Why dont people like Tome of Battle???

[Hawkfrost000]

So i have to ask, why dont you like Tome of Battle? Whats wrong with it? Do you think its overpowered? Broken? Poorly Written? Poorly used by players?

I honestly cant see it, i think its a lot of fun.

DM

[Manateee]

It's hard to screw it up. Typically that's a feature, but in some groups, that means the characters are dramatically more powerful than the norm.
Edit:
Whoa. The question just changed.

[Hawkfrost000]

It's hard to screw it up. Typically that's a feature, but in some groups, that means the characters are dramatically more powerful than the norm.
Edit:
Whoa. The question just changed.

Yeah, sorry :smallredface:

My posts can be a bit bipolar like that, people usually dont respond that fast. :smallsmile:

DM

[NikitaDarkstar]

Me personally don't have an issue with it but I can see some people not liking it because of how easily you can build extremely powerful characters with it. Add a couple of immature players/power-gamers and I can see why a DM would say no to it. But it's also hypocritical to ban it for being "OP" if you still allow druids and wizards since Tome of Battle won't get a melee character up to the power level of either of those classes.

[brann miekka]

i don't think that anyone hates it, it's actually a very very good book, but the problem is it doesn't fit in a game that isn't specifically made for it. if you use it as a random supplement to a game not suited for it though then yes it is very broken.

[Silva Stormrage]

Me personally don't have an issue with it but I can see some people not liking it because of how easily you can build extremely powerful characters with it. Add a couple of immature players/power-gamers and I can see why a DM would say no to it. But it's also hypocritical to ban it for being "OP" if you still allow druids and wizards since Tome of Battle won't get a melee character up to the power level of either of those classes.

As stated though an unoptimized warblade can easily be stronger than an unoptimized Wizard

On that note though I really enjoy Tome of Battle and it gives non gish melee actual use in combat.

[bigstipidfighte]

I'm going to say, as someone who is very fond of ToB, that I can see why some people don't like it.

First, as Manateee pointed out, in a gruop that doesn't optimize, the guy who picks up ToB is going to be more powerful than any other melee characters, because ToB is very good out-of-the-box.

Second, there's just plain not wanting to have to learn a new system. Not many people will admit to this reason for not liking it, but I think it's actually fairly common, and I don't have a problem with it, especailly if the player/DM in question comes out and says it. D&D is already a complicated game, and not everyone is going to want to devote the time to learn how Maneuvers/Psionics/Truenaming etc works. This is the reason I don't use Magic of Incarnum- I've just never felt motivated enough to read through it.

edit: wow, three posts up since I started writing mine, and yet I didn't get ninja'd. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

edit again: Wouldn't this thread be more appropriate in the 3.5 forum since its about a specific book in that system?

[Coidzor]

It's different from what they're used to, the sacred cows they hold, and thinking it is OP seem to be the main reasons.

[NikitaDarkstar]

As stated though an unoptimized warblade can easily be stronger than an unoptimized Wizard

On that note though I really enjoy Tome of Battle and it gives non gish melee actual use in combat.

I'd say that depends entirely on level, once that wizard gets access so 6th and 7th level spells? Sorry but my money is on the wizard at that point, but before that? Yhea I agree, the warblade most certainly isn't weak in any way, shape or form and ToB does seem to assume some level of optimization going on in the group, if it isn't the ToB character will stand out as a sore thumb.

[Remmirath]

So i have to ask, why dont you like Tome of Battle?

I don't like the mechanics of it. I also don't find it to be necessary; certainly in my usual group with our usual house rules, melee (yes, including fighters) get along perfectly fine without it. It has also been my experience that they get along fine without it in most groups (by 'most groups' I mean 'every group I've ever been in', but I do assume there are those out there where it isn't so).


Whats wrong with it?

It uses activated ability powers/day type mechanics, and I dislike those. They annoy me. If I am playing a fighter type, I do not want to feel as though I'm playing a spell caster, and the whole special powers thing starts to make me feel like I am.


Do you think its overpowered? Broken? Poorly Written? Poorly used by players?

Not overpowered, not broken unless willfully broken (like just about everything else), not poorly written (although I'm not wild about the default flavor of it, that wouldn't bother me if I otherwise liked it - I'd just change it), and as far as I can tell not poorly used by players. Just not my kind of thing.


I honestly cant see it, i think its a lot of fun.

And for you, I'm sure it is - after all, you like it. It just isn't to everyone's liking.

[Arbane]

It gives melee nice things.

In 3.5, Mundanes Don't Get Nice Things.

:smalltongue:

[Nero24200]

Why can't people accept that the book just isn't for everyone? If someone came on here and said they didn't like Complete Warrior would we have half a million responses along the lines of "Why not?" and "You DM doesn't allow it? You DM must be an idiot".

You like it? Fine. You don't like it? Fine. Why do you feel your own viewpoint has to be justified?

You know why I don't like it? I don't care about the book itself, but every time someone asks for a fighter build they get "play a warblade instead", every time someone asks for a paladin they get "play a crusader instead", every time someone asks for a monk they get "play a swordsage instead" and I'm getting sick of hearing it.

So there, my beef isn't with the book, it's the fact that so many people on this forum take it as some sort of ULTIMATE SPLAT that they'll suggest it at every oppertunity (even when the OP specially states he doesn't use it) and criticize anyone who bans it or the DM's of anyone posting on the forums who bans it.

[Tytalus]

It uses activated ability powers/day type mechanics, and I dislike those. They annoy me. If I am playing a fighter type, I do not want to feel as though I'm playing a spell caster ...

No, none of the standard maneuver mechanics is on a X per day basis (as spell casters), but rather on X per encounter basis, which makes a whole lot more sense IMHO. Plus, you can recover maneuvers during an encounter to utilize it again. Thus, the (articifial) limitations of spells do not apply to maneuvers.

[Manateee]

Oh, why I don't like the book/what's wrong with it?

That's easy.

Wayne England.
Wayne England is what's wrong with ToB.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/tob_gallery/99700.jpg

[DoctorGlock]

Arcane Swordsage is poorly defined

Other than that... I love the book. I love giving all classes nice things. I love it when the dude with the sword is jumping up the sides of buildings and cutting through spells tossed at him to ram 4 feet of iron through that arrogant wizard's face 80 feet off the ground. It gives wonderful over the top cinematic options that beat "looking at your toes in the mud and feeling utterly useless"

I admit, it may not have a place in low optimization groups. First time I encountered it the players was the only optimizer I'd ever met, clerics were band aid boxes and wizards conjured fire. Then this guy is dropping death marks and ranged fire touches all day... "What is this!?" I demanded angrily, and banned the book on the spot. As I learned the system more though I began to rely on the book to balance the scales and now use it as my melee go-to.

[Boci]

It uses activated ability powers/day type mechanics, and I dislike those. They annoy me. If I am playing a fighter type, I do not want to feel as though I'm playing a spell caster, and the whole special powers thing starts to make me feel like I am.

Firstly its not powers/day but powers/encounter with a recharge mechanic.

Just idle curiosity: do you do any form of fighting as hobby? Because I do, and I feel that ToB is very good at simulating an actual fight. The mmaneuvres represent what you drill constantly until it becomes second nature.

Take an ankle sweep for example. If you start the fight with one, I may use it later on in the fight as well, but not immediatly. ToB is the closest I've seen so far to recreate this aspect of a fight.



You like it? Fine. You don't like it? Fine. Why do you feel your own viewpoint has to be justified?

Presumably because it fixes what many percieve to be a number of problems in the game. It would be like someone saying they don't like the latch that fixes most of the bugs for a video game, people would want to know why.

[Dienekes]

Why can't people accept that the book just isn't for everyone? If someone came on here and said they didn't like Complete Warrior would we have half a million responses along the lines of "Why not?" and "You DM doesn't allow it? You DM must be an idiot".

You like it? Fine. You don't like it? Fine. Why do you feel your own viewpoint has to be justified?

You know why I don't like it? I don't care about the book itself, but every time someone asks for a fighter build they get "play a warblade instead", every time someone asks for a paladin they get "play a crusader instead", every time someone asks for a monk they get "play a swordsage instead" and I'm getting sick of hearing it.

So there, my beef isn't with the book, it's the fact that so many people on this forum take it as some sort of ULTIMATE SPLAT that they'll suggest it at every oppertunity (even when the OP specially states he doesn't use it) and criticize anyone who bans it or the DM's of anyone posting on the forums who bans it.

Now personally I love ToB because it makes melee (my favorite type of fighting) mechanically interesting to play. Before ToB you pretty much full-attacked every round, or tried to. Or just tripped everyone to make fights come with ridiculous mental images. Dull as dull can be. But I have to agree with you, people can be straight up annoying with their praise of it. Though just because the fans are annoying doesn't mean the book isn't good. Annoying fans exist for everything.

Anyway, what I've heard about people who dislike it:
It completely overshadows Fighters/Monks/Barbarians/Paladins. Which is completely true by the way

It makes combat magical when it should be simplistic, and makes no logical sense (why can I swing my sword this way only once an encounter?) Which I disagree as a problem personally since in real combat if you do the same attack each time you are the worst combatant ever. Though I'll admit the mechanics are not very realistic.

It's OP. Which to some parties is entirely true. I've seen games where the least useful member was the party wizard, partially because the player was only half into playing and partly because he focused evocation. Hell, before I got ToB my shtick was making useful fighters in campaigns with these completely unoptimized guys. And still, I'd be ok if ToB was weaker as long as they keep interesting combat mechanics.

[TheCountAlucard]

Annoying fans exist for everything.Even for vuvuzelas.

Wait, scratch that.

Especially for vuvuzelas.

[horseboy]

I'm voting "Too little, too late." If it had come out sooner a lot of people wouldn't have become stuck in their ways and would have been willing to give it a go. Other than that, hmm, is it LG approved?

[Forum Explorer]

Some powers and abilities are poorly written leading to stupid interpretations of abilities like Iron Heart Surge. Its not really a problem unless you have a rules lawyer who tries to exploit the rules to be a munchkin.

[meto30]

I am the kind who is completely fine with ToB's mechanics, but rather a bit troubled by the fluff. Especially since I play FR, and FR is a fluff-heavy setting. True, WotC has an official way of implementing ToB into the realms, but they don't exactly make sense, unless some retcon is done. At least, that is so IMHO.

[Yora]

To me it looks like the solution to make melee characters closer to caster is to make them like casters. That doesn't really seem helpful to me.
And if something doesn't greatly improve things, I don't add it to the game.

[Boci]

To me it looks like the solution to make melee characters closer to caster is to make them like casters. That doesn't really seem helpful to me.

Do you do any form of fighting as hobby? I don't think the maneuvre system makes martial adepts more like casters, but it does make them more beliable since I can draw parralels between their attacks the drills I learn.


And if something doesn't greatly improve things, I don't add it to the game.

Allowing melee to do things aisde from HP damage, move 30ft per round without reducing their damage potential and use readied actions without reducing their damage potential isn't a great improvement? What is?

[Eldest]

I don't think the maneuvre system makes martial adepts more like casters, but it does make them more beliable since I can draw parralels between their attacks the drills I learn.

I can second this. Most of my fighting skill (fencing) came from repeating and repeating advancing, retreating, lunging, riposting, etc. The thing that makes each fight different is that each move comes at an apropriate time. I won't lunge if I'm right next to the guy and I know he has better reflexes, and I won't retreat much because I'm agressive when I fence and I want to be closer in. So not the best analogy, since most of the moves I listed were movement based, but it works.

[Yora]

The games I play almost never surpass 8th level, there's no 15 minute adventure days and I've never seen anything I'd call optimization from my players. Spellcasters stealing the show has never been a problem, so why add any new rules to a game that already has more than enough of them?

[Greenish]

It uses activated ability powers/day type mechanics, and I dislike those. They annoy me.So don't play a crusader (which is the only one with daily powers, a smite and a saving throw reroll). :smalltongue:


Oh, why I don't like the book/what's wrong with it?

That's easy.

Wayne England.
Wayne England is what's wrong with ToB.There's some non-England that's okay, but yeah.


You know why I don't like it? I don't care about the book itself, but every time someone asks for a fighter build they get "play a warblade instead", every time someone asks for a paladin they get "play a crusader instead", every time someone asks for a monk they get "play a swordsage instead" and I'm getting sick of hearing it.Yeah, it's terrible when people try to help you.

[Boci]

The games I play almost never surpass 8th level, there's no 15 minute adventure days and I've never seen anything I'd call optimization from my players. Spellcasters stealing the show has never been a problem, so why add any new rules to a game that already has more than enough of them?

So martial character can play something that more closely resembles actual fighting?

[Yora]

I am deeply sorry if the way we have fun with our game offends you.

[Boci]

I am deeply sorry if the way we have fun with our game offends you.

Stop it, won't work. You laid out some circamstances and asked why you would want to use ToB and I gave you a reason. If that reasons isn't a good one to you thats fine, I was just poitning out that there even if you don't feel that melee is too weak there are still reasons to use ToB.

[Yora]

That wasn't a question, even though it ended in a question mark. But yes, your last reply was directly repyling to that. I didn't think of that.

[Boci]

That wasn't a question, even though it ended in a question mark.

I found out that rhetorical questions generally don't work on the internet, for two main reasons:

1. Lack tone makes it hard to tell the difference between a rhetorical and literal question (as just happened).

2. Due to the light tone of internet debates someone will most likely answer it in a way you didn't intend them to, making a joke out of it.

But that's slightly off topic.

[Leon]

The book has some nice things but its hardly the be all end all of melee combat - a Fighter, Paladin, Ranger or Barbarian are still good class choices. (as is Monk and Rogue)

Similarly from my experiences spellcasters rarely dominate the game like many would believe happens all the groups i have played with have been able to work together regardless of what classes are part of the group. Certainly magic makes things smoother but its not a absolute essential factor.

And for those that Say Non magic classes do not get good things in 3.5 is wrong, Melee Non magic gets plenty of good things - it is Ranged Non magic that does not get much love.

[Tengu_temp]

The games I play almost never surpass 8th level, there's no 15 minute adventure days and I've never seen anything I'd call optimization from my players. Spellcasters stealing the show has never been a problem, so why add any new rules to a game that already has more than enough of them?

Even in a low-op group I'd prefer a ToB character to a core non-spellcaster, because ToB is mechanically interesting and gives one character a variety of viable options in combat at any given time. In comparison, a fighter usually can only auto-attack and maybe repeat the 1-2 tricks he's built for ad nauseaum. Boring.

[Dienekes]

Yeah, it's terrible when people try to help you.

You see that's not always very helpful. If I ask for a good Fighter build an appropriate answer to that question is not "play a Warblade". There can be numerous reasons why they aren't playing a warblade.

Now it would be different if they said something like "have you looked into a warblade? They are similar to fighters but add some mechanical depth. They can be find in ToB. But to answer your question an appropriate fighter build would be..." Which both gives a direct answer and may introduce a new player to an amazing book. But people just say "Play a warblade" which just comes across as smug and implying that they're doing something wrong by asking how to play a fighter.

[Boci]

You see that's not always very helpful. If I ask for a good Fighter build an appropriate answer to that question is not "play a Warblade". There can be numerous reasons why they aren't playing a warblade.

Now it would be different if they said something like "have you looked into a warblade? They are similar to fighters but add some mechanical depth. They can be find in ToB. But to answer your question an appropriate fighter build would be..." Which both gives a direct answer and may introduce a new player to an amazing book. But people just say "Play a warblade" which just comes across as smug and implying that they're doing something wrong by asking how to play a fighter.

Alternativly someone could be unwilling to give advice on a fighter until a warblade has been ruled out. MAny people see the "warblade is better bit", but don't bother scrolling down to see the same poster provide feat advice once ToB has been ruled out.

[Coidzor]

Why can't people accept that the book just isn't for everyone? If someone came on here and said they didn't like Complete Warrior would we have half a million responses along the lines of "Why not?" and "You DM doesn't allow it? You DM must be an idiot".

Because the idea that the book just isn't for everyone has yet to be adequately fleshed out and sensible despite being trotted out every time we have one of these megathreads. So.... y'know, if you wanna take a stab at doing something that has failed to be done by hundreds of people before you, more power to you.


You like it? Fine. You don't like it? Fine. Why do you feel your own viewpoint has to be justified?

Why does any dispute make it to the forums? Player vs. Player disputes over whether something is OP or not... Player Vs. DM conflict over sources and material allowed... Especially since many DMs seem to have this high horse about not sullying themselves by actually explaining things and instead expecting what they say to be taken as Word of God.


You know why I don't like it? I don't care about the book itself, but every time someone asks for a fighter build they get "play a warblade instead", every time someone asks for a paladin they get "play a crusader instead", every time someone asks for a monk they get "play a swordsage instead" and I'm getting sick of hearing it.

So your beef is primarily a result of either not grokking or not caring about the lack of options that those base classes suffer under to the point where giving them options seems like a bad thing because so many people suggest it? :smallconfused:


So there, my beef isn't with the book, it's the fact that so many people on this forum take it as some sort of ULTIMATE SPLAT that they'll suggest it at every oppertunity (even when the OP specially states he doesn't use it) and criticize anyone who bans it or the DM's of anyone posting on the forums who bans it.

Try reading it and then going back and reading over the class descriptions in the PHB. Then go look at the common build options for those PHB classes and then compare their options to the options that the ToB classes get out of the box or as low-hanging fruit.


You see that's not always very helpful. If I ask for a good Fighter build an appropriate answer to that question is not "play a Warblade". There can be numerous reasons why they aren't playing a warblade.

And saying they have one other than ignorance is on them, and once they have, then everything is kosher again. :smallconfused:

The rest of your post seems to be splitting hairs about having a different sense of etiquette than is actually practiced, and, well, good luck changing prevailing social mores online. :smallconfused:

[Dienekes]

And saying they have one other than ignorance is on them, and once they have, then everything is kosher again. :smallconfused:

The rest of your post seems to be splitting hairs about having a different sense of etiquette than is actually practiced, and, well, good luck changing prevailing social mores online. :smallconfused:

Oh I don't really expect to change anything. Just explaining why some folks, such as Nero24200, find the fans annoying.

[Grendus]

You see that's not always very helpful. If I ask for a good Fighter build an appropriate answer to that question is not "play a Warblade". There can be numerous reasons why they aren't playing a warblade.

Now it would be different if they said something like "have you looked into a warblade? They are similar to fighters but add some mechanical depth. They can be find in ToB. But to answer your question an appropriate fighter build would be..." Which both gives a direct answer and may introduce a new player to an amazing book. But people just say "Play a warblade" which just comes across as smug and implying that they're doing something wrong by asking how to play a fighter.

I challenge you to find a thread posted in the last year where someone asked for advice on a core melee class and got nothing but "play a warblade/crusader/swordsage" responses. People keep trotting out that as an argument, but I've yet to see one. People do suggest ToB classes in melee threads, largely because they solve a lot of problems with core melee without creating new ones. It's an easy fix, and it's an official class which neatly sidesteps the homebrew debacle. Otherwise, you have to use builds with lots of dipping into base classes and PrC's, or else nich builds like chargers, in order to keep up with the core spellcasters. In groups where the term "powergamer" is used like a swear word, that's going to breed more resentment than convincing the DM to let you play a Warblade.

[Big Fau]

Take an ankle sweep for example. If you start the fight with one, I may use it later on in the fight as well, but not immediatly. ToB is the closest I've seen so far to recreate this aspect of a fight.

This, os so very much. The Bo9S is a more accurate representation of real-world martial arts than the Core rules (I'm not going to say it's a very accurate one, because it isn't realistic, but it's more accurate than the basic option).

The Bo9S allows you to vary your combat style without punishing you for not focusing on a single, powerful option or a pair of decent options. You get rewarded for introducing variety by being able to shift your focus largely as needed, and are difficult to counteract as a result.

The Core rules have none of that. It's like playing Blazblue: Learn one or two combos, practice the unholy hell out of them, and then find out what counters there are and how you can deal with them. Once you do that, you spam the ever-loving hell out of those combos you know.

[Remmirath]

I do agree that having different strikes and attack series to do is more accurate. I don't think that Tome of Battle does it exactly right, and I don't like the way it does it - so I prefer to just play as normal and imagine/describe the different things.

My largest complaint is with the fact that they have to recharge, because that particular kind of mechanic just bugs me. Yes, like the above example, I probably wouldn't do two ankle sweeps in a row - I can't think of a circumstance where I would - but I should be able to, even if it's a really terrible idea.

Basically, I'm fine with the system as is in core and it's fun for me (it's more varied than it was in previous editions, and those were fine with me too), and I don't particularly care if there is more realism until there is a lot more realism (to at least the extent of it mattering where you hit someone and having a much more advanced critical/injury system, and having a lot more in the way of parrying and not getting hit - and at that point it is starting to look not so much like D&D). I don't play D&D when I want realism anyhow, I play something else.


Because the idea that the book just isn't for everyone has yet to be adequately fleshed out and sensible despite being trotted out every time we have one of these megathreads. So.... y'know, if you wanna take a stab at doing something that has failed to be done by hundreds of people before you, more power to you.

What, the idea that some people don't like the same things just isn't enough? Do you have this reaction every time somebody doesn't like something that you do like? It's really not that different from, say, liking a different genre of music. I'm honestly confused as to why it would need to be explained beyond "I don't like it, it doesn't fit with my preferred playing style". :smallconfused: I have no problem seeing that some people would like Tome of Battle. I just don't. It's the reverse.

Let's assume that people (such as myself, and others I know) are fine with how melee characters already play, and already enjoy playing melee characters. Why, then, would they want to acquire a new book that will change that? Why pay extra money for something that won't add to their experience, since they enjoy melee combat as-is and don't like the rules it does add?

[Coidzor]

What, the idea that some people don't like the same things just isn't enough?

Generally that's never been the case by itself, and the self-given explanations and the unspoken ones that people have just exhibited, well... Patterns.


I'm honestly confused as to why it would need to be explained beyond "I don't like it, it doesn't fit with my preferred playing style".

To turn that around, I'm honestly confused as to why you would think that doesn't immediately segue into a question about what one's playing style is and how one thinks that ToB doesn't fit it.

Since, at least in this context, one is going to the trouble of entering a ToB thread, with all the pointlessness implied by the history of such things, and posting about how you don't like it and all.


Let's assume that people (such as myself, and others I know) are fine with how melee characters already play, and already enjoy playing melee characters.

I believe I already covered that in my initial post.


Why, then, would they want to acquire a new book that will change that? Why pay extra money for something that won't add to their experience, since they enjoy melee combat as-is and don't like the rules it does add?

Generally because their players are not 100% content happy campers and come online and ask for help making a character that is fun under the restrictions they're making the character under and often times the most elegant solution would be to just have them play a ToB class.

[Big Fau]

My largest complaint is with the fact that they have to recharge, because that particular kind of mechanic just bugs me. Yes, like the above example, I probably wouldn't do two ankle sweeps in a row - I can't think of a circumstance where I would - but I should be able to, even if it's a really terrible idea.

