Why dont DMs like ToB?

[gallagher]

seriously, the more i familiarize with it, the more i like it. it makes playing melee classes fun THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE GAME

it gives versatility, and allows them to still be relevant after level 10

[Ernir]

The same reason that when your group is trying to decide on pizza toppings, one guy doesn't want pepperoni.

Some things just don't float some people's goats.

[Kylarra]

Beyond personal taste, ToB starts out at a higher level of innate "out of the box" optimization, especially at levels 1-6, so they may be significantly stronger than the rest of the party.

[Private-Prinny]

Unfamiliarity might be an issue. When I DM, I don't allow Psionics or Incarnum, not because I don't like them (which I do, since they are both relatively well balanced), but rather because I don't know enough about the system to correctly gauge a player's power level.

[PId6]

Well, to be fair, the default power level of ToB classes is high enough that it can be overpowering for low-op tables. If the cleric spends his slots on healing, the wizard spams Fireball and Magic Missile, and the rogue deals 1d6 with a shortbow each round after the first, a warblade or crusader would be significantly more powerful than everyone else and probably outshine them in combat situations.

That said, most of the time it's probably because of lack of understanding and misinformation. "My friend's uncle's third cousin told me it broke his campaign so now I'm banning it," for example. Much like psionics, ToB has an undeserved reputation for being overpowered or broken.

[Draken]

Hmm... Most people, specially those who know and understand the game's rules and the implications and (in)balances present within then, know that it is an excelent book.

It's not most DMs, in fact, I am fairly sure the vast majority (in this forum anyway) have no objections to it.

[Connington]

Some simply aren't familiar with it enough to understand the rules, and judge what's cheesy or even RAW illegal, and what's not. Therefore, it's easiest just to ban it. Remember, not everyone is familiar with every book, or wants to familiarize themselves.

Others feel that it makes fighters and other melee classes obsolete. That's probably true actually, so it's down to a difference of opinion as to whether fighters were ever any good to start with.

Some dislike it as being too "anime-inspired". Obviously, that's so much a matter of personal tastes that, depending on the person, those two words could be a ringing endorsement, scalding dismissal, mean nothing, or just be flat out wrong.

EDIT: Swordsaged

[Lycanthromancer]

seriously, the more i familiarize with it, the more i like it. it makes playing melee classes fun THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE GAME

it gives versatility, and allows them to still be relevant after level 10It's that time of the week again.

Well, for some groups it's unbalanced and overly powerful. Games where fighters smack things and monsters don't just walk around them, where wizards fireball stuff, and clerics heal every round get overwhelmed by games where anyone's tier 3 or above.

Others don't like martial characters being able to do anything more than whack things with a stick. Fighter-types just can't have nice things, even though their wizard-friends masters are rearranging reality in the course of 3.5 seconds and the party druids are curbstomping everything in sight.

Others look at some of the names of the maneuvers and don't have the imagination to see that they can reflavor 'hit hard and deal more damage' as something a bit less wuxia and a bit more 'hit hard and deal more damage' just by giving it a different name. They also seem to have no clue that pretty much every widely-known fighting style in the history of the world has similar (if not *quite* as flourished) names for their moves. Even things like wrestling (pile-driver? okay) and fencing (fleche? arrow-strike? sure).

Still others hear 'it's borken!' and never look for themselves.

And lastly you have people that just don't have the book. And that's fine. Though they really ought to give it a shot if they have access to it, some people just don't have the time to look through another supplement...but DMing is already really work-intensive, so a bit of light reading isn't that much more to add on for a player's enjoyment, really.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The DMs role isn't to let the fighter have fun, it's to let everyone have fun. If the majority of the group would enjoy the fighter's player not having fun he has to go with the majority (unless said minority is his girlfriend).

The DMs other role is to make the game balanced. Therefore they must struggle to retain the game's inherent balance rather than upset it by adding anything else. The DM needs to know the rules in order to maintain balance, so the game will be much better balanced if it uses unbalanced rules he knows than if it includes balanced rules that he doesn't. Much like they prefer not to add extra players to the group, such as if one of the players wants to bring along his/her girlfriend (unless its him bringing the girlfriend in which case he will have to relent).

So the simple answer is to get your DM a ToB loving girlfriend.

[Eldariel]

The DMs role isn't to let the fighter have fun, it's to let everyone have fun. If the majority of the group would enjoy the fighter's player not having fun he has to go with the majority (unless said minority is his girlfriend).

Uh? Fighter is a part of everyone. Majority is not everyone. You can't make majority decisions as a DM; you gotta get something for everyone.

[Marriclay]

Yes, it can be difficult as well as daunting to learn what one may perceive as a new system. it's why I avoided incarnum for so long. I'm sure that's a large contributing factor to why many DMs don't like as well as, as PId6 said, it can overwhelm weaker parties. In the end though, if you have a group of players who have reached a nice point of optimization that does not reach for insanity, it is an incredibly well balanced book. It's sort of why they used "Encounter Powers" and the like when they made 4e - it was balanced, so everybody should do it to make everything streamlined

[Kylarra]

And lastly you have people that just don't have the book. And that's fine. Though they really ought to give it a shot if they have access to it, some people just don't have the time to look through another supplement...but DMing is already really work-intensive, so a bit of light reading isn't that much more to add on for a player's enjoyment, really.
:smallconfused: I'm not sure I'd consider learning an entirely new system "light reading" but YMMV, I suppose. I don't really see how "you're already doing a ton of work, so please learn another system in addition to preparing the campaign" makes any sort of sense...

I understand where you're coming from, and do endorse player enjoyment of course, but that logic makes me facepalm.

[Marriclay]

Uh? Fighter is a part of everyone. Majority is not everyone. You can't make majority decisions as a DM; you gotta get something for everyone.

Sometimes it's the only way - you order chinese but find out Bob doesn't like it. So you tell him to go heat up a can of beans. Not exactly what he would have wanted, but if it's what everybody else wanted, it's the best you're going to get. Everybody still eats, but Bob the fighter isn't as happy. He can do something about it, such as find a new group or change up his character, or he can sit in solemn silence and mope as the wizard outclasses him.

[Masaioh]

It's that time of the week again.

Well, for some groups it's unbalanced and overly powerful. Games where fighters smack things and monsters don't just walk around them, where wizards fireball stuff, and clerics heal every round get overwhelmed by games where anyone's tier 3 or above.

Others don't like martial characters being able to do anything more than whack things with a stick. Fighter-types just can't have nice things, even though their wizard-friends masters are rearranging reality in the course of 3.5 seconds and the party druids are curbstomping everything in sight.

Others look at some of the names of the maneuvers and don't have the imagination to see that they can reflavor 'hit hard and deal more damage' as something a bit less wuxia and a bit more 'hit hard and deal more damage' just by giving it a different name. They also seem to have no clue that pretty much every widely-known fighting style in the history of the world has similar (if not *quite* as flourished) names for their moves. Even things like wrestling (pile-driver? okay) and fencing (fleche? arrow-strike? sure).

Still others hear 'it's borken!' and never look for themselves.

And lastly you have people that just don't have the book. And that's fine. Though they really ought to give it a shot if they have access to it, some people just don't have the time to look through another supplement...but DMing is already really work-intensive, so a bit of light reading isn't that much more to add on for a player's enjoyment, really.

I have something to add. Some groups avoid ToB because they already have a way to give melee nice things, whether through some obscure 3rd-party sourcebook or homebrew. Most of these alternatives do not require the players to learn an entirely new system if they want to play a good melee character. I realize that many people on this forum don't seem to like homebrew that much, especially not DnD wiki, but there are diamonds in the rough.

[Lycanthromancer]

:smallconfused: I'm not sure I'd consider learning an entirely new system "light reading" but YMMV, I suppose. I don't really see how "you're already doing a ton of work, so please learn another system in addition to preparing the campaign" makes any sort of sense...

I understand where you're coming from, and do endorse player enjoyment of course, but that logic makes me facepalm.It's incredibly easy to learn, and is, in fact, much more easily assimilated than virtually any other 'subsystem' in the game.

So easy, in fact, that it does count as 'light reading'. Though YMMV.

[The Shadowmind]

It's that time of the week again.
I think we are missing the monk thread.
[hr]
One reason it could be less liked is because it introduced a new "magic" system at near the end of 3.5e's run making many people set in their ways by the time it came out.

[lsfreak]

Much higher level of 'default' optimization. This can lead to it feeling overpowered in a low-op group, or at low levels in a semi-op group. Thus it gets banned, because it's so powerful (when in reality, ToB tends to be less damaging than fighters or barbarians, except that they've never seen what a fighter or barbarian can actually do).

Gut reaction to the numbers. +10d6 damage a hit!? AND a stun?! What they don't realize, of course, is that 10d6 isn't much at all, and full attacking would probably net more damage.

Be mistaken belief that Melee Can't Have Nice Things. Touch AC? Con damage? Stunning? Clearly, if you're doing something that's not hit point damage, melee shouldn't be doing it.

A complete misconception about how the game runs (or rather, can run), often due to running unoptimized, 'default' builds as the game was playtested (blaster wizards, healer clerics). Basically, Melee Can't Have Nice Things, because people have mistaken beliefs that everything is balanced. I never got this because some default monsters will constantly turn parties into splatters in the ground under these assumptions.

[Lycanthromancer]

I think we are missing the monk thread.Oh, you foolish fool. You've said it!

EVERYBODY RUN!

[Evard]

The best way to learn any DnD book is to play it. Seriously when I first started reading the book I didn't get it until I play tested it :) Things went smoother and I caught on really fast :D I love ToB now (Specifically Crusader).

[Kylarra]

It's incredibly easy to learn, and is, in fact, much more easily assimilated than virtually any other 'subsystem' in the game.

So easy, in fact, that it does count as 'light reading'. Though YMMV.I don't really care how easy it is to learn or not learn, the fact that you're suggesting reading another book because "you're already doing a lot of other work" is poor logic at best and a good way to not get your DM to read it.

[Critical]

Ahh, another ToB flamewar thread. The history repeats itself. Again. :smallannoyed:

[Oslecamo]

Much like psionics, ToB has an undeserved reputation for being overpowered or broken.

Unlike ToB, psionics was indeed broken in 2nd edition and in 3.0.

In 3.5 it got better, but it still very easy to miss the rule that caps the number of PP you can spend in a power (including metapsionic) and end up with psions that one shot ecounters even better than batman wizards.

If you do get past all of the above, psionics is still the second strongest thing on the game after optimized vancian magic, and not by that much of a diference.

However, another point not mentioned here that applies to both psionics and ToB is the fluff. Sure, you can theoretically refluff anything you want, but many people don't really like or have the patience for doing so, and ToB's wuxia theme just doesn't tick with everybody.

[The Shadowmind]

Oh, you foolish fool. You've said it!

EVERYBODY RUN!
I like the monk threads, because they give so many good tips on how to play a caster. Kind of like how someone could like Twilight because when the book burns it makes a good atmosphere to play a fiddle.

[PId6]

I have something to add. Some groups avoid ToB because they already have a way to give melee nice things, whether through some obscure 3rd-party sourcebook or homebrew. Most of these alternatives do not require the players to learn an entirely new system if they want to play a good melee character. I realize that many people on this forum don't seem to like homebrew that much, especially not DnD wiki, but there are diamonds in the rough.
Not true at all. There's an entire homebrew forum on here with pages and pages full of great homebrew from a variety of people. The problem with D&D Wiki isn't because it's homebrew, but because most of it is bad homebrew.

[lsfreak]

However, another point not mentioned here that applies to both psionics and ToB is the fluff. Sure, you can theoretically refluff anything you want, but many people don't really like or have the patience for doing so, and ToB's wuxia theme just doesn't tick with everybody.

That's something I don't get at all. I got the book and jumped straight to the class mechanics and the maneuvers - skipped the intro chapter and all the class fluff. There is nothing wuxia about the mechanics, and even going into a lot of the class fluff, you wouldn't be able to tell it's wuxia unless you happened to read the sidebar that specifically mentions that's where they got some of their ideas.

[Starfols]

As a person currently playing a warblade, I think it has a lot to do with maneuvers are depicted. In my experience, they're seen as a lot like spells, usually blasty spells, but still. Not only does he have "spells" (as well as boosts and stances), he also has a good hit die, BaB, saves, can wear armor, etc. It's pretty easy to see how it could be stamped as overpowered.

[okpokalypse]

Easiest way to allow ToB is to just House-Rule White Raven Tactics out and go. It's the only reasonably broken thing when all is said and done.

Does it skew L1-6 to Melee? Sure. Does it Keep Melee PCs on par with caster types from 7-14? Pretty Much. Does it at least keep them from being irrelevant, if still not as good at L15+. Yup.

In any campaign that is expecting to go beyond 6th level I'd greatly recommend allowing it - otherwise you melee types (save the Psychic Warrior) depreciate in usefulness VERY fast...

[Mastikator]

Well, to be fair, the default power level of ToB classes is high enough that it can be overpowering for low-op tables. If the cleric spends his slots on healing, the wizard spams Fireball and Magic Missile, and the rogue deals 1d6 with a shortbow each round after the first, a warblade or crusader would be significantly more powerful than everyone else and probably outshine them in combat situations.

Personally I'm fine with this. In a social situation the bard, paladin and possibly rogue will outshine everyone else. When there's a trap the entire team relies 100% on the rogue. When it comes to healing everyone relies 100% on the cleric. When it comes to moving several hundred miles in a few seconds, the party 100% relies on the wizard (or sorc).
Unless the session is mostly just combat then it is OK that the martial classes shine.

[valadil]

Because we're afraid of change? I haven't used it in my games because if I'm going to learn new stuff I'd rather just use a new system.

[Matthew]

Unlike ToB, psionics was indeed broken in 2nd edition and in 3.0.

Additionally, there is a strong tendency to see any new supplement as a potential source of "power creep". That is also a legacy from previous editions (and probably also the earlier runs of Magic the Gathering). There is a strong prejudice towards "new is bad", which is also related to "I liked things the way they were, and am not interested in learning a whole bunch of new rules", possibly with a bit of "for a game I only play once a month anyway" and "I fixed all the problems with D20/3e just fine years ago". For my part, I quite like Tome of Battle, but probably not as something I would use regularly.

[Starfols]

Because we're afraid of change? I haven't used it in my games because if I'm going to learn new stuff I'd rather just use a new system.

ToB works just peachy in pathfinder, you hardly have to convert anything. :smallwink:

[Marriclay]

I'll admit the fluff for some of ToB is bad for anyone wanting a classic high fantasy campaign, but someone needs to take a look at the book and think for a minute. A strength character with intelligence synergy and diplomacy as a class skill? You have yourself the captain of the guard. In my games, Warblades are highly trained generals, captains, and the like, fighters are grunts, and warriors are people who have a small amount of experience fighting, such as tavern brawlers or militia. Swordsages are ascetic monks who are trained with swords (or fists, in the unarmed variant), and crusaders fill the same role as paladins, but in the same way as a warblade vs. fighter. Realize that's probably where it sits, and you have an accurate representation of where these classes should be, both in terms of fluff and mechanics (after all, you want the general of the army or the leader of the crusade to be a tough guy, right?)

[Oslecamo]

That's something I don't get at all. I got the book and jumped straight to the class mechanics and the maneuvers - skipped the intro chapter and all the class fluff. There is nothing wuxia about the mechanics, and even going into a lot of the class fluff, you wouldn't be able to tell it's wuxia unless you happened to read the sidebar that specifically mentions that's where they got some of their ideas.

Well, for one we have the fancy names of the maneuvers. I need to resist the urge to make my NPCs scream their names every time they use them.

Then we have the backstory fluff of a master traveling the world just to master fancy martial arts and spread them and how it all colapses because one of the "honor" blades he had crafted is stolen and the masters end up butchering each other in the name of their schools. People fighting just to prove they're good at fighting is a wuxia staple.

This is, people claim that crusader is the paladin "replacement", but all I see when I look at the crusader is a battle hungry barbarian that revels himself by bathing on the blood of his oponents, whatever they are.

[Shpadoinkle]

Well, to be fair, the default power level of ToB classes is high enough that it can be overpowering for low-op tables. If the cleric spends his slots on healing, the wizard spams Fireball and Magic Missile, and the rogue deals 1d6 with a shortbow each round after the first, a warblade or crusader would be significantly more powerful than everyone else and probably outshine them in combat situations.

Wow, really? Combat specialists tend to outshine other classes that are NOT specifically designed to be effective in combat when it comes to combat and are meant to have other strengths instead?

WHAT KIND OF GODLESS ANARCHY IS THIS?

[Marriclay]

Well, for one we have the fancy names of the maneuvers. I need to resist the urge to make my NPCs scream their names every time they use them.

Then we have the backstory fluff of a master traveling the world just to master fancy martial arts and spread them and how it all colapses because one of the "honor" blades he had crafted is stolen and the masters end up butchering each other in the name of their schools. People fighting just to prove they're good at fighting is a wuxia staple.

This is, people claim that crusader is the paladin "replacement", but all I see when I look at the crusader is a battle hungry barbarian that revels himself by bathing on the blood of his oponents, whatever they are.

yeah, but it's also a staple of high fantasy. Wizard duels? fights over the position of archmage? a pair of generals deciding the fate of a kingdom by fighting as champions? Random fighting in the street because the players are bored and want to see some numbers fly? Pointless challenges for nothing more than prestige and honor sound like DnD to me. If you don't like the fluff, figure something else out. Or don't, even, since it works well even without any fulff.

[PId6]

Wow, really? Combat specialists outshine other classes that are NOT specifically designed to be effective in combat when it comes to combat?
Given that 90% of the game rules are devoted to combat, and the majority of casual games probably aren't exceptionally roleplay-heavy, outshining pretty everyone else in combat is a pretty big issue.

[Shpadoinkle]

Well, for one we have the fancy names of the maneuvers. I need to resist the urge to make my NPCs scream their names every time they use them.

You do know that European fighting styles had essentially identical names for thier fighting styles too, right? The reason this is less well known is because A) it gets less exposure, and B) a lot less of stuff like that was written down in Europe.

[Oslecamo]

yeah, but it's also a staple of high fantasy. Wizard duels? fights over the position of archmage? a pair of generals deciding the fate of a kingdom by fighting as champions? Random fighting in the street because the players are bored and want to see some numbers fly? Pointless challenges for nothing more than prestige and honor sound like DnD to me.

Dungeons and dragons. What do they have in common? Not honor, but filthy shiny loot!

So the wizards don't duel for the prestige of archmage. They duel to get the other's spellbook filled with powerfull spells. Or they don't duel at all but rather make an elaborate trap for their oponet The pair generals fighting for the fate of the kingdom... Wait, that isn't usual at all in D&D, the orc warchief sends his mook hordes first to wear you down.:smallbiggrin:

Random fighting in the street? Boy, that's just asking for trouble when you attack that retired adventurer, disguised demon or hit the son of the archmage. :smallamused:

Shpadoinkle:Well, you pretty much answered your own question. Some people in Europe indeed gave fancy names to their attacks, but they really didn't publicize it. In Asia however we have whole legends with fancy martial arts names in the middle.

[Marriclay]

Dungeons and dragons. What do they have in common? Not honor, but filthy shiny loot!

So the wizards don't duel for the prestige of archmage. They duel to get the other's spellbook filled with powerfull spells. Or they don't duel at all but rather make an elaborate trap for their oponet The pair generals fighting for the fate of the kingdom... Wait, that isn't usual at all in D&D, the orc warchief sends his mook hordes first to wear you down.:smallbiggrin:

Random fighting in the street? Boy, that's just asking for trouble when you attack that retired adventurer, disguised demon or hit the son of the archmage. :smallamused:

I never said it was smart, just common. But High fantasy games tend to use such things a lot, at least in my experience. Besides, Duel by champion is often one of the most effective ways to end the stalemate that is a siege

[Prime32]

This is, people claim that crusader is the paladin "replacement", but all I see when I look at the crusader is a battle hungry barbarian that revels himself by bathing on the blood of his oponents, whatever they are.They get a Smite ability, as well as exclusive access to a school with alignment-based effects (as well as some manouvers to block things with shields, which is more paladin-y than barbarian-y).

By contrast, warblade gets Iron Heart, which duplicates the effects of things like Rage (punishing stance) and Cleave.

Neither class is a perfect match for any PHB class of course, and can cover multiple archetypes.

[Oslecamo]

I never said it was smart, just common. But High fantasy games tend to use such things a lot, at least in my experience. Besides, Duel by champion is often one of the most effective ways to end the stalemate that is a siege

From what I've seen on these forums, altough most D&D parties do like violence, they prefer violence with a margin of material profit and combined with crazy plans.

As for ending sieges, well, that's when the wizard teleports you inside the enemy leader's chamber while he's asleep, or the rogue sneaks inside and opens the gates, or the cleric gets a shaddow and sends it trough the walls, or the bard mindrapes the enemy defenders. I don't think I've ever seen duel by champion being used to decide anything, in particular because it isn't that fun for one player to fight one NPC while the rest of the party watches.

Prime32:Crusaders get smite anything, showing that they don't really care from where the blood flows, as long as it flows. They also get their maneuvers at random showing a clear chaotic tendency.

Meanwhile, even a fighter can drop his own AC for power (shock trooper) and cleave is a simple feat, both things easily acessible to him.

[Marriclay]

From what I've seen on these forums, altough most D&D parties do like violence, they prefer violence with a margin of material profit and combined with crazy plans.

As for ending sieges, well, that's when the wizard teleports you inside the enemy leader's chamber while he's asleep, or the rogue sneaks inside and opens the gates, or the cleric gets a shaddow and sends it trough the walls, or the bard mindrapes the enemy defenders. I don't think I've ever seen duel by champion being used to decide anything, in particular because it isn't that fun for one player to fight one NPC while the rest of the party watches.

From what I've heard on the wizards forums and this board, there's plenty of players willing to sacrifice a good plan for a crazy plan, and many don't think about the consequences until after, monetary gain be damned.

I also never said that duel by champion had to be limited to one person. it's a nice excuse to have a squad that's basically a mirror of the PCs fight each other, and lots of fun if done correctly. You're right, there are smarter ways of dealing with things, but who is to say that they're more fun? What's more satisfying, sending a shadow into your opponent's tent at night, or slaughtering him in a well planned violent battle alongside his best warriors? Many would decide on the former (but it also brings up the "The other players didn't do anything!" bit), and many would decide on the latter. and the remaining would be going somewhere else because a siege is overdone. still, I'm not exactly here to discuss encounter dynamics.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Because people want their D&D heroes to be Tanis Half-Elven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanis_Half-Elven) and not Setsuna Sakurazaki (http://negima.wikia.com/wiki/Setsuna_Sakurazakii). And do not like being told that you can reflavor the former to the latter easily, because the act of doing so still counts as it were.

And quite aside from balance issues, if your classic martial class players aren't feeling underpowered then the "same thing" only more powerful (by what seems fairly universal agreement) sends something of a you suck message.

I sympathize with the above really. Though I'm not entirely hostile to the book, but for its own particular campaigns with an appropriate setting. Not "standard D&D" if you will.

[Oslecamo]

From what I've heard on the wizards forums and this board, there's plenty of players willing to sacrifice a good plan for a crazy plan, and many don't think about the consequences until after, monetary gain be damned.


Ah, but crazyness and don't caring about consequences is definetely very diferent from honor! :smallwink:

[Snake-Aes]

Because people want their D&D heroes to be Tanis Half-Elven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanis_Half-Elven) and not Setsuna Sakurazaki (http://negima.wikia.com/wiki/Setsuna_Sakurazaki). And do not like being told that you can reflavor the former to the latter easily, because the act of doing so still counts as it were.

And quite aside from balance issues, if your classic martial class players aren't feeling underpowered then the "same thing" only more powerful (by what seems fairly universal agreement) sends something of a you suck message.

I sympathize with the above really. Though I'm not entirely hostile to the book, but for its own particular campaigns with an appropriate setting. Not "standard D&D" if you will.

Fixed your link for you.

And so far the only reasons I ever had seen someone claim to have against tob were pure old prejudice. Simple like that. "It feels different". well DUH it's a supplement. Just because it doesn't come full of fighter bonus feats and new spells doesn't mean it's bad.

[Tytalus]

Because people want their D&D heroes to be Tanis Half-Elven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanis_Half-Elven) and not Setsuna Sakurazaki (http://negima.wikia.com/wiki/Setsuna_Sakurazakii).

I can't fathom how the Fighter class would be better suited than Warblade to represent Tanis, who is not only able to perform incredible feats of martial prowess that go far beyond full attack / move and attack, but also highly skilled (in various skills) and a brilliant tactician.



And quite aside from balance issues, if your classic martial class players aren't feeling underpowered then the "same thing" only more powerful (by what seems fairly universal agreement) sends something of a you suck message.


I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.

[Marriclay]

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.I think he sees it along the lines of "Ok, even though you don't know it, your build sucks. Here, use this, it's way better." I think he believes it would come off as insulting

[Snake-Aes]

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.

It's easier to suck with a fighter than with a warblade. That's the gist of the message whenever I see such a comparison.

[The Big Dice]

And so far the only reasons I ever had seen someone claim to have against tob were pure old prejudice. Simple like that. "It feels different". well DUH it's a supplement. Just because it doesn't come full of fighter bonus feats and new spells doesn't mean it's bad.

Prejudice is one answer. How about not using it because it's a limited subsystem that doesn't improve classes other than the ones given in ToB. Unlike almost every book with haracter classes or options in it, ToB is completely self contained, and that's as good a reason as any not to bother with learning a new non-core rule set.

[Prime32]

Prejudice is one answer. How about not using it because it's a limited subsystem that doesn't improve classes other than the ones given in ToB. Unlike almost every book with haracter classes or options in it, ToB is completely self contained, and that's as good a reason as any not to bother with learning a new non-core rule set.Hardly. Stuff like Snap Kick can benefit any martial character, and you can pick up manouvers through feats or magic items.

[SilveryCord]

Prime32:Crusaders get smite anything, showing that they don't really care from where the blood flows, as long as it flows. They also get their maneuvers at random showing a clear chaotic tendency.

Meanwhile, even a fighter can drop his own AC for power (shock trooper) and cleave is a simple feat, both things easily acessible to him.

Wait, an abstract method for determining what manuevers you can use a a time is *chaotic*? Does that mean that making attack rolls is a chaotic act because you'there's an element of chance? "Chaotic" is not Magic:the Gathering Red or 'acts randomly', it's the lack of respect for codes and restrictions.

In my not so humble opinion, randomly granted maneuvers (from a list you choose) makes more sense with the divine flavor than, for example, Durkon dialing in to Thor and asking for specific spells. "Your god gives you what you need, not what you ask for" etc

Edit:

Prejudice is one answer. How about not using it because it's a limited subsystem that doesn't improve classes other than the ones given in ToB. Unlike almost every book with haracter classes or options in it, ToB is completely self contained, and that's as good a reason as any not to bother with learning a new non-core rule set.

Did we read the same book...? Martial Study, Martial Stance, discipline wondrous items, etc. Most of the non ToB martial characters in the games I'm in have some piece of Tome of Battle in them.

[Snake-Aes]

Prejudice is one answer. How about not using it because it's a limited subsystem that doesn't improve classes other than the ones given in ToB. Unlike almost every book with haracter classes or options in it, ToB is completely self contained, and that's as good a reason as any not to bother with learning a new non-core rule set.


Any supplement with any prestige class or base class also includes new rules that aren't necessary outside that supplement. ToB scales that up, and even ToB has stuff useful for non Disciples.

[Prodan]

Wait, an abstract method for determining what manuevers you can use a a time is *chaotic*? Does that mean that making attack rolls is a chaotic act because you'there's an element of chance? "Chaotic" is not Magic:the Gathering Red or 'acts randomly', it's the lack of respect for codes and restrictions.


Don't get worked up over it. Oscalemo likes to complain.

[The-Mage-King]

ToB works just peachy in pathfinder, you hardly have to convert anything. :smallwink:

Really? Mind telling what you do need to convert?

[Lycanthromancer]

Really? Mind telling what you do need to convert?Mostly skill lists. Especially the complete lack of the Concentration skill (which is central to one discipline).

[Sc00by]

I wasn't sure at 1st, but that's because one of my players is (and won't stop!) trying to play the crusader refresh mechanic as it's WRITTEN. (pick up discarded maneuvers shuffle deal out, leave those granted as granted :( )

I love the ToB, but I'd like it more if it had an Errata that wasn't actually for Complete Mage...

[Prodan]

I wasn't sure at 1st, but that's because one of my players is (and won't stop!) trying to play the crusader refresh mechanic as it's WRITTEN. (pick up discarded maneuvers shuffle deal out, leave those granted as granted :( )


Have you tried destroying him?

[Sc00by]

Have you tried destroying him?

Yes, of course I have, but so far I've been unsuccessful... Must try harder I guess.

[Gan The Grey]

Personally? I have a well-established, limited size, low power setting that has the majority of all the major players (guards, lords, societies) already statted out for ease and quickness of use. I don't want to have to go through my setting and provide a home for all the new stuff in ToB. What groups use it? How do they fit into the setting? And so forth, and so on...

[Lycanthromancer]

Personally? I have a well-established, limited size, low power setting that has the majority of all the major players (guards, lords, societies) already statted out for ease and quickness of use. I don't want to have to go through my setting and provide a home for all the new stuff in ToB. What groups use it? How do they fit into the setting? And so forth, and so on..."Hi. I'm the new bodyguard to Lord McGuffin. I was so chosen because I kick more ass than normal people."

That's all you really need to fit ToB into your campaign.

[The-Mage-King]

"Hi. I'm the new bodyguard to Lord McGuffin. I was so chosen because I kick more ass than normal people."

That's all you really need to fit ToB into your campaign.

...I'm using this, sometime. I don't know when, but I will use that line.

[BobVosh]

Mostly skill lists. Especially the complete lack of the Concentration skill (which is central to one discipline).

What is the best solution for that? Recreate that skill, use the concentration that PF does now (which is probably the worse solution as your initiator level is so low if you do martial study), or other?

[Lycanthromancer]

What is the best solution for that? Recreate that skill, use the concentration that PF does now (which is probably the worse solution as your initiator level is so low if you do martial study), or other?Use Martial Lore. Make it multipurpose.

Kind of like with psionics. You'll probably want to use Psicraft instead of Concentration for psionic focus and so on, instead.

[Dienekes]

I wasn't sure at 1st, but that's because one of my players is (and won't stop!) trying to play the crusader refresh mechanic as it's WRITTEN. (pick up discarded maneuvers shuffle deal out, leave those granted as granted :( )

I love the ToB, but I'd like it more if it had an Errata that wasn't actually for Complete Mage...

Pardon my ignorance, but part of why I have never touched Crusader is because I didn't want to deal with the refresh mechanic. Is there some official-ish not as written Crusader mechanic that makes it less troublesome?

[Ranos]

Pardon my ignorance, but part of why I have never touched Crusader is because I didn't want to deal with the refresh mechanic. Is there some official-ish not as written Crusader mechanic that makes it less troublesome?

Use the maneuver cards.

[huttj509]

Aha, Here's the situation with crusader I think.

As written:

Maneuvers readied: A B C D E

Maneuvers Expended: A B C

Maneuvers Granted: D E

Now the turn comes, no more maneuvers are available to be granted, so all the expended ones become unexpended, and 2 of those are randomly chosen and granted. Nothing happens to maneuvers D and E

Maneuvers Readied: A B C D E
Expended: None
Granted: A B D E
Available to be Granted: C

This could let someone keep using a good maneuver each round, as long as they used no others (get it granted, use it that turn, ignore the other granted ones, get it granted next turn cause none are available, repeat.).

My understanding of the intent was that when it comes that none are available to be granted, any that have been granted are to be shuffled back in, and you start over from the beginning of maneuver selection, basically.

[Runestar]

I wasn't sure at 1st, but that's because one of my players is (and won't stop!) trying to play the crusader refresh mechanic as it's WRITTEN. (pick up discarded maneuvers shuffle deal out, leave those granted as granted :( )

I love the ToB, but I'd like it more if it had an Errata that wasn't actually for Complete Mage...

That is actually the most efficient way of resolving the randomly granted maneuver selection, as M:TG as it seems.

I suppose there are breakpoints where a warblade can do much more damage than a fighter, and thus seem grossly overpowered. I recall receiving similar flak from my DM when at 5th lv, my warblade did 7d6+7 on a hit (2d6 greatsword, +4d6 bonecrushor strike, +1d6 punishing stance, +6 str, +1 weapon), when a normal fighter would only be doing 2d6+9.

But I love ToB. Even the DM has found a way to incorporate it into monster npc design and may them more varied (and deadly). An ogre with martial study: steel wind and martial stance: punishing stance? :smalltongue:

[Gan The Grey]

"Hi. I'm the new bodyguard to Lord McGuffin. I was so chosen because I kick more ass than normal people."

That's all you really need to fit ToB into your campaign.

What a complete waste of a new book. What, for one NPC that my characters will probably never even deal with beyond THAT introduction?

If I include ToB into such a setting, I'll need to familiarize myself with MORE rules. Why would I do that when my setting works just fine the way it is? And you really think that the use of ToB will stop with me? My players will want to use it, which means I will have to find a place for it in the world, explaining why it wasn't visible before, redefine existing relationship between NPC societies, build more sets of prebuilt NPCs for my PC's to encounter... It never ends.

It isn't worth it for me. I'm not saying it isn't worth it for everyone, just me. It's my answer to the thread question.

[Lycanthromancer]

What a complete waste of a new book. What, for one NPC that my characters will probably never even deal with beyond THAT introduction?

If I include ToB into such a setting, I'll need to familiarize myself with MORE rules. Why would I do that when my setting works just fine the way it is? And you really think that the use of ToB will stop with me? My players will want to use it, which means I will have to find a place for it in the world, explaining why it wasn't visible before, redefine existing relationship between NPC societies, build more sets of prebuilt NPCs for my PC's to encounter... It never ends.

It isn't worth it for me. I'm not saying it isn't worth it for everyone, just me. It's my answer to the thread question.I'm just saying that you don't have to jump through flaming hoops to bring ToB into your campaign. One of the complaints I've seen is that the DM has to add a whole lot of history and organizations and such to his world because one player wants to play a warblade instead of a fighter, or a crusader instead of a paladin.

Why is that necessary? If he just happens to be a paladin with a more martial bent without any actual divine power, or a mystically-charged monk, why does it require a revamp of the entire campaign world to accommodate him?

If you want to use the flavor in the book, great. If not, great. But don't use the above as a rebuttal against letting a player play something he wants to play. If blackguards, paladins, and clerics exist in your world, so can crusaders. If fighters and barbarians exist in your world, so can warblades. If gishes, monks, rogues, ninjas, and/or assassins exist in your world, so can swordsages.

It's not a difficult thing to do.

[Terazul]

I don't understand how people find the "more rules" part more complicated than anything else in 3.5. It's. So. Simple.

Ready some of your Known Maneuvers.
Use them. They're now expended.
Use class-specific method of recovering them:
Swift Action + Flourish or Attack if Warblade.
Full-Round Action for 1, if Swordsage. (Get some Adaptive Style, kid)

Most people who complain about Crusader "Randomness" or "chaoticness" probably haven't bothered to actually play one. It's not nearly that silly.

As a level 1 Crusader, and let's say we have Extra Granted Maneuver. You have 3 of your 5 readied maneuvers available. Randomly chosen, but come on, you only have 5, they're probably not all that different, and they're all useful. Round 2, assuming you haven't used any for some forsaken reason, you now have four. Round 3, you have five. Round 4, it resets to another random three of the five. For those of you having trouble following: At end of turn, get a maneuver. When you can't get anymore, start over.

So. Simple.

EDIT: And yeah, a Fighter has the same flavor as a Warblade, minus the "glory hogging" part, which you could ignore if you want. Swordsages are no more zany than Duskblades, Ninjas, Rogues or Monks, and Crusaders are just zealous Fighters about one cause/god/Justice or another, or the equivalent of Paladins or Clerics. It doesn't really take any work unless you're making that work for yourself.

[Sc00by]

Use the maneuver cards.

How do they clarify the refresh mechanic exactly?

And there has been a Sage answer stating that the refresh mechanic should work as stated elsewhere in this thread (everything resets to as if the encounter has just started). To answer the original question.

[edit] as this post wasn't there when I wrote mine:


As a level 1 Crusader... Round 4, it resets to another random three of the five. For those of you having trouble following: At end of turn, get a maneuver. When you can't get anymore, start over.

So. Simple.

Though that isn't what the book actually says...

[Terazul]

Kinda does.


If, at the end of your turn, you cannot be granted a maneuver because you have no withheld maneuvers remaining, you recover all expended maneuvers...

Ok, one step down.


...and a new pair of maneuvers is granted to you. Randomly determine which of your maneuvers are granted and which are withheld.

Emphasis mine. Remember that withheld maneuvers are Readied, just... withheld. All your maneuvers are recovered, and all of them go into the pool to determine which ones are usable when it resets.

[Zovc]

My friend doesn't allow it because he wants to build an entire campaign around it the first time he uses it.

As for him 'not liking' other stuff, it mostly boils down to his experience not demonstrating what are mostly seen as universal truths on these forums and many others. For example, Druids, Clerics, and Wizards aren't too broken. If I wanted to play a Battle Sorcerer (The one that loses a spell a day at each level to get light armor and a martial weapon proficiency), he would have to keep me away from some blasting spells, because 'that'd be too good'. He was telling me the other day that the Mystic class from some book was way too good, because 'a cleric with spontaneous casting is just too good'.

You see, when your knowledge and understandings are limited to your own personal experience, your opinions tend to be different from those with different knowledge and understandings. Here on the wonderful internets, we are able to debate and test claims (when we're not flinging poop at one another in flame wars) and find out objectively that Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are all significantly better than Fighters.

Funny story, I was talking with the same friend (who is a DM) about my attempts to solo Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zher. Naturally, a character with more classes (more versatility) is going to solo better than one who doesn't (with the exception of our prepared casters, maybe). So, I was telling him how I tried (note I didn't want to use Wizard, Druid, or Cleric) Aasimar Paladin 2/Sorcerer 1. We had a brief conversation on Sorcadins, and he commented on how he always wanted to make one. I mentioned a number of other things I tried, and it ended up with him telling me that he likes to restrict people to four (three?) classes, so that they can't get too powerful.

It's likely that my friend thinks that multiclass characters are too powerful because I'll occasionally link him to silly builds like Choco's Katana Chucker (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134276&), which need to skip from class to class in order to do their silly tricks. (And also because I couldn't solo Storm of Zher without multiclassing [or using a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard].)

tl;dr, a person's perception of broken depends a lot on their perception of the game as a whole. "Unplugged" people (DMs) tend to have a much more varied understanding of 'broken', from being a Fighter with a spiked chain, to being a Bard and 'being able to do everything', to other 'strange' things that baffle a lot of us.

(I approve of the Tome of Battle. :P)

[Gan The Grey]

I'm just saying that you don't have to jump through flaming hoops to bring ToB into your campaign. One of the complaints I've seen is that the DM has to add a whole lot of history and organizations and such to his world because one player wants to play a warblade instead of a fighter, or a crusader instead of a paladin.

Why is that necessary? If he just happens to be a paladin with a more martial bent without any actual divine power, or a mystically-charged monk, why does it require a revamp of the entire campaign world to accommodate him?

If you want to use the flavor in the book, great. If not, great. But don't use the above as a rebuttal against letting a player play something he wants to play. If paladins and clerics exist in your world, so can crusaders. If fighters and barbarians exist in your world, so can warblades. If gishes, monks, rogues, ninjas, and/or assassins exist in your world, so can swordsages.

It's not a difficult thing to do.

Please try to see things from my point of view. Your 'solution' doesn't fit my situation, mostly because you don't know what I know.

Look at it this way. A well-built setting is a self-contained ecosystem, carefully balanced against itself. Everything has its place. The larger the setting, the less important this balance is because the sheer amount of people and distance between them. I run a very small setting, so every change or addition is more significant.

Lets say I introduce Warblades. Soon, none of my players will want to play Fighters, and I will have to rework all the Fighters in my world to be Warblades in order to maintain the balance between NPCs and PCs. As such, the fighter class will basically disappear.

Then I will need to examine the effect of having Warblades in the position of Fighters. See, before, I placed Fighters at a specific power level for balance purposes, but since everyone agrees that Warblades are more powerful that Fighters, I will have to carefully re-examine everything to make sure the new Warblades don't shift the balance of power.

And that's all just for one class. What about the rest of ToB?

See, I run a sandbox campaign were the players aren't expected to win. If they want to win, they have to earn it. Everything is designed as it is to ensure they have a challenge, no matter what class they play. We don't use psionics, incarnum, or ToB, and the setting is balance around their exclusion.

[Zovc]

Lets say I introduce Warblades. Soon, none of my players will want to play Fighters, and I will have to rework all the Fighters in my world to be Warblades in order to maintain the balance between NPCs and PCs. As such, the fighter class will basically disappear.

The amount of effort you seem to have put into balancing your campaign is pretty impressive.

On the other hand, everyone with 2 or less levels of fighter won't really care about Warblades being introduced. Fighter 2 still has some use, even when Warblades are introduced, it's often really helpful for getting into prestige classes.

[Terazul]

We don't use psionics, incarnum, or ToB, and the setting is balance around their exclusion.

It's funny because most of the stuff excluded is weaker than Core (barring already weak things in Core) anyway.

[Prodan]

Lets say I introduce Warblades. Soon, none of my players will want to play Fighters, and I will have to rework all the Fighters in my world to be Warblades in order to maintain the balance between NPCs and PCs. As such, the fighter class will basically disappear.

Dungeoncrashing. Charging builds. Jack B Quick.

I could go on.

[Thurbane]

The same reason that when your group is trying to decide on pizza toppings, one guy doesn't want pepperoni.

Some things just don't float some people's goats.
Amen to that.

P.S. I love pepperoni, I can't stand pineapple on a pizza. Euuuch! :smallbiggrin:

[Gan The Grey]

The amount of effort you seem to have put into balancing your campaign is pretty impressive.

On the other hand, everyone with 2 or less levels of fighter won't really care about Warblades being introduced. Fighter 2 still has some use, even when Warblades are introduced, it's often really helpful for getting into prestige classes.

I run an E6 campaign where we try to emphasize the more mundane aspects of DnD on a regular basis so that when something mildly extraordinary comes up, it seem that much more extraordinary. It's actually really cool. Fight enough warriors with shortswords, and all of sudden a fighter with a spear is a song-worthy event. It's more complicated than this, but difficult to explain.

Oh, and my setting has well over 300 pages of rules and description and history stored safely within my My Documents folder.


It's funny because most of the stuff excluded is weaker than Core (barring already weak things in Core) anyway.

Only on the caster side of the equation. The martial side is almost universally described as being more powerful.


Dungeoncrashing. Charging builds. Jack B Quick.

I could go on.

All of which require character levels beyond the scope of my E6 setting.

[Lycanthromancer]

{Scrubbed}

[arguskos]

That said, I'm still really not sure how letting your players play with the most versatile and streamlined martial system ever devised for 3.5 is going to make everything explode into gooey flaming masses.
He... never said that, not one time? :smallconfused: You're getting nigh-apoplectic for no reason.

He said that "it doesn't fit in my games, for reasons that are time-tested for me" and you seem to be unable/willing to accept his reasons. He plays a low power game, and likes it. You don't, and you like your games the way they are. Where's the issue here? It's a preference thing.

[lsfreak]

All of which require character levels beyond the scope of my E6 setting.

Uhh... Dungeoncrashing, charger builds, and the basics of an offensive AoO build can all be completed by 6th level. ToB feats make the last much better, but they all work best with a fighter or fighter/barb base, not ToB. E6 ToB won't cover archery, and it's fairly poor at TWF.

[Gan The Grey]

{Scrubbed}

Uhh... Dungeoncrashing, charger builds, and the basics of an offensive AoO build can all be completed by 6th level. ToB feats make the last much better, but they all work best with a fighter or fighter/barb base, not ToB. E6 ToB won't cover archery, and it's fairly poor at TWF.

Not to the extent of game breakage that occurs at higher levels, where it becomes a problem. At lower levels they are fairly easy to balance against. What I'm saying is this:

My setting works fantastically without the need to inject unnecessary things into the setting. It works for us. Why is everyone fighting me so hard on this? Is it really that hard to believe?

[Lycanthromancer]

He... never said that, not one time? :smallconfused: You're getting nigh-apoplectic for no reason.

He said that "it doesn't fit in my games, for reasons that are time-tested for me" and you seem to be unable/willing to accept his reasons. He plays a low power game, and likes it. You don't, and you like your games the way they are. Where's the issue here? It's a preference thing.I did say in an earlier post that it's alright not to use ToB in lower powered games, but he said in the post I quoted:


Lets say I introduce Warblades. Soon, none of my players will want to play Fighters, and I will have to rework all the Fighters in my world to be Warblades in order to maintain the balance between NPCs and PCs. As such, the fighter class will basically disappear.

Then I will need to examine the effect of having Warblades in the position of Fighters. See, before, I placed Fighters at a specific power level for balance purposes, but since everyone agrees that Warblades are more powerful that Fighters, I will have to carefully re-examine everything to make sure the new Warblades don't shift the balance of power.

And that's all just for one class. What about the rest of ToB?
Which essentially hints at ever-escalating problems that will destroy his finely-tuned balance-machine.

Consider my comments hyperbole, since that's what they were.

[Terazul]

All of which require character levels beyond the scope of my E6 setting.

Dungeoncrashing actually only requires you to go to 6 (that's when it upgrades), and is actually a fantastic option. I actually ran with that for my last E6 char. BLAM MR DOMINO.

But yeah, I guess. But seriously, I don't think the flavor issues people complain about are all that serious. Then again, everyone has different opinions on the flavor/inclusion of classes in flavor to begin with.

For some crazy reason.

[Lycanthromancer]

See, had you ACTUALLY attempted to understand my position, you would have asked some more questions to better understand me, or even read some of my posts further down. Then you wouldn't have completely wasted your time posting this response when you don't know what you are talking about.So I made a slight misjudgement based on the information you gave me. It made sense at the time.


Had you show an OUNCE of interest in my point of view, I might have flat-out told you that I and my group play an E6 game. EVERYTHING you talked about doesn't matter in an E6 game. That's why I can stat everything out. And really, "Seek help?" Grow up man. You need to step out of your own shoes for a second and try to understand other people before you decide that you are the only one on this forum intelligent enough to know what you are talking about.Even a small campaign will have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people you'd have to stat out. If you've already pre-statted them all (as you alluded to), this would require far more time and effort than any reasonable person would want to spend.

Hence the 'if you've gone this far overboard, you may want to seek help' comment. Because that level of obsession is...unhealthy.

[Gan The Grey]

So I made a slight misjudgement based on the information you gave me. It made sense at the time.

Even a small campaign will have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people you'd have to stat out. If you've already pre-statted them all (as you alluded to), this would require far more time and effort than any reasonable person would want to spend.

Hence the 'if you've gone this far overboard, you may want to seek help' comment. Because that level of obsession is...unhealthy.

Think outside the box for a moment, Lycan, and read your DMG. It explains the ratio of certain PC and NPC classes within a specific population. Inject classes from the various Complete Books at your leisure and adjust the percentages to reflect the new classes. Build basic templates for your average commoner and expert, develop your different groups of soldiers and nobles and schools and whatnot, again developing skeleton builds as need.

The thing is, none of the NPCs your players encounter have to actually be MECHANICALLY different from one another if you play their personalities differently. How will the players know that the samurai they've encountered is built on the frame of a fighter or a rogue?

It really isn't all that hard. The hardest part was just all the typing.

[Snake-Aes]

Gan, I do believe what Lycan may be trying to pass is that it really isn't all that work you're implying. ToB's presence wouldn't "unbalance" the already present classes, nor would they necessarily have to be common. Their archetypes are surprisingly better than the previous ones at the personalities they canonically represent, and adjusting power doesn't mean "replace fighters with warblades".

[Terazul]

My setting works fantastically without the need to inject unnecessary things into the setting. It works for us. Why is everyone fighting me so hard on this? Is it really that hard to believe?

It's not that we don't believe you. It's just, that you're in a ToB thread, and your initial posts came off as "ToB would destroy my finely tuned deathtrap machine with its whacky mechanics!". Which we actually get around here alot. And 90% of the time? No, it wouldn't. And neither would most of the other stuff you banned. If you want to exclude it, that's all fine and dandy, but of course we're gonna argue/show our support for systems we like (just as you argue for having things the way you have them now).

DISCUSSION ON THE INTERNET.

Edit: Swordsage'd.

[Umael]

*reads Lycanthromancer's posts*
*reads Gan the Grey's posts*

Cue thread lockdown in 3... 2...

[Soras Teva Gee]

I can't fathom how the Fighter class would be better suited than Warblade to represent Tanis, who is not only able to perform incredible feats of martial prowess that go far beyond full attack / move and attack, but also highly skilled (in various skills) and a brilliant tactician.

I might challenge any sort of extraordinary competence in Tanis. He more survives the plot then moves it. Which makes him more interesting then he'd be otherwise. And its not like all the other (arguably) more important party members would have reached where they needed to be without Tanis, which is his true contribution. Anyways I'm wandering from the matter at hand

I certainly don't ever recall Tanis ever using something that could have anything to do with a chapter labeled Blade Magic. With discrete techniques that practically beg to be called out loud. Nevermind the training at the schools of the ancient masters in the styles of the sublime way.

Please do not give me arguments about how easy it is to take the Iron Heart style and Warblade as no more extraordinary then a generic Fighter. Its not that I don't see your point, but that it still misses the point. You would disregard divisions and definitions that I instead enforce. This is a subjective interpretation.

I do not think ToB itself presents the relatively mundane styles as particularly different from the more blatantly supernatural ones. Ergo they all all are variations on the same basic idea. I regard all the schools as essentially magic, just using a different source with some overlap. A variation on ki generally, taking a place alongside arcane, divine, and psionic as essentially magic next to the mundane. And the classes are just how to access that magic specifically. A Warblade that traded Iron Heart for Desert Wind is an almost insignificant difference flavor-wise for me, not suddenly going from mundane weapon wielder to supernatural fire blaster. He's still be different from a Swordsage by being a more focused wielder of the same overall power. Obviously I'm over simplifying mechanical differences and so forth but bear with me.

You can detail how everything about the paragraph is inaccurate or easily discarded and it does not matter. It is ultimately your (and plenty of others) subjective interpretation of how to adapt the Book of Nine Swords. When my interpretation of priorities, fluff, and so forth varies though, its not going to change. Anymore then you are likely to see what I consider indispensable flavor, as not completely irrelevant stuff that merely abstractly dice rolls whatever flavor of weapon user one wishes.

These are interpretations, not abstract truths. Or at least no present party has the authority to separate the latter and former. When you ask me to exchange my interpretation for that exchange still has to happen. As opposed to the divide never existing. Ultimately though you have no power to make me like it, or for that matter any compelling reason for me to make the exchange. I regard the reward as an illusion at the cost of my own personal beliefs.

This is all not really the topic, its exploring dislike of ToB and the reason for. You do not have to understand much less agree with that dislike for it to still exist and be as valid an interpretation as anything can be said to be here.

(And I'd note dislike is somewhat innaccurate though. I dislike taking Tanis Half-Elven as a Warblade because it ignores all the significant and meaningful differences in flavor between a ToB class and a Fighter. I almost equally would dislike making Setsuna Sakurazaki a Fighter instead of a Swordsage (or whichever Shinmei-ryu is appropriate for) for the exact same reasons. ToB is perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean its not different enough to not be appropriate for all campaign settings)

[molten_dragon]

The only DM I ever had that didn't allow it was because he simply wasn't familiar with the system and didn't want to take the time/effort to learn it. I can respect that, since I do the same thing with psionics, incarnum, and everything from ToM in my games.

[huttj509]

I can kinda see the point (edit: of the worldbuilding comments).

Introduce Warblades to the world, for example.

Guard captain? Should rebuild him probably.
Any standard templates that use fighter levels? Gotta look to decide if those should be warblade levels instead to better fit the NPC now that it's available.
I could see where that could be involved.

Now do the same thing for swordsage and rogue, ninja, monk...

Now decide if any NPC templates that used paladin would better fit with crusader.

I can see where it could be viewed as simply too involved for what benefit there may be from the change.

And that's even without feeling that ToB specific classes need to have their own organizations, separate from the PHB classes. Would swordsage rogue-types form different organizations from PHB rogues? I say no, as do many folks here, some say yes. If you have the world fleshed out, getting into the organisational structure could be more involved than the class structure above.

[Gan The Grey]

It's not that we don't believe you. It's just, that you're in a ToB thread, and your initial posts came off as "ToB would destroy my finely tuned deathtrap machine with its whacky mechanics!". Which we actually get around here alot. And 90% of the time? No, it wouldn't. And neither would most of the other stuff you banned. If you want to exclude it, that's all fine and dandy, but of course we're gonna argue/show our support for systems we like (just as you argue for having things the way you have them now).

DISCUSSION ON THE INTERNET.

Edit: Swordsage'd.

Uh-huh. Reread the thread title. From the standpoint of a DM that doesn't like the ToB, I think I'm uniquely positioned to answer that question in my own way. Whether you believe me or not doesn't bother me. I don't necessarily appreciate everyone assuming I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to a setting I've designed for players I've been playing with for over 15 years.

This is one of the major problems with this forum. Many of the dedicated posters have such strong ideas about something that they REFUSE to see things from your point of view. It's really sad, because I've seen alot of what I consider good, intriguing ideas from newer posters get shot down by the regulars because it steps outside what they 'know'.

There are many things on this forum that I will gladly leave to the experts. But sometimes a bad message is disguised behind a heavy layer of experience, and, as Lycan has so far shown, anything contrary to what is considered the status quo is worthy of disrespect and ridicule.

You want to discuss? Awesome. That's why I'm here. But I think it would be wise to check your words to make sure they aren't tainting your message.

EDIT: Other than mentioning Lycan, I'm not trying to call you or anyone else out specifically. I just think what I'm saying holds true for everyone.

[Jergmo]

I don't want to mess with the classes of ToB - I'd rather that if folks want to play a role, they shouldn't be told to play a class from another book instead. 3.5 allows all sorts of things to bring new options, so they should be found. *Hugs his Monk plushie*

However...I am allowing my players to take the feats from ToB if they still want some fancy-pancy maneuvers. It hasn't come up yet so I haven't looked into it extensively, but I had heard something about maneuvers not being subject to AMF (or is that just 4e? :smallconfused:)

It's an easy thing to fix with houserules, though. If it does magical things, and it sure as heck looks like magic, it's magic.


I'll admit the fluff for some of ToB is bad for anyone wanting a classic high fantasy campaign, but someone needs to take a look at the book and think for a minute. A strength character with intelligence synergy and diplomacy as a class skill? You have yourself the captain of the guard. In my games, Warblades are highly trained generals, captains, and the like, fighters are grunts, and warriors are people who have a small amount of experience fighting, such as tavern brawlers or militia

*Also hugs his Marshal plushie*

[Snake-Aes]

Gan, I only request that you drop that tone. You're acting on what seems to be defensive and aggressive, which doesn't help with keeping a sane discussion around.

This applies to everyone, but your case is the most obvious one on the last page.

[Tavar]

I don't want to mess with the classes of ToB - I'd rather that if folks want to play a role, they shouldn't be told to play a class from another book instead. 3.5 allows all sorts of things to bring new options, so they should be found. *Hugs his Monk plushie*
So.....

In order to play a role, you should play classes that can't actually preform said role? Isn't that... a bit counter-intuitive?

[The-Mage-King]

I don't want to mess with the classes of ToB - I'd rather that if folks want to play a role, they shouldn't be told to play a class from another book instead. 3.5 allows all sorts of things to bring new options, so they should be found. *Hugs his Monk plushie*

However...I am allowing my players to take the feats from ToB if they still want some fancy-pancy maneuvers. It hasn't come up yet so I haven't looked into it extensively, but I had heard something about maneuvers not being subject to AMF (or is that just 4e? :smallconfused:)

It's an easy thing to fix with houserules, though. If it does magical things, and it sure as heck looks like magic, it's magic.



*Also hugs his Marshal plushie*

AMF? Remind me what that's the acronym means, again...

[Tavar]

AMF? Remind me what that's the acronym means, again...

Anti-Magic Field. Of course, this brings up the question of why aren't you doing the same to rage, or power attack.

[deuxhero]

Unfamiliarity might be an issue. When I DM, I don't allow Psionics or Incarnum, not because I don't like them (which I do, since they are both relatively well balanced), but rather because I don't know enough about the system to correctly gauge a player's power level.

How do you like them when you don't know them?

[Snake-Aes]

I don't want to mess with the classes of ToB - I'd rather that if folks want to play a role, they shouldn't be told to play a class from another book instead. 3.5 allows all sorts of things to bring new options, so they should be found. *Hugs his Monk plushie*

However...I am allowing my players to take the feats from ToB if they still want some fancy-pancy maneuvers. It hasn't come up yet so I haven't looked into it extensively, but I had heard something about maneuvers not being subject to AMF (or is that just 4e? :smallconfused:)

It's an easy thing to fix with houserules, though. If it does magical things, and it sure as heck looks like magic, it's magic.



*Also hugs his Marshal plushie*
Most maneuvers are Extraordinary, and thus are not magical, but the more magical ones, like walking on air or dealing fire damage, are all supernatural and as such are supressed by AMF.

[lsfreak]

I don't want to mess with the classes of ToB - I'd rather that if folks want to play a role, they shouldn't be told to play a class from another book instead.

I completely agree - which is why I view ToB as necessary. Show me a non-precision TWF build or a one-hander build that's decent without it. In such a case, I have three options: play something else, play what I want and suck, or play ToB.

[Gan The Grey]

Gan, I only request that you drop that tone. You're acting on what seems to be defensive and aggressive, which doesn't help with keeping a sane discussion around.

This applies to everyone, but your case is the most obvious one on the last page.

Maybe you should reread Lycan's posts before you start calling me out on my 'tone'. I'm answering questions presented to me in a blunt fashion whilst avoiding calling people names or blowing things out of proportion. Unless my posts SPECIFICALLY use derogatory wording, it would be safe to assume that, since this is an internet discussion, we should all assume that I mean what I say, not what it you think it sounds like I'm saying.

You'll have to forgive me if my straightforward personality chaffs you the wrong way. I mean no harm by it.

[Terazul]

You're uniquely positioned to say why you don't like it.

We too, are uniquely positioned to put forth that the reasons you don't like it, really aren't reasons at all (in that the problem you are finding is one that you have made yourself*), or are more trivial than you initially believe. Because we like the system, and want more people to realize how neat and fun it can be.

We are not precluded from criticism, but neither are you. S'part of the discussion. My only suggestion is don't take things too personally when people go "why in Pelor's green earth would you do that". I guess.

Also, AMF is Anti-Magic Field. And no, maneuvers aren't affected by them, barring specific Desert Wind and Shadow Hand maneuvers, because they're Ex, not Su. Which explicitly are only available to the "Blade Wizard" mystical Swordsage anyway. 90% of them are "hit things in a certain way" anyway. In the good way.

EDIT: Blah, Swordsage'd. Again.

*Like the flavor thing. Don't get me started on the "classes are metagame" rant.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Locked for review being beyond recovery.