Why do people dislike Tome of Battle?

[Alabenson]

To be honest, I've never really understood why so many people are so vehemently opposed to the Tome of Battle, to the extent that they refuse to allow it in their games. While I can certainly understand disliking a subsystem (I've never much cared for Incarnum myself), I have a hard time understanding why someone would dislike a subsystem to the extent that they feel the need to ban it entirely.

[Phelix-Mu]

Sometimes change seems bad. Especially if you are content with the way things are, and can't entirely foresee the implications of the change.

As to why people ban it, it's because that's a thing DMs do. A big part of DMing is deciding where to lop off the potentially infinitely hyperbolic power curve that the entirety of the 3.5 ruleset makes available.

Now, as to why a DM worried about power creep is looking at martial classes, see my first point. Said DM probably isn't even yet aware that the wizards in the campaign will shortly be able to bend ToB over their knee and give it a sound spanking. And that's core wizards.

No, the move to stop ToB is in line with DM purview, but it's not a terribly rational or effective step in keeping the game balanced and fun for everyone. I myself fell afoul of this, once upon a time, and only realized my error years later. A low-op setting makes ToB seem more overpowered, but that's largely a matter of perceptions.

[gondrizzle]

I've always found it to be a little too anime/wuxia for most campaigns. I tend to utterly ignore and/or brutally rewrite almost all of the fluff before I let them get used.

I still use it, though, because how else are you gonna have a "Big Dude Wot Hits Things?" They're better designed than Fighter Homebrew #964.

[classy one]

Most DMs just don't feel like reading yet another book. Some DMs just don't like the flavor as it has more of an Eastern feel to it (think old kung fu novel or Crouching Tiger).
Also keep in mind that not all players are min maxers/munchkins. In a low opt party a wizard can be outshined by a fighter, especially if the wizards lacks the imagination to make the most of his spells.

[Raineh Daze]

Tightly defined power floor and ceiling might seem overpowered if the wizard hasn't yet done anything hilariously broken; not liking 'Eastern' stuff despite the Monk being in the damn PHB and fluff being mutable; thinking it's too much like magic when that's only true (because supernatural) for Swordsages and Crusaders (when they plunder the right school). Take your pick.

[Soras Teva Gee]

It. Begins....


Anyways short version:

1. Plenty of people don't want wuxia/anime in their Western theme campaigns. Its a genre switch they don't feel any amount of "re-fluffing" actually matters for.

2. People dislike martial types having "magic" and don't buy the whole "its not magic, really" idea, which probably makes it worse because it sounds like dishonest after the fact handwaving to them.

3. Despite what you may hear plenty of people either disagree with tiers idea, or more subtly are satisfied with the classes as they actually play. Ergo just because a wizard can own everything on the field with X doesn't mean every wizard they or others play uses X. Kinda like Leadership, everybody knows its powerful so you won't actually see that many people asking for it or being allowed to have it even if it RAW is totally legit.

4. And those that do are labelled as munchkins out to "win". And to those who resent the idea that things actually need "fixing" so the idea of ToB as a fix sounds like unnecessary munchkining because you don't fix what ain broken.


That should be enough to get things going, now to get popcorn..

[Raineh Daze]

1. Plenty of people don't want wuxia/anime in their Western theme campaigns. Its a genre switch they don't feel any amount of "re-fluffing" actually matters for.

I think you are the only person I have seen actually object to refluffing not making it fit into the already crazily messy idea of western fantasy that D&D utilises. :smallconfused:


3. Despite what you may hear plenty of people either disagree with tiers idea, or more subtly are satisfied with the classes as they actually play. Ergo just because a wizard can own everything on the field with X doesn't mean every wizard they or others play uses X. Kinda like Leadership, everybody knows its powerful so you won't actually see that many people asking for it or being allowed to have it even if it RAW is totally legit.

As usual: Grease, Summon Monster.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I think you are the only person I have seen actually object to refluffing not making it fit into the already crazily messy idea of western fantasy that D&D utilises. :smallconfused:


(Scrubbed) /redtext

There's refluffing and then there's refluffing.

[Raineh Daze]

There's refluffing and then there's refluffing.

Yes, one is what you do to pillows, the other to classes. :smalltongue:

[Soras Teva Gee]

Yes, one is what you do to pillows, the other to classes. :smalltongue:

Also true as it happens!

[Squirrel_Dude]

Because the book isn't that well edited, and there are some really wacky powers in it. Powers that players aren't used to "martial" characters being able to possess. Things like Iron Heart Surge, White Raven Tactics, etc. can be pretty shocking to players or GMs who aren't used to wizards throwing similar stuff around all the time. In addition to the fact fact that Martial Adepts can throw those out every single combat, those powers could freak out many a GM.


As others above me have said, the fluff can annoy some people, as is the idea that the classes are pretty explicitly replacing the fighter, monk, and paladin. Some people love those classes (they are classic), and didn't like being told that they are bad classes.


The Crusader also has a really annoying system for refreshing maneuvers.

[GoddessSune]

To be honest, I've never really understood why so many people are so vehemently opposed to the Tome of Battle.

I'm of the ''I don't like giving martial character's spells''. It is a bad system. Worse, it is way too much for a DM to keep track of in a game. Spells are easy to keep track of as they follow the normal rules. And most of all a player can't change spells, unless they tell the DM. But the whole ToB is just broken. Like the classic ''DM-The wolf trips you! Tob player-"No way! I'm standing on my left foot and that makes me strong like a mountain and immune to trips!" "Dm-what? Sense when?" "ToB player-"Oh, i was standing on my left foot right after the battle with the goblins..."

ToB also has the sub system problem....it was written to ignore the D&D rules. So how does all the ToB stuff fit into the game rules wise? Oh, they forgot to add that to the book. So then a DM has to make a call, like every five minutes, on a ToB thing. Can a martial adept initiate a maneuver or change a stance while grappling? While pinned? Does the AC bonus of the swordsage stack with the AC bonus of the monk, even though they are both based on Wisdom modifier? Can a monk use the Snap Kick feat as part of a flurry of blows? And so on....


Sometimes change seems bad. Especially if you are content with the way things are, and can't entirely foresee the implications of the change.

And sometimes...really almost all of the time, change is bad. It is rare that things get changed for the better..... But that so many people just say ''oh some other people just don't like change'' automatically is silly. We all would love good change (say no more income tax), but don't like things like (say the 3300 page law that adjusts taxes...somehow).

[Kudaku]

One option that hasn't been mentioned yet is that many people play 3.5 the "classic" way. Wizards memorize fireballs instead of haste, clerics cast healing spells instead of going CoDzilla, the fighter takes Weapon Focus and Cleave, and so on.

If you introduce a group like that to the Warblade, they'll probably call it unbalanced - maybe even ban it.

The optimization floor on the ToB books is high - its hard to screw up a ToB class.

The optimization ceiling of classes like the cleric is considerably higher, but the optimization floor is also lower - a cleric that's built to cast healing spells mid-combat won't really outshine the fighter.

[eggynack]

@ GoddessSune:
Wow, I really don't even know where to start. Suffice to say that I disagree with just about every single solitary thing you've claimed. I'm pretty sure that ToB fits perfectly into the game rules wise, and the ToB player has to announce that he's doing something if he's doing something. Also, I don't understand why you think change is bad. Specifically, I don't understand why you think making it so that mundane classes can gain parity with casters is a bad thing.

[FleshrakerAbuse]

The problem, Kudaku, is that even when the casters are doing simple things like that, the casters still outstretch the fighters a lot of the time. The damage output of the fighter who thinks that dual-wielding bastard swords or sword-n-shielding is cool is going to be reasonably weak, with nearly no way to scale it. Sure, at really low levels (1-4), maybe, but eventually the wizard who does an average of 15-30 damage per spell (levels 5-10) to multiple targets as opposed to about 15 per hit of fighter still outpaces him. And most clerics also do buffing, of which the cleric has REALLY obviously powerful ones.

[Sgt. Cookie]

I think that the biggest problem, is that it's just odd, compared to the rest of 3.5, that is. Like eating from a box of chocolates, only to find that you've bitten into an egg.

[ArcturusV]

Eh. The only time I was running a game and someone asked to use it? I said no because at the time I didn't have the book and didn't want to take the time and money to track it down, read it, and figure out how to fit it into the campaign.

Which may not be a good reason depending on your view. But it was the reason.

I have since tracked it down. But I still haven't really taken the time to sit down and read it all, and design a setting to include it. Mostly because I haven't had to GM 3.5 in quite a while. When I actually am called to DM it again I'd get around to reading it and seeing how it would fit in.

But from what I've read here and there in there book? I'm not really opposed to it. Nor do I necessarily think the "Anime" thing really applies. Style and Technique allowing amazing things like that just seems common to any Martial Arts myths and stories, eastern or western.

Heck, it reminds me a bit of the swordfights in say, The Princess Bride (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC6dgtBU6Gs). Which is very "Western". But still has lines like: "You're using Bonetti's Defense against me?" "I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain." "Naturally you must expect me to attack with Cappapeia." "Naturally, but I find that Sybil cancels out Cappapeia, don't you?" "Unless the enemy has studied Ipzagria, which I have."

[Kudaku]

The problem, Kudaku, is that even when the casters are doing simple things like that, the casters still outstretch the fighters a lot of the time. The damage output of the fighter who thinks that dual-wielding bastard swords or sword-n-shielding is cool is going to be reasonably weak, with nearly no way to scale it. Sure, at really low levels (1-4), maybe, but eventually the wizard who does an average of 15-30 damage per spell (levels 5-10) to multiple targets as opposed to about 15 per hit of fighter still outpaces him. And most clerics also do buffing, of which the cleric has REALLY obviously powerful ones.

That's where the second aspect of D&D comes in - from what I can tell, most people prefer to play low to medium levels. At least in my RPG community, and from what I've seen on a fair few RPG forums, the average group rarely reach double digits. Spellcasters take a while to get going, the limited spell slots at lower levels slow them down for a while. Linear and quadratic development looks similar before the wizard numbers start to add up.

[Invader]

I had simply banned it in the past because I was simply unfamiliar with both ToB and MoI and I didn't want to try and DM for a group of players that were using powers and spells that I was unfamiliar with.

It makes DM'ing hard when you don't have any idea what your players can do.

[Kyuu Himura]

I'm of the ''I don't like giving martial character's spells''

I suppose many people are used to vancian casting and that's why they feel maneuvers are like spells, but the way I see it, maneuvers and spells and invocations and soulmelds and all those other stuff are essentially effects in an abstract game, and it is up to the book to tell you what they are, spells are only spells because the book calls them that.


Like the classic ''DM-The wolf trips you! Tob player-"No way! I'm standing on my left foot and that makes me strong like a mountain and immune to trips!" "Dm-what? Sense when?" "ToB player-"Oh, i was standing on my left foot right after the battle with the goblins..."

There are stances in wrestling that make you harder to trip. Greco Roman wrestling, at that, sure, the real world version is not gonna help against a wolf, but in a world where wearing a belt can make you stronger, I don't see why having really good balance is an issue.

As for players initiating maneuvers without telling the DM... you can't do anything without telling the DM. Ever. In any game. Your player can tell you "Whenever I'm awake and able to move, I'm in X stance unless I say I'm not", and you may forget it, fine, they may forget it, fine, but it is always a players duty to tell the DM what abilities they are using, be sure of what they do, of how they interact with other abilities and that the DM is aware of all this.
If your players are pulling that trick off when you DM, it's an issue of communication, not of game rules.


Oh, they forgot to add that to the book

I wish I had a reply to this, but sadly, I don't, the book is poorly edited, a shame, the idea is great.


Can a martial adept initiate a maneuver or change a stance while grappling?
yes, as grappling still makes you able to move.


While pinned?
No, you can't move while pinned, so no maneuvers for you, a DM may have to make a call for things like, say, the Shadow Blink line or the save replacers from Diamond Mind, but RAW, you can't.


Can a monk use the Snap Kick feat as part of a flurry of blows?
What would stop them?



Does the AC bonus of the swordsage stack with the AC bonus of the monk, even though they are both based on Wisdom modifier?
I concede this one, poor edition of the book and all.

[Kazyan]

It's all about perspective. I'm on my phone right now and have better things to do with my impending few hours of laptop than write an epic rant, but basically: the fluff is awful (everyone in the PbP forum throws it out as a matter of course), it focuses its help on the THF melee that we all know needs the least help to be effective, low-OP groups will find it overpowering, the refresh and initiation mechanics make no sense and have no explanation as to why you can't do a cool sword move twice without an arbitrary 'refresh', Crusaders are over-the-top at their jobs at low levels, the disciplines have their power weighted heavily to the ones that aren't awesome, the items are dumb, WRT and IHS exist, and some people might not like it when optimizers snidely answer questions like this with thinly-veiled dismissals of nonfans of the book.

Okay, I'm done.

[Soras Teva Gee]

One option that hasn't been mentioned yet is that many people play 3.5 the "classic" way. Wizards memorize fireballs instead of haste, clerics cast healing spells instead of going CoDzilla, the fighter takes Weapon Focus and Cleave, and so on.


I'm reminded of reading the Dresden Files where Harry and his group of nerd friends are playing totally not DnD for real where Harry's Barbarian after impatiently starting a fight has his bacon saved by the wizards fireball. The sequence feature the Wizard's werewolf player complaining about how he spent levels casting light spells and identifying items only to just now be coming into his power so what's everyone else complaining about?

(Also features complaining from the actual wizard about how the Wizard's fireball should have filled the room not expanded to 20' and stopped good stuff)

Now I can't say when the last time Jim Butcher gamed but this is the series with its own RPG written as an in-universe homebrew written by the aforementioned gaming nerds. Also the wizard is playing the Barbarian because its a useful break from the hard work of actual magic.

Point being this is not some ancient story this was written well after 3.5 came out.

And its still thinks the Fireball is the pinnacle of wizardly power in totally not DnD.

[Raineh Daze]

And its still thinks the Fireball is the pinnacle of wizardly power in totally not DnD.

Well, it's more powerful than a fighter. Then again, there's a lot of core spells like that. Even blasting things. At level one. Such as Burning Hands. Average 2.5 damage to everything in a fifteen foot cone. Can't miss. When everything has appalling saves and doesn't have Evasion.

[Kudaku]

Well, it's more powerful than a fighter. Then again, there's a lot of core spells like that. Even blasting things. At level one. Such as Burning Hands. Average 2.5 damage to everything in a fifteen foot cone. Can't miss. When everything has appalling saves and doesn't have Evasion.

Yes, but a non-optimized level 1 generalist wizard can cast exactly two burning hands spells per day - and that takes all his level 1 spell slots. The rest of the time he can use his quarterstaff for ~1d6-1 damage, or fire his crossbow into melee for a -4 / -8 to hit bonus, depending on how the fighter has placed himself. The fighter can swing his sword with a +6 to hit and 2d6+6 damage all day. Adding to that. the fighter doesn't have to worry about friendly fire, or his AC12 ass being in easy charge range. Or the fact that he has d4-1 hp per level.

[Raineh Daze]

Yes, but a non-optimized generalist wizard can cast exactly two burning hands spells per day - and that takes all his level 1 spell slots. The rest of the time he can swing his quarterstaff for 1d6-1 damage, or fire his crossbow into melee for a -4 / -8 to hit bonus, depending on how the fighter has placed himself. The fighter can swing his sword all day. The fighter doesn't have to worry about friendly fire, or his AC12 ass being in easy charge range.

Yeah, pretty much the one time spell limitation is likely to count. But hey, at level 2 that number goes up one, and they're more likely to OHKO something! Then level 3 gives you 2nd level spells, and you get Scorching Ray.

[Alabenson]

I've always found it to be a little too anime/wuxia for most campaigns. I tend to utterly ignore and/or brutally rewrite almost all of the fluff before I let them get used.

I still use it, though, because how else are you gonna have a "Big Dude Wot Hits Things?" They're better designed than Fighter Homebrew #964.

I will admit that the ToB has some of the worst written fluff in all of 3.5, but that's something that's readily changeable.
Also, as has been pointed out in previous threads by other posters, having overly flowery names for maneuvers is hardly restricted to Asian martial arts; most European combat styles have names that would fit right in with the ToB,


Most DMs just don't feel like reading yet another book. Some DMs just don't like the flavor as it has more of an Eastern feel to it (think old kung fu novel or Crouching Tiger).
Also keep in mind that not all players are min maxers/munchkins. In a low opt party a wizard can be outshined by a fighter, especially if the wizards lacks the imagination to make the most of his spells.

I've played in some fairly low-op groups (i.e. Monk is awesome, Wild Shape is useless, S&B is a perfectly viable combat style), and I've never seen a case where a Fighter was actually outshining a Wizard past level 3-4.


Eh. The only time I was running a game and someone asked to use it? I said no because at the time I didn't have the book and didn't want to take the time and money to track it down, read it, and figure out how to fit it into the campaign.

Which may not be a good reason depending on your view. But it was the reason.

Barring the book because of lack of access on the DM's part is one of the few reasons for banning ToB that I really can't find any fault with; that's one of the primary reasons I don't allow Dragon Magazine content in my games.

[Elderand]

And its still thinks the Fireball is the pinnacle of wizardly power in totally not DnD.

Because clearly everyone is a heavy optimizer who knows every last trick to use to make wizard gods amongst gods whitout ever using a damaging spell

Most people play with rule of cool, and it's cooler to thow a fireball and roast the enemies yourself rather than use the one spell to disable the enemy and have the fighter clean up after you.

As for why people dislike ToB ? Plenty of good reason have been given. The reason I personaly don't use it in my game is because it simply doesn't fit.

[Theoboldi]

As someone who has played in a few low-op campaigns, I remember one DM who actually used a ToB NPC as a more climatic 'miniboss' encounter our very unoptimised characters (I was playing a straight swashbuckler, and regularly outdamaged by the monk. I'd just like to note that.) had to face.

Some groups just have a very low optimisation level, and the optimisation-floor that ToB classes hit is way above that. There just isn't much that you can screw up with a crusader if you aren't completly braindead. The worst you could do is choose sub-par maneuvers. Meanwhile someone else could be trying to play a rogue that fights by feinting and using a single rapier, and end up being extremely weak purely by accident. I can see why some people would see the classes as being overpowered.

Of course, this is entirely based on my own experiences, so your opinion may vary.

[Alabenson]

As for why people dislike ToB ? Plenty of good reason have been given. The reason I personaly don't use it in my game is because it simply doesn't fit.

When you say you don't use ToB because it "doesn't fit", what exactly do you mean? Is it because you don't like the fluff (which I will admit is poorly written), is it because you feel that ToB feels too Asian-inspired to mesh properly with the European fantasy setting common to D&D, or is it something else entirely that I'm missing?

[Palanan]

To answer the OP's question:

I've had two extremely unpleasant experiences using the book, while running two different campaigns, the most recent by far the worse. I'll save the details on that for another time, but the entire experience left a bitter taste in my mouth.

If I'm going to put in the time and effort to develop a campaign, I want to have fun when I run it. My interest, both as a player and a DM, is in the detailed development of characters, creatures, worlds, and what I hope are interesting storylines, and then watching it all come to life. I'm not a connoisseur of game mechanics, and I would much rather spend my time working on what I enjoy, rather than picking my way through a subsystem that doesn't come naturally to me.

As it happened, I first approached ToB with a cautious enthusiasm, but I was quickly frustrated at how poorly organized and confusingly written the book really is. Plowing through it became a miserable chore, and a host of in-game issues only made it worse. In my own experience, the time and effort I spent to learn even the basics simply weren't worth the intense frustration it brought me.

And as several others have already mentioned, a lot of gaming groups play at a much lower level--both mechanically and metaphorically--than the Playground baseline tends to assume, and very often not with the Playground's sophisticated (or even jaded) perspective. The fact that they often have a tremendous amount of fun while doing this...is all the reason they need not to get too worked up about it.

[Raineh Daze]

ToB doesn't really seem like the sort of thing that would ever mesh with the PHB classes, unless they're played well. Probably fits in more with something like the Dread Necromancer. Hmm...

Are we allowed to say good things about it, though? A thread entirely about negativity's never a good thing. :p

[Kudaku]

Yeah, pretty much the one time spell limitation is likely to count. But hey, at level 2 that number goes up one, and they're more likely to OHKO something! Then level 3 gives you 2nd level spells, and you get Scorching Ray.

So on level 3 he can cast spells the first three rounds of an encounter, and burning hands hits for 2d4 (average of 5) damage. Still has to adjust for casting into a potential melee, still has AC12 and roughly ~6 hp. Not entirely overwhelming. And he's still going to have to skimp a fair bit on those spells to make them last.
On level 3 he gets scorching ray (arguably one of the better core blasting spells). 4d6 damage averages out to 14 damage. That's assuming he hits his ranged touch attack. The fighter's average greatsword damage, 2d6+6, comes to 13. Admittely his chance of hitting might not be as good as the wizard, but then again... You can't run out of sword swings.

Look, I'm not saying fighter is the better class than wizard. I know and can speak from experience when I say that with equal optimization on both parts the wizard WILL pull ahead of a fighter. What I'm saying is that wizard needs a bit of mileage to get there.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Well, it's more powerful than a fighter. Then again, there's a lot of core spells like that. Even blasting things. At level one. Such as Burning Hands. Average 2.5 damage to everything in a fifteen foot cone. Can't miss. When everything has appalling saves and doesn't have Evasion.

Anything that close if you don't kill it will take you apart on its turn. The low level wizard can't play the odds nearly as well when it can later when it maybe can tank at least one hit when sooner or later that bad save gets lucky.

All not the really the point, the point is that all the tricks you read about in optimizing don't percolate to the greater populace, even of within the gaming subculture.

Its about perspective and how its all only I don't know... one beach along an entire ocean. Doesn't matter how great the beach is, its just a fact only some people are going to go there and everyone else is going to go have fun at other beaches.

[Sith_Happens]

it focuses its help on the THF melee that we all know needs the least help to be effective,

For the most part I'm not seeing this. There's an entire discipline devoted to TWF, and a feat that when combined with it can easily put out damage comparable to a typical charging build. Most of the other disciplines actually benefit THF and S&B about equally, the problem being their differing baselines (though on that note, I do think they should have made a S&B discipline the same way that Tiger Claw is a TWF discipline).


Point being this is not some ancient story this was written well after 3.5 came out.

And its still thinks the Fireball is the pinnacle of wizardly power in totally not DnD.

To be fair, Harry probably has a rather large OOC bias in this regard.

[Raineh Daze]

The fighter is a go-kart. The fighter has excellent acceleration and will pull 60 km/h in no time. That's his top speed. He has minimal storage room, and no room for an additional passenger.

The wizard is an SUV. The wizard has horrible acceleration and poor handling, but his top speed is significantly higher than the fighter. With time and experience he will leave him in the dust, while carrying a family of seven, the two family dogs, and 600 lb of gear.

To people who only care about acceleration (instead of looking at the big picture) and that only do drag races that are 30 feet or less (instead of playing the full range of levels), the gokart is looking pretty good.

The problem being that the SUV accelerates far too quickly for this sort of situation. Level 5; 5d6 damage to everything in a 44 square area, so long as it's within 600 feet. Meanwhile, fighter-with-Greatsword hasn't made any great change from level 3 and likely never will. It starts a little slower, but not enough for the short time to make a big difference.

And this is just blasting at a 1/4 of the possible levels, so to say that unoptimised play is, in general, unlikely to get there...

... but this is getting off topic. Still think it should contain the possibility for saying the good things about ToB rather than just everything bad, though.

[Kudaku]

Meanwhile, fighter-with-Greatsword hasn't made any great change from level 3 and likely never will. [the wizard] starts a little slower, but not enough for the short time to make a big difference.

5th level, the fighter now has 21 strength, weapon specialization, power attack, and a +1 greatsword. 2d6+14 (7 from strength, 2 from weapon spec, 1 from sword, 4 from power attack) damage with a -2 penalty from power attack means 21 damage per swing average. The wizard can cast two fireballs per day, 17.5 damage average to all targets in an area, which a successful reflex save can halve. And he still has to consider friendly fire and so on.

My point is wizards need to get a bit of momentum (ie levels) to outstrip the fighter. I'd argue that lvl 7 is when the wizard starts to get going with polymorph, black tentacles etc, and even then it relies on knowing which spells to select. The non-optimizing wizard might instead prepare Ice Storm, Fire Shield etc. On the flip side, the fighter's second attack at lvl 6 makes him LESS mobile, since he now relies on full round attacks in order to get his full damage output.

For the truly outlandishly powerful things in core (Quickened Spell, Gate etc) you do need to get to the upper levels.

Edit: Oh, and I cut the car metaphor from my previous post. It felt like I was stretching to make it work.

[Kazyan]

For the most part I'm not seeing this. There's an entire discipline devoted to TWF, and a feat that when combined with it can easily put out damage comparable to a typical charging build. Most of the other disciplines actually benefit THF and S&B about equally, the problem being their differing baselines (though on that note, I do think they should have made a S&B discipline the same way that Tiger Claw is a TWF discipline).

Agreed on Sword-and-board, but TWF? Girallon Windmill Fleshrip and the Xing Mongoose pair just bring TWF up to what THF does innately. You can get bonus damage, but WotC jammed those two disciplines into the class with 3/4 BAB. Tiger Claw is mostly about jumping and hitting, otherwise.

Besides THF/S&B being favored, ToB leaves behind the other kinds of mundanes. Archery, throwers, and skillmonkeys would love to have as many nice things as ToB gives melee. That's what I was really getting at with that clause of my run-on sentence, but I'm busy Pastamncer'ing in Kindgom of Loathing's "BIG!" challenge path right now. Drink ALL of the Magical Mystery Juice...

[eggynack]

The problem being that the SUV accelerates far too quickly for this sort of situation. Level 5; 5d6 damage to everything in a 44 square area, so long as it's within 600 feet. Meanwhile, fighter-with-Greatsword hasn't made any great change from level 3 and likely never will. It starts a little slower, but not enough for the short time to make a big difference.

And this is just blasting at a 1/4 of the possible levels, so to say that unoptimised play is, in general, unlikely to get there...

... but this is getting off topic. Still think it should contain the possibility for saying the good things about ToB rather than just everything bad, though.
Is this really where we're going with this argument? Melee classes tend to do more damage than magic classes. Let's take a look at the power level of a level five barbarian. Let's make him a water orc, for +4 strength, toss a +1 greatsword on him, and give him whirling frenzy, pounce, and power attack. That means that he has iteratives of +12/+12, and they each do 2d6+12 damage if they frenzy and charge. They actually hit at +14/+14 on the first round, which has a decent chance of just killing the enemy. This is before power attack. That means that they're hitting for 19 damage per hit, for 38 damage on a full attack, and that can go up to 48 damage on a full attack after power attack. 5d6 fire damage is doing 17.5 damage. For actual damage though, you need to look at a specific monster. Let's use a dire lion. The first full round attack by the barbarian is going to deal about 47.85 damage, and the second deals about 41.58. That's a two turn kill, which is far better than the wizard is doing. Apart from pounce, this set of stuff is entirely in core, and the barbarian still kills the dire lion in two turns without pounce.

In conclusion, do I think that wizards are weak? Absolutely not. I don't even think they take much optimization to do far better than any given melee type. However, if all you're doing is tossing fireballs, the barbarian is likely outpacing the wizard.

[Kudaku]

Is this really where we're going with this argument? Melee classes tend to do more damage than magic classes. Let's take a look at the power level of a level five barbarian. Let's make him a water orc, for +4 strength, toss a +1 greatsword on him, and give him whirling frenzy, pounce, and power attack. That means that he has iteratives of +12/+12, and they each do 2d6+12 damage if they frenzy and charge. They actually hit at +14/+14 on the first round, which has a decent chance of just killing the enemy. This is before power attack. That means that they're hitting for 19 damage per hit, for 38 damage on a full attack, and that can go up to 48 damage on a full attack after power attack. 5d6 fire damage is doing 17.5 damage. For actual damage though, you need to look at a specific monster. Let's use a dire lion. The first full round attack by the barbarian is going to deal about 47.85 damage, and the second deals about 41.58. That's a two turn kill, which is far better than the wizard is doing. Apart from pounce, this set of stuff is entirely in core, and the barbarian still kills the dire lion in two turns without pounce.

I'd say that's assuming different levels of optimization. A water orc with whirling frenzy and pounce is certainly on a different level than a generalist wizard who prepares fireball. Raineh and I were discussing how the fighter and wizard classes can seem balanced on low levels if you assume similar (in our examples, specifically: poor) level of optimization. Finally, though I am somewhat rusty with 3.5, I'm reasonably certain water orcs are neither core or by default a player race.

[Raineh Daze]

Is this really where we're going with this argument? Melee classes tend to do more damage than magic classes. Let's take a look at the power level of a level five barbarian. Let's make him a water orc, for +4 strength, toss a +1 greatsword on him, and give him whirling frenzy, pounce, and power attack. That means that he has iteratives of +12/+12, and they each do 2d6+12 damage if they frenzy and charge. They actually hit at +14/+14 on the first round, which has a decent chance of just killing the enemy. This is before power attack. That means that they're hitting for 19 damage per hit, for 38 damage on a full attack, and that can go up to 48 damage on a full attack after power attack. 5d6 fire damage is doing 17.5 damage. For actual damage though, you need to look at a specific monster. Let's use a dire lion. The first full round attack by the barbarian is going to deal about 47.85 damage, and the second deals about 41.58. That's a two turn kill, which is far better than the wizard is doing. Apart from pounce, this set of stuff is entirely in core, and the barbarian still kills the dire lion in two turns without pounce.

Umm... yeah, we were discussing how even an unoptimised wizard doesn't take long to outshine a basic PHB martial character, even without using the better spells. If your barbarian is doing something like that, and your spellcaster is a basic generalist just tossing a plain-ol' fireball (not even using Combust or something), then you're using vastly different levels of optimisation.

[eggynack]

I'd say that's assuming different levels of optimization. A water orc with whirling frenzy and pounce is certainly on a different level than a generalist wizard who prepares fireball. Raineh and I were discussing how the fighter and wizard classes can seem balanced on low levels if you assume similar (in our examples, specifically: poor) level of optimization. Finally, though I am somewhat rusty with 3.5, I'm reasonably certain water orcs are neither core or by default a player race.
I tend to use the definition of core that's just everything in the D20 SRD. I'd rather not get into this debate again, but that's just what I use, because it's super accessible. However, I can run the numbers again, except with only PHB stuff. This time he's a regular orc, because I'm just maximizing damage. In this fight, he just has rage and a single attack, so the iterative is at +14, or +16 on a charge, for 2d6+13 damage, or 2d6+23 on a power attack. That comes out to 20 or 30 damage, which is still more than the 17.5 on a fireball, which is limited in terms of spells per day.

[Raineh Daze]

I tend to use the definition of core that's just everything in the D20 SRD. I'd rather not get into this debate again, but that's just what I use, because it's super accessible. However, I can run the numbers again, except with only PHB stuff. This time he's a regular orc, because I'm just maximizing damage. In this fight, he just has rage and a single attack, so the iterative is at +14, or +16 on a charge, for 2d6+13 damage, or 2d6+23 on a power attack. That comes out to 20 or 30 damage, which is still more than the 17.5 on a fireball, which is limited in terms of spells per day.

And also has to hit. And only hits one enemy. If you have 44 enemies, fireball could hit all of them, from hundreds of feet away. That's 770 damage with the one spell, average. Better as an attack against one enemy? Yes. Which is what you'd probably use Scorching Ray for (28 damage average, against touch AC).

[Kudaku]

Ah, fair enough. When I think core-only I think PHB+DMG+MM1. I'd still argue that the orc isn't really a playable race but overall I think we agree: if the optimization level is low (ie your players don't read forums like these ones or google class guides) wizard and fighters seem fairly balanced at low-medium levels. The wizard can do stuff the fighter can't, but the wizard's heavily limited by spell slots while the fighter can keep going all day as long (as long as he gets healing from the equally unoptimized cleric who lives and breathes to make sure the other characters continue living and breathing).


And also has to hit. And only hits one enemy. If you have 44 enemies, fireball could hit all of them, from hundreds of feet away. That's 770 damage with the one spell, average. Better as an attack against one enemy? Yes. Which is what you'd probably use Scorching Ray for (28 damage average, against touch AC).

I can't really think of the typical D&D session where you run into 44 enemies positioned in a perfect 20 burst area. From personal experience I'd say you're lucky to tag more than 3 enemies with a fireball without also scorching your resident beatstick. Judging from your scorching ray numbers we're now assuming level 7, which means 24 damage average, before saves. Assuming three enemies and 50% make their save, that's 36 damage. If the 7th level fighter can land both his attacks, he's actually outstripping both the fireball and the ray by a fair bit. If he misses his followup or is unable to make it since he needs a move action(which seems likely), he'll do about 20-25 damage. Sure, it's lower than the fireball, but they're still in the same realm.

I'd also point out that the wizard also has to hit, and is unlikely to have taken Precise Shot or the like. With +3 bab and +3 from dexterity (he IS an elf after all, elves make the best wizards right?), that's a mighty +6 to hit before modifiers. Firing into melee imposes -4, cover from the beatstick in his line is possibly another +4 cover to the target. I can't say what the average touch AC of a cr 7 monster is, so let's just call it 10. The wizard has a 60% chance of making that shot, assuming no cover penalty. If one ray misses, which statistically seems likely, that's 50% of his damage gone.

[Soras Teva Gee]

To be fair, Harry probably has a rather large OOC bias in this regard.

Except it was Billy slinging it this time.

[Raineh Daze]

Except it was Billy slinging it this time.

Wasn't Harry the one that claimed it should fill the room, though?

[eggynack]

And also has to hit. And only hits one enemy. If you have 44 enemies, fireball could hit all of them, from hundreds of feet away. That's 770 damage with the one spell, average. Better as an attack against one enemy? Yes. Which is what you'd probably use Scorching Ray for (28 damage average, against touch AC).
Against the same dire lion, it's doing 28.05 damage on a charge, and 24.75 damage on the subsequent attack. Also, the scorching ray only gets an extra ray at 7th, so it deals 14 damage on a hit, rather than 28.

[headwarpage]

I'm surprised nobody else shares my issue with ToB; it doesn't add options, it replaces everything that came before it (I'm sure there are exceptions, work with me here). It's generally accepted, as far as I can tell, that Warblade is an evolved Fighter, Swordsage is an evolved monk, and Crusader is an evolved Paladin. Once ToB is available, playing almost any other melee class is clearly suboptimal, particularly for a player with average optimization ability.

This has nothing to do with the relative power of melee and casters; I tend to agree that ToB is far from overpowered compared to almost any full caster. It's just that it's so much better than every other melee option that it forces your table to either ban ToB or accept that nobody's going to play anything else for melee. Because if one player is playing a non-ToB melee class and somebody else is playing a ToB class, the disparity in power level in the same role is going to be a problem.

ToB replacing other melee classes isn't necessarily a problem, although it requires players to get creative with fluff to make the full range of melee concepts work with just three classes (not to mention all the PrCs that are likewise obsolete). But it's a big, big change in the way the game is played at the table, and it replaces a lot of material that people might like to still be able to use.

[eggynack]

I'm surprised nobody else shares my issue with ToB; it doesn't add options, it replaces everything that came before it (I'm sure there are exceptions, work with me here). It's generally accepted, as far as I can tell, that Warblade is an evolved Fighter, Swordsage is an evolved monk, and Crusader is an evolved Paladin. Once ToB is available, playing almost any other melee class is clearly suboptimal, particularly for a player with average optimization ability.

This has nothing to do with the relative power of melee and casters; I tend to agree that ToB is far from overpowered compared to almost any full caster. It's just that it's so much better than every other melee option that it forces your table to either ban ToB or accept that nobody's going to play anything else for melee. Because if one player is playing a non-ToB melee class and somebody else is playing a ToB class, the disparity in power level in the same role is going to be a problem.

ToB replacing other melee classes isn't necessarily a problem, although it requires players to get creative with fluff to make the full range of melee concepts work with just three classes (not to mention all the PrCs that are likewise obsolete). But it's a big, big change in the way the game is played at the table, and it replaces a lot of material that people might like to still be able to use.
Well, to be fair, druids were already making mundane folks extraneous since the beginning.

[Coidzor]

My point is wizards need to get a bit of momentum (ie levels) to outstrip the fighter. I'd argue that lvl 7 is when the wizard starts to get going with polymorph, black tentacles etc, and even then it relies on knowing which spells to select. The non-optimizing wizard might instead prepare Ice Storm, Fire Shield etc. On the flip side, the fighter's second attack at lvl 6 makes him LESS mobile, since he now relies on full round attacks in order to get his full damage output.

Depends on the build. And what you mean by outstrip. Too ephemeral and vague.


And also has to hit. And only hits one enemy. If you have 44 enemies, fireball could hit all of them, from hundreds of feet away. That's 770 damage with the one spell, average. Better as an attack against one enemy? Yes. Which is what you'd probably use Scorching Ray for (28 damage average, against touch AC).

Indeed, there's unoptimized and then there's pretending that the player is an idiot.

[Kudaku]

Depends on the build. And what you mean by outstrip. Too ephemeral and vague..

Outperform? Make feel superfluous? We haven't created builds but we've already stated that we're assuming similar (low) optimization based on what a party that plays D&D "classically" would create. IE wizards prepare evocation spells instead of grease, glitterdust etc, the cleric prepares CLW instead of Divine Favor, and so on.

[Raineh Daze]

Against the same dire lion, it's doing 28.05 damage on a charge, and 24.75 damage on the subsequent attack. Also, the scorching ray only gets an extra ray at 7th, so it deals 14 damage on a hit, rather than 28.

Ah, forgot the 'beyond 3rd' bit. I guess I could fall back on Empowered Shocking Grasp*, then. Pretty similar in effect, if lacking the range. I mean, not a stretch to assume a specialised Evoker, is it?

*I grabbed the feat when I was eight and playing NWN. Every time.

[Phelix-Mu]

And sometimes...really almost all of the time, change is bad. It is rare that things get changed for the better..... But that so many people just say ''oh some other people just don't like change'' automatically is silly. We all would love good change (say no more income tax), but don't like things like (say the 3300 page law that adjusts taxes...somehow).

Statistically, if change were almost always bad, then everything in the world would be bad, and pretty consistently remain so, since everything changes (and I'm really not sure how to explain this to anyone, but it's pretty much a truism that nothing stays the same forever).

So, if you are of the opinion that this is why virtually everything in the world sucks, then it is valid to believe that most change is bad.

If, however, you take more moderate, slightly more optimistic view of the world, then I would think that slightly more than almost no change must be good. And moreover, sweeping generalizations like "almost all change is bad" are usually inaccurate in some respect.

I apologize if I wasn't clear, but I wasn't defending people that don't like change, nor was I criticizing said people. It's a fact that people don't like it, and it's really neither good nor bad. But it does make changing things difficult when a certain demographic is attached to the status quo. Hence the ruckus.

I'm ages behind in the convo, by the way. Sorry if this has been belabored by now.:smallamused:

[Axinian]

As for why people dislike ToB ? Plenty of good reason have been given.
There are no good reasons to dis-allow ToB from what I can see. Though Ive got to say that this is one of the more well-articulated and civil threads on ToB in a while, so props to you guys.

Too powerful? Maybe in some games, but just like every other class, you can adjust how the classes are played to be more or less powerful. A common argument I see is that fighter can outshine a wizard in lower-op games, which is true. The same can also be said of other classes to the ToB classes.

To eastern? Refluff it. There's nothing about the mechanics that contribute to this feeling. The only thing that needs to change to alter the flavor entirely is the names of the maneuvers. The idea of having specific, named techniques in combat is very much not an eastern-only thing. Besides, monk is in the PHB and is way more entrenched in eastern flavor than any of the ToB classes.

To much like spells? I get the similarities. Don't see why that's a reason to disallow the book. So they are somewhat similar, so what? The classes still behave quite differently than spellcasters in actual combat, at least in terms of tactics. Gods forbid that a fighter gets a mechanical benefit outside combat :smallwink:



the refresh and initiation mechanics make no sense and have no explanation as to why you can't do a cool sword move twice without an arbitrary 'refresh'
Vancian casting only barely makes any more sense. I don't see how "you need to get your footing right again to do this maneuver" is a less reasonable explanation.



WRT and IHS exist

This is true. Those are overpowered. Hardly a reason to dismiss the whole book.



In my own experience, the time and effort I spent to learn even the basics simply weren't worth the intense frustration it brought me.

I suppose prepared casters aren't worth the trouble then either. Their mechanics are arguably more complicated (That was my experience, though that's a personal matter)

[Kudaku]

Ah, forgot the 'beyond 3rd' bit. I guess I could fall back on Empowered Shocking Grasp*, then. Pretty similar in effect, if lacking the range. I mean, not a stretch to assume a specialised Evoker, is it?

*I grabbed the feat when I was eight and playing NWN. Every time.

We started off with a generalist wizard, but I'm fine with using an evoker specialist, it would also help somewhat with his low level spell slots :smallsmile:. It's surprisingly fun to get into the mindset of the non-optimizing blaster wizard :smallbiggrin:

Let's see, a 5th level(?) wizard with an empowered shocking grasp would deal 7d6 damage, right? That's on average 24,5 damage. About what a fighter would do with a greatsword swing. The wizard is using a touch attack, so he has a better chance of hitting. On the flip side, now the wizard is in melee range of whatever beastie he's shocking. And a 5th level wizard with 10 constitution has (assuming average hp rolls and max on level 1) 14 hit points. With 16 dex and mage armor, his AC is 17.

[eggynack]

Ah, forgot the 'beyond 3rd' bit. I guess I could fall back on Empowered Shocking Grasp*, then. Pretty similar in effect, if lacking the range. I mean, not a stretch to assume a specialised Evoker, is it?

*I grabbed the feat when I was eight and playing NWN. Every time.
Well, you're dealing 26.25 damage on a successful hit, so that's about the same as a barbarian. However, you have to close to melee range, and that's usually not a good idea. Wizards at that level have like 24 HP, and if you're pushing all of your resources into crazy blasting spells then you're not likely to have much more than 12 AC. The first two dire lion attacks are hitting every time for about 21 damage, and the third attack has an average damage to likely one shot him. That's before improved grab stuff, which has a decent chance of working. It just doesn't seem like a very good plan for the wizard.

Edit: Does empowered shocking grasp deal 7d6 or an effective 7.5d6? I've never really looked too hard at the damaging metamagics.

[Kazyan]

Vancian casting only barely makes any more sense. I don't see how "you need to get your footing right again to do this maneuver" actually seems like a pretty reasonable explanation for most of the maneuvers.

I never said Vancian wasn't wacky as well, but that's neither here nor there. "Footing" is an inadequate explanation to me, because you can initiate a variety of different maneuvers in any chain you wish, but apparently using two in the same chain is a no-no. If the book made an attempt to explain it, the same way Complete Mage (or was it Arcane?) has a sidebar as to a Wizard's though processes regarding how Vancian casting works, it would be easier to swallow. But it's never addressed why you can't do a particular sword move twice. It's weird and looks arbitrary if you don't understand its purpose (giving combat variety), which most readers won't think about.


This is true. Those are overpowered. Hardly a reason to dismiss the whole book.

Eh, I'm just listing off possible reasons.

[Raineh Daze]

We started off with a generalist wizard, but I'm fine with using an evoker specialist, it would also help somewhat with his low level spell slots :smallsmile:. It's surprisingly fun to get into the mindset of the non-optimizing blaster wizard :smallbiggrin:

Let's see, a 5th level(?) wizard with an empowered shocking grasp would deal 7d6 damage, right? That's on average 24,5 damage. About what a fighter would do with a greatsword swing. The wizard is using a touch attack, so he has a better chance of hitting. On the flip side, now the wizard is in melee range of whatever beastie he's shocking. And a 5th level wizard with 10 constitution has (assuming average hp rolls and max on level 1) 14 hit points. With 16 dex and mage armor, his AC is 17.

Hm? I thought that Empower was x1.5, not increasing the dice rolled--making it 26-27. More like the Barbarian.

Now, he's pretty screwed with taking a hit, so he'd better hope for the best. However, higher max damage (and minimum) than the sword guy, plus it bypasses any DR, so he could get up to 45 (or 42) with the one attack.


Well, you're dealing 26.25 damage on a successful hit, so that's about the same as a barbarian. However, you have to close to melee range, and that's usually not a good idea. Wizards at that level have like 24 HP, and if you're pushing all of your resources into crazy blasting spells then you're not likely to have much more than 12 AC. The first two dire lion attacks are hitting every time for about 21 damage, and the third attack has an average damage to likely one shot him. That's before improved grab stuff, which has a decent chance of working. It just doesn't seem like a very good plan for the wizard.

Hm, what's the AC on theoretical barbarian? Average HP here is probably something like 53, boosted up to 58 by Rage, so that's most of his HP gone in one round if he gets hit. Not counting Improved Grab, obviously.

[ArcturusV]

Well... if it's an unoptimized Blaster Wizard like a newbie is likely to make, he's probably using Lightning Bolt in his 3rd level spell slot for 5d6 in a line (Which in my experience tends to be a more effective and worthwhile Area Template than a 20' radius circle which they'll have realized by enemy layouts by the time they hit 5th level). And is probably using Magic Missiles to round out the first level spells and such for the 3d4+3 damage per spell, for a mere 13 damage average with auto hits.

Least in stuff as I have seen the guys who played wizards because they wanted to be Tim.

[Raineh Daze]

Well... if it's an unoptimized Blaster Wizard like a newbie is likely to make, he's probably using Lightning Bolt in his 3rd level spell slot for 5d6 in a line (Which in my experience tends to be a more effective and worthwhile Area Template than a 20' radius circle which they'll have realized by enemy layouts by the time they hit 5th level). And is probably using Magic Missiles to round out the first level spells and such for the 3d4+3 damage per spell, for a mere 13 damage average with auto hits.

Least in stuff as I have seen the guys who played wizards because they wanted to be Tim.

... but fireball is more iconic. Also fire. Fire is awesome. :O

[Kudaku]

Hm? I thought that Empower was x1.5, not increasing the dice rolled--making it 26-27. More like the Barbarian.

That is entirely possible, I looked up the feat briefly and it's phrased:
All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half."
I read fireball as the d6s being increased by one half, but it could also be just "roll your damage, then add 50%". Again, I'm rusty with 3.5. The average damage of an empowered shocking grasp would then be 26,25 damage. Slightly higher than where the fighter is, but fairly similar. Of course, the wizard just used one of his 3 (specialist, intelligence, class) level 3 spells to do comparative damage..

Edit: Actually, rereading it it makes sense that it simply adds 50% to the final result. You're entirely correct, my mistake :smallredface:


Now, he's pretty screwed with taking a hit, so he'd better hope for the best. However, higher max damage (and minimum) than the sword guy, plus it bypasses any DR, so he could get up to 45 (or 42) with the one attack.

He could indeed crit for up to 45 damage, but so can the fighter and the fighter is in fact more likely to crit with his 19-20 crit range.

The damage reduction is a good point, energy damage goes through DR and from what I have seen DR is far more common at low-medium levels than spell resistance.

[ArcturusV]

Maybe. Lightning is pretty iconic too though. "Behold the man of flint, that's me". Or in a more modern and likely to be recognized version, The Emperor going all Sith Lightning on people.

But you never know what the guy who's new will pick. Usually it was Lightning Bolt. Fireball as a close second. When I was playing 2nd edition and they heard about/found the spell, lots of Acid Bolts too.

"Man, I love Lightning but it lacks corrosive acid!" "Well I love Acid Arrow but it lacks Line based AoE." "Why choose? Pick Acid Bolt!"

[Mithril Leaf]

I like the idea of ToB. I love it from an optimization standpoint. But it's very spell like. If I want to play something that uses spells, I'll play a spellcaster because they have real out of combat options. If I want to play a nice simple melee, I'll be a barbarian or something. It just doesn't sit well with me to have the type of bookkeeping of a sorcerer without the glorious world altering power. I certainly advise people who the play method suits to use it though.

[Andorax]

And the one reason that never seems to get mentioned...

ToB is something of a precursor to 4E, where everyone has abilities with funny names that they can use once an encounter or so.

There's a sizable number of people that don't like ToB because it's too much like the edition they're explicitly avoiding playing by still playing 3.5.



Me? I'm a DM, and I love the dang thing. I'm slowing getting my players accustomed to it and enjoying what opportunities it presents.

[Phelix-Mu]

Wow, way too much talk of damage output v damage output. Almost none of the game would involve the wizard trying to wipe out his own supply of mooks, while the barbarian tries to keep pace (though this is an attractive premise for a plot hook). I am endlessly glad that the game often doesn't boil down to numbers, and that the pc classes aren't on some kind of mission to outshine each other. As DM, it's often helpful to arrange things so that the players have incentive to have their characters cooperate.

So let's assume cooperation between the barbarian and the wizard. Eventually, the wizard is gonna unload more damage, and slightly earlier than that it will be roughly equivalent damage. The wizard often has the option to distribute a slightly sub-optimal amount of damage over a number of targets. This is nice for the barbarian. The mooks are fried, so feel free to charge and rage and generally not worry about them, they aren't long for this world. The BBEG is weakened, and the barbarian shouldn't have to worry about quite so many full attacks as he would if the wizard weren't slinging from the back row (and that's assuming just damage...obviously there are better choices for bigger impact spells in a BBEG fight, even if we rule out spells that steal the barbarian's thunder).

Similarly, the wizard benefits a little from a meatshield and big freaky barbarian drawing attention from the people in the back row. At early levels, having multiple targets in a party is critical, since no one can afford to soak damage for more than a round or two, and for low-hp classes, a big target like a barbarian is good for survival.

So, the dynamic as encountered by many isn't 100% balanced, but it can still be pretty fun as long as it isn't a race of some kind. Later on, this is a bigger deal, since martial classes sans ToB can suffer Repeat Tactic Fatigue, and battle becomes less interesting (especially if the martial character is ALSO the one who usually has their neck on the line).

ToB is really useful for long-running campaigns. Don't like the classes? Then just chuck Martial Study and Martial Stance into the game, to sweeten the pot for the player that has had the stamina to play fighter/barbarian/monk for 15 levels or whatever. The feats in ToB are pretty solid, and single maneuvers here and there are no worse than some of the feats for martial characters found elsewhere. Martial Study has a built-in limiter, and IL scales up nicely, keeping at least some of the maneuvers with low pre-reqs relevant longer. Still won't be up to wizard levels of "look what I can do," but nothing else is (and praise the gods that it is so).

So I default back to my initial answer. ToB isn't much of a threat given the vastness of 3.5, but a DM is free to deem x or y outside the scope of a given campaign/setting/established op-level, so the book is fair game to rule in or out. It's a big target for reasons others have mentioned.

[Kudaku]

Wow, way too much talk of damage output v damage output.

Don't mind us, we're just having fun reliving the good old days when sorcerers were overpowered because they don't have to choose what spell to prepare, then can use ANY OF THEM! And so on.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by eggynack
Well, to be fair, druids were already making mundane folks extraneous since the beginning.

Not always. Again, this comment is assuming a far more sophisticated understanding of game mechanics than a lot of players will have.

Including myself. I started playing a druid in August 2003, for the simple reason that I loved the idea of the class. By Playground standards, none of us in our gaming group had much idea what we were doing; we had single-classed rogues and fighters, and we did indeed have a pyro wizard who constantly cast Burning Hands because he loved shooting fire.

My DM actually suggested I multiclass with fighter to make the druid a stronger character. I took a lot of grief from another player on account of the druid; he was continually insisting that druids were second-rate healers, second-rate fighters and generally mediocre all around. Lord, I even multiclassed wizard with the intention of going mystic theurge, horreurs!

Again, this was late 2003. I think it's fair to say that everyone's understanding of the game's permutations has followed an ascending curve over the past ten years, and not everyone is at the same point on the curve. Not to mention that everyone's curve is on a different trajectory, owing to their interests and inclinations. Some of us, through no real sin or fault of our own, just don't incline towards ToB.



Originally Posted by Axinian
I suppose prepared casters aren't worth the trouble then either. Their mechanics are arguably more complicated....

In my case, I took to spellcasting like a fish to water. It made sense to me, and I learned the permutations while playing druids and other casters over several years.

But it's a world of difference when you're a harried DM with limited time who's trying to grok a completely new system that, for whatever reasons of neurochemistry, simply does not make sense the same way that divine spellcasting did.

[Raineh Daze]

Wow, way too much talk of damage output v damage output.

Yup, we're just having a trip down memory lane.

And I remember when my favourite tactic was to have an epic-levelled wizard running around dual-wielding the same longsword for when blasting things with a ludicrously buffed magic missile wasn't an option. In a video game, true, but still. It was awesome. :smallbiggrin:


But it's a world of difference when you're a harried DM with limited time who's trying to grok a completely new system that, for whatever reasons of neurochemistry, simply does not make sense the same way that divine spellcasting did.

The brain is a truly baffling thing.

[Phelix-Mu]

Don't mind us, we're just having fun reliving the good old days when sorcerers were overpowered because they don't have to choose what spell to prepare, then can use ANY OF THEM! And so on.

Well, fair enough, but I just wanted to point out that as long as everyone is fighting and everyone is vulnerable, then they all get equal experience regardless of body count or individual damage output. If the goal of the game is to advance in level (second, of course, to having fun and being part of a story), then "us versus us" doesn't really get us anywhere faster than the slightly less internally antagonistic "us versus them."

But that's just my bias. Internal conflict within the party hardly slays the premise of the game, and often makes things considerably more interesting (until it gets to a certain point where it takes over the plot). But, while internal conflict might be cool and realistic at times, it's rarely more boring than when it comes down to numbers.

But I get the nostalgia bit, for sure. I still own (and look at) my TSR books, and I still get my dander up when I think of the announcement of 3.5, and then the abandonment of 3.5 for 4th. The abandonment of 4th for Next made me laugh, though. And I love to chat about op as much as the next person.:smallcool:

[Larkas]

(and I'm really not sure how to explain this to anyone, but it's pretty much a truism that nothing stays the same forever).

Hera****us has done it for you some 2500 years ago. :smallwink:


No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.

EDIT: The word filter will not let me write Heracl.itus. :smallbiggrin:

[Zaydos]

Personally in the final summation of things I like ToB. I recognize problems in it, and it took me a while to accept it, but I do like it. Some of the problems I had with it were:

A higher optimization floor: My RL players aren't optimizers, they really aren't (and the one optimizer I have had plays ToB anyway). In my RL games the strongest characters have been ToB initiators, although the Ranger with a Dragon Magazine feat for Dex to damage with ranged weapons, and heavy specialization in killing the most common creature type in the campaign might have ended up the strongest, at least for the final adventure of my last campaign. Even the druid in the campaign before that didn't outshine the initiators, though he kept pace (actually the Dead Eye feat really helped the Scout keep pace to an extent to).
The Wuxia elements are something I have flip-flopped on and were an initial put off though ultimately I love them because I love wuxia.
Maneuvers as spells for martial characters... never actually bothered me personally but I can see how it's a legitimate complaint.
The ToB classes obsolete earlier martial classes. This is the one that still gets to me and makes me sad.
My biggest problem with ToB, though, is that Devoted Spirit's healing maneuvers are Extraordinary. Yes at this point my biggest problem with it is that. It's also a simple house rule.

