Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords

[Thylondius]

Hey everybody, how is it going? I am starting a new game and my DM has recommended we use the classes from ToB, which I have never used before. Basically, I am just looking for your opinions on the book or a link to where it was already discussed.

Note: I am not looking for, this build is way better just play this one.

[The-Mage-King]

Fighter 20 is better than anything in that book. Just look at all the bonus feats it gets.


Now that the standard snark is out of the way... :smalltongue:

What do you want to talk about for ToB? Because general perception on these boards is that it's good, and any of the classes is fine to play without multiclassing.


Since you're completely new to it, I would suggest going with straight Warblade or Crusader. Both have fairly quick maneuver recovery, and are a good place to start with the subsystem.

[Big Fau]

It's Tuesday, isn't it?

Here's a couple of handbooks for you:

The Crusader Handbook (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2645).
The Swordsage Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=181705).
The (older) Warblade Handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4408).

[Thylondius]

Yeah I am just looking for what your favorite class from the book was, why you liked it, what you thought of maneuvers. Maybe an explanation on how boosts work because I am not sure If I read that part right. But mostly just what you liked about it what you didn't.

[Thylondius]

It's Tuesday, isn't it?

Here's a couple of handbooks for you:

The Crusader Handbook (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2645).
The Swordsage Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=181705).
The (older) Warblade Handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4408).

Oh thank you! Gotta love handbooks.

[Keld Denar]

Yeah I am just looking for what your favorite class from the book was, why you liked it, what you thought of maneuvers. Maybe an explanation on how boosts work because I am not sure If I read that part right. But mostly just what you liked about it what you didn't.

I like Warblades. They have my preferred recovery mechanic, neat class features, and access to the maneuvers from the schools I like best. It also multiclasses best with just about anything, IMO.

Boosts are simple. They cost your swift action to activate, and all attacks from the point you activate it until the end of your turn will benefit from the effects of that boost. So, like, Burning Blade gives you some extra fire damage per hit. If you boost Burning Blade and then make a strike, the strike would benefit from it. If you boost Burning Blade and then full attack, you get the benefits of it on each of your attacks. You do NOT benefit from boosts after your turn ends, so AoOs made after your turn ends would not benefit from the boost. Not all boosts involve attacking, though, like Sudden Leap, so you just spend the swift action and do what it says.

[The-Mage-King]

Yeah I am just looking for what your favorite class from the book was, why you liked it, what you thought of maneuvers. Maybe an explanation on how boosts work because I am not sure If I read that part right. But mostly just what you liked about it what you didn't.

Well... My favorite class of the three is Warblade- decent skills, best HD, Full BaB, counts as Fighter two levels lower, and has the Iron Heart discipline. What's not to like?

For maneuvers, they're generally all decent choices. Pick what sounds cool to you, and you should do fine.


Boosts, IIRC, all have an initiation time of a swift action. How long their effects last varies based on the boost used, and the effects are generally passive, applying to all attacks in a round if it works on attacks.

What kinda annoys me about ToB is the lack of offiicial support. Sure, there's plenty of homebrew for it, but that isn't official.

[pffh]

Yeah I am just looking for what your favorite class from the book was, why you liked it, what you thought of maneuvers. Maybe an explanation on how boosts work because I am not sure If I read that part right. But mostly just what you liked about it what you didn't.

I love the crusader since it's everything that the paladin should be but isn't. On top of that it has a recovery system with a bit of randomness so you might be forced to improvise with what you got instead of just using the optimal maneuver all the time.

[Thylondius]

Boosts are simple. They cost your swift action to activate, and all attacks from the point you activate it until the end of your turn will benefit from the effects of that boost. So, like, Burning Blade gives you some extra fire damage per hit. If you boost Burning Blade and then make a strike, the strike would benefit from it. If you boost Burning Blade and then full attack, you get the benefits of it on each of your attacks. You do NOT benefit from boosts after your turn ends, so AoOs made after your turn ends would not benefit from the boost. Not all boosts involve attacking, though, like Sudden Leap, so you just spend the swift action and do what it says.

^This is a great explanation. I guess I did understand boosts pretty well the wording just left me with doubt.

Greatly appreciating the input.

From what I have read Crusaders implements the Rocky style of fighting? Hit me in the face until you are tired then I'll beat the crap out of you.

[Essence_of_War]

From what I have read Crusaders implements the Rocky style of fighting? Hit me in the face until you are tired then I'll beat the crap out of you.

A thoughtfully built Crusader is QUITE difficult to kill through ordinary HP damage. The delayed damage pool, the Stone Power feat, and their "heal-me" maneuvers are frighteningly synergistic.

Edit:

There are sweet links in my sig to handbooks for all of the ToB classes. They should give you some good ideas about what maneuvers, feats, etc are useful choices.

[Oscredwin]

From what I have read Crusaders implements the Rocky style of fighting? Hit me in the face until you are tired then I'll beat the crap out of you.

This is called "Rope-a-Dope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope-a-dope)". It was first used by Mohammad Ali years before Rocky.

[Duke of URL]

ToB is often considered one of the best 3.5 books because (errors aside) is is actually pretty well balanced, providing three solid tier-3 classes (to me, the PrCs are lackluster, but YMMV) with an interesting new mechanic.

