[3.5] Tome of Battle: Why some hate?

[Godless_Paladin]

Okay, let's say that yes, a Crusader rocks the level 1 house. However, while quite resilient and effective in the damage department to boot, they still aren't potent enough that any of my players (and yes, that includes wizards, etc) ever felt at all overshadowed by one, though. Completely different in the position of Fighter v. Wizard at mid-levels. Likewise, I would argue that it is a better thing indeed to have a player be a bit too good at their specialization in a given level range than to be useless and boring.

Quite simply, if you're playing a game where people play ToB classes instead of "Fighter," then the other guys on the table are going to be playing either A) Something that fills other roles that the ToB guy doesn't cover (spellcasters have all kinds of utility, battlefield control, etc, Rogues have various skills, etc) or B) Something like a Duskblade that is just as front loaded in the damage department.

It's never been a problem. I've played a lot of games in my time with a lot of different groups, both good and bad, with lots of examples of Tome of Battle characters, and yet I've never seen a Tome of Battle player steal the show at any level. Really good at low levels? Yes. Stealing the show? Not so much. The other player's roles remained crucial to the overall success of the party.

The only exception would be players feeling overshadowed by everyone of every class (including examples with Fighters and Monks) just because they couldn't figure out how to play. Heck, one of the most memorable examples for me was an artificer who, despite being given optimizing advice from CharOppers, couldn't seem to get anything done just because he couldn't really figure out the advice he was given for some reason (like "Why are you buying potions? You're a freakin' artificer"). And that kinda thing really has no place in a balance discussion. The difference between capable players and incompetent ones will always exist.


1) The basic classes from ToB can (and probably will) overshadow their counterparts from PhB.

That's called "Rebalancing," and it's a pro, not a con. The classes they overshadow were garbage and easily overshadowed at their own roles already.


2) It basicaly gives magic for the guys that don't have it. So it is not a very elegant way of solving balance problems. The ToB classes that get Supernatural abilities, the Swordsage and Crusader, are designed to replace classes that get Supernatural abilities, like the Monk and Paladin. Pretty straightforward.


4) Basicaly removes the easiest-to-build class, the fighter.
:smallconfused:

Really? Fighter? Easiest to build? Building a Fighter is pretty stressful. By contrast, as a WIZARD, which is obviously one of the more complex classes, can just decide as he levels up that "hey, I want this new totally level appropriate power and I'll just take it." A Fighter has to plan out his feat trees and such in advance, among other things that make building a Fighter a royal pain in the arse.


3) It does not solve balance problems (the high level Warblade will be beaten by the high level wizard) Balance doesn't have to be perfect. It's good enough to be better.


5) A few manouvers can be tricky. With this I mean bugged and abusable for loopholes. They are *few*.

And a paladin can call Pazuzu at level 1 to achieve infinite power. What's your point?

If it's bugged, you ignore it or fix it, just like you do for every other class. And it's not like messed up ToB maneuvers are even half as common as messed up spells. I mean there's, what, Iron Heart Surge? And I get rid of White Raven Tactics too (but I get rid of action economy breakers in general, like Belt of Battle and Celerity). What else? That's a shorter list than the messed up shenanigans in core only.

[Fawsto]

Oh sorry, I did not express myself well.

I am totally with ToB. I think it is an amazing book with awsome rules. What I meant is that those were the most common arguments I have heard until now.

I quite do not agree with them. I forgot to write that at the end. :smallredface:

[Thurbane]

That's called "Rebalancing," and it's a pro, not a con. The classes they overshadow were garbage and easily overshadowed at their own roles already.
That's a matter of opinion. Some of us were (are) perfectly happy with the core classes in our games. Not all of us play in ultimate op-fu games where you have to eek out every last erg from your characters mechanically to be viable...:smalltongue:

Also, some of us (myself anyway) don't like the methodology of "fixing" existing character classes by completely replacing them with suped-up analogs in a splat book, late in the run of the edition. If the core melee classes so desperately needed fixing, I would rather have seen it done as errata. If the core meleers are so broken as to be unusable, then expecting people to go out and buy a splat to fix the situation doesn't seem like a good fix to me. Of course, this is purely my opinion.

[Amphetryon]

It's a pretty good fix from a bottom line, accounting POV. Errata made available online doesn't line anyone's pockets.

[The Glyphstone]

It's a pretty good fix from a bottom line, accounting POV. Errata made available online doesn't line anyone's pockets.

Which makes the irony almost meta that ToB, sometimes seen as "errata for core melee", in itself didn't get a true errata.

[Master Thrower]

Atleast in my group we saw it as the ToB basically made it so if the core melee classes were more or less useless when compared to the others. Why build a fighter when you can be a warblade. Or another slightly different example is the master thrower, and the bloodstorm blade. why ever build a master thrower who either has to buy alot of s**** weapons or get an expensive one with the returning ability, when you can just be a bloodstorm blade and suddenly all of your weapons get it. and you can switch what weapon you have weapon focus/spec.

[true_shinken]

Even if everything you do in-world is the same, they'll still reject that you can actually be a Paladin because you didn't use the Paladin core class. It doesn't say Paladin on the sheet, so it's not the right "flavor." Except that the name of a class isn't in-game flavor, it's just the title of a metagame construct. If it does all the same things in the game world, it's a paladin. And yet these people go around claiming to have the moral high ground on basis of defending flavor when what they're really doing is metagaming.


You killed your argument because of your example. Fighter? Yeah, that could be a metagame construct. Holy warrior? That could be a metagame construct - a Crusader, an Exalted Fighter, a Cleric, a Ranger... any of them could be a holy warrior.
A paladin? Only a Paladin can be a paladin. This is likely the only class that actually has in-game repercussions only by itself - the only one that is not a metagame construct at all - restricting my point to Core here. The holy avenger sword, for example, is keyed to your paladin level. If a crusader picks it up, it does not gain extra special powers. A paladin, and only a paladin, can use it's true potential. You don't see characters treating his paladin abilities as just some power-ups; you have a code you need to follow, people see you as a beacon of righteousness and so on so forth. Paladins are very integrated in standard D&D fluff. If you want to get rid of it and treat this class as metagame constructs, you will have a pretty different gaming experience - or good luck explaining how your Crusader paladin can't detect evil, use a holy avenger or does not need to follow a code of conduct without stretching verossimilitude.


Atleast in my group we saw it as the ToB basically made it so if the core melee classes were more or less useless when compared to the others.
The PHB is lot better at doing that. Compare Druid x Monk.


Why build a fighter when you can be a warblade.
Fighter does lockdown a lot better. Also, Battle Jump optimization and fear stacking are easier on a Fighter.
That's three reasons for you.


Or another slightly different example is the master thrower, and the bloodstorm blade. why ever build a master thrower who either has to buy alot of s**** weapons or get an expensive one with the returning ability, when you can just be a bloodstorm blade and suddenly all of your weapons get it. and you can switch what weapon you have weapon focus/spec.
There is a magic item that gets throwing/returning for all your weapons. It costs only 10k gold.
Master Thrower actually gets a lot of abilities simply better than anything Bloodstorm Blade has to offer, like Double Tap.

[Godless_Paladin]

That's a matter of opinion. Some of us were (are) perfectly happy with the core classes in our games. Not all of us play in ultimate op-fu games where you have to eek out every last erg from your characters mechanically to be viable...:smalltongue: You don't have to eke out every last erg. If you did that it would be something on the CharOp campaign smasher list and no one actually plays any of those in real games ever.

It's just realizing that if a beholder doesn't feel like floating into melee range it just doesn't. It's the difference between having a player who can be creative when handed Silent Spell instead of having a player that can't figure out how to do anything more useful with an artificer than buy cure critical potions and can't ever remember to buy components for his infusions and such.

This idea that there's only a difference between the Fighter and Wizard at extreme levels of optimization just isn't true.


late in the run of the edition.

I would rather have seen it done as errata. You're complaining about the way WotC does business, not about the merits of a game design construct.


Only a Paladin can be a paladin. This is likely the only class that actually has in-game repercussions only by itself - the only one that is not a metagame construct at all - restricting my point to Core here. The holy avenger sword, for example, is keyed to your paladin level. If a crusader picks it up, it does not gain extra special powers. A paladin, and only a paladin, can use it's true potential. You don't see characters treating his paladin abilities as just some power-ups; you have a code you need to follow, people see you as a beacon of righteousness and so on so forth. Paladins are very integrated in standard D&D fluff. If you want to get rid of it and treat this class as metagame constructs, you will have a pretty different gaming experience - or good luck explaining how your Crusader paladin can't detect evil, use a holy avenger or does not need to follow a code of conduct without stretching verossimilitude. Okay, so... your argument is that they're not really a beacon of righteousness if they don't have Paladin on their sheet or own the specific Holy Avenger item that gains the ever so flavorful "+ to damage" on them (other classes have similar "unlocked potential" items that give them more damage based on a specific class. Heck, even the Bard's got one too). Or if they never actually Fall because either they don't roleplay in such a way that they'd Fall anyways, or if you do something else to represent the change in powers.

Funny, no one seems to have any trouble treating me as a beacon of righteousness if I don't have Paladin on my sheet. I also have no problem gaining access to the Holy Sword ability. Maybe they're just bad roleplayers for thinking that a holy warrior isn't defined by metagaming rather than what I actually do in the game world. Or that you can't be a Paladin if you don't own the specific item Holy Avenger from the DMG.

I've even seen characters fall, lose their powers, and become a "blackguard," all while not actually using the Paladin or Blackguard classes to represent it. But according to you, that's impossible and it never happened. The problem with your argument is that it did. You can represent falling without being a Paladin. You can roleplay following a code without putting Paladin on your sheet. You can get a special sword that only you can unlock the true power of. You can roleplay as being a beacon of divine righteousness. And you can do all of this without ever putting the core Paladin on your sheet. That is pure metagaming bias on your part.

I can actually count lots of cool paladinly things that I can't do with the Paladin class, but that I can do without it. The reverse does not apply. I can smite evil, detect evil at will, deal damage with a sword, wield a special sword, have a special mount, wear heavy armor, inspire courage in my allies, become immune to fear, fall and change my power set completely, and yes, even roleplay following a code, all while not ever taking a single level of Core Paladin. And it's easy, too. Heck, you can even get access to the entire Paladin spell list through various means (the most straightforward of which just being a 1 level dip in Prestige Paladin), if you think having stuff like "Rhino Rush" (as opposed to some other spell that boosts charge damage) is essential to being considered a pinnacle of holy good.


you have a code you need to follow
See, I have no problem roleplaying a character who follows a code. As a member of any class. Ever.


You don't see characters treating his paladin abilities as just some power-ups I don't see people treating the abilities of other divine warriors as mere power ups in my games either. Again, you're assuming that someone needs to roleplay differently just because they have a different title at the top of their character sheet. You will unlock so much potential in your roleplaying experience if you just realize that you don't have to stay in that little box of preconceived notions. :smallsmile:

[Thurbane]

You're complaining about the way WotC does business, not about the merits of a game design construct.
No - in actual fact, I'm not complaining about anything. I'm saying if this fix was desperately needed (which, IMHO, it wasn't - as noted above), I would rather have seen it done as errata than a whole new book.

If a video game came out with a bug that made it unplayable, would you expect to have to buy an add-on pack years after the initial game release, or would you like to see it addressed as a patch? :smallamused:

Anyway, this is all academic. I've stated my case. Perhaps I shouldn't have posted in this thread, as I do not actually "hate" ToB in the first place. :smalltongue:

[true_shinken]

So... your argument is that they're not really a beacon of righteousness if they don't have Paladin on their sheet
No, that's not my argument. My argument is that paladin levels have direct in-game effect and heavy fluff impact.
I didn't even mention the aura; a Crusader doesn't have one, so he pings lower in the detect good spell than a Paladin, for example.

or own a Holy Avenger item that gains *a plus to damage, so flavorful* on them (other classes have similar "unlocked potential" items that give them more damage based on a specific class. Heck, even the Bard's got one too).
The holy avenger deals more damage, also dispels magic and grants spell resistance. A magic item fulled by your virtue, powerful enough to unweave magic itself? I'd call that pretty flavorful, thank you.

Or if they never actually Fall since they don't roleplay in such a way that they'd Fall anyways (nevermind that that's a plot event, and you can just as easily do it yourself. It's certainly not an everyday gameplay thing and there's nothing stopping you from just tacking it on to any class with no further consideration at all).
You are the one talking about falling, not me. A code is not about breaking it.


Funny, no one seems to have any trouble treating me as a beacon of righteousness if I don't have Paladin on my sheet.
I guess no one casts detect good on your game.

I also have no problem gaining access to the Holy Sword ability.
That's a lot less than a Holy Avenger.


Maybe they're just bad roleplayers for thinking that a holy warrior isn't defined by metagaming rather than what I actually do in the game world. Or that you can't be a Paladin if you don't own the specific item Holy Avenger from the DMG.
That's my point. As I said, holy warrior is a perfect metagame concept. Paladin is not. It has repercussions in the rules and if you handwave them away, you end up with inconsistencies.
If your Crusader is a paladin, why do you ping lower than the other guy (also a paladin, but a Paladin) when someone casts detect evil? Why can't you use a holy avenger to it's full potential? Could it be you are a lesser kind of holy warrior, more down to earth, less connected to the gods? Oh, wait - that's exactly how the rules already work!
If you don't care with in-game verossimilitude, you can refluff anything any way you want. But you end up with 'crappy items that look like garbage but are actually powerful magical items, that are not magical, but they work like they are' and 'my spells are actually different ways I swing my sword - there is no fire, no disintegration, it's just my blade'. Both are actual examples of refluffing I saw suggested in this very forum.


See, I have no problem roleplaying a character who follows a code. As a member of any class. Ever.
So what? You want a medal for that?


I don't see people treating the abilities of other divine warriors as mere power ups in my games either.
If you see classes as metagame concepts, that's exactly what all abilities are - power-ups.


Anyway, this is all academic. I've stated my case. Perhaps I shouldn't have posted in this thread, as I do not actually "hate" ToB in the first place. :smalltongue:
Dude, if there is s a level-headed person in this forum, it is you. You rock.

[Godless_Paladin]

I didn't even mention the aura; a Crusader doesn't have one, so he pings lower in the detect good spell than a Paladin, for example. A Cleric paladin build does, though. Which is, IIRC, what I suggested as having already replaced the Paladin long before you ever even consider ToB.


The holy avenger deals more damage, also dispels magic and grants spell resistance. Can get those effects from other things. :smallsmile:


A magic item fulled by your virtue, powerful enough to unweave magic itself? I'd call that pretty flavorful, thank you. Yeah, but here's the secret. You can write that as the flavor for anything that grants those effects. Seriously. Just like you can say Disintegrate fires a red ray, not a green ray. Try it. :smallsmile:


You are the one talking about falling, not me. A code is not about breaking it. Then... your argument is that someone can't roleplay following a code unless they have Paladin on their sheet. Which is patently not true. In fact, people can roleplay that in freeform games without any rules at all! :smallsmile:


I guess no one casts detect good on your game. Of course they do. And I have the Paladin good aura. Without being a Paladin. Because I'm a Cleric.


If your Crusader is a paladin, why do you ping lower than the other guy (also a paladin, but a Paladin) I never gave Crusader as an example. I use Cleric w/ certain PrCs for my replacement paladin. She gets the aura. She gets something like +18/20 BAB (Ordained Champion, Divine Abjurant Champion, Prestige Paladin, any number of examples). She gets smite (OC, PP, Cleric itself, etc). She gets the paladin spell list (PP 1). She gets detect evil at will (CI 1). She follows a stringent and restrictive moral code. The only real difference from playing the actual Paladin class is that she actually has more paladin powers than an actual Paladin. If anything at all, my character is seen as more of a beacon of divine righteousness than if she were actually using the Core Paladin.

The only reason anyone would recognize it as a "not paladin" would be... if they were metagaming.


But you end up with 'crappy items that look like garbage but are actually powerful magical items, that are not magical, but they work like they are' and 'my spells are actually different ways I swing my sword - there is no fire, no disintegration, it's just my blade'. Both are actual examples of refluffing I saw suggested in this very forum. It'd be nice if you could actually quote them, because the examples I remember giving didn't go like that.

The way I remember it, I gave an example that you were free to describe a disintegrate ray (normally described as being the color green in the PHB) as being a red ray instead and the world wouldn't collapse on you. Nothing about "disintegrate is actually caused by your sword." And then you started telling me how this means I don't care about verisimilitude. Because I changed the color of my disintegrate ray in my description from green to red.

Do you really do that with your players? I mean seriously, would you kick them out of your game if they described a disintegrate ray as being red instead of green for being terrible roleplayers? :smalleek:


If you see classes as metagame concepts, that's exactly what all abilities are - power-ups. Stormwind Fallacy much? I certainly don't see abilities as mere power-ups.

In point of fact, Classes ARE metagame concepts. Seriously, they're a pile of mechanics and rules. That is literally what they are. They are in every sense a pile of mechanics. Mechanics impact fluff, but that's a distinct subject. But the fact that you got the Detect Evil at will ability from class source X or class source Y doesn't matter to anyone in the game world (unless they're all metagaming). What matters is that they have Detect Evil at will. People aren't necessarily called a Rogue in character because they have Rogue on their character sheet, nor is Miko prevented from being a Samurai in that DM's game just because she doesn't have Samurai on her sheet.

The in-game flavor is how you roleplay your character, how the environment is described, and the effects your abilities have on the world in game. You aren't called a samurai in the in-game world because you wrote Samurai on your sheet. You're called a samurai because of what you actually do in the game world.

[Morithias]

Last session this quote came up.

"Use mechanics to inspire fluff, never use fluff to force mechanics. A creature with natural armor can be said to have natural armor, saying that your human fighter has tough skin from burns doesn't give him natural armor. A knight is a man-at-arm, not all men-at-arms are knights. Fluff can inspire mechanics, but fluff should never be used as a basis for a rule lawyer, because fluff by definition is part of the literature part of the story, not part of the math part."

[Godless_Paladin]

Last session this quote came up.

"Use mechanics to inspire fluff, never use fluff to force mechanics. A creature with natural armor can be said to have natural armor, saying that your human fighter has tough skin from burns doesn't give him natural armor. A Knight is a man-at-arm, not all men-at-arms are Knights. Fluff can inspire mechanics, but fluff should never be used as a basis for a rule lawyer, because fluff by definition is part of the literature part of the story, not part of the math part."

Sound advice.

[true_shinken]

A Cleric paladin build does, though. Which is, IIRC, what I suggested as having already replaced the Paladin long before you ever even consider ToB.
Well, this is a ToB thread after all.



Yeah, but here's the secret. You can write that as the flavor for anything that grants those effects. Seriously. Just like you can say Disintegrate fires a red ray, not a green ray. Try it. :smallsmile:
Unlike the ray's color, you are now divorcing rules from fluff. Some rules are actually integrated with the fluff and that is a good thing - or at least that's how I think. If you want to divorce fluff from crunch, be my guest. I just don't like it and it requires more work than simply using stuff as written.


Then... your argument is that someone can't roleplay following a code unless they have Paladin on their sheet. Which is patently not true. In fact, people can roleplay that in freeform games without any rules at all! :smallsmile:
No, what I'm saying is that you don't need to follow a code. That is all. Don't put words in my mouth.


I never gave Crusader as an example.
Like I said earlier, this is a ToB thread, so you can't blame me for assuming it.