[Raineh Daze]

Well, fair enough, but I just wanted to point out that as long as everyone is fighting and everyone is vulnerable, then they all get equal experience regardless of body count or individual damage output. If the goal of the game is to advance in level (second, of course, to having fun and being part of a story), then "us versus us" doesn't really get us anywhere faster than the slightly less internally antagonistic "us versus them."

Eh, isn't the problem always that you can end up feeling like a third wheel when your abilities stay 'RAGE AND CHARGE' and later become 'RAGE AND CHARGE', eventually reaching a pinnacle of 'RAGE AND CHARGE' whilst the Wizard has worked up from puny Magic Missiles, through Fireballs, past tentacle grappling, continuing to ascend through making enemies taste the rainbow (Prismatic Spray is an Evocation), and finally started tossing meteors?

[Phelix-Mu]

Hera****us has done it for you some 2500 years ago. :smallwink:



EDIT: The word filter will not let me write Heracl.itus. :smallbiggrin:

Is it wrong that the word filter has virtually compelled me to quote this titan of thoughtful words at EVERY OPPORTUNITY?

Oh my. Gonna have to work to get back to NG. Today is definitely skewing CG...not good for my druidic abilities.:smalltongue:

[Kudaku]

And I remember when my favourite tactic was to have an epic-levelled wizard running around dual-wielding the same longsword for when blasting things with a ludicrously buffed magic missile wasn't an option. In a video game, true, but still. It was awesome. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, I remember having a sorcerer in NWN that handled everything in-game by spamming Isaac's Missile Storm, or something like that. Basically MM but 4th level.

I also played through BG2 Shadows of Amn and Throne of Bhaal soloing both games as a monk of all things :smallsmile:. Twinked to the gills through Shadowkeeper and on Easy difficulty of course. Good times, good times :smallbiggrin:


Eh, isn't the problem always that you can end up feeling like a third wheel when your abilities stay 'RAGE AND CHARGE' and later become 'RAGE AND CHARGE', eventually reaching a pinnacle of 'RAGE AND CHARGE' whilst the Wizard has worked up from puny Magic Missiles, through Fireballs, past tentacle grappling, continuing to ascend through making enemies taste the rainbow (Prismatic Spray is an Evocation), and finally started tossing meteors?

This. Very much this. Raineh and I started off discussing how with a low optimization group playing at low to medium levels the fighter and the wizard can seem equal, but I don't think anyone in this thread are going to argue that the fighter and the wizard are going to stay balanced when you get past the medium levels. Wizards get new toys at each level, fighters get stickers put on their old toys.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
(and I'm really not sure how to explain this to anyone, but it's pretty much a truism that nothing stays the same forever).

True enough. In Hera****us' time, the north celestial pole was somewhere between Thuban and Polaris, and soon enough it'll swing 'round to Vega once more.

:smalltongue:

[Raineh Daze]

Yeah, I remember having a sorcerer in NWN that handled everything in-game by spamming Isaac's Missile Storm, or something like that. Basically MM but 4th level.

Yup, Isaac's Missile Storm, then Isaac's Greater Missile Storm. Mostly Hordes of the Underdark, hence picking up Enserric the Longsword... repeatedly. I never realised you could turn him into a dagger, so I built a wizard to dual-wield longswords. :smallbiggrin:

[Phelix-Mu]

Eh, isn't the problem always that you can end up feeling like a third wheel when your abilities stay 'RAGE AND CHARGE' and later become 'RAGE AND CHARGE', eventually reaching a pinnacle of 'RAGE AND CHARGE' whilst the Wizard has worked up from puny Magic Missiles, through Fireballs, past tentacle grappling, continuing to ascend through making enemies taste the rainbow (Prismatic Spray is an Evocation), and finally started tossing meteors?

Well, some people don't like a sophisticate, parabolic nature to character growth. It just so happens that the same people that don't like the ho-hum nature of melee characters often post lots on forums. Not either a good thing or a bad thing, but I've noticed that wizard-talk generates more wizard-talk, and these kinds of self-perpetuating discussions often fail to be representative of the overall community.

But that isn't to say I don't fundamentally agree with you. Anyone, regardless of temperament should be able to pick up a martial-type and design something that can be fun and dynamic in the long haul. If you want to keep it simple, or focus more on rp, more power to you. But if another guy wants to jazz it up and have a deck of different shtick to throw at any enemy, even while playing martial, then the rules should reflect this, with or without ToB. Does ToB solve the problem? NO. Does it maybe throw a somewhat useful (if questionably fluffed and HORRENDOUSLY edited and NOT ERRATA'D in what can only be described as an abortion of a rules' publishers responsibility to its subscribers) patch on the problem? Eh, maybe. And that brings us...

to this thread.:smallbiggrin:

[Sith_Happens]

Agreed on Sword-and-board, but TWF? Girallon Windmill Fleshrip and the Xing Mongoose pair just bring TWF up to what THF does innately. You can get bonus damage, but WotC jammed those two disciplines into the class with 3/4 BAB. Tiger Claw is mostly about jumping and hitting, otherwise.

You'll notice that the matching-a-charger part when in reference to "a feat." Specifically, Stormguard Warrior. More specifically, the Combat Rhythm option therein, which opens up a damage boost that scales quadratically with the number of attacks you can make.


Besides THF/S&B being favored, ToB leaves behind the other kinds of mundanes. Archery, throwers, and skillmonkeys would love to have as many nice things as ToB gives melee. That's what I was really getting at with that clause of my run-on sentence, but I'm busy Pastamncer'ing in Kindgom of Loathing's "BIG!" challenge path right now. Drink ALL of the Magical Mystery Juice...

Ah, I forgot about them. Throwing gets Bloodstorm Blade, which is pretty much the best thing in the game for that style, but archery is indeed left out in the cold.


But you never know what the guy who's new will pick. Usually it was Lightning Bolt. Fireball as a close second. When I was playing 2nd edition and they heard about/found the spell, lots of Acid Bolts too.

The sorcerer in my current group actually went with Sound Lance.

[Raineh Daze]

Well, some people don't like a sophisticate, parabolic nature to character growth. It just so happens that the same people that don't like the ho-hum nature of melee characters often post lots on forums. Not either a good thing or a bad thing, but I've noticed that wizard-talk generates more wizard-talk, and these kinds of self-perpetuating discussions often fail to be representative of the overall community.

Just seems like something that'd get very boring if turns start getting longer or yours shorter. And surely after 5+ levels you would have memorised your own actions? D&D probably isn't supposed to be the waiting game. XD

[Larkas]

Is it wrong that the word filter has virtually compelled me to quote this titan of thoughtful words at EVERY OPPORTUNITY?

Oh my. Gonna have to work to get back to NG. Today is definitely skewing CG...not good for my druidic abilities.:smalltongue:

Considering that the Ephesian school of thought was, IMO, a center for the most interesting philosophy among the pre-Socratics, I wouldn't blame you if you did. :smallbiggrin:

To get on topic, though: I don't care for wuxia. I never did. Still, I do like ToB's fluff. I can see hints of it, but that fluff is not as deeply seated as some would have most believe. IMO, at least.

[Phelix-Mu]

Just seems like something that'd get very boring if turns start getting longer or yours shorter. And surely after 5+ levels you would have memorised your own actions? D&D probably isn't supposed to be the waiting game. XD

One of my friends played a stonechild (racial class), fighter->elemental warrior through 21 or so levels, and only showed signs of frustration when I used bluespawn godslayers of Tiamat to play pingpong with him around 19th. I'm sure he occasionally was uninterested (it was a long campaign, with enough time for anyone to get bored from time to time), but he slogged through combat like a champ, and never got bored of sawing through enemies like a plasma lance through butter.

And the guy has some issues that one would expect boredom to be more of an issue. It takes all sorts, I guess.

But then to the second paragraph of what I said, about it being the player's choice to be complicated or not.

[Elderand]

When you say you don't use ToB because it "doesn't fit", what exactly do you mean? Is it because you don't like the fluff (which I will admit is poorly written), is it because you feel that ToB feels too Asian-inspired to mesh properly with the European fantasy setting common to D&D, or is it something else entirely that I'm missing?

It doesn't fit for several reasons. First ToB has too much power out of the box when compared to what my players. One of them play a druid/cleric/warpriest and think it's the bees knees.

Second it doesn't fit the theme at all, I play a game of severly limited magic, magic item, wealth and other such things. A guy who could light his sword on fire would not fit, no matter how refulffed it got.

[MikelaC1]

Some of us just don't own the book, don't want to make an illegal download and don't trust their players to list out all the limits to the good stuff.

[eggynack]

It doesn't fit for several reasons. First ToB has too much power out of the box when compared to what my players. One of them play a druid/cleric/warpriest and think it's the bees knees.

Second it doesn't fit the theme at all, I play a game of severly limited magic, magic item, wealth and other such things. A guy who could light his sword on fire would not fit, no matter how refulffed it got.
Leaving the power thing aside, because that argument always made some sense to me, why does lighting your sword on fire not fit? Swordsages are the only classes who can do that, and they're trying to emulate the monk, who has a lot of magical stuff. The only class that's emulated by ToB which doesn't have some magical elements is the fighter, and the warblade is similarly reliant upon mundane stuff. Why is the monk using dimension door and becoming an outsider OK, but the swordsage adding some fire damage to his sword hits isn't?

[Starbuck_II]

ToB is something of a precursor to 4E, where everyone has abilities with funny names that they can use once an encounter or so.


This is wrong.

Look, you are forgiven for thinking that. But it was the other way around.

4E is something of a precursor to ToB, where everyone has abilities with funny names that they can use once an encounter or so.

Orcus was the precursor to ToB.

Timeline:
Orcus being worked on.
They decided to try some of it in 3.5.
ToB is a pretty much a success. Decide this is too much fun/strong (who knows?) so they change recover method of maneuvers (none) and make 4E.

ToB recovery was no daily maneuvers. 5 minutes and you get back any maneuver.

4E has encounters that need a short rest to recover and daily powers that don't recover.

I really wanted to see Pre-4E Orcus details that created ToB.

[Elderand]

Leaving the power thing aside, because that argument always made some sense to me, why does lighting your sword on fire not fit? Swordsages are the only classes who can do that, and they're trying to emulate the monk, who has a lot of magical stuff. The only class that's emulated by ToB which doesn't have some magical elements is the fighter, and the warblade is similarly reliant upon mundane stuff. Why is the monk using dimension door and becoming an outsider OK, but the swordsage adding some fire damage to his sword hits isn't?

I never said I had monks in my game.

[eggynack]

I never said I had monks in my game.
Well, if you don't have monks, then it wouldn't make sense to have a class that's based on a monk. That's not really a ToB problem though. What's your problem with the warblade, and assuming you have paladins, the crusader?

[Raineh Daze]

It doesn't fit for several reasons. First ToB has too much power out of the box when compared to what my players. One of them play a druid/cleric/warpriest and think it's the bees knees.

Second it doesn't fit the theme at all, I play a game of severly limited magic, magic item, wealth and other such things. A guy who could light his sword on fire would not fit, no matter how refulffed it got.

Flammable oil and a dab hand with any way of lighting the stuff. How about that?

[Kudaku]

Second it doesn't fit the theme at all, I play a game of severly limited magic, magic item, wealth and other such things. A guy who could light his sword on fire would not fit, no matter how refulffed it got.

Out of curiosity, do you ban other classes that have spells and/or prominent magical abilities? Assuming it's a core only game, off the top of my head that'd cut out the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer and the Wizard.

That leaves your players free to enjoy the barbarian, the fighter and the rogue.

[Elderand]

Well, if you don't have monks, then it wouldn't make sense to have a class that's based on a monk. That's not really a ToB problem though. What's your problem with the warblade, and assuming you have paladins, the crusader?

I don't have paladins actually, well I do, but not as a base class. So no crusader, and even if I did, I very much dislike the random nature of the crusader. I find it would another layer of bookeeping to use yet another system to decide which maneuver he get back. That's a clunky way of doing things.

As for the warblade, I keep a very tight lid on anything to mess with the action economy in my game, so diamond mind is something I'd keep an eye on if I allowed it, and let's not even start on the horrible brokeness of iron heart surge. But the main reason is one of power compared to the rest of my players.


Flammable oil and a dab hand with any way of lighting the stuff. How about that?

Would take longer to apply and use and for a lesser benefit and probably ruin a non magical sword.


Out of curiosity, do you ban other classes that have spells and/or prominent magical abilities? Assuming it's a core only game, off the top of my head that'd cut out the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer and the Wizard.

That leaves your players free to enjoy the barbarian, the fighter and the rogue.

Bard is a prestige class, so is the paladin. No sorcerer or monk. Cleric are all cloistered by default, wizard and druid gain neither animal companion nor familliar whitout a feat. No one gain bonus spell slot based on ability score. Some of the most broken spell have been banned outright or replaced with the pathfinder version.

I have however introduced more than a few other classes from other sources to offer a broader choice to non magical players. Ranger have been replaced by the Black company sourcebook version.

[Sith_Happens]

Flammable oil and a dab hand with any way of lighting the stuff. How about that?

I can't imagine how much oil that would be for Inferno Blast, but high levels are silly anyways.:smalltongue:

[Vultawk]

For me, it was mostly the book being forced upon me by an overzealous player with more disposable cash than I do. Probably doesn't help that it was among a stack of books, topped by Psionics (which I've never liked) I was expected to read and allow, shortly after learning Core.

I also had issues with the classes replacing older classes with poorly named and fluffed ones. I'll freely admit that simply naming the Warblade "Fighter" and giving it the same fluff (which I don't like being as mutable as others take it to be) would have gone a long way with getting the book points in my *ahem* book.

[Raineh Daze]

Would take longer to apply and use and for a lesser benefit and probably ruin a non magical sword.

Swords don't melt that easily. And you have a new way to represent the recovery mechanics. 'Lesser benefit' is hardly of much relevance when logic and outcomes are barely related. Oil burns. That's pretty much enough to satisfy this system.

... also an excuse for bandoleers of oil. Which sounds... bizarre. And amazing.


