Tomb of battle broken of not?

[Grayson01]

What dose the world think about the Tomb of Battle broken or not? Give reasons why and why not? Or do you think it balances a mellee and casters, but leaves some of the other skill based charters far behind?

[jguy]

Not broken because it allows Melee to get through DR and teleport at times, but it does not allow them to become a solar nor can they summon something that makes melee character redundant.

[limejuicepowder]

This is probably going to be ninja'd, but I'll say it any way.

Tome of Battle is one of the best things to happen to 3.5.

It's very balanced and well designed, giving melee something to do besides make attack and damage rolls then wait to get hit. Essentially, it lets them be an active member of combat similar to how the casters already are. It also gives them something to do with swift and immediate actions, which is nice.

Power-wise, almost all of ToB is very solid. They are quite good right out of the box, especially at lower levels. They are in fact so hard to mess up it can potentially be unbalancing in low-OP groups. If your play group likes sword and board fighters, straight TWF rangers, and monks, ToB is probably not for you. Otherwise, I highly recommend it.

Edit: whoops I spelled "tome" wrong too. Don't I feel stupid

[Urpriest]

Tomb of Battle is totally broken. Spheres of Annihilation with Warblade levels? Totally cheesy.

[limejuicepowder]

Tomb of Battle is totally broken. Spheres of Annihilation with Warblade levels? Totally cheesy.

.......what?

[Thiyr]

The Tomb of Battle is a terrible thing for D&D. What could be good about the place our fighters (not the class, but the concept of one who fights) going to die be a good thing?

The TOME of battle, on the other hand, is a wonderful book that is surprisingly versatile, and provided an easy-to-understand yet potent addition to the more martially inclined, giving them something sorely needed: options. Does it balance the game as a whole? No. Does it drag people who want to carry a stick to hit people with up, without forcing them to use spellcasting? Yes. Is it more potent than a fighter? Yes, but still a far cry from most any full caster. Its good stuff, though.

[Gavinfoxx]

Everyone is joking about the fact that he is spelling it 'Tomb'.

Anyway, if you want balanced, use these classes:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174628

As your 'allowed' classes.

[Callin]

When it comes to Melee or even just adding some melee tricks to a build ToB is the Bee's Knee's for me. I love this book.

Its no more broken that any other book combo cherry picking the best flavors and combos to totally destroy stuff.

[Urpriest]

.......what?

...Tomb of Battle. I'm assuming it's some sort of unholy mix of Tomb of Horrors and Tome of Battle. What did you think it was?

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's not broken.

I makes warrior types more useful in and out of combat, especially the classes in ToB themselves. Any class can take maneuvers from the book, but none can really benefit nearly as much as the actual adept classes. The fix seemed more aimed at replacing the bad core melee classes than it was to improve them.

I do think the rogue type classes really could have used a boon/replacement like ToB was for the warrior types.

The ToB classes are still not nearly as powerful as a spellcaster, though in combat they can perform respectably compared to most casters.

My favorite parts of ToB were the new and expanded capabilities, like Iron Heart Surge, all the White Raven stuff to boost allies, the save replacers, the setting sun throws (even if they don't work at all as advertised and are underpowered), the martial save or suck/lose/die higher level options, supernatural powers like fading into a ghost or walking on air, and the means to skirmish with (swift action movement things, basically, but also Desert Tempest and other strikes). My favorite attack, Lightning Throw, lets you do a line area of effect and target REFLEX instead of AC! It's awesome!
My least favorite parts of ToB are that there is still too many strikes devoted to just doing mondo damage and that a lot of fights end up feeling too similar because of the disparity in power of the maneuvers and your limited access to the highest level ones at any given point means you're best off spending the first few rounds of every encounter spamming the exact same maneuvers every time. I know constantly full attacking is even duller technically, but the generic-ness of the full attack allows for a lot of changes in description from one to the next, so it doesn't feel as much like you're doing the exact same thing as last round. While as when you're starting every combat with Swooping Dragon Strike... the repetitiveness is just a lot more apparent. If that makes any sense.