I use Cleric w/ certain PrCs for my replacement paladin. It gets the aura. It gets something like +18 BAB. It gets smite. It gets the paladin spell list. It gets detect evil at will (Church Inquisitor 1). Following a code is roleplaying. The main difference is that I can do everything the Paladin can do and then I can do more. It's Paladin+
So it's like paladin, except it it takes more work to do it?
And that never struck you as needlesly complicated? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html)


Yeesh, I don't even have a holy avenger until level 18 or so, if they exist in the campaign world at all in a game where everyone replaced Paladins with Clerics. You seem really stuck up on this one magic item. You're really going to hang on to that as the reason everything I ever said is invalid?
I'm not saying that. Holy avenger is just a pretty iconic D&D item. It's available a lot sooner than level 18 btw.
If you are in a game where there is no Paladin class, of course the whole argument is moot. I'm just saying that if there are Paladins with levels in paladin and paladins without levels in Paladin, there will be inconsistencies. That is all.


Really? It'd be nice if you could actually quote them, because the examples I remember giving didn't go like that.
It might surprise you, but there are other posters here. I wasn't talking about examples you gave. Use the search function and you might find what I am referring to.


The way I remember it, I gave an example that you were free to describe a disintegrate ray (normally described as being the color green in the PHB) as being a red ray instead and the world wouldn't collapse on you. And then you started telling me how this means I don't care about verisimilitude.
No, I didn't. I said some examples of refluffing, like those I mentioned, stretch verossimilitude.


Stormwind Fallacy much?
It has nothing to do with that. We're not even talking about optimization.


In point of fact, Classes ARE metagame concepts. Seriously, they're a pile of mechanics.
Care to explain to me why there are guidelines in every class on 'how they fit the world', 'what they think about other classes' and even flavor text before the mechanics, then?


That is literally what they are. They are in every since a pile of mechanics. Mechanics impact fluff, but that's a distinct thing. But the fact that you got the Detect Evil at will ability from source X or source Y doesn't matter to anyone in your game world. What matters is that they have Detect Evil at will. People aren't necessarily called a Rogue in character because they have Rogue on their character sheet, nor is Miko prevented from being a Samurai in that DM's game just because she doesn't have Samurai on her sheet.
That's a completly different thing. Samurai is a social class. You usually can't tell when Rogues are Rogues, after all.
But you see plenty of mentions of class names in D&D novels, for example. You see people saying 'oh, the paladins did this and that' and 'be careful, she is a sorcerer' or 'oh, don't worry, he is a wizard, he probably didn't prepare that specific spell today'. One very good example is a bard character from War of the Spider Queen - she suddenly became important because during Lolth's science, only bards could heal.


The in-game flavor is how you roleplay your character, how the environment is described, and the effects your abilities have on the world in game.
I agree. All I'm saying is that refluffing might create inconsistencies. That is all. I just find Paladin to be a bad example. I even said holy warrior fits perfectly. Is just that being a Paladin has tangible in-game effects.

[Witty Username]

Thank you for the most entertaining read from the witty puns to the mindless rants about strange concepts my puny human mind can only guess at. *clapping*

ToB is fine, its like any other source book. sometimes it fits, sometimes it doesn't, and it is another tool for the story.

And, is their any stories in fantasy or folklore were heroes don't do extraordinary things?

[Godless_Paladin]

No, what I'm saying is that you don't need to follow a code. Well, that's completely irrelevant. I don't *need* to describe a disintegrate ray as being red as opposed to green or anything like that. It doesn't change the fact that I can roleplay that way.


So it's like paladin, except it it takes more work to do it?
And that never struck you as needlesly complicated? No, it did not strike me as overly complicated to take Prestige Paladin, Ordained Champion, or Church Inquisitor in the process of creating a Melee Cleric build that makes a much cooler, more flavorful, and more effective paladin than the Core Paladin. And indeed, even simpler options do it better too (full straight Cleric / Prestige Paladin)


I wasn't talking about examples you gave. Use the search function and you might find what I am referring to. Ah. I misread that as "you suggested."


Care to explain to me why there are guidelines in every class on 'how they fit the world', 'what they think about other classes' and even flavor text before the mechanics, then? So if you don't fit the class into the world the way it says in those sidebars, it is no longer that class? Every non-Greyhawk campaign setting is wrong, at the very least, if that's the case.

That's all presentation and decoration. It's nice and all, but the actual class is the mechanics. I don't think this is wildly controversial statement.


That's a completly different thing. Samurai is a social class. You usually can't tell when Rogues are Rogues, after all.
But you see plenty of mentions of class names in D&D novels, for example. You see people saying 'oh, the paladins did this and that' and 'be careful, she is a sorcerer' or 'oh, don't worry, he is a wizard, he probably didn't prepare that specific spell today'. One very good example is a bard character from War of the Spider Queen - she suddenly became important because during Lolth's science, only bards could heal. There are also examples of characters in the novels actually doing things that their respective classes do not represent.

Anyways, things like the need to prepare spells are an example of inherent fluff. E.G. fluff that flows directly from the mechanics and does not get changed except when you change the mechanics. Just like "You do not leave a usable corpse left if you die from this spell" is inherent fluff of Disintegrate. Other things like "The Disintegrate Ray is green" are not examples of inherent fluff and can be changed at will to things like a character pulling apart threads of arcane color to tear someone apart, unraveling the very substance of life and flesh as if it tugging at a loose string of a tapestry.


I agree. All I'm saying is that refluffing might create inconsistencies. That is all. I just find Paladin to be a bad example. I even said holy warrior fits perfectly. Is just that being a Paladin has tangible in-game effects.

Only if you refluff haphazardly, with complete disregard to things like the difference between inherent fluff, window dressing, and actual metagame labels (like that guy X is a Cleric/Prestige Paladin instead of Paladin). as well as factors like setting details.

My entire point was that if there aren't inconsistencies, it doesn't matter what class it says on your sheet.

[Thrawn183]

I think a lot of people never took the time to look at the multiclassing rules. The ToB classes mesh so well with their existing counterparts it is really quite amazing. It doesn't have to be about just straight up replacing the core classes.

[true_shinken]

No, it did not strike me as overly complicated to take Prestige Paladin, Ordained Champion, or Church Inquisitor in the process of creating a Melee Cleric build that makes a much cooler, more flavorful, and more effective paladin than the Core Paladin. And indeed, even simpler options do it better too (full straight Cleric / Prestige Paladin)
Ah, so you took the Paladin class after all. No need to discuss about this.
Prestige Paladin is supposed to replace the Paladin class. You shouldn't use both in the same game.


So if you don't fit the class into the world the way it says in those sidebars, it is no longer that class? Every non-Greyhawk campaign setting is wrong, at the very least, if that's the case.
Why do you think the mechanics are so sacred and the fluff so disposable? When you open FR or Eberron, it mentions how the core classes are different in both crunch and fluff. It treats them all the same.



There are also examples of characters in the novels actually doing things that their respective classes do not represent.
Could you provide me one such example, please? All D&D novels I read are pretty consistent.


Only if you refluff haphazardly, with complete disregard to things like the difference between inherent fluff, window dressing, and actual metagame labels (like that guy X is a Cleric/Prestige Paladin instead of Paladin). as well as factors like setting details.

My entire point was that if there aren't inconsistencies, it doesn't matter what class it says on your sheet.

By RAW, a prestige paladin is a Paladin. That's the reason it's broken, even - get Battle Blessing and you become a monster.
My point is that some refluffing is indeed haphazard. That's all. I think we are on the same page here.

[Godless_Paladin]

Why do you think the mechanics are so sacred and the fluff so disposable? When you open FR or Eberron, it mentions how the core classes are different in both crunch and fluff. It treats them all the same. Uhm, what? You've misunderstood me again. I don't think the mechanics are sacred and I alter them all the time. My list of houserules are actually good sized pile of papers >_>

In fact my point was quite the opposite. The mechanics are not so sacred that because, say, you don't have Samurai on your sheet, you can't call yourself a Samurai in the game world. Classes aren't some ultra-narrow, sacred dictations about how you must play your character in every way.

For example, there is nothing forcing you to make your Warblade shout "Rabid Monkey Seven Heavens Strike!" or whatever when he makes his attacks. You can just realize that it's just another way of implementing Cleave and be happy that it presents a more balanced, kinetic, tactical, choice-filled, and ultimately fun gameplay experience for the people playing it.

That is what I am saying.


Could you provide me one such example, please? All D&D novels I read are pretty consistent. Hmmm, not off the top of my head. It's been years since I've read D&D novels and my memory of the finer details is kinda fuzzy. Still, I remember thinking that there were inconsistencies.

Though, instead of properly remembering, I can demonstrate the point by alternative means. Think of a novel that had 3.0 rules applied. Say, a Cleric uses the more versatile version of the Command spell (where it was a pretty open ended effect, like Silent Image). Is that same Cleric no longer viable as a cleric because 3.5e has slightly different rules for Command? Not really.


By RAW, a prestige paladin is a Paladin. That's the reason it's broken, even - get Battle Blessing and you become a monster.
Yeah, I don't allow Battle Blessing to be taken by prestige paladins. Nor do I allow clerics to take Persistent Spell. I cut off pretty much all the higher up loopholes.

Such as...

