The Board has Inspired Me: Tome of Battle

[Lastgrasp]

So after reading numerous discussions about the awesomeness of Tome of Battle I finally decided to break down and shell out $40 for this sourcebook. Can't wait to read through it and hopefully incorporate these classes in 3.P game. Thanks all.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Possibly one of the best purchases you will ever do (concerning D&D at the least) Congrats.

[Lastgrasp]

I've had a lucky ebay week. Trying to rebuild my old 3.5 collection to supplement my pathfinder games.

Scored Player's Handbook II for $15
Complete Warrior for $10

Have to save a few bucks for Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, and a few of the complete books I want (mage, arcane)

[Dusk Eclipse]

Damn... I still need to find a MiC copy.. might try e-bay

[navar100]

Alright! We converted another one. World domination is almost complete.
:smallbiggrin:

Personal opinion:

There is a mistake/oversight in the book. The stance progressions of the classes do not mesh well with the stance levels. For example, Crusaders cannot get an 8th level stance without spending a feat for it. Warblades are stuck with two 1st level stances until level 10 without spending a feat.

There are fixes for this.

1) Keep everything as is. A martial adept just multiclasses two levels in another class, including another Martial Adept, before character level 6.

2) Delay by one level everyone's stance progression starting at character level 2. Crusaders still need to spend a feat or two on a stance if they want, but that's fair because their disciplines have more stances at more levels to choose from. Still allow Swordsages their new stance at level 20. Warblades keep their new stance at level 10.

3) My favorite: Allow martial adepts to change a stance known at 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter.

[Keld Denar]

Another thing...sit down with your group and talk about what IHS can and can't cure. Its a GREAT maneuver, but due to conflicting rules it doesn't do what was supposed to do, and does do wierd and wonky things that it isn't supposed to.

The list I use is

Conditions Iron Heart Surge can end:

Blinded
Confused (assuming an "act normally" roll)
Dazzled
Deafened
Dominated (ONLY in place of a second save, if applicable, see description)
Entangled
Fatigued
Frightened
Nausiated (takes whole round, due to normally denied standard action)
Paniced
Paralyzed (takes whole round)
Shaken
Sickened
Slowed
Various uncatagorized effects not covered at my discression

Conditions Iron Heart Surge can NOT end:
Cowering
Dazed
Fascinated
Petrified
Stunned
Space, Time, Gravity, Nuclear Strong Force, the Sun, World Hunger, etc.

Seens to work out good. I like allowing it to break Paralysis and Nausiated, despite them now allowing you to take actions, since that seems most thematic, and thus using IHS to end them takes a full round action instead.

[McSmack]

Someday when I have the money I shall buy a copy of my very own to incorporate with my PF games.

To be fair though I'm worried about them overshadowing the PF melee classes. They are obviously still superior, but I don't want folks to feel obligated to play them instead of PF melee. I like most of the PF melee changes, and want to encourage my players to give them a try.

[Rixx]

Me and a roommate went halvsies on a copy we found for 17 dollars. The flavor text is laughably cringe-worthy and a lot of the game mechanics seem needlessly wonky and convoluted, but there's definitely some fun looking stuff in there (such as the powers that let you throw enemies).

[Veyr]

The flavor text is laughably cringe-worthy
...90% of it is identical to Paladin, Monk, and Fighter.

EDIT: That's percentage-by-importance, not percentage-by-word-count. I ignore pretty much all of the Introduction as well as the introductions to each chapter; that stuff is horribly written but meaningless and furthermore those parts of pretty much every book are horribly written. The important fluff are the class and discipline descriptions, which are much better. Not to mention nigh-on-identical to Paladin, Monk, and Fighter, as far as the classes are concerned.


a lot of the game mechanics seem needlessly wonky and convoluted
Actually, they're probably about the most elegant and balanced mechanics ever written for 3.5. Psionics (as described in Expanded Psionics Handbook and not in Complete Psionics) is the only real competition in that regard.

[faceroll]

ToB may be one of the best resources a DM can have. Give non-associated ToB levels to a low CR, high HD monster, and all the sudden you've got a gestalted monster for a trivial CR increase.

This is because every two monstrous HD = 1 initiator level. Imagine having 10 HD, and adding one level of wizard, and being treated as a level 6 wizard for CL and spells known.

[Veyr]

ToB may be one of the best resources a DM can have. Give non-associated ToB levels to a low CR, high HD monster, and all the sudden you've got a gestalted monster for a trivial CR increase.

This is because every two monstrous HD = 1 initiator level. Imagine having 10 HD, and adding one level of wizard, and being treated as a level 6 wizard for CL and spells known.
Yeah, if you're a DM who thinks it's his job to crush the party and then taunt them with "It's totally appropriate CR, here look!" after you TPK them, then that's awesome.

[faceroll]

Yeah, if you're a DM who thinks it's his job to crush the party and then taunt them with "It's totally appropriate CR, here look!" after you TPK them, then that's awesome.

I'm just following the RAW, bro.

[Seerow]

Yeah, if you're a DM who thinks it's his job to crush the party and then taunt them with "It's totally appropriate CR, here look!" after you TPK them, then that's awesome.

Or if you play with a party of high op players who tend to decimate encounters who are CR appropriate, but don't want to go way outside typical CR range...

But yeah, I can see how assuming the worst of someone is easier.

[balistafreak]

Yeah, if you're a DM who thinks it's his job to crush the party and then taunt them with "It's totally appropriate CR, here look!" after you TPK them, then that's awesome.

It could be worse...

*crab battle!*

[Safety Sword]

It could be worse...

*crab battle!*

I always smile when I give my players crabs to fight. Awesomeness always follows

[faceroll]

It could be worse...

*crab battle!*

Hit their weak spot for massive damage.

[Veyr]

Or if you play with a party of high op players who tend to decimate encounters who are CR appropriate, but don't want to go way outside typical CR range...
Yeah, except then you still wouldn't care about the technicalities of CR and unassociated class levels. Any DM who defends his encounters based on CR technicalities is not one I would want to play with.


But yeah, I can see how assuming the worst of someone is easier.
Clearly you can, seeing as you just did so. But I don't see any alternative way to interpret the post I quoted.

[faceroll]

But I don't see any alternative way to interpret the post I quoted.

Of course you wouldn't.

[Veyr]

...aside from humor, which is likely. Bleh. Got defensive too quickly there.

[Seerow]

Yeah, except then you still wouldn't care about the technicalities of CR and unassociated class levels. Any DM who defends his encounters based on CR technicalities is not one I would want to play with.


Unless they actually like to go by the books experience tables, and the players at the end of the encounter are surprised they were challenged by an encounter and got the experience of an on level encounter rather than one several levels above them. At that point yes, the technicalities of CR and unassociated class levels does become important.

Of course, I don't know how many people would question their DM over getting experience less than their perceived due, I personally know some DMs who just wing experience, or make levelup based on story rather than deal with the exp formulas in the system. But it is something I could easily see coming up.


edit: Ninjad

[Veyr]

Again, though, turning to your players and saying "Nyah nyah, no you don't get more experience, cuz see, CR-appropriate" is still a pretty poor move. Something like "you guys are too good, so I have to challenge you, but the XP tables are supposed to be for challenging encounters" or "you're leveling too quickly for the plot" or whatever would be fine. But CR technicalities?

[faceroll]

Again, though, turning to your players and saying "Nyah nyah, no you don't get more experience, cuz see, CR-appropriate" is still a pretty poor move. Something like "you guys are too good, so I have to challenge you, but the XP tables are supposed to be for challenging encounters" or "you're leveling too quickly for the plot" or whatever would be fine. But CR technicalities?

Where are you getting all this from? Are you just making up scenarios and arguing against them or what? I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

[Curious]

{Scrubbed}

[Seerow]

Again, though, turning to your players and saying "Nyah nyah, no you don't get more experience, cuz see, CR-appropriate" is still a pretty poor move. Something like "you guys are too good, so I have to challenge you, but the XP tables are supposed to be for challenging encounters" or "you're leveling too quickly for the plot" or whatever would be fine. But CR technicalities?

Or you can y'know, play by the rules, and when the players question it, you point out "No, it was 100% legit, see?".

You are projecting the childish taunting with no real reason except to paint anyone who actually pays attention to CR rules in a poor light.

[Lateral]

It could be worse...

*crab battle!*

Oh, man, now I want to have some PCs fight a fiendish damn crab with warblade levels. :smallcool:

[Koury]

Oh, man, now I want to have some PCs fight a fiendish damn crab with warblade levels. :smallcool:

Now that you mention it, I have a group of players in just about the right level range for that... Crabs tend to like water, right? :smalltongue:

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Congrats, OP! I hope your group enjoys the supplement, and, if they don't, send them to the last big Tome of Battle thread we have.:smallcool:

Hell, it may become this one!:smalltongue:

[Lateral]

Now that you mention it, I have a group of players in just about the right level range for that... Crabs tend to like water, right? :smalltongue:

YOU ARE NOT MAKING US FIGHT THAT DAMN CRAB, TOME OF BATTLE'D OR OTHERWISE. :smallmad: :smalltongue:

[Greenish]

To be fair though I'm worried about them overshadowing the PF melee classes. They are obviously still superior, but I don't want folks to feel obligated to play them instead of PF melee. I like most of the PF melee changes, and want to encourage my players to give them a try.Well, they're very multiclass friendly (though now that I think of it, PF isn't so much), so you can just splash them into builds.

...90% of it is identical to Paladin, Monk, and Fighter.Not really, and some of it is pretty bad. I'm a ToB fanboy, but I still dislike some of the fluff (and large parts of the art).

Actually, they're probably about the most elegant and balanced mechanics ever written for 3.5. Psionics (as described in Expanded Psionics Handbook and not in Complete Psionics) is the only real competition in that regard.What, there's only one (1st party) book on 3.5 psionics, I don't know what you're talking about. :smalltongue:

Now that you mention it, I have a group of players in just about the right level range for that... Crabs tend to like water, right? :smalltongue:Lateral, damn you, you've doomed us all!

[Eldariel]

You are projecting the childish taunting with no real reason except to paint anyone who actually pays attention to CR rules in a poor light.

The whole scenario does beg the question of "If rules are obviously poorly written and you're determining whether to use them or not, why use them?" though.

[Knaight]

YOU ARE NOT MAKING US FIGHT THAT DAMN CRAB, TOME OF BATTLE'D OR OTHERWISE. :smallmad: :smalltongue:

Pssh, it doesn't even have a ranged attack. You can totally take it.:smallwink:

[Veyr]

Not really, and some of it is pretty bad. I'm a ToB fanboy, but I still dislike some of the fluff (and large parts of the art).
By word-count, probably. That's why I edited in that statement. I've never even read the Introduction chapter in full...

I agree that the art is pretty bad.


What, there's only one (1st party) book on 3.5 psionics, I don't know what you're talking about. :smalltongue:
Very true.

[Quietus]

The whole scenario does beg the question of "If rules are obviously poorly written and you're determining whether to use them or not, why use them?" though.

Some people get a bit uptight about these things - both players and DMs. I know at least one DM who refuses to give his monsters thematic abilities they wouldn't otherwise have, without using existing rules to do it, on the basis of "If I can do it, the players should be able to, too." Which I respect, except that he's kind of hopelessly stuck in 3.0 mode with a 3.5 PHB, and doesn't allow any 3.5 splats. Frustrating, and sometimes results in his monsters being too bland (Oh yay, a bog standard X), or too powerful ("You guys can totally take this troll at level 5! Oh, but I gave it a half dozen Fighter levels so it had some feats... but as long as I give you a couple dozen level 1 mooks to throw into the grinder, it should be okay, right?").

I'm kind of on the other end of things. I have no problems taking an existing monster that would be kind of boring, and tacking abilities onto it. Two-headed shadow lizard being a melee tank is boring. Add shadowy-blurness and a limited Shadow Jump ability to it doesn't actually make it more dangerous, really, but it DOES make it more thematic. I mean, come on, it's made of shadows, why is it just "Hit points, AC, attack/damage"?

[Lateral]

Pssh, it doesn't even have a ranged attack. You can totally take it.:smallwink:

Hell, I'm the one least screwed if we do fight it, since I'm the artillery and I have three meatshields. :smallwink:

[Curious]

Hoop, okay.

I'm sorry for my previous post, Veyr, if it was insulting to you. I'll try to refrain from posting trolls like that again.

[ffone]

For DMing high-op players, I typically give them higher CR encounters (and may do some more optimization, but not as much of the PCs), with a brief mental 'is this a likely TPK' check....so they get more challenging encounters, but they do get more XP. In other words being a high-op group means leveling faster - and higher-op players can usually do PC leveling, item crafting, etc. with less handholding, so it works out naturally.