[limejuicepowder]

...Tomb of Battle. I'm assuming it's some sort of unholy mix of Tomb of Horrors and Tome of Battle. What did you think it was?

Yeah I get it now. 1 dunce cap for me. This is what happens when I try to type coherently while thinking about my favorite DnD book in the world.

[mattie_p]

...Tomb of Battle. I'm assuming it's some sort of unholy mix of Tomb of Horrors and Tome of Battle.

Which totally needs to be a thing right now.

[Justyn]

[...] but it does not allow them to become a solar [...]

Well yeah, game balance goes right out the window when you start putting Exalted into the mix.

[limejuicepowder]

Which totally needs to be a thing right now.

Easy-peasy. Give every monster one level of a martial adept class. Same with the traps. Now you get mountain hammer'd by a falling ceiling tile.

[Waker]

Which totally needs to be a thing right now.
And now someone in Homebrew will make up a Sublime Undead Initiator.

As to the OP's question, no. ToB is not broken as it comes out roughly in the T3 range for power. Any core caster can still completely outperform a ToB if they want to, while several of the core mundane can still get more damage out if they build for it. ToB however gives the player of a warrior something else to do aside from "I attack it" or "I attack it really hard."

[StreamOfTheSky]

Easy-peasy. Give every monster one level of a martial adept class. Same with the traps. Now you get mountain hammer'd by a falling ceiling tile.

Give a Mimic martial adept levels and have it turn into traps.

[limejuicepowder]

Give a Mimic martial adept levels and have it turn into traps.

That would be pretty boss actually. I've always wanted to use a mimic but I forget about them when planning my campaigns.

[Kazyan]

ToB is broken for low-level games with optimization levels up to "mild", because of its high optimization floor. Otherwise, it's neato. It's also broken compared to almost every other sourcebook for optimizing forum arguments.

[CyberThread]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/alumni_mimic1st.jpg


This is an unarmed swordsage mimic

[Amnestic]

I do think the rogue type classes really could have used a boon/replacement like ToB was for the warrior types.

Doesn't Factotum fill that slot pretty well? Also arguably Beguiler if you feel like adding a bit of casting into it.

[MirddinEmris]

ToB is broken for low-level games with optimization levels up to "mild", because of its high optimization floor. Otherwise, it's neato. It's also broken compared to almost every other sourcebook for optimizing forum arguments.

I don't think that high optimization floor means broken. They are still T3-T4, they can't break your campaign like spellcasters, for example and they are much more predictable than casters.

[Jeff the Green]

I don't think that high optimization floor means broken. They are still T3-T4, they can't break your campaign like spellcasters, for example and they are much more predictable than casters.

There is still the distinct possibility that in a party of Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, and Warblade, that the Warblade will overshadow the other three if they're all unoptimized. It's hard to screw up a Warblade. It's easy to screw up the other three.

[limejuicepowder]

I don't think that high optimization floor means broken. They are still T3-T4, they can't break your campaign like spellcasters, for example and they are much more predictable than casters.

Eh, they can make fighters, barbs, paladins, and rangers almost entirely obsolete, if the op is low enough. Warblades and crusaders are idiot proof, while the core classes can be put together very very poorly.

[Kazyan]

I don't think that high optimization floor means broken. They are still T3-T4, they can't break your campaign like spellcasters, for example and they are much more predictable than casters.

It doesn't, usually. You just have to watch out in low-OP games, where power imbalance can happen. There's a reason ToB gets banned.

On the other hand, I'm regurgitating advice in a form designed to be slightly askew to board consensus. So there's that.

EDIT: Swordsages to my Rogue, man.