I also had issues with the classes replacing older classes with poorly named and fluffed ones. I'll freely admit that simply naming the Warblade "Fighter" and giving it the same fluff (which I don't like being as mutable as others take it to be) would have gone a long way with getting the book points in my *ahem* book.

... how the hell is the Crusader badly named, of all things? @_@

[Elderand]

Swords don't melt that easily. And you have a new way to represent the recovery mechanics. 'Lesser benefit' is hardly of much relevance when logic and outcomes are barely related. Oil burns. That's pretty much enough to satisfy this system.

... also an excuse for bandoleers of oil. Which sounds... bizarre. And amazing.


I didn't say melt, it wouldn't reduce a sword to puddle of slage, but it would ruin it's edge and probably affect balance.
My players would be more likely to throw a flask of alchemist fire at something than to try and coat a sword with it.

[Kudaku]

Bard is a prestige class, so is the paladin. No sorcerer or monk. Cleric are all cloistered by default, wizard and druid gain neither animal companion nor familliar whitout a feat. No one gain bonus spell slot based on ability score. Some of the most broken spell have been banned outright or replaced with the pathfinder version.

I have however introduced more than a few other classes from other sources to offer a broader choice to non magical players. Ranger have been replaced by the Black company sourcebook version.

I... I would definitely play a wizard in that game. Holy hell would I play a wizard :smallbiggrin:

[MuttonBasher]

Would take longer to apply and use and for a lesser benefit and probably ruin a non magical sword.

Given that hitpoints are simply a number that goes up as other numbers go up, rather than most things being practically made from adamantine, why does that need to be true? Why can't the person who's practiced his whole adult life with his blade-and-flame routine light the blade on, I don't know, something like a matchbox striker on his hip as he flourishes it around before plunging it into the bad guy's chest? Why is 1d6 fire damage from a mundane fire at level 1 okay, but not, say, 6d6 at level 12? After all, the rest of the guy's skills have improved over his lifetime, why not his ability to hit something critical with his flaming blade?

You're entitled to your own likes and dislikes of course, but you seem to have a very, very narrow view of 'things wot I find acceptable' and 'this is just stupid and magical', without really allowing leeway for creativity.


... also an excuse for bandoleers of oil. Which sounds... bizarre. And amazing

It really does. I think I'll use that the next time I play a Swordsage. I'm picturing this witch hunter type character - "Burn the heretic!" and all. I wonder if I can fluff the rest of the Desert Wind abilities as easily as Burning Blade... I think I can make a good case for them being Extraordinary without too much effort. :smallsmile:

[Elderand]

I... I would definitely play a wizard in that game. Holy hell would I play a wizard :smallbiggrin:

Did I mention I use the dragonlance optional rule for wizard curse ? Make a fort save after each spell cast with a DC of 10+spell level or become fatigued, or if already fatigued, exhausted ?

Made the wizard wary of expending his magic on .... I forget the word. Well he conserve his magic, but when something big need to get killed or large number thinned the others are glad to have him. But he doesn't still the show and has fun.

[eggynack]

Given that hitpoints are simply a number that goes up as other numbers go up, rather than most things being practically made from adamantine, why does that need to be true? Why can't the person who's practiced his whole adult life with his blade-and-flame routine light the blade on, I don't know, something like a matchbox striker on his hip as he flourishes it around before plunging it into the bad guy's chest? Why is 1d6 fire damage from a mundane fire at level 1 okay, but not, say, 6d6 at level 12? After all, the rest of the guy's skills have improved over his lifetime, why not his ability to hit something critical with his flaming blade?

You're entitled to your own likes and dislikes of course, but you seem to have a very, very narrow view of 'things wot I find acceptable' and 'this is just stupid and magical', without really allowing leeway for creativity.
I don't see why the swordsage wouldn't be magical. His game doesn't have monks, so it makes sense not to have a swordsage, but that's far from a problem with ToB, and I think it's somewhat removed from the reasons that people don't like the flavor of ToB. My question is why someone would allow a monk but not a swordsage, but that doesn't apply here. Swordsages have magical abilities because they should have magical abilities. They are as monks in this regard.

[classy one]

I find it hard to believe that different that different DM have different preferences.....
I find it even harder to believe that players complaining about it after they joined the campaign.

[MuttonBasher]

I don't see why the swordsage wouldn't be magical. His game doesn't have monks, so it makes sense not to have a swordsage, but that's far from a problem with ToB, and I think it's somewhat removed from the reasons that people don't like the flavor of ToB. My question is why someone would allow a monk but not a swordsage, but that doesn't apply here. Swordsages have magical abilities because they should have magical abilities. They are as monks in this regard.

Well yes, but the point is (as all too often in ToB discussions), that fluff is mutable and fiery swords don't necessarily have to be magical. How many of the Desert Wind maneuvers can't be explained as Extraordinary with enough martial skill and a lot of oil?

[Elderand]

Given that hitpoints are simply a number that goes up as other numbers go up, rather than most things being practically made from adamantine, why does that need to be true? Why can't the person who's practiced his whole adult life with his blade-and-flame routine light the blade on, I don't know, something like a matchbox striker on his hip as he flourishes it around before plunging it into the bad guy's chest? Why is 1d6 fire damage from a mundane fire at level 1 okay, but not, say, 6d6 at level 12? After all, the rest of the guy's skills have improved over his lifetime, why not his ability to hit something critical with his flaming blade?

You're entitled to your own likes and dislikes of course, but you seem to have a very, very narrow view of 'things wot I find acceptable' and 'this is just stupid and magical', without really allowing leeway for creativity.

My players have fun, no one feel left out, they enjoy the versimilitude (limited as it might be) and where made aware before hand of every house rule and banned material.

And for the record, I never said ToB was bad or stupid (except maybe the crusader getting maneuver back at random). In another campaign with another mood I wouldn't mind letting it in my game. But it doesn't fit the current one because me and my players wanted something closer to conan the barbarian than the forgotten realms.

[Kudaku]

Did I mention I use the dragonlance optional rule for wizard curse ? Make a fort save after each spell cast with a DC of 10+spell level or become fatigued, or if already fatigued, exhausted ?

Made the wizard wary of expending his magic on .... I forget the word. Well he conserve his magic, but when something big need to get killed or large number thinned the others are glad to have him. But he doesn't still the show and has fun.

No, you didn't. Honestly I'd be fine with that - I'd be saving my spells anyway and Fatigue has zero impact on my character except when I need to run, and I have spells for that. Furthermore while the difference between fatigued and exhausted is crippling for a melee build, it's minimal for a caster. I'd probably alter my build somewhat to include better fortitude saves, but Con is already the second most important stat to a wizard and a DC10 + Spell Level is a very easy save.

On the flip side, in a low-magic setting my enemies are less likely to have items that grant them better saves, the ability to see through my illusions, be able to reach me while I'm flying, or penetrate my Protection From Arrows, and so on.

Furthermore, there's the logical ramifications of playing a 9th level spellcasting class in a world where the majority of people are unfamiliar with and don't understand magic. Those ramifications are significantly more painful for mundanes than in regular high fantasy worlds.

It seems strange that you nerfed spellcasting slots across the board, made the druid's animal companion require a feat, flat out banned the sorcerer, made the CoDzilla require a dip in fighter, but the only tweak you made to wizards was to remove the familiar. Or is wizard the only class who is effected with the curse?

[Elderand]

Well yes, but the point is (as all too often in ToB discussions), that fluff is mutable and fiery swords don't necessarily have to be magical. How many of the Desert Wind maneuvers can't be explained as Extraordinary with enough martial skill and a lot of oil?

The problem with that is that you can refluff it, but that introduce possible countermeasure. Guy carry a bandolier full of oil flask ? An inteligent enemy will target that to drench the guy in his own oil before throwing a torch at him.

[Elderand]

No, you didn't. Honestly I'd be fine with that - I'd be saving my spells anyway and Fatigue has zero impact on my character except when I need to run, and I have spells for that. Furthermore while the difference between fatigued and exhausted is crippling for a melee build, it's minimal for a caster. I'd probably alter my build somewhat to include better fortitude saves, but Con is already the second most important stat to a wizard and a DC10 + Spell Level is a very easy save.

On the flip side, in a low-magic setting my enemies are less likely to have items that grant them better saves, the ability to see through my illusions, be able to reach me while I'm flying, or penetrate my Protection From Arrows, and so on.

It seems strange that you nerfed spellcasting slots across the board, made the druid's animal companion require a feat, flat out banned the sorcerer, made the CoDzilla require a dip in fighter, but the only tweak you made to wizards was to remove the familiar. Or is wizard the only class who is effected with the curse?

Only wizards are affected, the other classes are granted spell by gods so it doesn't take a personal toll on them. And yes, bard magic is considered divine. They are less itinerant minstrel and more Religious Skald in my game.

[MuttonBasher]

The problem with that is that you can refluff it, but that introduce possible countermeasure. Guy carry a bandolier full of oil flask ? An inteligent enemy will target that to drench the guy in his own oil before throwing a torch at him.

If you're introducing called shots to your game, I suppose that could be a problem. Technically an adventurer's equipment has a chance to go kablooey if he rolls a 1 on a save against a fire spell, but I have never, ever seen that enforced. Adding the ability to target specific pieces of equipment with regular attacks (not sundering) seems... like a really good excuse not to allow a martial adept trying desperately to refluff a favored class into something that would fit into your game.

[Raineh Daze]

The problem with that is that you can refluff it, but that introduce possible countermeasure. Guy carry a bandolier full of oil flask ? An inteligent enemy will target that to drench the guy in his own oil before throwing a torch at him.

Does this mean that enemies take a morale penalty to attack rolls if I'm a raging barbarian wearing a kilt and it gets burnt off?

[ArcturusV]

As do any Hirelings that you ask to help flank.

[Elderand]

If you're introducing called shots to your game, I suppose that could be a problem. Technically an adventurer's equipment has a chance to go kablooey if he rolls a 1 on a save against a fire spell, but I have never, ever seen that enforced. Adding the ability to target specific pieces of equipment with regular attacks (not sundering) seems... like a really good excuse not to allow a martial adept trying desperately to refluff a favored class into something that would fit into your game.

Not at all, it just mean he has to take precaution other than carry a simple bandolier of glass vials full of flamable liquid prominently on him during battle.

Using metal container, camouflaging the bandolier amongst the rest and so on.

If I were running a game with player at a higher optimisation level I'd consider allowing classes from ToB with proper refluffing. But refluff might entail a rule change. The oil exemple was one who would lead to such a thing. But if you told me your weapon was specificly prepared to catch on fire as part of it's crafting and the maneuver were just way of doing it smoothly during battle I'd let that fly. That's cool. Ki granted flame of awesome: doesn't fit with the mood of the game.

But ultimatly I don't allow these classes because of the optimisation floor.

[Kudaku]

Only wizards are affected, the other classes are granted spell by gods so it doesn't take a personal toll on them. And yes, bard magic is considered divine. They are less itinerant minstrel and more Religious Skald in my game.

Interesting :smallsmile:.

My experience with low magic campaigns is that it makes spellcasters better and the non-casters significantly worse, since they now have a much harder time getting a hold of the items they need in order to keep up with spellcasters. A good example would be a way for mundanes to fly.

[Artillery]

If you overlook some of the maneuvers that stick out in the Various disciplines they are fine. Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics are examples of what happens when you don't clearly define terms for what they do and don't work for.

Their are also plenty of things that are just very good. Tiger Claw helps out TWF. Shadow Hand has abilities that are useful out of combat, Shadow Jaunt line for example. White Raven gives groups of martial characters more options, improving charges give movement to allies etc.

I will say that the Martial Initiators are the most effective in combat before lvl 6. They can do maneuvers with very little opportunity cost compared to when people get their iterative.

My only experience with them is lvl 4 to lvl 10. In a party of a Beguiler, Mystic Theurge, Druid, and Abjurationist/War weaver. Warblade fits well with a party like that and is still relevant in non-combat situations as well.

If I had to do straight 20 for a martial class, Warblade and Crusader would be what I go for depending on what the party needs.

[Elderand]

Does this mean that enemies take a morale penalty to attack rolls if I'm a raging barbarian wearing a kilt and it gets burnt off?

They might suffer from an effect similar to hideous laughter ! :P

Fight to the death are relativly rare in my game, usualy enemies will run if they are losing. If someone or something dies it's usualy a "got nothing to lose" situation or the guy got one shotted. (Or the player feel like bastards and decide to not offer quarters)

[Elderand]

Interesting :smallsmile:.

My experience with low magic campaigns is that it makes spellcasters better and the non-casters significantly worse, since they now have a much harder time getting a hold of the items they need in order to keep up with spellcasters. A good example would be a way for mundanes to fly.

Which is why the caster list got a serious look over. And as I said, my player are not optimisers, so it doesn't come up all that often. Beside, the wizard is wary of putting himself in situations far from his allies in case he does blow his saves against fatigue and exhaustion. And my players tend to work together rather than trying to show off.

The end result is not that the wizard player is stronger than his team but that they consider a wizard enemy to be real threat and start thinking of methods other than direct combat to take them out.

Edit : clearly my game and rules are not for everyone, but my player like it and it cause no problem for them or me. Which as far as we are concerned, mean we all "won" the game.

[Kudaku]

Which is why the caster list got a serious look over. And as I said, my player are not optimisers, so it doesn't come up all that often. Beside, the wizard is wary of putting himself in situations far from his allies in case he does blow his saves against fatigue and exhaustion. And my players tend to work together rather than trying to show off.

The end result is not that the wizard player is stronger than his team but that they consider a wizard enemy to be real threat and start thinking of methods other than direct combat to take them out.

Edit : clearly my game and rules are not for everyone, but my player like it and it cause no problem for them or me. Which as far as we are concerned, mean we all "won" the game.

I'm not judging, everyone can and should be able to play the game however they and their friends get the most fun out of it :smallsmile:. It seems like you and your friends have figured out what works for you and that's great!

