Tome of Battle Flavor

[Lycanthromancer]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree there completely. One of my biggest pet peeves is someone saying X is overpowered whilst giving somthing else even more powerful a free pass.Or, even worse, nerfing underpowered options and giving overpowered options a power-boost (see psionics and core casters, or monks and druids, for example).

[Thurbane]

OK, I was out of this thread, but there is one thing I feel I need to explain/point out:

Many of us use the term Wuxia (quite possibly incorrectly) because we were constantly rapped over the knuckles for using the term Anime when the ToB deabtes first began (the hundred foot fiery explosion 9th level manoeuvre thingy instantly made me think of Dragon Ball Z).

Speaking for myself, this was my introduction to the term Wuxia. Some of us are groping in the dark for a concise term, and we may be using culturally insensitive terms to summarize what we mean. When I use the term Wuxia I mean larger than life action/martial arts movies of Eastern origin or flavor - movies where the action is larger than life in terms of people leaping impossibly high or performing moves that would not be possibly in "real life". I have also heard the term "martial arts epic" applied to movies like Crouching Tiger and Hero.

Also, it's a fact of life that meanings and definitions of words constantly move and change, especially in English, so it's hardly surprising we may be using a foreign term in a usage different that its original purpose.

Same with Anime - in Japan, it may simply mean animation, but in all of my exposure to the term here (in Australia) it is quite specific to a certain type and style of animation (Cowboy Beebop, Dragon Ball Z, Battle Angel Alita etc.). From what I've read online, this is the common usage is most (all?) Western countries.

If this is the cause of offense, I hope you understand that all (most anyway) of us are not trying to use the terms to cause offense. It's just that they are concise "abbreviations" for what we are getting at, and less of a mouthful than "movies or animation of Eastern origin or influence that depict larger than life martial arts and other forms of combat". :smallwink:

[Frosty]

If this is the cause of offense, I hope you understand that all (most anyway) of us are not trying to use the terms to cause offense. It's just that they are concise "abbreviations" for what we are getting at, and less of a mouthful than "movies or animation of Eastern origin or influence that depict larger than life martial arts and other forms of combat". :smallwink:
What annoys us more is that those terms are not properly defined the first time you use them. If you had done so, much postage could have been avoided. :smallsmile: I understand you're not trying to offend.

But still, our point stands. Within anime shows, there is enough diversity that irf you say the word "anime" to me, I would have to ask you what style of anime before I could glean any useful sort of information from it. Like...if you say "Dragonball Z style anime" then a lot of us would instantly understand it to mean "over the top" "bad plot" and "horrible dubbing." for example. But please don't lump all anime together. There are some consistent VISUAL style similarities between different anime shows to be sure, but VISUAL styles ought to have no relevance in our discussion of flavor in a purely imaginative role-playing game correct?

[Mr.Bookworm]

Certainly it's an American-centric view, but keep in mind, the context here is specifically how people's personal biases influence how they feel about the ToB.

So yes long-cat is long (and Americans tend to be America-centric).

Note that anime doesn't generally get lumped in with foreign... it gets it's own genre category.

I am an American. I piss red, white, and, blue, and salute the picture of a bald eagle roundhouse kicking the King of England every night.

I just try to keep a broader perspective. :smalltongue:

On another note, I would like to reiterate my offer of making a non-anime, non-wuxia martial character of any sort using ToB. Seriously. Go ahead and hit me.

[KitTheOdd]

How about the Bard4/Warblade6 I'm currently playing.

He smashes things and people into little bits while chanting war songs. Basically similar to a viking berserker type - except that his chants are more geared to inspiring his friends then demoralizing his enemies. He wades into melee using mostly Iron Heart and Stone Dragon maneuvers which appear as just really good hits.

Now I've added some levels of Jade Phoenix Mage on top of that and the "over the top" stuff shows up a lot more. But that is the magic not the ToB stuff.

[Tinydwarfman]

How about the Bard4/Warblade6 I'm currently playing.

He smashes things and people into little bits while chanting war songs. Basically similar to a viking berserker type - except that his chants are more geared to inspiring his friends then demoralizing his enemies. He wades into melee using mostly Iron Heart and Stone Dragon maneuvers which appear as just really good hits.

Now I've added some levels of Jade Phoenix Mage on top of that and the "over the top" stuff shows up a lot more. But that is the magic not the ToB stuff.

Awesome, Bard has great with synergy w/ song of the white raven. Friend of mine is playing bard/crusader in a current game and it's pretty cool.

EDIT: How about crusader/hellreaver for a really paladin flavored tank? I can't see that being wuxia at all. nvm, got it now.

[Agrippa]

I am an American. I piss red, white, and, blue, and salute the picture of a bald eagle roundhouse kicking the King of England every night.

I just try to keep a broader perspective. :smalltongue:

On another note, I would like to reiterate my offer of making a non-anime, non-wuxia martial character of any sort using ToB. Seriously. Go ahead and hit me.

Brock Samson of the Venture Brothers.

[Gametime]

What annoys us more is that those terms are not properly defined the first time you use them. If you had done so, much postage could have been avoided. :smallsmile: I understand you're not trying to offend.

But still, our point stands. Within anime shows, there is enough diversity that irf you say the word "anime" to me, I would have to ask you what style of anime before I could glean any useful sort of information from it. Like...if you say "Dragonball Z style anime" then a lot of us would instantly understand it to mean "over the top" "bad plot" and "horrible dubbing." for example. But please don't lump all anime together. There are some consistent VISUAL style similarities between different anime shows to be sure, but VISUAL styles ought to have no relevance in our discussion of flavor in a purely imaginative role-playing game correct?

Quite. Dragonball Z, Yu-Gi-Oh, Cowboy Bebop, Neon Genesis Evangelion, and Samurai Champloo share some visual similarity, but are stylistically very different when it comes to the plot, pacing, and characterization. Of those, only Dragonball Z, Cowboy Bebop, and Samurai Champloo could be called at all "Wuxia" in the colloquial sense, and the latter two don't really fit what most people think of when they hear the word. (Although, amusingly, their plots and themes are far closer to what traditional "Wuxia" literature would have depicted.)

It's never easy to come up with a term to describe broad stylistic choices, and I recognize that fact when people say things are "too Wuxia" or "too anime." They're still problematic words to use, for any number of reasons.

Would it be fair to say, I wonder, that the chief "Wuxia" complaint has more to do with the classes being seen as over-the-top than anything else?

[Gametime]

I am an American. I piss red, white, and, blue, and salute the picture of a bald eagle roundhouse kicking the King of England every night.



Man, I want that picture. :smallbiggrin:

[DragoonWraith]

Would it be fair to say, I wonder, that the chief "Wuxia" complaint has more to do with the classes being seen as over-the-top than anything else?
Which baffles me, since they cannot really do anything, fluff-wise, that their Core counterparts cannot do. Swordsage, maybe, with Desert Wind or Shadow Hand, but that's a very small subset of the book.

Oh, and White Raven's leadership (not the feat, the noun) abilities, leading the troops and such. The Fighter's supposed to be able to do that, but he really, really can't in Core.

[Frosty]

If people have trouble with the Crusader's magical-ness, how about we just rename it Warlord and flavor his White Raven stuff to shouts of inspiration that galvanize the troops around him? When his troops see him hit stuff they get so inspired they work past the pain of their wounds and continue fighting!

[DragoonWraith]

Hmm, maybe change the Crusader's healing to temporary HP to better mesh with that idea?

[Gametime]

Which baffles me, since they cannot really do anything, fluff-wise, that their Core counterparts cannot do. Swordsage, maybe, with Desert Wind or Shadow Hand, but that's a very small subset of the book.

Oh, and White Raven's leadership (not the feat, the noun) abilities, leading the troops and such. The Fighter's supposed to be able to do that, but he really, really can't in Core.

Early on, they can't. At higher level maneuvers, they can - even the Warblade, who is easily the most mundane, gets some very powerful tricks to pull. Not necessarily unbelievable or obviously magical tricks, but perhaps a bit over-the-top. Something like Strike of Perfect Clarity isn't fluffed as anything more than one really good hit, but the on-demand nature of it makes it a lot more cinematic than standard attacks.

Mind, this is something I like about ToB - the cinematic nature of the abilities adds drama to your choices, in my mind. And the fact that you have choices makes play more dynamic. But I can understand why some people wouldn't like that style - you do sacrifice a certain amount of grittiness for it.

(Why some people like a system that has gritty fighters and over-the-top mages is a whole different question, but to each their own.)

[Gametime]

If people have trouble with the Crusader's magical-ness, how about we just rename it Warlord and flavor his White Raven stuff to shouts of inspiration that galvanize the troops around him? When his troops see him hit stuff they get so inspired they work past the pain of their wounds and continue fighting!

I think people who don't like the Crusader's healing wouldn't like it as warlord-flavored, either.

Why the Marshal is never talked about in the same way probably has to do with it being pretty terrible. :smalltongue:

[Frosty]

Hmm, maybe change the Crusader's healing to temporary HP to better mesh with that idea?
It could work. How long should it last though? Minutes equal to the Warlord/Crusader's level?

[DragoonWraith]

I was thinking "for the encounter", actually. Because ya know, it would be like they're all adrenaline-pumped and inspired and the heat of the battle makes them forget their wounds, but when things quiet down and they see what a mess they are, well...

[Frosty]

So it lasts however long the encounter does huh? I guess we can call these encounter powers since the length is variable. Hmm...it's kinda like a Barbarian rage that doesn't go away until the enemy is gone.

[Lycanthromancer]

Man, I want that picture. :smallbiggrin:What, polychromatic urination?

[FinalJustice]

(Why some people like a system that has gritty fighters and over-the-top mages is a whole different question, but to each their own.)

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a quote full of win.

[Lycanthromancer]

(Why some people like a system that has gritty fighters and over-the-top mages is a whole different question, but to each their own.)Isn't it obvious? Melee can't have nice things.

And don't even start about ranged guys.

[Thurbane]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a quote full of win.
Yes, especially the "each to their own" part. :smallwink:

Because, you know, every time a group enjoys the game in a way that is different to the "accepted norm", God kills a kitten. :smallbiggrin:

...and groups that *shock gasp* are OK with the fact that magic is generally more powerful than non-magic (like in the majority of fantasy fiction), they are having "badwrongfun", even if everyone at the table is happy with it (as it obviously ruins the game for the whole D&D population of planet Earth, especially those not involved in the game in question)... :smallamused:

[Frosty]

If your group thrives on having huge power differences, then your group is looking for something very different, and any sort of discussions on preferences should always be prefaced by such disclaimers.

When goals are different, then of course selection criteria are different.

[Tavar]

But the fact that magic is better at melee and more versatile is a bit much, is it not? I mean, core melee, by raw, can't do anything but fight, and it doesn't do that very well due to monster's abilities and the general effectiveness of casters. Tome of Battle resolves those issues, and casters are still more powerful, especially if they use their supposedly high mental stats to evaluate what exactly their abilities can do.

[Thurbane]

If your group thrives on having huge power differences, then your group is looking for something very different, and any sort of discussions on preferences should always be prefaced by such disclaimers.

When goals are different, then of course selection criteria are different.
I don't recall saying my group thrives on it...I implied we are "OK" with it. We were OK with it in 1E, then 2E, and we're generally OK with it now.

...and there's an underlying assumption there that somehow the way you play the game is the default, and the way I play it needs some kind of disclaimer before it? :smallannoyed:

And quite honestly, in a friendly game where characters aren't necessarily optimized to the Nth degree, the power difference is not as bad as it's often reported to be (at least in my experience). I've never once, in my 25-odd years of D&D, felt like a spare tyre when playing non-caster, and to the best of my knowledge, either has anyone at any of my games.

I obviously can't speak for every group out there (or even the majority), but likewise neither can someone who's never sat in on one of my games claim to speak for me.

But you know what? If the power disparity is an issue in your games, I have precisely zero problem with you taking steps to address it, whether it be using ToB, house ruling or anything else. You know why? Because it's not my game, and I wouldn't presume to tell you how you should be playing it, or to imply you're "playing it wrong".

----------

[general rant follows]

Seriously, these few quotes hit the nail right on the head for me:

I don't have that in my games either, but there aren't 14 page threads trying to persuade me that I'm wrong for it.

Well, first, the monk has ki, and has a limited number of stunning fist attacks- but he *can* throw hadokens every round until he's oom, so it's a consistent mechanic with what has been established. Second, plenty of folks won't allow that feat either, but again, there won't be a 12 page thread telling them it's totally modelling a crossbow or whatever.

Probably because that's a very mediocre feat. But if it makes you feel any better, I've seen it sneered at by people who joke that it's for Ken and Ryu. It just doesn't have like, a posse.
I've bolded the relevant sections.

I will never for the life of me understand the fervor with which the pro-ToB lobby spruik the ToB at us "non-believers". Yes, there is the occasional "ToB sucks, it's stupid and/or unbalanced" type comment or thread, but for everyone one of these, there's like ten implying (or outright telling) people that their games are wrong for not including ToB.

If someone innocently asks for build advice, with the provision that certain books (i.e. ToB) aren't used/allowed in their game, more often than not someone will post something to the effect of "Your DM is just being a jackass, tell him to use ToB!". Or build advice that blatantly ignores the "no ToB" stipulation. Or a Spanish-inquisition style questioning session about exactly why ToB isn't allowed... :smalleek:

That's what gets my back up, and I'm guessing the same goes for a lot of others on the same side of the fence as me. FFS, I honestly couldn't give a fat rat's ass what people do or use in games I'm not involved in. If they enjoy it, then I give it a big thumbs up. Just don't have this arrogant, misplaced notion that other groups out there need to play the game the same way as you do to have fun. :smallfrown:

[Thurbane]

But the fact that magic is better at melee and more versatile is a bit much, is it not? I mean, core melee, by raw, can't do anything but fight, and it doesn't do that very well due to monster's abilities and the general effectiveness of casters. Tome of Battle resolves those issues, and casters are still more powerful, especially if they use their supposedly high mental stats to evaluate what exactly their abilities can do.
That's a fair statement - the only thing I would add is that magic can be better at melee, it doesn't have to be better at melee. Just because a caster could use his spells to "out fighter the fighter", doesn't mean he has to...any more than anyone has to exploit Pazuzu or other Pun Pun type antics.

But what would I know - I'm one of those weirdos who played an Evoker in 3.5 :smallbiggrin:

[FatR]

Huh? Thirty years? Isn't the issue confined to D&D 3.5?
I'm late to this thread, but no, the issue is not confined to D&D 3.5. Most of pre-3.0 editions assumed that fighting types will become obsolete after mid levels (at best). Both in crunch and fluff (see: Circle of Eight and Forgotten Realms UberNPC Club being composed of wizards, you also will have hard time finding a non-spellcasting major villain in FR or Greyhawk). In return, wizards were supposed to suffer at early levels. 3.0 merely limited "suffering at early levels" payoff, but then made an (not supported by its mechanics) assumption that all classes should be equal throughout their careers. Sure, it finally offered fighty types an open-ended powerset (feats), but spellcasters got it too, in addition to one they always had. Moreover, it still imagined fighty types as people who just hit things with other things really well (actually even narrowing their focus), and this concept is just to narrow to actually compete with people who make the reality their bitch.

[Koury]

Or a Spanish-inquisition style questioning session about exactly why ToB isn't allowed...

Well hey now, you can't say for certain that will happen.

...

After all, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Yes, that was really the only point of this post.

[Kaiyanwang]

I'm late to this thread, but no, the issue is not confined to D&D 3.5. Most of re-3.0 editions assumed that fighting types will become obsolete after mid levels (at best). Both in crunch and fluff (see: Circle of Eight and Forgotten Realms UberNPC Club being composed of wizards, you also will have hard time finding a non-spellcasting major villain in FR or Greyhawk). In return, wizards were supposed to suffer at early levels. 3.0 merely limited "suffering at early levels" payoff, but then made an (not supported by its mechanics) assumption that all classes should be equal throughout their careers. Sure, it finally offered fighty types an open-ended powerset (feats), but spellcasters got it too, in addition to one they always had. Moreover, it still imagined fighty types as people who just hit things with other things really well (actually even narrowing their focus), and this concept is just to narrow to actually compete with people who make the reality their bitch.


Well, in Greyhawk there is at least Lord Robilar, and That Funny Drow With Two Scimitars in Forgotten Realms. But I see your point.

For the melee doing the same things, I'm pretty much sick of this. There are three situations IMO:

- People are unable to combine feats and/or are enough imaginative to use skills and feats in a cool, cinematic manner. Moreover, DM are inflexible about handwaving new imaginative uses of PC feats, thing against designer suggestions, see Wotc Archives.

- People are unable to review equipment and adjudicate what's good as a primary and as a situational weapon or trick.

- People play at a level of optimization that does not allow go outside the built for one step. (Say, ranged combat for non-ranged combat build). Funny thing, these are sometimes the same people that overlook who does not play oprimized and it's fine that way.

ToB is a blast. I'm thankul to these boards because learned here about it. Is supports several gamestyles even if there are things that does not fit my tastes, that I simply don't consider, as I always do with every part of a source I use for my game I don't like.


BUT


Keep saying that without ToB melee cannot have fun, it's an insult to intelligence IMHO.

[Roderick_BR]

Yes, especially the "each to their own" part. :smallwink:

Because, you know, every time a group enjoys the game in a way that is different to the "accepted norm", God kills a kitten. :smallbiggrin:

...and groups that *shock gasp* are OK with the fact that magic is generally more powerful than non-magic (like in the majority of fantasy fiction), they are having "badwrongfun", even if everyone at the table is happy with it (as it obviously ruins the game for the whole D&D population of planet Earth, especially those not involved in the game in question)... :smallamused:
No one is saying that playing it is wrong. Wrong is the huge difference in power in the core books by default. It's just wrong when you want to play a game to play Carlson McStabby, and Booby DeCaster, with the same character level can do everything you, better, more often, and with no drawback. That's bad game balance. Yes, magic is more powerful, but shouldn't be so easy!

For the ToB healing maneuvers, I'm testing 2 ideas with my friends:
1) Use a "surge-like" pool, like the Reserve Points. In combat, you need maneuvers to quickly access it. Out of combat, you either let it heal as normal, or can freely use maneuvers to recover it quickly.
2) Recovery cap: When you enter battle, your current HP is your HP cap. Maneuvers can't heal you above the cap. When magic healing is used, the cap is raised the same ammount (up to the character's normal max HP, including Con increase, but not temporary HP).

[Tinydwarfman]

If someone innocently asks for build advice, with the provision that certain books (i.e. ToB) aren't used/allowed in their game, more often than not someone will post something to the effect of "Your DM is just being a jackass, tell him to use ToB!". Or build advice that blatantly ignores the "no ToB" stipulation. Or a Spanish-inquisition style questioning session about exactly why ToB isn't allowed... :smalleek:


I think you may be just remembering the threads that stand out here, because for every one time that people may say that in a build thread, there are twenty that just go without mention. And build guidelines are ignored in every build thread, but it's usually just someone not reading closely enough. (I find it happens more often when someone says "no casting" and five seconds later someone says "CoDzilla".)

[DragoonWraith]

Keep saying that without ToB melee cannot have fun, it's an insult to intelligence IMHO.
And yet, no one has explained to me how the Fighter class (not your Fighter character) is capable of having fun. Unless doing the same thing over and over is fun for you.

[Indon]

Hmm, I've got a lot of good points to catch up on! *rolls up sleeves*

Edit: This post is disgustingly large. I've added spoilers for it to be less horrible.


No, the ToB Rahkashas have innate Maneuvers like Natural spellcasting founf in Nymphs or spell-likes in Ogre Mage. These Raks naturally know how to perform these maneuvers.
Oh? Well, that serves better to clarify my point.

Applying ToB to fix the systemic problem of melee weakness has a problem: ToB is not a systemic fix. More on that further along.


Note that you don't need to give monsters class levels to use maneuvers. The martial study feat and associated feats work fine to give monsters maneuvers with minimal work.
Minimal work per monster, perhaps. You might as well ask DMs to give all their monsters psi abilities.

Though, reworking the monsters is indeed something you'd ultimately need to do, one way or the other.

Cfalcon, regarding integrating ToB into a world.

Well, to be fair, you could come up with a school of ranged discipline, or cherry pick abilities that you could allow from range. I agree it's more work, but if you are sold on the 9swords mechanics, this is definitely doable.
Creating more schools would be only one of the things that would make the "Let's apply ToB to melee and reflavor it and have it make sense in the game" approach workable.


I wouldn't say no one uses the preexisting flavor of these guys. It's pretty good. We just get threads with a vocal minority telling us that we should wholesale replace the basic dudes with these new guys, and we can just change the flavor to "suit our world", as if blowing up fighters, rangers, and paladins is something we were all just *hoping* for!
All right, a fair point. In fact, this is how my group tended to use the ToB classes when they were used in games.

But it is a very vocal minority, you know. It can be hard to remember that ToB can just function as an extra sourcebook rather than a rebalancing of nonspellcasters.


I will play devil's advocate and point out that in 4ed, you do see something that sounds a lot more like this- per encounter and at will powers on monsters, for instance.
Indeed, a point that I've made a couple times is that 4th edition D&D is a continuation and a refinement of the design paradigm present in ToB.


Anyway, I'll repeat your point in case anyone missed it: the core melee and ranged mechanics of this game are the same. 9swords breaks this. The core mechanics of fighting are well documented across decades of work, and if 9swords is meant to simulate a mundane expert fighting, why then do not expert fighting bad guys have access to any of the same "buttons"?

Hmm, very succinct and almost perfect for that point. To be more succinct, I would summarize it as, "If ToB is meant to replace mundane combat, then why don't all the mundane combatants have access to its' mechanics?"


Tinydwarfman, regarding ToB's existence as a sourcebook vs. its' existence as a balance patch.


This is unfortunately a problem with all non-core material. The only constant the designers can assume is core, and so you get no shadowcasting monsters, no initiating monsters, no truenaming monsters, and very very few psionic monsters. (psionics is similar enough to magic to be integrated slightly more. Do you have objections to other non-core material?
Actually, earlier in the thread I had described a way you could modify ToB to make it work with other classes and with monsters as well: You just give each maneuver a set of requirements, and if you meet the requirements then you get the maneuver.

It makes sense if indeed you want to use ToB to replace existing melee mechanics, because now it's much more consistent. That's not all you'd have to do to make it work, but it'd be a good start.


Unfortunately giving requirements to every maneuver would be ridiculous, just like giving requirements to spells would be. This is very small quip either way. If you want to play with characters that have consistent mechanical flavor, play with mature players.
What if I want to play with a game that has flavor consistent with its' mechanics?


Please show me this fluff, because I can't find it.
In the class entries, before the tables for the most part.


Again, the problem arises with any non-core material. Why do have a problem with the ToB being different?
Because of how ToB is used. In this thread, in fact.

ToB isn't used as a nifty suppliment with extra-powerful melee classes, at least not by its' proponents on this forum. It's used as a replacement for existing melee mechanics. And the book isn't so hot at doing that, not as the blanket solution it would need to be to be consistent. That's the problem with using ToB as standard melee and giving it a maneuverless paintjob.

Now, it'd probably get less hate as a book if it wasn't so obviously not meant to be used as a suppliment, as it basically offers obviously more powerful variants of existing melee classes.


PairO'Dice Lost, regarding Wuxia and how maneuvers are designed like spells.

What I want to know is, what is the wuxia feel?
It's impossible to describe, but you know it when you see it.


Saying that letting monsters use ToB requires feats to do so, when feats have specifically provided to let anyone learn maneuvers, is like complaining that you need to take Shape Soulmeld to use incarnum or Bind Vestige to use binding; yes, you need to spend feats if you're not a member of the appropriate class, but (A) it lets you use the material very easily, even adding it to an existing character, and (B) with most monster feats you're not missing much.
No, it isn't.

You see, the reason maneuvers would function as a modification of mundane mechanics is because it can attempt to represent the breadth of things you can do with mundane qualities - skill, focus, strength, durability, and so on. And, in fact, breadth of ability is what makes the ToB classes more powerful.

But if something can only do one or two of these things? It doesn't work. There is no breadth, you're just making a monster with a trick you got out of a sourcebook. And not to say ToB isn't a good sourcebook - it's not bad at all for that. It just can't be used to replace a fundamental set of mechanics like that.


and I'd like to see answers the same questions from point (1) i.e. what exactly makes it feel like altered spells as opposed to altered feats?
Set, memorized and expended abilities, divided into discrete power tiers, separate schools, and given its' own Spellcraft/Psicraft equivalent.

It's clearly mechanically derivative from spellcasting in much the same way Psionics is. It'd be easier, in fact, to make a ruleset (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) sort of thing that could convert one to the other than it is with Psionics - aside from tweaking the refresh mechanics, it's all flavor.


He says it just doesn't feel right with DnD, so I countered with that D20 rules should fit both eastern and western equally when looks at from a mechanics perspective.
I disagree. I think D&D is very bad at the Wuxia genre. I don't think you could give it a respectful attempt, even, without some sort of stunt system so you could pull off all the creative and fun things you can see in Wire-fu movies.

ToB attempts to give players access to that sort of thing, but it doesn't pull it off - even disregarding all the other problems, it's simply not enough diversity to give that quality of fluidity to gameplay. If it is wuxia (and you can make an argument that it is, one I'm on the fence on), it's bad wuxia.

Gametime, regarding why people wouldn't like ToB.


For clarity's sake: Why is homebrewing your own solution a bad thing when it is to supplement Tome of Battle, but a good thing when it is in opposition to Tome of Battle?
Because ToB is supposed to spare you from needing to homebrew the solution - if you need to work to shoehorn ToB into the system, why not instead work to make the original system function?


What we've established, so far, is that some people object to ToB because it's too different, some because it's too similar, and some because it is neither too different nor too similar but approaches the problem with a flavorful or mechanical bent that is unacceptable.

All those opinions are perfectly valid, but it does sort of undermine any rational basis for disliking ToB.
You want to know a consistent thread to all those reasons?

They're all because the book is half-assed as a replacement for melee. The mechanics are grifted from casting and tweaked just enough to not be casting. But they aren't thorough enough to reflect the diversity of action of non-melee (PS, this is because the system's based on spellcasting, which is about rote effects, which don't do fluidity, creativity, or diversity well). It's also integrated poorly into the existing game, both mechanically and in terms of flavor (both of which you need to hack in yourself for it to make sense in a world).

As a sourcebook, it's fine, enjoyable and fun and interesting. As a replacement for core classes, it's a very poorly designed hack job. And who wants to use a very poorly designed hack job of a book in their games?


I wonder if as many people would hate 4th edition if they couldn't gripe about it in unison.

I don't think 4th edition would exist without the internet generation, as it's basically a result of balance griping on forums.



In honestly, if the conversion to 3ed had included a full conversion of all the of the main classes to "martial spells", with paladins and rangers maintaining their limited divine and divine/arcane mix for utility and flavor, then I think we'd have like 8 handbooks full of supplemental "martial spells". And I doubt very much I'd be opposed to it, because it wouldn't be stomping on anyone's stuff.
You'd think, but you basically described 4th edition right there.

Every book is a power book in 4th edition. There are only powers - powers are the 'trick' mechanic, and there's nothing but tricks (as an example, you can throw dirt in someone's eyes in 4E, and it'll deal damage - but it won't actually do anything unless you have the Rogue power which involves throwing dirt in someone's eyes. Yes, that is why I'd been using that as an example). It's the ToB design taken to its' logical, and completely self-consistent, conclusion.


- People are unable to combine feats and/or are enough imaginative to use skills and feats in a cool, cinematic manner. Moreover, DM are inflexible about handwaving new imaginative uses of PC feats, thing against designer suggestions, see Wotc Archives.
To be fair, D&D is not condusive to creativity or imagination in play. You can flavor your stuff as awesome as you like, but by RAW, and D&D's meant to be played by RAW, it will never affect the game's mechanics.

[Kaiyanwang]

And yet, no one has explained to me how the Fighter class (not your Fighter character) is capable of having fun. Unless doing the same thing over and over is fun for you.

The point is that IMO you are not forced to always do the same thing.


Say an human fighter, By level 12, with flaws, can fill Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Cleave, Impr Sunder, Leap Attack, Combat Brute, Combat Expertise, ICE, Allied Defense, Improved Trip, Knockdown, Goad, Imperious Command (ZS ACF).

You can charge and deal damage. You can bull rush an enemy into Dark tentacles. You can crush an enemy cleric holy symbol. You can smash an enemy into another trying to trip both (+4 to the attempt with improved trip).

If you sunder you have an AOO. You deal 10 damage, you have a trip attempt. If you deal 10 damage you trip OR you can trip 2 enemies and then AOO with improved trip (maybe it would be a good idea take Combat Reflexes later, but a dip in something for pounce cold be good, too).

You can charge, gather attention becaus of your damage, and then switch to +12 AC the subsequient round, like a trap. Use full attack (touch) for trip attempts.

Goad an enemy, Use Allied defense and have the rogue near you full attack on another. Crowd control with Imperious command.

You are a charger. Quite good strenght score. Composite bow. You can use thrown weapons. Some for control, like bolas or glot. And trip attemts will have a +4 for IT. Synergy synergy synergy.

Use your equipment. Use a tower shield for another +4 to bull rushes (Wotc Archives suggested houserule).


Pimp intimidate (imperious command) and handle animals. You can train wierd creatures. Have a flying hydra as a mount. Jump in the battle from above. Use profession (siege engineer) for those 14d6 damages on the enemy wall, to help the wizzie bombarment. then lead the siege from above on your mount and lead the charge.


Just example. And be careful - of course dipping in warblade would help a lot. A friend of mine has a similar build, and her combos varied a lot just with the mere Sudden Leap.

And see, I always complain about fighter's fault (as an example, what I said with skills is doable barely, and you have only those 4 skills, or the dead levels).

But, saying that you alwayd do the same thing, It always seemed wrong to me.

Of course, you don't polymorph or gate or talk with deities or have vision or craft illusions but... does warblade can?

One could say that warblade is more defended from casters because of diamond mind. Right. See, I like a lot warblade. And funny thing, the things I like more are 4 skills and uncanny dodge, and int synergy, not maneuvers, barring the ones that pimp full attack somewhat (I'm a tiger claw bitch).




To be fair, D&D is not condusive to creativity or imagination in play. You can flavor your stuff as awesome as you like, but by RAW, and D&D's meant to be played by RAW, it will never affect the game's mechanics.

This is partially true - see the "you cannot go to bathroom without the Improved Bathroom feat" syndrome. But things can be overcome and is more flexible than most people think IMO.

[Eclipse]

And yet, no one has explained to me how the Fighter class (not your Fighter character) is capable of having fun. Unless doing the same thing over and over is fun for you.

I think this is the issue here. You're too focused on the lack of class features to see that fun can also come from just playing the game. Personally, I prefer classes with more features, but some people love playing a completely mundane character with lots of training. To them, a fighter is great, because they just play the game.

Here's a 25 point buy stat set:

Str 14
Dex 10
Con 14
Int 13
Wis 12
Cha 10

So, that looks pretty bad at first. Certainly not optimized. This is before any races are chosen. A human gets you skill points. A dwarf gets you extra con and proficiency with a couple exotic weapons. A half-orc grants more strength at a penalty to int and charisma, which is undesirable if you want skill points or to play more strictly by your stats than any group I've seen.

Let's go human though. That's 4 skills assuming you're maxing them out. Not great, but not bad. Decent mental stats so you can contribute to conversation if you feel that's necessary. Int 13 serves the purpose of both extra skill points and to let you pick up an entire feat line. Wisdom is for will saves and the roleplaying you say can only happen with good stats. Wisdom and charisma can be flipped if you prefer a more personable fighter.

I had a player who played a fighter in this vein before. With clever feat choices and a strong grasp of the rules, he beat down a cleric five levels higher than him in solo combat. He was 10th, she was 15th. Now, naturally, this cleric wasn't at her best... she had expended all of her spells 4th level and above. Many of her buffs were still active, but the duration had been ticking. He played a game of grapple and outlast. By the time her buffs ran down, she was basically a fighter of his level with a few spells less than ideal for combat, as well as fewer hit points. No, I don't remember his build. No, it wasn't exceptional. Yes, it was actually a fighter who invested enough into intelligence that he had skill points which he dumped into craft and some social skills. He was also the party face, even though we had a sorcerer in the party, because the sorcerer focused on being an evoker with some utility and skills more related to magic than being the face. Cleric, ranger, and barbarian also stuck to their niche. The wizard (who retired and the player then picked up a rogue) didn't want to bother, even though she could have done it better.

So yes, a fighter can do it. He can do it and still be effective if he plays smart. Is it easy? I doubt it. But it is doable. I ran a game where it happened. Incidentally, the barbarian later went through a rebuild after hearing her calling, and became a crusader instead of a barbarian. Mostly because we wanted to keep the character, but the player was getting bored playing a barbarian. The fighter was not outshone by the crusader, who was much more effective in combat than out. In combat, the crusader did a bit more than the fighter, who still contributed meaningfully. Out of combat, the fighter tended to contribute more than most of the other party members.

Now, the stats above aren't exact, but they're close. It worked. We all had fun, including the fighter. It is possible that some people like playing the fighter because he's bland and mundane. It's weird to me too, but I've seen it. And he brought a lot to the game.

[Calimehter]

Well hey now, you can't say for certain that will happen.

...

After all, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition



No, I think that in a ToB thread we can safely say that EVERYBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition.

:smallwink:

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I think this is the issue here. You're too focused on the lack of class features to see that fun can also come from just playing the game. Personally, I prefer classes with more features, but some people love playing a completely mundane character with lots of training. To them, a fighter is great, because they just play the game.

*snip*

DW's point is not that you can't have fun using the Fighter class, but rather what does the Fighter class in and of itself offer to the fun of a given character compared to a cleric, barbarian, duskblade, warblade, swashbuckler or so on?

What is it within the crunch of the Fighter that new and unique possibilities to increase fun exist that any number of other classes could not offer and do it better? That is what he is asking. Just because someone made an amazing character and had fun with said character who happened to be a Fighter 6 is irrelevant. Assuming I am correct in what he is saying, DW is at least implying that that same character would have had a greater level as fun or more likely to have a greater level of fun as a non-Fighter.

[Eclipse]

DW's point is not that you can't have fun using the Fighter class, but rather what does the Fighter class in and of itself offer to the fun of a given character compared to a cleric, barbarian, duskblade, warblade, swashbuckler or so on?

What is it within the crunch of the Fighter that new and unique possibilities to increase fun exist that any number of other classes could not offer and do it better? That is what he is asking. Just because someone made an amazing character and had fun with said character who happened to be a Fighter 6 is irrelevant. Assuming I am correct in what he is saying, DW is at least implying that that same character would have had a greater level as fun or more likely to have a greater level of fun as a non-Fighter.

For most people, I think this is likely the case. This is how I feel about it too. However, there are some people who like playing characters more on the side of mundane than lots of class features, but they'd prefer not to be as weak as the warrior npc class. These people play fighters. They get lots of feats, which they put to use in mastering one or two styles of combat. They like the feeling of extraordinary mundane person. And a fighter captures that feel better than any other class. For those who don't like this feeling, which is most gamers I know, fighters are only good as a basic introductory class to D&D, after which no one plays them. However, for a few, fighters remain fun to play because of the lack of special abilities.

In short, the fighter brings a completely mundane character of extraordinary combat ability to the table. As extraordinary as you can get without class features, most of which would kill the mundane aspect of the fighter some of these people are looking for.

[Gametime]

They're all because the book is half-assed as a replacement for melee. The mechanics are grifted from casting and tweaked just enough to not be casting. But they aren't thorough enough to reflect the diversity of action of non-melee (PS, this is because the system's based on spellcasting, which is about rote effects, which don't do fluidity, creativity, or diversity well). It's also integrated poorly into the existing game, both mechanically and in terms of flavor (both of which you need to hack in yourself for it to make sense in a world).

Possibly. I don't see it being any more poorly designed than core melee, which tried to use feats to represent the wide variety of tactical options available and instead ended up with a horrible mishmash of static bonuses, contingent static bonuses, tactical options, and ways to make spells even more powerful.

It's only a poorly integrated book if you expect every Joe Monster to use maneuvers. If only highly trained warriors are using them, well, they're probably going to be individually statted out NPCs anyway. It's hardly more work to give them an initiator class if you want them to be a powerful warrior.

As for flavor, there really isn't one coherently represented by the core books. There's traces of Greyhawk, but mostly it's just generic fantasy. Adding "special moves" to that hardly invalidates the fantasy already existing.

[BSW]

As I've read through this and other Tome of Battle debate threads, one of the most persistent complaints I've seen raised against it is that it "feels too Wuxia."

Now, as far as short hand explanations go... this does adequately describe why those individuals dislike the flavor of martial adept classes.

But so far I haven't really seen anyone* who holds that view really explain precisely what about maneuvers feels Wuxia to them. What I have seen is several people post lists of specific maneuvers that they feel are "too Wuxia" without any actual explanation of what about those maneuvers and disciplines feels Wuxia to them.

Other than the fact that they're named at all, what about particular maneuvers and disciplines feels "wuxia" to you? Is it the specific names? Is it what they actually do?

I'm curious to see what specific aspects of maneuvers you associate with Wuxia, regardless of whether other people would deem those associations to be logical. In essence, I want to know why you feel the way you do about the specific Wuxia association.

Personally, I can name one maneuver whose name just screams Wuxia to me personally: Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike. There's nothing mechanically or even with the default flavor of what the maneuver entails that I think is inherently Wuxia in nature (if anything, it strikes me a very stereotypical shadow magic type gish attack). But the name... I see names like that in cheesy old kung fu movies constantly. The super secret ultimate death attack almost always has a name like that in the old school flicks. I don't think that really olds true with the newer Wuxia movies, though.




* With the exception of RagnaroksChosen, who I think as been somewhat clear in explaining that he feels that ToB feels Wuxia because he associates the naming of techniques with that genre. The fact that the association is premised on an understanding of martial arts that is demonstrably factually incorrect is actually irrelevant and does not alter the fact that his explanation does adequately explain what about ToB he feels is too Wuxia. If I've misunderstood his explanations, then I would welcome being corrected.

[Frosty]

I disagree. I think D&D is very bad at the Wuxia genre. I don't think you could give it a respectful attempt, even, without some sort of stunt system so you could pull off all the creative and fun things you can see in Wire-fu movies.
Wow, I'm still not sure how people are misunderstanding my posts THAT MUCH.

Maybe this just highlights the communications issues we have in this thread, and it's making me angry. Let me repeat myself one more time.

*ahem* THE D20 SYSTEM CAN BE USED TO PLAY CAMPAIGNS THAT ARE SET IN WORLDS WITH "EASTERN" FLAVOR. AS IN, YOU TAKE THE EXISTING RULES...3.5 (ADD IN TOB OR NOT)...PATHFINDER...4TH ED, WHATEVER...AND THE THE RULES WILL ALLOW A DM TO RUN AN ADVENTURE THAT IS PRIMARILY BASED IN AN "EASTERN" CULTURE. I HAVE MADE NO CLAIMS ABOUT D20'S ABILITY TO DO "WUXIA" MECHANICS.

1) WUXIA MACHANICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ADVENTURING IN AN "EASTERN" CULTURE. PLEASE GET THIS THROUGH INTO YOUR HEAD.

2) I SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE ADVENTURE NEEDING WUXIA MECHANICS OR NEEDING WIRE-FU IN "EASTERN" ADVENTURES. I'M JUST SAYING THE CULTURE AND FLAVOR OR THE LAND CAN BE "EASTEN" AND YOUR STANDARD D20 MECHANICS WILL WORK.

RC is saying that no, it can't...or at least it doesn't work well or feel right.

[Kaiyanwang]

What is it within the crunch of the Fighter that new and unique possibilities to increase fun exist that any number of other classes could not offer and do it better? That is what he is asking. Just because someone made an amazing character and had fun with said character who happened to be a Fighter 6 is irrelevant. Assuming I am correct in what he is saying, DW is at least implying that that same character would have had a greater level as fun or more likely to have a greater level of fun as a non-Fighter.

What I love of fighter is combining feats effect for best, and use equipment. Of course this could have been done better by designers (dead levels, how feats scale) or can be done better (dip in barbarian or warblade) but still..

[pjackson]

To be fair, D&D is not condusive to creativity or imagination in play. You can flavor your stuff as awesome as you like, but by RAW, and D&D's meant to be played by RAW, it will never affect the game's mechanics.

Rubbish.
D&D is intended to be played by RAI, not RAW.
Imagination and creativity are meant to be big parts of it.
I started playing before AD&D.
DM's were meant to make up rules on the fly to cover unexpected situations and clever ideas by players.
The AD&D 1e DMG had such a mish-mash of mechanics because it was basically a collection of such ruling made by Gary Gygax and co.
I am sure there is a section on making up your own rules on the fly (though I don't have the book to hand to check).

[RagnaroksChosen]

Wow, I'm still not sure how people are misunderstanding my posts THAT MUCH.

Maybe this just highlights the communications issues we have in this thread, and it's making me angry. Let me repeat myself one more time.

*ahem* THE D20 SYSTEM CAN BE USED TO PLAY CAMPAIGNS THAT ARE SET IN WORLDS WITH "EASTERN" FLAVOR. AS IN, YOU TAKE THE EXISTING RULES...3.5 (ADD IN TOB OR NOT)...PATHFINDER...4TH ED, WHATEVER...AND THE THE RULES WILL ALLOW A DM TO RUN AN ADVENTURE THAT IS PRIMARILY BASED IN AN "EASTERN" CULTURE. I HAVE MADE NO CLAIMS ABOUT D20'S ABILITY TO DO "WUXIA" MECHANICS.

1) WUXIA MACHANICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ADVENTURING IN AN "EASTERN" CULTURE. PLEASE GET THIS THROUGH INTO YOUR HEAD.

2) I SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE ADVENTURE NEEDING WUXIA MECHANICS OR NEEDING WIRE-FU IN "EASTERN" ADVENTURES. I'M JUST SAYING THE CULTURE AND FLAVOR OR THE LAND CAN BE "EASTEN" AND YOUR STANDARD D20 MECHANICS WILL WORK.

RC is saying that no, it can't...or at least it doesn't work well or feel right.

hmm you bring up a good point.

I was thinking more about this last night and this morning. Eastern flavor is not a bad thing( specificaly thinking of forgotten realms, which i love, has some eastern style flavor to it) Though in and of it self tob is more Wire fu esc then any thing else, its a combination of mechanics and flavor of the classes that lead me to this.

So I take back my sayings in regard to eastern flavor and just say that the tob mechanics feel to wire fu/anime esc. eastern flavor can be added into a setting with no problem, I still stand by the fact that we(my group) don't typicaly add it in (unless we are playing realms). I was incorrectly lumping anime/wuxia in with all culture which is incorrect I still stand by my statements of tob feel to wuxia/anime esc though. I just take back in regards to culture( which is more of an over all fluff thing)


Yes i know most of the effects can be replicated by magic though buffs and what not. Which i don't mind (i actualy like gishes) but to me those have there own pitfalls which i prefer over the uncounterability of TOB. Which leads makes me look at it more like wire fu rather then just some new form of magic. Nor do i wish to homebrew some system for tob/magic transparency.

[pjackson]

If I joined your game and said that I wanted to play a gish style character who focused on shadow and fire magic to augment his martial skills, would you let me play a swordsage?


Probably. But I would need to vet all spells (as normal).



Or if I wanted to play a holy warrior who did not cast spells, but rather channeled the power of his god through his weapon/self to enhance his martial skills, would you let me play a crusader?

Probably with restrictions. Healing by attacking I do not agree with, and the randomness seems incompatible with being Lawful to me.

ToB is a magic system - it says so on the cover.
It does not solve the problem of non-magical melee types being outclassed by magic users.

[Frosty]

hmm you bring up a good point.

I was thinking more about this last night and this morning. Eastern flavor is not a bad thing( specificaly thinking of forgotten realms, which i love, has some eastern style flavor to it) Though in and of it self tob is more Wire fu esc then any thing else, its a combination of mechanics and flavor of the classes that lead me to this.

So I take back my sayings in regard to eastern flavor and just say that the tob mechanics feel to wire fu/anime esc. eastern flavor can be added into a setting with no problem, I still stand by the fact that we(my group) don't typicaly add it in (unless we are playing realms). I was incorrectly lumping anime/wuxia in with all culture which is incorrect I still stand by my statements of tob feel to wuxia/anime esc though. I just take back in regards to culture( which is more of an over all fluff thing)


Yes i know most of the effects can be replicated by magic though buffs and what not. Which i don't mind (i actualy like gishes) but to me those have there own pitfalls which i prefer over the uncounterability of TOB. Which leads makes me look at it more like wire fu rather then just some new form of magic. Nor do i wish to homebrew some system for tob/magic transparency.
Thank you very much. You have no idea how much it pisses me off as a Chinese person when people associate all "eastern" things with "wire-fu" or what-not. It'd be like someone associating all Israeli meals as having massive amounts of humuss.

[Lapak]

Probably with restrictions. Healing by attacking I do not agree with, and the randomness seems incompatible with being Lawful to me.It's not randomness, according to the fluff. It's your deity telling you exactly what moves you need to triumph in their name. So in that sense, a Lawful crusader is giving over their own free choice to their cause and their god - very Lawful indeed.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Thank you very much. You have no idea how much it pisses me off as a Chinese person when people associate all "eastern" things with "wire-fu" or what-not. It'd be like someone associating all Israeli meals as having massive amounts of humuss.

fair enough though... i still hold that tob is to wire fu/anime esc.


I thought hummass was india indian.

[Frosty]

I'm pretty sure it's middle-eastern.

[pjackson]

It's not randomness, according to the fluff. It's your deity telling you exactly what moves you need to triumph in their name. So in that sense, a Lawful crusader is giving over their own free choice to their cause and their god - very Lawful indeed.

The mechanics do not back that up, and are in fact intended to stop you from using the best move in every circumstance, presumably because that was considered overpowered. Most likely the designers were trying to make the classes distinct and came up with what they thought was a cool mechanic, and then tried justify it through the fluff.
For me they failed to justify it, and I find the mechanic too gamist anyway.

[Swok]

anime

Seriously. Stop that.

Or explain how ToB is like Monster. or Paranoia Agent. Or any of the multiple animes that have nothing to do with what it seems like you're trying to say (that ToB is too like wire-fighting over the topness)

Anime is too broad a category to say anything is thematically similar (except for artistic style, but again, this doesn't seem to be what you're trying to say.)

[Indon]

Possibly. I don't see it being any more poorly designed than core melee, which tried to use feats to represent the wide variety of tactical options available and instead ended up with a horrible mishmash of static bonuses, contingent static bonuses, tactical options, and ways to make spells even more powerful.
Oh, in and of itself, ToB is designed quite well.

It just can't replace core melee as people bill it as capable of being - at best it turns into just one more patch stuck into the mishmash, and one that requires extensive and immersion-threatening reflavoring at minimum.


It's only a poorly integrated book if you expect every Joe Monster to use maneuvers.
4E has shown us that this is an entirely reasonable assumption - every Joe Monster does have powers.


Adding "special moves" to that hardly invalidates the fantasy already existing.

No, it doesn't invalidate the setting. But it doesn't fit in well with, as you say, a generic setting.


This is partially true - see the "you cannot go to bathroom without the Improved Bathroom feat" syndrome. But things can be overcome and is more flexible than most people think IMO.

Well, yeah, but we can't expect good DMs in an internet discussion about a roleplaying game - expecting good DMing is a fallacy.


1) WUXIA MACHANICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ADVENTURING IN AN "EASTERN" CULTURE. PLEASE GET THIS THROUGH INTO YOUR HEAD.
Well, that's right, certainly, but also I think misses the point. I mean, sure, one does not require the other, but there's a strong correlation, like... posses and westerns.

Yes, D20 can do an "eastern" environment (at least, as well as it can do anything) - unless you're going for the eastern-associated genre of Wuxia, in a similar way that a system can do an American Wild West environment but may have trouble with the Western genre.


Rubbish.
D&D is intended to be played by RAI, not RAW.
Counterpoint: The RPGA.

I'm certainly willing to agree that D&D was meant to be as you describe it at one point, but that D&D existed before the internet.

Today's D&D is internet D&D, and a fiercely different creature.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Seriously. Stop that.

Or explain how ToB is like Monster. or Paranoia Agent. Or any of the multiple animes that have nothing to do with what it seems like you're trying to say (that ToB is too like wire-fighting over the topness)

Anime is too broad a category to say anything is thematically similar (except for artistic style, but again, this doesn't seem to be what you're trying to say.)

Um no

anime (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Anime)

[Swok]

Um no

anime (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Anime)

So your problem is that ToB is too like a Japanese artistic style, inspired by Disney animation? Do you realize how little sense that makes?

[Caphi]

{Scrubbed}

[Lapak]

The mechanics do not back that up, and are in fact intended to stop you from using the best move in every circumstance, presumably because that was considered overpowered. Most likely the designers were trying to make the classes distinct and came up with what they thought was a cool mechanic, and then tried justify it through the fluff.
For me they failed to justify it, and I find the mechanic too gamist anyway.You could say the same thing about Clerics. Why do they have to prepare spells? Why can't they just call on their god for the right divine magic at the right time, from the entire divine spell list? The fluff doesn't justify it, especially when there are spontaneous divine casters out there.

What mechanic would you suggest for simulating divine inspiration? Letting the player chooses makes the deity only as smart as the player, which certainly doesn't feel right. At least rolling for what the god chooses gives you a 'mysterious ways' vibe.

[RagnaroksChosen]

so you're problem is that ToB is too like a Japanese artistic style, inspired by Disney animation? Do you realize how little sense that makes?


I don't care, people in this thread have understood what i am getting at. I refer to the generalities of anime troupes rather then anime the drawing style. Its the best word in my mind to describe what the feel of it is. Wire fu is probebly better but wirefu to me go hand in hand with most fantasy anime.

[Indon]

So your problem is that ToB is too like a Japanese artistic style, inspired by Disney animation? Do you realize how little sense that makes?

Considering that there are tabletop systems devoted to simulating anime (BESM, for instance), it doesn't seem too out of place that all, or even most as no trope is universal, anime does have common threads in storytelling and the like.

The article links to a list of tropes, even.

[Eclipse]

Well, yeah, but we can't expect good DMs in an internet discussion about a roleplaying game - expecting good DMing is a fallacy.

I don't play D&D on the internet, I discuss it on the internet. I assume good DMing because I play with good DMs. Now, when I say this, I don't refer to level of skill. I've played with DMs who have widely varying skill levels. What they all do have is respect for their players, and a willingness to listen. This makes it possible for us all to form the game we want. The game remains the DM's vision, but the players add to that, refine it, and make significant contributions to it. For me, not expecting good DMing is a fallacy.


Counterpoint: The RPGA.

I'm certainly willing to agree that D&D was meant to be as you describe it at one point, but that D&D existed before the internet.

Today's D&D is internet D&D, and a fiercely different creature.

Can't let the internet get in the way of a good game. We play it the way we want, the way we believe it was intended. If you insist, the way it was intended before the internet changed it. Many other people play it the very same way we do. In any case, in actual play, I firmly believe, based on my experience and other reading I've done, that most gamers play with RAI, along with their own complement of house rules. If RPGA is all RAW, I won't be playing. If it's RAI with no house rules, I'd consider giving it a shot if given the chance.

Edit:

You could say the same thing about Clerics. Why do they have to prepare spells? Why can't they just call on their god for the right divine magic at the right time, from the entire divine spell list? The fluff doesn't justify it, especially when there are spontaneous divine casters out there.

What mechanic would you suggest for simulating divine inspiration? Letting the player chooses makes the deity only as smart as the player, which certainly doesn't feel right. At least rolling for what the god chooses gives you a 'mysterious ways' vibe.

Their gods don't carefully monitor every choice they make, they just catch the important ones. Spell selection is done in a careful ritual of prayer in which a cleric draws divine power from their god and shapes it into the spells they will use through the day. Casting the spell releases this power in the form of divine magic. This isn't a perfect description because it's off the top of my head, but it captures the feel of what they do.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

No, it isn't.

You see, the reason maneuvers would function as a modification of mundane mechanics is because it can attempt to represent the breadth of things you can do with mundane qualities - skill, focus, strength, durability, and so on. And, in fact, breadth of ability is what makes the ToB classes more powerful.

But if something can only do one or two of these things? It doesn't work. There is no breadth, you're just making a monster with a trick you got out of a sourcebook. And not to say ToB isn't a good sourcebook - it's not bad at all for that. It just can't be used to replace a fundamental set of mechanics like that.

The point of ToB isn't breadth of capabilities, necessarily, simply an expansion of available capabilities. Before ToB, there was no good or efficient way for a melee character to deal sufficient damage on a standard action, or move and full attack without pounce, or shore up a weak save with a better roll, or gain concealment without items or a caster's help, or a variety of other things. Adding two or three Martial Study feats to a monster or NPC isn't supposed to suddenly expand a creature's options by an order of magnitude, it simply adds options they didn't have good access to before. Adding Child of Shadow to a sneaky NPC, or Pouncing Charge to a giant, or similar can add several tactical options even if you only have one maneuver.


Set, memorized and expended abilities, divided into discrete power tiers, separate schools, and given its' own Spellcraft/Psicraft equivalent.

It's clearly mechanically derivative from spellcasting in much the same way Psionics is. It'd be easier, in fact, to make a ruleset (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm) sort of thing that could convert one to the other than it is with Psionics - aside from tweaking the refresh mechanics, it's all flavor.

Thank you. So the whole "psuedospells" thing comes from the metagame structure of the maneuvers rather than their in-game flavor, at least in this thread. I've seen several people use it in the sense of "Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are just martial adepts casting spells"; if you only object to the tiered/schooled classifications, I have no objections to that.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Thank you. So the whole "psuedospells" thing comes from the metagame structure of the maneuvers rather than their in-game flavor, at least in this thread. I've seen several people use it in the sense of "Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are just martial adepts casting spells"; if you only object to the tiered/schooled classifications, I have no objections to that.

i think its also the hang up on the fact that though there casting "spells" you can't interupt them like spells.

[Frosty]

i think its also the hang up on the fact that though there casting "spells" you can't interupt them like spells.

If they had all the weaknesses of spells, then they would also need to have all the advantages of spells. They don't. Maneuvers by and by are weaker than spells (what maneuver allows you to gate in 40 HD pokemon to do your bidding?) so by default they have less weaknesses.

It's the same reason why a Full-attack doesn't provoke AoOs (melee attacks anyways) and can't be interrupted normally

[Thrice Dead Cat]

What I love of fighter is combining feats effect for best, and use equipment. Of course this could have been done better by designers (dead levels, how feats scale) or can be done better (dip in barbarian or warblade) but still..

The thing is, outside of a few things like Jack B. Quick, any class can do that. Hell, to be fair, even Jack B. Quick works better using Psychic Warrior than it does with Fighter 20. Sure, you can get the combo earlier with Fighter, which can be an added bonus in some to most games, but often times getting other pieces to use (maneuvers) more than makes up for the slow down in the combo.

[RagnaroksChosen]

If they had all the weaknesses of spells, then they would also need to have all the advantages of spells. They don't. Maneuvers by and by are weaker than spells (what maneuver allows you to gate in 40 HD pokemon to do your bidding?) so by default they have less weaknesses.

It's the same reason why a Full-attack doesn't provoke AoOs (melee attacks anyways) and can't be interrupted normally

I would agree and disagree. Yes gate is rediculous but taking out the obviously broken spells and obviously broken manuvers(iron heart surge and a few others)
Though manuvers don't scale well, for there level there pritty decent. You also have to look at there interaction with stances.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Considering that there are tabletop systems devoted to simulating anime (BESM, for instance), it doesn't seem too out of place that all, or even most as no trope is universal, anime does have common threads in storytelling and the like.

The article links to a list of tropes, even.

The thing is, those tropes are not exclusive to anime. They may be prevalent, but, chances are, if you actually bother to click on those tropes, the examples will cover anime, manga, comics, film, fan fiction, new media, literature, movies, video games, TABLE TOP, radio, mythology, western animation, web comics, web originals, opera, and real life.



Even BESM isn't a catch all for "anime." It, is, however, designed to attempt to recreate various serious of anime, generally, at least in my experience, the odd addition of slapstick as found in The Slayers series between serious plots/fights or even during such.


I don't care, people in this thread have understood what i am getting at. I refer to the generalities of anime troupes rather then anime the drawing style. Its the best word in my mind to describe what the feel of it is. Wire fu is probebly better but wirefu to me go hand in hand with most fantasy anime.

Just because we can guess at what you mean, does not mean that you should still be using an incorrect term. If it's the apparent "wire-fu" that bothers you, than say that, rather than "anime," as the latter means jack squat to most people, forcing them to guess at what is really being said there.

That being said, only a few maneuvers explicitly call to mind a fight involving dudes on wires. There's the Rising Phoenix stance, which allows you to "fly" 10 ft. from the ground and a couple of "jump" maneuvers like Sudden Leap. As others have already described, Iron Heart and Diamond mind are basically Heroic Willpower Cranked Up to Eleven. The only two disciplines that are explicitly supernatural are Shadow Hand and Desert Wind, and, barring feats, only a Swordsage gets those. A case could be made for Devoted Spirit, but I see that more as a case of DND doing a terrible job distinguishing between physical and morale fatigue in HP damage, compared to say Deadlands.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I would agree and disagree. Yes gate is rediculous but taking out the obviously broken spells and obviously broken manuvers(iron heart surge and a few others)
Though manuvers don't scale well, for there level there pritty decent. You also have to look at there interaction with stances.

To be fair, Iron Heart Surge is yet again a case of WotC being terrible at proof reading and wording it such that it does what it appears to be intended to do, that is, using Heroic Willpower to shrug off spells and effects.

[Jayabalard]

If your group thrives on having huge power differences, then your group is looking for something very different,Different than what? I mean, that's the default condition in D&D; it seems to me that those people want exactly what D&D is good at providing.

[RagnaroksChosen]

To be fair, Iron Heart Surge is yet again a case of WotC being terrible at proof reading and wording it such that it does what it appears to be intended to do, that is, using Heroic Willpower to shrug off spells and effects.

Agreed it is terribly worded.I was just making sure it was covered incase people thought it was/was not considered over powered. more of a covering my ass then any thing.

[Frosty]

I would agree and disagree. Yes gate is rediculous but taking out the obviously broken spells and obviously broken manuvers(iron heart surge and a few others)
Though manuvers don't scale well, for there level there pritty decent. You also have to look at there interaction with stances.

I quite agree that maneuvers are good at what they do (deal damage for the most part) and that's precise how things should be! I want me guys with swords to be able to beat things up well without needing 36 splatbooks to cherry-pick feat from. In order for me to play at tier 2 to 3, I can't afford to go Fighter 20 most of the time.

And they are less powerful than spells just in general, so less weaknesses.

[Jayabalard]

Actually it's not. The vast majority of the people in the thread have a pretty clear idea of what is mean due to the context of the discussion. As far as I've seen (and it's possible that I've missed one), the only people who have expressed any confusion over what is meant are the people who are strictly arguing over semantics.


Again, it's like if I said "Pssh, that's such an European way of thinking." I'm sure the French and British for example would not like the fact that I am disregardingall of their differences and lumping them all together.Not necessarily. Nor does it mean that "such a European way of thinking" is in inaccurate statement... for all their differences, there are things in common throughout Europe.


I don't believe people would object to the warblade as much if it was in the PHB, because that system would be what people associated with melee in D&D. I'm sure that people would have objected to 3e even more vehemently than they did... for many, the changes between 2e and 3e were far too much as it was. I'm also convinced that the game would not have sold nearly as well as a result, and wouldn't enjoy anything like it's current level of popularity.


And they are less powerful than spells just in general, so less weaknesses.Weak spells are also less powerful than strong spells (ie spells in general). That doesn't make them not spells, that just makes them weak.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I quite agree that maneuvers are good at what they do (deal damage for the most part) and that's precise how things should be! I want me guys with swords to be able to beat things up well without needing 36 splatbooks to cherry-pick feat from. In order for me to play at tier 2 to 3, I can't afford to go Fighter 20 most of the time.

And they are less powerful than spells just in general, so less weaknesses.

I don't know...

just taking an example here:
Im sure there are going to be a thousand counter points.

Two generaly non optimised characters, (Basicaly out of the box)

warblade 1 can do +2d6 every other round (assuming hits)

most non-optimised tob characters are not doing that.

even looking at a blaster mage
would be doing 1d6
Rogues doing +1d6 if flanking or flat footed.

even vs a barbarain there still up a decent amount of dmg.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Not necessarily. Nor does it mean that "such a European way of thinking" is in inaccurate statement... for all their differences, there are things in common throughout Europe.

There board generalities may be accurate on a much larger scale than which the discussion occurs, however. At times, a difference of +/-10% is acceptable, others you'd be lucky to get by with a variance of .000001%. This is to say, when someone calls another out on their inaccuracies, it helps to clarify them so such mistakes are not repeated.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I don't know...

just taking an example here:
Im sure there are going to be a thousand counter points.

Two generaly non optimised characters, (Basicaly out of the box)

warblade 1 can do +2d6 every other round (assuming hits)

most non-optimised tob characters are not doing that.

even looking at a blaster mage
would be doing 1d6
Rogues doing +1d6 if flanking or flat footed.

even vs a barbarain there still up a decent amount of dmg.

I am assuming that this is at first level, an area of player where one lucky hit can end a character. (Dwarf Wizard 1 has, at most, barring toughness 9 HP. Orc warrior does something to the tune of 2d6+4 or 11 damage on average.) So, the Warblade 1's little extra damage, does not mean too terribly much.

Also, better people than I have done comparisons of moderately optimized barbarians compared to similar such warblades, finding that their damages remain roughly equivalent throughout both of their adventuring careers, 1-20.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I am assuming that this is at first level, an area of player where one lucky hit can end a character. (Dwarf Wizard 1 has, at most, barring toughness 9 HP. Orc warrior does something to the tune of 2d6+4 or 11 damage on average.) So, the Warblade 1's little extra damage, does not mean too terribly much.

Also, better people than I have done comparisons of moderately optimized barbarians compared to similar such warblades, finding that their damages remain roughly equivalent throughout both of their adventuring careers, 1-20.

Yep at higher levels i could see that. 10+ or so i could see them being equivelent. though i belive once an initiator hits 9th level manuvers i belive they would pull ahead.

In an optimised game there on par, In an unoptimised game they tend to be ahead of the rest of the group, just like a well played wizard in a non optimised group.

[Partysan]

About "uncounterability" of maneuvers: you should keep in mind that most maneuvers still need a successful attack roll, so that everything working against standard attacks (high AC, flying, miss chances...) will also work against maneuvers.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Yep at higher levels i could see that. 10+ or so i could see them being equivelent. though i belive once an initiator hits 9th level manuvers i belive they would pull ahead.

In an optimised game there on par, In an unoptimised game they tend to be ahead of the rest of the group, just like a well played wizard in a non optimised group.

That is more an issue with the players involved than with the material at hand, to be fair. If anything, it's nice for people who are unoptimized but are playing with a group that does optimize but are too lazy to be bothered to do anything about that.

EDIT: Secondary bit on the Warblade at first level: They could get an extra +1d6, but the second d6 doesn't come online till 3rd level, so you're example is a little off.

[RagnaroksChosen]

That is more an issue with the players involved than with the material at hand, to be fair. If anything, it's nice for people who are unoptimized but are playing with a group that does optimize but are too lazy to be bothered to do anything about that.

EDIT: Secondary bit on the Warblade at first level: They could get an extra +1d6, but the second d6 doesn't come online till 3rd level, so you're example is a little off.

right but you have to admit that alot of tables are not CO optimized or nearly any where neer it, and this is a discussion how weather or not people like or dislike tob, and or if re-flavored would it be allowed in a game. Which i believe directly correlates to weather or not your table optimises.


negative.
on your edit punishing stance + any manuver that does +1d6 I was thinking of ruby nightmare blade(or the 1st level equivelent)

[Thrice Dead Cat]

right but you have to admit that alot of tables are not CO optimized or nearly any where neer it, and this is a discussion how weather or not people like or dislike tob, and or if re-flavored would it be allowed in a game. Which i believe directly correlates to weather or not your table optimises.

There certainly exists that possibility, but both sides lack the resources to test such. Although this is anecdotal evidence, I have played at tables that were piss-poor at optimization, yet loved ToB, while another were decent at CO, but despised the book. I have no idea if this holds true for anywhere near the majority of DND groups, however. Internet surveys would be biased, obviously, so using such would not be likely to get us to the "truth."



negative.
on your edit punishing stance + any manuver that does +1d6 I was thinking of ruby nightmare blade(or the 1st level equivelent)

That method would eat a feat to pull off at level one, as the only other maneuver to give bonus d6s to damage is a Desert Wind maneuver.

[RagnaroksChosen]

That method would eat a feat to pull off at level one, as the only other maneuver to give bonus d6s to damage is a Desert Wind maneuver.

again no. Punishing stance is a first level i belive dimond mind stance.

one of the nightmare blades is a first level manuver?

I'm pritty sure there's another that adds to strait damage that isn't a desert wind manuver. ... actualy for that matter i belive each of the initiators has a method of dealing an extra d6.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

again no. Punishing stance is a first level i belive dimond mind stance.

one of the nightmare blades is a first level manuver?

I'm pritty sure there's another that adds to strait damage that isn't a desert wind manuver. ... actualy for that matter i belive each of the initiators has a method of dealing an extra d6.


Apologies, I missed that. It does, however, have a conditional requirement with the concentration check, much in the same way that the rogue must have the opponent flat-footed.

[Tavar]

Punishing stance is Iron Heart, and has the added penalty of decreasing AC by 2. That's a huge penalty, especially at early levels when DnD most accurately resembles rocket tag.

Sapphire Nightmare Blade does deal extra damage, but requires a concentration check to do so. And if the check doesn't exceed the target's AC, again a likely occurrence at early levels, then a penalty is imposed on the attack.

[Eldariel]

again no. Punishing stance is a first level i belive dimond mind stance.

Iron Heart. It's quite similar to Barbarian's Rage (extra damage, AC penalty), though infinitely usable and without the To Hit, HP & Will-save bonus. Much like rest of the ToB, longetivity and options over raw power.


one of the nightmare blades is a first level manuver?

Indeed, though the real benefit is that if you succeed the Concentration-check, the enemy is flat-footed. It does have the added fail chance of the Concentration though and a penalty if that fails, so it's a bit risky early on.


I'm pritty sure there's another that adds to strait damage that isn't a desert wind manuver. ... actualy for that matter i belive each of the initiators has a method of dealing an extra d6.

Well, there's Leading the Charge-stance with Crusader but that's only +1 damage and only on charges. But...yeah. They're better defensively. Also, Charging Minotaur.

[sonofzeal]

ToB is powerful in low level games. I'd say in the levels 1-5 range, it has a significant advantage and can easily overshadow other folks in a non-optimized game.

By level 6 and onward though, they fit in just great in most games. They get more damage on single attacks, but miss out (for the most part) on the massive full attacks that are the bread and butter of traditional melee offence. By the time iteratives start kicking in for everyone else, Standard Action pwnage becomes much less appealing.

[RagnaroksChosen]

ToB is powerful in low level games. I'd say in the levels 1-5 range, it has a significant advantage and can easily overshadow other folks in a non-optimized game.

By level 6 and onward though, they fit in just great in most games. They get more damage on single attacks, but miss out (for the most part) on the massive full attacks that are the bread and butter of traditional melee offence. By the time iteratives start kicking in for everyone else, Standard Action pwnage becomes much less appealing.

true true. Which i think factors into the like or dislike of tob. at 6+ if your not able to move and attack your power go way way down as a normal melee type.

[Kaiyanwang]

Well, yeah, but we can't expect good DMs in an internet discussion about a roleplaying game - expecting good DMing is a fallacy.


Is this sarcasm? My point was not anyway about houseruling, but about the fact that somesimes gamers (me first) treat the system as less flexible than the designer themselves expected.

Not completely true (see Improved Bathroom) but..



The thing is, outside of a few things like Jack B. Quick, any class can do that. Hell, to be fair, even Jack B. Quick works better using Psychic Warrior than it does with Fighter 20. Sure, you can get the combo earlier with Fighter, which can be an added bonus in some to most games, but often times getting other pieces to use (maneuvers) more than makes up for the slow down in the combo.

Ok, but this is not linked with the fact that the class can be played in a way you don't do always the same thing.

The post you answered was ans answer (actually, a second answer) to that mainly (see my post above an example fighter).

In the same post, I said that things could be done better and the like, BTW.

[Frosty]

RC: As others have said, ToB is extremely powerful at low levels, but so are Fighters and Barbarians with a Greatsword.

At level 1, a Greatsword (2d6 + 1.5 Str mod) is a save or die, with the saving throw being the AC of the elven wizard with atrophied muscles with 5 HP. If you Charge, the "save DC" goes up by 2.

Levels 1 thru 5 is actually fine. It's the higher levels people have problems with. ToB is slightly OP in 1 to 5, but past that...they just do their best to keep up. This is of course on a pure power level discussion, and not a flavor discussion.

And yes, here's how ToB works. On a scale of 1 to 10 power curve, a ToB character varies from 6 (crappiest feat selection, horrible stat placement) to 8 (very good stat placements, feat selections, and maneuver selections). It may go up to 9 if you abuse Ruby Knight Vindicator but that's mostly more casting shenenigans anyways.

Whereas a Fighter can be as low as a 2 with the wrong feat and stat selections, and go up as high as a 7 if chosen optimally (Jack B quick + Lock-down mingled together for example can contribute well).

In my view, you shouldn't NEED to work 20 times as hard to have a decent character. ToB are playable out of the box so that even newbies will never feel useless...whereas if a newbie plays a Fighter or Monk without a lot of guidance...watch out!

[RagnaroksChosen]

RC: As others have said, ToB is extremely powerful at low levels, but so are Fighters and Barbarians with a Greatsword.

At level 1, a Greatsword (2d6 + 1.5 Str mod) is a save or die, with the saving throw being the AC of the elven wizard with atrophied muscles with 5 HP. If you Charge, the "save DC" goes up by 2.

Levels 1 thru 5 is actually fine. It's the higher levels people have problems with. ToB is slightly OP in 1 to 5, but past that...they just do their best to keep up. This is of course on a pure power level discussion, and not a flavor discussion.

And yes, here's how ToB works. On a scale of 1 to 10 power curve, a ToB character varies from 6 (crappiest feat selection, horrible stat placement) to 8 (very good stat placements, feat selections, and maneuver selections). It may go up to 9 if you abuse Ruby Knight Vindicator but that's mostly more casting shenenigans anyways.

Whereas a Fighter can be as low as a 2 with the wrong feat and stat selections, and go up as high as a 7 if chosen optimally (Jack B quick + Lock-down mingled together for example can contribute well).

In my view, you shouldn't NEED to work 20 times as hard to have a decent character. ToB are playable out of the box so that even newbies will never feel useless...whereas if a newbie plays a Fighter or Monk without a lot of guidance...watch out!

well i guess the term decent character is realy what is in question what defines a decent character realy is dependent on the power level/competency of the group.

[Frosty]

Decent means being able to contribute in a meaningful manner and not drag down the group and be a dead weight in appropriate CR challenges. A newbie to DnD playing a Fighter or Monk may very be dead weight.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Decent means being able to contribute in a meaningful manner and not drag down the group and be a dead weight in appropriate CR challenges. A newbie to DnD playing a Fighter or Monk may very be dead weight.

I've seen monks be dead weights and i've only seen fighters be dead weight when they are sword and board.

other wise 2handers do decent just because of power attack/str bonus's.
I've never actualy heard any one whos playing a fighter complain.
mabye because they new before playing mabye not.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Ok, but this is not linked with the fact that the class can be played in a way you don't do always the same thing.

The post you answered was ans answer (actually, a second answer) to that mainly (see my post above an example fighter).

In the same post, I said that things could be done better and the like, BTW.

Right, right. I just see the fact that a barbarian doing the same thing as the fighter as points against the fighter, as they can't readily duplicate rage or some such, for example. Now, once Dungeoncrasher becomes an option, I would consider playing a fighter... for at least the first 6 levels, as those levels offer a relatively unique ability.

As I mentioned, the timing/levels of play make the fighter more viable with their feat options, but often times, as the original comparison was, a Warblade can duplicate those effects if not with his own feats, but via maneuvers. Admittedly, you need not be the bestest, but when two to three other classes can compete with you and your schtick on top of their own features, I start to look to them.


EDIT: I may letting in more than a little personal bias against the fighter into this particular tangent, Kaiyanwang. You did bring up a valid counterpoint, so I'll concede mine.

[Gametime]

Oh, in and of itself, ToB is designed quite well.

It just can't replace core melee as people bill it as capable of being - at best it turns into just one more patch stuck into the mishmash, and one that requires extensive and immersion-threatening reflavoring at minimum.



I don't think you can hold up threatened immersion as a weakness of ToB. It doesn't threaten my immersion. Plenty of people in this thread have already said that they find it unbelievable, but plenty more find it perfectly acceptable within the limits of an RPG.

Replacing the warrior with the fighter to handle all your mooks and the fighter with the warblade to handle your tougher guys is a relatively simple change. Some people might find it unacceptable. Others clearly do not.

[Ashiel]

I don't know...

just taking an example here:
Im sure there are going to be a thousand counter points.

Two generaly non optimised characters, (Basicaly out of the box)

warblade 1 can do +2d6 every other round (assuming hits)

most non-optimised tob characters are not doing that.

even looking at a blaster mage
would be doing 1d6
Rogues doing +1d6 if flanking or flat footed.

even vs a barbarain there still up a decent amount of dmg.

If you're going to make statements, at least don't make false ones. A warblade 1 doesn't have any strikes or maneuvers that deal +2d6 damage. You can get +1d6 damage from a stance, but that comes with a -2 to your armor class (so all those goblins and kobolds are going to slaughter you). Further, the maneuvers are more like tactical feats (see Complete Warrior, and some of the Complete Series) rather than spells.

Firstly, spells that deal damage generally do so regardless of an opponent's armor class. Generally the more armor they're wearing, the more likely they are as a suitable target for damaging spells like fireball, scorching ray, or even shocking grasp. Fireball cannot be avoided without a special ability, and the other two do not allow saving throws and target your touch armor class, and two out of the three of those are ranged attacks.

Secondly, spells proceed to get progressively better and better as you gain levels. At 3rd level when a warblade can use a mountain hammer for +2d6 damage every other round, the sorcerer is destroying stuff with sleep, colorspray, or grease (which even if you don't fall down, you're flat footed and move at half-speed); and if he wants to he can throw down a 3d6 shocking grasp as a touch attack with a +3 bonus to hit if his target is wearing armor.

Oh, and he gains more uses of it at 4th and 5th level, as well as increasing its damage to 4d6 and 5d6 respectively, but at that time he's throwing around 2nd level spells like scorching ray or summon swarm. A sorcerer with Invisibility + Summon Swarm completely renders martial adepts pretty useless (you can move while invisible each round, and you use your standard action to concentrate; which allows the swarms to slowly kill everything that cannot fight back with magic - like martial adepts).

Maneuvers require a melee attack, can be overcome by armor, can be resisted by damage reduction (with a quality of a few maneuvers being that it specifically bypasses DR, such as foehammer and mountain hammer, but these are the exception; not the rule). You could actually deal an average of 10.5 extra damage every other round if you used mountain hammer and were in the punishing stance, which could deal +1d6 from the stance, and +2d6 from the maneuver, at the cost of -2 to your AC, but you'd have to stay in the stance (since a round where you change your stance is a round you cannot ready your maneuver again).

The funny thing is that this requires an investment of one of your stances, as well as the investment of your maneuvers known (think feats); and can only be done every other round. Now the core rules assume you're only going to encounter roughly 4 equal challenge encounters per day, or multiple weaker ones, or a few stronger ones. The average number of rounds in most encounters is generally very few (3-5 if memory serves).

The spell-casters still quickly begin getting much stronger. You see, while you can effectively dance between several different techniques that you're ready to execute as you weave around with your enemies, your caster buddies are making their minor spells more potent, getting more of them, and gaining access to spells that bend reality over their knees.

You on the other hand have the advantage of being able to move 30ft and still attack for +2d6 damage on the end of your strike; or heroically wrestle with ogres; or heroically leap onto a dragon's nose and stab him in the face; or heroically strike two foes with the same swing of your sword; or heroically catch your opponent's weapon to give your allies a chance to close in; or heroically refuse to give ground to your opponent; or heroically parry an otherwise deadly strike; or heroically resist the mind-raping magic flung at you through your grit and resolve; or heroically leap in front of your ally to guard him with your shield; or heroically coordinate your allies' charge; or heroically slash with both weapons at the same time (ok, you should really be able to do this anyway, but you can't in core); or heroically knock your opponent off balance (flat footed); or heroically strike someone and then catch their sword with your pommel and disarm them; or heroically lock arms with your foe so they cannot move away from you; or heroically make reckless advances without regard to your own safety; or heroically fight while moving to make yourself harder to pin down; or heroically choke your opponents to death while grappling; or heroically plant your feet and brace for impact and tackles; or heroically...

Even if you do deal more damage than spell-casters spamming spells; that's a silly way to compare balance. That is akin to comparing the fighter's ability to sneak to the rogue's ability to sneak, and saying the rogue is overpowered because of the difference. Damage is not typical spell-caster's strength. In core, it is the absolute weakest way to play spell-casters. Spell-casters drop spells like grease, glitterdust, ray of enfeeblement, enlarge person and similar spells around to enhance melee's ability to kill things. Because at the end of the day, melee is supposed to insert sword A into face B. It's just that with core melee, getting into melee with the monsters is usually the last thing you want to do (Oh yeah, run up and hit him for 1d8+5 damage, only to feel the might of the monster's 5 natural attacks which deal the same amount or more, with one of them hitting you and pinning you to the ground where it can proceed to do obscene things to your helpless fleshy frame until it tires of you or is rendered unconscious by the wizard).

There are ways to make melee better and more capable, but it's a very specific type of warrior. It's the shock-trooper leap-attacking pouncing-full-attack-on-a-charge with my +40 damage power attack. Or its mind-flayers who are played like they're toddlers running up to hug daddy's sword. Meanwhile, two weapon fighting is weak, sword and board is weak, and archery is weak (but has a lot of nice tricks like full-attacking each round, using manyshot, and being able to golf-bag damage reductions).

You could use a million splatbooks, or you could just play something out of the Tome of Battle. Personally, if I wanted to play something out of the ToB because I wanted to play a heroic character, and someone told me that it was too wushu/wuxia/anime I would probably not bother rolling up a character because the person already proven they know little to nothing about the book or the flavor therein. If they said they didn't use the book because they were uncertain of the book's balance, I would offer to show them how it works in a controlled environment. If they just didn't want to play with the book, I would roll a cleric, druid, sorcerer, or maybe a ranger.

But frankly, lying about it gets you no where. And if you weren't lying about it, then you seemed to have either been mistaken or you left out some stuff. It's best to avoid doing that in these sorts of discussions.

EDIT: Wow, super ninja'd. :P

[Tavar]

I've seen monks be dead weights and i've only seen fighters be dead weight when they are sword and board.

other wise 2handers do decent just because of power attack/str bonus's.
I've never actualy heard any one whos playing a fighter complain.
mabye because they new before playing mabye not.

So, the supposedly primary style of playing a fighter is one that leads to the class being a dead weight. Huh. That sure is good class design there!

[Tinydwarfman]

@Indon,

In the class entries, before the tables for the most part.

Here is the flavor for the classes:

Crusader:

Devoted knight, divine agent, instrument of vengeance, peerless
fighting machine—the crusader is a warrior dedicated
to good, evil, law, chaos, or some other cause.Strengthened
by prayer or absolute devotion to a principle, armored by
unshakable faith, and driven by her convictions, a good
crusader is a mighty weapon against injustice and malice.
An evil crusader, on the other hand, is a cruel and fearsome
warrior of darkness.
A crusader who embraces a religion or holy faith is similar
to a paladin in that she commands a number of holy (or
unholy) powers. However, a crusader has no skill with divine
spellcasting; she is a martial adept whose maneuvers are
unpredictable gifts of divine power. Trusting in the power
of her chosen deity, she allows faith and intuition to guide
her through battle. Many crusaders receive the call to their
cause early in life, but never study formally at a temple or
monastery. These warriors are gifted with a natural ability
to channel the divine energies of their cause, but in a raw,
untamed manner. A crusader has absolute faith in her ability
to draw on the source of her power, but she never quite
knows how that power will manifest.
I can't see you having objections to this unless you disallow the paladin.

Swordsage:

Despite his spectacular combat moves, a swordsage is not a
typical front-line melee combatant. Although a fighter, barbarian,
or warblade might swing a sword more accurately, or
with greater force, a swordsage depends on his repertoire of
martial strikes and stances. This character is also not intended
to be a replacement for an arcane spellcaster, even though he
can create a number of short-range area effects. A swordsage’s
role within an adventuring party isn’t easily defined, but his
combination of maneuverability, supernatural power, and
martial arts is useful in almost any encounter.
Despite being in the flavor section, there is no flavor about the swordsage here, only what he can do. Why? because the swordsage has no innate flavor, and is extremely generic. Very easy to integrate.

Warblade:

The warblade was born for conflict. Swift, strong, enduring,
and utterly confident in his martial skills, he seeks to test
himself against worthy foes. Battle is beautiful to him—a
perfect moment in which life hangs suspended on the
bright edge of a sword. Sheer combat skill is important to a
warblade, so he trains intensely with his chosen weapons. But
even more important are his athleticism, endurance, daring,
recklessness, and joy in the hour of danger. Warblades, often
called sword princes, live for the chance to test themselves
in battle—the stronger the foe, the greater the glory once
an enemy is defeated
Ok, some glory hound stuff, but it most of it is just how incredibly skilled the warblade is. You could scrap all of this if you didn't like it and the warblade would have the same fluff as the fighter, a skilled warrior - and it would never have any effect on the game.

How is this fluff so immersion threatening to integrate? Take out the glory hound stuff for the warblade and you are done. I can see you having an issue with universal compatibility, but unfortunately that is impossible. It would require a complete overhaul of the system, as i came in far too late. Giving monsters martial study goes a very long way towards integrating though, and is quite easy to do.

[RagnaroksChosen]

If you're going to make statements, at least don't make false ones. A warblade 1 doesn't have any strikes or maneuvers that deal +2d6 damage. You can get +1d6 damage from a stance, but that comes with a -2 to your armor class (so all those goblins and kobolds are going to slaughter you). Further, the maneuvers are more like tactical feats (see Complete Warrior, and some of the Complete Series) rather than spells.

Actualy if you had read my other post i said i was including stances with that as with any initiator you need to take that into account. and the -2 isn't that painful when your sitting around 20 ac any way. and have a d12 hd.
the +2d6 is from a stance and from a manuver.




Firstly, spells that deal damage generally do so regardless of an opponent's armor class. Generally the more armor they're wearing, the more likely they are as a suitable target for damaging spells like fireball, scorching ray, or even shocking grasp. Fireball cannot be avoided without a special ability, and the other two do not allow saving throws and target your touch armor class, and two out of the three of those are ranged attacks.

Secondly, spells proceed to get progressively better and better as you gain levels. At 3rd level when a warblade can use a mountain hammer for +2d6 damage every other round, the sorcerer is destroying stuff with sleep, colorspray, or grease (which even if you don't fall down, you're flat footed and move at half-speed); and if he wants to he can throw down a 3d6 shocking grasp as a touch attack with a +3 bonus to hit if his target is wearing armor.

Agreed however that shocking grasp is interuptable. The +2d6 isn't factoring in weapon damage and stances.
1 shotting monsters is just as good as disabling them at that level.



Oh, and he gains more uses of it at 4th and 5th level, as well as increasing its damage to 4d6 and 5d6 respectively, but at that time he's throwing around 2nd level spells like scorching ray or summon swarm. A sorcerer with Invisibility + Summon Swarm completely renders martial adepts pretty useless (you can move while invisible each round, and you use your standard action to concentrate; which allows the swarms to slowly kill everything that cannot fight back with magic - like martial adepts).

Maneuvers require a melee attack, can be overcome by armor, can be resisted by damage reduction (with a quality of a few maneuvers being that it specifically bypasses DR, such as foehammer and mountain hammer, but these are the exception; not the rule). You could actually deal an average of 10.5 extra damage every other round if you used mountain hammer and were in the punishing stance, which could deal +1d6 from the stance, and +2d6 from the maneuver, at the cost of -2 to your AC, but you'd have to stay in the stance (since a round where you change your stance is a round you cannot ready your maneuver again).

The funny thing is that this requires an investment of one of your stances, as well as the investment of your maneuvers known (think feats); and can only be done every other round. Now the core rules assume you're only going to encounter roughly 4 equal challenge encounters per day, or multiple weaker ones, or a few stronger ones. The average number of rounds in most encounters is generally very few (3-5 if memory serves).

The spell-casters still quickly begin getting much stronger. You see, while you can effectively dance between several different techniques that you're ready to execute as you weave around with your enemies, your caster buddies are making their minor spells more potent, getting more of them, and gaining access to spells that bend reality over their knees.

You on the other hand have the advantage of being able to move 30ft and still attack for +2d6 damage on the end of your strike; or heroically wrestle with ogres; or heroically leap onto a dragon's nose and stab him in the face; or heroically strike two foes with the same swing of your sword; or heroically catch your opponent's weapon to give your allies a chance to close in; or heroically refuse to give ground to your opponent; or heroically parry an otherwise deadly strike; or heroically resist the mind-raping magic flung at you through your grit and resolve; or heroically leap in front of your ally to guard him with your shield; or heroically coordinate your allies' charge; or heroically slash with both weapons at the same time (ok, you should really be able to do this anyway, but you can't in core); or heroically knock your opponent off balance (flat footed); or heroically strike someone and then catch their sword with your pommel and disarm them; or heroically lock arms with your foe so they cannot move away from you; or heroically make reckless advances without regard to your own safety; or heroically fight while moving to make yourself harder to pin down; or heroically choke your opponents to death while grappling; or heroically plant your feet and brace for impact and tackles; or heroically...

Even if you do deal more damage than spell-casters spamming spells; that's a silly way to compare balance. That is akin to comparing the fighter's ability to sneak to the rogue's ability to sneak, and saying the rogue is overpowered because of the difference. Damage is not typical spell-caster's strength. In core, it is the absolute weakest way to play spell-casters. Spell-casters drop spells like grease, glitterdust, ray of enfeeblement, enlarge person and similar spells around to enhance melee's ability to kill things. Because at the end of the day, melee is supposed to insert sword A into face B. It's just that with core melee, getting into melee with the monsters is usually the last thing you want to do (Oh yeah, run up and hit him for 1d8+5 damage, only to feel the might of the monster's 5 natural attacks which deal the same amount or more, with one of them hitting you and pinning you to the ground where it can proceed to do obscene things to your helpless fleshy frame until it tires of you or is rendered unconscious by the wizard).

There are ways to make melee better and more capable, but it's a very specific type of warrior. It's the shock-trooper leap-attacking pouncing-full-attack-on-a-charge with my +40 damage power attack. Or its mind-flayers who are played like they're toddlers running up to hug daddy's sword. Meanwhile, two weapon fighting is weak, sword and board is weak, and archery is weak (but has a lot of nice tricks like full-attacking each round, using manyshot, and being able to golf-bag damage reductions).

You could use a million splatbooks, or you could just play something out of the Tome of Battle. Personally, if I wanted to play something out of the ToB because I wanted to play a heroic character, and someone told me that it was too wushu/wuxia/anime I would probably not bother rolling up a character because the person already proven they know little to nothing about the book or the flavor therein. If they said they didn't use the book because they were uncertain of the book's balance, I would offer to show them how it works in a controlled environment. If they just didn't want to play with the book, I would roll a cleric, druid, sorcerer, or maybe a ranger.

But frankly, lying about it gets you no where. And if you weren't lying about it, then you seemed to have either been mistaken or you left out some stuff. It's best to avoid doing that in these sorts of discussions.

Actualy i wasn't lieing nor leaving any thing out i was making a point that unoptimised groups will see tob as being much stronger. Tobs Overpowered ness is directly related to the optimisation level of the group.

[gdiddy]

Hey, guys, I'm a late comer, and I'm here to say that sometimes I allow ToB, and sometimes I don't.

When I DM gritty low magic games, ToB isn't allowed in (This comes with a series of other rules, like casters taking Constitution damage equal to the level of the spell being cast, all magic items are at 100x book costs, etc.) because it is simply not gritty. An Iron Heart-using warblade, though completely unmagic, can make attacks with bonuses against every adjacent enemy. He can heal himself. Shake off magic and charms like a pro. When everyone else is hording hitpoints, wizards spend half the game recovering Con loss, and everyone constantly is in fear of death, it's lame to have a do everything guy.

When I DM or play cinematic games, where magic is flying out of everyone's orifice, I have no problem with ToB. It's neat when people do cool stuff when appropriate. And there's room for it in everyone's game, as long as people are playing cinematically. In one DM of mine's game, ToB was re-flavored as "the Drow style". Only Drow and people who have dealing with them have access to the classes and feats in ToB.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Actualy i wasn't lieing nor leaving any thing out i was making a point that unoptimised groups will see tob as being much stronger. Tobs Overpowered ness is directly related to the optimisation level of the group.

This is an unfortunate side-effect. These groups are also highly likely to over-value monks and paladins, while under-valuing wizards, clerics, bards, and a slew of other casting classes. For such a problem, the only solution I can offer is to attempt to inform such people of the abilities hidden within the PHB's spell section. Or, in the case of the bard, a few other splat books, as well.

[Douglas]

There's a particular fine detail you need to pay attention to when asserting or refuting that ToB is overpowered: the optimization level of the group in question.

At the top end of melee optimization, ToB is about even with core classes. An optimized Barbarian or Fighter can match or even beat an optimized ToB character at dealing damage and filling the beatstick/tank role. In games with significant optimization, ToB is perfectly fine and will not disrupt balance at all.

At the low end, where someone just takes a class and picks up a few obvious choices without thinking much or looking through tons of splatbooks, ToB is immensely more powerful than any core melee class. In games where this is the norm, Tome of Battle is disruptively overpowered and can ruin the game.

ToB is not overpowered in potential compared to Fighter/Barbarian/etc., but it is significantly better optimized "out of the box". Thus, banning the book because it's too powerful for your group's level of optimization is one of the very few reasons I will accept without quibble. Just make sure you specify that your group's idea of optimization is more like taking Weapon Specialization than what most of this board talks about before you say ToB is too powerful.

[Tinydwarfman]

Hey, guys, I'm a late comer, and I'm here to say that sometimes I allow ToB, and sometimes I don't.

When I DM gritty low magic games, ToB isn't allowed in (This comes with a series of other rules, like casters taking Constitution damage equal to the level of the spell being cast, all magic items are at 100x book costs, etc.) because it is simply not gritty. An Iron Heart-using warblade, though completely unmagic, can make attacks with bonuses against every adjacent enemy. He can heal himself. Shake off magic and charms like a pro. When everyone else is hording hitpoints, wizards spend half the game recovering Con loss, and everyone constantly is in fear of death, it's lame to have a do everything guy.

When I DM or play cinematic games, where magic is flying out of everyone's orifice, I have no problem with ToB. It's neat when people do cool stuff when appropriate. And there's room for it in everyone's game, as long as people are playing cinematically. In one DM of mine's game, ToB was re-flavored as "the Drow style". Only Drow and people who have dealing with them have access to the classes and feats in ToB.

Nickpick: Iron heart can not heal itself, that is only done by the crusader, the substitute pally.

Also, CASTERS TAKING CON DAMAGE EQUAL TO THE SPELL LEVEL?!? How do they function??? Why don't you just ban them entirely if you don't want players to play them (which is my interpretation of the reason behind that rule.). Do you have someway of non-magical ability healing? because otherwise casters should only be to cast one spell a day or be killed in about a week, far less if they cast higher level spells.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Nickpick: Iron heart can not heal itself, that is only done by the crusader, the substitute pally.


<_<
Iron Heart Endurance. It is a minor heal, but still a heal.

[Douglas]

Nickpick: Iron heart can not heal itself, that is only done by the crusader, the substitute pally.
Actually, there is one Iron Heart maneuver that heals the user - Iron Heart Endurance.

[gdiddy]

Nickpick: Iron heart can not heal itself, that is only done by the crusader, the substitute pally.

Iron Heart Endurance -- EDIT: Trippled ninja'd.


Also, CASTERS TAKING CON DAMAGE EQUAL TO THE SPELL LEVEL?!? How do they function??? Why don't you just ban them entirely if you don't want players to play them (which is my interpretation of the reason behind that rule.). Do you have someway of non-magical ability healing? because otherwise casters should only be to cast one spell a day or be killed in about a week, far less if they cast higher level spells.

It's a different type of game that's very role-play heavy. They will never ever see the inside of a dungeon, unless they are arrested. We have 11 active players, and haven't lost a single person. Half of the players are casters and are dealing with it fine. It's currently on hiatus until May, but you can see the threads in my signature. The game is not a heroic or cinematic game, but something darker and more lethal. Closer to what you'd see in a WHFRP or using the AGoT variant d20 rules, but I didn't want to bother teaching people new rules.

[Oslecamo]

Nickpick: Iron heart can not heal itself, that is only done by the crusader, the substitute pally.


NitpicK: Iron Heart far outshines anything the crusader gets, because you get IRON HEART SURGE, wich heals you from poison, curses, ability damage, drain, AMFs, suns, gravity, death, anti-spirals and anything else your character consider prejudicial. As long as you can do a standard action, so actualy throwing off that hold monster is a no-no.

So the warblade is actualy more of a pally than the crusader, as he can truly shrugg off anything you throw at him!

[Gametime]

NitpicK: Iron Heart far outshines anything the crusader gets, because you get IRON HEART SURGE, wich heals you from poison, curses, ability damage, drain, AMFs, suns, gravity, death, anti-spirals and anything else your character consider prejudicial. As long as you can do a standard action, so actualy throwing off that hold monster is a no-no.

So the warblade is actualy more of a pally than the crusader, as he can truly shrugg off anything you throw at him!

I've always felt Iron Heart Surge fit the UNSTOPPABLE BARBARIAN FURY model better than UNSTOPPABLE DIVINE CHAMPION FURY model. The Crusader will take some hits, ignore them, take some more hits, heal himself with the strength of his faith, take some more hits, and then enter a stance in which he refuses to die.

In contrast, the Warblade gets incapacitated, yells "CROOOOOOOOOOM!", and shakes it off.

It's a minor difference, but the distinction between an implacable juggernaut and an instant "Just add water!" juggernaut is real for me.

[Ashiel]

Actualy if you had read my other post i said i was including stances with that as with any initiator you need to take that into account. and the -2 isn't that painful when your sitting around 20 ac any way. and have a d12 hd.
the +2d6 is from a stance and from a manuver.

To be sitting at 20 AC at 1st level you're going to need to be packing some sweet armor, an awesome dex bonus, and a shield. Even if you take maximum starting warrior gold (240gp). For 100 gold you can get a chain shirt (+4) with no movement penalty, 50gp nets you the same but cuts your movement and skills; chain-mail and breastplates get you a +5 but cap your dex at 2 or 3 for 150 or 200gp respectively. Now assuming you have a +4 dexterity as a fighter, that would bring you to 19. You could be wearing a buckler perhaps for that +1 AC, while taking a -1 penalty to your attack rolls with your two-handed weapon.

However, you're much more likely to have AC in the 15-17 range at those levels. Furthermore, unless you're playing a very high-powered game, it's difficult to have that much offense and defense by virtue of STR/DEX. By entering into the punishing stance (which was actually considered a poor stance by the CharOp folks at the old WotC boards) you're reducing your AC by 2 points. That's a 10% better chance that those kobolds sporting their 1d8 heavy crossbows with a +4 to hit you will do so. And the d12 hit dice means you have 2 more HP at 1st level. Woot!

What are you getting? +1d6 damage, which is an average of 3.5. You're not getting bonuses to saves, or extra hit points or stats like you are with a rage (which is strictly better, and should remain so), you're saying "Ok, I'm going to hit harder, but I'm letting my guard down". That's not bad if you're duking it out in 1:1 combat, but the more little kobolds, goblins, tiny spiders, or various low CR creatures you're dealing with, the more you're opening yourself up for pain.

Then again, a standard 1/2 CR orc wielding a greataxe can end you with a d12+3, but you're probably right that it's not a bad penalty. I mean, the orc might miss anyway. :smalltongue:


Agreed however that shocking grasp is interuptable. The +2d6 isn't factoring in weapon damage and stances.
1 shotting monsters is just as good as disabling them at that level.

Funny fact. You can hold a touch spell. As in, my sorcerer can cast shocking grasp before closing to melee. No body is interrupting that, unless they had a readied action to hit me from a distance. If I'm fighting in melee, I could 5ft step and cast it (assuming my opponent wasn't wielding a reach weapon). If push came to shove, I could attempt to cast defensively.

But you see, that's just me, the sorcerer, pretending to be a melee character. You see, I have so many things that you, little warblade, will never have. I'm actually using some of the weakest options I have to deal comparable damage to you; when I really could just cast grease to drop enemies on the ground prone, and make them flat-footed for the party's short-bow wielding rogue. Or I could 5ft step and cast colorspray with a 15ft maximum range with a good 60% or so chance to completely end every warrior in that area.

See...you can't do that; but you can have your damage. I mean, introducing that shiny sword of your opponent's brain-pan is a pretty solid method for damage - or at least it should be. I mean, I'm tasering people; you're decapitating them.

Also, like you said; at low levels dealing a lot of excess damage doesn't mean much; since you're already killing everything everything with your 2d6+3 or better greatsword complete with cleave. Oh wait, I know exactly what could do well from your punishing stance + nightmare blade combo...

Sword and Board.


Actualy i wasn't lieing nor leaving any thing out i was making a point that unoptimised groups will see tob as being much stronger. Tobs Overpowered ness is directly related to the optimisation level of the group.

When I was writing my post, your previous post was the only one available. Hence why I said if you weren't lying you should try to present your examples with fewer missing pieces because it makes you look like you are; and I was right because you had to come back and clarify - but it makes you look like you don't really know what you're talking about; hence my warning.

Also, ToB doesn't relate at all to the optimization level of the group. CR 12 creatures can completely destroy 20th level core melee in a single round without fail. Getting into melee is frankly a bad idea because your damage for running up and poking - note I did not say cleaving or slashing but poking - it with your sword for even 1d8+15 damage (optimized for 30 strength and a +5 weapon enhancement) is pitiful compared to how they're about to peel open your tin-can.

I've seen a fairly optimized fighter who was pretty cheesed out get completely slaughtered in one round by a CR 12 Kraken. In 3.0 they were CR 10, but I figure they decided they were a little tougher. Slaughtered. Not near death, not seriously wounded, not even critical condition. Slaughtered into the fine negatives. Want to know what the fighter could do about it? Well he could swing his sword once if he moved dealing a bit of damage. He could try to hang back and shoot it, but he's not really doing much good there either. What else does he have?

A warblade? Yeah, he could get torn up by the creature really badly; however he could charge in heroically and slam the creature and give himself a temporary damage reduction to help him survive the counter-attack. He could parry or escape the maw of the beasty with his weapon. He could also leap on top of the creature and begin carving his name into its keister. Alternatively, he might slam the monster and hold its attention while the rogue and barbarian close with the creature (preventing the kraken's AoOs) to begin a festival of chopping (note that isn't a ToB reference).

Mind you, this was in a completely non-optimized game. Like, really our wizards though that fireball was just the best thing in the world. Our wizards loved it so much that they eventually just got some magic items of CL 5 fireball */day and usually spent their rounds throwing fireballs around like warlocks (except without dealing as much damage as warlocks). Humorously, the wizards were still silly strong because that didn't stop them from flying, or creating mirror images of themselves, or what-have-you.

The party's druid had a bird man. A bird as her animal companion; and I don't think I ever saw her wild-shape into anything bigger than a wolf - or maybe a bear at high levels. She was mostly just casting spells; and not even good spells half the time.

But the 20th level fighter, who was likely the most highly optimized character in the group (even with some questionably powerful magical items) was completely overpowered and butchered by a CR 12 creature that was only supposed to be a weak encounter for them on the way to the big bad.

[Oslecamo]

I've always felt Iron Heart Surge fit the UNSTOPPABLE BARBARIAN FURY model better than UNSTOPPABLE DIVINE CHAMPION FURY model. The Crusader will take some hits, ignore them, take some more hits, heal himself with the strength of his faith, take some more hits, and then enter a stance in which he refuses to die.

Not really. He just doesn't realize he's dead already. Third time's the charm (no really, that stance fails at the third time you would die).

Plus the crusader doesn't heal from faith. He heals from charging into melee and bathing on the blood of his enemies. All the healing crusader strikes demand you to hurt something. Iron heart just demands you to believe in yourself.

The warblade can actualy stand back and play defensively. The crusader is the true barbarian, regaining strenght from the sadistic glee of cuting his oponent's flesh!



In contrast, the Warblade gets incapacitated, yells "CROOOOOOOOOOM!", and shakes it off.


See, there's the trick. If you're incapacitated, IHS can't do anything for you, as you need a standard action to activate it! No CROOOOOOOM for you Mr.Warblade!:smallbiggrin:

But well, neither can the crusader.

[Kaiyanwang]

.
What else does he have?


Few ideas:

- Superior combat expertise and (if enough high level) will save to AC to pimp AC touch AC first round, charging. Subtract -5 to power attack ANYWAY so the second round you can use advanicng blows anyway.

- As above, but going goad instead of advancing blows

- use Close combat fighting feat to AOO and add damage to grapple check. Repeat for each tentacle. Se the tentacles drop in number for crits.

- Robilar + Karmik + Dual Strike with high crit chance weapons and try to proc a staggering critical. A slowed kraken is less scary.


Not to say that warblade is less easy, or has less way to accomplish this.. but, nevertheless, I guess a fighter can try few things basing on his build.

[Ashiel]

Few ideas:

- Superior combat expertise and (if enough high level) will save to AC to pimp AC touch AC first round, charging. Subtract -5 to power attack ANYWAY so the second round you can use advanicng blows anyway.

- As above, but going goad instead of advancing blows

- use Close combat fighting feat to AOO and add damage to grapple check. Repeat for each tentacle. Se the tentacles drop in number for crits.

- Robilar + Karmik + Dual Strike with high crit chance weapons and try to proc a staggering critical. A slowed kraken is less scary.


Not to say that warblade is less easy, or has less way to accomplish this.. but, nevertheless, I guess a fighter can try few things basing on his build.

Let's see. Goad is that charisma based feat from...complete scoundrel?

Superior Combat Expertise requires Combat Expertise and comes from complete warrior.

Three other feats that I'd need to look up before commenting on, which apparently can cause the kraken to be slowed.

I don't think we had any of that in our "less optimized party" which was also part of my point. Even still, you're relying entirely on a critical hit which is only a 25% chance at best in 3.5 (rather than the 50% you could nail in 3.0 and my house-rules) so it sounds like a heavy gamble.

Or, I could...play a warblade. :smallconfused:

[gdiddy]

Let's see. Goad is that charisma based feat from...complete scoundrel?

Superior Combat Expertise requires Combat Expertise and comes from complete warrior.

Three other feats that I'd need to look up before commenting on, which apparently can cause the kraken to be slowed.

I don't think we had any of that in our "less optimized party" which was also part of my point. Even still, you're relying entirely on a critical hit which is only a 25% chance at best in 3.5 (rather than the 50% you could nail in 3.0 and my house-rules) so it sounds like a heavy gamble.

Or, I could...play a warblade. :smallconfused:

Or do all that...and be a warblade.

[DragoonWraith]

I've fallen very behind on this debate, and I've really stopped caring - several people have reasonable positions that I see no reason to debate, several people have unreasonable positions that they have demonstrated absolute unwillingness to even consider, and some people are just incomprehensible; at any rate, I'm pretty done with it. I still don't have an answer to my question, but it seems likely that this is because there isn't one.

But, to clarify, yes:

DW's point is not that you can't have fun using the Fighter class, but rather what does the Fighter class in and of itself offer to the fun of a given character compared to a cleric, barbarian, duskblade, warblade, swashbuckler or so on?

What is it within the crunch of the Fighter that new and unique possibilities to increase fun exist that any number of other classes could not offer and do it better? That is what he is asking. Just because someone made an amazing character and had fun with said character who happened to be a Fighter 6 is irrelevant. Assuming I am correct in what he is saying, DW is at least implying that that same character would have had a greater level as fun or more likely to have a greater level of fun as a non-Fighter.
This is what I meant. Yes, a character can be awesome while happening to be a Fighter. However, nothing about being a Fighter is making him fun to play - and in fact he would be more so if he was not a Fighter. In fact, he'd be more fun to play if he was, well, anything else. Unless someone can explain how a handful of bonus feats makes for great fun.

[Kaiyanwang]

Let's see. Goad is that charisma based feat from...complete scoundrel?

Complete Adventurer



Superior Combat Expertise requires Combat Expertise and comes from complete warrior.

Is SRD too :smalltongue:



Three other feats that I'd need to look up before commenting on, which apparently can cause the kraken to be slowed.


CW and PHII, you hit me, I hit you. Staggering critical is DoTU (is the one that slows, the poin is that wiht double hit, you deal 4 blows having the chance of slow the kraken.



I don't think we had any of that in our "less optimized party" which was also part of my point. Even still, you're relying entirely on a critical hit which is only a 25% chance at best in 3.5 (rather than the 50% you could nail in 3.0 and my house-rules) so it sounds like a heavy gamble.

Or, I could...play a warblade. :smallconfused:


Your point is valid Ashiel - is far more easy play a warblade. But thinking the fighter without options makes me sad :smallfrown:

More, you can buy a spalt - like complete warrior, and pimp the fighter. Or buy a splat, and play warblade. Why should one of this choice worse or better?

Dragoonwraith, I tried to explain - how feat combines can be very fun for me, and fighter take a lot of them.

I can recognize without any doubt that one could need class features and feat are not enough - this is partially the point of Thrice Dead Cat and I respect it.

But one could have fun combining feats and effects. Could fighter be designed better? Of course. Can be fun for what you do with him? whitout repeat the same things? IMO, yes.

[Emmerask]

NitpicK: Iron Heart far outshines anything the crusader gets, because you get IRON HEART SURGE, wich heals you from poison, curses, ability damage, drain, AMFs, suns, gravity, death, anti-spirals and anything else your character consider prejudicial. As long as you can do a standard action, so actualy throwing off that hold monster is a no-no.


Actually no


Not quite. Grammatically, a "duration of 1 or more rounds" is not the same as a "duration of more than 1 round". The feat's statement requires a stated duration in rounds.

If Curmudgeon statement from another thread is true (which I believe) and I understand it correctly IHS is in fact very very limited ie only effects that clearly state a duration in rounds in their texts can be effected.
Curses,most ability damages drains etc amfs gravity the sun can not be surged at all.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I've fallen very behind on this debate, and I've really stopped caring - several people have reasonable positions that I see no reason to debate, several people have unreasonable positions that they have demonstrated absolute unwillingness to even consider, and some people are just incomprehensible; at any rate, I'm pretty done with it. I still don't have an answer to my question, but it seems likely that this is because there isn't one.

But, to clarify, yes:

This is what I meant. Yes, a character can be awesome while happening to be a Fighter. However, nothing about being a Fighter is making him fun to play - and in fact he would be more so if he was not a Fighter. In fact, he'd be more fun to play if he was, well, anything else. Unless someone can explain how a handful of bonus feats makes for great fun.

Actually, Kaiywanwang is talking about situation where he's using the Fighter as intended: combining the numerous feat options together for some odd and/or useful combination. I think what he's aiming for is something like Jack B. Quick: an unexpected and effective combination of feats from all throughout DND.

I've got to give him props for such, even if I personally think that a Psychic Warrior or multiclassed combination of the two or more could do it better than Fighter 20.:smalltongue:

[Kaiyanwang]

I've got to give him props for such, even if I personally think that a Psychic Warrior or multiclassed combination of the two or more could do it better than Fighter 20.:smalltongue:

This is true, indeed.. Psywar has pounce and reach by expansion. Reach is strooong. Dip in warblade helps greatly (but the opposite too - I tend to see warblade and fighter as great friends instead of opposites) and barbarian is strenght and maybe pounce, or if you go further, several feats (basing on totems) maybe without that prerequisite in a stat you dumped.

[DragoonWraith]

I tend to see warblade and fighter as great friends instead of opposites
I do agree with this. They do work together well. But it doesn't count as a "Fighter" if you're talking about at most 6 levels of the class, IMO. And even then it's really a "Dungeoncrasher" rather than a "Fighter", since it's much more specific.

But yes, I'll admit I haven't follow your build so far, so I'll look into it. But really, if the only way to have "fun" with the mechanics of the Fighter class is to scour a dozen different books to have the perfect complement of feats, well... yeah, I'm not convinced.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

This is true, indeed.. Psywar has pounce and reach by expansion. Reach is strooong. Dip in warblade helps greatly (but the opposite too - I tend to see warblade and fighter as great friends instead of opposites) and barbarian is strenght and maybe pounce, or if you go further, several feats (basing on totems) maybe without that prerequisite in a stat you dumped.

Yeah, I've got to agree with you there. A well timed Fighter dip for a Warblade can do wonders at getting a better selection of maneuvers, while Dungeoncrashers who dip into Warblade get some joys of their own in the Bullrush maneuvers. Alaska Barbarians can come, too.


This is admittedly another tangent, but it's reasons like the above that I hate the multiclassing penalties: the only people who are hurt by them are those that need to multiclass the most.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I do agree with this. They do work together well. But it doesn't count as a "Fighter" if you're talking about at most 6 levels of the class, IMO. And even then it's really a "Dungeoncrasher" rather than a "Fighter", since it's much more specific.

But yes, I'll admit I haven't follow your build so far, so I'll look into it. But really, if the only way to have "fun" with the mechanics of the Fighter class is to scour a dozen different books to have the perfect complement of feats, well... yeah, I'm not convinced.

To be fair, if the first levels are "Dungeoncrasher" 6, then for a decent amount of play, that character is more "Dungeoncrahser" than Warblade. On the same end, it's not really a Warblade if you've only got 6 levels in it before PrCing into several classes, too. The some is more than the whole of its parts, and all that. It may not be for everybody, but, Kaiyanwang could see it almost as a thought experiment, those getting some amount of pleasure when he comes across something new in splat X or Y.

[Optimator]

Replacing the warrior with the fighter to handle all your mooks and the fighter with the warblade to handle your tougher guys is a relatively simple change. Some people might find it unacceptable. Others clearly do not.

This is what my group does. Warriors are conscripts whereas Fighters are career soldiers, and Warblades are the stand-outs.


Which baffles me, since they cannot really do anything, fluff-wise, that their Core counterparts cannot do.

Exactly.

[Ashiel]

Complete Adventurer
Is SRD too :smalltongue:

CW and PHII, you hit me, I hit you. Staggering critical is DoTU (is the one that slows, the poin is that wiht double hit, you deal 4 blows having the chance of slow the kraken.

Your point is valid Ashiel - is far more easy play a warblade. But thinking the fighter without options makes me sad :smallfrown:

More, you can buy a spalt - like complete warrior, and pimp the fighter. Or buy a splat, and play warblade. Why should one of this choice worse or better?

Well you're up 2 splatbooks more than me to do what you just said; and invested a great amount of your character into it. I mentioned no maneuvers that were higher than 5th level, and if I decided my maneuver didn't work very well, I can re-train it as part of the class at my next level (without resorting to more optional rules). I can also make my warblade sword and board and make him not suck (since I could move 30ft and get some bonus damage on my single sword swing).

If anything the ToB classes offer more to the fighter types because a 10th level fighter can pickup a warblade level and get to use his experience in his fighter classes to determine how awesome his new techniques are (being treated as a 6th level warblade for what techniques he can learn).

A ranger/warblade is also pretty awesome. The core classes mesh incredibly well with the ToB stuff backwards and forwards. One splat-book. One very well made splat-book. One splat-book that CharOp on the WotC declared the most balanced splat-book they had found, because they couldn't break it. They did determine that Crusaders are the best at absorbing massive amounts of punishment in the game though.

[Thurbane]

I think you may be just remembering the threads that stand out here, because for every one time that people may say that in a build thread, there are twenty that just go without mention. And build guidelines are ignored in every build thread, but it's usually just someone not reading closely enough. (I find it happens more often when someone says "no casting" and five seconds later someone says "CoDzilla".)
Challenge accepted - I will try to keep an audit on these occurrences. I think you will be genuinely surprised at the outcome. :smallwink:

And yet, no one has explained to me how the Fighter class (not your Fighter character) is capable of having fun. Unless doing the same thing over and over is fun for you.
This is another sticking point for me. You can't have fun doing something, ergo, nobody else conceivably can? :smalleek:

In 1E, the only option melee types had was to hit things with pointy sticks, again and again. And a lot of us were perfectly happy to do with just that. Some of us *gasp* still are! In 3.X, there is a literal multitude of actions a Fighter-type can do other than simple "hit and repeat", even excluding ToB. Just because some people find these options "sub-par" in their optimized games doesn't mean they don't exist, or they are sub-par in everyone's game.

Seriously, if the only goal of playing D&D is to have the most powerful, versatile character conceivably possible under the rules, why doesn't every player in the world just play Pun Pun?

In regards to enjoying it, it’s almost like how I can get my head around how anyone can possibly listen to Key$ha or most other top 40 “ringtone pop” and like it...at the end of the day, I have to step back and realize that people aren’t all popped out of cookie cutter moulds, and what sounds like mindless noise written by an 8 year old to me, is great music to others. I’ll never, in a million years, enjoy it myself, but I at least acknowledge the possibility that others can enjoy it. :smallcool:

[Gametime]

Not really. He just doesn't realize he's dead already. Third time's the charm (no really, that stance fails at the third time you would die).

Plus the crusader doesn't heal from faith. He heals from charging into melee and bathing on the blood of his enemies. All the healing crusader strikes demand you to hurt something. Iron heart just demands you to believe in yourself.

The warblade can actualy stand back and play defensively. The crusader is the true barbarian, regaining strenght from the sadistic glee of cuting his oponent's flesh!



There's actually a strong argument to be made for the Crusader being the best analogue to the barbarian in ToB, I'll give you that. Getting stronger as he gets hit, healing from damage, and so on.

Really, what we can all agree on is that Iron Heart Surge is a cluster%&$# of problems all on it's own. :smalltongue:

[Thurbane]

Thank you very much. You have no idea how much it pisses me off as a Chinese person when people associate all "eastern" things with "wire-fu" or what-not. It'd be like someone associating all Israeli meals as having massive amounts of humuss.

Seriously. Stop that.

Or explain how ToB is like Monster. or Paranoia Agent. Or any of the multiple animes that have nothing to do with what it seems like you're trying to say (that ToB is too like wire-fighting over the topness)

Anime is too broad a category to say anything is thematically similar (except for artistic style, but again, this doesn't seem to be what you're trying to say.)
I think some people are just being a little too sensitive about terms that obviously hold very different meanings to us Westerners than they do to non-Westerners.

If it helps appease you, we are using the Wikipedia defintion of Wuxia and Anime. Seriously, go look them up – it lines up with the way most of us are using them here. It might be incorrect from your perspective, but to us it’s the usage we are familiar with. I’m sorry if a word has lost/changed most of its meaning in cross-cultural translation, but that’s just what happens with the evolution of language.

[Tinydwarfman]

I think some people are just being a little too sensitive about terms that obviously hold very different meanings to us Westerners than they do to non-Westerners.

If it helps appease you, we are using the Wikipedia defintion of Wuxia and Anime. Seriously, go look them up – it lines up with the way most of us are using them here. It might be incorrect from your perspective, but to us it’s the usage we are familiar with. I’m sorry if a word has lost/changed most of its meaning in cross-cultural translation, but that’s just what happens with the evolution of language.

Really? Damn. I didn't know you were thinking ToB was too much like a kind of art style



Anime in English usually refers to a style of animation originating in Japan,[1] heavily influenced by the manga (Japanese comics) style and typically featuring characters with large eyes, big hair and elongated limbs, exaggerated facial expressions, brush-stroked outlines, limited motion and other distinctive features. The term may also be used for other animation connected to Japan or to anime proper, irrespective of style. The word comes from Japanese アニメ anime, meaning "animation" in general, and is typically pronounced Anime-en-US-pronunciation.ogg /ˈænəˌmeɪ/ (help·info) or /ˈænəˌmə/ in English.

Hmm, damn that ToB and it's excessive focus on martial arts! Also, The Temple of Nine Swords was also obviously set in ancient china! And to think I almost forgot with all this talk about the Dragonskull Temple, Ebon Tower , and Darkvale.


Wuxia or Wǔxiá (simplified Chinese: 武侠; traditional Chinese: 武俠 Wǔxiá, Mandarin: [ùɕjǎ]; Cantonese Pinyin: Mou5 Hap6: Taiwanese/Hokkien: Bu Kiap) is a broad genre of Chinese fiction concerning the adventures of martial artists set in ancient China. Although Wuxia is traditionally a form of literature, its popularity has caused it to spread to art, comics, films, television, theatre and video games. Wuxia is a large component of popular culture for many Chinese-speaking communities worldwide.

Sorry just had to point out how wrong you were there. I completely understand what you're saying, but I would really like to point out this last quote:

The modern Wuxia stories are basically adventure stories set in ancient China. [B]The plots of Wuxia stories vary from writer to writer, but there are distinct similarities between Wuxia protagonists and characters from the modern Western fantasy genre. The fantasy element is not prerequisite of a Wuxia story and it is possible for a Wuxia story to be realistic. Louis Cha's Swordswoman Riding West on White Horse or The Book and the Sword are examples of possibly realistic Wuxia stories. However, the martial arts element is a definite part of a Wuxia story, as most of the characters must know some martial arts.

[Frosty]

I think some people are just being a little too sensitive about terms that obviously hold very different meanings to us Westerners than they do to non-Westerners.

If it helps appease you, we are using the Wikipedia defintion of Wuxia and Anime. Seriously, go look them up – it lines up with the way most of us are using them here. It might be incorrect from your perspective, but to us it’s the usage we are familiar with. I’m sorry if a word has lost/changed most of its meaning in cross-cultural translation, but that’s just what happens with the evolution of language.
I could care less about the exact definition of Wuxia you're using, as long as you don't automatically associate eastern culture with it.

[Thurbane]

A newbie to DnD playing a Fighter or Monk may very be dead weight.
A newbie to D&D can can be a dead weight with basically any class. Even a caster, with poor spell selection.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

A newbie to D&D can can be a dead weight with basically any class. Even a caster, with poor spell selection.

To be fair, chances are a new player will be less likely to be dead weight as a Vancian caster, manifester, or initiator than a core martial class. Even picking spells, powers, or maneuvers at random, you can contribute to some degree, given the minimum power level of things like magic missile or mind thrust (blasty powers/spells usually being the first pick for newbies), whereas choosing feats badly like picking up Toughness and Skill Focus (Spot) can cripple a low-level meleer.

Not that it's guaranteed for a fighter to be absolutely useless and a caster to contribute, but it's definitely skewed away from the core martial classes' favor.

[Gametime]

I could care less about the exact definition of Wuxia you're using, as long as you don't automatically associate eastern culture with it.

For my part, I wouldn't be so bothered by its usage if ToB wasn't the only book to ever be labeled "Wuxia" despite being no more related to that genre than half of the other material Wizards released.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

I could care less about the exact definition of Wuxia you're using, as long as you don't automatically associate eastern culture with it.

Oh come on Frosty! Us Asians need to cultivate that connection! Make them fear us for our inborn kung fu mastery granting us the ability to fly, punch from a distance, and calculate advanced equations in our heads. :smallwink:

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Oh come on Frosty! Us Asians need to cultivate that connection! Make them fear us for our inborn kung fu mastery granting us the ability to fly, punch from a distance, and calculate advanced equations in our heads. :smallwink:

I'd argue against that, but as long as you can back it up, I'll shut up.:smalltongue:

As for the continued debate on "wuxia/anime," yeah, seriously, we've already mentioned numerous times that we can guess at what you mean, but using an incorrect term does not help you. Me calling a "rabbit" a "shmerp" may take someone a little while to get at what I'm actually saying and proceed to continue to not portray an accurate description of such a creature if I start talking about its "furball" instead of its "tail." Not quite a direct analogy, but you get my point.

[Thurbane]

I could care less about the exact definition of Wuxia you're using, as long as you don't automatically associate eastern culture with it.
Just to clarify - you don't want me to associate wuxia with Eastern culture at all, or you don't want me to associate all Eastern culture with wuxia?

For my part, I wouldn't be so bothered by its usage if ToB wasn't the only book to ever be labeled "Wuxia" despite being no more related to that genre than half of the other material Wizards released.
As I said earlier in this thread, you can thank the pro-ToB lobby for a lot of that. They continually bludgeoned the nay-sayers with that term shortly after the release of the book. Every time anyone mentioned the "A" word, they got a volley of "No no no, you don't know what you're talking about, it's wuxia, not anime!".

For myself, I had never even heard the term before then - so you can see why I have a strong association between wuxia and ToB.

[Kaiyanwang]

Well you're up 2 splatbooks more than me to do what you just said; and invested a great amount of your character into it. I mentioned no maneuvers that were higher than 5th level, and if I decided my maneuver didn't work very well, I can re-train it as part of the class at my next level (without resorting to more optional rules). I can also make my warblade sword and board and make him not suck (since I could move 30ft and get some bonus damage on my single sword swing).


OK.. but is enough 1 splat + SRD to do something that not suck to the kraken.

And the splat I used are good for other classes too - like rogue types.

If you look mi posts above, I talk about multiclassing too.

Sword and board - I have less experience but I think one should base on CR, chance to stun (staggering blow) and the like.


I see your point though. I could answer differently about a source of a lot of feats (a keep made of crystal, if you know what I mean) but I don't now if is fair game for the board rules.

[Tytalus]

I will never for the life of me understand the fervor with which the pro-ToB lobby spruik the ToB at us "non-believers". Yes, there is the occasional "ToB sucks, it's stupid and/or unbalanced" type comment or thread, but for everyone one of these, there's like ten implying (or outright telling) people that their games are wrong for not including ToB.


From my reading of this thread, that's a massive misconception. As far as I can tell, pro-ToB posters have been quite clear that they do not have a problem with other playing differently, but that they simply don't understand why anyone would. Also, they have been pointing out factually wrong arguments - which is an entirely different point from the one you are making. It strikes me that you are either reading things into others' posts (see below) or are bringing negative experiences from elsewhere into this thread.





And yet, no one has explained to me how the Fighter class (not your Fighter character) is capable of having fun. Unless doing the same thing over and over is fun for you.

This is another sticking point for me. You can't have fun doing something, ergo, nobody else conceivably can?


That's an example for my point above. This is not what he said at all. On the contrary, he has explicitly admitted that others may have fun with it, but that he simply doesn't understand how. In fact, that's just why he asked for an explanation.


Oh, in and of itself, ToB is designed quite well.

It just can't replace core melee as people bill it as capable of being - at best it turns into just one more patch stuck into the mishmash, and one that requires extensive and immersion-threatening reflavoring at minimum.

This is an opinion expressed as a fact. It clearly isn't a fact as several others have stated opposing points of view in this very thread.


The vast majority of the people in the thread have a pretty clear idea of what is mean due to the context of the discussion. As far as I've seen (and it's possible that I've missed one), the only people who have expressed any confusion over what is meant are the people who are strictly arguing over semantics.


That is a baseless assumption. You are (apparently) supposing that those who do not post on the issue understand you. That is not correct.

[Jayabalard]

There board generalities may be accurate on a much larger scale than which the discussion occurs, however. At times, a difference of +/-10% is acceptable, others you'd be lucky to get by with a variance of .000001%. This is to say, when someone calls another out on their inaccuracies, it helps to clarify them so such mistakes are not repeated.Debating inaccuracies isn't really relevant in this specific case: the particular person that's being called out for using the term wrong is making a assertion based on his opinion (in a way that is completely subjective).


That is a baseless assumption. You are (apparently) supposing that those who do not post on the issue understand you. That is not correct.No, it's certainly not baseless. There are people, including people who disapprove of the term being used that way, that have explicitly stated that they understand what he's talking about; there are more people who, from their posts, have implicitly indicated that they understand what he means. Nor am I the one using the term, I'm just pointing out what I see as a flaw in making a strictly semantic argument in this context.

[Tackyhillbillu]

Just to clarify - you don't want me to associate wuxia with Eastern culture at all, or you don't want me to associate all Eastern culture with wuxia?

As I said earlier in this thread, you can thank the pro-ToB lobby for a lot of that. They continually bludgeoned the nay-sayers with that term shortly after the release of the book. Every time anyone mentioned the "A" word, they got a volley of "No no no, you don't know what you're talking about, it's wuxia, not anime!".

For myself, I had never even heard the term before then - so you can see why I have a strong association between wuxia and ToB.

Saying other people used it wrong doesn't mean anything.

1. TOB isn't 'Anime.' Anime is either all Animation, or I might be willing to give you a definition that limits it to Animation coming from Japan. TOB is neither of those. TOB is a supplement to D&D. It has no animation at all.

2. TOB isnot Wuxia. Wuxia is a specific genre of storytelling, similar to the formulaic stories of the romance period of European literature. It has defined elements. TOB in't that either.

It isn't either of those things. Stop calling it that. If you want to claim it is based on Martial Arts, say that. Don't give it appellations you don't understand.

[Jayabalard]

1. TOB isn't 'Anime.' Anime is either all Animation, or I might be willing to give you a definition that limits it to Animation coming from Japan. TOB is neither of those. TOB is a supplement to D&D. It has no animation at all.Outside of Japan, anime = japanese animation (in the 80s we called it japanimation). It's also a term that means, collectively, "all things that are broadly similar japanamation" and isn't just about the art style. It also refers to anything that meets many of the tropes that common appear in anime.


2. TOB isnot Wuxia. Wuxia is a specific genre of storytelling, similar to the formulaic stories of the romance period of European literature. It has defined elements. TOB in't that either.Like thurbane said, you can blame the use of that specific term on the people who, last year, started saying "you can't say it's too anime, you mean it's too wuxia, use that term instead"

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Outside of Japan, anime = japanese animation (in the 80s we called it japanimation). It's also a term that means, collectively, "all things that are broadly similar japanamation" and isn't just about the art style. It also refers to anything that meets many of the tropes that common appear in anime.

Just because a trope is common in anime does not mean that is exclusive to anime.

As for the inaccuracies bit, it helps to explain why you feel that way so that everyone else can get a better picture of the issue. Calling it "too anime/wuxia" doesn't really answer that question. Why is it so? Why is that even wrong? Hiding behind an ill-defined term does not a good argument make.

[jseah]

As for the inaccuracies bit, it helps to explain why you feel that way so that everyone else can get a better picture of the issue. Calling it "too anime/wuxia" doesn't really answer that question. Why is it so? Why is that even wrong? Hiding behind an ill-defined term does not a good argument make.
*note that I am playing the devil's advocate here*

I suspect that whoever mentions that is objecting on the grounds that the basic premise of ToB (that of expendable effects that regenerate with time) gives physical attackers a mechanic that is normally restricted to magic. Plus that the maneuvers do all sorts of strange things that aren't physically possible.

Thus making them "too much like magic".
Since most maneuvers are explicity non-magical according to ToB, it becomes "people being able to do impossible stuff through force of will / practice".

Apart from the whole hp problem (I get a bus dropped on me and live!), some people would like to keep anything that cannot be physically achieved in RL in the sole realm of magic.

EDIT: ok, not quite so devil's advocate here. I do have tendencies towards keeping magic and non-magic separate. But because of the hp problem, I've given up trying to reconcile it and will simply have D&D be my over-the-top style system.

[Tackyhillbillu]

Outside of Japan, anime = japanese animation (in the 80s we called it japanimation). It's also a term that means, collectively, "all things that are broadly similar japanamation" and isn't just about the art style. It also refers to anything that meets many of the tropes that common appear in anime.

Like I said, I might be willing to allow you the Japanese Animation. However, what the hell do you mean by 'broadly similar' to anime? I don't really see any Tropes in TOB that appear anymore often in Eastern Media (I dislike that term as well, but I'll use it for the meantime) then in Western.


Like thurbane said, you can blame the use of that specific term on the people who, last year, started saying "you can't say it's too anime, you mean it's too wuxia, use that term instead"

Okay, I blame them. Still, you should stop perpetuating their wrong. You were wrong to call it too 'anime' (see point above), and you are wrong now to call it too Wuxia. Alright?

[Lycanthromancer]

*note that I am playing the devil's advocate here*

I suspect that whoever mentions that is objecting on the grounds that the basic premise of ToB (that of expendable effects that regenerate with time) gives physical attackers a mechanic that is normally restricted to magic. Plus that the maneuvers do all sorts of strange things that aren't physically possible.

Thus making them "too much like magic".
Since most maneuvers are explicity non-magical according to ToB, it becomes "people being able to do impossible stuff through force of will / practice".

Apart from the whole hp problem (I get a bus dropped on me and live!), some people would like to keep anything that cannot be physically achieved in RL in the sole realm of magic.

EDIT: ok, not quite so devil's advocate here. I do have tendencies towards keeping magic and non-magic separate. But because of the hp problem, I've given up trying to reconcile it and will simply have D&D be my over-the-top style system.(Ex) effects are called out under the definition as being able to break with physics, and this is perpetuated by monster abilities, feats, skills, base stats (such as rather odd applications of hit points, and the fact that a really naturally-strong human can bench-press Boeing 747's if he gains enough levels, which would crush any actual human), and various class features (such as, yes, Tome of Battle maneuvers).

To wit:

Extraordinary Abilities (Ex): (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities) "Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training."

This is perfectly in line with both maneuvers and the rest of 3.5 D&D.

The argument that it's not 'realistic' makes no sense at all, since there's not a single thing realistic past level 6 (and most of what happens before then is rather unbelievable as well).

I'm fairly sure this just falls under 'melee can't have nice things,' and some people are trying to justify it under the banner of 'too wuxia,' or whatever. Some arguments are certainly justified (ToB is definitely overpowered for very unoptimized groups, and that's fine), but not all of them.

[jseah]

Extraordinary Abilities (Ex): (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities) "Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training."
Some people would like to change that to "even with extensive training".

EDIT:
I certainly understand that position. After all, I once tried to make an extensive change to the hp system starting with the vit/wounds one and ending with a mess.

And making stats have diminishing returns instead of linear. That resulted in needing a calculator to make characters. >.<

Monster ex abilities that are physics breaking (eg. super fast acting acid or insane growth rates) can be easily changed to (su).

Then again, we're not talking about homebrew here are we? But certainly, in such a strict "magic is magic" universe, you can see why ToB won't be allowed on suspension of disbelief grounds.

[Gametime]

"Anime" and "Wuxia" have reached a status similar to comic books in Western culture. Comic books, for a long, long time, were fairly similar in the U.S. There were specific styles of storytelling, specific kinds of interaction that would take place, and specific art styles that tended to dominate the market. What exactly all of these elements were shifted somewhat between eras, but before the 80's there was a lot of similarity between different comic books.

But there's no reason comic books have to be similar. It's a medium capable of telling a vast variety of stories. Maus is not [/i]Watchmen[/i] is not Sandman. Each of those stories utilizes different storytelling devices, different art styles, and different kinds of characters to build their stories, but all they all use the comic book medium (or "graphic novel," if you prefer). Now, a lot of people realize that comic books don't need to be seen as homogeneous, but they still are in a lot of circles, and they still lack the respect that more mainstream media get.

Anime faces a similar situation. Until about the 1980's, all the Japanese animation that came to the U.S. was fairly similar. Not completely similar, obviously, but there wasn't a huge sample pool. But a lot of the tropes that "define" anime actually just describe the shows that have leaked into the collective consciousness via cultural osmosis. That doesn't make those tropes any more representative of anime as a whole than Silver Age Joker is of comic book villains.

There are certain elements that appear in a large number of anime shows, yes. Those elements neither define nor constrict the medium. It's not a genre.

(I couldn't tell you how the term "Wuxia" came to be misappropriated, but I suspect those darn kids on the internet are responsible.)

[Gametime]

Some people would like to change that to "even with extensive training".

EDIT:
I certainly understand that position. After all, I once tried to make an extensive change to the hp system starting with the vit/wounds one and ending with a mess.

And making stats have diminishing returns instead of linear. That resulted in needing a calculator to make characters. >.<

Monster ex abilities that are physics breaking (eg. super fast acting acid or insane growth rates) can be easily changed to (su).

Then again, we're not talking about homebrew here are we? But certainly, in such a strict "magic is magic" universe, you can see why ToB won't be allowed on suspension of disbelief grounds.

If your position is "only magic can break the world," and then you change all the monster extraordinary abilities to supernatural, then you're making only the PC fighters feel the brunt of it.

But yeah, I can see why that would be the case in such a game. I don't think D&D is the best system for such a game, but I can see why it would lead you to the internally consistent rule that ToB isn't allowed.

[jseah]

If your position is "only magic can break the world," and then you change all the monster extraordinary abilities to supernatural, then you're making only the PC fighters feel the brunt of it.
My solution to that was to give everything magic. Up to and including fighters. (no mundane characters exist, everything lives and breathes magic) Of course, then ToB comes right back in, except anything too unbelievable becomes an (su) maneuver.

Then again, if your setting holds that magic can ONLY be gotten as a gift (sorceror), faith (cleric) or study (wizard), then yeah, martial magic goes straight out the window, ToB with it.

[DragoonWraith]

Are you going to ban the Jump skill, then? Breaking the world record Long Jump is a DC 30 Jump check. A level 1 Human can do that 20% of the time easily (+4 Str, 4 ranks, MW item [much like the track shoes used by real jumpers], and Skill Focus [Jump] gives a +13 check, meaning success at 17, 18, 19, or 20). A level 1 Barbarian gains another +6 between Fast Movement and Rage; he can now break the world record 45% of the time. At level 1.

At level 6? The non-Barbarian has a +18 check; he breaks the record 40% of the time. At best, he's going another 8 ft. past the record. The Barbarian's can break the world record as a matter of course (taking 10), and on a 20 he's looking 44 ft - that's half again the current world record. The Monk can do 46 ft.

This is using no magic, one feat, and skill ranks. Completely mundane Ex abilities.

If in D&D you are not breaking physics, you are no higher than maybe level 5. If you are not completely ignoring the limitations of the human body, you're an NPC.

D&D does not support gritty realism. There are much better systems for that.

[jseah]

D&D does not support gritty realism. There are much better systems for that.
Why did you think I gave up and am now making my own system? XD

It's more a hobby than anything meant to be played. Since the magic theory involved took me two years to make and could fill a small book or lecture series.

[DragoonWraith]

Yeah, I got ninja'd, like, a lot there. So... that post wasn't really in response to your latest one...

[Beowulf DW]

Well, here's my take on Tome of Battle, from the story and historical perspectives, for what it's worth.

I'm still very new to D&D. I've never even played through an entire campaign yet. However, I am very familiar with the myths, legends and works of fantasy that D&D is based on. D&D was originally based on Western works, and is still very much rooted in Western story-telling traditions. Many people have said that ToB contains elements of anime or Wuxia, but the truth is that ToB and many other additions to core D&D contain elements of Eastern story-telling traditions in general. For instance, warriors who rely on their "ki" or their will and training to achieve supernatural abilities. Because people percieve the Tome of Battle as "Eastern" they tend to think that it is incompatible with the Western core of D&D.

To be honest, though, ToB is closer to Western traditions than many people seem to realize. The stereotypical brawn-over-brain fighter is not supported by Western traditions or reality. The truly great warriors were always the ones who were clever, who thought about their battles and were devoted to an idea or code. Additionally, many great heroes that appear in Western myths possessed abilities that many D&D players would attribute to gishes. For example, the "original" or older stories of the Knights of the Round Table involved knights with inborn magic powers (Kay was one of them). Some might say that including styles of martial arts, like Diamond Mind and Desert Wind, is a very Asian idea, but this is also a fallacy. However, martial arts are by no means exclusive to Asia. Europe had maritial arts schools and styles that were every bit as diverse and advanced as those of Asia.

So from my point of view Tome of Battle really doesn't shake up the D&D world all that much.

[Frosty]

Just to clarify - you don't want me to associate wuxia with Eastern culture at all, or you don't want me to associate all Eastern culture with wuxia?

As I said earlier in this thread, you can thank the pro-ToB lobby for a lot of that. They continually bludgeoned the nay-sayers with that term shortly after the release of the book. Every time anyone mentioned the "A" word, they got a volley of "No no no, you don't know what you're talking about, it's wuxia, not anime!".

For myself, I had never even heard the term before then - so you can see why I have a strong association between wuxia and ToB.
One should not automatically think "wuxia" when one hears the word "eastern" or "oriental." Wuxia is not all that "the east" has to offer.

That said, Wuxia simply refers to a warrior's story. Such a story usually details the warrior's pilgrimage to train and to get better and accomplish whatever it is he wants to accomplish with his fighting skills (like righting wrongs or atoning for past misdeeds). That is all.

You know what that sounds like to me? The Fighter and the Paladin.

To me, Wuxia is not strictly a "eastern" thing as there are many heroic and epic warrior pilgrimages in literature and history from all cultures. DnD's time-old tale of the knight questing to gain that magic sword in order to slay the evil dragon and save the princess would fit perfectly. Gilgamesh fits. Hell, Joan of Arc probably fits. Oh yeah, and Zorro probably fits too. *Maaaybe* Batman as well.

Whomever were using "Wuxia" to *distinguish* between "normal" DnD and ToB were grossly misinformed. Not only is such a distinction unnecessary, but they even used the wrong term to try to make such a distinction.

[Lycanthromancer]

One should not automatically think "wuxia" when one hears the word "eastern" or "oriental." Wuxia is not all that "the east" has to offer.

That said, Wuxia simply refers to a warrior's story. Such a story usually details the warrior's pilgrimage to train and to get better and accomplish whatever it is he wants to accomplish with his fighting skills (like righting wrongs or atoning for past misdeeds). That is all.

You know what that sounds like to me? The Fighter and the Paladin.

To me, Wuxia is not strictly a "eastern" thing as there are many heroic and epic warrior pilgrimages in literature and history from all cultures. DnD's time-old tale of the knight questing to gain that magic sword in order to slay the evil dragon and save the princess would fit perfectly. Gilgamesh fits. Hell, Joan of Arc probably fits. Oh yeah, and Zorro probably fits too. *Maaaybe* Batman as well.

Whomever were using "Wuxia" to *distinguish* between "normal" DnD and ToB were grossly misinformed. Not only is such a distinction unnecessary, but they even used the wrong term to try to make such a distinction.So, you're saying that D&D in its entirety is basically Wuxia. In order for ToB to NOT be Wuxia, they'd have to stay home and raise chickens.

Thanks, you ToB-is-too-Wuxia people. You ruined D&D.

[Frosty]

There is nothing bad about wuxia. It is simply the a term from another language that describes a warrior's tale. The definitions have always existed in other languages, but the Chinese version is just concise.

I repeat, there is nothing inherently "eastern" about a warrior's pilgrimage, and in fact it describes a lot of DnD...ToB or not.

[Ashiel]

It bugs me too when people use wrong terms, know they are wrong terms, and have been told they are wrong terms, and still use those terms wrong.

But I hate stuff like that in general; even outside of language issues. :smallconfused:

EDIT: I had lost my train of thought... :smallredface:

I was going to say that a good step in the right direction as a house rule would be to make full-attacks standard actions. That prevents fighter-types from being anchored to the ground to do what they're supposed to do.

Makes combat far more mobile.

[Jayabalard]

MW item [much like the track shoes used by real jumpers]Personally I'd argue that shoes are not a tool for jumping... especially at that tech level. If you want a tool to use to jump I'd say that you'd need to be using a pole of some sort (which has a much higher record distance: 21.01 meters).

[Starbuck_II]

So, you're saying that D&D in its entirety is basically Wuxia. In order for ToB to NOT be Wuxia, they'd have to stay home and raise chickens.

Thanks, you ToB-is-too-Wuxia people. You ruined D&D.

That leads to the dark side Lycan. Infested with chickens flaw, anyone?

[Jayabalard]

But there's no reason comic books have to be similar. It's a medium capable of telling a vast variety of stories. Maus is not [/i]Watchmen[/i] is not Sandman.Just to add: They aren't Archie either. That doesn't mean that "too comic booky" isn't a valid descriptor, nor that the term particularly ambiguous.

[DragoonWraith]

Personally I'd argue that shoes are not a tool for jumping... especially at that tech level. If you want a tool to use to jump I'd say that you'd need to be using a pole of some sort (which has a much higher record distance: 21.01 meters).
Your nit-picking and avoiding the bigger issue. A +2 bonus or not is not going to affect the argument in any way.

[Jayabalard]

You're nit-picking and avoiding the bigger issue. A +2 bonus or not is not going to affect the argument in any way.It makes harder to achieve at first level, which was part of the claim (ie, how easy it was to break it at 1st level). You've given an example of someone who's pretty much at the peak of human ability and who's prepared extensively can break the world record, which I don't find to be pretty reasonable.

I didn't think that the rest was worth arguing, since it seems to me to show that the way jump works is not modeled very well in D&D, that it doesn't scale very realistically by level, that D&D doesn't handle the extremes of probability very well (due to using d20). I don't find any of that suprising, because things like jumping are highly abstracted in D&D.

[DragoonWraith]

Wow, I am ashamed to have mixed up "your" and "you're". I feel dumb.

Anyway, it was just an off-the-top-of-my-head example. We're talking about a system where physics and limits of the human body are routinely ignored even by nominally mundane characters. Why is Tome of Battle different?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I didn't think that the rest was worth arguing, since it seems to me to show that the way jump works is not modeled very well in D&D, that it doesn't scale very realistically by level, that D&D doesn't handle the extremes of probability very well (due to using d20). I don't find any of that suprising, because things like jumping are highly abstracted in D&D.

On the realism of skills in D&D: take a look at this (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html) if you haven't already. There are some issues with the conclusions reached, but on the whole it's a fairly accurate analysis.

[DragoonWraith]

That's largely what I'm saying: by 6th level and without class features, you are superhuman. Anyone who is not superhuman is either extremely low-level (1, maybe 2, and most 1st level classes will still be superhuman even without Su abilities or spellcasting), or an NPC class.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Just to add: They aren't Archie either. That doesn't mean that "too comic booky" isn't a valid descriptor, nor that the term particularly ambiguous.

Er, in the context of describing something as being too "comic book-y," the only way I can see it as unambiguous is for it to refer to a style of medium similar to that of a story created with colored pictures with associated sections of text to better illustrate the goings on of such a tale.

So, yeah, that kind of does make "too comic book-y" invalid when describing how something may feel in regards to mechanics or fluff. Now, if you bothered to say that DND's "talking is a free action" is a common occurrence in the medium of comics, you'd have a point, but that still doesn't make "talking is a free action" "too comic book-y:" that makes it either a poor rule or a break in verisimilitude.

[Gametime]

Just to add: They aren't Archie either. That doesn't mean that "too comic booky" isn't a valid descriptor, nor that the term particularly ambiguous.

It actually means exactly that. If your conception of what entails a comic book doesn't actually include existing comic books, under what pretenses can you claim that the term is at all representative of reality?

A lot of people will understand what you mean when you say "too comic booky." Ignorance on a massive scale doesn't make it true. The medium is more expansive than many in the public give it credit for, and the words we use to describe it should reflect that.

Comic books are a medium. Anime is a medium. They are not genres. The fact that so many people persist in the belief that they are is part of why it's so hard for the authors and artists of comic books to gain credibility in the mainstream, and why anime is still thought of as pure kiddy material in large parts of America.

[Frosty]

Just to add: They aren't Archie either. That doesn't mean that "too comic booky" isn't a valid descriptor, nor that the term particularly ambiguous.
To me, it is extremely ambiguous. I have no effing clue what you mean when you say something is too comic-book-ish. Comic-book-ness is not a defined adjective in the english language. People can interpret it a million different ways dependiong on their overal experiences they've had with reading comics. What do YOU mean when you describe something as "comic-book-ish?" Silly? Non-serious?

[Kaiyanwang]

About the healing thing.. my post, 17625219673521 pages ago, was not that crusader cannot heal: only that is strange that his healing effects are (Ex), even if, say, they remove blindness, and swordsage flames and shadows are (Su).

What surprises me is the lack of consistency within the book.

And yeah, (Ex) abilities are extraordinary, but, as far I can see with analogies with other parts of the game, they are related to super jumps, super strenght, super health (but like regeneration, so an accelerated metabolism or something similar).

Things that call flames or erupt them (breath weapons), shadows (FF Dark Weaver shadow strand), and heal (Dragon Shaman healing touch) are in the field of (Su) in my view.

I'm perfectly fine with a warblade that jumps suddenly very high, because yes, it breaks laws of physics, but is just a super strong and agile dude.

One dude that beat another dude and cures the feeblemind of a nearby wizard, i repeat, it's just not in the field of (Ex) IMHO.

This was my point.

[Jayabalard]

Ignorance on a massive scale doesn't make it true.Words mean what they are used to mean, not what purists want them to mean; this is especially true of English, due to the way that it whores itself out ot pretty much any other language.

Regardless of the reason (ignorance), usage on a massive scale makes it true. You can rail against it all you want, but I'm firmly of the opinion that you're wasting your time.

[Thurbane]

It isn't either of those things. Stop calling it that. If you want to claim it is based on Martial Arts, say that. Don't give it appellations you don't understand.
Um, how about no?

If you have a problem with my usage of a term, guess what, it's just that - your problem. I've explained my usage (in fact, the geenral Western usage) of those terms fairly concisely, so you can either keep complaining, or suck it up. Your choice - but I'm done explaining and/or defending my usage.

[Optimator]

*note that I am playing the devil's advocate here*

I suspect that whoever mentions that is objecting on the grounds that the basic premise of ToB (that of expendable effects that regenerate with time) gives physical attackers a mechanic that is normally restricted to magic. Plus that the maneuvers do all sorts of strange things that aren't physically possible.

Thus making them "too much like magic".
Since most maneuvers are explicity non-magical according to ToB, it becomes "people being able to do impossible stuff through force of will / practice".



ARG! This is exactly why I dislike the Wuxia argument for disliking the ToB. There is a huge amount of abilities many many classes get that "do all sorts of strange things that aren't physically possible". Is it or is it not specifically called out in the PHB or the DMG that Extraordinary abilities are non-magic but can break the laws of physics?!

Edit: I understand I have been ninja'd. Damn you, Swordsages for doing the impossible!

[Thurbane]

One should not automatically think "wuxia" when one hears the word "eastern" or "oriental." Wuxia is not all that "the east" has to offer.
Absolutely - I totally agree with that. Sorry for the misunderstanding there.

100%, I do not associate all eastern (or all Chinese) culture or stories with Wuxia.

I do, however, associate Wuxia as an eastern term.

...sorry if I wasn't explaining that particularly well.

Outside of Japan, anime = japanese animation (in the 80s we called it japanimation). It's also a term that means, collectively, "all things that are broadly similar japanamation" and isn't just about the art style. It also refers to anything that meets many of the tropes that common appear in anime.

Like thurbane said, you can blame the use of that specific term on the people who, last year, started saying "you can't say it's too anime, you mean it's too wuxia, use that term instead"
Very much this. Jayabalard has summed up what I was trying to get accross very well. :smallsmile:

The only thing I would correct is that the whole Wuxia thing goes back further than last year, it goes back to shortly after the ToB release, when the debates started...

From my reading of this thread, that's a massive misconception. As far as I can tell, pro-ToB posters have been quite clear that they do not have a problem with other playing differently, but that they simply don't understand why anyone would. Also, they have been pointing out factually wrong arguments - which is an entirely different point from the one you are making. It strikes me that you are either reading things into others' posts (see below) or are bringing negative experiences from elsewhere into this thread.
The issue goes far beyond this thread. It is a common occurrence on these boards, and just about every other D&D forum I’ve been on. I stand 100% by my reading of these occurrences. People are badgered about why they don’t use ToB in various threads on a very regular basis.

That's an example for my point above. This is not what he said at all. On the contrary, he has explicitly admitted that others may have fun with it, but that he simply doesn't understand how. In fact, that's just why he asked for an explanation.
Yes, I freely admit that was hyperbole to get my point across. That was not one of my better moments – it was an exaggeration to get my point across (although please note the question mark at the end of the sentence).

But he was in fact saying that he could not comprehend how anyone could have fun playing a Fighter that simply hits things. I was trying to express that that is a matter of personal taste, and shouldn’t be used to condemn Fighters as unplayable or boring. It was more a reply to a general assumption than his specific post.

[Gametime]

Words mean what they are used to mean, not what purists want them to mean; this is especially true of English, due to the way that it whores itself out ot pretty much any other language.

Regardless of the reason (ignorance), usage on a massive scale makes it true. You can rail against it all you want, but I'm firmly of the opinion that you're wasting your time.

I pontificate that you are, in absentia, exquisitely Cartesian. In lieu of this, I abstract my porous stuntman; frivolous apogees.

On a less facetious note, the meaning of words can change with persistent usage in a specific way. The issue here is that, 1) the word "anime" refers to a presupposed genre that does not exist; it is referring to a non-entity, as evidenced by the fact that there exists no such genre in Japan, the country of origin. 2) The usage of these words is far from universal, even if it is prevalent. "Wuxia" may still be used correctly in certain circles, and is much more likely to be used correctly outside of the U.S.; faced with two conflicting definitions for a word, the one that actually matches what was originally the correct definition seems the more prudent one to defend.

If, as you insist, the "meaning" of phrases like "too Wuxia" and "too anime" are obvious (despite the skepticism with which I and others views such a claim), it should be an infinitely simple matter to find a more descriptive way to express the same view and satisfy both parties.

[Gametime]

The issue goes far beyond this thread. It is a common occurrence on these boards, and just about every other D&D forum I’ve been on. I stand 100% by my reading of these occurrences. People are badgered about why they don’t use ToB in various threads on a very regular basis.



Yeah, this is definitely a problem when the book is discussed. It is always shameful when it happens.

However, I've also seen (again, outside this thread) a tendency on the part of people who aren't pro-ToB (not necessarily anti, per se, but not overtly in favor of it) to be excessively defensive, offering thinly veiled insults towards people who like ToB before anyone's even mentioned it, or responding to any mention of the book with scathing dismissal or yells of having it crammed down their throat.

All things considered, this thread has been fairly civil on both sides. But it's far from the norm.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

About the healing thing.. my post, 17625219673521 pages ago, was not that crusader cannot heal: only that is strange that his healing effects are (Ex), even if, say, they remove blindness, and swordsage flames and shadows are (Su).

What surprises me is the lack of consistency within the book.

And yeah, (Ex) abilities are extraordinary, but, as far I can see with analogies with other parts of the game, they are related to super jumps, super strenght, super health (but like regeneration, so an accelerated metabolism or something similar).

Things that call flames or erupt them (breath weapons), shadows (FF Dark Weaver shadow strand), and heal (Dragon Shaman healing touch) are in the field of (Su) in my view.

I'm perfectly fine with a warblade that jumps suddenly very high, because yes, it breaks laws of physics, but is just a super strong and agile dude.

One dude that beat another dude and cures the feeblemind of a nearby wizard, i repeat, it's just not in the field of (Ex) IMHO.

This was my point.

I personally like to view the Crusader's healing capabilities as more of an effect on morale than physically fixing a slice or massive bruise from a mace. I know someone else suggested to make it a temporary heal, lasting until the encounter ended. Actually making Devoted Spirit (Su) like Desert Wind could also work, as I do see how it could be jarring, at first.

That said, I am not particularly bothered by it, as I mentioned before: DND does a poor job of distinguishing between HP loss due to morale and HP loss due to sharp point sticks. Thus, healing suffers similarly.


Words mean what they are used to mean, not what purists want them to mean; this is especially true of English, due to the way that it whores itself out ot pretty much any other language.

Regardless of the reason (ignorance), usage on a massive scale makes it true. You can rail against it all you want, but I'm firmly of the opinion that you're wasting your time.

Ahem. There are four lights! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TwoPlusTwoMakesFive?from=Main.ThereAreFourLights)

If you truly wish to argue that you are in the right because that's how you (and others) use such a word, you are free to do so. However, that whole point of language is to create a common understanding. If you continue to say "too anime" and someone else questions just what that means, you may as well explain it, rather than hiding behind these nonstandard definitions and saying "you know, too anime?" over and over again.

[Tinydwarfman]

Ok, I think this whole anime/wuxia definition has been argued long enough. To all anti-ToB people, what warblade maneuvers don't you like from levels one to three, and what do you not like about them?

[Tavar]

Addendum; ignore the mechanics of Iron Heart Surge. Yes, it doesn't really do what it's supposed to as written. We know. Still, one problem shouldn't sink a book. Hasn't done it to any of the others.

[Saph]

Ok, I think this whole anime/wuxia definition has been argued long enough. To all anti-ToB people, what warblade maneuvers don't you like from levels one to three, and what do you not like about them?

Tiny, just let it go.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Um, how about no?

If you have a problem with my usage of a term, guess what, it's just that - your problem. I've explained my usage (in fact, the geenral Western usage) of those terms fairly concisely, so you can either keep complaining, or suck it up. Your choice - but I'm done explaining and/or defending my usage.

This is fine and good for when we still know what we're arguing, but if I don't know what "too anime" means than I bloody well expect at least some kind of explanation for it, even if I don't feel that such an explanation is entirely accurate of either anime or ToB.

I'm not telling you to stop using the term to be a cad; I'm telling you to use something different so I actually know what it is you're using it in place of something else to describe something! As I said before, if I call Mr. Fluffy the bunny a "shmerp" without explaining the term, than I could be describing any number of qualities that Mr. Fluffy has when I simply mean to say "he's a rabbit." If someone asks what I mean by "shmerp" it does neither of us any good to repeatedly state "You know, a shmerp!"

[Tinydwarfman]

Tiny, just let it go.

:smalltongue: Don't ruin my fun.

[Saph]

:smalltongue: Don't ruin my fun.

Oh, all right then. My issues with low-level ToB maneuvers would be:

Wolf Fang Strike: Due to the annoying way in which the Tiger Claw maneuvers are set up, you HAVE to take this manuever before you can take any other 1st-level ones. So if you want your Warblade to start with, say, Hunter's Sense, you have to take Wolf Fang Strike, even it's it's useless for your character.
Iron Heart Surge: Nice idea, causes more arguments than any other five maneuvers in the book. To add insult to injury, WotC couldn't be bothered to print the errata for it (seriously, they wrote errata and then copy-pasted over it.)
White Raven Tactics: Too powerful for its level. Easily abused, and tends to lead to silly situations like the Warblade standing next to the Wizard tapping his feet and telling him to take his turn faster. I'd prefer it if it was something like the Mass Snake's Swiftness spell, giving your allies extra melee attacks.
Douse the Flames: Too weak, needs to do something more impressive.
Claw at the Moon: Also too weak, and fiddly. Critical confirmations don't come up often enough for a one-off bonus to be worth much.
Most of the others are pretty good, though.

[Starbuck_II]

Oh, all right then. My issues with low-level ToB maneuvers would be:

Wolf Fang Strike: Due to the annoying way in which the Tiger Claw maneuvers are set up, you HAVE to take this manuever before you can take any other 1st-level ones. So if you want your Warblade to start with, say, Hunter's Sense, you have to take Wolf Fang Strike, even it's it's useless for your character.
Iron Heart Surge: Nice idea, causes more arguments than any other five maneuvers in the book. To add insult to injury, WotC couldn't be bothered to print the errata for it (seriously, they wrote errata and then copy-pasted over it.)
White Raven Tactics: Too powerful for its level. Easily abused, and tends to lead to silly situations like the Warblade standing next to the Wizard tapping his feet and telling him to take his turn faster. I'd prefer it if it was something like the Mass Snake's Swiftness spell, giving your allies extra melee attacks.
Douse the Flames: Too weak, needs to do something more impressive.
Claw at the Moon: Also too weak, and fiddly. Critical confirmations don't come up often enough for a one-off bonus to be worth much.
Most of the others are pretty good, though.
Tiger Style:
Wolf Fang Strike: you're right! Wow.

[Saph]

Wolf Fang Strike: why not take Sudden Leap? Don't like jumping?

Check the book, page 89. You CAN'T take Sudden Leap without Wolf Fang Strike.

[Starbuck_II]

Yeah, I edited it.
It is a little weird. Maybe they wanted everyone to be like Yamcha from Dragonball?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Yeah, I edited it.
It is a little weird. Maybe they wanted everyone to be like Yamcha from Dragonball?

...or the developers threw darts to determine number of prerequisites when designing maneuvers and never caught that in the final proof. Obviously, the explanation that they really like Dragonball is more likely than the explanation that they lack basic reading comprehension. :smallwink:

[Tinydwarfman]

Wolf Fang Strike: Due to the annoying way in which the Tiger Claw maneuvers are set up, you HAVE to take this manuever before you can take any other 1st-level ones. So if you want your Warblade to start with, say, Hunter's Sense, you have to take Wolf Fang Strike, even it's it's useless for your character.
Claw at the Moon: Also too weak, and fiddly. Critical confirmations don't come up often enough for a one-off bonus to be worth much.


True, I never got why sudden leap had a pre-req.

I think a pretty good fix would be let the initiator actually get the benefit of his jump check.

[Kaiyanwang]

Wait.. about WFS.. in one previous thread on these boards about ToB, someone pointed out a FAQ about the fact that maneuvers can qualify each other (i.e., two maneuvers of the same school could qualify each other).

Waiting for a confirmation from someone with either a greater ToB-fu, or google-fu..

[Starbuck_II]

It qualifies only after taking it. You can swap it out later no problem, but stuck with taking it at first.

[DragoonWraith]

Yeah, the pre-reqs in general are very poorly done. There are definitely some issues in the details of ToB (the stance progressions, anyone?) where it's pretty clear that the developers picked some numbers that sounded right-ish at the time and never bothered to really consider the ramifications of those numbers. Luckily, situations where these happen are fairly restricted (with two of the biggest offenders already in this post).

[Frozen_Feet]

Sorry for beating a dead horse, but I just to get this off of my heart:

If anti-ToBbers really, really want a proper term to use of ToB, they should call it too shounen. Shounen, as in manga/anime aimed at young boys, which holds such remarkable pieces of work such as Dragon Ball, One Piece, Naruto and Bleach. The genre where GOING PAST THE IMPOSSIBLE, IT'S OVER 9000!!!, MY DREAM ALLOWS ME TO DO THIS etc. is common place, along with ancient secret super techniques, epic magic swords and what not.

However, everyone banning ToB on those grounds shoul take a long look at D&D as a whole, and realize quite a lot of it is wish-fulfilment of adolescent men. Ie., shounen.

I'm sorry, I'll go back to playing my wizard who calls his 'fireballs' 'kamehamehas' now...

[Thurbane]

This is fine and good for when we still know what we're arguing, but if I don't know what "too anime" means than I bloody well expect at least some kind of explanation for it, even if I don't feel that such an explanation is entirely accurate of either anime or ToB.
I think between Jayabalard, myself and Wiki, we have explained our usage of anime fairly concisely (I know it’s a huge thread to search through, but the explanations are there). Speaking for myself, I don’t think I claimed ToB was too anime in this thread...what I said was that it was more “wuxia” themed than my group is comfortable with in our medieval Eurpoean-style fantasy campaigns at the moment.

I have never once claimed ToB is, generally speaking, too anything (i.e. I would never recommend to anyone from another group not to use it - at least not for a long, long time. I was a bit of a jackass about it when the book first came out). It’s just not something I am interested in using in my games, for thematic and other reasons (i.e. learning a new subsystem, and not being happy with the whole “magic without being magic” feel of ToB).



I'm not telling you to stop using the term to be a cad; I'm telling you to use something different so I actually know what it is you're using it in place of something else to describe something! As I said before, if I call Mr. Fluffy the bunny a "shmerp" without explaining the term, than I could be describing any number of qualities that Mr. Fluffy has when I simply mean to say "he's a rabbit." If someone asks what I mean by "shmerp" it does neither of us any good to repeatedly state "You know, a shmerp!"

I get your point, but my point is that we have, in our eyes, defined our usage of terms already. I’m sorry if our usage is still unclear to you – the last thing I want is for our points to be muddied more than they need to be. Is “wire-fu” less ambiguous than wuxia? Because that’s what I’m generally getting at when I say wuxia – Crouching Tiger/Hero type super long leaps and superhuman agility in melee combat.

In most Western-style fantasy movies that I am familiar with (Conan, Willow etc.), there is still plenty of “over the top” moves involved, but not in the same general style as “wire-fu”, which tends to be highly stylized. Of course, this is all in the eye of the beholder, but I can only speak for my own perspective.

...and I’ll add once more, as a general point, I do not dislike these style of movies or this type of action (I thought Hero, in particular, was awesome, and easily in my top movies of the last decade), just that (in the view of my group) it doesn’t slot in well with our particular (current) campaigns. If one of our future games has a more Eastern theme and/or setting, we might reconsider our stance (if we can overcome our other issues with the book). I own 3.0 Oriental Adventures, which we also don’t currently integrate into our games, but that would definitely see usage in such a game.

[Tavar]

Actually, from what I remember, most of the outside sources that you brought up were refuted, or shown to be non-specific. For instance, someone linked to TvTropes. This page does provide links to some tropes that apply. It also, however, provides many, many, many more links to subjects that don't apply, and the page itself mainly refers to the art style( which, incidentally, is from western animation).

Similarly, Wuxia refers to a warriors journey. Or, in other words, most DnD campaigns.

Thus, using these terms, instead of proper explanation, is very confusing and misleading.

[Gametime]

I get your point, but my point is that we have, in our eyes, defined our usage of terms already. I’m sorry if our usage is still unclear to you – the last thing I want is for our points to be muddied more than they need to be. Is “wire-fu” less ambiguous than wuxia? Because that’s what I’m generally getting at when I say wuxia – Crouching Tiger/Hero type super long leaps and superhuman agility in melee combat.


That is a lot more clear, actually. Wuxia as a literary genre is pretty darned similar to "Western" heroic fantasy; the movies inspired by the Wuxia genre are more easily identifiable by style. Something like, say, Star Wars is pretty clearly influenced by the sorts of crazy-go-nuts acrobatics you reference here.

Of course, as technology gets better, more and more movies tend to employ over-the-top stunts of this sort, so the line becomes less obvious. It's hard to say, for example, whether Lord of the Rings exhibits the sort of "wire fu" (in terms of style, not actually technology) we're talking about.

What was I talking about? Oh yeah. I understand what you're saying. :smalltongue:

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I think between Jayabalard, myself and Wiki, we have explained our usage of anime fairly concisely (I know it’s a huge thread to search through, but the explanations are there). Speaking for myself, I don’t think I claimed ToB was too anime in this thread...what I said was that it was more “wuxia” themed than my group is comfortable with in our medieval Eurpoean-style fantasy campaigns at the moment.

I have been following this bad boy since roughly page 14, and not once have I seen Jayabalard state what "anime" or "wuxia" means in the context of his argument. He has stated that it does not mean what the actual definition is and briefly argued that it was a genre, as anime has its own section at Blockbuster.

Others have stated that "wuxia" need not clash with standed Arthurian myths or other tales originating in cultures west of Arabia. Frosty even pointed out, that at its basics, Wuxia is a hero's journey, traveling far and wide for any number of reasons.


I have never once claimed ToB is, generally speaking, too anything (i.e. I would never recommend to anyone from another group not to use it - at least not for a long, long time. I was a bit of a jackass about it when the book first came out). It’s just not something I am interested in using in my games, for thematic and other reasons (i.e. learning a new subsystem, and not being happy with the whole “magic without being magic” feel of ToB).

I never said that you made such claims, but others certainly have, so while commenting on your particular pieces in this larger debate, I also covered theirs.

I am personally curious as to why you feel it is not thematic for a bog standard game of DND and see no need to make associations between it and Eastern myths. Sure, some of the naming conventions for maneuvers sound odd, but so do certain strikes in fencing. I don't recall enough off hand, but I'm willing to bet that someone could make an interesting and faithful rendition of Conan as a Warblade or Crusader, for example.

Similarly, I feel that it is not too terribly difficult and/or time consuming to learn a subsystem, but I realize that this is not always the case. To this day, bits of Incarnum still make me tilt my head in confusion.


Actually, from what I remember, most of the outside sources that you brought up were refuted, or shown to be non-specific. For instance, someone linked to TvTropes. This page does provide links to some tropes that apply. It also, however, provides many, many, many more links to subjects that don't apply, and the page itself mainly refers to the art style( which, incidentally, is from western animation).

Similarly, Wuxia refers to a warriors journey. Or, in other words, most DnD campaigns.

Thus, using these terms, instead of proper explanation, is very confusing and misleading.

I was actually the original person to link to TV Tropes's page on anime, which refuted claims by Ragnorak's Chosen and others. RC then quoted me, stating "That's exactly what I mean!" or something to that effect without really reading to see what the article said.

Most of the comments that seem to have been refuted which supported a few of the "Wuxia/Anime" side were met with responses aligning to "But I don't care" or "Well, it's still valid" or something else entirely, which is to say, generally ignored.



In most Western-style fantasy movies that I am familiar with (Conan, Willow etc.), there is still plenty of “over the top” moves involved, but not in the same general style as “wire-fu”, which tends to be highly stylized. Of course, this is all in the eye of the beholder, but I can only speak for my own perspective.

Fair enough. As I said, outside of the issues with how Iron Heart Surge is worded, to me, it feels like the perfect thing for Conan to use while screaming to shrug off the effects of a spell. That or one of the counters that uses Concentration in place of the usual Saves.


...and I’ll add once more, as a general point, I do not dislike these style of movies or this type of action (I thought Hero, in particular, was awesome, and easily in my top movies of the last decade), just that (in the view of my group) it doesn’t slot in well with our particular (current) campaigns. If one of our future games has a more Eastern theme and/or setting, we might reconsider our stance (if we can overcome our other issues with the book). I own 3.0 Oriental Adventures, which we also don’t currently integrate into our games, but that would definitely see usage in such a game.

As Frosty mentioned, these maneuvers do not have an overly Eastern theme (at least to him) and that they can easily have a very setting-neutral appearance. White Raven is the General who demands he stand at the forefront of battle, directing his troops personally. Diamond Mind is used to calculate battles rather than relying on brute force or flair. Desert Wind is innately supernatural, along with Shadow Hand. Both used by an almost trickster sort of character. The rest can follow similarly.

tl;dr: I don't agree with you, but I do understand what you are saying on the flavor bit of ToB. If nothing else, we can agree to disagree.


EDIT: For reference on Tavar's bit: my post linking to anime (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8139700&postcount=472) and RC's response to said link. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8140284&postcount=495)

[Kaiyanwang]

I personally like to view the Crusader's healing capabilities as more of an effect on morale than physically fixing a slice or massive bruise from a mace.

*Performs Mountain Tombstone Strike on the horse lying on the ground*

What about a vampire crusader? Healing his fellow nearby death knight? O Am I missing something? :smalltongue:

"Righteous vitality"
"calm down you moron.. aaarggh.. too late.. heal.. it burns!"

[Tackyhillbillu]

Wire-Fu is much clearer.

However, the vast majority of TOB is nothing like that. Iron Heart, White Raven, Stone Dragon, Devoted Spirit, Diamond Mind, Setting Sun. They have nothing to do with 'Wire-Fu' as you put it. So if you drop Tiger Claw, Shadow Hand, and Desert Win, you have no problems with the book?

[Optimator]

Sorry for beating a dead horse, but I just to get this off of my heart:

If anti-ToBbers really, really want a proper term to use of ToB, they should call it too shounen. Shounen, as in manga/anime aimed at young boys, which holds such remarkable pieces of work such as Dragon Ball, One Piece, Naruto and Bleach. The genre where GOING PAST THE IMPOSSIBLE, IT'S OVER 9000!!!, MY DREAM ALLOWS ME TO DO THIS etc. is common place, along with ancient secret super techniques, epic magic swords and what not.

However, everyone banning ToB on those grounds shoul take a long look at D&D as a whole, and realize quite a lot of it is wish-fulfilment of adolescent men. Ie., shounen.


This is a fantastic point. It is so so hard for me to imagine someone seeing a high level Fighter or Rogue or Barbarian going one-on-one with say, a purple worm and having it be "gritty" or "western" or "medieval" or "mundane" but when a Warblade does it all of a sudden it's a Saturday morning cartoon.

I am far from the greatest wordsmith and I can't explain my ideas with words as well as many others (I'm really a numbers guy), so I hope this doesn't come across as too offensive or incoherent. Forgiveness in advance:

IMO: If you're imagining the ToB as too Shounen then it is in your head. It's your fault for not imagining it the same as you do the rest of the characters and action in your game. For example, +4 to hit and +4d6 damage with a -4 AC. Rabid Bear Strike. What about that is like DBZ or Naruto? Are these numbers over the top like in an action cartoon? How is imagining this differently than say, a raging Barbarian power attacking for 5 in your mind? Like, if you were filming these two attacks are they really looking radically different? If you answered yes, take a step back and examine why this is so. I cannot see any logical reason to treat differently than the other in-game, and thus it should have zero impact on the flavor of the game. Is this such a wrong stance?

[Tavar]

And even then, there are some maneuvers and stances from those schools that can be used, more so from Tiger Claw and Shadow Sun.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

*Performs Mountain Tombstone Strike on the horse lying on the ground*

What about a vampire crusader? Healing his fellow nearby death knight? O Am I missing something? :smalltongue:

"Righteous vitality"
"calm down you moron.. aaarggh.. too late.. heal.. it burns!"

Maybe the Vampire is just scaring the death knight to the point where he thinks he can keep fighting?:smalltongue:

I did think that there had to be some sort of alignment difference between creatures, though I may be wrong.

[Tackyhillbillu]

And even then, there are some maneuvers and stances from those schools that can be used, more so from Tiger Claw and Shadow Sun.

Oh, I don't disagree. But I'm just saying, even by the schools themselves, there are relatively few that cause problems.

Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are explicitly Supernatural. That's what they are. Because the Swordsage is essentially the Monk, but awesome. The Monk is just as, if not more, 'Wire-Fu.' Those two schools are exactly what they are supposed to be.

Tiger Claw, I frankly, don't think does anything more then is actually in the game already. Leap Attack does everything it does as far as making it seem like 'Wire-Fu,' and gives you a higher return on your investment.

[Kaiyanwang]

Maybe the Vampire is just scaring the death knight to the point where he thinks he can keep fighting?:smalltongue:

I did think that there had to be some sort of alignment difference between creatures, though I may be wrong.

I was wondering about the heal effect. But i LOLed at the image you created :smallwink:

[Thurbane]

OK, in respect to those that have a problem with the term wuxia in this context, I will herefore to refer to it is as "wire fu". Again, my intention was never to cause offence, I was using it in the only form of usage I was familiar with.

Now, in regards to these comments:

I am personally curious as to why you feel it is not thematic for a bog standard game of DND and see no need to make associations between it and Eastern myths. Sure, some of the naming conventions for maneuvers sound odd, but so do certain strikes in fencing. I don't recall enough off hand, but I'm willing to bet that someone could make an interesting and faithful rendition of Conan as a Warblade or Crusader, for example.

Fair enough. As I said, outside of the issues with how Iron Heart Surge is worded, to me, it feels like the perfect thing for Conan to use while screaming to shrug off the effects of a spell. That or one of the counters that uses Concentration in place of the usual Saves.

As Frosty mentioned, these maneuvers do not have an overly Eastern theme (at least to him) and that they can easily have a very setting-neutral appearance. White Raven is the General who demands he stand at the forefront of battle, directing his troops personally. Diamond Mind is used to calculate battles rather than relying on brute force or flair. Desert Wind is innately supernatural, along with Shadow Hand. Both used by an almost trickster sort of character. The rest can follow similarly.

However, the vast majority of TOB is nothing like that. Iron Heart, White Raven, Stone Dragon, Devoted Spirit, Diamond Mind, Setting Sun. They have nothing to do with 'Wire-Fu' as you put it. So if you drop Tiger Claw, Shadow Hand, and Desert Win, you have no problems with the book?
As I have now said until I am blue in the face: the associations myself and others draw with ToB don't necessarily need to be logical. If something doesn't fit with our games (in our own opinion, however "misguided" they might be), why do people feel we need to constantly reassess or justify our preferences? Of course, the preface at the start of the book doesn't help with these associations.

I also don't use psionics because it feels "too sci-fi", and I don't use Eberron splat because it feels "too steampunk". While people may question my conclusions, the fact remains that this is my (and my group's) standpoint.

The same arguments have been made over and over ad inifinitum, in this topic and a multitude of others. I'm all for debate of a point, but seriously, 22+ pages of justifying why ToB doesn't fit thematically with our games? You mightn't agree with our reasons, but can't you just respect our decision? If it makes "your side" feel better to think we are just misguided fools who don't understand why we don't use ToB, then go right ahead. I honestly could not care less if people I've never met look down their nose at my "ignorance" of what the true themes and tones of ToB really are (not levelling this at any one particular poster, BTW). As a whole, I agree that most of the people in this particular thread have been able to debate the point quite civilly.

My fundamental reason for joining in this debate is not to defend my flavor interpretations of various books, but to defend the right of people to use or exclude things in their own games without being constantly judged or taken to task over it. In the real world, I know plenty of people who hold radically different opinions to me on a wide variety of topics, and while I might initially question them on how they reached their point of view, I simply do not feel the need to make them justify their personal preferences (so long as they don't harm anyone, obviously).

[Tiki Snakes]

8 - Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

Thurbane, no one is making you do anything. You are here, reading and responding of your own free will.


The greatest sadness is to realise that you are ultimately the source of all your own sorrows.

Additionally, there have been some very good points reguarding the flavour, or lack thereof of the book in question. If you have no interest in examining your own opinion, and looking closer at your prejudices in reguards to it, then you don't really have much of a need to contribute to the thread, given that is the purpose, as stated in the OP.

You are happy with the way your group runs things and from what you've said, so is your group. Unless you are seeking Tinydwarfman's approval for some reason, you really don't need to worry about the thread. :smallsmile:

[Tinydwarfman]

As I have now said until I am blue in the face: the associations myself and others draw with ToB don't necessarily need to be logical. If something doesn't fit with our games (in our own opinion, however "misguided" they might be), why do people feel we need to constantly reassess or justify our preferences? Of course, the preface at the start of the book doesn't help with these associations.
And that is exactly why I started this thread, it just annoys me that people are forbidding it for illogical reasons. Well, that and the fact that I like to debate stuff.


I also don't use psionics because it feels "too sci-fi", and I don't use Eberron splat because it feels "too steampunk". While people may question my conclusions, the fact remains that this is my (and my group's) standpoint.

*gasp* How could anything possibly be too steampunk?!? Blasphemy!


The same arguments have been made over and over ad inifinitum, in this topic and a multitude of others. I'm all for debate of a point, but seriously, 22+ pages of justifying why ToB doesn't fit thematically with our games? You mightn't agree with our reasons, but can't you just respect our decision? If it makes "your side" feel better to think we are just misguided fools who don't understand why we don't use ToB, then go right ahead. I honestly could not care less if people I've never met look down their nose at my "ignorance" of what the true themes and tones of ToB really are (not levelling this at any one particular poster, BTW). As a whole, I agree that most of the people in this particular thread have been able to debate the point quite civilly.

My fundamental reason for joining in this debate is not to defend my flavor interpretations of various books, but to defend the right of people to use or exclude things in their own games without being constantly judged or taken to task over it. In the real world, I know plenty of people who hold radically different opinions to me on a wide variety of topics, and while I might initially question them on how they reached their point of view, I simply do not feel the need to make them justify their personal preferences (so long as they don't harm anyone, obviously).

I do respect your decision, but that doesn't mean I can't argue about it :smallbiggrin:. I just like to debate stuff, and like I said, it annoys me when people ban stuff for no logical (to me) reason. Also, by my count I have seen one build thread where ToB was not questioned for not being there, but somebody did suggest a wilder. :smalltongue:

Also:


You are happy with the way your group runs things and from what you've said, so is your group. Unless you are seeking Tinydwarfman's approval for some reason, you really don't need to worry about the thread. :smallsmile:

Why of course he is looking for my approval! Aren't all of you? :smalltongue:

[Thurbane]

LOL, well yes, obviously no one is forcing me to post in this thread. But I felt my PoV deserves to be represented, and I wanted to clarify some of my points.

You are happy with the way your group runs things and from what you've said, so is your group. Unless you are seeking Tinydwarfman's approval for some reason, you really don't need to worry about the thread. :smallsmile:
This somewhat condescending statement, however, totally seems to miss this point:

My fundamental reason for joining in this debate is not to defend my flavor interpretations of various books, but to defend the right of people to use or exclude things in their own games without being constantly judged or taken to task over it.
If people weren't constantly berated by sections of the community for not using ToB in their games, I wouldn't feel the need to constantly restate this point. Despite appearances in this thread, I'm fairly thick skinned and can generally ignore it. It saddens me when people less able to deal with it are attacked, though.

I also have a fundamental problem with the arrogance with which some people assume the way they/their groups play the game is the default "right way", and any variation to that is something to be ridiculed or picked apart to the Nth degree.

As for the "purpose of the thread", I think you know full well that no OP ever has full ownership of the direction his/her thread takes further down the road. With all due deference to Tinydwarfman, the debate has moved and evolved to include other topics.

So thanks for your input, but I'll continue to post in this thread until I decide it is no longer useful, or beneficial to me. :smallwink:

[Tackyhillbillu]

Thurbane, here is the problem. If you had just said "I don't like Tome of Battle because I don't. It is an irrational prejudice, but I simply don't want it in my game" then no one would argue with you.

No one could. There is nothing to argue with. However, you continue to try to justify your position with arguments. People pick apart your arguments, because they don't justify your position, and you get annoyed.

[Tinydwarfman]

Thurbane, here is the problem. If you had just said "I don't like Tome of Battle because I don't. It is an irrational prejudice, but I simply don't want it in my game" then no one would argue with you.

No one could. There is nothing to argue with. However, you continue to try to justify your position with arguments. People pick apart your arguments, because they don't justify your position, and you get annoyed.

To be fair he did state that before, but we did keep arguing about other stuff. Now he did say that after other arguments, but still.

[Ashiel]

Here's my biased opinion on things for everyone, regardless whether or not anyone cares; because I feel like saying it, just like Thrubane has.

If you're not going to argue something with facts, or obey the laws of reason, stop it. Get the heck out. Let the people who are actually discussing things using reason, rationality, and evidence do that. People that do not, from either side, only shame their position further. They create disdain; for if someone doesn't allow ToB for a legitimate reason, most will think of "I don't so nyah" arguments. They think of the small-minded who will come and argue nothing. Not argue pointless arguments (which is half the fun of a forum like this); no...they argue nothing in a pointless argument.

They come in, and they flap their e-lips. They say a whole lot of nothing, represent no-side in any sort of helpful way. Where some people here have waiting to hear some legitimate reasons why people don't like Tome of Battle. They've been asking them to show them. To SHOW THEM. But so far no such person has been able to stand up and just say "This is like this because of this" and then actually provide something.

Otherwise, this is what people see.
"It's too eastern."
"What's eastern about it?"
"The flashy names."
"Actually these names sound like western martial arts; see this page."
"Oh, well, they're not realistic enough."
"*blink blink* Like all D&D > level 1?"
"Well, it's too supernatural."
"Except the two schools specifically called out to be supernatural, can you show us?"
"Irrelevant! It's too much like anime/comics/naruto!"
"So you don't like the pictures in the book; or ToB characters pop raccoon puppet-jutsu demons out of their butt?"
"Err..wha? No, well...it doesn't matter. I don't like it, and I'm completely irrational in my reasons, but I don't care. You guys are saying good things about the ToB that you can actually prove."
"Then why are you here discussing it if you know you're wrong?"
"Because you guys like the ToB and know what you're talking about and can provide evidence and reasoning behind it while shining light on logical errors and false commentary; and I like making myself feel like I'm being insulted for my choices."

At least, that's how I've seen this go down. Instead of actually showing any evidence; or heaven forbid, some sort of mathematics to prove that it doesn't work within D&D - which in an of itself is merely a rule-system to be used to tell virtually any sort of fantasy story your want - you just keep saying because over and over like small children. Either side only shames their causes this way; but I've seen this on one side more than the other.

It's disgusting. If you have nothing to contribute, merely go check out some of the other threads. There are countless threads on Giant in the Playground that have nothing to do with Tome of Battle. Go on not using the book, 'cause frankly I don't care, and you don't care. So why argue about it? If you don't want to use it, even if there's no logical reason not to, then that is fine in your game. But for everyone else; they're discussing D&D. That extends a lot farther than my game, or your game, or anyone else's individual tables.

We're here to discuss, to bounce ideas back and forth, and to educate and be educated in the intricacies and options for our favorite games. Anything else is a disservice to everyone; including "your side" of the argument.

//rant//

[Thurbane]

Thurbane, here is the problem. If you had just said "I don't like Tome of Battle because I don't. It is an irrational prejudice, but I simply don't want it in my game" then no one would argue with you.

...and the point you don’t seem to get is that I don’t consider it irrational. Just because you disagree with my reasoning, and consider it uninformed, doesn’t make it irrational to me. I have yet to be shown any irrefutable evidence that the process by which I reached my point of view is fundamentally flawed – all I have been shown is that many of you vehemently disagree, and also that some of the terms we use may have been misleading/confusing to you.

Also, if you look back, I have stated many times that thematics is only one of the issues I have with ToB in my games.

I’m not sure if you realize this, but terms like “irrational” are fairly loaded, and can come across as very condescending.

No one could. There is nothing to argue with. However, you continue to try to justify your position with arguments. People pick apart your arguments, because they don't justify your position, and you get annoyed.
As it happens, I’m not trying to “justify” anything, as I don’t believe it needs to be justified. I’m trying to explain the process by which I reached my PoV, while also defend the basic right of people to hold differing views, especially over something as unimportant as what material they use in their games.

If I am understanding what “your side” wants (or at least some of them), is us to say “Yes, you’re right, we are a bunch of ignorant, uniformed, xenophobes who have no good reason for excluding ToB from our games”. Is this correct, or am I overreacting?

[Tinydwarfman]

As it happens, I’m not trying to “justify” anything, as I don’t believe it needs to be justified. I’m trying to explain the process by which I reached my PoV, while also defend the basic right of people to hold differing views, especially over something as unimportant as what material they use in their games.


I'm sorry Thurbane, I must have missed it before when the thread was moving faster than I could read it), but can you explain that process?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

...and the point you don’t seem to get is that I don’t consider it irrational. Just because you disagree with my reasoning, and consider it uninformed, doesn’t make it irrational to me. I have yet to be shown any irrefutable evidence that the process by which I reached my point of view is fundamentally flawed – all I have been shown is that many of you vehemently disagree, and also that some of the terms we use may have been misleading/confusing to you.

I would debate that point, but I feel, that with the silence of my text, it would only further your claim.:smalltongue: To be fair, if you cannot tell why you don't care for it with something the rest of us find reasonable, I will gladly drop the issue entirely. I do not wish to appear angry when debating this, and I hope that I did not come across as overly harsh.


Also, if you look back, I have stated many times that thematics is only one of the issues I have with ToB in my games.

We have offered counter measures for such, but you are free to use them or not. I personally find ToB to be a wonderful suppliment, so of course I'll try to offer some rationalization to support it.


I’m not sure if you realize this, but terms like “irrational” are fairly loaded, and can come across as very condescending.

I apologize about that, admittedly. There were several points though were, after exhausting several "whys" with other posters, that it came down to "I don't care," or some such, which did seem as such to me.


As it happens, I’m not trying to “justify” anything, as I don’t believe it needs to be justified. I’m trying to explain the process by which I reached my PoV, while also defend the basic right of people to hold differing views, especially over something as unimportant as what material they use in their games.

If such is the case, I will gladly drop the issue. Part of my reasoning for asking why people did not like it was not just to hear their reasons, but also to help them find the definitive reason to such. After a while, it did simply reach "I don't know/care," which is when I largely stopped caring. If someone is going to give reasons, then I want to hear them, and, like Tiny, debate them.


If I am understanding what “your side” wants (or at least some of them), is us to say “Yes, you’re right, we are a bunch of ignorant, uniformed, xenophobes who have no good reason for excluding ToB from our games”. Is this correct, or am I overreacting?

I see it as an overreaction. The issue with describing it as inherently Eastern isn't so much xenophobic as inaccurate. If you have other reasons for excluding it, such as someone who mentioned that it wasn't "gritty" enough for a certain campaign, I could partially understand that, even if I don't agree with that statement.



Also, too much steampunk?:smalltongue:

[Starbuck_II]

If I am understanding what “your side” wants (or at least some of them), is us to say “Yes, you’re right, we are a bunch of ignorant, uniformed, xenophobes who have no good reason for excluding ToB from our games”. Is this correct, or am I overreacting?

Ooh, and you need to dance like a chicken while yelling at top of your lungs: "O-Chul rules!"

What? If we are going to ask for asinine things: I want him to do that.

[pjackson]

When I play I like to immerse myself in the character.
For that reason I like rules that help do that and dislike rules that don't.
When I want to play a non-magical warrior type the mechanics of the fighter class work for that.
The ToB mechanics do not, so none of the ToB classes can replace a fighter for me, and anyone claiming that it is a fix for fighters is wrong as far as I am concerned.

If I can use a maneuver one round what is the in character reason I can't use it the next?
If it is because I am using a form of martial magic that does not work that way - that works fine - but the character then feels like a gish.

Many of the maneuvers seem to be fairly easy to convert to feats, the sort of more powerful feats the fighter needs to keep up in power with other classes.

[Serenity]

I don't 'want' anything, necessarily. I just like Tome of Battle, and I also like to debate. So when someone says they don't allow it because it's 'too overpowered', or 'too anime', or anything along those line, I'm going to point out why I don't feel the facts support such a statement. Not because I think you're playing it wrong, or because my ego feels the need to correct you. But because that's how a debate (one of the purposes of a discussion board, n'est-ce pas?) works. And, yes, I suppose, because I hope that I might change some minds by giving people the chance to re-evaluate a mistaken assumption. Just like I will remind anyone who claims Psionics is overpowered that they've probably been forgetting about the limits on augmenting powers.

It's as simple as that for most of us, I think. If someone merely lists their preference, most of us just shrug and move on, barring certain vocal minorities. But if you make an argument, then you have opened it up for discussion and debate, and frankly, I feel it is insulting to tell us to 'let it go', or put words in our mouth that our desire to engage in that discussion and get to hard reasons behind a ban constitute some kind of zealous persecution.

[Serenity]

If you want to play a non-magical fighter, the Warblade is more than capable of creating that feel. Maneuver recovery is a highly abstracted way of representing the fact that specialized attacks, beyond the basic strikes and blocking represented by AC and non-maneuver attacks, require a certain degree of focus and positioning. In a martial arts tournament, you will not see someone 'spam' a jump kick--they may string together several special moves like that, or they may be interspersed between bouts of basic punching and kicking. Thus, the Warblade has to trade a few normal blows to regroup himself, the swordsage's recovery is of the 'circling and sizing up' variety, and the Crusader merely notices what he's in the position to do this turn. Meanwhile, Stances represent more generalized forms of fighting that are, indeed, always active.

Is it the perfect system? Of course not, nothing is. But it's probably better than most alternatives. Using them 'at will' obviously breaks game balance, and as I argued above, actually more unrealistic. Using them only once per encounter would be even worse. The current recovery mechanic is both balanced, and does, in fact, have simulational value.

[jseah]

^Serenity:
An interesting point to bring up here is that jumpkicks cannot be spammed in a row because of extenuating circumstances. Like not being in the right position, or the enemy placing his blade to block it.

People learn, and enemies adapt to your tactics.

Then, it becomes all crazy when you try to spam jumpkicks against a combat dummy, but you CAN'T as well. Even when the conditions are exactly the same each time you do it. But no, you have to put some other strike in between just because.

I think the mechanic would be better modeled as a "you can do X if condition Y and you can do it at will".

EDIT: About believability...

I was reading a 2E blog and noted the insane level of detail and houseruling that had gone into the game (the GM is old and has run 2E for 20 years, having at least two books worth of houserules and setting material)

For a game like that, which has been extensively houseruled to give a gritty, "real" feel, would you agree that ToB should not be allowed?

[pjackson]

If you want to play a non-magical fighter, the Warblade is more than capable of creating that feel.


You are wrong. It isn't. Not for me. It may well work for you, but you used the word "you" rather than I, and I have already said that it doesn't work for me. Please accept that I am not lying.


Maneuver recovery is a highly abstracted way of representing the fact that specialized attacks, beyond the basic strikes and blocking represented by AC and non-maneuver attacks, require a certain degree of focus and positioning.


For an external viewpoint it may work, but to immerse myself in the character it needs to work internally.
Actually need to spend a turn recovering after using a maneuver before using a maneuver again might work, and would be a lot simpler, and indeed would be a good way to stop maneuvers converted into feats from being overpowered.
The methods in the ToB do not feel non-magical to me.

[DragoonWraith]

The recovery system is admittedly an abstraction and simplification of a real-life issue - as is every system in the game. In real life, you cannot use the same technique over and over - because you're not in the right position, because your opponent will see it coming a mile away, etc. On the other hand, very often where one technique leaves you puts you in the perfect position to use one of several other techniques - this is why martial artists perform lengthy kata (which I think is the Korean word for this?) where they do one prescribed move after another, learning to flow from one to the other instantly. It's not because you'd ever go through the entire thing in a fight, but because it teaches you to move from one technique to another fluidly.

If Tome of Battle were to model this perfectly, every maneuver would have a list of maneuvers that you can use immediately afterward. This would be awkward as hell and impossible to keep track of. So they simplified it by using the Readied and Recover system. It's an abstraction, but it is based on real life issues.

It's also undeniably a balance thing. That doesn't inherently make it irrelevant from a fluff perspective, but it's worth noting that it does a very good job balancing maneuvers.

[Frozen_Feet]

Okay, you know what irks me the most about complaints of ToB being too magical. This:

Sublime warrior: "Through working my whole life to become the pinnacle of human condition, by emptying my mind and learning the sublime way, I have transcended human limitations and can wrestle with trolls or crush stone with my bare hands!"

Your cookie-cutter wizard: "Through working my whole life to understand the workings of magic, after spending years reading dusty tomes and deciphering ancient runes, I have transcended human limitations and can wrestle with trolls or crush stone with my bare hands!"

A major complaint about ToB is that "just willpower and intensive study shouldn't allow this and that", while in the same time, wizards and, god forbid, psions do exactly that. No-one bats an eyelid when a bookworm who hasn't seen sunlight in years graps laws of physic by the nads and proceeds to kick the butts of enemies thrice his size, but when someone who has spend his whole life training martial arts tries to do the same in much more limited manner, it's a huge outrage. I'm sorry, what?

[Kaiyanwang]

If Tome of Battle were to model this perfectly, every maneuver would have a list of maneuvers that you can use immediately afterward. This would be awkward as hell and impossible to keep track of. So they simplified it by using the Readied and Recover system. It's an abstraction, but it is based on real life issues.


Well, you can have something similar combining with feats. Think about a debuffing maneuver like Shadow Hand ones (malus to one or more save) followed by a stunning snapkick.


@Frozen Feet: a lot of people don't like how manuvers work or how fit with their martial PC concept, not the power level.

[The Glyphstone]

Okay, you know what irks me the most about complaints of ToB being too magical. This:

Sublime warrior: "Through working my whole life to become the pinnacle of human condition, by emptying my mind and learning the sublime way, I have transcended human limitations and can wrestle with trolls or crush stone with my bare hands!"

Your cookie-cutter wizard: "Through working my whole life to understand the workings of magic, after spending years reading dusty tomes and deciphering ancient runes, I have transcended human limitations and can wrestle with trolls or crush stone with my bare hands!"

A major complaint about ToB is that "just willpower and intensive study shouldn't allow this and that", while in the same time, wizards and, god forbid, psions do exactly that. No-one bats an eyelid when a bookworm who hasn't seen sunlight in years graps laws of physic by the nads and proceeds to kick the butts of enemies thrice his size, but when someone who has spend his whole life training martial arts tries to do the same in much more limited manner, it's a huge outrage. I'm sorry, what?

That's actually one of the arguments I can understand more, because ToB flat-out states that, except for Shadow Hand and Desert Wind, it isn't magical. Magic gets a lot of leeway because it's magic, and thus supposed to break the rules, but supposedly non-magical things that look extremely similar to magical effects get more scrutiny. I can't claim that I agree with the argument, but I can understand the thought progression behind it.

[Frozen_Feet]

I was responding to a specific case of dissonance that often pops up with anti-ToBbers. I can understand someone not liking the mechanics due to them being too complicated, unwieldy etc.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

You are wrong. It isn't. Not for me. It may well work for you, but you used the word "you" rather than I, and I have already said that it doesn't work for me. Please accept that I am not lying.

Well, in that case I guess we shouldn't always be wrong then.:smalltongue: On a more serious note, it would appear that Serenity is trying to give you another view point into Tome of Battle and how combat can flow from one attack to another. Yes, it removes some of the abstraction of what a full-attack does, but, as DW explained, it does a fairly decent job of describing how actual combat would work, albeit in a very simplified form.

At the very least, we could both consider the other's position in an attempt to understand each other. As such, why does it not work for you? Is it just because it "feels magical" in that you can't repeatedly spam Wolf Fang Strike more than once every twelve seconds? Or is it something else? I am genuinely curious on this.




For an external viewpoint it may work, but to immerse myself in the character it needs to work internally.
Actually need to spend a turn recovering after using a maneuver before using a maneuver again might work, and would be a lot simpler, and indeed would be a good way to stop maneuvers converted into feats from being overpowered.
The methods in the ToB do not feel non-magical to me.

I'm not sure how it doesn't work internally? Others have given examples of combat before posing the hypothetical question: "Is this a case of disarm into trip or is it a case of maneuvers X and Y?" I realize the immense size of this thread, so I will dig it up, if need be, but I, at the very least, do not entirely follow your viewpoint and would like more explanation.




Well, you can have something similar combining with feats. Think about a debuffing maneuver like Shadow Hand ones (malus to one or more save) followed by a stunning snapkick.

My problem with using feats in place of maneuvers is that it is time consuming in the mechanical development of a character to get even one feat tree down, whereas the right combination of maneuvers may be available from the get-go. Added to the fact that having access to maneuvers in no way removes any given character's access to feats means that while you use maneuvers, for say TWFing, you have feats for tripping and other such combat utilities.


EDIT: This is admittedly a tangent, but I am somewhat annoyed by simply using "anti/pro-ToB" for the various sides. *shrug* Probably just me.

[Kaiyanwang]

My problem with using feats in place of maneuvers is that it is time consuming in the mechanical development of a character to get even one feat tree down, whereas the right combination of maneuvers may be available from the get-go. Added to the fact that having access to maneuvers in no way removes any given character's access to feats means that while you use maneuvers, for say TWFing, you have feats for tripping and other such combat utilities.

I was talking of use them together to obtain "combos".. Attacks that implement each other if performed in a given order (better debuff and then force a save).

The thing IMO closer to what Dragoonwraith wished.

Yes, you can do even with TWF boosts.. say raging mongoose, and then some speci al attacks (even if is less synergic, banning the inherent synergy within the Improved Trip feat).

Strikes, sadly, cannot be combined with specil attacks, IIRC..

If you ask me, yes, I prefer how feats work conceptually, but they don't scale well and many should be merged, increasing fun a lot not power level in a significative manner.

[Killer Angel]

Sometime, peoples shouldn't try to explain their choices.
"When I DM, I ban ToB"
"Why? Too wuxia, too magical, too what? I'm sure we can work around it"
"I don't know, I don't like it. Personal tastes, I suppose"
"Yes, but... what you don't like of ToB?"
"I don't know. It's a generic sensation. I like demons and not devils. I like undead but not aberrations. I like psionics but not ToB".

(not that these are my real liking, BTW)

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I was talking of use them together to obtain "combos".. Attacks that implement each other if performed in a given order (better debuff and then force a save).

The thing IMO closer to what Dragoonwraith wished.

Yes, you can do even with TWF boosts.. say raging mongoose, and then some speci al attacks (even if is less synergic, banning the inherent synergy within the Improved Trip feat).

Strikes, sadly, cannot be combined with specil attacks, IIRC..

Ah, okay. That certainly would be interesting, but it does come with the issue of a bit of bloat and possible bookkeeping issues. Still may be something to attempt with homebrew, though.


If you ask me, yes, I prefer how feats work conceptually, but they don't scale well and many should be merged, increasing fun a lot not power level in a significative manner.

I've got to agree with you on that for some of the martial feats. Having TWF span multiple feats is bothersome while requiring feats to even do other options is bothersome. It is very much an imperfect system.

[DragoonWraith]

Sometime, peoples shouldn't try to explain their choices.
"When I DM, I ban ToB"
"Why? Too wuxia, too magical, too what? I'm sure we can work around it"
"I don't know, I don't like it. Personal tastes, I suppose"
"Yes, but... what you don't like of ToB?"
"I don't know. It's a generic sensation. I like demons and not devils. I like undead but not aberrations. I like psionics but not ToB".

(not that these are my real liking, BTW)
Why should the fact that you don't like it stop me from playing one?


The thing IMO closer to what Dragoonwraith wished.
I think you might have misunderstood me - there are some pretty cool synergies in ToB where following up one maneuver with another is a good choice (or following up a maneuver with a use of a feat, that can work too), which is well and good. But I was specifically referring to the Recovery system in Tome of Battle, pointing out that it would be more realistic (but hideously complicated to try to run) for each maneuver to have a list of other maneuvers that can follow it (thanks to proper positioning and the like), and so after one maneuver you can only use one of the maneuvers specifically listed as an option from that point. This would lead to a situation where, like real life, you can only go from one form to so many others, and can't spam the same thing over and over.

But it would be so complicated to keep track of that it's basically a non-starter for an actual game.

[Kaiyanwang]

I think you might have misunderstood me - there are some pretty cool synergies in ToB where following up one maneuver with another is a good choice (or following up a maneuver with a use of a feat, that can work too), which is well and good. But I was specifically referring to the Recovery system in Tome of Battle, pointing out that it would be more realistic (but hideously complicated to try to run) for each maneuver to have a list of other maneuvers that can follow it (thanks to proper positioning and the like), and so after one maneuver you can only use one of the maneuvers specifically listed as an option from that point. This would lead to a situation where, like real life, you can only go from one form to so many others, and can't spam the same thing over and over.

But it would be so complicated to keep track of that it's basically a non-starter for an actual game.

I see.. you weren't talking about obtain an effect, but mechanically , about an hypotetical system in which primary maneuvers are prepared, and then secondary are prepared in the precise moment a primary one is performed.

[Gametime]

Sometime, peoples shouldn't try to explain their choices.
"When I DM, I ban ToB"
"Why? Too wuxia, too magical, too what? I'm sure we can work around it"
"I don't know, I don't like it. Personal tastes, I suppose"
"Yes, but... what you don't like of ToB?"
"I don't know. It's a generic sensation. I like demons and not devils. I like undead but not aberrations. I like psionics but not ToB".

(not that these are my real liking, BTW)

Honestly, if someone doesn't like ToB, no one's forcing them to use it. If a group decides they don't like it, it's a very simple matter to just leave it alone.

I suspect, however, that there are at least a few groups out there with divided opinions. In those cases the solution isn't so clear; on the one hand, the DM needs free rein to create his campaign world, but on the other hand players should generally be allowed to play the classes they want. This is especially true if, as is the case with many of the players on this forum, they find the ToB classes to be more fun than their core analogues.

Hopefully, there's some middle ground to be reached. If a DM bans ToB purely for instinctive reasons when that is against the wishes of his players and without any attempt to compromise, that's a bad thing.

[Gametime]

I think you might have misunderstood me - there are some pretty cool synergies in ToB where following up one maneuver with another is a good choice (or following up a maneuver with a use of a feat, that can work too), which is well and good. But I was specifically referring to the Recovery system in Tome of Battle, pointing out that it would be more realistic (but hideously complicated to try to run) for each maneuver to have a list of other maneuvers that can follow it (thanks to proper positioning and the like), and so after one maneuver you can only use one of the maneuvers specifically listed as an option from that point. This would lead to a situation where, like real life, you can only go from one form to so many others, and can't spam the same thing over and over.

But it would be so complicated to keep track of that it's basically a non-starter for an actual game.

Not to mention that a really simulationist system would also have to levy restrictions on where your opponents had moved since the last time you attacked them, or prevent you from switching to a different enemy, or force you to switch to a different enemy...

Honestly, I get that ToB isn't the most realistic book, but it's hardly more abstract than the unadulterated nonsense that is full attacks.

[Killer Angel]

Why should the fact that you don't like it stop me from playing one?


:smallconfused:
Are we talking about a hypothetical situation, in which I am the DM and you one of my players?
Is the DM the one that decide which books are allowed.
I want to play a warforged. You (as a DM) say "sorry, this campaign is only with Core and Forgotten realms manuals".
It's not that I can insist, saying "but warforged are cool!"


Honestly, if someone doesn't like ToB, no one's forcing them to use it. If a group decides they don't like it, it's a very simple matter to just leave it alone.

I suspect, however, that there are at least a few groups out there with divided opinions. In those cases the solution isn't so clear; on the one hand, the DM needs free rein to create his campaign world, but on the other hand players should generally be allowed to play the classes they want. This is especially true if, as is the case with many of the players on this forum, they find the ToB classes to be more fun than their core analogues.

Hopefully, there's some middle ground to be reached.

QFT. I, as a DM, would try to reach such middle ground.
Unluckily, some DM don't. But they have the right to decide so.

[Kaiyanwang]

:smallconfused:
Are we talking about a hypothetical situation, in which I am the DM and you one of my players?
Is the DM the one that decide which books are allowed.
I want to play a warforged. You (as a DM) say "sorry, this campaign is only with Core and Forgotten realms manuals".
It's not that I can insist, saying "but warforged are cool!"

I agree with this. Sometimes refluffing works, but there are situations in wich you simply cannot fit an element inside a setting.

Or, at least, for some people work this way, and you have to accept this.

[Terazul]

I agree with this. Sometimes refluffing works, but there are situations in wich you simply cannot fit an element inside a setting.

Or, at least, for some people work this way, and you have to accept this.

True, but the problem comes when comparing refluffing "I am a living robot" to "I swing my sword really hard in a different way". One of them takes considerably more effort to work, while the other is almost completely mutable.

[DragoonWraith]

:smallconfused:
Are we talking about a hypothetical situation, in which I am the DM and you one of my players?
Is the DM the one that decide which books are allowed.
Ultimately, yes. But, the operative word in my question was should - the DM certainly can ban something for no reason at all, but to ban something for no better reason than "I don't personally like it, so you can't have it" is poor DMing, IMO.


I want to play a warforged. You (as a DM) say "sorry, this campaign is only with Core and Forgotten realms manuals".
It's not that I can insist, saying "but warforged are cool!"
Warforged are a lot harder to fit into some campaigns than Martial Adepts are to fit into any campaign.


QFT. I, as a DM, would try to reach such middle ground.
Unluckily, some DM don't. But they have the right to decide so.
Again, that's so but that doesn't make it right. That's just poor DMing.

[Tiki Snakes]

:smallconfused:
Are we talking about a hypothetical situation, in which I am the DM and you one of my players?
Is the DM the one that decide which books are allowed.
I want to play a warforged. You (as a DM) say "sorry, this campaign is only with Core and Forgotten realms manuals".
It's not that I can insist, saying "but warforged are cool!"


My perspective on this kind of issue is basically; The Game is for the People Playing it. That includes me, but I'm just one part of it. The enjoyment of the players is important too, and if someone really wanted to play a magical android thingy in my Mostly-Human City Campaign, then I'd be a little put out, but given a moment to relax, probably sit down with the player and work a way out to include what he's interested in. (For example, if I had a wizard in the Party, the Warforged could take the part of the Wizards Golem-like guardian. Probably passed down to the Wizard by 'insert plot-hook npc and/or relative here'.)

Likewise classes from splatbooks. If I don't have access to it, I'd probably not have considered how it might fit, but that's not that important really. As long as the general concept of the class fits, or can be made to fit with the concept of the campaign, then it's better to accomodate it in my opinion.

I think it's most often a much better idea to say Yes than to say No, as a DM. In theory, at least.

That said, if I'd specifically pitched a game (and it had been agreed on by the players) as focusing on the antics of the department heads of the Wizarding Academy, then I'd be a bit miffed if someone suggested that what they really wanted to play was a Fighter.

[Kaiyanwang]

True, but the problem comes when comparing refluffing "I am a living robot" to "I swing my sword really hard in a different way". One of them takes considerably more effort to work, while the other is almost completely mutable.

You make a point, at least for most part of ToB.

[Killer Angel]

Ultimately, yes. But, the operative word in my question was should - the DM certainly can ban something for no reason at all, but to ban something for no better reason than "I don't personally like it, so you can't have it" is poor DMing, IMO.




My perspective on this kind of issue is basically; The Game is for the People Playing it. That includes me, but I'm just one part of it. The enjoyment of the players is important too, and if someone really wanted to play a magical android thingy in my Mostly-Human City Campaign, then I'd be a little put out, but given a moment to relax, probably sit down with the player and work a way out to include what he's interested in.

I can easily agree with this: a part of DM's work is to render the game enjoyable for the players, so a closed-minded one, means poor DMing.
But imo the concept goes both ways: usually the players and the DM are all friends. You, as a player, knowing that your friend the DM don't like a manual, really need to "force" him in accepting your character concept?
Sometime, is better to have a limited, but happy DM, then to play what you want but having a unsatisfied DM: the game would be worse.

Precisation needed: in my group, we have 5 DMs, so for me it's not a problem. If a DM don't like ToB or Eberron, for me it's easiest to wait the next DM (more open-minded).



Warforged are a lot harder to fit into some campaigns than Martial Adepts are to fit into any campaign.


I know. I was playing dirty. :smallwink:

[Tinydwarfman]

Side note, I was reading a link Sinfire Titan posted, and I came along this depiction of Iron Heart Surge (http://www.onemanga.com/Mahou_Sensei_Negima!/226/18/). Now, I know this is exactly what most people don't like about ToB, (ridiculously over the top shounen manga with people fighting with martial arts and magic destroying cities) but I found the resemblance startlingly close to IHS.

[Ashiel]

Side note, I was reading a link Sinfire Titan posted, and I came along this depiction of Iron Heart Surge (http://www.onemanga.com/Mahou_Sensei_Negima!/226/18/). Now, I know this is exactly what most people don't like about ToB, (ridiculously over the top shounen manga with people fighting with martial arts and magic destroying cities) but I found the resemblance startlingly close to IHS.

Y'know...while I think IHS was poorly written (and being one maneuver out of a book of maneuvers means little), I can't help but love the fact the spell-casters are standing there dumb-founded saying "He....just ignores the laws of magic!"

That does seem pretty bad-ass. :smalltongue:

[jseah]

^ Well, given that he was in something similar to a Maze (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/maze.htm) spell, IHS actually works for this application.

EDIT: now I'm not so sure. Can you take actions inside a maze?

[Tavar]

Actually, that's not an example. If you go more indepth, it's revealed that he actually knew of a way around that spell, and was simply bluffing that he didn't.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Actually, that's not an example. If you go more indepth, it's revealed that he actually knew of a way around that spell, and was simply bluffing that he didn't.

Then it should still apply, right? The solution is IHS, he just lied about knowing it!:smalltongue:

[Tavar]

More like the solution was a higher level spell, and he just bluffed/used that skill trick that disguises what you cast. At least, that's the way I read it.

[Ashiel]

Darn, I guess there's still no mundane way to fight magic then; even in japanese graphic novels. :smallamused:/:smallannoyed:

[Kylarra]

Darn, I guess there's still no mundane way to fight magic then; even in japanese graphic novels. :smallamused:/:smallannoyed:In Fairy Tail there's a pair of mercenaries who talk about using mundane fighting tactics to beat up mages while they try to cast their spells. Of course they were against Natsu who is a rather specific kind of mage that their tactics were useless against so... it's more of an informed ability than something displayed.

[jseah]

Darn, I guess there's still no mundane way to fight magic then; even in japanese graphic novels. :smallamused:/:smallannoyed:
They tend to take the other way out. If there's magic, it's all over the place.

Basically, even fighters have magic.
EDIT: which is a solution to the linear fighters, quadratic mage problem.

[Tinydwarfman]

In Fairy Tail there's a pair of mercenaries who talk about using mundane fighting tactics to beat up mages while they try to cast their spells. Of course they were against Natsu who is a rather specific kind of mage that their tactics were useless against so... it's more of an informed ability than something displayed.

Sounds more like the Mage Slayer feat line from your description, but I could be wrong.

[Critical]

This is a fantastic point. It is so so hard for me to imagine someone seeing a high level Fighter or Rogue or Barbarian going one-on-one with say, a purple worm and having it be "gritty" or "western" or "medieval" or "mundane" but when a Warblade does it all of a sudden it's a Saturday morning cartoon.

I am far from the greatest wordsmith and I can't explain my ideas with words as well as many others (I'm really a numbers guy), so I hope this doesn't come across as too offensive or incoherent. Forgiveness in advance:

IMO: If you're imagining the ToB as too Shounen then it is in your head. It's your fault for not imagining it the same as you do the rest of the characters and action in your game. For example, +4 to hit and +4d6 damage with a -4 AC. Rabid Bear Strike. What about that is like DBZ or Naruto? Are these numbers over the top like in an action cartoon? How is imagining this differently than say, a raging Barbarian power attacking for 5 in your mind? Like, if you were filming these two attacks are they really looking radically different? If you answered yes, take a step back and examine why this is so. I cannot see any logical reason to treat differently than the other in-game, and thus it should have zero impact on the flavor of the game. Is this such a wrong stance?
They do, otherwise, how does a martial adept distinguish maneuver in it via martial lore?

[DragoonWraith]

How does a real life martial artist recognize the techniques used in a match? Or are you suggesting that karate masters are secretly harboring great arcane secrets?

[Kylarra]

Sounds more like the Mage Slayer feat line from your description, but I could be wrong.It's actually more like the sorcerer way of counterspelling by hitting things really hard, but I was just throwing it out as an example. :smalltongue:

Because of the medium they're presented in, your "mundanes" (in manga and such) will generally defeat magic by doing one of three things:
a) immunity/resistance, mechanically represented in D&D by either SR or high saves, high hp (for blasty spells), mettle
b) dodging, mechanically represented in D&D by evasion/high (touch) AC, in other games you can add simple tactical movement as well.
c) disrupting, mechanically represented in D&D best by the mageslayer line, but also could simply be forcing a near impossible concentration check via damage.

[Thurbane]

I'm sorry Thurbane, I must have missed it before when the thread was moving faster than I could read it), but can you explain that process?
With all due respect, I really don't feel like restating again. Suffice to say it's fairly early on in the thread.

You are wrong. It isn't. Not for me. It may well work for you, but you used the word "you" rather than I, and I have already said that it doesn't work for me. Please accept that I am not lying.
No no no! You're doing it wrong! You must not have associations with a book or mechanic that is different than others, unless you can provide airtight proof that supports your opinion! Don't you know anything!?! :smallbiggrin:

...now I'm off to write a 200 page report on why I like industrial music, but not jazz. [/sarcasm]

Sometime, peoples shouldn't try to explain their choices.
"When I DM, I ban ToB"
"Why? Too wuxia, too magical, too what? I'm sure we can work around it"
"I don't know, I don't like it. Personal tastes, I suppose"
"Yes, but... what you don't like of ToB?"
"I don't know. It's a generic sensation. I like demons and not devils. I like undead but not aberrations. I like psionics but not ToB".

(not that these are my real liking, BTW)
There is truth to this. Normally, I don't explain my personal preferences. But like I keep saying, in many build advice threads, people are asked to do just that.

Obviously in a debate thread like this, people are expected to explain. But in general threads, there really isn't a need. If I asked for advice on a build and stipulate "No Tob, no incarnum, no psionics, no Dragon magazine material, and nothing campaign specific apart from Greyhawk", then that should be enough. Seriously.

It's like if someone stopped you on the street and asked directions to the nearest pizza joint - would you make him explain why he is getting pizza, and not burgers, or would you just offer directions?

Honestly, if someone doesn't like ToB, no one's forcing them to use it. If a group decides they don't like it, it's a very simple matter to just leave it alone.

I suspect, however, that there are at least a few groups out there with divided opinions. In those cases the solution isn't so clear; on the one hand, the DM needs free rein to create his campaign world, but on the other hand players should generally be allowed to play the classes they want. This is especially true if, as is the case with many of the players on this forum, they find the ToB classes to be more fun than their core analogues.

Hopefully, there's some middle ground to be reached. If a DM bans ToB purely for instinctive reasons when that is against the wishes of his players and without any attempt to compromise, that's a bad thing.
This touches on a much broader topic, of DM/group dynamic. This is another hot topic I see here and there (I was involved in a lengthy thread here about a month ago, that ended up getting locked). Some people strongly support the right of a DM to allow or disallow various things in his game - others take the stance that the DM must cater to everyone at the table, even if this means using material he isn't comfortable with (for whatever reason) in his game.

My personal view is that the DM has a right to veto things, so long as he isn't a total jerk about it, and takes the players desires and overall happiness into consideration. I tend to have the same view as a player - if something I wanted isn't on the approved list, I roll with it, and find something else I want to use.

Of course, a DM can take this policy too far - but by the same token, some players can be unreasonable about accepting DM decisions. It's a two way street.

[Frosty]

It's really easy online to just find another DM. But if your DM irl starting banning stuff you want, you'll fight for it tooth and nails.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

On the thought that a DM can "veto" something, said DM should keep in mind that vetoes can often be overruled via a majority vote from the players.:smallbiggrin:

Also, I am inclined to agree with that statement that if someone asks for build advice declaring No X, Y, or Z, people should listen. Of course, it may not hurt to ask why, as I have seen a few points along the lines of "Well, I have the perfect thing for what you want, but it happens to use the Mystical Badger from Complete Absurdity? Do you think there's any chance you could explain why you can't use that book/convince your DM otherwise? I may be able to create/find something that does without it, but it'll suffer for it.:smallfrown:"

[AslanCross]

On the thought that a DM can "veto" something, said DM should keep in mind that vetoes can often be overruled via a majority vote from the players.:smallbiggrin:


Not if the group isn't a democracy. :smallamused: (Though yeah, this has never come up in my groups anyway, and typically when someone does something veto-worthy, the rest of the group backs me up as the DM.)

[Emmerask]

On the thought that a DM can "veto" something, said DM should keep in mind that vetoes can often be overruled via a majority vote from the players.:smallbiggrin:


Not when I dm the player can of course try to convince me why class, feat or spell should be allowed and if he/she has good arguments that adress the problems I have with it then I have no problem allowing it but moaning about it and rallying other players would not help one bit without good arguments.
Its a dmistocracy not democracy :smalltongue:

[Kylarra]

On the thought that a DM can "veto" something, said DM should keep in mind that vetoes can often be overruled via a majority vote from the players.:smallbiggrin:
Keep in mind that attempting to do that can involve needing a new DM, just like arbitrary bannings can involve needing new players. :smallwink:

When I GM, it's a benevolent dictatorship, not a democracy.