DM problems [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

CIDE

2012-08-25, 02:35 PM

In an online game I participate in there's been a few issues with the DM. I get along with the guy great but when it comes to picking out mechanics of the game there's usually some clashing here and there.

In this case several issues came up all at once. I'm wondering how to change his mind without just giving him a link to a page from somewhere on this forum; primarily because he hates guys like us that read/use these forums and optimizers and everything else even remotely related. So he'd automatically assume anything said here was wrong or written from the perspective of someone that just wants the strongest character available.

That said I can relay the message just fine without issue...

Now, the first issue that came up was ToB. To which he gave several reasons for not allowing it in his game. First of all he just thinks it's stupid. Secondly it has the wrong "feeling" and doesn't belong in D&D (too animeish). Third and finally he thinks it's over powered. The third and final reason is the primary one he cites however if someone ever asks to utilize the book and that is where I have the issue since he obviously didn't ban anything more powerful than ToB.

He also thinks Psionics are over powered. They aren't outright banned but he's naturally wary about ANY psionics and even some simple builds (Tashalatora for example) are banned as well.

DM also believes Wiz/Sorc are no big deal regardless of optimization because of "lulzantimagic". And to top this last one off he also thinks Monks are overpowered and are the "do anything" class.

What's a good way to correct him on some of these? What are some good points to bring up?

hymer

2012-08-25, 02:50 PM

I'm afraid this isn't going to sound helpful, but it may be more helpful than it sounds:

Leave it be.

If you enjoy the game, just accept that your opinions differ and move on. Your GM may very well be wrong on one of these issues or all of them, but if he manages to put up a game that entertains you and the other players, why bother?

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-25, 02:57 PM

Like hymer said, leave it be.
If it doesn't affect the game (and from what you say it seems like it indeed does not), well, it doesn't really matter, right?

eggs

2012-08-25, 03:00 PM

You're probably not going to be able to discount "It's stupid" or "It feels wrong" with anything other than shallow disagreement. Might as well let that go. On Antimagic, that's a stretch and he probably knows it's a stretch; unless you're playing a really unusual campaign, you could probably just count the number of times AMFs have come up.

It's hard to show psionics aren't broken because they kind of are, just less so than the standard casters. What you might have luck with is pointing at all the things clerics and wizards can do that psions just can't - stuff like planar ally/binding, mass debuffs targeting multiple saves, effective battlefield control, illusions, necromancy, effectively hit reflex saves, drop long-range teleport/shapeshift/summon without specialization, and of course, rewrite their abilities whenever they want.

You could show similar with ToB, but the list becomes much longer.

But it sounds like this guy's going to wave those away with like "AMFs EVERYWHERE" (which I suppose you could counter with "Flying monsters EVERYWHERE," and then actually cite all the MM pages) or similarly contrived justifications.

So the easiest answer to actually make the point is probably just to spend an afternoon running some same-game tests like wargames - let him grab an unfamiliar dungeon module, get a third person to DM, and take turns running parties through - him with a "broken" ToB/psionics party, you sticking close to the PHB.

Or, if it's not interfering with the games, just let it go.

Morithias

2012-08-25, 03:01 PM

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-25, 03:08 PM

Your DM sounds like a guy who needs hands on training in my opinion.

Make a wizard.

A bad wizard.

An incantrix or Hathran wizard.

And go to town.

If you can't teach them with words, teach them with force.

I advise against this.
You would ruin the game for everyone else and instead of 'proving him wrong', you would make him hate optimization even more.

Slipperychicken

2012-08-25, 03:08 PM

If you can't teach them with words, teach them with force.

Not worth ruining a campaign and potentially friendship over, in my opinion.

limejuicepowder

2012-08-25, 03:09 PM

For starter I'll say I find it ironic that this dude disregards information from this site because it's "tainted" by strong character building ideas, but doesn't believe us when we say what's overpowered and what isn't. Wouldn't we know best?

I can offer some advice, but it sounds like this guy has his mind made up and you have little hope to change it. It is sometimes fun to try anyways.

1) I can't tell if you are being entirely sarcastic or not, but is his real reason for wiz/sorc not being OP is antimagic field? If so, my first response would be "virtually all antimagic fields exists because of a....*drum roll*......wiz/sorc." Clerics can cast it, but generally not until 3 levels later than the sorc and 4 later then the wiz. If the only thing that can beat a certain class is another character of that class, that's a great indication that it's OP.

Also, it might be good to point out the numerous ways spellcasters have to get around antimagic fields, how often they actually come up in play, and how easily they can render melee utterly moot (also, it might help to point out how screwed melee is without their +5 armor, animated shield, and +5 weapon of death and destruction. Antimagic hurts them badly). After all, prior to 11th level, antimagic field should be a very rare thing. And wiz/sorc start breaking the game long before that.

2) Don't bother trying to change his mind about the fluff and feel of ToB; that's entirely opinion and thus can't be "wrong." As far as OP goes, you have no hope to win this point unless you win the point before this, that wiz/sorc are in fact insanely good. IF you manage that, THEN you might be able to show him that ToB just brings up melee up to about a 4 or a 5 on the 10-scale of power, when before they're stuck at 1-3 (and moderately optimized casters are in the 6+ range). I won't hold my breath waiting for this one though.

3) Monks? Really? This is going to be another tough one, for a couple reasons. At low levels, monks aren't that bad; they don't show their true colors until about level 4-5 (maybe 6), thus someone who only looks at low level stuff might not see how screwed up they are. Also, even if you compare the monk's shortcomings to other classes, his response is probably going to be "well it's ok they are a little weaker at X because they can also do Z and Y." There might even be a little merit to this argument; after all, monks DO have great saves, movement speed, and lots of abilities (they generally are stinky abilities, but he might not think so).

My strategy for this would be to try and pin down what role the monk is supposed to play (a second melee), and show how poor they are at that. Yes they have great saves, yes they can run, yes they don't need weapons, but no monster higher then CR 6 is going to waste a round attacking it. Their offense is that weak. Also throw in monk's incredible MAD-ness; they rarely get to use skills properly because they need suck high scores in so many other stats. Crappy skills will severely hamper the "jack of all trades" roll he wants to put monks in.

Edit: This is just my opinion/recommendation if you actually want to discuss this with him. But like the posters above me said, if the game is fun anyways, why bother?

killianh

2012-08-25, 04:18 PM

I'm going to throw another "Don't bother" into the mix, but if you feel it's worth going after a few point you can highlight for him:

1) It's great if a Monk can do a little of everything and have high saves, AC, etc but if you're playing in a party why have a character that's behind in everything if (chances are) the character will only have one role? Compare a rogue to a Factotum so try and show the concepts of SAD and proper utility to him.

2) point out that a shrink item hat, a feat or two, or the spell invoke magic all can counter AMF, and that if AMF is too common then it's more a matter of picking on casters rather than casters being fine. If a DM's only way of dealing with a caster is a high level spell that can be countered in a number of ways then there are problems. look up AMF counters and tell him about them.

3) To a degree I'll agree with him about psionics simply because instead of a per day basis they can free spend all of their points on whatever they choose. That said though what they can do is slightly limited in comparison to other Core casters, and less tricks exist for them. Also using the magic transparency rules would allow him access to all of the counters he wants.

4) in regards to ToB being overpowered you can call it that if its being compared only to other straight melee classes. I would look for non TO versions of the ubercharger (stupid amounts of damage), the crit-fisher (12 hits a turn, 6 on other people's turns with high sneak attack and 25% chance of a crit) or a spiked chain tripper (a personal fav). All of those can be done with Fighter, Barbarian, and Rogue, and the basics of each can be explained in less than 5 minutes (so it doesn't look like too much time was spent on it). compare that to some of the ToB stuff and it shows how average the book is. One note though is that prior to level 6, ToB is the most broken, non caster/gish collection of classes IMHO. After that with full attacks, feat utilisation and the like they end up having a considerable drop in power.

All said though there are so many options in D&D that your DM could ban 75% of it and there could still be hundreds of playable builds. Not worth worrying about too much unless you're trying to show him for the sake of helping him grow into the full scope of the system, I.E. venturing out past Core and the completes

The Dark Fiddler

2012-08-25, 04:49 PM

Your DM sounds like a guy who needs hands on training in my opinion.

Make a wizard.

A bad wizard.

An incantrix or Hathran wizard.

And go to town.

If you can't teach them with words, teach them with force.

See, this is the sort of thing that only gets a DM to come to a forum like ours to start a thread titled "Player Problems" explaining how, all of a sudden, his player has started breaking the game. It's a vicious cycle, it doesn't work, and it's something we, as a forum, are trying to suggest less often.

However, maybe there is a way to use this suggestion. See if you can't ask your DM to hear you out, if he'll let you show him that, no, ToB classes and Psionics are not overpowered, at least not compared to wizards or druids or whatever. You build the wizard, he builds the whatever else, and you have a friendly little fight that isn't involved with the main campaign at all.

For psionics being broken, make sure he understands that you can't use more power points than you have manifester levels, except in a few rare cases that come with their own drawbacks and risks; a lot of the time, most people are mistaken on that rule, and all they do when they see psionics is a psion using mind thrust (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindThrust.htm) to deal 18d10 damage with a DC 23 will save to negate, at level 3, or something similar. Also point out that anti-magic fields also affect psionics. For ToB, you're not really going to prove it's not overpowered without going through the fighting-test I mentioned earlier, but you could discuss with him the flavor of it, and point out that almost none of the maneuvers are anything other than "hit him extra hard", "hit him in a way that bypasses his defenses", "hit him and hinder him", or "hit him and catch a second wind." See if you can't get a trial run out of him for something you want to use, a sort of "let me use this, and if it gets out of hand you can tell me to stop at any point." ToB is really good at this because of the way manifester levels work, so you can pick up a few levels or warblade or whatever.

Of course, this is all if you can't just roll with it. That's what I'd suggest, but that's already been suggested plenty, so I figured that I'd give you another option.

KillianHawkeye

2012-08-25, 05:28 PM

When somebody believes something regardless of whatever evidence is put before them, changing their mind is next to impossible.

Krazzman

2012-08-25, 06:01 PM

I would say:

Play a Wizard. An Optimized one that wins encounters on a whim. Play him intelligent so he's going to buff his minions (aka. other PC's) and runs the party from the back while some meatshield is targeted by Assassins for being the leader.

Then everytime he complains about how X is broken about other PC's char. Point out that it is only that because of you.

I for my part don't play Wizards because I find them needlessly complicated. And Sorc's suffer a similar problem for me.

I hope you can get over this issue and.... have fun gaming :D

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-25, 06:09 PM

It's very good to see the playground backing down from advocating the wrecking of games. :smallbiggrin:

Gamer Girl

2012-08-25, 06:20 PM

Augmental

2012-08-25, 06:44 PM

1. The Tome of Battle is stupid, animeish and overpowered. Plenty of DM's don't like the Tome. So nothing to 'correct' there.

The ToB classes are tier 3. That's widely considered the ideal balance point by many people on this forum and other D&D forums.

2. I'd wonder why he thinks psionics are overpowered. As long as you use the rules, don't allow optimized cheating and don't allow 15 minite days, then psionics are just fine.

So the tier 2 psion isn't overpowered, but the tier 3 ToB classes are? :smallconfused:

3. Arcane magic users are powerful, but not all that. And again if you don't have optimized cheating or 15 minute days then they can't be all powerful.

Optimization is not cheating.

4. I've never under stood all the monk hate myself. Other then the people that say 'well they are not wizards so they suck'

Mainly because they're a tier 5 class. They're okay in low-op, but any higher and they really fall behind.

Boci

2012-08-25, 06:45 PM

killianh

2012-08-25, 06:47 PM

Where do you want to 'correct' him?

1. The Tome of Battle is stupid, animeish and over powered. Plenty of DM's don't like the Tome. So nothing to 'correct' there.

2. I'd wonder why he thinks psionics are overpowered. As long as you use the rules, don't allow optimized cheating and don't allow 15 minite days, then psionics are just fine.

3. Arcane magic users are powerful, but not all that. And again if you don't have optimized cheating or 15 minute days then they can't be all powerful.

4. I've never under stood all the monk hate myself. Other then the people that say 'well they are not wizards so they suck'

I disagree on the ToB point as the flavour of any of the classes is based more on how you play it. All the ToB guys really are are melee without the "charge, full attack" limitation or being dependent on precision damage. A warrior having a set of techniques they can use and have trained in just makes sense. Agree with points 2 & 3 since casters are potentially powerful but end up manageable in play (unless the player is a jerk). As for 4 the reason(s) monks are considered bad is because they're MAD, a primary melee with little damage sources, and end up weaker than just about any other class than if they try to have any focus on anything. it has nothing to do with wizards, it has to do with ToB, the other Core melee classes, Complete warrior, etc, etc.

Boci

2012-08-25, 07:06 PM

Now to actually contribute on topic: the best way to correct him is probably to run your own game as a DM, allow these "broken" options, and show him that they aren't what he fears them to be. Might not work, especially if he isn't willing to play, but its probably the safe-est and least jerky option.

Regarding the "show him he's wrong by playing a massively optimized full caster to show him". It can work, but it needs to be handled delicately. Like as follows:

1. Get his permission. Just say "You don't think casters are overpowered? Can I try and prove you wrong by playing a well made wizard. I promise not to use any game breaking tricks,"

2. Challenge him to a duel. Get a third party to DM, and have him play a monk or ToB character against you wizard, fighting against each other, trying to find a spy in a town and some other challange.

Whilst neither of these options may work, they shouldn't ruin a friendship, unless the Dm is incredibly petty.

rexreg

2012-08-25, 09:43 PM

make an offer to your DM; should he feel he needs a break, you will gladly run a few sessions
allow what you think should be included ie. all official WoTC books
perhaps he will see these issues differently without you having to press him

Yahzi

2012-08-25, 10:50 PM

First of all he just thinks it's stupid. Secondly it has the wrong "feeling" and doesn't belong in D&D (too animeish). Third and finally he thinks it's over powered.
The first two reasons are perfectly valid. The DM creates the world; if he thinks a mechanical rule gives it the wrong flavor, he's perfectly entitled to change that rule (as long as he applies it consistently).

The third reason is dumb.

But guess which reason people listen to? Your DM only cites the 3rd reason because people generally treat the first two as invalid.

The DM creates the flavor. The players should no more tell the DM what classes exist in his world than the DM should tell the players how their characters feel or act.

Gamer Girl

2012-08-26, 01:50 AM

Krazzman

2012-08-26, 02:39 AM

{Scrub the Quote}

Yeah that comment just shows us how much experience you have with the topic. A few animes are like that yeah. A few Fantasy movies are also utterly crap like that. There are some really awesome Animes: Berserk, Record of Loddoss War and Devil May Cry are just 3 examples of good "fantasy-realistic" animes.

{{Scrubbed}}

The Tier System HAS it flaws yes. In a way that it was weighted by one single person. But overall he is right. The more options you have in theory the more power you have in theory. Because of those options the chance is bigger that you have ONE good option.

The fighter is not that high a tier because the Combat Feats are not good enough and set in stone so he can't really change them.

Augmental

2012-08-26, 06:23 AM

Tons of Dm's hate the way the Tome just makes fighter types 'magic users' by giving them spells. That is a horrible fighter fix.

Well, it brought them up to tier 3 and made them somewhat competitive with wizards and clerics and druids, so I'd say it's a pretty good fighter fix.

2. Psionics is not overpowered...at least I have not seen that yet. Unless you allow a player to optimize cheat anyway with things like ''Druh I burn out all my PP doing my wicked awesome build thingy and then rest for a couple minutes and dos its again so I have four days an hour so I gets like 100 days in one day to the lame-os that only get one day a day!''

You said that the ToB classes are overpowered. They're all tier 3. The psion is tier 2, the erudite is tier 2, and the psychic warrior is tier 3. Therefore, psionics is more powerful than the ToB classes.

Also, no reasonable player is going to do what you apparently think optimization is.

Never said it was. There is a very, very, very small group of optimizers that do it for fun and to enhance the game. But that is just a few of them, the rest, well.......

Most optimizers that I've seen on these forums optimize for fun and to enhance the game.

And i think the whole 'Tier' thing is a joke anyway, as it's based on one persons view of how they want to have fun. And worse it's a very modern overpowered anime 'peww peww' version of fun: like ''Oh dude that class can't knock the moon out of orbit, then it sucks!''

:smallsigh:

This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks." It is only a measure of the power and versitliity of classes for balance purposes.

Boci

2012-08-26, 06:42 AM

1. I was not talking about 'correcting' anything rules wise, just saying that lots of DM's don't like the ToB so there is nothing to correct there. Tons of Dm's hate the way the Tome just makes fighter types 'magic users' by giving them spells. That is a horrible fighter fix.

I guess so, or though Ialways felt that such a position indicated a lack of knowledge of real world martial arts and/or a lack of ability to separate game mechanics and fluff, but its just a game so there are many right ways to play it.

Well, to most of us Outsiders we can break down anime to things like 'silly'. 'dumb' 'pointless' or 'ridiculous'. We watch one and see ''oh no one can stop the demons, oh, except Suizy Schoolgirl and her magic voice that can stop the moon?!''

Leaving aside the fact that it is wrong to judge a whole medium (especially 1 as large as anime) based off one show, can you build Suizy Schoolgirl with ToB? No? Well that would indicate that the opinion "ToB is anime" can in fact be wrong.

2. Psionics is not overpowered...

And neither is ToB.

Marlowe

2012-08-26, 06:55 AM

Not to derail, but at least one anime (Record of Lodoss War) was based on the writer just writing out his DnD campaign as a script and the producers agreeing, while one other (Slayers) originated as a parody of fantasy roleplayer cliches in the first place. As a set of short stories in the Japanese "Dragon" magazine. Which does not have any connection with the TSR Dragon magazine, but which was a Japanese magazine devoted to fantasy roleplaying.

Ironically enough, Record of Lodoss War is considered a depiction of D&D as fantasy roleplayers feel it should be, while Slayers is considered to accurately depict what it usually is.

Point, if somebody is banning something in D&D for being "too anime", he obviously has no idea what he's talking about.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-26, 10:37 AM

Anime is a media, not a genre. Banning something for being 'too anime' is like banning something for being 'too book'.

limejuicepowder

2012-08-26, 10:53 AM

Anime is a media, not a genre. Banning something for being 'too anime' is like banning something for being 'too book'.

nyuck nyuck this made me laugh

Daftendirekt

2012-08-26, 11:10 AM

nyuck nyuck this made me laugh

He's right. Anime is merely a medium used to express a story, like a book or a movie. A genre would be sci fi, horror, comedy, romance, etc. If you haven't noticed, there's an anime for any genre you could list off. Hence, anime itself is not a genre. It is a medium. This further makes the "Tome of Battle is too animeish" argument complete bollocks.

limejuicepowder

2012-08-26, 11:19 AM

He's right. Anime is merely a medium used to express a story, like a book or a movie. A genre would be sci fi, horror, comedy, romance, etc. If you haven't noticed, there's an anime for any genre you could list off. Hence, anime itself is not a genre. It is a medium. This further makes the "Tome of Battle is too animeish" argument complete bollocks.

I was being serious, not sarcastic. My "nyuck nyuck" was actual laughter (yes I laugh weirdly). I realized after the post it might be misunderstood as sarcasm, so sorry.

eggs

2012-08-26, 11:28 AM

The Redwolf

2012-08-26, 11:31 AM

Anime is a media, not a genre. Banning something for being 'too anime' is like banning something for being 'too book'.

Do you mind if I quote that in my signature?

shadow_archmagi

2012-08-26, 11:33 AM

It's a common misconception that being wrong is inherently wrong

Water_Bear

2012-08-26, 11:42 AM

<Snipped for Brevity>

I would say that this is a perfect example of why the OP shouldn't be too hopeful that their DM will change their mind; stubborn ignorance.

People who don't understand something (anime, optimization, baseball, the economy, etc) will usually still form opinions on them, and naturally they are uninformed opinions. But because they have no knowledge base to work from, they can't judge how accurate their opinions are, and thus have a false confidence in them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) Worst of all, they become emotionally invested in their positions; challenging their beliefs with new information is likely going to feel like an attack.

If I were you, I would just ride it out and start looking around for a new DM on the side. The effort you would have to put in to educate your DM, and the potential strain on your RL relationship, is probably not worth it in the long run. It's a bad situation, but unfortunately a fairly common one.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-26, 01:26 PM

Do you mind if I quote that in my signature?

