PDA

View Full Version : My way of bringing ToB to a new table



Mezmote
2011-01-02, 02:47 AM
Hey guys, I'm looking for some sound advice from the playground on this. I've had an idea of introducing the Tome of Battle (ToB) to my friends who have been playing 3.5 zealously for the last 5 years. First off, a little story to indicate the situation.

I showed my DM through 5 years (he is great at this and likes to DM, but can have a very conservative view of power balance) some crusader maneuvers and how they worked. It was a Bard3/Marshal3/Crusader4 Human Half-Vampire build for starters, and the idea was a battle leader who could inspire his comrades to greatness. So at ECL 12 he had 6 maneuvers from level 1 through 3, and 2 stances.

My DM's eyes flew open and gasped at the power level of the crusader. D10 Hit Die, full BaB, 4 skill points, additional class features, and maneuvers that would automatically refresh. Way too overpowered he said. He said he would tweak it a little, giving it d6 Hit die, cleric BaB, and his maneuvers were usable once per day. And here comes my first question to you playground.

Is that an okay twist on the crusader? Not for flavor reasons but for interclass balance reasons. I'd personally wouldn't play that class as it was twisted out of proportions even before he tried one out in a game, but what is your verdict?

Lets leave that for a second while I elaborate on my other idea =)
I had an idea to introduce some of the ToB stuff a tad more painlessly by using some of the feats in the book, namely Martial Study, and Martial Stance. There is a maximum limit on number of times a character can take Martial Study (3 is the max). My suggestion was to allow the Fighter class to take the feat more times, like lets say 9 times. This would allow a fighter to reach the later levels of maneuvers and have some other options in combat than "I attempt to hit the target". At the same time, I'd suggest that all the fighter class levels would count as "Martial Levels" to determine his initiator level. My second question today playground.

Are these changes to the fighter class a good way to introduce the ToB maneuvers while disregarding the classes of the same book? Would it make the fighter a more valid class to play compared to the rest or maybe even more powerful than intended? Should more classes have the same treatment? That was more than one question I know, but they all stem from the same issue, so think if them as intertwining.

Thanks beforehand my good playground =)

evil-frosty
2011-01-02, 02:53 AM
To your first question, that ruins the point of the class. Who wants to be a tank with a d6 hit die? So no thats not a good twist and completely nerfs it.

To your second one thats fine to do except for the fact that the fighter at higher levels will still be feeling useless most of the day.

Darthteej
2011-01-02, 03:01 AM
The thing is, as one review stated, certain Tome of Battle maneuvers are meant to "replace" casters and their buffs, and allow martial characters to be more independent. Among these are Desert Wind(to evocation), Shadow Hand(to debuffs), and Devoted Spirit(to healing.)

I would try reasoning with your DM by removing the healing maneuvers from the game, including other stuff like Iron Heart Surge. This might make him more receptive to the idea, as the rest of Devoted Spirit is mainly paladin stuff, but better.

VirOath
2011-01-02, 03:02 AM
The problem with getting maneuvers once per day is that it completely rips out the point of the system.

They do not scale anywhere near the level of spells, the classes do not get nearly as many readied even remotely compared to casters, and they are a lot more restrictive than spells. Conservative on balance is putting it mildly, I'd say he was "A non magic character doing this?!" and kneejerked with the ban hammer.

Seriously, the Bard part of your build would be more potent than the Crusader part.

If he is going to compare it to the fighter and say it's OP, then the same is said with every other caster in the game. It's supposed to be a better alternative to the fighter and paladin.

Salbazier
2011-01-02, 03:09 AM
On the first one, totally not okay. 3/4 BAB on frontline melee class is generally meh. But, maneuvers once per day? That goes against the whole point of Tome of Battle. :smallannoyed: And yes, d6? From where that come from? This is not some rouge-ish type class That said, balance is likely depend on your group. Still, even if your group includes the likes of monk, WF tree fighter, samurai, or truenamer, d6 and 3/4 BAB is still to much of a nerf.

EDIT: Probably your DM mistook it as a caster type. Try explain the restriction of maneuvers like VirOAth said above and then point out that even melee/caster class like Duskblade and Paladin(!) got better than what he suggest.

Mezmote
2011-01-02, 03:33 AM
The thing about my group is that they want to move away from "power playing" and more to some roleplaying, which some of the players are really good at. My contribution was a Bard/marshal/crusader party buffer (charisma melee if you will). A thousand year old half vampire who have studied a lot of different stuff, represented by bardic knack and jack of all trades feat. he got Perform Dance (because nobles and old people can dance ^_^).

But if Crusader isn't a viable option, I'd go hexblade or fighter if my other suggestion gets passed. Hexblade mostly for flavor and dark companion (got i love that ACF) and fighter for maneuvers.

Gonna buy him a cloak of the bat for flavor too =) other suggestions for feats/items/flavor?

AslanCross
2011-01-02, 03:34 AM
I agree with the above points.

1. Show your DM that the maneuvers do not scale with level like spells. Spells ALL scale with level in some way, even if it comes to something as simple as range. All maneuvers are melee and require attack rolls vs. full AC, while spells either automatically work (buffs), rarely require attack rolls vs AC (they're either touch, ranged touch, or area attacks). Spells you can prepare multiples of. Maneuvers can't be duplicated. It also takes several rounds for maneuvers to refresh.

2. The Crusader was meant to absorb damage. A crusader can do that with its d10 hit dice, but not indefinitely. It would be completely be unable to do so if it has d6s, because in that case it would tank like a bard wearing heavy armor. Read: not at all.

3. While it has more skill points than the fighter, its class skill list is pretty small. 3 of its skills are knowledge-type (Martial Lore counts). One rarely ever sees any use (Balance). The Crusader does not get any maneuvers that function off Concentration, so it might as well not be a class skill. The Barbarian has less class skills, but most of them find much more use and a couple can actually synergize (Handle Animal and Ride). None of the Crusader skills synergize.

4. The Barbarian can gain extra HP and damage on the fly, as well as bonuses to his physical skills while raging. As such, he can gain an unconditional bonus to hit and damage, while the crusader's Steely Resolve only delays damage, and his to-hit and damage bonuses are highly dependent on how hurt he is. (Not to mention that the Barbarian does have d12 HD, 4 skill points, multiple class features, and a major class feature that he can at least eventually use multiple times a day.)

At that rate your DM is going, the Crusader is softer than a cleric, and with class features usable only once per day, it's not a "little tweak." He ends up weaker than the bard, who has 8 skill points (and a robust skill list to be sure), inspire courage (which he can at least benefit from a lot every day), and spells, which he can use multiple times a day. This drops it far below even the bard in terms of power. It becomes another case of Monk: Hi, I've lots of class features which don't work the way they're advertised.

I'd hate recommend the passive-aggressive way and say "okay, I'm playing a cleric instead," so consider showing (preferably not in-game) that a cleric can outperform the paladin, and that the crusader, while an improvement over the paladin, can go nowhere near what the cleric can do even without DMM cheese.

As for the ToB fighter, I think there are ToB fighter fixes out there. The level of optimization at your table seems to be rather low for the DM to be flabbergasted by the crusader.

EDIT:
The thing about my group is that they want to move away from "power playing" and more to some roleplaying, which some of the players are really good at. My contribution was a Bard/marshal/crusader party buffer (charisma melee if you will). A thousand year old half vampire who have studied a lot of different stuff, represented by bardic knack and jack of all trades feat. he got Perform Dance (because nobles and old people can dance ^_^).

Your character has great flavor. Just because a character is optimized (a base crusader is not necessarily optimized) doesn't mean it's not flavorful. Just because a character is flavorful does not mean it has to be unable to do by crunch what it's supposed to do by fluff (like the monk). This is called the Stormwind Fallacy. The crunch vs fluff is a false dichotomy.

(EDITED again for clarity)

woodenbandman
2011-01-02, 05:36 AM
Power balance: Some people get it, some people don't. Just play a cleric and save yourself the headache. It's been my experience that people who ban tome of battle don't bat an eyelash at you requesting to play any sort of full spellcaster.

EDIT: And if you really want to push it, ask if you can take maneuvers as spells, and prepare 4 of them each day. That way it'd be pretty much exactly the same thing.

2xMachina
2011-01-02, 05:44 AM
He's just not used to high power level.

Make a CoDzilla and introduce to him, what it means by power.

arguskos
2011-01-02, 05:44 AM
Power balance: Some people get it, some people don't. Just play a cleric and save yourself the headache. It's been my experience that people who ban tome of battle don't bat an eyelash at you requesting to play any sort of full spellcaster.
Unnecessary and insulting stereotype is unnecessary and insulting. Not all of "those people" are foes of class balance and other such firestarting claims. With a topic like this, some discretion is advised for all parties. :smallwink:

Ernir
2011-01-02, 06:02 AM
Hmm.

How about a "Please trust me. I know this stuff looks strong, but I promise you that it isn't as bad as it looks at a glance. If we try it, and you still think it's too powerful, you can drop an anvil on the character or something."

This approach usually works on me when people ask to play full casters in my games. :smallsigh:

Yuki Akuma
2011-01-02, 06:17 AM
Maybe ask him to please actually read the book properly.

Rixx
2011-01-02, 06:18 AM
Better just leave ToB out of the group. It's a real late-game release cycle balance overhaul, and whether you leave it as-is or change it, there's bound to be conflict.

Morph Bark
2011-01-02, 06:32 AM
Hmm.

How about a "Please trust me. I know this stuff looks strong, but I promise you that it isn't as bad as it looks at a glance. If we try it, and you still think it's too powerful, you can drop an anvil on the character or something."

This approach usually works on me when people ask to play full casters in my games. :smallsigh:

Remember though, ToB characters look a whole lot stronger at the low levels. I had a group of 6 players, one playing a Warblade, all at level 1, who kept outshining the others (granted, one of the players had no idea what she was doing, but that still leaves 4 others, at least one of which was as experienced as the Warblade player).

However, if they'll start at level 13 (and he won't even be at initiator level 13), then it balances out more and he should have less problems indeed.

umbrapolaris
2011-01-02, 08:36 AM
make a photocopy of the thread answers and show him, should be enough ^^

DeltaEmil
2011-01-02, 10:47 AM
Roleplaying can be done either as a commoner or as a cleric-zilla who shatters the earth and cleaves the sky.

What are actually the rest of the group. I mean, if everybody plays a commoner, then yeah, I could see the Crusader being out-of-place with the rest of the group.

But should your group include sorcerers, wizards, druids, favored souls, psions, and other spell-caster types, and worse, have access to other books with spells in it, then yes, your gm is not capable of good judgement of power level. Then either re-discuss the issues with him, or play a cleric, and be happier than ever.

Greenish
2011-01-02, 11:06 AM
How about some Factotum (Dungeonscape) or Binder (Tome of Magic) to represent your dabbler nature?

Factotum gets some spells, some healing, some turning, all skills as class skills, adds int into many things and so forth.

Binder (especially with a couple of feats to improve your binding level) makes deals with non-dimensional beings to gain Su powers, and you can swap each day. Making a bad deal (failing a cha check while binding) allows the vestige to influence your actions, which has cool rp consequences.

T.G. Oskar
2011-01-02, 11:41 AM
I think most people got it, but I think your DM thinks the Crusader is a Cleric replacement, and thus why it got the idea of Cleric BAB and lower Hit Dice.

There's a few questions that would serve being answered, the two most important being "has your DM read the book thoroughly?" and "has he played 4th Edition?"

For the first question: most of the issues with Tome of Battle come, sadly, from misinformation. Crusaders are actually quite good at what they do (tanking, withstanding damage) but aren't as varied as other classes (a Cleric can out-tank the Crusader by virtue of better AC, actual resistances, and stuff like Divine Power and Righteous Might increasing that resistance). In terms of support, Bards outperform (pun not intended) Crusaders, since they get some of the best arcane buffs and defenses (Haste, Mirror Image, Blur, Blink) alongside their song, which received a very nice buff with splats. Crusaders work better with a serious build; a build focused on trip (Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, probably Knockdown or Stand Still) does wonders with the Crusader and stuff like Thicket of Blades, but you end up with MAD (need at least Int 13 and a very reasonable Dex, as well as 4-5 feats compared to the Crusader's total). Meanwhile, a dedicated tripper build (say, Psychic Warrior or heck, Fighter) gets this with only two feats, even if only at 10th - 12th level (since you'd require Martial Study with a Devoted Spirit maneuver in order to qualify after 10th level).

In fact, if you wish to prove whether Crusader is not as unbalanced as the DM might think, consider whether your DM allows Psionics. I'm sure your DM doesn't, but if he does, the Psychic Warrior pretty much outperforms melee characters when built correctly, and the Psychic Warrior has 3/4 BAB. The only thing is that the Psychic Warrior has powers almost as if he was a Bard, with feats like a Fighter. If not, then you might go a bit further and try a Fighter (a base Fighter), making a rather seasoned build (you might have the feats to work it out, so you might go with Spiked Chain and perhaps Archery for all those 17 feats you might get), but that might be the intention of the DM (since he can handle a Fighter with the basic tricks, but not a Crusader to which he doesn't know anything).

Now, as for the second question: as I said before, I believe your DM thinks the Crusader treads too close to what a Cleric does, since it delivers "free healing" (instead, it delivers some minor swift-action healing and only on specific occasions since you need several rounds to recover them) and minor buffs (to melee characters, meaning most of the times you'll help yourself, unless your party composition has one or two more melee characters). I say this because most of the abilities that Clerics have in 4E require striking an enemy (part of the idea was that Clerics that spent their turn healing weren't contributing greatly to the party and that healing was mostly a patch rather than a proper recovery), and that idea came mostly from the Crusader's strikes. If your DM has played 4E (I doubt it, but YMMV), he might be unwittingly associating the Crusader with the Cleric; independently of whether he has done it or not, I believe he thinks you might be replacing a Cleric in its healing.

...Actually, I think your DM thinks a Cleric is a healbot. I agree with the rest that you should show him otherwise: you're a half-vampire, so why not make him neutral and focused on rebuke undead? Prepare Cure spells, but whenever the time comes, spontaneously cast Inflict spells from those prepared Cure spells. And just go Divine Power and Righteous Might instead of healing your party. Sure, it seems (and to a point, IS) selfish of your part, but it might shock him that Clerics are best played by distancing themselves from being healbots. But that might irk your DM, so the best idea is to help your Wizard become Batman; tell him to cut it out on evocations, teach him the worth of Glitterdust and Stinking Cloud and Web and stuff like that, and once the DM sees battles ending in less than one round (so to speak; you still need to slay the enemies but the Fighters in your party will feel more important once their targets are completely immobilized), he'll realize Wizards aren't necessarily blasters. Which...I think may be the reason why he reacted that way to ToB: he might still think Fighters need no more magic than their magic items, that Clerics are healbots and Wizards are blasters.

To make it less selfish, though, go with Bard and Marshal instead. Just...no Mythic Exemplar, please. Reikhardt sucks badly. And get more support on the side of Bard, actually.

JKTrickster
2011-01-02, 12:48 PM
Hmm.

How about a "Please trust me. I know this stuff looks strong, but I promise you that it isn't as bad as it looks at a glance. If we try it, and you still think it's too powerful, you can drop an anvil on the character or something."

This approach usually works on me when people ask to play full casters in my games. :smallsigh:

Actually I agree with this. I mean everyone plays with their FRIENDS right? Assuming you guys have some level of trust between one another, can't everyone just talk it out?

"Trust me" can be a very powerful and convincing argument IMO.

Gavinfoxx
2011-01-02, 01:53 PM
Show him the Tier thread. Really. Talk to him about it, what it means, how it talks about versatility and problem solving and power level at equivalent optimization level. Tell him that Crusader is balanced for the power level that the game often works best at (Tier 3), and that the PHB is perhaps the LEAST balanced book in the game, because it has some of the strongest and most broken things in it, both in extreme high power options and extreme low power options. Offer to make a PHB & DMG only cleric as an example to show how broken the system is, and explain how it works best when everyone is building toward a particular, specific power level and optimization level.

TehLivingDeath
2011-01-02, 04:38 PM
Unnecessary and insulting stereotype is unnecessary and insulting. Not all of "those people" are foes of class balance and other such firestarting claims. With a topic like this, some discretion is advised for all parties. :smallwink:

What do you mean? Yes, some people ban ToB because of it's fluff or the fact it makes other martial classes (most of them anyway) irrelevant (this 2nd point is a very flawed one since spellcasters do that to all other classes, but it's kind of acceptable). So generalizing the banning of ToB might be insulting.

But banning ToB only because of it's mechanics is the first sign the group might fall apart victim of class unbalance as soon as any Tier 1 character decides to roughly optimize his performance (as in, Wizard stops fireball spamming and Cleric stops healing). It's severely misguided and ruins the fun of any player who knows the first thing about game balance. Granted, not all DMs are Char OP savy, but as soon as any DM tries to ban stuff in the sole effort of balancing the game, he should be eligible to scrutiny.

As a big fan of ToB, if I see a DM banning it I either refuse to play (not because it ruins the game by itself, but because it's a very bad sign) or play a Druid out of spite.

Mezmote
2011-01-02, 04:42 PM
I know my DM's main problem is that it just outshines fighters and paladins. And maybe the ability to heal during a strike. I made 8 cards using the magic set editor to have my maneuvers and stances as cards so i could "draw" them randomly. I found it quite fun to make them and was looking forward to using them. I'll find out tomorrow if my idea with Martial Study feat gets passed.

By the way, this Half-Vampire have never "dabbled" in stuff. He is an educated man that has traveled the world as a diplomat and a student, to learn all sorts of different skills, hence Jack of all Trades and Bardic Knack. For the last 4 levels (if I can't be crusader) I'm split between going hexblade (for the dark companion and a few spells) or fighter (if he can get some maneuvers).

On another note, he does know that spellcasting is way more powerful than melee, but I believe none in my group understand EXACTLY how grand the gap is (they think Monks are among the best melee classes for starters). I once wished to make the Batman or Codzilla to really show them what power is, but I also realized it would be a childish solution and counterproductive. I've tried to tell them of the Tier system by JaronK, but they've been reluctant to check it out, and I'm not sure why. I believe my group has a well established view of the interclass balance and it's difficult to shake that up.

We have recently allowed binding magic (from tome of magic) into the fray, and while it is very different (and sometimes even strange) it hasn't proven too powerful or farfetched. I guess the player is just wise to underplay some parts, for it is my understanding that he is binding some seriously powerful vestiges. Or maybe he hasn't grasped the full potential of it yet. But yes, Binding may be a good supplement to the Bard/Marshal.

Another thing, I'll hear him on his opinion about the Hexblade, and I'll ask him to compare it to the duskblade, just to make a point. It is my understanding that the Hexblade is WAY inferior in terms of raw power (although not fluff) than the duskblade, and lacks more serious crunch to perform as intended. Maybe I can get him to allow some of the hexblade fixes found around the web. More crunch to show its fluff =)

I'll be back tomorrow gentle playgrounders with an answer, and maybe more questions. Till then, keep the advices (and the funny comments ^_^) coming.

Greenish
2011-01-02, 04:46 PM
I know my DM's main problem is that it just outshines fighters and paladins.What doesn't? Oh, and show him PF paladin.


By the way, this Half-Vampire have never "dabbled" in stuff. He is an educated man that has traveled the world as a diplomat and a student, to learn all sorts of different skills, hence Jack of all Trades and Bardic Knack.Sure sounds like a dabbler to me. :smallamused:

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-01-02, 04:56 PM
Well, you could be a super-powerful Cleric who uses his DMM Persists on group buffs, or a buffing Incantatrix, or a War Weaver, et cetera. That way you demonstrate how powerful full casters can be without hogging all the spotlight.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-02, 05:01 PM
My DM's eyes flew open and gasped at the power level of the crusader. D10 Hit Die, full BaB, 4 skill points, additional class features, and maneuvers that would automatically refresh. Way too overpowered he said. He said he would tweak it a little, giving it d6 Hit die, cleric BaB, and his maneuvers were usable once per day. And here comes my first question to you playground.


One of these isn't like the other. Clerics have D8 HD. Ask him what he is assuming.

TehLivingDeath
2011-01-02, 05:05 PM
Well, you could be a super-powerful Cleric who uses his DMM Persists on group buffs, or a buffing Incantatrix, or a War Weaver, et cetera. That way you demonstrate how powerful full casters can be without hogging all the spotlight.

That's usually the best way to do it. With Druids I try to focus on beefy summons, modest battlefield control and buffing allies. That way you can sort of prove your point while not being overly confrontational and not making the game collapse.

RS14
2011-01-02, 05:08 PM
Show him the Tier thread. Really. Talk to him about it, what it means, how it talks about versatility and problem solving and power level at equivalent optimization level. Tell him that Crusader is balanced for the power level that the game often works best at (Tier 3), and that the PHB is perhaps the LEAST balanced book in the game, because it has some of the strongest and most broken things in it, both in extreme high power options and extreme low power options. Offer to make a PHB & DMG only cleric as an example to show how broken the system is, and explain how it works best when everyone is building toward a particular, specific power level and optimization level.

The problem with the Tier thread is that it assumes all characters are reasonably optimised, to the best of the ability of the community. If this were an issue for this DM, there would be no need to explain the tiers. The fact that he is not aware of the brokenness of full casting does not indicate that he's inept, but rather that he plays in an environment where casters are not optimised to the best of our ability. At this table, ToB, to the extent that it is an attempt to provide melee power comparable to casting power, seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem.

And furthermore, I do not expect that simply pontificating on the broken features of core will convince him that it's actually a problem, since, you know, it's not actually a problem in his game.


But banning ToB only because of it's mechanics is the first sign the group might fall apart victim of class unbalance as soon as any Tier 1 character decides to roughly optimize his performance (as in, Wizard stops fireball spamming and Cleric stops healing).
This is probably true, and you should realise, if you intend to simply break the game in core, as some have suggested, that this will make people unhappy.


Maybe ask him to please actually read the book properly.

I'm not quite sure what this is about... His lack of awareness of the broken elements of core?

Yuki Akuma
2011-01-02, 05:11 PM
I'm not quite sure what this is about... His lack of awareness of the broken elements of core?

His lack of awareness of what Crusaders are actually for. And how maneuvers work. And pretty much everything about ToB. :smalltongue:

Which is why he should read it.

Heliomance
2011-01-02, 05:12 PM
As a big fan of ToB, if I see a DM banning it I either refuse to play (not because it ruins the game by itself, but because it's a very bad sign) or play a Druid out of spite.

For any reason? "I don't like the flavour" and "I can't be bothered to learn a new system" are both valid reasons to ban it.

TehLivingDeath
2011-01-02, 05:26 PM
For any reason? "I don't like the flavour" and "I can't be bothered to learn a new system" are both valid reasons to ban it.

Oh no, not at all. Those reasons are certainly valid and I intended that paragraph to be linked to the previous one about reasons to ban it. ToB fluff doesn't fit well in all games and settings and my regular group even refers to it as the book of "Weaboo Fightan Magic" (in good humor obviously) even though we all like it. In retrospect, I didn't make it clear.

I meant it if the given explanation is anything in the sense of "ToB is overpowered, thus banned". And playing Druids is my go-to move anyway so it's not necessarily to make a point.

Thrice Dead Cat
2011-01-02, 05:37 PM
For any reason? "I don't like the flavour" and "I can't be bothered to learn a new system" are both valid reasons to ban it.

Whereas some people can't be bothered to learn a new-ish system due to time constrains, there's little reason that "fighting man/gloryhound" can be an issue of flavor. Sure, some maneuvers, mainly the Swordsage-only ones - the monk replacement, mind you - have odd names, but so do most Western sword fighting schools, which were common.

Barring that, just say your Warblade went to the Harvard of Fighter schools. :smalltongue:

Yuki Akuma
2011-01-02, 05:42 PM
"I don't like the flavour" is not a valid reason to ban a book. Considering the flavour can be anything you bloody well please and has no effect on the mechanics.

And no, supernatural martial arts is not solely an Asian thing.

Optimator
2011-01-02, 05:44 PM
The Crusader changes your DM made are absolute garbage. Don't even try playing such a heavily nerfed class. As for the fighter tweak, I'd say it's fine, but Warblades are right there, you know?

Your best chance to get the ToB accepted is to show your group how the Martial Adepts are more powerful than most of what has come before (and, to be fair, significantly so), but not so much so that they're overpowered compared to any caster. 4 skill points per level?! ZOMG. Seriously though, if you're in the type of group that thinks fighters are fine and every class is balanced, I highly doubt the ToB will be accepted, even though we all know it's fine. Considering you guys have 5 years of experience under your belts you may still prevail. Remind them that the point of the game is to have fun, and the ToB makes the game more fun for you and others.

Having a martial character who isn't an uneducated yokel (say by spending a few skill points in a knowledge skill) nor a poor athlete (how many athletic skills do Fighters get? Not Balance or Tumble... not that you'd have any skill points to put into them) isn't a flaw! It allows for more rounded characters and can actually facilitate role playing. Now you can back up claims that your character is a badass normal without looking at an empty skill list or empty class feature list. The Fighter class, and most pre-ToB melee classes just can't back that claim up without very generous stats.

Beware of level 5!! Never do a comparison of martial classes at level 5. It is the level in which the ToB classes seem the strongest, as they get 3rd level maneuvers but other classes still only have one iterative attack.

One of the biggest problems with comparing the Martial Adepts to the older melee classes is not that the Martial classes are too good, but what you're comparing them to are so bad. Without an understanding of this truth your DM won't be swayed by a balance argument.

Edit: I see the error of my ways... :smallwink:

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-02, 05:45 PM
Is that an okay twist on the crusader? Not for flavor reasons but for interclass balance reasons. I'd personally wouldn't play that class as it was twisted out of proportions even before he tried one out in a game, but what is your verdict?
I could take the BAB nerf, mayyybe-but-I'd-really-hate the hit die nerf, but the daily maneuvers makes it completely out of the question. The mechanical idea behind Tome of Battle is to be able to hit stuff while doing something beyond normal hitting stuff, great, now I'm stuck using one and a part maneuver per encounter until I hit 5-6th level, and I have no clue how he's going to work around maneuvers granted.


Are these changes to the fighter class a good way to introduce the ToB maneuvers while disregarding the classes of the same book? Would it make the fighter a more valid class to play compared to the rest or maybe even more powerful than intended? Should more classes have the same treatment? That was more than one question I know, but they all stem from the same issue, so think if them as intertwining.
With the caveat that I'm not too good at DMing, I'd generally say a yes to all of that. However, I would guess- and this is only a guess about a person I don't know- that your DM would also apply the daily maneuver limit to your fighter, too, which would certainly throw a wrench into the introduction of maneuvers.

MammonAzrael
2011-01-02, 05:46 PM
Well...what does your group consider balanced? How are your Clerics and Wizards played? How optimized are characters, generally?

Would they actually sit up and listen/learn if you brought a roughly optimized caster to the table? Do they understand just how underpowered many melee types are, especially the Fighter and Paladin? Do you honestly think they would be willing to change their minds if provided with evidence?

Talking with you DM is by far the best option. Perhaps say that if he isn't ok with it, will he give you a chance to prove that it is balanced, or to show just how unbalanced a proper full caster can be? Don't just spring one on your group, as I'm assuming you're playing with friends you'd rather not piss off just to prove a point...one they'd ignore because they were pissed off.

Frankly, it just sounds to me like no one else in your group really understands power levels of classes and aren't optimizers at all. And if you want to introduce more power in the game then get the other players on board with playing classes that are stronger out of the box (ToB, Duskblade, Beguiler, etc), or teach them the rudiments...if they are willing to learn.

EDIT: Also, the nerfs are insane. The Crusader is a good Paladin. It should not be receiving any nerfs.

Salbazier
2011-01-02, 05:50 PM
What doesn't? Oh, and show him PF paladin.


Nowadays, whenever I think/hear/read paladin or fighter it is the PF version that come to mind. The brain refuse to acknowledge the existence of the 3.5 version (really, PF smite is the way smite should work)

However, Pf classes are generally upped a bit compared to 3.5 so it's not exactly proper to use if for comparison of power/balance.

Gomar
2011-01-02, 05:58 PM
Im having the same problem, and it is ultimately hopeless and a little frustrating.

My DMs concern was "balance"...but he completely ignored my point that the whole idea was to ACTUALLY throw some balance towards the melee-fighter-based PC, in relation to the spell-casters, that is.

I showed him Steel Wind or whatever Iron Heart lets you attack two creatures in one round at full BAB...and he freaked out...Nevermind, of course, the things our caster (who is two levels higher than me) can do...Nevermind our dead-eye archer (also two levels higher than me) and his various multi/rapid/many-shots.

I want to press the issue, but it is a dead-end, and will only lead to annoying my DM, who I happen to like a lot, and in whose game I am having loads of fun. So I will just be a fighter, enjoy my character, and deal with it.

Taking maneuvers via feats is kinda annoying...but he left that option open, so I might consider it.

Roderick_BR
2011-01-02, 07:07 PM
My gut reaction to what your DM did:
"GAH! A non-caster that can do cool stuff? OH GOD! FOUR skill points! This won't do. Here, let's make it weaker than a cleric, and get those special abilities that I found too powerful, and make it nearly useless."

If you want to complain to him: Either weaken his fighting abilities (d8 Hit die OR cleric BAB), OR reduce the maneuver's daily use (still stronger than buying it with feats), though that would make the maneuvers use far too weak.


(...)
I showed him Steel Wind or whatever Iron Heart lets you attack two creatures in one round at full BAB...and he freaked out...Nevermind, of course, the things our caster (who is two levels higher than me) can do...Nevermind our dead-eye archer (also two levels higher than me) and his various multi/rapid/many-shots.
(...)

That's a pet peeve of mine too. One class feature (as in, if you choose it, you can't get to pick another, since you can't learn infinite maneuvers.... ya know, like a wizard can learn infinite spells...), that lets you ONCE per encounter (unless you have the time to refresh, which is troublesome on itself) to be able to... hit two enemies in melee... oh,that's so umbalanced... it'll wreck the game! I bet he doesn't let you attack two enemies with your iterative attacks (with BAB +6 or more), or use cleave, or two weapons, or with Haste... sorry, I just nerd rage against that sort of dumbness.

Gomar
2011-01-02, 07:55 PM
Have I misunderstood what it takes to refresh as a warblade?

It is just a swift action followed by a standard action, right?

That doesn't seem too difficult....(I was confused by the above statement suggesting refreshing is troublesome...

sorry for the momentary thread-jack :smallsmile:

Starbuck_II
2011-01-02, 08:11 PM
Have I misunderstood what it takes to refresh as a warblade?

It is just a swift action followed by a standard action, right?

That doesn't seem too difficult....(I was confused by the above statement suggesting refreshing is troublesome...

sorry for the momentary thread-jack :smallsmile:

Only warblade, both Crusader/Swordsage are troublesome.

Blackfang108
2011-01-02, 08:41 PM
Only warblade, both Crusader/Swordsage are troublesome.

Specifically: Swordsage requires a full-round action to refresh ONE maneuver. (They get a metric ton of readied maneuvers, though.)

Crusader has their maneuvers granted randomly, gaining a certain amount up front, and the others once a round.

Gavinfoxx
2011-01-02, 08:45 PM
I've tried to tell them of the Tier system by JaronK, but they've been reluctant to check it out, and I'm not sure why. I believe my group has a well established view of the interclass balance and it's difficult to shake that up.

Here's what you do. Tell your DM that you would like to go over some notes outside of the normal gaming, either by meeting outside of the game, you getting there early, or spending some of the normal gaming night time on reading and talking some notes and crunch. Then, for the tier thread, go find the latest version. Copy it into word (or write or whatever) in an easy to read font. Edit it for formatting. Print it out. Highlight it manually with the important stuff. Annotate it by hand with things relevant to their game. Show them that you have put a lot of effort into it, and then hand it to them and show them the stuff, with you standing there, talking about it, and basically let him realize that you put a lot of effort into getting rid of the impediments for them to read it, and having a talk about relative power level and versatility, and talk about what you believe to be the optimization level of the group, and the power level of the group, and what folk are missing or not understanding, and the major problems you are having (ie, that you want to play characters with interesting mechanical abilities, and fun things to do, but you can't do that without outshining the group, which thinks monks are awesome, and therefore don't understand the game that well), and propose some solutions specific to your gaming group.

Greenish
2011-01-02, 09:05 PM
Have I misunderstood what it takes to refresh as a warblade?

It is just a swift action followed by a standard action, right?Swift action followed by attack (or standard action to whirl your weapon if there's nothing to attack). Note that full attack should work too.

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-02, 09:09 PM
Just out of curiosity, I wonder what your table thinks of Binders and Warlocks, or other types of classes that have always-on powers.

Really, though, I wouldn't resort to just hammering down the tier system down their throats until something gives in. As much sense it makes, it's pretty much impossible to deliver that kind of information without sounding smug or rude from some point of view. I think the more pressing matter is that he sees numbers and wants to reduce them without seeing them in practice.

Maybe another route to consider is to DM for him in a campaign that has enemy or NPC martial adepts, or items that grant maneuvers.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-01-03, 12:40 AM
Tome of Battle classes have higher floors. This means that they ARE overpowered, in a low-optimization setting. Only Druids are better.

That said, those nerfs are a huge overreaction, even given the situation at your table. Your DM made a knee-jerk reaction upon first read of the class; this is common. I think most of us remember the first time we read the monk entry and thought about how cool the class was, until the time came to actually sit down and make one. Show him an optimized DMM Persist cleric (out of game), and then ask him to re-read the crusader entry with that cleric as a comparison.

umbrapolaris
2011-01-03, 12:41 AM
dont beg ! i never beg for playing a non-core class or book, if he still refuse, find another group who accept it ! some DM think they are absolute rulers...

AslanCross
2011-01-03, 02:30 AM
dont beg ! i never beg for playing a non-core class or book, if he still refuse, find another group who accept it ! some DM think they are absolute rulers...

He's not begging. He wants to reason with them. Finding other groups is also often difficult. This is a very niche hobby, and while many people might have heard of it, they often can't even grasp the idea of a game that is neither a video game nor a board game. (At least this is the initial reaction I get.)

quiet1mi
2011-01-03, 02:45 AM
Response to Stormwind Fallacy:
You are play a game, if you cannot mechanically support what you role play, then you cannot complete the actions you are roleplaying thus you are not roleplaying....

I personally think your character is fine for role playing... A human TWF, Monkey gripped fighter on the other hand, unless it is a parody, cannot be roleplayed as a effective fighter because the mechanics accurately present them as a terrible combatant. To change said said fighter, give it Jortbrund as its bonus feat then use Warblade with tigerclaw maneuvers, Now that could be described as a fighter that uses 2 large weapons and is effective with it...

Dusk Eclipse
2011-01-03, 02:56 AM
The problem with the Tier thread is that it assumes all characters are reasonably optimised, <snip>

Err not really; the tier systems assumes that all characters are optimized at roughly the same level (either highly optimized or badly optimized)



assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level.


BTW here is the link (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0) to the (to the best of my knowledge) most recent tier discussion

LordBlades
2011-01-03, 03:44 AM
In my experience, the best way of talking reasonable DMs out of banning/nerfing something that is not overpowered is proving them wrong.

He has already told you what aspects of the crusader he thinks are overpowered, so you can show him that you can do better with the stuff that's already in the game.

Not actually playing an optimziation exercise mind you(that might kill the game if the other players are low optimziers), just theorycrafting: 'you think class x is overpwoered because of this? well, class y that you allow already does this better'.

nyjastul69
2011-01-03, 03:54 AM
Err not really; the tier systems assumes that all characters are optimized at roughly the same level (either highly optimized or badly optimized)



BTW here is the link (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0) to the (to the best of my knowledge) most recent tier discussion

The tier idea makes many assumptions. It's a scale not a balance.

Greenish
2011-01-03, 11:37 AM
A human TWF, Monkey gripped fighter on the other hand, unless it is a parody, cannot be roleplayed as a effective fighter because the mechanics accurately present them as a terrible combatant. To change said said fighter, give it Jortbrund as its bonus feat then use Warblade with tigerclaw maneuvers, Now that could be described as a fighter that uses 2 large weapons and is effective with it...Jotunbrud doesn't give full Powerful Build. The specific thing it's missing is the ability to use larger weapons.

There's Strongarm Bracers for that, luckily.

Dusk Eclipse
2011-01-03, 12:43 PM
The tier idea makes many assumptions. It's a scale not a balance.

Care to elaborate please? I don't really get what you are trying to say.

Yes the tier systems assumes an even degree of optimization across the players; but apart from that I don't see what other assumptions it makes. Remembers the tier system attempts to measure versatility and potential, not raw power.

hamishspence
2011-01-03, 12:46 PM
Which means, that two things in the same tier, may vary noticably in power.

You could have two classes both Tier 3 or Tier 4, but one is easier to "break" than the other.

Heliomance
2011-01-03, 01:37 PM
The thing about the tier list is that it's mainly a measure of potential. In some ways, I think we need three tier lists - one for low op-fu, one for medium, and one for high. I suspect the tier list we have at the moment is primarily for high op-fu, as it measures how powerful a class can be if played well. A tier list for unskilled optimisers would have wizard far lower down than it is. And ToB would probably be higher because, as mentioned, the floor is higher. They're strong out of the box, you don't need to do much tweaking.

Mezmote
2011-01-03, 06:57 PM
I played another session today and here is the story.

You were right in assuming my DM has an oldschool view of the classes. He honestly said, when trying to explain how classes worked (those were the exact words) that sorcerers were blasters and pretty good at it. Fighters were meat shields that should do nothing more than stand between the enemy and his allies. That might be true in a world where power is calculated in how much damage a single person can give per turn per cost, like spell slot or item ect. This seems to me like he has his mind set on "how things should work" and in that I have no interest in changing. And with the level of optimization-fu at our table I think it is ok to go with that. It is an easy and predictable way of measuring power. I'm not going to Optimize a character (be it high or low tier) to prove a point and piss him off. Talking about optimization level, here is a list of our MOST optimized characters so far.

The tank, a paladin/knight with a homebrewed feat that allowed the two classes to stack for varies class features. He could deal a lot of damage to evil creatures in a single round with smite, and divine might and whatever he used. Around 300-500 damage per round against evil characters. Against everything else, not so much.

The healer, a pelor cleric/radiant servant of pelor/contemplative with celerity domain. We misunderstood the text and allowed ALL his cures and heals to benefit from supreme healing (it is my understanding now that it is only the spells you prepare in the domain slots that gets this benefit, even with spontaneous domain). His cohort was a dwarven wizard/runesmith, who used his abilities to let our DPS buff up with some personal only spells.

The damage dealer, a 90% monk/10% figher. With a few feats from exalted deeds and a lot of items, he could deal reasonable amounts of damage IF he could get a full round (which was often impossible or difficult). Could deal around 300-600 per round against pretty much everything (all this included crits and the like). Once or twice his Quivering palm ended an encounter that looked bleak, but only because the big bad guy fumbled his fortitude.

Our utility, a conjurer/malconvoker who did summon some pretty good stuff and did a lot to help us out. Though he had to turn from summoning demons and devils (our paladin and cleric got RPG pissed on his face), he still had a dragon familiar that ended up being played more than the actual wizard. He turned to Battlefield control in the form of Dimensional shuffle and the like, which proved quite effective at times.

And then me, the "mage slayer". I stole the idea from Castlevania (awesome franchise) and had him use a Dagger tipped Whip with mage bane and the like. Went ranger, fighter, Occult slayer and used combat expertise/improved trip/combat reflexes and power attack to keep enemies on the floor. He didn't deal AS much damage per attack than the other characters, but he did have more attacks per turn if the enemies were stupid enough to move or cast spells. He had Mage slayer and the pierce magical-line of feats. Truly a wonder against spellcasters and the like. He did play a major part in bringing encounters under control. His cohort, his little brother the bard, had plenty of utility and buffing.

So as you might have read from this wall of text, I did (unintended though) optimize a decent combat controller.

And my DM agreed to let players take Martial Study, albeit only 3 times as normal. He thought the ToB classes were, out of the box, too powerful compared to other classes, like say the fighter. He did cast aside my argument that a cleric with persistent spells, and even without them, could have enough buffs on him to nullify the core stats of a class, by saying that it could all be dispelled and he would have to waste rounds doing the buffing again, while the crusader or warblade had the good stats from the beginning. I think he looks at the core stats first and forgets the big picture. Full Bab, d10 HD, 4 skills, extra class features and "spell like abilities that work in an antimagic field" was too powerful for him. I did point out wizards could circumvent this liability, but it fell on deaf ears. I do not intend to press the argument further, as I hope he will warm up to the maneuvers now that we've implemented them somewhat. I can only use them once per encounter, so the nerf isn't so bad. Besides, all I want to add with maneuvers is flavor.

Sorry for the wall of text. If you read it through, I would send you a cake for your trouble, although I'm a lousy baker ^_^.

Thrice Dead Cat
2011-01-03, 07:07 PM
A note on his arguments against dispelling and antimagic fields: For the former, most buffomancers will have at least one counter to dispelling, be it a simple ring of counterspells (lesser or greater) to weapon properties to just fling the dispel back to sender. And for antimagic fields, simply show him that everyone, even the fighter suck when caught in them. To hit drops, damage drops, amount of abilities you can do not granted by feats drop. The list goes on.

Tvtyrant
2011-01-03, 07:17 PM
I think the issue here is that in a group devoted to straight damage output, a ToB character is actually pretty up there. Sure crazed dip multiclassed characters are better, and so is CoDzilla, but your still going to make the fighter or barbarian in the group cry. Now if you can convince the DM to have your whole group move up to Tier 3, then no problem, but if the party has a monk then you playing a ToB is going to make them worthless.

Gavinfoxx
2011-01-03, 08:55 PM
Actually a Barbarian with a big two hander and power attack, and a few feats from common books that have the word "Rage" in the name can keep up in raw damage with a ToB character, I believe.

AslanCross
2011-01-03, 09:29 PM
Seems like it's a lost cause, but at least he likes the group. I guess at this point it's better to let the debate rest and just enjoy.

Thrice Dead Cat
2011-01-03, 09:33 PM
Actually a Barbarian with a big two hander and power attack, and a few feats from common books that have the word "Rage" in the name can keep up in raw damage with a ToB character, I believe.

I do know there was a quick check a while back comparing a Warblade 20 with Time Stands Still and Barbarian 20. Over the two rounds, the Barbarian did better than the Warblade in raw damage output. Not sure if the same test took into account other levels, but it was fairly high end.

