PDA

View Full Version : What tier is this and why isn't it the go to monk fix?



Sir Swindle89
2010-10-26, 09:30 AM
Battle Dancer from the Dragon Compendium.

Full BAB, fast movement, unarmed progression, abilities that support it's melee role, kinda dumb skill tax (but w/e), still a little MAD

Any way what tier is this?

i was thinking 3 or 4

Why don't i ever see this brought up in monk discussions.

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 09:33 AM
Supposedly Swordsage does it better. Personally, I am starting to like a Monk/Stone Dragon Warblade for my monks. More of a brawler, though, really. Uses the fast movement to get to the heart of the battle with Charging Minotaur, then proceeds to Mountain Hammer his foes into oblivion, with the occasional Stone Bones, or whatever.

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-26, 09:34 AM
Because the unnarmed Swordsage variant is the official "Monk fix" and does it better?

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-26, 09:37 AM
The thing that turns people off to sword sage is dealing with spell (essentially) a lot of people don't want to deal with manuvers.

They want to play a monk not a wizard

Using broad sweeping terms of course, but the fact of the matter is Battle Dance is about the same complexity as a monk, just better.

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-26, 09:39 AM
People who don't want to deal with maneuvers because they're too much like "spells" are in the minority. And they're likely to not care that the Monk is an awful class anyway.

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-26, 09:39 AM
Because the unnarmed Swordsage variant is the official "Monk fix" and does it better?

wait when did unarmed sword sage become an official anything? last i knew it was a foot note.

arguskos
2010-10-26, 09:43 AM
Battle Dancer is, I believe, accepted to be around Tier 4-5. It's honestly not that much better than Monk. It's got a few more tricks, but Battle Dancers suffer from the same issues as monks. Namely, MAD and inability to deal real damage (their chosen role). They can't take hits, they can't dish out hits, they can't do too much actually.

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 09:45 AM
Because Unarmed Swordsage does do it better and is 1st party.

Battle Dancer has to spend a standard action to overcome DR for the next 5 + rounds, and the only thing they really have going for them is 11th level pounce.

true_shinken
2010-10-26, 10:42 AM
Because Unarmed Swordsage does do it better and is 1st party.

Battle Dancer is also 1st party.
Also, I'd say it's tier 4.

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-26, 10:44 AM
Battle Dancer is also 1st party.
Also, I'd say it's tier 4.

It appeared in Dragon before it was bought out by WotC.

No, it isn't.

It's officially licensed third-party material, but it's still third-party material.

lsfreak
2010-10-26, 10:45 AM
Battle Dancer is also 1st party.
Also, I'd say it's tier 4.

Dragon Compendium is 3rd party. Officially licensed, yes. But 3rd party.

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 10:45 AM
Battle Dancer is also 1st party.
Also, I'd say it's tier 4.

Not according to Dragon Magazine Compendium's publishing information:


Paizo Publishing, LLC 2700 Richards Road Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 9S005-4200.

It's published by Paizo, although it's officially licensed making it official 3rd party merchandise.

I do agree that Battle Dancer is probably tier 4, though.

true_shinken
2010-10-26, 10:48 AM
It's published by Paizo, although it's officially licensed making it official 3rd party merchandise.
The difference between 'official 3rd party' and 1st party is so little that I wonder if it even matters.
But you are correct.


It appeared in Dragon before it was bought out by WotC.

Well, if we are being so strict with our wordings, WotC never 'bought' Dragon at any point. Paizo published Dragon Magazine under a license from WotC.

Keld Denar
2010-10-26, 10:50 AM
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

Yea, its pretty much T4. Its a bit Dip friendly though, given how frontloaded level 1 is. Maybe for gishing it up to enter Swiftblade?

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-26, 10:51 AM
might be 3rd party but it's prolly still less feared than ToB, just saying.

it doesn't really matter what party it is as long as it's in a book.

Kylarra
2010-10-26, 11:00 AM
Arcane swordsage is as much first party as unarmed swordsage. Both are unfleshed out variants mentioned in passing. :smalltongue:


She does have one major advantage over the monk though, proficiency with all simple weapons. :smallamused:

jiriku
2010-10-26, 11:08 AM
Revised monk in my sig. Solid Tier 4. Adheres closely to the original style and flavor of the monk. It's a good option for those who are dissatisfied with the monk but don't want to play an unarmed swordsage.

kryan
2010-10-26, 11:11 AM
might be 3rd party but it's prolly still less feared than ToB, just saying.

it doesn't really matter what party it is as long as it's in a book.
What on earth makes you think that? Who fears what is by far, hands down the best book WotC ever printed for 3.5? :smallconfused:

Keld Denar
2010-10-26, 11:14 AM
Considering its possibly the MOST polarizing book in 3.5 as far as community support goes. So many people love it, yet so many people hate it. Very very very few middle of the road people.

If you doubt me, do a google seach of "site:giantitp.com ToB" and see how many 20+ page discussion threads there are. Its a weekly occurance here.

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-26, 11:16 AM
What on earth makes you think that? Who fears what is by far, hands down the best book WotC ever printed for 3.5? :smallconfused:

a lot of people actually, because it's "over powered"
additionally it's a whole nother magic system to learn.

Psyren
2010-10-26, 11:17 AM
What on earth makes you think that? Who fears what is by far, hands down the best book WotC ever printed for 3.5? :smallconfused:

I'm all for ToB, but you have to admit that it isn't the most newbie-friendly supplement. You don't see Complete Arcane for Dummies anywhere, but you do see Tome of Battle for Dummies (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871270/Tome_of_Battle_for_Dummies), and the existence of guides like that proves there is a learning curve.

It's the same for most new systems, including Incarnum, Shadow Magic and Psionics.

I'm not saying Unarmed Swordsage isn't worth learning ToB for - because it definitely is - but neither can you pretend there is no work involved.

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 11:18 AM
If you doubt me, do a google seach of "site:giantitp.com ToB" and see how many 20+ page discussion threads there are. Its a weekly occurance here.

This thread is technically late, then? Monkday was yesterday. :smalltongue:

Keld Denar
2010-10-26, 11:19 AM
Dear lord, we do need a MoI for dummies thread. That book is amazing, but there are some SERIOUS glaring holes in some of the content...

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-26, 11:21 AM
sorry i didn't crack open my Dragon Compendium until last night when i was looking up stuff for my dvati thread. :smallbiggrin:

Maby i'll post another to make up for the tardiness.

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-26, 11:22 AM
Dear lord, we do need a MoI for dummies thread. That book is amazing, but there are some SERIOUS glaring holes in some of the content...

I agree with that, it could be preth good if it had a complete version

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 11:23 AM
It's the same for most new systems, including Incarnum, Shadow Magic and Psionics.

The complicated-ness of psionics is greatly overrated. I found it more intuitive than either ToB or MoI to learn. (I'm still working on MoI, but I think I've got ToB down enough to play it.)

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-26, 11:27 AM
The complicated-ness of psionics is greatly overrated. I found it more intuitive than either ToB or MoI to learn. (I'm still working on MoI, but I think I've got ToB down enough to play it.)

agree, mana is a pretty intuitave thing for most :smallsmile:

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-26, 11:29 AM
...I'm tempted to write a MoI For Dummies thread.

Tavar
2010-10-26, 11:30 AM
I've had a bit of trouble with MoI, but Tome of Battle was pretty intuitive, at least in my opinion. More so than Vancian casting, at least.

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 11:30 AM
agree, mana is a pretty intuitave thing for most :smallsmile:

Exactly. Play a couple of MP-based video games, and you've got Psionics down pat.

EDIT:

...I'm tempted to write a MoI For Dummies thread.

...I'm tempted to read said MoI for Dummies thread.

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-26, 11:30 AM
...I'm tempted to write a MoI For Dummies thread.

do it you'd do the community a favor

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 11:32 AM
The complicated-ness of psionics is greatly overrated. I found it more intuitive than either ToB or MoI to learn. (I'm still working on MoI, but I think I've got ToB down enough to play it.)

Seconding agreement; although I found Vancian casting easier than any of the above but that's because I learned it when I was 6 in the Red Box. And before someone says ToB is less complicated than Vancian casting retraining maneuvers + prerequisites for maneuvers makes ToB more complicated to than Vancian casting and otherwise it's almost identical except for being per encounter (with recharge) instead of daily.

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-26, 11:32 AM
...I'm tempted to read said MoI for Dummies thread.

...Okay then, what exactly do people have troubles with? I find MoI intuitive so I'm not sure.

The Glyphstone
2010-10-26, 11:33 AM
It's formatting (or more accurately, lack thereof) is a big mark against comprehensibility.

Kris Strife
2010-10-26, 11:38 AM
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

Yea, its pretty much T4. Its a bit Dip friendly though, given how frontloaded level 1 is. Maybe for gishing it up to enter Swiftblade?

Nitpick: That wasn't Hermes, that was Bureaucrat #1.

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-26, 11:38 AM
Nitpick: That wasn't Hermes, that was Bureaucrat #1.

It's totally something Hermes would say though.

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 11:39 AM
It's formatting (or more accurately, lack thereof) is a big mark against comprehensibility.

Eldritch Horror'd

Yes, formatting is one of the issues. I, personally, just can't comprehend it. :smallredface:
Sad, really. I've been playing for...a long time, now, and this is the first DnD book I just don't get. I've read it three times, and it's just not sinking in. I'd have to have it in front of me to give you specifics, though.

Yuki Akuma
2010-10-26, 11:41 AM
Eldritch Horror'd

Yes, formatting is one of the issues. I, personally, just can't comprehend it. :smallredface:
Sad, really. I've been playing for...a long time, now, and this is the first DnD book I just don't get. I've read it three times, and it's just not sinking in. I'd have to have it in front of me to give you specifics, though.

Alright then. I'll go digging through MoI and get to clarifying.

Kris Strife
2010-10-26, 11:41 AM
It's totally something Hermes would say though.

But he didn't, so Keld's quote was technically incorrect, the worst kind of incorrect.

Keld Denar
2010-10-26, 11:49 AM
...Okay then, what exactly do people have troubles with? I find MoI intuitive so I'm not sure.

There are some tidbits that are a little bit TOO hidden. Like Essentia caps per level. Its at the start of Classes chapter, I'd think it would be better served at the start of the actual Soulmelds chapter.

Then there is that one tiny phrase about soulmelds and body slots. I mean, I picked up right away that Chakra binds are special, since they are effectively body slots WRT magic items. One thing I did miss though, for the longest time, was that you can't bind two MELDs associated with a single body slot. You can bind Acrobat Boots or Airstep Sandals, but not both. I figured since they don't actually take a magic item body slot unless you BIND it to a Chakra, it wasn't an issue. I guess there is essentially an entire second set of body slots for melds and somewhat overlaps with the body slots for magic items and Cakra binds. This is further complicated with Totemist binds. Most Incarnate binds only have 1 body slot. Many Totemist binds have several like Totem Avatar or Dread Carapace. If I shape Dread Carapace, but don't bind it to a Chakra, what slot does it occupy? One? All? My choice? Its not really spelled out well, especially if you miss that one small hidden phrase.

Furthermore, do abilities like Double Chakra Bind and the Totemist 11 ability charge you extra Chakra bind slots? If you are binding 2 melds into one slot, is it one Chakra bind or two? Likewise, if you are binding one meld into two Chakras, is it one bind or two?

Furthermore, what happens when you bind multiple melds that give you redundant natural attacks? If you take the Double Chakra Bind feat for your Totem Chakra, you could in theory bind Sphinx Claws and Girallon Arms to your Totem Chakra. Does this give you 4 1d4 claws + 2 1d8 claws? Or 2 1d8 claws and 2 1d4 claws? What if you were something like a Kobold and already had claws, do the binds give you MORE claws? Or do they supercede your existing claws? Again, kinda vague with no clarification.

Just a couple of things off the top of my head. If I tore into the book, I'd probably remember a dozen more that I came across while making characters.

kryan
2010-10-26, 11:51 AM
*does a quick search*

Oh my. Seems like almost every one ends with a lock...

Anyway, I'm surprised people find Tome of Battle too much work to learn. I could probably explain everything you'd need to know to make a decent initiator in two or three sentences...

An attempt:
Martial Adepts, or Initiators, "initiate" "maneuvers" that they have learned and readied, and each maneuver has its own separate effect, like a spell. There are nine levels of maneuvers, and to learn a maneuver you need an Initiator Level of 2n-1 (same as a Wizard would need for a spell of that level), but your non-initiator classes count as half-levels towards your IL. You can only ready a limited number of maneuvers, which are always available at the beginning of an encounter; regaining them after you've used them requires you to Recover them, and the Recovery method of each of the classes varies. There are also Stances, that remain in effect as long as you want them to, and you can switch them as a Swift action.Meh, that's 4 sentences and I kind of had to abuse conjunctions to do it, but still. That's pretty much ToB in a nutshell. Oh, I guess I should have mentioned the disciplines...

Still, we're talking about less than a page here. Two or three short paragraphs.

Magic of Incarnum, on the other hand, yeah. That one's complicated as anything. Or, rather... it isn't, but the poor formatting/organization of the book makes it really hard to learn. Once you get it, it's really not that bad, though keeping track of all of your options is really hard.

Crow
2010-10-26, 12:01 PM
People who don't want to deal with maneuvers because they're too much like "spells" are in the minority.

Nevermind that the book itself calls it "blade magic".

Telonius
2010-10-26, 12:03 PM
It's formatting (or more accurately, lack thereof) is a big mark against comprehensibility.

Absolutely agree with the formatting issues on ToB. The biggest offender (IMO) is Table 3-1 (highest-level maneuvers known). That should have gone at the very start of the "Classes" chapter. As it is, you look at the Classes, and spend two whole chapters wondering if they can know all their maneuvers starting at first, or what. Either bring that to the classes section, or arrange the table as though it were a Sorcerer progression, or basically lay it out any other way than how they did. It would have cleared up a good chunk of confusion at the outset, even if it made it look like "Oh hey, a caster who uses swords instead of spells."

A close second is giving the short descriptions of the maneuvers/stances in the same way Spells are usually presented, then grouping the detailed descriptions by martial discipline rather than alphabetically. There's not anything wrong with that, per se. But when every single other WotC book ever published displays spells alphabetically without regard to school, it's counter-intuitive.

Kylarra
2010-10-26, 12:06 PM
Tangentially related, one thing I really like about HotFL from the 4e[ssentials] line is that every reference to stuff on other pages is given with a page number.

Fax Celestis
2010-10-26, 12:07 PM
Nevermind that the book itself calls it "blade magic".

Something can be magical without being a spell. Case in point: supernatural abilities.

Keld Denar
2010-10-26, 12:12 PM
But when every single other WotC book ever published displays spells alphabetically without regard to school, it's counter-intuitive.

I agree on the highest level manevuer table, but this part isn't quite right. Wizard spells have ALWAYS been segragated by school in every single sourcebook I can remember. Cleric spells? Alphabatized by level. Druid spells? Alphabetized by level. Ranger spells? Alphabetized by level. Bard spells? Alphabetized by level. Wizard spells? Divided by level, then by school, THEN alphabetized.

ToB manevuers? Divided by level, then school, THEN alphabetized, just the same as wizard spells.

Thinker
2010-10-26, 12:12 PM
Nevermind that the book itself calls it "blade magic".

Many powerful epic, mythological, and folklore heroes had some sort of supernatural element to them. When characters are expected to be fighting horrible things that could destroy a normal person, they are essentially magical. Magical does not mean spells.

kryan
2010-10-26, 12:12 PM
Absolutely agree with the formatting issues on ToB.
He was talking about MoI...


The biggest offender (IMO) is Table 3-1 (highest-level maneuvers known). That should have gone at the very start of the "Classes" chapter. As it is, you look at the Classes, and spend two whole chapters wondering if they can know all their maneuvers starting at first, or what. Either bring that to the classes section, or arrange the table as though it were a Sorcerer progression, or basically lay it out any other way than how they did. It would have cleared up a good chunk of confusion at the outset, even if it made it look like "Oh hey, a caster who uses swords instead of spells."
The "Maneuvers Known" column, the "You begin your career with knowledge of five martial maneuvers" (for the Crusader; the Swordsage and Warblade have similar), the rules about learning, forgetting, and replacing maneuvers, wasn't enough? Why on earth would you think they know all maneuvers? It quite clearly says that they know only 5 at first and learn more as they level.

Which levels of maneuvers they have access to is what Table 3-1 has. It's identical to the Wizard's progression; even if you didn't realize it was there (which is kind of hard; it says right in the Maneuver section of the classes that you must meet the IL requirement of maneuvers "as listed in Table 3-1 on page 39"), the parallels between initiators and spellcasters should have made either 2n or 2n-1 a pretty obvious guess, I would think...

As for printing the table in each of the classes, the problem with that is printing costs; redundant information isn't worth printing. Much cheaper to have each class refer to a central section on maneuvers - which is what they did. Try looking at the Shadowcaster in Tome of Magic (which has all of the rules for Shadow Magic in its class description) for an example of the alternative you describe: personally, I find that unwieldy.


A close second is giving the short descriptions of the maneuvers/stances in the same way Spells are usually presented, then grouping the detailed descriptions by martial discipline rather than alphabetically. There's not anything wrong with that, per se. But when every single other WotC book ever published displays spells alphabetically without regard to school, it's counter-intuitive.
You mean they finally broke away from that really obnoxious organization, and you're complaining? I guess it's a matter of opinion, but my only complaint is that they didn't go farther - I wish they'd organized the maneuvers by discipline and then by level, rather then by discipline and then alphabetically. *shrug*

Tyndmyr
2010-10-26, 12:13 PM
I've had a bit of trouble with MoI, but Tome of Battle was pretty intuitive, at least in my opinion. More so than Vancian casting, at least.

Yeah, I found it remarkably easy. I literally sat down, thumbed through it and went "oh, that's how it works". By comparison, for Incarnum, I did the same, and instead went "meh, I'll figure this out later if someone wants to play it".

Kylarra
2010-10-26, 12:15 PM
I agree on the highest level manevuer table, but this part isn't quite right. Wizard spells have ALWAYS been segragated by school in every single sourcebook I can remember. Cleric spells? Alphabatized by level. Druid spells? Alphabetized by level. Ranger spells? Alphabetized by level. Bard spells? Alphabetized by level. Wizard spells? Divided by level, then by school, THEN alphabetized.

ToB manevuers? Divided by level, then school, THEN alphabetized, just the same as wizard spells.I'm pretty sure he was talking about the comprehensive details of the spell/maneuver/special ability, rather than the shorthand listing that precedes it.

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 12:18 PM
I'm pretty sure he was talking about the comprehensive details of the spell/maneuver/special ability, rather than the shorthand listing that precedes it.

I believe the above is correct.

Personally I liked it when they were segregated by level (in 2e and earlier) but since they can now be on both wizard and cleric lists at different levels that doesn't work anymore.

Also how is ToB any simpler than Vancian casting?

Crow
2010-10-26, 12:20 PM
Many powerful epic, mythological, and folklore heroes had some sort of supernatural element to them. When characters are expected to be fighting horrible things that could destroy a normal person, they are essentially magical. Magical does not mean spells.

Yes, but we're not talking about mythology or folklore. We're talking about D&D, in which the word "magic" has a pretty solid meaning.

In either case, someone would have to be pretty dense to deny that the ToB system is fairly similar to the vancian system. Then when you have a chapter titled "blade magic", the comparisons are going to come up.

Boci
2010-10-26, 12:22 PM
Yes, but we're not talking about mythology or folklore. We're talking about D&D, in which the word "magic" has a pretty solid meaning.

No it doesn't. "Arcane magic" has a pretty solid meaning, as does "divine magic". But "magic" could mean almost anything, although the most common would probably be something the PCs do not understand.

Thinker
2010-10-26, 12:26 PM
Yes, but we're not talking about mythology or folklore. We're talking about D&D, in which the word "magic" has a pretty solid meaning.

Doing a quick search of the d20srd, the first 10 hits are:

Detect Magic
Magic Items Index
Magic Jar
Use Magic Device
Magic Missile
Dispel Magic, Greater
The main page
Magic Circle Against Evil
Dispel Magic
Magic Weapon, Greater


Magic is not just spells in D&D. The class feature for casting spells is referred to as Spellcasting. There are only a couple of maneuvers that are even spell-like abilities. Blade Magic is not the same as casting spells.

Crow
2010-10-26, 12:31 PM
Magic Overview

A spell is a one-time magical effect. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). Some spellcasters select their spells from a limited list of spells known, while others have access to a wide variety of options.

Most spellcasters prepare their spells in advance—whether from a spellbook or through devout prayers and meditation— while some cast spells spontaneously without preparation.

Despite these different ways that characters use to learn or prepare their spells, when it comes to casting them, the spells are very much alike.

Cutting across the categories of arcane and divine spells are the eight schools of magic. These schools represent the different ways that spells take effect.


I'm not looking to get into some fan-boy debate here. I allow my players to use the book if they want, but they don't. They feel the system is just "fighters with spells". If you're looking at desert wind, then hell yeah, it pretty much is. For most of the maneuvers, you can work out some "mundane" explanation if you feel so inclined.

But still, it's quite obvious that to a casual player, that ToB can seem like magic. Most players away from discussion forums don't crack open a sourcebook and try to come up with some higher meaning for what they see inside. They look at the material, and relate it to what they already know about the game.

Back to my players, they wanted to switch back to 3.5 after we tried 4e. Not because the classes all played the same (they admit that they didn't), but because they "felt" the same. Going back to ToB, it "feels" the same as playing a wizard or sorcerer.

I know my players aren't some fringe element like some seem to claim, because we see threads devoted to these topics every single week. It's not like this all comes up once in a blue moon.

I'm going to hang this up now. DLPWNLRY.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-26, 12:32 PM
I believe the above is correct.

Personally I liked it when they were segregated by level (in 2e and earlier) but since they can now be on both wizard and cleric lists at different levels that doesn't work anymore.

Also how is ToB any simpler than Vancian casting?

Manuvers readied is simpler than spells memorized/known/prepared. Wizards have a ridiculous amount of choices and possible permutations of specialization, and all the above options. ToB, you just pop in, look at the disciplines known, perhaps have a gander at the others, and contemplate spending a feat to expand your horizons, but generally just pick the # the class says you can pick. It's really pretty easy. Your basic wizard has far more bookwork to do to get set up.

Kylarra
2010-10-26, 12:37 PM
Manuvers readied is simpler than spells memorized/known/prepared. Wizards have a ridiculous amount of choices and possible permutations of specialization, and all the above options. ToB, you just pop in, look at the disciplines known, perhaps have a gander at the others, and contemplate spending a feat to expand your horizons, but generally just pick the # the class says you can pick. It's really pretty easy. Your basic wizard has far more bookwork to do to get set up.Well if you're not a crusader anyway.

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-26, 12:37 PM
Something can be magical without being a spell. Case in point: supernatural abilities.

It doesn't matter what you call them, manuvers, powers, utterances, ect. they are all effects that are limited in their use by the character class that have relativly complex effects. They are in execution spellsfor game play purpose. if your character uses them they are a spell caster no matter what flavor they happen to be.

As it turns out some campaigns you just don't want to deal with being a spell caster. so you play somthing else, like a monk. But monks suck so you want somting that fills the same role while keeping close to the same style. Thats why battle dancer or a slight variant there of makes a good Monk replacement if you want one in a campaign.

Thinker
2010-10-26, 12:37 PM
I'm not looking to get into some fan-boy debate here. I allow my players to use the book if they want, but they don't. They feel the system is just "fighters with spells". If you're looking at desert wind, then hell yeah, it pretty much is. For most of the maneuvers, you can work out some "mundane" explanation if you feel so inclined.

But still, it's quite obvious that to a casual player, that ToB can seem like magic. Most players away from discussion forums don't crack open a sourcebook and try to come up with some higher meaning for what they see inside. They look at the material, and relate it to what they already know about the game.

Back to my players, they wanted to switch back to 3.5 after we tried 4e. Not because the classes all played the same (they admit that they didn't), but because they "felt" the same. Going back to ToB, it "feels" the same as playing a wizard or sorcerer.

I know my players aren't some fringe element like some seem to claim, because we see threads devoted to these topics every single week. It's not like this all comes up once in a blue moon.

I'm going to hang this up now. NLPWNLRY.

Fair enough. I missed the "Magic Overview" section and it has been a long time since I have thoroughly read through that section. I wasn't trying to get into a fan boy debate, either. I actually am not actively playing an RPG's at the moment and didn't particularly care for ToB when I did (not for the same reasons though).

Crow
2010-10-26, 12:41 PM
Fair enough. I missed the "Magic Overview" section and it has been a long time since I have thoroughly read through that section. I wasn't trying to get into a fan boy debate, either. I actually am not actively playing an RPG's at the moment and didn't particularly care for ToB when I did (not for the same reasons though).

No worries. We're all here to talk about D&D, so that's what we do. =)

Fax Celestis
2010-10-26, 12:43 PM
It doesn't matter what you call them, manuvers, powers, utterances, ect. they are all effects that are limited in their use by the character class that have relativly complex effects.
And since when is that the definition of a "spell"?

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-26, 12:45 PM
And since when is that the definition of a "spell"?

it's not a mechanical definition, its about how players precieve them. I only pick spells as the general name because they came first.

Boci
2010-10-26, 12:51 PM
Back to my players, they wanted to switch back to 3.5 after we tried 4e. Not because the classes all played the same (they admit that they didn't), but because they "felt" the same. Going back to ToB, it "feels" the same as playing a wizard or sorcerer.

I personally think the slot based system is far better at representing martial combat. Via drills you train yourself to do a certain attack or combo depending on your location relative to the enemy and their actions. Once you've done such an move, you won't be doing it again immediatly. A slot based system for casters on the other hand feels clunky and is better represented via spell points or the recharge magic variant.
I think its a shame core gave the casters a slot based system since it coloured players perceptions on what should be what.

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 12:54 PM
Manuvers readied is simpler than spells memorized/known/prepared. Wizards have a ridiculous amount of choices and possible permutations of specialization, and all the above options. ToB, you just pop in, look at the disciplines known, perhaps have a gander at the others, and contemplate spending a feat to expand your horizons, but generally just pick the # the class says you can pick. It's really pretty easy. Your basic wizard has far more bookwork to do to get set up.

Core only wizard is still simpler than ToB initiators. The Vancian system is not more complicated, just the number of books accessible for more options with it is far greater (hence I normally only use a few choice spells -Greater Mirror Image- not in Spell Compendium or PHB).

ToB for prerequisites and trade ups you have to select level by level which makes the system more complicated.

Fax Celestis
2010-10-26, 12:59 PM
it's not a mechanical definition, its about how players precieve them. I only pick spells as the general name because they came first.

We are discussing mechanical definitions last I checked. A 'limited-use-per-day ability granted by a class feature' includes spells, not vice versa. Unless you want to tell me a rogue's Defensive Roll is a spell? What about Smite Evil? Wildshape? Skill tricks?

Keld Denar
2010-10-26, 01:04 PM
As far as the spell/not-spells discussion goes, I've played a few martial initiators in PbP and IRL games (its especially notable with IRL games). Nothing about initiating a manevuer feels like casting a spell. My Warblade feels different to me than my Bard who casts spells. I dunno if its the infinite nature of maneuvers that are simply a full attack + swift action away, or the up-close-and-personal feel when you are sitting in full attack range of the bad guy or what, but I personally feel a difference. Initiating a manevuer feels more like executing a special combat attack option like tripping or starting a grapple. Cosmetically, I can see the similarities with spells. Manevuers are stratiated into 9 tiers just like spells are. Each one is different, and they aren't all readily available at any given time. Etc. But in my experience (again, only my personal experience), theyfeel completly different.

In actual gameplay, my Warblade is almost always leading with his strongest manevuers, trying to burn through them as fast as possible so he gets more back on his recovery. He recovered manevuers 3 full times in his last combat and used all of them each time. My (caster style) Bard, on the other hand, is always cautiously rationing out his magic, making each spell slot count against the maximum number of foes at the perfect time. Personally speaking, initiating manevuers doesn't feel at ALL like casting spells from a player experience PoV.

Telonius
2010-10-26, 01:12 PM
I agree on the highest level manevuer table, but this part isn't quite right. Wizard spells have ALWAYS been segragated by school in every single sourcebook I can remember. Cleric spells? Alphabatized by level. Druid spells? Alphabetized by level. Ranger spells? Alphabetized by level. Bard spells? Alphabetized by level. Wizard spells? Divided by level, then by school, THEN alphabetized.

ToB manevuers? Divided by level, then school, THEN alphabetized, just the same as wizard spells.

I meant the more elaborate descriptions that occurred after the brief table listings (the ones starting on page 52).

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-26, 01:21 PM
As far as the spell/not-spells discussion goes, I've played a few martial initiators in PbP and IRL games (its especially notable with IRL games). Nothing about initiating a manevuer feels like casting a spell. My Warblade feels different to me than my Bard who casts spells. I dunno if its the infinite nature of maneuvers that are simply a full attack + swift action away, or the up-close-and-personal feel when you are sitting in full attack range of the bad guy or what, but I personally feel a difference. Initiating a manevuer feels more like executing a special combat attack option like tripping or starting a grapple. Cosmetically, I can see the similarities with spells. Manevuers are stratiated into 9 tiers just like spells are. Each one is different, and they aren't all readily available at any given time. Etc. But in my experience (again, only my personal experience), theyfeel completly different.

In actual gameplay, my Warblade is almost always leading with his strongest manevuers, trying to burn through them as fast as possible so he gets more back on his recovery. He recovered manevuers 3 full times in his last combat and used all of them each time. My (caster style) Bard, on the other hand, is always cautiously rationing out his magic, making each spell slot count against the maximum number of foes at the perfect time. Personally speaking, initiating manevuers doesn't feel at ALL like casting spells from a player experience PoV.

To me and the player i've talked to it's like being a spell caster, you have to deal with preparing manuvers, fuguring out effects, ect.

Some days you just want to charge in, full round attack, and not worry about that stuff.


We are discussing mechanical definitions last I checked. A 'limited-use-per-day ability granted by a class feature' includes spells, not vice versa. Unless you want to tell me a rogue's Defensive Roll is a spell? What about Smite Evil? Wildshape? Skill tricks?

why would we worry about the technical definition of a spell? we all can agree that manuvers are not spells by your definition. however being a rogue or fighter or somthing like that requires almost no book keeping unlike all of the things that are spell casters by my definition.

Boci
2010-10-26, 01:26 PM
To me and the player i've talked to it's like being a spell caster, you have to deal with preparing manuvers, fuguring out effects, ect.

Some days you just want to charge in, full round attack, and not worry about that stuff.

Maybe I'm just really good at understanding these things but it never seemed that complex to me. I have a single digit of maneuvers available which I work through. Stone hammer, roll attack, if hits roll damage +2d6, tell DM that it ignores DR. No maneuvers left? Standard action attack.
Its more complicated than just a full attack, but it never caused me problems. The only complex part I found was making a higher level martial adept or which maneuvers I met the preqs for, both things that come up outside the game session.


why would we worry about the technical definition of a spell? we all can agree that manuvers are not spells by your definition. however being a rogue or fighter or somthing like that requires almost no book keeping unlike all of the things that are spell casters by my definition.

Some people like me believe the "manipulate reality" aspect of a spell is more important in its definition.

Terazul
2010-10-26, 01:27 PM
Well if you're not a crusader anyway.

Put your maneuver cards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) in pile.
Draw a card to get a new maneuver at the start of your turn.
When you run out of cards, shuffle, and draw new ones.

So incredibly difficult.

Keld Denar
2010-10-26, 01:38 PM
Some days you just want to charge in, full round attack, and not worry about that stuff.

Granted, my Warblade is ECL5 (with 2 levels of Warblade), so his turns are:

Move + Emerald Razor (touch attack, full PA)
Move + Saphire Nightmare Blade (attack vs flat footed, PA for 2ish)
Move + standard attack + recover manevuers
repeat

with a Steel Wind thrown in there if I can position myself in a position to cleave adequately.

Its not that complicated, and I'm thinking it won't get much more complicated as he goes up in levels. Its no different than move + touch attack to trip + Improved Trip followup or move + touch attack to grapple + grapple check, and actually much less complicated since there are no opposed rolls involved. There is no area targetting, no targetting weak saves, and actually very little high end thought at all beyond following that pattern. I have pre-calculated entries for different PA amounts for easy math, same as I'd have for a non-Martial meleer. Deciding when to manifest my Ardent powers is more complicated than that! Granted, there was a bit of work picking manevuers prior to playing during character creation, but it only took a couple minutes. I spent more time picking feats than manevuers, since I knew I wanted to be mostly Diamond Mind focused from the start.

Kylarra
2010-10-26, 01:43 PM
Put your maneuver cards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) in pile.
Draw a card to get a new maneuver at the start of your turn.
When you run out of cards, shuffle, and draw new ones.

So incredibly difficult.More difficult than: Here is your checklist. Is it checked? [y/n]

Terazul
2010-10-26, 01:44 PM
More difficult than: Here is your checklist. Is it checked? [y/n]

Not nearly as hard as everyone makes it out to be, though.

Kylarra
2010-10-26, 01:46 PM
Not nearly as hard as everyone makes it out to be, though.If you don't print out your maneuver cards, then yes it is a pain to remember. :smallamused:

Please don't quote me out of context. I was not saying it was incredibly difficult, simply more difficult than vancian casting which consists of "these are the spells I have prepared, have I cast this yet today?" Requiring an outside aid to organize your maneuvers prepared is more difficult than just checking things off.

Terazul
2010-10-26, 01:54 PM
If you don't print out your maneuver cards, then yes it is a pain to remember. :smallamused:

Please don't quote me out of context. I was not saying it was incredibly difficult, simply more difficult than vancian casting which consists of "these are the spells I have prepared, have I cast this yet today?" Requiring an outside aid to organize your maneuvers prepared is more difficult than just checking things off.

Because (within the context to prepared spells, as per the original post) remembering every Cleric Spell ever printed to dig through for your prepared spells is much easier than picking out a handful of maneuvers from a (comparatively) smaller list? Before even getting into bonus spells from high modifiers, and all sorts of things. All I know is I had a much easier time teaching someone to play a Swordsage over a Wizard or Cleric. (I personally don't see how you keep up with what your spells even do without having the equivalent of cards or some written material, but that wasn't the point of the post)

For the record, I'm not trying to poke at you or anything, I was just pointing out a mechanic that alot of people seem to have trouble with, yet the issue is very easily remedied. Your original post was with regards to readied maneuvers (in the case of a crusader) being more complicated than spells memorized/known/prepared. I respectfully disagree. :smallwink:

Fax Celestis
2010-10-26, 02:23 PM
why would we worry about the technical definition of a spell? we all can agree that manuvers are not spells by your definition. however being a rogue or fighter or somthing like that requires almost no book keeping unlike all of the things that are spell casters by my definition.

"Bookkeeping" is necessary for a variety of classes, not just spellcasters: as such, defining a class that needs bookkeeping as a 'spellcaster' is a flawed definition.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-26, 02:39 PM
Battle Dancer from the Dragon Compendium.

Full BAB, fast movement, unarmed progression, abilities that support it's melee role, kinda dumb skill tax (but w/e), still a little MAD

Any way what tier is this?

i was thinking 3 or 4

Why don't i ever see this brought up in monk discussions.

Full BAB, fast movement, unarmed progression doesn't count for much of anything, tier-wise. It means you can go up and hit a basic target with a melee attack. Remember, a Tier 5 can do a trick well.

Also, see Swordsage.


It's not a mechanical definition, its about how I perceive them. I only pick spells as the general name because they came first.
Fixed spelling and such.

As real as the pain of a phantom limb...

Boci
2010-10-26, 02:45 PM
Full BAB, fast movement, unarmed progression doesn't count for much of anything, tier-wise.

Even when not looking at them tier-wise its only a 4th level cleric domian spell, a poor man's 3rd level sorceror/wizard spell and a poor man's 5th level sorceror/wizard.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-26, 02:49 PM
Even when not looking at them tier-wise its only a 4th level cleric domian spell, a poor man's 3rd level sorceror/wizard spell and a poor man's 5th level sorceror/wizard.

I don't think that's really the right way to look at it, but whatever.


If you don't print out your maneuver cards, then yes it is a pain to remember. :smallamused: Next I'll hear an argument about what a pain it is to manage rolls if you choose not to play with dice. :smallamused:

Boci
2010-10-26, 02:51 PM
I don't think that's really the right way to look at it, but whatever.

My main point was that the abilities where not hard to replicate. Compare to say a maneuvers, inspiration points or soul binding.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-26, 02:58 PM
My main point was that the abilities where not hard to replicate. Compare to say a maneuvers, inspiration points or soul binding.

Strictly speaking, the examples you gave are not exactly the same effects and have different advantages and disadvantages. But I don't think it's a really important point to argue here.

What does matter is that to go up the tier list you need versatility and adaptability in play, and things like being able to charge 20 feet further is not all that much different from having a viable charge in the first place. There is a difference between getting +3 to Fireball at the next level or having Fireball autoscale and picking up Solid Fog and Nondetection next level.

You also probably want versatility and adaptability in play in order to have fun. But I dunno, maybe some people like repetitive shallow classes that need to sit out when their schtick isn't relevant. I personally don't like it either as a Player or as a DM creating a game for players with such classes. *Shrug*

Tyndmyr
2010-10-26, 03:10 PM
Core only wizard is still simpler than ToB initiators. The Vancian system is not more complicated, just the number of books accessible for more options with it is far greater (hence I normally only use a few choice spells -Greater Mirror Image- not in Spell Compendium or PHB).

ToB for prerequisites and trade ups you have to select level by level which makes the system more complicated.

Incorrect. It is not that different than a core sorc. A core wizard is more complex to run than a core sorc, given the large volume of spells known that must be tracked, in addition to a spells prepared list that must be tracked. Plus, you have specialist schools, which means you must track by school as well, and bonus spells as a result of int modifier. I won't even touch metamagic.

Initiators have much less to track. Much less.

Psyren
2010-10-26, 03:30 PM
Alright then. I'll go digging through MoI and get to clarifying.

I would actually start with that Incarnum guide (Sinfire_Titan's?) and then make that easier. I was able to follow along with him fairly well.

Personally, I understand Incarnum but am totally lost on ToB. :smallredface:


Incorrect. It is not that different than a core sorc. A core wizard is more complex to run than a core sorc, given the large volume of spells known that must be tracked, in addition to a spells prepared list that must be tracked. Plus, you have specialist schools, which means you must track by school as well, and bonus spells as a result of int modifier. I won't even touch metamagic.

Initiators have much less to track. Much less.

There's another factor you're not considering; avenues of learning.

To learn Vancian magic, you don't even need a sourcebook. You can read the SRD, or better yet, you can pick up Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, NWN or any number of other D&D CRPGs that use the system and have them teach you in a wonderfully risk-free and fun environment. Hell, even Final Fantasy had it for a little while.

To learn ToB, you've got... ToB. If your playgroup even allows it, and is willing to take the time at pre-session to get you up to speed, or even multiple people up to speed. And chances are only one or two of you has it, so you're sharing with someone, and then he wants to read up on his Crusader while you were still looking at the Warblade's class table, or check some Desert Wind maneuvers while you were still wrapping your head around Diamond Mind, and you haven't gotten to the part about non-Initiator levels advancing your abilities yet...

And there's also the possibility that fighter classes already attract the less analytically-minded players in the room. The players who actually like bookkeeping, in my experience, want to play casters. This point is of course a generalization, but one I believe has some merit.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-26, 03:39 PM
I'll admit than vancian is more heavily used, and thus, people are more likely to already know it. I certainly learned it first. However, it's not very intuitive at the time you have to learn it. Certainly plenty of people exist who believe playing a caster is hard, and it's not uncommon for first time 3.5 players to shy away from classes such as wizard for that reason.

I would not advise using NWN or another such system as a means of learning anything about D&D, though. It's just similar enough that you think you understand things you dont. Everyone I've ever met who played NWN first has repeatedly had to deal with this.

I literally picked up the system in like...under 20 minutes, just casually reading the book. If that's possible, it ain't hard. If you want to build a character out of ANY completely new book, you need access to the book. ToB won't magically fix that. Book sharing is something almost everybody has to do, in my experience. I'd be thrilled if all my players even had 3.5 phbs.

ToB is not for people who want to charge, roll a d20, then roll damage every single time. It's for people who want melee AND options. People who dislike options already have classes for them.

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 03:44 PM
Incorrect. It is not that different than a core sorc. A core wizard is more complex to run than a core sorc, given the large volume of spells known that must be tracked, in addition to a spells prepared list that must be tracked. Plus, you have specialist schools, which means you must track by school as well, and bonus spells as a result of int modifier. I won't even touch metamagic.

Initiators have much less to track. Much less.

Except they have to keep track of prerequisites, disciplines known (which is just as bad as specialist schools) and spells prepared isn't different than maneuvers readied.

I've seen players hand in character sheets of Lv 5 warblades that knew 3 Lv 3 maneuvers because they didn't realize that it was impossible for them to know more than 1 Lv 3 maneuver at that level. I've not seen Lv 5 wizards which had more 3rd level spells in their spellbook than they ought to except when they'd paid for extras.

In short you have to make a warblade level by level; wizards' complexity is directly related to their optimization level (playing an unoptimized evoker is simple; playing an optimized conjurer can get very complicated as you pour over book and book).

Also as a side note: I like book-keeping and don't mind the complexity in warblades (although the book does have instances of poor formatting). But playing a caster isn't complicated; optimizing one is.

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 03:45 PM
ToB is not for people who want to charge, roll a d20, then roll damage every single time. It's for people who want melee AND options. People who dislike options already have classes for them.

But...but...Charging Minotaur...

Boci
2010-10-26, 03:50 PM
Except they have to keep track of prerequisites, disciplines known (which is just as bad as specialist schools) and spells prepared isn't different than maneuvers readied.

I've seen players hand in character sheets of Lv 5 warblades that knew 3 Lv 3 maneuvers because they didn't realize that it was impossible for them to know more than 1 Lv 3 maneuver at that level. I've not seen Lv 5 wizards which had more 3rd level spells in their spellbook than they ought to except when they'd paid for extras.

In short you have to make a warblade level by level; wizards' complexity is directly related to their optimization level (playing an unoptimized evoker is simple; playing an optimized conjurer can get very complicated as you pour over book and book).

Also as a side note: I like book-keeping and don't mind the complexity in warblades (although the book does have instances of poor formatting). But playing a caster isn't complicated; optimizing one is.

But all the problems you've pointed out with a warblade happen outside the game session during character creation, or a simple bigginers mistake that was easily corrected. A wizard will most likely need to prepare his spells ingame, frequently.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-26, 04:00 PM
Except they have to keep track of prerequisites, disciplines known (which is just as bad as specialist schools) and spells prepared isn't different than maneuvers readied.

Not so. Specialist School is relevant every time you prepare spells, since certain slots may only hold spells of certain schools.

Disciplines known is only relevant when picking new disciplines(ie, on level up). Typically, this is significantly less frequent.

Spells prepared and manuvers readied are similar, yes. However, there are more of the former.


I've seen players hand in character sheets of Lv 5 warblades that knew 3 Lv 3 maneuvers because they didn't realize that it was impossible for them to know more than 1 Lv 3 maneuver at that level. I've not seen Lv 5 wizards which had more 3rd level spells in their spellbook than they ought to except when they'd paid for extras.

Never? I've seen all manner of illegal builds due to lack of rules knowledge. Melee, caster, whichever.

Let's compare relatively normal first level builds for each.

Warblade 1
Disciplines known: 3.
Manuvers known: 3(from the disciplines known)
Manuvers readied: 3. All that you know.
Stances known: 1.


Wizard 1
Specialist school: Whatever.
Banned schools: two. Whichever.
Spells Known: 3+int modifier 1st level, all cantrips(chosen from non banned schools only). Potentially more if you paid for them.
Spells Prepared: 2 1st level, 4 Cantrip from non-banned, 1 1st level, 1 cantrip from specialist school. Potentially 1 more cantrip, if you pulled off a 20 int.

Which do you think is easier to build? The former options has fewer choice required to build and use it. People mistake vancian for a simpler system merely because they are more familiar with vancian.

kryan
2010-10-26, 05:59 PM
Personally, I understand Incarnum but am totally lost on ToB. :smallredface:
I find this quite surprising; would you say you have put in equal amounts of effort to learn each?

Does my synopsis:

Martial Adepts, or Initiators, "initiate" "maneuvers" that they have learned and readied, and each maneuver has its own separate effect, like a spell. There are nine levels of maneuvers, and to learn a maneuver you need an Initiator Level of 2n-1 (same as a Wizard would need for a spell of that level), but your non-initiator classes count as half-levels towards your IL. You can only ready a limited number of maneuvers, which are always available at the beginning of an encounter; regaining them after you've used them requires you to Recover them, and the Recovery method of each of the classes varies. There are also Stances, that remain in effect as long as you want them to, and you can switch them as a Swift action.help?

Lhurgyof
2010-10-26, 06:43 PM
Revised monk in my sig. Solid Tier 4. Adheres closely to the original style and flavor of the monk. It's a good option for those who are dissatisfied with the monk but don't want to play an unarmed swordsage.

... Wait, what? :smallconfused:

Shyftir
2010-10-26, 11:47 PM
[tongue in cheek]
So we started a thread that combines Monkday and ToB Thursday with the Official third party vs. first party discussion?
Awesome!

For the rest of the week we can talk about rarer annoying DnD arguments!

Let's try to fix truenaming and explain Incarnum next...
[/tongue in cheek]

I wanna add my interest in for a handbook on MoI because I'm sort of afraid of that book.

Psyren
2010-10-27, 12:17 AM
I would not advise using NWN or another such system as a means of learning anything about D&D, though. It's just similar enough that you think you understand things you dont. Everyone I've ever met who played NWN first has repeatedly had to deal with this.


I couldn't disagree with you more here. If it weren't for Baldur's Gate and NWN, I would never even have given D&D a try (very few gaming tables in my home country), yet now I understand enough about the system to debate on forums like these. I own several splats (including ToB, for all that I can barely comprehend it!) I know the differences between editions, have a grasp of the tier system, and I can even help other players with their own questions. If for nothing else, I definitely owe the CRPGs for kindling that curiosity in me, and I can lay my understanding of Vancian at their feet as well.

My sole regret is that my system of choice - psionics - isn't in any of those games. :smalltongue:



I literally picked up the system in like...under 20 minutes, just casually reading the book. If that's possible, it ain't hard.


It's not hard... for you. But if that were true for everyone then threads attempting to "explain" Tome of Battle wouldn't exist, because nobody would see the need.

Koury
2010-10-27, 02:27 AM
Spells Prepared: 2 1st level, 4 Cantrip from non-banned, 1 1st level, 1 cantrip from specialist school. Potentially 1 more cantrip, if you pulled off a 20 int.

Minor nitpick: You don't get bonus cantrip slots from high Int.

Sir Swindle89
2010-10-27, 07:01 AM
Full BAB, fast movement, unarmed progression doesn't count for much of anything, tier-wise. It means you can go up and hit a basic target with a melee attack. Remember, a Tier 5 can do a trick well.

Also, see Swordsage.


I mention those specifically because full BAB (the lack there of) is usually brought up as a problem with the Monk and the others are hall marks of the Monk class

You add in
-Flight(another problem some times brought up about the Monk)
-Getting magic hands for purposes of overcoming DR (yet another common monk issue)
-Pounce(always desirable)
-Cha rather than Wis to AC (makes you a reasonable choice for party face)
And i think that adresses almost all of the usual monk issues plus adds a little.

On Swordsage I made it pretty clear that i don't see it as a viable alternative most of the time. I could convince some one to make the jump from Monk to Battle Dancer but not the one from Monk to Swordsage. They don't feel the same.

Tael
2010-10-27, 09:55 AM
Meh, Battle Dancer is better than the monk, but it's still tier 5. Pounce is nice, but it loses flurry, it's still MAD, flight comes in at 20th (like wtf?), their DR piercing is actually worse than a monk's, they move slower, only 1 good save, no evasion, and their dances suck until really high levels. It's really not that much better.