Do you like how ToB plays?

[bobthe6th]

I have been thinking about a 3.5 fix that just makes all charicters work like martial initiators(with some major changes to make things work). I have felt a general aproval of ToB among those who play with the source book, but I wonder if that is a flase impresion.

So the playground, I ask you: Do you like using the martial initiator sub system? What about the codex of spell shaping (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224508)? Do you use the maneuver cards? Do you do something else?

[GenericMook]

I use the maneuver cards. I could do it without, since it's nowhere near the bookkeeping an actual arcane caster would use. It's a handy tool that you can just print and cut, so you don't have to do all sorts of crazy things to figure out what you want to roll.

And I love how the recoveries work. Granted, I've never played Crusader, but Swordsage and Warblade work quite fine.

[andromax]

I have been thinking about a 3.5 fix that just makes all charicters work like martial initiators(with some major changes to make things work).

There's really no point, with the exception of giving Monk the sword sage manuever progression, IMO.

The initiator levels already stack with non-initiator levels, and you can multi-class freely.


Do you use the maneuver cards? Do you do something else?

It's a good idea with Crusader because of their re-fresh mechanic, unnecessary with the other 2.

[Starbuck_II]

I have been thinking about a 3.5 fix that just makes all charicters work like martial initiators(with some major changes to make things work). I have felt a general aproval of ToB among those who play with the source book, but I wonder if that is a flase impresion.

So the playground, I ask you: Do you like using the martial initiator sub system? What about the codex of spell shaping? Do you use the maneuver cards? Do you do something else?

Other than Crusader, I don't think you need the cards to know what you have readied or not since it is either yes or no.

Crusader, he really does need something (cards possibly) to keep track.

I think a game where everyone has manuevers would be fun: I hear the Alpha of 4E called Orcus (tm) was like this, but they canned it for some unknown reason and made 4E instead.

[Azoth]

I like it and personally love the warblade and swordsage. Not the greatest fan of Crusader, but it is still solid (I don't like having random maneuvers).

I don't really like Martial Scripts or the limits on the number of Crown of the White Raven (and its other discipline counterparts) you can have.

[Gigas Breaker]

I love Tome of Battle but it's already convenient to use in plenty of martial builds that I don't think a fix is necessary.

For crusader I number my readied maneuvers and then draw corresponding playing cards randomly. For other initiators i just highlight maneuvers on my spreadsheet.

[bobthe6th]

Do the maneuver cards help more to ease people into the system(as having what you can do specifically on a note card seems a god send to a first time player)?


There's really no point, with the exception of giving Monk the sword sage manuever progression, IMO.

The initiator levels already stack with non-initiator levels, and you can multi-class freely.

The idea was to rip out classes as a whole and replace them with spell shaping/initiating and separate utility maneuver sections for each. Make BAB=IL and stuff like that... it is still in the planing stages at the mo... but I wanted to see if people find the system as easy as it seems before I went further.

[Libertad]

To the OP:

Yes, I really like the ToB system. I'm not as fond of the Crusader's randomized abilities, in that they require you to use maneuver cards in the game. Although that's just small grapes.

[GenericMook]

Don't forget you get to yell "GIRALLON WINDMILL FLESH RIIIIIIIIIIPPPPP!!!!!!!!!"

[Acanous]

ToB plays fairly well. Crusaders are interesting. Warblades can outright replace fighters, and Swordsage can replace Monk.

Crusader is a very different beast, not really a "Swap out" for Paladin or cleric.

[Answerer]

I love Tome of Battle. It is hands-down, without-a-doubt, and utterly-without-competition the best-designed book WotC ever published for 3.x.

Also, I happen to love the Crusader refresh mechanic; the randomness is extremely minor overall since it's rare that you need one specific maneuver, and rarer still to not have it at the moment you need it.

[Kazyan]

Do I like how it plays? I dunno, because I've never seen it in action as more than a random periphery on a character in one of our sillier games. It was alright in that role.

In theory? I dunno. It's hard to have a mild discussion about it because it derails threads and keeps them hostage, with only the Tier system being a bigger argument magnet.

[bobthe6th]

In theory? I dunno. It's hard to have a mild discussion about it because it derails threads and keeps them hostage, with only the Tier system being a bigger argument magnet.

True... people tend to have a love hate relationship with the system...

I was just thinking having a thread were it would not derail the thread to have said argument would be informative.

Though I get the fealing people that play the system tend to like it...


Has anyone used the codex of spell shaping?

[Gildedragon]

ToB is lots of fun, and adds versatility to martial chars.
It makes for some real dynamism in non spellcasters. To some extent the ToB classes are partial casters that focus on self-buffing and small magical effects, and the variant which swaps out maneuvers for spells is an interesting one for gishes.
Recovery isn't bad, even for the swordsage (with adaptive style).

I am fond of giving the pc's I DM for "crown of white ravens"esque items with 1st level stances keyed to them. The effects are on-par with other magic items, but they're flashier and more fun.

edit: when you said spellshaping I thought you meant meld-shaping (greater ToB synergy with it'd be lots of fun)... but no i'dn't even heard of it before

[bobthe6th]

link added.

[nyjastul69]

I don't know how it plays, but I can say I like it. It's not just a subsystem, it's a subsystem that works well. I have no actual experience with ToB classes, but I have tried to intergrate the sytem a bit with my current group. I used Scripts to do so. None of the players players wanted to multi-class into an Adept class, nor did they think the feats were worth doing so. The minotaur ranger in the party liked the Scripts. Scripts are cool, they're like mini-scrolls that helps a martial build.

[Actana]

Don't forget you get to yell "GIRALLON WINDMILL FLESH RIIIIIIIIIIPPPPP!!!!!!!!!"

Don't forget the ever lovely FIVE-SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE!!!!!! Which, if I ever get high enough to use, I'm so screaming at the top of my lungs.

I play on MapTool almost exclusively, and I most often play ToB classes. I've never really tried the crusader, but have heard there are macros to make it work a bit easier. That said, I love how my swordsage plays. It's got enough options to make it variable, enough power to feel relevant (granted, dealing 151 damage in one round at level 8 might be seen as a bit overpowered compared to the rest of the group), but I still have to keep track not to expend all my maneuvers and either be forced to just standard attack or use a full round to refresh them. I love playing the character in all ways, and it would hardly be possible without ToB.

I also have a template that allows me to do a lot of swift/free actions at a cost, which makes for even more interesting abilities.

The main thing ToB does for me is that it grants more things to do than five foot step and attack, or charge. Not having to worry about times per day abilities is nice too, as I'm quite the hoarder. ToB grants interesting abilities to use, and allows for a lot more depth than your standard fighter.

[Mithril Leaf]

I like how balanced it is, and recognize that it actually give martials something nice but not totally broken. I personally don't like the fact that it did so by making them into muscle wizards, but eh. It's a good system, but I don't go out of my way to play a martial adept.

[Spuddles]

I've played a troll swordsage that used setting sun & tiger claw, and dm'd for a mid level warblade.

In both cases, it played how we wanted it to play, and felt appropriate. A troll that tears his foes apart, or throws them across the battle field and a grizzled warrior who can shrug off the nastiest of attacks and even parry spells.

[toapat]

Mechanically: It is simple and straightforward

Functionally: It is good at its objective, but i think that the recent homebrew i saw that presented Simplistic and Esoteric Disciplines adds alot of depth.

Execution: Entirely wrong. The System of the Innitators is fine, the book itself is one of the worst pieces of 3.5 though, for reasons such as the barbarian, fighter, and Knight being left to rot. Granted, you are writing a new system, so that problem would be taken care of.

[RFLS]

Mechanically: It is simple and straightforward

Functionally: It is good at its objective, but i think that the recent homebrew i saw that presented Simplistic and Esoteric Disciplines adds alot of depth.

Execution: Entirely wrong. The System of the Innitators is fine, the book itself is one of the worst pieces of 3.5 though, for reasons such as the barbarian, fighter, and Knight being left to rot. Granted, you are writing a new system, so that problem would be taken care of.

Waiter? Lock, please.

[nyjastul69]

Mechanically: It is simple and straightforward

Functionally: It is good at its objective, but i think that the recent homebrew i saw that presented Simplistic and Esoteric Disciplines adds alot of depth.

Execution: Entirely wrong. The System of the Innitators is fine, the book itself is one of the worst pieces of 3.5 though, for reasons such as the barbarian, fighter, and Knight being left to rot. Granted, you are writing a new system, so that problem would be taken care of.

This one of the most confused/confusing posts I've ever read.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I usually play prep casters with involved spreadsheets, so YMMV. Branching out and playing an initiator left me with the following impressions:

- Clean, simple, and straightforward. Almost no paperwork.
- Many interesting build options.
- Same for level up.
- Incredibly easy to play, and hard to screw up. You don't need maneuver cards for crusaders. You really just have to roll a few dice to determine what maneuvers come up and you're set. Just put your granted maneuvers in a list so you can order them.
- Since there are plenty of ways to get pounce and free movement, the standard action strikes (especially the +damage ones) start losing their luster in the mid-to-high levels.
- White Raven Tactics is almost worth the price of admission by itself, especially with Crusader refresh mechanics. Abusing RKV is a no-no.
- Why are the stance progressions so messed up?

Also, after playing a melee Incantatrix alongside an optimized Warblade and against an optimized Psychic Warrior, I can tell you that initiators have lower ceilings than other T3s, and it can hurt in a higher-op group. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for most groups, though.

[andromax]

Execution: Entirely wrong. The System of the Innitators is fine, the book itself is one of the worst pieces of 3.5 though, for reasons such as the barbarian, fighter, and Knight being left to rot. Granted, you are writing a new system, so that problem would be taken care of.

I kinda sorta get where you're going with this.. Though I disagree that fighter and Barbarian have been left to rot. Still very nice one or two lvl dips :)

[Vaz]

I don' t.

Want to play a fighter? Awesome, here is a book all about fighters. There is a kicker though, each fighter can cast spells. But hey, you are a fighter still!

Which leaves us with the only non magical fighter being a Barbarian which is easily enhanced. Others; less so. Monk, Fighter, OA Samurai are all forgotten classes outside of 2 level dips.

[Incorrect]

I really, really like how the rules work.
The Warblade I played for 20 levels are one of the most mechanically fun characters I have ever had. It really feels like a fighter but with something other than Full Attack Again every round.

I did not feel that the maneuvers felt like spells. Some of them does feel magical , but what do you expect from level 17 characters.