As a new player, what makes ToB nice is that it's really hard to mess up. You pretty much have to work at it to make a "bad" martial adept, so just go with what looks interesting to you, and you'll likely have fun with it. Swordsage perhaps a little less so than the others, but with the large number of maneuvers known, it's easier to overcome poor selection.

The martial adepts also have the most multiclassing-friendly mechanic in 3.5.

[Thylondius]

This is called "Rope-a-Dope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope-a-dope)". It was first used by Mohammad Ali years before Rocky.

Thank you I could picture the fight in my head (Ali vs Foreman), but I wasn't sure what the phrase was, and if Ali was actually using it, so I went with Rocky to be safe.

All of the feed back has been great. My DM seems like he is going to be very fond of Role playing and flavor so I am thinking of going with Crusader as I am fond of his Paladin like style. Plus I have been looking into how tough they can get and dang they can take a beating.

[Gharkash]

Leaving boxers aside, Swordsage.

If you can diplomacy your way to swapping Desert Wind (silly fire based discipline) with Iron Heart you are golden (this is a personal idea though, you may like Desert Wind) . Maybe not as i-hit-hard as a Warblade, nor try-to-kill-me-ooops-not as a Crusader, but still.

Most Swordsage builds are two weapon fighters with finesse, i currently play a Str based two hander Swordsage and i like it.

Pros:

Wanna be a ninja? Check.
Wanna be Miyagi? check again.
Wanna have "sage" in your class name? check.
Wanna be both skill-monkey and mobile destructoid? check.
Wanna be an ascetic loner that travels the world in order to study the arts of war? check.
Wanna be a versatile fighter? check.


Cons:

Adaptive Style, you will need it.
May become a bit MAD, not much though.
Medium BaB cause....will not comment on that.

[Big Fau]

Also look into the BG forum's Unofficial Errata. YMMV on it, but they did a much better job of errata'ing the book than WotC did.

[Rubik]

Also look into the BG forum's Unofficial Errata. YMMV on it, but they did a much better job of errata'ing the book than WotC did.A mentally deficient hamburger-on-the-hoof could've done a better job by randomly mashing its keyboard.

Not that BG didn't do an excellent job.

[Andorax]

I've always been a big fan of the Warblade's Weapon Aptitude ability, which lets you switch any and all feats that specify a particular weapon to any other weapon you train with for an hour.

This, plus a single Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, means that every weapon the party finds as loot is potentially something you can use and benefit from. It's a nice benefit imho.


I've generally found (again, from a Warblade-favoring point of view) that your best bet is to choose two disciples to focus on and take most of your maneuvers from, then only dip into a third on occasion. Anything more, and you'll have a difficult time qualifying for the higher-level abilities due to X-many maneuvers known requirements.


You can readily get away with having two Warblades in the same party who focus in different disciplines...say one Iron Heart/Stone Dragon focused while another is mostly into Diamond Mind and Tiger Claw...and they'll play quite differently. Moreso with Swordsages (who have more choices)...not so much with Crusaders that have fewer.

[Roguenewb]

It depends what you normally play. If you normally play a melee type, go Warblade, and warblade 20 is totally okay. If you normally play a divine caster type, go with crusader, and either play it straight, or look into like cleric 4/ordained champion 5/ crusader 1/RKV 10, which is a favorite build of mine.

Lastly, if you usually play arcane casters or skill types you have the Swordsage. Swordsage is a really solid class, but it is like an order of magnitude more difficult to use than the other two. My usual swordsages take intuitive attack at level 3, and just go mono-WIS. Problem is, you can't effectively use power attack for extra damage, so your extra damage output needs to be from the manuevers so make sure you have good mix prepared. A personal fav build for me is swordsage 10/eternal blade 10, or if you can talk your DM into letting you ditch the unarmed strike pre-req (and in a lower power campaign, even if you can't) Swordsage 7/Master of the Nine 5/Swordsage or Eternal Blade 8, are really good.

Good luck, you're about to discover a really solid system!

[The Glyphstone]

Also look into the BG forum's Unofficial Errata. YMMV on it, but they did a much better job of errata'ing the book than WotC did.

Your statement is factually inaccurate, because it implies WotC errata'd ToB in the first place.:smallsmile:

[Answerer]

I love Crusaders dearly. Their recovery mechanic is wonderfully elegant once you learn to use cards for the maneuvers (unfortunately, the explanation of that mechanic is rather difficult to grok).

The other two are excellent as well. Shadow Hand's far and away my favorite discipline.

[Eldariel]

I love Warblades 'cause Diamond Mind, White Raven, Iron Heart & Tiger Claw are all sealed awesome in a can of kickass. Sure, I like Devoted Spirit & Setting Sun quite a bit too but the highest concentration of awesome is IMHO in Warblade's court.

Also, Warblades get the most intuitive recovery and they fulfill the role that 3.X originally lacked: Badass Normal. Plenty of Normals but none of them are really Badass. Warblade rectifies this.


