How to convince DM of Tome of Battle

[Master Thrower]

So yes yes I know ToB is a highly contested book, and I was once highly against it, but after a good deal of time playing, I think the book has grown on me. However my DM is not gonna be happy with me suggesting it. He wants to take a look at it with me and try and prove its OP. No he isn't in the melee shouldn't have nice things camp by choice, he just thinks more traditionally, like wizards are more powerful because thats how the designers made it. As he says, he doesn't want to change the game by giving players too much power. He does ban a good number of wizard tricks, aka no genesis, astral projection wizards, no early entry tricks for theurges, banning of solid fog, etc. So how can I convince (not force) him that the Tome of Battle should atleast be given a shot?

(Sorry about the block of text)

[Yora]

Well, why do you want to give it a shot?

[Circle of Life]

So how can I convince (not force) him that the Tome of Battle should atleast be given a shot?

A few metamagicked Enervations should do the trick.

[RaggedAngel]

So how can I convince (not force) him that the Tome of Battle should atleast be given a shot?

You should show him an Ubercharger, and perhaps a Frenzied Berserker, then maybe a Shock Trooper Dungeon Crasher Fighter. Explain that the ToB doesn't give melee more raw power; it just gives it variety and options. It gives it something to do other than say "I hit it" and "I charge it" for three hours while the spellcasters get to throw out a dozen varied and interesting spells.

It's not about power; it's about fun.

[The Glyphstone]

A few metamagicked Enervations should do the trick.

That'd only prove that Wizards are overpowered, which the OP indicate his DM already believes, and believes wizards should stay overpowered.

A better solution would be to have him look over it, find something like Strike of Perfect Clarity (IIRC, the +100 damage strike) that's 'Overpowered', then point out a simple Shock Trooping Barbarian can do that 10 levels earlier.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

ToB is quite powerful in low-op games because the optimization floor for the initiators is very high. It's only T3 because the optimization ceiling isn't that far from the floor. If you really want the book in, show him how high the ceilings of other classes can get. For instance, consider the druid. At low levels, point to Greenbound Summoning. At mid levels, point to Abberant Wildshape. At high levels, point to Shapechange. He can't have banned everything, so point to the stuff he hasn't banned.

Better yet, if he's really adamant on casters being more powerful by design, make a simple charger. A whirlpounce (Whirling Frenzy from UA, and Spiritual Lion Totem from Complete Champion) Barbarian with Power Attack, Shock Trooper, and Leap Attack will do more damage than your initiator at basically any level; the difference is your initiator is more versatile. In my experience, and from what I can see of your DM's opinions, versatility is far less troublesome than raw power. Raw power (especially 1 trick ponies) must be planned for specifically, but a versatile character with no game breakers can take on many things adequately without special treatment.

Edit: Multi swordsage'd in a ToB thread. Figures.

[Urpriest]

Well one straightforward thing to do is compare its damage to that of a Rogue. Your DM sounds a mid-op type, so he's probably the sort who thinks of Rogues as perpetually TWFing and making full attacks with Sneak Attack. So compare the damage of maneuvers to that of a Rogue's full attack, and show that it rarely keeps up. Then talk about the stylistic niche they fill: the idea that they give options in combat, like a much more limited caster.

[Rubik]

Show him the tier lists, and that the ToB-three are solidly in the center slot of T3. As the DM, he won't have to mollycoddle the players using the T4 and lower classes, and it'll make it easier for him to have more variety in his encounters because he doesn't have to account for the 'the only thing I can do is whack it with a stick' problem the lower tier classes have. Sure they whack things with sticks too, but if the White Raven crusader can't whack something this round, he can just use White Raven Tactics to give another party member a shot at doing something, and whatever they're doing can be attributed to him.

[Master Thrower]

Hrmm so I've stressed it doesn't up the damage of characters, and I have stressed the options it gives, anything I should be on the look out for that he will say is OP

[Kenneth]

I
semi went through this a couple of years ago. The DM in question allowed all the completes in her game as well as some other radnom books ( a coupel 3rd party ones that i felt were odd choices, odd as in teh actualy definition of odd) but she was 100% vehementaly agianmst ANYTHING from the ToB coming into play. SO I made a DMM cleric (WITHOUT nightstick tricks) and proceeded to show what straight cleric can do that is 100% core with only 1 feat (DMM) outside of it.

Not only was i out perofrming all the other melee's ( luckily we didn't have a druid to rivla me) but I still had my full on cleric abilities of mad crazy diving spells. we got to about 12th level or so before she finally agreed to take a look at TOb with my suggesstion of more focusing on the ironheart, and setting sun stuf, as I felel those 2 are the best represneing of what a trurly skilled warrior would be able to perform without really hwaving to suspend a whole lot of disbelief, eventually after a couple weeks of hiatus she allowed these 2 as well as white raven and some of stone dragon to be used.. it wasn't too long beofre the entirety of the book as given teh green light though.

sometimes it takes drastic measures like this to get your point across.

[Circle of Life]

Hrmm so I've stressed it doesn't up the damage of characters, and I have stressed the options it gives, anything I should be on the look out for that he will say is OP

White Raven Tactics working on yourself.

Iron Heart Surge ending the sun.

Propose this fix. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67866)

[Dusk Eclipse]

How about suggesting he takes a break from DM'ing for a session or two and meanwhile you DM a one/two shot using ToB on both sides of the screen?

Use some ToB mooks; but ask him to also use it, that way he can see how it works first-hand.

[Master Thrower]

White Raven Tactics working on yourself.

Iron Heart Surge ending the sun.

Propose this fix. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67866)

I doubt he'll know those sorts of stuff off hand, but thanks, i meant more stuff that appears OP at first glance but isnt, sorry for not clairfying

[sonofzeal]

First, avoid comparisons against low-level Fighters, they won't help your cause. :smalltongue: More importantly though, if he's looking for reasons to ban it, he can probably find them. Paranoid DMs will be paranoid.


The key is going to be finding something that the DM recognizes as an issue, and showing how ToB fixes is. What about Monks and Ninjas? Has a group attempted to play them, only to fail spectacularly? Are they avoided because everyone knows how bad they are?

Show him the Swordsage, show him the "unarmed swordsage" adaptation, show him Setting Sun, and that might go a long way towards justifying it.



Also, make sure you show the table in pg 39. I know people who thought that you got 9th lvl maneuvers at lvl 9, which will completely FUBAR your game.

[Urpriest]

I doubt he'll know those sorts of stuff off hand, but thanks, i meant more stuff that appears OP at first glance but isnt, sorry for not clairfying

The Crusader's Heal-strike tends to get DMs annoyed. Also, you'll probably need to show him that the Shadow Jump line are, in fact, Supernatural.

[sonofzeal]

Also, establish some actual benchmarks. For example, here's a fighter, hashed together in five minutes. It's hardly massively optimized, but that's part of the point, it's supposed to more or less resemble a "basic" fighter, not a high-op one.