My example earlier wasn't really intended to be showing off, just illustrating one of the many ways for casters to run circles around non-casters in a world where mundanes don't get magic toys that allow them to close the gap. On the flip side, if you completely butcher the spell lists then you're not really left with the same classes at all. Judging from what you mentioned about the spell list, I'm guessing wizards can no longer cast Fly? Personally I have a hard time imagining a wizard that doesn't have spells like Invisibility and Fly on his spell list, yet these are exactly the kind of spells that need magic to be countered. If you remove all those spells then wizards might very well work in your campaign, but then you also lose out on a lot of what makes the wizard a wizard.

[Raineh Daze]

My example earlier wasn't really intended to be showing off, just illustrating one of the many ways for casters to run circles around non-casters in a world where mundanes don't get magic toys that allow them to close the gap. On the flip side, if you completely butcher the spell lists then you're not really left with the same classes at all. Judging from what you mentioned about the spell list, I'm guessing wizards can no longer cast Fly? Personally I have a hard time imagining a wizard that doesn't have spells like Invisibility and Fly on his spell list, yet these are exactly the kind of spells that need magic to be countered. If you remove all those spells then wizards might very well work in your campaign, but then you also lose out on a lot of what makes the wizard a wizard.

Everything's flying... what the hell does D&D think it is, a tribute to the Red Baron? :smalltongue:

[Kudaku]

Everything's flying... what the hell does D&D think it is, a tribute to the Red Baron? :smalltongue:

I would play the hell out of Red Baron - The RPG :smallbiggrin:

I can imagine it now, endlessly perusing the maximum speed of the Albatros C.III and comparing the weapon stats of the Nieuport-Delage and the DH.2.

[Elderand]

I'm not judging, everyone can and should be able to play the game however they and their friends get the most fun out of it :smallsmile:. It seems like you and your friends have figured out what works for you and that's great!

My example earlier wasn't really intended to be showing off, just illustrating one of the many ways for casters to run circles around non-casters in a world where mundanes don't get magic toys that allow them to close the gap. On the flip side, if you completely butcher the spell lists then you're not really left with the same classes at all. Judging from what you mentioned about the spell list, I'm guessing wizards can no longer cast Fly? Personally I have a hard time imagining a wizard that doesn't have spells like Invisibility and Fly on his spell list, yet these are exactly the kind of spells that need magic to be countered. If you remove all those spells then wizards might very well work in your campaign, but then you also lose out on a lot of what makes the wizard a wizard.

The wizard can still cats fly and invisibility and such stapple, spell I took out or modified tend to be things like polymorph.
The thing about my game is that there is no magic mart, Magic item are ditributed on a case by case basis. For exemple, we have a fighter who early on food a sword that would have been way out of his WBL until much later, but on the other hand he won't find a better one later. I made magic items unique and have a story behind them.

The wizard used flight a couple times, but it was always a mean to facilitate the party getting somewhere later on rather than in battle. And if he showed signs of pulling stunt and leaving the rest of the party in the dust I'd ask him to town it down or give items to the party to compensate.

What I do not do is give out magic item just because the enemy is of a certain type. You're facing a flying creature and you suck with ranged weapon ? I'm not giving an item for flying, instead I expect my player to come up with strategies to deal with it. (My player are paranoid about wide open space whitout cover now.)

And the party wizard is especialy weary of using his spells for anything but the direst circumstances. I've also gone ahead and made 15 mins adventuring day more difficult. The wizard could use rope trick to rest and regain his spells but if they are in the middle of a dungeon the inhabitant realise there is an intruder and strengthen their defense.

The party is aware that they can rest if they really want to but it's a tradeoff if they do. I try to encourage my players to play smart and cautious and it's working so far.

[navar100]

Did I mention I use the dragonlance optional rule for wizard curse ? Make a fort save after each spell cast with a DC of 10+spell level or become fatigued, or if already fatigued, exhausted ?

Made the wizard wary of expending his magic on .... I forget the word. Well he conserve his magic, but when something big need to get killed or large number thinned the others are glad to have him. But he doesn't still the show and has fun.
{scrubbed}

[Raineh Daze]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

... there is nothing inherently wrong with a low magic setting. This means throttling back magic in some way. :smallsigh:

[Kudaku]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

That post is both unnecessarily harsh and overly confrontational. One of the greatest benefits of 3.x is how flexible it is. With all the content that's been released for d20 you could create pretty much any kind of campaign you could imagine. That's exactly what Elderand has done and he's certainly in his right to do so.

[Sir_Thaddeus]

It seems I'm a tad bit late to the thread, but I'm just going to go ahead and give my answer to the original post.

I've never brought up ToB in any group I've played in, despite the fact that I love the book (fluff and all), because I didn't think it would really mesh well with my groups' playstyles. ToB, as I see it, was an answer to martial classes getting outclassed by casters. In my groups, we tend to play mid- to low-levels, and optimization is fairly low as well; casters are more likely to learn (and use) Fireball than, say, Grease or Polymorph. In such a setting ToB classes would excel and may seem overpowered, due to the high optimization floor.

A more general reason as to why any given DM may ban ToB is that the classes were made to stack up well against casters, but these DMs aren't comparing them to casters. They're comparing them to pre-existing martial classes. Rather than seeing it as, "This'll let my fighter (warblade now) catch up to the wizard!" they see it as "This'll leave my fighter in the dust." Had WotC been more explicit about "These classes are intended to replace core martial classes," perhaps such misunderstandings would not occur.

Of course, there's always the simpler reason of "I don't own that book," which is valid reason for a DM to ban any non-SRD subsystem.

[Chronos]

My objection is rather different than most. The problem is that a bunch of other classes outperform the Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian. The solution to this problem is not to add three more classes that also outperform the Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian. Fix those classes first, and then we can worry about adding new varieties of fighting.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Let's keep it civil in here and avoid insulting others' playstyle preferences.

[NEO|Phyte]

My objection is rather different than most. The problem is that a bunch of other classes outperform the Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian. The solution to this problem is not to add three more classes that also outperform the Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian. Fix those classes first, and then we can worry about adding new varieties of fighting.

I am reasonable sure that short of rewriting the PHB from the ground up, the problem is too deeply-seated to simply fix.

[Kudaku]

stuff

Actually, that's a very good point on comparing classes. When I first read the Witch in PF my natural comparison point was the wizard - they're both intelligence-based spellcasters that memorize their spells ahead of time. It made sense to me to compare those two classes, since they seem the most similar.

If you sit down and read the Warblade, the thematically most similar class in core is the fighter. And let's face it, unless you assume a giant gap in optimization, the Warblade will blow the fighter out of the water every damn time.

To most people it won't make sense to compare the ToB classes with spellcasters - and if you compare them to their core counterparts - the monk, the paladin and the fighter then they stand out as very, very powerful.

[sonofzeal]

My objection is rather different than most. The problem is that a bunch of other classes outperform the Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian. The solution to this problem is not to add three more classes that also outperform the Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian. Fix those classes first, and then we can worry about adding new varieties of fighting.
Problem: any "fix" to Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian that brings them up to par with T3ers likely involves a total rethink. Giving Fighters more feats won't really do it; giving them small numerical edges like PF isn't going to do it. There are literally dozens of Fighter Variants and ACFs out there, and even the best of them don't hit T3. You're pretty much going to have to redesign these classes from the ground up. At which point...

....well, if the Warblade had been officially printed as a Fighter fix, rather than a separate class, how would you feel about it then?

[Kudaku]

My objection is rather different than most. The problem is that a bunch of other classes outperform the Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian. The solution to this problem is not to add three more classes that also outperform the Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian. Fix those classes first, and then we can worry about adding new varieties of fighting.

Adding to that, many people don't think the fighter, paladin or barbarian are being outperformed. Judging by the weekly threads of "monk is OP", people have a very different view on class balance depending on how familiar the group is with optimization.

Think about it like this: If your party enjoys high-powered game with wizards, clerics and druids played to their full potential, that's great! The ToB classes will fit right in. They'll be able to keep up most of the time and they probably won't get completely eclipsed.

If your party enjoys lower powered games where wizards memorize Acid Arrow and clerics prepare Cure Moderate Wounds so they can heal the barbarian mid-fight, that's great! The ToB classes should maybe give this campaign a pass though, since otherwise they might outperform their lesser brethren.

3.x is a buffet table and the Tome of Battle is a flavour of cake. If you don't want a slice then you don't have to take one, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have it on hand. Some people like plain chocolate, some people like strawberry cheesecake with coconut sprinkles :smallsmile:

...And now I'm hungry :smallcool:

[Chronos]

Fixing the Fighter hardly requires a complete re-write, since it's the ultimate modular class. What the Fighter gets is bonus feats, so what you need to do to fix it is to create good feats. Just create feats good enough that each of them is worth the same amount as what any other class gets from two class levels.

[ArcturusV]

Though I'm also in favor of some sort of Custom Feat rule. Casters get to regularly just make up spells. Why not allow a fighter who is a savant at the ways of war to come up with some new art suited to his experiences and temperaments?

Sure it'd probably be DM adjusted like spell research. But it'd be a nice touch. And something I always wanted to see.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Fixing the Fighter hardly requires a complete re-write, since it's the ultimate modular class. What the Fighter gets is bonus feats, so what you need to do to fix it is to create good feats. Just create feats good enough that each of them is worth the same amount as what any other class gets from two class levels.
The problem with feats is that, unless their fighter-only feats, then any class/character can take them, and they're not an advantage. If they're fighter-only feats, then they might as well just be class features anyways.

[Elderand]

The problem with feats, is that unless their fighter-only, then any class can take them, and they're not really an advantage. If they're fighter-only feats, then they might as well just be class features anyways.

there is an idea, why not say the fighter get fighter only feat automaticly at the appropriate level ?

[eggynack]

there is an idea, why not say the fighter get fighter only feat automaticly at the appropriate level ?
And what if we organized all of those automatically gained fighter feats into 9 levels. We don't want all fighters to be the same though, because that would be boring, so we should divide all of the feats into "schools" of some kind. I think we're really hitting on a brilliant idea here.

[TuggyNE]

And what if we organized all of those automatically gained fighter feats into 9 levels. We don't want all fighters to be the same though, because that would be boring, so we should divide all of the feats into "schools" of some kind. I think we're really hitting on a brilliant idea here.

Maybe some of the feats should be organized in different groups so you can't stack up Power Attack Leap Attack Battle Jump Spirited Charge and Shock Trooper all on the same hit anymore.

[Rubik]

When you say you don't use ToB because it "doesn't fit", what exactly do you mean? Is it because you don't like the fluff (which I will admit is poorly written), is it because you feel that ToB feels too Asian-inspired to mesh properly with the European fantasy setting common to D&D, or is it something else entirely that I'm missing?If a fighter, rogue, paladin, monk, swashbuckler, or ninja fits in your game, ToB can fit in your game -- at least, fluff-wise. They're basically just better versions of these classes, after all.

[Larkas]

The problem with feats is that, unless their fighter-only feats, then any class/character can take them, and they're not an advantage. If they're fighter-only feats, then they might as well just be class features anyways.

Well, but they are class features. That's something I always considered as well. Fighter bonus feats should give access only to feats no one else has access to (maybe not even the fighter with his regular feats), and these feats should probably scale automatically with level. They would be feats in name only, but who cares?

[Soras Teva Gee]

If a fighter, rogue, paladin, monk, swashbuckler, or ninja fits in your game, ToB can fit in your game -- at least, fluff-wise. They're basically just better versions of these classes, after all.

Of course just because something "can" be done does not mean everyone will accept that of course. Mechanics are not always removed entirely from fluff since that's what the mechanics are suppose to emulate. You want to claim you are a traveling merchant with only some token ranks in Appraise and Bluff and a martial class you best not claim to be a good one.

Also this is pretty much only fluff as the mechanical style is quite different. Since when does a swordsman need to do book keeping about when he last did X move so he needs to wait until Y before he can get X back.

Put together and for ToB you really have to practice your complete abstraction to make say a self-taught mercenary from a poor dirt farm using "stances" and "maneuvers" or anything with a fancy name like "Iron Heart Surge" or whatever. Oh you "can" handwave it but that doesn't make it convincing. Nothing stops you from playing say a Drow Paladin that's never left the Underdark, but you really shouldn't be surprised at a few raised eyebrows and people thinking you just want to be a Special Snowflake. And for ToB this is not even getting into what is mechanically "appropriate" for a "mundane" character to be able to do.

Doing all that is more well, more an opinion then anything else really.

And from any direction it probably help that some of the "no really its not magic" styles are presented in the same format as say Desert Wind that let you start dealing fire damage. Though if you were doing Sanji from One Piece... totally not magic because its air friction.

Genius.

[sonofzeal]

And from any direction it probably help that some of the "no really its not magic" styles are presented in the same format as say Desert Wind that let you start dealing fire damage. Though if you were doing Sanji from One Piece... totally not magic because its air friction.

Genius.
IIRC, all or nearly all of the fire-damage ones are labelled as (Su). *shrugs*


Of course just because something "can" be done does not mean everyone will accept that of course. Mechanics are not always removed entirely from fluff since that's what the mechanics are suppose to emulate. You want to claim you are a traveling merchant with only some token ranks in Appraise and Bluff and a martial class you best not claim to be a good one.

Also this is pretty much only fluff as the mechanical style is quite different. Since when does a swordsman need to do book keeping about when he last did X move so he needs to wait until Y before he can get X back.
That is, however, purely a metagame concern. By that argument, nobody could ever play a class that didn't involve little bits of plastic and mental arithmetic. The same abstraction that lets you translate that into a fighter swinging their sword should cover maneuvers as well. It's just a matter of what you're used to. You're accustomed to lobbing dice and shouting numbers in combat, but not to tracking maneuvers. Once you've acclimatized yourself to the latter, there's no reason for it to feel any more unnatural.


Put together and for ToB you really have to practice your complete abstraction to make say a self-taught mercenary from a poor dirt farm using "stances" and "maneuvers" or anything with a fancy name like "Iron Heart Surge" or whatever. Oh you "can" handwave it but that doesn't make it convincing. Nothing stops you from playing say a Drow Paladin that's never left the Underdark, but you really shouldn't be surprised at a few raised eyebrows and people thinking you just want to be a Special Snowflake. And for ToB this is not even getting into what is mechanically "appropriate" for a "mundane" character to be able to do.