The book itself had some editing issues. A few maneuvers didn't make a lot of sense (Iron Heart Surge, I'm looking at you!)
The Desert Wind school should not be the first one people read. It really enforces the anime and spell caster feel on the book, whereas Iron Heart for example is much more "normal"

[Amnestic]

This one of the most confused/confusing posts I've ever read.

I believe the intention of the post is that it's a complaint that rather than use the ToB Initiator system to fix the broken (aforementioned fighter/barb/knight), they instead just added three new classes effectively making the prior three not particularly desirable to use, and are thus generally more left by the wayside.

At least that's how I read it. Almost like they'd prefer Initiators to be an ACF-style thing for certain classes like the fighter or knight. I think?

[Vaz]

I don't thinknthe inclusion of thenWarblade/Crusader/Swordsage is the issue; it is more that there was nothing outside of "tack on Martial/Stance as a Fighter Bonus Feat option".

We all like new classes, provided some aren't forgotten.

Like I said, my personal beef is that Maneuvres et al are all fairly Spell like or Supernatural in their execution, very Saturday Morning Cartoony, so including Martial study on a FBF list is really just making the Warblade even more attractive.

They could have done a lot with making fighters more useful.

Fighters, Rogues, Knights etc, all Forgotten. True ACF's rather than tacking on Half Hearted Initiator Progression is poor showing. A Fighter doesn't instantly get Half Caster/Manifester etc Level simply by levelling up.

[Sgt. Cookie]

Yes, I love ir. One of my favorite ToB characters was a Gnoll Warblade. Campaign died before we saw any combat, though... But ToB as a whole is a really great book. Is it a balanced book? That's a subject for debate. A lot of debate.


Crusader is a very different beast, not really a "Swap out" for Paladin or cleric.

Prestige Paladin is the Swap Out for regular Paladin. By simple virtue of higher level spells, I think 7ths is the best you can get with a base class, or 9ths using Ur-Priest as long as you don't mind using the quasi-homebrew conversions of the alternate alignment paladins to PrC form.

[Boci]

Like I said, my personal beef is that Maneuvres et al are all fairly Spell like or Supernatural in their execution.

Which of the warblade maneuvres seem fairly spell like to you?

[Keld Denar]

I like it so much I've been rolling around the idea of running a game that ONLY uses ToB and the MIC, plus the PHB for the skeleton of races/feats/skills/equipment. No DMG vibrant effect magic items, no complete nothing feats/classes. No spellcasters. Nothing. Just a bunch of Crusaders, Swordsages, and Warblades running around, possibly with additional disciplines from the Libram of Battle.

I think that would make for an interesting and very Noir game with a focus on action resource management, especially with swift actions. MIC and ToB really put an emphasis on the importance of swift action management for non-casters, which I like.

[Lord_Gareth]

Mechanically: It is simple and straightforward

Functionally: It is good at its objective, but i think that the recent homebrew i saw that presented Simplistic and Esoteric Disciplines adds alot of depth.

Execution: Entirely wrong. The System of the Innitators is fine, the book itself is one of the worst pieces of 3.5 though, for reasons such as the barbarian, fighter, and Knight being left to rot. Granted, you are writing a new system, so that problem would be taken care of.

It's like no matter how many times you repeat this, you don't stop being wrong. Barbarian, Fighter, and Knight were all left to rot the moment the PHB came out. Tome of Battle didn't suddenly make those three classes suck. They sucked all on their own.

[Snowbluff]

It's like no matter how many times you repeat this, you don't stop being wrong. Barbarian, Fighter, and Knight were all left to rot the moment the PHB came out. Tome of Battle didn't suddenly make those three classes suck. They sucked all on their own.

Yeah. Fighter and Barbarian were fine for dipping at least, allowing them to blend with the new classes, but the Knight was not made with any consideration with the trends in 3.5. Base classes with few class features that scale with level don't work out in a system that works better with dipping and PrCs.

[toapat]

It's like no matter how many times you repeat this, you don't stop being wrong. Barbarian, Fighter, and Knight were all left to rot the moment the PHB came out. Tome of Battle didn't suddenly make those three classes suck. They sucked all on their own.

Your copy and pasted standard response is getting irritating.

The point is not that it is a bad book in terms of balance, and on some level the execution is ok, but the way it goes about fixing the problems is wrong. It is the single laziest piece of work in Dungeons and Dragons, leaving every problem that is in 3.5 there and just creating a new set of problems with a batch of classes who are almost broken at the early end of the game in combat and who can actually function within the abysmal structure of the combat maneuvers already in the game. It doesnt fix the problems it has to work with, it throws a sheet over them and tapes up a sign that says "Nothing to see here."

[Lord_Gareth]

Your copy and pasted standard response is getting irritating.

Your insistence on spreading the same kinds of misinformation over and over again without deviation or source citations is getting irritating.

[Boci]

Your copy and pasted standard response is getting irritating.

The point is not that it is a bad book in terms of balance, and on some level the execution is ok, but the way it goes about fixing the problems is wrong. It is the single laziest piece of work in Dungeons and Dragons, leaving every problem that is in 3.5 there and just creating a new set of problems with a batch of classes who are almost broken at the early end of the game in combat and who can actually function within the abysmal structure of the combat maneuvers already in the game. It doesnt fix the problems it has to work with, it throws a sheet over them and tapes up a sign that says "Nothing to see here."

Maybe it does. But who can blame them? There had been several years and splatbooks trying to fix the melee system of the PBH. ToB was one of the last books of the edition, so WotC knew it was either going to "Melee options: this time we fixed it, no really" or "Melee options: let's try something different". Why do you feel the second option is the lazy and wrong one?

[toapat]

Your insistence on spreading the same kinds of misinformation over and over again without deviation or source citations is getting irritating.

Its not miss-information. The few maneuvers that you insist on considering as out of combat useful outside of shadow hand, dont count either because 1: They dont work because they arent balanced to work outside of combat, or 2: Are actually irrelevant outside of combat because they either require the rules for combat (save substitutions) or provide a function that doesnt count because the function is rendered irrelevant after level 2.

And the book is a pile of crap in terms of actual effect on 3.5. It fixes nothing, it provides hollow solutions that dont fix the problems of actual balance, and the classes are nearly as broken in combat at low levels as wizards and druids.


Why do you feel the second option is the lazy and wrong one?

Because Thats not what they did, the problems with melee is built into the rules themselves, and spending an hour to write out rules for Bull Rushing, Charging, Tripping, and other maneuvers that work with the content published while balancing them out is not hard. Its the fact that they didnt fix the broken structure in the first place and basically treated it as "use this instead"

[Boci]

And the book is a pile of crap in terms of actual effect on 3.5. It fixes nothing,

It allows melee to use tactical movement and ready actions without nerfing thier offensive potential, as well as providing more options than full attack or trip.


it provides hollow solutions that dont fix the problems of actual balance,

no, but it helps a lot more than previous melee source books.


and the classes are nearly as broken in combat at low levels as wizards and druids.

They don't have abilities to end encounters with a single standard action and they do not get a free cohort, so I don't see what your aiming for here.


Because Thats not what they did, the problems with melee is built into the rules themselves

And yet martial initiators are pretty balanced in comparison to an advanced caster. You seem to going for a perfect solution fallacy.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The writers of ToB couldn't possibly fix the core system within a single splatbook, even if they were allowed to. If any splatbook that doesn't fix the system it addresses is a failure then all D&D splatbooks are failures. And ToB classes have a high floor; that doesn't make them broken.

The way I see it, D&D had a lack of interesting, versatile melee options, and ToB filled that need. That's all. To ascribe more to it, or to say that it should have done the impossible, is grasping at straws.

[toapat]

They don't have abilities to end encounters with a single standard action and they do not get a free cohort, so I don't see what your aiming for here.

And yet martial initiators are pretty balanced in comparison to an advanced caster. You seem to going for a perfect solution fallacy.

I said nearly.

No, im not. Im looking at the problem of Melee requiring extreme specialization to be relevant at all, and i see nothing in Tome of battle that changes that. I see a system that in theory has alot of potential, with some errors in execution, and that provides no changes to the system as a whole to fix the problems melee face that are based on mechanics they should be using anyway

[Boci]

I said nearly.

No, im not. Im looking at the problem of Melee requiring extreme specialization to be relevant at all, and i see nothing in Tome of battle that changes that. I see a system that in theory has alot of potential, with some errors in execution, and that provides no changes to the system as a whole to fix the problems melee face that are based on mechanics they should be using anyway

No you did not say nearly, you said nothing*. You are ignoring the ability to tactically move and use readied actions, ignored the facts the fighters can now pick up a random weapon found it loot and after an hour use that just as well as their previous ones, the fact that maneuvres required no feat investment, the fact that with rider affects and abilities beyond damage ToB initiators no longer had to boost one attack option and the fact that melee characters where now in the same tier as casters (not tier 1, but then thats not the tier most people aim for).

Meh, each to their own.

*Or did you mean nearly as broken as a wizard or druid. You're gona have to elaborate on that. An BB gun is not nearly as broken glock.

[RFLS]

I do actually like how it plays; I get pretty bored with "I hit it again." However, some people don't want to invest the time in the classes; that's why they play a fighter instead of a wizard in core. I'd keep that in mind when you're making your fixes. Sometimes, they just wanna hit stuff with a stick until it stops moving.


It's like no matter how many times you repeat this, you don't stop being wrong. Barbarian, Fighter, and Knight were all left to rot the moment the PHB came out. Tome of Battle didn't suddenly make those three classes suck. They sucked all on their own.


Your copy and pasted standard response is getting irritating.

The point is not that it is a bad book in terms of balance, and on some level the execution is ok, but the way it goes about fixing the problems is wrong. It is the single laziest piece of work in Dungeons and Dragons, leaving every problem that is in 3.5 there and just creating a new set of problems with a batch of classes who are almost broken at the early end of the game in combat and who can actually function within the abysmal structure of the combat maneuvers already in the game. It doesnt fix the problems it has to work with, it throws a sheet over them and tapes up a sign that says "Nothing to see here."

Before this turns into a 47 page flame war, with everyone's knickers in a twist, would you at least ask yourselves if a) you actually care what the other side thinks, and b) you're going to manage to change the other side's mind? I'd rather not see this thread get derailed or locked; it was going so well for a thread that had "ToB" in the title.

[toapat]

*snip*

I meant as in comparison to Wizard and druid at early levels.

