PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Tome of Battle: Why some hate?



Pages : [1] 2

fortesama
2010-10-08, 12:01 PM
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:

Morph Bark
2010-10-08, 12:07 PM
Some dislike it for being stronger than the Fighter.

Some dislike it because they think it has too strong connotations to anime and video games.

Personally, I don't hate it at all, love it in fact. Just hate the fact that one of my players loves it too much.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-08, 12:09 PM
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:

Yeah, that things if we (as a people) are used to melees being boring: full attack + 5 ft step.

The idea that you can have a useful Standard action but not be a spellcaster scares some people.
Also Desert wind is the first maneuver discipline list in the book and that scares off people as that is the most supernatural discipline.

Usually, that lead to arguments that ToB was magic because Swordsages were. But then they had to argue Warblade/Crusader, usually they didn't argue that part but still arguements happened.

Anyhoo, it has less hate now I think.

Keld Denar
2010-10-08, 12:10 PM
Ohhhh, this weeks ToB hate/defense thread!

Where's that durned eldritch horror with the popcorn...

*munches*

*subscribes*

EDIT: I suppose I should contribute...

There is a lot of misplaced belief that ToB is "too strong". The issue isn't that its too strong, its just that its self-optimizing on a very narrow deadband. The margine of power between a poorly built ToB character and a powerfully built ToB character is rather small, relatively speaking. Constrast this to core melee classes such as Paladin, Fighter, Ranger, and Barbarian. A crappily build Fighter who takes Weapon Focus for 7 different weapons and uses a sword and shield with no other supporting feats is gonna feel left behind in combat with his 1d8+3 damage. A Fighter/Barbarian with Shocktrooper, Leap Attack, and Pounce fueling a Power Attack engine of doom is gonna 1 shot every published monster ever written each round of combat. The power differences are STAGGERING. If non-ToB melee optimizes between 1 and 10, ToB optimizes between 6 and 8. Generally stronger than average, but not reaching the ceilings you get with charge multipliers.

Duke of URL
2010-10-08, 12:12 PM
Is it time for the weekly ToB thread?

Mechanically, it's one of the best balanced books WotC put out for 3.5, although with the absence of useful errata, there are a few errors that need to be addressed via DM fiat/houserules.

(Reasonable) dislike generally comes from two vectors:

1) Fluff. As noted above, some folks see ToB as "too anime" and don't like the flavor implications in their games.

2) Power creep. While ToB makes martial classes more powerful, some people prefer lower-power games, and would rather nerf or ban high-power options than introduce options that add power to the lower-powered options.

Reynard
2010-10-08, 12:12 PM
Tome of Battle: The same thread every month.


Most of the people I've seen disallowing it do it out of either the bad and false rumours, or out of a dislike of learning 'new mechanics', despite it basically being refreshable Vancian for melee-ers.

Nanoblack
2010-10-08, 12:14 PM
Meh IMO I think it brings martial types too close to spellcasters. If I decide I want to play a warrior, I don't want the equivalent of a spell list to go with it. It definitely bridges the gap between melee and casters, but at the cost of distinction.

(Please don't kill me if this sounds pretentious, I've only read through the book a few times and not very intently when I did.)

Spiryt
2010-10-08, 12:20 PM
Because with all that combinations, you still can't make flying armbar.

Even anime one.


http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z156/spiryt_bucket/latajcabalacha.gif


:smallwink:

Telonius
2010-10-08, 12:21 PM
Part of it is a similar reason that Psionics gets hate: it's yet another system of things for a DM to keep track of when designing encounters that are supposed to be challenging but not overpowering.

EDIT: I'll note that I do allow ToB in my sessions, so it didn't stop me from allowing it. It is a real concern, though. Most DMs have had years of practice swatting down spellcasters. They know what can be tried, they know what to ban and what to allow, and how many/how powerful monsters they can throw at a party without inducing a TPK. But now they come out with some new amped-up melee guy to deal with? Throws the whole thing off-kilter. Like I said, with some work and familiarity with the system, it's easy enough to figure out. But not everybody's going to want to take the time and effort.

SurlySeraph
2010-10-08, 12:33 PM
Meh IMO I think it brings martial types too close to spellcasters. If I decide I want to play a warrior, I don't want the equivalent of a spell list to go with it. It definitely bridges the gap between melee and casters, but at the cost of distinction.

(Please don't kill me if this sounds pretentious, I've only read through the book a few times and not very intently when I did.)

Rebuttal: most maneuvers are variations on "I hit it very hard," "I hit it very precisely," "I hit it so hard that it falls down," "I hit it so hard that it starts bleeding," "I hit it very hard in the head so it is stunned," etc. Most stances are variations on "I'm dodging well" or "I'm attacking in a way that makes the enemy more vulnerable to my allies." Pretty much every maneuver is something fighting-types really ought to be able to do anyway, gives meleers strong options other than "I charge again" and "I trip them again," and let them do said things that pretty much any fighter should be able to do (hit things hard enough to knock them down, give their allies openings, etc.) without taking feats to do so.

JonestheSpy
2010-10-08, 12:34 PM
Meh IMO I think it brings martial types too close to spellcasters. If I decide I want to play a warrior, I don't want the equivalent of a spell list to go with it. It definitely bridges the gap between melee and casters, but at the cost of distinction.


Pretty much that, though I don't hate the book. I prefer to adapt some elements into the preexisting martial classes than than add what's essentially a caster in fighter drag.

TheThan
2010-10-08, 12:38 PM
Tome of battle irritates me for one primary reason, it’s the same reason psionics and a host of other variant and sub systems irritate me. the book doesn’t quite fully integrate into the core system.

Seriously look at it. The crusader is a good analog for a paladin or knight, the warblade makes a good fighter, and the unarmed swordsage variant is a great replacement for the monk. But there is no real solid analog for a barbarian or ranger. You could make the case for the swordsage for ranger and the warblade for barbarian, but they don’t quite feel right, at least to me. The swordsage fits certain other types of classes or concepts better, like a wuxia swordsman or a whirling dervish. But the three classes in the book just doesn’t quite do ranger or barbarian for me.

So you end up having to homebrew those classes in order to make it work out. Which is really annoying. They really needed a section on adapting maneuvers and stances to existing classes. It just irks me when I find a fantastic sub system that would make a great addition to my game, only to learn that I have to do a bunch of house ruling or home brewing to make it fit perfectly. out of the box, TOB almost fits perfectly, you just need to smack it with a homebrew hammer to make it fit.

Swordguy
2010-10-08, 12:45 PM
Why the hate? Because, despite what we see on Teh Internets, I firmly believe that MOST groups are heavily un-optimized. Fireball wizards, healbot clerics, and so forth. People listening to the advice WotC gives on how to play characters. In such an environment, the ToB, which is built to let melee compete in a moderately-optimized environment, will come across to un-optimized groups as a BIG step up in character power for no apparent reason (because, as mentioned, those groups aren't optimizing and exploring what really is and isn't broken in the system). Thus, the ToB is "broken". Thus the ToB is "banned".

Other reasons that have more or less validity include a dislike of the fluff in the book (contrary to popular belief here on the forums, a lot of people either aren't sufficiently motivated or just don't like changing huge swathes of fluff - they'll just not use something with fluff they don't like) or they don't want to be bothered reading another 200-page book full of rules.

Finally, mechanically, it makes melee characters a lot more like casters. The fluff doens't make them so (as SurlySeraph points out), but with ToB in play, their mechanics are far closer to that of a Vancian spellcaster than they were previously. That mechanical change is another point of contention, as it makes melee much more complicated to run than it is straight out of core.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-08, 12:48 PM
But the three classes in the book just doesn’t quite do ranger or barbarian for me.

So you end up having to homebrew those classes in order to make it work out. Which is really annoying. They really needed a section on adapting maneuvers and stances to existing classes.

It's called, you get half-IL for all other classes. So, take your levels in barbarian, or ranger, if you want a bit of that feel, then dive into the ToB class you like. You get the taste of the class you want, and all the goodness of ToB.

It isn't supposed to be a complete replacement for all existing melee.

Keld Denar
2010-10-08, 12:50 PM
Seriously look at it. The crusader is a good analog for a paladin or knight, the warblade makes a good fighter, and the unarmed swordsage variant is a great replacement for the monk. But there is no real solid analog for a barbarian or ranger. You could make the case for the swordsage for ranger and the warblade for barbarian, but they don’t quite feel right, at least to me. The swordsage fits certain other types of classes or concepts better, like a wuxia swordsman or a whirling dervish. But the three classes in the book just doesn’t quite do ranger or barbarian for me.


I'd counter this with the fact that ToB multiclasses well. The joys of D&D 3.x is the fact that you CAN multiclass. You can blend parts A, B, and C to create concept F. ToB multiclases notoriously well considering you get +1/2 IL progression for non-ToB classes. So...barbarian. Taking 4 levels of Barbarian (or 2 levels of Barb + 2 levels of Fighter) on a mostly Warblade chassis sets you back 1 manevuer level, but gives you a bunch of other cool options. Take some Tiger Claw manevuers to contunue the savage fury feel, and maybe a touch of Iron Heart or Diamond Mind to get a natural cunning feel. Maybe take 3-5 levels of Bloodclaw Master to get that REALLY feral feel, even if you aren't a TWFer. Maybe take a few levels of a non-ToB PrC to pick up something like Mettle or Mind Blank to reflect your savage resiliance.

Sure, its not an "out of the box" 1-20 class build, but it works, isn't that tough, is VERY customizable to get EXACTLY what you want, and is still VERY effective. Surely you can't have a problem with this?

EDIT:

That mechanical change is another point of contention, as it makes melee much more complicated to run than it is straight out of core.
Complicated is bad?

Zaydos
2010-10-08, 12:51 PM
Yeah, that things if we (as a people) are used to melees being boring: full attack + 5 ft step.

The idea that you can have a useful Standard action but not be a spellcaster scares some people.
Also Desert wind is the first maneuver discipline list in the book and that scares off people as that is the most supernatural discipline.

Usually, that lead to arguments that ToB was magic because Swordsages were. But then they had to argue Warblade/Crusader, usually they didn't argue that part but still arguements happened.

Anyhoo, it has less hate now I think.

Well swordsages being magic never bothered me.

Crusaders having non-magical "I heal someone nearby by hitting an enemy" abilities does in fact strain my suspension of disbelief. If they had made them Supernatural that would have been one thing, but no matter how skilled you are with you weapon it doesn't throw out heal spells.

Duke of URL
2010-10-08, 12:52 PM
I'd counter this with the fact that ToB multiclasses well.

I totally agree. The whole multiclassing fix that is at the heart of Boundless Horizons was originally inspired by ToB and it's initiator level progression for multiclassing.


Well swordsages being magic never bothered me.

Crusaders having non-magical "I heal someone nearby by hitting an enemy" abilities does in fact strain my suspension of disbelief. If they had made them Supernatural that would have been one thing, but no matter how skilled you are with you weapon it doesn't throw out heal spells.

That all depends on how much you subscribe to the "hit points as morale" theory. Crusaders' "healing" abilities seem to rely heavily on that concept.

Swordguy
2010-10-08, 12:54 PM
EDIT:

Complicated is bad?


Complicated CAN be bad, for some groups or people. Complicated can be good too...but it's intellectually dishonest to discount the "complicated is bad" argument just because GitPers tend to like complexity.

ranagrande
2010-10-08, 12:55 PM
I think part of it is due to how front-loaded the classes are. If a campaign is starting at level one, ToB is overpowered compared to everything in core except the Druid.

Eldan
2010-10-08, 12:58 PM
Complicated is bad?

Hoo boy, yes.

My old group had a guy playing a monk. To quote him:

"I get six skill points again this level? Man. I really don't know what to do with them. What do all these skills do again?"

He would then spend about half an hour carefully evaluating all his possible skill choices every time he levelled. Then, next encounter: "Spot helps against Hide? What do I roll to trip? What does charge do again?"

Then we had our Sorcerer who couldn't remember what Magic Missile did.

true_shinken
2010-10-08, 01:00 PM
Is it that time of the weak already?

The_Snark
2010-10-08, 01:00 PM
There is a lot of misplaced belief that ToB is "too strong". The issue isn't that its too strong, its just that its self-optimizing on a very narrow deadband. The margine of power between a poorly built ToB character and a powerfully built ToB character is rather small, relatively speaking. Constrast this to core melee classes such as Paladin, Fighter, Ranger, and Barbarian...

To expand on this: in a group that's used to core melee classes and doesn't optimize them very much, Tome of Battle characters will seem too strong. (Actually they are too strong in that situation, because that's a relative term. But that's a nitpick.) By default, Tome of Battle classes are set to a higher power level.

In one sense, this is really nice, because you can make reasonably powerful characters without bothering to optimize them; just pick some cool-looking maneuvers and go. But it does mean that when you have a group that's used to unoptimized core games, the classes end up being much more powerful than the norm. The warblade is going to be much stronger than a fighter with core-only feats. The crusader is better than the core-only paladin. To this group, the new classes seem blatantly more powerful than any of the core classes—and they are, in that situation. Most of the core melee classes can't compete unless you start to bring other splatbook material in.

So when somebody tries to bring a Tome of Battle character into a low-optimization game, the group will perceive that character as being above the power curve- and rightfully so. I like Tome of Battle myself, but I don't think it fits into everyone's game.

TheThan
2010-10-08, 01:06 PM
I'd counter this with the fact that ToB multiclasses well. The joys of D&D 3.x is the fact that you CAN multiclass. You can blend parts A, B, and C to create concept F. ToB multiclases notoriously well considering you get +1/2 IL progression for non-ToB classes. So...barbarian. Taking 4 levels of Barbarian (or 2 levels of Barb + 2 levels of Fighter) on a mostly Warblade chassis sets you back 1 manevuer level, but gives you a bunch of other cool options. Take some Tiger Claw manevuers to contunue the savage fury feel, and maybe a touch of Iron Heart or Diamond Mind to get a natural cunning feel. Maybe take 3-5 levels of Bloodclaw Master to get that REALLY feral feel, even if you aren't a TWFer. Maybe take a few levels of a non-ToB PrC to pick up something like Mettle or Mind Blank to reflect your savage resiliance.

Sure, its not an "out of the box" 1-20 class build, but it works, isn't that tough, is VERY customizable to get EXACTLY what you want, and is still VERY effective. Surely you can't have a problem with this?

EDIT:

Complicated is bad?


I’m not really a big fan of multi-classing so forgive me that I’ve never really saw that. It doesn’t seem terribly bad, I might have to try it out and see if it fits. And no complicated is just complicated, which could be very good or very bad, depending on the circumstances.


I think part of it is due to how front-loaded the classes are. If a campaign is starting at level one, ToB is overpowered compared to everything in core except the Druid.


How are they more front loaded than a paladin? A paladin gets nothing but additional smites per day and a few extra remove disease per days after 5th level. The TOB classes have a much more even spread of abilities than a paladin and ranger (to a lesser degree).

ranagrande
2010-10-08, 01:12 PM
How are they more front loaded than a paladin? A paladin gets nothing but additional smites per day and a few extra remove disease per days after 5th level. The TOB classes have a much more even spread of abilities than a paladin and ranger (to a lesser degree).
At level 1? They are very much more powerful than the Paladin. A ToB class has stances and maneuvers, and the Paladin can detect evil and smite it once a day.

Really, the Paladin is a perfect example for proving my point.

nolispe
2010-10-08, 01:29 PM
Hoo boy, yes.

My old group had a guy playing a monk. To quote him:

"I get six skill points again this level? Man. I really don't know what to do with them. What do all these skills do again?"

He would then spend about half an hour carefully evaluating all his possible skill choices every time he levelled. Then, next encounter: "Spot helps against Hide? What do I roll to trip? What does charge do again?"

Then we had our Sorcerer who couldn't remember what Magic Missile did.

Oh gods, you have no idea. Our group had:
1 Druid, who did not have an animal companion (Forgot) and tended not to ever cast spells. 1/day, max.
2 Sorcerers. First encounter went like this. "Right, the rat hits you... and deals one point of damage. Okay, now..." "I'm dead." "WTF? Let me see that character sheet. You have 0 Con?!?!?... But that means your already dead, even without the damage." Other sorc: "Then I'm dead too, I guess." Wizard: Me too.
1 wizard. As above.
And the core only sword and board fighter, who was the only character who had a weapon.
And this was a group that had apprently been playing for years. No, they didn't roleplay much either.

Susano-wo
2010-10-08, 01:32 PM
Is it that time of the weak already?

Yes, yes it is. Its also the time of the week where about 5 people post that its that time of the week :smallbiggrin:

@ranagrande: The possible power problem with ToB (which I can sympathize with. I had a Fighter/Sorc, and when my friend said I should check ToB out my jaw dropped and my DM let me respec to WB/Sorc :smallbiggrin: Our games are not all that optimized, but that's kinda the point, right?^-^), isn't front loading.

Yes, you get several menuevers at 1st lvl, and it will generally put you ahead in power at 1st, but the issue is in an un-optimized/low-optimized game they tend to shine more, since they, as folks have said, have a higher general minimum effectiveness level.

Given that you get special abilities all the way up, in addition to manevers, as well as nice capstones for both Warblade and Sword Sage, kinda defines them as not front loaded...:smallwink:

Greenish
2010-10-08, 01:32 PM
I think part of it is due to how front-loaded the classes are. If a campaign is starting at level one, ToB is overpowered compared to everything in core except the Druid.Well, a barbarian is rather vicious at low levels. Well, most everything is.

true_shinken
2010-10-08, 01:34 PM
Well, a barbarian is rather vicious at low levels. Well, most everything is.

Even Wizards. For, like, a fight a day or something.

SurlySeraph
2010-10-08, 01:35 PM
On ToB being front-loaded:

Consider a Warforged Crusader 1, with Adamantine Body. Right out of the box he has DR 2, AC 18, and can delay 5 points of damage. Taking a flaw for Stone Power adds 2 temporary HP per round, so in a one-one-one slugfest he takes 4 less points of damage per hit than his opponent (7 if he uses Stone Bones), and can delay 5 points of damage until the next round each turn, plus heal with Crusader's Strike and Martial Spirit make this better. A 1st-level character is unlikely to have more than 16 hp at best, so this is a fairly incredible amount of endurance.

Swordsages are less front-loaded, but 7 maneuvers, 2 stances, Wis to AC, +1 initiative, and various Weapon Focuses is pretty impressive for 2 levels.

As for Warblades, Punishing Stance + TWF will tend to outdamage a TWFing rogue (since the WB will probably have higher Strength) without needing to set up for sneak attacks, which some people find overpowered.

I've also read some rather silly arguments comparing strike damage to wizard spells to "prove" that ToB is overpowered (Fan the Flames does more damage than a 5th-level Fireball [except requiring a ranged touch attack and only having a single target], at will! [except that Swordsages need to take a full round to recover their maneuvers]. A 5th-level Warblade using Soaring Raptor Strike and Punishing Stance with a greatsword gets +4 to attack rolls and does 9d6 damage, at will! [to a limited range of opponents, if he makes a Jump check that can be rather high, and also maneuver recovery].

Starbuck_II
2010-10-08, 01:39 PM
Oh gods, you have no idea. Our group had:
1 Druid, who did not have an animal companion (Forgot) and tended not to ever cast spells. 1/day, max.
2 Sorcerers. First encounter went like this. "Right, the rat hits you... and deals one point of damage. Okay, now..." "I'm dead." "WTF? Let me see that character sheet. You have 0 Con?!?!?... But that means your already dead, even without the damage." Other sorc: "Then I'm dead too, I guess." Wizard: Me too.
1 wizard. As above.
And the core only sword and board fighter, who was the only character who had a weapon.
And this was a group that had apprently been playing for years. No, they didn't roleplay much either.

You can't roll 0 Con.... How...:smallfurious: :smallannoyed::smallsigh:

Greenish
2010-10-08, 01:42 PM
You can't roll 0 Con.... How...:smallfurious: :smallannoyed::smallsigh:Venerable elf.

subject42
2010-10-08, 01:42 PM
You have 0 Con?!?!?... But that means your already dead, even without the damage." Other sorc: "Then I'm dead too, I guess." Wizard: Me too.


How does that even work?

true_shinken
2010-10-08, 01:43 PM
A 5th-level Warblade using Soaring Raptor Strike and Punishing Stance with a greatsword gets +4 to attack rolls and does 9d6 damage, at will! [to a limited range of opponents, if he makes a Jump check that can be rather high, and also maneuver recovery].

Well, a single level later, a Warrior with Power Attack/Leap Attack could top that. 9d6 is an average of 31.5. With a base attack of +6, Leap Attack adds +24 to damage. With a greatsword, that's an average of 34.5 damage.

SurlySeraph
2010-10-08, 01:46 PM
How does that even work?

A serious misunderstanding of point buy, maybe? Say, thinking an "optimized 32-point buy wizard" would look like Str 0, Dex 14, Con 0, Int 18, Wis 0, Cha 0.

{Scrubbed}

nolispe
2010-10-08, 01:53 PM
A serious misunderstanding of point buy, maybe? Say, thinking an "optimized 32-point buy wizard" would look like Str 0, Dex 14, Con 0, Int 18, Wis 0, Cha 0.


That happened too, but they were all venerable elves of one type or another.
The Wizard just had Int 79. Because if 18 costs four points, right, then its just going to go like that all the way up! Yay! I still somehow have patheticaly low save DC's, but whatever. :smallannoyed::smallmad::smallfurious:
*Twitch*

Susano-wo
2010-10-08, 01:56 PM
too be fair, half of that stuff with the crusader sounded like race+feats. :smallconfused:

But, yes, the sword sage has a rather potent 2 lvl dip capacity, expecially if you time 1 or both of the levels for later levels. The thing is, though, as far as being front loaded, those are all still level 1. yes, there are some good things in level 1 (and some that can stay useful at higher levels, too, like some boosts and the stances), but you still need to wait it out to get a lot of the class features, as well as the higher level maneuvers

Edit: @nolispe: tahts, just...I mean...its... ::ANEURYSM::

Eldan
2010-10-08, 02:05 PM
A serious misunderstanding of point buy, maybe? Say, thinking an "optimized 32-point buy wizard" would look like Str 0, Dex 14, Con 0, Int 18, Wis 0, Cha 0.

{Scrubbed}

Basic rule I have seen often:

In the minds of many people, 5d6 is a huge lot better than, say, +20 damage straight. The dice make a huge psychological impact. Which is why the rogue's damage will, for some reason, always feel "larger".

Eldariel
2010-10-08, 02:15 PM
Basic rule I have seen often:

In the minds of many people, 5d6 is a huge lot better than, say, +20 damage straight. The dice make a huge psychological impact. Which is why the rogue's damage will, for some reason, always feel "larger".

Yeah; the funny part is that 5d6 only averages 17.5 damage. Though I actually really dislike the "extra d6"-approach 3.5 has taken; I much prefer Backstab as multiplier á la AD&D - makes your base damage count and makes a lot more sense. I'm thinking of trying to rework precision damage into a more sensible base damage enhancer-type of deal. Could be an interesting project and fix yet another part of 3.X I felt was a step backwards.

SurlySeraph
2010-10-08, 02:26 PM
That happened too, but they were all venerable elves of one type or another.
The Wizard just had Int 79. Because if 18 costs four points, right, then its just going to go like that all the way up! Yay! I still somehow have patheticaly low save DC's, but whatever. :smallannoyed::smallmad::smallfurious:
*Twitch*


STILL SOMEHOW HAVE PATHETICALLY LOW SAVE DCS

What? How does that even. It doesn't math. It doesn't math at all!


too be fair, half of that stuff with the crusader sounded like race+feats. :smallconfused:

Oh, more than half. But the point is, Crusaders with Stone Power (aka all of them) are really hard to kill.


Basic rule I have seen often:

In the minds of many people, 5d6 is a huge lot better than, say, +20 damage straight. The dice make a huge psychological impact. Which is why the rogue's damage will, for some reason, always feel "larger".

I'm inclined to agree - since you roll them, it feels more significant. I've certainly made a few builds that get tons of d6s from different sources and don't do more damage than a marginally optimized charger.


Yeah; the funny part is that 5d6 only averages 17.5 damage. Though I actually really dislike the "extra d6"-approach 3.5 has taken; I much prefer Backstab as multiplier á la AD&D - makes your base damage count and makes a lot more sense. I'm thinking of trying to rework precision damage into a more sensible base damage enhancer-type of deal. Could be an interesting project and fix yet another part of 3.X I felt was a step backwards.

Issue: that way it's best to backstab with weapons with the highest base damage possible, and before long all the Rogues will be carrying Fullblades. Not great fluff-wise. Multiplying something else (Dex modifier times class level, maybe? Though that could get way too high in some cases) and adding it to your weapon damage would probably work better than multiplying your base weapon damage.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-08, 02:32 PM
Yeah; the funny part is that 5d6 only averages 17.5 damage. Though I actually really dislike the "extra d6"-approach 3.5 has taken; I much prefer Backstab as multiplier á la AD&D - makes your base damage count and makes a lot more sense. I'm thinking of trying to rework precision damage into a more sensible base damage enhancer-type of deal. Could be an interesting project and fix yet another part of 3.X I felt was a step backwards.

Even better nothing specifically prevented backstab on undead unlike sneak attack did.

Backstab gave a + 4 to hit (1st level doubles * base damage, so forth)
It was lmited to 1 handed Melee weapons (Rules encyclopedia confirmed that). But throwing weapons within point blank aren't denied.

Only the hit bonus made it better than Sneak attack.

So every theif will want to use the best one handed weapon possible: Katana/Bastard sword.

Zaydos
2010-10-08, 02:33 PM
Well, a single level later, a Warrior with Power Attack/Leap Attack could top that. 9d6 is an average of 31.5. With a base attack of +6, Leap Attack adds +24 to damage. With a greatsword, that's an average of 34.5 damage.

Also couldn't hit; the +4 to hit does make a difference (against an enemy that you need a 6+ to hit it adds 20% damage) and the -6 to hit from Power Attack makes them get a -30% to damage (-20% after you factor in the +2 from charging).

Also greatsword's average damage would be 7; with shock trooper 38 (with two attacks hitting, although against a CR 6 foe that's extremely unlikely; CR 6 creatures supposed to have around 18 AC meaning the 2nd attack has maybe a 15% accuracy), +1.5 times strength rounded down. The average damage should not end in a .5 (and if you're including the weapon and strength in the warrior's attack you should in the warblade's).

Now a better example would be actually assuming Power Attack + Leap Attack + Shock Trooper and pounce and you have a +8 + enchantments + Str to hit; so let's assume 20 Str (max for a human) and +2 weapon (unlikely). That's a +15/+10. Against a chain devil (first MM CR 6 monster I came to) you average 40 damage per hit assuming that the DM goes with Leap Attack being x4 instead of x3 (which I've seen more often); you need a 5 and a 10 to hit. Or 54 average damage on a charge.

The warblade needs a 2 to hit and is dealing 47.5 damage with his one attack and 45.125 if you factor in his 5% chance of missing.

If you were also to factor in chain devil's DR it would be 47.25 to 40.125; if you were to use the normal x3 from Leap Attack it would be 42 to 45.125; if you were to use the normal x3 and the chain devil's DR it would be 39.15 against 40.125.

So a fighter/barbarian using bonus feats and pounce is at most as strong and likely still weaker than a warblade using two of his many more.

Warblades are out of the box much stronger than Core melee; highly optimized Core melee can do crazy things but generally that gets shut down very quickly.

Edit: For giggles the original presentation, assuming a +2 weapon and max strength would have actually dealt an average damage of 30 damage without factoring in DR and using the better Leap Attack damage; or 21.75 if doing both a mere +7 damage to a standard full attack.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-08, 02:37 PM
Well, a single level later, a Warrior with Power Attack/Leap Attack could top that. 9d6 is an average of 31.5. With a base attack of +6, Leap Attack adds +24 to damage. With a greatsword, that's an average of 34.5 damage.

If he's a human warrior, would he not have another feat? Powerful charge for an additional d8 on the charge.

Zaydos
2010-10-08, 02:39 PM
If he's a human warrior, would he not have another feat? Powerful charge for an additional d8 on the charge.

He'd have 2 more at Lv 6, Improved Bull Rush and Shock Trooper are a much better bet; especially as you need to factor in attack bonus to get any reliable number for damage.

Also those numbers were impossible for the average damage on a greatsword (which will always be a whole number) unless you were adding extra dice or factoring in accuracy which would have left a dismally lower number.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-08, 02:41 PM
It is indeed based on extra dice.

Zaydos
2010-10-08, 02:45 PM
It is indeed based on extra dice.

The initial average wasn't, though and listed 34.5.

The actual number should have been 31 if factoring in nothing (compared to 38.5 for the warblade) and once accuracy is factored in a -10 relative to hit is killer (effectively 1/2 damage).

Drakevarg
2010-10-08, 02:45 PM
Why do I dislike ToB? Mainly because I don't own the book and I'm too lazy to find out exactly how it works. (I know a place that has a copy for sale, though, so I suppose I should read it sometime.)

But also because when I decide to play a Fighter, it's because I don't really feel like thinking about combat, and just want to hit squishy thing with metal thing until squishy thing stops moving. Then back to the story and whatnot.

If I wanted fancy-pants, complicated combat, I'd roll a wizard. Or if I was in a melee-is mood at the time, Ranger or Barbarian.

So the main problem I have with it is that I don't see the Fighter as needing fixing. Sure, it sucks mechanically, but the only reason I'm playing it in the first place is that I don't care.

Amphetryon
2010-10-08, 02:48 PM
Also those numbers were impossible for the average damage on a greatsword (which will always be a whole number)I think you're using 'average damage' in a way that's different than I'm familiar with. Average can very easily include decimal places. Example: If in 2 rounds I hit for 7 and then 6 points of damage, I averaged 6.5 damage/round for this (very small) sample set.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-08, 02:58 PM
Why do I dislike ToB? Mainly because I don't own the book and I'm too lazy to find out exactly how it works. (I know a place that has a copy for sale, though, so I suppose I should read it sometime.)


Here are free by WotC maneuvers:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a

Maneuvers are per encounter (or every 1 full rd action if recovering out of battle by resting). You choose your maneuvers ready each day if a Martial adept with a 5 minute process (focusing mind).

Additionally, every class can recover a maneuver in a certain way. Swordsages use a full rd action. Warblades swift action (but no maneuvers in that round) and a standard attack.
Crudaders are refreshed when run out of maneuvers to be granted.

In fact, forget the classes be a fighter with Martial study (a fighter bonus feat).
Martial study feat grants you a maneuver + a skill associated with the maneuvers discipline.
Your initiator level (affects highest you can choose 2nd level maneuvers require initator 3 minimum) = 1/2 Non-ToB level + Martial adept level (Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader).

So a Fighter 6 takes Martial study gains 1 1st or 2nd level maneuver (because 6/2 = 3 initiator level).

Very simple I think.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-08, 02:58 PM
I make no guarantees for true-shinken's math.

Average is average is average, however. Average for 2d6 is 7. Presumably this is what people are talking about.

So, power attacking adds a flat +12 damage. So, your standard power attacking warrior with Powerful charge will do an average of 23.5+1.5*Str. Presumably you'll mitigate this with the standard shock trooper shenanigans.

A fighter/lion totem barbarian build would be more representative of the standard charger build, though, and will likely generally outdamage the warblade, though probably not be as flexible as them.

Susano-wo
2010-10-08, 03:10 PM
What? How does that even. It doesn't math. It doesn't math at all!

So damned funny!




Oh, more than half. But the point is, Crusaders with Stone Power (aka all of them) are really hard to kill.

thought the point was that Crusaders can be pretty front loaded. In any case, yes, yes they are :P




Issue: that way it's best to backstab with weapons with the highest base damage possible, and before long all the Rogues will be carrying Fullblades. Not great fluff-wise. Multiplying something else (Dex modifier times class level, maybe? Though that could get way too high in some cases) and adding it to your weapon damage would probably work better than multiplying your base weapon damage.

QFT! I like that +d6 sneak attack frees me to not worry about what weapon I'm using. Also, +xdx damage isn't any more realistic that Xwhatever damager. (you might even argue that its more realistic. If you are stabbed through, say, the heart, it doesn't matter if its a dagger or a katana. :P)

I do find it ironic, though, that extra dice of damage is called precision damage, as opposed to the static bonus :P

Master_Rahl22
2010-10-08, 04:34 PM
What? How does that even. It doesn't math. It doesn't math at all!

I knew Science was a verb (http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TO&Product_Code=QC-SCIENCEVERB&Category_Code=QC), and so apparently is math. :smallbiggrin:

Eldariel
2010-10-08, 04:36 PM
Even Wizards. For, like, a fight a day or something.

I'd say about 3-4 fights a day for level 1, and one more on 2.

Kaww
2010-10-08, 04:59 PM
Hoo boy, yes.

My old group had a guy playing a monk. To quote him:

"I get six skill points again this level? Man. I really don't know what to do with them. What do all these skills do again?"

He would then spend about half an hour carefully evaluating all his possible skill choices every time he levelled. Then, next encounter: "Spot helps against Hide? What do I roll to trip? What does charge do again?"

Then we had our Sorcerer who couldn't remember what Magic Missile did.


Oh gods, you have no idea. Our group had:
1 Druid, who did not have an animal companion (Forgot) and tended not to ever cast spells. 1/day, max.
2 Sorcerers. First encounter went like this. "Right, the rat hits you... and deals one point of damage. Okay, now..." "I'm dead." "WTF? Let me see that character sheet. You have 0 Con?!?!?... But that means your already dead, even without the damage." Other sorc: "Then I'm dead too, I guess." Wizard: Me too.
1 wizard. As above.
And the core only sword and board fighter, who was the only character who had a weapon.
And this was a group that had apprently been playing for years. No, they didn't roleplay much either.

If my players, even noobs, ever said this I would shoot a kitten.

The Glyphstone
2010-10-08, 05:21 PM
http://wiki.nexuswar.com/images/thumb/f/f7/FCeye.gif/250px-FCeye.gif
is watching...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLvr2y0HNs#t=2m23s

Ranger Mattos
2010-10-08, 05:37 PM
If my players, even noobs, ever said this I would shoot a kitten.

Not the kittens!

On topic: I don't get why some people dislike ToB. Personally, I like it because it seems more realistic than full attack + 5-foot step. In real history warriors weren't 1-trick ponies.

ranagrande
2010-10-08, 05:43 PM
Don't get me wrong, I actually like ToB a lot. But that is one of the biggest reasons I see why people dislike it. A lot of campaigns start at level one, and a level one ToB character is significantly more powerful than a level one of most other classes.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-10-08, 05:59 PM
Don't get me wrong, I actually like ToB a lot. But that is one of the biggest reasons I see why people dislike it. A lot of campaigns start at level one, and a level one ToB character is significantly more powerful than a level one of most other classes.At level one I'd still put ToB below Druid, Beguiler, Incarnate and Dragonfire Adept, and on par with the Barbarian, Wizard, Warlock, Binder, Totemist, Psychic Warrior, and... a lot more non-core classes.

In a low-op game, Beguiler and Druid are still very hard to screw up at level 1. The Druid just has to pick a combat-related animal companion, use it, and do something marginally useful with his action. The Beguiler might take a couple combats to get used to his fourteen useful pre-selected first level spells known, but... fourteen useful pre-selected first level spells known.

Greenish
2010-10-08, 06:04 PM
At level one I'd still put ToB below Druid, Beguiler, Incarnate and Dragonfire Adept, and on par with the Barbarian, Wizard, Warlock, Binder, Totemist, Psychic Warrior, and... a lot more non-core classes.Totemist doesn't really kick into gear before Totem Chakra bind at level 2.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-10-08, 06:04 PM
Totemist doesn't really kick into gear before Totem Chakra bind at level 2.Whoops, you're right.

Zaydos
2010-10-08, 06:07 PM
Low op? I'd put Lv 1 warblade or crusader above Barbarian, Wizard, Binder, Totemist, and Psychic Warrior.

I agree druid and beguiler are better, and I'd say warlock is on par. DFA has entangling exhalation (although with low op maybe not) but no armor and and is squishy so getting in range is dangerous. With entangling exhalation they'd be better, without they'd be far worse.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-10-08, 06:11 PM
Low op? I'd put Lv 1 warblade or crusader above Barbarian, Wizard, Binder, Totemist, and Psychic Warrior.

I agree druid and beguiler are better, and I'd say warlock is on par. DFA has entangling exhalation (although with low op maybe not) but no armor and and is squishy so getting in range is dangerous. With entangling exhalation they'd be better, without they'd be far worse.Is it high op to put armor on a DFA and breathe away at level 1? Also, d8 hit die + Con dependence != squishy. And I did say that Druid and Beguiler were the only ones who stuck out as really good out of the box.

Zaydos
2010-10-08, 06:14 PM
Is it high op to put armor on a DFA and breathe away at level 1? And I did say that Druid and Beguiler were the only ones who stuck out as really good out of the box.

I'd say medium. Most players I've seen don't realize that a DFA can do that without penalty other than loss of their invocations, unless they go online and read guides (I've forgotten how many homebrewers have tried to say something is balanced because it can't use shields since they aren't proficient in them without realizing that Mw Light Shields and Mithril Heavy Shields don't care if you're proficient or not).

Greenish
2010-10-08, 06:14 PM
Barbarian with ACFs and Extra Rage is pretty out there when it comes to level 1 fighting. Even normal rage starts out pretty strong.

Quietus
2010-10-08, 06:17 PM
I ban the ToB from my games.. and this is why.

Quite simply, I don't own it. PDF form or otherwise.

As to why I hate it, well, I don't. What I hate is the line it's drawn between users and non-users; The fact that I refuse to allow players to play a swordsage somehow makes me a terrible DM, because I don't have the $50 to drop on a book - or more, 'cause it's out of print.

Things I "hate" about ToB :

A) If I don't use it in my games, I'm automatically a bad DM, because "Hey, it's balanced 'cause Wizards are god, and uberchargers can be built without using it anyway". Well, my players/groups don't optimize like that. If I'm doing 50 damage at level 10, it's far more than anyone else can do.

B) If I ask for advice in a post here and explicitly state three times in the original post that ToB is not allowed.. I still get multiple insistences that I should play a warblade/swordsage/crusader, usually 2-3 of them within the first ten responses. When I point out to these people that I cannot/do not use ToB, the response isn't to go "Oh, then here's this useful advice", it's "GO OUT AND BUY IT NAO".

C) It outshines non-optimized characters, badly. This is a very personal problem, because I am by far the most optimization-minded player I know. The rest of my players tend to be happy to pick up Power Attack on their melee char, and call it a day. But it would be one of those situations where if I had a Warblade and a Fighter in the same party, the Warblade would flat-out spank the Fighter in everything they do, and I'd either have to force the Fighter to step up or the Warblade to back off.. and neither would have gone to any extreme, high or low, in their optimization.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-08, 06:22 PM
I ban the ToB from my games.. and this is why.

Quite simply, I don't own it. PDF form or otherwise.

As to why I hate it, well, I don't. What I hate is the line it's drawn between users and non-users; The fact that I refuse to allow players to play a swordsage somehow makes me a terrible DM, because I don't have the $50 to drop on a book - or more, 'cause it's out of print.

It is online (maneuvers are). So you allow the maneuvers just not the classes?

If you want the link to Wotc online link of all the maneuvers I can do that.

Quietus
2010-10-08, 06:25 PM
It is online (maneuvers are). So you allow the maneuvers just not the classes?

If you want the link to Wotc online link of all the maneuvers I can do that.

Strict no-laptop/computer rules at the games I go to, so online material really doesn't help. Also, this is the exact attitude I was referring to in B) - that it isn't ACCEPTABLE for me to not use the ToB.

jgumbyrx
2010-10-08, 06:28 PM
Part of it is a similar reason that Psionics gets hate: it's yet another system of things for a DM to keep track of when designing encounters that are supposed to be challenging but not overpowering.


Tome of battle irritates me for one primary reason, it’s the same reason psionics and a host of other variant and sub systems irritate me. the book doesn’t quite fully integrate into the core system.

This.
The thing is that many players fail to fully realize (when it comes to additional sub-systems) is that there is a HUGE difference between having a PC/party use a given sub-system, and actually having said sub-system fully integrated in to the setting. They also often fail to fully understand the implications of doing one but not the other. (hint: havoc and chaos ensues)

Here's the deal: every time a player is allowed access to a particular sub-system, then that becomes yet another thing that the DM has to integrate in to the setting. Why? Because otherwise you have a PC/party running around unchecked (and uncheckable), thus completely running a muck through the setting. In other words, you have just given them another "I win" button, with no real recourse other than simple fiat.

"But Jgumbyrx, all you have to do is send them encounters of opponents with the same options" .... while this is true, if you are just tacking it on as a reactionary counter-measure, then it is going to feel hackneyed, and is going to destroy verisimilitude if the only time you see said sub-system is via a contrived combat encounter (as opposed to something that has been integrated as an inherent element within the setting).
Which brings me to: How many dadgummed sub-systems do I have to learn and retroactively implement in to my game? I mean, all I want to do is play some D&D, man! At some point, you reach a point of diminishing returns; leaving me with the question "is the extra effort required to implement this thing really worth the hassle? is the extra fun greater-than-or-equal-to the extra effort?" eventually, that answer starts to be "no".
"But Jgumbyrx, now your just being a lazy DM" .... No, I simply have a life outside of gaming, and do this thing as a hobby ... you know, "an activity or interest that is undertaken for pleasure or relaxation, typically done during one's leisure time". It's not my job (i.e., it doesn't pay my bills), and I also have other interests that compete for my time. This is just an excuse for me and my buddies to get together on a regular basis to share a common interest.

To be fair, I've actually tinkered around with building a setting that is actually focused around the Tomes (in which case they will be used almost exclusively) ..... but outside of that, I don't touch them.
and this includes all additional/variant sub-systems:
- ToB
- ToM
- iajistu focus
- etc., etc., etc. ...

Starbuck_II
2010-10-08, 06:29 PM
Strict no-laptop/computer rules at the games I go to, so online material really doesn't help. Also, this is the exact attitude I was referring to in B) - that it isn't ACCEPTABLE for me to not use the ToB.

No, it seems more stubbornness than B.
It is one thing to claim not to allow it because you don't have it: logical.

The second to claim: okay now I have it but still angry that you gave it to me= unlogical and mean frankly.




Here's the deal: every time a player is allowed access to a particular sub-system, then that becomes yet another thing that the DM has to integrate in to the setting. Why? Because otherwise you have a PC/party running around unchecked (and uncheckable), thus completely running a muck through the setting.

In other words, you have just given them another "I win" button, with no real recourse other than simple fiat.

Can you explain how it is an "I win" button if they don't actually have an I win button. We aren't Druids here.
'

"But Jgumbyrx, all you have to do is send them encounters of opponents with the same options" .... while this is true, if you are just tacking it on as a reactionary counter-measure, then it is going to feel hackneyed, and is going to destroy verisimilitude if the only time you see said sub-system is via a contrived combat encounter (as opposed to something that has been integrated as an inherent element within the setting).

No, no.
You don't need to send same options.
You can, but you don't need to.
Did you change NPCs each time Party changed levels? No, Just bcause the Fighter gained a level rogue doesn't mean every warrior has to have a level of rogue.

There are exceptions, but those full casters (mostly Core, Achivist, etc Tier 1's).

Quietus
2010-10-08, 06:32 PM
No, it seems more stubbornness than B.
It is one thing to claim not to allow it because you don't have it: logical.

The second to claim: okay now I have it but still angry that you gave it to me= unlogical and mean frankly.

Except that I still don't have it, because as I said, running a computer at our game table gets you kicked out of the game. We have players who have a serious issue staying on-topic if they have a computer around; Facebook when it's not their turn, then "Oh? Huh? What? What'd everyone else do again?" when it is.

Morph Bark
2010-10-08, 06:33 PM
It is online (maneuvers are). So you allow the maneuvers just not the classes?

If you want the link to Wotc online link of all the maneuvers I can do that.

Well, apparently in a short while you won't be able to...

Greenish
2010-10-08, 06:36 PM
Here's the deal: every time a player is allowed access to a particular sub-system, then that becomes yet another thing that the DM has to integrate in to the setting. Why? Because otherwise you have a PC/party running around unchecked (and uncheckable), thus completely running a muck through the setting. In other words, you have just given them another "I win" button, with no real recourse other than simple fiat.I'm afraid I don't quite follow. It's not like the subsystems suddenly make the character immune to the core stuff.

The Shadowmind
2010-10-08, 06:37 PM
Except that I still don't have it, because as I said, running a computer at our game table gets you kicked out of the game. We have players who have a serious issue staying on-topic if they have a computer around; Facebook when it's not their turn, then "Oh? Huh? What? What'd everyone else do again?" when it is.

So you can't take this web-page (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2):
And the black and white maneuver cards here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a)
And print them out?

Starbuck_II
2010-10-08, 06:47 PM
Granted, that just means allowing manuevers.
Which is good: you should ease into a new system when cautious (although I find ToB pretty balanced).

So let people take Martial study fear to learn manuevers. Explain you want to ease into system. Most people when given some carrot (allow maneuvers) instead of poison (banning) will accept that.
If things go well, maybe add Classes later.

TheThan
2010-10-08, 06:52 PM
This.
The thing is that many players fail to fully realize (when it comes to additional sub-systems) is that there is a HUGE difference between having a PC/party use a given sub-system, and actually having said sub-system fully integrated in to the setting. They also often fail to fully understand the implications of doing one but not the other. (hint: havoc and chaos ensues)

Here's the deal: every time a player is allowed access to a particular sub-system, then that becomes yet another thing that the DM has to integrate in to the setting. Why? Because otherwise you have a PC/party running around unchecked (and uncheckable), thus completely running a muck through the setting. In other words, you have just given them another "I win" button, with no real recourse other than simple fiat.

"But Jgumbyrx, all you have to do is send them encounters of opponents with the same options" .... while this is true, if you are just tacking it on as a reactionary counter-measure, then it is going to feel hackneyed, and is going to destroy verisimilitude if the only time you see said sub-system is via a contrived combat encounter (as opposed to something that has been integrated as an inherent element within the setting).
Which brings me to: How many dadgummed sub-systems do I have to learn and retroactively implement in to my game? I mean, all I want to do is play some D&D, man! At some point, you reach a point of diminishing returns; leaving me with the question "is the extra effort required to implement this thing really worth the hassle? is the extra fun greater-than-or-equal-to the extra effort?" eventually, that answer starts to be "no".
"But Jgumbyrx, now your just being a lazy DM" .... No, I simply have a life outside of gaming, and do this thing as a hobby ... you know, "an activity or interest that is undertaken for pleasure or relaxation, typically done during one's leisure time". It's not my job (i.e., it doesn't pay my bills), and I also have other interests that compete for my time. This is just an excuse for me and my buddies to get together on a regular basis to share a common interest.

To be fair, I've actually tinkered around with building a setting that is actually focused around the Tomes (in which case they will be used almost exclusively) ..... but outside of that, I don't touch them.
and this includes all additional/variant sub-systems:
- ToB
- ToM
- iajistu focus
- etc., etc., etc. ...


Yes, but when I want to use said subsystem, I want to be able to just pick it up and use it with the standard PHB options seamlessly.

I want to pick it up and say, “ok we’re using TOB, so fighters get X, barbarians get Y etc”. I don’t want to just stack new stuff onto the old; I want the new stuff to mesh with the old stuff. TOB almost delivers but I still find myself making homebrew and house rules for things that I shouldn’t need to. I want sub systems to be “plug and play”, just pick it up and its ready to go.

The truth is that everything you add onto core will make the game more complicated. But complexity does not necessarily mean difficulty. I want these new and nifty systems to be integrated into the core system in such a way that they're not difficult to utilize.

Quietus
2010-10-08, 07:00 PM
So you can't take this web-page (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2):
And the black and white maneuver cards here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a)
And print them out?

I could. But then I have to put in time and effort to do that, which takes AWAY from the time I have to put into planning my game.

And besides that, while this IS a reasonable response (and one I'd allow, if the player who wanted to take these options did the work to bring this to the table), it's not the one you get when posting. Free online maneuvers != "How do I make a Fighter/Monk that can do X? My DM doesn't/I don't use ToB, 'cause we don't have it." "Play a Warblade/Swordsage!". Which is what you get all the time on these forums.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-08, 07:04 PM
I could. But then I have to put in time and effort to do that, which takes AWAY from the time I have to put into planning my game.

And besides that, while this IS a reasonable response (and one I'd allow, if the player who wanted to take these options did the work to bring this to the table), it's not the one you get when posting. Free online maneuvers != "How do I make a Fighter/Monk that can do X? My DM doesn't/I don't use ToB, 'cause we don't have it." "Play a Warblade/Swordsage!". Which is what you get all the time on these forums.

That is because after having candy: us kids/Adults like candy.

People found Warblade/Swordsage so fun that they are always recommended.
They are hard to fail in building: easy to make a decent one. Sure, Core classes can do more damage, etc but fun/ease wins here.

Plus, not every poster reads the OP's post. Don't blame ToB, blame the internet.

Quietus
2010-10-08, 07:11 PM
That is because after having candy: us kids/Adults like candy.

People found Warblade/Swordsage so fun that they are always recommended.
They are hard to fail in building: easy to make a decent one. Sure, Core classes can do more damage, etc but fun/ease wins here.

Plus, not every poster reads the OP's post. Don't blame ToB, blame the internet.

Core classes CAN do more damage.. *if* the person knows what they're doing, and knows the tricks to optimize to pull that off. In general, my groups feel that TWF rangers are awesome, and I've seen Barbarians reach level 9 before getting Power Attack, preferring instead to pick up Monkey Grip for LULHUGESWORD. ToB wrecks that level of optimization by existing, the same way a Druid going "Natural Spell means I can be a bear that cast spells with a bear companion? COOL!" can overpower many things. So *even if I had access to ToB*, I would resist using it, because I don't want one player who thinks they're cool to completely spank the guy who is in love with his sword&board fighter.

Kislath
2010-10-08, 07:31 PM
I don't allow it, mainly because it annoys me.

"I use the farting butterfly stance to confuse my enemies and render them helpless."

I USED to allow it, but it just got too stupid. The fighter was basically casting spells on the monsters. When a level 3 party is up against a herd of frickin' gorgons, ( which was supposed to be only one easily avoided one but evolved ) and slaughters them with ease thanks to ToB silliness, then it's time to say goodbye to the ToB. I can't plan encounters which are fair to the non-fighters and yet still a challenge for the uberchargers.

"But the other characters are just not properly optimized, and that's the only problem" you might say. Save it. Frankly, optimization irks me in any case, so having the whole party souped up doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling either.

Oh, and I agree with Quietus in that players don't seem to quite GET it sometimes. I've lost count of how many times players have brought me ToB classes after I explicitly said PURE CORE ONLY. *sigh*

Greenish
2010-10-08, 07:36 PM
I can't plan encounters which are fair to the non-fighters and yet still a challenge for the uberchargers.There isn't anything intrinsically uberchargy in ToB classes.

The-Mage-King
2010-10-08, 07:39 PM
There isn't anything intrinsically uberchargy in ToB classes.

Right.

Also...


"I use the farting butterfly stance to confuse my enemies and render them helpless."

There isn't a "Farting Butterfly Stance"...


Yet.

sonofzeal
2010-10-08, 07:40 PM
I don't allow it, mainly because it annoys me.

"I use the farting butterfly stance to confuse my enemies and render them helpless."

I USED to allow it, but it just got too stupid. The fighter was basically casting spells on the monsters. When a level 3 party is up against a herd of frickin' gorgons, ( which was supposed to be only one easily avoided one but evolved ) and slaughters them with ease thanks to ToB silliness, then it's time to say goodbye to the ToB. I can't plan encounters which are fair to the non-fighters and yet still a challenge for the uberchargers.

"But the other characters are just not properly optimized, and that's the only problem" you might say. Save it. Frankly, optimization irks me in any case, so having the whole party souped up doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling either.

Oh, and I agree with Quietus in that players don't seem to quite GET it sometimes. I've lost count of how many times players have brought me ToB classes after I explicitly said PURE CORE ONLY. *sigh*
Er.... what exactly was the ToB character doing to take out a herd of Gorgons? Unless you were deliberately playing with kids gloves, they shouldn't have had a chance, and if you were, then why complain? Or was the player outright cheating?

My problem is that a Gorgon should generally expect to kill a lvl 3 PC, even a ToBer, in three standard actions or less - +12(1d8+7) is likely going to hit for a sizeable portion of their health, and DC19 petrify is going to succeed most of the time. Contrarywise, the best the ToBer can do is 2nd level maneuvers, which for damage means a piddly +2d6, and precious few of those too.

So I'm left with the conclusion that either you nerfed the Gorgons, or the Player was cheating. Either way, a breakdown of the fight would be appreciated, perhaps we can identify exactly how the player slipped one by you.

fortesama
2010-10-08, 07:42 PM
So basically, it boils down to:

Headaches in learning a new system for both player and DM.
Relatively overpowered in an unoptimized group
One said it's "too anime".
Don't have the book.
Gets a lot of stuff at level 1 if you're starting there.


As for the crusader's non-magical instant healing, i tend to think of hp as a measure of how much plot armor the character still has ever since i read the book.

jgumbyrx
2010-10-08, 07:43 PM
I'm afraid I don't quite follow. It's not like the subsystems suddenly make the character immune to the core stuff.
Well, I guess that's an option; but .....:

First, this goes back to the verisimilitude issue I mentioned. How is a setting/campaign to be taken seriously if the PCs are the only ones that have these special toys (or vise-versa)?

Secondly, these other sub-systems do indeed change how characters/creatures interact with the game. Often times, they completely change how the game functions, through adding mechanics that the Core game was not necessarily designed to handle. In order for the game world to properly accommodate these characters, then the setting needs to have these same mechanics integrated in to it. If nothing else, it changes the dynamics and challenge of the specific encounters/challenges.

Additionally, many of these sub-systems have elements that are specifically designed to circumvent many of the Core elements. Yes, there are certain things that are gonna be effective no matter what; however, it gets real boring real quick when you're having to always go back to the well for the same 3-4 solutions for every challenge that comes up (not to mention that since you're having to resort to those same 3-4 things all the time, it's not too hard to start specializing in shutting those things down .... game over).

I'm not saying that these things are "broken"; but, they definitely skew things, which must then be compensated for (that is, unless one doesn't really care about internal consistency).

Let's flip the script for a moment:
let's say, for example, that I restricted my players to Core, but had all of their enemies using all sorts of sub-system options, such as:
- ToB
- onermancy
- psionics (without transparency)
- iajitsu focus
- etc. *(whatever crazy variant systems I can drag up)*
Sure, they could smack at it with the Core, but I would quickly have shenanigans called on me for setting up an unfair environment. How is that any different from having it the other way around? The only difference that I see is the direction in which the game has been skewed -- either way, it's still bad game design/precedence.

Besides, have you ever built a high-level ToB character from scratch? Sorry, but I simply don't have that kind of time or energy (at least not on any sort of regular basis)

So, unless I'm prepared to let my game turn in to an all-out arms race that ends in CO-style laser-tag, then, sorry, your suggestion seems to ring a bit hollow.

Like I've said, I'm simply speaking in the most general of terms; but it is an approach that is, definitionally, still relevant to ToB as well.

Quietus
2010-10-08, 07:44 PM
There isn't anything intrinsically uberchargy in ToB classes.

Nor is there anything like that in the normal classes. Basically, WotC felt that Weapon Focus/Specialization/Greater Focus/Greater Specialization was what "regular fighters should do". Then they made Warblades and gave them the "Seven Bladed Wind Cutter" strike with "Screaming pink mongoose" stance that lets them make X attacks for Y damage, which are all twice what the standard Fighter can manage, and get bonuses for missing, critting, and generally existing.

Yes, I'm exaggerating and making crap up that sounds amusing to me. But the point is, Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage are MUCH stronger out of the box than Fighter/Paladin/Monk. Why should I, as a DM, be treated as though I'm somehow doing it wrong to deny one player the opportunity to play something that, with the same level of optimization as the guy to his left, when that non-core option will make him FAR stronger by default?

Amphetryon
2010-10-08, 07:50 PM
Nor is there anything like that in the normal classes. Basically, WotC felt that Weapon Focus/Specialization/Greater Focus/Greater Specialization was what "regular fighters should do". Then they made Warblades and gave them the "Seven Bladed Wind Cutter" strike with "Screaming pink mongoose" stance that lets them make X attacks for Y damage, which are all twice what the standard Fighter can manage, and get bonuses for missing, critting, and generally existing.

Yes, I'm exaggerating and making crap up that sounds amusing to me. But the point is, Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage are MUCH stronger out of the box than Fighter/Paladin/Monk. Why should I, as a DM, be treated as though I'm somehow doing it wrong to deny one player the opportunity to play something that, with the same level of optimization as the guy to his left, when that non-core option will make him FAR stronger by default?

Because I'm betting you still allow Wizards and Druids and Clerics and Sorcerers into your game? :smallsmile:

The-Mage-King
2010-10-08, 07:51 PM
Besides, have you ever built a high-level ToB character from scratch? Sorry, but I simply don't have that kind of time or energy (at least not on any sort of regular basis)

It's no more time or energy than building a high level sorcerer.

In fact, it's less, because they (Warblade, my most often played ToB class) can only learn 13 maneuvers.

Admittedly, Swordsages take a little more time to build, but hey, they're still quicker to build than Wizards.

jgumbyrx
2010-10-08, 07:54 PM
Yes, but when I want to use said subsystem, I want to be able to just pick it up and use it with the standard PHB options seamlessly.
I can see what you are saying there.



I want to pick it up and say, “ok we’re using TOB, so fighters get X, barbarians get Y etc”. I don’t want to just stack new stuff onto the old; I want the new stuff to mesh with the old stuff. TOB almost delivers but I still find myself making homebrew and house rules for things that I shouldn’t need to. I want sub systems to be “plug and play”, just pick it up and its ready to go.

The truth is that everything you add onto core will make the game more complicated. But complexity does not necessarily mean difficulty. I want these new and nifty systems to be integrated into the core system in such a way that they're not difficult to utilize.

agreed.



No, no.
You don't need to send same options.
You can, but you don't need to.
Did you change NPCs each time Party changed levels? No, Just bcause the Fighter gained a level rogue doesn't mean every warrior has to have a level of rogue.

There are exceptions, but those full casters (mostly Core, Achivist, etc Tier 1's).
I think that this is a bit apples-to-oranges ....


Granted, that just means allowing manuevers.
Which is good: you should ease into a new system when cautious (although I find ToB pretty balanced).

So let people take Martial study fear to learn manuevers. Explain you want to ease into system. Most people when given some carrot (allow maneuvers) instead of poison (banning) will accept that.
If things go well, maybe add Classes later.

... but this makes a lot of sense. I can actually see myself doing this - good call.

Zaydos
2010-10-08, 07:54 PM
It's no more time or energy than building a high level sorcerer.

In fact, it's less, because they (Warblade, my most often played ToB class) can only learn 13 maneuvers.

Admittedly, Swordsages take a little more time to build, but hey, they're still quicker to build than Wizards.

I can actually build a sorcerer (or a non-collegiate) wizard quicker than a high level warblade because of how prerequisites and retraining work. You have to select ever maneuvers you learn for the level you learn it then figure out the level you retrain it for a higher level maneuver.

Then again I like building sorc/wiz and don't mind this too much either.

The-Mage-King
2010-10-08, 07:57 PM
I can actually build a sorcerer (or a non-collegiate) wizard quicker than a high level warblade because of how prerequisites and retraining work. You have to select ever maneuvers you learn for the level you learn it then figure out the level you retrain it for a higher level maneuver.

Then again I like building sorc/wiz and don't mind this too much either.



...Really?

You don't just figure that you don't really need to figure in your first level maneuvers at level 10, and work from there?

Quietus
2010-10-08, 07:59 PM
Because I'm betting you still allow Wizards and Druids and Clerics and Sorcerers into your game? :smallsmile:

Of course I do. But they don't tend to overpower; The wizards and sorcerers stick to Mage Armor, Magic Missile, and Fireball. Clerics are heal sticks, and Druids are backup Healsticks that have Entangles to toss as well. Even the druids tend to end up pretty well balanced, because they tend to keep about half their spells memorized as heals, so they have their animal companion fighting while they plink away with a ranged weapon. Sure, druids can get silly later on, but in my experience, it's not nearly been as bad as people claim.

Warblades, however, have a selection of abilities that are all strictly stronger than what a typical Fighter gets, AND they can pick up typical Fighter feat-schticks. Because of this, unless I know the person playing the Fighter can make it strong enough to make up that gulf, then I would straight up say no, and would feel justified in doing so.

Zhalath
2010-10-08, 08:01 PM
Personally, I freaking love Tome of Battle. Having a cool pseudo-magic system for melee people is nice, and how the abilities work falls in line with the usual "crazy awesome action" my games tend to lean towards.

I always thought the hate was due to either DMs reading it and not getting it and thinking it's OP, or reading forum posters whining about how OP or dumb it is and deciding to not use it.

Also, not all books are created equal. For every Tome of Battle, there's a Complete Warrior (apologies to Swashbuckler fans. It's a great dip). Sometimes you get something that actually works, but in comparison, it's OP.

Zaydos
2010-10-08, 08:03 PM
...Really?

You don't just figure that you don't really need to figure in your first level maneuvers at level 10, and work from there?

I do, except for certain exceptions (Moment of Perfect Mind) but to fulfill prerequisites you still often need to double check. Especially when dealing with Tiger's Fang (so few prerequisite-less maneuvers) which has Sudden Leap another 1st level maneuver that can easily remain viable throughout.

The-Mage-King
2010-10-08, 08:08 PM
I do, except for certain exceptions (Moment of Perfect Mind) but to fulfill prerequisites you still often need to double check. Especially when dealing with Tiger's Fang (so few prerequisite-less maneuvers) which has Sudden Leap another 1st level maneuver that can easily remain viable throughout.

Well, seeing as I usually work with Diamond Mind/Iron Heart, with a little Shadow Hand recently... Yeah, I didn't notice the Tiger Fang thing before now...

sonofzeal
2010-10-08, 08:08 PM
Of course I do. But they don't tend to overpower; The wizards and sorcerers stick to Mage Armor, Magic Missile, and Fireball. Clerics are heal sticks, and Druids are backup Healsticks that have Entangles to toss as well. Even the druids tend to end up pretty well balanced, because they tend to keep about half their spells memorized as heals, so they have their animal companion fighting while they plink away with a ranged weapon. Sure, druids can get silly later on, but in my experience, it's not nearly been as bad as people claim.

Warblades, however, have a selection of abilities that are all strictly stronger than what a typical Fighter gets, AND they can pick up typical Fighter feat-schticks. Because of this, unless I know the person playing the Fighter can make it strong enough to make up that gulf, then I would straight up say no, and would feel justified in doing so.
Just be aware that you're walking on ice. Some day, someone's going to cast "Black Tentacles" as a lark, and then notice just how massive a difference it makes. Or Polymorph on the Fighter. Or any of the dozens of other "oh shoot did I really just do that" spells scattered around core.

Wizards and Sorcs in a low-optimization game are like tapdancing blindfolded through a minefield. Sometimes, often even, things can go well and you might never notice that there was a potential problem in the first place. Sometimes.

lsfreak
2010-10-08, 08:11 PM
Just be aware that you're walking on ice. Some day, someone's going to cast "Black Tentacles" as a lark, and then notice just how massive a difference it makes. Or Polymorph on the Fighter. Or any of the dozens of other "oh shoot did I really just do that" spells scattered around core.

Or, as in our case, the DM cast Stinking Cloud on us, with me being the only on in the group that really grasped how horrible/awesome nausea is. Things quickly changed at that point.

Quietus
2010-10-08, 08:13 PM
More likely, in my experience, is that they won't want to cast Polymorph to turn the Fighter into a Hydra, because then the Fighter complains about how he can't use his Weapon Focus tree. And if the casters drop a Black Tentacles on an enemy, they'll be catching their friends in the area (for some reason my groups always have trouble with area effects and friendly fire), and get bitched at for it, turning them off that spell forever. Or piss off the melee guy who wants to charge in, but can't because there's massive black tentacles everywhere.

Do I find it hilarious/silly? Absolutely. But I've seen both sides of optimization, and I consider myself incredibly lucky in some respects that my players stay on such a low level of insanity, it makes things much easier to play for. Although I do sometimes wish that they'd just freaking do SOMETHING more optimized for once.. if only so that I could break out a little more than shock trooper + dungeoncrasher on one character as the be-all and end-all of my optimization, and still get called out for being munchkinny.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-08, 08:13 PM
Let's flip the script for a moment:
let's say, for example, that I restricted my players to Core, but had all of their enemies using all sorts of sub-system options, such as:
- psionics (without transparency)


But Psionic without Transparency is a variant rule. And unbalanced. Why do that sort of hassle?

sonofzeal
2010-10-08, 08:30 PM
More likely, in my experience, is that they won't want to cast Polymorph to turn the Fighter into a Hydra, because then the Fighter complains about how he can't use his Weapon Focus tree. And if the casters drop a Black Tentacles on an enemy, they'll be catching their friends in the area (for some reason my groups always have trouble with area effects and friendly fire), and get bitched at for it, turning them off that spell forever. Or piss off the melee guy who wants to charge in, but can't because there's massive black tentacles everywhere.
"Hey Fighter, how'd you like to have 29 strength and +13 natural armor, and a 15 foot reach?"

or

"Hey DM, can I cast this spell BEHIND the enemy, so it catches them and not us?"

Shouldn't be so hard, and yet....


Do I find it hilarious/silly? Absolutely. But I've seen both sides of optimization, and I consider myself incredibly lucky in some respects that my players stay on such a low level of insanity, it makes things much easier to play for. Although I do sometimes wish that they'd just freaking do SOMETHING more optimized for once.. if only so that I could break out a little more than shock trooper + dungeoncrasher on one character as the be-all and end-all of my optimization, and still get called out for being munchkinny.
....agreed. It's shocking sometimes, you really have to watch it. Nobody complains about my characters, but I really have to forcibly restrain them.

Quietus
2010-10-08, 08:34 PM
"Hey Fighter, how'd you like to have 29 strength and +13 natural armor, and a 15 foot reach?"

or

"Hey DM, can I cast this spell BEHIND the enemy, so it catches them and not us?"

Shouldn't be so hard, and yet....

Re : Fighter getting buffed; "But I'd lose my weapon focus/spec/greaters, and my Huge-sized dragonbane weapon! That's way too awesome to give up!"

Re : Casting spells behind enemies : That interferes with the Rogue, who wants to get behind them anyway. At least, so goes the Rogue's thought process.. not thinking that a grappled enemy loses their dex bonus. Meh.

Greenish
2010-10-08, 08:35 PM
Warblades, however, have a selection of abilities that are all strictly stronger than what a typical Fighter gets, AND they can pick up typical Fighter feat-schticks.Everyone has abilities better than "a typical fighter" (especially if you mean a weapon focus chain one), and everyone can pick up fighter's feat-schticks (if you mean the feats that're actually good). Fighters are just a poorly designed class.

Gerbah
2010-10-08, 08:45 PM
The Tome of Battle really is a lot of fun, it spices up combat for melee folk (and even for ranged attackers, if you house-rule that one in). Now, I don't just mean for melee players either...

I ran a campaign for a while where I decided to give a lot of the core classes access to ToB maneuvers and stances in addition to using the new Pathfinder rules. As such, players really had a lot of options when using melee, and was quite balanced considering we had a well-optimized Duskblade and a Anti-Mage focused Swashbuckler both doing very well (we also had a Sorcerer, Warlock and Favored Soul. No problems still).

The catch to all this was, however, that I gave the ToB abilities to the enemies as well! This let me spice up how combat would go, so instead of players seeing a Anti-Paladin and thinking "he can smite and attack in melee, maybe heal?" it ends up with them being able to see and learn what kinds of new tricks they can pull, such as getting an AoO on a 5-ft step, shrugging off debilitating effects, so-on.

In short, that's my experience. The book is worth giving a try, but you have to remember (as a DM) that they are indeed more powerful than regular melee classes, so be prepared. If you're used to those crazy chargers doing insane damage, be ready for them to pull some other crazy tricks (like flying during a charge, for example). If you're not used to that kind of damage, well, be ready for it.

sonofzeal
2010-10-08, 08:46 PM
Everyone has abilities better than "a typical fighter" (especially if you mean a weapon focus chain one), and everyone can pick up fighter's feat-schticks (if you mean the feats that're actually good). Fighters are just a poorly designed class.
Well, I'd caveat that. Many feats show strong synergy, and Fighters are hands-down the best at capitalizing on that. You're going to need some degree of Fighterdom to get a really solid Ubercharger or Lockdown going, at least at low/mid levels where most gaming actually happens. Granted this can make them one-trick ponies, but when your one trick is good enough, well, just go with it. =P

Core Fighters are poorly thought out, since there's not enough synergizing feats out there. Non-Core Fighters actually have quite a lot to contribute, if they load up on synergistic feats. People tend to assume the Fighter's just a blank slate with no tricks, but having a craptone of feats actually allows for some pretty awesome stuff if you're willing to do some searching.

true_shinken
2010-10-08, 08:51 PM
Core Fighters are poorly thought out, since there's not enough synergizing feats out there. Non-Core Fighters actually have quite a lot to contribute, if they load up on synergistic feats. People tend to assume the Fighter's just a blank slate with no tricks, but having a craptone of feats actually allows for some pretty awesome stuff if you're willing to do some searching.
This. A thousand times this.

Greenish
2010-10-08, 08:53 PM
Well, I'd caveat that. Many feats show strong synergy, and Fighters are hands-down the best at capitalizing on that. You're going to need some degree of Fighterdom to get a really solid Ubercharger or Lockdown going, at least at low/mid levels where most gaming actually happens. Granted this can make them one-trick ponies, but when your one trick is good enough, well, just go with it. It's still a poorly designed class, with it's only class feature having diminishing returns, instead of scaling upwards.

Of course, it can be tricked out, but I was responding to someone comparing core fighters with warblades (with the latter apparently having access to multiple splats, what with being ubercharges). Just because someone built their house out of straw doesn't mean that a wooden one is too good.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-08, 08:58 PM
"Hey Fighter, how'd you like to have 29 strength and +13 natural armor, and a 15 foot reach?"

or

"Hey DM, can I cast this spell BEHIND the enemy, so it catches them and not us?"

Shouldn't be so hard, and yet....

Tell me about it. A few years ago, My Wu Jen Polymorphed the fighter into a 7 headed Hydra, but no, DM makes him have to roll a Dex check due to not used to that form and he fell down. He fell me as dice had it (he rolled random direction die that happens in PHB when miss badly)

"If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. "
He used that to determined which side he fell. He fell on me due to the dice.

I'm not sure if he was just picking on the fighter or nerfing me buffing others (my Wu Jen never had to roll checks in other Polyforms).

Sometimes DMs kinda make players avoid the good spells. Hard to tell if purpose or not.

sonofzeal
2010-10-08, 09:00 PM
It's still a poorly designed class, with it's only class feature having diminishing returns, instead of scaling upwards.

Of course, it can be tricked out, but I was responding to someone comparing core fighters with warblades (with the latter apparently having access to multiple splats, what with being ubercharges). Just because someone built their house out of straw doesn't mean that a wooden one is too good.
Oh, of course. A non-optimized Fighter gets totally humiliated by a twinked Warblade. Heck, a non-op Fighter gets pretty overshadowed by even a non-op Warblade. But a twinked Fighter can run with a twinked Warblade, that's what I'm trying to get at.

Quietus
2010-10-08, 09:18 PM
Oh, of course. A non-optimized Fighter gets totally humiliated by a twinked Warblade. Heck, a non-op Fighter gets pretty overshadowed by even a non-op Warblade. But a twinked Fighter can run with a twinked Warblade, that's what I'm trying to get at.

Can they? A Warblade gets bonus feats, do they not? Even if they don't, while a Fighter could use his feat combinations to pick up 2-3 tricks, a Warblade can manage to nab one of those, and still has all his maneuvers/stances/boosts available. In addition to having a bigger hit die, and actual class features.

NEO|Phyte
2010-10-08, 09:20 PM
Can they? A Warblade gets bonus feats, do they not? Even if they don't, while a Fighter could use his feat combinations to pick up 2-3 tricks, a Warblade can manage to nab one of those, and still has all his maneuvers/stances/boosts available. In addition to having a bigger hit die, and actual class features.
The warblade's bonus feat options aren't quite as stellar as the fighter's.

The-Mage-King
2010-10-08, 09:20 PM
Can they? A Warblade gets bonus feats, do they not? Even if they don't, while a Fighter could use his feat combinations to pick up 2-3 tricks, a Warblade can manage to nab one of those, and still has all his maneuvers/stances/boosts available. In addition to having a bigger hit die, and actual class features.

A Warblade gets four bonus feats, spread pretty far apart, and select from a much more limited list.

Zaydos
2010-10-08, 09:26 PM
For sheer "I hit it till it dies" a twinked out fighter is a match for a twinked out warblade.

For all around playability I'd say warblade is better (you can twink them and not be a 1 trick pony). Then again that's a good thing; if people are being twinked either the game breaks or everyone is and you can actually get a good bit of diversity at warblade's level and not at fighter's (as any full caster is very far above it when twinked).

Keld Denar
2010-10-08, 09:32 PM
Warblade bonus feats:
Acrobatic (crap)
Agile (crap)
Blade Meditiaton (essentially Weapon Focus...ie crap)
Blind-Fight (mostly crap, except as a prereq for Pierce Magical Concealment)
Combat Reflexes (omg, a decent feat!)
Diehard (crap)
Endurance (crap)
Great Fortitude (crap)
Improved Initiative (decent, not bad for a bonus feat)
Iron Will (crap)
Ironheart Aura (mostly crap, prereq for Stormguard Warrior though)
Lightning Reflexes (crap)
Quick Draw (crap)
Run (crap)
Stone Power (crap for non-Crusaders)
Tiger Blooded (crap)
Unnerving Calm (crap)
White Raven Defense (crap)

So, one good feat, one ok feat, and two feats that are decent because they are prereqs for other good feats. I see a dramatic lack of Improved Trip, or Shocktrooper, or Leap Attack, or even Power Attack...

Yea, maneuvers are awesome, but they aren't as over-powered as stacking charge multipliers or some of the other shananigans you see in the other published books that are generally considered "playable". If you want to talk overpowered, look there first. Complete Divine alone contains more brokeness in one feat than ToB does in 158 pages. Complete Warrior has Shocktrooper, one of the strongest melee feats for anyone who's interested in charging, and Complete Adventurer has Leap Attack that combined with Power Attack can produce triple digit damage by level 6...

Quietus
2010-10-08, 10:01 PM
A Warblade gets four bonus feats, spread pretty far apart, and select from a much more limited list.

What I find amusing here is that we've gone from the general optimizer's view of "Fighters have no class features" to "Feats are awesome!".

Premise : At a low to reasonable level of optimization, a Warblade is likely to utterly outstrip a Fighter at fighting things. Valid? Valid in general, or valid specifically as a reason to not allow ToB to maintain relative balance?

Starbuck_II
2010-10-08, 10:07 PM
What I find amusing here is that we've gone from the general optimizer's view of "Fighters have no class features" to "Feats are awesome!".

Premise : At a low to reasonable level of optimization, a Warblade is likely to utterly outstrip a Fighter at fighting things. Valid? Valid in general, or valid specifically as a reason to not allow ToB to maintain relative balance?

No one is saying feats are awesome. Feats are boring, but they can add power (sadly linear power usually).

The Glyphstone
2010-10-08, 10:07 PM
What I find amusing here is that we've gone from the general optimizer's view of "Fighters have no class features" to "Feats are awesome!".

Premise : At a low to reasonable level of optimization, a Warblade is likely to utterly outstrip a Fighter at fighting things. Valid? Valid in general, or valid specifically as a reason to not allow ToB to maintain relative balance?

Valid enough - but if you ever do get a hold of a physical copy of ToB for a decent price, in a used bookstore or yard sale or something, grab it and at least let the group take it for a spin in a one-shot or two. Your players might just like sword-and-board Crusaders more than sword-and-board Fighters, or crazy kung fu Swordsages more than Monks. You never know, in the end.

sonofzeal
2010-10-08, 10:11 PM
What I find amusing here is that we've gone from the general optimizer's view of "Fighters have no class features" to "Feats are awesome!".
Feats are awesome, if you know what you're doing. And I rarely blindly agree with CharOp consensus, and feel no need to apologize for violating "common wisdom" there.


Premise : At a low to reasonable level of optimization, a Warblade is likely to utterly outstrip a Fighter at fighting things. Valid? Valid in general, or valid specifically as a reason to not allow ToB to maintain relative balance?
At low optimization, Warblades utterly outstrip Fighters at fighting things, yes. At "mid", well, depends how you measure.

As a method of maintaining relative balance though, that's more tricky and depends entirely on your group. If you play with a lot of other decent classes - let's say a Beguiler, a Dragonfire Adept, and a Druid - then banning the Warblade would in no way help maintain "relative balance". If you've got a Healer, a CW Ninja, and a Shadowcaster... sure, the Fighter might fit in better. The key word is "relative".

Keld Denar
2010-10-08, 10:13 PM
What I find amusing here is that we've gone from the general optimizer's view of "Fighters have no class features" to "Feats are awesome!".
Correction: SOME feats are awesome. Some are crap. Actually, MOST are crap. There are a few good ones. The problem with fighter is that once you take the good ones, you are left with crappier ones. ESPECIALLY in core. You can do some really neat stuff relatively early, but peter out as you start getting to level 16 or so and the options are so dramatically lackluster. Its hard to get excited about leveling when all you have to look forward to is a couple HP, another BAB to keep doing the same tricks you've been doing for 10 levels, and a crappy minor feat because you took all the exciting feats 6 levels ago. Not when everyone else is getting shiney new spells and abilities. Don't get me wrong, some feats are good. There is a reason why Fighter2 is a VERY common dip in most melee builds. Getting your feat chain early is important so you can enjoy it for longer. The problem is, what do you take when you run out of good feat chains?



Premise : At a low to reasonable level of optimization, a Warblade is likely to utterly outstrip a Fighter at fighting things. Valid? Valid in general, or valid specifically as a reason to not allow ToB to maintain relative balance?

This has already been stated. In fact, by me. In my first post in this thread. If fighter optimization scales from 1 to 10, with 1 being "I spent all my feats on Skill Focus" and 10 being "I charge it and hit for elevendybillion damage", a Warblade generally only spans from 6-8. Even if you take only Skill Focus with a Warblade, you'll still do decently (and some Skill Focuses actually pay off, like Concentration for Diamond Mind manevuers and Jump for Tiger Claw manevuers) simply because manevuers are a safety ring to keep you afloat. Remember how I said that most feats are crap? They are. You know whats true about manevuers though? NONE of them are crap. No matter which ones you pick, you have something neat and interesting to do. The gap between the "weakest" and "strongest" maneuvers is VERY small. This is a good thing. Its very very very newbie friendly, since there is very little system mastery required to build an effective character. Heck, you could spin on a wheel or roll a die for your 1st level Warblade maneuvers and no matter what you get, you'll have a decently strong character.

Whatever Tome of Battle does wrong, this is one thing it does right. Very little system mastery other than LEARNING the system is required.

Amphetryon
2010-10-08, 10:13 PM
What I find amusing here is that we've gone from the general optimizer's view of "Fighters have no class features" to "Feats are awesome!".

Premise : At a low to reasonable level of optimization, a Warblade is likely to utterly outstrip a Fighter at fighting things. Valid? Valid in general, or valid specifically as a reason to not allow ToB to maintain relative balance?

Warblades will, generally, be making single attacks to do their damage, because most Strikes are standard actions. Fighters will be full attacking, generally. This means there will be a fairly decent number of builds and situations where the Fighter does damage at least as well as the Warblade. The Warblade gets something to do besides 5' step and damage in their round, thanks to the maneuvers and stances. That's the improvement.

sonofzeal
2010-10-08, 10:15 PM
Warblades will, generally, be making single attacks to do their damage, because most Strikes are standard actions. Fighters will be full attacking, generally. This means there will be a fairly decent number of builds and situations where the Fighter does damage at least as well as the Warblade. The Warblade gets something to do besides 5' step and damage in their round, thanks to the maneuvers and stances. That's the improvement.
Fighters also do better at Battlefield Control, although that's more of a Crusader thing to be honest.

Quietus
2010-10-08, 10:19 PM
Valid enough - but if you ever do get a hold of a physical copy of ToB for a decent price, in a used bookstore or yard sale or something, grab it and at least let the group take it for a spin in a one-shot or two. Your players might just like sword-and-board Crusaders more than sword-and-board Fighters, or crazy kung fu Swordsages more than Monks. You never know, in the end.

I would. I've recently had an abrupt cut to my other expenditures in the form of a game basically booting me off due to a weird server glitch and my inability to access a random email from five years ago, so if I can find a copy of the ToB I do intend to pick it up, if only for my own perusal. But I do have a group now that would allow its use; I was/am/will be mostly arguing as the devil's advocate, since I've been frustrated in the past by these board's very "must use ToB!" attitude. It's frustrating when you say "I can't, it's not allowed, I do not have access to those classes, PERIOD", and people go "Well they're awesome, just do it!".

So. My basic place that I'm arguing from is the perspective of low-to-mid optimization, where mid can be something like getting power attack and one of leap attack/shock trooper, but not going all out and combining those with cavalier (or charging in general). Where expecting most fights to end within two rounds is unheard of, where classes are played as they were expected to be within WotC's playtesting. Druids are powerful, sure, but a dedicated Fighter still typically outdoes their animal companion in combat in my experience, and the druid themselves don't add much with ranged combat. But in this environment, the Warblade will still typically outstrip the Fighter without much effort, which is why - for that group - I would say "No ToB". I will concede that if the other players agreed to have help to optimize their characters and knew what they were getting into, and I got/was provided with/downloaded the ToB, then I'd be okay with it, but the status quo means I couldn't just allow a Warblade to overshadow much of the party like that.

Now then, bedtime. I'll check in again in nine hours or so, interesting debate so far. :smalltongue:

Keld Denar
2010-10-08, 10:25 PM
Druids are powerful, sure, but a dedicated Fighter still typically outdoes their animal companion in combat in my experience

Actually, we ran an experiment on this here a bit ago. Came out pretty even actually, with the fighter winning about half of the fights. If you get killed by ONE of someone else's class features, which isn't even thier strongest class feature...yea...

DrWeird
2010-10-08, 10:30 PM
Whelp, time to sound like a bad person. Anime-ish? Sure.

That's not why I don't like it or use it.

I actually read through it, and when taking into account a mildly-optimized environment, I found the ToB classes to be a refreshing change for those tired of just hitting things, looking for variety as a melee character. And while the 'anime-style' does subtract from the entire idea, not simply the fluff, it's not really an obstacle in the long run.

What I don't enjoy is that A) It doesn't mesh well with non-maneuvering classes, when taken alongside other classes without Stances/Maneuvers; seriously, it's very strange for a traditional fighter or barbarian to be playing along while somebody is whipping out White Ravens; helpful, yes, but very confusing as to why he doesn't have maneuvers too. I think it was addressed on the first page that home brewing balanced maneuver lists for existing classes could be an extra pain that most DMs don't want to bear with.

Aaaaand B) It doesn't fit. Now this is purely my personal opinion; as a part of the d20 and 3.5 system, it's an excellent edition, and relatively balanced for mid-to-high power games if you're going tank or melee disher. But, that is entirely from a gameplay viewpoint. From the thematic and perspective view, they feel entirely alien to an established system, a lot like Binders and Soulmelds and Chakras, all of that ToM and MoI stuff - they simply don't feel like they fit, and would honestly feel more appropriate in their own 3.5 variant built around Tome rules and classes. Don't jump me, but the Tomes and Incarnum and Stances and Chakras, etc, make me feel like I'm playing Kingdom Hearts meets Dragonball Z meets Naruto the Tabletop RPG.

Amphetryon
2010-10-08, 10:40 PM
Obligatory 'Flavor is mutable' response. :smallwink:

Starbuck_II
2010-10-08, 10:48 PM
What I don't enjoy is that A) It doesn't mesh well with non-maneuvering classes, when taken alongside other classes without Stances/Maneuvers; seriously, it's very strange for a traditional fighter or barbarian to be playing along while somebody is whipping out White Ravens; helpful, yes, but very confusing as to why he doesn't have maneuvers too. I think it was addressed on the first page that home brewing balanced maneuver lists for existing classes could be an extra pain that most DMs don't want to bear with.


Um, Martial Study is Fighter bonus feat. So yes, the Fighter can have those feats.

DrWeird
2010-10-08, 10:56 PM
I was moreso referring to the Maneuvers from ToB more than anything. White Raven was just a random example, even though it's feats, not Maneuvers. It was a general explanation; sorry if this confused anyone. I should replace it with something like...Nightmare Blade.


Obligatory 'Flavor is mutable' response

The flavor, as I said, wasn't as much of the problem as the entire ToB and associated classes not fitting with regular 3.5, like trying to smack a GPS device on an Xbox. As I said, it really deserves it's own 3.5 variant system and subsequent setting.

sonofzeal
2010-10-08, 10:59 PM
I was moreso referring to the Maneuvers from ToB more than anything. White Raven was just a random example, even though it's feats, not Maneuvers. It was a general explanation; sorry if this confused anyone. I should replace it with something like...Nightmare Blade.
Fighters can pick up Sapphire Nightmare Blade with a feat. :smallconfused:

Keld Denar
2010-10-08, 11:00 PM
I'm not gonna touch point B, not with an 11' pole, but point A I'll address.

Have you ever played a Paladin? Paladins have an "aura of courage" that motivates all of their allies to be stronghearted in the face of terrifying things. Marshalls and Dragon Shamen have VERY similar features. Heck, even Bards are based on similar fluff, albeit a slightly different mechanic. Are you saying that those things don't mesh with classes that don't get them? The White Raven stances are similar. Heck Tactics of the Wolf is nearly identical to the Marshall aura that does the SAME EXACT THING, except its +Cha instead of +1/2 IL.

Thematically, feats like Karmic Strike, Robilar's Gambit, and Combat Expertese all refer to fighting in a stance that is condusive to a certain type of combat style. Thats no different than the stances in ToB. Is this any different than say, Punishing Stance, a stance that rewards recklessness with bonus damage? I dunno.

And maneuvers are in general slightly weaker than a full attack, especially from level 6 and up. Even with the hit to accuracy, iterative attacks on a moderately optimized character will do more damage than Bonesplitting Strike, or Wolf Climbs the Mountain, or even the high damage strikes like Greater Insightful Strike. This is especially true on a character with the pounce ability, since there are VERY few times when he won't be able to make a full attack. That said, maneuvers are still stronger than a non-ToB character's standard action attack in nearly all cases. THAT's their true power. They make up the gap between a move + single attack and the 5' step + full attack. Its not AS good, but still better than nothing.

DrWeird
2010-10-08, 11:18 PM
I never made a point against their usefulness, which feels like that is what you're addressing; they're fine. They're actually very well thought out, considering it's WotC that made them.

I'm not saying those features don't mesh well because other classes don't have them; I'm saying Tome classes and their Maneuvers lack synergy with other martial classes without them, simply because Maneuvers and Stances are given to a group of classes. When a Crusader is given to a group with a fighter and a barbarian, it doesn't fit well; not because they don't possess Maneuvers/Stances themselves and are excluded, but as a group feels entirely out of place amongst classes absent.

BenInHB
2010-10-09, 12:39 AM
Because with all that combinations, you still can't make flying armbar.

Even anime one.


http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z156/spiryt_bucket/latajcabalacha.gif


:smallwink:

Wow. That is an impressively accurate and technical animation of a flying armbar

Keld Denar
2010-10-09, 01:01 AM
I'm not saying those features don't mesh well because other classes don't have them; I'm saying Tome classes and their Maneuvers lack synergy with other martial classes without them, simply because Maneuvers and Stances are given to a group of classes. When a Crusader is given to a group with a fighter and a barbarian, it doesn't fit well; not because they don't possess Maneuvers/Stances themselves and are excluded, but as a group feels entirely out of place amongst classes absent.
So, since spellcasters have a feature that nonspellcasters have, are they out of place? That's what the argument sounds like to me...

FatR
2010-10-09, 05:40 AM
Yes, I'm exaggerating and making crap up that sounds amusing to me. But the point is, Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage are MUCH stronger out of the box than Fighter/Paladin/Monk. Why should I, as a DM, be treated as though I'm somehow doing it wrong to deny one player the opportunity to play something that, with the same level of optimization as the guy to his left, when that non-core option will make him FAR stronger by default?
You should feel as you are doing it wrong for allowing players to play fighters, paladins and monks (without either rewriting these classes or allowing high-end optimization that makes them on par with ToB). Because you are. Particularly if you are indeed implying core fighters/paladins/monks. That's just outright sadism.

FatR
2010-10-09, 05:49 AM
Of course I do. But they don't tend to overpower; The wizards and sorcerers stick to Mage Armor, Magic Missile, and Fireball. Clerics are heal sticks, and Druids are backup Healsticks that have Entangles to toss as well.
In that case the party just inevitably gets wiped sometime after about level 5, if challenged fairly and in accordance with the CR guidelines. Published adventures tend to lowball the opposition and sometimes even anti-optimize it, but even they will murder a party that plays like this.

true_shinken
2010-10-09, 06:21 AM
In that case the party just inevitably gets wiped sometime after about level 5, if challenged fairly and in accordance with the CR guidelines. Published adventures tend to lowball the opposition and sometimes even anti-optimize it, but even they will murder a party that plays like this.

Not at all. This is tried and true.
A optimized party breezes through CR apropriate encounters.
A low-op, 'standard' party just manages.

Quietus
2010-10-09, 07:57 AM
Actually, we ran an experiment on this here a bit ago. Came out pretty even actually, with the fighter winning about half of the fights. If you get killed by ONE of someone else's class features, which isn't even thier strongest class feature...yea...

Oh? Did you run it for the full gamut of animal companions, or did you simply assume that every player would obviously take a trip-capable riding dog? 'cause the most memorable druids that have been played in my group have been one who started with several owl companions in 3.0, then upgraded to a lion when he was in his teens (and the game had updated to 3.5), and my own druid that was always accompanied by her medium viper. If you use a straight 25 point buy/elite array, then yeah, maybe you'll end up with a Fighter matching a Wolf/Riding dog, but most groups I've seen run either 32 point buy (which often ends up with much higher individual stats, at the expense of "dump" stats), or a higher-powered rolling method. Which puts the fighter ahead.


You should feel as you are doing it wrong for allowing players to play fighters, paladins and monks (without either rewriting these classes or allowing high-end optimization that makes them on par with ToB). Because you are. Particularly if you are indeed implying core fighters/paladins/monks. That's just outright sadism.

My stance is this : My players are having fun with the classes as presented. I, as a GM, can make sure that encounters won't just wipe the floor with them. My players have ZERO interest in real optimization, preferring to instead pick up Power Attack for their melee characters and call it a day. Forcing them to optimize so Jimmy ImAGamer can play a Warblade without overshadowing them will be just as fun-killing for them (by making the game math, instead of story) as letting him play his Warblade without making any changes (by making him the clear protagonist, since he can wipe encounters far more effectively than they can). Yeah, that's a real sadistic stance to take.



In that case the party just inevitably gets wiped sometime after about level 5, if challenged fairly and in accordance with the CR guidelines. Published adventures tend to lowball the opposition and sometimes even anti-optimize it, but even they will murder a party that plays like this.

You're putting stock in the awesomely broken CR system? Of course I have to eyeball encounters and make sure they're a fair fight for my group; That's what being a DM is. If a troll would just destroy my party, then I don't use a troll. If they see a hydra and don't think they can take it, they run. But judging all these things is just a part of running the game, because we all know examples like That Damn Crab, where the CR system just outright fails miserably.. and how common those are. Proofreading is part of the job, so that your parties DON'T just wipe for no reason.

FatR
2010-10-09, 08:06 AM
Not at all. This is tried and true.
A optimized party breezes through CR apropriate encounters.
A low-op, 'standard' party just manages.
Sure. If spellcasters realize that it is their job to save everyone's behinds by, you know, paying some attention to the PHB spell list. I've run several published adventure paths, up to about level 10-11 (our games tend to fall apart by that time, if not before that, for various reasons). A standard party where spellcasters try to be blasters or healbot too much will just drop dead if mosters are used in a way that implies desire to live on their part, and will be eventually wiped out by chance even if monsters act like mobs.

Quietus
2010-10-09, 08:09 AM
Sure. If spellcasters realize that it is their job to save everyone's behinds by, you know, paying some attention to the PHB spell list. I've run several published adventure paths, up to about level 10-11 (our games tend to fall apart by that time, if not before that, for various reasons). A standard party where spellcasters try to be blasters or healbot too much will just drop dead if mosters are used in a way that implies desire to live on their part, and will be eventually wiped out by chance even if monsters act like mobs.

Do you alter the adventure path's scripted combats at all to meet up with what your players can handle? Or are you the type of GM who will happily kill players if they come up against something unexpectedly tough and don't run away? Adventure paths are all well and good, but if you know your party can't handle X, and you throw it against them anyway, willing to kill them... you accuse me of being sadist, but if your party doesn't WANT to optimize heavily, and your response is "Tough cookies, if you don't optimize you die"...

FatR
2010-10-09, 08:20 AM
You're putting stock in the awesomely broken CR system. Of course I have to eyeball encounters and make sure they're a fair fight for my group;
If you're willing to spend extra time on coddling your players, whatever works for you. I'm a busy man, who runs DnD exactly because it has workable CR system, and monster manuals, and a wealth of published adventures, and precisely to avoid spending hours before each session working on statblocks. Whatever time I have is better used on fleshing out the world, and the NPCs. And whatever time left to mechanics is better used on creating houserules that prevent core physical combatants from swiftly failing at life, than on fine-tuning every encounter to cover for their failure. In absence of desire to write houserules, though, ToB is the best patch for melee available.

Merk
2010-10-09, 08:26 AM
70-80% of the reason I enjoy playing D&D is the mechanics (accordingly, I'm decent at optimization), and ToB mechanics are more interesting than core melee mechanics. I love it, but it's not for every group.

I'll say this, though: if the original classes had powerlevels in line with default ToB characters, then everyone wins. Optimizers get their candy and storytellers who don't want to think about optimization don't build useless characters.

true_shinken
2010-10-09, 08:28 AM
And whatever time left to mechanics is better used on creating houserules that prevent core physical combatants from swiftly failing at life, than on fine-tuning every encounter to cover for their failure.

So reading is monster's statblock is now a houserule? :smallconfused:

Quietus
2010-10-09, 08:29 AM
If you're willing to spend extra time on coddling your players, whatever works for you. I'm a busy man, who runs DnD exactly because it has workable CR system, and monster manuals, and a wealth of published adventures, and precisely to avoid spending hours before each session working on statblocks. Whatever time I have is better used on fleshing out the world, and the NPCs. And whatever time left to mechanics is better used on creating houserules that prevent core physical combatants from swiftly failing at life, than on fine-tuning every encounter to cover for their failure. In absence of desire to write houserules, though, ToB is the best patch for melee available.


All I can say is that if you think the CR system is fine, I present you with : That Damn Crab. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a) This is a particularly terrible example, but things like this crop up regularly in the MM, including .. I think it was Planetars, that are a CR 16 outsider casting as a level 17 cleric? Yeah.

Amphetryon
2010-10-09, 08:32 AM
Do you alter the adventure path's scripted combats at all to meet up with what your players can handle? Or are you the type of GM who will happily kill players if they come up against something unexpectedly tough and don't run away? Adventure paths are all well and good, but if you know your party can't handle X, and you throw it against them anyway, willing to kill them... you accuse me of being sadist, but if your party doesn't WANT to optimize heavily, and your response is "Tough cookies, if you don't optimize you die"...

Sometimes, it's appropriate to have the spot on the map that's labeled "Here there be dragons" actually feature dragons. Many groups find a world that constantly morphs around them to stay in line with their current power level to be disruptive to their immersive experience.

FatR
2010-10-09, 08:43 AM
Do you alter the adventure path's scripted combats at all to meet up with what your players can handle?
Generally only when I realize, that running the enemies and actually attepmting to utilize their actual abilities somewhat intelligently, as opposed to the scripted way, will most likely result in a TPK, or a major breach of verissimilitude. In this case I'm not obviously not using them as they were meant to be used, so a compensating nerf is warranted.


Or are you the type of GM who will happily kill players if they come up against something unexpectedly tough and don't run away?
Yes I am. If the enemy is supposed to be dumb or inexperienced in real combat, I might make some quite suboptimal decision (not to the point of blatant suicide, though) for it, when things are looking pear-shaped for the party, otherwise, I let the dice fall where they may.


Adventure paths are all well and good, but if you know your party can't handle X, and you throw it against them anyway, willing to kill them... you accuse me of being sadist, but if your party doesn't WANT to optimize heavily, and your response is "Tough cookies, if you don't optimize you die"...
Like all PCs should be able to contribute to the party, players too should contribute to the game. Not making the effort, required to make characters that do not totally suck and do not force DM to babysit them just shows lack of desire to contribute and disrespect for everyone else at the table. That said, I believe that if the core fighting classes are allowed as options at all, the DM should either strongly houserule them, pick a good houseruled variant from the net, or compile a list of things from supplements, accepted in his game, that can make them better, so that the effort in question will be reasonable, and players won't stumble into trap options due to not knowing better.

Quietus
2010-10-09, 08:54 AM
Sometimes, it's appropriate to have the spot on the map that's labeled "Here there be dragons" actually feature dragons. Many groups find a world that constantly morphs around them to stay in line with their current power level to be disruptive to their immersive experience.

I agree. At times, you need to put something out there that WILL flat-out slaughter players. But I don't think it's reasonable to have situations where your players will die to a bunch of goblins. I prefer telling a story to running a game, and players dying? That rather makes a bad impact on the story being told.


Generally only when I realize, that running the enemies and actually attepmting to utilize their actual abilities somewhat intelligently, as opposed to the scripted way, will likely result in a TPK, or in a major breach of verissimilitude.


Yes I am. If the enemy is supposed to be dumb or inexperienced in real combat, I might make some quite suboptimal decision (not to the point of blatant suicide, though) for it, when things are looking pear-shaped for the party, otherwise, I let the dice fall where they may.


Like all PCs should be able to contribute to the party, players too should contribute to the game. Not making the effort, required to make characters that do not totally suck and do not force DM to babysit them just shows lack of desire to contribute and disrespect for everyone else at the table. That said, I believe that if the core fighting classes are allowed as options at all, the DM should either strongly houserule them, pick a good houseruled variant from the net, or compile a list of things from supplements, accepted in his game, that can make them better, so that the effort in question will be reasonable, and players won't stumble into trap options due not knowing better.

I'll try and address all of these at once - my gaming style seems to be very different from yours. I try and focus on the story the players and I are writing together. I'd rather they put effort into their backstory, work to get into their character's minds, and tie themselves into the world than have them put that same effort into being capable of doing two, three, four times as much damage as they do now. Doing things like that makes the game harder for me to balance, because then it becomes rocket tag (who charges first?), which means higher chance of PC's dying. I suppose in terms of GNS, I'm more of a narrativist GM - I prefer to focus on what's happening around the players, rather than what the players are capable of doing mechanically. I do enjoy the Gamist aspect, and would love it if my players would pick up on some of the more mathematical aspects so I could ramp things up and do more interesting/powerful things, but as I've stated previously in this thread, I find myself equally thankful that that isn't the case. Quite simply, my players not optimizing makes my job easier. I'm not coddling them by putting only things that won't kill them out there.. but by playing the game the way it was playtested, I just have to make sure that I'm not sending them against That Damn Crab, or other badly CR'ed creatures. If they were more optimized, I'd have to do more work optimizing enemies, which would mean more homework for me.

Note - my players do all contribute to the party, more or less equally. It's just that each one's contribution isn't as extreme as it could be if they were optimized, and like I said, I'm happy with that.

Crasical
2010-10-09, 09:12 AM
I don't like it because of the font.

It makes the book hard to read compared to WoTC books.

Quietus
2010-10-09, 09:42 AM
I don't like it because of the font.

It makes the book hard to read compared to WoTC books.

That... is possibly the most awesome reason in this entire thread. :smallbiggrin:

Greenish
2010-10-09, 10:34 AM
When a Crusader is given to a group with a fighter and a barbarian, it doesn't fit well; not because they don't possess Maneuvers/Stances themselves and are excluded, but as a group feels entirely out of place amongst classes absent.But if you instead of crusader put a paladin into the group with fighter and barbarian, he could do all kinds of things the others can't, such as call out a horse from pokeball thin air, cure people by laying his hands on them, turn undead with the power of his faith (and that one can be used to fuel a long list of other abilities), give bonuses to his allies, and so forth. Why doesn't the paladin feel out of place?



Or are you the type of GM who will happily kill players if they come up against something unexpectedly tough and don't run away?

At times, you need to put something out there that WILL flat-out slaughter players.Eh, uh, what? So it's okay when you do it?

But I don't think it's reasonable to have situations where your players will die to a bunch of goblins.Wouldn't that depend on both the PCs and the goblins? :smalltongue:

Quietus
2010-10-09, 10:44 AM
Eh, uh, what? So it's okay when you do it?

Perhaps that was a bit ambiguous. What I mean is, if I roll up a random encounter - say for a level 3 party. And I get a werejackal. These things are annoying as sin to deal with if you aren't prepared for it (having enough magic weapons around the party, or are subject to falling asleep). I'm not going to put out a random encounter that can party wipe without trying, which this could.

If, however, I say "Those woods over there are filled with monster X", which the players know full well is out of their range, or "The Great Red Wyrm Pyralis lives on that mountaintop over there", and they're level 10... if they go there, they went in knowing what to expect, and they can reap the consequences. So in random encounters, I won't curbstomp my party, but if they go somewhere they're likely to get curbstomped, then they saw it coming and get to take whatever consequences are due.



Wouldn't that depend on both the PCs and the goblins? :smalltongue:

It would. The goblins are low-op, my PCs are low-op. It matches, so (in general) it's fair. If my PCs were high-op, I'd have to either step up with the goblins or use some other creatures, which might not fit the theme of what I'm going for.

Greenish
2010-10-09, 11:03 AM
Perhaps that was a bit ambiguous. What I mean is, if I roll up a random encounter - say for a level 3 party. And I get a werejackal. These things are annoying as sin to deal with if you aren't prepared for it (having enough magic weapons around the party, or are subject to falling asleep). I'm not going to put out a random encounter that can party wipe without trying, which this could.

If, however, I say "Those woods over there are filled with monster X", which the players know full well is out of their range, or "The Great Red Wyrm Pyralis lives on that mountaintop over there", and they're level 10... if they go there, they went in knowing what to expect, and they can reap the consequences. So in random encounters, I won't curbstomp my party, but if they go somewhere they're likely to get curbstomped, then they saw it coming and get to take whatever consequences are due.Yeah, that makes more sense, but do you think the players should never encounter something they can't defeat (and be forced to flee from)?

It would. The goblins are low-op, my PCs are low-op. It matches, so (in general) it's fair. If my PCs were high-op, I'd have to either step up with the goblins or use some other creatures, which might not fit the theme of what I'm going for.I was thinking more out of an in-character perspective. A small tribe of goblins is a deadly challenge for a group of adventurers in the beginning of their career, but even more experienced group could very feasibly be in a situation where they could die to a team of elite goblin assassins who caught them unawares.

Both are reasonable situations where the PCs could die to a bunch of goblins. :smalltongue:

Quietus
2010-10-09, 11:41 AM
Yeah, that makes more sense, but do you think the players should never encounter something they can't defeat (and be forced to flee from)?

Bad rolls can result in that. But as a general rule, my game worlds tend to have the biggest threats out in the wilds, because people will build their towns and villages where trolls don't come and give them a daily dose of rape. So players know that in general, the further you get from civilization, the more likely it is that I'm gonna throw something scary at them.


I was thinking more out of an in-character perspective. A small tribe of goblins is a deadly challenge for a group of adventurers in the beginning of their career, but even more experienced group could very feasibly be in a situation where they could die to a team of elite goblin assassins who caught them unawares.

Both are reasonable situations where the PCs could die to a bunch of goblins. :smalltongue:


A team going against a small tribe of goblins, knows that goblins are sneaky and cunning. They know that there's a risk of pointy death. As to the elite goblin assassins, I'd have to build them with class levels anyway, so I can easily enough build them to the same level as the party, or whatever is appropriate for that encounter.

Greenish
2010-10-09, 11:44 AM
As to the elite goblin assassins, I'd have to build them with class levels anyway, so I can easily enough build them to the same level as the party, or whatever is appropriate for that encounter.Uh. Yeah?

That's still a reasonable situation where players could die to a bunch of goblins, which is what I was saying.

Quietus
2010-10-09, 11:46 AM
Uh. Yeah?

That's still a reasonable situation where players could die to a bunch of goblins, which is what I was saying.

I'm just not sure what the point of all that is, though. How does that relate to ToB? Or have we changed gears now? Sure, if the PCs piss off Maglubiyet or whatever its name is, the goblins will be after them. How does that prove that I should allow Tome of Battle despite the imbalance between it and the core classes in a low-op situation?

Greenish
2010-10-09, 11:52 AM
I'm just not sure what the point of all that is, though. How does that relate to ToB? Or have we changed gears now?We've changed gears, since you replied to my offhand joke, and I tried to explain what I'd meant with it.

Anyhow, if you're after balance, you should just ban core. :smallwink:

Quietus
2010-10-09, 11:55 AM
We've changed gears, since you replied to my offhand joke, and I tried to explain what I'd meant with it.

Anyhow, if you're after balance, you should just ban core. :smallwink:

I see. I fail at humor, sorry about that. :smalltongue:

Also, *insert unnecessarily long rebuke about how core has all the rules here*. 'cause I'm assuming that last was humor - the funny faces help!

lsfreak
2010-10-09, 12:56 PM
Also, *insert unnecessarily long rebuke about how core has all the rules here*. 'cause I'm assuming that last was humor - the funny faces help!

Well, yes and no. Banning Core classes and instead taking most of ToB, Binding, Incarnum, Psionics, PHB2 classes, Warlock, and DFA makes for a much more balanced game than allowing Core at all. You've stripped out every T1, T2, T5, and T6 class, and are left with primarily T4/T3 classes, about half of which are pre-optimized.

Quietus
2010-10-09, 01:06 PM
Well, yes and no. Banning Core classes and instead taking most of ToB, Binding, Incarnum, Psionics, PHB2 classes, Warlock, and DFA makes for a much more balanced game than allowing Core at all. You've stripped out every T1, T2, T5, and T6 class, and are left with primarily T4/T3 classes, about half of which are pre-optimized.

Consider that tiers measure not the average, but the optimized potential of a class, and they become a non-point when I'm speaking from the point of view of a man who runs games for players to whom the thought of optimizing beyond picking Power Attack/Spell Focus is abhorrent.

Also, for a bunch of players who hate having to go through multiple books, including several that they do not have, and this isn't an option for the same reason that ToB is not an option right now in the first place!

lsfreak
2010-10-09, 01:15 PM
Consider that tiers measure not the average, but the optimized potential of a class, and they become a non-point when I'm speaking from the point of view of a man who runs games for players to whom the thought of optimizing beyond picking Power Attack/Spell Focus is abhorrent.

Also, for a bunch of players who hate having to go through multiple books, including several that they do not have, and this isn't an option for the same reason that ToB is not an option right now in the first place!

Well, the quote in question was mentioning banning Core for the sake of balance. That is the easiest and fastest way of getting decent balance from the classes - ban Core. It also ensures balance by not even allowing really high-power stuff (with a few exceptions that would need taken care of), rather than relying on your players being strictly low-op, not even accidentally throwing themselves into high-op.

Quietus
2010-10-09, 01:18 PM
Well, the quote in question was mentioning banning Core for the sake of balance. That is the easiest and fastest way of getting decent balance from the classes - ban Core. It also ensures balance by not even allowing really high-power stuff (with a few exceptions that would need taken care of), rather than relying on your players being strictly low-op, not even accidentally throwing themselves into high-op.

But... that... that was a joke!

Wasn't it? :smalleek:

true_shinken
2010-10-09, 01:26 PM
But... that... that was a joke!

Wasn't it? :smalleek:
Just because it's a joke, doesn't mean it's not right.

Quietus
2010-10-09, 01:29 PM
Just because it's a joke, doesn't mean it's not right.

Well, it does mean I've been arguing this for several pages, and I'm tired of being serious. So take that!

lsfreak
2010-10-09, 01:29 PM
But... that... that was a joke!

Wasn't it? :smalleek:

Well, like I said, yes and no :smalltongue: In-context it was joking, but banning the Core classes is about the simplest, semi-effective way of balancing. Core has three of the five most broken classes (druid, cleric, wizard), several of the absolute weakest classes (monk, paladin) and most of the really broken spells. It's certainly not the best way of balancing, but it's the fastest and easiest.

sonofzeal
2010-10-09, 10:57 PM
I've actually done that, slightly. I'm a far better optimizer than the others in my circle, so I throw random restrictions on myself. My current Cleric restrains himself to the spell slots of an Adept unless he's directly and specifically doing the will of his Deity, not just furthering his own agenda or working on Plan Save The World #17.

Another random restring I gave myself was to play a spellcaster and ban Core. No Core options, no Core feats, no Core spells, no Core races. And it worked beautifully, the character ended up highly distinctive but even with some powerful PrCs and OP-fu he meshed well with a low-op party. So yes, banning Core is actually a reasonable idea.

true_shinken
2010-10-09, 11:03 PM
Well, it does mean I've been arguing this for several pages, and I'm tired of being serious. So take that!
Objection!

...sorry, couldn't resist.

fortesama
2010-10-10, 06:27 AM
hmm... i just thought of something. what's a dm to do when she's used to low-op groups and ended up having to be the dm of a high op group?

It's kinda what happened when i started the optimization trend in my group... with a warlock so i won't overshadow anybody too much, and a new guy wanted to dm as she's ran games before.

Merk
2010-10-10, 07:54 AM
hmm... i just thought of something. what's a dm to do when she's used to low-op groups and ended up having to be the dm of a high op group?

It's kinda what happened when i started the optimization trend in my group... with a warlock so i won't overshadow anybody too much, and a new guy wanted to dm as she's ran games before.

I predict the party having a lot of initial easy victories. Once the DM gets some experience with dealing with highly optimized characters, I think it'll be easier to start designing encounters thinking "You know, I can expect that the wizard will make everyone fly and can teleport, so it's fair game for me to have a horde of goblin warlocks firing hellfire eldritch blasts behind a one-way prismatic sphere from several hundred feet up in the air while ethereal"

jpreem
2010-10-10, 08:00 AM
I'm glad do be in the same situation as Quietus.
My players take the balance to their own hands by being generally sucky overall.
And I love it, makes less work for me. It's nice when you can challenge your player with a pack of wolves or something and dont need somekind of eldrich abominations ( which have statblock-s that are abominations themselves).
Also I don't hate Tob. I actually kind of like the idea of it (haven't read the book, just skimmed the introductionary text-s and comments on forums)
Still I tend to make most of my games core only -and why?
Because I'm lazy. I don't want to learn new systems.Even if i can get the stuff free of money I don't wanna spend my time. Look at new feats, spells and whatnot over and over. Print out **** from internet and glue them to cardboard for maneuver or whatever cards.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-10, 08:15 AM
Okay folks, if you like your D&D combat to look like this:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z132/danico4not/chess_board.gif

Then you should ban ToB. If you prefer your combat to look something like this instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryH1TB4gEUY

Then you should allow it.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-10, 09:10 AM
Ah, Dead Fantasy been a while since I've seen it.
I think everyone is Gestalt in that video.

Quietus
2010-10-10, 09:17 AM
Okay folks, if you like your D&D combat to look like this:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z132/danico4not/chess_board.gif

Then you should ban ToB. If you prefer your combat to look something like this instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryH1TB4gEUY

Then you should allow it.

I sincerely doubt that anyone honestly feels that typical D&D combat resembles chess in any way.. and if ToB makes battles take forever, with increasing numbers of opponents, and just utter chaos in general? Then yeah, it isn't for me. Unpredictable is good, nine immortal people changing an entire battlefield at a whim and surviving multiple hits from stone blocks as big as buildings... well, MAYBE in Epic play.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-10, 09:20 AM
You are aware that starting at about mid levels or so, your average melee character can drop a thousand feet and live? Take a club blow from a giant five times their size? Start going up in levels and the amount of punishment endured just gets more insane. All of the feats in that video are technically possible (though they may take some truly insane feat and class wriggling) with non-ToB RAW. ToB just forms a nicely balanced shortcut to the awesome.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-10, 09:40 AM
I sincerely doubt that anyone honestly feels that typical D&D combat resembles chess in any way.. and if ToB makes battles take forever, with increasing numbers of opponents, and just utter chaos in general? Then yeah, it isn't for me. Unpredictable is good, nine immortal people changing an entire battlefield at a whim and surviving multiple hits from stone blocks as big as buildings... well, MAYBE in Epic play.

Yes, the characters are 17-18 (and Gestalt) but most of the stuff is doable 10 -11.

Stone blocks do 1d6/100 weight. Trust me you'll live in D&D from that.

Kylarra
2010-10-10, 09:55 AM
Chess is an amazing game of tactical combat, so clearly I should ban ToB. Thanks for sharing that. :smallcool:

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-10, 09:56 AM
Chess is an amazing game of tactical combat, so clearly I should ban ToB. Thanks for sharing that. :smallcool:

It is, but it's not precisely heroic or high-action. Chess is a quiet thrill; melee should not be.

Kylarra
2010-10-10, 09:58 AM
It is, but it's not precisely heroic or high-action. Chess is a quiet thrill; melee should not be.Not heroic? The lone pawn advancing deep into enemy territory in hopes of a promotion aided only by long distance support from a faraway bishop or rook, is quite heroic to me. Not high-action? Clearly you've never played crazy-house chess. :smalltongue:

Bayar
2010-10-10, 10:05 AM
Chess is an amazing game of tactical combat, so clearly I should ban ToB. Thanks for sharing that. :smallcool:

Ok, the fighter needs to charge the paladin before he jumps over the warrior followers. The cleric could just run diagonally to the wizard's tower and give him a heal. And the monk ? He could just stand around, take a 5 ft step, and hope someone gets into melee range of him so he can flurry.

sonofzeal
2010-10-10, 01:51 PM
hmm... i just thought of something. what's a dm to do when she's used to low-op groups and ended up having to be the dm of a high op group?

It's kinda what happened when i started the optimization trend in my group... with a warlock so i won't overshadow anybody too much, and a new guy wanted to dm as she's ran games before.
#1) Make sure all the players are on the same page, op-wise.

#2) If there's a big gap, either the high-op players will have to restrain themselves, or the low-op players will have to accept some help in character building, or you as DM can introduce a "handicap" in the form of some bonus for low players or some limitation for high players, or both.

#2a) Possible bonuses for low-op players include extra ability points, extra feats, extra gold, or in-game story advantages.

#2b) Possible handicaps for high-op players include lower ability scores banning Core spells/items/feats, banning Tier 1/2 classes, or giving in-game story disadvantages.

The Glyphstone
2010-10-10, 03:01 PM
It is, but it's not precisely heroic or high-action. Chess is a quiet thrill; melee should not be.

Two words: Wizard's Chess.:smallbiggrin:

Thurbane
2010-10-10, 05:13 PM
"farting butterfly stance"
"Seven Bladed Wind Cutter"
"Screaming pink mongoose"

:smallbiggrin:

...anyhow, as to the topic: I don't "hate" the ToB, it's just something I chose not to use in my games. Most of my reasons have already been touched on by others:

Don't like having a pseudo-magic system that isn't magic (we also don't use psionics or incarnum in our games for similar reasons).
Don't want to learn a new subsystem...some of the players in my group are very "part time" due to real world commitments, and only barely have mastered the core rules.
Our group, for the most part, is fairly low-op; while ToB classes tend to be medium+ op out of the box.

...that about sums it up. I did once own ToB, but when it became obvious it wasn't something I or my group were partcilularly likely to bring into our games, I traded it in on a copy of Cityscape.

Oh, and FWIW, I totally agree with the poster who mentioned the font! :smalltongue: It also has some of the worst art in 3.X (outside of the dreaded crabapple). There is one artist who prominently features in ToB who's style looks like a cross between Microsoft clipart and cheap cpmics...

Cheesy74
2010-10-10, 06:55 PM
There is one artist who prominently features in ToB who's style looks like a cross between Microsoft clipart and cheap cpmics...
I didn't know Rob Liefeld did sourcebook commissions.

But yeah, I'll agree. A lot of it is quite good, but a good amount, especially the Crusader's portrait, is atrocious

Thurbane
2010-10-10, 07:03 PM
But yeah, I'll agree. A lot of it is quite good, but a good amount, especially the Crusader's portrait, is atrocious
Yeah, thats the guy.

IMHO, his artwork is uniquely unsuited to the subject matter (i.e. D&D books). It's a shame, 3.X had some really talented artists, like Wayne Reynolds and Lucio Parillo...

fortesama
2010-10-10, 07:05 PM
Two words: Wizard's Chess.:smallbiggrin:

When you have two parties with at least one wizard each trying to do each other in, i think this would be the usual result.

Esser-Z
2010-10-11, 09:34 AM
When you have two parties with at least one wizard each trying to do each other in, i think this would be the usual result.
Actually... one of the most awesome combats I've ever participated in had casters on both sides.

We, the party, started out with our wiz tossing out AoEs, with the melee (Including me1) working to keep the other guys inside that. THEIR casters then tossed the same shtick back at us. It became a SWEET tactical movement fighter, with both sides doing their best to keep the other side in their AoE without getting their OWN guys into it.

The spellcasters did a GREAT job of SUPPORTING the rest of the party, and having a large impact on the fight, without ending the battle themselves. Wish I had a log of that fight.


1Relevant to this thread, I was a swordsage!

Master Thrower
2010-10-11, 01:30 PM
In my play group we ban ToB. Why? the stuff in the book doesnt make sense. even relatives to the rest of dnd. As a bloodstorm blade i command all weapons i through to come back to me. All of my weapons have the +1 returning ability just for taking a level in a melee prc. that sounds a lot like a magical ability, not a martial ability. ToB more or less gives martial classes access to magic.

huttj509
2010-10-11, 01:43 PM
In my play group we ban ToB. Why? the stuff in the book doesnt make sense. even relatives to the rest of dnd. As a bloodstorm blade i command all weapons i through to come back to me. All of my weapons have the +1 returning ability just for taking a level in a melee prc. that sounds a lot like a magical ability, not a martial ability. ToB more or less gives martial classes access to magic.

I always read it as being so experienced you could control all the ricochets and such, Xena style (at least, I don't think her chakram ability is explicitly magical, not sure if it was spelled out or not).

Starbuck_II
2010-10-11, 01:43 PM
In my play group we ban ToB. Why? the stuff in the book doesnt make sense. even relatives to the rest of dnd. As a bloodstorm blade i command all weapons i through to come back to me. All of my weapons have the +1 returning ability just for taking a level in a melee prc. that sounds a lot like a magical ability, not a martial ability. ToB more or less gives martial classes access to magic.

Do you know trhat Extraordinary abilities break the laws of physics. That is the requirement of extraordinary: the ability to break laws of phyics. Does'nt mean they all will, but they all have capacity.

Extraordinary doesn't mean every day follows physics.

So re-examining Blood storm blade: yeah, D&D says that can be extraordinary.

Amphetryon
2010-10-11, 01:53 PM
Do you know trhat Extraordinary abilities break the laws of physics. That is the requirement of extraordinary: the ability to break laws of phyics. Does'nt mean they all will, but they all have capacity.

Extraordinary doesn't mean every day follows physics.

So re-examining Blood storm blade: yeah, D&D says that can be extraordinary.

Firing an arrow in D&D quickly becomes an (Ex) ability by an interpretation of that measure, unless they're making supersonic human & string-powered bows these days. It's quite easy, by RAW, to fire an arrow that moves faster than the speed of sound.

NEO|Phyte
2010-10-11, 02:03 PM
Firing an arrow in D&D quickly becomes an (Ex) ability by an interpretation of that measure, unless they're making supersonic human & string-powered bows these days. It's quite easy, by RAW, to fire an arrow that moves faster than the speed of sound.

Don't forget that feat that lets you fire 4 different arrows at 4 different targets in 4 different directions AT ONCE (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#greaterManyshot).

Scow2
2010-10-11, 02:07 PM
ToB is awesome, and usually DOES make sense, especially in light of what some feats can do.

I find the Xena comparison very appropriate. The books follow the Rule of Cool, and do so very well. Once you reach level 6, you're stronger than Aragorn and Gandalf from LotR.

Every ability you have after level 6 is Superhuman, to a degree.

Susano-wo
2010-10-11, 02:40 PM
Do you know trhat Extraordinary abilities break the laws of physics. That is the requirement of extraordinary: the ability to break laws of phyics. Does'nt mean they all will, but they all have capacity.

Extraordinary doesn't mean every day follows physics.

So re-examining Blood storm blade: yeah, D&D says that can be extraordinary.

Just...no! Extraordinary indicates that it is *only* extraordinary, not, say Supernatural. And etimologicially(sp?), is just means that it is unusual.

The impression I got from Bloodstorm was the Xena/Captain America idea, that you are ricochetting the weapon. Realistic? by no means. Breaks my brain when used on things other than, I don't know, daggers or something? yes. Still non supernatural in game due to the ability type? also yes :D

I agreee that there are things in ToB that are pretty supernaturaul, even the ones not marked so. It doesn't deter me, since I just won't choose those if my cahracter has no supernatural feel. If I want them to have a mystical feel, though, then I will happilly shadow garrote you in my assassin Stance while using my extra fire damage boost :P

Starbuck_II
2010-10-11, 02:47 PM
When was the last time you read what Supernatural, extraordinary, and Spell-like man from the books?

Extraordinary:

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.
These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted.


Supernatural:

Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a supernatural ability is:

Arbane
2010-10-11, 02:49 PM
Why should casters and monks be the only ones who get to break the laws of physics?

A high-level D&D Rogue can pick the most complex lock ever made with a blade of grass, can dodge artillery bombardment, and can survive enough physical abuse to wreck a Sherman Tank. All without casting a single spell, but we're supposed to believe that's _not_ "magic"?

SurlySeraph
2010-10-11, 03:05 PM
Yep. Just like Fergus mac Róich could cut off the tops of hills, Ajax could throw boulders, the Padmavyuha formation is unbreakable without being magical, and so on. Mythology is full of stuff that can't actually be done but which isn't considered magic in context.

Susano-wo
2010-10-11, 03:43 PM
When was the last time you read what Supernatural, extraordinary, and Spell-like man from the books?

Extraordinary:

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.
These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted.


Supernatural:

Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a supernatural ability is:


Um...a while...? :smallredface: I um, stand corrected. (though many things that are non magical by dnd standards are still physics breaking ^ ^;;

Scow2
2010-10-11, 03:48 PM
Note: In D&D, anything performable past level 6 breaks the laws of physics.

Hence, the e6 game style.

Levels 1-5: Gritty, realistic fantasy
Levels 6-10: Heroic Fantasy (Lord of the Rings)
Levels 10+: Any number of Epic stories.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-11, 03:52 PM
Firing an arrow in D&D quickly becomes an (Ex) ability by an interpretation of that measure, unless they're making supersonic human & string-powered bows these days. It's quite easy, by RAW, to fire an arrow that moves faster than the speed of sound.

I believe in TO, we had outstripped the speed of light, using just the SRD.

Arrows in general are pretty ludicrous in D&D. Even your basic archer will end up eventually loading and firing arrows in about a second, which is pretty insane, even before you start thinking about the speed, range, and accuracy involved with these shots.

High level D&D is basically superheros in a fantasy world. Expecting anything else is likely to result in dissapointment.

Scow2
2010-10-11, 04:00 PM
The problem with archer builds is they focus on turning your Bow and Arrows into Machine guns, when historically, a great archer's projectile was called a missile for a reason.:smalltongue:

D&D really nerfed ranged weapon damage :(

Tyndmyr
2010-10-11, 04:18 PM
a great archer's projectile was called a missile for a reason.:smalltongue:

...because they...missed? :smallcool: YEAAAH!

Frosty
2010-10-11, 05:03 PM
...because they...missed? :smallcool: YEAAAH!
Didn't you make this joke before in another thread?

Jayabalard
2010-10-12, 08:44 AM
Why should casters and monks be the only ones who get to break the laws of physics?Because they use magic (spells in the former case, new age mumbo jumbo in the latter).

Esser-Z
2010-10-12, 09:25 AM
Because they use magic (spells in the former case, new age mumbo jumbo in the latter).

That's terrible. Heroes regularly break the laws of physics in... basically every action genre, which D&D falls into. The point of playing a "mundane" character is to break the laws of physic using sheer badass, rather than mystical power.

A wizard conjures energy from the universe to break the rules. A swordsman simply is THAT GOOD.

I've been reading One Piece a lot lately. It's probably a good comparison, actually! Look at two main characters, Monkey D. Luffy and Roronoa Zoro. Luffy has power from a Devil Fruit, allowing him to turn his body into rubber. This allows for all sorts of insane physics breaking.

Zoro, on the other hand, is just a REALLY REALLY badass swordsman. So badass he fights with THREE Swords--one in each hand, one in his mouth. He can match Luffy's power, without anything actually supernatural. Because he's just THAT GOOD.

This is exactly the scenario I like to see in my RPGs. Some party members are powerful from supernatural sources. Others are the embodiment of Charles Atlas (or Saxton Hale) Superpower. They're just that good.

true_shinken
2010-10-12, 09:30 AM
Because they use magic (spells in the former case, new age mumbo jumbo in the latter).

{{scrubbed}}
...yeah, right.



I've been reading One Piece a lot lately.
Oh, man. One Piece rocks. I love it.


Zoro, on the other hand, is just a REALLY REALLY badass swordsman. So badass he fights with THREE Swords--one in each hand, one in his mouth. He can match Luffy's power, without anything actually supernatural. Because he's just THAT GOOD.
And now he is a one-eyed badass swordsman! Awesome!

Jayabalard
2010-10-12, 11:09 AM
That's terrible. Heroes regularly break the laws of physics in... basically every action genre, which D&D falls into.Not really.

I think you may have missed the fact that I'm just answering the question that was asked. Magic by definition breaks the laws of physics in the real world; many people are fine with wizards/clerics/etc breaking the laws of physics by using magic, but object to people breaking the laws of physics by using the power of awesome.


Zoro, on the other hand, is just a REALLY REALLY badass swordsman. With some rather remarkable swords.


I've been reading One Piece a lot lately. One Piece embodies everything that people dislike about ToB, so it seems like a terrible counter example. It's exactly the sort of thing that people mean when they say that ToB is "too anime"

Scow2
2010-10-12, 11:39 AM
I wish there were some ranged options similar to ToB. Remember Legolas from Lord of the Rings?

The swordsage is outright supernatural, but that's because he's like a Monk, except he focuses on Swords and Kicking Ass, not Fists and Being Lame. This class is also pretty much the posterchild of ToB, but it justifies its "Sword Magic" that the others don't have, because it expressly is Magic.

The crusader is the quintessential badass with the indomitable spirit and strength of body. The quintessential tough guy who can take a beating and still keep coming.

Wanna know a great example of a Warblade? Check out the Prince of Persia games. And any Mel Gibson character. Or Achilles, Hercules, and every goddamn Greek and Roman Hero Ever. Or Diablo II's Barbarian.

Warblades and Crusaders are also nice because they get the chance to give Casters the middle finger, because they put just as much effort into their abilities as a rogue.

Tiger Claw, Stone Dragon, Diamond Mind, and Iron Heart aren't reality-breaking schools.

Gametime
2010-10-12, 11:47 AM
I think you may have missed the fact that I'm just answering the question that was asked. Magic by definition breaks the laws of physics in the real world; many people are fine with wizards/clerics/etc breaking the laws of physics by using magic, but object to people breaking the laws of physics by using the power of awesome.



But physics-breaking is not confined to ToB, nor is ToB even the most egregious offender when it comes to reality-smashing action with non-magical abilities.

If you want your game to be gritty, that's fine. But there are plenty of people who don't play E6, and who have no problem with their high level characters jumping farther than any person should be able to, or surviving falls of hundreds of feet without sustaining any serious injury.

I don't think anyone objects to purging the "action hero" part from D&D if that's what you like in your games. What people do object to is being told Tome of Battle is the only part of D&D that resembles action heroism when, in fact, the default system is filled with it.

This is all tangential to the issue that the majority of ToB maneuvers are neither supernatural nor physics-breaking. You can play a gritty game with ToB, so long as you stick to the "I hit him hard" maneuvers.

true_shinken
2010-10-12, 11:56 AM
One Piece embodies everything that people dislike about ToB, so it seems like a terrible counter example. It's exactly the sort of thing that people mean when they say that ToB is "too anime"

How about Conan killing an entire army, Drizzt killing a thousand orcs, Dorn Graybrook wrestling with dragons?

Esser-Z
2010-10-12, 12:14 PM
With some rather remarkable swords.

Like every D&D character above level 1!

I'll grant you that it is, of course, anime/manga, and therefore no good on the 'too anime' side.


How about Heracles rerouting two rivers, or strangling a lion to death?

Zaydos
2010-10-12, 12:17 PM
Like every D&D character above level 1!

I'll grant you that it is, of course, anime/manga, and therefore no good on the 'too anime' side.


How about Heracles rerouting two rivers, or strangling a lion to death?

Rerouting the rivers gets into the "he's the son of Zeus and a demigod" and strangling a lion to death is just having a better than +12 grapple check modifier; which with whatever +Str template he had he definitely had.

Achilles, Ajax, Hector, the heroes of the Illiad are better examples of Warblades than Herakles; he was just a heavily templated barbarian.

Edit: Actually Herakles probably had some fighter levels with his several bow feats and grapple feats. So he was a Core fighter/barbarian with some template to give him DR X/epic and +Y Str.

Esser-Z
2010-10-12, 12:18 PM
That works too.


Hm. Could not physics breaking from nonmages be explained, if one really must give it a supernatural explanation, by subconscious magic usage? Instinctual warping of reality.

Zaydos
2010-10-12, 12:21 PM
Nothing a warblade can do is really physics breaking. Bloodstorm blades get Xena effect. Crusader's have Extraordinary Heal spell which should probably be Su. Swordsages get flat out Su abilities.

Except some Devoted Spirit maneuvers, only Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are really supernatural. Some of Tiger's Claw jump tactics are plain silly. Some of Stone Dragon's abilities are stretching it. Diamond Mind and Iron Heart are your basic "supreme skill" and except for Lightning Throw completely mundane. White Raven is more about being a commander than breaking physics.

Scow2
2010-10-12, 12:41 PM
I saw some of Tiger Claw's jump tactics as similar to the Prince of Persia's "Vault over the Enemy's Head" ability, and offshoots of that. And Diablo II's Barbarian Leap Attack.

Heracles isn't a good example (He just has a ridiculous STR score), but Achilles, Hector, Theseus, Perseus, Leonidas, Aeneas, etc. are still great examples of Warblades. Oh yeah, and the Prince of Persia.

Gametime
2010-10-12, 01:01 PM
Not to mention characters like Roland, who come straight out of classical chivalric mythology and are credited with doing things beyond what the most over-the-top martial adept could hope to accomplish pre-epic. Roland allegedly created a forty meter gap in a mountain while trying to break his sword (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durendal). That's like Stone Dragon on speed.

Jayabalard
2010-10-12, 02:55 PM
How about Conan killing an entire army, Drizzt killing a thousand orcs, Dorn Graybrook wrestling with dragons?I'm not really sure what your point is. I've done the first 2 of those things as a straight fighter, and there's nothing that violates the laws of physics involved that I'm aware of. I had to look up the latter, but half golem is hardly a valid comparison when you're talking about doing something by the power of awsome.


Like every D&D character above level 1!Not so. Some D&D characters beyond level 1 don't have a magic sword (and not just because they don't use swords); and generally, the ones that do have nothing like one of the 21 Great Edges of the world. It's kind of disingenious to pretend that he's just a bad ass swordsman rather than a badass swordsman with 1/7th of the best blades in the world.


If you want your game to be gritty, that's fine. It really has nothing to do with being gritty; you might just want standard fantasy rather than absurdly over the top caricatures. Don't get me wrong, I like One Piece, but that's not what I want out of D&D.


How about Heracles rerouting two rivers, or strangling a lion to death?You mean, Heracles, the son of Zeus? He gets to do magic because he's a demi-god, not because he's badass. Gods are another area where you get to break the laws of physics (hence: clerics).


Achilles, Ajax, Hector, the heroes of the Illiad are better examples of Warblades than Herakles; he was just a heavily templated barbarian.Achilles is not a really great example either (the whole "dipped in the river" thingy). Ajax is the son of Telamon, who was the son of Aeacus and grandson of Zeus. Hector is also a descendant of Zeus (through Electra). 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.


Not to mention characters like Roland, who come straight out of classical chivalric mythology and are credited with doing things beyond what the most over-the-top martial adept could hope to accomplish pre-epic. Roland allegedly created a forty meter gap in a mountain while trying to break his sword (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durendal). That's like Stone Dragon on speed.Yep, he's a MUCH better example; if you look up the definition of epic you'll find him cross referenced there.

Gametime
2010-10-12, 03:56 PM
It really has nothing to do with being gritty; you might just want standard fantasy rather than absurdly over the top caricatures. Don't get me wrong, I like One Piece, but that's not what I want out of D&D.


That's exactly our point: past a certain level, D&D, at it's core, fails to model "standard" fantasy. Unless, of course, you view "falling thousands of feet and surviving with no long term injuries" to be standard fantasy, in which case we're operating on different definitions.

High level characters become caricatures by any realistic standard by virtue of the core game mechanics. They don't need maneuvers to be over-the-top, and a lot of maneuvers are well within the boundaries of realism - even some of the ones within the "magical" schools like Shadow Hand end up being "I hit him where he's vulnerable," which is well-worn sneak attack ground.

Basically, I don't think it's wrong to say that (some of) ToB is very over the top. I do think it's wrong to pretend that by banning ToB, you are making D&D "standard fantasy," and I also think it's wrong to act as though nothing in ToB fits the "standard fantasy" paradigm.

Thurbane
2010-10-12, 04:37 PM
I'm not sure anyone is arguing that banning ToB will turn the rest of D&D into a totally realistic, historical simulator, where no one is capable of (near) superhuman feats...but it does seem like a step in the right direction, if that's what you're going for.

The "tone/feel" of ToB is somewhat intangible to describe, but for many people, it doesn't "feel" like more traditional D&D. There's a reason that so many people don't use it in their game for thematic reasons, even if we can't do a great job of describing exactly why. The fact that there is one of these threads every other week is a testament to this.

Here's the thing: the Hexblade and Duskblade are both "mystical warrior" types, and they don't seem to get the same reception that Swordsage and co do. Why do you think that is?

I'll reiterate again - I don't think that toB is a bad supplement: I do feel, however, that it is somewhat unsuited to some people's games. just like psionics, Eberron's steampunk/magitech etc. ToB is far from the only book that doesn't see use in my group(s).

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-12, 04:44 PM
I'm not sure anyone is arguing that banning ToB will turn the rest of D&D into a totally realistic, historical simulator, where no one is capable of (near) superhuman feats...but it does seem like a step in the right direction, if that's what you're going for.

The "tone/feel" of ToB is somewhat intangible to describe, but for many people, it doesn't "feel" like more traditional D&D. There's a reason that so many people don't use it in their game for thematic reasons, even if we can't do a great job of describing exactly why. The fact that there is one of these threads every other week is a testament to this.

Here's the thing: the Hexblade and Duskblade are both "mystical warrior" types, and they don't seem to get the same reception that Swordsage and co do. Why do you think that is?

I'll reiterate again - I don't think that toB is a bad supplement: I do feel, however, that it is somewhat unsuited to some people's games. just like psionics, Eberron's steampunk/magitech etc. ToB is far from the only book that doesn't see use in my group(s).

There are also lots of people who think in such a way that they can't immediately understand how Miko can be a Samurai even though that's not what it says on her character sheet. There are lots of people who metagame and confuse metagaming for "flavor."

That doesn't attest to the fact that it's a valid concern. At some point someone actually has to give a reasonable explanation.

Also, if you want to play a completely nonmagical (as you put it, "historical simulator") game, you're probably playing the wrong system for what you want to accomplish in your game. D&D 3.5e is extremely geared towards magical worlds full of stuff like magic items, magic people, and magic monsters, and when you're level 5 you're expected to be able to stab a T-Rex to death as a regular thing. Just about everything past around CR 5 is supernatural. At the very least, you probably shouldn't be playing past about level 5 if that's what you're going for.


Here's the thing: the Hexblade and Duskblade are both "mystical warrior" types, and they don't seem to get the same reception that Swordsage and co do. Why do you think that is? The answer is very simple here. Prejudice, and lots of it. To point out the characteristics you noted in the complaints: Prejudice comes up a lot, and people can never really describe exactly why they feel that way, but they're always 100% sure it's justified and are extremely resistant to changing their views for any reason.

For example, people not understanding that you can totally build a Samurai character while having Paladin on your character sheet is depressingly commonplace. And these same people are often arbitrarily hostile to any ability with a vaguely eastern sounding name, even if actual medieval western style techniques often had similarly styled names. Funny how that works for all those historical simulator types. Nevermind that you can just change the names and realize that "Steel Wind and Cleave are the same thing."

Morithias
2010-10-12, 04:49 PM
If a person wanted to play a 'realistic' game based on the ages of knights and kings etc. You would be best off throwing out every dnd book you own and buying a different RPG game.

Face it, anything with "Dragons" in it's name is never going to be historically accurate.

Esser-Z
2010-10-12, 04:52 PM
Face it, anything with "Dragons" in it's name is never going to be historically accurate.

I dunno. Dragons aren't THAT far from giant enemy crabs.

Morithias
2010-10-12, 04:54 PM
I dunno. Dragons aren't THAT far from giant enemy crabs.

The biggest crab in existance, I will admit has a leg span of 4 meters, and body of 37 cm, but that is a large creature at best. Not to mention the fact that said crab lives at the bottom of the ocean and therefore unless you're running an aquatic campaign, have no basis on using this animal as a justification.

Gametime
2010-10-12, 04:55 PM
But you can't stab a dragon's weak point for massive damage. That's where D&D fails to deliver on realism.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-12, 04:55 PM
I dunno. Dragons aren't THAT far from giant enemy crabs.

Based on Japanese history.

Actually took place in medieval Japan.

Thurbane
2010-10-12, 04:56 PM
There are also lots of people who think in such a way that they can't immediately understand how Miko can be a Samurai even though that's not what it says on her character sheet.

That doesn't attest to the fact that it's a valid concern. At some point someone actually has to give a reasonable explanation.
Well, I've given my own explanation many times now - almost as often as one of these threads crops up. I think it was about at page 5 in this one. I can't speak for anyone else. :smallwink:

Also, if you want to play a completely nonmagical (as you put it, "historical simulator") game, you're probably playing the wrong system for what you want to accomplish in your game. D&D 3.5e is extremely geared towards magical worlds full of stuff like magic items, magic people, and magic monsters, and when you're level 5 you're expected to be able to a T-Rex to death as a regular thing. Certainly just about everything past around CR 5 is supernatural, save for the likes of a T-Rex, which any normal person just can't kill with a sword. At the very least, you probably shouldn't be playing past about level 5 if that's what you're going for.
I agree with this 100%. If you notice, I'm specifically saying that I don't think that's what poeople are trying to achieve by banning ToB.

The answer is very simple here. Prejudice, and lots of it. Prejudice comes up a lot, and people can never really describe exactly why they feel that way, but they're always 100% sure it's justified.
Prejudice against what exactly? The book itself? I don't consider myself prejudiced against it - it's just not something I use in my games. I haven't called it out as a bad book, or unbalanced, or anything of the like.

I don't listen to Lady Gaga because I don't like her style of music...does that mean I'm prejudiced?

...also, I'm not sure why it's so essential that people use ToB, or why some people take offense that there's people out there who don't employ every single supplement that WotC ever put out in their games. The most common argument I see is that ToB makes melee more viable/enjoyable/less boring. Which is fine - people are certainly entitled to that opinion. But just realise that some of us are happy with melee combat in our games wihtout ToB material - warts and all.

Amphetryon
2010-10-12, 04:57 PM
If a person wanted to play a 'realistic' game based on the ages of knights and kings etc. You would be best off throwing out every dnd book you own and buying a different RPG game.

Face it, anything with "Dragons" in it's name is never going to be historically accurate.
I believe that alternate game has been described elsewhere as 'four guys beating the snot out of each other in the backyard with sticks.'
:smallwink:

Morithias
2010-10-12, 04:58 PM
Based on Japanese history.

Actually took place in medieval Japan.

You've been fooled by an internet meme, and people taking what a game developer said too literally. That would be like me saying my game is based on Medieval Europe, therefore all the stuff in it actually existed/has historical basis.

And don't make me quote the game developer who said that, cause that would just be the equivalent of unleashing hell on this forum.

The Glyphstone
2010-10-12, 05:00 PM
You've been fooled by an internet meme, and people taking what a game developer said too literally. That would be like me saying my game is based on Medieval Europe, therefore all the stuff in it actually existed/has historical basis.

And don't make me quote the game developer who said that, cause that would just be the equivalent of unleashing hell on this forum.

Indeed, that would be...








a FATAL mistake.

:cool: YEEAAAAAAAAAAH! :cool:

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-12, 05:00 PM
You've been fooled by an internet meme, and people taking what a game developer said too literally. No, I don't take it literally. I just think it's a funny meme.

I don't actually feel it's terribly out of place for the game designer to say that that game is based on battles that actually took place in medieval Japan, because it totally is. In reality, we all know that "based on a true story" doesn't have anything to do with "actually historically accurate in any form whatsoever." Heck, isn't Fatal Frame based on a true story? ;)

You have been fooled by your own assumptions and leaping to conclusions.

Morithias
2010-10-12, 05:01 PM
Indeed, that would be...








a FATAL mistake.

:cool: YEEAAAAAAAAAAH! :cool:

Great now there's going to be a giant debate about it, completely removing the original point of the thread....thanks a lot.

Z3ro
2010-10-12, 05:01 PM
The biggest crab in existance, I will admit has a leg span of 4 meters, and body of 37 cm, but that is a large creature at best. Not to mention the fact that said crab lives at the bottom of the ocean and therefore unless you're running an aquatic campaign, have no basis on using this animal as a justification.

I don't know, have you seen coconut crabs?

The Glyphstone
2010-10-12, 05:04 PM
Great now there's going to be a giant debate about it, completely removing the original point of the thread....thanks a lot.

Hey, you set yourself up for it. I just couldn't resist the opportunity.:smallbiggrin:

Morithias
2010-10-12, 05:06 PM
I don't know, have you seen coconut crabs?

3 feet according to wikipedia. It is land based, but come on, that's a small creature. Certainly not "giant".

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-12, 05:07 PM
By prejudice, I mean, say, the same reason someone says that you can't be a "real" holy warrior because of the preconceived bias that if you want to be a holy warrior who smites evil, detects evil at will, inspires courage in their allies, and fights in full armor astride a shining deific mount with a holy sword, then you have to play a Paladin, even though you can totally have that exact same effect with other classes. 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.

Just like there's a preconceived bias that Clerics should be healbots and if that changes something's wrong. Or that every party needs a cleric or druid healbot. And that's just naming some of the prejudice surrounding one class.

It's not just Tome of Battle that gets it. All sorts of things in D&D do, they just take different forms. For example, "non-core" is arbitrarily prejudiced against, even though "core vs. not core" is not actually a useful measure of whether a given mechanic is well designed.

As for the examples of Hexblade and Duskblade not getting the hate, one of the big prejudices in D&D is "Fighters Can't Have Nice Things." Hexblades and Duskblades fall into the category of "mages" who are allowed to have nice things. A Fighter wants a nice thing, he has to get a magic sword, magic buffs, and so forth from people who are allowed to get Nice Things (not that the Hexblade actually gets them. And really, the Duskblade doesn't do much besides pure damage either).

And yes, this is a relic of old school D&D. It really is true that Fighters weren't supposed to have nice things, as early as 1e D&D where that was affected by the fact that you were supposed to have more than one of them as a PC. Frankly, not having Fighters be like they used to be is a largely positive thing and an improvement to the game.

While it is possible for some abilities and such to not have a place in your game, a more enlightened view to take would be to realize that you should judge individual abilities, builds, or character concepts, not entire classes, books, or whatever. I mean really, is the campaign flavor for your game going to break if someone takes Thicket of Blades as a Marshal Study and thus can AoO people who move through their threatened space better?

The only flavor that actually matters when making these considerations is inherent flavor that comes as a direct result of mechanics, rather than "fluff text." For example, let's say you thought that having Green Colored Rays in your game was inappropriate flavor, so you ban Disintegrate. But this is silly. There are a thousand ways you can reflavor Disintegrate so that it's not a "green ray from your finger." You could say it was a red ray. Or you could do something entirely more creative. By contrast, things like "nothing of the body is left" is actually inherent flavor and part of the mechanics, and you can't change that without changing the actual mechanics.

Keld Denar
2010-10-12, 05:18 PM
The most common argument I see is that ToB makes melee more viable/enjoyable/less boring. Which is fine - people are certainly entitled to that opinion. But just realise that some of us are happy with melee combat in our games wihtout ToB material - warts and all.

The thing is, a player comes to a thread and says "I want a character who can do X, Y, and Z." Well, a Crusader/Swordsage/Warblade can do X, Y, and Z, in a way that other base classes don't really model well. So someone suggests "why don't you play an Unarmed Swordsage/Lockdown Crusader/TWF Warblade". The player responds with ZOMG NEVAR EVAR SUGGEST USING TOB EVAR EVER I DON'T EVEN WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT EVAR NO NO NO NO!!!! The player then goes on to invest a HUGE amount of time in homebrewing something that can also do X, Y, and Z, forcing a square peg into a round hole which may or may not be balanced or mechanically sound. If they would have looked at the book with an open mind, they could have indeed built a character that does X, Y, and Z with established material that is generally considered relatively well internally balanced.

Kinda like, if someone says they want to fly, and you suggest "get an airplane", to which they replay "I don't like airplanes. They're red and I don't like red. I'm gonna duct tape wings to my blue car and drive really fast off a cliff". In reality, all they had to do was paint the airplane blue...

Just a common trend I've noticed in my years being active on this board.

Esser-Z
2010-10-12, 05:31 PM
But you can't stab a dragon's weak point for massive damage. That's where D&D fails to deliver on realism.

Ever heard of critical hits and sneak attack?

Esser-Z
2010-10-12, 05:32 PM
3 feet according to wikipedia. It is land based, but come on, that's a small creature. Certainly not "giant".

That's just the visible ones, before they get their SLAs.

Gametime
2010-10-12, 05:39 PM
3 feet according to wikipedia. It is land based, but come on, that's a small creature. Certainly not "giant".

I think you might be taking this discussion of GIANT ENEMY CRABS too literally. :smalltongue:


Ever heard of critical hits and sneak attack?

I was being facetious. If I had been serious, I probably wouldn't have been using "massive damage" as a benchmark for realism. :smallbiggrin:


The thing is, a player comes to a thread and says "I want a character who can do X, Y, and Z." Well, a Crusader/Swordsage/Warblade can do X, Y, and Z, in a way that other base classes don't really model well. So someone suggests "why don't you play an Unarmed Swordsage/Lockdown Crusader/TWF Warblade". The player responds with ZOMG NEVAR EVAR SUGGEST USING TOB EVAR EVER I DON'T EVEN WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT EVAR NO NO NO NO!!!!



This definitely happens. The flipside is true, too - people will say "No ToB," and responses will invariably include at least one person suggesting ToB. That's not really helpful.

Closemindedness goes both ways. There are certainly people on this board who don't give ToB a chance. There are also people who have evaluated it and decided it isn't for them, for whatever reason. Likewise, there are plenty of people who suggest ToB as a miracle elixir for the ailments of every melee in every game, ever, but there are also people who only suggest it where appropriate and who realize that not everyone likes it.

Unfortunately, discussions on the subject usually polarize to disproportionately represent the extreme sides of each. Here's a fun drinking game: take a shot any time someone who doesn't like ToB complains about it being "rammed down [their] throat," or any time someone who does like it complains how the DMs that ban ToB are "forcing" their players to play inferior classes. Within two pages, you'll be tipsy enough that the vicious character attacks will seem reasonable!

Thurbane
2010-10-12, 05:40 PM
As for the examples of Hexblade and Duskblade not getting the hate, one of the big prejudices in D&D is "Fighters Can't Have Nice Things." Hexblades and Duskblades fall into the category of "mages" who are allowed to have nice things. A Fighter wants a nice thing, he has to get a magic sword, magic buffs, and so forth from people who are allowed to get Nice Things (not that the Hexblade actually gets them).
It’s just a matter of game style preference. Obviously, the crunch of the game is heavily weighted in the favour of casters. But some of us prefer a style of game where mundane characters are inherently non magical. Yes, that leads to class imbalances, but is still the style of game that some people prefer. If I was really concerned about class imbalance (in particular, caster vs. non caster balance), I’d play a different system...maybe even 4E D&D.

If ToB helps address an issue that is problematic for you, then by all means, please use it. I don’t argue that ToB doesn’t add aspects to melee, just that I don’t feel the need for those aspects in my game. Again, comes back to game style preference.


The thing is, a player comes to a thread and says "I want a character who can do X, Y, and Z." Well, a Crusader/Swordsage/Warblade can do X, Y, and Z, in a way that other base classes don't really model well. So someone suggests "why don't you play an Unarmed Swordsage/Lockdown Crusader/TWF Warblade". The player responds with ZOMG NEVAR EVAR SUGGEST USING TOB EVAR EVER I DON'T EVEN WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT EVAR NO NO NO NO!!!! The player then goes on to invest a HUGE amount of time in homebrewing something that can also do X, Y, and Z, forcing a square peg into a round hole which may or may not be balanced or mechanically sound. If they would have looked at the book with an open mind, they could have indeed built a character that does X, Y, and Z with established material that is generally considered relatively well internally balanced.

Kinda like, if someone says they want to fly, and you suggest "get an airplane", to which they replay "I don't like airplanes. They're red and I don't like red. I'm gonna duct tape wings to my blue car and drive really fast off a cliff". In reality, all they had to do was paint the airplane blue...
Yes, this illustrates that there are extremists on either side of any debate. People on forums who are dogmatically for or against ToB can be just as unpleasant as each other.

From my own perspective, as I don’t use ToB, I tend to notice the “pro-ToB” extremists more than I notice the “anti-ToB” extremists. But I don’t pretend that they don’t exist – they obviously do. Suffice to say, people trying to force their view down other’s throats, no matter which side of a debate they are on, isn’t usually a good thing...

I have no problem with someone suggesting a ToB solution to a build I am discussing...but once I have made it clear that my group doesn’t use ToB, I don’t find “ZOMG TOB IS BEST THING 4 D&D EVAR! SACK YOUR DM!” comments especially useful.

sonofzeal
2010-10-12, 06:00 PM
But some of us prefer a style of game where mundane characters are inherently non magical.
Warblades are inherently non-magical. They're like.... Achilles (in the Troy movie), or Xena (in her own show), or Conan the Barbarian (esp. as played by Der Guvernator) or anyone ever acted by Stephen Segal. Warblades are "Action Heroes", but there's nothing inherently magical about that.

(I do think I understand what you mean... but you might want to rephrase that.)


I don’t find “ZOMG TOB IS BEST THING 4 D&D EVAR! SACK YOUR DM!” comments especially useful.
"Useful"? What is this "useful"? I think you'll find none of that here on the Intertubes...

But seriously, any given thread has probably less than half the posts in it actually being "useful" in some tangible way. You've got to filter that stuff out, y'know?

Arbane
2010-10-12, 07:51 PM
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.

Pretty sure you can't do that as a Fighter 10.

Master Thrower
2010-10-12, 07:51 PM
Warblades are inherently non-magical. They're like.... Achilles (in the Troy movie), or Xena (in her own show), or Conan the Barbarian (esp. as played by Der Guvernator) or anyone ever acted by Stephen Segal. Warblades are "Action Heroes", but there's nothing inherently magical about that.

But Achilles was magical. He was dipped into the river styx as a child and was invulnerable everywhere except his heel...

Amphetryon
2010-10-12, 07:54 PM
But Achilles was magical. He was dipped into the river styx as a child and was invulnerable everywhere except his heel...

I'll have to watch Troy again; I know the myth, but I must have missed that scene. Sonofzeal did specify the movie incarnation of Achilles, after all.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-12, 07:57 PM
I'll have to watch Troy again; I know the myth, but I must have missed that scene. Sonofzeal did specify the movie incarnation of Achilles, after all.

He is better represented as DR 100/heel attack.

Almost impervious unless attack heel (but few did).

Master Thrower
2010-10-12, 07:57 PM
I'll have to watch Troy again; I know the myth, but I must have missed that scene. Sonofzeal did specify the movie incarnation of Achilles, after all.

Im not sure if it was in the movie. It was in greek mythology

Esser-Z
2010-10-12, 07:59 PM
Funny, I can do it as a Warblade 10 trivially. A Fighter too, actually, but the Fighter needs to have magic items to do it because he's not allowed to have nice things.

No mechanics for limb ripping off. You can't do it as ANYTHING. :smalltongue:

The-Mage-King
2010-10-12, 08:00 PM
No mechanics for limb ripping off. You can't do it as ANYTHING. :smalltongue:

Actually... If you hope that Grendel has Improved Unarmed Strike...

You can sunder weapons...

Zaydos
2010-10-12, 08:02 PM
Which is the thing in the Illiad he never gets hit except once and that does hurt him. Both the heel dip and the fatal arrow are from other sources. And in yet other sources he fights an Amazon that almost manages to kill him. So... wt... aggg! GREEK MYTHS!!!!!! I will also point out that it (whether it's a Styx dip, a gold dip, or burning in a fire) made him Immortal everywhere but his heel; the immortal gods could still be hurt and injured (even crippled) just not die. So he'd survive any wound not to his ankle... doesn't mean it wouldn't seriously damage him.

Then again he also had super-special awesome magic armor made by a god.

Also Sigurd was awesome and actually could be represented as a fighter; he'd need Diehard, and Throw Anything, plus an adamantine sword, but I'd rather make him a warblade... unfortunately his sword didn't come back to him.

Fawsto
2010-10-12, 08:03 PM
Swordsage'd about 50 times now, but...

My 4 pieces of copper:

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

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.

3) It does not solve balance problems (the high level Warblade will be beaten by the high level wizard).

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

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

Esser-Z
2010-10-12, 08:04 PM
1) The basic classes from ToB can (and probably will) overshadow their counterparts from PhB.

Problem is with PhB, Not ToB!


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.

Eeeeeeeeeh. Only if 'magic' means 'any use-limited (any duration) ability the character can use from a pool of known abilities', which is a pretty loose definition, no?



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

Easiest to build. HAHAAH. Unless you don't mean 'build effectively'. Fighter is actually HARDER to build than Warblade.

Zaydos
2010-10-12, 08:05 PM
Also how can warblade swim 3 days straight in armor any better than a fighter? Except by very loose readings of Iron Heart Surge (fatigue/exhaustion does not have a duration measured in rounds).

Starbuck_II
2010-10-12, 08:06 PM
So he'd survive any wound not to his ankle... doesn't mean it wouldn't seriously damage him.


So you treat it as Regeneration/heel? I can get behind that.

sonofzeal
2010-10-12, 08:06 PM
I'll have to watch Troy again; I know the myth, but I must have missed that scene. Sonofzeal did specify the movie incarnation of Achilles, after all.
Indeed. I specified the movie version for that exact reason. In the movie, he was just a massive epic badass. And this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buPRU02T0fU)? This is not how a Fighter fights. But it's how a Warblade fights.

sonofzeal
2010-10-12, 08:18 PM
1) The basic classes from ToB can (and probably will) overshadow their counterparts from PhB.
Barbarian can keep up, actually, especially with a source of Pounce. So can Fighters if built with care and healthy dosings of non-Core feats. And Monk are just fail, we all know that right?

Paladin vs Crusader is interesting though, if we're allowing non-Core. SotAO makes a big difference.


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.
Crusaders and Swordsages have magic, but so do Paladins and Monks. Warblades don't have magic, they just have limited-use combat maneuvers. So do Barbarians, really, it's just a different mechanic.


13) It does not solve balance problems (the high level Warblade will be beaten by the high level wizard).
It mitigates it a lot though. I ran a mid-Op Warblade 20 against a mid-Op Druid 20 and won... partially due to tactical errors on the part of the Druid, but we figured out really fast that even with the awesomeness of Wildshape + Animal Companion + various tricks to get an AC over 50, the Druid was hopelessly outclassed in melee.


14) Basicaly removes the easiest-to-build class, the fighter.
It doesn't remove it. Fighter levels are still useful, and even pure Fighters can be valid if feats are chosen well. Also, Fighters are strengthened by the inclusion of Martial Study.

Also, Fighters are not the easiest-to-build class, Monks and Barbarians and Rogues are all easier. Fighters have build choices out the wazoo, Monks only get a couple small choices and Barbarians don't even get that.


15) A few manouvers can be tricky. With this I mean bugged and abusable for loopholes. They are *few*.
Memes aside, Iron Heart Surge does not work that way. Actually, it kind of fails at what it was trying to do, as it can't free you from Charm/Dominate/Petrify/Paralyse/Nauseated/Stunned/Dazed, because all of those prevent you from initiating it in the first place.

Susano-wo
2010-10-12, 08:19 PM
Closemindedness goes both ways. There are certainly people on this board who don't give ToB a chance. There are also people who have evaluated it and decided it isn't for them, for whatever reason. Likewise, there are plenty of people who suggest ToB as a miracle elixir for the ailments of every melee in every game, ever, but there are also people who only suggest it where appropriate and who realize that not everyone likes it.

Unfortunately, discussions on the subject usually polarize to disproportionately represent the extreme sides of each. Here's a fun drinking game: take a shot any time someone who doesn't like ToB complains about it being "rammed down [their] throat," or any time someone who does like it complains how the DMs that ban ToB are "forcing" their players to play inferior classes. Within two pages, you'll be tipsy enough that the vicious character attacks will seem reasonable!
+1
I'm pretty much a giant ToB fanboy, but I facepalm everytime I see someone suggest ToB on threads where the poster has specified that they don't want/can't use it (special exception goes to those who at least poiltely ask for what reasons they can't have it)

Zaydos
2010-10-12, 08:22 PM
So you treat it as Regeneration/heel? I can get behind that.

I treat it as just yet another inconsistency in Greek myths, although yes if I was going to have him in D&D I'd make Regeneration/heel. There is a reason he wore the best armor in the world (which ironically lacked heel protection; although some versions say that anything touching his heel caused him unbearable pain... really it's an often-cited myth but it varies wildly).