-You use the version of Sign from the Spell Compendium, not the Miniatures Handbook.
-Nightsticks do not stack.
-Neither do Defending weapon enhancements. If you have a +1 Defending Gauntlet you can’t also benefit from a +1 Defending Armor Spikes, for example.
-I’m not actually sure how Steadfast Boots are supposed to work, so I’m not using those until the wording is clarified in a satisfactory manner. Besides, I’ve already nerfed ubercharging a bit.
-Battle Blessing only works if you’re playing the original paladin, not Prestige Paladin or anything like that.
-The Polymorph line of spells isn’t allowed. Use the X-form spells instead, like Trollform or Displacer Form. Feel free to ask about making up your own X-form spells.
-Celerity, Belt of Battle, White Raven Tactics aren’t allowed. Things like turning a swift action into a standard are generally not allowed.
-Wraithstrike, Shivering Touch are not allowed.
-Animated shields don't exist, as they negate ALL of the tradeoff between sword and board and... anything (also, see above where the rules for shields are changed).
-Persistent Spell, Natural Spell are not allowed. Sorry, CoDzilla.
-Flaws are not allowed. Or at least not the ones written in the UA. Maybe if you had something more meaningful and fluffy, but it’s hard to pick out an example that’s not relatively easily cured (for example, a missing limb can be regrown)
-Certain ubercharging implements are not allowed, including (but not necessarily limited to) the Rhino Rush spell and the Valorous weapon enchantment.
-Other stuff that’s just not allowed... Dust of Sneezing and Choking, Thought Bottles, Sudden Stunning enhancement, Planar Shephard
-If it’s on the CharOp Campaign Smasher thread list, don’t use it. I mean, really, this should go without saying when you’re playing in any real game. Not just the “makes the game actually impossible to play” list but also the “semi-smasher” list. Sorry, clerics of Mystara.
(Note: Unfortunately, the WotC peoples seem to have destroyed this thread. Well, whatever, you still know what was on it. The Cheater of Mystara, Pun-Pun, Wish and the Word, Nasty Gentleman, Item Dupes, Explosive Rune collecting, Invulnerability builds (Hannibal Lector the Illithid Savant, Twice Betrayer of Shar, etc), Tleilaxu’s Mind Switch tactica, Component Free Wishing, Spell Level Jacking, Mercantile Leaders, Transformation Field limitless spell outputs, Attack of the Clones, Psionic Time-Copies, H.I.V.E., Ice Sculpture God, Emaciated Spawn Reincarntation, Nanobots, Hyper-Evolved Undead, the Teflemmar multipouncer, Economy Commander, Hulking Moon Hurler, Odytoboman’s Infinite Stuff, Free Templates (e.g. Effigy, Lycanthropy, Tauric, etc abuse), Tainted Spellcasting, The Synchronicity Shuffle, Omniscificers, Lord of Procrastination’s Dirty Tricks, The Perpetual Damage Machine, Psly’s Dirty Damage Combo, Unfettered Heroism Wand Surge abuse, Festering Strength, The Beast, Shambling Mound Electroshock Therapy, Dragonwrought Kobold Oldies, Bestow Power Fission, Consumptive Field, or Diplomancers, to name a few. They’re all banned for really, really obvious reasons.)

And the list goes on...
Good ol' broken 3.5e. But hey, those problems are easy to curb, because they're big and obvious. The ones that actually mess up people's games, as far as I know, are the subtler imbalances that people actually use from time to time.

[true_shinken]

Uhm, what? You've misunderstood me again. I don't think the mechanics are sacred and I alter them all the time. My list of houserules are actually good sized pile of papers >_>

In fact my point was quite the opposite. The mechanics are not so sacred that because, say, you don't have Samurai on your sheet, you can't call yourself a Samurai in the game world. Classes aren't some ultra-narrow, sacred dictations about how you must play your character in every way.
Then I believe we agree in every shape and point here.


For example, there is nothing forcing you to make your Warblade shout "Rabid Monkey Seven Heavens Strike!" or whatever when he makes his attacks.
But it's just so much FUN! :smallsmile:


Hmmm, not off the top of my head. It's been years since I've read D&D novels and my memory of the finer details is kinda fuzzy. Still, I remember thinking that there were inconsistencies.

Though, instead of properly remembering, I can demonstrate the point by alternative means. Think of a novel that had 3.0 rules applied. Say, a Cleric uses the more versatile version of the Command spell (where it was a pretty open ended effect, like Silent Image). Is that same Cleric no longer viable as a cleric because 3.5e has slightly different rules for Command? Not really.
Of course not, but then it's an edition problem. I'm not even saying it needs to be 'viable', I'm just saying the novels present a standard that some people will follow more standardly, having read them and stuff.



Yeah, I don't allow Battle Blessing to be taken by prestige paladins. Nor do I allow clerics to take Persistent Spell. I cut off pretty much all the higher up loopholes.
I don't quite like banlists, I usually deal with things on a case-by-case basis, but I can see their merits.


Such as...

-You use the version of Sign from the Spell Compendium, not the Miniatures Handbook.
That's actually RAW. You use the most recent version.


-Battle Blessing only works if you’re playing the original paladin, not Prestige Paladin or anything like that.
I don't know how you do it in your game, but prestige paladin is not supposed to be used alongside core paladin.


-Flaws are not allowed. Or at least not the ones written in the UA. Maybe if you had something more meaningful and fluffy, but it’s hard to pick out an example that’s not relatively easily cured (for example, a missing limb can be regrown)
I dislike flaws as well. However, what do you think about the trait described here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1263034&postcount=1)? Sounds like something I'd accept.

[Morithias]

My group tends to create ban lists yes, however we try to keep it to thing that almost everyone finds overpowered.

The basic rule we've found is "If you can kill or in someway defeat a creature twice your CR alone without a dues ex machina, or some kind of arena help (say collapsing a ceiling on the monster) past level 5 it's banned."

Persistant Time Stop
Merchant Prince Loop
Comsumative Field and Permenant Examination Combo
Warforged juggernaut
Regular Juggernaut

This is what we have banned so far.

Note: The Warforged Juggernaut isn't actually the class itself, more abusing it with the troll-blooded feat, and immune to fire and acid items.

We rarely use TOB, but the few times we have used it, it's been used by the person in the group most into roleplaying, so ironically it's never abused.

I think a spiderman quote can solve most of the munchkin, tob, quad wizard stuff.

"Great power comes great responsibility."

A super powerful class, isn't bad in itself, using it in the wrong way is bad. No one cares if I own a transport truck, but people do care if I use it to ram their houses.

[Godless_Paladin]

But it's just so much FUN! :smallsmile: Yes, it is, but some people don't think so, and they're free to not do so if they wish. And still be using unmodified ToB mechanics. *Shrug*


Of course not, but then it's an edition problem. I'm not even saying it needs to be 'viable', I'm just saying the novels present a standard that some people will follow more standardly, having read them and stuff. What if the DM is a novelist and bases his campaign on that? ;)


I don't quite like banlists, I usually deal with things on a case-by-case basis, but I can see their merits. That is, for the most part, my case by case basis. Besides the "CharOp Campaign Smashers" list, those are things people actually asked me about at one point or another, plus a few things I just wrote down as I came across them while browsing the internets.


That's actually RAW. You use the most recent version. Clarification never hurts. Anyways, I just copy-pasta'd stuff from the very end of my houserule page. I didn't actually type that all out for the sake of this discussion :smallconfused:


I don't know how you do it in your game, but prestige paladin is not supposed to be used alongside core paladin. *Shrug* Well no one ever plays actual Paladins anymore so it's all good. If they wanted to, they could, though. I'm in favor of giving people all the tools they want to create the character they want.


I dislike flaws as well. However, what do you think about the trait described here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1263034&postcount=1)? Sounds like something I'd accept.

Yes, I would definitely accept it, even though the downsides of his curse aren't too difficult to negate. In fact, under my houserules the way to go about this is pretty well established and most all (okay, actually all) my players have some kinda trait like this coming out of their respective backstories.

Actually, I didn't include it in my posts, but my houserules system has a bit of a subsystem that encourages creating such things. We call them "Background feats" and are basically various not-so-mechanically-potent benefits (like gaining access to an additional class skill that isn't UMD, or skill focus in something unimportant like Alchemy, or those various fluffy feats like "Favored In House," or something they just made up that supports their characterization in minor ways that don't really make you noticeably more mechanically powerful in a group of veteran players) that you get in exchange for just writing a backstory that would make sense for you to have them.

Also, it's generally recognized in our group that interesting RP "disadvantages" are actually usually advantages in practice (at least when I'm DMing). More hooks for the DM to play up on that ties directly into your character's backstory often results in good things for you down the line (not to mention another way to move the spotlight around). :thumbsup:

UA flaws are just silly, though. Seriously, things like "I got effectively -1 dex, but only for purposes of firing ranged weapons!" aren't adding depth to the roleplaying experience in any meaningful way. They're not real disadvantages either, just free feats. So yeah.

[Keld Denar]

Care to explain to me why there are guidelines in every class on 'how they fit the world', 'what they think about other classes' and even flavor text before the mechanics, then?

Because believe it or not, not everyone who plays D&D is a Shakespearian method actor who can come up with a 20 page backstory in 20 minutes that they could easily sell to Hollywood as a concept for a new blockbuster summer epic film. Some people need a little help. The fluff in books is a step stair to help those of us who AREN'T serial novalists come up with engaging and intriguing backgrounds, even if they aren't terribly unique or Emmy award winning quality.

At least its more diverse. I mean, they coulda just said "every class has a 2[W]+stat attack that inflicts a daze status...we'll call the fighter's move 'Dazing Strike', the rogue's 'Kidney Shot', the ranger's 'Watch the birdy', the monk's 'Three finger throat punch'." Oh wait...they did.

[true_shinken]

Because believe it or not, not everyone who plays D&D is a Shakespearian method actor who can come up with a 20 page backstory in 20 minutes that they could easily sell to Hollywood as a concept for a new blockbuster summer epic film. Some people need a little help. The fluff in books is a step stair to help those of us who AREN'T serial novalists come up with engaging and intriguing backgrounds, even if they aren't terribly unique or Emmy award winning quality.

That's my whole point.
Mechanics are also there because not everyone is Monte Cook or Skip Williams. Hence, they have the same weight.

[dsmiles]

Title says it all. I've seen many, many situations where tome of battle is a banned book. From what i've seen, and from a bit of experience, the system is a lot less boring compared to the core martial classes. Also, barring broken stuff like the 1d2 crusader, iron heart surge or white raven tactics, it's a fairly balanced book.

Granted, only 1 or 2 of our players have even bothered to play any of the classes at all in the games i've joined, and i'm invariably the group's full caster since no one else wants to, but i digress.:smallbiggrin:

Maybe I'm late, but we only banned it because it didn't fit our playstyle. (Our playstyle being more 8-bit theater than serious DnD.)

[Jayabalard]

The problem with citing the Illiad (and greek mythology in general) is that the gods are very much involved, lots of people are descended from the gods (especially zeus, who couldn't be bothered to keep it in his pants) so it's hard to declare that these otherwise plain vanilla humans are doing things by the power of awsome rather than by the power of being favored by the gods.Beowulf? Swam for three days straight IN ARMOR, ripped off Grendel's arm.I wasn't aware that Beowulf was in the Illiad, or in Greek mythology in general...which is the rest of the quote that you left out (edit: I went ahead and added it back here); seriously, quoting out of context like that is just a silly way to argue.