Well, you kinda can. You just need a different maneuver to do it. Basically, the only combat options you can't readily do with the Bo9S are Grappling (because maneuvers don't work when grappled) and Disarming (only a precious few options here). Sundering got more love than Disarming did...

I always justified the Recovery mechanics as your character "reseting his frame" (for those who understand Fighting game lingo) instead of what the book says about the Crusader and Swordsage.



And I feel it's more realistic than the Monk's Stunning Fist mechanic. If you are skilled enough that you can hit someone hard enough to knock them senseless, shouldn't you be able to do that at will?

[Terazul]

You see that's not always very helpful. If I ask for a good Fighter build an appropriate answer to that question is not "play a Warblade". There can be numerous reasons why they aren't playing a warblade.

Now it would be different if they said something like "have you looked into a warblade? They are similar to fighters but add some mechanical depth. They can be find in ToB.

Every time a thread like this pops up, everyone claims the first one happens, but I have only seen the second in practice. :smallconfused:

In any case, I love ToB, and I think alot of the ill will comes from a number of things:

1. Initial Knee Jerk Reactions - That is to say the "he can do 3d6 damage as a standard action?!", which is more just not being used to characters having that sort of capability, lack of optimization, or any other number of things. Whole nother can of worms.

2. If It Aint Broke... - Several people enjoy their melee/martial characters the way they are, and thus take offense at the idea that ToB "fixes" them. You would not believe how many threads there are with individuals claiming they would have been fine with it if they released the Warblade under the name "Fighter". Or they just really like feats. I really don't get it, but yeah.

3. Overexposure - The post quoted being an example. Whether they actually ran into the issue, or they've just heard the example being given so many times that they now believe that is what happens, some people are just sick of seeing it brought up for some reason. A lot of this stems I think simply because many posters don't read beyond the OP, and so don't see that others may have already made the suggestion. Subsequently, others come to the thread and it may appear that the OP is being flooded with suggestions to try it out.

But there's a few off the top of my head. Also the "it doesn't feel right" camp, which I personally cannot explain, and the "the flavor bugs me"/"too Anime™" thing. Which just gets into the whole "is flavor mutable?" debacle.

In any case, it's fine not to like it, especially if your group is fine with sword and board fighters and magic missile wizards. The discussions just tend to get heated when people ask for justifications for people's feelings on the subject.

[thompur]

I really enjoy TOB rules and classes. What drives me nuts is the layout and artsy fartsy shading on the pages. Especially near the edges. It makes the text within the shading hard to read, unless the lighting is perfect. Also, as previously stated, some of the maneuvers are poorly wrtten, and they should have been listed in level order. Other than that, I loves me my Warblades!:smalltongue:

[Boci]

My largest complaint is with the fact that they have to recharge, because that particular kind of mechanic just bugs me. Yes, like the above example, I probably wouldn't do two ankle sweeps in a row - I can't think of a circumstance where I would - but I should be able to, even if it's a really terrible idea.

But why is that a complaint if you don't mind a system lacking realism?

[WarKitty]

Some of us think that ToB doesn't fix the right things. In my experience, the main problem with melee is that it is far more tied to combat than the casters. So what I want isn't necessarily a class that does more in combat...it's a class that provides me with more options outside of combat. I've had far better luck doing gish builds to address this and refluffing the magicalness away than playing ToB.

[Boci]

Some of us think that ToB doesn't fix the right things. In my experience, the main problem with melee is that it is far more tied to combat than the casters. So what I want isn't necessarily a class that does more in combat...it's a class that provides me with more options outside of combat. I've had far better luck doing gish builds to address this and refluffing the magicalness away than playing ToB.

ToB doesn't give you much out of combat, but it does give you more skill point, and some the maneuvres can be used, like stone hammer as a lock pick.

[WarKitty]

ToB doesn't give you much out of combat, but it does give you more skill point, and some the maneuvres can be used, like stone hammer as a lock pick.

Still, that's no comparison the the flexibility of even a rogue, let alone the casters. I enjoy campaigns that tend to be higher in puzzle-solving, interaction, and mysteries. So one of my base requirements for a character is that it be "at least mildly useful in almost all situations." ToB characters don't meet that.

[Dienekes]

I challenge you to find a thread posted in the last year where someone asked for advice on a core melee class and got nothing but "play a warblade/crusader/swordsage" responses. People keep trotting out that as an argument, but I've yet to see one. People do suggest ToB classes in melee threads, largely because they solve a lot of problems with core melee without creating new ones. It's an easy fix, and it's an official class which neatly sidesteps the homebrew debacle. Otherwise, you have to use builds with lots of dipping into base classes and PrC's, or else nich builds like chargers, in order to keep up with the core spellcasters. In groups where the term "powergamer" is used like a swear word, that's going to breed more resentment than convincing the DM to let you play a Warblade.

Yeah, I'm not gonna do that legwork. Far too lazy. In any case I'm speaking from my memory of when I joined 3 years ago. A thread that started the way I described is what introduced me to ToB in the first place (so I should be thankful)

If things have gotten more cordial since then, that's awesome. But I've never really frequented charop and build help discussions. Interestingly (or more likely no,t) I don't think I've been in one since the Roleplaying Games subforum was split up. Something about hitting that one additional link to 3.5 seems to be stopping me from ever looking at this sort of stuff.

[MlleRouge]

I'm very lukewarm towards TOB, for numerous reasons.

I get crap for banning it sometimes, though 'ban' is a strong word; I strongly discourage it, but I'll allow it if the players heart is set, though a couple schools really rub me the wrong way.

I know its a good book and I know why so many people like it, but it causes some problems with my group. First, a lot of the flavor doesn't fit in my campaign setting at all. I'm usually willing to work around this, but it makes it immediately a little off-putting.

I don't like the idea of replacing multiple classes with TOB classes, either. When I see homebrew systems that outright replace regular melee classes with TOB equivalents, I die a little inside. Sometimes I want to play a normal paladin and smite things. I guess this falls into 'overexposure'.

Next, the first time I allowed it outright (had no reason not to), a player REALLY went too far with it, both IC and OOC. A lot of trash talk about his shiny TOB class, etc. He doesn't play with us anymore, but it's embittered most of the others towards it.

Next, I don't enjoy playing it personally because it feels like playing a caster, not a melee character. As Terazul mentioned, I like regular melee classes as they are, and my players tend to agree. Meh. Just not my/our thing.

That being said, my last campaign before the current one featured a swordsage. One of my regular players really wanted to try it, so I allowed it. The world didn't end. It's a good subsystem and does the right things for a lot of people, but we don't tend to use it a whole lot.

[Shyftir]

This entire thread is inexcusable. It was posted on a friday. TOB disscussion is for thursdays. We have a schedule to keep here people!

[Cespenar]

Still, that's no comparison the the flexibility of even a rogue, let alone the casters. I enjoy campaigns that tend to be higher in puzzle-solving, interaction, and mysteries. So one of my base requirements for a character is that it be "at least mildly useful in almost all situations." ToB characters don't meet that.

ToB characters can do the following out-of-combat stuff, even if not all of them at once:

-Ignore difficult terrains
-Boost speed
-Gain scent (!)
-Get free jumps (!)
-Boost allies' saves
-Crush most materials
-Turn invisible
-Teleport
-Shed themselves of negative conditions
-Throw allies
-Climb walls (like a spider)
-Give ally new turn

Etc.

That was only the first to third level maneuvers. And it's not counting the huge amount of skill points the swordsage gets.

Never mind the fighters, barbarians, monks, etc. but I daresay a swordsage has more out-of-combat use than even a rogue.

[Coidzor]

This entire thread is inexcusable. It was posted on a friday. TOB disscussion is for thursdays. We have a schedule to keep here people!

Well, it was probably still Thursday somewhere, so I'd say it gets a pass in the interest of having met quota.


Still, that's no comparison the the flexibility of even a rogue, let alone the casters. I enjoy campaigns that tend to be higher in puzzle-solving, interaction, and mysteries. So one of my base requirements for a character is that it be "at least mildly useful in almost all situations." ToB characters don't meet that.

Indeed, that's one area where it failed, but failed slightly less than the other classes that WOTC had designed without a skill or casting focus. As was stated, certain maneuvers and stances have some small amount of out of combat utility. Versus the Fighter which gets.... jack and squat and Jack left town.

[Greenish]

Some of us think that ToB doesn't fix the right things. In my experience, the main problem with melee is that it is far more tied to combat than the casters. So what I want isn't necessarily a class that does more in combat...it's a class that provides me with more options outside of combat.Quite true, but then, that's a problem in the how the skill system works (and how multipurpose magic is).


Something about hitting that one additional link to 3.5 seems to be stopping me from ever looking at this sort of stuff.You can get there straight from the forum frontpage. :smalltongue:

[Manateee]

One minor gripe I can see with ToB isn't so much with its contents or balance so much as the game mentality behind them.

[Please forgive the armchair philosophizing; I'm having trouble expressing this gripe without it.]

Decisionmaking in RPGs is typically either generative or selective - "generative" referring to players encountering a situation, coming up with a solution to the problem, and negotiating a mechanical implementation afterward and "selective" referring to players encountering a situation, choosing from a list of possible solutions and using previously agreed-upon mechanics to resolve the solution.

Typically, rules-light games are more generative by necessity and rules-heavy games are more selective as a default. D&D has never been rules-light, but early in every edition it's been more generative than selective - just because the rules don't start out expansive enough to express a reckless lunge or things like channeling spell damage through a weapon. This typically disappears as the edition fleshes itself out (if there's a skill trick to swing on a whip, what sort of DM would let a player without the trick do it for free? if there's a tactical feat to throw dirt in someone's eyes, why would a DM let a player do that for free?).

ToB makes a meaningful push to this process by implementing mechanics to describe the round-by-round actions of a melee warrior in more senses than just the attack or damage bonuses that they receive. This isn't new to 3.5, but it's more immediate to the action than some of the other systems such as feats or classes, which generally provide passive boosts to character actions.

Granted, 3e isn't a particularly good system for generative action even without ToB, but using the book does strongly discourage it in a round-by-round basis.

[Though to spin that around, it does provide a useful structure for homebrewing combat maneuvers for a variety of fighting styles and for assessing them as level-appropriate before they get tangled in a specific scenario - an invaluable tool for a more rigid combat game.]

[Hanuman]

It has more than "I attack again.", that's why people like and dislike it.

Melee classes think that melee should be balanced without having to eat demon fruit (wow, ancient reference), where as any caster will look at a beatstick and wonder how they can dive into combat with nothin but a d20 and bit o pointy metal.

Personally I like homebrew the best-- hell I like classes that came out this WEEK as much as a swordsage let alone some of the real gold out there.

[navar100]

It gives melee nice things.

In 3.5, Mundanes Don't Get Nice Things.

:smalltongue:

This. :smalltongue: not needed.

There are sincere reasons like not wanting to learn new mechanics, but more often those who don't like the book tend to have their reason be this. They have a problem with a warrior moving 30ft and attack once for +6d6 damage over their weapon but have no issue whatsoever with a spellcaster dealing 6d6 damage to everyone in a 40 ft diameter circle from over 400 ft away, even 400 ft up in the air while invisible.

[bloodtide]

So i have to ask, why dont you like Tome of Battle? Whats wrong with it? Do you think its overpowered? Broken? Poorly Written? Poorly used by players?

I honestly cant see it, i think its a lot of fun.

DM

It's just too crazy. To give all the fighter types 'spells'(it's just one step away from 4E), that is a bunch of action they can do in combat, just upsets the game too much. It's one thing to say that magic can reach out and hit a foe at a distance, but it's another to say that a foe is 'just effected by something' that does an effect.

Melee type should just fight, not do crazy maneuvers. It really, really slow the game down when a player wants to do a 'double white swan dive' and then everyone has to argue about how many squares they can move and effect and such.

[Coidzor]

It really, really slow the game down when a player wants to do a 'double white swan dive' and then everyone has to argue about how many squares they can move and effect and such.

You seem to be confusing the adhoc "generative" play that was described a few posts ago as something that rules sets to cover things discourages and ToB maneuvers which are, aside from a few exceptions, pretty well defined.

Certainly they don't have any more wording issues than spells.

Indeed, unless one has players that only ever cast fireball, deciding what spell to cast in a given situation can bog down play a whole heck of a lot more and more regularly, and the solution to such decisions taking up time is largely the same so that's more of a point towards convenience, really.

[Yora]

This. :smalltongue: not needed.

There are sincere reasons like not wanting to learn new mechanics, but more often those who don't like the book tend to have their reason be this. They have a problem with a warrior moving 30ft and attack once for +6d6 damage over their weapon but have no issue whatsoever with a spellcaster dealing 6d6 damage to everyone in a 40 ft diameter circle from over 400 ft away, even 400 ft up in the air while invisible.

Because in theory, and quite often in practice as well in many low-optimization games, the wizard can cast his spells only a very limited time. But once the fireball is out, the slot is spend for the day. Yes, high level play and the amount of wands available at those levels completely destroy the concept, but in low to mid-level games, I think it's still viable.

[The Random NPC]

I don't dislike ToB, but I don't much like it either. On the one hand it feels a lot like Sword Magic, on the other, it isn't hard to refluff that away. And on a mutant third hand, I get a little annoyed when I have to refluff or resort to homebrew for my concept. It would be awesome if all concepts were buildable using the already provided materials. However, I recognize that no system short of a build your own system type can even approch that.

[Incanur]

I dislike the whole notion of special moves and most of ToB's flavor. However, it offends my aesthetic sensibilities no more than core D&D combat rules while working rather better mechanically. One exception: I can't stand White Raven Tactics. The wonky time flow of the initiative system already annoys me, but WRT takes it to a whole new level. I've yet to come up with any way to describe the maneuver to my satisfaction. A quickly shouted order enables your ally to do twice as much as they previous could this round. What, wait? No thank you.

[horseboy]

Because I shouldn't have to pay for a needed patch to a clankingly obvious problem from launch.

[Captain Six]

1. Set-in-stone fluff and very little support expanding it. Now I could go through and change the name of every style, stance and maneuver and insist that my players use the new names only that would take forever and no player would actually go along with it. This is a problem because the current fluff breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. How is it that every corner of every world in the entire planescape developed the same series of martial styles? If they were all as generic as the Iron Heart style I could see it but some of them come across as pretty niche. My first plan was to divide it up among different cultures, such as the Desert Wind Style being created by the Brass Elves of the south-most desert of a specific material plane, but that is practically a stealth ban to anyone wanting access to more than one school per character. Or who picked the wrong race. And even if the players justify it the rest of the world's NPCs wont causing a severe unbalance in world powers. This is the biggest problem for me as a DM and the reason I haven't found a way to place it into any world. (Edit: I am decidedly not a "fluff is metagame only" guy, even if the group has to re-fluff to get things to work for a specific setting it will be followed consistently thereafter.)

2. The mechanics break the suspension of disbelief. An earlier poster mentioned that real fights will usually result in shifting tactics through the battle. This is true, but there is a world of difference in deciding not to perform the same move twice in a row and being completely unable to. It also carries the nasty implication that non-maneuver fighting is just blind swinging or the same motion repeated over and over again. I have toyed with the idea of using the Spell Points system from Unearthed Arcana, creating something like 'Focus Points' or fatigue.

3. If I wanted a homogenous system I would be playing 4e. It sounds like a slur to many of you but I honestly think 4e does a great job at what it is. Unfortunately what 4e is just isn't what I want, nor do I want what WotC openly admits as its prototype.

4. I don't see the point. I am forced to assume those who say core melee classes only have once choice in combat, "I hit it again," don't play with battlemats. On a flat plane of low-cut grass on a warm, windless and sunny spring afternoon maneuvers might make for some good tactical excitement but games I play rarely have battles in such a location. After factoring obstructions, enemy placement, weather, lighting and getting to where I want to be to perform whatever it is I want to do maneuvers come off as a needless and annoying complexity.

5. Petty reasons. I admit I have them. Now most classes are introduced with NPCs bragging about how cool they are, but when game balance clearly sides with Tome of Battle they just sound like cocky jerks. No, Swordsage, mocking heavy armored classes is not going to endear me to you. No, Fanbase of Swordsage, bringing up your awesome class every time someone wants to play a Monk is not going to endear me to you either. Trust me, they thought of you when they first decided to build a monk but nobody called for you. Stay out of it.

6. It's a game changer. I had a DM (usually DMs AD&D) ask me if he should allow Tome of Battle at the request of one of his players. I simply told him that once one player uses Tome of Battle, everyone uses Tome of Battle. It's not like adding a Complete Book or Races of X to the fray. Even Psionic classes only have to be understood by the DM and the Player using it to work in a game. Tome of Battle on the other hand is the only supplement meant to completely eclipse and replace older material.

7. Balance Priorities. Spellcasters are too powerful, even spellcaster players admit it. I understand that WotC cannot cut out huge portions of their own game in the name of balance. I also understand that they can't simply do nothing so they had to buff melee considerably to keep up. Tome of Battle was inevitable. But I feel like Tome of Battle is adding to the problem, not fixing it. Fortunately for me I have no qualms about cutting out huge portions of D&D to make it a game I like so, once again, Tome of Battle is not needed.

[chainer1216]

Do you do any form of fighting as hobby? I don't think the maneuvre system makes martial adepts more like casters, but it does make them more beliable since I can draw parralels between their attacks the drills I learn.



7 years of aikiken and aikido, plus recreational archery, home defence (firearms), and a few random kenpo and eskrima lessions tell me you're full of it and/or insane and/or a superhuman badass. i've never been able to create localised earthquakes/set my enemies on fire with my fist/teleport/heal myself or friends by punching things.

on topic!

i love ToB, its just a bit higher powered than my group normally plays though, and a ToBer will generally overshadow everyone else, but a fellow player and i have been working on fixing that, we've been slowly teaching the others about optimization, so pretty soon it wont be a problem. perhaps someday soon i'll finally be able to play that wu jen/unarmed swordsage/jade phoenix mage i've been dreaming of.

[rmg22893]

From personal experience using the Tome of Battle in a campaign where nobody else knew what it was (coincidentally, they were all rather low-op), people seem to think that fighter-types should do nothing more than hit people and soak up damage.

However, when they start hitting people's touch AC, making several iterative attacks a round, and exhibiting battlefield control through maneuvers, they start getting freaked out. It's the versatility of the martial adept that makes people not like them. They can hold their own in combat, but they also have several out-of-combat utility maneuvers, and they have no limit to how many times they can use them per day. Wizards get offended that you have nice things without spending obscene amounts of gold on items, vanilla fighters get offended that you're more interesting than them, and skillmonkeys get offended because you're helpful out of combat.

So basically everyone hates you because you're useful.

[Zale]

This is practically flamebait. I doubt this thread will last long before it dissolves into another endless argument.

It boils down to different people liking different things. Understand this. Live with this. Move on and find something more entertaining to do.

[Thurbane]

Oh, why I don't like the book/what's wrong with it?

That's easy.

Wayne England.
Wayne England is what's wrong with ToB.
Personally, I find K Andrasofszky's art more repellent - it reminds me of Word clipart, and seems jarringly out of place with most other D&D art.

http://i41.tinypic.com/f23394.jpg

It boils down to different people liking different things. Understand this. Live with this. Move on and find something more entertaining to do.
Words of truth. I used to get drawn into these debates regularly, then I realised the futility of arguing personal preference with such vigour.

On the positive side, it has been a while since we've had our weekly "ToB: love it or hate it" thread.

[Dead_Jester]

I think one of the main issues people have is the traditional dichotomy of casters and non-casters. The first group can do absolutely anything (most of the time within reason), no matter how much it breaks the laws physics, as long as it is "magic", but the second group is limited to things that a normal human being could do. ToB attempts to fix that, and, in most D&D settings, it makes sense that the non-casters achieve some sort of supernatural prowess. When every other guy has some form of "magic", and even monks can achieve supernatural effects by training their bodies and mind, why couldn't a fighter, who does the exact same thing, achieve similar results?

The problem, as some have already mentioned, is that the image of what was the 3.X fighter already existed when ToB came out, and some people don't want to change their baseline. In the minds of many, the fighter, and the other non-casters, are mundane, and they stay that way throughout their career. This is a perfectly acceptable notion, as long as the game world reflects it. In comparison, most people accept the 4th ed Martial classes without problem, and their powers are literally the exact same thing as the ToB maneuvers, because, in 4th ed, the baseline for a fighter includes powers.

The fluff is also an issue, as the peculiar nature of it makes it hard to include in a preexistent campaign setting. If the original classes that the ToB classes are meant to replace still exist, than one of the two sets will look out of place, and, more often than not, the ToB classes will appear gimmicky or tapped on. This could have easily been avoided if WotC had officially said that the ToB classes were not usually meant to be exist side by side with the classes they replace, thereby avoiding the need to include the weird backstory and fluff for ToB.

[Talionis]

I really like the Tome of Battle.

As a system it rewards melee characters with giving them more tactical things to think about and do. When they built 3.5, the put too much stock in melee feats. Often they have requirements of other feats which are fairly useless. So in order to have a "magical" melee attack you are required to fill out some tree with no good stuff till the end. And you've invested a high percentage of your feat resources into an attack, that may or may not be situational. Manyshot/Greater Manyshot comes to mind. Tome of Battle allows for many of these situational attacks to be in your repertoire.

But, it is a major change to the system. Wizards didn't support the new Tome of Battle stuff and it is largely stronger than all melee stuff before it. I like ToB better than 4.0, even though it has elements of 4.0 stuff.

It would be nice to have more Schools of Blade Magic. It would be nice to have some ranged attacker "Blade Magic" too. It would've been nice to see it play better with stuff like psionics.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I dislike the whole notion of special moves and most of ToB's flavor. However, it offends my aesthetic sensibilities no more than core D&D combat rules while working rather better mechanically. One exception: I can't stand White Raven Tactics. The wonky time flow of the initiative system already annoys me, but WRT takes it to a whole new level. I've yet to come up with any way to describe the maneuver to my satisfaction. A quickly shouted order enables your ally to do twice as much as they previous could this round. What, wait? No thank you.

As a staunch supporter of ToB, I'll say the flavor is terrible. That said, a lot of flavor is terrible. A quick glance at the default Fighter's flavor is "generic everyman." Ignoring the Wuju-school influences in Tome of Battle, the Warblade's flavor is more or less the same, but with the added bit of "glory hound."