Ignoring the fact that every caster in the game other then the healer can break the action economy, that wasnt what i was talking about. That isnt even the first problem. The problem is that without specialization, everything that melee classes have is bad, because the rules for them are bad. So they need to pile bonus upon bonus to be relevant. That is a huge problem, and one entirely unaddressed in ToB, a book primarily for giving melee nice things, or so it would like you to believe.

[andromax]

I meant as in comparison to Wizard and druid at early levels.

Ignoring the fact that every caster in the game other then the healer can break the action economy, that wasnt what i was talking about. That isnt even the first problem. The problem is that without specialization, everything that melee classes have is bad, because the rules for them are bad. So they need to pile bonus upon bonus to be relevant. That is a huge problem, and one entirely unaddressed in ToB, a book primarily for giving melee nice things, or so it would like you to believe.

So you want Fighters to be able to break the action economy too? Done!
White Raven tactics.

You don't seem to be persuading anyone.. maybe just drop it?

[Boci]

I meant as in comparison to Wizard and druid at early levels.

Ignoring the fact that every caster in the game other then the healer can break the action economy, that wasnt what i was talking about. That isnt even the first problem. The problem is that without specialization, everything that melee classes have is bad, because the rules for them are bad. So they need to pile bonus upon bonus to be relevant. That is a huge problem, and one entirely unaddressed in ToB, a book primarily for giving melee nice things, or so it would like you to believe.

Well this seems a good an impasse as any. You go on disliking ToB for not delivering on the alleged promise of making melee equal to casters, hideous action breaking abilities and rewrite reality spells and all, and I will go on celebrating it as the book that allowed melee characters and some of the more restrained caster classes to be in the same area ability-wise.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

A Barbarian can "specialize" in damage by taking Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush and Shock Trooper. The rest are icing. The problem is he has little else to spend his feats on that are worthwhile. Numbers aren't the one trick pony's problem; it's getting other tricks, and making his primary trick more robust. Both of these things are addressed in ToB.

[Lanaya]

Like I said, my personal beef is that Maneuvres et al are all fairly Spell like or Supernatural in their execution, very Saturday Morning Cartoony, so including Martial study on a FBF list is really just making the Warblade even more attractive.

Desert Wind and Shadow Hand manoeuvers, sure. They're Swordsage only, they're supposed to be supernatural. The healing-related Devoted Spirit manoeuvers, perhaps. Depends on how you define hit points really, if they're physical damage then healing is always a bit supernatural, but if they can represent less tangible damage then they can work as non-magical. But the other disciplines? Not really. The Warblade is the not-at-all-supernatural class, and they really don't have any supernatural stuff at all. They just hit people hard or hit people in a weak spot or inspire their allies or whatever. Even their 9th level manoeuvers are all totally mundane; they can attack really really fast or hit someone really really hard or hit someone in a vital organ to deal Con damage or jump on someone and hit them really really hard. The only potentially supernatural-ish manoeuver is War Master's Charge, since that does involve moving your allies outside their turn, but I've never seen anyone complain that marshals are supernatural for doing the same thing. He's just so damn inspiring that he makes people move that much faster than they normally would be capable of.

[toapat]

Well this seems a good an impasse as any. You go on disliking ToB for not delivering on the alleged promise of making melee equal to casters, hideous action breaking abilities and rewrite reality spells and all, and I will go on celebrating it as the book that allowed melee characters and some of the more restrained caster classes to be in the same area ability-wise.

I was refferncing how that in order to even contribute, because of horrible balancing issues, the core full mundanes do not actually have the ability to do more then one thing, The solution that ToB has in the Innitation system is OK, but thats not the problem, it leaves the entire set of problems that are involved with melee that are not action economy based there. Charging is still massively overpowered, Tripping and Bull Rushing still need huge modifiers. Disarming and Overrun are useless.


Both of these things are addressed in ToB.

not inherently. They provide alternatives, not solutions.

[Boci]

I was refferncing how that in order to even contribute, because of horrible balancing issues, the core full mundanes do not actually have the ability to do more then one thing, The solution that ToB has in the Innitation system is OK, but thats not the problem, it leaves the entire set of problems that are involved with melee that are not action economy based there. Charging is still massively overpowered,

So ToB's problem is not removing already existing optiuons?


Tripping and Bull Rushing still need huge modifiers.

Be that as it may, ToB doesn't concern itself with those things. There are handbooks on how to get those massive modifiers already, so did ToB really neeed to give some more options for things that could already be done, rather than giving melee interesting options that have better synergy with tactics?


Disarming and Overrun are useless.

Both of which get a maneuvre to make them more useful.

[toapat]

So ToB's problem is not removing already existing optiuons?

no, it is that it doesnt change those things to actually function without huge investments.

the other 2 huge problems of mundanes are that they are massively gear dependant (which will be campaign by campaign anyway), and as you brought up, not able to actually take advantage of the action economy like casters

[Boci]

no, it is that it doesnt change those things to actually function without huge investments.

So why mention the problem that charging is still overpowered? Ofcourse it is, ToB was hardly likely to nerf that many headed monster. And yes, what you say maybe be right, but they had been trying to fix that for several source books. So rather than try again, they decided an alternative aproach, that worked. Melee now didn't need to rely on the trip and bullrush to do things other than damage, so it mattered less that they needed huge investment, because the maneuvres that replaced them didn't.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

not inherently. They provide alternatives, not solutions.ToB provides mechanics which fill the need I previously described. Any difference between that and a solution is semantic quibbling. I want to play X kind of character, and ToB allows me to do that.

[Answerer]

Why are we discussing RATT? It's not a particularly useful or helpful thing to discuss.

Clearly, everyone should just agree to disagree with him. A fact that should speak for itself.

[Terazul]

Like I said, my personal beef is that Maneuvres et al are all fairly Spell like or Supernatural in their execution, very Saturday Morning Cartoony, so including Martial study on a FBF list is really just making the Warblade even more attractive.
.

They really aren't and I wish people would quit saying this. There's basically a handful of exceptions.


Shadow Hand and Desert Wind schools, which are exclusive to the Swordsage, have overtly supernatural maneuvers. Even with those included, a swordsage is generally less magical than a bog standard Core monk. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11289033&postcount=127) Plus, you can avoid them entirely.
A few of the higher level maneuvers in Devoted Spirit, which is exclusive to the paladin-esque class. Channeling righteous fervor and all that, at a level when you are already superhuman.
That one Iron Heart maneuver everyone complains about where you throw your weapon and it comes back. Because Throwing and Returning weapons haven't existed until ToB anyway.

Pretty much every other maneuver is using the opponent's weight or momentum against them (Setting Sun), giving up defense in exchange for offensive prowess (Iron Heart), extreme examples of focus (Diamond Mind), rallying of your allies (White Raven), going into rages with flurries of attacks (Tiger Claw), or just flat out hitting them really hard (Stone Dragon). If things that fit into those categories are "supernatural or spell-like", then you've got bigger problems than ToB.

Like Improved Trip. And Power Attack + Shock Trooper. Also Iaijutsu Focus, Inspire Courage, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Power Attack. Again.

And if it isn't obvious, yeah, I like ToB. It works really well, for a number of different archetypes, everything from the intelligent commanding officer, to the sneaky ghost-powered assassin, or to the guy from down the street who just learned to swing his club real good. It's easy to pop out of the box and even show to newbies to the game as martial options, since it gives them something to do almost every turn instead of move+attack or whatever variation thereof (sometimes hiding happens first, or you charge, etc). People like having things to do, having options, and ToB enabled this for martial characters like they've needed for awhile without having to invest precious feats in to only be good at one of them. The only issue I'd really have with the book/system is if you enforce the whole temple/training/fluff aspect, but most games I play with it's just commonly accepted that, well, fighting styles will develop naturally and people will tend to name techniques from them, and they'll exist all over. Because that actually happens. So yeah! Great fun.

[toapat]

So why mention the problem that charging is still overpowered? Ofcourse it is, ToB was hardly likely to nerf that many headed monster. And yes, what you say maybe be right, but they had been trying to fix that for several source books. So rather than try again, they decided an alternative aproach, that worked. Melee now didn't need to rely on the trip and bullrush to do things other than damage, so it mattered less that they needed huge investment, because the maneuvres that replaced them didn't.

because the problems with the things that melee could do were problematic because the rules for them were half baked, is it too much to ask that they figure out a way to make the rules work before throwing them out?

as i said in the original post, the failings of the book in this case dont matter because hes writing a new system.

[Boci]

because the problems with the things that melee could do were problematic because the rules for them were half baked, is it too much to ask that they figure out a way to make the rules work before throwing them out?

as i said in the original post, the failings of the book in this case dont matter because hes writing a new system.

1. As I previously said, there had been previous books that tried unssuccessfully to do just that, and ToB was going to be one of the last book of 3rd edition. So they could either have another attempt at fixing half-baked ideas or try something new. So yes, expecting them to superglue themselves to some half-baked ideas because those were the first ideas they had could be seen as unreasonable.

2. Why? What was so great about trip, bullrush and override? Why did they deserve an entire splatbook? What potential did they have?

[toapat]

2. Why? What was so great about trip, bullrush and override? Why did they deserve an entire splatbook? What potential did they have?

an entire book? no. A chapter? sure.

as for other books? I dont know of a single book that actually bothers attempting to over ride the rules for the combat maneuvers.

[Lord_Gareth]

Why are we discussing RATT? It's not a particularly useful or helpful thing to discuss.

Clearly, everyone should just agree to disagree with him. A fact that should speak for itself.

Quoted for truth.

[Boci]

an entire book? no. A chapter? sure.

Maybe, but that still leads the questions: why? Why cling to half-baked ideas? because you had those ideas first?

[Vaz]

So you want Fighters to be able to break the action economy too? Done!
White Raven tactics.

You don't seem to be persuading anyone.. maybe just drop it?

That isn' t a fighter, that is a fighter casting a spell.

[toapat]

because you had those ideas first?

because it doesnt render 11 classes irrelevant.

[Lord_Gareth]

because it doesnt render 11 classes irrelevant.

Those classes were irrelevant the moment they were designed. Tome of Battle took the concepts those classes were intended to represent and gave them relevance in D&D again. One splatbook cannot fix an entire system, and in any even WotC's errata has a history of being completely and utterly incompetent. Your argument has no legs to stand on, and repeating it does not make it less wrong.

In any event, added to my rapidly-expanding ignore list.

[OverdrivePrime]

Aaaaanyway, I also quite like the Tome of Battle. It's easily my favorite 3.5 book after the PhB. A warblade feels like a true fantasy warrior should, a swordsage feels like a mystic martial artist should, and a crusader is absurdly more playable than any cavalier, fighter/cleric, cavalier or knight I've ever tried to make. As both a player and a DM, I've been able to use TOB to create some fun, wonderfully memorable characters that are well-balanced against the rest of the party so that they hold the spotlight when they're doing their thing, but don't hog it overmuch.

I do use maneuver cards for ease of use, and they're a heck of a lot more convenient than the dozen-page spellbooks I inevitably wind up creating for my spellcasters. I like the recovery mechanic for everyone but the Crusader, and even the crusader isn't terrible. Perhaps more importantly, I could spend about a half hour creating a 3rd level Warblade, hand it to a brand new player, and they'd have a blast playing along side veteran gamers with their wizards and druids and whatnot.

Unfortunately, myself and my players moved on to Pathfinder about a year ago, and I'm too lazy to do the necessary bookkeeping to convert the ToB over to Pathfinder.

[Lord_Gareth]

Aaaaanyway, I also quite like the Tome of Battle. It's easily my favorite 3.5 book after the PhB. A warblade feels like a true fantasy warrior should, a swordsage feels like a mystic martial artist should, and a crusader is absurdly more playable than any cavalier, fighter/cleric, cavalier or knight I've ever tried to make. As both a player and a DM, I've been able to use TOB to create some fun, wonderfully memorable characters that are well-balanced against the rest of the party so that they hold the spotlight when they're doing their thing, but don't hog it overmuch.

I do use maneuver cards for ease of use, and they're a heck of a lot more convenient than the dozen-page spellbooks I inevitably wind up creating for my spellcasters. I like the recovery mechanic for everyone but the Crusader, and even the crusader isn't terrible. Perhaps more importantly, I could spend about a half hour creating a 3rd level Warblade, hand it to a brand new player, and they'd have a blast playing along side veteran gamers with their wizards and druids and whatnot.

Unfortunately, myself and my players moved on to Pathfinder about a year ago, and I'm too lazy to do the necessary bookkeeping to convert the ToB over to Pathfinder.

Honest to god all you really need to do is find a replacement for Concentration (I suggest Sense Motive) and then call it good, conversion done.

[Boci]

because it doesnt render 11 classes irrelevant.

But the martial initiators are well designed melee classes. If well designed melee classes are all it took to make those other 11 mlee classes irrelevant, maybe they weren't worth saving.

[RFLS]

Honest to god all you really need to do is find a replacement for Concentration (I suggest Sense Motive) and then call it good, conversion done.

I tend to use Perception, as Setting Sun uses Sense Motive. YMMV, but it works for me.

[Lord_Gareth]

I tend to use Perception, as Setting Sun uses Sense Motive. YMMV, but it works for me.

They both match the flavor and key off of Wisdom, so I'm on board with Perception just to keep 'em separate. Good idea.

[Keld Denar]

Actually, I think ToB fixes some of the problem with combat maneuvers nicely. The problem with say...tripping, is that against some things, it is really difficult. So you invest more resources and get better, but things just scale faster than you. But now your bonus is so high, that foes who aren't specifically built to resist you have no chance. Your trick, the thing you invested tons of resources into, either works out not. If it doesn't work, your options are pretty much to just hit it again.

One of the strengths of casters is to use the right tool for the job. You pound nails with a hammer and you turn screws with a screwdriver. You target fort, ref, will, or touch AC as the situation dictates. As a mundane, you have a hammer, and everything gets hammered, be it nail, screw, or bolt. You use the biggest hammer you got, cause after spending all of your money on that hammer, it's all you really have.

ToB has this same strength that casters enjoy. You have several maneuvers, and if you did a halfway decent job of picking them, they do a few things in a few different ways. If one of your tools doesn't work against a foe, it represents a smaller portion of your invested abilities. If your foe is a large sized 6 legged dwarf, don't trip him, use a maneuver like Emerald Razor or Bone Splitting Strike. You can take situational maneuvers like Disarming Strike and use them against foes weak to them, and use other strikes against foes strong to them.

ToB doesn't let you trip 6 legged dwarves (although you still probably could if you really wanted to). It was never intended to. That's simply an application of a larger hammer. ToB gives you a diverse set of tools so that you don't have to trip the 6 legged dwarf, same as a caster doesn't have to use Fireballs against rogues when a Glitterdust does the job better. So yes, it does fix trip and disarm and bullrush by allowing you to use them in situations where they are sometimes useful without overspecializing and being short on options when your specialty doesn't apply.

[Terazul]

That isn' t a fighter, that is a fighter casting a spell.
No it's not. It has no components, it functions in an antimagic field. There's no incantations, there's no finger wiggling (unless you want to). If you're going to classify everything that
A) Has a Name
B) Is organized into a list of relative for balance and your convienience
As a spell, again, you've got some bigger issues to deal with.

It's pretty straightforward telling your ally (or hilariously yourself) that you've spotted the perfect opening for them, though they'll have to act on it immediately if they wish to make use of it (your initiative -1). It's as simple as "Hey bob! Follow my lead!", or snapping your fingers to signal a sneak attack. There is absolutely nothing magical about it, unless you're adding it yourself. I'm sorry if you cannot seem to imagine your fighter doing anything from the book without swirling in magical chi or something, but that is not how it is presented. Most of the stuff in there isn't any more exertion than a feat would have.

EDIT: Heck, you even like Incarnum! Have you ever hit someone in the face? Or even played a fighting game? If you try and do it the same way over and over, they get wise, doesn't work so well. Simple method for explaining why there's refresh mechanics. Perfectly for White Raven Tactics, even, in that you won't necessarily find an opening to exploit every time.

Like seriously, this is looking like one of those issues where if we took everything from the book, called it "Combat Feats" and had them do the exact same stuff you wouldn't be complaining as much, because hey! You're just using the Strikes Like Lightning feat, because it says once every 3 rounds as a standard action you can attack two people, and your Reckless Offense feat gives you a -2 to AC but a whole +1d6 to damage all the time! And I simply can't understand that kind of logic.

[Vaz]

In any event, added to my rapidly-expanding ignore list.

Seems unreasonably childish. It is almost as if you feel you' re too good for us?

In regards to a point raised on page 1 as to how they are fairly Spell- like, I meant both in mechanics and fluff (couldn't think of a better word that execution to encompass that).

It is exceedingly Vancian in its design, which is something I quite liked about Incarnum - instead of said new mechanism being just another form of spellcasting (Psionics- congratulations, we have mana points!) it was something that allowed to invest a bit of yourself in something.

Then we get Tome of Battle, it is Cast a spell at melee range! Or teleport yourself! Or buff yourself with this ability that is only unique because we though that giving you Bull's strength Stance would have been just too obviously lazy.

I like cartoons, and I like video games, particularly Overthetop ones- flashy showy Dynasty Warriors Final Fantasy and Warhammer. Can't be more rule of cool than that, can it? But I do feel that the idea of having Spells/Maneuvres Cast/Initiated and then used up for the day/encounter until a rest/full round action has been completed, while under the effect of a buffing durational spell/stance.

I do enjoy Tome of Battle Classes though. I can finally make Lu Bu, admittedly, but I'd much rather have originally seen it in a none spellcasting form originally but it is now so ingrained in people that 'must have spellcasting analogue to succeed' sadly requires even martial characters to become spellcasting.

Edit; Terazul, I don't think there is a need to be quite so aggressive. Sure you're allowed an opinion, but so am I, and I don't particularly appreciate being told I have issues simply from some ad hominem from a difference in opinion. Simmer down, or grow up, either or, I quite frankly don't particularly care. My opinion on why it IS spellcasting in another form is above.

@below. Likewise, but replace clueless with blind.

[andromax]

That isn' t a fighter, that is a fighter casting a spell.

You're going to need to clarify your logic here, so I don't assume you're clueless. :smallbiggrin:

[Boci]

Then we get Tome of Battle, it is Cast a spell at melee range!

I actually like the maneuvre system. When I did MMA, I could really see the ties between a move that we drilled and a maneuvre. I personally think it would be better if we used the vancian system for melee and gave spell caster's spell points. Much more versimultitudional.


Or teleport yourself!

Like the monk's ability?


Or buff yourself with this ability that is only unique because we though that giving you Bull's strength Stance would have been just too obviously lazy.

Buff yourself in the same way fighting defensively does...

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Seems unreasonably childish. It is almost as if you feel you' re too good for us?

*snip*

I don't particularly appreciate being told I have issues simply from some ad hominem from a difference in opinion. *snip*

@below. Likewise, but replace clueless with blind.Ad hominem attacks, you say?

Paladins have Smite Evil, Monks have Quivering Palm, and Barbarians have Rage. All of those are like maneuvers in that they give you something different/extra in combat, but they're like vancian casting in that they have a daily refresh mechanic. I guess almost everyone's a spellcaster, just some classes get more spells.

[Snowbluff]

Your insistence on spreading the same kinds of misinformation over and over again without deviation or source citations is getting irritating.

I am not entirely sure what else needs to be said to Toapat.

@Vaz Pre-ToB melee Combat sucks because they did not have enough buttons. Having more buttons is good. Whether or not you call them spells, this was the right move.

[Terazul]

Edit; Terazul, I don't think there is a need to be quite so aggressive. Sure you're allowed an opinion, but so am I, and I don't particularly appreciate being told I have issues simply from some ad hominem from a difference in opinion. Simmer down, or grow up, either or, I quite frankly don't particularly care. My opinion on why it IS spellcasting in another form is above.

@below. Likewise, but replace clueless with blind.

I'm not making an attack at you at all. I'm saying you have issues because you have stated that you have issues with it. Like, you're saying, right now, that you have issues with it. That's straight up fact. And that's fine. But stop making the system out to be something it's not. Also yeah, I gave examples of exactly how it's not spellcasting, or if you really want to get down into it, how everything else (Some feats have prerequisite levels! limited uses!) is. If using Elder Mountain Hammer to hit for some more damage is a spell because you're making a choice of doing something beyond the basic attack in melee range, then so's Power Attack. And that's just silly. I'm perfectly calm here, I'm just, y'know, making actual points. You're saying it's magical. I'm telling you exactly how it's not. Not much hominem to go around there, except you telling me to grow up.

[Answerer]

Vaz, what it comes down to is that you're going to find very little support for your stance that "divided into nine levels == spells!" Maneuvers are mechanically distinct, flavored very differently, and play much more like other martial classes (not to mention actual, real-world martial artists) than do spellcasters.

For example, suppose you see someone scream bloody murder and charge in wildly, with no regard to his own self-preservation. Was he...
...a Barbarian using Rage and then charging?
...a Fighter using Power Attack and Shock Trooper on his charge?
...a Warblade initiating the Punishing Stance and charging?
There is literally no way for someone untrained in Martial Lore to tell the difference between these three maneuvers. All sacrifice AC for attack and/or damage bonuses.

Or, for example, you see a warrior with a pair of daggers make a quick one-two pair of stabs at an unsuspecting enemy, nailing him right where he's weakest. Was he...
...a Rogue with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat using Sneak Attack?
...a Swordsage initiating Wolf Fang Strike while in the Assassin's Stance?
Cuz the attacks are literally identical: take a -2 penalty for an extra attack, deal an extra Xd6 damage when attacking foes denied their Dex to AC.

Final example, you see a warrior shouting to his allies, inspiring them to greater feats of heroism and honor. Is he...
...a Bard, using Perform (Oratory) on his Inspire Courage?
...a Marshal, using one of his many Auras?
...a Crusader, using one of the many White Raven stances that improve his allies' combat prowess?
Until you start talking about metagame concepts like attack and damage and initiative, these are all conceptually the same things.


Almost all of Tome of Battle is just like this. There are a few things in Desert Wind, Devoted Spirit, and Shadow Hand that do not match earlier Ex abilities, but most of these are marked Su anyway, and in any event are only available to the faithful Crusader and mystic Swordsage.


This being the case, your argument that these things are the same as spells is really quite lacking. You have provided absolutely no evidence for your assertion.

[bobthe6th]

Well, at least I got the general positive consensus I wanted before the thread became topat's personal vendetta thread(TM)

[RFLS]

Well, at least I got the general positive consensus I wanted before the thread became topat's personal vendetta thread(TM)

Sadly, it's not just Toapat, although I wish it was. The only thing on these forums that works people up faster is the Tier system. Could be worse. Could be an edition war.

EDIT: Both sides are guilty, too, before someone says I'm siding.

[bobthe6th]

It more tends to be:
Step 1) Topat posts line about ToB killing PHB melee classes.
Step 2) Lord Gareth responds with copy and paste post.
Step 3) Topat responds.
Step 4+) Argument breaks out, as both sides are on the edge of rude and have a point to argue back and forth on.

Though I count myself lucky to have missed the flame wars that shifting editions must have caused...

[Snowbluff]

It more tends to be:
Step 1) Topat posts line about ToB killing PHB melee classes.
Step 2) Lord Gareth responds with copy and paste post.
Step 3) Topat responds.
Step 4+) Argument breaks out, as both sides are on the edge of rude and have a point to argue back and forth on.

Though I count myself lucky to have missed the flame wars that shifting editions must have caused...

Toapat seems to enjoy not backing up his arguments. I am rather insulted you guys put me under as "flaming" for thinking his comments fall short. :smallfrown:

[toapat]

Sadly, it's not just Toapat, although I wish it was. The only thing on these forums that works people up faster is the Tier system. Could be worse. Could be an edition war.

thing is, there are alternatives to the Tier system. The same game test is the most obvious one, but people here denounce DandDwiki the second it is mentioned.

Also, i posted pointing out that ToB is put on a throne it doesnt deserve. Being effective is one thing, Doing it right is another country entirely.


Toapat seems to enjoy not backing up his arguments.

People enjoy reading things without context. If im not numbering the post, its one singular context.

[Lord_Gareth]

Incidentally Bob, and to briefly address the original topic: I love how Tome of Battle ends up playing on the game mat, especially if I can pick up maneuvers that let me charge or teleport. I'd suggest printing out the maneuver cards, though, not because they're needed but because I've found them to be very convenient to the point of having made 'spell cards' and 'bardic music tokens' to keep track of my remaining uses of those resources as well.

[RFLS]

thing is, there are alternatives to the Tier system. The same game test is the most obvious one, but people here denounce DandDwiki the second it is mentioned.

Also, i posted pointing out that ToB is put on a throne it doesnt deserve. Being effective is one thing, Doing it right is another country entirely.

That...what....nngggh. I wasn't debating with you. At all. In any sense of the word. My statement, my whole statement, and nothing but my statement, is that you and many other members of the community, myself included at times, get really fricking worked up over a) ToB and b) the Tier system. That was it.

DandDwiki is denounced because it hosts many questionable builds and makes very little effort to separate homebrew from official sources. If you want a debate on the tier system, I'm sure the mods would be happy to lock one for you.

[toapat]

That...what....nngggh. I wasn't debating with you. At all. In any sense of the word. My statement, my whole statement, and nothing but my statement, is that you and many other members of the community, myself included at times, get really fricking worked up over a) ToB and b) the Tier system. That was it.

DandDwiki is denounced because it hosts many questionable builds and makes very little effort to separate homebrew from official sources. If you want a debate on the tier system, I'm sure the mods would be happy to lock one for you.

i was pointing out that ToB is a single thing, Yard sticks for classes are not.

barring one template in the templates section, i havent seen anything out of place or misslabeled on the site, so ive yet to see actual justification for the contempt for it.

[Gigas Breaker]

Sadly, it's not just Toapat, although I wish it was. The only thing on these forums that works people up faster is the Tier system. Could be worse. Could be an edition war.


thing is, there are alternatives to the Tier system. The same game test is the most obvious one, but people here denounce DandDwiki the second it is mentioned.

I don't think that was an invitation to start that in here. Lol


...tier system tome of battle psionics monk pathfinder 4E DNDNext coke pepsi obamacare second ammendment

[bobthe6th]

Incidentally Bob, and to briefly address the original topic: I love how Tome of Battle ends up playing on the game mat, especially if I can pick up maneuvers that let me charge or teleport. I'd suggest printing out the maneuver cards, though, not because they're needed but because I've found them to be very convenient to the point of having made 'spell cards' and 'bardic music tokens' to keep track of my remaining uses of those resources as well.

That was sort of the idea... It seems like the fact you can just have a 6-25 card "deck" that is your options in the game would make the game so much faster. In combat that seemed to be were things get bogged down, as the players have to figure out what to do and read a spell description to work it out.

Cuts some realism, but not all that much.

[RFLS]

I don't think that was an invitation to start that in here. Lol


...tier system tome of battle psionics monk pathfinder 4E DNDNext coke pepsi obamacare second ammendment

You forgot Gitmo. And ice cream. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106111)

[Lord_Gareth]

Cuts some realism, but not all that much.

It...does? I didn't think it detracted from the atmosphere at all - at least not any more than dice did.

[bobthe6th]

It...does? I didn't think it detracted from the atmosphere at all - at least not any more than dice did.

Well, more limiting skills down to maneuvers, and doing the same to spells. People would probably say that this limits actions weirdly. And I would have to explain that the world is not balanced(were 3.5 just made everything possible... but made a lot of stuff pointless.)

[toapat]

You forgot Gitmo. And ice cream. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106111)

And 1st Ed, and 2nd ed, 2nd ed Revised, AdnD, BDnD, and ODnD, Best color, best way to apply explosions, best country.

Have you met people? they are very disagreeable

[Vaz]

I'm not making an attack at you at all. I'm saying you have issues because you have stated that you have issues with it. Like, you're saying, right now, that you have issues with it. That's straight up fact. And that's fine. But stop making the system out to be something it's not. Also yeah, I gave examples of exactly how it's not spellcasting, or if you really want to get down into it, how everything else (Some feats have prerequisite levels! limited uses!) is. If using Elder Mountain Hammer to hit for some more damage is a spell because you're making a choice of doing something beyond the basic attack in melee range, then so's Power Attack. And that's just silly. I'm perfectly calm here, I'm just, y'know, making actual points. You're saying it's magical. I'm telling you exactly how it's not. Not much hominem to go around there, except you telling me to grow up.

1) You were making an attack on me. I believe Tome of Battle is a type of spellcasting, so by your definition I have issues. If that was not how you intended, fair enough, in future, just take a care of potentially inflamatory comment. Replace Casting with Initiating, Maneuvre with Spell and outside of that, it is as superficially different from Spellcasting as Psionics is. Refusing THAT is as much an issue as you have with me saying it is spellcasting, and smacks of "refusal because". There are even Martial Maneuvre Scrolls.

2) Might be me just being slow, or then again someone else being in denial, but the difference between how a Power Attack operates, and how an Elder Mountain Hammer is beyond the Martial Maneuvre mechanisms.

3) I am not saying IT is magical, I am saying that the usage and mechanism has been as 'radical' modification of the existing Magic System as Psionics was.

I think you have got the wrong idea of what I am trying to say, or if you haven't whatever i say will not change your opinion, so let's just leave it at that.

[Terazul]

By my definition, if you are calling it spellcasting, which it explicitly is not, for a number of reasons you have outlined, then yeah, you're going to have issues with the rest of the system because alot of the mundane options operate in the exact same way, just usually packaged as feats or other class features. I even pointed this out. Like everything in the system operates on a basis where you answer these questions:

What ability are you using?
What's the activation time?
How often/What circumstances can you use it?
What does it do?
When do you get access to it?

Like, that's just how it goes. Feats. Spells. Class Features. Everything. Sometimes, for ease of use, these get just called a subsystem so we don't have to put down a million things that say "when you get BAB+6 and also are this level in these classes you can use this one thing with this stuff". That's all maneuvers are. Your entire argument is they "feel" like spells. I'm saying if that's the case, so should everything else.

[bobthe6th]

Agg... it drew me in.


Replace Casting with Initiating, Maneuver with Spell and outside of that, it is as superficially different from Spellcasting as Psionics is.

except psionics is just normal casting, but better(totally biased... but still, it is better then vancian). Maneuvers are at will(something nothing short of invocations can match).



I am not saying IT is magical, I am saying that the usage and mechanism has been as 'radical' modification of the existing Magic System as Psionics was.

Psionics was a pretty big shift, at least what was built around it. We got a half caster that didn't suck, a casting system that made dipping a very real option... Heck, a lot of the blasting is almost reasonable. Then psionic feats added cool things... but I digress. Comparing the change of spell slots to mana points(not really anything), to changing spell slots to at will semi spells(an entirely new mechanic)... Is just more then a little wrong.

[docnessuno]

Why are we discussing RATT?

Wee, my acronym is spreading!
(sorry for the OT)

[Boci]

Wee, my acronym is spreading!
(sorry for the OT)

And this acronym would mean?

