A ToB hypothetical

[Eldan]

You've all seen it. People complain that the Tome of Battle makes fighter too much like spellcasters.

So, here's my question.

How would balance be affected if Tome of Battle characters did not need to prepare maneuvers? If they just had access to all of them?

Instead of a preparation mechanic, there would perhaps be a "maneuvers per combat" mechanic, or a cooldown timer on each maneuver, or a fatigue system. Would that really be any kind of problem?

[Pesimismrocks]

It's make them far more powerful, and obselte all mud antes while still being dwarfed by full casters. ToB causes lots of problems like this. I don't think they need any access to more power and I like the idea of having certain manuevers that you have trained in.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You've all seen it. People complain that the Tome of Battle makes fighter too much like spellcasters.

So, here's my question.

How would balance be affected if Tome of Battle characters did not need to prepare maneuvers? If they just had access to all of them?

Instead of a preparation mechanic, there would perhaps be a "maneuvers per combat" mechanic, or a cooldown timer on each maneuver, or a fatigue system. Would that really be any kind of problem?
I don't think the balance would be affected that much. Maybe a slight move upwards, highest for the Swordsage and lowest for the Warblade.

A cooldown timer would get derided as "too World of Warcraft." (Disclaimer: I really like cooldown timers; they feel much better to me than X/duration limits; and I don't personally subscribe to the aforementioned objection at all). People might accept maneuvers per combat, though.

But I don't think that the readied mechanics are what make people call the book "too magic," though. The real problems there, if you ask me, are:

The pseudo-Eastern "blade magic" fluff.
People who look at the list without realizing that Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are exclusive to the explicitly-magical Swordsage.
The fact that the maneuvers are organized by levels, just like spells.


The first is silly; the second is an erroneous assumption and can't really be addressed except through better education. The last is the only area where something could be done. Some sort of branching skill tree, perhaps, with initiator level requirements. So you get:

Elder Mountain Hammer
Requirements: Mountain Hammer, Bonecrusher, Initiator Level 7
Effects: blah blah blah +6d6 damage

[Phelix-Mu]

The presentation and organization of maneuvers in ToB is so bad that I literally did a double take the first couple of times. It's very irritating to have the index by level and the full descriptions be alphabetically by discipline. It would have been much easier to just organize all the maneuver descriptions alphabetically, like the spells in the PHB.
/rant

But the levels system is almost entirely irrelevant, as the requirements to take each maneuver exert more control over the timing that one can select them. It's very silly that some of the higher level maneuvers don't require other maneuvers known. Two questions come to mind:
1.) What does a high level maneuver represent? Does the higher level maneuver mean a stronger effect, in which case you want to delay access to said maneuver.
2.) Shouldn't a more powerful maneuver have a requirement? If we just decided not to give away the nice toys to noobs for free, then make the bar uniform. The way it's set up now seems a little arbitrary.

Finally, they probably over-fluffed some of the stuff. I haven't read the entirety of the ToB, but the part that I have read is very colorful.

I've considered implementing a more broad-based mundane fix of something like "major skill tricks" that would refresh each encounter and give unique uses of skills in combat according to what class you are, and give each mundane class a progression at which they'd acquire major skill tricks for free. It seems like a ton of work.

Ideally, there would be ten times more maneuvers than exist now, they'd work for other, non-melee classes, and have more out-of-combat use. I'm not looking for a spellbook for mundanes, but a representation of what heroic mundanes should be able to accomplish through skill, grit, determination, and psychotic levels of training.

[Spuddles]

High level maneuvers without requirements aren't arbitrary. They're there so a high level initiator has something relevant to do vs. high DR opponents without wasting half his build on overcoming damage reduction.

If you think it's arbitrary, you should really go back and look through the maneuvers and think of them in the context of what makes melee bad at high levels in combat. They TOB system is actually quite elegant and exceptionally well thought out for a piece of WotC work. At least from a gamist perspective.

It's about build investment. Prepared casters have very little investment in their build to pull off really crazy shenanigans. Requiring that even the most mundane and standard of things require the same amount of investment, and real character investment, not some bull**** 24hr thing that casters get, is bad game design.

It's about opportunity cost. Things like teleporting as a switt action have high opportunity cost because they're badass, unique, and offer a high degree of tactical advantage. Hitting something very hard for 8d6 extra damage and overcoming DR isn't particularly special. It actually defines Tiers 4 & 5. Picking up a T5 ability shouldn't force you to forsake a T3 or T2 ability.

[Namfuak]

I don't think people that dislike ToB would be sated by changing the mechanics while still keeping most of the benefits. The problem is not that they dislike spellcasters, or even gish characters, it is that they think that non-spellcasters should not have nice things. So long as non-spellcasters are getting nice things, they will dislike it.

As for the OP's actual idea, I don't think the first would be particularly overpowered, so long as you still have a limited number of known maneuvers, but the second and third just create unnecessary bookkeeping so far as I'm concerned (and directly conflict with the crusader's recovery mechanic, unless I'm misunderstanding the suggestion).

[Spuddles]

I don't think people that dislike ToB would be sated by changing the mechanics while still keeping most of the benefits. The problem is not that they dislike spellcasters, or even gish characters, it is that they think that non-spellcasters should not have nice things. So long as non-spellcasters are getting nice things, they will dislike it.

As for the OP's actual idea, I don't think the first would be particularly overpowered, so long as you still have a limited number of known maneuvers, but the second and third just create unnecessary bookkeeping so far as I'm concerned (and directly conflict with the crusader's recovery mechanic, unless I'm misunderstanding the suggestion).

Yep.
If you ever look at the "fixes" that people who don't like ToB propose, it inevitably looks like a PF fighter with crap PF fighter feats.

[ArcturusV]

Yup, this idea that fighters have to be "Realistic", for some quality of movie hero "Realistic" to be certain, as the high level Fighter could have been shot by dozens of rifles and still keep on going, like an Action Hero.

Give them something though like a FF Dragoon's Jump, or a "Swordbeam" or chuck a train car like it was throwing a glass across a bar room? Tends to get people saying things like "Weeabo Fightan Magic!".

Which I think is kinda funny when I instead replicate some feat a Greek Hero or American Folk Hero, or something did and the first thing that hops into people's head is some Anime.

[StreamOfTheSky]

As far as the OP's idea goes, it depends heavily on how long the martial adept would have to wait for the "cool down" or whatever to end. As ToB stands now, you can spam your best stuff every other round or so (or in a pinch, back to back round using 1/day feats and the like). If the suggested houserule makes it take longer to regain use of a maneuver than ToB currently allows for, the change might in some ways actually be a *nerf*.

And high level maneuvers w/o pre-reqs are a good thing. You shouldn't have to build up a whole house of cards to reach any high level options; casters don't have to do that crap with their spells. I've long said martials need more GOOD feats that require a high level and...nothing else. At all. Enough of the feat trees. Enough of the garbage feats that exist only to be gatekeepers to the stuff people actually want.

I'm sick of it.

[Cerlis]

I don't think people that dislike ToB would be sated by changing the mechanics while still keeping most of the benefits. The problem is not that they dislike spellcasters, or even gish characters, it is that they think that non-spellcasters should not have nice things. So long as non-spellcasters are getting nice things, they will dislike it.

As for the OP's actual idea, I don't think the first would be particularly overpowered, so long as you still have a limited number of known maneuvers, but the second and third just create unnecessary bookkeeping so far as I'm concerned (and directly conflict with the crusader's recovery mechanic, unless I'm misunderstanding the suggestion).

close.

its that this system MAKES them spellcasters.

So non spellcasters can have nice things. But ToB makes them spellcasters so that doesnt matter.


Its like the same eye-roll issue when someone says stuff like "A wizard can be flavored as a warrior, just have a fireball be shrapnel damage and caused by throwing his weapon".

[limejuicepowder]

close.

its that this system MAKES them spellcasters.

So non spellcasters can have nice things. But ToB makes them spellcasters so that doesnt matter.


Its like the same eye-roll issue when someone says stuff like "A wizard can be flavored as a warrior, just have a fireball be shrapnel damage and caused by throwing his weapon".

Except for desert wind and shadow hand, the two supernatural styles, I very much disagree with you. ToB finally allowed mundanes to do the stuff they should have been doing from the beginning: being good at combat, with more options than "charge" or "move" or "full attack."

Throwing enemies? Inspiring allies? Overcoming effects with grit and determination? Protecting allies? Yes to all, and more. With ToB, a "paladin" can actually be a paladin; that is, protecting the weak, be a helpful and inspiring leader, and capable combatant. The same goes for seasoned fighters, or any other martial archtype.

[Grod_The_Giant]

close.

its that this system MAKES them spellcasters.

So non spellcasters can have nice things. But ToB makes them spellcasters so that doesnt matter.


Its like the same eye-roll issue when someone says stuff like "A wizard can be flavored as a warrior, just have a fireball be shrapnel damage and caused by throwing his weapon".
Do me a favor. Pick up a copy of the ToB. Read through the Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Setting Sun, Stone Dragon, and White Raven disciplines. Find me one maneuver that's a clearly a spell.

[Phelix-Mu]

So, the point I was trying to make (and I may have made it badly), is that, why do nice, useful, higher-level maneuvers have less pre-requisites than lower level, less useful maneuvers? I wasn't looking for requirements for everything, just a sense that, especially for low-level powers, there is flexibility in selection. As it stands, to get some 1st-2nd level maneuvers, you have to take the only other no requirement 1st level maneuver. Why does Sudden Leap require me to take Wolf-Fang Strike? But Shadow Blink requires nothing? Please tell me that it doesn't work like this; I honestly am not a ToB expert by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm just asking that, if there is some kind of hierarchy of choices, that it not give me false options (maneuver tax...is that a thing?). Consistency.

This is mostly just nitpicking, though. Overall I think it works well. If anything, I think maneuvers known should be a little larger, or a more lenient retraining mechanism. *sigh* So much to know about such an imperfect (if beautiful) game....:smallredface:

[ZamielVanWeber]

I always figured that when they forget the prerequisites it is a typo (Elder Mountain Hammer what?).

Also, with the retraining mechanism, you can trade out useless lower level powers for higher level ones (using the higher level ones to fill the prerequisites for the other higher level ones), so picking your maneuvers well can really benefit you.

[Talionis]

If you are looking for an alternative method for recharge, the simplest might be the Binder in official recharge method of powers only being able to be used every 5 rounds.

I think a lot of people think that if no casters get to do anything a real live living person couldn't do then they are spellcasters. I think it's silly that fighters and cease being competitive after the first ten levels, and that maybe being generous.

The biggest problem is casters are more flexible in the different things and situations they can be effective in. Tome of Battle doesn't close to putting no casters on the same power level as full casters. All ToB does is make non casters more flexible and have more options.

And I think anyone that gets confused by ToB is a little stupid or very lazy. There are some poorly written things in it that we're never errata d but on the whole the system is very easy to understand.

[Spuddles]

I always figured that when they forget the prerequisites it is a typo (Elder Mountain Hammer what?).

Also, with the retraining mechanism, you can trade out useless lower level powers for higher level ones (using the higher level ones to fill the prerequisites for the other higher level ones), so picking your maneuvers well can really benefit you.

Elder Mountain Hammer is most definitely not a typo. It's to throw a halp to all those tiger claw swordsages that girallon windmill flesh rip to naught vs. DR.

[Deophaun]

I always figured that when they forget the prerequisites it is a typo (Elder Mountain Hammer what?).
When they forgot the prerequisite to wish, that was a typo.

[Aegis013]

I always figured that when they forget the prerequisites it is a typo (Elder Mountain Hammer what?).


I figured it wasn't a typo. It's certainly not the strongest 9th level maneuver, it's the one school available to everybody. I always thought the designers had the presence of mind to provide an option in case you somehow don't meet the prerequisites for any of the other 9th level maneuvers, so that you don't accidentally make yourself unable to get 9ths somehow. Or at the very least, guarantee that you'll be able to get at least two 9ths rather than just one; the one you make certain you meet the prerequisites for and Stone Dragon's.

[ArcturusV]

Do me a favor. Pick up a copy of the ToB. Read through the Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Setting Sun, Stone Dragon, and White Raven disciplines. Find me one maneuver that's a clearly a spell.

To be fair, I mean right at the start of Tome of Battle, when they define a Maneuver, this is what they say:

"A maneuver is a specific, one-shot effect that a martial adept initiates. In this way, a maneuver is similar to a spell."

Which might suggest that people who compare it to "Fightan Magics!" and such probably just read the first bit describing it. But the book does make the comparison right off the bat, and isn't exactly hiding it.

Not that it should matter at all. Don't get me wrong. Just saying there is some justification for that idea being out there in the aether.

[Komatik]

My reaction tends to be: "Damn, all those historical master swordsmen who wrote manuals for their craft should've been burnt as witches: Clearly it was magic. Predescribed actions for set effect and all that. Sorry Talhoffer, hope the fire is warm enough."

[Greenish]

My reaction tends to be: "Damn, all those historical master swordsmen who wrote manuals for their craft should've been burnt as witches: Clearly it was magic. Predescribed actions for set effect and all that. Sorry Talhoffer, hope the fire is warm enough."Oh, don't be silly, everyone knows only the East had martial arts, and medieval europeans just walloped each others with blunt swords.

[Shining Wrath]

As far as the OP's idea goes, it depends heavily on how long the martial adept would have to wait for the "cool down" or whatever to end. As ToB stands now, you can spam your best stuff every other round or so (or in a pinch, back to back round using 1/day feats and the like). If the suggested houserule makes it take longer to regain use of a maneuver than ToB currently allows for, the change might in some ways actually be a *nerf*.

And high level maneuvers w/o pre-reqs are a good thing. You shouldn't have to build up a whole house of cards to reach any high level options; casters don't have to do that crap with their spells. I've long said martials need more GOOD feats that require a high level and...nothing else. At all. Enough of the feat trees. Enough of the garbage feats that exist only to be gatekeepers to the stuff people actually want.

I'm sick of it.

Yep. If a feat isn't worth taking on it's own, that's not a good feat, and then requiring it as a pre-req for another feat is just deliberately breaking characters.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I figured it wasn't a typo. It's certainly not the strongest 9th level maneuver, it's the one school available to everybody. I always thought the designers had the presence of mind to provide an option in case you somehow don't meet the prerequisites for any of the other 9th level maneuvers, so that you don't accidentally make yourself unable to get 9ths somehow. Or at the very least, guarantee that you'll be able to get at least two 9ths rather than just one; the one you make certain you meet the prerequisites for and Stone Dragon's.

Fair enough. That book had some critical typo issues (Swordsage gets ALL the skillpoints.) that they did not bother to fix in the insanely short errata to the book so it is really difficult to tell.

[Aegis013]

Fair enough. That book had some critical typo issues (Swordsage gets ALL the skillpoints.) that they did not bother to fix in the insanely short errata to the book so it is really difficult to tell.

Oh certainly it is difficult to tell. We all know that a lot of books in 3.5 got pretty poor editing and ToB came pretty late, so there wasn't a whole lot of time or likely resources put into revision/editing/proofing, and there are certainly a few issues. Iron Heart Surge could be more clear, White Raven Tactics, imo, ought to have a "can't target self" clause, etc.

So it may be a typo, I always just thought it wasn't. (Totally agree on the SS skills points being a typo, since every other class has *4 at first level)

[Menzath]

You know as a whole ToB is alright, and I have read and re-read it many times and done some fun math.
on average the highest level manuevers do about the same damage as a par fighter doing a full attack.

I think the main problem is that people have B.N.S.(Big Number Syndrome) associated with casters, and seeing a non-caster do something similar is very threatening.
Or some of the more useful manuevers that do utility or aiding actions people seem to feel sudden suprise that a player did, and can do that repeatedly with no large resource expenditure. Some of these being the equivelent to feats or spells themselves.

But like warlocks they are limited in the number of these they can have, I mean a sorc gets about 40ish spells( not including 0's) and a swordsage gets 26? known (no books on me so sorta guessed)

[Komatik]

Which is strange because the power of spells is in everything but the numbers (At least as far as direct damage goes).
Same thing with ToB - it doesn't make sword guys do more damage, it makes them more mobile, able to control some space, able to dish out status effects, gives them stuff to do outside combat with some extra skill points, gives them rudimentary defenses against nasty things monsters and casters throw at them, gives them tools against the trickier defenses high level monsters have.

Plus the fun, of course.