What if we give ToB maneuvers to base classes?

[Krosta]

I've recently reached the conclusion that one of the main reasons Tome of Battle is so much hated (excluding the "too anime" point) is that it doesn't mesh well with the core system. Let me explain:

I discovered the book some time ago and I showed it to my group, and we all mostly liked it. The maneuvers were simple, cool and useful, and even if we didn't like some of the fluff we realized quickly that it's perfectly possible to build a wide range of competent characters without making them "flashy".
The main problem my players had was another, and I understood it well.
The crusader is indeed a viable class for a paladin-type character, and the warblade is very similiar to what we think the fighter should have been. The swordsage (even if we feel that it doesn't really belong to our game) is a well made class, covering the sort of things the monk failed so bad to achieve.
What we really want is an update of the base martial classes (barbarian, fighter, paladin and ranger), giving them a maneuver progression. That because we genuinely like class features like rage or favored enemy, and we'd like to keep them.

So, I started searching and I realized that many people have had this problem. In fact, it's possible to find several versions of what I'm thinking, but I was unable to find one that I was sure it was balanced.
I made this post in order to create an updated and balanced (around Tier 3, which I read many times it's the point where the ToB base classes converge) version of the base martial classes, slapping on them the maneuvers and stances system.
Because I'm not so good at balancing things, I need the playground to help me giving this classes a proper stance and maneuver progression. :smallsmile:

Assuming the hit dice, skill points and save/bab progression remaining the same and the following class features to be removed, how many maneuvers and stances you would give to this classes? Feel free to also criticize my choice of class features. :smalltongue:

Barbarian: Let's remove trap sense (because imho it's a stupid feature for the barbarian to have, anyway) and damage reduction.
Fighter: Scrapping away the crapload of bonus feats, that's nothing more left; I am thinking of replacing the class features with warblade's. Consider that I'd like to keep the hit dice and skills points the way they are in the fighter.
Paladin: I am not sure what to do here, because the crusader is clearly meant to replace the paladin. But i like divine grace, lay on hands, fear immunity and the small number of divine spells, while some crusader features strike me as strange and silly (maneuver recovery and some of the devoted spirit healing maneuvers in particular).
Ranger: I'm going to remove spellcasting and combat style bonus feats from this one.

Note that I didn't mention the monk because I think he's beyond any save. It's better to forget that and replace him entirely with the swordsage. If you have better options... :smallfrown:

Discuss!

[danzibr]

You could just give Barb and Fighter Warblade maneuvers and Paladin Crusader maneuvers. Ranger, dunno.

It'll make for some strong tier 3 characters.

[kitcik]

You could just give Barb and Fighter Warblade maneuvers and Paladin Crusader maneuvers. Ranger, dunno.

It'll make for some strong tier 3 characters.

Yeah, just make it additive.

Homebrew which schools of maneuvers each class has access to and their maneuver/stance progression (and refresh mechanism - although I simply suggest the warblade's for everyone). Count all martial classes as full initiator levels.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I'm going to just point it out right now, but the core classes do mesh well with ToB. Fighter 2/Martial Adept X is wonderful. Barbarian works, too, albeit less so. Paladin can net you turn undead for your crusader. The only two that don't really work are monk and ranger.

[Andreaz]

None of this will make ToB more loved though: Maneuvers still don't mesh well with the core system (they DO, but people {Scrubbed} think they don't).

[Dusk Eclipse]

Fax Celestis Core Classes ToB Update (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Tome_of_Battle_Core_Class_Update)

[Feralventas]

{scrubbed}

[Andreaz]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
I know, and I agree, but the people who "flaunt" that term will still look at maneuvers and whine.

[Krosta]

I'm going to just point it out right now, but the core classes do mesh well with ToB. Fighter 2/Martial Adept X is wonderful. Barbarian works, too, albeit less so. Paladin can net you turn undead for your crusader. The only two that don't really work are monk and ranger.

I'm well aware of that. I know this way may seem complicated, but we wanted to "upgrade" the already present classes instead of using them only for small dips. It feels more organic. :smallsmile:



Homebrew which schools of maneuvers each class has access to and their maneuver/stance progression (and refresh mechanism - although I simply suggest the warblade's for everyone). Count all martial classes as full initiator levels.

That was the idea. I just wanted to know what kind of maneuver/stance progression is appropriate to each class, considering the other class features, in order to mantain a constant power level between them.

[JKTrickster]

Question:

For the Fighter class, why don't you simply cross out the Warblade and rename it to be a Fighter?

Honestly if you take away the bonus feats, you have a NPC Warrior. Why do you like that chassis so much? Does the Fighter's HD and Skill points really matter to you that much?

For the others, I can understand wanting to keep Favored Enemy or Rage, etc. That's because they are class features.

For the Fighter? If you plan on taking away the bonus feats anyway, why not just use the Warblade? You can even increase the progression for Fighter Bonus feats so it can choose Fighter bonus feats as a Fighter of the same level, since it is a fighter after all.

[Krosta]

Question:

For the Fighter class, why don't you simply cross out the Warblade and rename it to be a Fighter?

Honestly if you take away the bonus feats, you have a NPC Warrior. Why do you like that chassis so much? Does the Fighter's HD and Skill points really matter to you that much?

We just felt that the d12 HD should've been a barbarian peculiarity. I guess using the d10 does not change that much in terms of game balance, after all.

[The LOBster]

Enh, from what I've met, it's not that the ToB-bashers just hate the martial adepts - they hate anything that could potentially close the Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards gap and often trot out the same claims of "It's realistic for Wizards to make Fighters utterly useless as anything but meat shields for Wizards who won't even need meat shields by higher levels since they'll have spells that can do the job better."

I'd also like to say that claiming "realism" justifies decidedly unrealistic things like magic making decidedly real and effective forms of warfare such as archery, the martial arts, swordsmanship and (if allowed) gunning utterly ineffective is a good candidate for any "how to lose a D&D-related argument" lists anyone's got. Casters should indeed be powerful, but D&D isn't based on realism as much as it's based on mythology and fantasy literature, where you have all sorts of heroes like Conan, the Knights of the Round Table, Aragorn, Beowulf, and Gilgamesh fighting deadly monsters, depraved sorcerers and evil overlords with little more than a mighty blade, some optional armor, and their strength and wits. By that logic, the Warblade, Crusader and Swordsage fit the archetype of a superpowered fantasy hero better than standard Fighters, Paladins and Monks.

[kitcik]

That was the idea. I just wanted to know what kind of maneuver/stance progression is appropriate to each class, considering the other class features, in order to mantain a constant power level between them.

Dusk Eclipse's link is actually a pretty good whack at this. First time I've seen it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Enh, from what I've met, it's not that the ToB-bashers just hate the martial adepts - they hate anything that could potentially close the Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards gap and often trot out the same claims of "It's realistic for Wizards to make Fighters utterly useless as anything but meat shields for Wizards who won't even need meat shields by higher levels since they'll have spells that can do the job better."

In my experience, that's not what happens. What happens is that they play with blaster wizards and healer/buffer clerics, or they're comparing it to other martial classes. There are two outcomes to this.
A) The response is "Spellcasters can do much more than that. *proceeds to list mid-high op spells*". Either the guy goes away enlightened, but still not using ToB in his group, or enlightened, but he now wants to play ToB or a caster out of his party's league, or he calls everyone in favor of ToB powergamers and munchkins, or he just can't wrap his mind around why anyone would play that way.
B) The response is some infinite loop trick done with spells, or a really high-op dragonwrought kobold (going with the view that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons) sorcerer who's basically GOD on crack. As above, but the chance he goes away enlightened and with a better view of the game is pretty much zero, and his inability to think that anybody would play that way is probably legit.

[LordBlades]

We just felt that the d12 HD should've been a barbarian peculiarity. I guess using the d10 does not change that much in terms of game balance, after all.

You can do a d10, heavy armor and 2+int sp/level Warblade instead of the fighter easily if you like. It will be a bit weaker but not significantly.

[Dusk Eclipse]

No class should have 2+Int skill points, except perhaps Int Based casters.

[Kaeso]

Enh, from what I've met, it's not that the ToB-bashers just hate the martial adepts - they hate anything that could potentially close the Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards gap and often trot out the same claims of "It's realistic for Wizards to make Fighters utterly useless as anything but meat shields for Wizards who won't even need meat shields by higher levels since they'll have spells that can do the job better."

I'd also like to say that claiming "realism" justifies decidedly unrealistic things like magic making decidedly real and effective forms of warfare such as archery, the martial arts, swordsmanship and (if allowed) gunning utterly ineffective is a good candidate for any "how to lose a D&D-related argument" lists anyone's got. Casters should indeed be powerful, but D&D isn't based on realism as much as it's based on mythology and fantasy literature, where you have all sorts of heroes like Conan, the Knights of the Round Table, Aragorn, Beowulf, and Gilgamesh fighting deadly monsters, depraved sorcerers and evil overlords with little more than a mighty blade, some optional armor, and their strength and wits. By that logic, the Warblade, Crusader and Swordsage fit the archetype of a superpowered fantasy hero better than standard Fighters, Paladins and Monks.