[TuggyNE]

thing is, there are alternatives to the Tier system. The same game test is the most obvious one, but people here denounce DandDwiki the second it is mentioned.

I've definitely noticed people denouncing dandwiki at every whipstitch (in fact, I do it myself, for reasons I consider sufficient), but I don't recall seeing a lot of yelling at the Same Game Test for being hosted on dandwiki. (I seem to recall a project a while back to adapt and expand the SGT over in Homebrew Design, in fact.)


If you want a debate on the tier system, I'm sure the mods would be happy to lock one for you.

:smallbiggrin:

[RFLS]

And this acronym would mean?

The meaning given by the OP is "Rules as Toapat Thinks."

[Snowbluff]

I've definitely noticed people denouncing dandwiki at every whipstitch (in fact, I do it myself, for reasons I consider sufficient), but I don't recall seeing a lot of yelling at the Same Game Test for being hosted on dandwiki. (I seem to recall a project a while back to adapt and expand the SGT over in Homebrew Design, in fact.)

:smallbiggrin:

Could you explain the SGT to me? Sounds interesting.


The meaning given by the OP is "Rules as Toapat Thinks."

Make sense, except it annoys me that he got an acronym before I did. :smalltongue:

[Togo]

I quite liked the Tome of Battle, but I don't find myself using it much. The mechanics work quite well, and are balanced with eachother, but the feel is wrong. I think Teopat got it pretty much right - I'd have much preferred to see an adjustment to the existing combat system, rather than an entirely new system. As it stands, I tend to use the complete warrior in preference, as it has a flavour I prefer and the mechanics mesh with the existing combat system.

Also, hate to say it, but the mechanics in TOB do feel like spells. They're expended one-shot chunks of rules text that apply a particular effect with little or no jutification, rather than an adjustment to an existing mechanical system. As such they don't feel like 3.5 combat, they feel like a spell.

I'd use ToB in a wuxia or magical martial arts game, but I generally don't touch it for ordinary D&D.

[toapat]

I seem to recall a project a while back to adapt and expand the SGT over in Homebrew Design, in fact.

that failed.

badly

[Toy Killer]

I've been thinking about running a wuxia style game using just tome of battle, maybe giving them all access to auto-hypnosis and the psionic feats that require being focused...

But honestly, never really felt it out enough to pursue it.

[Answerer]

I believe Tome of Battle is a type of spellcasting
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts, which is what you seem to be claiming here. Spells have an official definition. Maneuvers do not meet that definition by any stretch of the imagination. You don't get to define the terms, WotC does.

In short, this is not a matter of differing opinions. This is a matter of you being factually incorrect.

[Fable Wright]

I mostly play E6, so I can't comment that much on higher level gameplay, but I do like how ToB plays out. The DM of our group advocates it heavily, and while we've only had one initiator in our regular group, I've played in PbPs where people have used it. Before playing with it, I was against it because I was in the "Melee should just hit things with sticks!" camp, but after seeing how it was in play, I became a fan. It's mechanically different from spellcasting; Spellcasting tends to affect areas and/or affect foes' capabilities and/or give you capabilities you didn't have before. Maneuvers on the whole tend to affect single targets, deal mostly damage or impose a mundane status condition on them (tripping, knock them off balance, whatever, as opposed to fatigue and fear), and deal more damage than most spells. It integrates with the core combat system well, and is in general a good component of the game.

With the original question addressed, on to the flame war.


Also, i posted pointing out that ToB is put on a throne it doesnt deserve. Being effective is one thing, Doing it right is another country entirely.
So, you're saying that you would have liked a system that could be grafted onto the core rules that any class would use, by, say, allowing people to use maneuvers with skill checks or something similar, or adding it onto the grapple or overrun rules. There are a couple of problems that I see with that though.

1. If you're just grafting new abilities onto skill checks, that opens up new worlds of character imbalance. People with more skills that were earlier thought to be balanced might suddenly be much more powerful than anyone thought. Factotums would do melee better than the fighter, and in general everything wouldn't turn out too well.

2. If you're saying that grafting this onto grapple or overrun rules, when people already complain about the headache of grapple rules and mounted combat checks, you're making the system too convoluted, and you're rewarding the people who have studied the system backwards and forwards and excluding new people from joining in on the fun.

How Wizards of the Coast executed it was actually rather well. They made self-contained classes that could be dipped for one or two levels to add a lot of versatility to other classes (dipping for supplemental abilities for the builds that you like), and could be accomplished for the use of feats.

Alternatively, you could be saying that you wished that Wizards of the Coast just handed other melee classes retroactive maneuver progressions, to keep them on the same level. There are... problems with that. First would be the fact that you have to make the progression for each of the classes, when it would obviously shake up the power system. Suddenly, the games with Tome of Battle on the table would become much more powerful, as everyone gets free stuff for their classes and feel obligated to add it to the game, and it causes differences in playstyles for a lot of people who don't necessarily want it. You could also be saying that you wished that Wizards of the Coast produced a section of the book allowing for ACFs that granted other classes maneuver progressions. That could do a lot of work for balancing out the game. On the other hand, it would take up a lot of the book and have to include every base class in the game, detailing progression for the ACFs, and taking up a lot of space. You might still argue that it's a good thing, and would help balance out the classes. In that case, I invite you to the Homebrew section of the forums to make your fix.

However, please don't go out and say that because Tome of Battle did not spend 50 pages detailing ACFs that would notable raise power levels across the board and create entire maneuver progression systems that could easily be messed up or fraught with error for all the non- or low-magical classes they've ever published, it did a poor job implementing. Given the limitations of space that Wizards of the Coast had, and the fact that they didn't want to encourage people who weren't ready for the system to implement it into their game and ruin their experiences, or make people regret that they didn't take the maneuver ACF at a level they've passed and now can't go back and fix, they did a bang up job creating a system that could be easily implemented, be included in regular games to add flair to the combat without creating very insular classes as they did in Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum, and generally being an easily dipped or included aspect in a build to add a lot of versatility and options to people who want to do things in melee besides "I hit it with a stick." Is it perfect? No. Was it very well implemented? Given that almost every melee build can get a lot of use out of even one or two levels and have many new options for combat, I would say yes.


i was pointing out that ToB is a single thing, Yard sticks for classes are not.

barring one template in the templates section, i havent seen anything out of place or misslabeled on the site, so ive yet to see actual justification for the contempt for it.

The problem is that the labels are hard to find, and the fact that there are multiple D&D Wikis. Some of them, while technically all having tags on them, are not very obviously stamped "THIS IS HOMEBREW," so new players often convince their DMs that they're in the core rules. There's also no quality filter, so one of those classes could very easily break the game in half. While there could be good stuff there, such things are diamonds in the rough, when the rough can stab the unsuspecting person going through it. There was a poster earlier who had tons of links to terribly balanced classes, including a Cleric-like core class that had Ur-Priest progression from levels 1-10 and then just added another spell to each spell level after that, that granted the ability to cast spells as Su abilities. And no obvious thing on it to tell new players that it's (poorly balanced) homebrew.

People praised the class for the flavor it had, and there were no bad reviews of it in the discussion page.

I swear, I am not kidding.

EDIT: Also, ninja'd by about a page and a half.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Also, hate to say it, but the mechanics in TOB do feel like spells. They're expended one-shot chunks of rules text that apply a particular effect with little or no jutification, rather than an adjustment to an existing mechanical system. As such they don't feel like 3.5 combat, they feel like a spell.How are maneuvers more like spells than Smite Evil, Rage, Quivering Palm, Abundant Step, Bardic Music, Hexblade's Curse, Knight's Challenge, etc? All of those use daily refresh mechanics, like spells, whereas maneuvers can be used multiple times in the same encounter.

The one thing maneuvers do share is that you can pick which ones you want and which ones you don't want, and mix and match each day. Perhaps the reason they feel similar to casters is because, like casters, they have some flexibility.

[toapat]

2. If you're saying that grafting this onto grapple or overrun rules, when people already complain about the headache of grapple rules and mounted combat checks, you're making the system too convoluted, and you're rewarding the people who have studied the system backwards and forwards and excluding new people from joining in on the fun.

The problem is that the labels are hard to find, and the fact that there are multiple D&D Wikis. Some of them, while technically all having tags on them, are not very obviously stamped "THIS IS HOMEBREW," so new players often convince their DMs that they're in the core rules. There's also no quality filter, so one of those classes could very easily break the game in half. While there could be good stuff there, such things are diamonds in the rough, when the rough can stab the unsuspecting person going through it. There was a poster earlier who had tons of links to terribly balanced classes, including a Cleric-like core class that had Ur-Priest progression from levels 1-10 and then just added another spell to each spell level after that, that granted the ability to cast spells as Su abilities. And no obvious thing on it to tell new players that it's (poorly balanced) homebrew.

People praised the class for the flavor it had, and there were no bad reviews of it in the discussion page.

I swear, I am not kidding.

1: Operative word that i might not have said should be replace in that first part. Supplementing bad rules didnt work for the other books.

2: DandDwiki (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page) or DnD-wiki (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Main_Page)?

[bobthe6th]

...or you could be a warblade/swordsage with adaptive style, and say screw that noise.

Though I must admit, the biggest problem with the ToB was it came out at the end of 3.5... or more that 4E didn't go further with the concept.

[The-Mage-King]

I tend to use Perception, as Setting Sun uses Sense Motive. YMMV, but it works for me.


They both match the flavor and key off of Wisdom, so I'm on board with Perception just to keep 'em separate. Good idea.

I prefer Autohypnosis. DSP's stuff is typically good, and it makes sense. Keeps Perception clear for archers, too, since it's got little support.


Have you met people? they are very disagreeable

No they aren't.

:smalltongue:


I've been thinking about running a wuxia style game using just tome of battle, maybe giving them all access to auto-hypnosis and the psionic feats that require being focused...

But honestly, never really felt it out enough to pursue it.

If I may direct you to a little homebrew project.... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205213)

[Togo]

Perhaps the reason they feel similar to casters is because, like casters, they have some flexibility.

That might be it. The usual trade off for combat abilities is a large advantage in a particular specialised circumstance, versus a small advantage in a common situation. Abilities where you get to pick and choose depending on what's going on that day feel more like chosing spells. It's also a little counter-intuitive - either you know a particular fighting technique or you don't, and having to decide which to mentally prepare feels more like spellcasting.

Of course it doesn't help that I actively enjoy playing characters that use the existing combat system, flawed though it is, and so don't really have a use for a wholesale replacement.

[Answerer]

That might be it. The usual trade off for combat abilities is a large advantage in a particular specialised circumstance, versus a small advantage in a common situation. Abilities where you get to pick and choose depending on what's going on that day feel more like chosing spells. It's also a little counter-intuitive - either you know a particular fighting technique or you don't, and having to decide which to mentally prepare feels more like spellcasting.
Eeeeh. Numerous martial artists have commented that you do go into a fight with some idea of what forms you'll be using, and you can't just spam one move: completing a move sets you up for the next one, and generally doesn't put you in a good place to use the original one.

Basically, Fighters know basic swordplay. Warblades know specific martial arts relating to their weapons, and have actual names for movements and use particular combos together, like a real-world martial artist.

[Boci]

Eeeeh. Numerous martial artists have commented that you do go into a fight with some idea of what forms you'll be using, and you can't just spam one move: completing a move sets you up for the next one, and generally doesn't put you in a good place to use the original one.

Fair enough on the second point, but the first one seems inaplicable since D&D characters usually aren't fighting in tournaments.

[RFLS]

Fair enough on the second point, but the first one seems inaplicable since D&D characters usually aren't fighting in tournaments.

He said "fight," not tournament.

[Lord_Gareth]

I prefer Autohypnosis. DSP's stuff is typically good, and it makes sense. Keeps Perception clear for archers, too, since it's got little support.

DSP's stuff is GREAT - it's a shame it has to technically be third-party since whenever someone mentions psionics to SKR he starts frothing at the mouth and coloring on his wrists with red sharpie.

[Boci]

He said "fight," not tournament.

And how much experience do martial artists have with "fights" instead of tournaments? I'll admit I'm infering from context, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong Answerer, but I'm pretty sure the martial artists you mentioned were talking about tournaments, not raids or ambushes.

[RFLS]

DSP's stuff is GREAT - it's a shame it has to technically be third-party since whenever someone mentions psionics to SKR he starts frothing at the mouth and coloring on his wrists with red sharpie.

Quoted for a great example of a terrible game designer.


And how much experience do martial artists have with "fights" instead of tournaments? I'll admit I'm infering from context, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong Answerer, but I'm pretty sure the martial artists you mentioned were talking about tournaments, not raids or ambushes.

I think that's a fair assessment, but I did want it pointed out that the two were different. A more useful example would be that many Navy Seals say the same thing about a fight, in the context of field work.

[Lord_Gareth]

And how much experience do martial artists have with "fights" instead of tournaments? I'll admit I'm infering from context, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong Answerer, but I'm pretty sure the martial artists you mentioned were talking about tournaments, not raids or ambushes.

How many of these martial artists have experience with applying German fencing to a regenerating, eight-foot tall sapient being? At a certain point the realism has to drop off and the simulation must start.

[Boci]

How many of these martial artists have experience with applying German fencing to a regenerating, eight-foot tall sapient being? At a certain point the realism has to drop off and the simulation must start.

And I believe that a distinction between a tournament and an no holds barred fight to the death fits in before the certain point.

[Vaz]

{Scrubbed}

[RFLS]

{Scrubbed}

[Boci]

{Scrubbed}

You're calling a system which involves hitting targets with weapons "spellcasting" and ignoring the fact that some core classes have daily limits on some of their abilities. I'm sorry you find backing up/elborating on an opinion "boring".

[Hiro Protagonest]

If I may direct you to a little homebrew project.... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205213)

Yay! Other people remember it!

Speaking of which, when's the last time anyone's seen Callos?

[Snowbluff]

How many of these martial artists have experience with applying German fencing to a regenerating, eight-foot tall sapient being? At a certain point the realism has to drop off and the simulation must start.

... is this why Swashbuckler and Duelist are bad? :smalltongue:

[Vaz]

{Scrubbed}

[RFLS]

Yay! Other people remember it!

Speaking of which, when's the last time anyone's seen Callos?

It's been a while. And thanks for the link, OP, I hadn't seen that. It's going to take a bit of a read.


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

We can only hope.

[Snowbluff]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I'll bet my cookie that he comes back. Hopefully he won't reply out of spite. A dangerous bluff, I know, but mean some people don't like people having cookies.
RFLS, what does RFLS stand for?

[Hiro Protagonest]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Two separate power sources from the same game using the same fundamental system (separated into the same number of levels, using the same actions, having limited uses and the ability to recover at certain times) is a good thing, not a bad one. Once you get past that most fundamental layer and start looking at the other parts, differences start to appear, such as range, effect, feat support, number of uses and recovery method...

Sure, 4e took it a bit too far, what with all classes having the same number of daily, encounter, and at-will powers, and gaining them at the same levels, but there's still some differences between roles and inside roles in 4e, and there's far more between ToB and Vancian casters.

[RFLS]

RFLS, what does RFLS stand for?

Well, it's random, and it's a string of four letters.

[docnessuno]

Well, it's random, and it's a string of four letters.

I see what you did here...

[Snowbluff]

Well, it's random, and it's a string of four letters.

I have no idea what you mean.:smallbiggrin: RandomFourLetterString.

[Boci]

The mechanism itself was lifted from magic with a few changes here and there. Spells Known? Nah, Maneuvres Known! Just lower it, They won't know the difference!

And you would have preferred what? Maneuvres quariderized? Maneuvres they have heard about before and are pretty confident they can peform?


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Replace day with recovery mechanics? Are you even listening to yourself? Replacing a unit of time with a specific action? Thats similar is it? Not to mention each class has its own recovery mechanic. Binders are a better example, at least there one unit of time was replaced with another.

[RFLS]

I see what you did here...

Really funny (http://xkcd.com/33/) lie, sir. (http://xkcd.com/688/)

[Fable Wright]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
...Okay. Let's sweep aside for a minute that the categorizing feature of spellcasting classes is their per-day limit of abilities. Let's sweep aside the fact that the ability to spam spells is one of the key features of spellcasters compared to most of the other classes.

What you described there is calling everything that uses a system of resources that expend and renew themselves in games magic. Just let that sink in a moment.


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{scrub the post, scrub the quote (made outside quote tags}

[TuggyNE]

Could you explain the SGT to me? Sounds interesting.

If you read the link (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_(DnD_Guideline)), you'll know about as much as I do of the implementation.

The philosophy, though, is that individual characters of different classes should be run through a gauntlet of different equal-CR encounters (presumably, one a day), and rated based on whether they survive more than 50% of them, or fewer.

Obviously, this has the disadvantage that classes like Bard or Marshal, which can be very effective at boosting other characters, tend to be rated much lower than they should be, while classes like Druids, which can be quite thoroughly stand-alone, tend to be rated rather higher.

(There are some other practical problems with e.g. ensuring double-blind observation and the like, making sure the encounters are all reasonable and also varied, and so forth.)

[Snowbluff]

Seems pretty awful, overall. You are right about those issues. I think tiers would do better, since they seem more straight-forward, and leave less room for error for most classes.

[bobthe6th]

At some point I laid out a brute force method for doing a SGT...

It was like you made a generic group, and ran a lot of gauntlets with them to make a base line. Then make a character using the class, and replace one of the generic party's characters with him. Do this a few times, and compare to base line. Then change the character replaced, rinse and repeat.

Time consuming? Yes! indicative of the actual class balance? Yes! Will I ever do it? Unless I get paid to, no. Kinda wish WoTC had done this... would have made life easier.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Time consuming? Yes! indicative of the actual class balance? Yes! Will I ever do it? Unless I get paid to, no. Kinda wish WoTC had done this... would have made life easier.

The tabletop equivalent of the trenches. As it is, TTRPG testers aren't nearly as thorough as video game ones.

[bobthe6th]

The tabletop equivalent of the trenches. As it is, TTRPG testers aren't nearly as thorough as video game ones.

I mean really... the idea of just play testing by running normal D&D games is a bit silly. The data is unempirical, with all sorts of variances. A lot of stuff in 3.5 looks unedited or untested... Or done with unpublished assumed hand waves.

Just paying some interns to run a month or two of tests would have helped... a lot.

[TuggyNE]

At some point I laid out a brute force method for doing a SGT...

It was like you made a generic group, and ran a lot of gauntlets with them to make a base line. Then make a character using the class, and replace one of the generic party's characters with him. Do this a few times, and compare to base line. Then change the character replaced, rinse and repeat.

Time consuming? Yes! indicative of the actual class balance? Yes! Will I ever do it? Unless I get paid to, no. Kinda wish WoTC had done this... would have made life easier.

That's basically what it comes down to.

[toapat]

Just paying some interns to run a month or two of tests would have helped... a lot.

That wasnt in the Budget for WotC in 1998-2000

[bobthe6th]

I mean... something. I just expect when they hand out a 20$+ hard back that it has been edited a little...

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep it civil in here.

[Keld Denar]

Heck, the old 339 boards offered to "break" Pathfinder during beta for FREE, but once they started giving feedback, they encountered some "artistic resistance".

[bobthe6th]

I mean really at this point you could lock it. It stopped being remotely on topic around page 2. The question was answered, and the after party has gone on for 3 pages.

[bobthe6th]

Heck, the old 339 boards offered to "break" Pathfinder during beta for FREE, but once they started giving feedback, they encountered some "artistic resistance".

I tried a few times to write a response that wasn't offensive to the game making establishment... I failed. So just posting this instead.

[RFLS]

Heck, the old 339 boards offered to "break" Pathfinder during beta for FREE, but once they started giving feedback, they encountered some "artistic resistance".


I tried a few times to write a response that wasn't offensive to the game making establishment... I failed. So just posting this instead.

I feel as though I'm missing something. What happened?

[toapat]

I feel as though I'm missing something. What happened?

the guy who runs Pathfinder happened.

The one who thinks that MM: Heighten spell is worth a third what TWF is.

basically Bob said he tried to give feedback for PF, it failed the "God Complex" check

[bobthe6th]

the guy who runs Pathfinder happened.

The one who thinks that MM: Heighten spell is worth a third what TWF is.

basically Bob said he tried to give feedback for PF, it failed the "God Complex" check

No, I was trying to reply to that comment... and kept deleting an overly inflammatory comment. Just the fact they killed free editing... the hell?

[RFLS]

No, I was trying to reply to that comment... and kept deleting an overly inflammatory comment. Just the fact they killed free editing... the hell?

So...what actually happened? I've got the gist, but was there something more? I'm aware of SKR's...."competency" when it comes to game design.

[bobthe6th]

So...what actually happened? I've got the gist, but was there something more? I'm aware of SKR's...."competency" when it comes to game design.

I wasn't the one who knew or posted about it. I was just responding in shock in response to the original post. There you might find a person with further knowledge...

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, I was trying to reply to that comment... and kept deleting an overly inflammatory comment. Just the fact they killed free editing... the hell?

Did you get the checkbox? You've got to click the checkbox and the delete message button. If you don't mark the checkbox the button alone won't work.

[bobthe6th]

Did you get the checkbox? You've got to click the checkbox and the delete message button. If you don't mark the checkbox the button alone won't work.

What? No, it was more I didn't want to start calling some decent game developers stupid... but was having a hard time making it come out any other way.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What? No, it was more I didn't want to start calling some decent game developers stupid... but was having a hard time making it come out any other way.

Ah. I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to delete the post that RFLS quoted earlier.

Nevermind what I said then.

[LordBlades]

So...what actually happened? I've got the gist, but was there something more? I'm aware of SKR's...."competency" when it comes to game design.

I wasn't actually there so my knowledge is second hand, but as far as I know it was about CO regulars showing how Pathfinder could be 'broken' and Paizo's answers (despite the promises of an open play test) ranging from 'you're all a bunch of munchkins so your balance ideas and the issues you're pointing out are completely irrelevant to people who are playing 'the right way' ' and 'you're now banned from our forum kthxbye'

[Lord_Gareth]

I wasn't actually there so my knowledge is second hand, but as far as I know it was about CO regulars showing how Pathfinder could be 'broken' and Paizo's answers (despite the promises of an open play test) ranging from 'you're all a bunch of munchkins so your balance ideas and the issues you're pointing out are completely irrelevant to people who are playing 'the right way' ' and 'you're now banned from our forum kthxbye'

I was there. It was mostly that second one. SKR has all the professionalism of a four year old throwing a tantrum.

[Snowbluff]

I wasn't actually there so my knowledge is second hand, but as far as I know it was about CO regulars showing how Pathfinder could be 'broken' and Paizo's answers (despite the promises of an open play test) ranging from 'you're all a bunch of munchkins so your balance ideas and the issues you're pointing out are completely irrelevant to people who are playing 'the right way' ' and 'you're now banned from our forum kthxbye'

Is it strange how similiar this sounds to the WarZ scandal? Weird how different our standards are for the video and tabletop gaming industries.

[bobthe6th]

So yeah... back to staring in disbelief.

[RFLS]

So yeah... back to staring in disbelief.

SKR often has that effect. I have his feat point buy system book-marked so that I can remind myself why he's such a bad designer whenever I need to.

[Lord_Gareth]

SKR often has that effect. I have his feat point buy system book-marked so that I can remind myself why he's such a bad designer whenever I need to.

I use his posts on why Flurry of Blows = TWF for that self-same purpose.

[RFLS]

Does this (https://www.facebook.com/notes/sean-k-reynolds/its-just-a-punch-to-the-neck/10151372019399085) make you feel any better?

[Gnorman]

This (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) would be the piece of fail in question.

[Lord_Gareth]

Does this (https://www.facebook.com/notes/sean-k-reynolds/its-just-a-punch-to-the-neck/10151372019399085) make you feel any better?

Link's broken.

[Gnorman]

Link's broken.

Does it lead somewhere else than an SKR description of a potential assault? Cuz if not, it might be.

Fail to see the relevance regardless.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Honestly? I love the ToB maneuver/stance mechanic.

My QuickFix(tm) for 'base classes' is as follows:

* Replace the following:
1) Fighter with Warblade
2) Monk with Unarmed Swordsage
3) Paladin with Crusader

* Rangers lose casting, but choose between Wildshape (as per wildshape variant) or gaining Initiation with Tiger Claw, Shadow Hand, and Desert Wind. They also gain a class ability which permits them to treat ranged weapons as melee weapons for purposes of initiating maneuvers through them.

* Barbarians gain Initiation with Stone Dragon and Tiger Claw disciplines

* Rogues gain Initiation with Diamond Mind, Tiger Claw, Shadow Hand, and Setting Sun

* Bards become an invocation-based class with a warlock-like invocation progression to replace their spells. Some of the invocations replicate some of the more common archetype spells Bards use, focusing on battlefield control, area effect debuffing, and area effect buffing

* Wizards and Sorcerers vanish. In their place are Warlocks, Beguilers, Dread Necros, Warmages, and Shadowcasters.

* Druids lose Wildshape in favor of the PhB II variant. In addition, the list of animals which may be taken for an Animal Companion is more restricted. Entries from MM2-5 are not valid.

* Replace Clerics with Healers, however Healers must now choose a deity, and may select two domains from that deity. Deity list is restricted, domains such as War or Strength are not permitted. Any bonus domains obtained through any means MUST be on the deity's list. The class becomes a spontaneous casting class with full knowledge of the entire spell list, as Beguilers/DN's/Warmages. Domain spells go on their spell list as well.

[RFLS]

Honestly? I love the ToB maneuver/stance mechanic.

My QuickFix(tm) for 'base classes' is as follows:

* Replace the following:
1) Fighter with Warblade
2) Monk with Unarmed Swordsage
3) Paladin with Crusader

* Rangers lose casting, but choose between Wildshape (as per wildshape variant) or gaining Initiation with Tiger Claw, Shadow Hand, and Desert Wind. They also gain a class ability which permits them to treat ranged weapons as melee weapons for purposes of initiating maneuvers through them.

* Barbarians gain Initiation with Stone Dragon and Tiger Claw disciplines

* Rogues gain Initiation with Diamond Mind, Tiger Claw, Shadow Hand, and Setting Sun

* Bards become an invocation-based class with a warlock-like invocation progression to replace their spells. Some of the invocations replicate some of the more common archetype spells Bards use, focusing on battlefield control, area effect debuffing, and area effect buffing

* Wizards and Sorcerers vanish. In their place are Warlocks, Beguilers, Dread Necros, Warmages, and Shadowcasters.

* Druids lose Wildshape in favor of the PhB II variant. In addition, the list of animals which may be taken for an Animal Companion is more restricted. Entries from MM2-5 are not valid.

* Replace Clerics with Healers, however Healers must now choose a deity, and may select two domains from that deity. Deity list is restricted, domains such as War or Strength are not permitted. Any bonus domains obtained through any means MUST be on the deity's list. The class becomes a spontaneous casting class with full knowledge of the entire spell list, as Beguilers/DN's/Warmages. Domain spells go on their spell list as well.

That's...actually a really solid fix, although I think Paladin should be left in the game, perhaps replaced with the PF version.

[Big Fau]

I was there. It was mostly that second one. SKR has all the professionalism of a four year old throwing a tantrum.

I've seen four-year-olds with more professionalism than SKR.


I wasn't actually there so my knowledge is second hand, but as far as I know it was about CO regulars showing how Pathfinder could be 'broken' and Paizo's answers (despite the promises of an open play test) ranging from 'you're all a bunch of munchkins so your balance ideas and the issues you're pointing out are completely irrelevant to people who are playing 'the right way' ' and 'you're now banned from our forum kthxbye'

The strangest thing was that some of the more... aggressive ones of us (not naming names) are still allowed there despite voicing the same criticisms. From what I experienced, Paizo only banned the civil ones.

I'm still angry about it too.

To keep this on-topic; I heavily encourage my players to use the Bo9S classes largely because most of my players are newbies. I'd rather them screw up a Warblade (which is easily salvageable) than get frustrated with a Fighter (which is significantly harder to use properly).

[Fable Wright]

This (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) would be the piece of fail in question.

...
wut.
How did...
How is the person that made this in charge of Pathfinder?

[mistformsquirrl]

I personally love Tome of Battle. There's just so much more to DO as a melee character with it. That said, it's not flawless; and the fluff around it is pretty 'meh' imo; which means that incorporating it into a campaign world can be harder than it needs to be imo.

Still, I enjoy it; it does however mean I pretty much never play Fighter or Barbarian anymore.

[TopCheese]

That's...actually a really solid fix, although I think Paladin should be left in the game, perhaps replaced with the PF version.

Oh god... I can just see the PF Paladin argument starting up...

OP: I absolutely love ToB, I also love that something at the end of 3.0 could be a playtest for an entire system (4e) AND change to be put into D&DNext. If you like ToB or not you should at least respect it for having a huge role in D&D since its creation (almost as huge as spells and skills).

The fact I can pick any archetype and play a ToB character and do it well is awesome.

Now to squeeze a "we're sorry" out of WoTC for the crap 3.5 core was... We can start to heal :p

[Snowbluff]

OP: I absolutely love ToB, I also love that something at the end of 3.0 could be a playtest for an entire system (4e) AND change to be put into D&DNext. If you like ToB or not you should at least respect it for having a huge role in D&D since its creation (almost as huge as spells and skills).


Calling ToB a 4.0 playtest is very much an insult. It maintained a lot more of 3.5's style than anything.

[RFLS]

Oh god... I can just see the PF Paladin argument starting up...

Is it in the same vein as the ToB arguments?

[Lord_Gareth]

Is it in the same vein as the ToB arguments?

It relates directly to tier arguments - how much did PF actually change, and how much did it help?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Is it in the same vein as the ToB arguments?

No, it's mostly just some guys saying that it's awesome, Gareth saying it's still not good enough, and Toapat saying it's worse than the 3.5 one (because splat support lol).

[TopCheese]

Is it in the same vein as the ToB arguments?

Well it is usually a RATT argument and since every other argument came out in this thread...

===

I don't find it insulting to say ToB was a playtest for 4e (for either 4e or ToB). Because it was for the martial classes.. They just pushed a bit to far for some ppl's taste.

If they left martials with just at-will and encounters it probably would have been a smoother ride.

But the playtest thing is a mute point since it doesn't matter.

ToB was the first big maneuver push by WoTC and it went into 4e and is still in D&D Next (so far so good on Next) so really the ToB people should be happy since WoTC is +trying+ to give us what we want. :)

[The-Mage-King]

Actually, I read somewhere that ToB is from one of the first designs of 4E- the one called Orcus, I believe, that had little/none get into 4E proper- that was scrapped.

So those complaining that it seems like a playtest for 4E are completely wrong, since the proto-4E was converted to ToB.


Found the place where I read that. Unfortunately, the forum is down, so have the Google Cache (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hJJWSEyBjLUJ:www.minmaxboards.com/index.php%3Ftopic%3D5825.0+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us).