[Terazul]

Eh, they can make fighters, barbs, paladins, and rangers almost entirely obsolete, if the op is low enough. Warblades and crusaders are idiot proof, while the core classes can be put together very very poorly.
...Yeah, but being "better" than other classes that are, at their very base poor or mediocre at that job (I'm looking at you, monk) doesn't mean you're broken. It just mean those classes suck. Also, charging fighters and barbs still outdamage all the ToB classes, the ToB just adds options other than overwhelming numbers of damage. Throw some dudes, have some status effects, etc. Most of the time I see the book banned is either knee jerk reactions to what some of the strikes do: "+1d6[3.5] damage as a standard action? That's double what he normally does!", or general disagreement with what "flavor" entails, which I'm not gonna get into.

But broken? No.

[Steward]

I guess ToB is broken in the sense that it highlights how mediocre some of the Core classes are. Warblades outshine monks and fighters not because warblades are overpowered but because monks have quantity-over-quality and MAD issues and fighters don't get any real options in Core.

[limejuicepowder]

...Yeah, but being "better" than other classes that are, at their very base poor or mediocre at that job (I'm looking at you, monk) doesn't mean you're broken. It just mean those classes suck. Also, charging fighters and barbs still outdamage all the ToB classes, the ToB just adds options other than overwhelming numbers of damage. Throw some dudes, have some status effects, etc. Most of the time I see the book banned is either knee jerk reactions to what some of the strikes do: "+1d6[3.5] damage as a standard action? That's double what he normally does!", or general disagreement with what "flavor" entails, which I'm not gonna get into.

But broken? No.

My point is that ToB being significantly better than low-OP core melee can really rub people the wrong way, giving the impression that it's overpowered. This really applies to low-OP core anything; a wizard who only blasts with no metamagic is probably going to feel pretty lame next to the warblade.

ToB has the highest op floor of anything in the game. Sometimes, this means they will be the strongest, thus overpowered.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Echoing the others here. Tome of battle is just plain fun. It gives your martial characters much more options, is usable straight out of the box, is extremely dip-friendly, and nearly idiot-proof. However, if you're in a low-power party, it can highlight weaknesses, and there are some maneuvers and stances that can be manipulated.

My personal opinion is that it's perfectly fine to use it, and loads of fun, but don't take advantage of, say, Iron Heart Surge shenanigans. However, you could say the same thing about wizards, clerics, and druids as well.

[eggynack]

There are actually some regions of low optimization in which warblades are one of the most powerful classes in the game. That's because they have an optimization floor that's surprisingly close to its ceiling, and using their class abilities is as easy as using their class abilities. The lowest powered wizards are probably weaker than the lowest powered warblades. At any level above the bare minimum, warblades fall right back into the normal tier system, but they can give off the impression of being overpowered in low-op games. They're definitely not broken though, mostly because it's a term that doesn't mean much. I'd only use the term as applied to really degenerate combos, like planar shepards with 10:1 time dilation, and pun-pun. I suppose that the 1d2 crusader qualifies, but, y'know, just don't do that. That's actually broken.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Is it broken? No
Does it have a few bad workings? Maybe
Was it poorly edited after publishing? Hell yes.

[Gildedragon]

Easy-peasy. Give every monster one level of a martial adept class. Same with the traps. Now you get mountain hammer'd by a falling ceiling tile.

I think what's worse is that even if you make your save the trap can iron heart surge you away. that's actually how a sphere of annihilation works.

And no ToB isn't broken. Hell; it's anti-broken. It's fun, easy to add, easy to integrate into a game, and gives melee things that mages have a harder time making useless.

[Gavinfoxx]

You might want to consider the unofficial errata...

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0

[sonofzeal]

Agreed with the above. If your game is low-power ("Magic Missile is an awesome spell!"), and low level ("why would anyone start above lvl 1?"), ToB might not be right for you. Remove either of those limits, though, and it's neat.