That is not to say I don't love Crusaders and Swordsages, of course; if I wanna play an unarmed warrior, Swordsage is my go-to and Crusader does a lot of good stuff too (probably the best raw Fighter in the books, alongside being a great divine warrior/paladin-type and a fine inspiring leader/marshal-type) but I just happen to really like Iron Heart, Diamond Mind and White Raven in particular and Warblade gets all 3 while SS and Crusader both get only 1.

Crusader Recovery is the best of the bunch tho and Swordsages and Crusaders both get a much more abundant supply of maneuvers and stances than Warblade; Warblade has some nice class features tho that really fuel the Smart Fighter/Swashbuckler-types.


My only gripe with Warblades is that I really find they get few too few maneuvers known so they have less in terms of versatility than I'd like them to but they still do alright. Oh, and they can't wear heavy armor or use bows out of the box but that's silly and can be fixed by taking one level in whatever.

[ngilop]

I LOVE the ToB, the sinlge best book WoTC ever created.

at first i was liek ' holy crap those meuevers are STUPID POWERFUL"' then after reading it rhough a seocnd time (minus tears of joy) I relaized what menauevers really were.. FEATS

FEATS THAT SCALE!!!

so really the Warblade gets something like twice as many feats as a fighter if you look at it that way.


Ive heard gret things about a warblade 2/fighter 2 warblade X build

and alo a crusader 2 /Paladin 2/Crusader X for a true 'paladin' built as you get the nice ChA to saves that a way.


My fave class is the Sword sage, and that is mostly beucas eof the sheer number fo maneuvers (read feats) they get.

AN truth be told, just baout every non angry MD ive ever seen/played/talked with has no issue making desert wind into Holwing wind to do cold damage instead of fire or what have you with each respective elemental damage.

becuase the element is fluff and that can semi be ignored as long as say.. you wanna do it with Lightning you just make sure that burning brand is exactly the same way, except for teh elemtal damage type, most ( if not all) should be Ok with it.

[Righteous Doggy]

If maneuvers are feats I wonder what you think of a wizards spellbook...
Maneuvers are much more interesting than feats imo. Mountain Hammer is amazing.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Leaving boxers aside, Swordsage.

If you can diplomacy your way to swapping Desert Wind (silly fire based discipline) with Iron Heart you are golden (this is a personal idea though, you may like Desert Wind) . Maybe not as i-hit-hard as a Warblade, nor try-to-kill-me-ooops-not as a Crusader, but still.


I wouldn't agree to this, either as a player or a a DM.

Sure, it makes the swordsage more powerful, but one of the reasons that Iron Heart can get away with being so much Win is the fact that Warblades get exclusive access. While we're at it, why don't we trade away a Swordsage's access to Stone Dragon and give them Devoted Spirit?

The classes are nicely balanced as-is: Swordsages get more maneuvers, and exclusive access to Shadow Hand/Setting Sun. Leave each class with their disciples.

[Spuddles]

I've really come to like the book, despite some of its poor rules. You can build just about any martial archetype you want- pugilist, veteran warrior, berserker, holy warrior, ninja, kung fu master- and you can do it easily, flavorfully (mechanics mostly match fluff), and smoothly. No weird power breaks where it takes your 'build' 11 levels to come on line.

Some of the devoted spirit and shadow hand moves should be called out as supernatural, imo. Iron heart surge needs to do what it was intended to do. One of the desert wind maneuvers RAW conjures up a fire monster that never goes away. Other than that, and aptitude weapons, very awesome ruleset. I wish all the crap martial prestige class from complete warrior, etc. would get martial maneuver progression. Eye of Gruumsh with devoted spirit and iron heart? Yes please!

[deuxhero]

Play a Raptoran (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20050106b&page=1) (Any reasonable DM will let you take the Fighter/Cleric sublevel to trade heavy armor for flight in medium) or kalashtar (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eb/20040413a) Crusader. Repeat "Is that all you got?" every single time you are hit.

[shadow_archmagi]

Like many, I was initially skeptical about ToB- Initially I heard it was overpowered weeaboo fightin' magic, and then later that it was 4th edition lite.

As it happens, it wasn't overpowered, and fightin' magic is exactly what D&D needs. The ability to play a swordsman that has multiple viable tactical options is immense. The "Wizards can do everything. Fighters can, if built correctly, charge or trip" problem is greatly alleviated when fighters can leap up and punch the giant in the nose, smash through walls, bypass armor with elegant precision, and so on. Sure, your caster friend can still rewrite reality and whatnot, but at least you can choose between stabbing, flaming stabbing, backflip stabbing, throwing stabbing, and friendship stabbing.

and you know, it really does incorporate some of the good aspects of 4E- It's hard to build a bad ToB character, for one thing. But it doesn't feel nearly as bland and one-size-fits-all as 4E. There's still all kinds of fun status effects and manuevers that do strange things.

[Hiro Protagonest]

While we're at it, why don't we trade away a Swordsage's access to Stone Dragon and give them Devoted Spirit?

Sure, as long as my warblade can trade White Raven for Setting Sun or Devoted Spirit. And my crusader can trade White Raven for Iron Heart.

Seriously, Iron Heart is a great fit for crusaders. Swordsages? Maybe not so much, but if you can come up with something, I'll roll with it. And Setting Sun for warblades? Sure, warblades are brawlers. Devoted Spirit makes warblade the vanguard of the divine armies.

