PDA

View Full Version : Introducing Tome of Battle.



Master Thrower
2011-01-09, 02:02 PM
How do I help introduce Tome of Battle to a DM who thinks its overpowered because it gives melee more options.
For instance he thinks the 17 level desert wind maneuver that deals 100 damage is OP. Because it gives a melee character an ability like that. When I pointed out meteor swarm can do the more damage NO save he said well yeah thats what magic is for. (Meteor swarm is 32d6 which averages 112)

woodenbandman
2011-01-09, 02:17 PM
Well I guess you're screwed then.

I suppose you could ask him to consider you a magic user? If he thinks that only magic can do that then ask him if you could be considered magical.

dragonsamurai77
2011-01-09, 02:19 PM
What does your DM allow?

2xMachina
2011-01-09, 02:20 PM
And Meteor Swarm is NOT a strong spell. (For lvl 9s anyway)

Master Thrower
2011-01-09, 02:23 PM
And Meteor Swarm is NOT a strong spell. (For lvl 9s anyway)

I'm aware it was just to point how how the 9th level maneuver is even worse

DeltaEmil
2011-01-09, 02:26 PM
Your gm is just bad. Play a cleric. It's up to you if you're going CoDzilla on his sorry ass or you behave nicely, but if a dude seriously thinks that melee shouldn't have nice things, it's that they're just that n00bish.

AyeGill
2011-01-09, 02:28 PM
How do I help introduce Tome of Battle to a DM who thinks its overpowered because it gives melee more options.
For instance he thinks the 17 level desert wind maneuver that deals 100 damage is OP. Because it gives a melee character an ability like that. When I pointed out meteor swarm can do the more damage NO save he said well yeah thats what magic is for. (Meteor swarm is 32d6 which averages 112)

Yeah, you're out of luck. Sorry, it seems your DM actually thinks magic should be better than melee characters.

Salanmander
2011-01-09, 02:35 PM
You might have some luck in one of two tracks.

First, you may be able to dissuade your DM of the idea that casters should be better than fighters. I would approach this from a "I viscerally enjoy playing melee characters more than casters, because I can visualize it better, but I would still like to be able to pull cool stunts." perspective.

Second, you may be able to point at the (Su) on maneuvers like that and say "look, it /is/ magic. It's just a different kind."

Angry Bob
2011-01-09, 02:39 PM
Agreed with Salanmander. Tell him that yeah, it is magic. Then ask if he would allow a duskblade or psychic warrior. If it's the fluff he doesn't like, rename everything and give your character a backstory he approves of, but keep the same abilities.

FMArthur
2011-01-09, 02:45 PM
Ask him why he thinks some characters need to be inherently, irreparably inferior to others. :smallconfused:

Actually, just show him a normal charger melee character who deals much more damage than that. If you can get him to see that you are actually trading power for more versatile and interesting options as a melee character, he may be persuaded that way.

You might also point out that it is actually pretty silly that a normal, supposedly masterful swordsman without ToB is usually missing a bunch of fantasy-swordfighting-scene staples just because he doesn't have the right stupid feats. Things like being able to make a jumping attack, cripple a foe without killing, or even just block attacks with his own weapon just aren't going to be an option if your character has a specific set of goals with his feat chains - and is noticably weaker if he does try to acquire things outside his one gimmick. It's much easier if you have a set of combat maneuvres that are independent of your feats and don't require a specific path so much as a level of competence in a fairly open swordfighting style to qualify for them.

Zaq
2011-01-09, 02:45 PM
When I pointed out meteor swarm can do the more damage NO save he said well yeah thats what magic is for.

Ask him what nonmagical people are for, then.

VirOath
2011-01-09, 02:46 PM
If you two can have a nice, reasonable discussion about this, then you might be able to convince him to let you play something from it.

He is sitting on his mindset that Melee shouldn't get nice things, which is an extreme side of the argument that Magic and Melee should be different. The way you want to do this is to compare it in ways other than damage, and show that damage wise it's really just on par with what can be done already, that it is the options that the casters have that give them versatility and different ways to deal with things and different in their own right. Then, just ask to play something out of the book, to give the book a chance, and if he feels mid campaign that you are still OP that he can just curb stomp the character and you'll roll something 'normal'.

You are using Meteor Swarm as a comparison for that, which is just damage. But with 9th level spells, there are many many better options for the round. Very basic options here: Imprisonment (Save and lose forever), Dominate Monster (Control ANYTHING for half a month), Wail of the Banshee (17 creatures need to make a fort save or die outright, damage on save), Astral Projection (Become invincible), And wish (Do anything). This is ignoring more complex options like Time Stop or Polymorph/Shapechange shenanigans, or tactical application of lower level spells (like Wall Of Stone Abuse)

These are things that Melee will never be able to come close to doing. Outright, no argument, you need magic to pull off anything of this caliber or abuse magic by other means to do so.

Now, 100 damage is something that Melee in his game can already do at level 17 without going outside of Core. Take a Paladin on his mount, give him Spirited Charge, Power Attack, and have him use a Lance. Ignoring the weapon damage and assuming a 30 Str total, his base damage with a two handed weapon will be 15, He can power attack away up to 17 BAB for 34 damage, and Spirited Charge doubles damage but triples if using a lance, and a lance itself doubles damage on a mounted charge. Which means:

(15+34)*4 Damage base, before damage dice and on one attack. This means 196 by just using Core and the class features of the Paladin (Special Mount). This can be further increased by magic weapons, buffs, and Smite usage.

So damage output isn't comparable even, as a level 17 Paladin can do more than Meteor Swarm by a charge and a proper build. But a Wizard with Magic can still do much, much more than any number of damage will be able to compare with. Compared to the power to being able to shut down an entire army with a hand wave, 100+ damage with one attack is rather meager. Melee only has damage, Magic has everything else.

Now what Tome Of Battle does is brings some more options to melee, but still leaves them with only one staple, damage. Tome Of Battle just helps make that damage more interesting and gives more options of doing that damage. It still does not encroach on the Power of Magic.

So once again, ask if you can try to play a Warblade in a game later than level 6, and if the DM ever feels that the results are just too powerful then he can curbstomp you and you'll go back to playing Fighters and Barbs and such.

And if either of you can't talk about this issue without getting into a heated debate, then don't go down this path as it will just turn into a Test Of Spite.

Edit: I must, MUST stress that at no point should you be attacking his opinion of Magic Should Be Better. Doing so will just turn it into a personal affair, if he holds that Magic Should Get Nice Things as his opinion, telling him he is wrong isn't going to help you at all. He is allowed to have his own beliefs and conventions of the basic fantasy genre, and clashing against that with your own does little other than wound each other.

2xMachina
2011-01-09, 03:01 PM
I'm aware it was just to point how how the 9th level maneuver is even worse

I'm just pointing it out too, for those who'd think that spell is strong. (I assumed your DM did)

Gavinfoxx
2011-01-09, 03:38 PM
Ask him, straight up, why magic should be better than melee. Remind him that the game assumes that the party is contributing equally to the solving of encounters, and that, in general, the numbers work out so that everyone above 6th level is overtly superhuman, better than the best in our world at whatever they do, and why can't melee that isn't overtly magical, or melee that is also overtly magical, as the tome of battle has both, can't be obviously up there with spells?

Salbazier
2011-01-09, 03:42 PM
Ask him, straight up, why magic should be better than melee. Remind him that the game assumes that the party is contributing equally to the solving of encounters, and that, in general, the numbers work out so that everyone above 6th level is overtly superhuman, better than the best in our world at whatever they do, and why can't melee that isn't overtly magical, or melee that is also overtly magical, as the tome of battle has both, can't be obviously up there with spells?

The bolded part is likely to be answered with something like "they are contributing by being the meatshield"

Popertop
2011-01-09, 04:25 PM
The bolded part is likely to be answered with something like "they are contributing by being the meatshield"

what do you say to this?

The Glyphstone
2011-01-09, 04:28 PM
what do you say to this?

You can try to point out that a wizard doesn't need a meatshield, or can summon his own meatshields. You can also point out that at high levels, melee cannot be meatshields unless the monsters want them to, as they have no way to inhibit mobility (particularly flying mobility). It's not likely to work though.

sonofzeal
2011-01-09, 04:48 PM
1) At high levels, a Wizard can do far more damage than a Fighter, be far harder to kill, and has magic to handle a huge array of problems that the Fighter is helpless at.

2) D&D is supposed to be a team game, where Fighters and Wizards both contribute to winning.

3) From #1 and #2, Fighters, as written, completely fail at the collaborative purpose of D&D in a group that has full spellcasters above a certain level in it.

4) Warblades, while solidly better than Fighters, still do not replicate any of the signature Wizard abilities - powerful summons, trans-planar teleports, key divinations, undead armies, polymorphs, etc - let alone the small little useful things like "Rope Trick" or "Magic Circle" or "Tongues".

5) From #2, #3, and #4, Warblades fit better than Fighters in high level games, and better-satisfy the original collaborative purpose of D&D.

6) From #5, you should allow Warblades (and Tome of Battle by extension) into your games.

Ernir
2011-01-09, 05:05 PM
Screw logic, it won't bite. I suggest "please trust me" and straight "pleeeeeeaaaaase" instead.

gallagher
2011-01-09, 05:07 PM
1) At high levels, a Wizard can do far more damage than a Fighter, be far harder to kill, and has magic to handle a huge array of problems that the Fighter is helpless at.

2) D&D is supposed to be a team game, where Fighters and Wizards both contribute to winning.

3) From #1 and #2, Fighters, as written, completely fail at the collaborative purpose of D&D in a group that has full spellcasters above a certain level in it.

4) Warblades, while solidly better than Fighters, still do not replicate any of the signature Wizard abilities - powerful summons, trans-planar teleports, key divinations, undead armies, polymorphs, etc - let alone the small little useful things like "Rope Trick" or "Magic Circle" or "Tongues".

5) From #2, #3, and #4, Warblades fit better than Fighters in high level games, and better-satisfy the original collaborative purpose of D&D.

6) From #5, you should allow Warblades (and Tome of Battle by extension) into your games.

perfect logical progression

the DM may also be hesitant to learn new parts of this game, and doesnt wish to adjust his encounters further. if you want to show him how it works, you should offer to run a one-shot campaign, where he can play a TOB character of his choice, and have a wizard standing next to him still doing all his wizardy things.

Bang!
2011-01-09, 05:16 PM
One potential complaint is the power of ToB characters at low levels. They can be pretty overwhelming at levels 1-4. (Yes, the Wizard can Color Spray or Sleep a couple times daily, but those have pretty significant limitations in terms of range, casting time and immunities and they have meaningfully limited uses in low-level play.)

If you face this complaint, which is not addressed by zeal's post, you might suggest the ToB base classes as PrCs with easy entrance for level 4 characters. That way, non-magical melee characters can have their shiny toys at high levels and not tear low level hack-and-slash encounters to pieces.

Godskook
2011-01-09, 05:24 PM
How do I help introduce Tome of Battle to a DM who thinks its overpowered because it gives melee more options.
For instance he thinks the 17 level desert wind maneuver that deals 100 damage is OP. Because it gives a melee character an ability like that. When I pointed out meteor swarm can do the more damage NO save he said well yeah thats what magic is for. (Meteor swarm is 32d6 which averages 112)

Point out that a melee character that spends a round doing 100 damage per target has wasted his action, when rather, he can let the casters do AoE, and instead just kill 1-2 targets. Uber-charger and Jack B. Quick are both primarily fighters, and both primarily deal single-target damage so high that enemies just plain die.

Greenish
2011-01-09, 05:45 PM
The bolded part is likely to be answered with something like "they are contributing by being the meatshield"Oh yeah, d8 hitdie, low fort save and light armour proficiency just screams "meatshield".

sonofzeal
2011-01-09, 06:26 PM
Oh yeah, d8 hitdie, low fort save and light armour proficiency just screams "meatshield".
.............bard? When did we start talking about bards?

FMArthur
2011-01-09, 06:30 PM
It looks like he is talking about the Swordsage, but I really can't think of how it fits in the context of what he's replying to. It was in response to a comment on the DM possibly saying "tanking is part of what non-ToB melee should be doing".

Grendus
2011-01-09, 07:24 PM
The easiest way to point out the fallacy of the 'meatshield' role is to pull out the PHB and MM1. At every level (well... more so at high levels, at lower levels base stats throw the curve off), a wizard can summon something that's going to be a better meatshield than an equivalent level fighter, often with better utility like Improved Grab to keep the target back. Once you're past level five or so, the creatures will stay long enough for an entire fight, and if they get killed it doesn't matter. The entire meatshield role can be replaced with a fifth level spell slot...



My gut reaction to this is to roll a spellcaster and shatter his campaign into little pieces. That's childish, rude, and won't accomplish anything, but it can be a great way to convince people that the tier system isn't just made up. I would show him the ubercharger to show that his fears about damage are unfounded, and show him a spell list to show that his fears about utility are unfounded. The warblade will be out damaged by the barbarian and beaten in versatility (and damage) by the wizard. He's just a better balance between the two.

Benly
2011-01-09, 08:03 PM
Number-crunching based on assumptions about action economy and tiers will not convince this line of thought. There are basically two routes you can take, I think. The first is to tell him "yeah, it does magic damage because it is magic, these guys are sword-magic dudes." The second is to tell him (truthfully) that Desert Wind is one of the goofiest/most magic-y schools, write up a character using Iron Heart and White Raven, and see what he thinks of that. Obviously you know better than I do which is more likely to appeal to your DM.

true_shinken
2011-01-09, 08:18 PM
.............bard? When did we start talking about bards?
That's a Swordsage.
Bard has a d6 hit dice.

Thurbane
2011-01-09, 08:35 PM
Your gm is just bad. Play a cleric. It's up to you if you're going CoDzilla on his sorry ass or you behave nicely, but if a dude seriously thinks that melee shouldn't have nice things, it's that they're just that n00bish.
:smallmad:

Yes, this type of unconstructive post always crops up in theses type of threads...

This is almost always counter productive, and usually leads to ill will in the gaming group. Building a broken character with allowed materials is NOT a good or clever way to try and convince someone to include material in their game.

The best approach is:

A.) Try to reason with them, and explain why ToB (or whatever) is not overpowered.

B). If the DM can be persuaded to your POV, all well and good.

C) If the DM stands firm on the ban, you have two options - play another character type, or leave the game.

It's that easy. As with most things in life, being a jerk is rarely the right answer. :smallamused:

Boci
2011-01-09, 08:44 PM
:smallmad:

Yes, this type of unconstructive post always crops up in theses type of threads...

This is almost always counter productive, and usually leads to ill will in the gaming group. Building a broken character with allowed materials is NOT a good or clever way to try and convince someone to include material in their game.

As long as your not a jerk about it, it can actually be quite an effective demonstration, generally with the help of two other players. "You say ToB can be otherpowered, but I can make a melee character with from a cleric or druid, that doesn't use cheesy combos and will out perform even an optimized warblade"
If he doesn't believe you, show him two character sheets. If he still doesn't believe you, run a couple of encounters with the two other players using those character sheets.

Bang!
2011-01-09, 09:08 PM
As long as your not a jerk about it, it can actually be quite an effective demonstration, generally with the help of two other players. "You say ToB can be otherpowered, but I can make a melee character with from a cleric or druid, that doesn't use cheesy combos and will out perform even an optimized warblade"
If he doesn't believe you, show him two character sheets. If he still doesn't believe you, run a couple of encounters with the two other players using those character sheets.
I have a hard time seeing how that would convince someone to allow ToB rather than disallowing Spirit Lion Totems, Divine Metamagic, Psionics, Polymorph or whatever else it is.

Or to counter the argument that 'of course magicians do it better; that's what magic's for.'

Boci
2011-01-09, 09:30 PM
I have a hard time seeing how that would convince someone to allow ToB rather than disallowing Spirit Lion Totems, Divine Metamagic, Psionics, Polymorph or whatever else it is.

Who said anything about those?


Or to counter the argument that 'of course magicians do it better; that's what magic's for.'

Thats not a counter argument, thats an opinion on how the game should be played, that will most likely reduce the fun of it.

Bang!
2011-01-09, 11:20 PM
Who said anything about those?Okay, substitute whatever you would use to outfight the Fighter. Details really aren't important.

Thats not a counter argument, thats an opinion on how the game should be played, that will most likely reduce the fun of it.It's apparently an opinion held by the OP's DM. Outdoing ToB in-game does nothing to undermine that opinion. Presenting an argument like Zeal's might.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-01-09, 11:47 PM
Okay, substitute whatever you would use to outfight the Fighter. Details really aren't important.
It's apparently an opinion held by the OP's DM. Outdoing ToB in-game does nothing to undermine that opinion. Presenting an argument like Zeal's might.I think there are two different assumptions being implied that have two different solutions.

Assumption 1: The otherwise-reasonable DM has made an error in judgement. Show him that error in judgement.
Solution 1: Change the DM's opinion with reasonable counter arguments. My favorite so far is "Well... Swordsage is magical!"

Assumption 2: The DM isn't going to budge with a simple verbal argument, no matter how sound it is.
"Solution" 2: Instead of leaving, or sucking it up, be a troll and make an annoyingly powerful character with the sources allowed.

I think assumption 1 and solution 2 are bound to fail the OP.

Boci
2011-01-10, 09:38 AM
Okay, substitute whatever you would use to outfight the Fighter. Details really aren't important.

The druid and cleric class?


Outdoing ToB in-game does nothing to undermine that opinion. Presenting an argument like Zeal's might.

Depends how reasonable the DM is. He could swayed by "You say melee should be weaker than magic, so why would a party want a melee character in it? Would all parties just be four casters?"

VirOath
2011-01-10, 10:08 AM
Depends how reasonable the DM is. He could swayed by "You say melee should be weaker than magic, so why would a party want a melee character in it? Would all parties just be four casters?"

From my own experience, DMs that follow the logic of "Magic should be better" often follow the fallacy of Melee Soaks Damage. So they build the encounters so that the melee slugs it out with the thugs, even if there is no tactical reason for the thugs to be going after and hitting the melee.

Why? Because they think that is the role of Melee. They think that if they didn't put in traps and locked doors then the party Rogue wouldn't have a role, so if they didn't make the Thugs hit the Melee then Melee wouldn't have a role. So in their mind, if a party was four casters, then those casters would die because there was no melee to soak the damage.

When questioned with "Why should Thugs and Brutes hit Melee?" they will provide the circular logic of "Because they are Melee, it's their role" in exactly the same way they reply to the question of "Why should Magic be better?"

I've had to deal with a DM with this exact same mindset for years, so needless to say D&D is about the last thing our group runs.

Boci
2011-01-10, 10:22 AM
From my own experience, DMs that follow the logic of "Magic should be better" often follow the fallacy of Melee Soaks Damage. So they build the encounters so that the melee slugs it out with the thugs, even if there is no tactical reason for the thugs to be going after and hitting the melee.

Why? Because they think that is the role of Melee. They think that if they didn't put in traps and locked doors then the party Rogue wouldn't have a role, so if they didn't make the Thugs hit the Melee then Melee wouldn't have a role. So in their mind, if a party was four casters, then those casters would die because there was no melee to soak the damage.

When questioned with "Why should Thugs and Brutes hit Melee?" they will provide the circular logic of "Because they are Melee, it's their role" in exactly the same way they reply to the question of "Why should Magic be better?"

I've had to deal with a DM with this exact same mindset for years, so needless to say D&D is about the last thing our group runs.

Then you mention that you can make a driid/cleric who can soak damage just as well as melee, and still have spells left over to contribute to the party. Which returns to the origional question of, why would a party have any melee characters.

Heliomance
2011-01-10, 11:21 AM
I'm in the process of introducing ToB to my local gaming group at the moment. Most of the DMs either thought it overpowered or they considered it "the Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic". I'm introducing it by running my own campaign, where ToB is not just allowed but encouraged. I have two ToB players, and they're enjoying it, and their feedback is making some of the other DMs consider it.

Person_Man
2011-01-10, 12:05 PM
The benefit of Tome of Battle is NOT that it makes melee characters more powerful. For example, a melee character can deal thousands of point of damage using standard Power Attack optimization (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7165087) (or a dozen other methods). The benefit of the Tome of Battle is that it organizes a lot of fun and interesting options that melee characters commonly want (various mobility, damage, defense, and battlefield control options) into a reasonable and easy to understand action economy (Stances, Boost, Counter, and Strikes).

I can replicate almost anything from the Tome of Battle with some other 3.5 source. Tome of Battle simply organizes them in a coherent way. In fact, it was so good at organizing combat that they used it as the basis for 4E.

Golden-Esque
2011-01-10, 12:48 PM
How do I help introduce Tome of Battle to a DM who thinks its overpowered because it gives melee more options.
For instance he thinks the 17 level desert wind maneuver that deals 100 damage is OP. Because it gives a melee character an ability like that. When I pointed out meteor swarm can do the more damage NO save he said well yeah thats what magic is for. (Meteor swarm is 32d6 which averages 112)

Offer to GM a game for him and force him to play a Martial Adept class. Let him see what they're about. If he's making an uninformed decision, it's up to you to inform him :).