If you want to introduce it gradually, you can treat the classes given as PrCs that can be entered at lvl 6. There's a specific reason for that - ToB gives martial characters a lot of things to do with Standard Action attacks, which means they don't get to full-attack nearly as much, but that's only a limit when you're high enough level to have multiple attacks on a full-attack. Coming in at higher level, you're paying more of an opportunity cost on those standard actions, but it also still opens up nice possibilities for move+attack, and it's that flexibility that makes ToB shine in the first place.

If you want to be even more gradual - the feat "Martial Study" grants a single maneuver per encounter, and there's maneuvers for everyone. Even a Sorc/Wiz would enjoy being able to roll Concentration instead of a Reflex save once per fight, for instance. PCs can get training as part of a quest reward, and offered one bonus Martial Study each. If they never use it, or don't like the mechanic, well nothing's lost.

[Gildedragon]

The main major shortcoming ToB is ranged, I think.
No fancy bow and arrow, or thrown dagger, or exploding shuriken tricks.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't think ToB is ever problematic at level 1. I can't think of any super incredible effects the 1st level maneuvers/stances grant... scent? And the most damage you get from anything is like +1d6 on a single hit and all 1st level encounters die in one hit to a greatsword anyway.

I think if there's any point where ToB can seem overpowered is at the level 5-8 range. This just so happens to be the point where casters are only just starting to maybe have enough spell slots to get through 3+ encounters per day and use a spell most/all combat rounds (which is why after this level range, this point quickly goes away). A lot of 3rd level maneuvers and some stances are quite powerful. In fact, White Raven Tactics and Iron Heart Surge are pretty much universally considered the best maneuvers in the whole book. Also, Divine Surge has utterly ridiculous damage for when you pick it up at 7th level, normal damage +8d8. So in a low optimization E6 or E8 type game with newbies doing the casters, I could see the DM/group viewing ToB as broken.


The main major shortcoming ToB is ranged, I think.
No fancy bow and arrow, or thrown dagger, or exploding shuriken tricks.

Nor a discipline or set of maneuvers to represent the various grappling oriented martial arts. Closest the book gets is the stance to deal constrict damage when grappling. *sigh* No chokeholds or suplexes (well, the throws are, sort of), or joint locks or anything...

[Gildedragon]

Oh yeah.
Damn... I kinda want to see lucha-libre and pro-wrestling homebrew disciplines.

[TuggyNE]

Oh yeah.
Damn... I kinda want to see lucha-libre and pro-wrestling homebrew disciplines.

Well, I could be wrong, but isn't pro wrestling more of a Perform: Wrestling check?

[FleshrakerAbuse]

Well, I could be wrong, but isn't pro wrestling more of a Perform: Wrestling check?

Considering that it is staged, yes, along with profession: wrestler, and probably a fraction of your BAB in there.:smallbiggrin:

Well, as for

Easy-peasy. Give every monster one level of a martial adept class. Same with the traps. Now you get mountain hammer'd by a falling ceiling tile.

That needs to be the newest motivational poster for Tomb of Battle.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, I could be wrong, but isn't pro wrestling more of a Perform: Wrestling check?

Mostly role playing and LARPing, really.


Still, if D&D is a fantasy game and magic exists, surely people could pretend the pro wrestling moves are practical and useful in a fight w/o need of the other person cooperating with you.

[Gildedragon]

Well, I could be wrong, but isn't pro wrestling more of a Perform: Wrestling check?

That's the discipline skill
the weapons would be (for pro-wrestling) improvised weapons
for lucha libre... unarmed only, or unarmed and batarangs.

one of the maneuvers provides something akin to ex. flight, provided there's something elastic to launch yourself from.

[Jeff the Green]

Well, I could be wrong, but isn't pro wrestling more of a Perform: Wrestling check?

Perform (weapon drill). Bam, done.

[TuggyNE]

That's the discipline skill
the weapons would be (for pro-wrestling) improvised weapons

My point was more that that's all it is. :smalltongue: