Tome of Battle - Why???

[willpell]

So how lame is it, on a scale of 1 to 10, that a level 1 crusader gets to choose from a total of 6 different maneuvers, and two of them are almost exactly the same? Ignoring the difference in schools, which only matters for interaction with various other game widgets or as a prerequisite for later maneuvers, the only differences between Vanguard Strike (a Devoted Spirit maneuver and thus one of the special toys that only Crusaders get) and Leading the Attack (a White Raven maneuver and thus also available to Warblades) is that Vanguard Strike's bonus is untyped rather than morale, while Leading the Attack is usable with a whip (or a gnome quickrazor, or any other weapon which can attack but doesn't threaten).

[Answerer]

How on earth should we know? Unless the designers have commented on this particular issue somewhere, we'll never know why they did it. It might have been an oversight, or they may have considered the effect important enough that Crusaders focusing on either school should get it, or considered it important enough that a Crusader ought to be able to "ready" it twice. All of these (and probably more besides) are conceivable, but we have absolutely no way of knowing.

[willpell]

Okay, "Why" is unanswerable, but I stand by "Lame". Especially given that the number of significantly different maneuvers available to a level 1 Crusader is therefore exactly the same as the number of maneuvers a level 1 Crusader gets. Other than choices made by every character type, all crusaders are therefore exactly the same other than in their choice of stance, unless they want two of these "paint a target for your buddies to rough up" maneuvers (which do nothing at all if the Crusader is fighting alone for whatever reason).

I'm kinda vaguely hoping someone can point out some interesting detail I've missed.

[Bob]

Iirc these aren't the only early manuevers that crusaders can get duplicates of. I always imagined that these were to allow the player to minimize some of the variance inherent in his readying mechanic for the first few levels of the game.

[Gigas Breaker]

How lame is it on a scale of 1 to 10? 0. I don't see what is so offensive about it.

[Psyren]

I can't speak to this choice too specifically as (a) I'm not as familiar with ToB and (b) I'm not the designer, so I couldn't tell you his precise reasons for making a choice of this nature. What I will say is that some level of redundancy in game design is a good thing, for both fluff and crunch reasons. Crunchwise, you pointed out one of the benefits here - that putting a similar effect in two schools allows a second class to have access. Other crunch reasons could be PrCs or feats that require X White Raven maneuvers or X maneuvers of a given discipline; now the Crusader has another way to get the move he wants and still fulfill requirements of that nature. And finally, there is the Crusader's recovery mechanic itself - Crusader maneuvers granted are randomized, so duplicate maneuvers allow you to quite literally "stack the deck" in favor of a given move showing up in your MG.

Fluffwise, Devoted Spirit and White Raven have different connotations and thus would appeal to characters in different ways. Not all Crusaders are necessarily gung-ho about the religious or spiritual aspects of their class, for instance, and those would be less inclined toward Devoted Spirit maneuvers.

[Answerer]

Frankly, I consider it a feature, since I consider the Crusader to be absolute best first-time-player class in the game. You get to make a few decisions, but poor choices cannot cripple you because you're automatically awesome, and you get familiar with 3.5's ideas of action and resource management in a way that limits your options at any one time.

[Sception]

Where as I don't especially recommend it to new players due to the distracting gimmickyness of the refresh maneuver and the extra number tracking in their delayed damage mechanic.

As for the redundant powers: what Bob said.

[Amphetryon]

Where as I don't especially recommend it to new players due to the distracting gimmickyness of the refresh maneuver and the extra number tracking in their delayed damage mechanic.


What do you mean by the part I bolded, exactly?

[Big Fau]

I find Crusader 1 stifling, but at any level beyond 2nd the class is amazing. Yes, it sucks that 1st level Crusaders don't have much variance. No, it does not cripple the class.

[Sception]

What do you mean by the part I bolded, exactly?

Rather than keeping their info on sheets, like other characters, they have to make cards, shuffle them, and deal them out to themselves continuously. Or they can skip the cards, but then must continually dice or otherwise randomly determine which abilities are available from a list, but with three different states of availability, it can be easy to lose track of what's going on that way. In the handful of times I've played a Crusader or seen one played, it was a somewhat distracting and annoying experience. Something that added hassle rather than fun when compared to how the other two ToB classes operate, and made them somewhat more difficult to handle for those with less experience with finicky game mechanics.

Not enough to make the Crusader as a whole bad or unfun or anything, just enough that it's not exactly my go-to recommendation for first time ToB players, or players looking to ease a leery DM into the allowing the system overall.

[Amphetryon]

Rather than keeping their info on sheets, like other characters, they have to make cards, shuffle them, and deal them out to themselves continuously. Or they can skip the cards, but then must continually dice or otherwise randomly determine which abilities are available. In the handful of times I've played a Crusader or seen one played, it was a somewhat distracting and annoying experience. Something that added hassle rather than fun when compared to how the other two ToB classes operate.

And you don't find the bookkeeping for a Wizard's spellcasting to be at all distracting or annoying? Or the alternate HP totals that a Barbarian has to track when he Rages?

Fascinating.

[Sception]

I don't recommend wizards or barbarians for first time players, either? What makes you think I would? Also, I expanded my previous reply to go into a bit more detail. But the crusader's refresh mechanic adds two elements of hassle: a third state of preparation (available but not ready to use, ready to use, and expended), and randomization of what is available, that, combined with tracking the delayed damage mechanic, just makes it a bit more hasslesome for first time ToB users, especially those new to D&D in general, than the other ToB classes.

Again, I'm not saying its a bad class or anything. I like the crusader. I like wizards, too, but I wouldn't recommend them as ideal classes for new players to try as their first exposure to the 3e spellcasting mechanics. As I appended to my previous post:


[the refresh mechanics and delayed damage aren't] enough to make the Crusader as a whole bad or unfun or anything, just enough that it's not exactly my go-to recommendation for first time ToB players, or players looking to ease a leery DM into the allowing the system overall.

[TopCheese]

I don't recommend wizards or barbarians for first time players, either? What makes you think I would? Also, I expanded my previous reply to go into a bit more detail. But the crusader's refresh mechanic adds two elements of hassle: a third state of preparation (available but not ready to use, ready to use, and expended), and randomization of what is available, that, combined with tracking the delayed damage mechanic, just makes it a bit more hasslesome for first time ToB users, especially those new to D&D in general, than the other ToB classes.

Again, I'm not saying its a bad class or anything. I like the crusader. I like wizards, too, but I wouldn't recommend them as ideal classes for new players to try as their first exposure to the 3e spellcasting mechanics.

Well I've seen people turned off from D&D because their level 1 fighter or rogue couldn't do anything but "I attack" or "I trip" all day long. Sure they loved roleplaying but the rollplaying of those classes got to them.

I convinced a guy a year afterwards to try ToB, he flew right into the Crusader and loved that he had options.

My first character was a Cleric who had access to every spell in the game and I loved it, I had no experience with any rpg tabletop game.

So I'm a bit relunctant to believe in what you are selling. Though I'm sure it may be true for some... But I've seen to many examples of where it is the oposite. Players tend to love a challenge.. Plus a ton of them play RPG/Other videogames that have customization...

[DarkEternal]

I like the crusader class, honestly. My last character is a crusader. You don't really need the "cards". Hell, post its do just as good of a job with it, and it takes like a few seconds to shuffle your 5-6(usually, at least on lower to mid levels) maneuvers and have someone choose them for you, or you to take it out. Honestly, it's less time compared to checking what your spell does or seeing if your DC is any different now if you levelled or something.

If there is one shoddy thing about crusaders it's their stance progression which is just awful. And yeah, Leading the attack and Vanguard Strike is pretty much identical. Foehammer and Mountain Hammer is also very similar(Mountain Hammer is better because it bypasses Hardness and not just DR, but otherwise everything else is identical).

[Amphetryon]

I don't recommend wizards or barbarians for first time players, either? What makes you think I would? Also, I expanded my previous reply to go into a bit more detail. But the crusader's refresh mechanic adds two elements of hassle: a third state of preparation (available but not ready to use, ready to use, and expended), and randomization of what is available, that, combined with tracking the delayed damage mechanic, just makes it a bit more hasslesome for first time ToB users, especially those new to D&D in general, than the other ToB classes.

Again, I'm not saying its a bad class or anything. I like the crusader. I like wizards, too, but I wouldn't recommend them as ideal classes for new players to try as their first exposure to the 3e spellcasting mechanics. As I appended to my previous post:1) The fact that you'd called out Crusader specifically as a Class you don't recommend for newbies indicated, to me, that it was somehow special in that regard.

2)The fact that almost all other base Classes have fiddly bits that are unique to them made me question where the line on such fiddly bits is for you.

3)A whole lot of folks that I've seen on the various boards who espouse similar views about "you have to have experience with the system before you can make [X] Class" end up trying to support arguments that read from here as "people really shouldn't make or play 3.X Characters until they've had some experience making and playing 3.X Characters" which (I hope) you can see is circular logic. I was trying to figure out if you held a similar belief, and if not, which Classes you deemed "appropriate" for people starting out in 3.X, and how much experience with the system you think is "appropriate" for them before they can take off the training wheels.

[Keld Denar]

Along that breed of thinking, Foehammer and Mountain Hammer are almost identical. Same +2d6 on the swing, both bypass any DR. The only difference is that MH needs to be touching the ground (by virtue of being a Stone Dragon maneuver), but also bypasses Hardness in addition. Otherwise, nearly identical 2nd level maneuvers.

I'd chalk it up to the fact that the authors could only think up a few effects to put in this level that aren't that strong. Its 1st level, after all. The effects of these maneuvers are simple and straight forward, fitting for 1st and 2nd level maneuvers. I don't have a problem with it.

[Psyren]

I can see how some might see printing and shuffling cards for the Crusader's mechanic as being onerous or nonstandard. But in the end, it's shuffling cards - like rolling dice, it's kind of a ubiquitous gaming skill that you're assumed to have. Making the cards the first time can be a pain though.

[willpell]

What's even more atrocious is that these two maneuvers, which are entirely useless if you're the only one fighting, are part of only six maneuvers that are almost all somewhat situational. Charging Minotaur is only usable if you're able to charge, and seldom of great utility after the first round of battle I suspect (it'd be great if you could chain it several times, keep knocking a target back and charging it again), but even if the opponent obligingly sits still you can't do this because you only get the one maneuver. Crusader's Strike, nice though it is, is wasted if you don't need to heal, and Stone Bones makes that more likely to happen, with both stepping on the toes of one of your two Crusader-exclusive stances.

Really, limiting the Crusader to only 3 schools when the other two get 5 and 6 was kinda punitive; I would have maybe allowed them Iron Heart or Shadow Hand too, and definitely made about twice as many Devoted Spirit maneuvers if the Crusader was still to be as limited as it is; as-is, he doesn't really feel like a religious character, just a more limited Warblade with access to ranged weapons and full plate. Letting Swordsages keep a full third of the game's maneuvers was kind of chintzy too, and I think the delayed damage pool was kind of a clunky mechanic, even if it does sort of get the flavor down. (A common maneuver or stance to have some of this "the more I suffer for my cause, the stronger I become" flavor might have been wiser design.) And as far as I can tell, both the Warblade and the Crusader get a terrible shortage of stances. Really it feels to me as if the decision to sort out stances separate from maneuvers came late in the design process and was not handled very well; there are way more stances than anyone needs and not as many maneuvers to go around as I'd like.

[JoshuaZ]

What's even more atrocious is that these two maneuvers, which are entirely useless if you're the only one fighting,

D&D 3.5 isn't a game designed for solo encounters. Frankly, I see class features that require others as a positive since it makes the whole group work well together. Thus for example in my own campaigns I'm much more willing to let someone get away with something that isn't RAW if it works with other group members or makes someone else in the group shine.



Really, limiting the Crusader to only 3 schools when the other two get 5 and 6 was kinda punitive;

The crusader has a lot more useful class features than either the swordsage or warblade.

But, your basic point about a lack of variation and selection is I think somewhat valid. I think this is part of why homebrewing disciplines is so popular- the system is really easy to work with and is really nice but there's a lack of options since the book was made as one of the very last 3.5 books so there's no official followup.

[Psyren]

D&D 3.5 isn't a game designed for solo encounters. Frankly, I see class features that require others as a positive since it makes the whole group work well together. Thus for example in my own campaigns I'm much more willing to let someone get away with something that isn't RAW if it works with other group members or makes someone else in the group shine.

Agreed, and Pathfinder moved this even further along by cutting down on the kinds of things casters could do solo - nerfing polymorph/wild shape for instance, and making casting in melee much harder. Whether they went far enough to make casters rely on the other party members is a matter for debate, but the philosophy is sound.

[Sception]

1) The fact that you'd called out Crusader specifically as a Class you don't recommend for newbies indicated, to me, that it was somehow special in that regard.

Among the ToB classes, it is. There are three classes, the Crusader is the one I'd least recommend to players new to the system, and especially the one I'd least recommend to players trying to introduce a leery DM to the system. In the former case, I'd recommend Warblades first. In the latter case, Sword Sages.

Again, I like Crusaders, but I was responding to Answerer, who described it as his go to class for new players, and for me that's not a category I would put it in. Sadly there aren't a lot of good first time player classes - as the classes that tend to be easier to manage in gameplay also tend to have more exacting optimization decisions (ie: warlock, easy to play if built right, but easy to build wrong and be terrible), while those that are harder to build wrong also tend to be harder to manage in play (ie: druid, impossible to build wrong, but typically way more to manage than most new players are able to deal with, leading to frustration and a lot of wasted time).

I'd still recommend new players go for something of the 'easy to play' variety, and just make sure the DM gives them a bit of a nudge in the building department to avoid spending the consequentially limited decision points on traps.

But regardless, if we're looking at the ToB classes, it's the one that strikes me as the least newb-friendly. Not so much that I'd turn away a new player who really wanted to play one (and I might steer someone who wanted to play a paladin in its direction), but if a player just wanted 'cool warrior guy with special moves', I'd lean them towards one of the other ToB classes first.


2)The fact that almost all other base Classes have fiddly bits that are unique to them made me question where the line on such fiddly bits is for you.

The other classes tend not to require extra props beyond a character sheet & possibly a print out or reference sheet for spells. Also, abilities tend to be 'available' or 'not available'. And there are certainly classes you can find that don't require you to remember things after you use them or after they happen and then apply them later.

It's not beyond any sort of playability breaking point. Again, I enjoy the crusader. I just wouldn't specifically call it out as a great choice for new players.


3)A whole lot of folks that I've seen on the various boards who espouse similar views about "you have to have experience with the system before you can make [X] Class" end up trying to support arguments that read from here as "people really shouldn't make or play 3.X Characters until they've had some experience making and playing 3.X Characters" which (I hope) you can see is circular logic. I was trying to figure out if you held a similar belief, and if not, which Classes you deemed "appropriate" for people starting out in 3.X, and how much experience with the system you think is "appropriate" for them before they can take off the training wheels.

There aren't great starter classes in 3.x. As mentioned above, there's almost nothing with a high optimization floor, low system mastery requirements, and streamlined gameplay with minimal condition/resource/ability tracking. So if a new player is looking for a recommendation, it generally comes down to 'least hasslesome' within their character archetype. For tome of battle types, I lean towards warblade for that. Of course, relatively few new players just want to play 'something' and are willing to let you choose for them, and forcing someone to play something they don't want is a complete non starter. There are relatively few classes I'd point a new player away from altogether. Druid maybe, I've seen that go poorly a bit too often. I certainly wouldn't discourage a new player from playing a Crusader.

I would discourage an established player who wanted to introduce a skeptical DM to ToB from playing a crusader, though. DMs who are willing to give the book a chance, but aren't immediately gung ho for it, I tend to find are worried about the gimmickyness of adding a new system, and nothing is going to confirm those fears faster than "busting out the trading cards to shuffle yourself up a hand of special attacks like you're playing Yugioh when the rest of us are here to play D&D" (paraphrasing one old DM of mine).


As for my ideal new player class? Ranger. Archer Ranger, with some DM input on build advice, particularly pointing them to some of the more useful ranger spells outside of the core books when they get to the point of being able to use them.

Archer rangers are, in general, relatively easy to play (if you don't know what to do, full attack), and their range can help keep the player out of trouble. Mostly, though, they're a good introduction to several basic 3e concepts - skills, feats, weapon attack rolls, armor, spellcasting, pethaving - and the player can go on to select an area they'd like to focus on with future characters. More importantly, these abilities are spaced out, so it isn't overwhelming all at once (the big reason why I don't recommend druids as first characters). Yeah, rangers are a bit on the weak side, and there can be build issues, so it's not completely ideal. But still.

[willpell]

disciplines

That's another thing that bugs me; the titular 9 Swords are called either "schools" or "disciplines" of maneuvers, meaning that you decide whether they share a name with spells or with psionic powers. In my game, I decided that they would be called "strictures" to get around this. It's not perfect but I figured I'd go with what I had until I had something better.

[JoshuaZ]

That's another thing that bugs me; the titular 9 Swords are called either "schools" or "disciplines" of maneuvers, meaning that you decide whether they share a name with spells or with psionic powers. In my game, I decided that they would be called "strictures" to get around this. It's not perfect but I figured I'd go with what I had until I had something better.

Yes, and we all know how many things "level" means. WoTC really needs a thesaurus (there was an OOTS that made this point that I can't find at the at moment.)

[Namfuak]

That's another thing that bugs me; the titular 9 Swords are called either "schools" or "disciplines" of maneuvers, meaning that you decide whether they share a name with spells or with psionic powers. In my game, I decided that they would be called "strictures" to get around this. It's not perfect but I figured I'd go with what I had until I had something better.

Why not call them "Swords?" IE, the "9 Swords."

[willpell]

Heheh, your name is making me think of Ingve Malmsteen being renamed after the 8th layer of Hell (whether in Dante or FC2 I'm not sure offhand), Malsheem.


In the former case, I'd recommend Warblades first. In the latter case, Sword Sages.

I started with Warblade on the assumption it would be simplest; slight miscalculation there. I do think I'd consider Crusader a good starting point unless the player is allergic to shuffling cards. If you're a good DM, you don't necessarily force him to memorize the details of the delayed damage pool right away, you just tell him that the goblin stabbed him and now he feels mad and the pain and anger gives him a bonus to hit, while you keep track of the details. You might even go so far as to pick out his stance and his maneuvers (or rather the one maneuver he doesn't have) and then let him change the choice later if he wishes.


I'd still recommend new players go for something of the 'easy to play' variety, and just make sure the DM gives them a bit of a nudge in the building department to avoid spending the consequentially limited decision points on traps.

Or, again, just let them change out the bad options as soon as they learn they're bad, instead of following the rules that say they can't. Player enjoyment should trump all other concerns.


There aren't great starter classes in 3.x.

I would say things like Warlock and Knight and even Fighter are great as starting points; they may not offer much variety, but you don't need much in the early game, you just need a neat thing you can do and the potential to grow a little over time, until you're bored enough to broaden your horizons a lot. If the player is getting beat up a lot, give them an NPC bodyguard or something, and help them steer their build in a direction that will satisfy them.

Though ranger is a pretty good choice too, I must agree.


Yes, and we all know how many things "level" means. WoTC really needs a thesaurus (there was an OOTS that made this point that I can't find at the at moment.)

Not only did they recycle words, but they came up with atrocious phrases like, oh I dunno, "delayed damage pool". They needed more than a thesaurus....

@ Namfuak: A Sword is a weapon, not a group of martial maneuvers. NO possible confusion there....

[Amphetryon]

Archer rangers are, in general, relatively easy to play (if you don't know what to do, full attack), and their range can help keep the player out of trouble. Mostly, though, they're a good introduction to several basic 3e concepts - skills, feats, weapon attack rolls, armor, spellcasting, pethaving - and the player can go on to select an area they'd like to focus on with future characters. I hope you're kidding. Choosing appropriate Favored Enemies is rife with trap options, requires Players to keep careful track of exactly which Type and (possibly) Subtype of enemy the party is facing, and couples with needing to pay close attention to combat distances for attack routines that will regularly swing by +/-5 within the same fight, depending on whether multiple enemy types are engaged. Add in the number of DMs who require careful bookkeeping of the ammunition (including the percentage chance that any given arrow will break), the number of Spells that aren't very good for 4th level Characters to rely upon, and the fact that a Ranger's pet is - by and large - too squishy for the combat role many new Players would try to use it for by the level they acquire one, and Ranger looks horrendously complicated if the comparison is that shuffling 5 cards for Maneuvers and tracking a few points of a Delayed Damage Pool is too much for the same Player.

[RFLS]

I hope you're kidding. Choosing appropriate Favored Enemies is rife with trap options, requires Players to keep careful track of exactly which Type and (possibly) Subtype of enemy the party is facing, and couples with needing to pay close attention to combat distances for attack routines that will regularly swing by +/-5 within the same fight, depending on whether multiple enemy types are engaged. Add in the number of DMs who require careful bookkeeping of the ammunition (including the percentage chance that any given arrow will break), the number of Spells that aren't very good for 4th level Characters to rely upon, and the fact that a Ranger's pet is - by and large - too squishy for the combat role many new Players would try to use it for by the level they acquire one, and Ranger looks horrendously complicated if the comparison is that shuffling 5 cards for Maneuvers and tracking a few points of a Delayed Damage Pool is too much for the same Player.

So, uh, I dunno if I missed something here, but I don't really see why he's on trial. At all. He has a point. Crusader recovery is a little bit of a hassle and you use that system nowhere else in the game. Warblade is almost definitely a better introduction for a new person to ToB. No one's saying it's a bad class.

[Amphetryon]

So, uh, I dunno if I missed something here, but I don't really see why he's on trial. At all. He has a point. Crusader recovery is a little bit of a hassle and you use that system nowhere else in the game. Warblade is almost definitely a better introduction for a new person to ToB. No one's saying it's a bad class.

On trial? I have a different opinion than he on this issue; I was not aware that espousing that opinion and supporting it was putting him "on trial."

[navar100]

I don't recommend wizards or barbarians for first time players, either? What makes you think I would? Also, I expanded my previous reply to go into a bit more detail. But the crusader's refresh mechanic adds two elements of hassle: a third state of preparation (available but not ready to use, ready to use, and expended), and randomization of what is available, that, combined with tracking the delayed damage mechanic, just makes it a bit more hasslesome for first time ToB users, especially those new to D&D in general, than the other ToB classes.

Again, I'm not saying its a bad class or anything. I like the crusader. I like wizards, too, but I wouldn't recommend them as ideal classes for new players to try as their first exposure to the 3e spellcasting mechanics. As I appended to my previous post:

Why underestimate the intelligence of a new player that he can't handle the "complexities" of wizard or crusader? A broad statement that no new player should use those classes is condescending. An individual person you know might not be able to do it, but that's only for that individual. Other people are quite capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and enjoy learning the intricacies of strategies themselves. They do it for board games. They can do it for roleplaying games.

As for the OP, not lame at all. It's not an issue for me to even consider.

[Tr011]

Where's the problem? You can have the same thing twice, to increase the chance to have it and make it kind of a "basic maneuver". This is pretty cool imo and for all other classes only available at higher levels when you have like a "lesser" and a "greater" version of the same move.
Especially the fact that it is almost the same, but still a little bit diffrent in detail makes this cool.

[Shining Wrath]

For the same reason a Magic The Gathering player tries to keep his deck small - you want to get your good maneuver out quickly, and having two instances of it helps.

Having said that, there's a lot of stuff in ToB that could have done with a little play testing, such as the insane maneuver recovery method for Sword Sages (a full round to get ONE maneuver back? really?). Or ... say it with me ... Iron Heart Surge! :smallsmile:

This is probably one of those.

[Snowbluff]

It might be that they wanted that maneuver to be central for lower levels, but they wanted people to have it to qualify for the school they are going into.

Either that or ToB needs better editing.

[Kazyan]

Re: the "new player's class" argument. Knight seems like a good pick, actually, if you tell them that Toughness sucks in advance. There's also Beguiler. You can't really mess one of those up, and fixed-list spontaneous casting is fairly easy.

[jindra34]

It might be that they wanted that maneuver to be central for lower levels, but they wanted people to have it to qualify for the school they are going into.

Either that or ToB needs better editing.

I believe you should have used a AND with the OR.

[Amphetryon]

Re: the "new player's class" argument. Knight seems like a good pick, actually, if you tell them that Toughness sucks in advance. There's also Beguiler. You can't really mess one of those up, and fixed-list spontaneous casting is fairly easy.

For the Knight: Opponents that Fly/Climb/Swim/Burrow will likely make the Knight's Player sad, or bored.

For the Beguiler: Hopefully the game doesn't feature any Undead or Constructs, or someone at the table pointed the Beguiler toward the choices that don't make the Beguiler's Player sad and/or bored in those circumstances.

[Scow2]

What's even more atrocious is that these two maneuvers, which are entirely useless if you're the only one fighting, are part of only six maneuvers that are almost all somewhat situational. Charging Minotaur is only usable if you're able to charge, and seldom of great utility after the first round of battle I suspect (it'd be great if you could chain it several times, keep knocking a target back and charging it again), but even if the opponent obligingly sits still you can't do this because you only get the one maneuver. Crusader's Strike, nice though it is, is wasted if you don't need to heal, and Stone Bones makes that more likely to happen, with both stepping on the toes of one of your two Crusader-exclusive stances.


The crusader's a great team player, and they need those healing abilities because not only can they be used by the crusader, but he can use it to heal nearby injured allies as well.

[Snowbluff]

I believe you should have used a AND with the OR.

I was half-joking. :smalltongue:

[Kazyan]

For the Knight: Opponents that Fly/Climb/Swim/Burrow will likely make the Knight's Player sad, or bored.

For the Beguiler: Hopefully the game doesn't feature any Undead or Constructs, or someone at the table pointed the Beguiler toward the choices that don't make the Beguiler's Player sad and/or bored in those circumstances.

Knights have to worry a lot less about special movement modes than most melee classes. It gets a "Come at me, bro!" ability at level 4, bringing the fight back to you, and you don't usually worry about special movement modes until level 6 or so. Also, since Mounted Combat is part if its schtick, it's not unreasonable for higher-level Knights to want to ride a Griffon or something, even for a new player. It's in the Harry Potter series. This is in addition to less obvious options that you can't expect from a newbie.

Good point on the Beguiler, though.

[Theoboldi]

Knights have to worry a lot less about special movement modes than most melee classes. It gets a "Come at me, bro!" ability at level 4, bringing the fight back to you, and you don't usually worry about special movement modes until level 6 or so. Also, since Mounted Combat is part if its schtick, it's not unreasonable for higher-level Knights to want to ride a Griffon or something, even for a new player. It's in the Harry Potter series. This is in addition to less obvious options that you can't expect from a newbie.

Good point on the Beguiler, though.

Of course, I think even the dumbest player can figure out that when his enchantments don't work on something, he should just try some illusions. Because neither undead nor constructs are immune to those. Or maybe just buff his allies. I think the notion that new players have to be pointed to the choices on their very small and fixed spell list that their enemies aren't immune to is ridiculous and only presents a real problem at very low levels, when the only spell you have for this is silent image. Heck, the description of the beguiler notes that you should try to control the terrain with things like grease or fog cloud. (Although beguilers don't have grease on their spell list, weirdly enough.)

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I disagree with charging minotaur being useless after the first round of combat. It grants you AoO free movement so it can be used to disengage from one melee and join another to save a squishier party member or just get away from the other sides blocker/tank/tripper/melee BFC to engage a squishy or to save yourself from a melee threat that's been focus firing you by engaging a mook.

[HunterOfJello]

It is kind of odd that their level 1 selection is so forced, but their choices after that definitely aren't. By the time you're level 10, you'll likely only have 2 of those level 1 maneuvers remaining anyway.

[Amphetryon]

Of course, I think even the dumbest player can figure out that when his enchantments don't work on something, he should just try some illusions. Because neither undead nor constructs are immune to those. Or maybe just buff his allies. I think the notion that new players have to be pointed to the choices on their very small and fixed spell list that their enemies aren't immune to is ridiculous and only presents a real problem at very low levels, when the only spell you have for this is silent image. Heck, the description of the beguiler notes that you should try to control the terrain with things like grease or fog cloud. (Although beguilers don't have grease on their spell list, weirdly enough.)

Which Illusions did you have in mind? Because those that are "Mind-affecting" will be a problem. Both have this language in their type:


Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).

[Psyren]

Figments and glamers will work on undead/constructs. e.g. if you're invisible the iron golem won't find you to bash your head in, or if you throw up a silent image brick wall the skeletons will stop short of it unless ordered through. And of course Shadow Illusions are generally handy as well. So Beguilers can be plenty useful even in undead or construct-heavy campaigns.

Just watch out for alternate senses.

[Amphetryon]

Figments and glamers will work on undead/constructs. e.g. if you're invisible the iron golem won't find you to bash your head in, or if you throw up a silent image brick wall the skeletons will stop short of it unless ordered through. And of course Shadow Illusions are generally handy as well. So Beguilers can be plenty useful even in undead or construct-heavy campaigns.

Just watch out for alternate senses.

I just love that zombies would (potentially) need Life Sense in order to find the warm bodies that house the brains, but would "see" an illusory wall and stop in their tracks. D&D logic: gotta love it.

[Theoboldi]

I just love that zombies would (potentially) need Life Sense in order to find the warm bodies that house the brains, but would "see" an illusory wall and stop in their tracks. D&D logic: gotta love it.

Uh, wouldn't the zombies just walk right through the wall if they had no visual sense except Life Sense(Which I have no idea what it is.)? I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. As far as I remember, zombies can see just as well using their eyes as any other creature.

[Amphetryon]

Uh, wouldn't the zombies just walk right through the wall if they had no visual sense except Life Sense(Which I have no idea what it is.)? I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. As far as I remember, zombies can see just as well using their eyes as any other creature.

It's a Feat in Libris Mortis (and probably online somewhere for perusal). I distinctly recall an old thread on another forum indicating the RAW hilarity that would ensue if Zombies were confronted with a staircase, due to limitations in their perceptive abilities. That makes the notion that an illusory barricade would hinder them all the wonkier, if accurate.

[ko_sct]

I dont see how them stopping at a wall is strange, even if they have lifesense and know that there is something on the other side.

Think about it, you want to join your friends who you know are on the other side of a wall, do you:


A) Try to walk around the wall



OR


B) Walk into the wall, even though there's a wall there, cause its a wall and you're walking into it....?

[Psyren]

Only certain, usually powerful undead (like wraiths) have lifesense. Zombies and other more mundane undead have normal senses (sight, hearing, taste, touch.) As with any normal sense, illusions can fool them.

[avr]

... And as far as I can tell, both the Warblade and the Crusader get a terrible shortage of stances. Really it feels to me as if the decision to sort out stances separate from maneuvers came late in the design process and was not handled very well; there are way more stances than anyone needs and not as many maneuvers to go around as I'd like.
From what I read the original design idea with ToB was all at-will, all the time. The recovery mechanisms & stances were added late in the design process after they'd talked to people outside the original team.

[Amphetryon]

I dont see how them stopping at a wall is strange, even if they have lifesense and know that there is something on the other side.

Think about it, you want to join your friends who you know are on the other side of a wall, do you:


A) Try to walk around the wall



OR


B) Walk into the wall, even though there's a wall there, cause its a wall and you're walking into it....?

The point of the "Zombie vs stairs" thread I mentioned was that the Zombies, by the (possibly 3.0, as it was an old discussion) RAW the participants understood, had no method of perceiving the staircase. This is why the illusory wall stopping them comes across as wonky IMO.

[willpell]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I disagree with charging minotaur being useless after the first round of combat.

Don't believe I ever said "useless". "Of limited use", perhaps.


It is kind of odd that their level 1 selection is so forced, but their choices after that definitely aren't. By the time you're level 10, you'll likely only have 2 of those level 1 maneuvers remaining anyway.

IMO, players need more choices at low levels than high. In general, I think every class that gets widgets like this (spells, psionic powers, vestges, maneuvers, utterances, whatever) ought to have a pyramid of them, with the highest-level powers being numbered X, then the next-highest X + Y, and the next highest X + 2Y, and so on down to the baseline first-level powers which need to be extremely numerous so that you can make a lot of the most relevant choices. The only class I can think of which even began to do this right was the Binder, where levels 7 and 8 (there is no 9) had only 2 vestiges each. Nowhere near the smooth pyramid I want, and way out of whack given the rate at which you gain access to number and level of vestiges.

For maneuvers in particular, since most of them are just "attack plus do a fancy thing", their concentration at high levels baffles me. I'm going to be interested to find out what a level 9 warblade maneuver can possibly do which is remotely worth waiting until at least level 13 or 15 (I haven't checked the chart) to get access to. If it still involves swinging your sword, I'll be baffled as to how it can equate to Shapechange or Meteor Swarm.


It's a Feat in Libris Mortis (and probably online somewhere for perusal). I distinctly recall an old thread on another forum indicating the RAW hilarity that would ensue if Zombies were confronted with a staircase, due to limitations in their perceptive abilities. That makes the notion that an illusory barricade would hinder them all the wonkier, if accurate.

Reminds me of an old Dr. Who joke about Daleks and stairs....


From what I read the original design idea with ToB was all at-will, all the time. The recovery mechanisms & stances were added late in the design process after they'd talked to people outside the original team.

Not too surprising, this. A lot of the maneuvers would be hugely more useful if they were at-will, and it wouldn't be vulnerable to the problem that Roy called out when fighting his 4E problem: "You can heal yourself by talking but you can't swing your sword the same way twice!" (Crusader's Strike is exactly this, though of course in 3E you can do it multiple times in a battle, just seldom on consecutive rounds).

[Psyren]

The point of the "Zombie vs stairs" thread I mentioned was that the Zombies, by the (possibly 3.0, as it was an old discussion) RAW the participants understood, had no method of perceiving the staircase. This is why the illusory wall stopping them comes across as wonky IMO.

I don't know about 3.0. In 3.5, zombies can see, hear, smell and feel. (For one thing, darkvision would be pretty silly if they were all blind.)

[Starbuck_II]

From what I read the original design idea with ToB was all at-will, all the time. The recovery mechanisms & stances were added late in the design process after they'd talked to people outside the original team.

Wait, you have details on Orcus (Precursor to ToB)?
Do tell.

[strider24seven]

So how lame is it, on a scale of 1 to 10, that a level 1 crusader gets to choose from a total of 6 different maneuvers, and two of them are almost exactly the same? Ignoring the difference in schools, which only matters for interaction with various other game widgets or as a prerequisite for later maneuvers, the only differences between Vanguard Strike (a Devoted Spirit maneuver and thus one of the special toys that only Crusaders get) and Leading the Attack (a White Raven maneuver and thus also available to Warblades) is that Vanguard Strike's bonus is untyped rather than morale, while Leading the Attack is usable with a whip (or a gnome quickrazor, or any other weapon which can attack but doesn't threaten).

Honestly? 0.
I find that having redundancy is pretty awesome actually.
Especially for the decently good maneuvers like Foehammer and Mountain Hammer.

And with regards to Crusaders for Newbies:
I actually fully recommend Crusaders as the most newbie-friendly class in existence, as long as you have someone around who knows how the class works.

"Deal X cards at the start of combat, deal 1 per round, when you can't deal anymore, reshuffle and deal X. Use 1 card per round. Do what it says on the card. And you have a constant buff/debuff that you can change 1/round."

Much easier than wizard/cleric to manage, and much more satisfying than fighter/barbarian to play.

And with regards to Crusaders for ToB-less DM's:
Don't.

[Kuulvheysoon]

IMO, players need more choices at low levels than high. In general, I think every class that gets widgets like this (spells, psionic powers, vestges, maneuvers, utterances, whatever) ought to have a pyramid of them, with the highest-level powers being numbered X, then the next-highest X + Y, and the next highest X + 2Y, and so on down to the baseline first-level powers which need to be extremely numerous so that you can make a lot of the most relevant choices. The only class I can think of which even began to do this right was the Binder, where levels 7 and 8 (there is no 9) had only 2 vestiges each. Nowhere near the smooth pyramid I want, and way out of whack given the rate at which you gain access to number and level of vestiges.

For maneuvers in particular, since most of them are just "attack plus do a fancy thing", their concentration at high levels baffles me. I'm going to be interested to find out what a level 9 warblade maneuver can possibly do which is remotely worth waiting until at least level 13 or 15 (I haven't checked the chart) to get access to. If it still involves swinging your sword, I'll be baffled as to how it can equate to Shapechange or Meteor Swarm.


Incarnates work kinda like that - they may have access to all their soulmelds at first level (while slightly overwhelming, the sheer options from day to day are glorious), but for the 'best' bonds, the throat/waist/heart/soul chakras bonds, there's actually only a relative few that you can bond to (compare 5 soul bindable melds @ 19th to 15 crown/hands/feet melds by 4th).

Level 9 maneuvers are accessed at 17th level, just like spells. They can vary anywhere from the (weak) ability to do 100 fire damage all the way to mini-time stop (2 full round actions). No, it doesn't compare to shapechange (then again, little does), but I'd actually pit Time Stands Still favorably against a meteor swarm.

[Greenish]

For maneuvers in particular, since most of them are just "attack plus do a fancy thing", their concentration at high levels baffles me. I'm going to be interested to find out what a level 9 warblade maneuver can possibly do which is remotely worth waiting until at least level 13 or 15 (I haven't checked the chart) to get access to. If it still involves swinging your sword, I'll be baffled as to how it can equate to Shapechange or Meteor Swarm.There is only one 9th level maneuver per discipline, so you can rest easy (even if most of them involve swinging a sword).

[Kelb_Panthera]

The point of the "Zombie vs stairs" thread I mentioned was that the Zombies, by the (possibly 3.0, as it was an old discussion) RAW the participants understood, had no method of perceiving the staircase. This is why the illusory wall stopping them comes across as wonky IMO.

The folks in that thread broke RAW. Zombies are mindless and therefore get only the bonus feats they're explicitly listed as having and none from their HD. They simply can't have life-sense.

[NotScaryBats]

I think you just wanted to start ToB Tuesday early. Color Spray and Sleep are quite similar (both disable targets) but are both lvl 1 spells. Is that an issue?

[Malroth]

my reccomendation as a starting character would be wildshape ranger->master of many forms. Explain to the new character "you can turn into any creature you've fought so far" then throw in some intresting melee forms as their encounters for their first few levels.

[The Viscount]

It is rather bad that Crusader has two maneuvers that are so similar, but it seems a symptom of a larger cause that several have mentioned, that too many maneuvers seem to just be damage plus some effect. The book feels a little rushed at times, and I feel that in some cases they tried too hard to make the classes different. Recovery is a particularly strong example of this.

While we're discussing Tome of Battle, I wanted to ask something. Is anybody else bothered by Swordsage, the master of combat, lacking full BA? I know it is there for balance with the more maneuvers known, and that in many cases a Swordsage will be using maneuvers rather than a full attack, but it never sat right with me that it wasn't full BA.

[willpell]

I think you just wanted to start ToB Tuesday early. Color Spray and Sleep are quite similar (both disable targets) but are both lvl 1 spells. Is that an issue?

Those two differ WAY more than these maneuvers do, at least in and of themselves. (I don't know about feats and magic items and such that interact with specific schools.)

[Leon]

Having said that, there's a lot of stuff in ToB that could have done with a little play testing. This is probably one of those.

Many WotC products could have the same said for them

[Sir Enigma]

While we're discussing Tome of Battle, I wanted to ask something. Is anybody else bothered by Swordsage, the master of combat, lacking full BA? I know it is there for balance with the more maneuvers known, and that in many cases a Swordsage will be using maneuvers rather than a full attack, but it never sat right with me that it wasn't full BA.

It's never bothered me, because I don't really think of the Swordsage as the "master of combat" - to me, that's the Warblade. The Swordsage is the mystic warrior, like the monk - master of a wide range of techniques, and able to tap inner power to amazing results (I think all the supernatural techniques are Swordsage-exclusive - are there any in Devoted Spirit?), but at the cost of being less focused on pure martial combat, and therefore slightly less effective.

[Dusk Eclipse]

There are some maneuvers id Devoted Spirit that ought to be Su (the healing ones); but for some reason they are not, a common houserule I've seen thrown arround is slapping the SU tag on them and calling it a day.

[Answerer]

There are some maneuvers id Devoted Spirit that ought to be Su (the healing ones); but for some reason they are not, a common houserule I've seen thrown arround is slapping the SU tag on them and calling it a day.
"Ought to be" is a huge overstatement. HP is inherently abstract and does not work if you think about it too hard. It cannot be consistently one thing. It cannot all be actual physical wounds (and explicitly it is not, many developer commentaries have talked about this), but it cannot all be metaphorical fatigue, loss of position, or the various other abstract concepts that have been applied to it.

By the same token, the restoration of HP is extremely abstract. Tome of Battle takes the perspective that inspiration, spurring your allies to fight past their wounds and to greater heights of heroism, can restore this abstract concept of HP. This makes some sense since not all HP loss is the result of actual physical wounds. But because HP is abstract and the game does not differentiate between these things, of course, inspiration has the side-effect of healing you past those wounds.

Your mileage may vary, but it is not automatic that this must be an error. In fact, I have never played at a table that objected to the Ex healing maneuvers, and I've even made good use of them inside a Beholder's antimagic ray to save a friend.

Harder to explain, though still not entirely impossible, are the Ex teleportation maneuvers of Shadow Hand. In my mind, the developers were going for that trope of the ninja moving super-fast/sneakily/acrobatically so as to move unseen and without regard for intervening opponents. Note that it does still require line of effect and line of sight, which indicates that it is not your typical teleportation effect.

Finally, personally, I do not have any problem whatsoever with the idea of "extraordinary magic," that is, "magic" that functions inside AMFs/DMZs.

[TopCheese]

There are some maneuvers id Devoted Spirit that ought to be Su (the healing ones); but for some reason they are not, a common houserule I've seen thrown arround is slapping the SU tag on them and calling it a day.

Why?

HP isn't "oh you got cut and are gushing blood" though it can be. HP is also a character being to tired to go on, thus a person attacking at showing a tired ally that they can do it.. Inspireing through action can get the PC a new breath and "heal" them some HP.

I hate how healing has to be magic, at least how a ton of people always think so.

When I was on a basketball team we were tired at the end of the game and almost dead (literally almost passed out) but a teammate made a small speach and then got 2 points. We all picked up and had a burst of energy and ended up winning. That is devoted spirit healing right there, I was close to passing out but my teammate "healed" me in a way (yay adrenaline!).

But then again I'm a scientist now so what do I know :p lol

[Kelb_Panthera]

I agree with the previous two posts for the most part, but even I think that the 9th level divine spirit maneuver should probably have the SU tag. Seriously, a non-magic version of heal?

"I hit the bad-guy so hard that the blind can see and the mad are made sane!"

Seems just a little too over the top for an EX.

[Greenish]

"I hit the bad-guy so hard that the blind can see and the mad are made sane!"

Seems just a little too over the top for an EX.Sounds about what level 17+ legendary leader guy should be able to do. "Ex" doesn't stand for "mundane", it stands for "extraordinary", and it is explicitly allowed to break the laws of physics (and, implicitly, to kick reason to the curb).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sounds about what level 17+ legendary leader guy should be able to do. "Ex" doesn't stand for "mundane", it stands for "extraordinary", and it is explicitly allowed to break the laws of physics (and, implicitly, to kick reason to the curb).

I understand that extraordinary abilities aren't limited by physics. Skills aren't limited by physics, for pete's sake.

That doesn't make "I hit him so hard the blind can see," any less ridiculous or out of line with most other EX abilities outside of ToB. Same goes for the shadow hand teleports.

[Greenish]

That doesn't make "I hit him so hard the blind can see," any less ridiculous or out of line with most other EX abilities outside of ToB.Again, level 17+. There's plenty of "ridiculous" stuff high level people can do, because they're practically demigods by that point.

And not wussy demigods like Heracles or the like, but truly powerful ones.


Shadow Hand teleports are basically just moving really fast.

[Psyren]

Once you allow Ex to do everything Su and magic can do, Su no longer has a point. This is particularly true since Ex abilities are inherently more powerful. So I too am in favor of DS healing being Su.

And while yes, HP isn't just "gushing blood from wounds" - the fact that DS maneuvers can heal that too means they should be magical. There are spells and effects that explicitly rend flesh and break bone, and treating those wounds with a rousing speech or by flexing your muscles breaks what little verisimilitude the game has left.

[jindra34]

And not wussy demigods like Heracles or the like, but truly powerful ones.


I have to ask at what point did Heracles get considered wussy? He is the most blessed and elevated of the classical heros, the one who had the most physical advantages. And you are calling him wussy?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Again, level 17+. There's plenty of "ridiculous" stuff high level people can do, because they're practically demigods by that point.

And not wussy demigods like Heracles or the like, but truly powerful ones.


Shadow Hand teleports are basically just moving really fast.

Like I said, only the one that does heal seems dodgy to me. The other healing maneuvers are fine as EX, but they don't remove all those status effects.

Diamond mind covered the whole moving absurdly fast thing and even if it hadn't the ridiculous move-speed doesn't explain how you could get across large gaps or the disappearing in a cloud of darkness. If there're any maneuvers in ToB that should be listed as SU that aren't, it's those three.

[Answerer]

Once you allow Ex to do everything Su and magic can do, Su no longer has a point.
This isn't even remotely true. One, Ex works in AMF/DMZ, and Su don't. Two, plenty of things (feats, class features, spells, etc.) specify one or the other.

[Psyren]

This isn't even remotely true. One, Ex works in AMF/DMZ, and Su don't.

Precisely - why would you ever want supernatural (X) or magical (X) when you can get an Ex ability that does the same thing? Ex has inherent advantages that are supposed to be balanced by the more limited range of abilities they can emulate. Supernatural abilities, being magical and requiring a standard by default, have no limits on what they're capable of.


Two, plenty of things (feats, class features, spells, etc.) specify one or the other.

Not sure how this is relevant. Plenty of things reference spells, plenty reference Su, plenty reference Ex. That isn't a quality of the ability types themselves.

[Greenish]

Once you allow Ex to do everything Su and magic can do, Su no longer has a point. This is particularly true since Ex abilities are inherently more powerful. So I too am in favor of DS healing being Su.

And while yes, HP isn't just "gushing blood from wounds" - the fact that DS maneuvers can heal that too means they should be magical. There are spells and effects that explicitly rend flesh and break bone, and treating those wounds with a rousing speech or by flexing your muscles breaks what little verisimilitude the game has left.
Like I said, only the one that does heal seems dodgy to me. The other healing maneuvers are fine as EX, but they don't remove all those status effects.

Diamond mind covered the whole moving absurdly fast thing and even if it hadn't the ridiculous move-speed doesn't explain how you could get across large gaps or the disappearing in a cloud of darkness. If there're any maneuvers in ToB that should be listed as SU that aren't, it's those three.http://lwl.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/whatever-floats-your-goat.jpg



I have to ask at what point did Heracles get considered wussy? He is the most blessed and elevated of the classical heros, the one who had the most physical advantages. And you are calling him wussy?Well, maybe not wussy, but in D&D he'd be like 10th level tops.

[Answerer]

Precisely - why would you ever want supernatural (X) or magical (X) when you can get an Ex ability that does the same thing? Ex has inherent advantages that are supposed to be balanced by the more limited range of abilities they can emulate. Supernatural abilities, being magical and requiring a standard by default, have no limits on what they're capable of.
Uhh... because you don't get to pick and choose? I mean, Ex > Su (subject to AMF) > Sp(=Ps) (can be dispelled) > Spells (components), and that's always been true and always will be. Yes, an Ex effect is better than a Su effect that does the same thing. But the Crusader doesn't get to pick between a Su healing effect and an Ex healing effect, he just gets an Ex one. A Cleric doesn't have the option of making his cure Ex, it's a spell. And so on.

And you'll never convince me that it's imbalanced that Crusaders can heal in an AMF. By the time antimagic field is an option, spellcasters are so far and away more powerful that it really does not matter.


Not sure how this is relevant. Plenty of things reference spells, plenty reference Su, plenty reference Ex. That isn't a quality of the ability types themselves.
So? It's still a reason to make a distinction between Ex and Su.


See, OK, it seems I misunderstood your initial statement. I thought you'd said that there's no reason for Su to exist if Ex can heal. What you apparently said is that there's no reason to prefer Su if you can get Ex to do the same thing. To which I say, "Of course!" and that's how it's always been and there's nothing wrong with that because you don't get to make that choice.

I mean, if I could get contingency as an Ex effect, I'd do it in a heartbeat; that would obviously be way better. But I can't because there's no option for doing that. I can get heal as an Ex effect through Crusader, but I have to wait six levels for it and I have to make a successful melee attack against an enemy to use it, plus, ya know, I don't get to be a Cleric.

So saying Ex heal is better than Su heal is better than the spell heal is meaningless; of course that's true, but you don't get to make it Ex just because you want to and it's better.

[Psyren]

No, you were right the first time - I don't think Ex should be able to heal others. I just can't rationalize it flavorwise (I flex my muscles so hard your wounds close? You're so inspired by my martial prowess that your metabolic processes accelerate? What?) and it sets a bad precedent mechanically. I agree that Ex should be able to do.... well, extraordinary things, but I feel that teleportation and healing others belong in the realm of magic, and always will.

Had I the power to do so, I would have errata'd DS healing maneuvers to be Su in a heartbeat. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but I'm definitely not lining up to make Shadow Hand's teleports or DW's fire attacks similarly out of whack.

Mechanically, Su abilities can literally do anything - from duplicating existing spells, to something entirely new. They're balanced by the fact that all of them, no matter how powerful or unique, can be shut off if the DM needs them to be off. Ex abilities are much harder to get rid of, therefore in my mind they should be more limited. How much more is something I'd be willing to negotiate on. And sure, Ex healing may not be unbalanced for a crusader, but I still don't like the precedent it sets.

[Kuulvheysoon]

There are some maneuvers id Devoted Spirit that ought to be Su (the healing ones); but for some reason they are not, a common houserule I've seen thrown arround is slapping the SU tag on them and calling it a day.


Once you allow Ex to do everything Su and magic can do, Su no longer has a point. This is particularly true since Ex abilities are inherently more powerful. So I too am in favor of DS healing being Su.

And while yes, HP isn't just "gushing blood from wounds" - the fact that DS maneuvers can heal that too means they should be magical. There are spells and effects that explicitly rend flesh and break bone, and treating those wounds with a rousing speech or by flexing your muscles breaks what little verisimilitude the game has left.

I've got to say, I'm with these two. Even ignoring the final DS maneuver, the fact that even Crusader's Strike can stem bleeding leads me to houserule them as (Su).

[Answerer]

No, you were right the first time - I don't think Ex should be able to heal others.
That's a personal preference not supported by the rules.


I just can't rationalize it flavorwise (I flex my muscles so hard your wounds close? You're so inspired by my martial prowess that your metabolic processes accelerate? What?)
Healing doesn't necessarily require those things.


it sets a bad precedent mechanically.
Utterly failing to see how this could ever be a mechanical problem.


I agree that Ex should be able to do.... well, extraordinary things, but I feel that teleportation and healing others belong in the realm of magic, and always will.
Meh, that bores me. I like the idea of there being things so unusual that they defy our expectations of these categories, e.g. things that are mechanically Ex (e.g. work in AMFs) that nonetheless appear to be magical.

But then I'd argue that the healing strikes and teleportation maneuvers don't require that.


Had I the power to do so, I would have errata'd DS healing maneuvers to be Su in a heartbeat.
Then I'm glad you don't. At any rate, it's certainly not an error, which makes errata inappropriate. It was a quite intentional choice so far as I can tell, considering the associated fluff.


I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but I'm definitely not lining up to make Shadow Hand's teleports or DW's fire attacks similarly out of whack.
Uh, Shadow Hand's teleports are Ex.


Mechanically, Su abilities can literally do anything - from duplicating existing spells, to something entirely new. They're balanced by the fact that all of them, no matter how powerful or unique, can be shut off if the DM needs them to be off. Ex abilities are much harder to get rid of, therefore in my mind they should be more limited. How much more is something I'd be willing to negotiate on. And sure, Ex healing may not be unbalanced for a crusader, but I still don't like the precedent it sets.
That doesn't make sense to me. An individual thing is balanced or it is not. Crusader Ex healing? Balanced. Converting a Cleric's spells to Ex? Not even remotely balanced. But the first would not lead to the other.

This is some kind of quasi-slippery slope argument, so far as I can tell. I don't buy it.

[Mnemnosyne]

On the original topic, I do wish Crusaders had a couple more choices at level 1. Not necessarily a lot more choices, just say...2 more maneuvers to choose from. That way instead of picking one maneuver not to have, you've got 3 you don't get.

However, I also think that the low choices do indeed make them a very, very good introduction to D&D for new players. The maneuvers system for a crusader is as straightforward as it can get, using cards seems to help, rather than hinder, because it gives the new player something obvious and physical to keep track of, and the lack of choices makes sure they're not picking traps. A little advice on feats and skills, and a basic explanation of how to play, and someone can be playing D&D inside of a half hour as a Crusader if their group is tolerant of explaining things along the way. I suppose there may be people who get confused at the cards thing, but I've certainly never known anyone to do so.


IMO, players need more choices at low levels than high. In general, I think every class that gets widgets like this (spells, psionic powers, vestges, maneuvers, utterances, whatever) ought to have a pyramid of them, with the highest-level powers being numbered X, then the next-highest X + Y, and the next highest X + 2Y, and so on down to the baseline first-level powers which need to be extremely numerous so that you can make a lot of the most relevant choices. The only class I can think of which even began to do this right was the Binder, where levels 7 and 8 (there is no 9) had only 2 vestiges each. Nowhere near the smooth pyramid I want, and way out of whack given the rate at which you gain access to number and level of vestiges.This might be a decent idea for an experienced player, but dumping tons and tons of choices on a new player is pretty much never the right course to take. They need enough choices so they feel they have some agency, but not so many that they need to do extensive research to sort out the good ones from the traps. And there will be traps, it's pretty much inevitable, unless the abilities are somehow all mathematically equivalent to each other.

[Greenish]

I agree that Ex should be able to do.... well, extraordinary things, but I feel that teleportation and healing others belong in the realm of magic, and always will.What sort of extraordinary things were you thinking of as appropriate for very high level characters?

[Amphetryon]

This might be a decent idea for an experienced player, but dumping tons and tons of choices on a new player is pretty much never the right course to take. They need enough choices so they feel they have some agency, but not so many that they need to do extensive research to sort out the good ones from the traps. And there will be traps, it's pretty much inevitable, unless the abilities are somehow all mathematically equivalent to each other.

Feats are choices for a new Player, aren't they? How many Feats are there, again? Sounds like another variety of "only experienced 3.5 Players can make a 3.5 Character," from here.

[Shining Wrath]

It's never bothered me, because I don't really think of the Swordsage as the "master of combat" - to me, that's the Warblade. The Swordsage is the mystic warrior, like the monk - master of a wide range of techniques, and able to tap inner power to amazing results (I think all the supernatural techniques are Swordsage-exclusive - are there any in Devoted Spirit?), but at the cost of being less focused on pure martial combat, and therefore slightly less effective.

That's how I'd read it. The Sword Sage emphasizes wisdom and is what the Monk ought to have been.

The Warblade is the baddest dude on the battlefield; the guy who goes toe to toe with the raging Barbarian and beats him by knowing maneuvers the Barbarian can't match. "I'll see your Rage and raise you an Exorcism of Steel ... oh, are you at -4 to attack for the duration of your Rage? It's OK, because after Ruby Nightmare Blade hits you you won't care."

[Psyren]

What sort of extraordinary things were you thinking of as appropriate for very high level characters?

The kind of stuff that's Ex now - self-healing, damage reduction, ignoring hardness/DR, various rerolls, extra attacks (with or without the need to full-attack), the ability to ignore or bypass various spell effects (like cutting through a fireball or parrying a lightning bolt) etc. I could see certain self-buffs as Ex too, such as boosting ability scores, checks, gaining grafts or other body parts, changing your type/subtype etc.

Things I see as magical are largely external - healing/raising others, curing status effects on others, planar travel and teleportation (itself a form of planar travel), summoning etc. The vast majority of illusions and enchantments should also be magical. Things that would be much more contrived if you tried to explain them using muscles.

[Mnemnosyne]

Feats are choices for a new Player, aren't they? How many Feats are there, again? Sounds like another variety of "only experienced 3.5 Players can make a 3.5 Character," from here.
Yep. Feats are probably one of the most important things for a new player to get help and advice on, since there's so damn many of them you can pick at first level. I'm pretty sure most of us have picked feats that we now understand are traps.

Crusader even lowers feat choices, if the new player is getting good advice, actually, because they have two feats right in the Tome of Battle that are so good they should be advised as top choices: extra granted maneuver and stone power. But even if they're not...at least a crusader is pretty solid, even without really good feat choices. And assuming they're allowed to retrain/psyref as they gain experience, a couple bad choices isn't an entirely bad thing for a new player to make...as long as the character is functional despite the poor choices.

[Draz74]

If we're discussing maneuvers that aren't [Su], but should be, then honestly I would nominate Lightning Throw even before Strike of Righteous Vitality or the shadow teleports.

[Lord_Gareth]

If we're discussing maneuvers that aren't [Su], but should be, then honestly I would nominate Lightning Throw even before Strike of Righteous Vitality or the shadow teleports.

Why you hatin' on Captain America, man?

[TopCheese]

If we're discussing maneuvers that aren't [Su], but should be, then honestly I would nominate Lightning Throw even before Strike of Righteous Vitality or the shadow teleports.

Wait.. What?

Why do you think that?

[Draz74]

Why you hatin' on Captain America, man?
Captain America is a superhero. I don't think declaring one of his signature moves should be considered "supernatural" counts as hatin'.


Wait.. What?

Why do you think that?

... Um ... it's a Captain America move. Except even he sometimes has to go get his shield after he hits a bunch of guys with a throw. The maneuver just turns any ol' weapon (flail? halberd? np) into a perfect boomerang.

Seriously, the way the maneuver works out, it is exactly like the artwork in spell compendium for Whirling Blade. Which is a spell.

[subject42]

"I hit the bad-guy so hard that the blind can see and the mad are made sane!"

Seems just a little too over the top for an EX.

"I headbutt the cultist so hard that his head explodes, shooting his eyeballs out of his sockets and into the eye sockets of a blinded ally, with such force that the optic nerves spontaneously attach themselves to his brain, granting him sight anew."

[lsfreak]

Things that would be much more contrived if you tried to explain them using muscles.

You keep bringing that up, but there's absolutely nothing about the healing strikes that imply the use of muscles as the source of the healing.

[jindra34]

Captain America is a superhero. I don't think declaring one of his signature moves should be considered "supernatural" counts as hatin'.


Except Captain America, despite being a superhero, does tricks that are explained through either immense skill, and/or really good gear. Nothing supernatural there. Yeah he's significantly stronger and faster than an ordinary person, but that doesn't mean he and everything he does is semi-magical.

[Psyren]

You keep bringing that up, but there's absolutely nothing about the healing strikes that imply the use of muscles as the source of the healing.

Ex abilities are physical - the implication is right there in the type. If it was supernatural/magical, it would be much easier to explain, because it would be based on something purely intangible to begin with - mysticism, faith, unseen spirits, channeling souls, anything. But no matter how beyond the norm Ex abilities get, they are almost always rooted in physical qualities. Hence, muscles.

[Draz74]

Ex abilities are physical - the implication is right there in the type. If it was supernatural/magical, it would be much easier to explain, because it would be based on something purely intangible to begin with - mysticism, faith, unseen spirits, channeling souls, anything. But no matter how beyond the norm Ex abilities get, they are almost always rooted in physical qualities. Hence, muscles.

So, the Marshal's auras are based on his physical abilities? Or the Slippery Mind Rogue ability?

[Answerer]

physical qualities. Hence, muscles.
This is your mistake. The two are not the same.

[Psyren]

So, the Marshal's auras are based on his physical abilities? Or the Slippery Mind Rogue ability?

I disagree with Ex Auras too.

(EDIT: Well, I suppose a sufficiently charismatic or inspiring individual could have a beneficial impact on those around him. So Marshal auras are fine. But the minute they do anything magical - like healing or dealing elemental damage, as Draconic ones do - then they should be Su.)