I'd be honored :smallbiggrin:

@Water_Bear: Did you notice the OP said his game rund fine even though his DM disagrees with him about some stuff? Why should he even drop the game?

Water_Bear

2012-08-26, 01:28 PM

@Water_Bear: Did you notice the OP said his game rund fine even though his DM disagrees with him about some stuff? Why should he even drop the game?

He shouldn't. I told him to ride it out until he finds a better DM, but not to count on it.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-26, 02:18 PM

He shouldn't. I told him to ride it out until he finds a better DM, but not to count on it.

My point is that just because one DM allow ToB and the other doesn't, it doesn't mean the guy that allows ToB is a better DM. Looks like aside from banning a few books and not being much of an optimizer his DM is pretty good. I wouldn't quit the game in this situation, even if I did find a second DM that allowed ToB.
YMMV, but I think a good story with entertaining characters is a lot more important than being able to use FIVE SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE (bold and caps obligatory).

Moak

2012-08-26, 02:49 PM

Well, playing a buffer wizard who buff the hell out can be a way to show him how a wizard CAN be incredibly powerfull. Also, not a ToB or a Psi can buff others that easily and that much.

If he doesn't want ToB because he feels "not right" with his setting, good to him. Discussion end there. About power level... me. Bringing up melees from shame to efficency at mid-high level isn't overpowered... unless he WANT meleers to suck compared to magic user because that's how his setting must be. But... what about a charger focused barbarian? Is it op? or a KS/RG fighter/knight? The Duskblade? Isn't also "too animeish" to be able to smite someone with a "Fireball smash of the arcane strike"?

The only one thing that perhaps can change his views about psionic... is transparency.

Wiz/Sor no Uber because antimagic? Same for Psionics. Antimagic field work on psi exactly as on Arcane. Or show him apopsi or catapsi.... al power that interfere with psionic powers.

RFLS

2012-08-26, 05:18 PM

1.Never said it was. There is a very, very, very small group of optimizers that do it for fun and to enhance the game. But that is just a few of them, the rest, well.......

And i think the whole 'Tier' thing is a joke anyway, as it's based on one persons view of how they want to have fun. And worse it's a very modern overpowered anime 'peww peww' version of fun: like ''Oh dude that class can't knock the moon out of orbit, then it sucks!''

The rest, well...don't actually break their DM's game. I think you don't get that this is where people come to get the optimizing out of their system so that they can just go and play the game later.

The "tier thing" is not a joke, or one person dictating how to have fun- it's a fairly well thought out system for looking at the game as it stands and figuring out how classes relate to each other. For people that care about fitting their character into the group, it's pretty valuable.

yougi

2012-08-27, 12:01 AM

Wow, I really should have taken quotes from everyone as I was reading the topic... Well, let this be a bunch of thoughts I had while reading through:

- In the OP's post, there was no mention of having problems with the game. Three reasons come to mind for wanting to correct someone: (1) being annoyed by the arguments you have with them that never lead anywhere, while knowing/thinking you're right; (2) wanting to shove how good you are in their face; (3) wanting them to grow as a person. Each reason has a different way of dealing with it: (1) stop arguing with them ("look, you believe one thing, I believe another, let's just leave it at that" and, also important, not bringing it up again); (2) you're a jerk, learn to be nice, and (3) you can't force someone to grow, if you have tried teaching them and they will not listen, it goes back to (1).

- In an RPG, there are three types of settings: pre-existing settings (Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Star Wars' or LotR's), DM-created settings and player-inspired settings (i.e. when a DM creates a setting from what the players ask). While it usually (in my experience at least) is more of a continuum than an either/or situation, in the end, some classes will be off-limit: for example, I am starting up a game set in Dragonlance's War of the Lance, where the gods have left the world: as such, no divine magic. If a player wants to make a cleric, well, I'm sorry, not for this game (or you can make him, but no spells or turn undead). It's the same thing as with evil characters: many DMs do not accept evil characters. Is it because they're overpowered? No! It's just the DM not being interested in running such a game. If you think of it in supply and demand, the DM is supplying a set game (for example, a game without divine magic, or a low-magic game, or a game without ToB classes) and if the player is not interested, he should not play. If the DM has not enough demand for the game he offers, he either offers a different one, or does not run a game.

- About ToB and Psionics: I do not use them. Never have, and honestly, probably never will. I'm not closed to the idea, I just don't like it. I don't actually bring it up: my players don't know ToB exists, and they have never asked about Psionics. There are already so many options. Also, I don't have the books. If somebody was to bring up the topic, I would tell them I don't have the books, and don't actually know much about the topic. If they really can't think of anything else, I'd look into it. So far, in years of playing, it has never happened.

- About balance and the tier system: Inter-class balance is something a LOT of people talk about, especially in here. In D&D, usually, there is no PvP, the players are working together: who cares if one is stronger than the other? It becomes a question of allowing each player a chance to shine. The problems in that regard are mostly caused by a power tripping player, who attempts to show how great he is by, amongst other things, belittling others' contribution, either consciously or not, or those who feel inadequate for not being as important as they think they should, whether because they are too self-conscious, fragile or want to go on a power trip, but can't. All in all, a careful DM would try to make every player feel important every now and then, and, possibly, to make every player feel useless every now and then (hopefully, the latter would happen less often). So the player is a pure Fighter Half-Elf who took most of his feats to Weapon Focus/Specialisation in many different weapons? Well, bring forth a gladiatoral arena where they have to win a 1-on-1 combat using only a really obscure weapon the Ftr Specialised in. He will feel special, that's for sure.

By that I mean, if you like optimizing, good for you. If you like breaking a game, don't bother. If others don't like the concept of optimization, there are reasons for that too.

- About the thread itself: I would like to point out how some have given the OP the excellent advice to not try to change the DM's mind, it's not worth it, who cares, while then attacking (not debating) Gamer Girl for making the same comments. I don't want to start a debate about the differences or to attack anyone in particular (I honestly didn't look up names, so I don't know), but just thought it was a bit unnecessary. That being said, I do also believe that saying the ToB classes are overpowered is unfounded, but Gamer Girl's comment on the "If it's not the wizard it's not overpowered" fallacy is also a good point that was illustrated very well by many after her.

- Lol at the "too book" thing.

TL;DR: Be nice.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-08-27, 02:40 AM

I'll echo the chorus of "don't break the game," adding in that you could show him the power of the core casters with some high-op builds that never actually step foot in/ruin a game. Twice Betrayer comes to mind, since it wrecks his "lol antimagic" idea.

ToB can come off as quite overpowered in low op games (and if your DM thinks monk is overpowered then I'm guessing it's a low op game). ToB's (realistic) optimization floor is higher than most classes. Now IMO removing noob traps from character creation is a feature, not a bug, but in a game where everyone always takes the noob traps the ToB guy is going to stand out.

So the "OP" stuff isn't out of left field. The rest of the complaints are crap, though. As far as those who say ToB is stupid and anime, let me stoop to your level and say NO U. Just as valid. Sure, a lot of the default ToB fluff is wire fu wuxia stuff, but it's really easy to make a mundane initiator. Just pick the right maneuvers.

Also, maneuvers as a broad category aren't anything like spells. The only thing they have in common is that you have to refresh them to use them. By that logic Smite Evil, Stunning Fist, Rage, Knight's Challenge, Kiai Smite (lol) and others I missed are spells, too. In fact they're even closer to spells, as their refresh mechanic is X/day instead of per encounter + sometimes refresh mid-encounter.

Heatwizard

2012-08-27, 06:25 AM

Leaving aside the fact that it is wrong to judge a whole medium (especially 1 as large as anime) based off one show, can you build Suizy Schoolgirl with ToB? No? Well that would indicate that the opinion "ToB is anime" can in fact be wrong.

Well, if you sneak a very generous reading of Iron Heart Surge past your DM...

Marlowe

2012-08-27, 07:46 AM

The problem with using "Suzie Schoolgirl" as an example is that she's the protagonist in a show that's driven by plot rather than by internal consistency. Not all anime is like this, and not all shows like this are anime. And the fundamental problem is that she is the protagonist, not a team player. Technically "Suzie Schoolgirl" has a team, but somehow she always gets the decisive move.

She gets new powers as the plot demands, she has fortune twist to make her always win, and who therefore doesn't fit very well into a cooperative game with a structured leveling and task-accomplishment system. This is why wanting to play "Suzie Schoolgirl" is bad, not because of the medium she's from. There are plenty of other characters like this, in many different mediums. I won't start listing them.

If I had a potential player turn up wanting to play "Suzie Schoolgirl", I'd ask "Seriously? You want to play a narcoleptic, bulemic, border-illiterate loser whose only talent is getting more competent people than yourself to stick by you? Oh, and being blessed by destiny. Oh, and throwing frisbee".

If somebody turned up and asked to play Makoto Schoolgirl, I'd probably say "That'll require pretty good stats, but lets get out the books."

shadow_archmagi

2012-08-27, 07:53 AM

The rest, well...don't actually break their DM's game. I think you don't get that this is where people come to get the optimizing out of their system so that they can just go and play the game later.

The "tier thing" is not a joke, or one person dictating how to have fun- it's a fairly well thought out system for looking at the game as it stands and figuring out how classes relate to each other. For people that care about fitting their character into the group, it's pretty valuable.

Yeah. I mean, you *could* look at it as a "Oh. So these are the classes that are best. Being the best is most important to me, so I will always pick best classes." but players with that mindset are going to be problem players regardless.

What it gets used for (in my group, anyway) is mostly to say "Oh, okay. So Adam is playing a class that can get really powerful, and Steve has a kinda limited class. I'll keep an eye on the two and make sure no parades are rained on."

Also, when the Other DM runs a game, he likes to say "None of THESE classes because these classes are overpowered. The strongest thing in my games is a factotum."

Larpus

2012-08-27, 12:18 PM

Yeah, it's really a no-win situation.

I often play with people like that, who also think that Monk is OP mind you, despite my continuous efforts to say that I could build something that would be actually good and able to beat their Monk, even with a gigantic AC the Monk potentially can get, given his smaller damage it's only a matter of time until I roll a 20.

Anyway, back on topic...as he's the DM, there's simply no fighting it. You can try to show data and arguments in your favor outside of the table and maybe even convince him to give you a chance to prove him wrong (and by that I mean allow you to show that a ToB class can be balanced), but be very careful, a little optimization, lucky choices, lucky rolls and someone making an obviously underpowered build (and not listening to others saying it'll suck) is all it takes for someone call foul and the whole game go down.

And yes, I can provide an anecdote of just that...sigh.

Zdrak

2012-08-27, 12:33 PM

If the guy is not allowing ToB, just play a Druid. A core-only Druid. Powerful, but not Incantatrix-style gamebreaking.

Psyren

2012-08-27, 01:16 PM

Where do you want to 'correct' him?

1. The Tome of Battle is stupid, animeish and over powered. Plenty of DM's don't like the Tome. So nothing to 'correct' there.

Protip: going out of your way to insult one of the best-loved books in 3.5 is not going to make your opinion appear any more reasonable.

4. I've never under stood all the monk hate myself. Other then the people that say 'well they are not wizards so they suck'

When you truly understand the monk (or perhaps more accurately, understand those classes that are actually effective at the things the monk was meant to be effective at) then this too will become clear.

Anime is a media, not a genre. Banning something for being 'too anime' is like banning something for being 'too book'.

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

RFLS

2012-08-27, 04:16 PM

When you truly understand the monk (or perhaps more accurately, understand those classes that are actually effective at the things the monk was meant to be effective at) then this too will become clear.

To clarify- Monks have two class features central to their fighting. They move fast and they hit people a lot. Per the rules on multiple attacks, any time you hit more than once in an attack, that attack counts as a full round action. That...kinda makes one of those two class features negate the other.

Again, they're focused on making a lot of attacks, nominally- but they've got 3/4 BAB, leaving them stuck at fewer attacks per round than a TWF-er.

I'm just going to down their class feature list, now that I've hit the main two points.

Their bonus feats at 1 and 2 are traps- you only ever get Improved Grapple and Combat Reflexes with these two. The other two feats are...mediocre at best. I'll come back to what these two "bonus" feats mean for you at the end.

Evasion's nice, but it's like that slutty cousin- everyone's got it.

Still Mind- +2 to saving throws against enchantment effects. Alright, but small, and not that much in the long run. Nice flavor, though.

Ki Strike (magic)- Cool. Your fists are magic weapons. You can't enchant them, though, which means you're probably going to be using monk weapons anyway, or grappling everyone. Either way, not a big deal. Looks shiny, though.

Slow fall- .... How often are you falling right next to a wall?

Purity of Body- Whee. Diseases. I can count on a leper's hand how many times disease has come up in one of my campaigns, and each and every time, it's been magical.

Wholeness of Body- Wow. This is like...an actual class feature. That you might want some day. This is like that Paladin ability, but worse, because it's A) self only, and B) less per day.

Improved Evasion- Again, nice, but not a big deal.

Diamond Body- Immunity to poisons is nice, but not a big deal. I'll take it.

Abundant Step- Don't get me started. Once per day? This is a 12th level class feature that I can pick up for 11200 GP. That's...frankly pathetic.

Diamond Soul- Nggh. Worst shiny object trap in the monk class. If my reading is correct, This prevents beneficial spells from being cast on you. Otherwise, this is nice.

Quivering Palm- Level 15 for something like a 19 or 20 Fort save, unless you're pumping Wis. Further discussion at the end of the post.

Timeless Body- Whee. It's alright, I suppose, but rarely comes in to play.

Tongue of the Sun and Moon- I'm pretty sure wizards are doing similar things at level 10. If you don't have a caster in the party, sure, it's alright. If you do...superfluous class feature GOOOO!

Empty Body- Not bad. It's not like anyone has means of hitting ethereal creatures at this point. Still, not TOO bad.

Perfect Self- Not bad for a capstone, but...lackluster.

AC Bonus- You get 4 AC at level 20, and your Wis modifier to AC. This is coming back in the promised end of post discussion.

Your two bonus feats, Imp. Grapple and Combat Reflexes, rely on Str and Dex, reflectively. You need Con, as a front line fighter with less AC than anyone around. Your Wis *should* be high, to buff your low AC and your rather pathetic quivering palm attack. You rely on Str to hit/damage, Dex for AC and Combat Reflexes, Con to survive, and Wis for AC. You're supposed to be throwing out a lot of attacks every round, but you'll rarely hit something, as you have 3/4 BAB, and until 9th level, you take a penalty for using one of your main class features.

To recap- Monks are one massive trap for anyone unfamiliar with the game's basic mechanics. They're filled with shiny, shiny toys that, for the most part, don't do that much. Run away from them.

CIDE

2012-08-27, 10:08 PM

killianh

2012-08-27, 10:38 PM

To cover an earlier point I was only acting against the DM in these ways to help him grow. Sure, I can't force him to do so. But I was only trying to really get him to investigate what he's going against and to really compare these books to other even more outlandish stuff in the franchise.

Anyway, I do still find the game fun and I am sticking around. What bugs me most though is that I have to actually try to make my character weaker or use it less intelligently than I probably should. Which is bad because I even suck at optimization of any kind. Even then I could still out-damage anyone else in the party.

And this particular party is considered "average" to the DM. Which is also a pretty bad sign as I could probably provide a single character at a similar level that isn't really optimized either that could likely defeat the entire party. The only hope would be really lucky rolls with some failed saves. Even that would be unlikely. And on this point again I SUCK at optimization and I could still probably accomplish this. Which goes into the next thing...

About the monk being powerful and/or over powered. I even approached him about playing a monk before I knew his DM style and mentioned the homebrew adjustments to BAB'n all. He wouldn't hear it; to him the lower BAB is a balancing factor for the Monk.

What's more is that the other players are used to this level of gaming. Even Out of character unwilling to fight something that given the scenario I could have technically beaten alone.

After hearing this a possible solution to your problem would be to talk to the party and your DM about the possibility of handing the party to the playground or just going over it yourself and trying to show what each of the chosen characters are actually capable of. I had to do it for one campaign and we had a blast after everyone could actually do what the character was suppose to do, and the DM liked it because the party wasn't imbalanced and he could gather what they were capable of as a team.

It takes a fair amount of tact to suggest it without sounding like "ur prob is I am better lol let me fix you" but if you can find a way to up the general power levels of the party then take some time to show your DM he might re-evaluate his stance.

Larpus

2012-08-27, 10:38 PM

To cover an earlier point I was only acting against the DM in these ways to help him grow. Sure, I can't force him to do so. But I was only trying to really get him to investigate what he's going against and to really compare these books to other even more outlandish stuff in the franchise.

Anyway, I do still find the game fun and I am sticking around. What bugs me most though is that I have to actually try to make my character weaker or use it less intelligently than I probably should. Which is bad because I even suck at optimization of any kind. Even then I could still out-damage anyone else in the party.

And this particular party is considered "average" to the DM. Which is also a pretty bad sign as I could probably provide a single character at a similar level that isn't really optimized either that could likely defeat the entire party. The only hope would be really lucky rolls with some failed saves. Even that would be unlikely. And on this point again I SUCK at optimization and I could still probably accomplish this. Which goes into the next thing...

About the monk being powerful and/or over powered. I even approached him about playing a monk before I knew his DM style and mentioned the homebrew adjustments to BAB'n all. He wouldn't hear it; to him the lower BAB is a balancing factor for the Monk.

What's more is that the other players are used to this level of gaming. Even Out of character unwilling to fight something that given the scenario I could have technically beaten alone.
Are you freaking sure you're not me from another dimension??

Yeah, it's really bad when you're not optimizing at all, only making smart decisions (if that) and still manage to make everyone look bad. On my experience, being a Vivisectionist Alchemist, managing to get into flanking position at the start of the fight, score my 3 sneak attacks (dealing more damage than the Paladin to evil creatures) and still being able to regenerate (via a discovery) and use CLW, making the heal-based Witch (yeah...) feel useless.

Also, allow me to guess: do your group also find magic weapons to be "freaking sweet"? As in...a Barbarian is already soooo powerful he shouldn't know about magic weapons (after all, he be dumb 'barian!) and be considered "optimization" to grab a single +1 Shocking Whatever?

Worse yet, actually say that having to buy the +1 before adding actual bonuses is perfectly fine and balanced and totally not a pointless waste of money.

Anyway, it's quite frustrating indeed, I feel your pain, man...it gets even worse when you try to live by with a not that powerful build (Titan Mauler) and then people start complaining that using an oversized weapon is op...sigh...

Best way is try to get other people to optimize a bit too, but don't go "you're doing it wrong" on them, go slow, such as "hey, you want to make a healer? I was reading the book and there's this awesome mystery for Oracles who seems really cool for healers, you should try it out!"...usually works for me.

Not always...

Logic

2012-08-27, 11:55 PM

Anime is a media, not a genre. Banning something for being 'too anime' is like banning something for being 'too book'.

Anime is also widely considered to be a style of cartoons. Your argument is a little shy of truthiness.

Your quote has more validity behind it if it is more like this:
Banning something for being 'too anime' is like banning something for being 'too east-asian'.

killianh

2012-08-28, 12:14 AM

Anime is also widely considered to be a style of cartoons. Your argument is a little shy of truthiness.

Your quote has more validity behind it if it is more like this:
Banning something for being 'too anime' is like banning something for being 'too east-asian'.

To that effect though a lot of people hear the word book and think only of novels. Or they hear RPG and think only of video games.

Anime is a style of cartoons in the art aspect alone. The style people usually quote or have come to mind is the shonen/shojo stuff, but a large group of people putting it under a catch-all as all that anime is is more a show of mass western ignorance rather than something to grant the concept validity.

On Topic: Keep us posted on the developments with your DM as you bring some of our points to him (if you decide to)

lsfreak

2012-08-28, 12:39 AM

YMMV, but I think a good story with entertaining characters is a lot more important than being able to use FIVE SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE (bold and caps obligatory).

I would just like to point out that this is historically accurate (well, not that one, that particular one is ridiculous). German longsword (D&D greatsword) fencing has things like Fool, Unicorn, Parting Strike, Iron Gate, Squinting Strike, Fiddlestick, and Wrath Strike. People who have problems with how the ToB stuff is labeled generally don't know that names, often silly-sounding ones, are a part of fencing tradition. (I know that's not what you're saying here.)