Human Fighter 8, 16 base strength

Feats:

Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Kaorti Falchion
Weapon Focus: falchion
Weapon Spec: falchion
Power Attack
Cleave
Leap Attack
Improved Critical
Improved Bull Rush
Shock Trooper


Note that I'm taking some jimmy feats here, avoiding the usual dips. This makes it weaker, but "seem" more reasonable.

With +2 on the weapon, he's dealing....

Falchion +16/+11(2d4+11/15-20/x4) <- not all that impressive, but two hit and with a good chance to crit for awesome damage.

He can also Power attack.....

+11/+6(2d4+21/15-20/x4) <- lower chance to hit, but quite good damage.

...but on a charge he deals...

+18(2d4+32/15-20/x4)

...which is going to take a huge chunk out of anything. And with a great crit chance. And cleave - he could easily do this to multiple enemies in a single charge.

On an average crit there (and he'll have many), he deals about 148 damage. Again, with Cleave, and a +18 to hit.

He can also do this every round of combat, charging one enemy after another until there's nothing living he can reach.



If the DM argues that ToB characters are capable of the same thing, point out that most characters would have to be lvl 21 before they had this many feats, and that the Warblade Bonus Feats don't include a single one of the above.

[gallagher]

and whatever you do, if your DM lets you have it, please do not go out of your way for ToB tricks to make your DM second guess his choice. Especially because he is bound to be very new to ToB

[Master Thrower]

and whatever you do, if your DM lets you have it, please do not go out of your way for ToB tricks to make your DM second guess his choice. Especially because he is bound to be very new to ToB

I myself would be very new never having played an actual character!

[Yora]

I don't really understand what the initial problem is: Melee characters are weaker than spellcasters, and the GM wants it to stay that way?

[Big Fau]

Also, show him the Unofficial Errata over at Minmax Boards. It might not be the best around, but the actual errata for the Bo9S is utterly horrid.

[Curious]

I don't really understand what the initial problem is: Melee characters are weaker than spellcasters, and the GM wants it to stay that way?

I think it's the case of one of those people who think that spellcasters should be more powerful than martial classes because magic.

[navar100]

Also, make sure you show the table in pg 39. I know people who thought that you got 9th lvl maneuvers at lvl 9, which will completely FUBAR your game.

Guilty, upon first read. :smallredface:

[tyckspoon]

I doubt he'll know those sorts of stuff off hand, but thanks, i meant more stuff that appears OP at first glance but isnt, sorry for not clairfying

There are a few save-or-die effects in the level 8/9 maneuvers. He may believe those should be the domain of the casters (who at this point are delivering theirs from range, with more options of saves to target, and quite probably against multiple targets. Nevermind that if you're trying, it's not terribly hard to get a melee hit to the point where it's functionally 'I hit you die, what's this "save" nonsense?' as has already been demonstrated.)

Crusader is deliberately designed to be very tough to kill, with its delayed damage, healing strikes, and at higher level things like Stance of Immortal Fortitude. That may require some adjustment in mindset depending on how your DM plays- if he normally softballs his combat threats, a Crusader will appear nigh-immortal.

[Master Thrower]

There are a few save-or-die effects in the level 8/9 maneuvers. He may believe those should be the domain of the casters (who at this point are delivering theirs from range, with more options of saves to target, and quite probably against multiple targets. Nevermind that if you're trying, it's not terribly hard to get a melee hit to the point where it's functionally 'I hit you die, what's this "save" nonsense?' as has already been demonstrated.)

Crusader is deliberately designed to be very tough to kill, with its delayed damage, healing strikes, and at higher level things like Stance of Immortal Fortitude. That may require some adjustment in mindset depending on how your DM plays- if he normally softballs his combat threats, a Crusader will appear nigh-immortal.

The strange thing is combat isn't easy, its actually very tough, we have a high PC mortality rate, generally our fighters having to work very hard to contribute if its not a high damage tank monster. Which even then sometimes just drops them in a round or two. Meanwhile the Cleric Tanks with buffs and such and its "how the game was made"

[The Dark Fiddler]

Also, show him the Unofficial Errata over at Minmax Boards. It might not be the best around, but the actual errata for the Bo9S is utterly horrid.

You mean nigh-non-existent, right? :smallfrown:

[LansXero]

Teach him to play Magic. Then print out the maneuver cards. Then show them to him. (That should fix the 'its a complicated subsystem I dont wanna learn' objections). Once he realizes you cant do more than one maneuver every few rounds, and as a standar action, he should realize its not a real threat in terms of raw power.

[Godskook]

White Raven Tactics working on yourself.

Iron Heart Surge ending the sun.

The easy solutions to both of these are:

1.WRT only works only other people. (If you have problems with ruby knight vindicator, make it 1/turn too)

2.IHS only works on things that, strictly speaking, have a duration measured in rounds. Things that are measured in minutes, hours, or anything else, can't be affected.(This is, at least debatably, RAW)

@OP, your biggest adversary in this is going to be the optimization floor, not the ceiling. ToB characters are naturally quite powerful, probably the single most powerful classes ever printed, minimally. The most important point you need to make is what's actually supposed to be 'normal' from other classes, and then compare ToB to that, rather than unoptimized fighters and monks.

[Endarire]

Consider your game's high mortality rate. How are people having fun if they can't get attached to their characters? Your Divine Metamagic Cleric as seemingly the group's consistent savior makes little sense. Why would this Cleric hang around people so weak if he wants them to live? (Maybe he doesn't want them to live and sacrifices them to Team Monster so he can take their loot.)

ToB adds fun. It isn't just auto-attack. ToB makes options for physical characters more than "hit it normally" and "Power Attack and hope to hit it."

Auto-attack can hit for thousands of damage per round without touching Tome of Battle material (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872838/Little_Red_Raiding_Hood_A_Tale_of_38_Guide_to_the_ 35_Dragoon).

+1 on Maneuver Cards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a)

[killem2]

As a DM, why is the Tome of Battle considered bad? or good?

[Gotterdammerung]

It is a good book. It is a well made system. Yes it has some exploits, but if he is willing to cut out wizard exploits, then it shouldn't be a big deal to cut out the very few ToB exploits. And you can specifically promise not to use those kind of exploits. I know in my own game, I allow the book but do not allow idiot crusader, infinite damage loops, or unarmed swordsage.

Anytime new content enters the game, classes get stronger. There is no avoiding that. Options=power. But this particular extra content is very well done. It's power usually comes in convenience and preparedness.

But it is balanced power. Many of the maneuvers sacrifice action economy for an added effect beyond damage. Your maneuvers known list is static and limited.

In my opinion, Tome of battle should be allowed by all GMs. And I cringe when I hear of GMs banning it due to horror stories from braggarts online. It is a similar cringe that I get when I see classes being persecuted due to the tier system.

[sonofzeal]

As a DM, why is the Tome of Battle considered bad? or good?
Three things off the top of my head...

- If players like the idea of Fighter/Monk/Ninja but keep getting overshadowed, ToB makes it easier for the DM because it brings the various PCs more into parity with each other. It can be a nightmare balancing encounters for widely disparate tiers.

- NPCs can pull from ToB, either by taking the classes or (more often) through spending feats on Martial Study. Nearly any monster in the game, especially in the core books, could be made a bit more interesting by trading one or more of its default feats for Martial Study or Martial Stance. Having a couple low level maneuvers to throw around won't up the power curve too much, but it'll add variety and force players to adapt, which is always good.

- Players who have maneuvers to muck about with have more options, and hence more variety and interesting/cool choices, which usually leads to more fun. And players having fun is the DM's goal.

[Rubik]

It is a good book. It is a well made system. Yes it has some exploits, but if he is willing to cut out wizard exploits, then it shouldn't be a big deal to cut out the very few ToB exploits. And you can specifically promise not to use those kind of exploits. I know in my own game, I allow the book but do not allow idiot crusader, infinite damage loops, or unarmed swordsage.Nothing wrong with unarmed swordsage. You get better unarmed damage (that is still inferior to having actual weapons 90% of the time). Big deal.

[onemorelurker]

It is a good book. It is a well made system. Yes it has some exploits, but if he is willing to cut out wizard exploits, then it shouldn't be a big deal to cut out the very few ToB exploits. And you can specifically promise not to use those kind of exploits. I know in my own game, I allow the book but do not allow idiot crusader, infinite damage loops, or unarmed swordsage.


Nothing wrong with unarmed swordsage. You get better unarmed damage (that is still inferior to having actual weapons 90% of the time). Big deal.

I think Gotterdammerung probably meant arcane Swordsage, which has huge potential for abuse.

[Rubik]

I think Gotterdammerung probably meant arcane Swordsage, which has huge potential for abuse.Oh, THAT I can get behind.

It can be made to work, but A.) you have to know what you're doing, and B.) you have to not be an ass about it.

[Yahzi]

So how can I convince (not force) him that the Tome of Battle should atleast be given a shot?
Play a druid?

:smallbiggrin:

[HunterOfJello]

If he's a generally reasonable guy, ask to show him how the character plays on a trial basis. Play a Crusader or Warblade at level 4-6 (not below 4) and show him that they are far more about flexibility and additional combat options than doing Supermassive Ubercharger damage.

(Note: Don't try this at levels below 4. ToB is very powerful at the low levels. Not as much as a Totemist 2, but still significantly more powerful than a fighter of the same level. Also don't try to make a Crusader Supertank, use a Mineral Warrior Dwarf with Full Plate, a Tower Shield, and Stone Power. That might earn you some serious ire.)


It would also be good to showcase the Warblade or Crusader alongside a Wizard and some other players using Tier 1-3 classes. The ToB character's usefulness while not stepping on the toes of wizards and spellcasters will become obvious and the book will have a chance to slowly gain acceptance.

[LordBlades]

It is a good book. It is a well made system. Yes it has some exploits, but if he is willing to cut out wizard exploits, then it shouldn't be a big deal to cut out the very few ToB exploits. And you can specifically promise not to use those kind of exploits. I know in my own game, I allow the book but do not allow idiot crusader, infinite damage loops, or unarmed swordsage.
.

I get infinite damage loops, I somewhat get idiot crusader (some ppl consider going around the recharge mechanic as twisting the rules), but why unarmed swordsage?

[Reluctance]

Jello is right on. Ask to try a ToB character on a trial basis. If specific powers are OP, you'll either willingly limit them or lose them entirely. (I doubt your DM knew about spells like Solid Fog before he saw them wreck things in play.) If the character as a whole is unsalvageable, you'll swap it out for a core melee type that keeps the same general theme.

Then, since you'll be making your first initiator, all you'll have to do is avoid any obvious cheese and any powers that have too much supernatural/"anime" fluff. I have a feeling he'll be against anything that looks like mundane types doing anything that falls into magic levels of flashiness at first. Once he has a chance to see that the book is not going to ritually sacrifice his game to dark powers, he'll probably ease up and you can start expanding your power choices.

[Gotterdammerung]

I get infinite damage loops, I somewhat get idiot crusader (some ppl consider going around the recharge mechanic as twisting the rules), but why unarmed swordsage?

I don't like that it steals the best features from another base class without giving up anything consequential. Monks unarmed progression in exchange for the loss of light armor proficiency. Now we are left with a class that gets unarmed strikes, simple and martial weapon proficiency, wisdom to ac with light armor (yes it doesn't have proficiency with light armor but that can be regained numerous ways), and it has all the power of a normal swordsage as well.

So to recap, something for nothing is not balanced.
On top of that, it is just tacky to blatantly overshadow another base class. Yes I know some classes have a greater potential for power. But cherry picking all the good abilities off of monk is simply kicking a dog when it is down. And to pretend that losing light armor proficiency is an equal and fair trade... well that is just ludicrous.

Someone brought up Arcane Swordsage. I don't allow it either. And I generally pretend it never existed. It is a perfect example of a bad idea.

[Wings of Peace]

So to recap, something for nothing is not balanced.
On top of that, it is just tacky to blatantly overshadow another base class. Yes I know some classes have a greater potential for power. But cherry picking all the good abilities off of monk is simply kicking a dog when it is down. And to pretend that losing light armor proficiency is an equal and fair trade... well that is just ludicrous.


The counter argument to this would be that "all the good abilities off of monk" that the Unarmed Swordsage receives are still of miniscule importance in the grand scheme of the character's power.

Also, I think a car comparison would be more apt than kicking the dog. The authors are essentially acknowledging that the monk is totaled but at least some of its parts can be salvaged to soup up the Swordsage.

[LordBlades]

I don't like that it steals the best features from another base class without giving up anything consequential. Monks unarmed progression in exchange for the loss of light armor proficiency. Now we are left with a class that gets unarmed strikes, simple and martial weapon proficiency, wisdom to ac with light armor (yes it doesn't have proficiency with light armor but that can be regained numerous ways), and it has all the power of a normal swordsage as well.

And it's still around tier 3? Do you really think unarmed swordsage is significantly more powerful than a standard swordsage, or anything else in ToB for that matter?


So to recap, something for nothing is not balanced.
On top of that, it is just tacky to blatantly overshadow another base class. Yes I know some classes have a greater potential for power. But cherry picking all the good abilities off of monk is simply kicking a dog when it is down. And to pretend that losing light armor proficiency is an equal and fair trade... well that is just ludicrous.


The monk is already overshadowed by pretty much everything else due to how bad it is (hell, a fighter with Imp or Superior Unarmed Strike makes a better unarmed combatant than a monk). Also, I don't think the unarmed swordsage trades monk unarmed strike progression for light armor because it's 'a fair trade' but rather because it wants to be an unarmed and unarmored warrior.

[Tyndmyr]

So yes yes I know ToB is a highly contested book, and I was once highly against it, but after a good deal of time playing, I think the book has grown on me. However my DM is not gonna be happy with me suggesting it. He wants to take a look at it with me and try and prove its OP. No he isn't in the melee shouldn't have nice things camp by choice, he just thinks more traditionally, like wizards are more powerful because thats how the designers made it. As he says, he doesn't want to change the game by giving players too much power. He does ban a good number of wizard tricks, aka no genesis, astral projection wizards, no early entry tricks for theurges, banning of solid fog, etc. So how can I convince (not force) him that the Tome of Battle should atleast be given a shot?

(Sorry about the block of text)

Well, if "that's how the designers made it" is a legit reason for wizards, it's a legit reason for warblades.

But yeah, hand him the book first, let him read it. Informed discussion is always best.

[Heatwizard]

The strange thing is combat isn't easy, its actually very tough, we have a high PC mortality rate, generally our fighters having to work very hard to contribute if its not a high damage tank monster. Which even then sometimes just drops them in a round or two. Meanwhile the Cleric Tanks with buffs and such and its "how the game was made"

Your response to this is that Wizards published this book as part of the game, ergo it is also 'how the game was made'.

[Gotterdammerung]

This thread is about ToB. It is not about your opinion of monk.

You asked my reasons. I gave you my reasons. You don't have to agree with them but you do have to be respectful.

This thread does not need to get dragged into the "monk sucks" black hole discussion. It has been hashed and re-hashed... drop it.

[Big Fau]

The counter argument to this would be that "all the good abilities off of monk" that the Unarmed Swordsage receives are still of miniscule importance in the grand scheme of the character's power.

Also, I think a car comparison would be more apt than kicking the dog. The authors are essentially acknowledging that the monk is totaled but at least some of its parts can be salvaged to soup up the Swordsage.

Really? Because I think the counterargument would involve classes that have Full BAB stealing the spotlight from the Fighter...


So to recap, something for nothing is not balanced.

Quick point of order: Wielding a weapon actually outdoes Unarmed Combat at all levels, assuming an equal amount of optimization. At the lower end, an Unarmed Strike starts 1d6 where as the most useful Simple weapons deal 1d8 (or the Light ones deal 1d4, which isn't that far below 1d6). Unarmed Swordsages end up with 2d10+Str, compared to the expected 2d6+5+Enhancements (again, assuming bare bones optimization).

Once you hit the higher end of optimization, you get damage values that make it so the base weapon doesn't matter. DMan's Monks (the guy who wrote the real handbook on them) are capable of 26d8/attack, and the average Charger can dish out hundreds of points of damage. But it's possible to achieve this kind of power without using base classes at all.

You can actually build an Unarmed ANYTHING that would be better than a Monk without even taking a single level of Monk (no ACFs at all, all feats, PrCs, and Magic Items). The UAS just gives you the option of using Unarmed Strikes instead of armor.

[CTrees]

This thread is about ToB. It is not about your opinion of monk.

You asked my reasons. I gave you my reasons. You don't have to agree with them but you do have to be respectful.

So... You get to make your point, and no one gets to rebut it?

Also, classes being overshadowed by other classes which are "the same, but better" is nothing new, or unique to monk/unarmed swordsage. Core is not sacred. Monks are generally bad, and UASSes are better, yes. However, that would only matter if the UASS was overpowered, which it is not.

[Big Fau]

Monks are generally bad, and UASSes are better, yes.

Hell, it isn't even that much better than the Monk at Unarmed combat. The Monk can overcome some forms of DR with every attack, and can make multiple attacks/round. The Swordsage can only overcome DR when using specific strikes, and can't make multiple attacks when doing so (barring Tiger Claw maneuvers, but those require the DM to allow TWFing with Unarmed Strikes).

So the Swordsage can mimic some abilities of the Monk, but cannot do so all at once. The Swordsage's Unarmed Strike is going to be weaker than the Monk's, provided you do not consider Strikes in the process.

Edit: And the reason people are defending the UAS so readily is because you listed it beside the Idiot Crusader and the d2 Crusader, which gives the implication that you consider the UAS to be broken. Don't back down from misunderstandings you brought about yourself.

[Gotterdammerung]

So... You get to make your point, and no one gets to rebut it?


Don't back down from misunderstandings you brought about yourself.

You have all expressed your point. I have expressed my point. We disagree. It is not pertinent to the topic of the thread. I do not wish to spend pages upon pages in a petty forum squabble about what I do and don't allow in my game sessions and why.

If you want to move to my city and audition for a spot at my table then I can see the point of having this conversation.

[LordBlades]

You have all expressed your point. I have expressed my point. We disagree. It is not pertinent to the topic of the thread. I do not wish to spend pages upon pages in a petty forum squabble about what I do and don't allow in my game sessions and why.

If you want to move to my city and audition for a spot at my table then I can see the point of having this conversation.

It is somewhat pertinent to the topic of the thread due to a couple of your posts inferring (whether intentionally or not) that unarmed swordsage is broken.

[CTrees]

It is somewhat pertinent to the topic of the thread due to a couple of your posts inferring (whether intentionally or not) that unarmed swordsage is broken.

And further, that the thread itself is about convincing a DM that ToB (and thus, its contents, included UASS) are not broken, and should be allowed.

[Big Fau]

And further, that the thread itself is about convincing a DM that ToB (and thus, its contents, included UASS) are not broken, and should be allowed.

Exactly. The Idiot Crusader and d2 Crusader are exploits, and only one of them requires Bo9S-only (and that one is fixable, as the Unofficial Errata has shown).

[erikun]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the DM's objections with Tome of Battle was that he hasn't read Tome of Battle. In that case, rather than trying trying to show him specific builds and comparing them to optimized melee or spellcaster builds for comparison, why not just... let him borrow the book?

[Edit]
Perhaps stick a slip of paper in the problems sections, with notes like "Arcane Swordsage is broken, avoid" or "White Raven Tactics doesn't make sense applied to yourself, make it other allies only." It seems your DM is fine with patching up the rules himself.

[Telonius]

I do think that the Warblade is the thing that gives most DMs pause. Having all of his maneuvers rechargeable pretty much at-will in any combat really puts some DMs off. If that's his sticking point, offer to use Swordsage's recovery mechanic.

Make sure he understands the cap on maneuvers known. The table for it is on page 39, probably the worst bit of formatting since the Duskblade spell list. It's really easy to miss, and because of that he might be mistakenly thinking you can get 4th-level maneuvers at character level 4. (EDIT: I see that was mentioned in the previous page).

[Aquillion]

In my experience, and from what I can see of your DM's opinions, versatility is far less troublesome than raw power. Raw power (especially 1 trick ponies) must be planned for specifically, but a versatile character with no game breakers can take on many things adequately without special treatment.Sort of. But this is partially a problem with the binary nature of raw power -- it's not that the overcharger is impossible for a DM to thwart, it's that it's hard to give them an interesting challenge. You can easily make the ubercharger useless, or you can throw enemies at him that he can easily defeat, but because his power is a binary "I win / I can't do anything at all", there's no middle ground.

Not sure that his DM will buy that argument.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Well, an interesting challenge for a charger involves multiple spread out enemies with a little bit of difficult terrain here and there for him to avoid. He one shots enemies without one-shotting the encounter, and he has to plan/maneuver/use skill tricks/whatever to get his charge to work. But this is secondary. My point was that for an ubercharger, you really have to plan and make an encounter just right for him to be adequately challenged while still contributing. Warblades, on the other hand, generally contribute a significant but not ridiculous amount with no special planning on the DM's part. Less work is a good argument for me.

[Incanur]

A whirlpounce (Whirling Frenzy from UA, and Spiritual Lion Totem from Complete Champion) Barbarian with Power Attack, Shock Trooper, and Leap Attack will do more damage than your initiator at basically any level; the difference is your initiator is more versatile.

A one-level dip into barbarian and single feat - Extra Rage - will make a warblade into a deadly charger without sacrificing too much initiator goodness. This also has the advantage of providing proficiency with martial ranged weapons.

[Dusk Eclipse]

A one-level dip into barbarian and single feat - Extra Rage - will make a warblade into a deadly charger without sacrificing too much initiator goodness. This also has the advantage of providing proficiency with martial ranged weapons.

If you are going that way, you might as well do a two level dip to get Improved Trip without pre-requisites. You are already loosing .5 IL so loosing the other .5 for pounce whirling frenzy, ranged martial weapons, while keeping the same HD, BAB, saves (I think) and skill points seems like a good trade to me.

[Incanur]

If you are going that way, you might as well do a two level dip to get Improved Trip without pre-requisites. You are already loosing .5 IL so loosing the other .5 for pounce whirling frenzy, ranged martial weapons, while keeping the same HD, BAB, saves (I think) and skill points seems like a good trade to me.

I tend to agree if you can swing having two totems; the fluff suggests incompatibility. Perhaps one is spiritual and the other tribal? If available, this combo rocks the dungeon down to the foundations of the earth. You trip and charge like a champ at level 2. However, note that taking the second barbarian level does slow down access to warblade abilities.

[Lucianus]

It's not about power; it's about fun.

Not many gamers can tell the difference.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I tend to agree if you can swing having two totems; the fluff suggests incompatibility. Perhaps one is spiritual and the other tribal? If available, this combo rocks the dungeon down to the foundations of the earth. You trip and charge like a champ at level 2. However, note that taking the second barbarian level does slow down access to warblade abilities.

Well, considering a barbarian without a non-spirit totem has the jaguar totem by default...

[tyckspoon]

You trip and charge like a champ at level 2. However, note that taking the second barbarian level does slow down access to warblade abilities.

Not dramatically, tho; Warblade 19/Barb 1 and Warblade 18/Barb 2 have the same initiator level, number of stances, and maneuvers readied. The extra Warblade level gets you another maneuver known, which is not likely to be a huge deal.. and it fixes WotC's screwup on the stance progression (Warblades, for example, learn a 2nd stance at level 4, when they can select from 1st and 2nd level maneuvers. There are no level 2 stances. Putting a 2-level dip in something else early in your level progression offsets your IL by 1, putting it back on track so you can select higher-level stances when they first become an option.)

[Incanur]

Well, considering a barbarian without a non-spirit totem has the jaguar totem by default...

That's a good point. :smallcool: In that case, Barbarian 2/Warblade X strikes me as one of the best martial builds out there. It delivers wins starting immediately at level one. Just watch out for Will saves. :smallwink:

[Dusk Eclipse]

I tend to agree if you can swing having two totems; the fluff suggests incompatibility. Perhaps one is spiritual and the other tribal? If available, this combo rocks the dungeon down to the foundations of the earth. You trip and charge like a champ at level 2. However, note that taking the second barbarian level does slow down access to warblade abilities.

I don't know by fluff as I don't have access to Complete Champion at the moment; but I do know there isn't a trouble by RAW as spirit Lion replaces fast movement and Wolf replaces Uncanny Dodge, so there isn't overlap.

Edit: That is why you have moment of the perfect mind :smalltongue: or that other Iron heart maneuver.

[Circle of Life]

Edit: That is why you have moment of the perfect mind :smalltongue:

Can't use Concentration while raging. Kinda puts a crimp in your style if you have to choose between "Hulk smash!" and "Hulk not get mindwiped!".

[Dusk Eclipse]

Can't use Concentration while raging. Kinda puts a crimp in your style if you have to choose between "Hulk smash!" and "Hulk not get mindwiped!".

A warblade doesn't need to rage every fight as opposed to a Barbarian (just my opinion) and you can use one of your bonus feats on endurance to segue into Steadfast determination and once you get Iron Heart focus you can re-roll that save.

[Incanur]

Can't use Concentration while raging. Kinda puts a crimp in your style if you have to choose between "Hulk smash!" and "Hulk not get mindwiped!".

That dynamic actually appeals to me. If you fly into a frenzy, you risk losing your mind entirely. That makes the decision whether or not to frenzy a weighty one. :smallamused:

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

This is the reason why going Barbarian/Warblade isn't an end-all combo. You either ignore the rage and nab Barbarian for Pounce and Improved Trip, which admittedly is nice, or you burn a bunch of feats (Extra Rage, Endurance, Steadfast Determination) getting the two to work together. Perhaps it's obvious that Moment of Perfect Mind is one of my favorite maneuvers.

[Hiro Protagonest]

This is the reason why going Barbarian/Warblade isn't an end-all combo. You either ignore the rage and nab Barbarian for Pounce and Improved Trip, which admittedly is nice, or you burn a bunch of feats (Extra Rage, Endurance, Steadfast Determination) getting the two to work together. Perhaps it's obvious that Moment of Perfect Mind is one of my favorite maneuvers.

You're not taking Steadfast Determination anyway? Endurance is on the warblade bonus feat list.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You're not taking Steadfast Determination anyway? Endurance is on the warblade bonus feat list.Maybe a barbarian takes it, but is a Warblade going to spend his feat on something he can basically do better with a level 1 maneuver? I suppose if you're worried about will save spamming...

[LordBlades]

Can't use Concentration while raging. Kinda puts a crimp in your style if you have to choose between "Hulk smash!" and "Hulk not get mindwiped!".

Wasn't there some item in a Dragon Magazine (Torc of Lucid Raging or something like that) that allowed you to bypass rage skill and spell use restrictions?

[Lonely Tylenol]

No he isn't in the melee shouldn't have nice things camp by choice, he just thinks more traditionally, like wizards are more powerful because thats how the designers made it.

The designers made ToB.


As he says, he doesn't want to change the game by giving players too much power.

He needn't worry. It sounds like he has already accepted wizards and other full casters into his campaign, so unless he banned the entire Polymorph line, plus every one of Mordenkainen's spells, plus gishing as a concept, plus Divine Metamagic (for Clerics) or Wild Shape (for Druids), your party's still going to quarter off the big guy with the stick into obsolescence if the full casters try.


He does ban a good number of wizard tricks, aka no genesis, astral projection wizards, no early entry tricks for theurges, banning of solid fog, etc.

OK, I'll bite. Solid Fog?


So how can I convince (not force) him that the Tome of Battle should atleast be given a shot?


No he isn't in the melee shouldn't have nice things camp by choice, he just thinks more traditionally, like wizards are more powerful because thats how the designers made it.

The designers made ToB.

[Big Fau]

OK, I'll bite. Solid Fog?

Solid Fog is one of the top-rated Battlefield Control spells out there. A single casting can buy several rounds worth of buffing actions, or provide setup for a spell combo that is crippled by the enemy moving out of an area (Maw of Chaos+Solid Fog is a really dirty trick).

It's basically a no-save super Grease+Windwall+Displacement. The only way out is to either waste time or get off of the Material Plane (teleportation or going Ethereal), and those inside can't fight very efficiently (or you can drop it on your own party and provide a soft-shield for everyone while you buff the party).

[Sgt. Cookie]

Tell him to treat it like magic, with the Somatic Component: Hit The Enemy.

[Manateee]

I know this thread's meandered a bit from the OP, but I've found it's usually easiest to convince someone else to run a game in a different system or with different splats by running one yourself. If you run a one-shot dungeon dive where ToB classes are encouraged, and you make it fun, you'll have made a pretty strong argument in favor of their use. (But don't treat it like that - treat it like a chance to use a rules system you enjoy. Because that's basically what it is.)

And if you want to counter some statement about them being overpowered, be sure to tune the monsters to the point where they're still challenging - if the group gets to flatten CR-appropriate monsters, the case won't be a strong one.

[Godskook]

That's a good point. :smallcool: In that case, Barbarian 2/Warblade X strikes me as one of the best martial builds out there. It delivers wins starting immediately at level one. Just watch out for Will saves. :smallwink:

Do note that Warblade 20 is quite strong, and probably the best base class to take a full 20 levels in, due to the capstone, which is just awesomesauce.

[Incanur]

Do note that Warblade 20 is quite strong, and probably the best base class to take a full 20 levels in, due to the capstone, which is just awesomesauce.

Meh. While true, this rarely relates to the games people actually play. Few campaigns get so high. And if you're starting level 1, worrying about level 20 makes little sense unless you're extremely patient.

[Helldog]

Meh. While true, this rarely relates to the games people actually play. Few campaigns get so high. And if you're starting level 1, worrying about level 20 makes little sense unless you're extremely patient.
I've seen quite a number of epic games on RPG/D&D forums alone (here, Minmaxboards, Myth-Weavers, etc.). Who knows about how many we don't even know about, especially since I see also a couple threads about epic play here and there.

[Aquillion]

Solid Fog is one of the top-rated Battlefield Control spells out there. A single casting can buy several rounds worth of buffing actions, or provide setup for a spell combo that is crippled by the enemy moving out of an area (Maw of Chaos+Solid Fog is a really dirty trick).

It's basically a no-save super Grease+Windwall+Displacement. The only way out is to either waste time or get off of the Material Plane (teleportation or going Ethereal), and those inside can't fight very efficiently (or you can drop it on your own party and provide a soft-shield for everyone while you buff the party).Yeah. Solid Fog is actually incredibly powerful, because:

1. It works on almost everything (it both nearly immobilizes and blocks LoS, and nearly every enemy will be screwed over by losing one of those),

2. It has very few counters, which most enemies won't have, and,

3. In addition to just buying you time and letting you divide-and-conquer the enemies on its own, it acts as a force-multiplier for a huge range of other strategies by trapping the enemy in one place while you enact a second plan.

[Aquillion]

I tend to agree if you can swing having two totems; the fluff suggests incompatibility. Perhaps one is spiritual and the other tribal? If available, this combo rocks the dungeon down to the foundations of the earth. You trip and charge like a champ at level 2. However, note that taking the second barbarian level does slow down access to warblade abilities.You probably can't take two totems. Quoth the SRD:


Multiclassing between variants of the same class is a tricky subject. In cases where a single class offers a variety of paths (such as the totem barbarian or the monk fighting styles), the easiest solution is simply to bar multiclassing between different versions of the same class (just as a character can't multiclass between different versions of specialist wizards). For variants that are wholly separate from the character class—such as the bardic sage or the urban ranger—multiclassing, even into multiple variants of the same class, is probably okay. Identical class features should stack if gained from multiple versions of the same class (except for spellcasting, which is always separate). Also, that last part seems really exploitable to me -- there's a lot of front-loaded classes out there.

[skycycle blues]

You probably can't take two totems. Quoth the SRD:

The SRD is actually referring to a different thing because they are different sorts of Totems from different books. It's discouraging against multiclassing with the totem Barbarians from UA and doesn't have anything to say about the Spirit Totem Barbarians from Complete Champion.

By RAW it can be done because they trade away different things.

I swung a Spirit Lion-Wolf Totem Barbarian in the game I'm currently playing by having a character who is very into animals, to the point of worshiping them. The fluff is pretty easy. The guy is pretty grisly (next to a Monk and Fighter).

[LansXero]

Id say he is a fleshraker-totem barbarian (pounce, trip and cheese).

[Libertad]

I've used the Tome of Battle to a limited extent in games, and I'm fine with it because:

They still aren't as powerful and versatile as spellcasters, but more fun than standard melee noncaster classes.

and

The ToB classes don't have much in the ways of ranged attacks, utility non-combat options, save or dies, and area effect abilities.

The OP said that his DM thinks that spellcasters should be more powerful. Well, the big three (Cleric, Druid, and Wizard) are still more powerful than the Tome of Battle classes. Crusaders and the like are still limited by what they can get in special maneuvers, while prepared casters can switch out spells with with enough time. With splatbooks, the amount of spells prepared casters can know dramatically increases.

[Tvtyrant]

Do note that Warblade 20 is quite strong, and probably the best base class to take a full 20 levels in, due to the capstone, which is just awesomesauce.

I would argue Dread Necromancer for Lichdom, but both are quite impressive.

[Aquillion]

The SRD is actually referring to a different thing because they are different sorts of Totems from different books. It's discouraging against multiclassing with the totem Barbarians from UA and doesn't have anything to say about the Spirit Totem Barbarians from Complete Champion.Come on. It's described as a general rule for all variant classes, and it says:

"In cases where a single class offers a variety of paths (such as the totem barbarian or the monk fighting styles)..."

Obviously spirit totems are a case where a single class offers a variety of paths, but more importantly, how much more "such as" totem Barbarian do you get than that? They're literally just totems with "spirit" written in front of them!

[Helldog]

Spirit Totem isn't a variant class. It's an ACF.

[skycycle blues]

Come on. It's described as a general rule for all variant classes, and it says:

"In cases where a single class offers a variety of paths (such as the totem barbarian or the monk fighting styles)..."

Obviously spirit totems are a case where a single class offers a variety of paths, but more importantly, how much more "such as" totem Barbarian do you get than that? They're literally just totems with "spirit" written in front of them!

I should have been more clear.


Spirit Totem isn't a variant class. It's an ACF.

Wolf Totem Barbarian with Spirit Lion Totem ACF only wouldn't work if the DM says no. By RAW it works and it isn't multiclassing. You can have both as a level 1 character.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Solid Fog is one of the top-rated Battlefield Control spells out there. A single casting can buy several rounds worth of buffing actions, or provide setup for a spell combo that is crippled by the enemy moving out of an area (Maw of Chaos+Solid Fog is a really dirty trick).

It's basically a no-save super Grease+Windwall+Displacement. The only way out is to either waste time or get off of the Material Plane (teleportation or going Ethereal), and those inside can't fight very efficiently (or you can drop it on your own party and provide a soft-shield for everyone while you buff the party).

I'm aware of all this, but placing it side-by-side with early entry Theurge shenanigans and astral projection/genesis cheese?

Basically, what I want to know is, aside from just being really solid (heh) battlefield control and its positive interactions with certain spells (like Vortex of Teeth) in a strong but not ultimately game-breaking way, is there something about Solid Fog that I'm missing that just reeks of fetid, stinky cheese?

Or is this DM more restrictive than we're being led to believe? I mean, the "DM is lenient on Wizards" and "Solid Fog is banned" messages are clashing here. If other things, like Time Stop, Imprisonment, Disintegrate, and things at (or above) it in power level are also banned, I guess I can understand it, but Solid Fog on its own doesn't strike me as even being like in kind to early entry cheese and Genesis demi-plane trait abuse (which is RAW/RAI disputable and generally regarded as abuse).

[Dusk Eclipse]

I should have been more clear.



Wolf Totem Barbarian with Spirit Lion Totem ACF only wouldn't work if the DM says no. By RAW it works and it isn't multiclassing. You can have both as a level 1 character.

level 2, wolf totem kicks in at level 2

[LordBlades]

Basically, what I want to know is, aside from just being really solid (heh) battlefield control and its positive interactions with certain spells (like Vortex of Teeth) in a strong but not ultimately game-breaking way, is there something about Solid Fog that I'm missing that just reeks of fetid, stinky cheese?
Not that I know of. It's a very good battlefield control and that's about it.




Or is this DM more restrictive than we're being led to believe? I mean, the "DM is lenient on Wizards" and "Solid Fog is banned" messages are clashing here. If other things, like Time Stop, Imprisonment, Disintegrate, and things at (or above) it in power level are also banned, I guess I can understand it, but Solid Fog on its own doesn't strike me as even being like in kind to early entry cheese and Genesis demi-plane trait abuse (which is RAW/RAI disputable and generally regarded as abuse).

Disintegrate is rather bad tbh, and nowhere in the same league with Imprisonment or Timestop. Both in an absolute sense (it requires bot a touch attack and a fort save to deal 2d6/CL damage) and compared with Flesh to Stone for example (still core, same level, same range, except no touch attack, and if you fail fort you're as good as dead).

[Helldog]

level 2, wolf totem kicks in at level 2
But you have to choose it at 1st level.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#barbarianVariantTotemB arbarian

In a barbarian-heavy campaign, you can increase the variation between barbarian characters if each barbarian tribe dedicates itself to a different totem creature, such as the bear or the jaguar. The choice of a totem must be taken at 1st level, and cannot be changed later except under extreme circumstances (such as the barbarian being adopted by another tribe).

[Killer Angel]

As a DM, why is the Tome of Battle considered bad? or good?

The reason it's good: meleers are funny and don't stay behind the power of casters, if the players know what they're doing.

The reason it's "bad": if the players don't know what they're doing, ToB is overpowered: the chassis of the characters is strong by itself and it's very difficult to screw a ToB PC. Put such a character in a group with mr. cleric healer and mr. blaster unoptimized wizard, with a DM with the same mentality, and you'll have a overpowered melee character.
ToB screams "OMG it's broken" to "casual" players. And, in many campaigns, can effectively be overpowered.

IMO.

[Alienist]

The Crusader's Heal-strike tends to get DMs annoyed. Also, you'll probably need to show him that the Shadow Jump line are, in fact, Supernatural.

(edit) Huh, this was longer than I thought it would be
TL:DR; keep it simple, don't dump all the toys out of the box everywhere making a huge mess, and make sure the other players have some new toys to play with too.

There was a post a while back by a chap who took a low level (1-2?) crusader and cleared out a dungeon full of goblinoids I think it was. The bit where they pop open the door and 20 hobgoblin (?) archers open up on them... I thought for sure they were going to TPK. But no.

Here's the thing, even with an almost blow-by-blow description of the combat, I found it impossible to follow what was going on. I'd have needed to sit down with the book in front of me and step through the combos one action at a time, possibly with cards and so forth.

Anyway, I'm not trying to get into an argument about whether I'm an idiot or not, my point is that up front it can be a bit overwhelming and that perhaps the best way to introduce the ToB is in very small doses. Really really small. Like, tiny.

For starters: no ToB base classes, no prestige classes. Okay, suddenly a huge learning hurdle has been overcome. How then shall we proceed? With small victories.

Take the Rogue player aside. Show him/her Sapphire Nightmare Blade.

When they ask you how it works, just say:

You: "Once per encounter, you can roll a concentration check against their AC, if you pass then they are flat footed against your rapier"
Them: "Flat footed you say... hmmm...."
You: "'Yes"

Then they look at you sadly and say

Them: "I've got lots of skill points, but concentration is not one of my class skills" :-(
You: "if you take this feat my young Padawan... it will be..."
Them: "Nice"
You: "Oh yes, and you'll also do an additional d6 damage"

So you win over the other players one at a time.

But you may say "I wanted to play a Warblade!". Well, I suggest playing a fighter this time round, taking copious quantities of Martial Study/Stance and then bringing the Warblade in next campaign.

If you start by keeping it simple, it will be a much smoother introduction. Also, if you find stuff the other players will like, then they won't feel left out.

Secondly, keep it on "the down low". By this I mean don't use the book to do silly things. Like what? Like Mountain Hammering a door open with a wet noodle. Even using a bladed weapon with Mountain Hammer may cause raised eyebrows.

Now, you may say "does it really matter in a world where knock is a second level spell?" and from a balance point of view you'd be 100% correct. But from a "don't violate people's expectations, or ideas about how the world works" point of view, perhaps this is not the best.

Even using Mountain Hammer with your head or your fists to escape from jail by breaking through a wall/your bonds might be annoying to the DM (as in, de-rail the plot). You might want to put "no jail can hold him" in your character's background and highlight it to the DM. Or when you introduce the character (if not starting at level 1) that he's all cagey because he's on the run from the authorities...

It is better, I feel, if you want Mountain Hammer in the game, to point it out to someone like the Monk. (Much like the Rogue example above) Then when the Monk leads the jailbreak, he can have his Elan-esque moment of "yay! I'm contributing!".

And when the Monk uses his fists to punch through doors/walls, it becomes a 'wow, the ToB makes things cool' moment, rather than when your Warblade breaks down the door with a cauliflower and everyone else's reaction at the table is going to be 'ToB sucks, it makes everything silly, ban it please'.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Not that I know of. It's a very good battlefield control and that's about it.

Gotcha. Thanks.


Disintegrate is rather bad tbh, and nowhere in the same league with Imprisonment or Timestop. Both in an absolute sense (it requires bot a touch attack and a fort save to deal 2d6/CL damage) and compared with Flesh to Stone for example (still core, same level, same range, except no touch attack, and if you fail fort you're as good as dead).

I know. I didn't put Disintegrate up there because it's broken, but because I had a DM who explicitly banned it because it allowed players to get off the rails quite easily: he was one of those "cut-scene/elaborate-monologue-into-boss-battle" types, and he'd always complain whenever Disintegrate was brought up at the table about a past game he ran where one of the party members declared that he was casting Disintegrate in the middle of his monologue, Vaarsuvius-style*, ruining the flow of the story he was trying to tell (I guess the bad guy was supposed to be a recurring foe or something?).

Since he's kinda my poster child for a restrictive and/or railroad-y DM (at least from experience), I'm including it for the story-wrecking potential that he always complained about, under the premise that other fairly restrictive DMs may have the same complaints.

*My input, not his. I wouldn't be surprised if nobody else at the table knew what Order of the Stick was.

[FMArthur]

If you can't convince a group that there is a problem that needs ToB to fix it, then you can't convince them that ToB is not overpowered. Martial adepts do more things, handle far more situations, and don't take special work to get good damage out of them. It is just flat out better than other mundane melee and was designed to close the gap between melee and the more powerful classes.

ToB is a system-fix book. When a group refuses to even acknowledge that there is an existing problem that it would be used to fix, it's really difficult to persuade them. In this case the DM even holds the opinion that melee is weak and should be, so this is basically impossible from the get-go. If he already understands that melee is getting hosed and is completely fine with it, there's no point to just educating him on the book. You need to convince him that the game needs to be fair, not that ToB wouldn't change it, because ToB is absolutely a game-changer.

[Alienist]

...It is just flat out better than other mundane melee and was designed to close the gap between melee and the more powerful classes.

ToB is a system-fix book.


I don't see it as a system fix book. I think that if it were a system fix book it would have problems. One of which is that the whole primary source debacle makes it hard to patch anything that comes before. The second thing is that I see a lot of problems with the combat system, and it doesn't do anything to address those issues.

But let's stretch the definition of system a bit, and say that the 'system' it is supposed to fix is the gap between magic and melee. If that is the case, let's look at the two parts of the problem. Of the two, I think that magic is by far the more problematic. You fix the magic/melee balance 'system' by fixing magic. After all, if I am riding a bicycle and the front wheel is broken, I fix the bike by replacing the front wheel, not the rear one!

[FMArthur]

I don't see it as a system fix book. I think that if it were a system fix book it would have problems. One of which is that the whole primary source debacle makes it hard to patch anything that comes before.
Is this supposed to be a point against the convenient alternative they took instead of an actual rewrite? It not holding up rules-wise is a reason not to make a fix that alters existing content like you say a fix must be.


The second thing is that I see a lot of problems with the combat system, and it doesn't do anything to address those issues.It's a book designed to solve some specific problems in the system. Like any and every 3.5 fix ever. That it didn't fix everything is not a point against the fixes taking place at all. :smallconfused:


But let's stretch the definition of system a bit, and say that the 'system' it is supposed to fix is the gap between magic and melee.The game itself is a system. There are problems with it, and one of them is that it is not set up to provide melee characters with a diverse or powerful enough set of options for heroic fantasy. Something designed to alleviate this problem is a fix being applied to the system. Are you following me here?


If that is the case, let's look at the two parts of the problem. Of the two, I think that magic is by far the more problematic. You fix the magic/melee balance 'system' by fixing magic. After all, if I am riding a bicycle and the front wheel is broken, I fix the bike by replacing the front wheel, not the rear one!
Are you making the claim that melee had no problems requiring fixing? Or that since you believe fixing those problems is not worthwhile, that no fixing took place?

What you're suggesting they do, instead of giving new and powerful options to melee to bring them up to par, is to completely upheave a much more complicated, much larger aspect of the game that must deny access to the unfixed content to work at all. Can you seriously think of no reasons why they would choose not to do that?

[Alienist]

Not at all.

I'm saying that the combat mini-game has multiple issues not related to balance, none of which were addressed by ToB. Which is a shame because it is a missed opportunity.

Secondly I was saying that if we accept your premise that the thing that needs fixing the most is magic/melee balance, then they fixed the wrong bit.

You make the argument that fixing magic would be too hard. Even if that were true, I think they went about it the wrong way.

New analogy. Let's say that magic and melee are your legs, and one of them is bleeding profusely (melee). You go into the emergency ward at the hospital and they say "there there" and then they give you an aspirin, a single crutch, and show you a picture of what a healthy leg looks like. Are you happy with their fix? It doesn't matter how sexy and hi-tech the crutch is, your leg is still bleeding.

[FMArthur]

I never said it was the thing that needed fixing the most. My point doesn't hinge on that and never did. You were saying that because the fix didn't target the right things or wasn't a big enough upheaval, it wasn't a fix.

Well, it was a fix. It set out to give melee more interesting and diverse options. It did that. It set out to reduce the power gap between casters and noncasters. It succeeded at that too. No, it didn't completely solve the problem or all problems. That doesn't nullify the progress it made.

Fixing magic would be arduous and nullifies far too much of the content already made. I am not saying that it would be impossible or not worth it. I am only saying that Wizards of the Coast chose not to pursue it and those are possible reasons.

[Waspinator]

People tend to get more upset when things they like get nerfed than when things they don't like are buffed.

[Greenish]

Here's the thing, even with an almost blow-by-blow description of the combat, I found it impossible to follow what was going on. I'd have needed to sit down with the book in front of me and step through the combos one action at a time, possibly with cards and so forth.And you never have to look up one of Core's 605 spells? :smallamused:

[Edit]: Also, it sounds like an interesting thread, please link.

[Manateee]

Actually, that's kind of a point. Clustering ToB maneuvers by school was a terrible idea.

[FMArthur]

There are a fair bit that are basically just upscaled versions of lower-level maneuvers. Tiger Claw has like five maneuvers for jumping over someone and stabbing them in the face from above.

[Alienist]

There are a fair bit that are basically just upscaled versions of lower-level maneuvers. Tiger Claw has like five maneuvers for jumping over someone and stabbing them in the face from above.

It has the beneficial side-effect of keeping the good stuff out of the hands of those filthy fighters and bloody barbarians.

[Aquillion]

People tend to get more upset when things they like get nerfed than when things they don't like are buffed.I don't think it's even that. The nerfed magic-using classes failed because many experienced players people come to D&D expecting to play those specific classes -- this was part of the outcry over 4e, too.

Fewer people care specifically about the mechanics of their fighters (because let's be honest, core fighter mechanics suck -- not just in terms of balance; they just don't add much to your character thematically. Playing wizard heavily influences what your character's capabilities are like, while a fighter is comparatively generic.)

Or, more simply: You can play a ToB class as a fighter. You can't generally play one of the Tome of Magic classes as a wizard.