Exactly! I remember some guy arguing that ToB should be banned from most tables because it has such unrealistic things as mongoose strike (I think that was the name) which allows the warblade to strike his foes six or so times in one round = 6 seconds which is unrealistic because DnD games should at least obey the basic rules of physics. Somehow he seemed to be okay with the fact that lvl 20 rangers can hear a pin drop in a busy bazaar from 20 miles away and that wizards can undo creation by sneezing too hard. :smallconfused:

[jaybird]

which allows the warblade to strike his foes six or so times in one round = 6 seconds which is unrealistic because DnD games should at least obey the basic rules of physics

Wut. I'm only a blue belt in Korean swordfighting, and I can definitely make more then six attacks (probably around 10, if I push myself) in six seconds, and that's with diagonal cuts from over the shoulder down to the opposite leg. A fencer's making two thrusts for each slice I'm making.

EDIT: to answer OP's question:

The Fighter is really completely subsumed by the Warblade, though if your group feels d12 HD is a Barbarian thing, it wouldn't impact the Warblade overly much for its HD to be dropped to a d10.
The Paladin should be given access to Devoted Spirit and White Raven, as he does have spells and can gain rather powerful spellcasting at that.
The Barbarian should have access to Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, and Tiger Claw.
The Ranger should have Iron Heart and possibly Shadow Hand (for the sneaky hunter aspect of the Ranger), as well as a ranged school (I believe Falling Star was the name of one particularly well-received one?).
The Rogue and Monk are, similar to Fighter, completely subsumed by the Swordsage.

[toapat]

The Fighter is really completely subsumed by the Warblade, though if your group feels d12 HD is a Barbarian thing, it wouldn't impact the Warblade overly much for its HD to be dropped to a d10.
The Paladin should be given access to Devoted Spirit and White Raven, as he does have spells and can gain rather powerful spellcasting at that.
The Barbarian should have access to Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, and Tiger Claw.
The Ranger should have Iron Heart and possibly Shadow Hand (for the sneaky hunter aspect of the Ranger), as well as a ranged school (I believe Falling Star was the name of one particularly well-received one?).
The Rogue and Monk are, similar to Fighter, completely subsumed by the Swordsage.

Thunderbolts is the name of the archery school

Rogue is not subsumed by the swordsage like how the Warblade makes the Fighter Irrelevant.

Paladin SHOULDNT get martial maneuvers. they should inherently just get Battle Blessing, SotAO, and Serenity. Being tier 3 because you have gimpfu and being tier 3 because you are tier 3, are different things.

[Krosta]

You can do a d10, heavy armor and 2+int sp/level Warblade instead of the fighter easily if you like. It will be a bit weaker but not significantly.

Maybe we should also give him a class feature like the "armor training" the pathfinder fighter (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/fighter.html) has, to help him gain more benefits from wearing heavy armor..?

My main problem, however, is not what disciplines shoud be available to each class (jaybird already pointed out the most obvious choices), but how many stances and maneuvers we should give them in order to balance out the different class features. That's difficult to eyeball. :smallsmile:

[Dusk Eclipse]

I really suggest you check the link I posted before, it has all the work already done for you.

[Draz74]

No class should have 2+Int skill points, except perhaps Int Based casters.
Quoted For Truth.


Thunderbolts is the name of the archery school
Oh, people have homebrewed a lot more than just your one archery discipline. In fact ...

The Ranger should have Iron Heart and possibly Shadow Hand (for the sneaky hunter aspect of the Ranger), as well as a ranged school (I believe Falling Star was the name of one two particularly well-received ones?).
That's right, IIRC, there are two independent, popular homebrew Disciplines for archery with the same name.

I really suggest you check the link I posted before, it has all the work already done for you.

Yeah, it's not perfect, but I can vouch that it's been around for quite a while and is quite well-respected.

[Cainen]

There is no reason to saddle the Fighter with 2+INT skill points, nor is there any reason for them to have such a bad skill list.

[jaybird]

Rogue is not subsumed by the swordsage like how the Warblade makes the Fighter Irrelevant.

Um...yes it is. High skill points and the Shadow Hand school argue on my side.

[Kazyan]

I get that you're supposed to put on a top hat and monocle and practice sneering at every other form of melee when you talk about ToB, but no. I'll tell you a secret about ToB: it's complicated. If you like using a pseudo-Vancian option-loadout system for your melee characters, please use it; I certaintly toy with initiator builds. But why must you muck with something with a completely different design goal?