Marlowe

2012-08-28, 01:27 AM

Kind of hard to imagine that a medium that includes; to throw out some randoms, "Doraemon", "Evangelion", "Sayonara Zetsubo Sensei" and "Revolutionary Girl Utena" could ever be described as "a style".

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-28, 09:24 AM

Anime is also widely considered to be a style of cartoons. Your argument is a little shy of truthiness.
ToB is 'widely considered' to be overpowered. Monks are 'widely considered' to be good. Does that mean 'ToB is not broken' and 'Monks are bad' are 'a little shy of truthness?"
Someone being ignorant can't make what I say false.
Your quote has more validity behind it if it is more like this:

Banning something for being 'too anime' is like banning something for being 'too east-asian'.
Unfortunate implications in 1, 2...

Psyren

2012-08-28, 09:59 AM

Minor corrections:

To clarify- Monks have two class features central to their fighting. They move fast and they hit people a lot. Per the rules on multiple attacks, any time you hit more than once in an attack, that attack counts as a full round action. That...kinda makes one of those two class features negate the other.

Other way around actually - in order to hit multiple times, the monk needs to spend a full-round action. Almost the same as what you said, but there are in fact ways to hit multiple times on a standard (e.g. Snap Kick.) So it's not correct to say that any instance of hitting more than once automatically makes it a full-round action.

Their bonus feats at 1 and 2 are traps- you only ever get Improved Grapple and Combat Reflexes with these two.

Let's give the devil his due though. While you are correct about this in Core-only, splats (and the SRD/UA) have expanded the choices monks can take with these feats. One of the more notable options is Monastic Training, which you need for Tashalatora, which will make your monk awesome.

Diamond Soul- Nggh. Worst shiny object trap in the monk class. If my reading is correct, This prevents beneficial spells from being cast on you. Otherwise, this is nice.

It does, though you can lower it as a standard action at least. That's a wasted action to get buffed though, and it means anyone who wants to buff you has to delay their initiative to after yours.

I fully agree with everything else you said.

Bard for Kicks

2012-08-28, 10:31 AM

Your quote has more validity behind it if it is more like this:
Banning something for being 'too anime' is like banning something for being 'too east-asian'.

I agree with you there, but suggesting that the DM is a racist is not the best move. I don't know exactly how unfair this is, but when my team breaks the 4th wall, my DM often tosses us obscene anime-themed monsters and says DEAL WITH IT. YOU BROUGHT IT.

Banning anime for being too east-asian may be justified under the circumstance that the campaign takes place in some medieval European town. It is rare that some eastern man journeyed from far lands (and probably gave up a decade of his life) just to join some adventurers

pffh

2012-08-28, 10:36 AM

Tyndmyr

2012-08-28, 10:55 AM

When somebody believes something regardless of whatever evidence is put before them, changing their mind is next to impossible.

This.

The problem isn't merely that he's wrong. We're all wrong about stuff sometimes. The problem is that he's certain that he's got all the answers and doesn't want to hear from anyone else.

The best solution is to not have someone with this attitude DMing.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-28, 01:14 PM

hymer

2012-08-28, 01:55 PM

@ ThiagoMartell: Be fair, he wasn't being silly. There's themes that belong in certain campaigns, and themes that don't, and that's all he said.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-28, 02:28 PM

@ ThiagoMartell: Be fair, he wasn't being silly. There's themes that belong in certain campaigns, and themes that don't, and that's all he said.
And that would make sense, if he had said that.
A DM that says "I don't want ToB in my game" is within his rights. A DM that says "I don't want ToB in my game because it's too asian" is still within his rights, but he's also being ignorant.
Specially because Tome of Battle's elements inspired by Asia can be limited to the Shadow Sun Ninja.
As a sidenote, we all know that rakshasas don't fit in a D&D game, since they're based on Indian folklore and D&D is about medieval europe. OK, I'll stop
Btw, Warlocks (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=nj5ibrtq0h3c82c3f20o50ks05&topic=10832.msg369907#msg369907), Barbarians, Rangers, (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=nj5ibrtq0h3c82c3f20o50ks05&topic=10832.msg369910#msg369910) Paladins (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=nj5ibrtq0h3c82c3f20o50ks05&topic=10832.msg369941#msg369941) and Bards (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=nj5ibrtq0h3c82c3f20o50ks05&topic=10832.msg370116#msg370116) are all too 'anime' and overpowered.

Larpus

2012-08-28, 02:39 PM

Easy there, mano.

I'm sure that's what he meant, even if that's not word-per-word what was said.

Still, I do agree that in a world full of spellcasters and the such, I have a hard time to believe that mundanes are totally ok in sucking and being inferior and wouldn't try to find a way to compensate, perhaps even creating "sword magic".

Other than "awesome maneuvers", as far as I remember, most worlds don't give much thought to the idea of being a caster, it's not a blood thing or being a chosen or whatever, so it's safe to assume that anyone could become a Wizard if they wanted to. So it's not unrealistic for warriors to be able to unlock that "arcane power" and use it in ways that are not spells.

And if all else fails...yeah, there's the Monk, who is a eastern-style kung-fu Monk, not a "I stay in the temple and pray" western Monk, so quite honestly, ToB is too anime/asian/pineapple doesn't fly in my book.

Starbuck_II

2012-08-28, 02:42 PM

I could see Incarnum or Iron Might as being a bit "too spreadsheet." :smalltongue:

But on the "too anime" thing, he might not be using terms everyone agrees with, but I'm pretty sure everyone understands he's talking about too many Magic Fire Swords and Flying Darkness Fists flying around. Nitpicking the way he said it is sidestepping his point, and a good way not to bend his ear (if that can happen).

There might be a chance of at least creating some doubt on that point by identifying the existing Flying Shadow Fire-Sword-ness in the game, pointing out all the nonmagical abilities presented under ToB mechanics, and bringing up the idea of stripping some of the fluff (the ToB narrative does sound like something out of a kung fu flick).

No that doesn't work.
The only Shadowhand and Desert Sun users are Swordsage.
Swordsage's flavor is blade magician. It uses Supernatural abilities not extraordinary ones.
Unless Wizards are to anime, that seem wrong and nitpicky.

Did you know that maneuvers in real life western martial arts (they exist) have names like the book?
Ignorance of history is a terrible reason for DM to ban something.

The Dark Fiddler

2012-08-28, 03:05 PM

Banning anime for being too east-asian may be justified under the circumstance that the campaign takes place in some medieval European town. It is rare that some eastern man journeyed from far lands (and probably gave up a decade of his life) just to join some adventurers

Yes, it's rare, but the kind of person who WOULD do that also happens to be the type of person who would become an adventurer in the first place (and it happened in real life; adventure was a common motivation for moving to the New World, or moving west, or heading to Asia/India (from Europe)).

To cover an earlier point I was only acting against the DM in these ways to help him grow. Sure, I can't force him to do so. But I was only trying to really get him to investigate what he's going against and to really compare these books to other even more outlandish stuff in the franchise.

It's great to be interested in helping the guy better himself, but make sure you don't go too far. There's a fine line between "I'm trying to help you" and "I'm disregarding your wishes."

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-28, 03:07 PM

It's great to be interested in helping the guy better himself, but make sure you don't go too far. There's a fine line between "I'm trying to help you" and "I'm disregarding your wishes."

This, so much this. Specially when it concerns optimization, many people simply don't want to learn. And that's fine.

Psyren

2012-08-28, 03:13 PM

The existence of monks in core D&D proves that eastern philosophy and fighting styles are an assumed part of the game. All ToB does is upgrade the crunch to match that fluff.

Swordsage's flavor is blade magician. It uses Supernatural abilities not extraordinary ones.

Honestly I wouldn't even call them mostly supernatural. Only two of the Swordsage's six disciplines even contain supernatural abilities, and even those two have Ex maneuvers.

eggs

2012-08-28, 03:33 PM

No that doesn't work.
The only Shadowhand and Desert Sun users are Swordsage.
Swordsage's flavor is blade magician. It uses Supernatural abilities not extraordinary ones.
That doesn't mean the Swordsage doesn't go against the DM's tastes; it only means the writers tried to make it something that goes against the DM's tastes.

Unless Wizards are to anime, that seem wrong and nitpicky.Exactly. That's why I said pointing at the potentially distasteful elements that already exist in the system is probably going to have better results than discounting ToB's existing elements: Calling up a reference to Cleric, with all its Darknesses, Air Walks, Weapons of Energy and spooky channelable spells is more likely to show the DM that ToB doesnt't introduce anything new and distasteful than pointing at Tiger claw and Iron Heart maneuvers is going to make the point that ToB doesn't introduce anything distasteful. Because the Swordsage is a part of the system; Swordsage does break the "nonmagical knights hacking at dragons" paradigm; and claiming it doesn't is misleading.

Showing that Swordsage doesn't have to break the concept, and framing it in the context of the Cleric not having to do the same, seems more likely to at least create doubt than just throwing out a statement that the Swordsage might not take supernatural maneuvers. (Because that doesn't seem more convincing on its own than justifying a Spell-to-Power Erudite because it might not choose to learn spells.)

Did you know that maneuvers in real life western martial arts (they exist) have names like the book?
I'm talking about the "Temple of Nine Swords" metaplot, which could have been ripped from just about any kung fu movie. And some of the lines like Desert Wind channeling "the barren wasteland of the soul" through a sword are pretty decidedly cheesy in a 70s-wuxia-flick kind of a way.

Tyndmyr

2012-08-28, 03:37 PM

If he dislikes the flavor, refluffing is the best of things. That's an easy fix.

But I can't do much about the attitude that insists they're overpowered and that dislikes disagreement.

Zdrak

2012-08-28, 03:42 PM

Usually people don't want to DM something they have no experience with as a player. Here's an idea: propose to your DM to run a small one-shot, or a short campaign (possibly even a solo game) in which he plays a ToB class. Once he plays a martial adept, even for a single session, he may become more receptive to DMing one.

[don't tell anyone, but that's exactly how I came to allow ToB in my games]

Gavinfoxx

2012-08-28, 04:13 PM

As far as Antimagic fields? Read this, memorize it: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10104

And say the arguments verbally. Describe how many options the Wizard has for bypassing antimagic.

And Tome of Battle and Anime? Let me quote myself...

"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!"

To this, I would add "also, describe the recovery mechanic as making a strike to put him in a more neutral stance, enabling him to do particular moves that he was not in the stance to do, after having used them. This simulates the natural flow of a fight, where people have to reset before trying again, and there is a discrete series of exchanges."

Also, here is a glossary of some real world two-handed-sword fencing terms:

http://www.thearma.org/terms2.htm
http://www.thearma.org/terms3.htm

Togo

2012-08-28, 04:56 PM

Does the DM run an enjoyable game with a consistent flavour that works out as more or less balanced?

If so, I'd seriously think twice before trying to change his style of game. Yes, you might feel that the reasons he gives don't stand up to close inspection, but that's true of most people's opinions on most subjects, if you get pedantic enough. The reason he makes the decisions he makes is because he feels it makes for a better game.

Irrespective of what you think of his individual rulings, the overall effect might be a better game than it would be if he changed his mind according to your wishes.

Is just enjoying the game as is not an option?

ima donkey

2012-08-28, 05:54 PM

I understand why some people don't like ToB, IMO it makes the other martial classes obsolete, for example the warblade has a d12 HD, lots of bonus feats, decent skill points, lots of skills, some other useful class features, and on top of all that they get maneuvers. Now if this was the norm that's fine but anyone who plays a different martial class will quickly become underpowered compared to a warblade and feel like they can't do anything as well as the warblade.

Gavinfoxx

2012-08-28, 05:58 PM

Well, the idea is that Tome of Battle makes v.2.0 of the Fighter, Paladin, and Monk. That's kinda the point, because those classes are way too weak. It's still weaker than Cleric and Druid.

ima donkey

2012-08-28, 06:10 PM

Well, the idea is that Tome of Battle makes v.2.0 of the Fighter, Paladin, and Monk. That's kinda the point, because those classes are way too weak. It's still weaker than Cleric and Druid.

IMO the point of the martial class isn't to be as good or better than druids wizards or clerics, they are supposed to be the tough guys in the group who can deal good damage to a single target and take lots of damage so the wizard doesn't get hit, and the wizard i think of as the guy who mops up lots of weaklings as well as being the party's tool box and the cleric's role is similar to the wizards except he focuses more on buffing and healing, as for the druid they are almost all around better at the martial characters role but luckily no one in my group wants to be a druid.

The point being that martial characters aren't supposed to be better they are supposed to fulfill a specific role in the group which they are best suited for (druid being the exception).

Augmental

2012-08-28, 06:27 PM

The point being that martial characters aren't supposed to be better they are supposed to fulfill a specific role in the group which they are best suited for (druid being the exception).

The problem is that the Fighter, Paladin, and Monk are so weak that they can barely fulfill their role. And the Wizard and Cleric have access to the Summon Monster spells and the Planar Binding spells, so they can replace the fighter by proxy.

Gavinfoxx

2012-08-28, 06:29 PM

Yea. With the Wizard thinking, "So should I spend 5000 gp on a Gryphon, and fire the Fighter? I think that would probably be a good idea..." and that actually logical and consistent with the utility of a 5000 gp Gryphon vs a Fighter, is the problem. Cause the Wizard, at that point, should PROBABLY fire the Fighter; the Wizard + a Gryphon + the fighter's share of the loot = better than the Wizard and the Fighter.

ima donkey

2012-08-28, 06:32 PM

eggs

2012-08-28, 06:33 PM

Warblade, Swordsage and Crusader don't even render specced out Fighters, Monks or especially Paladins obsolete; they just raise the optimization floor to a somewhat competent level.

Gavinfoxx

2012-08-28, 06:33 PM

Which is why you fire their character, and tell them to roll a class that can pull their weight. After all, if the game is intended to be at the power level of 'a competently played wizard', than what is he doing showing up with a Fighter that isn't min-maxxed to the max?? That's totally inappropriate for that game.

ima donkey

2012-08-28, 06:39 PM

eggs

2012-08-28, 06:40 PM

Which is why you fire their character, and tell them to roll a class that can pull their weight. After all, if the game is intended to be at the power level of 'a competently played wizard', than what is he doing showing up with a Fighter?? That's totally inappropriate for that game.
...Seriously?
:smalleek:

Do people invite you to games... you know... on purpose?

Gavinfoxx

2012-08-28, 06:46 PM

I believe I mis-described some assumptions. I was under the assumption that a game where it was appropriate to play a 'push the capabilities' wizard would overtly be one where the GM said 'okay, we are targeting an extremely high power level here, I want to really challenge you both as players, and your characters. Good luck.'

Let me copy and paste my essay, to get the point across... the idea is that particular games and particular stories are targeted at particular power levels...

The Wizard character would be appropriate for a 'You are the Justice League' style game.

Essay is under the spoiler!

"D&D 3.5e is a very...interesting game system. At it's heart, it is a game which started with several assumptions: that fantastically wealthy, violent hobo land pirates go underground to the homes of things that look different than them, kick down the doors to these homes, kill the inhabitants, and take their stuff. Then they go back to town, sell most of the stuff, keep the useful bits, buy things that help them go to newer and different places where things that look MORE different then they, kill them, take their stuff, et cetera. It is a game where the stalwart fighter stands in the front and swings his sword, the rogue looks for and disables traps, or perhaps sneaks around to stab bad things with a dagger, the Wizard stands in the back and blasts things, and the Cleric keeps all of them healed while doing this. This is the 'heart' of the game because that was how the game was played in the past, in the editions before 3.5e, often because it was a competitive, team event played at tournaments where people wargame for points, and there is a single team which is the winner. Further, you might not know the people on your team, having just met them five minutes ago at a convention, and so everyone played a simple role that was easy to understand and pick up and go, and in the old rules, was actually generally a fairly solid way to get through modules in a short amount of time. This is also where the idea of an adversarial GM that is trying to kill the player characters comes from. Every assumption that is 'weird' or arbitrary in the game stems from things inherited from this idea (or similar ideas from 'back then') regarding how the old games used to work.

However, that's not often how the game is *played* these days, and for the most part, we aren't interested in playing that particular legacy game with it. It has been quite some time since 3.5e books started coming out, and people have had lots of time to look at them and think about them and tinker with them and figure things out. They've come up with several interesting conclusions. Namely, that if you look at the toolset represented by all these books, you essentially have a fantastic array of lego pieces to make characters to tell any sort of fantasy story you want, because Wizards of the Coast tried to be inclusive of a huge variety of fantasy gaming styles in their rules. People have also figured out that there is a dramatic and huge variation in the power level of the 'lego pieces' -- that is the classes and options tied to them -- when you start doing things with them other than the old edition legacy assumptions. So given that, the question is this: what sort of story do you want to tell with your characters, and what power level and complexity level do you want in the rules? Do you want to be people altering the fabric of reality to fit their very whims, or the gritty soldier for whom permanent death is a real possibility in any fight -- in other words, something lower power level like Lord of the Rings, or the wuxia swordsman who is somewhere in between the two examples? Any sort of Fantasy story is a possibility, but you have to know what you want, first!

Of course, just because anything is possible, doesn't mean that there isn't something close to a consensus amongst experts as to what the system is best at. What they say is something along these lines: the system is best for fantastic characters, fantasy superheroes of some sort (but not silver age uber-superheroes though), doing crazy, incredible things to the world around them, things which are overtly superhuman and heroic. While 3.5e is capable of much lower power and grittier things, it really starts to shine when you accept the power level of 'everyone has superpowers of some sort', provided you make choices of the correct legos appropriate to that power level. This is the case especially because of, if you are attempting to actually simulate reality with the game rather than simulate certain types of stories, things get 'wonky'. Of course, if you want to use rules based on D&D 3.5e to simulate actual reality, there are third party products such as Codex Martialis which do this admirably.

Also, there is a reason we aren't playing 4th edition. The reason is this: Wizards of the Coast realized that D&D 3.5e was laughably, ridiculously unbalanced. However, in their quest to make something manageable, they have reduced the game to only a miniatures tactical combat system where the scope of the sorts of things the characters can do which the actual rules can cover is very, very limited. This is intentional on their part, and is maybe what they had to do to balance the game. Unfortunately, it does greatly limit the sorts of stories that can be easily told with the rules in the system, even if you know your way around it backwards and forwards. This has been mitigated somewhat as 4e went on, but is still somewhat true. This is not the case with 3.5e -- if you know your way around it, you can make anything for any sort of Fantasy story.

Finally, I thought I should make a note about some of the continuations of 3.5e which you might have heard of, such as Pathfinder and it's lesser known cousin Trailblazer. Some folk may have claimed that these fix all of the balance problems in the game. This is not true; what they do is merely continue support for the game, though they do attempt to fix some balance problems that become issues for several groups, but they for the most part ignore the inherent power and versatility differences of the 'legos' themselves, though they have been gradually adding options that allow improvements in the capability of the lower performing classes, much like D&D 3.5e did in it's actual run. They do attempt to make changes so that everyone, especially those very low-optimization level players, has some interesting and fun things to do, and for the most part, they succeed in providing obvious options for lower power gamers. However, you should note that there is at least ONE D20 system which provides the breadth of possible abilities and feel of classes and customizability that 3.5e offers, and large parts of the 'feel' of 3.5e, while keeping balance intact between the classes. This system is Ruleofcool's Legend, and I encourage you to check it out."

Augmental

2012-08-28, 06:57 PM

IMO that's absurd, d&d is a game. What are games for? To have fun with your buddies, not to be an obsessed optimizer.

And if one player is playing a weak character that's not pulling his weight, he in all likelihood is not having fun himself (nobody likes feeling useless), while making the game less fun for the other players (they have to invest resources IC to keep the weak character alive and/or revive him) and the DM (it's a lot harder to create appropriate challenges for the party when there's a significant power discrepancy).

ima donkey

2012-08-28, 07:04 PM

And if one player is playing a weak character that's not pulling his weight, he in all likelihood is not having fun himself (nobody likes feeling useless), while making the game less fun for the other players (they have to invest resources IC to keep the weak character alive and/or revive him) and the DM (it's a lot harder to create appropriate challenges for the party when there's a significant power discrepancy).

Why do you assume that a martial character dies more or can't pull their weight? They may not be as versatile but they certainly don't die more or require more resources, at least not in my experience, and as long as you aren't a jealous player you wont have a problem not being as useful as the wizard.

Augmental

2012-08-28, 07:15 PM

Why do you assume that a martial character dies more or can't pull their weight? They may not be as versatile but they certainly don't die more or require more resources, at least not in my experience, and as long as you aren't a jealous player you wont have a problem not being as useful as the wizard.

If your character is being completely overshadowed, chances are you're going to be unhappy, and jealousy doesn't come into it.

ima donkey

2012-08-28, 07:25 PM

If your character is being completely overshadowed, chances are you're going to be unhappy, and jealousy doesn't come into it.

That's why you make the responsible person the wizard so that he doesn't overshadow anyone, in my group we are all friends so we avoid things we consider too powerful to avoid that problem or at least keep it in check, isn't that what a DM is for?

Gavinfoxx

2012-08-28, 07:42 PM

ID: did you even READ my essay? The one in the spoiler?

The idea is to make a particular game target a particular power level...

TuggyNE

2012-08-28, 09:40 PM

If d&d wasn't a game the yes you are correct but it is and you can't just "fire" players.

You have correctly identified the source of the conflict: it's a game, and you can't fire players, but the Wizard character would like to fire the Fighter character, as per roleplaying. The fact that the game creates tension here is an unfortunate flaw; the fact that one can resolve this tension in various more or less mature ways is irrelevant to the fact that there is, indeed, an inherent flaw in the game.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-28, 11:12 PM

IMO that's absurd, d&d is a game. What are games for? To have fun with your buddies, not to be an obsessed optimizer.

Agreed completely. If someone tells you that "your Fighter is too weak for our group, roll something else" disregarding completely everything else about your fighter or if you are even having fun with your character... quit that game and try to play with your friends, you know, people that care about what you think.

LibraryOgre

2012-08-28, 11:17 PM

Anime is a media, not a genre. Banning something for being 'too anime' is like banning something for being 'too book'.

He's right. Anime is merely a medium used to express a story, like a book or a movie. A genre would be sci fi, horror, comedy, romance, etc. If you haven't noticed, there's an anime for any genre you could list off. Hence, anime itself is not a genre. It is a medium. This further makes the "Tome of Battle is too animeish" argument complete bollocks.

Consider the anime that makes a name for itself in the States... the vast majority of which is Shonen fighting anime, or heavily influenced by it, especially in the last decade or so.* While anime is a medium, dismissing "too anime" on that grounds "anime is a medium" is missing the forest for the trees... especially since the Tome of Battle itself specifically mentions "Japanese anime" (with no modifier for genre within the medium) as an influence.

*q.v. Dragonball Z. Pokemon. Yu Gi Oh. Inu Yasha was big for a while, and it's about half Shonen, half Shojo. Bleach was all the rage when I was teaching, as was Deathnote. Hell, even Card Captor Sakura has a fair amount of influence from Shonen Jump style anime, and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUmFIOOnIfQ) is its gorram theme song.... which may be the cutest thing ever produced not involving kittens. Non-Shonen anime? Sure. Tons of it. I've got my Cowboy BeBop and my Robotech.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-28, 11:27 PM

Consider the anime that makes a name for itself in the States... the vast majority of which is Shonen fighting anime, or heavily influenced by it, especially in the last decade or so.*
I'd like to point out most of those anime you mentioned actually were not big in the last decade. They were big almost 20 years ago. :smalltongue:
Btw, Macross (I don't know about the butchered Robotech, actually, it was never on TV around here) is a shounen anime. It doesn't mean it's worse or anything for it - Barefoot Gen is both a shounen manga and a shounen anime and it is deeper and more important than most seinen/jousei manga out there.

While anime is a medium, dismissing "too anime" on that grounds "anime is a medium" is missing the forest for the trees... especially since the Tome of Battle itself specifically mentions "Japanese anime" (with no modifier for genre within the medium) as an influence.
Well, the thing is that even if you consider 'too anime' to mean 'too much like fighting shounen anime that focuses on supernatural powers', it still doesn't apply any more for ToB then it applies to the Monk, to the Duskblade, to the Warlock or to the Ranger. I mean, have you seen the names on those Ranger spells? :smallamused:

LibraryOgre

2012-08-29, 12:43 AM

I'd like to point out most of those anime you mentioned actually were not big in the last decade. They were big almost 20 years ago. :smalltongue:

It depends on where you are, Thiago. In my library, the Inu Yasha manga still sees frequent check-out, and we can't keep Dragonball Z, Pokemon, or Yu-gi-oh on the shelves. Inu yasha was getting some of its major, mainstream, American exposure about a decade ago (and only premiered as an anime in 2000). Cardcaptors (the American edit of CCS) was on the air in 2000 and 2001, close enough that I think it falls under "a decade or so."

Note I am making a distinction between "anime/manga that is known to the anime/manga fan community" and "anime/manga as it is known to the public at large.

Btw, Macross (I don't know about the butchered Robotech, actually, it was never on TV around here) is a shounen anime. It doesn't mean it's worse or anything for it - Barefoot Gen is both a shounen manga and a shounen anime and it is deeper and more important than most seinen/jousei manga out there.

Oh, sure, it's shonen, but not of the "fighting" genre I mentioned. It's more the "Space and Giant Robots" style that was popular in the US in the 80s... Robotech, Voltron, G-Force. We got 'em butchered, but we got 'em.

Well, the thing is that even if you consider 'too anime' to mean 'too much like fighting shounen anime that focuses on supernatural powers', it still doesn't apply any more for ToB then it applies to the Monk, to the Duskblade, to the Warlock or to the Ranger. I mean, have you seen the names on those Ranger spells? :smallamused:

Actually, I would argue that it does, because of many of the mechanics of ToB. The monk would be the exception, there... but that goes back to it being based, at least in part, on the American TV show "Kung Fu" and the martial arts movies of the 70s. There's a reason why they're usually somewhat shoehorned into the older settings... they're a mechanical creation that doesn't really fit with most of the aesthetics of most game worlds, which are a somewhat romanticized European Middle Ages, itself growing out of the traditional Sword-and-Sorcery novels of the pulps (q.v. Howard's Conan, Leiber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser, and Burrough's John Carter), and the more epic fantasy (Tolkien, Dunsany), all of which was medieval European in character.

Rangers started off as almost direct lifts from Tolkien (though I like to think Lloyd Alexander's Gwydion, from the Prydain Chronicles, also played a role), down to the ability to use scrying devices ("things that are kinda like Palintirs.") 1st edition Rangers had both Druid and Magic-User spells in the service of that emulation. Spell names may have later become more fanciful than "Entangle" and "Animal Friendship", but that's the roots of the class... and, if you want to get older, you can arguably reach back to Egil Skallagrimmson.

Warlocks come from a long line of "people who traded their souls for power"... Felix Faust would be a good example, though he was a bit less flashy. Heck, I think it would be just as accurate to point to the modern interpretations of Sinestro.

I'm not as familiar with Duskblades, but a class created during that same period of shonen anime popularity hardly disproves it; arguably, the Duskblade is an alternate version of the spellcasting sword-sage, given their publication dates (three months apart) and design teams. They just didn't call out their influences as specifically in the PH2.

Please note that I'm not saying anime influence is "bad" or "wrong". It's certainly infiltrated the culture (especially geek culture) enough to be hard to avoid being influenced by it. And, of course, the question can eventually be a bit house of mirrors... D&D influenced Lodoss War which influenced D&D, while Westerns influenced both D&D and Japanese Samurai films, which in turn influenced anime, usw. My main objection comes down to the argument "saying something is too anime is like saying something is too book"... it focuses on the broader definition of anime as a medium, and misses that it is, indeed, frequently taken to refer to a genre, as well.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-29, 12:58 AM

It depends on where you are, Thiago. In my library, the Inu Yasha manga still sees frequent check-out, and we can't keep Dragonball Z, Pokemon, or Yu-gi-oh on the shelves. Inu yasha was getting some of its major, mainstream, American exposure about a decade ago (and only premiered as an anime in 2000). Cardcaptors (the American edit of CCS) was on the air in 2000 and 2001, close enough that I think it falls under "a decade or so."
Well, what's big on manga is not always what's big on anime. The AirGear manga is a big hit in Brazil, but no one seems to know anything about the anime. But I see your point, specially when it comes to Cardcaptors. I've been wanting to watch it out of curiosity.

Note I am making a distinction between "anime/manga that is known to the anime/manga fan community" and "anime/manga as it is known to the public at large.
Yeah, that was what I was thinking about.

Oh, sure, it's shonen, but not of the "fighting" genre I mentioned. It's more the "Space and Giant Robots" style that was popular in the US in the 80s... Robotech, Voltron, G-Force. We got 'em butchered, but we got 'em.
Man, I can't believe the amount of edits on those things. It reminds me of some version of Yu Yu Hakusho (I think it's indonesian) where Genkai is a guy.

Actually, I would argue that it does, because of many of the mechanics of ToB. The monk would be the exception, there... but that goes back to it being based, at least in part, on the American TV show "Kung Fu" and the martial arts movies of the 70s. There's a reason why they're usually somewhat shoehorned into the older settings... they're a mechanical creation that doesn't really fit with most of the aesthetics of most game worlds, which are a somewhat romanticized European Middle Ages, itself growing out of the traditional Sword-and-Sorcery novels of the pulps (q.v. Howard's Conan, Leiber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser, and Burrough's John Carter), and the more epic fantasy (Tolkien, Dunsany), all of which was medieval European in character.
What does ToB adds that seems like anime or anime aesthetics? Teleporting through Shadow Hand? Both Duskblade and Warlock have this, and Warlock can do this at will. Blasts of mystical energy? Desert Wind has some, while the Duskblade also does and well, so does the Warlock. Burning swords? Desert Wind gets some, and the Ranger has a spell called Blades of Fire.
You mean the idea of maneuvers itself does not fit those settings? I disagree, since Conan has been known to fight looking for opening, disarming his foes, tripping them and all that. You can't do that with Fighter - it's a one-trick-pony. The class you turn to when you want to fight like Conan is Warblade. About epic fantasy, how much does the Ranger resemble Aragorn and Legolas, with animal companions and spells that neither does have? How can a D&D Wizard be similar to Gandalf, while the White rarely ever casts spells (and fights with a sword)? Heck, plenty of what Elric does fits right there with most fighting shoune anime.

Rangers started off as almost direct lifts from Tolkien (though I like to think Lloyd Alexander's Gwydion, from the Prydain Chronicles, also played a role), down to the ability to use scrying devices ("things that are kinda like Palintirs.") 1st edition Rangers had both Druid and Magic-User spells in the service of that emulation. Spell names may have later become more fanciful than "Entangle" and "Animal Friendship", but that's the roots of the class... and, if you want to get older, you can arguably reach back to Egil Skallagrimmson.
But we're talking about 3rd edition here, right? And here Rangers get Bladestorm. They get Blades of Fire. In fact, they would fit a lot better in most fighting anime than a Warblade would.

Warlocks come from a long line of "people who traded their souls for power"... Felix Faust would be a good example, though he was a bit less flashy. Heck, I think it would be just as accurate to point to the modern interpretations of Sinestro.
I'm very familiar with Warlocks, and I can't find much in common between Felix and the class. Warlock magic is not subtle at all.

I'm not as familiar with Duskblades, but a class created during that same period of shonen anime popularity hardly disproves it; arguably, the Duskblade is an alternate version of the spellcasting sword-sage, given their publication dates (three months apart) and design teams. They just didn't call out their influences as specifically in the PH2.
Could very well be.

Please note that I'm not saying anime influence is "bad" or "wrong". It's certainly infiltrated the culture (especially geek culture) enough to be hard to avoid being influenced by it. And, of course, the question can eventually be a bit house of mirrors... D&D influenced Lodoss War which influenced D&D, while Westerns influenced both D&D and Japanese Samurai films, which in turn influenced anime, usw. My main objection comes down to the argument "saying something is too anime is like saying something is too book"... it focuses on the broader definition of anime as a medium, and misses that it is, indeed, frequently taken to refer to a genre, as well.
My point is that it is taken incorrectly as a genre. Like someone else pointed out, many people think of 'novel' when you say 'book' as well. Like I mentioned before, as well, they do so out of ignorance.

killianh

2012-08-29, 01:05 AM

i love how this stopped being a thread about his DM issues and about north american reception of anime :smallamused:

LibraryOgre

2012-08-29, 02:46 AM

Arrrgh... I should be asleep.

Well, what's big on manga is not always what's big on anime. The AirGear manga is a big hit in Brazil, but no one seems to know anything about the anime. But I see your point, specially when it comes to Cardcaptors. I've been wanting to watch it out of curiosity.

Card Captor Sakura is very sweet. Cardcaptors did a LOT of editing to remove "objectionable" elements.

What does ToB adds that seems like anime or anime aesthetics? Teleporting through Shadow Hand? Both Duskblade and Warlock have this, and Warlock can do this at will. Blasts of mystical energy? Desert Wind has some, while the Duskblade also does and well, so does the Warlock. Burning swords? Desert Wind gets some, and the Ranger has a spell called Blades of Fire.

Leaving aside the Shadow Hand and Desert Wind schools (and the more mystical of the Devoted Spirit), how about Diamond Mind's ability to gain Blindsense (Hearing the Air)? Or do Wisdom damage with a hit (Mind Strike)? Or throw a person 60' with Setting Sun's "Ballista Throw"? Stone Dragon has a maneuver that will let you use any Stone Dragon weapon (including bare hands) to do +12d6 damage to a target, automatically ignoring hardness and DR. Tiger Claw not only lets you turn an animal-keen sense of smell on and off with a stance, but it will also allow you to jump an average of 20' from a standing start... and that assumes no ranks or strength bonus.

And that's IGNORING the other schools, which do exist, that let you teleport, disappear into shadows, heal by hitting people, and set your weapons on fire with a thought. Heck, I read it close enough to reading and watching Ruoroni Kenshin that I was easily ascribing styles to people (Kenshin is Diamond Mind; Sanosuke is Stone Dragon, Shishio is Desert Wind).

But we're talking about 3rd edition here, right? And here Rangers get Bladestorm. They get Blades of Fire. In fact, they would fit a lot better in most fighting anime than a Warblade would.

Only if you're going to assume that 3.5 emerged full grown from the heads of the designers... but it did not. The ranger that came out of 3.5 was an accumulation of traits... the 1e ranger was very much Aragorn. The 2e ranger was very much Drizzt, especially as 2e progressed. The ranger comes very much out of Aragorn, and things like Bladestorm and Blades of Fire were only added after they'd moved further away from the Tolkien source and into other inspirations... including, by the time 3.5 was released, a healthy anime fandom in the US. Heck, the PH ranger doesn't have any spells dealing with weapons. No magic weapon.

I'm very familiar with Warlocks, and I can't find much in common between Felix and the class. Warlock magic is not subtle at all.

It was in reference to the "selling the soul for power" aspect; that's partially why I also referenced Sinestro, for the more overt magics.

My point is that it is taken incorrectly as a genre. Like someone else pointed out, many people think of 'novel' when you say 'book' as well. Like I mentioned before, as well, they do so out of ignorance.

Of course it is; but dismissing someone's argument because they stated something ignorantly-but-not-incorrectly weakens the appearance of your own argument. Countering that it's "not (shonen) anime because those features are present in Western sources" refutes their point, whereas "saying something is 'too anime' is like saying something is 'too book'" misdirects from their point, rather than answering it.

And none of this gets you around page six saying that they explicitly drew from "Japanese anime" for inspiration.

Augmental

2012-08-29, 06:03 AM

Agreed completely. If someone tells you that "your Fighter is too weak for our group, roll something else" disregarding completely everything else about your fighter or if you are even having fun with your character... quit that game and try to play with your friends, you know, people that care about what you think.

Yes, because if one player is much weaker than the others and he's making the game less fun for the other players and the DM, it's unreasonable for the other players to ask him to play something more powerful.

pffh

2012-08-29, 06:08 AM

Agreed completely. If someone tells you that "your Fighter is too weak for our group, roll something else" disregarding completely everything else about your fighter or if you are even having fun with your character... quit that game and try to play with your friends, you know, people that care about what you think.

Or you know it could be making the game not fun for the DM. Have you ever tried balancing an encounter for a party where one player is either wildly more or less powerful then the rest? It's hell.

Killer Angel

2012-08-29, 06:50 AM

If d&d wasn't a game the yes you are correct but it is and you can't just "fire" players.

If a player is a problem player and ruins the game and the fun for all the others, yes, you can (and probably should) "fire" it.
Obviously, the lack of optimization, is not a valid reason.

Morithias

2012-08-29, 07:08 AM

Or you know it could be making the game not fun for the DM. Have you ever tried balancing an encounter for a party where one player is either wildly more or less powerful then the rest? It's hell.

I'd almost say having a player who is wildly less powerful is more hell than a single player who is more powerful. It's easier to talk one person into lowering their power level than 3.

Although seriously, if a player is playing their fighter and enjoying it, there are solutions to this, ranging from magical items speciality made to aid them, to simply going "you touch the holy alter and are imbued with this two bonus feats (making the feats, feats that casters and such would have no use for).

There are ways around this.

Earthwalker

2012-08-29, 07:08 AM

I always like how discussion go on these boards.

Saying "A fighter is too weak for this group, re-roll and play something else" is setting an exptation of power level for a game.

I would guess a DM saying No TOB as its over powered, is also setting a power level the DM is comfortable with. Clearly quiet low. All TOB classes come in at Tier 3 (I believe).

Of course a counter argument to this is, but if you allow wizards and clerics they are teir one. Surly that causes a power level imbalance. If he players have no real interest in optimizing and just healing with clerics and blasting with wizards, its still not a problem as it is quiet possible to play a wizard and be low power.

My advice to the OP is to try not to worry about it.

GenghisDon

2012-08-29, 08:54 AM

In an online game I participate in there's been a few issues with the DM. I get along with the guy great but when it comes to picking out mechanics of the game there's usually some clashing here and there.

I suggest you avoid clashing & just play/have some fun then.

In this case several issues came up all at once. I'm wondering how to change his mind without just giving him a link to a page from somewhere on this forum; primarily because he hates guys like us that read/use these forums and optimizers and everything else even remotely related. So he'd automatically assume anything said here was wrong or written from the perspective of someone that just wants the strongest character available.

Rationaly (although passonately is fine) explaining your case outside of game time is the best way to go. He'd be mistaken that everything is wrong, but mostly correct about the strongest character part.

That said I can relay the message just fine without issue...

Now, the first issue that came up was ToB. To which he gave several reasons for not allowing it in his game. First of all he just thinks it's stupid. Secondly it has the wrong "feeling" and doesn't belong in D&D (too animeish). Third and finally he thinks it's over powered. The third and final reason is the primary one he cites however if someone ever asks to utilize the book and that is where I have the issue since he obviously didn't ban anything more powerful than ToB.

It's his game. Including or not including classes, races, feats, ect, he doesn't want in his campaign is his perogative. He's certainly entitled to opinions (as are you, of course).

He also thinks Psionics are over powered. They aren't outright banned but he's naturally wary about ANY psionics and even some simple builds (Tashalatora for example) are banned as well.

see above. Psionics often do have a nova issue, although that's not exactly an "over powered" issue. You could try pointing out distinctions or subtle differences, rather than using other methods.

DM also believes Wiz/Sorc are no big deal regardless of optimization because of "lulzantimagic". And to top this last one off he also thinks Monks are overpowered and are the "do anything" class.

odd, but so what?

What's a good way to correct him on some of these? What are some good points to bring up?

There is nothing like experience. Explain to him that you believe wizards are far more powerful than say, warblades. Then play a wizard & try your best to show him how dominant they can be.

Presumably, if he thinks monks kick everyone's ass, he'll use them vs you. Beat them up, preferably in humiliating fashion to make your point come across.

All that said, I'd actually recomend NOT optimizing et all & just try to focus on the game rather than your character sheet stuff so much. The only valid reasons I can see for optimizing are if you are having too easy or too hard a time in combat in a given DM's game.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-29, 09:19 AM

Yes, because if one player is much weaker than the others and he's making the game less fun for the other players and the DM, it's unreasonable for the other players to ask him to play something more powerful.

It's unreasonable to tell him to drop his character, of course it is.
If this guy is already playing a Fighter, it's because before the campaign started no one told him anything about the campaign's power level. No one bothered to tell him anything resembling "it's a high power game and a Fighter is not going to cut it, why don't you experiment with a Warblade instead?". Not everyone is an optimizer and not everyone should be. There are plenty of people with a more casual approach to D&D - they just want to meet their friends, play a game with them, tell an interesting story and that's it. In fact, dealing with those players is easier for any DM - I'd advice reading the DMG2 (a book that seems to be reviled in the playground for 'not having enough powerful crunch') for learning how to appeal to your audience as a whole, not trying to force someone to drop his character because the other guys want it.
And seriously, how can the game be less fun for your Wizard if there is a guy that likes to swing a sword around? His reliance on rolling attack rolls somehow makes your reality bending experience less fun? :smallconfused: His not wanting to comb through four books to grab 8 feats with clashing fluff and worship the lion totem out of the freaking blue somehow makes you casting Wings of Flurry and ending the encounter by yourself less fun?!
Please, explain how this happens.

Boci

2012-08-29, 10:09 AM

It's unreasonable to tell him to drop his character, of course it is.
If this guy is already playing a Wizard, it's because before the campaign started no one told him anything about the campaign's power level. No one bothered to tell him anything resembling "it's a low power game and a wizard is not going to cut it, why don't you experiment with a Beguiler instead?".

Its not quite the same, but I am interested in your opinion of this spin of the situation.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-29, 10:42 AM

Its not quite the same, but I am interested in your opinion of this spin of the situation.

It's bad in the same way. They should have told him a Wizard is too much for the campaign. The only difference here is if the Wizard is indeed solving everything by himself - then it means no one else gets to actually play the game. Even then it is unreasonable to tell this guy to "drop this character and play X instead" as opposed to actually talking to him about the problem and seeing what he wants to do about his character.

I've actually had a similar problem recently - one of my players was running a character that was simply too good at all skills, so if something was a challenge to him and was impossible to everyone else, locking everyone into not contributing or making non-combat encounters a cakewalk. I talked to him, explained the problem and he brought the solution himself - he still wanted to be a skillmaster, but he would focus on alternate uses for skills instead of simply very high modifiers. The end result is that his character became actually more powerful, but now I don't have to worry about no one being able to use skills because he is so much better than them.

D&D is a social game. Whenever you ignore someone's opinion when it comes to their input in the game, you're being at the very least rude.

Augmental

2012-08-29, 01:44 PM

And seriously, how can the game be less fun for your Wizard if there is a guy that likes to swing a sword around? His reliance on rolling attack rolls somehow makes your reality bending experience less fun? :smallconfused: His not wanting to comb through four books to grab 8 feats with clashing fluff and worship the lion totem out of the freaking blue somehow makes you casting Wings of Flurry and ending the encounter by yourself less fun?!

If the players bother to revive his character, that's 5000 gold pieces down the drain.

Also, insulting high-op play isn't going to get anyone to listen to your argument. :smallannoyed:

eggs

2012-08-29, 02:49 PM

Letting another player try and fail to play a character is different than trying to force that player to stop playing the character he wants because it doesn't live up to your standards of optimization. Especially once the character's already been made. Especially once play's started. Especially if you aren't the DM.

Playing an unusually weak character does not present the same problems as playing an unusually strong character - at very worst, it means the DM designs encounters as if there are 3 party members instead of 4.

I don't have problems seeing where the "everyone should try to hit the same optimization level" argument is coming from, even if I don't necessarily agree. But saying players should bully one another in-game for having different goals or skill levels? That's unreasonable.

Logic

2012-08-29, 05:20 PM

If the players bother to revive his character, that's 5000 gold pieces down the drain.

Also, insulting high-op play isn't going to get anyone to listen to your argument. :smallannoyed:

Perhaps this was just me, but I didn't read his statement as an insult of high optimization.

Closer to on topic:
I personally try to limit* spell-caster optimization, and spell-caster powers, because I know the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard can sleep walk many encounters. And ramping up the difficulty for them only makes it that much harder for the non-casters of the group. I appreciate what Tome of Battle was trying to do, but I did not like its fluff, I didn't like its mechanics, and I didn't like the art.**

I don't outright ban the book (anymore) but I do encourage a player to make something not from the book when possible.

*In this case, limit does not mean eliminate.
**I know, shallow me.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-29, 05:25 PM

If the players bother to revive his character, that's 5000 gold pieces down the drain.
And so what? Don't revive him then. Allow the guy to break verossimilitude playing his identical half-brother or whatever. I've seen this advised plenty of times, with people even saying 'kill your character and then roll a wizard'. Enlighten me, why is it that reviving a character suddenly becomes an option when it comes to saying a low op is a drain on party resources but it's not an option in other discussions? Is there a rule somewhere that says only high op groups are allowed to get new characters when their current character dies?

Also, insulting high-op play isn't going to get anyone to listen to your argument. :smallannoyed:
I'm not insulting high-op play. I never even mentioned high-op play. Please avoid putting words in my mouth. I run a handbook on these forums and I always give plenty of optimization advice. What I'm saying here is simply that there is nothing wrong with playing low op and in fact you can have a party with a single low op character in it without forcing someone to read through dozens of books they don't want to read - heck, that's the whole point of the God Wizard. Not everyone has the time, energy or interest for doing that. Not everyone likes to optimize and they shouldn't be forced to do that. All I said is that a friend would allow you to do keep doing what you enjoy. If you don't play with your friends whatever, dismiss my advice. I'm talking about those that do, and those that consider the social and storytelling aspects of the game more important than crunching numbers.
Everytime you says= that DMs or players 'suck' because they are not optimizer, you're doing a disservice to the optimizing community, in which I'm included. You make it seem like everyone cares only about adding together big numbers and rolling a bunch of dice, which doesn't even make sense. D&D is a bigger game than character building, tactical combat, roleplaying, elaborate settings, puzzles and skill challenges - it's the sum of all that.
We can't complain about people treating optimizers like munchkin douchebags if we act like munchkin douchebags.

Long story short: don't demean non-optimizers.

TuggyNE

2012-08-29, 05:32 PM

Playing an unusually weak character does not present the same problems as playing an unusually strong character - at very worst, it means the DM designs encounters as if there are 3 party members instead of 4.

This is true, as long as the weakness is primarily offensively. However, it doesn't hold very well if the character instead lacks the defenses of their comrades, because collateral damage from spells and semi-randomly-aimed attacks is likely to have disproportionately bad effects on them — never mind what happens if a recurring villain finds out about the party's weak link. In that case, the "very worst" that's likely to happen is the weakest character will get killed so many times they become a serious drain on party resources, or (especially at high levels) simply die in such a way that they cannot be raised.

As it happens, defense and utility are the two primary areas T5 classes generally have trouble with (Monks being an exception), so this is not an unlikely scenario.

Gamer Girl

2012-08-29, 06:24 PM

I would guess a DM saying No TOB as its over powered, is also setting a power level the DM is comfortable with. Clearly quiet low. All TOB classes come in at Tier 3 (I believe).

I would not say the ToB is not so much over powered as it's just wrong. It's wrong the way you can alter reality with the silly maneuvers and break all the game rules. At least magic follows the rules and has saves and such, but maneuvers are special and 'just happen' and that just makes no sense to me...

GreenSerpent

2012-08-29, 06:34 PM

I would not say the ToB is not so much over powered as it's just wrong. It's wrong the way you can alter reality with the silly maneuvers and break all the game rules. At least magic follows the rules and has saves and such, but maneuvers are special and 'just happen' and that just makes no sense to me...

Oh, so all of the "rules" in the ToB governing the use of maneveurs don't exist and don't apply? Very selective choosing of your words there.

Also, give an example of the "altering reality" with maneveurs that "breaks all the game rules".

RFLS

2012-08-29, 06:58 PM

Oh, so all of the "rules" in the ToB governing the use of maneveurs don't exist and don't apply? Very selective choosing of your words there.

Also, give an example of the "altering reality" with maneveurs that "breaks all the game rules".
DOOD, that one ability that lets you throw fire from your sword is teh uberz! Way OP!

In a non-sarcastic manner, what ToB does is allow melee characters access to abilities that are clearly supernatural or at least super-human in nature, while keeping the feel of a pure melee fighter. The warblade doesn't FEEL like a duskblade, he feels like a fighter with better tricks and some brains.

If your objection is that someone's altering reality in D&D, then...seriously? I don't think we're playing the same game.

EDIT: If I remember correctly, many manuevers DO have saves. Just, you know. Throwing that out there.

rweird

2012-08-29, 07:07 PM

Oh, so all of the "rules" in the ToB governing the use of maneuvers don't exist and don't apply? Very selective choosing of your words there.

Also, give an example of the "altering reality" with maneuvers that "breaks all the game rules".

Iron Heart Surge. :smallcool: A very non limited reading of Iron Heart Surge, maybe the d2 crusader as well (though it requires magic so it follows its own laws).

Seriously, most of the abilities seem rather non-magical, though a few Ex should be SU (a few teleport shadow hand ones are Ex I think). The Ex ones seem Ex with those exceptions. In D&D, breaking down a 15 ft. thick section metropolis wall in less than a minute with a sword at 17th can be Ex, or just feats and natural so being able to do +100 damage with a single strike doesn't seem all that unbelievable, or using your focus instead of physical might for an attack.

GreenSerpent

2012-08-29, 07:15 PM

What I meant was (as I love ToB myself) fighters deserve to be superhuman. Mages get to shoot burning balls of fire from their hands, clerics bring back the dead, druids turn into bears riding bears summoning more bears (I mean, seriously, they can even get the ability to summon a cavalry of dire bears).

Fighters should be superhuman. ToB does that. I mean, you can very easily explain some of the features as happening due to the skill of the user (Strength Draining Strike merely being a wound that targets the arm muscles, Mountain Hammer being a particularly forceful strike aimed at the weak point of an object)

As for the OP, I'd suggest DMing a oneshot with him as a martial adept.

RFLS

2012-08-29, 07:16 PM

Iron Heart Surge. :smallcool: A very non limited reading of Iron Heart Surge, maybe the d2 crusader as well (though it requires magic so it follows its own laws).

You forgot White Raven Tactics, but yeah, ToB is not too broken by D&D standards. If you want to talk broken (person who mentioned magic, of all things, as not broken), I refer you to uhm...what were they called..Gate, Wish, Planar Binding, Natural Spell, ah, who am I kidding. Cleric, Wizard, Druid. Hands down the most broken classes in the game, and it took a while for equally broken classes to come along (Artificer and Archivist and maybe one or two others). ToB is so far from broken it's not funny, if you take into account those rules called "Core."

Of course, (this is not a dig at you) based on your other posts, you play a...very low power game. Wizards with 11 Int, etc. Compared to that, I do see how you come to the opinion that ToB is broken. Just remember that, when you make an on-the-face-of-it-silly-claim, that the caveat "in very low-op games" makes a world of difference.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-29, 08:06 PM

I would not say the ToB is not so much over powered as it's just wrong. It's wrong the way you can alter reality with the silly maneuvers and break all the game rules. At least magic follows the rules and has saves and such, but maneuvers are special and 'just happen' and that just makes no sense to me...

Man,you should really read ToB before criticizing it. Maneuvers have saves as well. In fact, there is no maneuver with no attack roll and no save (aka No Save Just Suck). Spells, on the other hand...

RFLS

2012-08-29, 08:17 PM

Man,you should really read ToB before criticizing it. Maneuvers have saves as well. In fact, there is no maneuver with no attack roll and no save (aka No Save Just Suck). Spells, on the other hand...

I'd very much like to hear her arguments on this matter, actually. She's demonstrated some interesting opinions on these boards, but I don't think I've ever seen follow-up to them. I'm curious, to be honest.

(The above is serious. I swear I'm not making fun. I really want to know what her (logical) arguments are, not just hear the claims. Premise->Statements->Conclusion, not just "because.")

Gamer Girl

2012-08-29, 08:45 PM

I'd very much like to hear her arguments on this matter, actually. She's demonstrated some interesting opinions on these boards, but I don't think I've ever seen follow-up to them. I'm curious, to be honest.

(The above is serious. I swear I'm not making fun. I really want to know what her (logical) arguments are, not just hear the claims. Premise->Statements->Conclusion, not just "because.")

Iron Heart Surge is sure one. A 3rd level ability that automatically ends a spell...compare that to Dispel Magic. A 6th level wizard can't end a 9th level spell cast by an arch mage, but a 6th level warblade can...

How about the Mighty Throw ones where you just make a trip action and then throw a foe dozens of feet.

How about Swarming Assault for a good Alter Reality one. You hit a foe...and somehow you grant an ally an attack. note that it's nothing like magic, as if magic gave you a 'morale attack field' you could block or effect it in lots of ways. But Swarming Assault just alters time and space beyond the reach of the rules.

GenghisDon

2012-08-29, 08:53 PM

If the players bother to revive his character, that's 5000 gold pieces down the drain.

Also, insulting high-op play isn't going to get anyone to listen to your argument. :smallannoyed:

It gets me to listen. and agree.

And so what? Don't revive him then. Allow the guy to break verossimilitude playing his identical half-brother or whatever. I've seen this advised plenty of times, with people even saying 'kill your character and then roll a wizard'. Enlighten me, why is it that reviving a character suddenly becomes an option when it comes to saying a low op is a drain on party resources but it's not an option in other discussions? Is there a rule somewhere that says only high op groups are allowed to get new characters when their current character dies?

I'm not insulting high-op play. I never even mentioned high-op play. Please avoid putting words in my mouth. I run a handbook on these forums and I always give plenty of optimization advice. What I'm saying here is simply that there is nothing wrong with playing low op and in fact you can have a party with a single low op character in it without forcing someone to read through dozens of books they don't want to read - heck, that's the whole point of the God Wizard. Not everyone has the time, energy or interest for doing that. Not everyone likes to optimize and they shouldn't be forced to do that. All I said is that a friend would allow you to do keep doing what you enjoy. If you don't play with your friends whatever, dismiss my advice. I'm talking about those that do, and those that consider the social and storytelling aspects of the game more important than crunching numbers.
Everytime you says= that DMs or players 'suck' because they are not optimizer, you're doing a disservice to the optimizing community, in which I'm included. You make it seem like everyone cares only about adding together big numbers and rolling a bunch of dice, which doesn't even make sense. D&D is a bigger game than character building, tactical combat, roleplaying, elaborate settings, puzzles and skill challenges - it's the sum of all that.
We can't complain about people treating optimizers like munchkin douchebags if we act like munchkin douchebags.

Long story short: don't demean non-optimizers.

They can't help it. I wouldn't care, but they are SO thin skinned when someone does it to them, the hypocracy becomes too rank to bear.

If one wants turnabout, the players of the wizards or the power optimized ought be told to kill or retire THEIR characters instead, or at least do so half the time, to be fair.

Iron Heart Surge is sure one. A 3rd level ability that automatically ends a spell...compare that to Dispel Magic. A 6th level wizard can't end a 9th level spell cast by an arch mage, but a 6th level warblade can...

you can't see how a warrior learns to negate magic like that? pish!:smallbiggrin:

It's certainly useful (broken so, as you say), but one can & should rule 0 it out of existance.

How about the Mighty Throw ones where you just make a trip action and then throw a foe dozens of feet.

This one, as you describe it, doesn't sound so bad, really. Does it also do stupid amounts of damage or something?

How about Swarming Assault for a good Alter Reality one. You hit a foe...and somehow you grant an ally an attack. note that it's nothing like magic, as if magic gave you a 'morale attack field' you could block or effect it in lots of ways. But Swarming Assault just alters time and space beyond the reach of the rules.

Not the 4e rules, it fits right in there. This one actually doesn't bug me too much either. It probably needs the caveats 4e installed, " a basic attack", and not a super sayin charged uber power attacking deep impact style blow, but that's what happens while one is testing out concepts for a new edition.

SIDE NOTE: I rather enjoyed the anime discussion earlier.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-29, 09:10 PM

Iron Heart Surge is sure one. A 3rd level ability that automatically ends a spell...compare that to Dispel Magic. A 6th level wizard can't end a 9th level spell cast by an arch mage, but a 6th level warblade can...
Any Fighter can do that. He just needs to take Pierce Magical Protection or Pierce Magical Concealment. They are from Complete Warrior, even - one of the first books for 3.5.
Truenamers also get to auto-dispel.
In fact, of all choices, Iron Heart Surge (when it is used RAI, which is pretty obvious to infer) is the least versatile between these options.

How about the Mighty Throw ones where you just make a trip action and then throw a foe dozens of feet.
How about Awesome Blow, from the Monster Manual, or Knockback, from Races of Stone... which do the same thing, only better?

How about Swarming Assault for a good Alter Reality one. You hit a foe...and somehow you grant an ally an attack. note that it's nothing like magic, as if magic gave you a 'morale attack field' you could block or effect it in lots of ways. But Swarming Assault just alters time and space beyond the reach of the rules.
It creates an opening and your ally attacks. What's the problem? :smallconfused:
The Marshall can grant a move action for all allies, as an extraordinary ability. Do you think the Marshall is also 'bending time and space'?

GenghisDon

2012-08-29, 09:22 PM

Any Fighter can do that. He just needs to take Pierce Magical Protection or Pierce Magical Concealment. They are from Complete Warrior, even - one of the first books for 3.5.
Truenamers also get to auto-dispel.
In fact, of all choices, Iron Heart Surge (when it is used RAI, which is pretty obvious to infer) is the least versatile between these options.

complete arcane actually, and kinda nonsensical feats really.

what a silly name for the book, BTW. "completely arcane", or "the complete arcanist" or even "complete arcana" would have been better.

before marshals started bending space-time (it takes their action to give others a move...shows the power difference starkly), there were rogues with opportunist, doing the same thing in reverse. Right from the PH, at the start of d20

RFLS

2012-08-29, 10:09 PM

Iron Heart Surge is sure one. A 3rd level ability that automatically ends a spell...compare that to Dispel Magic. A 6th level wizard can't end a 9th level spell cast by an arch mage, but a 6th level warblade can...

How about the Mighty Throw ones where you just make a trip action and then throw a foe dozens of feet.

How about Swarming Assault for a good Alter Reality one. You hit a foe...and somehow you grant an ally an attack. note that it's nothing like magic, as if magic gave you a 'morale attack field' you could block or effect it in lots of ways. But Swarming Assault just alters time and space beyond the reach of the rules.

That's not an argument. That's a collection of statements. An argument would look something like this- "Tome of Battle is broken. Broken is defined as _____. Tome of Battle contains elements X, Y, and Z that are broken, as per the above definition. They are broken because A, B, and C. Therefore, Tome of Battle is broken."

For the above argument, you need to provide a good definition of "broken." A good definition would include a baseline for the term, as well as requirements to meet that baseline, and provide examples of which classes go above and below that baseline.

You then need to demonstrate how, exactly, the ToB classes and other material meet that definition, while remaining consistent in that definition.

EDIT: I would also, of course, suggest that your definition of broken for a source material include a clause concerning the amount of broken material in the source. Much, if not all, of the source material for 3.5 contains some amount of broken material, but, clearly, not all source material is considered "broken." (Source material refers to books, whereas just "material" refers to individual feats/classes/PrCs/etcetera)

Note that I am not refusing your premise, yet. I'm waiting for a logical argument as opposed to a set of statements.

GenghisDon

2012-08-29, 10:13 PM

I'd say the iron heart surge point was argued.

That's not a condemnation of the book, however.

If the OP/dilemma matters at all anymore, "First of all he just thinks it's stupid. Secondly it has the wrong "feeling" and doesn't belong in D&D (too animeish). Third and finally he thinks it's over powered." It doesn't sound like that DM is going to be swayed even IF one could convince him it's not over powered.

I know It wouldn't matter if something wasn't powerful, but if I hated it for other reasons, it ain't gonna be in my game.

RFLS

2012-08-29, 10:22 PM

I'd say the iron heart surge point was argued.

That's not a condemnation of the book, however.

Right, I totally agree. IHS is broken as hell and should be Rule 0-ed out of existence, or to only remove definite status effects, or SOMETHING. It definitely shouldn't be left as is. I'm asking for a coherent argument against the work as a whole.

Logic

2012-08-29, 10:35 PM

That's not an argument. That's a collection of statements. An argument would look something like this- "Tome of Battle is broken. Broken is defined as _____. Tome of Battle contains elements X, Y, and Z that are broken, as per the above definition. They are broken because A, B, and C. Therefore, Tome of Battle is broken."

For the above argument, you need to provide a good definition of "broken." A good definition would include a baseline for the term, as well as requirements to meet that baseline, and provide examples of which classes go above and below that baseline.

You then need to demonstrate how, exactly, the ToB classes and other material meet that definition, while remaining consistent in that definition.

EDIT: I would also, of course, suggest that your definition of broken for a source material include a clause concerning the amount of broken material in the source. Much, if not all, of the source material for 3.5 contains some amount of broken material, but, clearly, not all source material is considered "broken." (Source material refers to books, whereas just "material" refers to individual feats/classes/PrCs/etcetera)

Note that I am not refusing your premise, yet. I'm waiting for a logical argument as opposed to a set of statements.

I don't think having to define broken is a prerequisite for arguing in favor of an ability being broken. We all have some understanding of the term broken, and our definition is likely going to be loosely the same.

Defining why something is broken is a requirement for a logical argument, however.

RFLS

2012-08-29, 10:54 PM

I don't think having to define broken is a prerequisite for arguing in favor of an ability being broken. We all have some understanding of the term broken, and our definition is likely going to be loosely the same.

Defining why something is broken is a requirement for a logical argument, however.

Normally, I would agree that we all have roughly the same definition. However, I have seen Gamer call things broken that I would not, at any threshold of the word, consider to be broken. So, I'd like her definition.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-08-29, 10:54 PM

Iron Heart Surge is sure one. A 3rd level ability that automatically ends a spell...compare that to Dispel Magic. A 6th level wizard can't end a 9th level spell cast by an arch mage, but a 6th level warblade can...This one I'll give you with a nitpick: there's a strong logical argument that this only "ends" targeted spells. For area spells it only negates the effect for the warblade.

How about the Mighty Throw ones where you just make a trip action and then throw a foe dozens of feet.Discounting ballista throw, most of those maneuvers guarantee no more than 10ft and require that you optimize trip to get significantly more distance than that, and some of them require that you move before you can initiate them. Regardless of how far you throw the enemy the damage is fixed at a couple of d6's. That's hardly broken. A dungeoncrasher fighter with knockback can do the same thing easier and doesn't expend the ability until he has a chance to refresh it.

How about Swarming Assault for a good Alter Reality one. You hit a foe...and somehow you grant an ally an attack. note that it's nothing like magic, as if magic gave you a 'morale attack field' you could block or effect it in lots of ways. But Swarming Assault just alters time and space beyond the reach of the rules.

It grants a single attack. It doesn't give a standard action you must use to attack, and certainly not a full-attack or a charge, just a single piddly little attack.

Seriously, pick a school, other than desert wind, and I can build a character that can do something pretty similar and of a power level roughly equal to the optimization floor for a warblade/swordsage focused on that school, without casting a single spell.

RFLS

2012-08-29, 11:05 PM

Seriously, pick a school, other than desert wind, and I can build a character that can do something pretty similar and of a power level roughly equal to the optimization floor for a warblade/swordsage focused on that school, without casting a single spell.

Hold your horses, dude. Let's not turn this into a "is/is not" thread. I'd really like to hear an argument, not a loud disagreement. We're all aware it's possible to do anything in D&D.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-08-29, 11:21 PM

Hold your horses, dude. Let's not turn this into a "is/is not" thread. I'd really like to hear an argument, not a loud disagreement. We're all aware it's possible to do anything in D&D.

I'm not angry. I'm just saying that there's nothing in ToB that can't be done without it, and that most of it can be done without spellcasting to-boot.

I say this with the conviction to back it up with sample characters if anyone wants to call me on it.

Don't misunderstand, I think ToB is a great addition to the system, it allows martial types to do fancy things with a lot less optimization, and that is IMO a good thing. I just think it's a little silly to say that it's broken, in the sense of overpowered, just because it's easier.

If a DM is unwilling to allow it because he doesn't like the "feel" of the mechanics or because he won't/can't ignore the meta-plot, that I admit does have a somewhat wuxia feel to it, that's his prerogative entirely; but to ban it for being overpowered is an act born of ignorance.

RFLS

2012-08-29, 11:25 PM

Boci

2012-08-30, 12:23 AM

It's certainly useful (broken so, as you say), but one can & should rule 0 it out of existance.

No, it can and should be given logical limitations. There are plenty of fixes online, all with a similar theme: end conditions, not the spells that cause them.

I would not say the ToB is not so much over powered as it's just wrong. It's wrong the way you can alter reality with the silly maneuvers and break all the game rules. At least magic follows the rules and has saves and such, but maneuvers are special and 'just happen' and that just makes no sense to me...

Maneuvers require an attack roll. Do you want me to list how many ways that can go wrong?

Also, D&D is about being a superhuman after a certain level of play, even for mundane classes. Have you seen the post showing what (non-minmaxed) characters can do at 8th level with their skills?

Iron Heart Surge is sure one. A 3rd level ability that automatically ends a spell...compare that to Dispel Magic. A 6th level wizard can't end a 9th level spell cast by an arch mage, but a 6th level warblade can...

Congratulations, the Godwin's Law of ToB discussions and it didn't even take that many posts.

Yes it badly written, but its widely considered, by people who like, are indifferent and dislike the book, to be badly written, so why bring it up?

How about the Mighty Throw ones where you just make a trip action and then throw a foe dozens of feet.

There is one I can understand (I think its ballista throw). On the other hand, its a high level maneuvers. By that point characters have a good chance of surviving falls from terminal velocity and skills are even more inhuman.

How about Swarming Assault for a good Alter Reality one. You hit a foe...and somehow you grant an ally an attack. note that it's nothing like magic, as if magic gave you a 'morale attack field' you could block or effect it in lots of ways. But Swarming Assault just alters time and space beyond the reach of the rules.

Only because you choose to see that way. What about the rules about attacks of opportunity? "One round your character can only make 1 attack, but the next round they can make 4. CR just alters space time!"

Ultimately, (this should go without saying, but on the internet it can be hard to tell) if it fells wrong to you (whether or not you can express why in an easily comprehensible fashion), then that is fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. To me it just feels like you aren't even trying to view the maneuvers in a plausible way. Which isn't my problem, but I will debate the matter if given the chance.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-08-30, 01:59 AM

Nono, I totally understand what you're saying, I know you're not angry. I'm saying that the fact that you can do the things ToB does without it doesn't mean ToB isn't broken, it means that either it AND what you do are broken, or neither are. I'm asking Gamer why she considers it broken, in logical argument form, as opposed to miscellaneous statements.

Actually, what I'm talking about doing would make fans of high-op games cringe at the relative "ineffectiveness" of all but the tiger-claw character.

I think I'm going to make a thread to put my money where my mouth is, in spite of the fact noone's calling me on it. Look for it tomorrow after I've had time to actually put them together.

Edit: went to the hospital last night, came home loopy. Project no ToB sublime warriors delayed by a day.

Augmental

2012-08-30, 02:21 AM

And so what? Don't revive him then. Allow the guy to break verossimilitude playing his identical half-brother or whatever. I've seen this advised plenty of times, with people even saying 'kill your character and then roll a wizard'. Enlighten me, why is it that reviving a character suddenly becomes an option when it comes to saying a low op is a drain on party resources but it's not an option in other discussions? Is there a rule somewhere that says only high op groups are allowed to get new characters when their current character dies?

If he's having fun, and he's not upset by his character dying over and over again, them sure, he can make a half-brother that's mechanically the exact same as his character or whatever. I don't think most people would be happy playing a character that's much weaker then the rest of the party, though.

I'm not insulting high-op play. I never even mentioned high-op play. Please avoid putting words in my mouth.

His reliance on rolling attack rolls somehow makes your reality bending experience less fun? His not wanting to comb through four books to grab 8 feats with clashing fluff and worship the lion totem out of the freaking blue somehow makes you casting Wings of Flurry and ending the encounter by yourself less fun?!

That seems a lot like an insult to me. :smallconfused:

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-30, 02:34 AM

If he's having fun, and he's not upset by his character dying over and over again, them sure, he can make a half-brother that's mechanically the exact same as his character or whatever. I don't think most people would be happy playing a character that's much weaker then the rest of the party, though.
And do you think most people want to become optimizers? Do you think most people have enough time to do that? Do you think most people care about D&D enough to do that? If you think so, I'm sorry to inform you that you're wrong. Most people want to roll some dice and not worry too much about it. Being stronger/weaker usually doesn't even come up.

That seems a lot like an insult to me. :smallconfused:
Logic disagrees with you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13809285&postcount=108)
That's not even high-op, for starters. All I meant is that learning to optimize is time consuming and plenty of times it is counterintuitive. This is not an insult, it's just a fact.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-08-30, 02:35 AM

Boci

2012-08-30, 02:45 AM

If we're talking about bending time and space with ToB, Ruby Knight Windicator + self WRT would be on the top of my list. That said, every single crunchy D&D book has at least a couple broken things in them, and even a commoner can be broken.

Which doesn't actually work by RAW, because the ability to gain extra swift actions is a SU ability, and SU abilities are standard actions unless otherwise noted.

LordBlades

2012-08-30, 03:38 AM

Which doesn't actually work by RAW, because the ability to gain extra swift actions is a SU ability, and SU abilities are standard actions unless otherwise noted.

And this is IMO the main issue with TOB. It's not that TOB is particularly overpowered (even the strongest stuff in TOB doesn't even begin to approach the main offenders in core like Gate, Planar Binding or Polymorph) is that some abilities are so poorly written that they don't work as written and/or make you wonder whether the writer was drunk or high at the time.

Augmental

2012-08-30, 03:56 AM

And do you think most people want to become optimizers? Do you think most people have enough time to do that? Do you think most people care about D&D enough to do that? If you think so, I'm sorry to inform you that you're wrong. Most people want to roll some dice and not worry too much about it. Being stronger/weaker usually doesn't even come up.

And again, if he's okay with being weaker, that's fine. But it will come up, because the DM has to balance his encounters to account for the weaker player.

Logic disagrees with you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13809285&postcount=108)
That's not even high-op, for starters. All I meant is that learning to optimize is time consuming and plenty of times it is counterintuitive. This is not an insult, it's just a fact.

Well, it certainly sounded like an insult. It would be like if I said this:

"So me playing a wizard and completely destroying every encounter before anyone else gets to do anything means everyone else has less fun because they can't contribute?!"

(No, I do not encourage destroying every encounter. Nor do I encourage playing a Super-Op tier 1 in a low-op group. This is just an example.)

GreenSerpent

2012-08-30, 04:54 AM

You seem to have forgotten Mass Snakes Swiftness (the spell). Oh look, I cast it and ALL my allies get an attack immediately!

Whereas Swarm Tactics can at least be explained as "you knock a hole in their defenses allowing an ally to get a quick strike in", there's no logical explanation other than "it's magic" for Mass Snakes Swiftness.

Leaving aside how poor your argument is there, I agree - you're just choosing to not view them in a plausible manner.

Killer Angel

2012-08-30, 06:09 AM

I'd say the iron heart surge point was argued.

That's not a condemnation of the book, however.

Yep. IHS is a single bad written ability.
Using IHS as the main argument against a whole book, won't hold much ground.

Logic disagrees with you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13809285&postcount=108)

Count me in for the ones that didn't read your post as an insult.

Well, it certainly sounded like an insult.

Given that some of us didn't see the insult (and apparently wasn't Thiago's intention at all to insult anyone's playstyle), can't you give the benefit of doubt?

shadow_archmagi

2012-08-30, 08:00 AM

Iron Heart Surge is sure one. A 3rd level ability that automatically ends a spell...compare that to Dispel Magic. A 6th level wizard can't end a 9th level spell cast by an arch mage, but a 6th level warblade can...

How about the Mighty Throw ones where you just make a trip action and then throw a foe dozens of feet.

How about Swarming Assault for a good Alter Reality one. You hit a foe...and somehow you grant an ally an attack. note that it's nothing like magic, as if magic gave you a 'morale attack field' you could block or effect it in lots of ways. But Swarming Assault just alters time and space beyond the reach of the rules.

A level 1 character can attack once per turn.

A level 1 elf with 20 Dex and Combat reflexes can attack seven times per turn. (Under the right circumstances. Probably the silliest of these right circumstances would be to have a trio of fighters bull rush the enemy in a circle around the elf, causing him to provoke over and over again.)

Iron Heart Surge isn't even that bad. The only debate we ever had over it was whether you could Iron Heart Surge a mental compulsion, since if you're brainwashed, you *want* to do what you're doing, so why would you break all your nice brainwashing? It only gets silly if your DM is silly enough to let it affect things like Sleet Storm, and if you're in that kind of game, you're probably not worrying too much about balance.

As for throwing someone dozens of feet... I don't see the problem here. Shuffling someone over a bit isn't really all that useful most of the time, unless your fights all happen on dramatic catwalks above acid.

RFLS

2012-08-30, 09:56 AM

A level 1 character can attack once per turn.

A level 1 elf with 20 Dex and Combat reflexes can attack seven times per turn. (Under the right circumstances. Probably the silliest of these right circumstances would be to have a trio of fighters bull rush the enemy in a circle around the elf, causing him to provoke over and over again.)

I'm still very interested to see why she thinks the book is broken. It's an opinion I've seen espoused by her and others in numerous places, but I've never seen anyone attempt to make a reasonable argument for it. I'm not even asking for water-tight, but I'd like to know if there's actually a case to be made. Saying "yes but X" "no but Y," which is essentially the only "debate" on the matter I've ever seen is....bickering. I'd like to actually see a rational argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument) I'll go first, I suppose.

Logical Argument:
Tome of Battle is not broken.
Broken, for a source material, is defined as containing a significant (>30%) amount of broken material.
Broken material is a material (class, race, feat, skill use, manuever, spell, etc.) that meets two of the following 3 criteria:
1) Is noticeably above the power level at which it is used at. Scaling abilities either do not qualify, or qualify at all levels. Limiting factors (time, money, etc. ) should be taken into account when determining power level.
2) Provides the ability to do something which cannot be countered, ignored, or beaten by anything but itself.
3) Can be used in ways which give it far more versatility than ever intended. This is occasionally part of the first criteria, but should be considered separately.

As examples, but not contributing to this argument- Gate may be considered broken. It meets points 2 and 3- there's no counter except another Gate, and it has more versatility than the writers ever intended. A case could be made for it meeting point 1, as well.
Iron Heart Surge can be considered broken. It meets points 1 and 3. Freedom of Movement is gained 1 level later, used at a higher cost, and provides a similar, yet less powerful effect. Additionally, the writers almost certainly never intended the myriad of uses the word "any" allows for.

Following these criteria, it is demonstrable that, while Tome of Battle contains broken material, the source itself is not broken. It's also demonstrable that the Player's Handbook is broken.

Starbuck_II

2012-08-30, 10:01 AM

Man,you should really read ToB before criticizing it. Maneuvers have saves as well. In fact, there is no maneuver with no attack roll and no save (aka No Save Just Suck). Spells, on the other hand...

To be devil's advocate, Desert Wind has that one where you can flank by yourself. Flavor text is it brings forth a fire elemental for one round as a swift action. No save or attack roll? :smalleek: :smalltongue:

Knaight

2012-08-30, 10:23 AM

How about Swarming Assault for a good Alter Reality one. You hit a foe...and somehow you grant an ally an attack. note that it's nothing like magic, as if magic gave you a 'morale attack field' you could block or effect it in lots of ways. But Swarming Assault just alters time and space beyond the reach of the rules.
This isn't an alter reality one at all, it's a viable tactic. Generally speaking, if your ally isn't getting an attack, they have a specific reason, and as often as not it has to do with what said enemy is doing. Getting in with a bind, or even delaying their weapon movement in some way (e.g. catching it on the edge of your shield so it gets temporarily stuck) leaves openings.

Hell, I have something like this used against me all the time in group sparring, where there is an attempt to close made by one person with a shorter weapon and shield to tie up my spear so that their friend with a spear can get in a stab that I can't necessarily do much about. Yes, this can be prevented, but so can Swarming Assault - it's called having a sufficiently high AC, and any problems there have to do with the way AC works.

GenghisDon

2012-08-30, 10:53 AM

And this is IMO the main issue with TOB. It's not that TOB is particularly overpowered (even the strongest stuff in TOB doesn't even begin to approach the main offenders in core like Gate, Planar Binding or Polymorph) is that some abilities are so poorly written that they don't work as written and/or make you wonder whether the writer was drunk or high at the time.

Comparing anything new to the same old broken spells has no value at all. Any game has either fixed them somehow, or else is dominated by them.

The authors & editors, it is clear, didn't give a **** about 3.5e anymore.

Logic

2012-08-30, 07:29 PM

Logic disagrees with you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13809285&postcount=108)
That's not even high-op, for starters. All I meant is that learning to optimize is time consuming and plenty of times it is counterintuitive. This is not an insult, it's just a fact.

Yay! I'm being quoted as a definitive source again!

To be devil's advocate, Desert Wind has that one where you can flank by yourself. Flavor text is it brings forth a fire elemental for one round as a swift action. No save or attack roll? :smalleek: :smalltongue:

So, for one round you get +2 to attack rolls for flanking an enemy that you are not normally flanking, by yourself, with no save to the opponent? Am I understanding you correctly, that you deem this to be somehow broken?

As opposed to any of the Summon Monster/Nature's Ally spells, which at the cost of a standard action and a spell for the day, in addition to potentially providing a flanking bonus you get an ally that can attack and draw the fire of the enemy?

Note: I am not terribly familiar with the Tome of Battle, so I apologize if the error is mine.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-08-30, 08:47 PM

Yay! I'm being quoted as a definitive source again!

So, for one round you get +2 to attack rolls for flanking an enemy that you are not normally flanking, by yourself, with no save to the opponent? Am I understanding you correctly, that you deem this to be somehow broken?

As opposed to any of the Summon Monster/Nature's Ally spells, which at the cost of a standard action and a spell for the day, in addition to potentially providing a flanking bonus you get an ally that can attack and draw the fire of the enemy?

Note: I am not terribly familiar with the Tome of Battle, so I apologize if the error is mine.

It's not even for a round, just for the swordsage's turn.

GenghisDon

2012-08-30, 09:10 PM

apparently it's for sneak attackers?

I couldn't stand much of TOB to start, it was very disapointing to just find 4e protypes.

Still, after this thread came along, I did go over the warblade again (the only class that remotely interests me) & all the goodies it can get.

Verdict: some are cheesy, but less than I feared. There are lots of problems & way to much "free lunch". I'll be modifying it a fair bit, but warblade (maybe renamed) will be being playtested soon.

Here's one that hurts my brain for a "non magic" attack: lightning throw.

I do not care if one thinks it's great, good, meh or horrible, the whole "returns to you" part KILLS me.

This falls into the OP DM's call of "STUPID", regardless wether broken or whatever.

Boci

2012-08-30, 10:03 PM

Here's one that hurts my brain for a "non magic" attack: lightning throw.

I do not care if one thinks it's great, good, meh or horrible, the whole "returns to you" part KILLS me.

It was mechanical necessity. If your throwing away something worth 50k, you want to be pretty sure its coming back to your hand, so for the sake a mechanics an ability was given feature that for many people is too much.

Hand_of_Vecna

2012-08-30, 11:01 PM

To be devil's advocate, Desert Wind has that one where you can flank by yourself. Flavor text is it brings forth a fire elemental for one round as a swift action. No save or attack roll? :smalleek: :smalltongue:

I would contend that, defenses that make one unflankable counter this and an attack roll still has to be made for the actual attack so AC and Miss chance can still protect you. Also, Attacker flanking is a +2 to hit rather than flanked giving a -2 to AC, so you're gaining a benefit rather than giving your opponent a penalty.

Knaight

2012-08-30, 11:28 PM

Here's one that hurts my brain for a "non magic" attack: lightning throw.

I do not care if one thinks it's great, good, meh or horrible, the whole "returns to you" part KILLS me.

This falls into the OP DM's call of "STUPID", regardless wether broken or whatever.

Lightning throw is pretty ridiculous, though given the level involved it's not really any more ridiculous than what any martial character can do at that point. It's made worse by how there are a number of ways to handle the mechanics that don't have that issue (even the whole striking at a distance through force projection idea is much better).

Starbuck_II

2012-08-30, 11:52 PM

So, for one round you get +2 to attack rolls for flanking an enemy that you are not normally flanking, by yourself, with no save to the opponent? Am I understanding you correctly, that you deem this to be somehow broken?
.

Smileys show my expression. :smalltongue: means I kid.

Logic

2012-08-31, 12:25 AM

Smileys show my expression. :smalltongue: means I kid.

I totally missed that. But, in my defense, I did say I apologize if the error is mine.

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 07:44 AM

It was mechanical necessity. If your throwing away something worth 50k, you want to be pretty sure its coming back to your hand, so for the sake a mechanics an ability was given feature that for many people is too much.

If one is too scared to let it leave their hands for a round or 4, they should just hang on to it.

I'm pretty sure L15+ warrior types REALLY ought to have more than 1 weapon; they should at L1.

Boci

2012-08-31, 10:31 AM

If one is too scared to let it leave their hands for a round or 4, they should just hang on to it.

But that robs melee of a neat trick. No a big problem, but a shame.

I'm pretty sure L15+ warrior types REALLY ought to have more than 1 weapon; they should at L1.

And how much money are they going to spend on this backup weapon?

What I am getting at is in D&D 3.0-4E, the needs for magical weapons and their scaling cost can make some practices inadvisable.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-31, 11:33 AM

To be fair, every character is expected to have a backup weapon. Just check any NPC ever.

Boci

2012-08-31, 11:39 AM

To be fair, every character is expected to have a backup weapon. Just check any NPC ever.

I'm not denying that you are meant to have a backup weapon. I'm just saying at level 15, your back up weapon is a lot worse than your main weapon, compared to levels 1-3 where your backup weapon is just non-masterwork.

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 11:47 AM

Then go fetch the one you threw. Throw the back up one instead, if you want to use such a tactic often. If one wants to use that tactic often, split your $ between 2 weapons more evenly, rather than 75/25 or whatnot. Or throw a +1 whatever, it does an extra 12d6 anyway.

Or don't pick the power, or have me ban it outright. I'd warn a player, of course.

Your point would be spot on, and it is for other classes, but in this case would only be true if lightning throw wasn't a spell with a weapon focus. It's just fine using any damn thing the character feels like tossing.

A normal 2 handed weapon with greater magic weapon would be ideal to use. The L15+ tightwad doesn't even need to spend the extra 300 to have a masterwork weapon.

I'm sorry, but the strike is cheezy/munchkinville. The so called "hit" to it I propose is minor.

Boci

2012-08-31, 12:07 PM

I'm sorry, but the strike is cheezy/munchkinville.

Well done ruining any shred of goodwill you could have had for that post. The maneuvre is not cheesy/munchkinville. It just allows a martial character to completly trample on the laws of physics in ways that some people think they should no be able to do, and that is understandable. That does not make it cheezy/munchkinville.

Starbuck_II

2012-08-31, 12:31 PM

Well done ruining any shred of goodwill you could have had for that post. The maneuvre is not cheesy/munchkinville. It just allows a martial character to completly trample on the laws of physics in ways that some people think they should no be able to do, and that is understandable. That does not make it cheezy/munchkinville.

That is because the phrase "cheezy/munchkinville" has no true meaning.
It translate into "I don't like it".
So if someone says something is "cheezy/munchkinville" you know they don't meaning anything. They basically saying it is too book.

Boci

2012-08-31, 12:51 PM

That is because the phrase "cheezy/munchkinville" has no true meaning.
It translate into "I don't like it".
So if someone says something is "cheezy/munchkinville" you know they don't meaning anything. They basically saying it is too book.

No. Their meanings may be vague, both have connotations with cheating, unless I'm mistaken.

Augmental

2012-08-31, 01:17 PM

No. Their meanings may be vague, both have connotations with cheating, unless I'm mistaken.

That's how he seems to be using it, anyways.

shadow_archmagi

2012-08-31, 02:10 PM

No. Their meanings may be vague, both have connotations with cheating, unless I'm mistaken.

Not so much cheating as just unsportsmanlike- Choosing to make a character that's too strong for the other players to have fun.

I think it's important to keep in mind that this is an 8th level manuever- it'll enter play the same time that Earthquake, Reverse Gravity, and Telekinetic Sphere come onto the field.

The-Mage-King

2012-08-31, 02:21 PM

Not so much cheating as just unsportsmanlike- Choosing to make a character that's too strong for the other players to have fun.

Nope. Munchkinville implies cheating, or at least close enough it's fuzzy to tell. Cheesy is stuff that is RAW, and with no real other interpretation. Munchkinville is taking even the slightest way to interpret something in as much your own favor as possible.

Legacy Champion and Uncanny Trickster are Cheesy. IHSing the sun is Munchkining.

Augmental

2012-08-31, 02:29 PM

Nope. Munchkinville implies cheating, or at least close enough it's fuzzy to tell. Cheesy is stuff that is RAW, and with no real other interpretation. Munchkinville is taking even the slightest way to interpret something in as much your own favor as possible.

Legacy Champion and Uncanny Trickster are Cheesy. IHSing the sun is Munchkining.

Honestly, I think he's just using "This maneuver is cheesy/munchkinville." to say "I don't like this maneuver." without actually saying "I don't like this maneuver."

The-Mage-King

2012-08-31, 02:33 PM

Honestly, I think he's just using "This maneuver is cheesy/munchkinville." to say "I don't like this maneuver." without actually saying "I don't like this maneuver."

Yeah, that's my interpretation of the statement, as well.

But what he DID say was that, which...

Well, annoys me.:smalltongue:

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 03:04 PM

{Scrubbed}

Augmental

2012-08-31, 03:17 PM

{Scrubbed, not at all for the content written by this poster, but for dividing a rule violating post into many small parts. Scrub the post, scrub the quote.}

Boci

2012-08-31, 03:18 PM

My bad for ever using the word on this board.

I can understand its frustrating not being able to use a word in a certain community, to them it means something different than to you, but it happen. We all have to adapt our vocabulary to our surrounding, its two words, you can function without them.

As for the original comment of removing the "return to hand" clause, its a nerf, and not one for raw power. Its also ease of use, especially since warblades typically use two handed weapons, which can make switching to your backup weapon mid combat difficult. But as I said, it is understandable that some DMs thing lightning throw goes a bit too far, its just shame. Would you be okay keeping it the way if the maneuver received the SU tag? What if it was a weapon made of a special substance (like Captain America's shield?)

Whilst we are one the subject of troublesome maneuvers, what is your opinion on earthstrike quake and Batista throw?

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 03:58 PM

Don't push your luck. Just a tip. :smallannoyed:

I'm certain it was too late the moment I dared to post that a quazi-spell was "cheezy/munchkinville"

trust me, I'm more:smallfurious: about it than anoyed at this point. See ya later.

I can understand its frustrating not being able to use a word in a certain community, to them it means something different than to you, but it happen. We all have to adapt our vocabulary to our surrounding, its two words, you can function without them.

As for the original comment of removing the "return to hand" clause, its a nerf, and not one for raw power. Its also ease of use, especially since warblades typically use two handed weapons, which can make switching to your backup weapon mid combat difficult. But as I said, it is understandable that some DMs thing lightning throw goes a bit too far, its just shame. Would you be okay keeping it the way if the maneuver received the SU tag? What if it was a weapon made of a special substance (like Captain America's shield?)

Whilst we are one the subject of troublesome maneuvers, what is your opinion on earthstrike quake and Batista throw?

I take it all back, it's AWESOME.

I'd change the name to earthquake strike or something. It's fine, although it ought be SU I suppose.

Ballista throw? It's not a warblade option. Well, not without feats. The other 2 classes in the book don't appeal to me & I'd rather not offend anyone by not liking their baby.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-31, 04:01 PM

They basically saying it is too book.

Omg, this is going to become a thing, isn't it? :smallwink:
And to be fair... Gengis is using the word 'cheesy (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cheesy)' just right. It is subjective and depends on personal taste.

Boci

2012-08-31, 04:16 PM

Omg, this is going to become a thing, isn't it? :smallwink:
And to be fair... Gengis is using the word 'cheesy (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cheesy)' just right. It is subjective and depends on personal taste.

Maybe in real life, but how often on this forum is cheesy used to describe a low powered option in the game? I cannot say I have ever recalled such an occurrence.

I take it all back, it's AWESOME.

Huh?

I'd change the name to earthquake strike or something. It's fine, although it ought be SU I suppose.

Yeah the name always bothered me as well.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-31, 05:27 PM

Maybe in real life, but how often on this forum is cheesy used to describe a low powered option in the game? I cannot say I have ever recalled such an occurrence.
I've seen it frequently, not only here but in all optimization forums. Cheesy rules are those that just don't feel right, either because they are exploits or because they blatantly disregard obvious RAI. It has nothing to do with power.

Boci

2012-08-31, 05:33 PM

I've seen it frequently, not only here but in all optimization forums. Cheesy rules are those that just don't feel right, either because they are exploits or because they blatantly disregard obvious RAI. It has nothing to do with power.

And when are rules exploited/RAI blatantly discarded in a context that has nothing to do with power?

Logic

2012-08-31, 05:37 PM

And when are rules exploited/RAI blatantly discarded in a context that has nothing to do with power?

I have had more arguments on the Belt of Battle (RAI vs RAW) than anything else. Most people I come across seem to think that using the 3 charges option (that grants you a full round action), and that full round action INCLUDES a new swift action.

I think it grants you a full round action, not a full round's worth of actions.

I still can't find anything that definitely validates my interpretation, but I can't find a reasoning that validates the opposing interpretation either.

Boci

2012-08-31, 05:44 PM

I have had more arguments on the Belt of Battle (RAI vs RAW) than anything else. Most people I come across seem to think that using the 3 charges option (that grants you a full round action), and that full round action INCLUDES a new swift action.

I think it grants you a full round action, not a full round's worth of actions.

I still can't find anything that definitely validates my interpretation, but I can't find a reasoning that validates the opposing interpretation either.

I'm not sure why you quoted me, since that is clearly a power issue (an extra swift action is a pretty big thing). So unless someone called your stance on the argument cheesy I fail to see its relevance.

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 05:49 PM

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-31, 06:03 PM

I'm not sure why you quoted me, since that is clearly a power issue (an extra swift action is a pretty big thing). So unless someone called your stance on the argument cheesy I fail to see its relevance.

Actually, his example is spot on. It basically means the is activated as a free action instead of a swift action. You just get your normal swift action. Power-wise, I'm not sure it would change much of anything (you don't get two swift actions anyway, since you used one to activate the belt). However, the intent is quite clear that this should not happen, since the text never mentions swift actions and the item requires you to use it.

The only way this could be an actual exploit requires unslotted Belts of Battle, but that's already into houserule territory.

So yeah, it's cheesy, but not necessarily powerful.

Boci

2012-08-31, 06:18 PM

Actually, his example is spot on. It basically means the is activated as a free action instead of a swift action. You just get your normal swift action. Power-wise, I'm not sure it would change much of anything (you don't get two swift actions anyway, since you used one to activate the belt). However, the intent is quite clear that this should not happen, since the text never mentions swift actions and the item requires you to use it.

The only way this could be an actual exploit requires unslotted Belts of Battle, but that's already into houserule territory.

So yeah, it's cheesy, but not necessarily powerful.

Its still the more powerful option of the two, so its not the low power option. But even with this version of the word cheesy, GenghisDon still wasn't using it right because Lightning Throw isn't an exploits nor does it blatantly disregard obvious RAI.

Logic

2012-08-31, 06:19 PM

Boci

2012-08-31, 06:25 PM

Perhaps I didn't put in enough context, but activating the Belt of Battle is a swift action, no matter how many charges you choose to use. So, the interpreted stance that using 3 charges gives you back your swift action makes this item a bit too cheesy (although, this would be only once per day if used in this fashion.)

Nah, you were clear. I know how the item works (although I hadn't heard of the extra swift action interpretation) and I'm pretty sure ThiagoMartell is familiar with the item too.

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 06:26 PM

"cheesy
This is an important word and nobody has it right yet. What it means is: Trying too hard, unsubtle, and inauthentic.
Specifically that which is unsubtle or inauthentic in its way of trying to elicit a certain response from a viewer, listener, audience, etc. Celine Dion is cheesy because her lyrics, timbre, key changes, and swelling orchestral accompaniment telegraph 'i want you to be moved' instead of moving you. Gold chains on an exposed hairy chest are cheesy because they shout out: "I have money and I am manly" instead of impressing a woman in a more subtle way, or allowing a woman to form her own judgments. The excessive showing off suggests he's compensating for what he does not have--i.e., he's actually poor, insecure, or short with an inferiority complex. Cliches are often cheesy because they are an obvious and artless way of making a point. A movie might be cheesy if it contains 'on the nose' dialogue, like "I can't live without you" or "You had me at hello."
Cheesiness is subjective. What seems cheesy to me, may be a legitimate and attractive hairstyle to you. What seems cheesy to me, may cause you to weep and hug your girlfriend tight." urban dictionary

"cheesy
sentimental, maudlin, melodramatic, corny" ditto

"cheesy
1. Something that is unintentionally kitschy, tacky, or of poor quality, but these flaws go unnoticed by the admirers of said thing.
2. Something that was popular at some point in the past, but that now seems lame in retrospect.
1. I can't believe you like Ashlee Simpson. Her music is so cheesy.

2. Hey, look at this picture of dad from 1975! Check out those sideburns and bellbottoms! That's so cheesy!" ditto

"Cheesy
Cheesy is a unique word it's usually used for calling something bad but it isn't directly bad. Cheesy means something that is trying too hard to be good, basically something that's supposed to be good but it isn't and bad.
For example, Twilight is cheesy you can see that they are trying hard for the movie to be good but it's just a cheesy vampire story.

Jersey Shore is cheesy because they are trying too hard to be 'cool' while it's just bunch of crap."

"cheesy 1
1) Any form of entertainment (music, movies) or aesthetic (hair style, photo pose) that the status quo has deemed fully open to ridicule, usually with no explanation. More specifically, the status quo here being that of Generation X. "tacky" and "dated" are closely related words, but far from being exact synonyms.

2) Anything the speaker doesn't like, which makes it an immensely vague adjective

3) A term embraced by young self-proclaimed non-conformists, to hypocritically distinguish what they've been taught to dislike from what they've been taught to like
"Family Ties? That show was so cheesy!"

"Ha ha ha...Cameron just bought these used hair metal CDs he found in the store. The CDs are so cheesy! In fact, we hated them so much, that we kept listening to them last night and singing along until 4 in the morning."" ditto

"cheesy
Something that is Cliché or overdone. Examples are livestrong bands, crank dat soulja boy, or outdated slang.
Cheesy Person: Hey Wazzup dawg!!??!? we in this shizzle" ditto

bold all mine

Boci

2012-08-31, 06:31 PM

And compare those definitions to:

Cheesy rules are those that just don't feel right, either because they are exploits or because they blatantly disregard obvious RAI.

Notice this one is specific to roleplaying games, whilst the ones you quoted are not.

Augmental

2012-08-31, 06:31 PM

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 06:33 PM

mine's what the term actually means

the bold is what I think of lightning throw. disagree all you please, that's your perogative

Boci

2012-08-31, 06:35 PM

mine's what the term actually means

To the mainstream, not on this forum. And wen you use a word that has a mainstream meaning and a different meaning in sub genre, on a forum dedicated to that sub genre, people are going to assume you are using the sub culture version.

Just like when someone on the forum says munchkin, I'm not going to think of a short cute person.

the bold is what I think of lightning throw. disagree all you please, that's your perogative

What is easier:

Having to explain yourself and risk coming off as insulting whenever you use a slang word, or not using that slang word?

God Imperror

2012-08-31, 06:40 PM

Well for me cheesy is something with cheese, cheese is good. Maybe I am just wrong... isn't that what it means?

Boci

2012-08-31, 06:42 PM

Well for me cheesy is something with cheese, cheese is good. Maybe I am just wrong... isn't that what it means?

If it does we have a disproportionate amount of people here who like to eat their books. Or just put cheese on them and then leave them. Not really sure which is weirder.

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 06:46 PM

Boci: munchkin here has a definition that is a substrata of a subculture

God Imperror: cheese is indeed yummy:smallbiggrin:

As for this kind of cheese, I love comics, fantasy, sci fi & RPG's. I'm extremely cheese tolerant actually.

Must I really have to like every kind or flavour of it on this forum?

Redundant: I'm sure there has been many flags/reports today

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-31, 07:39 PM

I'd just like to point out that the cheesy is not even a roleplaying term. It's not used differently in roleplaying games than it is used elsewhere. It's just subjective.

@God Imperor: Cheesy does not mean what you think it does.

Boci

2012-08-31, 07:43 PM

I'd just like to point out that the cheesy is not even a roleplaying term.

Yes it is. Earlier you gave a pretty good definition of the term.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-31, 07:47 PM

Yes it is. Earlier you gave a pretty good definition of the term.
And it's not different from the mainstream definition, dude. Genghis posted some definitions:
"Something that is unintentionally kitschy, tacky, or of poor quality, but these flaws go unnoticed by the admirers of said thing. "
"Cheesy is a unique word it's usually used for calling something bad but it isn't directly bad. Cheesy means something that is trying too hard to be good, basically something that's supposed to be good but it isn't and bad."
It's not any different. Again, cheesy is just an extremely subjective word.

Boci

2012-08-31, 07:51 PM

And it's not different from the mainstream definition, dude.

No it isn't. Your definition had the addition of "because they are exploits or because they blatantly disregard obvious RAI." That made is specific to RP-ing, and more importantly, this forum.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-31, 07:56 PM

No it isn't. Your definition had the addition of "because they are exploits or because they blatantly disregard obvious RAI." That made is specific to RP-ing, and more importantly, this forum.
Because I was talking about cheesy rules. Cheesy music is usually music that's a bit too old and just feels like it's trying to hard. Cheesy music videos usually go voerboard with lighting and hair. Like in D&D, specific overrides general. Cheesy rules are not even limited to D&D or RPGs in general - hell, ask most soccer fans what they think about offside.
You're attacking Genghis for speaking English correctly, man. Just leave him be.

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 08:08 PM

Thanks for the back up, Thiago:smallcool:

Boci

2012-08-31, 08:09 PM

Because I was talking about cheesy rules. Cheesy music is usually music that's a bit too old and just feels like it's trying to hard. Cheesy music videos usually go voerboard with lighting and hair. Like in D&D, specific overrides general.

You're right. But this is an RPG forum, and we are almost always discussing the rules. Genghis was talking about an aspect of the rules. If they had said "I think the ToB pictures are cheesy" no one would have had a problem with it. If they had said "The narrative of the fluff is cheesy" no one would have had a problem. And, upon consideration, if they had said "Lightning throw seems cheesy whenever I play out its initiation in my head" I doubt anyone would have had a problem. But when you say "x ability is cheesy" on an RPG forum, that is going to be interpreted as the cheesy rules version. Especially when the word "munchkinville" is inserted immediately after.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-31, 08:27 PM

You're right. But this is an RPG forum, and we are almost always discussing the rules. Genghis was talking about an aspect of the rules. If they had said "I think the ToB pictures are cheesy" no one would have had a problem with it. If they had said "The narrative of the fluff is cheesy" no one would have had a problem. And, upon consideration, if they had said "Lightning throw seems cheesy whenever I play out its initiation in my head" I doubt anyone would have had a problem. But when you say "x ability is cheesy" on an RPG forum, that is going to be interpreted as the cheesy rules version. Especially when the word "munchkinville" is inserted immediately after.

I agree that "munchkinville" might have made the point across incorrectly,l but he has already clarified what he meant, hasn't he? If anything, you should be objecting to his use of "munchkinville", not cheesy.

Augmental

2012-08-31, 09:02 PM

If anything, you should be objecting to his use of "munchkinville", not cheesy.

I think Boci's trying to avoid putting fuel on the fire.

Besides, the word makes no sense in this context - he's using the word "munchkinville" to describe a fairly tame (mechanics-wise) maneuver. Not as part of some insane combo like the d2 crusader, just the maneuver on its own. I'm fine with low-power games, but that doesn't mean that everything above your preferred level of power is "munchkinville".

Also, maneuvers aren't villages.

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 09:12 PM

{Scrubbed}

Morithias

2012-08-31, 09:15 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

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

"Gamebuster: Min-Maxing taken to its upper limit. Any Munchkin character of this type is nothing more than a collection of 'kewl powers', taken for no logical in-story reason other than their combat effectiveness. Often includes blatant Game Breaker abilities and power combinations that were never meant to be. Call him out on this, and he'll call you a Scrub."

I don't see where you come from that. One of the core values of the munchkin is obsession with UNLIMITED POWER!

Augmental

2012-08-31, 09:16 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Oh really? Well, I apologize for not being telepathic, but what did you mean by "munchkinville"?

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 09:19 PM

{Scrubbed}

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-31, 09:27 PM

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

"Gamebuster: Min-Maxing taken to its upper limit. Any Munchkin character of this type is nothing more than a collection of 'kewl powers', taken for no logical in-story reason other than their combat effectiveness. Often includes blatant Game Breaker abilities and power combinations that were never meant to be. Call him out on this, and he'll call you a Scrub."

I don't see where you come from that. One of the core values of the munchkin is obsession with UNLIMITED POWER!

It's funny how all of those melee builds that dip Spirit Lion Totem fall in this definition :smalltongue:

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 09:32 PM

{Scrubbed}

RFLS

2012-08-31, 09:50 PM

prepare for hate:smalleek:

Aw, and I wanted the flaming to be about how I'd never accept a point of view that was contrary to mine!

GenghisDon

2012-08-31, 09:53 PM

{Scrubbed}

eggs

2012-08-31, 10:01 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
What are you trying to accomplish?

Augmental

2012-08-31, 10:14 PM

one can't let a weapon leave their grasp for a round, or just use a different one. one needs every tiny extra plus or dice. A munchkin wrote the power. There is no logical reason your thrown greatsword bounces back to your hand. It's over the top. It's exactly the definition of a kewl power & the return part is for no reason other than a (probably minor) increase in combat effectiveness.

So it's perfectly fine for casters to casually break the laws of reality, but when a melee class can throw their weapon and have it return, your sense of realism is suddenly shattered?!

I doubt I'll miss the place either, this constant having to defend & define every word & put up with twisted bull**** language crap is ****ing anoying.

:smallsigh:

Learn to speak english.

Just because this forum generally uses the D&D definition of the word "cheesy" instead of the typically-used definition does not mean we are speaking a foreign language.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-31, 10:27 PM

Just because this forum generally uses the D&D definition of the word "cheesy" instead of the typically-used definition does not mean we are speaking a foreign language.
Dude, there is no such thing as the 'D&D definition' of cheesy.

Roland St. Jude

2012-08-31, 10:31 PM

Sheriff of Moddingham: Locked for review.

Logic

2012-08-31, 10:38 PM

Dude, there is no such thing as the 'D&D definition' of cheesy.

But I think it is easy to make a case for what the commonly accepted meaning of cheesy means in an role playing game scenario. It is indeed one of the above definitions posted by GhengisDon, but with a specific attitude towards the rules or mechanics of a situation.

Just because it doesn't have an English dictionary definition does not mean it is not commonly accepted to mean something specific (potentially different) in a specific scenario.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-31, 10:41 PM

But I think it is easy to make a case for what the commonly accepted meaning of cheesy means in an role playing game scenario. It is indeed one of the above definitions posted by GhengisDon, but with a specific attitude towards the rules or mechanics of a situation.

Just because it doesn't have an English dictionary definition does not mean it is not commonly accepted to mean something specific (potentially different) in a specific scenario.

But Logic, what he said actually fits that definition. The problem with his post is the "munchkinville" thing which gives people the wrong vibe.

Boci

2012-09-01, 04:21 AM

Dude, there is no such thing as the 'D&D definition' of cheesy.

Then why do so many users think the term has connotations with cheating? Yes, its subjective. The use of slang is subjective. If enough people use it in one way, it becomes that.

Not to mention its been clarified what they meant. They did not mean cheesy as in bad or poor quality. They meant rules cheesy.

Mystic Muse

2012-09-01, 03:50 PM

I always considered something that was "Cheesy' to be technically valid, but using it is in very poor taste. Like a Necropolitan tainted scholar.

Boci

2012-09-02, 06:40 AM

I always considered something that was "Cheesy' to be technically valid, but using it is in very poor taste. Like a Necropolitan tainted scholar.

That's pretty much how me and several other people on this thread seem to interpret the term, and I learned RP slang on this forum.

LordBlades

2012-09-02, 08:34 AM

It's funny how all of those melee builds that dip Spirit Lion Totem fall in this definition :smalltongue:

Well, to be completely fair, Spirit Lion Totem dips are merely the easiest of the band-aid fixes to a problem that gets more and more serious the higher a game's character, power and optimization level is: melee needs to be (mostly) stationary past level 6 to bring it's full potential to bear. If the enemy doesn't want to play (moves/teleports/whatevers away instead of standing still and trading full attacks), the melee class does only 1 fraction of what they could be doing while the enemy (assuming any of the dozens of classes that do their shtick as a standard action) can bring all their guns to bear.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 10:54 AM

Well, to be completely fair, Spirit Lion Totem dips are merely the easiest of the band-aid fixes to a problem that gets more and more serious the higher a game's character, power and optimization level is: melee needs to be (mostly) stationary past level 6 to bring it's full potential to bear. If the enemy doesn't want to play (moves/teleports/whatevers away instead of standing still and trading full attacks), the melee class does only 1 fraction of what they could be doing while the enemy (assuming any of the dozens of classes that do their shtick as a standard action) can bring all their guns to bear.

And... so what? :smallconfused: Does it stop fitting the definition because of that?

TuggyNE

2012-09-02, 04:49 PM

And... so what? :smallconfused: Does it stop fitting the definition because of that?

It doesn't fit the definition too well, because most builds that include it are more than just a collection of "kewl powers", and because Pounce is not really out of character for melee to practice and acquire. (It also obviously doesn't consist of "combinations that were never meant to be", or any kind of game breaker ability; whether the players in question react to criticism with name-calling obviously depends on your experience, but I haven't seen too much of that around here.)

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 08:08 PM

It doesn't fit the definition too well, because most builds that include it are more than just a collection of "kewl powers", and because Pounce is not really out of character for melee to practice and acquire. (It also obviously doesn't consist of "combinations that were never meant to be", or any kind of game breaker ability; whether the players in question react to criticism with name-calling obviously depends on your experience, but I haven't seen too much of that around here.)
Builds that use it just ignore it is in there altogether. When you dip 3 different classes for no other reason than to get plusses, that is the very definition of doing something exclusively for power.

"Barbarians who follow a spiritual path are often tied at some deep level to the wildlands that gave them birth. Such characters feel a kinship with the spirits of nature—especially animal spirits—and draw their power from these essences. Divine barbarians are viewed with awe and sometimes fear by their tribes, and some such characters are considered holy people in the absence of any organized religion. "

Please, tell how that fits all noncaster melee classes.

TuggyNE

2012-09-02, 08:38 PM

Builds that use it just ignore it is in there altogether. When you dip 3 different classes for no other reason than to get plusses, that is the very definition of doing something exclusively for power.

"Barbarians who follow a spiritual path are often tied at some deep level to the wildlands that gave them birth. Such characters feel a kinship with the spirits of nature—especially animal spirits—and draw their power from these essences. Divine barbarians are viewed with awe and sometimes fear by their tribes, and some such characters are considered holy people in the absence of any organized religion. "

Please, tell how that fits all noncaster melee classes.

Well, a given melee character concept has basically five choices here:

Refluff the totem option to represent some great amount of training, ritual undergone, or similar
Adapt the concept to fit the near-requirement to be born in a barbarous tribe
Find some other means of gaining Pounce (e.g. PsyWar, friendly caster, custom item)
Switch to ToB
Just kinda try to hack it without Pounce?

Either of the first two should be fine, unless you're really tied to the default fluff and are unwilling to change the concept at all; in particular, I tend to be a bit conservative with refluffing, but I'd have no real problems with a ritual performed in backstory.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 08:47 PM

Either of the first two should be fine, unless you're really tied to the default fluff and are unwilling to change the concept at all; in particular, I tend to be a bit conservative with refluffing, but I'd have no real problems with a ritual performed in backstory.

Agree completely. The problem is having Spirit Lion Totem being considered the One True Dip for all melee characters and disregarding all that fluff issues. When you use default fluff (and it is default for a reason), it is very cheesy most of the time.
I sincerely think refluffing is usually just giving up on the challenge of tying everything together. I have a player that always dips around and always justifies every single level he takes. He always ends up with a very interesting backstory. Refluffing a dip in Spirit Lion Totem as "it's just my fighting style" is not a refluff - it's just a (cheesy) handwave.

Boci

2012-09-02, 08:56 PM

Refluffing a dip in Spirit Lion Totem as "it's just my fighting style" is not a refluff - it's just a (cheesy) handwave.

Well, yeah. That is bad re-fluffing, or minimalist. Doesn't say much about re-fluffing as a whole though.

shadow_archmagi

2012-09-02, 09:01 PM

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 09:05 PM

To be fair, being able to run forward and swing TWO swords isn't really an ability that should be exclusive to divinely inspired savages. I don't think I'd blink an eye if a character said he'd learned it at Fighter school or as part of the Imperial Warrior's Cult during his army days.

The designers agree with you! It is not. There are plenty of other ways to get pounce or similar abilities, even at level 1. Dipping Barbarian is just "the easiest".

Well, yeah. That is bad re-fluffing, or minimalist. Doesn't say much about re-fluffing as a whole though.
I said nothing about refluffing, I'm talking specifically about dipping Barbarian. You're just bringing bagage from other threads into this one.

Boci

2012-09-02, 09:11 PM

I said nothing about refluffing, I'm talking specifically about dipping Barbarian. You're just bringing bagage from other threads into this one.

Yes you did.

Agree completely. The problem is having Spirit Lion Totem being considered the One True Dip for all melee characters and disregarding all that fluff issues. When you use default fluff (and it is default for a reason), it is very cheesy most of the time.
I sincerely think refluffing is usually just giving up on the challenge of tying everything together. I have a player that always dips around and always justifies every single level he takes. He always ends up with a very interesting backstory. Refluffing a dip in Spirit Lion Totem as "it's just my fighting style" is not a refluff - it's just a (cheesy) handwave.

I'm saying that "it's just my fighting style" is bad refluffing, and therefor not really an argument for the default fluff.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 09:15 PM

I'm saying that "it's just my fighting style" is bad refluffing, and therefor not really an argument for the default fluff.
:smallsigh:
You're reading what you want to read instead of reading what I wrote.
You ignored the "usually" qualifier and the context about dipping Barbarian 1 for pounce fitting the TVTropes definition of cheesy. You even ignored how I said your perceived refluff is not a refluff at all.
As I've said thousand times past, I'm not against refluffing. Here is proof (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13810259&postcount=6). Could you please stop painting me as such?

Boci

2012-09-02, 09:21 PM

:smallsigh:
You're reading what you want to read instead of reading what I wrote.
You ignored the "usually" qualifier and the context about dipping Barbarian 1 for pounce fitting the TVTropes definition of cheesy. You even ignored how I said your perceived refluff is not a refluff at all.
As I've said thousand times past, I'm not against refluffing. Could you please stop painting me as such?

I'm saying no such thing. All I was saying (and this is completely independently of the TV tropes thing) is that the fluff of spirit totem barbarian = "it's just my fighting style" is a minimalist/bad job at refluffing. I am not saying you are against refluffing, just that that one example is not a good case of it. Stop playing the victim.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-02, 09:25 PM

I'm saying no such thing. All I was saying (and this is completely independently of the TV tropes thing) is that the fluff of spirit totem barbarian = "it's just my fighting style" is a minimalist/bad job at refluffing. I am not saying you are against refluffing, just that that one example is not a good case of it. Stop playing the victim.

Dude, I said that exact same thing in my post. You want me to quote it?
Refluffing a dip in Spirit Lion Totem as "it's just my fighting style" is not a refluff - it's just a (cheesy) handwave.

Emphasis mine.
You were the one who brought up "refluffing as a whole", and I said I never mentioned it, because I never did.

Boci

2012-09-02, 09:27 PM

Dude, I said that exact same thing in my post. You want me to quote it?
Emphasis mine.
You were the one who brought up "refluffing as a whole", and I said I never mentioned it, because I never did.

And I was agreeing with you. I was saying there were 100 better ways you could do that refluff.

LordBlades

2012-09-03, 01:19 AM

Agree completely. The problem is having Spirit Lion Totem being considered the One True Dip for all melee characters and disregarding all that fluff issues.
Mechanically speaking is the One True Dip unfortunately. Melee needs pounce to keep up past a certain level and Spirit Lion Totem provides it with minimal investment. That being said, Spirit Lion Totem does tend to stand out quite a bit among all the other Barbarian 1 options.

Comparing Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem barbarian (Pounce and 1 extra attack) with any other possible Barbarian 1 set of abilities, you'll probably find that unless you're aiming for a niche build, it's vastly superior. And that's poor design IMO. Now, whether it's too strong or the other options are too weak is entirely subjective and dependent on the context of a particular game.

I sincerely think refluffing is usually just giving up on the challenge of tying everything together.
Personally I disagree. Thinking up interesting fluff that fits together well for all your abilities can be equally challenging.

Refluffing a dip in Spirit Lion Totem as "it's just my fighting style" is not a refluff - it's just a (cheesy) handwave.

It's just minimalistic refluff. I personally don't consider 'I've got pounce because I trained in this fighting style' any worse than 'I'm a knight therefore I have lots of feats' (one of the default options for PHB fighter fluff). In the end, how much fluff is expected for a char varies from group to group. I've seen groups where 2-3 ideas were enough, and in groups where only 2-3 pages of background led to your character being labeled as 'one dimensional' and 'underdeveloped'

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-03, 01:27 AM

Mechanically speaking is the One True Dip unfortunately. Melee needs pounce to keep up past a certain level and Spirit Lion Totem provides it with minimal investment. That being said, Spirit Lion Totem does tend to stand out quite a bit among all the other Barbarian 1 options.
I'm not opposed to it mechanically. Like I said, the problem is disregarding fluff clashes.

Comparing Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem barbarian (Pounce and 1 extra attack) with any other possible Barbarian 1 set of abilities, you'll probably find that unless you're aiming for a niche build, it's vastly superior. And that's poor design IMO. Now, whether it's too strong or the other options are too weak is entirely subjective and dependent on the context of a particular game.
Yeah, it's poor design.

Personally I disagree. Thinking up interesting fluff that fits together well for all your abilities can be equally challenging.
I don't how that is even disagreeing with what I said.

It's just minimalistic refluff. I personally don't consider 'I've got pounce because I trained in this fighting style' any worse than 'I'm a knight therefore I have lots of feats' (one of the default options for PHB fighter fluff).
It's not just "I have pounce". It's "I have pounce, rage and all barbarian skills as class skills". Really, a knight training and learning combat maneuver seems perfectly in place for me. The same knight getting Survival as a class skill because it's "part of his combat style" does not.

In the end, how much fluff is expected for a char varies from group to group.
That goes for everything in the game.

Killer Angel

2012-09-03, 03:30 AM

A fun thought:
The barbarian level dip with lion totem, comes with a very specific fluff.
Ignoring the fluff and dismissing it, just to take the mechanical bonuses with the minimal investment, is cheesy.
Building a background around the character and justifying the dip, accordingly to the fluff (or refluffing it but with a solid motivation, not a mere “It’s my style”), is no more cheesy, right?

Should we conclude that the cheesiness is not tied to the mechanical aspect of a thing, but to the fluff? :smalltongue:

shadow_archmagi

2012-09-03, 07:17 AM

It's not just "I have pounce". It's "I have pounce, rage and all barbarian skills as class skills". Really, a knight training and learning combat maneuver seems perfectly in place for me. The same knight getting Survival as a class skill because it's "part of his combat style" does not.

Is it that hard to imagine a knight that knows how to hunt and has a temper?

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-03, 08:59 AM

Should we conclude that the cheesiness is not tied to the mechanical aspect of a thing, but to the fluff? :smalltongue:

Did anyone say otherwise? :smallconfused:

Is it that hard to imagine a knight that knows how to hunt and has a temper?

A tempter? So you think 5 yeard olds get +4 Str when they throw tantrums? :smallconfused:
Then again, why is that knight a hunter/forager? How did he learn to channel his anger? This is the questions that should be answered if you care abour verossimilitude.

Boci

2012-09-03, 09:06 AM

Then again, why is that knight a hunter/forager? How did he learn to channel his anger? This is the questions that should be answered if you care abour verossimilitude.

Are you asking these questions hypothetically to prove a point or are you interested in hearing what people can come up with for them?

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-03, 09:11 AM

Are you asking these questions hypothetically to prove a point or are you interested in hearing what people can come up with for them?

It's just hypothetical, they are ridiculously easy to answer anyway.

shadow_archmagi

2012-09-03, 09:23 AM

A temper? So you think 5 year olds get +4 Str when they throw tantrums? How did he learn to channel his anger?

He's a professional swordsman. He hits people really hard for a living. Hitting people harder when he tries harder doesn't really require a leap of faith or defy suspension of disbelief.

Then again, why is that knight a hunter/forager?

Hunting is something done at all levels of society. Even kings like to ride out and bring back some fresh meat for their tables- Gives them a sense of satisfaction and something to do, and it's also an important social ritual.

LordBlades

2012-09-03, 11:53 AM

Regarding survival and the hypothetical knight:

If the player doesn't envision his character as having some kind of outdoor skills, he probably won't put any ranks into survival, class skill or not. And tbh I'm having a hard time thinking of a fluff representation of the difference between char X who has Survival (or whatever) as a class skill but no ranks in it, and char Y who doesn't, and also has no ranks in it.

If the player sees his character as the hunter type, he'll probably put some ranks into Survival, class skill or not.

Killer Angel

2012-09-04, 02:56 PM

Did anyone say otherwise? :smallconfused:

So, chain gate and wish loop, is cheese because of the fluff? :smallamused:

Slipperychicken

2012-09-04, 03:05 PM

So, chain gate and wish loop, is cheese because of the fluff? :smallamused:

It fits perfectly with the fluff. Those wish-granting genies didn't stuff themselves into bottles, you know :smallbiggrin:

Boci

2012-09-04, 03:33 PM

So, chain gate and wish loop, is cheese because of the fluff? :smallamused:

But neither of those are deemed to be required for casters to be competent.

Knaight

2012-09-04, 05:37 PM

A tempter? So you think 5 yeard olds get +4 Str when they throw tantrums? :smallconfused:
Then again, why is that knight a hunter/forager? How did he learn to channel his anger? This is the questions that should be answered if you care abour verossimilitude.

You do realize that the literature is replete with knights which do appear to get stronger when angry, right? Read just about any fight in Le Morte d'Arthur, and you will find a bit where both knights start striking much harder, tearing armor up much more, and ignoring worse injuries. Rage fits those characters perfectly.

As for why a character who wanders through the wilderness adventuring has wilderness survival skills, and why a noble might possibly know something about hunting where it is traditionally considered a noble's sport, it's pretty much self evident. Lion Totem Barbarian really doesn't have anything to it that needs to be refluffed, as just about all of it is stuff that makes sense for every warrior to have anyways.

As for those toddlers: Based on my experience with moving toddlers around when they are tired and can't really walk, and on when they are throwing a fit and don't want to go somewhere, +4 strength seems entirely reasonable.

ThiagoMartell

2012-09-04, 07:49 PM

So, chain gate and wish loop, is cheese because of the fluff? :smallamused:
That is nowhere near relevant. Different things are cheesy for different reasons. Anything in the game may have OK fluff and cheesy mechanics or the other way around.

You do realize that the literature is replete with knights which do appear to get stronger when angry, right?
And that matters becauser...?
Anyone gets angry. Tanis Half-Elf gets angry a few times during the first Dragonlance trilogy. His attacks even hit harder. Is he a Barbarian? No, he isn't.
Spider-Man tends to hit harder when he gets angry as well. This is specially common in Ultimate Spider-Man! Do you really think Spider-Man should have Barbarian levels?
Superman only hits with full strenght when he is angry. See a pattern yet?
The Rage class ability is for characters defined by their anger. "Having a temper" is a major understatement when it comes to it.
The fluff of "my guy just, ya know, has a temper" has the implication that anyone else that has a temper has Barbarian levels. And that is simply ridiculous.
"I've always had this rage bottled up inside me, but I managed to channel it into helping me fight" is one thing. It's a cool refluff, even. There is a dude in one of the War of the Spider Queen books that has a trance state - he doesn't really think while in this trance, he just acts, and afterwards he is very tired. That's a cool refluff too.
"I have a temper" is simply lazy and bad. If you don't care enough about your Barbarian dip to even justify what it means in a way that is consistent, I find it to be very cheesy, yes.