T.G. Oskar
2011-01-03, 10:16 PM
And my DM agreed to let players take Martial Study, albeit only 3 times as normal. He thought the ToB classes were, out of the box, too powerful compared to other classes, like say the fighter. He did cast aside my argument that a cleric with persistent spells, and even without them, could have enough buffs on him to nullify the core stats of a class, by saying that it could all be dispelled and he would have to waste rounds doing the buffing again, while the crusader or warblade had the good stats from the beginning. I think he looks at the core stats first and forgets the big picture. Full Bab, d10 HD, 4 skills, extra class features and "spell like abilities that work in an antimagic field" was too powerful for him. I did point out wizards could circumvent this liability, but it fell on deaf ears. I do not intend to press the argument further, as I hope he will warm up to the maneuvers now that we've implemented them somewhat. I can only use them once per encounter, so the nerf isn't so bad. Besides, all I want to add with maneuvers is flavor.

Sorry for the wall of text. If you read it through, I would send you a cake for your trouble, although I'm a lousy baker ^_^.

Heh, just a cursory read is enough.

Still: as you might have noticed, the DM seems to have an old-school view of the classes and fears what a new system might bring. He points out (correctly) that a dispel can bring a Clericzilla to normal Cleric in 1 round. Now, to do so, the enemy has to: A) have a spellcaster in the party, B) have the enemy's caster level equal to the cleric's caster level or higher. Any imbalance in that measure will inevitably benefit one side or the other. On normal conditions, a Clericzilla would have half of his buffs dispelled (with a 10-11 on the average roll, caster levels being equal) because of the large amount of rolls that have to be done, but they can be wildly varying. It also causes the enemy spellcaster to lose one turn, which can be devastating since it's spending its time to defuse the trick of the Cleric while the team is worrying about defusing the spellcaster. What's worse, if you don't defuse Divine Power, the Cleric still has a great deal of its bonus prepared (that's usually the spell that needs to be defused; the rest are just additions). And if the Cleric has enough Nightsticks yet (the real weak point of the DMM Persist trick), he might have a spare to recharge the persisting buff. Also, consider that DMM Persist works after level 7, where the Cleric has access to Divine Power; before that, it's mostly 6 levels where the Fighter still has some worth.

That's without adding buffs to caster levels (which exist through domains, magic items, and even spells such as the obscene Consumptive Field spell; heck, Death Knell helps the cleric a lot!) or items/feats that increase the target number to dispel.

Meanwhile, the martial adepts have one single, brutal, insane weakness: range. Unless your adepts are flying, martial adepts are nullified by flying creatures, or creatures outside their range, while spellcasters (blasters, mostly, but also just about any spellcaster) still has the range advantage. Incorporealness also screws up the martial adept, which is worse since you need a very specific weapon while the spellcaster only needs a specific spell descriptor (Force). A martial adept's tricks start to fail from 3rd level with miss chances (right at the same time you can start to defuse Sneak Attack) or null it altogether (Mirror Image). Just a large amount of AC causes problems for the martial adept since, in the end, it still requires actually hitting (and they don't get the touch AC advantage of a blaster, mind you).

However, this shows something else I mentioned about your DM: pit that against the bulk of the Monster Manual, and the martial adept seems quite powerful. Stuff like Sapphire Nightmare Blade alongside with Power Attack and Punishing Stance deal an average of 9-13 points of damage without adding the damage bonus, which is enough to down a single opponent (but a Fighter with a greatsword and Power Attack with Str 16+ does that with less effort). The big problem is that martial adepts are quite powerful at those first levels, and afterwards their power recedes a bit. If your DM goes with, say, skeleton warriors and goblins and kobolds and orcs at 1st level, it's pretty obvious the martial adept will shine (much like the Fighter will shine).

Also; consider the Martial Adept is a frontliner, so it'll have more chances to be downed with little trouble. But that's fine; they're meant to be frontliners, so that's no trouble.

Now...at level 10, if your DM isn't able to throw you some curveballs, then it's quite probable that he doesn't know how to handle your character (while he can deal with spells and other things). I reckon you mentioned "spell-like abilities that work within antimagic fields"; odd he didn't mentioned anything about "spell-like abilities that don't work on flying creatures, incorporeal creatures or creatures with concealment/miss chance about 11% of the times". Thing gets worse when you only do a character with IL 7th (something I think he fears; initiator level progression is a bit awkward in that sense and something that might make spellcasters protest), which means up to 4th level maneuvers when it should already have 5th level, so by all means your character will work with reduced power. Compare a 5th level maneuver with a 5th level spell and you'll notice a huge difference; now compare a 4th level maneuver with a 5th level spell and you'll notice an even bigger difference.

It's...notable that a Martial Adept out of the box will outdo a Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger out of the box; that's a problem, sadly, with the design and not with the system itself. But a well-prepared Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger will outdo a Warblade, Crusader or Swordsage in several occasions. The fact that at least the Fighter and the Ranger will have superior ranged power than a Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage (the former first without Bloodstorm Blade, which is merely a minor boost to its power) should be a good indicator. What the Martial Adept classes do is reduce the range between "sucky build" and "overpowered build", shifting the margin of error into the good side. It's really hard to botch a Warblade in comparison with a Fighter (the Fighter has several ways to botch itself, and the biggest culprits are in the Player's Handbook) while a Warblade has less of that. Yet, since the monsters are built with the PHB classes in mind (and that wildly varying range of power), it may seem that Martial Adepts are really powerful in the end.

Just to end up this rant (because it happens to be a rant...); hope your DM understands that maneuvers aren't as hot as they may seem, but rather nice tricks for martial classes. Also: Leadership is a broken feat; I'd ask the DM why he allows that feat in the first place (because having a character that's 2 levels lower, which can be just about anything you're lacking, and that consumes very few of your resources) and still insists Martial Adepts are just too much. Unless he doesn't intend to use Leadership this time, tho.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-03, 11:10 PM
He thinks a monk that does 300 damage a round is balanced, but Warblades are overpowered? Their 'capstone' maneuver is a single 100-damage attack...

Wut.

Thrice Dead Cat
2011-01-03, 11:42 PM
He thinks a monk that does 300 damage a round is balanced, but Warblades are overpowered? Their 'capstone' maneuver is a single 100-damage attack...

Wut.

There is either much derp or much trollface on the DM's part to get a flat-what out of Glyphstone.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-03, 11:50 PM
There is either much derp or much trollface on the DM's part to get a flat-what out of Glyphstone.

I'm just sleepy, and thus more suspectible to relatively smaller amounts of derp right now.

Ashiel
2011-01-04, 02:38 AM
I think the issue here is that in a group devoted to straight damage output, a ToB character is actually pretty up there. Sure crazed dip multiclassed characters are better, and so is CoDzilla, but your still going to make the fighter or barbarian in the group cry. Now if you can convince the DM to have your whole group move up to Tier 3, then no problem, but if the party has a monk then you playing a ToB is going to make them worthless.

I feel compelled to point out something that should be blatantly obvious.

Player A is playing a Monk.
Player B is playing something else (almost anything really).
Player B is not responsible for making Player A's monk worthless.

They're going to be worthless regardless. Monks don't suddenly get infinitely better if a valid alternative isn't provided. It just means there's no alternative. Same with core fighters. Just 'cause there's not something that works doesn't make the trash immediately turn to treasure.

I say this as a GM who has seen way more than a fair share of PCs go the way of the dodo against perfectly normal, unoptimized, monsters. As a GM I celebrate the Tome of Battle, because it gives both variety and teeth back to the fighter-types (who were viciously defanged in 3.x and moreso in 3.5). I mean, even the "super optimized" fighter types usually end up being boring one-trick ponies who still aren't even very good despite the sheer amount of mechanical finesse that must go into making them "decent".

Tome of Battle can allow you to make a sword & shield fighter or someone who - oh I dunno - actually take a hit or protect the squishy members of the group (you can interject yourself bodyguard style, attempt to shrug off a dominate, etc). Plus, they actually have something to do other than "I whack it with my stick", since the entire book encourages teamwork. I mean, maneuvers like Douse the Flames (prevents AoOs for 1 round) is pretty much entirely for team-play.

But for goodness sakes, if anyone takes anything from my post at all, let it be that unarmed swordsage (or any other example) doesn't make monk bad. Monk makes monk bad. CR appropriate enemies make monk bad. Unarmed Swordsage does not make monk bad.

Salbazier
2011-01-04, 02:46 AM
TOB makes monk worthless in comparison - or makes those who previously unaware of the worthlessness becomes aware. Problem is the now aware ones may think the monk just looksbad because of the compariosn with TOB, not because it is inherently bad. After all they never notice any 'worthlessness' until TOB brought into play.

Tvtyrant
2011-01-04, 02:53 AM
But for goodness sakes, if anyone takes anything from my post at all, let it be that unarmed swordsage (or any other example) doesn't make monk bad. Monk makes monk bad. CR appropriate enemies make monk bad. Unarmed Swordsage does not make monk bad.

And better scaling didn't occur to you? Yes, Monk is weak; putting it by a character who can blaze through things that are actually appropriate for the Monk is in fact making the Monk impossible to play.

Your argument about CR is based on the assumption that CR actually works; it does not. For instance; CR 3 monsters. Two CR 3 monsters I can name are the Lion (which is a charger with fair HP) and a Shadow (which can crush a group that isn't prepared). A monk could do okay at level 3 in a group against the Lion, it could not against the Shadow. It would simply get destroyed.

My point is that the OP is trying to bring the ToB class into a group he has said is RP based. In a party where a Monk isn't worthless due to being in an unoptimized party bringing in an OP outside class is in fact either going to make the Monk worthless or killed, and since the ToB altered the variables to that effect it is in fact the ToBs fault.

ZeroNumerous
2011-01-04, 05:16 AM
A monk could do okay at level 3 in a group against the Lion, it could not against the Shadow. It would simply get destroyed.

Since when did Swordsages suddenly gain the ability to one-shot Shadows? 'Cause, even with the pitiful damage that Desert Wind offers up at level 3,an unarmed Swordsage has all the problems a monk does against an incorporeal opponent.

The difference between an unarmed Swordsage and a Monk in a group fighting a shadow is that the Monk can do nothing(assuming no magic weapon) while the swordsage can do something(pitiful fire damage).

Note: CR is in fact broken as hell. But this isn't proven by shadows, it's proven by competent dragons or any other spellcasting monster at all.

T.G. Oskar
2011-01-04, 05:50 AM
And better scaling didn't occur to you? Yes, Monk is weak; putting it by a character who can blaze through things that are actually appropriate for the Monk is in fact making the Monk impossible to play.

Your argument about CR is based on the assumption that CR actually works; it does not. For instance; CR 3 monsters. Two CR 3 monsters I can name are the Lion (which is a charger with fair HP) and a Shadow (which can crush a group that isn't prepared). A monk could do okay at level 3 in a group against the Lion, it could not against the Shadow. It would simply get destroyed.

My point is that the OP is trying to bring the ToB class into a group he has said is RP based. In a party where a Monk isn't worthless due to being in an unoptimized party bringing in an OP outside class is in fact either going to make the Monk worthless or killed, and since the ToB altered the variables to that effect it is in fact the ToBs fault.

It's too dangerous to bring Monk into a discussion, but to end this: it's really hard to optimize a Monk, so even within a team of your classic meat-shield, skillmonkey, healbot and blaster-caster, the Monk will feel out of place. Perhaps it might help a small bit the meatshield and the skillmonkey, but in setting flanking opportunities; however, the meatshield already does that. Or being a scout, which the skillmonkey could reliably do (and which the meatshield should have done in any case, but the rules state meatshields suck in terms of skills). Monks should have been a good intermediate point between a meatshield and a skillmonkey; hence medium BAB, 4 skill points/level, flurry, mobility and lack of reliance on armor for the skillmonkey side, but the increased damage and Improved Grapple/Disarm/Trip, d8 HD, all good stats and endurance abilities for the meatshield side. In theory, a dedicated skill monkey or meat shield would have faired better than a Monk, but the Monk should have worked well on its own; in practice, the Monk will have troubles regardless of the optimization point because of the non-synergistic abilities it possesses. Hence, the point of everybody around here that the Monk will have problems in that group, and why introducing ToB and the unarmed variant of Swordsage wouldn't change anything.

If you had mentioned, say, Fighter or Barbarian, you might have had a better chance at showcasing the potential of ToB; instead, the Monk was mentioned. It essentially proves nothing; the Monk has inherent problems, so adding the Swordsage will definitely make it look bad. What's worse, in a classic team, the group itself will make the Monk look bad. The devs thought of showcasing the Monk as a skirmisher (notice why it has fast movement and Tumble?) and essentially recommend Spring Attack (along with Dodge and Mobility), but the end result was that Spring Attack is really bad, and thus the one trick the Monk could have simply doesn't compare. Then you get flurry, which only works when standing still (which precludes the idea of a skirmisher), and you notice how the very concept of the Monk fails to execute when playing one. There's also the idea of being a better scout (which might work, but a Rogue has you covered, or Ranger) and a mage-slayer (hence spell resistance, all good saves and lack of reliance on magic items, but you might notice magic items are important nonetheless).

That's what I feel Ashiel is mentioning: the Monk will be outshone by the classic party (even in Core!), not being even a good 5th party member (much less replacing a skill monkey or meat shield), so it will look bad no matter what you place in front. A good Fighter and a good Rogue will outshine a good Monk (it's been proven that the Fighter does the basic combat maneuvers better than the Monk regarding similar builds, and the Rogue has greater utility over a Monk), so a Swordsage will truly outclass the Monk; it won't, however, blaze upon things. Swordsage has its own set of weak points (weakest form of maneuver recovery, low BAB which means the attacks won't hit as much as with Warblade/Crusader, minor MAD with requirements of high Str, Dex, Con and Wis, the latter for AC and IIRC Shadow Hand maneuver DC) which have to be addressed before playing one without problems. Not to mention they have the only two disciplines whose bulk of maneuvers are supernatural (hence, they don't work on an antimagic field), which means that someone who specializes on Desert Wind or Shadow Hand will be crippled by an AMF. It's harder to build a good Swordsage compared to a good Warblade or Crusader, that's for sure (Warblades have it easy with IHS, WRT and Stormguard; Crusaders are a bit tougher but they usually set up Thicket of Blades and do good tanking).

Which...is funny, since the OP didn't intend to use a Swordsage or Monk at all. He intended to play a Crusader and take advantage of Bard and Marshal; Marshal alone is an odd and apparently out of place choice (Dragon Shaman would have been truly awesome, though, but harder to adjudicate). The intention of OP wouldn't have been to outshine the party, but to support it (although it would have had troubles with the very few amount of spells it would have had, and Marshal doesn't help except for Diplomancy which I feel could have been the main option of the OP), so the addition of Crusader wouldn't have outclassed the rest of the party (probably why Glyph was so stunned by the reveal). A pure Bard (with or without DFI), or a Bard/Dragon Shaman would have been strong with or without Crusader levels (especially if the Dragon Shaman could fly; that way, it would have had Entangling Exhalation alongside the breath, albeit the damage would have been weak), but the levels in Crusader would have brought even more strength to the party as a whole, with added teamwork traits alongside the improved Inspire Courage song and probably the aura running off. Hopefully the OP is happy with using Martial Study tactically, though the problem with feats will be evident (I think the OP might be taking Fighter levels to compensate, which means about three more feats but a bigger feat tax).

That reminds me: not even being full Crusader might have helped with the LA from half-vampire. So it's mostly overreaction from the DM's part; if he had given the OP the chance to play a Crusader, he might have been convinced once and for all that the class isn't that over.

Ashiel
2011-01-04, 01:55 PM
And better scaling didn't occur to you? Yes, Monk is weak; putting it by a character who can blaze through things that are actually appropriate for the Monk is in fact making the Monk impossible to play.

Your argument about CR is based on the assumption that CR actually works; it does not. For instance; CR 3 monsters. Two CR 3 monsters I can name are the Lion (which is a charger with fair HP) and a Shadow (which can crush a group that isn't prepared). A monk could do okay at level 3 in a group against the Lion, it could not against the Shadow. It would simply get destroyed.

My point is that the OP is trying to bring the ToB class into a group he has said is RP based. In a party where a Monk isn't worthless due to being in an unoptimized party bringing in an OP outside class is in fact either going to make the Monk worthless or killed, and since the ToB altered the variables to that effect it is in fact the ToBs fault.

On the contrary; I've never had a problem with Challenge Ratings, especially in Core (bring the MM-II or III into it and sure, you got d20 CR). The lion and shadow are both dangerous monsters, but they're nothing special. In both cases, parties are more than capable of fighting either of them at 3rd level, and capable of overcoming them by as early as 1st - if - they have planning in their favor.

For example, in the case of shadows, they don't kill you any slower or faster at 1st level than they do at 3rd. One magic weapon oil or spell and you can fight them, and probably kill them since they have 19 HP. Their AC is 13, so for the most part the only thing making them difficult to hit is the 50% miss chance; but with a prepared group, you can take one out at 1st level and enjoy some fat XP.

The lion's pretty bad too, but not half as scary against someone with a decent AC (a fighter can have an 18 AC with a +1 dex and splint mail, let alone shield or other option, which is a 50% chance to ignore the lion's +7 to hit attacks; and if you've got 3.5 wizard shenanigans like walking around with a +6 natural armor from alter self, +4 armor from mage armor, and possibly a +1-2 bonus from Dexterity, then you may laugh at the lion's opening charge).

You suggested that they were bad against an unprepared party. Well, that pretty much sums up everything in the monster manual. Some monsters are more or less frightening with proper planning. A grick is a low CR enemy that is taken apart at the seams with a simple casting of magic weapon, but otherwise can pose a great annoyance to some parties. A fire elemental is really scary if all you prepared today was fireball, scorching ray, and flame arrow.

The fact is, 3rd level parties are more than capable of having the resources at their disposal to fight them. Now in the case of the monk, yeah, he'll get thrashed by the lion, the shadow, and almost anything else, because the monk just sucks.

A warblade isn't that much better against them. At those levels, you might get a mountain's hammer off against the shadow, getting an extra 7 average damage, but it'd be every other round at best, and you have the same 50% miss chance, so not much better there. In the case of the lion, the warblade could at least bum-rush the lion off of someone if needed; but as for sheer power the Barbarian would most likely be a better killer.

Likewise, if the party is RP intensive, then playing a monk, warblade, fighter, or crusader should have no bearing on the game at all, since apparently combat isn't the focus. So in either case, the crusader doesn't cause a problem, and neither does the ToB.

In both cases, it seems to be plain ignorance.

Tvtyrant
2011-01-04, 02:43 PM
The point of my post wasn't that monks rock; I am well aware and willing to admit they suck. My point was better done by Salbazier in that a class is only bad in relation to another class; ToB is supposed to be a way to match melee characters to well played Tier 1 characters. A Wizard that spams fireball isn't going to show up a party inherently; a ToB character is. Your argument misses that point and throws out "obvious" and "ignorant" while justifying it by having a Wizard who: "+6 natural armor from alter self, +4 armor from mage armor, and possibly a +1-2 bonus from Dexterity" which implies again that your caster is using one of the cheapest spells in D&D as a start.

Your argument and points in general are arguing that because an optimized Wizard could show up a core melee character then it is totally okay for you to play a class that makes them pointless.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-01-04, 03:02 PM
It seems to me like a monk would lag behind in a standard party and more visibly lag behind in a party with an unarmed swordsage, since everyone gets to see what the monk should be, first hand. It's easier to ignore the monk's +low to hit, 1dmeh+small damage, and conflicting class features when you don't have someone without those issues standing right in front of you.

But what sort of party would have two characters who have the exact same schitck, but represented by vastly different classes? If I was entering a party with a S&B fighter already in it, I wouldn't roll up a ClericZilla and stomp over everything. This is why I like group character creation.

Ashiel
2011-01-04, 04:11 PM
The point of my post wasn't that monks rock; I am well aware and willing to admit they suck. My point was better done by Salbazier in that a class is only bad in relation to another class; ToB is supposed to be a way to match melee characters to well played Tier 1 characters. A Wizard that spams fireball isn't going to show up a party inherently; a ToB character is. Your argument misses that point and throws out "obvious" and "ignorant" while justifying it by having a Wizard who: "+6 natural armor from alter self, +4 armor from mage armor, and possibly a +1-2 bonus from Dexterity" which implies again that your caster is using one of the cheapest spells in D&D as a start.

Your argument and points in general are arguing that because an optimized Wizard could show up a core melee character then it is totally okay for you to play a class that makes them pointless.

Far from it. I'm well aware that Tome of Battle sets the minimum bar higher, while also setting the maximum bar lower. Tome of Battle was heralded as one of the most balanced books out, back on the WotC CharOp boards. In terms of damage, Barbarian wins over warblade. Crusader was deemed the best tank, but that was about it (and really we've been sorely missing a good tanking class for a long, long time).

Even if a wizard isn't "optimized", mage armor alone gives a 30% chance for the lion to miss on an attack, and applies to the shadow's incorporeal touch. A +2 dexterity increases it to a 40% chance. Shield increases it to a 60% chance. Mirror Image makes them incredibly hard to hit. But even just at walking along with mage armor active, the wizard shouldn't die in the first hit (4+5+3 = 12 Hp with a +1 Con, with a -10 threshold). The lion would have to hit with every attack plus rake to kill the wizard on average; which if the wizard had so much as mage armor active, probably wasn't the case for insta-death.

Likewise, the lion's hardly as threatening against a fighter in half-plate or even splint mail. The lion's chances of taking the fighter out on the opening charge aren't very good, and the lion's AC is pretty bad (15, or 13 after the initial charge). If the fighter is a tank (tower shield), the lion will have difficulty even hitting him, while the fighter will probably have a 60% chance of hitting the lion each round (assuming only a 15 Str, +3 BAB, and +1 masterwork longsword) for an average of 7.5 damage per round, which will kill the lion in roughly 4-5 rounds. Factor in the fact the average party is assumed to be 4 players strong, the lion is most likely burger-meat.

Now, having a warblade doesn't make the lion much less of a threat. Technically the lion is more likely to actually cause more damage to the warblade than the fighter, since unless he's spent some feats his AC is probably lower (offset by an extra 3 hit points, but one attack will eat through those). The warblade could alleviate this with a heavy shield and chainmail, bringhing his AC up to the 17-19 range. The only real advantage that the warblade would have against the lion in this case is the average +7.5 damage of using mountain hammer or similar against the lion, which would give him comparable damage to the fighter that was wielding a 2 handed weapon (who matches the warblade in AC without trying).

While if the Warblade was going strait for damage, he would need to wield a two-handed weapon, forgoing a shield, and possibly use something like punishing stance (+1d6 damage, -2 AC) which makes him more of a barbarian-sort. With a greatsword, his average damage on a single hit would be about 10.5 from weapon and stance, 14.5 with a 16 strength, and finally 21.5 if he has mountain hammer ready that round. Unless he spent a feat, he would be in medium armor with a base AC of 13 before dexterity (15 at best, using standard ability scores).

Comparable to the barbarian, who with the same 16 strength, matches the warblade in AC and HP, and gets a +2/+3 to attack & damage, +6 Hp, and +2 to will saves when he enters a rage. Alternatively, he could get a +4 dex and +1 attack/round with a simple variant, but I'm gonna try to stay core here. The barbarian and the warblade can both kill the lion in roughly 2 rounds, and at higher levels (when barbarians get Iterative attacks) the barbarian will sail away past the damage-minded warblade.

However, the warblade could promote good storytelling and teamwork. For example, if the warblade was a sword & board guy, he could use a special counter available to 3rd level warblades which would allow him to interpose himself and grant his shield's bonus to his friend who the lion's trying to kill, for example. That, to me, is more heroic than "Well, I whack it and hope the lion stops eating Sammy".

Likewise, as noted, in a game that is mostly roleplaying oriented, the warblade should actually be encouraged. I say this because the Warblade actually has some skills that could be used outside of combat (such as being able to aid on Diplomacy checks for the party's face, or even being the party's face), and not having to over-specialize to be relevant at what he does. I mean, the warblade actively encourages you to have a martial hero that's something besides a "big stupid fighter".

Optimator
2011-01-04, 04:13 PM
Note: CR is in fact broken as hell. But this isn't proven by shadows, it's proven by competent dragons or any other spellcasting monster at all.

I fully agree with you, but to be fair Dragons were intentionally under-CR'd. I believe the reasoning behind it was because adventuring groups would usually prepare to fight one and to make them memorable fights.

Gomar
2011-01-04, 04:44 PM
He thinks a monk that does 300 damage a round is balanced, but Warblades are overpowered? Their 'capstone' maneuver is a single 100-damage attack...

Wut.

How does a monk do 300 damage a round?

Mezmote
2011-01-04, 05:33 PM
How does a monk do 300 damage a round?

With enough buffs. Monk's belt, Bardic music with inspirational boost and dragonfire inspiration, Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, Bite of the Werebear and the like, some RPG bonuses from an old hermit witch (holy on his hands) and some loose buffs and feats I don't remember. All boiling down to his flurry and whether he got a full round action or not. I think we misread RWotFF to give an extra attack while flurrying.

I admit that the monk (or any character for that matter) can be more powerful when backed by a buffing party than on its own, and that's what happened here. Alone, I think he would've royally sucked, but D&D is a game including teamwork, so I never consider a class for what it can do alone, but what it can contribute to a party (and how to reach the concept of a "character").

Any class may shine with a party at it's back, some more than others though. And wizards/clerics can do so alone, though even more with a party backing them up, in my humble opinion.