1. Set-in-stone fluff and very little support expanding it. Now I could go through and change the name of every style, stance and maneuver and insist that my players use the new names only that would take forever and no player would actually go along with it. This is a problem because the current fluff breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. How is it that every corner of every world in the entire planescape developed the same series of martial styles? If they were all as generic as the Iron Heart style I could see it but some of them come across as pretty niche. My first plan was to divide it up among different cultures, such as the Desert Wind Style being created by the Brass Elves of the south-most desert of a specific material plane, but that is practically a stealth ban to anyone wanting access to more than one school per character. Or who picked the wrong race. And even if the players justify it the rest of the world's NPCs wont causing a severe unbalance in world powers. This is the biggest problem for me as a DM and the reason I haven't found a way to place it into any world. (Edit: I am decidedly not a "fluff is metagame only" guy, even if the group has to re-fluff to get things to work for a specific setting it will be followed consistently thereafter.)

Sometimes things just are. Is a sorcerer a sorcerer because his grand-pappy had relations with some form of dragon or is he a sorcerer because he says so? Is someone who uses Desert Wind fire-generating maneuvers capable of so because of insane, nigh impossible training or because maybe he has a dash of Fire Elemental in his blood?

The fluff is a given weakness, but not everything needs explanation. The schools could be schools because of actual monks hidden away teaching them to the exclusion of others or they could just be labeled similarly because they do similar things.


2. The mechanics break the suspension of disbelief. An earlier poster mentioned that real fights will usually result in shifting tactics through the battle. This is true, but there is a world of difference in deciding not to perform the same move twice in a row and being completely unable to. It also carries the nasty implication that non-maneuver fighting is just blind swinging or the same motion repeated over and over again. I have toyed with the idea of using the Spell Points system from Unearthed Arcana, creating something like 'Focus Points' or fatigue.

A leg sweep could be a trip attack (as by unarmed strikes and the Improved Trip feat). It could also be one of several maneuvers. It could be an item ability. Maneuvers as a resource are there so you don't just spam your one button a thousand times over and over again. A wizard who only prepares Fireball is almost no different from a sorcerer who only knows Fireball in the same way that a warblade who only uses trip-based maneuvers is no different than a fighter who knows the improved trip feat.

Certainly, this explanation isn't perfect, but what breaks willing suspension of disbelief varies from person to person. All I can do is try to give a counter point.


3. If I wanted a homogenous system I would be playing 4e. It sounds like a slur to many of you but I honestly think 4e does a great job at what it is. Unfortunately what 4e is just isn't what I want, nor do I want what WotC openly admits as its prototype.

It may be homogenous in the same way that spells are (Different schools, levels of abilities), but even feats have that (Need X BAB, X level spells, X ranks). Whether ToB was a prototype (and whether that is badwrongfun) isn't really something we can discuss. The fact that even pre-existing characters can grab the Martial Study feat to nab a maneuver helps. The mechanics Tome of Battle provides at least allows for easy multiclassing.

As a tangent, Warblade does not obsolete Fighter. It does similar job as the Fighter class (if "better"), but having a character be Fighter X/Warblade Y is nigh seamless in terms of play. The same holds a bit less-so towards Paladin/Crusader and Monk/Unarmed Swordsage, but they all can be mixed safely together.


4. I don't see the point. I am forced to assume those who say core melee classes only have once choice in combat, "I hit it again," don't play with battlemats. On a flat plane of low-cut grass on a warm, windless and sunny spring afternoon maneuvers might make for some good tactical excitement but games I play rarely have battles in such a location. After factoring obstructions, enemy placement, weather, lighting and getting to where I want to be to perform whatever it is I want to do maneuvers come off as a needless and annoying complexity.

Certainly. Having terrain can change a lot of things, but in a round, every character as the same amount of actions (not counting things like celerity). If a Fighter is to dodge behind a pillar (move) and attack (standard), a Warblade could do dodge behind a pillar (move) and then use a strike (standard).


5. Petty reasons. I admit I have them. Now most classes are introduced with NPCs bragging about how cool they are, but when game balance clearly sides with Tome of Battle they just sound like cocky jerks. No, Swordsage, mocking heavy armored classes is not going to endear me to you. No, Fanbase of Swordsage, bringing up your awesome class every time someone wants to play a Monk is not going to endear me to you either. Trust me, they thought of you when they first decided to build a monk but nobody called for you. Stay out of it.

Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder. Swordsage does a lot of "monk-y" things better than a monk. Monk X to Swordsage X isn't a fair comparison, as the Swordsage has more options. This isn't to say one can't make a monk out swordsage a swordsage, just that doing so will be difficult.


6. It's a game changer. I had a DM (usually DMs AD&D) ask me if he should allow Tome of Battle at the request of one of his players. I simply told him that once one player uses Tome of Battle, everyone uses Tome of Battle. It's not like adding a Complete Book or Races of X to the fray. Even Psionic classes only have to be understood by the DM and the Player using it to work in a game. Tome of Battle on the other hand is the only supplement meant to completely eclipse and replace older material.

Changing games can be fun! Also, can we kill this "replace older material" nonsense.:smallsigh: Tome of Battle is very friendly when multiclassing with older "counterparts." It meshes well with them. Does a Warblade have more tricks than a Fighter. Probably, simply because feats only do so much. A fighter (or barbarian) will still keep up with damage output in a round, however.


7. Balance Priorities. Spellcasters are too powerful, even spellcaster players admit it. I understand that WotC cannot cut out huge portions of their own game in the name of balance. I also understand that they can't simply do nothing so they had to buff melee considerably to keep up. Tome of Battle was inevitable. But I feel like Tome of Battle is adding to the problem, not fixing it. Fortunately for me I have no qualms about cutting out huge portions of D&D to make it a game I like so, once again, Tome of Battle is not needed.

More options means more complications means more chances for "OMG OP." Compare core only spellcasters to core only melee. That's not a fun comparison at any level.



Tome of Battle gives more defenses to melee characters. If someone wanted to scream "BY CROM!" to ignore some sort of domination or charm, that player had best roll a high will save. Iron Heart Surge, for all its silly wordings, is nothing more than Conan screaming "BY CROM!" and not falling to some Nancy-boy's magic.

[Boci]

7 years of aikiken and aikido, plus recreational archery, home defence (firearms), and a few random kenpo and eskrima lessions tell me you're full of it and/or insane and/or a superhuman badass. i've never been able to create localised earthquakes/set my enemies on fire with my fist/teleport/heal myself or friends by punching things.

Please tell me you are kidding? Obvious the indevidual maneuvres aren't realistic, D&D is about heroes after all. But the system of maneuvres is (at least when compared to the alternatives). That was my point.

[Terazul]

It's just too crazy. To give all the fighter types 'spells'(it's just one step away from 4E), that is a bunch of action they can do in combat, just upsets the game too much. It's one thing to say that magic can reach out and hit a foe at a distance, but it's another to say that a foe is 'just effected by something' that does an effect.

Melee type should just fight, not do crazy maneuvers. It really, really slow the game down when a player wants to do a 'double white swan dive' and then everyone has to argue about how many squares they can move and effect and such.

I personally find it slows down combat more when the dashing swordsman of the group wants to leap across the room and hit and disarm the villain, and the DM and players argue how many checks and how high they should be to do it.

Instead of, yknow, using Sudden Leap as a swift action, followed by Disarming Strike as a standard.

People always say "zany maneuvers", but most of them are no more outrageous than feats. In fact, a good deal of them are in fact, just feats without ridiculous requirements and reasonably justified with skill with a weapon. Many are quick to point out Swordsages having zany supernatural maneuvers; ones they don't even have to take, but a monk has a greater percentage of supernatural class features compared to possible choices by a swordsage anyway. I still don't understand how most maneuvers break the realm of believability in the same game with a robot who turns souls into magic equipment that he wears on his body on a daily basis.

It doesn't even eclipse the old Fighter or Barbarian in terms of damage, just offers options, and I guarantee you learning how a maneuver works is easier than remembering every step of grappling resolution.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Melee classes think that melee should be balanced without having to eat demon fruit (wow, ancient reference)

...One Piece?


7 years of aikiken and aikido, plus recreational archery, home defence (firearms), and a few random kenpo and eskrima lessions tell me you're full of it and/or insane and/or a superhuman badass. i've never been able to create localised earthquakes/set my enemies on fire with my fist/teleport/heal myself or friends by punching things.

You're kidding, right? First off, two of those are supernatural, AKA not possible at all in real life. A third is an adrenaline push to keep you up longer. The last is a 15th level ability, and normal humans max out at 6th.

[Boci]

1. Set-in-stone fluff and very little support expanding it. Now I could go through and change the name of every style, stance and maneuver and insist that my players use the new names only that would take forever and no player would actually go along with it. This is a problem because the current fluff breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. How is it that every corner of every world in the entire planescape developed the same series of martial styles? If they were all as generic as the Iron Heart style I could see it but some of them come across as pretty niche. My first plan was to divide it up among different cultures, such as the Desert Wind Style being created by the Brass Elves of the south-most desert of a specific material plane, but that is practically a stealth ban to anyone wanting access to more than one school per character. Or who picked the wrong race. And even if the players justify it the rest of the world's NPCs wont causing a severe unbalance in world powers. This is the biggest problem for me as a DM and the reason I haven't found a way to place it into any world. (Edit: I am decidedly not a "fluff is metagame only" guy, even if the group has to re-fluff to get things to work for a specific setting it will be followed consistently thereafter.)

I think your making a big deal out of this. Fencing and aikido where developed by different cultures, but I can learn both today without leaving my continent. As long as you establish that they have been around for a long time it makes sense that they can be learnt.

Alternativly, but this one is harder, do what you described, but offer some of the homebrew disciplines to make up for it. Very time consuming, but could be pretty good.


2. The mechanics break the suspension of disbelief. An earlier poster mentioned that real fights will usually result in shifting tactics through the battle. This is true, but there is a world of difference in deciding not to perform the same move twice in a row and being completely unable to.

True, but the complaint of "it doesn't allow me to do something that no fighter of any intellect would ever try to do in most situations" doesn't sound too convinving. Its a problem, but less of a problem than 3 round of sword play leaving both combatants none the weaker.


3. If I wanted a homogenous system I would be playing 4e. It sounds like a slur to many of you but I honestly think 4e does a great job at what it is. Unfortunately what 4e is just isn't what I want, nor do I want what WotC openly admits as its prototype.

There are barely any similarities. I doubt this point would even be mentioned if the same systems weren't published by the same company.


4. I don't see the point. I am forced to assume those who say core melee classes only have once choice in combat, "I hit it again," don't play with battlemats. On a flat plane of low-cut grass on a warm, windless and sunny spring afternoon maneuvers might make for some good tactical excitement but games I play rarely have battles in such a location. After factoring obstructions, enemy placement, weather, lighting and getting to where I want to be to perform whatever it is I want to do maneuvers come off as a needless and annoying complexity.

I think this one is over stated. How often can the enviroment be reasonably used? You may require a combat maneuvre you are ill equiped to do like grapple or bullrush, and at higher level pushing someone into bonefire for 3d6 fire damage does doesn't cut it.

[Nero24200]

Yeah, it's terrible when people try to help you.

If I ask for fighter advice I don't consider it helpful to be told to look at another class that is radically different. If you ask for advice on playing a ranger do I tell you to look at wizard?

Quite frankly that kind of attitude is snobby and elitist. If I want to not use TOB let me, quit trying to push it on me simply because you enjoy it. Quit acting like it factually better because your opinion (as hard as this may be to believe) isn't fact. IT'S AN OPINION.

[Boci]

If I ask for fighter advice I don't consider it helpful to be told to look at another class that is radically different. If you ask for advice on playing a ranger do I tell you to look at wizard?

But many people don't consider the warblade and fighter to be radically different. If you do thats great, but ToB often isn't mentioned in the OP, and whilst you do get people pushing the book, you also get people outraged at its suggestion when it was a potential solution which they didn't specify they din't want.

[Half-Orc Rage]

Actually, what I have been wondering about ToB a while now is a little different. Considering that its proponents like the different power options for melee and that it balances with casters, why don't those fans also like 4th edition? ToB was obviously an inspiration for 4e, the way many of the powers work by encounter and everything. Yet these board posters who love ToB and criticize 3.5 for its lack of balance don't seem enthusiastic about 4e at all.

[Coidzor]

If I ask for fighter advice I don't consider it helpful to be told to look at another class that is radically different. If you ask for advice on playing a ranger do I tell you to look at wizard?

If one asks for gish advice with a duskblade, it is a fair question to ask why one is not doing it with a different gish chassis. If one is making a warmage and doing nothing but blasting, it is a fair question to ask why they're not just making a sorcerer with blasting spells.

So too, if one is making a beatstick, it's a fair question to ask whether they've fully considered their options or not. As, very often, they have not because they're new and they're coming online to ask for help about it from a wider range than the group.


Quite frankly that kind of attitude is snobby and elitist. If I want to not use TOB let me, quit trying to push it on me simply because you enjoy it. Quit acting like it factually better because your opinion (as hard as this may be to believe) isn't fact. IT'S AN OPINION.

Unless someone has specified beforehand, such as in their Opening Post, how, pray tell, are we to know that someone has an allergic reaction to having ToB suggested to them? :smallannoyed:

Are we to have looked into all of your posting history ever? Because that's just creepy and undesirable in general.

Are we to divine your intentions and hangups from the aether? Because as far as we know that isn't actually a thing and is just a defunct way of thinking about interplanetary space.

Though, really, that ToB is mechanically more versatile by RAW than non-ToB mundane melee is not "just" an opinion, that is something that can be shown as an objective fact in the system.

4e tangent:
Actually, what I have been wondering about ToB a while now is a little different. Considering that its proponents like the different power options for melee and that it balances with casters, why don't those fans also like 4th edition? ToB was obviously an inspiration for 4e, the way many of the powers work by encounter and everything. Yet these board posters who love ToB and criticize 3.5 for its lack of balance don't seem enthusiastic about 4e at all.

Because 4e is often thought of as pared down and instead of giving every character interesting options, makes it so that everyone is basically nothing but combat and some skills.

[Boci]

Actually, what I have been wondering about ToB a while now is a little different. Considering that its proponents like the different power options for melee and that it balances with casters, why don't those fans also like 4th edition? ToB was obviously an inspiration for 4e, the way many of the powers work by encounter and everything. Yet these board posters who love ToB and criticize 3.5 for its lack of balance don't seem enthusiastic about 4e at all.

4E goes to war. The "4E fighter is a wizard" is a lie, but at the same time all classes pre-essential are built off the same template baring psionics, but with a mid tier 3.5 group you have shadow magic, evocations, maneuvres, incarnum, advanced learning casters. Lots of different systems, whilst still balanced against eachother.


Words of truth. I used to get drawn into these debates regularly, then I realised the futility of arguing personal preference with such vigour.

There was never really much to argue about with you though. Your group seems to play a different type of D&D to most, as demonstrated by your DMs willingness to spend time homebrewing a 3.5 without feats or something.

[Douglas]

If I ask for fighter advice I don't consider it helpful to be told to look at another class that is radically different. If you ask for advice on playing a ranger do I tell you to look at wizard?

Quite frankly that kind of attitude is snobby and elitist. If I want to not use TOB let me, quit trying to push it on me simply because you enjoy it. Quit acting like it factually better because your opinion (as hard as this may be to believe) isn't fact. IT'S AN OPINION.
When someone asks for fighter advice, quite often the intent of the question is really to ask for generic non-magic melee beatstick advice rather than the Fighter class being a specific requirement. Until and unless it is made clear that the person asking for advice really does mean the Fighter class (and not just because of ignorance), Warblade is a reasonable suggestion.

It's a specific instance of the more general principle that, in matters of build advice, character archetype is far more commonly the important detail than game mechanical class, and when the person requesting help mentions a specific class he is often really referring to the archetype that is stereotypically associated with that class. Suggesting Warblade in place of Fighter is nothing at all like suggesting Wizard in place of Ranger. Warblade and Fighter share an archetype, while Wizard and Ranger have drastically different archetypes.

[navar100]

If I ask for fighter advice I don't consider it helpful to be told to look at another class that is radically different. If you ask for advice on playing a ranger do I tell you to look at wizard?

Quite frankly that kind of attitude is snobby and elitist. If I want to not use TOB let me, quit trying to push it on me simply because you enjoy it. Quit acting like it factually better because your opinion (as hard as this may be to believe) isn't fact. IT'S AN OPINION.

I like Tome of Battle very much, but I agree with you. It's the same thing as saying "play a cleric" when someone asks for advice on playing a paladin. The chassis is to play a paladin with the paladin mechanics, not a spellcasting holy warrior calling himself a paladin, not that there's anything wrong with doing that for its own sake in some hypothetical game.


Actually, what I have been wondering about ToB a while now is a little different. Considering that its proponents like the different power options for melee and that it balances with casters, why don't those fans also like 4th edition? ToB was obviously an inspiration for 4e, the way many of the powers work by encounter and everything. Yet these board posters who love ToB and criticize 3.5 for its lack of balance don't seem enthusiastic about 4e at all.

Because 4E got rid of magic altogether. "Magic" is just another word for "sword" or "bow". You cast a "spell", and just like almost every other power, you do X amount of damage and bad guy is inconvenienced for a round with the amount of damage and severity of inconvenience slowly linearly increasing as the levels increase. For some classes, someone moves instead of inconveniencing the bad guy. The only real difference between the powers is the type of damage: fire, necrotic, acid, psionic, basic. I will grant wizards have some non-damage attack powers.

Rituals are money drainers, nickel and diming every last copper piece you have.

Magic items are almost all plus number to your attack roll and/or once a day do Xd6 damage, the only difference being the type of damage, and you are limited by how many magic items you can use.

Healing potions are not healing potions. They merely give you the privilege of using up a healing surge.

I don't criticize 3E's so called lack of balance. I actually have no issues with it at all. My group has been playing with wizards, druids, and clerics in the same party as fighters, rogues, and monks for ten years now without any problems at all. I have my nitpicks of my personal aesthetics, but I don't have such a conniption fit as some people that a wizard can cast Gate or cleric Righteous Might.

[sonofzeal]

I like Tome of Battle very much, but I agree with you. It's the same thing as saying "play a cleric" when someone asks for advice on playing a paladin. The chassis is to play a paladin with the paladin mechanics, not a spellcasting holy warrior calling himself a paladin, not that there's anything wrong with doing that for its own sake in some hypothetical game.
While that's often the case, it's also quite often that people hadn't considered their options for the same concept. "Paladin" can be code for "holy warrior" in general, and the player may be completely satisfied with... say, Cleric6/Prestige.Paladin3/etc.

Remember, they came here for advice. If that "advice" was merely telling them to do what they're already doing, we haven't added anything to the conversation, nor have we helped the person. The whole point of asking for advice is to hear new options and get new ideas. If they absolutely want to use the Paladin class, and not Cleric or Crusader, they're free to say so in their original post and people will respect that. But giving new ideas is the entire point of the thread. If they don't specify their attachment to a particular class, or race, or feat, or combat style, then people are naturally going to recommend new things.

Because that's the whole point.

[pwykersotz]

From a fair bit of personal experience, I have a love/hate relationship with the Tome of Battle.

I love the concept. The versatility. The power. It's interesting to play because there's so much more than "I charging/power attack/leap attack the bear". It turns melee into something supernatural and that's nifty.

I hate the fact that so much of it doesn't work as written. Many maneuvers depend on "being in combat" and in a game where sometimes the players don't know if they're in combat or not or when they try to justify attacking their party (and purposefully missing because the maneuver works on attack, not on damage) to heal themselves for hundreds of hitpoints, it's just a little silly.

Short version, I've homebrewed myself a few limitations to the open-endedness that is the Tome and it's been working great for me. Of course, your mileage may vary.

[Gavinfoxx]

Let me copy and paste something I wrote in another thread...


Actually, if you want to explicitly simulate non supernatural martial arts in D&D, the Warblade is possibly the closest class you can use for that purpose before going to 3rd party sources to simulate the sorts of things that happen in real fighting. Now, that doesn't mean that it is always realistic, just that you can build the most realistic fighter with that class if you put your mind to it! For example, I've always wanted to play a Warblade who is a Federfechter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federfechter), who used to be a Zweihänder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder) wielding Doppelsöldner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppels%C3%B6ldner) in the Landsknechts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknechts), who focuses on Iron Heart (with a bit of Stone Dragon), and I would just rename the stances and strikes and counters and stuff with terms from German longsword fencing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_school_of_fencing). He'd wear a Breastplate and fight with a Greatsword. It totally fits!

[Remmirath]

To turn that around, I'm honestly confused as to why you would think that doesn't immediately segue into a question about what one's playing style is and how one thinks that ToB doesn't fit it.

All right, you make a good point, and I probably should've explained further in the first place.

I suppose my normal group plays D&D in a very different way than most of the people in this thread, and I tend to forget that as my way of playing is normal to me. We mostly only use the core rulebooks (with a few exceptions, such as the Epic Level Handbook, Expanded Psionics and the Draconomicon), throwing in sometimes a few bits and pieces of other things we like.

A typical adventuring day for us is between eight and sixteen hours, and so there is plenty of time for even high level spellcasters to run out of spells - even in our current game, at 60th+ levels, spellcasters are running out. They generally eschew wands and scrolls, since wands and scrolls simply don't cut it at higher levels - yes, at mid levels they do fine, but once you get past twentieth they aren't very useful.

Anything out of combat is usually resolved with roleplaying, although skills do help - but not having a lot of skills doesn't really matter very much. We also house rule away cross-class skills, which helps with that.

Speaking of that, we do have a fair amount of house rules, and those take care of most of the remaining problems - although in fact I don't recall any that specifically address any balance issues between fighter and other classes. The bulk of them are fixing things that are wrong with the existing epic rules.

We always play in homebrewed worlds, so the more the fluff sticks to the book the less likely we are to use it - and Tome of Battle's sticks pretty hard and often doesn't fit in. We take turns DMing in those worlds, and generally keep playing in one world until either the goal of the main campaign is achieved or the world gets just too messed up, whichever happens first.

Versatility is also more important the fewer characters you have in the game, and although we have very few players, each one of us typically plays many characters. So, more versatility isn't needed, and in fact we all preferred to play a variety of specialised characters.

Also, I don't know how Tome of Battle's abilities tend to work at higher levels, but most special abilities that are great at low level become completely useless at higher (meaning afore-mentioned epic) levels I've found - so then, with the levels we usually play to, from the early-mid-game on I'd be stuck with the recharging ability mechanics that I don't like, but not gaining anything useful from it.

I'm probably forgetting some things, but hopefully that explanation helps.


Generally because their players are not 100% content happy campers and come online and ask for help making a character that is fun under the restrictions they're making the character under and often times the most elegant solution would be to just have them play a ToB class.

Right. That makes sense, and if your players aren't happy, you obviously need to come up with a compromise or solution (or just use the book). If I were DMing a game for a group of people who were having such problems, I would use it - but that isn't the case. I did say that nobody in the group wants it.


But why is that a complaint if you don't mind a system lacking realism?

I find it to be more annoying than it is helpful. Like I believe I said before, it doesn't feel to me like playing a fighter who is deciding what moves to use in a given situation, it feels to me like playing a character who is deciding what way-cool thing to do. To me, it's an important distinction.

