Tome of Battle Flavor

[Tinydwarfman]

I realize that many players/DMs just can't get the idea of ToB being too wuxia/anime/magical out of their head. Please don't turn this into a discussion about whether it is or not. My question is this:

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?

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?

[Eldariel]

EDIT: I guess I'm just really tired.

[DragoonWraith]

Do you have a problem with Tome of Battle's flavor in general, though, Eldariel? Because I'm pretty sure the point of the question is to address those who do...

[Godskook]

I think the key is that he's asking those who don't typically like ToB.

[Evard]

I didn't like it at first but then I looked over the how broken some classes can be and really ToB fits in nicely (well better than core melee).

Heck even a properly made bard can destroy a fighter with magic only (lyrical spell feat + extra music or metamagic spell + extra music feats)

[Boci]

This thread pretty much symerizes the stone wall most ToB arguments end up at. Pro-ToBers point out how easy they find it to reflavour the classes, anti-ToBers either convert (I've seen it happen a couple of times), or say "Your saying you can reflavour the classes? Maybe for you, but I cannot"

[Kylarra]

I guess it's time for our weekly ToB thread? Almost as clockwork as monks these things are.

[Thurbane]

I guess it's time for our weekly ToB thread? Almost as clockwork as monks these things are.
To be fair, he is asking about a specific instance, but I'll still be amazed if the thread doesn't go down in flames.

...if the question is pitched at non-ToB types, then I'm not sure what kind of response to give. My group don't use ToB primarily for flavor reasons, so no, I wouldn't allow those in my game.

I'm guessing the question is along the lines of "does my character concept allow for interpretation as a ToB character". It's kind of a sticky question: people who have no problem with the flavour of ToB are going to be inclined to say it's fine, while those who aren't will more likely say it’s not.

My 2 coppers: in my games (non-ToB) your first concept would strike me as a Sorc/Fighter gish with a specific selection of spells, while the second would probably be a non-casting ACF Paladin.

[Tinydwarfman]

To be fair, he is asking about a specific instance, but I'll still be amazed if the thread doesn't go down in flames.

...if the question is pitched at non-ToB types, then I'm not sure what kind of response to give. My group don't use ToB primarily for flavor reasons, so no, I wouldn't allow those in my game.

I'm guessing the question is along the lines of "does my character concept allow for interpretation as a ToB character". It's kind of a sticky question: people who have no problem with the flavour of ToB are going to be inclined to say it's fine, while those who aren't will more likely say it’s not.

My 2 coppers: in my games (non-ToB) your first concept would strike me as a Sorc/Fighter gish with a specific selection of spells, while the second would probably be a non-casting ACF Paladin.

I know they could be interpreted that way, but would you let me play a swordsage with that flavor? And if not could you explain why?

[Boci]

My 2 coppers: in my games (non-ToB) your first concept would strike me as a Sorc/Fighter gish with a specific selection of spells,

I think what his question leads to is: if you allowed his character concept, assuming it was a sorceror/fighter when it was actually a swordsage (for some strange reason yuo neglected to look at his character sheet), how long do you think it would take for you to realize he was actually playing a swordsage?


while the second would probably be a non-casting ACF Paladin.

For the benefit of us who do not attach much to flavour, could you explain what do you see as the flavour differences between a crusader and a paladin?

[Tavar]

So, you have no flavor problems with the concept, and yet you wouldn't allow the character for flavor reasons? Seems paradoxical....

[Skeppio]

Tome of Battle's flavour? I found it to be a smooth strawberry flavour with a hint of hazelnut.


That's....not what you were asking at all is it? :smallbiggrin:

[GoC]

I realize that many players/DMs just can't get the idea of ToB being too wuxia/anime/magical out of their head. Please don't turn this into a discussion about whether it is or not. My question is this:

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?

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?
I would. But I'd reflavor and make your maneuvers subject to antimagic fields.

[shadow_archmagi]

So, you have no flavor problems with the concept, and yet you wouldn't allow the character for flavor reasons? Seems circular....

Seems paradoxical.

[Boci]

I would. But I'd reflavor and make your maneuvers subject to antimagic fields.

I gthink the whole point is he's going the reflavouring so you don't have to. As for maneuvers becoming supernatural, well if he's focusing shadow hand and desert wind, most of them probably already are, and anti-magic fields aren't usually aren't that common (although they might be in your campeign).

[Masaioh]

I probably wouldn't let you play either of them. None of my players know ToB in the least. Either we delay the game at least a week to learn it and compare it with the other books to look for potential game-breaking, or we let you play and risk you using some obscure loopholes to break the game and I won't have any way to stop it other than DM fiat.

It would take us less time to find you an alternative and integrate that into our game instead.

[Tavar]

I would. But I'd reflavor and make your maneuvers subject to antimagic fields.
Just like SU abilities are naturally?

Edit: Sorry, I did mean paradoxical instead of circular. Not sure what I was thinking...

[Tinydwarfman]

I probably wouldn't let you play either of them. None of my players know ToB in the least. Either we delay the game at least a week to learn it and compare it with the other books to look for potential game-breaking, or we let you play and risk you using some obscure loopholes to break the game and I won't have any way to stop it other than DM fiat.

It would take us less time to find you an alternative and integrate that into our game instead.

That's fine, I completely understand if you don't have /don't know the rules, but you really should learn them if you do have time. (Just a suggestion)

[DragoonWraith]

I probably wouldn't let you play either of them. None of my players know ToB in the least. Either we delay the game at least a week to learn it and compare it with the other books to look for potential game-breaking, or we let you play and risk you using some obscure loopholes to break the game and I won't have any way to stop it other than DM fiat.

It would take us less time to find you an alternative and integrate that into our game instead.
But that's not really the question, is it? I mean, OK, you don't know it and don't want to DM for something you don't know; reasonable (your other players not knowing it doesn't seem to me to be a major problem to me, really). But This is about those who have problems with ToB's flavor.

Suppose you knew how ToB worked and considered it balanced (and almost no one takes issue with its balance as far as I can tell, other than how it invalidates Paladin, Monk, and Fighter) - would you allow it then?

[Boci]

I probably wouldn't let you play either of them. None of my players know ToB in the least. Either we delay the game at least a week to learn it and compare it with the other books to look for potential game-breaking, or we let you play and risk you using some obscure loopholes to break the game and I won't have any way to stop it other than DM fiat.

You know you could just post on a forume, "Hey guys, a player of mine wants to use X, but I don't know much about it. The other players are a Y, a Z and an A. Will he be able to fit into the party and are there any particular things I should be looking out for?"

If someone wants to cheat they will. Lying about dice rolls, buying potions and then changing them as the situation demands, ect, so what source book they are using doesn't really matter, you just have to trust them until they give you a reason to do otherwise.

[Lapak]

I probably wouldn't let you play either of them. None of my players know ToB in the least. Either we delay the game at least a week to learn it and compare it with the other books to look for potential game-breaking, or we let you play and risk you using some obscure loopholes to break the game and I won't have any way to stop it other than DM fiat.

It would take us less time to find you an alternative and integrate that into our game instead.I've had players running sub-systems I was unfamiliar with before. Unless the player is going out of their way to make trouble, it's not a problem. If the player IS going out of their way to make trouble, it's a greater problem than can be resolved by banning a particular set of rules.

[Optimystik]

For the benefit of us who do not attach much to flavour, could you explain what do you see as the flavour differences between a crusader and a paladin?

A major one is the code of conduct. The only alignment restriction a Crusade has, is not to be True Neutral; they can be any of the other 8. In addition, only their personal alignment matters; there is no "falling" for journeying with companions that don't share their views. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any "falling" at all.

[AstralFire]

The DM needs to know the system mostly so that she or he can facilitate quicker gameplay.

The DM needs to know their players to stop unfair rules abuse.

[Boci]

A major one is the code of conduct. The only alignment restriction a Crusade has, is not to be True Neutral; they can be any of the other 8. In addition, only their personal alignment matters; there is no "falling" for journeying with companions that don't share their views. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any "falling" at all.

Aligment really blurs the line when it comes to flavour/mechanics, but I can understand that point, although depending on how many alternative paladin's are avilable, they might have more aligments open to them than the crusader.

If that was the main issue stopping a DM from allowing a crusader PC I would be more than happy to write my own code of conduct with a falling clause.


The DM needs to know the system mostly so that she or he can facilitate quicker gameplay.

As a player in a group where the DM has only a basic graps of the rules I can say this is not always true. I'm playing an artificer, and I could probably double the value of the items I craft without the DM noticing. Most of the players will automatically look at me as soon as a rule question comes up. Then again my current group might be the exeption.

[Optimystik]

Aligment really blurs the line when it comes to flavour/mechanics, but I can understand that point, although depending on how many alternative paladin's are avilable, they might have more aligments open to them than the crusader.

For ToB classes, alignment is firmly in "flavor" territory, since none of their abilities actually rely on it.

As for Paladins, UA opens up the extremes, and Dragon Magazine opens the rest, but Crusaders have freedom of choice "out of the box."


If that was the main issue stopping a DM from allowing a crusader PC I would be more than happy to write my own code of conduct with a falling clause.

Don't get me wrong - I'm in no way saying Crusaders have bad flavor or are overpowered. I was just answering your query. I actually think their fluff makes more sense than that of Paladins, and I especially like that it is purely fluff and has no mechanical impact.

This is not to say that systems whose mechanics function off alignment are bad. Incarnum is a great example of such a system done right. Generally, the key is not to penalize players for failing to police their party.

[AstralFire]

I am not saying that the group needs the DM to know the rules to facilitate quicker play.

I am saying that the DM's need to know the rules is to facilitate quicker play. Not to check cheaters.

[Optimystik]

I am saying that the DM's need to know the rules is to facilitate quicker play. Not to check cheaters.

I have to agree. A DM that understands how, for example, Binding and Shadowcasting work can challenge players that use it much more readily than one that doesn't.

Hell, ToM itself urges DMs and players alike to do their homework before running variant systems. The Shadow Magic section, for instance, cites the section of the DMG that highlights the various differences between spells, SLAs and Su's as required reading.

[Boci]

I am not saying that the group needs the DM to know the rules to facilitate quicker play.

I am saying that the DM's need to know the rules is to facilitate quicker play. Not to check cheaters.

My point got a bit mixed, but what I was trying to say is that our DM doesn't really know the rules, and game speed is fine. Whenever he misses a rule I remind him and he can either respond "Okay, what Carna said, or I'm not using that", I rarely have anything to say back.


For ToB classes, alignment is firmly in "flavor" territory, since none of their abilities actually rely on it.

Not really. Aligment still determines whether or not they can take certain feats or PrC, and whether certain spells affects them a how.

[Coidzor]

Alignment really blurs the line when it comes to flavour/mechanics, but I can understand that point, although depending on how many alternative paladin's are available, they might have more alignments open to them than the crusader.

If that was the main issue stopping a DM from allowing a crusader PC I would be more than happy to write my own code of conduct with a falling clause.

The really funny thing is that nothing paladins have is really worth the whole falling thing, at least not in 3.X. I believe it was different in AD&D though.

As far as I know, the only alternative paladins that aren't homebrew/3rd party are for each alignment extreme, so there's 4 of 'em, still, Freedom, Tyranny, Slaughter, and I think Honor. I'll have to check out those dragon variants then.

[Optimystik]

Not really. Aligment still determines whether or not they can take certain feats or PrC, and whether certain spells affects them a how.

Those things are all external to the base class itself though. Your Crusader does not need feats or PrCs to function, any more than it needs to be CE to avoid a possible Blasphemy.

A Crusader will never lose access to its own innate abilities by changing alignment, whereas a Paladin or Soulborn will.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

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?Yes

But most of my player's chars die in my more combat-oriented campaigns, so you proabably won't keep it for long :smallwink:

[Boci]

Those things are all external to the base class itself though. Your Crusader does not need feats or PrCs to function, any more than it needs to be CE to avoid a possible Blasphemy.

A Crusader will never lose access to its own innate abilities by changing alignment, whereas a Paladin or Soulborn will.

Okay, I understand what you mean, but as I said if a DM really likes the whole code of conduct of a paladin the crusader can always gain one as well.


I'll have to check out those dragon variants then.

Crystalkeep has a lot of variants for the paladin.

[DragoonWraith]

Personally, I hate the falling mechanic. Just saying.

[Boci]

Personally, I hate the falling mechanic. Just saying.

So do I, but if that was the only thing stopping me from playing a crusader I would make a compromize.

[Gametime]

Personally, I hate the falling mechanic. Just saying.

Meh, it's not so bad. Every paladin just needs to put ranks in Tumble.

(Ba-dum psh!)

[Thurbane]

I know they could be interpreted that way, but would you let me play a swordsage with that flavor? And if not could you explain why?
Me personally? No I wouldn't, because my group doesn't use (or own) ToB. It's not a judgment value on anyone that does, it's just that it doesn't fit with our game, for reasons of flavor (among others).

@ Tavar and shadow_archmagi (I think that you posted in response to me?): my reply had a few double negatives in it, so my point wasn't that clear. What I was trying to say was that if Tinydwarfman asked me about the two concepts in his post, I would say "no" for the reasons above; and would suggest a Sorc/Fighter and an ACF Paladin to represent his concepts, utilizing the materials that we use in our games.

----------

To keep things civil, I might leave it there on this topic, because someone is inevitably going to try to "correct" my opinion, or tell me how I'm reading the fluff "wrong", and we'll go down the crazy pro/anti-ToB argument road again. Suffice to say: I have no problem with ToB as such (I don't think it is unbalanced or poorly designed), we simply chose not to use it our games, along with some other materials (we don't use anything specific to Eberron; psionics, Incarnum etc), for flavor and other reasons.

[Rankar]

Flavor of Tome of Battle: Best curry you could ever even possibly imagine. Some like curry, others don't.

My group is really up for anything and only after its broken the game do we call it no more. Because one guy didn't understand the mechanics of a few things, Warlocks were banned permanently and the DM had to seek therapy. But that's another story.

I can't see anything being as easily abused as a few Wizard spells I know and you can't exactly ban the Players Handbook (which has the flavor of meat and potatoes).

I'd let you use it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I've been playing around with Tome of Battle recently, and I've found I can make martial adepts that don't really do any of the crazy stuff you'd find in a martial arts movie. They just do more of the mundane stuff, better. The discipline/maneuver/stance names are very wuxia, but if wuxia didn't fit the setting I could easily rename them.

I could see banning Swordsages without banning Crusaders or Warblades, if the feel of a non-spellcasting supernatural warrior doesn't mesh with that setting (and there are settings where this is true). But Crusaders and Warblades seem pretty much like your standard holy knight and elite warrior (respectively) found in most medieval settings.

I could also see banning all of ToB if (1) the group is low level (2) the group has a pretty low level of optimization and (3) game balance is an important issue. This is because, at least at lower levels, martial adepts are just more powerful "out of the box" than other classes... except for Druid and Beguiler. I'd have to ban those, too, following this logic. (IMO low level clerics/wizards/psions/artificers/archivists/etc aren't overpowered until you optimize at a reasonable level.)

[Kaiyanwang]

I realize that many players/DMs just can't get the idea of ToB being too wuxia/anime/magical out of their head. Please don't turn this into a discussion about whether it is or not. My question is this:


Funny thing:

I knew ToB thanks to these boards (in Italy has not been translated because they stopped translate 3rd edition once 4th was coming out :smallfurious:).

I learned to love it.. or better saying, I learned to love warblade and swordsage.

There's one thing that lowers the level of the book in my view: healing as a (Ex) ability. Why Desert Wind and Shadow Hand have maneuvers that are (Su), and Devoted Spirit healing is not?

Because is a preview of 4th edition morale healing? Or we have the good old "it always been that way, HP are not the amount of meat you have on bones?"

Maybe, but Strike of Righteous Vitality removes a feeblemind because the crusader stroke a dude right near me.

And I could even accept this, even if is quite retarded.. but is not even a (Su). Flames and Shadows of the swordsage are, but this not. Why? This is not even coherent with the book itself.

So, my rant about ToB is that are things that are NOT ENOUGH treated as magical even if they walk like magic and quack like magic. Something in Devoted spirit, and something in Iron hearth (not referring to IHS), but IH is way more "handwavable".

That's all. But a lot of other things in the book, I use them.

BTW, the three classes are fine with their fluff and at worst, you can refluff. A strike dealing 2d6 damages to constitution cold be a "tombstone hammer yadda yadda", or a "mortal strike".

[Tinydwarfman]

Me personally? No I wouldn't, because my group doesn't use (or own) ToB. It's not a judgment value on anyone that does, it's just that it doesn't fit with our game, for reasons of flavor (among others).

@ Tavar and shadow_archmagi (I think that you posted in response to me?): my reply had a few double negatives in it, so my point wasn't that clear. What I was trying to say was that if Tinydwarfman asked me about the two concepts in his post, I would say "no" for the reasons above; and would suggest a Sorc/Fighter and an ACF Paladin to represent his concepts, utilizing the materials that we use in our games.

----------

To keep things civil, I might leave it there on this topic, because someone is inevitably going to try to "correct" my opinion, or tell me how I'm reading the fluff "wrong", and we'll go down the crazy pro/anti-ToB argument road again. Suffice to say: I have no problem with ToB as such (I don't think it is unbalanced or poorly designed), we simply chose not to use it our games, along with some other materials (we don't use anything specific to Eberron; psionics, Incarnum etc), for flavor and other reasons.

I still don't understand Thurbane, you say the chief reason you don't use ToB is because the flavor, and then you say you wouldn't let someone play a swordsage with a gish flavor, and that they should play an actual gish. :smallconfused: That sounds like you have a problem with the mechanics to me.

BTW, If you don't own it, I assume you must have at sometime, otherwise how could you know that it's flavor doesn't fit?

[Optimystik]

Meh, it's not so bad. Every paladin just needs to put ranks in Tumble.

(Ba-dum psh!)

*cries*


So, my rant about ToB is that are things that are NOT ENOUGH treated as magical even if they walk like magic and quack like magic. Something in Devoted spirit, and something in Iron hearth (not referring to IHS), but IH is way more "handwavable".

That's all. But a lot of other things in the book, I use them.

I have to agree with you, and any (Ex) ability that seems a little too magical, would be treated as (Su) in my games.


Okay, I understand what you mean, but as I said if a DM really likes the whole code of conduct of a paladin the crusader can always gain one as well.

I suppose. It really doesn't make sense to me that the Crusader can forget his training because some church or deity says he does.

I would do an "Ex-monk" style of falling instead. You remember everything you already mastered, you just can't learn anything new because your head isn't in the right place. That fits much better with ToB's concept, imo.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Tome of Battle's flavour? I found it to be a smooth strawberry flavour with a hint of hazelnut.


That's....not what you were asking at all is it? :smallbiggrin:

Really? Mine tastes like cardboard... :smallfrown:

[Golden-Esque]

I'm Pro Tome of Battle, so my opinions might not have any merit in this conversation, but I've introduced the system to a LOT of players, including the DM who taught me to DM :smallbiggrin:.

Virtually no one who has played 3.5 or 3.0 for that matter is fond of the idea of Tome of Battle off the get-go. Some of them worry that it makes 3.5 too much like the dreaded 4th Edition, while others think it makes the fighting types over powered.

However, what those players usually find out is that the Tome of Battle opens up the path for many different character options. We actually played an all-martial party where the "Healer" was a Paladin with the Devoted Spirit discipline and Augment Healing. Was he as good as a Cleric? No, but he did decent damage while occasionally tossing healing at people, and it was pretty cool.

The newer players I've given this to really appreciate it; especially the ones who play martial characters. To them, it's something for them to do other then mutter "I run in and attack X." before going back to their laptops. It encourages them to think a little bit, because lets face it; many new players aren't going to think to Sunder or Disarm or Trip right off the bat, usually what happens is that they get a crazy idea and the DM explains how to make that idea happen.

Well, I've rambled on a little bit, but this is what I think of the Tome of Battle subject. I'll continue to use it, tip my hat to those of you who also use it, and go merrily on my way while others don't.

[Jayabalard]

I know they could be interpreted that way, but would you let me play a swordsage with that flavor? And if not could you explain why?He already answered your question: "My group don't use ToB primarily for flavor reasons, so no, I wouldn't allow those in my game." ... it's in the text that you quoted.

I think that's going to be pretty much the answer that you're going to get: If the group is not using a book for some particular reason then no, you won't be able to play the classes in that book.

[Lycanthromancer]

He already answered your question: "My group don't use ToB primarily for flavor reasons, so no, I wouldn't allow those in my game." ... it's in the text that you quoted.

I think that's going to be pretty much the answer that you're going to get: If the group is not using a book for some particular reason then no, you won't be able to play the classes in that book.Except he's fine with that exact flavor. He just doesn't like that flavor when it's done through ToB. Which is exactly the same.

It's a double-standard. He's using it as a rather poor excuse, and has been caught up in his own web.

[Eclipse]

Initially, I would have said no, because my introduction to Tome of Battle was with a non-standard cheese build. An awakened panther unarmed swordsage. Had pounce. Used pounce in conjunction with stances to level just about everything in a level 1-4 campaign. Of course, the broken part was the part where a player was using pounce to get 4 attacks in a level 1-4 campaign. Also, there were some other non-standard bits that made a couple other uber builds way more powerful than they should have been too.

After seeing ToB in action in a more reasonably powered campaign, over a longer period of time, I see it's balanced now. So yes, I would definitely let you use a swordsage for a gish. I would probably recommend it to a player who was trying to build a gish in any other fashion too. Swordsage really is the obvious choice for this now.

On the crusader, I would say that yes, that works as a holy warrior who doesn't cast spells, but I would also say he does still use magic. Some of the things crusaders do should be supernatural, like healing, as mentioned earlier in the thread. Honestly, the crusader to me is what the paladin should have been.

[Indon]

My group's broadly okay with everything so long as you're responsible and don't heavily overshadow the party's power level (generally, Tier 4).

Personally, I find ToB's approach to empowering melee classes to be poor, and essentially a copout. Magic grants versatility in a system that strongly restricts versatility, but rather than have the system grant more versatility (through, say, a more robust skill system or more diverse action system), Wizards instead decided to give everybody magic, and reflavor some of it so that it was 'sword magic' instead.

That's probably part of the reason my group stopped playing D&D, and gradually shifted to systems with better skill and power systems, like Exalted or Mutants and Masterminds.

[Lycanthromancer]

My group's broadly okay with everything so long as you're responsible and don't heavily overshadow the party's power level (generally, Tier 4).

Personally, I find ToB's approach to empowering melee classes to be poor, and essentially a copout. Magic grants versatility in a system that strongly restricts versatility, but rather than have the system grant more versatility (through, say, a more robust skill system or more diverse action system), Wizards instead decided to give everybody magic, and reflavor some of it so that it was 'sword magic' instead.

That's probably part of the reason my group stopped playing D&D, and gradually shifted to systems with better skill and power systems, like Exalted or Mutants and Masterminds.Since when is hitting things with a weapon inherently magical? :smallconfused:

[RagnaroksChosen]

We don't play with Tome of Battle. I own it. I've played it. I don't like the way the mechanics feel. There fine and balanced but no matter what you change the name of an ability it still feels too wuxia.

its the mechanical feel not the fluff..


so I would agree with thurbane and probably offer to help make you a gish or some sort of paladin/knight character.

[Jayabalard]

Except he's fine with that exact flavor. He just doesn't like that flavor when it's done through ToB. Which is exactly the same.

It's a double-standard. He's using it as a rather poor excuse, and has been caught up in his own web. Not so... if someone doesn't like the flavor of the book in general, it's completely understandable that they would not use that book. If they don't use that book, then it's perfectly reasonable that characters would not be able to use the classes in those books, even if they allow characters that could be built using ToB classes.

[Lycanthromancer]

We don't play with Tome of Battle. I own it. I've played it. I don't like the way the mechanics feel. There fine and balanced but no matter what you change the name of an ability it still feels too wuxia.

its the mechanical feel not the fluff..


so I would agree with thurbane and probably offer to help make you a gish or some sort of paladin/knight character.No more wuxia than the Leap Attack feat.

Unless you're talking about the naming scheme? Because most fighting styles do the exact same thing, including western European ones. Seriously, go read up on fencing some time.

I really don't get it. Really, why can't melee have nice things?

[Lycanthromancer]

Not so... if someone doesn't like the flavor of the book in general, it's completely understandable that they would not use that book. If they don't use that book, then it's perfectly reasonable that characters would not be able to use the classes in those books, even if they allow characters that could be built using ToB classes.But the flavor of the warblade is exactly the same as the fighter, crusaders are the same as paladins, and swordsages are the same as monks and gishes.

This is a completely nonsensical argument.

[Indon]

Since when is hitting things with a weapon inherently magical? :smallconfused:

Hitting things with a weapon isn't what you're doing when you use a maneuver, though. There is a weapon-hitting mechanic in the game - you aren't using it.

Instead, you're using a reflavored spell - an ability with a specific effect, target, etc, that you lose upon expenditure. Later on, in 4E, this approach was refined into the generic 'power', but in 3.x its' origin is much more obvious: Maneuvers are spells with a 'martial' source.

Edit:

But the flavor of the warblade is exactly the same as the fighter, crusaders are the same as paladins, and swordsages are the same as monks and gishes.

Not only do I disagree, but considering that Monks and Gishes have different flavor, what you're saying isn't even possible, let alone correct.

A thing can't be exactly the same as two other things which are different from each other.

[RagnaroksChosen]

No more wuxia than the Leap Attack feat.

Unless you're talking about the naming scheme? Because most fighting styles do the exact same thing, including western European ones. Seriously, go read up on fencing some time.

I really don't get it. Really, why can't melee have nice things?

Well to be fair. I don't want melee to have nice things and ususaly in my games i take away alot of casters nice things...

Its not that i don't want melee to have nice things. and leap attack feels different mechanically. If they had made tob like Leap attack i would be happy. Its not the Fluff I'm talking about its the feel of the mechanics. I would have preferred ability that scaled more. as well. but that's more of a preference thing.

[Lycanthromancer]

Hitting things with a weapon isn't what you're doing when you use a maneuver, though. There is a weapon-hitting mechanic in the game - you aren't using it.So, "make a melee attack and add +4d6 damage" isn't making a melee attack, huh?

I'm not sure I have anything more to say to you, because you make no sense whatsoever.

[DeltaEmil]

Everybody not playing a true spell-caster has proven himself to be a moron and needs to be punished while playing D&D.
To make these players suffer, the world is filled with rust monsters who can also melt the flesh of anyboy not being a wizard, sorceror, druid and cleric.
Also, the players who use non-spell casters must lick the shoes of the GM.

Melee doesn't deserve nice, because it's always been so. After all, D&D is not about fun.

[RagnaroksChosen]

So, "make a melee attack and add +4d6 damage" isn't making a melee attack, huh?

I'm not sure I have anything more to say to you, because you make no sense whatsoever.


I think what Indon is that your using a spell.
Where as normal spells require touch attacks or ranged attacks these are "martial" spells.

[Greenish]

So, my rant about ToB is that are things that are NOT ENOUGH treated as magical even if they walk like magic and quack like magic. Something in Devoted spirit, and something in Iron hearth Lightning Throw? It seems a bit off for Iron Heart IMO.

[DeltaEmil]

It's only one attack, instead of a full-round attack (which is still more effective, but also completely boring compared to maneuvers).

Silly melee, having variety per round is for spellcasters, not for you.

[AslanCross]

This thread pretty much symerizes the stone wall most ToB arguments end up at. Pro-ToBers point out how easy they find it to reflavour the classes, anti-ToBers either convert (I've seen it happen a couple of times), or say "Your saying you can reflavour the classes? Maybe for you, but I cannot"

Yeah, this. I've gotten tired of arguing for it, frankly.

[Kaiyanwang]

Everybody not playing a true spell-caster has proven himself to be a moron and needs to be punished while playing D&D.
To make these players suffer, the world is filled with rust monsters who can also melt the flesh of anyboy not being a wizard, sorceror, druid and cleric.
Also, the players who use non-spell casters must lick the shoes of the GM.

Melee doesn't deserve nice, because it's always been so. After all, D&D is not about fun.

See, ToB can seriously improve a lot the game.

More than strike maneuvers (I don't feel the need of most strikes, actually) what IMO really improves meleers are stances and boost, able to pimp reactivity and movement. Sudden Leap, Quicksilver motion, mongooses, thicket of blade, shield maneuvers, a lot of setting sun..

But.. at least in my view, all these things really rock when combined with standard feats. The book has a great value because improves combinations and possible character concept (a stron point of 3.5) a lot, but things become really cool when maneuvers are combined with feats.

Sudden leap back (tumbling) for re-leap attack with combat brute combined with shocktrooper, thicket of blade + crapload of CR feats. And so on.

Meleers have nice things anyway, you must know what you are doing.

Yeah, they swear twice to do half the things. No, this is not fair. yeah, ToB helps a lot for things far more difficult to build otherwise.

But keep sayin' that whitout ToB you cannot play a melee, or you cannot have fun playing a melee, is really unfair too, IMHO.


Lightning Throw? It seems a bit off for Iron Heart IMO.

Yeah, but that is at least in the field of "ludicrous throwing ability", is not completely nonsensical.

[Indon]

So, "make a melee attack and add +4d6 damage" isn't making a melee attack, huh?
As a trivial counterexample, the Inflict Wounds line involve touch attacks. They're still spells. Or Acid Arrow, or the orb spells.


Silly melee, having variety per round is for spellcasters, not for you.

This was essentially my point. To remedy this problem, Wizards ultimately decided to make everyone a kind of spellcaster. ToB was a proof of concept for the idea.

[Jayabalard]

But the flavor of the warblade is exactly the same as the fighter, crusaders are the same as paladins, and swordsages are the same as monks and gishes.No, they're really not. There are some superficial similarities. The flavor of the ToB classes are heavily influenced by the implementation of the abilities that they possess (which is to say: the mechanics) and they're quite distinct from their non-ToB counterparts.

Certainly, fairly vaguely defined characters can be implemented using either ToB classes or non-ToB classes, but that doesn't really say much. Trying to draw the conclusion that this means that the flavor of the ToB class matches the non-ToB class is analogous to claiming that the flavor of the fighter class matches the flavor of the wizard class.

[DeltaEmil]

Everybody playing a true spellcaster should be paid by the GM for being smart. Also, the GM should lick their shoes.

After all, having an unified game mechanic is bad.
To make the melee-characters suffer, the only weapons they can wield are acidic armaments that melts their hands, and they can never have any kind of protection or immunity against it. And if they fight unarmed, their hands automatically strangle the character himself.

Also, for every second a spell caster exists, he get 1.000.000 xp.
Players who use non-spell casters must pay everybody 100 dollar per second. It's the only way to make sure.

[Kaiyanwang]

Everybody playing a true spellcaster should be paid by the GM for being smart. Also, the GM should lick their shoes.

After all, having an unified game mechanic is bad.
To make the melee-characters suffer, the only weapons they can wield are acidic armaments that melts their hands, and they can never have any kind of protection or immunity against it. And if they fight unarmed, their hands automatically strangle the character himself.

Also, for every second a spell caster exists, he get 1.000.000 xp.
Players who use non-spell casters must pay everybody 100 dollar per second. It's the only way to make sure.

Oh, I tried to discuss seriously above. My bad. Apologies.

[Indon]

After all, having an unified game mechanic is bad.

Well, there are advantages and disadvantages to it. The most obvious advantage is that such a game's simplicity makes it easier to balance, which is probably the major reasoning behind Tome of Battle and is certainly the reasoning for 4E's power system after it.

The most obvious disadvantage is that the game only has one mechanic, and thus has the potential to be mechanically uninteresting or trivial.

[Sucrose]

As a trivial counterexample, the Inflict Wounds line involve touch attacks. They're still spells. Or Acid Arrow, or the orb spells.

Because they're trying to hit with the special energy that they have in their hands. The fact that they're touch attacks represents that they don't need to be particularly accurate, and the energy damage that they do indicates that it's not a normal process. The spell is in generating the energy, not in attacking with it.

For swordsage, I can see your point: what they do is essentially spellcasting. That's why they're known as blade wizards. For crusaders, it's a little trickier, and I won't make a call about them at this time.

For warblades, however, all of their maneuvers are just dealing more damage of the same sort using their normal weapon attacks. They can regain their maneuvers trivially, demonstrating that it's not some magical ability, but just regaining the state of mind/positioning necessary to execute a specific technique again.

In what way is executing Rabid Wolf Strike a spell, but entering a rage is not? Both add a flat bonus to your attack in exchange for AC, just the one only lasts for a little while, but can be performed multiple times, demonstrating that it's a specific technique, whilst the other lasts for much longer, and is more of a state of mind. Heck, rages only can be performed a certain number of times per day, making them really more similar to spells than maneuvers, which can be used ad infinitum, just like proper martial techniques.

[Lycanthromancer]

As a trivial counterexample, the Inflict Wounds line involve touch attacks. They're still spells. Or Acid Arrow, or the orb spells.Most maneuvers not given to swordsages (y'know, the ToB gish that actually USES magic) aren't much different than feats.

Is sneak attack magical? Is Improved Trip or Leap Attack magical? Is Power Attack supernatural? They let people hit things to deal more damage and give more options, too.

Just because a martial class has interesting and useful class abilities that let it do something beyond 'hit it with stick' doesn't mean it's suddenly mysterious and magical.

Giving a class better hit dice, better skills, and better way to hit things? Oh no, it's magic!

Like I said, this makes no sense at all.



This was essentially my point. To remedy this problem, Wizards ultimately decided to make everyone a kind of spellcaster. ToB was a proof of concept for the idea.Spellcasters have to cast spells. Which ToB'ers don't. Is it spellcasting when barbarians rage? No. Is it spellcasting when dervishes do their battledancing? No. Is it spellcasting when a tripper uses Improved Trip? No.

Like I said, you make absolutely no sense at all. You might as well not even reply unless you start making some, because otherwise I can't even communicate with you.

[Optimystik]

As a trivial counterexample, the Inflict Wounds line involve touch attacks. They're still spells. Or Acid Arrow, or the orb spells.

There's quite a bit more going on with those than touch attacks. Especially when you factor in other casters, antimagic, energy resistance/immunity...

[Indon]

Most maneuvers not given to swordsages (y'know, the ToB gish that actually USES magic) aren't much different than feats.
Feats can be used more than once. They are not expendable resources.

There are ways to give melee classes interesting things to do that don't involve giving them expendable stock techniques out of a prememorized pool. Tome of Battle doesn't do them.

Other games, such as Exalted or Mutants and Masterminds, however, do.


Like I said, you make absolutely no sense at all.

Considering you see no distinction between the explicitly distinct flavor between the game's standard classes and the Tome of Battle classes, I'm fairly surprised that you fail to see the extremely strong similarities, and clear progression of design intent, between 3.x vancian casting, 3.x maneuvers, and 4E powers.

[DragoonWraith]

No, they're really not. There are some superficial similarities. The flavor of the ToB classes are heavily influenced by the implementation of the abilities that they possess (which is to say: the mechanics) and they're quite distinct from their non-ToB counterparts.

Certainly, fairly vaguely defined characters can be implemented using either ToB classes or non-ToB classes, but that doesn't really say much. Trying to draw the conclusion that this means that the flavor of the ToB class matches the non-ToB class is analogous to claiming that the flavor of the fighter class matches the flavor of the wizard class.
How? Fighter "flavor" - "I hit things with a weapon and it hurts them. I'm supposed to be good at doing this in a variety of different ways because I am the master of the martial arts of war." Warblade flavor - "I hit things with a weapon and it hurts them. I am good at doing this in a variety of different ways because I am a master of the martial arts of war."

Monk flavor - "I an ascetic, mystical, contemplative warrior. I train my mind and body to be a weapon, and the weapons I use to be an extension of my body. My intense mystical training allows me to perform feats that no natural human being can achieve."

Swordsage flavor - "I am a mystical warrior, studying the myriad styles of the Way. I train my mind and body to be a weapon, and the weapons I use to be an extension of my body. My intense mystical training allows me to perform feats that no natural human being can achieve."

Paladin flavor - "My faith in my god/alignment/philosophy give me strength in battle and bless my way, so that I may serve him/it all the better. Also, I have a stick up my butt, lodged there by that self-same god."

Crusader flavor - "My faith in my god/alignment/philosophy give me strength in battle and bless my way, so that I may serve him/it all the better. No stick for me, though."

Seriously. The Warblade fluff has a bit about being a proud glory-hound, but that's A. easily ignored, and B. only one of the classes.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Spellcasters have to cast spells. Which ToB'ers don't. Is it spellcasting when barbarians rage? No. Is it spellcasting when dervishes do their battledancing? No. Is it spellcasting when a tripper uses Improved Trip? No.

Like I said, you make absolutely no sense at all. You might as well not even reply unless you start making some, because otherwise I can't even communicate with you.

I think what hes arguing is the fact that maneuvers feel like spells. Its just spell casting in a different form.


I do have to admit from tob i do like the stances I'm just not a fan of maneuvers my self.

[Lycanthromancer]

Feats can be used more than once. They are not expendable resources.

There are ways to give melee classes interesting things to do that don't involve giving them expendable stock techniques out of a prememorized pool. Tome of Battle doesn't do them.

Other games, such as Exalted or Mutants and Masterminds, however, do.You can reuse maneuvers and stances round after round, without having to worry about running out of steam, unlike what you just said. Sorry, that's a no-go. Next.


Considering you see no distinction between the explicitly distinct flavor between the game's standard classes and the Tome of Battle classes, I'm fairly surprised that you fail to see the extremely strong similarities, and clear progression of design intent, between 3.x vancian casting, 3.x maneuvers, and 4E powers.#1. Holy warrior that draws power from his faith to smite his foes with his dedication to his cause.

#2. Master warrior who uses strength of arm and his experience on the field of battle to take on foes head-on.

#3. Tricky sneakster who hides in the shadows, using a combination of guile, cunning, and his special skills to assassinate his targets before slipping back into obscurity.

Now, which of these characters comes from the Tome of Battle, and which comes from the Player's Handbook?

[Sucrose]

I think what hes arguing is the fact that maneuvers feel like spells. Its just spell casting in a different form.


I do have to admit from tob i do like the stances I'm just not a fan of maneuvers my self.

Restating your opinion is not explaining it. How are they like spells? Is it that they are an expendable resource? So is a rage or a blade dance. (They're also much easier to get back than either of these). Is it that they're organized into tiers? So are feats, by the prerequisites that one has to have for them (even if it's less formalized with them). You need to explain why maneuvers seem like spells to you.

[Kaiyanwang]

Well, see Indon, what you say is linked somewhat whit what I said above: I'm not a big fan of most strikes.

Considering that I see as able a melee player whan learns to manage charges, ranged combat and full attacks, I can see your feelings with strikes.

Neverthelss, in the book there are a lot of things that are just "pimps" for old mechanics.

As an example, the mongoose boosts, that increase your attacks in a full attack. Nothing strange. You just hit more.

And, if you like, as I do, a good combination of knock-downs, disarms, and throws, the boost brings you more chances.


Said this, I see what's your point: Even if, as is, is not optimal, I like more the feat system (and I like more Improved Disarm than Disarming Strike, BTW).

[Indon]

How?
Seriously? The Warblade's refresh mechanic is based around their flavor: The Warblade, rather than using a maneuver, makes a fancy-looking attack instead, because part of the Warblade's flavor is that they showboat.

The Swordsage is just outright a pseudocaster. Much ado is made of the unarmed swordsage variant, but in the same section of the book it also lists the arcane swordsage variant - making the Swordsage a fully spell-slinging meleer. The only thing this variant does is exchanges the Swordsage's maneuvers for spells. The swordsage is as much a spellcaster as it ever is a monk.

The Crusader is entirely without the explicit dedication that is a recurring theme in 3.x, in not only the Paladin but in the entire concept of Exalted Good expounded upon in the BoED.


Seriously. The Warblade fluff has a bit about being a proud glory-hound, but that's A. easily ignored, and B. only one of the classes.

Yes, of course the fluff is the same, if you change it to be the same.

[Boci]

Reposted from an older thread:

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

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

What is Granar's class?
a. Fighter
b. Warblade
c. Fullcaster

I am sure everyone will no c cannot be right, but I will be suprised if anyone will be able to correctly guess between a and b.


Seriously? The Warblade's refresh mechanic is based around their flavor: The Warblade, rather than using a maneuver, makes a fancy-looking attack instead, because part of the Warblade's flavor is that they showboat.

The warblade re-alignes himself into a more advantegeus combat stance (not the mechanical stance). The warblade makes a single attack whilst he uses his training to regain his breath or tap into an energy conserve.

That seems pretty realistic to me.

[cfalcon]

I'll try to answer, cause I think I'm the sort he would ask this question to.

In any of my current worlds, that wouldn't fly. There aren't *any* tome of battle guys. You would have to be someone from another reality, basically. If you were hardcore stuck on the idea I would still nix it if other guys were doing core classes. If everyone else decided to take their turn on casters that time, then a ToB warrior could be ok.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Restating your opinion is not explaining it. How are they like spells? Is it that they are an expendable resource? So is a rage or a blade dance. Is it that they're organized into tiers? So are feats, by the prerequisites that one has to have for them (even if it's less formalized with them). You need to explain why maneuvers seem like spells to you.

I don't agree that there spells though, I would have preferred that they had made the maneuvers slightly stronger and made them influenced like spells(aka can be stopped/interrupted).

To me they are a spell like mechanic, with out being spells.

I would have preferred to have Duskblade equivalents in TOB.

I think that is one of my biggest beefs with TOB is that manuvers are unstoppable.

But I can see how they can be compared with spells. They take up slots and there used they have a Vatican feel to them. etc


Edit:
Boci I could see that being a cleric, or favored soul

[Boci]

Edit:
Boci I could see that being a cleric, or favored soul

Whno isn't casting spells in either example? Sure. He could be a wizard, who took shield proficiency and weapon proficiency longsword and didn't cast any spells in that round. But lets assume Granar is making full use of his class features and is fighting in a typical manner.

Maneuvers are more realistic than most people think.

Why can't they be reused? In a real fight, whether your attack hits or misses, you will not repeat it immediatly.

Why does a warblade need 5 minutes to ready his maneuvers? Well, let me put it this way: there are two boxers of equal prowess, one spends his time before the match reading a comic, the other mentally preparing. Who would you bet money on?

[Kylarra]

Spells are class features. :smalltongue:

He's a DMM persist cleric with war domain and knowledge devotion. :smallbiggrin:

[RagnaroksChosen]

Whno isn't casting spells in either example? Sure. He could be a wizard, who took shield proficiency and weapon proficiency longsword and didn't cast any spells in that round. But lets assume Granar is making full use of his class features.

Then you have just unvalidated your point.
I could name a number of classes that could fit that example. It doesn't prove any thing. All it says is that your can be very descriptive in your combat. Any class could do that. Mechanicaly or not. Even using class features which both of my examples did (in this case buffs and feats).

We all know fluff is mutable. No one is arguing that we are saying the feel of it is off.

Saying
"I'll power attack for 4 and use my Ruby nightmare blade technique against the orc".
vs
"I'll power attack for 4 against the orc"

It has a different feel. To me the first feels more wuxia. ya im sure you could phrase it differently to make it sound less.. but i don't realy care to go through with it. Just a preference.

[cfalcon]

As far as the concern that Maneuvers are unstoppable- does anyone really doubt that an anti-maneuver sphere could exist as a spell? I mean, if that's your real reason for disliking 9swords, just go ahead and add a couple counters to your game world, or make them researchable or something.

If your style is to play some strictly by the book game and you only get to decide which books, then I guess this wouldn't work for you.

Editing:

I do think that 9swords suffers from "created last" syndrome. This is when something new in a system comes out, and the game world doesn't reflect around them. This means that you don't have a perfect place to insert swordsages except for over monks. It means that there aren't any enemies that are crushed by fighters but are highly resistant to powers. Plenty of things in the books suck to cast at (but casters have other ways), plenty of things are hard to hit, can fly, or teleport, plenty of things are immune to sneak attacks. So I agree that these classes do feel like strangers, but maintain that if that's your big beef, you could work up some stuff that disrupts them or synergizes with them.

[Boci]

There aren't *any* tome of battle guys.

My PC found a secret temple with a martial art detailed on the fall. He studied the books and incriptions and learnt it himself.

My PC is possessed by a ghost of a warblade from 1,000 years ago.

My PC developed his own fighting style.

Would those explanations not work, or would it have to be that he walked through a planar portal?

[Indon]

You can reuse maneuvers and stances round after round, without having to worry about running out of steam, unlike what you just said. Sorry, that's a no-go. Next.
Uh, no, you're wrong.

Maneuvers need to be refreshed before they can be used again. All three of the maneuver-users need to take an action to refresh maneuvers.

Maneuvers are expendable. You can't argue that, and it'd be absurd to try.


Now, which of these characters comes from the Tome of Battle, and which comes from the Player's Handbook?

Oh, hey, you can make vague characterization statements. So can I.

"A highly skilled combatant and dogooder that travels from place to place, righting wrongs and obtaining ever-greater personal power and wealth."

What do you think? 90% of all D&D characters?


Well, see Indon, what you say is linked somewhat whit what I said above: I'm not a big fan of most strikes.

Yeah, I will say I rather like stances. Stances were pretty innovative, though they're still expendable resources because they got rolled into the maneuver system.

A lot of the boosts, however, are still just sword-magic but with a different, more reactive approach. There are some gems, I'll admit, but they like the stances suffer from being a part of the maneuver system.

I think the mechanics of ToB could've been done better, making warrior types who were both more powerful and versatile without taking the game in a direction that stifles mechanical diversity for the sake of balance.


What is Granar's class?
a. Fighter
b. Warblade
c. Fullcaster

As has been noted, Cleric.

The Cleric's ability to do exactly what the Fighter and Warblade do, but better than the Fighter or Warblade can do it (as well as other stuff besides), is part of what makes the Cleric so powerful as a full caster.

[Greenish]

they have a Vatican feel to them.I disagree. None of them requires long ceremonies in Latin.

[Edit]:
Uh, no, you're wrong.

Maneuvers need to be refreshed before they can be used again. All three of the maneuver-users need to take an action to refresh maneuvers.No, you're wrong.

[Boci]

Saying
"I'll power attack for 4 and use my Ruby nightmare blade technique against the orc".
vs
"I'll power attack for 4 against the orc"

It has a different feel. To me the first feels more wuxia. ya im sure you could phrase it differently to make it sound less.. but i don't realy care to go through with it. Just a preference.

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

Does that feel wuxia?

[Kylarra]

Chantif allowed himself a moment to mentally inform the god of luck that he did not deserve her ire, before adapting his strategy. Instinct had failed him, so now was he going to give his analytical mind a chance. He needed to move, otherwise the shadows cloaking him would shed and he would vulnerable to the kobold’s attacks. That much was sure.
Releasing his leg muscles he fell backwards, arching his back to land on his shoulders first, and completing the movement by throwing his legs forwards and allowing momentum to carrying away from the kobold, too swift to give him an opening.
He flashed his eyes around as he chose his next opponent. With short, efficient steps he moved into melee with the next generic kobold in line.
His opponent was placing more weight on his left leg, and his stance protected that limb in favour of the other.
In a flash Chantif moved, aiming a kick at his opponent left leg, causing the kobold to step back. The kick fell short as he had anticipated, but now Chantif’s blade made a straight line for the kobold right left, aiming directly for the blood vessel located at the top of the thigh.
Travel devotion + knowledge devotion + 5' step + attack

[cfalcon]

Would those explanations not work, or would it have to be that he walked through a planar portal?

It would definitely be the planar portal.

[Indon]

My PC is possessed by a ghost of a warblade from 1,000 years ago.

If you ask me, this would be a more interesting concept for an Incarnate, who channels the power of his inhabiting spirit to increase his martial prowess.

You could've ToB'ized Incarnum instead of spells to create the book, in fact. Make Soulmelds into Maneuvers and Essentia into Focus. Now the Maneuver-user has a set of abilities that become more potent when they focus more strongly on using them.


[Edit]:No, you're wrong.

Oh, you're right, the Crusader rolls to regain maneuvers instead, my bad.

Still expendable.

[Boci]

If you ask me, this would be a more interesting concept for an Incarnate, who channels the power of his inhabiting spirit to increase his martial prowess.

It could be either, that is my point.

[Indon]

It could be either, that is my point.

I think a better point is that classes have fairly specific flavor (with a couple exceptions, such as the Rogue and Fighter who are pretty intentionally broad) and that vague concepts match multiple character classes because they are vague, not because the Incarnate and the Warblade have the same class flavor.

Edit: And as noted previously, since the Cleric also matches up for pretty much all of that, again, there is not a 1:1 relation between what you can flavor in a game and class.

You can of course reflavor a Warblade into being a Fighter (or vice-versa). But you're still reflavoring it.

[Tinydwarfman]

I really couldn't care less if you think maneuvers are like spells. My example is someone is using maneuvers as spells. Why do you have a problem with it then is my question. Specifically calling to you, RagnaroksChosen and Thurbane.

[Boci]

I think a better point is that classes have fairly specific flavor (with a couple exceptions, such as the Rogue and Fighter who are pretty intentionally broad) and that vague concepts match multiple character classes because they are vague, not because the Incarnate and the Warblade have the same class flavor.

A know a PC who learns his skill from being possessed by a 1,000 year old ghost could be a lot of classes. Because fluff can be changed.



You can of course reflavor a Warblade into being a Fighter (or vice-versa). But you're still reflavoring it.

Okay, so Granar is a warblade. How have I reflavoured him for the purpose of those two posts?

Assuming I have, how can a DM object to the Granar because he's a warbalde and he does not liek the flavour of the warblade, since I have refalvoured Granar?

[Optimystik]

Oh, you're right, the Crusader rolls to regain maneuvers instead, my bad.

Still expendable.

"Expendable between rounds" is a far cry from vancian magic. The closest magic variant to ToB is Recharge Magic, and even that takes longer than maneuvers.

[Indon]

A know a PC who learns his skill from being possessed by a 1,000 year old ghost could be a lot of classes. Because fluff can be changed.

Indeed.

And as far as I'm concerned, if you're going to use a refluffed spell-user to replace melee classes, why spend the money on ToB? Just use the Cleric to replace them.

It's fairly obvious how the Cleric can replace the Paladin.

Similarly, the Cleric can replace the Monk - just do a Swordsage with it and tweak it to get Monk AC bonus and unarmed progression instead of weapons and armor.

The Fighter is trickier, but doable, because the Cleric is just that powerful, and fluff just that flexible.

Harder yet would be replacing the Rogue (with the Cloistered Cleric). It'd probably be easier just to use the Factotum (A class I absolutely love for being both not extremely overpowered, and very mechanically innovative and interesting).

Edit:

Assuming I have, how can a DM object to the Granar because he's a warbalde and he does not liek the flavour of the warblade, since I have refalvoured Granar?

Why buy a new book and change the flavor of the classes to fit in your game, when you could take what you already have, and change the mechanics to fit in your game instead?

[Boci]

Indeed.

And as far as I'm concerned, if you're going to use a refluffed spell-user to replace melee classes, why spend the money on ToB? Just use the Cleric to replace them.

You do not think the fighter and paladin should naturally have full BAB?

You don't think the melee classes should be able to use their weapon moves in every fight?

You don't think melee needs to have their attacks target regular AC by default, as opose to touch AC, with their fancy moves?

You don't think melee should have a version of full attack that is varied?



Why buy a new book and change the flavor of the classes to fit in your game, when you could take what you already have, and change the mechanics to fit in your game instead?

Okay, here's the deal. I'll alter the falvour of three melee classes, you alter the mechanics. Whose got the easier job?

[Greenish]

Why buy a new book and change the flavor of the classes to fit in your game, when you could take what you already have, and change the mechanics to fit in your game instead?Why buy any (game)books at all, when you can just make the rules by yourself? Because it's easier.

[Indon]

You do not think the fighter and paladin should naturally have full BAB?

You don't think the melee classes should be able to use their weapon moves in every fight?

You don't think melee needs to have their attacks target regular AC by default, as opose to touch AC, with their fancy moves?

You don't think melee should have a version of full attack that is varied?

I think all of these things.

Unfortunately for me, I also think meleers should be able to apply their abilities do things other than a handful of Special Moves. But if I'm going to settle on a 3.x solution that can't give me everything I want, why not houserule something that can suffice?

Edit:

Okay, here's the deal. I'll alter the falvour of three melee classes, you alter the mechanics. Whose got the easier job?

Well, let's say I give all three classes access to Cleric spells, reflavored to be nonmagical martial abilities, and eyeball if they're appropriate for the character concept on a case-by-case basis and call it a day.

Like you, I'm working with a predetermined set of abilities that I'm tweaking flavor-wise to meet my needs. The recrunching, in this case, seems fairly minimal.

In fact, unlike maneuver-users, which were designed to compete with spellcasters but still aren't as powerful, that solution might even get some of the meleers into Tier 2.


Why buy any (game)books at all, when you can just make the rules by yourself? Because it's easier.

Because some books contain new and creative things worth buying.

Maneuvers are dubious on that front. Even Truenaming is more mechanically novel than maneuvers are.

[Optimystik]

I think all of these things.

Unfortunately for me, I also think meleers should be able to apply their abilities do things other than a handful of Special Moves. But if I'm going to settle on a 3.x solution that can't give me everything I want, why not houserule something that can suffice?

Then knock yourself out. But expect us to disagree when you dismiss ToB as "sword magic" and then make blatantly incorrect statements about its mechanics to support your views.

[Boci]

I think all of these things.

Unfortunately for me, I also think meleers should be able to apply their abilities do things other than a handful of Special Moves.

So you agree with the basic mechanics of ToB, but think it doesn't go far enough. You know the 4 skills per level allows them to contribute out of combat. What else do you have in mind?


But if I'm going to settle on a 3.x solution that can't give me everything I want, why not houserule something that can suffice?

Because its hard and time consuming and there is no guarantee of a good quality product.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I really couldn't care less if you think maneuvers are like spells. My example is someone is using maneuvers as spells. Why do you have a problem with it then is my question. Specifically calling to you, RagnaroksChosen and Thurbane.

Well it realy depends, are you :

A. Fluffing the sword sages abilities to be "spells"?
B. Actually making the sword sages abilities into spells and that act like spells?

[Boci]

Well it realy depends, are you :

A. Fluffing the sword sages abilities to be "spells"?
B. Actually making the sword sages abilities into spells and that act like spells?

A I'm guessing, since most of his maneuvers are going to be supernatural.

[RagnaroksChosen]

A I'm guessing, since most of his maneuvers are going to be supernatural.

Then no.

As there not actualy spells can't be stoped by spells an if that where the case then i would point him to a gish, be it class or not.

[Boci]

Then no.

As there not actualy spells can't be stoped by spells an if that where the case then i would point him to a gish, be it class or not.

He has undergone special training to make his spells unstopable in return for the veratility other gishes enjoy.

[RagnaroksChosen]

He has undergone special training to make his spells unstopable in return for the veratility other gishes enjoy.

No. as then why doesnt every mage due that.
to me it doesn't make any sense.

[Caphi]

Then no.

As there not actualy spells can't be stoped by spells an if that where the case then i would point him to a gish, be it class or not.

Rampant incoherence aside:

1) Supernatural abilities are subject to antimagic fields, just not to counterspelling.

2) I don't care what you think about Strikes, they integrate effects with regular attacks quite nicely and are usually more relevant to melee combat than actual spells.

3) Let your melee have a nice thing, please.


Yeah, I will say I rather like stances. Stances were pretty innovative, though they're still expendable resources because they got rolled into the maneuver system.

What? No. Stances never run out. All the ones you know are always just a swift action away, and they have a duration of "until you say so".

[Boci]

No. as then why doesnt every mage due that.
to me it doesn't make any sense.

Because few mages are willing to sacrifice the versatility they enjoy and the technique requires a lot more physical endurance than most have. Some do however. They are swordsages.

[Gametime]

I've been playing around with Tome of Battle recently, and I've found I can make martial adepts that don't really do any of the crazy stuff you'd find in a martial arts movie. They just do more of the mundane stuff, better. The discipline/maneuver/stance names are very wuxia, but if wuxia didn't fit the setting I could easily rename them.

I could see banning Swordsages without banning Crusaders or Warblades, if the feel of a non-spellcasting supernatural warrior doesn't mesh with that setting (and there are settings where this is true). But Crusaders and Warblades seem pretty much like your standard holy knight and elite warrior (respectively) found in most medieval settings.

I could also see banning all of ToB if (1) the group is low level (2) the group has a pretty low level of optimization and (3) game balance is an important issue. This is because, at least at lower levels, martial adepts are just more powerful "out of the box" than other classes... except for Druid and Beguiler. I'd have to ban those, too, following this logic. (IMO low level clerics/wizards/psions/artificers/archivists/etc aren't overpowered until you optimize at a reasonable level.)

Y'know, at the risk of derailing this thread, only some of the disciplines have particularly "wuxia" names. Like, Foehammer, for example? That's the translated name of Glamdring, Gandalf's sword.

Not liking the flavor, "wuxia" or not, is your prerogative, and not liking the parts that are too "wuxia" for you is perfectly understandable. But it sort of weirds me out when people say the entire book is too "wuxia" when that statement is demonstrably false.

EDIT: Having replied on page 2, I now get the dubious satisfaction of realizing that the thread is so far derailed already that my comment could do little to derail it further.

Let's all stay civil, please? I realize the temptation to correct falsehoods when you think someone's opinion may be wrongly founded on them, but try to respect their desires. And for those of you who don't like ToB, I respect that, but some of us do. If you could phrase your dislike in a way that doesn't implicitly put down those who do like it, you'll have my gratitude. :smallsmile:

Group hug?

[Indon]

"Expendable between rounds" is a far cry from vancian magic. The closest magic variant to ToB is Recharge Magic, and even that takes longer than maneuvers.

I'm not saying it's identical to vancian magic.

Only clearly designed as a nonmagical variant of it.

Having maneuvers take all day to refresh would be unbelievable. The per-encounter mechanic strains suspension of disbelief frequently enough as it is.


So you agree with the basic mechanics of ToB, but think it doesn't go far enough. You know the 4 skills per level allows them to contribute out of combat. What else do you have in mind?
As I had noted previously, a skill or combat system that allowed for greater diversity would be a superior solution. One, albeit fairly unrefined, example of how you could apply that sort of thing was the skill tricks from Complete Adventurer.

While it would have taken a new version of the game to see such a strategy reach its' full effect - something we can see with ToB compared to powers - revamping at least the skill system to function better and provide more diverse options for characters was by no means outside of the realm of possibility.


What? No. Stances never run out. All the ones you know are always just a swift action away, and they have a duration of "until you say so".

Oh? Well, that's not so bad, then.

I probably got ToB stances conflated with 4E stances, then. In 4E, if you have two stances, swapping to either expends that stance, and trying to swap between them is a collossally stupid idea.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Rampant incoherence aside:

1) Supernatural abilities are subject to antimagic fields, just not to counterspelling.

2) I don't care what you think about Strikes, they integrate effects with regular attacks quite nicely and are usually more relevant to melee combat than actual spells.

3) Let your melee have a nice thing, please.



1. I agree, nor can they be disrupted by attacks like spells can.

2. I agree as well, though that still doesn't change any thing as far as im concerned.

3. Ya know im realy sick of hereing this. so so sick of it. To be honest none of the players i've played with have complained about Not having access to TOB. Actualy One of my players hates it he likes playing fighters/barbarians for the simplicity of it. He says that if he wanted to play some thing with that many options in combat he'd play a caster.

Even the ones that play fighter types habitualy whne i give them the option to play don't beccause they don't like the fluff and they don't want to reflavor it. Again it realy comes down to a preference. I don't liek them my group doesn't like them... Actualy for that matter for the groups that i am aware of in my area in NH no groups allow TOB.
I can think of about 8-9 different groups in my local area that don't use TOB. And the ones that due Most of the players complain about them.


We play alot of gritty games thats what we prefer, could that be a factor probebly.

[Caphi]

Y'know, at the risk of derailing this thread, only some of the disciplines have particularly "wuxia" names. Like, Foehammer, for example? That's the translated name of Glamdring, Gandalf's sword.

Not liking the flavor, "wuxia" or not, is your prerogative, and not liking the parts that are too "wuxia" for you is perfectly understandable. But it sort of weirds me out when people say the entire book is too "wuxia" when that statement is demonstrably false.

This. Most of the Warblade and Crusader stuff sounds pretty European. You only get to the stuff that sounds like it came out of Star Ocean in... mostly Tiger Claw, and parts of Desert Wind and Shadow Hand and little bits of the other Swordsage classes. And the Swordsage is trivial to refluff because the only thing the crunch describes is a (monk|rogue|fire user)-ish martial style.

[Boci]

I'm not saying it's identical to vancian magic.

Only clearly designed as a nonmagical variant of it.

Having maneuvers take all day to refresh would be unbelievable. The per-encounter mechanic strains suspension of disbelief frequently enough as it is.

I have already explained the mechanics of maneuvers earlier.


As I had noted previously, a skill or combat system that allowed for greater diversity would be a superior solution. One, albeit fairly unrefined, example of how you could apply that sort of thing was the skill tricks from Complete Adventurer.

While it would have taken a new version of the game to see such a strategy reach its' full effect - something we can see with ToB compared to powers - revamping at least the skill system to function better and provide more diverse options for characters was by no means outside of the realm of possibility.

So develop a more advanced skill system to give martial characters more choice. That would be an added bonus to the martial adepts and would improve the game, but how does it relate to a ToB thread?

[RagnaroksChosen]

This. Most of the Warblade and Crusader stuff sounds pretty European. You only get to the stuff that sounds like it came out of Star Ocean in... mostly Tiger Claw, and parts of Desert Wind and Shadow Hand and little bits of the other Swordsage classes. And the Swordsage is trivial to refluff because the only thing the crunch describes is a (monk|rogue|fire user)-ish martial style.


I disagree alot of the warblade stuff sounds wuxia/anime/etc.

Most of the diamond mind for examples. the only one i'd say off the warblade list that doesn't have mauvers that can go eaither way is white raven as it seems to have the most european feel atleast to me.

[lsfreak]

Having maneuvers take all day to refresh would be unbelievable. The per-encounter mechanic strains suspension of disbelief frequently enough as it is.

Per-encounter mechanic strains suspension of disbelief less than "I do the same thing round after round after round with no drawbacks." It's a step in the right direction, especially because it isn't on a per-encounter basis. Crusaders are probably the best recharge mechanic; you get stuff back automatically and without (generally) using the same thing back-to-back. Warblades get it back after not doing anything fancy, just trading and parrying blows. Swordsages are after a round of the 'slowly circling each other, waiting on the defense and regaining energy' (the problem being there's no incentive for anyone else to do that either).

[Boci]

1. I agree, nor can they be disrupted by attacks like spells can.

2. I agree as well, though that still doesn't change any thing as far as im concerned.

Narrack’s training flashed before his eyes. He was kneeling in agony, gasping for breath. His limbs felt packed with moss, utterly useless. “It is not enough to simply have a strong mind,” his teacher yelled, his bare chest of well toned muscle proving that his training has been no less severe, “You must have the right body to channel the magic of Zedar, or it will consume your flesh leaving naught but a dry skeleton,”
Now, many years later, he faced the black mage. “It’s useless,” his opponent crowd at the adventuring party, “I am warded from weapon and can turn spells back upon their casters. You cannot touch me,”
Bolding, Narrack stepped forwards. “Counter this,” he spat and unleashed a thin cone of concentrated fire burning with the hatred he felt towards those such vile cults as the Nightfall Initiative.
The black mage unleashed a bolt of dazzling energy, fully expecting Narrack’s fire to be turned upon him. It did not. His opponent burned.

Would Narrack be a problem at your group?


We play alot of gritty games thats what we prefer, could that be a factor probebly.

How does that make ToB less desiarable.


I disagree alot of the warblade stuff sounds wuxia/anime/etc.

Most of the diamond mind for examples. the only one i'd say off the warblade list that doesn't have mauvers that can go eaither way is white raven as it seems to have the most european feel atleast to me.

I am playing a swordsage currently and am yet to say a maneuver's name in character. I am sure you can accept a PH fighter refluffed as a samurai, why is a western style warblade so hard to believe? For example, to repost:

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

Does that feel wuxia?

[Sliver]

What is Granar's class?
a. Fighter
b. Warblade
c. Fullcaster

A class I am not familiar with, because a sword isn't a tripping weapon. Or, a fighter with several feats and a magical weapon, because a warblade can't use more then a strike and a boost in a turn without using a magic item you didn't describe. Or it was more then a single turn so.. Yeah :smallbiggrin:

[Boci]

A class I am not familiar with, because a sword isn't a tripping weapon. Or, a fighter with several feats and a magical weapon, because a warblade can't use more then a strike and a boost in a turn without using a magic item you didn't describe. Or it was more then a single turn so.. Yeah :smallbiggrin:

He could have been a warblade using tactical strike. The first attack was the normal damage. The second attack was the extra 2d6 damage the strike grants. Or he could have been a fighter making a full round attack. So yeah, you realized my point.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Narrack’s training flashed before his eyes. He was kneeling in agony, gasping for breath. His limbs felt packed with moss, utterly useless. “It is not enough to simply have a strong mind,” his teacher yelled, his bare chest of well toned muscle proving that his training has been no less severe, “You must have the right body to channel the magic of Zedar, or it will consume your flesh leaving naught but a dry skeleton,”
Now, many years later, he faced the black mage. “It’s useless,” his opponent crowd at the adventuring party, “I am warded from weapon and can turn spells back upon their casters. You cannot touch me,”
Bolding, Narrack stepped forwards. “Counter this,” he spat and unleashed a thin cone of concentrated fire burning with the hatred he felt towards those such vile cults as the Nightfall Initiative.
The black mage unleashed a bolt of dazzling energy, fully expecting Narrack’s fire to be turned upon him. It did not. His opponent burned.

Would Narrack be a problem at your group?


I Do not wish to answer this as it is not something i would run.
so i have no real feelings on weather it would be good or not.



How does that make ToB less desiarable.



I am playing a swordsage currently and am yet to say a maneuver's name in character. I am sure you can accept a PH fighter refluffed as a samurai, why is a western style warblade so hard to believe?

sweet deal So how does the GM know your doing what you doing? aand we don't play with samuri or monks or any other oriental esc classes. Some things may seem oriental but our group doesn't play with alot. We just recently started using a wujen as a more primitive wizard and that was a huge thing. Greatly debated in my circle about weather or not we should use it.



Edit:
ok so your descriptions are meening less please stop using them and no it doesn't have a wuxia feel but i wouldn't have describes a tob-er that way. due to the way the mechanics feel.

[Gametime]

Because some books contain new and creative things worth buying.

Maneuvers are dubious on that front. Even Truenaming is more mechanically novel than maneuvers are.

It seems like, if nothing else, this should demonstrate why novelty is not the only thing people desire in their game books.

Your mileage may vary, of course, and every book should have some novelty. ToB has less than some and more than others. It's also better balanced than some of its competitors, however, which should be a point in its favor.

[Caphi]

I Do not wish to answer this as it is not something i would run.
so i have no real feelings on weather it would be good or not.



sweet deal So how does the GM know your doing what you doing? aand we don't play with samuri or monks or any other oriental esc classes. Some things may seem oriental but our group doesn't play with alot. We just recently started using a wujen as a more primitive wizard and that was a huge thing. Greatly debated in my circle about weather or not we should use it.

Weather control weather control weather control...

Did you not get his point? He's not playing his Swordsage as an Asian anything, just a guy who fights in X way. I'm sure he declares his maneuvers to his GM, but in-character, he doesn't yell RABID WOLF STRIKE! every time he hits. As far as the character's concerned, the maneuvers might not even have names as such. Certainly it could be mostly based on muscle memory and trained reflexes more than a chess-like exchange of moves. That's how my swordsage (unarmed Tiger Claw) does it.

[Boci]

I Do not wish to answer this as it is not something i would run.
so i have no real feelings on weather it would be good or not.

So you wouldn't mind Narrack as a PC in your group?


sweet deal So how does the GM know your doing what you doing?

You tell him?
Thats an attack of 18 versus touch AC, doing 15 damage on a hit.


aand we don't play with samuri or monks or any other oriental esc classes.

I am not asking about your group, I am asking can you as a person imagine a fighter reflavoured as a samurai? If so, then why can't the reverse be true with a warbalde?

[RagnaroksChosen]

Weather control weather control weather control...

Did you not get his point? He's not playing his Swordsage as an Asian anything, just a guy who fights in X way. I'm sure he declares his maneuvers to his GM, but in-character, he doesn't yell RABID WOLF STRIKE! every time he hits. As far as the character's concerned, the maneuvers might not even have names as such. Certainly it could be mostly based on muscle memory and trained reflexes more than a chess-like exchange of moves. That's how my swordsage (unarmed Tiger Claw) does it.

right...

I am saying that out of game to me it sounds to wuxia regardless as to how it is described in game. If i wanted to play somethign wuxia i'd go play exhalted or BESM.
I wouldn't expect any of them to Screem out the manuver in game... I am saying that out of game it sounds to wuxia.

[Roderick_BR]

A major one is the code of conduct. The only alignment restriction a Crusade has, is not to be True Neutral; they can be any of the other 8. In addition, only their personal alignment matters; there is no "falling" for journeying with companions that don't share their views. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any "falling" at all.

Just a nitpick, it's 4 "extreme" alignments (LG, LE. CG, CE) , the precise 4 availables in the UA variant. If you don't want want CG, CE, or LE crusaders, you just tell the player he can only play CG crusaders.
Having all his maneuvers/istances be subject to antimagic zones (heck, even normal Dispells) is fine, if you find their abilities too "strong".
For falling, if you think it really needs it, just make it that his maneuvers won't work if he falls, until he can attone. The rest of his class features (steele resolve, furious counterstrike), could still work, as it's less supernatural than the maneuvers themselves.

Even with these "nerfs", the crusader would still be a cool option over the core paladin.

[Caphi]

right...

I am saying that out of game to me it sounds to wuxia regardless as to how it is described in game. If i wanted to play somethign wuxia i'd go play exhalted or BESM.
I wouldn't expect any of them to Screem out the manuver in game... I am saying that out of game it sounds to wuxia.

So this was just a long roundabout way of finding out that you don't accept refluffing of any sort.

[Boci]

right...

I am saying that out of game to me it sounds to wuxia regardless as to how it is described in game. If i wanted to play somethign wuxia i'd go play exhalted or BESM.
I wouldn't expect any of them to Screem out the manuver in game... I am saying that out of game it sounds to wuxia.

Why does how something is described in the books matter? The game is about that particular PC and his interpretation of his abilities, not the class he is playing.



Edit:
ok so your descriptions are meening less please stop using them and no it doesn't have a wuxia feel but i wouldn't have describes a tob-er that way. due to the way the mechanics feel.

So when I describe ToBers, they do not sound wuxia. So clearly you admit its possible for some people to play a ToBer without the eastern feel, you just do not consider yourself one of them?

[RagnaroksChosen]

So you wouldn't mind Narrack as a PC in your group?

yes i would however narrack would not be a sword sage or a tober he would be some other class.



You tell him?
Thats an attack of 18 versus touch AC, doing 15 damage on a hit.

Ok do you do that for all your manuvers? what about oens that apply status effects?

If a player was to say to me, i hit with a ranged touch attack of 18 doing 15 damage and they need to make a save vs stunn dc 15 i would ask what spell he's using even though i know it could be a orb of fire.




I am not asking about your group, I am asking can you as a person imagine a fighter reflavoured as a samurai? If so, then why can't the reverse be true with a warbalde?

yes of course i can.
I can also see a monkey get reflavored into a monk. Or a warlock into a super hero.
Doesn't meen i would let them into my game.

[Caphi]

yes of course i can.
I can also see a monkey get reflavored into a monk. Or a warlock into a super hero.
Doesn't meen i would let them into my game.

Why not? If the superhero fits into your game, does it matter to you whether he gets implemented as a warlock or a sorceror? What if the player likes the warlock better? What if he thinks the warlock implements his superhero better?

Now replace all the above words with "monk", "swordsage", and "unarmed fighter with special techniques".

[RagnaroksChosen]

Why does how something is described in the books matter? The game is about that particular PC and his interpretation of his abilities, not the class he is playing.



So when I describe ToBers, they do not sound wuxia. So clearly you admit its possible for some people to play a ToBer without the eastern feel, you just do not consider yourself one of them?


Its not in a book its how it is described while we are working out machanics during combat.


They don't sound wuxia when you describe them i wouldn't let you play them in my game regardless. As there mechanical feel doesn't fit with what we do.

@Caphi: I do like re flavoring things but i don't like having to re flavor a whole class and mechanics. Nor do i want to reflavor mechanics I don't like the feel of.


Edit:
@ caphi:


Why not? If the superhero fits into your game, does it matter to you whether he gets implemented as a warlock or a sorceror? What if the player likes the warlock better? What if he thinks the warlock implements his superhero better?

Now replace all the above words with "monk", "swordsage", and "unarmed fighter with special techniques".

Thats my point is that it never will because that isn't the type of games we play nor do i want to play. If i wanted to play a super hero we would break out heros or M&M.

[Tavar]

So....European fencing and martial arts are Wuxia? That's good to know. Man, I didn't think it was possible to copy something without even knowing about it, but you sure proved me wrong. Also, it's very nice to know that Lord of the Rings is Wuxia.

Also, what exactly is your problem with the flavor? You seem to say that you have no problem with the flavor, but that the character wouldn't be allowed due to flavor reasons. Seems to be a clear double standard.

[Boci]

yes i would however narrack would not be a sword sage or a tober he would be some other class.

But why? The plasyer has gone out of his way to give you ingame justifications for his cjaracter's mechanics, expanded on in a background story. Given that, couldn't you meet him halfway?


Ok do you do that for all your manuvers? what about oens that apply status effects?

21 versus regular AC, 12 damage on a hit and his speed is slwoed by 20ft for 1 round.


If a player was to say to me, i hit with a ranged touch attack of 18 doing 15 damage and they need to make a save vs stunn dc 15 i would ask what spell he's using even though i know it could be a orb of fire.

It would be possible to say the maneuvers anme, but you seem to have a problem with that so I was just showing you that you don't have to name the maneuvers save for when you level up.


yes of course i can.
I can also see a monkey get reflavored into a monk. Or a warlock into a super hero.
Doesn't meen i would let them into my game.

But why? It gives the PCs more options at what cost to you?

[lsfreak]

If a player was to say to me, i hit with a ranged touch attack of 18 doing 15 damage and they need to make a save vs stunn dc 15 i would ask what spell he's using even though i know it could be a orb of fire.

And if he says he's making a melee attack of 27 with a damage of 23, and the target needs to make a Fort save or be nauseated, what do you say? Because that's a feat.


They don't sound wuxia when you describe them i wouldn't let you play them in my game regardless. As there mechanical feel doesn't fit with what we do.
As has been mentioned, the ToB-style combat is far more in line with Western swordfighting than the 3.5e you've been used to. It doesn't feel Wuxia, it feels realistic.

[Caphi]

Edit:
@ caphi:



Thats my point is that it never will because that isn't the type of games we play nor do i want to play. If i wanted to play a super hero we would break out heros or M&M.

Do you want to respond to the actual point or do you intend to keep trying to mislead me on inane example chases until you think I've forgotten there was ever a point at all?

[RagnaroksChosen]

So....European fencing and martial arts are Wuxia? That's good to know. Man, I didn't think it was possible to copy something without even knowing about it, but you sure proved me wrong. Also, it's very nice to know that Lord of the Rings is Wuxia.

Also, what exactly is your problem with the flavor? You seem to say that you have no problem with the flavor, but that the character wouldn't be allowed due to flavor reasons. Seems to be a clear double standard.

It is and one i stand by.

I don't knwo any european fencing and martial arts name or manuvers nor do i care to be honest with you. What i do know is that in my opinion wuxia and tob go hand in hand. Again its my opinion and the opinion of my group by the way.

I don't liek the flavor of the machanics.

[Boci]

It is and one i stand by.

I don't knwo any european fencing and martial arts name or manuvers nor do i care to be honest with you. What i do know is that in my opinion wuxia and tob go hand in hand. Again its my opinion and the opinion of my group by the way.

I don't liek the flavor of the machanics.

But you already said its possible to describe a warblade attacking without the wuxia feel.


Its not in a book its how it is described while we are working out machanics during combat.


They don't sound wuxia when you describe them i wouldn't let you play them in my game regardless. As there mechanical feel doesn't fit with what we do.

What about a fighter whose full attacks become standard actions and do thing aside hp damage does not fit with what you do?

[Tavar]

It is and one i stand by.

I don't knwo any european fencing and martial arts name or manuvers nor do i care to be honest with you. What i do know is that in my opinion wuxia and tob go hand in hand. Again its my opinion and the opinion of my group by the way.

I don't liek the flavor of the machanics.

So....what do you allow. Because it seems that you can't actually play somewhat realistic melee characters. Any anything besides "I attack with a X, for X damage" isn't allowed, as it's now Wuxia.

[Indon]

So develop a more advanced skill system to give martial characters more choice. That would be an added bonus to the martial adepts and would improve the game, but how does it relate to a ToB thread?

It relates because being able to apply exceptional but mundane abilities to a variety of things is what meleers need, and what ToB tries and fails to do.

As for doing it myself? I could just play a system that already has one, like the systems I'd previously mentioned.

In other RPGs, melee both have nice things, and don't have homogenized mechanics.


Per-encounter mechanic strains suspension of disbelief less than "I do the same thing round after round after round with no drawbacks."
Just like you can flavor X maneuver not to involve setting your opponent on fire while screaming "OVER NINE THOUSAND STRIKE!", or whatever, a full attack doesn't have to be the same thing every time.

Though, I do agree that the Crusader recharge mechanic is pretty nifty.


It seems like, if nothing else, this should demonstrate why novelty is not the only thing people desire in their game books.

Your mileage may vary, of course, and every book should have some novelty. ToB has less than some and more than others. It's also better balanced than some of its competitors, however, which should be a point in its favor.

People who buy ToB to get a mechanically balanced game are playing the wrong version of D&D - there's a much better balanced version out there, one based in large part on the approach used in Tome of Battle.

People who buy ToB to get more powerful meleers could fairly easily rework existing ones in much the same way the writers of ToB did. I described a possible way to do so, even.

And who buys ToB for its' flavor? It's overwhelmingly more often purchased so people can transplant the classes and their abilities into the flavor of other classes entirely - at least, if this forum's any indication.

[RagnaroksChosen]

lots of responses let me try to break them up :

Boci:

It would be possible to say the maneuvers anme, but you seem to have a problem with that so I was just showing you that you don't have to name the maneuvers save for when you level up
I understand however no one i know does it like that.


But why? It gives the PCs more options at what cost to you?
Its a cost to me because now i have to fit that fluff into eaither my game world or a static setting.


But you already said its possible to describe a warblade attacking without the wuxia feel.
again i agree you can however we don't because we don't like the mechanical feel of it.


What about a fighter whose full attacks become standard actions and do thing aside hp damage does fit with what you do?

That would depend.

isfreak:

As has been mentioned, the ToB-style combat is far more in line with Western swordfighting than the 3.5e you've been used to. It doesn't feel Wuxia, it feels realistic.
That may be the case but as i already mentioned i could give a care less about wether it leans more European IMO It feels WUXIA and sounds WUXIA.

Caphi:

Do you want to respond to the actual point or do you intend to keep trying to mislead me on inane example chases until you think I've forgotten there was ever a point at all?


Actualy if you had listend you would understand that your question would never come up as we don't play those types of games. So no a superhero character would not be welcome in my games. we don't play that type of game. A super hero would never be implimented in my game.

[Caphi]

Caphi:


Actualy if you had listend you would understand that your question would never come up as we don't play those types of games. So no a superhero character would not be welcome in my games. we don't play that type of game. A super hero would never be implimented in my game.

I don't care. I wasn't talking about superheroes. I was making a rhetorical analogy. You've gotten hung up on the example and utterly failed to catch the actual point. Either that or you're trolling me.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I don't care. I wasn't talking about superheroes. I was making a rhetorical analogy. You've gotten hung up on the example and utterly failed to catch the actual point. Either that or you're trolling me.

Well again it depends, see thats what i don't think you understand is that it's on a case by case basis. The answer to your question is, it depends.

Some fluff is mutable i agree. IF we where playing super heros you could implement it as a warlock or a sorcerer. That wouldn't matter to me because to me the mechanics would fit the fluff.

Edit: fixed grammer

[Boci]

It relates because being able to apply exceptional but mundane abilities to a variety of things is what meleers need, and what ToB tries and fails to do.

As for doing it myself? I could just play a system that already has one, like the systems I'd previously mentioned.

In other RPGs, melee both have nice things, and don't have homogenized mechanics.

Okay, so you don't play D&D because you think it fails to give melee nice things. Again, how is that relevant to a thread about ToB in D&D 3.5, unless you plan to use other game systems as inspiration for your houserules.



Just like you can flavor X maneuver not to involve setting your opponent on fire while screaming "OVER NINE THOUSAND STRIKE!", or whatever, a full attack doesn't have to be the same thing every time.

But mechanically they are doing the same few things over and over again.


People who buy ToB to get a mechanically balanced game are playing the wrong version of D&D - there's a much better balanced version out there, one based in large part on the approach used in Tome of Battle.

Not really. Their is so much material in 3.5 that a lot it fits into tier 3. Enough to still have amny options 4E doesn't give, like proper multiclassing.


lots of responses let me try to break them up :

Boci:

I understand however no one i know does it like that.

So would you allow a PC who did do it like that?




Its a cost to me because now i have to fit that fluff into eaither my game world or a static setting.

There is a little known about monestry somewhere that teaches a rare magic style. Doesn't take much effort.




again i agree you can however we don't because we don't like the mechanical feel of it.

But what don't you like about fighters doing more than hp damage?

[Tavar]

RagnaroksChosen, let me just ask you something. What do you allow in your games? Cause, at the moment, you don't allow Eastern characters, nor do you allow western characters. You also don't allow anything from Eastern or Western Fantasy. In fact, you don't allow any trained fighting character at all. So. What do you allow?


Edit, also, to go back to an earlier point, Feats are not always infinite. I know that there are many metamagic feats that can only be used once per day, and there are also a good number of feats for melee that give more uses per day(extra rage/smite feats), or are actually limited in use.

[Caphi]

Well again it depends see thats what i don't think your understand is that its on a case by case basis. The answer to your question is it depends.

Some fluff is mutable i agree IF we where playing super heros you could impliment it as a warlock or a sorcerer. That wouldn't matter to me because to me the mechanics would fit the fluff.

Excellent. Now then. Iron Heart is explicitly based on making strong or well-placed weapon strikes, and Diamond Mind is a style built on the entirely mundane and not at all Asian trait of strong mental discipline.

So. I declare my character to be an entirely Western swordmaster who, in combat, reads his opponent calmly, discerns his weaknesses, and then overpowers him with blade attacks. I request you kindly, "I have this character in mind and I think the Warblade is a great way of describing his abilities".

There you go. Flavor fixed. Have you remaining any reason to say no?

[RagnaroksChosen]

So would you allow a PC who did do it like that?





There is a little known about monestry somewhere that teaches a rare magic style. Doesn't take much effort.





But what don't you like about fighters doing more than hp damage?

in order:

I may, Though i would need to see the full build and what manuvers where selected and every thing else. Good chance it will get the veto. though, I once vetoed some ones monk... because i don't belive it fit the flavor.

Granted we do have a feat from some source(can't remember where it came from) that pritty much gives the monk unarmed strike. Which we made into a fighter only feet so there can still be unarmed fighters.

I love fighters that do more then HP damage and i constently encourage my players to take some of them, like the shield bash that causes daze. or the bludgion sickened one.. i think it was mentioned int his thread as well.


Also as i've said in other threads about this i do like the feats that come from TOB(the non manuver esc ones, superior unarmed and the kick one to name a few)

[Fulkerin]

I think someone needs to point out that regardless of any arguments anyone makes at this point, no one is going to change their opinion. If a group does not play with ToB, for whatever reason, regardless of how valid that reason is, you will not change their opinion at this point. Nor will people seem to accept that some groups prefer to play without ToB...

Look back through the posts and look at your arguments... most contradict each other about two pages back.:smallfrown:

[RagnaroksChosen]

RagnaroksChosen, let me just ask you something. What do you allow in your games? Cause, at the moment, you don't allow Eastern characters, nor do you allow western characters. You also don't allow anything from Eastern or Western Fantasy. In fact, you don't allow any trained fighting character at all. So. What do you allow?


It will be quicker to tell you what i don't allow.

Any of the oriental themed pcs from the completes.(though we started to allow wujen its still kinda so so with it though)
tob and monk. and what ever from the expanded psionics. mainly cuz we don't have access to it.

other wise its all good. Some feats and spells here and there.

[Indon]

Okay, so you don't play D&D because you think it fails to give melee nice things. Again, how is that relevant to a thread about ToB in D&D 3.5, unless you plan to use other game systems as inspiration for your houserules.
It goes back to part of my original point, way back when I first posted, that my disappointment in how ToB dealt with the lack of versatility for melee is some of the reason why I'm not really interested in 3.5 anymore.


But mechanically they are doing the same few things over and over again.
Indeed. And there's nothing immersion-breaking about a meleer attacking repeatedly.


Not really. Their is so much material in 3.5 that a lot it fits into tier 3. Enough to still have amny options 4E doesn't give, like proper multiclassing.
Then you aren't really looking for balance, but mechanical variety again.

Though, if you're looking for martial-ability-using classes who fall solidly into Tier 3, ToB is indeed a great book.

[Fluffles]

I probably wouldn't let you play either of them. None of my players know ToB in the least. Either we delay the game at least a week to learn it and compare it with the other books to look for potential game-breaking, or we let you play and risk you using some obscure loopholes to break the game and I won't have any way to stop it other than DM fiat.

It would take us less time to find you an alternative and integrate that into our game instead.

It's actually the simplest non-core system to learn. I mean, It took me all of 15 minutes to figure out how they were used, and about another 30 to figure out how to build a character. Compared to the Tome of magic, which took two days. And Magic of Incarnum which took 4 hours.

Also, not much in there is game breaking, and the only thing I can think of is Iron Heart Surge, which you can either fix yourself or just ban.

[Boci]

in order:

I may, Though i would need to see the full build and what manuvers where selected and every thing else. Good chance it will get the veto. though, I once vetoed some ones monk... because i don't belive it fit the flavor.

But why would you veto it, since its not eastern in flavour?


I love fighters that do more then HP damage and i constently encourage my players to take some of them, like the shield bash that causes daze. or the bludgion sickened one.. i think it was mentioned int his thread as well.

So why not promote ToB so they can reguarly do things aside hp damage without spending feats or needing to charge?


It goes back to part of my original point, way back when I first posted, that my disappointment in how ToB dealt with the lack of versatility for melee is some of the reason why I'm not really interested in 3.5 anymore.

Okay, seems wierd though that your posting about a game that doesn't interest you.


Indeed. And there's nothing immersion-breaking about a meleer attacking repeatedly.

Actually there is. Why havs the 50hp damage I have done to the dragon done nothing to weaken it mechanically?


Then you aren't really looking for balance, but mechanical variety again.

Though, if you're looking for martial-ability-using classes who fall solidly into Tier 3, ToB is indeed a great book.

I'm looking for both: versatility within the 3rd tier.

[arguskos]

Nor will people seem to accept that some groups prefer to play without ToB...
This is why I stopped posting in ToB threads. I have my reasons (not flavor related, if you want to know) for not using ToB myself or in my games. If someone tries to convince me that my reasons are badwrong, I'm probably not going to pay them any attention.

ToB threads seem to always come down to a handful of folks trying to explain that they just DON'T LIKE ToB, for whatever irrational reasons they want, and another handful of folks telling them that this is badwrong. Both sides need to just come to an accord and walk away from the topic, since it doesn't get anyone anywhere these days.

[Tavar]

It will be quicker to tell you what i don't allow.

Any of the oriental themed pcs from the completes.(though we started to allow wujen its still kinda so so with it though)
tob and monk. and what ever from the expanded psionics. mainly cuz we don't have access to it.

other wise its all good. Some feats and spells here and there.

But you obviously don't allow many more things, because anyone who comes from a trained fighting background is too wuxia for you. Also, as you stated, Lord of the Rings is too Wuxia in it's flavor, thus you don't allow things from that. So, I ask again, if this is true, what do you allow. And if it's not, why do you have the double standard of allowing people from trained fighting schools, and then also not allowing them?

[RagnaroksChosen]

But why would you veto it, since its not eastern in flavour?



So why not promote ToB so they can reguarly do things aside hp damage without spending feats or needing to charge?

The monk class is eastern in flavor at least to me. If they wanted to play a western monk then i would direct them to a cloistered cleric.



because i don't like how the mechanics feel in my game. Some times the general fluff also gets in the way.


edit:

But you obviously don't allow many more things, because anyone who comes from a trained fighting background is too wuxia for you. Also, as you stated, Lord of the Rings is too Wuxia in it's flavor, thus you don't allow things from that. So, I ask again, if this is true, what do you allow. And if it's not, why do you have the double standard of allowing people from trained fighting schools, and then also not allowing them?

How have i stated that lord of the rings is to wuxia?
actualy i think the opposite. Though i could see some similaritys, Lord of the rings has a much more gritty feel to it then wuxia does. Desperation and the horrors of battle.

[Boci]

ToB threads seem to always come down to a handful of folks trying to explain that they just DON'T LIKE ToB, for whatever irrational reasons they want, and another handful of folks telling them that this is badwrong. Both sides need to just come to an accord and walk away from the topic, since it doesn't get anyone anywhere these days.

Well unfortunatly for me I have a passionate hatred of irrational reasoning.

But the topic starting question can be addressed to you as well: if a player of yours have a martial adept who he's reflavoured to fit your game, why wouldn't you allow it. Its him playing it, not you.


The monk class is eastern in flavor at least to me. If they wanted to play a western monk then i would direct them to a cloistered cleric.

There are western martial arts as well that involve unarmed combat you nkow?


because i don't like how the mechanics feel in my game.

But what feels so wrong about a fighter moving 20ft, assessing his enemy and then making a single attack against them that bypasses their armour?


Some times the general fluff also gets in the way.
We've alread established the flavour can be worked around.

[Tavar]

So....European fencing and martial arts are Wuxia? That's good to know. Man, I didn't think it was possible to copy something without even knowing about it, but you sure proved me wrong. Also, it's very nice to know that Lord of the Rings is Wuxia.

Also, what exactly is your problem with the flavor? You seem to say that you have no problem with the flavor, but that the character wouldn't be allowed due to flavor reasons. Seems to be a clear double standard.


It is and one i stand by.

I don't knwo any european fencing and martial arts name or manuvers nor do i care to be honest with you. What i do know is that in my opinion wuxia and tob go hand in hand. Again its my opinion and the opinion of my group by the way.

I don't liek the flavor of the machanics.
These are the posts in question. Specifically, I was refering to the fact that Gandalf's sword is named "Foehammer". You know, one of those Wuxia things.

Also, could you reply to my other points? Seems I still haven't got an answer from them.


Well unfortunatly for me I have a passionate hatred of irrational reasoning.

But the topic starting question can be addressed to you as well: if a player of yours have a martial adept who he's reflavoured to fit your game, why wouldn't you allow it. Its him playing it, not you.

Actually, he's stated that his problems aren't flavor related. I'd be interested to hear what they are, but it does make the main thrust of the thread non-applicable.

On the other hand, well, if people use logical paradoxes to justify things, then they shouldn't be offended when others say point out the problems with that view point.

[arguskos]

Well unfortunatly for me I have a passionate hatred of irrational reasoning.
I believe you and I have actually discussed this on one occasion via PM, so I'll say no more about it here, other than that I politely disagree with you. :smallwink:


But the topic starting question can be addressed to you as well: if a player of yours have a martial adept who he's reflavoured to fit your game, why wouldn't you allow it. Its him playing it, not you.
My reason is simple: I HAVE in the past, and I payed for it. I have permitted ToB in the past on 3 occasions (by player request, and a different one each time), and have been in a game with ToB on another 3 occasions. IN EACH OCCASION the use of the Tome of Battle utterly annihilated any fun anyone had. The character in question did things that made the rest of the party pointless, and directly detracted from their fun.

Now, normally, I'd say it was a corner case, and move on. After 6 individual incidents however, I think I've given it a fair shake, and each time it has caused issues by way of reducing the fun of the rest of the players. For that reason, to conserve fun, I do not allow it.

Were this player to come to me, I'd inform him of my concerns, and ask if he would be alright with playing something else, perhaps a heavily altered paladin or ranger? If he wishes to play a "supernatural"-style martial artist, I'm happy with making him something custom or altering classes/builds until we get something he's happy with. However, ToB, due to it's long history in my experiences of destroying the fun of my players and the games I've been in, will remain on my shelf as a curiosity and interesting mechanical system, nothing more.

If you cannot accept my reasoning here, then I'd ask you to not tell me about it. I don't need someone telling me that I am badwrong for the above. I'd hope you can see where I'm coming from, and accept it as fair. I've given ToB a fair shake, and found it wanting. That's good enough for me.

EDIT: Tavar, logical paradoxes are totally fair game. Feel free to help others through them so they can be clearer about their arguments. Just... it's easy to go from "fixing paradoxes" to "claiming someone is badwrong". As long as that line isn't crossed, then go for it. That's all I was saying. :smallwink:

[RagnaroksChosen]

These are the posts in question. Specifically, I was refering to the fact that Gandalf's sword is named "Foehammer". You know, one of those Wuxia things.

Also, could you reply to my other points? Seems I still haven't got an answer from them.

OOPs my mistake. No foehammer doesn't sound wuxia to me. as it is an item.
there is a defferenece.

i was refering to the statement about fencing and western fighting styles.

Which other points i thought i had hit them all?

Boci:

As i said above there may be western martial arts i could care less it doesn't fit in with my view of medival/fantasy fluff.
im all about unarmed brawlers but we have fixed that with a single feat.

also that to me is fluff not machanics.. i have no problem with what you are saying actualy im pritty sure you could do that with psionics. ( the hall thing)


Also i agree fluff can be changed its the question of does one want to.



Sorry guys if some of my posts are poorly written im at work and have to type fast.

[Saph]

Well unfortunatly for me I have a passionate hatred of irrational reasoning.

But the topic starting question can be addressed to you as well: if a player of yours have a martial adept who he's reflavoured to fit your game, why wouldn't you allow it. Its him playing it, not you.

Boci, you and the other pro-ToB people have just spent the better part of 150 posts trying to pressure everyone who doesn't like the book into agreeing with you, and telling everyone who doesn't agree with you that this makes them irrational/stupid/wrong. If you're trying to persuade people to like ToB, you're doing a bloody awful job of it.

There's a fine line between explaining why you think your opinions are right, and telling everyone else why you think their opinions are wrong. The first can be persuasive, the second is just really annoying.

[Caphi]

Boci, you and the other pro-ToB people have just spent the better part of 150 posts trying to pressure everyone who doesn't like the book into agreeing with you, and telling everyone who doesn't agree with you that this makes them irrational/stupid/wrong. If you're trying to persuade people to like ToB, you're doing a bloody awful job of it.

There's a fine line between explaining why you think your opinions are right, and telling everyone else why you think their opinions are wrong. The first can be persuasive, the second is just really annoying.

It's not about changing opinions. We're trying to demonstrate to him that his problem can be fixed, and the response is just "no no no no no my fingers are in my ears no no no".

It's quite as annoying to be trying to hold an idea exchange and have the response continually be "no," and not even a "no, I disagree for these reasons", but a "no, I will not crede what you say at all", and Ragnarok has as much as said "this is my opinion and I will not change it ever".

[Boci]

Boci, you and the other pro-ToB people have just spent the better part of 150 posts trying to pressure everyone who doesn't like the book into agreeing with you,

Not agreeing with me, just accepting that the flavour argument doesn't work.


and telling everyone who doesn't agree with you that this makes them irrational/stupid/wrong.

Can you quote me saying a poster is irrational/stupid/wrong in this thread? I will be very suprised if you can, and a bit worried.


If you're trying to persuade people to like ToB, you're doing a bloody awful job of it.

At least it is fun.


There's a fine line between explaining why you think your opinions are right, and telling everyone else why you think their opinions are wrong. The first can be persuasive, the second is just really annoying.

Meh, they are both things people do in debates.

For a ToB thread this has been pretty productive and I credit that to the OP for presenting the first post so well. Anti-ToBers have acknowledged that the martial adept classes can be reflavoured, which doesn't always happen. So now I am trying to find out what about the mechanics of ToB bothers them.

[Indon]

Okay, seems wierd though that your posting about a game that doesn't interest you.
Oh, I'd play the game if anyone wanted to run it in our group. I don't hate 3.5 or anything.

As it is, I'd come in to relate my experiences from years of having played it, and people just kept wanting me to elaborate.


Actually there is. Why havs the 50hp damage I have done to the dragon done nothing to weaken it mechanically?
That's a good example of a problem you'd want to address systemically, by say changing how HP works, rather than giving a few classes the ability to progressively impair enemies as they deal HP damage - which is more the solution ToB did.

The inability of some classes to apply mundane talents to a wide variety of challenges was a systemic problem - literally every class in the game suffers from it, it's just that spellcasters can use a wide variety of spell effects to compensate for it.

Faced with a problem systemic to the game, Wizards made a book that created more classes that can use a wide variety of spell-like effects to compensate for the problem... instead of trying to fix it.


I'm looking for both: versatility within the 3rd tier.
And ToB works fine for that - in fact, if you're only going to play with T3 classes, then you'll want every sourcebook with them you can get, considering how few there are in core.

[Zeful]

I realize that many players/DMs just can't get the idea of ToB being too wuxia/anime/magical out of their head. Please don't turn this into a discussion about whether it is or not. My question is this:

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?

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?

That entirely depends.
1) Do I trust you or have reason to trust you?
2) Are you going to accept very close scrutiny of your character sheet and possible choices?
3) Are you going to use the abilities of the class responsibly and allow other characters to do things that could instead be solved with your power?
4) Are you aware how much extra work this creates for me?

If the answer to any of the above is "No" Then I regret to inform you that my answer is "No". Have a nice day.

[RagnaroksChosen]

It's not about changing opinions. We're trying to demonstrate to him that his problem can be fixed, and the response is just "no no no no no my fingers are in my ears no no no".

It's quite as annoying to be trying to hold an idea exchange and have the response continually be "no," and not even a "no, I disagree for these reasons", but a "no, I will not crede what you say at all", and Ragnarok has as much as said "this is my opinion and I will not change it ever".

Actualy I have heard what you said but your arguuing my opinion on the matter.
I own the book, I've played it and had it played in my games. Me and my group just don't like it. Personaly its because the flavor of the mechanics involved. the way manuvers work.

The Op's question was would you allow it and why. I would not allow it and that is because of the statement above i don't like the way the mechanics feel. One can argue all you want that there are other forms of fighting styles or that it may seem one way or the other. but it doesn't it has a destinctly wuxia feel to it. I know i'm not alone there are others that feel the same way or people would play it all the time and they don't.

[Serenity]

Change someone's mind? Maybe not (though you never know). But there's also, in theory, people following along in the debate, on the fence about whether to use ToB. And even if it doesn't get anyone anywhere, part of the reason for a forum like this is debate about the game, isn't it?

In the end, it is all a game. It's not important in the grand scheme of things, so it doesn't really matter if someone elects to be irrational about it. Their game, their prerogative, ultimately. But if they offer irrational reasoning in the context of a debate, then their opponents are more than justified in calling them out on being irrational. And frankly, it is irrational to discount the Warblade or Crusader on the basis of flavor, when their fluff is largely identical to the Fighter and Paladin. Likewise, if you allow a monk, or a duskblade, or any one of a dozen other ways that a character might have a mystically augmented fighting style, and then turn around and say that a Swordsage is 'too wuxia', even if played more like a gish, then you are making a fallacious argument.

[Optimystik]

Just a nitpick, it's 4 "extreme" alignments (LG, LE. CG, CE) , the precise 4 availables in the UA variant. If you don't want want CG, CE, or LE crusaders, you just tell the player he can only play CG crusaders.
Having all his maneuvers/istances be subject to antimagic zones (heck, even normal Dispells) is fine, if you find their abilities too "strong".
For falling, if you think it really needs it, just make it that his maneuvers won't work if he falls, until he can attone. The rest of his class features (steele resolve, furious counterstrike), could still work, as it's less supernatural than the maneuvers themselves.

Even with these "nerfs", the crusader would still be a cool option over the core paladin.

Just to clarify: I was only pointing out a difference in response to Boci's question, I was in no way saying the Crusader's looser alignment restrictions somehow made it unbalanced.

Also, you're mistaken - Crusaders can be any alignment except TN, including NG and CN. The paladin-ish class that embodies the 4 extreme alignments is the Soulborn, not the Crusader.

"A Crusader can stand for chaos, good, evil, law, or a combination of principles" - the underlined portion is what references the 4 extreme alignments. It's impossible to stand for pure Law without being LN.

[Boci]

Oh, I'd play the game if anyone wanted to run it in our group. I don't hate 3.5 or anything.

As it is, I'd come in to relate my experiences from years of having played it, and people just kept wanting me to elaborate.

Okay.


That's a good example of a problem you'd want to address systemically, by say changing how HP works, rather than giving a few classes the ability to progressively impair enemies as they deal HP damage - which is more the solution ToB did.

And you think such a system could be made that will be accepted by as many people as ToB was? The concept of your solution sounds better, and I would be happy to try it. But until it becomes actual mechanics it is not much use to me.


The inability of some classes to apply mundane talents to a wide variety of challenges was a systemic problem - literally every class in the game suffers from it, it's just that spellcasters can use a wide variety of spell effects to compensate for it.

But this and ToB are not mutually exclusive. Such a skill system would still leave warblades better than the fighter.


Faced with a problem systemic to the game, Wizards made a book that created more classes that can use a wide variety of spell-like effects to compensate for the problem... instead of trying to fix it.

No, they made a series of full attacks that had some variety, along with some supernatural abilites for an already pseudo-magical class. Skill with a blade and being able to study an opponet is not magical.


And ToB works fine for that - in fact, if you're only going to play with T3 classes, then you'll want every sourcebook with them you can get, considering how few there are in core.

The core melee is good for dipping classes: fighting styles that are no longer useful in the long run, but it pays to know a bit about them.


That entirely depends.
1) Do I trust you or have reason to trust you?
2) Are you going to accept very close scrutiny of your character sheet and possible choices?
3) Are you going to use the abilities of the class responsibly and allow other characters to do things that could instead be solved with your power?

For arguments sake, lets assume yes, yes and yes.


4) Are you aware how much extra work this creates for me?

For my swordsage gish, all you really need is that somewhere there is a monestry that teachers an uncommon form of magic, but if you want to give yourself more work, more power to you, thanks for being a good DM.


Actualy I have heard what you said but your arguuing my opinion on the matter.
I own the book, I've played it and had it played in my games. Me and my group just don't like it. Personaly its because the flavor of the mechanics involved. the way manuvers work.

We're just asking that you elaborate on this point. You have acknowledge flavour can be changed, so that leaves the mechanics. What about a fighter moving, studing his opponent and then making an attack that by passes their armour feels wrong for a melee class?

[Saph]

It's not about changing opinions. We're trying to demonstrate to him that his problem can be fixed, and the response is just "no no no no no my fingers are in my ears no no no".

It's quite as annoying to be trying to hold an idea exchange and have the response continually be "no," and not even a "no, I disagree for these reasons", but a "no, I will not crede what you say at all", and Ragnarok has as much as said "this is my opinion and I will not change it ever".

You're not holding an idea exchange - you're lecturing other people on why you're right and they're wrong. You and Boci are never going to play with Ragnarok in a D&D game, ever. So why in the name of Conan's codpiece does it bother you so much which books his group does and doesn't allow at his table?

Seriously, this is worse than the monk threads. At least with the monk threads we got some interesting tactical discussions and SRD analysis out of it. This is just a tape player on endless repeat.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Their game, their prerogative, ultimately. But if they offer irrational reasoning in the context of a debate, then their opponents are more than justified in calling them out on being irrational. And frankly, it is irrational to discount the Warblade or Crusader on the basis of flavor, when their fluff is largely identical to the Fighter and Paladin. Likewise, if you allow a monk, or a duskblade, or any one of a dozen other ways that a character might have a mystically augmented fighting style, and then turn around and say that a Swordsage is 'too wuxia', even if played more like a gish, then you are making a fallacious argument.

I think that is the point is that its not because its based on opinion. Irrational or not. If your talking about a way something feels. not fact.
There for it is mutable much like fluff. To me a warblade doesn't feel like a fighter.

[arguskos]

Seriously, this is worse than the monk threads. At least with the monk threads we got some interesting tactical discussions and SRD analysis out of it. This is just a tape player on endless repeat.
Oh monk threads, you are so endlessly hilarious. In other news, there needs to be another thread about how awesome Atavist is, cause it takes the shamefully bad Soulknife and Monk and makes them totally playable. I love that fact.

Also, no, I have nothing actually constructive to add to the conversation. :smalltongue: Just wanted to mention that Atavist rocks. :smallcool:

[Boci]

You're not holding an idea exchange - you're lecturing other people on why you're right and they're wrong.

No, we are saying "your reasons behind your opinions do not make sense. For example consider X (i.e. fluff can be changed)".

You've already acknowledged no one's opinions are going to change. Do you think then that we will stop argueing because you said so?


To me a warblade doesn't feel like a fighter.

But you cannot tell whether I am describing a fighter or a warblade, so they must be similar. Both have full BAB and can fight so well because they know how to wield their weapons through contless hours of training.

[Tavar]

EDIT: Tavar, logical paradoxes are totally fair game. Feel free to help others through them so they can be clearer about their arguments. Just... it's easy to go from "fixing paradoxes" to "claiming someone is badwrong". As long as that line isn't crossed, then go for it. That's all I was saying. :smallwink:

I agree, and I hope that I haven't crossed this line.


Boci, you and the other pro-ToB people have just spent the better part of 150 posts trying to pressure everyone who doesn't like the book into agreeing with you, and telling everyone who doesn't agree with you that this makes them irrational/stupid/wrong. If you're trying to persuade people to like ToB, you're doing a bloody awful job of it.

There's a fine line between explaining why you think your opinions are right, and telling everyone else why you think their opinions are wrong. The first can be persuasive, the second is just really annoying.
Have we really been pressuring?

Really, this is the most troubling things about these threads; I've always though of them as a sharing of viewpoints, which inevitably leads to a discussion of said viewpoints. Yet there also seems to be a segment of the board population that views this as a direct attack. I'm not sure why this is the case. Can you point out any of my posts that have called someone stupid or wrong? I recognize that I've said some arguments are irrational, but if you're using double standards or paradoxes as a basis for your argument, well, that is irrational.



i was refering to the statement about fencing and western fighting styles.

Which other points i thought i had hit them all?
You've said that you don't allow characters based on either western or eastern martial traditions. Thus, I asked what do you allow. You respond by saying what you don't characters based on eastern traditions, but do allow ones based on western ones. These statements are contradictory, so could you please confirm which is right. And if the later, please explain the difference between the two.


Oh monk threads, you are so endlessly hilarious. In other news, there needs to be another thread about how awesome Atavist is, cause it takes the shamefully bad Soulknife and Monk and makes them totally playable. I love that fact.

Also, no, I have nothing actually constructive to add to the conversation. :smalltongue: Just wanted to mention that Atavist rocks. :smallcool:
Huh? Link please. I'd be very interested in this.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

You've already acknowledged no one's opinions are going to change. Do you think then that we will stop argueing because you said so?

I can't decide whether I want to laugh, groan, or nod my head in agreement.

[arguskos]

I agree, and I hope that I haven't crossed this line.
Nothing personal, but sometimes, you sound suspiciously close to saying "well, you just are WRONG". Not saying you've ever said that straight out, but the issue with ToB threads is they get the blood pumping, and often times, the words someone may have meant as innocuous come across as angry and accusatory. I am not immune to this (and have been called out in the past, whereupon I apologized and clarified, and things were good), and this thread is no exception either. Just food for thought, we're all friends here after all.


Huh? Link please. I'd be very interested in this.
The Atavist is a prestige class from Races of Eberron. Really, all you have to know is that it advances both mind blade and unarmed damage. This means that if you take the Reshape Mind Blade feat from Dragon Magazine (naming Unarmed Strike), you can stack mind blade and unarmed damage progressions into something that's half-way decent. Also, it's totally a good time to play.

[Indon]

And you think such a system could be made that will be accepted by as many people as ToB was? The concept of your solution sounds better, and I would be happy to try it. But until it becomes actual mechanics it is not much use to me.
If we're going to talk about things that do what ToB does, only better, I'd sooner suggest the systems I have suggested previously.

But, hmm. To propose a quick houseruled systemic fix, we could just fix ToB directly. Get rid of the classes, and revamp the maneuvers so you no longer need to be a member of a class or take a feat to get access to them.

Instead, make the requirements a combination of BAB, weapon proficiency, and stat requirements (possibly including requirements like max HP). Any maneuvers a charcter qualifies for, they have.

That way, it actually makes sense to say that your guy has, say, skin that can deflect steel as a perfectly normal fighter, because now instead of exerting Super Special Technique Training it's just something he can do as a result of his abilities (i.e. being crazy tough).

You could additionally extend this to encompass combat maneuver feats and skill tricks: If you meet the prereqs, you have it. Now you can be melee, or otherwise mundane, and have nice things, without it needing to be some super-technique or something. It also opens up the content to all mundane class concepts, and allows you to use the content in conjunction with other classes without needing to try and swap out classes, or expend extra resources.

With this approach, it makes sense to include things that don't even necessarily exist as maneuvers - you can't really have a Secret Technique that breaks through a Wall of Force, but that can totally be something you can just plain do if you have over 30 strength or whatever.


No, they made a series of full attacks that had some variety, along with some supernatural abilites for an already pseudo-magical class. Skill with a blade and being able to study an opponet is not magical.
I'm not referring to flavor, there.

[RagnaroksChosen]

You've said that you don't allow characters based on either western or eastern martial traditions. Thus, I asked what do you allow. You respond by saying what you don't characters based on eastern traditions, but do allow ones based on western ones. These statements are contradictory, so could you please confirm which is right. And if the later, please explain the difference between the two.


Huh? Link please. I'd be very interested in this.

No i said i don't allow them based on eastern martial arts.
I said i could care less about what martial arts was done in the west.
Or fencing manuvers.
Doesn't meen i don't allow them i could just care less with what there called or if some thing has a stronger tie to it then eastern arts.

If it feels like its an oriential style then we don't generaly play it.

Saying something is a fencing menuver when it is also sounds like a wuxia move does not justify that its feeling is mutable seeing as i don't know any fencing menuvers besides mabye an en-gaurd.

[Boci]

If we're going to talk about things that do what ToB does, only better, I'd sooner suggest the systems I have suggested previously.

But, hmm. To propose a quick houseruled systemic fix, we could just fix ToB directly. Get rid of the classes, and revamp the maneuvers so you no longer need to be a member of a class or take a feat to get access to them.

Instead, make the requirements a combination of BAB, weapon proficiency, and stat requirements (possibly including requirements like max HP). Any maneuvers a charcter qualifies for, they have.

That way, it actually makes sense to say that your guy has, say, skin that can deflect steel as a perfectly normal fighter, because now instead of exerting Super Special Technique Training it's just something he can do as a result of his abilities (i.e. being crazy tough).

You could additionally extend this to encompass combat maneuver feats and skill tricks: If you meet the prereqs, you have it. Now you can be melee, or otherwise mundane, and have nice things, without it needing to be some super-technique or something. It also opens up the content to all mundane class concepts, and allows you to use the content in conjunction with other classes without needing to try and swap out classes, or expend extra resources.

With this approach, it makes sense to include things that don't even necessarily exist as maneuvers - you can't really have a Secret Technique that breaks through a Wall of Force, but that can totally be something you can just plain do if you have over 30 strength or whatever.

Sounds interesting, but too complicated compared to what it adds. Other might think differently. How about keeping ToM and having feats that grant you access to three specialised maneuvers of a particular theme?



I'm not referring to flavor, there.

Targetting touch AC is not magical. Dealing an extra 2d6 damage and overcoming DR is not magical. Correcting a missed attack so that it hits is not magical.


No i said i don't allow them based on eastern martial arts.
I said i could care less about what martial arts was done in the west.
Or fencing manuvers.
Doesn't meen i don't allow them i could just care less with what there called or if some thing has a stronger tie to it then eastern arts.

If it feels like its an oriential style then we don't generaly play it.

Saying something is a fencing menuver when it is also sounds like a wuxia move does not justify that its feeling is mutable seeing as i don't know any fencing menuvers besides mabye an en-gaurd.

So you're saying that you do not allow ToB based on a mistake (that naming techniques is unique to the eastern fighting styles) and do not care to do anything about this mistake?


I can't decide whether I want to laugh, groan, or nod my head in agreement.

Can I sig this?

[lsfreak]

I can't decide whether I want to laugh, groan, or nod my head in agreement.

I know what I'm going to do, I'm going to sig it.

I *think* what RC is saying is that ToB represents a realistic feature but it is making the combat system more concrete. He prefers the abstraction of trading blows without the specifics of how people are attacking. This leaves the players to come up with what exactly they are doing (though likely with no mechanical benefits, or they'd use ToB), or the ability to ignore the details and just go with the die rolls.

Which is probably the best reason against ToB I've ever heard.


My reason is simple: I HAVE in the past, and I payed for it. I have permitted ToB in the past on 3 occasions (by player request, and a different one each time), and have been in a game with ToB on another 3 occasions. IN EACH OCCASION the use of the Tome of Battle utterly annihilated any fun anyone had. The character in question did things that made the rest of the party pointless, and directly detracted from their fun.
Something to keep in mind when using ToB characters is that they are some of the strongest characters until about level 4/5. Which means using ToB at such levels can unbalance things in unoptimized groups. On top of that, ToB characters are pre-optimized to well above other melee classes' abilities/power: an unoptimized warblades is leaps and bounds above an unoptimized fighter, but if they're similarly optimized the ToB will simply have more options rather than being emphatically 'more powerful' (with fighters and barbarians often being more powerful, but unable to bring that power to the fight in all the situations a ToB character can).

[Boci]

I know what I'm going to do, I'm going to sig it.

I *think* what RC is saying is that ToB represents a realistic feature but it is making the combat system more concrete. He prefers the abstraction of trading blows without the specifics of how people are attacking. This leaves the players to come up with what exactly they are doing (though likely with no mechanical benefits, or they'd use ToB), or the ability to ignore the details and just go with the die rolls.

Which is probably the best reason against ToB I've ever heard.

But you can just ignore the flavour of ToB and make up your own?

[LichPrinceAlim]

Considering the title and first post (too lazy to read 6 fricken pages!!!), here's the simple version of each's base flavor, minus PC details:

Crusader- You are a martial devotee to your god. You see yourself as the hand (or fist) of your god, in hopes to convert your foe, or kill them. Think Necromongers from Riddick, minus the Lord Marshall or Templars.

Swordsage- An estetic student of your art, you learn to channel the energies of the universe, be they fire, light, or darkness, to strike fear into your foe. Your training shall lead you to victory, as you search for enlightenment. Think benders from the Avatar: The Last Airbender series or Li Mu Bai from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.

Warblade- A veteran of combat, you use your wits as much as your might in wars. You live and breathe combat and hope to become the master of your craft, often leader of whole companies of soldiers. Think any named character in Dynasty Warriors.

[Jayabalard]

But you can just ignore the flavour of ToB and make up your own?Then it's not worth purchasing.

[Boci]

Then it's not worth purchasing.

It is for the mechanics, which constitute the a large portion of the book (possible even the majority, not sure).

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I *think* what RC is saying is that ToB represents a realistic feature but it is making the combat system more concrete. He prefers the abstraction of trading blows without the specifics of how people are attacking. This leaves the players to come up with what exactly they are doing (though likely with no mechanical benefits, or they'd use ToB), or the ability to ignore the details and just go with the die rolls.

Which is probably the best reason against ToB I've ever heard.

If I may join in on this: The issue I have with this is that it need not be true. Just because the book says X when describing something, be it a feat, a spell, or even a maneuver does not preclude a player from saying "Well, my character's a woodsy elf, so instead of Bands of Steel actually being metal, could I describe them as being thick veins instead?" Given just a little creativity and time, a player could do the same for Lightning Throw or any number of strikes. Admittedly, Lightning Throw still involves something akin to grappling and chucking someone.:smalltongue:


Now, having said all that, I think I understand where you're coming from. If a book gives me an elaborate description for a spell or power, odds are I will just use it as written because I'm lazy or because that description is "good enough." Some of the stuff in ToB, as much as I do love it, is a little out there. (I'm looking at you Iron Heart Surge: I know what you think you should do, but that's not what RAW says, sadly.)

EDIT: Whoops, forgot this bit.


Something to keep in mind when using ToB characters is that they are some of the strongest characters until about level 4/5. Which means using ToB at such levels can unbalance things in unoptimized groups. On top of that, ToB characters are pre-optimized to well above other melee classes' abilities/power: an unoptimized warblades is leaps and bounds above an unoptimized fighter, but if they're similarly optimized the ToB will simply have more options rather than being emphatically 'more powerful' (with fighters and barbarians often being more powerful, but unable to bring that power to the fight in all the situations a ToB character can).

This can be a problem for groups, as not everyone has the time, effort, know-how, or panda side-kicks necessary to get the proper millage out of a fighter or monk. The fact that it's difficult to screw up a martial adept may make things appear worse for these people, especially if the local "munchkin" wants to be the one to use the system. Which is a shame, because I feel it's not really fair to the system getting flack for someone else's shenanigans. Eh, it happens, though.

[RagnaroksChosen]

But you can just ignore the flavour of ToB and make up your own?

because mainly we don't want to, Though that isn't a hard fast rule. call it lazy call it what ever.

err my group currently is exploring the option of instead of making fighters more like wizards we are trying to dumb down wizards so there more compaire able to fighters.


I should also probebly mention that my group loves 2nd ed.

Boci: Naaa its more fluff then mechanics.

[lsfreak]

But you can just ignore the flavour of ToB and make up your own?

Nonono. What I'm saying is that ToB maneuvers represent specific moves done by the character. That is fluff you can't get rid of, not with the way Strikes, Counters, and Boosts work - no matter what, you are activating a specific ability (Stances are more abstract than that). It makes the combat system more concrete, since Full Attack is about as abstract as you can possibly get without throwing out the dice and just having the DM make stuff up. My reading of what RC's trying to say is that they prefer the more abstract system, something ToB just can't do.

[Boci]

because mainly we don't want to, Though that isn't a hard fast rule. call it lazy call it what ever.

Okay, but if I player is willing to do the work, why do you say there would be a good chance his character would be vetoed?


err my group currently is exploring the option of instead of making fighters more like wizards we are trying to dumb down wizards so there more compaire able to fighters.

The dread necromancer and beguiler is a good place to start. Wiki have versions of them for other schools of magic, but you will want to check how balanced they are.

[Indon]

Sounds interesting, but too complicated compared to what it adds. Other might think differently. How about keeping ToM and having feats that grant you access to three specialised maneuvers of a particular theme?
That still doesn't accomplish the objective of empowering mundane characters outside of the limited mechanical and flavor circumstances of the ToB classes.

Maneuvers are not phenomenally powerful things, here - the reason they place characters in Tier 3 is because having a lot of maneuvers makes you versatile. So if we want characters to benefit from ToB, we need to give them access to a bunch of maneuvers.

Don't worry, ToB's maneuvers aren't poweful enough to make a Tier 1 or 2 character, really, even if you give them for free to a T4 class.

And if we want ToB's mechanics to reflect the fluff of "I'm a normal guy who can do awesome things", instead of "I'm a warrior who practices Secret Techniques", then we want to open up what you can do with the book to everyone so normal people who you'd think are capable of these things can do them.


Targetting touch AC is not magical. Dealing an extra 2d6 damage and overcoming DR is not magical. Correcting a missed attack so that it hits is not magical.

They're not magical because they're flavored that way. There are spells that do all those things, too.

The point is, they're expendable stock techniques instead of capabilities. The only capability the vanilla ToB classes actually have above other classes is that they know a handful of these stock techniques.

[Boci]

Nonono. What I'm saying is that ToB maneuvers represent specific moves done by the character.

You do not have to use the same description for a maneuver every time you initiaite it. They're hardly any less versatile than a full attack, and they relia ble do things aside hp damage, with is something RC supports.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Nonono. What I'm saying is that ToB maneuvers represent specific moves done by the character. That is fluff you can't get rid of, not with the way Strikes, Counters, and Boosts work - no matter what, you are activating a specific ability (Stances are more abstract than that). It makes the combat system more concrete, since Full Attack is about as abstract as you can possibly get without throwing out the dice and just having the DM make stuff up. My reading of what RC's trying to say is that they prefer the more abstract system, something ToB just can't do.

sorta.

TOB's Mechanical flavor is to Wuxia for us. Though some of them are not. Some of them i really like, like the concentration powers for damage.
isfreak is pritty much spot on i belive is that though we like things that are not abstracte TOB's concreateness in its mechanics is what turns me off... I don't liek the way a manuver feels as it feels to wuxia.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Maneuvers are not phenomenally powerful things, here - the reason they place characters in Tier 3 is because having a lot of maneuvers makes you versatile. So if we want characters to benefit from ToB, we need to give them access to a bunch of maneuvers.

Er, to be fair, the whole point of the Tier system is kind of that versatility bit. Even CW Samurais can be Uber-chargers, so it's not like damage or "powerful things" is directly messaged by the Tier systems. The whole point of them is to gauge, albeit roughly, how useful someone could be in any given situation. The lower the number the tier, not only the better a person will be in situation X, but that same person should also do better in Z, Y, Alpha, and Gamma - or even simply being able to function in those non-X situations.

[Boci]

That still doesn't accomplish the objective of empowering mundane characters outside of the limited mechanical and flavor circumstances of the ToB classes.

Maneuvers are not phenomenally powerful things, here - the reason they place characters in Tier 3 is because having a lot of maneuvers makes you versatile. So if we want characters to benefit from ToB, we need to give them access to a bunch of maneuvers.

Don't worry, ToB's maneuvers aren't poweful enough to make a Tier 1 or 2 character, really, even if you give them for free to a T4 class.

And if we want ToB's mechanics to reflect the fluff of "I'm a normal guy who can do awesome things", instead of "I'm a warrior who practices Secret Techniques", then we want to open up what you can do with the book to everyone so normal people who you'd think are capable of these things can do them.

Well if there is ever a concrete set of rule for that I will look into it, but right now it still sounds like too much trouble for what it gives.


They're not magical because they're flavored that way. There are spells that do all those things, too.

So magic can imitate some of the tricks of melee. Why is that a problem?


The point is, they're expendable stock techniques instead of capabilities. The only capability the vanilla ToB classes actually have above other classes is that they know a handful of these stock techniques.

The maneuvers represent a combat style. One that changes round to round since you cannot spam the same technique, just as somebody would be describing their full attack.


sorta.

TOB's Mechanical flavor is to Wuxia for us. Though some of them are not. Some of them i really like, like the concentration powers for damage.
isfreak is pritty much spot on i belive is that though we like things that are not abstracte TOB's concreateness in its mechanics is what turns me off...

Is it really that hard to turn maneuvers into abstract attacks?


I don't liek the way a manuver feels as it feels to wuxia.

But you've already acknowledged that they can be reflavoured, and you siad you would consider a player who didn't shout the maneuvers name out as he attacked, so are you saying your problem with the maneuvers and the reason you feel they are wuxia is their names?

[Gametime]

There is a fine line between saying "I don't like something" and "something is not worth liking." I obviously can't speak for everyone here, but part of the reason I'm so drawn to these threads is that, inevitably, someone says the book is "too wuxia." Not "I don't like the feel" or "the mechanics" don't do it for me; those also inevitably get expressed, but they don't worry me the same way.

But "too wuxia?" Leaving aside the fact that it's an extraordinarily ambiguous term with somewhat problematic connotations, when someone says they don't like something for being "too wuxia," what does that say about the people who do like it? Does the fact that I like ToB mean I like "wuxia" things? What are "wuxia" things? Is it a bad thing for something to be "wuxia?" Is "wuxia" an entirely different flavor from other forms of fantasy? Is "wuxia" unique to ToB, or just represented in that book in disproportionate quantities?

Then I think about why I like ToB, and the whole "wuxia" thing rarely enters into it. I've already given an example of a maneuver without the slightest bit of "wuxia" flavor, a maneuver whose name seems to come from the progenitor of modern western fantasy. So it's troubling to me when people tell me, effectively, that the book's appeal or non-appeal lies in whether or not you like things that are "wuxia." Partly because it implies a homogeneity of eastern fantasy that I don't think exists, partly because it implies a false segregation of eastern and western fantasy tropes, and partly because it's not true.

I realize it's hard, on a forum, to defend why you don't like something without someone else getting offended that you don't share your opinion. The line between having an opinion of your own and disrespecting someone else's opinion is thin, and easily crossed unintentionally, and so I try to avoid getting into these discussions because I know no one is trying to discredit my personal enjoyment. But...well, it's a fine line.

EDIT: Also, am I the only one who wonders why no one ever says they don't like Incarnum because it's too eastern-flavored? :smalltongue:

[lsfreak]

You do not have to use the same description for a maneuver every time you initiaite it. They're hardly any less versatile than a full attack, and they relia ble do things aside hp damage, with is something RC supports.

It doesn't matter. As soon as you have options beyond 'full attack,' you've lessened how abstract the system is. If you like keeping combat as abstract as possible, ToB is counterproductive to that.

I'd like to here from RC if this is along the lines of what he's talking about, however. And I hope it's okay I shortened his name, because I'm too lazy to type it out.
EDIT: Okay, he did. I don't agree with the 'too Wuxia,' at all, but the loss of abstractness I get.

(I'd also like to say that I definitely don't agree with it. ToB is definitely on the right direction to helping balance melee out. But I can see where he's coming from.)

[Kylarra]

EDIT: Also, am I the only one who wonders why no one ever says they don't like Incarnum because it's too eastern-flavored? :smalltongue:Because that would involve being able to understand incarnum. :smallwink:

[Boci]

It doesn't matter. As soon as you have options beyond 'full attack,' you've lessened how abstract the system is. If you like keeping combat as abstract as possible, ToB is counterproductive to that.

I'd like to here from RC if this is along the lines of what he's talking about, however. And I hope it's okay I shortened his name, because I'm too lazy to type it out.
EDIT: Okay, he did. I don't agree with the 'too Wuxia,' at all, but the loss of abstractness I get.

(I'd also like to say that I definitely don't agree with it. ToB is definitely on the right direction to helping balance melee out. But I can see where he's coming from.)

Is an actual character really ever going to feel limited by their warblade? Each PC should have a distinct fighting style, so whilst theoretically their kight be some lost of abstractness with the switch to maneuvers, will it ever be noticed in game?

[Indon]

So magic can imitate some of the tricks of melee. Why is that a problem?
Because it's just a bunch of tricks.

[Boci]

Because it's just a bunch of tricks.

Can you think of s sytem that cannot be described as that?

[Tinydwarfman]

EDIT: Also, am I the only one who wonders why no one ever says they don't like Incarnum because it's too eastern-flavored? :smalltongue:

I don't like incarnum because it's too complicated, all those melds! I'm learning it though, and one of my players really loves the totemist. (I have to say it's pretty cool)

I think the reason people are fine with incarnum is because it provides either passive bonuses, or an explicitly magical effect. ToB is too 'wuxia' because they don't like supposedly mundane people doing things that aren't normally physically possible. Also, even though the whole 'spirit energy' thing is an eastern thing, it's not very well known, and incarnum doesn't resemble normal spirituality in the slightest. (Big muscled guy wielding glowing magic items and has an aura of fire? Soul power is not the first thing that comes to mind.)

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Because it's just a bunch of tricks.

Please, we prefer "misdirection.":smalltongue:

[cfalcon]

Boci, you and the other pro-ToB people have just spent the better part of 150 posts trying to pressure everyone who doesn't like the book into agreeing with you, and telling everyone who doesn't agree with you that this makes them irrational/stupid/wrong.

To be fair, every time 9swords comes up the entire thread is this. There should probably be a board policy that if you mention in your post asking for advice about a build and say "and my DM doesn't allow tome of battle", that people not be allowed to insult your DM and otherwise try to browbeat you into getting a swordsage into the game or something.

But you SHOULD try to see the other side of this. If you read through the 9swords book, it's really well written. Doesn't it look like it would be fun to have those powers? And of course, it's broken by the standards of the game. Most of the super powered caster tricks everyone keeps talking about don't work in a live game anyway, as almost all DMs play by the intent of the game as it has always been (the rules are just there to facilitate the play, after all, if a rule implies something wrong, it gets changed). But if you are in a high powered game, if everyone your party is cleric, wizard, druid, do you think that you will hurt the game by being a warblade? The problem is if your crew is barbarian, ranger, cleric.

[Tinydwarfman]

Because it's just a bunch of tricks.

You don't like the fact that ToB gives melee fighters tricks like a caster?

[RagnaroksChosen]

There is a fine line between saying "I don't like something" and "something is not worth liking." I obviously can't speak for everyone here, but part of the reason I'm so drawn to these threads is that, inevitably, someone says the book is "too wuxia." Not "I don't like the feel" or "the mechanics" don't do it for me; those also inevitably get expressed, but they don't worry me the same way.

But "too wuxia?" Leaving aside the fact that it's an extraordinarily ambiguous term with somewhat problematic connotations, when someone says they don't like something for being "too wuxia," what does that say about the people who do like it? Does the fact that I like ToB mean I like "wuxia" things? What are "wuxia" things? Is it a bad thing for something to be "wuxia?" Is "wuxia" an entirely different flavor from other forms of fantasy? Is "wuxia" unique to ToB, or just represented in that book in disproportionate quantities?

Then I think about why I like ToB, and the whole "wuxia" thing rarely enters into it. I've already given an example of a maneuver without the slightest bit of "wuxia" flavor, a maneuver whose name seems to come from the progenitor of modern western fantasy. So it's troubling to me when people tell me, effectively, that the book's appeal or non-appeal lies in whether or not you like things that are "wuxia." Partly because it implies a homogeneity of eastern fantasy that I don't think exists, partly because it implies a false segregation of eastern and western fantasy tropes, and partly because it's not true.

I realize it's hard, on a forum, to defend why you don't like something without someone else getting offended that you don't share your opinion. The line between having an opinion of your own and disrespecting someone else's opinion is thin, and easily crossed unintentionally, and so I try to avoid getting into these discussions because I know no one is trying to discredit my personal enjoyment. But...well, it's a fine line.

EDIT: Also, am I the only one who wonders why no one ever says they don't like Incarnum because it's too eastern-flavored? :smalltongue:

Wuxia to me is Anime/old kungfu movies.
We(being people who don't like tob in there games) where getting yelled at for saying tob is to anime.

I'm not a fan of most Anime and i love kungfu movies.
Wuxia stands for a john wu feel. ya know wired fight scenes and what not.

To me TOB feels to anime. I don't like it because of that. Yes it can be mutable. yes we can change it. Doesn't change the fact that it comes off as to wuxia.

Ifa player where to beg me to play one i prolly would because i'm a nice guy. But my defualt answer is no. it would take alot of work on my and my player to make it fit right. though most of my players understand this and are ok with it.


though to argue your point of "I've already given an example of a maneuver without the slightest bit of "wuxia" flavor, a maneuver whose name seems to come from the progenitor of modern western fantasy. "
You have given one in a book full of different maneuvers i believe a majority of the manuvers have a wuxia feel to them. both by name and mechanic.

edit
isfreak: just saw your white text.. no no problem didn't realise it was me though you where refering to for a few minutes... but thats just cuz im working and the problem at work is making me want to beet my head into a desk.

[Tinydwarfman]

To be fair, every time 9swords comes up the entire thread is this. There should probably be a board policy that if you mention in your post asking for advice about a build and say "and my DM doesn't allow tome of battle", that people not be allowed to insult your DM and otherwise try to browbeat you into getting a swordsage into the game or something.

But you SHOULD try to see the other side of this. If you read through the 9swords book, it's really well written. Doesn't it look like it would be fun to have those powers? And of course, it's broken by the standards of the game. Most of the super powered caster tricks everyone keeps talking about don't work in a live game anyway, as almost all DMs play by the intent of the game as it has always been (the rules are just there to facilitate the play, after all, if a rule implies something wrong, it gets changed). But if you are in a high powered game, if everyone your party is cleric, wizard, druid, do you think that you will hurt the game by being a warblade? The problem is if your crew is barbarian, ranger, cleric.

Wait, are you suggesting that a warblade would be too powerful in a barbarian, ranger, cleric party? How is it so bad to have two tier 4's, a tier 3, and a tier 1 (probably actually 2 if he's not an optimizer)?

[Indon]

Because that would involve being able to understand incarnum. :smallwink:

*rimshot*

More significantly, Incarnum isn't really like anything that you could compare it to. It is genuinely, honest-to-god a very innovative system in both flavor and mechanics.


Can you think of s sytem that cannot be described as that?

Exalted.

Not to say you don't have tricks - you do, they're called Charms. But you have strong versatility in what you can do without charms - in fact, just about anything you can do without magic, you can concievably try without ever invoking a charm.

In D&D, you need a trick to throw dirt in someone's eyes. In a bunch of other systems, you just ask the DM, "Hey, I want to throw dirt into this dude's eyes, what do I have to roll?"

[lsfreak]

Is an actual character really ever going to feel limited by their warblade? Each PC should have a distinct fighting style, so whilst theoretically their kight be some lost of abstractness with the switch to maneuvers, will it ever be noticed in game?

I'm not talking about feeling limited. I'm talking about a group of people that prefers to leave combat as an abstract thing. Activating a maneuver is a much more specific action than 'full attack' or even 'full attack, but the first attack will be a disarm.' Simply activating a maneuver is too concrete an action.

Like I said, I can see why/how this works. I don't agree with it, at all. I think simply Power Attacking or tripping borders on the use of maneuvers; I suspect this is simply because PA and trip have been around since at least 3.0 and so they're used to these abstractions; the maneuvers are still abstractions but it would take much more more to get used to them as such. Just like telling the GM that 'I'm attacking harder, at the expense of my defenses' is more abstract than 'I use Shock Trooper to take a penalty to AC for a boost to damage.'


Because it's just a bunch of tricks.
It's good but not perfect, so I won't use it? Waiting for the perfect solution is a good way of getting nowhere.

[Boci]

Ifa player where to beg me to play one i prolly would because i'm a nice guy. But my defualt answer is no. it would take alot of work on my and my player to make it fit right. though most of my players understand this and are ok with it.

But what exactly would this work consist of?


though to argue your point of "I've already given an example of a maneuver without the slightest bit of "wuxia" flavor, a maneuver whose name seems to come from the progenitor of modern western fantasy. "
You have given one in a book full of different maneuvers i believe a majority of the manuvers have a wuxia feel to them. both by name and mechanic.

If you name them I am sure each one can be described in a non-wuxia fashion.

[LichPrinceAlim]

Wait, are you suggesting that a warblade would be too powerful in a barbarian, ranger, cleric party? How is it so bad to have two tier 4's, a tier 3, and a tier 1 (probably actually 2 if he's not an optimizer)?

I concour. Technically, Warblade is, while powerful in the right hands, a complete whitewash in almost any other. I mean, I use warblades as more of Commanders with buff maneuvers over Uber Chargers and Trip 'O Matics, so i could be called a non-optimizer player

[Boci]

Just like telling the GM that 'I'm attacking harder, at the expense of my defenses' is more abstract than 'I use Shock Trooper to take a penalty to AC for a boost to damage.'

And what is to stop you from just saying the former when you are doing the latter?

[Tinydwarfman]

Wuxia to me is Anime/old kungfu movies.
We(being people who don't like tob in there games) where getting yelled at for saying tob is to anime.

I'm not a fan of most Anime and i love kungfu movies.
Wuxia stands for a john wu feel. ya know wired fight scenes and what not.

To me TOB feels to anime. I don't like it because of that. Yes it can be mutable. yes we can change it. Doesn't change the fact that it comes off as to wuxia.

Ifa player where to beg me to play one i prolly would because i'm a nice guy. But my defualt answer is no. it would take alot of work on my and my player to make it fit right. though most of my players understand this and are ok with it.


though to argue your point of "I've already given an example of a maneuver without the slightest bit of "wuxia" flavor, a maneuver whose name seems to come from the progenitor of modern western fantasy. "
You have given one in a book full of different maneuvers i believe a majority of the manuvers have a wuxia feel to them. both by name and mechanic.

edit
isfreak: just saw your white text.. no no problem didn't realise it was me though you where refering to for a few minutes... but thats just cuz im working and the problem at work is making me want to beet my head into a desk.

What is it that gets you though? The fact that it's called 'Ruby Nightmare Blade'? Or the fact that it doubles damage with a concentration check? 'Manticore Parry'? or turning a blade back on it's wielder?


*rimshot*

More significantly, Incarnum isn't really like anything that you could compare it to. It is genuinely, honest-to-god a very innovative system in both flavor and mechanics.



Exalted.

Not to say you don't have tricks - you do, they're called Charms. But you have strong versatility in what you can do without charms - in fact, just about anything you can do without magic, you can concievably try without ever invoking a charm.

In D&D, you need a trick to throw dirt in someone's eyes. In a bunch of other systems, you just ask the DM, "Hey, I want to throw dirt into this dude's eyes, what do I have to roll?"

Ug, I completely agree. I hate the fact that you have to take a feat to do anything, turning everybody ('cept casters) into one trick ponies.

[Indon]

It's good but not perfect, so I won't use it? Waiting for the perfect solution is a good way of getting nowhere.

Or of finding a better RPG system.

There are lots of ways to have normal people do all kinds of sweet stuff, without magic, in and out of combat. The ToB approach doesn't actually let people do that stuff outside of a few explicitly defined tricks.

Other RPG systems do what ToB does, but inestimably better than ToB does it. Systems, I might add, that predated ToB and could have served as inspiration towards creating a superior product.


Ug, I completely agree. I hate the fact that you have to take a feat to do anything, turning everybody ('cept casters) into one trick ponies.

Exactly my point. ToB is an attempt to make meleers versatile like casters by giving them mechanics like casters, instead of just fixing the core of the problem which is that D&D has a (small) whitelist of actions you can do instead of a blacklist of actions you can't.

[Tinydwarfman]

Or of finding a better RPG system.

There are lots of ways to have normal people do all kinds of sweet stuff, without magic, in and out of combat. The ToB approach doesn't actually let people do that stuff outside of a few explicitly defined tricks.

Other RPG systems do what ToB does, but inestimably better than ToB does it. Systems, I might add, that predated ToB and could have served as inspiration towards creating a superior product.

Like what? I am genuinely interested in this BTW.

[lsfreak]

And what is to stop you from just saying the former when you are doing the latter?

Nothing. But the mere presence/requirement of a named, statted feat versus the abstraction could throw people off. Compare it to... teenage rebellion. You do something, like wear certain clothes. That fashion gets a name and now it's no longer as enjoyable, merely because it's now been specified, named, pinned down, analyzed. Even if you're doing the same thing, the presence of a feat/maneuver that's been named and categorized ruins some of the abstraction.

Maneuvers and feats are both more concrete than merely explaining what you do through words. Feats are a loss of abstraction RC is (assumedly) willing to deal with, likely because they were there when he first started playing. Maneuvers are not, because he learned them later, they are a further loss of abstraction beyond feats, and he also associates them with a particular fiction style, even if his association to that fiction style is driven in part out of ignorance of what Western martial arts are like (I mean no offense by this).

[Boci]

Exactly my point. ToB is an attempt to make meleers versatile like casters by giving them mechanics like casters, instead of just fixing the core of the problem which is that D&D has a (small) whitelist of actions you can do instead of a blacklist of actions you can't.

That is not a fault of the D&D, its a feature. You know exactly what your character can and cannot do, something that grows harder with more options. If you do not like it, well you seem to know good alternative systems.


Nothing. But the mere presence/requirement of a named, statted feat versus the abstraction could throw people off. Compare it to... teenage rebellion. You do something, like wear certain clothes. That fashion gets a name and now it's no longer as enjoyable, merely because it's now been specified, named, pinned down, analyzed. Even if you're doing the same thing, the presence of a feat/maneuver that's been named and categorized ruins some of the abstraction.

Maneuvers and feats are both more concrete than merely explaining what you do through words. Feats are a loss of abstraction RC is (assumedly) willing to deal with, likely because they were there when he first started playing. Maneuvers are not, because he learned them later, they are a further loss of abstraction beyond feats, and he also associates them with a particular fiction style, even if his association to that fiction style is driven in part out of ignorance of what Western martial arts are like (I mean no offense by this).

Thats technically not true since he played 2E, so feats would have be new at some point as well. And he said he likes melee to do more than just hp damage. Can't have both, unless you get some system for swapping hp damage for status affects which probably wouldn't work.

[Indon]

Like what? I am genuinely interested in this BTW.

As previously noted, Exalted. If you want to do something wacky with one of your skills (including combat skills), the storyteller just assesses a difficulty increase for the action vs. a straight attack, if applicable, and lets you try.

Last I checked, World of Darkness (both versions) operated similarly.

As far as I can tell GURPS can kinda take either position, depending on what parts of the system you emphasize. GURPS supports special techniques similar to spellcasting/maneuvers, but you can also run it more generalized. Just part of its' nature as a universal roleplaying system.

Mutants and Masterminds is also somewhat in the middle. Most powers define broad capabilities with multiple applications rather than specific tricks, but some powers are very limited in application and more like maneuvers/spells. Like 4E's power system, M&M abstracts power source out so that a mundane person can concievably access any power that makes sense.

[Boci]

As previously noted, Exalted. If you want to do something wacky with one of your skills (including combat skills), the storyteller just assesses a difficulty increase for the action vs. a straight attack, if applicable, and lets you try.

But that relies on the story teller, so its no different to rule 0.

[Eclipse]

Ok, let me start this by saying I'm a wholehearted supporter of ToB. I love it. It does great things for melee, and I only wish it included at least one archer class as well.

That said, can we stop giving the people who don't like it a hard time? They really have explained their stance, particularly RC. If I read him right, he has an issue with the way the mechanics work. This isn't fluff we're talking about. You can refluff the mechanics all you want, but that doesn't change the way they effect gameplay at the table. From a gameplay perspective, disregarding all fluff, maneuvers are basically spells for melee. This can not be changed by reflavoring, because this is the mechanic being used. If the issue weren't with the mechanics, but solely with the fluff, I suspect RC wouldn't have an issue allowing it. But the mechanics don't change, and that's where his issue is. As he doesn't like the mechanics, no amount of refluffing them will change his mind.

Naturally, RC should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Saph]

To be fair, every time 9swords comes up the entire thread is this. There should probably be a board policy that if you mention in your post asking for advice about a build and say "and my DM doesn't allow tome of battle", that people not be allowed to insult your DM and otherwise try to browbeat you into getting a swordsage into the game or something.

But you SHOULD try to see the other side of this. If you read through the 9swords book, it's really well written. Doesn't it look like it would be fun to have those powers? And of course, it's broken by the standards of the game. Most of the super powered caster tricks everyone keeps talking about don't work in a live game anyway, as almost all DMs play by the intent of the game as it has always been (the rules are just there to facilitate the play, after all, if a rule implies something wrong, it gets changed). But if you are in a high powered game, if everyone your party is cleric, wizard, druid, do you think that you will hurt the game by being a warblade? The problem is if your crew is barbarian, ranger, cleric.

Check the campaign journal in my sig. :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, my real beef is that I just don't think ToB is all that important. It gives you three extra classes. Sure, they have some nice tricks, and I've enjoyed playing with them, but if the DM doesn't allow the book I can find something else. I mean, this is 3.5, there are literally hundreds of base classes. Three more or less doesn't make that much difference when you put it in perspective.

So I can't feel all that much sympathy when the pro-ToB types work themselves up into a frenzy about people not liking the book. Getting angry because your favourite sourcebook isn't allowed is bad enough. Getting angry because a stranger on the Internet doesn't like the sourcebook is ridiculous. Arguing with them and refusing to stop until they agree with you is beyond ridiculous.

[Boci]

Ok, let me start this by saying I'm a wholehearted supporter of ToB. I love it. It does great things for melee, and I only wish it included at least one archer class as well.

That said, can we stop giving the people who don't like it a hard time?

They are free to stop posting on this thread whenever they want.


They really have explained their stance, particularly RC. If I read him right, he has an issue with the way the mechanics work. This isn't fluff we're talking about. You can refluff the mechanics all you want, but that doesn't change the way they effect gameplay at the table. From a gameplay perspective, disregarding all fluff, maneuvers are basically spells for melee. This can not be changed by reflavoring, because this is the mechanic being used. If the issue weren't with the mechanics, but solely with the fluff, I suspect RC wouldn't have an issue allowing it. But the mechanics don't change, and that's where his issue is. As he doesn't like the mechanics, no amount of refluffing them will change his mind.

Naturally, RC should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

It has been cleared RC has mechanical issues with ToB. I am just interested in what exactly those mechanical issues are.

Also, he is still insisting that some maneuvers are too wuxia, which is flavour.

[Indon]

But that relies on the story teller, so its no different to rule 0.

There are guidelines on difficulty increases in the game, so it's also RAW.

Some games are designed for the DM to take a more active hand in the game than D&D is, and thus the line between DM rule execution and DM rule arbitration can be less clear.

[Boci]

There are guidelines on difficulty increases in the game, so it's also RAW.

Some games are designed for the DM to take a more active hand in the game than D&D is, and thus the line between DM rule execution and DM rule arbitration can be less clear.

But it has very little to do with the system. If you have an insecure exalted GM who isn't good at improvision then the problem is still there.

A lot of people do not think saying to the DM "Here are some guidlines, now give your characters versaatility" counts as a good solution.


Check the campaign journal in my sig. :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, my real beef is that I just don't think ToB is all that important. It gives you three extra classes. Sure, they have some nice tricks, and I've enjoyed playing with them, but if the DM doesn't allow the book I can find something else. I mean, this is 3.5, there are literally hundreds of base classes. Three more or less doesn't make that much difference when you put it in perspective.

Some people are worried about the implication of why ToB is banned. It can indicate the melee cannot have nice things mentality of a DM, or one who has problems divorcing fluff and mechanics. Also when people justify their claims they think need to think about them.


So I can't feel all that much sympathy when the pro-ToB types work themselves up into a frenzy about people not liking the book. Getting angry because your favourite sourcebook isn't allowed is bad enough. Getting angry because a stranger on the Internet doesn't like the sourcebook is ridiculous. Arguing with them and refusing to stop until they agree with you is beyond ridiculous.

Meh, its fun. Besides, popping into a thread and saying "Its pointless to argue" doesn't have a good track record for success if memory serves me.

[Eclipse]

But that relies on the story teller, so its no different to rule 0.

Missed this first quote before my last post.

Sometimes, it's good to rely on the storyteller. In fact, after playing WoD, I think it should be done more often in order to facilitate more dynamic gaming experiences. If you want to do something not defined by the skill system in D&D/Pathfinder, the GM could just pick a skill that most closely relates, as is done in more freeform systems. Alternatively, for those who want to really stray from the mechanical aspects, just let the player do it if it's generally within his ability to do.

I get the feeling from this that you really like hard defined mechanics. Which is all well and good, some people do. I also do to an extent, but I like some flexibility too. This kind of thing adds that flexibility.


They are free to stop posting on this thread whenever they want.



It has been cleared RC has mechanical issues with ToB. I am just interested in what exactly those mechanical issues are.

Also, he is still insisting that some maneuvers are too wuxia, which is flavour.

Mechanical flavor, not story flavor. His issue is the mechanical flavor of maneuvers is to wuxia. Mechanically, maneuvers are spells for melee, which doesn't fit his idea of melee combat in D&D. Fluff wise, they may not be spells, but mechanically they are. And this mechanic feels wuxia to him, because it's melee doing things relegated to casters in the system he is used to playing. Again, assuming I have this right.

[Gametime]

I don't like incarnum because it's too complicated, all those melds! I'm learning it though, and one of my players really loves the totemist. (I have to say it's pretty cool)

I think the reason people are fine with incarnum is because it provides either passive bonuses, or an explicitly magical effect. ToB is too 'wuxia' because they don't like supposedly mundane people doing things that aren't normally physically possible. Also, even though the whole 'spirit energy' thing is an eastern thing, it's not very well known, and incarnum doesn't resemble normal spirituality in the slightest. (Big muscled guy wielding glowing magic items and has an aura of fire? Soul power is not the first thing that comes to mind.)

I suppose I can understand that, but it doesn't seem to hold up in practice. Most of the impossible maneuvers are supernatural (as with most fiery Desert Wind or shadowy Shadow Hand maneuvers). The remaining ones aren't really all that impossible, by D&D standards. (A perfectly mundane fighter can survive a fall of hundreds of feet, almost any character can run hundreds of feet in seconds from a stationary position with almost no prior training, and so on.)

[arguskos]

Seriously, though, my real beef is that I just don't think ToB is all that important. It gives you three extra classes. Sure, they have some nice tricks, and I've enjoyed playing with them, but if the DM doesn't allow the book I can find something else. I mean, this is 3.5, there are literally hundreds of base classes. Three more or less doesn't make that much difference when you put it in perspective.
Emphasis mine, for a nitpick. There's only something like 30-40, IIRC. :smalltongue:


Something to keep in mind when using ToB characters is that they are some of the strongest characters until about level 4/5. Which means using ToB at such levels can unbalance things in unoptimized groups. On top of that, ToB characters are pre-optimized to well above other melee classes' abilities/power: an unoptimized warblades is leaps and bounds above an unoptimized fighter, but if they're similarly optimized the ToB will simply have more options rather than being emphatically 'more powerful' (with fighters and barbarians often being more powerful, but unable to bring that power to the fight in all the situations a ToB character can).
Believe me, I know this rather well. The games in question were at most levels (low, mid, and high), so I've had a pretty good spread of experiences. :smallwink: I feel it's important to give clarification, lest my point be lost or misunderstood.

Also, someone mentioned that they felt that blaming a system for the faults of someone else seemed unfair. Yes, it is. However, I'd like to point out that I was one of those players once, using ToB, and ruining everyone else's fun without meaning to, trying to, or even WANTING to. I actually asked the DM if I could play something else after two sessions. Not because I wasn't enjoying my character, but rather because no one else was. That right there was the last time I ever had any experience with ToB, just because I was tired of the same result happening again and again. I cannot conceive of a better reason to not use a subsystem than "it's not fun to play with".

[thubby]

i can't see "it's wuxia" as an objection in a world where people are disappearing into shadows of inconsequential size (shadow dancer), surviving getting hit with falling buildings with little consequence (anyone of high enough level, but a modestly leveled barbarian will do), and run as fast as many cars (i have a thing for the psi warrior). oh, and catching arrows, which is pretty much a wuxia staple

[Boci]

Missed this first quote before my last post.

Sometimes, it's good to rely on the storyteller. In fact, after playing WoD, I think it should be done more often in order to facilitate more dynamic gaming experiences. If you want to do something not defined by the skill system in D&D/Pathfinder, the GM could just pick a skill that most closely relates, as is done in more freeform systems. Alternatively, for those who want to really stray from the mechanical aspects, just let the player do it if it's generally within his ability to do.

True, but thats not a feature of the system. Any system can be given some guidlines.


I get the feeling from this that you really like hard defined mechanics.

Not quite. I do not trust most people to cope. As a DM I would be pretty worried know that the game's versatility rested on my ability to improvise.


Mechanical flavor, not story flavor. His issue is the mechanical flavor of maneuvers is to wuxia. Mechanically, maneuvers are spells for melee, which doesn't fit his idea of melee combat in D&D. Fluff wise, they may not be spells, but mechanically they are. And this mechanic feels wuxia to him, because it's melee doing things relegated to casters in the system he is used to playing. Again, assuming I have this right.

But lets imagine it the other way around. Core 3ed had a warlock for casters and ToBers. They then released wizard and sorcerors in a supplement. Would people really be compaining that casters had been reduced to melee-ers?



Also, someone mentioned that they felt that blaming a system for the faults of someone else seemed unfair. Yes, it is. However, I'd like to point out that I was one of those players once, using ToB, and ruining everyone else's fun without meaning to, trying to, or even WANTING to. I actually asked the DM if I could play something else after two sessions. Not because I wasn't enjoying my character, but rather because no one else was. That right there was the last time I ever had any experience with ToB, just because I was tired of the same result happening again and again. I cannot conceive of a better reason to not use a subsystem than "it's not fun to play with".

No offense, but I have heard of this phantom ToB build many times but never in any detail. Can you please briefly sumerize your character build, the other characters build, and how ToB made you ruin the game without wanting to.

[Eclipse]

True, but thats not a feature of the system. Any system can be given some guidlines.



Not quite. I do not trust most people to cope. As a DM I would be pretty worried know that the game's versatility rested on my ability to improvise.

As a DM, nothing worries me more than this. But it's my job to do the best I can, so that's what I do. My players seem to have a good time most sessions, so I figure I'm probably doing something right. They also tell me what they don't like, so we can fix it if possible within our shared framework of the game.



But lets imagine it the other way around. Core 3ed had a warlock for casters and ToBers. They then released wizard and sorcerors in a supplement. Would people really be compaining that casters had been reduced to melee-ers?

I doubt it. Instead, they would complain even more about how non-core material is completely broken, broken, broken, and they would be more right than ever if wizard (and other fullcasters) was non-core. For the sake of this argument, I'm assuming all vancian casting would be non-core, otherwise it wouldn't be a new mechanic being introduced, just some moderately to extremely overpowered new classes. Also, the base system would likely appeal to a very different group of gamers.

[Boci]

As a DM, nothing worries me more than this. But it's my job to do the best I can, so that's what I do. My players seem to have a good time most sessions, so I figure I'm probably doing something right. They also tell me what they don't like, so we can fix it if possible within our shared framework of the game.

I'm just saying as a DM, adding versatility to the game takes second place to making a interesting world with NPCs in which your players can interact with. Versatility granted through improbvisation of the DM are like computer graphics. They make a good game better and can save a terrible game from being unplayable, but they cannot make a game good on their own.
Barring a hack and slash style group with little rp.


I doubt it. Instead, they would complain even more about how non-core material is completely broken, broken, broken, and they would be more right than ever if wizard (and other fullcasters) was non-core. For the sake of this argument, I'm assuming all vancian casting would be non-core, otherwise it wouldn't be a new mechanic being introduced, just some moderately to extremely overpowered new classes. Also, the base system would likely appeal to a very different group of gamers.

I always alamented the fact that ToB wasn't a 3.0 sourcebook so it could have been made core during the update to 3.5. Wouldn't have happened, but its a nice thought.

[cfalcon]

Wait, are you suggesting that a warblade would be too powerful in a barbarian, ranger, cleric party? How is it so bad to have two tier 4's, a tier 3, and a tier 1 (probably actually 2 if he's not an optimizer)?

The cleric is there because everyone thinks you need a cleric. The fact that the cleric is really powerful is something else totally. He will keep up the other characters, he will likely also buff them and cure them should they get debuffed.

The barbarian is going to attack stuff. He'll probably have a ranged weapon that is subpar, and a melee setup that is pretty good. Remember, this isn't some lion-totem barbarian guy.

The ranger is going to attack stuff. He'll probably have a ranged weapon that is at least average, and good if he goes that path. He'll have a melee setup that is ok or pretty good. He'll have an animal companion that can help to a degree.

The warblade will positively outshine these two at their jobs. Sure, the cleric is the real star of the party, but his job is not the same as the others. That's the problem. That's why I picked cleric and not another "tier 4". The issue is that the cleric is not going to spend round after round punching stuff to death like the ranger and the barbarian will- and the warblade will be BETTER than them. He basically obsoletes them. That's the biggest problem I have with the 9swords setup- it erases everything that tries to be melee up until it exists.


They are free to stop posting on this thread whenever they want.

LOL!

The entire POINT of this thread is to get people who don't use the ToB to explain why. Here's the relevant part of the Original Post:


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?

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?

Given that this is the topic of the thread, wouldn't we expected to post here? We were explicitly invited, after all.


Anyway, here's some personal stuff, and some general things:

1- No one I know uses 9swords
2- The players I have recommended read 9swords don't, or don't get very far into it.
3- No one I know except myself is willing to entertain the thought of DMing a party that allows 9swords guys, and even then, I'm only willing to if there aren't fighters, rangers, monks, barbarians, in the party to be totally roflstomped all over at their jobs.
4- 3.5 continuations have focused on the "real world derived" physical classes being made more viable, whilst reducing the game shattering impact of some of the reality altering casters. Pathfinder has buffed the monk, not reinvented the swordsage
5- There's little basis for the swordsage, and none with that name. There's no basis for the warblade. The basis that exists for the crusader is fully taken up by the paladin and the cleric, both of whom already fight for the "teutonic knight" award, and the crusader's martial technique and recharge mechanism is definitely out there. This means that you are left importing these dudes wholesale, or changing their flavor dramatically, depending. The flavor that they DO have is pretty cool, if you are flexible, or creating a new world that can fit them in.

Honestly, the pro 9swords guys on this board come across as zealotous. Sometimes this is good- for instance, someone redid the ranger with a 9swords flavor, and I think someone redid the fighter that way. That's progress. If I can find the base classes all remade that way, I might try to sell folks on those. But it's bad because every time 9swords comes up, it's flat out this brawl of these folks focused on a narrow and frankly unbalanced by any standard established in the thirty some years of comparable D&D design. We are all supposed to take this book that unmakes a significant chunk of D&D and be willing to run with it. There's just no way it's gonna happen. You shouldn't even be surprised.

[Saph]

Emphasis mine, for a nitpick. There's only something like 30-40, IIRC. :smalltongue:

Heh, fair enough.

Ah well, I guess that's enough head-against-wall-beating for one day. Let's leave them to it.

[DragoonWraith]

Seriously, though, my real beef is that I just don't think ToB is all that important. It gives you three extra classes. Sure, they have some nice tricks, and I've enjoyed playing with them, but if the DM doesn't allow the book I can find something else. I mean, this is 3.5, there are literally hundreds of base classes. Three more or less doesn't make that much difference when you put it in perspective.
I would argue that they are the three best base classes ever printed for 3.5, and that no other martial class has ever been any good. That is my opinion. That is also why I will not play in games where ToB is banned - no matter what kind of character I want to play - because I simply do not think that martial characters in 3.5 are any good without them.

[cfalcon]

I always alamented the fact that ToB wasn't a 3.0 sourcebook so it could have been made core during the update to 3.5. Wouldn't have happened, but its a nice thought.

Now, THAT would have been really interesting. I'm honestly sad that the PHB doesn't have psionics, ninjas, and several of the "base" classes, instead rolling back to something that they actually playtest and then releasing the other stuff ad-infinitum later. That's probably one of my top 10 things that I'm cross with TSR and WoTC about- they deliberately choke back what is available at the start, so we get 10 different ways to do stuff. Look at the 1ed paladin. Now the 2ed paladin. Now the 3.0 paladin. Now the 3.5 paladin. You can see as strong continuation. Now look at the 1ed ninja- he's a dual classed disguise freak. Now the 2ed ninja- he's a bad thief mostly, with like, one better weapon. Now the 3ed ninja- he's a prestige class done three different ways, in some cases lawful, in some cases evil. Now the 3.5ed ninja- he's a couple prestige classes, a base class based on going out-of-mana in five rounds and disappearing from view... and in 4ed he's gone again, but all sorts of ahistorical dudes have popped up, such as the avenger or whatever.

But that's a different rant!

[Tyndmyr]

3- No one I know except myself is willing to entertain the thought of DMing a party that allows 9swords guys, and even then, I'm only willing to if there aren't fighters, rangers, monks, barbarians, in the party to be totally roflstomped all over at their jobs.

Monks are going to be outclassed horribly no matter what. Barbarians are just fine. I can see one side by side with a ToB class, doing great in an actual game. The power difference just isn't that great, and there is a bit of flexibility between the tiers in actual play. Sure, if one guy is playing straight fighter, and another one is playing warblade, it might come up...but if you have very differently styled characters, it's not so much of an issue.

I allow it, though it's not used often. Refluffing classes is accepted in our games so long as the player refluffs it in a way that makes sense when explained to the rest of us. For some things, like crusader/paladin, I dont think anyone would even bother refluffing.

[arguskos]

No offense, but I have heard of this phantom ToB build many times but never in any detail. Can you please briefly sumerize your character build, the other characters build, and how ToB made you ruin the game without wanting to.
It's been several years, so I don't recall many specifics, my apologies. When I was playing with ToB, I was a Swordsage who used a lot of... Diamond Mind and Desert Wind, I believe. I tended to have answers to almost every encounter we came across (there was a dragon I managed to take out in one round; I defeated a horde of mooks in like two rounds without assistance; I remember vaguely that I managed to kill a major baddie while we were both falling past a super-high cliff, and then I managed to not die from falling damage, not sure on specifics there, sorry). That particular party had a few meleers such as a barbarian and an archery ranger, along with a buff-smash cleric and a blaster sorc. In this case, I was just using my powers, and the other players were getting angry because everything I was doing overshadowed their actions. I was trying to be a team player and tried very hard to not negate their actions, but, it happened anyways. Hell, it was BECAUSE of the barbarian that I was in the cliff situation above, I remember that (grappling the baddie, and then the Barb bull rushes me and him off the cliff >_<). :smallsigh:

In the most prominent game I recall other than the above situations, a player of mine was playing a... Warblade, I think. He used Tiger Claw stuff and a crazy Jump check to snatch enemies out of mid-air and rip them to death before the other players even went. He also had a tendency to charge ahead without waiting for the others, and just killed anything he got his hands on. Interestingly enough, he did that with basically every character he had, but with anything else, he always ended up with the other players backing him up, because he couldn't kill things fast enough or because the enemies were actually a challenge (golems and the like), whereas his Warblade used Stone Dragon stuff and just smashed anything that was typically troublesome for a solo character to death. This is not completely his fault, as I was having issues balancing his character to the party, but it doesn't change the fact that his use of ToB WAS ruining the other player's fun. He realized it, and changed to a barbarian. Same tactics, but more group-friendly results.

I only had one experience with a Crusader, and honestly, I don't remember much at all, save a memory of one player asking the Crusader's player to please switch to something else, cause he was overshadowing the party. That was... 3 years ago now?

I'm not sure why you want to know this though. I guess my word just doesn't suffice? You will not manage to convince me that my memory is wrong, you know. :smalltongue:

[Indon]

I would argue that they are the three best base classes ever printed for 3.5, and that no other martial class has ever been any good. That is my opinion. That is also why I will not play in games where ToB is banned - no matter what kind of character I want to play - because I simply do not think that martial characters in 3.5 are any good without them.

Well, they're definitely the most powerful martial classes in 3.5, due to the emphasis the system places on versatility, but power should not equate to 'being any good'.

[Tavar]

Seriously, though, my real beef is that I just don't think ToB is all that important. It gives you three extra classes. Sure, they have some nice tricks, and I've enjoyed playing with them, but if the DM doesn't allow the book I can find something else. I mean, this is 3.5, there are literally hundreds of base classes. Three more or less doesn't make that much difference when you put it in perspective.
It's less the fact that they don't allow 3 classes and more the mindset that leads to them not allowing the three classes. This isn't to say I won't play if they don't allow the three classes, in fact there are alot of cases where I have done so. But if they don't allow it for certain reasons, then I'm hesitant to join. For example, one DM didn't allow it because he felt melee was powerful enough on it's own, and that ToB cheated by giving melee tricks. This was largely because he made a lot of houserules, to such an extent that it wasn't clear if you could or couldn't do something that by the rules you should be able to do. This made it practically impossible to know what a given character could not do(for instance, if you grappled someone, they couldn't cast any spells, because you can't concentrate if you put your hand in their mouth, or if you flung a jar of urine at them then they were disabled).

Also, when people disallow ToB, they often disallow other supplements. Thus, sure you may have many classes, but without Incarnum, ToM, Dungeonscape, or the like, class diversity is cut down immensely. One of my favorite things about those books is that they don't play exactly the same a another class, with minor differences.

Finally, many such games also follow the opinion that multiclassing easily leads to greater power, and that classes are somehow an IC construct. This makes things like you're Horizen tripper impossible to create, thus hugely impacting the number of melee builds that remain versatile.

So I can't feel all that much sympathy when the pro-ToB types work themselves up into a frenzy about people not liking the book. Getting angry because your favourite sourcebook isn't allowed is bad enough. Getting angry because a stranger on the Internet doesn't like the sourcebook is ridiculous. Arguing with them and refusing to stop until they agree with you is beyond ridiculous.

How exactly are we working ourselves into a frenzy? We're having a debate. Sorry if that's offensive to you, but this is a discussion board, so it's kinda the point. So far, the only mention of anger are coming from the anti-ToB/anti-disscussion side. Really, I must know, how are any Pro-ToB posts showing signs of anger?

As for forcing down our opinions down someone else throat, well, what do you mean? I only see a discussion, with both sides bringing up points, and trying to refute the other sides points. Is this what you mean? If so, how else are you supposed to debate? And if not, what do you mean?

Also, it's nice to know that every debate club ever is patently absurd, and the people are just wasting their time.



Well, they're definitely the most powerful martial classes in 3.5, due to the emphasis the system places on versatility, but power should not equate to 'being any good'.
Nothing in the text you quoted points in that direction, and in fact you're the only one to bring it up. Granted, they are more versatile than most other melee classes, but I don't see that as a bad thing. They can contribute in most situations, now, but they still can't contribute as well as classes that are more focused on those areas can. And if they so choose, you can still have them be useless in those areas. Is choice a bad thing?

[Boci]

The warblade will positively outshine these two at their jobs. Sure, the cleric is the real star of the party, but his job is not the same as the others. That's the problem. That's why I picked cleric and not another "tier 4". The issue is that the cleric is not going to spend round after round punching stuff to death like the ranger and the barbarian will- and the warblade will be BETTER than them. He basically obsoletes them. That's the biggest problem I have with the 9swords setup- it erases everything that tries to be melee up until it exists.

Because their was some severe problems with melee that already existed. You could not ready an action without gimping your offensive potential. Same aplied to moving more than 5ft. ToB fixed those problems.


LOL!

The entire POINT of this thread is to get people who don't use the ToB to explain why. Here's the relevant part of the Original Post:

Given that this is the topic of the thread, wouldn't we expected to post here? We were explicitly invited, after all.

I know. But if someone doesn't use ToB and doesn't want to argue why, to the best of my knowledge no one is holding a gun to their head forcing them to post on this thread.


Honestly, the pro 9swords guys on this board come across as zealotous. Sometimes this is good- for instance, someone redid the ranger with a 9swords flavor, and I think someone redid the fighter that way. That's progress. If I can find the base classes all remade that way, I might try to sell folks on those. But it's bad because every time 9swords comes up, it's flat out this brawl of these folks focused on a narrow and frankly unbalanced by any standard established in the thirty some years of comparable D&D design.

Huh? Thirty years? Isn't the issue confined to D&D 3.5?


We are all supposed to take this book that unmakes a significant chunk of D&D and be willing to run with it. There's just no way it's gonna happen. You shouldn't even be surprised.

A chunck of D&D that had serious flaws. If you don't find any flaws in core melee, good for you, that another discussion, but the fact remains many people do.

[Gametime]

More to satiate my own curiosity than because I think it will convince anyone else, here follows a list of every ToB maneuver. The ones that seem explicitly "wuxia" in flavor to me will be marked by an asterisk. Dissent is expected.

(Note that something being obviously magical is not the same as it being obviously "wuxia." I'm here using the definition of "wuxia" in a deliberately broad way, encapsulating both the cinematic style of kung-fu movies and the style of modern combat-related anime, but not every slightly magical attack is going to be included.)


Blistering Flourish
Burning Blade
Distracting Ember
Flame's Blessing*
Wind Stride*
Crusader's Strike
Iron Guard's Glare
Martial Spirit
Vanguard Strike
Moment of Perfect Mind*
Sapphire Nightmare Blade*
Stance of Clarity
Punishing Stance
Steel Wind
Steely Strike
Counter Charge*
Mighty Throw
Step of the Wind*
Child of Shadow*
Clinging Shadow Strike*
Island of Blades
Shadow Blade Technique*
Charging Minotaur
Stone Bones
Stonefoot Stance
Blood in the Water
Hunter's Sense
Sudden Leap
Wolf Fang Strike
Bolstering Voice
Douse the Flames
Leading the Attack
Leading the Charge
Burning Brand
Fire Riposte*
Flashing Sun
Hatchling's Flame*
Foehammer
Shield Block
Action Before Thought*
Emerald Razor
Disarming Strike
Wall of Blades
Baffling Defense
Clever Positioning
Cloak of Deception
Drain Vitality*
Shadow Jaunt*
Mountain Hammer*
Stone Vise
Claw at the Moon
Rabid Wolf Strike
Battle Leader's Charge
Tactical Strike
Death Mark*
Fan the Flames*
Holocaust Cloak
Zephyr Dance
Defensive Rebuke
Revitalizing Strike
Thicket of Blades
Insightful Strike*
Mind Over Body*
Pearl of Black Doubt
Absolute Steel Stance
Exorcism of Steel
Iron Heart Surge
Devastating Throw
Feigned Opening
Giant Killing Style
Assassin's Stance
Dance of the Spider*
Shadow Garrote*
Strength Draining Strike*
Bonecrusher
Crushing Weight of the Mountain*
Roots of the Mountain
Stone Dragon's Fury*
Flesh Ripper
Leaping Dragon Stance
Soaring Raptor Strike*
Wolverine Stance
Lion's Roar
Tactics of the Wolf
White Raven Tactics
Firesnake*
Searing Blade
Searing Charge*
Divine Surge
Entangling Blade
Bounding Assault
Mind Strike*
Ruby Nightmare Blade*
Lightning Recovery
Mithral Tornado
Comet Throw
Strike of the Broken Shield*
Hand of Death*
Obscuring Shadow Veil*
Bonesplitting Strike
Boulder Roll
Overwhelming Mountain Strike*
Death From Above*
Fountain of Blood
Covering Strike
White Raven Strike
Dragon's Flame*
Leaping Flame*
Lingering Inferno*
Daunting Strike
Doom Charge
Law Bearer
Radiant Charge
Tide of Chaos
Disrupting Blow
Hearing the Air*
Rapid Counter
Dancing Blade Form
Dazing Strike
Iron Heart Focus
Mirrored Pursuit
Shifting Defense
Soaring Throw
Stalking Shadow
Bloodletting Strike
Shadow Stride*
Step of the Dancing Moth*
Elder Mountain Hammer*
Giant's Stance
Mountain Avalanche
Dancing Mongoose
Pouncing Charge
Flanking Maneuver
Press the Advantage
Desert Tempest*
Fiery Assault
Ring of Fire*
Aura of Chaos
Aura of Perfect Order
Aura of Triumph
Aura of Tyranny
Rallying Strike
Greater Insightful Strike*
Moment of Alacrity
Iron Heart Endurance
Manticore Parry
Ballista Throw*
Scorpion Parry
Ghost Blade*
Shadow Noose*
Stalker in the Night
Crushing Vise
Iron Bones
Irresistible Mountain Strike*
Rabid Bear Strike
Wolf Climbs the Mountain
Order Forged from Chaos
War Leader's Charge
Inferno Blade
Salamander Charge*
Castigating Strike*
Shield Counter
Avalanche of Blades
Quicksilver Motion
Finishing Move
Scything Blade
Hydra Slaying Strike*
Death in the Dark
Shadow Blink*
Ancient Mountain Hammer*
Colossus Strike
Hamstring Attack
Prey on the Weak
Swooping Dragon Strike*
Clarion Call
Swarming Assault
Rising Phoenix*
Wyrm's Flame*
Greater Divine Surge
Immortal Fortitude
Diamond Defense
Diamond Nightmare Blade*
Stance of Alacrity
Adamantine Hurricane
Lightning Throw*
Supreme Blade Parry
Fool's Strike*
Ghostly Defense*
Balance on the Sky*
Enervating Shadow Strike*
One With Shadow*
Adamantine Bones
Earthstrike Quake*
Strength of Stone
Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip
Raging Mongoose
Wolf Pack Tactics
Swarm Tactics
White Raven Hammer
Inferno Blast*
Strike of Righteous Vitality
Time Stands Still*
Strike of Perfect Clarity*
Tornado Throw*
Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike*
Mountain Tombstone Strike
Feral Death Blow*
War Master's Charge


I expect people to disagree with me on some of these, but I think it's a more or less fair assessment. The term "wuxia" is fairly meaningless to begin with; differentiating genres of fantasy is always problematic. But, speaking as someone who loves both western and eastern fantasy and doesn't see the (sometimes obvious) undertones of eastern myth in ToB as a problem, I think this is a reasonably accurate assessment.

What should be clear is that there are vast numbers of maneuvers with no obvious connections of eastern, instead of western, fantasy. A number of the ones I marked off aren't even all that explicit; maneuvers like Time Stands Still are by no means unique to eastern media. I do think many of them are inspired by eastern media and fantasy, and that those influences shape the book as a whole, but they are by no means an inseparable part of what we might call the Tome of Battle experience.

Edited for spoilering of list.

[Tinydwarfman]

I suppose I can understand that, but it doesn't seem to hold up in practice. Most of the impossible maneuvers are supernatural (as with most fiery Desert Wind or shadowy Shadow Hand maneuvers). The remaining ones aren't really all that impossible, by D&D standards. (A perfectly mundane fighter can survive a fall of hundreds of feet, almost any character can run hundreds of feet in seconds from a stationary position with almost no prior training, and so on.)

Yea, but it sounds like they're breaking the laws of physics, which is all that matters to some people.

[Gametime]

Yea, but it sounds like they're breaking the laws of physics, which is all that matters to some people.

I suppose that makes sense.

Personally, I've always held the view that fantasy heroes should be fantastical even when they aren't casting spells, but to each his own.

[Tinydwarfman]

As previously noted, Exalted. If you want to do something wacky with one of your skills (including combat skills), the storyteller just assesses a difficulty increase for the action vs. a straight attack, if applicable, and lets you try.

Last I checked, World of Darkness (both versions) operated similarly.

As far as I can tell GURPS can kinda take either position, depending on what parts of the system you emphasize. GURPS supports special techniques similar to spellcasting/maneuvers, but you can also run it more generalized. Just part of its' nature as a universal roleplaying system.

Mutants and Masterminds is also somewhat in the middle. Most powers define broad capabilities with multiple applications rather than specific tricks, but some powers are very limited in application and more like maneuvers/spells. Like 4E's power system, M&M abstracts power source out so that a mundane person can concievably access any power that makes sense.

Cool, I'll have to check out WoD. Exalted is little too much for me and my groups, but I've always wanted to try out WoD, as it is probably my favorite setting. I already play GURPS, and love it. M&M never clicked with me for whatever reason though.


I suppose that makes sense.

Personally, I've always held the view that fantasy heroes should be fantastical even when they aren't casting spells, but to each his own.

I completely agree, but many people have prejudices too strongly to see anything except "weeaboo fightan magicks!" I still don't know why though.

[sofawall]

There is some slight truth to the myth that ToB is more powerful than other melee classes.

Take Wizards. If you take bad spells, Weapon Focus: Dagger and other traps, you will be extremely weak. If you take good spells, Quicken Spell and other optimal choices, you will be strong. Strongest, actually.

Take Fighters. If you take weak choices, you still have full BAB, d10 HD and enough feats that something you take is bound to be good. You will be weak, but not useless in most situations. If you make a good build (Jack B. Quick, Uberercharger, etc.) you will be a massive powerhouse.

Take Warblades. If you use maneuvers, even suboptimal ones, you are still going to beat a poorly made Fighter. If you take good maneuvers, you might beat a well made Fighter. Fighters are still pretty damn good as far as optimized melee builds go.

What I am trying to say is, ToB has a narrower range of power. It's hard to make one weak, and easy to make it strong. The fighter is the opposite. That is why many say ToB is overpowered. It's easier.

[Boci]

I'm not sure why you want to know this though. I guess my word just doesn't suffice? You will not manage to convince me that my memory is wrong, you know. :smalltongue:

So you 1-shotted a dragon, overshadowed a blasting sorceror at killing mooks, never appeared to miss when you jumped into the air against flying opponents (who sunsequently either died, or fell to the ground in awa) ect.

Have you considered that you might have been been missing some rules, such as recovery mechanics, how many maneuvers you could ready, 1 stance ect? Or that your party members were playing tier 4-5 characters?

Also, did the DM ever try something like miss chance against you?

[Indon]

I'm just saying as a DM, adding versatility to the game takes second place to making a interesting world with NPCs in which your players can interact with. Versatility granted through improbvisation of the DM are like computer graphics. They make a good game better and can save a terrible game from being unplayable, but they cannot make a game good on their own.
And like computer graphics, poor quality can actively harm a game.

In this case, having such a poor-graphics game basically means everyone needs to run 'trick'-using characters, or they will be hopelessly weak because their characters will be unable to express their characters' characteristics as diverse capabilities.

This is basically what the Tier system is - a count of the power and sheer number of the stock tricks you get, because the system allows for little versatility outside of them.


Nothing in the text you quoted points in that direction
What.

I would argue that they are the three best base classes ever printed for 3.5, and that no other martial class has ever been any good. That is my opinion. That is also why I will not play in games where ToB is banned - no matter what kind of character I want to play - because I simply do not think that martial characters in 3.5 are any good without them.


because I simply do not think that martial characters in 3.5 are any good without them.

He said exactly what I said he did.

[Gametime]

There is some slight truth to the myth that ToB is more powerful than other melee classes.

Take Wizards. If you take bad spells, Weapon Focus: Dagger and other traps, you will be extremely weak. If you take good spells, Quicken Spell and other optimal choices, you will be strong. Strongest, actually.

Take Fighters. If you take weak choices, you still have full BAB, d10 HD and enough feats that something you take is bound to be good. You will be weak, but not useless in most situations. If you make a good build (Jack B. Quick, Uberercharger, etc.) you will be a massive powerhouse.

Take Warblades. If you use maneuvers, even suboptimal ones, you are still going to beat a poorly made Fighter. If you take good maneuvers, you might beat a well made Fighter. Fighters are still pretty damn good as far as optimized melee builds go.

What I am trying to say is, ToB has a narrower range of power. It's hard to make one weak, and easy to make it strong. The fighter is the opposite. That is why many say ToB is overpowered. It's easier.

Indeed. I wouldn't argue with someone who said they don't use ToB because their group's level of power is too low for a ToB class to get used without outshining everyone; heck, that's the case with my group.

ToB classes are very difficult to tone down unless you just ignore their class features. Even tier 1 classes are a lot easier to fit into a weak party.

[Optimator]

Thats my point is that it never will because that isn't the type of games we play nor do i want to play. If i wanted to play a super hero we would break out heros or M&M.

You're playing the wrong system if you don't want heroic characters who can do super-human things.

[Tavar]

What.

He said exactly what I said he did.
No. He never connected being more powerful with being better. At least, not in the same terms you seem to be using.

[Boci]

And like computer graphics, poor quality can actively harm a game.

In this case, having such a poor-graphics game basically means everyone needs to run 'trick'-using characters, or they will be hopelessly weak because their characters will be unable to express their characters' characteristics as diverse capabilities.

True, but it has the advantage of giving everyone a concrete idea of exactly what they can do, which isn't all bad.

[arguskos]

So you 1-shotted a dragon, overshadowed a blasting sorceror at killing mooks, never appeared to miss when you jumped into the air against flying opponents (who sunsequently either died, or fell to the ground in awa) ect.
To clarify: I 1-rounded a dragon of CR>my level (it was a boss encounter); I slaughtered a room of mooks before the AoE blaster could; and I managed to get bullrushed off a cliff, kill the person I was fighting, and make it back up the cliff, in a handful of rounds.

This to me says that one character is too dominant, when I was just looking at my sheet and doing stupid stuff that looked cool.


Have you considered that you might have been been missing some rules, such as recovery mechanics, how many maneuvers you could ready, 1 stance ect? Or that your party members were playing tier 4-5 characters?
If you knew me, that wouldn't have crossed your mind. I do not play a system or game without knowing the rules well enough to recite. I knew my recovery mechanics and my ready rules. The rest of the party was not playing heavily optimized characters, but they weren't taking Toughness and Iron Will either. They used splats, and took reasonably decent feats.


Also, did the DM ever try something like miss chance against you?
Yes. The guy I was fighting in mid-air was a buffed arcanist. I recall he had some miss chance of some flavor active, not sure which one it was though, sorry.

Again, I ask you, what is your point in asking me all this? It caused issues. What more do you need to know?

[Tinydwarfman]

To clarify: I 1-rounded a dragon of CR>my level (it was a boss encounter); I slaughtered a room of mooks before the AoE blaster could; and I managed to get bullrushed off a cliff, kill the person I was fighting, and make it back up the cliff, in a handful of rounds.

This to me says that one character is too dominant, when I was just looking at my sheet and doing stupid stuff that looked cool.


If you knew me, that wouldn't have crossed your mind. I do not play a system or game without knowing the rules well enough to recite. I knew my recovery mechanics and my ready rules. The rest of the party was not playing heavily optimized characters, but they weren't taking Toughness and Iron Will either. They used splats, and took reasonably decent feats.


Yes. The guy I was fighting in mid-air was a buffed arcanist. I recall he had some miss chance of some flavor active, not sure which one it was though, sorry.

Again, I ask you, what is your point in asking me all this? It caused issues. What more do you need to know?

I'm sorry but this just doesn't sound very realistic. Why do you think your experiences were so different than other players?

[Masaioh]

It's actually the simplest non-core system to learn. I mean, It took me all of 15 minutes to figure out how they were used, and about another 30 to figure out how to build a character. Compared to the Tome of magic, which took two days. And Magic of Incarnum which took 4 hours.

Also, not much in there is game breaking, and the only thing I can think of is Iron Heart Surge, which you can either fix yourself or just ban.

I have someone in my group who can break core monk so badly that it outclasses most wizards and two-hit-kills balors. I am very afraid of what will happen if I let him use ToB.

Never read Tome of Magic or Incarnum. Are they any good?

[Tinydwarfman]

I have someone in my group who can break core monk so badly that it outclasses most wizards and two-hit-kills balors. I am very afraid of what will happen if I let him use ToB.

Never read Tome of Magic or Incarnum. Are they any good?

Outclass how? Please tell me his build. I would like to use it.

[Indon]

No. He never connected being more powerful with being better. At least, not in the same terms you seem to be using.

His opinion is that they were better.

The case is that they are more powerful.

The connection is obvious - the power is the variable here. This guy, like the rest of us, is not playing ToB for the flavor.


True, but it has the advantage of giving everyone a concrete idea of exactly what they can do, which isn't all bad.

That's great for a tactical game, but I'm of the opinion that roleplaying games are meant at some level to simulate something resembling reality.

If you're in a game where your character can not throw dirt in someone else's eyes without special training, what kind of game are you even in?