Tome of Battle

[Lord Ruby34]

I've heard it's similar to fourth edition, and well, fourth edition isn't my thing. Is that criticism just stupid **** from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about? Most everything I've heard about it has been positive... but I wanted to ask before I potentially waste my time.

[Veyr]

It has some similarities, but also many differences. What, exactly, were your problems with 4E?

In short, Tome of Battle provides mundane and martial classes that work. They are flexible, competent, and elegant. They do not get stuck into a single schtick the way many martial characters do, and they do not rely on gishing to enable their options. An astonishingly wide array of character concepts can be handled by the three classes included in the book, and almost all of those concepts are ones that were under-supported in 3.5 before the book was published — many, many classes existed to attempt to support those concepts, but literally all of them were very poorly designed. Tome of Battle's versions finally gave players means for executing those concepts that weren't flagrantly underpowered.

Tome of Battle also very nicely deals with a lot of the system mastery issues in 3.5 — a character made using the system will be competent unless you really mess it up. There are no "traps" like there are for other classes. Thus, it's a really good book for new players; they can just pick what sounds cool, and it will be.

On the other hand, a lot of people used to the old classes and without the system mastery to keep up with Tome of Battle classes do not like the book because it shows just how underpowered their characters are.

[Lord Ruby34]

It seemed too, well, strict for me. There weren't lots of options, and the whole healing surge thing seemed stupid. I only read the 1st PHB when someone brought it over for a session. The balance was nice, the rest... not so much.

[Kaje]

Then you shouldn't have much of a problem with ToB.

[Keld Denar]

Do a google search for "site:giantitp.com ToB" and "site:giantitp.com Tome of Battle" for the full list of arguments. Have a nice afternoon reading.

Seriously, we hash out one of these about once a week. If you have a point of view you wish to represent, or are curious about, its pretty much garunteed to have been represented in the past.

[Veyr]

OK, for one thing, my understanding is that a lot of 4E players acknowledge that the system is really restrictive if you look at just the PHB; that's just the reality of having only one book. Apparently with more books, that feeling of restriction really opens up. That said, I know little/nothing about the system, since I've only really read the PHB, too.

Anyway, I edited in some more commentary on Tome of Battle for your consideration: I think it would be a good match for you. It definitely has a ton of options.

[Eldan]

The similarity comes from how characters gain their powers. Tome of Battle characters know a handful of manoeuvres from a list. Out of these, they prepare a few (or, well, the Warblade and the Swordsage do. The crusader's different). They can use each prepared once per encounter, but also have a way to refresh them.

[Lord Ruby34]

Thanks for the quick reply, I'll definitely check it out.

[Veyr]

Crusaders still prepare only a subset of their full list of maneuvers known. They'd be really screwed with that recovery mechanic if they didn't do that.

[Dralnu]

On the other hand, a lot of people used to the old classes and without the system mastery to keep up with Tome of Battle classes do not like the book because it shows just how underpowered their characters are.

Power is comparative. If you're in a gaming group with unoptimized PHB fighter, blaster sorcerer, and a rogue, ToB's warblade is going to be overpowered.

ToB is an excellent book when you're playing in a game that is at a high enough power level to accommodate it.

[Doc Roc]

Power is comparative. If you're in a gaming group with unoptimized PHB fighter, blaster sorcerer, and a rogue, ToB's warblade is going to be overpowered.

ToB is an excellent book when you're playing in a game that is at a high enough power level to accommodate it.

Actually, the blasty sorcerer will feel pretty good, probably, presuming (s)he's not totally incompetent.

[Lord Ruby34]

The point is that I generally am the DM in my group, and my players are steadily getting better(Except for the one that plays the cleric), and they're getting bored with melee. So I was hoping for something better.

[Cerlis]

basically Tome of Battle, the way maneuvers work, was a test run for abilities in 4.0. Like they said, a certian set of abilities knows, be they Boosts(buffs) or strikes (Melee abilities) or Maneuvers (Spells).

This gave Melee people the ability to do big flashy things (anywhere from teleporting across the battlefield, to shooting fireballs or doing +4d6 dmg)without having to waste 10 lvls worth of feats or force themselves into obscure prestige classes.

However at the same time they wanted to balance game breaking spellcasters (even bards can break the game if done well i hear) and so they got the same system in 4.0. Minor abilities usable at will, major abilities useable once per turn (like tome of battle maneuvers) and powerful abilities useable once per day. These simulated the best spells casters had in 3.5 and represented things melee characters never ever ever every got to do without 10 levels in some badass prestige class.

Basically 4.0 gave Melee characters the chance to use cool abilities like a fan of knives without master thrower PRestige class, or breaking a golems head off in one blow without several feats and rage, while limiting the most powerful spells and turning utility spells into rituals. It kinda "Screwed" casters and brought em down halfway and brought melee up halfway.

-----------

Point is TOme of battle was the precursor to this. it is a balanced system to allow melee characters supernatural abilities without giving them the ability to spam them and abuse the nature of physics like Spellcasters can. It gave them the fun of Casters without the gamebreakingness, the flair without allowing them to be as varied as a wizard.

[FMArthur]

Noncaster melee classes generally depend on feats as the driving force behind their playstyle and power. ToB changed that, getting class abilities that generally substitute for combat maneuvers one would normally gain through feats. They get lots more of them, though, and they don't make you jump through so many useless hoops to get them.

They aren't strictly more powerful, but the difference in versatility is huge. You don't get silliness like melee combatants who can't even keep up with a thief in a swordfight because they spent their whole career learning different ways to trip people with a spiked chain.

[Siosilvar]

This gave Melee people the ability to do big flashy things (anywhere from teleporting across the battlefield, to shooting fireballs or doing +4d6 dmg)without having to waste 10 lvls worth of feats or force themselves into obscure prestige classes.

Note that only the Swordsage can do the first two things listed, and both come from explicitly [Supernatural] disciplines.

The other [Su] discipline is Devoted Spirit, available only to Crusaders, and is pretty much Paladin-spellcasting-esque.

None of these [Su] abilities are required, and the Warblade gets no [Su] abilities at all.

[AslanCross]

The similarity between ToB and 4E is superficial. Yes you have maneuvers that you gain as you level up, and yes they are spent and refreshed as the adventuring day goes on. However, some key differences:

1. More variety: Between the three martial adept classes and even within each of the three, you can fulfill so many roles that are not only interesting but also mechanically viable. 4E's class/power system tends to pigeonhole you into your role from level 1, even if it offers a whole bunch of power options.

2. Multiclass-friendly: ToB is one of the best supplementary rulesets for multiclassing. 4E made that very difficult.

3. It Still Does Not Make Melee=Spellcasting. This is perhaps the most arguable of my points, because we're not even sure if it's necessarily a good thing or a bad thing. In 3.5 Casters are game-breakingly powerful and Melee combatants are derided as one-trick ponies at best and pathetic all-around losers at worst. As such, it's not "balanced."
However, in 4E, everyone pretty much does the same thing, with very little variation. It's "balanced," but the classes and powers have a very cookie-cutter feel.
ToB allowed melee combatants to do things other than full attack or use the one or two tricks that they got from a costly, highly deliberate and feat-intensive build, yet it still doesn't take everything away from the casters.

Now if you intend to use it as a DM, I highly recommend it. It will add a lot to your game.

[Firechanter]

Seriously, we hash out one of these about once a week.

Yeah, too bad he posted this thread on Monkday and didn't wait until Tomesday.