Why dont people like Tome of Battle???

[sonofzeal]

That's also a reason I've encountered for people not liking TOB. Some feel that encounter based mechanics are less fun because they lack the resource management element (no reason not to go all out at every opportunity).
Do these same people feel the same way about Fighters and Rogues, who also lack the resource management element?

[MeeposFire]

That's also a reason I've encountered for people not liking TOB. Some feel that encounter based mechanics are less fun because they lack the resource management element (no reason not to go all out at every opportunity).

There is still resource management but it is shifted towards action and timing costs rather than times per day. However this may have contributed to the relative lack of regaining encounter powers in 4e (you can recharge powers but it takes effort rather than being automatic). In that situation while each encounter will give access to the powers in question their use IN the encounter are very much a question of resource management.

[LordBlades]

Do these same people feel the same way about Fighters and Rogues, who also lack the resource management element?

Pretty much. The guy I was talking about is just a fan of vancian casting(most of the things he plays have it in a form or the other). He enjoys the 'do I use my big nuke now or do I save it for later?' kind of decisions. He's a good player, but just considers casting>>>all in terms of fun.

[sonofzeal]

Pretty much. The guy I was talking about is just a fan of vancian casting(most of the things he plays have it in a form or the other). He enjoys the 'do I use my big nuke now or do I save it for later?' kind of decisions. He's a good player, but just considers casting>>>all in terms of fun.
Ah, so it's just personal preference rather than anything philosophical. Point him towards Psionics - it's non-Vancian, but has an (IMO) even richer resource management situation. The same pool of points is fuelling everything you do, and there's a much more fluid transition between "I'm golden" and "OOM". It's also generally a more balanced system, although not without its own exploits.

And... hmm. A ToB martial adept with... say, three times as many maneuvers readied, but that treats them as /day? Might be fun!

[LordBlades]

Ah, so it's just personal preference rather than anything philosophical. Point him towards Psionics - it's non-Vancian, but has an (IMO) even richer resource management situation. The same pool of points is fuelling everything you do, and there's a much more fluid transition between "I'm golden" and "OOM". It's also generally a more balanced system, although not without its own exploits.

And... hmm. A ToB martial adept with... say, three times as many maneuvers readied, but that treats them as /day? Might be fun!


I thought that 'liking' and 'fun' heavily implied personal preference already:smalltongue:

The guy knows psionics quite well(and he does play StP erudites from time to time), but I've never had a serious talk with him regarding how he feels about vancian vs. psionics resource management.

I personally feel that non-vancian systems (psionics, per encounter stuff like TOB or skill tricks, choose them 1/day but keep them on indefinitely like Incarnum on binding) offer an interesting alternative to 'classical' casting without one being inherently 'better' or 'worse'.

[candycorn]

Ah, so it's just personal preference rather than anything philosophical. Point him towards Psionics - it's non-Vancian, but has an (IMO) even richer resource management situation. The same pool of points is fuelling everything you do, and there's a much more fluid transition between "I'm golden" and "OOM". It's also generally a more balanced system, although not without its own exploits.

And... hmm. A ToB martial adept with... say, three times as many maneuvers readied, but that treats them as /day? Might be fun!

...only if you tripled the power of the maneuvers as well.

Spells, the go to resource that works on a x/day basis, has effects a lot more powerful than these maneuvers.

Compare Shadow Hand invisibility, vs the Invisibility spell. Compare Tiger claw 2nd and 3rd level jump maneuvers to the 1st level spell Jump.

Maneuvers are inherently much weaker and more limited in utility than other x/day abilities. Because of that, if you want such a character to retain parity, they need to sustain their lower power abilities for longer.

Nobody had the idea that warlocks were broken, although they had at will abilities, delivered via touch attack.

The main issue is, what's better, a pound of lead, or an ounce of gold? Spells are the ounce of gold. There may be much less, but even so, it's worth much more.

IMO, the game would be better if spell power was weakened, and the x/day of them was outright removed, and replaced with x/encounter abilities. Bring things into parity.

[Thurbane]

That's also a reason I've encountered for people not liking TOB. Some feel that encounter based mechanics are less fun because they lack the resource management element (no reason not to go all out at every opportunity).
Actually, that's a good point. I know people who don't like "all day long" classes for similar reasons.

Warlock was one I had seen several threads about in particular - some people, used to Vancian gaming, considered Warlocks "broken" for being able to pull off blasting (and invocations) all day long, despite the fact their blasting and utility was pretty far behind that of most full casters.

Some of the old-school gamers in my group were sceptical of me being a Dragon Shaman, since I could use a breath weapon every 1d4 rounds.

IMO, the game would be better if spell power was weakened, and the x/day of them was outright removed, and replaced with x/encounter abilities. Bring things into parity.
...sounds a lot like the approach 4E took.

[Boci]

Actually, that's a good point. I know people who don't like "all day long" classes for similar reasons.

One answer for them could be to give them melee classes that have the option of taking a penalty to physical ability score in return for a bonus to attack/damage/something.

[Talionis]

Do these same people feel the same way about Fighters and Rogues, who also lack the resource management element?

Non-casters were already not having to heavily focus on per day resource management. The power level of maneuvers is far less than spells of equivalent level. Maneuvers are too tiring to use every round over and over, but once you catch your breath you can do it again. Because the maneuver is either just using mundane skill or tapping magical power more in line with the amount of power a Warlock uses. As has been said many times in this thread a fighter can generally do one thing better or just as good. Maneuvers just add a lot more options and choices.

Spells are still not being overshadowed. Spells are still more valuable.

[Duskranger]

I honestly love the ToB. I play a crusader of Tyr in my real life campaign.

Though I outdamage the Damage dealer. I am lvl 4 and he is 5. Still I kick his ass in the damage department, and besides that I can heal myself, help my allies deal more damage and give a bonus on their willsaves because I stand by them.

Besides that my DM hate the Tiersystem and does not use it. His choice, and actually I also hate it for I can play with a lot of fun a monk or a dragon shaman, but I do also enjoy druids and crusaders. Difference in powers is not a problem in our campaign.

But I do know that the DM is keeping an eye on the balance, knowing that my character can sometimes be a wild card. He is a tank, trying to keep everyone away from our squishy guys.

[LordBlades]

Besides that my DM hate the Tiersystem and does not use it.

I see statements like this pretty often, and I'm always puzzled: how can one 'use' the tier system?

[sonofzeal]

I honestly love the ToB. I play a crusader of Tyr in my real life campaign.

Though I outdamage the Damage dealer. I am lvl 4 and he is 5. Still I kick his ass in the damage department, and besides that I can heal myself, help my allies deal more damage and give a bonus on their willsaves because I stand by them.

Besides that my DM hate the Tiersystem and does not use it. His choice, and actually I also hate it for I can play with a lot of fun a monk or a dragon shaman, but I do also enjoy druids and crusaders. Difference in powers is not a problem in our campaign.

But I do know that the DM is keeping an eye on the balance, knowing that my character can sometimes be a wild card. He is a tank, trying to keep everyone away from our squishy guys.
You'll find the damage equation will start shifting a bit when your non-ToB friend gets iteratives. Standard Action Strikes are pretty much free awesomeness at low level, but at higher levels there's an opportunity cost in not getting extra attacks. That said, glad you're having fun!

[Big Fau]

Besides that my DM hate the Tiersystem and does not use it. His choice, and actually I also hate it for I can play with a lot of fun a monk or a dragon shaman, but I do also enjoy druids and crusaders. Difference in powers is not a problem in our campaign.

That part of the post may as well have been a neon sign that says "We don't really understand JaronK's Tier system".

The tier system isn't something that gets "used", it's a list. The list happens to come with a few ideas from the list's creator that are little more than suggestions about how to change the list itself, but the list isn't a tool so much as it is a source of information.

[Boci]

I see statements like this pretty often, and I'm always puzzled: how can one 'use' the tier system?

Many people who play core only don't use the tier system in that they are not bothered by wizards and monks being in the same group.

[sonofzeal]

That part of the post may as well have been a neon sign that says "We don't really understand JaronK's Tier system".

The tier system isn't something that gets "used", it's a list. The list happens to come with a few ideas from the list's creator that are little more than suggestions about how to change the list itself, but the list isn't a tool so much as it is a source of information.
Case in point - I know and approve of the Tier System, and have a link to it bookmarked.

My previous character was a Cleric. Before that was a Monk. My current characters are a Ranger, a Swordsage, and a Spellthief. Very shortly I will play a Truenamer; I've already finished character creation.

That said... when I run a campaign, I look at what Tier various characters are in and how experienced those players are, and then adjust loot and perhaps a few other things accordingly. I "use" the Tier system as a guide in identifying trouble spots before they start.

