[3.5] Finally reading ToB cover-to-cover

[TroubleBrewing]

So, I've finally got the spare time today to read the Tome of Battle cover to cover. I've been playing 3.5 for a long, long time, and up until about the last year, I was vehemently opposed to the book, subscribing to the notion that "It's magic for fighters- and MY fighters swing swords :smallyuk:"

But lately I've come around. Melee needs help. If ToB can provide that help, then I'm sold.

I've never built a ToB character before, I don't know how maneuvers work, and I've heard that the book is poorly assembled.

I'll be posting throughout the day to share my thoughts and whatnot. I'm looking forward to this little experiment. Any advice on confronting the poorly placed tables would be helpful, though.

[Sacrieur]

Poorly constructed, but not entirely incomprehensible. You will be awe-inspired by the jewel that the ToB offers in a sea of terribleness.

[bokodasu]

It isn't the easiest read, but once things start clicking it turns out to be really cool. I recommend printing the cards - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a

[Veyr]

I've never heard of Tome of Battle being poorly assembled. I mean, I would have preferred if maneuvers were sorted by level rather than alphabetically in the maneuver description chapter, but that's no different than how they handle spells anyway.

For a first-time read-through, though, I would suggest that you start with the Blade Magic chapter intro, reading up until the maneuver lists. That will help you understand how the classes themselves work better.

But for the most part, it's a pretty simple system. The PrC chapter explains some weirdnesses that occur with multiclassing, but they're not a huge deal.

[TroubleBrewing]

Yeah, thusfar it's seeming like multiclassing with regards to martial adepts is sort of a logistical nightmare.

You need to keep track of which maneuvers you receive from each class, and given the vastly different "recharge" methods for expended maneuvers, you'd have to keep track of how they'd recharge and when.

Mixing crusader with any other martial adept class would be a nightmare, but swordsage/warblade wouldn't be so bad. It'd be harder than going full into one or the other, but not as complicated as crusader.

[McSmack]

So, I've finally got the spare time today to read the Tome of Battle cover to cover. I've been playing 3.5 for a long, long time, and up until about the last year, I was vehemently opposed to the book, subscribing to the notion that "It's magic for fighters- and MY fighters swing swords :smallyuk:"

I was in the exact same boat as you sir. My first experience with it was at a short lived game at a coworker's house, where the DM told me that a swordsage could easily deal weapon damage +6d6 every round at level 1. I should have known better than to take his word for it. This is the same guy afterall that gave every one pretty much 2 feats each level.

But after years of seeing my poor melee characters outshined by casters again and again, I decided to give it another try. And I love it.

Now I just have to find someone to run a game so I can play a character from it.

[Kylarra]

I've never heard of Tome of Battle being poorly assembled. I mean, I would have preferred if maneuvers were sorted by level rather than alphabetically in the maneuver description chapter, but that's no different than how they handle spells anyway.

For a first-time read-through, though, I would suggest that you start with the Blade Magic chapter intro, reading up until the maneuver lists. That will help you understand how the classes themselves work better.

But for the most part, it's a pretty simple system. The PrC chapter explains some weirdnesses that occur with multiclassing, but they're not a huge deal.My particular beef with the maneuvers section is that the expanded descriptions are organized by school and then alphabetically, rather than just alphabetically or numerically by level as you mentioned.

[TroubleBrewing]

Just finished my read-through.

The maneuvers section is poorly done. It basically adds a minute or so to the time required to find a given maneuver, due to the poor organization. Beyond that, however, it's pretty well done.

I'm impressed with the material inside, but it'll take quite a while for me to get used to using the martial adepts instead of what they replace. The maneuvers themselves will also take some time to familiarize myself with. I might ask my regular DM if I can run a martial adept in one of his games, solely to familiarize myself with the material.

I like the number of options it provides melee characters. In addition, it fixes a couple of classes (Paladin, Monk, Swashbuckler) that I really like the trope for (Divine Warrior, Unarmed Master, Smart Beatstick) but always had a problem with. It reinforces the idea that class =/= class name. If you want to play a paladin, you don't have to play a Paladin; you can play a Crusader. (Or a DMM Cleric, but that's not the point.)

