PDA

View Full Version : Tome of Battle : The arguments



Pages : [1] 2

Quietus
2009-09-06, 11:52 PM
In a thread I recently started here, asking how I could obtain full strength damage on my off-hand attacks, there was a user who got thoroughly ... 'excited', first asking WHY I don't allow the ToB (I don't have a copy, nor do any of my players), and then demanding that I MUST get the book due to the official public stance on it being that it's an exceptional book.

I get it. It's seen as a good book. I like the mechanics, I prefer the way it works to the watered-down version that found its way into 4th. But why is it that people have this burning need to insist that anyone who doesn't use it, regardless of reason, is Doing It Wrong? Some people might not like the mechanics, some might not have the ability to purchase a copy (and are unwilling to pirate it), but why is it that some people feel the need to get so aggressive in their assertion that ToB is a necessary book for every D&D game?

Kylarra
2009-09-06, 11:59 PM
The general reason is because it gives fighter-types something to do other than move and full attack and possibly one other trick that they're decent at.

Gralamin
2009-09-07, 12:01 AM
Because fighter types, on their own, are simple, uncomplicated, and boring. Tome of Battle adds in at least a bit of tactical choice.

Thurbane
2009-09-07, 12:02 AM
I think it's safe to say that ToB polarizes people more than any other 3.X book. People either love it or loathe it.

I actually had a copy, that I traded in (along with Magic of Incarnum) for copies of Cityscape and Dungeonscape. The books weren't bad, they just weren't suited to my (group's) style of play, and were extra subsets of rules that would have confounded our (then) fledgling 3.5 group.

Advocates of ToB espouse that it helps bring melee characters up in power compared to casters, and that it also gives more options than a simple "roll, hit, damage" routine.

Detractors dislike it mainly for one or more of the following reasons: the flavor of the book (whether you call it wuxia, anime or whatever) doesn't sit well with many; and some people feel that casters should eclipse melee types, particularly at higher levels, and that melee types shouldn't get semi-magical powers from swinging a sword.

Deastorm
2009-09-07, 12:03 AM
I wouldn't say it's necessary, but the vast vocal majority here are optimizers (at best), and once you've played with the ToB classes, it's hard to imagine the safety helmets of core melee classes again.

I only got ToB about 2 months ago, and I'm now a diehard fan of them. I was in your boat prior though, and didn't see why everyone was so hard up for it.

So... zomg, go get it today!!111!!!oneoneone.

Grynning
2009-09-07, 12:05 AM
The main reason people recommend ToB so highly is because a lot of people who don't use it don't understand how well it fixes melee in 3.5. Granted, the book is far from perfect, but look at how many threads on this board are about "How do I fix TWF" or "How do I make a decent Dex/Int/Wis based fighter" or "How do I make a Monk that's effective" etc, etc, etc.

ToB answers all those questions by giving you alternative mechanics for making really effective melee characters. The maneuvers are cool martial arts moves that work kind of like an encounter based spellcasting mechanic, and the classes that use them are all well-built classes. You can also give the maneuvers to existing classes. Now the fighters can pick the maneuvers they like, so their character can do the cool moves that they always wanted to do but the mechanics didn't support, and everyone has as much fun as the casters.
(wow that last sentence was bad but it's late and I can't figure out how to make it less grammatically ugly)

I admit I used to dislike ToB strongly (hell I think the first thread I made on this forum was about how much I didn't like it), but I bought a copy and I finally came around. Unfortunately, 4th edition came out and I've never gotten to use it since we all play that now. But if you're still doing 3.5, yeah, get one, and look it over. Remember that the flavor doesn't have to be all "wuxia" unless you want it to be, and if you think the maneuvers are "too powerful" or whatever, just remember they're meant to be comparable to spells (and they don't even come close to spells in versatility, so really they're all quite reasonable...except Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics, which are just poorly worded).

PId6
2009-09-07, 12:05 AM
and some people feel that casters should eclipse melee types, particularly at higher levels
Keep in mind, they still do. By a lot. :smalltongue:

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-07, 12:18 AM
Subtle, you are not. :smallwink:

To be honest, the book has mechanical simplicity going for it. It isn't as contrived as full casting (the most complicated thing is keeping track of your maneuvers, especially in PBP, but that mainly applies to the Crusader).

Does it fix melee's problems? Not entirely. You're still hitting things, but you can at least contribute more than a single attack after being forced to take a move action through difficult terrain. It solves some of the major problems (like mobility, damage output, and system mastery requirements), but only manages to touch on a few points (they're as item-dependent as everyone else, but they can at least bust out of prison without dying).

This system does something quite well: replicate a few Real Life martial arts styles, incorporating a bit of Fencing and Jujitsu into at least two of the styles. It replicates things quite well, without needlessly slowing down game play (it slows it down no more than it takes someone to look up the rules behind Trip Attempts). It also doesn't require a completely new mechanic to do so (the system has been compared to Vanican casting, but the differences between the two make for a nice change).

It's fairly balanced. The most broken parts are Iron Heart Surge (which needs a steady hand to prevent it from being absurdly powerful) and White Raven Tactics (which breaks the Action Economy far too soon), but even those are fairly tame. There is the problem with the lack of errata, but the book is playable without needing major house rules.

Class-wise, the Warblade and Crusader hold top slots. The Swordsage's lack of BAB makes it seem weak to others, but it does contend with the other two classes power-wise. That said, all three classes are about on par with the Psychic Warrior. There's a couple of exploits that are downright ludicrous in nature, but those can be stopped with little effort on the DM's part.

It's nearly impossible to make a Warblade, Crusader, or Swordsage that sucks. I say nearly because I have seen it happen (a Chain Tripper Warblade to be exact, played by a partially-blind kid who had no grasp of the rules, but he's a completely different story). Whereas it is entirely possible to make a Fighter or Barbarian who sucks more than a swimming pool drainage pipe with little difficultly, you may actually have to go out of your way to make a crappy Crusader. The handbooks for Tome of Battle tend to have very short sections regarding the classes and feats you should take, as the maneuvers take up more of the thread. There isn't much to optimize though, just pick the maneuvers that sound cool and are allowed to your class/level (bit of an important part here; the level restriction isn't mentioned until you get to the maneuvers section) and you are set.

All three of the classes are very playable from 1-20, especially the Warblade. But they also multiclass very well, one of the book's biggest selling points is that all three of the classes can multiclass very freely without needing to worry about their major assets.

The classes tend to be a bit strong at the lower levels, much like a Warlock can seem powerful. But when you hit about 6th level, they start slowing down. They don't fall off the map, unlike some other classes (unlike everything from CW).


The detractors are fairly easy to spot. They usually make claims about Anime, Overpowered characters (which is divided into two groups: those who read the rules and those who don't), and those who dislike the flavor behind it. The latter of them can be reasoned with. {scrubbed}

The book was the ground work for 4E's system, but a couple of fans of the book actually were put-off by 4E's massive changes to the book's style. But if one thing can be said about it, it's that the book is a fine middle ground for 4E and 3E.


The classes themselves are rather fun to play, and a lot different from the "I hit it" Fighter. An optimized Fighter or Barbarian can trash an equally-optimized Warblade or Crusader, but that's because of the support favoring the Barbarian and Fighter over the Crusader and Warblade.

Edit:


Advocates of ToB espouse that it helps bring melee characters up in power compared to casters, and that it also gives more options than a simple "roll, hit, damage" routine.

Common mistake. No, the book does not bring melee closer to the casters. The book printed three new classes that happen to be higher tier than a majority of the other melee classes in existence. Full Casters will still PWN a Warblade epically, just like every other class in the game.

Quietus
2009-09-07, 12:20 AM
I'd just like to point out, that my objection isn't with the book itself. I LIKE the book, although I've only glanced over a PDF copy before. My issue is with people who are overly aggressive about pushing it on me when the trouble is that I CAN'T get a copy. Never mind that my players still sometimes barely get how the mechanics of the game work, much less throwing what amounts to a totally new mechanic at them.

Why is it that some feel the need to be so aggressive as to turn me off of the book in reaction to their verbal assaults, when I've already said "I like the book, I just can't get it"?

Ganurath
2009-09-07, 12:23 AM
I think it's safe to say that ToB polarizes people more than any other 3.X book. People either love it or loathe it.Tome of Battle: The Book of Napoleon Dynamite.

That being said, the reason it's so popular is because it moves noncasters a step closer to being on the level of full casters. It's still an epic Jump check, but the DC has dropped a considerable ammount.

Grynning
2009-09-07, 12:24 AM
You asked why people push it so aggressively; we answered by explaining that's it's just that good.

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you're wrong for not owning a copy, but again, if you look through the forum and see how often people twist and turn the rules and homebrew and make crazy builds trying to fix melee WITHOUT it, and then come here to get advice, you can see how forum regulars would just start saying "hey, forget all that nonsense, use ToB and you'll have a better character and more fun."

Thurbane
2009-09-07, 12:30 AM
Common mistake. No, the book does not bring melee closer to the casters. The book printed three new classes that happen to be higher tier than a majority of the other melee classes in existence. Full Casters will still PWN a Warblade epically, just like every other class in the game.
Note that I said bring up in power, not equal in power. :smallwink:

ToB introduces power creep just like any other splat book. There's no denying you can make a more powerful melee type using the ToB than without, although the same can be said for many splatbooks...since the power creep in the ToB is aimed directly at melee types, many people are OK with it, since the power imbalance inherent to the core is heavily geared towards casters.

I'll just state again in my "defense" that I don't think ToB is a bad book, it's just not suited to the style of game I enjoy. Same with Psionics and Incarnum, which we also don't use in our games.

Quietus
2009-09-07, 12:33 AM
You asked why people push it so aggressively; we answered by explaining that's it's just that good.

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you're wrong for not owning a copy, but again, if you look through the forum and see how often people twist and turn the rules and homebrew and make crazy builds trying to fix melee WITHOUT it, and then come here to get advice, you can see how forum regulars would just start saying "hey, forget all that nonsense, use ToB and you'll have a better character and more fun."

But I HAVE had people tell me I was wrong. I was asked why I try to avoid using ToB options, to which I replied "Because I don't own a copy". I was promptly told, in no uncertain terms, that I MUST go and get it. You're right in that no one has used the term "You are wrong for not owning a copy", but it does get heavily implied.

Eldariel
2009-09-07, 12:34 AM
There are three major reasons I can think of for which people recommend ToB a lot. I, personally, don't agree with "forcing" anyone to get it, but heartfully recommend it to anyone anyways.

1. Character Depiction: I, personally, love non-casters. There's something about a character in a world of gods, wizards and dragons who just goes up to a wizard/dragon/god, shakes off whatever bull**** trickery they throw at him and just slices them in half that yells badass. I play non-magical melee a lot. Yet, when playing a Core-game, I'm either going to play a two-handing tripper with a reach weapon, or a Rogue two-weapon fighter 'cause nothing else just measures up. When adding splat books, I now have the option of being a Dungeoncrasher, a Charger or a Stand Still controller, but that's about it as far as different doable archetypes go.

The principal reason I (and many others here) love ToB is how it enables characters. D&D is all about playing just the kind of character you want, and ToB pretty much takes the Two-Hander/Two-Weapon Fighter/Sword & Board/Unarmed quarter and slams them all with a helping of Awesome to bring them to about the same line.

You can be a two-hander, two-weapon fighter or sword & board fighter without mechanical drawbacks! Not only that, but you can take any classic archetype or character and make it happen. Many people have clear concepts of what kinds of abilities they want out of their character and ToB just increases the amount of such concepts you can make happen without magic a hundred-fold.

I can play the swashbuckler, I can play the sneak, I can play the animal-like primal predator, I can play the blade dancer, I can play the weapon master, I can play the battle leader, I can play the inspiring example, I can play the size-does-not-matter guy, I can make anything I want happen. When playing a fantasy roleplaying game, and a high fantasy at that, I want the freedom to make just the character I want. I want the character to have precisely the fluff I'm going for and the mechanics to match just that. Without ToB, that's just rarely doable for melee types.


2. Versatility: Core offers melee-types 8 combat options: (full) attack, charge, trip, disarm, sunder, grapple, overrun, bull rush. Out of those, Bull Rush does nothing outside an extremely narrow bunch of encounters (you need a cliff or a pool of magma or something similar; hardly worth a feat), Overrun is practically never practical for PCs, grapple greatly favors monsters with size & HD advantage (and the side with more individuals...which tends to be the enemy if grappling is even possible), sunder (which means you break your future items), disarm (which only works against humanoids) and trip (which is awesome).

So out of the combat options, one is just plain bad (sunder), two are not really doable for PCs (overrun & grapple) and two are extremely narrow (disarm, bull rush). That leaves PC warriors with three realistic combat options: full attack, charge or trip. Not only that, but while mages are boasting a range of defensive spells should they need them, fighters are stuck with the "fight defensively" and "total defense"-options that both simply influence your static defenses; 20 from enemy kicks your ass no matter what you do.

ToB adds versatility to all this. You have a variety of defensive maneuvers (called "counters"). You have a variety of "preparations" (called "boosts") which allow you to make your primary attack more efficient. You have a few modes of which you can choose your present combat style (called "stances"). And then you have a huge variety of different standard action & full round action attacks called "strikes". Then there's a variety of uncategorized maneuvers that just do a bunch of "warrior"-like things like shakes off some controlling spell effect or allow you to move around more swiftly in combat or some such.

Instead of having the option from 2-3 different attacks, you now choose from dozens of different attacks to pick, and from a handful you can use at any time (or from dozens to use if you're a Swordsage). Then you combine these attacks with different boosts to get different results all the while getting counters to throw a variety of wrenches at the opponent's gameplan. Best of all, this allows you to do things besides damage like stun/daze opponents, hit their Con, restrict their movement, etc. And if you don't care for variety, you can of course just stick to that one strike that seems to work or just full attack anyways. Nobody forces you to use these new fancy toys!


3. Power: Let's face it, melee without Tome of Battle can be rather powerful. However, for it to be powerful, you need to know exactly how to milk the system for every point of damage it's worth. With ToB, this frankly is no longer needed. You can take whatever maneuvers feel cool, whatever feats suit your character and go to town. You'll be reasonably efficient either way.

Not only that, but due to their versatility, an optimized ToB character can hang around with optimized casters much longer than standard melee types can. People who know the core spell list relatively well and only ban the truly most broken ones (Polymorphs, Planar Bindings, Gate...) will be much closer in capabilities to an optimized ToB-type than an optimized core warrior type, simply because the versatility of the ToB-type allows him to prepare for the same types of encounters core melee needs to build his entire character against with just a couple of maneuvers and thus can be competent in a far larger number of encounters. Not only that, but they get much better skill lists and more points than core melee.

No mistake, Wizards/Druids/Clerics/Psions/Beguilers/Artificers/Archivist/Dread Necromancers/Favored Souls/etc. still hang around with ToB melee just fine, but ToB melee needs much less effort to be an asset rather than a drag on the party than core melee that it's not even funny. He also can fill his role as a tank easily and hang around over the levels just fine, and gets much closer to the Wizard's versatility if the player pushes the character to that direction.


I'd also like to add as but a minor point that ToB classes are much better designed than the core melee types; a Swordsage taking all 20 levels in Swordsage gets a variety of cool abilities across the levels along with the great capstone at level 20, and same goes for the Warblade and to lesser extent, the Crusader too.

They work great with multiclassing, but they also fit fine into single-classing, just like 3.5 classes should work. Indeed, out of all these "leveled" systems (systems with ability levels, like level X spells or powers or maneuvers) in the game, maneuvers function by far the best with multiclassing.


Short version:
1. The book makes for a much larger number of possible character concepts you can realize within the game engine.
2. The book greatly includes the options available to melee types.
3. The book somewhat fixes the underpoweredness of melee types.
Bonus. The book has some of the best 3.5 design over its entire lifespan, both class- and system-wise.


EDIT: Wow, such a mammoth post and so much ninja. Ah well, no use trying to edit some sanity into all this now. I started by just answering the OP's questions to best of my ability.

And I'd definitely emphasize point #1; if it didn't make for such a huge improvement in what kinds of melee types you can make happen, I wouldn't think ToB as anything more than "Ok".

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-07, 12:35 AM
You asked why people push it so aggressively; we answered by explaining that's it's just that good.

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you're wrong for not owning a copy, but again, if you look through the forum and see how often people twist and turn the rules and homebrew and make crazy builds trying to fix melee WITHOUT it, and then come here to get advice, you can see how forum regulars would just start saying "hey, forget all that nonsense, use ToB and you'll have a better character and more fun."

Exactly. I don't know how many threads about a Fighter fix have had posts along the lines of "Just play a Warblade", but that indicates someone believes the Warblade does what the OP wanted. When the book is good enough that people suggest it that often, it's either crack or a good book. Probably both, considered this is WotC, the company responsible for Cardboard Crack.


But I HAVE had people tell me I was wrong. I was asked why I try to avoid using ToB options, to which I replied "Because I don't own a copy". I was promptly told, in no uncertain terms, that I MUST go and get it. You're right in that no one has used the term "You are wrong for not owning a copy", but it does get heavily implied.

That was me, exaggerating like I usually do. I've said it before in another thread: take some of my advice with a grain of salt. I'm usually exaggerating about something. Don't ignore it entirely, just be aware that I do tend to exaggerate things.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-07, 12:41 AM
I'll just state again in my "defense" that I don't think ToB is a bad book, it's just not suited to the style of game I enjoy. Same with Psionics and Incarnum, which we also don't use in our games.

A travesty, really. Incarnum was the book that convinced me to never convert to 4E, despite my advocation of the system just months prior to the release. Psionics also did a number of justices for my campaigns.

Mind if I inquire what it was about those books that made you decide not to use them? Exactly, I mean. A lot of people abandon two of those three for power reasons, while the third tends to get tossed to the wayside because how complex it is to learn.