[Duskranger]

That part of the post may as well have been a neon sign that says "We don't really understand JaronK's Tier system".

The tier system isn't something that gets "used", it's a list. The list happens to come with a few ideas from the list's creator that are little more than suggestions about how to change the list itself, but the list isn't a tool so much as it is a source of information.

Not completely true, but if you want to discuss this. This thread is not the right place. PM-ing is maybe better.
Besides that I am Dutch and apparantly use the word use in a different context. I meant as using as a guideline. But I do also disagree with it. Not everything in the tier-list strikes me as okay. It all depends on what game you play and what for fellow DnD-players you have.



You'll find the damage equation will start shifting a bit when your non-ToB friend gets iteratives. Standard Action Strikes are pretty much free awesomeness at low level, but at higher levels there's an opportunity cost in not getting extra attacks. That said, glad you're having fun!

I know, and I have told my DM that I am not that powerfull. On the other hand the Barbarian is a PHB barbarian, we don't play with ACF's and certainly not with Complete Champion (Pounce) or Whirling Frenzy, so even than, most opponents are mobiel and try to get away from me. Ranged though I can't attack, since I do not carry any ranged weaponry.



I see statements like this pretty often, and I'm always puzzled: how can one 'use' the tier system?

See above answer.

[Coidzor]

Very shortly I will play a Truenamer; I've already finished character creation.

And it's not the Tier System that's the reason why I beg sonofzeal to reconsider his course of action and think of the ice cream!

It's a quote by, I believe, Zaq, who recorded his experiences with the class and compiled a handbook for it.

[LordBlades]

Case in point - I know and approve of the Tier System, and have a link to it bookmarked.

My previous character was a Cleric. Before that was a Monk. My current characters are a Ranger, a Swordsage, and a Spellthief. Very shortly I will play a Truenamer; I've already finished character creation.

That said... when I run a campaign, I look at what Tier various characters are in and how experienced those players are, and then adjust loot and perhaps a few other things accordingly. I "use" the Tier system as a guide in identifying trouble spots before they start.

This.

There's nothing wrong with playing a wizard and there's nothing wrong with playing a monk* Trouble usually appears when you try to stick a monk in the same party with a wizard.

*assuming the players and DM have at least a rough understanding of what the respective characters can do.

[navar100]

IMO, the game would be better if spell power was weakened, and the x/day of them was outright removed, and replaced with x/encounter abilities. Bring things into parity.

That's called 4E.
Have fun.

[Amphetryon]

That's called 4E.
Have fun.

Or Legend.

[Gavinfoxx]

The familiar thing is gross... the dragon you get from dragon familiar is a wyrmling.

:( :( :( :(

[sonofzeal]

And it's not the Tier System that's the reason why I beg sonofzeal to reconsider his course of action and think of the ice cream!

It's a quote by, I believe, Zaq, who recorded his experiences with the class and compiled a handbook for it.
I keep reading the chapter and finding more and more horror. At first I was pumped to be able to cast Haste... then I realized that the spell at this point targets 10 creatures for 10 rounds while I only affect 1 creature for 5 rounds. At first I was pumped to have Reversed Seek the Sky... then I realized that the 60' range makes it of extremely narrow use. At first I was pumped to not suffer ASF... then I realized that the "cast defensively" equivalent is horrid beyond all pretense of usability. At first I was pumped to be able to research someone's PERSONAL Truename rather than the generic ones my utterances work on... then I realized it does absolutely nothing for me except make my truespeak checks harder if I try to use it.

*sobs*

[Crasical]

The familiar thing is gross... the dragon you get from dragon familiar is a wyrmling.

:( :( :( :(

I advocated for trading your familiar away and getting a cohort, but you could get an Imp or Quasit with Improved Familiar instead of Dragon Familiar if age bothers you.

[Coidzor]

I keep reading the chapter and finding more and more horror. At first I was pumped to be able to cast Haste... then I realized that the spell at this point targets 10 creatures for 10 rounds while I only affect 1 creature for 5 rounds. At first I was pumped to have Reversed Seek the Sky... then I realized that the 60' range makes it of extremely narrow use. At first I was pumped to not suffer ASF... then I realized that the "cast defensively" equivalent is horrid beyond all pretense of usability. At first I was pumped to be able to research someone's PERSONAL Truename rather than the generic ones my utterances work on... then I realized it does absolutely nothing for me except make my truespeak checks harder if I try to use it.

