Why can't melee have nice things? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Why can't melee have nice things?

Pages : [1] 2 3

Hazzardevil

2011-06-25, 05:34 PM

Urpriest

2011-06-25, 05:38 PM

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/002/063/arguecat.png?1266810790

NeoSeraphi

2011-06-25, 05:41 PM

Talakeal

2011-06-25, 05:41 PM

Frozen_Feet

2011-06-25, 05:45 PM

The problem isn't really "melee can't have nice things". It's "non-magical is mundane by default, and mundane things can't be nice". Essentially, non-magical archetypes are held closer to real-life mundanity to an arbitrary extent even if not supported by the rules, while magical archetypes get leeway because "it's magic, it doesn't have to make sense".

The problem is best adressed by accepting that non-magical doesn't equal mundane, and instead of realistic heroes D&D 3.5 is meant to venture to the realm of mythical undertakings.

slaydemons

2011-06-25, 05:46 PM

who shoots lightning from his eyes and fireballs out his arse.

Yes because that could never happen, in medieval times in great Britain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcoVxbutl8g)

you also seemed to have reversed it

Private-Prinny

2011-06-25, 05:48 PM

The main argument against Tome of Battle is that Melee can't have nice things.
So I'm wondering, why exactly do people think melee can't have nice things?
And yes, I've heard of the whole it's wizards fault for brainwashing us, but why else?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the main argument some incredibly weak BS about flavor, which people respond to with the fact that core melee doesn't have nice things?

To actually answer the question, it's because we haven't seen magic happen, but we can see someone do something physically. Because of this, we subconsciously try to hold melee to real-world standards while throwing all limits on magic out the window. The wizard can burn things to the ground with gratuitous amounts of fire because it is magical. But if a swordsage tries to do the same thing with a special technique, we quickly remember how quickly we can fail to do the same thing, and decry it as unrealistic. The only part I don't get is why we complain about unrealistic things in a world where we have no problem with Wizards crafting a mini-sun at their table if their steak isn't cooked well enough. It's just not a valid complaint.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-25, 05:51 PM

Melee having nice things means that if a guy has trained all his life with a sword, he really shouldn't be able to cast spells. Blade magic itself is kind of a strange idea, and it fits about as well into the D&D 3.5 typical Medieval European setting as a Shaolin monk does. (And most people don't like those either)

Do you really think a fighter uses the same sideways cut over and over and over? No, in the world, not in the mechanics, but in the world, even a commoner is smart enough to not use the same attack until it's always blocked. The properly trained warriors have an array of footwork, styles, and techniques they use. That's represented in ToB's mechanics, but people think that makes it anime. You think the names are too anime? Don't use them. You think jumping in the air is too anime? Why do you allow leap attack? Think they're too anime in the fluff? Refluff it. The only class in ToB that uses magic of any kind is the swordsage, which is meant to replace the monk, which, by the way, has supernatural abilities. I guess you might say crusader uses magic too, but so do paladins.

NeoSeraphi

2011-06-25, 05:53 PM

ImperatorK

2011-06-25, 06:08 PM

People should watch more anime. It makes you accustomed to anime-ish stuff.
Oh, and magical warriors.

Knaight

2011-06-25, 06:10 PM

Oh, and magical warriors.
This depends on the anime. A great many contain a whole 0 characters that are at all martial.

Falin

2011-06-25, 06:11 PM

The problem I have with ToB is that it feels too much like magic. I perfer my fighters to stab things in the face. Not pull out some obscure move that they learned in much the same way a that a wizard learns their spells. Ballanced? I suppose, what I'm looking for? Not so much.

This is why I like the Tome Fighter (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Fighter,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)). It feels like a guy who stabs things in the face, but gets to be plenty powerful.

Maho-Tsukai

2011-06-25, 06:17 PM

Yes. I frankly dislike the excuse that "TOB is anime." Mainly because of two reasons.

1) I have played plenty of anime-inspired characters(and NONE of them used TOB....they where all spellcasters, actually.). My first campaign world that I made was heavily anime inspired(right down to the werid, brightly-colored hair, Catgirls and too-big weapons....Cliche' I know, but I was a little kid growing up in the 90s with acces to stuff like FFVII and Toonami, so cut me a break..) I take offense to using anime as a demeaning term. Anime certainly can have a place in D&D if you let it. It may not be for you but just because you don't like anime imagery it dose not mean nobody else dose.

2) TOB may be anime-like, but NOT every TOB class is "anime" in my books. The swordsage comes the closest, but to me at least, many anime characters would be better modeled by a well-build gish then a TOB class.(Naruto ninjas, I'm looking at you.). As stated earlier, only the swordsage comes close to "weebo fighting magic." The crusader can seem magical, but not any more so then the Paladin(heck, a crusader's fluff even matches the crusader-paladin parallels.) and I personally find the crusader to be a worthy Paladin replacement if there ever was one. Also, for those who want a purely mundane warrior, warblade can be built to be just that if you pick the right maneuvers.

ImperatorK

2011-06-25, 06:17 PM

This depends on the anime. A great many contain a whole 0 characters that are at all martial.
Nah, they're just Swordsages or Warblades.
Could you give an example? And not of someone that is obviously a caster, if you can. :smallwink:

I perfer my fighters to stab things in the face. Not pull out some obscure move that they learned in much the same way a that a wizard learns their spells.
What? :smallconfused:

Divide by Zero

2011-06-25, 06:20 PM

The problem I have with ToB is that it feels too much like magic. I perfer my fighters to stab things in the face. Not pull out some obscure move that they learned in much the same way a that a wizard learns their spells. Ballanced? I suppose, what I'm looking for? Not so much.

How do you figure that? Most of a warblade's maneuvers are mechanically along the lines of "hits really hard," "hits several enemies," or "shrugs off an attack." If you don't like the fluff, it's because you're choosing to interpret it that way.

Partysan

2011-06-25, 06:21 PM

Actually, different degrees of abstraction is one of the reasons. There are hundreds of different spells in D&D, but only one "attack" and no active defense at all. Melee is home to myriads of styles, techniques, stances and counters. ToB reflects that to a certain degree, core melee does not, which makes it rather dull. It's abstracted to a higher degree than magic and thus seems less "nice".

Maho-Tsukai

2011-06-25, 06:22 PM

"Nah, they're just Swordsages or Warblades.
Could you give an example? And not of someone that is obviously a caster, if you can"-ImperatorK

Naruto. Just....Naruto. Seriously. Just read that manga, those characters cannot be modded with anything less then a Gish despite being "ninjas." In fact, the best attempt I have seen at making Naruto characters in D&D used psionics of all things, and it worked pretty darn well. Sure, Naruto characters may do some melee but in part 2 battles have pretty much become "wizard duels" of Haxx jutsu(ninja spell) vs. Haxx jutsu. Naruto Ninja can do everything from your typical swordsage-esc fireball throwing martial arts magic to feats only casters could ever dream of such as warping space and time, mind control, non-mundane healing, all manner of illusions, summoning and even necromancy/undead animation. Make me a swordsage without any levels in a caster class who can use Animate Dead, summon monsters or control people with illusions and then you may me convinced that any anime character= a TOB class.

Coidzor

2011-06-25, 06:26 PM

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/002/063/arguecat.png?1266810790

Cats are why? I knew it!

Maho-Tsukai

2011-06-25, 06:29 PM

Or greedy businessman as that picture is of an OBESE cat and greedy businessman are often refereed to as "fat cats." So I guess all the melee fans should go join AVALANCHE and take down Shinra, BP, Microsoft, Pokemon USA, 4Kids, Disney, McGiyga's and every other evil company?

Knaight

2011-06-25, 06:33 PM

Could you give an example? And not of someone that is obviously a caster, if you can.

Every character except for about three, plus guards and such in Moribito. We have nonmagical scholars, children, royalty that isn't martial, a healer who's connection to violence is patching up the people actually involved, and side characters that fit this as well. Moreover, this is within a genre with an action focus.

Metahuman1

2011-06-25, 06:39 PM

As far as Anime goes, I played an Oriental Adventure once, A home variant of it in place of standard setting and clans and it felt very anime, with out ToB, in fact I was told point blank by the DM at the first session "Tome of Battle Is BANNED! It is flagrant power-gaming in a book and I do not want it in this game, and I will kick you out of the game if you try to use it."

I played a fighter duel wielding Katana with Samurai flavor, spent every session getting knocked into negative hit points for flavor sake and because the bad guys had animeish powers form artifact armor and getting told it was becuase I wasn't good at building an effective character (Admittedly, I WAS knew too the game, still at that stage were I though all the fighter bonus feats were bad ass. If I had known then what I know now I could have made that character much better, but that's not the point.) And at the end of it I Died at lvl 3.

That was my last session with that group, not because I didn't like the players or Dm (they were friends, though I've lost contact with most of them since then. And I firmly disagree with the then DM at this point.), I had scheduling issues come up, and I had a choice of making the making sessions or getting to work. At the start of the recession. Three guesses which one I had to pick.

The point I'm trying to make in all this rambling, is that it is entirely possible to have LOTS of anime flavor thrown at you in a game, with out the ToB, so saying it's too Anime is NOT a valid option.

Saying it's too eastern isn't either. There are numerous Schools of Armed and Unarmed European combat (Italian and French Sword Fighting, British Boxing and Scottish Wrestling, Savat, Scottish and British sword fighitng, There's even a greek style that bears a striking resemblance to Sambo or Krave Mega. ), that have plenty of fancy names for there stances and foot work, grips, punches, kicks, thrusts, slashes, parry's, hacks, holds, and counter attacks.

Incidentally, I've got about a half a dozen builds I'd LOVE to slip in there that would probably make a ToB character seem, reasonable at after all.

Endarire

2011-06-25, 06:49 PM

Wizards of the Coast heard the argument, "Melee/Fighters/Martial characters can't have nice things." They then made the Tome of Battle. Now martial characters have nice things.

This doesn't prevent people from wanting more nice things from such classes.

"Nice things" in this case means being useful in at least one desirable area and having alternative tricks for when Your Trick isn't very effective.

Maho-Tsukai

2011-06-25, 06:50 PM

Yes, OA can seem very "anime" if you do it right. Heck, while it did involve a bit of homebrew I had a blast in an OA game as a soultwister(Jijoku) Shugenja/Bloodspeaker Cultist/Contemplative that was a wolf Hengiyoaki who liked to stay in his "wolf-boy" form a lot(you know, human but with ears and a tail.) He was a blast to play and was a sick necromancer too.(As he had desecrate(Maho list access via Bloodspeaker cultist), deathbound domain(contemplative) and rebuke(D20 Rokugan feat that grants turn undead set to rebuke undead instead via houserule.)

NNescio

2011-06-25, 06:58 PM

Urpriest

2011-06-25, 06:58 PM

Cats are why? I knew it!

They kill any melee-focused commoners who try to take ToB classes.

Big Fau

2011-06-25, 06:59 PM

Coidzor

2011-06-25, 06:59 PM

They kill any melee-focused commoners who try to take ToB classes.

Simply nefarious! These cats must be stopped!

Maho-Tsukai

2011-06-25, 07:06 PM

Looks like it's time to call in those agents from that old movie "cats and dogs"...

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-25, 07:07 PM

Speaking about anime...

http://ompldr.org/vOThkcg/%5Banimepaper.net%5Dpicture-standard-anime-rune-soldier-louie-rune-soldier-louie-picture-178590-silentwhisper-preview-963718dc.jpg

Left to right:
Rogue, Cleric, Fighter, Wizard (with high STR).

http://ompldr.org/vOThkdA/record-of-lodoss-war--img-mbaa1f0cb260b0c1fffdb0539c5e1f7f5.jpg

Counter-clockwise from below:
Fighter Fighting-man, Wizard Magic-user, Cleric, Elf, Dwarf, Rogue Thief

Hold on, I know there's a thread somewhere on the internet...

Ah! Here it is (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10832.0). Warning, if you are allergic to excessive amounts of sarcasm, do not click on link.

Talakeal

2011-06-25, 07:10 PM

Here's a reason:

A Wizard casts Fireball, and hits 7 enemies that are 600ft away for 10d6 Fire damage. No one bats an eyelash because magic is expected to do things like this.

A Cleric casts True Rez, and brings the party's Barbarian back from the dead. No one bats an eyelash because magic is expected to do things like this.

A Crusader initiates Strike of Righteous Vitality within an Antimagic Field, hits, and chooses to target the nearby Barbarian with the Heal effect because he's in negative HP with 40 points of Dex damage from a metamagic'ed Shivering Touch. Everyone flips out because he's just defied the role of a noncaster (either tank or skill monkey), and done something that not even a 20th level Wizard can do (healed someone of all ability damage within an Antimagic Field).

People see magic as capable of anything. People see noncasters as capable of only what's realistic, and completely ignore the fact that noncasters were never intended to be realistic in the first place.

That just doesn't make sense. If it isn't magic, what exactly is the crusader doing? Even if we ignore real world physics and go with RAI physics, you need to do something to cause the effect.
You could say its magic, you could say its psionics, you could say its nano machines, you could say its talking to friendly spirits, you could say it's using innate divinity to simply rewrite reality, but you need to have some explanation for it, and no matter what that is it isn't going to be "mundane" by either real world logic or in universe game logic.

NNescio

2011-06-25, 07:10 PM

Hold on, I know there's a thread somewhere on the internet...

Ah! Here it is (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10832.0). Warning, if you are allergic to excessive amounts of sarcasm, do not click on link.

Hey I already have that bookmarked! :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone

2011-06-25, 07:10 PM

Here's a reason:

A Wizard casts Fireball, and hits 7 enemies that are 600ft away for 10d6 Fire damage. No one bats an eyelash because magic is expected to do things like this.

A Cleric casts True Rez, and brings the party's Barbarian back from the dead. No one bats an eyelash because magic is expected to do things like this.

A Crusader initiates Strike of Righteous Vitality within an Antimagic Field, hits, and chooses to target the nearby Barbarian with the Heal effect because he's in negative HP with 40 points of Dex damage from a metamagic'ed Shivering Touch. Everyone flips out because he's just defied the role of a noncaster (either tank or skill monkey), and done something that not even a 20th level Wizard can do (healed someone of all ability damage within an Antimagic Field).

People see magic as capable of anything. People see noncasters as capable of only what's realistic, and completely ignore the fact that noncasters were never intended to be realistic in the first place.

And that persists even at low levels - in a very recent thread, I saw someone arguing in all apparent seriousness that the feat Cleave was realistic and normal, but the Iron Heart 1st-level maneuver Steel Wind was a 'special move'.

NNescio

2011-06-25, 07:13 PM

That just doesn't make sense. If it isn't magic, what exactly is the crusader doing? Even if we ignore real world physics and go with RAI physics, you need to do something to cause the effect.
You could say its magic, you could say its psionics, you could say its nano machines, you could say its talking to friendly spirits, you could say it's using innate divinity to simply rewrite reality, but you need to have some explanation for it, and no matter what that is it isn't going to be "mundane" by either real world logic or in universe game logic.

Extraordinary abilities. He's just that good at hitting people.

Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted.

Frozen_Feet

2011-06-25, 07:15 PM

You think the names are too anime? Don't use them.

OMG. A thing I just realized many people miss:

The wacky tecnique names in anime? They come from real martial arts.

Don't believe me? Okay... western longsword styles have things like Boar Stance and Fool's Guard. Basic karate has things like Cat-step Stance, Three Battles Stance and Form of 108 Strikes. These developed as shorthands for subtly different combinations of postures and actions simply because it'd take forever at the start of each practice to say "and now the kata with high block to the left, then high straight punch, moving to lower guard, repeat to rigth..."

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-25, 07:26 PM

Coidzor

2011-06-25, 07:27 PM

Partysan

2011-06-25, 07:33 PM

Saying it's too eastern isn't either. There are numerous Schools of Armed and Unarmed European combat (Italian and French Sword Fighting, British Boxing and Scottish Wrestling, Savat, Scottish and British sword fighitng, There's even a greek style that bears a striking resemblance to Sambo or Krave Mega. ), that have plenty of fancy names for there stances and foot work, grips, punches, kicks, thrusts, slashes, parry's, hacks, holds, and counter attacks.

Please. Don't forget German Longsword. It's rather nice, too. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg)

Urpriest

2011-06-25, 07:33 PM

Coidzor

2011-06-25, 07:36 PM

Big Fau

2011-06-25, 07:41 PM

That just doesn't make sense. If it isn't magic, what exactly is the crusader doing? Even if we ignore real world physics and go with RAI physics, you need to do something to cause the effect.
You could say its magic, you could say its psionics, you could say its nano machines, you could say its talking to friendly spirits, you could say it's using innate divinity to simply rewrite reality, but you need to have some explanation for it, and no matter what that is it isn't going to be "mundane" by either real world logic or in universe game logic.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Thanks for demonstrating.

According to the maneuver's text, they are completely rejuvenated by the very fact that you are hitting the enemy and refusing to back down. In other words, it's a Morale boost that enables them to ignore life-threatening injuries and even mental incapacitation (Int/Wis/Cha damage).

Oh, and FYI: Tome of Battle was originally Psionic in nature. The alpha-testing had all of the maneuvers as Supernatural abilities derived from Psionic powers, but it was abandoned by the Beta. The only evidence left is a single copy-pasta error in the Maneuvers section.

Urpriest

2011-06-25, 07:41 PM

I don't really think "People are ignorant" is a good defense of people being ignorant and continuing to do so.

It's not necessarily ignorance though. Fiction works partly through reference: something out of fictional norms is alien and exotic, even if it's an accurate depiction of some real-life situation. If you want D&D that doesn't feel alien and exotic, you want to keep the "inaccuracies" in place, because they make it a more accurate depiction of what it is supposed to depict, the genre.

Divide by Zero

2011-06-25, 07:42 PM

Oh, and FYI: Tome of Battle was originally Psionic in nature. The alpha-testing had all of the maneuvers as Supernatural abilities derived from Psionic powers, but it was abandoned by the Beta. The only evidence left is a single copy-pasta error in the Maneuvers section.

Source? This is the first time I've heard that.

NNescio

2011-06-25, 07:45 PM

OMG. A thing I just realized many people miss:

The wacky tecnique names in anime? They come from real martial arts.

Don't believe me? Okay... western longsword styles have things like Boar Stance and Fool's Guard. Basic karate has things like Cat-step Stance, Three Battles Stance and Form of 108 Strikes. These developed as shorthands for subtly different combinations of postures and actions simply because it'd take forever at the start of each practice to say "and now the kata with high block to the left, then high straight punch, moving to lower guard, repeat to rigth..."

Flips through actual swordmanship manuals...
Ochs (German): Ox('s Stance) -> High Horizontal Stance

Pflug (German): Plow('s (Stance) -> Middle Stance

Alber (German) Fool('s Guard) -> Low Stance

Vom Dach/Vom Tag* (German): From the Roof (Stance)/From the Day (Stance) -> High Stance

(*Exact wording is unknown due to dialectical drift)

Drei Wunder (German): Three Wonders -> Thrust, Cut, and Slice

Zornhau (German): Strike of Wrath -> Diagonal Cut

Schielhau (German): Squinting Strike -> Another diagonal cut.

Krumphau (German): Crooked Cut -> Another diagonal cut...

Scheitelhau (German): Scalp Strike -> Vertical Cut

Vater Streich (German): Father Strike

Mordschlag (German): Murder Blow -> Reversing the sword to hit your opponent with the hilt (the pommel to be exact).

Serpentino/Leopardo (Italian): Serpent (Stance)/Leopard (Stance) -> Back Guard

Gioco stretto (Italian): Close Game -> Close-quarters fighting.

Posta de falcone (Italian): Falcon Guard -> High Guard

Haukse Bill (English): Hawk's Bill -> Same as Posta de falcone.

Finestra (Italian): Window (Guard) -> Inside Guard

Coidzor

2011-06-25, 07:45 PM

It's not necessarily ignorance though. Fiction works partly through reference: something out of fictional norms is alien and exotic, even if it's an accurate depiction of some real-life situation. If you want D&D that doesn't feel alien and exotic, you want to keep the "inaccuracies" in place, because they make it a more accurate depiction of what it is supposed to depict, the genre.

Um. No. :smallconfused: D&D is alien and exotic if you haven't played it before, because it doesn't really model fantasy stories in the first place.

And if they're not ignorant of this common feature of formal fighting styles, why do they care?

Maho-Tsukai

2011-06-25, 07:48 PM

I know that this may be the fact that I am a 90s-2000s' kid who grew up on DBZ, Pokemon, Digimon ect... but you can still get a fantasy feel without re-naming the attacks. How? Just opt not to use the name IC.

I mean, when you say your wizard is going to use sleep you don't make him take a dramatic over the top action pose and shout "SLEEPPPP!!!!" at the top of his lungs while a cliche' shonen background appears behind him as he casts a massive blue arcane energy ball into his foes that makes them fall into a deep slumber, do you? The same applies to TOB. OOC you say what move your warblade uses but IC you describe his awesome feat of martial prowis that comes from his years of training that allows him to defeat his foe. Just because a move has a name your character dose not need to ever say that name or even know it exists, for that matter.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-25, 08:05 PM

Urpriest

2011-06-25, 08:08 PM

Um. No. :smallconfused: D&D is alien and exotic if you haven't played it before, because it doesn't really model fantasy stories in the first place.

And if they're not ignorant of this common feature of formal fighting styles, why do they care?

Except that so much of modern fantasy inherits from D&D in one way or another. For better or worse the less inventive fantasy out there has been warped by D&D's prevalence, while the more inventive fantasy is partially defined by its avoidance of those tropes (look at the "adventurers" in China Mieville's New Crobuzon books for example).

Anyway, why should facts about real fighting styles have any bearing whatsoever on D&D?

Cerlis

2011-06-25, 08:11 PM

Do you really think a fighter uses the same sideways cut over and over and over? No, in the world, not in the mechanics, but in the world, even a commoner is smart enough to not use the same attack until it's always blocked. The properly trained warriors have an array of footwork, styles, and techniques they use. That's represented in ToB's mechanics, but people think that makes it anime. You think the names are too anime? Don't use them. You think jumping in the air is too anime? Why do you allow leap attack? Think they're too anime in the fluff? Refluff it. The only class in ToB that uses magic of any kind is the swordsage, which is meant to replace the monk, which, by the way, has supernatural abilities. I guess you might say crusader uses magic too, but so do paladins.

actualyl the various techniques and footwork is represented by BAB, armor class, ability modifiers and feats.

ToB just makes each little thing more prominant. All the complexities of battle are happening all the time. thats where attacks of opportunities come from and threatened space. Eachperson is constantly dodging and weaving, getting into position and swinging,and when someone drops their guard or chooses to ignore the attacking warrior (such as moving through threatened space) its an opportune time to take advantage and stab you in the back.

Its not like these rules are saying you can physically only get in one attack every 6 seconds. a lvl 20 fighter just has more skill and training to get in more real dedicated attacks mean to land (as opposed to just threatening jabs, and feignts) in the same time frame.

Also i've never heard anyone say Melee cant have nice things. All i've heard is some peoplehave a kneejerk reaction to ToB and soldiers who cast spells and not calling themselves a caster.

Thrice Dead Cat

2011-06-25, 08:15 PM

People see magic as capable of anything. People see noncasters as capable of only what's realistic, and completely ignore the fact that noncasters were never intended to be realistic in the first place.

Woah there. With the right spell and domains or feats, a wizard can totally use Heal inside an antimagic field. Just check out Lords of Madness and Arcane Disciple!:smallbiggrin:

More seriously, Tomb of Battle gets a lot of flack because people don't realize how prevalent naming strikes actually is or how few the supernatural schools are. The only classes that get access to anything magical are the Swordsage and maybe the Crusader, if you count their heals as being too magic-y. The rest of their abilities are simply extensions of fighting strengths to new levels. Generally speaking - even by Wizards of the Coast themselves - humans in the real world tend to cap out at about ~6th level. Thus, even if we had magic and other crazy tricks, even the best of wizards would never learn a 4th level spell.

High level maneuvers are insane: not because they are magic, but because the people that use them have become that ground-shatteringly impossible. They can survive the full on reentry into the Earth's atmosphere and go without breathing for so long that they could take a full-on space walk and laugh about it when they returned! Such is the life of someone higher than 10th level.

Also, I definitely want a source on this possibly psionic Tome of Battle. Because, really, I have never heard of it before today, too.

Thrice Dead Cat

2011-06-25, 08:21 PM

actualyl the various techniques and footwork is represented by BAB, armor class, ability modifiers and feats.

Such is your interpretation. More levels means more options, nothing more. Yeah, someone who is level 10 has more experience than someone who is level 1, but that doesn't mean that any of the above are true when it comes to combat.

ToB just makes each little thing more prominant. All the complexities of battle are happening all the time. thats where attacks of opportunities come from and threatened space. Eachperson is constantly dodging and weaving, getting into position and swinging,and when someone drops their guard or chooses to ignore the attacking warrior (such as moving through threatened space) its an opportune time to take advantage and stab you in the back.

Yeah, but those aren't the actual elaborate strikes of a warrior. They are just that - attacks. Some of opportunity, some granted by magic (such as haste), others just by surviving to the point where your BAB is +6 or more.

Its not like these rules are saying you can physically only get in one attack every 6 seconds. a lvl 20 fighter just has more skill and training to get in more real dedicated attacks mean to land (as opposed to just threatening jabs, and feignts) in the same time frame.

Except others have shown that is very easy to launch numerous attacks (far past what BAB alone with all of the TWFing feats would give) in the real world... and considering that the "real world" caps at about ~6th level, well, that means that a trained professional is getting more from fighting than just more BAB and feats. Tome of Battle kind of makes that true for DND.

Also i've never heard anyone say Melee cant have nice things. All i've heard is some peoplehave a kneejerk reaction to ToB and soldiers who cast spells and not calling themselves a caster.

Consider this: Tome of Battle is nice things for mundane characters. Thus, people that say "no" to it are telling mundanes to not have nice things. The only parts of Tome of Battle that look anything like casting a spell belong to either the Swordsage (monk replacement) or the Crusader (Devoted Spirit non-magical healing, see also, the paladin replacement). Warblades are as unto better trained fighters or barbarians or even bards when it comes to combat.

Big Fau

2011-06-25, 08:23 PM

Source? This is the first time I've heard that.

It's speculation from my playgroup after one of us pointed out a line of text that didn't get edited out properly in chapter 3 or 4.

