ToB Maneuvers and Stances...as Feats?

[Adamantrue]

There have been a few people (myself included) that have alluded to Tome of Battle as a misstep, as in how it could have supported the existing Melee/Mundane Classes instead of...well, rendering them effectively obsolete.

Which is probably the source of most ToB debate threads.

I've been really delving into ToB lately (with my own Monk/Swordsage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185478) experiment), and while there is fun to be had, its only solidified my stance on the matter. ToB was a betrayal to those of us that enjoyed the existing Melee Classes.

With that said, and after having played with a portion of these abilities, I've begun to wonder if it would be a bad idea to simple convert all of the existing Maneuvers and Stances into Feats.

No, I'm not talking about the Martial Study and Martial Stance Feats. Those two Feats only seem to serve to highlight the disparity between the ToB Classes and the others. What I mean is directly converting each Maneuver & Stance into its own Feat.

I would be keying it to BAB, and give each Discipline its own Feat Type, so that you could continue working with the appropriate Prerequisites. Make all of them usable once per round, getting rid of the entire recharge mechanic entirely. After all, you aren't going to end up with nearly as many to choose from, so repeated use becomes more necessary.

Thoughts? Has this come up before?

[deuxhero]

Core melee is a one trick pony with only enough feats to learn one method of combat anyways ect. Feat tax ect. Melee can't have nice things ect. ect

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wow, look, another attempt to fix the fighter, but this one is just trying to turn him into a warblade. You know what? It would be so much easier to take out the warrior NPC class, call the fighter the warrior and demote it to NPC status, and call the warblade the fighter.

Seriously, all you're trying to do is turn him into a warblade without all the class features.

[Talya]

Feat: Martial Study.
Feat: Martial Stance.

They already exist.

Anyway, TOB classes don't make the fighter obsolete, or any of the other core melee classes. In fact, Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader multiclass so well, they actually make core fighter viable.

Even as it stood in core, nobody took fighter for more than a few levels. Fighter existed solely to provide a few bonus feats in feat-starved melee builds. Guess what? TOB classes use fighter for the same thing.

[Eldariel]

If characters got like 2 feats per level, sure, this could be workable. As it stands, it would do absolutely nothing (no, Fighter doesn't get enough for this if you ever want to take some normal feats too).

[Vultawk]

Wow, look, another attempt to fix the fighter, but this one is just trying to turn him into a warblade. You know what? It would be so much easier to take out the warrior NPC class, call the fighter the warrior and demote it to NPC status, and call the warblade the fighter.

Seriously, all you're trying to do is turn him into a warblade without all the class features.

I guarantee you that this is the core for most of the issues people have with the Tome of Battle.

[Rogue Shadows]

Thoughts? Has this come up before?

Do it! Because it would save me a lot of trouble as I planned to do something similar myself.


Core melee is a one trick pony with only enough feats to learn one method of combat anyways ect. Feat tax ect. Melee can't have nice things ect. ect

A human Fighter by 20th level has 19 feats. Make the feats good enough that a player actually has an incentive to go Fighter 20, and there isn't a problem with feats for Fighters, anyway.

The problem isn't with the Fighter, it's with the feats.

And with the Fighter's small skill list.

But mostly with the feats. Feats should have been designed as a way for noncasters to compete with casters, rather than a catch-all for blaaah, for the most part.

[IthroZada]

A Warblade will know 13 maneuvers, 4 stances, and 7 feats by level 20.

As I understand it, you want to take a Fighter, or any class really, and give him maneuvers and stances as feats.
Let's say the Fighter spent enough feats to know 13 maneuvers and 4 stances.
He has spent 17, out of his 18, feats, meaning he only has one feat left.

Congratulations, you didn't make the fighter better, you made a significantly nerfed Warblade, because it has only one feat.

Now granted, a Fighter doesn't need to spend all his feats in such a way, but he certainly is never going to be on par with the Warblade spending one feat, or 18 feats this way.

Edited for mistakes.

[Draz74]

Perhaps the feat adaptation of ToB could have been better-done, but ... I like the recharge mechanics, and the way they keep you from spamming the same move over and over. Sorry! :smallsmile: If you can figure out a good way to incorporate the recharge thing, then I will support this project. It sure makes an easier way of creating, say, a Sublime Swashbuckler than homebrewing one from scratch.

[Hiro Protagonest]

A Warblade will know 13 maneuvers, 4 stances, and 7 feats by level 20.

As I understand it, you want to take a Fighter, or any class really, and give him maneuvers and stances as feats.
Let's say the Fighter spent enough feats to know 13 maneuvers and 4 stances.
He has spent 17, out of his 18, feats, meaning he only has one feat left, which I'm going to assume he spent on a way to recover maneuvers.

Congratulations, you didn't make the fighter better, you made a significantly nerfed Warblade, because it has absolutely zero feats.

Now granted, a Fighter doesn't need to spend all his feats in such a way, but he certainly is never going to be on par with the Warblade spending one feat, or 18 feats this way.

And remember, warblades get a few bonus feats, uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge, and add their intelligence to a bunch of things.

[Rogue Shadows]

Now granted, a Fighter doesn't need to spend all his feats in such a way, but he certainly is never going to be on par with the Warblade spending one feat, or 18 feats this way.

Hmm...

Maneuver Training
You are skilled in the use of various maneuvers.
Benefit: You learn a number of maneuvers equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1).
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you learn an additional maneuver.

Just a thought.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Yeah, ToB took Old Yeller out back, but Old Yeller had to go. Everyone involved was crying. No need to assign blame. If you enjoyed playing "I move and attack" or "I stand still and full attack" type characters, nothing is stopping you from enjoying them still. If you actually prefer ToB's mechanics and feel betrayed that it wasn't added to the core classes instead of new classes, then you're just hanging onto a name which only really comes up in the metagame. I don't get it.

[Terazul]

So now instead of just taking the classes which fix the issue, we're going to convert the exact same features into feats and make other melee have to use their precious feat slots to take them, instead of just taking one of the ToB classes or using one of the many homebrew ToB updates (trade Ranger spellcasting for Crusader Progression, trade Barbarian DR and Trap Sense for Swordsage Progression, etc) to get the exact same results.

As usual with these things it seems needlessly complicated. Especially when it seems your problems isn't with the maneuvers themselves, since you apparently want their effects; You just have a problem with them being something other than feats? I seriously will never understand this position. Especially if your supposed fix for the fighter is just for him to spend all of his feats on maneuvers anyway. At that point he isn't the "fighter" everyone claims to love so much anymore, and it begs the question, "why not just play a warblade"? And don't give me that "I don't want to play a Warblade, I want to play a fighter", because if this discussion is any indication that is most definitely not the case AT ALL.

Also, Feats can't really be designed as a method to bridge the gap between casters and noncasters; because casters get feats too.

[Rogue Shadows]

Also, Feats can't really be designed as a method to bridge the gap between casters and noncasters; because casters get feats too.

Yeah...that why I'm thinking that noncasters should have gotten a lot more feats, with Fighter sitting atop the Hill of Feats. Which he does but as it stands it doesn't mean anything.

Also it's pretty easy to limit things so that casters can't easily get them, and if the noncasters could get more feats and have an easier time getting them...

Prerequisite: BAB +7
Prerequisite: Sneak Attack +3d6
Prerequisite: Barbarian Rage 3/day
Prerequisite: 2 favored enemies.
Prerequisite: Evasion class feature.

And so on.

[Partysan]

Hmm...

Maneuver Training
You are skilled in the use of various maneuvers.
Benefit: You learn a number of maneuvers equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1).
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you learn an additional maneuver.

Just a thought.

I'd take that for my Wizard any day :smallbiggrin:

[Rogue Shadows]

I'd take that for my Wizard any day :smallbiggrin:

Well, it was just a thought, and imported from a very different system anyway (Saga Edition D&D (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205526)).

[Hiro Protagonest]

Hmm...

Maneuver Training
You are skilled in the use of various maneuvers.
Benefit: You learn a number of maneuvers equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1).
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you learn an additional maneuver.

Just a thought.

I take that at first level. Let's say I have 16 intelligence. I pick time stands still, ancient mountain hammer, iron heart endurance, and adamantine hurricane. Thanks for providing such a wonderful feat. :smallbiggrin:

[navar100]

Scale the maneuvers/feats.

For example, have one feat be called Mountain Hammer. Without having to spend another feat, at some level you can now do Elder Mountain Hammer. At the high levels it becomes Ancient Mountain Hammer.

You can do this with Setting Sun's throw maneuvers, Diamond Mind's gem blade maneuvers, etc. All maneuvers that have logical higher level versions can be scaled.

That is the true flaw in the feat system. They don't scale. If the Weapon Focus/Specialization/Mastery tree was one feat that gave you its abilities as you gain levels, that would have helped the fighter big time because 1) it would be worth the one feat and 2) you've just freed up a whole lot of other feats that can now be used to diversify your fighting style or maybe even your defenses like Iron Will.

[Vultawk]

Hmm...

Maneuver Training
You are skilled in the use of various maneuvers.
Benefit: You learn a number of maneuvers equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1).
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you learn an additional maneuver.

Just a thought.

Maybe throw in a Prerequisite of having +5 or so in BAB to prevent this:


I'd take that for my Wizard any day :smallbiggrin:

[Sucrose]

I can appreciate those who would prefer that the existing classes be fixed rather than just having new classes introduced: even though I don't have that issue (I like Warblades fine, and do not introduce my characters as their classes, but their archetypes), I can still sometimes wish that the Fighter, for instance, was martially adept, so that I could play a mundane badass... that wears heavy armor, without sacrificing initiator levels.

That's why I recommend this piece of homebrew (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Tome_of_Battle_Core_Class_Update), and this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133632) whenever I get a chance. It doesn't fix the fact that Wizards failed to give the Core non-casters a fix that let them be useful in a wide variety of situations, but it at least lets you run a game in which most can participate in most challenges effectively while using Core non-casters.

Edit: That said, in order to keep their class abilities useful out of combat, it's still necessary with Fax's fix to bump up the Fighter's skills/level to 4+Int, and give each discipline granted's key skill to the class skill list.

[Rogue Shadows]

That is the true flaw in the feat system. They don't scale. If the Weapon Focus/Specialization/Mastery tree was one feat that gave you its abilities as you gain levels, that would have helped the fighter big time because 1) it would be worth the one feat and 2) you've just freed up a whole lot of other feats that can now be used to diversify your fighting style or maybe even your defenses like Iron Will.

That's what I said...

Focused Specialization on Weapons
What it says on the tin.
Prerequisite: BAB +1
Benefit: Choose a weapon you are proficient with. You gain a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with that weapon, or +2 if your BAB is +10. In addition, when your BAB is +5, you gain +2 damage with the weapon, or +4 if your BAB is +15.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times, choosing a new weapon each time you do.

Or something like that.

[LansXero]

Maybe throw in a Prerequisite of having +5 or so in BAB to prevent this:

At level 5 its pretty lackluster though considering 3rd level spells come into play; besides, wizards can still get counters and boosts for action economy at level 10 :D

[Terazul]

That's why I recommend this piece of homebrew (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Tome_of_Battle_Core_Class_Update), and this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133632) whenever I get a chance. It doesn't fix the fact that Wizards failed to give the Core non-casters a fix that let them be useful in a wide variety of situations, but it at least lets you run a game in which most can participate in most challenges effectively while using Core non-casters.

Yes, seriously. Why give them better feats when we can just give them class features? Yknow, the thing you want them to have in the first place.

[TheOOB]

The problem isn't with the Fighter, it's with the feats.

Wrong, completely wrong. The feats, as they are, are more or less fine. Feats are designed to be small boosts that allow you to customize your character, they are also designed to be fairly universal meaning anyone who meets the prerequisites can get them. Characters are defined by their class abilities, not their feats.

Unfortunately, all a fighter gets are feats, they get alot of them, but thats it. They have no other class abilities, the only thing they do get is more of what everyone else gets allready. Since feats are not as powerful as spells or class abilities, a fighter is by extension not as powerful as classes that have spells or class abilities, thus the only role the class serves is as multi class fodder for someone who wants a few more feats.

Making feats better wouldn't fix the fighter, because everyone gets feats. Making more feats only fighters can take(either due to fighter level prerequisites, or silly requirements) is a band-aid fix that could be done much better by just giving the class class features.

WotC did fix the fighter, it's called the warblade.

[Vultawk]

How about a "if you cast a spell ever, you lose this feat and one of your actual feet" clause?


WotC did fix the fighter, it's called the warblade.

:smallsigh:

Wouldn't a FIGHTER fix be called a "Fighter"?

[Crow]

Wow this thread roused the jerks. Lots of people missing the point.

I think the OP should try it and see how it ends up working out. I think it could be a nice compromise. I do think a lot of people dislike that the Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader basically made other martial classes obsolete, just like they dislike how wizards, clerics, and druids make them obsolete.

It certainly won't fix everything, but for a group that's not ridiculous-op, it could work just fine.

[Curious]

Yes, seriously. Why give them better feats when we can just give them class features? Yknow, the thing you want them to have in the first place.

Because maneuvers are like spells. How are we supposed to play something which betrays our ancient tradition of standing still and full attacking?

[Rogue Shadows]

At level 5 its pretty lackluster though considering 3rd level spells come into play; besides, wizards can still get counters and boosts for action economy at level 10 :D

That seems like it should be solved by a related problem: powering down the casters mainline casters, here defined as Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard.

Step 1! Change spell progression on Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard so that a new spell is gained every 3rd level instead of every 2nd level. This eliminates 8th and 9th level spells entirely.
Step 2! Change the Druid to gain spells at the same rate as a bard, eliminating their access to 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells.
Step 3! Change Wild shape to take a full minute to work!
Step 4! Burn the Natural Spell feat to ashes, but replace it with a feat that lets a druid wild shape as a full-round action but doing so makes the shapechange last for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the Charisma score
Step 5! Increase spells per day by 1 for Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard.
Step 6! Limit the Cleric to only casting spells from domains that the deity grants (but he no longer has to choose domains).
Step 7! Make spell schools matter more to the wizard. All wizards must specialize and ban some schools.
Step 8! Remove spells that invalidate entire classes or schools of magic - shadow conjuration, knock, find traps, and so on.
Step 9! Move cure and inflict (and like) spells into the Evocation and allow wizards who specialze in Evocation to cast cure and inflict spells!

That should get things started.

[Hiro Protagonest]

:smallsigh:

Wouldn't a FIGHTER fix be called a "Fighter"?

I hate people who think naming it something else would make a huge difference. If it was called a fighter, would you have accepted it? Because it's still way different than the old fighter.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I can appreciate those who would prefer that the existing classes be fixed rather than just having new classes introduced: even though I don't have that issue (I like Warblades fine, and do not introduce my characters as their classes, but their archetypes), I can still sometimes wish that the Fighter, for instance, was martially adept, so that I could play a mundane badass... that wears heavy armor, without sacrificing initiator levels.

That's why I recommend this piece of homebrew (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Tome_of_Battle_Core_Class_Update), and this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133632) whenever I get a chance. It doesn't fix the fact that Wizards failed to give the Core non-casters a fix that let them be useful in a wide variety of situations, but it at least lets you run a game in which most can participate in most challenges effectively while using Core non-casters.

Edit: That said, in order to keep their class abilities useful out of combat, it's still necessary with these fixes to bump up the Fighter's skills/level to 4+Int, and give each discipline granted's key skill to the class skill list.Notice that the second fighter fix is more reasonable. With the right ACFs and bonus feats, core melee class features can mean a good amount (if not enough), so adding a full progression to each class, with a lot of classes gaining access to swordsage-specific stuff, somewhat obsoletes the ToB classes. I can already hear the cries, "Melee is OP!"

[Fouredged Sword]

There are coversions somewhere that grant fighter, barbarian and monk martial manuvers.

I could see a feat chain looking something like this.

Martial Student -
Your initiator level now is equile to your character level.
Pick a martial school. you learn one manuver and stance from that school.

Path of War - Requires Martail student
You learn martial abilities (stances and manuvers known and prepared, and recovery mechanic) like a warblade of your character level - an levels in classes that already grant martial progresion. You can't also have the path of valor or wisdom if you have this feat.

Path of Wisdom - see path of war, but for swordsage.

Path of Valor - see path of war, but for crusader.

Martial expansion - Martial Student, one of the path feats.
Pick a Martial School.
You can draw manuvers and stances from this school when you are eligible to learn a new stance or manuver.
Learn one manuver known and stance from this school

Now you can apply a martial class as a semi gestaut onto another class. It wouldn't be gamebreaking in a tier 1-2 or high op game, and it has some precedent in the swift/asetic line of feats.

[Vultawk]

I hate people who think naming it something else would make a huge difference. If it was called a fighter, would you have accepted it? Because it's still way different than the old fighter.

Honestly? Yes. I would have. It would be "the new/updated Fighter class" instead of "this new class that's not even a real word".

[Terazul]

:smallsigh:

Wouldn't a FIGHTER fix be called a "Fighter"?

Not when the Fighter basically just amounts to a bunch of feats strapped to a board, and the only way to fix it (like you're trying to do now!) is to basically rewrite the whole thing. But that, at it's core seems to be the root of alot of these discussions: People are so used to the Fighter being "the martial guy who gets lots of feats". As soon as you change that, even if it amounts to the same ends, everyone starts freaking out that "this isn't my Fighter". Case in point, you don't want them to have maneuvers, but you want them to have feats that basically are maneuvers, because if it's not feats they aren't a Fighter anymore. Which is just goofy.

[Partysan]

That seems like it should be solved by a related problem: powering down the casters mainline casters, here defined as Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard.

Step 1! Change spell progression on Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard so that a new spell is gained every 3rd level instead of every 2nd level. This eliminates 8th and 9th level spells entirely.
Step 2! Change the Druid to gain spells at the same rate as a bard.
Step 3! Increase spells per day by 1 for Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard.
Step 4! Limit the Cleric to only casting spells from domains that the deity grants (but he no longer has to choose domains).
Step 5! Make spell schools matter more to the wizard. All wizards must specialize and ban some schools.
Step 6! Remove spells that invalidate entire classes or schools of magic - shadow conjuration, knock, find traps, and so on.
Step 7! Move cure and inflict (and like) spells into the Evocation and allow wizards who specialze in Evocation to cast cure and inflict spells!

That should ge things started.

My preferred take on that is:
- make a specialized caster for every school with fitting class features
- have Wizards and Sorcerers turned down to a progression similar to the Bard (maybe with 1-2 level 7 spells) and give them class features too
- take away the Cleric's combat ability (that's the Paladin's job)
- use a modified Shapeshift variant for Druids and take away their Animal Companion
- give mundane classes more skills and more flexible class features
- deal with the few really broken spells

and you pretty much have my personal 3.75.

PS: I like healing as necromancy.

[Rogue Shadows]

Wrong, completely wrong. The feats, as they are, are more or less fine. Feats are designed to be small boosts that allow you to customize your character, they are also designed to be fairly universal meaning anyone who meets the prerequisites can get them. Characters are defined by their class abilities, not their feats.

Yes...thats the problem. You only get 7 of these over your lifetime (unless you get bonus feats), and some of the feat's powers are completely out of proportion with what they do.

The metamagic feats, for example, would in a world without feats make excellent class features. For Wizards, they functionally do.

Feats should be *good.* They should provide big bonuses, not small ones.

[Vultawk]

Not when the Fighter basically just amounts to a bunch of feats strapped to a board, and the only way to fix it (like you're trying to do now!) is to basically rewrite the whole thing. But that, at it's core seems to be the root of alot of these discussions: People are so used to the Fighter being "the martial guy who gets lots of feats". As soon as you change that, even if it amounts to the same ends, everyone starts freaking out that "this isn't my Fighter". Case in point, you don't want them to have maneuvers, but you want them to have feats that basically are maneuvers, because if it's not feats they aren't a Fighter anymore. Which is just goofy.

Fighters were Fighters LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before Wizards of the Coast was even a twinkle in Richard Garfield's eye, let alone the existence of feats.

[Rogue Shadows]

Not when the Fighter basically just amounts to a bunch of feats strapped to a board, and the only way to fix it (like you're trying to do now!) is to basically rewrite the whole thing. But that, at it's core seems to be the root of alot of these discussions: People are so used to the Fighter being "the martial guy who gets lots of feats". As soon as you change that, even if it amounts to the same ends, everyone starts freaking out that "this isn't my Fighter". Case in point, you don't want them to have maneuvers, but you want them to have feats that basically are maneuvers, because if it's not feats they aren't a Fighter anymore. Which is just goofy.

It's not really goofy...it's trying to stick to the core idea of the class.

Case and point, Pathfinder managed to give a number of new abilities to the Fighter while still making it feel more like a Fighter than the Warblade does.

Try to imagine a Barbarian class without rage, fast movement, damage reduction, trap sense, illteracy, and uncanny dodge. The Barbarian *is* those things.

The Fighter *is* the feats.

[Vultawk]

Technically, the Fighter is Weapon Specialization, as they've had that as their main thing since 2nd, maybe even 1st edition. Feats are just how that's been implemented in 3e.

[Curious]

It's not really goofy...it's trying to stick to the core idea of the class.

Case and point, Pathfinder managed to give a number of new abilities to the Fighter while still making it feel more like a Fighter than the Warblade does.

Try to imagine a Barbarian class without rage, fast movement, damage reduction, trap sense, illteracy, and uncanny dodge. The Barbarian *is* those things.

The Fighter *is* the feats.

The core idea of the class in unworkable. That's why it doesn't work.

[Terazul]

It's not really goofy...it's trying to stick to the core idea of the class.

Case and point, Pathfinder managed to give a number of new abilities to the Fighter while still making it feel more like a Fighter than the Warblade does.

Try to imagine a Barbarian class without rage, fast movement, damage reduction, trap sense, illteracy, and uncanny dodge. The Barbarian *is* those things.

The Fighter *is* the feats.

The difference is, one of those is a list of class features. Guess which! It's probably the one you're not trying to replace at the moment. Why are we trying to replace it? Because it doesn't work.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yes...thats the problem. You only get 7 of these over your lifetime (unless you get bonus feats), and some of the feat's powers are completely out of proportion with what they do.

The metamagic feats, for example, would in a world without feats make excellent class features. For Wizards, they functionally do.

Feats should be *good.* They should provide big bonuses, not small ones.

Have you looked at Races of War in Frank and K's Tomes? It has a scaling feat progression that's based on things like BAB, skill ranks, and caster level. So one feat can give you something like five abilities over the course of the game.

[Terazul]

For the record, I agree Feats should have more of an impact over the course of your character's life (though it varies, as it is common knowledge that some are far better than others), OR that characters in general should get more feats. But not to the point that you basically replicate an entire class with them. At that point, why not just take the class and use your feats on something else?

[Rogue Shadows]

The difference is, one of those is a list of class features. Guess which! It's probably the one you're not trying to replace at the moment. Why are we trying to replace it? Because it doesn't work.

But that's because the feats are failing, not the fighter. Like I said, if feats are supposed to provide small bonuses to characters, then why on Ao's Green Toril do metamagic feats exist? Those are not small bonus. Metamagic feats are really, really powerful. Yet they're in the same class as Toughness?

No. The problem is the feats, not the Fighter.

Which is not to say that a Fighter should have nine dead levels eleven levels of "bonus feat." I did specifically mention Pathfinder, didn't I?

What a fighter should have is nine dead levels and eleven levels of bonus feats that are worth a damn; or else eleven levels of bonus feats and a number of class features, a la Pathfinder, but more. But don't touch the feats.

Maybe take the Pathfinder Fighter and give it a Warblade maneuver progression or something, I dunno. And call it a damn Fighter. Warblade isn't a fix, it's a replacement, but as should be mind-numbingly obvious by these threads, not everyone - not even most people - regard replacement as synonymous with fix.

[mykelyk]

Try to imagine a Barbarian class without rage, fast movement, damage reduction, trap sense, illteracy, and uncanny dodge. The Barbarian *is* those things.

I'm playing right now a druid without animal companion, spells and wild shape, only with shapeshift, I still call him druid.

[Fouredged Sword]

I like my idea. Yes a fighter can gain the full martial progresion of a warblade, but he is still behind on skills and doesn't have the class abilites of a warblade, and doing so set him back 6 or so feats.

also you could get some interesting combos, like a rogue with dimond mind strikes, or a cleric with devoted spirit strikes, or a wizard with setting sun. If you wanted a Tob heavy world and didn't want to tie characters into one of three classes it would work nicely. I could see it going well in a game designed to be high powerlevel.

[LansXero]

Have you looked at Races of War in Frank and K's Tomes? It has a scaling feat progression that's based on things like BAB, skill ranks, and caster level. So one feat can give you something like five abilities over the course of the game.

They are on a very different power level though, if things like Horde-Breaker and their Samurai are any indication. They also dont seem to have much of a clue of how things interact beyond the Tomes.

[Rogue Shadows]

Have you looked at Races of War in Frank and K's Tomes? It has a scaling feat progression that's based on things like BAB, skill ranks, and caster level. So one feat can give you something like five abilities over the course of the game.

It's on my list of things to do. I'm right now trying to read the Entire Internet, or at least all of it as pertains to 3.5, and trying to pull together a fix for the entire 3.5 system that I would be happy to run.

[Terazul]

What a fighter should have is nine dead levels and eleven levels of bonus feats that are worth a damn; or else eleven levels of bonus feats and a number of class features, a la Pathfinder, but more. But don't touch the feats.

Like, the problem I'm seeing here is you want them to have class features and feats. But only if those class features ARE feats. Or that the Warblade is basically the Fighter but is not called the Fighter. You're so tied up in what something is called rather than the results you get out of it, because you're just so used to it being something slightly different?

"I want to play the Fighter/InsertClassHere but only if we rewrite the entire thing."
"So it'll basically be a Warblade/InsertOtherClassHere when we're done. Why not just play a Warblade/InsertOtherClassHere?"
"Because then it's not a Fighter/InsertClassHere!"

I concede that I will never understand this position, it seems so needlessly complicated because you refuse to get over a name.

[Keld Denar]

Would it help your consience if I took a copy of ToB, crossed off Warblade with a sharpie, wrote Fighter above it with a little ^ symbol, and mailed it to you?

Now, its a Fighter, really! See, it even has bonus feats! It says it in the book, so it must be true.

Because anything else is kinda absurd. You want something to be a Warblade, but still called a Fighter. I can do that with my sharpie. I can fix monks too, while I got the sharpie out, if you'd like. Imagine if they HAD called Warblade "Fighter" in ToB.

Player: "I wanna play a fighter!"
DM: "New book? Or old book?"
Player: "What? I dunno that"
*Player flies into Pit of Dispair*

We already have enough issues with other feats, magic items, and class abilities being called the same thing. Did you know that Insightful Strike (DiamondMind3) doesn't recieve any bonus damage from Insightful Strike (Swashbuckler3)? Imagine the confusion if they named a whole CLASS the same as another class.

No, I'll take Warblade at face value, even if he doesn't use a bladed weapon, and gets involved in more skirmishes than actual wars. I don't care, because the class name is a METAGAME CONSTRUCT. My character doesn't know he's a Warblade, he just beats the tar out of people with his martial skillz. Maybe he calls himself a traveler, mercenary, warrior, FIGHTER *gasp*, or other generic combatant name that actually has in game meaning to the nobleman he's hobnobbing with or the bar wench he's trying to bed.

Yea, they coulda printed Fighter in ToB, but they didn't, and I'm glad they didn't, because that would be really confusing. They coulda called Warblade a Pickled Turnip for all I care...the fact of the matter is, it WORKS.

[Hiro Protagonest]

They are on a very different power level though, if things like Horde-Breaker and their Samurai are any indication. They also dont seem to have much of a clue of how things interact beyond the Tomes.

A fighter, by level 10, should be able to cut through armies with ease. At level 15, he should be able to destroy a whole fleet of ships while sailing on his little 1-2 person sailboat. At level 20, the fighter should be able to cut castles in two. After all, wizards can do that plus more, with control weather, shapechange (all he has to do is scry on the great wyrm dragon), greater invisibility (and extended), etc.

Yeah yeah, a wizard has a limit on spells per day. By 20th level, a wizard will never run out of spells.

Yeah, "the fighter isn't supposed to do stuff like that", but [Ex] abilities can break the laws of physics. Says so in the description.

[Vultawk]

The name absolutely has something to do with it.

First off, if you're going to make a replacement of something, then actually replace it, instead of making something new up and stating that it's a replacement. Especially if the thing being replaced is a staple of the game and has been since day one.

Second, if the PHB Fighter is being replaced by the "ToB Fighter", then it's replaced, you can't play the PHB Fighter because it doesn't exist now.

Thirdly, don't assume that since to you a class is a "metagame structure", that that applies to everyone. My paladins know they're paladins, my wizards know they're wizards, my fighters know that they are fighters, and they all recognize that there are differences between what they are and what they are not, no matter how similar the other class may be.

[Rogue Shadows]

Because anything else is kinda absurd. You want something to be a Warblade, but still called a Fighter. I can do that with my sharpie. I can fix monks too, while I got the sharpie out, if you'd like. Imagine if they HAD called Warblade "Fighter" in ToB.

Actually I hate maneuvers and would be just as happy had Tome of Battle never been published for that reason. I emphatically do not want to play a Warblade, Swordsage, or Crusader due as much to the mechanics as something as arbitrary as names.


My character doesn't know he's a Warblade

Your character can't succeed on Gather Information or Knowledge (nobility and Royalty) checks?

Mmn, I guess they aren't class skills, so that makes sense.


Player: "I wanna play a fighter!"
DM: "New book? Or old book?"
Player: "What? I dunno that"
*Player flies into Pit of Dispair*

Never played much Oriental Adventures, did you? The CW Samurai and the OA Samurai are completely different classes. I dealt with it.


Like, the problem I'm seeing here is you want them to have class features and feats. But only if those class features ARE feats. Or that the Warblade is basically the Fighter but is not called the Fighter. You're so tied up in what something is called rather than the results you get out of it, because you're just so used to it being something slightly different?

You do know that there are other differences, right? Warblade doesn't get as nearly many feats, doesn't qualify for Weapon Spec, etc.

Believe it or not it is possible to satisfy me. I love the Pathfinder fighter fix, though I recognize that it's not enough.

The end result is that it still has to feel like a Fighter to me. Gimme a Pathfinder fighter with maneuvers, and that'd be a start, tough as stated I do not like maneuvers so it wouldn't be much of one, for me. But it would at least be an honest fix.

[LansXero]

Second, if the PHB Fighter is being replaced by the "ToB Fighter", then it's replaced, you can't play the PHB Fighter because it doesn't exist now.

I think thats the reason why they didnt do it.

[mootoall]

I'm going to say that making them feats is a bad idea. Not because of the ridiculously silly "My character knows he's a Dungeoncrasher Hit-and-Run Fighter 2/Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian 1/Rogue 2/Nightsong Enforcer 5/ Whatever else 10" argument, but simply for balance reasons. Wizards are scary with Diamond Mind counters, and gishes with the Nightmare Blades. If you want to play a Fighter with Warblade progression, give the Fighter Warblade progression. You've now almost made them as good as a Warblade.

[Vultawk]

They already did it with Samurais.

[Keld Denar]

So, if your Fighter takes a level of Rogue, how does he "self identify"? If your Paladin multiclasses into something that isn't Paladin, is he REALLY still a Paladin? Is a Wizard still a Wizard if he PrCs in Sacred Exorcist?

I'm curious.

So yea, I stand by my stance. Saying "I want X, but I want it to be named Y" is not productive. It doesn't solve any problems. Problems that I've shown that I can fix with a scribble of my sharpie marker. They really are useful tools, those sharpie markers.

EDIT:

You do know that there are other differences, right? Warblade doesn't get as nearly many feats, doesn't qualify for Weapon Spec, etc.

Oh? Warblades qualify for your exclusive "Fighter only" club (dumb concept in the first place, and a sorry excuse for a "class feature") the same as a Fighter 2 levels lower would. So a Warblade6 can take Weapon Specialization just the same as a Fighter4 could, and if he could figure out how to get a feat at level 20, a Warblade could take Weapon Supremacy. So...your point?

EDIT EDIT:
Relevant Comic is Relevant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

[Hiro Protagonest]

Never played much Oriental Adventures, did you? The CW Samurai and the OA Samurai are completely different classes. I dealt with it.

3.0 also has a different ranger class. And bard class. And other base classes. Your argument is invalid.

[kestrel404]

Hmm...

Maneuver Training
You are skilled in the use of various maneuvers.
Benefit: You learn a number of maneuvers equal to 1 + your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1).
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you learn an additional maneuver.

Just a thought.

No, that's something that works equally well for casters (especially wizards). What you want is something like:

Martial Discipline
You gain basic training in a new martial discipline.
Requirements: Proficiency with all martial melee weapons, +1 BAB
Benefit: When you take this feat, choose one of the 9 disciplines. If you already have a recovery mechanic and access to maneuvers, martial discipline you choose is added to the disciplines you have access to. If you do not have a recovery mechanic, then you gain the ability to prepare 1+int bonus maneuvers that you've gained through feats (min 1) and you may recover maneuvers that you've gained through feats by meditating as a move action. You learn all of the first level strikes, boosts and counters of your chosen discipline, as well as one first level stance. Your initiator level for all maneuvers of this discipline is equal to your BAB.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, select a new discipline, and gain aditional manevuers, but you do not gain a new pool of readied maneuvers.
Special: If you take the martial study feat and select a manevuer from your chosen discipline, you are treated as having martial adept levels.

[Terazul]

Warblade doesn't get as nearly many feats, doesn't qualify for Weapon Spec, etc.

Believe it or not it is possible to satisfy me. I love the Pathfinder fighter fix, though I recognize that it's not enough.

The end result is that it still has to feel like a Fighter to me. Gimme a Pathfinder fighter with maneuvers, and that'd be a start, tough as stated I do not like maneuvers so it wouldn't be much of one, for me. But it would at least be an honest fix.

Not as many feats, but does qualify for that absurdly crappy Weapon Specialization line everyone seems to be in love with (a little later, but the only reason you took it in the first place because it was the only thing the Fighter had going for it).

And again, you still want "maneuvers that are not actually maneuvers but do the exact same thing but based on like skill checks or something" which is still NEEDLESSLY COMPLEX. I can't think of any other way to describe it other than added qualifiers for the sake of adding qualifiers. I seriously have no idea what would satisfy you that would not basically amount to the same thing that's already available.

[Vultawk]

Not because of the ridiculously silly "My character knows he's a Dungeoncrasher Hit-and-Run Fighter 2/Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian 1/Rogue 2/Nightsong Enforcer 5/ Whatever else 10" argument

That's not ridiculously silly. The character is part of the Nightsong Guild now, has the Lion as his spirit totem (as determined by whatever tribe he's from or learned from), and is trained as both a fighter and a rogue. Add on whatever else, and it's good. And it's even flavor neutral enough that you could add whatever other flavor you want on top of it.


3.0 also has a different ranger class. And bard class. And other base classes. Your argument is invalid.

That supports the "This is the new Fighter. The old one isn't around anymore." argument.

[Yuki Akuma]

Yea, they coulda printed Fighter in ToB, but they didn't, and I'm glad they didn't, because that would be really confusing. They coulda called Warblade a Pickled Turnip for all I care...the fact of the matter is, it WORKS.

Warblades are now officially "Pickled Turnips".

[The Glyphstone]

You do know that there are other differences, right? Warblade doesn't get as nearly many feats, doesn't qualify for Weapon Spec, etc.


The rest of your points aside, a Pickled Turnip actually does qualify for Weapon Spec - Weapon Aptitude lets them qualify as if they were a Fighter of their Pickled Turnip level minus 2.

[Keld Denar]

The question is, is that the Pickled Turnip base class? Or the Master Pickled Turnip PrC in Complete Delicious? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

[Yuki Akuma]

Never played much Oriental Adventures, did you? The CW Samurai and the OA Samurai are completely different classes. I dealt with it.

Hey, did you know that Oriental Adventures is 3.0? And Complete Warrior is 3.5?

Did you know that the 3.0 Ranger was very different to the 3.5 Ranger? Or that the 3.0 Psion and 3.5 Psion are totally different?

When someone was released for 3.5 with the same name, it replaced the previous 3.0 version.


You do know that there are other differences, right? Warblade doesn't get as nearly many feats, doesn't qualify for Weapon Spec, etc.

Hahahahah.


Weapon Aptitude (Ex): Your training with a wide range of weaponry and tactics gives you great skill with particular weapons. You qualify for feats that usually require a minimum number of fighter levels (such as Weapon Specialization) as if you had fighter levels equal to your warblade levels -2.

I'm not typing out the rest because this is an awesome class feature that is really wordy. Suffice it to say that warblades get to change which weapons their weapon-specific feats apply to. Meaning that they only need to take Weapon Focus etc. once, unlike any fighter who wants to use more than one weapon...

(What does a fighter do when he has Weapon Specialization in longswords, and the party receives an awesome magic rapier? He cries. The warblade? He switches all his feats to rapier.)

[Vultawk]

So, if your Fighter takes a level of Rogue, how does he "self identify"? If your Paladin multiclasses into something that isn't Paladin, is he REALLY still a Paladin? Is a Wizard still a Wizard if he PrCs in Sacred Exorcist?

I'm curious.

So yea, I stand by my stance. Saying "I want X, but I want it to be named Y" is not productive. It doesn't solve any problems. Problems that I've shown that I can fix with a scribble of my sharpie marker. They really are useful tools, those sharpie markers.


He's a Fighter with Rogue training. She's a Paladin that is also "something that isn't a Paladin". He's a Sacred Exorcist that is a Wizard.

And who's asking to be "productive"? This is a gaming forum, and we're debating a game. I was unaware that we were to be solving problems here. And your sharpie isn't fixing a damn thing either. WarbladeFighter is still officially a Warblade.

[Meleemancer]

You do know that there are other differences, right? Warblade doesn't get as nearly many feats, doesn't qualify for Weapon Spec, etc

They do qualify for Fighter only feats. They have a class feature called Weapon Aptitude that allows them to. That is a very basic part of the class, and one that is referenced in almost every thread about Warblades or Tob. Is it that you don't like the maneuver system or that you didn't go read it carefully? If it really is the first then I can respect that, but you should really understand something before you decide to knock it.

EDIT:Swordsaged

[Vandicus]

I was under the impression that the Warblade had a substantially shorter bonus feat list, while the Fighter's kept growing longer and longer.

[Hiro Protagonest]

He's a Fighter with Rogue training. She's a Paladin that is also "something that isn't a Paladin". He's a Sacred Exorcist that is a Wizard.

So a fighter had to be trained by a thieve's guild at some point just because he can now find traps, deal more damage when the opponent is vulnerable, and is better at perception and stealth? Right, because rogues can't be commandos, they have to be rogues.

[Zale]

He's a Fighter with Rogue training. She's a Paladin that is also "something that isn't a Paladin". He's a Sacred Exorcist that is a Wizard.

And who's asking to be "productive"? This is a gaming forum, and we're debating a game. I was unaware that we were to be solving problems here. And your sharpie isn't fixing a damn thing either. WarbladeFighter is still officially a Warblade.

Silly. It's a pickled turnip, not a warblade.

I've never heard of something so ridiculous. Warblade. :smalltongue:

Also, you are wrong.

Not to yourself, but to other people. Those people are also wrong to you. Wonderful thing about different people having different playstyles. There is no wrong answer.

[mootoall]

Huh. My character was trained in the ways of fighting, is a member of the Nightsong Guild, and sees the Lion as his spirit totem. He's a Rogue 2/Lion (Tiger) Claw Specialized Swordsage 3/Nightsong Infiltrator 3/Warblade 2/Whatever Else X. It's almost as if they're fluffed the same way ...

[Vultawk]

So a fighter had to be trained by a thieve's guild at some point just because he can now find traps, deal more damage when the opponent is vulnerable, and is better at perception and stealth? Right, because rogues can't be commandos, they have to be rogues.

Who says that Rogues have to be thieves?


Not to yourself, but to other people. Those people are also wrong to you. Wonderful thing about different people having different playstyles. There is no wrong answer.

I am aware of that. It's pretty much what I was saying to begin with.


Huh. My character was trained in the ways of fighting, is a member of the Nightsong Guild, and sees the Lion as his spirit totem. He's a Rogue 2/Lion (Tiger) Claw Specialized Swordsage 3/Nightsong Infiltrator 3/Warblade 2/Whatever Else X. It's almost as if they're fluffed the same way ...

:smallconfused:

[Seerow]

Do it! Because it would save me a lot of trouble as I planned to do something similar myself.



A human Fighter by 20th level has 19 feats. Make the feats good enough that a player actually has an incentive to go Fighter 20, and there isn't a problem with feats for Fighters, anyway.

The problem isn't with the Fighter, it's with the feats.

And with the Fighter's small skill list.

But mostly with the feats. Feats should have been designed as a way for noncasters to compete with casters, rather than a catch-all for blaaah, for the most part.


You realize casters get feats too, right? Feats aren't a melee specific phenomenon that is supposed to close the gap between melee and magic. It's a customization tool that all characters get. Yes, your human fighter has 19 feats. Your human wizard has 13, plus 9th level spells. If said Wizard goes into Incanatrix, they're up to 14. And here's the great irony: Magic oriented feats are as good or better than mundane feats.

You may personally feel that mundane feats are supposed to be way better and close that gap, but the core fighter is the only thing that lends any credence to that thought. It is much more logical to assume that the core fighter was a very poorly designed class than it is to assume melee feats are supposed to be the epitome of awesome.

[TroubleBrewing]

I'm still sort of hung up on the fact that in-game, some people actually have their characters refer to themselves as "Fighters".

Archivist: What's your job?
Fighter: I'm a Fighter.
Archivist: So... You... Fight things?
Fighter: Well, sure.
Archivist: I fight things too. Am I a Fighter?
Fighter: No, you're a Wizard. You cast spells using that funny book you're always reading.
Archivist: I'm not a Wizard, silly! I'm a Holy Warrior of Boccob!

Does the problem make itself clear now?

[tyckspoon]

They are on a very different power level though, if things like Horde-Breaker and their Samurai are any indication. They also dont seem to have much of a clue of how things interact beyond the Tomes.

The Tomes were balanced- or intended to be balanced, at least- at the Tier 1/2 level. Basically, if you take a look at the spell list for a Wizard or at worst a Sorcerer for a given level, a class should provide abilities at least as potent as those spells. Maybe not the same breadth of effect and choice, but up there in available power. The entire project was also, IIRC, intended to replace vast chunks of 3.5, if not all of it; if they'd ever finished the entire series, you'd have an almost total system mod. Which is why they generally don't worry about outside interactions, because the attitude in play is that once you've got all the Tomes you won't be using the other stuff any more.

[Zale]

I am aware of that. It's pretty much what I was saying to begin with.


Very well. Enjoy your pointless argument invigorating debate then. :smallsmile:

[Kojiro]

I agree that better feats are not the way to "fix" the Fighter, on the topic of "it's not the Fighter, it's the feats". While feats all help characters and tend to make them more useful and different from others of their class, they generally do not define that class in its entirety.

Making maneuvers into feats, meanwhile, would, in my opinion, just make them a worse Warblade. Except for some of the proposed feats that would give them far more maneuvers than a normal Warblade, which combined with flaw feats and such would make them a "better" Warblade. That still doesn't have class abilities. I don't know; personally, I think that if you hate Tome of Battle and want to fix the Fighter, turning it into the class from Tome of Battle is the wrong way to go about that.

[Vultawk]

I'm still sort of hung up on the fact that in-game, some people actually have their characters refer to themselves as "Fighters".

Archivist: What's your job?
Fighter: I'm a Fighter.
Archivist: So... You... Fight things?
Fighter: Well, sure.
Archivist: I fight things too. Am I a Fighter?
Fighter: No, you're a Wizard. You cast spells using that funny book you're always reading.
Archivist: I'm not a Wizard, silly! I'm a Holy Warrior of Boccob!

Does the problem make itself clear now?

The "problem" is subjective (I could just as easily wonder why the Archivist doesn't know he's a Wizard when he uses a spell book to cast Arcane spells), but we're really getting off topic here.


Very well. Enjoy your pointless argument invigorating debate then. :smallsmile:

Dude, I hang out on RPG and comic book internet forums. I'm used to (and okay with) having pointless arguments. They can be fun, and I can walk away at any time. I mean, this could be worse, I could be trying to go contrary to everyone else. All I'm doing is stating my views on this topic.

[LansXero]

I could just as easily wonder why the Archivist doesn't know he's a Wizard when he uses a spell book to cast Arcane spells.

For the reason he uses a prayerbook to cast Divine spells, probably.

[Vultawk]

For the reason he uses a prayerbook to cast Divine spells, probably.

So an Archivist is a type of Divine caster class that I'm unaware of?

[Hiro Protagonest]

So an Archivist is a type of Divine caster class that I'm unaware of?

Um, yeah. An archivist is a divine caster.

[Yuki Akuma]

So an Archivist is a type of Divine caster class that I'm unaware of?

Apparently so.

Which is weird, because it's not as if you have to buy a book to read about it (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3).

[Vultawk]

Um, yeah. An archivist is a divine caster.


Apparently so.

Which is weird, because it's not as if you have to buy a book to read about it (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3).

I apologize for not being aware of everything Wizards of the Coast has printed. Then my question is moot, but the hypothetical Fighter is wrong then, and that whole argument falls apart.

[Adamantrue]

Oh by the Gods. Remind me never to post anything that resembles a ToB discussion before I run a few errands.

First point: This isn't just about Fighters. I'm not even sure if I would want to let these new "ToB Feats" qualify as Fighter Bonus Feats, and the idea would work just as well with Paladins, Rangers, Knights, Barbarians, etc...even the Sorcerer and Wizard could still pick this up, though they wouldn't get as many higher-level goodies (and have to give up something else in the process that may suit them better).

I didn't suggest this as a Fighter Fix. I didn't intend this as a Fighter Fix. Focusing on the Fighter is just muddying the waters of the prospect.

Second Point: Keying them to BAB is actually a fix towards the most ridiculous part of the ToB Multiclassing mechanics. When you are talking about Martial, Melee-type influences, it doesn't make sense thematically to have a Full-BAB Class only contribute to the Initiator Level as equally as a Half-BAB Class.

The approach I'm talking about basically keys Initiator Level on BAB, which would put the better tools in the hand of those its supposed to help out.

Third Point:
A Warblade will know 13 maneuvers, 4 stances, and 7 feats by level 20.

As I understand it, you want to take a Fighter, or any class really, and give him maneuvers and stances as feats.
Let's say the Fighter spent enough feats to know 13 maneuvers and 4 stances.
He has spent 17, out of his 18, feats, meaning he only has one feat left.

Congratulations, you didn't make the fighter better, you made a significantly nerfed Warblade, because it has only one feat.

Now granted, a Fighter doesn't need to spend all his feats in such a way, but he certainly is never going to be on par with the Warblade spending one feat, or 18 feats this way. ...except the Fighter in this instance can spam a single "Maneuver" round after round, while a Warblade would need to move to something else, or recover the spent Maneuver.

As such, there isn't really any reason for the Fighter to pick up quite as many Maneuvers (though the Stances may come in handy). Equilibrium could be reached in this way, which gets into another issue...

Fourth Point:
Perhaps the feat adaptation of ToB could have been better-done, but ... I like the recharge mechanics, and the way they keep you from spamming the same move over and over. Sorry! This is a valid enough point that I can understand and respect. I have a differing opinion, as there is a simplicity that can make casual play easier or more entertaining. Perhaps a second take on the matter is something someone could/should explore. After all, this is custom stuff, nothing that anyone is obligated to use in their own games.

Fifth Point:
Subject 1: What's wrong with Mundane Melee?
Subject 2: ...blah blah blah... mundane melee can't have nice things ...blah blah blah...
Subject 1: What if we were to give them better Feats that were scaled for higher-level play, inspired by ToB?
Subject 2: No, you don't understand. Mundane melee can't have nice things! Its only for ToB, not the rest of you. This idea to help out the pre-existing stuff cannot be allowed. This general approach is so hypocritical, I can only embrace it. Latch onto it, and give it a full on Bugs Bunny on Elmer Fudd kiss on the lips.

If there is a legitimate reason that the ToB Maneuvers and Stances couldn't have been formatted as Feats, I have yet to come across it.

Is there any way this Thread can be more about what would have to be done to develop the idea, and point out/troubleshoot the problems along with it, and not just devolve into a "Use ToB or GTFO/ToB sUx and teh broken" Thread (wait long enough, another one of those will pop up soon enough)?

[Yuki Akuma]

I apologize for not being aware of everything Wizards of the Coast has printed. Then my question is moot, but the hypothetical Fighter is wrong then, and that whole argument falls apart.

The point is, from an in-universe perspective, Archivists and Wizards are nearly identical.

As are Paladins and Fighter/Clerics. Or Druids and Werewolf Clerics with the Animal and Plant domains. Or Psions and Wilders. Or Divine Minds and Paladins. Or...

[Vandicus]

If there is a legitimate reason that the ToB Maneuvers and Stances couldn't have been formatted as Feats, I have yet to come across it.



Well assuming we keep the standard figher bonus feat amount and have the fighter use your system to learn maneuvers, don't we just end up with a warblade or crusader who has less class features and is generally weaker?

*EDIT

Its already possible for a fighter to learn maneuvers should he choose to, but what's wrong with the ToB classes? They're separate entities that play differently. Sure they do melee damage, but druids can do melee damage too. The fighter at least can build for ranged(as can the paladin for that matter). That's what makes him a fighter, he can build to do all kinds of combat. Doesn't necessarily make him great, but that's still what he is. A warblade/swordsage/crusader can only fight in melee effectively.

[Vultawk]

The point is, from an in-universe perspective, Archivists and Wizards are nearly identical.

As are Paladins and Fighter/Clerics. Or Druids and Werewolf Clerics with the Animal and Plant domains. Or Psions and Wilders. Or Divine Minds and Paladins. Or...

Nearly. Not exactly.

[Yuki Akuma]

Nearly. Not exactly.

It is perfectly possible to make identical characters, from an in-setting perspective, with totally different class make ups.

Classes are a metagame concept. They do not exist in the fictional world of the game.

[Adamantrue]

Well assuming we keep the standard figher bonus feat amount and have the fighter use your system to learn maneuvers, don't we just end up with a warblade or crusader who has less class features and is generally weaker? Again, the failing is in focusing on the Fighter. Think of a Raging Barbarian 7 that can do an Overwhelming Mountain Strike back to back each round, plus has all the normal Barbarian goodies and whatever other "mundane" Feats he picked up.

[TroubleBrewing]

Nearly. Not exactly.

They're so close as to nullify argument that they're different.

If, in-game, using only the information given by what you can observe of his abilities, you could tell the difference between a Wilder and a Psion without directly looking at the character sheets in question, I would be shocked and amazed.

The same goes for Wizard/Sorcerer. Or Paladin/ClericFighter. Or SavageDruid/Barbarian.

As Yuki said: From an in-universe perspective, these things are indistinguishable.

The same goes for Fighter-with-all-of-these-maneuvers-as-feats/Warblade.

The only difference is that the Warblade is better.

EDIT: Gah! Ninja'd Swordsage'd by the person I was QUOTING! That takes talent.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Again, the failing is in focusing on the Fighter. Think of a Raging Barbarian 7 that can do an Overwhelming Mountain Strike back to back each round, plus has all the normal Barbarian goodies and whatever other "mundane" Feats he picked up.

Wow, the barbarian got better from this. Now tell me what the fighter got.

[Kojiro]

<stuff>

First point: Right, sorry; that was more of a general response (since the thread did run in that direction) than one to your post, but anyway.

Third and fourth points: Spamming a maneuver repeatedly... Is bad. It hardly changes the "(full) attack each round" thing, and some maneuvers really shouldn't be spammed. You choose the right ones and the ability to use them repeatedly (like Wall of Blades and Strike of Perfect Clarity, for 100+ damage a turn plus the ability to possibly negate melee, ranged, and possibly ranged touch attack spells repeatedly, and that's not bringing in certain save replacing/redoing things to use at-will) turns them from "rather weak" to "way too powerful". That is the opposite of a good thing, at least in my opinion.

Fifth point, plus things after it: That is a terrible argument, yes; not sure who said it, since I started skimming posts here instead of reading them, but it's not what I meant, at least. However, I do not think that turning the ToB maneuvers into something to throw onto the other classes is the best way of helping them. Ignoring the difficulty in doing it right (you'd need a good bit of testing to make sure you didn't accidentally leave in loopholes or over/underpower things), honestly, it just doesn't seem to fit, at least to me. You could attempt it, but I don't see it going well, personally.

Edit: Fixed up a few things.

[Adamantrue]

Wow, the barbarian got better from this. Now tell me what the fighter got. This isn't about the Fight...

Nevermind. This is ALL ABOUT the FIGHTER. Everything other ramification is meaningless...

[edit]

Kojiro...I'll get back to you in a minute. I'm not exactly free at the moment...

[Yuki Akuma]

EDIT: Gah! Ninja'd by the person I was QUOTING! That takes talent.

I'm a Swordsage, thank you very much. :smallwink:

[Vandicus]

Wow, the barbarian got better from this. Now tell me what the fighter got.

Aptitude weapons. How many other classes can afford to get the lightning mace feat chain AND the roundabout kick feat chain and the feats to qualify for Disciple of Dispater and have enough levels to hit 9-20 crit ranges?

*EDIT

according to my math, there are 10 feats required for the combination, and its damn hard to get that many without fighter(note that most of the feats required ARE fighter bonus feats).


*EDIT some more

Actually this makes warblade a great dip class. For the fighter. Blood in the water helps quite a bit with that combo.

[Terazul]

Aptitude weapons. How many other classes can afford to get the lightning mace feat chain AND the roundabout kick feat chain and the feats to qualify for Disciple of Dispater and have enough levels to hit 9-20 crit ranges?

*EDIT

according to my math, there are 10 feats required for the combination, and its damn hard to get that many without fighter(note that most of the feats required ARE fighter bonus feats).

Too bad he's still a one trick pony!

Which is why he sucks in the first place!

[Yuki Akuma]

Be an Elf and do the Dark Chaos Shuffle.

You suddenly have... six free feats?

*checks*

Yeah, six.

Now do one of the several things that give you free bonus feats (legacy weapons, say) and keep doing the Dark Chaos Shuffle...

Getting lots of feats isn't really that difficult, if you're willing to abuse the magic system.

[Keld Denar]

Adamantrue...you keep saying Mundane Melee...This does not mean what you think it means. Warblades ARE Mundane Melee. None of their abilities OR maneuvers are SU or SP. That means that they are EX, same as Rage, same as Flurry of Blows, same as Sneak Attack. EX abilities are Mundane, if you define Mundane to be non-magical.

Just sayin...Mundane Melee DOES have nice things. I'll give you a guess where they printed them. :smallbiggrin:

[Hiro Protagonest]

This isn't about the Fight...

Nevermind. This is ALL ABOUT the FIGHTER. Everything other ramification is meaningless...

You're skirting around the problem with the fighter. "Every melee class" includes the fighter. I saw the barbarian get better, now I want to see how it helps the fighter.

[Salanmander]

If there is a legitimate reason that the ToB Maneuvers and Stances couldn't have been formatted as Feats, I have yet to come across it.

Is there any way this Thread can be more about what would have to be done to develop the idea, and point out/troubleshoot the problems along with it, and not just devolve into a "Use ToB or GTFO/ToB sUx and teh broken" Thread (wait long enough, another one of those will pop up soon enough)?

The biggest problem I can see with tying IL to BAB is, basically, that it disallows swordsage type chassis. And there are some very good reasons to not have the entire maneuver system be feats. Basically, it comes down to how much you restrict them. If you don't restrict them very much, then you have the problems that people have been mentioning of them powering up casters, etc. It also is near impossible to have the separation between disciplines they have now, where there are restrictions on who has full access to what disciplines.

The more you start restricting the feats, the more like class features they become. And, if you restrict them to a single class, they /are/ class features, they're just called feats. Weapon Specialization is in this boat now. (The pickled turnip's ability to take it notwithstanding: Factotum also has access to other classes' class features.)

Basically, they didn't phrase them as feats because, in order to do so and still somewhat mitigate the side effects to the rest of the system, they would have needed an extremely carefully thought out, overly complex, and most of all unnecessary set of restrictions on the feats. They did a /very good job/ of allowing ToB material to be useful to characters who aren't primarily ToB characters. You can get minor access to it with feats, the multiclassing mechanic makes multiclassing completely viable from a mechanical standpoint, /and/ they created partial-initiator prestige classes for many other types of characters. That's not refusing to support previous martial characters. It's doing what you can while minimizing your risk of blowing the entire system to more shreds than it was already in.



For the people saying that WotC should have fixed the fighter, or called the new thing the fighter, rather than creating this new class and expecting people to use it as a fighter, there's one very important thing you're missing.

WotC is not capable of revising the PHB.

They just can't do it. They can't publish an errata that completely changes a class, those are only for mistakes. They can't say stuff in the PHB is no longer official. There is actually no way for them to /remove/ things from a given edition of D&D.

So they /can't/ actually replace the fighter and still call it a fighter without creating a new edition.

Which they did.

And guess what, the 4e fighter is a fair bit like the warblade. Far from identical, obviously, but in that direction.

[Vandicus]

Too bad he's still a one trick pony!

Which is why he sucks in the first place!

Assuming that's what the fighter is going for. Aptitude weapons also help to mitagate this somewhat by allowing their weapon focuses/specializations and other stuff apply to their other weapons, allowing a fighter to be a sort of jack of all trades when it comes to fighting. Pick up an aptitude bow, aptitude weapons of various damage types, and bam, the fighter is suddenly more versatile. He's still sort of weak I suppose.

[TroubleBrewing]

He's still sort of weak I suppose.

Like the ocean is sort of deep and salty.

[sonofzeal]

Actually this makes warblade a great dip class. For the fighter. Blood in the water helps quite a bit with that combo.
NOW you're cooking with portals!

[Vandicus]

You're skirting around the problem with the fighter. "Every melee class" includes the fighter. I saw the barbarian get better, now I want to see how it helps the fighter.

Read my post explaining how fighters get insane damage with aptitude weapons and extra attacks.

[Silva Stormrage]

They're so close as to nullify argument that they're different.

If, in-game, using only the information given by what you can observe of his abilities, you could tell the difference between a Wilder and a Psion without directly looking at the character sheets in question, I would be shocked and amazed.

The same goes for Wizard/Sorcerer. Or Paladin/ClericFighter. Or SavageDruid/Barbarian.

As Yuki said: From an in-universe perspective, these things are indistinguishable.

The same goes for Fighter-with-all-of-these-maneuvers-as-feats/Warblade.

The only difference is that the Warblade is better.

EDIT: Gah! Ninja'd by the person I was QUOTING! That takes talent.

This is a horrible argument...

Psion and Wilder are COMPLETELY different. Wilders attempt to control their innate psionic power through having the emotions go incredibly high and overpower everything, while Psions focus and practice. That is like saying there is no difference between Barbarian and Fighter...

Wizard versus sorcerer... Really? I am going to GUESS that the incredibly charismatic good looking one is a sorcerer and the nerdy one with a ton of books is a wizard...

Paladin versus cleric/Fighter. Ya effectively the same thing. To be honest you don't even need to throw in Fighter to that... cleric vs paladin is hard to tell the difference in the beginning.

Savage Druid vs Barbarian?? Well actually I don't know what Savage Druid is. But if it still has spells then that alone makes it completely different from the barbarian as well as wildshape. Not to mention the characters would be different since barbarians traditionally don't have high mental scores.

The Archivst vs Wizard example also can be determined without metagame, since archivists can wear full plate and not incur Armor Penalties.

[Seerow]

Read my post explaining how fighters get insane damage with aptitude weapons and extra attacks.

Insane damage was never the issue. You could have more damage for less investment with an ubercharge build.

[Vandicus]

Insane damage was never the issue. You could have more damage for less investment with an ubercharge build.

He asked for an improvement to the fighter. There it is. Moreover, the fighter can do it AT RANGE. The fighter buys a +1 aptitude bow, ten thousand unenchanted arrows, and goes crazy shooting stuff with a roughly 60% chance of getting two extra attacks each time he attacks.

*EDIT

In this case, the figher is way better at doing what his job is, that is, killing stuff, then the ToB classes and arguably better than an ubercharger because his damage is more easily distributed among targets.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Read my post explaining how fighters get insane damage with aptitude weapons and extra attacks.

Warblade can't do that, but he can stack on attack bonuses and attacks with blood in the water, a 15-20 crit range, lightning mace with aptitude weapons, and maneuvers (wolf fang strike, time stands still, dancing/raging mongoose)

[Yuki Akuma]

The Archivst vs Wizard example also can be determined without metagame, since archivists can wear full plate and not incur Armor Penalties.

They... don't have proficiency. Why would they?

Anyway, Wizards can wear medium armour without worrying about arcane spell failure (if it's made out of Mithril and enchanted with Twilight and has this other thing done to it I can't remember right now..)

[Terazul]

He asked for an improvement to the fighter. There it is. Moreover, the fighter can do it AT RANGE. The fighter buys a +1 aptitude bow, ten thousand unenchanted arrows, and goes crazy shooting stuff with a roughly 60% chance of getting two extra attacks each time he attacks.

*EDIT

In this case, the figher is way better at doing what his job is, that is, killing stuff, then the ToB classes and arguably better than an ubercharger because his damage is more easily distributed among targets.

Yeah, but uhh. That's the thing. Fighter never had a problem doing damage. Fighter and Barbarian in fact STILL beat out all the ToB classes for raw damage output by miles.

The problem is they can't do squat else, manipulate the battlefield, target saves, or any of that other jazz. Yknow, things like being mobile and not being screwed if you can't full attack.

[Vandicus]

Yeah, but uhh. That's the thing. Fighter never had a problem doing damage. Fighter and Barbarian in fact STILL beat out all the ToB classes for raw damage output by miles.

The problem is they can't do squat else, manipulate the battlefield, target saves, or any of that other jazz. Yknow, things like being mobile and not being screwed if you can't full attack.

Ah, when I saw the request for ANY improvement to the fighter, I thought something that gave him better mileage out of his feats and allowed him to be a one many army in terms of damage and spreading out damage applied.

And Yknow, I think a fighter can use an aptitude bow to qualify for not being screwed by the difficulty of staying near an opponent and full attacking.

[Keld Denar]

This is a horrible argument...

Hardly. Pretend you are a commoner (or anyone without ranks in Spellcraft for that matter). A guy in a dress walks up to you, lifts his hands, and sets you on fire.

Was this person:

A) A Wizard casting Burning Hands
B) A Sorcerer casting Burning Hands
C) A Psion manifesting Energy Somethingsomethingsomething
D) A Cleric with the Fire domain who opts not to wear armor because it restricts his speed.
E) An Archivist who was friends with the above mentioned cleric long enough to copy burning hands onto a scroll
F) A Factotum having a moment of inspiration
G) A Pyrokintecist who has no levels in a manifesting class (qualified as a psionic race or with Wild Talent)
H) A Warlock with Hellfire Blast
I) I could do this all day long...

From a top down view, YES, Wizard and Sorcerers are different, which are different from Psions and Wilders. If you sat back and watched them work, however, would you be so sure that that wasn't just a REALLY emotional Wizard? Or a really calm, level headed Sorcerer? Or any number of other RP quirks?

[Seerow]

He asked for an improvement to the fighter. There it is. Moreover, the fighter can do it AT RANGE. The fighter buys a +1 aptitude bow, ten thousand unenchanted arrows, and goes crazy shooting stuff with a roughly 60% chance of getting two extra attacks each time he attacks.

I don't think it works that way. Aptitude lets you change the weapon requirement, but the feat text requires "a light mace in each hand", you don't have a longbow in each hand, you have one longbow in both hands, a distinct difference. Though you could maybe pull this off with a pair of hand crossbows or throwing knives, that cuts your range advantage significantly, and lowers your damage output quite a bit.

And you're still spending 4 feats that if you're assuming only the Fighter has enough feats for, then you're taking 6 levels in Fighter for this. That's terrible.

Not to mention that the Warblade does have 4 bonus feats, so he could get the same combo without touching character feats if he actually cared enough... but it's really nowhere near as efficient of a method as you are implying.

[tyckspoon]

This is a horrible argument...

Psion and Wilder are COMPLETELY different. Wilders attempt to control their innate psionic power through having the emotions go incredibly high and overpower everything, while Psions focus and practice. That is like saying there is no difference between Barbarian and Fighter...

Wizard versus sorcerer... Really? I am going to GUESS that the incredibly charismatic good looking one is a sorcerer and the nerdy one with a ton of books is a wizard...


There doesn't have to be a difference between these people. Sure, Psions and Wilders get there by different routes, but the end result looks the same in the game world- the only way you'll tell the difference between a Psion's manifestation and a Wilder's is if you get to see the Wilder suffer a Psychic Enervation, and that's assuming you have enough Know (Psionics) to understand that's what just happened. Similarly, a Sorcerer and a Wizard look the same when casting; you'll only tell them apart if you stalk them through the night and catch the Wizard doing his book-prep while the Sorcerer does some light stretching and then goes "oh, neat, spells are up."


Read my post explaining how fighters get insane damage with aptitude weapons and extra attacks.

Ok, that's nice. What does it have to do with potentially making Tome of Battle mechanics easier to access as feats? The only ToB thing you're using is a weapon property.

[Yuki Akuma]

Even better: a guy comes up to you, stares at you, and suddenly you like him.

Is he a Wizard who prepared Still, Silent Charm person? A Sorcerer with Charm Person, Still Spell and Silent Spell? A Psion with Psionic Charm? A Wilder with same? An Exemplar with "Perform (Staring Contest)" as his key skill?

[OracleofWuffing]

Even better: a guy comes up to you, stares at you, and suddenly you like him.

Is he a Wizard who prepared Still, Silent Charm person? A Sorcerer with Charm Person, Still Spell and Silent Spell? A Psion with Psionic Charm? A Wilder with same? An Exemplar with "Perform (Staring Contest)" as his key skill?
Trick question, he's a girl made entirely out of platinum pieces. :smalltongue:

[Rogue Shadows]

Hardly. Pretend you are a commoner (or anyone without ranks in Spellcraft for that matter). A guy in a dress walks up to you, lifts his hands, and sets you on fire.

The mere fact that you have to qualify this with "pretend that you don't actually have the skill necessary to do this" suggests that it is possible within the game universe, with the right knowledge. Just like in real life...

And then you get to things like the ToM and ToB classes, which actually do have ways of identifying them on sight or at least with a bit of research...

[Yuki Akuma]

How do you tell the difference between a Truenamer and a Sorcerer who only knows verbal spells? :smallconfused:

(Even better if they're Truespeak spells.)

[Amnestic]

Trick question, he's a girl made entirely out of platinum pieces. :smalltongue:

Platinum pieces and a Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity apparently :smalltongue:

[Silva Stormrage]

Okay, looks like I thought he was trying to argue something else. I thought he was trying to make a point that there was NO way of telling the diffrence of the classes from a non metagame perspective.

Yes a commoner will have no idea whats going on when he is transmuted into a squirrel. I was assuming we were talking about a well learned wizard.

Case in point for redundant spells that mudane people don't understand. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0604.html)

[mootoall]

Guys, guys. You have excellent arguments. Please take them to the thread that is designated for this discussion, "Immutability of class fluff."

[Kojiro]

The mere fact that you have to qualify this with "pretend that you don't actually have the skill necessary to do this" suggests that it is possible within the game universe, with the right knowledge. Just like in real life...

And then you get to things like the ToM and ToB classes, which actually do have ways of identifying them on sight or at least with a bit of research...

With research, yes. Meaning, the differences are not obvious to anyone who has not actually put research into telling the difference between them. Just like how, if you asked a random person on the street what the difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard would be, they'd be clueless (or call you a nerd). As it takes knowledge and effort to tell the difference, they are demonstrably at least somewhat similar.

Edit: Wait, something weird happened with this post. Please disregard it unless you're actually interested in the contents.

[OracleofWuffing]

How do you tell the difference between a Truenamer and a Sorcerer who only knows verbal spells? :smallconfused:)
Actually, I believe that's a knowledge (arcana) DC 10 to study a Truenamer and know more about them.

vvv YAR!

[Rogue Shadows]

How do you tell the difference between a Truenamer and a Sorcerer who only knows verbal spells? :smallconfused:

(Even better if they're Truespeak spells.)

A DC 10 Knowledge (arcana) check or a DC 15 Bardic Knowledge check, that's how.

EDIT:
Actually the Truenamer entry doesn't allow for Bardic Knowledge checks. Weird...I could have sworn each of the ToM classes did, but apparently it's just the Shadowcaster.


With research, yes. Meaning, the differences are not obvious to anyone who has not actually put research into telling the difference between them. Just like how, if you asked a random person on the street what the difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard would be, they'd be clueless (or call you a nerd). As it takes knowledge and effort to tell the difference, they are demonstrably at least somewhat similar.

That still suggests that the classes themselves actually exist in-game, however.


Edit: Wait, something weird happened with this post. Please disregard it unless you're actually interested in the contents.

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

[Keld Denar]

Just like in real life...

I'm an engineer. I design and verify things, manage fabrication and installation contractors, and track project costs and estimates.

If I took a picture of me, in my office, could you tell if I'm
A) Electrical Engineer
B) Civil Engineer
C) Industrial Engineer
D) Mechanical Engineer
F) Environmental Engineer
G) Structural Engineer
H) Not an engineer at all, but an experienced employee with management experience

Even if you were an engineer yourself, you might not be able to figure that out. So...again I say: Hardly

[Adamantrue]

Guys, guys. You have excellent arguments. Please take them to the thread that is designated for this discussion, "Immutability of class fluff." Well, at least it isn't still a "Use ToB or GTFO/ToB sUx and teh broken" Thread.

Kinda missed the point, though.
Third and fourth points: Spamming a maneuver repeatedly... Is bad. It hardly changes the "(full) attack each round" thing, and some maneuvers really shouldn't be spammed. You choose the right ones and the ability to use them repeatedly (like Wall of Blades and Strike of Perfect Clarity, for 100+ damage a turn plus the ability to possibly negate melee, ranged, and possibly ranged touch attack spells repeatedly, and that's not bringing in certain save replacing/redoing things to use at-will) turns them from "rather weak" to "way too powerful". That is the opposite of a good thing, at least in my opinion. As I read through ToB, I can see where you are coming from here. Cloak of Deception would be a great example at early levels, and would continue to be an offender for a good while.

I don't think it is the general rule though. More like specific exceptions that would need to be addressed. Creating a general template at first for each Maneuver/Stance, and then focusing on the problems.

Alternately, you could set them up as Tactical Feats, that can be used as often as desired, but only in more specific circumstances. Which would possibly help address the "Attack/Full Attack Each Round" issue (again, one that I don't really see as a problem, but I can understand and respect).
Fifth point, plus things after it: That is a terrible argument, yes; not sure who said it, since I started skimming posts here instead of reading them, but it's not what I meant, at least. However, I do not think that turning the ToB maneuvers into something to throw onto the other classes is the best way of helping them. Ignoring the difficulty in doing it right (you'd need a good bit of testing to make sure you didn't accidentally leave in loopholes or over/underpower things), honestly, it just doesn't seem to fit, at least to me. You could attempt it, but I don't see it going well, personally. A quick fix may well not be an option. That is something that has to be considered a real possibility. With that said, it may not be so overly complex that it isn't worth the effort either.

[Kojiro]

That still suggests that the classes themselves actually exist in-game, however.

Actually, it suggests that these people are different in some way. Sorcerers have innate power but wizards study magic. There are different psionic power sources and methods, different ways of doing this or that. It does not mean that, in-universe, people can recognize someone as a Warblade 2/Sorcerer 1, even though they can tell he has weak magic and studied martial maneuvers.


I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

It means that I posted, but at first it didn't go through, and the topic was seeming to move away from that anyway, so when it did go through a minute later (after I decided that it wasn't worth posting, but also after it was plainly visible and deleting it would be a problem), I edited it to reflect it not being on-topic anymore. Although now that we haven't moved on...

Edit:


As I read through ToB, I can see where you are coming from here. Cloak of Deception would be a great example at early levels, and would continue to be an offender for a good while.

I don't think it is the general rule though. More like specific exceptions that would need to be addressed. Creating a general template at first for each Maneuver/Stance, and then focusing on the problems.

Alternately, you could set them up as Tactical Feats, that can be used as often as desired, but only in more specific circumstances. Which would possibly help address the "Attack/Full Attack Each Round" issue (again, one that I don't really see as a problem, but I can understand and respect).

Maybe. I'll admit that I'm not the best with game rules as of now, so beyond what seems obvious to me (like my example that you commented on), I'm a bit hesitant to offer any advice there. You can try figuring something out, though, I suppose.


A quick fix may well not be an option. That is something that has to be considered a real possibility. With that said, it may not be so overly complex that it isn't worth the effort either.

Possibly. Again, I guess you could try, although I myself don't know about it. If you can get others here to help you plan and test it, that's good for you.

Personally, I like Tome of Battle; even with it, though, there are Core/non-ToB melee classes that I'd play, even with Warblade and the like as options in the game. I didn't like the Fighter much even before I discovered ToB, but Rogue and Ranger appeal to me still (I still need to try that Rogue/Swashbuckler I got help here on), and certain PrCs like Drunken Master and Dread Pirate look fun and entertaining.

[golem1972]

Changing tob manuvers into feats seems like a very comicated way of bopsting all of the classes power level. Especially dmm clerics, druids, and gishes.

If feats are what makes a fighter a fighter, it would seem to be easier to turn a warblade into a fighter by giving it the fighter's bonus feat progression than it would be to try to turn the fighter into a warblade by making manuvers accessible to everyone.

Imho anyway.

[mootoall]

Oh, right, what happens, if they're tied to BAB, when the Cleric casts Divine Power on himself? Does it make him even more better than a Fighter/Barbarian?

[navar100]

But that's because the feats are failing, not the fighter. Like I said, if feats are supposed to provide small bonuses to characters, then why on Ao's Green Toril do metamagic feats exist? Those are not small bonus. Metamagic feats are really, really powerful. Yet they're in the same class as Toughness?

No. The problem is the feats, not the Fighter.

Which is not to say that a Fighter should have nine dead levels eleven levels of "bonus feat." I did specifically mention Pathfinder, didn't I?

What a fighter should have is nine dead levels and eleven levels of bonus feats that are worth a damn; or else eleven levels of bonus feats and a number of class features, a la Pathfinder, but more. But don't touch the feats.

Maybe take the Pathfinder Fighter and give it a Warblade maneuver progression or something, I dunno. And call it a damn Fighter. Warblade isn't a fix, it's a replacement, but as should be mind-numbingly obvious by these threads, not everyone - not even most people - regard replacement as synonymous with fix.

It's like having a car with mechanical problems and complaining the company wants to give you a different car rather than fix you car.

:smallbiggrin:



You do know that there are other differences, right? Warblade doesn't get as nearly many feats, doesn't qualify for Weapon Spec, etc.



They do so qualify for Weapon Specialization. They can take any "Fighter" feat as a fighter two levels lower than their Warblade level, meaning the Warblade can take Weapon Specialization at level 6. In addition, these "virtual Fighter" levels stack with Fighter, so a Warblade 4/Fighter 2 character can also take Weapon Specialization at level 6.

As an aside, I don't know about turnips, but you could try gilliwig. :smallsmile:

[Midnight_v]

@ the Op
You asked that we not turn this in to an anti v. Pro - tob shyndig, but honestly the very subject of the Tob is hotter than Scarlett Johanneson on in a chainmail bikini(on the plane of fire).
So I'm not gonna add to that. There are plenty of other threads for that so I'm just gonna give some brief idea about the feats as manuevers bit.
But just a bit of background first.
Background:
I'm Midnight_v, I've been doing this 3.5 for since it dropped and the boards thing for years too. I fought most of the initial fighter vs wizard fights, then really started to understand the balance issues of 3.5. Really It was in an argument with the infamous/famous "K" that really opened my eyes how the design issues coupled with my own and others simple refusal to give things a hard look as opposed to imposing how I played and dealt with the problems, saying everyone should do the same. I spend years on the optimizations boards before the whole gleemax thing, and even then Wrote the Consolidated Barbarian Handbook with Zendu. Subsequently I worked with a great team of guys over at Brilliant gameologist on a rebalancing 3.5 project then a subsequent project that never got off the ground the way we wanted and while its still open... its done due to creative differences. I've learned a lot about design and do homebrew for the love when I'm not working or vactioning.
I intro all that and want to say that when the Tome of Battle first came out... I was FURIOUS, and felt betrayed too. :smallfrown:
When I heard a book called the "Tome of Battle" was coming I think I pinned a lot of hopes for a book that would correct the discrepancies between some of my favorite classes at the time and the full caster crowd.
I knew the game well had seen countless great fixes, and what they did was not a fix. It was a replacement, and as much as people want to state otherwise even myself from time to time. . . When I think about that initial feeling I had... I know what you're talking about. I've moved on etc, and can optimize fighters and barbs into critters that can rival warblades, but I know they're working with more ... and it didn't have to be that way. So take all that I say with a grain of salt and remember I'm trying NOT to feed into the Tob v. Non.Tob. Feud thats boiled into your thread.


except the Fighter in this instance can spam a single "Maneuver" round after round, while a Warblade would need to move to something else, or recover the spent Maneuver.

Okay, the initial thing that needs to be stated here is that this is broke. Spamming manuevers, without looking at each manuever indiviually leads to some unexpected things. Off the tob of my head White Raven stun, which says something like Deals Xd6 bonus damage + stun (no save), and also many of the other strikes that aren't so bad as they are having to be refreshed somhow... get unwieldly if not given a refresh.

Frankly I think these should be made usable once per encounter or you give all these feats the swordsage recovery (aka the worst one).

Also theres this:

They are on a very different power level though, if things like Horde-Breaker and their Samurai are any indication. They also dont seem to have much of a clue of how things interact beyond the Tomes.
The Tomes. The tomes is a book that I suggest everyone read and digest a bit if they're going to keep playing 3.5 or ever work on fixing 3.5, because while people may discuss issues in any individual feat they've made, the WAY in which they make the feats scale is spot on.

Great Fortitude [Combat]
You are so tough. Your belly is like a prism.
Benefits: at base attack bonus
+0: You gain a +3 bonus to your Fortitude Saves.
+1: You die at -20 instead of -10.
+6: You gain 1 hit point per level.
+11: You gain DR of 5/-.
+16: You are immune to the fatigued and exhausted conditions. If you are already immune to these conditions, you gain 1 hit point per level for each condition you were already immune to.

This is along the lines of what Rogue_Shadows was suggesting, not directly but when he suggests "The problem is with the feats not the fighter!". The feats are a start, even when you fix that, the fighter could still use a few more actual Class abilities (no dead levels plese).

How does this relate to the op?
Well I think you shuold just make the feats you suggest and make them feats tied to each school keyed off iniitaor level. You can even still call them Martial study, martial stance if you want. We'll give them sub headings though.
Example:

Martial Study: Mountain Hammer I.
Through rigorous training you have gained access to the basic strikes of the mountain hammer school
You gain knowledge of all mountain hammer manuevers level 1-3. You gain an initiator level equal to your character level, and a refresh mechanic equal to that of a swordsage. The key skill for this discipline becomes a class skill for your classes (current and future). While you have knowledge of these manuevers, you may NOT initate a manuever until you attain sufficient iniator level to do so. You gain an initiaor level equal to your class level.

You could write it up another way more similar to the tome feats, but I've found that they actually created feat in a way that wizard should have though to do to fix the disparity problem, when they instead released the tome of battle.

What do you think?

[Lans]

Since feats are not as powerful as spells or class abilities

I wanted to go over this a bit- their are feats that are as good as a lot of spells and most class abilities, maybe 5 of them are fighter feats. Boomerang Daze, Standstill, Martial Study:WRT and maybe 2 others.

Then we have things like Item Familiar, Wild Cohort, the Fey/Fiendish feats, Incarnum, obtain familiar.

Animal companion etc are better than these, but theirs more monks than druids

I want to say that their are feats that are worse than any class ability or spell, but the monk getting +2 to a skill as a class ability makes me want to rethink that.


Making feats better wouldn't fix the fighter, because everyone gets feats. Making more feats only fighters can take(either due to fighter level prerequisites, or silly requirements) is a band-aid fix that could be done much better by just giving the class class features.
Actually if they are good enough having more will mean being able to do more worth while things. They could also make the feats better along combat focus/devil touched that make feats better based on how many you have.

So we have a fighter with feat chains X,Y,Z being comparable to a barbarian with feat chains X,Y
.

[Redshirt Army]

The intelligent, bookish, unarmored spellcaster spends time at the beginning of the day looking over his spells, and decides to prepare what your Spellcraft check informs you is Time Stop, Haste, and True Strike.

Is he a Wizard or an Archivist?

EDIT:

I figured I should clarify my position.

I have no issues with the idea of making maneuvers more accessible to Fighters through feats, if that's what you want to do. It'll breath some life into the class, and potentially give it it's own niche if you give it some class features as well.

That said, forcing the Fighter to give up it's feats to get Maneuvers seems like it'll remove any sort of niche from the Fighter - anything a Fighter with said Maneuver feats could do, so could a Warblade. I'd give the Fighter a more limited Maneuver Progression and let it keep it's feats, as well as give it some class features.

Furthermore, as my retorical question above indicates, I don't usually see classes as an in-game construct, with a few exceptions (like Binder, though I wouldn't be adverse to letting someone refluff that as well, as long as they did it well).

[sonofzeal]

The intelligent, bookish, unarmored spellcaster spends time at the beginning of the day looking over his spells, and decides to prepare what your Spellcraft check informs you is Time Stop, Haste, and True Strike.

Is he a Wizard or an Archivist?
None of the above - he's a Sorcerer who has all those as Spells Known and a high Bluff check, and my Sense Motive didn't catch that he's faking the motions of prepping spells.

Or a Wu Jen, who also have a spellbook and also have all of those specific spells and also cast based on Int.

Or a Beguiler, who only has to fake "True Strike".

Or a Cloistered Cleric with the Celerity and Fate domains.

A Bard, Rogue, or Factotum could also do it as all three have UMD and Bluff as class skills, but this is now getting a little more difficult to pull off.

[Adamantrue]

It's like having a car with mechanical problems and complaining the company wants to give you a different car rather than fix you car. Its like asking for ideas on how to convert Maneuvers & Stances to fit more as a Feat mechanic, and mostly getting swamped with responses concerning the Titles and indistinguishable nature of different Classes.

I'm digging in the wrong hole here, ain't I?

[sonofzeal]

Its like asking for ideas on how to convert Maneuvers & Stances to fit more as a Feat mechanic, and mostly getting swamped with responses concerning the Titles and indistinguishable nature of different Classes.

I'm digging in the wrong hole here, ain't I?
But.... they already exist as a Feat mechanic! "Martial Study" and "Martial Stance" are both quite reasonable feats, on the upper end of what feats can normally do without being particularly overpowered either. IMO, they're pitched exactly right for what feats should be capable of. I rarely use the ToB classes themselves, but I use Martial Study on most of my melee characters these days at least once.


You want homebrew though, how about this:

"Martial Aptitude
At 5th level and every four levels thereafter, a Fighter gains a Maneuver as if through the Martial Study feat. This Maneuver does not count against the number of times he has selected Martial Study. He must qualify for the Maneuver at the time of selection."

Bam, done.

[Curious]

Its like asking for ideas on how to convert Maneuvers & Stances to fit more as a Feat mechanic, and mostly getting swamped with responses concerning the Titles and indistinguishable nature of different Classes.

I'm digging in the wrong hole here, ain't I?

Oh, yes. Most people here just don't see the point of your goal; giving maneuvers to fighters as feats does nothing but create Warblades with less class features. It just doesn't have any point to it. :smallconfused:

[Rogue Shadows]

It's like having a car with mechanical problems and complaining the company wants to give you a different car rather than fix you car.

:smallbiggrin:

I see what you did there.

I see it more as a car that came with poor-quality parts installed. The car itself is still fine, the parts just need upgrading. The company wants to give me a different car (actually, that's not true - the company wants me to buy a new car, and pay nearly as much as I did for my old one), but there are more than enough people in my automotive community suggesting that instead I invest in upgrading the parts I have while keeping the chassis itself intact, because as cool as the company's new car is, it's not really a car, it's a boat with wheels, which is cool in its own right but is only cool because its aping the capabilities of two different things and passing itself off as "better."

So in the end if I invest in upgrades for my car, I can have something just as cool as the boat with wheels while still fundamentally driving my car.


They do so qualify for Weapon Specialization. They can take any "Fighter" feat as a fighter two levels lower than their Warblade level, meaning the Warblade can take Weapon Specialization at level 6. In addition, these "virtual Fighter" levels stack with Fighter, so a Warblade 4/Fighter 2 character can also take Weapon Specialization at level 6.

Yes, I was mistaken there. Remember I don't like these classes or this system so I don't have it memorized the way I do some other classes or races or such.

[Curious]

The problem with your car is the fact that there are nothing but pistons on the inside; it might be powerful, but it still doesn't work.

Tortured analogies aside, the simple fact is that the Fighter as it is presented is an unworkable concept. A complete lack of class features or versatility hamstrings it, and your 'feat' fix is simply trying to pin the word fighter onto a watered-down Warblade.

[Hiro Protagonest]

it's not really a car, it's a boat with wheels, which is cool in its own right but is only cool because its aping the capabilities of two different things and passing itself off as "better."

It's more like your old car was a mountain bike you strapped a motor to. ToB is the new line of actual motorbikes, rather than regular bikes with motors put on. Full casters are anything from armored cars to tanks, depending on optimization.

[sonofzeal]

I see what you did there.

I see it more as a car that came with poor-quality parts installed. The car itself is still fine, the parts just need upgrading. The company wants to give me a different car, but there are more than enough people in my automotive community suggesting that instead I invest in upgrading the parts I have while keeping the chassis itself intact, because as cool as the company's new car is, it's not really a car, it's a boat with wheels, which is cool in its own right but is only cool because its aping the capabilities of two different things and passing itself off as "better."

So in the end if I invest in upgrades for my car, I can have something just as cool as the boat with wheels while still fundamentally driving my car.
Except the problem is not specifically that the parts are poor-quality, although many of them were. The greater problem is that the car was missing key features, like a gear shifter or windshield wipers or side-view mirrors. It'll get you from A to B if all's well, but not very quickly, and if it starts raining or you need to change lanes in traffic then you're in serious trouble.

The company's offering three alternatives. One's a pickup truck - does everything you need and'll push through everything, but isn't really a "car" any more. One's an amphibious land-boat - speedy and flexible, and again does everything you need, but there's enough boat in it that you wouldn't really call it a "car" either. And one... is a car with all the fixings. And the only problem is, you've grown so used to driving the old jalopy, of having to turn a crank to start it and puttering along at the same speed the whole time, that the experience feels totally different than what you expect from a car.


Anyway, the "parts" are available to fix it. They're called "Open Chakra", "Martial Study", "Bind Vestige", etc. Some of those, yes, are magical in nature. But they're available, a Fighter can take them, and they help solve the identified problems.

[Keld Denar]

Yes, I was mistaken there. Remember I don't like these classes or this system so I don't have it memorized the way I do some other classes or races or such.

You still haven't explained this part(the dislike), which makes me believe that you haven't actually read most of it, and the bulk of your reaction is an irrational knee jerk reaction to "change". Don't be afraid of change!

And Warblade didn't kill Fighter and take his stuff. Fighter is still useful, as a skeleton. Lots of builds rely on 1-6 levels of Fighter to pick up some quick feats or the titular Dungeoncrasher ACF. Fighter still has enough use to trot out his body every once in a while and use it for your own dark purposes. It just doesn't stand well on its own.

[Curious]

-Snip-

You make us sound like Necromancers. :smalltongue:

[Rogue Shadows]

Tortured analogies aside, the simple fact is that the Fighter as it is presented is an unworkable concept. A complete lack of class features or versatility hamstrings it, and your 'feat' fix is simply trying to pin the word fighter onto a watered-down Warblade.

This isn't my fix, its Adamantrue's. I just like it because I think it's a step in the right direction, but on the other hand, I don't like the maneuver system, even though I certainly can acknowledge that it does what it was intended to do.

My "feat fix" would see a complete overhaul of the feat system, powering up just about all of the non-metamagic ones while adding in prerequisites that would make them difficult for casters to acquire en masse, while also adding or refining class features to the noncasters with the intent of bringing them up to Tier 3 or at least strong Tier 4.

This would be done in conjunction with the powering down of main casters (for the purposes of this discussion, we'll limit ourselves to Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard) with the intent of bringing them down to Tier 3 or at most weak Tier 2, probably by eliminating 8th and 9th level spells entirely, slowing spell progression to gaining new spell levels every 3 levels rather than every 2, and severely limiting caster spell options on a class-by-class basis to, say:
- Clerics can only cast spells from domains;
- Druids get Bard spellcasting progression (topping at 6th level), Natural Spell is eliminated, and Wild Shaping takes 1 minute to perform*
- Wizards can only cast spells from a small number of schools and have to spend feats to learn magic from other schools.

This would be further continued by an overhaul of the spell system to eliminate spells that invalidate entire classes or schools of magic (knock, find traps, shadow evocation), as well as changing the levels and casting time of some spells based on power, and last but not least we'd finish by shuffling the spells around so that they end up in schools that make sense: cause fear goes to Enchantment, for example, and the cure/inflict and like spells either move back to Necromancy or find a new home in Evocation, schools that actually make sense for them.

TL; DR - Fixing 3.5 is not a simple task.

-----------------------------------------
*But I'd make a feat that let druids wildshape as a full-round action, but if they do so the wild shape only lasts for a number of rounds equal to 3 + their Charisma modifier.

[Rogue Shadows]

You make us sound like Necromancers. :smalltongue:

He also makes Fighter sound like it should be a prestige class.


You still haven't explained this part(the dislike), which makes me believe that you haven't actually read most of it, and the bulk of your reaction is an irrational knee jerk reaction to "change". Don't be afraid of change!

I've actually explained it in great detail in other threads, just not this one. I don't think; they're starting to blur together.

I don't have a knee-jerk reaction to change; I love change. When it is good. Case and point, I love Saga Edition Star Wars'; changes to the Revised Edition of the Star Wars RPG (it's essentially a whole new system); I love Tome of Magic, and going way back I wholeheartedly embraced the update from 3.0 to 3.5 mechanically, if not financially (I am not a wealthy man).

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I really should make a bullet-points document for a lot of the nonsense that comes around with each and every Tome of Battle discussion at some point.:smallsigh: Bolds are less for other posters and more for my future bullet points plan.


Honestly? Yes. I would have. It would be "the new/updated Fighter class" instead of "this new class that's not even a real word".


Fighters were Fighters LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before Wizards of the Coast was even a twinkle in Richard Garfield's eye, let alone the existence of feats.

This means nothing. It is the name of the rose. This entire nonsense. We've had some 400 years since Shakespeare and this really is that except same issue. A rose is a rose even when I call it "ruže," "rhosyn," or even "ดอกกุหลาบ."


It's not really goofy...it's trying to stick to the core idea of the class.

This is something we can't argue, simply due to everyone having different notions of what "X" is. If I were to talk with a big Harry Potter fan, he'd be better mimicking such wizardry via the warlock class (or really, just a bunch of magic items) than the actual wizard class.


Case and point, Pathfinder managed to give a number of new abilities to the Fighter while still making it feel more like a Fighter than the Warblade does.

I'm sorry, but, no, no it did not. Bravery is another feat, if even that. Armor training is free mithral, nothing more or less. Weapon Training is essential Weapon Focus (Group) along with a minor damage bonus. Neither of those things a Fighter actually gains anything more out of, compared to just core DND. Meanwhile the two capstones do too little too late.

If anything, the Pathfinder fighter is worse simply because of how different the system is (Melee feats are worse, everyone gains a feat on odd levels).

The issue with the fighter class is that it is a "Build your own X!" melee combantant. And it fails at such.


Try to imagine a Barbarian class without rage, fast movement, damage reduction, trap sense, illteracy, and uncanny dodge. The Barbarian *is* those things.

Except not really. I can make a barbarian who has none of those things. As in, the Barbarian class "barbarian."


The Fighter *is* the feats.

And that is why it fails.


Technically, the Fighter is Weapon Specialization, as they've had that as their main thing since 2nd, maybe even 1st edition. Feats are just how that's been implemented in 3e.

See above. There is no reason to hold attachments from past editions to this one or any other.


But that's because the feats are failing, not the fighter. Like I said, if feats are supposed to provide small bonuses to characters, then why on Ao's Green Toril do metamagic feats exist? Those are not small bonus. Metamagic feats are really, really powerful. Yet they're in the same class as Toughness?

To quote you again...

The Fighter *is* the feats.

So, no. I'm going to say you're wrong here. This is just terrible logic.


No. The problem is the feats, not the Fighter.

What a fighter should have is nine dead levels and eleven levels of bonus feats that are worth a damn; or else eleven levels of bonus feats and a number of class features, a la Pathfinder, but more. But don't touch the feats.

Character classes should not have nearly half their levels be "dead." This is just a really bad execution. See above on how bad Pathfinder does it to the fighter.


Maybe take the Pathfinder Fighter and give it a Warblade maneuver progression or something, I dunno. And call it a damn Fighter. Warblade isn't a fix, it's a replacement, but as should be mind-numbingly obvious by these threads, not everyone - not even most people - regard replacement as synonymous with fix.

So... take a good thing and slap it on top of a bad execution and call that your fix? I'd rather use that class from Tome of Battle and save myself the effort.


*snip*

*snip*

Keld, I think you summarized some of my own thoughts fairly well. I must say, you have a way with words.

[Rogue Shadows]

This means nothing. It is the name of the rose. This entire nonsense. We've had some 400 years since Shakespeare and this really is that except same issue. A rose is a rose even when I call it "ruže," "rhosyn," or even "ดอกกุหลาบ."p

How can someone quote Shakespeare and not get the...? Ugh. Do the whole relevant part of the balcony speach, not just the well-known single quote.

Juliet:
O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.

Romeo:
[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

Juliet:
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy:
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? It is nor hand nor foot,
Nor arm nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
and for thy name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.

Romeo:
I take thee at thy word:
Call me but love, and I'll be new baptized;
Henceforth I never will be Romeo.

Juliet:
What man art thou that thus bescreen'd in night
So stumblest on my counsel?

Romeo:
By a name
I know not how to tell thee who I am:
My name, dear saint, is hateful to myself,
Because it is an enemy to thee;
Had I it written, I would tear the word.

Juliet is lamenting that nothing but a name stands between her and Romeo. A rose by any other name...would still see Tybalt dying! Dozens of Montagues and Capulets die for or because of their names! Including Romeo and Juliet themselves!

Further, lest we forget, Juliet is twelve, or thereabouts; fourteen, at the oldest. She does not understand the weight or importance of names to Montague and Capulet. Names carry importance and meaning. They're not just letters on paper or vibrations of the air.

Do not forget that Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy, that we are meant to pity these children for their situation, and be struck at the foolishness of their actions.


I'm sorry, but, no, no it did not. Bravery is another feat, if even that. Armor training is free mithral, nothing more or less. Weapon Training is essential Weapon Focus (Group) along with a minor damage bonus. Neither of those things a Fighter actually gains anything more out of, compared to just core DND. Meanwhile the two capstones do too little too late.

If anything, the Pathfinder fighter is worse simply because of how different the system is (Melee feats are worse, everyone gains a feat on odd levels).

What I meant was, Pathfinder managed to fill up and add things to Fighter without changing it from being the Fighter, and all that that name entails. Certainly it does not actually fix anything, but it is just as certainly an honest attempt to fix the car rather than try and pass off a duckboat as a car.


Except not really. I can make a barbarian who has none of those things. As in, the Barbarian class "barbarian."

And by the time you have, you don't really have much of a barbarian left. At a certain point in using racial substitutions and alternate class features the class stops fundamentally being the class and just becomes some weird amalgamation of math equasions.


So, no. I'm going to say you're wrong here. This is just terrible logic.

What is? The fighter fails, I don't deny that, but why does the fighter fail? Becuase its class abilities aren't up to snuff because the feats it can choose from are, in general, weak.

Is the problem with the fighter or with the feats? Well the obvious way to test it is to give the same feat to multiple classes. And the end result? Toughness is a waste no matter who grabs it. Weapon Focus, too. And so on. So the Fighter is a failure but he is a failure because his class feature is "feats," and the feats are awful no matter who gets them. So the feats fail.

Let's go from another angle.

Using the same setup as the Figher, what if you removed "bonus feat" and inserted "divine spell," and said that at 1st, 2nd, and each even-numbered level thereafter, the Fighter gains a single cleric spell as a spell-like ability, the level of which can be no higher than one-half the Fighter's class level (minimum 1), which they can use a number of times per day equal to the number of spells they know minus the level of the spell (so a 20th level fighter, who knows 11 spells, could cast a 9th level spell 2/day, an 8th level spell 3/day, and so on). If they have multiple spells of the same level their uses per day are independent (a 2nd-level fighter can cast each 1st-level spell he knows 1/day). They have to have a INT of at least 10 + the spell's level to cast the spell, and save DCs are 10 + the spell's level + the Fighter's INT modifier. Caster Level is equal to Fighter level.

Now to me this doesn't seem like a Fighter anymore, but let's leave that aside for a moment.

So, without changing anything else from the Fighter - BAB, skill list, HD, and weapons and armor and so on are all the same, and heck they can still pick up Weapon Specialization if they want via normal feats - I strongly suspect I have just powered him up quite a bit. I'm thinking, for spells:
1 - Bless, cure light wounds
2 - Silence
3 - Dispel magic
4 - Divine Power
5 - True Seeing
6 - Heal
7 - Ethereal Jaunt
8 - Greater Spell Immunity
9 - Gate, miracle

But that's just me.

My point is, though, that our "Fighter" here dropped his feats and picked up spells, and suddenly, he's actually good. Not great...but definitely better than he was before.

So...yeah. The Fighter is broken not because of the class itself, but because of the feats.


Character classes should not have nearly half their levels be "dead." This is just a really bad execution. See above on how bad Pathfinder does it to the fighter.

Please note what I was trying to get across - that if the Fighter is going to have nine dead levels, then the eleven "living" levels need to be worth a damn. The cleric at a glance gets 19 dead levels! But the spells ensure that no level is truly "dead" for the cleric. If a Fighter has nine dead levels, then the feats that they get should do the same thing.


So... take a good thing and slap it on top of a bad execution and call that your fix? I'd rather use that class from Tome of Battle and save myself the effort.

That was just an off-the-top-of-my-head idea. I do not actually support it because, as stated, I don't like ToB.

[Adamantrue]

Mighty Throw [Setting Sun]
You use superior leverage and your Setting Sun training to send an opponent tumbling to the ground.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +1
Benefit: As a standard action, you may make a single unarmed trip attempt. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity, and your opponent cannot try to trip you if you lose the opposed check. You can use your Dexterity or Strength modifier, whichever is higher, and you gain a +4 bonus on the ability check.
If you succeed in tripping your foe, you throw it up to 10 feet away from you. The target falls prone in the destination space. You choose where it lands. You must place the target in an empty space. If you lack the distance to throw your target into a clear space, it falls prone in its current space.
An enemy you throw with this maneuver does not provoke attacks of opportunity for passing through enemies’ threatened areas as part of the throw, and you can throw an enemy through occupied squares.

Clever Positioning [Setting Sun]
With a swift flurry of motion, you knock you foe off balance, slip into his space, and force him into the spot you just occupied.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +3
Benefit: As a standard action, you make a single melee attack against a target. If your attack hits, the target takes damage normally and must make a Reflex save (DC 12 + your Dex modifier). If this save fails, you swap positions with the target.
If the target is Large or larger, you can occupy any of the squares that make
up its space. The target must in turn occupy the square, or one of the squares, you previously occupied. You cannot use this maneuver if you or the target would end up sharing the same space as another creature or an impassable terrain feature, such as a wall. If your target occupies a larger space than you do, he chooses his final position according to the guidlines given above.

Devastating Throw [Setting Sun]
Seizing your foe by the arm, you spin in a quick half-circle and hurl him headlong away from you.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +5, any Setting Sun feat
Benefit: As a standard action after you have moved a minimum of 15 feet, you may make a single unarmed trip attempt. This does not not provoke an attack of opportunity, and your opponent cannot try to trip you if you lose the opposed check. You can use your Dexterity or Strength modifier, whichever is better, and you gain a +4 bonus on your ability check.
If you succeed in tripping your foe, you throw him up to 10 feet away from you. The target falls prone in the destination space and takes 1d6 points of damage. You choose where he lands. For every 5 points by which you win the opposed check, you gain an additional 5 feet of throw distance.
For example, if you win by 10, you can place your foe in any space within 20 feet of you. You must place the target in an empty space. If you lack the distance to throw your target into a clear space, he falls prone in his current space.
An enemy you throw with this maneuver does not provoke attacks of opportunity for passing through enemies’ threatened areas as part of the throw, and you can throw an enemy through occupied squares.

Soaring Throw [Setting Sun]
With a great shout, you send your opponent soaring through the air in a high arc. He slams back to the ground with a bonecrushing thud.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +9, any two Setting Sun feats
Benefit: As a standard action, you may make a single unarmed trip attempt. This does not not provoke an attack of opportunity, and your opponent cannot try to trip you if you lose the opposed check. You can use your Dexterity or Strength modifier, whichever is better, and you gain a +4 bonus on your ability check.
If you succeed in tripping your foe, you throw him up to 20 feet away from you. The target falls prone in the destination space and takes 4d6 points of damage. You choose where he lands. For every 5 points by which you win the opposed check, you gain an additional 5 feet of throw distance.
For example, if you win by 10, you can place your foe in any space within 30 feet of you. You must place the target in an empty space. If you lack the distance to throw your target into a clear space, he falls prone in his current space.
An enemy you throw with this maneuver does not provoke attacks of opportunity for passing through enemies’ threatened areas as part of the throw, and you can throw an enemy through occupied squares.

*

I should point out that I made two changes while converting things, just to ease my peace of mind. The first was to make the Throws require unarmed touch attacks, as I can't see people being "thrown" with flails or chains outside anime.

The second was halving the damage. This is to try and address the back-to-back maneuvers issue, mostly so I could see what it looked like.

[Lord_Gareth]

I should point out that I made two changes while converting things, just to ease my peace of mind. The first was to make the Throws require unarmed touch attacks, as I can't see people being "thrown" with flails or chains outside anime.

So...you took the battlefield control maneuvers and nerfed their ability to control the battlefield? Additionally, there's TONS of Western cartoons and movies that include this kind of thing.

Lastly, rogues dodge meteor swarms dropped into blank ten-by-ten rooms while naked, and take no damage when they do so. Sense is not required at this stage of the design.

[TheOOB]

In short, the only way to buff fighters is to either a)make better feats which makes everybody stronger and thus doesn't change anything, or b)Give the fighter class abilities unique to it.

The warblade is an example of b.

[TroubleBrewing]

In short, the only way to buff fighters is to either a)make better feats which makes everybody stronger and thus doesn't change anything, or b)Give the fighter class abilities unique to it.

The warblade is an example of b.

And the original intent of making maneuvers into feats is a pretty solid example of A.

Somebody above mentioned just off-hand what would happen to typical DMM Cleric builds with such resources available, and I'd suggest that this topic didn't get enough attention.

I agree with the notion that making the maneuvers into feats screws Fighters, but I'd take it one step further and say that it dramatically lengthens the power gap between full casters and non-casters.

Think about a Druid's Animal Companion for a moment. All of a sudden, the answer that other thread "Fighter vs. Wolf" became a whole lot clearer: Animal Companion. Every time.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

How can someone quote Shakespeare and not get the...? Ugh. Do the whole relevant part of the balcony speach, not just the well-known single quote.

Juliet is lamenting that nothing but a name stands between her and Romeo. A rose by any other name...would still see Tybalt dying! Dozens of Montagues and Capulets die for or because of their names! Including Romeo and Juliet themselves!

Names have meaning. A "rose" means something. It means something because we attribute meaning to it. Nothing more or less. If I call myself "American" anything else you think about me outside of "comes from America" comes from yourself, not from what I've said.:smallsigh:


Further, lest we forget, Juliet is twelve, or thereabouts; fourteen, at the oldest. She does not understand the weight or importance of names to Montague and Capulet. Names carry importance and meaning. They're not just letters on paper or vibrations of the air.

And in the same sense. Names need not carry those meanings. It is important to use the proper word, because of connotations, but those connotations need not be the damnedest thing there is to it. Sometimes someone says "loathe" simply because of how it sounds compared "hate."

And while Juliet may be an underage (Not in Shakespeare's time, though :smalltongue:) girl, I am a grown man of the 21st century. I know that names can mean something and more importantly that words, a lot of the time, don't mean anything. The fighter class is just such a case. When someone is described as a "fighter," odds are the person described will do something like fight above what he is expected to do - such as Manny Pacquiao - or, less likely, that person just literally fights for the hell of it.

You and a lot of others are in a big deal over Tome of Battle because it is not "The Fighter" class, but instead "The Warblade." It means nothing. Then again, neither does warmage. Heck, even the spellchecker on Firefox takes umbrage at "mage!":smalltongue:


Do not forget that Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy, that we are meant to pity these children for their situation, and be struck at the foolishness of their actions.

It is a tragedy. Why I should feel sorrow is how I interpret such. You telling me otherwise is, well, rather wrong. Heck, I could just as easily laugh at it, given the proper circumstances.



What I meant was, Pathfinder managed to fill up and add things to Fighter without changing it from being the Fighter, and all that that name entails. Certainly it does not actually fix anything, but it is just as certainly an honest attempt to fix the car rather than try and pass off a duckboat as a car.

Except that the duckboat is this case is a better car than the "car." A Warblade can easily be the scrappy underdog fighter (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fighter) (3) more so than the fighter class can at really any level range. The Warblade can shrug off spells you has at best a 5% chance at ignoring simply because he is that determined not to fail, odds be damned. A fighter cannot, at least, out of the box.



And by the time you have, you don't really have much of a barbarian left. At a certain point in using racial substitutions and alternate class features the class stops fundamentally being the class and just becomes some weird amalgamation of math equasions.

Except it is that very class. I can name each substitution. Shoot at level 3. I give away Fast movement for pounce. I pay to be literate with skill points. Uncanny Dodge is replaced with Improved Trip, because, like most animals, I as a barbarian will fight dirty. Trap Sense becomes Trap Killing. As a rough and tough fighter, I will just soak the damage, then scrounge up the remains of that trap and break it instead. Rage is instead the animal-like ferocity (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a): complete with being sickened with yourself at its end.

It is still a quintessential barbarian without any of those major class features. Admittedly, going straight Barbarian 7 will eventually give DR 1/-, but, considering the idea behind E6 that really doesn't mean much.

You call it a silly "amalgamation of math equations." I call it creating a character. Actually a character, not a build, but a character. I've played barbarian (concept) wizards who tattooed spellbooks on their skins. All rules legal, but the concept was my own. Tome of Battle is no different. It is a tool to pretend to be a badass, mundane fighter. Why not use it?




What is? The fighter fails, I don't deny that, but why does the fighter fail? Becuase its class abilities aren't up to snuff because the feats it can choose from are, in general, weak.

Because feats are an entirely different resource than any other class feature. Everyone gets feats. Not everyone can get feat X, but if you make a feat that requires someone to be at least 16th level (e.g., +16 BAB) then why restrict it just to the fighter? Why not let the Barbarian 16 grab it, too?

Feats could be made to work like the Tome of Battle maneuvers - interesting little things that help you do something cool and awesome but can't be spammed. But then you have to worry about weird cases where class X can get them a little late and be "better" at it.

The point is, feats should do things that are like a true feat of strength. Not everyone can swing wildly for a massive, devastating attack (power attack). Not everyone can fight with two weapons at the same time, but those that do, well, they can. It may just be my personal opinion here, but I love feats that allow players to do something new rather than just "Okay, I got another +X to-hit/damage!"


Is the problem with the fighter or with the feats? Well the obvious way to test it is to give the same feat to multiple classes. And the end result? Toughness is a waste no matter who grabs it. Weapon Focus, too. And so on. So the Fighter is a failure but he is a failure because his class feature is "feats," and the feats are awful no matter who gets them. So the feats fail.

No, there are a lot of good feats that do cool things (Martial Study, Power Attack, Stone Power, Extend Spell, Improved Trip, Knockback, Fling Ally, et al.). The issue is that as a class feature, they fail. There are just not enough feats dedicated to one particular thing in 3.5 to make them worth a 1 to 20 haul. Especially for a fighter.


Let's go from another angle.

Using the same setup as the Figher, what if you removed "bonus feat" and inserted "divine spell," and said that at 1st, 2nd, and each even-numbered level thereafter, the Fighter gains a single cleric spell as a spell-like ability, the level of which can be no higher than one-half the Fighter's class level (minimum 1), which they can use a number of times per day equal to the number of spells they know minus the level of the spell (so a 20th level fighter, who knows 11 spells, could cast a 9th level spell 2/day, an 8th level spell 3/day, and so on). If they have multiple spells of the same level their uses per day are independent (a 2nd-level fighter can cast each 1st-level spell he knows 1/day). They have to have a INT of at least 10 + the spell's level to cast the spell, and save DCs are 10 + the spell's level + the Fighter's INT modifier. Caster Level is equal to Fighter level.

Now to me this doesn't seem like a Fighter anymore, but let's leave that aside for a moment.

So, without changing anything else from the Fighter - BAB, skill list, HD, and weapons and armor and so on are all the same, and heck they can still pick up Weapon Specialization if they want via normal feats - I strongly suspect I have just powered him up quite a bit. I'm thinking, for spells:
1 - Bless, cure light wounds
2 - Silence
3 - Dispel magic
4 - Divine Power
5 - True Seeing
6 - Heal
7 - Ethereal Jaunt
8 - Greater Spell Immunity
9 - Gate, miracle

But that's just me.

My point is, though, that our "Fighter" here dropped his feats and picked up spells, and suddenly, he's actually good. Not great...but definitely better than he was before.

So...yeah. The Fighter is broken not because of the class itself, but because of the feats.

Strawman. I'm not saying "feats should be spells." In fact, I hate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#blindingSpeed) feats that simply give low level spells to someone way past the point such an ability would be useful. But having someone with a different set of resources is a must. Because just feats is not worth it.

You can talk about your own system overhaul, but such means little to discussions on this side of the 3.5 board. Especially when it is already done better in an actual first party source.:smallbiggrin:


Please note what I was trying to get across - that if the Fighter is going to have nine dead levels, then the eleven "living" levels need to be worth a damn. The cleric at a glance gets 19 dead levels! But the spells ensure that no level is truly "dead" for the cleric. If a Fighter has nine dead levels, then the feats that they get should do the same thing.

Dead levels as a concept fail. The reason why core casters benefit so much from grabbing prestige classes like candy is because they get cool, interesting, possibly hard to replicate elsewhere abilities when they level up rather than just "Okay, so now I know how to fly, too!" This is more true for "mundanes" as they get fewer resources. The solution is to give them more resources: not slap some crazy idea of "what a fighter should be" onto a concept your trying to make when such is already available, doable, and easily fun out of the box.



That was just an off-the-top-of-my-head idea. I do not actually support it because, as stated, I don't like ToB.

Then all I can really do here is ask why?

[Rogue Shadows]

Strawman. I'm not saying "feats should be spells." In fact, I hate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#blindingSpeed) feats that simply give low level spells to someone way past the point such an ability would be useful. But having someone with a different set of resources is a must. Because just feats is not worth it.

I wasn't saying you thought feats should be spells. I was giving an example of how if you removed all the feats from fighters and replaced them with spells, then you get a pretty decent class.

So if Fighter w/feats is bad, but Fighter w/spells is decent, then it must mean that the problems are with the feats, not the Fighter.


Dead levels as a concept fail. The reason why core casters benefit so much from grabbing prestige classes like candy is because they get cool, interesting, possibly hard to replicate elsewhere abilities when they level up rather than just "Okay, so now I know how to fly, too!" This is more true for "mundanes" as they get fewer resources. The solution is to give them more resources: not slap some crazy idea of "what a fighter should be" onto a concept your trying to make when such is already available, doable, and easily fun out of the box.

You...do realize that this is exactly what I'm saying, right? I just want those more resources and options to be an improvement of the feat system, rather than the addition of a whole new system.

And I want those to go hand-in-hand with taking options away from spellcasters. Because no matter how good the Warblade is...Gate.


Then all I can really do here is ask why?

Because when I look at maneuvers, I see Vancian magic spells that have simply been refluffed, that's why. Not on an individual maneuver-by-maneuver basis, per se, but rather the system as a whole.

So basically the Warblade is WotC throwing up their hands and saying "Vancian magic wins always and forever and the only way to compete with it is to make noncasters Vancian magic users as well."


You and a lot of others are in a big deal over Tome of Battle because it is not "The Fighter" class, but instead "The Warblade." It means nothing. Then again, neither does warmage. Heck, even the spellchecker on Firefox takes umbrage at "mage!"

The Warmage wasn't trying to replace anything. I don't care that Warblade isn't a real word. Neither is "Shadowcaster" or "Truenamer" yet I don't take issues with those.

If in 1977 the entire class had been called "Warblade" and that had carried on through 3.5, and then ToB had released a class called the Fighter and touted it as a fix, then I'd be taking issue with the Fighter.

"Fighter" (the actual one) is a class and a concept with a lot of history behind it - thirty-six years or thereabouts. That is what's in its name.


All rules legal, but the concept was my own. Tome of Battle is no different. It is a tool to pretend to be a badass, mundane fighter. Why not use it?

Because some classes carry history and concepts and flavor with them all on their own - see above. Or see the ToB or ToM classes, actually.


Because feats are an entirely different resource than any other class feature. Everyone gets feats. Not everyone can get feat X, but if you make a feat that requires someone to be at least 16th level (e.g., +16 BAB) then why restrict it just to the fighter? Why not let the Barbarian 16 grab it, too?

So tie it to +16 BAB. Then the Barbarian can. Note I did suggest that, along with things like "Sneak Attack +3d6" (several classes and PrCs grant this), "Improved Evasion class feature" (...), and so on.


The point is, feats should do things that are like a true feat of strength. Not everyone can swing wildly for a massive, devastating attack (power attack). Not everyone can fight with two weapons at the same time, but those that do, well, they can. It may just be my personal opinion here, but I love feats that allow players to do something new rather than just "Okay, I got another +X to-hit/damage!"

I...don't see what point you're trying to drive at here.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I wasn't saying you thought feats should be spells. I was giving an example of how if you removed all the feats from fighters and replaced them with spells, then you get a pretty decent class.

Right - or do you not understand what the prefix "Strawman" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strawman) means?


So if Fighter w/feats is bad, but Fighter w/spells is decent, then it must mean that the problems are with the feats, not the Fighter.

No. It is "If a class is bad with just feats, but workable with just spells, then odds are I shouldn't be trying to throw feats onto a chassis and call it a class!"



You...do realize that this is exactly what I'm saying, right? I just want those more resources and options to be an improvement of the feat system, rather than the addition of a whole new system.

I'm sorry, but if I am going to take this argument seriously than you homebrewing your own fighter 3.5 fix is just that. No, seriously. You can homebrew and all, but you aren't going to get that. Feats are a resource. Spells are a resource. Powers as in psionics are a resource. Maneuvers are a resource. Vestiges are a resource. Melds and binds are resources for Incarnum.

Guess which of these is per day. Which is "at will." And which fall between those two in some manner of another. Guess which don't work when you try to throw someone an "at will" system as simply being feats.

Trick question: all of them that weren't already "at will/per encounter.":smallcool:


And I want those to go hand-in-hand with taking options away from spellcasters. Because no matter how good the Warblade is...Gate.

Strawman. Seriously, stop it. I know casters are broken in 3.5. I love 3.5 casters. No cuz their broken and their toys are so much better than everyone else's. But because they have options. That one word alone is so important it demands to be both in bold and italics. Feats certainly are another option, but, really, at the end of the day they don't do what those other resources do. You "fixing" them otherwise isn't actually here nor there.




Because when I look at maneuvers, I see Vancian magic spells that have simply been refluffed, that's why. Not on an individual maneuver-by-maneuver basis, per se, but rather the system as a whole.

Then, as a system as a whole, you are taking umbrage against a good thing. Yeah, this is my opinion here, but, really, Tome of Battle is A) Fun B) Interesting and C) it provides cool things for mundanes without being explicitly (Su) (even though it does have some explicitly (Su) stuff in it... like desert wind - y'know, the monk replacement discipline?:smallwink:)


So basically the Warblade is WotC throwing up their hands and saying "Vancian magic wins always and forever and the only way to compete with it is to make noncasters Vancian magic users as well."

No. You are putting words in their mouths. You wouldn't say Incarnum or Vestige Binding is such: you are simply throwing crap at Tome of Battle because it does something for mundanes that happens to also have some physics-breaking stuff in it (either at later levels or on the Paladin/Monk-esque classes). You associating anything else to that system is you and you alone. Well, you and other people who are doing the same, but whatever.:smalltongue:

The point here is not liking ToB because you think it is WotC saying "Lol, sorry bros, only casters can be OP!" is something you view, not something the book presents.



The Warmage wasn't trying to replace anything. I don't care that Warblade isn't a real word. Neither is "Shadowcaster" or "Truenamer" yet I don't take issues with those.

You are making my argument for me. The Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer did not replace anything. Each in turn simply were out of the box options to be, respectively, a blaster, an illusionist/enchanter, and a freaking necromancer.

To actually address the other two, though. Shadowcasters and Truenamers weren't meant to replace anything: they exist simply to offer players a new idea when it comes to being "Spooky Arcane Magics"-man in their preferred game of pretend.

The Warblade and its take on being a scrappy, mundane badass is no different.


If in 1977 the entire class had been called "Warblade" and that had carried on through 3.5, and then ToB had released a class called the Fighter and touted it as a fix, then I'd be taking issue with the Fighter.

Cool story there, but, really, that is your problem. It is not an issue with the Warblade as presented in Tome of Battle. Does it suck that core-melee wasn't like that out of the gate? Arguably, but I enjoy all of 3.5. I could make a Swashbuckler/Swiftblade, but when I have easy mode, why not just go Wizard 3/PrCs X, Y, Z, and gamma?


"Fighter" (the actual one) is a class and a concept with a lot of history behind it - thirty-six years or thereabouts. That is what's in its name.

"Fighter" is a name you are slapping unnecessary love and praise towards - you love after a rose, but when someone passes you a sweet red flower and tells you it is your "rose" you suddenly care whether or not it is an actual rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose) or a rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornus_%28genus%29).



Because some classes carry history and concepts and flavor with them all on their own - see above. Or see the ToB or ToM classes, actually.

And some classes carry none of that. No, seriously, look again at the fighter's flavor in the PHB. Look at that and tell me that that is oozing with historic flavor. That is filler on paper - nothing more or less. If you want someone who can actually fill that roll, look again at the Warblade. Or, if you think Core>Noncore, Barbarian and Bard. Done.



So tie it to +16 BAB. Then the Barbarian can. Note I did suggest that, along with things like "Sneak Attack +3d6" (several classes and PrCs grant this), "Improved Evasion class feature" (...), and so on.

Then why in the hell would I take 16 levels in fighter when I know that if I can get super cool awesome 16th level feat by just having a +16 BAB by 18th level? Or somehow getting a bonus feat to nab that feat in question at 16.

You are stuck on a rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camellia_japonica), my friend.




I...don't see what point you're trying to drive at here.

Then you are either playing dumb or simply stuck in the past. I don't know which is worse.

The entire point is: 3.5 as a system fixed itself. Not because noncasters equal casters with Tome of Battle but because it just has so many freaking options to use at a real table with real people you are bound to be able to make your own concept flourish despite the flaws associated with being a melee, sword and board combatant.

[Rogue Shadows]

Right - or do you not understand what the prefix "Strawman" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strawman) means?

Apparently I didn't, but I take exception to the idea that strawmen arguments are bad in and of themselves. If they manage to successfully demonstrate a point and you just refute them by saying "strawman!" then someone doesn't have much of a counter and that someone isn't me.


No. It is "If a class is bad with just feats, but workable with just spells, then odds are I shouldn't be trying to throw feats onto a chassis and call it a class!"

Or, the feats should be improved. This is also a possibility. I...don't understand why you think otherwise.


I'm sorry, but if I am going to take this argument seriously than you homebrewing your own fighter 3.5 fix is just that. No, seriously. You can homebrew and all, but you aren't going to get that. Feats are a resource. Spells are a resource. Powers as in psionics are a resource. Maneuvers are a resource. Vestiges are a resource. Melds and binds are resources for Incarnum.

Guess which of these is per day. Which is "at will." And which fall between those two in some manner of another. Guess which don't work when you try to throw someone an "at will" system as simply being feats.

Trick question: all of them that weren't already "at will/per encounter.":smallcool:

I...also don't understand this point. Of course feats are a resource. What are you trying to prove by saying that I'm saying they're not?


Strawman. Seriously, stop it. I know casters are broken in 3.5. I love 3.5 casters. No cuz their broken and their toys are so much better than everyone else's. But because they have options. That one word alone is so important it demands to be both in bold and italics. Feats certainly are another option, but, really, at the end of the day they don't do what those other resources do. You "fixing" them otherwise isn't actually here nor there.

That's great that you like the Wizard and Cleric and Druid and Sorcerer (personally, I love the sorcerer as well), because they have options. You know what else has options? Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder, Wildshape Variant Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior

Those are Tier 3 classes. Do you know what the difference between them and the Tier 1 classes are? Tier 1 classes utterly invalidate the need for any other class. There have too many options and, worse, have too easy a time accessing those options.

The selfsame thing that you love about Wizards and Cleric and Druids and Sorcerers is what is utterly imbalancing 3.5 D&D more than anything else.

Actually to be fair, Sorcerer is usually ranked at Tier 2, which means they've got the raw power of Tier 1 but somewhat less choices.


No. You are putting words in their mouths. You wouldn't say Incarnum or Vestige Binding is such-

Probably because Incarnum and Binding aren't Vancian magic. They're honest attempts at creating a new system. You know what they aren't? They aren't capable of invalidating entire classes simply by their existance the way Wizards and Clerics are.


you are simply throwing crap at Tome of Battle because it does something for mundanes that happens to also have some physics-breaking stuff in it (either at later levels or on the Paladin/Monk-esque classes).

Now who's putting words in mouths? I don't mind physics-breaking for noncaster classes. I don't mind physics-breaking for anything over level 5 (and indeed even a lot of things under level 5). And believe it or not, I'm actually a big fan of Wuxia-style martial arts films, the inspiration for ToB. In fact one of my favorite movies is The Musketeer, the Wuxia-inspired one.

It's the system of acquisiton of those powers that I do not like, because that system is Vancian magic in construction.


The point here is not liking ToB because you think it is WotC saying "Lol, sorry bros, only casters can be OP!" is something you view, not something the book presents.

N...no. That is not it at all. SEE above. I do not mind noncasters being OP; I want noncasters to be OP. I just want noncasters to achieve OPness by a different route from the Vancian magic users, and I want the high-powered Vancian magic users powered down so that they are not capable of rendering every other class obsolete.


You are making my argument for me. The Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer did not replace anything. Each in turn simply were out of the box options to be, respectively, a blaster, an illusionist/enchanter, and a freaking necromancer.

Note that they manage to be these, though, while still measuring up okay against the things they replaced. A beguiler might be "better" at illusion and enchantment than a Sorcerer who specializes in those, but the Sorcerer can still do things that the beguiler can't. Similarly, a Warmage is damn useless if the situation calls for charm person.

Dread Necromancer I don't have as much experience with, so I can't comment beyond looking up the post and seeing that it's Tier 3, not Tier "anything you can do I can do better, and I can do it as a bear and you can't" 1.


To actually address the other two, though. Shadowcasters and Truenamers weren't meant to replace anything: they exist simply to offer players a new idea when it comes to being "Spooky Arcane Magics"-man in their preferred game of pretend.

And they each managed to do it via new magic systems; same as the Binder (sorta'). Neither the Binder nor Shadowcaster nor Truenamer are Vancian magic users, though the Shadowcaster is close.


The Warblade and its take on being a scrappy, mundane badass is no different.

Yes, it is; SEE above.


And some classes carry none of that. No, seriously, look again at the fighter's flavor in the PHB. Look at that and tell me that that is oozing with historic flavor. That is filler on paper - nothing more or less. If you want someone who can actually fill that roll, look again at the Warblade. Or, if you think Core>Noncore, Barbarian and Bard. Done.

Fighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons))

Please stop pretending you don't know what I mean when I say that the Fighter carries history in its name.

Put another way; if the Warblade is such an awesome replacement for the Fighter, then why does 4E contain the Fighter and not the Warblade?


Then why in the hell would I take 16 levels in fighter when I know that if I can get super cool awesome 16th level feat by just having a +16 BAB by 18th level? Or somehow getting a bonus feat to nab that feat in question at 16.

Presumably because as a Fighter you're getting 18 (or 19 if human) such super awesome feats over the course of your career whereas as a Barbarian, you're getting 7 (or 8 if human), and as such its easier to construct chains and combinations of feats?

You know - the original intent of the class?

Just a guess.

[Seerow]

Fighter

Please stop pretending you don't know what I mean when I say that the Fighter carries history in its name.

Put another way; if the Warblade is such an awesome replacement for the Fighter, then why does 4E contain the Fighter and not the Warblade?

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Yes, 4e contains the Fighter, not the warblade. The 4e fighter is far closer to the warblade mechanics than the 3.5 fighter mechanics. The 4e fighter doesn't even get a single bonus feat!

The point everyone's been making is you are putting too much emphasis on the name. It seems like you would have been much happier if instead of Tome of Battle they had published the exact same material as "PHB Errata" with the Fighter, Paladin, and Monk, and new powers and feats for them.

[Rogue Shadows]

Yes, 4e contains the Fighter, not the warblade. The 4e fighter is far closer to the warblade mechanics than the 3.5 fighter mechanics. The 4e fighter doesn't even get a single bonus feat!

Neither for that matter does the 2nd Edition Fighter. But the name carried weight. I don't recall anyone ever seriously objecting to the Feat system in the update from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition, or claiming that the Fighter wasn't a Fighter anymore.

(for the record, I do not like 4E, though for much more tangiable reasons; having said that I did like Star Wars Saga Edition, which is like a beta version of 4E, and spent months creating a conversion of SE to D&D).


The point everyone's been making is you are putting too much emphasis on the name. It seems like you would have been much happier if instead of Tome of Battle they had published the exact same material as "PHB Errata" with the Fighter, Paladin, and Monk, and new powers and feats for them.

Actually, yes - I would have been. Still not happy because there's still the stickler of the Vancian magic construction of the maneuver system, but certainly not nearly as annoyed as I am now.

Now if we just combine the two and make a Fighter that can be a good Tier 3 class without having to resort to a Vancian magic refluff system, then I would be a happy camper.

[Sir Homeslice]

Now if we just combine the two and make a Fighter that can be a good Tier 3 class without having to resort to a Vancian magic refluff system, then I would be a happy camper.

I missed where Initiators prepared their spells per day. Show me.

[Seerow]

Neither for that matter does the 2nd Edition Fighter. But the name carried weight. I don't recall anyone ever seriously objecting to the Feat system in the update from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition, or claiming that the Fighter wasn't a Fighter anymore.

(for the record, I do not like 4E, though for much more tangiable reasons; having said that I did like Star Wars Saga Edition, which is like a beta version of 4E, and spent months creating a conversion of SE to D&D).


But it's still just a name. Seriously, nobody is saying that Fighters should have been called Warblades and published with warblade mechanics from the start. They say that the Fighter should have been the class that the Warblade is from the start. There's a major difference there and you seem to ignore that.



Actually, yes - I would have been. Still not happy because there's still the stickler of the Vancian magic construction of the maneuver system, but certainly not nearly as annoyed as I am now.

Now if we just combine the two and make a Fighter that can be a good Tier 3 class without having to resort to a Vancian magic refluff system, then I would be a happy camper.

Vancian magic? The only thing remotely vancian about the system is that it's divided into 9 levels. The system itself is completely different. Having it divided into 9 levels is convenient for balancing purposes.

Outside of that, what is vancian about the system? You can refresh your maneuvers! Spells can't do that. You have readied maneuvers independent of level!


I really get the feeling all your problems with ToB are really superficial, to the point where nobody will be able to convince you that ToB is fine, because your problem is in aesthetics that the majority of us feel can be changed freely. Like someone said upthread, take a sharpie, go into ToB, and replace the name "Warblade" with "Fighter" and you have yourself a solid fix. No work required. The entire premise of the OP is invalidated by something that simple, because converting the full maneuver progression to a couple of feats accomplishes roughly the same thing for the Fighter, but has the adverse side effect of seriously powering up any gish characters.

[Keld Denar]

Actually, yes - I would have been.

Then I hope you enjoy wallowing in the disappointment. We're sorry that WotC ruined "Fighter" or "D&D" for you. Most of the rest of us? We can get over it, realize that Warblade is what the Fighter shoulda been, despite naming nomenclature, and move on with life enjoying our "Fighters" as published in ToB. I really wish you the best of luck in your homebrew endeavors, just as I've wished luck to the dozens who've tried it before you. With that, I'm out of this conversation. Best of luck!

[Draz74]

a Vancian magic refluff system,

I'm so confused. What do maneuvers have in common with Vancian magic other than being divided into 9 Levels? (And even that's not the same, since Vancian magic is actually divided into 10 Levels, and used to be divided into 7 Levels in some cases.)

The effects are different. The default rules for using them are different. The scope of how much they can affect the world is very different. The rules for how often you can use them is obviously completely different. Even the 9 Levels thing is just because that's a convenient number for preventing dead levels in a game that goes from Level 1 to Level 20.

The 9 Levels structure is a completely superficial similarity, and otherwise I have no idea why maneuvers would be any more similar to Vancian magic than Binder abilities, for example (let alone Shadowcaster Mysteries) are.

EDIT: Swordsage'd.

[afroakuma]

the Vancian magic construction of the maneuver system

Why don't you explain what it is about the maneuver system that you feel is "Vancian" - and why that's a bad thing.

[Salanmander]

(Maneuver modification spoiled for length, because being able to reference it is important.)



Mighty Throw [Setting Sun]
You use superior leverage and your Setting Sun training to send an opponent tumbling to the ground.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +1
Benefit: As a standard action, you may make a single unarmed trip attempt. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity, and your opponent cannot try to trip you if you lose the opposed check. You can use your Dexterity or Strength modifier, whichever is higher, and you gain a +4 bonus on the ability check.
If you succeed in tripping your foe, you throw it up to 10 feet away from you. The target falls prone in the destination space. You choose where it lands. You must place the target in an empty space. If you lack the distance to throw your target into a clear space, it falls prone in its current space.
An enemy you throw with this maneuver does not provoke attacks of opportunity for passing through enemies’ threatened areas as part of the throw, and you can throw an enemy through occupied squares.

Clever Positioning [Setting Sun]
With a swift flurry of motion, you knock you foe off balance, slip into his space, and force him into the spot you just occupied.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +3
Benefit: As a standard action, you make a single melee attack against a target. If your attack hits, the target takes damage normally and must make a Reflex save (DC 12 + your Dex modifier). If this save fails, you swap positions with the target.
If the target is Large or larger, you can occupy any of the squares that make
up its space. The target must in turn occupy the square, or one of the squares, you previously occupied. You cannot use this maneuver if you or the target would end up sharing the same space as another creature or an impassable terrain feature, such as a wall. If your target occupies a larger space than you do, he chooses his final position according to the guidlines given above.

Devastating Throw [Setting Sun]
Seizing your foe by the arm, you spin in a quick half-circle and hurl him headlong away from you.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +5, any Setting Sun feat
Benefit: As a standard action after you have moved a minimum of 15 feet, you may make a single unarmed trip attempt. This does not not provoke an attack of opportunity, and your opponent cannot try to trip you if you lose the opposed check. You can use your Dexterity or Strength modifier, whichever is better, and you gain a +4 bonus on your ability check.
If you succeed in tripping your foe, you throw him up to 10 feet away from you. The target falls prone in the destination space and takes 1d6 points of damage. You choose where he lands. For every 5 points by which you win the opposed check, you gain an additional 5 feet of throw distance.
For example, if you win by 10, you can place your foe in any space within 20 feet of you. You must place the target in an empty space. If you lack the distance to throw your target into a clear space, he falls prone in his current space.
An enemy you throw with this maneuver does not provoke attacks of opportunity for passing through enemies’ threatened areas as part of the throw, and you can throw an enemy through occupied squares.

Soaring Throw [Setting Sun]
With a great shout, you send your opponent soaring through the air in a high arc. He slams back to the ground with a bonecrushing thud.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +9, any two Setting Sun feats
Benefit: As a standard action, you may make a single unarmed trip attempt. This does not not provoke an attack of opportunity, and your opponent cannot try to trip you if you lose the opposed check. You can use your Dexterity or Strength modifier, whichever is better, and you gain a +4 bonus on your ability check.
If you succeed in tripping your foe, you throw him up to 20 feet away from you. The target falls prone in the destination space and takes 4d6 points of damage. You choose where he lands. For every 5 points by which you win the opposed check, you gain an additional 5 feet of throw distance.
For example, if you win by 10, you can place your foe in any space within 30 feet of you. You must place the target in an empty space. If you lack the distance to throw your target into a clear space, he falls prone in his current space.
An enemy you throw with this maneuver does not provoke attacks of opportunity for passing through enemies’ threatened areas as part of the throw, and you can throw an enemy through occupied squares.

*

I should point out that I made two changes while converting things, just to ease my peace of mind. The first was to make the Throws require unarmed touch attacks, as I can't see people being "thrown" with flails or chains outside anime.

The second was halving the damage. This is to try and address the back-to-back maneuvers issue, mostly so I could see what it looked like.


I have a question about this. (Actually legitimately a question, not an argument. I don't know the answer because I haven't looked into ToB mechanics as recently as you have.) Aside from the unarmed touch attacks, the halving damage, and the not needing to ready/recover maneuvers, is this any different from saying "Your initiator level is equal to your BAB" and using martial study for everything? If the answer is "no, those are all the differences", then what you're looking at is much simpler than turning all maneuvers into feats. You're looking this set of houserules:

-Non-ToB classes advice IL at the same rate as BAB.
-Maneuvers taken using martial study do not need to be readied, and are not expended when used. (Possibly with reduced effect.)

This does basically the same thing as you just did (except for also not nerfing the swordsage), but is way simpler. It doesn't require editing to copy-paste and re-write huge swaths of text. The reduced effect takes a little bit of navigation to figure out, but it's definitely better than making your players read through the same things they know already, looking for changes.

Anyway, this basically leaves us with three /specific/ points to consider

1) Should non-ToB classes advance initiator level at the same rate as their BAB?

(I think they should not. The multiclassing is pretty generous as it is. Additionally, this comparatively screws over medium-BAB martial classes even more, and has some potential danger in the other direction as well. For example, it's possible that duskblade would get too large a boost from being a full initiator.)

2) Should maneuvers obtained via martial study be usable as much as you want?

(I think that's probably reasonable. Martial study is an okay feat at the moment, but only rarely really worth taking. Making this change would allow non-ToB characters to add an ability, without adding bookwork, and would give ToB characters a staple that they can rely on, but that doesn't keep up with their highest level maneuvers unless they keep investing feats.)

3) If they can be used as much as you want, should they have reduced effect?

(I don't think this is necessary. Actions are precious, and any super-deadly turns that may get problematic to repeat would probably take a multiple feat investment.)

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Apparently I didn't, but I take exception to the idea that strawmen arguments are bad in and of themselves. If they manage to successfully demonstrate a point and you just refute them by saying "strawman!" then someone doesn't have much of a counter and that someone isn't me.

No, a strawman argument isn't an actual argument. It is a fallacy. Thus, I call strawman rather than actually responding to all of that point if all I'll get is gibbergabber from the other person.:smallsigh:


Or, the feats should be improved. This is also a possibility. I...don't understand why you think otherwise.

Stop for a second. Honestly, just stop for a second. What makes a feat good? For a caster, it's generally something that either lets them go first (Improved Initiative) or something that adds to their magic (Cloudy Conjuration, any and all metamagic feats, reserve feats, et al.). For melee combatants, it's usually something like Improved Trip or Power Attack - something that adds entirely new tricks to the table.

Feats are good. There are a lot of good feats out there, either because they grant you immunity to stuff (Font of Life laughs off a lot of negative energy-type effects) early or they do cool things otherwise impossible (Power Attack). Feats can be good. Late game feats are a problem, because force-ably making said feat "late game" is just not that good of an idea. You either have things meant for monsters that PCs will get access to one way or another (Knockback) or you shaft a really cool concept by it demanding a feat (Reaping Mauler and Clever Wrestling, right there).

Seriously, feats as written are fine. It's the chassis that is the problem. After all, I have no issues with playing a barbarian in a core only game: it's really just the fighter (and monk, but whatever) that I would not stand to play in a core only game because I see no joy in that. My options are just too limited.


I...also don't understand this point. Of course feats are a resource. What are you trying to prove by saying that I'm saying they're not?

Did you not read what I typed? They are easily a resource: they are a very different resource. A character has 7 feats to play with, guaranteed going from level 1 to 18. Human and flaws add more. Dips into fighter, items, and locations can get you more, too. The issue is turning a "per character" resource into a "per day-encounter/at-will" resource. This is dumb: it just won't work well if at all, period.


That's great that you like the Wizard and Cleric and Druid and Sorcerer (personally, I love the sorcerer as well), because they have options. You know what else has options? Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder, Wildshape Variant Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior

Those are Tier 3 classes. Do you know what the difference between them and the Tier 1 classes are? Tier 1 classes utterly invalidate the need for any other class. There have too many options and, worse, have too easy a time accessing those options.

If I was playing any class like the characters seen in the Test of Spite, you may have a case. I know wizards can break the game. I don't want to break the game. Sometimes, all I want to do is play a rogue/wizard mix that can sneak attack like a fiend (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061207a&page=5). Other times I want to play a summoner who tricks the very concepts of Law and Evil into giving his chaotic good self some devil minions. Wizard is just the easiest (read: laziest) tool for the job.


The selfsame thing that you love about Wizards and Cleric and Druids and Sorcerers is what is utterly imbalancing 3.5 D&D more than anything else.

Actually to be fair, Sorcerer is usually ranked at Tier 2, which means they've got the raw power of Tier 1 but somewhat less choices.

Yeah, no. I love me my options. I could dump my spell lists from past wizard characters and any solid Test of Spite combatant could rip it to shreds given a quick glance over. I play DND for the same reason you do: fun. I just like playing with the crunch of it more than the fluff. After all, it's not always the marshmallows that are the best part of the cereal.:smallwink:


Probably because Incarnum and Binding aren't Vancian magic. They're honest attempts at creating a new system. You know what they aren't? They aren't capable of invalidating entire classes simply by their existance the way Wizards and Clerics are.

Stop using that word. No, seriously. Vancian refers to a per day resource and how freaking scarce it is. In the works of Vance, it took days to prepare spells but only moments to use them. DND 3.5 is not that system, none of it. Default prepared casting is akin to Vancian magic, but that's it. It is "close" in the same sense that an electron is "close" to an atom.:smallsigh:


Now who's putting words in mouths? I don't mind physics-breaking for noncaster classes. I don't mind physics-breaking for anything over level 5 (and indeed even a lot of things under level 5). And believe it or not, I'm actually a big fan of Wuxia-style martial arts films, the inspiration for ToB. In fact one of my favorite movies is The Musketeer, the Wuxia-inspired one.

It's the system of acquisiton of those powers that I do not like, because that system is Vancian magic in construction.

Then that is strictly speaking your problem. You see a similar parallel in the levels of powers, the set of different styles of powers and the raw hard level limits it takes to get those powers. Those are really the only thing Tome of Battle has in common with spells. There are no meta-maneuver feats. No feats that will boost your maneuvers without being "meta-whatever." No, you just have feats and then your own set of resources to use for fighting. You claiming it is "Vancian" means nothing. You are attributing meaning to "Vancian" and the mechanics of Tome of Battle far beyond what is there.

Honestly, just roll up a ~1-3rd level crusader and play one. Tell me it doesn't feel like being a holy Paladin of Bahamut when you manage to land a successful Crusader's Strike on an enemy thereby healing (and saving) your brothers in arms! I could go on for both the Warblade and Swordsage, but that is neither here nor there.:smallwink:


N...no. That is not it at all. SEE above. I do not mind noncasters being OP; I want noncasters to be OP. I just want noncasters to achieve OPness by a different route from the Vancian magic users, and I want the high-powered Vancian magic users powered down so that they are not capable of rendering every other class obsolete.

Stop using that word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Vancian

Memorization — The game character must memorize a fixed number of spells from the list of all spells the character knows. This memorization can only occur once in a specified time period, usually a day, or it may require the character to rest for several hours. This system is sometimes called "Vancian" in the game designer community, since its first use, in Dungeons & Dragons, was inspired by the way magic works in Jack Vance's Dying Earth world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28gaming%29)

If I have to post pictures to flowers again to get the point across about the name of the rose...:smallsigh:


Note that they manage to be these, though, while still measuring up okay against the things they replaced. A beguiler might be "better" at illusion and enchantment than a Sorcerer who specializes in those, but the Sorcerer can still do things that the beguiler can't. Similarly, a Warmage is damn useless if the situation calls for charm person.

Dread Necromancer I don't have as much experience with, so I can't comment beyond looking up the post and seeing that it's Tier 3, not Tier "anything you can do I can do better, and I can do it as a bear and you can't" 1.

You... you do realize that tiers aren't just a limit of power, but also possibilities, right? I mean, just because a character is a wizard doesn't mean his very presence breaks the game. Same goes for all of the other tier 1s (well, maybe the archivist, artificer, and Spell-to-Power Erudite...:smallbiggrin:). They just have an easier time hitting game-breaking strong, even by accident. The druid being the biggest one for "by accident."



And they each managed to do it via new magic systems; same as the Binder (sorta'). Neither the Binder nor Shadowcaster nor Truenamer are Vancian magic users, though the Shadowcaster is close.

If you keep using that word, I may just have to stop this argument.:smalltongue:

Seriously, though. Truenamer doesn't work. Shadowcasters work if you use the designer's unofficial errata for them, otherwise they are just way too shy on powers per day. The rest are basically "spontaneous core sorcerer variants."


Yes, it is; SEE above.

Which above? Be more precise, please.:smallconfused: If you mean "magic systems," whatever. It's a subsystem. Not all subsystems are "MAGIC!" but a lot of magic comes in subsystemss.



Fighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons))

Please stop pretending you don't know what I mean when I say that the Fighter carries history in its name.

Put another way; if the Warblade is such an awesome replacement for the Fighter, then why does 4E contain the Fighter and not the Warblade?

Please start pretending that I care about history. While it is interesting note that "Fighter" has been a class in every addition of DND, the word in its own right means something else entirely. Look again at this link. Look at that 3rd definition there. That's a fighter. I call a buddy of mine a "fighter," that's what I mean. That or number 1: depends on the buddy. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fighter):smalltongue:


Presumably because as a Fighter you're getting 18 (or 19 if human) such super awesome feats over the course of your career whereas as a Barbarian, you're getting 7 (or 8 if human), and as such its easier to construct chains and combinations of feats?

Except that even in all of 3.5, the quintessential "Fighter 20" build - Jack B. Quick is actually done better with either Pyschic Warrior or some heavy multiclassing. No, seriously. Fighter means nothing more than a name. It is a rose. Those links in the last post where there to try to show that without me out and out brute force telling you such.

[Rogue Shadows]

Then I hope you enjoy wallowing in the disappointment. We're sorry that WotC ruined "Fighter" or "D&D" for you. Most of the rest of us? We can get over it, realize that Warblade is what the Fighter shoulda been, despite naming nomenclature, and move on with life enjoying our "Fighters" as published in ToB. I really wish you the best of luck in your homebrew endeavors, just as I've wished luck to the dozens who've tried it before you. With that, I'm out of this conversation. Best of luck!

D&D wasn't ruined. Getting over Warblade is as easy as not using Tome of Battle. Not to mention it's very hard to ruin the d20 system given how easy it is to modify. Have you seen SpyCraft, Star Wars, or BESM d20?

The only thing Tome of Battle ruined was the chance for Fighters to be relevant anymore.


I'm so confused. What do maneuvers have in common with Vancian magic other than being divided into 9 Levels? (And even that's not the same, since Vancian magic is actually divided into 10 Levels, and used to be divided into 7 Levels in some cases.)

*ahem*.


1. Magical effects are packaged into distinct spells; each spell has one fixed purpose. A spell that throws a ball of fire at an enemy just throws balls of fire, and generally cannot be "turned down" to light a cigarette, for instance.
2. Spells represent a kind of "magic-bomb" which must be prepared in advance of actual use, and each prepared spell can be used only once before needing to be prepared again. That's why it is also known as "Fire & Forget magic."
3. Magicians have a finite capacity of prepared spells which is the de facto measure of their skill and/or power as magicians. A wizard using magic for combat is thus something like a living gun: he must be "loaded" with spells beforehand and can run out of magical "ammunition".

Please note that at no point are "levels" mentioned as being a Vancian construction.

Let's compare to...Binder!
1) Bound Vestiges represent not a distinct spell or effect, but rather a slew of different abilities that a Binder gets each time he binds a Vestige. So the same vestige can be bound to achieve multiple effects.
2) Once bound, the various powers and abilities granted by each Vestige are generally useable at-will, or even simply static. While the Vestige itself must be "prepared" at the start of each day, once prepared their uses are unlimited for the remainder of the day.
3) Again, Vestiges usually grant at-will powers.

Conclusion: Binding is in no way like Vancian magic.

Let's compare to...Feats!
1) Each individual feat usually accomplishes only a single goal. Power Attack is of dubious use if you don't want to hit something. So in that they're similar.
2) Feats do not have to be "prepared." Once you have a feat, it is useable at-will.
3) Feats are, in an overwhelming number of cases, not like "bullets." If you Power Attack on this round, nothing is stopping you from Power Attacking for the next. Presumably if you could find a way to never need to eat, breathe, or sleep, you could spend the entire rest of your natural life Power Attacking the ground.

Conclusion: Feats are similar in some regards to Vancian magic but are still quite distinct.

Let's compare to...Spontaneous casters (i.e., Sorcerers)!
1) Each individual spell cast by a sorcerer is of limited scope.
2) Spontaneous casters do not need to prepare spells before hand. They are less like a magic bomb and more like Hammerspace.
3) However, spontaneous casters have a finite capacity for spells, here limited to per-day uses.

Conclusion: Spontaneous casters are not, strictly speaking, Vancian in construction, but are very, very similar to the point where calling them Vancian casters is not generally incorrect.

Let's compare to...Maneuvers!
1) Each individual maneuver is of limited scope.
2) Maneuvers must be readied (prepared) prior to use. A martial class caught without any maneuvers readied, cannot use any of them. Note that Vancian magic does not care whether or not they are capable of on-the-fly preparing magic, simply that they must do it.
3) Maneuvers are finite in capacity and are a de facto measure of a maneuver-user's power. Each martial class readies maneuvers, then expends them. Note that Vancian magic does not care whether or not, nor how, these things are recovered; they are still loaded guns, they're just better at reloading.

Conclusion: Maneuvers fit every description of Vancian magic and, therefore, are Vancian magic. That most aren't "magic" in the sense of wonderous effects is irrelevant; though it would perhaps be more proper to say that they all follow the Vancian system, so I think I'll start doing that from now on, and I apologise for previous confusion that might have caused.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

*Vancian nonsense*

Let's compare this to basic geometry. You have a quadrangle something with four sides. It could be a square, a rectangle, a parallelogram, or a rhombus. It can be a lot of those things. It can't be all of those.

That is your argument right now. The human brain is great at making and, more importantly, creating connections. Just because maneuvers are tiered and schooled doesn't mean they are "LOL MAGIC!" or Vancian. I slapped down the other wiki first. You know, the one that actually cares who is editing stuff on it rather than the natter that flies around on TV Tropes.

I'd throw a link to dictionary.com instead, but "Vancian" as a usage is rather limited to this current argument. If you'd actually bother reevaluating what I and other posters have said, you may find your initial assessments of Tome of Battle and maneuvers as a resource to be flawed... dare I say, fallacious.:smallcool:

EDIT: Linking to 3 possible definitions to TV Tropes no less is rather well, hard to pin down what you mean.

[Rogue Shadows]

That is your argument right now. The human brain is great at making and, more importantly, creating connections. Just because maneuvers are tiered and schooled doesn't mean they are "LOL MAGIC!" or Vancian. I slapped down the other wiki first. You know, the one that actually cares who is editing stuff on it rather than the natter that flies around on TV Tropes.

Please note that I never once mentioned a problem with there being tiers or levels of maneuvers, feats, spells, or whatever. These aren't Vancian. Indeed having a prerequisite like "BAB +7" is functionally organizing things into levels.

You slapped down the other Wiki but you didn't slap down an actual, coherent definition of Vancian magic. Even still, note that under that definition, feats, Spontaneous casters, and binders do not fit under what qualifies as Vancian magic, while maneuvers still do.

The game character must ready a fixed number of maneuvers from the list of all maneuvers the character knows. This readying can only occur once in a specified time period.

Ooh, look, I can change a sentance to make it work for me, therefore I must be right. Woo...yeah even I think that would be a weak argument except that I can't do the same thing for, say, spontaneous casters or binders.

The game character must memorize [spontaneous casters don't memorize] a fixed number of spells from the list of all spells the character knows [spontaneous casters can use any spell they know at any time within the limits of their ability to cast spells of a given level and, again, I must emphasis that levels are not a Vancian construction]. This memorization can only occur once in a specified time period, usually a day [this still worls], or it may require the character to rest for several hours [this also still works]

Note that I can't do this same thing with binders.

The game character must memorize a fixed number of spells [binders don't memorize] from the list of all spells Vestiges the character knows. This memorization can only occur once in a specified time period [Binders can bind at any time during the day and, if they have the feat, they even expel a Vestige], usually a day, or it may require the character to rest for several hours [nope, you can use Vestige powers at-will or they're even static, and as soon as a Vestige leaves you, you can Bind a new one.]


EDIT: Linking to 3 possible definitions to TV Tropes no less is rather well, hard to pin down what you mean.

Those aren't three possible definitions; those are the three requirements for a given power system to be considered Vancian; more to the point it's actually just an expanded version of the selfsame Wikipedia article you posted.

That's like me that me saying that "an insect must have six legs, an exoskeleton, and a three-segemented body" and you responding with:

http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/your_opinion.jpg?w=302&h=300

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Than the issue is with the word "Vancian" and what you tie to it. You think Tome of Battle is Vancian and thus "bad." If nothing else, you heavily imply that because Tome of Battle is quote-Vancian-unquote it is bad. Except you also just showed that feats and everything ever could be Vancian and thus "bad.":smallconfused::smallsigh:


EDIT: Also, did you not see Wikipedia's entry on what qualifies as "Vancian?" I mean, honestly, fight the argument, not me.

[Salanmander]

Than the issue is with the word "Vancian" and what you tie to it. You think Tome of Battle is Vancian and thus "bad." If nothing else, you heavily imply that because Tome of Battle is quote-Vancian-unquote it is bad. Except you also just showed that feats and everything ever could be Vancian and thus "bad.":smallconfused::smallsigh:


EDIT: Also, did you not see Wikipedia's entry on what qualifies as "Vancian?" I mean, honestly, fight the argument, not me.

Guys, you're both talking past each other. /Neither/ of you is responding to the definitions the other one posits.

[IthroZada]

Spells represent a kind of "magic-bomb" which must be prepared in advance of actual use, and each prepared spell can be used only once before needing to be prepared again. That's why it is also known as "Fire & Forget magic."

Would you look at that, according to your definition, Rogue Shadows, ToB doesn't qualify as Vancian for the same reason spontaneous casters don't. They can use their maneuvers more than once without preparing them again.

[Draz74]

*ahem*.

Please note that at no point are "levels" mentioned as being a Vancian construction.

Let's compare to...Binder!
1) Bound Vestiges represent not a distinct spell or effect, but rather a slew of different abilities that a Binder gets each time he binds a Vestige. So the same vestige can be bound to achieve multiple effects.
2) Once bound, the various powers and abilities granted by each Vestige are generally useable at-will, or even simply static. While the Vestige itself must be "prepared" at the start of each day, once prepared their uses are unlimited for the remainder of the day.
3) Again, Vestiges usually grant at-will powers.

Conclusion: Binding is in no way like Vancian magic.

Let's compare to...Feats!
1) Each individual feat usually accomplishes only a single goal. Power Attack is of dubious use if you don't want to hit something. So in that they're similar.
2) Feats do not have to be "prepared." Once you have a feat, it is useable at-will.
3) Feats are, in an overwhelming number of cases, not like "bullets." If you Power Attack on this round, nothing is stopping you from Power Attacking for the next. Presumably if you could find a way to never need to eat, breathe, or sleep, you could spend the entire rest of your natural life Power Attacking the ground.

Conclusion: Feats are similar in some regards to Vancian magic but are still quite distinct.

Let's compare to...Spontaneous casters (i.e., Sorcerers)!
1) Each individual spell cast by a sorcerer is of limited scope.
2) Spontaneous casters do not need to prepare spells before hand. They are less like a magic bomb and more like Hammerspace.
3) However, spontaneous casters have a finite capacity for spells, here limited to per-day uses.

Conclusion: Spontaneous casters are not, strictly speaking, Vancian in construction, but are very, very similar to the point where calling them Vancian casters is not generally incorrect.

Let's compare to...Maneuvers!
1) Each individual maneuver is of limited scope.
2) Maneuvers must be readied (prepared) prior to use. A martial class caught without any maneuvers readied, cannot use any of them. Note that Vancian magic does not care whether or not they are capable of on-the-fly preparing magic, simply that they must do it.
3) Maneuvers are finite in capacity and are a de facto measure of a maneuver-user's power. Each martial class readies maneuvers, then expends them. Note that Vancian magic does not care whether or not, nor how, these things are recovered; they are still loaded guns, they're just better at reloading.

Conclusion: Maneuvers fit every description of Vancian magic and, therefore, are Vancian magic. That most aren't "magic" in the sense of wonderous effects is irrelevant; though it would perhaps be more proper to say that they all follow the Vancian system, so I think I'll start doing that from now on, and I apologise for previous confusion that might have caused.
OK. Thanks for explaining why you were saying that in a nice, logical fashion. I disagree with the definition you are using; to me, having abilities that get "used up" rather than being at-will is just good game design, preventing the game from being too repetitive from round to round. (And you seem to be ignoring the way that the Binder has a LOT of abilities that are only usable a limited number of times, particularly 1/5-rounds abilities, which often means 1/encounter use in practice.) "Preparing" a specific selection of abilities from a menu of options (which the Binder does too) is likewise just a mechanic that gives a single character some variety in her tactics; and having combat moves pre-packaged into discrete abilities is IMO inevitable if you don't want the game to bog down in people re-writing their own capabilities round to round. And having several of those discrete abilities tied to one another, so you get "all or none of them," like a Vestige, just feels restrictive to me. (It's one of the main reasons I actually don't love the Binder class.)

So none of these rules in your definitions make Martial Initiators feel at all like spellcasters to me. But that's obviously a matter of opinion, since you clearly have at least thought the issue through.

(Side note: by these definitions, Shadowcasters are every bit as Vancian as Sorcerers are. Not that you ever claimed otherwise.)


Let's compare this to basic geometry. You have a quadrangle something with four sides. It could be a square, a rectangle, a parallelogram, or a rhombus. It can be a lot of those things. It can't be all of those.

Uh, yes it can. A square is by necessity also a rectangle, parallelogram, and rhombus. :smalltongue:

[Rogue Shadows]

Than the issue is with the word "Vancian" and what you tie to it. You think Tome of Battle is Vancian and thus "bad." If nothing else, you heavily imply that because Tome of Battle is quote-Vancian-unquote it is bad. Except you also just showed that feats and everything ever could be Vancian and thus "bad.":smallconfused::smallsigh:

Uh, no. I expended a lot of time showing that Binders, Feats, and Spontaneous casters are not Vancian in construction by the given definiton of either the Wiki or the TVTropes articles, arranged in such a way to show that the first are not at all Vancian; the second bears only a superficial resemblance at best; and the third is quite similar but still also distinct.

While I do not take any issue with the Vancian system per se, my problem is that ToB essentially states that Fighters (and like) need a Vancian system to be worthwhile; Vancian systems have previously been the domain solely of casters. As a personal preference, I would have preferred a system that was not Vancian in construction but still achieved the same goal of giving noncasters more options.

Noncasters should get nice things. But they should get them in a different way from casters.


EDIT: Also, did you not see Wikipedia's entry on what qualifies as "Vancian?" I mean, honestly, fight the argument, not me.

I'm going to assume that you were posting this while I was posting my responce to that, much as how I was posting my previous responce before you were posting your previous responce. I have, however, dealt with it.

That's the problem with message boards; sometimes you miss things.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Uh, yes it can. A square is by necessity also a rectangle, parallelogram, and rhombus. :smalltongue:

Derp. My bad. For some reason I had it stuck in my head that a rhombus requires it be have only one set of parallel lines to it. My apologies.

That said, a lot of issues haven't been mentioned. It may just be internet debate club doing it because I know I tend to either ignore or admit my faults when I do derp. More so the former than the latter, but I just take it as par for the course.

EDIT: Double derp.


I'm going to assume that you were posting this while I was posting my responce to that, much as how I was posting my previous responce before you were posting your previous responce. I have, however, dealt with it.

That's the problem with message boards; sometimes you miss things.

Yeah, pretty much. It does not lend itself well to the back and forth of an in-person debate, sadly. Still, I see a lot of vague references and that irks me. The fact that we were at one point arguing that because a "fighter" has meaning in its name alone still stands:smalltongue:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Uh, no. I expended a lot of time showing that Binders, Feats, and Spontaneous casters are not Vancian in construction by the given definiton of either the Wiki or the TVTropes articles, arranged in such a way to show that the first are not at all Vancian; the second bears only a superficial resemblance at best; and the third is quite similar but still also distinct.

While I do not take any issue with the Vancian system per se, my problem is that ToB essentially states that Fighters (and like) need a Vancian system to be worthwhile; Vancian systems have previously been the domain solely of casters. As a personal preference, I would have preferred a system that was not Vancian in construction but still achieved the same goal of giving noncasters more options.

Wait, spontaneous casters aren't Vancian, but initiators are because they prepare maneuvers!? Well then, can cancan casters recover spells they expended? If they can't, martial adepts aren't Vancian!

[Adamantrue]

Wait...something relevant to the original topic of this thread?
I have a question about this. (Actually legitimately a question, not an argument. I don't know the answer because I haven't looked into ToB mechanics as recently as you have.) Aside from the unarmed touch attacks, the halving damage, and the not needing to ready/recover maneuvers, is this any different from saying "Your initiator level is equal to your BAB" and using martial study for everything? If the answer is "no, those are all the differences", then what you're looking at is much simpler than turning all maneuvers into feats. You're looking this set of houserules:

-Non-ToB classes advice IL at the same rate as BAB.
-Maneuvers taken using martial study do not need to be readied, and are not expended when used. (Possibly with reduced effect.)

This does basically the same thing as you just did (except for also not nerfing the swordsage), but is way simpler. It doesn't require editing to copy-paste and re-write huge swaths of text. The reduced effect takes a little bit of navigation to figure out, but it's definitely better than making your players read through the same things they know already, looking for changes.

Anyway, this basically leaves us with three /specific/ points to consider

1) Should non-ToB classes advance initiator level at the same rate as their BAB?

(I think they should not. The multiclassing is pretty generous as it is. Additionally, this comparatively screws over medium-BAB martial classes even more, and has some potential danger in the other direction as well. For example, it's possible that duskblade would get too large a boost from being a full initiator.)

2) Should maneuvers obtained via martial study be usable as much as you want?

(I think that's probably reasonable. Martial study is an okay feat at the moment, but only rarely really worth taking. Making this change would allow non-ToB characters to add an ability, without adding bookwork, and would give ToB characters a staple that they can rely on, but that doesn't keep up with their highest level maneuvers unless they keep investing feats.)

3) If they can be used as much as you want, should they have reduced effect?

(I don't think this is necessary. Actions are precious, and any super-deadly turns that may get problematic to repeat would probably take a multiple feat investment.) 1: Medium BAB Classes make out slightly worse than Full BAB Classes, but make out better than Half BAB Classes. With the existing system, a Ranger and a Sorcerer both contribute to IL equally, which is just counter-intuitive thematically. The existing system also mean no Class outside ToB Classes could get access to 6th level or higher Maneuvers.

2 & 3: With the initial idea I didn't think so, but after looking through the list a little, a few maneuvers do seem to be a problem if you have access to them every round. Cloak of Deception was a good example early on.

But, I posted that Setting Sun list to illustrate the idea, and because not all of them would be a problem. Honestly, I tweaked them when transcribing them, because of the concern of unlimited use, but I'm wondering if it really is needed.

[Rogue Shadows]

OK. Thanks for explaining why you were saying that in a nice, logical fashion. I disagree with the definition you are using; to me, having abilities that get "used up" rather than being at-will is just good game design, preventing the game from being too repetitive from round to round. (And you seem to be ignoring the way that the Binder has a LOT of abilities that are only usable a limited number of times, particularly 1/5-rounds abilities, which often means 1/encounter use in practice.)

Technically speaking, Power Attack can also be limited to 1/encounter if the encounter is short enough (and the Power Attack is hard enough). By necessity I am talking in general terms, since there will always be specific exceptions.

Using up an ability is, I agree, good game design; the last thing anyone wants is Gate/wish abuse, after all. The issue, though, is that maneuvers fit each requirement of the Vancian system perfectly.


"Preparing" a specific selection of abilities from a menu of options (which the Binder does too) is likewise just a mechanic that gives a single character some variety in her tactics; and having combat moves pre-packaged into discrete abilities is IMO inevitable if you don't want the game to bog down in people re-writing their own capabilities round to round. And having several of those discrete abilities tied to one another, so you get "all or none of them," like a Vestige, just feels restrictive to me. (It's one of the main reasons I actually don't love the Binder class.)

I don't think I'd ever play a Binder, but I certainly love the idea of them as villains, especially the Bind Vestige feat for Dagoth/Cthulhu/whatever-type cult construction.

Having said that, there are certainly ways the system could have been constructed so that it did not in every way resemble the Vancian system. Feats are a pre-existing option; but I'm certain that only minimual effort would be required to think up others.


So none of these rules in your definitions make Martial Initiators feel at all like spellcasters to me. But that's obviously a matter of opinion, since you clearly have at least thought the issue through.

Thank-you.


(Side note: by these definitions, Shadowcasters are every bit as Vancian as Sorcerers are. Not that you ever claimed otherwise.)

Agreed, which is why I didn't mention them beyond saying that they still managed to create a unique flavor of magic, just like Binding and Truenaming.


Would you look at that, according to your definition, Rogue Shadows, ToB doesn't qualify as Vancian for the same reason spontaneous casters don't. They can use their maneuvers more than once without preparing them again.

Really? A ToB class can use a maneuver that isn't readied? Because you do understand that readied is, in this case, synonymous with prepared.

Certainly I missed that.

If they can use maneuvers without readying them, then why do they ever ready them? Does it provide some bonus I'm not aware of?

:smalltongue:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Really? A ToB class can use a maneuver that isn't readied? Because you do understand that readied is, in this case, synonymous with prepared.

Certainly I missed that.

If they can use maneuvers without readying them, then why do they ever ready them? Does it provide some bonus I'm not aware of?

:smalltongue:

Vancian casters can't recover spells without eight hours of rest! If you use the definition of Vancian spellcasting, use all of it! Because Vancian casters can only use a spell they prepared once per day!

[Rogue Shadows]

Vancian casters can't recover spells without eight hours of rest! If you use the definition of Vancian spellcasting, use all of it! Because Vancian casters can only use a spell they prepared once per day!

I'm sorry, but where in the definition I provided is this listed as a requirement?

1. Magical effects are packaged into distinct spells; each spell has one fixed purpose. A spell that throws a ball of fire at an enemy just throws balls of fire, and generally cannot be "turned down" to light a cigarette, for instance.
2. Spells represent a kind of "magic-bomb" which must be prepared in advance of actual use, and each prepared spell can be used only once before needing to be prepared again. That's why it is also known as "Fire & Forget magic."
3. Magicians have a finite capacity of prepared spells which is the de facto measure of their skill and/or power as magicians. A wizard using magic for combat is thus something like a living gun: he must be "loaded" with spells beforehand and can run out of magical "ammunition".

Nowhere is a per-day system required for something to be considered Vancian. It is Vancian because it has to be prepared at all, not because of the time limits implied on preparation.

Contrast Power Attack, which is useable at will and as often as you can qualify to make a power attack; Psionic powers, which are useable as long as you have Power Points to fuel them; Force skills from Revised Star Wars, which are useable as long as you have Vitality Points (HP) remaining; or Gandalf, who can only use spells when the plot demands.

Or Warlocks, the class that birthed 4E.

[Redshirt Army]

he must be "loaded" with spells beforehand and can run out of magical "ammunition".


You can't run out of maneuvers, and can ready different ones throughout the day. :smallannoyed:

[Rogue Shadows]

You can't run out of maneuvers, and can ready different ones throughout the day. :smallannoyed:

Yes you can: you can expend all your readied maneuvers, i.e., empty your gun. Just because you're faster at reloading and acquiring new ammunition doesn't change that you're still using a gun with a finite amount of ammunition contained within.

...

...I feel we're about to get thick with metaphors again. Bonus points to the first person to construct a metaphorical drive-by shooting.

[afroakuma]

I do hope this doesn't go circular and full of cars again; I'm getting tired of all these racetrack threads. :smalltongue:

Something to keep in mind as well, and an innovation I personally feel to be the best piece of ToB, is stances; you can't run out of them, expend them or nova with them and they add a ton to combat.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

...I feel we're about to get thick with metaphors again. Bonus points to the first person to construct a metaphorical drive-by shooting.

Look, I could hammer that metaphor home all day, but if it ain't doing it's job of being a tool of seeing the world, then it's not a good metaphor. Or simile. Can't forget those buggers, too.


*snip*

See, the issue here is that you keep picking choosing what part is "Vancian" about "Vancian." That's fine, but for purposes of an actual discussion, it fails. It's totally cool for you to say you don't like how Tome of Battle fixes the gap between mundanes and crazy magic-elf people.

That's a solid stance to take. It's nonsense to ride so hard against something - be it Tome of Battle, Warlocks, Binders, anything - and then go back to "Well, this is how I would have done it in my fix!" Fixing 3.5 is a noble (albeit worthless in my own opinion) effort.

People like the ideas presented in things like the Soulborn and the Soulknife. People try to fix what they like. I'm fine with gutting the middle man and just have characters that multiclass from Fighter 2 into maybe some sort of Barbarian 1-2 before getting into the nitty gritty that is Warblade X or Crusader X or Swodsage X. Hell, I'm fine with random characters dipping Swordsage for an easy assassin's stance for more sneak attack dice.

You take umbrage at it because "Fighter (the class) holds meaning." Which is silly. Names and words have meaning, but the flowers thing was not "You're doing it wrong!" but rather "Not everyone knows what a rose looks like." As a kid, I know if I saw a sharp red flower, I'd just automatically call it a rose for the sake of it because Shakespeare has given the rose something special in its name now.

Keld really did put it the best at the start. Outside of dissecting everything a character does and then going "AH HA! Bob must be a Warblade because I've seen him do too many of those weird fighting things for him to be a fighter!" "And I as a character just bothered throwing ranks in Martial Lore to figure that out, too!"


EDIT: Honestly, just do a quick one-shot as a Crusader or Warblade. Compare it to playing a paladin or fighter. Tell me they don't feel spot on.

[Adamantrue]

For those people that were actually concerned about what I started this Thread about...

I'm wondering if perhaps leaving the Strikes and Stances as unlimited options, but anything else (such as Boosts and Counters) become 1/encounter abilities. That seems to be really where things would break down with the consistent and constant use of them as Feats.

I'd still want to keep Initiator Level keyed to BAB, which only really effects which maneuvers & stances you have to choose from. A Paladin 18 could constantly make a Strike of Perfect Clarity, a Monk could stay in the Balance on the Sky stance, and a Warmage could top out using Shadow Stride once per encounter.

Doing it that way might not even diminish the ToB Classes, as they would likely still have a bigger repertoire to choose from (with added versatility), and conceivably use the non-Strikes/Stances more frequently during an encounter.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

For those people that were actually concerned about what I started this Thread about...

I'm wondering if perhaps leaving the Strikes and Stances as unlimited options, but anything else (such as Boosts and Counters) become 1/encounter abilities. That seems to be really where things would break down with the consistent and constant use of them as Feats.

I'd still want to keep Initiator Level keyed to BAB, which only really effects which maneuvers & stances you have to choose from. A Paladin 18 could constantly make a Strike of Perfect Clarity, a Monk could stay in the Balance on the Sky stance, and a Warmage could top out using Shadow Stride once per encounter.

Doing it that way might not even diminish the ToB Classes, as they would likely still have a bigger repertoire to choose from (with added versatility), and conceivably use the non-Strikes/Stances more frequently during an encounter.

As a tool for things to do for non-martial people or as something on the side, I'm okay with this. It's not a bad idea.

I just find it to be a rather silly idea considering how Tome of Battle already does it inherently via Martial Study and Martial Stance. If people want more than three feats worth of features, then they really should just mutliclass by that point. That or buy maneuver-granting items.:smalltongue:

[Adamantrue]

As a tool for things to do for non-martial people or as something on the side, I'm okay with this. It's not a bad idea.

I just find it to be a rather silly idea considering how Tome of Battle already does it inherently via Martial Study and Martial Stance. If people want more than three feats worth of features, then they really should just mutliclass by that point. That or buy maneuver-granting items.:smalltongue: That's actually kinda the point. If I am actually happy with my Ranger progression, but I wanna pick a few specific things up on the side, I'd rather pick up a few things as Feats than be forced to Multiclass.

Its just...1/encounter with everything just seems a little too limiting, as does how the Initiator Level works with the non ToB Classes. This is just a subtle tweak now, as opposed to a whole system.

The biggest thing (and probably the whole source of my turnoff with ToB) is how you can't do things back-to-back. The transparency of fluff and all that aside, if I can hurt an opponent with a specific attack one round, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do the same things the next round.

[TroubleBrewing]

The biggest thing (and probably the whole source of my turnoff with ToB) is how you can't do things back-to-back. The transparency of fluff and all that aside, if I can hurt an opponent with a specific attack one round, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do the same things the next round.

Truthfully? Because that gets borrrriiiiinnnnngggg.

Seriously. Pre-ToB, melee classes were limited to "I charge and full attack" if they were smart and took SLT Barbarian 1, and "I charge. Next round, I full attack" if they weren't, and didn't.

Every round. Occasionally, you might build a guy who trips, bull rushes, or grapples. But then just insert "trip" "bull rush" or "grapple" into where it says "full attack" up there, and you get the gist.

Post-ToB, though... Now characters can do something useful and interesting every round and, if they so desire, they can trip/grapple/bull rush/full attack to their heart's content!

The only price they pay is not being able to do certain things round after round after round after round after round after round ad nauseam.

[Adamantrue]

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Sometimes, I prefer to just lean back and spam the same thing, just wanting to get the combat over with to get along with the plot/problem solving. Other times (and I've had this problem with Magic too), its just jarring to not be able to do the same thing each round.

[edit]

And what's the real difference between doing the best attack you have repeatedly, and doing you best available strike while you wait for the recharge to kick in?

[Angry Bob]

I've always seen the warblade as competent in a lot of areas of combat, and the fighter(due to the feat system) as being able to specialize in a handful of overpowering techniques. If you wanted to balance the two to each other, instead of making maneuvers into feats, you could make a set of fighter-only feats and remove the warblade's ability to gain fighter feats, to avoid accusations of "obsoleting the fighter" or somesuch, and to make the fighter his own separate thing instead of a narrower warblade.

If you were willing to treat these new fighter-only feats as modular class features for the fighter instead of as traditional feats, you could bring up the power level of the fighter by using the already recommended scaling feat or tactical feat model. Better, it would give the fighter his own sort-of system, like Tome of Battle or Incarnum. Every feat level, he selects a scaling feat, and every otherwise empty level, at least one of those feats grows a new ability.

If the new feats were very powerful, I don't know what I'd do with the empty levels. Maybe some stuff like adding damage dice to melee attacks in general. Frankly, the reason I like ToB over conventional melee is because the damage scales better. And IHS.

Keep in mind this is just the larval stage of a larger idea. The eventual goal sees both tiers 3 and 4 as appropriate targets for game balance, and versatility versus power as a legitimate tradeoff, in fact a necessary one, since as almost everyone on this board agrees, the unbalancing part of the upper tiers is having both power and flexibility. In this case, the fighter would be able to pull his weight in combat(out of combat is up to the player), but have a few(instead of one, as it stands) abilities that utterly dominate in the right conditions, such as a charge that does damage enough to require scientific notation, or an area-affecting attack that does considerable damage and trips anything with legs.

And for the record, yes, warblade is a stupid name that burns my sense of taste when I try to say it. Doesn't stop me from using the class.

[TroubleBrewing]

And what's the real difference between doing the best attack you have repeatedly, and doing you best available strike while you wait for the recharge to kick in?

I presume that the former is ToB-related, and the latter is non-ToB? I shall answer with this in mind.

The difference between spamming your best attack and spamming your best available strike is simple: spamming your best attack, over and over and over and overandoverandoverandover from 1 til 20 is boring. It's like drowning in full attacks/trips/grapples/bull rushes/whatever. And what if the enemy flys/is incorporeal/is Colossal+/etc. If the enemy you're fighting isn't vulnerable to your specific mode of attack, you're out of luck.

But with ToB material, that problem goes away. You have more options now.

Spamming your best available strike is different because that strike changes based on what you've already used, and what the conditions of the battle are. Lets say you opened with Ruby Nightmare Blade instead of your usual opener of Firesnake. Now, in this case, your best maneuver might be Mindstrike, if the enemy appears to be casting divine spells. Alternatively, if he's smaller than you, Comet Throw might be a good choice. Or maybe your character is more of an Overwhelming Mountain Strike type of guy. If you REALLY want to use that Ruby Nightmare blade again, you could always just full attack him, refresh your maneuvers, and try again next round.

Which is better?

EDIT:
Other times (and I've had this problem with Magic too), its just jarring to not be able to do the same thing each round.

I had this problem with ToB initially, too. But then it occurred to me: in RL combat, setting up a slow but powerful strike isn't something you can do over and over again, one right after the other. Your opponent is going to catch on eventually, and you'll pay the price for your repetitiveness. How did we always beat Bowser? Learned his predictable patterns, and then wiped the floor with him.

ToB classes have this built-in. If your character is a dedicated tripper, the DM is going to get sick of it and have you fight some centaurs. If you're a Warblade with a ton of maneuvers and strikes and stances at his disposal, your DM is going to be hard-pressed to find any one thing that totally unhinges your strategy.

[Rogue Shadows]

If you were willing to treat these new fighter-only feats as modular class features for the fighter instead of as traditional feats, you could bring up the power level of the fighter by using the already recommended scaling feat or tactical feat model. Better, it would give the fighter his own sort-of system, like Tome of Battle or Incarnum. Every feat level, he selects a scaling feat, and every otherwise empty level, at least one of those feats grows a new ability.

This is exactly what I want to do. Kind of like the d20 Modern or Saga Star Wars system of Talent/Feat/Talent/Feat.

[Kojiro]

<stuff>

Indeed. Unless your opponent is far below your skill level, they won't let you get away with pulling the same move repeatedly; doesn't even matter if it's complex or simple, as the former is easy to interrupt and the latter is easy to get a good grasp on. There's a reason fencers and the like learn all these strategies and counters and counter-counters; you could never, ever, get away with doing the same thing repeatedly in any fight worth fighting.

Also, on the "Vancian" discussion... Actually, I'm not joining that, because one of the latest posts made me realize that one side is deliberately misunderstanding/ignoring an integral part of the definition. Wouldn't be worth it.

[Draz74]

Other times (and I've had this problem with Magic too), its just jarring to not be able to do the same thing each round.
Really? :smallconfused:


But then it occurred to me: in RL combat, setting up a slow but powerful strike isn't something you can do over and over again, one right after the other. Your opponent is going to catch on eventually, and you'll pay the price for your repetitiveness. How did we always beat Bowser? Learned his predictable patterns, and then wiped the floor with him.

ToB classes have this built-in. If your character is a dedicated tripper, the DM is going to get sick of it and have you fight some centaurs. If you're a Warblade with a ton of maneuvers and strikes and stances at his disposal, your DM is going to be hard-pressed to find any one thing that totally unhinges your strategy.

That's part of how I feel (and since I haven't been in much real-life combat, I use sports as an analogy to help me figure out what to imagine. If I'm playing basketball, for example, I can't just spam the same hoop approach and layup shot over and over unless I'm WAY better than my opponents. They'll learn to expect it and adapt to block it ... I've got to vary my strategy if I want to be successful, and seize the opening to do my favorite layup route only when there happens to be an opening).

Tome of Battle doesn't just make it harder for the DM to "block" what you're good at, though. It doesn't even just make him less inclined to "block" you by making him less bored with your tactics.

Instead, it gives you, the Warblade player, a bit of narrative control of the details of combat flow. It lets you choose when your character sees an "opening" for which of her favorite moves. But puts restrictions on how often she can re-use those moves, to simulate the way she doesn't always just get exactly what she wants.

That's the way I've come to think of ToB, and I love it for this greater sports-like "realism."

[Rogue Shadows]

Also, on the "Vancian" discussion... Actually, I'm not joining that, because one of the latest posts made me realize that one side is deliberately misunderstanding/ignoring an integral part of the definition. Wouldn't be worth it.

I'm certain you won't answer, but I'm going to ask anyway - which side? You can just PM me if you don't want to answer it here...

I don't think it's me...

[Adamantrue]

I can't believe I'm letting myself be sidetracked now...grumble...

D&D Combat is an abstract, not a simulation. I don't think of a Power Attacking Barbarian as a guy taking the same exact swing at an opponent each time. Its just quantified as such.

To take it to Swashbuckler (I'm going to ignore using Fighter as an example as often as possible, just because of how much it derailed the Thread) VS a Swordsage, the mechanical differences are only about as different as playing Checkers VS playing Chess. One has more complexity, but at its core its basically the same thing (don't nitpick that, you'd just be missing the point on purpose).

As far as Game Balance...I kinda prefer Tier 4 - 5 play (especially at early levels) personally. Its just a more comfortable fit for me, and more challenging to build a fun character, and honestly not having the best tools for every situation feels more like an advantage (as a Player), as I have to improvise with what I got, or what the whole party can muster as a group.

So...trying to get more On-Topic...

The new Houserule (hesitantly referred to as a ToB "fix"):
For any class that is not a Martial Adept, your Initiator Level is equal to your Base Attack Bonus.

And the new Feat:
Martial Strike [General]
By studying the basics of a martial discipline, you learn to focus your ki and perfect the form needed to use a martial strike.
Prerequisite: Martial Study
Benefit: Select any strike from the discipline you've chosen with Martial Study. You must meet the prerequisite. If you have martial adept levels, this maneuver becomes one of your maneuvers known.
If you do not have martial adept levels, you can use this strike once per round.
Special: You can take this feat up to three times. A fighter can select Martial Strike as a bonus feat.

Changes the role of Martial Study a bit, being more for Boosts & Counters & whatever the other stuff qualifies as. Though I suppose you could still take a Strike as a 1-shot finishing move, or opening volley.

That ends up being what the purpose of this whole thread boiled down to. Anyone see anything that needs specific trouble-shooting?

[The Glyphstone]

I'd change the Once per Round to Once per Encounter, otherwise the feat becomes better on a non-adept than it does an actual adept. Or was that the intention?

[TroubleBrewing]

That ends up being what the purpose of this whole thread boiled down to. Anyone see anything that needs specific trouble-shooting?

Yep. You still haven't fixed the "I just spam this move over and over again" problem.

If I select Feral Death Blow, I leap at and potentially 1-shot an opponent every single round. No need to roll for damage. No need to roll to hit. Just a Jump check followed by a Fort save.

If I'm DMing a game, I don't want to see this kind of thing.

[Midnight_v]

Martial Strike [General]
By studying the basics of a martial discipline, you learn to focus your ki and perfect the form needed to use a martial strike.
Prerequisite: Martial Study
Benefit: Select any strike from the discipline you've chosen with Martial Study. You must meet the prerequisite. If you have martial adept levels, this maneuver becomes one of your maneuvers known.
If you do not have martial adept levels, you can use this strike once per round.Special: You can take this feat up to three times. A fighter can select Martial Strike as a bonus feat.

Changes the role of Martial Study a bit, being more for Boosts & Counters & whatever the other stuff qualifies as. Though I suppose you could still take a Strike as a 1-shot finishing move, or opening volley.

That ends up being what the purpose of this whole thread boiled down to. Anyone see anything that needs specific trouble-shooting?

I don't know if you ignored my posts or what. I'll say the important part about that again.
This is not limited too but is inclusive of many abilities granted by manuevers can get broken by being able to spam them.
White Raven Stun being the most egregious offender off hand by itself.
But also... Leaping Dragon ~ the one that stuns with dc = to jump check.
and while I don't feel like going through all of the strikes with a fine toothed comb. Divine Surge +8d8 every round might or might not be too good depending on your definition. Soaring Raptor strike is a level 3 manuever that does Attck + 6d6 at level 5, might be over kill.
Secondly, I note that you specify

Benefit: Select any strike from the discipline you've chosen with Martial Study.
Did you mean to say "manuever" right there? Or are you intentionally NOT allowing boosts and counters to be chosen by this feat?
just curious.

Edit: Partially Swordsaged

[Adamantrue]

[edit] Yes, I am specifically not allowing Boosts and Counters and what-not with THIS Feat. And I hope it doesn't seem like I'm ignoring anyone that is actually trying to help with this...its just a LOT to weed through.
Yep. You still haven't fixed the "I just spam this move over and over again" problem.

If I select Feral Death Blow, I leap at and potentially 1-shot an opponent every single round. No need to roll for damage. No need to roll to hit. Just a Jump check followed by a Fort save.

If I'm DMing a game, I don't want to see this kind of thing. Well...you do still gotta make the attack roll and deal damage before the Fort Save. You also gotta burn through 4 Feats in order to do it.

How would that compare to a Shock Trooper-Leap Attack-whatever kinda thing?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well...you do still gotta make the attack roll and deal damage before the Fort Save. You also gotta burn through 4 Feats in order to do it.

How would that compare to a Shock Trooper-Leap Attack-whatever kinda thing?

It would be better. Because you have to have room to charge, and it'll take a whole round just to set up a charge if you're adjacent to an opponent. And besides, you have to spend at least four feats for the shock trooper leap attack guy. PA, IBR, ST, LA. Then, if you're a dedicated charger, you'll be large sized or have powerful build and be dungeoncrasher. Dungeon crasher takes two feat slots, and a third feat slot for knockback. Then you need improved sunder and combat brute. Compared to four feats to spam a save-or-die.

[Midnight_v]

Thing about that is those guys can kill opponents in 1 charge.
But they have to charge. . . Which has certain drawbacks, and generally speaking is worse because with this diffucult terrain doesn't stop it, and eventually if it ever happens that you're gonna be standing next to someone then they're dead.
Feral Death Blow might not be nearly as bad as the attacks that stun or daze you in this sense.

Edit: ....aaaaanndddd Swordsaged again. I need like uncanny dodge for these posts.

[afroakuma]

This is exactly what I want to do. Kind of like the d20 Modern or Saga Star Wars system of Talent/Feat/Talent/Feat.

So... why don't you go do it? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15) This and future debates would be vastly enriched if you had a completed in-system example to your exact specifications to be able to publicly display.

[Hiro Protagonest]

There's also Mountain Tombstone Strike, 2d6 con damage every round as a standard action. No save.

[Adamantrue]

Would something like every-other round mitigate the problem (which would likely be the best case scenario with the Martial Adepts)?

[TroubleBrewing]

Would something like every-other round mitigate the problem (which would likely be the best case scenario with the Martial Adepts)?

If you're going to make it every other round, you've just made a Martial Adept.

Congradulations!

[Adamantrue]

If you're going to make it every other round, you've just made a Martial Adept.

Congradulations! A Martial Adept with the Class Features of a Barbarian or Ranger, or whatever else...you know, the Class Features I want?

This is bad why?

[Kojiro]

I don't think that he's saying that it's "bad" so much as it's, well, the same, except you did it without multiclassing. Also, personally I dislike the "maneuver, recharge, maneuver, recharge" strategy as it's more or less spamming it with one step in between, but sadly that is possible in the normal ToB system, so using it here is "fair", I guess.

[TroubleBrewing]

A Martial Adept with the Class Features of a Barbarian or Ranger, or whatever else...you know, the Class Features I want?

This is bad why?

Because you can accomplish the same thing by dipping martial adept classes when you've gotten the class features you want out of Ranger or Barbarian.

Barbarian doesn't really offer anything beyond about 4th level, unless you're looking for Greater Rage, in which case this is a high-level discussion anyway and you can dip martial adept classes afterward.

Ranger is the same way, unless you want multiple favored enemies and improved combat style. Even then, you're done after about 6th or 8th level, and are free to dip martial adept classes.

Alternatively: Just take Martial Study. It accomplishes the same thing.

EDIT:
Also, personally I dislike the "maneuver, recharge, maneuver, recharge" strategy as it's more or less spamming it with one step in between, but sadly that is possible in the normal ToB system, so using it here is "fair", I guess.

Ditto. I can't stand that either, and when I play martial adept classes, I don't do it. I prefer the wealth of options and alternatives. I've seen players spam their "best" stuff, and after a while, the DM gets bored and throws something at them that they can't deal with.

[Midnight_v]

A Martial Adept with the Class Features of a Barbarian or Ranger, or whatever else...you know, the Class Features I want?

This is bad why?
Cause its better in many ways at that point just to say "Hey all the non casting base classes have initiator progressions" if thats what it really about and people have suggested that too you througout this thread.
Also this:


Would something like every-other round mitigate the problem (which would likely be the best case scenario with the Martial Adepts)?

Well because you said:

The biggest thing (and probably the whole source of my turnoff with ToB) is how you can't do things back-to-back. The transparency of fluff and all that aside, if I can hurt an opponent with a specific attack one round, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do the same things the next round.
So when you move to 1-every other round. Then you're going against what you said here. ... and so would we if we suggested that.
Thusly, while we're trying to assist you in this endeavor it becomes difficult to reach all the points you seem to want to reach.

I find myself thinking is that what you'll end up with if you follow this path is something like the link above where you give people Regular access to a school and a recovery method. Essentially, again, pasting the manuever system onto the
"Class abilities you want" even if you give them in a lessened fashion, if the idea is that you think the base classes have better abilities somehow.

[Adamantrue]

Thusly, while we're trying to assist you in this endeavor it becomes difficult to reach all the points you seem to want to reach. Difficult is a matter perspective. Weeding through the majority of these posts about the Immutability of Class Fluff, in order to find things that were actually on-topic, let alone actually helpful...that's difficult.

Then there is just telling me just to Multiclass with or play a Martial Adept. Thanks, that's already an option. I haven't taken it because I don't like it. Let's move on...

I like my Paladins. I like my Rangers. Hey, I even like my Monks & Fighters.

Push comes to shove, I just won't use any ToB material in my games, but I was trying to find ways to include it in a way that wasn't obviously just a tacked-on trinket, a poor last-minute attempt to placate people that liked the old stuff, maybe get some use out of the material, without giving up the things I do enjoy (like a few specific 3rd level Ranger/Paladin spells that are favorites, for example).

[Curious]

I think the problem you're having here, Adamantrue, is that you like low-op- or at least, low-tier -games, and most other people seem to prefer a slightly higher level of power. While your feat-fix does make fighters stronger, it is still weaker than a warblade, so most people just won't see the point.

[Curious]

Edit: Double Post.

[stainboy]

There's also Mountain Tombstone Strike, 2d6 con damage every round as a standard action. No save.

Con damage in the hands of players isn't usually that great though. 2d6 Con damage is really just about 1d6 damage/target level that doesn't work on undead or constructs. And it's a single attack that doesn't work on a charge. And it's Stone Dragon so it doesn't work in the air.

Mountain Tombstone is really just a way to move and make an attack that matters, but it only works under conditions that are out of your control. I'd take a vanilla move-then-full-attack ability over Mountain Tombstone any day.

[Midnight_v]

Difficult is a matter perspective. Weeding through the majority of these posts about the Immutability of Class Fluff, in order to find things that were actually on-topic, let alone actually helpful...that's difficult.

Then there is just telling me just to Multiclass with or play a Martial Adept. Thanks, that's already an option. I haven't taken it because I don't like it. Let's move on... This sounds like your venting. Thats fine. You qouoted me and I haven't done any of what you're complaining about. So I'll just move on, cause I can understand being frustrated. You should get though that some of it is pushy people, and some of it is what you have actually communicated.


I like my Paladins. I like my Rangers. Hey, I even like my Monks & Fighters.

Push comes to shove, I just won't use any ToB material in my games, but I was trying to find ways to include it in a way that wasn't obviously just a tacked-on trinket, a poor last-minute attempt to placate people that liked the old stuff, maybe get some use out of the material, without giving up the things I do enjoy (like a few specific 3rd level Ranger/Paladin spells that are favorites, for example).
That first part? Well thats your perogative, I mean rather thats between you and your players so, and you know if thats how you want to handle the issue. None of us will be around to complain about it, you know?
That second part I recognize that desire pretty well.
Maybe you should therefore just expand on the
Martial Study power. First making it so that it has


Special: If you have no manuever granting class among your levels this feat grants you a initator level equal to your class level.
Normal: Non-initiator have a initator level = to 1/2 thier class level

Thats step one of letting them in the game.

Step 2 is getting a "balanced" recovery mechanic. As we've already defined just spamming strikes actually leads to "poor interactions" lets say.
So you have options.
1. Takes a full-round action to recover all manuevers known (from this feat)
2. Usable X time per encounter. I dont' know what the right number is.
3. Usable 1 time per creature each encounter. Why? Well you're just NOT gonna keep hitting me with that same overhand right.
......
There are other options that you can figure out that don't feel forced and aren't unbalnced and we can pro con each one if you're not too frustrated with the whole of this "boards" endeavor to continue.
I understand of course if its "No. No ToB, to Baator with it".

[Big Fau]

There's also Mountain Tombstone Strike, 2d6 con damage every round as a standard action. No save.

Not every round. There really isn't a way to do that without Polymorphing into a Choker and abusing Dual Action with Psychic Renewal.

[stainboy]

Not every round. There really isn't a way to do that without Polymorphing into a Choker and abusing Dual Action with Psychic Renewal.

This hurts my brain.

A warblade can also spam a maneuver every round with White Raven Tactics abuse. Not every turn, but you take multiple turns per round.

[Big Fau]

This hurts my brain.

A warblade can also spam a maneuver every round with White Raven Tactics abuse. Not every turn, but you take multiple turns per round.

You can't recover maneuvers in the same round you initiate a maneuver, and vice versa. This is explicitly called out in the Warblade's recovery ability.


And there is a real problem with WRT abuse that is spelled out over at BG.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

*snip*

Midnight, I've come to better understand that opinion even if I find it formed out of cart-before-horse logic. This is because while I like the ideas of being a fighter, a rogue, a wizard, or even a monk, I don't care how I make a character that claims to be anyone of those things: I care about simply being able to do X in the game.

X can be anything. It could be "fights effectively with just a shield, no sword. I love my board as much as Capt. America does!" It could be "I want to heal HP in combat while doing something else!" It could go so broad as Tome of Battle Crusader being my Paladin while my friend plays his own Prestige Paladin and a third guy in a different game is playing a Paladin as written.

That's all cool. I think the easiest way of doing something is the one that requires the fewest hoops to jump through. Old CO guides gave you the RAW on the subject, but they also gave someone the opinion of the author of the guide. I know I read the old Batman guide thread and fell in-love with wizards as the class despite at first hating spell preparation as the mechanic. Such has led me into silly things like Sanctum Spell loving War Weavers, fun Swiftblade builds that can grind from level 1 to 20.


I can do whatever I want my character can do in 3.5 given something close to (but not just pure) RAW. Point is: this is a team game that I play to have fun. I'm fine being a crazy coot in game if it means I can use silly toys like haste and war weaver buff sharing on the rest of the party. Heck, with the local hobby shop, for the most part, a Bard would just straight up multiply damage with Dragonfire Inspiration because that's how they play. Nothing wrong with that: I just like having another resource beyond skills, feats, HP, and BAB.

[Midnight_v]

..can you be more specific what exact opinion you're speaking of?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

..can you be more specific what exact opinion you're speaking of?

Classes do thing X. Thing "X" is an unknown, dependent on the wizardry that is another person's head. Having "fighter" be able to do thing "X" and have it work is a cool idea. In 3.5 as written, that doesn't mean it's the best way to do "X."

X can be "power attacks," "charges," "fights with any/every weapon," and whatever else a person can think X can be. The issue is that I'm cool with one class being able to do Thing X because if I want to do Thing X, I use the Potato class. I'm also cool with the Hamster class being able to do things X, Y, and Z if I want to mainly do thing Z and gaining Y and X is just cute on the sidelines. I just don't care how something is done, but rather that it is doable in Rules-as-are-actually-played. RAW works online: in person at a table with certain people, not so much.

EDIT: And I do like RAW, cuz it is a nice baseline, but I still as a person find it backwards for people to want a Fighter to be good at X, Y, and Z when I don't know what those things are (X, Y, Z, et al.) but then have the same person flerp out on me when I tell them that Warblade can do all of those things, do them easily and well and still be the same flavor, so why not just focus more on that instead?

In other words, I'm cool with the idea of Fighters being a 1 to 20 class. I find it silly, cuz it can be done in an easier method without lighting 9 of your 20 levels on fire due to dead levels. I dislike the base wizard, cleric, and sorcerer classes for the same reasons: I get spells either here or via PrC. PrC gives me weird thing that helps me do "X" (eg, summoning), why should I as a wizard not grab said PrC? I mean, it's in the concept and it works better than what I had intended.

[Rogue Shadows]

So... why don't you go do it? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15) This and future debates would be vastly enriched if you had a completed in-system example to your exact specifications to be able to publicly display.

Working (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207040) on (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207154) it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205016).

These things take time, though. But that doesn't mean I don't have things to say in the meantime.

(I also already posted my suggestion for changing the wizard...somewhere on this board, in another thread. I forget which one...)

[Seerow]

In other words, I'm cool with the idea of Fighters being a 1 to 20 class. I find it silly, cuz it can be done in an easier method without lighting 9 of your 20 levels on fire due to dead levels. I dislike the base wizard, cleric, and sorcerer classes for the same reasons: I get spells either here or via PrC. PrC gives me weird thing that helps me do "X" (eg, summoning), why should I as a wizard not grab said PrC? I mean, it's in the concept and it works better than what I had intended.


Honestly, this is bad prc design more than bad class design. If you look at a Wizard or Sorcerer, they ARE getting cool new things every level. More of them on any given level than a Fighter gets on his best level. That's a huge deal.

The problem is PrCs give these casters more features on top of full progression of their main class feature. EVERY PrC should have at least 1-2 lost caster levels, with the first level in the PrC always losing the caster level. The only exception should be hybrid PrCs that require you to multiclass to enter the PrC in the first place. (ie Mystic Theurge is fine, you already dropped yourself 3 levels behind the curve for both classes you are progression).


The other problem is that while caster PrCs give casting progression, melee PrCs tend to not advance the class features of the class you come out of. You don't see any Fighter PrCs that let you continue gaining a bonus feat every other level, and count as fighter levels for qualifying for feats, yet that's exactly what casting progression PrCs effectively do for casters.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Honestly, this is bad prc design more than bad class design. If you look at a Wizard or Sorcerer, they ARE getting cool new things every level. More of them on any given level than a Fighter gets on his best level. That's a huge deal.

This is true, but I'm not always looking for Incantatrix shenanigans. Sometimes Wizard 3/Master Specialist X/Other PrC just works better because those levels give me more or less same thing as wizard would (spells [{17-19}/20] times plus other stuffs - even if other stuffs is "another conjuration spell!")

I like it because despite this flaw, I can throw stuff together to make a character. I liked throwing ideas around to see what could work and what did work by the guides I saw.


The problem is PrCs give these casters more features on top of full progression of their main class feature. EVERY PrC should have at least 1-2 lost caster levels, with the first level in the PrC always losing the caster level. The only exception should be hybrid PrCs that require you to multiclass to enter the PrC in the first place. (ie Mystic Theurge is fine, you already dropped yourself 3 levels behind the curve for both classes you are progression).

I agree with the principle: I just really liked how specialization was rewarded even though it is "rewarded" in the sense that I can't cast maybe ~3 spells I could ever possibly want. I see it as free gains. Wizards are the quick and dirty here, but I also like Tome of Battle characters because I can do Dungeoncrasher without automatically being large or play around with bard stuffs with it. It's just another toy I use to play pretend.:smallbiggrin:



The other problem is that while caster PrCs give casting progression, melee PrCs tend to not advance the class features of the class you come out of. You don't see any Fighter PrCs that let you continue gaining a bonus feat every other level, and count as fighter levels for qualifying for feats, yet that's exactly what casting progression PrCs effectively do for casters.

Yes, I see that as a fault on how core and early melee fighters were treated. Later stuffs did better about it or at least seemed to give more "interesting" - something that is hard to define, I know - abilities out of said levels. I may just like having my cake and eating it too, but, well, wizards! *Insert lightning and ghost noises*

I just play 3.5 in a really different manner and I find the other side odd. Not odd as insult. Just odd as in "Why focus so much on the name of something? I'm still whacking things with this big ol' stick like Teddy would 'aved!" in that whole Fighter versus Warblade debate.

I liked the fighter - not the core fighter as a full class - but the Fighter as a tool to get something fun like Dungeoncrasher or maybe quick two feats in two levels on an otherwise Barbabas character. Or maybe I just have Fighter 2 leading into Warblade X because Tome of Battle just became opened and the DM knows I'm cooky and make a character, not a build? Not to say Wizard X by itself is not an in-depth character, I just like my idea of who and what my pretend-elf is to actually back up what he claims he can do while hugging trees and killing gobbies.:smalltongue:

TL;DR: I derp around sometimes, stonewalls in debate club happen and then I derp and just sort of don't know what to say to try to show my line of thought. The name of the rose argument here helps, but I still don't hold such a worldview: if it works, it works, otherwise change it.

[TroubleBrewing]

While your feat-fix does make fighters stronger, it is still weaker than a warblade, so most people just won't see the point.

That's not really the problem. Sure, it improves a Fighter's power. But that's the class that gets the LEAST out of making maneuvers into feats.

Consider the Cleric. Now he doesn't need to multiclass to get into RKV.

The Druid just got RAD. Not only is he a bear that casts spells riding another bear, but that bear can shout "BYYYY CRROOOMMMM" and avoid negative conditions. Also, so can the Druid.

Making a melee Bard that kicks more butt than the Fighter ever did is now WAY easier.

Swashbucklers finally feel like they always should have. But I'd still multiclass, because as I'll be saying a LOT in this post, they don't get a whole lot after 4-5 levels.

Paladins get markedly improved. (But not as much as simply taking the Crusader class from level 1...)

Monks are marginally less awful. Admittedly, this is a better knee-jerk fix than the usual "Just give them full BAB! Then they'll be good, right?" (While I'm on the subject, can I ask WHY you like Monks the way they are? When you're already incorporating ToB material into your game, it just seems like being that guy who insists on driving his crappy '85 Camry to work every day when he's got a brand-new Mustang sitting in his garage.)

Barbarians get a lot out of this. My choice would still be to multiclass, mainly because (as I said earlier) Barbarians really only ever need AT MOST 4 levels to be both Barbarian-flavored and plenty strong. If you're going to go Barbarian from 1 to 20, adding ToB stuff as feats makes it worthwhile to a certain extent, though.

Rangers get some stuff. See my views on the Barbarian above, however.

Sorcerers and Wizards see almost no change, as they're much better off spending their feats on Metamagic feats, which are still way stronger than any other option.

Rogues don't get very much. If you're going TWF with a Rogue, you're way too feat-strapped to bother with ToB stuff as feats. TWF Rogues are much better off multiclassing, because then they get Shadow Hand stuff for free, instead of having to waste valuable feat slots on maneuvers. For a skill monkey/party face build... You don't really need ToB stuff, do you?

Anyway, that's my breakdown of the PHB classes (and Swashbuckler). Take it or leave it.

EDIT: Upon re-examining my list, I've come to the reason why this just doesn't feel like a good idea to me. As has been said before, most adventurers are going to get 7-9 feats over the course of their careers. Because of the scarcity of these things, it's important to make sure when selecting a feat that you just can't get that power bonus any other way. When you opt to make maneuvers into feats, any player who selects them is going to be missing out on a feat they could have taken had they just dipped a martial adept class, because those three classes get maneuvers/stances as class features.

It'd be like building a TWF rogue without dipping Swashbuckler 1 for Weapon Finesse (which is not 100% necessary, but it's an excellent choice). Sure, you can pick it up as a feat. But that class gets better HD, comparable skill points, and gets the essential feat for your build as a class feature at level 1!

ToB classes give away maneuvers and stances for free, because non-initiator levels count as 1/2 initiator levels. Why pay 1/7 of the total feat resources you'll ever see for something you can just get for free from another class?

In conclusion, the Fighter is the only one who really has the resources to spare for this kind of thing, and giving him these things as feats when the Warblade gets them as class features is kind of a slap in the face.

[Kojiro]

I agree with Grey; despite the goal of helping the melee classes, it does little more than multiclassing would. Heck, it aids Druid and Cleric far more, and they're among those who need it the least. While wanting to do more for the melee classes is a good goal, and it was a nice idea, I don't think that this is the best way to go about it.

[Knaight]

That's not really the problem. Sure, it improves a Fighter's power. But that's the class that gets the LEAST out of making maneuvers into feats.

Consider the Cleric. Now he doesn't need to multiclass to get into RKV.

The Druid just got RAD. Not only is he a bear that casts spells riding another bear, but that bear can shout "BYYYY CRROOOMMMM" and avoid negative conditions. Also, so can the Druid.

Hypothetically, what if we were to ignore level 0 spells, and then let people have 9 levels of manuevers+spells based on a class? Essentially, Manuevers become a per character trait gained at certain levels of a class. All the full casters wouldn't get any, all the full non casters get all 9 levels of them distributed like spells, the Adept gets 3 levels worth, perhaps at levels 5, 10, and 15, the Ranger and Paladin get 5 levels worth, perhaps at levels 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19, so on and so forth.

That way, one doesn't have to spend feats for these. Moreover, full spell casters, who gain the most from them, can't actually get them without multiclassing.

[stainboy]

You can't recover maneuvers in the same round you initiate a maneuver, and vice versa. This is explicitly called out in the Warblade's recovery ability.

And there is a real problem with WRT abuse that is spelled out over at BG.

What it says is that you can't initiate maneuvers "while you are refreshing your expended maneuvers." The warblade maneuver refresh can be read a couple of ways, but regardless of how long you think refreshing takes it doesn't matter. You can use WRT once per round without having to use it after a refresh.

Suppose the warblade goes on init count 10:

Round 1, Count 10
Standard + Move action: whatever.
Swift action: WRT self.
Round 1, Count 9
Swift action: Refresh maneuvers.
Standard + Move action: vanilla melee attack, or do nothing.

Round 2, Count 9.1
Any one-round durations started on your last turn end, if you think this matters.
Round 2, Count 9
Standard + Move action: whatever.
Swift action: WRT self.
Round 2, Count 8
Swift action: Refresh maneuvers.
Standard + Move action: vanilla melee attack, or do nothing.

You initiate WRT before you refresh, so you never have to initiate a maneuver while refreshing maneuvers.

(E: Realized I explained this poorly, trying again.)

[Salanmander]

Then there is just telling me just to Multiclass with or play a Martial Adept. Thanks, that's already an option. I haven't taken it because I don't like it. Let's move on...


I know you want us to not consider that, but I think it would help considerably to know /why/ you don't want to multiclass. Why is Barbarian 8/Warblade 1/Barbarian X less acceptable to you than putting feats into specific maneuvers?

[TroubleBrewing]

Hypothetically, what if we were to ignore level 0 spells, and then let people have 9 levels of manuevers+spells based on a class? Essentially, Manuevers become a per character trait gained at certain levels of a class. All the full casters wouldn't get any, all the full non casters get all 9 levels of them distributed like spells, the Adept gets 3 levels worth, perhaps at levels 5, 10, and 15, the Ranger and Paladin get 5 levels worth, perhaps at levels 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19, so on and so forth.

That way, one doesn't have to spend feats for these. Moreover, full spell casters, who gain the most from them, can't actually get them without multiclassing.

Interesting thought. Animal Companions still benefit heavily, but that's not really the issue.

No maneuver progression for Bards, Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics, or Druids.

You'd have to give each class a list of schools that it can and cannot access, which would be a lot of work. Alternatively, just assign "Crusader" "Warblade" or "Swordsage" progression to various classes.

Rogues and Monks get "Swordsage" progression.

Paladins and Rangers get 1/2 "Crusader" progression.

Barbarians and Fighters get "Warblade" progression.

It's certainly not a bad idea if you want to rapidly jack up the power level of your game. It does sort of eliminate the Warblade's role, however. Though that does seem to be the OP's intention.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Interesting thought. Animal Companions still benefit heavily, but that's not really the issue.

No maneuver progression for Bards, Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics, or Druids.

You'd have to give each class a list of schools that it can and cannot access, which would be a lot of work. Alternatively, just assign "Crusader" "Warblade" or "Swordsage" progression to various classes.

Rogues and Monks get "Swordsage" progression.

Paladins and Rangers get 1/2 "Crusader" progression.

Barbarians and Fighters get "Warblade" progression.

It's certainly not a bad idea if you want to rapidly jack up the power level of your game. It does sort of eliminate the Warblade's role, however. Though that does seem to be the OP's intention.

Rangers should get warblade progression. I don't see them using devoted spirit, and tiger claw fits great. Of course, rangers also would gain the ability to use strikes with ranged weapons.

Rogues should have the crusader or warblade recovery mechanic, the swordsage one doesn't seem to fit.

[TroubleBrewing]

Rangers should get warblade progression. I don't see them using devoted spirit, and tiger claw fits great. Of course, rangers also would gain the ability to use strikes with ranged weapons.

Rogues should have the crusader or warblade recovery mechanic, the swordsage one doesn't seem to fit.

Good point about Rangers. I was trying to fit both of the "half casters" into the same progression style.

I feel like the Crusader mechanic would be a better fit than Warblade for Rogues.

[Knaight]

No maneuver progression for Bards, Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics, or Druids.

You'd have to give each class a list of schools that it can and cannot access, which would be a lot of work. Alternatively, just assign "Crusader" "Warblade" or "Swordsage" progression to various classes.

...

It's certainly not a bad idea if you want to rapidly jack up the power level of your game. It does sort of eliminate the Warblade's role, however. Though that does seem to be the OP's intention.
Bards would get 3 levels of Maneuvers by that system. As for rapidly jacking up the power level of the game, it does so, keeps the ToB classes while making them just more variants that fit in with melee in general. There are, however a few points that need smoothing out.

1) Psionics. Count power levels as spell levels, and call it a day. The psychic warrior gets Bard progression of maneuvers, which is basically 1/3 full melee, the Soulknife gets a full maneuver load.

2) Incarnum. Technically, they would get a full maneuver load, which they absolutely don't need. I could see an exception made where they lose maneuvers.

[TroubleBrewing]

1) Psionics. Count power levels as spell levels, and call it a day. The psychic warrior gets Bard progression of maneuvers, which is basically 1/3 full melee, the Soulknife gets a full maneuver load.

I like this a lot. Would the Soulknife be allowed to add their maneuvers to ranged weapons as well?



2) Incarnum. Technically, they would get a full maneuver load, which they absolutely don't need. I could see an exception made where they lose maneuvers.

I don't think Incarnum needs maneuvers at all, to be honest.

[Knaight]

I like this a lot. Would the Soulknife be allowed to add their maneuvers to ranged weapons as well?



I don't think Incarnum needs maneuvers at all, to be honest.

Honestly, the maneuvers to ranged weapons deal should be dealt with as universally as possible. I'm not sure how.

I agree that Incarnum doesn't need maneuvers, hence excepting them from the system in this regard.

[TroubleBrewing]

Honestly, the maneuvers to ranged weapons deal should be dealt with as universally as possible. I'm not sure how.

Somebody here homebrewed a couple of new schools, and I think one of them was a ranged school. Maybe give that school to classes that benefit from specializing in ranged weapons? Scout, Ranger, Fighter, etc.

[Knaight]

Somebody here homebrewed a couple of new schools, and I think one of them was a ranged school. Maybe give that school to classes that benefit from specializing in ranged weapons? Scout, Ranger, Fighter, etc.

Either that or come up with a feat chain or something.

[TroubleBrewing]

Either that or come up with a feat chain or something.

Here's the link. (http://http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10707) That's the one I was thinking of, but in my search I also discovered this link as well. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48255)

The second one is not as elegant as Fax's school, but Fax does superb work.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

A note on homebrew ranged maneuvers: both Fax and I want to say Gaelic from 339 took a stab at a discipline called "Falling Star" for crusaders. Same name, but the maneuvers themselves are rather different. Figured it was worth mentioning for those interested.

The third ranged school I know about is Black Rain, but I'm not up on any of those.