PDA

View Full Version : ToB - Failing to see what others do



Pages : [1] 2

Cedrass
2009-11-27, 06:54 PM
Yes, it's awesome. This sn't what I don't see :smalltongue:.

No the reality is I started a new campaign (my old Paladin got squashed by a White Dragon...) with a Warblade/Synchronized Swordsmen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110440). By buddy took Iron Heart as his main Discipline, and I am still wondering about if I should take White Raven or Diamond Mind. If it was only us I'd probably end up taking Diamond Mind, but we have a Psychic Warrior with us, so I'm wondering if White Raven wouldn't be more useful. I'd like to have your opinion on this really.

And there's also some Maneuvers people say are really strong, but I fail to see how... I heard White Raven Tactics is strong, but I don't get why... Also, is it me or the 9th level White Raven strike is weak (compared to others)? I'm also not sure about the Diamond Mind strike that use your Concentration check to damage your ennemy... I get the feeling you end up losing some damage?

Well I guess I just need some coaching =/

Serenity
2009-11-27, 06:58 PM
The RAW is ambiguous as to whether you yourself are a valid target for WRT. If you interpret that you are, it breaks action economy, especially combined with the Ruby Knight Vindicator. At least, that's my understanding; others can elaborate more.

ex cathedra
2009-11-27, 06:59 PM
Yes, it's awesome. This sn't what I don't see :smalltongue:.

No the reality is I started a new campaign (my old Paladin got squashed by a White Dragon...) with a Warblade/Synchronized Swordsmen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110440). By buddy took Iron Heart as his main Discipline, and I am still wondering about if I should take White Raven or Diamond Mind. If it was only us I'd probably end up taking Diamond Mind, but we have a Psychic Warrior with us, so I'm wondering if White Raven wouldn't be more useful. I'd like to have your opinion on this really.

And there's also some Maneuvers people say are really strong, but I fail to see how... I heard White Raven Tactics is strong, but I don't get why... Also, is it me or the 9th level White Raven strike is weak (compared to others)? I'm also not sure about the Diamond Mind strike that use your Concentration check to damage your ennemy... I get the feeling you end up losing some damage?

Well I guess I just need some coaching =/

White Raven Tactics gives any one friend within 10ft of you (including yourself) another turn, at the cost of a swift action. You need another full attack? Done. Does the wizard need to cast again? Done. It's very powerful, and if you can learn to share it's very party friendly.

Eldariel
2009-11-27, 07:01 PM
White Raven Tactics gives a party member a new turn. Whether it can be yourself is up for debate, but if your allies are any good, that doesn't matter. Giving the party Wizard another turn with a swift action is a good deal. Alternatively, it can allow a party member to act before the enemy. That too is a good deal, since it's effectively getting 1 action where none existed before.

And the 9th level strike; dazing a whole bunch of enemies is v. good. It's also insane combined with Pounce, among other things. Basically, it's a charge; that's a good thing. And yeah, have a bunch of melee'ers (Simulacrums, Planar Bound creatures, leadershipped rabble, allies, whatthehell ever), use it, daze any bunch of anything. It has its uses.


EDIT: Ninjas. Again.

Cedrass
2009-11-27, 07:45 PM
Oh wow I guess I can see how it gets nice for a lvl 3 maneuver. My DM won't accept that I do it on me, but it's still a nice "Kill that guy" move.

+1 point for White Raven.

jmbrown
2009-11-27, 07:47 PM
I think I'm the only person in the world who actively plays 3.5 but never read ToB. There's like 5 topics a day on the book and each one brings me closer to buying a used copy but... I just can't bring myself to do it.

ex cathedra
2009-11-27, 07:51 PM
I think I'm the only person in the world who actively plays 3.5 but never read ToB. There's like 5 topics a day on the book and each one brings me closer to buying a used copy but... I just can't bring myself to do it.

This is a problem. It's one of the best books printed in 3.5, and is entirely worth having.

Cedrass
2009-11-27, 08:06 PM
I think I'm the only person in the world who actively plays 3.5 but never read ToB. There's like 5 topics a day on the book and each one brings me closer to buying a used copy but... I just can't bring myself to do it.

It pretty much makes warrior-types fun to play. You always have something to do, something usefull. My group and I weren't sure about the flavor, so we just scrapped it and went along with "Hey, he's level 7, he ought to do some awesome moves by that level!" and Swordsage and Crusader are infused with magic.

arguskos
2009-11-27, 08:08 PM
I think I'm the only person in the world who actively plays 3.5 but never read ToB. There's like 5 topics a day on the book and each one brings me closer to buying a used copy but... I just can't bring myself to do it.
Meh, I don't like it much myself, and it hasn't hurt me much. I own a copy, but don't use it, and I haven't regretted it. :smallwink: Just preferences man.

Don't want it, don't get it.

malcolm
2009-11-27, 08:18 PM
Tome of Battle is a 4E book that was released in the 3.5 era in order to playtest certain mechanics. If it doesn't feel like third edition D&D to you... you're probably right.

sofawall
2009-11-27, 08:23 PM
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.

sonofzeal
2009-11-27, 08:36 PM
The fact that it is also incredibly stupid, however, is also an accepted fact.
Not "stupid"; I'd go more for "most probably against RAI". Subtle difference.

Haven
2009-11-27, 08:45 PM
If there are two other frontliners, White Raven is definitely a worthwhile discipline. Also, the White Raven tactical feat is really good if you get your Diplomacy/Intimidate good enough to make those checks reliably (and you have the skill points).

Don't know much about Diamond Mind; it doesn't seem that great overall, but Moment of Perfect Mind is a lifesaver.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-11-27, 09:35 PM
Don't know much about Diamond Mind; it doesn't seem that great overall, but Moment of Perfect Mind is a lifesaver.

:smalleek: Not that great overall!?

It has maneuvers to boost your chances of saving and remove auto-failure, maneuvers to attack touch AC (or flat-footed AC or both), maneuvers to multiply damage, and more, including a capstone maneuver to take two full attacks. What's not to like?

Keld Denar
2009-11-27, 10:12 PM
Ignore 9th level a sec, and look at 8th level manevuers. White Raven Hammer is probably one of the best maneuvers in the game. STUN...NO SAVE...seriously. If that doesn't jump out at you, think about it some more. And depending on your manevuer refresh style, you could be seeing a lot of turns where your foe is dropping his weapons and counting the little birdies flying around before his eyes. Its deadly potent, even if its not as huge of a damage dealer as Diamond Nightmare Blade or Greater Insightful Strike.

Cedrass
2009-11-27, 10:27 PM
So, reading all this. I'm guessing I should get a mix of both?Diamond Mind for some nice damage and White Raven to make my allies go crazy?

With Time Stands Still, because it's awesome?

Keld Denar
2009-11-27, 10:45 PM
Warblades typically have enough manevuers known to focus on 1 school, with splashes of 2 others. If you focus on WR, you can still get enough manevuers known to pick up and meet prereqs for 3-4 manevuers from 2 other schools, or 5-6ish manevuers from 1 other school. WR generally is more of a dip school, with WRT being one of the main dips.

I'd focus in either Iron Heart or Diamond Mind, and dip a little in White Raven and possibly Tiger Claw. TC actually has some pretty decent manevuers for a 2handed fighter, even though its primarily thought of as the duel wielding school.

For example...start off at 1st level and take Leading the Charge. At 6th level, swap Leading the Charge for WRT. Around 7-8ish, take White Raven Strike, and at some later point Flanking Manevuer. When you hit 16th level, swap out WRS or FM with White Raven Hammer. In the end, 3 of your 13 manevuers known are White Raven, but you have the best ones. Maybe you have 2 from Tiger Claw (Sudden Leap and Pouncing Charge), and 8 from Iron Heart or Diamond Mind where the bulk of your offense comes from.

Make sense?

Boci
2009-11-27, 10:51 PM
Tome of Battle is a 4E book that was released in the 3.5 era in order to playtest certain mechanics. If it doesn't feel like third edition D&D to you... you're probably right.

So Tome of Battle isn't 3e D&D but wizards are?

I always hear this ToB is 4E light and I don't get it.

4E: Classes have at will powers, encounter powers, and daily powers.

ToB: Classes have no at will powers, automatically rechargable encounter powers, and no daily powers.

Those are some pretty big differences.

Cedrass
2009-11-27, 10:54 PM
Yes it does. And I see your point, looking over the maneuvers from White Raven, I found that most of them are less than optimal if I want to be effective.

I'll pick up the good ones, and focus on Diamond Mind. Maybe I'll ignore Tiger Claw (I know...) to get some iron Heart ones (IHS, and all it's friends).

I actually forgot that I could swap maneuvers... Concidering I can change them, White Raven isn't a Discipline I'd even concider focusing on. Thanks a lot!


So Tome of Battle isn't 3e D&D but wizards are?
Too many people think warriors can't have fancy moves like casters... :smallfrown:

Sir_Elderberry
2009-11-27, 11:00 PM
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.

Actually, if we're playing up the 4e similarities, "ally" doesn't include yourself.

Alteran
2009-11-27, 11:05 PM
Actually, if we're playing up the 4e similarities, "ally" doesn't include yourself.

ToB is similar to 4e in some ways, most prominently the presence of maneuvers/powers. However, the actual basic rules used are the same as the rest of 3.5. Unless "ally" was a new term to 3.5 that was introduced in the ToB, I see no reason why we should assume that it means what it does in 4e.

If there's no definition anywhere in 3.5, then it might be better to go with the 4e meaning.

Fastmover
2009-11-27, 11:06 PM
I wish I could play with ToB, but my DM forbids it.

Alteran
2009-11-27, 11:07 PM
I wish I could play with ToB, but my DM forbids it.

Why does he forbid it? I've never played with the ToB (or any 3.5 material), but the vast majority of people on these boards seem to think pretty highly of it. It's possible that your DM has some misconceptions about it, ones that the people here could help you dispel.

Boci
2009-11-27, 11:10 PM
Why does he forbid it? I've never played with the ToB (or any 3.5 material), but the vast majority of people on these boards seem to think pretty highly of it. It's possible that your DM has some misconceptions about it, ones that the people here could help you dispel.

Pretty much. The most common are "its over powered" and "its too anime" both assumptions are challanged in a number of threads and supporters of the arguments are rarely able to justify their beliefs. A very well optimized fighter will beat a ToB class in raw power and thats not even mentioning full casters. As for the anime thing, thats flavour, which can be changed.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-27, 11:13 PM
Tome of Battle is one of the most often misunderstood/misrepresented books in 3.5 (along with the XPH); there are a lot of reasons various people don't like it, but many of them are caused by misunderstanding the rules or having misconceptions about the material.

I don't really want to get in an argument about it, but suffice to say that I disagree with a lot of the other reasons, too. It's all personal preference, but like, I dunno. Like, I agree with some of the complaints, but disagree that it applies to ToB. Like people complain about "wuxia", and ya know, I'm not a fan of anime either, but to that I just think "refluff", and the Asian theme is not nearly as strong as some people make it seem. Or people who say it makes the "Fighter" (Warblade) too magical/non-mundane, which I just feel like is stubborn "fighters can't have nice things"-ness.

AirGuitarGod32
2009-11-27, 11:13 PM
That and with the right combo of feats and classes, one can get a true Sir Stomps-a-Lot out of a warblade with twin Great Scimmys of Speed and Keen and Diamond Mind's 9th level maneuver + dervish. Can you say enter living lawnmower?

However, I say that White Raven also is a good buffer choice. Like say Warblade of White Raven20 Marshal or Dragon Shaman 10? This way, you stay as close to your buddies as possible, lay on some auras and use buff maneuvers to make your buddies and possibly yourself stronger. Hell, even bard could do it, though the MAD of Cha vs Int is a problem...

Boci
2009-11-27, 11:15 PM
That and with the right combo of feats and classes, one can get a true Sir Stomps-a-Lot out of a warblade with twin Great Scimmys of Speed and Keen and Diamond Mind's 9th level maneuver + dervish. Can you say enter living lawnmower?

Anti-ToBers do like to point that out, conviniently forgetting that "with the right combo of feats and classes" you can break a commoner.



However, I say that White Raven also is a good buffer choice. Like say Warblade of White Raven20 Marshal or Dragon Shaman 10? This way, you stay as close to your buddies as possible, lay on some auras and use buff maneuvers to make your buddies and possibly yourself stronger. Hell, even bard could do it, though the MAD of Cha vs Int is a problem...

White raven is definatly a fair choice. There are some really useful stances, and the stun without a save manouvers are always useful.

Wings of Peace
2009-11-27, 11:24 PM
I wish I could play with ToB, but my DM forbids it.

I think your DM does not like meleers to have nice things.

Faleldir
2009-11-27, 11:56 PM
And if it's "part of the genre" that non-casters are nothing but mooks, then let me play 20 Fighters who count as one person for XP and healing.

Zeful
2009-11-28, 01:30 AM
I think your DM does not like meleers to have nice things.

I outright ban ToB, and I think Melee should have nice things. I simply have a policy that material I'm not familiar with does not see play at my table.

DMs don't just ban things because they dislike the material or think it's overpowered, some ban because it allows them to better plan encounters for his players.

Wings of Peace
2009-11-28, 02:16 AM
I outright ban ToB, and I think Melee should have nice things. I simply have a policy that material I'm not familiar with does not see play at my table.

DMs don't just ban things because they dislike the material or think it's overpowered, some ban because it allows them to better plan encounters for his players.

Are you his DM? I didn't say all DMs however, more often than not the debate I have had with DMs that don't allow ToB and know of it's existence while simultaneously possessing the power to acquire is that they feel it is overpowered.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-28, 02:22 AM
I outright ban ToB, and I think Melee should have nice things. I simply have a policy that material I'm not familiar with does not see play at my table.

DMs don't just ban things because they dislike the material or think it's overpowered, some ban because it allows them to better plan encounters for his players.
Yes, of course; sorry, I should have mentioned that there certainly are good reasons to ban even the most quality material.

On the other hand, I'd recommend ToB as one of the things most worth getting familiar with in 3.5. Because honestly, it is in some ways the only nice thing that meleers in 3.5 ever got, other than improved ability for gishes allowing magical melee to work well. You can make a powerful melee character without gishing or using ToB, but it's hard. It takes pouring through several books and building your character very carefully. With ToB, you can really just take whatever sounds cool, and make it work. It's very self-optimizing.

Wings of Peace
2009-11-28, 02:29 AM
Yes, of course; sorry, I should have mentioned that there certainly are good reasons to ban even the most quality material.

On the other hand, I'd recommend ToB as one of the things most worth getting familiar with in 3.5. Because honestly, it is in some ways the only nice thing that meleers in 3.5 ever got, other than improved ability for gishes allowing magical melee to work well. You can make a powerful melee character without gishing or using ToB, but it's hard. It takes pouring through several books and building your character very carefully. With ToB, you can really just take whatever sounds cool, and make it work. It's very self-optimizing.

Complete Warrior was very nice as well in my opinion. ToB is by far cleaner in how it improves melee but CW in my opinion did quite a good job at giving melee nice things while simultaneously keeping somewhat to the idea of feats being among the most crucial part of melee. ToB IMO shifted melee far more towards class based power than it was previously at.

Zeful
2009-11-28, 02:50 AM
Are you his DM? I didn't say all DMs however, more often than not the debate I have had with DMs that don't allow ToB and know of it's existence while simultaneously possessing the power to acquire is that they feel it is overpowered.

No. I was pointing out how inaccurate the assumption is. Fastmover only said his DM banned ToB, and you immediately assumed that he thought the material was overpowered. It's an assumption that I, one: Do not agree with in the least. And two: Find highly hypocritical, enough to call you on it. A DM may be wrong to assume that X is overpowered and simply ban it without knowing anything about, but it is also wrong to assume that any DM that bans X does so because it's overpowered (or as is the predominant opinion on this forum: The DM is some kind of idiot who doesn't actually understand what balance is).

Wings of Peace
2009-11-28, 03:31 AM
No. I was pointing out how inaccurate the assumption is. Fastmover only said his DM banned ToB, and you immediately assumed that he thought the material was overpowered. It's an assumption that I, one: Do not agree with in the least. And two: Find highly hypocritical, enough to call you on it. A DM may be wrong to assume that X is overpowered and simply ban it without knowing anything about, but it is also wrong to assume that any DM that bans X does so because it's overpowered (or as is the predominant opinion on this forum: The DM is some kind of idiot who doesn't actually understand what balance is).

Well then I'm glad we've cleared that up.

mabriss lethe
2009-11-28, 03:56 AM
The best thing ToB brings to the table: The ability to make nearly any melee concept viable with little to no optimization required.

Races aren't nearly as important: It used to be that Size is King. The bigger you are, the better you are. so you almost had to start with a medium or better sized creature and then apply all your mojo into making him a capable of going on a rampage through Tokyo. While that's still a very valid point in D&D mechanics, using ToB, you can make a Goblin Warblade or a Pixie swordsage or a halfling crusader, and they'll still be able to hold their own.

Attributes aren't nearly as important: Yes, you still need a decent primary attack attribute, but making a finesse/low strength melee combatant isn't that difficult. As long as you've got enough bonus to hit a thing, you'll be able to pull down bonus damage and special effects from the maneuvers.

Feats aren't nearly as important: Feats are what makes damage happen in pre-ToB 3.5. Yes, they're still going to be very useful, but you no longer have to dump every feat into a micromanaged optimization just to stay viable.

ToB created a system of damage that is self-reliant. Sure, you can boost it even more with the same old traditional means as before to great effect....but you don't have to.

Yuki Akuma
2009-11-28, 06:59 AM
I want to make a pixie swordsage now.

I hope you're pleased with yourself.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:09 AM
I want to make a pixie swordsage now.

I hope you're pleased with yourself.

In line with that, I now find myself, for the first time ever, wanting to even learn more than the basics from my own ToB copy.

I'm furiously anti-ToB, but for some reason, this post have spurred my curiosity.

So thank you, I suppose. :smallsmile:

Project_Mayhem
2009-11-28, 07:11 AM
I'm furiously anti-ToB:

Given whats just been discussed, may I ask why?

Keld Denar
2009-11-28, 07:31 AM
New selling logo for ToB!

Tomb of Battle, not as hard to learn as Incarnum!

Print it!

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:32 AM
Given whats just been discussed, may I ask why?

Nothing specific, I suppose.

Just my personal opinion, just as I guess yours is pro-ToB.

Although I can't see why what's been discussed so far is inherently any better at advocating ToB as the best thing since toast, than any other ToB post I've seen so far. Just as I can't see why it should be more convincing than your run of the mill "ToB sucks" posts.

All it did was spur my interest enough to forget my bias for five minutes and actually open the damn book.

Maybe I'll switch sides, maybe I won't. I am anxious to see, anyway.


New selling logo for ToB!

Tomb of Battle, not as hard to learn as Incarnum!

Print it!

If that's true, ToB just got a positive notch up on my scale. :smallwink:

Project_Mayhem
2009-11-28, 07:39 AM
Nothing specific, I suppose.

Just my personal opinion, just as I guess yours is pro-ToB.

Although I can't see why what's been discussed so far is inherently any better at advocating ToB as the best thing since toast, than any other ToB post I've seen so far. Just as I can't see why it should be more convincing than your run of the mill "ToB sucks" posts.

All it did was spur my interest enough to forget my bias for five minutes and actually open the damn book.

Maybe I'll switch sides, maybe I won't. I am anxious to see, anyway.


Ah, you read me wrong - I wasn't talking 'bout all the pro arguments; I was refering more to Zeful's point about reasons for not using it.

I was just interested by the 'furiously anti' thing

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:49 AM
Ah, you read me wrong - I wasn't talking 'bout all the pro arguments; I was refering more to Zeful's point about reasons for not using it.

I was just interested by the 'furiously anti' thing

Ah, my bad. :smallbiggrin:

I am merely furiously anti-ToB in the sense that I never use it, and tend to stay away from ToB heavy games. As in, any ToB, mostly.

Cyanic
2009-11-28, 08:01 AM
ToB is pretty slick in play (from DM stance), however ..... some people saying they ban because they don't own a copy or they don't like the flavor need to get over themselves.

The DM is one player in a game that likely has 5 or more people. The DM should do what is fun for the group and only ban for the sake of balance, and even then ideally not ban material but work with the player to integrate something that works better. And if you don't own a copy, buy one, or ask the guy who wants to use it to borrow his, I bet he would be happy to let you.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:15 AM
ToB is pretty slick in play (from DM stance), however ..... some people saying they ban because they don't own a copy or they don't like the flavor need to get over themselves.

The DM is one player in a game that likely has 5 or more people. The DM should do what is fun for the group and only ban for the sake of balance, and even then ideally not ban material but work with the player to integrate something that works better. And if you don't own a copy, buy one, or ask the guy who wants to use it to borrow his, I bet he would be happy to let you.

Incidentally, not liking the flavor is an entirely subjective thing, so you can't really tell be to get over themselves and just buy a copy. They don't like the flavor, that's their choice, and if that permits them to ban it, then so be it.

You can try to debate your DM into allowing it if you want, that's your choice, but telling people to get over themselves because they don't agree with you is not particularly nice.

Some like the flavor, some don't, and really, we should just accept either viewpoint.

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 08:23 AM
Incidentally, not liking the flavor is an entirely subjective thing, so you can't really tell be to get over themselves and just buy a copy. They don't like the flavor, that's their choice, and if that permits them to ban it, then so be it.

You can try to debate your DM into allowing it if you want, that's your choice, but telling people to get over themselves because they don't agree with you is not particularly nice.

Some like the flavor, some don't, and really, we should just accept either viewpoint.

If you don't like the flavor, it can easily be rewritten. Fluff is always a subjective matter; the mechanics, however, are solid, balanced, and unmistakably fun. This is why I think people should use ToB.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:45 AM
If you don't like the flavor, it can easily be rewritten. Fluff is always a subjective matter; the mechanics, however, are solid, balanced, and unmistakably fun. This is why I think people should use ToB.

Which is fair enough.

I disagree, but that's not going to ruin any of the fun for you, as I undoubtably agree that you find it.

Oslecamo
2009-11-28, 08:49 AM
I disagree, but that's not going to ruin any of the fun for you, as I undoubtably agree that you find it.

What he said. Diferent people have diferent tastes. ToB filled a niche for certain more exotic tastes, but I've seen plenty of people having fun with non ToB melee classes, even when the book was allowed.

Zincorium
2009-11-28, 09:57 AM
ToB breaks what was an unspoken rule at one point- "non-spellcasting characters can't do magical things."

You can refluff everything in ToB as nothing except extraordinary training- but this isn't always satisfying to people who play things as presented. You can alter the class balance so that ToB is on the same tier as everyone else- but this isn't always acceptable to all of the players. You can ignore the people who scream 'but it isn't core!' and they'll be taken seriously regardless.

Tome of battle solves a problem that exists in all games- fighters cannot do unrealistic things, even at high levels, even with the right feat choices, while mages can stop time itself and laugh at everyone else for an entire round before putting everything into force cages. This is not to say that various people have not come up with other solutions- because they clearly have.

ToB is for people who haven't rigged the game and interpreted the mechanics oddly to correct for the imbalances of a problem that didn't exist for most of the game's existance, because really, they need it.

Also, ToB is awesome, in the sense that it's ingredients cause awe.

sonofzeal
2009-11-28, 10:07 AM
ToB breaks what was an unspoken rule at one point- "non-spellcasting characters can't do magical things."
There's plenty of "non-spellcasters" who do magical things. Crusader doesn't stretch suspension of disbelief any farther than Paladin, and Swordsage any farther than PsiWar or Bard. Even Monks and Rangers get some supernatural stuff.

There's only three out of eleven classes in core that don't get any supernatural stuff, and only half of the full-BAB classes are in that category. So what's wrong with some magical sword techniques? The book doesn't even claim they're all non-magical, as many of them come with a "this maneuver is a supernatural ability" qualifier.

In short, I fail to see the issue.



(edit - As for Warblades, I can't find a single maneuver on their lists that's clearly supernatural in origin. Several stray solidly into the realm of "action hero" like Conan or Xena, but that's hardly a bad thing in a heroic fantasy game like most D&D sessions)

BRC
2009-11-28, 10:15 AM
Can I just say, WHOO! SOMEBODY IS USING MY HOMEBREW!
This pleases me.

That said, I've never had an issue with Fighters being unable to keep up with Spellcasters, but I think that's more because of the group I play with (Low optimization, most spell casters go the blasty route) than because of the game itself.

Oslecamo
2009-11-28, 10:48 AM
Tome of battle solves a problem that exists in all games- fighters cannot do unrealistic things, even at high levels, even with the right feat choices, while mages can stop time itself and laugh at everyone else for an entire round before putting everything into force cages. This is not to say that various people have not come up with other solutions- because they clearly have.


O'rrly? Let's see what an high level fighter can do, just out the top of my head...
1-Swimming in lava.
2-Falling off cliffs and then geting up as if nothing had hapened.
3-Cuting tanks in half.

And the only feat I picked up for the above was power attack, something pretty much every melee character picks anyway.

Sure, it's not as good as stoping time, but last time I checked warblades aren't stoping time either, just moving really fast, and only doing more attacks with that extra speed.

Cedrass
2009-11-28, 10:53 AM
Can I just say, WHOO! SOMEBODY IS USING MY HOMEBREW!
This pleases me.

That said, I've never had an issue with Fighters being unable to keep up with Spellcasters, but I think that's more because of the group I play with (Low optimization, most spell casters go the blasty route) than because of the game itself.

Yes I do, and it's so much fun! :smallwink: We decided we'd be each other's clone, so we look alike, act alike, talk together. It's hard to pull off, but so worth it when it works!

Also, my group never used ToB to get on par with casters. We really only used it cause it made the warriors fun. "Oh, should I do this Boost and then charge with this Strike? Or maybe I could..." You get the point.


O'rrly? Let's see what an high level fighter can do, just out the top of my head...
1-Swimming in lava.
2-Falling off cliffs and then geting up as if nothing had hapened.
3-Cuting tanks in half.

And the only feat I picked up for the above was power attack, something pretty much every melee character picks anyway.

Sure, it's not as good as stoping time, but last time I checked warblades aren't stoping time either, just moving really fast, and only doing more attacks with that extra speed.

Assuming you get the Skills for this... Which I never do, for one, since I prefer having skills like Listen or Spot. and since warriors get the short hand of the stick, that's it really with my all mighty 2+int/level skil points!

sonofzeal
2009-11-28, 11:12 AM
Assuming you get the Skills for this... Which I never do, for one, since I prefer having skills like Listen or Spot. and since warriors get the short hand of the stick, that's it really with my all mighty 2+int/level skil points!
Hey, he didn't say swimming well. Untrained swim checks to stay afloat aren't hard, and lava's pretty darn boyant, that's probably a +10 circumstance bonus right there. The damage, well, that's what hitpoints are for.

Asbestos
2009-11-28, 12:55 PM
O'rrly? Let's see what an high level fighter can do, just out the top of my head...
1-Swimming in lava.
2-Falling off cliffs and then geting up as if nothing had hapened.
3-Cuting tanks in half.

And the only feat I picked up for the above was power attack, something pretty much every melee character picks anyway.

Sure, it's not as good as stoping time, but last time I checked warblades aren't stoping time either, just moving really fast, and only doing more attacks with that extra speed.

Power Attack prevents Massive Damage?

sonofzeal
2009-11-28, 12:56 PM
Power Attack prevents Massive Damage?
DC 15 Fort saves prevent Massive Damage.

And if he's falling less than 140', he probably won't have to deal with even that.

Glimbur
2009-11-28, 01:04 PM
New selling logo for ToB!

Tomb of Battle, not as hard to learn as Incarnum!

Print it!

What's harder to learn than Incarnum? I've only glanced at Binding, but that seems simpler. The only systems I'm not familiar with are Truenaming and Shadow Casting, plus some setting specific stuff like Spellfire. Shadow Casting is supposed to be a lot like Vancian casting, so is Truenaming more complicated than Incarnum? Or is Incarnum the best at something after all?

9mm
2009-11-28, 01:21 PM
What's harder to learn than Incarnum? I've only glanced at Binding, but that seems simpler. The only systems I'm not familiar with are Truenaming and Shadow Casting, plus some setting specific stuff like Spellfire. Shadow Casting is supposed to be a lot like Vancian casting, so is Truenaming more complicated than Incarnum? Or is Incarnum the best at something after all?

Incarnum is one of the most intimitateing system they made; because of two things: understanding binding to chachras; and an absolute refusual to simply use the same names as magic items slots.

It suffers the "Critted by a wall of text" phenomenon; because all it is "these classes get free magic gear" but is written in the most obtuse way possible.

sonofzeal
2009-11-28, 01:26 PM
What's harder to learn than Incarnum? I've only glanced at Binding, but that seems simpler. The only systems I'm not familiar with are Truenaming and Shadow Casting, plus some setting specific stuff like Spellfire. Shadow Casting is supposed to be a lot like Vancian casting, so is Truenaming more complicated than Incarnum? Or is Incarnum the best at something after all?
Incarnum's hardest, followed by Binding, mostly because both suffer from a superfluity of unnecessary elements and vast array of sudden new options that don't really resemble anything we'd seen before.

After that, I'd put Tome of Battle, the Ardent class, Truenaming, and Shadowcasting, roughly in that order. There's a few there I haven't played, but that's my understanding from my brief looks at them.

Now, I think ToB is totally worth learning anyway as it improves just about everyone (Wizards taking a feat to use Concentration for Fort? Booyah.)

ghashxx
2009-11-28, 01:28 PM
I have a serious problem with ToB that makes it practically abominable in my sight. When you make a ToB class then instead of just picking out feats like the rest of the fighters you also have to figure out all of your maneuvers!! It takes me long enough to figure out what I'm going to do with a simple fighter. Now I have all this extra stuff to figure out. Yet with all the extra hassle I can't stop tweaking and working on this Swordsage, I love the class! But seriously, ToB is fantastic for letting melee characters be closer to full spellcaster tier without requiring a month or more of heavy optimization. Either a month of prep work or you've done it before.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 01:32 PM
Also, ToB is awesome, in the sense that it's ingredients cause awe.

As mentioned, that's subjective.

I, personally, don't think that ToB is awesome. I do not stare at it's contents in awe.

But that is me. You may think it's made up of entirely pure awesome, and that's your prerogative.

Frog Dragon
2009-11-28, 01:38 PM
I personally like ToB, recommend ToB to Melee characters and use it a lot myself. A lot of my mundanes have a dash of ToB

About the difficulties of figuring systems out, I thought Binding was very simple. It's the Incarnum I just can't figure out.

HamHam
2009-11-28, 02:03 PM
Tome of Battle is the best 3.5 book bar none, and everyone should include it in their games. If you don't, you are wrong. Doesn't matter what your reason is, whatever it is it pails in comparison to the increase in fun, game balance, and general awesomeness that your game would have if you included ToB.

Grumman
2009-11-28, 02:12 PM
I have a serious problem with ToB that makes it practically abominable in my sight. When you make a ToB class then instead of just picking out feats like the rest of the fighters you also have to figure out all of your maneuvers!!
I'd say the opposite, actually: If you're creating a fighter, your choice of feats is essential - pick the wrong ones (and with traps like Monkey Grip, that is a significant risk) and you're no better than an NPC class. If you're creating a Warblade or Crusader there aren't really any bad options, and no matter what you're still tougher than the fighter. Hell, at first level I don't think it's possible for a Crusader to pick poorly: you've got to pick which 5 maneuvers you want, and you have 6 to choose from.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 02:17 PM
Tome of Battle is the best 3.5 book bar none, and everyone should include it in their games. If you don't, you are wrong. Doesn't matter what your reason is, whatever it is it pails in comparison to the increase in fun, game balance, and general awesomeness that your game would have if you included ToB.

Trolling, much?

Barring that; I disagree, simply because I am entitled to believe otherwise. I do respect your opinion, but contrary to what you're saying, I am not inherently wrong - merely of another disposition.

And for the record, I found books like Savage Species, Heroes of Horror, Libris Mortis and other books that introduced possibilities to play twists on regular dnd characteristics, such as an Archivist as opposed to the Cleric, and, say, an Imp as opposed to your average human, way more entertaining and enriching than ToB.

I'm sure it has many moments of shine, but it's not for me.

lesser_minion
2009-11-28, 03:03 PM
Tome of Battle is the best 3.5 book bar none, and everyone should include it in their games. If you don't, you are wrong. Doesn't matter what your reason is, whatever it is it pails in comparison to the increase in fun, game balance, and general awesomeness that your game would have if you included ToB.

Wrong. It is not the only way to improve fun, game balance, and general awesomeness in games, there may be good reasons not to use ToB, and there is no reason for it to be the best book to include in my games.

I won't dispute that it probably is the best-written book and best thought out book from what I've seen, but as it was a very late supplement, that shouldn't be a surprise. I don't see why I have to include it in my games though.

Most of my games are low-powered and unoptimised enough that a ToB character would potentially overpower them, in any event. My group doesn't own the book, we can't really afford to buy the book for what wouldn't actually be that much of a benefit, and certainly don't plan on pirating it.

Gensh
2009-11-28, 03:56 PM
My problem with ToB is that it so often becomes like the comic Id, which is to say that even though the classes in it are about on par with the casters, they stick out terribly when compared to the other ordinary folks and attention tends to gravitate towards them. As far as being overpowered goes, I'm usually the DM, so I disallowed the one player that knew about ToB to use it in my campaign, but sometimes the cleric runs his own game and allowed that same player to use a swordsage, while I used a not-useless rewrite of truenamer that I was worried about being OP. So far, out of the swordsage, paladin, truenamer, and ranger, the swordsage has gotten all the kills but one, and he only failed to get that one because it was a boss. Granted, part of the problem lies in that it's a low magic campaign (early 1800s Italy) and anything with flashy effects doesn't belong there anyway (which is why I picked truenamer - eerily chanting exorcist), but the fact remains that the other classes should have at least gotten one kill.

Keld Denar
2009-11-28, 04:43 PM
Picking maneuvers isn't terrible. There is a really really good post online called ToB for Dummies (google it), and at some point, there is a list of maneuvers seperated by discipline, sorted by ascending level, with their respective prereq # of maneuvers listed next to them. Once you get a general feel of what they do, that list is incredibly useful. After that, just draw out a simple table like I used here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5140212&postcount=11).
Maneuver/Spell Progression

{table=Header]IL|Level|[Gain]|(Lose)|{Stance}
1|Bard1||||
1|Bard2|[Inspirational Boost]|||
1|Bard3|[Grease]|||
2|Warblade1|[Moment of Perfect Mind] [Wolf Fang Strike] [Sudden Leap]|| {Leading the Charge}
3|Warblade2|[Action Before Thought]||
4|Warblade3|[Tactical Strike]||
5|Warblade4|[Mind over Body]|(Wolf Fang Strike)|{Leaping Dragon Stance}
6|Warblade5|[White Raven Tactics]||
7|Master Thrower1|||
8|Master Thrower2|||
8|Master Thrower3|||
9|Master Thrower4|||
9|Master Thrower5|||
10|Warblade6|[Dancing Mongoose]|(Action Before Thought)||
11|Warblade7|[Moment of Alacrity]||
12|Warblade8|[Order Forged from Chaos]|(Tactical Strike)|
13|Warblade9|[Clarion Call]||
14|Warblade10|[Quicksilver Motion]|(Mind over Body)|{Press the Advantage}
15|Warblade11|[Raging Mongoose]||
16|Warblade12|[Diamond Defense]|(Moment of Perfect Mind)|
[/table]

Takes about 10 seconds to draw out on a piece of scratch paper. Then just mark where you gain and trade manevuers, check your IL and the prereq list, and populate. That table is a little more complicated because its a multiclass between initiators and non-initiators, but it still wasn't that hard to set up. Once you've done one, doing others gets incredibly easy, and MOST of the time you aren't planning out level 20 builds anyway.