All in all, it's an interesting read but it's not something I'd recommend to everybody. Some people simply won't appreciate the wealth of options inside. There are those players out there who have had good experiences playing Monks, Paladins, and other classes generally considered "weak". They won't gain as much out of this supplement as the players who want to play those types, but always found the classes themselves lacking.

[Salanmander]

All in all, it's an interesting read but it's not something I'd recommend to everybody. Some people simply won't appreciate the wealth of options inside. There are those players out there who have had good experiences playing Monks, Paladins, and other classes generally considered "weak". They won't gain as much out of this supplement as the players who want to play those types, but always found the classes themselves lacking.

Eh, I've had at least two excellent experiences playing monks, and that doesn't diminish the value ToB has for me. Then again, I am a sucker for having more options...

[danzibr]

[...] All in all, it's an interesting read but it's not something I'd recommend to everybody. Some people simply won't appreciate the wealth of options inside. There are those players out there who have had good experiences playing Monks, Paladins, and other classes generally considered "weak". They won't gain as much out of this supplement as the players who want to play those types, but always found the classes themselves lacking.

Man, ToB is something I'd totally recommend to everybody. Well, everybody who is familiar with all of the core base classes, and probably everything from the completes and psionics and whatever. Basically, not being a novice before reading it.

In any case, I had some idea of fighters (not the class) before playing D&D, and what's there outside of ToB is just lacking. When I finally read ToB I was very happy.

[danzibr]

It isn't the easiest read, but once things start clicking it turns out to be really cool. I recommend printing the cards - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a

Oh, and THANK YOU for this!

[Firechanter]

When I first heard of ToB, I had already sufficiently understood that melee classes grossly suck in 3.5 and needed some love thrown at them. Although I was initially skeptical about the maneuver system, I was never vehemently opposed, and the book actually won me over pretty quickly. Now I consider ToB the single best combat supplement for 3.5.

Unfortunately, there are still paranoid DMs out there that will ban ToB specifically. Fine in a low-key game where only Tier 4 and 5 classes are allowed, but outright ridiculous when at the same time the Big Three (Clr, Drd, Wiz) are unrestricted in their games. oO

As someone on these boards has once so amply put it -- sorry I don't remember whom, was before I even registered here - "I blame Wotc for brainwashing us into thinking that +2 damage per attack is acceptable for a fighter, while wizards can get away with stopping time and gating in solars."

(If the author of this quote reads this: give a yell)

I love playing Melee, so for me, ToB was a godsend.

[The Rabbler]

Just a tidbit for the OP: the Adaptive Style feat allows you to negate a fair amount of the logisitical terror that is multiclassing martial adepts. It lets you switch your entire roster of readied maneuvers with a full-round action (and many read this to also ready those maneuvers). This feat is particularly nice for anyone with a single level of swordsage because the swordsage recovery method is absolutely terrible.

[Keld Denar]

Plus, I think ToB has the MOST homebrew love on this forums of any other concept. There is a whole project that involves creating ToB disciplines to fit every niche and archtype you can think of, from archery to sword-n-board to psionics to warforged specific to whips and chains and everything. There are a wealth of PrCs that allow you do delve into different niches, blending ToB with other systems like Incarnum and Psionics and even whole remakes of existing base and PrCs that grant ToB maneuver progression. I know I've played a Sublime Marshall before, and it really gives a lot of active abilities to an otherwise completely passive class. I've heard good things about the Sublime Ranger as well.

[TroubleBrewing]

I haven't looked at any great variety of 'brewed material in the past, largely due to fear of unbalanced material.

The last thing I want is a lightning warrior.

Well, second to last. The LAST thing I'd want is a Truenamer.

[erikun]

Just curious, but why would you want to multiclass maneuver classes anyways? The most common combinations I've seen are Cleric/Crusader, Bard/Warblade, and Monk/Swordsage.


Plus, I think ToB has the MOST homebrew love on this forums of any other concept.
This is mostly due to the extreme lack of support for ToB in the official material. I think there is only one book which has any official material outside the Tome itself, and that is only a few maneuvers.

I'd be a fan of a maneuver/manifester gish myself, although I don't think there is an official one beyond the Jade Phoenix Mage (re-writing it as psionic, of course).

[Lateral]

There is a whole project that involves creating ToB disciplines to fit every niche and archtype you can think of, from archery to sword-n-board to psionics to warforged specific to whips and chains and everything.

I've seen at least three big ToB homebrew projects. ErrantX's Libram of Battle, and two others that I can't remember the name of right now. I read some of each of them, and they were all excellent.


I'd be a fan of a maneuver/manifester gish myself, although I don't think there is an official one beyond the Jade Phoenix Mage (re-writing it as psionic, of course).
I think Eldariel did a pretty good one.

[Eloel]

Just curious, but why would you want to multiclass maneuver classes anyways?

You get half IL for out-of-class levels, so they are easy to multiclass.

[Greenish]

You get half IL for out-of-class levels, so they are easy to multiclass.He's asking why you would multiclass between ToB classes.

And well, the answer could be to get to Mot9, or to grab some stance/maneuver you normally don't have access to.

[Firechanter]

Oh by the way:


Poorly constructed, but not entirely incomprehensible. You will be awe-inspired by the jewel that the ToB offers in a sea of terribleness.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the ToB is a jewel and all other 3.5 splats are terrible, or that most of ToB is crap with one exception?

[Lateral]

I think those two sentence halves were separate. One criticizes the book's construction, but the other acclaims the thing. Probably should have been separate sentences, but I won't argue somatics with him. C wut I did there.

[Eldariel]

I'd be a fan of a maneuver/manifester gish myself, although I don't think there is an official one beyond the Jade Phoenix Mage (re-writing it as psionic, of course).

No official one; there's a bunch of homebrew ones on this front though, for obvious reasons. Ephemeral Blade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5883542), referred to above, does the most logical connection between Diamond Mind and psionics, especially Psychoportation. There are many others, far as I know, though I don't have the links off-hand.

[testpatternmih]

This is mostly due to the extreme lack of support for ToB in the official material. I think there is only one book which has any official material outside the Tome itself, and that is only a few maneuvers.


I was not aware of any other offical maneuvers, where would do they live?

[Veyr]

Multiclassing initiators isn't really too bad... and I can't see why Crusaders would be worse than any other.

The Crusader mechanic seems complicated and scary, but it's actually by far the best of the three, both mechanically (it's most powerful due to being actionless) and conceptually (it's very unique and interesting). I would say that Crusader is the #1 best choice for a newbie player's first character, in fact.


This is mostly due to the extreme lack of support for ToB in the official material. I think there is only one book which has any official material outside the Tome itself, and that is only a few maneuvers.
To the best of my knowledge, the only reference to Tome of Battle from outside the book is the errata, and even that is only about 10% about Tome of Battle (the rest concerning itself with Complete Arcane).

[Greenish]

To the best of my knowledge, the only reference to Tome of Battle from outside the book is the errata, and even that is only about 10% about Tome of Battle (the rest concerning itself with Complete Arcane).There's a monster in one of the latter monster manuals that has Crusader as it's favoured class.

[Keld Denar]

Ephemeral Blade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5883542), referred to above, does the most logical connection between Diamond Mind and psionics, especially Psychoportation. There are many others, far as I know, though I don't have the links off-hand.

Plus, its freakin awesome to play. I've played 2, and I'm starting a game with a 3rd right now. So many different concepts to monkey around with that class.

I have another idea I want to try out as well. Splash in a couple monk levels, Tash up Ephemeral Blade, and have silly shadowpouncing fun with Sun School, Diamond Rift Stance, and Snap Kick, probably again on an Ardent chassis.

[Sacrieur]

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the ToB is a jewel and all other 3.5 splats are terrible, or that most of ToB is crap with one exception?

ToB, as a whole, is a jewel, and the majority of the other splatbooks are terrible as wholes, despite supplying us with some nifty abilities and classes, they largely fill our bookshelves with uselessness.

[Lateral]

I'd agree, but that's mostly because there are SO MANY SPLATBOOKS that eventually the writers run out of new ideas and rehash old stuff. Usually badly.

[MeeposFire]

TOB is a godsend especially since it made it clear what one of the biggest problems with melee classes was (lack of good options with standard action attacks).

[true_shinken]

No official one; there's a bunch of homebrew ones on this front though, for obvious reasons. Ephemeral Blade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5883542), referred to above, does the most logical connection between Diamond Mind and psionics, especially Psychoportation. There are many others, far as I know, though I don't have the links off-hand.

I've been meaning to say this for a long time. I really want to like your Ephemeral Blade, but I need some fluff to go with it :smallwink:

[Veyr]

EDIT: I was so very swordsaged.


I'd agree, but that's mostly because there are SO MANY SPLATBOOKS that eventually the writers run out of new ideas and rehash old stuff. Usually badly.
If that were true, then the earlier splatbooks would be better than the old ones. That is not the case; in fact the opposite is true: the Player's Handbook (obviously one of the first three books written) has the largest balance disparities of any single book (quite nearly encompassing the full spectrum of power in all of 3.5!), and Complete Warrior, the first splatbook, is full of such awful classes as the Samurai and Hexblade (the latter is much better than the former, of course, but just look how very hard the Hexblade got hurt in its casting in order to gain full BAB!).

Compare that to, say, Tome of Battle and Complete Champion, two of the last splatbooks. ToB is wonderful and excellent, one of the two best published for 3.5, and Complete Champion's really solid — Lion Totem Barbarians and Travel Devotion finally offer decent methods of mobility for melee types, and Knowledge Devotion can actually make the learned warrior schtick work.

So really, I don't think the authors can hide behind the number of other books causing poor material — for the most part, they got much better, not worse.

[MeeposFire]

It took them a long time but at the end of 3.5 they were finally understanding many of the problems in the system they created.

Complete scoundral is full of interesting stuff. The binder was very good, as was the factotum, totemists, incarnates, duskblades, dragon fire adepts, warlocks, beguiler, and dread necromancers. Many of the stuff that failed were either rehashes of older material (soulborn is about equal to a paladin without the support books) or were doing something so new that they would need more time to make it work better and so I forgive them a bit( truenamers and shadow casters come to mind).

[Particle_Man]

There's a monster in one of the latter monster manuals that has Crusader as it's favoured class.

Which monster and which MM?

[Greenish]

Which monster and which MM?Arcadian Avenger from MMV.

[Firechanter]

The problem with most splats is that, deliberately or unwittingly, include a few pearls in a crapload of junk. Just look at the feats, there are about three thousand (!) feats in WotC Splats, and most of them are lemons or, to give them some merit, only suitable for NPCs. Similarly for base classes and PrCs.

I'd really like to know if they did this on purpose. Like, did they design feats like Shock Trooper first and then filled up the feat chapter with a lot of junk written on a monday morning?
And if so, did they just do it to be able to charge more money for a thicker book, or did they want to make reading splatbooks an easter egg-hunt experience?

Imagine all the useless stuff crossed out of a typical splatblook. What remains? Twelve pages? Can't charge $30 for 12 pages.

ToB does have a certain smell of "experimental theatre", for instance when you look at the recovery mechanics for the adept classes. WotC later did admit they were using it as testing ground for 4E, too. Nevertheless, ToB has a very low Lemon ratio as D&D books go.


It took them a long time but at the end of 3.5 they were finally understanding many of the problems in the system they created.

So true. The problem is, as in the real world, nobody likes giving up privileges. In so many splats we saw a bunch of new Casters that were supposed to be better balanced than, say, Wizards or Druids, but the damage was already done - someone who understands the system and wants to play a powerful character can't be fooled into playing a Warmage when he can play a Wiz or Sor.

On another note, I think in the early splats the writers were paranoid they might offer anything "overpowered", and thus most new options were deliberately made unattractive by either nerfing the effects or imposing high feat taxes. If that is true, this implies that the few pearls that are still held in high esteem today (like the aforementioned Shock Trooper) were in fact "mistakes" that for some reason dodged the big nerf stick.(*)

edit:
*) OR, of course, these choices were at the time merely "okay" or "solid", but not powerful, because they only became so through synergies with material that was published later. For instance, Shock Trooper in itself is nice, but at the time there was no good way to get Pounce, which would make it awesome.

[MeeposFire]

Well part of that is unlike in 4e they did not make constant changes to brings things into line in a regular fashion. I do not always like that but doing it means that they go back and fix things. They did not realize the extent charge boosting could get but they generally could not change it later.

[Endarire]

I've revised 2 major complaints I've had with Tome of Battle.

First, the Stone Dragon discipline feels like the worst. You must stand on the ground to use the stuff. This is the discipline for everyone, but lacks something for everyone.

Endarire's Revised Stone Dragon Discipline (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10595835) fixes this and adds maneuvers and stances!

Second, there is no official initiator/psionics PrC.

Behold! The Diamond Heart (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7686.15) awaits! (As of this writing, the level 11-15 abilities need an overhaul. They're coming. Hang on.)

Firechanter; I read an article explaining that WotC writers purposely included Easter Eggs in their material. I've also revised and combined the useful feats for a 3.5-like system into about 60 pages. Most books are 2 to 3 times longer than that!

[Maeglin_Dubh]

No official one; there's a bunch of homebrew ones on this front though, for obvious reasons. Ephemeral Blade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5883542), referred to above, does the most logical connection between Diamond Mind and psionics, especially Psychoportation. There are many others, far as I know, though I don't have the links off-hand.

Would this work on a Warblade/Nomad chassis?

[Eldariel]

Would this work on a Warblade/Nomad chassis?

Extremely well.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

WB1/Nom4/Eph?

Human, taking an EWP and something else(?) at 1st, Psionic Meditation at 3, and Instant Clarity at 6th?

[Veyr]

Warblade should come as late as possible for better maneuvers.

[Eldariel]

WB1/Nom4/Eph?

Human, taking an EWP and something else(?) at 1st, Psionic Meditation at 3, and Instant Clarity at 6th?

*shrug* Sure. I do agree that Nom 4/WB1 is prolly better for more level 2 maneuvers, but it's all gravy.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

Nom4/WB1/Eph?

Not sure what to do with feats for that build, though, and since I'd be starting at low level I'd need to figure out how to play a Psion on their own merits.

Playing a warlock now, but that's kinda cheating, since I get better HD and a free laser beam all day long.

[Veyr]

Psions are casters, pretty much. They make pretty good blasters, but that's Kineticists. Not really sure about Nomads, but I do know there are a bunch of nice Teleportation Powers out there.

As for feats, Instant Clarity's pretty nice. Psionic Renewal is pretty meh, IMO, since it's rather limited.

[The Glyphstone]

Nom4/WB1/Eph?

Not sure what to do with feats for that build, though, and since I'd be starting at low level I'd need to figure out how to play a Psion on their own merits.

Playing a warlock now, but that's kinda cheating, since I get better HD and a free laser beam all day long.

Nom should always come first - or second, if you include Om in the build for flavor purposes.

[The-Mage-King]

Nom should always come first - or second, if you include Om in the build for flavor purposes.

http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/6193803/i-c-wut-u-did-thar.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Oh-hell-naw-Squirtle

[Keld Denar]

As I said, I'm playing an Ephemeral Blade on an Ardent chassis. I think my exact build order is Warblade1/Ardent2/Warblade+1/Ardent+1/EB10.

This gives you 3 extra HP and gives you a broader base to build your skills, while not really losing you much since you only have 3 non-Warblade levels, you'd be just shy of IL3 if you took all 3 Ardent levels first. Practiced Manifester means you can make up up to 4 lost MLs and not be behind on power aquisition. The Freedom mantle has Dimension Hop and Psionic Teleport, and if you use power swapping, you could even get Psionic Dimension Door in there. That would give you a port as a standard, a swift, and a move action, meaning you could initiate 3 strikes in a round with Diamond Rift Stance, or just 2 strikes and use the Psionic Dim Door to GTFO.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

I'm trying to decide now between a Warblade/Nomad chassis and a Swordsage/Psywar chassis.