ToB - Failing to see what others do

[Edwin]

My assessments, echoed by many on the internet, over my DM? Yes. If he can show me multiply examples of a respected forume users work that concludes theres nothing wrong with melee fair enough, but otherwise, he will have to admit that my opinion is more widly accepted.


That wasn't my question. To hell with the internet. It's not a factor in this.

I was asking if your opinion is that, as a player, you can overrule any ruling the DM makes, if you feel his reason was not good enough?

[Boci]

That wasn't my question. To hell with the internet. It's not a factor in this.

I was asking if your opinion is that, as a player, you can overrule any ruling the DM makes, if you feel his reason was not good enough?

If my opinion is supported by others and the DM's isn't, I have a right to point that out to him and I expect a satisfactory explination, not just a brief "rule zero"

[PhoenixRivers]

The one that involves the bad motivation behind the ruling. The DMG says you should consider some questions when changing rules.
Unfortunately, this isn't "changing rules". This is "adding optional rules". The rules actually state that you should consider questions BEFORE doing that.

And motivation is irrelevant. The DM can choose any motivation he pleases. As a player, you have no right beyond staying and playing, or leaving. That's it. There's a lot of things that the DM should do, but the game is VERY, VERY, EXPLICITLY clear on who has the final say on the table.

See DMG, Page 18, line one. If you have any questions, read line 2.

Ok, that's HILARIOUS.

Players: "Any banned stuff?"
DM: "Incantrix, the Sarrukh, and Magic Missile."
Players: "Yeah, ok, wait... what? Why is MM banned?"
DM: "Potatoes are too fluffy."
Players: :confused:

That's the exact effect I was trying to attain.


If my opinion is supported by others and the DMs isn't, I have a right to point that out to him and I expect a satisfactory explination, not just a brief "rule zero"

You have that right.

You have an expectation. Your expectation is not your right. Nowhere in the rules does it state that the DM is obligated to handle any rules lawyer and naysayer that wants to include optional rules he chooses not to use.

[Edwin]

If my opinion is supported by others and the DMs isn't, I have a right to point that out to him and I expect a satisfactory explination, not just a brief "rule zero"

And what exactly constitutes a satisfactory explanation, in your opinion?

[Cedrass]

But I do still want my cookie.... mmmmm, cookies.

Oh, there you go!

http://www.londonisfree.com/Images/cookie.jpg

[Edwin]

Oh, there you go!

http://www.londonisfree.com/Images/cookie.jpg

How devilish of you, interrupting our nefarious discussion with cookies..

[Boci]

Unfortunately, this isn't "changing rules". This is "adding optional rules". The rules actually state that you should consider questions BEFORE doing that.

And motivation is irrelevant. The DM can choose any motivation he pleases. As a player, you have no right beyond staying and playing, or leaving. That's it. There's a lot of things that the DM should do, but the game is VERY, VERY, EXPLICITLY clear on who has the final say on the table.

Sure, but D&D is a social event, so there needs to be some good will between player and DM. So shouldn't the DM listen to my arguments against his rulings?


See DMG, Page 18, line one. If you have any questions, read line 2.

I'm aware of its existence.

[Boci]

And what exactly constitutes a satisfactory explanation, in your opinion?

Something I can accept.

DM: No ToB
Me: Why not, its well balanced and really fun. Lots of people think so.
DM: Tough, my game

= not good.

DM: No ToB
Me: Why not, its well balanced and really fun. Lots of people think so.
DM: I'm running a tier 4 game so the classes would be OP

= good.

[Edwin]

Something I can accept.

DM: No ToB
Me: Why not, its well balanced and really fun. Lots of people think so.
DM: Tough, my game

= not good.

DM: No ToB
Me: Why not, its well balanced and really fun. Lots of people think so.
DM: I'm running a tier 4 game so the classes would be OP

= good.

I can read your earlier posts, you know.

Besides, what if the DM, and perhaps a couple of the other players, have a slightly different response, say: We don't think it's fun, and we don't want it in our game.

Would that be good enough for you?

Or will you start this argument we're having now all over again?

[Cedrass]

How devilish of you, interrupting our nefarious discussion with cookies..

Someone has to try and peace things out :smallbiggrin:

[Edwin]

Someone has to try and peace things out :smallbiggrin:

Agreed.

Fat chance though, ToB tends to create heated discussions.

[Cedrass]

So it seems...

[Boci]

I can read your earlier posts, you know.

I reposted it because I edited that part in.


Besides, what if the DM, and perhaps a couple of the other players, have a slightly different response, say: We don't think it's fun, and we don't want it in our game.

Would that be good enough for you?

Then I will point out that I am playing the warblade and not them. Unless they can give me a good explanation, aside from "the word warblade on your character sheet will ruin my enjoyment", I won't find that satisfactory.


Or will you start this argument we're having now all over again?

It will, until they can justify it. I would never be offended by a class someone else was playing, unless it was too OP or UP.

[Tyndmyr]

That is totally unfounded, not to mention wrong. I am not intentionally trolling anyone. I wouldn't do that.

This particular post is more trolling than anything I've written. If you actually had read the entire post, you would notice that many of my post are of equal or greater length than many of the other posters, so, really, where are you getting all of this?

Prior to this post, you posted 48 times in this thread. All but 10 of them were significantly shorter than the posts you quoted/responded to. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and counted the material you edited in recently, which was not there during the original discussion. This roughly doubles the amount of posts that this is true for. You averaged 60 words per post, which isn't terribly lengthy. For reference, this paragraph alone is 77 words long.


And what on earth gives you the delusion that you are to rate the thread..?


That, sir, is a rating of your trolling attempts, not the thread as a whole.

More importantly than your objectively short word counts are the number of personal remarks made about other posters, the number of non-topic related, or extremely vague questions, and relying on repetition rather than discussion. These are the hallmarks of the common troll, and while they add a great deal to a discussions length, they add very little to the depth with which the topic is covered.

If you don't wish to be perceived as a troll, I suggest looking at your overall posting style, and in particular, attempt to justify your statements in the future rather than reiterating them.

[PhoenixRivers]

Sure, but D&D is a social event, so there needs to be some good will between player and DM. So shouldn't the DM listen to my arguments against his rulings?There is a difference between "should" and "is obligated to".

I "should" look both ways before crossing the street.
I "should" have a dental checkup every 6 months.
I "should" eat a balanced diet, low in saturated fats.
I "should" obey posted speed limits.

There are a lot of things that I "should" do, yet don't.

I'm aware of its existence.
Good. Acknowledgement is the 5th step, I believe. 7 to go.

[Boci]

There is a difference between "should" and "is obligated to".

I "should" look both ways before crossing the street.
I "should" have a dental checkup every 6 months.
I "should" eat a balanced diet, low in saturated fats.
I "should" obey posted speed limits.

There are a lot of things that I "should" do, yet don't.

So, yes he should but its fine if he doesn't? Isn't that being a jerk?

[Edwin]

-snip

So the length of your post is what determines wether you are a troll?

Here is the forum rules take on what a troll is:


Any post that, in the judgment of the Moderators, was made solely or primarily to incite angry responses and/or flames, or attempts to disrupt a thread so that it becomes a flame war, will be edited to remove the offending content and the poster issued an Infraction. If a thread is judged to have been started for this reason, it will be locked, and the poster issued an Infraction.

Okay, so to qualify as I troll, I am to have intentionally posted comments, remarks or arguments meant to spur the thread into a flame war, incite anger, or rile people up.

Now, if you care to actually read the thread, rather than simply counted the words, you will notice that I have, on more than one occasion, pleaded for the discussion to stop, as it was going nowhere, and was largely nothing but repetition.

And as for personal remarks, I don't really remember making any, barring the ones that deals with the opinion of another person, which is really what a discussion is about.

Is that the actions of a troll? No, not really. Randomly sprouting in a thread and calling someone a troll, then proceed to rate their effort - now that's possibly trolling, but also flaming. From the forum rules, under flaming:


Name calling, including terms obviously meant in a pejorative sense such as "troll" or "fanboy"

Now would please just quit it?

[PhoenixRivers]

So, yes he should but its fine if he doesn't? Isn't that being a jerk?

Indeed it is (being a jerk). Whether or not that's fine? I'll leave that to philosophers. I can attest that it's ALLOWED.

Any other questions?

[sonofzeal]

Edwin - I'd appreciate your thoughts on my post way back on page 3 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7399434&postcount=88), and whether the third point at the bottom adequately reflects your opinion of ToB.

[Boci]

Indeed it is (being a jerk). Whether or not that's fine? I'll leave that to philosophers. I can attest that it's ALLOWED.

Any other questions?

There's also nothing to stop me from sneaking an overpowered build pass the DM. To the best of my knowledge it isn't prohibited by the rules as written, so its ALLOWED. Are you seriously arguing that a DM can be a jerk because the book says so?

Do you think a DM should ban ToB, even if he has no reason aside "I don't like it"?

[Tyndmyr]

Okay, so to qualify as I troll, I am to have intentionally posted comments, remarks or arguments meant to spur the thread into a flame war, incite anger, or rile people up.

I've already stated that you've made several personal remarks regarding other posters that appear to me, an outside observer, to be rather hostile.


Now, if you care to actually read the thread, rather than simply counted the words, you will notice that I have, on more than one occasion, pleaded for the discussion to stop, as it was going nowhere, and was largely nothing but repetition.

As I stated two posts ago, I've already read the thread in it's entirety. I also noticed that when you pleaded for the discussion to stop, others pointed out that you could simply stop participating.

If it's nothing but repetition, the cure is not further repetition. Either add something new and interesting, or leave it be.


And as for personal remarks, I don't really remember making any, barring the ones that deals with the opinion of another person, which is really what a discussion is about.

Is that the actions of a troll? No, not really. Randomly sprouting in a thread and calling someone a troll, then proceed to rate their effort - now that's possibly trolling, but also flaming. From the forum rules, under flaming:

Now would please just quit it?

You accused someone of being a troll in post #65. I find this statement on your part to be ironically amusing.

My reason for taking part is simple. I'm not on either side, so I'm reasonably unbiased. I happen to own ToB, and don't tend to play characters from it, but don't really care if others do. I do, however, like to see people actually argue their sides in a reasonable fashion, and when those involved in a debate accuse the other side of using some illogical argument, it often devolves into a flamewar. For examples, see any use of the term "strawman". If an outsider makes the comment, it's less biased.

[PhoenixRivers]

There's also nothing to stop me from sneaking an overpowered build pass the DM. To the best of my knowledge it isn't prohibited by the rules as written, so its ALLOWED. Are you seriously arguing that a DM can be a jerk because the book says so?

The book says no such thing. It merely gives the DM the final word for any matter relating to the game, except whether or not you play.

A hammer isn't inherently destructive. It can be used to break windows and smash walls. It can also be used to build houses. It's all in how it's used.

What you are describing is a "good" dm, with respect for his players, who isn't too terribly irritated at TOB.

However, if I, as a DM, were so irritated at TOB that I wouldn't have any fun running the game.... Darn skippy I wouldn't invest dozens of hours into a campaign I wasn't enjoying.

[Boci]

However, if I, as a DM, were so irritated at TOB that I wouldn't have any fun running the game.... Darn skippy I wouldn't invest dozens of hours into a campaign I wasn't enjoying.

But can you imagine that happening? Can you imagining being unable to enjoy a campeign because someone is playing a warblade instead of a fighter?

[PhoenixRivers]

But can you imagine that happening? Can you imagining being unable to enjoy a campeign because someone is playing a warblade instead of a fighter?

I can imagine being frustrated to no end dealing with mechanics I don't feel I should have to learn, on top of the workload I'm already dealing with in developing an entire campaign world. I can imagine that burning me out to the point where I said to myself, "forget these ingrates. I'll spend the next couple saturdays playing WOW instead of campaign prep, because I'm DONE."

While I know and love TOB, I can see many DM's who haven't familiarized themselves with it, or who don't like the feel of it, and don't feel that tone fits their campaign... And I can see them taking a player who's as insistent as you are, and getting to the point of saying "DMG p. 18. Take it or leave it. I've worked for 13 hours on this campaign this week, and I'm not going to spend another 4 justifying WHY I'm saying no. Just no. Play, go home, at this point, I don't care."

And, in my experience, most of the players will support him. The squeaky wheel doesn't always get the grease. Sometimes it gets replaced.

[Tyndmyr]

But can you imagine that happening? Can you imagining being unable to enjoy a campeign because someone is playing a warblade instead of a fighter?

Strikes me as a bit irrational. I recently heard a guy ranting at length about fighter/barbarian multiclassing as metagaming and powergaming in my local shop. I'm not sure entirely what his issue is with this, but I would be a bit hesitant to play in his campaign if he started one, due to a lack of faith in his judgement.

If someone started a campaign with class X banned for no particular reason other than "I hate em" or similar, I'd also be very skeptical, even if I had no desire to play that class at all. It's indicative of what to expect in the rest of the campaign. If the reaction to something he dislikes is to reach for the banhammer without explanation, he's going to be crappy DM.

[HamHam]

I think you're missing the word 'try' in there somewhere. Your audience may have different tastes, and you're telling me you've never gamed with someone who wanted a Nightmare or some such at Lv 1? Sure you should tailor your plans around the players, don't just give them what they want tho!

I would tell them that the rules don't support that and it would be obviously unbalanced to allow them to play something that is like CR 10 at level 1.

If they presented me with a Savage Species monster class for Nightmare that made it playable from level 1 I would say "Go for it."


Ah, if only it were that simple. But if I may answer a question Starbucks asked me earlier... Why does including Psionics add to your planning time?

The answer is because then, to counterbalance Psionic characters you need Psionic enemies with Psionic equipment in Psionic plotlines. If you don't prepear for a decent lv 12 Psion build he'll blow most of your encounters apart.

It's the same, although lessened, for ToB. To improve melee across the board the melee monsters have to be inproved as well. Or there's balance problems.

Simply untrue. Anything you do to balance encounters against arcane and divine casters will work just as well against psionics the vast majority of the time. A small number of things won't, but you will learn those easily through actual game play. You might get hit with a tactic you didn't plan for but after the first time you will.

As for ToB, the core melee classes are underpowered compared to monsters. At worst, you might need up the CR a bit but you pretty much already have to do that because anyone playing a Tier 1 class will stomp equal CR encounters.


You sit at the table, you play by his rules. Don't like it?

FIND A NEW TABLE TO SIT AT.

This is not a reasonable attitude to take when you want to get a game going with your buddies.

It might work for college rpg clubs or setting up a game through your FLGS or PbP and the like, but I think the majority of people's gaming experiences are still going to be getting together with your friends to play a game.

Being all "my way or the highway" with your friends is a good way to not have any friends left, or at least not any that will let you DM.


I can imagine being frustrated to no end dealing with mechanics I don't feel I should have to learn, on top of the workload I'm already dealing with in developing an entire campaign world. I can imagine that burning me out to the point where I said to myself, "forget these ingrates. I'll spend the next couple saturdays playing WOW instead of campaign prep, because I'm DONE."

You need to know two things if a player in your game is using ToB:

1) They can hit things really hard. So expect anything you put into melee with them to die.

2) Their fancy tricks are limited by encounter, so if you want to run them dry (how dry depends on class, Crusaders won't care, Warblades probably won't much, but Swordsages will start having trouble) don't give them the five minutes rest between fights.

[Edwin]

I've already stated that you've made several personal remarks regarding other posters that appear to me, an outside observer, to be rather hostile.

As I stated two posts ago, I've already read the thread in it's entirety. I also noticed that when you pleaded for the discussion to stop, others pointed out that you could simply stop participating.

If it's nothing but repetition, the cure is not further repetition. Either add something new and interesting, or leave it be.

You accused someone of being a troll in post #65. I find this statement on your part to be ironically amusing.

My reason for taking part is simple. I'm not on either side, so I'm reasonably unbiased. I happen to own ToB, and don't tend to play characters from it, but don't really care if others do. I do, however, like to see people actually argue their sides in a reasonable fashion, and when those involved in a debate accuse the other side of using some illogical argument, it often devolves into a flamewar. For examples, see any use of the term "strawman". If an outsider makes the comment, it's less biased.

And I've already stated that I wasn't intentionally trying to do any of the things that define a troll. If you opinion on a matter is valid enough that your statement becomes fact, why should mine be any less valid, other than the fact that it is ludicrous either way?

Now I own ToB too, as you know seeing as you've read the thread. Incidentally, you would also know that I am not against other people using the ToB, I just stay away from it myself. Which you can't seem to grasp, given your statement number two.

As for simple walking, you way want to note that I did walk, only to come back and defend myself when another posted decided that I warranted several rather rude adjective, such as selfish, intolerant, among others. He did later apologize for those comments, but that was nevertheless the reason I went back to posting. And the point of the plead was not that we should stop discussing anything all together, but that we should should stop discussing the dead end subject; a subject where no new arguments had been added.

Lastly, being and outsider does not necessarily make you any less biased, as you could have well taken a side whilst reading through the post. You are by no means a moral overseer of any of us, and you have absolutely no right to judge any of us. You are not a mod.

An given that your entire reason for calling me troll was based on a few ambiguously hostile comments and a lower-than-average word per post count, your every argument in morally defusing me is fallible at best.

Hell, even I had more concluding "evidence" that you were more trollish than I, but that is not my prerogative to make that call, nor do I believe your intention was that.

[Starbuck_II]

Ah, if only it were that simple. But if I may answer a question Starbucks asked me earlier... Why does including Psionics add to your planning time?

The answer is because then, to counterbalance Psionic characters you need Psionic enemies with Psionic equipment in Psionic plotlines. If you don't prepear for a decent lv 12 Psion build he'll blow most of your encounters apart.

It's the same, although lessened, for ToB. To improve melee across the board the melee monsters have to be inproved as well. Or there's balance problems.

The hell?
Can you name what psionic items are required?

I'm pretty sure headband of Int are still needed (magical or Psionic), rings of protection, cloaks of resist, belts of Con...
Still trying to think of a required psionic item.

Psionic vesions would be cool, but still doesn't matter the source for the PC: as long as they can acquire them.

What is a psionic plotline? What is an arcane plotline if that exists?

Psionic enemies...why? Because you want to copy him? Show off what psionics can do? What does copying his power source do?

I mean, a caster is a caster whether Cleric or Wizard: the class chosen depends upon needs of the encounter: why must you mirror the PCs as well?

Is it so you can learn as well? But that would be your choice not forced upon you. If you don't want to learn: just learn as you go by seeing what he does.
As long as he follows manifester rule (most important rule) should be few issues.

Anything a well-built Psion can do a well-built Wizard can do way better (because Wizards are core so better) so if the Psion blows through the encounter I fear for you (the royal you) when a Wizard appears.

[PhoenixRivers]

I would tell them that the rules don't support that and it would be obviously unbalanced to allow them to play something that is like CR 10 at level 1.

If they presented me with a Savage Species monster class for Nightmare that made it playable from level 1 I would say "Go for it."That's your right. That's not required of you.



This is not a reasonable attitude to take when you want to get a game going with your buddies.No, it's not reasonable. But let's take this example:

Joe DM is building a campaign.
His wife is expecting, and requires a lot of attention.
His job has required extra shifts of him, and he could kinda use the money, cause he's behind on his mortgage. So he's workin 60 hours a week.
He's never read the book you want to include.

Are you honestly saying that you're expecting him to allow something without reading it thoroughly enough to understand whether or not it's balanced? Are you expecting him to understand it that well without understanding how it works? And are you expecting him to find time for that to suit your personal whim?

Real life, people. It's more important with a game. And sometimes, it takes time to come to a decision to allow or disallow.

What if he likes it, but believes in verisimilitude? What if he doesn't want one person in the world, studying an ancient art, passed down from master to student... when nobody else in the world knows it?



1) They can hit things really hard. So expect anything you put into melee with them to die.

2) Their fancy tricks are limited by encounter, so if you want to run them dry (how dry depends on class, Crusaders won't care, Warblades probably won't much, but Swordsages will start having trouble) don't give them the five minutes rest between fights.
Any Initiator worth his salt can recover everything in 1 full round action.

Your advice leaves a lot to be desired.

Yes, a DM can make some unreasonable rulings. I've never played with one that made none. But if it's fun, and you enjoy the company, you:

1) Suck it up.
2) Address the issue between games, and attempt to deal directly with the DM in a quieter 1 on 1 setting.

Bottom line: No DM should insert something into his campaign if he doesn't understand the mechanics for it. That screams "campaign hijack, adn player unbalancing".

[sonofzeal]

Anything a well-built Psion can do a well-built Wizard can do way better (because Wizards are core so better) so if the Psion blows through the encounter I fear for you (the royal you) when a Wizard appears.
Not entirely true. Psions generally make better Enchanters, and you could argue for Summoners and Blasters too. There's a few unique Psion tricks on top of that, that Wizards can't really replicate at all.

But the rest of your post, yes, entirely. Psionics, assuming Transparency (which is RAW), works totally fine in any game that already has Arcane magic.

[Tyndmyr]

And I've already stated that I wasn't intentionally trying to do any of the things that define a troll. If you opinion on a matter is valid enough that your statement becomes fact, why should mine be any less valid, other than the fact that it is ludicrous either way?

Intentional or not, the point remains as relevant. If it's entirely unintentional, perhaps the knowledge will be of use to you in the future.


As for simple walking, you way want to note that I did walk, only to come back and defend myself when another posted decided that I warranted several rather rude adjective, such as selfish, intolerant, among others. He did later apologize for those comments, but that was nevertheless the reason I went back to posting. And the point of the plead was not that we should stop discussing anything all together, but that we should should stop discussing the dead end subject; a subject where no new arguments had been added.

This isn't at all what I read. I believe you called Boci rude before he'd said anything a reasonable person would have construed as rude. Unfortunately, so much editing has taken place since then, it's a bit difficult to make completely clear at this point in time.

I find it difficult to see how you could "walk away from the subject", and average 10 posts per page. I don't see any significant break in posting.


Lastly, being and outsider does not necessarily make you any less biased, as you could have well taken a side whilst reading through the post. You are by no means a moral overseer of any of us, and you have absolutely no right to judge any of us. You are not a mod.

I never claimed to be a mod or a "moral overseer". I can form opinions of others without being a mod.


An given that your entire reason for calling me troll was based on a few ambiguously hostile comments and a lower-than-average word per post count, your every argument in morally defusing me is fallible at best.

I also explicitly said that you were engaging in tactics such as repetition instead of answering questions put to you, and failing to even attempt an explanation or justification of your stance. That, in conjunction with personal attacks, does come across as trollish, regardless of if you mean it to be read as such.


Hell, even I had more concluding "evidence" that you were more trollish than I, but that is not my prerogative to make that call, nor do I believe your intention was that.

The point is that your stance of "If you call others trolls, you are a troll" is clearly hypocritical, given your earlier accusations of trolling in this very same thread.

Now, can we get back to the topic, and could you please answer the questions posed to you from page three onward?

[Starbuck_II]

Not entirely true. Psions generally make better Enchanters, and you could argue for Summoners and Blasters too. There's a few unique Psion tricks on top of that, that Wizards can't really replicate at all.

But the rest of your post, yes, entirely. Psionics, assuming Transparency (which is RAW), works totally fine in any game that already has Arcane magic.

Time hop, entangling ectoplasm (but that is just a tanglefoot bag in essence), death urge (I'm not sure there might be an arcane version), and a few others.

There are psionic versions of arcane spells that are better (and some worse). Like catfall is better than featherfall if you want to fall faster but still not take damage (who has time to fall only 60 ft at a time if 300 feet up). Granted, you pay for this benefit with more cost (power points) if want to fall from very high.

But yeah, yeah they should be fine in Core.

[HamHam]

No, it's not reasonable. But let's take this example:

Joe DM is building a campaign.
His wife is expecting, and requires a lot of attention.
His job has required extra shifts of him, and he could kinda use the money, cause he's behind on his mortgage. So he's workin 60 hours a week.
He's never read the book you want to include.

He should probably not DM in the first place.


Are you honestly saying that you're expecting him to allow something without reading it thoroughly enough to understand whether or not it's balanced?

Yes. Actual play is the best way to find out if it's balanced anyway, and the ultimately the onus is on the player to balance themselves to the party and campaign.


What if he likes it, but believes in verisimilitude? What if he doesn't want one person in the world, studying an ancient art, passed down from master to student... when nobody else in the world knows it?

You don't, and are just really good at hitting things. See how easy changing that fluff was?


Any Initiator worth his salt can recover everything in 1 full round action.

In 3.5 combat that's a pretty steep price actually. You could very well be dead next round, or the party will have killed whatever you were fighting.

[sonofzeal]

Boci, is it really worth all the effort you seem to be putting into this? Is it that bad if someone is wrong on the internet?

Tyndmyr, accusing people of being a troll is considered trolling on many sites. I think you have good intentions, but even if you're right, I don't think your posts to that effect will solve anything.

Edwin, I'd still very much appreciate your thoughts on my post way back on page 3 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7399434&postcount=88), and whether the third point at the bottom adequately reflects your opinion of ToB.

[Vic_Sage]

I can read your earlier posts, you know.

Besides, what if the DM, and perhaps a couple of the other players, have a slightly different response, say: We don't think it's fun, and we don't want it in our game.

Would that be good enough for you?

Or will you start this argument we're having now all over again?
I would. because unless the reason makes sense I'll point out why they're reasons are stupid and why there idiots.

[PhoenixRivers]

He should probably not DM in the first place.
My Counter: Anyone who expects the DM to kowtow to his personal tastes in a campaign should probably not play in the first place.


Yes. Actual play is the best way to find out if it's balanced anyway, and the ultimately the onus is on the player to balance themselves to the party and campaign.No, ultimately, it's the job of the Ref to ensure a fair game. That's the DM. Also, many DM's aren't interested in finding out if something's balanced. They want it to be balanced before adding it. This is why I question my players about mechanics, require that I have access to any book they wish to use for at least two (and possibly more) weeks to evaluate it.

In short, the person that should be most familiar with the rules should be the one mediating them. And optional books are just that. Optional. One is neither a bad player nor a bad DM for opting to play without them. One should not expect an entire group in consensus to bend to your will because you can't compromise and play something else.

Or does compromise only apply to evilbadwrong dm's that aren't giving you your way?


You don't, and are just really good at hitting things. See how easy changing that fluff was?
"not in my game". See how easy it is to reject by a DM?


In 3.5 combat that's a pretty steep price actually. You could very well be dead next round, or the party will have killed whatever you were fighting.Or the fight's mostly over, and it's on cleanup, so you recover your maneuvers?

[Tyndmyr]

There are reasons not to allow ToB as a DM. However, "I don't like it" isn't a very good one. At a minimum, you should expect to justify why you don't like it, and why it shouldn't be allowed.

"Im not familiar with it, and don't have time to become familiar with it" is reasonable. It's especially reasonable if people are throwing half a dozen obscure splatbooks at the DM. He's got to draw a line somewhere.

In general, a DM should be permissive. All legal options should be allowed unless there is a reason not to, and those exceptions should be explained to the player prior to/during character creation.

If you can't come up with a better reason than "I just don't like it", then yeah, you're being unreasonable, and need to reconsider the way you look at DMing. Yes, the DM has some power due to the nature of the system, but that shouldn't be abused.

[Zeful]

If you ban monk and swordsages fair enough, but if paladins and fighters exist in your world you cannot ban warblades and crusaders for flavour reasons.

Yes I can. I just don't have to run a world with anything resembling realism.


That is really bad DMing. I have a pattern of my own PC, but I never force that one my players.So you would allow everything?


Not if you can provide valied reasons for it and are open to suggestion as to how to alter it to make it acceptable in your game, which you do not seem to be."I don't like it," is a valid reason.


What if a PC does?Tough.


"As a DM, I would prevent other players from using it" seems to be forcing your preferences on others, which is precisely what you are telling us not to do. It is hard to accept because we think it is poor behavior for a DM, and want to convince any DMs or potential DMs reading this thread that they should not behave as such.
No it's not, a DM by social contract is allowed to force his preferences on his players. If they don't like it, they may attempt to reason with the DM for a compromise, or leave. For example, I would not allow ToB matieral to be used in my games at all simply because it's another thing I have to remember when making encounters.


I hate strength based fighters. I have never played one. Only dex based. But as a DM I wouldn't dream of enforcing my preference on players.First: Apples to Oranges. Banning ToB is no different from banning Prestige classes, you are not allowing an additional variant, rather than restricting part of the core game.


I'll ask you as well then. How would your enjoyment as a DM be taken away by a PC playing a class from ToB? You don't have to use it.Because, he actually does have to use it. In order to anticipate the player's power the DM has to be able to effectively use the material. Further ToB makes certain Core classes useless as villains, meaning Tob has to be used as a substitute. So the DM does have to use the class.


Yes but conjuration (teleport) and polymorph aren't vital for a fun and competant wizard. ToB is much more important for melee.
Grossly incorrect. Playing the game as it was intended (which surprisingly isn't the way it's portrayed on the internet) means that the current melee classes are more than sufficient to play the game at all levels.


Yes thats whats going on. For some reason one class will ruin his enjoyment of the game. No longer will the setting and rp mean anything to him, because one character has the word warbladew ritten on his character sheet.And the DM has to spend additional hours balancing the encounters so the guy with "Warblade" written on his sheet isn't simply one-shotting everything. Which means time with his family/Significant Other/Other Hobbys, is greatly shortened.


Cannot move more than 5ft without gimping damage out put. Cannot ready action without gimping damage output. Utterly shut down by save or suck spells, no class features to boost saves a very important defense. No varying options just full attacking every round and a special action if you've spent enough feats to specialize yourself with it. Ect.This is only necessary if the the Wizard or Cleric's player is over-optimized, requiring a similar responce from the DM. And if the Wizard or Cleric's Player is doing this, even having ToB levels may not be enough.


You don't have to use it as a Dm, but why would you deny it to your players?
You really want an answer to that?
One: Creates more work for the DM. Two: Goes against the DM's thematic representation of what heroes are capable of. Three: Finds the mechanics or writing to be distasteful. Four: Is tainted by the fanboyish squeals of the internet. Five: Has already written much of the Plot Important NPCs from the perspective that the material is not included in the setting. Six: Does not own the book. Seven: Understands that allowing the players access to the material means he has to use it.
There, seven reasons. Want more?

[Tyndmyr]

Yes I can. I just don't have to run a world with anything resembling realism.

You're missing the point. The flavor of those classes is the same. If your stated objection is flavor, and you're only banning some of the classes with the exact same flavor, then that seems a bit odd, yknow?


"I don't like it," is a valid reason.

That's a statement, not a reason. A reason would be something like "I don't like it because it's not balanced" or "I don't like it because the rules are vague and unclear".

If either of those apply to ToB isn't the point...the point is that your preference is not a reason in itself. You need to explain the reason FOR the preference.


No it's not, a DM by social contract is allowed to force his preferences on his players. If they don't like it, they may attempt to reason with the DM for a compromise, or leave. For example, I would not allow ToB matieral to be used in my games at all simply because it's another thing I have to remember when making encounters.

Social contracts are not all the same. That stuff in the rulebooks is not a social contract. In particular, a "put up or shut up" attitude isn't a great way to make or keep friends.

Also, if you go into a game with the idea that forcing your preferences on your players is a good thing, Im very, very happy not to be playing with you.

[Zeful]

Social contracts are not all the same. That stuff in the rulebooks is not a social contract. In particular, a "put up or shut up" attitude isn't a great way to make or keep friends.

Also, if you go into a game with the idea that forcing your preferences on your players is a good thing, Im very, very happy not to be playing with you.
Except I stated that you have an attempt to appeal the decision, in the part you quoted nonetheless. However that appeal does not the player any rights to dictate the terms of the game, if you still disagree after the period of arbitration, then you either abide by the decision, or leave.

Given many of the posts here, most of the people here would not like to play under me, as I believe in many actions that certain parts of the community have called in no uncertain terms "Sins against the player". So you're not alone in that.

[Tyndmyr]

Thing of it is, every decision doesn't have to be "DM wins" or "player wins". It's about finding a solution.

Perhaps the player doesn't actually want all of ToB included. Perhaps he just wants a coupla levels in one class. Suddenly, that's a very small amount of information you have to learn and remember, compared to the entire book.

Perhaps he's looking to fix a game issue(see: monk, unarmed swordsage) by taking another class, and you guys can fix the core problem by fixing the base class instead(any one of the nigh endless monk fixes).

It's not about "dictating the terms of the game".

[Roderick_BR]

See, there is actually some slightly wrong information here.

Many people see WRT giving yourself a turn as ambiguous, much like many see Factotum giving Int to Initiative as ambiguous. the problem is, both are unambiguous. WRT does have yourself as a valid target. An ally is a term that includes yourself.

The fact that it is also incredibly stupid, however, is also an accepted fact.
While I agree that you are not your own enemy (unless you are very self-destructive), how does an "ally" includes yourself?
I mean, saying "me and my allies" is not the same as saying "me and Joe, Mike, and me". I'll have to re-read it, but I don't recall where saying "ally" means you add yourself. I think some maneuver specificy when something affects you. For example that 9th level White Riven Tactic specifies that you gain a +50 bonus to damage, while your allies gain +25. Does it means you get +75?

[BRC]

I see two legitimate reasons to ban ToB
1: The DM is running a very low magic/low power game without casters, and has balanced things to account for that.
2: The DM dosn't know the ToB rules very well, and (understandably) doesn't want the players using rules and a system that he/she doesn't understand.

[Danin]

I, in general, do not allow ToB in my game. This is not due to it being over powered or not, or learning game mechanics. It is because about half of my group enjoys optimization, while the other half enjoys playing more conceptually.

In my most recent group I have:

A healing focused Favored Soul
A battle Sorcerer who focuses on evocation
An Ardent / Rogue (Retired)
A Rogue / Scout
A Warblade

In my experience, the spotlight was shared almost entirely by the Warblade and, to a lesser extent, the Rogue / Scout. If everyone wanted to play a ToB class instead of the standard fighter, sure, why not. With the drastic difference between play styles I have, to include both, the encounter either marginalizes the abilities of the others while the optimizers have a challenge, or the encounter is torn through in a round or two.

Some DM's cater what is available to their group. That is another possible reason for people to disallow ToB.

[Tyndmyr]

I see two legitimate reasons to ban ToB
1: The DM is running a very low magic/low power game without casters, and has balanced things to account for that.

I've actually considered running a pre-historic themed, extremely low powered game at some point. Cavemen with stone spears sorta thing. I could see ToB being inappropriate for that, but frankly, such a setting is well outside standard D&D high fantasy tropes, and is going to need a rather large list of bans and house rulings. I wouldn't single out ToB as unusual in this regard, as this sort of thing tends to happen when you bend D&D to a setting well outside the norm.

[DragoonWraith]

I, in general, do not allow ToB in my game. This is not due to it being over powered or not, or learning game mechanics. It is because about half of my group enjoys optimization, while the other half enjoys playing more conceptually.
See, this I find surprising. I mean, part of what makes ToB so great is that it does a very good job self-optimizing. You don't have to optimize with ToB to keep up with other classes. It seems to me that if the not-optimizers were playing ToB characters, they'd keep up better with the optimizers than they would otherwise. I mean, OK, if the optimizers are the ones playing the ToB classes and the not-optimizers are playing Fighters or Monks, then yes, there's a problem - but I'd think that optimizers would be able to cause the same problem even without ToB. Certainly if they went full-caster, they'll be far more powerful than the ToB characters.

I'm not disputing your decision, as such - if you have empirical evidence that this is what works for your group, then that's the fact of the matter. But I would say that I am surprised if this is the case.

[Edwin]

3) Don't like Action Heroes. While Crusaders and Swordsages come more on the magical end of the spectrum (and if you toss out that, you lose Monks and Rangers and Paladins), all three still land solidly under Action Hero. Warblades especially don't get anything overtly supernatural, but do some stunts that would make Conan or Xena or Captain America proud. Any ToB character is going to be considerably more Action Heroic than a corresponding Fighter or Barbarian. This to me is much more valid than the previous complaint, and a totally legitimate reason not to use it if you don't think D&D should have Action Heroes. This isn't about anime (action heroes are common there but predate the genre), or about breaking the laws of physics (some ToB is supernatural and clearly marked as such but the rest is usually in the realm of stuff that's not realistic but still technically possible). If you don't like the feel of Action Heroes, well, that's that and I don't think anyone will disagree with you. Of course, you tread near the dangerous waters of "melee can't have nice things" then, and imo that just killed enjoyment around the table.