Woodsman
2009-09-07, 12:49 AM
As has been said, an optimized full caster can rip any of the ToB classes to shreds.

However, in terms of damage output, ToB classes are roughly on par (above par for unoptimized) with "blaster casters." At 17th level, a warblade can deal an average of 116 damage every two rounds with a greatsword (Assuming 28 Str and using Adaptive Style), whereas a wizard of similar level can deal an average of 139 damage with a disintegrate (My math may be off). Here's the thing, though; while the wizard (Assuming 28 Int) can do this a max of five times a day, the warblade can cycle endlessly.

But, as stated before, any optimized full caster will outclass the ToB classes. And if played right, no discipline can be seen as "wukia," "weeaboo," "anime/manga," etc.

Thurbane
2009-09-07, 12:56 AM
Mind if I inquire what it was about those books that made you decide not to use them? Exactly, I mean. A lot of people abandon two of those three for power reasons, while the third tends to get tossed to the wayside because how complex it is to learn.
Mainly the complexity of adding new subsystems. Almost half of my group are real part time players, and have barely gotten their heads around the core rules. They would never be able to commit the time to learning additional stuff...as it is, our group barely gets in 3-4 hours of gaming a week. :smallfrown:

Masaioh
2009-09-07, 01:11 AM
Both of the players in my group who DM regularly have banned ToB (or most of it) from their games for entirely different reasons.

One will allow the ToB classes, but without maneuvers. His reasoning is, and I quote, 'DnD isn't a game for weeaboos'. He makes an exception for the Crusader and uses it as a replacement for the SRD Paladin.

The other doesn't allow it because he thinks the content is too broken, and will insist that players use the Quintessential series instead.

SparkMandriller
2009-09-07, 01:12 AM
And if played right, no discipline can be seen as "wukia," "weeaboo," "anime/manga," etc.

I bought ToB because everyone promised me it'd let me play an anime character but I looked through it and there aren't any rules for playing a depressed boy with a giant robot, or a gondolier on Mars who meets ghosts and cat gods and all sorts of random stuff, or a little girl with cat ears and um like sort of miniature planes that fit on her legs so she can fly? It's uh kinda hard to describe.

I feel so let down. :(

rezplz
2009-09-07, 01:17 AM
ToB isn't really my slice of cake, but I do know what you mean about people saying "YOU HAVE TO GET THIS BOOK", and stuff like "JUST PLAY A WARBLADE". As many people have already said, the book does some pretty cool stuff. People see that, and think, "Hey. This is pretty cool." The problem comes when they can't realize that it may not be a good fit with other people and other groups. They get so wrapped up in how much they like it that it just doesn't occur to them that hey, other people might not like it as much as they do.

tyckspoon
2009-09-07, 01:21 AM
One will allow the ToB classes, but without maneuvers.

What.. what the hell is the point of this? Swordsages live on maneuvers. Warblades sort of have other features, but without maneuvers there's really nothing in the class. Why would you 'allow' the class if you're going to ban everything that makes the class what it is?

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-07, 01:27 AM
The other doesn't allow it because he thinks the content is too broken, and will insist that players use the Quintessential series instead.

As someone who has scoured those books quite well, I find this slightly ironic. I don't suppose he also bans Warlocks and DFAs, does he?

Kylarra
2009-09-07, 01:27 AM
Mainly the complexity of adding new subsystems. Almost half of my group are real part time players, and have barely gotten their heads around the core rules. They would never be able to commit the time to learning additional stuff...as it is, our group barely gets in 3-4 hours of gaming a week. :smallfrown:New systems are at least an understandable reason, albeit an unfortunate one. I feel your pain in trying to get a playgroup to learn anything new. :smallfrown:

Thurbane
2009-09-07, 01:45 AM
ToB isn't really my slice of cake, but I do know what you mean about people saying "YOU HAVE TO GET THIS BOOK", and stuff like "JUST PLAY A WARBLADE". As many people have already said, the book does some pretty cool stuff. People see that, and think, "Hey. This is pretty cool." The problem comes when they can't realize that it may not be a good fit with other people and other groups. They get so wrapped up in how much they like it that it just doesn't occur to them that hey, other people might not like it as much as they do.
Very true. Internet forums, even good ones like this, can sometimes breed a sort of "if you're not playing it the same as me, you're not playing it right" mentality. Often, it comes across more harshly than intended.

Take my group - human dragon shaman (me), halfling druid, goblin (ex-elf) beguiler, dwarf fighter and deep dwarf monk. When I tell people online that the two characters who really shine in combat are the fighter and the monk, they just outright disbelieve me. Oh, and the druid is "doing it wrong". :smallamused:

Myshlaevsky
2009-09-07, 01:45 AM
Both of the players in my group who DM regularly have banned ToB (or most of it) from their games for entirely different reasons.

One will allow the ToB classes, but without maneuvers. His reasoning is, and I quote, 'DnD isn't a game for weeaboos'. He makes an exception for the Crusader and uses it as a replacement for the SRD Paladin.

The other doesn't allow it because he thinks the content is too broken, and will insist that players use the Quintessential series instead.

What an idiot. I find myself badly wanting to ask, "Why do you play with this guy?"

HamHam
2009-09-07, 01:49 AM
Tome of Battle will make your game more fun. This is simple truth.

If you really can't get a copy (which is kind of hard believe seeing as how you need to be on the internet to be reading this post and I just checked and it's 15 bucks on Amazon so unless you live in Australia and if you live in Australia, well that's your problem right there, Australia doesn't get nice things) then you are doomed. Doooooooooooooooomed.

Kylarra
2009-09-07, 01:52 AM
Very true. Internet forums, even good ones like this, can sometimes breed a sort of "if you're not playing it the same as me, you're not playing it right" mentality. Often, it comes across more harshly than intended.

Take my group - human dragon shaman (me), halfling druid, goblin (ex-elf) beguiler, dwarf fighter and deep dwarf monk. When I tell people online that the two characters who really shine in combat are the fighter and the monk, the just outright disbelieve me. Oh, and the druid is "doing it wrong". :smallamused:In their (our?) defense, Op forums tend to assume "in a vacuum of highest optimization", which is not always the case.

Thurbane
2009-09-07, 01:56 AM
In their (our?) defense, Op forums tend to assume "in a vacuum of highest optimization", which is not always the case.
Definitely true also. :smallsmile:

elliott20
2009-09-07, 02:00 AM
from my perspective, ToB does one very important thing for me: it alleviates a lot of need for me to optimize my non-casters. Not that I play in a lot of highly optimized game, but even in those cases, you'll still see people outshining each other. The problem with core non-casters is that by optimizing them, you can very easily overshoot and make your guy into a one trick pony who is devastating in one condition but useless in others. Calibrating that can be tricky.

ToB, with it's increased over all power curve, means I can go back to just throwing together a quick character and REASONABLY expect said character to be a decent performer without being afraid that he's basically a one use rocket.

Doc Roc
2009-09-07, 02:06 AM
In their (our?) defense, Op forums tend to assume "in a vacuum of highest optimization", which is not always the case.

Not really. 339 has been pretty good about checking optimization levels before offering solutions. That's off-topic though. I'll be blunt. Tome of Battle is the single most useful book I've bought for 3.5, offering things for new players and old players, existing games and campaigns that are just starting. It's powerful, it's elegant, and it is by and at large well-made.

There are basically two problem maneuvers, and one commonly misinterpreted class feature:

White Raven Tactics will need to be examined and house-ruled.
Iron Heart Surge will require examination, study, thought, and fixing.
Divine Impetus is once per turn.

Oh and...
1d2 weapons are silly.

Beyond that, I've had no problems with ToB.

Woodsman
2009-09-07, 02:07 AM
His reasoning is, and I quote, 'DnD isn't a game for weeaboos'.

Like Hell it isn't. Seriously, where does he think the friggin' monk came from? And then you have Oriental Adventures! Sure, I understand the knights and castles theme, but for Pelor's sake, this DM is just squashing your creativity!

Hat-Trick
2009-09-07, 02:08 AM
My personal beef with the book is that it's so over recommended. I have access through it. I've read it. I think it's cool and awesome, but if I want to see a Fighter useful, I don't want to just play a Warblade. I want the FIGHTER useful. Using a different class makes it feel like a cop-out. Not to mention I hate the idea of a warrior losing the ability to do something just because he did it six seconds earlier. I rather like have all of my options open (no matter how limited or "unoptimized") every round when I plan on smacking hostile things with deadly things. Makes it feel more fighter-ry. Don't need to center myself, don't need to remember the steps, don't have to spend time getting back into position, don't have to say a prayer. I just decide to use the trick again. *smack* That simple.

When I want to play a warblade/crusader/swordsage. I love them, but when I don't I DON'T. My stand on it.

elliott20
2009-09-07, 02:14 AM
the way I see it, ToB is just one of those things that is highly recommended, but at the end of the day, I can see why people might not like it.

I mean, one of the major problems with D&D is that specialization is kind of required just to keep everyone in the party useful at contributing. a character that is the jack of all trades will just not do nearly as well. ToB in a sense, kind of reinforces that design. This, however, is not a problem with ToB but a problem with the system in general.

Of course, there is also just nostalgia factor. After all, I just LIKE the label "fighter". And while I can just easily play a warblade and call it a fighter, sometimes, the less rational part of me just wants to see "fighter" in the class entry when I refer to the stat block. Just like while I know paladins suck compared to Crusader or other "religious warriors" classes, it just makes me feel all tingly inside to see the word "paladin" on the character sheet.

are these actual sound reasoning? probably not. But to me, I think that CAN be a factor here.

Woodsman
2009-09-07, 02:14 AM
Yeah, well, Adaptive Style allows you to use said trick again and again. Sudden Recovery and Psychic Renewal also work.

Edit: I do understand the labeling thing, though. It's a shame, reallly, but c'est la vie.

Hat-Trick
2009-09-07, 02:30 AM
Yeah, well, Adaptive Style allows you to use said trick again and again. Sudden Recovery and Psychic Renewal also work.

It's the whole "Hold up, guys. I'm going to do that again. Give me six seconds." thing. I know I can do that, but I don't want to sit around for a round to try something that just worked and would work again.

Fighter (1st round): *smacks orc* 21.
Fighter (2nd round): *smacks another orc* 22.

Warblade (1st round): *smacks orc* 12.
Warblade (2nd round): *readjusts grip on sword, loosens joints, does a few hops to warm up*

Yes, he could just smack the orc normally, with another maneuver, or do something else, but the concept of taking six seconds to allow me to do something over, when I should just flow into it, screams at me. Crusaders have a bit of this, but with the random factor, meh.

As I said, if I want to play that, I will, but when I feel like having a little "I smack it again," I just want a little "I smack it again."

Soras Teva Gee
2009-09-07, 02:48 AM
While I freely admit that my dislike of ToB comes from its style I want to differentiate something I think a lot of detractors innately feel but don't elaborate on. While one can scratch off the wuxia/anime serial numbers one can't scratch off the inherent solution ToB presents to the linear fighter quadratic wizards equation.

Namely it turns fighters into wizards.

Argue about what sort of fluff is attached all you want, its giving fighters boatloads of expendable abilities prepared in advance. Sure in many cases they aren't as good/cheap as a lot of spells, but you can renew them a lot simpler too. Given that the justification for why a fighter can only swing his sword in X manner once a fight gets increasingly flimsy if you are filing off the fluff. In any case that's the mechanical solution offered by ToB, and I think it bothers a lot of people who don't want to play their fighters like their wizards. (Its something that comes out a lot in the 4e fire I saw, people don't like their classes feeling all the same barring fluff/tactical details)

Of course the real solution was never faced in 3.5, namely that casters lacked meaningful weakpoints. Consider for example if the standard casting time in 3.5 was a full-round and not merely a standard action. No backing up and casting whatever you want unimpeded in the same round. Now match that with Concentration rules that ensured challenging enough DCs to pose a threat. As I see it (and I'm not an expert) this opens up a fairly big whole in casters, by giving everyone on the field a whole turn to potentially disrupt their casting. Yes it doesn't change some basics like the party being a magic escort service, but that's not necessarily a bad late game dynamic either.

Of course weakening classes in the name of balance doesn't make as much marketing sense when everything always has to be bigger and better.:smallsigh:

Zen Master
2009-09-07, 03:46 AM
It's all a question of optimizers vs. non-ditto.

In the campaigns I run, ToB classes would be overpowered. Simply because the casters don't go out of their way to be overwhelmingly powerful. In actual fact, in my current game the most powerful character in the group is a bugbear barbarian. By [I]far[I] the most powerful. And the group contains a wizard, a psion and a druid. Oh, and a rogue.

Now, there are two reasons for this. One is that I designed the game. I've gone very specifically for a setup that allows the guy who can keep swinging all day long to play that exact role. The other is that the tactically clever guy in the group - is the guy playing the bugbear. The others are somewhat fooling about.

But - on topic: Core works in my games. Not by design, but because I make it so. Something like ToB might also work - but honestly it would just make my job harder, and since everyone's having fun as it is, why complicate things?

Nero24200
2009-09-07, 04:08 AM
Fanboyism. Whilst somthing that might not inheritle be a bad thing, it makes it too easy for people to see al lthe good points, whilst making it harder to see the bad points.

TOB gives melee (I'd say marital but specifically it's melee build's since few TOB abilities function with ranged weapons barring throwing weapons) a few more options. Just as spellcasters have a varitey of spells at their disposal, martial classes also gain such options. This "Levels the playing feild" so to speak, since many feel (and in some cases, rightly so) that at higher levels spellcasters are overpowering. This is not a result of how much damage they can dish out though (on the contrary, direct damage is often considered the weakest form of offense for spellcasters), but the classes are considered overpowering because simply having so many options makes it easier to get out of tricky situations, so providing those options to other classes evens things out.

How, this work's in practise for some, but only on paper for others. Contrary to most online forums, spellcaster's aren't dominating every game. In some games, yes, they will have Batman's and Clericzilla's running about, but their presence is grossly exaggerrated. Also, generally, if a DM and the group is willing to stop and discuss potential optimisation levels, no amount of unbalanced material will be an issue.

This is partly the reason why some people complain about TOB. It's a book intended to "fix" some balance issues, but not everyone agrees on it being the best way. I personally don't because I feel a batman wizard will still own too much at higher levels, and at lower levels the martial classes are boosted too much, which are the levels I felt martial characters favoured.

There's also the TOB = Anime debate. Many people might say things like "TOB isn't wuxia/anime (even though one of the first things said in the book is that the authors got their ideas...from wuxia and anime) and others say that it is, since, similer to anime, the attacks and fighting styles have names, somthing not seen often in traditional western fantasies such as Lord of the Rings or Stardust, and some of these abilities (though mostly those featured in the Desert Wind school) are far more flashy than anything you'd see in a non-anime fantasy.

I can agree with the OP completely. I've looked at TOB, both the rules and a few games, and while they're good, they're not my cup of tea. This in itself sn't isn't too bad, though at times I do get really annoyed with the fans, who seem to find it hard to accept that is just plain isn't for everyone. It does get pretty irritating when someone (mostly on this forum) asks for help with martial characters, and the first few responses are almost always "Use TOB", even if the OP specifically states he/she isn't using or doesn't like TOB.

I dislike nammed attack's and manouvers that I need to "activate", I'd rather my more mundane classes had abilities which seemed well...more mundane, less flashy, and without limits such as "Per Encounter" since those types of limits I generally assocaite with spells and magical abilities.

And yes, before any TOB fans say anything, I know the core martial classes aren't exactly great when it comes to options and creating interesting martial characters, I just feel TOB isn't the right way for me.

olentu
2009-09-07, 04:12 AM
I am going to comment that one strange thing is that the barbarian has a one per encounter limit on his rages.

Hat-Trick
2009-09-07, 04:20 AM
And only gets so many uses per day to begin with. While that needs a bit revamping, it makes more sense for Rage. You work yourself into a frenzy of hatred towards your opponent (or current obstacle) and get a short burst of awesome, but wear out and can only afford to do it so many times per day before just not having enough energy to try again.

The only thing stopping you from using a maneuver twice in a row is the rules telling you you can't. If I want to smack 'em for 15d6 damage again, I will, by golly! Waiting six seconds between hacking awesome death because of mechanics is annoying.

Nero24200
2009-09-07, 04:20 AM
I am going to comment that one strange thing is that the barbarian has a one per encounter limit on his rages.

I'm personally not a fan of the barbarian's rage, especially since theres a spell which replicates the effects. I never considered it good class design for a melee class to have such an ability, since
A: The fluff is too ambigious. I might not mind if the barbarian's rage was him/her summoning tribal spirits for strength (and therefore having the (Su) mark), but I've seen too many folk simply interpreate it as "I get angry". In fact, when I last saw a DM bannign multiclass fighter/barbarians, those that got annoyed all said the same thing - "So what, we can't have fighters that occasionally get angry?"

As I said in my previous post, I don't think the core martial classes are particularly well designed, I don't feel TOB was a good fix either.

PId6
2009-09-07, 04:23 AM
Just going to comment on the names thing, doesn't grapple/trip/sunder/etc have names? And can you really imagine remembering a book full of maneuvers that are all nameless? You really don't have to call out the names of your maneuvers when you use them, you know, no matter what anime does.

And I don't remember Gandalf ever naming his spells either, yet there it is, Fireball.

Boci
2009-09-07, 04:25 AM
The only thing stopping you from using a maneuver twice in a row is the rules telling you you can't. If I want to smack 'em for 15d6 damage again, I will, by golly! Waiting six seconds between hacking awesome death because of mechanics is annoying.

Were as not being able to move more than 5ft without severly limiting your offensive abilities is fun?