4th edition tangent:
I do actually dislike Tome of Battle for many of the same reasons I dislike 4th edition, and most of the people I know personally who like the Tome also like or are at least neutral towards 4th. So, that puzzles me somewhat also.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Many maneuvers depend on "being in combat" and in a game where sometimes the players don't know if they're in combat or not or when they try to justify attacking their party (and purposefully missing because the maneuver works on attack, not on damage) to heal themselves for hundreds of hitpoints, it's just a little silly.

"Successful melee attack" means "hit". And the only one that doesn't specify that is Martial Spirit, and considering it uses the word "hit" later...

[chainer1216]

Please tell me you are kidding? Obvious the indevidual maneuvres aren't realistic, D&D is about heroes after all. But the system of maneuvres is (at least when compared to the alternatives). That was my point.

i'm not jokeing, just because i do alittle spin before i hit you with my sword doesn't mean i should deal 15d6 extra damage.

trip, disarm, grapple, fight defensively, those are things my martial arts training covers. forcing my hangover to go away by sheer force of will? not really. as said before, what you're saying implies that a fighter does nothing but attack his foes by acting like he was chopping a piece of wood.

now the problem is, tripping, disarming, grappleing, fighting defensively and, lets not forget, bull rushing all pretty much suck without some serious investment, and with the way combat works in DnD they dont mesh well with actual attacks, so no one uses them unless theyre built to do only that. thats where ToB comes in and makes things more movie/video game/comic book-like.

ToB awesome? yes {{scrubbed}}

[Boci]

i'm not jokeing, just because i do alittle spin before i hit you with my sword doesn't mean i should deal 15d6 extra damage.

I kno, I acknowledged that in the post you quoted.


trip, disarm, grapple, fight defensively, those are things my martial arts training covers. forcing my hangover to go away by sheer force of will? not really. as said before, what you're saying implies that a fighter does nothing but attack his foes by acting like he was chopping a piece of wood.

No, core melee implies that.


ToB awesome? yes, a more realistic version of combat? {{scrubbed}}

But it is. Just replace the effect of a menuvre with a move you can actually do, like a falchion lock or leg sweep. Please don't imply I abuse illegal substances. I don't take it well.

[chainer1216]

No, core melee implies that.

how so? just because it doesn't have differant rules for vertical or horizontal strikes?





But it is. Just replace the effect of a menuvre with a move you can actually do, like a falchion lock or leg sweep.

those are fight defensively and trip, not "i block you're strike and then throw you to the ground so hard it creates a small crater"

EDIT: basically the only big thing i can do IRL and not in core DnD is a throw of some sort, but that could be fluffed into tripping. but thats what alot of combat is in DnD, fluffing a generic mechanic into what you want it to be. ToB puts these basic techniques and puts very specific rules to them, and then exagerates them to ridiculus levels.





Please don't imply I abuse illegal substances. I don't take it well.

hm, i see how it can be taken that way, my apologies.

[Boci]

how so? just because it doesn't have differant rules for vertical or horizontal strikes?

No, but because a full attack does nothing but HP damage, and as long as you have at least 1 you no weaker.


those are fight defensively and trip, not "i block you're strike and then throw you to the ground so hard it creates a small crater"

I don't understand how I can communicate this much clearer. Individual manoeuvres are not realistic, because D&D is fantasy. But the system of manoeuvres/encounter with a recovery mechanic more accurately depicts a fight than the core martial system.

[Greenish]

On the positive side, it has been a while since we've had our weekly "ToB: love it or hate it" thread.Is it really a weekly thread if it doesn't pop up weekly? :smalltongue:


If I ask for fighter advice I don't consider it helpful to be told to look at another class that is radically different. If you ask for advice on playing a ranger do I tell you to look at wizard?I wouldn't know. I can't read your mind.

I might be happy, though, if you brought up swift hunter, or wilderness rogue, or any other class that does what I want to do, but that I hadn't thought of.


Quite frankly that kind of attitude is snobby and elitist. If I want to not use TOB let me, quit trying to push it on me simply because you enjoy it.Who, exactly, is pushing ToB on you?

Just mentioning the book when it's relevant doesn't seem horribly pushy to me.


It's the same thing as saying "play a cleric" when someone asks for advice on playing a paladin. The chassis is to play a paladin with the paladin mechanics, not a spellcasting holy warrior calling himself a paladinUnless they say so, how am I to know?


They generally eschew wands and scrolls, since wands and scrolls simply don't cut it at higher levels - yes, at mid levels they do fine, but once you get past twentieth they aren't very useful. …

…

…Yeah, if level 20 is "mid levels" to you, I really don't think you're playing the same game as I am.

[Hiro Protagonest]

how so? just because it doesn't have differant rules for vertical or horizontal strikes?



those are fight defensively and trip, not "i block you're strike and then throw you to the ground so hard it creates a small crater"

EDIT: basically the only big thing i can do IRL and not in core DnD is a throw of some sort, but that could be fluffed into tripping. but thats what alot of combat is in DnD, fluffing a generic mechanic into what you want it to be. ToB puts these basic techniques and puts very specific rules to them, and then exagerates them to ridiculus levels.
...You missed my post, didn't you.

You're kidding, right? First off, two of those are supernatural, AKA not possible at all in real life. A third is an adrenaline push to keep you up longer. The last is a 15th level ability, and normal humans max out at 6th.

[mucco]

*Ignoring 4 pages of thread*

I dislike it in PbP games! Immediate actions, obscure abilities that come up once per month so you can't learn them, and how the hell do you pick maneuvers for a crusader? If I had to DM a crusader in a PbP I'd just tell him to use the warblade mechanic, even if it's unfair.

[Worira]

DM writes powers on cards, draws cards and gives crusader powers. Alternately, assign each power a number between 1 and whatever, then randomly determine them that way.

[Hiro Protagonest]

*Ignoring 4 pages of thread*

I dislike it in PbP games! Immediate actions, obscure abilities that come up once per month so you can't learn them, and how the hell do you pick maneuvers for a crusader? If I had to DM a crusader in a PbP I'd just tell him to use the warblade mechanic, even if it's unfair.

Uh, ToB doesn't invent the immediate action.

And crusader? People figured that out years ago. Roll a die.

[Boci]

*Ignoring 4 pages of thread*

I dislike it in PbP games! Immediate actions, obscure abilities that come up once per month so you can't learn them, and how the hell do you pick maneuvers for a crusader? If I had to DM a crusader in a PbP I'd just tell him to use the warblade mechanic, even if it's unfair.

Immediate actions are not that bad, you can just end your post with a note to the DM saying how if the monster attacks an ally you will grant them +4 to AC. The maneuvre selection are a bit harder, but you can just roll dice.


DM writes powers on cards, draws cards and gives crusader powers. Alternately, assign each power a number between 1 and whatever, then randomly determine them that way.

Not that good for a PbP game.

[Rubik]

I like ToB.

As far as the maneuvers not being 'realistic,' D&D is a superhero game after 6th level. Seriously, it really is. A high-level barbarian can fall from a previously geosynchronous orbit and survive without being appreciably hindered in any way, because he got angry. A high-level fighter can (if built right), punch his hand through the fantasy-equivalent of titanium without shattering every bone in his arm. A high-level monk with a decent strength can deal more damage with his bare fists than someone firing a shotgun at close range. Any predator (even mundane animals) that can swallow prey whole can have said prey claw its way out of the predator's stomach and be fine next round because its muscles close the hole.

And all of this is without magic. D&D takes place in a world where physics is considerably different than our world. Humans (and other creatures) are capable of shattering the boundaries of what's possible with biology, because D&D biology works differently.

If your beef is that ToB allows mundanes to do things we don't consider mundane, well, EVERY class does that, even the fighter. Just not quite to the same extent.

And hell, most of the maneuvers billed as 'mundane' are adding movement options, adding damage, or pushing the boundaries of D&D normality. The ones doing actual magical stuff? Totally billed as magic.

So that argument simply won't fly for anybody who thinks about it for a few minutes.

[Thurbane]

Is it really a weekly thread if it doesn't pop up weekly? :smalltongue:
True - perhaps I should have said "former weekly thread". A little part of me hoped the regular, 20+ page back and forths, full of the usual suspects, had gone dormant. :smallbiggrin:

Haven't seen a "Paladin falling = stupid" thread for a bit either. On the other hand, the "Monk: sucks or not" and "Fighter vs. Wizard challenge" threads continue unabated. :smallamused:

[Manateee]

This clearly needs more meta.

brb, drafting "Who would win: 20-page 'Psionics: Broken or Brokenest' thread or 15-page 'Tier system sux/rox' thread?" thread.

[Big Fau]

Actually, what I have been wondering about ToB a while now is a little different. Considering that its proponents like the different power options for melee and that it balances with casters, why don't those fans also like 4th edition? ToB was obviously an inspiration for 4e, the way many of the powers work by encounter and everything. Yet these board posters who love ToB and criticize 3.5 for its lack of balance don't seem enthusiastic about 4e at all.

My personal issues with how the system is designed (4E's feats really make me cringe), it's that 4E is Vanican for everyone, not Tome of Battle for everyone. In the Bo9S, there was internal variance (Discipline access, class features, progression variances, etc).

In 4E, everyone follows the same exact template (except Psionics, as mentioned earlier). They have 1/2 BAB, 16 Con, and a single "discipline" that's split into combat styles that have no variation. Everything is "XdY damage+Key score, minor status ailments" or "X[W]+Key score, minor penalty".

The Bo9S has a very interesting amount of tactical options; playing out an encounter is a measure of tactics in and of itself. Those tactics do not work in 4E (tripping, for example, does not exist at all outside of high-level play). With the Bo9S, you are flexible and capable of contributing to the party when you can't close in on the enemy. In 4E, you have to be either a "spellcaster" (bunching the Warlock and company in here) or a Leader with Ranged attacks in order to contribute against Flying enemies (and PC flight in 4E is a joke).

Every single 4E class is comparable to a Tier 4 class in 3.5: Capable of doing one thing really well, but has trouble when not doing that one thing. While Tier 4 isn't that bad, it just tastes like an MMO.

I've heard many detractors of 4E say "it's D&D in name only". Same idea here.

[Worira]

Immediate actions are not that bad, you can just end your post with a note to the DM saying how if the monster attacks an ally you will grant them +4 to AC. The maneuvre selection are a bit harder, but you can just roll dice.



Not that good for a PbP game.

How is it not that good for a PbP game? It's not like cards stop being a thing that exist just because you're sitting at a computer, and it's actually easier to roll 1Dhowevermanymaneuversareleft on a computer than a physical die.

[Boci]

How is it not that good for a PbP game? It's not like cards stop being a thing that exist just because you're sitting at a computer, and it's actually easier to roll 1Dhowevermanymaneuversareleft on a computer than a physical die.

Yes, online dice are better than cards.

[Greenish]

True - perhaps I should have said "former weekly thread". A little part of me hoped the regular, 20+ page back and forths, full of the usual suspects, had gone dormant. :smallbiggrin:'twas but a breather. Now we lack some of the old usual suspects, but we got new ones to step on their place. The debate will probably outlive the edition actually being played. :smallcool:


Haven't seen a "Paladin falling = stupid" thread for a bit either. On the other hand, the "Monk: sucks or not" and "Fighter vs. Wizard challenge" threads continue unabated.I doubt paladin threads are gone for good, either. Maybe that's more of a cyclical thing. The others, well, classics do not age, do they?

[Hawkfrost000]

Let me copy and paste something I wrote in another thread...


Actually, if you want to explicitly simulate non supernatural martial arts in D&D, the Warblade is possibly the closest class you can use for that purpose before going to 3rd party sources to simulate the sorts of things that happen in real fighting. Now, that doesn't mean that it is always realistic, just that you can build the most realistic fighter with that class if you put your mind to it! For example, I've always wanted to play a Warblade who is a Federfechter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federfechter), who used to be a Zweihänder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder) wielding Doppelsöldner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppels%C3%B6ldner) in the Landsknechts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknechts), who focuses on Iron Heart (with a bit of Stone Dragon), and I would just rename the stances and strikes and counters and stuff with terms from German longsword fencing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_school_of_fencing). He'd wear a Breastplate and fight with a Greatsword. It totally fits!

I.......

Approve, i aprove greatly.

I am tempted to do the same thing but with Rapier as taught by Ridolfo Capo Ferro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridolfo_Capo_Ferro) and using mostly Diamond Mind and White Raven or a student of Fiore dei Liberi's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiore_dei_liberi) Longsword school also using Iron Heart.

I could bring one of my swords to the session, i can see it now: "And i strike the Ork in primo tempo, just so!" *crash* "oops! that vase wasn't important was it?"

DM

[turkishproverb]

You know why I don't like it? I don't care about the book itself, but every time someone asks for a fighter build they get "play a warblade instead", every time someone asks for a paladin they get "play a crusader instead", every time someone asks for a monk they get "play a swordsage instead" and I'm getting sick of hearing it.

This much I'll agree with.


Yeah, it's terrible when people try to help you.

That's, past the first mention, not trying to help that's a "YOUR HAVING DOUBLEPLUS UNGOOD WRONGFUN AND SHOULD BE ASHAMED" reaction.

It's not helpful. If anything it's the opposite. people who do it, partiuclarly with the frequency it happens, are essentially trolling a thread, telling them something they DON"T NEED.

It's like if I posted in every 4E thread "Play 3.5 instead". I'd get smacked for trolling. I still can't believe how much people think they're in the right and utterly polite and appropriate when they get insistent about the "WOT U SHOOD PLY A SWRSGE INSTED" reaction.

[olentu]

This much I'll agree with.



That's, past the first mention, not trying to help that's a "YOUR HAVING DOUBLEPLUS UNGOOD WRONGFUN AND SHOULD BE ASHAMED" reaction.

It's not helpful. If anything it's the opposite. people who do it, partiuclarly with the frequency it happens, are essentially trolling a thread, telling them something they DON"T NEED.

It's like if I posted in every 4E thread "Play 3.5 instead". I'd get smacked for trolling. I still can't believe how much people think they're in the right and utterly polite and appropriate when they get insistent about the "WOT U SHOOD PLY A SWRSGE INSTED" reaction.

Really the problem is the lack of clarity in the language. Not everyone means straight PHB fighter 20 when they say fighter, and similarly with regards to other words. I mean, when I say monk I don't necessarily mean 20 levels of cloistered cleric.

And so people presumably interpret words based on the way they use them making their answers valid from their point of view.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

That's, past the first mention, not trying to help that's a "YOUR HAVING DOUBLEPLUS UNGOOD WRONGFUN AND SHOULD BE ASHAMED" reaction.

It's not helpful. If anything it's the opposite. people who do it, partiuclarly with the frequency it happens, are essentially trolling a thread, telling them something they DON"T NEED.

It's like if I posted in every 4E thread "Play 3.5 instead". I'd get smacked for trolling. I still can't believe how much people think they're in the right and utterly polite and appropriate when they get insistent about the "WOT U SHOOD PLY A SWRSGE INSTED" reaction.

If the original post says "No Tome of Battle," a lot of what you get is "Useful information regarding class X" and a few "Why no Tome of Battle?" posts.

Depending on the requests, you'll either see links to various handbooks (my preferred and lazy approach) or small stubs. If the OP doesn't have any restrictions, you'll probably have things from numerous sources, Tome of Battle or otherwise.

[turkishproverb]

Really the problem is the lack of clarity in the language. Not everyone means straight PHB fighter 20 when they say fighter, and similarly with regards to other words. I mean, when I say monk I don't necessarily mean 20 levels of cloistered cleric.

And so people presumably interpret words based on the way they use them making their answers valid from their point of view.


If the original post says "No Tome of Battle," a lot of what you get is "Useful information regarding class X" and a few "Why no Tome of Battle?" posts.

Depending on the requests, you'll either see links to various handbooks (my preferred and lazy approach) or small stubs. If the OP doesn't have any restrictions, you'll probably have things from numerous sources, Tome of Battle or otherwise.

I have no problem with Tome of battle, and would have no problem with dip suggestions in threads asking for help building a monk, fighter, etc. But these people are suggesting, usually insistently, that one should play the TOB class instead of the class the person requested help with. Not cool.

[olentu]

I have no problem with Tome of battle, and would have no problem with dip suggestions in threads asking for help building a monk, fighter, etc. But these people are suggesting, usually insistently, that one should play the TOB class instead of the class the person requested help with. Not cool.

Like I said when someone says samurai they don't necessarily mean the class but may in fact merely mean a character that resembles an idea that the word inspires. If I asked for a samurai should I be offended if someone should suggest the class from complete warrior instead of a barbarian/fighter/kensai using spear and bow from horseback. Should I be offended that they can't read my mind and so had to interpret the words using their own take on the language. I really think not especially given the level of ambiguity that comes from internet based conversation with unknown people.

[Alienist]

It gives melee nice things.

In 3.5, Mundanes Don't Get Nice Things.

:smalltongue:

Does it? I mean I know it grants (or is knocking on the door of) some of this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StoryBreakerPower

But does it share the love, or is it only for a very small subset of melee?

Take the first thing on the list: anti-magic. What is the earliest level that a Fighter can get access to this (using the feats that give access to the ToB powers) ???

Consider this: if there was a book that came out, which instantly made every psionic, divine or arcane caster, and all their prestige classes instantly worthless, then wouldn't it be just as feared and reviled?

Or (to head off the potential nitpickers) perhaps not entirely worthless - If there was a book that when people looked at it, they said "okay, we need to bump Wizards and Clerics down to tier 3 now, everyone move down two tiers to make from for these new guys at the top".

I've been in a game where one guy starts bringing in ToB stuff, and I just feel bad for the existing fighters. Some new guy comes in and straight away starts beating them at their schtick by a factor of 3x or more.

[edit some people took offense, which was not my intention, so i reworded this to try to give it a more neutral tone]
Some people are good at optimising their characters, whether through natural talent, hard work.. Others don't want to do that. I don't think it's fair to those people to then introduce new systems in the middle of a campaign that without optimisation will make their old characters obsolete, and to then justify it by telling them that if they want to keep fulfilling their role they need to change the way they play.

.

[absolmorph]

Does it? I mean I know it grants (or is knocking on the door of) some of this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StoryBreakerPower

But does it share the love, or is it only for a very small subset of melee?

Take the first thing on the list: anti-magic. What is the earliest level that a Fighter can get access to this (using the feats that give access to the ToB powers) ???

Consider this: if there was a book that came out, which instantly made every psionic, divine or arcane caster, and all their prestige classes instantly worthless, then wouldn't it be just as feared and reviled?

Or (to head off the potential nitpickers) perhaps not entirely worthless - If there was a book that when people looked at it, they said "okay, we need to bump Wizards and Clerics down to tier 3 now, everyone move down two tiers to make from for these new guys at the top".

I've been in a game where one guy starts bringing in ToB stuff, and I just feel bad for the existing fighters. Some new guy comes in and straight away starts beating them at their schtick by a factor of 3x or more.

Some people will say blah blah, teach them to dungeon-lightning crash etc, but even if you can turn them into super-optimising munchkins (which not everyone wants to be) actually playing it up from low levels can be tedious when someone else is rubbing your face in the power difference (intentionally or not).
Uh...
Wizards are completely bypassing any sort of obstacle that can be set in their path long before melee can do much interesting (Pun Pun not counting, as that's a TO exercise and completely DM-controlled by the simple expedient of not having sarrukhs exist).
Bringing ToB into a low-op game with melee characters already in the party can cause unpleasantness for the other melee; this has been noted. This is why you should either have melee that optimizes or entirely ToB melee.

I'm not entirely sure what your 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs mean, so clarification would be nice, as I don't want to cause problems because of a misunderstanding.

Also, taking the Dungeoncrasher ACF and some feats that emphasize bull rushing and power attacking isn't exactly turning into a super-optimizing munchkin. I could quite easily make a character who is completely in character for doing so (and if I make a melee character without ToB, I'm likely to). Actually, just Dungeoncrasher, bull rush feats and a party wizard who is willing to pop up a few walls for you could make an equal (damage-wise) to that ToB class.

Anyway, my reason for disliking ToB is quite simple: Warblades get their second stance too early and Crusaders get their fourth stance too early.

[Big Fau]

Does it? I mean I know it grants (or is knocking on the door of) some of this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StoryBreakerPower

But does it share the love, or is it only for a very small subset of melee

Did you even read that trope? Most of the powers in the Bo9S don't shatter storylines, and the one that does is not intended to do so (IHS).

The Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader are not capable of ruining the campaign without using previously existing story-breaking abilities. People who claim it does have a very weak grasp of system mastery.


Take the first thing on the list: anti-magic. What is the earliest level that a Fighter can get access to this (using the feats that give access to the ToB powers) ???

10th. Earlier if they have Shape Soulmeld access (1st level).


Consider this: if there was a book that came out, which instantly made every psionic, divine or arcane caster, and all their prestige classes instantly worthless, then wouldn't it be just as feared and reviled?

Complete Psionic exists. Just sayin.


I've been in a game where one guy starts bringing in ToB stuff, and I just feel bad for the existing fighters. Some new guy comes in and straight away starts beating them at their schtick by a factor of 3x or more.

If the Warblade is being more valuable to the party, then good, it means the Fighters were not pulling their own weight to begin with. The Fighter class is a tentative Tier 5, capable of bumping itself up to Tier 4 (a tier that is considered at least mostly balanced), and with what little information you have given us to work off of, it sounds like the Fighters in question were not up to par.


Some people will say blah blah, teach them to dungeon-lightning crash etc, but even if you can turn them into super-optimising munchkins (which not everyone wants to be) actually playing it up from low levels can be tedious when someone else is rubbing your face in the power difference (intentionally or not).

Gee, thanks for the insult.

[Greenish]

Does it? I mean I know it grants (or is knocking on the door of) some of this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StoryBreakerPowerLook at that list, and tell me honestly it reminds you of ToB more than, say, spell list?


Anti-Magic - AMF, Disjunction, Dispel Magic… What does ToB have? Poorly written IHS.
Copying other people's powers - Polymorph line of spells, summoning spells (need a level 20 monk? Just Gate one in!)
Entering Bullet Time - Time Stop, Celerity.
Any convenient way of bringing people Back from the Dead - Raise Dead, Resurrection…
Green Lantern Ring - Illusion.
Mass Mind Control - Enchantment.
Omniscience/prescience - Divination
Telepathy - Okay, not really a storybreaker as D&D does it, though I guess reading minds in general falls here.
Teleportation - Guess who?



Take the first thing on the list: anti-magic. What is the earliest level that a Fighter can get access to this (using the feats that give access to the ToB powers) ?None. There's no "anti-magic" strike/counter, except perhaps IHS, depending on how your DM says it works (it's really poorly written). You can get it by level 10.