No, not particularly close to anything that I had in mind. Maybe with the exception that ToB stuff seems like it makes my campaign into a Naruto setting.

[Vic_Sage]

No, not particularly close to anything that I had in mind. Maybe with the exception that ToB stuff seems like it makes my campaign into a Naruto setting.
So you only saw Desert Wind and assumed that's all there was? Because I seriously didn't know that I could pull off some Byakugan or Sharigan stuff with Setting Sun or Grow a Tree that envelops the target and causes it to explode with Iron Heart.

[Edwin]

So you only saw Desert Wind and assumed that's all there was? Because I seriously didn't know that I could pull off some Byakugan or Sharigan stuff with Setting Sun or Grow a Tree that envelops the target and causes it to explode with Iron Heart.

Seems to be a common misconception. That the ones who does not like ToB only took a look at Desert Wind. :smallsmile:

As a matter of fact, no I did not. I still find it distinctly Naruto like.

[Vic_Sage]

Except other than Desert Wind and Shadow Hand there is nothing that is only seen in anime or manga. I see stuff like Diamond Mind, Setting Sun, Stone Dragon, and Iron Heart all the time in comics, books, cartoons, and film. Using the NARUTO *Which is a weak excuse in and of itself* uxcuse just goes to show that you didn't pay attention to anything and half your complaints are bull.

[Edwin]

Except other than Desert Wind and Shadow Hand there is nothing that is only seen in anime or manga. I see stuff like Diamond Mind, Setting Sun, Stone Dragon, and Iron Heart all the time in comics, books, cartoons, and film. Using the NARUTO *Which is a weak excuse in and of itself* uxcuse just goes to show that you didn't pay attention to anything and half your complaints are bull.

Didn't say I would ban it because it was Naruto like.

Why can't you fathom that I simply doesn't like the damn book, and prefer not to use it?

[Vic_Sage]

Didn't say I would ban it because it was Naruto like.

Why can't you fathom that I simply doesn't like the damn book, and prefer not to use it?
Because that's a terrible reason to ban a book. If you had a legit reason I wouldn't care in the slightest. But just going "I don't like it thus I ban it" is ****ing retarded.

[Edwin]

Because that's a terrible reason to ban a book. If you had a legit reason I wouldn't care in the slightest. But just going "I don't like it thus I ban it" is ****ing retarded.

No reason to call me retarded, indirectly or otherwise.

I am not saying anything about banning the book, okay? I am saying I don't use it, because I don't like it. That's my right. If you think otherwise, that's fine.

Just don't tag me as retarded because you like a book that I don't.

[Teron]

You're allowed to be irrational, but you can't fault others for trying to change your mind. And despite your claims to the contrary, you clearly want to continue this argument, or you'd stop posting in this thread. You can just say "I'm done" and shut up any time; no one's going to hound you in PMs or other threads. Therefore, you're either trolling, think you have a valid position and a chance of convincing others through stubborn repetition, or are too proud to let someone else have the last word.

And really, Naruto? The comparison is just so utterly absurd that it's difficult not to conclude you're being willfully ignorant. Look, just go here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) and look at the Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, Tiger claw and White Raven maneuvers; those are the ones available to a warblade. Then, feel free to point out any that are remotely reminiscent of Naruto, or otherwise unsuitable for a non-magical warrior.

[Edwin]

You're allowed to be irrational, but you can't fault others for trying to change your mind. And despite your claims to the contrary, you clearly want to continue this argument, or you'd stop posting in this thread. You can just say "I'm done" and shut up any time; no one's going to hound you in PMs or other threads. Therefore, you're either trolling, think you have a valid position and a chance of convincing others through stubborn repetition, or are too proud to let someone else have the last word.


I don't want to stop discussing all together. Just the issue of wether or not I'm being an ass for not liking ToB. That's a pointless argument, and have not made a damn change in anything so far, on either side of the argument.

And how is not liking something being irrational?

[Oslecamo]

And really, Naruto? The comparison is just so utterly absurd that it's difficult not to conclude you're being willfully ignorant. Look, just go here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) and look at the Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, Tiger claw and White Raven maneuvers; those are the ones available to a warblade. Then, feel free to point out any that are remotely reminiscent of Naruto, or otherwise unsuitable for a non-magical warrior.
Shuting off the sun with IHS, throwing any weapon that return to their masters no matter what, throwing enemies much bigger than themselves into the air several times in 6 seconds is something that I expect Naruto ninjas to do, not non-magical warriors. For starters.

[Teron]

I don't want to stop discussing all together. Just the issue of wether or not I'm being an ass for not liking ToB. That's a pointless argument, and have not made a damn change in anything so far, on either side of the argument.
So... what is it you want to keep discussing?


And how is not liking something being irrational?
Because you haven't given a single sound reason for your dislike, only ridiculous comparisons to 4E and Naruto.

[ex cathedra]

'kay, so, I've gotten a night's worth of sleep to find 5 more pages of what I can only assume is Edwin being flamed. I admittedly don't care to read through all of the conversations.

What the hell, kids?

Though, out of curiosity, I've garnered that there was a ToB:4e comparison. Yeah, 4e is blatantly based on the best written mechanics in 3.5. So? Disliking ToB because of 4e seems irrational, but I could say the same for the last 8 pages of this thread. :shrug:

[Edwin]

So... what is it you want to keep discussing?

Well before the belittlement began, we were discussing wether a DM has the right to pick materials. Go discuss that, with someone who actually made an argument on that.


Because you haven't given a single sound reason for your dislike, only ridiculous comparisons to 4E and Naruto.

Ridiculous in your opinion, sure.

And what, you've never disliked something simply because it was what it was?

For example, using an earlier analogy, let's pretend I don't like mashed potatoes. Why, you might ask? Well, simply because I find the feeling in my mouth repugnant, and the taste off-setting.