Slippery Mind is the result of every rogue's commitment to being difficult to pin down. It's not magical, merely the result of constantly thinking a certain way, so I'm fine with that.


This is your mistake. The two are not the same.

As far as I'm concerned they should be. If not physical and not magic, where is the ability coming from?

[Lord_Gareth]

As far as I'm concerned they should be. If not physical and not magic, where is the ability coming from?

Training? Dedication? Chakra? A much faster version of Mr. Miyagi's hand thing? An upwelling of divinity from within? Karmic transfer?

Who knows? Why should we even care? Roguespace comes online at second level. D&D Doesn't Make Sense - News At Freakin' Eleven.

[Psyren]

Training? Dedication? Chakra? A much faster version of Mr. Miyagi's hand thing? An upwelling of divinity from within? Karmic transfer?

Several of those are indeed magic, and the ones that aren't are indeed physical.



Who knows? Why should we even care? Roguespace comes online at second level. D&D Doesn't Make Sense - News At Freakin' Eleven.

Eh, evasion is simply an abstraction that allows you to dodge properly in a turn-based game. I don't take it all that literally.

[Lord_Gareth]

Eh, evasion is simply an abstraction that allows you to dodge properly in a turn-based game. I don't take it all that literally.

My unconscious, helpless rogue certainly enjoys having it, though - he'd never dodge the fireball trap inside the chest he got locked in otherwise.

[Psyren]

My unconscious, helpless rogue certainly enjoys having it, though - he'd never dodge the fireball trap inside the chest he got locked in otherwise.

Yet that's a problem with the saving throw system in general, not the Ex ability rogues get in particular.

[Answerer]

As far as I'm concerned they should be. If not physical and not magic, where is the ability coming from?
If I can imagine a thing happening in movie set in real life, I think it should qualify as possibly-Ex. For instance, the hero shows up to save the day, giving hope and heart to those weary warriors who had, up until that point, been defeated. Because that's what the healing maneuvers are supposed to represent.

And that trope isn't that unrealistic. Real life is replete with examples of people doing incredible things, things that don't see humanly possible, due to adrenaline and desperation and determination. I mean, they have medals specifically for that kind of thing.

[Lord_Gareth]

If I can imagine a thing happening in movie set in real life, I think it should qualify as possibly-Ex. For instance, the hero shows up to save the day, giving hope and heart to those weary warriors who had, up until that point, been defeated. Because that's what the healing maneuvers are supposed to represent.

And that trope isn't that unrealistic. Real life is replete with examples of people doing incredible things, things that don't see humanly possible, due to adrenaline and desperation and determination. I mean, they have medals specifically for that kind of thing.

Hell, Cracked.com has a list of five soldiers who all did that kind of thing, including one dude who got shot 80 times and lived to star in the movie about it.

[The Viscount]

Sure, they kept powering on when hurt, but they didn't heal themselves. At the end of their feats of greatness, they went to the infirmary for some time.

As for the whole "hero saving the day and restoring hope to his allies" that is (Ex), sure, but that's more a morale effect than something supernatural, like healing people who aren't even next to you. I'm with Psyren on this one.

[Rogue Shadows]

Hell, Cracked.com has a list of five soldiers who all did that kind of thing, including one dude who got shot 80 times and lived to star in the movie about it.

And then there's Nicholas Alkemade, (Nicholas Alkemade) who fell 18,000 feet and only suffered a sprained ankle. According to the DMG he should have taken something like 1800d6 fall damage...and the pine trees and soft snow that he fell in should only have negated, like, ten of those d6s, and since I highly doubt that he could have gotten an Epic tumble check result...

Moot point anyway - (ex) abilities can explicitly defy the laws of physics according to D&D. They are nonmagical - no one ever said anything about them being possible.

Witness: Dragons flying.
See also: Swallow Whole, or more appropriately, the muscular action that closes the stomach wound part of it.


Except Captain America, despite being a superhero, does tricks that are explained through either immense skill, and/or really good gear. Nothing supernatural there. Yeah he's significantly stronger and faster than an ordinary person, but that doesn't mean he and everything he does is semi-magical.

Actually the Cap is defined as being "peak human physical and mental condition." He's technically not superhuman; rather, he's the guy who somehow managed to roll 18 in every stat (or rather that serum gave him an 18 in everything. Ditto the Falcon and Red Skull...except for Comeliness in Skull's case, if you're running a game with Comeliness).

It's just that, with everything about him at peak human physical and mental condition, some of the things can work together to make him appear superhuman. For example, his absolutely perfect musculature coupled with his absolutely perfect stamina coupled with his absolutely perfect spatial-temporal awareness basically allows him to run and move and react at speeds that can appear superhuman. But they're not.

I think the sole exception to the above is that his metabolism is five times that of any human's.

[Answerer]

Sure, they kept powering on when hurt, but they didn't heal themselves. At the end of their feats of greatness, they went to the infirmary for some time.

As for the whole "hero saving the day and restoring hope to his allies" that is (Ex), sure, but that's more a morale effect than something supernatural, like healing people who aren't even next to you. I'm with Psyren on this one.
No, you don't understand. That sort of down, beaten? That is low HP. Or it can be, and therefore the Crusader can alleviate it.

Basically, your problem is with HP, not with the Crusader or the Crusader's Strike. I'm sorry, but HP just isn't what you think it is or want it to be. In other words, 3.x has always had this problem, the Crusader just forced you to think about it.

[Augmental]

According to the DMG he should have taken something like 1800d6 fall damage...

Isn't fall damage capped at 20d6?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

No, you don't understand. That sort of down, beaten? That is low HP. Or it can be, and therefore the Crusader can alleviate it.

Basically, your problem is with HP, not with the Crusader or the Crusader's Strike. I'm sorry, but HP just isn't what you think it is or want it to be. In other words, 3.x has always had this problem, the Crusader just forced you to think about it.

Yep. HP is abstract. Or did you think your Fighter who suffered 200 1-damage hits from level 1 commoners had actually been cut by over 200 swords. If you're still fighting perfectly well at 1 HP (with over 99% of your health gone, in many circumstances), something isn't making sense.

Imagine the healing maneuvers as giving you a second wind to keep fighting. You gain some HP, which can reflect absorbing an otherwise deadly blow and just exhausting yourself a bit more. Once you reach low HP, those blows might actually be hitting you, but before that they could just be tiring you out.

Abstractions. D&D is full of them, and thus so is Tome of Battle. Taken less literally the book works a LOT better.

[Psyren]

HP may be abstract, but there are still very specific effects that bypass the "vim and vigor" interpretation of the system. When a barbed devil Impales you, a rousing speech isn't going to do crap to repair your swiss-cheesed form. When you catch on fire or fall in acid, the damage you take every round is from being burned, not from dodging the heat until you get too tired. When a bat swarm causes you to bleed, you aren't losing confidence every round. And so on. But a crusader's mystic muscles can somehow heal all of that.

The system does work, so long as magical healing is kept magical. We already have a system that represents restoring your men's flagging spirits and encouraging them to struggle on, and that's called nonlethal damage. At the very least, he should give them temporary hitpoints to allow them to ignore the injuries they've already received, then end up in the infirmary after the battle like Viscount so rightly said.

[Starbuck_II]

Actually the Cap is defined as being "peak human physical and mental condition." He's technically not superhuman; rather, he's the guy who somehow managed to roll 18 in every stat (or rather that serum gave him an 18 in everything. Ditto the Falcon and Red Skull...except for Comeliness in Skull's case, if you're running a game with Comeliness).


Don't be dissing the Skull. His Comeliness would be a 20, not an 18, because THAT was a pretty skull let me tell you.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

The system does work, so long as magical healing is kept magical. We already have a system that represents restoring your men's flagging spirits and encouraging them to struggle on, and that's called nonlethal damage. At the very least, he should give them temporary hitpoints to allow them to ignore the injuries they've already received, then end up in the infirmary after the battle like Viscount so rightly said.

So the fact that injuries make you less able in fast-paced combat and that most fights are typically decided immediately unfair of the combatant who first manages to land a solid blow on his opponent figures into this how?

I don't see how allowing a fighter to absorb a dozen solid blows from his fighter opponent is any less silly than allowing a Crusader's holy fervor to allow him to effectively ignore wounds without magic (ie healing).

[Rogue Shadows]

Don't be dissing the Skull. His Comeliness would be a 20, not an 18, because THAT was a pretty skull let me tell you.

It's a malformed skull! What is wrong with his cheek bones?!

[Deophaun]

So Crusader being able to unlock his own potential for self-healing is A-OK, but the Crusader being able to inspire others to unlock their own potential for self-healing is a bridge too far...

Yeah, not getting that.

[The Viscount]

Isn't fall damage capped at 20d6?

Yes, yes it is.

[Synovia]

(EDIT: Well, I suppose a sufficiently charismatic or inspiring individual could have a beneficial impact on those around him. So Marshal auras are fine. But the minute they do anything magical - like healing or dealing elemental damage, as Draconic ones do - then they should be Su.)

Hit points are not completely physical. They model everything from fatigue to distraction to actual damage. A marshall making a character less tired isn't strange at all.

[Psyren]

Hit points are not completely physical. They model everything from fatigue to distraction to actual damage. A marshall making a character less tired isn't strange at all.

Ok, going to make something clear here:

I'm actually fine with HP representing more than physical damage. I consider it pretty inelegant, given that we already have a means of tracking "tired-damage" (i.e. nonlethal, and actual fatigue in some cases) but I can cope with regular HP being put in this role on occasion.

The problem is that - even in situations where HP loss can only be attributed to physical damage, Crusader healing still works. It's nonsensical. If a barbed devil hugs me or I fall into a vat of acid, I don't get "tired" or "distracted" - I get injured and wounded. And then my crusader buddy flexes at some nearby rats and I suddenly feel better, despite being poked full of holes or missing a layer or three of skin. Again, nonsensical.

The easiest way to fix this illogical discrepancy is to make healing strikes magical (i.e. supernatural.) That allows you to dismiss any remaining cognitive dissonance for their use, and that is exactly what I do at my table. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't even counter Crusader fluff in any way; they already get their maneuvers round-by-round from a divine... something, so there's no reason at all for everything they do to be nonmagical.

Hell, I'd even be fine with the healing maneuvers working in an AMF, but only healing nonlethal damage - this would represent all the inspiration and cajoling and bolstering being bandied about in this thread. But as they are by RAW, I'm not happy with them and never will be.

[willpell]

The as-written Crusader flavor really does blur the line. The Crusader is supposed to have a connection to higher divine forces, which makes his words of inspiration able to have a tangible restorative effect. It's kind of like Neo hacking the Matrix from inside it - for the most part there aren't any pyrotechnics, he's altering reality but doing so in a fairly subtle way (apart from the flying). The gods take the place of the Matrix in this analogy; the Crusader is tapping into their power, but in a much less dramatic fashion than with a clerical spell. Should it work in an AMF? ....Maybe. There isn't any design technology in the core rules that allows an ability to be EX or SU in different situations, or to have partial effect if magic is suppressed and additional effect if it isn't.

[navar100]

I have to ask at what point did Heracles get considered wussy? He is the most blessed and elevated of the classical heros, the one who had the most physical advantages. And you are calling him wussy?

Kevin Sorbo

[Amechra]

Just to chime in about "Crusader's strikes should be Su"...

Dude, look at natural healing. A high level character can, overnight, heal fully from the damage of falling in a bath of acid, mutilation, limbs that have been withered half away, and sword slashes.

Seriously, bed rest can fix severe cases of impalement.

Bed rest can even heal withering and such that is immune to magic.

It is not a stretch for a little pep talk to get injured people going again.

Your average good Fort 20th level character could jump off the empire state building, be in reasonably good shape upon hitting the ground, and could then chug poison to celebrate.

We are talking people who, though completely mundane skill, can fit into cracks an inch wide, cling to smooth glass upside down, jump the length of several buses, swim up waterfalls, and balance on clouds.

At this point, I'm actually kinda surprised that there aren't more [Ex] abilities that let you teleport/heal/walk through walls/kill people instantly by giving them the snake eye.

Back more towards the OP, I kinda agree; it probably would have been a better idea if, when ToB was designed, if they had less effects going around, but let you prepare the same maneuver multiple times as you level (so you could prepare it twice at 7th level, say, and then three times at 14th, and so on and so forth.)

[Snowbluff]

Hitpoints are a gaming abstraction, and don't necessarily represent damage taken. HP includes thing like fighting spirit, divine intervention, etc... things that set PCs apart from d4 commoners.


Kevin SorboHey! I like him!

... Well, in Andromeda, at least... :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Seriously, bed rest can fix severe cases of impalement.

Not until level 20 or so (at which point nothing in the game makes sense anyway), but if it took that long for Crusaders to get Ex
healing it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

But no, they can heal impalement by flexing long, long before that.



It is not a stretch for a little pep talk to get injured people going again.

"Get them going" I have no problem with - see my previous posts concerning temp HP and removing nonlethal. But a (nonmagical) pep talk that actually heals wounds is ridiculous.


At this point, I'm actually kinda surprised that there aren't more [Ex] abilities that let you teleport/heal/walk through walls/kill people instantly by giving them the snake eye.
{Scrubbed}

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I have no problem with - see my previous posts concerning temp HP and removing nonlethal. But a (nonmagical) pep talk that actually heals wounds is ridiculous.

But climbing up a featureless wall, reliably surpassing Olympic jump records on average rolls, surviving falls from orbit, and all the other things that can be done isn't?

Sounds like D&D shouldn't be your system. Otherwise I'd call this a case of "this is why the fighter can't have nice things."

What's WRONG with a little craziness to keep martial on par with casters? We're got dragons, magic, and a whole host of other crazy things...why no room for suspension of disbelief for heroes that surpass even most of our real-world mythological heroes?

[Psyren]

But climbing up a featureless wall, reliably surpassing Olympic jump records on average rolls, surviving falls from orbit, and all the other things that can be done isn't?

The difference is that a mundane person could feasibly do those things. There are folks who've survived skydiving accidents where their chute didn't open, folks who have scaled walls with little to no handholds, and of course Olympic records get broken every year. That stuff is unlikely - hence "extraordinary" - but still within the realm of the purely physical, and moreso for a setting where titanic feats of strength are more commonplace.

But suturing a wound by cajoling it, or flexing at it - not so much. (At least, someone else's wound. Sealing one of your wounds by flexing it is at least feasible.)



Sounds like D&D shouldn't be your system. Otherwise I'd call this a case of "this is why the fighter can't have nice things."

They can have nice things - and nicer still if they simply take the time to learn some magic. I consider all the examples at the beginning of your post to be "nice things." Why do they specifically need nonmagical magic?

Also - of D&D wasn't meant to be my system, then again I ask - why does it have "supernatural" as a category at all? Why not just have two categories - "extraordinary" and "ordinary" - and leave it at that?



What's WRONG with a little craziness to keep martial on par with casters?

In-universe, magic should be special - while it should be capable of some things that mundanes can duplicate easily, it should also be capable of some that they can duplicate only with difficulty, and then some things that are simply beyond anything that is not magic. I consider healing to be in the second category, and raising the dead/planar travel to be in the third.

[willpell]

We are talking people who, though completely mundane skill, can fit into cracks an inch wide, cling to smooth glass upside down, jump the length of several buses, swim up waterfalls, and balance on clouds.

At this point, I'm actually kinda surprised that there aren't more [Ex] abilities that let you teleport/heal/walk through walls/kill people instantly by giving them the snake eye.

I wish this would fit in my sig....

And given the distinction between EX abilities that clearly represent nothing more than professional skill, and EX abilities that suggest the existence of a parallel dimension that Rogues slip into whenever forced to make a Reflex save, I really do think we should consider adding another category. I've floated the term "preternatural" before, as a midpoint between EX and SU...

[Malroth]

make everything that doesn't make sense as an EX a SU and if that mean fighters now get SU abilites then thats perfectly fine.

[MagnusExultatio]

At that point, why bother even having magic at all? Just give one guy "book power," one guy "sword power," one guy "speech power" and one guy "faith power" and have all their abilities be copies of each other with different names.

Oh wait, 4e.

How is this underlined section at all relevant to the discussion, other than a snipe at D&D 4e just because you happen to disagree with it? Not to mention that it is wrong.

[Artillery]

The difference is that a mundane person could feasibly do those things. There are folks who've survived skydiving accidents where their chute didn't open, folks who have scaled walls with little to no handholds, and of course Olympic records get broken every year. That stuff is unlikely - hence "extraordinary" - but still within the realm of the purely physical, and moreso for a setting where titanic feats of strength are more commonplace.

But suturing a wound by cajoling it, or flexing at it - not so much. (At least, someone else's wound. Sealing one of your wounds by flexing it is at least feasible.)



They can have nice things - and nicer still if they simply take the time to learn some magic. I consider all the examples at the beginning of your post to be "nice things." Why do they specifically need nonmagical magic?

Also - of D&D wasn't meant to be my system, then again I ask - why does it have "supernatural" as a category at all? Why not just have two categories - "extraordinary" and "ordinary" - and leave it at that?



In-universe, magic should be special - while it should be capable of some things that mundanes can duplicate easily, it should also be capable of some that they can duplicate only with difficulty, and then some things that are simply beyond anything that is not magic. I consider healing to be in the second category, and raising the dead/planar travel to be in the third.

No, magic doesn't make you special. Magic makes you part of the majority, more classes are magic than mundane. People who aren't magic should still be allowed to have nice things.

People with magic can already rip apart reality and alter the flow of time, healing HP in an abstract form isn't magical. HP is a game mechanic that makes things easier to deal with.

Sometimes you just need to have a willing suspension of disbelief for the sake of better game design. Having a martial class dependent on someone else healing makes them less good at their job then a cleric with Divine Power frankly.

[TuggyNE]

Sometimes you just need to have a willing suspension of disbelief for the sake of better game design. Having a martial class dependent on someone else healing makes them less good at their job then a cleric with Divine Power frankly.

This is a situation where Take A Third Option is essential. Neither good balance/gameplay nor sensible fluff/crunch connections should be given up; instead, you need both to make a good game. 4e was mentioned because it's emblematic of sacrificing fluff-based restrictions for the sake of balance, while 3.x is known for the opposite. Neither one is as good as it could be.

In this case, Psyren has already put forth a perfectly logical alternative: make healing maneuvers Su. It doesn't substantially depower the Crusader, and it's far less strain on suspension of disbelief, so what is the objection?

[Deophaun]

Not until level 20 or so (at which point nothing in the game makes sense anyway), but if it took that long for Crusaders to get Ex healing it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Fast healing is EX, and even at the low end can fix those problems in minutes. Do you have a problem with that?

I'm just happy that the system isn't limited by the lowest common denominator of imagination.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If we're discussing maneuvers that aren't [Su], but should be, then honestly I would nominate Lightning Throw even before Strike of Righteous Vitality or the shadow teleports.
I've had entirely too many thrown knives bounce back to land at my feet to get behind this one. I'll admit it doesn't make much sense for soft weapons but I can definitely see it as non-magical.

"I headbutt the cultist so hard that his head explodes, shooting his eyeballs out of his sockets and into the eye sockets of a blinded ally, with such force that the optic nerves spontaneously attach themselves to his brain, granting him sight anew."

^This is what I'm talking about for the strike of righteous vitality not making sense as non-magical. (Though technically it only effects the blindness condition. It can't regenerate lost eyeballs.)

The other healing strikes and martial spirit I don't mind. HP's are an abstraction after all. But hitting an enemy so hard your ally 30ft away all but regenerates lost body parts? No, that's just a bit too far. Seriously, take a moment to look at the conditions heal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heal.htm) reverses in addition to the HP's restored. It even eliminates poison and all of the ability damage a character's taken.

[TuggyNE]

Fast healing is EX, and even at the low end can fix those problems in minutes. Do you have a problem with that?

Fast Healing is a self-targeted ability in general (and as such falls under the category of "fixing your own wounds by flexing"); the only way I know of to grant someone else Fast Healing without using spells is the Dragon Shaman etc auras, which Psyren specifically mentioned as seeming unsuitable for Ex as well.

[Deophaun]

Fast Healing is a self-targeted ability in general (and as such falls under the category of "fixing your own wounds by flexing"); the only way I know of to grant someone else Fast Healing without using spells is the Dragon Shaman etc auras, which Psyren specifically mentioned as seeming unsuitable for Ex as well.
Ok, so the fact that a body can repair itself with such alacrity is fine. The fact that the Crusader, regardless of race, can unlock that potential within himself is fine. Now. Explain how it is not fine for a Crusader to unlock that potential in others. This is the part I am not getting. If the human body can accomplish this extraordinary feat without straining the bonds of credulity, I'm not getting how using an external stimuli to provoke that same biological response in another human is out of bounds.

[willpell]

Could we at least drop the "flexing your muscles" part of the joke? It's fairly clear that the flavor involves winning a battle, not just showing martial prowess. "Standing triumphant", "Turning the tide", or even "Looking cool" work, but "flexing muscles" has nothing to do with the reality and just sounds silly (which I get may have been your plan, but still).

[Psyren]

How is this underlined section at all relevant to the discussion, other than a snipe at D&D 4e just because you happen to disagree with it? Not to mention that it is wrong.

It's a cautionary point about the dangers of taking "everyone should be exactly as special as everyone else" too far.


People who aren't magic should still be allowed to have nice things.

My question is, where do you draw that line? Do you think that martial classes should be able to do everything that spellcasters can do? And if not, what shouldn't they be able to do that the casters can?



People with magic can already rip apart reality and alter the flow of time; healing HP in an abstract form isn't magical. HP is a game mechanic that makes things easier to deal with.

If they only healed hp loss that related to abstract injuries I wouldn't have a problem. But the fact that they can heal hp loss related to the real kind as well, is a problem. Thus, I think those maneuvers should be magical. It's not like magical maneuvers are a new thing to the system.



Sometimes you just need to have a willing suspension of disbelief for the sake of better game design. Having a martial class dependent on someone else healing makes them less good at their job then a cleric with Divine Power frankly.

Supernatural healing wouldn't make them "dependent on someone else." They could still do it on their own, it would just make the ability much easier to rationalize.

[TopCheese]

Although I've done this in the past... I think we should stop calling the Fighter and other non magical classes a "mundane" class.

This implies that the Fighter and others are rather.. Bland and can't have anything special. If you are mundane then there is nothing special about you.. You are hardly better than any other common person.

If we can get rif of this idea, if we can push this out of our minds... Then maybe Fighter and other low tier non magical classes (low tier being 3 and lower) can finally get nice things.

I include the Crusader because of the healing. Crusader is a tier 3 class that gets limited healing until late game when it doesn't matter much. Why do people have a problem with this? Because the crusader is a "mundane" class and the thought of mundane is limited whereas magic is not.

If we can stop limiting Ex abilities while still keeping them within reason (can't Ex summon a fireball from the heavens.. Though with the right item...Flame launcher ;) ) I think we can (as fans of a system) work to get the concept of "mundane" away from a PC class.

*shrug*

[Deophaun]

IMy question is, where do you draw that line?
Depends on the archetype you wish to emulate and game balance. That's it. If there existed some popular legend of ancient mongol warriors who turned people into groundhogs with precise shots from their bows, then an Ex version of polymorph would be perfectly acceptable. 'Course, we don't have those archetypes, probably for good reason, so I won't mourn the omission.

[willpell]

It's a cautionary point about the dangers of taking "everyone should be exactly as special as everyone else" too far.

Strange how often people forget that this phrase is meant to have a second clause, "...but in different ways".

[only1doug]

"I headbutt the cultist so hard that his head explodes, shooting his eyeballs out of his sockets and into the eye sockets of a blinded ally, with such force that the optic nerves spontaneously attach themselves to his brain, granting him sight anew."

"Dang Bob, that move was so Awesome, I wish you weren't blinded so that you could of seen it!"

"Dang Jack, that move was so Awesome that I did see it!"

[Answerer]

Psyren, HP is inconsistent and abstract. That's a fact of the system that has always been a fact of the system; the Crusader's just forcing you to no longer hide your head in the sand about it. The Crusader is not the problem, 3.x as a whole is, and "errata'ing" the Crusader is literally nothing more than denialism.

Dungeons & Dragons is not simulationist, it is "we'll pretend to be kinda-sorta simulationist so we can try to sell to that crowd." I'd argue that it's actually, as a system, deceptive about its simulationism. But that's neither here nor there: the fact is, it is very abstract, and does not simulate much of anything.

[joca4christ]

Can I just say that I think the whole "Ex abilities shouldn't be able to do x, y, z" somewhat amusing? I mean, if I may say so, it seems like a lot of people on these forums are so "Wizards ARE GODS" that the idea of someone who isn't a "magic user" doing extraordinary things without "magic", especially in areas or situations where "ordinary" magic doesn't work really rubs the wrong way.

I agree with many here who say, D&D is a game, a fictional system, where extraordinary is REALLY extraordinary. So what if it boggles the mind? So does magic in general, right? It just smacks of "these losers shouldn't be able to use their cool tools when I can't". Relax! It's a game. Have fun with it.

[Sception]

Sorry for late reply, busy with school this week. I see the thread's become the usual ToB thread, so no point joining in there, though I did want to reply to Amphetryon before I ducked out entirely.


I hope you're kidding. Choosing appropriate Favored Enemies is rife with trap options, requires Players to keep careful track of exactly which Type and (possibly) Subtype of enemy the party is facing, and couples with needing to pay close attention to combat distances for attack routines that will regularly swing by +/-5 within the same fight, depending on whether multiple enemy types are engaged.

regarding trap options, remember that I said this:


with some DM input on build advice

As I mentioned, the easier to play classes also tend to be the ones with the most trap options and who suffer the most from falling into them. That said, even if the player does end up with a poor choice of favored enemy, that's something that's quite easy for the DM to fix, simply by throwing more of that enemy.

DM can track and work out which enemies are favored by the ranger player with less effort than doing the crusader's delayed damage calculations for them. And the highest values will never come into play, because a new player who has so little idea of what they want to play that they'll just ask for something to be suggested for them will generally have an idea of what they want sooner rather than later and want to change out. The ranger does a better job than most classes letting the player sample a number of mechanics and prepare them for whatever it is they decide to play once they do know what they want. Certainly moreso than the crusader, which prepares a new player to play a crusader unt notink elze.


Add in the number of DMs who require careful bookkeeping of the ammunition (including the percentage chance that any given arrow will break),

If the DM is dead set on being as unforgiving as possible to a new player, the best class for that player to start with is nothing because their first experience will be miserable and put them off the game entirely.


the number of Spells that aren't very good for 4th level Characters to rely upon,

As I mentioned, some DM input on spell selection is necessary. Likewise I would recommend a sorcerer over a wizard for a new player because they're easier to play, but it would require some help in spell selection to avoid shooting oneself in the foot.

And a fourth level ranger doesn't rely all on spells, they've got basic weapon attack (with directed feat support) and a decent skill pool to supplement that. The point of recommending a ranger to someone who doesn't know what they want isn't that it's the strongest or most fool proof class, but that it's the one that lets the new player sample the most game mechanics without being overwhelming.


Ranger looks horrendously complicated if the comparison is that shuffling 5 cards for Maneuvers and tracking a few points of a Delayed Damage Pool is too much for the same Player.

The rangers complication is doled out in bits over more levels, rather than up front, and is relevant to a number of other classes so that the new player is more able to step into the character they want once they know what that is. A player who starts with a crusader gets a face full of mechanical complication very little of which will be relevant to whatever other class they eventually decide to play, since nothing else determines its abilities randomly by cards, or heals by smacking things, or the like.


Why is this such a big deal for you? What in your mind makes the crusader the best class for a first time player who is unfamiliar with the game and doesn't know what they want to play?

[Amphetryon]

Sorry for late reply, busy with school this week. I see the thread's become the usual ToB thread, so no point joining in there, though I did want to reply to Amphetryon before I ducked out entirely.



regarding trap options, remember that I said this:





DM can track and work out which enemies are favored by the ranger player with less effort than doing the crusader's delayed damage calculations for them. And the highest values will never come into play, because a new player who has so little idea of what they want to play that they'll just ask for something to be suggested for them will generally have an idea of what they want sooner rather than later and want to change out. The ranger does a better job than most classes letting the player sample a number of mechanics and prepare them for whatever it is they decide to play once they do know what they want. Certainly moreso than the crusader, which prepares a new player to play a crusader unt notink elze.


As I mentioned, some DM input on spell selection is necessary. Likewise I would recommend a sorcerer over a wizard for a new player because they're easier to play, but it would require some help in spell selection to avoid shooting oneself in the foot.

All of your arguments on DM input read, from here, as agreeing with the premise that someone at the table - or several someones - has to have played 3.5 before you can play 3.5, in order to avoid trap options. That's a premise I simply cannot get behind, as I can find no support for it in any of the rule books (if I've missed it, please cite the book and page number) and cannot reasonably conceive a situation where anyone could have started a first campaign under those circumstances. I can recall three different threads on this subforum since I last responded to you started by DMs who were about to embark on their first foray into 3.5, with nobody in the group (DM included) having previously played. Is it your belief they're doing it wrong?

If the DM is dead set on being as unforgiving as possible to a new player, the best class for that player to start with is nothing because their first experience will be miserable and put them off the game entirely.
The rules specifically call for tracking ammunition, and give chances of said ammunition to break. If you think that following those rules is "having a DM dead set on making things as hard as possible," then we have a serious disconnect on terminology.


As I mentioned, the easier to play classes also tend to be the ones with the most trap options and who suffer the most from falling into them. That said, even if the player does end up with a poor choice of favored enemy, that's something that's quite easy for the DM to fix, simply by throwing more of that enemy.Calling the easier to play Classes the ones with the most trap options (in other words, the ones that are the easiest to screw up) sounds like an oxymoron to me. If they're easy to play, they should be hard to screw up by definition. Otherwise, that's not 'easy' as I understand the word.

The rangers complication is doled out in bits over more levels, rather than up front, and is relevant to a number of other classes so that the new player is more able to step into the character they want once they know what that is. A player who starts with a crusader gets a face full of mechanical complication very little of which will be relevant to whatever other class they eventually decide to play, since nothing else determines its abilities randomly by cards, or heals by smacking things, or the likeThis appears rooted in the notion that all games start at 1st level, which is far from both my experience and what would appear to be SOP based upon perusal of various 3.5 gaming forums, this one included. Could you explain why the fact that "no other Class gets [X]" is a mark against Crusader for a first time Player, again? They're coming in with a blank slate, and don't care what other Classes get/don't get. They're not having to learn anything extra, beyond what they need in order to play their Character. As I said, they'll need to learn less than they would to play a spellcaster of any sort - including a Ranger if the game starts at 4th level or above (and many do).


Why is this such a big deal for you? What in your mind makes the crusader the best class for a first time player who is unfamiliar with the game and doesn't know what they want to play?Crusader is relatively hard to screw up. It's NOT filled with trap options that can easily wreck a first-time Player's experience through poor choices in Feat/Skill/Maneuver selection. Also, I'm trying to figure out why you think that any Class for a Player with no previous experience, with a DM who may or may not be in the same boat, is any better; as I've indicated, I strongly disagree with the characterization of the Ranger as well-suited in this regard. If having more traps makes them better for a newbie in your eyes (as you appear to indicate above), then we're going to have to agree to disagree, because your definition of "better for a newbie" is radically different than any definition of that concept with which I am familiar.

[Psyren]

Psyren, HP is inconsistent and abstract. That's a fact of the system that has always been a fact of the system; the Crusader's just forcing you to no longer hide your head in the sand about it. The Crusader is not the problem, 3.x as a whole is, and "errata'ing" the Crusader is literally nothing more than denialism.

What's so unpalatable about healing being Su? It solves every single inconsistency between abstract damage and normal damage, and doesn't detract from the Crusader's power in any material way.



Dungeons & Dragons is not simulationist, it is "we'll pretend to be kinda-sorta simulationist so we can try to sell to that crowd."

If this were true, there would be no setting/world-building info, and no attempts by WotC to tie those to existing game mechanics. D&D would just be a modular collection of rules. But the game has both of these things, so some level of simulationism is clearly intended.

We can debate where it is on the spectrum, but not that it has no simulationist elements at all.



I agree with many here who say, D&D is a game, a fictional system, where extraordinary is REALLY extraordinary. So what if it boggles the mind? So does magic in general, right?

Again, where do you draw that line? Should martial classes be able to Ex do everything Su can do? Should they be able to Ex raise the dead, Ex summon/bind monsters, Ex travel the planes, Ex create objects out of thin air, Ex transform one creature into another, Ex control minds? If you think so, what then would be the point of having magic at all, especially when magic has drawbacks that extraordinary does not?

Flavor dissonance aside, there are mechanical impacts as well. Ex abilities can never be disabled or directly countered. Dead magic, wild magic, impeded magic and so on - none of those have any effect on an Ex , and furthermore they get lumped in with physical attributes like wings and claws for the purposes of e.g. shapeshifting. So they have to be balanced in different ways. Both the DM and the players have to account for the fact that they really have no way to stop them from being used.


It just smacks of "these losers shouldn't be able to use their cool tools when I can't". Relax! It's a game. Have fun with it.

This is a strawman; I never said melee shouldn't do anything cool. I'm merely taking issue with very specific abilities being functionally magical in effect, while coming inexplicably from nonmagical sources. There's plenty of room for coolness in the traditional Ex space - smashing down walls with a hammer, running across the surface of water, sprouting wings to fight in the air, knocking a lightning bolt back at the wizard who fired it (or deflecting/sidestepping a natural one from a bad storm) - those are all things I would consider extraordinary. But healing wounds, resurrection, summoning, planar travel, and so on - some things, I believe are too fantastic to be anything other than magic.

[The Viscount]

Many people seem to be latching on to Crusader's strike as an example of what should and shouldn't be Ex. It's not like all maneuvers are Ex. Several maneuvers are Su, such as Burning Brand. Is it really so hard to believe that Crusader, a class which is explicitly gaining might from divine power, has some maneuvers that are more supernatural than extraordinary?
Psyren has a point in that while there are many ways to think about hp, there are times when hp damage is explicitly caused by physical harm, such as damage resulting from wounding. Healing such damage from a distance seems supernatural, does it not?

[Answerer]

There's no reason why Crusader's Strike et al. could not be Su.

There's just equally no reason why they must be Su, other than Psyren's denialism about how HP and its restoration operates in 3.5.

Psyren, when I say "simulationist" mean "simulation-dominant" or some such. There's no such thing as a "purely" simulationist or gamist RPG. The coiner of those terms himself said as much as he coined them. It has a few simulationist aspects. It pretends to have far more of them than it actually does.

[Psyren]

There's no reason why Crusader's Strike et al. could not be Su.

There's just equally no reason why they must be Su, other than Psyren's denialism about how HP and its restoration operates in 3.5.

With respect, you're the one in denial here. How is a rousing speech or inspiring martial display supposed to keep a fleshgrinding mace from drilling further into a target's torso? Or to repair the internal damage caused by Death By Thorns/Heartclutch? And yet, if we dismiss internal consistency, we're expected to believe just that.

I see D&D as more simulationist than you apparently do (closer to the middle of the spectrum) but there's no point in arguing that as it's purely a matter of perception and preference.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

With respect, you're the one in denial here. How is a rousing speech or inspiring martial display supposed to keep a fleshgrinding mace from drilling further into a target's torso? Or to repair the internal damage caused by Death By Thorns/Heartclutch? And yet, if we dismiss internal consistency, we're expected to believe just that.

And we're expected to believe that the spell Flensing, which literally strips the flesh off its target, deals nothing more than some damage, some Con damage, and some Charisma damage, all of which heals naturally. We're expected to believe that the spell Avascular Mass, which rips out a creatures veins and turns those veins into an entangling field of viscera is A: always non-fatal, and B: carries no lasting consequences beyond being entangled and stunned for 1 round. You know, 'cause someone ripping out your blood vessels and magically animating them to entangle other creatures isn't that big a deal. :smalltongue:

Oh...and if you're level one when you're hit by it? It deals only about 3-4 damage, so you can cure it with Cure Light Wounds. Because having your insides spread over a 30 foot radius isn't anything major.

This is an extreme example, but D&D is rife with things that make no sense.

As Extraordinary abilities, creatures in D&D can walk through earth and stone as if it posed no obstacles, be ethereal or incorporeal, have hivemind telepathy, deal sonic damage with screams, have Fast Healing and/or Regeneration, explode in a burst of negative energy when killed, shift their form to adapt new evolutionary traits, and more. And that's just from the Monster Manual IV, which I happened to have near me.

Now, I'm not saying the Crusader can't have Supernatural Healing. I'm just saying that there's enough crazy stuff on both sides of the fence that I don't think it has to be supernatural. Saying hit point damage must always be actual physical damage because of X ability is as ridiculous as the associated idea that a level 20 Barbarian can therefore survive over a dozen strong, solid, damaging blows by an entity exactly as powerful as himself without even harming his ability to retaliate in kind.

If we're talking heavy-simulationist, than HP *can't* be exact damage, otherwise there's no realism at all: fights don't work like extended slugfests. So I don't think arguing the system one way can clear the argument that the system is ALSO meant to work the OTHER way. If you go to far to either extreme you end up with a system that makes no logical sense.


I see D&D as more simulationist than you apparently do (closer to the middle of the spectrum) but there's no point in arguing that as it's purely a matter of perception and preference.

Indeed. D&D is fairly middle-of-the-road as games go, but that's a whole separate argument.

Another Point on the Hit Point System: Nothing says that when you're at full hit points you have no wounds. All it means is that you're at full hit points. I could easily see a Crusader inspiring his wounded comrades to full combat abilities through his heroic assault against the dragon, allowing them to return to full hit points despite the wounds still on their bodies. Wounds still scar, perhaps blood still flows, but these mighty heroes ignore it due to the holy fervor flowing through them.

It's something we'd see in a legend: in the real world, ignoring wounds like that is a good way to bleed out. But for mythological heroes? Seems like par for the course, and a good way to show just how inspiring this Crusader is.

[joca4christ]

Took the liberty of reviewing some of the maneuvers. A lot of them in Desert Wind and Shadow Hand do have the SU descriptor. I did find the one in Devoted Spirit that does the heal. It says, in the flavor text, that an ally is healed by the power of your faith. Does have the flavor of supernatural, so it's possible the editors just forgot to add that text in the end. Then again...who knows?

As for the argument of "where do we draw the line"? At RAW, obviously. I mean, if the designers said that you could resurrect someone with the power of your faith, and that this was an EX ability, then it is, unless you or your DM decide to houserule it otherwise.

In the same vein, I can see your point if we were talking about DMs or players saying special abilities that had no previous existence IN GAME of being EX could be EX because they wanted them to be. The whole reason we have a rule system (RAW) is so play doesn't degenirate into "I do this" "Oh yeah, I do this" "Well then, I do such and such."

As it stands, the designers of this supplement thought it'd be cool if a high level crusader could heal without magic as we currently understand it. Frankly, I think it's cool too. If you don't, don't use it that way in your game. Just make sure you set that expectation beforehand so your players don't get blindsided when they seek to use it RAW.

[joca4christ]

Sadly enough, I was thinking about this topic while getting around this morning. The one thing that occurred to me, that no one else (including myself) has brought up previously, (as we had used Cpt. America as an example) was...mutants.

Right? So one of the objections was that an extraordinary ability shouldn't be allowed to heal. Isn't that all Wolverine's power is, (besides the heightened senses and what not)? And what about Elixir? Think his name was Josh Foley? His was the mutant ability to heal or kill, by touch.

I know, I know...different format and all that. But if I understand the mechanics of the mutant gene, it allowed people to have superpowers because their DNA unlocked the potential in them. In short, a mutation caused them to have Xtra-ordinary powers.

So maybe that's what the designers were thinking of, you know? So if you struggle with the concept...think of it as the Crusader's unwavering faith unlocked the potential inside others to utilize extraordinary abilities locked inside their dna.

And there ya go! :)

[willpell]

Professor X and Jean Gray are mutants. Psionics doesn't work in an AMF (unless you ditch P-MT). Also Wolverine is Fast Healing (or more likely Regeneration), which is not the same as "healing".

[Theoboldi]

Professor X and Jean Gray are mutants. Psionics doesn't work in an AMF (unless you ditch P-MT). Also Wolverine is Fast Healing (or more likely Regeneration), which is not the same as "healing".

