[ToB] Maneuver Realism

[Curious]

A common complaint heard from those who dislike Tome of Battle is that the manuever system is 'unrealistic'. And I will admit, there is a certain amount of truth to the statement, as there are several things that require a certain amount of suspension of disbelief. Primarily, this would be the requirement of preparing maneuvers before battle, and not being able to switch maneuvers readied without five minutes of down-time (without the proper feat of course). Now, there are a lot of good arguements for the Tome of Battle being realistic (preparing maneuvers is stretching, learning different styles, etc.), but I'm going to ignore them for the purposes of this discussion.

So, I'm here to discuss an alternate system for initiator classes that is more 'realistic'. What do you think could be done to improve the system for those who decry it as such? My first thought was to create something similar to a spontaneous spell-caster using the spell-points system; every initiator has a pool of points for every encounter which they can spend to use maneuvers of different levels. This would be somewhat stronger than the original classes, but would undoubtedly be easier to swallow than prepared maneuvers.

What are your thoughts on this matter, Playground?

[Gavinfoxx]

Actually, Iron Heart maneuvers are a relatively close approximation Johannes Liechtenauer's writings on fighting with a Longsword. Really. You can do plenty of realistic stuff with ToB.

[Curious]

Actually, Iron Heart maneuvers are a relatively close approximation Johannes Liechtenauer's writings on fighting with a Longsword. Really. You can do plenty of realistic stuff with ToB.

I agree. However, I'm not trying to debate the realism of the maneuvers themselves. What I'm trying to do is apease the people who don't like the maneuver system.

[Spiryt]

Really, pretty much everything in D&D 3.5 melee is possible to fluff as you like.

There's really hard to talk about bunch of numbers for 'damage', "attack" or "AC" in terms of being "realistic".

[Prime32]

Give everyone Adaptive Style as a bonus feat? I think that fixes the problem.

[Seerow]

I was actually working on a system similar to what you suggest. The basics of it was an encounter based spell points, with bonus stamina coming from constitution, at a rate of 1/6*level*con mod. You could use up to your stamina in maneuvers freely. You can push to a negative amount equal to the bonus stamina from your con mod (so if you gained 10 stamina from con, you could go to -10 stamina), at the cost of becoming fatigued, which takes an extra 5 minutes of rest to recover. You could push past that further, but it makes you exhausted, and every point below that threshold makes you take 1d6 nonlethal damage. (So if you use a 3 point maneuver while already at your max, you take 3d6 nonlethal damage).

This system is a bit more realistic and flexible than the ToB system, and works well enough with just the ToB maneuvers.

The reason I hadn't posted it in full yet is because my intent was to integrate skill tricks, and combat options everyone has (such as power attacking) into the system, as well as converting certain feats that are too situational to actually be feats, and likely some more unique effects.

I also had intended to rewrite the Fighter/Rogue/Barb to be integrated with the new mechanic, and likely also the Paladin/Ranger and possibly Duskblade and other half-caster martial leaning classes to be hybrids of a sort, gaining some stamina and maneuvers known, but not so many as the pure martial classes.

But that's a lot of work (several weeks worth), and integrating the core mechanic itself with just the ToB classes works fine.

[Curious]

Pure awesome.

Wow, okay, that is great. I can't wait to see it, 'cause that sounds ridiculously cool. I will definitely be keeping my eyes open for that.

[Seerow]

Wow, okay, that is great. I can't wait to see it, 'cause that sounds absolutely great. I will definitely be keeping my eyes open for that.

Glad it peaked your interest. It'll probably be a few weeks yet before it's up, but I hope to get it done before classes start up again.

Incidentally my biggest problem has been how to fluff new powers. Keep ToB schools? Make new schools? Separate by use rather than school? *shrug*

[Curious]

Glad it peaked your interest. It'll probably be a few weeks yet before it's up, but I hope to get it done before classes start up again.

Incidentally my biggest problem has been how to fluff new powers. Keep ToB schools? Make new schools? Separate by use rather than school? *shrug*

If the ToB schools aren't causing any real problems I would say just keep them. If they do cause problems with the system, seperating them by use sounds practical.

[Mephisto]

If realism is something that gets a person's knickers in a twist, why are they even playing D&D?

[Hirax]

The overwhelming majority of complaints I hear about melee realism are resulting from some sort of deficiency in people's ability to visualize and fluff things on their own. This might be because of pigeon holing or misconceptions depending on the situation, but for the matter at hand I believe the maneuver system itself is no more bizarre than Vancian magic in general. Especially for prepared casters. You mean to tell me that the only spell they can prepare from memory without investing feats is read magic?

[navar100]

If realism is something that gets a person's knickers in a twist, why are they even playing D&D?

Indeed. They'll complain a Warblade using Moment of Perfect Mind thinking about avoiding a Hold Person or a Crusader using Revitalizing Strike healing someone just by hitting the orc with his sword, but they have no problem whatsoever of a wizard hurting people in a 40ft diameter circle over 400ft away with fire from bat poo.

[Partysan]

But you can say what you want, while the refreshing mechanic and the maneuvers themselves are just fine, maneuvers readied vs. known doesn't make any sense even to a ToB fanboy like me. Adaptive Stlye somewhat fixes this, but it's still there in the first place and it bugs me greatly.

[magic9mushroom]

I agree. However, I'm not trying to debate the realism of the maneuvers themselves. What I'm trying to do is apease the people who don't like the maneuver system.

Well, it (the system) certainly makes sense for crusaders.

I think most people's problems are with the issue of (some) apparently magical effects allegedly being nonmagical, plus the general tone of ToB.