Nero24200
2009-09-07, 04:32 AM
Just going to comment on the names thing, doesn't grapple/trip/sunder/etc have names?
Yes, but that's attempting to perform tactical manvouers, not simply swinging a sword in a certain manner which enables you to spontainiously deal extra damage.


And can you really imagine remembering a book full of maneuvers that are all nameless? I dislike the set manvouer system, the fact that they have names is just somthing that's tied to it.


You really don't have to call out the names of your maneuvers when you use them, you know, no matter what anime does. I don't recall saying TOB characters had to.


And I don't remember Gandalf ever naming his spells either, yet there it is, Fireball.Magic is Lord of the Rings isn't like D'n'D magic. I don't recall Gandalf stopping to say "Damm, I knew I should've prepered X spell today".

Boci
2009-09-07, 04:34 AM
I dislike the set manvouer system, the fact that they have names is just somthing that's tied to it.

Why? As you said, casters in other books never say "dammit I'm out of 6th level spell slots" so many martial character in heroic/epic fantasy could be martial adepts with fixed manouvers. There are a lot of different ways to get +2d6 damage.

Cainen
2009-09-07, 04:37 AM
Yes, but that's attempting to perform tactical manvouers, not simply swinging a sword in a certain manner which enables you to spontainiously deal extra damage.

There is no difference between these but your perception of them - and this perception is also wrong, since attacking and defending are both abstract. You are not swinging your sword in a certain manner, you're varying your assault in general.

Or do you think that 1st to 5th level PCs sit around doing nothing for five out of six seconds because they don't have iterative attacks?

Nero24200
2009-09-07, 04:40 AM
Why? As you said, casters in other books never say "dammit I'm out of 6th level spell slots" Well, as said in my previous post again, it's just somthing I don't like. I don't like the feel of it at all. That might not be an answer you find acceptable, but it's the truth, and contrary to most TOB fans here, it's a legitimit reason for not wanting to use it.


so many martial character in heroic/epic fantasy could be martial adepts with fixed manouvers. Not everyone wants heroic fantasy. Some people like having their mundane warriors be, at the end of the day, mundane warriors.


There are a lot of different ways to get +2d6 damage.What about Wisdom Drain and making the enemy physically explode?

Boci
2009-09-07, 04:44 AM
Not everyone wants heroic fantasy. Some people like having their mundane warriors be, at the end of the day, mundane warriors.

I see, this is the problem. Your playing the wrong game. If you want mundane warriors, there are countless other systems that capture the feeling far better than D&D. You know, higher level characters do not reguarly survive falls from terminal valocity in their underpants, barbarians with a strength of 18 can throw weapons further than a wizard with a strengths of 8, ect.

Partysan
2009-09-07, 04:51 AM
There's also the TOB = Anime debate. Many people might say things like "TOB isn't wuxia/anime (even though one of the first things said in the book is that the authors got their ideas...from wuxia and anime) and others say that it is, since, similer to anime, the attacks and fighting styles have names, somthing not seen often in traditional western fantasies such as Lord of the Rings or Stardust, and some of these abilities (though mostly those featured in the Desert Wind school) are far more flashy than anything you'd see in a non-anime fantasy.
(...)

I dislike named attack's and manouvers that I need to "activate", I'd rather my more mundane classes had abilities which seemed well...more mundane, less flashy, and without limits such as "Per Encounter" since those types of limits I generally assocaite with spells and magical abilities.

I certainly understand that you may not like the flavor of "named" maneuvers, but the reason for such not being prevalent in traditional western fantasy is simply that those are not as centered on the fights and the martial arts used in those. Western traditional martial arts do have maneuvers, and the maneuvers do have names. Period.
Sadly, while eastern martial arts have been widely depicted in movies and fiction, the traditional western martial arts were neglected and forgotten for a long time. Most people don't know, that Europe had (and still has) martial arts that aren't that different from asian ones.
Western fiction also lacks the fight-literature that asia does have in manga (and books/films), simply because of not upholding martial traditions as high as asia.

So, while named styles, attacks and maneuvers may really not be the "style" of LotR, this is actually a matter of LotR not being fight-centered. If there were books about warriors using traditional western swordfencing, they'd probably feature the names of stances and maneuvers as well. Since D&D is quite fight-centered, I don't see a problem in that, especially considering that no sane individual cries out the name of his/her attacks.
(By the way, I never understood the calling out attack names in anime/manga as really doing it, but more as information to the reader.)
In fact, when playing fights, I enjoy to describe my character parrying high, slashing up to the arms or similar, so that being a maneuver isn't that far away. You know, just "I attack" is too boring for me... bringing us back to one of the best features of ToB.

About the "activating" and "expending" of maneuvers... well, talking about the pure mundane ones (no devoted spirit, since they are actually special powers granted by gods) then I would agree with you for the most part. Still though, in a real fight, techniques require a situation to use them from. Bad footing can be deadly when using an attack. Since the warblade can recover by simply using a normal strike, this "repositioning" doesn't strike me as that odd.

EDIT:


And only gets so many uses per day to begin with. While that needs a bit revamping, it makes more sense for Rage. You work yourself into a frenzy of hatred towards your opponent (or current obstacle) and get a short burst of awesome, but wear out and can only afford to do it so many times per day before just not having enough energy to try again.

The only thing stopping you from using a maneuver twice in a row is the rules telling you you can't. If I want to smack 'em for 15d6 damage again, I will, by golly! Waiting six seconds between hacking awesome death because of mechanics is annoying.
You know, when working yourself in a rage can be tiring, don't you think hitting hard or precise enough to do 15d6 extra damage could also require you to take a breath and readjust your footing?

sofawall
2009-09-07, 04:58 AM
Naming stances in western fantasy: Wheel of Time.

Yora
2009-09-07, 04:59 AM
My problem with ToB is that it doesn't help you with playing a fighter or monk at all. Telling people to use ToB is saying "don't play a fighter or monk".

And no matter how much people insists, a warblade stil very much looks to me like a spellcaster in armor. Limited energy to activate supernatural powers. That's magic to me.

sofawall
2009-09-07, 05:04 AM
Blade magic, though :P

PId6
2009-09-07, 05:06 AM
And no matter how much people insists, a warblade stil very much looks to me like a spellcaster in armor. Limited energy to activate supernatural powers. That's magic to me.
Warblades don't get supernatural powers; only swordsages get them, the same way monks do.

Boci
2009-09-07, 05:08 AM
My problem with ToB is that it doesn't help you with playing a fighter or monk at all. Telling people to use ToB is saying "don't play a fighter or monk".

Yes, it is. Because those two classes were widely considered to have failed, along with the paladin.


And no matter how much people insists, a warblade stil very much looks to me like a spellcaster in armor. Limited energy to activate supernatural powers. That's magic to me.

Exept that he can use his manouvers repeatedly. He just needs to refocus/adjust his footing/what ever you want occassionaly. And few of his abilities are supernatural.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 05:08 AM
My problem with ToB is that it doesn't help you with playing a fighter or monk at all. Telling people to use ToB is saying "don't play a fighter or monk".

Rather, it's saying "you want to play a skilled warrior with utter mastery of his weapons, or an unarmed martial artist with wire-fu abilities? These classes are the better way to represent those concepts in the game."

On "warblades are casters": I find it very strange how people can look at the warblade and say that because its maneuver system is mechanically constructed similarly to the magic system, it makes them casters despite having (98% - damn you, Lighting Throw) mundane abilities, while a class like the monk with per-day-limits on supernatural powers is never accused of the same.

Partysan
2009-09-07, 05:10 AM
My problem with ToB is that it doesn't help you with playing a fighter or monk at all. Telling people to use ToB is saying "don't play a fighter or monk".

And no matter how much people insists, a warblade stil very much looks to me like a spellcaster in armor. Limited energy to activate supernatural powers. That's magic to me.

Could you name one maneuver of a warblade that is supernatural?

And the "energy" is unlimited in a way, you just have to take a short breath sometimes (while attacking).

sofawall
2009-09-07, 05:11 AM
Oh dear, we seem to have hit a bit of a wording issue.

I think Supernatural in this context refers to the term as defined in the English language, not the D&D mechanical term.

Myshlaevsky
2009-09-07, 05:14 AM
I see, this is the problem. Your playing the wrong game. If you want mundane warriors, there are countless other systems that capture the feeling far better than D&D. You know, higher level characters do not reguarly survive falls from terminal valocity in their underpants, barbarians with a strength of 18 can throw weapons further than a wizard with a strengths of 8, ect.

More or less what the OP specifically said he disliked in ToB arguments. He's not playing the wrong game.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 05:14 AM
I think Supernatural in this context refers to the term as defined in the English language, not the D&D mechanical term.

I'm curious to know what a warblade can do in that regard that an equal-level non-ToB melee class couldn't, though. (Again, leaving aside Lighting Throw.)


More or less what the OP specifically said he disliked in ToB arguments. He's not playing the wrong game.

Not really. Boci isn't saying "you're playing the game wrong". But Nero was saying he "likes his mundane warriors mundane", when D&D already has high-level 'mundane' classes capable of highly implausible feats. So his problem is not localized to ToB, but endemic to the system.

PId6
2009-09-07, 05:14 AM
Classes are abstractions; fluff is easily exchangeable whether you're playing a class called "fighter" or one called "warblade". It's very rare for someone to want to play "fighter" the class as opposed to a guy who fights (generally only if you want to test the class mechanically or something like that). There's really no reason not to play a class that is more fun and fits your concept better, just because its name isn't "fighter" or "monk".

Edit: Referring to the complaints against "play a warblade"-type suggestions.

Cainen
2009-09-07, 05:16 AM
Oh dear, we seem to have hit a bit of a wording issue.

I think Supernatural in this context refers to the term as defined in the English language, not the D&D mechanical term.

Which still does not work, as Fighters become this at higher levels by dint of being high level, and there's nothing in, say, a low-level Warblade that is supernatural. The only reason you could even construe it to be that, considering that the effects of those maneuvers are still in line with what you'd expect a Fighter to do, is due to a difference between Fighter mechanics and Warblade mechanics. That is NOT a logical basis to say it's supernatural upon because the Fighter does not define what is or isn't - and because of this, things that stray from the Fighter's abilities are not inherently supernatural.

This is even ignoring the fact that outside of ToB, there are not only prestige classes, but base classes that do the things that people are complaining about.


More or less what the OP specifically said he disliked in ToB arguments. He's not playing the wrong game.

D&D 3E is solidly heroic fantasy. This is not an incorrect conclusion to draw - it's like complaining about Dark Heresy being gritty.

sofawall
2009-09-07, 05:17 AM
I never said I agreed, it was merely my impression of his statement.

Boci
2009-09-07, 05:18 AM
More or less what the OP specifically said he disliked in ToB arguments. He's not playing the wrong game.

Nero24200 is playing the wrong game is he wants to play a mundane warrior. D&D was not made for that.

Yora
2009-09-07, 05:19 AM
Could you name one maneuver of a warblade that is supernatural?

And the "energy" is unlimited in a way, you just have to take a short breath sometimes (while attacking).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there are maneuvers that allow you to deal fire damage or ignore damage reduction. If the books labels them as being extraordinary, okay. But then I don't understand why it does that.

I'm not saying that the classes and maneuvers are not good. But they just don't fit into some peoples games.

Boci
2009-09-07, 05:21 AM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there are maneuvers that allow you to deal fire damage

You are wrong. Thats a swordsage manouver.


or ignore damage reduction. If the books labels them as being extraordinary, okay. But then I don't understand why it does that.

Can you explain why piercing damage reduction isn't extraordinary?

Myshlaevsky
2009-09-07, 05:22 AM
Nero24200 is playing the wrong game is he wants to play a mundane warrior. D&D was not made for that.

You are saying he is playing the wrong game because he dislikes or doesn't want to use ToB. I don't agree with his criticisms, but this is an overbearing and judgemental attitude to take. Let him play what he wants to play - it's not wrong.

PId6
2009-09-07, 05:22 AM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there are maneuvers that allow you to deal fire damage or ignore damage reduction. If the books labels them as being extraordinary, okay. But then I don't understand why it does that.

I'm not saying that the classes and maneuvers are not good. But they just don't fit into some peoples games.
Fire damage (and other supernatural maneuvers) are limited to swordsage, which is supposed to be a supernatural mystic-type warrior.

Edit: Never mind, and ninja'd.

elliott20
2009-09-07, 05:22 AM
except the maneuvers that allow you to deal fire damage and what not are explicitly state to be supernatural to begin with. That is, the Desert Wind and Shadow Hand discipline are explicitly to be said to be just that.

overcoming things like DR, however, is just a matter of considering the concept of mind over matter, etc.

Cainen
2009-09-07, 05:23 AM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there are maneuvers that allow you to deal fire damage or ignore damage reduction. If the books labels them as being extraordinary, okay. But then I don't understand why it does that.

I'm not saying that the classes and maneuvers are not good. But they just don't fit into some peoples games.

So? Ignoring damage reduction is not supernatural - if anything, the lack of an ability to punch through it without ToB is dumb. There are countless spells that do fire damage, or magically light your sword on fire - and with the Swordsage, they actually are using magic. You have literally no place complaining about this unless you also ban the Eldritch Knight, a core prestige class that uses more magic than the Swordsage can, period.

Nevermind that the Warblade, the strict Fighter/Barbarian replacement, does not have access to the ability to set his sword on fire without Alchemist's Fire, a magic sword, or spending a feat.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 05:24 AM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there are maneuvers that allow you to deal fire damage or ignore damage reduction. If the books labels them as being extraordinary, okay. But then I don't understand why it does that.

Okay, this is a common misunderstanding about ToB.

The flashiest - well, Shadow Hand isn't exactly flashy; the most conspicuosly supernatural - abilities belong to the Swordsage. This class is not mundane and doesn't pretend to be. It's a monk, ninja, "blade wizard", etc. The abilities that let you set your sword on fire or walk on air or teleport behind someone then stab them with an illusion of your sword, they're his.

The Warblade is the fighter-analogue and his thing is just beating the snot out of people with weapons. His abilities are mundane - remarkable, but mundane. I can think of none offhand which can't be described in game as "I hit him with my weapon". The system just provides a way for that to have a wide range of mechanical effects, while rationing their availability in such a way as to provide balance and encourage variety.

The Warblade can ignore damage reduction, but I don't see why that needs to be magical.

Oh ho ho so very ninja'd.


You are saying he is playing the wrong game because he dislikes or doesn't want to use ToB. I don't agree with his criticisms, but this is an overbearing and judgemental attitude to take. Let him play what he wants to play - it's not wrong.

No, this is not what he's saying. He's saying that Nero doesn't want to use ToB because of <reason>, but <reason> applies to D&D as a whole, not to ToB alone.

Boci
2009-09-07, 05:25 AM
A rogue has combat expertise, improved feint and combat reflexes.

Round 1. Rogue feints against an opponent, then attacks. Then 3 people run past him and he attacks each one.

Round 2. Rogue feints against the same opponent and attacks him again. But because no enemies run past him, that all he can do this turn.

Now as a DM its logical the rogue should be able to attack his opponent another three times. Since there are no openings for AoO, his should take a massive penalty on these attacks, but he should be able to. However, so sane DM would allow him to. And for some reason that is not a problem, but ToB is.

PId6
2009-09-07, 05:26 AM
You are saying he is playing the wrong game because he dislikes or doesn't want to use ToB. I don't agree with his criticisms, but this is an overbearing and judgemental attitude to take. Let him play what he wants to play - it's not wrong.
I think his point was that you can't play mundane warrior in D&D, not that you can't not use ToB. A fighter that falls from 200 ft in the sky and gets up afterward is not mundane.

Partysan
2009-09-07, 05:26 AM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there are maneuvers that allow you to deal fire damage or ignore damage reduction. If the books labels them as being extraordinary, okay. But then I don't understand why it does that.

I'm not saying that the classes and maneuvers are not good. But they just don't fit into some peoples games.

The maneuvers inflicting fire damage cannot be learned by a warblade. Those are swordsage maneuvers, and swordsages are supernatural blademages by definition.
And I can't see why breaking a damage reduction is supernatural in nature.

EDIT: ninja'd. several times.

Boci
2009-09-07, 05:27 AM
You are saying he is playing the wrong game because he dislikes or doesn't want to use ToB. I don't agree with his criticisms, but this is an overbearing and judgemental attitude to take. Let him play what he wants to play - it's not wrong.

No, that is not what I'm saying. He is playing the wrong game. Not because he does not like ToB. If he likes mundane warriors, he should stay away from ToB, and D&D.

elliott20
2009-09-07, 05:28 AM
also, for overcoming DR damage, let's not forget that in the real world we have martial artists who are capable of shattering stone with their bare hands or people who can stop a spear with their own flesh and body by just training it to be tough. Whether or not you believe it's Chi or some other kind of conditioning, there are already precedence of people being able to defying what the scopes of normal human limits in real life.

so why, in a game where a level 5 character can routinely break the olympian records, would the ability to overcome DR be considered as "magical"?

Why all the insistence that a warrior, when their level have CLEARLY breached the limits of the human condition as we know it, cannot get abilities that defies the laws of physics?

Yora
2009-09-07, 05:30 AM
@Boci: And what if I do? What is my penalty for doing so despite people claiming I'm doing it wrong?:smallwink:

The problem with ignoring damage reduction is not about stone or wood. But apparently it also ignores DR/silver or DR/adamantine. Maybe I'm wrong there, as I never felt like reading the whole book, because it just does not seem to appeal to me.
But so does about any other splatbook.

Boci
2009-09-07, 05:32 AM
@Boci: And what if I do? What is my penalty for doing so despite people claiming I'm doing it wrong?:smallwink:

I am just interested on learning new interpretations of mechanics.

Cainen
2009-09-07, 05:38 AM
The problem with ignoring damage reduction is not about stone or wood. But apparently it also ignores DR/silver or DR/adamantine.