Consider this: if there was a book that came out, which instantly made every psionic, divine or arcane caster, and all their prestige classes instantly worthless, then wouldn't it be just as feared and reviled?

Or (to head off the potential nitpickers) perhaps not entirely worthless - If there was a book that when people looked at it, they said "okay, we need to bump Wizards and Clerics down to tier 3 now, everyone move down two tiers to make from for these new guys at the top".Now, see, that's just utter nonsense. ToB aren't the "new guys at the top". They're at tier 3 with a whole lot of other classes.


Some people will say blah blah, teach them to dungeon-lightning crash etc, but even if you can turn them into super-optimising munchkins (which not everyone wants to be)Disparaging other people's play styles isn't really the best way to defend your own. :smallamused:


actually playing it up from low levels can be tedious when someone else is rubbing your face in the power difference (intentionally or not).That seems like a player problem to me.

[Boci]

So, so far in this thread, people who have gripes with ToB (sorry for revering to you as one entity, but it’s easier this way) have called us ToB fans "super-optimising munchkins" and there have been multiple claims that we aggressive pushed this book on other, without offering any links to back this up. Yeah, we've the civil ones.


It's like if I posted in every 4E thread "Play 3.5 instead".

Well is someone said is there anything they can do to give each class more variety it would be apropriate.

[Tetsubo 57]

I can't say I hate it. But I would never, ever use it. I read it once. I saw which direction it took the game and foresaw that it was a precursor to 4E. It took D&D into a place I didn't want to see it go. I was right. I see the ToB as the death knell of D&D.

[Boci]

I was right. I see the ToB as the death knell of D&D.

Doesn't death knell require that the target already be dying?

[sonofzeal]

I can't say I hate it. But I would never, ever use it. I read it once. I saw which direction it took the game and foresaw that it was a precursor to 4E. It took D&D into a place I didn't want to see it go. I was right. I see the ToB as the death knell of D&D.
How so?

I mean, yes, I can see how 4e bears some of ToB's DNA. But IMO they only went with it because it worked, and was fun, and that 4e's major problems (specifically lack of variety) has nothing to do with ToB, and indeed is averted quite nicely with various schools having quite distinct abilities.

[Boci]

How so?

I mean, yes, I can see how 4e bears some of ToB's DNA. But IMO they only went with it because it worked, and was fun, and that 4e's major problems (specifically lack of variety) has nothing to do with ToB, and indeed is averted quite nicely with various schools having quite distinct abilities.

I don't get the whole ToB = 4th ed thing either. 3.5 Wizard have daily powers, yet no one says they are 4th ed.

[Autopsibiofeeder]

I do not dislike ToB, but I do not allow it in my game. For two reasons, mostly.

First, it fixes a problem I do not experience in my games. I keep my casters on a tight leash based on a gentleman's agreement. They play like good team-mates and use their abilities to improve the group as a whole and they get rewarded. They go nuts and build a powerhouse and they find out I am just a little better than them at that game. Mundane characters get enough cookies shoved their way and I provide situations in which they can shine as well as the casters. It works, I am experiencing no problems.

Second, especially because I have no issue to solve, I don't feel like learning a new system. I have access to the book, flipped through it several times and did not get inspired. It did not appeal to me as a big enrichment of my game. I spent years adapting the 'base' game mechanics into a system that works on an inter-character-power level with which I am happy. It is just not worth the effort to me.

[Talionis]

Tome of Battle is a good way to add some fairly powerful "nice things". Board posters shouldn't have to take for granted or read people's thoughts. But optimized Fighters can generally do a ton of damage, but usually the only have one or two tricks.

Tome of Battle may not be right for everyone, but we need to "use our words" and politely let us know.

I feel bad for fighters being in the same game as optimized wizards, heck I feel bad for Warblades in the same game as an optimized wizard. If the Warblades makes the fighter feel bad, but wizard doesn't, I think the fighter is looking at the wrong character.

But if for some reason you just still don't like ToB, let us know. I personally think most of the reasons against ToB are silly, but I still try to give advice that will help.

I really think people shouldn't be afraid to refluff. I know many fantasy people don't like to mix western and eastern themes.

Refluff, DMs limit what the characters can do if it's too much for your campaign. If some disciplines are too "magical" start considering those characters to be Gishes. And as someone already pointed out the "Muggles" in D &D can do some ridiculously powerful things. ToB really adds options.

[Alienist]

Bringing ToB into a low-op game with melee characters already in the party can cause unpleasantness for the other melee; this has been noted. This is why you should either have melee that optimizes or entirely ToB melee.

I'm not entirely sure what your 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs mean, so clarification would be nice, as I don't want to cause problems because of a misunderstanding.


I think the misunderstanding is that we're saying exactly the same thing, but in different ways. That exactly what I was saying has been noted (as you say) causes surprise for me that it has caused such controversy. If other people are saying the same thing, why is it controversial when I say that they are saying it?

But I think that there is a certain amount of cross-talk going on:

It's like one side is saying "ToB makes pretty much every non-ToB melee class irrelevant, and this is why some people don't like it"

And at the same time the other side is saying "ToB makes pretty much every non-ToB melee class irrelevant, that is why it is so good"

(but see below)

I should never have mentioned wizards in a melee thread. That's a rookie mistake on my part. There needs to be a Godwin's law equivalent to do with mentioning wizards in a D&D thread. :-(

My mentioning of them was by way of an example. A metaphor if you like.

Lets start with the premise that in the post-ToB world there are only 6 good melee builds.
Crashers, Bouncy-pouncers, Super-chargers, Warblades, Crusaders and Sword-sages.

Or to put it another way as a wise man once said:

This is why you should either have melee that optimizes or entirely ToB melee.


So that is our premise. We agree on that point. I ask you only to consider what would happen if the same thing were to happen to magic as has happened to melee? Would the reaction then be similar to the things we see people saying in this thread?

Let's say (hypothetically) that WoTC put out a book (not ToB). Let's call it the book of unlimited power because that sounds cool. Let's say that in that book there are three new base classes. Let's call them Brain, Willmeister and Sparkle. Brain is Int based, and it covers the genre conventions of those who gain power by knowing stuff (e.g. Earthsea, knowing the true names, original language of creation, studying dusty tomes for decades etc), and by virtue of thinking hard and having powerful brains. Overnight it instantly makes arcane casters and psionicists obsolete. It transcends mere points based magic systems (e.g. psionics) and vancian magic, and does so convincingly.
Willmeisters is the Wisdom based caster and takes your genre archetype of the caster who gets his power from prayers or wishing for things really hard (e.g. Eddings-ian wish and the word). They make clerics look like adepts by comparison.
Sparkle is the Charisma based class, and they cover all the bases when it comes to getting your power from genetics (e.g. Jedi, royal magic (too many fantasy series to mention individually), draconic/angelic/celestial/demonic/monstrous heritage), or by getting your power from manipulating/bargaining with an external agency.

So now imagine that there are really only 6 good caster builds. Incantrix, Planar Shephard, Ur-Beholder-Theurge monstrosities using early entry tricks (e.g. multiple 9ths and then some), Brain, Willmeister and Sparkle.

Imagine how awful that would be. And you know what? Maybe it wouldn't be so bad. Someone wants to play a Druid? Just tell them to play a nature based Willmeister. Someone wants to play a Kung-Fu Wizard, or a gish? A couple of levels of Swordsage followed by ten levels of Brain will be obviously better than any other combination, easily beating the current 20 level builds in only 12. A one level dip in binder? Please, a one level dip in Sparkle is 10x better than that.

Maybe the game wouldn't be so bad if there were only 12 'viable' 'classes', and everything else was viewed as junk.

I think though, that there would be people who would (in that hypothetical scenario), complain that they used to like the old days when there was more variety.

There would be people who would complain that they can't get any advice for their Artificer because people just tell them to Brain instead. Or their specialist Malconvoker/Summoner? Any of Brain/Willmeister/Sparkle does that much better, in all considerations of quality of minions, quantity of minions and buffing of minions. Why is it, they will ask, that when I go looking for information on bloodlines that everyone just tells me to use Sparkle instead?

[Greenish]

Lets start with the premise that in the post-ToB world there are only 6 good melee builds.
Crashers, Bouncy-pouncers, Super-chargers, Warblades, Crusaders and Sword-sages.

So that is our premise. We agree on that point. We agree on that point.Then it follows that pre-ToB game only had three valid builds, and adding ToB actually doubled the number of good melee builds.

[Boci]

It's like one side is saying "ToB makes pretty much every non-ToB melee class irrelevant, and this is why some people don't like it"

But it doesn't. You can multiclass.

[Tvtyrant]

Can I ask a quick (and probably weird) question? Why is it that on a forum that frequently argues that fluff is completely and utterly separate from crunch there is such support for a book that only does things that Psiwars and Sorcadins already did years before its conception.

To the people who dislike ToB: Why do you dislike a book that only does things that Psiwars and Sorcadins already did before its conception?


This post is ignoring Duskblades, Totemists, Incarnates, Hexblades, tricked out Rangers, melee focused Binders, and all of the other melee or gish oriented classes that also exist purely for the sake of brevity.

[Greenish]

Why is it that on a forum that frequently argues that fluff is completely and utterly separate from crunch there is such support for a book that only does things that Psiwars and Sorcadins already did years before its conception.Maybe because some people would prefer not to be casters (in fluff or crunch).

That there are classes good at melee without ToB is hardly a point of contention.

[DoctorGlock]

Can I ask a quick (and probably weird) question? Why is it that on a forum that frequently argues that fluff is completely and utterly separate from crunch there is such support for a book that only does things that Psiwars and Sorcadins already did years before its conception.


Because it still bothered people that they needed levels in a casting class in the first place to get nice things.

[kardar233]

I.......

Approve, i aprove greatly.

I am tempted to do the same thing but with Rapier as taught by Ridolfo Capo Ferro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridolfo_Capo_Ferro) and using mostly Diamond Mind and White Raven or a student of Fiore dei Liberi's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiore_dei_liberi) Longsword school also using Iron Heart.

I could bring one of my swords to the session, i can see it now: "And i strike the Ork in primo tempo, just so!" *crash* "oops! that vase wasn't important was it?"

DM

Naturally, but I find Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro. Don't you?

[Amphetryon]

Naturally, but I find Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro. Don't you?
Unless your opponent has studied his Agrippa. . . which I have.

[kardar233]

You are wonderful!

On-topic:

Tome of Battle also does a good job of simulating fictional characters. Conan's cunning makes him fit much better as a Tiger Claw/Iron Heart Warblade than a simple Fighter/Rogue, and Aragorn fights in Vom Tag which is effectively Punishing Stance.

[Tvtyrant]

Maybe because some people would prefer not to be casters (in fluff or crunch).

That there are classes good at melee without ToB is hardly a point of contention.

You are going to have to explain this to me. ToB removes the need to be a caster that relies on spell slots to perform supernatural feats of ability, and replaces it with a "none-caster" that relies on slots/recovery mechanics to perform supernatural feats of ability. In some cases they perform the exact same role/grant you the exact same abilities, and in many others they only slightly modify the ability.

I guess my question is what makes ToB more "mundane" and less a "caster" than, say, Psionics. If ToB were initially fluffed as being a caster that regains their abilities overtime as the latent "lay-lines" in the area refilled, and the Psywarrior was initially fluffed as a front line warrior who only had so much "endurance" that they could use in a day before they were "exhausted" and could not use their "insert mundane word for powers here" than the Psywarrior would be exactly as mundane as a ToB character. The majority of their powers are bodily based, while only a minority are extremely magical (in the same boat as ToB there).

[Alienist]

To the people who dislike ToB: Why do you dislike a book that only does things that Psiwars and Sorcadins already did before its conception?


This post is ignoring Duskblades, Totemists, Incarnates, Hexblades, tricked out Rangers, melee focused Binders, and all of the other melee or gish oriented classes that also exist purely for the sake of brevity.


Personally I don't like ToB because it is yet another system when we already had the systems in place to achieve all of that.

It is the same reason I don't like binders and I don't like psionics.

Irrespective of power/balance issues against existing melee classes, I'd have been happier if they had implemented Swordsages, Crusaders and Warblades using the pre-existing mechanics of the game rather than making up new ones.

If you decide that you like maneuvers and that they add something cool to the game, then fine, give everyone maneuvers, don't just keep them to a small number of classes. Also, streamline it. Even by WoTC standards ToB is confusing and badly written. (From a systems design point of view it is... interesting that they abandoned it rather than update it to 3.5)

[DoctorGlock]

You are going to have to explain this to me. ToB removes the need to be a caster that relies on spell slots to perform supernatural feats of ability, and replaces it with a "none-caster" that relies on slots/recovery mechanics to perform supernatural feats of ability. In some cases they perform the exact same role/grant you the exact same abilities, and in many others they only slightly modify the ability.

I guess my question is what makes ToB more "mundane" and less a "caster" than, say, Psionics. If ToB were initially fluffed as being a caster that regains their abilities overtime as the latent "lay-lines" in the area refilled, and the Psywarrior was initially fluffed as a front line warrior who only had so much "endurance" that they could use in a day before they were "exhausted" and could not use their "insert mundane word for powers here" than the Psywarrior would be exactly as mundane as a ToB character. The majority of their powers are bodily based, while only a minority are extremely magical (in the same boat as ToB there).

ToB prevents you from needing to explain why your melee prowess went away in an AMF

[Helldog]

Can I ask a quick (and probably weird) question? Why is it that on a forum that frequently argues that fluff is completely and utterly separate from crunch there is such support for a book that only does things that Psiwars and Sorcadins already did years before its conception.

To the people who dislike ToB: Why do you dislike a book that only does things that Psiwars and Sorcadins already did before its conception?


This post is ignoring Duskblades, Totemists, Incarnates, Hexblades, tricked out Rangers, melee focused Binders, and all of the other melee or gish oriented classes that also exist purely for the sake of brevity.
Antimagic Field.

[Boci]

If you decide that you like maneuvers and that they add something cool to the game, then fine, give everyone maneuvers, don't just keep them to a small number of classes.

Weren't you complaining earlier that ToB replaced existing melee classes? Now that's what you are recommending. You can do just do that, by having the ToB classes replace the core melee classes, which is what you are suggestion.


Also, streamline it. Even by WoTC standards ToB is confusing and badly written. (From a systems design point of view it is... interesting that they abandoned it rather than update it to 3.5)

ToB is 3.5.


Personally I don't like ToB because it is yet another system when we already had the systems in place to achieve all of that.

It is the same reason I don't like binders and I don't like psionics.

Irrespective of power/balance issues against existing melee classes, I'd have been happier if they had implemented Swordsages, Crusaders and Warblades using the pre-existing mechanics of the game rather than making up new ones.

But many people saw the previous system as flawed, such as how HP damage didn't make you weaker until you had none left.


ToB prevents you from needing to explain why your melee prowess went away in an AMF

And that's a bad thing?

[Greenish]

I guess my question is what makes ToB more "mundane" and less a "caster" than, say, Psionics.…The mechanics, and what you can do with them. Psywar has a pool of points with daily hard limit (a rather harsh one, too, at lower levels), and what can it do with it? Summon a weapon, grow larger, grow claws, enchant a weapon… But those it can spam until it runs out of juice. Need I point out that's quite different from how ToB plays?

There are a few similarities, mostly short duration buffs analogous to boosts and counters, but all in all, Psionics is a mechanic for casting.

[DoctorGlock]

And that's a bad thing?

Ummmm, no? I was responding to TVTyrant about why ToB is better than re-fluffing a gish. I firmly approve of ToB.

[Starbuck_II]

6. It's a game changer. I had a DM (usually DMs AD&D) ask me if he should allow Tome of Battle at the request of one of his players. I simply told him that once one player uses Tome of Battle, everyone uses Tome of Battle. It's not like adding a Complete Book or Races of X to the fray. Even Psionic classes only have to be understood by the DM and the Player using it to work in a game. Tome of Battle on the other hand is the only supplement meant to completely eclipse and replace older material.


Untrue, I've been in games where I played a Swordsage and everyone else was not ToB.
I was never the strongest (granted game started at between level 8-10 so casters are supreme started appearing).
So yes, it is like adding a Complete Book or Players Handbook 2.

[Boci]

Ummmm, no? I was responding to TVTyrant about why ToB is better than re-fluffing a gish. I firmly approve of ToB.

Gottcha, didn't see his second post and thought you were refering to his:

"To the people who dislike ToB: Why do you dislike a book that only does things that Psiwars and Sorcadins already did before its conception?"

Question.

[Big Fau]

(From a systems design point of view it is... interesting that they abandoned it rather than update it to 3.5)

Ok, your argument up to this point has had some coherency problems, but what in the world does that even mean? The book was designed for 3.5 use explicitly (and was one of the last supplements they printed for the system).

Yes, the mechanics in it are different from pre-existing ones, but it still holds the Core combat system in mind (fact: The Warblade is capable of utilizing every one of the Core special attacks that the Fighter can use, and doesn't have to use a single maneuver or stance to do so). It's still the same game, the book is just a variant rule like every splatbook they printed. It just deviates from the normal system (the same way the Artificer did actually: By inventing a small subsystem that replicates an existing ability).

[Venger]

*analogy about casters*

and just like that, I understand both sides of the debate. well done.

[turkishproverb]

and just like that, I understand both sides of the debate. well done.

Honestly, TOB classes aren't nearly as good as he thinks they are. Of course, he acts like they outdo the cleric, one of the T1 classes, so there you are...

[Talionis]

Maybe because some people would prefer not to be casters (in fluff or crunch).

That there are classes good at melee without ToB is hardly a point of contention.

It is quite easy to only take maneuvers that seem mundane in fluff or crunch and still greatly improve the options and tactical thinking of a melee class. If you don't want a maneuver or discipline then house rule it.

Many people want to have options and play thoughtfully, but still want to fluff as non-magical.

This should be the type of thing a player and DM can work out.

[Greenish]

It is quite easy to only take maneuvers that seem mundane in fluff or crunch and still greatly improve the options and tactical thinking of a melee class. If you don't want a maneuver or discipline then house rule it.Um, yes. When you're quoting me, it seems like you're responding to me, but if so, you missed the context of the post you quoted.

[Boci]

Honestly, TOB classes aren't nearly as good as he thinks they are. Of course, he acts like they outdo the cleric, one of the T1 classes, so there you are...

Not to mention the fact that his hypothetical power level is far too high. Go ahead, ask for advice on how to play a planar shepard in an actual game, see how well the playground takes that. Following his logic we should love you, because your using a more powerful option than the standard druid.

Plus as has been said, it is possible to get adivce on fighter builds since ToB. We haven't forgotten core classes exist.

[Incanur]

Actually, if you want to explicitly simulate non supernatural martial arts in D&D, the Warblade is possibly the closest class you can use for that purpose before going to 3rd party sources to simulate the sorts of things that happen in real fighting. Now, that doesn't mean that it is always realistic, just that you can build the most realistic fighter with that class if you put your mind to it! For example, I've always wanted to play a Warblade who is a Federfechter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federfechter), who used to be a Zweihänder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder) wielding Doppelsöldner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppels%C3%B6ldner) in the Landsknechts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknechts), who focuses on Iron Heart (with a bit of Stone Dragon), and I would just rename the stances and strikes and counters and stuff with terms from German longsword fencing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_school_of_fencing). He'd wear a Breastplate and fight with a Greatsword. It totally fits!

I don't understand how I can communicate this much clearer. Individual manoeuvres are not realistic, because D&D is fantasy. But the system of manoeuvres/encounter with a recovery mechanic more accurately depicts a fight than the core martial system.

:smallconfused: I'm going to have to oppose this line of thinking. While you can use ToB mechanic to create a character based on historical martial arts, the system doesn't lend itself to that flavor significantly more than core 3.5 D&D. Sure, Wall of Blades calls the zwerch (http://www.schielhau.org/images/50.jpg) to mind. Wielding a glaive against mooks resonates with George Silver description of the short staff against two foes armed with sword & dagger. In either case, you have to out of your way - and take a meaningful power hit - to get anything more than a vague resemblance to historical combat.

[navar100]

To complain Tome of Battle is not realistic and not use it for that reason is another way of saying mundanes don't deserve nice things, because what is realistic about someone burning people in a 40ft diameter circle from over 400ft away using bat poo?

Just opining it's not realistic but that alone has no bearing on whether you use it or not is one thing. It's the banning of it because of that reason that's unfair.

[Boci]

:smallconfused: I'm going to have to oppose this line of thinking. While you can use ToB mechanic to create a character based on historical martial arts, the system doesn't lend itself to that flavor significantly more than core 3.5 D&D. Sure, Wall of Blades calls the zwerch (http://www.schielhau.org/images/50.jpg) to mind. Wielding a glaive against mooks resonates with George Silver description of the short staff against two foes armed with sword & dagger. In either case, you have to out of your way - and take a meaningful power hit - to get anything more than a vague resemblance to historical combat.

Yes it does, because historically different attacks produce different results, something core melee lacks.

[Incanur]

For me, it's a matter of aesthetics and consistency. I find D&D combat utterly unlike anything that appears in fantasy fiction or films. I have trouble visualizing most 3.5 encounters without laughing aloud or shaking my head. I've no objection to superhuman power - that's part of the genre's draw - but I despise its implementation in this system.

[Helldog]

For me, it's a matter of aesthetics and consistency. I find D&D combat utterly unlike anything that appears in fantasy fiction or films. I have trouble visualizing most 3.5 encounters without laughing aloud or shaking my head. I've no objection to superhuman power - that's part of the genre's draw - but I despise its implementation in this system.
Then it's not a system for you.

[Boci]

For me, it's a matter of aesthetics and consistency. I find D&D combat utterly unlike anything that appears in fantasy fiction or films. I have trouble visualizing most 3.5 encounters without laughing aloud or shaking my head. I've no objection to superhuman power - that's part of the genre's draw - but I despise its implementation in this system.

With is one of the plus sides of ToB, it made D&D combat more realistic. It still had flaws, but its an improvement.

[horseboy]

I think your making a big deal out of this. Fencing and aikido where developed by different cultures, but I can learn both today without leaving my continent. As long as you establish that they have been around for a long time it makes sense that they can be learnt.
Sure you can, now. Fifty years ago the only way you could do that was by packing up your belongings and moving half way across the world. For it to be readily available you're going to need to be playing in Tippyland where there's teleportation everywhere and a free flow of ideas are constant. Seriously, it's how Chuck Norris became famous. He was one of the first white guys who was actually good at eastern martial arts.

[olentu]

For me, it's a matter of aesthetics and consistency. I find D&D combat utterly unlike anything that appears in fantasy fiction or films. I have trouble visualizing most 3.5 encounters without laughing aloud or shaking my head. I've no objection to superhuman power - that's part of the genre's draw - but I despise its implementation in this system.

You know this does make sense. It is only reasonable that if one hates the combat system then one would dislike all combat oriented classes. Of course since the tome of battle classes have greater out of combat utility then say fighter or the like you would prefer them over such classes, while still disliking them as they are part of the combat oriented classes as a whole.

[Keld Denar]

Part of it is that people do need a little thicker skin. This is the internet. It costs you almost nothing to post a request for build advise here. If you get 5 replies of use ToB, and 3 other replies, and you don't want to use ToB, you've still gotten 3 useful replies...for free. The fact that you have to put in a tiny bit of effort to specify that you don't want ToB, or to ignore ToB suggestions for otherwise free advise is trivial.

It's similar to going to a weight loss forum and having 5 people saying "try a vegitarian diet" when you don't want to. If you get 3 useful non-vegitarian suggestions, that's still 3 more suggestions than you had before you posted.

You are essentially getting something for nothing. If you expect all suggestions to be completely relevant and helpful, then you aren't used to the internet. You can put in a bit of effort too, either to thin out the posts that aren't helpful or to make your posts concise enough to specify.

Also, some people just haven't been exposed to it, and might actually like it if they try it. Suggestions to use it or try it aren't completely off topic if the OP doesn't explicitly solicite or deny it.

[Incanur]

With is one of the plus sides of ToB, it made D&D combat more realistic. It still had flaws, but its an improvement.

Again I say thee nay. At best, ToB is a wash in this department. I should also reiterate that I like ToB within the framework of 3.5 D&D, which fundamentally isn't what I'm looking for in a roleplaying system. But it has its charms.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Again I say thee nay. At best, ToB is a wash in this department. I should also reiterate that I like ToB within the framework of 3.5 D&D, which fundamentally isn't what I'm looking for in a roleplaying system. But it has its charms.

Then why are you bashing ToB specifically? Why are you even in the 3.5 forum?

[Boci]

Sure you can, now. Fifty years ago the only way you could do that was by packing up your belongings and moving half way across the world. For it to be readily available you're going to need to be playing in Tippyland where there's teleportation everywhere and a free flow of ideas are constant. Seriously, it's how Chuck Norris became famous. He was one of the first white guys who was actually good at eastern martial arts.

So have it established that the schools have been around for quite some time. That and the motivation of monsters will leads to the teachings travelling relativly fast.


Again I say thee nay.

A warblade and a fighter fight, exchanging blows for three round. After rounds, the warblade is fine. He can perform physical activities just as well as he could before the fight. The fighter on the other hand has a cracked rib, leaving his vital organs vulnerable, a slash on the leg slowing him down and has only just recovered from a blow to the head that left him dazed.

How can those two be equally realistic?

[Helldog]

Then why are you bashing ToB specifically? Why are you even in the 3.5 forum?
My thoughts exactly.

[Incanur]

Then why are you bashing ToB specifically? Why are you even in the 3.5 forum?

I just got done running a couple sessions of 3.5. Sometimes it's either D&D or nothing.


A warblade and a fighter fight, exchanging blows for three round. After rounds, the warblade is fine. He can perform physical activities just as well as he could before the fight. The fighter on the other hand has a cracked rib, leaving his vital organs vulnerable, a slash on the leg slowing him down and has only just recovered from a blow to the head that left him dazed.

How can those two be equally realistic?

ToB has only a few of such status effect, and even fewer of those are any good. Also note that a crack rib that leaves your vital organs vulnerable would be an awfully serious injury in itself and that ribs don't offer much protection against swords and spears regardless. Throwing an inconsistent and fanciful wounding system that rarely comes up on top of the hit point system doesn't at much realism (whatever that is).

[Boci]

ToB has only a few of such status effect, and even fewer of those are any good. Also note that a crack rib that leaves your vital organs vulnerable would be an awfully serious injury in itself

Not neccissarily to a hero.


Throwing an inconsistent and fanciful wounding system that rarely comes up on top of the hit point system doesn't at much realism (whatever that is).

Thats sounds like the perfect solution fallacy to me, but each to their own I guess.

[Zale]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2012/1/7/84667d1d-06af-4032-aead-56f4b95f69dd.jpg

[Incanur]

Not neccissarily to a hero.

Ribs aren't reliable defense against mundane steel swords wielded by normal folks. Two heroes fighting with enchanted blades would each be able to split the other in two in the absence of armor.

[Boci]

Ribs aren't reliable defense against mundane steel swords wielded by normal folks. Two heroes fighting with enchanted blades would each be able to split the other in two in the absence of armor.

Only because you're not taking into account a heore's super human fortitude. Two martial characters battling without armour may not neccissarily kill eachother in the first 12 seconds. Its how D&D works.

[Keld Denar]

Except that's exactly what the Bonecrusher maneuver does. Extra damage, plus leaves you slightly more vulnerable to confirming crits for a short period of time. Nothing fancy, nothing reinvented, just working within the framework as given.

I think you don't fully understand the system, and are basing your arguement off hearsay and rumor, rather than actual understanding.

[Talionis]

To complain Tome of Battle is not realistic and not use it for that reason is another way of saying mundanes don't deserve nice things, because what is realistic about someone burning people in a 40ft diameter circle from over 400ft away using bat poo?

Just opining it's not realistic but that alone has no bearing on whether you use it or not is one thing. It's the banning of it because of that reason that's unfair.

I so have to agree with this. If it doesn't make sense a particular character can't perform a particular maneuver I'm with you. But it should be a character by character decision.

And I do really think that Melee needs nice things too. And they really don't have them in 3.5 without Tome of Battle. I often use ToB just for a splash to give a few more options to other Melee classes. Even then its not like I can take them from tier 6 to tier 1. ToB is good, but not that good.

[Incanur]

Only because you're not taking into account a heore's super human fortitude. Two martial characters battling without armour may not neccissarily kill eachother in the first 12 seconds. Its how D&D works.

Well, if they're optimized 3.5 chargers, whoever wins initiative likely murders the other in the first round. That's a whole new bucket of daggers. I reiterate that ToB status effects have next to nothing to do with actual human wounding dynamics.


Nothing fancy, nothing reinvented, just working within the framework as given.

That's exactly the problem.

[Boci]

Well, if they're optimized 3.5 chargers, whoever wins initiative likely murders the other in the first round. That's a whole new bucket of daggers.

I'm well aware of that, hence the "not neccissarily". Without uber chargers its unlikely either one will die, regardless of how it would happen in real life.


I reiterate that ToB status effects have next to nothing to do with actual human wounding dynamics.

Neither does the D&D 3.5 system in general. Its still an improvement over nothing but HP damage.


That's exactly the problem.

No, thats you having a problem with D&D 3.5.

[Alienist]

Honestly, TOB classes aren't nearly as good as he thinks they are. Of course, he acts like they outdo the cleric, one of the T1 classes, so there you are...

No. I never said that the ToB classes outdo the existing Tier 1 classes.

My Arcane Thesis was to have a hypothetical book that would have a bunch of new classes come in, that outshine the existing casters so much that it bumps everyone else (including ToB) down two slots. To be clear ToB would move down to tier 5, fighters, paladins and monks would move to tier seven, samurai would move to tier 8. Etc.

[Boci]

No. I never said that the ToB classes outdo the existing Tier 1 classes.

My Arcane Thesis was to have a hypothetical book that would have a bunch of new classes come in, that outshine the existing casters so much that it bumps everyone else (including ToB) down two slots. To be clear ToB would move down to tier 5, fighters, paladins and monks would move to tier seven, samurai would move to tier 8. Etc.

Yes, the book would rarely be recommended in build advice threads. Like the lack of mention of the planar shepard.

[Grendus]

A warblade and a fighter fight, exchanging blows for three round. After rounds, the warblade is fine. He can perform physical activities just as well as he could before the fight. The fighter on the other hand has a cracked rib, leaving his vital organs vulnerable, a slash on the leg slowing him down and has only just recovered from a blow to the head that left him dazed.

How can those two be equally realistic?

Oooooor... the Fighter went first, repeatedly tripping the Warblade with his spiked chain each time the Warblade tries to get up and getting a free attack each time, and then full attacking during his own turn. Or the Fighter managed to get a charge off and killed the Warblade on his first turn. Or the Fighter picked the Warblade off from range, since the Warblade has no ranged weapon proficiencies. Or the Fighter dragged the Warblade into a grapple and beat him to death with his own weapons. A well built Fighter and a Warblade are not as unevenly matched as you would think.

You're under this delusion that Warblades are the end all be all of melee combat. Warblades are more versatile, they can counter things like rough terrain, spread out enemies, big monsters, etc that a fighter would have to be built specifically for. But Warblades don't obsolete the fighter. You can still use the Fighter, and the two can actually play very well in the same group if the Fighter is well built.

[DoctorGlock]

No. I never said that the ToB classes outdo the existing Tier 1 classes.

My Arcane Thesis was to have a hypothetical book that would have a bunch of new classes come in, that outshine the existing casters so much that it bumps everyone else (including ToB) down two slots. To be clear ToB would move down to tier 5, fighters, paladins and monks would move to tier seven, samurai would move to tier 8. Etc.

So is your argument that ToB is bad because it give so much good stuff that choosing anything else is foolish, thus restricting anyone who wants to melee to the 3 ToB classes when your preferred system is to dip in every melee class and still end up with fewer options or choices than any single ToB character? If so, I fail to see what is restrictive about a final result (ToB) where there are fewer restrictions.

[Boci]

Oooooor... the Fighter went first, repeatedly tripping the Warblade with his spiked chain each time the Warblade tries to get up and getting a free attack each time, and then full attacking during his own turn. Or the Fighter managed to get a charge off and killed the Warblade on his first turn. Or the Fighter picked the Warblade off from range, since the Warblade has no ranged weapon proficiencies. Or the Fighter dragged the Warblade into a grapple and beat him to death with his own weapons. A well built Fighter and a Warblade are not as unevenly matched as you would think.

You're under this delusion that Warblades are the end all be all of melee combat. Warblades are more versatile, they can counter things like rough terrain, spread out enemies, big monsters, etc that a fighter would have to be built specifically for. But Warblades don't obsolete the fighter. You can still use the Fighter, and the two can actually play very well in the same group if the Fighter is well built.

You completly missed the point of my example. There was no winner, it was just demonstrating that warblades actually have different attacks available to them, not just charge, full attack and trip.

[Optimator]

{{scrubbed}}

[Greenish]

Oooooor... the Fighter went first, repeatedly tripping the Warblade with his spiked chain each time the Warblade tries to get up and getting a free attack each timeYou can't trip someone with the AoO they provoke from getting up from prone.

[Thurbane]

You completly missed the point of my example. There was no winner, it was just demonstrating that warblades actually have different attacks available to them, not just charge, full attack and trip.
...and bullrush, and sunder, and disarm, and overrun. Just because they're not considered optimal choices, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Not aimed specially at Boci, but I wonder how many of you played earlier editions than 3E? Back then, it was literally "smack something with a pointy stick until it's dead". Compared to these editions, 3.X has a plethora of combat actions for melee types. And that's without even considering feats that add extra effects/options to melee, like Intimidating Strike, Brutal Strike etc.

Not saying that this diminishes the value of ToB, I'm just curious as to how this keeps getting glossed over and simplified.

[Gavinfoxx]

You can't trip someone with the AoO they provoke from getting up from prone.

Wait, what??

[Helldog]

...and bullrush, and sunder, and disarm, and overrun. Just because they're not considered optimal choices, doesn't mean they don't exist.
They're sub-optimal. ToB makes them viable.


Wait, what??
Maybe a standing up character is still considered prone (and you can't trip someone whose prone)?

[Hiro Protagonest]

I just got done running a couple sessions of 3.5. Sometimes it's either D&D or nothing.
Doesn't explain why you're bashing ToB.

...and bullrush, and sunder, and disarm, and overrun. Just because they're not considered optimal choices, doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'd rather not be penalized for wanting more options.

[Boci]

...and bullrush, and sunder, and disarm, and overrun. Just because they're not considered optimal choices, doesn't mean they don't exist.

They don't do damage, therefor they are not weapon attacks (since improved trip grants an extra attack you can refluff the whole thing as a single attack). This means that the fighter has precisly two option as to how they can hit an opponent with a weapon and actually change how their opponent is fairing since they were 6 seconds ago, and one of them is killing them.


Not aimed specially at Boci, but I wonder how many of you played earlier editions than 3E? Back then, it was literally "smack something with a pointy stick until it's dead".

Yes, I played one and DMed about 5. Always housruled abilities for melee characters. The ninja got some moves, like a tripping atatck and a paralyzing neurological attacks, plus the ability to use their ki to cast limited spells.


Not saying that this diminishes the value of ToB, I'm just curious as to how this keeps getting glossed over and simplified.

Mainly because we aren't that concerned about how it use to be and as you said, a lot of those options are not worth it.


Wait, what??

They still count as prone when you make the AoO, and you cannot trip a prone target.

[Greenish]

Wait, what??The AoO occurs before the action that provoked it, so when you're taking the AoO against someone trying to stand up from prone, they will still be prone, and you can't trip someone who's already prone.

[Snowbluff]

This is practically flamebait. I doubt this thread will last long before it dissolves into another endless argument.

It boils down to different people liking different things. Understand this. Live with this. Move on and find something more entertaining to do.

This^

That being said. It's a book. Don't ban it. Worse things happen in game without it. I always suggest it, to give melee more variety. I tell them the truth. ToB is Tier 3, most melee can't manage that high anyway. :smallwink:

Tier 3 is my DM sweet spot. DN, Beguiler, ToBers form a nice balance to themselves, there is no denying that. I even ban fighters and monks in campaigns with a lot of high tier casters.

[Gavinfoxx]

ToB is Tier 3, most melee can't manage that high anyway. :smallwink:

Tier 3 is my DM sweet spot. DN, Beguiler, ToBers form a nice balance to themselves, there is no denying that. I even ban fighters and monks in campaigns with a lot of high tier casters.

Yea, just make your game "Only Tier 3 base classes allowed" if you want to balance it.

Here's a list of Tier 3 classes:

Bard (Player's Handbook)
Beguiler (Player's Handbook II)
Dread Necromancer (Heroes of Horror)
Binder (Tome of Magic, WITHOUT the Online Vestiges, especially not the summon monster Vestige)
Shadowcaster (Tome of Magic)

Druid, with at least one, possibly more, of several nerfs:
Shapeshift Variant (Player's Handbook II, this is a very important one!)
Deadly Hunter Variant (Unearthed Arcana, SRD)
Druidic Avenger Variant (Unearthed Arcana, SRD)
Spontaneous Divine Caster Variant (Unearthed Arcana, SRD)

Shaman (Oriental Adventures, possible tier 2)
Shugenja (Complete Divine)
Crusader (Tome of Battle)
Swordsage (Tome of Battle)
Warblade (Tome of Battle)
Factotum (Dungeonscape)
Duskblade (Player's Handbook II)
Totemist (Magic of Incarnum)
Incarnate (Magic of Incarnum)
Psychic Warrior (Expanded Psionics Handbook, SRD)
Psychic Rogue (Online, see: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b and http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723c )
Wilder (Expanded Psionics Handbook, SRD)
Ardent (Complete Psionic)
Ranger (Wildshape variant Ranger, Unearthed Arcana, SRD)

Now for WotC Affiliate:
Nightstalker (Races of Ansalon, a Dragonlance book, possible Tier 4)

[Manateee]

Are we presenting an in-depth discussion on tiers now? Because there's certainly contention within that (Polymorphing Miracling Giant Sizing Animal Companioned Shaman = Incarnate lol), and I'm not sure why else it would need to be spelled out like that.

Maybe this can be the "Does Paladin Fall when he lets level 20 Monk challenge level 10 Psion to Brokenness Contest" thread.

[Thurbane]

They're sub-optimal. ToB makes them viable.

I'd rather not be penalized for wanting more options.
I would say the viability of these moves depends heavily on the play style and op-level of a group. Not to mention that something doesn't have to be fully optimal to be fun for a player.

If one is only concerned about having the most optimal options available, why would anyone play anything other than a Wizard or Druid (or equivalent)? Overrun may be less optimal than Stone Vise, but in turn, Stone Vise is less optimal than Glitterdust.

They don't do damage, therefor they are not weapon attacks (since improved trip grants an extra attack you can refluff the whole thing as a single attack). This means that the fighter has precisly two option as to how they can hit an opponent with a weapon and actually change how their opponent is fairing since they were 6 seconds ago, and one of them is killing them.
That seems a rather arbitrary distinction - whether the effect is caused directly by hitting with a weapon or as a different melee action. End result is still a change in the enemies condition.

Mainly because we aren't that concerned about how it use to be and as you said, a lot of those options are not worth it.
Minor point, I never said I think they're not worth it, it said they are considered suboptimal...

I think that some people (on both sides of the debate) make a lot of assumptions about what happens at other people's tables, and how the game plays out in various groups.

My philosophy is that if ToB enriches your game, then that's awesome. But some people should really stop preaching ToB to the point where they imply that other groups are "doing it wrong" by not using ToB in their games. No, not the people who politely and helpfully suggest that introducing ToB can make your game more fun; rather, those who attack GMs/players who don't use it in their games, or suggest "Hey make a broken Tier 1 caster to wreck the game - that'll show your ignorant GM!". And if you don't think those kind of responses regularly occur here, I don't know what forums you are reading. :smallfrown:

[Boci]

That seems a rather arbitrary distinction - whether the effect is caused directly by hitting with a weapon or as a different melee action. End result is still a change in the enemies condition.

No it isn't, because that line of debate was talking about realism of a fighter never weakening an opponent by hitting them with a sword.


Minor point, I never said I think they're not worth it, it said they are considered suboptimal...

Really suboptimal. You provoke an AoO for even trying with the correct feat, and even when you have them you may not be able to do much good with them. Even in a low op group that's going to hurt.

I never seen those options used without the the apropriate improved feat (barring feint). Have you?


But some people should really stop preaching ToB to the point where they imply that other groups are "doing it wrong" by not using ToB in their games. No, not the people who politely and helpfully suggest that introducing ToB can make your game more fun; rather, those who attack GMs/players who don't use it in their games, or suggest "Hey make a broken Tier 1 caster to wreck the game - that'll show your ignorant GM!". And if you don't think those kind of responses regularly occur here, I don't know what forums you are reading. :smallfrown:

I'll give you "play a tier 1 to teach the DM", which is debatable in its apropriateness, but how recently can you show an example of someone claiming that any game not using ToB is bad, because I can show the opposite (posters insulting those who like ToB) in this very thread.

[Thurbane]

No it isn't, because that line of debate was talking about realism of a fighter never weakening an opponent by hitting them with a sword.
OK then, we seem to have crossed our lines somewhere - that was not the point I was trying to make, and I wasn't responding directly to that line of debate.

Really suboptimal. You provoke an AoO for even trying with the correct feat, and even when you have them you may not be able to do much good with them.
Again, I don't believe there is any empirical scale of optimisation - it depends too heavily on the many variables of each D&D group.

I never seen those options used without the the apropriate improved feat (barring feint). Have you?
I have, a couple of times. Once I, myself, Bull Rushed an opponent who was on the edge of a precipice without the Improved Bullrush feat. Succeeded, too.

I have also seen a fellow player use overrun without Improved Overrun to get at an enemy caster who was hiding behind a row of mooks.

I'll give you "play a tier 1 to teach the DM", which is debatable in its apropriateness, but how recently can you show an example of someone claiming that any game not using ToB is bad, because I can show the opposite (posters insulting those who like ToB) in this very thread.
I could easily find such a post, but I don't think flinging opposing examples at each other really serves any purpose, and would be dragging posts into this thread by forum members who haven't actively chosen to participate in this debate.

I've never claimed that there aren't rude and illogical anti-ToB posts here (as well as the reverse). I'm merely presenting a counter argument to those who, in this very thread, have questioned the existence of such comments on the forum.

Long story short - I just wish people could be respectful of other people's play styles, and that extremists from both sides of the fence should not post derogatory comments in threads. I think that's something we could both agree on?

[Snowbluff]

Are we presenting an in-depth discussion on tiers now? Because there's certainly contention within that (Polymorphing Miracling Giant Sizing Animal Companioned Shaman = Incarnate lol), and I'm not sure why else it would need to be spelled out like that.

Maybe this can be the "Does Paladin Fall when he lets level 20 Monk challenge level 10 Psion to Brokenness Contest" thread.

It is a matter of tier. Very little within the book and listings of class rating (using similar optimization :smallsigh:) can not considered unfair. Everything is certainly exploitable, ToB is no exception, but I don't see why it matters if we have always operated under this one inescapable truth.




My philosophy is that if ToB enriches your game, then that's awesome. But some people should really stop preaching ToB to the point where they imply that other groups are "doing it wrong" by not using ToB in their games. No, not the people who politely and helpfully suggest that introducing ToB can make your game more fun; rather, those who attack GMs/players who don't use it in their games, or suggest "Hey make a broken Tier 1 caster to wreck the game - that'll show your ignorant GM!". And if you don't think those kind of responses regularly occur here, I don't know what forums you are reading. :smallfrown:

THose posts serve a purpose. Their are just as many GM's who decide to attack the book for no reason by banning it. The people who rage-create the "Broken T1" are working to protest widespread bookism against this book. Which the point of this thread.

What you have their is a post that says "Don't have Fundamentalists" when the problem is that "Fundamentalists and Hardcore Atheists suck". People are entitled to their opinions, but their banning the book (a rather hardcore approach) is ultimately more destructive than allowing it, and just as bad as the reaction to such behavior ("Trololololol Chain Gate PHB FTW").

[Greenish]

I never seen those options used without the the apropriate improved feat (barring feint). Have you?I was playing through A Dark and Stormy Knight (all encounters as written because the DM wanted to get a feeling of the group) as a Adamantine-plated warforged totemist. I had decent Str and (houseruled so I could take it) Jotunbrud, and the enemies had difficult time hitting or hurting me, so I decided to use every combat maneuver at least once, just to see how it'd go. Didn't finish the list, though.

Mostly, I wasted my actions, though Trip wasn't bad.


More seriously, disarm + ranseur (or spiked chain) isn't a bad combo at lowest levels, and a tripping weapon allows you to do it without provoking an AoO, so that can be useful.

[Boci]

Again, I don't believe there is any empirical scale of optimisation - it depends too heavily on the many variables of each D&D group.

I'm just saying even in core low op it can be harsh to take an AoO for no gain.


I have, a couple of times. Once I, myself, Bull Rushed an opponent who was on the edge of a precipice without the Improved Bullrush feat. Succeeded, too.

I have also seen a fellow player use overrun without Improved Overrun to get at an enemy caster who was hiding behind a row of mooks.

So good when they come up, but relying on a number of factors working, unlike ToB maeuvres. I just don't think a fighters ability to influence his opponent should be situational.


I could easily find such a post,

If you did try I think you may be surprised by just how long ago it last happened.


I've never claimed that there aren't rude and illogical anti-ToB posts here (as well as the reverse). I'm merely presenting a counter argument to those who, in this very thread, have questioned the existence of such comments on the forum.

I just think ToB suppoters get more flak. If someone asks why a DM won't use PH2 no one seems to have a problem. If someone asks why a DM won't use ToB they are being inconsiderate.
There was also a case with you were you presented a list of your banned books and then asked the which one we thought was querried the most. At the time I didn't realize but it later occured to me that "The most popular one" would have been an acceptable answer.


Long story short - I just wish people could be respectful of other people's play styles

Sure, now we just need to agree on what that entails.

[Thurbane]

THose posts serve a purpose. Their are just as many GM's who decide to attack the book for no reason by banning it. The people who rage-create the "Broken T1" are working to protest widespread bookism against this book. Which the point of this thread.
Well, personally, I'm of the school of thought "two wrongs don't make a right". I don't think potentially wrecking a game that other players are likely involved in to show a stubborn DM the error of their ways is a particularly responsible or constructive path to go down.

If rational debate and polite discussion can't resolve the situation, I would say the more responsible course of action is to either "suck it up" and play within the DMs list of approved material; or if this doesn't appeal, to try and find another game more to your tastes. Maybe, if like most groups, you take turns DMing, you could wait until your turn, and then open up ToB for players to use.

What you have their is a post that says "Don't have Fundamentalists" when the problem is that "Fundamentalists and Hardcore Atheists suck". People are entitled to their opinions, but their banning the book (a rather hardcore approach) is ultimately more destructive than allowing it, and just as bad as the reaction to such behavior ("Trololololol Chain Gate PHB FTW").
I don't want to get into an area of banned discussion topics, but in this case I am only presenting/defending one side of the debate. I'm not saying that irrationally anti-ToB comments are are a good thing - I merely feel that enough people are defending "that" side of the debate already.

Besides which, several of my other comments should make it abundantly clear that I do, in fact, feel that rude extremists from both sides of the debate are just as bad as each other.

[Boci]

Well, personally, I'm of the school of thought "two wrongs don't make a right". I don't think potentially wrecking a game that other players are likely involved in to show a stubborn DM the error of their ways is a particularly responsible or constructive path to go down.

I think openess is key. Just say, "I can't play a martial initiate, but I can play a druid. Can I show you that a druid is more power at melee than a warblade?" It may help the Dm understand where your coming from, and whilst he may not change his mind, he can hardly be angry with you.

[Thurbane]

I just think ToB suppoters get more flak. If someone asks why a DM won't use PH2 no one seems to have a problem. If someone asks why a DM won't use ToB they are being inconsiderate.
Fair enough, but there we have the core of most disagreements - your perceptions and biases are different than my own. It's entirely normal for people to be more protective and see more insults against something they personally enjoy than otherwise.

Regardless, no matter the percentage balance of rude "pro-ToB" comments and "anti-ToB" comments, both are undesirable.

Sure, now we just need to agree on what that entails.
Well, common courtesy is the baseline, as with any comment. Respecting people's/groups differences, another.

I think openess is key. Just say, "I can't play a martial initiate, but I can play a druid. Can I show you that a druid is more power at melee than a warblade?" It may help the Dm understand where your coming from, and whilst he may not change his mind, he can hardly be angry with you.
Yes, pretty much as I said:

If rational debate and polite discussion can't resolve the situation

[Snowbluff]

Well, personally, I'm of the school of thought "two wrongs don't make a right". I don't think potentially wrecking a game that other players are likely involved in to show a stubborn DM the error of their ways is a particularly responsible or constructive path to go down.



Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When you punch the book in the face, the book's face is hitting you in the hand (I passed high physics. I learned more there that I ever will anywhere else. :smallwink:). I understand your approaching the viewpoint using that arguments, but that argument is inherently flawed.

First of all, if someone is asking for ToB, he probably knows what he is doing.

Second, if he knows what is doing, he could do something horribly if he wanted to.

Third, you are not in his head. You know he could retaliate, using this forum as precedent. It's Schrodinger's cat. He will not do something tremendously horrible to your game and he will at the same time. Since he will, you just lost the argument. You get nothing! good day sir! :smalltongue:

The truth of the matter is, once you start banning requested material, you leave the welfare of your game to the good graces of the player. While this is valid for all books, but the ToB is relatively harmless. Pretty soon, you'd rolling dice in your basement, alone, all because you did not want Tier 3 melee characters. :smallfrown:

[Boci]

Well, common courtesy is the baseline, as with any comment. Respecting people's/groups differences, another.

Yeah, but how far does it go? A lot of bad blood comes from one side being offended by the others curiosity.


Yes, pretty much as I said:

Its a debate with a demonstration.



First of all, if someone is asking for ToB, he probably knows what he is doing.

Second, if he knows what is doing, he could do something horribly if he wanted to.

I'm going to disagree here. With all the praise ToB gets anyone who likes melee could feel determined to give the book a try.

[Thurbane]

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When you punch the book in the face, the book's face is hitting you in the hand (I passed high physics. I learned more there that I ever will anywhere else. :smallwink:). I understand your approaching the viewpoint using that arguments, but that argument is inherently flawed.

First of all, if someone is asking for ToB, he probably knows what he is doing.

Second, if he knows what is doing, he could do something horribly if he wanted to.

Third, you are not in his head. You know he could retaliate, using this forum as precedent. It's Schrodinger's cat. He will not do something tremendously horrible to your game and he will at the same time. Since he will, you just lost the argument. You get nothing! good day sir! :smalltongue:
Uh, I honestly don't understand what you're getting at here. :smalleek:

The truth of the matter is, once you start banning requested material, you leave the welfare of your game to the good graces of the player. While this is valid for all books, but the ToB is relatively harmless. Pretty soon, you'd rolling dice in your basement, alone, all because you did not want Tier 3 melee characters. :smallfrown:
Well, I guess it's a matter of different viewpoints. In cases where rational debate and polite discussion can't resolve a conflict, I generally defer to the person running the game (i.e. DM). If the differences were irreconcilable, I'd either sit out the game or (far more likely) find a character I enjoyed within the framework of allowed material.

In a game a while back, I wanted to play a Binder. The DM disallowed it, as he wasn't familiar with the classes abilities, didn't have easy access to the book, and had a bit much on his plate to learn the mechanics and semantics of binding anyhow. So instead, I tried out another class I hadn't played before, a Dragon Shaman. I still had a ton of fun in the game, and didn't harbour any resentment for being denied my first choice.

[Boci]

In a game a while back, I wanted to play a Binder. The DM disallowed it, as he wasn't familiar with the classes abilities, didn't have easy access to the book, and had a bit much on his plate to learn the mechanics and semantics of binding anyhow. So instead, I tried out another class I hadn't played before, a Dragon Shaman. I still had a ton of fun in the game, and didn't harbour any resentment for being denied my first choice.

The problem I'd have with this is that, why can't I just play it anyway. I know the rules of the binder, and I can bring ToM to any session. How would that decrease the DM's fun? I certainly allow classes I don't understand in my games.

[Snowbluff]

Uh, I honestly don't understand what you're getting at here. :smalleek:

Well, I guess it's a matter of different viewpoints. In cases where rational debate and polite discussion can't resolve a conflict, I generally defer to the person running the game (i.e. DM). If the differences were irreconcilable, I'd either sit out the game or (far more likely) find a character I enjoyed within the framework of allowed material.

In a game a while back, I wanted to play a Binder. The DM disallowed it, as he wasn't familiar with the classes abilities, didn't have easy access to the book, and had a bit much on his plate to learn the mechanics and semantics of binding anyhow. So instead, I tried out another class I hadn't played before, a Dragon Shaman. I still had a ton of fun in the game, and didn't harbour any resentment for being denied my first choice.

The argument essentially reads that since you never know how a player will react, you can expect something horrible to happen 100% of the time. A ban-hammer on a book is rarely justified, and if your DM will not spend the 5 minutes it would take to learn about the class, I would sit out on principle. If the anti-ToB were to legitimately look at what the ToB actually is (Tier 3 melee characters. Oooooh, scary!), many would not have a problem with it. Unless they are monk supporters, in which case they are beyond hope.

Player freedom costs very little if you know your players well, anyway. While the same can not be said with new groups, is your DM saying he does trust you enough not to destroy your game?

[Thurbane]

Yeah, but how far does it go? A lot of bad blood comes from one side being offended by the others curiosity.

Well, we're kind of going in circles now - I think I've made my opinion fairly clear. Basically, live and let live. Now we just seem to be debating the semantics of what is and isn't a rude way to recommend ToB, or query why it isn't in use.

The answer to that is pretty much that people need to have their own internal politeness filters; I'm afraid that if someone can't tell what is and isn't geenrally considered a rude post (on any topic), little I could say here will be of much use.

The problem I'd have with this is that, why can't I just play it anyway. I know the rules of the binder, and I can bring ToM to any session. How would that decrease the DM's fun? I certainly allow classes I don't understand in my games.
Different DM approach I guess; also this was this particular DMs first serious attempt at DMing a campaign. We were playing a pre-written module, and he wanted to have a basic understanding of our character abilities, so he could allow for our ability or inability to pass certain obstacles and situations.

Also, apprehension that a class he didn't understand might eclipse the other players, I would imagine. That would certainly be a concern if I was DMing a player with a class I was unfamiliar with. Sure, I could trust someone not to build an intentionally "broken" character, but that kind of thing can also happen unintentionally.

The argument essentially reads that since you never know how a player will react, you can expect something horrible to happen 100% of the time. A ban-hammer on a book is rarely justified, and if your DM will not spend the 5 minutes it would take to learn about the class, I would sit out on principle. If the anti-ToB were to legitimately look at what the ToB actually is (Tier 3 melee characters. Oooooh, scary!), many would not have a problem with it. Unless they are monk supporters, in which case they are beyond hope.
Emphasis mine. See, right here - because you don't enjoy monks and consider them an underpowered class, you make a judgement call on people who want to play them.

In the very same game where I played the Dragon Shaman, another guy played a Deep Dwarf Monk, and enjoyed it. It was a mid level, low-op game, so it never once felt like that character was dragging the chain.

My point? People should really refrain from making judgement calls on how much fun can be had playing a particular class or whatever at other people's tables - tables they've never experienced first hand. Sure, advise people "Hey, this class isn't that powerful and/or versatile - you might prefer an Unarmed Swordsage." - but comments like the one above aren't particularly helpful to anyone.

Player freedom costs very little if you know your players well, anyway. While the same can not be said with new groups, is your DM saying he does trust you enough not to destroy your game?
There are any number of reasons why ToB may not be allowed other than DMs believing it to be overpowered. Stylistic reasons; core-only games; limited or no access to the book for some/all of the group.

[Starbuck_II]

Oooooor... the Fighter went first, repeatedly tripping the Warblade with his spiked chain each time the Warblade tries to get up and getting a free attack each time, and then full attacking during his own turn.

Illegal. Not possible following rules.
Why did you believe this was allowed?


Or the Fighter managed to get a charge off and killed the Warblade on his first turn.

Counter Charge says no. Good thing it is a Warblade maneuver.


Or the Fighter picked the Warblade off from range, since the Warblade has no ranged weapon proficiencies.

Point.


Or the Fighter dragged the Warblade into a grapple and beat him to death with his own weapons. A well built Fighter and a Warblade are not as unevenly matched as you would think.
No one said Fighter can't deal damage, but he has one mode. No thinking.

[Greenish]

Counter Charge says no. Good thing it is a Warblade maneuver.It's a warblade maneuver in the same sense as it's a fighter maneuver - either of them can pick it up with a feat or a swordsage dip. :smallamused:

[Starbuck_II]

It's a warblade maneuver in the same sense as it's a fighter maneuver - either of them can pick it up with a feat or a swordsage dip. :smallamused:

True, but Warblades can refresh it in a fight. Fighters have to wait till battles over.
:smalltongue:

[Boci]

Different DM approach I guess; also this was this particular DMs first serious attempt at DMing a campaign. We were playing a pre-written module, and he wanted to have a basic understanding of our character abilities, so he could allow for our ability or inability to pass certain obstacles and situations.

Better ban the wizard then. It doesn't take an optimizer to and 10 splat books out think WotC design of a pre-written adventure. Flk, blink, teleport, invisibility, divination magic. Binders don't have such abilities.


Also, apprehension that a class he didn't understand might eclipse the other players, I would imagine. That would certainly be a concern if I was DMing a player with a class I was unfamiliar with. Sure, I could trust someone not to build an intentionally "broken" character, but that kind of thing can also happen unintentionally.

I don't see what the big deal is. For 1 session I could play a character that is more powerful than the others after which adjustments will be made or I will re-roll.



There are any number of reasons why ToB may not be allowed other than DMs believing it to be overpowered. Stylistic reasons; core-only games; limited or no access to the book for some/all of the group.

The problem is "its overpowered" is the only reason that affects the whole group. The others can start to look like weak excuses. This is mainly because I can't imagine how a class played by someone else could bother me. Its like a vegatarian friend insisting I don't order a meat dish at a restaurant. Its my character, as long as I won't over shadow you or lag behind, why should it bother you?

[Snowbluff]

Well, we're kind of going in circles now - I think I've made my opinion fairly clear. Basically, live and let live. Now we just seem to be debating the semantics of what is and isn't a rude way to recommend ToB, or query why it isn't in use.

The answer to that is pretty much that people need to have their own internal politeness filters; I'm afraid that if someone can't tell what is and isn't geenrally considered a rude post (on any topic), little I could say here will be of much use.

Emphasis mine. See, right here - because you don't enjoy monks and consider them an underpowered class, you make a judgement call on people who want to play them.

In the very same game where I played the Dragon Shaman, another guy played a Deep Dwarf Monk, and enjoyed it. It was a mid level, low-op game, so it never once felt like that character was dragging the chain.

My point? People should really refrain from making judgement calls on how much fun can be had playing a particular class or whatever at other people's tables - tables they've never experienced first hand. Sure, advise people "Hey, this class isn't that powerful and/or versatile - you might prefer an Unarmed Swordsage." - but comments like the one above aren't particularly helpful to anyone.

There are any number of reasons why ToB may not be allowed other than DMs believing it to be overpowered. Stylistic reasons; core-only games; limited or no access to the book for some/all of the group.

So, you think they would not use it based on lies/misunderstanding, FLUFF (lol), not having the books (lend it).

Also, I was joking about the monk. Fluffwise, the class is ok, but fluff has no weight. I have a bunch of people in my circle who like monks, I would not force them to play an Unarmed SS instead. On the other hand, the group I am DMing is a Cleric, a Wizard, a Druid, a Crusader, a Warblade, and a Rogue (Only because he really wanted it. I was against it, but he made a good argument on wanting to skill monkey.). Where would a Monk fit in here?

[Thurbane]

So, you think they would not use it based on lies/misunderstanding, FLUFF (lol), not having the books (lend it).
Not sure what you're getting at with lies/misunderstanding?

Fluff (again, the sarcastic "lol" doesn't help in a civilised debate, and just comes across as snarky)- fluff is a perfectly valid to include/exclude material based on an individual's/groups preferences. Way back in 1E, I ran a campaign where gnomes and halflings were extinct, and therefore not available as player races. Does that make me a bad DM? I suppose in the eyes of many, it would.

"Lend it" isn't always a viable option, either. Players may be geographically separated; multiple people may need the book between games to look up or research something; many of the people I game with have young children and other "out of game" activities that severely restrict their spare time - the DMs, in particular, often have barely enough time to prep a module or adventure, let alone research a new subsystem to a level they are comfortable with (and it's not just ToB, for pretty much that exact reason, we don't use psionics or Icarnum either); finally, the book may simply not be available at all - not every group out there owns a copy, and not every group can afford to buy one off Amazon, or be comfortable "obtaining" a copy in less-than-legal ways.

But basically, you are saying there is never a legit reason not to include a particular book in a game? Really?

Also, I was joking about the monk. Fluffwise, the class is ok, but fluff has no weight. I have a bunch of people in my circle who like monks, I would not force them to play an Unarmed SS instead. On the other hand, the group I am DMing is a Cleric, a Wizard, a Druid, a Crusader, a Warblade, and a Rogue (Only because he really wanted it. I was against it, but he made a good argument on wanting to skill monkey.). Where would a Monk fit in here?
Fluff has no weight in your opinion - in others, it carries significant weight. Again, different play styles for different groups. But that's one debate I don't want to be reeled into - there have been several monstrously large threads about the "weight" of fluff previously.

[Boci]

"Lend it" isn't always a viable option, either. Players may be geographically separated; multiple people may need the book between games to look up or research something; many of the people I game with have young children and other "out of game" activities that severely restrict their spare time - the DMs, in particular, often have barely enough time to prep a module or adventure, let alone research a new subsystem to a level they are comfortable with (and it's not just ToB, for pretty much that exact reason, we don't use psionics or Icarnum either); finally, the book may simply not be available at all - not every group out there owns a copy, and not every group can afford to buy one off Amazon, or be comfortable "obtaining" a copy in less-than-legal ways.

Would as a DM allow a friend to play with a class that you didn't understand?

[Thurbane]

You can't trip someone with the AoO they provoke from getting up from prone.

They still count as prone when you make the AoO, and you cannot trip a prone target.

The AoO occurs before the action that provoked it, so when you're taking the AoO against someone trying to stand up from prone, they will still be prone, and you can't trip someone who's already prone.

Illegal. Not possible following rules.
Why did you believe this was allowed?
Yeah, I think we've pretty much covered this one. :smallamused:

It's pretty obvious that the original poster was unaware of the rules regarding trying to trip an already prone opponent. It's actually a query that comes up surprisingly often in the Q&A threads.

Better ban the wizard then. It doesn't take an optimizer to and 10 splat books out think WotC design of a pre-written adventure. Flk, blink, teleport, invisibility, divination magic. Binders don't have such abilities.
Ah, but the Wizard was a class he was familiar with, and one which we all were fairly familiar with the pitfalls and tricks of. Not to mention that no one in this particular game had wanted to play one.

Also, you drew a conclusion there - I never said he was worried about us out thinking the design of the module (which can happen with any class), he just wanted a gauge of our abilities. Mainly, so we didn't get stuck in an area that required a particular ability to get past.

It's funny how many people assume the DM wants to hose the players, rather than help them.

I don't see what the big deal is. For 1 session I could play a character that is more powerful than the others after which adjustments will be made or I will re-roll.
That's absolutely fine, but not everyone would be comfortable with that as a fix. Some would rather not have a break in the continuity of their game by a character being retro-ed or retired, and would attempt to take steps to prevent it happening in the first place.

Back to my point that some things will work for some groups, while other things work for others. I don't see why that's such a hot topic of debate.

The problem is "its overpowered" is the only reason that affects the whole group. The others can start to look like weak excuses. This is mainly because I can't imagine how a class played by someone else could bother me. Its like a vegatarian friend insisting I don't order a meat dish at a restaurant. Its my character, as long as I won't over shadow you or lag behind, why should it bother you?
My counter example would be a non-vegetarian ordering a meat dish at a vegetarian restaurant, then getting frustrated when the chef has to explain that his kitchen doesn't have or use the ingredients necessary for a meat dish.

Would as a DM allow a friend to play with a class that you didn't understand?
I'm probably a bad example for my group - I'm the most well versed in the rules and optimisation of us, and I also have the most spare time on my hands to read books a look stuff up. I also own the vast majority of the 3.X rulebooks. Most of the others I game with are a lot more casual.

But if someone were to come with me with a class that I was totally unfamiliar with (say, a homebrew or 3rd party), I'd certainly want a decent read of it before I allowed it, yes.

It would also depend on how rules familiar the friend was. If I was confident in his system knowledge, I'd be much more likely to let it in with a cursory glance than otherwise.

[Snowbluff]

Not sure what you're getting at with lies/misunderstanding?

Fluff (again, the sarcastic "lol" doesn't help in a civilised debate, and just comes across as snarky)- fluff is a perfectly valid to include/exclude material based on an individual's/groups preferences. Way back in 1E, I ran a campaign where gnomes and halflings were extinct, and therefore not available as player races. Does that make me a bad DM? I suppose in the eyes of many, it would.

But basically, you are saying there is never a legit reason not to include a particular book in a game? Really?

Fluff has no weight in your opinion - in others, it carries significant weight. Again, different play styles for different groups. But that's one debate I don't want to be reeled into - there have been several monstrously large threads about the "weight" of fluff previously.

Lies/misundersanding means ToB is not overpowered. It's Tier 3.

Fluff is called fluff because it has no weight. Not it has no place, if fluff is keeping you from doing something rather than the 3 actual parts of the game (Roleplaying, Combat, and Character Building), you have problems.

Also, you COULD do a Core-only campaign as a legitimate reason not to use books, but that is horribly flawed in it's own right. Core is not balanced, at all. Say that Core-only games exist is saying people don't about the balance of the game. The game is not balanced, anyway. How would banning books fix this? It won't, so I am having a hard time finding reasons to not allow books.

On the other hand, very few full casters are below Tier 3 (Warmage and Healer all I can think of), and some classes don't have analogues across all tier (Melee don't have anything above Tier 3 that aren't Gish, as far as I know. Warlocks are cool, and not horribly underpowered.). The biggest problem with monk is that it sucks, has NO niche, and it's only value is in fluff or for dipping. If we used the Tier system to make allowances rather than whole books, then we would not have to discuss balance unless a class needs to be re-evaluated.

This is probably going to be my last post on this thread. Most of what I wanted to say has been said by both me and you. If not, my responses will be brief, and I hope yours will be, too.

[Talionis]

Yea, just make your game "Only Tier 3 base classes allowed" if you want to balance it.

Here's a list of Tier 3 classes:


Crusader (Tome of Battle)
Swordsage (Tome of Battle)
Warblade (Tome of Battle)

Above is the list of Tier 3 classes that are non-casters. (Some people might add one or two back into the list, like Totemist, Incarnate...)

The reason people get so adement on these boards (optimization boards) is that while there are a lot of really nice things in tier 1 and 2. Tier 3 is the strongest possible tier that allows non-casters to compete at top levels. Thus, generally the nicest stuff with both power and variety are the Tome of Battle melee classes. Other melee characters can match power level with one-trick ponies like Trippers or Pouncers or Chargers, but those characters will have a massive percentage of their feats, gear, etc thrown into doing one thing well.

Optimizers are really going to like this tier because it gives "nice things" and tactical options to casters and non-casters. It seems very biased that many of the people that ban Tome of Battle have no problem with very powerful tier 1 and 2 casters. To that I think it is very biased to allow strong casters and gimp the people wanting to play mundanes.

No one is saying if you are running a tier 5 game to run Tome of Battle stuff.

[Thurbane]

Lies/misundersanding means ToB is not overpowered. It's Tier 3.
OK, I see now.

Fluff is called fluff because it has no weight. Not it has no place, if fluff is keeping you from doing something rather than the 3 actual parts of the game (Roleplaying, Combat, and Character Building), you have problems.
I consider that very much an individual value judgement.

If you're interested, I recommend this as further reading: The Flavor is what you make of it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203878)

Also, you COULD do a Core-only campaign as a legitimate reason not to use books, but that is horribly flawed in it's own right. Core is not balanced, at all. Say that Core-only games exist is saying people don't about the balance of the game. The game is not balanced, anyway. How would banning books fix this? It won't, so I am having a hard time finding reasons to not allow books.
I disagree with a large chunk of this, but suffice to say that yes, I agree there is much in core that is unbalanced.

There are also many reasons to run a core only game other than balance. In fact, most all core only games I have been involved in have had nothing to do with balance - simply, limiting material to make things easier for players without the time or resources to pore through a ton of splatbooks.

Basically, in core only, all you need is the free online SRD.

On the other hand, very few full casters are below Tier 3 (Warmage and Healer all I can think of), and some classes don't have analogues across all tier (Melee don't have anything above Tier 3 that aren't Gish, as far as I know. Warlocks are cool, and not horribly underpowered.). The biggest problem with monk is that it sucks, has NO niche, and it's only value is in fluff or for dipping. If we used the Tier system to make allowances rather than whole books, then we would not have to discuss balance unless a class needs to be re-evaluated.
All fair points, but not all necessarily relevant to the style of game I enjoy.

This is probably going to be my last post on this thread. Most of what I wanted to say has been said by both me and you. If not, my responses will be brief, and I hope yours will be, too.
No problem - I've tried to keep my responses in this post fairly short and to the point.

[Snowbluff]

Above is the list of Tier 3 classes that are non-casters. (Some people might add one or two back into the list, like Totemist, Incarnate...)

The reason people get so adement on these boards (optimization boards) is that while there are a lot of really nice things in tier 1 and 2. Tier 3 is the strongest possible tier that allows non-casters to compete at top levels. Thus, generally the nicest stuff with both power and variety are the Tome of Battle melee classes. Other melee characters can match power level with one-trick ponies like Trippers or Pouncers or Chargers, but those characters will have a massive percentage of their feats, gear, etc thrown into doing one thing well.

Optimizers are really going to like this tier because it gives "nice things" and tactical options to casters and non-casters. It seems very biased that many of the people that ban Tome of Battle have no problem with very powerful tier 1 and 2 casters. To that I think it is very biased to allow strong casters and gimp the people wanting to play mundanes.

No one is saying if you are running a tier 5 game to run Tome of Battle stuff.

:smallsmile: This so very much. Tiers are good for the game.

[Snowbluff]

Basically, in core only, all you need is the free online SRD.

All fair points, but not all necessarily relevant to the style of game I enjoy.

No problem - I've tried to keep my responses in this post fairly short and to the point.

Needing only online material has it's merits, but Warblade is free, too.

As for "style of game I enjoy", what about the ToBer? What if banning the book conflicts with his style of play that he enjoys? :smallconfused: It's not like he'll hurt anything. ToB is rather safe as far as books go, If you ask me.

Thanks for your brevity. :smallsmile:

[Boci]

Ah, but the Wizard was a class he was familiar with, and one which we all were fairly familiar with the pitfalls and tricks of. Not to mention that no one in this particular game had wanted to play one.

Unlikely if he's an inexpirienced DM.


Also, you drew a conclusion there - I never said he was worried about us out thinking the design of the module (which can happen with any class)

A fighter is going to struggle, but your right that its not magic. The amount of times WotC forgot sense motive existed in their pre-written adventures just boggles the mind.


he just wanted a gauge of our abilities. Mainly, so we didn't get stuck in an area that required a particular ability to get past.

But if he's an inexperienced DM he won't be able to do it. Even experienced DMs can make mistakes. I tend to withhold judgement until a couple of sessions.


It's funny how many people assume the DM wants to hose the players, rather than help them.

I think you might be reading to much into my comprehension ability in a fastly growing thread at 2 in the morning.



That's absolutely fine, but not everyone would be comfortable with that as a fix. Some would rather not have a break in the continuity of their game by a character being retro-ed or retired, and would attempt to take steps to prevent it happening in the first place.

I really think you're over stating this issue. Its going to happen for 1 session. The amount of times I'm not there and the Dm has to think of a reason for why my character is gone will break immersion far more than a single replaced character.


My counter example would be a non-vegetarian ordering a meat dish at a vegetarian restaurant, then getting frustrated when the chef has to explain that his kitchen doesn't have or use the ingredients necessary for a meat dish.

But they would never go to one in the first place. Anyway this is going to far into the analogy. Safe to say you will never catch me complaining about someone else’s character (barring significant power discrepancies), and so I don't understand why other people would do so. Its funny how "the point is to have fun" is used when someone can't play the class they wanted to but doesn't seem to be an acceptable argument to have the class allowed.

[Talionis]

If I were a DM and didn't understand how Tome of Battle worked, I wouldn't allow it either. BUT, I would still really suggest the DM borrow the Tome of Battle from his player that wants to use the books. Tome of Battle lends a lot of fun options for noncasters to tier 3 games, or even tier 1 and 2 games that have players that want to play non-casters and know they will be slightly below power level.

[Thurbane]

As for "style of game I enjoy", what about the ToBer? What if banning the book conflicts with his style of play that he enjoys? :smallconfused: It's not like he'll hurt anything. ToB is rather safe as far as books go, If you ask me.
I agree with ToB being safe.

And I agree, if someone absolutely has their heart set on a ToB character, it can be a bummer if it's not allowed. That's why I've suggested talking with your DM to try and hash out a compromise through polite debate.

For my group, it's a total non-issue, as none of us have expressed interest in playing a ToB character, and the book isn't used by group consensus. Ironically, I'm probably the most pro-ToB in my group, since I actually own a copy. Most of the others in my group prefer core-only, or core plus 1 or 2 splats as a rule.

[danzibr]

I, for one, like it a lot. Warblade 20!

[Thurbane]

Unlikely if he's an inexpirienced DM.
Yes, but he was as experienced as the rest of the group (at the time) as a player, and had seen and played Wizards himself.

But if he's an inexperienced DM he won't be able to do it. Even experienced DMs can make mistakes. I tend to withhold judgement until a couple of sessions.
Of course, but there were other factors at play, too. I mightn't be doing the greatest job of explaining his motivations, but suffice to say he wanted a certain level of familiarity with our characters abilities, so he could guesstimate our interaction with the module, and so he could possibly tailor sections of the adventure to suit our needs and strengths.

At the end of the day, he was a newish DM and disallowed something he was totally unfamiliar with. And I was OK with it. If I had absolutely, positively insisted that I really wanted to play a Binder, he might well have made the extra effort to familiarise himself with the class. But it wasn't that big a deal, so I rolled with it and played another character I'd been wanting to try out. In the end, he was happy, I was happy, and the game rolled on smoothly.

I think you might be reading to much into my comprehension ability in a fastly growing thread at 2 in the morning.
Apologies if I read more into your post than was there - that's something I try not to do.

I really think you're over stating this issue. Its going to happen for 1 session. The amount of times I'm not there and the Dm has to think of a reason for why my character is gone will break immersion far more than a single replaced character.
But that's a huge part of my point - we disagree on how much I am overstating the point precisely because we have different play styles and expectations of the game. I hold the point that neither is more valid than the other - just different.

But they would never go to one in the first place. Anyway this is going to far into the analogy. Safe to say you will never catch me complaining about someone else’s character (barring significant power discrepancies), and so I don't understand why other people would do so. Its funny how "the point is to have fun" is used when someone can't play the class they wanted to but doesn't seem to be an acceptable argument to have the class allowed.
It's group consensus, generally moderated by the DM. If the DM didn't want to include ToB (for whatever reason) and 4/5 players were fine with it, while 1/5 desperately wanted it included, and a civil debate couldn't persuade the DM, then the player has the options I listed above (play something else, or leave the game).

If, however, the situation was 4/5 players desperately wanted ToB in, and 1/5 was indifferent, and the DM couldn't be swayed, then I would agree the DMing is not doing a great job.

Like I said, my view is probably coloured by the fact that by default, I defer to the man who has dedicated his spare time to created a world for me to adventure in. Also, I somewhat enjoy the challenge of making a character within a restricted framework (i.e. working with allowed sources).

[Libertad]

I think the reason that Tome of Battle was so controversial was it's maneuver framework was partially based off of spellcasting (1st-9th level, limited # of times) and that there was a concern that it would make "fighter types" like mages.

There was also concern about the more supernatural abilities that the classes got, like the Shadow Hand discipline. There is a subset of gamers who prefer fighter/rogue/noncaster classes to be like "everymen heroes," or heroes more down to earth and constrained by plausible physics (this isn't sensible in D&D, but that's a whole 'nother conversation). When a Swordsage can teleport or a Warblade can get blindsense, these gamers say that these abilities are clearly supernatural.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think the reason that Tome of Battle was so controversial was it's maneuver framework was partially based off of spellcasting (1st-9th level, # of times per day) and that there was a concern that it would make "fighter types" like mages.

There was also concern about the nigh-supernatural abilities that the classes got, like the Shadow Hand discipline. There is a subset of gamers who prefer fighter/rogue/noncaster classes to be like "everymen heroes," or heroes more down to earth and constrained by plausible physics (this isn't sensible in D&D, but that's a whole 'nother conversation). When a Swordsage can teleport or a Warblade can get blindsense, these gamers say that these abilities are clearly supernatural.

Swordsage teleportation is Su. Please ignore the fact that there isn't a Su tag on it.

[navar100]

I think the reason that Tome of Battle was so controversial was it's maneuver framework was partially based off of spellcasting (1st-9th level, # of times per day) and that there was a concern that it would make "fighter types" like mages.

There was also concern about the nigh-supernatural abilities that the classes got, like the Shadow Hand discipline. There is a subset of gamers who prefer fighter/rogue/noncaster classes to be like "everymen heroes," or heroes more down to earth and constrained by plausible physics (this isn't sensible in D&D, but that's a whole 'nother conversation). When a Swordsage can teleport or a Warblade can get blindsense, these gamers say that these abilities are clearly supernatural.

I.e. mundanes don't deserve nice things.

[Gavinfoxx]

APolymorphing Miracling Giant Sizing Animal Companioned Shaman = Incarnate lol

Hence why the Shaman had a "Possible Tier 2" Clause...


Above is the list of Tier 3 classes that are non-casters. (Some people might add one or two back into the list, like Totemist, Incarnate...)

I would add Factotum to that list as well. It has a bit of spellcasting, but that is easily removed from the class while maintaining most of the power.

[turkishproverb]

snip

Dirty Dirty kittens!


I.e. mundanes don't deserve nice things.

Does sound awefully close to that, I have to admit.

[Worira]

The thing about the "mundane characters should follow physics" argument is that physics tell me that bad things happen to people who get hit by sharp metal things (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_xH-yMPsA) (bladed weapon test, nothing too gory, but does contain a few bits of meat being cut up).

[Talionis]

I think the reason that Tome of Battle was so controversial was it's maneuver framework was partially based off of spellcasting (1st-9th level, # of times per day) and that there was a concern that it would make "fighter types" like mages.

There was also concern about the nigh-supernatural abilities that the classes got, like the Shadow Hand discipline. There is a subset of gamers who prefer fighter/rogue/noncaster classes to be like "everymen heroes," or heroes more down to earth and constrained by plausible physics (this isn't sensible in D&D, but that's a whole 'nother conversation). When a Swordsage can teleport or a Warblade can get blindsense, these gamers say that these abilities are clearly supernatural.

If you want to you can fluff many of the things you think are supernatural to non-supernatural. IE Hearing the Air stance, isn't blindsense (which is on the Fighter feat list), but is really the character training him/herself to really listen to even the smallest noises and be able to respond to that sensory information. Even many of the Desert Wind attacks might be fluffed into being like a circus firebreather.

For the things that can't be fluffed like the flight or the teleporting... Just don't take them on your character if it doesn't fit your theme. Often I don't take a power on a character because it doesn't match that characters fluff even if it would be much more powerful.

When Tome of Battle is allowed, it gives nice things to mundanes/non-casters. Its the characters choice whether to use each of the choices.

[Boci]

I think the reason that Tome of Battle was so controversial was it's maneuver framework was partially based off of spellcasting (1st-9th level, # of times per day) and that there was a concern that it would make "fighter types" like mages.

Its /encounter with a recharge mechanic, not /day. That's a very big difference.


When a Swordsage can teleport or a Warblade can get blindsense, these gamers say that these abilities are clearly supernatural.

Swordsages replace the monk which could already teleport, so that a moot argument. Warblade with blinsense is a bit more understandable, but blindsense is just being aware of your environment. If it was blindsight it would be borderline supernatural, but with the existence of the blind fight feat objection to hearing the air doesn't seem that reasonable.


.But that's a huge part of my point - we disagree on how much I am overstating the point precisely because we have different play styles and expectations of the game. I hold the point that neither is more valid than the other - just different.

I understand that, but it has its limits. I get that some people don't like ToB for whatever reason, that is covered under difference of opinion. But I struggling to find "Oh we couldn't possibly allow you to try the character for a single session. It may be too powerful, and then you would have to make a new one and just think what would happen then" as legitamatly a difference of opinion as oppose to an excuse.

[Derjuin]

It's not really the mechanics or the fluff that make me retch every time I see the Bo9S. I'm pretty much fine with those.

It's the art. I mean, sure, you could argue that a lot of D&D artists aren't that great (like David Martin (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG43_WEB.jpg) and his portrayal of Mialee (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG56_WEB.jpg) the elf half-frog wizard), but for whatever reason WotC decided EVERY new chapter would begin with a piece by Wayne England. If they'd given the art job to Scott Fischer/Wayne Reynolds I might have liked it a lot better, but...

:yuk:

[Talionis]

It's not really the mechanics or the fluff that make me retch every time I see the Bo9S. I'm pretty much fine with those.

It's the art. I mean, sure, you could argue that a lot of D&D artists aren't that great (like David Martin (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG43_WEB.jpg) and his portrayal of Mialee (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG56_WEB.jpg) the elf half-frog wizard), but for whatever reason WotC decided EVERY new chapter would begin with a piece by Wayne England. If they'd given the art job to Scott Fischer/Wayne Reynolds I might have liked it a lot better, but...

:yuk:

This is hard to argue with... Everyone has their own taste in art. And unfortunately, I have to agree with you that way too much of the D&D art is dreadful in taste, but Tome of Battle is hardly the only book with any bad art.

[Derjuin]

This is hard to argue with... Everyone has their own taste in art. And unfortunately, I have to agree with you that way too much of the D&D art is dreadful in taste, but Tome of Battle is hardly the only book with any bad art.

Oh it is definitely not alone, it's just that I really cannot stand works by Wayne England. I think maybe I'm artllergic to him or something, because most other bad pieces I can just skim by, but his are like eyesores every time.

That said, bookmarks/pieces of paper/whathaveyou at the right pages really helps to alleviate some of the issues. That way you don't have to flip past the chapter headings and get to the crunch.

Edit: Oh, and this is a really super-tiny minor nitpick, but I actually dislike how specific some of the PrCs' fluff is. Like, really, I have to worship Wee Jas to be a RKV? :smallannoyed: Though that's easy enough to change.

[Seerow]

Oh it is definitely not alone, it's just that I really cannot stand works by Wayne England. I think maybe I'm artllergic to him or something, because most other bad pieces I can just skim by, but his are like eyesores every time.

That said, bookmarks/pieces of paper/whathaveyou at the right pages really helps to alleviate some of the issues. That way you don't have to flip past the chapter headings and get to the crunch.

Edit: Oh, and this is a really super-tiny minor nitpick, but I actually dislike how specific some of the PrCs' fluff is. Like, really, I have to worship Wee Jas to be a RKV? :smallannoyed: Though that's easy enough to change.

Yes, in a book with a whole new subsystem, we have two racial specific prestige classes, one religion specific prestige class, one prestige class that doesn't progress maneuvers at all, etc. The prestige classes were all very poorly conceived, and is one area I wish the book had done better.

[Talionis]

Edit: Oh, and this is a really super-tiny minor nitpick, but I actually dislike how specific some of the PrCs' fluff is. Like, really, I have to worship Wee Jas to be a RKV? :smallannoyed: Though that's easy enough to change.

Totally agree. For a stand alone single shot book with its own mechanics. The prestige classes do seem awful narrow. If the spirit of the book is that these are fairly mundane powers that normal people can learn to replicate, why are they so limiting?

Jade Phoenix Mage can't work with Warlock. And in theory there is only less than 15 JPM in the entire world... that's not limiting.

Ruby Knight Vindicator is the only class that advances Divine casting, but you have to have Turn Undead to use it. Plus the Wee Jas thing, its just an unnecessary level of requirement. Wee Jas is the only religion with Martial Kinghts? Please...

Eternal Blade has to be an Elf? I can see that it fluff makes a some sense that longer lived races might have these spirits, but for such a good prestige class I hate that its so limited.

Stone Sentinel is only Dwarf. I know they love stone, but come on... I can fluff a lot of other races to use the same powers.

If you are only ever going to make 6 or 7 prestige classes, one of which uses the mechanics, but doesn't advance initiator levels. You'd think they would be as generic as possible to allow for as many different interpretations as possible.

[Snowbluff]

Edit: Oh, and this is a really super-tiny minor nitpick, but I actually dislike how specific some of the PrCs' fluff is. Like, really, I have to worship Wee Jas to be a RKV? :smallannoyed: Though that's easy enough to change.

Yeah, I think somewhere in the RKV that the religion could be changed to fit your PC's build, but if you do that, the class has no prequisites that are really worth mentioning. Not only that, but it is a very powerful class, and I think it is a great addition to the game. Mostly because Turn Attempts can actually do something other than mess up undead, or DMM abuse. :smallcool:

[Starbuck_II]

Ruby Knight Vindicator is the only class that advances Divine casting, but you have to have Turn Undead to use it. Plus the Wee Jas thing, its just an unnecessary level of requirement. Wee Jas is the only religion with Martial Kinghts? Please...


No, the sample character doesn't worship Wee Jas, the alternative change idea suggested says it can be any god. They (sample) did it too.

[Hiro Protagonest]

No, the sample character doesn't worship Wee Jas,

Er, yes he does.

[Starbuck_II]

Er, yes he does.

No, he serves St. Cuthbert pg 126 shows this in Diety of his sheet (at top of page).
Basically he is adapted to show how you can. I mean, his Domains include Protection and Destruction neither is a Weejas domain.

You never noticed that?

[Talionis]

No, he serves St. Cuthbert pg 126 shows this in Diety of his sheet (at top of page).
Basically he is adapted to show how you can. I mean, his Domains include Protection and Destruction neither is a Weejas domain.

You never noticed that?

I never did notice. Although the editing in D&D and Tome of Battle in particular is so bad, often they make huge mistakes.

My DMs have never been too strict on racial and religion requirements for prestige classes. But I know a lot of people on the boards get very RAW focused.

Still doesn't ease the pain that the mechanics of Tome of Battle are good, but they could've used more errata and more fleshing out. Expanded Tome of Battle for 3.5 would be a valuable addition to my collection.

[Hiro Protagonest]

No, he serves St. Cuthbert pg 126 shows this in Diety of his sheet (at top of page).
Basically he is adapted to show how you can. I mean, his Domains include Protection and Destruction neither is a Weejas domain.

You never noticed that?

No, I just read his fluff. I thought he was an undead hunter for Wee Jas. :smallconfused:

[Blisstake]

If I recall correctly, across his stats and fluff it mentions both Wee-Jas and St. Cuthbert. I think it's just a miscellaneous error.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

If I recall correctly, across his stats and fluff it mentions both Wee-Jas and St. Cuthbert. I think it's just a miscellaneous error.

The art of the sample NPC also has what looks to be a holy symbol on the butt of his sword, too.

[Greenish]

No, I just read his fluff. I thought he was an undead hunter for Wee Jas. :smallconfused:His fluff doesn't mention any deity, only that he is a "dour champion of law", hates undead and only his wife knows about his services to his church. Go ahead, read it again.

Of course, there's also a picture of him, where he wears a collar and a belt decorated with St. Cuthbert's symbol. In case that's not obvious enough, he even has one as the pommel of his sword.

[Talionis]

His fluff doesn't mention any deity, only that he is a "dour champion of law", hates undead and only his wife knows about his services to his church. Go ahead, read it again.

Of course, there's also a picture of him, where he wears a collar and a belt decorated with St. Cuthbert's symbol. In case that's not obvious enough, he even has one as the pommel of his sword.

Yah, but the quote for him and the very first entry for Ruby Knight Vindicator says, "You've threatened our people for the last time, cur...Ereth Nezbeck, Ruby Knight of Wee Jas"

I told you the editing in Tome of Battle is just awful.

[Boci]

Yah, but the quote for him and the very first entry for Ruby Knight Vindicator says, "You've threatened our people for the last time, cur...Ereth Nezbeck, Ruby Knight of Wee Jas"

I told you the editing in Tome of Battle is just awful.

Or that's just a common name in D&D land :smallbiggrin:

[Talionis]

Or that's just a common name in D&D land :smallbiggrin:

I'm sure the Church of St. Cuthbert loves that their elite knights are called the Ruby Knights of Wee Jas...:smallbiggrin:

[Boci]

I'm sure the Church of St. Cuthbert loves that their elite knights are called the Ruby Knights of Wee Jas...:smallbiggrin:

None I want to have a campaign with 9 NPC, one for each alignment, and totally unrelated to each other all with different abilities and motives but all sharing the same name.

[Crasical]

I direct you to my post the last time this topic rolled around.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9513739#post9513739

[Snowbluff]

Brilliant Crasical.


Also, what's a Pervirtuoso? :smallconfused:

[Coidzor]

Brilliant Crasical.


Also, what's a Pervirtuoso? :smallconfused:

Summed up best here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9985891&postcount=31)

debuted here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167278&page=3)

[Curious]

Summed up best here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9985891&postcount=31)

debuted here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167278&page=3)

Isn't there some prestige class or other that allows you to make a perform check in place of of a diplomacy check to affect the attitude of a crowd? Combined with some skill shenanigans, couldn't you have sex with your familiar in front of a whole crowd of people to turn them all fanatical?

[Dusk Eclipse]

Isn't there some prestige class or other that allows you to make a perform check in place of of a diplomacy check to affect the attitude of a crowd? Combined with some skill shenanigans, couldn't you have sex with your familiar in front of a whole crowd of people to turn them all fanatical?

Exemplar IIRC....

[Crasical]

With higher DCs, you can do that with Perform anyway, and Virtuoso specifically lets you use the lower Diplomacy DCs as one of it's class features anyway.

[MeeposFire]

Got to say tat I love ToB. Especially since it values encounter based mechanics rather than daily based mechanics which I enjoy and value.

[LordBlades]

Got to say tat I love ToB. Especially since it values encounter based mechanics rather than daily based mechanics which I enjoy and value.

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).