new preparation to use again. Consequentially, you also can't prepare the same maneuver twice. Maneuver being "prepared" means that you've trained that maneuver and you're prepared to execute it. After you've executed it, you need to reposition yourself as to do it again.

As for Metamagic, that's still nothing compared to how many Boosts ToB has. But yeah, Quicken Spell is one of the biggest cultrips for magic's power in 3.5, that I'll give you.


Individual, pre-defined, one-time-use before rest or refresh, with a skill tied to ability identification, divided into thematic schools, and I'm sure there're others but I don't think I need to keep going on.

They don't require rest. Rest has nothing to do with maneuvers. Skill, sure, but really, that just doesn't feel relevant in context of the abilities themselves. They don't, on the other hand, use any key ability scores for example and maneuvers as a rule include modifiers to your attacks rather than forming their own attacks. I think this is simply a perception you've chosen for yourself, rather than the only possible way to look at it.


Maneuvers are different than spells because they are systematically made weaker than conventional spells - also, they were made Ex.

Maneuvers are different than spells because they involve attacking with a weapon or modifying a weapon attack (rather than just having an effect inherent to the ability; offensive maneuvers practically always are based on weapon attack rather than just producing an effect), aren't level-tiered, don't require rest between uses, and for which "being prepared" means totally different thing than for spells (you can't prepare a maneuver twice, for example).

[Indon]

Eldariel:

To everyone else - the reason we're spoilering this isn't because it's irrelevant to the thread, but because it's turning into a crazy-long quote war. Just an FYI.



Or maybe it's just convenient to level abilities you can learn when the game is based on getting better stuff as you level up. If all the maneuvers were listed as class features when you level-up, multiclassing couldn't be written as smoothly and neither could Martial Study and the like.
Counterexample: Incarnum.


Look at psionic powers, they use the same leveling system for similar reasons; not because it's vancian casting but because such leveling just happens to be very conveniently functional in 3.X.
In mechanical terms, Psionics is one houserule away (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) from functioning exactly like a less powerful spellcasting system, and vice versa. It's not a good example of a system distinct from Vancian casting.

Vestiges are probably better, but I'm not knowledgable about that system, so I can't say.


Assay Spell Resistance is actually an offensive spell, not a modifier. Jump...huh? True Strike is the only thing that modifies the next action somehow and it's really in no ways dedicated to supporting spells - indeed, more often do I see True Strike go along with melee attacks. But it's true that one spell exists that helps your next action.
Ha, I'd forgotten Jump was a buff with a duration.


That isn't the tone by and large though, and it doesn't really seamlessly tie into other spells to generate new spells given that it's a standard action normally to cast and that most spells ignore the bonus it grants and because it goes with whatever action is going to come up.
Celerity, Contingency.

I'm sure I could find more. There may be less core spells dedicated to this than there are maneuvers, but this is because spells have a widely greater variety of functions than maneuvers do - because Wizards designed maneuvers with a stronger eye for maintaining mechanical balance, rather than effects diversity or 'rule of cool'.


I think this is an important distinction; buffs don't last forever and different buffs can be used together and most importantly, buffs require resources to acquire.
Buffs that have charges could theoretically last forever.


Stance is a state you're in, not some buff. You can be in an aggressive stance (say Punishing Stance), you can be in an ally-supporting stance (say Bolstering Voice), you can be in a defensive stance (say Pearl of Black Doubt), etc. Stances can be used to define your role on the battlefield.
Stoneskin is a state you're in - it's a state where your skin is as hard as adamantine. Giant Growth is a state you're in - it makes you big! And so on.

Buffs can be used to define your role in a battle far better than Stances, because they offer far more mechanical diversity and power than stances. The rest is flavor, which as ToB shows us, is highly mutable in regards to such abilities.

There are, certainly, balance advantages to limiting the power and application of self-buffs. But this, like so many other features of the maneuver system, are simply corrections to a spell system in order to promote balance by weakening the effects.


I don't see what maneuvers have to do with spells here. Where are you coming from with this? What do spells have to do with all this in the first place? Do spells use a bunch of slots that can be used for any spell you know? Would you prepare low-level spells in those slots?
I'm 'coming from' fourth edition D&D, where every class follows the maneuver system template originally concieved of in Tome of Battle - having played a game in which Wizards and Clerics are, mechanically, types of Warblades or Swordsages, helps to promote the understanding of the similarities between casting and the maneuver system, and Wizards' ultimate intent behind and for both.


Doesn't matter, spontaneous casters have a daily limit and level-based limit making them very distinct from martial adepts.
The distinction is how quickly their abilities refresh, and of course the ability lists themselves and some other implementation details which we're currently discussing.

They aren't really very distinct.


See, they don't require rest and new preparation to use again. Consequentially, you also can't prepare the same maneuver twice. Maneuver being "prepared" means that you've trained that maneuver and you're prepared to execute it. After you've executed it, you need to reposition yourself as to do it again.
Your 'reposition' using the Adaptive Style feat, is effectively a 'repreparation'. Your wording is a matter of character flavor, and is very nice, but how is it relevant in the context of the rules themselves?

The 'can't prepare the same maneuver twice' thing is another excellent power-reduction to casting that carried over into 4th edition - it prevents players from picking their most potent abilities and spamming them.


They don't require rest. Rest has nothing to do with maneuvers.
Perhaps I'm confusing this with 4th edition, but I thought maneuver-users had to rest, or otherwise have some sort of break at the end of encounters to recover maneuvers?


Skill, sure, but really, that just doesn't feel relevant in context of the abilities themselves. They don't, on the other hand, use any key ability scores for example and maneuvers as a rule include modifiers to your attacks rather than forming their own attacks. I think this is simply a perception you've chosen for yourself, rather than the only possible way to look at it.
I'm sure there are many possible ways to look at it.

But only one is in clear alignment with Wizards' design intent as can be seen in their later design work in D&D.

Maneuvers are powers - and the power system is watered-down vancian casting.


Maneuvers are different than spells because they involve attacking with a weapon or modifying a weapon attack (rather than just having an effect inherent to the ability; offensive maneuvers practically always are based on weapon attack rather than just producing an effect),

The Weapon-Implement abstraction for powers is another refinement of the system that you can see in 4th edition: Weapon powers require weapons, spells require Implements in the same sense.


aren't level-tiered, don't require rest between uses, and for which "being prepared" means totally different thing than for spells (you can't prepare a maneuver twice, for example).

Maneuvers are level-tiered - just with less power differential between them. They refresh through the cessation of combat rather than an extended rest, and 'being prepared' just means in both cases that you can use them - with the additional, and systemic, distinction that the maneuver equivalent is less powerful and versatile for the sake of balance.

[Thrawn183]

:smallbiggrin:

This is another reason I don't use ToB - I also don't like the approach of completely replacing core classes with whizzbang new ones (not so concerned about Ninja though). It's a gamestyle preference - I like the core to be realtively intact, as it is the common ground that most everything else is built on. Sure, core has it's problems, but overwriting it is not a solution I like, since most of my group only has access to the core. I have the same problem with classes like the Factotum, who "out rogues" the Rogue. I prefer my non-core base classes to compliment the core classes, rather than retire them...YMMV...

This I have to respectfully disagree with. The ToB classes and maneuvers are very nice, but what has always made me feel that ToB is the best 3.5 book you can buy is the way they handled multiclassing. The classes work just as well multiclassed with core classes as they do independently.

All the martial adepts are starved for feats and could use a lot of fighter levels (or fighters could use some maneuvers to help fill in some gaps, like their saving throws) or barbarian levels, bards and paladins work well with crusaders, rogues and monks work well with swordsages.

When you start looking at the prestige classes, you even start seeing ones which are designed to integrate martial adept base classes and full casters (Jade Pheonix Mage, Ruby Knight Vindicator).

I don't think there is another book out there that better compliments the core classes than ToB. I truly feel that simply saying that ToB classes "retire" core classes woefully undersells this book.

[Indon]

I do agree that Tome of Battle does multiclassing exceptionally well as 3.5 books go. The 1/2 manifester level thing for multiclassing, in particular, was a very nice innovation.

[DragoonWraith]

Indon, what are you arguing about? I mean, yes, it's mechanically effectively identical to a casting system - this does not mean manuevers are actually magical, it's just a re-purposing an existing system that works reasonably well, far better than anything core melee had, for melee. That's a purely mechanical/balance reality, and just about no one argues that this was done poorly. While plenty of people think Tome of Battle is broken, that has not been anyone's argument in this thread, probably because it's not and we all know enough about the system to know this.

So what difference does it make that it's a re-purposed spell system? That seems, to me, to be entirely a good thing - it's a familiar system, it's a system that works (better, in ToB's case, than the original system). None of this supports the argument from a fluff perspective that the Warblade's maneuvers, at least, are mundane. The existence of parallels between the system does not automatically make maneuvers magical, and if that's you're contention than you're going to need to support it far better than you have - all I see you arguing is for the fact that there are parallels between maneuvers and spells, which is doubtlessly true - but means nothing.

[Nero24200]

This I have to respectfully disagree with. The ToB classes and maneuvers are very nice, but what has always made me feel that ToB is the best 3.5 book you can buy is the way they handled multiclassing. The classes work just as well multiclassed with core classes as they do independently. I would have to disagree here. Whenever anyone on this forum asks for a fighter fix, the first few responses will almost always be "Use a Warblade" even if the poster specifically states he/she isn't using TOB.

To say it compliments core classes is just wrong. Once TOB is used, the melee classes are only there for dips. Few (if any) as it is would go Fighter 20, when TOB is added theres even less reason to stick with one class. If you might think this is good, fair enough, but not everyone considers it good design if a class is only any good for dipping.

Personally, I think the core melee classes aren't designed well, and I just don't feel TOB is the answer for me personally. But what annoys me is that some folk just can't accept that. As said plenty of times, if I post any time of martial query I will get TOB responses, even if I ask not to.

What's more, I'll be pestered with posts asking me to justify why I don't like it. If I say my DM disallows it, he/she will be called unreasonable even if I agree with the DM.

To Summerize:
Like TOB? Good for you. Some people don't though, get over it

Just a side note, that last part isn't directed to anyone in particular, just to this topic as a whole. Really, the fact that a topic like this lasts so many pages doesn't strike me as a good thing.

[Eldariel]

Indon:

Counterexample: Incarnum.

While this is sort of true, I'd like to point out that Incarnum functions as it does because of the ability to invest increasing amounts of essentia and better chakra binds for the soulmelds on higher levels, gaining greater benefits.

It's really mechanically no different than a system that has a leveled spread of the soulmelds with their stats for the amount of essentia invested on that level listed. Anything that scales can be represented by ability levels and whether they've chosen to is of little importance to me.


In mechanical terms, Psionics is one houserule away (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) from functioning exactly like a less powerful spellcasting system, and vice versa. It's not a good example of a system distinct from Vancian casting.

Uhm, that's not Vancian casting anymore. I feel like you're spreading the meaning of "Vancian casting" thin overall. Anything can be called "Vancian casting". Melee attacks?

Well, you get new attacks on 6, 11, 16 so it's like you've got 4 levels of melee attacks with varying bonuses, and in the meanwhile your bonuses increase. Further, you can learn variety of special attacks as you level-up. It's the same as Vancian casting!


Celerity, Contingency.

I'm sure I could find more. There may be less core spells dedicated to this than there are maneuvers, but this is because spells have a widely greater variety of functions than maneuvers do - because Wizards designed maneuvers with a stronger eye for maintaining mechanical balance, rather than effects diversity or 'rule of cool'.

Celerity and Contingency have nothing to do with altering other spells, though Contingency does tie to other spells in that it can be used to trigger them. And Celerity can be used to...well, do whatever.

They don't modify any spells in any way though, they just break action economy. In my eyes, they have nothing to do with boosting spells.


Stoneskin is a state you're in - it's a state where your skin is as hard as adamantine. Giant Growth is a state you're in - it makes you big! And so on.

No, it's an enhancement that lasts for a duration and then goes away. They can also be used simultaneously, which pretty much breaks the metaphor. The whole point of stances is that you know a variety of stances, but you can only use one at a time.


Buffs can be used to define your role in a battle far better than Stances, because they offer far more mechanical diversity and power than stances. The rest is flavor, which as ToB shows us, is highly mutable in regards to such abilities.

There are, certainly, balance advantages to limiting the power and application of self-buffs. But this, like so many other features of the maneuver system, are simply corrections to a spell system in order to promote balance by weakening the effects.

Balance? How would it ever make sense for you to be able to make someone else assume a combat stance? To me it feels like it has nothing to do with balance and everything to do with common sense.

You can cast buffs on anyone, but you can't enable someone to assume a fighting stance he's not familiar with mid-combat.


I'm 'coming from' fourth edition D&D, where every class follows the maneuver system template originally concieved of in Tome of Battle - having played a game in which Wizards and Clerics are, mechanically, types of Warblades or Swordsages, helps to promote the understanding of the similarities between casting and the maneuver system, and Wizards' ultimate intent behind and for both.

Yes, but they don't use Vancian Casting anymore. Vancian Casting was specifically abolished in 4.0. If Warblades and Swordsages are similar to 4e way things work, how can you compare them to something that specifically was removed from 4e?

And honestly, I'd rather take my Wizards with prepared slots, adepts with a bunch of readied maneuvers and psions with PPs than have everyone use similar systems.


The distinction is how quickly their abilities refresh, and of course the ability lists themselves and some other implementation details which we're currently discussing.

They aren't really very distinct.

How is this different from saying "standard melee attacks refresh immediately but they still refresh, so they're like spellcasting"? To me, how the refreshment works makes every bit of difference.

You can't prepare a maneuver more than once since you can either be ready or not ready to use a maneuver. Either way, after using the maneuver, you aren't in a position from which you could reinitiate the same maneuver. Similar restrictions simply don't apply to spells.


Your 'reposition' using the Adaptive Style feat, is effectively a 'repreparation'. Your wording is a matter of character flavor, and is very nice, but how is it relevant in the context of the rules themselves?

Because it's one of the things separating how spellcasting and maneuvers work. Maneuvers have separate limitations and allowances from spells; Vancian casting is more than "bunch of prepared abilities you can use and recoup", which is why I'm arguing they're a different system.


The 'can't prepare the same maneuver twice' thing is another excellent power-reduction to casting that carried over into 4th edition - it prevents players from picking their most potent abilities and spamming them.

I suppose you could explain it as a mechanical handicap, or a stroke of rationality; to me it makes no sense that you'd somehow "ready" the same strike multiple times. There are positions that enable certain strikes, but either the position enables a strike or it does not. There's no such thing as a position that "enables a strike twice".


Perhaps I'm confusing this with 4th edition, but I thought maneuver-users had to rest, or otherwise have some sort of break at the end of encounters to recover maneuvers?

Non-Adepts need a ~minute to recoup the maneuvers IIRC. Martial Adepts can all rather swiftly recoup whatever they've got.


I'm sure there are many possible ways to look at it.

But only one is in clear alignment with Wizards' design intent as can be seen in their later design work in D&D.

Maneuvers are powers - and the power system is watered-down vancian casting.

To me, power system = throw Vancian casting out of the window, take per level abilities and rewrite how they can be used, accrued, recouped, what types exist and so on. I guess our fundamental disagreement comes from what "Vancian casting" means. To me it means...well, what it meant in Basic.


The Weapon-Implement abstraction for powers is another refinement of the system that you can see in 4th edition: Weapon powers require weapons, spells require Implements in the same sense.

This is 3.5 we're talking though. No implements for spells. I'm not arguing that 4e Wizards didn't copy the maneuver system.


Maneuvers are level-tiered - just with less power differential between them. They refresh through the cessation of combat rather than an extended rest, and 'being prepared' just means in both cases that you can use them - with the additional, and systemic, distinction that the maneuver equivalent is less powerful and versatile for the sake of balance.

In my eyes, "being readied" is a necessary limitation for martial combat to make sense. Likewise, for spells it would make no sense. In a similar vein, I feel that having one pool in which you have all the attacks you know makes a lot of sense for maneuvers while having leveled, tiered slots works for casting. But as I said, to me Vancian casting means much more than just "bunch of prepared abilities; higher level, stronger abilities".

[Typewriter]

I would have to disagree here. Whenever anyone on this forum asks for a fighter fix, the first few responses will almost always be "Use a Warblade" even if the poster specifically states he/she isn't using TOB.

To say it compliments core classes is just wrong. Once TOB is used, the melee classes are only there for dips. Few (if any) as it is would go Fighter 20, when TOB is added theres even less reason to stick with one class. If you might think this is good, fair enough, but not everyone considers it good design if a class is only any good for dipping.

Personally, I think the core melee classes aren't designed well, and I just don't feel TOB is the answer for me personally. But what annoys me is that some folk just can't accept that. As said plenty of times, if I post any time of martial query I will get TOB responses, even if I ask not to.


I agree completely. I like this forum a lot, but I will never post anywhere near as much as I would like because I've learned that this board favors a few ideas over others, and disagreeing generally just gets you harassed.

I like monks, I don't like ToB.

I don't mind stating those opinions, but I would never post a question on this board about a monk I was building, and I generally try to avoid stating my opinion on ToB because it's not the popular opinion, and therefore ignored and/or 'corrected'.

[Thrawn183]

*snip*
To say it compliments core classes is just wrong. Once TOB is used, the melee classes are only there for dips. Few (if any) as it is would go Fighter 20, when TOB is added theres even less reason to stick with one class. If you might think this is good, fair enough, but not everyone considers it good design if a class is only any good for dipping.

*snip*

I would go Fighter 20 when ToB is added. I wouldn't go Fighter 20 if it was a choice of ToB or core only, but I would love to play Fighter 20 with Comp. War. and PHB II. I'd also play Warblade 10/Fighter 10 (though not in that order).

I do not think the core base classes become "dip only" when ToB is introduced.

[Frosty]

I would have to disagree here. Whenever anyone on this forum asks for a fighter fix, the first few responses will almost always be "Use a Warblade" even if the poster specifically states he/she isn't using TOB.

To say it compliments core classes is just wrong. Once TOB is used, the melee classes are only there for dips. Few (if any) as it is would go Fighter 20, when TOB is added theres even less reason to stick with one class. If you might think this is good, fair enough, but not everyone considers it good design if a class is only any good for dipping.

Personally, I think the core melee classes aren't designed well, and I just don't feel TOB is the answer for me personally. But what annoys me is that some folk just can't accept that. As said plenty of times, if I post any time of martial query I will get TOB responses, even if I ask not to.

What's more, I'll be pestered with posts asking me to justify why I don't like it. If I say my DM disallows it, he/she will be called unreasonable even if I agree with the DM.

To Summerize:
Like TOB? Good for you. Some people don't though, get over it

Just a side note, that last part isn't directed to anyone in particular, just to this topic as a whole. Really, the fact that a topic like this lasts so many pages doesn't strike me as a good thing.

Even before ToB was added, Fighter was a 2 to 6-level dip class for me. NO reason at all to keep sticking to it.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I do not think the core base classes become "dip only" when ToB is introduced.

Fighter, Barb, and Monk were dip-only before ToB for me.

[quick_comment]

Even without ToB, there is little, if any reason, to take more than 6 levels of fighter.

[Yukitsu]

6 is a bit much innit? I've never taken more than 2, because I can't bring myself to take 3.

[Mushroom Ninja]

6 is a bit much innit? I've never taken more than 2, because I can't bring myself to take 3.

Dungeoncrasher can justify 6 iirc.

[quick_comment]

6 is a bit much innit? I've never taken more than 2, because I can't bring myself to take 3.

As said above, dungeoncrasher. And 3 levels? Nobody takes 3 levels. Odd levels of fighter = sad.

[Eldariel]

As said above, dungeoncrasher. And 3 levels? Nobody takes 3 levels. Odd levels of fighter = sad.

Aside from Zhentarim Fighter subs. Indeed, those give Fighter class features up to level 9. You'll eat up one dead level, but you'll be pretty well off overall. Few nice ACFs exist on higher levels, but you'll be eating up dead levels from 11 onwards.

[Doc Roc]

Dungeoncrasher can justify 6 iirc.

Seconded. Dungeoncrasher isn't incredible all the time, but if you're in a situation where it works, it really shines.

I really think that fighters should get the Zhentarim and Dungeoncrasher ACFs for free.

[Nero24200]

I think you all seem to be missing the point, dip classes or no, introducing TOB only makes them dip classes moreso. It doesn't "Fix" them.

[Lycanthromancer]

I think you all seem to be missing the point, dip classes or no, introducing TOB only makes them dip classes moreso. It doesn't "Fix" them.

The only way to fix the fighter is to replace it with something else.

Because, really, the fighter is terrible. 45% dead levels, terribad skills, and supremely sucky, horrible-scaling 'class features' that pigeonhole him into one or two sub-par roles that are 100% useless outside of combat.

Oh, wait. Looks like the warblade DID replace it. Ergo, it's a fighter fix (and a darned good one, too).

[quick_comment]

I think you all seem to be missing the point, dip classes or no, introducing TOB only makes them dip classes moreso. It doesn't "Fix" them.

Sure it does. Ban the fighter, monk and paladin, replace them with the warblade, swordsage and crusader, and then rename them back to fighter monk and paladin.

[Nero24200]

The only way to fix the fighter is to replace it with something else.

Because, really, the fighter is terrible. 45% dead levels, terribad skills, and supremely sucky, horrible-scaling 'class features' that pigeonhole him into one or two sub-par roles that are 100% useless outside of combat.

Oh, wait. Looks like the warblade DID replace it. Ergo, it's a fighter fix (and a darned good one, too).

See, this is exactly what I mean, right here. I agree that the fighter and other martial classes weren't the best designed, but that ain't the point! If I want to use them in place of TOB, I should be able to do so without having to justify myself at all.

But that doesn't happen on this forum. If someone wants advice on playing a fighter, rather than getting a list of decent feats or ACF, they get "play a warblade".

Why can't people here just accept that it's not for everyone? Why this almost obessive need to have everyone approve of this book? If you all really think it's that great, you shouldn't need these 11 page topics justifying them, you shouldn't need to go on about how great they are every time the melee vrs caster debate comes up.

[Lycanthromancer]

See, this is exactly what I mean, right here. I agree that the fighter and other martial classes weren't the best designed, but that ain't the point! If I want to use them in place of TOB, I should be able to do so without having to justify myself at all.

But that doesn't happen on this forum. If someone wants advice on playing a fighter, rather than getting a list of decent feats or ACF, they get "play a warblade".

Why can't people here just accept that it's not for everyone? Why this almost obessive need to have everyone approve of this book? If you all really think it's that great, you shouldn't need these 11 page topics justifying them, you shouldn't need to go on about how great they are every time the melee vrs caster debate comes up.

My post was in response to this:


I think you all seem to be missing the point, dip classes or no, introducing TOB only makes them dip classes moreso. It doesn't "Fix" them.

It does fix them. By replacing them wholesale.

Whether you like it or not is neither here nor there.

[Nero24200]

It does fix them. By replacing them wholesale.

Whether you like it or not is neither here nor there.

Erm...no it doesn't replace them. It's a splatbook, not errata. I can accept that others might like TOB, even if I don't. It seems to be the TOB fans that can't accept that some people still prefer fighters to warblades, monks to swordsages and paladins to crusaders.

You're right though, I don't like them, but I readily acknowledge that it is simply because of my playing. I dislike the approach the fans take far more, since the idea that some people might have problems with it seem alien to them.

No everyone considers them fixes.

[wadledo]

I don't consider half the errata's they have actual fixes.
Does that make you wrong?:smallconfused:

[Thurbane]

It does fix them. By replacing them wholesale.

Whether you like it or not is neither here nor there.
But that is one of the issues some of us are raising - whether we like it or not is precisely relevant to the point. Several of us have raised this exact point as part of the reason why we don't use or don't like ToB. Introducing non-core classes that do what the core classes do, but better isn't a fix some of us like.

[Sinfire Titan]

But that is one of the issues some of us are raising - whether we like it or not is precisely relevant to the point. Several of us have raised this exact point as part of the reason why we don't use or don't like ToB. Introducing non-core classes that do what the core classes do, but better isn't a fix some of us like.

...Then why use any fix, at all? No matter what it says on the tin, any changes turn it from the original class into a new class with similar mechanics.

Tome of Battle accepted this by giving you three new classes with entirely new mechanics that just happened to do things better than the originals. This may or may not have been the point of the classes, but it happened.

Don't call it a replacement. Call it new.

[Typewriter]

I don't like ToB because of a few unimportant reasons that most would consider to be invalid. I don't like the mechanics of it. I don't like the fact that melee types get to heal one round by stabbing someone, then stab someone else the next round and do 1000000 damage. I just don't like it.

My experiences so far:

I want to play a fighter in a campaign where ToB is disallowed. I am effective and I fill a role. Everything out of combat is roleplaying. I don't pick locks, I don't heal. I don't do anything worthwhile besides stab things somewhat well in the middle of combat. I feel like a member of the party.

Or

I want to paly a fighter in a campaign where ToB is allowed. I am just as effective as before, but someone else in the party is playing ANY class from ToB. He is not only much more effective than me in combat, but he is also a much more well rounded character. The rest of the party relies on him much more than me and everyone says I should reroll something better.

My options are:
1. Keep playing fighters and be useless (in comparison to ToB classes)
2. 'Get over myself' and play a ToB class (even though I don't want to)
3. Stop playing melee

So...yay....

And for the record I am one of the people who enjoys playing melee without changing the fighter all the time. I use the 'straight out of the book' fighter most of the time, sometimes using a variant. I think it's fun. I don't care if the wizard is better than me. I still wield the sword that makes the things fall down.

I did still wield that sword. I don't like ToB, but that's not the problem. There are a LOT of things I don't like. I'm a very bitter person. The problem is that - thanks to ToB I can't really play a fighter(or a monk or paladin which I both enjoy as well) without being outdone by someone who is completely brand new to D&D who chose Crusader at someones urging. Yay me. Oh, and what's even better than that is that if I do ever want help putting together a fighter online, or want to ask questions about the fighter, then I can't do that anymore either because instead of answering my questions or helping me people try to convince me that I'm in the wrong and proceed to explain to me how my opinions are wrong.

Awesome.

[quick_comment]

I don't like ToB because of a few unimportant reasons that most would consider to be invalid. I don't like the mechanics of it. I don't like the fact that melee types get to heal one round by stabbing someone, then stab someone else the next round and do 1000000 damage. I just don't like it.


ToB does less damage than uberchargers. They just do more consistent damage.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

The problem is that - thanks to ToB I can't really play a fighter(or a monk or paladin which I both enjoy as well) without being outdone by someone who is completely brand new to D&D who chose Crusader at someones urging.

Gishes, Druids, and melee clerics must really annoy you as well.


Oh, and what's even better than that is that if I do ever want help putting together a fighter online, or want to ask questions about the fighter, then I can't do that anymore either because instead of answering my questions or helping me people try to convince me that I'm in the wrong and proceed to explain to me how my opinions are wrong.

Awesome.
1. So people behaving poorly is ToB's fault?
2. A lot of people said to avoid fighters *before* ToB came out. It seems that people avoiding fighters is a product of the class being poorly designed, not because of ToB.

But if you like fighters, fine.

[FinalJustice]

Well, that's kind of the same that happens when someone wants to play a Sorcerer and there's a Wizard in a party. On when someone plays a Druid in a party and you're the fighter. Or a melee Cleric.

I can see your point as the ToB'ers are straight in your turf, but if you do not mind a Core spellcaster outdoing you, it's kind of a double standard to be resentful of a ToBer. Just apply the same logic, pick something and be the best at it. Fighters do that well, and there's plenty of good non ToB melee advice and builds going on. Lockdown, Dungeoncrasher, Ubercharger, Swfit Hunter, etc... etc...

People can be actually be a pain with the whole 'ToB is teh best', but ToB enthusiast also get their share of 'ToB is teh ultimate borkeness'. The extremists are the annoying bunch, as usual.

[Starbuck_II]

1. So people behaving poorly is ToB's fault?
2. A lot of people said to avoid fighters *before* ToB came out. It seems that people avoiding fighters is a product of the class being poorly designed, not because of ToB.

But if you like fighters, fine.

Agreed.
PHB 2 made people say fighters don't have to suck. No one ever said: now fighters are great!
So basically instead of saying, " Fighters don't get nice things", they instead say use TOB.
Same thing didn't meme.

[Typewriter]

Gishes, Druids, and melee clerics must really annoy you as well.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote. I even said in my post that most of the reasons I don't like ToB would be considered 'invalid', and I acknowledge that. I don't like the mechanics, I don't like ease (if you have a party full of unoptimizers and one person is using ToB who do you think is the most useful party member? It's not the blaster wizard), I don't like the fluff or what really, really sounds to me like casting via stabbin (I know everyone is rolling their eyes at reading this, but I already said I acknowledge you all considering my reasons 'invalid').

I don't like the book. Druids, gishes, and melee clerics are usually okay with me. I suppose that if ToB didn't exist and I asked people for advice on building a fighter and I was told to be a druid I'd be annoyed, but probably not as much.



1. So people behaving poorly is ToB's fault?
2. A lot of people said to avoid fighters *before* ToB came out. It seems that people avoiding fighters is a product of the class being poorly designed, not because of ToB.

But if you like fighters, fine.

Those points were made geared towards the people who were saying things like 'It does fix them. By replacing them wholesale.'

They are right. I was agreeing with what they said. Fighters, monks, and paladins have been replaced, and as someone who likes those original classes I get to sit back, keep my mouth shut, and look at the 'replacement' with a smile on my face, because the alternative is to be 'corrected'.

I don't like ToB for my own reasons and that's my choice. I don't get to talk about the classes I do enjoy because my opinion differs from that of most people, and that is NOT my choice.

ToB did not make people behave poorly. It did just as Lycanthromancer said. It replaced them. And for those of us that enjoy the base classes that really sucks :(

[Sinfire Titan]

I don't like ToB because of a few unimportant reasons that most would consider to be invalid. I don't like the mechanics of it. I don't like the fact that melee types get to heal one round by stabbing someone, then stab someone else the next round and do 1000000 damage. I just don't like it.

They can't do this. Crusaders are the only ones with relevant healing abilities (Iron Heart has 1, I repeat: 1, very limited healing ability). They also lack the feats needed to pull off the Charger build damage (which, BTW, is around 260/swing, assuming a *13 Power Attack ratio and Shock Trooper for 20). They can get around 80+base damage/attack, but it requires them to forgo most of their best feats to do so. They will more likely be doing around 40+base damage. Strikes will do around 90 or so, but they can only use 1 strike/round without getting extra actions.

Warblades can get about 600 damage/round, but its actually 1200 damage after a full round of doing nothing but charging the laser. This requires one very specific build (focused around Stormguard Warrior) and for the Warblade to live through a full round of taking hits.

Swordsage aren't doing 10k/round. They do the same thing Crusaders do, just with a little more style. Pun intended.


I want to play a fighter in a campaign where ToB is disallowed. I am effective and I fill a role. Everything out of combat is roleplaying. I don't pick locks, I don't heal. I don't do anything worthwhile besides stab things somewhat well in the middle of combat. I feel like a member of the party.

And the PsiWar mocks you for being a Fighter. As does the Ranger (who, BTW, is Tier 4 without Wildshape variant, whereas you are Tier 5).

You know why people say Druids get a Fighter at 1st level? They get the equivalent of a Tier 5 character that allows them to cast two spells for the price of one slot (Share Spell effectively does this, do not argue this point with me).

So it's like having your own pet Fighter at the cost of the Fighter's Int score, but it comes with class features that kick ass (such as improved Nat Armor, free TWFing, faster ability score increases, free Size categories if you weaken its ability scores a little, and an awesome class feature that effectively says "hey Druid, here's a butt monkey who doubles your spell slots!". And he doesn't eat any more XP than a summoned monster.


I want to paly a fighter in a campaign where ToB is allowed. I am just as effective as before, but someone else in the party is playing ANY class from ToB. He is not only much more effective than me in combat, but he is also a much more well rounded character. The rest of the party relies on him much more than me and everyone says I should reroll something better.

And you very well should if you want to remain relevant to the party.

BTW, PsiWar still laughs at you. Ranger still beats you in Tier for a reason, and the Animal Companion is still more relevant than you are. And the Totemist. And Incarnate.


My options are:
1. Keep playing fighters and be useless (in comparison to ToB classes)
2. 'Get over myself' and play a ToB class (even though I don't want to)
3. Stop playing melee

4: Play a PsiWar.
5: Play a Ranger or Wildshape Ranger.
6: Play a full Meldshaper
7: Play the druid's animal companion.



And for the record I am one of the people who enjoys playing melee without changing the fighter all the time. I use the 'straight out of the book' fighter most of the time, sometimes using a variant. I think it's fun. I don't care if the wizard is better than me. I still wield the sword that makes the things fall down.

Again, play something that doesn't say the word "Fighter" in the title.


I did still wield that sword. I don't like ToB, but that's not the problem. There are a LOT of things I don't like. I'm a very bitter person. The problem is that - thanks to ToB I can't really play a fighter(or a monk or paladin which I both enjoy as well) without being outdone by someone who is completely brand new to D&D who chose Crusader at someones urging. Yay me. Oh, and what's even better than that is that if I do ever want help putting together a fighter online, or want to ask questions about the fighter, then I can't do that anymore either because instead of answering my questions or helping me people try to convince me that I'm in the wrong and proceed to explain to me how my opinions are wrong.

Then play something that wasn't 1-uped by a Warblade. The Ranger contends with the Tiger Claw style on sheer virtue that the Ranger can use Ranged Combat efficiently thanks to a class feature (something the Warblade has to dip or spend feats on). His spells actually do a good job of keeping him relevant throughout the game (thanks to the Spell Compendium). Hell, he even has an official variant that makes him better than the Warblade in some areas (Wildshape) and a homebrew variant that makes him equal to the Warblade (Sublime, thanks to Tempest Stormwind).


Get your head out of the idea that the Fighter is the only way to properly express your character concept. It isn't, and it never has been (Core Ranger and Barbarian are better than the Fighter thanks to actual class features).

[Typewriter]

Fighter is not the only way to express my character concepts, it is simply the best example I could give for the argument I was trying to make (Monk, yes broken, worthless Monk, is my actual favorite class to play) which is that ANYONE who wants to play a fighter should be allowed to without being harassed, or told to play something different.

I understand the argument people are making. Class X is better than class Y. Class X is completely worhtless because XYZ. Yes, math proves it time and time again. Everything in the world is better than fighter. OK.

The few times I've gotten a chance to play (and not just have to DM) over the last 8 years I've usually wound up playing with people who have played blaster mages, rogues who focus on spring attack (only getting 1 SA a round), and clerics who focus on healing. A fighter or a monk isn't the best thing in the world, but I don't need to play the best thing in the world with that party.

When I make a post saying that I'm looking for certain ideas, whether it be for a monk, a fighter, an ogre sorceror with 6 charisma or anything else the default response should not be 'Play something else because it's better'. Talking about what's best and who is better than who, and where each class falls on the (incredibly stupid, annoying, and worthless) tier system is not at all relevant or necessary.

I understand that RAW is what people like to talk about on this forum, and there is nothing wrong with that, and that is why I *usually* don't participate in talks invovling things like ToB.

But this thread has people discussing opinion on ToB as if it were fact, and it got brought up by Nero that you can't ask for help on this forum with certain classes because rather than help you, you get ridiculed and/or 'corrected'. People don't make posts looking for RAW argument on what's the best or the strongest, they make posts asking for helpin finding feats/magic items/etc.


ToB is 'better'/more powerful for regular Melee. I don't disagree

That does not mean that I should like it or have to like it.
That does not mean I should be 'corrected' for not liking it.

The argument also stands to reason for all 'suggestions'. The subject matter was about ToB, and honestly, ToB is the most common thing I see people 'correcting' others with, so it really is the best to make the argument against.

If I make a post saying that I'm making a character with X class and I request help finding a feat/skill/power/waffle iron/hair curler/magic item/cake
telling me about how ranger does it better, ToB does it better, barbarian does it better, etc. etc. does not help me.

I do not like ToB, and I consider it to be the worst offender for easily overshadowing (see replacing) certain classes, in addition to being the most commonly (and annoyingly) referenced book that people are directed to when they ask questions that are completely unrelated, even when the topic creator specifically mentioned not wanting to change classes or even think about ToB.




Things were broken and unbalanced long before ToB came around, but that doesn't make 'helping people' and more 'helpful'.

[SparkMandriller]

When I make a post saying that I'm looking for certain ideas, whether it be for a monk, a fighter, an ogre sorceror with 6 charisma or anything else the default response should not be 'Play something else because it's better'.

If it's any consolation, I doubt anyone enjoys you blowing off their advice after you asked for help. You're at least not alone in being unhappy!

[Pharaoh's Fist]

When I make a post saying that I'm looking for certain ideas, whether it be for a monk, a fighter, an ogre sorceror with 6 charisma or anything else the default response should not be 'Play something else because it's better'.
What should the proper response be to someone who wants to play an ogre sorcerer with a Charisma of 6 be?

[Sinfire Titan]

What should the proper response be to someone who wants to play an ogre sorcerer with a Charisma of 6 be?

Exactly. It's serious Fridge Logic here: You're gimped beyond use because of your race, and you can't contribute to combat at the mid-levels because of your class.


In other words: Useless character who is going to die. Not worth keeping around as he will just become an XP Sink. When the rest of the PCs realize this, they will likely gank you or ask you to have the character retired peacefully. Odds are ganking, seeing as they will recover some of the lost XP this way.