Boci
2009-11-28, 05:11 PM
My problem with ToB is that it so often becomes like the comic Id, which is to say that even though the classes in it are about on par with the casters, they stick out terribly when compared to the other ordinary folks and attention tends to gravitate towards them. As far as being overpowered goes, I'm usually the DM, so I disallowed the one player that knew about ToB to use it in my campaign, but sometimes the cleric runs his own game and allowed that same player to use a swordsage, while I used a not-useless rewrite of truenamer that I was worried about being OP. So far, out of the swordsage, paladin, truenamer, and ranger, the swordsage has gotten all the kills but one, and he only failed to get that one because it was a boss. Granted, part of the problem lies in that it's a low magic campaign (early 1800s Italy) and anything with flashy effects doesn't belong there anyway (which is why I picked truenamer - eerily chanting exorcist), but the fact remains that the other classes should have at least gotten one kill.

Ah yes the phantom ToB build that somehow overpowers everything else. I wondered when it would appear. Although this one is a bit more believable given that its only competition in melee were poorly written classes.

tyckspoon
2009-11-28, 05:20 PM
Ah yes the phantom ToB build that somehow overpowers everything else. I wondered when it would appear. Although this one is a bit more believable given that its only competition in melee were poorly written classes.

In a group with a Paladin, Ranger, and unspecified 'fixed' Truenamer? Yeah, I can see that. It probably points more at the ineffectiveness of the Paladin and Ranger, tho. Also, 'kills made' isn't a very good metric- it sticks out in memory more, but it disregards any contributions the rest of the group may have made toward letting the Swordsage finish off the foes (for example, I could imagine him regularly being higher in the Initiative count than most of the group, which would let him capitalize on anything the rest of the party did on the prior round.)

Salanmander
2009-11-28, 05:37 PM
Incidentally, not liking the flavor is an entirely subjective thing, so you can't really tell be to get over themselves and just buy a copy. They don't like the flavor, that's their choice, and if that permits them to ban it, then so be it.

You can try to debate your DM into allowing it if you want, that's your choice, but telling people to get over themselves because they don't agree with you is not particularly nice.

Some like the flavor, some don't, and really, we should just accept either viewpoint.

I don't think that Cyanic (quoted in spoiler below, since it's a ways back in the thread) was advising you to get over yourself and *like* it, I think he was advising you to get over yourself and *not ban* it. The idea is that, while you may dislike it for wholly personal reasons, it is very frustrating as a player to have the DM ban things for those reasons.

For an argument by example, let's say I'm in a gaming group in which everyone in the group likes to play core only. I happen to really enjoy playing monks. Someone else thinks that the flavor of monks doesn't fit in with the generally western style of D&D worlds. If that person DMs it is completely within their right to ban monks, but it sucks a lot for me.

In essence, your statement "I disagree, but that's not going to ruin any of the fun for you" applies to us, but is not necessarily true when directed at your players if you are banning ToB due to personal tastes.


Original post by Cyanic:

ToB is pretty slick in play (from DM stance), however ..... some people saying they ban because they don't own a copy or they don't like the flavor need to get over themselves.

The DM is one player in a game that likely has 5 or more people. The DM should do what is fun for the group and only ban for the sake of balance, and even then ideally not ban material but work with the player to integrate something that works better. And if you don't own a copy, buy one, or ask the guy who wants to use it to borrow his, I bet he would be happy to let you.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-28, 05:42 PM
For an argument by example, let's say I'm in a gaming group in which everyone in the group likes to play core only. I happen to really enjoy playing monks. Someone else thinks that the flavor of monks doesn't fit in with the generally western style of D&D worlds. If that person DMs it is completely within their right to ban monks, but it sucks a lot for me.


http://www.newdimensiongames.com/images/Gamers%20Dorkness%20Rising%202.jpg

Edwin
2009-11-28, 05:49 PM
I don't think that Cyanic (quoted in spoiler below, since it's a ways back in the thread) was advising you to get over yourself and *like* it, I think he was advising you to get over yourself and *not ban* it. The idea is that, while you may dislike it for wholly personal reasons, it is very frustrating as a player to have the DM ban things for those reasons.

For an argument by example, let's say I'm in a gaming group in which everyone in the group likes to play core only. I happen to really enjoy playing monks. Someone else thinks that the flavor of monks doesn't fit in with the generally western style of D&D worlds. If that person DMs it is completely within their right to ban monks, but it sucks a lot for me.

In essence, your statement "I disagree, but that's not going to ruin any of the fun for you" applies to us, but is not necessarily true when directed at your players if you are banning ToB due to personal tastes.


If the DM's setting doesn't have what could appropriately portrayed as monks, he is, as you said, entirely within his right to ban it.

For example, if a DM had a very tightly focused campaign world of Knights and Wizards, having a class with a more.. oriental feel to it, like the monk, may simple not be applicable in his campaign. Same goes for ToB.

Otherwise, one could simple turn an argument used against people who does not like the flavor of ToB:


If you don't like the flavor, it can easily be rewritten. Fluff is always a subjective matter; the mechanics, however, are solid, balanced, and unmistakably fun.

If one can be permitted to shoehorn ToB into a game because they refluff it, then refluffing the flavor of the monk can be used for the same application.

Once again, I'm not saying that ToB is a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's not my kind of book, and as such, I would rather play a game not using it, than one using it. As a DM, I would ban it. Sure, it may suck for you, but if you allow it when you DM, it sucks for me.

Karmarific, eh? :smallsmile:

Edit: Damn, that picture made me laugh a bit too hard for my own good. :smallwink:

Boci
2009-11-28, 05:58 PM
Once again, I'm not saying that ToB is a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's not my kind of book, and as such, I would rather play a game not using it, than one using it. As a DM, I would ban it. Sure, it may suck for you, but if you allow it when you DM, it sucks for me.

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.

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 06:03 PM
If one can be permitted to shoehorn ToB into a game because they refluff it, then refluffing the flavor of the monk can be used for the same application.

I think you missed something in that quote of mine. Allow me to emphasize :

...the mechanics, however, are solid, balanced, and unmistakably fun.

This is not necessarily true of monks, regardless of their fluff. Swordsages can perform well in most settings. Monks... often can't.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 06:05 PM
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.

First of all, I hardly ever DM anything, so I don't really ban anything.

However, I would ban it if I were DM'ing, but not for flavor reason. No, I would ban simply because I do not like ToB. Personal opinion, that's all. If you can't play DnD without ToB, that's your call.

Edit: Well, the mechanical part wasn't really essential to my argument. I was only talking about changing the fluff.

Wether a monk is a good class, is mostly seen as a "hell no". Wether monk is a playable class, flavor or no flavor, is debatable. And I'm a yes-man when it comes to that.

Boci
2009-11-28, 06:07 PM
First of all, I hardly ever DM anything, so I don't really ban anything.

However, I would ban it if I were DM'ing, but not for flavor reason. No, I would ban simply because I do not like ToB. Personal opinion, that's all. If you can't play DnD without ToB, that's your call.

That is really bad DMing. I have a pattern of my own PC, but I never force that one my players.

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 06:09 PM
First of all, I hardly ever DM anything, so I don't really ban anything.

However, I would ban it if I were DM'ing, but not for flavor reason. No, I would ban simply because I do not like ToB. Personal opinion, that's all. If you can't play DnD without ToB, that's your call.

I see; it seems we're just of vastly differing mindsets. I don't enjoy arbitrarily restricting the way another person would enjoy the game based on personal whim.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 06:10 PM
That is really bad DMing. I have a pattern of my own PC, but I never force that one my players.

That's your opinion. Though I suppose you should just be happy I'm not a DM, then.

And I don't see how I'm forcing anything on anyone.

Edit:


I see; it seems we're just of vastly differing mindsets. I don't enjoy arbitrarily restricting the way another person would enjoy the game based on personal whim.

We definitely have different mindsets, of course we do.

Also, then what would you restrict? Nothing? 'Cause you can't really berate me for banning ToB if you're banning something else because it's not something you'd want in your game.

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 06:15 PM
We definitely have different mindsets, of course we do.

Also, then what would you restrict? Nothing? 'Cause you can't really berate me for banning ToB if you're banning something else because it's not something you'd want in your game.

I said nothing about not restricting anything. Were I to restrict material, I would produce actuals reasons for it, aside from, you know, 'just because I don't like it.'

I would restrict abusive material; I wouldn't pick a random spell school and be like "Surprise! You can't cast these because I feel like it!"

GallóglachMaxim
2009-11-28, 06:20 PM
I like the options in TOB, especially having more control over the character's capabilities (maneuvers > feats, in that area) but unfortunately the only people in my regular group who DM are either myself, or the other guy who ran a campaign with four TOB characters, who were completely unstoppable and made him decide that it was overpowered.

(No, 'imagine what a party of four wizards might have done' didn't help)

I'm going to avoid weighing in on 'best thing ever' until I actually get to play a game using it.

Boci
2009-11-28, 06:24 PM
Also, then what would you restrict? Nothing? 'Cause you can't really berate me for banning ToB if you're banning something else because it's not something you'd want in your game.

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.


That's your opinion.

Shared by quite a few others. D&D is about fun, so if one player can have more fun if you allow ToB why wouldn't you allow it?


or the other guy who ran a campaign with four TOB characters, who were completely unstoppable and made him decide that it was overpowered.

The whole party was ToB and he couldn't chalalnge them. wtf? He could have justed uped the CR of the encounters.

Shyftir
2009-11-28, 06:26 PM
I have a group of friends possessing nothing but core, the mini-manual, and spell compendium. I contribute PBH2 to this mix. I have another group with most of the books. In order to play with that group I have pdfs for character creation so I don't have to do it all there. Do you have any idea what its like to go from having the vast majority of the resources, to having almost nothing? It's horribly infuriating. This is why I hate it when DMs restrict unless they have excellent reasons. (Read: horribly broken builds) DMs restricting can severely hamper a player's fun.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 06:26 PM
I said nothing about not restricting anything. Were I to restrict material, I would produce actuals reasons for it, aside from, you know, 'just because I don't like it.'

That's a bit of stretch.

I'm not banning ToB because "I felt like it", but because I don't find it particularly fun, I tend not to play games with appropriate flavor, and it's all a bit too 4e'ish to me. And I'll tell you something; I am not particularly fond of using a mechanic that strikes me as boo boo, to use the vernacular.


I would restrict abusive material; I wouldn't pick a random spell school and be like "Surprise! You can't cast these because I feel like it!"

And as for this, I don't get your meaning? I wouldn't have the PC's make their sheets, start the game, and the first time the Swordsage uses a maneuver shout: "Surprise, I'm banning ToB. No editing".

Edit: And to all you guys who posted while I wrote this; this is really a none-issue, since I never DM anything, and I'm never going to ban anything.

I don't like ToB from a players viewpoint, not as a DM.

Boci
2009-11-28, 06:30 PM
That's a bit of stretch.

I'm not banning ToB because "I felt like it",

That is exactly what you said earlier.
No, I would ban simply because I do not like ToB.


but because I don't find it particularly fun,

What if a PC does?


I tend not to play games with appropriate flavor,

Fighters have the same flavour as warblades so I hope you banned fighters as well.



and it's all a bit too 4e'ish to me.

No at will powers, automatically rechargable encounter powers and no daily powers. Not really seeing the blinding similarities.


And I'll tell you something; I am not particularly fond of using a mechanic that strikes me as boo boo, to use the vernacular.

Not quite sure what you mean. You do know the manouver system is reasonably accurate at portaying real life combat?

Edwin
2009-11-28, 06:34 PM
I don't see why you have this overpowering need to debate me on this?

I am in no way saying that there is anything wrong with using the ToB, or that it is a bad book, I am just saying that, as a player, I wouldn't use it.

Why is that so hard to accept?

Boci
2009-11-28, 06:39 PM
I don't see why you have this overpowering need to debate me on this?

I am in no way saying that there is anything wrong with using the ToB, or that it is a bad book, I am just saying that, as a player, I wouldn't use it.

Why is that so hard to accept?

Not using it as a player is fine, its your choice, although I recomend becoming more familiar with it. Saying you wouldn't allow it as a DM because you do not like it is a very bad trait.

sonofzeal
2009-11-28, 06:40 PM
We definitely have different mindsets, of course we do.

Also, then what would you restrict? Nothing? 'Cause you can't really berate me for banning ToB if you're banning something else because it's not something you'd want in your game.
I can't speak for aethernox, but the only thing I ban on sight is Complete Champion, mostly because it's completely ludicrous and rather horribly written.

To repost something I said ages ago - every single time I open that book, I find something new that offends my sensibilities. "Spontanious Divination", "Travel Devotion", and "Fist of the Forests" are merely the ones that come up the most; how about "Animal Devotion" for a +8 sacred bonus to strength? Does that sound like something that makes sense for a feat?

Or, as totally random example, take the Shadowspy PrC - not that it's broken, just that it's horribly ambiguous. Is the "divine bonus" of Aura of Anonymity the same as a "sacred bonus" or not; would it stack with other sacred bonuses or is it something else entirely that I've never seen used for anything else? Radiance of Pelor creates lights "that shine as brightly as the sun"; do they dust vampires then? Does Personal Eclipse mean you can actually hide better in light than in darkness, and is it a swift or free action? Why is Veil of Pelor and Truth of the Light (Sp), and Sun's Revelation and Vision of Pelor (Su)?

/rant



....compare that to ToB. In the entire book, there's only two poor-writing issues: what Iron Heart Surge works on (ambiguous), and whether White Raven Tactics works on yourself (RAW and RAI seem to disagree). There's also one stance that can't be acquired without creative multiclassing or use of a feat. The rest is powerful but exquisitely balanced within itself and unambiguous to run.

That said, I can think of a few reasons not to use it...

1) Don't have the book. Kinda a gimme there.

2) Having to learn it. It's probably harder to pick up than Psi or Invokers, but easier than Incarnum or Binding. Still, you do have to learn it, and for some people that's a hardship. I think a decent DM should take the time and effort though.

3) Don't like Action Heroes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ActionHero). 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.

Salanmander
2009-11-28, 06:41 PM
I don't see why you have this overpowering need to debate me on this?

I am in no way saying that there is anything wrong with using the ToB, or that it is a bad book, I am just saying that, as a player, I wouldn't use it.

Why is that so hard to accept?

"As a player I wouldn't use it" is perfectly easy to accept, and would have gotten no argument.

"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.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 06:43 PM
Not using it as a player is fine, its your choice, although I recomend becoming more familiar with it. Saying you wouldn't allow it as a DM because you do not like it is a very bad trait.

I am as familiar with it as I need to be, in my opinion.

And I do not believe it is a bad trait to steer clear of things you dislike.


"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

What about things like monster classes? A lot of DM's ban that. What if I find those really, really fun? Is that a bad DM for enforcing that decision on me?

How about LA races? How about Complete Champion, to take the above example?

DM's force their preferences on people everyday, and that's DnD. I was saying that you probably shouldn't force people to adopt your opinion on the book itself. If someone is anti-ToB, you don't force him to change his viewpoints. But if you're a DM, he is playing the game under the premise you set for him.

If that doesn't involve ToB, that should be perfectly acceptable. Not that it matters much with me, since I'm speaking strictly as a player.

Boci
2009-11-28, 06:46 PM
I am as familiar with it as I need to be, in my opinion.

Then to me it seems you need to better learn how to detach fluff and mechanics, given how much you talked a bout the flavour of ToB. That is benefial no matter what you play in D&D.


And I do not believe it is a bad trait to steer clear of things you dislike.

Is it when your job is to create a fun world for PCs. And I know the DM is also entitled to his fun but if allowing a PC to use ToB will ruin it then he has some problem.

arguskos
2009-11-28, 06:46 PM
To those saying "you shouldn't ban things you don't enjoy", uh, does the DM NOT get a say in what's fun? If the DM hates the damn thing, for whatever reason, and it ruins his fun, should it really be around? It seems that what everyone here is saying is "yes, the DM should suck up and take it like a man"... in which case, I pity your DMs, who surely must be suffering even as we speak.

Since I'd like to believe you're all reasonable folks, care to explain why the DM is expected to just suffer through something for his players, but they aren't expected to make some allowances for his preferences?

Boci
2009-11-28, 06:49 PM
To those saying "you shouldn't ban things you don't enjoy", uh, does the DM NOT get a say in what's fun? If the DM hates the damn thing, for whatever reason, and it ruins his fun, should it really be around? It seems that what everyone here is saying is "yes, the DM should suck up and take it like a man"... in which case, I pity your DMs, who surely must be suffering even as we speak.

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.


Since I'd like to believe you're all reasonable folks, care to explain why the DM is expected to just suffer through something for his players, but they aren't expected to make some allowances for his preferences?

He doesn't have to play the class, just allow someone esle to. How is having a wizard at the table ruining your fun as a DM is you do not like wizards?

Edwin
2009-11-28, 06:50 PM
To those saying "you shouldn't ban things you don't enjoy", uh, does the DM NOT get a say in what's fun? If the DM hates the damn thing, for whatever reason, and it ruins his fun, should it really be around? It seems that what everyone here is saying is "yes, the DM should suck up and take it like a man"... in which case, I pity your DMs, who surely must be suffering even as we speak.

Since I'd like to believe you're all reasonable folks, care to explain why the DM is expected to just suffer through something for his players, but they aren't expected to make some allowances for his preferences?

Oh sweet intervention. This, this right here is exactly what I was trying, inadequately it seems, to lob over the proverbial desk.

Edit: There's a big difference between a wizard and the entire ToB.

That being said, if the DM feels that wizards ruin his campaign with all their flashy magic, he could ban it.

arguskos
2009-11-28, 06:52 PM
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.
That's fair. It's also not even remotely similar. Banning a key attribute, and banning a supplement, something specifically designed to be optional, are somewhat different in my mind. Perhaps not in yours, that's true. It's also tangential to my question.


He doesn't have to play the class, just allow someone esle to. How is having a wizard at the table ruining your fun as a DM is you do not like wizards?
Perhaps, their presense aggravates him. Perhaps, the flavor or mechanics or WHATEVER drive him up a wall, to the point that the mere mention of "White Raven" or "Stone Hammer" makes him grind his teeth. The reasons are his own, and there's no changing those. Let's not berate someone for preferences, and answer my very simple question: you are asking the DM to suffer for his players. Why can't they make an allowance for him too?

Boci
2009-11-28, 06:52 PM
Oh sweet intervention. This, this right here is exactly what I was trying, inadequately it seems, to lob over the proverbial desk.

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.

Salanmander
2009-11-28, 06:53 PM
To those saying "you shouldn't ban things you don't enjoy", uh, does the DM NOT get a say in what's fun? If the DM hates the damn thing, for whatever reason, and it ruins his fun, should it really be around? It seems that what everyone here is saying is "yes, the DM should suck up and take it like a man"... in which case, I pity your DMs, who surely must be suffering even as we speak.

Since I'd like to believe you're all reasonable folks, care to explain why the DM is expected to just suffer through something for his players, but they aren't expected to make some allowances for his preferences?

Basically it comes down to this in my head: it seems petulant to claim that someone else playing a class you don't think is enjoyable ruins your game experience.

arguskos
2009-11-28, 06:55 PM
Basically it comes down to this in my head: it seems petulant to claim that someone else playing a class you don't think is enjoyable ruins your game experience.
Well, sometimes it DOES. I know people who get pissy over dumber things, such as NPCs who adventure with the party. Why should that matter at all? It doesn't hurt the PCs, and it's good RP fodder, but some folks can't stand it. It doesn't seem fair to call those folks petulant, immature, or a bunch of other mean words. Same deal here.

Boci
2009-11-28, 06:56 PM
That's fair. It's also not even remotely similar. Banning a key attribute, and banning a supplement, something specifically designed to be optional, are somewhat different in my mind. Perhaps not in yours, that's true. It's also tangential to my question.

Banning DMs is definatly not as severe but its the same idea. You're banning something you do not like, even though it would increase a aplyers enjoyment.


Perhaps, their presense aggravates him. Perhaps, the flavor or mechanics or WHATEVER drive him up a wall, to the point that the mere mention of "White Raven" or "Stone Hammer" makes him grind his teeth. The reasons are his own, and there's no changing those. Let's not berate someone for preferences, and answer my very simple question: you are asking the DM to suffer for his players. Why can't they make an allowance for him too?

What.THE.HELL? Its a game, its meant to be fun. How can one class drive a DM up the wall? I cannot imagine it happening. And as for "The reasons are his own", if you can to a game and was told that all core classes are banned, would you want to hear a reason why?


Well, sometimes it DOES. I know people who get pissy over dumber things, such as NPCs who adventure with the party. Why should that matter at all? It doesn't hurt the PCs, and it's good RP fodder, but some folks can't stand it. It doesn't seem fair to call those folks petulant, immature, or a bunch of other mean words. Same deal here.

NPCs is entierly different. Maybe he wants to know that each member of the party has a human counter part. Thats reasonable. Getting up set over another's character isn't. Can I complain over an NPCs class?



Edit: There's a big difference between a wizard and the entire ToB.

yep. One was made in core, where all the mistakes were made.


That being said, if the DM feels that wizards ruin his campaign with all their flashy magic, he could ban it.

At least thats a reason not just "I feel like it"

jmbrown
2009-11-28, 06:57 PM
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.

He doesn't have to play the class, just allow someone esle to. How is having a wizard at the table ruining your fun as a DM is you do not like wizards?

Because you're not prepared or don't want to prepare the extra material to handle the new mechanics. Like I mentioned earlier in this topic, I've never read Tome of Battle and probably never will. I'm not going to allow Tome of Battle characters because I've never played it and thus can't balance encounters against a character from it.

People also ban spells like conjuration (teleport) and polymorph. These make up like 1% of 3E's spell list but the DM has the right to call it and if a player suddenly finds the entirety of the game no fun because he was dead set on playing a single character, too bad. Nothing is forcing them to play in my game.

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 07:00 PM
Perhaps, their presense aggravates him. Perhaps, the flavor or mechanics or WHATEVER drive him up a wall, to the point that the mere mention of "White Raven" or "Stone Hammer" makes him grind his teeth. The reasons are his own, and there's no changing those. Let's not berate someone for preferences, and answer my very simple question: you are asking the DM to suffer for his players. Why can't they make an allowance for him too?

I was under the impression that Edwin didn't DM. :smallwink:

Agreed, there is quite a difference between a wizard and the ToB; one is much more well balanced.

Pointlessly restricting access to a fair, well-made supplement while allowing others freely simply because it isn't your cup of tea, regardless of the wishes of the other players, is... somewhat unfair, to say the least.

arguskos
2009-11-28, 07:01 PM
What.THE.HELL? Its a game, its meant to be fun. How can one class drive a DM up the wall? I cannot imagine it happening.
All I'm saying here is that some people really get aggravated over stupid stuff. It happens, we all have our pet peeves that set us off. Some folks hate psionics for no real reason, some hate ToB, some hate Republicans, some hate mashed potatoes, who the hell knows?

All I know is that what's going on here is one dude says "I don't like ToB, and don't allow it, and it works for me" and everyone else goes "but your players might in theory like it, so you should allow it, even if you hate it!" and he goes "but... then I'm not having fun..." and no one seems to notice or care. Seemed unfair, was all.

I'm not here to tell anyone else how to have fun, nor defend Edwin, nor attack you. I'm just here to say that the attitude of "the DM can suck it" isn't a good one either. With that, I've said my piece, and I'm probably gonna bug out, since there's no changing minds on this issue, never has been. :smallwink:

If you wish to continue this Boci, Salanmander, or whomever, I have a PM Box. Otherwise, my 2cp are in. :smallcool:

@aethernox: Yes, it is unfair. Life isn't fair though. In any case, doing something that makes the DM grind his teeth isn't fair to him, is it? Yes, he needs to be fair to the players, BUT the players have to respect his wishes too, since he's trying to have fun as well. It's a two-way street. Anyways, NOW I'm out. :smallcool: (For realz)

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:01 PM
Well, saying that it doesn't affect the DM that someone plays a ToB character is not really true.

He will still be forced to handle the mechanics application on his game. Now if the DM, as Arguskos said, grinds his teeth whenever someone mentions White Raven, well then it'll ruin his fun alright.

Boci
2009-11-28, 07:01 PM
Because you're not prepared or don't want to prepare the extra material to handle the new mechanics. Like I mentioned earlier in this topic, I've never read Tome of Battle and probably never will. I'm not going to allow Tome of Battle characters because I've never played it and thus can't balance encounters against a character from it.

Better than I don't feel like it. But what if you had a friend who you trusted and who understood ToB and was willing to explain it to you. Would you allow it then?


People also ban spells like conjuration (teleport) and polymorph. These make up like 1% of 3E's spell list but the DM has the right to call it and if a player suddenly finds the entirety of the game no fun because he was dead set on playing a single character, too bad. Nothing is forcing them to play in my game.

Yes but conjuration (teleport) and polymorph aren't vital for a fun and competant wizard. ToB is much more important for melee.

Cedrass
2009-11-28, 07:03 PM
I am as familiar with it as I need to be, in my opinion.

And I do not believe it is a bad trait to steer clear of things you dislike.



What about things like monster classes? A lot of DM's ban that. What if I find those really, really fun? Is that a bad DM for enforcing that decision on me?

How about LA races? How about Complete Champion, to take the above example?

DM's force their preferences on people everyday, and that's DnD. I was saying that you probably shouldn't force people to adopt your opinion on the book itself. If someone is anti-ToB, you don't force him to change his viewpoints. But if you're a DM, he is playing the game under the premise you set for him.

If that doesn't involve ToB, that should be perfectly acceptable. Not that it matters much with me, since I'm speaking strictly as a player.

What bothers people is that you ban stuff, simply on a "I don't like it" basis. In my games, I banned the Celerity-line of spells. Not because I don't like them (well, I don't), but because they are overpowered and have proven so in an old campaign we played. When I banned them, I told my players I did because of this; they are overpowered.

I don't like Wizards to be honnest. I think any class should have a limit on how much ressources they can get. However those guys can have any spell, in any book (subject to my decision of course, but I feel like banning spells in a book is a bad thing to do since there are some nice and flavorful spells. Individual spells is ok, sine I can judge individually if I think it is too powerful or not). I won't ban them though, since it's not reason enough to do so. One of my player just can't get enough of all the choice, the versatility and all.

I got carried... What I'm trying to say is, you can't ban cause you don't like. Ban things based on how much it ruins the game, for your players. A DM's job is to make sure they have fun.What I do when a player wants to use something new in one of my games is I ask him the book, so I can read it, and when I'm still in doubt, I ask here what's the general opinion. Most of the time, people also warn you against usual tricks players can try and pull off.

That being said, I don't play in your games, I'm just hoping this will help you open up and give more options to your players.

Edit: Just read arguskos' comment. I guess he's right... I won't delete my post, but I'll just add that this isn't some sort of judgement on my part or something like that. Take it as you will really. D&D is your game, and I have my D&D. That being said, I have a Warblade to roll! :smalltongue:

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:03 PM
Yes but conjuration (teleport) and polymorph aren't vital for a fun and competant wizard. ToB is much more important for melee.

Why?

I've played plenty of none-ToB melees, and I've had plenty of fun doing so.

Boci
2009-11-28, 07:04 PM
All I'm saying here is that some people really get aggravated over stupid stuff. It happens, we all have our pet peeves that set us off. Some folks hate psionics for no real reason, some hate ToB, some hate Republicans, some hate mashed potatoes, who the hell knows?

So shouldn't we teach them not to get aggrivated over stupid stuff?


All I know is that what's going on here is one dude says "I don't like ToB, and don't allow it, and it works for me" and everyone else goes "but your players might in theory like it, so you should allow it, even if you hate it!" and he goes "but... then I'm not having fun..." and no one seems to notice or care. Seemed unfair, was all.

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.

Boci
2009-11-28, 07:06 PM
Why?

I've played plenty of none-ToB melees, and I've had plenty of fun doing so.

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.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:07 PM
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.

Not one class. The mechanics of ToB.

Fighters wouldn't be able to get maneuvers through feats either.

Edit:


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. Ect.

Interestingly, I didn't mention any of that. In fact, I said I had fun not using ToB. Those problems didn't really bother me that much, and I didn't really encounter them as much as people make it out to be.

jmbrown
2009-11-28, 07:08 PM
Better than I don't feel like it. But what if you had a friend who you trusted and who understood ToB and was willing to explain it to you. Would you allow it then?

If they explained it to me? No. If they leant me the book so I could read it ear to ear, take in the mechanics, and incorporate the mechanics into my own NPC fighters? Yes.

I like having a full understanding of material I'm working with and I also want everyone else to have the same choice. I'm an "all or nothing" kind of guy. If one person has access to material, everyone should have access to it or at least be aware that it's an option. If one person wants material from PHBII but everyone at the table has only read core, I'll ask them if it's okay that this new player wants to be a beguiler or whatever.

Boci
2009-11-28, 07:09 PM
Not one class. The mechanics of ToB.

The player keeps track of them. How is it that the fact that the fighter takes a standard action to attack a targets touch AC instead of full attacking ruins your fun in the game?


If they explained it to me? No. If they leant me the book so I could read it ear to ear, take in the mechanics, and incorporate the mechanics into my own NPC fighters? Yes.

I like having a full understanding of material I'm working with and I also want everyone else to have the same choice. I'm an "all or nothing" kind of guy. If one person has access to material, everyone should have access to it or at least be aware that it's an option. If one person wants material from PHBII but everyone at the table has only read core, I'll ask them if it's okay that this new player wants to be a beguiler or whatever.

That perfectly reasnable. You do know the entire list of manouvers and the warblade class is avaialble online?



Interestingly, I didn't mention any of that. In fact, I said I had fun not using ToB. Those problems didn't really bother me that much, and I didn't really encounter them as much as people make it out to be.

What about full attacking being your only option? And how were they not an issue? Were save or suck spells not used against you?

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:11 PM
The player keeps track of them. How is it that the fact that the fighter takes a standard action to attack a targets touch AC instead of full attacking ruins your fun in the game?

Probably wouldn't.

And it really shouldn't matter, either, since I've been repeatedly telling you that I've have absolutely nothing against other people using ToB, I simply refrain from using it myself.

And, not that it comes up, that includes not using it as a DM.


What about full attacking being your only option?

Uh, it's not? There are plenty of feats out there that gives a fighter additional options besides full attacking.

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 07:13 PM
Not one class. The mechanics of ToB.

... you had led me to believe that you didn't like the flavor. I was seemingly mistaken. Do entirely metagame concepts really matter so? Does a Warblade using Disarming Strike instead of Disarm really irk you so? Does the fact that a Crusader can Divine Surge for extra damage rather than power attack for what could easily be much more damage seem wrong to you?

I don't know, it justs seems to me that the mechanics are the single most solid part of the ToB, and that the ToB's mechanics are among the best in 3.5, along with power point casting.

Boci
2009-11-28, 07:14 PM
Probably wouldn't.

And it really shouldn't matter, either, since I've been repeatedly telling you that I've have absolutely nothing against other people using ToB, I simply refrain from using it myself.

And, not that it comes up, that includes not using it as a DM.

You don't have to use it as a Dm, but why would you deny it to your players?


Uh, it's not? There are plenty of feats out there that gives a fighter additional options besides full attacking.

Such as? I know theres shock trooper and some other charge feats. but I can't think of many others.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:16 PM
I don't know, it justs seems to me that the mechanics are the single most solid part of the ToB, and that the ToB's mechanics are among the best in 3.5, along with power point casting.

Seems to you, yes.

I am not of that opinion. Why can't you respect that I don't share your viewpoint?

Boci
2009-11-28, 07:16 PM
Seems to you, yes.

I am not of that opinion. Why can't you respect that I don't share your viewpoint?

Because we don't understand it? If you explained in a way we accepted it I'm sure we would respect it. Do you understand my arguments?

As a PC you do not want to use ToB. I believe you're missing out, but I'm willing to chalk it up as differences in taste. Not allowing it as a DM? Thats where we have a disagreement.

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 07:20 PM
Seems to you, yes.

I am not of that opinion. Why can't you respect that I don't share your viewpoint?

I did not mean to seem disrespectful; my sincerest apologies. I simply enjoy conversation on boards suited for it. I may have been overly zealous for a time.

You have, admittedly, been more than slightly confusing to me.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:24 PM
Because we don't understand it? If you explained in a way we accepted it I'm sure we would respect it. Do you understand my arguments?

As a PC you do not want to use ToB. I believe you're missing out, but I'm willing to chalk it up as differences in taste. Not allowing it as a DM? Thats where we have a disagreement.

No reason to get rude here, man.

Considering that I know what the ToB mechanics actually entails, and that I still feel reluctant to use them, I would say it's safe to assume I am not missing out on anything.

And I can't really explain it, I'm afraid. ToB is simply not for me. I don't see why that should really be any of your concern, as I have made no attempt to tell you to feel as I do. Your own opinion, whatever it may be, is yours, and I respect it wether it's stupid or sound.

But really, we're not accomplishing anything here. Wouldn't it be more prudent to cut the arguments and save ourselves the energy?

Edit:
I did not mean to seem disrespectful; my sincerest apologies. I simply enjoy conversation on boards suited for it. I may have been overly zealous for a time.

It's fine, I can take the beating. :smallsmile:

I enjoy discussions as much as the next guy, but I do prefer to cut them short once they derive into what we have here.

Boci
2009-11-28, 07:30 PM
No reason to get rude here, man.

I'm not being rude I'm just saying I do not understnad your argument. I'm trying to change that.


Considering that I know what the ToB mechanics actually entails, and that I still feel reluctant to use them, I would say it's safe to assume I am not missing out on anything.

I accept that the missing out is an opinion and I'm willing to chalk it up as a different in taste. Just some of your comments lead me to think you have a problem adapting/bending the crunch and fluff provided by books.


And I can't really explain it, I'm afraid. ToB is simply not for me.

Thats fine, but why must you turn that into not for anyone at my table if I DM?


I don't see why that should really be any of your concern, as I have made no attempt to tell you to feel as I do.

Some people have gone to ToB thread hating it and come away liking it. I argue to change people because I believe its good.


Your own opinion, whatever it may be, is yours, and I respect it wether it's stupid or sound.

Don't respect opnions that you find stupid. If you can't be bothered to argue to change them then just agree to disagree, but don't respect them.


But really, we're not accomplishing anything here. Wouldn't it be more prudent to cut the arguments and save ourselves the energy?

Unfortunatly I like debating too much.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:35 PM
Some people have gone to ToB thread hating it and come away liking it. I argue to change people because I believe its good.

Good for you. Not for everyone else.


Don't respect opnions that you find stupid. If you can't be bothered to argue to change them then just agree to disagree, but don't respect them.

.. What kind of logic is that? Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean I shouldn't respect that someone feels that way? And besides, who are you tell me what to do?


Unfortunatly I like debating too much.

So, what, you're going to keep berating me until I cave and say that ToB is the best book ever?

Boci
2009-11-28, 07:37 PM
Good for you. Not for everyone else.

I have no way of knowing who will change and who won't.


.. What kind of logic is that? Just because I disagree wit something doesn't mean I shouldn't respect that someone feels that way? And besides, who are you tell me what to do?

Theres a difference between disagreeing with someon's opnions and thinking their stupid. I'm saying you should respect the former but not the latter. Thats much opinion.


So, what, you're going to keep berating me until I cave and say that ToB is the best book ever?

I'll give it a try.

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 07:38 PM
So, what, you're going to keep berating me until I cave and say that ToB is the best book ever?

I'm up for it if you are.

But, seriously, I do suppose that this is the time to end this digression.

On another note, there's a sample character in the ToB who I think would make a pleasant avatar, and your signature implies that you could possibly (or... not, considering) be willing to indulge me. :smallwink:

arguskos
2009-11-28, 07:40 PM
On another note, there's a sample character in the ToB who I think would make a pleasant avatar, and your signature implies that you could possibly (or... not, considering) be willing to indulge me. :smallwink:
Cause I'm curious, which pic? Page numbers rock, btw. :smallwink: ToB had a nice page layout and decent art, so I'm curious (also, I love the Reth Dekala's in the back).

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:42 PM
I have no way of knowing who will change and who won't.

No, but that still doesn't mean that your opinion, being that it's good, is anymore right than the guy saying it sucks is. Why should they have any reason to give in when you're blatantly stating that you wont?


Theres a difference between disagreeing with someon's opnions and thinking their stupid. I'm saying you should respect the former but not the latter. Thats much opinion.

Raising the cap for buying cigarettes from 16 to 18 was stupid too, that doesn't mean I should ignore it.


I'll give it a try.

How can you say that and then judge me for wanting to ban ToB from my games, if I ever were to DM? It's not like it's a positive word.


On another note, there's a sample character in the ToB who I think would make a pleasant avatar, and your signature implies that you could possibly (or... not, considering) be willing to indulge me.

Sure, what page?

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 07:43 PM
Cause I'm curious, which pic? Page numbers rock, btw. :smallwink: ToB had a nice page layout and decent art, so I'm curious (also, I love the Reth Dekala's in the back).

Aedar, Eternal Blade, ToB 111.
Because Diamond Mind is cool.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:44 PM
Aedar, Eternal Blade, ToB 111.
Because Diamond Mind is cool.

The dude with the unfashionable hair-style and the green cloak?

arguskos
2009-11-28, 07:47 PM
Gotta say, that cloak ain't winnin' any fashion statements. However, the feel of it is pretty good. Not terrible, though there's better art in there, for sure (Reth Dekala!!! FTW!!).

Boci
2009-11-28, 07:49 PM
No, but that still doesn't mean that your opinion, being that it's good, is anymore right than the guy saying it sucks is. Why should they have any reason to give in when you're blatantly stating that you wont?

I know my opinion isn't automatically correct. Thats why I try and make arguments to support it.


Raising the cap for buying cigarettes from 16 to 18 was stupid too, that doesn't mean I should ignore it.

I'm not saying ignore it, I'm just saying you don't have to respect it if you think its stupid.


How can you say that and then judge me for wanting to ban ToB from my games, if I ever were to DM? It's not like it's a positive word.

I'm trying to change you're mind about ToB because I think you could understand how the manouver system replicates real world combat, and because I like trying to convert people to ToB.

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 07:49 PM
The dude with the unfashionable hair-style and the green cloak?

There are worse hair-styles, but, yes.
It's certainly better than Doomveil, the female half-orc shadow sun ninja.

Also, the method by which you're now the one insulting my personal taste amuses me greatly. :smallredface:

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:49 PM
Gotta say, that cloak ain't winnin' any fashion statements. However, the feel of it is pretty good. Not terrible, though there's better art in there, for sure (Reth Dekala!!! FTW!!).

He looks nice on page 27, I'll give you that.

Or maybe that's someone else. He looks cool though.


There are worse hair-styles, but, yes.
It's certainly better than Doomveil, the female half-orc shadow sun ninja.

Also, the method by which you're now the one insulting my personal taste amuses me greatly.

I see. I'm sorry to have insulted you, though glad you're amused by the fashion of my insult. :smallwink:

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 07:52 PM
Gotta say, that cloak ain't winnin' any fashion statements. However, the feel of it is pretty good. Not terrible, though there's better art in there, for sure (Reth Dekala!!! FTW!!).

Reth Dekala? I'm afraid that I don't recognize him/her/it by name.

arguskos
2009-11-28, 07:52 PM
There are worse hair-styles, but, yes.
It's certainly better than Doomveil, the female half-orc shadow sun ninja.
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. :sigh:

ToB: Also called the Tome Of Hilariously Inconsistent Art Styles!


Also, the method by which you're now the one insulting my personal taste amuses me greatly. :smallredface:
And this thread has officially come full circle. :smallamused:

@aethernox: the Reth Dekala are the green floating monsters in the back of the book, around page 155 or so.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:53 PM
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. :sigh:

ToB: Also called the Tome Of Hilariously Inconsistent Art Styles!

And this thread has officially come full circle. :smallamused:

Indeed, though I wonder where all the berating went? :smalltongue:

Salanmander
2009-11-28, 07:55 PM
All I'm saying here is that some people really get aggravated over stupid stuff. It happens, we all have our pet peeves that set us off. Some folks hate psionics for no real reason, some hate ToB, some hate Republicans, some hate mashed potatoes, who the hell knows?



Ooooh, I actually like the mashed potatoes analogy.

Let's say someone is hosting a Thanksgiving dinner. He's planning on making turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, and gravy. One of his friends asks "Will there be any mashed potatoes there? I love mashed potatoes?"

"No," replies the man.

His friend is a bit taken aback. "Why not?" she asks.


Now, there are two kinds of responses that *could* be what is represented in Edwin and the other hypothetical DMs of this discussion. One response is "Oh, I don't like mashed potatoes." This seems to me to be a bad reason. Yes, the person is hosting the meal, and it is entirely within his rights to not include something. However, mashed potatoes aren't particularly hard to make, and he is doing this partially as a service to his friends, and many of the friends will have a worse thanksgiving dinner for not having mashed potatoes there.

The other possible kind of response I can imagine is "Sorry, mashed potatoes make me nauseous." This is much more reasonable. If the very presence of mashed potatoes makes the host uncomfortable, it is understandable that he would not include them.

So I guess I would say that it is reasonable for DMs to ban something based on an intense dislike of it such that it being used by the players will make his experience unenjoyable, but not reasonable for DMs to ban something based on not particularly enjoying using it. Additionally, it seems to me that if a DM has things that fall into the first category, it would be nice of them--but not socially mandated--to try to examine why they dislike those things so much, and see if they can stop hating them.

After all, if you were nauseated by mashed potatoes and could possibly become less so, wouldn't it be nice to become less nauseated by them so that your friends could enjoy them around you without hurting you?

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 07:55 PM
@aethernox: the Reth Dekala are the green floating monsters in the back of the book, around page 155 or so.

Woah. The overly-muscled human arms paired with an otherwise gaseous form is weird, but as a whole it's certainly interesting.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 07:59 PM
Long post cut short so as to not flood the thread -snip

So, you're saying that my intense dislike of ToB is a valid enough reason not to include it in my games? If you are, lovely.

I don't celebrate Thanksgiving, though. :smallwink:

arguskos
2009-11-28, 07:59 PM
Woah. The overly-muscled human arms paired with an otherwise gaseous form is weird, but as a whole it's certainly interesting.
Yeah, I really like it. I'd have an avvy of it, but, I like my Graz'ztars more. :smallamused:

Boci
2009-11-28, 08:01 PM
So, you're saying that my intense dislike of ToB is a valid enough reason not to include it in my games? If you are, lovely.

I don't celebrate Thanksgiving, though. :smallwink:

Yes he is, but he also seemed to say that its nice, if not "socially mandatory" to change your perception.

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 08:03 PM
Yeah, I really like it. I'd have an avvy of it, but, I like my Graz'ztars more. :smallamused:

Graz'zt is undeniably fantastic.

In some ways he reminds me of a certain sourcebook at hand. :smallwink:

arguskos
2009-11-28, 08:04 PM
Graz'zt is undeniably fantastic.

In some ways he reminds me of a certain sourcebook at hand. :smallwink:
Oooh, I see what you did there! :smallamused:

Though, personally, I wouldn't mind some more themed Graz'ztars. I need to find me an avatarist who wouldn't mind altering up my avvys for the holidays and such. Also, a GRIMDARK Graz'zt/Iggwilv would be hilarious. Xenos love. It's Heresy! But, it's also Love! Which is Heresy!

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:05 PM
Yes he is, but he also seemed to say that its nice, if not "socially mandatory" to change your perception.

Okay, fair enough.

I'll change mine if you do.

Playground mentality aside, it's just as nice for the players to stop whining about not getting to play a ToB character.

Salanmander
2009-11-28, 08:06 PM
So, you're saying that my intense dislike of ToB is a valid enough reason not to include it in my games? If you are, lovely.

I don't celebrate Thanksgiving, though. :smallwink:

Yeah, if you really dislike it that much. And Boci is basically reading me right, although I would temper it to saying it would be nice to probe your preferences, and try things out that you think you won't enjoy. I recognize that "poof, my preferences are now different!" does not work.


Edit:

Playground mentality aside, it's just as nice for the players to stop whining about not getting to play a ToB character.

It's true. This is one of the interesting things about niceness and social contracts: being nice and letting someone else have their way is often dependent on them *not* doing the same thing. It's an interesting conundrum, which is embodied in the fight to pay the restaurant bill and similar scenarios. As far as I'm concerned, the ideal situation is everyone being the beneficiary sometimes, and the benefactor sometimes.

Cedrass
2009-11-28, 08:06 PM
Salanmander gets a cookie for being able to make a valid, strong argument with mashed potatoes.


MmmMmmmm... Mashed potatoes.

Boci
2009-11-28, 08:07 PM
Playground mentality aside, it's just as nice for the players to stop whining about not getting to play a ToB character.

Not really. The DM has controll of countless NPCs and the whole game setting, the PC only has that one. It means more to them to be able to play their favorite class than to the DM.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:11 PM
Not really. The DM has controll of countless NPCs, the PC only has that one. It means more to them to be able to play their favorite class than to the DM.

At the cost of the DM's enjoyment?

Anyway, this is pointless. You're just as unwilling to change anything as I am, and while changing your belief have never been a prime objective for me, I suppose that since it seems to be that for you, this is obsolete.

Say, aethernox, how do you want that avatar? :smallsmile:

Boci
2009-11-28, 08:13 PM
At the cost of the DM's enjoyment?

Pretend he's playing some other class, like a fighter. Problem solved.



Anyway, this is pointless. You're just as unwilling to change anything as I am, and while changing your belief have never been a prime objective for me, I suppose that since it seems to be that for you, this is obsolete.

Right now I'll settle for understanding how the word warblade instead of a fighter on a character sheets ruins the game for someone.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:16 PM
Pretend he's playing some other class, like a fighter. Problem solved.

You have no intention of simply letting it go, have you? :smallsmile:

Fair enough: I hereby renounce all my opinions in regards to the ToB, and adopt the philosophy of Boci and HamHam in it's entirety.

Are we quite done now?

Salanmander
2009-11-28, 08:17 PM
You have no intention of simply letting it go, have you? :smallsmile:

Fair enough: I hereby renounce all my opinions in regards to the ToB, and adopt the philosophy of Boci in it's entirety.

Are we quite done now?

Bwahaha. I think Edwin just won the thread.



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

HamHam
2009-11-28, 08:18 PM
At the cost of the DM's enjoyment?

If you are unable to enjoy a game just because someone is playing a Warblade, you are clearly not mature enough to handle DMing in the first place.

The mechanical nature of a single character (or even multiple characters) has no effect on your ability to present a world, tell a story, create interesting NPCs, etc. It is simply impossible for what class someone is playing to detract from your main role as the storyteller. Claiming that it would is simply unbelievable.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:20 PM
If you are unable to enjoy a game just because someone is playing a Warblade, you are clearly not mature enough to handle DMing in the first place.

The mechanical nature of a single character (or even multiple characters) has no effect on your ability to present a world, tell a story, create interesting NPCs, etc. It is simply impossible for what class someone is playing to detract from your main role as the storyteller. Claiming that it would is simply unbelievable.

Wauw, that's one bold statement. :smallsmile:

Anyway, I suppose I'll edit my post. One second.

Edit: There we are.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-28, 08:20 PM
My question is, Edwin, if ToB characters make you so annoyed, do you refuse to play if your DM allows the book and people use it? Do you demand that your teammates not create ToB characters? Do you storm off if someone shows up with a Warblade, or demand they rebuild?

If it's acceptable for a DM to ban material because of personal opinion rather than fluff/setting reasons or balance reasons or simple lack of familiarity, it seems to me that all the same arguments in support of Edwin apply equally whether he is DM or not. If the argument is that "the game is supposed to be fun, and the mere presence of ToB characters makes the game not-fun for Edwin, so he should be allowed to ban them" is still true even when he's just a player.

And so I think, basically, Edwin, is that you are being incredibly rude to those around you, imposing your opinion on them. Whether as a DM or not. Sure, you can argue that "being nice and letting someone have their own way" should work both ways, but only when everyone's being reasonable. I do not think Edwin is being even the remotest bit reasonable. It smacks of extreme entitlement and selfishness, to me, actually, to demand that your friends limit themselves because you have some irrational hatred of material you barely even know.

Boci
2009-11-28, 08:24 PM
You have no intention of simply letting it go, have you? :smallsmile:

Nope.


Fair enough: I hereby renounce all my opinions in regards to the ToB, and adopt the philosophy of Boci and HamHam in it's entirety.

Are we quite done now?

Not really, but if you refuse to respond to my posts with conuterclaims/arguments I can hardly do anything about it can I? Oh and looks like you'll have to edit your post again to include DragoonWraith.

ex cathedra
2009-11-28, 08:26 PM
Say, aethernox, how do you want that avatar? :smallsmile:

For the most part, however you'd prefer. :smallsmile:

Also, I'm not sure why suddenly random people are trolling you. Sorry.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:26 PM
My question is, Edwin, if ToB characters make you so annoyed, do you refuse to play if your DM allows the book and people use it? Do you demand that your teammates not create ToB characters? Do you storm off if someone shows up with a Warblade, or demand they rebuild?

If it's acceptable for a DM to ban material because of personal opinion rather than fluff/setting reasons or balance reasons or simple lack of familiarity, it seems to me that all the same arguments in support of Edwin apply equally whether he is DM or not. If the argument is that "the game is supposed to be fun, and the mere presence of ToB characters makes the game not-fun for Edwin, so he should be allowed to ban them" is still true even when he's just a player.

And so I think, basically, Edwin, is that you are being incredibly rude to those around you, imposing your opinion on them. Whether as a DM or not. Sure, you can argue that "being nice and letting someone have their own way" should work both ways, but only when everyone's being reasonable. I do not think Edwin is being even the remotest bit reasonable. It smacks of extreme entitlement and selfishness, to me, actually, to demand that your friends limit themselves because you have some irrational hatred of material you barely even know.

More half-assed flaming..?

First of all, no. You do not know how I would react to that. And, as a matter of fact, you're absolutely wrong. I would not storm out, I would not demand anything, and I would, in no way, impose my opinion of not using the ToB.

Second, I would in no way limit the books and available content were I not the DM, cause it would not be in my power to do so, wether I like the selection or not.

And third, you have squat knowledge of my ability to use ToB. I know it, I can use it, but I don't want to.

And really, why are all the rude adjectives necessary?


For the most part, however you'd prefer.

Also, I'm not sure why suddenly random people are trolling you. Sorry.

You're not the one doing it, so no reason to apologize. :smallsmile:

I'll just report them or something.

Contact me by PM, and we'll work out the details for that avatar.

Boci
2009-11-28, 08:28 PM
And really, why are all the rude adjectives necessary?

Probably not. However more than just one poster seem to be getting this vibe from your posts. Maybe its a knee-jerk or maybe its poor communication.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:29 PM
Probably not. However more than just one poster seem to be getting this vibe from your posts. Maybe its a knee-jerk or maybe its poor communication.

Probably the second, though I am not sure it's entirely my fault..

And really, I submitted to you, can we end this now?

Boci
2009-11-28, 08:30 PM
Probably the second, though I am not sure it's entirely my fault..

All we see of you is what you post. Maybe all three of us are misreading it.


And really, I submitted to you, can we end this now?

Given that the amount of seriousness in you submiting to me was just below zero...

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:33 PM
All we see of you is what you post. Maybe all three of us are misreading it.

More likely, the sheer amount of repetition and argumentation sort of blurs out the real discussion.


Given that the amount of seriousness in you submiting to me was just below zero...

Well, what did you expect, really?

I stopped wanting to argue over this pointless issue a long time ago, and continued pleads to stop have gone unanswered.

arguskos
2009-11-28, 08:36 PM
Ok, this whole thread has devolved into: http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u250/bloodydoves/2cx6s1t.png

Really folks, the personal attacks are unwarranted from any side. Can't we all be civil here?

Oslecamo
2009-11-28, 08:37 PM
Ok, this whole thread has devolved into: http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u250/bloodydoves/2cx6s1t.png


Actualy, that's the oficial smiley of awesome, so I think it's the oposite of what this thread has turned into.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:38 PM
Ok, this whole thread has devolved into: http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u250/bloodydoves/2cx6s1t.png

Really folks, the personal attacks are unwarranted from any side. Can't we all be civil here?

When are we ever civil around here?

Or rather, when are we ever civil past page 5 around here?

arguskos
2009-11-28, 08:38 PM
Actualy, that's the oficial smiley of awesome, so I think it's the oposite of what this thread has turned into.
Eh, I've seen it used for sarcastic "this is retarded" meanings mostly. Also, it's funny to look at. :smallbiggrin:

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:39 PM
Eh, I've seen it used for sarcastic "this is retarded" meanings mostly. Also, it's funny to look at. :smallbiggrin:

Stupid image file not working!

Boci
2009-11-28, 08:41 PM
More likely, the sheer amount of repetition and argumentation sort of blurs out the real discussion.

Possibly.


Well, what did you expect, really?

I stopped wanting to argue over this pointless issue a long time ago, and continued pleads to stop have gone unanswered.

You sarcastiocally pretended to accept my arguments. What did you expect, really? If you don't want to argue, then don't respond to posts. If you ignore me I can't argue with you.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:43 PM
Possibly.

You sarcastiocally pretended to accept my arguments. What did you expect, really? If you don't want to argue, then don't respond to posts. If you ignore me I can't argue with you.

Are we really arguing about semantics here?

That is, as Arguskos put put it, retarded.

See you around I hope.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-28, 08:46 PM
First of all, no. You do not know how I would react to that. And, as a matter of fact, you're absolutely wrong. I would not storm out, I would not demand anything, and I would, in no way, impose my opinion of not using the ToB.

Second, I would in no way limit the books and available content were I not the DM, cause it would not be in my power to do so, wether I like the selection or not.
If you would not react that way as a player, why as a DM? I do not see a difference here. If you are banning the material as a DM because it irritates you so greatly that you cannot enjoy yourself if your players use it, how is it that you can tolerate it when you play? And if you can tolerate it when you play, why not when you DM? I think you are overstating your 'rights' as a DM. Being DM does not give you the right to prevent others from having fun on a whim.


And third, you have squat knowledge of my ability to use ToB. I know it, I can use it, but I don't want to.

And really, why are all the rude adjectives necessary?
Well, frankly, I think they're accurate. Intolerance is very selfish. Without any good reasons, you are potentially, hypothetically preventing others from having fun. Your admission that you would do so, yes, strikes me as selfish.

Why do I even bring it up? Well, maybe because I hoped you might see the hypocrisy of your position and learn to live and let live, enjoy what you enjoy while not arbitrarily deciding what others are or are not allowed to enjoy. But apparently that's no good for you, so I guess I'll stop.

Boci
2009-11-28, 08:50 PM
Are we really arguing about semantics here?

That is, as Arguskos put put it, retarded.

See you around I hope.

The argument stems from the fact that over the internet, if one side wants to stop an argument they can, by walking away. I was just waiting for that to happen, wondering if you'd change your mind and continue debating.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 08:56 PM
I simply can't resist posting here, it seems..


If you would not react that way as a player, why as a DM? I do not see a difference here. If you are banning the material as a DM because it irritates you so greatly that you cannot enjoy yourself if your players use it, how is it that you can tolerate it when you play? And if you can tolerate it when you play, why not when you DM? I think you are overstating your 'rights' as a DM. Being DM does not give you the right to prevent others from having fun on a whim.

Well, frankly, I think they're accurate. Intolerance is very selfish. Without any good reasons, you are potentially, hypothetically preventing others from having fun. Your admission that you would do so, yes, strikes me as selfish.

Why do I even bring it up? Well, maybe because I hoped you might see the hypocrisy of your position and learn to live and let live, enjoy what you enjoy while not arbitrarily deciding what others are or are not allowed to enjoy. But apparently that's no good for you, so I guess I'll stop.

You do realize that my stick this entire time have been "people should be allowed to feel however the want to, and no one should tell them that not liking the the ToB is worse than liking it, and vice versa"?

How is that intolerance, pray tell?

What I can't understand is that you're conveniently forgetting that almost every DM has things they do not allow - some have reasons, some don't. Why is not liking the ToB worse than not liking Com. Champion?

There are many, many DM's on these very forums that don't allow ToB - are they a bunch of intolerant, rude, selfish bastards? It's just another rulebook out of many.

And no, I don't mind you adversing me. I do mind you tagging me with a bunch of rude adjectives. Wether I deserve them isn't really relevant, it's still not particularly nice of you. And in violation of Forum rules, mind you.


The argument stems from the fact that over the internet, if one side wants to stop an argument they can, by walking away. I was just waiting for that to happen, wondering if you'd change your mind and continue debating.

I would love to, but under the given premise, it's not really a possibility.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-28, 09:01 PM
I never said you had to play it, and I would not force you to. But you said that you would ban it if you DMed a game. Even if the people you played with wanted to use it, and even though you have no particular problem with its balance and there are no significant fluff issues to be had. Just because it bothered you.

I have no problem with how you feel about ToB. I have a problem with how you react to that feeling, or at least would react to it if you DMed.

And yes, I think similarly when I come across a game that says "And no ToB; I really don't like it". Yes, that's really just arbitrary rudeness. I've avoided such games even if I didn't intend to play a ToB character, just because it bothers me that a DM thinks he's so high and mighty as to force his own preferences onto me.

I have no problem with someone saying "Complete Champion is poorly written and poorly balanced, so I ban it." I happen to agree, but that's besides the point - at least those are reasons to ban it. I would disagree if someone said the same about Tome of Magic, or Tome of Battle, or the XPH, but at least it's a reasonable position. In the case of the latter two, in an appropriate venue I might try to convince them that they are mistaken about the balance, since I believe they are, but I can at least respect that they have reasons for their decision. Forcing personal preferences on other people for no reason? That I have no respect for.

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:03 PM
I simply can't resist posting here, it seems...

That makes two of us.




You do realize that my stick this entire time have been "people should be allowed to feel however the want to, and no one should tell them that not liking the the ToB is worse than liking it, and vice versa"?

How is that intolerance, pray tell?

So a PC of your could play ToB because they like it?



What I can't understand is that you're conveniently forgetting that almost every DM has things they do not allow - some have reasons, some don't. Why is not liking the ToB worse than not liking Com. Champion?

He gave a reason. It was overpowered and some of it didn't make sense, like the staking issue..


There are many, many DM's on these very forums that don't allow ToB - are they a bunch of intolerant, rude, selfish bastards? It's just another rulebook out of many..

Depends on their reasons. Sometimes yes they are.


And no, I don't mind you adversing me. I do mind you tagging me with a bunch of rude adjectives. Wether I deserve them isn't really relevant, it's still not particularly nice of you. And in violation of Forum rules, mind you.

True. I agree, calling someone rude and intolerant doesn't strengthen your arguments, and if ill advised when you're trying to offer advice.


I would love to, but under the given premise, it's not really a possibility.

Round and round and round we go.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 09:05 PM
I never said you had to play it, and I would not force you to. But you said that you would ban it if you DMed a game. Even if the people you played with wanted to use it, and even though you have no particular problem with its balance and there are no significant fluff issues to be had. Just because it bothered you.

I have no problem with how you feel about ToB. I have a problem with how you react to that feeling, or at least would react to it if you DMed.

Actually, it was Boci who theorized that I would ban it no matter what. And if you read the entire thread, you will notice that I do have issues with both fluff and the mechanics of ToB. Not that it matters much.

But really, I didn't say you would force me to play, I just said that I should have the right to not it include it in a game I was DM'ing, just as you have the right to include it.

Ladorak
2009-11-28, 09:06 PM
In an effort toward maybe getting this thread back on track... Not that this wasn't expected of course, every time someone asks 'Is ToB good' we end up having this 'overpowered' discussion

Where was I? Oh yes. In an effort toward maybe getting this thread back on track, I think the initiator level thing in ToB is really well done. The whole other classes count as half thing allows for all sorts of fun dips, but the best Crusader/Warblade/Swordsages are straight levels with maybe ToB prestige classes. Excellently (Is that a word?) balanced.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-28, 09:07 PM
True. I agree, calling someone rude and intolerant doesn't strengthen your arguments, and if ill advised when you're trying to offer advice.
See, I've been told that I'm acting in an X way, where X is some negative adjective (including the ones I have used), and I've realized that the poster was right, I was not behaving in a way that I found desirable, and I admitted wrongness. I was not trying to flame you - I was not trying to say that you are inherently a selfish bastard. I was trying to say that this decision was selfish, on the theory that you are not selfish and do not wish to be, and that you could maybe see that by doing so you would be acting selfishly.


Actually, it was Boci who theorized that I would ban it no matter what. And if you read the entire thread, you will notice that I do have issues with both fluff and the mechanics of ToB. Not that it matters much.

But really, I didn't say you would force me to play, I just said that I should have the right to not it include it in a game I was DM'ing, just as you have the right to include it.
I disagree with you. I do not think a DM has that right, and I don't play with DMs who think they do. The right to ban material because it is unbalanced or doesn't fit in the setting? Absolutely. The right to ban something just because you don't like it? Absolutely not.

If you have issues with the fluff, do you have issues with the Fighter's, or the Paladin's, or the Monk's fluff? Or do you have issues with melee getting nice things? I don't know what other fluff you could possibly be talking about. The very slight Asian flavoring that is easily ignored? That's kind of obtuse; just ignore it.

As for mechanics, how so? I have not seen any description of what you don't like about ToB. It's hard to have any kind of meaningful discussion without that. I took your lack of commentary on the matter to be agreement with Boci.

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:08 PM
Actually, it was Boci who theorized that I would ban it no matter what.

That what I read in your post. If you were DM, you would not allow PCs to use ToB. Am I wrong?


In an effort toward maybe getting this thread back on track... Not that this wasn't expected of course, every time someone asks 'Is ToB good' we end up having this 'overpowered' discussion

Actually if you look through recent ToB threads "its OP" hardly comes up any more. people seem to have finally accepted that it isn't. There's still other objections to it, but at least people have gotten over the multi-year knee-jerk reaction stage.


Where was I? Oh yes. In an effort toward maybe getting this thread back on track, I think the initiator level thing in ToB is really well done. The whole other classes count as half thing allows for all sorts of fun dips, but the best Crusader/Warblade/Swordsages are straight levels with maybe ToB prestige classes. Excellently (Is that a word?) balanced.

I like it as well. Also, the manouvers make it so much more believable that I am actually using moves I was taught. I also like the flavour of the disciplines, which I know I am free to use or ignore.

arguskos
2009-11-28, 09:09 PM
In an effort toward maybe getting this thread back on track... Not that this wasn't expected of course, every time someone asks 'Is ToB good' we end up having this 'overpowered' discussion

Where was I? Oh yes. In an effort toward maybe getting this thread back on track, I think the initiator level thing in ToB is really well done. The whole other classes count as half thing allows for all sorts of fun dips, but the best Crusader/Warblade/Swordsages are straight levels with maybe ToB prestige classes. Excellently (Is that a word?) balanced.
1. Excellently is a word. It means "the state of being excellent" or thereabouts.

2. I'd actually agree. I think that 3.5 is a glorious system, multiclassing is a shining jewel of awesome, but Caster Level was never well implemented. Initiator Level is much better done, and a real credit to the designers of ToB. I've played with shifting Caster Level to such a progression, but it gets messy and insane pretty quick.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 09:11 PM
In an effort toward maybe getting this thread back on track... Not that this wasn't expected of course, every time someone asks 'Is ToB good' we end up having this 'overpowered' discussion

Where was I? Oh yes. In an effort toward maybe getting this thread back on track, I think the initiator level thing in ToB is really well done. The whole other classes count as half thing allows for all sorts of fun dips, but the best Crusader/Warblade/Swordsages are straight levels with maybe ToB prestige classes. Excellently (Is that a word?) balanced.

Oh, never said anything about unbalance in the system. It's very well made, it's just not my kind of mechanical system. I like my vancian casting, or whatever.


See, I've been told that I'm acting in an X way, where X is some negative adjective (including the ones I have used), and I've realized that the poster was right, I was not behaving in a way that I found desirable, and I admitted wrongness. I was not trying to flame you - I was not trying to say that you are inherently a selfish bastard. I was trying to say that this decision was selfish, on the theory that you are not selfish and do not wish to be, and that you could maybe see that by doing so you would be acting selfishly.

Thank you for admitting that.

I can see your point that banning something my players want because I don't like it seems a bit selfish, but it's basically the same if you turn it around. A player is equally selfish if he shoehorns a DM to include something that the DM doesn't want in his campaign.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-28, 09:12 PM
I'd actually agree. I think that 3.5 is a glorious system, multiclassing is a shining jewel of awesome, but Caster Level was never well implemented. Initiator Level is much better done, and a real credit to the designers of ToB. I've played with shifting Caster Level to such a progression, but it gets messy and insane pretty quick.
Side note: Arguskos, if you'd like, my Mana variant (see sig) attempts to make Caster Level function like Initiator Level. It's untested, but I'd love to get more feedback on it.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 09:13 PM
The point is valid.

It's no more reasonable for the DM to ban material simply because he doesn't like it, than for a player to not play in games that have elements that he doesn't like.

It's very reasonable for both. Games and groups should be on mutual enjoyment.

However, if you'd play in a game that includes them, but ban them when you run, it's a double standard. You state in the former "I still enjoy the game and can play it when this is in. It's not a big enough irritation to stop me from playing, and I can compromise." In the latter, when you have authority, you say "no compromises, even though I know I can enjoy a game that involves ToB."

That's a double standard.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 09:14 PM
The point is valid.

It's no more reasonable for the DM to ban material simply because he doesn't like it, than for a player to not play in games that have elements that he doesn't like.

It's very reasonable for both. Games and groups should be on mutual enjoyment.

However, if you'd play in a game that includes them, but ban them when you run, it's a double standard. You state in the former "I still enjoy the game and can play it when this is in. It's not a big enough irritation to stop me from playing, and I can compromise." In the latter, when you have authority, you say "no compromises, even though I know I can enjoy a game that involves ToB."

That's a double standard.

It would be, if I had said that's what I would do.

Scroll back a couple of pages and you'll see me writing that I steer clear of games with ToB, as much as possible.

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:15 PM
The point is valid.

It's no more reasonable for the DM to ban material simply because he doesn't like it, than for a player to not play in games that have elements that he doesn't like.

It's very reasonable for both. Games and groups should be on mutual enjoyment.

This is what I don't agree with. The DM controls the entire world I play in, I control i single guy. Surely which class is available affects me more than the DM?

DragoonWraith
2009-11-28, 09:16 PM
Thank you for admitting that.

I can see your point that banning something my players want because I don't like it seems a bit selfish, but it's basically the same if you turn it around. A player is equally selfish if he shoehorns a DM to include something that the DM doesn't want in his campaign.
Equally so? I disagree. If the player tries to shoehorn in something that really doesn't fit - is overpowered, or hell underpowered, or clashes with the setting, then that's extremely selfish, probably more so. On the other hand, if the DM has no reason for the ban other than personal dislike, then I think the player is not being selfish at all in questioning or disagreeing with that. The player is being reasonable, and I do not think the DM is.

It depends, of course, on the setting. I'd never start posting in a Recruitment thread that doesn't allow ToB (or whatever) to try to convince the DM otherwise - I'd just find a different game. So I guess in that case I'd agree. Very different if you're physically going to someone's house and you don't have the option of just browsing to another thread.

Also, admission? Wasn't intended to be - that was my intent from the beginning. If that was unclear (and it seems pretty obvious that it was), then that I certainly apologize for.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 09:16 PM
This is what I don't agree with. The DM controls the entire world I play in, I control i single guy. Surely which class is available affects me more than the DM?

So the DM and the PC are not equal players at the table, in your opinion?


It depends, of course, on the setting. I'd never start posting in a Recruitment thread that doesn't allow ToB (or whatever) to try to convince the DM otherwise - I'd just find a different game. So I guess in that case I'd agree. Very different if you're physically going to someone's house and you don't have the option of just browsing to another thread.

And since I play primarily in PbP games, that's exactly what I've been saying all along?

arguskos
2009-11-28, 09:16 PM
Side note: Arguskos, if you'd like, my Mana variant (see sig) attempts to make Caster Level function like Initiator Level. It's untested, but I'd love to get more feedback on it.
Totally off-topic, please move on for more ToB-related foolishness:
DW, I saw that when you posted it here, but I didn't comment since I actually dislike point-based systems. Just an irrational dislike I have for 'em. Yours seemed well put together, if not my favorite base. In a point system, IL-style multiclassing makes far more sense, I'll grant. I have this feeling that such a system is the only way to make IL-style multiclassing translate to CL in a way that isn't ugly as all sin.

tl;dr: Looked good, not my thing, but was function and fun seeming.

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:18 PM
So the DM and the PC are not equal players at the table, in your opinion?

No, there not. One of them controls the gods themselves, the kings of ther nations, the forces of nature and the beggers on the streets, the other a single mortal seeking fame. Do you think they are equal?

Edwin
2009-11-28, 09:20 PM
No, there not. One of them controls the gods themselves, the kings of ther nations, the forces of nature and the beggers on the streets, the other a single mortal seeking fame. Do you think they are equal?

In game? Not really comparable. As players at the table? Hell yes.

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:21 PM
In game? Not really comparable. As players at the table? Hell yes.

Yes and banning a class directly affects the characters in game, not the players at the table.

Surely you can accept that the banning of the class you wanted to play with affects you more than the DM.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 09:21 PM
This is what I don't agree with. The DM controls the entire world I play in, I control i single guy. Surely which class is available affects me more than the DM?

It does. And you are welcome to find a game that supports your play preferences. As a player, that's your right.

As a DM, it's his to make a game that supports his. The end goal is for everyone to have a game they enjoy.

All players, DM included, have one goal in the game. To have fun. If someone isn't, the game is failing. The DM has more authority and responsibility at the table, but they're all people, trying to have fun.

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:22 PM
It does. And you are welcome to find a game that supports your play preferences. As a player, that's your right.

As a DM, it's his to make a game that supports his. The end goal is for everyone to have a game they enjoy.

All players, DM included, have one goal in the game. To have fun. If someone isn't, the game is failing. The DM has more authority and responsibility at the table, but they're all people, trying to have fun.

And is my warblade really going to ruin the DMs campeign setting and his fun in the game?

Innis Cabal
2009-11-28, 09:23 PM
If the Warblade class isn't in his world. Yes.

Ladorak
2009-11-28, 09:23 PM
This is what I don't agree with. The DM controls the entire world I play in, I control i single guy. Surely which class is available affects me more than the DM?

Hmm, yes and no I think. In the case of ToB in particular I think that yes, it affects you more. In a more general sense I think no, it still affects the DM more. Let's take Psionics as an example, it is my experience as a DM that if Psionics is 'in' it will almost double the time I have to spend planning at higher levels, especially when I was new to Psionics.

The DM has to balance the world, and shoehorn in all the fluff. It's a big job, and a lot of expansions make it a lot bigger. GM get's final say on what's in or not, that's his reward for all his hard work, that and pizza. Does it suck when your DM is closeminded? Oh gods yes! Everytime I DM I have to control myself regarding Elves. I would do terrible things to Elves at every turn given free rein. But (Some of) my players wouldn't like that. So I don't do it.

Ultimatly I think a DM that bans a book that is balanced (Like ToB) because he doesn't 'like it' is a selfish DM. However I also think Dming is a very unselfish thing to do

Edwin
2009-11-28, 09:24 PM
Surely you can accept that the banning of the class you wanted to play with affects you more than the DM.

Sure. But that still doesn't give the PC's the right to decide what content should be allowed for the campaign, not in my opinion.


It does. And you are welcome to find a game that sopports your play preferences. As a player, that's your right.

As a DM, it's his to make a game that supports his. The end goal is for everyone to have a game they enjoy.

True dat.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 09:24 PM
And is my warblade really going to ruin the DMs campeign setting?

It's not about the campaign setting. If the DM doesn't have fun because warblade's irk him, it's his right to choose to have a game without them.

If you feel that you need the warblade class to have fun, it's your right to choose a game that has them.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-28, 09:25 PM
I think it comes down to one question then: do you expect people at the table to compromise, or do you expect everyone with different opinions to simply avoid each other and find people who agree?

In PbP, the latter probably makes more sense. In person, the former is almost certainly mandatory.

And in terms of compromise, when it comes to a player wanting to play a ToB character and a DM not liking the book, I really think the most reasonable thing, assuming one compromises, is that the DM lets the player have his character, and simply avoids using ToB for NPCs. Because really, I cannot fathom how ToB is going to ruin things for the DM, and I think the DM would be unreasonable to ban ToB for no reason other than just dislike.

If instead the DM said "the world is extremely high magic, and emphasis on martial arts is extremely limited; you couldn't get that kind of training, and you wouldn't be able to attain the same power level as the wizards and sorcerers and artificers and clerics", that'd be reasonable. If on the other hand, the DM said "this is an extremely low magic, high realism game, where everyone is limited to physical reality and such" - I'd say you should be playing E6, but at any rate, yes, ToB may be out of place, perhaps everyone should be Fighters and Monks and Rogues.


@ Arguskos

Totally off-topic, please move on for more ToB-related foolishness:
DW, I saw that when you posted it here, but I didn't comment since I actually dislike point-based systems. Just an irrational dislike I have for 'em. Yours seemed well put together, if not my favorite base. In a point system, IL-style multiclassing makes far more sense, I'll grant. I have this feeling that such a system is the only way to make IL-style multiclassing translate to CL in a way that isn't ugly as all sin.

tl;dr: Looked good, not my thing, but was function and fun seeming.
The irony here is amusing, I think.

Anyway, if you wanted spell slots, it seems to me you could use a standard spell slot progression table, and just base it on Caster Level rather than Initiator Level, and be sure to include a clause stating that any boosts to CL don't affect the spells you can cast, just the effective CL of the spell being cast. With the possible exception of Practiced Spellcaster, but even that I think I'd probably avoid.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 09:27 PM
I think it comes down to one question then: do you expect people at the table to compromise, or do you expect everyone with different opinions to simply avoid each other and find people who agree?Both, depending on how important the issue is. Choose your battles.

If you find the presence of something so irksome that it undermines your fun? Find somewhere else.

If it's a minor irritant? You should neither ban nor protest a ban. It's not a big enough issue.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-28, 09:28 PM
Hmm, yes and no I think. In the case of ToB in particular I think that yes, it affects you more. In a more general sense I think no, it still affects the DM more. Let's take Psionics as an example, it is my experience as a DM that if Psionics is 'in' it will almost double the time I have to spend planning at higher levels, especially when I was new to Psionics.


Why?
What can psionics do that makes it harder? (unless it was 3.0 Psionics which was pretty bad With Combat blasts and defenses)

Saves are saves. If the Psion would have charmed that warrior so could a Wizard or Sorceror.
I'm kinda lost why the extra planning?

Sure you can't do the whole "you are imprisoned without your spell component pouch" scenerio, but that is low level issues usually. Otherwise DM railroads way too often.

arguskos
2009-11-28, 09:29 PM
@ Arguskos

The irony here is amusing, I think.

Anyway, if you wanted spell slots, it seems to me you could use a standard spell slot progression table, and just base it on Caster Level rather than Initiator Level, and be sure to include a clause stating that any boosts to CL don't affect the spells you can cast, just the effective CL of the spell being cast. With the possible exception of Practiced Spellcaster, but even that I think I'd probably avoid.
Irony? Where? I don't ban psionics cause I don't like 'em much. Hell, I even use them from time to time (my party will never forget that one telepath... hehehe). :smallconfused:

Huh, you know, I'm not sure I understand your spell slot conversion there. Mind sending me a PM with a bit more detailed description?

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 09:29 PM
Why?
What can psionics do that makes it harder? (unless it was 3.0 Psionics which was pretty bad With Combat blasts and defenses)

Saves are saves. If the Psion would have charmed that warrior so could a Wizard or Sorceror.
I'm kinda lost why the extra planning?

Sure you can't do the whole "you are imprisoned without your spell component pouch" scenerio, but that is low level issues usually. Otherwise DM railroads way too often.

At mid to high levels, psions nova far better than casters. This can complicate fights.

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:29 PM
Hmm, yes and no I think. In the case of ToB in particular I think that yes, it affects you more. In a more general sense I think no, it still affects the DM more. Let's take Psionics as an example, it is my experience as a DM that if Psionics is 'in' it will almost double the time I have to spend planning at higher levels, especially when I was new to Psionics.

With a complex new system maybe, but if you have a friend and he knows psionics and is willing to explain what and hows he doing things as the game goes along, why not let him play it. Its his character. In return, I promise as a player to accept the game setting we're in, even if I don't like everything about it.


Ultimatly I think a DM that bans a book that is balanced (Like ToB) because he doesn't 'like it' is a selfish DM. However I also think Dming is a very unselfish thing to do

Sometimes true, but I do not DM for unselfish reasons primarily.


At mid to high levels, psions nova far better than casters. This can complicate fights.

More than a sorceror using arcane fusion, arcane spell surge and then celerity arcane fusion?

Edwin
2009-11-28, 09:30 PM
And in terms of compromise, when it comes to a player wanting to play a ToB character and a DM not liking the book, I really think the most reasonable thing, assuming one compromises, is that the DM lets the player have his character, and simply avoids using ToB for NPCs. Because really, I cannot fathom how ToB is going to ruin things for the DM, and I think the DM would be unreasonable to ban ToB for no reason other than just dislike.


This is where you lose me. I can't see why the Characters preferences have say over the DM's when it comes to what is and what is not allowed in his campaign.

If it's you and your friends who sit down once a week and play, yes, at some point, if the players want to, ToB should be implemented. Hell, maybe the guy wanting to play it should try his hand a DM'ing.

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:32 PM
This is where you lose me. I can't see why the Characters preferences have say over the DM's when it comes to what is and what is not allowed in his campaign.

Because its a substitute to the fighter that many find an improvment?


If it's you and your friends who sit down once a week and play, yes, at some point, if the players want to, ToB should be implemented. Hell, maybe the guy wanting to play it should try his hand a DM'ing.

Not quite the same. He might not be cut out to DM. Not everyone can.


It's not about the campaign setting. If the DM doesn't have fun because warblade's irk him, it's his right to choose to have a game without them.

If you feel that you need the warblade class to have fun, it's your right to choose a game that has them.

Just reverse that. As a player, druids irk me. Can I insist the DM doesn't use them as NPC?

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 09:34 PM
With a complex new system maybe, but if you have a friend and he knows psionics and is willing to explain what and hows he doing things as the game goes along, why not let him play it. Its his character. In return, I promise as a player to accept the game setting we're in, even if I don't like everything about it.What if the game setting is: Psionics doesn't exist? Then, any class based on them doesn't exist. While it DOES affect the player, psionics as a whole influence the world more.

Same with TOB. If you make 1 character that's TOB, and the inclusion of it in his world means a major fluff rewrite, and 30-50 characters over a campaign that must be designed, then it affects the DM more than you.

Ultimately, as a player, your voting rights begin and end with your feet. If it's a big enough issue for you to walk from the table? Then Walk. If the DM's unreasonable, he soon won't have a game.

I don't buy the "awww man" argument. The DM chooses the game. End discussion.

The players choose if they want to play. If the DM's nice, he'll work with you. But he's within his right to run his game as he sees fit.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 09:35 PM
Because its a substitute to the fighter that many find an improvment?

And how does that make it more eligible to overule the DM? :smallconfused:


Not quite the same. He might not be cut out to DM. Not everyone can.

Note that I said it should be tried at some point, regardless of possible DM changes. I merely meant that if someone really wants something in their, instead of whining their asses off, they should try to implement it in a game of their own. Or see if the regular DM is willing at some point.


Just reverse that. As a player, druids irk me. Can I insist the DM doesn't use them as NPC?

Absolutely the same thing.

No, the DM is still the one who shapes the world. If he wants druids, then there shall be druids.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 09:35 PM
Just reverse that. As a player, druids irk me. Can I insist the DM doesn't use them as NPC?

You can. And if he refuses, you are welcome to find a group of like minded individuals and play.

The DM chooses the world he runs, and mediates the rules. You dislike the rules? Find another DM.

You seem to feel entitled to have what you want, how you want, in any game you play in. It is not that way.

It is your responsibility to find a group that plays the way you do, if you wish to play by your rules. (or run your own game)

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:37 PM
And how does that make it more eligible to overule the DM? :smallconfused:

It makes it strange to refuse it when fighters already exist in the game.


Note that I said it should be tried at some point, regardless of possible DM changes. I merely meant that if someone really wants something in their, instead of whining their asses off, they should try to implement it in a game of their own. Or see if the regular DM is willing at some point.

Fair enough.


You can. And if he refuses, you are welcome to find a group of like minded individuals and play.

The DM chooses the world he runs, and mediates the rules. You dislike the rules? Find another DM.

So your opinion is that a player has to respect a DMs wishes in the game reguarding which class they use, but a DM is not limited by the same idea?

Edwin
2009-11-28, 09:37 PM
It makes it strange to refuse it when fighters already exist in the game.

Not really, seeing as ToB classes are not the same thing as a fighter.

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:39 PM
Not really, seeing as ToB classes are not the same thing as a fighter.

Yeah, unlike a fighter, a warblade actually suceeds, without system mastery and access to 100+ options for feats.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 09:42 PM
Yeah, unlike a fighter, a warblade actually suceeds, without system mastery and access to 100+ options for feats.

You unfounded feelings about fighters aside, how is that relevant to wether or not ToB should top the DM's decision about books, and how does that even remotely connect it to the fighter?

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 09:44 PM
Yeah, unlike a fighter, a warblade actually suceeds, without system mastery and access to 100+ options for feats.

Let me make this really simple:

Let's say the NFL passes a pass interference rule. It alters the way that pass interference is caused, making it easier to penalize.

Can teams or individuals choose to go by the previous rule if they don't like it?

No.

Because by taking the field, they accept the rules of the game and the rulings by the Ref.

Get the point? By sitting at the table, you accept the DM's rulings.

Is it unfair that he gets his way? Maybe.
Is it nice of him to not compromise? Probably not.

Can you do anything at all to veto his choices, other than carry yourself home and not play?

Absolutely not. And no amount of "coulda woulda shoulda" will ever change that.

Ever.

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:46 PM
You unfounded feelings about fighters aside, how is that relevant to wether or not ToB should top the DM's decision about books, and how does that even remotely connect it to the fighter?

The fighter is a core part of the traditional D&D setting. I'm sure you can accept that. Many people feel that the fighter is lacking. Agains I'm sure you can accept that, even if you do not feel the fighter is lacking. To fix this, a DM should consider ToB in case their Pcs are unsatisfied with the core melee + loads of extra feats and PrC from splat books. This is where we appear to disagree.


Let me make this really simple:

Let's say the NFL passes a pass interference rule. It alters the way that pass interference is caused, making it easier to penalize.

Can teams or individuals choose to go by the previous rule if they don't like it?

No.

Because by taking the field, they accept the rules of the game and the rulings by the Ref.

Get the point? By sitting at the table, you accept the DM's rulings.

Is it unfair that he gets his way? Maybe.
Is it nice of him to not compromise? Probably not.

Can you do anything at all to veto his choices, other than carry yourself home and not play?

Absolutely not. And no amount of "coulda woulda shoulda" will ever change that.

Ever.

Social game does not equal a multi-million industry that forms the lively hoods of many people. (I know the manufacture of D&D books is a multi-million industry, but actually playing it isn't)

Edwin
2009-11-28, 09:46 PM
Let me make this really simple:

Let's say the NFL passes a pass interference rule. It alters the way that pass interference is caused, making it easier to penalize.

Can teams or individuals choose to go by the previous rule if they don't like it?

No.

Because by taking the field, they accept the rules of the game and the rulings by the Ref.

Get the point? By sitting at the table, you accept the DM's rulings.

Is it unfair that he gets his way? Maybe.
Is it nice of him to not compromise? Probably not.

Can you do anything at all to veto his choices, other than carry yourself home and not play?

Absolutely not. And no amount of "coulda woulda shoulda" will ever change that.

Ever.

.. I wuv you.


The fighter is a core part of the traditional D&D setting. I'm sure you can accept that. Many people feel that the fighter is lacking. Agains I'm sure you can accept that. To fix this, a DM should consider ToB in case their Pcs are unsatisfied with the core melee + loads of extra feats and PrC from splat books. This is where we appear to disagree.

Be that as it may, that still doesn't put a reasonable connection between; You accept fighters, and thus you must accept ToB material.

It doesn't add up that way.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 09:47 PM
More than a sorceror using arcane fusion, arcane spell surge and then celerity arcane fusion?

Yup. Much.

I can blow my entire PP pool in one round, on one enemy, by level 9 psion. No matter how many I have. And I can do it whenever I want, with a less-limited form of celerity.

Ladorak
2009-11-28, 09:47 PM
Yeah, unlike a fighter, a warblade actually suceeds, without system mastery and access to 100+ options for feats.

Here I have to agree. Unlike Swordsage and Crusader Warblade requires no fluff what-so-ever on the part of the DM. It's just a mecanically sound fighter for game purposes, it's just a fighter for fluff purposes. The only reasons for banning it stem from game balance reasons. And if, as I have been told, we have all finally agreed that ToB is a balanced book then the DM doing the banning is judging Warblade based on prejudice rather than numbers.

There are perfectly good reasons to ban Swordsage and Crusader fluffwise.

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:49 PM
.. I wuv you.



Be that as it may, that still doesn't put a reasonable connection between; You accept fighters, and thus you must ToB material.

It doesn't add up that way.

You accept the idea of fighters in your game as well as the fighter class, which many people feel are not represented well. Many people feel the warblade represents the concept of the fighter well. I see a clear conction there.


Yup. Much.

I can blow my entire PP pool in one round, on one enemy, by level 9 psion. No matter how many I have. And I can do it whenever I want, with a less-limited form of celerity.


Whats that any sane DM? He clearly overpowering the other PCs and thus must stop? Problem solved.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-28, 09:49 PM
Having read this entire thread, I think the only conclusion I can come to is that Edwin is intentionally trolling you all.

He keeps posting brief, sarcastic statements designed solely to result in more delicious tears, while never bothering to answer questions in detail, or back up anything he says.

However, because it used a topic only slightly more original than "monks really are good", I'm forced to rate it only 5/10. Better luck next troll.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 09:49 PM
Here I have to agree. Unlike Swordsage and Crusader Warblade requires no fluff what-so-ever on the part of the DM. It's just a mecanically sound fighter for game purposes, it's just a fighter for fluff purposes. The only reasons for banning it stem from game balance reasons. And if, as I have been told, we have all finally agreed that ToB is a balanced book then the DM doing the banning is judging Warblade based on prejudice rather than numbers.

There are perfectly good reasons to ban Swordsage and Crusader fluffwise.

Don't get me wrong, I like ToB. As a DM, I allow most everything that's fine for balance (my ban list includes incantatrix, the Sarrukh, Pazuzu, and Planar Shepard, along with like minded abilities and classes). But I support the right of the DM to make his game.

He's spending a lot of work on it. It shouldn't be hijacked by every other player with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

You accept the idea of fighters in your game as well as the fighter class, which many people feel are not represented well. Many people feel the warblade represents the concept of the fighter well. I see a clear conction there.


And those "many people" can find a game together, and stop forcing their beliefs on those that disagree.

Boci
2009-11-28, 09:53 PM
He's spending a lot of work on it. It shouldn't be hijacked by every other player with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

How is playing a warblade instead of a fighter hijacking the DMs game? Does his plot rely on me having fighter written on my character sheet?



And those "many people" can find a game together, and stop forcing their beliefs on those that disagree.

Or the DM could listen to the wishes of his players? Are you saying that me explaining to a DM that a lot of mistakes were made during core and that ToB is one of the most highly reguarded fixes counts as me forcing my belief on others.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 09:54 PM
Having read this entire thread, I think the only conclusion I can come to is that Edwin is intentionally trolling you all.

He keeps posting brief, sarcastic statements designed solely to result in more delicious tears, while never bothering to answer questions in detail, or back up anything he says.

However, because it used a topic only slightly more original than "monks really are good", I'm forced to rate it only 5/10. Better luck next troll.

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?

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

Edit: And how is forcing the DM to accept ToB characters not as bad as the DM forcing the players to not play ToB characters?

HamHam
2009-11-28, 10:00 PM
If instead the DM said "the world is extremely high magic, and emphasis on martial arts is extremely limited; you couldn't get that kind of training, and you wouldn't be able to attain the same power level as the wizards and sorcerers and artificers and clerics", that'd be reasonable. If on the other hand, the DM said "this is an extremely low magic, high realism game, where everyone is limited to physical reality and such" - I'd say you should be playing E6, but at any rate, yes, ToB may be out of place, perhaps everyone should be Fighters and Monks and Rogues.

Compromise. In the former case, refluff it as being actual magic and not martial power, and let the player decide if he's fine with not having the omg broken power of a full caster. It's something you probably won't even notice actually because the ToB classes are all solid Tier 3s and can keep up with even full casters in terms of killing things really well, even if they can't match the breadth of ability of a full caster.

In the later, you are playing the wrong game. You could try banning everything but like the 3 classes that wouldn't break a game like that, but seriously you should just go play a different system.


Don't get me wrong, I like ToB. As a DM, I allow most everything that's fine for balance (my ban list includes incantatrix, the Sarrukh, Pazuzu, and Planar Shepard, along with like minded abilities and classes). But I support the right of the DM to make his game.

He's spending a lot of work on it. It shouldn't be hijacked by every other player with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

Guess what. Everyone gets a say. The DM may make the world, but the players also invest a lot in a game. As a DM, you should make your game to suit your audience, aka your play group. Expecting everyone to conform to your expectations is just being a prima dona.


Edit: And how is forcing the DM to accept ToB characters not as bad as the DM forcing the players to not play ToB characters?

Because players make one character. Denying that character means denying that player's entire desired play experience. The DM makes a lot of things, and can handle having to give a little on the peripheries.

Ladorak
2009-11-28, 10:03 PM
How is playing a warblade instead of a fighter hijacking the DMs game? Does his plot rely on me having fighter written on my character sheet?

No, but it does introduce a whole new game mecanic, and DnD has lots of those. Each one makes DMing more complex. If he doesn't want to put in the work, that's up to him. He's the DM


Or the DM could listen to the wishes of his players? Are you saying that me explaining to a DM that a lot of mistakes were made during core and that ToB is one of the most highly reguarded fixes counts as me forcing my belief on others.

Quick question... DM bans ToB and you don't seem to like the splatbooks... Why aren't you a caster? ToB exists to counterbalance casters. If your DM is going to hamstring himself use it against him, go caster

HamHam
2009-11-28, 10:05 PM
No, but it does introduce a whole new game mecanic, and DnD has lots of those. Each one makes DMing more complex. If he doesn't want to put in the work, that's up to him. He's the DM

No, no it doesn't. You know who needs to know how ToB actually works for a player to play a Warblade? The player. That's it.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 10:05 PM
Because players make one character. Deny that character means denying that player's entire desired play experience. The DM makes a lot of things, and can handle having to give a little on the peripheries.

Since we already disagree on the level of control a DM has over a game, this discussion is quite unnecessary. I think that the DM picks the books, and the players create what characters they can given the premise.

You think otherwise, which is fine, but it sort of means that our arguments are worthless to each other.

Also, I am starting get a bit confused now. What exactly is the issue we're currently discussing?

Boci
2009-11-28, 10:07 PM
No, but it does introduce a whole new game mecanic, and DnD has lots of those. Each one makes DMing more complex. If he doesn't want to put in the work, that's up to him. He's the DM

A really thing the complexity of ToB on the DMs behalf is being overexagerated. Surely you can trust your friends to handle the manouvers, and the other players can help keep track of them. How hard is it for the DM to hear the player saying, "I use X manouver, doing Y damage and Z effect" and "I recover my manouver(s)"?


Quick question... DM bans ToB and you don't seem to like the splatbooks... Why aren't you a caster? ToB exists to counterbalance casters. If your DM is going to hamstring himself use it against him, go caster

I want to play a melee class not a caster class? And ToB was also introduced because fighters lacked versatility and options.



Also, I am starting get a bit confused now. What exactly is the issue we're currently discussing?

To what exstend does a PC have a say in the game in which he plays I guess.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 10:08 PM
I prefer melee to casters. And ToB was also introduced because fighters lacked versatility and options.

And as a playtest for 4e, according to some. And I'm inclined to agree.

3.5e and 4e doesn't mix well.

Ladorak
2009-11-28, 10:09 PM
Guess what. Everyone gets a say. The DM may make the world, but the players also invest a lot in a game. As a DM, you should make your game to suit your audience, aka your play group.

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!


Expecting everyone to conform to your expectations is just being a prima dona.

Actually I think it's called being the DM


No, no it doesn't. You know who needs to know how ToB actually works for a player to play a Warblade? The player. That's 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.

Boci
2009-11-28, 10:10 PM
And as a playtest for 4e, according to some. And I'm inclined to agree.

3.5e and 4e doesn't mix well.

4E: at will powers, encounter powers and daily powers

ToB: no at will powers, rechargable encounter powers, so no enounters powers really, and no daily powers

I'm not seeing the blinding similarities there.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 10:11 PM
Whats that any sane DM? He clearly overpowering the other PCs and thus must stop? Problem solved.
Anticipatory Strike is essentially Celerity (with minor tweaks).
Temporal Acceleration is a lower power Time stop.
Schism is an Arcane Spellsurge, with tweaks.
Synchronicity is what does it, and it only slightly powers up ready actions.

It's not the abilities, it's the combos. And who are you to tell the player what he can or can't do? After all, his actions affect him more than anything else, right?

That is your argument, right?

How is playing a warblade instead of a fighter hijacking the DMs game? Does his plot rely on me having fighter written on my character sheet?No, but perhaps his campaign is low fantasy, and relies on you not being able to make your sword burn, or teleport with your sword, or the like. Then, his story very well could. Even if it doesn't...

Even if his plot isn't harmed in the least...

You can't do anything about it, except go home. Sorry if you feel that you SHOULD be able to... But you can't.


Or the DM could listen to the wishes of his players? Are you saying that me explaining to a DM that a lot of mistakes were made during core and that ToB is one of the most highly reguarded fixes counts as me forcing my belief on others.
No, feeling that your views trump his, and his personal feelings are irrelevant, when it comes to your player in his game.

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

FIND A NEW TABLE TO SIT AT.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-28, 10:11 PM
Barbarians still have Daily Rages (same as 3.5)

Boci
2009-11-28, 10:12 PM
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!

Nightmare at level one does not equal melee classes that actually perform well.


Actually I think it's called being the DM

No it isn't. Rule -1 exists for a reason. I once had a game planned where the PCs alternate between NPC classes by day and PCs in their sleep in dreamscape. I understand however that not all people would enjoy such a game.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 10:12 PM
4E: at will powers, encounter powers and daily powers

ToB: no at will powers, rechargable encounter powers, so no enounters powers really, and no daily powers

I'm not seeing the blinding similarities there.

Well, all maneuvers are automatically refreshed at the start of every encounter, action free, so yeah, it did introduce encounter powers.

And the fact that they're rechargeable, and in many different ways, makes them a pretty close cousin to at/will powers.

Boci
2009-11-28, 10:13 PM
Well, all maneuvers are automatically refreshed at the start of every encounter, action free, so yeah, it did introduce encounter powers.

And the fact that they're rechargeable, and in many different ways, makes them a pretty close cousin to at/will powers.

So are they at will or encounter powers?

Starbuck_II
2009-11-28, 10:15 PM
Well, all maneuvers are automatically refreshed at the start of every encounter, action free, so yeah, it did introduce encounter powers.

And the fact that they're rechargeable, and in many different ways, makes them a pretty close cousin to at/will powers.

No. Encounters over refresh if you had a short rest in ToB. Now you can use the alternate refreshing way (standard action for Warblade, Full rd Swordsage, etc), but you can't refresh them all automatically unless you get a few minute rest.

Encounter is a misnomer in ToB.

This is same for 4E you need a short rest (but no alternate refreshing ability: okay there are destinys and stuff that do that).

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 10:16 PM
Boci. Do me a favor.

Open your DMG to page 18, and follow along as I read the first two sentences.


You're the arbiter of everything that happens in the game.
Period.

Please point out where in that message should there be interpreted any level of player entitlement.

Players want something, they can ask for it, and make their case. After that, the DM makes a ruling on it. Beyond that: See page 18, lines 1 and 2.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 10:17 PM
So are they at will or encounter powers?

.. That was not the point, and you know it.

Boiled down, they're the equal of a warriors abilities from just about any MMORPG. Infinite use means spam bot, and then some.

tyckspoon
2009-11-28, 10:18 PM
No, but perhaps his campaign is low fantasy, and relies on you not being able to make your sword burn, or teleport with your sword, or the like. Then, his story very well could. Even if it doesn't...


[nitpicky tangent]Those are Shadow Hand and Desert Wind, which are the Swordsage's unique schools. The Swordsage is explicitly at least part magical. The Warblade's native schools contain no supernatural maneuvers- about half of them are some variant of "hit it. Hard."[/nitpicky tangent]

Boci
2009-11-28, 10:19 PM
Anticipatory Strike is essentially Celerity (with minor tweaks).
Temporal Acceleration is a lower power Time stop.
Schism is an Arcane Spellsurge, with tweaks.
Synchronicity is what does it, and it only slightly powers up ready actions.

It's not the abilities, it's the combos. And who are you to tell the player what he can or can't do? After all, his actions affect him more than anything else, right?

That is your argument, right?

Nope. My argument is that a DM needs a proper reason, such as "its overpowered" to ban a class. Not simply "I don't like the class"



No, but perhaps his campaign is low fantasy, and relies on you not being able to make your sword burn, or teleport with your sword, or the like. Then, his story very well could. Even if it doesn't...


I thought you actually knew your stuff pheonix. I said warblade, not swordsage. And besides, if full casters are banned I might count that as a valid excuse for not allowing ToB. Depends on the details.[/QUOTE]

Even if his plot isn't harmed in the least...[/QUOTE]

I thought you actually knew your stuff pheonix. I said warblade, not swordsage. And besides, if full casters are banned I might count that as a valid excuse for not allowing ToB. Depends on the details.


You can't do anything about it, except go home. Sorry if you feel that you SHOULD be able to... But you can't.

And a DM with that atitude might just find himself staring at an empty table. I'm friends with my DM. I should be able to reason with him.


No, feeling that your views trump his, and his personal feelings are irrelevant, when it comes to your player in his game.

By personal feelings you meen an assumption shared by many? Are you saying core didn't make some mistakes with melee?


FIND A NEW TABLE TO SIT AT.

I play the game for fun, I want my opinions to be considered as well.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 10:20 PM
No. Encounters over refresh if you had a short rest in ToB. Now you can use the alternate refreshing way (standard action for Warblade, Full rd Swordsage, etc), but you can't refresh them all automatically unless you get a few minute rest.

And I quote:


You begin each encounter with all your readied maneuvers
unexpended.

Directly from the book, page 40, under Recovering Expended Maneuvers, directly below the headline.

Boci
2009-11-28, 10:20 PM
.. That was not the point, and you know it.

Boiled down, they're the equal of a warriors abilities from just about any MMORPG. Infinite use means spam bot, and then some.

Try spamming a maneuver. The rules will get in your way.



Please point out where in that message should there be interpreted any level of player entitlement.

Please point out to me where it says WoTC is always right about their own game. Are you saying if the DM says core is broken and thus sneak attack is halved and fighters only get a bonus feat every 4th level I should just accept it, or maybe try and persuade him otherwise?

Starbuck_II
2009-11-28, 10:21 PM
tyckspoon, most people who had issues have never read the book.
Kinda insanity to quibble over that fact. :smallbiggrin:

Since Desert Wind is by alphabet first: they assume everyone can do that.


And I quote:


Directly from the book, page 40, under Recovering Expended Maneuvers, directly below the headline.

That passage assumes you are already full (1st encounter), but page 38 spells it out.
"To ready maneuvers requires a brief period of practice, exercise, mediation, or prayer. The exact nature of blah blah..., but each clas requires 5 minutes of prep time."

I skipped over frivalus big words with blah blah, but gist is there.

Ladorak
2009-11-28, 10:26 PM
I thought you actually knew your stuff pheonix. I said warblade, not swordsage.

A Lv 3 Warblade can make a 50 25 tunnel in one minute using mountain hammer. Not that I'd ever ban ToB, I love ToB. But if a DM wants to ban, he bans, end of.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 10:27 PM
A Lv 3 Warblade can make a 50 25 tunnel in one minute using mountain hammer. Not that I'd ever ban ToB, I love ToB. But if a DM wants to ban, he bans, end of.

While I agree, this is where the dispute seems to be, as you've know doubt noticed.

However, I don't think either side is going to convince the other.

Boci
2009-11-28, 10:29 PM
A Lv 3 Warblade can make a 50 25 tunnel in one minute using mountain hammer. Not that I'd ever ban ToB, I love ToB.

Yes but thats using a manouver for what it wasn't intended. Besides, pheonix didn't talk about tunneling, but burning blades.


But if a DM wants to ban, he bans, end of.

And as a player in the game I have a right to inquire why he banned it.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 10:30 PM
And as a player in the game I have a right to inquire why he banned it.

But not to enforce what you want if you don't like the reason.

Go down that road, and everything becomes a crapshoot.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 10:30 PM
Please point out to me where it says WoTC is always right about their own game. Are you saying if the DM says core is broken and thus sneak attack is halved and fighters only get a bonus feat every 4th level I should just accept it, or maybe try and persuade him otherwise?

You are welcome to try.

But when he says, "Final ruling, take it or leave it"...

Then either you take it and play...

Or leave it. You are no more entitled to change a ruling than an NFL coach. Every so often, you're cool to make a challenge, under which the Ref (DM) will re-evaluate the decision, and then he/she will rule again.

Nowhere in there is the player given any right to supercede that.

As for "who is wizards of the coast to tell me the rules about the game they designed and built and turned into a multimillion dollar franchise to tell me how the game they built works"?

That's a lot like "who are those fool engineers at Ford to tell me how the maintenance on my Ford Focus is supposed to work?"

Boci
2009-11-28, 10:31 PM
But not to enforce what you want if you don't like the reason.

Go down that road, and everything becomes a crapshoot.

If I find the reasons for banning it unreasoanble, I have a right to chalange it, and I trust that my DM will not brush my words aside and either go back on his inital disicion or give me a satisfactory explanation.


While I agree, this is where the dispute seems to be, as you've know doubt noticed.

However, I don't think either side is going to convince the other.

So, as a player, you've never challanged a desicion made by your DM?


You are welcome to try.

But when he says, "Final ruling, take it or leave it"...

Then either you take it and play...

Or leave it. You are no more entitled to change a ruling than an NFL coach. Every so often, you're cool to make a challenge, under which the Ref (DM) will re-evaluate the decision, and then he/she will rule again.

Nowhere in there is the player given any right to supercede that.

And if as aplayer my wishes are being ignored by me friend the DM without a satisfactory reason, I'm going to start thinking I'm bad at making friends.


As for "who is wizards of the coast to tell me the rules about the game they designed and built and turned into a multimillion dollar franchise to tell me how the game they built works"?

That's a lot like "who are those fool engineers at Ford to tell me how the maintenance on my Ford Focus is supposed to work?"

You could say that ToB is WoTC's way of saying "Sorry we messed up melee in core, here's a fix"?

And no, that example is terribly. A ford is a material thing that can break. If I drive it off a cliff, its over. I can still use my D&D books after making a mistake with them.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-28, 10:31 PM
A Lv 3 Warblade can make a 50 25 tunnel in one minute using mountain hammer. Not that I'd ever ban ToB, I love ToB. But if a DM wants to ban, he bans, end of.

Does he just Power Attack? I mean, really a Level 1 Binder/Full bab Class with Power attack bypasses hardness easily as well.
Any attack by Vestige Aym on objects = double damage.
So a 20 Str person with 2 BAB (since Binder is 3/4th) deal 2d6 +7 damage (averaging 14). Now PA for 2 = 4 damage =18 damage x2 =36 damage.

Now that won't destroy everything but 36 is pretty good.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-28, 10:33 PM
If I find the reasons for banning it unreasoanble, I have a right to chalange it, and I trust that my DM will not brush my words aside and either go back on his inital disicion or give me a satisfactory explanation.


You have that right. And the DM has a right to say "No. Noooooooo. Which letter aren't you grasping?"

The DM, if he likes, can ban everything but commoners (I've done this before, for level 1 only. We were simulating a normal town hit by a zombie apocalypse). He can ban the Magic Missile spell because he thinks that potatoes are fluffy.

He's really got carte blanche, adn the final word. The only vote players get is in their choice to play.

Edwin
2009-11-28, 10:36 PM
If I find the reasons for banning it unreasoanble, I have a right to chalange it, and I trust that my DM will not brush my words aside and either go back on his inital disicion or give me a satisfactory explanation.

What, are your assessment of a particular game mechanic and the reason for banning worth more than the DM's, and as such, he should listen to you? And more to the point, do as you want?

Boci
2009-11-28, 10:37 PM
You have that right. And the DM has a right to say "No. Noooooooo. Which letter aren't you grasping?"

The one that involves the bad motivation behind the ruling. The DMG says you should consider some questions when changing rules.


What, are your assessment of a particular game mechanic and the reason for banning worth more than the DM's, and as such, he should listen to you? And more to the point, do as you want?

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.



The DM, if he likes, can ban everything but commoners (I've done this before, for level 1 only. We were simulating a normal town hit by a zombie apocalypse).

And if a player had challanged your idea for a game, saying "Isn't this a heroic game?" would you have just said, "Because I want to?" or would you have gone into more detail? Doesn't the player have a right to the motivation behind the DMs ruling?

DragoonWraith
2009-11-28, 10:40 PM
While I agree, this is where the dispute seems to be, as you've know doubt noticed.

However, I don't think either side is going to convince the other.
Agreed. I strongly disagree with those who think DM = god, but I'm not going to argue the point. WotC would seem to agree with that line of reasoning, but I simply do not.

arguskos
2009-11-28, 10:40 PM
He can ban the Magic Missile spell because he thinks that potatoes are fluffy.
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: