Abstract question about ToB

[SolioFebalas]

I recently read Tom of Battle with it's awesome maneuvers etc. And one thought haunts me. My party is a lazy bastards who don't read any dnd books, and always uses core and complete. Wouldn't it be that i with my warblade looking too strong on their background. So it seems to me that the maneuvers in comparison with the standard (or even from complete) classes are much stronger.

[eggynack]

Well, the way it works is this. Warblades have a very high floor of optimization compared to their ceiling, so in a low optimization party, they can seem overpowered. Additionally, in a party of just fighter tiered guys, warblades will probably be actually overpowered. However, if the party is made up of caster types, your party members could easily outstrip you in terms of power and versatility. Thus, as is always so, balance is relative. You should probably tell us what your party make up is, or else the term overpowered is kinda meaningless.

[Larkas]

I recently read Tom of Battle with it's awesome maneuvers etc. And one thought haunts me. My party is a lazy bastards who don't read any dnd books, and always uses core and complete. Wouldn't it be that i with my warblade looking too strong on their background. So it seems to me that the maneuvers in comparison with the standard (or even from complete) classes are much stronger.

ToB classes are only comparatively better than non-spellcasters. Bards, Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers and Druids will only be weaker than them if your party really doesn't know what it's doing, and even then only until they wisen up... Well, you said it yourself that they are lazy. ToB's maneuvers are non-standard, and only seem comparatively stronger when you're coming from the "Fighter hits things" paradigm. Compared to spells, they are fairly weak and less versatile.

[Amphetryon]

Well, the way it works is this. Warblades have a very high floor of optimization compared to their ceiling, so in a low optimization party, they can seem overpowered. Additionally, in a party of just fighter tiered guys, warblades will probably be actually overpowered. However, if the party is made up of caster types, your party members could easily outstrip you in terms of power and versatility. Thus, as is always so, balance is relative. You should probably tell us what your party make up is, or else the term overpowered is kinda meaningless.

Yep. Core + Completes could still be Wizard, Cleric and Druid as 3/4 of your adventuring team; in such a group, I'd be hard-pressed to justify calling Warblade, Crusader, or Swordsage "overpowered" by most definitions.

[Blightedmarsh]

The general consensus is that the TOB was built to fix three of the most broken core classes; The fighter (warblade), paladin (Crusader) and swordsage (Monk)

TOB effectively obsoletes these classes.

[Larkas]

The general consensus is that the TOB was built to fix three of the most broken core classes; The fighter (warblade), paladin (Crusader) and swordsage (Monk)

TOB effectively obsoletes these classes.

Just to clarify, Blightedmarsh meant "broken bad", not "broken good".

[KillianHawkeye]

You could definitely spark some complaints if anybody likes playing Fighters and Monks for more than 2 levels. Also, make sure your DM is not of the "mundane warriors have to be realistic because they can't do magic" variety. There tends to be a double standard there.

[Larkas]

You could definitely spark some complaints if anybody likes playing Fighters and Monks for more than 2 levels. Also, make sure your DM is not of the "mundane warriors have to be realistic because they can't do magic" variety. There tends to be a double standard there.

To be fair, only one school is overtly supernatural, and another one is subtly so. But yes, it helps to know where you're treading.

[Zombimode]

The general consensus is that the TOB was built to fix three of the most broken core classes; The fighter (warblade), paladin (Crusader) and swordsage (Monk)

TOB effectively obsoletes these classes.

Actually, it doesn't.

While its true that warblade, crusader and swordsage roughly capture the flavor of fighter, paladin and monk respectively, mechanically they all do different things and thus the former simply can't obsolete they later.

Single class ToB classes are fine choices, but I don't see the point in comparing the different matrial classes to each other. Martial classes typically multiclass very well, especially the ToB classes, and they do profit much from it.

So instead comparing say, the Fighter to the Warblade, I prefer to think of what cool things I could do with a Fighter/Warblade :smallsmile:

[Talya]

Actually, it doesn't.

While its true that warblade, crusader and swordsage roughly capture the flavor of fighter, paladin and monk respectively, mechanically they all do different things and thus the former simply can't obsolete they later.

Single class ToB classes are fine choices, but I don't see the point in comparing the different matrial classes to each other. Martial classes typically multiclass very well, especially the ToB classes, and they do profit much from it.

So instead comparing say, the Fighter to the Warblade, I prefer to think of what cool things I could do with a Fighter/Warblade :smallsmile:


There's no reason to do more than dip 2 levels of fighter or monk if TOB classes are on the table. Paladin has several uses Crusader can't duplicate at all (devoted performer tricks, for instance.)

[Ivellius]

To be fair, only one school is overtly supernatural, and another one is subtly so. But yes, it helps to know where you're treading.

I'm curious as to which ones you're identifying. I'd argue that Shadow Hand and Desert Wind are both overtly supernatural, and Devoted Spirit seems subtly so. The rest aren't, however, and I'm not a DM that has a problem with any of that.

[Larkas]

I'm curious as to which ones you're identifying. I'd argue that Shadow Hand and Desert Wind are both overtly supernatural, and Devoted Spirit seems subtly so. The rest aren't, however, and I'm not a DM that has a problem with any of that.

I was thinking of DW as overtly and SH as subtly. Is SH that overt? The only time I've used its maneuvers in a build was when I rebuilt a friend's monk using Martial Study to get Shadow Blade. :smallredface:

[Draz74]

I was thinking of DW as overtly and SH as subtly. Is SH that overt? The only time I've used its maneuvers in a build was when I rebuilt a friend's monk using Martial Study to get Shadow Blade. :smallredface:

Shadow Hand has a bunch of maneuvers that are officially labeled [Supernatural], including things like invisibility and Darth Vader-style telekinetic chokes. Also teleportation maneuvers, which aren't labeled [Su], but should be.

Devoted Spirit has a handful of maneuvers that aren't [Su], but probably should be. But all Disciplines include some manuevers that are unrealistically amazing enough that they will appear "magical" in some people's imaginations. So how many Disciplines are "subtly magical" is a highly subjective question, at some level. (Personally, Lightning Throw always seemed very magical to me. And I can see why some people feel that way about Earthstrike Quake too.)

[KillianHawkeye]

And I believe the fluff for Stone Dragon has you drawing the strength of the earth into your strikes, which is why you can't use Stone Dragon maneuvers if you aren't standing on solid ground. Doesn't sound completely mundane to me.

[Shining Wrath]

For people whose focus is hitting enemies with swords, the Tome of Battle classes are the best. Other classes do other things better than ToB classes.

The ToB classes all allow you to do things that aren't physically possible. So does Monk. So does fighter, really; four attacks in a fraction of a 6 second round?

[Komatik]

For people whose focus is hitting enemies with swords, the Tome of Battle classes are the best. Other classes do other things better than ToB classes.

The ToB classes all allow you to do things that aren't physically possible. So does Monk. So does fighter, really; four attacks in a fraction of a 6 second round?

I'd argue that a dire tortoise with an army of earth elementals does the "hitting things" pretty well. Unless you want to be classy and be a bear riding a bear shooting bears, which is of course highly advisable, as long as you have enough monocles and tophats for all of them.

[eggynack]

I'd argue that a dire tortoise with an army of earth elementals does the "hitting things" pretty well. Unless you want to be classy and be a bear riding a bear shooting bears, which is of course highly advisable, as long as you have enough monocles and tophats for all of them.
Well, they can certainly hit things to a better degree of power than most, but it probably won't involve swords in any way. Also, I have to wonder if there's a way to get a summon spell to include hats as part of what it does. Maybe if you use the variant in which you summon particular animals, and then you give all of them hats.

[tyckspoon]

Also, I have to wonder if there's a way to get a summon spell to include hats as part of what it does. Maybe if you use the variant in which you summon particular animals, and then you give all of them hats.

Depends on how you think summons work, I guess. If you feel that it pulls an actual creature (or duplicates an actual creature so as to preserve the 'no animals were harmed in the casting of this spell' aspect), that creature would have to be wearing a hat already. If you think it creates a new image of a creature completely, then I would say the caster should have free reign to modify cosmetic details of his summons such as possession of hats.

(Also, I don't normally recommend it because you are already permitted to make most such flavor changes to how your spells look.. but this might be a legit application of the Spell Thematics feat.)

[eggynack]

Depends on how you think summons work, I guess. If you feel that it pulls an actual creature (or duplicates an actual creature so as to preserve the 'no animals were harmed in the casting of this spell' aspect), that creature would have to be wearing a hat already. If you think it creates a new image of a creature completely, then I would say the caster should have free reign to modify cosmetic details of his summons such as possession of hats.

(Also, I don't normally recommend it because you are already permitted to make most such flavor changes to how your spells look.. but this might be a legit application of the Spell Thematics feat.)
I'm pretty sure that it usually doesn't pull specific creatures when you summon. However, I remember seeing a variant where you actually pull the same creatures every time you cast the spell. I don't remember where the variant was, or what advantages it provided, but I don't think I'm just making it up. Spell thematics requires arcane spell casting, but if you're not going to use it to put top hats and monocles on bears, what are you going to use it on?

Another idea, is building a druid so powerful that he can afford to spend a turn after every summons putting hats and monocles on all of his bears. That'd be a move that is full of the meats and cheeses of classiness.

[Shining Wrath]

I'd argue that a dire tortoise with an army of earth elementals does the "hitting things" pretty well. Unless you want to be classy and be a bear riding a bear shooting bears, which is of course highly advisable, as long as you have enough monocles and tophats for all of them.

Do those earth elementals have swords? Well, do they?