It's literally a single word they forgot to edit out.

Woah there. With the right spell and domains or feats, a wizard can totally use Heal inside an antimagic field. Just check out Lords of Madness and Arcane Disciple!

Invoke Magic doesn't work on spells higher than 3rd level. What was it from FR that lets the Twice Betrayer cast inside an AMF? That might work.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-25, 08:26 PM

It's speculation from my playgroup after one of us pointed out a line of text that didn't get edited out properly in chapter 3 or 4.

It's literally a single word they forgot to edit out.

Is it this?

(TYPE)
Most martial powers[...]

Qwertystop

2011-06-25, 08:28 PM

Big Fau

2011-06-25, 08:29 PM

Is it this?

Page 38, last word of the left column.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-25, 08:31 PM

Page 38, last word of the left column.

Ah, I see. They said powers, not maneuvers. The martial powers thing was just to describe both maneuvers and stances, but you can't ready stances.

Veyr

2011-06-25, 08:33 PM

OK, during a discussion of Tome of Battle, I had a series of questions that became challenges: could anyone who banned Tome of Battle on flavor grounds simultaneously allow mundane characters to have nice things? Was this thing possible?

I never got a response. I'm reposting them in case someone in this thread wants to take a crack at them:

Challenge the First (answer to Thurbane's challenge) — The problems in Core that are completely impossible to solve in 3.5 without Tome of Battle.

Well, it all depends how you define the "problems" with core melee...if you're including lack of versatility and lack of ability to contribute out of combat, then I would say splats address that quite a lot.
Ultimately... no, they really don't. You may have more options for building a character, but most of those options cannot be changed, and require resources (feats, class levels) that you don't have enough of to make it possible to invest in more than one of them.

Paladin and Ranger spells are a bit better, but they never get enough per day to really give them the oomph necessary to fix those classes.

Problems with Core:
It relies on the Core combat mechanic, which serves as a foundation but is not enough for any class.
Using feats and/or ACFs as your primary source of build customization means that you are largely railroaded into sticking with a single tactic.
Having only one tactic allows you to get overly-good at it, but easily side-lined.
Due to feat prerequisites, you cannot "branch out" very well, because when you do you effectively have to start over at level 1.
Combat becomes exceedingly boring, as you are relegated to doing your one trick endlessly, or doing nothing. It is very rare to have a combat change things around where you aren't reduced to uselessness, because you have no ability to adapt.
The general weakness of the standard action for melee types. Manyshot is an answer, but a difficult one — only for archers, tons of prereqs, obnoxious limitations re: precision damage. Various ways to get your full-attack while moving is another answer (Pounce, Travel Devotion), but those have limitations in how, when, or how often they can be used.
Inability to target defenses other than AC/HP, for the most part.
Difficulty inflicting status effects other than Prone, Disabled, Dying, or Dead.

This sounds like a good preliminary list to me.

EDIT: Added the bit about Standard Actions (which I guess is more generally about mobility), thanks to MeeposFire for mentioning that. Also added issues with the lack of access to a variety of effects — things that target things other than AC, or do things other than HP damage. Though I have to admit that Tome of Battle did not do as much on these fronts as it might have; this is one of the main reasons that martial adepts still fail hard against Tier 1 casters (which is, of course, a good thing in and of itself). But it's still much better than most prior melee, outside of Incarnum or Psionics.

Challenge the second, in two (very long) posts — It seems to me that those who find Tome of Battle too anime would deem any system whereby mundanes got nice things also too anime, because it is the very act of having nice things that causes those classes to be considered anime. Thus, "Tome of Battle is too anime/over the top/what have you" is functionally equivalent to "I don't think mundanes should have nice things."

The challenge here, then, is to prove me wrong. Show me a Tier 3 mundane character who can compete and contribute evenly with a Beguiler of the same level, and not be called either "too anime" or "not mundane" by the same people who call Tome of Battle "too anime" or whatever.

This is intended as purely idle commentary; think of it as devil's advocacy. It sounds reasonable enough to me, but then I strongly favor Tome of Battle and I have not thought through this thoroughly, I'm merely thinking out loud.

But.

The issue here is that we're talking about a game of Dungeons and Dragons 3.5. As such, it's expected to have magic, and therefore spellcasters. I hope everyone will stipulate that 3.5 is a terrible system for a no-magic campaign, and someone interested in that should find a new system?

Now, assuming that there are spellcasters, let's look at them.

First, Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, the Big 5 — OK, let's just ban those out-right, because yeah, they're absurd. The sort of odd-ball Tier 1s, like Wu Jen, those can go too; they're not nearly as bad but let's face it, being able to change around your entire character everyday and having a relatively unrestricted list to choose from each day is never going to be terribly balanced.

Tier 2? Psion, Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman... does the Shugenja fit in here? Never really looked at its spell list. Anyway, by definition, even those these guys are relatively fixed in their builds, they have options that can really wreck a game. Maybe if we trust someone... but then if we trust them, why are we restricting them at all? For the sake of this exercise, these are gone.

OK, now we're down to Tier 3; things are generally a bit more pleasant here, most people agree. Tier 3±1 seems to be favored pretty heavily. What do we see? Well, for now we're ignoring the Tome of Battle classes, so the iconic figures here are the full-list casters, Beguiler and Dread Necromancer. The Bard and Psychic Warrior both do the half-caster schtick well, and also find themselves here. The Binder, Factotum, Incarnate, and Totemist round out this Tier.

It should, at this point, be noted that I've been listing "just" the spellcasters/magic types from each Tier. I point this out because I've also so far posted every single class in these tiers aside from the Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade.

The next casters we look at are the Dragonfire Adept, Warlock, and Warmage. If we're generous, we could call the Ranger and Spellthief casters, though both are hybrids that do not succeed in their hybridization as well as the Bard and Psychic Warrior. These are Tier 4, and for the first time looking at only the casters has left out some classes, quite a few in fact.

Tier 5's got the Healer and the Paladin as its only access to spellcasting at all. Here we're missing most classes from the Tier; most of the "Core melee" types, notably the Fighter, Monk, and Paladin, are here.

So, what I'm getting at here is... suppose we have a hypothetical DM. Said DM bans Tome of Battle. Let's assume, for the moment, that the DM has access to said book, and either knows how the system works or has the time to learn.

If he also bans Archivist, Artificer, Bard, Beguiler, Binder, Cleric, Dread Necromancer, Druid, Duskblade, Erudite, Factotum, Favored Soul, Incarnate, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Shugenja, Sorcerer, Spirit Shaman, Totemist, Wilder, Wizard, and Wu Jen, then we have almost no magic left — as stated above, this is no longer Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 and the system is not going to handle it well. Another system should be found before doing this.

If he does not, then we have a situation where magic wins, and mundanes fail, and that's basically all there is to say.

Now why would a DM make this choice?
He doesn't understand what I just outlined above, and therefore does not understand how balance in 3.5 works. He thus does not consider it necessary. I would not want to play in his game.
He doesn't understand Tome of Battle, and thus doesn't realize where it lands in that scheme, and what banning it actually means. Here, he has access to the book, and the time to read it, so those are no excuses. He either has some grave misconceptions about the power contained in the book, or the power of the other magical classes. As such, again, he does not understand how balance in 3.5 works, and I would not play in his game.
He simply does not want mundanes to have nice things. He has some fluff or flavor issues with the book, and feels that mundane classes should not be capable of the things in the book. That is to say, he does not feel that mundanes should be able to compete on any level with magic, and I would not want to play in his game.Here, I am taking as given that the Tier system is accurate (in my experience and in my analysis, it largely is), and that we're not using any homebrew. The act of banning Tome of Battle is indicative of one of the above, or, more likely, of some combination of the three.

So, in conclusion, banning Tome of Battle leaves two alternatives:
Ban all Tier 1, 2, and 3 character classes along with Tome of Battle, at which point you should be looking for a new system. This has the side-effect of removing almost all magic from the game.
Deny mundanes nice things. Mundane classes must play alongside far more powerful magic classes. Further, magic classes have exceptionally little option but to out-perform the mundanes.A DM who thinks either option is acceptable (or does not realize that this is the choice left after banning Tome of Battle) is not one I would want to play with.

Now, I suspect it is point 3 that you'll disagree with — that a fluff reason for banning Tome of Battle is equivalent to not wanting mundanes to have nice things. However, look back at that list I posted: unless you ban a huge number of other classes, magic-types will have massive numbers of toys that mundanes simply cannot get. They will have "nice things", and mundanes will be sorely lacking in those same "nice things".

Moreover, the Crusader's fluff matches the Paladin's almost exactly. The Swordsage's matches the Monk's or Ninja's perfectly. The Warblade's got a bit of easily-ignorable stuff about them being glory-hounds, but is generally speaking a weapons-master and tactician — exactly what the Fighter was supposed to have been. A bit of refluffing, and the Crusader or Warblade could easily become a Barbarian. A bit more, and the Swordsage could make a solid Rogue, maybe a little homebrewing for Trapfinding.

So here we have almost the exact same class flavor as the PHB, with superior mechanics that allow them to have "nice things". The things usually said about Tome of Battle's fluff usually talk about things like the "style" of the maneuvers, being too "over the top" — those are exactly the "nice things" that they're supposed to have in order to compete with magic-types. Somehow, the very act of having nice things seems to offend some people. And really, I think it's very hard to argue that there is a separation here. That there could be some form of mundanes with nice things that wouldn't be offensive to these same people. My argument here is that it is not the particulars of the execution in Tome of Battle that are the problem, but the very nature of having these nice things in a nominally mundane class that somehow does not work for some people.

And I would not want to play for a DM who felt that mundanes should not have nice things. This is not about being entitled to a particular book, but as a player I would not want to play a game where it was banned because of what, exactly, that meant for the game. Yes, the DM is doing the most work, and yes, the DM gets a fair amount of latitude as a result. But that does not mean that I would sit and play in a game where the DM had made huge swaths of character types invalid. I do think I'm "entitled" to that much.

Or a DM who feels that mundanes should not have "abilities divided into 9 levels", I guess.
A. I use italics and bold for emphasis, not anger.

B. Despite quoting Thurbane, most of this is not directly targeted at him.

C. I want to be proven wrong. The statements I make herein are somewhat negative, but I'm hoping that they're incorrect. I am not out to accuse everyone who bans Tome of Battle as refusing to give mundanes nice things — I am saying that from my perspective, it's exceedingly difficult to see any other reason why that choice was made. I am looking for someone to show me that they can give mundanes nice things despite the preference to ban Tome of Battle.

I didn't specifically call out ToB in that post, it was about banned/allowed material in general. I also went to some lengths to say that a player & DM should at least try to reach a compromise if the player really wants to play something off the banned list.

My opinion is that if an impasse is reached, the player has two realistic options: look for something else to play that falls within the allowed materials; or if he simply cannot find anything on the DMs allowed list that he would enjoy playing, then vote with your feet. Not every DM wants to run a "kitchen sink" campaign with every piece of material from WotC included (not that there is ANYTHING inherently wrong if a game does include everything), and IMHO a player who simply refuses to try and come up with a character concept he would enjoy playing within the allowed materials is being a tad stubborn or unimaginative (dependant, of course, on just how sweeping the DMs list of disallowed material is).
See, my entire post was a description of how I see a systemic problem with the game of a DM who bans Tome of Battle. Someone who does that either does not understand the power disparities between magic and mundane (and therefore has very poor understanding of 3.5 as a whole), or else thinks that they should be there — and neither is a DM I want to play under.

Look, here's the thing: several people responded to my post with "Oh, I think mundanes should have nice things, I just don't like Tome of Battle." But that's all they said — this is pure assertion. Everyone asserted that they both think that mundanes should have nice things, and ban Tome of Battle. Meanwhile, my entire post was that, within the confines of 3.5, that is impossible.

More to the point, even if other alternatives did exist, I feel that everyone who bans Tome of Battle for stylistic reasons would ban those alternatives as well.

See, this how I got to thinking that a DM who bans Tome of Battle either doesn't know how 3.5 works, or doesn't want mundanes to have nice things. He may not be willing to admit it to himself — he may say things like "Tome of Battle is too anime!" by which he means over the top, by which he means capable of competing on something like an even playing field with magic. As someone pointed out, it seems like anime because anime is one of the very few mediums where you see mundane warriors who fight on a level that can keep up with 3.5 magic. My argument, then, is that any system that gave mundanes "nice things" would be called "too anime" or whatever by the same people. You can claim it's just Tome of Battle, but my point is What would be acceptable instead? — because I've come to the conclusion that nothing would be.

So then, the onus is on you: show me mundanes with "nice things", that is, capable of competing evenly with, say, a Beguiler 5/10/15/20 who used his spells intelligently (and realize that includes everything from Glitterdust to Time Stop), that would be acceptable to you. And I really don't mean PvP — I mean that both are contributing the same to a battle. I'd argue that a Warblade could do so — and no other fully mundane class can. Hell, homebrew or houserule something that you'd find acceptable, not "too anime" or whatever, just make it work.

Because I don't think you'll ever find something that can both compete with that Beguiler, and is completely mundane, and isn't "too aniime" for you. Because I think that any mundane warrior who can compete with the Beguiler is by definition going to be "too anime" for you. Which is to say, I think you don't want mundanes to have nice things, because that would be "too anime" for you.

I've quoted Thurbane, but really I don't think Thurbane's the primary target for this request. Thurbane's made it quite clear that he doesn't think that "competing evenly" is an important part of the game, and that's fine, for him and for his table. I get that, I really do, despite the hyperbole. I just take exception to being called "too stubborn" or "unimaginative" or "entitled" because I do care. This is also not directed at those who really do play at Tier 4 — for whom a mundane doesn't have to compete with the Beguiler, because the Beguiler isn't in play. I'll stipulate that a Barbarian can probably keep up with a Warlock (who doesn't use too much UMD, anyway).

This is for the people who allow Clerics, Druids, and Wizards, but ban Tome of Battle, and nonetheless claim that they don't want to deny mundanes nice things. I want you to prove that those things are not incompatible.

Because from where I'm sitting, it really does look like banning Tome of Battle really is equivalent to not wanting mundanes to have nice things (or just not understanding the problem in the first place). And Thurbane, you'll have to excuse me, but I am going to be exactly that stubborn, and not sit to play with a DM who doesn't want mundanes to have nice things.

The second is the longer and more difficult of the two, but it is one I desperately would like to see done, because I really would like to be proven wrong here.

Heatwizard

2011-06-25, 08:33 PM

Page 38, last word of the left column.

For those of you away from your books;

taken the Martial Study feat. It is possible for a character to gain the Martial Study feat before entering a class that grants a progression for powers readied. In this case,

DeltaEmil

2011-06-25, 08:34 PM

Flips through actual swordmanship manuals...

Vom Dach (German): From the Day (Stance) -> High Stance
"Vom Dach" is german for from the roof. From the Day would be called "Vom Tag".
The rest looks to be correct.

NNescio

2011-06-25, 08:40 PM

"Vom Dach" is german for from the roof. From the Day would be called "Vom Tag".
The rest looks to be correct.

Oops, brain-fart. (http://thearma.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22236&sid=16fd82da5fd5ad8653391b7df82ee675) They sound almost the same.

Thanks for the heads-up.

kardar233

2011-06-25, 08:56 PM

And if we look at Vom Tag and realize that it's very similar to the flavour text for Punishing Stance, then we can clearly see that Aragorn is a Warblade! :smallbiggrin:

Talakeal

2011-06-25, 09:27 PM

This is exactly what I was talking about. Thanks for demonstrating.

According to the maneuver's text, they are completely rejuvenated by the very fact that you are hitting the enemy and refusing to back down. In other words, it's a Morale boost that enables them to ignore life-threatening injuries and even mental incapacitation (Int/Wis/Cha damage).

Oh, and FYI: Tome of Battle was originally Psionic in nature. The alpha-testing had all of the maneuvers as Supernatural abilities derived from Psionic powers, but it was abandoned by the Beta. The only evidence left is a single copy-pasta error in the Maneuvers section.

I am not seeing anything in that powers description or those like it which talk about morale or refusing to back down. I do see references to being healed by auras of divine power and faith created energy knitting together wounds, in other words the crusader is performing clerical magic but its ex instead of SU because they leave the word "magic" out.

If the intent of Tome of Battle is actually just "magic but not called magic" then I can see why people would ban it, it is ruining a line that has existed in D&D for 30 years, and after reading about crusaders I certainly would never play one or allow one in a game because it does irreparable harm to the setting.

I don't think they are over powered or anime or video gamey, I just don't think they belong in D&D. There are games like Exalted or Runequest where everything is magic and belief shapes reality, but D&D is not one of those games, and if you pretend like it is you have to challenge almost every assumption in the game and start over from scratch.

Big Fau

2011-06-25, 09:30 PM

I am not seeing anything in that powers description or those like it which talk about morale or refusing to back down. I do see references to being healed by auras of divine power and faith created energy, in other words the crusader is performing clerical magic but its ex instead of SU because they leave the word "magic" out.

If the intent of Tome of Battle is actually just "magic but not called magic" then I can see why people would ban it, it is ruining a line that has existed in D&D for 30 years, and after reading about crusaders I certainly would never play one or allow one in a game because it does irreparable harm to the setting.

That is a single maneuver out of 200 or so. THe flavor behind it is easily changed to match it's Ex nature, or you can add the Su tag (making it the only maneuver of it's style that isn't Ex).

Seriously, disallowing a whole class based on that one maneuver is asinine.

Talakeal

2011-06-25, 09:33 PM

That is a single maneuver out of 200 or so. THe flavor behind it is easily changed to match it's Ex nature, or you can add the Su tag (making it the only maneuver of it's style that isn't Ex).

Seriously, disallowing a whole class based on that one maneuver is asinine.

Maybe I am not getting your original point then. I thought your point was that mundane characters can perform blatantly supernatural feats and you were using that power as an example.
If you were infact using it as an example of something that doesn't fit with the rest of the book then you are right, that would be asinine to ban the class instead of just house ruling the SU tag onto the manuever.

Big Fau

2011-06-25, 09:38 PM

If you were infact using it as an example of something that doesn't fit with the rest of the book then you are right, that would be asinine to ban the class instead of just house ruling the SU tag onto the manuever.

The point I was trying to make was "When one thing is out of line with someone's expectations, that person will react to it. How that person reacts will vary from person to person depending on how out of line it is".

Strike of Righteous Vitality is out of line with what's expected, and some people have very negative reactions as a result. However, it isn't the only example (a lot of the book gets flak for being "out of line" with what's expected of melee character).

That said, I wouldn't add the Su tag to it myself. I'd just reflavor it and move on.

Frozen_Feet

2011-06-25, 09:58 PM

Anyway, why should facts about real fighting styles have any bearing whatsoever on D&D?

Oh, no reason. But it does factor to the discussion about D&D when some people come to claim that the names of ToB styles are unrealistic. :smallcool:

Soras Teva Gee

2011-06-25, 10:03 PM

More seriously, Tomb of Battle gets a lot of flack because people don't realize how prevalent naming strikes actually is or how few the supernatural schools are.

Perception determines reality. When something doesn't acceptably jive with that reality it is the problem not reality.

More specifically, named moves are generally only represented in media for something major. The name of an entire fighting style, a finishing move, the dangerous forbidden technique. Not a type of jab versus another jab. Trading blows in "normal" fighting back and forth doesn't need it for the audience, fighting is too quick for anything but attackcounterattackcounterattackcounterattackcount er... win or loose to matter.

Ask yourself if a fight like Tyrone Power vs. Basil Rathbone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VTyPWvyAF8) is improved by statting out all the particular maneuvers used is a fraction of second when these two go at it. I don't think there's a system possible to convey that mastery in something as slow as pen and paper with turns and the like.

In contrast magic and spells are major event, we expect/accept they have names and elaborate melodrama to build them up. When you start adding the ToB style maneuvers you move them out of fighting territory. And that style of throwing singular big attacks (yes even if they are some combo) that are set forms is a big switch dramatically.

The only classes that get access to anything magical are the Swordsage and maybe the Crusader, if you count their heals as being too magic-y. The rest of their abilities are simply extensions of fighting strengths to new levels. Generally speaking - even by Wizards of the Coast themselves - humans in the real world tend to cap out at about ~6th level. Thus, even if we had magic and other crazy tricks, even the best of wizards would never learn a 4th level spell.

Doesn't matter that X school is magical and Y school is not. How easy would it be to homebrew a Warblade with the Desert school that sets your sword on fire. Its simple because its the exact same system for every school. It all boils down to keeping an inventory of what "spells" you have and how often you can use them and what you need to do to get them back. We have a reason casters run out of spells, why can ToB classes run out ways to swing your sword. Fatigue doesn't cut it because of the nine level structure versus say a point pool.

Also I doubt anybody really cares where real humans cap out at on the level scale. This is about movie realism not actual possiblity. Nobody cars that an action hero can smash through glass and not get cut, they would care if he just teleported through though.

High level maneuvers are insane: not because they are magic, but because the people that use them have become that ground-shatteringly impossible. They can survive the full on reentry into the Earth's atmosphere and go without breathing for so long that they could take a full-on space walk and laugh about it when they returned! Such is the life of someone higher than 10th level.

And the question becomes... why? Why can they do that?

Being "that good" has the weakness of not actually being an explanation, while "its magic" is an explanation by chucking it up to a exterior power that exists and is generally not isolated anymore but something akin to the Force being everywhere for the right people to use.

NeoSeraphi

2011-06-25, 10:07 PM

Whoa, getting a little scary there, aren't you all? How about we tone it down a bit before the mods come in and start throwing infractions around?

This thread kind of got derailed by the whole "Defending ToB" thing. The point of the thread wasn't to discuss whether ToB was good or not, it was to give the OP an idea of why ToB is unpopular and the arguments behind that.

Kylarra

2011-06-25, 10:14 PM

On topic, Martial Scripts, aka Maneuver Scrolls, don't help the perception of "fighting magic" at all.

Blisstake

2011-06-25, 10:16 PM

The main argument against Tome of Battle is that Melee can't have nice things.

It is? I've never once heard that argument. And I've seen many, many arguments about Tome of Battle...

Zaq

2011-06-25, 10:20 PM

It is? I've never once heard that argument. And I've seen many, many arguments about Tome of Battle...

I've never heard anyone who's anti-ToB actually say that melee can't have nice things. That's how the argument sounds to (and is often paraphrased by) pro-toB folks.

Part of the problem, I would guess, is that core melee doesn't have nice things. When nice things are given to melee, it represents a jump in power, which some people just have a knee-jerk reaction to. Giving magic types more power is just more of the same, but letting mundanes have new tricks? Whoa there.

(For the record, if it wasn't obvious, I'm adamantly pro-ToB and firmly believe that melee deserves nice things. Not that it should matter for the purposes of what I'm saying here.)

Kojiro

2011-06-25, 10:37 PM

Well, taking a look at those feats in the Tome of Battle that people are complaining about sounding "too anime" or whatever, as a person with training in martial arts and knowledge of various other things, most of those names seem fine to me. I've even seen a few of them used elsewhere. However, for the argument about it not needing to use names that actually could be technique names (or the translations of such): What else could they use?

Take, for example, that scene in The Princess Bride, where Inigo is fighting "The Man in Black". While all they're doing is flynning, the names they're throwing about are actual techniques (in the book it mentioned those techniques too, I believe). Now, as an experiment: Try to remember what all those were called; you've probably watched that movie many times, whoever you are. Or, if you haven't, or you can't, then go watch that scene again, and try to remember the technique names they say. See if you can pronounce them, or spell them. Or even remember them accurately after five minutes.

Results, unless you're actually familiar with fencing techniques or happen to be familiar with the language those are in: You can't. And that's what the techniques in ToB would mostly have names like if they didn't use English translations and similar names. Instead of "anime" (which is terrible as a derogatory term anyway), you get something completely incomprehensible to most people. I would argue that that's far worse.

So, that's out. Now, go in the other direction, completely mundane and literal. Pick any feat or technique with an "anime" name, like, let's see here, Desert Wind Dodge. Taking what it literally is, you'd get something like "Running Fire Slash/Bash", as the technique is, well, running, then getting a dodge bonus and extra fire damage. You could probably come up with an even worse name if you tried. Or, right after that feat, there's Devoted Bulwark; as the technique is getting a morale bonus to AC through devotion to your cause, after being hit with a melee attack, it's actually descriptive of what's happening, if a bit more flowery. Now, making it mundane... "Get Hit and Not Care". Or just "Masochism" I guess. Really, there is not any way to make these more mundane without getting stupid.

And, beyond that, a major point of the book is, as a few people have said, to allow your melee PCs to utilize what are, fluff-wise, advanced martial techniques of some fighting school. So, well, if it's a fighting school, and you're learning techniques from it... Why shouldn't the names be like, well, the names of actual fighting school techniques? There've been complaints about them, but between that they're basically named what they are, and that there aren't any "better" ways to name them, I don't see the problem.

Sorry that that was somewhat tangential to the main topic, and if it came across as rude.

Veyr

2011-06-25, 10:43 PM

I've never heard anyone who's anti-ToB actually say that melee can't have nice things. That's how the argument sounds to (and is often paraphrased by) pro-toB folks.
I agree: they never admit this.

However, none yet has answered my question: how do you give your mundanes nice things without Tome of Battle?

Because I think, based on conversations/discussions/arguments like this in the past, that no form of nice things will ever be acceptable to the anti-ToB crowd.

That is the impression that they give me. They claim that it is specifically something about Tome of Battle, but I've asked repeatedly, in several different threads, for examples of non-ToB mundane "nice things" and have so far gone unanswered.

The longer I go unanswered, the more I fear that my perception (which I threw out there with the express intent of people proving me wrong) was completely accurate: claims of disliking ToB are equivalent to not wanting mundane characters to have nice things, but the poster in question simply does not want to admit that they have this bias.

They claim that isn't how it is. I really hope that it isn't true. But until someone shows me mundanes who have nice things without Tome of Battle, I'm fearing that I have to accept this hypothesis.

NOTE: At least a few people literally do ban Tier 3 and up classes — that takes away nice things from casters, but leaves an even playing field; that seems OK.

And others are honest and up-front about not wanting mundanes to have nice things, or not caring that they don't (e.g. don't care enough to learn/introduce another subsystem). While I strongly disagree with the former and disagree with the latter (though I understand it to a degree), these are also quite acceptable.

But claiming to want mundanes to have nice things, and then banning the only book in 3.5 that gives it to them... that confuses and worries me. At least once someone claimed houserules/homebrew to fix the problem without ToB, but no details were given. Most others just assert they want mundanes to have nice things, but ban ToB anyway, and give no further details. Thus far, no one has directly responded to my questions in this regard.

T.G. Oskar

2011-06-25, 11:11 PM

I agree: they never admit this.

However, none yet has answered my question: how do you give your mundanes nice things without Tome of Battle?

Well, I could say "skill tricks" if I were really trying, but...I have no reason why to mention that other than pointing something extraordinary, limited by encounters and that requires (most of the times) no magic whatsoever.

In other words, if only for mentioning the pedantic answer.

Personally, I have only one issue with ToB and that is the perception that the classes are stealth fixes to the Core classes. I have absolutely no qualms with the Crusader and the Paladin existing with one another (I mean, if you can have a group composed of a Crusader, a Paladin, a Divine Mind and a Soulborn, essentially the same archetype in four different sets of mechanics, I don't have a need to replace those classes, even if only one of the four has, as mentioned by the players, actual merit to be in a group), nor with a Monk and a Swordsage collaborating with each other. Certainly, I recognize the Paladin, the Soulborn, the Monk and maaaaybe the Divine Mind should have some nicer stuff (and that's the realm of homebrew IMO), but outright replacing at least the Pally and the Monk is pretty much ignoring all the mechanical stuff that the devs made for them. After all, there's a very specific argument that up until the end of D&D the intention was that both classes still exist in large numbers; you'd need to pretty much homebrew a massive change on mechanics to justify the loss of the Paladin at least.

However, in terms of the feel of ToB? Perfectly reasonable. In fact, probably something D&D lacks, and well explained on the small blurb about "why ToB"? The first reason is that D&D as a game draws from a lot of stuff, but essentially meant to develop over-the-top characters much like what you'd expect from a book or a movie, without going for overpowered (that we can leave to White Wolf, for example, with Exalted being FAR MORE tailored to larger than life characters than D&D). The second was that 3.5 finally began to break from tradition before 4e reformed the fluff of the game itself into a completely different format: before that, all classes in D&D were pretty much similar even if the edition changed. That's my opinion on why the Monk, the Paladin and essentially the martial character suffered so much (baggage).

But maneuver-wise? No idea why it would be so repelling, since if you're looking for raw damage you can pull it off pretty much from Core (Barbarian, namely) and most of the builds still depend a lot on the Core foundation (TWF Warblades may enjoy a lot their Tiger Claw maneuvers and TSS, but they still need the TWF feat line to work; Crusaders may be the best trippers but they still need the spiked chain and the Combat Reflexes feat, amongst others), if not on the classes themselves; a Fighter could very well do a decent damage-dealing class or a tripper class in a shorter amount of levels, but it will undoubtedly suffer from a lack of things classes such as the Barbarian, the Knight, the Warblade and the Crusader have, at times in spades.

Probably the reason why some DMs don't accept Tome of Battle is because it stretches their willing suspension of disbelief too far, when (in a twist of irony) what ToB offers isn't as hard to believe than actually casting a spell. Perhaps, and this has been launched quite a lot, people playing D&D are already used with magic running over the laws of physics, but think of martial characters as Badass Normal, or otherwise "realistic" characters who can't twist the multiverse with a word but apparently don't need it because that's not their job. The usual response, of course, is to look at it on the mechanical sense when the answer should have always been to invoke the MST3K mantra: "it's just a game, I should just relax". In fact, it really gives the martial characters options rather than distort their actual job, even though eventually they'll still depend on their BAB and attack bonuses and Strength and feats as they depended on their natural attacks.

But yeah, if I were pedantic enough to really indicate some nice stuff melee can have that's not ToB, I'd go for skill tricks. And even THOSE can be mentioned as "too anime" (then again, skill tricks are stunts, not spells or techniques). Guess I'll just conform with "why replace and not coexist?"

aart lover

2011-06-25, 11:16 PM

Seerow

2011-06-25, 11:17 PM

every class has their thing y'know? spellcasters command magical forces to twist the fabric of reality. Fighters are quite good at swinging really big swords around. it's not that melee doesn't have nice things, they just have different things. but that's just what i think.

Because Magical Forces can twist the fabric of reality to make them really good at swinging really big swords around.

Not to mention, swinging a really big sword around is a really narrow scope of things you can do. And even if others aren't quite as good at it as you are, they are good enough to get by at that one thing, and can do a thousand other things besides.

NNescio

2011-06-25, 11:20 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-25, 11:31 PM

These abilities are drastically inequal. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)

I don't have to click on that link, I know what it is. :smallamused:

Veyr

2011-06-25, 11:32 PM

Well, I could say "skill tricks" if I were really trying, but...I have no reason why to mention that other than pointing something extraordinary, limited by encounters and that requires (most of the times) no magic whatsoever.
I'll agree that the mechanics of behind skill tricks could allow for some quite interesting "nice things" for mundane characters.

Unfortunately, the skill tricks actually officially available in 3.5 are limited. Some of them are nice, but Complete Scoundrel is not a mundane-fix on its own.

Guess I'll just conform with "why replace and not coexist?"
Oh, I do agree. Though I'd argue that assuming you want a "character with nice things", you're not going to have more than 2 levels of Fighter, Paladin, or Monk, and probably none of Divine Mind (ugh) or Soulborn (ew).

Falin

2011-06-26, 12:27 AM

I agree: they never admit this.

However, none yet has answered my question: how do you give your mundanes nice things without Tome of Battle?

Ooh, ooh, I know this! *raises hand and waves it around*

Races of War. (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Races_of_War_(3.5e_Sourcebook))

Veyr

2011-06-26, 12:28 AM

An incomplete book for an incomplete system overhaul? Call me skeptical.

That said, that is an answer. I'm not a huge fan of it as an answer, and I'm not sure how usable it is as-is, but at the very least, yes, Frank & K's work was an attempt at giving mundanes nice things that did not involve ToB.

Falin

2011-06-26, 12:36 AM

Races of War is complete, the Tomes aren't, I'll grant you. But F&K finised their stuff for the martial classes before they stopped living in the same house and had to stop because of time constrants and, you know, not being able to actually tlak to eachother on a regular basis. Plus it's litterally faster to just write up 5e.

Cerlis

2011-06-26, 12:38 AM

Such is your interpretation. More levels means more options, nothing more. Yeah, someone who is level 10 has more experience than someone who is level 1, but that doesn't mean that any of the above are true when it comes to combat.

Yeah, but those aren't the actual elaborate strikes of a warrior. They are just that - attacks. Some of opportunity, some granted by magic (such as haste), others just by surviving to the point where your BAB is +6 or more.

Except others have shown that is very easy to launch numerous attacks (far past what BAB alone with all of the TWFing feats would give) in the real world... and considering that the "real world" caps at about ~6th level, well, that means that a trained professional is getting more from fighting than just more BAB and feats. Tome of Battle kind of makes that true for DND.

Consider this: Tome of Battle is nice things for mundane characters. Thus, people that say "no" to it are telling mundanes to not have nice things. The only parts of Tome of Battle that look anything like casting a spell belong to either the Swordsage (monk replacement) or the Crusader (Devoted Spirit non-magical healing, see also, the paladin replacement). Warblades are as unto better trained fighters or barbarians or even bards when it comes to combat.

Yes but the reason they reject it isnt because its a nice thing. They dont think "hey this could help my melee players have fun, i must reject it" they see a new flavor, what can be interpreted (admittedly in most cases wrongly) as melee spells and a presented flavor they dont like. There are several nice abilities in extra suppliment (such as the upgraded Fighter feats in the PHB2) and even in core (Apparently combine power attack with anything good for melee cheese) that arent outride said "no" too.

Whether or not many people reject nice things for melee characters, its not just cus they are nice things.

Also, for the previous statements, just because its my interpretation doesnt mean its wrong. ALmost the entire infinately sized realm of science is based on the assumption that certian ideas stay constant. Most of science is a buncha "theories" which people take as fact cus they are logical. but they are just theories, but just cus they are just theories doesnt mean they arent fact.

BAB is your skill at fighting and combat (mostly offensive). we see this in a melee character has a higher BAB. But years of aiming spells and dodging attacks improves even a spellcasters battle awareness thus why a elven wizard can wield a sword just as well as a fighter 10 levels below him. It is added to grapple checks because even though strength and size are huge factors that someone who knows how to fight will have an advantage in close quarters. even if the enemy is bigger, if he knows how to wrest himself out of a grip, or see a coming attack or the enemy about to shift his weight to gain an advantage, then he can win the grapple. this is expaned when we look at the Imp. Feats. They are called "improved X" for a reason. A fighter knows how to wrestle. its intuitive. But a skilled fighter (high base attack), someone who knows or is skilled at grappling (Imp Grappled), is strong (Strength) or is bigger and has more weight and bigger arms (and weight) to throw around (size modifiers) will have an edge in grappling. but everyone knows how to grapple. YOu add your BAB AND your Sense motive when defending against a feint. Thats because someone who can read people well can see a feinh based off their composure and what they know and can interpret about the enemy. a seasoned warrior knows all about feints, thrust and all that ho-ha and so he adds his battle expertise (his BAB) to his role. Thus someone who is an expert fighter and a great people reader is almost impossible to feignt against.
Yes you can choose to interpret everything differently. refluff it or just have your own idea of it (though i see the only alternative as everyone in the world acting in turn based combat system, which the game uses to REPRESENT actual battle). but there is little interpretation. YOur skill in combat makes you better at combat related things, you have imp feint because your better at feinting than usual. You are mildly better at something? +1 bonus (Weapon focus, point blank shot, ect). you are talented at something (any of the +2/+2 feats, Weapon specialization. Elven hearing. Halfing acrobatics). you are superior at something? +4 bonus (imp G/F/D feats. Barbarians and Monks resistances on will saves. I've noticed that when it says a race or class "almost never" or "are very hard to..." its usually a +4 bonus, representing a high, but not unbeatable bonus). and then there is the rare occasion in which they have masterd something so skillfully they outpace all others without that skill ( a fighter with +8 BAB, more skilled than a lvl 2 warrior at feinting grappling and all around doing anything fighting related before even his strength bonuses and special training (feats) kicks in; another example is how aquatics get +8 to swim checks, and climbers get +8 to climb checks)
and bonuses can equate to each other. a Fighter thief and wizard might hit a target in a game with the same frequency. The Fighter gets +1 cus he knows how to aim and hit things. The Thief is naturally dexterous so he gets +1 also, the wizard is having a good day so he gets a +1 moral bonus.
Oh and lets not forget that you cant just "Gain a level". each of those levels is supposed to represent alot of experience, years of training with a sword, learning how to block dodge and parry. Training with a bow, shield, sword. That 1 BaB +2 fort, 10 hit dice and bonus feat represent as much talent and training as a wizard spending all years at wizarding school to learn how to cast his first real spell (1st lvl). Hes not just magically tougher than the wizard, that 10 hit dice represents the fact that his body gets tougher and he learns to take hits better and turn deadly blows into scratches far better than the wizard does. People underestimate the fact that Many melee classes are so sucky because not only did the writers overcompensate the value of BAB but that a Fighter is suppose to be proficient in a good 30 or 40 weapons, knows how to wear all armor with ease and use all those shields.
for example i think a reasonable request would be "As a fighter i basically get the Medium armor proficiency and Heavy armor proficiency feats for free. Can i opt to not be proficient and get 2 more feats?"

the issue is since Actual REAL combat is so complex they rolled stuff like hitting where it hurts, bare scratches, SKill vs luck all into one very vague system, so that if you attack and crit you have the freedom to say you cleaved into his chest, or that you struck a vital spot, either way you got a Critical hit and since it was either a vital spot a powerful strike you get your bonus damage. thats about the extent of the specifics (precision damage and crits that is) while Spells are very specific. ToB changed all those combat abilities (such as pressing a charge, or knowing how to parry well) from background stuff into the main event.

LordBlades

2011-06-26, 12:56 AM

every class has their thing y'know? spellcasters command magical forces to twist the fabric of reality. Fighters are quite good at swinging really big swords around. it's not that melee doesn't have nice things, they just have different things. but that's just what i think.

Except swinging a sword really well doesn't really measure up to rewriting the laws of reality.

Past a certain level wizards get access to spells that are more powerful than a fighter of equivalent level. Yes, a single spell can do everything the class does, except better.

IT might make sense from a magic vs. mundane point of view, but it's not very fun, is it?

T.G. Oskar

2011-06-26, 12:59 AM

Oh, I do agree. Though I'd argue that assuming you want a "character with nice things", you're not going to have more than 2 levels of Fighter, Paladin, or Monk, and probably none of Divine Mind (ugh) or Soulborn (ew).

Dungeon Crasher extends the life of the Fighter to at least level 6 (though 2 is rather nice, even 4 if you want two feats); Invisible Fist extends the Monk's shelf life to 9th level at most (if you want the Blink-esque ability), and you can argue that you can take at least four levels of Paladin (4 nets you Turn Undead if you're not interested in dipping Cleric OR you can't do so), though I find Divine Spirit and at least part of Underdark Knight quite interesting. Then again, you DO want as many levels of Paladin as possible (preferably all 20) if you're going for Ubercharger w/mount, because the mount needs the HD and the spells and the full progression. Those are nice things that don't depend on merely 2 levels of the class, though I can agree that it needs something else to keep each class working.

Well, except maybe Fighter. I can agree that Monk and Swordsage could coexist with each other, and Paladin definitely can coexist with Crusader, but the Warblade completely overshadows the Fighter at its own game, its own fluff, and any tricks it could possibly pull off. Dungeon Crasher is good, but you can do something similar with Stone Dragon in any case, while White Raven and Devoted Spirit really can't replace the mount or the really worthwhile Paladin spells (or the ACFs that replace the mount, in any case). Monk is a borderline case except Tashalatora and Invisible Fist provide great benefits to the dip, alongside Decisive Strike and the UA combat styles that rearrange the choice of feats.

Regarding skill tricks: I merely mentioned it's possible, mind you. The aura mechanics were badly supported (Marshal, Dragon Shaman, and a few boosts to auras, and Mythic Exemplar's terrible joke...oh, and Divine Mind but it's universally reviled as a terrible class), the ki mechanics were pretty much unsupported (CA Ninja...and the feats from Complete Scoundrel. Oh, and the Dragon stuff), Truespeech is unplayable... The idea is that the devs occasionally had good ideas which they barely, if ever, supported into playable status for some odd and mysterious reason. Skill tricks, unfortunately, fell into that: a great idea which received little, if no, support. It was quite good, though, since eventually skill powers were released in 4e (much like ToB maneuvers became the bread and butter of EVERY SINGLE CLASS).

Divide by Zero

2011-06-26, 01:03 AM

Well, except maybe Fighter. I can agree that Monk and Swordsage could coexist with each other, and Paladin definitely can coexist with Crusader, but the Warblade completely overshadows the Fighter at its own game, its own fluff, and any tricks it could possibly pull off. Dungeon Crasher is good, but you can do something similar with Stone Dragon in any case, while White Raven and Devoted Spirit really can't replace the mount or the really worthwhile Paladin spells (or the ACFs that replace the mount, in any case). Monk is a borderline case except Tashalatora and Invisible Fist provide great benefits to the dip, alongside Decisive Strike and the UA combat styles that rearrange the choice of feats.

Can Warblade do anything like Zhentarim Fighter? If not, there's 9 levels worth taking right there.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-26, 01:08 AM

*snip*

I agree on the paladin thing. If you play it smart, you'll have a pegasus mount, which means you get unlimited flight at 12th level or when you get the pegasus, whichever's later.

Hecuba

2011-06-26, 01:11 AM

...nice things...

I think the reason you don't get an answer (though the answer is likely one you wouldn't like) is that there's isn't a clarity of what you're asking for. You keep saying "nice things," when what you mean is "things with the mechanical power and versatility of a casting system (though not necessarily a T1 capable casting system)."

You're positing, without saying it, that mundane things can't be nice. The people you are trying to elicit answer from are positing, without saying it, that what they want from a melee character is one that has a believably mundane feel.

Those two positions aren't compatible (or at least not easily so). By your definition of "nice things," they indeed do not want melee to have them. But, without a specific definition of nice things, they won't have cause to disagree (in the abstract, everyone wants everyone to have "nice things"). Heck, in the abstract, more feats are "nice things," it's just a matter of who gets them, how many, and what else they get.

Divide by Zero

2011-06-26, 01:21 AM

I think the reason you don't get an answer (though the answer is likely one you wouldn't like) is that there's isn't a clarity of what you're asking for. You keep saying "nice things," when what you mean is "things with the mechanical power and versatility of a casting system (though not necessarily a T1 capable casting system)."

When I hear "nice things," I think "things that make a character capable of performing adequately in a variety of CR-appropriate situations at most levels." I believe that is what most ToB advocates think, as well.

Arbane

2011-06-26, 01:41 AM

I don't think they are over powered or anime or video gamey, I just don't think they belong in D&D. There are games like Exalted or Runequest where everything is magic and belief shapes reality, but D&D is not one of those games, and if you pretend like it is you have to challenge almost every assumption in the game and start over from scratch.

Um, D&D is most definitely one of those games. A multi-ton dragon flying by flapping its wings is an "EX" ability despite its blatant impossibility. Get rid of all the supernatural handwaves, and your typical D&D world's ecology collapses, followed in short order by its economy, its political structure, and its laws of physics.

NNescio

2011-06-26, 01:49 AM

I am not seeing anything in that powers description or those like it which talk about morale or refusing to back down. I do see references to being healed by auras of divine power and faith created energy knitting together wounds, in other words the crusader is performing clerical magic but its ex instead of SU because they leave the word "magic" out.

If the intent of Tome of Battle is actually just "magic but not called magic" then I can see why people would ban it, it is ruining a line that has existed in D&D for 30 years, and after reading about crusaders I certainly would never play one or allow one in a game because it does irreparable harm to the setting.

I don't think they are over powered or anime or video gamey, I just don't think they belong in D&D. There are games like Exalted or Runequest where everything is magic and belief shapes reality, but D&D is not one of those games, and if you pretend like it is you have to challenge almost every assumption in the game and start over from scratch.

*cough* Planescape *cough*

Hecuba

2011-06-26, 02:14 AM

When I hear "nice things," I think "things that make a character capable of performing adequately in a variety of CR-appropriate situations at most levels." I believe that is what most ToB advocates think, as well.

Which will depend greatly on what you define as "adequate" and which end of the horribly unbalanced CR spectrum you end up on.

But, regardless, my point is that (in my opinion) that's likely not what the people you are advocating to hear. In the abstract, feats are nice. If my character found a minor artifact and *poof* there's a feat. That's nice, heck, even if I wasn't looking for that feat, it would probably still strike me as nice. The issue is that the things some classes get don't stack up well against the things other classes get. How nice and shiny those things are is heavily secondary to a question of functionality.

As an analogy, my little half-brother just got his driver's license. There is a kid at his school who (having a father who is rich as Crassus) drives 5 different vintage Corvettes.

My brother drives my old BMW. My old BMW is nice: it has leather seats, a new sound system, and a sunroof. The fact that it is not remotely as nice as 5 different vintage corvettes does not inherently make it not nice.

Moreover, when I was in high school I didn't even have a car. The fact that my bicycle wasn't a car didn't make it not nice either-- it was a very nice bicycle. It was a Schwynn Le Tour, and it probably cost more than my first car. The fact that it was nice didn't mean that I didn't want a car, but it also wouldn't have mattered whether or not the car was nice. It could have been a %!%$!@ car and I would have wanted it. That would not have made it a nice car.

Talakeal

2011-06-26, 02:29 AM

Um, D&D is most definitely one of those games. A multi-ton dragon flying by flapping its wings is an "EX" ability despite its blatant impossibility. Get rid of all the supernatural handwaves, and your typical D&D world's ecology collapses, followed in short order by its economy, its political structure, and its laws of physics.

How many times have you ever seen a D&D book say "reality is shaped by belief and anyone can change reality by wanting it hard enough?". Have you ever seen a D&D adventure where something that violated the rules and common sense had a non magical explanation behind it?

The description of the dragon type specifically says they are magical creatures, as does the magical beast type.

I have seen plenty of monsters and wierd events described by "a wizard did it" or "a god did it" or "magical radiation did it". I have never seen reality change because someone wanted it to. For example the owlbear is a crossbreed of owls and bears created by meddling magicians, not by "an owl and a bear loved eachother so much that their emotions overpowered their biology and they had kids".

Planescape has a bit of that, although I don't believe it ever had mechanics to back it up, and even then it was because the outer planes are shaped by belief, the prime material plane is not.

Darth Stabber

2011-06-26, 02:29 AM

I generally don't like quoting myself (if for no other reason than I detest repeating myself), but it is remarkably pertinent:

Now, while you may not like the way ToB resolves mundane melee's crippling overspecialization problem, it is the ONLY official material that solves it. Banning it is like not going to the only hospital in town when your leg is broken because you don't like the wallpaper.

Every thing is refluffable, if you are playing with only official material and you ban ToB, you hate mundanes and want to see them suffer. There are a lot of grey areas in life, but this isn't one of them. None of the 3rd lvl or lower ex maneuvers stretch reality any harder than anything any other mundane can do, and anything higher than a 6th level character should defy believable reality without magic. There we go </debate>.

Darth Stabber

2011-06-26, 02:34 AM

How many times have you ever seen a D&D book say "reality is shaped by belief and anyone can change reality by wanting it hard enough?". Have you ever seen a D&D adventure where something that violated the rules and common sense had a non magical explanation behind it?

The description of the dragon type specifically says they are magical creatures, as does the magical beast type.

I have seen plenty of monsters and wierd events described by "a wizard did it" or "a god did it" or "magical radiation did it". I have never seen reality change because someone wanted it to. For example the owlbear is a crossbreed of owls and bears created by meddling magicians, not by "an owl and a bear loved eachother so much that their emotions overpowered their biology and they had kids".

Planescape has a bit of that, although I don't believe it ever had mechanics to back it up, and even then it was because the outer planes are shaped by belief, the prime material plane is not.

Actually I was under the assumption that divine magic and to a lesser extent psionics, were at least partially powered by belief. A cleric gets his reality bending powers from a belief in a deity, and since clerics of a cause are part of the official rules, they are powered by their beliefs, proving that the gods are only 1 possible focus for the power that can obtained from channeled mortal belief.

Hecuba

2011-06-26, 02:37 AM

Every thing is refluffable,
Recent threads would imply that at least some people disagree to some extent. (Though, if you posit an early enough phase of world design for heavy RP games, I would personally agree).

if you are playing with only official material and you ban ToB, you hate mundanes and want to see them suffer.
Now you're ascribing motive (and an tawdry one at that), which I would take as extremely offensive if I banned ToB for anything other than T4/5 campaigns. I don't hate anything: it's not an emotion I find healthy, so I don't allow myself to indulge in it.

Doing this will likely cause mundane's to suffer in a game with even minimally optimized characters above tier 4, but I find it highly unlikely that that is the desired result of the person making the decision. You're attributing malice, which I find both more distasteful and less likely than ignorance (willful or otherwise).

ffone

2011-06-26, 02:39 AM

The main argument against Tome of Battle is that Melee can't have nice things.
So I'm wondering, why exactly do people think melee can't have nice things?
And yes, I've heard of the whole it's wizards fault for brainwashing us, but why else?

"Straw Man: The Thread."

Most people who play melee like "mundane" characters, those who are more or less constrained by the limits of reality. It's not that they don't want to be effective, they just want a class that performs in a way similar to real world soldiers rather than flying, regeneration, teleporting swordsman who shoots fireballs from his eyes and lightning out his arse.

On the same token those who play magic users typically like to feel special, and if other classes get their toys they aren't special anymore.

I don't think anyone doesn't want melee to be interesting, useful, or effective, they just want the mechanics to represent this in a realistic way using mundane skills and feats rather than nonsensical maneuvers.

Also, it's too anime.

This was rather well said.

Do you really think a fighter uses the same sideways cut over and over and over? No, in the world, not in the mechanics, but in the world, even a commoner is smart enough to not use the same attack until it's always blocked. The properly trained warriors have an array of footwork, styles, and techniques they use. That's represented in ToB's mechanics, but people think that makes it anime. You think the names are too anime? Don't use them. You think jumping in the air is too anime? Why do you allow leap attack? Think they're too anime in the fluff? Refluff it. The only class in ToB that uses magic of any kind is the swordsage, which is meant to replace the monk, which, by the way, has supernatural abilities. I guess you might say crusader uses magic too, but so do paladins.

Every regular damaging attack a Fighter makes is the same sideways cut? Dang, I better tell some of my players to quite roleplaying their nonmagical melee chars the way they do.

Actually, different degrees of abstraction is one of the reasons. There are hundreds of different spells in D&D, but only one "attack" and no active defense at all. Melee is home to myriads of styles, techniques, stances and counters. ToB reflects that to a certain degree, core melee does not, which makes it rather dull. It's abstracted to a higher degree than magic and thus seems less "nice".

I thought this was also a well said point. The lack of mechanical variety in core combat mechanics is a little snoozy.

Darth Stabber

2011-06-26, 02:43 AM

Now you're ascribing motive (and an tawdry one at that), which I would take as extremely offensive if I banned ToB for anything other than T4/5 campaigns. I don't hate anything: it's not an emotion I find healthy, so I don't allow myself to indulge in it.

Doing this will likely cause mundane's to suffer in a game with even minimally optimized characters above tier 4, but I find it highly unlikely that that is the desired result of the person making the decision. You're attributing malice, which I find both more distasteful and less likely than ignorance (willful or otherwise).

Oh noes, the hyperbole police have come to take me away to exagerationtraz

Hecuba

2011-06-26, 02:46 AM

Oh noes, the hyperbole police have come to take me away to exagerationtraz

Sorry, I'm tired and missed the hyperbole. I should probably sleep, but the combination of this forum on one screen and the site that shall not be named on the other is quite tempting.

Talakeal

2011-06-26, 02:46 AM

Actually I was under the assumption that divine magic and to a lesser extent psionics, were at least partially powered by belief. A cleric gets his reality bending powers from a belief in a deity, and since clerics of a cause are part of the official rules, they are powered by their beliefs, proving that the gods are only 1 possible focus for the power that can obtained from channeled mortal belief.

I'll accept that, but both of those are listed as supernatural effects that require special training or abilities to learn. They are not EX abilities, and no one tries to pass them off as mundane.

The crusader's abilities, on the other hand, all involve mystic energy and divine power, which is for some reason non magical even when it does the impossible. It's kind of annoying that no matter how high I get my heal skill I can't heal a single point of damage with it but a crusader can, using mundane means, knit together damaged flesh by swinging their sword around.

Also, it's kind of weird that you say anyone who doesn't like the ToB hates mundane characters. I have always loved fighters, and although I am disappointed by their lack of skills and saves I love the mechanics and flavor of the fighter. When I play a magic user I feel like a cheating munchkin, and I just don't like the mechanics of war blade (or the 4th ed melee classes while we are on the subject).

Frankly, the published monsters are, for the most part, too easy unless the DM goes out of their way to optimize them. That or they have some sort of "gimmick" which hoses you over if you don't have the counter to it or presents almost no threat if you do. A party of four tier fives with even marginal optimization should have no problem beating 4 equal CR monsters a day.

A swordsage is a magic user, albeit one who uses a sword as a focus for their magic, as such they are melee but not mundane.

Big Fau

2011-06-26, 02:51 AM

A swordsage is a magic user, albeit one who uses a sword as a focus for their magic, as such they are melee but not mundane.

Except you can build one with nothing but Ex maneuvers (even Desert Wind and Shadow Hand has a few), in which case his only magical ability is the Detect Magic ability.

Zaq

2011-06-26, 02:51 AM

I have always loved fighters, and although I am disappointed by their lack of skills and saves I love the mechanics and flavor of the fighter.

What mechanics? This sounds snarky, but I'm asking in earnest. What mechanics does the Fighter even HAVE?

NNescio

2011-06-26, 02:51 AM

How many times have you ever seen a D&D book say "reality is shaped by belief and anyone can change reality by wanting it hard enough?". Have you ever seen a D&D adventure where something that violated the rules and common sense had a non magical explanation behind it?

The description of the dragon type specifically says they are magical creatures, as does the magical beast type.

I have seen plenty of monsters and wierd events described by "a wizard did it" or "a god did it" or "magical radiation did it". I have never seen reality change because someone wanted it to. For example the owlbear is a crossbreed of owls and bears created by meddling magicians, not by "an owl and a bear loved eachother so much that their emotions overpowered their biology and they had kids".

Planescape has a bit of that, although I don't believe it ever had mechanics to back it up, and even then it was because the outer planes are shaped by belief, the prime material plane is not.

*cough* Avatar Trilogy Series *cough*
*cough* Ravenloft *cough*

I'll accept that, but both of those are listed as supernatural effects that require special training or abilities to learn. They are not EX abilities, and no one tries to pass them off as mundane.

*cough* DC 40 Spot check *cough*
*cough* DC 120 Escape Artist check *cough*
*cough* DC 50 Bluff check *cough*
*cough* DC 90 Balance check *cough*
*cough* DC 50 Appraise check *cough*

Darth Stabber

2011-06-26, 02:55 AM

It is not hard at all to build an all (ex) sword sage, just avoid desert wind and parts of shadow hand. Devoted spirit however would do well to pick up (su) on a couple of manuevers and stances. The main class that is the topic of these debates should be warblade, it's all (ex), and if you have read any conan, ther is nothing in that class that should make you bat an eye. And swordsage is almost exactly like monk in the sense that they both have a number of supernatural abilities, and on that grounds, banning it should also mean banning monk.

I mean that. If you are going to ban swordsage for fluff reasons, monk has to go too. They are both quasi magical, but swordsage can be a lot more mundane than monk.

Talakeal

2011-06-26, 03:36 AM

*cough* Avatar Trilogy Series *cough*
*cough* Ravenloft *cough*

*cough* DC 40 Spot check *cough*
*cough* DC 120 Escape Artist check *cough*
*cough* DC 50 Bluff check *cough*
*cough* DC 90 Balance check *cough*
*cough* DC 50 Appraise check *cough*

Yes, Epic level rules are also silly and make very little sense. My group read that book for laughs and still use it as the butt of jokes, but never actually even tried to play with it.

Talakeal

2011-06-26, 03:45 AM

What mechanics? This sounds snarky, but I'm asking in earnest. What mechanics does the Fighter even HAVE?

Damn, I wrote out a long essay on this and the forum decided to backup just as I hit post and it was lost.

In short, fighters do not have as many tools as spellcasters, however I find that (within reason) this is a good thing as it makes you learn to use the tools you have in creative and effective ways.

There are mundane skills (although as I said fighters are shortchanged here) and feats which give you more options. There are plenty of maneuvers like trip, sunder, disarm, grapple, bull rush, charge, power attack, etc which require brains know when to use, and there are feats which add many more.

Movement itself is a game, and positioning yourself so the other meel get their flanks off and can get into position without provoking AoO, and so the bad guys can't get to the squishier characters without provoking AoO if at all. There is also using terrain and dungeon layout, cover, and concealment to your advantage.

Then there is item selection. Most fighters have several different weapons / shields on hand and need to choose the right one for the right situation. There are also plenty of consumables like potions, magic ammunition, and alchemical items as well as limited use magic items which you need to decide when to save and when to use.

Playing a fighter feels a lot more strategic to me than a caster, like a good game of chess. Take for example:
http://www.amazon.com/Power-Gamers-3-5-Warrior-Strategy/dp/0974668133/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1309077759&sr=8-6

This is a 100 page book detailing tactics based solely on melee combat using the PHB rules, and this is only generic strategies that don't even go into the various monsters you can run up against.

Hazzardevil

2011-06-26, 03:49 AM

Which is irrelevant because D&D is medieval fantasy, not medieval history. And fantasy almost invariably gives either a swashbuckling or eastern flair to named attacks. Especially older fantasy.

I would just like to say that DnD is technically Iron Age.

D&D represents a period in history that is most closely identifiable with the Iron Age: the landscape is dotted with tribes and aspiring empires, the wilderness is largely unexplored, and powerful individuals and small groups can take over an area without having a big geopolitical hubbub about it.

In my opinoin Tome of Battle is nice, but I do generally prefer to have melee work less like a spell system like maneuvers and more of every turn you can use a particuler ability based upon what happened last round.

Bhaakon

2011-06-26, 03:50 AM

Who can't melee have nice things?

It builds character.

NNescio

2011-06-26, 03:51 AM

Yes, Epic level rules are also silly and make very little sense. My group read that book for laughs and still use it as the butt of jokes, but never actually even tried to play with it.

*cough* Some [Ex] uses of Truespeak *cough*

(Or heck, Truespeech in general is pretty much 'rewriting reality with your will", no matter how sucky it is in practice.)

Also you don't need to reach epic levels in order to use epic skill checks. Nothing in the rules prohibit this, and this interpretation is supported in the FAQ, for what's it worth.

A swordsage is a magic user, albeit one who uses a sword as a focus for their magic, as such they are melee but not mundane.
So monks are also magic-users? I certainly agree that they aren't completely mundane, but they are hardly magic-users as well.

There are mundane skills (although as I said fighters are shortchanged here) and feats which give you more options. There are plenty of maneuvers like trip, sunder, disarm, grapple, bull rush, charge, power attack, etc which require brains know when to use, and there are feats which add many more.

Movement itself is a game, and positioning yourself so the other meel get their flanks off and can get into position without provoking AoO, and so the bad guys can't get to the squishier characters without provoking AoO if at all. There is also using terrain and dungeon layout, cover, and concealment to your advantage.

Then there is item selection. Most fighters have several different weapons / shields on hand and need to choose the right one for the right situation. There are also plenty of consumables like potions, magic ammunition, and alchemical items as well as limited use magic items which you need to decide when to save and when to use.

Playing a fighter feels a lot more strategic to me than a caster, like a good game of chess. Take for example:
http://www.amazon.com/Power-Gamers-3-5-Warrior-Strategy/dp/0974668133/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1309077759&sr=8-6

This is a 100 page book detailing tactics based solely on melee combat using the PHB rules, and this is only generic strategies that don't even go into the various monsters you can run up against.

These options are also available to spell-casters as well, at greater scale, frequency, and variety.

And really, chess is far far more complex and strategic the more pieces you have on the board. Taking both queens off the board simplifies the game significantly.

I also suspect that you are confusing tactics with strategy, as the fighter itself is not rather strategic in any sense unless he's a warlord or a leader of some sort.

Talakeal

2011-06-26, 03:57 AM

*cough* Some [Ex] uses of Truespeak *cough*

(Or heck, Truespeech in general is pretty much 'rewriting reality with your will", no matter how sucky it is in practice.)

So monks are also magic-users? I certainly agree that they aren't completely mundane, but they are hardly magic-users as well.

Monks have two or three supernatural abilities which are labeled as such, not quite the same thing as a sword sage.

Ok, I am going to concede that you can find numerous places where the game has unrealistic elements or seemingly supernatural EX abilities. However, these are the exception not the norm. I have been playing D&D for 20 years, and I never got the impression that it was an innately different existence than our own, merely a world with magical elementals tacked on, and the line between magic and mundane is normally pretty clearly defined.

Yes there are cases when it breaks down, but these are the exception not the rule. I am serious about my group laughing at the ELH because it was so out of character for the rest of the game, where as in Exalted for example we wouldn't have batted an eye at it because the setting is supposed to be one where reality is still fresh and mutable and everything is magical; I just don't get that vibe from 99% of D&D source books or novels, and those that I do stick out like a sore thumb in my eyes.

Maybe it just has to do with the expectations I brought in. I grew up reading books like Conan, Dragonlance, Lord of the Rings, or even Narnia, all of which where fairly realistic settings with clearly defined magical or supernatural elements. I am aware that other series like Discworld and Xanth take a more off the wall omnipresent magic approach, and for someone familiar with that maybe they would look at D&D in a different way, I don't know.

Elana

2011-06-26, 03:59 AM

My main beef with ToB is..

it uses new classes to achieve things.

The Fighter should be the best class at fighting so any book that presents new classes that are better at fighting doesn't fix anything..they make the problem get worse.

Now in comparison look at Malhavocs "Book of Iron Might".

It presents Combat maneuvers anyone can use(high BAB helps).

A bunch of feats that can be taken as bonus feats by fighters and actually scale and make the fighter less dependent on magic items. (Well the good feats still have an arcane descriptor so if you want to avoid being more than mundane you are a bit restricted in what feats you can take)

And all that is even open game content, so it could be picked up by new systems out there.

But the important thing is that book makes actually sense.
And it gives nice things to all martial classes.
Andthe Fighter gains the biggest advantage out of it.

(Well and for those who like playing robots, it gives you the ironborn, so you don't need to plunder the Eberron setting for warforged)

Darth Stabber

2011-06-26, 03:59 AM

Yes, Epic level rules are also silly and make very little sense. My group read that book for laughs and still use it as the butt of jokes, but never actually even tried to play with it.

I am probably the only person whom you will ever here say this, but I will mention it because I believe it: Epic level play is no more rediculous than lvl16+. By lvl 16 you can already reorder the cosmos to suit your whims inside of 6 seconds, only now skill monkeys get to have a chance at the insane as well. It still comes down to rocket tag, there are just more defences that have to be stripped away, and bigger rockets to spank your foes with. And somehow melee falls so far behind that it loops back around to useful.

Talakeal

2011-06-26, 04:01 AM

I am probably the only person whom you will ever here say this, but I will mention it because I believe it: Epic level play is no more rediculous than lvl16+. By lvl 16 you can already reorder the cosmos to suit your whims inside of 6 seconds, only now skill monkeys get to have a chance at the insane as well. It still comes down to rocket tag, there are just more defences that have to be stripped away, and bigger rockets to spank your foes with. And somehow melee falls so far behind that it loops back around to useful.

I have only played third edition past mid level once. At the point where Shapechange and Gate became available reality kind of suffered total existence failure.

NNescio

2011-06-26, 04:03 AM

Cerlis

2011-06-26, 04:06 AM

Sorry, I'm tired and missed the hyperbole. I should probably sleep, but the combination of this forum on one screen and the site that shall not be named on the other is quite tempting.

What Hyperbole? oh the thing about exaggerating about wanting Mundanes to suffer. I was to distracted by the fallacy that was suggested. That banning ToB has a single specific motive with strong overtones that it has to do with a dislike of the fluff or system.

I could ban ToB because i want one less book for my players to look through at the table. THem having a character that draws from more than 2 books can be so frustrating.

And of course since ToB isnt the only "nice things' for melee characters, the ToB debate doesnt matter.

And many people DO ban monk for the very reason you said.

I'll use my Fighter only special ability to increase my will save and make every save that damned wizard can throw at me and beat him into the ground. i consider that a nice thing.

NNescio

2011-06-26, 04:10 AM

What Fighter-only special ability?

Talakeal

2011-06-26, 04:13 AM

What Fighter-only special ability?

Seriously, I want it!

You know, the very first group I ever played 3.0 with outside of my 2e buddies had banned the monk because they were both too anime and grossly overpowered.

Cerlis

2011-06-26, 04:19 AM

well the warblade clause of him counting as a fighter of lower lvl might mean its a fighter/warblade only feat.

My point was that in core there are only one or two feats only a fighter can get, thus you only need a few lvls of fighters to achieve the best you can get by being ONLY fighter.

The fighter feats from PHB2, they where more upscale higher level feats that required fighter lvls, so a 100th lvl rogue or whoever could never get it. It might just be me, but i saw those and thought "hey thats awesome"

I dont want to bend reality with my brain. I want to hit something REALLY hard with a sword. or fire a buncha arrows with nothing but my good eyes, and quick arms. And even if everyone and their mom can do what i can do I can do what i WANT to do. and that makes me happy.

Elana

2011-06-26, 04:20 AM

Call the Warblade the Fighter. Call the Crusader the Paladin, and import the code wholesale if you really want it for some reason. Call the Swordsage the Monk. Problem solved.

The class names aren't the problem
They are new classes, using a new mechanic.
Splat books are supposed to augment core, not replace it.

If you want to play D&D I don't hand you a GURPS book and tell you just to call it D&D.

Darth Stabber

2011-06-26, 04:21 AM

My main beef with ToB is..

it uses new classes to achieve things.

The Fighter should be the best class at fighting so any book that presents new classes that are better at fighting doesn't fix anything..they make the problem get worse.

There is only so much fixing on fighter that can be done before you have different class entirely. It is generally agreed that class features>feats, and fighter doesn't have any class features (barring ACFs, which can actually be directly compared to feats since they can only replace feats). The fighter is a failure from the beginning since anyone can take a feat (except the dreadfull weapon spec line), but you have to be in a specific class for a certain number of levels to get a specific feature. And why does the fighter HAVE to be the best at fighting? It represents the most basic and generic fighting style possible, so generic that it has no unique features other than "able to take crappy weapon specific feats". There are so many "fighter fixes" out there that it is pretty much beating a dead horse at this point, the simple answer is starting anew and making a functional class and leaving the baggage of Fighter proper behind. And third party material is hardly usefull debate material, and while I haven't read your suggested book, I supremely doubt that it actually puts the fighter on tier 3, and even if it did, it brings every other class up too, since as stated before: anyone can take a feat. Fighters can do it more often, but class features>feats, and barbarian can still probably do it better. fighter still likely exists as a 2 level dip with those feats added, and feat rogue and psiwar pick up a few more tricks too.

Falin

2011-06-26, 04:25 AM

Every thing is refluffable

Yes, which is why WotC was able to retexture spells so nicely to fit melee classes. You've also got to remember the later books of the 3.5 line we're basically the beta verson of 4e so these "fighting men" evolved into the vanilla spellcaster that is every class in 4e.

Anywho, on topic. You, can change fluff, and alter tags, and whathaveyou all you want. But it probably wont help. If you like ToB, you won't change it, and those who don't like it for the flavor text could more easily just find something with flavor text they like better. And those who don't like it because of the magical feel would be hard pressed to change it.

Sir Homeslice

2011-06-26, 04:30 AM

vanilla spellcaster that is every class in 4e

Goodness gracious, I never realized Cleave was a spell.

Darth Stabber

2011-06-26, 04:39 AM

The class names aren't the problem
They are new classes, using a new mechanic.
Splat books are supposed to augment core, not replace it.

If you want to play D&D I don't hand you a GURPS book and tell you just to call it D&D.

If you ask for a short spear and you hand me a javelin because all of the shortspears are dull and rusty I won't complain, and fighter is a very dull rusty short spear indeed, the point is that I wasn't asking specifically for a shortspear so much as a 4' pointy stick. And warblade doesn't really replace fighter, fighter has always been a 2lvl dip class, likewise paladins and monks have always sucked, and people who want to play characters that don't suck have always steered clear of them. To say that ToB classes replace core classes implies that said core classes were at some point viable. ToB makes certain character concepts doable, that previously required some combination of refluff, heavy opti-fu, and accepting that you are going to suck.

And in official D&D there are very few "nice things" for mundane melee, and in my experience the people who ban ToB are the same people that ban the other nice things. Seriously I have seen numerous people ban the Barbarian Pounce ACF, claiming some nebulous crap about "flavor", and more than a few misguided souls who thought that it would unbalance the game. Seriously, these things don't unbalance the game, they merely upset the status quo of "bad@ss normals can't exist".

Elana

2011-06-26, 04:41 AM

...And why does the fighter HAVE to be the best at fighting?....

because that is the only thing he does?

If you get extra goodies you should lose fighting ability.

Having the fighter not the best at it, because he is so bland as not to have abilities is like restricting the wizard to cantrips as he only casts spells.

Concentrating on one area shouldn't make you worse in that field

Falin

2011-06-26, 04:43 AM

It's not, but neither are spells anymore. It’s all powers. So, basically a spell but called something different in the hopes we wouldn't notice. That's the problem I've always had with 4e it all feels vaguely samey. Sure, the fighter marks their opponents with... I don't know yelling real loud. But a paladin does the exact same thing by calling upon divine magic.

Sure the wizard uses different attacks. But they're all gained, and used in exactly the same way a fighter's are. They're not even called spells in their little description. They're called wizard attacks. Wizard ATTACKS! They didn't even bother going full out in changing the flavor of the classes.

Darth Stabber

2011-06-26, 04:52 AM

Gardener

2011-06-26, 05:40 AM

because that is the only thing he does?

If you get extra goodies you should lose fighting ability.

Having the fighter not the best at it, because he is so bland as not to have abilities is like restricting the wizard to cantrips as he only casts spells.

Concentrating on one area shouldn't make you worse in that field

In principle, I agree. In practice, the Fighter (the class) simply isn't given enough options to even beat out the Barbarian in simple fighting ability. The Fighter simply isn't good enough to hold the crown of "best at melee combat" that we'd love him to hold. That pile of bonus feats is useful, but not as useful as nearly any other full-attack-bonus class.

It's not restricting the wizard to cantrips. It's saying that no spell should ever be better than magic missile, because nothing can be more awesome than channeling pure arcane energy into a bolt to strike down your foe. Pure magical damage is the only thing that spell does, so no other spell should be better than it. On one level, it would be nice if this was true. On another, any system in which this were true is very definitely not D&D 3.5, and I wouldn't want to play a 3.5 game that simply tried to enforce this rule blindly.

The problem is that the 3.5 Fighter is poorly designed. The solution is not to demand all other mundane classes be equally poorly designed.

Terazul

2011-06-26, 07:57 AM

Monks have two or three supernatural abilities which are labeled as such, not quite the same thing as a sword sage.

What is with people always saying this? It's actually more like 5, out of their 18 total Class Features, which is about ~28%. They're like a third magical. More if you want to start up that silly argument about what should be Ex and what shouldn't (remember, Spell Resistance and speaking with animals ain't Su folks).

Swordsage has got Sense Magic at 7th. It then has 33 Supernatural Maneuvers (21 Desert Wind, only 12 Shadow Hand!) out of the 141 possible Maneuvers and stances made available to them, making it only ~23% supernatural if it even bothers to take ALL the maneuvers from 2 of its 6 schools. Which it doesn't have to, meaning you can have a Swordsage who's only Su talent is being able to tell if something is magic wonky.

You can't really claim the Swordsage is more innately magical just for having a greater number of class features.

Frozen_Feet

2011-06-26, 08:03 AM

Take into account that Monk class features are more fixed, and that means a straight-classed Monk is forced to be more magical on average than a straight-classed Swordsage.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-26, 09:23 AM

What is this thread even about right now? Haven't we decided that some people don't like ToB, others do?

Give it a goshdarned rest. Gosh-screwing-darn it.

The Glyphstone

2011-06-26, 10:33 AM

Jumping jehosephat, watch your gol-darned language already!

Urpriest

2011-06-26, 10:57 AM

Coidzor

2011-06-26, 11:17 AM

The class names aren't the problem
They are new classes, using a new mechanic.
Splat books are supposed to augment core, not replace it.

If you want to play D&D I don't hand you a GURPS book and tell you just to call it D&D.

Good thing I'm handing you a D&D book and they do augment core, rather than replacing it, because clerics and wizards rather enjoy the new martial PrCing opportunities. :smallwink:

To be honest though, Fighter has needed a rewrite since whoever designed the initial draft of the class first thought it up.

Quietus

2011-06-26, 11:29 AM

So monks are also magic-users? I certainly agree that they aren't completely mundane, but they are hardly magic-users as well.

What is it you think makes the monk more mundane than Swordsage? I'm completely serious about this : What is it, exactly, Swordsages can do that makes them more magical?

Teleport? Monks do that, and they teleport further.
Light their attacks on fire? Fiery Fists or whatever it is can replace a Monk bonus feat.
Throw balls of flame? Fiery Fists leads into Ki Blast, same thing.
Turn invisible? There's a Monk ACF for that.

Most - I'm not familiar enough with ToB to say all, but it's pretty close - of the supernatural stuff a Swordsage can do, Monks can *also* do. Sure, many of them are alternate class features, but so are maneuvers. You don't HAVE to take burning blade, any more than you HAVE to take fiery fist.

Fox Box Socks

2011-06-26, 11:30 AM

because that is the only thing he does?

If you get extra goodies you should lose fighting ability.

Having the fighter not the best at it, because he is so bland as not to have abilities is like restricting the wizard to cantrips as he only casts spells.

Concentrating on one area shouldn't make you worse in that field
Here's the problem: the Fighter, as written, isn't the best at it. Not even close. I can't tell you how many times I had the following conversation with new players in 3.5.

"Okay, what do you want to play?"
"I want to play a Fighter, because I want to be an all-around tough guy that hits enemies with my sword and has a large fighting skill set."
"Okay, slow down. You don't want to be a Fighter."
"What? No, I totally do."
"No, you actually don't. What you just described isn't what Fighters are actually any good at."
"Well, then what are they good at?"
"Niche specialization. They generally pick a single trick, then devote all of their bonus feats and magic items to improving that trick, then perform their trick over and over and over again."
"That...isn't what the books says."
"The book is lying. Here, if you want to play an all-around tough guy that has a large fighting skill set, try a Warblade or a Barbarian."

Saying "well Fighters should be the best at fighting" does little to change the fact that they aren't the best at fighting. At all. Even without Tome of Battle.

EDIT:

That last is flat-out wrong. The power descriptions refer to arcane powers as spells, martial powers as exploits, and divine powers as prayers. Later books use primal evocations, shadow hexes (I think), and I'm not sure what they use for psi.
Psionic classes use manifestatios.

Big Fau

2011-06-26, 11:41 AM

Splat books are supposed to augment core, not replace it.

And that's the line of thinking that ended up breaking the Big 6. Augmenting Core without moderation or an understanding of the system's strengths and weaknesses just results in the disparity we have today (and Core-only does not solve this problem).

Veyr

2011-06-26, 11:44 AM

I think the reason you don't get an answer (though the answer is likely one you wouldn't like) is that there's isn't a clarity of what you're asking for.
There certainly is: I requested a build that met the following three criteria:
Is mundane.
Is acceptable to the anti-ToB crowd as mundane.
Can contribute evenly in a wide variety of campaign events, both in combat with myriad different opponents and in non-combat situations, with an equal-level Beguiler. I'd accept something that is, say, better in combat but not as good with utility, but the build has to remain competent in almost all things, and should never be completely shut down by averse conditions.
This was in my post; I don't know how much more specific or clear you want me to be.

The fact is, so far, no one who claims to dislike ToB but want to give mundanes nice things has ever, to my knowledge, come up with a solution that satisfies both of these requirements.

Basically...

"Straw Man: The Thread."
We have endless assertions that the anti-ToB crowd wants mundanes to not have nice things, that claims that they do not are strawmen. We have nothing to back up these assertions.

Fox Box Socks

2011-06-26, 11:47 AM

the vanilla spellcaster that is every class in 4e
You do realize that saying "All classes in 4e use powers ergo all classes in 4e are the same" is roughly equivalent to saying "Both the Wizard and the Druid cast spells ergo the Wizard and Druid are the same class".

Shadowknight12

2011-06-26, 12:02 PM

Jumping jehosephat, watch your gol-darned language already!

My apologies, old chum, but them youngsters these days...

You do realize that saying "All classes in 4e use powers ergo all classes in 4e are the same" is roughly equivalent to saying "Both the Wizard and the Druid cast spells ergo the Wizard and Druid are the same class".

The druid can wild shape. Try "wizard" and "cleric" and you'll be absolutely right. But nope, wait, actually the cleric turns undead and has domain powers. Hmmmmmmmmm. Wizard and sorcerer? Nope, one has to prepare spells every day and the other one is stuck with a small pool of spells he can cast spontaneously. Wizard and archivist? Nope, the archivist has lots of class features on top of being able to cast spells.

Wizard and a cleric with no turn undead and no domains? Then yep, those classes are the same, because they both cast spells in almost the same way. Only the wizard has a different spell management system. Well, close enough.

Seerow

2011-06-26, 12:06 PM

My apologies, old chum, but them youngsters these days...

The druid can wild shape. Try "wizard" and "cleric" and you'll be absolutely right. But nope, wait, actually the cleric turns undead and has domain powers. Hmmmmmmmmm. Wizard and sorcerer? Nope, one has to prepare spells every day and the other one is stuck with a small pool of spells he can cast spontaneously. Wizard and archivist? Nope, the archivist has lots of class features on top of being able to cast spells.

Wizard and a cleric with no turn undead and no domains? Then yep, those classes are the same, because they both cast spells in almost the same way. Only the wizard has a different spell management system. Well, close enough.

If you're counting turn undead and domain powers as enough to differentiate two classes, then every 4e class has a couple of class features that should be more than enough to differentiate them. A Rogue's sneak attack is nothing at all like a Wizard's implement mastery. And the Wizard has a spellbook with extra powers he can swap out that differentiates him from other casters.

That's even ignoring the abilities gained from Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies, which all have unique class features and are the 4e equivalent to prestige classes.

4e may have a more rigid chasis that is followed, but saying that every 4e class is the same generic caster is pure ignorance. Have you even played the game?

Fox Box Socks

2011-06-26, 12:06 PM

The druid can wild shape. Try "wizard" and "cleric" and you'll be absolutely right. But nope, wait, actually the cleric turns undead and has domain powers. Hmmmmmmmmm. Wizard and sorcerer? Nope, one has to prepare spells every day and the other one is stuck with a small pool of spells he can cast spontaneously. Wizard and archivist? Nope, the archivist has lots of class features on top of being able to cast spells.

Wizard and a cleric with no turn undead and no domains? Then yep, those classes are the same, because they both cast spells in almost the same way. Only the wizard has a different spell management system. Well, close enough.
This is more or less exactly my point. Saying that all classes are the same ignores everything that makes classes different (features, paragon path options, class feats, etc).

Big Fau

2011-06-26, 12:09 PM

This is more or less exactly my point. Saying that all classes are the same ignores everything that makes classes different (features, paragon path options, class feats, etc).

The thing about 4E classes being all the same is that they all have the same amount of variance (2 1st level At Will, 1 1st level Daily, ect), with the only exception being the Psionic classes (who have more At Will and Encounter powers). Every class can have 1 PP and 1 ED, and there's no changing these once they've been selected.

This deters some people as they like classes having some power variance (like how the Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader have different maneuver progressions).

Now let's stop talking about 4E before this devolves into an Edition War like it usually does.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-26, 12:13 PM

If you're counting turn undead and domain powers as enough to differentiate two classes, then every 4e class has a couple of class features that should be more than enough to differentiate them. A Rogue's sneak attack is nothing at all like a Wizard's implement mastery. And the Wizard has a spellbook with extra powers he can swap out that differentiates him from other casters.

That's even ignoring the abilities gained from Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies, which all have unique class features and are the 4e equivalent to prestige classes.

There's something called a "degree of difference." When someone says "It's the same class," they don't (usually) mean "There are absolutely no differences between them." What they mean is "I do not think they are sufficiently different." It's a matter of taste. Some people think that oranges and grapefruits are the same, and some people think there's a world of difference.

4e may have a more rigid chasis that is followed, but saying that every 4e class is the same generic caster is pure ignorance. Have you even played the game?

You will garner a lot more respect from your fellow debaters if you treat them like intelligent adults. Yes, I have played 4e. About half as many games as I've played 3.5e. Are these sufficiently valid credentials, in your view, for me to have an opinion?

This is more or less exactly my point. Saying that all classes are the same ignores everything that makes classes different (features, paragon path options, class feats, etc).

Again, degree of difference. For some people, there's a greater degree of difference between the wizard and the cleric in 3.5e than in 4e.

NNescio

2011-06-26, 12:16 PM

What is it you think makes the monk more mundane than Swordsage? I'm completely serious about this : What is it, exactly, Swordsages can do that makes them more magical?

Teleport? Monks do that, and they teleport further.
Light their attacks on fire? Fiery Fists or whatever it is can replace a Monk bonus feat.
Throw balls of flame? Fiery Fists leads into Ki Blast, same thing.
Turn invisible? There's a Monk ACF for that.

Most - I'm not familiar enough with ToB to say all, but it's pretty close - of the supernatural stuff a Swordsage can do, Monks can *also* do. Sure, many of them are alternate class features, but so are maneuvers. You don't HAVE to take burning blade, any more than you HAVE to take fiery fist.

That was my point -- they are similarly supernatural. Which is to say, isn't much, as it's a far cry from spellcasting. Talakeal was asserting that swordsages are spellcasters who use swords as foci.

OracleofSilence

2011-06-26, 12:40 PM

Alright, so the are spell caster who use swords as foci.

to put it simply so what?

the Tome of Battle made melee classes playable, and enjoyable. Why? Because these classes were relatively competitive with classes that didn't bash people with hunks of metal, and more over, did it while bashing people with hunks of metal.

In the end, who cares if they are caster/noncaster? we are talking about a world where dragons are real (and can fly actually fly with wings), gods exist, and people can set stuff on fire with their minds.

The argument of supernatural skill vs some sort of magic is irrelevant. they use sword MAGIC no one would claim that it is anything but that. And as for the whole, the are better then a fighter?

almost any class aside from the monk is better then doing the fighters job then the fighter is. Who ever heard of a player using a 20th level fighter?? They always multiclass, and usually try to look like swordsages in poor light by 7th level!

that is all.

NNescio

2011-06-26, 12:41 PM

I was disagreeing with Talakeal. In case it wasn't apparent enough, which seems to be the case with two people.

OracleofSilence

2011-06-26, 12:48 PM

and my response was not particularly aimed at you. this is a general argument that i have encountered before (the one you were arguing against) and i was merely pointing out its absurdity.

i understood your point and i was merely putting forth some reasoning connected to it.

my apologizes if you misunderstood

Hecuba

2011-06-26, 12:49 PM

And many people DO ban monk for the very reason you said.

What reason I said? Unless I'm forgetting something, the only things I even remotely suggested as a possibility for banning anything in this thread was ignorance or playing for a specific tier range.

And yes, I was specifically referring to the attribution of motive to the hyberbole in question. If you follow the post you quoted back a couple of steps, that should become clear.

There certainly is: I requested a build that met the following three criteria:
Is mundane.
Is acceptable to the anti-ToB crowd as mundane.
Can contribute evenly in a wide variety of campaign events, both in combat with myriad different opponents and in non-combat situations, with an equal-level Beguiler. I'd accept something that is, say, better in combat but not as good with utility, but the build has to remain competent in almost all things, and should never be completely shut down by averse conditions.
This was in my post; I don't know how much more specific or clear you want me to be.

That's actually fairly explicit. I didn't remember seeing it written down as such-- my apologies. On the other hand, we went at least 3 pages in this thread before spelling out exactly what "nice things" are.

That is, however, more or less what I thought you were asking for-- a mundane melee system that keeps pace with a casting system (specifically as measured against the Beguiler). I do think, as a prior poster pointed out, you could probably make something work with a skill-tricks based chassis.

Ultimately, however, I do stand by my prediction that you would be disappointed. There is a very narrow range for competing directly with full casters and seeming sufficiently mundane.

T.G. Oskar

2011-06-26, 01:11 PM

Can Warblade do anything like Zhentarim Fighter? If not, there's 9 levels worth taking right there.

Hmm...good point there. Though it's mostly a trick the Samurai can pull off (and it needs a bit more feats; it's basically a Fighter version of Shneekey's Takahashi build). Though, combined with Dungeon Crasher and the Complete Champion ACFs, like...

I'll use my Fighter only special ability to increase my will save and make every save that damned wizard can throw at me and beat him into the ground. i consider that a nice thing.

...might give some leverage to the fighter.

It does delay the actual build you wish to have, though.

Call the Warblade the Fighter. Call the Crusader the Paladin, and import the code wholesale if you really want it for some reason. Call the Swordsage the Monk. Problem solved.

Odd that I don't see "call the Archivist the Cleric. Problem solved."

...indeed, it sounds a bit pedantic, but it's something easy to notice. The Cleric, as presented in D&D, is one of the few classes whose fluff and mechanics seem to be a bit divorced. I mean, the Cleric should be essentially the priestly class, which rarely uses heavy armor unless it's meant to be a warpriest (or a chaplain that has the sense of wearing body armor). Cleric of a god of thievery? Heavy armor seems a bit off for them, and they should have some more pointy weapons. Cleric of a god of water? Why they can't seem to swim? Those are minor things that are essentially solved (in part) through spells, but the core chassis of the class seems awfully off in that regard.

Even Cloistered Cleric and Archivist have their troubles, since both are basically the same (except one uses the core Cleric chassis while the other replaces stuff from the Cleric chassis and instead gains knowledge-related class features), but few people actually argue why they need to be refluffed. Instead, the Cleric is untouched. That seems to be a definite mechanics-related handwave.

Now, while I would like to see a change for the Cleric (aside from Fax's one) that makes it a bit more modular by removing some stuff from them but allowing the domains to add that to them, I wouldn't personally complain if someone wished to play a Cleric. However, if I have to forcefully play another class instead of the one I want to (say, Crusader instead of Paladin because I want to use the Paladin spells alongside Divine Spirit and the full benefit of Holy Avenger, even if eventually I decide to PrC) and someone else manages to play a Cleric of Olidammara, I'd cry foul, since it's a forced change for the benefit of the group instead of considering how I attempted to provide a reasonable benefit for the group. However, if I DO wanted to play a Crusader with some Cleric levels and straight into a refluffed Knight V(V)indicator and call that a "Paladin", or if a player wanted to do that in a game of mine, I wouldn't make the same protest. Thus, I don't see that as a solution to the problem, especially considering that the developers filled splatbooks with stuff that would improve the core classes (hence, why there's always new stuff for the core spellcasters while the others are left abandoned; not the best method of design and an entirely different topic to handle, but it's the design method of 3.5)

If you ask for a short spear and you hand me a javelin because all of the shortspears are dull and rusty I won't complain, and fighter is a very dull rusty short spear indeed, the point is that I wasn't asking specifically for a shortspear so much as a 4' pointy stick. And warblade doesn't really replace fighter, fighter has always been a 2lvl dip class, likewise paladins and monks have always sucked, and people who want to play characters that don't suck have always steered clear of them. To say that ToB classes replace core classes implies that said core classes were at some point viable. ToB makes certain character concepts doable, that previously required some combination of refluff, heavy opti-fu, and accepting that you are going to suck.

Dippable =/= it always sucks. Not one bit. That the entire chassis has issues? Probably. But that the ENTIRE class sucks? Not probable. I mean, when it's hilarious that you can dip at least 2/4 levels in the class that you intend to replace and STILL generate a good class (maybe even a BETTER class), then it doesn't mean it sucks.

ACFs are also a great way to remove some of the issues with the class.

Finally: Wizard 20 or Cleric 20 is doable, but let's face it: by 5th level, you'll stop taking levels in both classes. Remove the spellcasting ability of both classes, and the chassis would suck beyond belief (I mean, the Cleric gets all the nice stuff at 1st level!!!). Prestige Classes that advance spellcasting are an example that the chassis of the class sucks, but spellcasting is so powerful IT OBVIATES THE SUCKINESS OF THE CHASSIS. So arguing that class X or class Y sucks because you need multiclassing or PrC'ing or a convoluted build seems a bit off scale. I could agree on a different argument based upon these lines; the term "always sucks" is an absolute asseveration. The Monk, quite probably, falls within this argument if using Doc Roc's famous quote regarding the inedible, but it kinda nulls what you can pull off with the ACFs (which are as every bit as official, useful and legal as placing ToB on the table).

So I would disagree on whether the classes always sucked. That would imply...they sucked since AD&D 1st Edition (perfectly reasonable since "always" draws this connotation) or that they suck no matter how much material the developers added (and based on the builds that existed BEFORE ToB, that argument certainly is challenged). I can agree that you can make simpler and more elegant builds using ToB, which is a strong argument by itself.

Good thing I'm handing you a D&D book and they do augment core, rather than replacing it, because clerics and wizards rather enjoy the new martial PrCing opportunities. :smallwink:

Well, if it doesn't replace Core, then why insist on forced fluff replacements? Again, Archivists and Cloistered Clerics evoke the flavor of the priest better than the Cleric, but that's no reason to force people to use them if they want to use the Cleric (unless it's an old-school ToS build, which explicitly removes the Cleric).

To be honest though, Fighter has needed a rewrite since whoever designed the initial draft of the class first thought it up.

Again, that's an absolute statement. Are you arguing that the class was flawed ever since 1st Edition?

If the idea is "the initial draft for 3rd Edition", then I could agree. I mean, the Fighters (actually, the Warriors; Paladin and Ranger shared the same scores) had the BEST saves at the end of the game, even if the Priests and the Wizards had slightly better saves on specific ones. And spellcasting was a bit more restricted. The Fighter suffered a lot in translation, and so did many of the melee classes because what worked for 2nd Edition didn't work for 3rd. Perhaps if ToB was thought right at the moment 3.5 was concocted this entire discussion wouldn't have existed, but unfortunately well AFTER ToB these classes still had support, in one way or another.

Veyr

2011-06-26, 01:24 PM

Ultimately, however, I do stand by my prediction that you would be disappointed. There is a very narrow range for competing directly with full casters and seeming sufficiently mundane.
That is my point — and my fear. It seems to me that the anti-ToB crowd will label any system whereby mundanes get nice things as non-mundane or anime-esque, and therefore unacceptable.

So maybe it's less an issue of "mundanes should not have nice things" and more an issue of "mundanes cannot have nice things (and still be mundane)". The appropriate response at that point would be to take nice things away from the magical characters — which a few people actually do — but almost no one does that.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-26, 01:33 PM

That is my point — and my fear. It seems to me that the anti-ToB crowd will label any system whereby mundanes get nice things as non-mundane or anime-esque, and therefore unacceptable.

So maybe it's less an issue of "mundanes should not have nice things" and more an issue of "mundanes cannot have nice things (and still be mundane)". The appropriate response at that point would be to take nice things away from the magical characters — which a few people actually do — but almost no one does that.

I will give you proof, of both ideologies (giving melee nice things without ToB and taking away nice things from spellcasters), in due time. Just putting it out there, since you seem so concerned.

I absolutely hate ToB fluff (and extensive refluffing is, whether you agree it's worth it or not, time consuming), but I have never, ever banned it, and I never will. I ran an all-ToB party once (with the odd DFA) and I did so diligently. Until I don't have a different way to give melee nice things, I cannot speak a single word against ToB.

Veyr

2011-06-26, 01:42 PM

Gensh

2011-06-26, 01:44 PM

So maybe it's less an issue of "mundanes should not have nice things" and more an issue of "mundanes cannot have nice things (and still be mundane)". The appropriate response at that point would be to take nice things away from the magical characters — which a few people actually do — but almost no one does that.

I don't usually have to. My first group thought that the whirlwind attack feat was the most powerful option in the game, while my second didn't like full casters (except the beguiler/rainbow servant, but that guy's also on these boards, and he knows to play low-key). My third group plays Exalted. In any case, the way I usually run it is that all noncasting prestige classes give full progression of the obvious base class abilities if they didn't already, and players can petition me for a noncasting version of a casting class. For example, a barbarian/green star adept is not immediately horrible (okay, not as horrible as caster entry).

Shadowknight12

2011-06-26, 01:53 PM

What fluff? Crusader is a Paladin, Swordsage is a Monk, maybe a Rogue, and Warblade is a Fighter. You don't need to refluff anything; the classes can literally be dropped in just like that. You don't have to replace anything, either; not every Paladin needs to have the same abilities: some can do Crusader things, others can do Paladin things.

I mean, you'd have to ignore the whole Reshar/Temple of Nine Swords thing, but ignoring fluff doesn't seem like much work.

No, because I never replace things in my games. I add. I never tell someone "You? Play a paladin? Puh-lease. Play a crusader instead." I say "Are you familiar with ToB? It has a class that does something similar, and may offer you more options. You can still play the paladin, though, if you want." Which means that no, the paladin is the paladin and the crusader is the crusader.

Sure, I can ignore the fluff. And then I have to come up with stuff to explain them. What is the crusader? Where does he get his powers from? Are they magical? Divine? Raw manly grit? How are they a part of the setting? What are disciplines? Who invented them? How are they taught? How do they work? Why do crusaders have access to such and such Discipline, and not Setting Sun? Who made it so? How do crusaders relate to paladins? Are they part of the same churches? Can crusaders Fall? Are they held accountable for what they do, what they use their powers for?

Whether I like it or not, accepting the fluff in the book is the least amount of work for a DM.

Anyway, I look forward to what you've got, but I don't think you're really the sort of person I'm talking about in my posts anyway (since you allow ToB despite disliking it, which would indicate that you see it for what it is, and realize that there's nothing else in 3.5 that does what it does).

Oh, I don't think anyone says that in core 3.5e (slightly more dubious in the non-ToB splats) there are nice things for melee. I think what they're saying is "we like melee to have nice things, but ToB is not what we want. If only there had been nice things for melee under another package..." which is certainly a sentiment I can understand. They feel that way, and lack the ethical integrity necessary to allow it in their games despite how sorely needed it is. These people let their feelings get in the way of their DM judgement, which should be impartial.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-26, 01:59 PM

Shadowknight12

2011-06-26, 02:06 PM

Veyr

2011-06-26, 02:37 PM

Oh, sure, I can call them whatever I want. But whether I like it or not, all the questions I asked above still apply. Technically, a crusader cannot fall (unless he RPs a fall). Nor must he be Lawful Good. Nor is he constrained by a Code of Ethics (unless he wants to be). Whether I like it or not, there are mechanics that affect the paladin that do not affect the crusader, and viceversa. So it's more comfortable for me to say "those with the paladin class (and affected by the paladin class's mechanics) are called paladins. Those with the crusader class (and affected by the crusader class's mechanics) are called crusaders." I don't have to make this distinction, but it helps me prevent confusion.
But those don't apply to the Monk | Swordsage or Warblade | Fighter thing. Some "monks" get Flurry of Blows and Fast Movement; others get Mighty Throw and Step of the Wind. Some Fighters get Point-Blank Shot and Rapid Shot, others get Charging Minotaur Strike and Leading the Charge.

As for Paladins | Crusaders, those concerns ... frankly, I detest the falling mechanics, so I wouldn't play with them anyway.

OracleofSilence

2011-06-26, 02:44 PM

Thrice Dead Cat

2011-06-26, 02:44 PM

No, because I never replace things in my games. I add. I never tell someone "You? Play a paladin? Puh-lease. Play a crusader instead." I say "Are you familiar with ToB? It has a class that does something similar, and may offer you more options. You can still play the paladin, though, if you want." Which means that no, the paladin is the paladin and the crusader is the crusader.

I have run games where people want to play that archetype and indeed suggested that they instead play a Crusader, as it is far, far easier to do than try to work with them to make an effective Paladin when I know the rest of the group has more OP-Fu than this one person.

As for X being X and Y being Y, well, please. This is 3.5. My rogues are ninjas, my factotums are swordsages (or Indiana Jones) and my swordsages are whatever they damned well please to call themselves.

A Paladin has certain crunch to it. So does a Crusader. Guess what? Their fluff is markedly similar to the point of being the same.

Sure, I can ignore the fluff. And then I have to come up with stuff to explain them. What is the crusader? Where does he get his powers from? Are they magical? Divine? Raw manly grit? How are they a part of the setting? What are disciplines? Who invented them? How are they taught? How do they work? Why do crusaders have access to such and such Discipline, and not Setting Sun? Who made it so? How do crusaders relate to paladins? Are they part of the same churches? Can crusaders Fall? Are they held accountable for what they do, what they use their powers for?

Just use pre-existing similar fluff. Or, hell, let the players wing it with their fluff. DND is a collaborative game, after all.

Whether I like it or not, accepting the fluff in the book is the least amount of work for a DM.

As a DM, if you aren't using a campaign setting, shouldn't you already be working overtime to get fluff for various archetypes going?:smallconfused:

I mean, I've been there, but, for the most part, I ran it fast and lose, letting either the players fill in the dark spots with what they thought or simply waited till a better idea came along. Guess what: it works rather well.

Oh, I don't think anyone says that in core 3.5e (slightly more dubious in the non-ToB splats) there are nice things for melee. I think what they're saying is "we like melee to have nice things, but ToB is not what we want. If only there had been nice things for melee under another package..." which is certainly a sentiment I can understand. They feel that way, and lack the ethical integrity necessary to allow it in their games despite how sorely needed it is. These people let their feelings get in the way of their DM judgement, which should be impartial.

Hey, every group is different, but I'll be damned if Tome of Battle isn't a first party sourcebook that actually does the job rather well.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-26, 02:49 PM

But those don't apply to the Monk | Swordsage or Warblade | Fighter thing. Some "monks" get Flurry of Blows and Fast Movement; others get Mighty Throw and Step of the Wind. Some Fighters get Point-Blank Shot and Rapid Shot, others get Charging Minotaur Strike and Leading the Charge.

As for Paladins | Crusaders, those concerns ... frankly, I detest the falling mechanics, so I wouldn't play with them anyway.

Warblade | Fighter? Oh, sure, definitely. But I've yet to find a player who wanted to play a fighter for the flavour. It's like wanting to eat a dry, old cracker for the flavour. You eat the dry old cracker because you're starving. Likewise, you don't take the fighter for flavour, you take it because you're really desperate for feats, HP and a good BAB.

Monk | Swordsage is a bit iffier. Sure, a lot of the stuff they get has no discernible difference from the Swordsage, but what about Tongue of Sun and Moon? Or Diamond Body/Wholeness of Body/Timeless Body? Diamond Soul? Perfect Self? Those things have RPing consequences. They can be replaced, yes, but some monks ascend to a higher state and gain permanent, tangible changes, while some don't. You may say it's all crap. I would agree, but that's not what we're discussing. I'm too used to players who pick things because they like RPing them, not because of how mechanically useful they are. And that's fine, they have every right to. I'm merely stating that there are some things that swordsage can't quite duplicate.

Well, I've changed the alignment system and the falling mechanics, so in my games, falling IS a personal choice the player makes. I don't make him fall. But I make all divine classes "able to Fall." My problem is what to do with the crusader. Are they divine, or are they like the knight, "kinda divine but not really"? Do they have a tangible connection to the gods? All these are things that I have to explain if I do away with the official fluff.

Veyr

2011-06-26, 02:50 PM

Every "monk" ever has to gain immunity to disease and poison, and the ability to talk to all living things? I'm not saying there aren't differences, but... I mean, if there were Monk ACFs that replaced those features, would you then say that they were no longer Monks, or that they were causing extra work for you to explain these different Monks on a fluff-level? It's rather similar to the same thing.

Darth Stabber

2011-06-26, 02:58 PM

You can still call a crusader a paladin. Is it absolutely forbidden to have the same archetype supported by two different classes? Same with swordsage and monk, and warblade and fighter. Not to mention that war blade and fighter can support a variety of archetypes.

As stated before: The paladin archetype has 4 classes directly supporting it, only one of which does not have some stupid "fall" mechanic, also there is only one that doesn't suck pond water and they are the same class. You could also hammer the archetype out of samurai, sohei, swashbuckler, or any other fighting-man descendant allowed to be lawful good. Even more so with clerics. Seriously cleric is one of the best classes at melee combat, and if you want to play a pious warrior and be good at it, cleric is your absolute strongest option, and you aren't even stretching the fluff. But since play tier 1 is usually seen as poor form it seems like ther should be a class that is reasonable at what paladin is supposed to do without being a full caster. Now why do people claim that crusader is too "magical", when paladins have a spell progression? Even if all the healing maneuvers were su (and they reasonably should be), they would still be less magical than paladins.

And since I am a gm primarily I actually do ban monks, it saves my fairly new players from a heart breaking trap. It makes sense in setting to, the swordsages drove them into extinction.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-26, 03:04 PM

this is simple semantics. Paladins can go on Crusades, and Crusaders can certainly act as a paladin. Falling mechanics are stupid in the worst sort of way, as is the LG alignment mechanic (not Good in general, LG in specific). Who cares about mechanics? this is a game to tell a story, not a game to argue about the differences that are not even mechanically similar.:smallcool:

And I would agree, but I cannot speak for myself. I have a responsibility for my players, and their interests must be protected at all costs. If they wish to see things in a certain way, I have to accommodate them. Some players do not like their crunch to be divorced from their fluff. I have to respect that.

I have run games where people want to play that archetype and indeed suggested that they instead play a Crusader, as it is far, far easier to do than try to work with them to make an effective Paladin when I know the rest of the group has more OP-Fu than this one person.

And I have done so, actually. I've helped an Optimisation-null player turn a bodyguard/investigator into a crusader/swordsage, precisely because everyone else was into ToB. But only with her approval.

As for X being X and Y being Y, well, please. This is 3.5. My rogues are ninjas, my factotums are swordsages (or Indiana Jones) and my swordsages are whatever they damned well please to call themselves.

And that's good for you! In my experience, some things give rise to confusion. Calling two different classes the same thing often evokes confusion. I'm quite happy it's not the same in your table.

A Paladin has certain crunch to it. So does a Crusader. Guess what? Their fluff is markedly similar to the point of being the same.

Quite correct, but the crunch is not exactly the same. I'd be much easier if I replaced, of course, but I don't do that. I have to find a way for paladins to coexist with crusaders with the least amount of confusion.

Just use pre-existing similar fluff. Or, hell, let the players wing it with their fluff. DND is a collaborative game, after all.

And I do use the prexisting fluff. And I do let my players rearrange their fluff to taste. That was my point all along. Are you guys sure you understand where I'm coming from? It's okay to dislike something and still allow your players to have it. That's what I'm doing. I'm telling my players "Yes, that's allowed. Yes, I can adopt official fluff or adopt the one you come up with. Yes, I'll find a way to make it work."

As a DM, if you aren't using a campaign setting, shouldn't you already be working overtime to get fluff for various archetypes going?:smallconfused:

I mean, I've been there, but, for the most part, I ran it fast and lose, letting either the players fill in the dark spots with what they thought or simply waited till a better idea came along. Guess what: it works rather well.

And that's exactly what I do, when I'm making my own campaign setting. When I'm not, I have to use what's given to me, because (if I'm running a campaign in a premade setting) I don't have the time or inclination to change the entire fluff of a supplement. So I run with it, much to my distaste.

Again, you seem to assume I don't allow it. I do. I allow ToB. I just don't like the flavour.

Hey, every group is different, but I'll be damned if Tome of Battle isn't a first party sourcebook that actually does the job rather well.

And I never said it didn't. I started saying it was sorely needed. I am not anti-ToB. I allow it in my games. I am grateful for its existence.

Every "monk" ever has to gain immunity to disease and poison, and the ability to talk to all living things? I'm not saying there aren't differences, but... I mean, if there were Monk ACFs that replaced those features, would you then say that they were no longer Monks, or that they were causing extra work for you to explain these different Monks on a fluff-level? It's rather similar to the same thing.

Ehhhh, that's trickier. Some ACFs are meant to be "exceptions" or "minorities." A swordsage is (as I see it) about as common as a monk, or perhaps even moreso (since they cover other niches, so you ought to find more swordsages than monks). But monks aren't quite small enough in number to be swordsages' exceptions. So I have to assume that neither can be explained away as "weird exceptions to the norm" but, in fact, as "the norm" itself. How else am I going to explain the differences, other than as "exceptions" or creating completely new fluff to explain the differences?

T.G. Oskar

2011-06-26, 03:08 PM

A Paladin has certain crunch to it. So does a Crusader. Guess what? Their fluff is markedly similar to the point of being the same.

Not really. Not if you have some historical working alongside it. I could agree if the Crusader could replace the Knight entirely, but even the Knight has stuff that works mechanically (the Challenges are nice, but it's their Bulwark which works even better, and you certainly could retain the feature and stay in another stance if you want to).

It's not exactly the same. The fluff of the Paladin and the Crusader overlap, but so does the fluff between the Paladin and the Knight. Mostly, because the Paladin was originally conceived as the Arthurian knight or the Paladins of Charlemagne (Three Hearts and Three Lions, the archetype of the paladin, deals with a future character becoming Ogier the Dane, one of the Peers). The Knight, thus, should have no reason to exist, but the Paladin then branched into a divine warrior, which regarding the Crusader's fluff caused an overlap. In fact, you could claim there's an overlap of fluff between the Paladin, the Crusader and the Cleric.

A mechanically improved class could certainly, in some games, hold the fluff that another less viable class could have, but even if the character has low optimization, there's no reason why it should be denied unless you're catering to the higher-optimized group. It's best considered a suggestion, and one that you may favor, but that would be DM methodology rather than a wider opinion. Being opinion, I hold one that indicates the Paladin and the Crusader can overlap, can exist within each other, and that there are stuff that the Paladin class offers that the Crusader class can't (and viceversa) which could use mutable fluff. That's part of Oracle's stance over things, but with one difference: the fluff is not divorced from the mechanics. In my case, fluff and mechanics are divorced but only to an extent. Kinda personal, but it's something that's a bit cringing.

thompur

2011-06-26, 03:46 PM

I like the idea of giving the Crusader the Paladin's class features except for spells. It retains the Paladin's flavor and the Crusaders versatility. Also, I never liked the paladin with spells. So it works out really well.

Divide by Zero

2011-06-26, 04:32 PM

The problem is that the 3.5 Fighter is poorly designed. The solution is not to demand all other mundane classes be equally poorly designed.

This is really all that needs to be said. I think I'll bookmark this post so I can quote it every time I see a ToB thread.

AnonymousD&Der

2011-06-26, 05:31 PM

Coidzor

2011-06-27, 01:24 AM

Well, if it doesn't replace Core, then why insist on forced fluff replacements? Again, Archivists and Cloistered Clerics evoke the flavor of the priest better than the Cleric, but that's no reason to force people to use them if they want to use the Cleric (unless it's an old-school ToS build, which explicitly removes the Cleric).

Oh, it does? I must have missed where either the book or I said that. Could you direct me, please?

Again, that's an absolute statement. Are you arguing that the class was flawed ever since 1st Edition?

If the idea is "the initial draft for 3rd Edition", then I could agree. I mean, the Fighters (actually, the Warriors; Paladin and Ranger shared the same scores) had the BEST saves at the end of the game, even if the Priests and the Wizards had slightly better saves on specific ones. And spellcasting was a bit more restricted. The Fighter suffered a lot in translation, and so did many of the melee classes because what worked for 2nd Edition didn't work for 3rd. Perhaps if ToB was thought right at the moment 3.5 was concocted this entire discussion wouldn't have existed, but unfortunately well AFTER ToB these classes still had support, in one way or another.

Well, I feel the context would suggest that I have about the same concern as I would have for a used fig for something outside of D&D 3.X for the purposes of this discussion. An absolute statement is not necessarily wrong or evil simply because it is absolute. Hell, you even know what I mean, whoever did the 3.0 and 3.5 Fighters dropped the ball and screwed the pooch all at once. You could even mix the metaphors and it'd still be apt.

Hecuba

2011-06-27, 01:53 AM

The problem is that the 3.5 Fighter is poorly designed. The solution is not to demand all other mundane classes be equally poorly designed.

As a point of abstract game design aesthetics, I would disagree. While I have no illusions that 3.5 is such a system, I would ultimately prefer a system where the balance point is closer to the 3.5 fighter than a 3.5 wizard.

Coidzor

2011-06-27, 02:11 AM

As a point of abstract game design aesthetics, I would disagree. While I have no illusions that 3.5 is such a system, I would ultimately prefer a system where the balance point is closer to the 3.5 fighter than a 3.5 wizard.

So you find it unfortunate that there's more than a simple binary of Fighter-level uselessness and Wizard-level gamebreaking? :smallconfused:

Cerlis

2011-06-27, 02:11 AM

-Just cus you choose to ignore the mechanic of Falling and think that makes crusader and paladin magically the exact same thing, doesnt mean other people wish to ignore it and they might actually want to include it. And of course theres all the other differences between the two classes (like the fact that a Paladin can censure demons, heal the sick, and magically inforce truth and justice ).

-and the fighter is not a poorly designed class. it is designed to do exactly what it was suppose to do. the only thing "wrong" is fans decided they prefer to bend reality with their mind. Cus just assuming the fighter was designed poorly wouldnt explain all the other classes that suffered from Base attack and Hit points are as important as spells" theology that prevented them from initially giving classes like the Hexblade, samurai,swashbuckler, mindspy, and ragemage better abilities.

So you find it unfortunate that there's more than a simple binary of Fighter-level uselessness and Wizard-level gamebreaking?

you're focusing on your own assumptions about the classes. if you are trying to figure out your quoted persons post try trying to think like them, the first step is "just cus fighter didnt get in on all these extra stuff designed after it was put out, doesnt mean its bad"
. The whole reality of just cus something else is better doesnt mean the first thing is bad.

Knaight

2011-06-27, 02:20 AM

...and the fighter is not a poorly designed class. it is designed to do exactly what it was suppose to do. the only thing "wrong" is fans decided they prefer to bend reality with their mind. Cus just assuming the fighter was designed poorly wouldnt explain all the other classes that suffered from Base attack and Hit points are as important as spells" theology that prevented them from initially giving classes like the Hexblade, samurai,swashbuckler, mindspy, and ragemage better abilities.

D&D is a system that is basically built around the assumption that you get Stuff, and Stuff helps you. 45% of fighter levels don't get Stuff. Sure, there is a minor HP increase, a minor BAB increase, some small boosts to saves, but in a game built around combat where people do Stuff, not getting Stuff 45% of the time is a sign someone screwed up.

One can argue that the basic assumption of Stuff is in and of itself bad game design. In all honesty, I agree, and would favor either a simple fast system or a highly dynamic system from the beginning -D&D combat that resembled Burning Wheel would in and of itself fix the problems with the Fighter, though not the problems with the Fighter as connects to other classes- but under the basic assumption of Stuff, a class that fundamentally doesn't get Stuff is screwy.

Now, consider the monk. The monk, in and of itself, is a well designed class. It gets Stuff, and the Stuff it gets is flavorful and interesting. It has a wide array of options, and when they are all said and done they mean a great deal. However, within the context of the other classes and monsters, none of these options are actually all that impressive. Likewise the ToB classes, though they fit in with the other classes better. I personally detest the mechanics, though I wouldn't go so far as to ban or even discourage them, but the design behind them is pretty solid.

Coidzor

2011-06-27, 02:21 AM

you're focusing on your own assumptions about the classes. if you are trying to figure out your quoted persons post try trying to think like them, the first step is "just cus fighter didnt get in on all these extra stuff designed after it was put out, doesnt mean its bad"
. The whole reality of just cus something else is better doesnt mean the first thing is bad.

Well, the fighter is extremely limited and not very good at doing the job it's supposed to do based upon the text of the book it was published in. So, yeah, I'd say that I'm not saying the Fighter is bad because Warblade is better. I'm saying the Fighter is bad because the Fighter is bad.

Wizards are famous for being able to break the game and that did seem to be what they disliked about the power level, just going by the numbers it seemed like quite the reasonable assumption.

Overlooking that there are extant multiple levels of core competency that have actually been looked into and semi-codified seems a curious choice.

But, sadly, you're not the person I was responding to, so we won't know what exactly was meant until clarification comes.

-and the fighter is not a poorly designed class. it is designed to do exactly what it was suppose to do. the only thing "wrong" is fans decided they prefer to bend reality with their mind. Cus just assuming the fighter was designed poorly wouldnt explain all the other classes that suffered from Base attack and Hit points are as important as spells" theology that prevented them from initially giving classes like the Hexblade, samurai,swashbuckler, mindspy, and ragemage better abilities.

Yes, because the Fighter is good for modeling a master of combat that can keep the rest of the party safe rather than a one trick pony or incompetent generalist...:smallconfused:

Because the only people who have issues with Fighters are people who want to be casting spells all the time and breaking the game. :smalltongue:

Gardener

2011-06-27, 02:36 AM

As a point of abstract game design aesthetics, I would disagree. While I have no illusions that 3.5 is such a system, I would ultimately prefer a system where the balance point is closer to the 3.5 fighter than a 3.5 wizard.
You know what? I agree. From my experience of other systems, I'm generally more fond of systems where the balance point allows you to be very good at some things, moderately effective at a few others, and able to apply your specialties to a range of situations, rather than the 3.5 Wizard's position of specialising in "magic", which can do anything. It's also different to the Fighter's specialisation in "killing things in very specific ways", which has a pretty big applicability problem, but the Fighter is closer than the Wizard to where it ought to be. And the Beguiler, Warmage, Psychic Warrior, Factotum and Warblade are all closer than either the Wizard or the Fighter to that ideal balance point, in my opinion.

Out of curiosity, what is it about the Fighter that pleases you from a point of game design aesthetics? The simplicity? The gradual speed of combat? Because frankly, the 3.5 Fighter has very little going for him aesthetically - they have few options, most of them require a fair degree of specialisiation to make useful, have big mobility problems in a very tactical game, and have no real unique mechanics beyond assembling feat combos faster than anyone else.

Knaight

2011-06-27, 02:39 AM

You know what? I agree. From my experience of other systems, I'm generally more fond of systems where the balance point allows you to be very good at some things, moderately effective at a few others, and able to apply your specialties to a range of situations, rather than the 3.5 Wizard's position of specialising in "magic", which can do anything. It's also different to the Fighter's specialisation in "killing things in very specific ways", which has a pretty big applicability problem, but the Fighter is closer than the Wizard to where it ought to be.

I agree entirely, though I also think that being outright bad at some things should be an option. I'm rather fond of Warrior Rogue and Mage as a result, its a system that really feels like D&D, while remaining simple, and allowing you to be good at what you want to be good at, decent at what you want to be decent at, and bad at what you want to be bad at, while being fairly balanced.

Coidzor

2011-06-27, 02:45 AM

I agree entirely, though I also think that being outright bad at some things should be an option. I'm rather fond of Warrior Rogue and Mage as a result, its a system that really feels like D&D, while remaining simple, and allowing you to be good at what you want to be good at, decent at what you want to be decent at, and bad at what you want to be bad at, while being fairly balanced.

:smallconfused: Except for if you were actually using the Fighter as the balance point of such a system you'd be decent at what you'd want to be good at, bad at what you'd want to be decent at, and horrible at what you want to be bad at as well as several things you'd like to be decent at but aren't allowed to be.

Hecuba

2011-06-27, 02:45 AM

So you find it unfortunate that there's more than a simple binary of Fighter-level uselessness and Wizard-level gamebreaking? :smallconfused:

I find the magic system as a whole to be too broad, too nebulously defined, and without enough limits. If you cast a wide enough net across fiction and folklore, yes, magic can do anything. But that does not mean it's even a remotely good idea for magic to be able to do anything in a game setting.

Essentially, my most basic design complaints about casting in 3e/3.5 are:

The opportunity cost of magic is too low-- it needs drawbacks, either directly or in terms of reliability
The ease of casting to too high-- there needs to be a reliable chance of failure in most situations
The capabilities of magic as a whole are too broad-- there need to be things that are, at very least, substantially easier without using magic.

The limited list casters are a step in what I see is the right direction. they address point 3 reasonably will. And, realistically, if you address the other two, you get a casting system that is far closer to being in line with a fighter than with a wizard.

D&D is a system that is basically built around the assumption that you get Stuff, and Stuff helps you. 45% of fighter levels don't get Stuff. Sure, there is a minor HP increase, a minor BAB increase, some small boosts to saves, but in a game built around combat where people do Stuff, not getting Stuff 45% of the time is a sign someone screwed up.

Arguably, this could be taken to mean that BAB, HP, and Saves aren't valuable enough. But yes, I do think that the fighter has too much dead space. I just dislike that dead space much less than I dislike some aspects of the casting systems.

Out of curiosity, what is it about the Fighter that pleases you from a point of game design aesthetics? The simplicity? The gradual speed of combat? Because frankly, the 3.5 Fighter has very little going for him aesthetically - they have few options, most of them require a fair degree of specialisiation to make useful, have big mobility problems in a very tactical game, and have no real unique mechanics beyond assembling feat combos faster than anyone else.

Strong reliance on core resolution mechanics (though this is ultimately shared with most other people primarily using weapons in combat).

Modularity in class features rather than using modular classes. It doesn't actually work-- feats aren't scarce enough or good enough-- but I like the idea from the 1000 foot view.

The gradual speed of combat is desirable, but that is again something that's true for more than just the fighter.

Now if you ask me what what class I like the design most for, all other things being equal, I would say Rogue.

:smallconfused: Except for if you were actually using the Fighter as the balance point of such a system you'd be decent at what you'd want to be good at, bad at what you'd want to be decent at, and horrible at what you want to be bad at as well as several things you'd like to be decent at but aren't allowed to be.

"Good," "decent," and "bad" are largely determined relative to the capacity of other options. The fighter is "bad" at things he should be "decent" at largely because others are significantly better at it. Trying to frame it on an absolute scale for a discussion of abstract (read: system neutral) design discussion would be almost completely useless.

Coidzor

2011-06-27, 02:51 AM

From my point of view, what you're saying is that BAB, HP, and Saves aren't valuable enough.

Point of order, that's from everyone's point of view that has an issue with the fighter not having any actual class features.

And everyone gets Saves, HP, and BAB, and frequently with actual Stuff to go with it, so it's not like making HP, Saves, and BAB more valuable would do anything to change the situation. Hell, the Fighter has only one good save after all.

...So because you dislike something less than something else that you apparently really, really hate, you don't see it as worth dealing with if one potentially had the time? Or that the people who were designing it shouldn't have redressed this before publishing it? :smallconfused:

Edit. Even with the long feat chains in order to get anything useful you don't think feats are scarce enough? :smalleek:

"Good," "decent," and "bad" are largely determined relative to the capacity of other options. The fighter is "bad" at things he should be "decent" at largely because others are significantly better at it. Trying to frame it on an absolute scale for a discussion of abstract (read: system neutral) design discussion would be almost completely useless.

As well as to the ability to actually deal with the obstacles set before them, yes. Taking DND and looking at how well the fighter can actually overcome them in a vacuumn would still have the fighter found wanting at the things the fighter is supposed to be good at as well as subpar at the things it could theoretically be decent at if it wanted to try.

Hecuba

2011-06-27, 02:56 AM

Point of order, that's from everyone's point of view that has an issue with the fighter not having any actual class features.

And everyone gets Saves, HP, and BAB, and frequently with actual Stuff to go with it, so it's not like making HP, Saves, and BAB more valuable would do anything to change the situation. Hell, the Fighter has only one good save after all.

...So because you dislike something less than something else that you apparently really, really hate, you don't see it as worth dealing with if one potentially had the time? Or that the people who were designing it shouldn't have redressed this before publishing it? :smallconfused:

Yeah, I changed that line quickly, but not quickly enough. I was trying to present the extreme polar option, but it occurred to me that I shouldn't play devil's advocate there when I was also directly presenting my views elsewhere in the post.

Edit. Even with the long feat chains in order to get anything useful you don't think feats are scarce enough? :smalleek:

I don't think feats are scarce enough (for the system as a whole) to make them viable as the a primary modular class feature.

Knaight

2011-06-27, 02:57 AM

I find the magic system as a whole to be too broad, too nebulously defined, and without enough limits. If you cast a wide enough net across fiction and folklore, yes, magic can do anything. But that does not mean it's even a remotely good idea for magic to be able to do anything in a game setting.
Agreed. Moreover, even if it can do a whole lot in a setting, individual characters should be fairly limited.

From my point of view, what you're saying is that BAB, HP, and Saves aren't valuable enough.
Its not a matter of value. Its a matter of interest. BAB, Hp, and Saves are universal, in a game where class features are all about capacities outside the norm. Essentially, D&D as a system assumes a set of actions that can be normally taken, with classes supplementing that. Sneak Attack is cool because its a tactical niche that not everyone has, Rage is the same way. If D&D as a system were designed assuming a universal set of actions that isn't supplemented, merely tweaked, the Fighter's design would be much better. The Fighter doesn't jive with the core assumptions of D&D, and as such it is bad design.

Modularity in class features rather than using modular classes. It doesn't actually work-- feats aren't scarce enough or good enough-- but I like the idea from the 1000 foot view.
Also fair enough. However, modularity in class features shows up throughout the system, often better designed elsewhere. Consider spells and maneuvers, both of which are an example of modularity in features, and both of which work well -though spells can be too overpowering outside of the limited T3 classes. Consider other d20 games, most notably d20 Modern and SAGA, both of which have classes with Talent systems that work quite well.

I'll be honest. I don't like the maneuver system, and I detest the spell system. The talent system, with a pool of class features on the other hand is one I wholeheartedly support, and maneuvers and spells are a step in the right direction, even if they are annoying in implementation.

Divide by Zero

2011-06-27, 02:58 AM

Edit. Even with the long feat chains in order to get anything useful you don't think feats are scarce enough? :smalleek:

I understood her to mean that as for classes other than Fighter. While I'm not sure it would work out well for the game overall, it certainly would make Fighters more useful if they were the only class that got enough feats to actually do anything with them.

LordBlades

2011-06-27, 02:59 AM

-and the fighter is not a poorly designed class. it is designed to do exactly what it was suppose to do. the only thing "wrong" is fans decided they prefer to bend reality with their mind. Cus just assuming the fighter was designed poorly wouldnt explain all the other classes that suffered from Base attack and Hit points are as important as spells" theology that prevented them from initially giving classes like the Hexblade, samurai,swashbuckler, mindspy, and ragemage better abilities.

Fighter was designed to be good at melee combat (at least that's what the default fluff says). And it's barely decent at best.

Cerlis

2011-06-27, 03:36 AM

Fighter was designed to be good at melee combat (at least that's what the default fluff says). And it's barely decent at best.

says you. and maybe everyone else who believes the fallacy "Because someone else does it better, it means the original is bad"

Hecuba

2011-06-27, 03:44 AM

Also fair enough. However, modularity in class features shows up throughout the system, often better designed elsewhere. Consider spells and maneuvers, both of which are an example of modularity in features, and both of which work well -though spells can be too overpowering outside of the limited T3 classes. Consider other d20 games, most notably d20 Modern and SAGA, both of which have classes with Talent systems that work quite well.

I was actually considering using SAGA as an example: from a practical stand point, it executes the design I like the aesthetic of much better.

I don't really find spells and maneuvers distinct enough that they strike me as modular class features, though I concede the point that they are probably best described as such. I shall have to ponder on that.

The Fighter doesn't jive with the core assumptions of D&D, and as such it is bad design.

Yes. It is very poorly designed when taken in relation to D&D 3.5. If anyone has gotten the impression I'm saying otherwise, I apologize.

As I noted a couple posts back, I didn't really get the idea you're responding to out very well.

My response in question was intended to convey the idea that there is no inherent reason the system has to make the passive advancement features of leveling up less valuable than active class features. As you pointed out, there are design avenues where dead levels are perfectly acceptable.

...So because you dislike something less than something else that you apparently really, really hate, you don't see it as worth dealing with if one potentially had the time? Or that the people who were designing it shouldn't have redressed this before publishing it? :smallconfused:
Well, first off, I don't hate anything. It's not an emotion I allow myself to indulge in.

But I'm not arguing that that fighter's design was well executed. Quite the contrary, I think it was poorly executed. But the I do find several of the aesthetic choices behind it preferable to those behind most 3.5 casters.

For an analogy:

The wizard is a well-prepared banana split that's drown in way too much of way too many toppings for my tastes-- it's overkill, but it's still edible and if you indulge in it with moderation. I don't like most of the toppings, there's too much of the ones I do like, nd to make it worse I dislike bananas. It's a passable desert, but given the choice, I'll order something else.

The Fighter, in contrast, is a fallen souffle with too much salt-- it's not edible because it was prepared poorly, but ultimately a souffle is the desert I want.

LordBlades

2011-06-27, 03:51 AM

says you. and maybe everyone else who believes the fallacy "Because someone else does it better, it means the original is bad"

Well, good, by many definitions means 'better than the average'. Otherwise the said thing would be 'average' not 'good'.

Now take the core only classes: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, Bard, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Paladin, Monk and Fighter.

How many of these classes can the fighter surpass at fighting?

Cleric and Druid? The term CoDzilla doesn't exist for nothing. Between Wild shape, Divine Power and Righteous Might both these classes can easily outfight the fighter.

Sorcerer and Wizard? Polymorph and the myriad of other buffs (mirror image, displacement, haste, stat buffs etc) would want a word with you.

Barbarian? Even in core' it's probably quite a bit better than fighter. There aren't enough decent feats in core for the fighter feat advantage to come into play, while the barbarian has Rage and better HD.

Paladin? Same problem as barbarians regarding feats, and paladin gets a decent bunch of class features and spells. I'd say paladin is better, but not by much.

Ranger, bard, rogue and monk? Yeah, these are the core classes that the fighter can outfight.

So the fighter can outfight 4 out of 11 core classes.

If you were doing something, and out of the 11 ppl in the world that were doing it, you were the 7th, could you really call yourself 'good' at it?

Gardener

2011-06-27, 03:59 AM

says you. and maybe everyone else who believes the fallacy "Because someone else does it better, it means the original is bad"

Ignore, for a moment, all the other melee classes that do combat better than the fighter. It's just Fighter vs Monster. Many, many monsters have a high overall AC and good HP; those without tend to have control effects or heavy debuffs, many of which require Will saves. The Fighter has very few ways to bypass these things. Their one real option for avoiding an enemy's AC, grappling, requires heavy feat investment to make good, and still suffers heavily against larger opponents and those with more Hit Dice - which is distressingly common in the Monster Manual, especially with the whole "boatloads of hit points and great AC" thing.

So, they're stuck with trying to hit AC and deal physical, hit point damage. That's the most common type of damage in the game, and it just so happens that most monsters have good ways to survive attacks against AC that deal only HP damage, especially when it's generally in small amounts. Charging builds can get enough damage to overcome this, but render themselves massively vulnerable to do so. Lockdown builds give up on trying to do that much damage, and settle for shutting down the enemy's offense entirely, but they rely on a reach advantage that can't be relied upon against most monsters, and the same size and Strength scaling problems make tripping and disarming also unreliable. Finally, monsters with natural weapons completely bypass the disarm side of a lockdown build, dramatically lowering its impact.

In short, Fighters struggle to be effective against some of the most iconic and common types of monsters in the game. And if you're not good at fighting monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, then can you really say you're good at fighting?

Big Fau

2011-06-27, 04:21 AM

says you. and maybe everyone else who believes the fallacy "Because someone else does it better, it means the original is bad"

It's not that Tier 1s can do everything better, it's that Tier 2 and lower classes have abilities that are easily replicated with minimal loss in efficacy.

I've never seen a Wizard do Trapfinding on-par with a Factotum, but I've seen a Wizard use a spell or two to replicate the results of the Factotum's Trapfinding abilities. Likewise, I've never seen a Druid or Cleric get as much damage as a Dungeoncrasher Fighter, but I have seen one mimic the Fighter's ability to stand in front and draw fire (which is the job of a tank anyway).

Coidzor

2011-06-27, 05:00 AM

says you. and maybe everyone else who believes the fallacy "Because someone else does it better, it means the original is bad"

So you know the motivations and beliefs of others better than they do, eh?

Somehow I find this hard to believe, sir.

But I'm not arguing that that fighter's design was well executed. Quite the contrary, I think it was poorly executed. But the I do find several of the aesthetic choices behind it preferable to those behind most 3.5 casters.

Certainly had me a bit confused about what exactly you were going for there.

Well, thank you for clarifying that.

squeekenator

2011-06-27, 05:51 AM

says you. and maybe everyone else who believes the fallacy "Because someone else does it better, it means the original is bad"

But then how do you determine whether they're good at fighting? The only way to decide whether a given class is good or bad at anything is to compare its abilities in that field to the other available classes. A d4 hit die is bad because it's weak in comparison to other classes, not because it's intrinsically weak. In a game where most classes get 1 HP per level, a d4 hit die would be excellent. In a game where 'low' BAB was +10 per class level, a fighter's BAB = level, one of his strengths, would be pitiful. In a game in which no other class got any skill points, regardless of their Int, a fighter's 2+int would make him an excellent skillmonkey. Everything is determined by comparison. If the fighter is weak at combat in comparison to barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerers and wizards then they are bad combatants in an absolute sense as well. They are inferior to almost every other option. That is the only possible definition of bad that can be used.

Yahzi

2011-06-27, 06:44 AM

Ihow do you give your mundanes nice things without Tome of Battle?
The AD&D way: Summon Fighter.

9th level fighters get a free extraordinary ability called followers. They have a limitless supply of 1st level fighters, which they can use match many other spells and class abilities.

Message? Send a rider on horseback.

Disable Traps? Send in a mook.

Open locks? Ten men with a battering ram.

Combat bonus? Use your mooks to flank and aid.

Locate Object? Have a squad quarter and search the area.

Summon Monster? But they're already there, and they don't go away in 9 rounds.

Leomand's Tiny Hut? They'll build you a big hut, every night, and sit on guard.

And so on. Really, Leadership is a feat only Fighters should get, and they should get it for free. In any given encounter the Fighter should be assumed to have a handful of disposable 1st level fighters.

Taelas

2011-06-27, 06:50 AM

I hope you're being sarcastic, because that would be terrible.

Personally I do not like some of the flavor in ToB -- but I allow the book in its entirety. (As an example of things I don't like, see the Crusader's healing maneuvers -- they make no sense as Ex abilities as written, in my opinion.)

ImperatorK

2011-06-27, 06:58 AM

(As an example of things I don't like, see the Crusader's healing maneuvers -- they make no sense as Ex abilities as written, in my opinion.)
Think of it as D&D version of placebo.

Tvtyrant

2011-06-27, 08:45 AM

The AD&D way: Summon Fighter.

9th level fighters get a free extraordinary ability called followers. They have a limitless supply of 1st level fighters, which they can use match many other spells and class abilities.

Message? Send a rider on horseback.

Disable Traps? Send in a mook.

Open locks? Ten men with a battering ram.

Combat bonus? Use your mooks to flank and aid.

Locate Object? Have a squad quarter and search the area.

Summon Monster? But they're already there, and they don't go away in 9 rounds.

Leomand's Tiny Hut? They'll build you a big hut, every night, and sit on guard.

And so on. Really, Leadership is a feat only Fighters should get, and they should get it for free. In any given encounter the Fighter should be assumed to have a handful of disposable 1st level fighters.

Exactly why wouldn't a Wizard or Cleric be able to do this? The Cleric especially, since it gets a congregation as part of its fluff and has the ability to actually help its followers. I have heard this argument before, and there is no justifiable reason for the Fighter to get Leadership and no one else. Monks found monasteries, Clerics churches, Wizards mage orders, Rangers...Arnor, Rogues have Thieves Guilds, and so on.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-27, 09:58 AM

There are many different things that can be talked about (and considering how any mention of ToB spawns a huge multipage thread going back and forth about it, probably will be), but this is the one thing that I really just had to comment on.

You sir, are an incredibly genuine and level minded individual. You are level headed, seem capable of rational and unbiased opinion, and are sophistocated enough to make conversation enjoyable.

Wow. That's definitely the awesomest thing I've heard on this site, and really awesome outside the Playground too. Thank you! :smallbiggrin:

I wish I had a DM just like Shadowknight here. If I didn't have a personal life, job, school, and 2 games under my belt, I'd ask if I could join you in gaming.

Mind if I sig that first sentence? That sounds like a great start for a sig.

Oh, and drop me a PM when you have the time. We'll see what we can do. :smallamused:

Darth Stabber

2011-06-27, 10:30 AM

says you. and maybe everyone else who believes the fallacy "Because someone else does it better, it means the original is bad"

That's most assuredly not a fallacy in this case. The only metric for determining how good a class is at fighting is comparison with other classes. Besides fighter is even worse in core than in splat. Seriously in core it is competing with CoDzilla, and Barbarian. And not only is the barbarian better at fighting he has trapsense and more skills from a better list, meaning he can do more out of combat too (mostly track and listen, but hey more than the fighter). Barbarians even make better guards since fighter has no perception skills, and guard should really be one of fighter's niches.

Veyr

2011-06-27, 10:39 AM

Also, the statement ignores the fact that even in the "original" case, the Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard are definitely better than the Fighter at fighting if they want to be, and the Paladin and Ranger may be as well.

Leon

2011-06-27, 10:42 AM

The main argument against Tome of Battle is that Melee can't have nice things.
So I'm wondering, why exactly do people think melee can't have nice things?
And yes, I've heard of the whole it's wizards fault for brainwashing us, but why else?

Melee gets plenty of nice things even outside of ToB, the question should be why can't archery have nice things.

AnonymousD&Der

2011-06-27, 10:46 AM

As a point of abstract game design aesthetics, I would disagree. While I have no illusions that 3.5 is such a system, I would ultimately prefer a system where the balance point is closer to the 3.5 fighter than a 3.5 wizard.

Stupid Info Backup. I had to wait until after work...

But yeah, I second this. Maybe not the featureless 3.5 Fighter, but still, there's no need for the God level Classes to be -so- powerful. The issue may not be that Melee gets nice things alone, but that -and- that Spells are -too- nice.

I feel like ultimately it'd probably be better for the game for Magic to be at best a replacement for the lack of Weapons and Skills accessable to the Magic Users, rather than letting Magic users be Gods. Heck, considering they get a low amount of skill points and uses, that may have been an intention...

I have a very stupid theory that's probably full of thousands of holes just waiting to be poked, but I'ma share it anyway. Maybe we -weren't- suppost to Optimize with the Wizard. That Meteor Swarm was to be the deadliest thing we could do, and a Maximized Meteor Swarm was outright insanity. That many of the spells available were to be a DM's trick for the sake of the story, not one of the many weapons within a player's arsenal. But basically, the game, at least for spell casters, since they had spells, wasn't to be played the high powered way that it feels most people do.

Stupid Theory Aside for another, it'd be interesting to try to dig up as many variant combat systems and additions for D&D 3.5, and poke and pick from them to try to get a good system that lets the Martial Classes be better at fighting. Too bad that'd be Homebrew at best...

Wow. That's definitely the awesomest thing I've heard on this site, and really awesome outside the Playground too. Thank you! :smallbiggrin:

Considering how you seem here, I'm surprised that's the only praise you've recieved.

Mind if I sig that first sentence? That sounds like a great start for a sig.

I'd be honored.

Oh, and drop me a PM when you have the time. We'll see what we can do. :smallamused:

Dear Lord, I hate McDonalds even more now... but I love having Money.... :smallsigh:

Melee gets plenty of nice things even outside of ToB, the question should be why can't archery have nice things.

..... Oh dear God, don't get a third faction involved. We'll never see the end of it.

Veyr

2011-06-27, 10:54 AM

Melee gets plenty of nice things even outside of ToB
Name some. And note that by "nice things" we mean "can keep up with reasonable spellcasters" (I gave the example of Beguiler as reasonable).

Big Fau

2011-06-27, 11:08 AM

Name some. And note that by "nice things" we mean "can keep up with reasonable spellcasters" (I gave the example of Beguiler as reasonable).

Addendum: Nice things that aren't magic items.

Melee gets plenty of nice things even outside of ToB, the question should be why can't archery have nice things.

Archery has it's loving all over the place...

Veyr

2011-06-27, 11:10 AM

No, I agree with him: Archery gets left unsupported bizarrely often. There's more support for thrown weapons than bows and arrows, which is just bizarre.

Seerow

2011-06-27, 11:15 AM

No, I agree with him: Archery gets left unsupported bizarrely often. There's more support for thrown weapons than bows and arrows, which is just bizarre.

Because the little support archery does get is enough to make it better than any non-ToB melee. Also I think that melee is just a more popular role, with those who prefer backlines fighting tending to drift towards mages regardless. (In that regard I do wish Arcane Archer was a less ****ty class)

Big Fau

2011-06-27, 11:19 AM

No, I agree with him: Archery gets left unsupported bizarrely often. There's more support for thrown weapons than bows and arrows, which is just bizarre.

Support for Crossbows, maybe. But there's support for Bows scattered everywhere (Champions of Ruin being the most notable source).

Then there's the Holy/Unholy Arrow cheese.

Veyr

2011-06-27, 11:19 AM

I disagree. There are remarkably few archery-focused feats or PrCs, leaving the fighting style with little to do aside from taking the core feats and trying to add precision damage to their attacks.

Hawk7915

2011-06-27, 11:27 AM

Name some. And note that by "nice things" we mean "can keep up with reasonable spellcasters" (I gave the example of Beguiler as reasonable).

All melee classes: Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, Combat Brute, Standstill

Fighters: Dungeoncrasher Variant, Zhentarim Fighter variant

Paladin: Battle Blessing, Awesome Smite, Celestial Steed, various spells, Devotion feats, Divine feats

Barbarian: Whirling Frenzy variant, Spirit Lion Totem variant, Trapsmasher Variant, Street Fighter variant

Admittedly some casting classes can make use of some of those (technically anyone can take a Devotion feat, and clerics can use Divine feats just as well as a Paladin), and almost everything I listed just makes the Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian better at fighting. But hey, Tome of Battle also just makes warriors better at fighting! Asking for them to "keep up with reasonable spellcasters" feels almost like asking for them to have a way to Charm Person, create Fog, and scry on people. While some people might define that as "nice things", it's almost like asking for your wizard to easily be able to heal like a cleric; it goes against the role the class was designed for.

But that goes back to having a poor definition of "nice things". If nice things is "abilities that make the class perform optimally at its intended role", then yes melee gets very nice things outside of core. If nice is "has added utility above and beyond their stated roll", they have less so (although some of what I listed can certainly give melee classes that). If nice things is "able to be a tier one class that is a master of its stated role while emulating other roles easily" then no, I suppose melee never get that level of nice things. Whether that's a problem of poor design of melee or poor design of casters is a personal call.

TheGeckoKing

2011-06-27, 11:41 AM

Name some. And note that by "nice things" we mean "can keep up with reasonable spellcasters" (I gave the example of Beguiler as reasonable).

In fairness, no-one has given you an answer because you're basically asking for something melee-centric that compares to spellcasting, which nothing in 3.5 is going to compare to without being broken out the wazoo, not even ToB. Just because melee can't compare to the utter brokenness that is the spellcasting system, doesn't mean melee doesn't have nice things. It just so happens that melee's nice things don't bend the balance of the game over and whip it all day long.

Socratov

2011-06-27, 11:47 AM

I disagree. There are remarkably few archery-focused feats or PrCs, leaving the fighting style with little to do aside from taking the core feats and trying to add precision damage to their attacks.

indeed, apart from ridicilous distance, there is actualy no real way to actually deal damage. Of course, if you use cheese you can get away with being ridicilously large/huge/whatever and sue a scorpion or some other siege engine, but for me that's no archery anymore...

At least Melee can still trip, grapple, powerattack, spring attack, etc. That doesn't mean melee is not underpowered... It just shows archery has even less nice things then melee.

Veyr

2011-06-27, 12:10 PM

A class should excel at its role, and remain competent in almost all situations. I did not say Wizard, I said Beguiler: a Wizard's just as bad, in the opposite direction, by excelling in all things.

A Beguiler fits my definition. It is best at magical manipulation: charms and compulsions, figments and glamours. In combat, he is not easily shut down: mind-affecting immunity eliminates many of his spells, and is the obvious counter, but illusions can still be used to potent effect. It also has good sneaking ability and can scout if necessary, including Trapfinding, has social skills for when magic is too conspicuous, etc. etc.

A Warblade does as well. He has combat ability, but he also has not-poor skills, he has some utility through things like Mountain Hammer, etc. Unlike a charger, difficult terrain does not cripple him. Unlike a tripper, he can handle quadrupeds and large creatures. Unlike basically every core melee class ever, he can remain mobile in combat.

My definition is very simple: a class should be good at something, and competent at most things, well-rounded while having his own specialty. This is what I expect from a class, and what I expect from a character. None of the "nice things" listed by Hawk allow a Fighter to do this.

And if you allow any Tier 3 or better class in your games, then characters can have nice things. If you simultaneously ban Tome of Battle, you are then taking away the only nice things that mundanes get. You therefore have a game where mundanes have nice things, and I would not want to play with you — even if I were a spellcaster. Because I don't think it's good for the game to have such a severe imbalance between archetypes like that.

Arbane

2011-06-27, 12:11 PM

Personally I do not like some of the flavor in ToB -- but I allow the book in its entirety. (As an example of things I don't like, see the Crusader's healing maneuvers -- they make no sense as Ex abilities as written, in my opinion.)

If HP don't represent "real" injury, why does a healing move have to represent "real" healing?

-----

My own partly-baked idea for a fix:

Seems to me like part of the problem is that the designers figured a level is a level is a level - 1 level in Wizard = 1 level in Fighter = 1 level in Truenamer. Since this isn't true in practice, why not smack the higher-tier classes with higher XP costs? It's not punitive, it just takes them longer to attain demigodhood...

Leon

2011-06-27, 12:22 PM

Hawk covered a few, there is much much more in general for Melee combat than any type of archery.

There are ways and means to boost it but its a lot more complex than it is to make a simple hard hitting melee type.

At its most basic level a PC can pick up a Large weapon and use power attack to hit very hard vs a Archery type who is going to be doing approx 1d8 and hoping like mad that it crits.

Even when magic is involved - there is much more magical support in spells to Melee combat than Archery (some do cover both to a degree) but largely its not well supported anywhere compared to the other options.

Big Fau

2011-06-27, 12:53 PM

Seems to me like part of the problem is that the designers figured a level is a level is a level - 1 level in Wizard = 1 level in Fighter = 1 level in Truenamer. Since this isn't true in practice, why not smack the higher-tier classes with higher XP costs? It's not punitive, it just takes them longer to attain demigodhood...

Because XP disparity only deters the players from using those classes at all, in which case you may as well have just banned them in the first place. Tracking multiple XP numbers is also a headache for those DMs who like the words "everyone gain a level" or the ones who like using Energy Drain.

Cerlis

2011-06-27, 12:55 PM

Yes i do suggest at peoples motivations when the first thing everyone says starts with "Warblade".

ANd i'd seriously question going about with good as "Better than average" because that makes pretty much everyone who is good at something not good. Lets take a Doctor for example. If you arent a good doctor you end up getting fired or sued and you're career ruined. Most DOctors are good doctors. Now we might prefer a Great doctor, or an outstanding doctor. and if we have encountered outstanding doctors we might treat good doctors like they are two-bit interns. but the skill of those who exceed at what they do, do not detract from the skill of those who arent as good as they are. That is an illusion based on relativity.

and even if we do ignore that and just talk about core.

Ok, thats 4 classes that Fighter is better at fighting at

Plus you add barbarian, since DR is offset by fighters higher armor, and you cant rage all the time, so you are pretty much even with fighter, just easier to hit, minus the combat feats.

And paladin too. Since we are talking about what a Fighter is good at you have to compare that same purpose. A Wizards ability to teleport, or a rogues skills dont matter in this comparison. The idea is Can a Paladin fight better than a fighter. Now some can, with the spell compendium and all that divine metamagic cheese even a paladin with his crummy15+ spells per day at 20th lvl can do better. but for most of his career and possibly more so in an Not-overly-optimized party the fighter is going to outperform the paladin as well. by 3rd lvl the fighter already has 3 feats specifically to help him in a fight while a paladin gets bonus that help his saves and allow him to smite some very specific things. Further is a 12 year old boy gets possessed by a demon the fighter can punch the boy out, a paladin would be risking all his class features.

so thats about half the classes a Fighter is better at fighting with.

------------

Further. if we are talking about a class, we are talking about the entire class, at all levels all ranges of optimization and all types.

A low level wizard is almost useless but for a few rounds in a day, give that fighter a bow and he could theoretically kill an infinite number of goblins that day. ANd not every wizard is the same, some choose to Buff and support, some specialize in divination and illusion. and only high levels get stuff like shapechange and gate.

Yes those casting classes CAN kill stuff infinately better than a fighter. but every fighter isnt competeing against every overpowered build possible.

---------------

Further we are forgetting the most imporant thing. A Fighter is meant to Fight. And a Fighter can fight and do it well. If you remember this game is based off a party system. Yes maybe at -higher- level if you put a fighter up against another monster he might fail, thats cus he isnt suppose to fight it by himself. He doesnt need skills cus the rogue or ranger is suppose to have them. He doesnt need to bend reality cus the wizard and cleric can do that. he doesnt need to crowd control cus someone else can do that. He is there so when the rogue says "Distract that orc for me while i look at this locked door" the fighter can bull rush him and go hand to hand while the Wizard and rogue figure out how to open the door without getting them all fireballed.

Fighter is a Low Tier Class, and later WotC realized that it would be better to make Classes that can do what a fighter does in addition to other affects such as skills and special abilities. Most other classes are superior.

But a fighter fits the role he was suppose to fill and he does it as well as intended.. And the superiority of other classes doesnt change that.

Big Fau

2011-06-27, 01:12 PM

A low level wizard is almost useless but for a few rounds in a day, give that fighter a bow and he could theoretically kill an infinite number of goblins that day. ANd not every wizard is the same, some choose to Buff and support, some specialize in divination and illusion. and only high levels get stuff like shapechange and gate.

Yes those casting classes CAN kill stuff infinately better than a fighter. but every fighter isnt competeing against every overpowered build possible.

Killing things isn't always the best way to deal with the enemy. Sometimes, a well-placed Charm Person (Save DC 16 means most 1st-3rd level humanoid have between a 30% and 50% chance of passing) can further the party's goals far better than another greatsword swing.

Level 1 is largely rocket tag anyway. That Fighter has a theoretical 25% chance of dying in any given encounter (Goblins being only one such example; Orcs are notorious for their damage output at this level), whereas the Wizard has several abilities that prevent death (Abrupt Jaunt being the most famous, Color Spray being the most powerful).

To reiterate: The ability to kill is not the only ability that matters in DnD. It may be the most prominent because DnD is a combat-based system (this is irrefutable, seeing as the system itself was born as a war game), but it is not the most valuable to a campaign.

If you remember this game is based off a party system.

Correct, this is a party-based system. The problem is that the Fighter is not as capable as a Warblade WITHOUT the party's help. And that help could be put to better use on the Warblade than on the Fighter.

Haste is just as useful on the Warblade as it is on the Fighter. Same with Protection from Evil. The difference is that the Warblade does not NEED these effects to be a valuable party member.

Qwertystop

2011-06-27, 01:35 PM

Only thing I have to say to all that (not that there is nothing else to say, just that this is what jumped out at me) is about your statement that a low-level wizard is useless except for a few rounds/day. This is not true, mostly because of the standard setup for encounters. You are supposed to have 3 encounters per day. A first-level wizard gets 3 cantrips and a 1st-level spell per day. If you are expecting lots of undead, prep Disrupt Undead for your cantrips. That will do a lot to your standard 1 HD zombie or skeleton, which is a fairly standard one for that level. If you are not expecting to fight only undead, prep Acid Splash or Ray of Frost.

For your first level spell, Grease can end most encounters, or at least reduce them to mop-ups. Sleep will do similarly, with the advantage of not incapacitating the teammates who go in for mop-up, but the disadvantage of doing nothing if the save is passed. Color Spray fits the bill as well, but with a different range, making it a better choice if you expect narrower spaces.

When you get to the middle of the low-level range (I am defining "low-level" as 1-6) low levels, you get second-level spells. These include such gems as Glitterdust, Web, Hypnotic Pattern, Scare, and Levitate for crowd-control. They also give Flaming Sphere, Scorching Ray, or Acid Arrow for direct damage if you prefer that route, and Flaming Sphere doubles as minor crowd-control, as many intelligent enemies will flee the giant ball of fire (that bit is more common-sense than RAW, of course).

At the top of the range, you get Explosive Runes (to be written on a rock or something), for direct damage against any enemy who can read your language. Deep Slumber, Stinking Cloud, Hold Person, Slow, or Suggestion can incapacitate many encounters (Suggestion might even bring your previous enemies into the next encounter).

Keep in mind that all of the above are directly from the PHB, found with no optimizing skill beyond common sense and a basic knowledge of the rules, and would not really be out-of-line for a brand-new player to choose (in some cases).

Cerlis

2011-06-27, 01:50 PM

Seerow

2011-06-27, 01:57 PM

and no, those levels arent bazooka tag...at least not for a fighter. he actually has the HP to survive a few tags. a wizard doesnt.

Um, no. It's bazooka tag for everyone. Look at a CR 1/2 orc. It hits for 2d4+4 damage. Average 9 damage. This means your fighter will stay up through two hits, tops. If the orc rolls above average, let alone crits, it's very possible to take out a first level fighter or barbarian in a single swing.

Nevermind if you have enemy casters using the same sorts of low level spells most PC casters will use. A single casting of sleep can TPK an unlucky party. Seriously your first level is rocket tag for everyone. Second level is a bit better, but it isn't until level 5ish that characters start being really durable.

Big Fau

2011-06-27, 02:10 PM

and since we are talking about how Fighters supposidly suck, and a fighters stick is Killing stuff than everything a wizard can do that isnt killing stuff doesnt matter. its besides the point. A fighter is never meant to crowd control or stop encounters in a non violent way, so the fact a wizard can do it is irrelevant.

And, no i cant color spray, or grease, or charm. because unless i have a18 or over or am specialized in that field, i get one regular and one bonus 1st lvl spell per day. which means, if i prepare it, i can use one or two of those options.

and a wizard CAN have abjurant juant. doesnt mean he will. My issue is when people compare fighter to wizard it seems like they are imagining the most powerful wizard out there who is designed specifically for that encounter. fact is throught most games (from what i hear about people mentioning their games) that this isnt the case.

and the argument that a wizard is being useful by casting a 1d3 bit of acid? Cantrips are crap unless you are fighting undead (thats a pretty specific situation) or if you need special buffs (like making a light or impressing chicks with sparkles)

and no, those levels arent bazooka tag...at least not for a fighter. he actually has the HP to survive a few tags. a wizard doesnt.

Then you clearly are not talking about optimization, and are just spamming in this thread.

What you are describing is an unoptimized Wizard. There's no if's, and's, or but's to it here; the 1st level spellcaster you are talking about is simply not optimized. You are comparing an unoptimized 1st level Wizard to the Fighter class in general.

It isn't the Wizard, BTW. It's the Warblade. Everything a 1st level Fighter can do, the Warblade can do better. This continues to be true until 6th level, when the Fighter gains Shock Trooper and Dungeoncrasher (at which point the Fighter has one strong point: Damage).

However, the Warblade will always remain a stronger class, even when the Fighter has Dungeoncrasher and Shock Trooper and Combat Brute and Leap Attack, solely because the Warblade is able to do more than just hit things (without using magic items).

And if the only goal of the campaign is killing things, guess what? The Warblade is still better because he is not limited to two types of combat (Charging and Tripping being the primary two). He has one of those combat types (thanks to his Feat selection, which can provide anything from Charging to Tripping to Grappling to Archery (yes, Warblades can do ranged combat without multiclassing and are actually fairly good at it)), and up to 5 others by virtue of his Maneuvers Known (Diamond Mind, Tiger Claw, Stone Dragon, White Raven, and Iron Heart).

Again assuming killing things is the entire focus of the campaign, let's say the Fighter cannot Charge for some reason (and has a Charger/Tripper-focused build), such as difficult terrain. He has one option if he wants to stay relevant to the combat encounter: Move up and try to Trip them.

The Fighter has a problem: Half of his build is completely irrelevant in that situation. The other half can also be irrelevant, as Trip attempts are limited by Size category. If the enemy is more than 1 Size category bigger than the Fighter and is surrounded by Difficult Terrain, the Fighter is inferior to the Warblade.

In that situation, a Warblade who focused on the Charger route (Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Combat Brute) needs to only use a Move action to move up to the enemy and initiate the Mountain Hammer to outdo the Fighter in the damage department (obviously using Power Attack). The Difficult Terrain has negated the Combat Brute and Shock Trooper feats, but both Power Attack and the Warblade's Strikes remain functional.

If the Warblade really wanted to outdo the Fighter in this situation, he could initiate White Raven Tactics to ensure an ally within 10ft of him gets another turn. Or use Quicksilver Motion to close in and then initiate Avalanche of Blades for massive damage.

The Fighter has no options here that the Warblade cannot also get access to.

AnonymousD&Der

2011-06-27, 02:32 PM

Then you clearly are not talking about optimization, and are just spamming in this thread.

What you are describing is an unoptimized Wizard. There's no if's, and's, or but's to it here; the 1st level spellcaster you are talking about is simply not optimized. You are comparing an unoptimized 1st level Wizard to the Fighter class in general.

Quoted for Emphasis, Cerlis. I've actually been trying to figure you out for a while, and I grant Big Fau an Internet Cookie for nailing it.

When you think about Fighter vs Wizard, ensure that if you allow the Fighter to put his best foot forward, you allow the Wizard to put his best foot forward. If one player is allowed to be smart with his class, why can't the other?

If I'm correct, I'm pretty darn sure that Wizards -are- capable of beating Fighters in doing damage. Maybe not at the beginning levels, I'll be someone in this thread to admit that. In a low level game, the Fighter probably does fight evenly with the Wizard. Maybe beats. But once that precious EXP is accumulated, the Wizard is capable of producing more Damage Dice than the Fighter, along with more ways of being useful in and out of combat. It is kind of a big deal that the Fighter is only capable of 1 thing (and that's only with his Bonus Feats backing up that thing), and the Wizard (and other classes) can not only duel (and win) against him in priority over that thing, but can also do other things. I'm not an expert on Wizards myself, but I'm sure the others can vouch for me.

PS: Any chance you can make your comments gramatically clearer? I'm not asking for College + material, but half of the comments I've wanted to make to you I couldn't because it was hard for me to even figure out what you were saying.

Taelas

2011-06-27, 02:41 PM

If HP don't represent "real" injury, why does a healing move have to represent "real" healing?

Who said it did? I said the Crusader's maneuvers doesn't make sense. Regardless of what you consider hit points to be, their healing maneuvers can replenish it -- as an Extraordinary ability. Break the laws of physics, yes, but in my opinion, Ex abilities still need to be based in physics... at least somewhat.

Qwertystop

2011-06-27, 03:00 PM

Who said it did? I said the Crusader's maneuvers doesn't make sense. Regardless of what you consider hit points to be, their healing maneuvers can replenish it -- as an Extraordinary ability. Break the laws of physics, yes, but in my opinion, Ex abilities still need to be based in physics... at least somewhat.

I agree on the first point. Just because HP is sometimes just getting more worn out without physical injury (in which case the Crusader's healing make sense) doesn't mean it isn't sometimes actual small cuts (in which case it doesn't). If you are burned by Explosive Runes, you aren't going to negate that with a morale boost.

Gametime

2011-06-27, 03:19 PM

Further is a 12 year old boy gets possessed by a demon the fighter can punch the boy out, a paladin would be risking all his class features.

"Fighters are better in combat than paladins because they can punch out 12-year-old boys" is certainly one of the more original arguments I've seen made.

Seriously, though, unless your DM has a vendetta against you, the paladin code isn't going to interfere severely with combat (which, per your stipulation, is apparently all we're discussing). It might well be a problem out of combat, but we've already established the fighter is next-to-useless out of combat anyway, so the paladin shouldn't take flak for that.

A low level wizard is almost useless but for a few rounds in a day, give that fighter a bow and he could theoretically kill an infinite number of goblins that day.

Yeah, but a wizard could use a crossbow and kill just as many of these theoretical, too-far-away-to-threaten-us, coming-in-a-straight-line goblins. Not infinite, since starting wealth limits your number of arrows or bolts, but likely as many as the fighter. Dexterity is probably the third most valuable stat for both classes (unless the fighter is planning to specialize in archery), so the difference to hit would only be 1 from BAB.

This is all without mentioning that a character's ability to kill apparently non-threatening mooks one at a time doesn't really indicate that character can fight.

Further we are forgetting the most imporant thing. A Fighter is meant to Fight. And a Fighter can fight and do it well. If you remember this game is based off a party system. Yes maybe at -higher- level if you put a fighter up against another monster he might fail, thats cus he isnt suppose to fight it by himself. He doesnt need skills cus the rogue or ranger is suppose to have them. He doesnt need to bend reality cus the wizard and cleric can do that. he doesnt need to crowd control cus someone else can do that. He is there so when the rogue says "Distract that orc for me while i look at this locked door" the fighter can bull rush him and go hand to hand while the Wizard and rogue figure out how to open the door without getting them all fireballed.

But I thought fighters had an advantage because they never run out of juice. If they're actually working together with casters, they're going to have to stop and rest when the casters do anyway.

RPGuru1331

2011-06-27, 03:26 PM

I agree on the first point. Just because HP is sometimes just getting more worn out without physical injury (in which case the Crusader's healing make sense) doesn't mean it isn't sometimes actual small cuts (in which case it doesn't). If you are burned by Explosive Runes, you aren't going to negate that with a morale boost.
By that logic, why should magical bandaids work when you haven't taken a scratch, you just lucked out of the way of everything.

Cerlis, you made one rather large error in your rush to defend the Fighter Class. Let's say for the sake of argument Fighters *are* the best at killing. They're probably not, but we'll entertain the argument for the moment. Unless the gulf between a fighter and a wizard in this regard is *Amazing*, it isn't going to make up for the lack of breadth. A fighter doesn't just have to be better at killing; a slim margin won't cut it when your methods are restricted to "Beating it til it stops moving", and the other class' is "Whatever comes to mind that day"

Qwertystop

2011-06-27, 05:43 PM

By that logic, why should magical bandaids work when you haven't taken a scratch, you just lucked out of the way of everything.

Because they are Magical bandaids. The magic does it. The physical bandage doesn't heal your wound any more than the liquid in a potion bottle gives you Barkskin through being digested. Either way, the physical part is just a carrier.

Amnestic

2011-06-27, 06:02 PM

Seems to me like part of the problem is that the designers figured a level is a level is a level - 1 level in Wizard = 1 level in Fighter = 1 level in Truenamer. Since this isn't true in practice, why not smack the higher-tier classes with higher XP costs? It's not punitive, it just takes them longer to attain demigodhood...

For the record, I'm fairly sure that's how 2e did it. Admittedly this knowledge is mostly coming from the Baldur's Gate adaptation of the rules, but I distinctly remember my Bards levelling drastically faster than my Mages and Druids.

Edit: And for the record a second time, primary spellcasters were still pretty much the greatest classes in those games, even with the slower levelling progression.

Talakeal

2011-06-27, 06:21 PM

For the record, I'm fairly sure that's how 2e did it. Admittedly this knowledge is mostly coming from the Baldur's Gate adaptation of the rules, but I distinctly remember my Bards levelling drastically faster than my Mages and Druids.

Edit: And for the record a second time, primary spellcasters were still pretty much the greatest classes in those games, even with the slower levelling progression.

Yes on both counts. Although it was far closer and far easier to min max a fighter in 2E while mage optimization required the GM to let you abuse unclear wording in spells.

On the subject of EX and the laws of physics, I noticed the SRD went out of its way to mention that EX can break the laws of physics, a line that is not in any of the three core rule books. Why do you think they felt it necessary to add this, and how many EX abilities are out there that are blatantly impossible?

MeeposFire

2011-06-27, 07:24 PM

For the record, I'm fairly sure that's how 2e did it. Admittedly this knowledge is mostly coming from the Baldur's Gate adaptation of the rules, but I distinctly remember my Bards levelling drastically faster than my Mages and Druids.

Edit: And for the record a second time, primary spellcasters were still pretty much the greatest classes in those games, even with the slower levelling progression.

True though to be honest non casters were more than powerful enough to compete in those games. There is only one thing in BG2 that you need to have, breach, using one of the myriad ways of getting access to that spell you can beat to death the entire game in melee.

Of course video games tend to limit the powers of spells since they lack the ability to allow the clever spell use that makes casters really powerful (such as selling a wall of salt for a ton of money).

Veyr

2011-06-27, 07:30 PM

Because they are Magical bandaids. The magic does it. The physical bandage doesn't heal your wound any more than the liquid in a potion bottle gives you Barkskin through being digested. Either way, the physical part is just a carrier.
Healing Salve is an alchemical (read: non-magical; alchemy works in an AMF and is therefore effectively Ex) paste that heals HP damage. It is no carrier.

This is a game of abstractions. They're necessary to keep the game flowing smoothly. You just have to accept that HP is one of these abstractions, and in some cases it is treated one way and in others another way.

MeeposFire

2011-06-27, 07:34 PM

Healing Salve is an alchemical (read: non-magical; alchemy works in an AMF and is therefore effectively Ex) paste that heals HP damage. It is no carrier.

This is a game of abstractions. They're necessary to keep the game flowing smoothly. You just have to accept that HP is one of these abstractions, and in some cases it is treated one way and in others another way.

Especially considering that depending on who is writing they do varying jobs at showing that. HP being an abstraction has been contentious since the start of the game (1e Dragon magazine had this debate all the time and the Devs such as Gygax came on very strongly telling people it was an abstraction and it did not make everybody happy even back then).

RPGuru1331

2011-06-27, 07:43 PM

Because they are Magical bandaids. The magic does it. The physical bandage doesn't heal your wound any more than the liquid in a potion bottle gives you Barkskin through being digested. Either way, the physical part is just a carrier.
okay, I'll be more friggin' blunt.

The spell is called "Cure Light Wounds". It is written up as a thing that heals actual, physical wounds taken. The effect is to heal hit points. But hit points aren't just your body structure's ability to take a hit. It also represents luck. Some hit point losses aren't you eating a sword to the face; they're you dodging out of the way entirely, but out of luck, not skill. Or when it hits the useless book you were reading earlier, not you. Etc. Dozens of fictional examples of this kind of thing, and hit points were refluffed to be this, and morale, and other nebulous things, *in addition to* toughing the hit out through sheer magic.

If you have a problem with a morale boost patching up body structure damage from Explosive Runes, why don't you have a problem with Cure Light Wounds, which EXPLICITLY heals actual-honest-to-god body structure, healing up 'damage' to 'Luck' or 'Morale'?

I mean, I don't have a problem with any of it, but I'm not the one who's talking about how it's impermissible for an Ex Morale Boost to do this thing that's within genre but should be impossible in real life. Because, I'll let you in on a secret; this is kind of why the OP felt the need to make a post at all.

Fox Box Socks

2011-06-27, 07:49 PM

Further is a 12 year old boy gets possessed by a demon the fighter can punch the boy out, a paladin would be risking all his class features.
Obscure corner cases do not an argument make.

If a high level schizophrenic Wizard teleported into the party's camp and killed everyone without the Smite Evil ability, the Fighter would die and the Paladin wouldn't. This doesn't make the Paladin a stronger class.

Amphetryon

2011-06-27, 07:57 PM

If a high level schizophrenic Wizard teleported into the party's camp and killed everyone without the Smite Evil ability, the Fighter would die and the Paladin wouldn't. This doesn't make the Paladin a stronger class.

:smallbiggrin: Have a cookie. http://freeinternetcookies.com/cookie/cookie.jpg

myancey

2011-06-27, 08:02 PM

PS: Any chance you can make your comments gramatically clearer? I'm not asking for College + material, but half of the comments I've wanted to make to you I couldn't because it was hard for me to even figure out what you were saying.

You should probably save that kind of talk for private messaging. We don't all need to hear about your opinion on grammar. And it's impolite.

Edit: Or complain to the moderators...via PM. Or show Doctorate credentials in English writing.

Then you clearly are not talking about optimization, and are just spamming in this thread.

He's trying to challenge an argument posted on this thread. Describing that as 'spamming' the thread is unnecessarily lame. There isn't anything wrong against attempting to formulate an argument that contradicts the popular opinion of playgrounders.

As to the OP's question: Melee people can have nice things--it just takes a ton of research and some careful planning. Wizards just have a ton more nice things and they're easier to come by...and are often better nice things.

Talakeal

2011-06-27, 08:19 PM

navar100

2011-06-27, 08:33 PM

I agree: they never admit this.

However, none yet has answered my question: how do you give your mundanes nice things without Tome of Battle?

Because I think, based on conversations/discussions/arguments like this in the past, that no form of nice things will ever be acceptable to the anti-ToB crowd.

That is the impression that they give me. They claim that it is specifically something about Tome of Battle, but I've asked repeatedly, in several different threads, for examples of non-ToB mundane "nice things" and have so far gone unanswered.

The longer I go unanswered, the more I fear that my perception (which I threw out there with the express intent of people proving me wrong) was completely accurate: claims of disliking ToB are equivalent to not wanting mundane characters to have nice things, but the poster in question simply does not want to admit that they have this bias.

They claim that isn't how it is. I really hope that it isn't true. But until someone shows me mundanes who have nice things without Tome of Battle, I'm fearing that I have to accept this hypothesis.

NOTE: At least a few people literally do ban Tier 3 and up classes — that takes away nice things from casters, but leaves an even playing field; that seems OK.

And others are honest and up-front about not wanting mundanes to have nice things, or not caring that they don't (e.g. don't care enough to learn/introduce another subsystem). While I strongly disagree with the former and disagree with the latter (though I understand it to a degree), these are also quite acceptable.

But claiming to want mundanes to have nice things, and then banning the only book in 3.5 that gives it to them... that confuses and worries me. At least once someone claimed houserules/homebrew to fix the problem without ToB, but no details were given. Most others just assert they want mundanes to have nice things, but ban ToB anyway, and give no further details. Thus far, no one has directly responded to my questions in this regard.

I'm with you, just playing devil's advocate:

Player's Handbook 2 and Complete Warrior offer interesting feats. The Combat Focus tree has a similar theme as Tome Of Battle, though obviously in a great smaller detail is still of the same thematic quality, while retaining the feat system. Tactical feats also offer things to do to consider rounds of combats taken together for a great effect. Individual feats can also be "awesome" in their own right for an interesting strategy. Robilar's Gambit is a favorite of some people. Complete Champion offers the Devotion Feats for another tactic to consider.

myancey

2011-06-27, 08:49 PM

I'm with you, just playing devil's advocate:

Player's Handbook 2 and Complete Warrior offer interesting feats. The Combat Focus tree has a similar theme as Tome Of Battle, though obviously in a great smaller detail is still of the same thematic quality, while retaining the feat system. Tactical feats also offer things to do to consider rounds of combats taken together for a great effect. Individual feats can also be "awesome" in their own right for an interesting strategy. Robilar's Gambit is a favorite of some people. Complete Champion offers the Devotion Feats for another tactic to consider.

That is a good point. Robilar's Gambit coupled with a decent dex and the Combat Reflex tree make for good feats. I also feel that there is a feat set: 1 gives you an AoO on someone who hits you in melee. The other gives an AoO on someone who misses a melee hit. I forget what they're called.

Also, while I completely agree that ToB offers a ton of 'nice things', there are a ton of optimized melee builds out there that don't utilize ToB and make for wicked characters. I couldn't say whether they're better than ToB builds or not, having never done more than read through the Tome of Battle.

Amphetryon

2011-06-27, 09:08 PM

That is a good point. Robilar's Gambit coupled with a decent dex and the Combat Reflex tree make for good feats. I also feel that there is a feat set: 1 gives you an AoO on someone who hits you in melee. The other gives an AoO on someone who misses a melee hit. I forget what they're called.

Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike. They're integral parts of the Jack B. Quick build.

AnonymousD&Der

2011-06-27, 09:09 PM

You should probably save that kind of talk for private messaging. We don't all need to hear about your opinion on grammar. And it's impolite.

Edit: Or complain to the moderators...via PM. Or show Doctorate credentials in English writing.

;.; I'm sorry... I just wanted to be able to talk, but I couldn't understand half of what he was saying! I'll be honest, I was very tempted to try to post some sarcastic picture that might apply to your end comment.

He's trying to challenge an argument posted on this thread. Describing that as 'spamming' the thread is unnecessarily lame. There isn't anything wrong against attempting to formulate an argument that contradicts the popular opinion of playgrounders.

On the internet, it is incredibly hard to tell the difference between an average poster and a troll, and everything else inbetween. I'm genuinly not saying that anyone here is one, and I'm hoping I'm not seeming like one. It's just easy to be put off by the way someone responds during a conversation / argument.

And as to avoid this post being all filler,

As to the OP's question: Melee people can have nice things--it just takes a ton of research and some careful planning. Wizards just have a ton more nice things and they're easier to come by...and are often better nice things.

I wonder if anyone's heard of "The Book of Iron Might", of the d20 Sword and Sorcery series. The Maneuvers within (no relation to Tome of Battle's Maneuvers) seem like they'd be cool to impliment, and might save Martial Characters feat slots on other things they'd need.

Now it's only Mostly Filler. ;)

MeeposFire

2011-06-27, 09:17 PM

My only experience playing an arcane caster in 2E past first level comes from Baldur's Gate. In the first game (level cap of 7) you can beat 99% of the game using nothing but charm person and variants thereof. In Baldur's gate 2 however, that becomes MUCH less effective as immunities, magic resistance, and saving throws all get better and better, and I find it much easier to play through the game as a fighter. Or a fighter / rogue so I can use the rogues UMD ability to wield a holy avenger :)

You can also solo BG1 using fighter using a composite longbow. You can also solo using a sorcerer (wizard works too but is not as fun) in BG2 with the expansion though what works best changes as you level. Of course the fact you can do this with many classes is what makes BG such a great series.

myancey

2011-06-27, 09:34 PM

;.; I'm sorry... I just wanted to be able to talk, but I couldn't understand half of what he was saying! I'll be honest, I was very tempted to try to post some sarcastic picture that might apply to your end comment.

Well, sorry if I seemed sort of rude. It's simply a pet peeve of mine--I'd like it if posts were easier to read as well--I just believe criticism and pleas for better grammar should be done in private. We have an eclectic crowd of playgrounders--teens who've underwent the American educational system (having done it, I'm of the opinion it leaves most students lacking writing ability), to non-native speakers (those simply wanting to be part of our community and doing the best they can).

On the internet, it is incredibly hard to tell the difference between an average poster and a troll, and everything else inbetween. I'm genuinly not saying that anyone here is one, and I'm hoping I'm not seeming like one. It's just easy to be put off by the way someone responds during a conversation / argument.

I wasn't referring to you in regards to the spamming content anyway. That was Big Fau's statement I was referencing.

This being my first real forum, I have difficulty telling the difference between them as well--but Cerlis can be seen through his public profile as having been with us for a while. And he was contributing a valid viewpoint. I just felt that he was being bashed a little hard for his argument.

I wonder if anyone's heard of "The Book of Iron Might", of the d20 Sword and Sorcery series. The Maneuvers within (no relation to Tome of Battle's Maneuvers) seem like they'd be cool to impliment, and might save Martial Characters feat slots on other things they'd need.

I'll have to check this out. I'm pretty unfamiliar with ToB and the maneuver system in general--something lazy DM like me really needs to look up if he's to properly assist his players.

thompur

2011-06-27, 10:21 PM

For the record, I'm fairly sure that's how 2e did it. Admittedly this knowledge is mostly coming from the Baldur's Gate adaptation of the rules, but I distinctly remember my Bards levelling drastically faster than my Mages and Druids.

Edit: And for the record a second time, primary spellcasters were still pretty much the greatest classes in those games, even with the slower levelling progression.

As memory serves, to achieve 2nd level in AD&D, Thieves needed 1250xp, Clerics needed 1500, Fighters 2000, Rangers 2250, and Magic-Users 2500. I don't recall what Paladins and Druids needed.(Although something tells me that Druids were 2000 as well).

Lans

2011-06-27, 10:31 PM

Well, good, by many definitions means 'better than the average'. Otherwise the said thing would be 'average' not 'good'.

Now take the core only classes: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, Bard, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Paladin, Monk and Fighter.

How many of these classes can the fighter surpass at fighting?

Cleric and Druid? The term CoDzilla doesn't exist for nothing. Between Wild shape, Divine Power and Righteous Might both these classes can easily outfight the fighter.

Actually the cleric and druid are about on par with the fighter after the errata, which halved Divine Might and Divine Favor. For the first 10 levels or so at least. Plus while they are becoming 95% as good as the fighter at fighting they still get everything else that they could do.

Sorcerer and Wizard? Polymorph and the myriad of other buffs (mirror image, displacement, haste, stat buffs etc) would want a word with you.
I don't think this is the case, which is were the gish classes come in.

Barbarian? Even in core' it's probably quite a bit better than fighter. There aren't enough decent feats in core for the fighter feat advantage to come into play, while the barbarian has Rage and better HD.
Fighter is about equal to Barbarian, outside of whirling frenzy and pounce varient.

Paladin? Same problem as barbarians regarding feats, and paladin gets a decent bunch of class features and spells. I'd say paladin is better, but not by much.Not really, the paladin doesn't really get anything to help it fight, meaning its going to be a little bit worse.

I agree: they never admit this.

However, none yet has answered my question: how do you give your mundanes nice things without Tome of Battle?

A lot of multiclassing. Try Martial Monk2/Targeteer Fighter1/ Ranger 2/ TF +1/Barbarian Whirling Frenzy Pounce Barbarian 1/

Take Decisive Stike, Weapon Supremancy Boomerang, and Rob's Gambit with the monk.

Other feats 1 Brutal Throw, 3 , Power Throw, Boomerang Proficiency, Power Attack,5 Rapid Shot 6 Boomerang Daze& Snap Kick.

Should be good in ranged and melee fighting, and have a decent amount of skills, avg ~4, and it can track.

olentu

2011-06-27, 10:33 PM

On the subject of EX and the laws of physics, I noticed the SRD went out of its way to mention that EX can break the laws of physics, a line that is not in any of the three core rule books. Why do you think they felt it necessary to add this, and how many EX abilities are out there that are blatantly impossible?

Actually I recall this or similar wording on the end of the PHB description of special abilities. So assuming I remember correctly that is presumably where it came from.

Talakeal

2011-06-27, 10:47 PM

Actually I recall this or similar wording on the end of the PHB description of special abilities. So assuming I remember correctly that is presumably where it came from.

Upon closer inspection you are correct. This text is not in the DMG or MM descripions of special abilities, nor the first writeup in the PHB, but it is present in the second PHB writeup (not sure why the PHB needed two different sections to explain the same rules).

Still, I think this is used for things like a trolls regeneration allowing them to exceed their caloric intake or a dragon flying despite its weight, not crusaders to heal people with non magical "divine energy".

Veyr

2011-06-27, 10:50 PM

Still, I think this is used for things like a trolls regeneration allowing them to exceed their caloric intake or a dragon flying despite its weight, not crusaders to heal people with non magical "divine energy".
You think that, but it is not the rules.

Also, where are you getting "non magical 'divine energy'"? Nothing in the descriptions of those maneuvers mentions any such energy.

Sir Homeslice

2011-06-27, 10:51 PM

Upon closer inspection you are correct. This text is not in the DMG or MM descripions of special abilities, nor the first writeup in the PHB, but it is present in the second PHB writeup (not sure why the PHB needed two different sections to explain the same rules).

Still, I think this is used for things like a trolls regeneration allowing them to exceed their caloric intake or a dragon flying despite its weight, not crusaders to heal people with non magical "divine energy".

So to you, (ex) means "things that I don't refuse to accept"

Talakeal

2011-06-27, 10:58 PM

You think that, but it is not the rules.

Also, where are you getting "non magical 'divine energy'"? Nothing in the descriptions of those maneuvers mentions any such energy.

Yes, that is my oppinion, thank you for emphasising that for me, I would have thought putting "I think" before it would have been a big enough clue for readers, but it is nice of you to help point it out.

D&D is written by hundreds of authors over almost 40 years. Not everything in the game is consistent, and many things are outright contradictory, especially between editions. Just because something is said once in a splat book does not make it gospel, and hell it might even be an oversight on the part of the developer.

As for where I am getting non magical divine energy, the text of Revitalizing strike, an EX power: "an aura of divine energy surrounds you. As your attack slams home the aura dissipates, healing your wounds."

Veyr

2011-06-27, 11:05 PM

Yes, that is my oppinion, thank you for emphasising that for me, I would have thought putting "I think" before it would have been a big enough clue for readers, but it is nice of you to help point it out.

D&D is written by hundreds of authors over almost 40 years. Not everything in the game is consistent, and many things are outright contradictory, especially between editions. Just because something is said once in a splat book does not make it gospel, and hell it might even be an oversight on the part of the developer.
A. 3.5 was written for a great deal less time than that. Things change; what was Ex in one edition may or may not be in the next. Its status in previous editions has no bearing on a discussion of its status in this one.

B. The healing strikes, and the teleporting maneuvers, are far from the only things that are Ex that might raise your eyebrow: even in Core, plenty of apparently-magical abilities are labeled Ex. They just don't receive as much notice because they are monster abilities.

Extraordinary abilities are those which can be use in an Anti-Magic Field, nothing more, nothing less. That is the only quality unique and common amongst them. Anything else you think is shared between them is a misunderstanding of the rules.

As for where I am getting non magical divine energy, the text of Revitalizing strike, an EX power: "an aura of divine energy surrounds you. As your attack slams home the aura dissipates, healing your wounds."
This, I'll concede. I didn't check that maneuver; the fluff there would seem to clash with the usual interpretation of healing maneuvers as charismatic bolstering of your forces.

Fine then: I have no problem with Ex "divine energy". It doesn't bother me in the least, because I understand the rules: Extraordinary abilities function in AMFs, and that's it. That's all that is special about them. A Crusader's healing abilities may be "magical", but for whatever reason they function in an AMF. They're not unique in that; there are a few cases of explicitly magical abilities functioning in an AMF, and I'm not afraid of another.

Talakeal

2011-06-27, 11:05 PM

So to you, (ex) means "things that I don't refuse to accept"

Yes, yes it does. Now exactly where that line is written is different for everyone of course, but I am pretty sure that was what the authors of the PHB meant when the wrote it. I find it much easier to believe they said to themselves "does this seem blatantly impossible or merely fantastic?" to determine whether and ability was SU or EX rather than "would this ability be unfair if the monster could use it in an anti magic field?"

The point I am trying to make is that 99% of a time when something happens in D&D a plausible explanation is given for it, rather than "just because". If it is a default assumption of the setting that people can alter reality without using magic, why isn't this a bigger part of the setting?

Why isn't there a "will worker" class who replicates spells by belief in their own abilities without utilizing divine, arcane, or Psionic energy sources? Why aren't creature abilities which are not based in reality given the EX or even Natural tag? Why aren't there flavor text entries about legends coming to life and mother's creating monsters by telling their children scary stories?

Veyr

2011-06-27, 11:09 PM

Yes, yes it does. Now exactly where that line is written is different for everyone of course, but I am pretty sure that was what the authors of the PHB meant when the wrote it. I find it much easier to believe they said to themselves "does this seem blatantly impossible or merely fantastic?" to determine whether and ability was SU or EX rather than "would this ability be unfair if the monster could use it in an anti magic field?"
You believe wrongly. The only thing in 3.5 that differentiates Extraordinary abilities is their functioning in an AMF. Anything else you think they should or shouldn't do is something you've made up, and not supported by the rules or the descriptions of Extraordinary abilities. Just because many seem to fit the rules you've added, does not mean all Ex abilities must, because they are rules that you have made up, not rules actually present in the system.

In short, you are wrong. Houserule it if you feel you must, but do not pretend that this is a flaw in Tome of Battle, because this is how 3.5 works. It is not unique to that book.

Why aren't creature abilities which are not based in reality given the EX or even Natural tag?
Uh, many are? Just go looking through the monster listings, even in Core. Plenty of monstrous abilities are labeled Ex when magic is the only possible explanation for them.

Talakeal

2011-06-27, 11:11 PM

Fine then: I have no problem with Ex "divine energy". It doesn't bother me in the least, because I understand the rules: Extraordinary abilities function in AMFs, and that's it. That's all that is special about them. A Crusader's healing abilities may be "magical", but for whatever reason they function in an AMF. They're not unique in that; there are a few cases of explicitly magical abilities functioning in an AMF, and I'm not afraid of another.

Mechanically I don't have any problem with it either. I also don't have a problem with them being able to utilize divine energy as a byproduct of their faith and being able to generate an "anti-anti-magic field" around it.

However, it does tremendous damage to my setting if there are people who can tap into some unknown energy source which violates the laws of science, arcane magic, psionics, and divine magic without any explanation. That is a major shakeup and I would want an explanation for it because it drastically alters the cosmology of the setting.

If I had an NPC villain flap his arms and fly away without any sort of spell or magic item my players would call BS on it, and rightly so, because it just doesn't jive with the setting.

In my experience most "High Fantasy" settings like Lord of the Rings or the Dragonlance Chronicles follow reality at all times except when magic is involved, which follows its own separate rules which it conforms to at (almost) all times.

Talakeal

2011-06-27, 11:20 PM

You believe wrongly.

Could you please stop that? Unless you are the author or have firsthand knowledge from the author you cannot possibly know for a fact what they intended, and my beliefs are every bit as valid as yours.

I am flipping through the monster manual while I type and I haven't seen any EX abilities that are blatantly supernatural, most are just extreme versions of abilities which animals have in nature. Maybe if I got out a microscope and a chemistry text I would see problems with them, but they don't jump out at me at first glance. I am sure there are a few exceptions, but they are not the rule.

Also, most of the monsters are magical creatures, so even their EX abilities are still created by supernatural means. For example skeletons are created by a spell and are held together and moved by magic alone, but they can still exist in an anti magic field. Humans, on the other hand, are not magical creatures so far as I know.

EDIT: In fact, I don't know why I am even arguing that EX abilities must be non magical. A few pages back someone used the "it is an EX ability therefore it is not magical in nature" as an explanation for why ToB classes were mundane characters and I ran with it. I don't really care if EX abilities are magical or not, what I do care about is player characters who are supposedly "mundane humans" doing blatantly impossible things with no explanation.