PDA

View Full Version : ToB: flavor?



randomhero00
2010-03-06, 04:49 PM
This is not in reference to groups banning Tome of Battle from a balance/OP perspective, but for the groups that ban it from a flavor/fluff perspective where it doesn't fit into there game. I'm just curious as to why? I've seen that referenced several times about the flavor not fitting (but not seen it explained), and don't get it at all. My game allows it so this isn't a rant or anything, just out of curiosity.

Is it because they are martial classes with flashy effects? Why should wizards et al be the only ones with flashy powers eh? I mean if we can interact with giant flying spellcasting talking lizards that like to shapechange and mate with other species, a guy that can make his sword enflamed isn't all that flashy...:smallbiggrin:'

Or is it some other reason I'm not thinking of?

Elfin
2010-03-06, 04:50 PM
Most who ban it from a fluff perspective, in my experience, do so because they feel the flavor is overly Eastern.

Personally, I think that the Tome of Battle is easy enough to fit into a European world (though it probably helps that I actually like the flavor), but it's undoubtedly somewhat divergent from the standard setting.

KellKheraptis
2010-03-06, 04:53 PM
Most people I know of here seem to make the comparison to Jedi. They just don't realize I can make a DnD lightsaber just fine without Diamond Mind maneuvers (or Soulknife).

Superglucose
2010-03-06, 04:55 PM
Most who ban it from a fluff perspective, in my experience, do so because they feel the flavor is overly Eastern.
That.

It's not a wrong decision nor is playing with ToB a "wrong" decision, it's just a decision. Can we stop having bloody wars over whether or not some gaming group who lives approximately 30000000000 miles away from you uses one book that you happen to really like?

aivanther
2010-03-06, 04:57 PM
The group I was in the banned it from fluff perspective thought it violated the idea of warrior-esque groups, as the stances and maneuvers flow basically into a "warrior-mage" flavor, meaning everyone was basically some sort of mage variant.

sonofzeal
2010-03-06, 04:59 PM
The word that gets thrown around a lot is "too anime", which is (imo) entirely a misnomer. What it is, is too much like "Action Hero (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 a perfectly valid fluff complaint, and a totally legitimate reason not to use it if you don't think D&D, or your game in particular, 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.

randomhero00
2010-03-06, 05:00 PM
Most who ban it from a fluff perspective, in my experience, do so because they feel the flavor is overly Eastern.
Ahh, I suppose that makes sense. Although for every bit of eastern flavor there is an equal amount of other stuff. Like crusader has always felt pretty gothic/medieval to me.



It's not a wrong decision nor is playing with ToB a "wrong" decision, it's just a decision. Can we stop having bloody wars over whether or not some gaming group who lives approximately 30000000000 miles away from you uses one book that you happen to really like?
Say what? I went out of my way to say I was asking out of curiosity. No one is fighting here.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-03-06, 05:01 PM
Some people seem to think that you are required to fluff the attacks as Anime-Style, complete with shouting out "CHESTNUTS ROASTING OVER AN OPEN FIRE TECHNIQUE!!!" when using any maneuver.

Fluff is... fluff. It's mutable, however you wish to do it. Not everyone gets that.

The Dark Fiddler
2010-03-06, 05:03 PM
I've never understood banning anything for flavor, personally. A good (or even average) person can completely rework the fluff and make it still work.

ToB is especially confusing, since the most common reason is because the fluff is too Eastern. Combine the fact that I don't get where people are coming from with this with above not understanding banning for flavor at all, and you have a confused Dark Fiddler. :smallconfused:

randomhero00
2010-03-06, 05:07 PM
Some people seem to think that you are required to fluff the attacks as Anime-Style, complete with shouting out "CHESTNUTS ROASTING OVER AN OPEN FIRE TECHNIQUE!!!" when using any maneuver.

Fluff is... fluff. It's mutable, however you wish to do it. Not everyone gets that.

+1
I always refluff every character I make anyways, to be more in tune to my background. I had a crusader for instance that was taught to fight by devils (long story) and was very dark. He fought for redemption. His fluff was closer to a Death Knight type (his heals where based in necromancy for instance).

AslanCross
2010-03-06, 05:22 PM
Ahh, I suppose that makes sense. Although for every bit of eastern flavor there is an equal amount of other stuff. Like crusader has always felt pretty gothic/medieval to me.


True; the crusader is really pretty much just a warrior who achieves superhuman feats because of his faith, which is slightly more common in the West than in the East, by my reckoning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eastern archetypes achieve supernatural feats often achieve superhuman feats by actually being deities (Rama or Krishna, for example), or by being really awesome (Musashi Miyamoto). There are also some characters who do gain power through devotion: Arjuna, his rival Ashwatthama, and even demons like Ravana.

In the West, you've got Roland, Joan of Arc, and a whole bunch of warrior-saints. Mostly I find that the crusader's fluff is more dependent on the deity he or she serves rather than the maneuvers he gets. In fact when I make crusaders, I often change the names completely. For an evil crusader, Revitalizing Strike would be something like Blood Indulgence; The deity grants a surge of strength for the blood that was just spilled. A worshiper of Tiamat's Divine Surge would be Invoke the Dragonqueen.

Apollo1776
2010-03-06, 05:22 PM
I guess it does seem a little "eastern".

Personally I like it; it adds some nice flare to the fighting classes. All of the sudden up-front warriors aren't limited to "here sword. go kill." They have more tactics and abilities. Like ya' know, they know what they're doing in a fight.

Boci
2010-03-06, 05:23 PM
Exactly. Here's a couple of post's from my swordsage in a play-by-post game. He's just wierd gish simply put, and without the supernatural maneuvers he your standard fighter.

So this was what it was like. The feeling before battle: the heightened awareness, the illusion of elsewhere. Chantiff raised his blade, an action that seemed to take for eternity. He must not think, else his mind would over analyse the situation leaving no time for his body to act. It was instant that would direct him in his first battle.
His feet fell softly across the rough earthen floor. The first foul creature loomed up as he neared. Deep within his soul, the secret he had invited in stirred. The steel of his own blade seemed to blur, as if its substance fed the other one that momentarily sprung into existence. The two razor sharp edges closed in on the kobold. Chantiff could see the creature’s semi scaled skin; eyes squinted against the bright glare of his torch.
But then the second blade disappeared. Furiously Chantif realized his concentrated had lapsed, ruining the technique. Worse, he had underestimated how harder it was to use the manoeuvre in combat and the strain of recalling it had enfeebled his main attack. As a last ditch effort he projected onto the blade the anger he felt. The energy left him, surrounding his weapon and fire licked the metal.

Chantif allowed himself a moment to mentally inform the god of luck that he did not deserve her ire, before adapting his strategy. Instinct had failed him, so now was he going to give his analytical mind a chance. He needed to move, otherwise the shadows cloaking him would shed and he would vulnerable to the kobold’s attacks. That much was sure.
Releasing his leg muscles he fell backwards, arching his back to land on his shoulders first, and completing the movement by throwing his legs forwards and allowing momentum to carrying away from the kobold, too swift to give him an opening.
He flashed his eyes around as he chose his next opponent. With short, efficient steps he moved into melee with the next generic kobold in line.
His opponent was placing more weight on his left leg, and his stance protected that limb in favour of the other.
In a flash Chantif moved, aiming a kick at his opponent left leg, causing the kobold to step back. The kick fell short as he had anticipated, but now Chantif’s blade made a straight line for the kobold right left, aiming directly for the blood vessel located at the top of the thigh.
To seal the kobold fate, Chantiff let the final reserve of his soul's fire loose. It flowed around the kobold, unnoticed, until it consolidated into a flame. It lived for but a second, but that was all he needed.

In slow motion. That was how Chantif saw the powerful, overhead blow. He did not know how, but his adrenaline glands were still working, keeping his body alert, making sure it pulled through this ordeal, or series of them, alive.
But just as he felt the subconscious part of his mind preparing him to jump back, a second substance, far more subtle than adrenaline, began to direct his body. He stepped forwards, aligning his body but an inch away from his opponent.
In such close proximity, the orc's weapon was useless. The brute looked down to see the shortsword stuck hilt deep in his chest. "A fighting style that abandons all defense for power is just a glorified form of suicide," he whispered in his opponent's ear, before wrenching his blade free.

Morty
2010-03-06, 05:26 PM
That.

It's not a wrong decision nor is playing with ToB a "wrong" decision, it's just a decision. Can we stop having bloody wars over whether or not some gaming group who lives approximately 30000000000 miles away from you uses one book that you happen to really like?

Truer words have never been spoken. Or more likely, they have. But those are true nonetheless.

Boci
2010-03-06, 05:29 PM
That.
It's not a wrong decision nor is playing with ToB a "wrong" decision, it's just a decision.

But saying ToB characters must be eastern flavour is wrong.


Can we stop having bloody wars over whether or not some gaming group who lives approximately 30000000000 miles away from you uses one book that you happen to really like?

Usually people are annoyed by the reason the book is not used. For example, once poster said as a DM he would not allow the book to be used by his players, because he did not like it, whoch is a bad sign for a DM.

Morty
2010-03-06, 05:36 PM
Usually people are annoyed by the reason the book is not used.

At the risk of being Captain Obvious, why do you care? I mean, some people out there refuse to use a single D&D supplement for reasons you find illogical or blatantly untrue. What's the big deal?

Boci
2010-03-06, 05:37 PM
At the risk of being Captain Obvious, why do you care? I mean, some people out there refuse to use a single D&D supplement for reasons you find illogical or blatantly untrue. What's the big deal?

Why do you care about my attempts to do this? Why do we bother pointing out if someone has the rules wrong? Why do we comment on other poster's house rules? This is an internet forume for discussions and arguments. Personally, I do it because I sleep better knowing I have liberated more groups from the aweful core melee system.