Anyway... while it's not as overt in Beowulf as it is in the Illiad, there's a certain amount of divine intervention involved in Beowulf; I think I'm ok referencing the text from Beowulf, but we probably can't discuss it very much.
couple of the characters were screwed up on pasting this, so

Lines 1054b-58. Quotations from Beowulf are taken from Klaeber 1950, with diacritics deleted. Translations are quoted from Raffel 1963. 350 BRUCE LOUDEN

ond dæs mannes mod. Metod eallum weold
gumena cynnes, swa he nu git ded.

Raffel’s translation accurately reflects the pivot in the sequence (1963:56):

. . . and for the one
Murdered by Grendel gold was carefully
Paid. The monster would have murdered again
And again had not God, and the hero’s courage,
Turned fate aside.



That's exactly our point: past a certain level, D&D, at it's core, fails to model "standard" fantasy.Nah, it works just fine.


High level characters become caricatures by any realistic standard by virtue of the core game mechanics. They can, but they really don't have to. I've played in plenty of games where they didn't.

Certainly, they'll be unrealistic, but that doesn't require caricatures equivalent to the ones you find in One Piece.


Basically, I don't think it's wrong to say that (some of) ToB is very over the top. You're quoting from a discussion about One Piece here...


Stormwind Fallacy much? I certainly don't see abilities as mere power-ups.I know people like to latch on to a term, but if you're going to do that, you should really learn what it means. There's nothing fallacious in the text you quoted there; there's only a single lemma, so even if there was something fallacious in his argument it couldn't be a false dilemma (ie, the fallacy part of "stormwind fallacy" )

[Esser-Z]

One Piece was just an example of nonmagic and magic both breaking the rules, in different ways, not an example of how PCs necessarily act (though that''d be a fun game).

[Jayabalard]

One Piece was just an example of nonmagic and magic both breaking the rules, in different ways, not an example of how PCs necessarily act (though that''d be a fun game).It was offered as a counterexample to a statement about why people are ok with casters and monks break the laws of physics in D&D and not ok with the more mundane fighters doing so. Like I said before: It's exactly the sort of thing that people mean when they say that ToB is "too anime" ... it's a terrible counter-example. You're not going to convince anyone by using it.

[Scow2]

Maybe I'm late, but we only banned it because it didn't fit our playstyle. (Our playstyle being more 8-bit theater than serious DnD.)

But "Fighter" so often demostrates the abilities of a Warblade (or at least a fighter with the Martial Study Feat).

Remember his "Two-fisted Monkey Attack" maneuver? Or his "I can parry ANYTHING!"?

[dsmiles]

But "Fighter" so often demostrates the abilities of a Warblade (or at least a fighter with the Martial Study Feat).

Remember his "Two-fisted Monkey Attack" maneuver? Or his "I can parry ANYTHING!"?

We were actually more into the "fighterdoken" attack style. :smalltongue:

[Gametime]

Nah, it works just fine.

A compelling counter-argument. :smallconfused:

For clarification: Do you think people falling thousands of feet and surviving is part of "standard" heroic fantasy? Because I don't, but (as I said before) we may be operating under different assumptions, here.

Assuming you don't think atmospheric log rides are something your average fantastic hero engages in, D&D at it's core fails to model heroic fantasy sometime around 15th level for the tougher characters and 18th level for the weaker. The very best you can do (aside from changing falling damage) is never have the characters fall, but that doesn't change the fact that they are tough enough to survive something that should kill any mundane person several times over. They can be hit by clubs bigger than themselves and suffer no lasting effects. They can jump into a pool of lava and have a reasonable chance of surviving if they get out quickly.

Again, superhuman toughness to that extreme degree is not something I associate with heroic fantasy.


They can, but they really don't have to. I've played in plenty of games where they didn't.

Certainly, they'll be unrealistic, but that doesn't require caricatures equivalent to the ones you find in One Piece.

I didn't say they'd be equivalent to One Piece. Just that they'd be caricatures. Someone jumping into a pool of lava and emerging, injured but alive, is patently ridiculous unless he's got some spells protecting him or super powers or what have you. When the only explanation is his sheer moxy, as it essentially is in D&D, the image becomes absurd.

[Scow2]

Remember: Post level-5, you get Charles Atlas-style Superpowers.

[Esser-Z]

Kinda hard to jump into lava. It may be a liquid, but it's still rock. :smalltongue:

[Zaydos]

I had my party go through lava once. The 140 damage +70 damage per round they'd have suffered would have been more fun if they didn't have easy access to Energy Immunity.

And being able to survive an over-sized club hitting you and keep on fighting is pretty normal fair in heroic fantasy, and once you get into epics (which for the most part can still be modeled without ToB; Roland had a specifically special and blessed magical sword so devastating something trying to break it doesn't make him ToB for example; and no way that ToB actually helps Beowulf has been mentioned) people do fall 200+ ft and walk away just fine (actually people have fallen over 1000 feet and survived in real life without parachutes) and swimming through lava becomes plausible. Sure you could build Roland as a crusader, or as a fighter, or as a knight; you don't need ToB for it. Achilles could simply be a fighter who specialized in spear and sword with some awesome armor and it would fit the information just as well as ToB (warrior who specialized in spear and shield, had armor made by a god).

Now it's characters like Musashi (master Japanese swordsman, semi-legendary historical figure) that become hard to build without it (Iron Heart and Diamond Mind really help for the 1 strike 1 kill style that existed in Japanese fencing).

Tiger Claw's jumping attacks, though, are straight out of anime and don't show up in heroic fantasy or epics. Superhuman toughness does. (conversely White Raven does show up in epics, as does Devoted Spirit although the healing is strictly magical/deific even then)

[Lord_Gareth]

I'd also like to point out that if your 6 Dexterity, 800 pound fat wizard succeeds at his Reflex save vs. a Meteor Swarm in an empty ten by ten room, he still dodges enough to take only half damage somehow.

Don't even get me STARTED on rogues or fighters doing it.

[Godless_Paladin]

What the heck is "Standard" Fantasy? Do you really mean "Tolkienesque"?

Yeesh, people really need to expand their literary horizons. There are just so many fantastic visions out there crafted by wonderfully creative people, as far as heroic fantasy goes.

Well, I can tell you one thing, the characters in Lord of the Rings are far more limited in their capabilities than a mid-level D&D party, and indeed Lord of the Rings has never been accurately modeled by D&D 3.5e's progression, and if you ask me that's exactly how it should be.


Remember: Post level-5, you get Charles Atlas-style Superpowers. This. Batman isn't actually a "normal person" when he gets out of his own comics and ventures into the DC expanded universe and bumps heads with cosmic threats rather than the likes of The Joker. No, he's a superhuman level genius and "the best detective in the multiverse, ever," in addition to being able to literally punch out Solomon Grundy (a guy used to taking beatings from Superman) or survive a punch to the face from Darkseid and get right back up, just to name a few outstanding examples in canon. It's not normal. It is in every sense superhuman. (That, and Batman has a mind-boggling degree of Plot Armor)

And when you're talking about playing high level D&D, look at what the monsters are! You really are talking about punching out something with worldshatterring arcane power, superintelligence, scales that make tempered steel look soft, breath that can reduce vast swathes of area to ash in a moment, and toenails bigger than you are. We call them dragons.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c73/OneWinged4ngel/343.jpg

You're supposed to kill it with a sword. What are you gonna do about it, normal guy with a sword?

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs10/i/2006/097/9/7/Smok_by_GENZOMAN.jpg



I'd also like to point out that if your 6 Dexterity, 800 pound fat wizard succeeds at his Reflex save vs. a Meteor Swarm in an empty ten by ten room, he still dodges enough to take only half damage somehow.

Don't even get me STARTED on rogues or fighters doing it.

There are actually tons of examples of surprisingly nimble, dodgy fat guys in various fantasy media. It's probably on tvtropes somewhere as an established thing.

Edit: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Acrofatic And here it is!

What do you have against the Acrofatic heroes, mate? I'm all in favor of a game system supporting whatever kind of archetype you want to play.

[Scow2]

Much of LotR has been rougly modeled. Gandalf is a level 5 Wizard.
Aragorn is a Level 4 Paladin, with two levels of Ranger on top for when he was Strider.

I can't remember the other stats off the top of my head.

But, anyone can do awesome feats at low level. ToB gives access to warriors who are flexible in their combat style.

[Jayabalard]

For clarification: Do you think people falling thousands of feet and surviving is part of "standard" heroic fantasy? Sure, heroes get lucky, and that's not beyond the bounds of standard heroic fantasy luck.


the fact that they are tough enough to survive something that should kill any mundane person several times over.Lucky, not tough. People have done it in the real world, so it's not even unrealistic, let alone breaking verisimilitude (since D&D physics aren't the same as the ones in the real world).

[Zaydos]

Most heroes and fantasy characters can be very easily made without ToB.

Beowulf: Improved Grapple and some means to swim so long (ToB doesn't provide either; fighter doesn't provide the latter).
Herakles: Insane Str template, Barbarian/Ranger/Fighter multiclass; good with longbow and club (Herakles was more deadly with the bow than in melee). Has Improved Grapple.
Achilles: Spear specialist; uses shortspear and shield. Has fancy armor and some means of regeneration/heel. Again neither provide the last.
Robin Hood: Ranger.
Roland: Fighter; nothing in the Song of Roland is beyond a 10th level fighter with a badass sword. Roland's sword was specifically magical.
Conan: Whirling Frenzy Barbarian/Fighter (Conan never "raged" he did get stronger and harder to hit when he was pissed off, although had full ability to use skills).
Fafhrd: Fighter/Rogue
Aragorn: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger any of them work.
Sigurd: Fighter with Craft (big hole) and the Throw Anything and Diehard feats (Bloodstorm Blade doesn't work since his sword didn't return). A magic adamantine sword.

Other people are harder to make. Strangely enough they're mainly samurai.
Sanchiro Kojiro (probably mispelled his name again): Master of Iajutsu... Iajutsu Focus and Iajutsu Master.
Miyamoto Musashi: 2-weapons, although able to master any weapon with a little practice. Master of parrying attacks with his off-hand weapon, although also one of the few adherents to actually using it as an offensive weapon. Could be fighter, but I'd really have to say Warblade fits him better. Could kill people with sticks.
Swashbucklers: Really they need Diamond Mind and Iron Heart to do what they're supposed to.

None of the above (with the exception of Musashi) would use Tiger's Claw (and even then only select non-jump based maneuvers). None would use Shadow Hand or Desert Wind (seeing as how those are monk disciplines that makes sense). Sanchiro and swashbucklers might use some Setting Sun (not the throws, but the defensive abilities). Achilles and Roland might use Devoted Spirit. Most of them could probably have Stone Dragon (exception Swashbucklers), and most could probably have Diamond Mind (Moment of Perfect Mind) and Iron Heart (all of them), and only Robin couldn't be made with heavy ToB (since he's not melee).

So yeah there are some sillier abilities in ToB (mainly when you are doing anime jumps), but it's a good resource because it gives melee a lot more options. You can't build a real swashbuckler or samurai without it.

[Godless_Paladin]

Much of LotR has been rougly modeled. Gandalf is a level 5 Wizard.
Aragorn is a Level 4 Paladin, with two levels of Ranger on top for when he was Strider. To clarify: I meant that LotR does not represent the full range of the D&D level progression.

And I believe that trying to limit the entire level progression to what happens in LotR is silliness for that very reason.

[Zaydos]

To clarify: I meant that LotR does not represent the full range of the D&D level progression.

And I believe that trying to limit the entire level progression to what happens in LotR is silliness for that very reason.

Who does that?

By Lv 20 you're Roland, Beowulf, and Sigurd; except with more magic goodies. All three carried a magic sword and in some versions Sigurd gets a few more goodies (Hat of Disguise and a cursed ring, oh and super-horse). Even so none of them were doing Tiger's Claw maneuvers like Death from Above, or using Iron Blade's 9th level maneuver, or spamming Heal by hitting people with a sword. All three can be fairly easily mapped with Fighter. Heck with Core only Fighter with the exception of Beowulf's swimming feat (which still hasn't been said how ToB helps that one). Sigurd might be a paladin for his super-horse (as it was a magical beast).

[Godless_Paladin]

By Lv 20 you're Roland, Beowulf, and Sigurd; except with more magic goodies. I dunno about Roland and Sigurd, as I'm not particularly familiar with those characters, but Beowulf doesn't strike me as a level 20 character. Like, at all. Forget ripping grendel's arm off... tearing off every head of a Huge hydra spewing impressive jets of flame out of all of its multitudinous orifices is just something you do when you're around level 6.

I mean, are you seriously comparing Grendel to the likes of the level 20 monster list? Hrothgar's Hall would have had a bit more damage, I think, if that were the case.

Of course, as with any story that has had many incarnations, it would matter to clarify what Beowulf story you're talking about. :smallconfused:

[Zaydos]

I dunno about Roland and Sigurd, as I'm not particularly familiar with those characters, but Beowulf doesn't strike me as a level 20 character. Like, at all. Forget ripping grendel's arm off... tearing off every head of a Huge fire breathin' hydra is just something you do when you're around level 6.

Of course, as with any story that has had many incarnations, it would matter to clarify what Beowulf story you're talking about. :smallconfused:

Beowulf might have been an exaggeration, although he also fought a dragon and Grendel's mom (who was more powerful than Grendel). Grendel was the weakest of his enemies.

There's actually stats for all four. I forget what level Beowulf was pegged at, Grendel is CR 9 I think, his mom 11, and the fire drake CR 15 which Beowulf fought (and died from wounds sustained killing it) as an old or venerable character which for a fighter is a major disadvantage (-2 or 3 to attack, damage, AC, hp/level, Fort and Ref saves). So I'd say an old man who can kill a fairly big dragon in single combat, even if he does die, is significantly higher than 6th level.

Edit: Note also Beowulf actually just stood their trading blows against the dragon back and forth in classic D&D full-attack style.

Also an optimized charger is more ridiculous than anything in ToB compared to the fantasy/myths that are inspiration (kasplat).

[Godless_Paladin]

Beowulf might have been an exaggeration, although he also fought a dragon and Grendel's mom (who was more powerful than Grendel). Grendel was the weakest of his enemies. So Grendel's Mom is like what, a hag, and the dragon beowulf fights is nothing compared to the gargantuan, spellweaving, impervious monstrosities that populate the upper levels of D&D play.


There's actually stats for all four. I forget what level Beowulf was pegged at, Grendel is CR 9 I think, his mom 11, and the fire drake CR 15 which Beowulf fought (and died from wounds sustained killing it) as an old or venerable character which for a fighter is a major disadvantage (-2 or 3 to attack, damage, AC, hp/level, Fort and Ref saves). So I'd say an old man who can kill a fairly big dragon in single combat, even if he does die, is significantly higher than 6th level.

That's nice and all. Elminster's performance in novels and the game world doesn't really reflect his mechanics either. *Shrug*

The fact that someone statted him up doesn't mean that someone statted him up accurately. You can find the cast of Lord of the Rings statted up as ridiculously high levels too. That doesn't make it reasonable.



Edit: Note also Beowulf actually just stood their trading blows against the dragon back and forth in classic D&D full-attack style.
Erm, again, which version is this? You're talking about a story that's been told and retold countless times, and a lot of them don't go down like this.



Also an optimized charger is more ridiculous than anything in ToB

Absolutey. But they're also one trick ponies and thus not at all fun to play nor good for representing action heroes and such that occasionally actually change up their tactica or do something clever or unusual from time to time.

[Zaydos]

So Grendel's Mom is like a Hag, and the dragon beowulf fights is nothing compared to the gargantuan, spellweaving monstrosities that populate the upper echelons of D&D.

Not a hag at all, melee monster without much in the way of spells. And dragons without spells still get over CR 20 all the time (check out Planar Dragons in the Draconomicon). They don't even have to reach colossal (Pyroclastic Dragon, Howling Dragon, Rust Dragon; they have some minor SLAs normally worse than a standard action).



That's nice and all. Elminster's performance in novels and the game world doesn't really reflect his mechanics either. *Shrug*

The fact that someone statted him up doesn't mean that someone statted him up accurately. You can find the cast of Lord of the Rings statted up as ridiculously high levels too. That doesn't make it reasonable.

Does mean their is an official stat-block, though. Also means we have some standard to judge Grendel by other than "he could have been an ogre, or a troll, or a unique monster more powerful than either".

And Beowulf does still do things that a 20th level D&D character sans gear is supposed to do. The original argument was that 20th level D&D characters by their very nature went beyond this.

Even Grettir survives falling off a cliff to stand up and walk away and he wasn't a mythical super-human merely the strongest Viking in the waning days of the Vikings. The point that 20th level characters break from their original basis without ToB isn't valid.

Whether ToB is good or useful is another story, I personally think it is, but that doesn't mean that the complaints are unfounded.

Edit:
I'm not 100% sure on which translation of Beowulf, seeing as how I've read two and they both agreed on all these things. There isn't actually a version of the original story without the fire drake; later adaptations might change things but that's a different story entirely.

And whether chargers are fun or not doesn't change that the point I was making was that 20th level characters don't do anything by their very nature that goes beyond the limits of their inspiration.

[Godless_Paladin]

Not a hag at all, melee monster without much in the way of spells. You mean like the hag that does exactly that?

I mean, really, there's a hag that's a melee monster that doesn't rely on spells (it has all of "disguise self" and "fog cloud") in the MM. It's big. It's brutal. It could wipe the floor with Hrothgar's Hall and has a tendency to just snatch up brave warriors encased in full armor and rip them bodily in half. And it's CR6.

[Scow2]

I like ToB because it allows the epic feats of awesome seen in Heroic Fantasy action movies and games.

[Zaydos]

I like ToB because it allows the epic feats of awesome seen in Heroic Fantasy action movies and games.

That I can agree with wholeheartedly. Heroes in movies and games go far beyond the level that of fantasy and myth (save for Illiad's one-handed lifting of boulders 6 strong men could not lift today; seriously those Greek heroes had levels of Hulking Hurler), and you need ToB to simulate it. Saying that 20th level characters do that by definition is another story entirely.

[Godless_Paladin]

That I can agree with wholeheartedly. Heroes in movies and games go far beyond the level that of fantasy and myth (save for Illiad's one-handed lifting of boulders 6 strong men could not lift today; seriously those Greek heroes had levels of Hulking Hurler), and you need ToB to simulate it. Saying that 20th level characters do that by definition is another story entirely.

Way beyond fantasy and myth, eh? I seem to recall Herakles bending a river just to clean the Augean stables. And the scale of things escalates quite a lot in the upwards direction from Herakles, right up to things like reshaping the planet. Or genociding entire civilizations of powerful monsters. Or besting gods, devils, and so forth at their own domains. And the Greeks weren't the only ones to have strong heroes, oh no. We've got Celtic, Germanic, Sumerian, Nordic, and other mythologies as well.

Also, I wonder why you think that games and movies don't fall into the "fantasy" category. And there is plenty of literature that is just as impressively high-powered as whatever game or movie people'd care to mention. Sadly, nobody reads anymore.

[Zaydos]

Way beyond fantasy and myth, eh? I seem to recall Herakles bending a river just to clean the Augean stables. And the scale of things escalates a lot in the upwards direction from Herakles.

Herakles was specifically a half-god and the most powerful Greek hero ever (and actually it doesn't escalate past Herakles in Greek myths). Also he fought gods on numerous occasions, fought monsters gods could not defeat, and was rumored to be as strong as Zeus who was as strong as all the other Olympians put together.

So no Herakles isn't supposed to be a Lv 20 character he's supposed to be far beyond that. If you want 20th level characters to be curbstomping gods (he went into Hades and stole Hades' dog by threatening to beat up Hades, who was one of the 3 strongest gods in existence), then that's not ToB or standard D&D.

And still does not prove the argument that 20th level characters are beyond the source inspiration without ToB.

Edit: As for the video games and movies; they are fantasy, but they are neither the source material D&D was based on, nor representative of abilities beyond said source material already found in D&D. The original argument wasn't "I like playing D&D where the characters imitate movie X" but "You shouldn't say that imitating movie X isn't normal D&D, D&D characters can already fall 1000-ft and shrug it off and that's beyond the fantasy they were based on."

The former is a perfectly valid point, and a reason I use ToB in my games and prefer using.
The latter is foolish, and even Grettir (a character from a historical saga) could do.

[Godless_Paladin]

Edit: As for the video games and movies; they are fantasy, but they are neither the source material D&D was based on, nor representative of abilities beyond said source material already found in D&D. The original argument wasn't "I like playing D&D where the characters imitate movie X" but "You shouldn't say that imitating movie X isn't normal D&D, D&D characters can already fall 1000-ft and shrug it off and that's beyond the fantasy they were based on."

The former is a perfectly valid point, and a reason I use ToB in my games and prefer using.
The latter is foolish, and even Grettir (a character from a historical saga) could do.

I never said the latter, nor mentioned falling damage in any way whatsoever in this thread, nor did I say anything about "beyond the fantasy D&D was based on." I don't care what fantasy D&D was based on, I care about what D&D, as a toolset, can be used to create. If you're replying to someone else, please don't quote me and make it appear as if you're replying to something I actually said. Thanks.

[Scow2]

Tome of Battle is not about being insanely overpowered. That myth just fuels the prejudice against it. Instead, it's to allow players to fight like Russle Crow's character in Gladiator, Mel Gibson's in Braveheart and The Patriot. Or the Prince of Persia from his series. Or Van Helsing from his movie. Or Leonidas from 300, or Achilles and Hector from Troy (Where what makes them special is how they fight, not how cool their armor is or whether they were dipped into rivers by Gods).

Swordsages let you fight like Obi-Wan or Anakin Skywalker (sort of).

None of those characters are Epic, just awesome, and can be defeated by Fighters of similar skill, like Aragorn or Gimli.

[Zaydos]

I take it you're an expert, then, and have thoroughly studied Greek Mythology and its expansive lore as opposed to just the bits that have made it into popular modern culture?

I grew up reading Greek myths; Edith Hamilton's, Bulfinch's (which I will point out cite's The Golden Ass written in Latin after the beginning of the Christian era as an "ancient Greek myth" that was later stolen by the Romans :smallsigh: and people cite that as their source on Greek myths), Robert Graves's, and other collections of Greek myths, the Odyssey, the Argonautica, the Illiad, the Aeneid, translated portions of the last myself, and several other versions of the Perseus myth, some of the Greek plays that are cited as myths without actually being myths; oh and The Golden Ass which as a satire about Roman religion by a priest of Isis and Osiris should never be cited as a source on what the ancient Greek's believed about their gods.

So no I don't have a PhD in it; but I've talked to people who are taking college courses in it and been able to point out their mistakes from memory. I've talked to professors who have studied it and they've told me I could ace classes on Greek myths.

[Cogidubnus]

I take it you're an expert, then, and have thoroughly studied Greek Mythology and its expansive lore as opposed to just the bits that have made it into popular modern culture?
.

I actually kinda am, and as far as my knowledge stretches he was right. Heracles was the last of Zeus' great sons. People (read: the entire Greek world) claimed to be descended from him because he was rhe best. The jury is still out as to whether any of them have a claim to any man called Heracles at any point, but the Lacedaemonians can at least claim to have carried on his legacy best.

[Godless_Paladin]

I grew up reading Greek myths; Edith Hamilton's, Bulfinch's (which I will point out cite's The Golden Ass written in Latin after the beginning of the Christian era as an "ancient Greek myth" that was later stolen by the Romans :smallsigh: and people cite that as their source on Greek myths), Robert Graves's, and other collections of Greek myths, the Odyssey, the Argonautica, the Illiad, the Aeneid, translated portions of the last myself, and several other versions of the Perseus myth, some of the Greek plays that are cited as myths without actually being myths; oh and The Golden Ass which as a satire about Roman religion by a priest of Isis and Osiris should never be cited as a source on what the ancient Greek's believed about their gods.

So no I don't have a PhD in it; but I've talked to people who are taking college courses in it and been able to point out their mistakes from memory. I've talked to professors who have studied it and they've told me I could ace classes on Greek myths.

Fair enough. You should note that there's lots of other mythology besides the greeks, too. And there certainly is escalation from Hercules in non-Greek mythology, including the examples I gave. Also, sometimes people (some of whom are arguably based on historical figures) are defined as "Gods." I wouldn't really exclude them.

After all, in D&D, a level 20 person might as well be God to a level 1 person. Indeed, the scale of what a level 20 magic-user in D&D can accomplish often exceeds divine powers in some, if not many, mythologies.

[Cogidubnus]

After all, in D&D, a level 20 person might as well be God to a level 1 person.

Some of them are. Divine ranks let you do all SORTS of cool stuff :smallbiggrin:

[Morithias]

One quick question, since my party uses TOB so rarely I barely know anything about it (the fact that the only person in the group that uses it, is probably the least munchkin player in the group helps). But are there like classes that only get maneuvers up to 1-6 kinda like they way a bard is to the wizard?

[Frosty]

Nope, but prestige classes slow down the progression of maneuvers usually.

[Godless_Paladin]

One quick question, since my party uses TOB so rarely I barely know anything about it (the fact that the only person in the group that uses it, is probably the least munchkin player in the group helps). But are there like classes that only get maneuvers up to 1-6 kinda like they way a bard is to the wizard?

No.


However, if you want to have a "partial martial adept" that is very feasible through ToB's multiclassing system. Between the half IL rule, the way you qualify for learning maneuvers, the way the class progressions are set up, Martial Study, and other factors, I daresay it has the most functional and versatile multiclassing system in D&D 3.5e.

And this is a very good thing. As a result of the way ToB's "caster level" system is set up, it actually has one of the smoothest multiclassing systems in the entirety of 3.5e (completely contrary, in fact, to the way that magic-user caster levels make multiclassing a pain and quite restrictive to special tools for rather specific purposes if you want it to work out). Love it.

[The-Mage-King]

One quick question, since my party uses TOB so rarely I barely know anything about it (the fact that the only person in the group that uses it, is probably the least munchkin player in the group helps). But are there like classes that only get maneuvers up to 1-6 kinda like they way a bard is to the wizard?

No, there aren't.

The maximum level of maneuver you can learn is based on your Initator level- IL 1-2 is 1st, 3-4 is 2nd, and so on.

However, levels in a non-initiating class count for half IL, so a fighter 2 has an IL of 1, and a Fighter 10 an IL of 5.

[Morithias]

No, there aren't.

The maximum level of maneuver you can learn is based on your Initator level- IL 1-2 is 1st, 3-4 is 2nd, and so on.

However, levels in a non-initiating class count for half IL, so a fighter 2 has an IL of 1, and a Fighter 10 an IL of 5.

Wait, does that mean that RAW a Fight 10, could actually take minor maneuvers? Even if it doesn't, perhaps this could be the answer we're looking for. Rather than just dismiss the whole tomb, what if one let the core and complete classes have some fun with them they wouldn't be able to get the higher level ones, but perhaps this is the compromise that could on some level end this debate.

[Godless_Paladin]

Wait, does that mean that RAW a Fight 10, could actually take minor maneuvers? Yes. Yes they can. But only through taking a Martial Study / Martial Stance feat or actually multiclassing into a Tome of Battle class.

One of the big points is that if you multiclass from Pure X into, say, Warblade at level 2 or at level 15, you'll actually get decently level appropriate new abilities from that level up instead of just grabbing a 1d4+1 magic missile like if you took Wizard 1 as your 15th level.

The reasons this is a massive improvement to multiclassing should be obvious.

[Frosty]

It's like saying that a 10th level fighter grabbing a level of Sorcerer can immediately learn (and cast) level 3 spells.

[Esser-Z]

Well, there's a difference in that a meleer going Martial Adept is learning to do what he already does in a different way. Now, a MAGE suddenly going adept...

[Gametime]

Sure, heroes get lucky, and that's not beyond the bounds of standard heroic fantasy luck.

Lucky, not tough. People have done it in the real world, so it's not even unrealistic, let alone breaking verisimilitude (since D&D physics aren't the same as the ones in the real world).

"Lucky" implies that there's a chance they wouldn't survive. A level 20 barbarian who has rolled average health at every level and has at least a +1 constitution modifier literally cannot be killed by falling damage. "Luck" has nothing to do with it, unless you think that "getting lucky" is something that can happen 100% of the time and still count as luck.

Anyone with an actually decent constitution score can survive several levels earlier.

And yes, people have survived incredible falls many times in real life. People have also died from them many times in real life. There's a reason we still make people wear parachutes and use harnesses. Just because we can get lucky doesn't mean we will. That doesn't apply to high level D&D characters, though, because past a certain point they will survive every single fall.

D&D characters of high level are superhuman.

Also:


This section on world-building assumes that your campaign is set in a fairly realistic world. That is to say that while wizards cast spells, deities channel power to clerics, and dragons raze villages, the world is round, the laws of physics are applicable, and most people act like real people.

The rules pretty plainly violate the laws of physics at various points, but the core assumption is that we're supposed to treat the D&D world as though it adheres to the physical laws of the real world. Rules for falling and so on are meant to be abstractions, and yet they lead us to situations where there is literally no danger in falling from hundreds of feet unless you've been previously wounded.

If you think that we aren't supposed to treat D&D as more or less like the real world, then I'm not sure where the complaints about maneuvers come in at all.




Edit: As for the video games and movies; they are fantasy, but they are neither the source material D&D was based on, nor representative of abilities beyond said source material already found in D&D. The original argument wasn't "I like playing D&D where the characters imitate movie X" but "You shouldn't say that imitating movie X isn't normal D&D, D&D characters can already fall 1000-ft and shrug it off and that's beyond the fantasy they were based on."

The former is a perfectly valid point, and a reason I use ToB in my games and prefer using.
The latter is foolish, and even Grettir (a character from a historical saga) could do.

But that's not what I'm saying. If you're going to attack my argument, at least don't misrepresent it.

The point was raised that ToB introduces actions beyond the scope of heroic fantasy and which threaten verisimilitude.

I responded with the argument that a) "heroic fantasy" is a broad enough term that it is questionable, at best, to claim that it excludes ToB; and b) that merely saying ToB creates "caricatures" of real people isn't sufficient reason to exclude it, because D&D characters are caricatures by their nature by a certain level anyway.

If the criterion for "heroic fantasy" is "realism," then ToB is hardly more genre-breaking than a hundred little rules scattered throughout standard D&D. There are a lot of people who don't like ToB because it seems unrealistic. My point is that that is a very silly reason to not like ToB.

[Morithias]

It's like saying that a 10th level fighter grabbing a level of Sorcerer can immediately learn (and cast) level 3 spells.

It sounds to me, thing single level dip is less like that, and more like taking a stacking feat that you somehow met all the requirements for without entering the class. I think there was a sorc-monk one or something that you could take without any monk levels, and basically get all the 'decent' (for the love of god I swear if you people turn this into a debate about the monk class you will pay) powers of that class.

Say what you will, but given what I've heard about their power level, the level dip sounds about even on power on taking that feat.

[Susano-wo]

It's like saying that a 10th level fighter grabbing a level of Sorcerer can immediately learn (and cast) level 3 spells.

Yeah, kind of. Its a power level balancing factor, not a story balancing factor, and you'd do well to explain to your DM how exactly you suddenly became a sorcerer (luckily, its easier than suddenly becoming a wizard :P)

[Morithias]

Yeah, kind of. Its a power level balancing factor, not a story balancing factor, and you'd do well to explain to your DM how exactly you suddenly became a sorcerer (luckily, its easier than suddenly becoming a wizard :P)

Ok then, so I just gained level 15 in sorcerer, I took improved unarmed strike at level 12, so this level I take "Ascetic Mage" at level 15, and now gain full Monk AC, and my Cha bonus to ac as if I was a level 15 monk.

Mind explaining how that is really any less crazy? You basically just took the only part of that class any body really likes, and seeing how you're a caster, you wouldn't have used any of the other powers anyways. In terms of class abilities, you might as well be geslalt.

At least with the TOB multiclass, you're operating at 1/2 level, instead of full.

[Jayabalard]

"Lucky" implies that there's a chance they wouldn't survive.Not at all, it implies that as long as you have luck on your side (ie sufficient current hp), and make your save vs massive damage (depending on what rules you use), you will survive.


A level 20 barbarian who has rolled average health at every level and has at least a +1 constitution modifier literally cannot be killed by falling damage.Not true. If that barbarian has already used up his luck (ie, lost enough hp) he may be killed by the fall.


People have also died from them many times in real life.They must have had low hp, eh?


The rules pretty plainly violate the laws of physics at various points, but the core assumption is that we're supposed to treat the D&D world as though it adheres to the physical laws of the real world. Sure, except where the rules state that things work differently than they do in real life ... those aren't uncommon, especially when you're talking about how damage works, since those rules are designed more toward making the game balanced/fun than realistic.

[Morithias]

There is a basic of someone surviving the fall in real physics. It's called terminal velocity. You're just simply so tough, that you can't fall fast enough to hit with fatal impact.

Of course technically it would change the velocity according to your mass and such, but do you really want to have to calculate how much damage you take, based on how heavy your character is? Do you really want people making "Barbarian the strong, the 5 lb orc brute" so they can munchkin a way to avoid falling damage? I mean height, weight, and looks are about the only thing that isn't munchkin fodder left in 3.5

[Susano-wo]

Raally? I like flurry of blows. I find it quite fun. Also the extra land speed and stunning fist (not technichally a class feature, but easier to use with monk).

IN any case, it doesn't work well for the classes that were not designed with the TOB multiclassing style. And what you are talking about isn't really comperable to taking Marital Study, since that gives you a 1/encounter ability, not Monk Unarmed damage, Wis to AC, and Cha, well I don't know where the CHA to AC comes from, but I don't know the Ascetic Mage text....

Ok rereading your post I see the last line:
At least with the TOB multiclass, you're operating at 1/2 level, instead of full.

I was responding to Frosty's line :
It's like saying that a 10th level fighter grabbing a level of Sorcerer can immediately learn (and cast) level 3 spells.

3rd lvl spells aren't the same thing as as full sorc levels. I was saying that the ToB multiclass rules are for helping balance the power so that its not useless to multiclass into ToB. Its not about making sense in the story. You'd have to discuss that part with your group. To do Sorc that way you would have to structure his spellcasting like learning maneuvers.

[Susano-wo]

Sure, except where the rules state that things work differently than they do in real life ... those aren't uncommon, especially when you're talking about how damage works, since those rules are designed more toward making the game balanced/fun than realistic.

If you are going to make that claim, I'd like to see at least a sourcebook reference. And to be clear, there is a big difference between "the rules imply that physics is different" and "the rules state that physics is different."

[Morithias]

If you are going to make that claim, I'd like to see at least a sourcebook reference. And to be clear, there is a big difference between "the rules imply that physics is different" and "the rules state that physics is different."

The description of the (EX) subtype for abilities, flat out states that they're not magical even if they "Do break the laws of physics".

There's your answer.

[Scow2]

Most maneuvers do not break the laws of physics.

Most of the more controversial maneuvers are actually re-assertion of physics over magic.

[Gametime]

They must have had low hp, eh?

If you assume that hit points are nothing but luck, then that is a half-decent justification for why normal people can die from falls and supposedly still-within-the-bounds-of-human-ability PCs can't. Of course, then it raises all sorts of other questions, about why going into a berserker rage makes you luckier, or why gaining the endurance of a bear makes you luckier.

There have been entire threads debating what hit points represent, and we can probably agree that it isn't worth derailing this one (any farther). But I'm sure you can understand why I think it is silly to assume that people who die from falls must have "low HP" regardless of their healthiness or physical endurance at the time.

[Susano-wo]

The description of the (EX) subtype for abilities, flat out states that they're not magical even if they "Do break the laws of physics".

There's your answer.

All that says is that PC's/Monsters with Ex abilities might break physics. Which implies then that normally physics is considered to apply (HP, your base speed, etc, are not Ex abilities :smallamused:)

[Godless_Paladin]

All that says is that PC's/Monsters with Ex abilities might break physics. Which implies then that normally physics is considered to apply (HP, your base speed, etc, are not Ex abilities :smallamused:)

No, it actually doesn't imply that.

This is kinda like saying Spells are not assumed to ever break the laws of physics because Spell-Like Abilities say they do. Just because one thing is stated to break the laws of physics doesn't actually infer that another thing doesn't.

Or do you suppose that mechanics like HP or skills really do represent something akin to real-world physics? I suppose it's possible to Balance on a cloud in the real world?

[true_shinken]

Or do you suppose that mechanics like HP really do represent something akin to real-world physics?
"I'll just throw myself out of this window, it's faster than going down the stairs and after I sleep the damage will heal"
Man, I'd really like to have hit points.

[Godless_Paladin]

"I'll just throw myself out of this window, it's faster than going down the stairs and after I sleep the damage will heal"
Man, I'd really like to have hit points.

Exactly.

Indeed, it's generally expected that you ignore "realistic physics' in favor of Hollywood Physics, starting with throwing the Square Cube Law out the window and going from there. And D&D already goes well outside the bounds of real world physics in favor of hollywood physics where you can indeed use your (relative) Waif Fu to punch a gigantic adamant-skinned monster and knock it prone. Tome of Battle isn't changing that, it's just implementing it better from a game design perspective and helping make characters limited to Badass Normal / Charles Atlas Superpowers into characters that have more kinetic and fun gameplay with a wider array of tactical options and cinematic, heroic actions beyond "I charge it for tons of damage" or "I trip it with my spiked chain again."

And if you think any given maneuver is "too supernatural"? You can just not take that one. I mean, other ones are seriously "parry" or "cleave" or "dodge an attack so that the guy hits the guy behind you" and so forth. Fun, cinematic maneuvers that are in no way out of the ordinary in a heroic fantasy setting.

Physics don't work the same in the world of D&D (or indeed, in most Sword and Sorcery settings in media), and they never did. Heck, magic itself is part of the physics of the world and the physicists are Wizards or Artificers.

[Susano-wo]

I do think that HP, etc are supposed to represent real things. Are they designed to be a perfect model of physics? of course not! Are they intended to be a fast and loose model, more worried about fun than accurate physics? yes.

This is not the same as saying that while roleplaying in DnD, that the in-narrative physics are supposed to be different.

And no, what I said does not imply that everything that breaks physics has to be an EX ability. Just that specifying that a non-magical abilities of this sort do break physics implies that other non-magical abilites probably aren't considered physics breaking. Now this implies the other rules are intended to model phyics, except in the case of some Ex abilities and magic[by its defintiition it can break physics], and any breaks from them are just...glitches, for lack of a better word.

Or it implies that it was a (gasp) poorly worded staement of Wizard's part, not meant to imply anything:smalltongue:

I'm not saying that there aren't things in Dnd that happen that make no sense, physics wise, or even that that is a tremendous problem (since its pretty easy to common sense some of the more horrible ones, such as meteoric orbital drops :P) But I object to the throwing around of "DnD has different physical laws than the real world because of Hp, land speed rules, falling damage, etc." as fact, rahter than a way that some people like to play the game.

You can pretty much assume either point of view on the DnD physics issue, but to try to claim that they are different, in RAW, by citing one line that implies something different is falacious


[and to clarify, since your last post, if I read it right, seems to think I'm arguing against ToB, I freakin love ToB, and I don't have a problem with the physics bending. I just take it like a movie. Its not Hollywood Physics being different, is screenplays not employing accurate physics, whether accidentally, or intentionally)