Looking for a complete idiots guide to ToB.

[Malak'ai]

Basically what the title says.
Since I've been around these forums I've seen so many threads about how ToB classes are so much better than normal melee classes, or how ToB is so over powered blah blah blah...
While all these threads are interesting and everything but, I'm ashamed to say, I have absolutely NO idea what any of these "Stances", "Maneuvers" and all this "Initiator" stuff are or what it all means.
Now, I've looked up the Swordsage, Crusader and Warblade on google, and I've tried to find explanations about everything works, but my google-fu rolled a nat 1 and sunk like a lead block in a sack, so if anyone could either give me, or direct me to, a seriously easy to understand run down on how ToB has changed melee and explain what all this other stuff means/does.

[ThiagoMartell]

Tome of Battle for Dummies. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871270/Tome_of_Battle_for_Dummies)

[Malak'ai]

That's gunna be helpful when I actually understand the mechanics of how the new (for me at least) concepts that ToB have introduced.
I should have made this clear in the first post, I do NOT own ToB or know anyone who does, so I have never actually sat down to read it.

[Alienist]

ToB is not like the joke about how to eat an elephant...A: one bite at a time. It is something that must be ingested all in one go, which is why it gives so many people indigestion.

[Simba]

A very short summary for you:

A practitioner of the Sublime Way (aka. an initiator or someone who uses ToB stuff) learns Stances and Maneuvers as he advances.

Initiator level: level in a ToB class + 1/2 your level in all other classes, including racial level. This is the maximum level of maneuvers and stances you can learn. Great for cross classing! You first stance has to be a level 1 stance, but you can pick any maneuver you qualify for when you gian a level in an initiator class.

Stances: a stance is a way you stand/move in and outside of combat that gives you certain benefits. Entering a stance is a swift action, as is switching from one stance to another. A stance is not expended but remains in effect as long as the initiator is able to move. It is like a little (or not so little) buff you can use any time.

Maneuvers: Maneuvers are more complex. They need to be readied (requiring a specific action to initiate) and are expended when used. Once expended a Maneuver needs to be recovered. This happens differently for each initiator class.

There are 3 kinds of maneuvers:

- boosts: maneuvers that grant a bonus for the duration of your turn
- counters: mostly defensive, reactive maneuvers you can use during your enemy's turn to better defend against said oponent
- strikes: strikes are maneuvers that allow a specific special attack, with additional effects if it hits.

[ThiagoMartell]

Well, my best suggestion then is to find the book, then buy it.

[Alienist]

Let me try, using concepts you are already familiar with.

ToB contains Fighter Mk II, Paladin Mk II and Monk Mk II

Each of them, instead of their bad old class features (boo!), gets shiny new features as they level up, including getting to pick a small number of spells from nine entirely new schools of magic.

Each school of magic works best with a certain kind of weapon (e.g. one school likes hammers, another likes swords).

Other than schools, the spells are divided up into two different kinds. Auras, and melee attacks (aka spells with the somatic component: 'whack somebody'). You can only have one aura active at a time.

Figuring out which spells you qualify to learn is a bit icky, because instead of nice simple tables like other classes, there's a nasty formula based on caster level, and if you multi-class your other classes count towards your caster level (but at half the normal rate).

Depending on what kind of class you are controls how often you get your spells back.

Monk Mk II is you get each spell once per encounter only.

Fighter Mk II is you can repeatedly recast the same spell over and over, but you have to waste a turn with a normal boring melee attack to get one spell back (otherwise, just like a Monk Mk II)

Paladin Mk II is you make a deck of cards representing your spells, then at the beginning of the encounter you draw randomly from the deck. When you run out of cards in hand you redraw another hand at random. You're not allowed to mulligan, and if you get 10 poison tokens you automatically lose the game.

Oh wait...

[Alienist]

Well, my best suggestion then is to find the book, then buy it.

That isn't really a particularly helpful suggestion.

@OP: If you do buy it, be prepared to read through it three to six times before you 'get it'. It is quite poorly laid out. Which is to say that once you know everything it is well laid out (e.g. as a reference book), but if you are learning it then it is very poorly laid out, because it uses a lot of concepts right from the start before properly introducing them.

Not unlike trying to figure out English by picking up and reading a dictionary. Dictionaries aren't bad per se, but they're not well designed for learning English.

-----

At the end of the day I think the acid test is this:

(a) have the casters broken your campaign yet?
(b) are the players who prefer melee characters unhappy yet?

If the answer to (a) is Yes, then ToB isn't going to fix the problem.
If the answer to (b) is No, then you don't have a problem that requires fixing.

If the casters haven't broken the game yet, but the melee players are finding that they lack in options, then ToB may be a good fit.

It does come with a not-insignificant complexity hit though. If you don't mind a big chunk of added complexity then go for it. If you prefer things nice and simple, then it may not be a good fit.

[Akto]

Let me try, using concepts you are already familiar with.

ToB contains Fighter Mk II, Paladin Mk II and Monk Mk II

Each of them, instead of their bad old class features (boo!), gets shiny new features as they level up, including getting to pick a small number of spells from nine entirely new schools of magic.

Each school of magic works best with a certain kind of weapon (e.g. one school likes hammers, another likes swords).

Other than schools, the spells are divided up into two different kinds. Auras, and melee attacks (aka spells with the somatic component: 'whack somebody'). You can only have one aura active at a time.

Figuring out which spells you qualify to learn is a bit icky, because instead of nice simple tables like other classes, there's a nasty formula based on caster level, and if you multi-class your other classes count towards your caster level (but at half the normal rate).

Depending on what kind of class you are controls how often you get your spells back.

Monk Mk II is you get each spell once per encounter only.

Fighter Mk II is you can repeatedly recast the same spell over and over, but you have to waste a turn with a normal boring melee attack to get one spell back (otherwise, just like a Monk Mk II)

Paladin Mk II is you make a deck of cards representing your spells, then at the beginning of the encounter you draw randomly from the deck. When you run out of cards in hand you redraw another hand at random. You're not allowed to mulligan, and if you get 10 poison tokens you automatically lose the game.

Oh wait...

That... is actaully a very nice way of saying it, well put sir... now where is that damn like button ;)

[only1doug]

Alienists post gives a good overview, here's some material that may help.

The Warblade class (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) and all maneuevers (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a)are available online.

The Maneuevers aren't going to be immeadiatley readable from the format given there unfortunately, it'll be more of a struggle to read through than having the book would be.

[willpell]

The problem with Tome of Battle is that it turns melee characters into spellcasters, when the whole point of playing a melee character is to not be a spellcaster. Instead of giving the monk and fighter ways to hit so hard that they compete with casters, they just give you more spells you have to read. Making one of the classes actually have to shuffle a deck of spell cards was a cute gimmick, though.


@OP: If you do buy it, be prepared to read through it three to six times before you 'get it'. It is quite poorly laid out. Which is to say that once you know everything it is well laid out (e.g. as a reference book), but if you are learning it then it is very poorly laid out, because it uses a lot of concepts right from the start before properly introducing them.

Not unlike trying to figure out English by picking up and reading a dictionary. Dictionaries aren't bad per se, but they're not well designed for learning English.

It dawns on me that this is a rather fitting assessment of Magic of Incarnum as well. D&D books have historically been written as encyclopedias rather than user guides. Given how hard the designers of Wotco's cash cow "Money: the Gathering" work at making their game "accessible", it's surprising they've never thought to apply the same logic to D&D, making it more of a "beer and pretzels" game instead of something you practically need to take a three-week university course on.


It does come with a not-insignificant complexity hit though. If you don't mind a big chunk of added complexity then go for it. If you prefer things nice and simple, then it may not be a good fit.

If only there were a way to go the other direction - making casters simpler so they're suitable for players who prefer the Fighter's mechanics but wouldn't mind playing a "magician" concept for a change. The Warlock is close to accomplishing that, but still has an Invocation list to shop and eventually item creation; I'd really like to see something that's flavored like a Warmage or Beguiler or the like, but where their "spells" are class features like the Rogue's or Monk's, so you just go down a two-page list and you know everything you'll ever need to about that class.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Let me try, using concepts you are already familiar with.

ToB contains Fighter Mk II, Paladin Mk II and Monk Mk II

Each of them, instead of their bad old class features (boo!), gets shiny new features as they level up, including getting to pick a small number of spells from nine entirely new schools of magic.

Each school of magic works best with a certain kind of weapon (e.g. one school likes hammers, another likes swords).

Other than schools, the spells are divided up into two different kinds. Auras, and melee attacks (aka spells with the somatic component: 'whack somebody'). You can only have one aura active at a time.

Figuring out which spells you qualify to learn is a bit icky, because instead of nice simple tables like other classes, there's a nasty formula based on caster level, and if you multi-class your other classes count towards your caster level (but at half the normal rate).

Depending on what kind of class you are controls how often you get your spells back.

Monk Mk II is you get each spell once per encounter only.

Fighter Mk II is you can repeatedly recast the same spell over and over, but you have to waste a turn with a normal boring melee attack to get one spell back (otherwise, just like a Monk Mk II)

Paladin Mk II is you make a deck of cards representing your spells, then at the beginning of the encounter you draw randomly from the deck. When you run out of cards in hand you redraw another hand at random. You're not allowed to mulligan, and if you get 10 poison tokens you automatically lose the game.

Oh wait...

Some clarifications to the otherwise neat summary:

1) Monk Mk.II can refresh his maneuvers as a full-round action, with the use of a feat.

2) Each school has their favored weapons, but they have almost NO mechanical impact unless you pick up certain feats.

3) The Initiator Level is fairly easy to figure out. If you are playing one of the Mk II classes, it's your class level. If you aren't, it's 1/2 your class level. PrC's are boss and awesome and get full progression, even if they aren't one of the three Mk II. classes.

Think of it as Spellcaster Levels, only even non-casters get 1/2 of them anyways.

There's three types of Maneuvers:

Strikes: This is most kinds of maneuvers. It's a Standard Action to use them.

Counters: This is played in response to someone else's action. It's an Immediate Action to Counter, so it'll eat up swift actions.

Boost: This is a swift action which will augment what you are already doing.

Then there's Stances. Basically, one at a time. Usually it's a self-buff that is always on, sometimes it affects others as well.

[Answerer]

1. Pick a class.

Crusaders are basically Paladins: they are heavily armored, they can take hits very well, and they can heal themselves and allies as they fight with Devoted Spirit. They are also phenomenal battlefield commanders, thanks to White Raven. Most of all, Crusaders are the initiators who just keep going.

Swordsages are basically Monks: they are fast, fight in little or no armor, and are very "technical" – Setting Sun has lots of repositioning maneuvers, Desert Wind and Shadow Hand have actual magical attacks, and Diamond Mind and Tiger Claw are your high-damage maneuvers. Also make good stealthy types, making them viable as a Rogue for things other than trapmonkey.

Warblades are basically Fighters: they're fairly generic warrior types who can go in a lot of different directions, from Barbarian to Duelist. Diamond Mind makes you a cool, collected, finesse fighter, while Iron Heart makes you an aggressive and brutal marauder. Tiger Claw is all about ferocious strings of attacks, while White Raven is for inspiring those around you and positioning your allies for greatest effect.


Of course, you can do a lot of mixing and matching within these classes, and even across classes if you want to spend a few feats.


2. Pick your maneuvers. This is the fun bit. Go to page 48 for the short descriptions. Find maneuvers that sound cool; go ahead and take them, they will be! Printing out WotC's maneuver cards is recommended.



The problem with Tome of Battle is that it turns melee characters into spellcasters,
Wrong.


when the whole point of playing a melee character is to not be a spellcaster.
Personal opinion presented as fact.


Instead of giving the monk and fighter ways to hit so hard that they compete with casters,
The Fighter, at least, already can hit hard enough to one-shot anything he can full-attack. Making either class hit harder would do nothing for them.


they just give you more spells you have to read.
1. They are not spells, they are not even particularly like spells. The only similarity is the typesetting and the fact that they're divided into 9 levels.

2. You don't have to read all of them up front, you can just pick the ones you like based on the short descriptions, and then print out the maneuver cards for the ones you chose. That said, if reading is a problem, I'm not sure why you're interested in a hobby the entire game is found in books.


Making one of the classes actually have to shuffle a deck of spell cards was a cute gimmick, though.
1. Still not spells, repeating incorrect information does not make it correct.

2. It's actually a supremely functional and elegant mechanic. Easily one of the best designs in all of 3.5.


It dawns on me that this is a rather fitting assessment of Magic of Incarnum as well. D&D books have historically been written as encyclopedias rather than user guides. Given how hard the designers of Wotco's cash cow "Money: the Gathering" work at making their game "accessible", it's surprising they've never thought to apply the same logic to D&D, making it more of a "beer and pretzels" game instead of something you practically need to take a three-week university course on.
Actually, Magic of Incarnum is pretty crap as a reference guide, too. It's just a awfully-laid-out book.

That said, I don't think the description is particularly accurate for Tome of Battle. The "Maneuvers" section of each class explains most of what you need to know; Chapter 3 covers the details.

For reference, the layout is identical to how the Player's Handbook handles spellcasting, and the Expanded Psionics Handbook handles manifesting, and Tome of Magic handles binding, shadow magic, and truenaming. It's not exactly an ideal layout but it has a whole lot of precedent within the system. I'm not sure why Tome of Battle's getting called out for it.

[only1doug]

To give an Example character I present Heilan (http://pifro.com/pro/view.php?id=8190), he's my PC in a slowly progressing PbP game here (haven't done any combat yet)

He has a bunch of maneuevers from Crusader and a few from Warblade so each are prepared in a seperate fashion, he has stances from both classes but can only use one at a time

Currently Prepared Manuevers
Crusader

1. Mountain Hammer: Deal +2d6 damage, ignore DR and Hardness
2. Tactical strike: Deal +2d6 damage, adjacent allies may move 5'
3. Revitalising strike: Successful attack allows me to heal 3d6+9 damage
4. White Raven Tactics: Allies Initiative changes, he can act again.
5. Radiant Charge: gain +6d6 damage against evil foe, gain DR10/-
6. Elder Mountain Hammer: deal +6d6 damage, ignore DR and Hardness

Manuevers Readied
1d6
1d5
1d4

all listed numbers move up after each roll.

e.g. if first roll is a 3 and 2nd roll is a 4 and 3rd roll is a 1 the manuevers readied would be:
Revitalising strike (3),
Radiant charge (was 5, now 4) and
Mountain Hammer (1).

Manuevers Readied through the rest of the combat will be:
1d3 for the 2nd round of combat
1d2 on the 3rd round,
Last Manuever from the list (or 1d1) for the 4th round,
before maneuvers are recovered and the proceedure restarts (5th round).



Warblade

Action Before Thought: Use Concentration check instead of Ref save
Wall of Blades: Use Attack roll instead of AC vs 1 attack
Iron Heart Surge: Remove effect, gain +2 morale bonus


Stances:
Martial Spirit: Heal 2 Hitpoints with each succesful strike
Leading the Attack: Allies gain +4 to hit against Foe I strike
Blood in the Water: +1 to attack and damage for each critical hit

Current Stance: Leading the Attack

So in the first round of Combat Heilan has the following Maneuevers available:

Revitalising strike: Strike (requires a standard action)
Radiant charge: Strike (requires full round action and ability to make a charge)
Mountain Hammer: Strike (requires a standard action)
Action Before Thought: Counter (requires an immediate action)
Wall of Blades: Counter (requires an immediate action)
Iron Heart Surge: - (requires a standard action)

and the following stance (can be changed with a swift action)
Leading the attack.

Heilan can make a normal attack or use maneuevers instead.

[Eldariel]

Warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) is published in its entirety, including how maneuvers function and all that, on the Wizards site. Only thing missing are the various maneuver schools (it comes with half of the Warblade-exclusive school "Iron Heart").

Maneuver Cards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) contain the abbreviated explanation on all maneuvers. Read up on those, that should help you (since those contain the actual text from the book and whatnot).



But yeah, basically, it comes down to these classes learning stances and maneuvers.

Stance: You can always have exactly one stance active, period. That is, this is your fighting stance. Each stance grants you different benefits, and some have penalties to compensate. Assuming a stance, switching stance or ending a stance is a swift action.

Maneuvers: These are broken into 4 categories.

Strike: Strike is a maneuver where you make an attack, generally with some bonuses. Most strikes cost a standard action, but there are few strikes that cost you full round action (these Strikes are generally charges or full attacks).

Boost: Boosts cost a swift action. Generally they allow you to move a bit (e.g. a level 1 boost allows you to Jump as per Jump-skill once as a swift action, a level 7 boost allows you to take a Move Action as a swift action) or improve your next attacks.

Counter: Counters cost an immediate action. You can take these out of turn order. These are generally defensive moves, like making an opposed attack roll to block an attack or rolling a Concentration-check instead of a saving throw. Overall, these are the only maneuvers that can be used out of turn order, and as such they're generally defensive.

Other: There's a handful of maneuvers that don't fall into any of these types. There are three Teleportation maneuvers in Shadow Hand (one of the two magical schools, open to the "Swordsage" fighter/mage class) that lack a type; I can't remember others off-hand though there are few.


So, a martial adept maintains one stance and uses strikes (or normal attacks) to attack, boosts to improve their mobility or attacks and counters to occasionally protect themselves. If a maneuver is expended, it has to be recovered before it can be used again so there's no way to just spam one maneuver round after round (though of course, you can just go and spam normal attacks if you want). Each of the 3 initiator classes recovers maneuvers differently and other classes can't recover them at all.

[Person_Man]

For your first play through, I suggest using the Crusader 1-20.

They're basically a fixed Paladin - tank, damage dealer, backup healer, and ok party face. They have the shortest list of maneuvers and stances to choose from, but they're virtually all good. They arguably have the best and easiest to manage maneuver refresh mechanic - you draw some at random - you use them - and when you run out you draw more at random. And since all of your maneuvers are good, you can use a maneuver every round, and never waste an action Refreshing them.

So you can just pick a bunch of Strikes that sound cool and whatever melee Feats you enjoy, don't dump Str/Con/Cha, and you're set.

[danzibr]

I agree with Answerer. Oh, and that Alienist had a cool way of explaining ToB business.

ToB doesn't turn melee into casters. It turns melee into like, Wuxia. Nonmagical people doing stuff *so baddonkey* it looks like magic.

[Answerer]

ToB doesn't turn melee into casters. It turns melee into like, Wuxia. Nonmagical people doing stuff *so baddonkey* it looks like magic.
That's... not really accurate, either.

At low levels, ToB classes are (or, at least, can be if you want them to be) virtually indistinguishable from their Core counterparts from a fluff perspective. They do exactly the same things, they just do them better. There is no way in-character to tell the difference except Martial Lore, and that only works because the maneuvers are parts of codified martial arts that you can study.

At high levels, ToB becomes much more versatile and flexible than the Core classes they replace are. They have options those Core classes simply do not have. A lot of these options are very much super-human, but not necessarily supernatural. But the most common fictional media that depicts physical combatants with these levels of skill are wuxia (though some of the old myths and folklore have similar things, swords cutting through mountains and the like), which is why it sometimes can seem that way.

It does not have to be, though. There are a lot of tropes associated with wuxia, only part of which is the impossibly-skilled martial arts. You don't have to use any of the others.

You do need to be impossibly skilled because you're a high level character. It is my strongly-held opinion that your typical Fighter is no higher than level 8 or so, regardless of his class level: he's just too restricted to really be a 20th level character (optimizers can get around this, but the Fighter class is doing little to help when you have to rely on boatloads of underpriced/overpowered magic items and obscure feats just to keep up). If you want to play at those levels, you have to recognize and appreciate the significance of that choice: a 17th-level Wizard can create his very own plane of existence. Jumping a hundred feet in the air and slicing through a solid-adamantine golem or something pales in comparison, but it's a whole lot better than what the Fighter gets.

[Alienist]

You're welcome. The OP asked for an Idiot's Guide, and I seemed like just the idiot for the job. :D

:smallcool:

[Alienist]

1) Monk Mk.II can refresh his maneuvers as a full-round action, with the use of a feat.


Ah! So that's what it's for!

If we're referring to the same thing (I think we are), it's one of those confusingly worded things that the rules-shark types seem to pounce on like wolves on a wounded wildebeest, which kind of is a shame because that's the sort of thing that makes people leery of ToB in the first place. :smallconfused:

Thanks for the clarifications! Keep 'em coming! :smallbiggrin:

[LTwerewolf]

Ah! So that's what it's for!

If we're referring to the same thing (I think we are), it's one of those confusingly worded things that the rules-shark types seem to pounce on like wolves on a wounded wildebeest, which kind of is a shame because that's the sort of thing that makes people leery of ToB in the first place. :smallconfused:

Thanks for the clarifications! Keep 'em coming! :smallbiggrin:

It's also very useful for a warblade. Yes they have a mechanic that they can refresh their maneuvers with a FRA, but with the feat it allows them to change what they've prepared, allowing them to ready the right tool for the job. (Feat is adaptive style)

[willpell]

Personal opinion presented as fact.

Everything I say is my opinion. If I say the sky over my house is blue, you might come to my house, look up, and say "no, that's clearly azure" (they are considered separate colors in Italian and Russian, according to Wikipedia). An opinion may be more or less founded in fact, but it is never completely free of subjective bias. So I don't bother clarifying the absurdly obvious fact that anything I say is coming from my perspective and someone else might see it differently.


That said, if reading is a problem, I'm not sure why you're interested in a hobby the entire game is found in books.

This makes as much sense as saying "Well if you think the price of food is too high then what are you doing in a grocery store?" Of course I'm going to have to read, but making a barbarian requires almost no reading - pick a feat, pick a weapon and armor, and you're pretty much done. Clerics have to read the entire cleric spell list, and Wizards aren't far behind. I don't want a Fighter to get anywhere near that high a "price"; he should be maybe a little more "expensive" than a barbarian since his powers are trained rather than instinctive, but he is still performing fairly basic mechanical actions, and the list of his options should not require five solid minutes to commit to memory well enough to make it through a single play session. If I want to constantly be rechecking the range and duration and whether Resistance applies on every single thing I do, I'll play a Wizard. A Fighter has an easy "go to" option - "whack it with something uncomfortable" - and he ought to be able to succeed in a typical scenario on that basis, because that's his shtick. That doesn't mean he needs to be able to solo a balor or even a pixie; those monsters aren't "typical", and NO single character ought to be particularly well equipped to deal with them. The design oversight inherent in 3E is that the Wizard is capable of soloing a balor, not that the Fighter isn't; the lords of the Abyss ought to be a nearly impossible challenge for anyone, whether Arthur or Merlin, but that doesn't mean it's okay for Merlin to be twelve times more competent than Arthur at everything just because the system wants to 'reward mastery'.


Actually, Magic of Incarnum is pretty crap as a reference guide, too. It's just a awfully-laid-out book.

Well, I can't argue terribly hard on that one. I love Incarnum, but definitely not for its editing.

[kitcik]

Looking for a complete idiots guide to ToB.

Try opening the ToB :smalltongue:

[Answerer]

This makes as much sense as saying "Well if you think the price of food is too high then what are you doing in a grocery store?" Of course I'm going to have to read, but making a barbarian requires almost no reading - pick a feat, pick a weapon and armor, and you're pretty much done.
The list of feats is quite a lot larger than the list of maneuvers. Many times so, and organized far less conveniently (since they're spread out across so many books).

Hell, for that matter, you can get any maneuver with a feat, which means by your all-inclusive definition of what is required for character building, you need to consider all maneuvers when making a barbarian too.


Clerics have to read the entire cleric spell list, and Wizards aren't far behind.
Except, of course, that this isn't even remotely true. A barbarian does not need to consider every possible feat, including the various options made possible by Martial Study, a cleric or wizard does not need to consider every single spell, and an initiator does not need to consider every single maneuver. It's just unnecessary.

At this point, it really sounds like your complaint is not "I don't want to read all these things," so much as "I don't want all those things to even exist to be read," which is not a reasonable position in my mind. You don't have to use all of the options; the existence of options you are not using is not intrinsically hurting you.


A Fighter has an easy "go to" option - "whack it with something uncomfortable" - and he ought to be able to succeed in a typical scenario on that basis, because that's his shtick.
Then, IMO, you are playing the wrong system. 3.x has never supported that style of play, not even with just Core. It might have been what they were going for, but it's certainly not what they delivered. Every single class written without access to some sort of subsystem is inherently crippled, and while a very-skilled optimizer can make something even from those classes, it's much harder than doing something with access to a decent subsystem.

The Core rules provide a foundation, but a character needs more than that. Having only options available to everyone, even if you're better at them, will not allow any character to succeed beyond low levels.


That doesn't mean he needs to be able to solo a balor or even a pixie; those monsters aren't "typical", and NO single character ought to be particularly well equipped to deal with them.
Forget solo, the Fighter can't even contribute to those encounters. He's either side-lined or he's dead.


The design oversight inherent in 3E is that the Wizard is capable of soloing a balor, not that the Fighter isn't; the lords of the Abyss ought to be a nearly impossible challenge for anyone, whether Arthur or Merlin, but that doesn't mean it's okay for Merlin to be twelve times more competent than Arthur at everything just because the system wants to 'reward mastery'.
You're unlikely to get much of an argument on this from anyone, but it's a red herring.

[Malak'ai]

Try opening the ToB :smalltongue:

If I was able to do that (eg; owned a copy of ToB or was able to borrow one), do you think I would open a thread asking for people to explain in simple terms who it worked?

Anyway... Thank you very much for all the help, at least now I sort of understand what everyone is going on about :smallsmile:.

[Teflonknight]

Why is it referred to as the tome of battle when the main title is Book of Nine swords? Or am I mixed up?

[Hiro Protagonest]

If I was able to do that (eg; owned a copy of ToB or was able to borrow one), do you think I would open a thread asking for people to explain in simple terms who it worked?
Um... Yes? In the same way that people who buy a computer programming book get confused and buy Computer Programming for Dummies?

I have actually seen people come here and ask us for clarification because they were confused about what the book said.

Look, if you want to know how the subsystem works, you're going to have to read the subsystem.

Why is it referred to as the tome of battle when the main title is Book of Nine swords? Or am I mixed up?

It's because there is another Tome, Tome of Battle is indeed the main part of the title (despite what text size makes you think) and Book of Nine Swords is a crappy title that is only useful for the parody speculation of the imaginary book known as "the Book of Five Other Swords".

[willpell]

The list of feats is quite a lot larger than the list of maneuvers. Many times so, and organized far less conveniently (since they're spread out across so many books).

I don't consider most non-corebook feats to "count" unless they've specifically been added to my campaign's list, which I do as I get the time or upon player request. PHB (and a few in the MM1) contains the only feats which absolutely every campaign must contain (unless they're specifically banned), since you can't really play D&D without the three corebooks (you can maybe manage without the MM if nobody wants to ride a horse or cast Summon Monster), so those are the most "real" feats; all others are secondary and I don't give them primary consideration. If it were up to me, of course, there'd be a new set of corebooks containing a handful of "must-have" feats like Knowledge Devotion and a few basic reserve feats, along with a few new spells and items and such, and a few UA systems that I don't regard as optional, all while a few of the more situational things would get booted out of core. But, since this isn't done, I simply regard Core (or the SRD, the two being extremely close together) as having more legitimacy than anything else, in the abstract, until a campaign specifies otherwise.


Hell, for that matter, you can get any maneuver with a feat, which means by your all-inclusive definition of what is required for character building, you need to consider all maneuvers when making a barbarian too.

And all soulmelds, and all possible Bind Vestige outputs, and maybe all Truenamer Utterances since there's that Lexicon feat...if you're going to follow an unreasonable standard like that (note: i am calling the standard unreasonable, not the person who proposed it). I don't. Options like that are FAR outside the mainstream of the other classes.


Except, of course, that this isn't even remotely true. A barbarian does not need to consider every possible feat, including the various options made possible by Martial Study, a cleric or wizard does not need to consider every single spell, and an initiator does not need to consider every single maneuver. It's just unnecessary.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. To me, if it's a class feature, you have to think about it, and if it's something optional that you can tack on like an ACF or a sublevel or a feat from a weird book that's not directly related to your class, then you don't have to think about it unless specifically told to (eg: "all characters are incarnum-users, so make sure you consider Shape Soulmeld when picking feats for your barbarian"; absent such an announcement, I assume Shape Soulmeld isn't a legal feat choice unless I ask the GM to allow it).


At this point, it really sounds like your complaint is not "I don't want to read all these things," so much as "I don't want all those things to even exist to be read," which is not a reasonable position in my mind.

That is not my position and I agree it would be unreasonable if it was. Sorry if I created that impression. It's more like I want those options to be more restrictively categorized, though even that isn't quite what I have in mind.


You don't have to use all of the options; the existence of options you are not using is not intrinsically hurting you.

I think it is, much the way a coworker next to you playing their favorite music as loud as the volume knob will go without headphones is intrinsically hurting you, even though they had no intention to affect you in any way. Having too many choices is not helpful, any more than having too much food stuffed into your mouth is. You need to have the ability to distance yourself from undesired options, just as much as to attain access to desired ones.


Then, IMO, you are playing the wrong system. 3.x has never supported that style of play, not even with just Core. It might have been what they were going for, but it's certainly not what they delivered.

This is pretty much true; I'm sorta just making the best of a bad situation. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "3.5 is the worst system for dungeon-crawl fantasy adventuring, except for all the others." I want beholders and mind flayers, so my choices are "play 3.5 with some tinkering" or "custom-engineer my own stats for beholders and mind flayers in some other game system, doing all the work myself with no help and never sharing any of it with anyone online, because I'll get sued for breaking Wotco's copyrights if I do". It's not a very pleasant set of choices.


Every single class written without access to some sort of subsystem is inherently crippled, and while a very-skilled optimizer can make something even from those classes, it's much harder than doing something with access to a decent subsystem.

Subsystem - that's a word I gotta remember to use.


Having only options available to everyone, even if you're better at them, will not allow any character to succeed beyond low levels.

How very bleak. Denying the only viable options to some characters so that others can be Special Snowflakes is kind of a jerk thing for the designers to have done. Still, I can see the point that this is kinda the reality of things, and it'll have to do until I can manage to fix it.


Forget solo, the Fighter can't even contribute to those encounters. He's either side-lined or he's dead.

If necessary, he can contribute by dying, thereby eating up one or more of the monster's attacks. And it might be more, because he has a ton of hit points. If the monster instead ignores him, that's like a free Invisibility spell, and maybe he'll get a surprise attack using a McGuffin.


It's because there is another Tome, Tome of Battle is indeed the main part of the title (despite what text size makes you think) and Book of Nine Swords is a crappy title that is only useful for the parody speculation of the imaginary book known as "the Book of Five Other Swords".

Why five specifically? :smallamused:

[navar100]

Each school of magic works best with a certain kind of weapon (e.g. one school likes hammers, another likes swords).



Incorrect. Any weapon can be used for any discipline for any maneuver. A particular stance, like Blood in the Water, would get more use with a weapon that crits on an 18 as opposed to 20, but in general the weapon used is irrelevant as to whether a maneuver works as it should. It is important to note that the book is for melee fighting. It is possible to use a bow for some maneuvers/stances for benefits, but the book is melee-focused.

Each discipline does have associated weapons, but they only matter for a particular class feature of Monk II (swordsage), a feat in the book which you are not required to take, and a prestige class built for the purpose of using the associated weapons in two-weapon fighting.

[LordBlades]

Of course I'm going to have to read, but making a barbarian requires almost no reading - pick a feat, pick a weapon and armor, and you're pretty much done. Clerics have to read the entire cleric spell list, and Wizards aren't far behind. I don't want a Fighter to get anywhere near that high a "price"; he should be maybe a little more "expensive" than a barbarian since his powers are trained rather than instinctive, but he is still performing fairly basic mechanical actions, and the list of his options should not require five solid minutes to commit to memory well enough to make it through a single play session. If I want to constantly be rechecking the range and duration and whether Resistance applies on every single thing I do, I'll play a Wizard. A Fighter has an easy "go to" option - "whack it with something uncomfortable" - and he ought to be able to succeed in a typical scenario on that basis, because that's his shtick.

Yes and no. At the most basic level, yes, building a fighter/barbarian is easier than building a class based on a subsystem. Fighter/barb only require understanding the base rules whereas a subsystem class requires both the base rules and said subsystem.

Things change when you start caring whether your character is competent or not. Building a competent fighter/barbarian or any other class with fixed options (even sorcs) require a decent amount of planning and forethought. Building a fighter by picking a few feats off the short description table isn't that much easier than building a cleric by picking a few spells off the short description list.

The difference comes into play when you discover that what you picked doesn't work. You tried to play blaster cleric and it failed to deliver? Or maybe you just saw an interesting spell somewhere? No problem, you can change your spell selection completely tomorrow. Thought Toughness and Greater Weapon Specialization were great and they proved underwhelming in practice? Great, you can use that experience on your next character. Even if you see a cool feat somewhere, if you haven't planned ahead, there's a chance you won't be meeting the prerequisites very soon.

Once you get past the basics, no-limited-amount-of-stuff-known subsystems (wizard, druid, cleric, archivist, artificer, incarnum, binders) are much more open to a trial-and-error approach.

[willpell]

Things change when you start caring whether your character is competent or not.

I should probably refrain from going off on my usual rant about this attitude of "anything that isn't the absolute peak of Tier 1 is completely useless" - yeah I'm exagerrating, but when you say something like "not competent", that is exactly what I hear, that you're not going to be satisfied with anything less than ultimate powergaming, and I'm not impressed.


The difference comes into play when you discover that what you picked doesn't work. You tried to play blaster cleric and it failed to deliver? Or maybe you just saw an interesting spell somewhere? No problem, you can change your spell selection completely tomorrow. Thought Toughness and Greater Weapon Specialization were great and they proved underwhelming in practice? Great, you can use that experience on your next character. Even if you see a cool feat somewhere, if you haven't planned ahead, there's a chance you won't be meeting the prerequisites very soon.

Once you get past the basics, no-limited-amount-of-stuff-known subsystems (wizard, druid, cleric, archivist, artificer, incarnum, binders) are much more open to a trial-and-error approach.

Now this is a MUCH better point. While I don't consider the Fighter weak, I do think it's a bit irritating how locked into his role he gets. I believe there was a thread a while back about allowing him to switch his fighter feats with an hour or so of retraining? I'm much more willing to consider a "fix" like that than anything which makes him, IMO, stop being a fighter.

[Eldariel]

I should probably refrain from going off on my usual rant about this attitude of "anything that isn't the absolute peak of Tier 1 is completely useless" - yeah I'm exagerrating, but when you say something like "not competent", that is exactly what I hear, that you're not going to be satisfied with anything less than ultimate powergaming, and I'm not impressed.

I think the definition of "competent" used here is "able to contribute meaningfully against CR-appropriate encounters that in turn use all their capabilities". That has nothing to do with power, ultimate or otherwise, and everything to do with an enjoyable game experience after all.

[Alienist]

I think the definition of "competent" used here is "able to contribute meaningfully against CR-appropriate encounters that in turn use all their capabilities". That has nothing to do with power, ultimate or otherwise, and everything to do with an enjoyable game experience after all.

That's a bad definition because it slides into 'damage dealing == power' territory.

The thing is that even an appropriately tricked out fighter can dish out ridiculous damage (see dungeoncrasher et al).

The core of the argument has to do with what feminists call 'agency' ... the ability to make your own decisions.

Fighters hit things with sticks. Sometimes the sticks are sharp, sometimes they are pointy. The issue is that anytime you have something that doesn't fall into the hit it with sticks range, then the fighter is a non-starter.

[Eldariel]

That's a bad definition because it slides into 'damage dealing == power' territory.

Contribution =/= damage. Encounter =/= combat encounter. This tangent has little to do with the argument.

[willpell]

The core of the argument has to do with what feminists call 'agency' ... the ability to make your own decisions.

I'm not finding much on that sense of "agency" on Wikipedia; the basic idea seems to be that it contrasts with structure, and it doesn't say anything about feminism, just philosophy or sociology. Regardless, though, if we replace "agency" with "free will" since they seem to be similar concepts, I don't see how free will is in any way impaired by lack of power. Your character is free to do his thing, even if his thing is uselessly pelting the balor with pebbles to try and get its attention, running away, trying to rescue innocents since you can't actually kill their attacker but can still thwart him, or just sitting back and making wisecracks. Remember, this is a *roleplaying* game; the ability to achieve goals is secondary to the way your character views and reacts to all situations, including failure and frustration and inability to contribute.

[Lord_Gareth]

Well, lemme give ya the Quick and Dirty method of making a ToB character before this thread gets too long:

1. Decide if you prefer a sheer-skill warrior (Warblade), a mystic ninja/monk type (Swordsage - Naruto fans, this is your class) or a holy/unholy warrior (Crusader). Warblades needs Str/Con/Int, in that order. Swordsages need Str or Dex/Con/Wis, in that order, and Crusaders use Str/Con/Cha, in that order, all other stats to taste.

2. Pick your skills and feats. You usually don't have to worry about these, but if you're using Diamond Mind maneuvers make sure to max your Concentration, and if you're using Tiger Claw or Setting Sun do the same for Jump and/or Sense Motive. All other skills to taste.

3. Pick your feats. It's a good idea for Swordsages to take Adaptive Style, which lets them refresh (and change!) their readied maneuvers as a full-round action. Other than that, you can really just pick whatever the hell you want. It's almost impossible to cripple a ToB build, so go crazy. Invest in an exotic weapon, learn Combat Expertise, put all your feats in Toughness, whatevs. A note, though: for a Crusader, the feats Stone Power and Shards of Granite (both ToB) can be VERY nice to have around. Stone Power is especially friendly at lower levels when those temporary HP can absorb entire hits for you.

4. Pick your maneuvers! There's a complete list of maneuvers linked earlier in the thread, and you can print those off in easy-to-reference cards if you really want to read them in-depth. However, I kid you not when I say this: after you look and see what maneuver schools are available to your class, if you just pick whatever maneuvers sound cool they will be. And even if it turns out you don't like a maneuver later, you get to swap maneuvers at level 4 and every 2 levels thereafter, so you literally CANNOT HOSE YOURSELF.

5. Spend your starting gold.

6. Go kick ass.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why five specifically? :smallamused:

I dunno. The guy in a thread about which books you'd like to have seen if WotC had continued 3.5 called it "Complete Initiator: The Book of Five Other Swords". Which actually had a pretty cool-sounding barbarian/totemist type class.

[Keld Denar]

6. Go kick ass.

This, pretty much it. The optimization deadband that ToB characters are capable of has a pretty high floor, and a pretty low ceiling. Even if you pick primarily Stone Dragon maneuvers (generally considered the "weakest" school), you still won't be that poor off...just make you you always fight on the ground. You'll still whoop some major booty when things are near you.

Contrast with Wizard, which has a really low floor and a REALLY REALLY REALLY high ceiling, there is a lot of room to mess up or rule the world. Also contrast with Monk, which has a low floor and still a rather low ceiling, where unless you are really familiar with the system, you'll probably lack significant ability to contribute in combat/non-combat encounters.

That's why most people who like ToB like ToB. It is so hard to screw up, and you'll be solid T3 regardless of your choices. Its so hard to screw up, and yet so hard to really break (with minor IHS/WRT houserules). Oh, and it also plays well with others, meaning you can multiclass in and out of it easily for maximum customization.

[Lord_Gareth]

Oh, and a basic guide to different types of maneuvers:

Strikes, as a general rule, tend to augment melee attacks somehow. Most Strikes are a Standard Action (meaning you still have one Move and one Swift), though some are Full-Round actions. Most Strikes require you to roll a melee attack and then modify that attack somehow, such as by adding extra damage or a status effect.

Boosts are enhancements that affect you; they cost a Swift action (leaving you with one Move and one Standard, meaning that you can Boost and Strike in the same round), though some early Shadow Hand boosts cost a Move or Standard instead. Boosts do something, usually for 1 round, and then stop working, such as lighting your sword on fire or teleporting you.

Counters are always Immediate actions; if you use a Counter, you have no Swift action the next turn. Counters are primarily defensive abilities, such as Wall of Blades (a parry effect), Counter charge (which is hilarious) or Mind over Body (which lets you replace a Fortitude save with a Concentration check). Counters help keep you alive.

Stances are always on unless you are rendered unconscious (such as by falling asleep) or helpless (such as by a Hold Person) spell. They have a continuous effect with either helps you or hinders your enemies. You can change stances (or activate a stance at the start of the day) with a Swift action, and unlike other maneuvers stances don't need to be readied.

You ready any combination of Strikes, Boosts, and/or Counters up to your maximum with fifteen minutes of exercise at the start of your day. You can change this any time you can get another fifteen of exercise in (or, with the Adaptive Style feat, one full round). Otherwise, you start EVERY encounter with a full compliment of Maneuvers and can use them outside of encounters unlimited times.

Any further questions?

[rgrekejin]

The problem with Tome of Battle is that it turns melee characters into spellcasters, when the whole point of playing a melee character is to not be a spellcaster. Instead of giving the monk and fighter ways to hit so hard that they compete with casters, they just give you more spells you have to read. Making one of the classes actually have to shuffle a deck of spell cards was a cute gimmick, though.

Yes, this, in a nutshell, is my problem with the Tome of Battle. Somebody took a look at the game, realized that in a mid-to-high optimization game, spellcasting classes outpreformed martial classes, and decided this needed to be remedied. The solution? Make the martial classes into spellcasters too!

Umm...


1. They are not spells, they are not even particularly like spells. The only similarity is the typesetting and the fact that they're divided into 9 levels.

In what way, praytell, are they unlike spells?

Initiator level = Caster level
Discipline = Spell School
Initiation Action = Casting Time
Range = Same
Target = Same
Duration = Same
Area = Same
Saving Throw = Same
Readied Maneuvers ~ Spells Memorized

They are, mechanically, virtually identical. They have a different refresh rate, but otherwise they are for all intents and purposes spells. Psionic powers also use a slightly different system to determine the number of uses per day, but, let's be honest here, Psionic powers are spells with different descriptive text. Both are certainly far, far more like the abilities of a Wizard than they are like the abilities of a Barbarian. If somebody introduced this system as a Sorcerer variant, would you really think it all that out of place?

In short, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and upon post-mortem dissection appears to anatomically be a duck, it's a duck, no matter how many labels there are on the cage referring to it as a chimpanzee.

But really, what I don't like about the Tome of Battle isn't that it's mechanically bad, because it's not. It's that it's so... sad, I suppose, is the best way I can put it. When most people play a martial character, they want to play a mundane warrior, someone whose strength comes from the precision of their strikes, the strength of their blows, the endurance of their body... not from magic. By tarting up martial classes with pseudo-spells that allow you to channel fire through your sword, or randomly being able to briefly fly, or teleporting, or doing negative energy damage, they're saying that the only way that martial classes can compete with spellcasting classes is by being spellcasting classes but pretending they're not, and it's just kind of... pathetic.

And yes, I know that sometimes Monks or other classes can occasionally do weird things in this vein too, but those things are 1. not the focus of the build, 2. fixed in nature, and 3. relatively uncommon.

[Hiro Protagonest]

In what way, praytell, are they unlike spells?

Initiator level = Caster level
Discipline = Spell School
Initiation Action = Casting Time
Range = Same
Target = Same
Duration = Same
Area = Same
Saving Throw = Same
Readied Maneuvers ~ Spells Memorized

They are, mechanically, virtually identical. They have a different refresh rate, but otherwise they are for all intents and purposes spells. Psionic powers also use a slightly different system to determine the number of uses per day, but, let's be honest here, Psionic powers are spells with different descriptive text. Both are certainly far, far more like the abilities of a Wizard than they are like the abilities of a Barbarian.
That's because spells follow a good format! If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Do you know how easy it would be to make the Cleave feat follow the same format as Steel Wind?
If somebody introduced this system as a Sorcerer variant, would you really think it all that out of place?You mean with the exact same maneuvers? YES! I know that's not what you meant, but it's what I am going to pretend you meant. What if it had been designed with different maneuvers and used as a sorcerer variant? Then it would look wayyy more magical!

EDIT: Although actually, I don't like the "per day" thing per spellcasters. If there was a magic system that had refresh and per-encounter stuff, that would actually be pretty good. Personally though, I like a pool of points with which to cast that slowly refills (like at a rate of 1/4 level per round, minimum 1).
In short, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and upon post-mortem dissection appears to anatomically be a duck, it's a duck, no matter how many labels there are on the cage referring to it as a chimpanzee.
I'll let Lord_Gareth and his Magical RogueTM handle this one...

But really, what I don't like about the Tome of Battle isn't that it's mechanically bad, because it's not. It's that it's so... sad, I suppose, is the best way I can put it. When most people play a martial character, they want to play a mundane warrior, someone whose strength comes from the precision of their strikes, the strength of their blows, the endurance of their body... not from magic. By tarting up martial classes with pseudo-spells that allow you to channel fire through your sword, or randomly being able to briefly fly, or teleporting, or doing negative energy damage, they're saying that the only way that martial classes can compete with spellcasting classes is by being spellcasting classes but pretending they're not, and it's just kind of... pathetic.

And yes, I know that sometimes Monks or other classes can occasionally do weird things in this vein too, but those things are 1. not the focus of the build, 2. fixed in nature, and 3. relatively uncommon.

In what way do warblades have the ability to light their swords on fire!? Or get true flight, however temporary!? Or teleport!? Martial Study!? Because guess what, fighters can take that too! Crusaders have healing, they're supposed to be like paladins! Paladins have tons of magic! Swordsages are meant to represent everything from mundane martial artists (which they can, y'know, they have enough disciplines to make magical maneuvers an option, not a necessity), to the supernatural martial artists of Jade Empire and B-rate ninja movies!

Rant over.

[Spuddles]

The problem with Tome of Battle is that it turns melee characters into spellcasters

Have you played a level 10 warblade?

Cause I had the same feeling you did, and actually, it's pretty unfounded, especially for the warblade. Have had a Warblade in my campaign for about a year now. He's pretty much the party badass. He specializes in separating foes from their limbs with an axe and he collects scars.

Iron Heart, Tiger Claw, Stone Dragon and Diamond Mind make you a badass. A mundane one.

The warblade is a mundane badass. Beholder eye rays? It's cool, I block with my sword. That fiend is hovering near the ceiling, casting spells, and I'm down here with an axe? I climb up the wall, leap off with the grace of a tiger, clear the last 20 vertical feat to tackle and drag her to the earth.

That hag just cast a ice storm on me, triggering an avalanche burying me waist deep in snow? Iron heart Surge my way out- I mean BY CROM! Captain Bob AIN'T GOT TIME TO BLEED.

A powerful ogre mage is trying to magic jar my soul? My warrior spirit is too focused for that weak magic. Victory is when one acts in the moment. Stone Dragon those guts all over the place.

[Eldariel]

In what way, praytell, are they unlike spells?

Initiator level = Caster level
Discipline = Spell School
Initiation Action = Casting Time
Range = Same
Target = Same
Duration = Same
Area = Same
Saving Throw = Same

All those factors are simple representation. What you're arguing is that they're spells 'cause they're represented as spells. It should be obvious that's a faulty argument since presentation has nothing to do with the meat of the matter.

Yes, martial adepts get better attacks as they gain levels. How surprising! So clearly, gaining better abilities as you level is a hallmark of a Wizard; so Barbarians with their Greater/Supreme Rage are Wizards too! And Fighters with their Weapon Specialization/Greater Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Specialization! And Rogues, oh god the Rogues, with their constantly increasing Sneak Attack! Hell, Sneak Attack improves every level when Wizards gain new spells! Rogues are Wizards!


No, that has nothing to do with it. They're represented in a way where it's easy to list their targets, effects, the level on which you can gain them and so on so the representation is superficially similar to spells. Oh noes. So does that make them spells? Of course not. Again, it's only a superficial similarity. If PHB listed "single melee attack" as:
BAB = Caster Level (which it, frankly, is)
Discipline = Melee Attack (contra. ranged attack, trip attack, disarm attack, grapple attack, etc.)
Initiation Action = Standard Action
Range = Reach
Target = Single Opponent
Duration = Immediate
Saving Throw = None

And made the same list for tripping, grappling, disarming, sundering, charging, full attacking and attacks of opportunity, would you say Fighters are Wizards too? Any offense can be presented in this manner and anything more complex often is because this is a great way to list all the traits of an attack! It's a matter of letting the user know what the thing you use actually does in a simple, easy-to-access manner without the TL;DR syndrome.


Readied Maneuvers ~ Spells Memorized

Except no, there are no maneuver levels readied. There are slots from stats either, and the "spells" aren't expended on use. And you can switch all your readied maneuvers for another set on the spot with Adaptive Style. Then there's the whole case of stances that have no parallel in caster classes.


But really, what I don't like about the Tome of Battle isn't that it's mechanically bad, because it's not. It's that it's so... sad, I suppose, is the best way I can put it. When most people play a martial character, they want to play a mundane warrior, someone whose strength comes from the precision of their strikes, the strength of their blows, the endurance of their body... not from magic. By tarting up martial classes with pseudo-spells that allow you to channel fire through your sword, or randomly being able to briefly fly, or teleporting, or doing negative energy damage, they're saying that the only way that martial classes can compete with spellcasting classes is by being spellcasting classes but pretending they're not, and it's just kind of... pathetic.

You're confusing representation with effect. Martial maneuvers are basically always performed with weapons. You don't cast spells with weapons, you attack. Which leads us to the second point; they're attacks. Using a maneuver = attacking enemy in a way.

Basically equivalent to tripping or grappling or hitting them. It just gives you slightly more choice in how you attack. They're also extraordinary; you can attack regardless of whether magic's working or not.

But the key point? Maneuvers function identically to attacks. You don't provoke attack of opportunity for using maneuvers. Maneuvers don't require being able to speak or draw upon magical energies (outside the few caster schools of course which are, you guessed it, Monk schools). Maneuvers have the exact same requirements and broadly the same effects as attacks. They have very different requirements and very different effects from spells or powers. Ergo they're attacks, not spells or powers. There's really no way to confuse the two unless you get caught in presentation, which really has nothing to do with anything.

And yeah, sure, there are boosts and counters that aren't really comparable to either spells or attacks. They're that new nice thing to melee; able to use your weapon out of turn order to block an attack or being able to boost your next attack making it something of a combination attack of two separate attacks. Or being able to jump fast or move quickly to reach opponents to deliver your attacks.


And yes, I know that sometimes Monks or other classes can occasionally do weird things in this vein too, but those things are 1. not the focus of the build, 2. fixed in nature, and 3. relatively uncommon.

Monk's all about magic. They get to teleport, they get to jump down infinitely high, they get to talk to plants, they get to go ethereal, they're just as much spellcasters as Wizards, just worse at it. Like literally the only non-magical ability they have is hitting people with their fists. Which is frankly a small part of the whole class (though granted, the most functional part since it isn't pointlessly gimped like everything else about them).

[Dusk Eclipse]

I should probably refrain from going off on my usual rant about this attitude of "anything that isn't the absolute peak of Tier 1 is completely useless" - yeah I'm exagerrating, but when you say something like "not competent", that is exactly what I hear, that you're not going to be satisfied with anything less than ultimate powergaming, and I'm not impressed.


To quote a more eloquent poster than me "Hardcore Optimization/Ultimate Powergaming died the day Pun-Pun was posted". No really it is a proven fact that you can't beat Pun-pun, every little trick you have? He can do it... and better. Besides I haven't read single post that has said "You are not Tier 1? you are useless, no what I've read (and posted myself) is any variation of "compared to a Tier 1 you are weaker; but compared to Tier x you are better/worse".

[theUnearther]

I think it'd be worthy to derail this slightly to puntualize a little distinction that some or all of you may be overlooking.
But first, so you know where I stand...

The solution? Make the martial classes into spellcasters too!Yes. The problem (alright, one of the problems) with 3.5 is that it allows you to play as a mundane character, while pretending that you can still matter.
It could also be argued that the problem is that some people don't have to be mundane, but fixing that one makes the game considerably more boring, both in and out of combat.
And therefore I am of the opinion that the option of being a "mundane" should not exist. Or at least, should not be falsely advertised.

But as I said, this begs for a little qualification. Is a "mundane"
a) someone who lacks any Supernatural abilities, as defined by the (Su) tag? (Also (Sp), (Ps) and actual casting and manifesting, obviously). Or
b) someone who lacks access to any subsistem?

These used to be one and the same, until the Tome of Battle came and provided a subsistem that can be non-Supernatural, if it wants to.
And that's fine. It's certainly true that you should not have to be beholden to dragon blood/demon blood/arcane study/dragon blood again/deities/hipster deities/dragon blood again/the plane of shadow/psychic powers/whatever incarnum runs on/dragon blood a few more times, presumably/etc. to enjoy the benefits of a subsistem.

But it leads to a few arguments that are really just semantic arguments. "No, you are wrong, because mundane means a, not b, or viceversa". If you go read this thread with this bit in mind, you'll find a few instances of an argument like that. And this can never convince someone that their position is wrong. At best, it can convince them that they are using the wrong word to state it. But in lieu of any better word, people will argue for the right to have the word mean what they need it to mean, for the sake of stating the point they believe/hope to be arguing.


Therefore...
...I will provide better words. I declare myself able to do so by virtue of the fact that nobody else has. So if you agree that arguing semantics has been a waste of everybody's time and effort, you pretty much HAVE to accept my definitions, because arguing semantics with me would STILL be a waste of everybody's time and effort. And I have to say, it feels good to have this kind of legitimacy.
Anyways, for the purpose of further discussion:
- Normal is a character that has no Supernatural abilities.
- Paranormal will then be one that has no such limits.
- Basic is one that is limited to the rules available to all.
- Extended is one that takes advantage of a subsistem (or more).
In this scheme, it should be obvious that normal basic characters are "mundane" and paranormal extended ones are "magic". There has been some argument (or perhaps, not enough argument) over which one should normal extended ones fall into, which makes many contentions unsolvable. I don't think there are any paranormal basic options, nor do I think there can be, nor do I think there SHOULD be, but that does not mean the distinctions should be collapsed. They must remain two separate axes, even if one quadrant is to remain empty.

And that's why I said there shouldn't be any "mundane" classes in the game. I meant "Basic", every player should have options beyond, and in addition to, those granted to every other player and character. It's not inherently wrong if some characters' options are worse, but they must EXIST.

So if you all would be so kind as to restate your points using the full scheme, so you can... continue to not convince anyone, because people don't really work that way.

[Answerer]

I don't think there are any paranormal basic options, nor do I think there can be, nor do I think there SHOULD be
Nice work overall; I think it's a useful distinction to make.

This point, though, I think you could argue that UMD-ers are Paranormal but Basic. UMD is available to all classes but it's certainly not within the realm of reality. Artificers sans Infusions and Warlocks sans Invocations might be; Item Creation/Imbue Item are unique but still mostly based on Basic rules and isn't a subsystem by any means. After all, I'd still call Ranger and Monk Basic even if they have got unique features.

Actually, on that point, Monk is Basic and Paranormal. Tongue of Sun and Moon, Abundant Step, etc. are certainly Paranormal, but the class is overall very much Basic.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that plenty of others have chimed in re: rgrekejin's argument. The typesetting of material hardly constitutes a fluff or mechanical anything; it's just layout and organization. Mechanically, maneuvers are very different from spells, and they play very differently as well. The comparison isn't even close, in reality; the similarities literally end at "they're both divided into 9 levels."

[theUnearther]

Thank you, Answerer, for vindicating my lingüistic power-grab. And no, Use Magic Device should not be counted as Basic, because it is still USING the existing (and rather convoluted) subsistem, even if they have sort of cheated their way in. That was one of the complaints somebody had, remember "I don't want to (have to) read"?
Certainly, "they can get Use Magic Device" does not make a class Extended, but actually using that option will make a character so.
I had originally thought of this when considering the feat that gives you some cantrips and a caster level of 1. Magic Training, I think. Feats are available to everybody, yes, but taking that one would move you above and beyond what is "normal" for feats.

But I think I pretty much have to grant you the monk. Their abilities are self-contained, fixed and non-expansible (also not very good, but that is irrelevant here) so I don't think they should be counted as a subsystem of their own, but they are certainly not available to everyone by default. Can't call it a corner case either, there are many more on close inspection. I think one of the ninjas gets some Extraordinary invisibility, no?
This really calls for a third category on that axis, but I guess they could be lumped on Basic for the purpose of my original "Extended=Better" point.
Nice catch.

[rgrekejin]

All those factors are simple representation. What you're arguing is that they're spells 'cause they're represented as spells. It should be obvious that's a faulty argument since presentation has nothing to do with the meat of the matter.

Yes, martial adepts get better attacks as they gain levels. How surprising! So clearly, gaining better abilities as you level is a hallmark of a Wizard; so Barbarians with their Greater/Supreme Rage are Wizards too! And Fighters with their Weapon Specialization/Greater Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Specialization! And Rogues, oh god the Rogues, with their constantly increasing Sneak Attack! Hell, Sneak Attack improves every level when Wizards gain new spells! Rogues are Wizards!

...so wait, you're telling me that everything in the game is represented by numbers and variables that are generated by rolling dice, and if we're willing to step far enough back, everything becomes the same, and what's a spell and what isn't is just a matter of differential representation? Well golly gee, who'd have ever imagined that. :smallannoyed:

My point is that everything involved in a Martial Adept has pretty much a one-to-one translation from spell to maneuver, which is undeniably true. Yes, if you torture the analogy long enough, you can eventually portray every action a rogue or a fighter performs in terms analogous to what a wizard does, but you really have to stretch for it.


No, that has nothing to do with it. They're represented in a way where it's easy to list their targets, effects, the level on which you can gain them and so on so the representation is superficially similar to spells. Oh noes. So does that make them spells? Of course not. Again, it's only a superficial similarity. If PHB listed "single melee attack" as:
BAB = Caster Level (which it, frankly, is)
Discipline = Melee Attack (contra. ranged attack, trip attack, disarm attack, grapple attack, etc.)
Initiation Action = Standard Action
Range = Reach
Target = Single Opponent
Duration = Immediate
Saving Throw = None

And made the same list for tripping, grappling, disarming, sundering, charging, full attacking and attacks of opportunity, would you say Fighters are Wizards too? Any offense can be presented in this manner and anything more complex often is because this is a great way to list all the traits of an attack! It's a matter of letting the user know what the thing you use actually does in a simple, easy-to-access manner without the TL;DR syndrome.

Baloney. Tell me, how many different types of standard attacks do you get when reach the third level of fighter? That should unlock second-level standard attacks for you, right? So what are they? How about the fifth-level ones? When I get to ninth-level standard attacks, those must do something really different, right? Well, no, sorry to say, they don't. A "standard" attack is just that for a reason - it's standard. A simple attack that can be made repeatably, every round. Yes, you get an increasingly high bonus to your simple attack, but that simple attack will never becomes a one-shot gimmick, expended upon use, of which you know a vast number with many different effects, new power levels of which are gained at every odd level. And yes, I am aware that bullrush, trip, and their ilk exist, but as those are things which can be done by everyone straight out of the box, and the feats just make you better able to do them, that line of reasoning cuts no ice here. If you wanted to talk about, say, whirlwind attack, you might have a point, but given the mechanical differences in how you acquire whirlwind attack versus how you acquire maneuvers, you've still got your work cut out for you.


Except no, there are no maneuver levels readied. There are slots from stats either, and the "spells" aren't expended on use. And you can switch all your readied maneuvers for another set on the spot with Adaptive Style. Then there's the whole case of stances that have no parallel in caster classes.

Well, yes. That's why that one was marked with a "approximately" symbol, rather than the equals sign. The refresh rate and change-out rate is the one area where maneuvers actually differ significantly from spells, although I think as long as we're in the business of drawing silly analogies, saying that you have a set list of maneuvers that you can expend in an encounter which remain gone until you refresh them isn't *that* dissimilar to saying that you have a set list of spells that you can expend in an encounter which remain gone until you refresh them.


You're confusing representation with effect. Martial maneuvers are basically always performed with weapons. You don't cast spells with weapons, you attack. Which leads us to the second point; they're attacks. Using a maneuver = attacking enemy in a way.

Basically equivalent to tripping or grappling or hitting them. It just gives you slightly more choice in how you attack. They're also extraordinary; you can attack regardless of whether magic's working or not.

But the key point? Maneuvers function identically to attacks.
*snip*
Ergo they're attacks, not spells or powers. There's really no way to confuse the two unless you get caught in presentation, which really has nothing to do with anything.

...really? Because I've never seen a standard melee attack that has a radius of effect, or that required a reflex save. Yes, many (although by no means all) maneuvers require you to hit the opponent with a weapon, but the effect they produce certainly isn't a normal weapon attack. It's a pseudomagical effect. Also... touch spells? Ray attacks? Ranged touch attacks? A fair bit of directly offensive magic actually does require you to attack you opponent, albeit usually without a weapon. The "weapon as a spell trigger" is a legitimate difference (albeit not a very large one, in my opinion), but, if we're wandering outside of core, I note that it's hardly novel. Are you seriously trying to argue that because a duskblade channels a spell through his sword when he hits his enemy, the spell has in fact ceased to become a spell, and is now an attack, because "you don't cast spells with weapons, you attack"?

[Eldariel]

...so wait, you're telling me that everything in the game is represented by numbers and variables that are generated by rolling dice, and if we're willing to step far enough back, everything becomes the same, and what's a spell and what isn't is just a matter of differential representation? Well golly gee, who'd have ever imagined that. :smallannoyed:

...seriously? Is this your response? You'll have to do better than that.


Baloney. Tell me, how many different types of standard attacks do you get when reach the third level of fighter? That should unlock second-level standard attacks for you, right? So what are they? How about the fifth-level ones? When I get to ninth-level standard attacks, those must do something really different, right? Well, no, sorry to say, they don't. A "standard" attack is just that for a reason - it's standard. A simple attack that can be made repeatably, every round. Yes, you get an increasingly high bonus to your simple attack, but that simple attack will never becomes a one-shot gimmick, expended upon use, of which you know a vast number with many different effects, new power levels of which are gained at every odd level. And yes, I am aware that bullrush, trip, and their ilk exist, but as those are things which can be done by everyone straight out of the box, and the feats just make you better able to do them, that line of reasoning cuts no ice here. If you wanted to talk about, say, whirlwind attack, you might have a point, but given the mechanical differences in how you acquire whirlwind attack versus how you acquire maneuvers, you've still got your work cut out for you.

Level 2 I get the following attack:

-2 To Hit
+2 To Damage

That's called "Power Attacking for 2"

Level 6 I get the following attack:
Full Round Action

You may attack twice, with the second attack at -5 penalty. And so on and so forth. The distinction you're using doesn't make even standard attacks anything but spells. Your distinction is useless. Learning different abilities on higher levels is no different from gaining new feats or extra attacks or hell, increased BAB or saving throws or HP. You're getting caught on typesetting like Answerer said. That's literally the most trivial thing you could jump on.

I can rewrite all spells so that none of them use the typesetting you seem so allergic to without changing a single thing about the system. That wouldn't make then any less spells tho; Wizards learn them (there's another important distinction btw; classes that learn maneuvers are kinda inherently warriors while classes learning spells are defined as spellcasters; that's really the fundamental matter we're working with here, how the game defines these different abilities and the classes that use them and there you have no ground for arguments). But by your logic I'd suddenly have made Wizards non-casters 'cause at that point they wouldn't learn things following the spell typesetting.


...really? Because I've never seen a standard melee attack that has a radius of effect, or that required a reflex save. Yes, many (although by no means all) maneuvers require you to hit the opponent with a weapon, but the effect they produce certainly isn't a normal weapon attack. It's a pseudomagical effect.

What's magical about it? Are you saying tripping is magical too? It's not a normal weapon attack. Besides, there's plenty of non-ToB attacks in the game beyond "standard melee attack"; it'd only be one attack in this typesetting with others coming from the common options in Core and then class/creature-specific ones. Hulking Hurler can throw a rock so that it hits everybody in an AOE and they have to succeed a Reflex save to avoid the damage. Maybe Hulking Hurlers use magic then? Or maybe an attack forcing a Reflex-save or hitting an arc (Cleave much?) has nothing to do with the magicality or the lack there-of of the attack?

Did you know that bombs from DMG's Modern rules use Reflex-saves? As do e.g. avalanches or catching fire? So clearly everything requiring a Reflex-save is magic. In real life I can't catch fire, right? And Touch attacks? Grapple, Trip, melee combat is full of touch attacks. There's no way to even argue there's anything magical about those.


Also... touch spells? Ray attacks? Ranged touch attacks? A fair bit of directly offensive magic actually does require you to attack you opponent, albeit usually without a weapon. The "weapon as a spell trigger" is a legitimate difference (albeit not a very large one, in my opinion), but, if we're wandering outside of core, I note that it's hardly novel. Are you seriously trying to argue that because a duskblade channels a spell through his sword when he hits his enemy, the spell has in fact ceased to become a spell, and is now an attack, because "you don't cast spells with weapons, you attack"?

He casts a spell. Then hits an opponent and channels it. This has nothing to do with the act of casting the spell, except the game-mechanical advantage of saving an action. Duskblade specifically casts spells. He needs to be able to speak to cast stuff. His spellcasting can be interrupted (a key difference between attacks and spells; attacks can't be "disrupted" with AoOs or readied actions like spells can).


Really, let's make this simple: Point out one single magical thing about the extraordinary maneuvers from ToB.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Cleave
Lvl 1 feat
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Atack
Range: Melee weapon
Target: One creature


There. A feat now follows spell format. The only difference is that level refers to the minimum level you can take it at.

[Spuddles]

...so wait, you're telling me that everything in the game is represented by numbers and variables that are generated by rolling dice, and if we're willing to step far enough back, everything becomes the same, and what's a spell and what isn't is just a matter of differential representation? Well golly gee, who'd have ever imagined that. :smallannoyed:

My point is that everything involved in a Martial Adept has pretty much a one-to-one translation from spell to maneuver, which is undeniably true. Yes, if you torture the analogy long enough, you can eventually portray every action a rogue or a fighter performs in terms analogous to what a wizard does, but you really have to stretch for it.



Baloney. Tell me, how many different types of standard attacks do you get when reach the third level of fighter? That should unlock second-level standard attacks for you, right? So what are they? How about the fifth-level ones? When I get to ninth-level standard attacks, those must do something really different, right? Well, no, sorry to say, they don't. A "standard" attack is just that for a reason - it's standard. A simple attack that can be made repeatably, every round. Yes, you get an increasingly high bonus to your simple attack, but that simple attack will never becomes a one-shot gimmick, expended upon use, of which you know a vast number with many different effects, new power levels of which are gained at every odd level. And yes, I am aware that bullrush, trip, and their ilk exist, but as those are things which can be done by everyone straight out of the box, and the feats just make you better able to do them, that line of reasoning cuts no ice here. If you wanted to talk about, say, whirlwind attack, you might have a point, but given the mechanical differences in how you acquire whirlwind attack versus how you acquire maneuvers, you've still got your work cut out for you.



Well, yes. That's why that one was marked with a "approximately" symbol, rather than the equals sign. The refresh rate and change-out rate is the one area where maneuvers actually differ significantly from spells, although I think as long as we're in the business of drawing silly analogies, saying that you have a set list of maneuvers that you can expend in an encounter which remain gone until you refresh them isn't *that* dissimilar to saying that you have a set list of spells that you can expend in an encounter which remain gone until you refresh them.



...really? Because I've never seen a standard melee attack that has a radius of effect, or that required a reflex save. Yes, many (although by no means all) maneuvers require you to hit the opponent with a weapon, but the effect they produce certainly isn't a normal weapon attack. It's a pseudomagical effect. Also... touch spells? Ray attacks? Ranged touch attacks? A fair bit of directly offensive magic actually does require you to attack you opponent, albeit usually without a weapon. The "weapon as a spell trigger" is a legitimate difference (albeit not a very large one, in my opinion), but, if we're wandering outside of core, I note that it's hardly novel. Are you seriously trying to argue that because a duskblade channels a spell through his sword when he hits his enemy, the spell has in fact ceased to become a spell, and is now an attack, because "you don't cast spells with weapons, you attack"?

This really demonstrates to me that you've never made a setting sun & tiger claw swordsage, or a warblade, much less played one.

They way the maneuver system functions is much, much different than spells, as virtually everything resolves as a melee attack, a skill check, or an opposed roll. Your actions become much more important, not slots. Should you use your swift this round so you can get a full attack off, or save it in case you'll need your immediate for a saving throw?

Did you know that scaling abilities, when evenly spaced on a table, will end up looking like spells? Spells used to be one the regularly scaling abilities a class would get, then came invocations and soulmelds and binding and powers, etc. etc. Every new system introduced will naturally look like spells, because there's a table with numbers. It turns out that simply throwing rage, smites, BAB, slightly larger HD and saves at class, in a system with druids or factotums or dread necromancers, is terrible class design. Everyone needs a set of abilities that progress with levels to stay relevant. Feats were badly designed. Even Cook or Williams admits they made them bad on purpose, and even he doesn't realize that TWF is worth a lot less than Natural Spell.

In order for mundanes to keep up, they need a table with abilities that get better. Did you know that binders also have a table with vestiges on it? Basically like spellcasters... said no one, ever. They play totally different. It's about creating synergy between a disparate collection of Ex, Sp, and Su abilities that have 5 round delays in between them.

Likewise, separating maneuvers into levels and schools is superficially similar to magic. Virtually everything gets a level or rank in D&D. If you start classifying things, you end up with systems that look like traditional D&D vancian magic.

Please, make me a warblade with only his class disciplines that is using a non weapon to AoE fire ball his enemies or teleports or does any of the things you have problems with (for some unfathomable reason). You can't. A swordsage can, but he's supposed to a mystic warrior, like a monk, or a ranger, or a ninja. A warblade is supposed to be a knight, a barbarian, or a fighter. He gets by with grit and steel and guts. If you read through his disciplines, you'll see that you can basically build a fighter that has a handful of neat, but ultimately mundane tricks up his sleeve. Is parrying a blow with your sword too magical for you? Should that be represented as Two Weapon Defense or Shield Focus or something? Attacking two enemies at the same time as a standard action? Too magical, does it need to be a full round action and require a feat? What about using a concentration check to replace a save? What about an ability that lets a warblade use listen checks to detect invisible foes with greater accuracy? Getting an extra bonus attack in a round? Dealing 100 damage with a powerful strike? All of it too magical? Is +1 to hit or +2 damage all warrior types should be getting? Maybe force them to take a long chain of feats to be competent at disarming or tripping or bullrushing- situational and often mediocre abilities? Otherwise it might feel like the warrior is casting spells, if they used a standard action to throw a foe through a window or choke the life out of the monster that's grappling him.

But you wouldn't know that most of ToB is a revised feat & martial combat resolution system, because you haven't read the material, you haven't built characters with the material, and you haven't played a game with the material.


Really, let's make this simple: Point out one single magical thing about the extraordinary maneuvers from ToB.

Easy: Shadow Hand Teleport. It's an Ex [Teleport] effect, allowing you to burst into a bunch of shadows and travel 50 feet. There's also a Crusader maneuver or two that let's you heal allies that isn't tagged as supernatural. Or maybe it's a stance.

Iron Heart Surge can somehow turn off spell effects that are hanging out, like anti-magic fields.

There are a few errata issues. But by and large, the mundane disciplines stay real mundane. By the time they start doing cool stuff, you'd be doing the same cool stuff with skills and heavy investment in +skill items. This just removes item/epic dependency.

[Lord_Gareth]

I'll let Lord_Gareth and his Magical RogueTM handle this one...

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO REMIND ME OF THAT HORRIBLE THREAD?

If anyone needs me, I'll be in the corner. Sobbing.

[rgrekejin]

Level 2 I get the following attack:

-2 To Hit
+2 To Damage

That's called "Power Attacking for 2"

Level 6 I get the following attack:
Full Round Action

You may attack twice, with the second attack at -5 penalty. And so on and so forth. The distinction you're using doesn't make even standard attacks anything but spells. Your distinction is useless. Learning different abilities on higher levels is no different from gaining new feats or extra attacks or hell, increased BAB or saving throws or HP. You're getting caught on typesetting like Answerer said. That's literally the most trivial thing you could jump on.

I can rewrite all spells so that none of them use the typesetting you seem so allergic to without changing a single thing about the system. That wouldn't make then any less spells tho; Wizards learn them (there's another important distinction btw; classes that learn maneuvers are kinda inherently warriors while classes learning spells are defined as spellcasters; that's really the fundamental matter we're working with here, how the game defines these different abilities and the classes that use them and there you have no ground for arguments). But by your logic I'd suddenly have made Wizards non-casters 'cause at that point they wouldn't learn things following the spell typesetting.

You're really not getting this. The problem has literally nothing to do with typesetting, please cease to claim that it does. The problem is this:

When you level up as a mundane character, you do gain extra bonuses to your attack. Yes, you can even take feats to shift some of those bonuses around sometimes, or to allow you to be more efficient at using the game's special attacks. But no matter how much those bonuses increase, they are still just adding modifiers to the same basic types of attack. I don't suddenly gain the ability to deal fire damage with my sword at third level, or the ability to deal negative energy damage with a standard attack at ninth, not without the use of magic, anyway. They never become one time use actions that are expended to produce a novel effect (at which point, they would become pretty similar to spells). The bonus may change, but the type of attack doesn't. Yes, there may be some feats or class features of various prestige classes that allow you to do this, but those things are the exception that prove the rule.


What's magical about it?
*snip*
Really, let's make this simple: Point out one single magical thing about the extraordinary maneuvers from ToB.

...by the way, you are aware that the chapter from which all maneuvers are drawn is actually titled "Blade Magic", right?

But still, let's briefly have a look at the extraordinary maneuvers (although, to be honest, by biggest problems lie with the supernatural ones)

...well okay. Castigating Strike invokes a blast of divine energy. Law Bearer and Tide of Chaos allow you to become sheathed in either Axiomic or Anarchic energy, but that's totally mundane, right? Iron Heart Surge can let you shrug off spell effects. One With Shadow turns you incorporeal. Shadow Jaunt and Shadow Blink allow you to teleport. Do I need to go on?

And that's not even taking into consideration stances that give you blindsense or the scent ability, somehow.

But setting all that aside, there are a very large number of Supernatural abilities that very clearly do magical things. Shooting balls of fire, throwing handfuls of shadow, etc.

Look, my point is really quite simple - if you're throwing around fireballs, making a snake out of fire, teleporting, being shrouded in alignment-based energy, and creating living shadows that choke your opponent to death, then you're doing magic. Period. I don't care what the fluff text says. If you want to insist that they're not spells because a common trigger is "hiting someone with a weapon", or because they're extraordinary and supernatural abilities, rather than spells or spell-like, or because of the fluff, or whatever, fine. I still submit that they're so close as makes no difference.

[Answerer]

To be blunt, and because I'm not going to spend the time to do a point-by-point rebuttal, I'm just going to cover them all very simply:

You are wrong.

You have absolutely no ground to stand upon. You're making numerous errors in your analysis, conflating many different dissimilar things, and you are taking as crucial that which is entirely trivial.

So, you are wrong.

[danzibr]

It is called blade magic.

Not to join any hot debates or anything, but I think of it as the melee *version* of magic. I don't see it as magic. Just melee people doing stuff so baddonkey it's like magic.

[rgrekejin]

To be blunt, and because I'm not going to spend the time to do a point-by-point rebuttal, I'm just going to cover them all very simply:

You are wrong.

You have absolutely no ground to stand upon. You're making numerous errors in your analysis, conflating many different dissimilar things, and you are taking as crucial that which is entirely trivial.

So, you are wrong.

Now what was it someone said about this sort of statement upthread...



Personal opinion presented as fact.

and also



repeating incorrect information does not make it correct

:smalltongue:

If I'm so self-evidently wrong, correct me. Otherwise, I think the end result of this conversation speaks for itself.

[LTwerewolf]

Sounds to me like neither person has any intention of listening to each other.

There are effects on some that are clearly magical. Desert wind is pretty much just that. There are also maneuvers that are clearly nonmagical, like most of tiger claw.

To say that the system turns fighters into wizards is inherently wrong, and ignores all of the differences in the systems. For example wizards can cast a spell that does 2d6 damage. A fighter can swing a greatsword that does 2d6 damage. This does not make them the same . Execution and method make a difference.

To say that there is nothing magical is also wrong, for seemingly obvious reasons.

[huttj509]

Look, my point is really quite simple - if you're throwing around fireballs, making a snake out of fire, teleporting, being shrouded in alignment-based energy, and creating living shadows that choke your opponent to death, then you're doing magic. Period. I don't care what the fluff text says. If you want to insist that they're not spells because a common trigger is "hiting someone with a weapon", or because they're extraordinary and supernatural abilities, rather than spells or spell-like, or because of the fluff, or whatever, fine. I still submit that they're so close as makes no difference.

Here's the problem. You describe the whole maneuver system as being magic. All your examples are drawn from Swordsage-specific schools (snakes of fire, swords on fire, teleporting, living shadows). Wait, you also have a few examples from Crusader (the divine and alignment-based stuff), and a single well-known often-argued poorly-written ability from Warblade.

You say your issue is with the maneuver system as a whole being magic. What it sounds like is your issue is with the Desert Wind and Shadow Hand schools being too magical.

Are paladins supposed to be mundane? No? Then why should Crusaders be completely mundane? It kinda makes sense they'd have some divine or alignment-based options.

Are monks mundane? Heck, by your own description, they get stuff other than "adding modifiers to the same attack." They can hit you now, and you suddenly die TWO WEEKS LATER. And the monk doesn't even need to choose the timeframe when making the attack, just sets it up, and later says "now." If the monk isn't mundane, why should the swordsage be mundane?

As to what the Warblade has available, the only one you've mentioned is an oft-argued, poorly-written, well-known-confusing ability, Iron Heart Surge. Now, I agree, ending the whole spell for everyone seems a bit much. I do, however, feel than being able to break the effects, or ignore a status effect for a bit, just through sheer "bad***" does not inherently reek of magic.

That's why people have been mentioning the Warblade. None of the (non-prestige) classes in the ToB have access to all maneuvers. If the issue is with Desert Wind? Fine, Swordsages might be too magical, because they're the only class that gets Desert Wind.

It's like saying the PHB is too magical while ignoring the Fighter, Rogue, and low-level Rangers. You can make an entirely non-magical initiator, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Now, you still might not like the baby, but if your stated reason for throwing it out is "it smells too much like the bathwater," people might look at you funny. (Yeah, not great simile, but the well-known phrase is what came to mind)

[rgrekejin]

Here's the problem. You describe the whole maneuver system as being magic. All your examples are drawn from Swordsage-specific schools (snakes of fire, swords on fire, teleporting, living shadows). Wait, you also have a few examples from Crusader (the divine and alignment-based stuff), and a single well-known often-argued poorly-written ability from Warblade.

Even disregarding which effects are semi-magical and which ones are not, the whole system still *functions* like magic. You have a set list of one-time use maneuvers that each produce a novel effect that you can expend in an encounter and then refresh at a later date. Even the perfectly mundane ones *play* like, for lack of a better term, mundane spells.

I mean, seriously. If these are supposed to represent different types of attacks that a character can make, why have the expend and refresh mechanic at all? If I know a sword technique, shouldn't I just be able to do that technique at will? If expending the maneuver is supposed to represent a character being out of position to execute that technique again, shouldn't there be a better way of representing that? Shouldn't which techniques you can use be context-sensitive, rather than just readying them from a list and then using them at will until exhaustion?

[Eldariel]

...well okay. Castigating Strike invokes a blast of divine energy. Law Bearer and Tide of Chaos allow you to become sheathed in either Axiomic or Anarchic energy, but that's totally mundane, right? Iron Heart Surge can let you shrug off spell effects. One With Shadow turns you incorporeal. Shadow Jaunt and Shadow Blink allow you to teleport. Do I need to go on?

I said extraordinary maneuvers. You managed to pick all the supernatural ones and Iron Heart Surge; and I fail to see how Conan the Barbarian is magic for being able to shake off magic conditions.


And that's not even taking into consideration stances that give you blindsense or the scent ability, somehow.

Blindsense is based on hearing; it's disabled if you can't hear. Basically, on that level your hearing is so keen that you can accurately determine the position of anything within 30' from you as long as it makes sound.

Scent? Yeah, you have a very developed sense of scent to the point where you can track with it and locate creatures with it. What's the magical part about those?


But setting all that aside, there are a very large number of Supernatural abilities that very clearly do magical things. Shooting balls of fire, throwing handfuls of shadow, etc.

Look, my point is really quite simple - if you're throwing around fireballs, making a snake out of fire, teleporting, being shrouded in alignment-based energy, and creating living shadows that choke your opponent to death, then you're doing magic. Period. I don't care what the fluff text says. If you want to insist that they're not spells because a common trigger is "hiting someone with a weapon", or because they're extraordinary and supernatural abilities, rather than spells or spell-like, or because of the fluff, or whatever, fine. I still submit that they're so close as makes no difference.

Those are Monk's abilities from the two magical schools they get. Specifically, the class that gets those is basically Monk. Of course Monk gets magical abilities. PHB Monk does too. However, PHB Fighter vs. ToB Fighter, ToB Fighter does not gain magical abilities (unless you consider hearing or smelling or having a strong will magic).

It's clear to me you don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you get better acquainted with ToB before you try to argue what it is or is not, maybe even try it in a game once. Play a Warblade (or hell, a Crusader) and see how magical it feels. I dare you; play one for 10 levels and tell me "it felt like I was playing a Wizard".

[danzibr]

I think the only way you can say ToB turns a fighter into a wizard is if maneuvers require a verbal component like, "I put on my robe and wizard hat."

[rgrekejin]

I said extraordinary maneuvers. You managed to pick all the supernatural ones and Iron Heart Surge; and I fail to see how Conan the Barbarian is magic for being able to shake off magic conditions.

...perhaps you should go re-read your Tome of Battle, my friend, because you're just simply wrong. Castigating Strike, Law Bearer, Tide of Chaos, One With Shadow, Shadow Jaunt and Shadow Blink are all extraordinary, not supernatural. Perhaps you should read the book yourself before posting things like this:


It's clear to me you don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you get better acquainted with ToB before you try to argue what it is or is not, maybe even try it in a game once. Play a Warblade (or hell, a Crusader) and see how magical it feels. I dare you; play one for 10 levels and tell me "it felt like I was playing a Wizard".

For the record, I *have* played a Swordsage from levels 1-9, and I've used an NPC Master of the Nine in a campaign I DM. And did I feel they felt more like spellcasters than martial warriors? Yes, I most certainly did. There's no need to be so defensive about this. I don't, in abstract, think that the ToB is even a bad book. I just think that it makes martial characters into... well, not strictly martial characters. If that's what you want to play, this is a fantastic book for that. But for someone looking to play, you know, a fighter or a barbarian archetype, it's... lacking.

[Eldariel]

...perhaps you should go re-read your Tome of Battle, my friend, because you're just simply wrong. Castigating Strike, Law Bearer, Tide of Chaos, One With Shadow, Shadow Jaunt and Shadow Blink are all extraordinary, not supernatural. Perhaps you should read the book yourself before posting things like this

They're from supernatural schools. I don't really care how they're marked inside each; Shadow Hand, Desert Wind and Devoted Spirit do magical stuff.


For the record, I *have* played a Swordsage from levels 1-9, and I've used an NPC Master of the Nine in a campaign I DM. And did I feel they felt more like spellcasters than martial warriors? Yes, I most certainly did. There's no need to be so defensive about this. I don't, in abstract, think that the ToB is even a bad book. I just think that it makes martial characters into... well, not strictly martial characters. If that's what you want to play, this is a fantastic book for that. But for someone looking to play, you know, a fighter or a barbarian archetype, it's... lacking.

So you played the swordmage and complain about them feeling magical? How surprising. If I want to make a Fighter, I'll make a Warblade or a Crusader depending on the Fighter style I want. If I want a Barbarian, I'll make a Warblade. Both of them can replicate the PHB class's abilities extremely well.

[huttj509]

For the record, I *have* played a Swordsage from levels 1-9, and I've used an NPC Master of the Nine in a campaign I DM. And did I feel they felt more like spellcasters than martial warriors? Yes, I most certainly did. There's no need to be so defensive about this. I don't, in abstract, think that the ToB is even a bad book. I just think that it makes martial characters into... well, not strictly martial characters. If that's what you want to play, this is a fantastic book for that. But for someone looking to play, you know, a fighter or a barbarian archetype, it's... lacking.

He said Warblade or possibly Crusader. The omission of Swordsage as a mundane-feel option was deliberate on his part.

Different martial schools have different feels.

Not every class has access to every school.

Swordsage has access to the most magical schools, as does Master of Nine.

[rgrekejin]

They're from supernatural schools. I don't really care how they're marked inside each; Shadow Hand, Desert Wind and Devoted Spirit do magical stuff.

...so you challenge me to find one magical thing about the extraordinary maneuvers, I show you seven, and you respond that those aren't *really* extraordinary abilities, because they do magical things. I think this may be relevant to your interests:


No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

Also, I'd like to point out that no one is addressing my argument about how martial adepts have game mechanics which are much closer to spellcasters than regular martial characters, and my question about whether or not one time use expendable abilities really do a good job of representing the sort of fighting they're supposed to represent.

[Eldariel]

...so you challenge me to find one magical thing about the extraordinary maneuvers, I show you seven, and you respond that those aren't *really* extraordinary abilities, because they do magical things.

Yeah, it was poorly phrased on my part. The maneuvers from Shadow Hand, Desert Wind and Devoted Spirit, are only accessible to the classes with magical abilities so they're excluded. I did not see the need to spell it out since, which was a lapse of judgment on my part.


Also, I'd like to point out that no one is addressing my argument about how martial adepts have game mechanics which are much closer to spellcasters than regular martial characters, and my question about whether or not one time use expendable abilities really do a good job of representing the sort of fighting they're supposed to represent.

Nobody's addressing that since they kinda don't. It's already been addressed. They basically "expend" their abilities for 1-2 rounds. The only difference compared to normal martial characters is that instead of being able to use the same attack every round, they can use it every 2nd round instead.

This is perceptional bias on your part. You perceive their mechanics closer to spellcasters than martial characters because that's your preconceived notion.

[Keld Denar]

Mundane combat has various "moves". Look at any EASTERN or WESTERN martial arts. People named their techniques all kinds of things.

And in combat, you don't use Mordhau every time. Doing so makes you predictable and easy to counter. Or perhaps performing it leaves you facing a certain way. It hard to make a forehand attack while your weight is on your foreleg and you are turned sideways compared to your foe. You need to shift your weight back to your back leg so that you can put your forward momentum behind the blow.

Really, normal D&D's full attack action of "i hit it again" is less realistic and a bigger break in verisimilitude than ToB. You DON'T use the same combat technique over and over in combat. If you make 3 spinning kicks in a row, your opponent is going to block the 3rd one high and sweep you low, knocking you on your butt. ToB does a better job modeling real mundane combat better than basic D&D because combat IS dynamic like that. Especially at higher levels when full attack is king, and if you aren't full attacking, you aren't contributing. You aren't buckling swash while swinging from chandeliers, you are just standing there trading full attacks until one person falls over. Its not realistic, any more than slinging fireballs is.

[Answerer]

Now what was it someone said about this sort of statement upthread...

If I'm so self-evidently wrong, correct me. Otherwise, I think the end result of this conversation speaks for itself.
My previous statement has no bearing on this case, because you are quite objectively and factually incorrect. Maneuvers are not spells. That is a fact, not an opinion. Thus, I presented it as the fact it is.

You continue to be wrong.

[theUnearther]

To be blunt, and because I'm not going to spend the time to do a point-by-point rebuttal, I'm just going to cover them all very simply:

You are wrong.

You have absolutely no ground to stand upon. You're making numerous errors in your analysis, conflating many different dissimilar things, and you are taking as crucial that which is entirely trivial.

So, you are wrong.
Wait, weren't YOU the one who acknowledged my "let's settle this once and for all, through prescriptive definitions!" move?
rgrekejin cannot be wrong, because he is saying that he is saying something. And it cannot be trivial, because SOMEBODY cares about it. (I mean, it's possible that people care about trivial things, but that does nothing to dismiss their validity for discussion). All your replies amount to is "<word> means <thing>, not <other thing>", which is neither fruitful nor sensible. Also, I gave you all better words. He/she/it is doing it too, of course, but I'm replying to you here.
For clarity, I will say that you are arguing that the Tome of Battle is not (completely) Paranormal, while rgrekejin (what is that name about anyways?) is arguing that it is Extended. And has a problem with it, somehow.

Even disregarding which effects are semi-magical and which ones are not, the whole system still *functions* like magic. You have a set list of one-time use maneuvers that each produce a novel effect that you can expend in an encounter and then refresh at a later date. Even the perfectly mundane ones *play* like, for lack of a better term, mundane spells.

I mean, seriously. If these are supposed to represent different types of attacks that a character can make, why have the expend and refresh mechanic at all? If I know a sword technique, shouldn't I just be able to do that technique at will? If expending the maneuver is supposed to represent a character being out of position to execute that technique again, shouldn't there be a better way of representing that? Shouldn't which techniques you can use be context-sensitive, rather than just readying them from a list and then using them at will until exhaustion?
To you I say, you too are cornering yourself into a meaningless (well, more meaningless) argument by way of poor use of language. You'll never stop getting "it's not magic because magic is <whatever>" replies, so just stop calling them magic. As for your lack of a better term, I provided better terms above. It's in the second page I think.
And yes, I know it is arrogant to keep touting my horn like this, but the fact is that the discussion would be far more productive if everybody adopted a standard, there is a standard proposed and therefore it is in everybody's best interest to support it rather than remaining non-standard or try to produce a competing standard. That I just happen to be the guy who proposed it in the first place does nothing to hurt this truth, though I suppose it hurts my credibility. It'd help if someone else would come champion it instead, I guess.

As for refresh mechanics, the answer is twofold.
First, it is Wizards of the Coast's expert opinion that an important factor in balancing abilities, perhaps the MOST important factor, is how many times they can be used before doing whatever you need to do to refill your uses.
That's why wizards and fighters are balanced against each other, the wizard will run out of spells eventually and have to hide behind the fighter's skirt. Warlocks occupy a middle ground, their abilities usable at will, like a fighter's, but not quite as good as a wizard's. They are also better than fighter's, but they get some slack because they are "magic". So they are considered "balanced", given those specifications.
This kills the "just use at will" option. For the "require circumstances" option, the answer is that it would be a pain to do that. They actually did it, in the way of Stone Dragon's "you must be touching the ground", remember? I understand that discipline is regarded as the weakest, precisely for that one reason.
In other words, having options that you can only claim based on environmental factors is more or less equivalent to not having options. And options are good. Also...

[...]I just think that it makes martial characters into... well, not strictly martial characters.[...]
Also, I'd like to point out that no one is addressing my argument about how martial adepts have game mechanics which are much closer to spellcasters than regular martial characters, and my question about whether or not one time use expendable abilities really do a good job of representing the sort of fighting they're supposed to represent.
I do believe this to be wrong. They feel exactly like martial characters because they ARE the martial characters, and this is what they feel like. Martial characters never existed before the Tome of Battle, what we (well, they, I never knew the game back then) had was Basic characters, which any caster can play like if she wants.
It is (my opinion that it is) in the nature of a Basic character to be inherently worse than a non-basic, not because magic über alles, but because anything a Basic can do, anyone can do, by definition. But Extended characters can do even more, and so, unless their extra options are actively detrimental to them, they will end up better off.
The solution is not to buff fighters because, again, this will necessarily benefit all wizards and warlocks and whatnot. The solution is to take fighters and give them options that a wizard cannot claim without thereby becoming less of a wizard. Given enough of them and some organization, this will end up constructing a whole new subsystem, which in effect makes our "fighter" no longer be a Basic character.
This is what the Tome of Battle did. This is what I interpret your problem with the book to be, while it is also the very reason I praise it. Please do not ask martial characters to play like basic characters; that was the problem, and it has been solved.

[Answerer]

rgrekejin is arguing that it is Extended. And has a problem with it, somehow.
No, he's not. He's arguing that they are spellcasters because they are Extended. That argument is patently false. They are not the same thing.

[theUnearther]

No, he's not. He's arguing that they are spellcasters because they are Extended. That argument is patently false. They are not the same thing.
Again, look. Okay...


...they are spellcasters because they are Extended. That argument is patently false. They are not the same thing.
...this much is unquestionably true. There are subsystem other than magic, there is even one that is (more or less) Normal, which also just happens to be the one in contention here.
No argument here. However, I contest that...

No, he's not. He's arguing that...
...this is wrong. I do not think he's arguing this at all, but rather, that he's using "spellcasters", "magic", "spells" and related words to refer to the superset of all subsystems, that which I have proposed to be referred to as "Extended".
The fact that he (are we sure it's a he? I hate having to choose pronouns) claimed a "lack of a better word" supports this interpretation, while the fact that magic was the first subsystem justifies the specific choice.

To be fair, I suppose it will have to wait until rgrekejin comes and clarifies which of us is misrepresenting his position. But I am confident on my interpretation of it (as are you, evidently).

Meanwhile, would YOU mind clarifying yours? Do you, or do you not, base your objections on the fact that Martial=/=Paranormal?

[rgrekejin]

Yeah, it was poorly phrased on my part. The maneuvers from Shadow Hand, Desert Wind and Devoted Spirit, are only accessible to the classes with magical abilities so they're excluded. I did not see the need to spell it out since, which was a lapse of judgment on my part.

Boy, the condescension from you is so thick you could cut it with a knife. You wouldn't think you'd be so smug, since you've essentially just admitted that a third to a half of all ToB material is magical in nature despite at least nominally maintaining to be arguing that ToB material is not magical in nature.


Nobody's addressing that since they kinda don't. It's already been addressed. They basically "expend" their abilities for 1-2 rounds. The only difference compared to normal martial characters is that instead of being able to use the same attack every round, they can use it every 2nd round instead.

This is perceptional bias on your part. You perceive their mechanics closer to spellcasters than martial characters because that's your preconceived notion.

I love it how most you're now the second ToB defender to look at my arguments and essentially state "You're wrong because I say so." despite being unable to produce any proof to illustrate your point.

Spellcaster of Martial Adept - You have nine levels of abilities, many of which produce unique supernatural (term used loosely) effects. You gain access to new abilities from this list every other level.

Spellcaster or Martial Adept - You are capable of knowing many different abilities, but can only prepare a limited number at a time. Those abilities are usually expended as single-use options in combat or outside of it, and you cannot use them again until a set period of time has passed.

Spellcaster or Martial Adept - The damage some of these abilities do, and/or how hard the save DC is to resist, is directly tied to your character level in the class.

I could go on and on.

I submit that the perception bias is on your part, not mine.

[Answerer]

I do not think he's arguing this at all, but rather, that he's using "spellcasters", "magic", "spells" and related words to refer to the superset of all subsystems,
And in doing so he is wrong. Not a different opinion, not an ambiguous interpretation, just flat-out objectively wrong. He does not get to redefine words the way he likes them; "spellcaster" and "spell" both have definitions within the game, and initiators and maneuvers aren't even close to fitting them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Spellcaster or Martial Adept - The damage some of these abilities do, and/or how hard the save DC is to resist, is directly tied to your character level in the class.

Give me a maneuver that has scaling damage directly tied to level.

And in combat, strikes forcing saving throws just makes sense. In real life, you might block a strike with your sword, but how much is your arm going to shake from that? Exorcism of Steel does that. In Exalted, there are many side effects that require a (Stamina+Resistance) roll, the equivalent of a fortitude save. Knockback and Stun, and Disease for mortals.

[Eldariel]

Boy, the condescension from you is so thick you could cut it with a knife. You wouldn't think you'd be so smug, since you've essentially just admitted that a third to a half of all ToB material is magical in nature despite at least nominally maintaining to be arguing that ToB material is not magical in nature.

I'm sorry if I do come out as condescending, and I don't doubt I do. It's just really hard to take this kinds of arguments seriously. Like, earlier we were discussing the maneuver system and spellcasting and why they are/are not similar but then, when I specifically ask for the extraordinary maneuvers you bring in the Swordsage.

I honestly didn't think you'd e.g. argue that because magical martial adepts use magical abilities, Martial Adepts are Wizards because that same argument could e.g. be used for the Monk. Swordsages are Monks so their abilities are supernatural.


I had thought they'd be by definition excluded from the question to find an extraordinary maneuver that does supernatural stuff since they're being used by the supernatural class. You're arguing past the point on a tangent pressing a point that does not even have the potential to prove anything.


Spellcaster of Martial Adept - You have nine levels of abilities, many of which produce unique supernatural (term used loosely) effects. You gain access to new abilities from this list every other level.

Okay, so everybody gains new abilities as they level up. That's kinda the design behind level system and is in no ways unique to spellcasters. This proves nothing.

And magical martial adepts do gain magical abilities, that is true; then again, so do magical non-martial adept warriors so this is in line with the PHB. Clearly, if you hold PHB as the starting point there's a place for martial adepts with magical skills too.

Swordsage is the Monk, Crusader is the Paladin, both have the magical skills regardless of whether they're PHB or ToB. That does not make the system itself magical but the magical classes magical.


Spellcaster or Martial Adept - You are capable of knowing many different abilities, but can only prepare a limited number at a time. Those abilities are usually expended as single-use options in combat or outside of it, and you cannot use them again until a set period of time has passed.

So you're arguing not being able to use all the abilities you've known at once makes you a spellcaster?

The second part is patently false; every martial adept can and will use their abilities multiple times over the course of single combat. The recharge time is literally one round. Swordsage is the closest to having encounter abilities, but even then, there's a world of difference between daily abilities (e.g. Rage or Spells) and encounter abilities (e.g. Inspiration). And a Swordsage will replenish maneuvers after ~3-4 rounds regardless.

It's less about a recharge time and more about having a clause that prevents spamming a single maneuver, while spellcasters? They can cast the same spell round after round but once they run out, they run out. As said a hundred times, the difference is superficial and doesn't hold up in scrutiny. Yet you hang on to it. Why?


Spellcaster or Martial Adept - The damage some of these abilities do, and/or how hard the save DC is to resist, is directly tied to your character level in the class.

So is everything in the game. That's the definition of a level-based system.


I could go on and on.

You should. So far you've listed how martial adepts (and spellcasters) are both classes in a level-based game and how magical martial adepts (and magical core warriors) can learn magical abilities.

You haven't yet pointed a single thing in which a Warblade is similar to a Wizard other than universal things that apply to every class. That proves nothing.

Then we get to the differences: Wizard abilities can alter reality and break the laws of physics (produce matter, destroy matter, move objects faster than the speed of light, etc.) while Warblade at best slightly bends them (moves faster than a human normally could, much the same as e.g. Monk or Barbarian, or does more damage than a human could/breaks objects a human couldn't, same as e.g. Barbarian).

Warblade can't create anything. He can't summon anything. He can't teleport anything. He can't make objects cease to exist. He can't transform a creature into another creature. He can't even conjure fire or fly. He can't do anything beyond what a man with a pointy/blunt stick, honed physique and incredible skill can.

Then there's the functional usage of the abilities: Wizard abilities are limited into long incantations that can be broken to stop the spell from finishing, Warblade abilities are simple attacks that can't be disrupted.

The same Wizard ability can be used consecutively as many times as the Wizard chooses, but the same Warblade ability can never be used twice in a row.

The same Wizard ability can't be used anymore once all the prepared ones have been used for the day while the same Warblade ability can be used until the end of time if the Warblade so chooses.


The similarities you bring up are nothing but manifestations of a leveling system used here, and emphasis on how the magical martial adepts can do what the magical warriors can in Core. Now, if you want to argue that Warblades can create loyal duplicas of ancient gods, go ahead and show me how but until you do I'm not going to bother with this discussion anymore.

[theUnearther]

And in doing so he is wrong. Not a different opinion, not an ambiguous interpretation, just flat-out objectively wrong. He does not get to redefine words the way he likes them; "spellcaster" and "spell" both have definitions within the game, and initiators and maneuvers aren't even close to fitting them.
And yet again, even if we assume what you have said is correct, your (most likely) intent behind saying so remains also wrong. His poor choice of words has no bearing on the value, or lack thereof, of the position he's trying to convey; it only impacts his ability to convey it.

On the other hand, he already replied and did not clarify if he means what I think he means. But now you seem to be claiming to care about the distinction. Are you HONESTLY interested on keeping on arguing semantics with him (by proxy of me, I guess)? Because if so, you really need to stop saying "You're wrong!" and start saying "Stop using that word!".
But I don't think that one is meaningful; and attempting to convey that has been the extent of my contribution to this thread.

[Answerer]

I think the semantics are meaningful because the word carries with it both connotation and denotation that are harmful to a discussion of Tome of Battle. I furthermore object to the personal redefinition of terms on principle; he is very definitely not in a position to tell us what the word means.

And I am not wrong. I don't care about his hypothetical position as distinct from the words he actually says. In fact, personally, were it me, I'd be fairly insulted if someone assumed I actually meant something other than what I have actually said.

He has stated his position, in the fashion he's stated it and with the words that he has used, and the sum total of those choices is that his statements are factually inaccurate.

If he wants to say that ToB classes are Extended-and-therefore-bad, let him. But he hasn't said that. He has stated that they are spellcasters, and he has as his argument pointed out that they are Extended. Until he stops using that word, I will take him at his word – and tell him that he is wrong to use it. It does not apply.

[Starbuck_II]

Give me a maneuver that has scaling damage directly tied to level.

And in combat, strikes forcing saving throws just makes sense. In real life, you might block a strike with your sword, but how much is your arm going to shake from that? Exorcism of Steel does that. In Exalted, there are many side effects that require a (Stamina+Resistance) roll, the equivalent of a fortitude save. Knockback and Stun, and Disease for mortals.

Do we mean Iniatator level?
Desert Wind has a few:
Burning Blade and its cousins deal Xd6 +1/level (some have caps but Burning Blade, 1st level maneuver doesn't)
They are all swift action boosts to your sword though.

One that should have scaling damage is Hatchling's Flame. 30 ft area, Ref 1/2 but only 2d6 damage (better area than Burning Hands but lower damage). I mean even 1/2 level would help it stay somewhat reasonable as it is not a 1st level maneuver and Burning Hands is a 1st levl spell.

[Keld Denar]

That 1st level White Raven charging stance scales with 1/2 your IL. Its a stance, but stances are maneuvers (sometimes).

[theUnearther]

Answerer, I think you misunderstand me. I am not telling you that you are wrong (in this case). In fact, I no longer remember exactly, but I think you were of the same opinion as me.

What I was telling you was that the way you have chosen to pursue your point will continue to be fruitless, and why, and a way that I believe would be more effective.

Also note that you are slightly wrong about the "personal redefinition of terms". Between you and me, with this meta-discussion of discussions, yes, we can agree that his use is the wrong one. But between you and him, inside the discussion that was being metadiscussed, you can no longer claim it because your definition has no more claim to legitimacy. I mean, it does of course, but it does not apply in that context. As long as admitting the change of definition means conceding the overall point, both of you will continue to defend your definitions, regardless of who may be or may not be wrong. Which is why I had proposed to redefine things outside the argument, restating your respective points, and then continuing the discussion.

Also, I can't very much care about offending him at this point. I have stated repeatedly that he's free to vindicate your own (admittedly more literal) interpretation, and he HAS already posted without so much as aknowledging my posts. This thing between you and me has really become its own separate thing. And it has been interesting, for which I thank you.

[Lord_Gareth]

Look, you want to talk about how Maneuvers feel like spells? Fine. Let's talk about that.

First, there's the typesetting. Now, this is probably the nitpickiest thing to possibly nitpick; it's a set-up that's both convenient and easy for players to understand. Since writing a roleplaying game, of necessity, involves communication, this clarity is a good thing. Yes, yes, they're broken down into nine different levels and yes there's nine different schools but, hey, 'nine' is also a number players are intimately familiar with. Let's move on.

So, now we want to talk about how both spells and maneuvers have a limit on their uses. Except right here we run into a hard difference; maneuvers, you see, have no limits on their uses at all. An initiator begins an encounter with a certain number of readied maneuvers; for Warblades, you can imagine it as a style they're using, for Swordsages you can imagine it as a meditative focus and you don't have to imagine jack for Crusaders because WotC already handed you divine inspiration. You can ready any given maneuver up to once (already a stark difference from spells, where you can stack up as many magic missiles as your heart desires) and once used, they are 'expended'. Note, this is actually a state of the maneuver - a maneuver is 'readied', 'expended' or 'not readied' (spells are 'prepared' or 'not prepared', unless it's a spontaneous caster, in which case it's 'uses left' or 'commoner with a weird pet').

Why is the 'expended' vs. 'used' distinction important? Because you can get those maneuvers back within the encounter, natively, starting at level one. A Swordsage meditates for a round to regain his focus (with Adaptive Style, this also lets his enlightened flow completely alter his techniques), a Warblade takes a moment regaining their positioning (spends a Swift action and makes either a single or a full attack to get all of their readied-but-expended maneuvers back) and a Crusader that runs out of maneuvers simply gets new ones back as his zeal once again fills him with the power to crush the enemies of his faith. You know what this means? It means that unlike a spellcaster, initiators can never be out of options. It also ties their powers back to the themes of the classes - sheer prowess (warblades), enlightened self-discipline (swordsages) and faith (crusaders). There's a definite and distinct mechanical and flavorful difference there.

Finally, the source of all the "magic crap". Let's talk about that, shall we? Whereas spellcasters are shaping abstract forces (or bringing out the depths of their soul, or uttering the true names of reality, or making deals with devils, or making deals with vestiges, or...) Initiators set themselves apart by unlocking skills that are not necessarily mundane in nature (okay, unless you're a Warblade) but skills which may be reached by mundane effort. The idea is not that teleporting or lighting your sword on fire is somehow not magical. This is D&D, even the commoners are magical. No, the idea is that through training, discipline, perseverance and/or faith anyone, from prince to pauper, can unlock these skills. Yes, Swordsages do magic crap - thanks to extensive training, rigorous discipline and enlightened use of ki. Yes, Crusaders heal people and call down the might of the divine - through faith, zeal, and unshakable belief in themselves and their causes. The point being that none of these extraordinary effects have an extraordinary source; they all flow from within, from the natural talents and prowess of their practitioners.

The flavor difference is distinctly there, sir.

[Qwertystop]

On the note of the small-by-comparison amount of maneuvers which are not listed as Supernatural (some Devoted Spirit stuff and Shadow Hand teleportation), I tend to follow a certain position on them that solves that problem quite neatly IMO, but which nobody seems to have raised yet.


All of the Devoted Spirit stuff can be fixed in one of two ways: Either decide that, based on fluff and effects, the lack of a "Su" tag is probably an oversight, or do some small refluffing. Here are some easy refluffs, if you can't think of any:

Level 6 Devoted Spirit stances: The Law one can be fluffed as putting a little extra focus into something, like how Psionic Focus lets you take 15 on Concentration checks. Chaos is sort of like Sneak Attack in that you can do more damage than what the weapon can normally do. However, you're relying on a lucky strike instead of the enemy leaving an opening. Maybe you're twisting it or something - only any good if you happen to hit exposed flesh. For the Good one, see the bit on the healing maneuvers.

The Devoted Spirit heal-on-hit strikes and stances: Call them Su or fluff as inspiration/encouragement, depending on where you consider the amount of healing to be beyond just shrugging something off. If it triggers when an ally hits, you're giving a bit of encouragement that does the same.

The Devoted Spirit Smite-equivalent maneuvers: Fluff as righteous hatred (or unrighteous, or whatever the aligned word is for anti-Law or anti-Chaos). These, however, I find more sensible to just make them Su, as they're basically just Smite Evil with a few small modifications as fluff goes.


The Shadow Hand teleports can't really be refluffed in any way I can think of, but frankly I can't see how teleportation could conceivably be natural, so again, the lack of "Su" seems like an oversight.


I understand that saying "oh, they just forgot to put it in" may seem presumptious, but frankly, the official ToB errata fixes two maneuvers, starts fixing a third, and then starts on the Complete Mage errata, so "forgetting to put it in" is sort of something we already know regarding their focus on fixing that particular book.

[Malak'ai]

Okay, I'm gunna step in here, I should have done it back at the start of page two but hey, I get lazy sometimes.
I did NOT start this thread as a debate on whether or not ToB turns melee into magic, or whether ToB classes are better than their core counterparts.
No, the reason I made this thread was because I had NO idea what people were talking about when they started talking about the subsystem/classes from this book and I wanted a (very) basic explanation of it.

So I'll say this now, and I'll only say it once.
IF you want to debate the different mechanics, how the classes are better or worse, the "overpoweredness" of stances/maneuvers or what ever, go to one of the other "ToB is ..." threads.

To those who did attempt to do as I requested, thank you. I think I can now at least follow along on a basic level with discussions where these things come up, even if I can't contribute.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: The OP has what he needed and what's left here is borderline flaming and trolling of each other, however eruditely worded. Thread locked.