Morty
2010-03-06, 05:39 PM
Why do you care about my attempts to do this? Why do we bother pointing out if someone has the rules wrong? This is an internet forume for discussions and arguments. Personally, I do it because I sleep better knowing I have liberated more groups from the aweful core melee system.

Oh-kay. I don't think I can argue against that. See, in the most cases, I belive that if someone thinks something, they have a legitimate reason for that. So if you belive that fiercely arguing that not using ToB is wrong makes the world better, more power to you.

Boci
2010-03-06, 05:42 PM
Oh-kay. I don't think I can argue against that. See, in the most cases, I belive that if someone thinks something, they have a legitimate reason for that.

And your wrong. Most new DMs think blatant rail roading is okay, and some thing super powerful DMPCs are as well (I am guilty of both). But as we play we learn otherwise. Whether or not to use ToB is a less clear cut case, but I argue for it never-the-less.


So if you belive that fiercely arguing that not using ToB is wrong makes the world better, more power to you.

So in the above example, is some DM fiercly believed super powerful DMPCs were cool, would you argue with him?

Morty
2010-03-06, 05:43 PM
And your wrong. Most new DMs think blatant rail roading is okay, and some thing super powerful DMPCs are as well (I am guilty of both). But as we play we learn otherwise. Whether or not to use ToB is a less clear cut case, but I argue for it never-the-less.



So in the above example, is some DM fiercly believed super powerful DMPCs were cool, would you argue with him?

I said: in most cases.

DragoonWraith
2010-03-06, 05:44 PM
{Scrubbed}

Boci
2010-03-06, 05:46 PM
I said: in most cases.

So people have right to argue for something as long as you believe it? I like ToB, but if someone thinks that using it is detrimental to the game I have no problem with them laying out their evidence for their case.

Morty
2010-03-06, 05:51 PM
{Scrubbed}

Perhaps I should have phrased it better. I wasn't talking about serious decisions, but about personal preferences. Such as what to use when playing a tabletop game.


So people have right to argue for something as long as you believe it? I like ToB, but if someone thinks that using it is detrimental to the game I have no problem with them laying out their evidence for their case.

Evidence? They don't need evidence. They don't like it. It's not an academic debate. It's a game. If using ToB isn't fun for them, it's all the reason they need for not using it. If a DM says that he won't use it because he doesn't like it, it's only a problem when the rest of the group wants to use it, and in that case it should be dealt with as any other such case.

Boci
2010-03-06, 05:53 PM
Evidence? They don't need evidence. They don't like it. It's not an academic debate. It's a game. If using ToB isn't fun for them, it's all the reason they need for not using it. If a DM says that he won't use it because he doesn't like it, it's only a problem when the rest of the group wants to use it, and in that case it should be dealt with as any other such case.

But why don't they like it? This is where the flawed logci is usually found if there is any. Counter argument: I really like super powerful DMPCs, so thats all the reason I need to use them.

Pluto
2010-03-06, 05:55 PM
I like ToB, but lots of people I play with don't. I don't try to tell them they're wrong, because they're not.

Swordsage maneuvers don't really jibe with the feel of most our games. The swirling shadows and firey swords aren't so bad on their own (Fighter/Wizards are usually acceptable), but packaged together, they don't really... fit. They evoke the grinning comic book villain as he literally fades into the shadows and the anime warrior who juggles flames. This is not the sort of game we usually play. (And when we do, it's in the context of a knight swinging a magical flaming sword, not a bladewitch initiating a Desert Tempest Strike... most of it is language.)

The titles of maneuvers are reminiscient of kung fu movies, not of European myths (nothing I've heard of anyway). Yes, titled techniques are just as common in western martial arts. That doesn't matter. When I hear Wolf Fang Strike, I think of 70's kung fu films. It's the only place the title fits for me -- I don't know anyone who studies historical swordplay. I think that's true of most people who complain about that aspect.

(edit: As far as "fluff is mutable," so is crunch. Except on internet forums, the flavor text is less maleable than its rules -- the Order of the Bow Initiate might suck, but one player in my group took levels in it nonetheless because it matches the character he wants to play. And when he realized just how weak it is, we swapped the bonus damage for ranged sneak attack. In another game a long time ago, someone used a Druid. We realized just how silly it was, and we reworked Wild shape to give ability modifers rather than new abilities.)

And even these aren't the driving forces for avoiding the book. It's these and the book optimizing itself (which is terrible in games where the wizard is throwing Burning Hands around and the Cleric deliberately tanks his initiative so that he can wait for someone to be hurt before he takes his turn to heal) and the burden to learn a new set of rules and yet another sourcebook to pile onto the table. (I've never known anyone who actively disliked the book; it's usually a general indifference and a feeling of "neat idea, but not for our game.")

Morty
2010-03-06, 05:55 PM
But why don't they like it? This is where the flawed logci is usually found if there is any. Counter argument: I really like super powerful DMPCs, so thats all the reason I need to use them.

Are you seriously arguing super powerful DMPCs aren't more destructive for the game than not using a single non-core book? :smallsigh:

Roderick_BR
2010-03-06, 05:59 PM
I've never understood banning anything for flavor, personally. A good (or even average) person can completely rework the fluff and make it still work.

ToB is especially confusing, since the most common reason is because the fluff is too Eastern. Combine the fact that I don't get where people are coming from with this with above not understanding banning for flavor at all, and you have a confused Dark Fiddler. :smallconfused:
Saying that something is "too anime"(or weeaboo, or narutard, or whatever) and therefore bad, is trendy, didn't you know?

Boci
2010-03-06, 06:00 PM
Are you seriously arguing super powerful DMPCs are no more destructive for the game than not using a single non-core book? :smallsigh:

Its impossible to quantify and compare the two, since there are too many unknown variables, can I can think of situations where yes, the latter has a greater impact. So generally no, but sometimes yes.

HunterOfJello
2010-03-06, 06:12 PM
Rename Swordsage to Swordmage and change his Wisdom abilities all to Intelligence. The new Swordmages can be like Thayan Knights who were taught magical abilities to protect powerful wizards. Keep Warblades as Special Forces fighter types. And make Crusaders have their divine powers inborn like Favored Souls.

Ta Da! No longer eastern.



(And pretty much exactly like their original flavor text anyway.)

AslanCross
2010-03-06, 06:13 PM
I'm really fine with people eventually deciding not to use it. What I try to do is to show people another perspective, especially since I'm Asian (albeit from probably the most Westernized Asian country with our American first names and Spanish surnames), and that the representation of the East in popular culture is rarely accurate.

What I react to really strongly is the use of the loathsome term "weeaboo," which thankfully has not come up in the same way it did in the last thread that got locked.

DragoonWraith
2010-03-06, 06:13 PM
Basically, it comes down to what Boci said - the core melee system, and therefore every melee class that isn't from ToB, is terrible. They're boring to play, they're boring to build, and they're underpowered. They don't have any utility options of any kind, and combat comes down to "I full attack it. Again.", while most don't have any ability outside of combat. It is unfathomable that this could be desirable. People might have reasons to not feel like they need ToB, but in all honesty, it is my opinion and the opinion of many that you do, in fact, need ToB to have any reasonable semblance of balance between a party of noncasters and casters. Not just raw power balance, but also balance in versatility, balance in customizability, balance in out of combat ability, and balance in fun.

Basically, it is very difficult for me to believe that anyone who doesn't use ToB actually understands what it is they're missing. If the fluff doesn't work, change it. It's not hard, just rename maneuvers that seem out of place. But the mechanics are excellent, they're the best written for 3.5 there are, and they should be used - to not use them is tantamount to declaring "melee can't have nice things" from the get-go.

EDIT: I should be clear - the above is my opinion. I realize other people disagree. What I'm saying is, I simply cannot understand how on earth they could possibly prefer core melee. This is inexplicable for me.

Hadrian_Emrys
2010-03-06, 06:14 PM
I like ToB, but lots of people I play with don't. I don't try to tell them they're wrong, because they're not.

Swordsage maneuvers don't really jibe with the feel of most our games. The swirling shadows and firey swords aren't so bad on their own (Fighter/Wizards are usually acceptable), but packaged together, they don't really... fit. They evoke the grinning comic book villain as he literally fades into the shadows and the anime warrior who juggles flames. This is not the sort of game we usually play. (And when we do, it's in the context of a knight swinging a magical flaming sword, not a bladewitch initiating a Desert Tempest Strike... most of it is language.)

The titles of maneuvers are reminiscient of kung fu movies, not of European myths (nothing I've heard of anyway). Yes, titled techniques are just as common in western martial arts. That doesn't matter. When I hear Wolf Fang Strike, I think of 70's kung fu films. It's the only place the title fits for me -- I don't know anyone who studies historical swordplay. I think that's true of most people who complain about that.

And even these aren't the driving forces for avoiding the book. It's these and the book optimizing itself (which is terrible in games where the wizard is throwing Burning Hands around and the Cleric deliberately tanks his initiative so that he can wait for someone to be hurt before he takes his turn to heal) and the burden to learn a new set of rules and yet another sourcebook to pile onto the table. (I've never known anyone who actively disliked the book; it's usually a general indifference and a feeling of "neat idea, but not for our game.")

Much like the rest of the terrible tripe that Wizards has cranked out over the years, I gloss over the fluff. An attack is an attack, supernaturally enhanced or not. The mechanics are there to provide an order to a role play exercise so as to avoid the classic make-believe spat of "I shot you!" "No you didn't! I x'ed!" "Yes I did because you can't do x!"

The base premise for the flavor of the ToB is terrible, but it is all meaningless fluff as one determines the non-mechanical traits of their characters, not the half-arsed material cranked out seasonally by apathetic people who couldn't be bothered play test to save their lives.

Gametime
2010-03-06, 06:16 PM
Are you seriously arguing super powerful DMPCs are no more destructive for the game than not using a single non-core book? :smallsigh:

Does it matter if he is? I mean, if someone liking something is all the reason they need to play (or not play) with it, then it shouldn't matter how detrimental it is to the game.

But, of course, that's a reduction of your argument, which I (mostly) agree with. There are other things for groups to take into consideration, and it isn't really anyone else's business.

That said, here are my thoughts on the issue.

1. Tome of Battle undeniably has a distinctly Eastern flavor for a lot of the backstory. The mechanics themselves rarely seem particularly so; the Swordsage is an exception, but aside from Desert Wind, Diamond Mind, Shadow Hand, and Setting Sun the disciplines honestly seem more Western to me. Devoted Spirit is a crusading knight, White Raven is a military commander, Iron Heart is a determined veteran, Tiger Claw is a furious berserker, and so on. To call ToB excessively Eastern is to imply either that a) any amount of Eastern fluff is too much, or b) you aren't really paying attention to the vast amount of non-Eastern flavor in the book.

Note that neither reason is indefensible. As posters above me have said, not liking something is a legitimate reason to not play it. Our desires and ideas are not entirely rational.

2. It isn't my place to tell people they're playing the game wrong. It isn't their place to tell me I am not allowed to even discuss the decisions they make about the game. If you don't want to play with ToB, fine. That's your prerogative. But if you come onto an internet forum and give a specific reason for not playing with the book (beyond "I don't like it"), then I might respond to you. I might question your assumptions. I might question your conclusions. I might question any piece of factual information you offer. What I will never do is insult your opinions, but if you present a rationally-based argument to justify those opinions then I definitely might question that.

This forum is a place for (polite and mature) discussion. You can request that we not talk about certain things, but ultimately we can say whatever we want to within the constraints of the forum rules (and the jurisdiction of the moderators). If I'm not being rude, I don't see how my discussion of someone's policy towards a book harms their playing experience.

3. Facts are not opinions. The latter need no defense. The former do. I like to talk. I like to debate. I like to get to the truth behind things, to understand why people do what they do. I think it's fascinating. I also think that sometimes we form opinions based on misconceptions; if I think someone doesn't like ToB because of a misconception, I'll put forward the idea that they might like it more if they re-examined their perspective. Not because everyone has to like ToB, but because I like it, a lot of people like it, and everyone deserves the chance to like it. If they still don't, fine, but I'm not going to let it lie if someone says they hate ToB because it was printed on paper soaked in the blood of a thousand innocent dolphins. I'm going to correct that falsehood because I think everyone should be given the full truth about a subject before they make a decision about it.

Do I expect everyone to like ToB once they view it from a fully informed perspective? No. And that's fine. But you can hardly blame those of us who want to educate people about a subject we think is important.

4. If a player avoids a ToB class because he doesn't like the flavor, it's fine. If a DM bans ToB classes because he doesn't like the flavor, it can cause problems. This isn't really unique to ToB at all, but I think it inspires this conflict more than most books. (Psionics is perhaps more commonly a victim; I think Incarnum would be, too, if more groups had heard of it and if it was as immediately appealing.)

You have to communicate with your DM and your group to reach a consensus. Being told you can't play something because it ruins game balance is something every player has dealt with, and usually understands. Being told you can't play something for flavor reasons doesn't go down quite as well. It's so easy to reflavor a class that I think a lot of players resent a DM that won't let them play what they want for purely fluff concerns, and that indignation can be felt vicariously over the forums as well.

It's the DM's call on what's allowed in his or her game, but if he or she makes calls that the players don't like, it might harm the group. This doesn't make his or her dislike for the book any less justified; as I said above, his dislike needs no justification. But I think a good DM will at least try to work with his or her players to allow everyone to play what they want; banning a book outright for pure flavor reasons is a harsh and, I think, overreactive approach.

Gametime
2010-03-06, 06:17 PM
So the people who don't use ToB but have fun in their games are doing it wrong? Because, you know, this is what you're saying here.

No. He's saying they might find they could have more fun if they tried ToB, and that you can't form an informed opinion on a book without at least trying it.

His opinion is very clearly in favor of universal ToB allowedness, but you do your position no favors by reducing his points to strawmen.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 06:29 PM
Speaking for myself and my group - ToB is far too wuxia/anime for the Tolkienesque/Arthurian feel we are going for in our games. I've heard all the arguments as to why ToB is not wuxia/anime based, but I just can't shake it, sorry. We also don't use psionics for similar reasons (too sci-fi).

Add to that, at the time ToB came out, most of my group were still pretty new to 3.X, and didn't want to learn a new subset of rules. Ditto for MoI etc.

ToB was actually the 2nd splat I bought (the first being PHB II). I ended up trading it in (along with MoI) in on Cityscape and Dungeonscape...and I've never regretted my decision.

...and yes, we still manage to have fun in our games. Hell, we even manage to have fun in (shock horror) core only games. :smalltongue:

Boci
2010-03-06, 06:33 PM
Speaking for myself and my group - ToB is far too wuxia/anime for the Tolkienesque/Arthurian feel we are going for in our games. I've heard all the arguments as to why ToB is not wuxia/anime based, but I just can't shake it, sorry.

But a warblade is a fighter barring 3 maneuvers, and the crusader is more a paladin. The swordsage is a monk with supernatural abilities that actually matter, or if thats problomatic, a gish. Do you have a problem with that interpretation?



...and yes, we still manage to have fun in our games. Hell, we even manage to have fun in (shock horror) core only games. :smalltongue:

So have I. But I have more fun with more books.

ericgrau
2010-03-06, 06:39 PM
It's because ToB gives magic without magic, so to speak. That may be hard to swallow for some. Others may not care. Just let it be.

As for core martial flavor, see rules in sig. Or use magic items. Wondrous ones are my favorite for flavor. High level martial characters are expected to have access to plenty of magic. It's merely from objects instead of innate.

Spiryt
2010-03-06, 06:41 PM
We also don't use psionics for similar reasons (too sci-fi).


Depends - I've never had a chance to use psionics, but some of powers are quite interesting for representing the feats of warriors minds, focus, wisdom of war and crap.

Empty Mind
Vigor
Temporal Acceleration
Hammer

You've got to change flavour usually, but that's really not work at all.

Most don't fit, but some are very fine.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 06:43 PM
Basically, it comes down to what Boci said - the core melee system, and therefore every melee class that isn't from ToB, is terrible. They're boring to play, they're boring to build, and they're underpowered.
*mental note to self* Stop enjoying playing Morix Gravelbeard, Dwarven Fighter/Ranger. :smallannoyed:

...you know, some people (in fact, quite a lot of the people I've played with in over 20 years of gaming, in 7 or more groups) do enjoy "just hitting things". And to say it is the only option for all non-ToB 3.5 classes is a massive furphy. Just because tripping, disarming etc etc are "suboptimal" in the eyes of some, does not mean they are not options.

I used to play 1E and 2E. In those systems, simply bashing things really was the only option for melee types (particularly in 1E). And yet, we all still played them. And yes, even managed to enjoy it! Oh what deluded children we must have been...

There seems to be some massive assumptions that everyone should enjoy the game in exactly the same way, and if you manage to enjoy something that others don't, you are either a "n00b" and don't know any better, or you are having "badwrongfun". It really is a little sad that some people narrow midedly assume that their way is the only right way to enjoy D&D. *note: this is not aimed directly at Dragoonwraith, it's a comment on some general attitudes I see here (and elsewhere on the net).

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 06:48 PM
But a warblade is a fighter barring 3 maneuvers, and the crusader is more a paladin. The swordsage is a monk with supernatural abilities that actually matter, or if thats problomatic, a gish. Do you have a problem with that interpretation?
Not at all.

As I said, I have read all the arguments as to why the flavor in ToB doesn't need to be wuxia/anime. It just doesn't gel with me, or my group. IMHO, the fluff is too heavily ingrained in ToB to easily ignore. YMMV.

So have I. But I have more fun with more books.
...well, that's good to hear. My group doesn't - gamestyle preferences vary widely between groups - what makes for good gaming in one group, doesn't necessarily do the same for the next.

Boci
2010-03-06, 06:49 PM
...you know, some people (in fact, quite a lot of the people I've played with in over 20 years of gaming, in 7 or more groups) do enjoy "just hitting things".

This is a concept we simply do not understand. How can people not find it boring to be stuck moving no more than 5ft per round, or losing out vastly on their damage potential? Wouldn't it be better to be ample to move up to 30ft?


IMHO, the fluff is too heavily ingrained in ToB to easily ignore. YMMV.

But that is just wrong. You may see it so, but it isn't true. It is perfectly possible to play a warblade without anyone thinking of asia.


It's because ToB gives magic without magic, so to speak.

It doesn't thugh. The warblade has 3 problematic maeuvers, none of which are essential. Nothing else resembles magic.



...well, that's good to hear. My group doesn't

Just to clarify, you have tried using 3 source books, and tried using 20, and prefer the former?

Lycanthromancer
2010-03-06, 06:55 PM
Speaking for myself and my group - ToB is far too wuxia/anime for the Tolkienesque/Arthurian feel we are going for in our games.All of your games are E6, then? Because anything else doesn't fall within those borders.


I've heard all the arguments as to why ToB is not wuxia/anime based, but I just can't shake it, sorry.Fighters, paladins, and monks are too wuxia? Because the ToB classes are essentially those in fluff, just with different (and more interesting) mechanics attached to them which serve the same purpose (being a melee combatant).

As for the naming schemes, check out some Western European fighting styles. You'd be amazed at how they sound exactly like the maneuvers in the ToB. If fencing and archery and use of the broadsword are anime, then I'm pretty sure we should just scrap all the melee classes, and just play casters. *shrug*


We also don't use psionics for similar reasons (too sci-fi).Which is more science-y, manipulating your surroundings through chemicals and formulae, through studying textbooks and experimenting, or creating fire and shooting lightning, transporting yourself and others, and manipulating the people around you with your mind?

Because, y'know, that's how core "magic" and psionics do their respective things.


Add to that, at the time ToB came out, most of my group were still pretty new to 3.X, and didn't want to learn a new subset of rules. Ditto for MoI etc.Fair enough, though ToB is easier to learn than the core magic system.


ToB was actually the 2nd splat I bought (the first being PHB II). I ended up trading it in (along with MoI) in on Cityscape and Dungeonscape...and I've never regretted my decision.

...and yes, we still manage to have fun in our games. Hell, we even manage to have fun in (shock horror) core only games. :smalltongue:Fun is all fine and dandy, but I wonder how much more fun your group would have if the martial characters actually had a few more options available to them both in and out of combat.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 06:55 PM
This is a concept we simply do not understand. How can people not find it boring to be stuck moving no more than 5ft per round, or losing out vastly on their damage potential? Wouldn't it be better to be ample to move up to 30ft?
In that case, why is everyone in the party not simply a Wizard or Druid? If being the ultimate damage dealer with ultimate variety of effects is your primary goal with a character, surely all non-full-casters are redundant?

...it's like asking how can you enjoy watching heavy-weight boxing compared to light-weight. In heavy weight, there is a lot more standing and pounding, compared to the far more dodging and weaving in light-weight bouts. It's simply a matter of taste.

It's like me asking how anyone can enjoy pop-muic, when heavy metal is around? Different strokes for different folks.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 06:57 PM
But that is just wrong. You may see it so, but it isn't true. It is perfectly possible to play a warblade without anyone thinking of asia.
Um, you do know what IMHO and YMMV mean, don't you? How can my own opinion possibly be wrong?

Just to clarify, you have tried using 3 source books, and tried using 20, and prefer the former?
Not prefer - about the same, actually.

ericgrau
2010-03-06, 06:58 PM
But that is just wrong. You may see it so, but it isn't true. It is perfectly possible to play a warblade without anyone thinking of asia.
Yeah, but the alternative fluffs aren't any better.

As mentioned you don't have to 5 foot step and full attack with damage. There's special attacks, magic items, terrain, etc., etc.

Btw, the warblade in my current group keeps using the same maneuver/stance or w/e he's doing b/c that's what he has and that's what's most effective. Every once in a while he'll be able to do something slightly different, but nothing special. All I see is because of XYZ he does N damage this round. Or who knows, maybe he's using a different manuever but all I see is ok, it does this much damage. I don't see it as any more interesting. Or maybe that's what happens when you take the existing fluff away?



It doesn't thugh. The warblade has 3 problematic maeuvers, none of which are essential. Nothing else resembles magic.

I seem to remember a dozen more than that purely from the previews. Is the one where you deal damage with concentration checks on that list of 3?

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-06, 07:00 PM
I have to agree with thurbane.

I own TOB. I've played TOB classes in other peoples games.
From my play all of us including my self agree with that there is a distinctly Anime feel to it. Even though the class was re fluffed. I think it was just calling out the "attack name"... Like I'm going to use my Ruby nightmare blade attack. I know it may sound stupid but i know a large group of people agree that it feels to anime. All of the people that i've played with bar a few are anime fans as well and they agree..

When we play and we are play a high fantasy game we some times allow TOB though its funny alot of the fighter types may pick up a feat or two from tob mabye a level dip or so but never seem to take the full classes..

Mechanic's wise im a big fan of TOB, I've always loved Starwars saga edition which IMO is tob pritty much.

Any way, my group tends to stay away. I don't usually allow the classes from TOB we do allow feats from it,(non manuver/stance feats like snap kick and Supioror unarmed strike). Thoguh even when i do typicaly my players don't pic them... Heh which is funny cuz when i allow ToM they jump at the oppertunity to play binders, shadow casters, and truenamers... lol



But as far as the argument about it being to anime or not. I have not realy seen any evidence that it isn't, yes you can refluff the abilities and names of things but Most of the time from my experiance gm's just want to use abilities out of box rather then going and modifying. err atleast as far as i've seen.

balistafreak
2010-03-06, 07:02 PM
Evidence? They don't need evidence. They don't like it. It's not an academic debate. It's a game. If using ToB isn't fun for them, it's all the reason they need for not using it.

Games can be serious business too. :smallwink:

I'm going to make a Magic the Gathering analogy. Anyone who doesn't keep up with some very staple cards in the entire game, stop reading. I won't waste the time to quantify and explain every single card I mention, because that would make the post about three times longer than you'd be willing to read.

You and your friends play lunchtime multiplayer, free-for-all with plenty of diplomacy, cooperation, casualness such as take-backs and most importantly lots of laughs and fun. You're playing decks that quite frankly could be better, but can hold their own against most other decks that exist in the non-tournament scene. (That's an entire new can of worms that will be sidestepped.)

You laugh at cards like Healing Salve for good reason. Cards like Oblivion Ring and Counterspell are widely accepted and in fact expected to be played. A Tarmogoyf will draw exclamations of misery and/or wrinkled brows, but people will be perfectly willing to play with it as long as the deck itself isn't as supercharged as that card. The moment someone drops a Mox onto the table (playing a deck that expects itself to need it, specifically) everyone packs up and leaves, not just because they refuse to risk damaging the card :smalltongue: but because it's not fun to play against a deck that is so obviously ridiculously powerful it won't be worth the game. (Not that any of us own a Mox, but we all agreed on one thing - no wars of escalation, forcing people to spend hundreds of dollars to stay competetive. That's what the tourney scene is for. :p)

Consider Healing Salve as a Tier 5-6 class like Fighter. It does one thing, and it does that one thing poorly in comparison to some other cards (Feudkiller's Verdict, Congregate). A Tier 3-4 table will facepalm and/or laugh at the sight of it.

Oblivion Ring and Counterspell, the cards that offer options but don't break the game by themselves, fall into Tier 3-4 - these are like Tome of Battle classes, who are good at what they do, which happens to give them options and hence fun in a game. Anyone isn't playing these or similiarly powerful cards at a Tier 3-4 table had better have a pretty good reason or special deck that can hold its own regardless.

A Tarmogoyf, a card that offers options (as a creature) and is super efficent and powerful to boot is an analogy borders on a Tier 2 - it's tolerable and quite fun if played in moderation and not used to walk all over players with impunity. We're fine with you playing a Tarmogoyf as an "efficent creature" in a deck full of other fun stuff. Play "Threshold Aggro" from the Legacy tournament scene that uses this as a pillar of support, and we'll give you the boot.

Moxes flag a deck that is so ridiculously overpowered that no one will have a chance; a Tier 1 Codzilla or Superwizardofawesomethatbeatsthegamebyhimself. An Oblivion Ring simply isn't going to have very much effectiveness against a deck that dares require a Mox to function.

So what was the purpose of this whole discussion?

Consider you have someone else who walks onto your lunchtime games. He loves to play", but wants to play a hilariously bad deck. In fact, he insists on it.

He plays Puncture Bolt and calls it excellent. He plays Colossus of Sardia and expects it to do something. He runs 4 Healing Salve.

His deck is Tier 6. Maybe his deck has a good idea - a deck that gains lots of life for fun and profit with cards that benefit from such, for example - but then he clings to this Healing Salve as the "main way to make it work" when there are better choices such as Congregate or Kitchen Finks.

Would you not feel obligated to point him out to these cards and even go as far as supplying them to him? Even if you never see this person again, would you not feel obligated to say, "Hey, dude, your deck will work that much more smoothly if you just run this and that"?

And then he says, "Well, at our table, we don't run such powerful cards." Your jaw hits the floor. How could anyone not grasp at such a basic, easily accessible, modicum of power?

A table full of Tier 6 decks is not fun to play at all. There will be times when players are simply unable to contribute to the game - Healing Salve, once again, what does it do when another player is beating you down (admittedly with cards like Grizzly Bears and Fugitive Wizard)? Delay your death a turn? Pointless! A card like Congregate would actually let you survive for an appreciable amount of time; a card like Oblivion Ring would stop considerably more damage than you would prevent with the Salve. (Disclaimer: Despite my bashings of this card, I do not say that it is completely useless, as Magic is broad enough to make a use out of anything. I simply say that it is so narrow most people will be unable to make a significant use of it.)

When playing Tier 6, there will be times when you may as well flip a coin or throw up your hands into the air for all you can affect the game state, in both Magic and D&D.

When playing Tier 3-4, the game actually becomes interesting. You can interact with the game state enough to make an impact, but not enough to fundamentally change it. You can't just dump a billion Slivers on the table and win - someone will Wrath of God you to square one. But unlike Tier 1, he won't do that and then stop you from ever participating from the rest of the game ever by instantly winning.

Actually, the Sliver example is extremely good for this comparison. Consider Sliver Aggro. It plays well as far as you've seen before. They are powerful enough to seem, well, powerful. You don't use options (instants and sorceries) in your deck because that would dilute the power of your Sliver base.

This is like a specced out, optimized Fighter. He's pretty good at what he does, like Ubercharging or Power-Attacking, but of course he lacks the ability to do much else, by for example taking classes in other unrelated levels, because that would dilute the power of his Fighter base.