So you prod at the parts the adamantine is weakest in(with your sword), or go for spots the adamantine doesn't cover(again, with your sword). That's not supernatural at all.

Reinboom
2009-09-07, 05:38 AM
Early level Warblade something that I consider to be a bit supernatural:
White Raven Tactics.
Only because of wording issues. Not a fan of it anyways, and the only thing I outright ban from TOB.

Other than that, I believe there is a common issue with ToB of the following:
It is common to read the inspiration before the result.
"Designers stated inspiration from wuxia/anime in the beginning of the book." is a bit of a misleading line, since it's intent is to highlight these aspects of the book.
Yes, the inspiration is there, but... just to use an example to emphasize why one should not always follow inspiration:
The Disney movie The Lion King is a direct inspired work/near remake of Kimba. A early... 1960s if I recall correctly, japanese Manga by the same author (and in the same style) as Astro Boy and Metropolis. Many scenes can be matched hand to hand, though with alterations. For example, in the scene where Simba/Kimba is sliding on the tops of various animals and singing. Kimba seemingly grows wings (though depicted as though in his imagination), whereas Simba does not.
...next comes the fact that Kimba is a reinterpretation of a Hamlet (Shakespeare) and a continuation of a folk tale.

Of course, The Lion King is very Japanese in nature, you can tell throughout the entirety of it. How Simba jumps between elephant skeleton to elephant skeleton as though dancing on a Steam Pillar, or relying on the lightning for a cinematic Ring of Fire.
Ehrm.

I believe the next issue is that there seems to be a rather large tendency to 'get the gist' of the book, and then just read through the maneuvers without putting it together that not all the classes have most of these.
Instead, placing them together in one lump sum.


On the OP:
People respond in such a fashion because of their opinion is right, like everyone left on these boards. No matter how wrong, the answer is rarely straight with a tendency of leaving acceptance behind.
*shoots self for 5d6 pun damage*

Killer Angel
2009-09-07, 05:50 AM
(not read the entire thread)


No, that is not what I'm saying. He is playing the wrong game. Not because he does not like ToB. If he likes mundane warriors, he should stay away from ToB, and D&D.

Agree on mundane warriors. GURPS is certainly better suited for this.

Still, you can play D&D without liking ToB. I'm not judging the mechanics, but if you like a fantasy or a fighter-type ala Conan, well, you should play "Conan d20", but still D&D is good, while ToB gives mechanics that, while a lot better and effective than Core, didn't fit the concept.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 05:54 AM
Still, you can play D&D without liking ToB. I'm not judging the mechanics, but if you like a fantasy or a fighter-type ala Conan, well, you should play "Conan d20", but still D&D is good, while ToB gives mechanics that, while a lot better and effective than Core, didn't fit the concept.

Core provides a whole bunch of mechanics that don't fit Conan at all. On the other hand, a properly-built warblade will probably do a better job of representing Conan than any core class (yes, even barbarian - though it does depend on whether you want the written version or the movie version).

Yora
2009-09-07, 05:57 AM
In my oppinion, you can play about any type of play with about any game. If you want to play characters, it's mostly about how the character acts and what he does.
And the things he does are often jumping out a window, beat it with a stick, or throw magic fire on them. The underlying rules don't have to be that important. But if you prefer to place a strong focus on how character abilities mechanically interact with each other, there are obviously games that offer more stuff for a certain type of play than others. But if it's mostly about the characters interacting with a fictional world, it's mostly unimportant.

And the big reason why I play D&D most of the time is because I allready know the basic rules. I understand how they work and I very rarely have to look anything up. So I rather get the game I want to play done with the D&D rules than learn a whole new set of rules, that are only cosmetically different. :smallbiggrin:

Killer Angel
2009-09-07, 06:02 AM
Core provides a whole bunch of mechanics that don't fit Conan at all. On the other hand, a properly-built warblade will probably do a better job of representing Conan than any core class (yes, even barbarian - though it does depend on whether you want the written version or the movie version).

True. When you start adding magic items that let your barbarian fly, etc, you're going miles away from Conan (both version).
But the idea I want to explain (poorly, I admit it) is that ToB has a flavour, which is only a part of D&D. A single class in ToB can adapt (and represent well) a concept (Conan, in this case), but the book as a whole, has a well defined personality.
Not all of us like it (I, for example, appreciate ToB, but don't love it).
And many players prefere play a blaster wizard, for the concept.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 06:04 AM
In my oppinion, you can play about any type of play with about any game. If you want to play characters, it's mostly about how the character acts and what he does.

Just so. ToB makes melee characters more capable of the kinds of feats they accomplish in fiction. (For Conan, I'm specifically thinking of things like Iron Heart Surge and the Concentration-to-save counters from Diamond Mind, to represent the "screw you, mage" stuff he pulls so often. But simply being better able to fight doesn't hurt, either.)


True. When you start adding magic items that let your barbarian fly, etc, you're going miles away from Conan (both version).

Not actually what I was referring to.


But the idea I want to explain (poorly, I admit it) is that ToB has a flavour, which is only a part of D&D. A single class in ToB can adapt (and represent well) a concept (Conan, in this case), but the book as a whole, has a well defined personality.

I suspect this is a case of the who-cares-about-WotC's-fluff divide. ToB contains a bunch of mechanics that let you represent a wide range of concepts. The layer of fluff they've sprinkled over the book shouldn't interfere with that. Refusing to allow someone to make their Conan warblade because you feel a Desert Wind swordsage would be out of place in your game is just... well, weird.


And many players prefere play a blaster wizard, for the concept.

?

Not sure why you mention this.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-07, 06:18 AM
I suspect this is a case of the who-cares-about-WotC's-fluff divide. ToB contains a bunch of mechanics that let you represent a wide range of concepts. The layer of fluff they've sprinkled over the book shouldn't interfere with that. Refusing to allow someone to make their Conan warblade because you feel a Desert Wind swordsage would be out of place in your game is just... well, weird.

Most people are inherently irrational. Not about all things but a few things (unique to each individual). Look at Animal Rights people: they will say stuff that makes no sense (even to them) because they think they are being rationale.

That is the one truth that is universal: everyone has an irrational. Some people show theres as a badge, others can't see there, and some don't realize they have it.


Not sure why you mention this.

I think he is trying to say: some people like underpowered concepts. What he should have said is: some people like "moar Dakka".

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-07, 06:19 AM
What exactly is wrong with a warrior with supernatural powers?

Barring Paladins (who get power directly from their god/belief), you have Monks, Rangers, Psychic Warriors, Hexblades, Duskblades, Soulborn... Most of which also have "once per x" mechanics.

Especially the Monk, who doesn't even cast spells, but still has his "I can only use Shivering Palm once per week" absurdity.

Killer Angel
2009-09-07, 06:20 AM
I suspect this is a case of the who-cares-about-WotC's-fluff divide. ToB contains a bunch of mechanics that let you represent a wide range of concepts. The layer of fluff they've sprinkled over the book shouldn't interfere with that.


I agree, but still... I've bolded your "should", cause the reality is that, in the eyes of many, this matters. Even the references to Wuxia and anime, put a certain light on the book. Wrong or right, it is there.
I'm with you, but there a reason for ToB divides so many, and imo is this one.



?
Not sure why you mention this.

Because IMO it's an example when personal tastes beat the efficacy of a Class.
I know one guy that, while knowing that a blaster is a poorly choice, the only time he played an arcane caster, was a blaster sorcerer.
No matter if ToB are stronger and funny, there will be always someone who will prefere to play a Dwarven defender.

Killer Angel
2009-09-07, 06:22 AM
I think he is trying to say: some people like underpowered concepts. What he should have said is: some people like "moar Dakka".

Yep, they like it merely for the fluff (and Red fluff goes faster).

PinkysBrain
2009-09-07, 06:33 AM
No matter if ToB are stronger and funny, there will be always someone who will prefere to play a Dwarven defender.
That's really the munchkin ethic though, I don't care about the game balance ... I only care about me.

Yora
2009-09-07, 06:38 AM
What exactly is wrong with a warrior with supernatural powers?
See, there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

It just does not seem to fit well into some peoples games. You could play a rogue who has to rods that shot fire bolts and can be fully recharged by changing a magically prepared energy crystal. But it might not be just the right thing for every game. :smallwink:

ToB is certaily good and quite balanced from an objective point of view. But on a subjective view, the mechanics might just not feel right, even for no real apparent reason.

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-07, 06:43 AM
But some people ban the Crusader and allow the Paladin.

Or ban the Swordsage and allow the Monk.

Which just boggles the mind, really.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 06:55 AM
Because IMO it's an example when personal tastes beat the efficacy of a Class.
I know one guy that, while knowing that a blaster is a poorly choice, the only time he played an arcane caster, was a blaster sorcerer.


Yep, they like it merely for the fluff (and Red fluff goes faster).

But the difference between a blaster and another type of caster isn't simply effectiveness. It's also style. On the other hand, the difference between a monk and an unarmed swordsage, or a fighter and a warblade, is only effectiveness. It's the same concept, but built so as to be better at its job. And it's fairly unusual for a player's concept to be "my character is bad at his job".

Yora
2009-09-07, 07:00 AM
I don't allow either. :smallbiggrin:

I think it's mostly a guts descision. As a gm, I don't allow any splatbooks in my games. I want the game to focus on the characters personalties and social interactions with NPCs and making plans how to influence events. Not so much about tactical combat where every move is carefully considered and all the abilities are examined to optimize the output. (People often say that D&D is not good for such types of games, but nobody could ever show me any good reasons why another system would be better.)
And that's why I like to restrict the classes to the plain basics and ask the players to fluff the characters out as they see fit. Also I play a lot with beginners, who don't even know all the core classes.

But if someone allows all the Complete Books but not ToB, it's really somewhat hard to understand. :smallbiggrin:

PinkysBrain
2009-09-07, 07:09 AM
And that's why I like to restrict the classes to the plain basics and ask the players to fluff the characters out as they see fit. Also I play a lot with beginners, who don't even know all the core classes.
A beginner will be able to pick up a ToB character faster than any caster. The deck mechanics will be instantly familiar to anyone who ever tried a card battle game and printed out manoeuvre cards (free download!) are far more convenient than checking a PHB for spells.

Killer Angel
2009-09-07, 07:16 AM
But the difference between a blaster and another type of caster isn't simply effectiveness. It's also style. On the other hand, the difference between a monk and an unarmed swordsage, or a fighter and a warblade, is only effectiveness. It's the same concept, but built so as to be better at its job.

This beats me. :smallsmile:
But still, as Yora said:



ToB is certaily good and quite balanced from an objective point of view. But on a subjective view, the mechanics might just not feel right, even for no real apparent reason.

A lot of groups have good fun playing without ToB or any supplement. I suppose we must live with it... :smallwink:

Kaiyanwang
2009-09-07, 07:26 AM
A lot of groups have good fun playing without ToB or any supplement. I suppose we must live with it... :smallwink:

Mine for a while. Even if I think that the book is very good, there are that are not in my tastes (NOT IHS is broken only if you want it being broken).

When I read it the first time, it seemed to me, at worst, very noob-friendly. But this is a good thing, not a bad one.

Anyway, there is some things that I liked so much of the book that I intoduced it in my campaign.. refluffing most of schools as being invented by Wind Dukes.

Indon
2009-09-07, 07:57 AM
My guess is, because (vancian) casting classes are popular in this community, and ToB allows you to basically play casters without magic.

The fact that you're hitting that meme so hard by not having the text and even saying so would probably be why you're getting a bit of irrationality in response, Quietus.

And it's even a bit better than it used to be (since there are more forumites who are aware of good non-vancian systems now).

As for the book itself, it's nice, but you don't need it. If you're going to replace melee classes with what are basically reflavored casters, just replace melee classes with reflavored casters. You have four of the most powerful caster classes in the game right there in core, two of which are among the most powerful melee classes. It's a simple and easy fix, does the same thing ToB does, and it's free. You can even nerf the resulting reflavored casters to whatever level you feel comfortable.

An idea to start: Give the Monk the Cleric spellcasting progression. He can only cast spells that directly affect himself (such as Divine Might), and/or other flavor-appropriate spells. Rename the mechanic from 'spells' to 'meditations'. Leave supernatural as SLA's or make an Ex ability as desired.


Most people are inherently irrational.
Rationality is a learned ability that must be developed on a case-by-case basis.

Killer Angel
2009-09-07, 08:00 AM
Anyway, there is some things that I liked so much of the book that I intoduced it in my campaign.. refluffing most of schools as being invented by Wind Dukes.

Don't forget also that the balance's problems, came also from the players' style. (EDIT: I'm well aware that classes in core are heavily unbalanced, and there's no much effort to put in, if you want to break a druid. But sometimes the players play exactly as intended by the testers...)

If you introduce some elements of ToB (or the whole books) in a Core campaign, you can have different results.
If players are used to play blaster and healers, than ToB it's overpowered.
If players know how to optimize a wizard or a druid, ToB is absolutely needed to diminish the gap.


(hey Kay, you've been upgraded to bugbear! congrat. :smallwink:)

Yora
2009-09-07, 08:01 AM
There's a quote by Mark Twain, that speaks of deep wisdom.

"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained."
And it's true.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-07, 08:04 AM
An idea to start: Give the Monk the Cleric spellcasting progression. He can only cast spells that directly affect himself (such as Divine Might), and/or other flavor-appropriate spells. Rename the mechanic from 'spells' to 'meditations'. Leave supernatural as SLA's or make an Ex ability as desired.


Rationality is a learned ability that must be developed on a case-by-case basis.

But then the Monk might be viable: who wants that? :smallbiggrin:

Kaiyanwang
2009-09-07, 08:05 AM
Don't forget also that the balance's problems, came also from the players' style.
If you introduce some elements of ToB (or the whole books) in a Core campaign, you can have different results.
If players are used to play blaster and healers, than ToB it's overpowered.
If players know how to optimize a wizard or a druid, ToB is absolutely needed to diminish the gap.

The Fighter//knight need a pimp on charge mechanics. A dip in warblade with jump and charge maneuvers from TC will be enough for now. We plan LOOONG campaing, so she's likely to be Fighter 40// Knight 20 Warbl 20 with a retrain.



(hey Kay, you've been upgraded to bugbear! congrat. :smallwink:)

Grazie bello! :smallwink:

Indon
2009-09-07, 08:06 AM
But then the Monk might be viable: who wants that? :smallbiggrin:

Certainly not the Unarmed Swordsage - he'd be out of a job!

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 08:09 AM
As for the book itself, it's nice, but you don't need it. If you're going to replace melee classes with what are basically reflavored casters, just replace melee classes with reflavored casters. You have four of the most powerful caster classes in the game right there in core, two of which are among the most powerful melee classes. It's a simple and easy fix, does the same thing ToB does, and it's free. You can even nerf the resulting reflavored casters to whatever level you feel comfortable.

You seem to be pitching what would be a major homebrewing project as if it were a simple coat-of-paint quick fix. To make "reflavoured casters" that did the jobs ToB classes do, you would essentially have to recreate half of ToB. Why is it better to tell people "to improve the plight of melee in the game, either massively rework a chunk of the system or read my self-published tome where I do it for you" than "buy this particular book where you'll find teh work already done"?

Grumman
2009-09-07, 08:11 AM
My guess is, because (vancian) casting classes are popular in this community, and ToB allows you to basically play casters without magic.
No, useful classes are popular in this community. The Tome of Battle is not good because it gives you pseudo-vancian casting, it's good because it makes you not suck.

Indon
2009-09-07, 08:18 AM
To make "reflavoured casters" that did the jobs ToB classes do, you would essentially have to recreate half of ToB.
Not necessarily.

Sure, if I wanted to painstakingly replicate the specific abilities of ToB classes, that would take some time. But the 'job' is just a matter of flavor; the same way the Fighter and the Warblade can fulfill the same job, only the Warblade does it better, so too can a Wizard-but-who-has-a-reflavored-spell-list.

And it's not like you have to invent any spells, they're all right there. And that ultimately means I don't need to replicate the abilities of the ToB - because core casting out of the box is better than maneuvers. Why use watered-down not-real-spells for your vancian martial artists when you can use real not-real-spells instead?

Edit:

No, useful classes are popular in this community. The Tome of Battle is not good because it gives you pseudo-vancian casting, it's good because it makes you not suck.

ToB classes receive disproportionate attention to other useful martial classes, just like vancian casters receive disproportionate attention to other useful casting systems (like psionics).

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-07, 08:25 AM
That's because Vancian spellcasting is more useful than psionics! Spellcasters get the most useful spells straight out of the box, and psionicists don't get much support.

Indon
2009-09-07, 08:29 AM
That's because Vancian spellcasting is more useful than psionics! Spellcasters get the most useful spells straight out of the box, and psionicists don't get much support.

Both are useful - one is not more useful than the other. Just more powerful.

And most secondary systems in 3'rd edition get little support - like Incarnum, Binding, and Tome of Battle.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 08:30 AM
Honestly this just comes off as you having too much of a chip on your shoulder about whatever you regard as "Vancian casting" (hint: having nine tiers of ability and being other than at-will isn't it) to have a conversation around it. I'm not going to try.

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-07, 08:31 AM
Both are useful - one is not more useful than the other. Just more powerful.

And most secondary systems in 3'rd edition get little support - like Incarnum, Binding, and Tome of Battle.

Which, in fact, makes Vancian casting more useful, as it has more options and can fill more niches. A Wizard can be prepared for absolutely any situation, given the right caster level. The Psion, or even the Erudite, cannot say likewise.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-07, 08:42 AM
ToB classes receive disproportionate attention to other useful martial classes
Bull ... Incarnum, PsyWar, gish classes and even binders get plenty of attention. Compared to all those ToB is much easier to play though, it gets proportionate attention.

Indon
2009-09-07, 08:44 AM
Honestly this just comes off as you having too much of a chip on your shoulder about whatever you regard as "Vancian casting" (hint: having nine tiers of ability and being other than at-will isn't it) to have a conversation around it. I'm not going to try.

The chip on my shoulder is that Wizards could get away with such an obvious mechanics rehash.

It's expended ability slots, by the way, as not all vancian casters have 9 tiers.


Which, in fact, makes Vancian casting more useful, as it has more options and can fill more niches. A Wizard can be prepared for absolutely any situation, given the right caster level. The Psion, or even the Erudite, cannot say likewise.

So you're saying that the reason this forum dwells so much on such systems is precisely because they tend to be more powerful due to the nature of the system to let you select diverse abilities?

Edit:

Compared to all those ToB is much easier to play though, it gets proportionate attention.

Wait, much easier to play? It might be easier to get answers about on this forum, since it gets so much attention, but easier to play?

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-07, 08:48 AM
So you're saying that the reason this forum dwells so much on such systems is precisely because they tend to be more powerful due to the nature of the system to let you select diverse abilities?

Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm saying that Wizards (and Vancian casters in general) are more useful because they have more options.

Newsflash: Psionicists, Meldshapers, Binders, Truenamers and Shadowcasters all have systems that let them select diverse abilities, too! And they're not Vancian at all!

Well, maybe the Shadowcaster.

Indon
2009-09-07, 08:51 AM
Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm saying that Wizards (and Vancian casters in general) are more useful because they have more options.

Oh, my bad. Because they have more diverse abilities.

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-07, 08:57 AM
Yes.

That, and just looking over the spells in the PHB will show you that they're all-around better than the powers in the EPH, with only a few exceptions.

The Wizard can do everything the Psion can do, plus extra. :smallsmile: Therefore, he is more useful.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 09:03 AM
I guess I don't see why it's a bad thing for maneuvers to be structured like spell levels. Or why that makes them directly equivalent to spells, so that the system can apparently offend you for having a different set of abilities to the core spell lists (do warlock invocations, which similarly needed to be reworked to deal with their much greater availability, also offend you?).

I also don't understand your claim that because spells are mechanically stronger than manuevers, the proper thing to do would be simply to replace melee with magic. Because that's what you're saying, however you try to obfuscate it by pretending that maneuvers by virtue of the way they're readied/expended are in fact "casting" and therefore comparable to gate or wish.

deuxhero
2009-09-07, 09:04 AM
Don't people consider the Master of the Nine (truenamer) broken without heavy optimization/cheese (taking UA bloodlines among other things) as it doesn't do what the class title says.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-07, 09:05 AM
Wait, much easier to play? It might be easier to get answers about on this forum, since it gets so much attention, but easier to play?
Mostly you have your deck, your graveyard (both of these physical and much easier handled than a book or ad-hoc notes) and rules to switch between them ... Binders and Incarnum users will require far more going back to the rules for checking than a ToB character. PsyWar is on an even playing ground, but Psionics is about the only thing even more often banned than ToB.

shadow_archmagi
2009-09-07, 09:26 AM
But I HAVE had people tell me I was wrong. I was asked why I try to avoid using ToB options, to which I replied "Because I don't own a copy". I was promptly told, in no uncertain terms, that I MUST go and get it. You're right in that no one has used the term "You are wrong for not owning a copy", but it does get heavily implied.

This is the internet, friend.

People here are very silly and over the top.

It's not the style to say

"I have a mild feeling of like for Snickers with almonds. Some days, but not every day, I am tempted to contribute money towards acquiring one of those tasty snickers. I do not always succumb to this temptation."

It's the style to say

"I LOVE THAT CANDY BAR SO MUCH I WOULD BIKE UPSTREAM EVEN THOUGH BIKES ARE NOT WATER VEHICLES AT ALL AND THEN AT THE TOP OF THE STREAM I WOULD FISTFIGHT A BEAR AND WIN BECAUSE MY RAGE AT BEING DENIED THE GLORY OF SNICKERS WOULD PROPEL MY FIST INTO BEING THE DRILL THAT WILL SHATTER THE HEAVENS OR AT LEAST THAT BEAR'S JAW AND THEN WHEN THE PARK RANGERS CAME TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ALL THE BROKEN-BEAR-JAWS LYING EVERYWHERE I WOULD YELL SO LOUD THEY EXPLODED."

Naturally, recommendations go the same way. Overboard is the only kind of board on this board.

quick_comment
2009-09-07, 09:28 AM
ToB not only has great mechanics, but the fluff is so easy to change.

I once ran a gnomish swordsage whose powers did not come from "blade magic" but from an iron-man esque suit he was testing for his crazy uncle.

I had a warblade who was the medieval equivalent of a mixed martial artist. I took a few martial study: Setting sun feats, had the ability to change what weapon I was using with a short time practicing, and off I went.

Its beginner-friendly, gives melee interesting options in combat, fixes several inconsistencies inherent to melee (like the fighter, who is supposedly a master of all weapons cannot apply his advanced longsword knowledge to the short sword), and best of all, it makes melee fun to play rather than.

DM: The dragon takes to the air
Fighter: *Sigh*. I take out my bow. I roll a 19, I deal 3 damage.
Cleric: I cast control weather, I use the winds to slow the dragon down!
Wizard: I change myself into a dragon and go after it!
Fighter: I full attack with my bow.....22 damage this time.

Indon
2009-09-07, 09:41 AM
I also don't understand your claim that because spells are mechanically stronger than manuevers, the proper thing to do would be simply to replace melee with magic.
It's not replacing melee with magic if you reflavor the abilities to be melee.

Example, Divine Power. Expression of blessing from a deity? Sure. Effects from the monk's meditative boosting? Also works.

Or Grease. Magical generation of a slick surface... or maybe you're just throwing some grease at it.

All the arguments that can be used to justify the abilities in the ToB as appropriate for D&D, and the ToB classes as appropriate replacements for classes in D&D, are perfectly legitimate arguments.

Those same legitimate arguments can be used to justify using spells in core as mundane abilities, and caster classes as appropriate replacements for the same classes the ToB classes replace.

And no, mundane casters would probably not get Gate or Wish, as it doesn't fit in with any of their flavor. That shouldn't exactly require much effort to determine, methinks.

Quick - why aren't spells just as easy to reflavor?

Edit:

Binders and Incarnum users will require far more going back to the rules for checking than a ToB character.

I thought you only had one binding up at once? Admittedly, I don't really play Binders, so I'm probably wrong.

As for Incarnum, just write down the soulmelds you see your character using on the character sheet. Their effects tend to be simple enough to write down in brief - you don't even need cards.

But if you want to use props, use cards describing each soulmeld and track your essentia with beads or other counting items.

AstralFire
2009-09-07, 09:44 AM
My guess is, because (vancian) casting classes are popular in this community, and ToB allows you to basically play casters without magic.

I'm calling extreme bovine on this one. I hate Vancian casting, hate it hate it hate it. I know you don't like the way people assume a certain level of optimization here, but it's not related. I like ToB because it gives me a variety of combat abilities to perform, rather than having to spend a billion feats for it, or giving me spells that are unrelated to how I fight.


Quick - why aren't spells just as easy to reflavor?

I'd say that has something to do with the fact that it gets harder and harder to rationalize it within D&D's assumed tech level as you get higher up in spell levels.


Abjur

* Banishment: Banishes 2 HD/level of extraplanar creatures.
* Sequester: Subject is invisible to sight and scrying; renders creature comatose.
* Spell Turning: Reflect 1d4+6 spell levels back at caster.

I CAN REFLECT YOUR ABILITY TO HIT ME WITH LIFE DRAINING NANITES?


Conj

* Instant Summons M: Prepared object appears in your hand.
* Mage’s Magnificent Mansion F: Door leads to extradimensional mansion.
* Phase Door: Creates an invisible passage through wood or stone.
* Plane Shift F: As many as eight subjects travel to another plane.
* Summon Monster VII: Calls extraplanar creature to fight for you.
* Teleport, Greater: As teleport, but no range limit and no off-target arrival.
* Teleport Object: As teleport, but affects a touched object.

I don't see any of these working.


Div

* Arcane Sight, Greater: As arcane sight, but also reveals magic effects on creatures and objects.
* Scrying, Greater: As scrying, but faster and longer.
* Vision M X: As legend lore, but quicker and strenuous.

D&D starts breaking apart when you say there's technology available for people to plant bugs spontaneously.


Ench

* Hold Person, Mass: As hold person, but all within 30 ft.
* Insanity: Subject suffers continuous confusion.
* Power Word Blind: Blinds creature with 200 hp or less.
* Symbol of Stunning M: Triggered rune stuns nearby creatures.

I suppose you could make Insanity some really powerful drugs. These on the whole work.


Evoc

* Delayed Blast Fireball: 1d6/level fire damage; you can postpone blast for 5 rounds.
* Forcecage M: Cube or cage of force imprisons all inside.
* Grasping Hand: Hand provides cover, pushes, or grapples.
* Mage’s Sword F: Floating magic blade strikes opponents.
* Prismatic Spray: Rays hit subjects with variety of effects.

I don't see any of these working without inserting nanites, yo.


Illus

* Invisibility, Mass: As invisibility, but affects all in range.
* Project Image: Illusory double can talk and cast spells.
* Shadow Conjuration, Greater: As shadow conjuration, but up to 6th level and 60% real.
* Simulacrum M X: Creates partially real double of a creature.

Project Image and Shadow Conjuration could be played up as being a really good bluffer or something, I suppose. Invisibility too. Simulacrum's alchemy. Doable.


Necro

* Control Undead: Undead don’t attack you while under your command.
* Finger of Death: Kills one subject.
* Symbol of Weakness M: Triggered rune weakens nearby creatures.
* Waves of Exhaustion: Several targets become exhausted.

Finger of Death works. Control Undead is back to the nanites. Waves of Exhaustion... nanites?


Trans

* Control Weather: Changes weather in local area.
* Ethereal Jaunt: You become ethereal for 1 round/level.
* Reverse Gravity: Objects and creatures fall upward.
* Statue: Subject can become a statue at will.

Control Weather... dry ice nanites? Graviton nanites? ... Rock nanites? Ethereal nanites?


Univ

* Limited Wish X: Alters reality—within spell limits.

Jean Grey nanites?

Boci
2009-09-07, 09:44 AM
I don't allow either. :smallbiggrin:

I think it's mostly a guts descision. As a gm, I don't allow any splatbooks in my games. I want the game to focus on the characters personalties and social interactions with NPCs and making plans how to influence events.

Am I a superior breed to your players then because I can role play and optimize? I haven't seem much evidence that I would be suprior to the average person.

quick_comment
2009-09-07, 09:46 AM
Quick - why aren't spells just as easy to reflavor?

Because its really clunky to reflavor a spellbook, or not working in an AMF, and sort of hard to make plane-wrenching magics anything but magic or advanced technology (which is indistinguishable from magic).

Not to mention ASF, the fact that the classes with magic are frail and weak, alignment restrictions on cleric spells, etc.

There is alot more baggage with magic. Sublime way maneuvers are mostly variations on "I hit it really hard." Desert Wind and Shadow hand are both mostly low level magic, which is more easily refluffable.

Morty
2009-09-07, 09:49 AM
Right... so is it just me, or has this thread become yet another "no, you're not allowed to not like ToB or not use it. No, not even then" threads?

Indon
2009-09-07, 09:49 AM
I'm calling extreme bovine on this one. I hate Vancian casting, hate it hate it hate it. I know you don't like the way people assume a certain level of optimization here, but it's not related. I like ToB because it gives me a variety of combat abilities to perform, rather than having to spend a billion feats for it, or giving me spells that are unrelated to how I fight.

From what I glean here, the difference as far as you're concerned between spells and maneuvers is that maneuvers are less versatile than spells?

And this makes you like maneuvers much more than spells.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 09:53 AM
All the arguments that can be used to justify the abilities in the ToB as appropriate for D&D, and the ToB classes as appropriate replacements for classes in D&D, are perfectly legitimate arguments.

No, they're really not. The arguments for why a warblade's maneuvers fit in fine are that they're all just mechanically different ways of doing perfectly believable (to the extent anything a high-level fighter does is believable) things with a weapon. This does not mean that you can take absolutely any ability in the game whatsoever and say that it's actually some other one.


Quick - why aren't spells just as easy to reflavor?

Because a) you're not just reflavouring, you're massively rebalancing, and b) because the mechanical effects of spells are not in line with what can reasonably be tacked on to a weapon.

To do what you're talking about you would have to first select a suitable subset of spells, then rewrite them. I'll take the system written from the ground up to make sense in its role, thanks.


I thought you only had one binding up at once? Admittedly, I don't really play Binders, so I'm probably wrong.

You are, in fact, wrong. And if you know you're likely wrong, why try to argue?


Right... so is it just me, or has this thread become yet another "no, you're not allowed to not like ToB or not use it. No, not even then" threads?

It's just you.

"No, you're not allowed to dislike ToB" and "your criticisms of ToB are weaksauce" are not the same thing.

kjones
2009-09-07, 09:53 AM
It's not replacing melee with magic if you reflavor the abilities to be melee.

Example, Divine Power. Expression of blessing from a deity? Sure. Effects from the monk's meditative boosting? Also works.

Or Grease. Magical generation of a slick surface... or maybe you're just throwing some grease at it.


The problem with treating magical effects as mundane ones is that it breaks down at some point. For example, is your "meditative" version of Divine Power susceptible to Dispel Magic? Can your mundane version of Grease be scraped off and re-used? Does it expire after 1 round/level? If so... how does that make sense?

The fact that magic doesn't hold up to logic is OK. It doesn't have to make sense, it's magic. But mundane effects have to be internally consistent, and that's difficult.

I'm not saying it can't be done. You just have to think all of these things through, for each spell, and I think it's more trouble than it's worth.

AstralFire
2009-09-07, 09:56 AM
From what I glean here, the difference as far as you're concerned between spells and maneuvers is that maneuvers are less versatile than spells?

And this makes you like maneuvers much more than spells.

Yes and no. I hate Vancian prepared casting because it's ridiculous versatile. Every morning you wake and say, "hurr, what am I going to be God at today." I find that pretty boring; I enjoy having some limits, some specialization.

I hate Vancian casting in general because I find that it generally does a poor job (by Gygaxian design for a system that did not start out with the intent of being generic) of emulating magic found in its more popular conceptions. I find daily spell slots to be a weird and awkward mechanic for representing characters with 'natural power' like the Sorcerer. The difference between what a 9th level spell and a 6th level spell, however, is not as big as the difference between 9th and 6th level maneuvers if you stick to the non-supernatural ones. You're just exerting more effort to do stuff better. You are not, however, inexplicably capable of shooting lightning god knows how many number of times but unable to shoot meteors just once more today.

Killer Angel
2009-09-07, 10:01 AM
"No, you're not allowed to dislike ToB" and "your criticisms of ToB are weaksauce" are not the same thing.

True, but i sense that saying "i don't like ToB 'cause it's too wuxia for my tastes" (so it's a strictly personal PoW) is often countered (Not saying by you, Kamikasei) by "you are wrong, it's not true"
(Imo is not SO true, but neither totally wrong).

Killer Angel
2009-09-07, 10:05 AM
I'm not saying it can't be done. You just have to think all of these things through, for each spell, and I think it's more trouble than it's worth.

Indon wasn't speaking about ALL spells, but merely refluffing some.
His example was relative to self-buffers for monk, which is fine: from a certain PoW, gives more personality to a homebrew setting, than simply picking up ToB.

Indon
2009-09-07, 10:05 AM
Because its really clunky to reflavor a spellbook,
Why have a spellbook at all? If you're concerned about costs, reflavor them to training costs or something.


or not working in an AMF,
If you reflavor it to not be magical, then of course it should work in an AMF.

Mind, of course, that reflavoring something from Su to Ex is a bit more than reflavoring it from one Su to another Su or an Ex to Ex ability.

But it would be trivial for me to describe my Fireball spell as being some other magical thing that happens to burn an area, or to reflavor Grease as an Entropic Dampener (if I wanted to play a gnomish wizard, for instance).


and sort of hard to make plane-wrenching magics anything but magic or advanced technology (which is indistinguishable from magic).
You don't give just anyone any spell, just like you wouldn't give just anyone any maneuver.


Not to mention ASF, the fact that the classes with magic are frail and weak, alignment restrictions on cleric spells, etc.
ASF's the tricky one - you'll need to work with a DM with that. The classes with strong combat magic are neither frail nor weak, and spells with alignment restrictions are probably not ones you'd bother using - though, Holy Word would make for an interesting on-strike effect for a Crusader-type character.


There is alot more baggage with magic. Sublime way maneuvers are mostly variations on "I hit it really hard." Desert Wind and Shadow hand are both mostly low level magic, which is more easily refluffable.

Magic doesn't have more baggage - it just plain has more. More spells, with more diverse and powerful effects, that you can choose from at leisure, to include plenty of "I hit it really hard" abilities. Don't worry about accounting for every spell, and have a DM willing to compensate you for the fact that while you're basically playing a caster, you're intentionally making yourself weaker to maintain a character concept (it can't be much harder than getting a DM to accept ToB in the first place, though YMMV).

Also, you can use reflavored core spells to make a martial ranged character, which ToB doesn't do.

Morty
2009-09-07, 10:06 AM
It's just you.

"No, you're not allowed to dislike ToB" and "your criticisms of ToB are weaksauce" are not the same thing.

Yes, they are? Seriously. When someone says "I don't like X for this and that reason", is it so hard to concede that yes, it's possible to feel that way about something?

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-07, 10:06 AM
{Scrubbed}

AstralFire
2009-09-07, 10:09 AM
Magic doesn't have more baggage - it just plain has more. More spells, with more diverse and powerful effects, that you can choose from at leisure, to include plenty of "I hit it really hard" abilities. Don't worry about accounting for every spell, and have a DM willing to compensate you for the fact that while you're basically playing a caster, you're intentionally making yourself weaker to maintain a character concept (it can't be much harder than getting a DM to accept ToB in the first place, though YMMV).

ToB is a book you can add and show around. Reflavoring/redoing even just your pertinent spells is a lot of paperwork and small adjustments. I've found more GMs who are less likely to allow Alternate Class Features than they are ToB, and this is pretty much more like ACFs.


Yes, they are? Seriously. When someone says "I don't like X for this and that reason", is it so hard to concede that yes, it's possible to feel that way about something?

It's the difference between saying, "ToB is like wuxia," and "ToB places too much emphasis on special abilities for my tastes." Both are basically expressing the same thing, but the former invites arguments disproving the statement, while the second is unequivocally your opinion. I usually try not to argue in the latter case.

quick_comment
2009-09-07, 10:09 AM
Indon, you arent refluffing. Making stuff work in an AMF, or making wizards not need spellbooks are major mechanical changes.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 10:10 AM
Yes, they are? Seriously. When someone says "I don't like X for this and that reason", is it so hard to concede that yes, it's possible to feel that way about something?

If someone tells me that they don't like my friend Bob because Bob once tortured a kitten to death, I can acknowledge that they sure don't like Bob while quite vigorously refuting their claim that he ever did any such thing.


True, but i sense that saying "i don't like ToB 'cause it's too wuxia for my tastes" (so it's a strictly personal PoW) is often countered (Not saying by you, Kamikasei) by "you are wrong, it's not true"
(Imo is not SO true, but neither totally wrong).

See, I can't tell someone they're wrong that something is too X for them. That's their taste, they're the authority on that. I can't tell you that you do in fact like a particular foodstuff and don't find it too salty for your tastes.

I can point out that the thing doesn't have to have the level of X that bothers them. I can tell you that the place you've been getting your <foodstuff> uses a lot of salt and you should try the <foodstuff> from a different source which may be more to your liking.

If someone tells me they don't like ToB because it's too wuxia, I can't tell them that they're wrong and they do like ToB. I can tell them that ToB can easily be used without wuxia elements, and they should consider trying to do so because it'll be worth the effort.

Killer Angel
2009-09-07, 10:11 AM
{scrubbed}

As far as I've understood, Indon's idea is to create abilities / object that can duplicate the effects of some spells, adjusting the Core non caster classes.
Not exactly what I call lazyness.

shadow_archmagi
2009-09-07, 10:13 AM
Magic is harder to reflavor as mundane because it can achieve things that are otherwise completely undoable. Teleport. Wall of Force.

Polymorph.


Whereas the vast majority of ToB manuevers could be reflavored as less superhuman. Maybe a bit over-the-top, but believable in the context of fighting a giant. The sort of thing that a movie character could get away with.

Morty
2009-09-07, 10:15 AM
If someone tells me that they don't like my friend Bob because Bob once tortured a kitten to death, I can acknowledge that they sure don't like Bob while quite vigorously refuting their claim that he ever did any such thing.

How does that even compare? People don't dislike or refrain from using ToB for imagined slights. They don't like it for the things it is - that is, melee fighters using specific manuevers and the flavor. Others not finding those reasons valid =/= the reasons being non-existant.

AstralFire
2009-09-07, 10:16 AM
How does that even compare? People don't dislike or refrain from using ToB for imagined slights. They don't like it for the things it is - that is, melee fighters using specific manuevers and the flavor. Others not finding those reasons valid =/= the reasons being non-existant.

See my edited response above. I think it's sort of what kami was driving at.

Morty
2009-09-07, 10:20 AM
And I still disagree. Or, to me more precise, I'm still confused. I agree that the former statement is more likely to invite arguments, being much more definite, but it still doesn't justify the frequency of threads being hijacked as soon as someone mentions that no, they'd rather not use Tome of Battle.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 10:21 AM
How does that even compare? People don't dislike or refrain from using ToB for imagined slights. They don't like it for the things it is - that is, melee fighters using specific manuevers and the flavor. Others not finding those reasons valid =/= the reasons being non-existant.

It compares because if someone dislikes X for reason Y, and reason Y is not correct - and this does happen; witness all the cases of people banning ToB because they don't want "fighters" to have supernatural abilities, where their reason is simply wrong and based on a misconception - then it is possible to argue that they are correct about what they do or don't like, but incorrect about whether those things apply.

Very often people dislike ToB for things it is not or that are not necessay to it.

See also my own earlier edit.

Where in this thread do you see people telling others they're "not allowed to dislike ToB"? Indon? I know I haven't said anything of the sort, I've only said that his criticisms of ToB make no sense.


but it still doesn't justify the frequency of threads being hijacked as soon as someone mentions that no, they'd rather not use Tome of Battle.

Now, what exactly are you talking about? Are you decrying some general phenomenon, or something specifically happening here, in this thread? I have no interest in trying to defend everyone everywhere who might say anything to anyone who dislikes ToB.

AstralFire
2009-09-07, 10:21 AM
And I still disagree. I understand that the former statement is more likely to invite arguments, being much more definite, but it still doesn't justify the frequency of threads being hijacked as soon as someone mentions that no, they'd rather not use Tome of Battle.

I don't agree with thread jacking; the topic, however, is pretty much asking for arguments in this case.

Morty
2009-09-07, 10:29 AM
It compares because if someone dislikes X for reason Y, and reason Y is not correct - and this does happen; witness all the cases of people banning ToB because they don't want "fighters" to have supernatural abilities, where their reason is simply wrong and based on a misconception - then it is possible to argue that they are correct about what they do or don't like, but incorrect about whether those things apply.

Yes, "ToB makes fighters use magic" is a misconception. But this is one part of one of the reasons people dislike ToB for.


I don't agree with thread jacking; the topic, however, is pretty much asking for arguments in this case.

It is, sort of. But look at the thread in its entirety. The OP is asking people why won't they concede that no, he won't use ToB because he doesn't own it, and the responses are... that ToB is an excellent book. Yep.

Boci
2009-09-07, 10:30 AM
And I still disagree. Or, to me more precise, I'm still confused. I agree that the former statement is more likely to invite arguments, being much more definite, but it still doesn't justify the frequency of threads being hijacked as soon as someone mentions that no, they'd rather not use Tome of Battle.

I've seen people who hateed ToB, until they realized they could rename the fighter warblade and then they were glad they had the book. Thats why I argue with people who do not like it. Just incase they change their mind and grow to like it.


he won't use ToB because he doesn't own it, and the responses are... that ToB is an excellent book.

Well then he hardly needed to publish a thread advertising that and is only getting what he deserved. And we're trying to persuade him to buy one.

Morty
2009-09-07, 10:31 AM
I've seen people who hateed ToB, until they realized they could rename the fighter warblade and then they were glad they had the book. Thats why I argue with people who do not like it. Just incase they change their mind and grow to like it.

And is changing the minds of a bunch of people on the Internet who might be completely impervious to your reasoning worth hijacking threads and making intended discussion harder? It's not like something horrible will happen if they don't start liking ToB.

Boci
2009-09-07, 10:33 AM
And is changing the minds of a bunch of people on the Internet who might be completely impervious to your reasoning worth hijacking threads and making intended discussion harder? It's not like something horrible will happen if they don't start liking ToB.

Whats the intended dicusion?

OP: I don't own ToB so I don't use it
Everyone else: Cool

The question was:

"but why is it that some people feel the need to get so aggressive in their assertion that ToB is a necessary book for every D&D game?"

We are answering that. Because it really improves game expirience. Then people disagree with us and we feel we need to prove how good a book it is (or how bad it is for melee without it)

Morty
2009-09-07, 10:34 AM
Whats the intended dicusion?

OP: I don't own ToB so I don't use it
Everyone else: Cool

I'm not talking about this thread. I'm essentially rephrasing OP's question, which is: why won't people accept me(or anyone else) not using this book?

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 10:34 AM
Yes, "ToB makes fighters use magic" is a misconception. But this is one part of one of the reasons people dislike ToB for.

And I won't tell them they're incorrect that they dislike it for that reason. But I will tell them their dislike is founded on a misconception. I view it as better to correct misconceptions than to not. Is that a bad thing?

And please don't reply with something about thread hijacking. It's a separate issue.


I'm not talking about this thread. I'm essentially rephrasing OP's question, which is: why won't people accept me(or anyone else) not using this book?

That's not the question you asked.


Right... so is it just me, or has this thread become yet another "no, you're not allowed to not like ToB or not use it. No, not even then" threads?

You're pulling a bait-and-switch.

In fact, yes, a lot of discussion in this thread was not directly helpful to the OP, and that's a shame. But as far as I can recall no one who was refuting misconceptions about ToB was directing it at the OP (I may be mistaken there, though). Those were side discussions. They happen.

And those side discussions were not saying "you're not allowed to not like ToB". They were saying "the reason you give is founded on certain errors, which are thus and so, so you may wish to reconsider them."

Boci
2009-09-07, 10:36 AM
I'm not talking about this thread. I'm essentially rephrasing OP's question, which is: why won't people accept me(or anyone else) not using this book?

I have already answered that. Sometimes people are persuaded by these threads to use ToB. Thats all the motivation I need, even if I will never meet the person.

Indon
2009-09-07, 10:42 AM
Kami:

No, they're really not. The arguments for why a warblade's maneuvers fit in fine are that they're all just mechanically different ways of doing perfectly believable (to the extent anything a high-level fighter does is believable) things with a weapon.
And the argument that a Warblade can replace a Fighter is that Flavor can be divorced from Crunch.


This does not mean that you can take absolutely any ability in the game whatsoever and say that it's actually some other one.
You wouldn't use 'absolutely any' ability. The usable ones are mostly self-evident. Divine Power, okay for a monk. Gate, not okay for a monk. Really not much work.


Because a) you're not just reflavouring, you're massively rebalancing, and b) because the mechanical effects of spells are not in line with what can reasonably be tacked on to a weapon.
a.)You're right - I'd be making weaker versions of caster classes. No balance problems here, though, and no massive work either - just work with the premise that you can use spells with reflavorable effects (the identification of which, in itself, is pretty easy) as mundane abilities, then use good judgment from there.
b.)If it does damage, it does normal damage. Good judgment works.


To do what you're talking about you would have to first select a suitable subset of spells, then rewrite them. I'll take the system written from the ground up to make sense in its role, thanks.
You seem to have the impression that this would require any more pouring through the book than any other caster would. It wouldn't.

Every caster selects appropriate spells from a given list. This would be little different.


You are, in fact, wrong. And if you know you're likely wrong, why try to argue?
Because I might have been right? I was, after all, asking about something I wasn't sure about.


It's just you.
No it isn't. I assure you that is a vibe this forum gives off for many. It's irrelevant to the argument, but very much present.


Kjones:


The problem with treating magical effects as mundane ones is that it breaks down at some point.
I disagree.


For example, is your "meditative" version of Divine Power susceptible to Dispel Magic?
No, it's mundane (unless you specifically want the Monk to be using supernatural powers, which I guess is reasonable).

Can your mundane version of Grease be scraped off and re-used?
You have to get the grease for the next cast from somewhere :P. I imagine you'd have to re-prepare it, though.

Does it expire after 1 round/level?
It stops working.

If so... how does that make sense?
Stops being effective at slipping up just about anything - probably because it gets dirty or loses chemical potency - how, ultimately, isn't really relevant unless your group wants to have fun killing catgirls.


But mundane effects have to be internally consistent, and that's difficult.
*uses Iron Heart Surge to end the conversation*

But seriously? Not difficult. People have the ability to see contradictory things. When you see something like that, remove it as being irrelevant.


I'm not saying it can't be done. You just have to think all of these things through, for each spell, and I think it's more trouble than it's worth.

You don't have to 'think things through'. Just use the aforementioned good judgement. When you notice something, act appropriately. It shouldn't be hard, especially for a seasoned player or DM.


Indon, you arent refluffing. Making stuff work in an AMF, or making wizards not need spellbooks are major mechanical changes.

They're mechanical changes, but hardly major. Who gets their spellbooks stolen?

And it's not difficult at all to make those changes in a logically consistent manner from a given premise.


As far as I've understood, Indon's idea is to create abilities / object that can duplicate the effects of some spells, adjusting the Core non caster classes.
Not exactly what I call lazyness.

You don't need to create anything - just steal appropriate spells.

I prefer to call it efficiency, over laziness.


ToB is a book you can add and show around. Reflavoring/redoing even just your pertinent spells is a lot of paperwork and small adjustments. I've found more GMs who are less likely to allow Alternate Class Features than they are ToB, and this is pretty much more like ACFs.

Indeed - as noted, your mileage may vary.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 10:47 AM
No it isn't. I assure you that is a vibe this forum gives off for many. It's irrelevant to the argument, but very much present.

It would be really nice if both you and Morty would distinguish criticisms of the forum as some kind of gestalt from criticisms of specific things said here, in this thread. I was answering the question of what this thread had become, not "the vibe the forum gives off".

But hey, sure, it's him and you both. But you're incorrect.

Morty
2009-09-07, 10:54 AM
I have already answered that. Sometimes people are persuaded by these threads to use ToB. Thats all the motivation I need, even if I will never meet the person.

I see. We'll just have to agree to disagree, then.


And I won't tell them they're incorrect that they dislike it for that reason. But I will tell them their dislike is founded on a misconception. I view it as better to correct misconceptions than to not. Is that a bad thing?

You'd be right if ToB discussions, including the one in this topic, were spawned from correcting misconceptions.


And please don't reply with something about thread hijacking. It's a separate issue.

Perhaps. But I found it connected to the concern raised by the OP in this thread.


In fact, yes, a lot of discussion in this thread was not directly helpful to the OP, and that's a shame. But as far as I can recall no one who was refuting misconceptions about ToB was directing it at the OP (I may be mistaken there, though). Those were side discussions. They happen.


Again, it would be true if all criticisms of Tome of Battle in this thread were misconceptions. They aren't.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 10:57 AM
I would really like some specific examples. Certainly not all discussion in this thread has been correcting misconceptions about things like "ToB lets fighters cast fireball", but I still don't see where anyone was being told they weren't allowed dislike it. Such misconceptions are just one possible reason to dislike ToB that is itself up for debate.

Indon
2009-09-07, 10:58 AM
It would be really nice if both you and Morty would distinguish criticisms of the forum as some kind of gestalt from criticisms of specific things said here, in this thread. I was answering the question of what this thread had become, not "the vibe the forum gives off".

But hey, sure, it's him and you both. But you're incorrect.

I'm talking about this thread. And I'm not incorrect.

Edit: though admittedly, this thread isn't as bad as average.

Roderick_BR
2009-09-07, 11:08 AM
I agree that it is a very good book, that boosts meelers a lot. Now, saying that not using it is "doing it wrong", is the same like playing a blaster wizard and people say you are "doing it wrong". It's a matter of opinion.

Roland St. Jude
2009-09-07, 11:16 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please be civil and follow the Forum Rules.

Morty
2009-09-07, 11:18 AM
I would really like some specific examples. Certainly not all discussion in this thread has been correcting misconceptions about things like "ToB lets fighters cast fireball", but I still don't see where anyone was being told they weren't allowed dislike it. Such misconceptions are just one possible reason to dislike ToB that is itself up for debate.

Now, I'll admit that my arguments stem partially from my frustration with ToB threads in general. But will you call "I don't like my fighter using spefic manuevers and having to wait six minutes to use them again" a misconception?

Partysan
2009-09-07, 11:30 AM
Indeed, since it is less than 6 seconds (a swift and a standart action (which can be used to attack)) for recovering all maneuvers.

Boci
2009-09-07, 11:31 AM
Now, I'll admit that my arguments stem partially from my frustration with ToB threads in general. But will you call "I don't like my fighter using spefic manuevers and having to wait six minutes to use them again" a misconception?

Firstly its not 6 minutes (ninjad). Assuming fighter means warblade, its one round to refresh, and you can attack. Secondly, as I pointed, in a real fight, you do not use the same think over and over again. Now true, you could, but it would get you killed, so complaining that ToB doesn't allow you to do that is a bit weird.

i will admit that the whole "need to prepare" thing is a bit of a strain, but its never really bothered me.

Grumman
2009-09-07, 11:32 AM
But will you call "I don't like my fighter using spefic manuevers and having to wait six minutes to use them again" a misconception?
Yes. You can use maneuvers, full attack the next round, then use the maneuver again the round after that.

Morty
2009-09-07, 11:33 AM
Argh, it was supposed to be six seconds. No idea why I typed "minutes" instead.



i will admit that the whole "need to prepare" thing is a bit of a strain, but its never really bothered me.

But it bothers other people. Which is, you know, the entire point.

Yukitsu
2009-09-07, 11:34 AM
i will admit that the whole "need to prepare" thing is a bit of a strain, but its never really bothered me.

It takes me a few minutes between sparing matches to get relaxed. Too many fights in a row and my moves degenerate into wild flailing, as opposed to proper combos.

Boci
2009-09-07, 11:36 AM
Argh, it was supposed to be six seconds. No idea why I typed "minutes" instead.

The six seconds rule actually makes it more realistic.



But it bothers other people. Which is, you know, the entire point.

But there are numerous problems with the core system as well, and they do not bother people, so it seems a tad double standards.


It takes me a few minutes between sparing matches to get relaxed. Too many fights in a row and my moves degenerate into wild flailing, as opposed to proper combos.

I understnad, but at the same time, out of the entire book, this requires the most explaning.

Morty
2009-09-07, 11:37 AM
But there are numerous problems with the core system as well, and they do not bother people, so it seems a tad double standards.

Is it double standards to mind something but not mind something else that's technically the same? No. It's called "personal preferences".