The ability to manifest powers, as well as casting spells, isn't supernatural by itself. The spells and powers are what's blocked by the field, not the caster's abilities. Just something I'd like to note.

[Starbuck_II]

Professor X and Jean Gray are mutants. Psionics doesn't work in an AMF (unless you ditch P-MT). Also Wolverine is Fast Healing (or more likely Regeneration), which is not the same as "healing".

I'd say he has both because he heals nonlethal (regeneration) and normal wounds at same time. I mean, he was fried down to his skeleton (in the comics) and he revived through his regeneration.
That is some serious healing.
Fast healing is healing. It is in the name.

[willpell]

Fast healing is healing. It is in the name.

Yes, well there's a big difference between the ability to drive to the gas station and put gas in your car, versus the ability to walk to the gas station and put gas into your car which is still back at home.

[NEO|Phyte]

With respect, you're the one in denial here. How is a rousing speech or inspiring martial display supposed to keep a fleshgrinding mace from drilling further into a target's torso? Or to repair the internal damage caused by Death By Thorns/Heartclutch? And yet, if we dismiss internal consistency, we're expected to believe just that.
Going back to movie examples for a moment here. When the hero is laying beaten, then gets his second wind and gets back up, do all those injuries he has close up? No, he just ignores them. THAT is what Crusader healing is. (leaving out the their 9th level strike, because with the laundry list of stuff Heal fixes, that one really ought to be (Su)) You don't do something so awesome that their wounds start healing, you do something so awesome they get back up anyway. Full HP does not have to mean perfectly healthy, just as partial HP does not have to mean you've got holes in you.

[joca4christ]

If I recall, all mutants have the potential of having their powers "off" in-universe. (Leech, power-damping fields, etc.) Doesn't mean they aren't extra-ordinary powers, supposedly available by a mutation in DNA.

My point is, extra-ordinary CAN be really EXTRA ordinary in some universes. Why not in D&D? It's all fantasy/fiction anyway. And we were talking about how an extra-ordinary power couldn't possible heal others, but that's exactly what Josh Foley (Elixir) does. Now granted, as cited above, his power could be dampened just like any other. I think the writers enable that kind of stuff because sometimes the hero's power has to be off in order to show how cool he/she is even without them.

With that said, again...if the extraordinary abilities bother your game/story, change it, or do something that dampens the ability when you'd rather not have it work at certain points. Just make sure you aren't doing it to screw over your players, but rather to craft a compelling story.

[Psyren]

Going back to movie examples for a moment here. When the hero is laying beaten, then gets his second wind and gets back up, do all those injuries he has close up? No, he just ignores them. THAT is what Crusader healing is. (leaving out the their 9th level strike, because with the laundry list of stuff Heal fixes, that one really ought to be (Su)) You don't do something so awesome that their wounds start healing, you do something so awesome they get back up anyway. Full HP does not have to mean perfectly healthy, just as partial HP does not have to mean you've got holes in you.

1) The hero still ends up in the hospital afterward, so those are clearly temp HP. They don't end up instantly hale and hearty forevermore after pushing themselves.

2) I already covered that I think self-healing through this sort of grit and determination is fine as Ex several pages back. But actually treating others without any kind of medicine or proper care should be magical. This goes double for removing status conditions like poison, disease, negative levels, and death itself.

[Deophaun]

2) I already covered that I think self-healing through this sort of grit and determination is fine as Ex several pages back. But actually treating others without any kind of medicine or proper care should be magical.
But you've never explained that second part. If it's fine for the human body to possess the ability to heal itself, then how is it not fine for an external, non-magical stimuli to provoke the body into healing itself?

[Psyren]

But you've never explained that second part. If it's fine for the human body to possess the ability to heal itself, then how is it not fine for an external, non-magical stimuli to provoke the body into healing itself?

Because magic is what connects us. That's literally it's only function - an invisible force that can commonly affect all things. That's why being able to affect others with magic never breaks suspension of disbelief - I know I can bring you back from the dead with magic, because magic allows me to change and undo things that happen to other people. I know I can travel to other planes with magic, because magic can form bridges between realities.

Without magic, you're left once again with nonmagical concepts like rousing speeches and flexing muscles that don't fit with anything else in D&D.

Again, I'm fine with "inspiring someone" to get back up and ignore their wounds. But we already have perfectly functional systems that can handle that concept, via temp-HP and curing nonlethal damage. Yelling at someone to truly heal them without magic makes no sense; if it did, all doctors would instead train to be drill sergeants.

[joca4christ]

From Wikipedia:

"Elixir is an Omega-level mutant, capable of controlling the biological structure of any organic matter including his own body.[33] He is still inexperienced in the use of his powers, and the limits of his abilities are unknown. He must be in close proximity to whomever he heals, but can heal through clothing."

Again, different universe. I get that. But we're talking fantasy/sci-fi realms here anyway, not real world. If the writers of X-men can conceive of a guy who can do this as an extraordinary ability...no magic involved, the power comes a twist in his DNA, why can't the writers of D&D go...yeah, sounds good.

In PF, you find that some of the Barbarians rage powers have an EX descriptor. Some of these include having Scent ability and darkvision. Really? Basically altering his/her body to have this qualities because he's mad. These are usually either features of a race, or given by magic. What's the deal?

The game requires suspension of belief to play. It isn't as far-fetched as anything else you encounter in-game.

[willpell]

It never even occurred to me before to acknowledge this, but I'm pretty sure I've never thought of magic as "connecting us", let alone doing nothing else. What exactly I did visualize it as I'm not sure, but I think more as a sort of temporary upwelling wherever it's worked, rather than something which is always there waiting to be manipulated.

@ Joca: There's no real reason to think Elixir's abilities would still be EX in D&D. They would very likely be SU instead, just as Colossus turning to steel would be a SU ability based on the Iron Body spell, or Nightcrawler's teleporting would be an at-will SU ability. None of these could pass for EX. If you were running a D&D-rules (as opposed to just D20) game around the X-Men, an AMF would be reflavored as a mutant-powers suppressor of some sort, and it would knock out Prof X's psionics, Cyclops's eye rays, Wolverine's healing - everything. The only EXtraordinary abilites that would remain would be those NOT explicitly flavored as mutant powers - incredible reflexes, for instance, or innate stealth talents (Mystique even without her shapeshifting would still be a rather incredible spy).

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

In PF, you find that some of the Barbarians rage powers have an EX descriptor. Some of these include having Scent ability and darkvision. Really? Basically altering his/her body to have this qualities because he's mad. These are usually either features of a race, or given by magic. What's the deal?

The game requires suspension of belief to play. It isn't as far-fetched as anything else you encounter in-game.

I'll also reiterate my example from the page before, which no one responded to. Here's a spell that really helps show us that D&D is not dictated by logic in all situations:

Avascular Mass rips out a target's blood vessels and uses them to entrap creatures within a 30 foot radius. It specifically does not summon magical blood vessels: it uses those it pulls from a victim.

The spell, however, is always non-fatal, leaves no lasting damage aside from HP damage, doesn't make the creature less able to fight and, if used on a creature with 19 or fewer HP, has the potential to be totally cured with a single use of Cure Light Wounds. Logic where? I guess the logic was pull out when most of your blood vessels were violently ripped from your body. But no big deal, right? A few days of bed rest and you'll be fine.


Because magic is what connects us. That's literally it's only function - an invisible force that can commonly affect all things.

...this is your OWN definition of magic, boss. Show me where it says that this is D&D's interpretation of magic. Otherwise magic can be whatever we want it to be.

[Deophaun]

Except you aren't yelling to heal them. You are yelling to get them to heal themselves. Strangely, yes, mind over matter is a medical thing. Look up something called the placebo effect. Look up hypochondria. This is what Iron Heart Surge is based on. This is what the Crusader's abilities are all based on.

The mind has a proven ability to make humans sick or well, and they can connect with each others minds through language, not magic. This happens every second of every day. Look up music, look up movies, look up books. There's this thing called the Internet where people can connect through all sorts of things. There are places called forums where people exchange thoughts through text, which, I'm told, are symbolic representations of sounds that humans create when talking to one another. Arranged into certain patterns, they form words. Check them out. Human beings are crazy with this language stuff. It's how they transmit thoughts from one individual to the next, and they don't even have to get eight hours of rest and spend an hour memorizing a book in order to do it. It even works in an anti-magic field. Supposedly, these humans can actually do all this in a world where there is no magic. Personally, I find this difficult to believe, but that's the myth. And D&D is all about being able to immerse yourself in myth. So even though humans connecting with each other through language and not the weave is totally unrealistic and fantastical, it still fits in D&D's milieu.

[Sception]

Calling the easier to play Classes the ones with the most trap options (in other words, the ones that are the easiest to screw up) sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Are you really completely blind to the distinction between build difficulty and play difficult? Are you really incapable of seeing how the Druid - the core class that is almost impossible to build wrong - is also among the most demanding to manage in actual play, making it among the worst classes for new players? Have you ever seen a game grind to a hault as a new player tries to decide what spells to memorize from the entire cleric or druid spell list? Have you never seen a player use the wild shape ability when no body really understood how it worked, and watched the whole game session end as multiple books are pulled out to try and work it out, then calculate the cascading effects of the ability's use? Have you never seen the rest of the table's eyes glaze over, the cell phones popping out or random unrelated discussions break out in the middle of combat while the new druid player agonizes over what spell he will cast, then how that spell works, then what his animal companion will do, then what his summons will do, with a turn approaching 10 minutes or more?

A crusader is far easier to build poorly than a druid, and yet is far harder to play poorly. Do you see the distinction?

Do you not see how it is preferable to help a new player for a half hour when coming up with their character to avoid options, with the result of giving them a character they can manage on their own during play, rather then giving them a complicated mess that will end up with the rest of the table basically running their character for them during actual play?

Have you seen true first time D&D tables, with all new players trying to manage a complete first exposure to the game? Have you ever been in such? Have you witnessed it? I have, and it didn't turn out well, so no I don't recommend it. And what relevance does it have to the issue of recommended classes for new players? If everyone is new, then there's no one to do the recommending in the first place. It's entirely irrelevant.

Why do you think a party comprised of a completely new DM who has never played a tabletop rpg before, and players likewise entirely new to tabletop gaming, are best served by having one or more or all of the players play crusaders? In such an entirely virgin table, is it really reasonable to expect the DM to allow, read, and absorb an alternate mechanical system supplement in addition to the core rules? Is it reasonable for the players to even ask her to? Is it reasonable to assume those players will even know of that book's existence? Who would tell them about it? Do you see why the 'virgin party' assumption is entirely ridiculous?


As for the assumption that one must have played 3.5 before playing 3.5, when do I ever make that assumption? The only assumptions inherent in the question of 'what class to recommend to new players' are 1) the existence of a new player who wants such a recommendation (if they know what they want to play, they're better off just playing it), and 2) that some classes tend to provide a better introduction to the game for new players by providing a smoother game play experience or a more manageable introduction to the game's core features or require less system mastery in build or execution. After that it's a personal judgment of which of those factors is more significant to more new players.

As for where that personal judgment is coming from on my part, I ran a weekly 'kids D&D' session at the local gaming store for a couple years. And the experience was a pretty stark and unforgiving instruction on what game play experiences tend to be most successful (as measured by ongoing attendance) when introducing completely new players to the game.


As for the ranger: can you not see how a class that gives players a managed taste of the various major 4e mechanics around which other classes are based is a better introduction to the system then a highly specific class from a supplement book presenting an alternate mechanical structure not present anywhere else in the system, with a prop-based gameplay gimmick that nothing else shares, and abilities unlike anything else any character uses?


If you think the ranger makes a bad first class, fine. It is weak, and does benefit from build input. No reason my anecdotal experience should be universal. But is it fundamental to your existence that everyone think the crusader is the best class for introducing new players to the game? What in your mind makes it so? Why, to you, is the crusader a better introduction to the 3e game system than other classes? What makes other classes inferior to it from the new player's perspective?

[Psyren]

It never even occurred to me before to acknowledge this, but I'm pretty sure I've never thought of magic as "connecting us", let alone doing nothing else. What exactly I did visualize it as I'm not sure, but I think more as a sort of temporary upwelling wherever it's worked, rather than something which is always there waiting to be manipulated.



...this is your OWN definition of magic, boss. Show me where it says that this is D&D's interpretation of magic. Otherwise magic can be whatever we want it to be.

Sure thing. Complete Mage:


The Nature of Magic
...
Magic works its wonders without any discernible physical cause and often without any rational explanation. A character working magic taps into some kind of mysterious power source and shapes it into a chosen manner of effect, force, or energy that the magic wielder finds useful.

Most scholars agree that this power source is unrefined magic, which is present in the universe in the same way that ordinary matter is present. Magic is simply one element in the combination of things that make up what mortals know as reality. You can find matter almost everywhere you look in the universe. (Some scholars contend that even the voids of interplanetary space and the Astral Plane hold infinitesimal bits of matter, too small to see or feel, but present nevertheless.) Magic, too, infuses the universe, though most beings remain unaware of its invisible presence.


The most overt example of this in any setting is Faerun's Weave, but even the core setting alludes to this (as above) - and therefore, all other settings do too unless specifically diverging, as Dark Sun does. Also, we have the "Normal magic" trait of the Material Plane, a location common to all settings - since all spells function exactly as described, there is a common energy suffusing the plane that powers them, whose source is this trait.

Then we have Tome of Magic:


Magic creates fantasy. Strange creatures and unusual characters can move a tale a step away from reality, but it takes MAGIC - the dragon's fiery breath, the wizard's powerful spell, or some other element beyond reality - to make the leap to truly fantastic tales.

And while I'm in that book, there is a distinctly magical attribute that every single being, object and even concept in every D&D setting shares - a Truename.


Truenames encompass reality in its entirety. Everything in the world, everything that ever was, and everything that ever will be, has a truename.

Oh, and as far as the intended supremacy of magic, here's some more passages. Complete Arcane:


The Nature of Magic

...

Exclusivity refers to the idea that magic isn’t necessarily easily accessible to everyone who wants to use it. This might be the single most important difference between magic and technology, given that once it becomes common knowledge how to achieve some specific technological goal (creating a matchlock musket, for instance), anyone else should be able to obtain the same results by following the same steps in the technological creation process.

Knowledge of magic and technical learning propagate in very different ways, though. In an average city in which a hundred people might have sufficient skill to build a matchlock musket, only a dozen mages might have sufficient knowledge and ability to master a new spell or reproduce a desired arcane effect. Even if magical knowledge is made available, a majority of people will always be incapable of making use of it, lacking either the required heritage, the blessing of a capricious deity, or a mind trained by years of exercise and meditation.


So, from the core setting, we have the following summary:
- Magic is intended to be an invisible force that permeates the universe. (Note - the source is not simply within the spellcaster - rather, the caster is tapping into something omnipresent.)
- Magic is intended to be available for conscious use only to a minority of people, and powerful magic even moreso.
- Everyone and everything is meant to be affectable by magic in some way, as evidenced by every single thing having a truename.
- Magic is intended to move a setting into the realm of true fantasy. In other words, while extraordinary feats are possible without magic, the intent is still to limit what nonmagical acts can do - and more importantly, NOT to limit what magic is capable of. (Though some effects are exclusively the realm of plot-magic.)


TL;DR: In D&D, magic is intended to be capable of more than "not-magic" is.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

If you think the ranger makes a bad first class, fine. It is weak, and does benefit from build input. No reason my anecdotal experience should be universal. But is it fundamental to your existence that everyone think the crusader is the best class for introducing new players to the game? What in your mind makes it so? Why, to you, is the crusader a better introduction to the 3e game system than all other classes? What makes all other classes inferior to it from the new player's perspective?

I would imagine because Tome of Battle is incredibly hard to make ineffective, and because Tome of Battle can play a bit more like other styles of games players may be used to. You can't really make a bad ToB character: even a random selection of viable maneuvers will leaves you with fun and effective things to do, so no new player will overly gimp themselves, unlike with casters, Fighters, or any other class that offers a number of choices (you can find outright bad choices in all core choice-based systems).

They may not be as simple as a Fighter in concept, but they require less choice and less system knowledge to build, as well as less foresight into later levels: any random maneuver selection can expand into good maneuvers later, which a poor early feat selection can really stop the Fighter from progressing into feat chains well.

Additionally, Tome of Battle is actually very simple, and the way its mechanics are written out gives a player who doesn't know all the possible combat options (trip, disarm, bull rush, and so forth) a number of contained combat options with all the rules written down for them, in easily accessible form. ToB is a GREAT starter book, in my opinion (and in my experience).

They also have the added advantage of being, when you have no preconceptions about how martial D&D characters are "supposed" to work, FUN. I've had a number of players who started with a Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, or so forth look at Tome of Battle and want to try a Warblade or Crusader, but I've never had a Tome of Battle-started player ask to play a Fighter over the Warblade. I think that speaks to the system's strength, although that is purely my personal experience.

[Sception]

They also have the added advantage of being, when you have no preconceptions about how martial D&D characters are "supposed" to work, FUN.

Could just be a personal thing, but while I share your esteem for ToB in general, and don't think the Crusader is a 'bad' or 'unfun' class, I have in general found the crusader's card-based refresh mechanic makes it less fun than the other two ToB classes, rather than more.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Could just be a personal thing, but while I share your esteem for ToB in general, and don't think the Crusader is a 'bad' or 'unfun' class, I have in general found the crusader's card-based refresh mechanic makes it less fun than the other two ToB classes, rather than more.

Oh, I agree. But the no-thought refresh mechanic is good for newer players: although the Swordsage and Warblade aren't complex at all in their methods, sometimes the simplicity of "shuffle and draw a card" means that player gets more enjoyment than they would if they have to choose the best time to refresh maneuvers.

[Amphetryon]

Are you really completely blind to the distinction between build difficulty and play difficult? Are you really incapable of seeing how the Druid - the core class that is almost impossible to build wrong - is also among the most demanding to manage in actual play, making it among the worst classes for new players? Have you ever seen a game grind to a hault as a new player tries to decide what spells to memorize from the entire cleric or druid spell list? Have you never seen a player use the wild shape ability when no body really understood how it worked, and watched the whole game session end as multiple books are pulled out to try and work it out, then calculate the cascading effects of the ability's use? Have you never seen the rest of the table's eyes glaze over, the cell phones popping out or random unrelated discussions break out in the middle of combat while the new druid player agonizes over what spell he will cast, then how that spell works, then what his animal companion will do, then what his summons will do, with a turn approaching 10 minutes or more? No, I'm neither "completely blind" nor otherwise incapable of seeing. Yes, I have seen a game grind to a halt - not with a Crusader (which would seem to be the one your previous posts indicate would have this happen most often), but I have. As the examples you're giving above do not pertain to the Crusader, I'm not really sure where you're going with this tangent, other than taking the opportunity to rant a bit.


A crusader is far easier to build poorly than a druid, and yet is far harder to play poorly. Do you see the distinction?Your previous point was how much easier a Ranger was to build and play, in general, than a Crusader. Do you see the goalposts moving? How, exactly, do you build a Crusader poorly (aside from horrible stats, which would afflict the Crusader marginally more than a Druid or other pure caster Class)?


Do you not see how it is preferable to help a new player for a half hour when coming up with their character to avoid options, with the result of giving them a character they can manage on their own during play, rather then giving them a complicated mess that will end up with the rest of the table basically running their character for them during actual play?Do you see that I've repeatedly posited that, while it may be preferable, it's not always PRACTICAL or even POSSIBLE to help a new Player for a half an hour before the game starts? Do you see where I've pointed out situations from real life and examples from the forums where the DM has exactly the same level of experience (zero) with the system as the rest of the Players? How much help do you think such a DM will be in eliminating trap options? Why do you believe the Crusader is an example of such a trap, relative to the Core Classes?


Have you seen true first time D&D tables, with all new players trying to manage a complete first exposure to the game? Have you ever been in such? Have you witnessed it? I have, and it didn't turn out well, so no I don't recommend it. And what relevance does it have to the issue of recommended classes for new players? If everyone is new, then there's no one to do the recommending in the first place. It's entirely irrelevant.I've been a long-term volunteer at a public facility as a DM, where anyone who showed up was required by the rules of the establishment to be allowed to play. The first session, I was the only one who had ever played 3.5 before. Yes, I've seen it. I recommended Classes based on a simple question: "Tell me about the Character in your head." Again, if everyone is new including the DM, then how is the DM's help going to be helpful, which is either a consistent claim you've made, or a goalpost you've just now shifted to avoid? If you don't recommend a game of 3.5 D&D where nobody has played it before, then you are, indeed, saying that folks have to play 3.5 before they can play 3.5, which means nobody should have ever played it in the first place - and yet, here we are, on a popular forum of dedicated Players. Did we all just get it wrong, or were we all just ridiculously lucky/smart/genre savants?


Why do you think a party comprised of a completely new DM who has never played a tabletop rpg before, and players likewise entirely new to tabletop gaming, are best served by having one or more or all of the players play crusaders? In such an entirely virgin table, is it really reasonable to expect the DM to allow, read, and absorb an alternate mechanical system supplement in addition to the core rules? Is it reasonable for the players to even ask her to? Is it reasonable to assume those players will even know of that book's existence? Who would tell them about it? Do you see why the 'virgin party' assumption is entirely ridiculous? At an entirely "virgin" table, it's entirely reasonable for the DM to allow any source material she has access to; as Tome of Battle is a thing that exists, it's reasonable to assume that at least some copies of it have come into the hands of new Players (their Uncle/Dad/Sister/Weird Neighbor was getting rid of it, and handed it over, or a used book store, or The Internet, as possible methods of procurement).



As for the assumption that one must have played 3.5 before playing 3.5, when do I ever make that assumption? The only assumptions inherent in the question of 'what class to recommend to new players' are 1) the existence of a new player who wants such a recommendation (if they know what they want to play, they're better off just playing it), and 2) that some classes tend to provide a better introduction to the game for new players by providing a smoother game play experience or a more manageable introduction to the game's core features or require less system mastery in build or execution. After that it's a personal judgment of which of those factors is more significant to more new players.Already addressed, above, where you specifically said "Have you seen true first time D&D tables, with all new players trying to manage a complete first exposure to the game? Have you ever been in such? Have you witnessed it? I have, and it didn't turn out well, so no I don't recommend it." If the words that you used DON'T mean that you don't recommend new Players trying a complete first exposure to the game, then what do those words you chose mean, exactly? Your previous posts espoused a similar - though not verbatim - belief, incidentally.


As for where that personal judgment is coming from on my part, I ran a weekly 'kids D&D' session at the local gaming store for a couple years. And the experience was a pretty stark and unforgiving instruction on what game play experiences tend to be most successful (as measured by ongoing attendance) when introducing completely new players to the game. See above. My experiences produced no such results.



As for the ranger: can you not see how a class that gives players a managed taste of the various major 4e mechanics around which other classes are based is a better introduction to the system then a highly specific class from a supplement book presenting an alternate mechanical structure not present anywhere else in the system, with a prop-based gameplay gimmick that nothing else shares, and abilities unlike anything else any character uses?
What does 4e's mechanical base have to do AT ALL with introducing new Players to 3.5, again? That makes as much sense to me as introducing new 3.5 Players to THAC0 as a way of familiarizing them with the 3.5 rules.


If you think the ranger makes a bad first class, fine. It is weak, and does benefit from build input. No reason my anecdotal experience should be universal. But is it fundamental to your existence that everyone think the crusader is the best class for introducing new players to the game? What in your mind makes it so? Why, to you, is the crusader a better introduction to the 3e game system than other classes? What makes other classes inferior to it from the new player's perspective?As I have said - repeatedly - and as others have said - repeatedly - it's relatively hard to build a Crusader badly enough that the Character will fail as a result of the build choices. This is not true, in my experience, of the majority of the base Classes. It is not unique in this regard (see also: Warlock, DFA), but it is a sturdier base than either of those two, and new Players - again, in my experience - are somewhat less likely to understand tactical movement well enough to consistently avoid getting damaged, so the extra HP and Delayed Damage Pool of the Crusader relative to the other Classes I mentioned are points in the Crusader's favor for a newbie.

[Sception]

Your previous point was how much easier a Ranger was to build and play, in general, than a Crusader. Do you see the goalposts moving? How, exactly, do you build a Crusader poorly (aside from horrible stats, which would afflict the Crusader marginally more than a Druid or other pure caster Class)?

No, my original point was that I would not recommend the crusader as an ideal starting class due to the gimmickry of the class and the inapplicability of its features to other classes.

I set the ranger as an alternative suggestion because it's less gimmick-laden, and involves less round by round number tracking and card shuffling hassle, while providing a better introduction to the skills, bonus feats, weapon attacks, and, later, spell use that will give a new player a better idea of what other class they might enjoy playing, once they're done playing a class that was handed to them by someone else and are ready to make a character of their own.

The druid was brought up as an example of the distinction between ease of build and ease of play, which are frequently at odds in 3e, the conflict between the two being one of the main reason so few 3e classes are really user friendly - the wizard is harder to build wrong, but more difficult to play; the sorcerer easier to mess up, but also easier to play. A new player asking for advice on class choice is most likely open to advice on other build elements, but whether they're open to advice or not its still preferable to have a character they can play round by round. It seemed you were denying the existence of this distinction, by claiming that a class couldn't be simultaneously easy to play in session but also easy to build poorly and self gimp, which in my experience is not only possibly but common in 3e.

The crusader isn't bad on build difficulty, and isn't really terrible on play difficulty (less then a full caster, anyway), but the round by round handling of delayed damage effects and bonuses and the random shuffling and dealing out of powers can, in my experience, can make it obnoxious to play. Not to the point that I'd tell anyone not to play one if they wanted to, but certainly to the point that it would be last on my list of tome of battle classes to recommend to anyone new to that system.

The ranger is also easy to play, and as mentioned I don't consider build difficulty to be an incredibly important factor when making characters for new players, since they're already inviting build help simply by nature of asking for class advice to begin with. I find the ranger slightly less hasslesome than the crusader, but more importantly it's a better introduction to gameplay mechanics seen in more areas of the game than the crusader is.

Ranger isn't the only class I'd recommend to new players, but it is probably my favorite as an introduction to the system. Worth noting, there are no classes I'd discourage new players from playing - I'm not saying they shouldn't play crusaders - nothing kills a new player's interest in the game faster than having a cool character idea and being told they can't play it. I just don't think crusader jumps forward as a the best choice for introducing new players to the game, or to the ToB book in particular, and wanted to voice a dissenting opinion to the proposition that they were somehow the best at those things.



Do you see that I've repeatedly posited that, while it may be preferable, it's not always PRACTICAL or even POSSIBLE to help a new Player for a half an hour before the game starts? Do you see where I've pointed out situations from real life and examples from the forums where the DM has exactly the same level of experience (zero) with the system as the rest of the Players? How much help do you think such a DM will be in eliminating trap options? Why do you believe the Crusader is an example of such a trap, relative to the Core Classes?

Do you see where I noted that if nobody has any experience with the game there's no point even beginning to discuss what classes are good to recommend because there's nobody experienced there to recommend them? Did you see where I pointed out that it's unreasonable to ask your DM to incorporate a major supplement book with an alternate mechanical system when said DM is still trying to come to grips with the core game alone? Could you point out where I said the Crusader was a trap option, because I certainly didn't mean to. The crusader's strong and fun enough (though the cards get in the way of that fun rather than helping it ime), but not an especially great introduction to the mechanics of the system as a whole.


"Tell me about the Character in your head." Again, if everyone is new including the DM, then how is the DM's help going to be helpful, which is either a consistent claim you've made, or a goalpost you've just now shifted to avoid?

If the player knows what they want to play, then they don't need advice on what class might be good for new players, they can just play the one they want to play. If the DM (nor any of the other players) is incapable of giving build advice, then the question of what class is good for new players doesn't matter, because nobody has any idea what they're talking about. Neither of those situations terribly matters to the question of what classes might be most recommended for new players, since in one case nobody is asking the question and in the other nobody is there to answer it. It's hardly moving the goal posts to point out that an answer to a question is only relevant if the question itself is relevant and the answer possible to obtain.



At an entirely "virgin" table, it's entirely reasonable for the DM to allow any source material she has access to

This I disagree with pretty strongly. The DM can choose to incorporate more material if they think they have a grasp on the game as a whole and want to expand available options. However, if everyone is new to the game, and nobody knows what they're doing, and the DM is still trying to read the players handbook for the first time, it is hugely unfair to that new DM for players to be coming in with tome of battle and magic of incarnum and unearthed arcana and who knows what first party and third party conglomeration of 3.5, 3.0, and assorted d20 generic and setting specific books they happen to have found with the D&D logo in the discount box at the local game store expecting everything to be fair game. I'm not a fan of core-only 3.x, but when the DM is new it is not reasonable to expect them to absorb thousands of pages of supplemental material on top of learning the core mechanics for the first time.


If the words that you used DON'T mean that you don't recommend new Players trying a complete first exposure to the game, then what do those words you chose mean, exactly?

Those words mean: "I do not recommend 3.x as a first exposure to gaming in general without the presence of more experienced gamers to smooth things along". It is complicated, gimmicky, and badly broken in too many places. DMing it in particular is a pain in the arse. "let's everyone start from scratch" is not an introduction to the system I would recommend, nor is it the introduction that is typical, ime. So I don't consider "what classes are best for new players in a game where everyone is new and nobody knows what they're doing" to be a meaningful question. There are no classes I'd recommend in that case, because that isn't the introduction to 3.x that I'd recommend at all.

And even if there were classes I'd recommend, even if there are classes you'd recommend, that's completely irrelevant, because if we were there to make the recommendation, then the situation wouldn't exist in the first place, simply by virtue of one of us being there, there would be a player with some experience in the system to help things along.


What does 4e's mechanical base have to do AT ALL with introducing new Players to 3.5, again? That makes as much sense to me as introducing new 3.5 Players to THAC0 as a way of familiarizing them with the 3.5 rules.

Obvious typo was obvious, but whatever. Yes. Clearly what I meant was that every new player's first time experience in 3e should be playing a 4e ranger so they can learn 4e mechanics. If the DM has access to 4e books, it is totally reasonable to expect them to allow that material, right?



As I have said - repeatedly - and as others have said - repeatedly - it's relatively hard to build a Crusader badly enough that the Character will fail as a result of the build choices. This is not true, in my experience, of the majority of the base Classes. It is not unique in this regard (see also: Warlock, DFA), but it is a sturdier base than either of those two, and new Players - again, in my experience - are somewhat less likely to understand tactical movement well enough to consistently avoid getting damaged, so the extra HP and Delayed Damage Pool of the Crusader relative to the other Classes I mentioned are points in the Crusader's favor for a newbie.

A reasonable case, though all of this could also be said for the warblade, which need not deal with finicky delayed damage mechanics nor gimmicky prop-based ability refreshing mechanics, hence why I do not view the crusader as a particularly exemplary first time ToB class when the warblade is available as an alternative. All of the crusader's strengths for new players are shared by the warblade, which doesn't share the crusader's weaknesses in this regard, and as such I do not consider the crusader to be a particularly noteworthy choice to recommend to new players. Not terrible for it, but one with strictly better alternatives, in the case where the player doesn't otherwise specifically want to play a character in its particular niche - such a desire negating the need for advice on class selection in the first place.

Neither of those ToB classes, however, is especially easier to play than an archer ranger (not much harder, either, but I wouldn't give them an advantage in this regard), and neither is as good an introduction to skills, feats, basic attack routines, and default spell casting mechanics ubiquitous within the 3e game system. Ranger is just a better introduction to more mechanics used in more places in 3e, while not being harder to play.

Is it weaker overall? Sure, but not to a level that's going to be painfully noticeable in the level ranges first time characters tend to exist within. Is it harder to build? Sure, but you're there to help. If you weren't there to help, then you wouldn't be there to suggest the Crusader, either. See? And a player who plays a ranger for the first few levels gets a taste of what it means to be a warrior, a skill monkey, and a spellcaster, and those tastes will allow them to have a more informed opinion of what they'll want to make for their next character.


AGAIN, that is not to say if a new player wanted to play a Crusader I'd discourage or disallow it - it's a fine class, if not my go-to recommendation for first time players or first time ToB players - and that's not to say new players must play rangers, just that if a new player has no idea what they want to play, and just asks to be handed a character or recommended a class from scratch, that's why "ranger" would come to my mind, at least before "Warblade", and certainly before "crusader".

[Synovia]

Because magic is what connects us. That's literally it's only function - an invisible force that can commonly affect all things. That's why being able to affect others with magic never breaks suspension of disbelief - I know I can bring you back from the dead with magic, because magic allows me to change and undo things that happen to other people. I know I can travel to other planes with magic, because magic can form bridges between realities..

Magic sounds a lot like Physics to me.

[Deophaun]

No, my original point was that I would not recommend the crusader as an ideal starting class due to the gimmickry of the class and the inapplicability of its features to other classes.
Don't really see that as an issue. If you're new to a system, you learn by watching other people play as much as you do by playing yourself. A new player is going to have more fun and so stick around longer if he isn't overwhelmed by running his class. He can then pick up the finer points of spell casting/precision damage/rage/whatever by watching others. The fact that his class deals with unique features found nowhere else is neither here nor there, as long as those features are simple.

[Amphetryon]

Don't really see that as an issue. If you're new to a system, you learn by watching other people play as much as you do by playing yourself. A new player is going to have more fun and so stick around longer if he isn't overwhelmed by running his class. He can then pick up the finer points of spell casting/precision damage/rage/whatever by watching others. The fact that his class deals with unique features found nowhere else is neither here nor there, as long as those features are simple.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Sception]

Don't really see that as an issue. If you're new to a system, you learn by watching other people play as much as you do by playing yourself. A new player is going to have more fun and so stick around longer if he isn't overwhelmed by running his class. He can then pick up the finer points of spell casting/precision damage/rage/whatever by watching others. The fact that his class deals with unique features found nowhere else is neither here nor there, as long as those features are simple.

While I agree with that largely, I disagree that this stands as a point uniquely in the crusader's favor, finding it not especially simpler to play than any number of alternative possibilities. At the same time, the crusader's mechanics are, imo, annoying to track and add additional steps to the player's turn every round of battle for, again imo, little payoff (a crusader without delayed damage and with a less gimmicky refresh mechanic would be, if anything, more enjoyable to play, again imo).

The awkwardness of these features, while they do not at all ruin the class, stand in the way of me sharing an endorsement of crusaders as a particularly noteworthy suggestion for new players unsure what they want to play, especially combined with the lack of any strong factors to recommend them not shared by other classes (particularly the warblade).

I do, however, feel a strong introduction to a wide selection of common mechanics of the system is a good thing for first time characters, so long as that introduction is doled out in manageable chunks without negatively impacting ease of play, all of which applies relatively uniquely to the archer ranger, with no other class providing as strong an introduction to as many core game play mechanics in a package that is as easy to manage for a new player. Yes, build traps stop it from being a completely ideal recommendation, but if I'm there to make the suggestion, I'm also there to help with the build.

[Darius Kane]

That high level healing Crusader maneuver in action:
http://z.mfcdn.net/store/manga/107/24-211.0/compressed/014.jpg
http://z.mfcdn.net/store/manga/107/24-211.0/compressed/015.jpg
http://z.mfcdn.net/store/manga/107/24-211.0/compressed/016.jpg

[Sception]

Much as I like it, a manga reference isn't going to settle the issue for ToB detractors, many of which are predisposed against it exactly because of its vaguely wuxia-ish feel.

[Psyren]

That high level healing Crusader maneuver in action:

*snip*

1) It looks just as ridiculous there as I imagined it would :smalltongue: (Also, I'm pretty sure his getting up had more to do with both a personal connection to her and his own innate training. Crusaders, meanwhile, can heal Commoners they've never met if they're nearby, so it's still not comparable.)

2) I'm not one to consider ToB "too anime," but even I can see the futility of using those kinds of physics to support ToB's credulity. Though you at least qualified that this example was meant for high-level play, Crusaders can still heal with encouragement/flexing at low levels too.

[The Viscount]

Magic sounds a lot like Physics to me.

"Any sufficiently explained magic is indistinguishable from science." - Agatha Heterodyne.

Djinn in Tonic, your mention of avascular mass and the ability to heal from it with sufficient bed rest does point out that hp doesn't make perfect sense all the time. I don't think hp making perfect sense was ever a point of contention.

While many have cited the example of a hero giving a rousing speech to others to inspire them to greatness, ignoring their wounds, this is not Crusader's Strike. A slightly better case may be made for the Martial Spirit, as it has some mention of inspiring greater vigor and all that, but Crusader's Strike heals another through unexplained means, not through speeches.

Crusader's Strike and Martial Spirit seem to be alone in being class obtained non-supernatural or magical means of healing others instantly. Dragon shaman auras are Su, as are all the variations on lay on hands. Even Wholeness of Body is Su! Marshal actually has an Ex ability that seems a decent approximation of inspiring allies to fight on and ignore wounds, granting DR/-, but that's another matter.

I side with Psyren on believing Crusader's Strike should be Su because all the similar abilities are Su. Is there some ability that I am missing that heals others and is Ex?

[Answerer]

I side with Psyren on believing Crusader's Strike should be Su because all the similar abilities are Su. Is there some ability that I am missing that heals others and is Ex?
One of the Dragon Shaman's auras, I believe.

OK, would you object if an effect claimed to be explicitly "extraordinary for all mechanical purposes, despite its magical nature," as has been done at least in some homebrew that I've seen? A few even went so far as to create a special tag for this category (Preternatural), but I think that's dumb since mechanically they were treated as Extraordinary for all purposes, including things that explicitly effect Extraordinary abilities.

[Psyren]

One of the Dragon Shaman's auras, I believe.

All their auras are Su, including the healing one.



OK, would you object if an effect claimed to be explicitly "extraordinary for all mechanical purposes, despite its magical nature," as has been done at least in some homebrew that I've seen? A few even went so far as to create a special tag for this category (Preternatural), but I think that's dumb since mechanically they were treated as Extraordinary for all purposes, including things that explicitly effect Extraordinary abilities.

It's the nature of the ability that drives my objection, not the fact that nonmagical yet superhuman abilities exist at all. Healing others, especially quickly, reliably and without touching them, is magical to me, so I would and do object in this instance.

[Sception]

than rule it (su) in your games? I don't know, but these "ex vs su vs sp" arguments could never really hold my attention. I know there's some effects in the game that care, but, for the most part it's a two letter flavor abbreviation, not something I've ever cared about or even noticed really.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I'm definitely siding with Psyren and The Viscount here.

Healing yourself, I can understand fluffing as (Ex). Forcing your tissues to knit together through an act of intense concentration, I could see. Not in the Real world, mind you, but I can see it as (Ex).

Healing others? And actual healing, mind you. I wouldn't mind at all if all of the healing maneuvers gave you temporary hit points. It's more the permanent damage that bothers me. (True) healing at range I cannot justify as (Ex).


Hey! I like him! (Regarding Kevin Sorbo)

... Well, in Andromeda, at least... :smalltongue:

+1 for (Captain) Dylan Hunt!

[Sception]

If you could see a character healing themselves through force of will alone via an ex ability, why not an ex ability to inspire others to heal themselves through their force of will?

[NotScaryBats]

From the book this is about:
"As your enemy reels from your mighty blow, an ally nearby is simultaneously healed and cleansed of its wounds by the power of your faith."

So, the rules say this is Ex Faith Healing. It isn't necessarily yelling or flexing, but 'power of faith' that is useable in Ex. What's Ex again?

"Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training."

Okay, that works for me. It may not work for you.

[Kuulvheysoon]

If you could see a character healing themselves through force of will alone via an ex ability, why not an ex ability to inspire others to heal themselves through their force of will?

Precisely because it is healing themselves. To me, it's like wiggling your ears. With enough practice/control, most anyone can do it. But how in the Nine Hells do you wiggle someone ELSE'S ears?

Answer? A Wizard Did It. With magic.

[Kazyan]

If you could see a character healing themselves through force of will alone via an ex ability, why not an ex ability to inspire others to heal themselves through their force of will?

Attributing an ability to willpower is a cop-out, I find. Stepping away of game mechanics for a moment, because duh: (Ex) Metabolic control would be something you learn, with willpower as a prerequisite. Giving someone a thumbs-up and expecting them to do it because of how hard your good vibes can bolster them...in this sort of game, I can imagine bolstering someone from 5 to 10+ in that regard, but they don't have the training. IRL, it takes Bhuddist Monks decades of growing up in a specific culture to learn how to do things we would call (Ex) instead of (Na). So, maybe the 'learn to do it' part doesn't make sense in someone else's interpretation, sure. But this isn't Exalted. I say that if you can bolster anybody into such intensity that they focus-heal themselves on the spot, it's (Su) unless we're talking epic levels. And even then, I'd call focus-healing itself (Ps), because we already have a system for that and I hate the cop-out willpower trope.

[Starbuck_II]

Precisely because it is healing themselves. To me, it's like wiggling your ears. With enough practice/control, most anyone can do it. But how in the Nine Hells do you wiggle someone ELSE'S ears?

Answer? A Wizard Did It. With magic.

With a lot of practice you can wiggle someone else's ears.
Did you mean without touching them? That is goal post moving :smallwink:

[Sception]

in IRL

Let's not go there. In real life an axe to the throat is just as fatal to the greatest warrior in the world as it is to an untrained kid. In real life you don't have to guilotine the famous hero seven times to get his head to pop off. In real life, a housecat isn't a deadly threat to average adult humans, and a carpenter's apprentice doesn't risk killing themselves if they accidentally whack their thumb with a hammer. If you're looking for 'realism', the problem isn't healing, it's hit points, and there's no fixing that while remaining within the bounds of D&D. D&D isn't the physical world, nor is even lord of the rings. It's dragonball land, with power levels and wishes and everything.

[joca4christ]

Extraordinary, as defined by Merriam-Websters, means "going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary <extraordinary powers> (yes, that's the example given in the dictionary)".

Extraordinary ability as defined by the PHB? "a nonmagical special ability (as opposed to supernatural or spell-like ability.)" (Parenthesis in quotes are part of the definition.)

So how does the handbook differeniate between these other two? Supernatural abilities are "a magical power" basically not affected by spell resistance, nor invoking an AOO. Otherwise, because they are magic, AMF fields negate them, but dispelling does not.

A spell-like ability "resembles the effects of a spell that shares it's name."

And then we have these maneuvers. In the crusaders fluff, it says that the crusader gets it's powers from being "gifted with NATURAL ability to channel divine energy."

Because your ordinary person doesn't have these abilities, they are EXTRAordinary. The mechanics part of their page says that all maneuvers are such unless specifically stated otherwise in the text. I took a gander. I don't think any of them do state otherwise.

So here is the gist. The crusader has been divinely transformed by a deity or the sheer power of his faith to be able to do these extraordinary feats...naturally. That is why it isn't dispel-able or affected by AMF. A dragon is a magical beast, I think we'd all agree. But, just as in OOTS, even in an AMF, a dragon is STILL a dragon. Right? I think that's the flavor we are supposed to have with the crusader. They are "magical beasts." That's how the gods (or more specifically the designers) intended them to be.

So, you have the choice...Accept the rules as written, or change it in your game.

[Answerer]

I think that's the flavor we are supposed to have with the crusader. They are "magical beasts." That's how the gods (or more specifically the designers) intended them to be.
I like this interpretation.

[Sception]

I like this interpretation.

Works well for me, though I didn't have a problem with these abilities regardless, so I'm not sure what that counts for.

[willpell]

+1 for (Captain) Dylan Hunt!

Oh, how often my life has gotten me to utter the phrase, "It's never easy...."

[Psyren]

than rule it (su) in your games?

I do - this discussion was more about explaining why, and various other posters agreeing and disagreeing for various reasons.


Precisely because it is healing themselves. To me, it's like wiggling your ears. With enough practice/control, most anyone can do it. But how in the Nine Hells do you wiggle someone ELSE'S ears?

Answer? A Wizard Did It. With magic.

I love this analogy.


I think that's the flavor we are supposed to have with the crusader. They are "magical beasts." That's how the gods (or more specifically the designers) intended them to be.

Did they also intend the Swordsage's AC bonus to be useless when they were unarmored? Or for you to IHS the sun away? I think it's every bit as likely that they simply didn't edit the book properly.

For all we know, they actually planned to errata this. But we all know what happened to ToB errata.



So, you have the choice...Accept the rules as written, or change it in your game.

As above, I already change a whole bunch of what ToB has written in my games. (Most of it, using the BG errata.) This is merely one addition to that pile.

In other words, I always houserule parts of the book's content anyway. So I see no problem with doing so here as well. And again, the vast majority of Crusaders won't even be affected.

[jaybird]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Yod3gE2Wn6A#t=480s

Now there's some (Ex) healing for you.

[Deophaun]

Now there's some (Ex) healing for you.
Bah, that's not a realistic simulation like D&D!

[Kelb_Panthera]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Yod3gE2Wn6A#t=480s

Now there's some (Ex) healing for you.

That krogan wasn't injured. I don't see how that has anything at all to do with healing.

[Deophaun]

That krogan wasn't injured. I don't see how that has anything at all to do with healing.

Sick Krogan: They gave me... things. Injections mostly. Sometimes gas. Made me sick. Fever, aches. Can't keep food down.

Sick Krogan: I did! I got back up every time they hit me! So many times...
But aside from constant beatings and medical tests, yeah, he's in perfect shape.

[Psyren]

Krogan have regeneration so this couldn't be less relevant. Crusaders can heal commoners and trolls alike.

Also, if you don't do the whole "inspirational speech/flexy" stuff, he gets up anyway and attacks you so clearly the yelling was not simply to get him feeling better.

[Deophaun]

Also, if you don't do the whole "inspirational speech/flexy" stuff, he gets up anyway and attacks you
And then he dies. Because bullets.

So clearly, speechifying him is necessary for him to not die.

Yes, there are better examples. Conan, for instance has a scene where Conan is lying near death, and then he's mocked into recovering and continuing on an arduous journey.

Conan didn't have regeneration. Of course, there was no muscle flexing or thumbs up given in that scene, so maybe it was magic.

I'm sure TV Tropes has an entire page or ten devoted to it.

[Psyren]

And then he dies. Because bullets.

Right - not, you'll note, because of the disease/torture/what have you.

But the point is that he's capable of getting up without your so-called "Ex healing." This example is meaningless.



Yes, there are better examples. Conan, for instance has a scene where Conan is lying near death, and then he's mocked into recovering and continuing on an arduous journey.

Conan didn't have regeneration. Of course, there was no muscle flexing or thumbs up given in that scene, so maybe it was magic.

That sounds like it had more to do with Conan himself than any kind of healing power of the mocker to me.

[Deophaun]

That sounds like it had more to do with Conan himself than any kind of healing power of the mocker to me.
Which, if you've been paying attention to the arguments on this thread, is exactly how third-party Ex healing works. The external stimulus does nothing to heal. It only provokes the target to heal himself.

[joca4christ]

I do - this discussion was more about explaining why, and various other posters agreeing and disagreeing for various reasons.



I love this analogy.



Did they also intend the Swordsage's AC bonus to be useless when they were unarmored? Or for you to IHS the sun away? I think it's every bit as likely that they simply didn't edit the book properly.

For all we know, they actually planned to errata this. But we all know what happened to ToB errata.



As above, I already change a whole bunch of what ToB has written in my games. (Most of it, using the BG errata.) This is merely one addition to that pile.

In other words, I always houserule parts of the book's content anyway. So I see no problem with doing so here as well. And again, the vast majority of Crusaders won't even be affected.

You may be right about the editing. You definitely have a point about the swordsage AC thing. Never caught that before.

On the other hand, I think one could make the case that the designers did intend for lots of things to work they way they are written. Part of this, you can garner from the fluff, and other examples.

Example One: In the text of Martial Spirit, the writers have this to say about the healing benefits of the stance: "This healing represent the vigor, drive, and toughness you inspire in others. Your connection to the divine causes such inspiration to have a real, tangible result in your allies health."

So the key to this ability is divine, but it isn't described like any other type of healing I have seen described in these books. And what is the connection to the divine? If you'll look at my previous post, you'll see that it is a gift...that these beings have been altered to perform this acts NATURALLY. AKA, magical beasts. Still magic, it just operates under different rules.

First page of the book explicitly states: "The Sublime Way isn't magical, at least, not in a NORMAL sense."

It's clear from this text that the authors intended the effects to operate under different rules than "normal" magic. So they specifically labeled it "extraordinary" rather than make a new label, as extraordinary is an special ability that operates differently (i.e. Under a separate set of rules) than supernatural or spell-like abilities. Why they did this? So that rule lawyers wouldn't try to say these things wouldn't function like the writers intended.

So yeah...I don't think it was a mistake. I think it was intentional. I think the designers wanted to do something a little different, something that would make melee characters more balanced and/or fun to play. If I were a wizard, I'd want to have a crusader or warblade in my party in case I was ever in a situation where my magic didnt work. I'd know theirs did. Isn't that a Batman wizard thing to do?

[Kelb_Panthera]

You may be right about the editing. You definitely have a point about the swordsage AC thing. Never caught that before.

On the other hand, I think one could make the case that the designers did intend for lots of things to work they way they are written. Part of this, you can garner from the fluff, and other examples.

Example One: In the text of Martial Spirit, the writers have this to say about the healing benefits of the stance: "This healing represent the vigor, drive, and toughness you inspire in others. Your connection to the divine causes such inspiration to have a real, tangible result in your allies health."

So the key to this ability is divine, but it isn't described like any other type of healing I have seen described in these books. And what is the connection to the divine? If you'll look at my previous post, you'll see that it is a gift...that these beings have been altered to perform this acts NATURALLY. AKA, magical beasts. Still magic, it just operates under different rules.

First page of the book explicitly states: "The Sublime Way isn't magical, at least, not in a NORMAL sense."

It's clear from this text that the authors intended the effects to operate under different rules than "normal" magic. So they specifically labeled it "extraordinary" rather than make a new label, as extraordinary is an special ability that operates differently (i.e. Under a separate set of rules) than supernatural or spell-like abilities. Why they did this? So that rule lawyers wouldn't try to say these things wouldn't function like the writers intended.

So yeah...I don't think it was a mistake. I think it was intentional. I think the designers wanted to do something a little different, something that would make melee characters more balanced and/or fun to play. If I were a wizard, I'd want to have a crusader or warblade in my party in case I was ever in a situation where my magic didnt work. I'd know theirs did. Isn't that a Batman wizard thing to do?

Which strikes you as more likely?

A)The designers deliberately chose not to add the SU tag to a handful of maneuvers in a book that has a number of editing and balance mistakes

B) They made 2 or 3 more editing/balance mistakes by failing to put the SU tags on the handful of maneuvers in a discipline that's a mix of EX and SU

[Answerer]

Neither of those strikes me as something that any of us can reasonably judge the likelihood of. Both are entirely possible.

But, for me, the unusual wording of Martial Spirit does seem to me that it was intentional. You explicitly do not magically heal the guy, you inspire him to heal himself. Which could still be a Supernatural effect, but it does seem like they were getting at it being Extraordinary. Tome of Battle played with the definition of Extraordinary to begin with.

Also, while the book certainly does have some editing mistakes, it does have notably few, for a WotC publication.

[Deophaun]

B) They made 2 or 3 more editing/balance mistakes by failing to put the SU tags on the handful of maneuvers in a discipline that's a mix of EX and SU
What maneuvers in Devoted Spirit are SU?

Only 2 disciplines have SU maneuvers. That would be Desert Wind and Shadow Hand. Both are only accessible to the Swordsage, which is supposed to be the more mystical of the three classes, and the only one called a "blade wizard." That strikes me as very deliberate.

[joca4christ]

Which strikes you as more likely?

A)The designers deliberately chose not to add the SU tag to a handful of maneuvers in a book that has a number of editing and balance mistakes

B) They made 2 or 3 more editing/balance mistakes by failing to put the SU tags on the handful of maneuvers in a discipline that's a mix of EX and SU

How many editing mistakes are there, really? (Honest question) And then, how many of these are actual editing mistakes and not just, "this doesn't jibe with the way I perceive things, so it must be a mistake?

My analysis of intent is based on attempting to use available context. I have quoted several things that support this idea. I'm not saying that I have offered undeniable proof. I'm just saying there is a good chance RAW is, by and large, what was intended.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What maneuvers in Devoted Spirit are SU?

Only 2 disciplines have SU maneuvers. That would be Desert Wind and Shadow Hand. Both are only accessible to the Swordsage, which is supposed to be the more mystical of the three classes, and the only one called a "blade wizard." That strikes me as very deliberate.

Dang it. I keep forgetting that the 6th level aura stances aren't SU in spite of them generating a visible aura of energy around the adept when they're initiated. The auras of chaos and perfect order alter probability to a degree beyond any rationalization outside of magic and the aura of tyranny actually allows you to transfer your own wounds to willing allies. Figure out how that works without magic and I'll give you a cookie.

[Psyren]

Which, if you've been paying attention to the arguments on this thread, is exactly how third-party Ex healing works. The external stimulus does nothing to heal. It only provokes the target to heal himself.

Except that worked on Conan because he is a durable fighter. It wouldn't have mattered who provoked him, the power to rise up came from within himself. In other words, Conan's the one with the Ex ability, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#diehard) not whoever was yelling at him. And if you paid attention to my arguments, you would know that I am fine with Ex self-healing.

Crusaders are the opposite - they can heal anyone, no matter how tough or experienced they are, from commoners to kings. No other class in the game can do this without magic.



Example One: In the text of Martial Spirit, the writers have this to say about the healing benefits of the stance: "This healing represent the vigor, drive, and toughness you inspire in others. Your connection to the divine causes such inspiration to have a real, tangible result in your allies health."

Bold mine - "divine" is a type of mag-


So the key to this ability is divine, but it isn't described like any other type of healing I have seen described in these books. And what is the connection to the divine? If you'll look at my previous post, you'll see that it is a gift...that these beings have been altered to perform this acts NATURALLY. AKA, magical beasts. Still magic, it just operates under different rules.

So... we agree then? :smallconfused:



First page of the book explicitly states: "The Sublime Way isn't magical, at least, not in a NORMAL sense."

And yet, there are explicitly magical (supernatural) maneuvers. Are those not part of the Sublime Way?



So yeah...I don't think it was a mistake. I think it was intentional. I think the designers wanted to do something a little different, something that would make melee characters more balanced and/or fun to play. If I were a wizard, I'd want to have a crusader or warblade in my party in case I was ever in a situation where my magic didnt work. I'd know theirs did. Isn't that a Batman wizard thing to do?

I'm speaking from a worldbuilding/consistency perspective, not a... I'm not sure what that is, "jealous and paranoid wizard" maybe? ...perspective.

[Deophaun]

Dang it. I keep forgetting that the 6th level aura stances aren't SU in spite of them generating a visible aura of energy around the adept when they're initiated.
I'll admit, there's a reason I do not pay any attention at all to the fluff text for anything. Literally, I had no idea those auras had a visible phenomenon associated with them, because the italicized text just doesn't register.

The auras of chaos and perfect order alter probability to a degree beyond any rationalization outside of magic and the aura of tyranny actually allows you to transfer your own wounds to willing allies. Figure out how that works without magic and I'll give you a cookie.
That's easy, actually. Same way as a revitalizing strike, only done by a sadomasochist.

[joca4christ]

Dang it. I keep forgetting that the 6th level aura stances aren't SU in spite of them generating a visible aura of energy around the adept when they're initiated. The auras of chaos and perfect order alter probability to a degree beyond any rationalization outside of magic and the aura of tyranny actually allows you to transfer your own wounds to willing allies. Figure out how that works without magic and I'll give you a cookie.

Let me ask you this. Does a cleric's or paladin aura of good or aura of evil cease functioning in a AMF?

[Deophaun]

Except that worked on Conan because he is a durable fighter. It wouldn't have mattered who provoked him, the power to rise up came from within himself. In other words, Conan's the one with the Ex ability, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#diehard) not whoever was yelling at him. And if you paid attention to my arguments, you would know that I am fine with Ex self-healing.
Yes yes. And cure light wounds completely recovers evasculation on low HD creatures.

Your objection has nothing to do with the Crusader or EX healing, only with the abstraction of the HP system. Healing does not take into account the durability of the target. Otherwise, you high Con barbarian should recover HP more quickly, naturally, than a low Con sorcerer. Instead, the low Con sorcerer is going to be all healed up more quickly. Same exact issue with the Crusader. Does it shock you to find that the Crusader's Ex healing abilities have the exact same failing as the most common other form of natural healing in the game?

[Psyren]

Let me ask you this. Does a cleric's or paladin aura of good or aura of evil cease functioning in a AMF?

Their aura only affects themselves, so I don't care about that being Ex. Again, self-only abilities have a lot more flavor leeway in that regard.


Yes yes. And cure light wounds completely recovers evasculation on low HD creatures.

I've seen avasculate brought up a couple of times, so I'll address it:

"You shoot a ray of necromantic energy from your outstretched hand, causing any living creature struck by the ray to violently purge blood or other vital fluids through its skin."

The word literally means "emptying veins." So it makes you bleed a lot, the mechanical effect of which is reducing you to half HP. But a normal person can bleed a lot too, or even give a lot of blood, and potentially survive - and I would expect mundanes of the D&D verse to be even more likely to do so. It's all within the realm of possibility. So I'm not sure what bearing that spell has on anything. It's certainly not some kind of silver bullet to the Crusader argument by any stretch.

[joca4christ]

Psyren, not saying crusaders don't utilize magic, of sorts. I'm saying, according to the way it sounds when I read the book in context, their magic works in ways outside of the norm. I'm saying these powers are gifts, magically modifications if you will, that enable these classes to do superhuman things naturally, or, in ways that are not affected by things that normally affect magic.

The designers idea of how devoted spirit healing works is defined in Martial Spirit. No, it doesn't work like how we normally have perceived healing to work. It isn't supposed to. It's supposed to be different. At least, that's how it seems to me by what I have read. This is how the designers wanted the Sublime Way to work. Frankly, I don't understand the relunctance to suspend belief here. It's almost like if you were to read a novel and scoff at how the author had ordered how things work in his world.

If this were a novel, and the writer claimed the moves werent magical, would you say, "Well, he clearly doesn't understand how magic really works!"

[Kelb_Panthera]

Let me ask you this. Does a cleric's or paladin aura of good or aura of evil cease functioning in a AMF?

Might as well. In an AMF they become undetectable and they have no mechanical function outside of how they interact with detection abilities. They also have no visible effects; not that that matters at all.

It may also be worth noting that that class feature doesn't give them an ability no one else has. Every creature has an alignment aura, clerics' and paladins' are just unusually strong.

[Deophaun]

I've seen avasculate brought up a couple of times, so I'll address it
And there you go again, bending over backwards and tying yourself in knots to justify anything but Ex healing. But when a plausible mechanism to make external Ex healing work is presented, you shut down and specify that the solution must come from this gate and this gate alone or you won't accept it.

The fault, dear Psyren, is not in our stars.

[joca4christ]

From Antimagic Field Description:
"The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which case they are treated like any other summoned creatures). Elementals, corporeal undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned."

The creatures here exist because of magic. The fact that they are able to do ANYTHING is because of their magical condition. And yet, they function in AMF.

Crusaders have been altered so they can do magical things via EX means.
This is how their text define them. I don't see why it's an issue.

[Psyren]

Psyren, not saying crusaders don't utilize magic, of sorts. I'm saying, according to the way it sounds when I read the book in context, their magic works in ways outside of the norm. I'm saying these powers are gifts, magically modifications if you will, that enable these classes to do superhuman things naturally, or, in ways that are not affected by things that normally affect magic.

I get that that's what you're saying - the problem is that no such classification exists in D&D. Things are either magic (and subject to things that affect magic, like AMF/DMZ) or not magic, and not. It is binary, with no middle ground.


And there you go again, bending over backwards and tying yourself in knots to justify anything but Ex healing.

Whereas you are bending over backwards and tying yourself in knots to justify Tome of Battle's wonderful editing (and similarly wonderful errata.)

It would be a lot easier to rationalize if I had other examples of ex non-self-healing besides one class from a badly-edited book. If they had truly intended it, wouldn't there be many more? Rather than just about every single other example of this being magic in some way?