Would you then proceed to shove mashed potatoes down my throat, because you did not find that reason to your liking?


'kay, so, I've gotten a night's worth of sleep to find 5 more pages of what I can only assume is Edwin being flamed. I admittedly don't care to read through all of the conversations.

What the hell, kids?

Though, out of curiosity, I've garnered that there was a ToB:4e comparison. Yeah, 4e is blatantly based on the best written mechanics in 3.5. So? Disliking ToB because of 4e seems irrational, but I could say the same for the last 8 pages of this thread. :shrug:

There's a lot of people, me included, that are blatantly opposed to 4e. They are not irrational because you're not.

That being said, I would agree, to some extent, except that is only going to spur all the flamers into shouting: Inconsistency!

And we don't want that. :smallsmile:

[sonofzeal]

Tome of Battle doesn't really have much in common with anime. This is a common claim, that really doesn't fit all that well. There's two specific points of contact with anime (combining martial arts with magic, and techniques with names), both of which already existed in Core D&D (Smite Evil and Quivering Palm, anyone?)

As posted previously, I think what people mean when they say this is that ToB is like Action Heroes. That would be Xena, Conan, Captain America, Indiana Jones, Matrix, the original Drunken Master, or anything ever done by Steven Seagal or Jean Claude Van Damme. Jason Statham seems working in this direction too.

To pick a few examples....

"Iron Heart Surge", ubiquitous in that genre. Heroes routinely overcome debilitating conditions by screaming loudly enough.

"Lightning Throw", Xena and Captain America are both famous for it, and I'm sure you'll find it elsewhere.

"Raging Mongoose", someone makes a massively devastating rapid series of attacks. Silly name aside, this is pretty ubiquitous.

"Ancient Mountain Hammer", someone smashes straight through a wall, in defiance of the normal laws of physics. Pretty much all of them do it, all the time.

"Ruby Nightmare Blade", this fits best under the one hit, one kill idea. Probably more common on villains in this genre as they're usually the quiet, collected type.



.....so, yeah. Action Hero. Not that people can't legitimately dislike Action Heroes in their D&D (some see it as a much more gritty game, especially those who prefer to play in the level 1-5 range), of course. But calling it "anime" is just inflammatory to a lot of fans of anime, and to fans of ToB. We've had action heroes just as long as they have.

[ex cathedra]

There's a lot of people, me included, that are blatantly opposed to 4e. They are not irrational because you're not.

That being said, I would agree, to some extent, except that is only going to spur all the flamers into shouting: Inconsistency!

And we don't want that. :smallsmile:

It's a much less enjoyable system, but why would you be blatantly opposed? No one's forcing you to play it. Well, they might be, but that's a problem with your play group and not 4e. Actually hating 4e strikes me as immature.

[Boci]

Shuting off the sun with IHS,

Try something thats actually reasonable.


throwing any weapon that return to their masters no matter what,

Fighters have always been rubbish against flying opponents. That needed to be fixed, and really there was no way to do it whilst retaining the non-magical feel.
But still, its only a bit of a strain. If you try you can make an excuse for it.


throwing enemies much bigger than themselves into the air several times in 6 seconds is something that I expect Naruto ninjas to do, not non-magical warriors. For starters.

Isn't that setting sun, not a warblade discipline?



Ridiculous in your opinion, sure.

And what, you've never disliked something simply because it was what it was?

Yes I have. Strength based fighters, characters with less then 12 charisma, various characters off shows I didn't like. However as a DM I wouldn't stop a player from using them.


For example, using an earlier analogy, let's pretend I don't like mashed potatoes. Why, you might ask? Well, simply because I find the feeling in my mouth repugnant, and the taste off-setting.

Thats taste, one of the 5 senses. ToB is words on a page about a game we play.

[Serenity]

Edwin: Early on in the thread, you said that if you were to DM a game, you would not allow the Tome of Battle to be used in that game. This is commonly known as 'banning it'. At the time, when asked why, you said, almost explicitly, that you just didn't like it.

People's argument is that, all else being equal, that is a weak reason to not allow something to be used. If you feel the mechanics are overpowered/underpowered/badly written/etc. that's one thing (though it would probably not end the argument, as many strenuously disagree with that point.) If you feel that the particular games you would run would be disrupted by the capabilities of Tome of Battle classes, that's one thing. If you don't have the book, or don't have time to learn the mechanics, that's one thing. I'll even agree that sometimes, a class doesn't have a place in a particular setting. But, "I don't like it" without any further explanation is not very compelling.

Now it seems from your later posts that you do actually have particular issues with the mechanics of Tome of Battle. You have not, however, expounded on what these are in much detail--which would seem important to the discussion for both sides.

[Mike_G]

Shuting off the sun with IHS, ...


Iron Heart Surge does not shut off the God damned sun.

Iron Heart Surge is when Conan mutters "What sorcery is this?" then furrows his craggy brows, flexes his mighty thews and throws off the effect that some soon-to-be-dead Stygian priest foolishly cast on him.

Probably shouting "CROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I wish I could IHS off the effects of people misinterpreting that manuver, which is a clear staple of good old fashioned Howard/Lieber/Wagner heroes.

Read some pulps and use your imaginations, you freaking rules lawyers.

[Teron]

Shuting off the sun with IHS,
If you need to go to one of the two badly written maneuvers and its most outrageous interpretation to have an argument... you do not, in fact, have an argument.


throwing any weapon that return to their masters no matter what,
Plenty of fictional warriors do it. Usually with dedicated throwing weapons, granted, but it's still a pretty standard Acceptable Break from Reality for the genre, and a far cry from any "jutsu" in Naruto.


throwing enemies much bigger than themselves into the air several times in 6 seconds
That's Setting Sun, and therefore outside the capabilities of a standard warblade. It also makes a lot more sense when you consider that they only move ten feet at a time, which is pretty much "stumble and trip" distance for creatures too big for most characters to realistically lift off the ground. Not coincidentally, the throwing maneuvers all use the tripping mechanics.


is something that I expect Naruto ninjas to do, not non-magical warriors. For starters.
I'm not convinced. But if, as you say, that's only a start, then by all means keep going.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Locked for Review.