Some want to properly use the various techniques of a Warblade, carefully picking the best at each level, and line up nice combos and strategy. But what if I just want to pick up a stick, run in and bash things? It ruins the feel of the well-designed out-of-the-box Barbarian if I have to make a decision any more complicated than how much I want to Power Attack for. And that may sound like satire of low-OP to this forum, but it's not. If you add maneuvers to a barbarian...why?

[toapat]

Oh, people have homebrewed a lot more than just your one archery discipline. In fact ...

Would i be calling ToB the Book of Gimpfu if i actually liked it? no, it happens that i read Thunderbolts before i read that book


Um...yes it is. High skill points and the Shadow Hand school argue on my side.

no, they dont. the Swordsage is the replacement for monk. having Ninjitsu does not change that, because Rogue is not the core ninjitsu class. they may be the core class who qualifies for Assassin, but that is because Ranger doesnt have precision damage.

[Andreaz]

I get that you're supposed to put on a top hat and monocle and practice sneering at every other form of melee when you talk about ToB, but no. I'll tell you a secret about ToB: it's complicated. If you like using a pseudo-Vancian option-loadout system for your melee characters, please use it;It's much easier if you think of it like a TCG: You have a deck, a hand and a discard pile. Maneuver recovery methods put the discard pile back in your hand, and reconfiguring off-combat gives you a new hand.

[Answerer]

Here's my recommendation: write "Fighter," "Monk," or "Paladin" on your character sheet.

And then use the stats from the Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader, respectively.


There's just no need for this. The name of the class is meaningless. The three Tome of Battle classes can just straight-up replace those three core classes, and your game will be strictly better for it.

I know that's not what you want. However, my perspective is that what you want is a bad idea and therefore I can help you most by convincing you to abandon it. There is no reason whatsoever to make a "martial Fighter" -- that's the Warblade. You might still want some Fighter levels if you're absolutely desperate for feats or want Dungeoncrasher or something, or Paladin levels for Divine Grace maybe, but that's just multiclassing and Tome of Battle supports it well.

There's just no reason to do this.

[Kazyan]

It's much easier if you think of it like a TCG: You have a deck, a hand and a discard pile. Maneuver recovery methods put the discard pile back in your hand, and reconfiguring off-combat gives you a new hand.

I understand how the system works, but that's not the point. If I am Thurg the Barbarian, playing a meta-minigame interferes with my archetype. Cards? Thurg no understand words on cards.

Run. SMASH. Repeat until victory or my HP is low. Because I'm a Barbarian, not a Warblade.

[Andreaz]

I understand how the system works, but that's not the point. If I am Thurg the Barbarian, playing a meta-minigame interferes with my archetype. Cards? Thurg no understand words on cards.

Run. SMASH. Repeat until victory or my HP is low. Because I'm a Barbarian, not a Warblade.Uhh. What they do is pretty much "smash until victory or low hp". And you are confusing player perspective with character perspective. I'm fairly confident your name is not thurg and you do understand words on cards. It's no more a "meta minigame" than reading your feats, calculating your rage bonuses or choosing from a magic axe or magic sword.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Um...yes it is. High skill points and the Shadow Hand school argue on my side.
*slaps*

I get that you're supposed to put on a top hat and monocle and practice sneering at every other form of melee when you talk about ToB, but no. I'll tell you a secret about ToB: it's complicated. If you like using a pseudo-Vancian option-loadout system for your melee characters, please use it; I certaintly toy with initiator builds. But why must you muck with something with a completely different design goal?
*slaps*

Would i be calling ToB the Book of Gimpfu if i actually liked it? no, it happens that i read Thunderbolts before i read that book

*punches*

---

Alright, now that we've got that out of the way, I do have a response in words for Kazyan. ToB is not complex. Seriously, cut out 3x2 slips of paper, write down the maneuvers you know, and separate them into three piles: known, readied, expended. When you use a recovery method, put the right amount of maneuvers from the expended pile back into the readied pile. But don't just have a pile for readied, have the readied ones laid out so you can read all the names. If you want, you can download and print the proper maneuver cards from the ToB excerpt on the WotC site.

As for the paragraph I cut out of the quote and your most recent post, I don't like that. Thurg is not a good character. Thurg is heavily stereotyped, and comes from the stigma that cultures which build towns and cities feel towards the "uncivilized" folk. The nomads of the steppes, the Vikings, the Gauls... there were some ragers among the latter two groups, but they were pretty much always killed in battle.

[Person_Man]

Here's a very brief summary of Warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) class abilities, minus his maneuver and stance progression.