Boci
2009-09-07, 11:40 AM
Is it double standards to mind something but not mind something else that's technically the same? No. It's called "personal preferences".

In this case I do not distinguish between the two.

Morty
2009-09-07, 11:42 AM
In this case I do not distinguish between the two.

Well, I do. I also tend to assume that when people like or dislike something, they have a good reason unless proven otherwise.

Boci
2009-09-07, 11:44 AM
Well, I do. I also tend to assume that when people like or dislike something, they have a good reason unless proven otherwise.

Well I would like to hear a justification for why core's faults are okay but ToB's ones aren't.

Yukitsu
2009-09-07, 11:44 AM
But it bothers other people. Which is, you know, the entire point.

It bothers people who've never been in a fight that was more than beating on one another, and who have never gotten into multiple consecutive fights. If you've got some technique, and get into fights one after the other, you'll know why that makes some sense.

Morty
2009-09-07, 11:47 AM
Well I would like to hear a justification for why core's faults are okay but ToB's ones aren't.

Why? Why do you need a justification for what another person finds okay or not?


It bothers people who've never been in a fight that was more than beating on one another, and who have never gotten into multiple consecutive fights. If you've got some technique, and get into fights one after the other, you'll know why that makes some sense.

So first ToB is cool because D&D isn't supposed to be realistic and next it's cool because it's realistic afer all? Yeah...

Yukitsu
2009-09-07, 11:51 AM
I never said the former. And the notation of fantasy as opposed to realism applies mostly to the sense that you can have melee combatants that can actually do things that normal commoners can't. In standard D&D, anything a fighter can do, a commoner 1 can do, though with lower numbers. Very few advocates of ToB say "that it's a good book because the recovery mechanisms are realistic" because frankly, the recovery mechanics is as much a footnote in the tone of the book as a psions recovery methods.

Boci
2009-09-07, 11:51 AM
Why? Why do you need a justification for what another person finds okay or not?

Because is someone cannot justify their own choices, there is a higher chance they have made bad ones than if they can.


So first ToB is cool because D&D isn't supposed to be realistic and next it's cool because it's realistic afer all? Yeah...

The manouvers are not realistic. No body can perform feral deathblow or leaping flame, ect.

The recovery mechanism however is compatible with real life. Not that hard to understand.

Doc Roc
2009-09-07, 12:09 PM
Why? Why do you need a justification for what another person finds okay or not?

Pluck the log from your own eye, dude. Pardon me for paraphrasing.

Melamoto
2009-09-07, 12:12 PM
I think ToB is really cool and well thought out, but I don't use it that often. This is for 2 reasons:

1: It makes things easier without skill, and doesn't leave as much room for optimization.

2: It makes non-casters feel too much like casters. Manoeuvres feel like just another kind of spell to me, with slightly different mechanics. Say what you will, but that's just the way I feel about them.

Not too mention I like playing with a challenge. I rarely play casters; and the ones I do play are often Gishes.

Boci
2009-09-07, 12:21 PM
I think ToB is really cool and well thought out, but I don't use it that often. This is for 2 reasons:

1: It makes things easier without skill, and doesn't leave as much room for optimization.

2: It makes non-casters feel too much like casters. Manoeuvres feel like just another kind of spell to me, with slightly different mechanics. Say what you will, but that's just the way I feel about them.

Not too mention I like playing with a challenge. I rarely play casters; and the ones I do play are often Gishes.

So far this is one of the best reasons not to use ToB. Just one question though: If you like gishes, why not just pretend that warblades are gishs and play them? Maybe get a bonus in return for stances and manouvers being dispelable and counterable?

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 12:23 PM
Indon: I may have misunderstood you. Are you suggesting that these "reflavoured casters" have per-day limits just as normal casters?


Now, I'll admit that my arguments stem partially from my frustration with ToB threads in general. But will you call "I don't like my fighter using spefic manuevers and having to wait six minutes to use them again" a misconception?

No. But I will suggest different ways of looking at the issue that may make it make more sense to the speaker.


So far this is one of the best reasons not to use ToB. Just one question though: If you like gishes, why not just pretend that warblades are gishs and play them? Maybe get a bonus in return for stances and manouvers being dispelable and counterable?

Some prefer gishes who don't just use their magic to help them fight, but are proper half-mages with a range of utility spells that a warblade (or for that matter swordsage) can't really be reflavoured to represent.

Woodsman
2009-09-07, 12:37 PM
I can understand how ToB makes the warriors seem like casters (Hell, the back of the book says "Master the Secret Magic of Steel), especially with swordsages.

However, it's all in the style. Warblades are the least "magical," so to speak, simply because it's east to envision most of their disciplines as unmagical. Diamond Mind is honing yoour mind so greatly you can slow things at will (It is entirely possible for your brain to slow things down). Iron Heart is simply fancy swordwork and power from within. Stone Dragon is methodical, relentless, and reckless. Tiger Claw draws from savage instincts. And White Raven uses ki to boost allies and themselves (monks use ki to boost themselves).

It's a matter of vision and how you see things. D&D is about doing great things no real human can do, but that hint of realism is what makes it easy to feel like you are your character.

Of course, this is my opinion, and you can disagree with me on it.

Edit: Duskblades are the best "gish" class, IMO.

Hat-Trick
2009-09-07, 12:54 PM
Everyone seems to have the preconception that it's not fun just being a fighter with only the Core options for actions. I personally have no problem shooting at the dragon with a bow because it's flying, and my character isn't out-of-this-world-awesome enough to shoot magical energy at it or jump into it's face or throw my sword or whatever else casters and ToB can do. The wizard's supposed to be awesome-kill-all, I have no problem with a fighter not being able to keep up, I have a problem with everyone thinking a high level fighter is useless. High level fighter lays waste to countless low level mooks, which is part of his job. The 20 wizard takes the balor, I'll fight the horde of orcs with my 20 fighter.

Woodsman
2009-09-07, 01:10 PM
It's not that Ftr20 is useless, it's that Warblade 20 does it so much better.

Any sort of level 20 character can take a horde of low-level mooks, though. A CW Samurai (seen as the worst non-NPC base class) could do it, simply because his AC is so friggin high. They mention this in the DMG.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-07, 01:12 PM
Taking down mooks is better done with AoE than a sword ... the guy with the sword is supposed to go toe to toe with the BBEG so the frail wizard can cast his spells uninterrupted.

quick_comment
2009-09-07, 01:27 PM
They're mechanical changes, but hardly major. Who gets their spellbooks stolen?


People who have been captured and imprisoned? BBEGs? Players with a crafty DM?

And the spellbook is the least of it - you mentioned making magic work in AMFs and dead magic zones!

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-07, 01:37 PM
People who have been captured and imprisoned? BBEGs? Players with a crafty DM who doesn't like his player's having powerful abilities and feels the need to force the powerful characters into a mundane situation that they could easily have avoided were it not for DM Fiat?

And the spellbook is the least of it - you mentioned making magic work in AMFs and dead magic zones!

Fixed that. AMF's and Dead Magic Zones are a somewhat limiting problem, but there is a 9th level spell that allows the Wizard to cast some spells inside it (Invoke Magic, LoM).

quick_comment
2009-09-07, 01:42 PM
Fixed that. AMF's and Dead Magic Zones are a somewhat limiting problem, but there is a 9th level spell that allows the Wizard to cast some spells inside it (Invoke Magic, LoM).

Spellbook theft can be an interesting quest or side quest, especially when the wizard has spell mastery (which means he is a shadowcraft mage or magelord), or a secondary spellbook (which means he is roleplaying is 30 int)

But regardless, magic is hard to make mundane without mechanical changes. A 9th level spell that allows you to cast a single low level spell is nowhere near making all magic ignore AMFs.

Epinephrine
2009-09-07, 01:48 PM
Because is someone cannot justify their own choices, there is a higher chance they have made bad ones than if they can.

I played in 2 campaigns with ToB and started running one with ToB, all pretty much concurrently. I gave the book a chance. I ended up not liking it, and I don't use it anymore - we removed ToB partway through, as neither the players nor DMs liked the effect on our games.

Obviously, each campaign has it's own power level/optimization, but I found it didn't work in my play style. It's far too front-loaded, and enables melee too much. It gives access to powers that aren't normally available until far later in game (standard action 50' teleports at 3rd level? Granting extra actions at 5th? Mountain Hammering your way through any opponent/wall at low levels?) and in the games in which I play and the game I run it's simply unnecessary; the melee folks are solid damage dealers already and hardly need the boost.

Melamoto
2009-09-07, 01:52 PM
Duskblades are the best "gish" class, IMO.
That assumes that you're making a gish who uses damaging spells. There is more to being a Gish; in fact, unless you're a Spellsword, Duskblade, or Havoc Mage, you shouldn't be using damage spells at all. And they aren't the best Gishes. The Suel Arcanamach, Abjurant Champion and Swiftblade top that in my books. The SA goes quite well with either of the other 2 as well.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-07, 01:52 PM
Spellbook theft can be an interesting quest or side quest, especially when the wizard has spell mastery (which means he is a shadowcraft mage or magelord), or a secondary spellbook (which means he is roleplaying is 30 int)

But regardless, magic is hard to make mundane without mechanical changes. A 9th level spell that allows you to cast a single low level spell is nowhere near making all magic ignore AMFs.

I just think its a **** move meant to limit a single player that happens to force the other players into either a similar position or into a position of being without their strongest character. The former is bad, but the latter is the absolute worst: If the other PCs are forced into encounters without the Wizard then there's a much higher chance of character death. Especially if the Wizard in question was a buffer or a GOD-style Controller.

It brings up one of my previous DMs (the one responsible for the term Snake Napalm being in my vocabulary). He adored using this via Deus Ex and nothing less; every single time it was a test from the god of Undeath (why he would be interested in our party is another story entirely). I got sick of not being able to cast a damn thing while the DM forced character development in places it wasn't needed (again, long story).

Woodsman
2009-09-07, 01:58 PM
I thought the whole point of ToB was to enable melee?

And the classes aren't really that frontloaded. The crusader's mettle ability, which is pretty good, isn't until 13th level. Swordsages and warblades both have great capstones (Dual boost and Dual stance, respectively). And then you get more maneuvers and stances as you level.

Even so, optimized full casters can tear thevToB classes apart. Besides, mountain hammer is on par with a dungeoncrasher fighter.

Boci
2009-09-07, 02:02 PM
Everyone seems to have the preconception that it's not fun just being a fighter with only the Core options for actions. I personally have no problem shooting at the dragon with a bow because it's flying, and my character isn't out-of-this-world-awesome enough to shoot magical energy at it or jump into it's face or throw my sword or whatever else casters and ToB can do. The wizard's supposed to be awesome-kill-all, I have no problem with a fighter not being able to keep up, I have a problem with everyone thinking a high level fighter is useless. High level fighter lays waste to countless low level mooks, which is part of his job. The 20 wizard takes the balor, I'll fight the horde of orcs with my 20 fighter.

Then you do not need ToB. The book is for those who are bothered by a fighter not being able to keep up (even though ToB still cannot keep up). And most of use pro-ToBers probably could have fun with a core fighter, we just have a lot more fun with toehr classes.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-07, 02:13 PM
standard action 50' teleports at 3rd level?
Benign transposition is available at first even and is easily used with familiars/animal companions.

Granting extra actions at 5th?
Can we just drop WRT as an argument? Yes, it's silly.

Mountain Hammering your way through any opponent/wall at low levels?
Ignoring damage resistance once every 2 rounds is hardly hammering your way through and an adamantine weapon for tunneling isn't that expensive (although we usually just tunnel underneath with a Thoqqua). Lets be honest here, if your DM lets you meet some say Lycanthropes at relatively low level you will have conveniently acquired some silver weapons by the time you meet them anyway. DR is usually of sufficient magnitude that without LOL damage leap attack type builds any melee character is often better off borrowing some special material arrows from the party archer than trying to hit it with his normal weapon.

kamikasei
2009-09-07, 02:24 PM
I played in 2 campaigns with ToB and started running one with ToB, all pretty much concurrently. I gave the book a chance. I ended up not liking it, and I don't use it anymore - we removed ToB partway through, as neither the players nor DMs liked the effect on our games.

Obviously, each campaign has it's own power level/optimization, but I found it didn't work in my play style. It's far too front-loaded, and enables melee too much. It gives access to powers that aren't normally available until far later in game (standard action 50' teleports at 3rd level? Granting extra actions at 5th? Mountain Hammering your way through any opponent/wall at low levels?) and in the games in which I play and the game I run it's simply unnecessary; the melee folks are solid damage dealers already and hardly need the boost.

If you've played with the book and tried it out reasonably thoroughly, and found that it doesn't work with your group and your style or power level, that's entirely fair and who can gainsay you? Now, if on this basis you were to condemn it as teh brokenz and ZOMG warblades can pwn wizards, there'd be something to argue about - but you're not.

Eldariel
2009-09-07, 02:48 PM
Ignoring damage resistance once every 2 rounds is hardly hammering your way through and an adamantine weapon for tunneling isn't that expensive (although we usually just tunnel underneath with a Thoqqua). Lets be honest here, if your DM lets you meet some say Lycanthropes at relatively low level you will have conveniently acquired some silver weapons by the time you meet them anyway. DR is usually of sufficient magnitude that without LOL damage leap attack type builds any melee character is often better off borrowing some special material arrows from the party archer than trying to hit it with his normal weapon.

There's a passage in DMG that states "if some weapon just couldn't affect a wall, you should rule that the attacks do nothing even if technically he'd be dealing damage" or something to that effect (a while since I last read DMG). This applies to Power Attack just as much as Mountain Hammer. Yeah, this is no problem. Mountain Hammer...2d6 damage is no more than what a Rogue Sneak Attacks twice per turn with TWF already.

Masaioh
2009-09-07, 05:26 PM
Wow, I had no idea this thread would get so many posts so fast.

The people in my DnD group use house rules and homebrew content extensively when they DM, and are very strict with what they allow the players to use. ToB tends to clash with the established rules and flavor of most of our games. In short, 'fighters don't do that stuff.'

Take the first DM: he DMs Forgotten Realms. He hates Eberron and everything in it (except Sharn), especially Warforged, and says that Greyhawk is 'too bland'. But he hates Ed Greenwood even more. As I have said, he won't allow ToB because it's too wuxia, weeaboo, whatever you want to call it. He also thinks that manuevers are uber-broken, especially the Warblade's list.

The other DM built a melee character that was so broken that it could one-shot the Tarrasque and have enough cleave damage to kill at least 4 more. In one crit. Without ToB. At ECL 21. He admits that this is broken, but still won't allow Warblades. He hasn't really come to a final decision for the other 2 classes, though.

Yukitsu
2009-09-07, 05:42 PM
I would irritate your first DM immensley if that was his reason. I'd play a knight and name all of my moves things like "point of wrath", the "iron door", "curving cut", "cross ward", "fire poker", "Thunderclap", "murder stroke" and so forth. When he asked why I was giving them all anime names, I'll point out that he fails German fencing forever, and that Talhoffer is probably spinning in his grave.

Indon
2009-09-07, 05:44 PM
Indon: I may have misunderstood you. Are you suggesting that these "reflavoured casters" have per-day limits just as normal casters?

Frankly, I don't think it would matter much if you did it per-day or per-encounter.

Obviously, you wouldn't use most of the game's high-exploitation-level spells as martial skills, so you'd be making attacks comparable to maneuvers, which are designed to allow people to use them with both high frequency and high consistency.

A per-day reflavored martial spellcaster-artist would have trouble at low levels with running out of things to do in combats, but later on that problem would go away.

A per-encounter punchcaster (I need a good name for this idea, I guess), on the other hand, might not have reasons to use their less-powerful abilities that frequently, since they'd have a lot of them.

I think another good system for such a character would be using spell points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) with the vitality variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm#spellPointVariantVitalizing). Now when you make your martial attacks, you can literally become exhausted as you run low on strength, neatly explaining why you can't do your stuff anymore, and encouraging people to use lower-level powers when they need to conserve energy.


A 9th level spell that allows you to cast a single low level spell is nowhere near making all magic ignore AMFs.

Never did I say that every single spell would be appropriate for mundanization. The ones that are, in fact, tend to be evident.

You could allow creative players to use a couple borderline cases if they can talk you into it.

Doc Roc
2009-09-07, 05:45 PM
ECL21? Oh god.

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-07, 05:46 PM
An ECL character who can defeat the Terrasque! Shocking.

It's not like the Terrasque is woefully over-CRed or anything!

Woodsman
2009-09-07, 05:58 PM
standard action 50' teleports at 3rd level?

Spells like Light and Daylight defeat that without any problem whatsoever.

Indon
2009-09-07, 06:16 PM
Here, as an example, I made the 1'st level mundanized-spell ability list for Monks.

Unless they make sense otherwise (they tend not to), buffs are self-only. Attacks are turned into melee touch attacks that affect a single target unless they make sense otherwise. Attacks deal normal damage unless they make sense otherwise.

Abilities that needed tweaks have those changes denoted.

I was a bit iffy on Shield and Mage Armor, because I couldn't think of good, distinct concepts to reflavor them into.

Cure Light Wounds (Self Only)
Detect Chaos/Evil/Good/Law
Divine Favor
Doom (Melee Touch)
Inflict Light Wounds
Magic Weapon (Self Only)
Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law (Self Only)
Shield of Faith (Self Only)
Jump (Self Only)
Endure Elements (Self Only)
Shield (rename to Spell-warding Stance)
Mage Armor (Self Only, rename to Warding Stance)
True Strike
Chill Touch (rename to Crippling Touch)
Expeditious Retreat (rename to Burst of Speed)
Resistance (Self Only)

Starbuck_II
2009-09-07, 06:20 PM
While I can't exactly see Mage armor; Shield is seeable.

Due to special monk training techniques he can move his arms to block a blow like a shield, but he can only hold it up for 1 rd/level each time.

It is believeable that a trained martial artist can block blows for a such a limited time.

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-07, 06:25 PM
And perfectly parry magic missiles?

Kylarra
2009-09-07, 06:26 PM
And perfectly parry magic missiles?Maybe if they have the deflect arrows feat! :smallbiggrin:

Indon
2009-09-07, 06:28 PM
And perfectly parry magic missiles?

Standard monks gain resistance to most spells eventually.

Magic Missile is apparently just too arrow-like. :P

But seriously, I consider those two to be borderline spells. I'd probably be tempted not to include them unless a player gave me a good description for them.

Hat-Trick
2009-09-07, 06:49 PM
Mage armor is a solidified ki aura surrounding the body and protecting the monk from harm much as armor would. Shield would be another barrier of ki used to deflect and ignore incomming attacks, as a shield would.

Yukitsu
2009-09-07, 06:50 PM
Or he practices the iron shirt style.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-07, 07:00 PM
Iron Shirt Technique is more like Stoneskin.

Indon
2009-09-07, 07:04 PM
Actually, I guess you could just say the armor thing is his body being so incredibly awesomely tough from training that it deflects blows as armor.

"Armor Body". Hmm, sounds a bit cheesy.

Spells that do similar functions can just be similar abilities. If Mage Armor is "Armor Body", then Stoneskin could be "Greater Armor Body" or something.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-07, 07:11 PM
He has learned to sweat quick drying cement once a day.

Indon
2009-09-07, 07:19 PM
He has learned to sweat quick drying cement once a day.

Remember, just because that's what the ability says, doesn't mean you can't reflavor it.

Stoneskin grants DR 10/Adamantine for 150 points of damage. Doesn't even say your skin turns into stone or anything.

Who's to say it's not just DR from focused inner strength or whatever?

PinkysBrain
2009-09-07, 07:38 PM
I just think secreting a layer of ablative armor is cooler :)

Indon
2009-09-07, 07:41 PM
I just think secreting a layer of ablative armor is cooler :)

Fair point, good sir.

Hat-Trick
2009-09-07, 08:17 PM
If he practices the Way of the Majestic Earth, he secretes cement. If he practices the Path of Forged Steel, he hardens his skin to steel.

I like this idea.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-07, 08:52 PM
If he practices the Way of the Majestic Earth, he secretes cement. If he practices the Path of Forged Steel, he hardens his skin to steel.

I like this idea.

He could be eating clay: people all over the world do so for nutrients and the fact that it neutralizes most poisons. Even animals eat it if they eat something bad for them.
Secreting clay overcoat to protect him.

Masaioh
2009-09-07, 08:54 PM
I would irritate your first DM immensley if that was his reason. I'd play a knight and name all of my moves things like "point of wrath", the "iron door", "curving cut", "cross ward", "fire poker", "Thunderclap", "murder stroke" and so forth. When he asked why I was giving them all anime names, I'll point out that he fails German fencing forever, and that Talhoffer is probably spinning in his grave.

That's not why he thinks it's weeaboo. It's the fact that a barbarian-like class can cast spells.

If I brought it up he'd just say 'rocks fall everyone dies' and not allow me into any of his games, and he's the only one that owns core 3.5 books. He doesn't actually know much about ToB, he just takes advice from the other DM I mentioned.

So far, these are the rulings for ToB: Crusader is replacement for SRD Paladin, which was always banned anyway. Reasoning was 'because Paladins really deserve it'. Hexblade is used instead of Swordsage (don't ask me i don't know the class). Warblade has no maneuvers, can keep stances, and bonus feats are pulled from fighter bonus feat list.

Thurbane
2009-09-07, 09:00 PM
You are saying he is playing the wrong game because he dislikes or doesn't want to use ToB. I don't agree with his criticisms, but this is an overbearing and judgemental attitude to take. Let him play what he wants to play - it's not wrong.
Very much seconded. There is NO way to play D&D wrong, unless it's not fun for anyone at the table.

quick_comment
2009-09-07, 09:04 PM
That's not why he thinks it's weeaboo. It's the fact that a barbarian-like class can cast spells.


1) It does not get fighter bonus feats. It gets way fewer, and from a very small list. There are only a few decent feats on it.
2) Nothing the warblade has is supernatural in anyway. IHS is only supernatural by being silly with it. Everything else, from adamantine hurricane to avalanche of blades to exorcism of steel to press the advantage are variants of "I hit things really hard", "I have excellent footing and battle awareness" and "I am a natural born tactician"

olentu
2009-09-07, 09:13 PM
That's not why he thinks it's weeaboo. It's the fact that a barbarian-like class can cast spells.

That seems somewhat strange given that one can take feats that allow one to punch someone in a way that poisons them a limited number of times per day and the last feat in the chain is a fighter bonus feat. The others might also be fighter bonus feats but I did not check.

quick_comment
2009-09-07, 09:17 PM
That seems somewhat strange given that one can take feats that allow one to punch someone in a way that poisons them a limited number of times per day and the last feat in the chain is a fighter bonus feat. The others might also be fighter bonus feats but I did not check.

One can also take bonus fighter feats that let the fighter catch a ballista bolt, deflect a disintegrate ray barehanded and make his fist count as metal.

olentu
2009-09-07, 09:23 PM
One can also take bonus fighter feats that let the fighter catch a ballista bolt, deflect a disintegrate ray barehanded and make his fist count as metal.

Don't forget that one that lets the fighter light their fists on fire. Or even surround their whole body in a cloak of flame.

quick_comment
2009-09-07, 09:26 PM
Or the skill trick that lets him see so hard that he can see invisible creatures.

or the feat that lets him stop people from moving just by metaphysically hitting them

Thurbane
2009-09-07, 09:31 PM
...and we have evidence that this DM allows all of these feats in his game for martial characters?

quick_comment
2009-09-07, 09:33 PM
At least one of them is "core", several others are srd core.


Yes, in core, fighters can catch ballista bolts.

Thurbane
2009-09-07, 09:35 PM
I think there is a fair bit of leaping to conclusions about 2nd hand reports of why this DM doesn't allow ToB in his game. People just seem to be continuing the point ad nauseam for comic effect. It's turning into a bashing of a guy who isn't on this forum to defend himself. :smallannoyed:

Masaioh
2009-09-07, 09:43 PM
The difference is that those are feats, not weird kung-fu moves.

I've only heard of a monk getting those feats, not a fighter.

And just because it's SRD doesn't mean any of us allow it in the games we DM. Yes, that includes me.For example, we have all agreed that most of the ELH is stupid, especially the part where an epic wizard gains the same attack bonus per level as an epic fighter, or the part where iron can be polymorphed into actual adamantine to make a golem. For epic characters we just extend BAB instead and if someone in our game wants to have an adamantine golem crafted for them, they need 45,000 pounds of pure adamantine. Bards & Paladins are banned because they are useless, obsolete classes.

I still don't know if I'd allow ToB into my campaign. Partly because I don't know it very well, and partly because I don't know how it will mesh with my homebrew campaign setting.

This is probably the last post I'll make in this thread.

quick_comment
2009-09-07, 09:51 PM
The difference is that those are feats, not weird kung-fu moves.


"Feat" is a mechanic term. Characters have no idea what a feat or maneuver is. They just know that they can hit things harder than people without their special training. It makes no difference if this ability comes from a feat or class ability it is indistinguishable from the pov of the characters

Flickerdart
2009-09-07, 09:56 PM
Bards and Paladins are neither useless nor obsolete: splats have a lot of stuff that makes them pretty damn cool and useful.

quick_comment
2009-09-07, 09:57 PM
Bards and Paladins are neither useless nor obsolete: splats have a lot of stuff that makes them pretty damn cool and useful.

Especially bards. The problem with the support they give for paladins is 9/10 times, the cleric can take advantage of it and use it better than the paladin.

Flickerdart
2009-09-07, 10:02 PM
Especially bards. The problem with the support they give for paladins is 9/10 times, the cleric can take advantage of it and use it better than the paladin.
Sadly, yeah...but mounted chargers, Battle Blessing, Divine Sacrifice, Holy Avengers and a bunch of other stuff is Paladin-exclusive.

Yukitsu
2009-09-07, 11:08 PM
That's not why he thinks it's weeaboo. It's the fact that a barbarian-like class can cast spells.

Then I'd irritate him by playing my sorcerer as a barbarian, which I've done before. Which can cast spells. I honestly can't see how he can equate martial manuevers to spells though.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-07, 11:14 PM
Spells like Light and Daylight defeat that without any problem whatsoever.

Nitpick: Shadow Hand maneuvers do not need shadows to function. Even if they did, the Swordsage would have the shadows of everyone within the radius of the spell to work with.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-07, 11:28 PM
That's not why he thinks it's weeaboo. It's the fact that a barbarian-like class can cast spells.

Once again a DM looks solely at the per-encounter aspect without considering that the effects gained are vastly closer to feats than spells in theme and application. And once again I'm going to quote Xefas, since he made the point rather well:


Character A focuses all his strength into a powerful blow, sacrificing his accuracy for a decisive swing.
Character B focuses all his strength into a powerful blow, sacrificing his accuracy for a decisive swing.

Which one just used the Power Attack feat, and which one just used the Mountain Hammer strike while in the Punishing Stance?

Character A swings his blade in a wide arc, cutting through one foe and cleaving into another.
Character B swings his blade in a wide arc, cutting through one foe and cleaving into another.

Which one just used the Cleave feat, and which one just used the Steel Wind strike?

Character A thrusts his blade forward, under his opponent's swing, twists his blade and pulls up, deftly wrenching his foe's blade out of his grip.
Character B thrusts his blade forward, under his opponent's swing, twists his blade and pulls up, deftly wrenching his foe's blade out of his grip.

Which one just used the Disarm action, and which one just used Disarming Strike?

Character A makes a running leap and thrusts both blades into his opponent.
Character B makes a running leap and thrusts both blades into his opponent.

Which one just used the Leap Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting feats, and which one used the Sudden Leap and Wolf Fang Strike maneuver?

Yeah, those damn Tome of Battle classes and their crazy magic....Such a massive difference, you can tell.

olentu
2009-09-08, 12:27 AM
The difference is that those are feats, not weird kung-fu moves.

I've only heard of a monk getting those feats, not a fighter.

And just because it's SRD doesn't mean any of us allow it in the games we DM. Yes, that includes me.For example, we have all agreed that most of the ELH is stupid, especially the part where an epic wizard gains the same attack bonus per level as an epic fighter, or the part where iron can be polymorphed into actual adamantine to make a golem. For epic characters we just extend BAB instead and if someone in our game wants to have an adamantine golem crafted for them, they need 45,000 pounds of pure adamantine. Bards & Paladins are banned because they are useless, obsolete classes.

I still don't know if I'd allow ToB into my campaign. Partly because I don't know it very well, and partly because I don't know how it will mesh with my homebrew campaign setting.

This is probably the last post I'll make in this thread.

Well I am reasonably sure that all of the feats I posted are fighter bonus feats. In any case this does make more sense to me now that I know that the stuff that does not match up to reality (ease of surviving falling damage, per-encounter limit on rage, per-round and daily limit in stunning fist, evasion, etc.) is being removed. Though I personally do not think I would find removing those things that do not match reality to my liking.

Skorj
2009-09-08, 02:05 AM
As I have said, he won't allow ToB because it's too wuxia, weeaboo, whatever you want to call it.

That's not why he thinks it's weeaboo. It's the fact that a barbarian-like class can cast spells.

The difference is that those are feats, not weird kung-fu moves.

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?

Thurbane
2009-09-08, 02:09 AM
Well, for myself, that's not the case. I'm just not into Wuxia or Anime...it's nothing about disliking Asian culture, it's just that it's not something I'm particularly interested in. I like my fantasy roleplaying with a distinctly Medieval European flavour. :smallwink:

In a similar fashion, Greek and Roman mythology generally doesn't interest me, yet Mesopotamian and Finnish mythos does...different strokes for different folks and all that...

kamikasei
2009-09-08, 04:04 AM
Very much seconded. There is NO way to play D&D wrong, unless it's not fun for anyone at the table.

Boci did not say Nero was "playing D&D wrong". I have pointed this out already.

Dhavaer
2009-09-08, 04:15 AM
And once again I'm going to quote Xefas, since he made the point rather well:

Nitpickery: The meleer in the first example is clearly using Power Attack, as Punishing Stance sacrifices AC, not attack bonus.

Partysan
2009-09-08, 04:19 AM
I would irritate your first DM immensley if that was his reason. I'd play a knight and name all of my moves things like "point of wrath", the "iron door", "curving cut", "cross ward", "fire poker", "Thunderclap", "murder stroke" and so forth. When he asked why I was giving them all anime names, I'll point out that he fails German fencing forever, and that Talhoffer is probably spinning in his grave.

I love you and want to bear your children...

Myshlaevsky
2009-09-08, 04:20 AM
That's not why he thinks it's weeaboo. It's the fact that a barbarian-like class can cast spells.

If I brought it up he'd just say 'rocks fall everyone dies' and not allow me into any of his games, and he's the only one that owns core 3.5 books. He doesn't actually know much about ToB, he just takes advice from the other DM I mentioned.

So far, these are the rulings for ToB: Crusader is replacement for SRD Paladin, which was always banned anyway. Reasoning was 'because Paladins really deserve it'. Hexblade is used instead of Swordsage (don't ask me i don't know the class). Warblade has no maneuvers, can keep stances, and bonus feats are pulled from fighter bonus feat list.

This guy sounds really irritating. Why do you play with him? Does he make it up in other ways or is it just the only game in town?

elliott20
2009-09-08, 04:24 AM
I would irritate your first DM immensley if that was his reason. I'd play a knight and name all of my moves things like "point of wrath", the "iron door", "curving cut", "cross ward", "fire poker", "Thunderclap", "murder stroke" and so forth. When he asked why I was giving them all anime names, I'll point out that he fails German fencing forever, and that Talhoffer is probably spinning in his grave.
This reminds me, I need to go rename all of my warblade maneuvers for my upcoming PbP. Something obnoxious so I can endlessly annoy my opponents by talking about the finer points of the techniques WHILE we're fighting. Oh man, I could get a lot mileage out of just making this guy who love to endlessly monologue.

kamikasei
2009-09-08, 04:37 AM
This reminds me, I need to go rename all of my warblade maneuvers for my upcoming PbP. Something obnoxious so I can endlessly annoy my opponents by talking about the finer points of the techniques WHILE we're fighting. Oh man, I could get a lot mileage out of just making this guy who love to endlessly monologue.

Give every technique a creator. Regdar's Unimpeachable Parry. Tordek's Fluid Stroke. It'll seem even more spell-like to most RPers, and you get to be in the Princess Bride.

elliott20
2009-09-08, 04:58 AM
thanks, now I can't get it out of my head that he's a Spaniard with curly hair. :smallbiggrin:

Thurbane
2009-09-08, 05:48 AM
Boci did not say Nero was "playing D&D wrong". I have pointed this out already.
Still, I agree with Myshlaevsky's sentiment, even if it was misdirected in this case. :smallwink:

sofawall
2009-09-08, 05:55 AM
and you get to be in the Princess Bride.

Always the best way to have a swordfight.

Anyway, like I may have mentioned before, ToB actually reminds me more of Wheel of Time, both Channeling and Stances for swordfighting.

I'm also pretty sure Wheel of Time is western fantasy.

Oh, and as for Punishing Strike or w/e it was...

Which is using ToB and which is using Shock Trooper? :P

Masaioh
2009-09-08, 07:06 AM
This guy sounds really irritating. Why do you play with him? Does he make it up in other ways or is it just the only game in town?

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.

The Glyphstone
2009-09-08, 07:52 AM
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.

Sounds like he makes up for it and then some, that's exactly the sort of game I'd find hilarious - even to put up with the unwarranted ToB-hate.

oxinabox
2009-09-08, 08:20 AM
TOB's a good book.
But no you don't need it.
A fighter can do iteresting things.
Well, he can't do skills.

Has no decent skills, since he can't jump or climb in full plate, and no one uses mundane craft, it takes too long.
and he can't do any thing else usefull out side of combat like conjur up food.

He could Craft stew, if he has the spare skill points.
and all he can do that's worth doing in combat normally is full attack.

Bjut then he could take impoved sunder, improved disarm, imoproved trip, some tactical feats.
then he's interesting kinda.

or he could be a psywarrior, or a duskblade, and have some magic to intersting things up.
Or he could you know, be a warblad.
get tonnes of cool manouvers.
Usefull class features, like adaptabity,
and decent skills.
But then again, that would make him a WeeBoo Fight'n Mage.
then he'ld start IHSing out the sun, and then where'd we be?
some where dark, that's where we'ld be

kamikasei
2009-09-08, 08:24 AM
But then again, that would make him a WeeBoo Fight'n Mage.
then he'ld start IHSing out the sun, and then where'd we be?
some where dark, that's where we'ld be

The number one reason why no one should allow warblades in their games is that one day, eventually, one of them will get his brains eaten by a mind flayer. Who will thereby gain his powers (look, just roll with it, okay?).

And finally the illithid will have the power to put out the sun.

And then we're doomed.

quick_comment
2009-09-08, 08:31 AM
The number one reason why no one should allow warblades in their games is that one day, eventually, one of them will get his brains eaten by a mind flayer. Who will thereby gain his powers (look, just roll with it, okay?).

And finally the illithid will have the power to put out the sun.

And then we're doomed.

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?

kamikasei
2009-09-08, 08:38 AM
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?

Yes, I know. I imagine oxinabox knows, too.

The Glyphstone
2009-09-08, 08:42 AM
Even diehard ToB fans (at least, the serious ones) don't actually argue in favor of IHS extinguishing suns, it's just a minor meme at this point.:smallconfused: