PDA

View Full Version : [3.P] Why the dislike for Tome of Battle?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Endarire
2010-08-18, 05:48 PM
Intro
Tome of Battle's incomplete errata (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a) aside, why the general dislike for this book?

My Experience
I've DMed campaigns where characters are Crusaders and Warblades and Swordsages and the world doesn't suddenly shatter. Surely, Tome of Battle melee has more options, and with this breadth of options comes power, but these options make melee more than, "I smash it with my hammer for some damage!" or "I smash it with my hammer X times as a full attack for some damage!"

Maybe it was because I optimized the foes that encounters seemed relevant. I'd think, "Let's swap that Dodge feat for Improved Initiative, or Weapon Focus for Martial Study. That should make things interesting." Unfortunately, third edition creatures were made with false pretenses, such as the expected 25 point buy and a 4- to 6-man group. If you (dis)agree, please remain civil about it!

Ahem. I've played Wizards since second edition, back when they were called Mages. I liked being "the caster" because it meant I did more than hit things. Direct damage is an option, but being able to summon reinforcements, (pre)buff my allies, debuff my enemies, and rearrange the battlefield is a lot more interesting and mentally challenging than, "On my turn, I whack the creature. Roll for me while I use a bathroom."

Simulationism - The "Unreality" of Maneuvers
The simulationist in me says, "But why can I only use this move once per fight unless I refresh it?" To that I say, "I accept the abstract nature because it's more fun, and I refer you to spell slots which are fire and forget, but on a daily basis. Also, I have done real-life swordfighting with padded weapons. I sometimes need to take short breaks to 'recover' myself before pressing on."

Martial Base Classes - Core versus Tome of Battle
Some people believe ToB's base classes make the core martial classes obsolete. This is not necessarily true. A maxed STR half-orc Barbarian is still a melee threat, but WotC realized the old classes weren't cutting it. Remember all those "Fighter Fix" and "Paladin Fix" and "Monk Fix" threads? WotC did something about the old classes by subtly offering us Tome of Battle that makes melee abilities seem to scale in power as characters level, akin to how casters get more potent spells.

Now melee characters can do more than their one or two tricks. Now, when melee wants to branch out, they can spend a feat on Martial Stance or Martial Study and get a level-appropriate ability. Before, a level 15 melee man who wanted to try his hand at archery had to start over with a level 1 feat, Point Blank Shot. Contrast that to a Wizard who spent some money or gained a level and could pick another spell of his highest available casting level.

Another perk of relying heavily on maneuvers and stances is characters who are less gear-dependent. Instead of needing to fill their slots with +X gear (and face it, the core rules encourage this), martial adepts can do impressive combative stunts even if they're in prison and naked.

Maneuver Power
There are a lot of maneuvers. So many of them are utilitarian, like swapping a save for a Concentration check or moving 50' as a standard/move/swift action. Melee needs to keep up with the swift baddies who often outreach them, so melee characters aren't pounded into space dust trying to get into range with a Colossal creature.

Many dislike maneuvers that give +XdY damage, effectively turning a full attack's worth of damage into an all-or-nothing standard action strike.

My main question is, "Why?"

Why do you dislike melee characters who can move more than 5' per turn and do something especially useful? Complete Champion gave us a Barbarian1 substitution level for Pounce, letting melee characters full attack on a charge. This is more powerful than the Pouncing Strike maneuver (Tome of Battle 88), normally requiring Warblade9 or Swordsage9.

Guess which option is more commonly allowed. It rhymes with "Zion Zotem."

Conclusion
Yes, there's a lot of nonstandard D&D flavor in this book. Yes, the maneuver system feels like we played for a 4E playtest. With all of this, however, there's a lot of cool.

Ultimately, why the dislike for Tome of Battle?

Greenish
2010-08-18, 05:52 PM
Ah, it's been a while since the last one.

dsmiles
2010-08-18, 05:54 PM
Not gonna go there. No grenades in the punchbowl today...

drengnikrafe
2010-08-18, 05:55 PM
How about unfamiliarity from the DM? I mean, if you've been playing for a few years in 3.x and never had the ToB, then suddenly a player buys it and wants to play a warblade... Well, that's a new book you have to read. And unlike other books, where you generally get add-ons or mostly familiar abilities, you get to learn a whole new sub-system from scratch.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 05:57 PM
Not gonna go there. No grenades in the punchbowl today...Your reply to the thread is that you're not going to reply?

Oh, woe is me, my comment has been topped in unhelpfulnity!

Tetsubo 57
2010-08-18, 06:12 PM
For me it was that the book just didn't 'feel' like D&D. I realize that is not an overly helpful answer. It was a style of play that fell outside what I consider to be D&D. I still own the book but I will probably never use it for anything.

Faleldir
2010-08-18, 06:15 PM
{Scrubbed}

Greenish
2010-08-18, 06:17 PM
{Scrubbed}Who are you talking about?

Tetsubo 57
2010-08-18, 06:18 PM
{Scrubbed}

With the PHB II I felt that the martial non-casters were covered rather nicely.

And it was that 'test' that turned me off. Encounter powers just aren't D&D to me. They take me outside of the game. Powers that only work based on how many encounters you have per day are just wrong to me.

Eldariel
2010-08-18, 06:29 PM
What dislike?



And it was that 'test' that turned me off. Encounter powers just aren't D&D to me. They take me outside of the game. Powers that only work based on how many encounters you have per day are just wrong to me.

Then just use the suggested "Encounter = 5 minutes" or my preferred "Encounter = 1 minute" and just use that instead. That is, replace every instance of "encounter" in the game with "1 minute" or "10 rounds"; that's about how long longer singular encounters tend to last in my experience so it tends to be rather accurate and removes the metagame concept of "encounter" from the equation. Don't forget to use it for rage of all kinds and such too, tho.

Indeed, this complaint feels a bit strange when the concept is taken to game mechanics already in PHB, and is supereasy to change if it rubs you the wrong way.

Faleldir
2010-08-18, 06:29 PM
Who are you talking about?
Is that a rhetorical question? If you mean "that's not true", say it!

Runestar
2010-08-18, 06:30 PM
I blame wotc for brainwashing us into thinking that +2 damage per attack is acceptable for a fighter, while wizards can get away with stopping time and gating in solars. :smallannoyed:

Suddenly, a class gets the ability to deal 8d6 fire damage at lv15 and everyone starts throwing a hissy fit. :smallmad:

Prime32
2010-08-18, 06:30 PM
Except that ToB doesn't have encounter powers. :smallconfused: Would you say that dragons "aren't D&D" because they can use their breath weapons every 1d4 rounds?

Powers that only work based on how many encounters you have per day are just wrong to me.I'm pretty sure that 4e's encounter powers can be used at will outside of battle. It's like taking 10.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 06:33 PM
And it was that 'test' that turned me off. Encounter powers just aren't D&D to me. They take me outside of the game. Powers that only work based on how many encounters you have per day are just wrong to me.Well, all the martial classes have their recovery methods, so they aren't really based on number of encounters.

[Edit]:
Is that a rhetorical question? If you mean "that's not true", say it!I've never seen anyone claim that tiers wouldn't exist or that 3.5 is balanced based on the existence of ToB.

If I meant "that's not true", I would say it. Instead, I'm asking about where you got the idea. (For all I know, "3aboo" might be another RPG forum or something.)

The Glyphstone
2010-08-18, 06:33 PM
Here we go again...

Noneoyabizzness
2010-08-18, 06:58 PM
ToB is not a bad book. it is not over powered.

why people dislike it is an addition to a new system that wasn't given time to find its audience before a shift in editions. similar to the 2e player option books, it offered somethign interestign to many games willing to try it out. but why try out and work in a new system when you prepare to change all the rules anyway

Serenity
2010-08-18, 06:58 PM
Speaking as someone who very, very much likes Tome of Battle, I'm going to attempt to give a fair and balanced account of the other side.

Some people feel that the Tome of Battle is too powerful. Now, this may arise from a misunderstanding of the Tome of Battle rules, but we often forget that it can be perfectly accurate to individual games. If your characters aren't particularly optimized, if party makeup includes blaster wizards and healbot clerics, rather than Batman and CoDZilla, than the ease of optimization of ToB characters can allow them to outshine others without intending to.

For many, it's a sticking point that the ToB classes are stealth replacements for core warriors. They may not completely obsolete Fighter, Monks, and Paladins, but they clearly were designed as 'Mark IIs' so to speak.

The feel of the mechanics can be an issue. Now, flavor is almost infinitely mutable, of course, but it still does count for something, and your first impression of Tome of Battle probably recalls shounen anime such as Ranma 1/2, wuxia movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and other Eastern fantasy--all of which are admitted influences on the Book of Nine Swords.

My personal feelings are that, on the whole, Tome of Battle is one of the best-written, most mechanically sound books in 3.5, and I have no trouble with the flavor, or altering it as necessary. But none of the above are necessarily illegitimate criticisms.

Caphi
2010-08-18, 07:02 PM
With the PHB II I felt that the martial non-casters were covered rather nicely.

And it was that 'test' that turned me off. Encounter powers just aren't D&D to me. They take me outside of the game. Powers that only work based on how many encounters you have per day are just wrong to me.

I'm gonna regret getting into this topic, but the Tome of Battle explicitly defines "the end of an encounter" as one minute without making or receiving an attack and gives Crusader and Warblade a rapid reload mechanic completely separate from encounter bounds and offers Adaptive Style in case mere refresh doesn't cut it for you. The metagame concept of "encounter" need never come up.

Skorj
2010-08-18, 07:03 PM
If I meant "that's not true", I would say it. Instead, I'm asking about where you got the idea. (For all I know, "3aboo" might be another RPG forum or something.)

I can only assume that "3aboo" is a disparaging term for those who like 3.x D&D, and an attempt to start an edition war. Best to stay far away from this.

I've been mentally substituting "3 minutes" for "encounter" since I encountered the term, and I really like encounter powers that way. The whole "once per encounter" thing seemed too 4th-wall-breaking, but a power you can use once per 3 minutes seems perfectly straightforward. It makes sense to me IC as well for martial feats - some are so physically stressful that you just need to rest a bit, exactly like resting between sets when lifting weights.

Ultimately, I think "once per round", "Once every 3 minutes (or whatever)", and "once per day" are a great way to set up a game system for the perspective of taming the record keeping beast without any loss of verisimilitude.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-18, 07:14 PM
If I want to play with per-encounter maneuvers, I can play 4e. Plus most of the maneuvers aren't very interesting: just different amounts of damage dealt.

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-18, 07:24 PM
[I'll preface this by saying that I really don't like D&D. I used to run 3.5 because it was the system my group was familiar with. My group made some assumptions and played in a style which don't seem to be common to D&D players.]


I dislike ToB because it exaggerates the central quarrel I have with D&D of any edition.


The whole system is based on providing characters with explicit options derived from class abilities, rather than player control.

In the same way that Complete Scoundrel's skill tricks make it implicit that a character can't mimic Indiana Jones without the Whip Climber trick, the maneuver system makes it implicit that a warrior cannot eg. use his superhuman concentration to overcome magic disruptions without Moment of Perfect Mind.

This mentality frustrates me. I like to allow players to do things in new or different ways. It makes the game feel more free-flowing and interesting. When I get a group together to play an rpg, it's not to compete, it's to structure a series of "wouldn't this be cool?" moments. I won't hesitate to allow an acrobat to balance atop of a Solid Fog effect; I'll let a Houdini-styled rogue use Escape Artist to get out of a Dominate; I have no problem with an archer blinding a dragon with arrows to the eyes.

When these actions are organic, not drawn mechanically from a stock list of options, they feel like awesome. They're fun. They're things to remember.
When they come from an explicit menu of stances or boosts, they're just the things that a certain class can do. They're what characters are expected to do.

And once a player invests levels and feats to be able to do these tricks, it feels like it would be a slight to them to allow the Barbarian player to do similar things without the similar investments.

The menu-of-abilities design is a good one for a wargame or other competitive setting. But I'm really not interested in playing in such a system when I'm roleplaying. I'm interested in players thinking up cool things for their characters to do while they derail whatever plans I have for a campaign.



Maneuvers also place a particularly high emphasis on the single longest, driest and least interesting part of roleplaying: mechanical character creation. Players are already encouraged to dumpster-dive through libraries, tallying up prerequisites for levels and feats that their characters won't achieve for months or years. The tangle of maneuver prerequisites just adds another layer -- if a player wants to be sure not to ever run out of new maneuver options, they have to plan and diagram the acquisition and loss of 20 levels of separate abilities. Anything which drags out this portion of "gameplay" is a thing I'd prefer to avoid.


And yes, I realize D&D is very much the wrong game for me.


[Before anyone pounces on me for disfavoring ToB's menu options while still tolerating the mechanics of spellcasters, I frankly dislike spellcasters too. Except for the warlock and the UA Incantation system, anyway.]

Cedrass
2010-08-18, 07:29 PM
Plus most of the maneuvers aren't very interesting: just different amounts of damage dealt.

You need to look at Tiger Claw and Setting Sun. (And maybe Desert Wind a bit too). Most offer some kind of bonus with the damage they do. Setting Sun as most of it's maneuver moving you or your opponent, making field control an option.

Or well, I doubt you'll change your mind about it. But I felt like I needed to precise that no, all maneuvers aren't only different types of damage.

Aroka
2010-08-18, 07:29 PM
"On my turn, I whack the creature. Roll for me while I use a bathroom."

This is such a perfect sum-up of what is wrong with (A)D&D combat systems. We did that all the time when playing AD&D. "Yeah, I'll keep whacking the thing, roll for me, I'll be back."

If combat is so tactically bland and repetitive, and so short on options, that that actually works out as well as anything, there's something seriously wrong.

Try doing that in The Riddle of Steel.

FWIW ToB is awesome. No way around it. "Viable melee characters with interesting options" can only be a good thing.

Starbuck_II
2010-08-18, 07:53 PM
In the same way that Complete Scoundrel's skill tricks make it implicit that a character can't mimic Indiana Jones without the Whip Climber trick, the maneuver system makes it implicit that a warrior cannot eg. use his superhuman concentration to overcome magic disruptions without Moment of Perfect Mind.

This mentality frustrates me. I like to allow players to do things in new or different ways. It makes the game feel more free-flowing and interesting. When I get a group together to play an rpg, it's not to compete, it's to structure a series of "wouldn't this be cool?" moments. I won't hesitate to allow an acrobat to balance atop of a Solid Fog effect; I'll let a Houdini-styled rogue use Escape Artist to get out of a Dominate; I have no problem with an archer blinding a dragon with arrows to the eyes.


IF and only IF, if you have a DM who didn't mind you going off the rails and do stuff not covered by the rules AND didn't make attempting too difficult/complicated.

Most of us can't be sure we will. Skill tricks show that they can be balanced and not overtly complicated.




Maneuvers also place a particularly high emphasis on the single longest, driest and least interesting part of roleplaying: mechanical character creation. Players are already encouraged to dumpster-dive through libraries, tallying up prerequisites for levels and feats that their characters won't achieve for months or years. The tangle of maneuver prerequisites just adds another layer -- if a player wants to be sure not to ever run out of new maneuver options, they have to plan and diagram the acquisition and loss of 20 levels of separate abilities. Anything which drags out this portion of "gameplay" is a thing I'd prefer to avoid.


And yes, I realize D&D is very much the wrong game for me.

Yeah, it is. Prestige classes and feats should have been your first clue (silly Preqs). D&D decided to use them meaning you have to plan out choices or you will not qualify.

UndeadCleric
2010-08-18, 08:00 PM
For me it was that the book just didn't 'feel' like D&D. I realize that is not an overly helpful answer. It was a style of play that fell outside what I consider to be D&D. I still own the book but I will probably never use it for anything.

This is the reason I dont plan on ever using it.

FMArthur
2010-08-18, 08:10 PM
I can't use ToB because my group seems to be endlessly satisfied with the core classes. Not that it's banned or anything, but for the most part they're super-low optimization (to the degree that a druid player struggles the most) and I just know ToB would feel grossly overpowered to them.

Kalrik
2010-08-18, 08:14 PM
I never used it or owned it. Didn't have the money back then. The idea was great and a wonderful upgrade for melee classes. However, having to learn a new system and combat rules was not something I was going to do when I was a young DM.

Aroka
2010-08-18, 08:21 PM
(to the degree that a druid player struggles the most)

How is that even possible? Take a bear animal companion, wildshape into a bear, you're better than the fighter.

Terazul
2010-08-18, 08:22 PM
I seriously don't get the "it doesn't feel like D&D" crowd. What in heaven's name does D&D "feel" like? We have at this point at least a hundred different classes with all sorts of wacky abilities with all sorts of sources coming from every plane of existence, but the guy who can swing his sword really well somehow breaks verisimilitude for you? It just boggles me.

But yeah. Alot people just get that kneejerk reaction. "+2d6 on an attack at level 3? OUTRAGEOUS!", and I can see that happening if you aren't familiar with the overall metagame of what's ridiculous and what isn't, and that's fine if you don't want to use it because it's beyond what your group's play level is. Mechanics-wise it's no more complicated than vancian casting already is. Flavor wise... man, It's funny because people probably wouldn't complain half as much if they just called Swordsage "Blade Wizard" (which they do in the description anyway) to begin with and called it's maneuvers a special kind of spell. Which is silly to me.

Starbuck_II
2010-08-18, 08:24 PM
I can't use ToB because my group seems to be endlessly satisfied with the core classes. Not that it's banned or anything, but for the most part they're super-low optimization (to the degree that a druid player struggles the most) and I just know ToB would feel grossly overpowered to them.

That only disqualifies the classes. You could take Martial Study for 1/battle maneuver.
Try something small like (jump as swift action: you count as running for DCs).

Critical
2010-08-18, 08:32 PM
Another weekly thread. :smallbiggrin:

On topic: I love ToB and everything that OP said.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 08:37 PM
This is the reason I dont plan on ever using it.How do you know what it feels like if you've never tried it?

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-08-18, 08:41 PM
Here we go again...

I'll take three bags of popcorn and and some peanuts.

I'm a fan of Tome of Battle and general discussion, so I'll probably be entering the eventual argument. If I was less lazy, I'd just link to the last one as it seemed to cover a lot of ground and was surprisingly civil for its 30-some pages.

Thefurmonger
2010-08-18, 08:48 PM
Damn, that time again?

Have we had the "Why do people think Monks suck?" yet?

Terazul
2010-08-18, 08:58 PM
Damn, that time again?

Have we had the "Why do people think Monks suck?" yet?

Give it a few hours, if this one ever gets rolling.

MrLich
2010-08-18, 09:04 PM
What forum are you reading?!?!

Everywhere I look it's "You should be a crusader this, or be a swordsage that." I personally don't like the tome of battle but it's mostly because of it's inability to full integrate and no a few level dip does not count as integration. There are next to no rules I've seen about using this book as a supplement rather than a book that stands on its own. I think the best explanation I've heard (earlier in this post) is that it was a play test for 4e and I don't like 4e either.

Also I completely disagree that monk is a bad class but that's a topic for another day.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-18, 09:06 PM
What forum are you reading?!?!

Everywhere I look it's "You should be a crusader this, or be a swordsage that." I personally don't like the tome of battle but it's mostly because of it's inability to full integrate and no a few level dip does not count as integration. There are next to no rules I've seen about using this book as a supplement rather than a book that stands on its own. I think the best explanation I've heard (earlier in this post) is that it was a play test for 4e and I don't like 4e either.

Also I completely disagree that monk is a bad class but that's a topic for another day.

Specifically, Monday. It's Monk Thread day around here.

*dispenses popcorn*

MrLich
2010-08-18, 09:13 PM
Specifically, Monday. It's Monk Thread day around here.

*dispenses popcorn*

Good to know. I'll be back on Monday.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-08-18, 09:17 PM
What forum are you reading?!?!

Everywhere I look it's "You should be a crusader this, or be a swordsage that." I personally don't like the tome of battle but it's mostly because of it's inability to full integrate and no a few level dip does not count as integration. There are next to no rules I've seen about using this book as a supplement rather than a book that stands on its own. I think the best explanation I've heard (earlier in this post) is that it was a play test for 4e and I don't like 4e either.

Also I completely disagree that monk is a bad class but that's a topic for another day.

Actually, some recommendations are to go Fighter (2, 4, or 6 [with dungeoncrasher on that last one])/Warblade or Crusader X. The core classes do a fantastic job of integrating with Tome of Battle as you can take something like Fighter or Barbarian to delay your stances. All in all, they mesh well.

FMArthur
2010-08-18, 09:34 PM
How is that even possible? Take a bear animal companion, wildshape into a bear, you're better than the fighter.

Druids don't command and turn into bears or big cats by default; they select the animal from a list, and there are weak choices on that list.

thompur
2010-08-18, 09:38 PM
Speaking as someone who very, very much likes Tome of Battle, I'm going to attempt to give a fair and balanced account of the other side.

Some people feel that the Tome of Battle is too powerful. Now, this may arise from a misunderstanding of the Tome of Battle rules, but we often forget that it can be perfectly accurate to individual games. If your characters aren't particularly optimized, if party makeup includes blaster wizards and healbot clerics, rather than Batman and CoDZilla, than the ease of optimization of ToB characters can allow them to outshine others without intending to.
For many, it's a sticking point that the ToB classes are stealth replacements for core warriors. They may not completely obsolete Fighter, Monks, and Paladins, but they clearly were designed as 'Mark IIs' so to speak.

The feel of the mechanics can be an issue. Now, flavor is almost infinitely mutable, of course, but it still does count for something, and your first impression of Tome of Battle probably recalls shounen anime such as Ranma 1/2, wuxia movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and other Eastern fantasy--all of which are admitted influences on the Book of Nine Swords.

My personal feelings are that, on the whole, Tome of Battle is one of the best-written, most mechanically sound books in 3.5, and I have no trouble with the flavor, or altering it as necessary. But none of the above are necessarily illegitimate criticisms.

The bolded section. I personally love ToB(although I really wish they had left off the shading on the pages. So annoying)but this I understand. I've played with a lot of people who couldn't optimize if you put a Magic Missle wand to their head.For example: My older sister made a Druid with two otters as animal companions, never using them in battle. She took the Alertness feat. She wildshaped into a Great Dane while fighting a were-boar(wait, that kind of made sense). She's in it for the roleplay, not the rollplay.
Anyway, in a group of players like that, ToB would seem overpowered.

Like I said, I love it. Warblades are a lot of fun to play! Even though an optimized Barbarian would eat a WB for breakfast.

Aroka
2010-08-18, 09:39 PM
Druids don't command and turn into bears or big cats by default; they select the animal from a list, and there are weak choices on that list.

I cannot conceive of a mind so alien as to not go "bear! I choose bear!"

Everything in life can be solved with MORE BEARS.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-18, 09:40 PM
I cannot conceive of a mind so alien as to not go "bear! I choose bear!"

Everything in life can be solved with MORE BEARS.

But along that road lies Bearington Bearman the Bearbarian, and beyond him lies MADNESS.Then SPARTA.

DragoonWraith
2010-08-18, 09:52 PM
But along that road lies Bearington Bearman the Bearbarian, and beyond him lies MADNESS.Then SPARTA.
How would you know that? I am quite certain that nothing has ever gotten past Bearington Bearman the Bearbarian; that's just not possible. Oh, Spartans, I see. I stand corrected.

shadow_archmagi
2010-08-18, 09:58 PM
ToB saying "Warriors can run up walls by using a maneuver" implies that warriors NEED a maneuver to run up walls. Thus, if your DM allowed you to run up walls with a skill check in the past, then your warrior just got nerfed.

This is an interesting point and I like it.

Personally, I have just the opposite opinion. There's something to be said for the moment of

Villain: "Mwahahhaah! You can't stop me now, because there is no floor!"

Character: "Nothing can stop one who trusts in the heart of the swords! I play WHOOSHING ALONG WALLS!"

DM: What's that?

Player: It's an ability that allows me to do the exact thing I need to right now. See? Rulebook says so.


I mean, it seems to me like saying "I would like for everyone here to give me permission to say that my character did something cool as part of the storyline here?" is less awesome than

"In this scenario, I am now shining. This is my time to shine. I just drew the "CHEW BUBBLEGUM" card and you know what comes with that"

AmberVael
2010-08-18, 09:59 PM
How would you know that? I am quite certain that nothing has ever gotten past Bearington Bearman the Bearbarian; that's just not possible.

I know.
Because I have seen it, and it is glorious. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156619)

Thurbane
2010-08-19, 12:29 AM
Ah, it's been a while since the last one.
Indeed - I just checked the monthly box off my calendar. :smalltongue:

For example: My older sister made a Druid with two otters as animal companions, never using them in battle.
Please tell me she had them swim around together in a pool while the rest of the party stood around saying "Awww look, they're holding hands, how cute!". :smallbiggrin

www.youtube.com/watch?v=epUk3T2Kfno

Specifically, Monday. It's Monk Thread day around here.

*dispenses popcorn*
Monkday! MONKDAY! MONKDAY!

...does that make Wednesday VoP thread day, and Thursday "alignment debate" thread day?

I miss the old "Does Monkey Grip stack with Powerfuild Build" thread days...

Elfin
2010-08-19, 01:19 AM
Specifically, Monday. It's Monk Thread day around here.

*dispenses popcorn*

I knew you kept that popcorn machine around for something...

Anyway: I'm also a big fan of Tome of Battle. It's been said again and again, but the ToB really does give melee characters a lot more options - and makes them a lot more fun to play. Before discovering it, in fact, I almost never played meleers; their constant, repetitive cycle of move-attack-full attack-full attack just made them seem like a chore, compared to the vast array of options provided by casters.

Sure, Tome of Battle's given flavor and mechanics have a certain a departure from standard Western D&D fantasy...but given how much it enriches the melee experience, ToB is a departure I'm willing to embrace.

Frosty
2010-08-19, 01:32 AM
Sure, Tome of Battle's given flavor and mechanics have a certain a departure from standard Western D&D fantasy...
You mean a departure from sucking and being completely outclassed by wizards? :smallwink:

Elfin
2010-08-19, 01:33 AM
You mean a departure from sucking and being completely outclassed by wizards? :smallwink:

Yep, pretty much. :smalltongue:

Axinian
2010-08-19, 01:38 AM
^: Well it's a departure from sucking, that's for sure. The other thing notsomuch

I don't get how the "flavor" of Tome of Battle can turn someone off. So what if Five Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike is a very shonen anime name. It's just the name of the mechanic. Its not like you have to call it out every time you use it. Also, why are the supernatural disciplines a problem? They're flavorful and effective ways of playing a warrior that taps into sources of power that aren't mundane, a character archetype that, from what I've seen, can be in quite high demand sometimes.

These are just some of the main problems I've heard. I can see if you don't want to muck up your combat flow by learning a new system, but I don't think rejecting ToB based on flavor is a valid argument.

Also: We need to make a whole calendar where each day is a common thread day.

Turcano
2010-08-19, 01:48 AM
The feel of the mechanics can be an issue. Now, flavor is almost infinitely mutable, of course, but it still does count for something, and your first impression of Tome of Battle probably recalls shounen anime such as Ranma 1/2, wuxia movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and other Eastern fantasy--all of which are admitted influences on the Book of Nine Swords.

This is why the book is known in certain parts of the internet as The Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic. I can understand that mentality, but it is possible to work around it.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-19, 01:56 AM
You need to look at Tiger Claw and Setting Sun. (And maybe Desert Wind a bit too). Most offer some kind of bonus with the damage they do. Setting Sun as most of it's maneuver moving you or your opponent, making field control an option.

Or well, I doubt you'll change your mind about it. But I felt like I needed to precise that no, all maneuvers aren't only different types of damage.
I didn't say all; I said "most of the maneuvers aren't very interesting: just different amounts of damage dealt". I know there are exceptions, but I find the bulk of what ToB offers pretty humdrum.

Frosty
2010-08-19, 02:08 AM
I didn't say all; I said "most of the maneuvers aren't very interesting: just different amounts of damage dealt". I know there are exceptions, but I find the bulk of what ToB offers pretty humdrum.
But it's still better than "I set up my charge for 300 damage...again." At least, more interesting.

TheThan
2010-08-19, 02:09 AM
Most folks around here LOVE the TOB. So you’re asking the wrong crowd.

I don’t hate the book, but there are certain things about it I dislike; mainly I don’t like how it replaces most of the core classes, and I dislike the stance/maneuver system. As far as making melee more powerful and giving them more options? I have no problems with that.



Speaking as someone who very, very much likes Tome of Battle, I'm going to attempt to give a fair and balanced account of the other side.

Some people feel that the Tome of Battle is too powerful. Now, this may arise from a misunderstanding of the Tome of Battle rules, but we often forget that it can be perfectly accurate to individual games. If your characters aren't particularly optimized, if party makeup includes blaster wizards and healbot clerics, rather than Batman and CoDZilla, than the ease of optimization of ToB characters can allow them to outshine others without intending to.

For many, it's a sticking point that the ToB classes are stealth replacements for core warriors. They may not completely obsolete Fighter, Monks, and Paladins, but they clearly were designed as 'Mark IIs' so to speak.

The feel of the mechanics can be an issue. Now, flavor is almost infinitely mutable, of course, but it still does count for something, and your first impression of Tome of Battle probably recalls shounen anime such as Ranma 1/2, wuxia movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and other Eastern fantasy--all of which are admitted influences on the Book of Nine Swords.

My personal feelings are that, on the whole, Tome of Battle is one of the best-written, most mechanically sound books in 3.5, and I have no trouble with the flavor, or altering it as necessary. But none of the above are necessarily illegitimate criticisms.

Pretty much what I was going to say.

Superglucose
2010-08-19, 02:26 AM
it's because ToB turns melee into casters. It's true, pretty much, and I understand why people don't like it.

And the argument that they're not casters is like handing someone who doesn't like sandwiches a wrap. Sure, technically they're not the same, but we're still looking at meat, spread, and veggies surrounded by bread.

EDIT:

I just had a brainflash for the melee caster balance. Double the casting time of almost all spells... so Sleep now takes 2 rounds to cast, and Color Spray takes a full round to cast (much like summoning). Give melee classes access to the stances or similar effects from ToB as feats. Include things like Knight's Challenge. Then double HP for non-casters.

Then we'll see something more akin to a tank/CC/DPS deal. You need the "tanks" (in this case the fighters or whatever) to use their stances to hold off the enemy while the casters win the fight.

I dunno, it might take some work to balance out, but it gives kind of the feel I'd be looking for in an adventure: magic is super powerful (3.5 gets this right) but its users are vulnerable (3.5 misses this mark entirely), while melee combatants are comparatively weak (wee for 3.5 getting this right) but boy they can fight forever (lol fail).

Ormur
2010-08-19, 03:04 AM
After a friend of mine lent me his Tome of Battle every melee NPC in my campaign that isn't a straight ToB character gets topped of with a level of Swordsage, just to give him a few more options, or just assassin's stance. Unless he's not supposed to be a threat. I just relegated fighters to a dipable NPC class after my last straight level appropriate one was dispensed with effortlessly in two rounds.

So the complaint of ToB replacing core classes is valid up to a point. The optimization level of my campaign just made them obsolete. Using ToB for melee was just easier than spending even more time optimizing tier 4 and 5 classes.

I really have very little experience with anime/weeabo flavour and I don't intend for my setting to be just a Medieval Europe clone with magic in it anyway. The idea of separating crunch from fluff has also been drilled into my head quite a bit even though I still think of classes as in-game concepts.

Turning melee into casters doesn't seem too bad in a world where nothing actually makes sense if you think about it too hard. Melee is going to have to depend on some kind of mystical physics-breaking powers with D&D Vancian magic around. The tiers 4 and 5 are just as unrealistic except they also lack a lot of options you'd expect such people to have in a fantasy setting.

Flawless
2010-08-19, 04:30 AM
It's not that I don't like ToB's mechanics. It's the fact, that's it's poorly integrated in the game and that it's impossible to integrate without tons of house-rules. Three classes and a hand full of PrCs use maneuvers, while all the old classes, like fighter, barbarian or even Duskblade don't.
The 'old' combat system was uniform, everyone used the same mechanics. Now, there are some classes that have their own melee combat system that effectively replaces the old one, but only for them. If ToB integrated maneuvers in all other classes of the game, then it would be interesting.
So, in my opinion, either all classes have access to maneuvers - through their class-abilities - or none at all.

Now I know, not all classes have access to magic or psionics and I'm cool with that, because those two do not replace the common physical combat mechanics. It's true, technically, ToB doesn't either, but in reality it does. And that's why I don't like to use it. If clerics would get some maneuvers and loose some spells it would be great but house-ruling such exesive changes would be hard.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-19, 04:32 AM
Sticking to PHB1/PHB2 classes, in practice I've never run into the problem that fighters are oh-so-bored with their character because they can't contribute.

Maybe it's caused by good DM'ing, or by good roleplaying, or by players who don't aim to upstage the rest of the group, or by using multiclassing and feat options, or by using "stunts" to good effect, or by the fact that most of our campaigns are in the 1-10 level range; but the "casters do everything, martial classes are useless" notion simply never appeared in any of my games.

And therefore we never saw the need to use TOB. There's no real dislike, but to us it's simply added complexity that serves no in-game benefit. Perhaps the wizard/fighter problem is a theoretical issue that is exaggerated on forums...

Edhelras
2010-08-19, 05:52 AM
Sticking to PHB1/PHB2 classes, in practice I've never run into the problem that fighters are oh-so-bored with their character because they can't contribute.

This is me. I love playing the core classes, and for some reason or the other, they give me more of a "DnD feel" than the more complex, optimized builds.

I've never really understood the "casters PWN melée" sentiment. Mostly, I think of the game as a cooperative thing, where every should get to contribute as best he can. In the course of an entire session - or adventure, or campaign, there should be plenty of room for any of the basic party roles (tank, sneak, healer and arcanist) to shine. Especially when using the core classes - because they're so clearly complementary to each other.

With too much PrCs and strange player races, there is a possibility that one PC can be able to edge into the territory of one of the other PCs, and threaten to make that one superfluous. Also, with very high-lvl games, magic items can do the same thing. Which is why the "DnD feel" to me is best taken care of with low-lvl games and not-too-wild usage of races and PrCs, optimization, that is.

The entire per-encounter or at-intervals-thing is also contrary to the "DnD feel" for me. Actually, what I like with DnD is exactly the fact that many things are per day, requiring a night's rest, and that you have to manage your resources during the day - and that often you will find you have run out. So even if a Wizard excels in battle early in the day, a time comes when he's all out of spells, and just stands there weak and frail with his d4 and robe of something. Whereas the standard Fighter may seem weak compared to the Fireball or Wail of the Banshee, but as the day wears on, everyone will appreciate that he still can deal his damage and can even stand watch while the others sleep.

I don't personally feel the need for extra maneuvers during combat, and particularly not ones that make melée fighters more like casters. I feel that the existing rules give more than enough options inside combat. But as others said - this also hinges on how the other characters are optimized. If you're in a team where every other PC is optimized as to singlehandedly be able to take down the enemy, it's easy to feel superfluous.

I also like the "Middle ages with exotic additions" feel of DnD. It's all fine with other settings as well, but when I play DnD, this is what I'm looking for. To each his own, I guess.

But basically, I feel the ToB thing is based on something which for me isn't true: That fighters and core classes are weak and need improvement. To me, it's exactly these "improvements" that often threaten to derail the fun for me.

Yet, the notion of "hating" ToB hasn't occurred to me...

Emmerask
2010-08-19, 06:19 AM
Some parts I like and some I don´t.

the good:
-It does give melee characters a few toys to play with making combat more interesting for them
-I like that none martial adept classes still count as 1/2 for initiator level so that you can still use other classes without to much of a loss

the bad:
- the book is poorly edited and there is a lot of guesswork left over the players and dms
-the badly needed errata was botched
- the fluff for the most part is a bit bland, it´s okay but nothing groundbreaking

the ugly:
- arcane prc.... divine prc.... yeah those two really need more toys now where is the psionic prc?

All in all the only thing that makes this book good is its intend (which it achieves), giving melee characters more power but other then that it is poorly edited and the fluff is only mediocre and could have been so much more :smallwink:

Greenish
2010-08-19, 07:00 AM
With too much PrCs and strange player races, there is a possibility that one PC can be able to edge into the territory of one of the other PCs, and threaten to make that one superfluous.*cough*druid*cough*

Eldariel
2010-08-19, 07:03 AM
The entire per-encounter or at-intervals-thing is also contrary to the "DnD feel" for me.

We Barbarians resent this sentiment! It's racism! (or classism, however you want)

Mr.Moron
2010-08-19, 07:32 AM
I've never really understood the "casters PWN melée" sentiment. Mostly, I think of the game as a cooperative thing, where every should get to contribute as best he can. In the course of an entire session - or adventure, or campaign, there should be plenty of room for any of the basic party roles (tank, sneak, healer and arcanist) to shine. Especially when using the core classes - because they're so clearly complementary to each other.


Cooperation is just fine. However, some classes are just so bad trying to cooperate with them is like trying to cooperate with a giant boulder,a giant boulder that tied is to your neck. I'm currently in a game with a fighter that barely knows the game mechanics, much less how optimize. If the character in question was warblade at the very least the maneuver system would ensure some minimal level of meaningful contribution.

With the fighter, the best contribution we can expect out of the character is that they not get in the way. Most of the time they fail to even do that.

Edhelras
2010-08-19, 07:33 AM
*cough*druid*cough*


Actually, I'm not that enthusiastic about Druids as party characters, partly for those reasons. But mostly because, whenever I make a cool druid, I start wondering: Why the XXXX would this guy ever leave his beloved forest or whatever natural scenery, and start adventuring with a bunch of people with mostly different outlooks and priorities than himself?

I love having Druids as either benevolent NPCs or as villains, or I can have a Druid joining the party for some time. But for me, playing a Druid in a typical DnD party is not easy.

If all you're thinking about are the actual powers the Druid get, you might do fine. But if you're to take seriously all the restrictions, but rule-wise and RP-wise, that the Druid must face, it gets harder to be an adventurer.

There is a CRPG game made for Neverwinter Nights 2, where you can recruit a Dryad to your party (she was a Dryad Druid, actually...). She shouldn't be able to leave her tree, so to pull it off, you had to perform some kind of ritual to release her. Some people thought it was cool, I just... meh.

What if I just conjure up that my Barbarian can Jump 50 feet up in the air, once per day, with no falling damage upon landing? It would be cool, wouldn't it? But what would be the point? Where to stop?

Anyway, I don't have much experience with those dreaded Druid-munchkins. But then I don't view Druids as the typical DnD party members after all...

Kurald Galain
2010-08-19, 07:33 AM
I'm currently in a game with a fighter that barely knows the game mechanics, much less how optimize. If the character in question was warblade at the very least the maneuver system would ensure some minimal level of meaningful contribution.

I don't think that a player who barely knows the game mechanics is going to contribute better if you hand him more complex game mechanics...

Mr.Moron
2010-08-19, 07:35 AM
I don't think that a player who barely knows the game mechanics is going to contribute better if you hand him more complex game mechanics...

Sure they will. There may be one or two more questions per session, but at least at end of those questions something useful happens instead of possibly 1d6+9 damage from a 13th level character.

Greenish
2010-08-19, 07:38 AM
What if I just conjure up that my Barbarian can Jump 50 feet up in the air, once per day, with no falling damage upon landing? It would be cool, wouldn't it? But what would be the point? Where to stop? Uhm, what has the slippery slope fallacy to do with the anything?

For ToBs defense, I will say just this: strawberries don't grow in beards.

Ormagoden
2010-08-19, 07:43 AM
Not gonna go there. No grenades in the punchbowl today...

Grenades in the punch bowl...

I have never heard this before, I want to thank you for introducing me to the term.

Edhelras
2010-08-19, 07:53 AM
I'm kinda objecting here: Is really the Damage-per-round the only aspect of being a "good" PC? I find that missing horribly with a greatsword is almost just as fun as getting a critical hit on your opponent. The fact that you never know, before you roll the dice, whether you'll hit or not.

Other aspects of playing the standard melée character, that don't depend on your effectiveness as a damage-dealer:
Heroism, for instance? Which other classes or class-types can storm to the front of battle, while the casters (I like to play Wizard too, you know) stand in the safety behind your back?
Common sense or military knowledge: A tank could contribute much by RP-ing those values or knowledges - if you really appreciate RP, not just the monster-killing. I mean, just think of Roy's first meeting with the Linear Guild, when he automatically associates with Thog. The same kind of role would be the obvious choice for a melée character, and it would make for a lot of cool RP between combat.
Tactics: Even a dumb fighter should freely be able to use advanced tactics that would otherwise seem like metagaming knowledge, if they were credible aspects of being a hardened veteran.
Physical tasks: Any decent adventure should include some tasks that demanded strong physics or agility, which only the melée PC can solve, or which the casters wouldn't waste a spell on.
Guard duty: As noted before, the melée fighter could get something of a solo adventure while the casters are sleeping or preparing their spells.

So again I cannot see the dire need to make melée fighters "better". Not as I see it, anyhow.

Flawless
2010-08-19, 07:56 AM
Sure they will. There may be one or two more questions per session, but at least at end of those questions something useful happens instead of possibly 1d6+9 damage from a 13th level character.

But I think DnD at level 13 is pretty complex, so it's not an ideal campaign for a player that's new to the game. ToB characters have a lot of options and a large number of maneuvers at that level that work differently and are often situation dependent and / or make use of special rules. Maybe in a level 1 and onwards campaign, with some counsel, he would not suck that hard.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-19, 08:02 AM
The short answer to the OP's question is: This is not what I am used to therefore it is bad (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks).

People are reactive to change. Most complaints are centered around the fact that "it doesn't feel the same".
Just about all complaints that "they are too powerful" are, actually, "my group doesn't know/want characters with a level of power which is below ToB's baseline, even if achieving such level is moderately easy".
The complains about "new mechanics" are of little value too, as the system itself is no new to anyone playing d&d, but to melee instead of casters. The rest is no different from every single book ever published with new classes, feats or prestige classes.

Greenish
2010-08-19, 08:04 AM
I'm kinda objecting here: Is really the Damage-per-round the only aspect of being a "good" PC?No. But being able to actually move and still do more than tickle the enemy is more fun. Having options beyond "I hit again" is more fun.


Other aspects of playing the standard melée character, that don't depend on your effectiveness as a damage-dealer:
Heroism, for instance? Which other classes or class-types can storm to the front of battle, while the casters (I like to play Wizard too, you know) stand in the safety behind your back?Until the monster notices you're no threat and walks around you.

Common sense or military knowledge: A tank could contribute much by RP-ing those values or knowledges - if you really appreciate RP, not just the monster-killing.Which is why it's cool that ToB classes sport 4-6 skill points per level and the relevant skills (know: history for tactics, diplomacy for commanding etc.)
Physical tasks: Any decent adventure should include some tasks that demanded strong physics or agility, which only the melée PC can solve, or which the casters wouldn't waste a spell on.Yay for aquaman solution!

Guard duty: As noted before, the melée fighter could get something of a solo adventure while the casters are sleeping or preparing their spells.Spot/listen would be nice, yeah.

AslanCross
2010-08-19, 08:06 AM
Having started playing D&D only since 3.5, I never really had any preconceived notion of what the "D&D feel" is for me.

As a person who likes ToB and always allows it in my games, I'll admit that the most legitimate criticism of it is that it's another ruleset to familiarize with. Granted that while it's actually not that difficult to learn, I did have some difficulty wading through it when I first read it.

When I purposefully set out to reading it, though, it opened a lot of new horizons for me.

One criticism I don't really get is the "it's really just like giving melee characters spells." It's true that they work in a similar fashion, with levels and all. What I don't know is how these particular critics expect melee classes to be fixed.

pjackson
2010-08-19, 08:10 AM
So even if a Wizard excels in battle early in the day, a time comes when he's all out of spells, and just stands there weak and frail with his d4 and robe of something.

Wizards get Scribe Scroll as a class feature. Using that should mean they almost never run out of spells, and always have a way to run away (Mount) or hide (Invisibility or Rope Trick).

Edhelras
2010-08-19, 08:11 AM
At least I agree that more skill points would be nice, for melée types too.

There are generally too few skill points to all classes, IMO. Not necessarily more class skills, but more skill points to spend. A +1 or +2 skill points to each and any class would be a great improvement.
As it is, the paucity of skill points to some classes is aggravated by those classes not needing a high INT. So you're penalized twice. Or you have to make a high-INT character just to gets those extra skill points. It's OK to have a balanced character, but I think this is a bit over the top.
So I would prefer more skill points to my fighter, rather than more attack options.

Greenish
2010-08-19, 08:13 AM
There are generally too few skill points to all classes, IMO.Amen to that.

[Edit]: You might like the Thug variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighterVariantThug) from UA.

Xefas
2010-08-19, 08:23 AM
For further reading, here are a few other threads with a similar premise that I found via a search for "Tome of Battle".

Tome of Battle Flavor (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146185&highlight=Tome+Battle)
Tome of Battle (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153105&highlight=Tome+Battle)
My Issues With Tome of Battle (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129880&highlight=Tome+Battle)
And perhaps the most extensive: Tome of Battle: The Arguments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124113&highlight=Tome+Battle)

There would probably be more, but the search won't let me input "ToB", which would probably yield a few more.

Ozymandias9
2010-08-19, 08:27 AM
One criticism I don't really get is the "it's really just like giving melee characters spells." It's true that they work in a similar fashion, with levels and all. What I don't know is how these particular critics expect melee classes to be fixed.

It's entirely possible to play at such a low level of optimization that melee aren't noticeably broken until you hit 8 or 9th level spells. I know several players that make almost every character decision on a whim whenever you tell them they're leveling up.

If you're playing to a T5 crowd, the fact that ToB (and Psionics) tend towards out-of-the-box-tier 3 makes them as potentially problematic as the druid (which, in such games I only recommend to the particularly inept).

On the other side, ToB requires tactical ability selection. There are also some players who specifically choose melee classes because they like the simplicity of only ever having to worry about 5 or so combat options (in my experience, these players forget about bull rush and full withdrawal).

In short, some people like the game but are bad at it. If you have a table with a few of them (as I do next Wednesday) you have to look at system choice and power level closely.

Eldariel
2010-08-19, 09:18 AM
[I'll preface this by saying that I really don't like D&D. I used to run 3.5 because it was the system my group was familiar with. My group made some assumptions and played in a style which don't seem to be common to D&D players.]


I dislike ToB because it exaggerates the central quarrel I have with D&D of any edition.


The whole system is based on providing characters with explicit options derived from class abilities, rather than player control.

In the same way that Complete Scoundrel's skill tricks make it implicit that a character can't mimic Indiana Jones without the Whip Climber trick, the maneuver system makes it implicit that a warrior cannot eg. use his superhuman concentration to overcome magic disruptions without Moment of Perfect Mind.

This mentality frustrates me. I like to allow players to do things in new or different ways. It makes the game feel more free-flowing and interesting. When I get a group together to play an rpg, it's not to compete, it's to structure a series of "wouldn't this be cool?" moments. I won't hesitate to allow an acrobat to balance atop of a Solid Fog effect; I'll let a Houdini-styled rogue use Escape Artist to get out of a Dominate; I have no problem with an archer blinding a dragon with arrows to the eyes.

When these actions are organic, not drawn mechanically from a stock list of options, they feel like awesome. They're fun. They're things to remember.
When they come from an explicit menu of stances or boosts, they're just the things that a certain class can do. They're what characters are expected to do.

And once a player invests levels and feats to be able to do these tricks, it feels like it would be a slight to them to allow the Barbarian player to do similar things without the similar investments.

The menu-of-abilities design is a good one for a wargame or other competitive setting. But I'm really not interested in playing in such a system when I'm roleplaying. I'm interested in players thinking up cool things for their characters to do while they derail whatever plans I have for a campaign.



Maneuvers also place a particularly high emphasis on the single longest, driest and least interesting part of roleplaying: mechanical character creation. Players are already encouraged to dumpster-dive through libraries, tallying up prerequisites for levels and feats that their characters won't achieve for months or years. The tangle of maneuver prerequisites just adds another layer -- if a player wants to be sure not to ever run out of new maneuver options, they have to plan and diagram the acquisition and loss of 20 levels of separate abilities. Anything which drags out this portion of "gameplay" is a thing I'd prefer to avoid.


And yes, I realize D&D is very much the wrong game for me.


[Before anyone pounces on me for disfavoring ToB's menu options while still tolerating the mechanics of spellcasters, I frankly dislike spellcasters too. Except for the warlock and the UA Incantation system, anyway.]

I actually agree with this, but I have found it works fine with D&D-style casters (though magic in D&D is rather rigid and poorly understood so it's a bit different), ToB and skill tricks too. I always found skill tricks as sort of "this is now a permanent part of my repertoire"-tools.

That is, you do something cool. You practice it. You become so good at it it becomes easy. At that point you take skill trick. If you wanna pull something like that off in a combat without training (the skill trick), it can be done but there's always a much larger chance of failure. I allow all skill tricks as standard skill uses, but they require some ranks in said skill and a decent roll.


Same with Martial Maneuvers; I'm perfectly fine with players simply coming up with new maneuvers that are appropriate for a school and a level, and getting creative in combat either using maneuver in a new way or coming up with a new maneuver altogether. Again, it'd later then be something they have to "learn" and be added to their repertoire, but they can just come up with stuff on the spot.

I think ToB giving mechanics for different attacks is actually a boon in this regard; no longer does it all have to be fluff, there can be mechanical differences for the different moves the characters pull off making it an interesting option for a ToB player to utilize.


And spells...well, with spontaneous casters there's more leeway but generally I'd be more inclined to allow "use this spell to generate a non-standard effect" than "come up with new spell on the spot", even for spontaneous casters. Wizards, of course, have to spend tons of time researching new spells. But slight variation in spell effect and creative uses of certain spells I can get behind.

In short, I see what you're saying and agree with you on some points, but I find it's not necessarily a problem to run D&D 3.5 in a fashion where you can treat the system as open-ended.

MrLich
2010-08-19, 09:23 AM
Actually, some recommendations are to go Fighter (2, 4, or 6 [with dungeoncrasher on that last one])/Warblade or Crusader X. The core classes do a fantastic job of integrating with Tome of Battle as you can take something like Fighter or Barbarian to delay your stances. All in all, they mesh well.

I repeat:
no a few level dip does not count as integration.

I'd also like to side with a few posts up. Spellcasters will eventually run out of spells but a melee type will never run out of thwack. HPs is a different story. Having a might-as-well-be-spell-like-ability you can use every other minute is ridiculous even if casters were as over powered as every other poster claims.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-19, 09:25 AM
I repeat:
no a few level dip does not count as integration.

I'd also like to side with a few posts up. Spellcasters will eventually run out of spells but a melee type will never run out of thwack. HPs is a different story. Having a might-as-well-be-spell-like-ability you can use every other minute is ridiculous even if casters were as over powered as every other poster claims.

Why is it ridiculous?

Greenish
2010-08-19, 09:26 AM
Having a might-as-well-be-spell-like-ability you can use every other minute is ridiculousWhen did we start talking about binders?

AslanCross
2010-08-19, 09:29 AM
In short, some people like the game but are bad at it. If you have a table with a few of them (as I do next Wednesday) you have to look at system choice and power level closely.

That's perfectly understandable; what I'm puzzled by is people who know what casters can do and yet shrug off ToB as a sort of cop-out fix for melee because it's supposedly too similar to casting.

Eldariel
2010-08-19, 09:35 AM
I'd also like to side with a few posts up. Spellcasters will eventually run out of spells but a melee type will never run out of thwack. HPs is a different story. Having a might-as-well-be-spell-like-ability you can use every other minute is ridiculous even if casters were as over powered as every other poster claims.

Whuh? You can't do any of the good stuff spells do with maneuvers. The reason spells are so good are spells like Web, Glitterdust, Grease, Slow, Wall of Stone, Solid Fog, Teleport, Polymorph, Planar Binding, etc. Maneuvers don't really even come anywhere close to that kinds of effects. Basically, you can do everything with spells. You can't do everything with maneuvers.

With maneuvers, you can break walls, you can shake off some magical effects, you can boost allies, but you can't transport over half a continent, disable an encounterful of enemies with one standard action, split enemy force to two effectively halving the encounter's difficulty without save or SR, generate dispensable combatants on the level of party Fighter or above, reach 100 in every relevant stat, or become immortal. Spells can do all that, just ask if you want to know how for each. Indeed, maneuvers' power level is around the same as well-built warriors' abilities while casters can literally do anything, and with low-level slots.

And running out of abilities? 1st level Wizards have ~3-4 spells per day. Level 2 = 4-5. In addition, their cantrip-slots can contain e.g. Dazes which is a passable way to spend actions when you don't want to waste a big spells. That should cover you for all encounters hard enough to warrant a spell. And then, level 3, you suddenly have ~7-10 relevant spells. And that's before we account for your initial Scrolls, and possible Wands and such in couple of levels. Good luck running out with those.

Really, the only reason you'd run out is if you're wasting your abilities or your DM is running you through some superdifficult endurance marathon you aren't supposed to survive and yet can't afford to stop to rest in your Rope Trick 'cause of some time limit; which means DM basically decided to TPK you. In short, at the point where Wizard would run out of spell, everyone else is out of endurance as well. Sure, the rest have their endurance in form of HP, but that doesn't really matter. At least Wizards can generate a safe refuge for resting while non-casters...not so much. In an endurance rally, best hope you have a DMM: Persist Cleric with you 'cause otherwise you'll simply run out of HP.


And Fighter 6 doesn't count as integration? That's over half your levels up to level 12! How high level games do you usually play O.o Fighter 10/Warblade 10 is a perfectly playable build, btw. It's quite good, even; gets Imperious Command + Zhentarim Fighter, 8th level maneuvers, Dungeoncrasher and so on.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-08-19, 09:49 AM
I repeat:
no a few level dip does not count as integration.

Six levels is a meaningful about of contribution in a build. Four levels is the age of dipping for some. I personally do not consider it a dip, but that's another argument. The fact that all other class levels are at least 1/2 IL also adds ToB in that it is very, very multiclass friendly, so even if you were in a game as a Fighter 6 you could start taking levels in Warblade without having as much a delay as some schmuck who randomly decides to become a wizard. Then there are the feats that you can take to grab a maneuver even if you don't have levels in classes that grant maneuvers!


I'd also like to side with a few posts up. Spellcasters will eventually run out of spells but a melee type will never run out of thwack. HPs is a different story. Having a might-as-well-be-spell-like-ability you can use every other minute is ridiculous even if casters were as over powered as every other poster claims.

That, sir, would be the warlock, and it is far from overpowered. On the note of actual maneuvers, most of them are sadly "deal damage with the chance to stun, daze, or something else to your opponent." Some of them allow you to exchange a save for a concentration effect not unlike Conan overcoming a spell through sheer WARGH.

Morph Bark
2010-08-19, 09:57 AM
The OP seems to come across to me not as the question of "why the general dislike for ToB?" but "why do I dislike ToB?"

So no wonder I'm having a "huh" reaction here.

hamishspence
2010-08-19, 10:01 AM
Didn't seem that way to me- seems more like "Why do other people dislike it, when, to me, there's a lot of cool?"



My main question is, "Why?"

Why do you dislike melee characters who can move more than 5' per turn and do something especially useful? Complete Champion gave us a Barbarian1 substitution level for Pounce, letting melee characters full attack on a charge. This is more powerful than the Pouncing Strike maneuver (Tome of Battle 88), normally requiring Warblade9 or Swordsage9.

Guess which option is more commonly allowed. It rhymes with "Zion Zotem."

Conclusion
Yes, there's a lot of nonstandard D&D flavor in this book. Yes, the maneuver system feels like we played for a 4E playtest. With all of this, however, there's a lot of cool.

Ultimately, why the dislike for Tome of Battle?

The Glyphstone
2010-08-19, 10:01 AM
But melee fighters do run out of thwack, it's called HP. And without spellcaster support or significant amounts of consumables, they'll run out faster than the caster will run out of spells...

Morph Bark
2010-08-19, 10:04 AM
Didn't seem that way to me- seems more like "Why do other people dislike it, when, to me, there's a lot of cool?"

True, it confused me a bit since it mixed up the two, since there was also the part about maneuvers not "working right" in the simulationist sense and it making core base classes obsolete.

But hey, I like ToB personally, and both my players love it too. Only the Crusader hasn't seen play yet in my games (though Devoted Spirit has).

tumble check
2010-08-19, 10:38 AM
"Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could cast magic and do cool magic things, but we didn't have to deal with the weakness and bookkeeping that comes with being a spellcaster?"

Tome of Battle was one of the precursors to 4th Edition.

Whereas 4th brought the power of casters back down closer to those of martial, Tome of Battle brought the power of martial up to the casters (or at least, perceived power).

Tome of Battle suddenly allowed martial characters to perform feats and spectacles that were on par with the wizard, with almost no fluff explanation or backing, almost like 4E's "Martial" power source, which allowed the fighters to perform things almost identical to wizards, but simply with a different fluff tacked onto it.

Tome of Battle enabled people who thought martial characters were boring to play "martial" classes that were more interesting. It wasn't enough to be a badass with a big sword... you need to be a badass with a sword who can turn invisible and lay flames onto your opponent like some Fable protagonist.

I don't like it when authors take the exclusivity, difficulty, and fragility out of magic and performing magical feats, and that is why I don't like Tome of Battle, 4E, and anything else that attempts to arrive at that goal.

Eldariel
2010-08-19, 10:45 AM
"Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could cast magic and do cool magic things, but we didn't have to deal with the weakness and bookkeeping that comes with being a spellcaster?"

Tome of Battle was one of the precursors to 4th Edition.

Whereas 4th brought the power of casters back down closer to those of martial, Tome of Battle brought the power of martial up to the casters (or at least, perceived power).

Tome of Battle suddenly allowed martial characters to perform feats and spectacles that were on par with the wizard, with almost no fluff explanation or backing, almost like 4E's "Martial" power source, which allowed the fighters to perform things almost identical to wizards, but simply with a different fluff tacked onto it.

Tome of Battle enabled people who thought martial characters were boring to play "martial" classes that were more interesting. It wasn't enough to be a badass with a big sword... you need to be a badass with a sword who can turn invisible and lay flames onto your opponent like some Fable protagonist.

I don't like it when authors take the exclusivity, difficulty, and fragility out of magic and performing magical feats, and that is why I don't like Tome of Battle, 4E, and anything else that attempts to arrive at that goal.

Only one ToB-class can turn invisible and set the sword on fire; guess what, it's the swordmage type of class (like Monk in Core, which can teleport and turn ethereal and so on). Simple matter of fact is that maneuvers can't do what spells do.

With maneuvers, you can break walls, protect yourself, hit things in a way that inconveniences them; you can shake off some magical effects, and you can use tactics to fight more efficiently with allies. The swordmage (named "Swordsage") can also do magical stuff, but that's because he is supernatural; his mind gives him certain control over magical energies that he can use, not as spectacularly as spellcasters, but to do clearly supernatural things anyways. Still, with maneuvers, you can't transport over half a continent, create walls out of nothing, bind outsiders to your service, or reach 100 in every relevant stat, or become immortal. Spells can do all that, and more.

There's the difference; maneuvers are stuff you can do with brawn and mind. Magic is stuff impossible without an outside power source. ToB doesn't really change that, outside the one supernatural class that's always been there in D&D.

Worira
2010-08-19, 10:57 AM
Well, and the Crusader, who is basically an exact parallel to the Paladin.

Caphi
2010-08-19, 11:00 AM
The thing about D&D3 is that from a design standpoint, purely martial characters are allowed to break very, very specific "basic rules" by expending resources.

Martial adepts, along with a bunch of psionics, are allowed to break a selection of rules pertaining to themselves, like mobility and damage.

Primary casters are allowed to break all of them.

At least sorcerors have to pick what they can break. Wizards and clerics really can break all of them. I think the gulf between a sorceror and, say, a beguiler is much less than the one between him and a wizard.

As a side note, it did take some time for me to comprehend what scaling meant in D&D3, and another amount of time for me to realize that scaling was not just limited to combat. Only then did I realize what "a $class can prepare and cast spells" really meant.

balistafreak
2010-08-19, 11:03 AM
But melee fighters do run out of thwack, it's called HP. And without spellcaster support or significant amounts of consumables, they'll run out faster than the caster will run out of spells...

Quoted for truth.

It's the classic "fuel vs. payload" dilemma that most people severely bias towards payload.

People are more commonly miserly with their payload, the resource that they expend willingly. You don't want to drop the big bombs until you're sure it'll hit for massive damage, or you're screwed and need the out. Things like expendables, spells per day, even rechargeable powers, are all agonized over.

However, on the flip side, people are more commonly inattentive of their fuel supply, the resource that is taken from them unwillingly. HP is the most common one - I really can't think of any others, unless you consider conditions reserved by saving throws to be a resource. (Aka your NOT fatigued is a resource.)

In rank of relative effectiveness, in my opinion:

A poor soldier keeps track of neither and usually ends up crashing and burning in a hilarious fireball. (Someone with a grasp of the rules, or for that matter reality, tends to be this.)
An ineffective soldier hoards the latter, and fails to use the former. (This is probably the most common "negative" archetype. They tend to stick around and make the most complaints because they don't die nearly as often as the next archetype.)
A suicidal soldier blasts through the former while ignoring the latter. (This is usually a self-correcting behavior, as no one likes dying... usually... and it's occasionally an archetype that seasoned players play on purpose fur teh lulz. They're more effective than the previous archetype, because at least they do something before dying.)
A good soldier realizes that both resources will be expended, and attempts to balance his character so that both resources are equally reinforced and applied for maximum effectiveness.


People are often attracted to Fighters because they appear to have no glaring weakness in their payload - it's infinite! The problem is that they completely ignore their fuel, and just assume that it'll be full at any given time, because they're on mission, of course they've made sure to fill it up. Or leech off of someone who can fill it up. (Pressuring their friend to play a healbot cleric.)

Side note: try flying bomber missions sometime. Did you know that the most common cause of ejections from modern military craft is not due to enemy fire after running out of missiles, but to running out of fuel? :smallsigh:

(Note: this statement is anecdotal, from a Air Force mechanic friend. Do not quote, and feel free to provide an actual statistic.)

People who have not gotten over this mentality often hate ToB, because it appears to, compared to the original Core classes, be a strictly better self-replenishing payload on a platform with identical fuel. It's obviously broken. (Note: this is not saying people who hate ToB have gotten over the mentality. There are other legitimate complaints against ToB, I will cede.)

They don't yet realize that the Core classes are still using machine guns in a world dominated by fire-and-forget missiles. ToB upgrades them to some form of rocket pod attached to a portable factory. The rockets don't do everything missiles do, but hey, they'll keep coming, and ToB classes tend to have more fuel than casters. With their weaker payload ToB classes will probably lose fuel at a faster rate than casters, however, and so in a "neo-classic", optimized, Tier 3 game, everyone runs out of resources at the same time. Everyone feels balanced and happy with the party.

(Of course, at some point the missiles kill everything, but we knew that.)

Disclaimer: this post got out of hand with its analogies. Make of it what you will.

Serenity
2010-08-19, 11:07 AM
3.5 magic has never been exclusive or difficult. 3.5 D&D posits an extraordinarily high-magic world. There are innumerable magical creatures, and anyone can become a wizard, a sorcerer, a cleric, a bard, a druid, etc. after a few months, weeks, or even days of whacking things with a sword. (This may not be their best option, but they can do it!) Arcane Spell Failure from Armor aside, casting a spell is no more taxing than any other action a character can take; there are no dangers or drawback to spells--no fatigue, no chance of accidentally summoning horrible hungry things from beyond the stars, etc. And, arguably, past a certain threshold of optimization, magic isn't 'fragile' either. It's fairly easy to build a Druid who can completely eliminate the need for a fighter, for example, and a properly built wizard can largely choose to not be subject to attacks.

Nor is Tome of Battle remotely the first time D&D has created classes which blur the line between warrior and magic. The monk is an obvious example--a class based on Eastern Fantasy archetypes whose fighting style is supplemented by mystical abilities unlocked by sheer discipline and training. I don't see anything a swordsage has the ability to do that is out of line with that concept.

As for integration...the book does suffer from being one of the last books ever published for 3.5; therefore, it never saw the further support that other supplements got--to the point that it never got an actual errata. For all that, though, it's mechanics are rather easily integrated, for the simple reason that levels in any other class count as 1/2 IL; the ability to more quickly reach high-level maneuvers this way makes them incredibly multiclass friendly, and there are also feats that give people without Initiator class levels some maneuvers and stances of their own.

Greenish
2010-08-19, 11:19 AM
Tome of Battle suddenly allowed martial characters to perform feats and spectacles that were on par with the wizard, with almost no fluff explanation or backingNo, it didn't, and the fluff explanation for most of the stuff: you jump, you hit with your sword, you parry.


Tome of Battle enabled people who thought martial characters were boring to play "martial" classes that were more interesting. It wasn't enough to be a badass with a big sword... you need to be a badass with a sword who can turn invisible and lay flames onto your opponent like some Fable protagonist.Of course a magic-using swordsman is a videogame invention, no self-respecting fantasy author would ever write about something like that! *cough*Tolkien*cough*

And swordsage is the least martial of the three classes, it's even called "blade wizard" in the fluff.

I don't like it when authors take the exclusivity, difficulty, and fragility out of magic and performing magical feats, and that is why I don't like Tome of Battle, 4E, and anything else that attempts to arrive at that goal.Why do you hate clerics? Clerics are your friends!

Prime32
2010-08-19, 11:25 AM
Only one ToB-class can turn invisible and set the sword on fire; guess what, it's the swordmage type of class (like Monk in Core, which can teleport and turn ethereal and so on). Simple matter of fact is that maneuvers can't do what spells do.I've heard the argument that more people would like ToB if Desert Wind wasn't the first discipline alphabetically. :smalltongue: And even DW isn't entirely magical, having maneuvers like "reflect the sun in your opponent's eyes" and "charge in a crooked line".

balistafreak
2010-08-19, 11:27 AM
3.5 magic has never been exclusive or difficult. 3.5 D&D posits an extraordinarily high-magic world. There are innumerable magical creatures, and anyone can become a wizard -

Tippyverse ahoy! :smallbiggrin:


I don't like it when authors take the exclusivity, difficulty, and fragility out of -

Thing is, as human beings, we naturally feel the desire to take exclusivity, difficulty, and fragility out of anything we do. If we want to do something, we generally try to find a way to make it a sure thing as possible. See also: technology.

I can see where you're coming from (the journey is more important than the destination) but such a mentality isn't always applicable, or at least the best choice. Sometimes, you do care more about the destination, especially if your overall journey (an adventure) is made up of destinations (triumphing in encoutners).

Personal attacks discussions aside, though, yeah, what Greenish said. Only the Swordsage is firesword wielding, invisible, supernatural combatant.

Prime32
2010-08-19, 11:29 AM
Personal attacks discussions aside, though, yeah, what Greenish said. Only the Swordsage is firesword wielding, invisible, supernatural combatant.And even then, it doesn't have to be, since no discipline is composed entirely of supernatural abilities.

Likewise, there are plenty of ways for a single-class fighter to run around invisible with a flaming sword.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-19, 11:37 AM
I repeat:
no a few level dip does not count as integration.

I'd also like to side with a few posts up. Spellcasters will eventually run out of spells but a melee type will never run out of thwack. HPs is a different story. Having a might-as-well-be-spell-like-ability you can use every other minute is ridiculous even if casters were as over powered as every other poster claims.

So, you don't count dips of 6 levels as integration? Dude, some PrCs don't last that long.

And you also don't count dips into the ToB classes from regular. What, do you insist that they take exactly equal amounts of ToB and core classes? It might not be optimal, but such a build would certainly be playable. And almost certainly superior to a standard fighter build.

Faleldir
2010-08-19, 12:39 PM
like 4E's "Martial" power source, which allowed the fighters to perform things almost identical to wizards, but simply with a different fluff tacked onto it.
{Scrubbed}

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-19, 01:05 PM
One thing I forgot:

Wayne England.

His art makes me cringe, and it's given a full-page spread at the beginning of each chapter.

Greenish
2010-08-19, 01:20 PM
One thing I forgot:

Wayne England.

His art makes me cringe, and it's given a full-page spread at the beginning of each chapter.Well, yeah, well, but…

*browses through the book again*

Okay, that's a valid point against ToB.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-19, 01:32 PM
By the way, this is exactly what I meant by "3aboo" earlier, and I don't care if I get banned for saying this. There's nothing wrong with being a fan of 3e, but if you say the 4e Fighter and Wizard are identical, you are lying. What do they have in common, besides being part of the same game and necessarily using the same terminology? If a Fighter uses Tide Of Iron and a Wizard uses Thunderwave, is that identical, just because they both push?

They use the same mechanical system.

I don't know how tide of iron and thunderwave work exactly, but if they differ only in fluff, then yes...that is a strong point for saying that the fighter and wizard are identical. By identical, it doesn't mean a complete copy/paste, but rather that playing the classes feels the same. I do agree that classes feel much more similar in 4e than they did in 3.5...there is simply less diversity in systems.

Aotrs Commander
2010-08-19, 02:53 PM
Well, yeah, well, but…

*browses through the book again*

Okay, that's a valid point against ToB.

To be fair, ANY of 3.x's artwork is a valid point against it; Core most of all...

I will unequivocently give 4E the advantage in that department (and Pathfinder, for that matter).

That said, when some of 3.x's artwork is involved, I'd also give the advantage to pouring a bucket of cold, lumpy custard into my eyesockets...

Keld Denar
2010-08-19, 02:58 PM
To be fair, ANY of 3.x's artwork is a valid point against it

Not true! CScoundrel has Krusk in a pimp cloak and hat. Thats the best picture ever! And Dragon Magic has an awesome picture of Mialee...she's on fire! The best picture of Mialee is because she immolated! Huzzah!

Caphi
2010-08-19, 03:01 PM
Not true! CScoundrel has Krusk in a pimp cloak and hat. Thats the best picture ever! And Dragon Magic has an awesome picture of Mialee...she's on fire! The best picture of Mialee is because she immolated! Huzzah!

The best picture of Mialee is the one where she's using invisibility.

Boci
2010-08-19, 03:06 PM
They use the same mechanical system.

I don't know how tide of iron and thunderwave work exactly, but if they differ only in fluff, then yes...

It There are some minor differences. For starts thunderway has a range, tide of iron is melee. Besides, should pushing an enemy X amount of squares really be a fighter or wizard only trick? They can also both do damage, does that make them identicle?

No one could really argue with the statement that in 4E, classes are more similar, but at the same time this all classes are the same is clearly bull.

hamishspence
2010-08-19, 03:06 PM
To be fair, ANY of 3.x's artwork is a valid point against it; Core most of all...

That said, when some of 3.x's artwork is involved, I'd also give the advantage to pouring a bucket of cold, lumpy custard into my eyesockets...


I don't know- there's some OK 3.5 art IMO.

arguskos
2010-08-19, 03:08 PM
Not true! CScoundrel has Krusk in a pimp cloak and hat. Thats the best picture ever! And Dragon Magic has an awesome picture of Mialee...she's on fire! The best picture of Mialee is because she immolated! Huzzah!
Actually, some of the 3.0 pictures of Mialee weren't half bad. Tome and Blood has some decent pics (I liked Candle Caster's, personally).

Also, CS Krusk=Best. Picture. Ever.

Keld Denar
2010-08-19, 03:10 PM
Proof
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/compscoundrel_gallery/102037.jpg

hamishspence
2010-08-19, 03:16 PM
PHB2 did have one not entirely horrible picture of Mialee:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97152.jpg

subject42
2010-08-19, 03:34 PM
I understand that this thread has mostly devolved into name-calling, 4chan references, and random pictures of pimps, but I'll toss my hat in for the original topic.

From a DM and player perspective, the only thing that I don't like about ToB is the internal layout. The PHB is pretty logically laid out and it's easy to find what you need. In fact, every class has convenient tables explaining every single thing you need to know. ToB, on the other hand, requires a fifteen minute scavenger hunt through the entire book to find things that you need. Prerequisites are also a bit of a pain in the neck to find and sort out. It would have been nice if they were written in a table or something somewhere.

Would it have really killed them to put a maneuver and stance column on the class tables?

hamishspence
2010-08-19, 03:39 PM
The stance progression for the Crusader is pretty awful- without feats, they can't qualify for the highest level stance in their disciplines, including their own specialist discipline (Devoted Spirit).

That's one notable design flaw.

balistafreak
2010-08-19, 03:40 PM
Ahem.

http://www.modernvespa.com/pix/uploads/train_derail_369.jpg


By the way, this is exactly what I meant by "3aboo" earlier, and I don't care if I get banned for saying this. There's nothing wrong with being a fan of 3e, but if you say the 4e Fighter and Wizard are identical, you are lying. What do they have in common, besides being part of the same game and necessarily using the same terminology? If a Fighter uses Tide Of Iron and a Wizard uses Thunderwave, is that identical, just because they both push?

The question arises in meta-encounter, adventuring concept. You have two characters who can push people around now. They're both at-will powers, right? So now instead of the Fighter being able to "bull-rush people all day long" and the Wizard having to "burn a spell/be willing to memorize a spell that pushes people around" (which frankly isn't a bad thing to learn - Melf's Unicorn Arrow yeaaaaaaaaah!), it's something both of them can do.

In the context of a single encounter, it's probably not much different. Boom, someone gets moved. In the meta-encounter concept of an adventure, though, in 3rd Ed, the Wizard is burning resources, and the Fighter is not, while in 4th Ed, both are using at-will powers. In 3rd Ed, the Fighter bull-rushes because it's the right tactical choice and it's not costing him anything except opportunity, while the Wizard has to think about whether it's worth spending the spell even if it would have some degree of effectiveness. In 4th Ed? Both push, because neither are expending resources.

4th Ed nixxed a lot of bookkeeping, let's face it. Some people believe this is a good thing, while others enjoyed it as part of the "D&D experience". Different strokes for different blokes. (Personally, I believe in a mix between the two - more encounter/long cooldown powers for 3rd Ed, but not to 4th Ed's extent - but that's just me, and not related to this discussion.)

People are attached to their meta-encounter concepts. A lot of people don't like the 4th Ed Healing Surge mechanic, for example, and there are even conflicts within low-op/high-op 3rd Ed - a not-insignificant of groups decry Wands of Lesser Vigor as "cheese" (:smallannoyed:).

Tangent: Surprisingly, I really like the "3aboo" title. Somehow it makes me feel... persecuted. Discriminated against. A rebel against establishment. I like it. :smallamused:

Maybe I should put that in my sig.


I understand that this thread has mostly devolved into name-calling, 4chan references, and random pictures of pimps, but I'll toss my hat in for the original topic.

From a DM and player perspective, the only thing that I don't like about ToB is the internal layout. The PHB is pretty logically laid out and it's easy to find what you need. In fact, every class has convenient tables explaining every single thing you need to know. ToB, on the other hand, requires a fifteen minute scavenger hunt through the entire book to find things that you need. Prerequisites are also a bit of a pain in the neck to find and sort out. It would have been nice if they were written in a table or something somewhere.

Would it have really killed them to put a maneuver and stance column on the class tables?

This too. It took me forever to get familiar with Incarnum (it was a snap after finding an online chart of the melds) because of sub-par formatting. ToB was a tough nut to crack to - surely there's a better way to organize the maneuvers. I still haven't cozied up to Binders yet due to the lack of meaningful vestige summaries, and I refuse to touch the apparent formatting monstrosity that is Truenamer on mere hearsay alone. :smalleek:

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-19, 03:54 PM
This too. It took me forever to get familiar with Incarnum (it was a snap after finding an online chart of the melds) because of sub-par formatting.
Say, do you have a link?

Starbuck_II
2010-08-19, 03:57 PM
Not true! CScoundrel has Krusk in a pimp cloak and hat. Thats the best picture ever! And Dragon Magic has an awesome picture of Mialee...she's on fire! The best picture of Mialee is because she immolated! Huzzah!

Krusk was drinking his Pimp juice at that time. Not sure the cost for that potion.
"But you don't mess with the Gator!"

Kurald Galain
2010-08-19, 03:57 PM
Not true! CScoundrel has Krusk in a pimp cloak and hat. Thats the best picture ever! And Dragon Magic has an awesome picture of Mialee...she's on fire! The best picture of Mialee is because she immolated! Huzzah!

It does take "elves are hot" to a whole new level :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2010-08-19, 03:59 PM
Say, do you have a link?

Ditto. I could use that.

I see the similarity between 4e and ToB, but it doesn't make me dislike ToB. I don't actively dislike the encounter system in 4e...different strokes for different folks...I just dislike the loss of all the other systems that I enjoyed so much.

Keld Denar
2010-08-19, 04:07 PM
Someone over on the 339 did up a pretty good chart of ToB manevuers by level with prereqs. I'd go look for it, but clicking on that website makes my eyes bleed with mismatched color scemes.

I remember using it when I made a few of my first ToB builds.

balistafreak
2010-08-19, 04:52 PM
Say, do you have a link?


Ditto. I could use that.

Hmmm. It's an Excel file - I saved it to my computer.

Lemme see if I can't find it online for you guys again...

Ah, here's the thread I got it from. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156820) Enjoy.

EDIT: Clicked on the actual link (http://www.sendspace.com/file/m5wk2i) that was in the thread and NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooo...

File no longer up.

Eldariel
2010-08-19, 04:53 PM
Hmmm. It's an Excel file - I saved it to my computer.

Lemme see if I can't find it online for you guys again...

Ah, here's the thread I got it from. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156820) Enjoy.

EDIT: Clicked on the actual link (http://www.sendspace.com/file/m5wk2i) that was in the thread and NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooo...

File no longer up.

If you have it, care to upload it on e.g. RapidShare or MegaUpload?

fil kearney
2010-08-19, 04:58 PM
Love the ToB; dislike the art, dig the pimp, 3aboo for the win, Monkday isn't too far away; oh and integration? a handful of levels to swordsage, warblade, warlock and teflammar shadowlord makes for a friggin AWESOME multipouncer. By far my favorite melee build evar. plus it grinds against the at will spell like ability beef. In a party of straight warblades, crusaders; it holds it's own. Still plenty second fiddle to the casters.

I gotta say; the ToB would be more on par with casters if there weren't prereqs for learning maneuvers... remember 2nd ed psionics? saturated with prereqs. They did away with it, but they have a thing for them, so it came back on ToB.

doing an extra 100 damage in a standard attack isn't SO powerful that it warrants 6 (or whatever) specific abilities FORCED onto the already limited Adept.... These ain't feats. FEATS I can accept having prereqs because they are nearly infinitie/permanent abilities... but Maneuvers deserve prereqs as much as spells do.. er, DON'T.

As a shameless plug with derailing potential: I figgered out a per-round mana/spell point system a couple years back that puts casters and adepts on a level playing field. Adepts are essentially roll-to-hit blasters when given unlimited use of known maneuvers, minus stupid prereqs.
It's having to HIT STUFF that really makes adepts 2nd tier... that their maneuvers are mostly limited to combat stuff is further restricting. At least it can come closer to "equal" INside combat.
I'll post that stuff in the home brew area, and will throw a game together if there's enough interest.

Panigg
2010-08-19, 05:48 PM
I primarily play melees so obviously I like the ToB.

Haven't gotten the chance to use it yet, but it would be fun.

I don't see the problem. If you DM is fine with it, than go. The classes aren't more powerful than core classes. They just have more options and it's harder to mess them up. They're like spellcasters in that regard.

I think most people that like the ToB play fighter and monk. Two classes which, if optimized well, are effective, but boring. So really, it's just about having more fun.

Urpriest
2010-08-19, 05:59 PM
My problem with ToB was pretty much the same as my problem with Incarnum: instead of integrating the new, interesting mechanics with existing flavor and lore, they created highly restrictive, limited fluff for the powers that ends up sounding frankly amateurish. Maneuvers could have simply been a PHBII-style alternate system which characters are presumed to practice as part of normal martial training. Instead, they were given a silly collection of sword-themed schools and a jarringly poor blend of eastern and western themes (not to mention the horrible art). Including them as-written requires a setting-spanning organization of people who would otherwise never interact, opposed by an army of monsters whose only thematic unity is in their evilness.

Yes, I can ignore the fluff. In future games, I plan to create my own. But the point remains that a book filled with items of universal mechanical interest that as-written cripples every such option by asking players to include an eye-rollingly dissonant storyline.

Prime32
2010-08-19, 06:14 PM
My problem with ToB was pretty much the same as my problem with Incarnum: instead of integrating the new, interesting mechanics with existing flavor and lore, they created highly restrictive, limited fluff for the powers that ends up sounding frankly amateurish. Maneuvers could have simply been a PHBII-style alternate system which characters are presumed to practice as part of normal martial training. Instead, they were given a silly collection of sword-themed schools and a jarringly poor blend of eastern and western themes (not to mention the horrible art). Including them as-written requires a setting-spanning organization of people who would otherwise never interact, opposed by an army of monsters whose only thematic unity is in their evilness.

Yes, I can ignore the fluff. In future games, I plan to create my own. But the point remains that a book filled with items of universal mechanical interest that as-written cripples every such option by asking players to include an eye-rollingly dissonant storyline.The Temple of the Nine Swords was not the origin of the schools, just a place where masters of various combat styles once gathered to learn from each other.

There were warblades, swordsages and crusaders since ancient times. And at this point it's basically fanon that there are dozens of other schools which Reshar never brought to his temple, as well as regional variations of existing ones.

As for the "mix of eastern and western themes"... if you're talking about naming schemes, western martial arts had names for their techniques just as silly as the eastern ones. If you're talking about flavour there are western myths about swords that shoot lasers that blow up mountains, but then bounce off a guy's abs 'cuz he's just that good. Nothing in ToB reaches that level.

DeltaEmil
2010-08-19, 06:19 PM
Also, that kind of background lore is at best only for a generic-non-mentioned-setting, or for the world of greyhawk.
How the forgotten realms, eberron, ravenloft, planescape or your-own-pastiche-setting incorporate them is completely differently.

I mean, seriously, background lore...

Kurald Galain
2010-08-19, 06:31 PM
there are western myths about swords that shoot lasers that blow up mountains, but then bounce off a guy's abs 'cuz he's just that good.

What myth would that be?

Urpriest
2010-08-19, 06:33 PM
As for the "mix of eastern and western themes"... if you're talking about naming schemes, western martial arts had names for their techniques just as silly as the eastern ones. If you're talking about flavour there are western myths about swords that shoot lasers that blow up mountains, but then bounce off a guy's abs 'cuz he's just that good. Nothing in ToB reaches that level.

I have no problem with mixes of eastern and western themes in general. Rashemen and Thay are two good examples from Forgotten Realms, for example. My problem is when they are blended poorly. Well-blended eastern and western themes seek common thematic ground that make elements of each seem natural in the other. Poorly blended themes end up like Naruto. ToB feels like Naruto. It feels like they just picked elements randomly based on short-sighted rule of cool. Rakshasas, Valkyries, and Wee Jas are cool. Throwing them together into one thematic bundle/storyline? Not so much.

Prime32
2010-08-19, 06:34 PM
What myth would that be?Caladbolg. One slash killed an entire army and cut three mountains in two.

It was not a drill-arrow. :smalltongue:


The most powerful mythical sword of Japan can control the wind. A relatively minor mythical sword from Celtic mythology can control the wind, force people to tell the truth, and destroy any barrier it touches. And two of the core classes of D&D are based on that culture (bard and druid).

Knaight
2010-08-19, 06:36 PM
Sure, but I would call that a problem with D&D in generall. Toss everything in and hope it fits is pretty much the setting MO.

Worira
2010-08-19, 06:45 PM
Then, of course, there's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Br%C3%A8che_de_Roland).

mint
2010-08-19, 07:12 PM
Aside of eberron books, ToB contains some of the few attractive male characters in all of 3.5 (gtfo Hennet).
So that's something.

Il_Vec
2010-08-19, 07:17 PM
I just read 5 pages to find a link about a frenchman who cut a mountain in half accidentally. Try saying Derailment.

I like ToB.
I do not think it is essential to the balance of the game. I see it as I see Psionics. "Hey there is a cool subsytem. I might use it. Or not. Maybe. We'll see."
Most gamers on my group don't want to learn the subsytem. One of them is the DM. He also doesn't want to learn incarnum or psionics. No problem there, his choice. Another player fell in love with the Crusader, and RKV. For years he tries to convinge people to let him play one. I think it would not be very different from the melee-ish cleric he is playing right now.

My point is, having options is good. And the book doesn't break anything. If you don't like the fluff or the feeling, then, well... I'm sure there's something you can think about to change that.

Greenish
2010-08-19, 07:18 PM
Aside of eberron books, ToB contains some of the few attractive male characters in all of 3.5 (gtfo Hennet).
So that's something.The sample Ruby Knight Vindicator is so sexy he doesn't even have to worship the goddess the PrC is actually devoted. :smallcool:

Starbuck_II
2010-08-19, 08:18 PM
I have no problem with mixes of eastern and western themes in general. Rashemen and Thay are two good examples from Forgotten Realms, for example. My problem is when they are blended poorly. Well-blended eastern and western themes seek common thematic ground that make elements of each seem natural in the other. Poorly blended themes end up like Naruto. ToB feels like Naruto. It feels like they just picked elements randomly based on short-sighted rule of cool. Rakshasas, Valkyries, and Wee Jas are cool. Throwing them together into one thematic bundle/storyline? Not so much.

Naturo are a bunch of wizard calling themselves ninja. You got problems with Wizards now?

TheThan
2010-08-19, 08:31 PM
What TOB does is give Melee characters a similar amount versatility that casters enjoy. Without TOB melee characters are stuck with their one trick, sure they have their choice of tricks to pick from, but once they choose, they are stuck with it and they can’t change it (without being sufficiently high level or retraining). So once you choose to be a spiked chain tripper, you’re stuck being a spiked train tripper.

TOB gives you options that you can pick from in the middle of an encounter, you can switch stances, use different maneuvers, and generally do a lot of different things in combat. And that, is a novel idea, let players have fun with their melee oriented character.

Terazul
2010-08-19, 09:00 PM
Naturo are a bunch of wizard calling themselves ninja. You got problems with Wizards now?

Or Psions! Can't forget Psions. Lots of Ardent/Slayers in there, too.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-19, 09:07 PM
And psychic warriors.

Thurbane
2010-08-19, 09:12 PM
I can only speak for the groups I've played with, of course, but I have found most gamers who enjoy playing melee types don't mind being one trick ponies. They like to deal damage/trip/disarm etc., and don't seem that concerned about versatility or swapping tactics.

People who like versatility seem to tend towards casters anyway...or "JoaT" type classes (Factotum, Binder, Totemist, Chameleon etc.).

Nothing wrong with ToB - it's a perfectly fine supplement, just not one that "floats my boat" as it happens.

balistafreak
2010-08-19, 09:33 PM
For those who asked:

Free temporary upload (http://rapidshare.com/files/413991080/Incarnum_Soulmelds.xls), since I don't have a Rapidshare account.

Feel free to upload it permanently yourself. :smallwink:

LansXero
2010-08-19, 10:38 PM
Someone over on the 339
I could use that chart if you can remember where it was; Ill join the sentiment that one of the problems with ToB is explaining it to people who havent throughly read the book; however the index card file for every school helps a lot (cant remember where I downloaded it from, Im pretty sure it was on a thread in this board. I could re-upload them if someone needs it).

balistafreak
2010-08-19, 10:47 PM
I believe it's on Wizards' very own website.

Kylarra
2010-08-19, 10:51 PM
Did someone ask for maneuver cards? (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) :smallwink:

Drolyt
2010-08-19, 11:08 PM
As to the OPs question, some people simply don't care for ToB. I'm not particularly fond of it, mostly because I think the maneuver system is kind of clunky (many will disagree with me on this, but whatever), but I usually allow it in games I DM if the player really wants it (some really love ToB). Some specifically say it is un-D&D or too Anime, which isn't a completely invalid concern, but if you don't like it you don't have to play with it.

Thurbane
2010-08-19, 11:35 PM
Having a might-as-well-be-spell-like-ability you can use every other minute is ridiculous

When did we start talking about binders?
...or Warlocks, DFAs etc. You might be (un)surprised to know that a lot of people (some I have personally gamed with, as well as posters online) have very similar issues allowing these classes in their games as well.

Some players/groups simply do not like "at will effects" type characters in their games. Heck, this is the core of a lot of complaints about 4E. A certain style of game/gamer prefers casters that eventually run out of spells for the day, and mundane type classes that don't have abilities that emulate spells.

Remmirath
2010-08-20, 01:44 AM
...or Warlocks, DFAs etc. You might be (un)surprised to know that a lot of people (some I have personally gamed with, as well as posters online) have very similar issues allowing these classes in their games as well.

Some players/groups simply do not like "at will effects" type characters in their games. Heck, this is the core of a lot of complaints about 4E. A certain style of game/gamer prefers casters that eventually run out of spells for the day, and mundane type classes that don't have abilities that emulate spells.

And this here is exactly why I don't like it. It also plays a large part in my list of complaints with 4th edition.

I do also find the class names cheesy (which has become progressively more and more common as supplements to 3.5 wore on) and I dislike the flavour as presented, but if I really liked the system those things wouldn't bother me. I'd change them.

Thurbane
2010-08-20, 02:10 AM
And this here is exactly why I don't like it.
I had one DM in my group explicitly ban the Dragon Shaman because a breath weapon every 1d4 rounds was broken... :smalltongue:

Tinydwarfman
2010-08-20, 02:12 AM
Well, I might be able to see Warblade as a pretty silly name (I mean really, what the hell? Blademaster or something similar would have made so much more sense.), but what's wrong with Crusader and Swordsage? Or Warlock and Binder for that matter? Even Dragonfire Adept isn't great, but it is pretty accurate.

Teron
2010-08-20, 02:14 AM
I can only speak for the groups I've played with, of course, but I have found most gamers who enjoy playing melee types don't mind being one trick ponies. They like to deal damage/trip/disarm etc., and don't seem that concerned about versatility or swapping tactics.

People who like versatility seem to tend towards casters anyway...or "JoaT" type classes (Factotum, Binder, Totemist, Chameleon etc.).

Nothing wrong with ToB - it's a perfectly fine supplement, just not one that "floats my boat" as it happens.
This reads like an argument for ToB if you think about it a bit. You seem to be suggesting that players who like simplicity's preference for mêlée classes and players who like versatility's preference for casters is some improbable and convenient trend in fluff tastes, when the simplest explanation is that they like them because those classes tend to be simple and versatile, respectively. I suspect many of them would be happy to play simple caster and versatile mêlée classes, given the choice.

Thurbane
2010-08-20, 02:18 AM
This reads like an argument for ToB if you think about it a bit. You seem to be suggesting that players who like simplicity's preference for mêlée classes and players who like versatility's preference for casters is some improbable and convenient trend in fluff tastes, when the simplest explanation is that they like them because those classes tend to be simple and versatile, respectively. I suspect many of them would be happy to play simple caster and versatile mêlée classes, given the choice.
Players motivations are entirely their own.

Speaking for myself, when I play a melee character, I'm more than happy to just "thwack stuff for damage". If I wanted a skill monkey, I'd play a skill monkey. If I wanted a caster, I'd play caster. If I wanted a melee based caster, I'd play a Duskblade, gish or Cleric.

I reiterate - there's nothing wrong with ToB, it's just a splat-book/subsystem I don't use (along with psionics and Incarnum)...

Thiyr
2010-08-20, 02:21 AM
Well, I might be able to see Warblade as a pretty silly name (I mean really, what the hell? Blademaster or something similar would have made so much more sense.), but what's wrong with Crusader and Swordsage? Or Warlock and Binder for that matter? Even Dragonfire Adept isn't great, but it is pretty accurate.

Strangely, the only issue I have with ToB are a few names, but warblade isn't amongst them. That actually seems...sensible. Swordsage, on the other hand, just feels kinda...off for some reason. And I just out and out hate that "Sublime way" stuff. might not help that my first interaction with the classes was "Sublime this sublime that" in campaign.

Oh, and five ice creeping enervation strike, but the silliness inherent in that name shouldn't even need mentioning.

Teron
2010-08-20, 02:44 AM
To be clear, I'm not disputing your right to dislike it for whatever reason you like, but I think it's... a bit dodgy to imply the trends you brought up are a happy coincidence, especially given the appreciation for complex mêlée classes expressed in this very thread.

Thurbane
2010-08-20, 02:47 AM
To be clear, I'm not disputing your right to dislike it for whatever reason you like, but I think it's... a bit dodgy to imply the trends you brought up are a happy coincidence, especially given the appreciation for complex mêlée classes expressed in this very thread.
Like I said earlier, I don't claim to understand the desires or trends of all D&D players, only those I've gamed with.

Drolyt
2010-08-20, 04:14 AM
I'll admit Warblade and Swordsage are... odd, but Crusader makes perfect sense. It makes much more sense than Paladin once you start allowing different alignments like in 4e or Unearthed Arcana, since Paladin specifically refers to the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne's court in The Matter of France, most famously Roland, wielder of Durendal, so calling a chaotic evil character a Paladin is... a little off. I'll also admit some of the names of the maneuvers and their schools are weird, but D&D has that problem with spells too.

huttj509
2010-08-20, 04:19 AM
Re: Class names.

Yeah, they were kinda running outta things. If 4E hadn't come along We'd have started seeing things like Bardblade, Warbard, Warsage, Warknight, Monkblade, Barbarianknightbladebard of the seven seals.

Though really they're not that bad. Warblade, ok, they needed another name for "swordsman". Swordsage? Well, channels magic abilities through sword maneuvers, guess that works. Crusader? That's actually a REALLY loaded word in some parts of the world, and the statute of limitations on that sort of thing is rather long.

Boci
2010-08-20, 04:26 AM
Players motivations are entirely their own.

Speaking for myself, when I play a melee character, I'm more than happy to just "thwack stuff for damage". If I wanted a skill monkey, I'd play a skill monkey. If I wanted a caster, I'd play caster. If I wanted a melee based caster, I'd play a Duskblade, gish or Cleric.

I reiterate - there's nothing wrong with ToB, it's just a splat-book/subsystem I don't use (along with psionics and Incarnum)...

Aren't you ever bothered by the fact that you cannot use readied actions without significantly less thwack damage, and the same applies to loosing a move action?

hamishspence
2010-08-20, 04:28 AM
Re: Class names.
Though really they're not that bad. Warblade, ok, they needed another name for "swordsman".

It happens that there's an artifact by that name in Lost Empires of Faerun.

So you could have a character who is "The warblade with The Warblade" :smallamused:

Shademan
2010-08-20, 04:33 AM
why care about the names? If I play a fighter/rogue/sorcerer I intruduce myself as The magnificent Gerald! master of twinkly doom! and if anyone ask me for classes I say thats it's secret or it does not matter.
heck, I played a crusader once who had the titles of Knight and Paladin!
And after he kinda turned into a devil... I switched it for a rogue/swordsage who is more of a Desert tribesman/ hobo

Aotrs Commander
2010-08-20, 04:37 AM
ToB feels like Naruto.

I've been turning that phrase over and over in my head, because the implication seems to be that would somehow be a bad thing, but I just see how that would be possible...



To actually contribute, as Urpriest said, ToB's "background" flavour does it no favours. I totally ignored the book altogether until I heard people rave about the mechanics, because I thought to be too world-specific to be of interest to me. It's not so much the fluff of the actual manouvers themselves; or even of the classes or the schools, but the whole supposed background nine schools and all that. (I actually use thirteen schools in my games: Tempest Stormwind's Falling Star, Mageocrat's Eternal Mount and my own Spirit Fox and Unquiet Twilight.) Regardless of all the other concerns, I really think ToB would have been slightly better accepted if WotC had given it a bit more generic overall flavour; since a fair number of complaints about ToB are the flavour as much as the mechanics. (And, yes, I agree with the much-quoted train of though that says Desert Wind was the wrong school to start with, as my own personal thought when reading it for the first time was "this is like Naruto! Cool!") Perhaps a bit more like psionics, maybe.

Certainly, I don't think psionics would have reached the acceptance it does (which is even then not unilateral), if it had been coloured with some big backstory about how it originated from one dude who meditated up a mountain and established the devotions as "school" or something at some temples somewhere. First rule of a game not set for a specific background, as far as I'm concerned, is Do Not Tell Me How My World Is Built (one of my other gripes with 4E).

Yes, you can reflavour ToB (or as I do, simply totally ignore the background and treat the schools and manouvers as largely a metagame concept), but the fact you have reflavour towards more generic I think is the problem. I mean, you can (and I have) reflavour a Cleric/Monk into a Naruto-style jutsu-user, but that doesn't mean that I should feel I have to do it for every character.

(For me, personally, ToB's manouver and school flavours are just the right side of the delineration of acceptable; but then again, I have spells that shoot lasers, lasers made out of darkness and anti-electricity, so what do I know?)

Drolyt
2010-08-20, 04:45 AM
I think any fluff in what is essentially an alternate combat system is a bad thing to begin with, since it can limit what you can do with the mechanics (or at least what you can do with the mechanics easily and without homebrew) but ToB isn't alone, it is just one of the worse offenders. D&D in general has a horrible time separating mechanics from flavor. This wouldn't be a problem if it were like many other systems that have the setting and the rules tightly intertwined, but D&D is supposed to be an at least somewhat setting independent generic fantasy system. All that fluff can make it difficult to introduce ToB into a setting where it doesn't fit.

I should note that logically changing fluff to fit your campaign shouldn't be harder than taking a fluffless system and giving it fluff, but for some reason it is.

Enguhl
2010-08-20, 06:11 AM
I blame wotc for brainwashing us into thinking that +2 damage per attack a level 4 abilityis acceptable for a fighter, while wizards can get away with stopping time and gating in solarshaving level 17 abilities.

What...

But on topic, my main problem with ToB is simply that it adds power where there needs to be none. In my group, the non-casters usually outshine the casters, excluding the first encounter or two of the day, which is how it should be. Casters are more powerful, but more limited, it works out perfectly.

But Tome of Battle just gives *more* power to people that more or less don't run out of steam.

Greenish
2010-08-20, 06:28 AM
What...I believe that refers to the "linear fighters, quadratic wizards". Each new spell level is significantly stronger than the previous, while the feats a fighter can pick are (for the most part) the same from level 1 to level 20.

Drascin
2010-08-20, 07:34 AM
What...


It's not hard to understand. Fighters just get feats, and the feats stay always the same. If you want to make it a less exaggerated comparison (as the previous poster was simply using hyperbole), just think about it like this:

A feat is a much more significant investment, character-wise, than a spell - characters learn a lot of spells, on average, but most get seven feats tops. This means that, for some reason, spending a feat to get +2 to damage (a level 4 ability) is considered more powerful than, to use one of the absolute weakest examples in the book so the comparison is closest, a Fireball, which does an average of 15 to start, in a big area, with massive range, and gets a +3 average damage every time the wizard levels, for free, without spending any more resources.

See the problem here? And Fireball is all but the weakest choice you could use. If you start comparing with good spells, the differences bleed.

Basically, Wizards' abilities auto-scale, and become exponentially more powerful - every two levels, the character gets a whole new spell level to play, with dozens of inherently superior options to anything he used before - AND his old spells get more powerful too, in case he still needs them! By comparison, Fighters just have nothing to look up to, and being higher level does nothing for them except more HP and BAB. A feat taken at level 4 and at level 17 does the same thing - +2 to damage. Feats, unlike class features, are balanced on the fact that anyone could get them, for the most part, and that their prerequisites are on average easy to meet at low level. It's not hard to see how this is problematic when you have a class whose level 18 class ability is... another feat.

Simply put, Fighters accumulate a lot of level 4 features, while everyone else is slinging actual level 17 features. That's what he probably meant - when the Wizard is choosing whether he wants to control powerful demon armies or be able to kill everything in a hundred feet radius with a word, the fighter is still choosing whether to get +2 to damage or Improved Trip, like he was ten levels ago.

Greenish
2010-08-20, 08:01 AM
Well, I wouldn't call Fireball the weakest spell there. It has decent range, area and damage. It's a very situational tool, but it has it's uses.

[Edit]: I agree with the general assessment, mind you. Fireball just gets more rag than it deserves.

Tetsubo 57
2010-08-20, 08:25 AM
What...

But on topic, my main problem with ToB is simply that it adds power where there needs to be none. In my group, the non-casters usually outshine the casters, excluding the first encounter or two of the day, which is how it should be. Casters are more powerful, but more limited, it works out perfectly.

But Tome of Battle just gives *more* power to people that more or less don't run out of steam.

So it's a solution seeking a problem?

I can buy that.

Coidzor
2010-08-20, 08:36 AM
[Edit]: I agree with the general assessment, mind you. Fireball just gets more rag than it deserves.

That's because it has more people chanting "FIREBALL! FIREBALL! FIREBALL!" from some kind of longstanding tradition of doing this. Is more of a target.


So it's a solution seeking a problem?

Depending upon the group. So, really, no, not at all. It's just some people don't want the solution.

Which, considering it's a splatbook rather than a system-wide errata like some of the other people complain it isn't...

tumble check
2010-08-20, 09:38 AM
What...

But on topic, my main problem with ToB is simply that it adds power where there needs to be none. In my group, the non-casters usually outshine the casters, excluding the first encounter or two of the day, which is how it should be. Casters are more powerful, but more limited, it works out perfectly.

But Tome of Battle just gives *more* power to people that more or less don't run out of steam.


That's part of my issue. Edition 3.5 (or 3.P) has a very explicit paradigm: casters have enormous power but little resources, and martials have limited power with unlimited resources. Whereas a caster's "ability to bring an encounter to a resolution" (in this case, damage or disabling opponents) generally decreases as an encounter/day progresses, it remains constant for a martial character (HP notwithstanding).

They're two different types of characters. They have different rules that govern each, a different amount of bookkeeping, and a different kind of strategizing. You choose to play one or the other because that's the type of character you feel like playing; they don't offer the same sort of satisfaction. A few classes and prestige classes break this mold, but ultimately, these molds hold true.

I guess what I don't like is that ToB rejects this mold when I feel that there was nothing wrong with it. And, assuming that this supply was a response to a demand, it means that people were desiring that martial characters fall into the caster paradigm. I just perplexes me.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-20, 09:41 AM
That's part of my issue. Edition 3.5 (or 3.P) has a very explicit paradigm: casters have enormous power but little resources, and martials have limited power with unlimited resources. Whereas a caster's "ability to bring an encounter to a resolution" (in this case, damage or disabling opponents) generally decreases as an encounter/day progresses, it remains constant for a martial character (HP notwithstanding).
[...]
I guess what I don't like is that ToB rejects this mold when I feel that there was nothing wrong with it. And, assuming that this supply was a response to a demand, it means that people were desiring that martial characters fall into the caster paradigm. I just perplexes me.

Uhh...that is not your reason to dislike it. ToB melee is just as constant over the time as a Fighter's melee. By that logic, you really feel irked by barbarians.

hamishspence
2010-08-20, 09:42 AM
That's part of my issue. Edition 3.5 (or 3.P) has a very explicit paradigm: casters have enormous power but little resources, and martials have limited power with unlimited resources. Whereas a caster's "ability to bring an encounter to a resolution" (in this case, damage or disabling opponents) generally decreases as an encounter/day progresses, it remains constant for a martial character (HP notwithstanding).

The warlock was one of the first new classes in 3.5 (at least compared to Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle, which came out quite a lot later)- and it broke the paradigm somewhat, having a very limited number of tricks- but unlimited uses of them, without being martial.

MlleRouge
2010-08-20, 09:50 AM
ToB is 'banned' in my group because of one bad apple; A particular player of ours made himself a Warblade in a game with mostly lower tier classes (with one conservatively played tier 1) and not only powergamed to heck and back, but rubbed it in everyone's face how OP his new class was.

Bleh.


While we (as a group) recognize this as human error, it's given most of us a bit of distaste for the book, though pretty much any DM in our circle has said they'd give it another chance if anyone else decided they wanted to try a class from it. No one has cared to, though.

Mr.Moron
2010-08-20, 10:06 AM
I really don't get this whole "Casters run out of spells thing". I've only ever run into this when playing a caster at 1st-3rd level, maybe 4th. Beyond that between base spells, specialist/domain slots, and an attribute bonus I have more than enough to last me the day. I'll admit I often cast all of my clerics spells very early in the day however since they're all long-duration buffs they'd do me no good sitting prepared anyway.


Unless you expect to drop a spell of your highest level in each and every round of every encounter of the day, you really shouldn't feel that pressed for spells.

Caphi
2010-08-20, 10:27 AM
They're two different types of characters. They have different rules that govern each, a different amount of bookkeeping, and a different kind of strategizing. You choose to play one or the other because that's the type of character you feel like playing; they don't offer the same sort of satisfaction. A few classes and prestige classes break this mold, but ultimately, these molds hold true.

That's the theory. In practice, it only works for very low levels. Beyond that, spellcasters can fight all day long using their top couple levels of spells even as they reserve the lower level slots to cover the non-reducing-HP encounters with invisibility, fly, shatter, and whatever else all the cool wizards are using. If the arcanist puts down a single haste, he's already contributed a lot to the battle. Everything else is fruit-flavored topping.

I've played blasters, too. Even for them, spell slots cease to be an issue somewhere around level 5. (Mine do utility and control too, though...)

Drascin
2010-08-20, 10:31 AM
I really don't get this whole "Casters run out of spells thing". I've only ever run into this when playing a caster at 1st-3rd level, maybe 4th. Beyond that between base spells, specialist/domain slots, and an attribute bonus I have more than enough to last me the day. I'll admit I often cast all of my clerics spells very early in the day however since they're all long-duration buffs they'd do me no good sitting prepared anyway.


Unless you expect to drop a spell of your highest level in each and every round of every encounter of the day, you really shouldn't feel that pressed for spells.

There is this, too. Casters generally have more stamina than fighters, all told. You get about fifteen or so useful spell slots, from level 7 and above. Two of those are generally all you need to use in one combat - and many will be all but over (just requiring the Rogue to go and do a couple Coup-de-Graces) with just one. A Fghter in a CR-fair fight will lose 20% of his HP at the very least, likely more. If anything, casters are less likely to be strapped for their "main" resource.

The real melee energizer bunnies are Clerics. All that healing and self-buffing multiplies your "keep going" ability by like five :smallbiggrin:.

Drolyt
2010-08-20, 11:37 AM
Too many of these answers amount to "it's now how I'm used to playing D&D". People who have this opinion and refuse to try new things are only hurting themselves. If they would experiment a bit they might find something to greatly improve their game. In the end though I won't tell them what to do so long as they don't try to force their opinions on others (not saying anyone is). The real problem is people who's reasoning amounts to "it's now how I'm used to playing D&D" who rage and howl about how horrible ToB is like others shouldn't be allowed to play it just because they don't want to (again, I'm not saying anyone on this forum is doing this, but it isn't unheard of on the internet).

As for my personal opinion, I hate fire and forget. Unfortunately, Warlocks don't solve this for me. They simply don't have enough options. I like having a Wizard who can do all the things a D&D Wizard can. I don't like the fact that my Wizard so completely outshines everyone else (with the possible exception of CoDZilla). I'm not sure if this is an inherent flaw in any system that tries to have a warrior flailing around with a sword at the same level as a Wizard that can rain fire from the heavens, transform into a dragon, summon demons, fly, turn invisible, teleport, stop time, or even alter reality with a single word. I don't have any problem with fighter types having to use magic (or pseudo magic, in the case of ToB) to keep up, so I guess I only really have two problems with ToB: excessive flavor that might not mesh well with your game, and the fact that it introduces an entire new system to handle it's maneuvers. The second problem isn't such a big deal once you get used to it, but it still feels more like a patch than anything. I personally think that martial and arcane/divine magic should have been more integrated, deriving from a common mechanic. 4e kind of did this, but I'm really not fond of how 4e did it.

DeltaEmil
2010-08-20, 11:46 AM
I personally think that martial and arcane/divine magic should have been more integrated, deriving from a common mechanic.If Wotc had done that at the beginning of third edition, people would cry today all the time about how they ruined fighters, and about how they don't care about tradition and sacred cows or something like that...

Drolyt
2010-08-20, 12:00 PM
If Wotc had done that at the beginning of third edition, people would cry today all the time about how they ruined fighters, and about how they don't care about tradition and sacred cows or something like that...
Of course they would have. It is not entirely illegitimate. Many of the things that made D&D unique have been lost over time, especially since WotC took over. To old school gamers it can make it feel less like D&D. Which oddly wouldn't be a problem if it was just called something else, but there you go. Those "sacred cows" can be very important to people who grew up with them. If I were WotC I would have spread out my gaming line, but they seem intent on riding on D&D's brand name regardless of how little their product ends up resembling the creations of Gygax and Arneson. 4e for example isn't a bad game (although I'm not fond of it personally I'll admit it has strong points) and it definitely carries the D&D legacy to some extent, but people who complain that "they changed it now it sucks" have a legitimate point so long as they continue to call it D&D. Same with the transition from 2e to 3e, a lot of stuff was lost and a lot of new stuff was added that didn't necessarily enhance the experience for everyone. Of course you are never forced to go to a new edition, but there's the problem. It isn't marketed as a new game, it is marketed as the latest version of the game you have been playing when it clearly isn't.

Aran Banks
2010-08-20, 12:01 PM
This thread is sufficently off-topic, so...


There is this, too. Casters generally have more stamina than fighters, all told. You get about fifteen or so useful spell slots, from level 7 and above. Two of those are generally all you need to use in one combat - and many will be all but over (just requiring the Rogue to go and do a couple Coup-de-Graces) with just one. A Fghter in a CR-fair fight will lose 20% of his HP at the very least, likely more. If anything, casters are less likely to be strapped for their "main" resource.

The real melee energizer bunnies are Clerics. All that healing and self-buffing multiplies your "keep going" ability by like five over nine thousand :smallbiggrin:.

Emphasis mine.

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

To take this farther off-track, I'm actually interested in the "Naruto ToB" stuff (not that Naruto d20 modern thing..). Combining the magical ToB abilities with some primarily taijutsu disciplines (do we have any of those?) and something with illusions (I'd like that to be ToB... but genjutsu would be really abusable). I mean, AWESOME.

Plus the sharingan and byakuya clan's eye thing would be cool, too.

Drolyt
2010-08-20, 12:11 PM
This thread is sufficently off-topic, so...
Not really. The discussion still pertains to the OPs question ("why the dislike for ToB"), it has just gotten really meta.

To take this farther off-track, I'm actually interested in the "Naruto ToB" stuff (not that Naruto d20 modern thing..). Combining the magical ToB abilities with some primarily taijutsu disciplines (do we have any of those?) and something with illusions (I'd like that to be ToB... but genjutsu would be really abusable). I mean, AWESOME.
Plus the sharingan and byakuya clan's eye thing would be cool, too.
That might be pretty cool. I'd be willing to contribute to making some disciplines for a Naruto themed game. As for bloodlines, how about that system from Unearthed Arcana, the one with the same name? Hmm, maybe you should start a thread, or at least PM about this idea.

Doug Lampert
2010-08-20, 12:24 PM
That's part of my issue. Edition 3.5 (or 3.P) has a very explicit paradigm: casters have enormous power but little resources, and martials have limited power with unlimited resources.

Right, the fighter has unlimited resources because a fighter NEVER runs out of HP.

That's a problem with the cleric running out of cures, not a fighter resource at all...

Gods help the fighter if the caster is a druid, because that bear's resources are just as "unlimited" as the fighter's. And the druid still gets spells.

And of course a poor non-specialist level 20 wizard with minimal ability scores and no items has ONLY 55 spells per day! How can he manage! He must specialize or buy a staff or buy a pearl of power or make a staff or make a pearl of power or scribe some scrolls. Because wait for it! If he's limited to no gear then only about 40 of those spells are INDIVIDUALLY stronger than anything the fighter can do! He'll run out eventually. (He'll run out about 10 encounters after the fighter is DEAD DEAD DEAD if the fighter is also limited to no gear and no outside help.)

And of course it isn't like spellcasters have rope trick and teleport to let them go home after they're mostly dry. Meanwhile the fighter still has that unlimited pool of HP.

tumble check
2010-08-20, 12:32 PM
Almost every discussion about 3.X ends up being a rant on how unbalanced 3.X is, it seems.

Greenish
2010-08-20, 12:35 PM
Almost every discussion about 3.X ends up being a rant on how unbalanced 3.X is, it seems.Maybe because some people come saying it ain't.

Drolyt
2010-08-20, 12:42 PM
Almost every discussion about 3.X ends up being a rant on how unbalanced 3.X is, it seems.
Well, it is terribly unbalanced. Not every group ever notices it, but I stumbled on it by accident with my first character (a Sorcerer) who ended up powerful enough to take on the rest of the party combined by 20th level and he wasn't even that well Min/Maxed (he was a blaster for goodness sakes, albeit one that made effective use of support spells to make himself virtually invincible). ToB helps quite a bit in that department. It also gives variety to melee types, since some people found melee boring since you just full attack every single round. Some might also prefer the flavor. It's a personal thing.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-20, 12:52 PM
Of course they would have. It is not entirely illegitimate. Many of the things that made D&D unique have been lost over time, especially since WotC took over. To old school gamers it can make it feel less like D&D. Which oddly wouldn't be a problem if it was just called something else, but there you go. Those "sacred cows" can be very important to people who grew up with them. If I were WotC I would have spread out my gaming line, but they seem intent on riding on D&D's brand name regardless of how little their product ends up resembling the creations of Gygax and Arneson. 4e for example isn't a bad game (although I'm not fond of it personally I'll admit it has strong points) and it definitely carries the D&D legacy to some extent, but people who complain that "they changed it now it sucks" have a legitimate point so long as they continue to call it D&D. Same with the transition from 2e to 3e, a lot of stuff was lost and a lot of new stuff was added that didn't necessarily enhance the experience for everyone. Of course you are never forced to go to a new edition, but there's the problem. It isn't marketed as a new game, it is marketed as the latest version of the game you have been playing when it clearly isn't.

I can see it being marketted as a new version when you can easily swap your characters and campaigns from old edition to new. 3.0 to 3.5 definitely qualifies, and 2 to 3 is even arguable. Plenty of people did. So yeah, you keep playing the same characters in the same game, with some updates. That's cool.

You can't do that with 4. You *might* be able to build a character that somewhat resembles your old character, but there's no upgrade path. It's like going from D&D to gurps.

It's an odd situation when the thing called "D&D" is less like historical D&D than competing products, such as Pathfinder, but that's what happened.

hamishspence
2010-08-20, 12:56 PM
Some people like Tome of Battle (and the psionic power points system) enough to give them to casters:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164896

It's an interesting way of doing things, at least. I rather like the concept (though I suspect it would have to be handled with care).

Prime32
2010-08-20, 01:02 PM
Not really. The discussion still pertains to the OPs question ("why the dislike for ToB"), it has just gotten really meta.

That might be pretty cool. I'd be willing to contribute to making some disciplines for a Naruto themed game. As for bloodlines, how about that system from Unearthed Arcana, the one with the same name? Hmm, maybe you should start a thread, or at least PM about this idea.There was a big thread which statted most of the Naruto cast with psionic classes. Here's a "backup" of it. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=6002.0)

If I ran a Naruto game I'd use character level for attack rolls and grant maneuvers based on BAB, since all characters seem to have some measure of hand-to-hand combat ability.

TheThan
2010-08-20, 03:34 PM
There was a big thread which statted most of the Naruto cast with psionic classes. Here's a "backup" of it. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=6002.0)

If I ran a Naruto game I'd use character level for attack rolls and grant maneuvers based on BAB, since all characters seem to have some measure of hand-to-hand combat ability.

I wouldn't use a class system at all. As every single character in Naruto is a special snowflake with their own super special set of super special abilities. classes are generalizations, and honestly I don't think that sort of system fits wit the style of characters Naruto has. a point based system with the ability to make custom powers and attacks like B.E.S.M 3rd edition (or even the base tri-stat system) for example works much better. Granted BESM is designed for anime and manga, but still it easily supports that style of character.

Lans
2010-08-20, 05:15 PM
There is this, too. Casters generally have more stamina than fighters, all told. You get about fifteen or so useful spell slots, from level 7 and above. Two of those are generally all you need to use in one combat - and many will be all but over (just requiring the Rogue to go and do a couple Coup-de-Graces) with just one. A Fghter in a CR-fair fight will lose 20% of his HP at the very least, likely more. If anything, casters are less likely to be strapped for their "main" resource.

The real melee energizer bunnies are Clerics. All that healing and self-buffing multiplies your "keep going" ability by like five :smallbiggrin:.

There are two or three ways for a person to have infinite healing up to half. Which could do lead to the party that never rests.

The one that I most recal is a feat for a dragon blooded character that gives it a healing aura up to half.

Edit-Then theres fast healing, infinite wildshapes that a low level adjustment can bring.

AslanCross
2010-08-20, 05:32 PM
One thing I forgot:

Wayne England.

His art makes me cringe, and it's given a full-page spread at the beginning of each chapter.

I do wish they'd gotten Wayne Reynolds instead.

Greenish
2010-08-20, 05:35 PM
I do wish they'd gotten Wayne Reynolds instead.We're lucky that Reynolds didn't illustrate ToB - the concentrated awesome would've been too much for mere mortals!

Aotrs Commander
2010-08-20, 05:37 PM
There was a big thread which statted most of the Naruto cast with psionic classes. Here's a "backup" of it. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=6002.0)

If I ran a Naruto game I'd use character level for attack rolls and grant maneuvers based on BAB, since all characters seem to have some measure of hand-to-hand combat ability.

Thanks for the link. I was most unchuffed wen it vanished from WotC. That's goin' straight to my hard drive this time!

Personally, I have always said if I was going to do Naruto, I'd bite the bullet and gestault. Everyone would thus be a gestault Adept//Psionic class. ToB would handle the taijutsu (save for the chakra-burning stuff) and psionics - as so demonstrated - would cover the rest. With a quick "Psionic X" of "X, Psionic"1 for any appropriate spell effects not covered by powers already. That'd be about perfect. (And for once, I probably would go to the E6 level of power assumptions, so that the characters really would stupidly superhuman before long; which is not something normally I'm inclined to do.)

Though as I say, it's surprising how far you can go Naruto with probably the least appropriate to the genera class combo, Cleric and Monk.



"1One thing I LOATHE about psionics was the inconsitancy in labelling of spells-now powers. because if you look it up in one, the sod is bound to be the other. I really hate that.

Prime32
2010-08-20, 06:09 PM
This thread (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5942) has some added material on the Naruto stuff - brainstorming for Sage mode and Pain.

End of derailment, I promise. :smallwink:

Thurbane
2010-08-20, 06:20 PM
Too many of these answers amount to "it's now how I'm used to playing D&D". People who have this opinion and refuse to try new things are only hurting themselves.
That's one interpretation...another is that some people don't like the "kitchen sink" effect of allowing every new splat-book - and every subsystem, class, feat, PrC, race, magic item, spell etc. that it brings.

Some of the most fun games I've played have been core only. That's not to say that adding splats is in any way a bad thing - just not suited to every style of game.

This is particularly true of subsystems. In groups where some (or all) of the players have limited time and/or resources to learn new things, it can be preferable to stick with classes and systems that the group is already familiar with. It can be problematic when one (or more) players are familiar with a subsystem, but the DM is not. This is a far cry from "afraid to try something new".

Drolyt
2010-08-20, 07:56 PM
That's one interpretation...another is that some people don't like the "kitchen sink" effect of allowing every new splat-book - and every subsystem, class, feat, PrC, race, magic item, spell etc. that it brings.
That is perfectly legitimate. Not liking everything is okay. What I think is dangerous is not liking something for no other reason than because it is different.

Some of the most fun games I've played have been core only. That's not to say that adding splats is in any way a bad thing - just not suited to every style of game.
Personally I like to run "Core, but if you see something you really like I'll probably allow it". This works well with my local gaming groups, but when I play with people online for some strange reason they seem to be obsessed with using every splat book available to them.

This is particularly true of subsystems. In groups where some (or all) of the players have limited time and/or resources to learn new things, it can be preferable to stick with classes and systems that the group is already familiar with. It can be problematic when one (or more) players are familiar with a subsystem, but the DM is not. This is a far cry from "afraid to try something new".
And that is a fair point. My only problem is with people who don't like a subsystem for this reason, and try to force that opinion on others. It's fine if you don't want to use a splat book, but if your only reason for not using it is because it would be too much trouble for your group it is disingenuous to go on forums and talk about how horrible it is. Again, I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of doing that, but you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the internet.

Greenish
2010-08-20, 07:59 PM
Personally I like to run "Core, but if you see something you really like I'll probably allow it". This works well with my local gaming groups, but when I play with people online for some strange reason they seem to be obsessed with using every splat book available to them.Well, if D&D 3.5 has one major strength, it's the wealth of options the sheer number of splatbooks offers.

Runestar
2010-08-20, 09:26 PM
There are two or three ways for a person to have infinite healing up to half. Which could do lead to the party that never rests.

The one that I most recal is a feat for a dragon blooded character that gives it a healing aura up to half.

Edit-Then theres fast healing, infinite wildshapes that a low level adjustment can bring.

Even infinite healing outside of combat is not impossible. You have the ghaele monster class (which grants CLW at-will at 8th lv), binder with beur (7th lv, or 5th with improved binding), necropolitan shadow sun ninja and dread necro with entire party taking tomb-tainted soul. There may be more, but these 4 are the only ones which come to mind for me.

That said, if you are fine with casters being able to move, cast a 1-win spell as a standard action, fire off another swift-action spell and still be able to use an immediate action like abrupt jaunt in response to his opponent's action, I don't see why fighter-types should not be accorded equal benefit.

If a wizard can cast an empowered delayed blast fireball as a standard action, I don't see why a fighter should be content with a paltry 3d6+30.

A warblade can move, initiate a boost followed by a strike, and still have room for a counter like wall of blades, letting them match casters in terms of action economy. What's not to like? :smallconfused:

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-08-20, 09:29 PM
This works well with my local gaming groups, but when I play with people online for some strange reason they seem to be obsessed with using every splat book available to them.


Honestly, I am one of those people. It's a personal taste as I largely find core so... restrictive. There are a lot of ideas with which I want to work as far as characters go, so hitting that "Core only" shatters them in my mind.

As for Tome of Battle, I do agree that some of its fluff is, indeed, "lol wut" worthy. The general idea of one person uniting similar sets of techniques isn't bad, but its presentation is a little... off. Even so, I am a big fan of the system in general.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-20, 10:31 PM
There are two or three ways for a person to have infinite healing up to half. Which could do lead to the party that never rests.

The one that I most recal is a feat for a dragon blooded character that gives it a healing aura up to half.

Edit-Then theres fast healing, infinite wildshapes that a low level adjustment can bring.

Vampiric weapon + reserve feat to summon elementals was mentioned. Infinite healing to full for entire party.

Though if the caster is into reserve feats, we can presume he'll do aright with never resting. For added awesome, make the entire party warforged or another race that need not sleep. Killing for all eternity.

Yknow, I think Im gonna use this as a group of NPCs.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-20, 10:34 PM
Honestly, I am one of those people. It's a personal taste as I largely find core so... restrictive. There are a lot of ideas with which I want to work as far as characters go, so hitting that "Core only" shatters them in my mind.

As for Tome of Battle, I do agree that some of its fluff is, indeed, "lol wut" worthy. The general idea of one person uniting similar sets of techniques isn't bad, but its presentation is a little... off. Even so, I am a big fan of the system in general.

This is true. Core is boring, once you've played it long enough. I can't recall any long periods of time since the release of 3.0 when I haven't played at least one D&D campaign. Plenty were core only for one reason or another. Eventually, you just wanna branch out.

Yeah, coupla the fluff elements in 9 swords were groan-worthy. I just ignore them, myself. It's rare that I rely on fluff to define my character anyhow. Stereotypes are boring.

DragoonWraith
2010-08-20, 10:39 PM
That's one interpretation...another is that some people don't like the "kitchen sink" effect of allowing every new splat-book - and every subsystem, class, feat, PrC, race, magic item, spell etc. that it brings.
What is this "'kitchen sink' effect" that you're talking about? I cannot begin to fathom how there being more options can, in and of itself, negatively impact gameplay*. They are, by definition, options.

* This is assuming that everyone knows and understands each of those options; obviously this is never true and the more it isn't true the more problems those options cause, but you seem to be talking about a distinct problem so ignoring that... Also ignoring any imbalances the additional material may bring with it, since, as I said, you seem to be making a distinct point.

Thurbane
2010-08-20, 11:00 PM
What is this "'kitchen sink' effect" that you're talking about? I cannot begin to fathom how there being more options can, in and of itself, negatively impact gameplay*. They are, by definition, options.
IMHO, what's not in a campaign is as important as what is. It's like a if a sci-fi movie suddenly has ninjas, pirates, zombies and monsters thrown into the mix...the plot and feel start to lose cohesion.

Yes, options are good in a game system...but IMHO when you have this bewildering array of choices, it can detract from the uniqueness and flavor of a particular game. I actually believe that 3.5 has too many base classes, many of which step on each others toes in terms of roles. I also believe it has too many subsystems, if every single book is allowed. This is all personal choice though - I'm not saying more sources make a worse game - it's purely a matter of my personal preference.

It only affects some styles of game...if you enjoy a game where everything goes, and every single source out there is in, then that's fine. It's just a different style of game than some people enjoy. Like I said, some of my most enjoyable games have been core only. Whatever works for a particular group.

Thurbane
2010-08-20, 11:05 PM
Not related to RPGs, but here's an interesting article on "Too many choices" syndrome...

http://www.physorg.com/news127404469.html

DragoonWraith
2010-08-20, 11:10 PM
IMHO, what's not in a campaign is as important as what is. It's like a if a sci-fi movie suddenly has ninjas, pirates, zombies and monsters thrown into the mix...the plot and feel start to lose cohesion.

Yes, options are good in a game system...but IMHO when you have this bewildering array of choices, it can detract from the uniqueness and flavor of a particular game. I actually believe that 3.5 has too many base classes, many of which step on each others toes in terms of roles. I also believe it has too many subsystems, if every single book is allowed. This is all personal choice though - I'm not saying more sources make a worse game - it's purely a matter of my personal preference.

It only affects some styles of game...if you enjoy a game where everything goes, and every single source out there is in, then that's fine. It's just a different style of game than some people enjoy. Like I said, some of my most enjoyable games have been core only. Whatever works for a particular group.
Does any of this apply if fluff is considered mutable? Sure, Incarnum may not fit every campaign - but the mechanics are solid, and could easily describe magitek (or "sufficiently advanced" tech), some kind of monk-ish class where his discipline can form armor, etc.

And how does this apply to the Tome of Battle? ToB does not introduce any significant fluff that is any different from what's in the PHB.

Thurbane
2010-08-20, 11:13 PM
1.) I'm not knocking the ToB, so lets not turn it into that. I'm commenting on general trends in splat-books.
2.) I'm not talking primarily about fluff, I'm talking about new classes and new mechanics.
3.) This is probably a better example of what I'm talking about with too many choices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less

DragoonWraith
2010-08-20, 11:19 PM
1.) I'm not knocking the ToB, so lets not turn it into that. I'm commenting on general trends in splat-books.
Sorry; it is the thread topic, I assumed you were including ToB as a book that suffers from adding new options that can hamper a game.


2.) I'm not talking primarily about fluff, I'm talking about new classes and new mechanics.
Can you explain how this works? Because I don't get it, at all.


3.) This is probably a better example of what I'm talking about with too many choices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less
Whoa, I completely and utterly disagree with this guy.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-20, 11:20 PM
IMHO, what's not in a campaign is as important as what is. It's like a if a sci-fi movie suddenly has ninjas, pirates, zombies and monsters thrown into the mix...the plot and feel start to lose cohesion.

I've never seen a campaign in which all available options were used. Even when every single splatbook is available, in practice, people tend towards things they like. Me, Im biased toward complete mage and arcane. I frequently use stuff from there.

But you still only have X party members. Is it really so different to have a psion, an unarmed swordsage, a crusader, and a warlock than, say, a wizard, a sorc, a monk, and a paladin?

Tyndmyr
2010-08-20, 11:23 PM
Whoa, I completely and utterly disagree with this guy.

It applies within limited domains. Where you don't have much info about the choices, lots of choices can be stressful because you have to learn them all. This is reasonable...handing a first timer every D&D book ever printed would be overwhelming.

You will note that all cases he presents fall into such patterns. It really doesn't apply to someone familiar with all the choices at hand. Such a person would almost certainly dislike loosing options.

Thurbane
2010-08-20, 11:23 PM
Sorry; it is the thread topic, I assumed you were including ToB as a book that suffers from adding new options that can hamper a game.
I include it in that category, yes. But as I said, it can hamper certain styles of games (along with many other splats that introduce new classes and subsystems) - not it automatically hampers any game. Big difference.

Can you explain how this works? Because I don't get it, at all.
I'm saying that a bunch of alternate subsystem rulesets for mundane, magical and semi-magical effects can over complicate a game for some groups. Incarnum, psionics, maneuvers & stances, skill tricks etc. etc. while great for adding options, do add levels of complexity and more rules for people to learn and remember. Sometimes this is good and desirable, other times not. Some groups prefer Castles and Crusades or True 20 to D&D 3.X for this sort of reason.

Whoa, I completely and utterly disagree with this guy.
Fair enough - I can see that his views are not everyones cup of tea. :smallsmile:

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-20, 11:27 PM
I think it's narratively weird to combine more than one magic system in a setting.

I think it's weirder that 2 fluff-divergent magic systems were introduced in the PHB.

Frosty
2010-08-20, 11:28 PM
I'm saying that a bunch of alternate subsystem rulesets for mundane, magical and semi-magical effects can over complicate a game for some groups. Incarnum, psionics, maneuvers & stances, skill tricks etc. etc. while great for adding options, do add levels of complexity and more rules for people to learn and remember
So would you say that you like the direction 4th edition took? It basically uses *one* system for all the different powers and effects. Very simple to learn compared to 3.5

DragoonWraith
2010-08-20, 11:33 PM
I'm saying that a bunch of alternate subsystem rulesets for mundane, magical and semi-magical effects can over complicate a game for some groups. Incarnum, psionics, maneuvers & stances, skill tricks etc. etc. while great for adding options, do add levels of complexity and more rules for people to learn and remember. Sometimes this is good and desirable, other times not. Some groups prefer Castles and Crusades or True 20 to D&D 3.X for this sort of reason.
OK, I misunderstood you - I thought you meant something else. That I can understand, not everyone has time to learn every system, and when the someone in question is the DM, well, yeah.

At the same time - most of the named mechanics (barring the obvious in the form of Incarnum) are very easy to learn for anyone already familiar with how spells work.

Thurbane
2010-08-20, 11:40 PM
So would you say that you like the direction 4th edition took? It basically uses *one* system for all the different powers and effects. Very simple to learn compared to 3.5
I can certainly see where that would appeal to some styles of game, yes. For my personal taste, it went too far in that direction, and took away too much in the way of choices and tools for character customization. Disclaimer: I'm not really all that familiar with 4E, other than flipping through the PHB when it came out, and two short adventures on Game Day.

I like a balance in between - I'm not advocating everyone should hop over to 4E or Castles & Crusades because simple/less choices = better. I'm just saying that the style of game I enjoy doesn't happen to include every single splat and subsystem introduced in 3.X.

I think it's narratively weird to combine more than one magic system in a setting.

I think it's weirder that 2 fluff-divergent magic systems were introduced in the PHB.
I can agree with this to an extent. To me, a game world that has every magic/pseudo-magic subsystem side by side seems to lack a certain amount of cohesion. Binders, warlocks, arcane casters, divine casters, psionicists, truenamers, mystery users, icarnum wielders...

(Again I feel I need to point out, this isn't a critique on games that use all of these systems, simply my personal preference for games I play in. I'm not saying anything is "badwrongfun". simply stating my personal preferences).

I guess I find it easier to accept the two basic systems (arcane and divine) since I cut my teeth on AD&D, and this was the accepted norm when I started playing - hence, it's what I'm used to.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-08-20, 11:47 PM
I think it's narratively weird to combine more than one magic system in a setting.

I think it's weirder that 2 fluff-divergent magic systems were introduced in the PHB.

Fluff is mutable. It matters not if one sorcerer is charismatic, charming, and able to sway people through sheer force of personality while another is methodical and reconstructs reality with his mind. Although one sheet may actually have "sorcerer" on it and the other "psion," both are thematically people with magic in the blood, raw, and untrained.

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-20, 11:55 PM
Fluff is mutable.
To a certain school of thought.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-08-21, 12:24 AM
To a certain school of thought.

If we're talking 3.5, then that school of thought is in the books themselves. Just look to any prestige class with an adaptation section or the PHB itself on how Ember calls "Move silently" "Rice patty walk" and Lidda calls it "Foot-paddin.'"

Drolyt
2010-08-21, 01:49 AM
Yes fluff is mutable. Saying that whenever someone doesn't like the fluff is committing the Oberoni fallacy. Fluff is tied to mechanics. The more it is tied to mechanics the harder it is to change. As an example, Warlocks and Sorcerers are so loosely connected to their mechanics that changing the fluff is pretty easy. At most you might need to change what spells/invocations are available. Slightly harder are Wizards and Psions. Wizards because of their Vancian casting is fluff in and of itself and Psions because most of their powers scream psychic. Near the end are Clerics, ToB, Incarnum, etc. The abilities of these classes start making less sense if you change their fluff. To change the fluff you end up having to change the game, which is a pain in the ass.

On mixing different systems, I think we need to get back to the fact that, if I understood WotC's intent, splat books in 3e were all optional (it seems to be different in 4e). That is, you were never supposed to use all the options in the same game. Rather, you could if you wanted to, but that is supposed to be a choice depending on the needs of the group and the type of game you want to play. That's not what happened though, a lot of people treat every splat book as if it were core. This doesn't necessarily hurt your game, but it can.

Ozymandias9
2010-08-21, 03:54 AM
If we're talking 3.5, then that school of thought is in the books themselves. Just look to any prestige class with an adaptation section or the PHB itself on how Ember calls "Move silently" "Rice patty walk" and Lidda calls it "Foot-paddin.'"

To some extent, yes, adaptation implies a change to fluff. Consider, however, two fluff elements for Divine Prankster:
1) Divine Pranksters are Gnomes devoted to Garl Glittergold
and
2) Divine Pranksters are people with divine magical power who value trickery and/or humor

These elements exist a two different levels of abstraction from the mechanics. Changing 1 merely alters what races and gods value trickery and humor in the setting. Changing 2 fundamentally alters the theme that the class was mechanically built to represent.
I think you will find many people more willing to do the former than the later.


This still leaves a huge amount of room for adaptation, particularly in Tome of Battle. It's fundamentally a good solution for a problem that's fairly regular in 3.5 play. There are, however, specific tables where I avoid it.

First, if the system mastery level of the table is such that the melee imbalance isn't noticeable, I generally avoid it under the premise that if something isn't broken you don't need to add a new rule set to fix it.

Second, there are a few tables I play at were system mastery is fairly high, but the balance point we aim for is mid to lower tier 4. Once you understand the mechanics, Tome of Battle classes balance fairly out of the box at tier 3 (at least for combat). Essentially, for these tables, the ideal solution isn't trying to bring melee closer to casters, but to bring casters closer to melee. Thus Tome of Battle runs counter to the balance goals of the group.

Greenish
2010-08-21, 05:05 AM
IMHO, what's not in a campaign is as important as what is. It's like a if a sci-fi movie suddenly has ninjas, pirates, zombies and monsters thrown into the mix...the plot and feel start to lose cohesion.As a side point, space pirates are a long time stable of the genre, many many secrets OPs are ninjas in all but name (or in the name too) and monsters are aliens.

Though yeah, space zombies are a somewhat rarer thing altogether.


Oh, and clerics, ToB and Incarnum aren't any more tied to their fluff than warlocks or sorcerers, but that'll be how deep I'll go on this topic.

Ranielle
2010-08-21, 07:40 AM
{Scrubbed}

Prime32
2010-08-21, 07:55 AM
{Scrubbed}Because things like "wait for the right moment, then hit his weak point" or "make sweeping blows which make it hard to defend yourself" are so anime. :smallconfused:

Need I point back to the western examples of "sword that kills an entire army and destroys three mountains in one swing"? Because its wielder could punch people so hard they caught fire. That guy was one of the bases for the barbarian class.

true_shinken
2010-08-21, 08:23 AM
Because things like "wait for the right moment, then hit his weak point" or "make sweeping blows which make it hard to defend yourself" are so anime. :smallconfused:


Well, it's kinda hard to argue against FIVE SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE!
But that's not a bad thing. In fact, it's abosolutely awesome.

Greenish
2010-08-21, 08:26 AM
Well, it's kinda hard to argue against FIVE SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE!Hehe, that's more like lampshade hanging (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging) or homage.

Amphetryon
2010-08-21, 08:51 AM
Well, it's kinda hard to argue against FIVE SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE!
The only problem, to my mind, is that not using the book for that reason is akin to not using Paladins because your fantasy setting doesn't have a good analogue for France. :smallsmile:

There may be valid reasons not to include a Paladin, but that one strikes me as pretty silly. Similarly, there may be valid reasons not to include ToB, but the naming convention chosen for a couple maneuvers seems like it should be a fairly minor concern.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-21, 08:52 AM
The only problem, to my mind, is that not using the book for that reason is akin to not using Paladins because your fantasy setting doesn't have a good analogue for France. :smallsmile:

There may be valid reasons not to include a Paladin, but that one strikes me as pretty silly. Similarly, there may be valid reasons not to include ToB, but the naming convention chosen for a couple maneuvers seems like it should be a fairly minor concern.

You'll find it impressive how many people hold to canon as if it was some sort of sacred relic.

Drolyt
2010-08-21, 09:06 AM
Yeah, I find most of the naming conventions for ToB to be silly at best, but that isn't a reason to not use it, at least so long as the players don't start shouting out attack names when we play. :smallsmile:

Greenish
2010-08-21, 09:08 AM
Yeah, I find most of the naming conventions for ToB to be silly at best, but that isn't a reason to not use it, at least so long as the players don't start shouting out attack names when we play. :smallsmile:The appropriate reply is "POWER DEE EM GEE SUPER HEADSTRIKE TURBO LAUNCH ATTACK!"

Starbuck_II
2010-08-21, 09:46 AM
Slightly harder are Wizards and Psions. Wizards because of their Vancian casting is fluff in and of itself and Psions because most of their powers scream psychic. Near the end are Clerics, ToB, Incarnum, etc. The abilities of these classes start making less sense if you change their fluff. To change the fluff you end up having to change the game, which is a pain in the ass.

Not really.
Let us say I can blast people Spontaneously.
Am I a Warlock, Psion, Wilder, Warmage, Beguiler, etc?
You'd need spellcraft to know because they can all blast. Granted, when you don't die from the blast it excludes Beguiler (but he can knock you out so why didn't we Coup d'grac already?)

Unless you choose powers that screams "psychic" (hint there aren't that many unless you are telepath) no one will know.

Aotrs Commander
2010-08-21, 09:53 AM
Yeah, I find most of the naming conventions for ToB to be silly at best, but that isn't a reason to not use it, at least so long as the players don't start shouting out attack names when we play. :smallsmile:

The bad news is, if the players want to start shouting attack names, they really don't need to use ToB. Spells or powers, or at a pinch, just naming your Power Attack to +/-5 would do. Nothing says you can't refluff mundane stuff after all. I once threatened to do a striaght fighter but with ridiculously over-the-top attack-shouting pyrotechnics. By the time, you've got Power Attack, Cleave1, Great Cleave, Trip, Disarm, Bull Rush, Sunder, you've got more Named Attacks than Naruto Uzumaki has actual jutsu. And that's just CORE!



1And in practise, who doesn't have a tenancy to delightedly shout "Cleave!" whenever they get the free attack? Or is that just all of both of our groups...?

Starbuck_II
2010-08-21, 09:54 AM
I know Rogues love yelling sneak attack when they get it. And Power attack from everyone.

Drolyt
2010-08-21, 10:18 AM
Not really.
Let us say I can blast people Spontaneously.
Am I a Warlock, Psion, Wilder, Warmage, Beguiler, etc?
You'd need spellcraft to know because they can all blast. Granted, when you don't die from the blast it excludes Beguiler (but he can knock you out so why didn't we Coup d'grac already?)

Unless you choose powers that screams "psychic" (hint there aren't that many unless you are telepath) no one will know.

Let's look at it this way. Let's say the archetype I am aiming for is essentially Merlin. What classes allow this by their mechanics? Wizard and Sorcerer obviously. Although the former is designed for it, the later needs only a simple reflavoring. Psion? The mechanics work well enough, but because of the psychic flavor the powers don't fit quite right with what Merlin should be capable of, and certainly Merlin shouldn't have a psicrystal. Well, psicrystals are optional, and simply translating a few arcane spells into powers should allow you to match your desired abilities, if your DM will work with you. Same with the Warlock, you'd need to build some new Invocations. Now what about Warmages, Beguilers, and Dread Necromancers? Obviously none of this will work easily, you'd have to rebuild the entire class.

Okay, now back to ToB and Core as they apply to Martial Classes. Fighter is very general. There are some assumptions, such as Fighters don't use magic, Fighters wear heavy armor and use weapons, etc., but these can be modified somewhat with feats and multiclassing. Barbarian basically allows you to play Conan, Paladin is a fairly generic holy knight, Monk is a mystical unarmed combat specialist, and Ranger is a mixture of Aragorn and a Druid. A very large range of archetypes are allowed within this context. The problem? These classes generally aren't very competitive. The ones without spells also tend to be repetitive, using full attack after full attack. But ToB makes far more assumptions, plain and simple. Warblade is far less general than Fighter. Crusader is in many ways less general than Paladin. Swordsage has no real analogue, but you get the idea. You can represent less character archetypes with these classes than with the core classes, not because of mechanics, but because of the fluff that is built into those mechanics. Sure, if I take the time to homebrew I can adapt the Maneuver system to whatever melee archetype I desire, but that is the Oberoni Fallacy.

Greenish
2010-08-21, 10:29 AM
Let's look at it this way. Let's say the archetype I am aiming for is essentially Merlin. What classes allow this by their mechanics?Depending on depiction, Wizard, sorcerer, psion, wilder, binder, factotum, beguiler, dread necromancer, ardent, favoured soul, cleric, adept, warlock and perhaps Hexblade.

I notice you ask which classes allow this be their mechanics, then dismiss them by their flavour.


Also, you can represent way more archetypes with, say, swordsage than ever with a monk, and warblade makes many of the commonly depicted fighting styles (TWF, S'n'B) much more competent than fighter, while the "flavour of the mechanics" is exactly the same. (The only warblade maneuver that's quite frankly magical is the Lightning Throw.)

As for Crusader, even straight out of the box they can make any of the four alignment variant paladins, as well as a more generic holy warrior, as well as a knight in shining armour.

[Edit]: I'm not sure what you mean with "having to rebuild the whole class", but it seems you've gotten to your head that a "real Merlin" must have Arcane spells X, Y and Z, and nothing else qualifies.

Prime32
2010-08-21, 10:30 AM
Warblade is far less general than Fighter. Crusader is in many ways less general than Paladin. Swordsage has no real analogue, but you get the idea. You can represent less character archetypes with these classes than with the core classes, not because of mechanics, but because of the fluff that is built into those mechanics. Sure, if I take the time to homebrew I can adapt the Maneuver system to whatever melee archetype I desire, but that is the Oberoni Fallacy.I find crusader general enough to represent both paladin and barbarian archetypes. Likewise, a warblade can be a brute or a swashuckler.

Caphi
2010-08-21, 10:31 AM
Warblade is more restrictive than fighter? A single fighter might be good at two things at the end of his entire career. A single warblade can do anything represented by Iron Heart, Diamond Mind, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw, and White Raven for his opening act.

Aotrs Commander
2010-08-21, 10:32 AM
Barbarian basically allows you to play Conan, Paladin is a fairly generic holy knight, Monk is a mystical unarmed combat specialist, and Ranger is a mixture of Aragorn and a Druid. A very large range of archetypes are allowed within this context. The problem? These classes generally aren't very competitive. The ones without spells also tend to be repetitive, using full attack after full attack. But ToB makes far more assumptions, plain and simple. Warblade is far less general than Fighter. Crusader is in many ways less general than Paladin. Swordsage has no real analogue, but you get the idea. You can represent less character archetypes with these classes than with the core classes, not because of mechanics, but because of the fluff that is built into those mechanics. Sure, if I take the time to homebrew I can adapt the Maneuver system to whatever melee archetype I desire, but that is the Oberoni Fallacy.

Actually, while I agree with you to some extent, I don't think the ToB classes are worse than barbarian, paladin, monk or ranger in that regard. Fighter and Rogue are, granted very much more flexible.

And I'd certainly say that crusader is more flexible than Paladin. (In fact, I'm hard pressed to figure out what it is about crusader you think is less general than paladin, which the possible exception of it not lending itself well to ranged combat; not that paladins are really any better at that).

I'll grant you, Warblade is fairly set in the melee roll, but Rangers are also fairly set in either archery or two-weapon fighting.

Greenish
2010-08-21, 10:33 AM
Warblade is more restrictive than fighter? A single fighter might be good at two things at the end of hsi entire career. A single warblade can do anything represented by Iron Heart, Diamond Mind, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw, and White Raven for his opening act.No, no, you don't get it. The Mysterious "Flavour of Mechanics" makes having more options and viable ways to build a character more restrictive!

true_shinken
2010-08-21, 10:37 AM
The only problem, to my mind, is that not using the book for that reason is akin to not using Paladins because your fantasy setting doesn't have a good analogue for France. :smallsmile:

I disagree. It's a matter of taste. If you like the thought of anime-style (or superhero-style, even - you could easily stat out Iron Fist like a multiclass martial adept, same goes for Daredevil) combate maneuvers, you will enjoy ToB. Some people don't. They like to full-attack every round for some damage because they think that's how it's supposed to work, that's how their fantasy heroes do it on novels and movies and such (sure, I could point out Ryld's trance-state in War of the Spider Queen as very akin to animesque 'power-ups' or Valas teleportation in the same series... or I could start talking about Spellfire... but those are exceptions, not the rule).
No one really cares if Paladins have anything to do with Charlemagne, really. Well, a few people might, but I never met one, not even in the internet. But there is A LOT of anti-anime feeling going on. Yes, I think it's silly, specially since I myself am really fond of anime/manga (I'm always trying to get the higher ups in college to add a 'history of manga' optional class, since it even helps the understanding of japanese culture). But it happens. It's how people feel and there is no way around that. And ToB does add an animesque feel to D&D - if only because it adds cool stuff that the non-casters may do, which is very uncommon in the usual fantasy novels D&D embodies. When non-casters do cool things in books and movies, it is usually by virtue of skill checks, rule of cool and the like. It's not like full-attacking every round can't be interesting - depends on your DM, even. Even Five Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike might be described simply as 'You hit. He dies.' while the gimped TWF fighter full-attack might be 'You swing your long sword from left to right towards the monster's face, but the blade fails to penetrate the dragon's tough as steel scale. You then thrust with your short sword, hitting a soft spot in the corner of it's eye. The beast screams and spreads it's jaw, and you quickly redouble your efforts, slashing with your longsword and thrusting with your short sword, hitting the creature's tongue and staining your blades with his foul blood'.

TL;DR: It's a matter of taste. People play what they like.

Starbuck_II
2010-08-21, 10:42 AM
Let's look at it this way. Let's say the archetype I am aiming for is essentially Merlin. What classes allow this by their mechanics? Wizard and Sorcerer obviously. Although the former is designed for it, the later needs only a simple reflavoring. Psion? The mechanics work well enough, but because of the psychic flavor the powers don't fit quite right with what Merlin should be capable of, and certainly Merlin shouldn't have a psicrystal. Well, psicrystals are optional, and simply translating a few arcane spells into powers should allow you to match your desired abilities, if your DM will work with you.


No, you're on. What did Merlin do?
1) Shapechanging
2) prophecy and foresight (wait, aren't those psychic abilities...)
3) magical powers

Now, what makes a Psiomn unable to do any of these? Nothing...correct. He could have been a Psion.
He never had to prepares spells from a book...

Prime32
2010-08-21, 10:45 AM
No, you're on. What did Merlin do?
1) Shapechanging
2) prophecy and foresight (wait, aren't those psychic abilities...)
3) magical powers

Now, what makes a Psiomn unable to do any of these? Nothing...correct. He could have been a Psion.
He never had to prepares spells from a book...On another note, Gandalf was a single-class paladin. Yes, or a solar.

His magic is limited and is implied to come from a magic item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#ringofElementalCommandFire), and people feel more courageous when he's around even if they don't know he's there. He could summon a super-powerful horse to his side at any time. And he could fight very well with a bastard sword.

Terazul
2010-08-21, 10:45 AM
Let's look at it this way. Let's say the archetype I am aiming for is essentially Merlin. What classes allow this by their mechanics? Wizard and Sorcerer obviously. Although the former is designed for it, the later needs only a simple reflavoring. Psion? The mechanics work well enough, but because of the psychic flavor the powers don't fit quite right with what Merlin should be capable of, and certainly Merlin shouldn't have a psicrystal.

It is so easy to play a psion, call yourself a wizard, and have nobody notice. It is a dude who bends reality because he is so smart. The only "reflavoring" is maybe adding spell thematics to your powers, which you could do if you want to anyway? It's only an issue because you're declaring it to be one. The only mechanical issue is if you wanted to focus on say, illusions or something. Psicrystal is just a cool rock, put it in a staff and wave it around from time to time. "But but Terazul! Crystals and Ectoplasm!" Call your Crystal Shard "Chainsaw Rocket Launcher" and have it make a chainsaw in midair, and have your Entangling Ectoplasm just be vines ripping out of the ground to grapple someone or something. Honestly, nobody ever gets up in arms about vancian spell names/descriptions, why are psionics so different?
</aside>



Okay, now back to ToB and Core as they apply to Martial Classes. Fighter is very general. There are some assumptions, such as Fighters don't use magic, Fighters wear heavy armor and use weapons, etc., but these can be modified somewhat with feats and multiclassing. Barbarian basically allows you to play Conan, Paladin is a fairly generic holy knight, Monk is a mystical unarmed combat specialist, and Ranger is a mixture of Aragorn and a Druid. A very large range of archetypes are allowed within this context. The problem? These classes generally aren't very competitive. The ones without spells also tend to be repetitive, using full attack after full attack. But ToB makes far more assumptions, plain and simple. Warblade is far less general than Fighter. Crusader is in many ways less general than Paladin. Swordsage has no real analogue, but you get the idea. You can represent less character archetypes with these classes than with the core classes, not because of mechanics, but because of the fluff that is built into those mechanics. Sure, if I take the time to homebrew I can adapt the Maneuver system to whatever melee archetype I desire, but that is the Oberoni Fallacy.

I'd argue that the ToB classes are more general than the core classes. Paladins are LG Only, better be a holy warrior smiting some evil and being fearless and super charismatic. Crusader? Crusade for whatever cause you want to. Be a holy warrior! Or just be a really tough dude. Lead your troops into battle! Or just be good at hitting someone with a boulder. Fighter is basically "pick one shtick, be good at it". Warblade changes whatever weapon shtick they're good at from day to day as a class feature. Swordsage can be a roguish type, or a monkish type, or a ninja type, or a-- look this list goes on forever. I mean honestly. The fact that the 9 disciplines alone covers a bunch of different archetypes kinda destroys that argument. Stoic warriors, charismatic leaders, focused minds, sneaky striking from the shadows, strength of my enemy, tough as stone, crazy like animal, "check out how badass I am", mystical element warrior guy; Again, the list goes on.

EDIT: OH GOD SWORDSAGES EVERYWHERE

Terazul
2010-08-21, 10:51 AM
It's not like full-attacking every round can't be interesting - depends on your DM, even. Even Five Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike might be described simply as 'You hit. He dies.' while the gimped TWF fighter full-attack might be 'You swing your long sword from left to right towards the monster's face, but the blade fails to penetrate the dragon's tough as steel scale. You then thrust with your short sword, hitting a soft spot in the corner of it's eye. The beast screams and spreads it's jaw, and you quickly redouble your efforts, slashing with your longsword and thrusting with your short sword, hitting the creature's tongue and staining your blades with his foul blood'.

Fun Fact: The FSCIES guy can flavor-text too, if he wants.

Partysan
2010-08-21, 11:15 AM
Fun Fact: The FSCIES guy can flavor-text too, if he wants.

I love ToB, but lets be fair: his point was (probably) that while a Full Attack does not have an inherent flavor, FSCIES has, but while you might just go "I use FSCIES" - "He dies.", which is not that much flavorful and interesting, a good description can make the rather bland Full Attack interesting.
Which is true, though it works at least as well other way round, and more importantly, the DM describing a FA well and favorful will do so for FSCIES and that other one who won't won't for both. Though the SS at least had a choice what to do, which is the point of us ToB lovers.
Inherent flavor can be both a good and bad thing.

Another point I need to make in every ToB thread here: People talk about the maneuvers being expended breaks their suspension of disbelief: it is by far not as unrealistic as you might think. It would be if they were truly 1/encounter, but lets have a look at the Warblade's (most mundane/"realistic" ToB class) recovery: you just need to take a standard attack to reposition yourself.
That makes a lot of sense to me. You know, if you have, say, a Stone Dragon strike maneuver that adds damage, then it's probably about taking a firm, rooted stance and bringing down your weapon in a hefty blow, laying a lot of force and weight into the strike. A strike which is in almost any case donw from up to down (straight or diagonally). If you have delivered that strike you need to get your weapon up and balance your stance again before repeating it.
Maybe just saying you can't use the same maneuver twice right after another would have worked as well, but the mechanics in that case are, especially for D&D's usual reality assumptions, unusually realistic, while balanced and working.

Greenish
2010-08-21, 11:18 AM
On another note, Gandalf was a single-class paladin. Yes, or a solar.Not a solar, I should think. The only spells he casts are Light, Prestidigation and Produce Flame.

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-21, 11:24 AM
If we're talking 3.5, then that school of thought is in the books themselves. Just look to any prestige class with an adaptation section or the PHB itself on how Ember calls "Move silently" "Rice patty walk" and Lidda calls it "Foot-paddin.'"Fluff and mechanics are not unrelated.

If I define my setting's magic in the style of Jack Vance, a Psion is out of place, regardless of what I call its manifesting.

If I define my setting's magic in the style of Harry Potter, a Binder will be out of place, regardless of what I call its vestiges.

I could embrace multiple systems and their fluff implications, abandoning the internal coherence of a setting to just say "Look, in my world, a bunch of crazy **** just happens, okay?" but I think that cheapens the environment.

true_shinken
2010-08-21, 11:29 AM
I love ToB, but lets be fair: his point was (probably) that while a Full Attack does not have an inherent flavor, FSCIES has, but while you might just go "I use FSCIES" - "He dies.", which is not that much flavorful and interesting, a good description can make the rather bland Full Attack interesting.

That's my whole point, thanks. I love ToB as well. I actually asked one of my players to go into a ToB class so that I'd see the mechanics in play (for those wandering, case in question was an Assassin that became good in alignment so couldn't advance in assassin anymore, so she progressed Assassin's casting with Jade Phoenix Mage).
This is completly off-topic, but I love JPM fluff. In my game, there is a version of the Stargazers (from Defenders of the Faith) that includes them and they are deeply tied to the campaign world.
This is also competly off-topic, but that's one of the reasons I like to use pronted fluff and change just a few things. Stuff feels less uniform that way. The world is not uniform. I like to pick the fluff like pieces of a puzzle and try to make it all fit. Maybe I'm just weird.

Greenish
2010-08-21, 11:30 AM
If I define my setting's magic in the style of Harry Potter, a Binder will be out of place, regardless of what I call its vestiges.I'm not too familiar with the works of Jack Vance, but in potterverse most of the wizards use only handful of handy spells which they can pretty much spam. Teleportation (and not everyone learns that) aside, binder would describe a potterian wizard (if a rather eccentric one) pretty well.

And if you use Harry Potter style magic, "wizard" doesn't actually fit in. (What spellbook, I only need my wand and can cast any spell I've learned!) A spontaneous cleric might be closest thing, mechanically. Refluff "holy symbol" to "wand", and bam!

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-08-21, 11:31 AM
To some extent, yes, adaptation implies a change to fluff. Consider, however, two fluff elements for Divine Prankster:
1) Divine Pranksters are Gnomes devoted to Garl Glittergold
and
2) Divine Pranksters are people with divine magical power who value trickery and/or humor

These elements exist a two different levels of abstraction from the mechanics. Changing 1 merely alters what races and gods value trickery and humor in the setting. Changing 2 fundamentally alters the theme that the class was mechanically built to represent.
I think you will find many people more willing to do the former than the later.

Yes, I would agree that such a change would be jarring, yet such a change is not necessary. Similarly, you could have a barbarian mechanically who is nothing but calm and gentle. It breaks preconceptions, but it can still fit.





First, if the system mastery level of the table is such that the melee imbalance isn't noticeable, I generally avoid it under the premise that if something isn't broken you don't need to add a new rule set to fix it.

I will admit that such is a good idea. It wasn't until recently that other people don't necessarily gain the same sort of joy from toying with the crunch as I do. As such, some people and therefore gaming tables would not have a pleasant experience with Tome of Battle.

Personally, I feel it may be better to show such people the larger scope of 3.5 with everything from Tome of Battle to Complete Warrior and back again. Afterward, whether or not they use it is moot to me unless I happen to also be at their table.


Second, there are a few tables I play at were system mastery is fairly high, but the balance point we aim for is mid to lower tier 4. Once you understand the mechanics, Tome of Battle classes balance fairly out of the box at tier 3 (at least for combat). Essentially, for these tables, the ideal solution isn't trying to bring melee closer to casters, but to bring casters closer to melee. Thus Tome of Battle runs counter to the balance goals of the group.

That is also fair enough. Generally, I like to shoot for around tier 3 for versatility, but certainly for some groups who wish to lesser casters instead, Tome of Battle is not the solution. Personally, I still feel that its inclusion is a good move as it's very easy to hit T3 once all is said and done, but that's me.

Drolyt
2010-08-21, 11:31 AM
Depending on depiction, Wizard, sorcerer, psion, wilder, binder, factotum, beguiler, dread necromancer, ardent, favoured soul, cleric, adept, warlock and perhaps Hexblade.

I notice you ask which classes allow this be their mechanics, then dismiss them by their flavour.
Okay, I'm gonna be honest here. I did a look up on some of the powers Merlin was supposed to have. Admittedly my source may be off, but assuming my source was correct, no D&D class would work out of the box. Specifically, it said he could shapechange, see the future, make elemental attacks, create magical barriers, and heal. I suppose he could be a Mystic Theurge, but I digress. What are the easiest classes to use though? Wizard, Sorcerer, Psion, or Cleric. All you would have to do is change the spell list very slightly. None of the other classes work easily, although Warlock and Adept could work with greater modifications. Finally, I consider mechanics and flavor to be inseparable.

Also, you can represent way more archetypes with, say, swordsage than ever with a monk, and warblade makes many of the commonly depicted fighting styles (TWF, S'n'B) much more competent than fighter, while the "flavour of the mechanics" is exactly the same. (The only warblade maneuver that's quite frankly magical is the Lightning Throw.)
Monk is a crappy class. Sure Warblade makes some archetypes more effective, but Fighter has far more possible archetypes. I disagree on the flavor being the same, but there you go.

As for Crusader, even straight out of the box they can make any of the four alignment variant paladins, as well as a more generic holy warrior, as well as a knight in shining armour.
Aside from the alignment freedom, I see Crusader and Paladin as about equal in what archetypes they represent. They both have restrictive mechanics compared to either Fighter or Warblade that determine their role.

[Edit]: I'm not sure what you mean with "having to rebuild the whole class", but it seems you've gotten to your head that a "real Merlin" must have Arcane spells X, Y and Z, and nothing else qualifies.
I'll admit to this mistake, I should have chosen a character whose abilities are more defined as opposed to a character that is different every time they are displayed.

I find crusader general enough to represent both paladin and barbarian archetypes. Likewise, a warblade can be a brute or a swashbuckler.
Uh, I don't see how Crusader can represent Barbarian. Fighter is still more general.

Warblade is more restrictive than fighter? A single fighter might be good at two things at the end of his entire career. A single warblade can do anything represented by Iron Heart, Diamond Mind, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw, and White Raven for his opening act.
The fact that Warblade is less restrictive in combat doesn't change the fact that Fighter is less restrictive in the type of character you want to play. You guys are really missing my point here.

Actually, while I agree with you to some extent, I don't think the ToB classes are worse than barbarian, paladin, monk or ranger in that regard. Fighter and Rogue are, granted very much more flexible.
I'll give you that for the most part, but I find Paladin and Ranger at least somewhat flexible.

And I'd certainly say that crusader is more flexible than Paladin. (In fact, I'm hard pressed to figure out what it is about crusader you think is less general than paladin, which the possible exception of it not lending itself well to ranged combat; not that paladins are really any better at that).
I suppose they are about equal.

I'll grant you, Warblade is fairly set in the melee roll, but Rangers are also fairly set in either archery or two-weapon fighting.
Yeah, but Rangers still have more choice in the matter.

No, no, you don't get it. The Mysterious "Flavour of Mechanics" makes having more options and viable ways to build a character more restrictive!
Do we have to be condescending? I'll admit I might not be making my point very well, but I am at least civil about it.

No, you're on. What did Merlin do?
1) Shapechanging
2) prophecy and foresight (wait, aren't those psychic abilities...)
3) magical powers

Now, what makes a Psiomn unable to do any of these? Nothing...correct. He could have been a Psion.
He never had to prepares spells from a book...
I was under the impression Psions couldn't shapeshift. In fact, I'm still under that impression. If I'm wrong, then yes Psion would work. Otherwise all you need to do is add a power or three to the Psion list.

It is so easy to play a psion, call yourself a wizard, and have nobody notice. It is a dude who bends reality because he is so smart. The only "reflavoring" is maybe adding spell thematics to your powers, which you could do if you want to anyway? It's only an issue because you're declaring it to be one. The only mechanical issue is if you wanted to focus on say, illusions or something. Psicrystal is just a cool rock, put it in a staff and wave it around from time to time. "But but Terazul! Crystals and Ectoplasm!" Call your Crystal Shard "Chainsaw Rocket Launcher" and have it make a chainsaw in midair, and have your Entangling Ectoplasm just be vines ripping out of the ground to grapple someone or something. Honestly, nobody ever gets up in arms about vancian spell names/descriptions, why are psionics so different?
Thing is, I agree with this.

I'd argue that the ToB classes are more general than the core classes. Paladins are LG Only, better be a holy warrior smiting some evil and being fearless and super charismatic. Crusader? Crusade for whatever cause you want to. Be a holy warrior! Or just be a really tough dude. Lead your troops into battle! Or just be good at hitting someone with a boulder. Fighter is basically "pick one shtick, be good at it". Warblade changes whatever weapon shtick they're good at from day to day as a class feature. Swordsage can be a roguish type, or a monkish type, or a ninja type, or a-- look this list goes on forever. I mean honestly. The fact that the 9 disciplines alone covers a bunch of different archetypes kinda destroys that argument. Stoic warriors, charismatic leaders, focused minds, sneaky striking from the shadows, strength of my enemy, tough as stone, crazy like animal, "check out how badass I am", mystical element warrior guy; Again, the list goes on.
I will argue the core classes are more general. You seem to disagree. Good for you.

Terazul
2010-08-21, 11:34 AM
This is also competly off-topic, but that's one of the reasons I like to use pronted fluff and change just a few things. Stuff feels less uniform that way. The world is not uniform. I like to pick the fluff like pieces of a puzzle and try to make it all fit. Maybe I'm just weird.
Not as weird as you'd think. S'probably why I'm confused all the time at people upset by fluff. I kinda assume that's what everyone does naturally. Because y'know, it makes sense.

The-Mage-King
2010-08-21, 11:35 AM
Not as weird as you'd think. S'probably why I'm confused all the time at people upset by fluff. I kinda assume that's what everyone does naturally. Because y'know, it makes sense.

Same here.