*sobs*

You're not even using a re-write? :smallconfused::smalleek:

Go use a re-write. Please. :smallfrown:

[Snowbluff]

I advocated for trading your familiar away and getting a cohort, but you could get an Imp or Quasit with Improved Familiar instead of Dragon Familiar if age bothers you.

Oh god. Why do people allow you to talk this way?! I have an infraction for talking this way!

Back on topic, the Tier system is more useful for DMs than it is for players. Experienced players can get pretty much anything to work(Except for maybe Truenamer. sonofzeal! Pull out! Pull out!), and lower (Tier 4 and below) do have a few things higher tier characters have to build to get. (Read: Invocations.)

[Tvtyrant]

Let's stay on topic here. We do not want the thread closed.

I don't love ToB the way I do the Chameleon, Totemist or Binder, but I don't see a whole lot wrong with it in a generic setting. I have run custom settings where I wouldn't allow it due to the settings particular nature, but for a general campaign its good.

[Crasical]

Oh god. Why do people allow you to talk this way?! I have an infraction for talking this way!

Let's stay on topic here. We do not want the thread closed.

Hey, y'all started it! :smallannoyed:


I don't love ToB the way I do the Chameleon, Totemist or Binder, but I don't see a whole lot wrong with it in a generic setting. I have run custom settings where I wouldn't allow it due to the settings particular nature, but for a general campaign its good.

Joking about the font aside, I am starting to warm up to Tome of Battle. Forcing myself to read through it to check up on my 'Parry Everything' build has me considering using Warblade to fill out levels where I need a full-bab class, since it scales with level fairly well. And I can always find room for a skilled swordsman, while I'm still trying to decide on a good concept for a Chameleon character to play as.

[sonofzeal]

You're not even using a re-write? :smallconfused::smalleek:

Go use a re-write. Please. :smallfrown:
Eh. I'm kind of looking forward to failing hilariously. This is the first time this group has even seen Truenaming, and it's a low-OP group. I've been banned from using Mwk Tools or even Custom Items, and Paragnostic is out too, but whatever. I'll fail, it'll be good for a laugh, then I can roll something more effective.

Thing is this is a new group for me and I'm not going to find any local alternatives, and since they're low-op I don't want to accidentally overshadow them and get the whole "grawr evil twinky munchkin" glare. So I figure the best way is to fail, dramatically and deliberately, at my first character. From then on, if one of my characters does well, it won't be that big a deal. I just don't want my first one to succeed too well, but I also think it'll be fun toying around with Truenaming as-written. Working inside the RAW is always good for stretching the old noggin, y'know?

But this is off-topic now. I may make a thread later.


I love ToB, I really do. But I mostly love it for dips or Martial Study. Almost everyone can benefit from Martial Study in a way that's interesting and unique. Whether it's getting Concentration to Saves for the mages, or 1/enc Touch Attack for the Power Attacker, or bypassing hardness for the utility guy, or short range teleport for the sneaker, it's pretty much got something for everyone. Actually playing the listed classes, sure, they're fun. But it makes the rest of the game richer too.

[Boci]

Let's stay on topic here. We do not want the thread closed.

I don't love ToB the way I do the Chameleon, Totemist or Binder, but I don't see a whole lot wrong with it in a generic setting. I have run custom settings where I wouldn't allow it due to the settings particular nature, but for a general campaign its good.

Out of curiosity, what is this setting and why wouldn't ToB fit? I can see the book being ill placed in a primitive setting, but short of that...

[Grendus]

Out of curiosity, what is this setting and why wouldn't ToB fit? I can see the book being ill placed in a primitive setting, but short of that...

If you don't want to refluff and can't get over the names of the strikes, the book has an oriental feel to the uninitiated. In reality, western combat styles have the same thing going with named strikes, stances, etc. For many, it reminds them too much of anime though, so they throw it out if they don't want an oriental feel to their campaigns. At least, that's the usual argument (probably one of the more valid too).

[Rubik]

If you don't want to refluff and can't get over the names of the strikes, the book has an oriental feel to the uninitiated. In reality, western combat styles have the same thing going with named strikes, stances, etc. For many, it reminds them too much of anime though, so they throw it out if they don't want an oriental feel to their campaigns. At least, that's the usual argument (probably one of the more valid too).But as you said, nearly all RL fighting styles have that in common. How do you deal with teaching a system if you don't have names for the moves it uses? And yes, a lot of moves (if translated into English from their original languages) sound like moves you see in ToB.

Ignorance shouldn't be used as excusable justification, IMO.

[Terazul]

If you don't want to refluff and can't get over the names of the strikes, the book has an oriental feel to the uninitiated. In reality, western combat styles have the same thing going with named strikes, stances, etc. For many, it reminds them too much of anime though, so they throw it out if they don't want an oriental feel to their campaigns. At least, that's the usual argument (probably one of the more valid too).

Then they should also throw out Warlocks. And Paladins. And Barbarians. and all those other 'anime' classes. But not wizards, of course. Definitely Fighters though. I mean, they just suddenly learn these new techniques every level! It's crazy!

[Talionis]

Then they should also throw out Warlocks. And Paladins. And Barbarians. and all those other 'anime' classes. But not wizards, of course. Definitely Fighters though. I mean, they just suddenly learn these new techniques every level! It's crazy!

Wizards can do whatever they want, its magic... But if you are mundane... Fighter is overpowered, you can't have any actual powers or anything to do. Why don't you just play a commoner.

[Tvtyrant]

Out of curiosity, what is this setting and why wouldn't ToB fit? I can see the book being ill placed in a primitive setting, but short of that...

It was a psionics/incarnate campaign (the beginning of which I posted on this forum), where the two were transparent and all available classes progressed each other. So an Incarnate10/psywarrior 10 could pick to either have 20 essentia, 260 powerpoints, or anywhere in between where the exchange rate is 13 power points to 1 essentia. You could alter the amount during the day as needed, but you could not regain them until you had rested. Maneuvers refresh, meaning that they do not have a reasonable exchange rate. "I refresh my maneuvers, then convert half to pp. I refresh them again, and keep going!"

[Thurbane]

Oh, by the gods, we managed to do so well - ten whole pages without the tired old "is it too Oriental/Anime/Wuxia" argument rearing it's ugly head. There is basically no civil or rational way to debate that chestnut...not if past experience tells us anything.

Might as well try to find a definitive argument for Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones. :smallsigh:

[Duskranger]

If you don't want to refluff and can't get over the names of the strikes, the book has an oriental feel to the uninitiated. In reality, western combat styles have the same thing going with named strikes, stances, etc. For many, it reminds them too much of anime though, so they throw it out if they don't want an oriental feel to their campaigns. At least, that's the usual argument (probably one of the more valid too).

That slightly explains why my DM acknowledges and agrees on using ToB. Still it's a very fun book.

I would put it with Incarnum on my best books list. I heavily love the two subsystems. Sadly incarnum is banned from our table, because our DM does not want to learn another subsystem.

Anyway ToB I love it beacause of the versatility, even though swordsages only get x4 skillpoints at first level. I love the feel of a Crusader, which I play as a diplomatic soldier, the only class I do not like as much is the warblade, it does not get enough maneuvers and not enough readied.
It's refreshing of maneuvers is better than the swordsage, even though I really think the crusader is better in that. Especially with the right maneuvers you can't pick anything wrong. And I can't wait untill I get White Raven Tactics (next level yeah ^^) to help my party even more.

All in all, I think that ToB give you versatility and a slight powerboost. Not enough to overpower all the mages, but enough to be able to handle melee.

[Coidzor]

Maneuvers refresh, meaning that they do not have a reasonable exchange rate. "I refresh my maneuvers, then convert half to pp. I refresh them again, and keep going!"

Why would they *need* to convert?

[Tvtyrant]

Why would they *need* to convert?

Because that was a major plot point in the game? I banned everything not psionic or incarnum because those two were tied into the plot.

Found where I originally asked the board (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216524)about it.

[navar100]

Might as well try to find a definitive argument for Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones. :smallsigh:

Pshaw! It's Blondie or nothing.
:smallcool:

Edit: Ok, maybe ABBA. :smallbiggrin:

[Talionis]

Oh, by the gods, we managed to do so well - ten whole pages without the tired old "is it too Oriental/Anime/Wuxia" argument rearing it's ugly head. There is basically no civil or rational way to debate that chestnut...not if past experience tells us anything.

Might as well try to find a definitive argument for Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones. :smallsigh:

If you as a DM can refluff this to something that you can stand, stop being a DM. Seriously. It is a name for a mechanic.

[tiercel]

Probably silly to address the OP after this many pages but, my take on it:


Don't like the mechanic (e.g. "you got your 4e mechanic in my 3.x game") -- some people may just feel that if they want to use a ToB-like mechanic, they'd rather just play full-on 4e, rather than a 3.x/4e hybrid

Don't want to learn another mechanic -- some DMs just have never played ToB before (or Incarnum or psi or Binders or...) and don't want to learn an entirely new system just so they can adjudicate *your* character when they have an entire campaign world to run, which, originally, wasn't going to include any content from that system

Tiers, tiers, tiers. --There's a reason this thread is threatening to derail onto a "tier" discussion, and it does have to do with the tendency others have already noted... that whenever anyone asks for help with a "Tier 4+" character, they often get immediately responded to with "you can do that better with ToB.....n00b."


Without going into a full-on rant about tiers, there are those who seem to assume that it is "lower tiers" that are the problem, rather than mixing disparate tiers.

That and for someone who actually has a soft spot for those poor suffering "lower tier" classes, ToB could feel like a slap in the face from the "tier system," e.g., "here look, it's the classes you want to play, but in EVERY WAY more mechanically powerful than your favorite, now utterly and completely in every way obsolete, class... you n00b."

At least being outclassed by full casters can be put down to the old "linear warrior, quadratic mage" problem -- the difference in the tiers TYPICALLY is a difference that depends on the level of the character in question. ToB classes start off pretty much strictly superior to "lower tier" classes -- at doing the same things as those classes -- from the get-go, and then experience at least mildly quadratic growth (if still not quite as strong as a genuine full caster).

-----

Personally, I think ToB is interesting, though I have very little experience with it in actual play. I just can see valid reasons why some people might be less than fully enthusiastic about it.

[Coidzor]

Tiers, tiers, tiers. --There's a reason this thread is threatening to derail onto a "tier" discussion, and it does have to do with the tendency others have already noted... that whenever anyone asks for help with a "Tier 4+" character, they often get immediately responded to with "you can do that better with ToB.....n00b."


I never really thought I'd live to see something become a tired old lie, I must admit. :smallsigh:

[Boci]

Probably silly to address the OP after this many pages but, my take on it:


Don't like the mechanic (e.g. "you got your 4e mechanic in my 3.x game") -- some people may just feel that if they want to use a ToB-like mechanic, they'd rather just play full-on 4e, rather than a 3.x/4e hybrid

Which is just wrong. After all, the 3.5 wizard has daily powers, and no one says its 4E. ToB classes don't even have encounter powers in the 4E sense.


Don't want to learn another mechanic -- some DMs just have never played ToB before (or Incarnum or psi or Binders or...) and don't want to learn an entirely new system just so they can adjudicate *your* character when they have an entire campaign world to run, which, originally, wasn't going to include any content from that system

This one is fair enough. I certainly don't expect all DMs to be as accommodating as me and allow classes that use a system they do not fully understand. After all, it’s just the players fun. :smallbiggrin:


Tiers, tiers, tiers. --There's a reason this thread is threatening to derail onto a "tier" discussion,

Yes. And that reason is that a lot of people exibit a disturbing lack of ability/will to read what the auther of the tier system says about his own owrk.


and it does have to do with the tendency others have already noted... that whenever anyone asks for help with a "Tier 4+" character, they often get immediately responded to with "you can do that better with ToB.....n00b."


No, there is a tendency to politely (or at least not rudely) point out a higher tier version of a class because posters are not mind readers and have no way of knowing whether the OP wanted to play that class or the archetype.

[Big Fau]

Tiers, tiers, tiers. --There's a reason this thread is threatening to derail onto a "tier" discussion, and it does have to do with the tendency others have already noted... that whenever anyone asks for help with a "Tier 4+" character, they often get immediately responded to with "you can do that better with ToB.....n00b."


Point of Order: If the Tiers system did not exist, people would still say "you can do that better with ToB". It is not the Tier system's fault that the Bo9S contains well-balanced classes.

[Coidzor]

No, there is a tendency to politely (or at least not rudely) point out a higher tier version of a class because posters are not mind readers and have no way of knowing whether the OP wanted to play that class or the archetype.

And even if they wanted to play that class in particular, if they knew about another class or simple combination of classes that accomplished the goals of that class more directly and or able to do that and have an expanded bag of tricks without departing from the concept.

[Talionis]

Probably silly to address the OP after this many pages but, my take on it:


Don't like the mechanic (e.g. "you got your 4e mechanic in my 3.x game") -- some people may just feel that if they want to use a ToB-like mechanic, they'd rather just play full-on 4e, rather than a 3.x/4e hybrid

Tiers, tiers, tiers. --There's a reason this thread is threatening to derail onto a "tier" discussion, and it does have to do with the tendency others have already noted... that whenever anyone asks for help with a "Tier 4+" character, they often get immediately responded to with "you can do that better with ToB.....n00b."


Without going into a full-on rant about tiers, there are those who seem to assume that it is "lower tiers" that are the problem, rather than mixing disparate tiers.

That and for someone who actually has a soft spot for those poor suffering "lower tier" classes, ToB could feel like a slap in the face from the "tier system," e.g., "here look, it's the classes you want to play, but in EVERY WAY more mechanically powerful than your favorite, now utterly and completely in every way obsolete, class... you n00b."

At least being outclassed by full casters can be put down to the old "linear warrior, quadratic mage" problem -- the difference in the tiers TYPICALLY is a difference that depends on the level of the character in question. ToB classes start off pretty much strictly superior to "lower tier" classes -- at doing the same things as those classes -- from the get-go, and then experience at least mildly quadratic growth (if still not quite as strong as a genuine full caster).

-----

Personally, I think ToB is interesting, though I have very little experience with it in actual play. I just can see valid reasons why some people might be less than fully enthusiastic about it.

I think the mechanics work pretty well, at least for PCs. They are easy to keep track of with the cards wizards made. While its a step towards 4.0 it's still very 3.5 too and at least ToB characters play nicely with other 3.5 characters at least the ToB characters close the gap between casters and non-casters.

I actually like the lower tier classes a lot, but I can't stand feeling like all the nice things have been given to casters. Adding a little ToB to those classes can bring them up and still give them a mundane feel.

Mundane currently can build up some really nasty levels of damage, but they are usually only good at one or two things. They can do those things each turn. ToB gives you very good damage. It forces you not to do the same thing every round, doing the same thing every round was causing me to be bored with the lower tier melee classes. While they look per encounter all the ToB base classes can recharge the attacks during an encounter. ToB is almost giving you a bunch of every other round attacks, not per encounter powers. In that sense the mechanic is very similar to the charger, only you get rewarded for using variety.

[tiercel]

Which is just wrong. After all, the 3.5 wizard has daily powers, and no one says its 4E. ToB classes don't even have encounter powers in the 4E sense.

You're right, it's not the same, but while ToB powers come with a refresh mechanic/Adaptive Style, they certainly "feel like" (especially to a DM who hasn't handled much ToB) they default to being more-or-less encounter powers but with exceptions.

Not many things in 3.x have this style of power (usable once or small number of times per encounter); breath weapons are probably the closest. So, while it's not the same, it is an "encounter power"-like sort of style, and one that stands out in this rule system.


Point of Order: If the Tiers system did not exist, people would still say "you can do that better with ToB". It is not the Tier system's fault that the Bo9S contains well-balanced classes.

No, but the response to "I'm thinking of playing a Paladin for a dungeon-crawl campaign, how can I make it good and/or interesting" will almost *always* draw a "make a Crusader instead" response very quickly... (And such suggestions will be detailed and/or emphatic about how they are just better.)

...whereas the response to something like "I'm thinking of making a Wizard for an intrigue campaign" often won't draw a "make a Beguiler instead" response quite so quickly. (And such suggestions, when they do eventually trickle along, are generally more in the "well, if you don't mind slumming it a bit, this might fit your theme better" sort of vein.)

No, it's not the fault of the tier system itself, but there does seem to be an optimization bias that More Power Is Always Better.

If "Tier 3" is more or less "the most well-balanced tier," you might expect that there would be as much interest in how to downgrade "Tier 1" concepts into "Tier 3" as in how to upgrade "Tier 5" concepts.

Instead, I generally see the opposite -- it's not enough to play an already "Tier 1" Cleric, it has to come with DMM Persist Everything and a standard-issue fasces built out of Nightsticks. (Not to mention preventing a "CoDzilla" from ever having to waste any of its valuable Tier 1-or-less power lowering itself to healing the peons that bob along in its wake, via a panoply of healing items that are all vastly more cost-efficient than a pathetic Core wand of cure light wounds.)

Gah. Got me monologuing.

TL; DR --> Sometimes a player just really wants to try playing a Paladin and shouldn't have to be apologetic about "actually, I kind of wanted to try a character that is pretty much a Paladin, not a Crusader, not even a Pal 2/Obscure 3/PrC 2/PrC 3/PrC 1/PrC 4/PrC 5"

[Seerow]

...whereas the response to something like "I'm thinking of making a Wizard for an intrigue campaign" often won't draw a "make a Beguiler instead" response quite so quickly. (And such suggestions, when they do eventually trickle along, are generally more in the "well, if you don't mind slumming it a bit, this might fit your theme better" sort of vein.)



Except in the case of the player detailing his group and it being clear the group is lower tier in general.


Rule of thumb is, if someone's asking on the forum, it's for optimization advice. Unless they say otherwise, you don't make the assumption they're looking to weaken themselves. Especially when you have no idea what their group is like.

On the other hand, if they post about the intrigue game they're thinking about joining as a wizard, where the other players are a Swashbuckler, a Rogue, a Paladin, and an Urban Ranger, I'd be willing to bet good money that Beguiler gets mentioned in the first 5 posts.

[Waspinator]

Yeah, people can usually figure out how to cripple themselves on their own. If they ask for advice, they want to know how to power UP.

[LordBlades]

Except in the case of the player detailing his group and it being clear the group is lower tier in general.


Rule of thumb is, if someone's asking on the forum, it's for optimization advice. Unless they say otherwise, you don't make the assumption they're looking to weaken themselves. Especially when you have no idea what their group is like.

On the other hand, if they post about the intrigue game they're thinking about joining as a wizard, where the other players are a Swashbuckler, a Rogue, a Paladin, and an Urban Ranger, I'd be willing to bet good money that Beguiler gets mentioned in the first 5 posts.

Also, most people around these forums don't view classes as in-game constructs, so often the default assumption is that, unless otherwise stated, the OP is just looking for something that 'feels' like a paladin.

[Boci]

You're right, it's not the same, but while ToB powers come with a refresh mechanic/Adaptive Style, they certainly "feel like" (especially to a DM who hasn't handled much ToB) they default to being more-or-less encounter powers but with exceptions.

Not many things in 3.x have this style of power (usable once or small number of times per encounter); breath weapons are probably the closest. So, while it's not the same, it is an "encounter power"-like sort of style, and one that stands out in this rule system.

And wizards have daily powers. How are they any less 4E?


No, but the response to "I'm thinking of playing a Paladin for a dungeon-crawl campaign, how can I make it good and/or interesting" will almost *always* draw a "make a Crusader instead" response very quickly... (And such suggestions will be detailed and/or emphatic about how they are just better.)

...whereas the response to something like "I'm thinking of making a Wizard for an intrigue campaign" often won't draw a "make a Beguiler instead" response quite so quickly. (And such suggestions, when they do eventually trickle along, are generally more in the "well, if you don't mind slumming it a bit, this might fit your theme better" sort of vein.)

Because wizards can easily be played as tier 3 (or even lower), the paladin is far more static.



No, it's not the fault of the tier system itself, but there does seem to be an optimization bias that More Power Is Always Better.

If "Tier 3" is more or less "the most well-balanced tier," you might expect that there would be as much interest in how to downgrade "Tier 1" concepts into "Tier 3" as in how to upgrade "Tier 5" concepts.

Instead, I generally see the opposite -- it's not enough to play an already "Tier 1" Cleric, it has to come with DMM Persist Everything and a standard-issue fasces built out of Nightsticks. (Not to mention preventing a "CoDzilla" from ever having to waste any of its valuable Tier 1-or-less power lowering itself to healing the peons that bob along in its wake, via a panoply of healing items that are all vastly more cost-efficient than a pathetic Core wand of cure light wounds.)

Yes, more power is generally considered better, but there is an important difference between melee and caster: there is only so much melee can do empower their teammates. Caster on the other hand, like the cleric can persist some tasty buff spells for their part members.

[Coidzor]

Also, most people around these forums don't view classes as in-game constructs, so often the default assumption is that, unless otherwise stated, the OP is just looking for something that 'feels' like a paladin.

And isn't just asking for DM abuse like that lousy code.