[Answerer]

Yeah, the discipline restrictions are only vaguely fluff-based; you can easily make arguments for any of them for any of them (except perhaps Desert Wind and Shadow Hand for Warblades); they're clearly a balance/we-need-people-to-be-unique issue. Not a huge issue in my mind, but it's not something I'd automatically allow as a DM, or expect a DM to allow as a player.

[Chronos]

Personally, my favorite is Swordsage, for two reasons. First, I tend to prefer skillmonkey classes anyway. But second, Swordsage doesn't feel like it's stepping on anyone's toes. Fighter and Paladin have potential, but the existence of Warblade and Crusader is seen as justification for them never living up to that potential. Swordsage, though, not so much: The only class they directly upstage is monk, and that only if you take the unarmed variant (yes, believe it or not, they're armed by default, but you'd never guess it from hearing folks talk). But Monk never really had potential anyway, and there's nothing else like an armed swordsage. How else would you stat out Cohen the Barbarian, or Zeetha, Daughter of Chump, or Prince Zuko?

[Tvtyrant]

I like ToB, but honestly it never felt any different from one of the Gish classes. Duskblade and Psywarrior in particular felt extremely similar to ToB to me (or vice versa). Lots of people disagree with me though, and I definitively think having more useful melee classes is cool.

[sonofzeal]

I like ToB, but honestly it never felt any different from one of the Gish classes. Duskblade and Psywarrior in particular felt extremely similar to ToB to me (or vice versa). Lots of people disagree with me though, and I definitively think having more useful melee classes is cool.
Well, Duskblade and PsiWar are pretty different in basic concept. Duskblade is effectively a caster who uses melee to augment their magic (by delivering spells via attacks). PsiWar is effectively a warrior who uses magic to augment their melee (by buffing themselves up).

The only real similarity between Duskblade, PsiWar, and the three ToB classes, is that all of them hit things in the face with pointy things, and all three can do so in quite a variety of ways. They're melee with options. That's about the only common thread.

[Gharkash]

I wouldn't agree to this, either as a player or a a DM.

Sure, it makes the swordsage more powerful, but one of the reasons that Iron Heart can get away with being so much Win is the fact that Warblades get exclusive access. While we're at it, why don't we trade away a Swordsage's access to Stone Dragon and give them Devoted Spirit?

The classes are nicely balanced as-is: Swordsages get more maneuvers, and exclusive access to Shadow Hand/Setting Sun. Leave each class with their disciples.

I don't think it unbalances things so much. Iron Heart is a discipline that relies on basic attacks (many of them not augmented) and Swordsage has medium BaB. Also, the fluff is just fluff, the swordsage is supposed to be a "gish", a fighter with near magical abilities, but i am not so fond of that. I like the class, the loner/sensei/wanderer feeling it has, but i like to keep it martial. Exclusive disciplines are used to make each class unique, if you don't have a warblade in your group or you have one that does not use Iron Heart, i cannot find a reason not to trade it.

[Alienist]

Given the mass adulation for ToB and the mass derision for 4th edition, I find it amusingly ironic that according to WotC it is the 3.5 book which most closely resembles 4th edition, and in fact it was where they play-tested a bunch of things that then turned up in 4th in slightly different and improved forms.

[Boci]

Given the mass adulation for ToB and the mass derision for 4th edition, I find it amusingly ironic that according to WotC it is the 3.5 book which most closely resembles 4th edition, and in fact it was where they play-tested a bunch of things that then turned up in 4th in slightly different and improved forms.

All that means is that for many people WotC took was was good about ToB and failed to use it in 4th ed.

[Scots Dragon]

Almost certainly. I actually like the Tome of Battle, and found that its mechanics worked well as a good counter-point to the existing classes. But in many cases it felt like these classes had a lot more options and variety in their overall construction than the entire core ruleset for 4th edition.

[Sucrose]

Given the mass adulation for ToB and the mass derision for 4th edition, I find it amusingly ironic that according to WotC it is the 3.5 book which most closely resembles 4th edition, and in fact it was where they play-tested a bunch of things that then turned up in 4th in slightly different and improved forms.

Having played with both, and having no personal beef with 4th Edition, I'd have to argue fairly strenuously against that.

4E has At-Will, Daily, and Encounter powers. Of these, the ones that most closely resemble Tome of Battle maneuvers are the Encounter powers, as they are semi-reusable, but not something you can just spam.

However, there is one very significant difference: Encounter powers, barring some other ability, are only usable once per encounter. Maneuvers, on the other hand, can be reused if you set up for them (or just wait long enough for inspiration, in the Crusader's case).

This fact alone makes the maneuvers a closer approximation of melee combat than encounter powers, because while you can't just use the same jump kick over and over and expect it to be effective, you can use it again if you, say, force them back with a flurry of punches first, and regain the focus necessary to use it. You typically don't just use it once and decide to never plan on using that technique again.

[Answerer]

Given the mass adulation for ToB and the mass derision for 4th edition, I find it amusingly ironic that according to WotC it is the 3.5 book which most closely resembles 4th edition, and in fact it was where they play-tested a bunch of things that then turned up in 4th in slightly different and improved forms.
1. All 4e classes have /day, /encounter, and at-will abilities, gained in the same distribution in the same order. Tome of Battle classes are among the only classes to get significant /encounter abilities in all of 3.5, and they gain them very differently from, say, the Factotum.

This goes a long, long way to establishing mechanical differentiation between the classes, because it means that all of the classes have very different resource needs to consider, whereas 4e all classes have the same resources by default.


2. Martial adepts have refresh mechanics that 4e classes lack. This pushes their style even harder away from others into something truly unique. Because their /encounter abilities can be regained, the martial adepts play much like a warrior – looking to get into the fray and start dishing out as much as possible as soon as possible – and not like a spellcaster who has to be careful about using/overusing his spells.

[Darth Stabber]

WotC mistook what people liked about ToB when they tried to apply it's lessons to 4e. WotC though people liked the balance, melee having nice things and the per encounter bit, and while these are certainly appreciated, they should have learned a long time ago that players like classes that operate differently from everything else. That's why Incarnum is popular with a certain subset, factotum replaced rogue at many tables, binders are beloved, psionics has it's following, and why people snapped up fixed list casters not focused on the worst school of arcane magic possible. Thes classes showed us new methods of operation with in a common framework, which is my favorite aspect of 3.5. The variety of subsystems reinforces character differences, and allows me to play a very different way within the same system, and adds some complexity that doesn't affect any one who doesn't want it.

[Answerer]

Darth_Stabber's said it very well, I think.

[Hiro Protagonest]

or Prince Zuko?

Human psychic warrior with Improved Unarmed Strike, or monk/psywar with Tashalatora, with Expanded Knowledge to get the basic blasting powers, or change the psywar's power list around.

As for ToB and 4e, they're very different.

[Darth Stabber]

As for ToB and 4e, they're very different.

While they are quite different, there are many similarities that could easily lead one to believe that the book was a test bed for certain design features of 4e. The discreet maneuvers per encounter that are used in favor of the default mechanic (attack/full attack), and the progression of these manuevers are both obviously predecessors.

[AslanCross]

I like ToB, and while I don't outright hate 4E, my group and I have decided to stick it out with 3.5/PF.

My main argument against the idea that Tome of Battle is basically a testbed/preview of 4E classes is that ToB's primary (at least as far as I can see) intention was to give melee players a great number of options. A Warblade can either be an animalistic berserker, an unrelenting and unstoppable hulk, a master of deadly cutting precision, a cunning tactician, or any combination thereof.

On the other hand, the 4E Fighter gets to pick between what, two powers every time he gains a new power? And that many of his powers look pretty much like any other class's powers, except at melee range. If I become a fighter, I have to be the big guy with the sword. If I want to be the nimble TWFer, I have to be the ranger instead. I don't appreciate that rigidity.

The similarities in the systems aren't enough to make the two feel like the same thing at all.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, Duskblade and PsiWar are pretty different in basic concept. Duskblade is effectively a caster who uses melee to augment their magic (by delivering spells via attacks). PsiWar is effectively a warrior who uses magic to augment their melee (by buffing themselves up).

The only real similarity between Duskblade, PsiWar, and the three ToB classes, is that all of them hit things in the face with pointy things, and all three can do so in quite a variety of ways. They're melee with options. That's about the only common thread.
I disagree. Psywarrior and Duskblade are extremely similar in feeling IME (Swift action+full attack, swift action+ full attack, etc.) ToB changes it up by having more standard action options, which means you aren't always full attacking, but in many builds it still comes down to getting pounce and then full attacking.

[sonofzeal]

I disagree. Psywarrior and Duskblade are extremely similar in feeling IME (Swift action+full attack, swift action+ full attack, etc.) ToB changes it up by having more standard action options, which means you aren't always full attacking, but in many builds it still comes down to getting pounce and then full attacking.
To me, that seems like remarkably thin ground. You may as well say that Fighters and Rogues are the same, because they both face the same sort of action economy situation (usually either full-attack or move + single attack). I realize that's subjective, but the PsiWars I've seen in practice differed substantially from Duskblades. Duskblades always seemed more like Evoker-wannabes, mages who just happen to wear armor and be decent with a sword, whereas the PsiWars I've seen almost invariably come across as eye-gouging, crotch-kicking brawlers. The two classes have made such vastly different impressions on me that it's hard for me to see them as at all similar even if their action economies are the same.

[Tvtyrant]

To me, that seems like remarkably thin ground. You may as well say that Fighters and Rogues are the same, because they both face the same sort of action economy situation (usually either full-attack or move + single attack). I realize that's subjective, but the PsiWars I've seen in practice differed substantially from Duskblades. Duskblades always seemed more like Evoker-wannabes, mages who just happen to wear armor and be decent with a sword, whereas the PsiWars I've seen almost invariably come across as eye-gouging, crotch-kicking brawlers. The two classes have made such vastly different impressions on me that it's hard for me to see them as at all similar even if their action economies are the same.

....Evoker-wannabies? What is this I don't even...


That is fair. I am simply relating my experience playing them. The Psywarrior I played was in retrospect a King-O-Smack clone (I did not know that at the time, and it didn't have Rapidstrike so it wasn't near as effective), and the Duskblade I played was a TWF Duskblade. In both cases I ended up with an action economy that looked like: Swift action buff + Charge, or swift action buff+full attack. My Crusader was a crackdown Crusader, so it was a little different, but it often felt like I was playing swift action buff+full attack, followed by AoOs.

[sonofzeal]

....Evoker-wannabies? What is this I don't even...
The Duskblade spell list is pretty heavy on Evocation, last I checked. The Duskblades I played with were lower level, and without being able to channel on a full attack they tended to be rather liberal with using their spells as such without trying to channel it through their sword all the time, because the added chance of wiffing the spell often wasn't worth it. The end result was a Warmage sort with less spell pwnage, but who could contribute a little better with basic steel when they weren't blasting and had at least a bit more variety in their spells.


That is fair. I am simply relating my experience playing them. The Psywarrior I played was in retrospect a King-O-Smack clone (I did not know that at the time, and it didn't have Rapidstrike so it wasn't near as effective), and the Duskblade I played was a TWF Duskblade. In both cases I ended up with an action economy that looked like: Swift action buff + Charge, or swift action buff+full attack. My Crusader was a crackdown Crusader, so it was a little different, but it often felt like I was playing swift action buff+full attack, followed by AoOs.
I can see how Duskblades could be played that way, I've just never observed it in my games. The ones I've seen seemed to have stopped reading at the whole "can channel nukes through their sword" thing. Then again, I've only seen a couple Duskblades and haven't played one myself yet, so I might have been over-hasty before.

Still, I think there's always room for tremendous variation even if the base mechanism is similar. Dread Necros, Warmages, and Beguilers have similar mechanics but vastly different results. Crusaders, Swordsages, and Warblades too. You can talk about them as a unit, but a party consisting of one of each is going to show fairly radical divergence.

[Darth Stabber]

They are both self contained gish classes (while neither meets the usual qualification of 9s and BAB16+ by 20) with retarded spell/power progressions, but they are both significantly different implementations od the concept. Psywar is a self-buffbot, which could be mostly reproduced by a fighter/psion(egoist), whereas duskblade has a more unique method thanks to channeling spells through their sword, that can't be replicated by a fighter/wizard(evoker).

[Talionis]

If maneuvers are feats I wonder what you think of a wizards spellbook...
Maneuvers are much more interesting than feats imo. Mountain Hammer is amazing.

I will give you that maneuvers can be more powerful than some feats, but they really do fall roughly into the feat power level.

Spells are much more powerful than feats because they scale with level getting progressively more powerful.

Wizards has given way too much value to feats thinking because you can use them all the time they were really valuable, when for all intents and purposes spells are more powerful and end things quicker and as you level you get to a point that you don't run out of spells during any particular day, so they may as well be you can use them all the time.

[Darth Stabber]

I will give you that maneuvers can be more powerful than some feats, but they really do fall roughly into the feat power level.


Example: disarming strike is approximately equal to improved disarm in function, but disarming strike is easier to get, though only usable once(ish) per battle. You would think that's a balancing factor, easier to get vs. limited, but how many times on average during a fight to you actually want to disarm somebody? My guess is 1. Nobody runs around the battlefield just ripping the swords from people's hands. Disarming is a debuff that does little to no damage, so you aren't likely to use it against average mooks, or anything else other than a boss or miniboss, and even then it's only usefull against intelligent weapon wielding minibosses, not usefull against monsters, spellcasters (you can get rid of their staff, but that won't likely help as much as you hope), or some character that has a means of developing natural weapons and/or unarmed strikes(psywar, totemist, monk, ect). If you don't think you'll need it, you just don't ready it, whereas the fighter with improved disarm can't swap the feat out in between battles, nor can he spend a full round action to change all his feats (adaptive style). While it's clear that manuevers have simlar power to feat/featchains, they have significantly lower opportunity costs.

[Blackfang108]

Your statement is factually inaccurate, because it implies WotC errata'd ToB in the first place.:smallsmile:

The got part of it!

/mock indignance.

[MeeposFire]

Having played with both, and having no personal beef with 4th Edition, I'd have to argue fairly strenuously against that.

4E has At-Will, Daily, and Encounter powers. Of these, the ones that most closely resemble Tome of Battle maneuvers are the Encounter powers, as they are semi-reusable, but not something you can just spam.

However, there is one very significant difference: Encounter powers, barring some other ability, are only usable once per encounter. Maneuvers, on the other hand, can be reused if you set up for them (or just wait long enough for inspiration, in the Crusader's case).

This fact alone makes the maneuvers a closer approximation of melee combat than encounter powers, because while you can't just use the same jump kick over and over and expect it to be effective, you can use it again if you, say, force them back with a flurry of punches first, and regain the focus necessary to use it. You typically don't just use it once and decide to never plan on using that technique again.