Then you get thrown into an environment that insists on pwning your Slivers at every given moment with Terrors, Wraths, and Pyroclasms. Sure, that might not be what you're used to playing with, but it could happen easily enough.

That Fighter has just been confronted with a combat that needs more options than just Power-attacking the nearest head, perhaps with Codzillas and Batman Wizards on the enemy side. Sure, that might not be what you're used to playing with, but it could happen easily enough.

A player takes a look at the cards on the table, and clucks his tongue. "If you were playing a less one-dimensional deck, you could actually stand a chance," he says.

A player takes a look at the figures on the grid, and clucks his tongue. "If you were playing a less one-dimensional character, you could actuall stand a chance," he says.

In both cases, the player is not going to enjoy himself at the table. And no one wants that, even strangers on the internet who don't even know you personally. They're going to suggest playing something else, whether more flexible/powerful decks or characters.

In this case, the D&D answer is in the form of "Play a ToB class."




I'm well aware that the above is not particularly organized or stated. It's probably going to be ninjaed half a dozen times, and it probably implies half a dozen things I didn't mean to say. Regardless, I just wish that I've provided some insight into the question. Feel free to ask for any clarification. Hell, I expect that, because I was so sesquipedalianly loquaicious.

Ladies and gentlemen, start your complaints and questions.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 07:06 PM
All of your games are E6, then? Because anything else doesn't fall within those borders.
Ah, you've got me there. Obviously we are "doing it wrong". This forum really needs a "roll my eyes" smiley. :smallconfused:

Fighters, paladins, and monks are too wuxia? Because the ToB classes are essentially those in fluff, just with different (and more interesting) mechanics attached to them which serve the same purpose (being a melee combatant).

As for the naming schemes, check out some Western European fighting styles. You'd be amazed at how they sound exactly like the maneuvers in the ToB. If fencing and archery and use of the broadsword are anime, then I'm pretty sure we should just scrap all the melee classes, and just play casters. *shrug*
Again I repeat, I have heard ALL of the arguments about ToB flavor. The book has been around for several years, you know, These debates have been hashed to death, with both sides rarely convincing the other of anything.

I honestly don't understand how pro-ToB types can be so passionate about someone on the other side of the world saying they prefer not to use the book? It's with an almost religious zeal - saving the "lost souls" as it were...

...just to be clear, I am NOT saying ToB is crap, or bad, or unbalanced, or anything else. I'm saying that my group prefers not to use it. Is that really so hard to accept? Maybe, just maybe, I know what I do and don't like in D&D after playing it for over 20 years. Maybe I'm not some poor lost lamb who doesn't know any better, but an informed consumer who's made a choice. A *gasp* different choice than some of you others? :smallamused:

ericgrau
2010-03-06, 07:06 PM
Those Magic examples are a bit of a stretch. I never see or hear of such things, but the great majority of groups I've played in or heard about use the core melee classes b/c that's what's standard. No offense to those that use ToB, but to say that martial classes cannot be reasonably played otherwise is downright arrogant.

Boci
2010-03-06, 07:07 PM
Um, you do know what IMHO and YMMV mean, don't you? How can my own opinion possibly be wrong?

Granar swung his blade in a wide arc, leaving a gash across the ugly, wart dotted skin of the orc’s forehead. His longsword moved on, turning downwards and slamming into his opponent’s axe. The force of the blow embedded the weapon into the ground, knocking the orc off balance. Instantly Granar spun around a full circle, allowing his back to go unprotected for the split second his opponent was unsteady. Once again his blade drew blood as it bite into the orc’s shoulder. Driven by the momentum of the spin.
Seeing an opportunity, Treshka moved opposite the orc, dagger held ready, eyes searching for a gap in the orc’s armour.

What is Granar: a fighter or a warblade?



I seem to remember a dozen more than that purely from the previews. Is the one where you deal damage with concentration checks on that list of 3?

Nope. You study your opponent and note a flaw in his technique or stance and exploit it. Nothing magical.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 07:12 PM
Granar swung his blade in a wide arc, leaving a gash across the ugly, wart dotted skin of the orc’s forehead. His longsword moved on, turning downwards and slamming into his opponent’s axe. The force of the blow embedded the weapon into the ground, knocking the orc off balance. Instantly Granar spun around a full circle, allowing his back to go unprotected for the split second his opponent was unsteady. Once again his blade drew blood as it bite into the orc’s shoulder. Driven by the momentum of the spin.
Seeing an opportunity, Treshka moved opposite the orc, dagger held ready, eyes searching for a gap in the orc’s armour.

What is Granar: a fighter or a warblade?
He could be either, which is totally superfluous to the reasons I gave above.

Again I ask you, how can a persons opinion about something be wrong? Sure, it can be uninformed, but since I owned ToB for over a year, and have read the near infinite debates about ToB and it's flavor for several years now, I wouldn't consider myslef to be uninformed.

I see the point you are making, that for you, you can ignore the ToB fluff, and that you think it's no different from the fluff of core. Congrats. How that possibly applies to me and my own opinion, I have not a single clue.

huttj509
2010-03-06, 07:13 PM
I think that the Swordsage sets a lot of the flavor for what some people see. It's easy to scan the maneuvers, see breathing fire, using the shadows to strangle people, and such, and not realize that those maneuvers may only be for one class, the Swordsage, which is an 'action hero' version of the Monk, who is already much more the eastern Shaolin type rather than the Western Benedictine robed guy dedicated to the church thing.

So the action hero version of the eastern style martial artist monk gets access to abilities to play up the Wuxia style martial artist monk flashy magical stuff. Can also be closer to a ninja, or even less supernatural in terms of abilities.

If the flashy stuff is what offends, that is what gets remembered, even for the Crusader and Warblade, who at most have MUCH less of it, being more action hero versions of the Paladin (strong leadership, superhuman willpower stuff, some healing abilities) and the Fighter (Leap into the air and slice a large foe, cut through a construct's armor as if it were flesh, things that could work for either a strong Conan type or a nimble type concept), if the flashy stuff is what turns someone off it can easily be remembered as being more forced upon all the disciplines than it really is.

Edit:

As an example, take the wizard spell list. There's plenty of stuff in there that's reasonable. However, frequently what seems to first come to mind is the over the top broken stuff. It's similar to how if you have a poll where people choose whether or not to vote for something they like, or against something they dislike, you'll hear more from the people who dislike it.

Actually that might not be similar at all, but I think it adds to the post so I'll leave it.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-06, 07:13 PM
Granar swung his blade in a wide arc, leaving a gash across the ugly, wart dotted skin of the orc’s forehead. His longsword moved on, turning downwards and slamming into his opponent’s axe. The force of the blow embedded the weapon into the ground, knocking the orc off balance. Instantly Granar spun around a full circle, allowing his back to go unprotected for the split second his opponent was unsteady. Once again his blade drew blood as it bite into the orc’s shoulder. Driven by the momentum of the spin.
Seeing an opportunity, Treshka moved opposite the orc, dagger held ready, eyes searching for a gap in the orc’s armour.

What is Granar: a fighter or a warblade?

first if you/your gm describes every combat like that awsome for your group However if that is describing a single round i would guess that's a warblade. Just due to the way my mind proccesses fluff into mechanics

ericgrau
2010-03-06, 07:14 PM
Nope. You study your opponent and note a flaw in his technique or stance and exploit it. Nothing magical.

Eh to each their own, but I find that to be a bit of a stretch.

I'd call that the fluff on a regular attack roll... which depends on your combat training not something you do "whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention" (canceling your normal action if you fail). Which is what makes the scenario above fairly irrelevant.

HunterOfJello
2010-03-06, 07:15 PM
*mental note to self* Stop enjoying playing Morix Gravelbeard, Dwarven Fighter/Ranger. :smallannoyed:

If you're already playing a Fighter/Ranger than you're probably already playing a Two-Weapon Warblade type character. Warblades are Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger hybrids in the first place.

If you added in a single level of Warblade to your existing character I bet you'd find yourself with a lot of added versatility and usefulness.

That's not even mentioning taking levels of Bloodclaw Master which would nicely enhance your Two-Weapon Fighting or Deepstone Sentinel which isn't super great, but fits the feel of a Dwarf Ranger who learned his skills while fighting his race's enemies deep underneath the ground.


ACTUALLY, I challenge you to post your character onto here and we'll show you what a single level of Warblade or Swordsage could add to your character compared to another level of Ranger or Fighter.


Btw, the warblade in my current group keeps using the same maneuver/stance or w/e he's doing b/c that's what he has and that's what's most effective.

I seem to remember a dozen more than that purely from the previews. Is the one where you deal damage with concentration checks on that list of 3?

A Warblade is still a melee character and is still limited to a small list of maneuvers that he can use at any given point. The difference is that when the Warblade levels up, he will have access to a new useful ability like a caster would.

Using a Concentration check to deal damage is a 3rd Level maneuver called Insightful Strike that Warblades get access to at Initiator Level 5.

Boci
2010-03-06, 07:16 PM
He could be either, which is totally superfluous to the reasons I gave above.

So warblades are too asian in flavour but fighters are fine, even though you cannot tell the difference between the two without mechanics? Or are you just saying you need more examples?


Again I ask you, how can a persons opinion about something be wrong?

Victorian Britain had some opinions about how the universe worked involving the four elements. Weren't their opinions wrong?

Edit: Origional examples edited since it was uneccisary to convey the point.

ericgrau
2010-03-06, 07:18 PM
Fun is a bit different than a holocaust.

balistafreak
2010-03-06, 07:19 PM
The great majority of groups I've played in or heard about use the core melee classes b/c that's what's standard.

This is a legitimate point, and probably the strongest one against Tome of Battle. When you don't want to deal with lots of books, you don't play with the Tome of Battle. Not because it sucks, but because of the fact that it is another book.

Sometimes a group will play core-only. Sometimes a group will only allow supplemental material on a one-by-one basis. Sometimes a group will allow a wide, accepted range of supplemental material, and then sometimes a group will let you build whatever the heck you want to.

Most of the time this comes down to amount of effort a DM wishes to put into DMing and not anything. DMing - and in fact, merely playing in - a core only game or one with little supplemental material is ridiculously easy on the mind, and often it allows for greater roleplay beyond the dicerolling. Sure, you might be limited options... but sometimes that's a relief.

You're not looking for the catharsis of "My powers allowed me outmanuever and take down that dragon through forethought and cleverness!" but instead you're looking for the catharsis of "My powers allowed me to overpower and take down that dragon through raw force and muscle!" Sure, the first might be considerably more effective and more assured, but the second has a draw of its own. Some people play D&D to escape thinking, after all, while others play it to encourge it.

Boci
2010-03-06, 07:22 PM
Fun is a bit different than a holocaust.

So we've established that opinions can be wrong?


Eh to each their own, but I find that to be a bit of a stretch.

Suddenly it struck him: the orc was balancing too much weight on his front foot. Granar swing his sword out, sweeping at his opponents lower limbs. The orc fell back, his defensive combat stance ruined. Granar lashed out with his shield, catching his opponent squarly across the jaw.

That is too much for a fighter?

HunterOfJello
2010-03-06, 07:22 PM
Hitler had some opinions. I am not comparing anyone on this thread to Hitler, but do you people who believe opinions cannot be wrong think that the idea exstends to those of Hitler?



Wow, this argument has obviously gone on way to long if it's already fulfilled Godwin's Law.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-03-06, 07:22 PM
He could be either, which is totally superfluous to the reasons I gave above.

Again I ask you, how can a persons opinion about something be wrong? Sure, it can be uninformed, but since I owned ToB for over a year, and have read the near infinite debates about ToB and it's flavor for several years now, I wouldn't consider myslef to be uninformed.

I see the point you are making, that for you, you can ignore the ToB fluff, and that you think it's no different from the fluff of core. Congrats. How that possibly applies to me and my own opinion, I have not a single clue.

I only have one question, really. As you've said, the idea that ToB is too X, is your opinion. Why do you feel the need to defend your opinion, which by definition cannot be right, wrong, or even proven, just as zealously as the people you're debating are arguing their points?

Boci
2010-03-06, 07:23 PM
Wow, this argument has obviously gone on way to long if it's already fulfilled Godwin's Law.

Its hasn't though. No one has been compared to him.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 07:24 PM
So warblades are too asian in flavour but fighters are fine, even though you cannot tell the difference between the two without mechanics? Or are you just saying you need more examples?
Completely and utterly missing my entire point. :smallamused:

Hitler had some opinions. I am not comparing anyone on this thread to Hitler, but do you people who believe opinions cannot be wrong think that the idea exstends to those of Hitler?
Godwin. Well done. :smalleek:

Kelb_Panthera
2010-03-06, 07:25 PM
Hitler had some opinions. I am not comparing anyone on this thread to Hitler, but do you people who believe opinions cannot be wrong think that the idea exstends to those of Hitler?

Godwin has entered the building. [/thread]

Disclaimer: I honestly don't mean any offense with this, it's just that this is actually my first time seeing a godwin on this forum.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 07:25 PM
I only have one question, really. As you've said, the idea that ToB is too X, is your opinion. Why do you feel the need to defend your opinion, which by definition cannot be right, wrong, or even proven, just as zealously as the people you're debating are arguing their points?
I'm not defending my opinion as such - I'm defending my right to hold an opinion, that may be contrary to others.

Boci
2010-03-06, 07:26 PM
Completely and utterly missing my entire point. :smallamused:

What is your point then? I am sorry if I missed it.


Godwin. Well done. :smalleek:

Nope.

Pluto
2010-03-06, 07:26 PM
All of your games are E6, then? Because anything else doesn't fall within those borders.
That doesn't mean it isn't the sort of game people try to play.
D&D isn't ideal for it, especially the WotC editions, but this is the sort of setting my groups try to build.
There are many aspects of the system that don't work, but Tome of Battle exacerbates the disconnect between the desired ambiance and the one pressured by the rules.

Often, Monks are too wuxia for a setting. I've rarely seen them accepted into games.
You can strip the fluff from a Warblade or Crusader to get a Fighter or Paladin, but that is not the way the book presents them.

Regarding the titles of Western fighting styles, I don't see how that stops the ToB titles from evoking Kung Fu films or anime. I think it's safe to say that most people never even hear of these western styles. The anime finishing move is commonplace.


Fun is all fine and dandy, but I wonder how much more fun your group would have if the martial characters actually had a few more options available to them both in and out of combat. That's a player/group expectation disconnect, not an intrinsic trait of the system.
People on these boards repeat the mantra that fluff is mutable in every second thread.

But crunch, in my experience, is the first to change:
If the Monk regularly struggles to fit into a group, it is fixed with enchantable fists, movement with flurries, etc.
If polymorph's power and versatility don't jibe with a group's expectations, it gets reduced to an Astral Construct-like menu.
And if the Fighter's immobility impedes on the group's idea of a fun time, full attacks become a standard action.
If a lack of options is a problem, the group will let the Fighter try whatever ideas he has. (Jam a harpoon beneath the dragon's leg to impede movement, stab its eyes to blind it, etc.)

HunterOfJello
2010-03-06, 07:27 PM
Its hasn't though. No one has been compared to him.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Doesn't have to be directly to him, just has to be a comparison involving him or Nazis.


Completely and utterly missing my entire point. :smallamused:

Godwin. Well done. :smalleek:

Post your Dwarf Ranger/Fighter on here. Lets see the difference 1 level of Warblade could do for him.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-03-06, 07:27 PM
I'm not defending my opinion as such - I'm defending my right to hold an opinion, that may be contrary to others.

Fair enough.

Boci
2010-03-06, 07:29 PM
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Doesn't have to be directly to him, just has to be a comparison involving him or Nazis.

I am not comparing anyone to the Nazis. I am saying the opinions of the Nazis were wrong.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 07:29 PM
So we've established that opinions can be wrong
Actually, we haven't. All that has been proved by your outrageous example is that some opinions are extremely unpopular, and run contrary to the moral code of the vast majority. This is not the same as "wrong", in the logical/scientific definition of the word.

"2 + 2 = 5" is wrong.

"Black Sabbath is better than Lady Gaga" is an opinion.

:smallbiggrin:

Kylarra
2010-03-06, 07:30 PM
I think the zeal with which some people promote ToB turns people off from the system as well. If I were new to ToB, reading this thread would turn me off from it, just out of spite and the insistence that because I'm not using ToB, "I'm doing it wrong and not having fun" as far as melee is concerned.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-06, 07:31 PM
Actually, we haven't. All that has been proved by your outrageous example is that some opinions are extremely unpopular, and run contrary to the moral code of the vast majority. This is not the same as "wrong", in the logical/scientific definition of the word.

"2 + 2 = 5" is wrong.

"Black Sabbath is better than Lady Gaga" is an opinion.

:smallbiggrin:



Agreed.


Boci: his opinions where his own. His actions where what was wrong. and acting on those actions is what is wrong.

Boci
2010-03-06, 07:31 PM
Actually, we haven't. All that has been proved by your outrageous example is that some opinions are extremely unpopular, and run contrary to the moral code of the vast majority.

I know it is outragous, but then exxageration is a perfectly valid thing to use in discussion.

So building off that, is not allowing ToB is extremely unpopular, although not contrary to the moral code of the vast majority, why can't it be argued against?


I think the zeal with which some people promote ToB turns people off from the system as well. If I were new to ToB, reading this thread would turn me off from it, just out of spite and the insistence that because I'm not using ToB, "I'm doing it wrong and not having fun" as far as melee is concerned.

True, but if you're new to ToB you won't know how many times pro-ToBers have had to hear the argument:

ToB allows fighters to shoot fire out of their sword.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 07:32 PM
That doesn't mean it isn't the sort of game people try to play.
D&D isn't ideal for it, especially the WotC editions, but this is the sort of setting my groups try to build.
There are many aspects of the system that don't work, but Tome of Battle exacerbates the disconnect between the desired ambiance and the one pressured by the rules.

Often, Monks are too wuxia for a setting. I've rarely seen them accepted into games.
You can strip the fluff from a Warblade or Crusader to get a Fighter or Paladin, but that is not the way the book presents them.

Regarding the titles of Western fighting styles, I don't see how that stops the ToB titles from evoking Kung Fu films or anime. I think it's safe to say that most people never even hear of these western styles. The anime finishing move is commonplace.

That's a player/group expectation disconnect, not an intrinsic trait of the system.
People on these boards repeat the mantra that fluff is mutable in every second thread.

But crunch, in my experience, is the first to change:
If the Monk regularly struggles to fit into a group, it is fixed with enchantable fists, movement with flurries, etc.
If polymorph's power and versatility don't jibe with a group's expectations, it gets reduced to an Astral Construct-like menu.
And if the Fighter's immobility impedes on the group's idea of a fun time, full attacks become a standard action.
If a lack of options is a problem, the group will let the Fighter try whatever ideas he has. (Jam a harpoon beneath the dragon's leg to impede movement, stab its eyes to blind it, etc.)
Very eloquently put. This sums up my views pretty well.

balistafreak
2010-03-06, 07:33 PM
But crunch, in my experience, is the first to change:
If the Monk regularly struggles to fit into a group, it is fixed with enchantable fists, movement with flurries, etc.

And if the Fighter's immobility impedes on the group's idea of a fun time, full attacks become a standard action.


You'll excuse me, but these two seem excessively ridiculous. If a Monk could flurry and move, or a Fighter could full-attack as a standard action, NO ONE would play a caster. :/

Not dissing your other opinions, though. I agree with you on most else. Just... not these two.

Discussion aside, let's stop debating the right of someone to have an opinion because that usually is, in itself, an opinion. Get back to the Tome and why it is or isn't good in and of itself. :)

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-06, 07:34 PM
You'll excuse me, but these two seem excessively ridiculous. If a Monk could flurry and move, or a Fighter could full-attack as a standard action, NO ONE would play a caster. :/

Not dissing your other opinions, though. I agree with you on most else. Just... not these two.

Discussion aside, let's stop debating the right of someone to have an opinion because that usually is, in itself, an opinion. Get back to the Tome and why it is or isn't good in and of itself. :)

Have you never played 2nd ed? y0ou could move and make multiple attacks if you where a fighter.

Boci
2010-03-06, 07:35 PM
Very eloquently put. This sums up my views pretty well.

But why do you think it is wrong for these views to be challanged?

balistafreak
2010-03-06, 07:38 PM
Have you never played 2nd ed? y0ou could move and make multiple attacks if you where a fighter.

Hmmm. I'm not old enough for that :smalltongue: so no. Multiple attacks, I can see, where multiple means more than one, which I can definitely see. But not a full attack. That means movement holds zero penalties.

As an example, I can a fighter giving up an attack to move, three attacks to two. I cannot see the fighter doing so for free. Of course, given that it usually makes zero difference if a Fighter1 moves or not before attacking, implementing such a system effectively might be awkward.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 07:39 PM
I know it is outragous, but then exxageration is a perfectly valid thing to use in discussion.
I hope the site moderators concur. I don't think throwing Hitler into a debate is usually considered a good thing.

So building off that, is not allowing ToB is extremely unpopular, although not contrary to the moral code of the vast majority, why can't it be argued against?
It can be argued against all fine and well. But there comes a point where people just have to accept that other individuals and gaming groups have widely different playstyles and expectations from the game than they do. Too many people here (and on other forums) have a very fixed view of how the game should be played, and are often quite intolerant of others who play it differently.

Nobody likes to be told they are playing their favorite hobby wrong. Sure, I'm always open to people suggesting extra books and material that might make the game more fun for me; but not when they get overly insistent, or imply that I am being foolish by not using certain things in my game. I don't presume to know the group dynamic and play style of other groups I haven't met, and I would be happy if that same courtesy were extended to me.

Kylarra
2010-03-06, 07:39 PM
True, but if you're new to ToB you won't know how many times pro-ToBers have had to hear the argument:

ToB allows fighters to shoot fire out of their sword.But as someone who isn't new to ToB, I've seen far too many iterations, including in this thread, of people telling other people Stop having fun guys (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys), I mean I know gaming is serious business (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeriousBusiness) and all, but really?

For some people fluff is not mutable. For others it is. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?

Pluto
2010-03-06, 07:39 PM
You'll excuse me, but these two seem excessively ridiculous. If a Monk could flurry and move, or a Fighter could full-attack as a standard action, NO ONE would play a caster. :/
With Complete Champion, they already can.

But casters still have far more options and raw power than a fighter can dream of.

lsfreak
2010-03-06, 07:41 PM
You'll excuse me, but these two seem excessively ridiculous. If a Monk could flurry and move, or a Fighter could full-attack as a standard action, NO ONE would play a caster. :/

Not dissing your other opinions, though. I agree with you on most else. Just... not these two.

You've clearly never optimized a mid-level caster :smalltongue: Full attacks as a standard action and/or full attacks at 20/15/15/15 instead of 20/15/10/5 are common fixes to make melee able to stand up to casters. Most people get the former anywho, thanks to pounce, so really you're not changing anything, you just no longer force melee to dip a level in barbarian in order to stand up somewhat to wizards/CoDzillas.

Boci
2010-03-06, 07:41 PM
For some people fluff is not mutable. For others it is. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?

Because I can list countless examples of a warblade's attack description that will sound just like a fighter. Besides, altering fluff is a very useful skill in DnD, and not at all hard.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 07:41 PM
You'll excuse me, but these two seem excessively ridiculous. If a Monk could flurry and move, or a Fighter could full-attack as a standard action, NO ONE would play a caster. :/
There are actually quite of few ways of achieving this under RAW...most notably Pounce abilities...

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-06, 07:44 PM
Hmmm. I'm not old enough for that :smalltongue: so no. Multiple attacks, I can see, where multiple means more than one, which I can definitely see. But not a full attack. That means movement holds zero penalties.

As an example, I can a fighter giving up an attack to move, three attacks to two. I cannot see the fighter doing so for free. Of course, given that it usually makes zero difference if a Fighter1 moves or not before attacking, implementing such a system effectively might be awkward.

as pluto/lsfreak/thurbane said.

They can get it for a dip here or a feat there. its already duable. even at first with two weapons.

and its not that awkward. If any thing it was a mistake on the disigners parts to not allow melee to move and full attack. I blive there is an article by monte cook who talked about that as a hind sight into the development of 3.0.

Terazul
2010-03-06, 07:45 PM
{Scrubbed}

Temotei
2010-03-06, 07:46 PM
Because I can list countless examples of a warblade's attack description that will sound just like a fighter. Besides, altering fluff is a very useful skill in DnD, and not at all hard.

Some people don't want to alter fluff. Some people don't want to read Tome of Battle to learn another system that's like melee-casting.

I am of the opinion that Tome of Battle is awesome, but I've never read the fluff because I don't care. I can fluff it as whatever I want later. Others can't or won't do that, which is also fine. To argue that not changing fluff is wrong...that's illogical.

Thurbane
2010-03-06, 07:47 PM
Because I can list countless examples of a warblade's attack description that will sound just like a fighter. Besides, altering fluff is a very useful skill in DnD, and not at all hard.
FWIW, we alter and ignore fluff in my games quite often. But ToB just doesn't sit right with my group. I don't know how to explain it more simply than this.

I'm more than happy to have my opinions on things challenged, and be presented with new facts and views, but there does come a point where I say "enough" and ask people to respect my views. A lot of my friends IRL hold views on certain topics that are jarringly different than my own. And as a friend, I've reached a point where "we agree to disagree"...I don't think constantly badgering someone about something is likely to have any positive impact.

balistafreak
2010-03-06, 07:48 PM
There are actually quite of few ways of achieving this under RAW...most notably Pounce abilities...

... should have qualified that. I mean, doing so for free. If you invest feats, abilities, and dip-levels that's what you spent them on - this super-awesome ability to full-attack for standard.

It's the idea of fighters with that built in for free that bother me.

Boci
2010-03-06, 07:49 PM
To argue that not changing fluff is wrong...that's illogical.

Its not wrong, but being able to change fluff is a very useful skill for a game like D&D, and its not hard.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-06, 07:50 PM
... should have qualified that. I mean, doing so for free. If you invest feats, abilities, and dip-levels that's what you spent them on - this super-awesome ability to full-attack for standard.

It's the idea of fighters with that built in for free that bother me.
I loose +10 movement to gain full attack on a charge. The +10 ft isn't worth the extra attacks.


Temotei221: its not that any one is arguing that changing the fluff is wrong its saying that one of the reason is we don't want to/ shouldn't have to.

Temotei
2010-03-06, 07:52 PM
I loose +10 movement to gain full attack on a charge. The +10 ft isn't worth the extra attacks.


Temotei221: its not that any one is arguing that changing the fluff is wrong its saying that one of the reason is we don't want to/ shouldn't have to.

You misread my post.


Because I can list countless examples of a warblade's attack description that will sound just like a fighter. Besides, altering fluff is a very useful skill in DnD, and not at all hard.


Its not wrong, but being able to change fluff is a very useful skill for a game like D&D, and its not hard.

Saying "besides" means that it's a side argument--which means your main argument is that a warblade could be fluffed to sound just like a fighter. Fine. Some people don't want to fluff it that way though. Just because it's a useful skill doesn't mean everyone should use it. That's like comparing a wizard to a monk. Just because a wizard is far more powerful (useful), that doesn't mean the monk is invalidated. You might still want to batter things with your fists without first changing into a golem via spells.

HunterOfJello
2010-03-06, 07:53 PM
I think the zeal with which some people promote ToB turns people off from the system as well. If I were new to ToB, reading this thread would turn me off from it, just out of spite and the insistence that because I'm not using ToB, "I'm doing it wrong and not having fun" as far as melee is concerned.

I can understand how people can get that ideas easily.


Many of us do promote the Tome of Battle over-zealously, but we have good reasons for it. The people who love ToB recognize that glaring lack of versatility in core melee classes that true caster classes are completely free of.

The core melee classes become repetitive and bottlenecked into a limited number of options as they advance in levels while the caster classes gain versatility, usefulness and all sorts of amazing spells and abilities. A 3rd level Druid gains the ability to use spells that turn him into a fish, shrink someone, look like a tree or walk straight up a wall. At that same level a Barbarian gets a whopping +1 to detecting traps.

Not many levels later, the Barbarian can get excited over his newly acquired ability to never be flat footed and be happy that he's been able to Rage twice a day lately, but he still has to look over at the caster classes near him and see what they're doing.

And what are they doing? The Druid somehow turned into a Bear and is still throwing fire at the enemies, the wizard is flying around in the air while throwing fireballs, and the Cleric just melded into a group of rocks while the group of undead humans he just brought into undeath is attacking the enemies.

These comparisons are just taking place at Level 5, and the gap between the classes only gets bigger.





The ToB is loved so much by melee class fans because it adds so much versatility to all of the old character concepts. The Paladin/Fighter is now better at tanking and giving off small heals while still in battle. The Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian still has high damage in Light or Medium Armor and is slashing away at foes like a madman. And the Rogue/Wizard has snuck through the shadows and made some damaging attacks on the enemy boss who never saw it coming.

The Tome of Battle took everything melee fans loved about the classes, put them together in nice pretty packages, added some versatility, beefed them up a bit and gave our beloved character concepts back to us in classes that are a ton of fun and what we really wanted to be playing all along.

lsfreak
2010-03-06, 07:53 PM
... should have qualified that. I mean, doing so for free. If you invest feats, abilities, and dip-levels that's what you spent them on - this super-awesome ability to full-attack for standard.

It's the idea of fighters with that built in for free that bother me.

Just to point out: you want a fighter to spend levels, feats, or both in order to be able to do their full attack a round, when casters can do that without any effort? A caster gets 100% of their effectiveness in a round and can still reposition, a fighter can choose to get either 100% effectiveness, OR position. If anything, it should be the other way around.

Plus, it's not like a barbarian dip is bad. Skills, higher HD, rage, and pounce. It practically IS free.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-06, 07:55 PM
You misread my post.

So indead i did, I am tired and {Scrubbed} i appologise.

HunterOfJello
2010-03-06, 08:01 PM
I don't understand how the Tome of Battle class concepts can't fit in a campaign when the exact same concepts already exist in those campaigns.


A Crusader is just a Paladin/Fighter.

A Warblade is just a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian.

A Swordsage is just a Rogue/Monk/Wizard.




These class concepts are already being used by people in this thread. You're already playing the exact same concept, why not play the one that's obviously more fun?

Prime32
2010-03-06, 08:01 PM
I was tempted to do an anime-style writeup of a fight between a monk and a paladin, giving dramatic descriptions of the monk's ability to paralyse people by touching them and pass through walls, and the paladin's ability to sense the presence of evil creatures by concentrating, or using revenance to immediately come back to life as a vengeful spirit after he is killed.

But it is too late at night for me to be doing that right now.
Some excerpts
"First technique: Phantom dance!"
"This sword has been handed down my family for generations! A wicked person like you could never hope to use it! And now, take this, my secret technique! AKUGEKIZAN!" (Holy avenger + smite evil)

Temotei
2010-03-06, 08:04 PM
I don't understand how the Tome of Battle class concepts can't fit in a campaign when the exact same concepts already exist in those campaigns.


A Crusader is just a Paladin/Fighter.

A Warblade is just a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian.

A Swordsage is just a Rogue/Monk/Wizard.




These class concepts are already being used by people in this thread. You're already playing the exact same concept, why not play the one that's obviously more fun?

It's not more fun for a lot of people. To say it's obviously more fun is quite off for a lot of people. Note that I didn't say it's wrong. It's an opinion.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-06, 08:06 PM
I don't understand how the Tome of Battle class concepts can't fit in a campaign when the exact same concepts already exist in those campaigns.


A Crusader is just a Paladin/Fighter.

A Warblade is just a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian.

A Swordsage is just a Rogue/Monk/Wizard.




These class concepts are already being used by people in this thread. You're already playing the exact same concept, why not play the one that's obviously more fun?

because the flavor of the mechanics is different.. Playeing a ranger and playing a warblade that heavily focuses on tiger claw are feal different

Boci
2010-03-06, 08:09 PM
because the flavor of the mechanics is different.. Playeing a ranger and playing a warblade that heavily focuses on tiger claw are feal different

The mechanics are different, but the flavour are hardly so. You have an afrinity for the wild, you can track, and wield two weapons.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-06, 08:13 PM
The mechanics are different, but the flavour are hardly so. You have an afrinity for the wild, you can track, and wield two weapons.
I guess.
for a warblade affinity for the wild is only shown in skills a few manuvers which grant sent and jumpy-ness.

you can track with a warblade if you take a feat. as can any one realy.

Temotei
2010-03-06, 08:14 PM
because the flavor of the mechanics is different.. Playeing a ranger and playing a warblade that heavily focuses on tiger claw are feal different

True dat.

Take archery.

A ranger might rely only on their skill, focusing on the opponent through great sight and calculation. The shaft of the arrow is guided by their arm and skill.

Another ranger might rely on their faith, praying to their deity for a connecting hit. The shaft of the arrow is guided by their faith and insight on the power of their deity.

Mechanically, they're the same (unless the latter takes Zen Archery--in which case, the numbers just flip; the reason for this is so the ranger can use the higher number, so they probably have about the same score in Wisdom the other has in Dexterity.) The difference is the fluff. Nothing else. For some, only the first will work in their game. For others, the latter will work. Is either group wrong? Of course not. Just because a DM doesn't want to fluff something differently doesn't mean their opinion is off, or that they're not making use of a great skill that all DM's should use. It means the DM simply doesn't like it that way and they just can't see it going in the other direction.

Boci
2010-03-06, 08:15 PM
I guess.
for a warblade affinity for the wild is only shown in skills a few manuvers which grant sent and jumpy-ness.

Yeah. You can take the feat to get hide and move silently as an class skills.


you can track with a warblade if you take a feat. as can any one realy.

Or the stance that grants scent.

Terazul
2010-03-06, 08:18 PM
I guess.
for a warblade affinity for the wild is only shown in skills a few manuvers which grant sent and jumpy-ness.

you can track with a warblade if you take a feat. as can any one realy.
...But if anyone can take Track like it's nothing, then what's the defining flavor that is causing such a problem? Why is being a warblade with track so much different from a fighter with track and TWF or Ranger 1, aside from the class title written on the sheet? (and a few humdrum of skill points, but you should be able to understand my point regardless)

Like really now, 90% of maneuvers are "I swing my <insert weapon of choice> in a <insert adjectives of choice> manner so as to <insert mechanical benefit here>". How do they interfere with flavor at all?

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-06, 08:19 PM
...But if anyone can take Track like it's nothing, then what's the defining flavor that is causing such a problem? Why is being a warblade with track so much different from a fighter with track and TWF?

Like really now, 90% of maneuvers are "I swing my <insert weapon of choice> in a <insert adjectives of choice> manner so as to <insert mechanical benefit here>". How do they interfere with flavor at all?

No logical expliantion other then it doesn't feel right.

Terazul
2010-03-06, 08:19 PM
No logical expliantion other then it doesn't feel right.

:smallsigh:

HunterOfJello
2010-03-06, 08:20 PM
I guess.
for a warblade affinity for the wild is only shown in skills a few manuvers which grant sent and jumpy-ness.

you can track with a warblade if you take a feat. as can any one realy.

Rangers get Two-Weapon Fighting.
Warblades get Wolf Fang Strike. (Strike with 2 weapons.)

Rangers get Track.
Warblades get Scent.

Rangers get a crappy pet.
Warblades don't need a crappy pet.

Rangers focus on using weapons that have large crit ranges. (kukri, rapier)
Warblades can focus on using weapons that have large crit ranges and get +1 attack and +1 damage each time they get a crit in an encounter.

Rangers move around a lot in a fight and attack from different angles
Warblades can use Sudden Leap to Jump as a swift action allowing them to move a distance and use a Full Attack in the same round.




All of these maneuvers are just from the 1st level Tiger Claw list. They're EXACTLY the same in the flavors of abilities that rangers get.

A single level of Warblade would enhance the abilities of any Two-Weapon Ranger VERY well and improve their usefulness.

Tavar
2010-03-06, 08:34 PM
{Scrubbed}
This. Oh My God this.

Imagine you're having a debate about speed limits, and a crucial part of your opponents argument is that going above 35 MPH is dangerous, thus we need to lower the speed limit. You narrow in on this, but after exhausting all possible reasons, it turns out that their opinion is based not on any facts, but mistaken impressions and feelings.

Oh, and, every time you try and bring up the point, no matter how nicely or non-threateningly, they accuse you of personal attacks....

The killer is that no one ever actually responds to any of this, beyond a dismissal, usually bringing up one of the other parts of the argument(they bring up the naming system, we bring up european fighting manuals, they then bring up the superhuman aspect, we bring up the leveling system, then they respond by saying, well, it has an eastern naming system....).

ScionoftheVoid
2010-03-06, 08:34 PM
On the being put off by people suggesting the book so often, why? I'm not put off by people encouraging people to get something they obviously enjoy. If you have any misconceptions the people who suggested the book can clear them up. What is wrong with people supporting something with zeal and enthusiasm?

I've never seen anyone saying that play without ToB is wrong, merely that it increases balance, has not unreasonable default fluff which is easy to change even for fluff and increases options and versitality in melee classes and would like to know how that is not preferable, with the understanding that the explanation will not use circular logic, misconceptions (common or otherwise) or just flat statements of opinion which give no opportunity for continued discussion (unless you wish to withdraw from the thread immediately afterwords, in the last case).

If you don't like people saying that ToB is a good book so much then why do you care? You are not required to look at every thread, particularly if it is on a subject you know will not alter your opinion or give you any new information. Why do you care that other people care about your game, regardless of whether or not they will ever know you personally let alone play with you? If you don't want to use ToB because of the flavour then why did you go into a thread about the flavour of the ToB?

Quite seriously, I do not understand how you can be discouraged by people being passionate about something they like. Do you go and kill people because people are always saying it's a bad thing? Use a less extreme example if you wish but I cannot understand being put off something by levels of enthusiasm which are not excessive, incoherent or unpleasantly phrased (the kind of thing this forum filters being my definition for the last).

Roland St. Jude
2010-03-06, 08:51 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Inevitable, I suppose, but sad. Please be careful not to insult other posters based on playstyle preferences.