Full BAB
d12 hit die
simple & martial weapons, light & medium armor, shields
4 Skill per level with an ok list (Intimidate + Tumble + meh).

Level: Ability
1: Int to Ref Saves, fixed Weapon Focus/Specialization
2: Uncanny Dodge
3: Int to Crit Confirm
4: -
5: Bonus Feat
6: Imp. Uncanny Dodge
7: Int to situational damage rolls
8: -
9: Bonus Feat
10: -
11: Int to Opposed Checks
12: -
13: Bonus Feat
14: -
15: Int to AoO
16: -
17: Bonus Feat
18: -
19: -
20: Cool capstone.

Note that the first 10 levels are all minor, limited abilities, or dead levels. (The bonus Feats are all from a very limited list, and the Int to X bonuses are all pretty minor and can be duplicated via other means).

Whereas most Tier 4-5 or lower classes are "front loaded" with fairly potent abilities: Divine Grace, Special Mount, Rage, Sneak Attack, Evasion, much more useful bonus Feats, etc.

So if you weld ToB onto other base classes while maintaining a similar Tier 3ish balance, then my suggestion is that you should water down their base abilities (for example, Crusader gets Cha to Will Saves, and not Cha to all Saves) and/or space them out into higher levels.

[RFLS]

Hey, let's tone it down; I don't want to see the thread get locked. Can we agree to disagree on whether Barbarians work well with maneuvers, and get back to the mechanical question at hand?

EDIT: Not aimed at person_man :smalltongue:

[Answerer]

I reject the notion that the OP is the owner of a thread; he started the discussion, but we should be free to disuss it as we will. My points are entirely on topic: he asked how to do it, and I told him the best way, namely to rename the ToB classes to match the corresponding PHB classes.

[toapat]

*punches*

*breaks your hand*

Well Written and Effective, and GOOD, are completely different.

it is the Book of Gimpfu for a legitimate reason. it addresses each problem with melee combat, by making melee into semi-spontaneous spellcasters. It also does that while making a large group of classes completely irrelevant

It does not:
Fix the problem of Crippling specialization
Fix the problem of Weapon Imbalance
Fix the problem of Combat
Fix the problem of Feats being the most valuable non-item resource a character has
Fix the problem of Skills being rendered useless by magic
Fix the problem of Homebrewers see it as an Endall-Beall to making melees relevant
Fix the problem of Melee classes typically being useless outside of combat

[jaybird]

no, they dont. the Swordsage is the replacement for monk. having Ninjitsu does not change that, because Rogue is not the core ninjitsu class. they may be the core class who qualifies for Assassin, but that is because Ranger doesnt have precision damage.

Tell me what the Rogue does that the Swordsage doesn't. Skills? 6+Int and a good skill list. Damage? Shadow Hand. Trapfinding? Most useless class feature ever.



I understand how the system works, but that's not the point. If I am Thurg the Barbarian, playing a meta-minigame interferes with my archetype. Cards? Thurg no understand words on cards.

Run. SMASH. Repeat until victory or my HP is low. Because I'm a Barbarian, not a Warblade.

So...Tiger Claw? You model your skill at arms after the ferocity of wild animals. Stone Dragon? You plant both feet on the ground with axe raised high, distainful of those who choose to prance around like Elve-I mean, pansies. Iron Heart? You train day and night with all your weapons, eschewing the petty comforts of the 'civilized folk' to make your blade one with your body.

Or are you telling me a warrior who doesn't know how to parry blows is going to last more then a single battle?

[RFLS]

I reject the notion that the OP is the owner of a thread; he started the discussion, but we should be free to disuss it as we will. My points are entirely on topic: he asked how to do it, and I told him the best way, namely to rename the ToB classes to match the corresponding PHB classes.

I'm in agreement that you're better off just doing that, but he did have an interesting mechanical question. Besides, I was aiming more at Jade Dragon; I'd rather not watch another pro/anti ToB thread happen.

Anyway, I would say that it's fairly easy for the ranger and paladin; you can use the proposed homebrew that's up-thread pretty easily. Alternatively, you could give up their spellcasting for maneuver progression; I know that that's my preferred solution, as I'm not a fan of their spellcasting in the first place, but I recognize that a lot of people are.

The problematic classes are the rogue, monk, and fighter. I'll start with the fighter; he's easy. First off: Fighters suck. They have no class features, and therefore no way to mesh a given school to the class in a manner that seems to work. So, you can a) use the warblade (highly recommended), or b) homebrew something. The first thing that comes to mind homebrew-wise to me is to allow the fighter access to 3 or 4 schools of his choice at level 1, on a warblade progression. This would keep the intended customizability of the class, but...there's really no clean way to do this one.

For the rogue, what you run into is the skill system, the rogue's relation to it, and the way maneuvers are geared. The rogue is specifically designed with out of combat situations in mind; maneuvers are entirely geared for in-combat situations (with a few exceptions). The swordsage is closest to the rogue, but definitely doesn't make a 1:1 replacement. My solution would probably be to allow him a few stances over 20 levels, 4 maneuvers known/readied at level 1, and an extra maneuver known/readied at every even level, with the swordsage's recovery mechanic. I'm aware that ToB is supposed to give more maneuvers known than readied; however, I feel that the rogue's role (jack-of-all trades, quick on his feet guy) supports having all of these abilities ready.

Aaaand the hard one. Monk. Uhm....well, quite honestly there's a lot of fixing to do here before you get to the point where maneuvers complement instead of overshadow the class features. There are a LOT of suggestions for how to fix this class, so uh...take your pick, and then weld on the maneuvers. (or just play a swordsage). However, I do understand that swordsage doesn't always quite hit the feel of the monk class, and agree that there should be something to fill that role.

[Aegis013]

*breaks your hand*
It does not:
Fix the problem of Crippling specialization
Fix the problem of Weapon Imbalance
Fix the problem of Combat
Fix the problem of Feats being the most valuable non-item resource a character has
Fix the problem of Skills being rendered useless by magic
Fix the problem of Homebrewers see it as an Endall-Beall to making melees relevant
Fix the problem of Melee classes typically being useless outside of combat

Not everybody views these as problems in the first place.
For example, I'm not sure what you mean by "crippling specialization", if you mean that in order to be a powerful high op melee, focus on charging, tripping, etc is required, then I'd argue that yes, yes it does fix that. Maneuvers provide a variety of alternative options that are still competitive and are highly useful in varied circumstances. For example, White Raven Hammer is on par with tripping, imo.

Weapon imbalance I don't see as a problem. A dagger slashing me probably won't do as much damage as a greatsword.

The problem of combat? I could say the problem of game or the problem of chicken and have similarly ambiguous meaning.

On feats: when using high-op combos, that's certainly true, a particular set of feats will let you outshine, but in a mid-op game, maneuvers become a similarly valuable resource to a martial adept.

Skills aren't rendered useless as a general rule. Some skills can be replaced by magic, but magic has never rendered spellcraft obsolete, for example. So skills as a whole are not useless, even side by side with magic. Therefore, your general statement is incorrect.

How do you expect a rulebook to modify homebrew? People like the subsystem, so they homebrew for it, even if the homebrew isn't always the best ever, that's not even a legitimate argument against the book.

Actually, it gives melee some nifty out-of-combat toys. Not many, granted, but it does take steps towards a solution.

[toapat]

Weapon imbalance I don't see as a problem. A dagger slashing me probably won't do as much damage as a greatsword.

The problem of combat? I could say the problem of game or the problem of chicken and have similarly ambiguous meaning.

weapons always have to be balanced against eachother. in a system where attack speed is replaced with critical multiplier, as well as having each weapon have special characteristics beyond the others, it becomes imbalanced. a Greatsword vs Greataxe is a good interbalance. as is Falcion vs Scythe. it doesnt matter though because the spiked chain has every advantage weapons can get, simultaneously, and it does so while having a decent die roll.

the entire combat system is flawed in 3.5, and ToB didnt address that. it simply bypassed the entire system to do what it needed to, instead of actually reworking the system.

Crippling specialization, Feat Starvation: have you looked at 3.5? the Mundane Melees (ranger counts here), and the paladin under anything less then TO, scale downwards over their career, not upwards. this means that you have to cripplingly specialize your character to do one specific task, while the Tier 1+2s get to prance around being viable anytime they decide to. ToB added a way for the other mundanes to get a bit of initiator levels, but it doesnt help that problem at all.

[jaybird]

the entire combat system is flawed in 3.5, and ToB didnt address that. it simply bypassed the entire system to do what it needed to, instead of actually reworking the system.

Okay...you're making baseless claims. Congratulations, I can do that too. What, exactly, is flawed about the 3.5 combat system?

[Jeff the Green]

weapons always have to be balanced against eachother.

:smallconfused: Why?

[Aegis013]

weapons always have to be balanced against eachother.

You're not going to find a lot of agreement here, and on your mention of spiked chain, I'd say it's perfectly balanced by the requirement for a feat to use it without penalty.


the entire combat system is flawed in 3.5, and ToB didnt address that. it simply bypassed the entire system to do what it needed to, instead of actually reworking the system.

You're still entirely as ambiguous as problem of chicken. What is the problem?



Crippling specialization, Feat Starvation: have you looked at 3.5? the Mundane Melees (ranger counts here), and the paladin under anything less then TO, scale downwards over their career, not upwards. this means that you have to cripplingly specialize your character to do one specific task, while the Tier 1+2s get to prance around being viable anytime they decide to. ToB added a way for the other mundanes to get a bit of initiator levels, but it doesnt help that problem at all.

So the class imbalance is a problem for you, but personally, I like it. I like having a system where I can play a game of low power, extremely high power, or anything in between.

And on feat starvation, honestly, every time I build a melee character I'm pressed to find feats I want after PrC prerequisites. My groups use two flaws, though.

[toapat]

Okay...you're making baseless claims. Congratulations, I can do that too. What, exactly, is flawed about the 3.5 combat system?

its easier to list what isnt wrong. Full attacks work fine, as well as threatened areas.

Overrun, Tripping, Grapple, Bullrush on the edge, Fient, and Materials Hardness are easy examples of stuff not working


:smallconfused: Why?

why should you use anything else, when you have the option for a weapon that hits everything on a bingo board, has a 2d4 die roll, is only considered a light weapon if i want it to be, and can do everything special except be thrown effectively or brace against a charge.

[Jeff the Green]

why should you use anything else, when you have the option for a weapon that hits everything on a bingo board, has a 2d4 die roll, is only considered a light weapon if i want it to be, and can do everything special except be thrown effectively or brace against a charge.

Because you don't want to (or can't) take the required feat, because you're not going to be tripping, because you have another trick that requires something else, because you prefer the idea of a sword or axe to a spiked chain...

Yeah, if I'm making a theoretical build and can spare the feat, I'll probably go for spiked chain, but I've never seen one in actual play.

[jaybird]

its easier to list what isnt wrong. Full attacks work fine, as well as threatened areas.

Overrun, Tripping, Grapple, Bullrush on the edge, Fient, and Materials Hardness are easy examples of stuff not working



Setting Sun works wonders. I'm almost certain there are maneuvers for Bull Rush. Hardness is finished by Stone Dragon.

[Jeff the Green]

I'm almost certain there are maneuvers for Bull Rush.
There are.

Edit: Just checked, and there are, but only two: Charging Minotaur (Stone Dragon) and Step of the Wind (Setting Sun stance).

[Psyren]

It does not:
Fix the problem of Crippling specialization
Fix the problem of Weapon Imbalance
Fix the problem of Combat
Fix the problem of Feats being the most valuable non-item resource a character has
Fix the problem of Skills being rendered useless by magic
Fix the problem of Homebrewers see it as an Endall-Beall to making melees relevant
Fix the problem of Melee classes typically being useless outside of combat

Not all of those are problems. Feats should be valuable - the real problem is that caster feats tend to scale much better than melee ones do. Skills should be inferior to magic, else there'd be no point to learning magic. Magic should be more competent outside of combat (but I do think mundanes should be able to do more than they can do in 3.5.) And so on.

I'm not sure what you mean by the problems of Combat, Weapon Imbalance and Crippling Specialization.

[Answerer]

To be honest, the resource-less classes are bad design because they are resource-less. The system requires that people have to make decisions on their moves, it requires that people can't just spam things.

WotC definitely overvalued having things at-will, by a lot, but the fact remains that things you can do indefinitely and as frequently as you please cannot be things that work always, and cannot be handed out as frequently as things that are limited. Martial classes were destined to become pigeonholed the way they were because they could do their thing over and over, and because they would never be able to get access to a large number of such things.

Tome of Battle is not the only conceivable solution, but any solution would have had to limit people's ability to use the same trick over and over, just so that those things could be made good enough to work when used, and could be given out alongside similarly-limited things in abundance.

In other words, martial adepts are versatile because they use maneuvers, and not feats. You cannot have a class get 5 feats are 1st-level, and you cannot have each feat totally just make you the boss at that particular thing. But when you introduce a system where these things get inherently limited, you can.

And it's just good for the game that people not be doing the same thing over and over. The system itself does not handle that well.

[TuggyNE]

Uhh. What they do is pretty much "smash until victory or low hp". And you are confusing player perspective with character perspective. I'm fairly confident your name is not thurg and you do understand words on cards. It's no more a "meta minigame" than reading your feats, calculating your rage bonuses or choosing from a magic axe or magic sword.

Quoted for much truth.

Anyone who complains about the burden of figuring out maneuvers, but sees nothing wrong with the burden of figuring out feats, is considering things only from the perspective of someone who has (with considerable effort) familiarized themselves with the complexities of feats but wishes to spend no more time at all on anything — as opposed to, say, someone who doesn't mind learning new things occasionally, or someone new to the game entirely, or someone who's never played mundane classes, or....

[Knaight]

weapons always have to be balanced against eachother. in a system where attack speed is replaced with critical multiplier, as well as having each weapon have special characteristics beyond the others, it becomes imbalanced.

Hardly. There is room for some weapons to simply be better than others, if the idea is that nobody will use the inferior version if they don't have to. The mace can be outright better than the club, and that isn't a problem. Similarly, there are balance factors you aren't considering - critical multiplier and damage are not the totality of the system. There's the matter of reach, the matter of weapon concealment (someone with a two handed sword has an advantage over someone with a dagger, but that advantage matters significantly less once the sword gets confiscated by guards and the dagger does not), and a whole host of other things.

[ngilop]

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13060974&postcount=1) and here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13074821&postcount=7) is my own take on the giving base classes ToB maneuvers. fax celestis did a what i feel sub-par version of this as well found here (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Tome_of_Battle_Core_Class_Update)

I just do not like getting rid fo 3/4 of a core class to make it ToB calss lite liek how fax did, but everybody has their own opinions. You might find hers better.

[Kazyan]

Good counterpoints

Okay, wow. I don't have the firmness to participate on the "nay" side of this thread, so, conceded.

[RFLS]

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13060974&postcount=1) and here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13074821&postcount=7) is my own take on the giving base classes ToB maneuvers. fax celestis did a what i feel sub-par version of this as well found here (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Tome_of_Battle_Core_Class_Update)

I just do not like getting rid fo 3/4 of a core class to make it ToB calss lite liek how fax did, but everybody has their own opinions. You might find hers better.

I definitely find hers better; your warblade progression/swordsage recovery is just incredibly weak and doesn't do anyone any good. On the other hand, your swordsage progression/warblade recovery is incredibly powerful, and probably broken. I also feel that Fax did a better job matching schools to classes and removing features from them to rebalance. The only part I think she failed at was the assigned recovery methods, but that's entirely opinion on how the classes should be played in combat.

[Hiro Protagonest]

the entire combat system is flawed in 3.5, and ToB didnt address that. it simply bypassed the entire system to do what it needed to, instead of actually reworking the system.

ToB shouldn't have addressed that. You need whole new editions or different games for that.

[molten_dragon]

Fax Celestis Core Classes ToB Update (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Tome_of_Battle_Core_Class_Update)

These are pretty good updates to the core classes with ToB maneuvers.

My only complaint with it is that there's no support for archer-style rangers. Though since there are no archery maneuvers it's understandable. If you want archery support, you've got to go to homebrew.

There are a few that people have made actually.

I did a ranger-style martial adept with 2 schools of ranged maneuvers (link is in my sig) called the hunter. If you wanted to, you could pretty easily take away its class features, and replace them with the ranger class features (minus spellcasting) and have something pretty decent.

If you don't like that, there are a few other homebrew archery schools that I'm aware of.

True Arrow (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2769638&postcount=7)
Falcon's Eye (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145802)
Falling Star (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10707)
Iron Rain (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145803)
Nightingale Feather (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/printthread.php?t=145804)

[JKTrickster]

its easier to list what isnt wrong. Full attacks work fine, as well as threatened areas.

Overrun, Tripping, Grapple, Bullrush on the edge, Fient, and Materials Hardness are easy examples of stuff not working


I'm confused. Why is it Tome of Battle's job to overhaul the 3.5 combat system?

Honestly if WoTC did something like that, it would just release an entirely new edition.



why should you use anything else, when you have the option for a weapon that hits everything on a bingo board, has a 2d4 die roll, is only considered a light weapon if i want it to be, and can do everything special except be thrown effectively or brace against a charge.

Are you talking about spiked chain? :smallconfused:

Cause it costs a feat?

[RFLS]

-snip-
Oooh, good links. *adds to bookmarks* I've been wanting an archer for a while.

[Jeff the Green]

Oooh, good links. *adds to bookmarks* I've been wanting an archer for a while.

There's also thedesert warblade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8887672&postcount=11) ACF. If you use it, I suggest adding one archery discipline to its list, since it removes a fair number of maneuvers from the normal warblade list.

[danzibr]

Here's my recommendation: write "Fighter," "Monk," or "Paladin" on your character sheet.

And then use the stats from the Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader, respectively.
lol... seconded.