Important distinction encounters in 4e are designed to be overcome in a range of about 3-7 rounds. This meant that generally you would use your encounter powers, a daily, and a round or two of at wills so refreshing your encounter powers isn't actually needed (except for power of course). Another aspect is that boosts, strikes, and counters were all placed under one umbrella in ToB where in 4e they were separated into attack and utility powers. Lastly you can show everything in 3.5 using the 4e power concept. It would be dumb to do so since it does not really add anything but it can be done. The power system just shows everything in the same manner so it makes it painfully obvious. Examples...

Finger of Death Wizard Attack level 13

Daily* wizard/sorc death

Standard action

Target one creature in range

Attack: Int+2 vs. Fort (this is exactly the same as 3.5 except attacker rolls the dice)

Hit-death
miss-3d6+level damage (max +25).

Strike of perfect clarity warblade attack level 17

standard action melee

one creature in range

Effect: Make a melee basic attack. If it hits deal +100 extra damage.


Melee basic attack (this is the attack that in 3.5 every fighter makes) is already statted out in the PHB.

Note that these would work 100% the same as they do in 3e and so the power format changed nothing in and of itself.

So in reality you are attacking something because it is visually affecting you but it actually has NOTHING to do with your problems. The real not perceived problems have more to do with what the actions allowed you to do no with how they are presented.


However I do love me some ToB. Each of the classes are great fun and make warriors fun again. My biggest beef before ToB is that moving killed you so much as a full attack based warrior. Charging became so needed because of it. ToB made move and attack viable again which is nice because up until about that point 3e was the only addition that killed you for moving and attacking (1e and 2e allowed you to move up to half your movement without losing attacks+ lacked AoO for most of their run and 4e runs fully on standard action so moving is assumed and is very important).

ALL HAIL ToB possibly my favorite book in 3e (though I also love ToM too).

[Chronos]

Quoth Jade Dragon:

Human psychic warrior with Improved Unarmed Strike, or monk/psywar with Tashalatora, with Expanded Knowledge to get the basic blasting powers, or change the psywar's power list around.True, I didn't mean to imply that it was impossible to get the same effect in another way (after all, a Wizard could mimic just about anything), but a Swordsage using a lot of Desert Wind is a lot more straightforward way of doing it.

[Talionis]

Example: disarming strike is approximately equal to improved disarm in function, but disarming strike is easier to get, though only usable once(ish) per battle. You would think that's a balancing factor, easier to get vs. limited, but how many times on average during a fight to you actually want to disarm somebody? My guess is 1. Nobody runs around the battlefield just ripping the swords from people's hands. Disarming is a debuff that does little to no damage, so you aren't likely to use it against average mooks, or anything else other than a boss or miniboss, and even then it's only usefull against intelligent weapon wielding minibosses, not usefull against monsters, spellcasters (you can get rid of their staff, but that won't likely help as much as you hope), or some character that has a means of developing natural weapons and/or unarmed strikes(psywar, totemist, monk, ect). If you don't think you'll need it, you just don't ready it, whereas the fighter with improved disarm can't swap the feat out in between battles, nor can he spend a full round action to change all his feats (adaptive style). While it's clear that manuevers have simlar power to feat/featchains, they have significantly lower opportunity costs.

I think we are on the same page. There are so many feats you'd never take because you get so few feats. Very few people take improved disarm because you get so few you don't want to waste a feat on improved disarm.

The game has held feats as too valuable and spells as too cheap. I don't have a problem with magic being so powerful only when non magical characters cannot be interesting or varied in mechanics and being feat starved is something that maneuvers help avoid.

[Darth Stabber]

I think we are on the same page. There are so many feats you'd never take because you get so few feats. Very few people take improved disarm because you get so few you don't want to waste a feat on improved disarm.

The game has held feats as too valuable and spells as too cheap. I don't have a problem with magic being so powerful only when non magical characters cannot be interesting or varied in mechanics and being feat starved is something that maneuvers help avoid.
Exactly! It solves "mundane" melee's biggest issues: Inability to contribute meaningfully to situations that bypass their specialization and/or inability to contribute meaningfully at all to those that don't specialize.

This is the root of the adage "melee can't have nice things". However because it actually resolves these issues it gets flak from those who actually believe the aforementioned saying, or those that call it "too anime". Personally if a GM tells me it's banned because the book "broken", I know it's time to roll up a core only wildshape focused druid just to laugh maniacally as their previous understanding of balance is ripped apart by facts (and bears, which are like facts only furrier and grumpier). Then again I tend to be confrontational, even without good reason, but at least in this way I am channelling it into empirical evidence.

[Sucrose]

Important distinction encounters in 4e are designed to be overcome in a range of about 3-7 rounds. This meant that generally you would use your encounter powers, a daily, and a round or two of at wills so refreshing your encounter powers isn't actually needed (except for power of course). Another aspect is that boosts, strikes, and counters were all placed under one umbrella in ToB where in 4e they were separated into attack and utility powers. Lastly you can show everything in 3.5 using the 4e power concept. It would be dumb to do so since it does not really add anything but it can be done. The power system just shows everything in the same manner so it makes it painfully obvious. Examples...

Finger of Death Wizard Attack level 13

Daily* wizard/sorc death

Standard action

Target one creature in range

Attack: Int+2 vs. Fort (this is exactly the same as 3.5 except attacker rolls the dice)

Hit-death
miss-3d6+level damage (max +25).

Strike of perfect clarity warblade attack level 17

standard action melee

one creature in range

Effect: Make a melee basic attack. If it hits deal +100 extra damage.


Melee basic attack (this is the attack that in 3.5 every fighter makes) is already statted out in the PHB.

Note that these would work 100% the same as they do in 3e and so the power format changed nothing in and of itself.

So in reality you are attacking something because it is visually affecting you but it actually has NOTHING to do with your problems. The real not perceived problems have more to do with what the actions allowed you to do no with how they are presented.

You have misunderstood my point.

This has nothing to do with efficiency; it is what the mechanics imply about the capability of the character. In 4E, you simply are incapable of carrying out the same Encounter power twice in the same fight. Full stop.

With the Tome of Battle, you have the ability to pull back, re-assess the situation, and use a technique when the opportunity arises again (and, frankly, the opportunity has arisen multiple times in the campaigns in which I've made use of ToB). This makes Tome of Battle a better simulation of melee combat than 4E's powers, because real fighters are able to carry out the same technique multiple times. Even ToB doesn't replicate it perfectly, but it is closer.

4E was an enjoyable enough game, but a simulation it most definitively was not. Since ToB's closer approximation of melee combat is what I enjoyed most about it, the designers of 4E missed one of the important elements that made ToB work so well for me when they were taking lessons from it to incorporate into 4E.

[MeeposFire]

You have misunderstood my point.

This has nothing to do with efficiency; it is what the mechanics imply about the capability of the character. In 4E, you simply are incapable of carrying out the same Encounter power twice in the same fight. Full stop.

With the Tome of Battle, you have the ability to pull back, re-assess the situation, and use a technique when the opportunity arises again (and, frankly, the opportunity has arisen multiple times in the campaigns in which I've made use of ToB). This makes Tome of Battle a better simulation of melee combat than 4E's powers, because real fighters are able to carry out the same technique multiple times. Even ToB doesn't replicate it perfectly, but it is closer.

4E was an enjoyable enough game, but a simulation it most definitively was not. Since ToB's closer approximation of melee combat is what I enjoyed most about it, the designers of 4E missed one of the important elements that made ToB work so well for me when they were taking lessons from it to incorporate into 4E.

You are ignorant of all the facts full stop (as you put it). There are ways to recharge encounter powers via feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, class abilities, and items (possibly even a theme but I am not sure about that one).

Also you do realize that warriors in real combat DON'T do the same thing all the time and doing so would be a terrible idea? The way all editions handle basic attacks is an abstraction not an idea of a specific strike you do over and over again. No edition of D&D really tries to portray combat accurately you just choose to see certain types of D&D that way.

This is where I am going to stop because I think this is going to go somewhere we don't want to go.

EDIT: One thing that I forgot to mention in my initial post that was to tie this discussion together was that formatting is a big reason why people think that ToB is magic just like some do about 4e. People see a format similar to magic so they think magic even if the actual effects are by far more similar to non-magical abilities like feats. Example s wall of steal which is easy to picture as a feat or non-magic ability.

[JackRackham]

Also, look into factotum. Eight levels gives you extra standard actions, which synergizes very, very nicely with TOB, as most maneuvers are standard actions. A Sworsage with eight levels of factotum is about the best sneaky assassin possible in d&d (other than a wizard). Honestly, factotum 19, swordsage 1 works pretty well too. Either way, factotum gets a TON of other nice abilities too. Check it out.

[Rathyr]

On the other hand, the 4E Fighter gets to pick between what, two powers every time he gains a new power? And that many of his powers look pretty much like any other class's powers, except at melee range. If I become a fighter, I have to be the big guy with the sword. If I want to be the nimble TWFer, I have to be the ranger instead. I don't appreciate that rigidity.

Edition preferences aside, much of this is simply flat out incorrect.

Fighters in 4e are the most over-supported class in the game. Each level they have TOO MANY options. I believe they have a total of 17 at-wills to choose from at level 1 (most classes looking at under 10), and their encounter/daily choices mirror that each level. The amount of Paragon Paths and feat support that fighters get could be used to *build* entire new classes. Strikers and Defenders MC into Fighters to get access to the stockpile of goodies. Not even joking. Fighter (and other martial classes to a lesser extent) support is unmatched in 4e.

They choose from a multitude of fighting styles at level 1 (sword and board, 2hander, 2 weapon tempest, brawler, battle rager, arena fighter...). Basically, you have a melee concept that involves hitting people with pointy/blunt objects? Pretty good chance you can build it without even looking outside the fighter class.

Just wanted to make sure people understand where the fighter stands in 4e. And he stands quite firmly at the top. Not even saying this is a good thing, just how it is.

I've heard the sameness of powers argument before (or "spells at melee range"), and I simply disagree that it is a problem (besides the fact that there is simply too much bloat in 4e at this point, thus some overlap). Say what you like about the presentation, it didn't take my group half an hour to figure out a power works the first time I played 4e, and that was a huge plus to a entirely new group and for people that aren't interested in combing through rulebooks. A sweep of a sword that pushes back all foes around you might have a similar effect to a arcane Thunderstomp, but it certainly isn't narrated the same. But this is personal preference.