4e and Tome Battle

[ELC]

So, I couldn't help but notice the similarity between these two aspects of D&D. First, they both enabled non-spellcasting classes to do more than positioning shenanigans (i.o.w. Rogue flanking for Sneak Attack) and making a basic attack. Second, they both seem to detested by some of the D&D community, with many 3.5e games banning ToB due to various reasons.

So . . . damn: I feel like I'm a philosophy professor who's trying to force insight from his students, or you. . . . Well, maybe y'all could discuss this topic and share your opinions about how similar these two are?

[hamishspence]

Tome of battle as a "prototype" for 4E, may have been mentioned in the books that outlined the design and development of it: Races & Classes, and Worlds & Monsters (though probably just the first of these).

Thats what I recall, anyway.

[Master_Rahl22]

This is certainly not news but may be worthy of discussion.

ToB was pretty much 4E alpha, or 3.75 or whatever you want to call it. It introduced encounter powers and the idea that even martial characters can do semi-magical things. Additionally, and YMMV here, it introduced the concept that melee doesn't have to be boring or totally suck. It's an excellent book, but some people ban it for being too close to 4E, or too anime/wuxia/whatever, or even because they don't want to learn a new magic system. It is also occasionally banned in low optimization groups where the Fighter is the super star, as it takes little optimization to make a ToB character perform twice as well as a Fighter, especially at low levels.

[DeltaEmil]

Tome of Battle and Star Wars Saga Edition were the "prototypes" for D&D 4th edition.

[Kurald Galain]

Tome of Battle and Star Wars Saga Edition were the "prototypes" for D&D 4th edition.
Yes; also, I think the Tome of Magic was also a prototype, albeit one that didn't work out too well.

[Prime32]

While some of the ideas from ToB were used in 4e, they're hardly identical. Plenty of people love 4e and hate ToB or vice versa.

A common 4e complaint is "every class is the same". A common ToB complaint is "these classes are too different". 4e limits multiclassing compared to 3.5e, ToB classes are some of the most multiclass-friendly around, and so on.

[KillianHawkeye]

Similarly, the only things that made it from SW Saga into D&D4 were the "no skill points" skill system and the static defense scores instead of saving throws.

[Tengu_temp]

The only real similarity between ToB and 4e is that both use the encounter power mechanic. Well, and also the fact that I'd never play a DND game that's not 4e or 3.5 with ToB, because I'd find it too boring mechanically.

[Warlawk]

Our group is one that loves ToB but doesn't like 4E. Personally I like 4E quite a bit, but the group doesn't so I don't push it.

The versatility and "fun" that ToB brings to melee is absolutely loved at our table. The group really likes the 3.X multiclass and skill systems and feels really restrained by 4E in that regard. Our primary DM likes the vancian spellcasting a lot (we've been playing since redbox basic D&D so it's familiar I guess).

Mostly though, its a matter of such restrictive multiclassing. In 3.X you can freely multiclass to your hearts content to find mechanics that fit your concept. It also helps that our entire group is adults who want to play together and no one is trying to "win" or break the game. We tend toward lo optimization games where a monk or sword/board fighter aren't going to be too far behind the curve.

[Aemoh87]

None of this is news. Like several posts have mentioned before me, ToB was a "prototype" for 4E. Yes some people don't like ToB and/or 4E, but I feel like that is true of everything.

You defiantly didn't tap anything new or important here, you kinda pointed out the obvious.

[Saph]

So . . . damn: I feel like I'm a philosophy professor who's trying to force insight from his students, or you. . . . Well, maybe y'all could discuss this topic and share your opinions about how similar these two are?

They're more different than similar, really. The signature feature about the ToB classes is that they all recover their powers in different ways: Crusaders get theirs automatically but randomly, Warblades have to take an action but can combine it with an attack, Swordsages have to take a round off and recover (often running off first). By contrast, all 4e classes recover their powers the same way: at-wills instantly, encounters after 5 minutes, and dailies after an extended rest.

[dsmiles]

Tome of Battle: the Book of Nine Swords is the official title, but it should have been: Tome of Battle: Because Melee DESERVES Nice Things. :smallwink:

[Prime32]

None of this is news. Like several posts have mentioned before me, ToB was a "prototype" for 4E.And that's okay. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuperPrototype) :smalltongue:

[MeeposFire]

Yes; also, I think the Tome of Magic was also a prototype, albeit one that didn't work out too well.

Well binders did well and it has a psuedo encounter mechanic. They often use powers that they can use once every 5 rounds and that comes up to essentially once an encounter in many cases.

Also warlocks could be looked at as the idea of at will magic powers since before then the idea of at will magic was not seen and they would need to see if players would accept it. Obviously it was.:smallsmile: