PDA

View Full Version : ToB



Fisticuffs
2010-07-03, 08:01 PM
I don't allow ToB classes in my campaigns: I'm not too familiar with the material, they're really good right out of the box at low-levels, they effectively were made to replace other classes.

As of late I've been second guessing this decision and told someone new to my DnD group that I'd allow him to play a Shifter Swordsage.

The party as of right now looks like this:
Human Scout 3
Illumian(Vaulkrau) Sorcerer 1/Shugenja(Water focus) 2
Half-Orc Barbarian 2/Druid 1
Human Fighter 3(Switched from Bard:smallfurious:)

I'm for the most part unable to contact him so I don't know what he's doing with the character and he wont be jumping in till 4th. I don't want him to overshadow the party, anything I should look out for as far as stances, maneuvers, or feats go? He knows that I'm shaking on ToB so he said he's prepared for me to restrict a few things.

Edit: Clarify my problems with them.

The-Mage-King
2010-07-03, 08:06 PM
You should expect the Fighter to ask to switch to Warblade- it's a commonly held fact that Fighter is... Borken. In the bad way.

Other than that, no. There's nothing in there worse than a Druid.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-03, 08:09 PM
they effectively replace other classes.
...classes that are pretty broadly accepted to be poor at their intended role and even worse at everything else.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-03, 08:09 PM
I don't allow ToB classes in my campaigns: I'm not too familiar with them, they're really good right out of the box at low-levels, they effectively replace other classes.

As of late I've been second guessing this decision and told someone new to my DnD group that I'd allow him to play a Shifter Swordsage.

The party as of right now looks like this:
Human Scout 3
Illumian(Vaulkrau) Sorcerer 1/Shugenja(Water focus) 2
Half-Orc Barbarian 2/Druid 1
Human Fighter 3(Switched from Bard:smallfurious:)

I'm for the most part unable to contact him so I don't know what he's doing with the character and he wont be jumping in till 4th. I don't want him to overshadow the party, anything I should look out for as far as stances, maneuvers, or feats go? He knows that I'm shaking on ToB so he said he's prepared for me to restrict a few things.You mean really broken stuff?

There are only a few things that should be curbstomped, if abused, that I'm aware of:

1. The d2 crusader (which deals infinite damage with a d2 weapon)
2. Abuse of White Raven Tactics (granting you infinite turns if you're considered your own ally)
3. Iron Heart Surge (should be used sparingly, so no destroying time because you don't like the way it's affecting your crow's feet)
4. And aptitude weapon kukris + Lightning Mace + lots of attacks to gain infinite attacks per round.

That's pretty much it. He'll be strong coming out of the gate, but it's not something that's much of an issue past, say, level 6.

JKTrickster
2010-07-03, 08:37 PM
Actually just to support The Mage King's crossed out text, you should probably tell the player with the Fighter to change their class. After all the Fighter is one of the classes that are commonly replaced by ToB. Warblade is a nice alternative if you want.

All in all, ToB is only something to watch out for relative to the rest of your party. Like you said, it starts out of the box pretty strong and if your other party members aren't used to that level of power tell the ToB player(s) to scale it down a bit.

HunterOfJello
2010-07-03, 08:39 PM
His swordsage will probably function similar to a rogue, except he will likely be much more efficient and versatile.



Some things to be aware of, read up on or double check on his character sheet:

-Swordsages really benefit from using the Maneuver Cards that can be found on the WoTC website.

-Swordsages have a terrible maneuver recovery mechanic without taking the feat Adaptive Style. If he doesn't have Adaptive Style, then he should get it.

-Martial Adepts can only ready one version of each maneuver at a time. Where a Wizard could have 3 spell slots and prepare 3 Fireballs, a Swordsage with 3 maneuvers readied must choose 3 different maneuvers.

-Read up on the Maneuver Level to Initiator Level chart. It's easy to miss while reading ToB and very important. Initiator Level = Levels in a Martial class + 1/2 all levels in other classes. Maneuver levels are similar to spell levels, so the highest level maneuver a level 5 Swordsage can use is a level 3 maneuver.

-Swordsages are very cool. ToB is very cool. Your other players will likely either become jealous of the Swordsage or want to switch to a ToB class. At that point, you could let them change their character's old levels as retraining, or you could let them start taking levels of the ToB classes. One of the best part about the base classes in the Tome of Battle is that the Initiator Level mechanic allows characters to benefit from taking levels in other classes.

Thurbane
2010-07-03, 08:50 PM
...classes that are pretty broadly accepted to be poor at their intended role and even worse at everything else.
Broadly accepted in fairly optimized games. In most beer-n-pretzels, mid-level, cooperative games, class disparity is pretty much a non-issue... at least in my experience. YMMV.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-03, 08:57 PM
Broadly accepted in fairly optimized games. In most beer-n-pretzels, mid-level, cooperative games, class disparity is pretty much a non-issue... at least in my experience. YMMV.

Then I fail to see how adding the Disciples would be an issue.

Matthew
2010-07-03, 09:43 PM
[Y]ou should probably tell the player with the Fighter to change their class.
The intent is noble, but I would really advise giving the player the option of switching from fighter to war blade, rather than telling him to (I imagine that is also what the above poster intended, but the tone could be mistaken).

Fax Celestis
2010-07-03, 10:07 PM
Broadly accepted in fairly optimized games. In most beer-n-pretzels, mid-level, cooperative games, class disparity is pretty much a non-issue... at least in my experience. YMMV.

...and if that is indeed the case, why would adding three new classes to the lineup be an issue?

balistafreak
2010-07-03, 10:17 PM
...and if that is indeed the case, why would adding three new classes to the lineup be an issue?

Because even when people say "oh yeah, that's fine", inside they still chafe, and you can tell from the disgruntled looks they get when you decidedly overpower them on the table. They're too nice to comment about being left behind but they're too competitive to not notice being overtaken.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-03, 10:22 PM
Because even when people say "oh yeah, that's fine", inside they still chafe, and you can tell from the disgruntled looks they get when you decidedly overpower them on the table. They're too nice to comment about being left behind but they're too competitive to not notice being overtaken.

At that point it boils down to Personnel management. No books or character concepts will really change anything.

balistafreak
2010-07-03, 10:53 PM
At that point it boils down to Personnel management. No books or character concepts will really change anything.

Agreed. It's when people pin ToB as a specific problem that I facepalm. :smallannoyed:

Rule of thumb: Any time you are deliberately and knowingly increasing your power level, make it clear to your party that you're not trying to one-up them. Whether through ToB, psionics, Incarnum, additional splatbooks, or even just non-core, don't grab it just for the sake of being more powerful and having "more pluses", which is quite bad in any group. Make it clear that while you are becoming more powerful, you're not merely after bigger numbers, but more opportunities and ways to have fun.

Even if it takes you personally recrafting every single one of your group's characters to show them how much more fun they could be having (raises hand) if you can do it in a proper manner, you can enlighten your group and end up having many times more fun than you ever would normally.

My group started with a Fighter/Sorcerer, a Necromancy-focused Wizard, and a skillmonkey Rogue with zero combat effectiveness. They all stumbled around and looked like idiots both on and off the battlefield. When I was done with them, we had a Duskblade, a Warlock with The Dead Walk (which while obviously "weaker" than a Wizard, was much easier to handle and much closer to the character envisioned), and a Factotum. And they could actually do things.

But the original topic suffers!

Yeah, the Tome of Battle's main "problem" is that the optimization "floor" is much, much higher. Even at its most poorly played level, utilizing any of the Strike/Stance mechanics that are the bread-and-butter of the Tob make the three Initiators head-and-shoulders better than the Fighter, because you end up with extra pluses no matter how poorly you pick your Strikes. The Fighter would just be making vanilla attacks - even the worst Strikes in the ToB are almost strictly improvements on basic attacks, and remain so if a Fighter takes the "classic" (and terrible) Weapon Focus/Specialization tree.

In a strict numbers sense, the Fighter is actually better at dealing massive damage through the Ubercharger builds. However, ToB classes can deal good amounts of damage with little more work than picking manuevers that look cool.

Nothing really needs restricting or banning other than what's already been pointed out, and that's mostly due to vague wording or clear rules-jumping. player shouldn't ever be as stupid to attempt an infinite-loop within the space of a single action anyways.

(Note that things like "infinite healing" are not broken because they often take time and actions. You could argue that a Monk could deal infinite damage using the same logic. :smallamused: The "infinite" we're talking about is the type that breaks the action economy in half.)

To repeat:


White Raven Tactics for infinite turns is a pretty blatant attempt to break the game. Note that it's intended use (the get-another-turn which is specifically outlined as legal) is actually merely powerful, not broken.
No, you cannot Iron Heart Surge away the sun because it's making you hot. As long as you make it only able to target clearly targetted effects (something that someone has just slapped onto the Warblade) it's quite fine as is.
Infinite attacks through Lightning Maces can be seen a mile away.
A Crusader is not allowed to punch someone with a shuriken for infinite damage.

okpokalypse
2010-07-03, 11:31 PM
All I know is this...

If the argument for ToB beng too much of a replacement for existing classes, I assume you'd have also outlawed the Knight (PHB II) and Psychic Warrior (XPH) which are both FAR superior to any PHB Melee type.

Seriously, There isn't a build you can make from ToB + all SRD stuff that compares to a well built Psychic Warrior, or Melee Ardent for that matter. Not. A. One.

The fact is that ToB is a much needed balancing mechanism for 3.5 Melee PCs as a whole. It provides sensible base classes that can have useful abilities beside run and swing or point and shoot while the rest of the party is launching AoEs, Save or Dies and - worst of all - doing Poly/Enlarge type combos that make a L20 Fighter look like a pansy.

The L14 Psy Warr can Metamorph w/ Tranfer into a 34+ Str & Con Large Creature along with Linked Power to go Gargantuan on the 2nd Turn. His 2H OverSized Weapon is now doing 8d6+30 Damage pre-additional damage and power-attack. And that's not nearly as bad as it can get... Heck, as long as he's not surprised, he'll always go first at the high end with Anticipatory Strike. I mean, there's NO reason to play a Fighter, Paladin or Ranger when you can play a Psy Warr. None. At least ToB doesn't outright have melee classes not worth playing compared to some others :)

Eldariel
2010-07-03, 11:38 PM
White Raven Tactics for infinite turns is a pretty blatant attempt to break the game. Note that it's intended use (the get-another-turn which is specifically outlined as legal) is actually merely powerful, not broken.

WRT is the one case where you really just want to add to the maneuver that "you are not considered your own ally for the purposes of WRT". Clearly that's how the maneuver is designed. Though really, the best thing to do probably is to state that "in one encounter, a single creature may only be targeted by WRT once". This prevents certain extreme corner cases with Ruby Knight Vindicators, while changing basically nothing for normal use of the ability.


No, you cannot Iron Heart Surge away the sun because it's making you hot. As long as you make it only able to target clearly targetted effects (something that someone has just slapped onto the Warblade) it's quite fine as is.

It's a great ability to rule On-Intent basis; by RAW it functions against everything with a duration, but takes a Standard Action to initiate. This really works just fine, to be honest, as long as you let it negate Light Dazzledness as opposed to the sun, and still have it end the AMF rather than just negate it (trust me, there's very little that matches in power to having your own personal AMF you aren't affected by).


Infinite attacks through Lightning Maces can be seen a mile away.

It requires a questionable reading of the Aptitude-ability. Just use it as intended; to apply feats normally applying to one weapon that could apply to another weapon (such as XWeapon Proficiency, Weapon Focus, Improved Critical and so on) to this weapon instead.


A Crusader is not allowed to punch someone with a shuriken for infinite damage.

This, again, is simply a lenient RAW reading; strict RAW reading states that you have to roll maximum damage, instead of having your lower result replaced by the higher result.

In other words, these two abuses don't even really require houseruling to fix; it's enough to just read them in a certain way.

balistafreak
2010-07-03, 11:46 PM
That gap is probably because Psychic Warriors and Ardents are blatantly casters at heart. And I think we're all aware of what blatant casters are capable of. The Wizard becoming a 12-headed Hydra is a classic example. :smalltongue:

Even though we all know that generally casters > melee, some a lot of people don't want to be casters for flavor reasons.

Let's be fair: reflavoring can only go so far, and polymorphing is definitely on the other side of the line of reasonability. If I want to hit someone with a sword/punch someone in the face like Bruce Lee, I am not using a spell/power intended to turn me into a hydra to do so.

Seriously, that kind of statement ("there is NO reason to play a melee when you can play a caster") is what gives us optimizers a bad name. We're aware that casters > melee. You seem to be saying that melee isn't even worth playing at with that post, which is going to rub the majority of people, both casual players and optimizers, the wrong way.

NOTE: Please don't let this spiral out of control like the other ToB thread. :smallfrown:

Thurbane
2010-07-03, 11:55 PM
Then I fail to see how adding the Disciples would be an issue.

...and if that is indeed the case, why would adding three new classes to the lineup be an issue?
Answer? It wouldn't. :smallbiggrin:

...but neither do I consider it essential to employ ToB (or psionics, or incarnum, or Eberron, or other specific material I chose not to use) in a game to make it fun and/or balanced.

My stance, and always has been, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using ToB in your games. And the flipside, that there is nothing wrong with not using it either.

huttj509
2010-07-04, 12:19 AM
There are some good reasons to play fighters, rogues, paladins, even monks, and I think they are too often glossed over in many threads.

If you knowingly choose to, being aware of what the class can do, and what it cannot do, regardless of what it claims to do.

Options at various power levels is a good thing. Someone playing a fighter next to a warblade CAN have fun, if he knew going into it what to expect from his character.

Many casters have various power levels based on spell selection. If someone wants to play a weaker caster, he can knowingly choose weaker spells, or specialized spells, or choose to avoid metamagic.

The problem is that basically, until ToB, melee does not have many options for "stronger" builds. There are some particular feat chains that can work well, but in doing so you restrict the flexibility available.

If there are more combat effective, and less combat effective, options in different roles, the opportunities for someone to play the character he wants increase.

If there is disagreement in the group on what sort of characters they want running together, or what the DM expects, etc, this is not a problem with there being too many options, but a problem with group communication and establishment of targets for character creation.

The problem with banning ToB outright is that core itself contains many many options at different power levels for casters, but only weaker options for the melee types, in general. If you want a lower power game, that's fine. If you and your players wish to only be core melee types, perhaps a more gritty martial feel, that's fine. If you restrict various supplements like the ToB, without touching core in terms of what's available, all you do is place the "guy with a sword" next to the mage of many wonderful options and flexibility, next to the bear of many decent options and flexibility, next to the guy with a sword and the blessings of his diety which enable him to be as effective with the sword as the first guy, and then more options on top of that.

If you want to play the "guy with a sword" in that scenario, go for it, you're the player. If you want to choose to play a barbarian with 8 strength and 6 con, because that's the character you have in mind, I have no problem with that. Combat effectiveness is not the be all and end all. I would advise against forcing someone else to play that role, however, without their knowing agreement.


Summary:

On a scale from 1 to 10, melee generally has a power/flexibility range of, say, 1-5. Magic has a range of 2-11. ToB gives melee some options in the 4-9 range.

Those numbers have no relation to any scale, and are just an example.

Edit: If your melee is playing at a 3 level, and your casters are playing at a 3 level (or 4), and, most importantly, everyone is having fun, I see no need to use the ToB. It's when the casters are up at 8, and the melee can only get near 5 by strictly limiting their flexibility even more, that the refusal to use the ToB would irk me.

Gametime
2010-07-04, 12:48 AM
Broadly accepted in fairly optimized games. In most beer-n-pretzels, mid-level, cooperative games, class disparity is pretty much a non-issue... at least in my experience. YMMV.

My group's games are quite casual, and the only problem I have with most martial classes is the terrible, terrible skill lists. 2+int skills for someone who spends his life in physical activity? No way to detect approaching enemies? Blech!

Beyond that, though (and really, what would D&D be without houseruled changes to skills?), I agree with you entirely.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-04, 12:53 AM
My group's games are quite casual, and the only problem I have with most martial classes is the terrible, terrible skill lists. 2+int skills for someone who spends his life in physical activity? No way to detect approaching enemies? Blech!

Beyond that, though (and really, what would D&D be without houseruled changes to skills?), I agree with you entirely."But fighting doesn't use skills! Feats are for combat, skills are for everything else!"

...Yeah, I don't believe it either, but you'd be amazed at how many times I've heard that.

Runestar
2010-07-04, 01:25 AM
How does white raven tactics grant infinite turns? As a warblade, you need a swift action to refresh your maneuvers, preventing you from initating WRT for that turn. Even with adaptive style, you would not be able to do anything beyond initiating WRT and refreshing them.

The only way I know how to accomplish this is with 2 choker warblades. :smallamused:

Runeclaw
2010-07-04, 01:31 AM
There's nothing in there worse than a Druid.

A Barbarian 2 / Druid 1 is NOT a Druid.

Morph Bark
2010-07-04, 03:31 AM
A Barbarian 2 / Druid 1 is NOT a Druid.

Correction: it is not as much as a Druid as he should be. :smalltongue:


...says the one who totally loves playing Barbarians.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-07-04, 03:44 AM
I like ToB. It makes melee fun. Maybe your group will like it, and maybe it won't, but good on you for at least trying it out.


How does white raven tactics grant infinite turns? As a warblade, you need a swift action to refresh your maneuvers, preventing you from initating WRT for that turn. Even with adaptive style, you would not be able to do anything beyond initiating WRT and refreshing them.

The only way I know how to accomplish this is with 2 choker warblades. :smallamused:Ruby Knight Vindicator converts turn attempts into swift actions.

PinkysBrain
2010-07-04, 05:04 AM
ToB classes have a lot of flexibility, something the non ToB martial classes can only get from magic items ... so I'd recommend dropping some nice magic items for the scout and the fighter.

The short range teleport anklet braces from MiC for instance and at higher level perhaps claw bracers from complete adventurer for the scount. That sort of thing.

Wings of Peace
2010-07-04, 05:05 AM
All I know is this...

If the argument for ToB beng too much of a replacement for existing classes, I assume you'd have also outlawed the Knight (PHB II) and Psychic Warrior (XPH) which are both FAR superior to any PHB Melee type.

Psychic Warrior yes, Knight... he can compete but a well made Fighter could probably perform a more complex role like Trip-Lockdown, Ubercharging, Bull-Rushing, etc, with greater ease.

Kylarra
2010-07-04, 09:43 AM
My group's games are quite casual, and the only problem I have with most martial classes is the terrible, terrible skill lists. 2+int skills for someone who spends his life in physical activity? No way to detect approaching enemies? Blech!

Beyond that, though (and really, what would D&D be without houseruled changes to skills?), I agree with you entirely.To be fair, the skill thing is an issue for most of 3.X, which the improved chassis of ToB classes did something marginal to improve for fighty types, but most of us just say "the heck with it, have another 4 skills per level" or something anyway. :smalltongue:

Eldariel
2010-07-04, 09:47 AM
To be fair, the skill thing is an issue for most of 3.X, which the improved chassis of ToB classes did something marginal to improve for fighty types, but most of us just say "the heck with it, have another 4 skills per level" or something anyway. :smalltongue:

6 at the very least, and expanded skill list while at it. I've been thinking of 8 lately though.

Kylarra
2010-07-04, 09:50 AM
6 at the very least, and expanded skill list while at it. I've been thinking of 8 lately though.Fair enough, 4 was just a random number. :smallredface:

DragoonWraith
2010-07-04, 11:03 AM
I have long contended that the only classes that should have 2+Int skills are the Wizard and Psion (Erudite, too, if he uses Int-based Manifesting; don't actually know), and maybe the Wu Jen, but probably not. Warlocks shouldn't, fighter-types definitely shouldn't, etc. I'd actually consider 0+Int skills on the Wizard, if you really want to enforce the "scholarly type who doesn't get out much", but that's kind of lame.

Anyway, uhm. What on earth is the Sorcerer/Shugenja doing? The Shugenja's a really weak caster (especially for Water) and you only make it worse by wasting a level on Sorcerer. If he's going for Mystic Theurge, you should houserule the Mystic Theurge to be less bad - require 2nd level and 1st level casting, instead of 2nd and 2nd, and give some actual class features - the way the Pathfinder Mystic Theurge works is close to what you want, but the "cast a spell from your other class" feature should not increase the spell's level by 1, and the "cast a spell from each class at once" feature should be more than 1/day (1/encounter would work nicely). If that player is not going for Mystic Theurge, you should probably find out what their plan is, and work out something for them - because a multiclass Sorcerer/Shugenja is really weak, for a caster.

For the Barbarian/Druid, did he take the Spirit Lion Totem ACF from Complete Champion? If not, you might recommend that he does; it gives him Pounce instead of Fast Movement. Barb1/Druid2 would be better than the opposite, but whatever. Generally, Druids are very strong and even a couple of levels lost to Barbarian isn't going to stop that, but you should try to figure out, again, what that player is seeking to do with his class. Offering him some way of getting the ability to cast spells while raging would be a good idea.

The Fighter is something of a problem. Fighters are very difficult classes to build well, while Tome of Battle classes are not, which means unless the Fighter is trying very hard, he could easily be side-lined here. This is primarily the fault of the Fighter class, more than anything else. The Warblade from Tome of Battle is essentially a Fighter-that-works - you might recommend that. Failing that, the Dungeoncrasher ACF from Dungeonscape works pretty well, if you have that. After that, though, the Fighter just has a really hard time keeping up with anything; even the Scout's better off. There are a number of homebrewed Fighter-fixes out there, but none of them, IMO, work as well as just playing a Warblade. Fighter/Warblades work pretty well, by the way, but you don't want too much Fighter in there, really, but the Feats can come in handy.

The Scout, just make sure the Scout has some way of moving and full-attacking at the same time. Skirmish's damage is low, but it's fine as long as you can actually use it. Whether this means recommending a dip into Cloistered Cleric for Travel Devotion, a dip into Barbarian for Pounce, or just a custom Feat or magic item that lets him do it, it's important. Using Swift Hunter from Complete Scoundrel and multiclassing with Ranger is also a pretty popular choice on Scout that works pretty well. A Ranged Scout should do fine, because Tome of Battle does not offer any choices for range, so there won't really be a competition between the Swordsage and the Scout; a melee Scout, though, is basically filling the same role as the Swordsage, and the Swordsage can fill it better, probably, because the Swordsage doesn't have the same problems with movement that the Scout does.


Ultimately, the biggest problem here is the full-attack. Your non-ToB melee needs them; the Swordsage does not. That makes the Swordsage far more mobile. Houseruling how full-attacks work might also be a good idea.

Ashiel
2010-07-04, 11:23 AM
Broadly accepted in fairly optimized games. In most beer-n-pretzels, mid-level, cooperative games, class disparity is pretty much a non-issue... at least in my experience. YMMV.

It's worth noting that in casual play, I've found PHB martial characters to be exceptionally fragile and underwhelming. The game assumes characters roughly around the following ability scores: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8; according to the PHB; and the traditional fighter-type would probably be Tordek the Axe & Board fighter type.

Meanwhile wardogs can be outfitted cheaper with more damage, higher armor class, and come with full immunity to stuff like charm person, while also being better at making reflex saves (and if you acquired your pet via class or feat it likely has Evasion).

It doesn't really get better either. As the game goes on, you tend to get weaker in relation to your enemies; especially in core-only games. A fighter that could have dropped an opponent per round at 2nd level will be struggling to put down a bear that just mauled your wizard friend at level 5; without the bear eating him too. As levels rise, your enemies become smarter and more mobile; meaning that you will have fewer and fewer chances to be useful (full-attacking vs mobile capability = mobile wins).

Add this with the fact that engaging your enemies in combat later on becomes a death-sentence. If you charge into battle and get off your attack, then unless your 1d8+2+3 damage killed it, then prepare to eat a full-attack from your opponent; which in the case of most monsters will be somewhere around 3-12 times the number of attacks you just made, and they will be doing about as much damage.

That being said...
I don't allow ToB classes in my games as replacements for traditional warriors. No, I just house-ruled a few things that give warriors a bit more usefulness (such as full-attacks = standard actions). I like it when my players play ToB characters because they make the game more cooperative in my experience.

A 3rd level warblade for example can let out a heroic battlecry and add +3 damage to charge attacks made by his allies. Alternatively, he could hit an opponent and pin their weapon or attack form (via douse the flames) which prevents them from making attacks of opportunity; which allows his friends (the monk and rogue) to hop into the fray.

I don't really find them all that much stronger - or more specifically - much tougher than the traditional core classes. Honestly I've found the Barbarians tend to out-shine Warblades in damage, unless the Warblade is entirely focused on dealing damage - in which case they're roughly equal (though the barbarian doesn't need as much Int as a Warblade does to benefit from his class features; and the warblade is now lacking the tricks that make him unique).

But they can still get mauled by bears, or eaten by lions, or pulled into the depths by sea-cats, or blasted by angry sorcerers, or put to sleep by 1/2 CR adepts (fear the adepts!). They just do more interesting things while it's happening. :smalltongue:

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-04, 12:26 PM
Well, not every group plays the same way. Or even every campaign. As an example, in my previous one, rogues monk fighters played just fine through level 40!

In my current campaign, I allowed multiclassing with ToB. Worked fine, but IMO the great thing of the maneuvers is the increase of action possible for meleers (swift actions, immediate actions) and standard actions (move + do something cinematic). I like a lot Tiger Claw and Setting Sun. Very, very cool.

Nevertheless, Even if I think that the book is very good and full of fun, I feel very odd consider it mandatory. Maybe because I played a lot of time without it and I'm accustomed to eyeball weird moves of my players with requiring skill use and unusual feat use....

I always considered weird the "meleers only charge and full attack" thing. Mundane equips and magic items can help a lot, and if you don't optimize so much that the DM is forced to increase enemy HP up to the wazoo, you can always usa a bow to bring down a flying enemy. Bolas, poison, whips, and switch equip to change your "stance".. all these thing can change your impact on the battlefield a lot.

Moreover, you can just move and perform some maneuver to trip, disarm, and bull rush your enemies, "adjust" their status or position to full attack them the following round. My players used to play this way, and casters and melee played accordingly... we had no idea, at the time, of what a "tank" is, meleers slaughtered, pinned, grappled, maimed, disarmed, played the moving wall role, while casters buffed, transported allies and hampered enemy moves.

IMO you can have teamwork even with core classes.

As a disclaimer, OP, consider that even if I think that 3.x authors completely understimated the impact on the game of certain chooses, I think that teh internet exagerates the disparity between casters and noncasters, or about the unplayability of certain classes.

Moreover, spells are very powerful, but with my gamestyle I feel their power less. As an example, grease is considered very powerful, but has not chance to work in a swamp. Moreover, I consider very cheesy cobos with the efreeti, gates and infinite wishes. As a DM, I simply don't play creatures summoned in that way... (a deceitful Efreet could obey an order and anyway screw the caster, and someone very powerful could be very upset of the fact that Solars continue to be subtracted from the ethernal struggle between good and evil.

Said this, consider that ToB classes are, as I see them, more implements and prosecution of the core ones: use them as multiclass options, and see the differencies.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-04, 12:41 PM
Well, I think we've had this discussion before, Kaiyanwang, but suffice to say I generally disagree with you. Full-attacks are necessary for melee, bows do not work as a secondary tactic against flying foes, and changing equipment on the fly either costs you a feat (Quick Draw), or actions, neither of which is good. Magic items simply don't do enough. And by the time poison is no longer prohibitively expensive, it's useless because the DCs are so low and immunity to it is so common. Whips are almost never good. Bolas and nets are a cute trick but not enough.

Tripping works, if you're fighting the right enemies, if you have the right feats, if you specialize in it. Disarming doesn't work well if the enemy either has a locked gauntlet or isn't using a handheld weapon, not to mention even against weapons they hold against two-handed weapons you're going to have a very hard time. Being able to be good at tripping and disarming still requires too many levels even for a Fighter, and by the time he masters both neither's going to be very good. Bullrush is only good if you have Dungeoncrasher, or you have some special plan in mind for positioning the enemy - and even then the Wizard's better at it.

No one doesn't consider infinite gates and/or wishes cheesy, those are TO. But Grease not working in a swamp? Pure houserule, and it really doesn't overly affect a Wizard unless you spring that one on him without letting him know you're houseruling it. If he knows about it and knows he's going into a swamp, he just won't prepare it - he has plenty of other options.

Really, I mean it when I say that non-ToB/MoI melee simply doesn't work, and that i consider ToB necessary. Those tricks you describe simply do not work well enough to be worth the time; melee should be able to just be effective without tricks.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-04, 01:02 PM
Well, I think we've had this discussion before, Kaiyanwang, but suffice to say I generally disagree with you.

I know, Dragoon.. does not mean that I don't enjoy to discuss a little bit about it :smallwink:



Full-attacks are necessary for melee, bows do not work as a secondary tactic against flying foes, and changing equipment on the fly either costs you a feat (Quick Draw), or actions, neither of which is good. Magic items simply don't do enough. And by the time poison is no longer prohibitively expensive, it's useless because the DCs are so low and immunity to it is so common. Whips are almost never good. Bolas and nets are a cute trick but not enough.


Well, I don't play at the same level of power for sure, but a full attack with a bow of an hasted high level fighter I think can surpass 100 damage, barring criticals. not huge but it's something. I admit that my players tend to switch a little bit more group resources on meleers equip.

I hate feax taxes too but there are weapon crystals and such.. I don't say to use poisons on the tarrasque, but maybe on an arcane caster..Your points are valid, of course, but I think that there is some space between "strong" and "sucks". Backup tactics are backup tactics.



Tripping works, if you're fighting the right enemies, if you have the right feats, if you specialize in it. Disarming doesn't work well if the enemy either has a locked gauntlet or isn't using a handheld weapon, not to mention even against weapons they hold against two-handed weapons you're going to have a very hard time. Being able to be good at tripping and disarming still requires too many levels even for a Fighter, and by the time he masters both neither's going to be very good. Bullrush is only good if you have Dungeoncrasher, or you have some special plan in mind for positioning the enemy - and even then the Wizard's better at it.


You could uber-specialize in tripping and use all your fighter (er.. psywarrior?) feats to do it, but you could even take just 2-3 of these attacks and then use them when appropriate. But I was not talking about it, I simply meant that if you cannot charge or full attack, you can just try to use your only attack to disable the opponent - it's even more fitting "cinematically" speaking I guess.

As for bullrushing, "the special plan" is, I guess, what I was meaning for part of the teamwork: as an example, bull rush someone into the evard black tentacles.



No one doesn't consider infinite gates and/or wishes cheesy, those are TO. But Grease not working in a swamp? Pure houserule, and it really doesn't overly affect a Wizard unless you spring that one on him without letting him know you're houseruling it. If he knows about it and knows he's going into a swamp, he just won't prepare it - he has plenty of other options.


This is a different perception of the rules. The spell does not say that you cannot use it if the target is with the legs submergend in the mud, but I see it as intuitive. I think it could deserve a thread on his own, maybe.

And I never said that wizard lacks of options - I just say that a litlle bit of ingenuity can help the mundane PCs - just rememebr my posts about feats and such, if you think that I think that the system is fine as-is.




Really, I mean it when I say that non-ToB/MoI melee simply doesn't work, and that i consider ToB necessary. Those tricks you describe simply do not work well enough to be worth the time; melee should be able to just be effective without tricks.

See, again, I agree with what you said - in an extent. A lot of my examples above can be a pain to perform because of size, reach and so on. Pathfinder addresed some of them (as an example, try to disarm someone with a sai in 3.5, and try in pathfinder) but speaking for 3.5... well, our tripper is a psywarrior.

I simply say that not every campaing is the same, even for the same master.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-04, 01:21 PM
PsyWar is massively different from a Fighter, though. A PsyWar, I can get behind. Those are quite good. But your post really only convinces me that I really need stop forgetting to include him in my list of not-useless melee.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-04, 01:27 PM
Indeed, Psywars are tier 3 all on their own. They are actually considered stronger than warblades by many.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-04, 01:29 PM
PsyWar is massively different from a Fighter, though. A PsyWar, I can get behind. Those are quite good. But your post really only convinces me that I really need stop forgetting to include him in my list of not-useless melee.

To clarify: I pointed out psywar to say that in my current way of playing the game, he's more suitable for that strategy than the fighter.

But my examples above... were general. NOt to say that the two classes are comparable at the same level of optimization.

My point is that is perfectly reasonable, for some gamestyle, have meleers do nice without so ToB/MoI/Psionics. Can ahppen because people play differently - See my current campaign, the one with the psywar, or the old,one, the first I mentioned.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-04, 01:56 PM
Except that they don't even really keep up with CR-appropriate monsters. I can appreciate that not every group is going to have to compete with Batman, but if you're using the CR system as intended... the Fighter doesn't keep up.

More importantly, to my mind, Fighters are just... limited. We've only been discussing combat situations, because those are all that Fighters can even try to do, mechanically. But the Warblade actually gets a decent number of skill points and a decent skill list, meaning he can be much more meaningful outside of combat. And in combats that don't play to a Fighter's strengths - those combats where he's reduced to plunking things with a bow, which is never a good thing for a Fighter - a Warblade still has actual, class-granted options, which a Fighter simply doesn't.

Basically, IMO, the Fighter is a really poorly designed class that is rail-roaded into one of a handful of schticks, which aren't he isn't even quite good enough at, who has no class features, no skills, and really cannot help but to be played as the big, stupid fighter. By using Maneuvers, having more skills, and using his Ability scores better, the Warblade can be an excellent tactician, or a bloodthirsty glory hound, or whatever else.

It's not just that Fighters are weak, it's that they are poorly designed.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-04, 02:17 PM
Except that they don't even really keep up with CR-appropriate monsters. I can appreciate that not every group is going to have to compete with Batman, but if you're using the CR system as intended... the Fighter doesn't keep up.

Actually, I've seen the work better when the arcane were Batman-ing, than not. But consider that I tried to fit 3.x to the AD&D style that time so this could be a cause.



More importantly, to my mind, Fighters are just... limited. We've only been discussing combat situations, because those are all that Fighters can even try to do, mechanically. But the Warblade actually gets a decent number of skill points and a decent skill list, meaning he can be much more meaningful outside of combat. And in combats that don't play to a Fighter's strengths - those combats where he's reduced to plunking things with a bow, which is never a good thing for a Fighter - a Warblade still has actual, class-granted options, which a Fighter simply doesn't.


See, dragoon, I both agree and disagree strognly here. Actually, the FIRST thing that stroke me seeing ToB classes the first time was the increased skill points per level (paladin and fighter 2, crusader and warblade 4, monk 4, swordsage 6). If you ask me, barring the action-economy thing I said above (swft and immediate action even if you are not a caster), THAT was the most well tought thing of the book.

Said this, Warblade can re-arrange his tricks better, and has more skill (and int synergy - not that does not exist fihgters with a 13 in int and char, but it's not the same thing).

But.. barring IHS and saving throw maneuvers, I don't see how can he avoid to be screwed by things that screw fighters (like the need of reach the enemy in melee). If casters are played as Uber-Things, Warblade will suck slight less than fighter.

Agree 100% on skills, anyway (I elaborate above).



Basically, IMO, the Fighter is a really poorly designed class that is rail-roaded into one of a handful of schticks, which aren't he isn't even quite good enough at, who has no class features, no skills, and really cannot help but to be played as the big, stupid fighter. By using Maneuvers, having more skills, and using his Ability scores better, the Warblade can be an excellent tactician, or a bloodthirsty glory hound, or whatever else.

It's not just that Fighters are weak, it's that they are poorly designed.


I guess that for the time fighter was great - because authors didn't realize how they changed things from AD&D (see, on the same line, how much has been screwed evocation school). It was APPARENTLY an AD&D fighter + feats.. (and nerferd save.. not so well scaling damage.. and so on).

My few beef with the warblade are about some maneuver (how can you deal 100 more damage both with an halberd and a spoon?) but overall I see your point - and I simply use other parts of the book because I choose material from splats case-by-case, not avoiding a whole book.

Just a nitpick- your analysys is correct, but I'd say that the warblade has MORE. I mean, you can have a human fighter with 4-5 skills/level that does somrhitng out of combat... simply you swear to accomplish it, while the designers ENCOURAGED the warblade to pimp his int and use synergies.

But worse =/= from nothing.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-04, 02:21 PM
My few beef with the warblade are about some maneuver (how can you deal 100 more damage both with an halberd and a spoon?) This specifically is a fun misinterpretation.
Yeah, you'll be hitting for 100 damage + your normal standard attack damage...
and the swordsage will do that AoE.
And a stormguard warrior with an avalanche of blades followed by a time stands still will wrack much more damage.
And wizards do that at level 7 if they really want to go blasty, while the guys above will need 10 more levels to pull those two tricks.

So, please, don't pick one maneuver just because it has a big number.

Mr.Moron
2010-07-04, 02:27 PM
My few beef with the warblade are about some maneuver (how can you deal 100 more damage both with an halberd and a spoon?) but overall I see your point - and I simply use other parts of the book because I choose material from splats case-by-case, not avoiding a whole book.


Because you're a bad-ass of mythic proportions. By the time you've hit 9th level maneuvers, you've long since left the world of the "mundane" warrior behind. You're not some dink who fights bandits and just happens to be handy with a sword. You're a grand figure, the sort legends are made of. You fight demons, dragons, and ancient horrors so powerful just learning of their existence would make the heads of normal people both implode and explode simultaneously.

You dang well better to be able to deal +100 damage with a spoon, or a fistful of spaghetti for that matter. At the degree of superhuman power level 17 represents punching boulders in half should long since gotten boring. Being able to drive a spoon through a gargantuan scorpion's forehead is actually tame trick compared to some of the other things being thrown around that level.

Ashiel
2010-07-04, 02:32 PM
Agreed. I base my views primarily from GMing, because I GM more than I do anything else. The fighter is handicapped against expected opponents; which is why I pointed out in my previous post that they cannot keep up.

It's not a matter of fighter vs barbarian vs warblade vs psywarrior. It's a matter of fighter vs monster/NPC, and fighter comes out on the bottom of all of them.

Fighters are forced to specialize to the point of either being A) exceptionally cheap at their 1 trick (IE - shock trooper shenanigans), or B) being unremarkable. There's not a whole lot of a middle ground that I've seen.

Even fighter builds like "trip masters" are bad. Sure, they're pretty good at controlling humanoid NPCs (assuming you get into range and all that), if an opponent is larger than you, +4 / size category difference. If the target has > 2 legs, +4 bonus to resist the trip, and the target can use its Str or Dex (whichever is better) to avoid being tripped. Now let's think for a moment...how many monsters in D&D are either Big, Strong, Dexterous, or Multi-Legged, or some combination of the four?

That's not really even addressing their handicaps outside of combat.

----------------

In my more recent games, I've banned stuff like shock trooper (we don't need it anymore), made full-attacks standard actions (which returns warrior mobility without de-fanging them), and capped iterative attack penalties at -5 (so a 20th level fighter has +20/+15/+15/+15).

It helps fighter-types hold their edge against monsters.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-04, 02:33 PM
:smallbiggrin: You, gentlemen, missed my point.

My beef is not the amount of damage a fighter chargin can dish by level 8. My beef is not the amount of damage. BTW, I think that there are far better level 9 maneuvers.

But the games has mechanics about dealing damage, criticals, multipliers and so on. In the way I see it, that is not a good way to scale damage, because is disconnected from the weapon used ad kills (or at least, is not useful for) immersion. My concers was not about power :smalltongue:

If you want a counter example, see how 4th edition managed [w] damage or pathfinder managed vital strike. Those are mechanics that scale damage, and are linked with the weapon used.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-04, 02:35 PM
Now that's not a problem that started nor ended at ToB, is it? I can't even see how it could even aggravate the problem as clerics and psychic warriors pull those stunts for quite a while now.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-04, 02:43 PM
Yeah, I can't say that I very much care about what the 17th level Warblade is using to get his +100 damage.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-04, 02:44 PM
Yeah, I can't say that I very much care about what the 17th level Warblade is using to get his +100 damage.

Now You just reminded me of Tao Pai Pai piercing the red ribbon guy's head with his tongue.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-04, 02:47 PM
Is not a tragedy, of course, but I fear that the handwaving mindset "he does 100 damage because is proper for his level, who cares why" is, in part, what bringed in the game design a lot of 4th edition power and their disconnection (perceived or real) from the gameworld.

This is not to say that ToB is only a 4th edition preview or crap. As an example, ToB has full-attack boosting maneuvers like the mongooses, 4th edition screwed full attack.

Mr.Moron
2010-07-04, 02:54 PM
Is not a tragedy, of course, but I fear that the handwaving mindset "he does 100 damage because is proper for his level, who cares why"

It's not just hand waving, it's a matter of it being appropriate for the power level. By the time you reach level 17 you're dealing with forces that can shatter and create worlds. Being able to drive the kebab skewer from your dinner straight through the heart of whatever attacks you during your meal (dealing 100 damage and killing it) is just something that should be.. acceptable. At that level, you should so badass you don't really need a sword to kill anything. Why? Same reason you can fall in a pool of lava, and swim out after 18 seconds and be not dead. You're a superhuman being of legendary proportions.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-04, 02:55 PM
Well, see, a spoon would deal 1 point of damage + Strength, and can't be Power Attacked or two-handed. You'd also take a -4 penalty to attack for nonproficiency.

A falchion, meanwhile, deals 2d4 points of damage + 1.5 x Strength, and can be Power Attacked for x2 damage, no nonproficiency penalty, and lots of enhancements to attack and damage.

I'd say with minimal optimization the falchion would deal roughly twice as much damage as the spoon, if you add in that +100 damage on the strike. AND you wouldn't miss as often, AND you'd get a much higher critical threat range.

*Waves hand* This is not the spoon you're looking for...

Ashiel
2010-07-04, 03:09 PM
Well, see, a spoon would deal 1 point of damage + Strength, and can't be Power Attacked or two-handed. You'd also take a -4 penalty to attack for nonproficiency.

A falchion, meanwhile, deals 2d4 points of damage + 1.5 x Strength, and can be Power Attacked for x2 damage, no nonproficiency penalty, and lots of enhancements to attack and damage.

I'd say with minimal optimization the greatsword would deal roughly twice as much damage as the spoon, if you add in that +100 damage on the strike. AND you wouldn't miss as often, AND you'd get a much higher critical threat range.

*Waves hand* This is not the spoon you're looking for...

Unless you're a crusader...

In all seriousness, great post Ly. :smalltongue:

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-04, 03:12 PM
It's not just hand waving, it's a matter of it being appropriate for the power level. By the time you reach level 17 you're dealing with forces that can shatter and create worlds. Being able to drive the kebab skewer from your dinner straight through the heart of whatever attacks you during your meal (dealing 100 damage and killing it) is just something that should be.. acceptable. At that level, you should so badass you don't really need a sword to kill anything. Why? Same reason you can fall in a pool of lava, and swim out after 18 seconds and be not dead. You're a superhuman being of legendary proportions.

This is not the point. See below.


Well, see, a spoon would deal 1 point of damage + Strength, and can't be Power Attacked or two-handed. You'd also take a -4 penalty to attack for nonproficiency.

A falchion, meanwhile, deals 2d4 points of damage + 1.5 x Strength, and can be Power Attacked for x2 damage, no nonproficiency penalty, and lots of enhancements to attack and damage.

I'd say with minimal optimization the greatsword would deal roughly twice as much damage as the spoon, if you add in that +100 damage on the strike. AND you wouldn't miss as often, AND you'd get a much higher critical threat range.

*Waves hand* This is not the spoon you're looking for...

THIS is an argumentation. I see your point - in the pratical game, the final result would end differently. :smallconfused:

I continue to see a disconnect between the +100 and the weapon crit range/multiplier (the spoon is an extreme example), but you have shown that the blows would be different. Thank you, Lycan.

Keld Denar
2010-07-04, 03:14 PM
*Waves hand* This is not the spoon you're looking for...

Its dull you twit, it'll HURT more!

Ashiel
2010-07-04, 03:37 PM
Actually, a recent house-rule I'm testing out involves scaling weapon damage. Essentially every BAB / 5 adds +1d to your weapon. Thus a 20th level fighter would deal 5d4 with a dagger, 5d6 with a short-sword, 5d8 with a longsword, 5d10 with a bastard sword, and 5d12 with a great-axe.

The largest mechanic quirk is that the weapons that begin with multiple damage dice often end up being less impressive at higher levels. Greatsword ends at 6d6 (av 21) which is less powerful than a longsword (22.5) or bastard sword (av 27.5), and the greataxe (av 32.5) towers above it in effectiveness.

Currently testing it out, but it seems interesting thus far. Using it in a tabletop campaign I'm running right now, and it's working very nicely for keeping certain characters useful (S&B and TWF benefit from this the most); but I'm sure I'll run into something odd sometime in the future. :smalltongue:

EDIT: In case I wasn't clear before, the progression for bonus dice works like this.


BAB Bonus Dice
+1-4 +0d
+5-9 +1d
+10-14 +2d
+15-19 +3d
+20-24 +4d

Frog Dragon
2010-07-04, 03:50 PM
Actually, a recent house-rule I'm testing out involves scaling weapon damage. Essentially every BAB / 5 adds +1d to your weapon. Thus a 20th level fighter would deal 5d4 with a dagger, 5d6 with a short-sword, 5d8 with a longsword, 5d10 with a bastard sword, and 5d12 with a great-axe.

The largest mechanic quirk is that the weapons that begin with multiple damage dice often end up being less impressive at higher levels. Greatsword ends at 6d6 (av 21) which is less powerful than a longsword (22.5) or bastard sword (av 27.5), and the greataxe (av 32.5) towers above it in effectiveness.

Currently testing it out, but it seems interesting thus far. Using it in a tabletop campaign I'm running right now, and it's working very nicely for keeping certain characters useful (S&B and TWF benefit from this the most); but I'm sure I'll run into something odd sometime in the future. :smalltongue:

EDIT: In case I wasn't clear before, the progression for bonus dice works like this.


BAB Bonus Dice
+1-4 +0d
+5-9 +1d
+10-14 +2d
+15-19 +3d
+20-24 +4d
My recommendation for this would be to make the bonus damage same for all weapons. A knifefighter is flavorful, so there is no need to make him have proportionally less bonuses for his bab as he gains levels than other characters who nabbed 'traditional' weapons.
Just my 2 cp on this.

lsfreak
2010-07-04, 03:53 PM
My recommendation for this would be to make the bonus damage same for all weapons. A knifefighter is flavorful, so there is no need to make him have proportionally less bonuses for his bab as he gains levels than other characters who nabbed 'traditional' weapons.
Just my 2 cp on this.

Agreed completely. This makes it so that, before everything else is added in, someone with a knife does roughly 20 points of damage less per hit than someone with a greataxe. It is also disproportionate between, say, greatax and greatsword; average goes from 6.5 vs 7 to 32.5 vs 21.

Also, as had been said countless times - a fighter's problem isn't his damage output. It's that he has to find pounce somehow, and he can't do anything but damage.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-04, 04:03 PM
Ashiel, this weapon scaling remembers me a rule in Rules Cyclopedia (BECMI).

*stops for a while, overwhelmed by memories*

How it works out for criticals? You multiply the whole dices or only the weapon basic ones (I mean, a 6d6 greatsword critical turns out to be a 12d6 or an 8d6)?

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-04, 04:12 PM
I can definitely see a consummate warrior who is able to use an olive fork or a wooden spoon or a folding table or a bright yellow jacket or a step-ladder or a broom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JYNznbL0Q) or a shopping cart or a pair of skis or his bare fists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdnCwym0uPs) to lay waste to his foes if nothing else is available.

It's pretty much stock-standard modus operandi for badasses who are so badass they can outbadass the big-badasses by sheer badassness, whether armed or not.

And warblades, crusaders, and unarmed swordsages (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ect2QhvGC6o&NR=1) are nothing if not badass.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-04, 04:19 PM
I can definitely see a consummate warrior who is able to use an olive fork or a wooden spoon or a folding table or a bright yellow jacket or a step-ladder or a broom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JYNznbL0Q) or a shopping cart or a pair of skis or his bare fists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdnCwym0uPs) to lay waste to his foes if nothing else is available.

It's pretty much stock-standard modus operandi for badasses who are so badass they can outbadass the big-badasses by sheer badassness, whether armed or not.

And warblades, crusaders, and unarmed swordsages (http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=5tmEMnClhsc&feature=related) are nothing if not badass.
Don't forget the tea cup. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCPqvW8ycEQ)

Boci
2010-07-04, 04:23 PM
My few beef with the warblade are about some maneuver (how can you deal 100 more damage both with an halberd and a spoon?) but overall I see your point - and I simply use other parts of the book because I choose material from splats case-by-case, not avoiding a whole book.

So add "If you are taking penalties for using an improvised weapon, the extra damage from this maneuver is halved to 50". I doubt the nerf will matter that much.

Ashiel
2010-07-04, 04:35 PM
Ashiel, this weapon scaling remembers me a rule in Rules Cyclopedia (BECMI).

*stops for a while, overwhelmed by memories*

How it works out for criticals? You multiply the whole dices or only the weapon basic ones (I mean, a 6d6 greatsword critical turns out to be a 12d6 or an 8d6)?

Currently, we're multiplying the whole lot; but it's in playtesting right now. It's subject to change. The group is around 5th level right now, and it's been pretty decent. It's mostly a boon for the party, since low level enemies (such as warriors/experts/adepts) don't generally have enough BAB in comparison to them to overwhelm them; but small groups of tougher enemies (such as 5th-6th level warriors) have a bit more bite; but it's been pretty good.

I ran the numbers assuming high-end criticals, and I didn't mind what I saw. Even with the almighty great-axe (sounds crazy, doesn't it?), the maximum weapon damage it could deal on a critical is 225 (assuming 5 * 12), with an expected 45 damage added via strength, with an average of about 142.5 damage on a critical hit with a great-axe. Very lethal; and resulting in a gain of about 78 points of damage; so it's a very lethal house rule.

Gonna see how it goes. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: I accidentally errored when I was posting the numbers because of an oversight; I fixed the values.

huttj509
2010-07-04, 04:40 PM
I can definitely see a consummate warrior who is able to use an olive fork or a wooden spoon or a folding table or a bright yellow jacket or a step-ladder or a broom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JYNznbL0Q) or a shopping cart or a pair of skis or his bare fists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdnCwym0uPs) to lay waste to his foes if nothing else is available.

It's pretty much stock-standard modus operandi for badasses who are so badass they can outbadass the big-badasses by sheer badassness, whether armed or not.

And warblades, crusaders, and unarmed swordsages (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ect2QhvGC6o&NR=1) are nothing if not badass.

I think setting sun style might fit that stuff best.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-04, 04:44 PM
Gonna see how it goes. :smallbiggrin:

Let us know how it goes! :smallsmile: (I'll PM further considerations).

@Strike of Perfect Clarity: Lycan already has shown that actually, in game, the weapon used will matter for the additional bona added. It's enough for me, and it's, IMO, useless suggest houserules, or show Jackie Chan (well, no, it's always a good idea show Jackie Chan).

So, it's useles go further, I retire. :smallsmile:

The Cat Goddess
2010-07-04, 04:51 PM
So add "If you are taking penalties for using an improvised weapon, the extra damage from this maneuver is halved to 50". I doubt the nerf will matter that much.

And what happens when the improvised weapon is a 6 foot ladder or an elephant tusk instead of a spoon? Wouldn't it make "more sense" for the tusk to do more damage?

Really, there's no need for this.

Why would a fist (that you're proficient with) do more damage than a spoon held in that fist? While it could be said that a two-handed weapon should do more damage than a one-handed weapon... there are cases where they don't!

When you're talking about doing rediculous amounts of damage based on your Concentration Skill anyway... anything that "favors" using a 2h-weapon over a 1h-weapon just promotes more min-maxing.

Boci
2010-07-04, 05:43 PM
And what happens when the improvised weapon is a 6 foot ladder or an elephant tusk instead of a spoon? Wouldn't it make "more sense" for the tusk to do more damage?

Really, there's no need for this.

Why would a fist (that you're proficient with) do more damage than a spoon held in that fist? While it could be said that a two-handed weapon should do more damage than a one-handed weapon... there are cases where they don't!

When you're talking about doing rediculous amounts of damage based on your Concentration Skill anyway... anything that "favors" using a 2h-weapon over a 1h-weapon just promotes more min-maxing.

Meh, its a houserule that won't see much light of day, but could potentially help woth the problem of SoPC.

Greenish
2010-07-04, 07:47 PM
My few beef with the warblade are about some maneuver (how can you deal 100 more damage both with an halberd and a spoon?) but overall I see your point - and I simply use other parts of the book because I choose material from splats case-by-case, not avoiding a whole book.A master of the Diamond Mind knows that the real weapon is not what you hold in your hands, but your mind.

Really, that's the whole shtick of Diamond Mind.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-04, 07:53 PM
A master of the Diamond Mind knows that the real weapon is not what you hold in your hands, but your mind.

Really, that's the whole shtick of Diamond Mind.

(psst, that's an iron heart maneuver. Diamond Mind's lvl 9 maneuver is the double full attack)

Greenish
2010-07-04, 07:58 PM
(psst, that's an iron heart maneuver. Diamond Mind's lvl 9 maneuver is the double full attack)Oops, not as up on my ToB-fu as I'd like to think. :smallredface: Usually when people refer to attacks that don't depend on the weapon used they're speaking about Insightful Strikes.

Oh well, an Iron Heart master has finally mastered the perfect strike, which is powerful regardless of weapon, but obviously better with a good weapon. Makes sense, at least more than Lightning Throw.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-04, 08:01 PM
Oops, not as up on my ToB-fu as I'd like to think. :smallredface: Usually when people refer to attacks that don't depend on the weapon used they're speaking about Insightful Strikes.

Oh well, an Iron Heart master has finally mastered the perfect strike, which is powerful regardless of weapon, but obviously better with a good weapon. Makes sense, at least more than Lightning Throw.

Lightning throw? You mean setting sun's ninth? I do believe it's reduced "sense" is overshadowed by the incredibly awesome image of hurling a dozen mooks on the way to the boss. Preferably all at the boss too.

Boci
2010-07-04, 08:02 PM
Lightning throw? You mean setting sun's ninth? I do believe it's reduced "sense" is overshadowed by the incredibly awesome image of hurling a dozen mooks on the way to the boss. Preferably all at the boss too.

That's tornado throw. Lightning throw is the throw weapon, hit several target and do extra damage, catch weapon maneuver from Iron Heart. Its 8th level.

Greenish
2010-07-04, 08:04 PM
That's tornado throw. Lightning throw is the throw weapon, hit several target and do extra damage, catch weapon maneuver from Iron Heart. Its 8th level.Yeah. Iron Heart is one of the least magical schools, so being able to throw your weapon to hit several targets and then instantly return to your hand just jars me.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-04, 08:07 PM
Ah, I forgot about that one completely. But then again there's also the Prestige class that lets you hurl your weapons and have them bounce back :/

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-04, 08:19 PM
Lightning throw. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-IH96QYeAY)

Greenish
2010-07-04, 08:21 PM
Ah, I forgot about that one completely. But then again there's also the Prestige class that lets you hurl your weapons and have them bounce back :/Yeah, but somehow I feel it doesn't really fit in with the rest of the school. (Even if Iron Heart maneuvers are what you use to fuel Bloodstorm Blade's tricks, many of which shouldn't be Ex if you ask me.)

[Edit]:
Lightning throw. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-IH96QYeAY)Don't tell me that ain't Su.

Boci
2010-07-04, 08:25 PM
Yeah, but somehow I feel it doesn't really fit in with the rest of the school. (Even if Iron Heart maneuvers are what you use to fuel Bloodstorm Blade's tricks, many of which shouldn't be Ex if you ask me.)

[Edit]:Don't tell me that ain't Su.

Stone dragon kinda did the same with the cause the earth quake punch. Personally? I'm would not be too bothered is both became Su, even though technically there is no real flavour difference between Su and Ex beyond the fact that one works in an AMF and the others doesn't. And AMF aren't that common.

Greenish
2010-07-04, 08:27 PM
Stone dragon kinda did the same with the cause the earth quake punch. Personally? I'm would not be too bothered is both became Su, even though technically there is no real flavour difference between Su and Ex beyond the fact that one works in an AMF and the others doesn't. And AMF aren't that common.Yeah, it's a bit of a silly thing to get annoyed, ain't it. Still, I get the feeling that Lightning Throw was put there because the developers ran out of ideas on how to hit stuff really good.

Boci
2010-07-04, 08:34 PM
Yeah, it's a bit of a silly thing to get annoyed, ain't it. Still, I get the feeling that Lightning Throw was put there because the developers ran out of ideas on how to hit stuff really good.

To be fair, giving a warblade the ability to hit something at range isn't a bad idea mechanically, and the option to have your sword master throw his weapon is also cool and appears in some super heroes, captain america being the best examplet hat comes to mind.
You could make it into a boost, possible cut the extra damage down a bit, but remove the multiple target and returns to hand thing. That could work.

okpokalypse
2010-07-04, 08:44 PM
Actually, a recent house-rule I'm testing out involves scaling weapon damage. Essentially every BAB / 5 adds +1d to your weapon. Thus a 20th level fighter would deal 5d4 with a dagger, 5d6 with a short-sword, 5d8 with a longsword, 5d10 with a bastard sword, and 5d12 with a great-axe.

The largest mechanic quirk is that the weapons that begin with multiple damage dice often end up being less impressive at higher levels. Greatsword ends at 6d6 (av 21) which is less powerful than a longsword (22.5) or bastard sword (av 27.5), and the greataxe (av 32.5) towers above it in effectiveness.

Currently testing it out, but it seems interesting thus far. Using it in a tabletop campaign I'm running right now, and it's working very nicely for keeping certain characters useful (S&B and TWF benefit from this the most); but I'm sure I'll run into something odd sometime in the future. :smalltongue:

EDIT: In case I wasn't clear before, the progression for bonus dice works like this.


BAB Bonus Dice
+1-4 +0d
+5-9 +1d
+10-14 +2d
+15-19 +3d
+20-24 +4d

Might I suggest using the Large-Sized Weapons scale. Thus longsword vs. greatsword would go...

LongSword 1d8 -> 2d6 -> 3d6 -> 4d6 -> 6d6
GreatSword 2d6 -> 3d6 -> 4d6 -> 6d6 -> 8d6

Keld Denar
2010-07-04, 09:01 PM
The only problem with using weapon size scaling is that if you follow the pattern, it starts to get VERY rediculous. On its own, it won't get there, but if you combine it with say...Greater Mighty Wallop, you can get some rediculous numbers. Take a standard Greatclub, 1d10.

Enlarge the fighter for 2d8.

Now apply 4 size increases due to 20 BAB.

2d8 > 3d8 > 4d8 > 6d8 > 8d8

Now apply 5 size increases from a CL20 Greater Mighty Wallop

8d8 > 12d8 > 16d8 > 24d8 > 32d8 > 48d8

See how after a couple size changes, damage really takes off and you are adding 4-6 dice at a time, and finally the jump of 16 dice from 32 to 48. Thats rediculous!

EDIT: just for reference, 48d6 averages 216 damage...and thats just the dice!

The Cat Goddess
2010-07-04, 09:31 PM
Might I suggest using the Large-Sized Weapons scale. Thus longsword vs. greatsword would go...

LongSword 1d8 -> 2d6 -> 3d6 -> 4d6 -> 6d6
GreatSword 2d6 -> 3d6 -> 4d6 -> 6d6 -> 8d6

Or instead, have the bonus damage depend on the weapon size rather than the weapon damage.

Light Weapon 1d4
1h Weapon 1d6
2h Weapon 1d10

Thus the Longsword becomes 1d8+5d6
The Greatsword becomes 2d6+5d10

A Two-Bladed Sword would be 1d6+5d6 on the primary hand, 1d6+5d4 on the secondary hand... thus illustrating why the 2h weapon bonus damage is d10.

Runestar
2010-07-04, 09:35 PM
My few beef with the warblade are about some maneuver (how can you deal 100 more damage both with an halberd and a spoon?)

It is a feature, not a bug. Now, warblades have more leeway to use whatever weapon they want, rather than whichever weapon deals the most damage. Likewise, weapon aptitude means they are no longer pigeon-holed into using the same one weapon type for their entire adventuring career. The DM can leave a magical axe in the hoard and know it will not screw over the warblade who originally specialized in greatswords. No such luck with the fighter.

When was the last time you saw a fighter specialize in daggers or clubs? No one used them as they were statistically inferior to longswords and greatswords. This disparity in damage was further compounded when you consider the fighter makes 4-6 attacks every round (so he is losing out 6 times that damage difference).

But as a warblade, you make just a single attack, and your damage boost from your strikes make no distinction as to what weapon you are wielding. So the difference in damage between a dagger (or plastic fork) and a greatsword accounts for only a small portion of your overall damage.

The ToB system will set your "fighter" free. :smallbiggrin:

If you have ever seen those wuxia movies where the hero disables the bandits by slapping them silly with a long blade of grass, you will know exactly what I mean. :smallamused:

BTW, you want to know what lightning throw really reminds me of? :smalltongue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZqLyRTw-GM&feature=related

Watch the part from 0:42 - 0:50, when Nie Feng executes his most powerful sabre stance. :smallcool:

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-05, 02:40 AM
For you is a feature, but it's sometimes a problem for me (barring what I said about Lycan post).

Say our hero is captured and surrouded by enemies. He first punces a man an steals his dagger. Then uses the dagger to disarm the mooks, until he reaches the wall, where he can quickdraw the *insert TH weapon*.

THEN, the slaughter begins. The warrior feels differently the weapons because they are different in the gameworld. This does not mean that the dagger has not use - a dagger can be hidden, thrown but to hit hard you need the heavy guns.

Different people, different tastes.

Tytalus
2010-07-05, 05:15 AM
I don't allow ToB classes in my campaigns: I'm not too familiar with them, they're really good right out of the box at low-levels, they effectively replace other classes.

As of late I've been second guessing this decision and told someone new to my DnD group that I'd allow him to play a Shifter Swordsage.

The party as of right now looks like this:
Human Scout 3
Illumian(Vaulkrau) Sorcerer 1/Shugenja(Water focus) 2
Half-Orc Barbarian 2/Druid 1
Human Fighter 3(Switched from Bard:smallfurious:)

I'm for the most part unable to contact him so I don't know what he's doing with the character and he wont be jumping in till 4th. I don't want him to overshadow the party, anything I should look out for as far as stances, maneuvers, or feats go? He knows that I'm shaking on ToB so he said he's prepared for me to restrict a few things.

To get back to the OP:

Your party appears to be very unoptimized. In such cases ToB classes can appear overwhelming, especially since they always have something fun (and effective) to do. This will likely be most apparent when compared to the fighter, who is, due to his class mechanics, stuck with just a few combat options.

In both cases, the PC's multiclassing is ill-advised, so I recommend considering the suggestions by the other players to improve the characters.

Boci
2010-07-05, 05:29 AM
For you is a feature, but it's sometimes a problem for me (barring what I said about Lycan post).

Say our hero is captured and surrouded by enemies. He first punces a man an steals his dagger. Then uses the dagger to disarm the mooks, until he reaches the wall, where he can quickdraw the *insert TH weapon*.

THEN, the slaughter begins. The warrior feels differently the weapons because they are different in the gameworld. This does not mean that the dagger has not use - a dagger can be hidden, thrown but to hit hard you need the heavy guns.

Different people, different tastes.

But as others have said, SoPC will deal a lot more damage if the warblade is using a two handed weapon since he will have a higher base damage, 1.5 strenth and better returns for power attack. So the situation you described above would be the same with the warblade, except he could opt to launch a highly skilled strike with his dagger that would most likely take down one enemy before reading the TH weapon.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-05, 05:48 AM
But as others have said, SoPC will deal a lot more damage if the warblade is using a two handed weapon since he will have a higher base damage, 1.5 strenth and better returns for power attack. So the situation you described above would be the same with the warblade, except he could opt to launch a highly skilled strike with his dagger that would most likely take down one enemy before reading the TH weapon.

Yeah, that was Lycan's good point, I already addresed it.

De facto, the blow is different: I simply answered that it was not by the maneuver merit.

Of course, WITHOUT the maneuver, I could have problems to represent a single shot-kill with a knife, barring sneak attack and such, unless the enemy is very low level.. so one could say that the maneuver has his own utility in the building of particular "scenes".

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 05:50 AM
Of course, WITHOUT the maneuver, I could have problems to represent a single shot-kill with a knife, barring sneak attack and such, unless the enemy is very low level.. so one could say that the maneuver has his own utility in the building of particular "scenes".

:D one of my characters(her/his campaign started yesterday) believes that looking cool and succeeding is better than succeeding efficiently. This is exactly why she'd use such a maneuver: Because it looks incredible
(she can actually set himself on fire if doing so would be cool enough)

Greenish
2010-07-05, 07:53 AM
(she can actually set himself on fire if doing so would be cool enough)
That'll come in handy if ninjas try to capture her.

Ashiel
2010-07-05, 08:08 AM
If you have ever seen those wuxia movies where the hero disables the bandits by slapping them silly with a long blade of grass, you will know exactly what I mean. :smallamused:

I tend to think of it more as the warrior being dangerous, not just his weapon. Kind of a "swords don't kill people, I do" kind of thing. He's the guy who, if the the castle he was dining in suddenly came under attack, could throw a kebab into someone's eye; jump up and slam someone with a chair; grab his opponent and throw them out the window; bull-rush through a group of the invaders; and then grab his weapon mounted on the other side of the room; before declaring that now he means business. :smallbiggrin:

Runestar
2010-07-05, 08:31 AM
I tend to think of it more as the warrior being dangerous, not just his weapon. Kind of a "swords don't kill people, I do" kind of thing. He's the guy who, if the the castle he was dining in suddenly came under attack, could throw a kebab into someone's eye; jump up and slam someone with a chair; grab his opponent and throw them out the window; bull-rush through a group of the invaders; and then grab his weapon mounted on the other side of the room; before declaring that now he means business. :smallbiggrin:

You have given me this ultra-cool mental image of the warblade using lightning throw on his kebab stick and piercing through an entire line of fighters. :smallcool:

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-05, 12:35 PM
:D one of my characters(her/his campaign started yesterday) believes that looking cool and succeeding is better than succeeding efficiently. This is exactly why she'd use such a maneuver: Because it looks incredible
(she can actually set himself on fire if doing so would be cool enough)

Is cool only if fire is already on fire.

@greenish: you meant already flaming ninjas, I want to hope :smallmad:

Greenish
2010-07-05, 12:42 PM
@greenish: you meant already flaming ninjas, I want to hope :smallmad:I referred to the well-known fact that ninjas can't catch you if you light yourself on fire.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-05, 12:46 PM
I referred to the well-known fact that ninjas can't catch you if you light yourself on fire.

I apologize for my ignorance, in this case.

Fisticuffs
2010-07-05, 03:46 PM
@Tytalus: So you want me to tell all of my players to make characters that suck less? :smallconfused:
I don't think resetting the party to compensate for a ToB class is a very viable option, further more for the fluff of the campaign I encouraged them to play sub-par builds, gave them better ability scores, and planned on giving them better equipment to try to compensate for the fact but if I give the Swordsage the low end of the loot then it looks like I' m playing favorites(he's kind of a friend-of-a-friend) but if I give him equal things then he's going to out perform the party. Speaking of which the Illumian is going early Theurge with Precocious Apprentice and the Fighter has decided to go back to Bard.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-05, 04:02 PM
@Tytalus: So you want me to tell all of my players to make characters that suck less? :smallconfused:
I can't speak for Tytalus, but I would recommend trying to determine what it is they're trying to do, and help them make it happen. By RAW, they're generally multiclassing themselves into uselessness, but you're the DM - you can houserule/homebrew things to help them make it happen.


I don't think resetting the party to compensate for a ToB class is a very viable option, further more for the fluff of the campaign I encouraged them to play sub-par builds,
Could you give more information here? That... doesn't really make a lot of sense in my head, but I feel like I'm missing something.

Sub-par doesn't necessarily mean less powerful (though it probably does with these specific examples), but it does mean they'll have less ability to have something to offer in various encounters. A Fighter isn't bad because he's not powerful (he is; he can rack up very high numbers in damage), he's bad because he's only got that one trick and nothing else. Real people aren't nearly so limited, to my mind. A heroic warrior should have a lot of tricks up his sleeve - the Fighter does not. Just IMO. What are you going for here?


gave them better ability scores,So, sub-par builds but with better stats...
planned on giving them better equipment to try to compensate for the factAnd gear? Why? Now I'm very confused.


if I give the Swordsage the low end of the loot then it looks like I' m playing favorites(he's kind of a friend-of-a-friend) but if I give him equal things then he's going to out perform the party.
This is not a given. Tome of Battle is very well designed in ways that the Player's Handbook is terribly designed, in that there are no 'traps' and you can't help but produce an effective character with it, but ultimately that also means that Tome of Battle has a lower ceiling - you cannot optimize a Martial Adept the way you can a Core class, because the book is better balanced.

The worst-built Martial Adept ever (barring utterly unsupported things like trying to make a Warblade archer when the Warblade neither has proficiency with bows nor any class features that will work with them) will not be substantially worse than the best-built (barring cheese, using RKV/JPM to leave the Sublime Way behind). This is a good thing, but it's not true of the PHB. A poorly built Wizard will be considerably weaker, a well built Wizard will be massively stronger. A poorly built Fighter will be, again, weaker, but a well built Fighter will be doing a lot more damage (but won't be able to engage in non-combat activity as well, plus will not be as flexible in combat - but pure damage, he'll win). You might consider just trying out the Swordsage to see how he'll go.


Speaking of which the Illumian is going early Theurge with Precocious Apprentice
Early is good, but the Mystic Theurge should still have class features. Also, you should look through Spell Compendium if you have it, or other books with spells if you don't, and figure out some thematic and appropriate spells to add to the Water Shugenja's list (Spell Compendium specifically recommends this). If you do these things, though, the Mystic Theurge should have no trouble keeping pace with the Swordsage, so long as he chooses his spells wisely.


the Fighter has decided to go back to Bard.
That is great news. Bards are awesome, and the power level of Bards and Martial Adepts are quite similar. Allowing a feat for "Improved Inspiration" or "Elemental Inspiration" that mimics Dragonfire Inspiration but without the dragon fluff would be very helpful to the Bard (and really, the whole party), and makes for a very fun character. Bards are awesome.

Fisticuffs
2010-07-05, 04:13 PM
I already told him he could find more spells to add to his list and I gave him the Water Domain's granted power, I just forgot to mention that, sorry I'm making a battle grid for a session that starts in like 30 min...so yeah.

It's a you raised in a DnD fantasy world so they built characters based on pseudo-humans and chose their classes appropriately, I realized that these characters would be underpowered so I gave them better rolling parameters and in the long run plan on giving them slightly better material rewards.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-05, 04:57 PM
I already told him he could find more spells to add to his list and I gave him the Water Domain's granted power, I just forgot to mention that, sorry I'm making a battle grid for a session that starts in like 30 min...so yeah.
Fair enough; the Shugenja/Sorcerer/Mystic Theurge should be able to maintain parity with the Swordsage, anyway. I strongly recommend looking at the Pathfinder Mystic Theurge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/mystic-theurge), but don't make Combined Spells raise the spell level by 1 (utterly unnecessary), and allow Spell Synthesis to function more than 1/day (something like 3-4/day or 1/encounter seems about right to me; it's a very powerful ability in general but having it 1/day basically limits it too much), and the Mystic Theurge should be great.


It's a you raised in a DnD fantasy world so they built characters based on pseudo-humans and chose their classes appropriately, I realized that these characters would be underpowered
Hmm, why? I mean... "Me" as a concept translated into D&D does not really shoehorn me into doing something that doesn't work well. I mean, if one person sees himself as a Barbarian/Druid, there's no reason that couldn't be Barbarian 1/Druid X, which would be more optimal. I mean, if I was looking to be an adventurer in a D&D type world, I'd certainly try to focus on skills that are going to be effective. Especially since they were raised in that world, I'd expect them to do something effective in that world.

But, there's no combination in the game that you can't make good. I mean, yeah, Barbarian/Druid doesn't have any real support in the books, but if you offered a Feat that allows spellcasting while Raging, or maybe some kind of Raging Wildshape that grants the bonuses of both simultaneously and may be done as many times per day as the sum of his Rage and Wildshape uses? There are lots of things that can be done with that.


so I gave them better rolling parameters and in the long run plan on giving them slightly better material rewards.
Better abilities are generally a good thing, IMO; they're more fun, and low-stats favor the classes that are already too strong, so all around that's never really a problem. The magic gear, be somewhat careful with that, since WBL is very powerful, but I also support that - magic gear can definitely do things that help people out. Custom magic items here will be your best friend - maybe the Scout is having trouble keeping up, so you give an item that allows a "10 ft. step" - suddenly the Scout can trigger Skirmish while still full-attacking - and he's in business. That item doesn't actually exist, but that shouldn't stop you. And it's something like that that is not necessarily "favoring" the Scout - give fun stuff to everyone - but is a tiny boost that can really help out a character who might be lagging behind.

Greenish
2010-07-05, 05:11 PM
I mean, if one person sees himself as a Barbarian/Druid, there's no reason that couldn't be Barbarian 1/Druid X, which would be more optimal.Or Druidic Avenger.

maybe some kind of Raging Wildshape that grants the bonuses of both simultaneously and may be done as many times per day as the sum of his Rage and Wildshape uses?You can rage while in wildshape normally, and Extra rage should give more uses of rage.

an item that allows a "10 ft. step" - suddenly the Scout can trigger Skirmish while still full-attacking - and he's in business. That item doesn't actually existThe sparring dummy of the master or something like that in A&E. You'd only have to allow scouts to use it, and maybe lower the cost.


But yeah, if I honestly statted myself in D&D, I wouldn't be adventuring much (what with my single commoner level and only one ability score in double digits). :smalltongue:

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 05:16 PM
But yeah, if I honestly statted myself in D&D, I wouldn't be adventuring much (what with my single commoner level and only one ability score in double digits). :smalltongue:
White Raven stance "Press The Advantage" lets you do two 5-foot steps per round(or one if in difficult terrain). It's a level 5 stance with 2 WR maneuvers as a pre-requisite though, so the scout is unlikely to be able to learn that on his own.

Thurbane
2010-07-05, 05:26 PM
I have a question here, not directly related to ToB, but to the power level of optimized builds. Where is the line in the sand between sub-par characters, optimized characters, and Pun-pun? I’m guessing this must be a highly subjective measuring stick, based on each group’s style and preferences. This is why I get a little frustrated at how quick some people are to put down builds on internet forums, without knowing the relative power of that character to the other players in his group, and the optimization level the DM uses for the opposition.

From my experience, the vast majority of D&D games out there are cooperative, with the characters working as a team. In this kind of scenario, individual power is generally less of an issue than it is in a PvP, arena style game. For an example, I think everyone who is familiar with the Marvel Avengers comic knows that there is a huge power disparity level between, say, Captain America and Thor. But yet they manage to co-exist on the same team, and compliment each others abilities...not an ideal comparison , but this is how I see most of the D&D games I’ve played in. Yes, there will often be a character who is more powerful, but since the players are a team, they generally all find a way to contribute.

I’m not saying anyone should be intentionally saddled with a “lame duck” character who can’t meaningfully contribute to the party in any given situation, but I do think the uselessness of certain classes is vastly over-portrayed in some of these kind of debates.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 05:28 PM
It is subjective enough that as soon as one person feels behind, she'll consider it too cheesy.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-05, 05:53 PM
The general goal would be so that everyone feels that everyone is contributing more-or-less evenly, themselves included. When this isn't the case, the question becomes, where should everyone be brought to?

Tier 3-ish is usually the preferred answer - always able to contribute something, even if this isn't one's specialty, able to excel at their specialty enough to make them unique and capable, and generally unable to break the game into itty-bitty little pieces.

Tier 3's generally fare well in CR-appropriate encounters of all kinds, and are rarely, if ever, side-lined by circumstances that do not suit them because they are sufficiently flexible. At the same time, they typically don't dominate CR-appropriate encounters and shouldn't have any ability or abilities that are simply "Win" buttons.

The Fighter is poor because in far too many situations, his ability to contribute is minimalized. Even when the CR is appropriate, there are circumstances that will mean he is unable to effectively respond.

The Wizard is poor because in far too many situations, he has the option to cast the "I win" spell and be done with it. Even when the CR is appropriate, there are circumstances where he will be utterly unhindered.

The Warblade is good because he is capable of performing on and off the battlefield in a variety of situations, while a challenge's CR is generally in line with how challenging it will be for him.

The Beguiler is good because is also capable of performing on and off the battlefield, and his spells allow him great flexibility while still preventing him from always having just the right spell to answer any given situation.

Runestar
2010-07-05, 06:20 PM
Ideally, the wizard focuses on battlefield control, breaking down the foes into bite sized chunks for the fighters to tear apart. The thing here is that the wizard is still contributing the most, but the party won't think or feel it, because he isn't exactly 1-shotting the BBEG with a SoD. His contribution is much less direct and obvious, so everyone still feels like they have done something.

The only thing is that the wizard's player has less to brag about over drinks. "I blinded all the ogres in the room" sounds a lot less impressive than "I critted for 100+ damage with my greataxe!" however you phrase it, and there is no way of quantifying your worth.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-05, 06:22 PM
That only really works if your players don't realize what's going on. I mean, I've played with Wizards who have Glitterdusted an entire room, and it's kind of like "oh, well, glad we're here to mop up." Even with Tome of Battle.

Ashiel
2010-07-05, 10:25 PM
Ideally, the wizard focuses on battlefield control, breaking down the foes into bite sized chunks for the fighters to tear apart. The thing here is that the wizard is still contributing the most, but the party won't think or feel it, because he isn't exactly 1-shotting the BBEG with a SoD. His contribution is much less direct and obvious, so everyone still feels like they have done something.

The only thing is that the wizard's player has less to brag about over drinks. "I blinded all the ogres in the room" sounds a lot less impressive than "I critted for 100+ damage with my greataxe!" however you phrase it, and there is no way of quantifying your worth.

Wizard: "I cast black tentacles of forceful intrusion."
DM: "They scream as they have no hope of actually managing to get free from the brutal grappling of the tentacles, while they slowly tear them apart dealing 1d6+4 damage each round.
Wizard: "Ok, on my next round then, I'll ready an action to cast stinking cloud if one breaks free. Assuming they get through both of those; then the rest of my party can jump them."

In all seriousness; I ran a tabletop game that included a frenzied berserker shock-trooper charger-build with feats that allowed him to share his rage/frenzy with his mount; and he later acquired the feral template and pounce; and he had an average damage per round that was nearing 1k; assuming no criticals.

THAT player stepped back and said, "Damn, that was awesome!" when talking about the party's spellcasters who were using core spells and a few meta-magic feats from core, the complete arcane, and mage; on many occasions. One spell-caster (the one who provoked his reaction) was an a generalist mostly specializing in Abjuration and Evocation (often considered the weakest of the schools).

The only person that was remotely alarmed by the damage factor was the party's warblade; who felt he couldn't keep up with the Fighter/Barbarian/Berserker; even with help optimizing.

Just found it a little interesting. :smallsmile:

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-06, 12:52 PM
I apologize for my ignorance, in this case.Then consider yourself schooled:
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g111/Lycanthromancer/ninjas-cant-catch-you-if-youre-on-f.gif?t=1278439327

Ninja 101: http://www.drmcninja.com

Feel free to expand your horizons.

9mm
2010-07-06, 01:35 PM
I have a question here, not directly related to ToB, but to the power level of optimized builds. Where is the line in the sand between sub-par characters, optimized characters, and Pun-pun?

Pick up the monster manuel and ask your self how many things in here will make this character misarble. if the answer in "none" you have pun-pun, "some" is highly optimized, "about half" is basic optimized, ect.

thats the basic quick and dirty way to figure it out; the other being the ToS teir system (where tier 2 is considered as far as one really should go regardless of the rest of the party); however the optimizers cavate is "where's everyone else?" being substansialy more powerful than everyone else is just not fun.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-06, 01:49 PM
Pick up the monster manuel and ask your self how many things in here will make this character misarble. if the answer in "none" you have pun-pun, "some" is highly optimized, "about half" is basic optimized, ect.

thats the basic quick and dirty way to figure it out; the other being the ToS teir system (where tier 2 is considered as far as one really should go regardless of the rest of the party); however the optimizers cavate is "where's everyone else?" being substansialy more powerful than everyone else is just not fun.The monsters themselves aren't all you have to worry about, though. You've also got terrain, social encounters, traps, wilderness issues, travel, various kinds of locomotion, and all sorts of other stuff that an adventurer has to deal with.

In the case of builds for most martial classes (and pretty much anything tier 4 or below), they're made pretty useless by most everything outside their direct purview (the lower the tier the worse this gets). In the case of the fighter, this is basically any time 'I hit it' doesn't apply (and with Charisma as the class's dump-stat, even then sometimes it doesn't work :smallcool:).

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-06, 01:51 PM
@ Lycan:

Thank you! Another step on the road of knowledge, I guess... :smallwink:

EDIT: but.. this thing is completely mad. I love it.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-06, 02:02 PM
@ Lycan:

Thank you! Another step on the road of knowledge, I guess... :smallwink:

EDIT: but.. this thing is completely mad. I love it.You haven't seen ANYTHING yet, boyo.

Boci
2010-07-06, 03:51 PM
Figured I'd post it here to avoid starting a new thread:
A: Would you as a DM allow a swordsage with assassin stance to take and use craven?
B: Is it a good choice?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-06, 03:52 PM
Figured I'd post it here to avoid starting a new thread:
A: Would you as a DM allow a swordsage with assassin stance to take and use craven?
B: Is it a good choice?

Yes. By the description, assassin stance is an actual sneak attack.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-06, 04:07 PM
Depends, I suppose, somewhat on the power level of the others in the group, but generally speaking, yes, I would. I mean, it locks them into one Stance if they ever want to use it, and then they have to be able to trigger it - hardly impossible, but sometimes a Swordsage wants to do other things.

In order words, a Swordsage is probably not a dedicated Sneak Attack-er. That makes Craven quite a bit more situational and therefore not nearly as good, which nicely makes up for whatever advantages the Swordsage has in general over the Rogue.

Of course, RAW, they absolutely do qualify.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-06, 04:23 PM
(she can actually set himself on fire if doing so would be cool enough)

I know, my unarmed swordsage revels in lighting himself on fire every other second. (unarmed strike - whole body counts as a weapon)

DM: You enter a dark cave...
Me: I light myself on fire! Who needs torches?
DM: The silly commoner is refusing your demands
Me: I intimidate him by lighting myself on fire!
DM: The tentacle monsters/ninjas try to grapple you!
Me: I light myself on fire, and then shadow jaunt away!

I love swordsages.

Panigg
2010-07-06, 04:46 PM
Compared to normal melee classes ToB classes are way overpowered, I agree.

Compared to spellcasters ToB classes are fine, unless you're not restricting them.

I can build you a swordsage that deals like 50d6+250 per round for 15 rounds.

This is with 10 attacks per round, with high crit weapons (15-20) and every crit adds +1 attack and +damage and you have the option of doing 20 attacks and free great cleave on top.... while moving your full speed and at this point you've only used one boost.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-06, 05:00 PM
Compared to normal melee classes ToB classes are way overpowered, I agree.

Compared to spellcasters ToB classes are fine, unless you're not restricting them.

I can build you a swordsage that deals like 50d6+250 per round for 15 rounds.

This is with 10 attacks per round, with high crit weapons (15-20) and every crit adds +1 attack and +damage and you have the option of doing 20 attacks and free great cleave on top.... while moving your full speed and at this point you've only used one boost.Yes, but what restrictions are there on what you can do? Sometimes these aren't always taken into account.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-06, 05:09 PM
I know, my unarmed swordsage revels in lighting himself on fire every other second. (unarmed strike - whole body counts as a weapon)

DM: You enter a dark cave...
Me: I light myself on fire! Who needs torches?
DM: The silly commoner is refusing your demands
Me: I intimidate him by lighting myself on fire!
DM: The tentacle monsters/ninjas try to grapple you!
Me: I light myself on fire, and then shadow jaunt away!

I love swordsages.

Mine's a swordsage/psychic warrior gestalt, adapted under pathfinder rules(mostly the swordsage skills are condensed, and the psychic warrior in use is the beta pathfinder one). I light myself on fire with power points and go to town :p

Ashiel
2010-07-06, 05:31 PM
Compared to normal melee classes ToB classes are way overpowered, I agree.

Compared to spellcasters ToB classes are fine, unless you're not restricting them.

I can build you a swordsage that deals like 50d6+250 per round for 15 rounds.

This is with 10 attacks per round, with high crit weapons (15-20) and every crit adds +1 attack and +damage and you have the option of doing 20 attacks and free great cleave on top.... while moving your full speed and at this point you've only used one boost.

I'd like to hear how; for personal education purposes. :smallamused:

lsfreak
2010-07-06, 06:10 PM
I can build you a swordsage that deals like 50d6+250 per round for 15 rounds.

I can build a 12ish-level barbarian or paladin that does similar. I fail to see your point. ToB does not have a monopoly on high numbers; in fact, quite the opposite. High damage is usually easier with fighters or barbarians due to getting more feats or build-in damage increases.

Barbarian build:
Human, Starting 16Str [could be Orc/18, but let's make things harder for me, huh?]
Barb2/Fighter4/Frenzied Berserker5
Key Points:
Pounce, Whirling Frenzy
Shock Trooper, Leap Attack
+4Str item, +1 Valorous weapon
Minimum 220 damage per hit with a falchion, with a rough attack routine of +22/22/17/12. Keep in mind this is 12th level with only a tiny fraction of WBL spent and with 2 feats still open for whatever. That's double your 50d6+250 if only two attacks hit.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-06, 06:13 PM
A psychic warrior pounce-charging with dual-wielded (THF) lances could potentially get quite a lot higher than that, and can do other stuff too.

Big numbers aren't hard to get.

Panigg
2010-07-06, 07:03 PM
I can build a 12ish-level barbarian or paladin that does similar. I fail to see your point. ToB does not have a monopoly on high numbers; in fact, quite the opposite. High damage is usually easier with fighters or barbarians due to getting more feats or build-in damage increases.

Barbarian build:
Human, Starting 16Str [could be Orc/18, but let's make things harder for me, huh?]
Barb2/Fighter4/Frenzied Berserker5
Key Points:
Pounce, Whirling Frenzy
Shock Trooper, Leap Attack
+4Str item, +1 Valorous weapon
Minimum 220 damage per hit with a falchion, with a rough attack routine of +22/22/17/12. Keep in mind this is 12th level with only a tiny fraction of WBL spent and with 2 feats still open for whatever. That's double your 50d6+250 if only two attacks hit.

After checking again I saw that, with a couple of levels in scout you could get to something like 100d6+250. It's really not the point tho.

The point is that you can do terrible things with ToB classes, as long as your DM lets you do them. ^^

Also, that Swordsage also had a lot of skillpoints + trapfinding. So he wouldn't only be about damage.

lsfreak
2010-07-06, 07:06 PM
The point is that you can do terrible things with ToB classes, as long as your DM lets you do them. ^^

And I've demonstrated you can do terrible things with barbarians, paladins, and Lycan with psywarriors. I still fail to see your point, and how ToB is more overpowered than even Core melee classes.

Milskidasith
2010-07-06, 07:12 PM
I think the ToB can output some very significant damage very easily: Combine Stormguard Warrior with lots of hits, and boom, you've got yourself an instagib.

For example, assuming you're dual wielding with seven attacks a round, you can get 18 attacks off as touch attacks against an enemy (Time Stands Still + Raging Mongoose) then the next round attack nine times (Dancing Mongoose) for a grand total of, assuming you only hit your full and -5 attacks, 540 damage from the bonus damage alone, plus all your other stuff. If you hit all your attacks, and burn other resources (battle jump + pounce + swift action jump for an extra charge full attack, belt of battle for another full attack, buffs to get more attacks on both rounds) you can easily get up to around 120 bonus damage per hit for a dozen or more hits, which is... pretty significant.

Ashiel
2010-07-06, 07:42 PM
I think the ToB can output some very significant damage very easily: Combine Stormguard Warrior with lots of hits, and boom, you've got yourself an instagib.

For example, assuming you're dual wielding with seven attacks a round, you can get 18 attacks off as touch attacks against an enemy (Time Stands Still + Raging Mongoose) then the next round attack nine times (Dancing Mongoose) for a grand total of, assuming you only hit your full and -5 attacks, 540 damage from the bonus damage alone, plus all your other stuff. If you hit all your attacks, and burn other resources (battle jump + pounce + swift action jump for an extra charge full attack, belt of battle for another full attack, buffs to get more attacks on both rounds) you can easily get up to around 120 bonus damage per hit for a dozen or more hits, which is... pretty significant.

You missed my post talking about the barbarian in my tabletop who was dealing 980 damage per round without touching the tome of battle right?

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-06, 07:44 PM
I think the ToB can output some very significant damage very easily: Combine Stormguard Warrior with lots of hits, and boom, you've got yourself an instagib.

For example, assuming you're dual wielding with seven attacks a round, you can get 18 attacks off as touch attacks against an enemy (Time Stands Still + Raging Mongoose) then the next round attack nine times (Dancing Mongoose) for a grand total of, assuming you only hit your full and -5 attacks, 540 damage from the bonus damage alone, plus all your other stuff. If you hit all your attacks, and burn other resources (battle jump + pounce + swift action jump for an extra charge full attack, belt of battle for another full attack, buffs to get more attacks on both rounds) you can easily get up to around 120 bonus damage per hit for a dozen or more hits, which is... pretty significant.Nobody's saying that ToB can't put out significant damage. That's the whole point of martial characters, after all. Even fighters can deal damage well into the triple digits without much effort.

The reason why Tome of Battle is considered so much 'better' than most other martial classes is twofold: options and balance. It's virtually impossible to make a weak crusader, warblade, or swordsage, and it's extremely difficult to be useless in the majority of situations. The same can't be said of the fighter or (less so) the barbarian. In fact, it's really easy to make a fighter that doesn't fight well, and is rendered inert by a great many encounters (many of which are in the arena that are the fighter's only real specialty: combat - which isn't even counting all the noncombat situations the fighter is completely useless in).

So ToB classes can deal some damage. So can commoners. You can, in fact, make commoner builds that can one-shot balors. Or great wyrm dragons. As I said, big numbers aren't hard.

lsfreak
2010-07-06, 10:01 PM
I think the ToB can output some very significant damage very easily: Combine Stormguard Warrior with lots of hits, and boom, you've got yourself an instagib.

And has been pointed out, you have yet to prove that ToB is somehow more powerful than other martial characters. Paladin uberchargers. Rogues with sneak attack optimization. Frenzied berserkers. Even a few archer builds. They can all put out over 1000 damage a round. What is your argument for ToB being different than this?

Panigg
2010-07-07, 08:55 AM
My point, really, was that you can do crazy stuff with any class, as long as you DM lets you.

There is really no reason to not allow ToB classes, except, maybe if your DM is too lazy to read through the thing.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-07, 09:19 AM
And has been pointed out, you have yet to prove that ToB is somehow more powerful than other martial characters. Paladin uberchargers. Rogues with sneak attack optimization. Frenzied berserkers. Even a few archer builds. They can all put out over 1000 damage a round. What is your argument for ToB being different than this?

As far as I know, there isn't. The thing with ToB is that sword disciples can pull off more stunts than other martial characters, and are usually better prepared against a lieu of situations. Selectively ignoring difficult terrain, or doing a synchronized charge, or hurling someone 50 feet away, full attack charges...
ToB basically lets you pull off more of those things, without risking overspecialization.

lsfreak
2010-07-07, 01:39 PM
As far as I know, there isn't. The thing with ToB is that sword disciples can pull off more stunts than other martial characters, and are usually better prepared against a lieu of situations. Selectively ignoring difficult terrain, or doing a synchronized charge, or hurling someone 50 feet away, full attack charges...
ToB basically lets you pull off more of those things, without risking overspecialization.

Oh, I know. The problem is several arguments have been made that are based entirely on the raw number output as making ToB too powerful compared to other melee classes, which is categorically false.

I won't argue that the ability to take useful actions that aren't full attacks or pounces isn't a huge point in ToB's favor.

Oslecamo
2010-07-07, 02:05 PM
So ToB classes can deal some damage. So can commoners. You can, in fact, make commoner builds that can one-shot balors. Or great wyrm dragons. As I said, big numbers aren't hard.

Neither are spellcasting or infinite absolute power. I can just as easily abuse the rules to make a commoner the BBEG that will TPK a non-cheese party. :smallwink:

The question is, how easy is to get that power? The fighter, gaining feats faster than anybody else, can quickly unlock the super power attack chains whitout cheese.

And like someone once said, you don't need fancy tricks to defeat your oponent if your oponent is already dead.

If you do like fancy tricks, then yes ToB is great for you. But if you just want to smash heads then and cut your oponents into half then fighter and/or barbarian are better, in particular because they don't need to "recharge" midbattle.

Boci
2010-07-07, 02:15 PM
If you do like fancy tricks, then yes ToB is great for you. But if you just want to smash heads then and cut your oponents into half then fighter and/or barbarian are better, in particular because they don't need to "recharge" midbattle.

Meh, you can have a smask head warblade. Him recharging could represent breaking the pain barrier, or switching from pure instincts to a mesh of instincts and primal intent.

Caphi
2010-07-07, 02:17 PM
Meh, you can have a smask head warblade. Him recharging could represent breaking the pain barrier, or switching from pure instincts to a mesh of instincts and primal intent.

He means in terms of play, not fluff. Some people like the "charge, full attack, don't think" model of combat. Shrug.

Warlocks are good for a class with straightforward combat but an array of noncombat options.

Ashiel
2010-07-07, 02:22 PM
Aye. That's why having more options is better. If you like really tactical combat where you adapt on the fly, you may enjoy Tome of Battle; whereas if you want a simple kill-machine, Barbarian is good for you. :smallbiggrin:

Either way is good; and they both appeal to different players; so options are good. :smallsmile:

Boci
2010-07-07, 02:25 PM
He means in terms of play, not fluff. Some people like the "charge, full attack, don't think" model of combat. Shrug.

Warlocks are good for a class with straightforward combat but an array of noncombat options.

Maybe I just have a mind well suited for ToB, but I never found:

Highest level maneuver does X + boost does Y, so attack results is Z if hits.

any more difficult than:

I power attack for -X, attack result is Z if hitsa

In any meaningful way.

Tytalus
2010-07-07, 04:12 PM
@Tytalus: So you want me to tell all of my players to make characters that suck less? :smallconfused:


Not at all. DW made my point:


Tome of Battle is very well designed in ways that the Player's Handbook is terribly designed, in that there are no 'traps' and you can't help but produce an effective character with it, but ultimately that also means that Tome of Battle has a lower ceiling - you cannot optimize a Martial Adept the way you can a Core class, because the book is better balanced.

The worst-built Martial Adept ever (barring utterly unsupported things like trying to make a Warblade archer when the Warblade neither has proficiency with bows nor any class features that will work with them) will not be substantially worse than the best-built (barring cheese, using RKV/JPM to leave the Sublime Way behind). This is a good thing, but it's not true of the PHB. A poorly built Wizard will be considerably weaker, a well built Wizard will be massively stronger. A poorly built Fighter will be, again, weaker, but a well built Fighter will be doing a lot more damage (but won't be able to engage in non-combat activity as well, plus will not be as flexible in combat - but pure damage, he'll win). You might consider just trying out the Swordsage to see how he'll go.


In essence, your other PC seem to be on the low end of optimization, while ToB characters are effective right out of the box.

None of them is playing a tier 3+ build (yet, it's good news the fighter is switching back to bard, and perhaps the partial casters will kick into gear later), so expect a bit of a discrepancy at first. It might not be much, but if it is, you might want to find a way to keep the balance. I don't recommend forcing others to change their characters, of course. If anything, you might want to talk to the swordsage to figure out a way to adjust his power.

See how it plays out first, though.

Gametime
2010-07-07, 05:39 PM
If you do like fancy tricks, then yes ToB is great for you. But if you just want to smash heads then and cut your oponents into half then fighter and/or barbarian are better, in particular because they don't need to "recharge" midbattle.

The barbarian actually can't recharge mid-battle. Admittedly, his one use ability lasts long enough that you aren't likely to need to.

Math_Mage
2010-07-07, 10:10 PM
And has been pointed out, you have yet to prove that ToB is somehow more powerful than other martial characters. Paladin uberchargers. Rogues with sneak attack optimization. Frenzied berserkers. Even a few archer builds. They can all put out over 1000 damage a round. What is your argument for ToB being different than this?

SA rogues can put out 1k+ dmg/rd? At what level? :smalleek:

Runestar
2010-07-07, 11:36 PM
Maybe I just have a mind well suited for ToB, but I never found:

Highest level maneuver does X + boost does Y, so attack results is Z if hits.

any more difficult than:

I power attack for -X, attack result is Z if hitsa

In any meaningful way.

Not to mention it should be much easier and faster to resolve a single maneuver strike than 4-6 attacks on a full attack. :smallsmile:

Ashiel
2010-07-08, 12:08 AM
Not to mention it should be much easier and faster to resolve a single maneuver strike than 4-6 attacks on a full attack. :smallsmile:

This, this, oh dear god this. :smalltongue:

I know it's not complicated, but I swear I have a few players who can constantly get mixed up with the number of attacks they have, iterative attacks, and buffs such as bless, haste, etc.

Sometimes "I move 30ft and make a melee attack at +4. I deal 2d6+12+6d6 damage" makes for a wonderfully fast resolving action. :smallsmile:

lsfreak
2010-07-08, 04:25 AM
SA rogues can put out 1k+ dmg/rd? At what level? :smalleek:

Okay, that might have been exaggeration/hyperbole. However, most melee can get high enough that its 'enough.'

Rogue3/ClstCleric1/SAfighter/Assassin9/Swordsage2/Nightsong Enforcer4
Key points: Craven, TWF, Shadow Blade, Law Devotion, Knowledge Devotion, Assassin's Stance
20 (craven)
12d6 (sneak attack)
12 (shadow blade)
5 (knowledge devotion)
+5 shadow blade collision sword of subtlety (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#swordofSubtlety)
Averages roughly 100 damage a hit with a not-too-shabby routine of +50/50/45/45/40/40/35/35. And this is far from high-op, just off the top of my head, and assumes no fractional BAB. Though of course it's going to suffer as any sneak attacker build potentially can at high levels.

Runestar
2010-07-08, 05:34 AM
SA rogues can put out 1k+ dmg/rd? At what level? :smalleek:

I don't suppose it might have something to do with polymorphing into a hydra? With craven, each of your 12 heads does 10d6+20 or 55 sneak attack damage.

Ashiel
2010-07-08, 08:59 AM
I don't suppose it might have something to do with polymorphing into a hydra? With craven, each of your 12 heads does 10d6+20 or 55 sneak attack damage.

Well assuming all hit, that would be about 840 damage on average, assuming no buffs other than being polymorphed into a 12 headed hydra. 1050 is you polymorph into a 15-headed Hydra (which isn't listed in the MM, but follows the normal progression for hydras; and would meet the 15 HD limit of a high-end polymorph).