[Thurbane]

I think Typewriter's point (and the point of the OP) is that sometimes people offering ToB advice can be a little over zealous, even when people post that ToB isn't available in the game they play in.

I don't think anybody would fault someone for suggesting something from the ToB if they believe it would be a major benefit for the build being discussed - it's only when they go OTT and refuse to accept no for an answer that it becomes a problem. In a LOT of threads where people specifically mention "no ToB allowed" in their build question, someone will still say they should use ToB, and often that the DM/group are foolish for not using ToB.

Also, some people tend be be a little aggressive/insulting of the reasons why people don't like or don't use ToB. Just because you use something and think it's great, doesn't mean that everybody has to share your POV.

[Typewriter]

So your party absolutely must accept that you want to play a character who cannot contribute meaningfully to their goals? Or do the casters, gishes, skillmonkeys, and everyone else have to hold themselves back to match your preferred style of play? The DM absolutely must rework encounters to accomodate your almost-useless character?

No. That's you being stubborn, narrow-minded, and rude, IMO. Could your character concept be replaced by a character better suited to fitting in with your party and contributing meaningfully? Yes. Do you use it? No? Why? Because you don't like to? Wow, I'm sure your teammates really appreciate that.

I suppose I could quote myself, but then you would just ignore the same thing twice, so I'll go ahead and explain myself again.

In the groups I played with before I would play fighters.

Everything was OK. I wasn't the best, but I fulfilled a party role, and everything was OK.

My group got ToB. Someone in my group rolled up some ToB class(I don't remember which one to be honest).

Everyone points at the fighter class and says 'That sucks, and is useless'.

People try to convince me to reroll as something useful(even though I was just fine a couple lines up). I am sad, because I like fighters. Me=:smallfrown:

SUMMARY - Fighters were never the best, but they were usually somewhat viable, then ToB came out and replaced monk, pally, fighter with classes that myself(and others) don't like. Boohoo for me, play something different, and stop caring that the class you enjoyed is now considered worthless in comparison.

I wasn't a part of this forum before ToB came out, so all I know are the changes that came over groups I'm aware of in real life, which is that (while everything was OK before) fighters/monks/paladins are (now) worthless.


If it's any consolation, I doubt anyone enjoys you blowing off their advice after you asked for help. You're at least not alone in being unhappy!

I don't know if you haven't seen threads like this:

Topic Creator: I want to play a fighter, what are some good feats/builds/etc? Please don't mention ToB as my DM doesn't allow it.
Poster 1: Warblade
Poster 2: His DM says it's not allowed.
Poster 1: Tell your DM he's doing it wrong. Warblade.
Poster 3: Seriously, what's wrong with your DM? Theres nothing wrong with ToB? He probably thinks it's broken. Play a wizard, and show him what's really broken!
Poster 4: Actual advice
Poster 5: IHS the DM away and take warblade anyway

Threads like that exist. That's not advice. Telling people what to do when they ask questions *unrelated* to the answers you're giving is not advice.

Preteen: Dad, dad - my 'special time' is here for the first time...what should I do?
Father: Go be a boy, then you won't have to worry about that.

Girl calling 911: My father is dying, what the F*** should I do?
911 Operator: You need to stop cursing at 911 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj91eeoFOBk&feature=player_embedded)

Poster: I love monks, is there a way to play as a monk and get a full attack at the end of a charge!!!
Other Posters: Monks are the worst class ever/Play a ToB!(Swordsage I think is the one people always try to pawn off on monk lovers?)


What should the proper response be to someone who wants to play an ogre sorcerer with a Charisma of 6 be?

Play a Crusader!

I actually got nothing on that one. I'd probably remind that poster of the rules about casting as a CHA based caster with stats that low (IE it's impossible until you pump all your points into it from leveling, get some tomes, and a cha item). Then I would go tak a nap or eat a cake. Probably eat a cake.


EDIT:


I think Typewriter's point (and the point of the OP) is that sometimes people offering ToB advice can be a little over zealous, even when people post that ToB isn't available in the game they play in.

I don't think anybody would fault someone for suggesting something from the ToB if they believe it would be a major benefit for the build being discussed - it's only when they go OTT and refuse to accept no for an answer that it becomes a problem. In a LOT of threads where people specifically mention "no ToB allowed" in their build question, someone will still say they should use ToB, and often that the DM/group are foolish for not using ToB.

Also, some people tend be be a little aggressive/insulting of the reasons why people don't like or don't use ToB. Just because you use something and think it's great, doesn't mean that everybody has to share your POV.

Exactly.

[SparkMandriller]

Stop being reasonable Thurbane, we're trying to laugh at the ogre sorcerer.

Being reasonable is booooooring.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

The cake is a lie.

[Thurbane]

I don't know if you haven't seen threads like this:

Topic Creator: I want to play a fighter, what are some good feats/builds/etc? Please don't mention ToB as my DM doesn't allow it.
Poster 1: Warblade
Poster 2: His DM says it's not allowed.
Poster 1: Tell your DM he's doing it wrong. Warblade.
Poster 3: Seriously, what's wrong with your DM? Theres nothing wrong with ToB? He probably thinks it's broken. Play a wizard, and show him what's really broken!
Poster 4: Actual advice
Poster 5: IHS the DM away and take warblade anyway
QFT.

This happens. A lot, unfortunately. :smallfrown:

[Kylarra]

QFT.

This happens. A lot, unfortunately. :smallfrown:
Other than the whole "ur doin it rong" aspect, people fail to read the limitations in OPS a lot when offering advice. It's like buzzwords -> generic responses.

ToB just happens to be one of the more common offenders.

[DragoonWraith]

I suppose I could quote myself, but then you would just ignore the same thing twice, so I'll go ahead and explain myself again.

In the groups I played with before I would play fighters.

Everything was OK. I wasn't the best, but I fulfilled a party role, and everything was OK.

My group got ToB. Someone in my group rolled up some ToB class(I don't remember which one to be honest).

Everyone points at the fighter class and says 'That sucks, and is useless'.

People try to convince me to reroll as something useful(even though I was just fine a couple lines up). I am sad, because I like fighters. Me=:smallfrown:

SUMMARY - Fighters were never the best, but they were usually somewhat viable, then ToB came out and replaced monk, pally, fighter with classes that myself(and others) don't like. Boohoo for me, play something different, and stop caring that the class you enjoyed is now considered worthless in comparison.

I wasn't a part of this forum before ToB came out, so all I know are the changes that came over groups I'm aware of in real life, which is that (while everything was OK before) fighters/monks/paladins are (now) worthless.
I'm sorry you even saw that post; I deleted it because I realized I was being very rude. My apologies for that.

Anyway, since you did see it, I'd ask if you ever played with a Druid? Because if so... it's hard to imagine you filling a role any better than his bear. Or whatever. This was a problem in Core. It has always been a problem. Tome of Battle is the fix. The Warblade is a Fighter - just a fixed one. One that can contribute. I literally cannot imagine any character concept fulfilled by Fighter that is not fulfilled, better, as a Warblade. Why couldn't you just keep your character, exchange all his Fighter levels for Warblade levels, and continue to play as normal, except that you actually get to contribute? Warblade is just Fighter 2.0.

[Thurbane]

Other than the whole "ur doin it rong" aspect, people fail to read the limitations in OPS a lot when offering advice. It's like buzzwords -> generic responses.

ToB just happens to be one of the more common offenders.
True - people often miss stipulations in the OP. No harm, no foul. :smallwink:

[wadledo]

Let me tell you a story.

I own a bookstore, and one day this summer, a group of 20 somethings came in and looked though my books.
One of the books they found was an old "internet safety tips" book.
In that book, one of them found the advice of "If your child sees something that you find offensive, go on to the site, find their email address and inform them of the problem."
The woman then made the comment of "Oh my! (said in an older woman's voice) Dear 4chan, I found your depiction of *scrubbed* very offensive, and would like you to remove from the sight that picture."

This is essentially what I see you saying.
You find it offensive that people on the internet don't read one line of your post and instantly parrot well known, and for the most part, well liked advice.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Because if so... it's hard to imagine you filling a role any better than his bear
Archery. Charging.

Granted, archery is a bad idea due to Wind Wall, but charging's good if you can bypass rough terrain somehow (flight, jumping).

[Quietus]

I love how after 11 pages, the thread comes back around to the topic it was started on. :smallcool:

Many of the most recent responses point out the entire reason I started this thread, by perpetuating the implied suggestion that using the core classes is wrong, you should replace A B C with X Y Z. That's not a fix, in my opinion; It changes the classes entirely, leaving you with mutable fluff (which has always existed), but a set of mechanics which feels entirely different from what the original class had. Sure, I could make a Crusader... but then I can't smite evil, or summon a warhorse, or lay on hands. I could make a Warblade, but then I don't get to choose several feat trees and completely customize the feel of my character, and the mechanics of how it works as opposed to other fighters. I could play a swordsage, but now I don't get to use flurry of blows, nor can I gain immunity to diseases/poisons, or get insane speed boosts.

Are the ToB classes stronger in each of these classes? Certainly. That doesn't make them a fix. That would be like saying that you could "fix" the sorcerer by banning it, and using a Wizard instead.

It's been said more eloquently than I did; The fact that even when you say "I want to build a fighter, I'm not allowed to use ToB, here's my idea", you'll get responses that involve "Get your DM to allow ToB, it's so good!"... when that was clearly something you asked not to hear. And that drives me up a wall.

[Teron]

They can't do this. Warblades can get about 600 damage/round, but its actually 1200 damage after a full round of doing nothing but charging the laser. This requires one very specific build (focused around Stormguard Warrior) and for the Warblade to live through a full round of taking hits.
Do you have a link to this build, by any chance?

[Sinfire Titan]

I love how after 11 pages, the thread comes back around to the topic it was started on. :smallcool:

Many of the most recent responses point out the entire reason I started this thread, by perpetuating the implied suggestion that using the core classes is wrong, you should replace A B C with X Y Z. That's not a fix, in my opinion; It changes the classes entirely, leaving you with mutable fluff (which has always existed), but a set of mechanics which feels entirely different from what the original class had. Sure, I could make a Crusader... but then I can't smite evil, or summon a warhorse, or lay on hands.

Smite is a class feature (and Divine Surge). Wild Cohort gets you an effing horse. Lay on Hands is replaced by healing strikes.


I could make a Warblade, but then I don't get to choose several feat trees and completely customize the feel of my character, and the mechanics of how it works as opposed to other fighters.

Many of the Tiger Claw, Iron Heart, and Diamond Mind maneuvers can be refluffed to be identical to feats. Hell, Adamantine Hurricane and Mithral Tornado are just Whirlwind Attack given a new name and upgrades.


I could play a swordsage, but now I don't get to use flurry of blows, nor can I gain immunity to diseases/poisons, or get insane speed boosts.

Flashing Sun, a Desert Wind strike, is Flurry of Blows. Avalanche of Blades and Time Stands Still (both Diamond Mind) are the next step up. Insane speed is Desert Wind's thing, but a stance from Iron Heart actually does give a speed boost. Immunity to poison is a racial trait (Warforged, Necropolitan) or a magic item, and Immunity to disease is Martial Study (IHS).


Are the ToB classes stronger in each of these classes? Certainly. That doesn't make them a fix. That would be like saying that you could "fix" the sorcerer by banning it, and using a Wizard instead.

That's similar in respect, but Tier 1's can replace anyone. We've been over this before. That said, the Sorcerer does have a niche to fill: GOD's little brother. A well played Sorcerer is just about on-par with the Wizard (minus flexibility).


It's been said more eloquently than I did; The fact that even when you say "I want to build a fighter, I'm not allowed to use ToB, here's my idea", you'll get responses that involve "Get your DM to allow ToB, it's so good!"... when that was clearly something you asked not to hear. And that drives me up a wall.

This is inevitable. Being irritated over it is like being frustrated about having to breath.

Edit:


Do you have a link to this build, by any chance?

For a Stormsurge build? Not at the moment due to BG being down and Gleemax eating my posts. I'll dig a little, see if I can pull it up.

I know it involves TWFing, Stormguard Warrior, Robilar's Gambit, Karmic Strike, Avalanche of Blades, Time Stands Still, and the Tiger Claw boost that gets you 4 additional attacks. Quicksilver Motion is to get adjacent to the enemy without wasting an action. Your stance should probably be Blood in the Water, but the one that grants an additional Immediate action for counters also helps (as you can initiate the counter that gives you a free AoO before an AoO and forgo that one too).

The combo itself is:

Round 1: Move adjacent to the enemy. Initiate Avalanche, replacing all attacks with Touch Attacks for Channel the Storm (Stormguard Warrior). Use Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit.

Their action: If they attack you, forgo any and all AoOs for Stormguard Warrior's benefit. Take a few hits for the team, and pray you live (should be easy if your AC and HP are decent).

Round 2: Activate Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike again. Initiate Time Stands Still. Hit them as much as possible using that strike and TWFing. Pop off the Tiger Claw boost for 4 more attacks.


Assuming everything goes well, you get a total of 12 attacks against them the second round. The damage depends on 1: Number of Touch Attacks you landed with AoB and 2: Number of times you have forsaken AoOs from Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike.

RAW behind it: You can only make so many AoOs each round, but Stormguard doesn't require you to take a single one. You forgo them all, which you can do infinitely.

Assuming you land 8 attacks with AoB (easy as hell if your attack bonus is high enough), that's +40 to the next round's attack rolls. If they take 5 attacks against you (average for a CR 20 is 4-5 attacks) and all of them hit (likely), that's 10 AoOs (11 if you used the counter and have the right stance). That translates into another +40 to attack rolls, and a +40 to damage rolls.

Time Stands Still gives you 8 attacks, with the Tiger Claw boost giving you 4 more. If your weapon is tweaked right (assuming +1/+9 with Greater Magic Weapon CL 20th each day courtesy of the friendly neighborhood Cleric/Druid/Wizard), your base damage/attack is going to be roughly 40. Add in Power Attack for 20 (you can afford it because of the extra +40 to attack rolls). At the average rate of 100 damage per attack, with 12 attacks, you will be dealing roughly 1200. The more attacks the enemy makes against you, and the more attacks land from AoB, the more damage you will deal. If you don't have Power Attack, the damage drops to an average of 960.

This isn't taking into account outside sources. If there's a Marshal Cohort in the group, or a Dragonfire Inspiration Bard around, your damage output will be able to hit the 1400s with little trouble.

Afterwards, get a Heal spell from the Cleric and repeat against the next enemy, using a basic Full Attack action and Refreshing your maneuvers in the process. Odds are, the enemies will be less likely to hit you because of the last round. But they can't afford to avoid you seeing as you are a Warblade.

[SparkMandriller]

Flashing Sun, a Desert Wind strike, is Flurry of Blows. Avalanche of Blades and Time Stands Still (both Diamond Mind) are the next step up. Insane speed is Desert Wind's thing, but a stance from Iron Heart actually does give a speed boost. Immunity to poison is a racial trait (Warforged, Necropolitan) or a magic item, and Immunity to disease is Martial Study (IHS).

But how do I talk to squirrels?


This is an important monk feature.

[Quietus]

Smite is a class feature (and Divine Surge). Wild Cohort gets you an effing horse. Lay on Hands is replaced by healing strikes.



Many of the Tiger Claw, Iron Heart, and Diamond Mind maneuvers can be refluffed to be identical to feats. Hell, Adamantine Hurricane and Mithral Tornado are just Whirlwind Attack given a new name and upgrades.



Flashing Sun, a Desert Wind strike, is Flurry of Blows. Avalanche of Blades and Time Stands Still (both Diamond Mind) are the next step up. Insane speed is Desert Wind's thing, but a stance from Iron Heart actually does give a speed boost. Immunity to poison is a racial trait (Warforged, Necropolitan) or a magic item, and Immunity to disease is Martial Study (IHS).



That's similar in respect, but Tier 1's can replace anyone. We've been over this before. That said, the Sorcerer does have a niche to fill: GOD's little brother. A well played Sorcerer is just about on-par with the Wizard (minus flexibility).



This is inevitable. Being irritated over it is like being frustrated about having to breath.



Your entire post is my case in point.

Me : "I don't like how the forum feels the need to ignore whatever advice is being asked for, and instead says to play ToB"
You : "This is how you're wrong, and how ToB is clearly superior"

What if I don't want to have to hit someone to heal? What if I want to flurry every turn? What if I plain don't want to use ToB/don't have access to it? The answer to this should not be "Go buy it, it's better than anything", the answer should be "Here's suggestions on how to do what you want, within the stipulations you have to work with"

[Typewriter]

I'm sorry you even saw that post; I deleted it because I realized I was being very rude. My apologies for that.

Anyway, since you did see it, I'd ask if you ever played with a Druid? Because if so... it's hard to imagine you filling a role any better than his bear. Or whatever. This was a problem in Core. It has always been a problem. Tome of Battle is the fix. The Warblade is a Fighter - just a fixed one. One that can contribute. I literally cannot imagine any character concept fulfilled by Fighter that is not fulfilled, better, as a Warblade. Why couldn't you just keep your character, exchange all his Fighter levels for Warblade levels, and continue to play as normal, except that you actually get to contribute? Warblade is just Fighter 2.0.

It's all good. I think everyone tends to get worked up while arguing things online. I know that I'm bad at explaining concepts and tend to come across as long winded and arrogant, but that's because I'm trying to express thoughts without being able to use my hands for gestures or my voice for inflection.

Short version: Communicating online is hard to do, and I hold no grudge for points you were trying to get across to me.

I like to play different things, but gravitate towards the simple. I tend towards fighters because it is complete customization with little to no thought upon completion. My favorite prestige class - Warhulk if I can get large size. Monk is my favorite because it was the first class I ever played, and I'll always love it for that. ToB is not a bad book, it's just one that I don't like. I'll never be able to not think about maneuvers as stabbing with spells, I don't like feel of it. Not important.

I don't mind rerolling my character if it's warranted. The thing that bothered me in that situation is that nobody had any complaints before ToB was introduced, it was the comparison that made my character, the previous party tank of awesome, look bad. Campaign ended not long after that after I had rerolled an incarnate.

The thing that bothers me normally has already been said better by Thurbane. The point isn't whethe or not I like it, it's whether or not I have the right to like whatever I want, and the way I often see people getting told they don't.


Let me tell you a story.

I own a bookstore, and one day this summer, a group of 20 somethings came in and looked though my books.
One of the books they found was an old "internet safety tips" book.
In that book, one of them found the advice of "If your child sees something that you find offensive, go on to the site, find their email address and inform them of the problem."
The woman then made the comment of "Oh my! (said in an older woman's voice) Dear 4chan, I found your depiction of *scrubbed* very offensive, and would like you to remove from the sight that picture."

This is essentially what I see you saying.
You find it offensive that people on the internet don't read one line of your post and instantly parrot well known, and for the most part, well liked advice.

I'd appreciate it if in future posts you would leave me an opening for some kind of counter-point from which I can make myself look better :)

You bring up a very good point that a lot of the time when people reply back with this advice it is well meant, and usually helpful. I will say that I see a lot of posts where this is not the case and people are trying to get people to stop telling them to use ToB, but then again, the topics where someone asks and gets an answer they're happy with doesn't stay on the front pages for very long, so I rarely see them (only seeing the previously mentioned 'helping' topics).

I will also say that I usually refrain from conversations about this because I know that it's a bad idea, but this topic was geared towards exactly this point, so I felt it was justified. As justified as arguing over the internet ever is.

@Sinfire Titan

I'm not realy sure what point you'r trying to make still.
Are you still trying to prove that the ToB classes are better(which no one disagrees with I think)?
Or are you still trying to convince us that our opinions are wrong?

And
I don't really understand why it's inevitable that you'll constantly be told your opinion is wrong and your questions ignored in favor of people telling you your opinion, or why getting irritated at that is silly....did I miss something?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

What if I don't want to have to hit someone to heal? What if I want to flurry every turn?
Then don't choose the one maneuver that lets you do it.

[Kylarra]

But how do I talk to squirrels?


This is an important monk feature.

Squirrel Girl (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquirrelGirl) beat Dr. Doom!

[Quietus]

Then don't choose the one maneuver that lets you do it.

So.. If I want to play a Paladin, I should A) Not play a Paladin, and B) Give up my ability to heal entirely. If I want to play a Monk, I should A) Not play a Monk, and B) Give up the Flurry of Blows that drew me to play a monk in the first place.

Or is there some actual link in there that I'm missing?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

So.. If I want to play a Paladin, I should A) Not play a Paladin, and B) Give up my ability to heal entirely.
Apparently you can't play a Samurai without having levels in the Samurai class...


If I want to play a Monk, I should A) Not play a Monk, and B) Give up the Flurry of Blows that drew me to play a monk in the first place.
If you want to play a monk, you should be an Expert with ranks in Know. Religion and Craft: Manuscript.

[Sinfire Titan]

{Scrubbed}

[Sinfire Titan]

{Scrubbed}

[Thurbane]

{Scrubbed}
:smallconfused: I don't see anyone asking that...

I don't get why this is so hard. Sure, ToB may do it better, but what's so difficult about posting a reply such as "Well, ToB is probably your best option, but seeing as you can't use it, why not try..." There's plenty of other splatbooks that can help boost the effectiveness of Fighters, Monks and Paladins.

[quick_comment]

:smallconfused: I don't see anyone asking that...

I don't get why this is so hard. Sure, ToB may do it better, but what's so difficult about posting a reply such as "Well, ToB is probably your best option, but seeing as you can't use it, why not try..." There's plenty of other splatbooks that can help boost the effectiveness of Fighters, Monks and Paladins.

Yes, but if you want to make an effective paladin or monk, the best and easiest way is to use ToB. Almost anything else is just a hack around not using ToB, or you just end up playing a caster anyway. Ie, you replace "paladin" with a cleric with war devotion and strength devotion.

[Frosty]

:smallconfused: I don't see anyone asking that...

I don't get why this is so hard. Sure, ToB may do it better, but what's so difficult about posting a reply such as "Well, ToB is probably your best option, but seeing as you can't use it, why not try..." There's plenty of other splatbooks that can help boost the effectiveness of Fighters, Monks and Paladins.

Well, we can show you how to play the concept and fluff of a Paladin very well. However, if you insist on using the class that WoTC labeled "Paladin" then it becomes much harder. Sure we can do it, but it makes us cringe.

[Thurbane]

Yes, but if you want to make an effective paladin or monk, the best and easiest way is to use ToB. Almost anything else is just a hack around not using ToB, or you just end up playing a caster anyway. Ie, you replace "paladin" with a cleric with war devotion and strength devotion.

Well, we can show you how to play the concept and fluff of a Paladin very well. However, if you insist on using the class that WoTC labeled "Paladin" then it becomes much harder. Sure we can do it, but it makes us cringe.
I can see both of your points, but the fact remains: if someone cannot use ToB in their game for whatever reason, advice which says "use ToB" is of limited use...

[Quietus]

Apparently you can't play a Samurai without having levels in the Samurai class...


If you want to play a monk, you should be an Expert with ranks in Know. Religion and Craft: Manuscript.

If my idea of a Paladin is that of the typical "knight in shining armor", with the lesser divine abilities similar to those that a Cleric gets... then the actual paladin class does, in fact, represent that quite nicely. Most mechanically powerful option available, of course not. But it does its job. I shouldn't be told "Paladin is doing it wrong, go class X instead" when I ask "How can I optimize this class to fill this role".

And your monk comment is a total fallacy, we both know I'm talking about the martial artist class presented in the PHB, not Friar Tuck.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

And your monk comment is a total fallacy, we both know I'm talking about the martial artist class presented in the PHB, not Friar Tuck.

Rather, I differentiate the concept of "martial artist" from the class "Monk".

Friar Tuck, incidentally, was a fairly good fighter.

[quick_comment]

If my idea of a Paladin is that of the typical "knight in shining armor", with the lesser divine abilities similar to those that a Cleric gets... then the actual paladin class does, in fact, represent that quite nicely. Most mechanically powerful option available, of course not. But it does its job. I shouldn't be told "Paladin is doing it wrong, go class X instead" when I ask "How can I optimize this class to fill this role".

In non-metagame terms, what is the difference between a cleric with strength and war devotion, maybe some levels in ordained champion and a paladin? Ie, you show Cleric McBeaterton and Paladin Von Stickass to a peasent, and ask him to describe both.



Class names are entirely metagame constructs. You can use a paladin class to play a paladin archetype, a fighter archetype, cleric archetype, etc. You can use a cleric class to roleplay a war-priest, a paladin, a wizard, a saint, whatever.

[Quietus]

In non-metagame terms, what is the difference between a cleric with strength and war devotion, maybe some levels in ordained champion and a paladin? Ie, you show Cleric McBeaterton and Paladin Von Stickass to a peasent, and ask him to describe both.



Class names are entirely metagame constructs. You can use a paladin class to play a paladin archetype, a fighter archetype, cleric archetype, etc. You can use a cleric class to roleplay a war-priest, a paladin, a wizard, a saint, whatever.

So now you're replacing Paladin with Cleric?

The main differences, as I see it, are that the Paladin was created with a more melee-centric role as his first priority. The Cleric was INTENDED as a caster first, with backup melee abilities. This is why the Paladin's got higher base attack, higher hit dice, better weapon proficiencies, and some abilities - namely smite and potentially his warhorse - which aid him in combat. And me, I'd say that it's fairly likely that the peasant will PROBABLY mention the Paladin's warhorse.. something the cleric is far less likely to have.

What's wrong with using the Paladin class to represent a primary-melee character with a touch of the divine, really?

[Draz74]

I think Typewriter's point (and the point of the OP) is that sometimes people offering ToB advice can be a little over zealous, even when people post that ToB isn't available in the game they play in.

I don't think anybody would fault someone for suggesting something from the ToB if they believe it would be a major benefit for the build being discussed - it's only when they go OTT and refuse to accept no for an answer that it becomes a problem. In a LOT of threads where people specifically mention "no ToB allowed" in their build question, someone will still say they should use ToB, and often that the DM/group are foolish for not using ToB.

To be fair, while people being overzealous certainly can get annoying and unhelpful, I've also seen situations where the OP said "no ToB," and people explained how much better the ToB melee system is than the Core melee system, and the OP has responded and said, "Hmmm, I talked to my DM again and he said we can give ToB a try after all." Or "ToB does sound really good, I think I'll go buy it (as a lack of the book was the only reason my group wasn't using it)."

So people pushing for ToB even when it wasn't what was asked for can lead to positive outcomes, depending on the reasons it wasn't requested in the first place.

[Typewriter]

The point is that those 'archetypes' mean different things to different people. If I was going to play a 'Paladin' archetype I might play a paladin, or maybe I'll play a fighter 8/cleric 12. Something that fits to me. There are other things out there, but if I decide, specifically that I want to play a Paladin(Class) then that's what I want to play. Maybe I like the crappy spell list, and the idea of my gods giving me a horse as a birthday gift. Maybe it's the code, the fact that if I don't live up to what I say I'm going to live up to then I'll lose my powers.

The point is that those archetypes you want to throw around and apply to everything with 'different fluff' applied to them may not mean the same thing to me. I find the monks 1/day dimension door endearing, their quivering palm a horrible threat to use against weaker foes that the monk may have to dispatch later. I like those things, I like the fact that they come from someone mastering their body in such a way that they are complete masters of it. I don't mind psionic type things reflavored to be somewhat monklike, but that's what makes sense to me. It's not the same, but sometimes change is good, and I'm willing to do that. There are, however, some things I don't like. I don't want to play a swordsage with their maneuvers, I don't want to play a natural weapon focused blah blah.

One example you used was a cleric could play as a wizard. That one wouldn't work for me because of the divine magic coming from the gods/mages studying things. If I want to play a wizard, then I don't want divine magic. That's just one example.

I'm picky. I admit that. I want what I want, and the likelihood of me wanting to, or being willing to, refluff things to match a concept, when I find the flaws with the base concept endearing, not very likely. Give me a monk over swordsage any day, and I'll have more fun with it, but that's just my opinion. Nobody has to agree with it, but not everyone has to tell me I'm wrong.

[DragoonWraith]

It's all good. I think everyone tends to get worked up while arguing things online. I know that I'm bad at explaining concepts and tend to come across as long winded and arrogant, but that's because I'm trying to express thoughts without being able to use my hands for gestures or my voice for inflection.

Short version: Communicating online is hard to do, and I hold no grudge for points you were trying to get across to me.
I appreciate that. It's somewhat odd; I don't really know why I get so... irritated by those who don't like Tome of Battle. There are other subjects where I feel similarly (which I won't mention because RL politics have no part in this forum), but on those subjects, at least, I have objective fact on my side. In this... well, on some level I feel I do, but...

I like to play different things, but gravitate towards the simple.
This I was not something I was expecting, or honestly can comprehend. At least 70% of the game, for me, is the opportunity to combine different features and abilities and powers, and combine them in particular ways to match a character concept. Yes, this is more important than actually playing, for me - largely because I know no one in real life to play with, and PbP games are slow and less interesting than character creation. Simple in my mind is equivalent to boring, and I really... cannot fathom how anyone could feel differently. I mean, I understand that you do, and I don't particularly criticize you for it, I'm just boggled by it.

I mean, I understand those who want something simple because they don't want to have to think too hard, or read too much, but I seriously doubt that's the case with you, considering how much of the system you already obviously know and how willing you are to put thought into your arguments...


I tend towards fighters because it is complete customization with little to no thought upon completion. My favorite prestige class - Warhulk if I can get large size. Monk is my favorite because it was the first class I ever played, and I'll always love it for that. ToB is not a bad book, it's just one that I don't like. I'll never be able to not think about maneuvers as stabbing with spells, I don't like feel of it. Not important.

I don't mind rerolling my character if it's warranted. The thing that bothered me in that situation is that nobody had any complaints before ToB was introduced, it was the comparison that made my character, the previous party tank of awesome, look bad. Campaign ended not long after that after I had rerolled an incarnate.

The thing that bothers me normally has already been said better by Thurbane. The point isn't whethe or not I like it, it's whether or not I have the right to like whatever I want, and the way I often see people getting told they don't.
The point is that people expect others to justify their decisions, and I simply cannot justify, personally, even considering Fighter or Monk over Warblade or Swordsage (as a gish-ish class, I feel like Paladin has more to offer as a concept separate from Crusader than the other two do compared to their ToB counterparts - though it doubtlessly needs work, I can see taking the Paladin in a direction different from the Crusader, to make it a proper Gish. I see no reason to do the same with Fighter and Monk). Mostly, the response is because there are a lot of people who decide against ToB out of ignorance.

Actually, I have a perfect analogy here. I mod The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion fairly heavily. There is a utility for Oblivion called the Oblivion Script Extender, which massively improves the functionality of the scripting language that you use in Oblivion. As one person said, "scripting without OBSE is like writing without vowels." Moreover, it's an exceptionally well-written utility that causes zero (literally) performance degradation and has historically been extremely safe to use (bugs are always possible, but in practice thus far there have been no show-stoppers). And yet, sometimes you see requests from people for scripts written without using OBSE.

My immediate response is always the same: Why? I phrase this carefully, because there are a very small sub-set of perfectly valid reasons not to use it, but 90% of the time it's because the person doesn't know how OBSE works, has some serious misconceptions about it, and is effectively 'afraid' of it (not as in terror, but as in normal wariness of the unknown). So I ask them to explain themselves - to see if they understand what they are asking. And if they do not understand, or have misconceptions, I explain what OBSE is and how it works, and explain just how important it is for achieving the effect that they want (for which it is almost always crucial when such questions come up).

Thus, my response to "make me a better Fighter, without Tome of Battle" is "why no Tome of Battle? do you really have a good reason to avoid it, or are you just avoiding it because you have misconceptions about it?" And very often, people do have misconceptions about it. Tome of Battle is probably the number one thing people think is broken that isn't broken (no one at this point seems to be arguing that it is broken, so I'm assuming this is accepted?), so asking about their reasoning seems very valid - misconceptions are very common. While it may be somewhat rude to "assume" that someone has such a misconception, I feel like it is a risk worth taking because if they do have such a misconception, explaining things is a very worthwhile thing.



Another thing. I'm studying to become an engineer, and one of the first things we learned in our design class is to identify and remove what are called "proposed solutions". When a client asks for you to solve a particular problem, and includes conjecture on how it might be solved, the first thing to do is ignore that conjecture entirely. Why? Because you are the engineer; they aren't hiring you because they already know how to solve the problem. If you assume their conjecture, you may not think of a better solution, because you are restraining yourself to their conjecture. A new player asking for build advice can be very similar - they're typically looking to play a certain type of character, and throw out class names because they think those are the appropriate classes. Typically, it is assumed that what they want is, say, an archer - not specifically a Fighter with Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and Many Shot. That seems, to me, to be a very reasonable assumption. So when someone asks about making a Fighter, we assume they mean "mundane melee warrior type", rather than the Fighter specifically. And the best way to do the "mundane melee warrior type" in D&D 3.5 is the Warblade. That response does not seem invalid.

[elliott20]

DragoonWraith's last post is giving me flashbacks of my project management classes.

[kamikasei]

I have a question. Many people are saying they dislike ToB for effectively replacing some core classes. They acknowledge that core melee had serious problems, but say they should have been fixed rather than replaced.

How (not mechanically, but in terms of delivery) would these people have fixed core melee?

I ask because I can see two main possibilities besides what they actually went with: a) errata saying that fighters etc. have a bunch of new abilities, which amounts to publishing something like a stripped-down ToB for free (no objection there), changing the classes radically enough that they're still doing exactly what people are complaining about - replacing them all together. Or, b) errata changing the combat rules, e.g. saying you can full attack as a standard action - which I'd be all for really, but which would have massive headache-inducing knock-on effects for how classes in half the other published splatbooks were designed, and still wouldn't address other problems that the utility manuevers help out with.

So what I'm wondering is how the objection "it just replaced core melee instead of fixing it" makes sense; what would a fix that wasn't effectively a replacement have looked like?

[Quietus]

Thus, my response to "make me a better Fighter, without Tome of Battle" is "why no Tome of Battle? do you really have a good reason to avoid it, or are you just avoiding it because you have misconceptions about it?" And very often, people do have misconceptions about it. Tome of Battle is probably the number one thing people think is broken that isn't broken (no one at this point seems to be arguing that it is broken, so I'm assuming this is accepted?), so asking about their reasoning seems very valid - misconceptions are very common. While it may be somewhat rude to "assume" that someone has such a misconception, I feel like it is a risk worth taking because if they do have such a misconception, explaining things is a very worthwhile thing.

This is a fair reason, I think, to the objection against ToB - but this is never how it's presented in threads. No one asks WHY... it's always just a demand that the person in question change how they play the game to allow something the poster sees as superior. Perhaps it's a similarity to those "proposed solution" things you mentioned - probably something more along the line of "established solutions" taken to the extremist end of things. An electrician who always uses the same wiring methods and paths, for instance, even when a particular project would be much better served by NOT using those conventions. People see "How can I optimize this Fighter within these guidelines, including no ToB", and respond with "Convince your DM to let you play a warblade, it's the fighter fix". Even when this isn't a valid response.

If someone asked WHY I wasn't allowed to use ToB, I'd gladly answer that - I don't have access to the book, none of my group does, I don't have the money to buy it, and most importantly, my group can barely follow the rules in place in the core books, much less adding extra systems. But for every one person who attempts to find out the why, whenever I ask for a way to optimize something without ToB, invariably I get twenty responses saying that I should just allow ToB anyway.

Perhaps the "fix" to this problem is putting a simple spoiler in any optimizing request I make detailing my above reasons... but those reasons would still be ignored by a small subset of people, and I think the fact that I even need to consider that spoiler in the first place is pretty indicative of a serious problem common to these forums as a whole.


::Edit:: @ Kamikasei; I think Paladins, as written, are actually fairly decent when you consider Battle Blessing and the extra spells they have from splatbooks/spell compendium. Monks.. I'm not going to get into, that's a can of worms I don't want to open, but I do know there are several popular opinions on fixes for them, mostly variations of allowing flurry on a standard action, and giving them full base attack. And Fighters, really, all you need are more/better feat trees, particularly ones that are Fighter-only... or are so involved that only the Fighter can reasonably make use of them. Whirlwind Attack, I think, is well-designed in one respect; It requires a large number of feats to get in, and any class CAN get it.. but Fighters can get it far earlier. Poorly designed in that you need a number of poor feat choices to get it, and it itself isn't a particularly good feat either, but if we had feat trees similar to that, which were worth taking, and had a good half-dozen of them to select from.. would we have nearly so many people saying that Fighters were useless?

[PhoenixRivers]

i think that the issue is with the internet subculture.

it's really easy to lose track of things on the internet, on both sides. for example, i could say "you have to get this cheesecake!"

that could be seen as trying to ban all inferior desserts...
it could also be seen as i'm enthusiastic about it, and was so amazed that i'm sharing that knowledge (try imagining it in 'valley girl', when said girl has a mouthful of cheesecake).

the written word really does suck for conveying conversations.

[Quietus]

When the conversation is along the lines of :

Me : "I want to build a Fighter who does this. I'm allowed access to all core/complete books, some stuff from environment/races books, and no settings/psionics/ToB"
Random responder : "Warblade would be awesome for this, talk your DM into letting you play one"

There isn't much possibility to misinterpret the intent there. And it happens ALL THE TIME on these forums. I do agree, the written word is a poor medium for your average conversation - it's better for sharing factual ideas, rather than having a friendly conversation where tone of voice is extremely important - but it's all we have. And sometimes, there's no ambiguity there at all.

[PhoenixRivers]

When the conversation is along the lines of :

Me : "I want to build a Fighter who does this. I'm allowed access to all core/complete books, some stuff from environment/races books, and no settings/psionics/ToB"
Random responder : "Warblade would be awesome for this, talk your DM into letting you play one"

There isn't much possibility to misinterpret the intent there. And it happens ALL THE TIME on these forums. I do agree, the written word is a poor medium for your average conversation - it's better for sharing factual ideas, rather than having a friendly conversation where tone of voice is extremely important - but it's all we have. And sometimes, there's no ambiguity there at all.

yeah, but it's really possible to misread the tone. the intent is that he wants you to play a tob character. the tone? is it forceful or friendly? you may be adding that on your own. perhaps he was trying to be helpful, and now there's thirteen pages of criticism. i'd feel like poo if that happened to me.

without body language, we'll never really know, short of outright blatant comments, or a lot of precision. that's why it's usually a good idea to wear a thick skin when you open your browser, and assume the best of intents whenever possible. it's so easy to misinterpret a motive.

[Yora]

But it's not only with ToB, people do it with everything!

I'd say two thirds of the people here don't actually read the questions, but only look out for buzzwords to give the standard hardcore-powergamer solution.

[Oslecamo]

So what I'm wondering is how the objection "it just replaced core melee instead of fixing it" makes sense; what would a fix that wasn't effectively a replacement have looked like?

First of all, it definetely wouldn't be based on abilities divided on 9 levels, separated in schools and based on "something level" wich happens to be equal to your class level and the DCs being 10+ ability level+ability score, because that's just too damn similar to spells, and all D&D players who want to play into a world where everybody has almost equal mechanics switched to 4e anyway.

A fix would probably be something similar to what we see on the test of spite. Most broken/powerfull magic stuff is nerfed hard, munchkin atitudes are punished harshly, and stuff that wasn't actually broken in the first place but people twisted anyway (like locate city bombo) is clarified as DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

From there, you realize that the diference of power level between ToB and core melee really isn't that big, and one is suited for people who like to shout a diferent attack name every turn, and the other is suited for people who like more simplicity. Core barbarians not only participate in the Test of Spite whitout any buff, they emerge victorious now and then, as the druid can't wildshape neither has an animal companion and wizards can't hide in extradimensional spaces and the cleric can't cherry pick domains like mad.

Of course, some minor nitpicks like giving the monk full BAB don't hurt either.

[kamikasei]

Oslecamo, that's exactly what I was not talking about, and what I explicitly stated in my post I wasn't talking about. I wasn't asking what the fix would be, I was asking how it would be presented.

If you acknowledge that core melee needed a fix, how would that fix be presented without effectively replacing the core classes with new ones - albeit ones which might use the same names?

(If you don't think core melee needed a fix, then it's a different story - but that's not the point I'm questioning. I would also point out that barbarians are considered balanced, and have not been "replaced" by ToB the way fighters have.)

[Oslecamo]

Oslecamo, that's exactly what I was not talking about, and what I explicitly stated in my post I wasn't talking about. I wasn't asking what the fix would be, I was asking how it would be presented.

If one is optimistic, D&D 3.75 PHB and DMG. I say "optimistic" because 3.5 was suposed to fix 3.0, but it ended up adding as much problems as it removed. Massive errata may also work. D&D players have an habit of being specially loyal to the books.



If you acknowledge that core melee needed a fix, how would that fix be presented without effectively replacing the core classes with new ones - albeit ones which might use the same names?

(If you don't think core melee needed a fix, then it's a different story - but that's not the point I'm questioning. I would also point out that barbarians are considered balanced, and have not been "replaced" by ToB the way fighters have.)

My problem here is that I really don't understand what you mean by a "fix".

Is a warblade stronger than a fighter? That's debatable.
What is not debatable is that a fighter/warblade/Prc/Prc/dip/Prc will be stronger than either the pure fighter or warblade.

So is kinda meaningless to discuss single class balance when the guys who care about their power levels will be multiclassing like mad anyway.

Also diferent people have diferent tastes. Some people indeed want to have three dozen of diferent abilities with fancy names wich end up doing the same thing in the end, while others actually enjoy just moving, charging and full attacking with the ocasional triping, sundering, and archery thrown in the middle as needed.
{Scrubbed}
Some of us are perfectly happy just beating stuff to dead whitout needing pseudo spells to deal damage and complicate the iniative order to no end.

[Starbuck_II]

Is a warblade stronger than a fighter? That's debatable.


I don't think that means what you think that means.

[Oslecamo]

I blame english for having so many words with similar obscure meanings. Would it be better if I said questionable or discussable?

[The Rose Dragon]

I blame english for having so many words with similar obscure meanings. Would it be better if I said questionable or discussable?

I think he was trying to say "the warblade is stronger than a fighter, and that's not a moot point".

[Serenity]

To answer the question at the start...we enjoy Tome of Battle immensely. We love it for a variety of reasons that hardly need to be reiterated here, as many posters before me have already stated them better than I. It's only human nature to try to spread around what one likes. We're no different than the fans who tell you that you've just got to watch the latest Joss Whedon project, or say, "Why haven't you started watching Battlestar Galactica yet?", or what have you. The analogy may not be ultimately more endearing, but I hope it illustrates that there's more enthusiasm than malice intended.

And it's true that we can take things a little too personally sometimes. Tome of Battle is likely the most controversial splatbook WotC has published, and it has many misconceptions floating around about it. People banning Tome of Battle from games and calling it 'broken' makes us sad, for a variety of reasons. Some people, such as the OP, feel we're telling them that they're 'playing D&D wrong.' Similarly, when we're told that ToB is broken, we feel like we, personally, are being called munchkins and powergamers--that we are 'playing D&D wrong.' We then make the mistake of conflating less ill-conceived disagreements, such as a simple preference for other things, under the same banner.

In sum: when a 'build help' thread is posted for a melee character, the ToB enthusiast will leap to suggest the ToB classes, legitimately believing that they're a flavorful, mechanically effective, and fun way to portray the concept. When they see 'No ToB allowed' in the thread, their first thought is that the DM or the OP is dismissing ToB/calling it broken, and feel the need to defend their favorite book and correct the common misconceptions.

[kamikasei]

If one is optimistic, D&D 3.75 PHB and DMG. I say "optimistic" because 3.5 was suposed to fix 3.0, but it ended up adding as much problems as it removed. Massive errata may also work. D&D players have an habit of being specially loyal to the books.

That's kind of my point. What would such a move be but the replacement of the classes or the replacement of the rules they play by?


My problem here is that I really don't understand what you mean by a "fix".
...
So is kinda meaningless to discuss single class balance when the guys who care about their power levels will be multiclassing like mad anyway.

It's not about single classes and it's only partly about power. It's that the basic combat system has flaws and some classes are particularly affected by them. So either you revise the system, or you give the affected classes new abilities that offset those flaws, or you create new classes with such abilities - but the last two aren't much different from one another when it comes to the amount of change involved.

Maybe you disagree that the flaws exist or are large enough to need to be addressed, but I'm questioning the people who will agree they're there but who seem to want them fixed without anything actually being changed.


When they see 'No ToB allowed' in the thread, their first thought is that the DM or the OP is dismissing ToB/calling it broken, and feel the need to defend their favorite book and correct the common misconceptions.

I think that's a lot of it. The other side of it is that people simply don't read build restrictions a lot of the time and propose whatever would suit from the entirety of 3.5, then urge anything disallowed to be negotiated for. This happens with just about everything, not ToB.

[Killer Angel]

(snip)
People banning Tome of Battle from games and calling it 'broken' makes us sad, for a variety of reasons. Some people, such as the OP, feel we're telling them that they're 'playing D&D wrong.' Similarly, when we're told that ToB is broken, we feel like we, personally, are being called munchkins and powergamers--that we are 'playing D&D wrong.'

This is... very well said.
I often see people banning ToB because it's broken, regard to the Core. Which is true, if you focus only on the meleers. ToB is a colossal improvement, so it break the "balance" of Core.
Sadly, this peoples tend to forget that core is totally unbalanced, and ToB is perfect, exactly for this reason: fills Core's gap between caster and meleers.


The only valid arguments versus ToB, imo are very few:
- you don't like it for the "feeling". It's a matter of personal tastes, the same if you don't like Eberron. Sorry for you, but you can't change this.
- for your campaign is effectively overpowered. your player play very unoptimized characters: the wizard don't have haste but it's first choice is fireball, and the second one is Lightning bolt, and they don't take polymorf 'cause they don't like to think too much on the many possibilities. In this kind of games, even fighters and barbarians Core can shine a little, so ToB it's effectively too much.

[Starbuck_II]

To answer the question at the start...we enjoy Tome of Battle immensely. We love it for a variety of reasons that hardly need to be reiterated here, as many posters before me have already stated them better than I. It's only human nature to try to spread around what one likes.
We're no different than the fans who tell you that you've just got to watch the latest Joss Whedon project, or say, "Why haven't you started watching Battlestar Galactica yet?", or what have you. The analogy may not be ultimately more endearing, but I hope it illustrates that there's more enthusiasm than malice intended.

Maybe I'm a grognard but I don't like the new Battlestar Galactica as much as the old.
Changed too much. Some seemed like for change for changes sake.
And why all the sex and stuff? Sure I guess it sells. But it seems unneeded.

[Typewriter]

@DragoonWraith


I appreciate that. It's somewhat odd; I don't really know why I get so... irritated by those who don't like Tome of Battle. There are other subjects where I feel similarly (which I won't mention because RL politics have no part in this forum), but on those subjects, at least, I have objective fact on my side. In this... well, on some level I feel I do, but...


I know exactly what you mean. I like, and sometimes try to defend, Pathfinder. I know what you mean.



This I was not something I was expecting, or honestly can comprehend. At least 70% of the game, for me, is the opportunity to combine different features and abilities and powers, and combine them in particular ways to match a character concept. Yes, this is more important than actually playing, for me - largely because I know no one in real life to play with, and PbP games are slow and less interesting than character creation. Simple in my mind is equivalent to boring, and I really... cannot fathom how anyone could feel differently. I mean, I understand that you do, and I don't particularly criticize you for it, I'm just boggled by it.

I mean, I understand those who want something simple because they don't want to have to think too hard, or read too much, but I seriously doubt that's the case with you, considering how much of the system you already obviously know and how willing you are to put thought into your arguments...


For me, it's usually the exact opposite. As a player the most important thing to me is the character concept/story. That gets done first, and all the mechanics stuff is fluff filled in otherwise. I like large strong characters. I played a war-hulk who was going for saint - he would do things like purchase a couple carts of food with his share of the adventuring money and throw a party in the towns poor district. While everyone is partying it up, he would go to the nearby forest and gather trees to build a wall around the previously defenseless city. No one knew it was him, all they knew was that he threw a party for him. The only class feature I needed to play that character the way I wanted to was 'No time to think' a class feature that does nothing but limit you.

Every now and then I'll play classes more complex, but the character concept I come up with has to be a complex one to warrant it. If I can fulfill my concept using 3 feats, two base classes from the PHB, a spool of thread, and some flasks of alchemist fire I'm probably going to go with that, because that is, in my opinion, awesome.



The point is that people expect others to justify their decisions, and I simply cannot justify, personally, even considering Fighter or Monk over Warblade or Swordsage (as a gish-ish class, I feel like Paladin has more to offer as a concept separate from Crusader than the other two do compared to their ToB counterparts - though it doubtlessly needs work, I can see taking the Paladin in a direction different from the Crusader, to make it a proper Gish. I see no reason to do the same with Fighter and Monk). Mostly, the response is because there are a lot of people who decide against ToB out of ignorance.


If I liked the book to begin with I would agree with you. I just don't like the mechanics of it. If I came up with a concept that I thought was fitting for it, then I would use it, but it would have to be a concept that I couldn't fulfill by using the classes that I do like. As a DM I allow players who want to use it to use it, and I'll sometimes make enemy groups out of it for players to fight. I just don't want to build my PCs from it.



Actually, I have a perfect analogy here. I mod The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion fairly heavily. There is a utility for Oblivion called the Oblivion Script Extender, which massively improves the functionality of the scripting language that you use in Oblivion. As one person said, "scripting without OBSE is like writing without vowels." Moreover, it's an exceptionally well-written utility that causes zero (literally) performance degradation and has historically been extremely safe to use (bugs are always possible, but in practice thus far there have been no show-stoppers). And yet, sometimes you see requests from people for scripts written without using OBSE.

My immediate response is always the same: Why? I phrase this carefully, because there are a very small sub-set of perfectly valid reasons not to use it, but 90% of the time it's because the person doesn't know how OBSE works, has some serious misconceptions about it, and is effectively 'afraid' of it (not as in terror, but as in normal wariness of the unknown). So I ask them to explain themselves - to see if they understand what they are asking. And if they do not understand, or have misconceptions, I explain what OBSE is and how it works, and explain just how important it is for achieving the effect that they want (for which it is almost always crucial when such questions come up).


I generally like for people to have reasons for the things they do or say as well. As I said, I don't like the book, and I've mentioned a few reasons, but what's most important is that whenever I try to sit down with the book and start to put something together with it, I sit there bored and unimpressed.



Thus, my response to "make me a better Fighter, without Tome of Battle" is "why no Tome of Battle? do you really have a good reason to avoid it, or are you just avoiding it because you have misconceptions about it?" And very often, people do have misconceptions about it. Tome of Battle is probably the number one thing people think is broken that isn't broken (no one at this point seems to be arguing that it is broken, so I'm assuming this is accepted?), so asking about their reasoning seems very valid - misconceptions are very common. While it may be somewhat rude to "assume" that someone has such a misconception, I feel like it is a risk worth taking because if they do have such a misconception, explaining things is a very worthwhile thing.


My feelings aren't that it's broken. My feelings do lean towards the fact that it's easier to build something powerful with the ToB than it is with other classes, and that's one reason I don't like it. If you have a party of non-optimizers, and one person plays from ToB - they outshine the rest of the party. The problem I'm running into now is that a player (fairly new to D&D) made his first character all on his own, and that it was sub-par. Then he made something from ToB and he dealt more damage than anything else. He has a new character now, and no longer cares when people try to give him advice or help him, because he 'knows how to build characters', even though the thing that made him think that he 'knows how to build characters' is that he used ToB, which is almost next to impossible to design a character from poorly.

End result - he's playing an archer who does 1d8 damage. He sucks compared to the rest of the party, and he knows this. He still thinks he knows how to build good characters. (SIDE NOTE - Whatever you're thinking right now, this guy is not very smart....at all....)



Another thing. I'm studying to become an engineer, and one of the first things we learned in our design class is to identify and remove what are called "proposed solutions". When a client asks for you to solve a particular problem, and includes conjecture on how it might be solved, the first thing to do is ignore that conjecture entirely. Why? Because you are the engineer; they aren't hiring you because they already know how to solve the problem. If you assume their conjecture, you may not think of a better solution, because you are restraining yourself to their conjecture. A new player asking for build advice can be very similar - they're typically looking to play a certain type of character, and throw out class names because they think those are the appropriate classes. Typically, it is assumed that what they want is, say, an archer - not specifically a Fighter with Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and Many Shot. That seems, to me, to be a very reasonable assumption. So when someone asks about making a Fighter, we assume they mean "mundane melee warrior type", rather than the Fighter specifically. And the best way to do the "mundane melee warrior type" in D&D 3.5 is the Warblade. That response does not seem invalid.

In software engineering we call that 'requirement creep', the customer constantly coming up with new requirements that they don't understand the implications behind, and have no clue how to do properly (which doesn't stop them from helping).

I'm a lot less bothered by someone asking for help building a fighter getting swarmed with people telling him 'ToB is better' than by someone who says they're looking to build a Fighter, explicitly stating no ToB, and getting swarmed by people telling him 'ToB is better'. I personally will probably never post questions regarding build help, because if someone really doesn't want ToB their thread gets overrun. It's like earlier when Quietus(I think) was posting things he liked about the base feats, and was trying to be peaceful in explaining that he doesn't want (or like) ToB, and one of the first responses he got was someone dissecting his post, telling him ToB is better.


@Kamikasei


I have a question. Many people are saying they dislike ToB for effectively replacing some core classes. They acknowledge that core melee had serious problems, but say they should have been fixed rather than replaced.


While I don't deny the difference in power/usefulness between melee and casting, it's not something that I never saw as needing fixed. If I'm feeling worthless I'll multiclass to a caster of some sort, or my next character will be a full caster. If the 'balance' issues bothered me I wouldn't play a fighter, or I would be using one of these fixes.



How (not mechanically, but in terms of delivery) would these people have fixed core melee?

I ask because I can see two main possibilities besides what they actually went with: a) errata saying that fighters etc. have a bunch of new abilities, which amounts to publishing something like a stripped-down ToB for free (no objection there), changing the classes radically enough that they're still doing exactly what people are complaining about - replacing them all together. Or, b) errata changing the combat rules, e.g. saying you can full attack as a standard action - which I'd be all for really, but which would have massive headache-inducing knock-on effects for how classes in half the other published splatbooks were designed, and still wouldn't address other problems that the utility manuevers help out with.

So what I'm wondering is how the objection "it just replaced core melee instead of fixing it" makes sense; what would a fix that wasn't effectively a replacement have looked like?

You have a good question here. I think that the best way to introduce fixes to the different classes depends on the class.

Fighter is all about feats, so add feats that are fighter only, and incorporate the things that people wish fighters had. If I remember correctly ToB has feats you can take to get maneuvers if you don't want to take one of their classes. If they could figure out all the little things that people wished fighter had, make them feats that a fighter could take, but wouldn't be absolutely required, I would like that better.

Paladin is all about divine power from their gods. If they introduced better paladin spells that were paladin only? And they actually did worthwhile things? If there was a spell that made your smite work until a target was dead, it would be a sweet spell, and it wouldn't take away from Paladin at all, just enhance what it already has.

Monk fixes could probably be presented in the form of better equipment. A headband that grants +6 strength, but also +6 Wisdom if you're a monk. If there were items that a monk knew 'how to get the best out of them' then that would be a pretty nifty monk fix without taking away from monk. This particular change I personally don't like, it just seemed somewhat fitting for me(that a monk could meditate on a magic items properties and gain further insights into how it works).

These are not things that I think they should do, or that I feel are required. I enjoy the base classes without fixes. I simply thought the question of 'how would you present a fix' was an interesting one, and I wanted to give my two cents.

Those are examples of fixes without changing the classes or replacing them completely. Introduce something that works with a classes already existing mechanics, whether it be feats, turn attempts, spells, whatever to fill in the holes it has.



@PhoenixRivers


yeah, but it's really possible to misread the tone. the intent is that he wants you to play a tob character. the tone? is it forceful or friendly? you may be adding that on your own. perhaps he was trying to be helpful, and now there's thirteen pages of criticism. i'd feel like poo if that happened to me.

without body language, we'll never really know, short of outright blatant comments, or a lot of precision. that's why it's usually a good idea to wear a thick skin when you open your browser, and assume the best of intents whenever possible. it's so easy to misinterpret a motive.

I agree completely. Body language, voice inflection. I can't tell you how many times I've been arguing with someone I agreed with because we didn't understand that we were arguing the same points. I like to use smilies a lot when I post because I think they can be used to convey intent, but there is always the chance that people will take smiles as sarcasm, so I avoid using them most of the time.


@Yora


But it's not only with ToB, people do it with everything!

I'd say two thirds of the people here don't actually read the questions, but only look out for buzzwords to give the standard hardcore-powergamer solution.

It does happen with a lot of things, but as I mentioned earlier (and someone else did as well) we notice it happening a lot more often with ToB than anything else.


@Serenity


To answer the question at the start...we enjoy Tome of Battle immensely. We love it for a variety of reasons that hardly need to be reiterated here, as many posters before me have already stated them better than I. It's only human nature to try to spread around what one likes. We're no different than the fans who tell you that you've just got to watch the latest Joss Whedon project, or say, "Why haven't you started watching Battlestar Galactica yet?", or what have you. The analogy may not be ultimately more endearing, but I hope it illustrates that there's more enthusiasm than malice intended.

And it's true that we can take things a little too personally sometimes. Tome of Battle is likely the most controversial splatbook WotC has published, and it has many misconceptions floating around about it. People banning Tome of Battle from games and calling it 'broken' makes us sad, for a variety of reasons. Some people, such as the OP, feel we're telling them that they're 'playing D&D wrong.' Similarly, when we're told that ToB is broken, we feel like we, personally, are being called munchkins and powergamers--that we are 'playing D&D wrong.' We then make the mistake of conflating less ill-conceived disagreements, such as a simple preference for other things, under the same banner.

In sum: when a 'build help' thread is posted for a melee character, the ToB enthusiast will leap to suggest the ToB classes, legitimately believing that they're a flavorful, mechanically effective, and fun way to portray the concept. When they see 'No ToB allowed' in the thread, their first thought is that the DM or the OP is dismissing ToB/calling it broken, and feel the need to defend their favorite book and correct the common misconceptions.

And that's why I always try to make sure that I say things are in my opinion, that I don't have anything wrong with the book (it's just not what I want), etc. etc.

As I said earlier, it's easy to argue with someone when you're arguing the same point and haven't realized it. People should not dismiss the benefits that ToB provides without being open minded to it and checking it out, but those that have done so and decided it's not for them should be entitled to that as well.

[Oslecamo]

That's kind of my point. What would such a move be but the replacement of the classes or the replacement of the rules they play by?

ToB is a suplement. Heck is not even core. You don't need it at all to play the game. That combined with it's particular fluff that doesn't appear in any other D&D book make it feel foreign for a lot of players.

Sure you can change the fluff. But for a good chunk of the D&D players, fluff is closely tied to crunch, no matter how many fallacies or thesis or long speeches the other people make up to try to change their minds.

For more or less the same reason, a lot of people don't use psionics, because the fluff just feels weird in your usual D&D campaign. Sure mindflayers are psionics, but they're also atangonists.

Thus, a sucessfull replacement for anything core would either need to follow the usual fluff, or re-create the core from scratch.

EDIT:As typewriter kindly pointed out, fighter has reveived several "acepted fixes" trough alternate class features among several books, most notorious of wich is the dungeoncrasher, wich feels right at home in most D&D setings as far as fluff goes, and thus is more acepted by the players.

[kamikasei]

ToB is a suplement. Heck is not even core. You don't need it at all to play the game. That combined with it's particular fluff that doesn't appear in any other D&D book make it feel foreign for a lot of players.
...
Thus, a sucessfull replacement for anything core would either need to follow the usual fluff, or re-create the core from scratch.

This... has nothing to do with what I'm asking.

[Yuki Akuma]

Fluff is not set in stone. That's why it's fluff.

Don't like the idea of the Sublime Way? Ignore it. It doesn't matter. The mechanics are sound (if you ignore WRT and don't intentionally misread IHS).

Don't like the Sublime Way, then? Okay, it doesn't exist. The nine disciplines work similarly for the same reason Wizards, Wu Jen and Archivist cast spells the same way - effective combat ends up working pretty similarly.

Don't like the maneuver names? Okay, don't call them that. Does every spellcaster call the same spell "fireball"? Does every caster talk about "Bibgy's forceful hand"? Is every conjurer's favourite low-level crowd control spell called "grease"? No.

[Killer Angel]

This... has nothing to do with what I'm asking.

Not sure about it... is this what you were asking?


It's not about single classes and it's only partly about power. It's that the basic combat system has flaws and some classes are particularly affected by them. So either you revise the system, or you give the affected classes new abilities that offset those flaws, or you create new classes with such abilities - but the last two aren't much different from one another when it comes to the amount of change involved.

Maybe you disagree that the flaws exist or are large enough to need to be addressed, but I'm questioning the people who will agree they're there but who seem to want them fixed without anything actually being changed.


I suppose that some peoples prefere to fix a class, more than to use a different class.
Example: a game is core-inspired, many players don't have splatbooks and don't have the time to learn new mechanics (they work, etc).
A DM could "fix" some classes, as the idea explained in this thread some days ago, giving to the monk some SA that are spells (divine power, etc).
Taking an unarmed swordsage works in a better way, but this means that the player must look a new class (not merely an old one with some new abilities) and learn to handle new mechanics (stances, manoveurs, etc.).

Call it laziness if you want, but it happens. And not only from DM part but also from players'.

[quick_comment]

What's wrong with using the Paladin class to represent a primary-melee character with a touch of the divine, really?

The paladin is bad at melee. Clerics are better at it.

Warhorse? Planar ally for a celestial anything.

Lay on hands? Spontaneous spell conversion

Detect Evil? Detect evil

Aura of Courage? Cloak of Valor

Smite? Several domains grant smite. Avenging strike grants smite as well.

Dont want full casting ability? Take quicken spell, and fill all your higher level slots with quickened spell. Pretend you are a paladin with battle blessing.


And so on. A cleric class makes a better paladin archetype than the paladin class. It can heal better, smite more ferociously, detect evil more often, cure fear in more people, have better saves, better attack bonus, better hp, etc than the paladin class.

[Yuki Akuma]

detect evil more often

Pardon?

A level one Paladin can detect evil more times per day than a level 100 Cleric.

[quick_comment]

Pardon?

A level one Paladin can detect evil more times per day than a level 100 Cleric.

Sorry, I thought you could permancy detect evil. I guess the cleric just persists it, and has it all day. He can also widen it for better detection.

(I think blessed sight is able to be made permanent. Its like arcane sight for evil)

[kamikasei]

Killer Angel, I'm not talking about what a DM might do, I'm talking about what WotC were to do. My question was how WotC could have released something to "fix" core melee without the effect being that certain classes were effectively replaced. Saying that splatbooks are limited in penetration or that fluff was an issue doesn't answer that question.

[Typewriter]

Fluff is not set in stone. That's why it's fluff.

Don't like the idea of the Sublime Way? Ignore it. It doesn't matter. The mechanics are sound (if you ignore WRT and don't intentionally misread IHS).

Don't like the Sublime Way, then? Okay, it doesn't exist. The nine disciplines work similarly for the same reason Wizards, Wu Jen and Archivist cast spells the same way - effective combat ends up working pretty similarly.

Don't like the maneuver names? Okay, don't call them that. Does every spellcaster call the same spell "fireball"? Does every caster talk about "Bibgy's forceful hand"? Is every conjurer's favourite low-level crowd control spell called "grease"? No.

The mechanics are sound, but being sound does not mean anybody has to like them. People come up with tons of sound classes and fixes for all manner of things, but people don't like it because it's homebrew, or because it's just not what they want.


Not sure about it... is this what you were asking?


He's asking for how you would present fixes without stepping on peoples toes. Don't replace a class completely, don't do this, don't do that.

I think I had it right in my earlier post where I responded to his question with 'Find a way to build upon the mechanics inherent in the class you want to change'. Fighter only feats that fill the holes in the fighters defense, paladin spells that increase the duration of his smite effect, etc. etc.

My answer:
Build upon the foundation that is already there, rather than completely abandoning it.



I suppose that some peoples prefere to fix a class, more than to use a different class.
Example: a game is core-inspired, many players don't have splatbooks and don't have the time to learn new mechanics (they work, etc).
A DM could "fix" some classes, as the idea explained in this thread some days ago, giving to the monk some SA that are spells (divine power, etc).
Taking an unarmed swordsage works in a better way, but this means that the player must look a new class (not merely an old one with some new abilities) and learn to handle new mechanics (stances, manoveurs, etc.).

Call it laziness if you want, but it happens. And not only from DM part but also from players'.

Sometimes it's laziness, sometimes it's personal preference (not everyone who disagrees with ToB 'doesn't get it' or 'is biased' - some of us just don't like it, after a thorough read, and a thorough understanding of it).

I believe the point is that we are entitled to those different opinions, whether it be replace the class(ToB), fix it yourself(homebrew), or just enjoy it as is because you've never had a problem with it(me).


The paladin is bad at melee. Clerics are better at it.

Warhorse? Planar ally for a celestial anything.

Lay on hands? Spontaneous spell conversion

Detect Evil? Detect evil

Aura of Courage? Cloak of Valor

Smite? Several domains grant smite. Avenging strike grants smite as well.

Dont want full casting ability? Take quicken spell, and fill all your higher level slots with quickened spell. Pretend you are a paladin with battle blessing.


And so on. A cleric class makes a better paladin archetype than the paladin class. It can heal better, smite more ferociously, detect evil more often, cure fear in more people, have better saves, better attack bonus, better hp, etc than the paladin class.

You're right, a cleric does do it better, but there is still NOTHING wrong with someone wanting to play a Paladin that way. Someone may do it better, but if you want to play it as a primary-melee character with a touch of the divine there is NOTHING wrong with that.

People are still trying to tell people they're wrong because something is better. The question is not, and has not been, what is the best. The question is why won't people let others play what they want without constantly pointing out stuff they already know. Sometimes it's good intention, but the point that people do that is something that has been a large focus of this thread. Listing all the ways a cleric is better is exactly what me and others are saying we don't want people to do when we want to play a Paladin.


Killer Angel, I'm not talking about what a DM might do, I'm talking about what WotC were to do. My question was how WotC could have released something to "fix" core melee without the effect being that certain classes were effectively replaced. Saying that splatbooks are limited in penetration or that fluff was an issue doesn't answer that question.

I know that comment wasn't directed at me, but I mentioned it in an earlier post(and again in this post).

Build upon the foundation that is already there. Release fighter only feats that do the things that people wish fighters could do. Make Paladin only spells that give the Paladin abilities people want the Paladins to have.

Things like that don't replace class abilities, they don't just add something that wasn't there before to a class. They don't even replace the base class outright. What they should do is find ways to enable those classes by using the classes pre-existing mechanics.

[quick_comment]

Build upon the foundation that is already there. Release fighter only feats that do the things that people wish fighters could do. Make Paladin only spells that give the Paladin abilities people want the Paladins to have.


So people dip fighter the same as before, only taking different feats. Paladin spells are coopted by other classes (recaster, wyrm wizard, silver pyromancer, miracle, limited wish, UMD, etc).

[Yuki Akuma]

The mechanics are sound, but being sound does not mean anybody has to like them. People come up with tons of sound classes and fixes for all manner of things, but people don't like it because it's homebrew, or because it's just not what they want.

Please point out where I said that not liking the flavour being an invalid reason automatically means you have to like the mechanics.

Please. Because I apparently said it, but I don't remember doing so. This worries me.

I seem to remember simply stating that disliking the fluff is no reason to automatically dismiss the book...

[Tavar]

Plus the fact that they don't have enough spells slots/feats available to make the necessary changes. At least, not without making a line of feats/spells powerful enough yet with easy enough prerequisites that you're essentially just changing the class completely.

[Killer Angel]

Killer Angel, I'm not talking about what a DM might do, I'm talking about what WotC were to do. My question was how WotC could have released something to "fix" core melee without the effect being that certain classes were effectively replaced. Saying that splatbooks are limited in penetration or that fluff was an issue doesn't answer that question.

Ah, I see.
Well, they should have rewrited heavily the Core material, while translating from 3.0 to 3.5, giving new abilities to the classes. They failed. :smalltongue:

'cause yes, Splatbooks ARE limited... it's their nature. Otherwise they would be Core. It's not their fault... :smallbiggrin:

[Typewriter]

So people dip fighter the same as before, only taking different feats. Paladin spells are coopted by other classes (recaster, wyrm wizard, silver pyromancer, miracle, limited wish, UMD, etc).

People are going to dip no matter what. What I'm saying is that if there was a feat that required level 12 fighter allowed you to make an attack roll in place of any skill check, people would stop complaining about fighters being bad at skills. If at fighter level 18(or maybe even earlier) they got access to a feat that allowed them a short range teleport people would stop complaining about lack of mobility. Not everyone just dips into fighter, some people enjoy playing it and being able to have a ton of feats. If theres something that fighters can't do, and Wizards want's to let them do it, the way to fix it is not by pretending fighter doesn't exist and making a new class that is better. It's by fixing the class.

I'm not really sure what you meant about the paladin coopted thing? If they were specific to Paladins and were worded as such would it be so bad? A 2nd level spell that makes your next smite last your Paladin level in rounds? A 1st level spell that triples the efficiency of lay on hands if used in the next round? A fourth level spell that gives you an insight bonus to X stat equal your Paladin level? Wow, those would be a lot more powerful than what Paladins already got, and I'd still be able to play a Paladin.

The question was how people think wizards should fix classes, not a request to completely homebrew a working mechanic. Using what is already there would have been a viable option, but instead of that they ignored the classes with problems and made new ones that not everybody likes. This is my opinion, and the answer I give would not make everyone happy, but it is my answer to the question on how they could have presented it.




Please point out where I said that not liking the flavour being an invalid reason automatically means you have to like the mechanics.

Please. Because I apparently said it, but I don't remember doing so. This worries me.

I seem to remember simply stating that disliking the fluff is no reason to automatically dismiss the book...

What you said was:


Don't like the idea of the Sublime Way? Ignore it. It doesn't matter. The mechanics are sound (if you ignore WRT and don't intentionally misread IHS).


You don't specifically say 'You must like sound mechanics' but saying 'Ignore it. It doesn't matter. The mechanics are sound.' sounds like you're implying that you're saying that the people who are arguing against ToB are people who don't like the fluff, and they don't realize they can get rid of it. What I was trying to point out is that people do get that, but it doesn't matter. The fluff may not be the only thing bothering them.

It sounded to me like you were trying to tell people the reasons they were wrong for not wanting to include things (ToB or otherwise) based off of fluff, when fluff is just as good of a reason as not liking the mechanics. That is an opinion, and nothing you can say will change that.

If I offended you, I apologize. My intent was not to put words into your mouth, but rather to point out that calling 'mechanics sound' is rather a moot point that I don't think anyone really cares about. If you were just saying 'sound mechanics' for no reason then that's fine, but if you were saying it because you think that people don't get that they're 'sound mechanics' then my response is appropriate.

[Gametime]

*snip*

while others actually enjoy just moving, charging and full attacking with the ocasional triping, sundering, and archery thrown in the middle as needed.

{scrubbed}
Some of us are perfectly happy just beating stuff to dead whitout needing pseudo spells to deal damage and complicate the iniative order to no end.

The immediate question this raises for me is, if you're happy moving, charging, full attacking, &c., why do you need help from a forum? I can't imagine anyone having trouble building a core fighter capable of those things.

Most of the time, threads asking for help building a fighter, or monk, or what have you, are a bit broader in scope. They want a fighter (or monk, or what have you) capable not just of moving, charging, full attacking, &c., but of some other daring exploits that can't easily be acquired through feats.

At THAT point, when it's pointed out that ToB isn't available, it starts to look something like: "I'm looking for a chocolate ice cream with marshmallows and chunks of fish-shaped fudge, but Phish Food is banned."

[Starbuck_II]

Obviously the answer is Strawberry.

[Yuki Akuma]

Unfairly reasonable response.

Damnit, no fair being reasonable.

[Typewriter]

The immediate question this raises for me is, if you're happy moving, charging, full attacking, &c., why do you need help from a forum? I can't imagine anyone having trouble building a core fighter capable of those things.

Most of the time, threads asking for help building a fighter, or monk, or what have you, are a bit broader in scope. They want a fighter (or monk, or what have you) capable not just of moving, charging, full attacking, &c., but of some other daring exploits that can't easily be acquired through feats.

At THAT point, when it's pointed out that ToB isn't available, it starts to look something like: "I'm looking for a chocolate ice cream with marshmallows and chunks of fish-shaped fudge, but Phish Food is banned."

Sometimes, it's as little as 'I'm playing a fighter who specializes in X, and I remember there being a feat that does something like XYZ, can anyone tell me what book it's in?', or it could be as much as, 'My DM doesn't allow ToB, so I need to play a fighter or something, what should I do?'.

Both of those will be responded to with 'use ToB'. It really does happen often.


Damnit, no fair being reasonable.

Hey you started it...being one of the people on this thread who treats this as a discussion rather than a shouting match...In all seriousness though, I really hope I haven't offended anyone at any point. I think most everyone in this thread has done a pretty good job of keeping things tame without any (much)hostility (which makes it enjoyable for me:smallsmile:). If I say something that sounds arrogant it isn't an attempt at an attack or anything, it's just my inability to coherently put my thoughts into words.

[Draz74]

Sometimes, it's as little as 'I'm playing a fighter who specializes in X, and I remember there being a feat that does something like XYZ, can anyone tell me what book it's in?', or it could be as much as, 'My DM doesn't allow ToB, so I need to play a fighter or something, what should I do?'.

Both of those will be responded to with 'use ToB'. It really does happen often.

I commented earlier, and it appears to have been missed: What do you think about the times when people say "use ToB" and the result is actually positive?

(Generally this is more likely to happen when they say it a little more tactfully, like "Hey, could you explain why your DM doesn't allow ToB? Because I've personally had great experiences with ToB, and it sounds like the perfect match for what you're trying to do; but a lot of DMs ban it out of misconceptions that it's broken or that you can't change the annoying fluff in it. Or because your group doesn't own it, in which case I really think you should prioritize buying it over other splatbooks.")

Yes, I've seen this conversation play out -- and result in a new conversion to ToB fans -- a number of times.

Granted, the opposite tone is also fairly common: "Yur DM suxxors. Tell him to allow ToB or u'll IHS him out of existence for playing D&D wrong." Or "Ur an idiot if u actually want to play Monk insted of Swordsage, even if the rest of ur group is at a casual, un-optimized level."

There's no question that those type of responses are inane and annoying, of course. (Even the ones that are tongue-in-cheek, trying to be funny by parodying similar responses. Joke's old now, move on, folks.)

Anyway, my point is that I object to a blanket condemnation of people recommending ToB, even in cases where someone specifically asked for non-ToB advice. Depending, of course, on the tone and amount of thought that goes into the recommendation.

[Typewriter]

I commented earlier, and it appears to have been missed: What do you think about the times when people say "use ToB" and the result is actually positive?

(Generally this is more likely to happen when they say it a little more tactfully, like "Hey, could you explain why your DM doesn't allow ToB? Because I've personally had great experiences with ToB, and it sounds like the perfect match for what you're trying to do; but a lot of DMs ban it out of misconceptions that it's broken or that you can't change the annoying fluff in it. Or because your group doesn't own it, in which case I really think you should prioritize buying it over other splatbooks.")

Yes, I've seen this conversation play out -- and result in a new conversion to ToB fans -- a number of times.

Granted, the opposite tone is also fairly common: "Yur DM suxxors. Tell him to allow ToB or u'll IHS him out of existence for playing D&D wrong." Or "Ur an idiot if u actually want to play Monk insted of Swordsage, even if the rest of ur group is at a casual, un-optimized level."

There's no question that those type of responses are inane and annoying, of course. (Even the ones that are tongue-in-cheek, trying to be funny by parodying similar responses. Joke's old now, move on, folks.)

Anyway, my point is that I object to a blanket condemnation of people recommending ToB, even in cases where someone specifically asked for non-ToB advice. Depending, of course, on the tone and amount of thought that goes into the recommendation.

I think I've seen things like that play out before. I think that that's a good thing. Introducing someone to something they wind up liking is always good.

Just so long as it's not:

Topic Creator: 'Help with fighting, no ToB'
Posters: 'ToB because it's awesome'
Topic Creator: 'ToB is not an option for me'
Posters: 'ToB is the awesome!!!'


I don't generally get upset if someone offers me ideas as long as they listen if I wind up turning those ideas down. I think that sometimes, if a poster is really not interested in ToB, they don't do a very good job of making it known that it is not an option, so it's kind of their responsibility to reply when people mention ToB and explain that it's not really an option. They shouldn't be obligated to give their reasons, but they should at least make an attempt at informing people of the 'no-go' status of the book rather than just getting upset when they didn't explain themselves thoroughly in their original post.

But...

If someone does explain the full reasoning behind why and people still harass that person, possibly even convincing them to use ToB despite their initial trepidation, then I, personally, don't like it. Obviously that person didn't mean what they originally said, so they shouldn't have posted that it was 'not an option', and not only that, but just helping them with what they asked could have made them just as happy, and in a lot less time.

I suppose the real question is:

Does the fact that, sometimes, when people say ToB is not viable, only to wind up as a fan of it after it's discussed, make up for all the times people say ToB is not viable and wind up getting harassed, even though they REALLY don't want anything to do with it?

My answer is that if someone is willing to discuss something then it is all good. Discuss, convince, convert. But if that person says they're really not interested I think their wishes should be respected. That's why I don't go into ToB threads and start *discussions* there, it's not respectful. I *try* to only discuss these things in discussion threads, because that's kind of where they belong.

[Sinfire Titan]

The immediate question this raises for me is, if you're happy moving, charging, full attacking, &c., why do you need help from a forum? I can't imagine anyone having trouble building a core fighter capable of those things.

Most of the time, threads asking for help building a fighter, or monk, or what have you, are a bit broader in scope. They want a fighter (or monk, or what have you) capable not just of moving, charging, full attacking, &c., but of some other daring exploits that can't easily be acquired through feats.

Exactly. People want to play a Monk that works, we tell them to read a handbook. If they want a Monk that can set things on fire without using spells, we tell them to use a Swordsage. If they want to play a Monk who can set things on fire without using spells and without Tome of Battle, we facepalm because the next best options are:


Necklace of Natural Attacks, which is costly and magical.
Fiery Ki Strike, which sucks in the long run because it is reliant on a limited-use resource.
Kensei, which is rather sub-par.


In other words, the best answer is magical in origin, highly unlikely to be allowed if even Tome of Battle is banned, and abysmally priced. The next two options are fairly poor ones, and a majority of the time are not worth pursuing.


At THAT point, when it's pointed out that ToB isn't available, it starts to look something like: "I'm looking for a chocolate ice cream with marshmallows and chunks of fish-shaped fudge, but Phish Food is banned."

I'd say its like them asking for milk chocolate ice cream, but saying they are Lactose-intolerant. It's plausible for such a thing to exist, but it just isn't the same...

No offense to those who actually are Lactose-intolerant.

[Starbuck_II]

Exactly. People want to play a Monk that works, we tell them to read a handbook. If they want a Monk that can set things on fire without using spells, we tell them to use a Swordsage. If they want to play a Monk who can set things on fire without using spells and without Tome of Battle, we facepalm because the next best options are:


Necklace of Natural Attacks, which is costly and magical.
Fiery Ki Strike, which sucks in the long run because it is reliant on a limited-use resource.
Kensei, which is rather sub-par.


In other words, the best answer is magical in origin, highly unlikely to be allowed if even Tome of Battle is banned, and abysmally priced. The next two options are fairly poor ones, and a majority of the time are not worth pursuing.

Does Incarnum count as magic?
Because you can set things on fire with incarnum.

[Sinfire Titan]

Does Incarnum count as magic?
Because you can set things on fire with incarnum.

Sadly, it does. Spells consider Soulmelds magic items.

[Kylarra]

Exactly. People want to play a Monk that works, we tell them to read a handbook. If they want a Monk that can set things on fire without using spells, we tell them to use a Swordsage. If they want to play a Monk who can set things on fire without using spells and without Tome of Battle, we facepalm because the next best options are:


Necklace of Natural Attacks, which is costly and magical.
Fiery Ki Strike, which sucks in the long run because it is reliant on a limited-use resource.
Kensei, which is rather sub-par.

Pyrokineticist!

[Sinfire Titan]

Pyrokineticist!

I've never told the story of the Psion 5/Pyrokineticist 1 who fought a 3rd level Cleric and lost, have I?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Go ahead. I would be interested in hearing of it.

[Kylarra]

I've never told the story of the Psion 5/Pyrokineticist 1 who fought a 3rd level Cleric and lost, have I?
Nope!

though I only say pyro because it technically can do it with a 2 level dip.

[Thurbane]

Also diferent people have diferent tastes. Some people indeed want to have three dozen of diferent abilities with fancy names wich end up doing the same thing in the end, while others actually enjoy just moving, charging and full attacking with the ocasional triping, sundering, and archery thrown in the middle as needed.

{Scrubbed}
Some of us are perfectly happy just beating stuff to dead whitout needing pseudo spells to deal damage and complicate the iniative order to no end.
I'll second this...the bolded part, maybe not the {scrubbed} part :smalltongue:

[Sinfire Titan]

Go ahead. I would be interested in hearing of it.

It started with Midge, my little brother, wanting to play a Psion.

Worth noting is the dumbass can't even play a Chain Tripper. Why? He didn't take Improved Trip, thus making him completely useless against the one encounter that mattered. He is also legally blind, and spoiled to no end.

That said, I have to help him make his characters.

He started off wanting to be a Telepath, but then read through the PrCs and decided he wanted to be the Pyro instead. After 3 days of arguing, I gave up and said he just had to finish the character himself.

Somehow during the actual game he managed to irritate the party's Cleric into combat. I always forget the details on it, but he did, which is the important part.

Midge wins init, and proceeds to create the Fire Lash. His first round's worth of actions were wasted, as he couldn't get to the Cleric at the moment due to terrain.

The Cleric took the opportunity to cast Resist Energy. He also drew his cudgel (light mace), and took a 5ft step. He never announced out loud that he was casting the spell; he simply handed the DM a note so Midge wouldn't realize it.

Midge's action comes around, and he gets lucky with a critical against the Cleric. We all know it did nothing, a his stats were rather poor and he only did 2d6 damage (barely getting a 7).

The Cleric proceeds to miss miserably for the next 9 rounds, as his stats were fairly low too, at least physically.

10th round comes up, and I decide to run for food for everyone else. It takes me about 20 minutes, and when I get back the Cleric has taken 2 HP worth of damage because of Midge's luck. Midge was untouched, and hadn't even bothered manifesting a power. It was now round 13.

This continues for some time, until the Cleric announces he is casting Cure Light spontaneously. Midge inquires about the Cleric's HP, as it's been nearly 2 minutes in combat. The Cleric responds by saying he's taken 5 damage the entire time.

Midge calls BS. DM shows everyone the note, including Midge. Midge calls BS again.

Cleric crits, and knocks out 1/2 of Midge's HP thanks to the mace. Midge decides to withdraw, forgetting that he is standing on Difficult Terrain at this point. He retracts his action, and declares a normal Move action. Cleric crits again on the AoO, dropping Midge's HP to negatives. The Cleric then proceeds to Coup Midge's Psion, and points out that all Midge had to do was manifest Mind Thrust at 5th ML every other round to actually be doing something useful.

The Cleric's player points out how much eh was holding back: One of his bonus spells was Hold Person, and another was Blindness/Deafness.

Midge calls BS again, throws dice, and eventually damages my XPH as a result of his tantrum.


Midge has since been banned from the campaign.

[Nero24200]

Granted, the opposite tone is also fairly common: "Yur DM suxxors. Tell him to allow ToB or u'll IHS him out of existence for playing D&D wrong." Or "Ur an idiot if u actually want to play Monk insted of Swordsage, even if the rest of ur group is at a casual, un-optimized level."

There's no question that those type of responses are inane and annoying, of course. (Even the ones that are tongue-in-cheek, trying to be funny by parodying similar responses. Joke's old now, move on, folks.)

Anyway, my point is that I object to a blanket condemnation of people recommending ToB, even in cases where someone specifically asked for non-ToB advice. Depending, of course, on the tone and amount of thought that goes into the recommendation.
I beleive this sums up my view pretty well. As I've said earlier, I dislike TOB, but then again, that's because it's just plain not my cup of tea. Theres a whole list of sub reasons as well, but they're not really relevent.

But what's does annoy me is that people come to forums like this asking for fighter advice to get warblade answers. If the fans were more accepting of the fact that it's not for everyone I wouldn't even be bothering with this debate. But saddly, that's not the case.

[Godskook]

The Cleric took the opportunity to cast Resist Energy. He also drew his cudgel (light mace), and took a 5ft step. He never announced out loud that he was casting the spell; he simply handed the DM a note so Midge wouldn't realize it.

-------------------------

Midge calls BS. DM shows everyone the note, including Midge. Midge calls BS again.

How did the cleric cast Resist Energy silently? If he didn't, Midge was right, BS on that one, since the spell has a verbal component. His character should've heard unless the spell was actually prepared as a silent spell.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

He might not have been able to identify it. Psicraft and all.

[wadledo]

Or, since few spells actually say what needs to be said, the verbial compenent could have just been "MYRODFELSDIFYTNIFLYPOODLE!"

[Godskook]

He might not have been able to identify it. Psicraft and all.

True, but that depends on the transparency rules set up, I guess...

[Oslecamo]

Or, since few spells actually say what needs to be said, the verbial compenent could have just been "MYRODFELSDIFYTNIFLYPOODLE!"

Why do you think that adventurers take ranks in spellcraft?

[Starbuck_II]

Or, since few spells actually say what needs to be said, the verbial compenent could have just been "MYRODFELSDIFYTNIFLYPOODLE!"

Come on, that is still a word. I'd expect for the minimum a listen check.

[SilveryCord]

But what's does annoy me is that people come to forums like this asking for fighter advice to get warblade answers. If the fans were more accepting of the fact that it's not for everyone I wouldn't even be bothering with this debate. But saddly, that's not the case.

That's because the only fighter advice available is to play incredibly specific builds using the most optimized, specific weapons and the exact correct feat tree. People who need to ask the forum for build advice usually aren't savvy enough to keep a fighter build up to speed with other class's builds, the easiest solution, even if they think the Sublime Way is stupid, is to tell them to play a warblade. A warblade is a mundane, blade master of war, who likes to fight. Sounds like a fighter to me.

[Thurbane]

That's because the only fighter advice available is to play incredibly specific builds using the most optimized, specific weapons and the exact correct feat tree. People who need to ask the forum for build advice usually aren't savvy enough to keep a fighter build up to speed with other class's builds, the easiest solution, even if they think the Sublime Way is stupid, is to tell them to play a warblade. A warblade is a mundane, blade master of war, who likes to fight. Sounds like a fighter to me.
I dispute this, at least partially - often people who are asking for build advice are already very build savvy, but are looking for a second opinion or fresh perspective. And the bulk of Fighter optimization requests aren't as general as "How can I make my Fighter more effective or versatile"... Add to that the fact many of us don't find the Fighter as useless as is generally implied. Many of us are quite happy with the power level and usefulness of the Fighter (at least in our own games), but are looking to tweak some aspect or other.

Admittedly, this doesn't just happen with ToB - when people ask about Warmages or similar, they often get referred to psionics "doing it better". Which is fine advice, just don't be surprised if psionics/ToB/incarnum/etc. isn't viable for everyone...

Long story short, sometimes people want advice on a character that doesn't involve playing a different class altogether, or being browbeaten to use books that their group doesn't allow/doesn't own. And to reiterate again, no one minds when you give them this advice, so long as you aren't overly dogmatic about it, and are understanding when they explain that book X isn't an option for them.

[Quietus]

The paladin is bad at melee. Clerics are better at it.

Warhorse? Planar ally for a celestial anything.

Lay on hands? Spontaneous spell conversion

Detect Evil? Detect evil

Aura of Courage? Cloak of Valor

Smite? Several domains grant smite. Avenging strike grants smite as well.

Dont want full casting ability? Take quicken spell, and fill all your higher level slots with quickened spell. Pretend you are a paladin with battle blessing.


And so on. A cleric class makes a better paladin archetype than the paladin class. It can heal better, smite more ferociously, detect evil more often, cure fear in more people, have better saves, better attack bonus, better hp, etc than the paladin class.


Yes, some classes Do It Better. That's poor game design, bub, that things aren't balanced. Also, specifically, what if I happen to like having full BAB without spending a round getting it? Or not trying to persuade a celestial whatever on a regular basis to act as my horse? Or not spending a round to be immune to fear/give allies a boost against fear?

Sometimes, I don't want to play a Cleric to pretend I'm a Paladin. I just want to play a Paladin!



Anyway, my point is that I object to a blanket condemnation of people recommending ToB, even in cases where someone specifically asked for non-ToB advice. Depending, of course, on the tone and amount of thought that goes into the recommendation.

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree, in many cases. Now, if the poster's tone suggests they have access to ToB and don't play it because they feel it's broken, perhaps there's room to ask WHY they feel it's broken, and point out objections. But when I say "I'm allowed access to books XyZ, but no ToB, how can I make this Fighter build work", I don't think I should be given advice that says "Buy ToB". I should not have to put a disclaimer in every post I make that says why I don't use ToB, and please please PLEASE do not suggest I use it because it is not an option, only to have people ignore it and tell me how awesome ToB is. And as much as I hate to admit it.. that does happen on these boards, frequently. It has happened to me, specifically, in every melee optimization thread I've made off the top of my head. And in every one, I've said "No ToB", only to get people telling me that a warblade/swordsage/whatever would Do It Better.

[quick_comment]

Yes, some classes Do It Better. That's poor game design, bub, that things aren't balanced. Also, specifically, what if I happen to like having full BAB without spending a round getting it? Or not trying to persuade a celestial whatever on a regular basis to act as my horse? Or not spending a round to be immune to fear/give allies a boost against fear?

Sometimes, I don't want to play a Cleric to pretend I'm a Paladin. I just want to play a Paladin!

You take DMM: Persist.

And you are playing a paladin. What else would you call a holy man who fights evil with martial prowness and divine magic? Class names are metagame constructs.

[Thurbane]

You take DMM: Persist.

And you are playing a paladin. What else would you call a holy man who fights evil with martial prowness and divine magic? Class names are metagame constructs.
A metagame construct that apparently matters to some of us. :smallwink:

[quick_comment]

A metagame construct that apparently matters to some of us. :smallwink:

Do you obsess about the color of your character sheet?


It shouldnt matter (except to a metagamer) if a class is named cleric, paladin, holy warrior, ctulthu, or xxkd[pfhdsi.

[Quietus]

You take DMM: Persist.

And you are playing a paladin. What else would you call a holy man who fights evil with martial prowness and divine magic? Class names are metagame constructs.

So now I have to sink THREE feats into a build, to recreate a Paladin. Or, I can... just MAKE A FREAKING PALADIN.


Now,a s to my entire point in this thread summed up : http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124509&page=1

The OP in that thread specifically takes the time to call out - TWICE - no ToB. And in posts 12, and to a lesser extent 28, both are hinted at or otherwise suggested. If it weren't for this thread specifically, which I suspect has cooled things somewhat, it would be much more prevalent. But when someone says "My DM doesn't let us use ToB due to it being inherently higher power than what we play at", why do we get responses like "ToB is banned for no good reason"? The other only talks about a lockdown build he used, but includes ToB stances... that one's not so bad, but why, WHY, WHY!?!?!! is "ToB is above the group's general power level" responded to with "ToB is banned for no good reason"? To me, that's probably among the BEST reasons to ban it from a game!

[Pharaoh's Fist]

So now I have to sink THREE feats into a build, to recreate a Paladin. Or, I can... just MAKE A FREAKING PALADIN.

You'd be arguably more awesome with DMM.

[Thurbane]

Do you obsess about the color of your character sheet?


It shouldnt matter (except to a metagamer) if a class is named cleric, paladin, holy warrior, ctulthu, or xxkd[pfhdsi.
I could play a Wizard with Instant Locksmith, Instant Search, Knock and Invisibility and call myself a Rogue, but I wouldn't actually be playing a Rogue - I'd be taking a different class and make it imitate a class. To me, it's just not the same.

I daresay you could imitate most aspects of a Warblade, Crusader or Swordsage with a Wizard with the right spells...

Also, I don't get this ragging on metagaming - everyone metagames to a degree; and powergamers/optimizers tend to metagame more than most.

[quick_comment]

So now I have to sink THREE feats into a build, to recreate a Paladin. Or, I can... just MAKE A FREAKING PALADIN.


Ooh, three whole feats.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

One of which comes free if you take the Planning domain.

[quick_comment]

Well, if you want to be a paladin, you should probably take strength and war, although ymmv.

Still, a cleric class devoting THREE WHOLE FEATS to augmenting its martial prowness is a better paladin than the paladin class.

To be more paladin-esque, trade your domains for the devotion feats.

[SparkMandriller]

The other only talks about a lockdown build he used, but includes ToB stances...

So he used ToB, and claims he got bored, and you think he's recommending it?

I'm pretty certain you can find fighters boring without automatically suggesting ToB, anyway. They kind of are. Find enemy. Attack enemy. Find next enemy. Just let the DM know that you charge when you're not next to someone and full attack when you are and you can safely take a break whenever fights come up. You can pretend ToB doesn't exist, and my post's just as valid.

[Typewriter]

Ooh, three whole feats.

Three (or two) feats that I may have wanted for other things. I like feats - a lot. And not to mention if I'm wanting to play a holy warrior who has trained to fight for the gods, Paladin fits better than cleric(I think so anyway).

Paladin: "My gods supply me with the tools I need to fight against evil, and I have trained my body to know the art of battle"

Cleric: "My gods supply me with the ability to ask them for things, and rather than train my body in their honor I took feats that could have been used to flesh out my character to take some feats a lot of people consider OP (and many don't even allow) to be able to be better than a paladin!

Not even fluff wise, but mechanic wise - Cleric is not the same as Paladin. They get to ask their gods for things to do what they want. Paladins live by a standard, and train themselves for certain tasks, being granted gifts from the gods, eventually learning to cast a limited amount of spells.


Class names are metagame constructs, true, but there is still a difference in where and how people get their powers that is not just fluff that is very important. Otherwise everyone would play wizards, since wizards can do everything anyway, but the way wizards get their abilities doesn't match every concept. And the way a cleric works does not match the mechanic of what some may want in a Paladin.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Cleric: "My gods supply me with the ability to ask them for things, and rather than train my body in their honor I took feats that could have been used to flesh out my character to take some feats a lot of people consider OP (and many don't even allow) to be able to be better than a paladin!

Like Alertness, Persuasive, and Skill Focus: Baking?

[quick_comment]

Paladin: "My gods supply me with the tools I need to fight against evil, and I have trained my body to hit things hard. Hopefully I never encounter a devil that I cannot bludgeon to death.

Cleric: "My gods supply me with the ability to channel their might, and I have devoted all my time and effort to mastering the powers they have given me.


Above is fixed

[Quietus]

Like Alertness, Persuasive, and Skill Focus: Baking?

How about Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, and Spirited Charge?

Paladin has this at 6, or 3 if human. A Cleric, even with the Planning domain, has to wait until 12, or 9 if human, to get these. And by taking the Planning domain, you have to follow particular deities, or certain philosophies, which do not in any way necessarily mesh with a Paladin's code. By taking Planning, you're following a deity who espouses it, or the metaphysical concept of Planning - or, again, I can be a Paladin, get my Spirited Charge (or whatever) feat six whole levels earlier, and not have to worry about whether Wee Jas agrees that I've laid out the seven steps to success.

As to DMM being awesome; The only way I could possibly use it more than once is by taking Extra Turning, or using(abusing?) nightsticks. DMM is far too easily abuseable for a game where the average PC is no more optimized than "My Barbarian has power attack".

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Cheesy feats that many DMs disallow!

But seriously, I thought the phrase meant taking feats to fill the fluffy part of a character concept, such as the backstory and etc.

[SparkMandriller]

Paladin: "I could rely on my god for everything, but instead I taught myself how to fight because I don't really trust him. The guy's willing to cut me off if I poison the overlord instead of getting myself and my friends killed fighting him, what do you expect me to do!?"

[quick_comment]

Yeah, a real paladin would trust his god to aim his strikes (war and strength devotion) instead of trusting in the dude at the gym (high strength)

[Thurbane]

Like Alertness, Persuasive, and Skill Focus: Baking?
That's very disingenuous. It could be Power Attack, Cleave & Battle Blessing...

Pointless snark aside, why is it so hard for people to accept that some people would rather play a particular class than to play something else that imitates that classes abilities in an arguably mechanically more effective way?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

The phrase seemed to mean feats that promoted the fluff parts of a character such as his backstory.

[PId6]

That's very disingenuous. It could be Power Attack, Cleave & Battle Blessing...
Who takes Cleave? Law Devotion all the way!

[Thurbane]

As Quietus pointed out, fleshing out the character could be that he is an accomplished mounted warrior rather than just random suboptimal flavor feats...

[Typewriter]

Depends on the character really. Probably one skill focus feat (I know, I know - I still like them), one combat feat, and something to flesh out the character - something riding based if I want to be mounted, or maybe a combat maneuver if I think the character would know any.

And for the other comments that people are making as a paladin and/or cleric - those are all just as viable for character backstory. It doesn't change the fact that if I want to play a Paladin(Character) who was chosen by his gods because of his awesome biceps then I want Paladin(Class), not cleric who just prays for an hour and is given super powers.

Most of the time *I* think about Paladins(Characters), I'm imagining a fighter/cleric hybrid. Yes, there are other ways to fulfill those character designs, but sometimes what we want may be *best* defined by taking a crappy class.

[DragoonWraith]

So now I have to sink THREE feats into a build, to recreate a Paladin. Or, I can... just MAKE A FREAKING PALADIN.


Now,a s to my entire point in this thread summed up : http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124509&page=1

The OP in that thread specifically takes the time to call out - TWICE - no ToB. And in posts 12, and to a lesser extent 28, both are hinted at or otherwise suggested. If it weren't for this thread specifically, which I suspect has cooled things somewhat, it would be much more prevalent. But when someone says "My DM doesn't let us use ToB due to it being inherently higher power than what we play at", why do we get responses like "ToB is banned for no good reason"? The other only talks about a lockdown build he used, but includes ToB stances... that one's not so bad, but why, WHY, WHY!?!?!! is "ToB is above the group's general power level" responded to with "ToB is banned for no good reason"? To me, that's probably among the BEST reasons to ban it from a game!
Except that a lot of people claim that ToB is above their game's power level, when they still allow Druids. Wizards and Clerics aren't auto-broken, but being overpowered as a Druid comes down to very simple things (choose a good AC, choose a good WS, take Natural Spell. Congratulations, you're awesome). If you don't ban Druid, then ToB shouldn't be, at least not for balance concerns. And if you allow non-blaster Wizards, or non-healbot Clerics, then again, ToB is not unbalanced.

If you use Healer, Warmage, Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, and Rogue, then ToB is overpowered for your table. But since Cleric, Druid, and Wizard are substantially more powerful than ToB classes, and Druid, at least, isn't even hard to play 'right' (as in, the way in which it is especially powerful), that's really an inaccurate statement they're making if those classes are still allowed.

[Typewriter]

Except that a lot of people claim that ToB is above their game's power level, when they still allow Druids. Wizards and Clerics aren't auto-broken, but being overpowered as a Druid comes down to very simple things (choose a good AC, choose a good WS, take Natural Spell. Congratulations, you're awesome). If you don't ban Druid, then ToB shouldn't be, at least not for balance concerns. And if you allow non-blaster Wizards, or non-healbot Clerics, then again, ToB is not unbalanced.

If you use Healer, Warmage, Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, and Rogue, then ToB is overpowered for your table. But since Cleric, Druid, and Wizard are substantially more powerful than ToB classes, and Druid, at least, isn't even hard to play 'right' (as in, the way in which it is especially powerful), that's really an inaccurate statement they're making if those classes are still allowed.

Yes, but if dm X disallows ToB because it's been a problem at his table, but still allows wizards/clerics/druids because they've never been a problem at his table then there is nothing wrong with that. ToB doesn't require effort to be awesome and other things do, and that's why a lot DMs ban it, not because it's OP, but because it's the single most effective thing his players use, and in comparison to their blaster mages, and healbot clerics, it is OP.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

ToB doesn't require effort to be awesome and other things do,

Druids. Pick Natural Spell, Place highest stat in Wisdom and second in Con, grab an fun animal companion, and you're good to go.

[Quietus]

Except that a lot of people claim that ToB is above their game's power level, when they still allow Druids. Wizards and Clerics aren't auto-broken, but being overpowered as a Druid comes down to very simple things (choose a good AC, choose a good WS, take Natural Spell. Congratulations, you're awesome). If you don't ban Druid, then ToB shouldn't be, at least not for balance concerns. And if you allow non-blaster Wizards, or non-healbot Clerics, then again, ToB is not unbalanced.

If you use Healer, Warmage, Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, and Rogue, then ToB is overpowered for your table. But since Cleric, Druid, and Wizard are substantially more powerful than ToB classes, and Druid, at least, isn't even hard to play 'right' (as in, the way in which it is especially powerful), that's really an inaccurate statement they're making if those classes are still allowed.

Maybe I'm just projecting things from my group into the hypothetical realm of optimization... but within my group, we actually have characters that don't just pick things for metagame reasons, we have character concepts and then build around that. My Druid who has (had, anyway) a medium viper as her animal companion for a very long time, for example. And believe me, wild shape isn't the force people make it out to be; I'm regularly outdamaged by our party's barbarian, who uses Monkey Grip. Even when I WS into a tiger and claw things in the face. A druid played this way - as true to her character, not just picking whatever happens to get her the biggest pluses - doesn't overshadow an unoptimized party at all. A tome of battle character COULD very easily overshadow many of us in combat, fairly easily. It's above the power level my group uses - and yes, I do have a fairly decent idea of how ToB works - so I choose to leave it out. Why, why, WHY do I always end up having to defend that choice?

[Typewriter]

Druids. Pick Natural Spell, Place highest stat in Wisdom and second in Con, grab an fun animal companion, and you're good to go.

Yet it's never been a problem at my table. Everyone always takes natural spell, because it's obviously a great feat, but then they wind up...not really doing a whole lot that's amazing. I'm not disagreeing that it's easy to be awesome with, but you still get to choose which spells to cast, or whether to turn into a bear and maul things, and most players that I've seen are suboptimal at best with it.

I play with people who don't optimize a whole lot, and the only time that anyone *really* outshines anyone else is when they play something from the ToB.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Thinking about it, if you pick the wrong maneuvers and stances, you won't do well as a Warblade either.



I play with people who don't optimize a whole lot, and the only time that anyone *really* outshines anyone else is when they play something from the ToB.
Since when does correlation equal causation?

[DragoonWraith]

{Scrubbed}

[Quietus]

{Scrubbed}

Not optimizing is Doing It Wrong!

[/sarcasm], in case that's needed...

[Kylarra]

{Scrubbed}
Woo strawman.

His statement is not indicative on any desires for or against optimization. It's a statement about his playgroup.

[DragoonWraith]

Not optimizing is Doing It Wrong!

[/sarcasm], in case that's needed...
Woo strawman.

His statement is not indicative on any desires for or against optimization. It's a statement about his playgroup.
No, it seemed more to me that he was suggesting that Tome of Battle is bad not because it's more powerful, but because it's more easy to make it powerful. Not that the power level is bad, but because you should have to work for that.

What it really sounds like to me is that Typewriter likes to play at a low power level (which is fine), but his group doesn't so much choose that power level so much as not know how to do better than that level. So he lets them play without optimizing, but then once they get the self-optimizing ToB, they play better, enjoy it, and it bothers him because before they were all playing the way he liked it simply because they didn't know any better, and now that they do they don't want to play his way. To which, really, I have to say, find people who actually enjoy playing the way you want to play. Don't trick them or whatever into playing the way you like playing, because they don't know better.

[Kylarra]

No, it seemed more to me that he was suggesting that Tome of Battle is bad not because it's more powerful, but because it's more easy to make it powerful. Not that the power level is bad, but because you should have to work for that.

What it really sounds like to me is that Typewriter likes to play at a low power level (which is fine), but his group doesn't so much choose that power level so much as not know how to do better than that level. So he lets them play without optimizing, but then once they get the self-optimizing ToB, they play better, enjoy it, and it bothers him because before they were all playing the way he liked it simply because they didn't know any better, and now that they do they don't want to play his way. To which, really, I have to say, find people who actually enjoy playing the way you want to play. Don't trick them or whatever into playing the way you like playing, because they don't know better.I didn't take his statement that way, but I suppose I'll let him defend himself. I just want to say that you may be seeing spooks where there aren't any, in your passion to promote ToB.

[Typewriter]

{scrubbed}

I looked up, and skimmed over, the 'Stormwind Fallacy'. Not very familiar with it, while reading over it I had a lot of trouble caring to be honest, because I don't think it quite reflects on the conversation as much as it could.

'Who play badly'

There is no appropriate response to be made in response to that comment, so I will simply say that there is no such thing as someone who 'plays badly', and that different groups have different styles.

My players do not seek to weaken themselves, it's just that the primary caster player likes blasting. A lot. The primary rogue loves....really random things sometimes. The...anime fan player guy...builds a lot of really random things that rarely work that well.

I am a bit of an anomaly in my group. I don't look at balance, or even try to find something that works. Concept first. What fits concept second. If theres anything left at the end maybe I'll take some feats to improve my effectiveness.

Example:
My character is an expert chef, but also a great fighter. I will take a level of fighter, and my first feat will not be Cleave, but instead Skill Focus: Profession(Chef). That is not an attempt at weakening my character, it is simply that I prefer putting my feats towards something that fits the character over a feat that will multiply my effectiveness by 10(not saying PA does that in of itself, just explaining that the skill focus is what I want over just about anything else).

My group has fun playing this way, and we've never run into any problems with party balance (except for when ToB is used), and not only that - the party is fighting things actually close to the appropriate CR. They're not taking CR 20 enemies down at level 12, or 16. If we have four players at level 18-20, they will fight things like pit-fiends, and they will find ways to win - without my having to just roll over and take it.

Example of a character I made that everyone in my party loved, but everyone reading this will cringe at:

Ball was kind of a DM present to me. I begged with him and pleaded with him to let me take 'magic immunity' for 1 LA. Now, what this meant was that anything that allowed SR I was immune to. The downside was that that included healing spells and the like, so natural healing only. Oh, the character also only benefited from mundane equipment. Magic items did nothing for him.

Balls feat selection was unique. The DM allowed me to take 2 levels of fighter, 2 levels of UA Expert, 2 levels of UA warrior, 2 levels of the rogue variant which grants fighter feats instead of sneak attack. I didn't get to play Ball past this point because the campaign kind of dwindles and died(I was glad because I was running out of feats to take). Ball also had two flaws, and some traits.

At level 8 Ball had 13 feats. One feat was toughness. The other 12 feats(even the ones which should have been fighter only feats) the dm let me take 'Roll with it' from Savage Species.

The end result: He had decent HP, DR 24/-, and complete spell immunity (except to any conjuration). Whenever combat came up I was woefully incompetent if I tried to swing my weapon, but I would usually find some way to contribute(hooking a dinosaur with a rope and grapple comes to mind), but that wasn't really the point of Ball.

Ball was fun. He was the greatest drain imaginable on the parties resources, but the best part was that no one knew what he was. If I took a single point of damage in combat I would scream and cry and wine like a little girl. If the party cleric tried to heal me I would scream in pain and proclaim that now I needed two inflict spells cast upon me. Eventually she was preparing half her spells as inflict spells to 'keep me in the positives', even though she could tell I was alive. She occasionaly tried to figure me out, but I had huge bluff and sense motive, so I usually just wound up convincing her of something crazy.

But he was a drain in other ways too. He got no benefit from magic items, but he took EVERYTHING that he could bluff away from the party. They had no idea how he worked so if he demanded the CHA cloak and the WIS helm, they would give it to him because what he was doing was obviously working, so they had no reason to not give him what he needed to keep doing it. I had the three most powerful magic weapons, very powerful magic armor, AND stat boosting items out the wazoo.

Everyone loved Ball. He found ways to contribute, and found ways to make it look like he contributed more than he did, but in actuality he was simply a bluff check waiting for a place to happen.

It was the most fun I ever had playing a character, and it was BY FAR the most worthless, drain on a party, character I have ever played.

When the campaign ended and everyone found out exactly how much I had screwed them over they laughed and laughed. No one was upset, the 'benefit' I had provided the party wasn't what had been important. What had been important was that everyone had fun with that character.


AND:



What it really sounds like to me is that Typewriter likes to play at a low power level (which is fine), but his group doesn't so much choose that power level so much as not know how to do better than that level. So he lets them play without optimizing, but then once they get the self-optimizing ToB, they play better, enjoy it, and it bothers him because before they were all playing the way he liked it simply because they didn't know any better, and now that they do they don't want to play his way. To which, really, I have to say, find people who actually enjoy playing the way you want to play. Don't trick them or whatever into playing the way you like playing, because they don't know better.

Not quite. I don't care what my players use, or what power level it is (because I can find a way to make challenges effective again), the problem was that when ToB got introduced it made my other 3-4 players(normally a group of 5, but sometimes people aren't around) feel worthless. One killed off his character (who he had enjoyed up to that point) because he didn't want to 'refluff' that character, but he wanted to be effective again. The others tried to change a few things to optimize their characters, but could not do so without being forced to play differently than they liked (blaster mage would have had to stop being a blaster mage to match up), so for the duration of that campaign very few of the players felt useful in combat, because while three of them would be fighting one of the two golems, the Crusader(I think) would be soloing the other one.

I'm not tricking anyone, or forcing people into my playstyle (and I rather resent the implication). The introduction of the book caused a balance issue which I *did not* remove. Players are still allowed to use it, but they kind of came to a gentlemans agreement amongst themselves regarding it, and it still sometimes does get used. Not my problem, if they're causing balance issues amongst themselves then they can fix it themselves. Doesn't change the fact that I don't like the book , or that introducing it into a group of unoptimizers forces people to 'change your play style or suck'. That's some of my groups experiences with it, and I'm guessing that some other people have had similar problems. People wouldn't say it's OP all the time if it wasn't in comparison to what they're used to.

[Jalor]

The only thing Typewriter accomplished with that post is proving DragoonWrath's point. Here's how I see the situation:

You like a casual, low-power group. You all have fun messing around with your zany and somewhat inept characters. Nothing wrong with that. But then, a guy gets ToB. He makes a character, and he's strong. Really strong. He never thought he could make a character be that badass. But the other melée characters in the group are playing Fighters (one-trick ponies at best) and Monks (dead weight, probably worse than CW Samurai). They apparently didn't realize that you can change fluff to suit your needs, and I consider it a failure on the DM's part that this wasn't common knowledge. I'm curious as to how the blaster mage felt useless, because even a Warmage is high Tier 4 or low Tier 3, about the same as a Duskblade or a non-optimized ToB class. And unless he was an actual Warmage, he's probably higher.

More of a DM fail than anything. While ToB is overpowered compared to many core classes, the classes in question are Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk. Try "agreeing to stay away from" anything better than a Monk.

And I have to wonder what happens when someone in your group realizes that they can take Shock Trooper and be the Incredible Hulk, instead of Alertness and being a former night watchman. Or when the Sorcerer sees Wings of Flurry and decides it is cooler than Lightning Bolt. Do you crush their dreams too, or do you decide your Fighter learned a powerful sword move instead of learning to make Baked Alaska?

[Lycanthromancer]

Baked Athkatla?

Fixed. :smalltongue:

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't insult others (individually or collectively) over playstyles. Thread locked.