As I'm sure people have pointed out before, ToB maneuvers actually do a bang-up job of replicating traditional swordsmanship. I'm almost surprised there isn't a "Mordhau (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Augsburg_Cod.I.6.4%C2%BA.2_(Codex_Wallerstein)_107 v.jpg/300px-Augsburg_Cod.I.6.4%C2%BA.2_(Codex_Wallerstein)_107 v.jpg)" maneuver, although one could probably be appropriated for the purpose.

You're right, though, that ToB doesn't do well for a peasant dude just picking up a cudgel for the first time. It's best for "schooled" warriors, those who've actually trained under an expert of some kind, someone who actually studies and thinks about combat rather than merely someone forced to resort to it. That's not a flaw in the system though, that's just its niche compared to other melee options.

[Kristinn]

I don't like the nature of this thread, as it has become less about stating your own opinion and preferences, and more about pointing out how stupid other peoples reasons are.

Personally I don't like ToB. Not because of the fluff, and not because I thing "melee shouldn't have nice things". Simply because there is no need for it. My gaming group doesn't play DnD like it's a game of DotA. You don't have to build your character as optimized as possible, and most of the players wouldn't know how to anyway.

In my first campaign way back then, I played a Barbarian. I didn't take Bear Totem or Wolf Totem or Whirling Frenzy. I just liked swinging a huge axe, and cleaving through my enemies. One of the other players was a Druid, and here impact on battle was almost minimal compared to my damage, but she could heal and had an animal companion helping flank.

Then a character died, and the player, the most experienced one, who just had found ToB, rolled up a Warblade. And instantly he could outdamage me with a bunch of d6, without having to lower his attack bonus (Power Attack), and without lowering his AC (Rage). He could also heal himself, and do some other **** I don't remember. We quit the campaign shortly after, but nobody really liked this. I was a glass cannon with low AC, but he both outdamaged me, and had huge AC. It just didn't seem right. High optimization floor is the word I'm looking for.

Most groups aren't gonna be munchkins, just a few friends playing a casual game, with the most experienced player DMing. Playing a Fighter or Barbarian is simple and fun, and a Wizard with two Fireballs a day and a 15 hit point chassis isn't going to outshine anyone, except maybe the first encounter. The problem with ToB is that a Warblade is going to outshine the Fighter and the Barbarian. And the Wizard.

Sure, if I were to play a super-optimized game with only munchkins, ToB would be right in. But in a friendly neighborhood roleplaying night it is most unwelcome.

[Averis Vol]

When I first started my campaign a year ago I disallowed tome of battle.

I also disallowed casters. Period*.

It wasn't until I started really reading into these forums that I warmed up to the book as I had only used it once and my DM massively gimped it (Maneuvers were exactly like spells: you prepare them in the morning and you can use them once a day, and it was weak sauce.) But recently I corrected myself, and due to mental and genetics altering potion the party drank, they were allowed to rebuild their characters with anything they wanted at a 32 pb instead of 28 for such massive gimpage I put them through. This only meant that now my party became heroes of legend instead of the common foot soldiers they were, and I had to step up my game.

For my group this book is fine because all of us understand what class can do what, as we have devoted time into optimising our game to T3.

As to why people don't like it, well, thats pretty much been covered. I didn't allow it because it would tip the power level in a select few peoples favor and I didn't want that.

*There was a legitimate reason, having to do with 99% of the country being dead magic zoned.

[AuraTwilight]

Kristinn, what you don't realize is that Wizards are just as capable of "accidentally" ruining a game like that. They get instant-win spells at nearly every level.

In other words, it's not an issue about being munchkins. It's the fact that a Wizard, even without super-optimizing, is capable of doing more than a fighter ever could. A Fighter can only fight. A Wizard can fight, heal, buff, mind control, summon, warp reality, polymorph...

[samuraijaques]

been reading through this thread a lot lately as I am a huge proponent of ToB and wanted to understand why people throw it out so often having never understood why myself.

people bring up a lot of interesting concerns, a lot of valid arguments as to why it is OP but i feel like most of them come about when it is being used by inexperienced players. just because your character at level 4 is better than your friends character at level 4 doesn't mean that you are always going to outshine them. if you outshine them it is completely your doing, it would have happened no matter what class you played.

I feel like an experienced player can gauge his actions and make choices that will help other players have fun. I am a huge fan of optimization just because i like breaking rules systems, it makes me happy. basically every character i play is optimized through the roof, but i don't flaunt it around and make all the other characters and the DM feel like dumb mooks.

I guess my problem with throwing out ToB is that it is taking options away from your players. If your players have no desire to use ToB then that's fine and you don't need to ban it. if they do want to use it then you should let them, unless you know they cant be trusted with that kind of power. if you tell your player he can't play with something that he wants to that is taking some of the fun of the game away from him and unless its because he is going to abuse it there really isn't a good reason. and don't give me that "it's too hard to understand" crap, it takes like 15 minutes to understand, just read it. i figured it out at the game store while i was waiting in line.

extremely sorry if I offended anyone.

cheers.

[Nameless Void]

I can answer this: Re Monk and Swordsage AC bonus stacking
I concede this one, poor edition of the book and all.

Actually, the Tome of Battle stipulates while in Light Armor. A monk cannot wear armor so therefore the bonuses cannot stack. Ever.

[Soras Teva Gee]

IIRC, all or nearly all of the fire-damage ones are labelled as (Su). *shrugs*

Yeah and it would take you how long to convert it any one discipline one way or the other. Couple of minutes to swap the labels.

Or for that matter if you wanted any of the classes (say a Warblade) to swap out their options would it be any harder book keeping wise to take a 'magical' one over a 'mundane' one.

ToB made "magic" or "mundane" merely a label and used what used to be magic (the mechanical system side of things namely) for anything it liked.



That is, however, purely a metagame concern. By that argument, nobody could ever play a class that didn't involve little bits of plastic and mental arithmetic. The same abstraction that lets you translate that into a fighter swinging their sword should cover maneuvers as well. It's just a matter of what you're used to. You're accustomed to lobbing dice and shouting numbers in combat, but not to tracking maneuvers. Once you've acclimatized yourself to the latter, there's no reason for it to feel any more unnatural.

I can buy a simple roll covering all the permutations of actual combat because its simply covering the nigh infinite possibilities in a statistical manner. While we all tend to lazyily think of one attack being one swing or something its really supposed to cover all that swordplay in one giant abstraction.

If I was looking for more complexity of that type while I could maybe cook up a system to do so, but at that point I'd think it would be so cumbersome a game I'd rather drag out my fencing gear from the attic and do something more hands on.


As I'm sure people have pointed out before, ToB maneuvers actually do a bang-up job of replicating traditional swordsmanship. I'm almost surprised there isn't a "Mordhau (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Augsburg_Cod.I.6.4%C2%BA.2_(Codex_Wallerstein)_107 v.jpg/300px-Augsburg_Cod.I.6.4%C2%BA.2_(Codex_Wallerstein)_107 v.jpg)" maneuver, although one could probably be appropriated for the purpose.

Heard it a thousand times before, flat out disagree.

Oh there's some overlap sure but it seems to me to be missing the point. You don't "prepare" an actual sword technique even for a moment, do that any you loose the initiative because you have no "turn" and no time to do anything but act. Nor can you ever not use one in repeated continuous succession.

And for that matter combat is one of those things both infinitely complex and yet simple at its core. Real life moves in isolation simply aren't going to be particularly special, if anything they seem to be more training devices. Seems above a certain level if you don't codify the rules all martial arts starts to bleed together. Not done with weapons but various MMA's all seem to take a bite of things from anywhere, and try to boil out the "style" to just the effective bits.

So no I don't think ToB scans to reality even as much as the ordinary combat rules do (they are at least obviously trying to be abstracts) but are well... exactly as they were presented in the first place. As the highly stylized super moves of wuxia/anime Eastern fiction.

Its been quite a few years now, but I remember reading the book and found its spent far less time being a conversion to make melee newer and awesomer then about providing for well, a way to replicate the material that directly inspired it. The effect of the book on the metagame was pretty much external to it, there was some token conversions but nothing to suggest "Tell your Fighters to go roll Warblades because this is the same but better so they'd best get used to it" which is the attitude I encounter online. Heck I seem to recall it (naively) suggesting they could be used side by side more then anything else.

Honestly I'd not mind the book... but only for the right kind of limited games.


You're right, though, that ToB doesn't do well for a peasant dude just picking up a cudgel for the first time. It's best for "schooled" warriors, those who've actually trained under an expert of some kind, someone who actually studies and thinks about combat rather than merely someone forced to resort to it. That's not a flaw in the system though, that's just its niche compared to other melee options.

Its fine for what it is, the problem I guess I and plenty of other people have is that we simply do not pretend such a transition between ToB and ordinary martial playstyles and the effects thereof is so seamless and applicable

If they were balanced if the classes were balanced against the core fighting classes it might work out. But no one seems to think that happens even as much as casters restrain themselves or end up playing something suboptimal.

[Averis Vol]

I can answer this: Re Monk and Swordsage AC bonus stacking

Actually, the Tome of Battle stipulates while in Light Armor. A monk cannot wear armor so therefore the bonuses cannot stack. Ever.

Wait, does that mean an Unarmed swordsage doesn't get the AC bonus? because they lose proficiency with light armor and the adaption section says nothing about changing it to conform to the previous change in proficiency. Man, thats kind of rough.

[TuggyNE]

Wait, does that mean an Unarmed swordsage doesn't get the AC bonus? because they lose proficiency with light armor and the adaption section says nothing about changing it to conform to the previous change in proficiency. Man, thats kind of rough.

Strictly by (what, in an adaptation section, passes for) RAW, yes. It's an unpleasant dysfunction.

I think RACSD had a patch for it, and it's probably in Dysfunctional Handbook.

[Averis Vol]

Strictly by (what, in an adaptation section, passes for) RAW, yes. It's an unpleasant dysfunction.

I think RACSD had a patch for it, and it's probably in Dysfunctional Handbook.

And I use that house rule. but that distinction may be the defining factor whether the SS and monk ac bonuses are supposed to stack.

[samuraijaques]

they specifically don't stack. It was errata'd. i don't have the actual url on hand but it was an official ruling.

[sonofzeal]

Yeah and it would take you how long to convert it any one discipline one way or the other. Couple of minutes to swap the labels.

Or for that matter if you wanted any of the classes (say a Warblade) to swap out their options would it be any harder book keeping wise to take a 'magical' one over a 'mundane' one.

ToB made "magic" or "mundane" merely a label and used what used to be magic (the mechanical system side of things namely) for anything it liked.
I'm... not quite sure where you're going with that. I mean, Desert Wind is magical; it's making fire out of thin air. Setting Sun isn't magical; it's just counters and throws.


I can buy a simple roll covering all the permutations of actual combat because its simply covering the nigh infinite possibilities in a statistical manner. While we all tend to lazyily think of one attack being one swing or something its really supposed to cover all that swordplay in one giant abstraction.

If I was looking for more complexity of that type while I could maybe cook up a system to do so, but at that point I'd think it would be so cumbersome a game I'd rather drag out my fencing gear from the attic and do something more hands on.
Agreed. But my initial comment here was about how you can't exactly "fix" mundanes without pretty much revamping them, and almost certainly adding some degree of complexity. A little bit of complexity adds variety and interest. The Fighter class was pretty much oatmeal - and oatmeal is improved with the addition of some apple, cinnamon, a pinch of brown sugar, maybe a bit of honey....

A truly "realistic" martial style would obviously be impractical. But pulp action fantasy stuff, Xena-style weapon throwing or Conan shattering his way out of whatever spell by flexing enough, that's fun and cool and adds to the game.


Heard it a thousand times before, flat out disagree.

Oh there's some overlap sure but it seems to me to be missing the point. You don't "prepare" an actual sword technique even for a moment, do that any you loose the initiative because you have no "turn" and no time to do anything but act. Nor can you ever not use one in repeated continuous succession.
I've.... done a heck of a lot of swordplay and other martial arts, and this isn't an issue for me.

You do prepare sword (and unarmed) techniques. If you're just going to bash sticks against eachother, yeah, you don't need to prep anything. But I've got a few fancier tricks up my sleeve, and I generally have to be deliberately holding them in mind if I'm going to make them work. A racer who's holding themselves ready for the starter's pistol is far faster off the block than someone who's just walking down the street. Similarly, if I know I'm going to counter their swing with a quick half-circle thrust under his guard, I'm way faster with it than I would be if I didn't have that motion specifically in mind and my eye trained for the illadvised swing to come. And that's even leaving aside questions of footwork and body posture, which you'd better believe are important for the fancier stuff.

Not being able to use it in rapid succession... well, granted. But it's a game. IRL, with longswords I can break a greatsword-weilder's reach and then score half a dozen strikes before they have a chance to break range and get an effective counterswing at me, but in D&D I'm stuck there trading blows as if the longsword's length didn't give me a massive advantage sometimes and a disadvantage others.

Plus, a skilled enemy will usually adapt and not give you the same opening twice in a row. Most people I've fought aren't nearly that good, but still, it's not going to break my brain.

[neonchameleon]

This is wrong.

Look, you are forgiven for thinking that. But it was the other way around.

4E is something of a precursor to ToB, where everyone has abilities with funny names that they can use once an encounter or so.

Orcus was the precursor to ToB.

Timeline:
Orcus being worked on.
They decided to try some of it in 3.5.
ToB is a pretty much a success. Decide this is too much fun/strong (who knows?) so they change recover method of maneuvers (none) and make 4E.

Um... no.

Timeline:
Orcus being worked on.
They realise Orcus is horribly fiddly and detailed and annoying and go right back to the drawing board, throwing the whole thing out for good reason.
They use the salveagable parts of Orcus in ToB


I didn't say melt, it wouldn't reduce a sword to puddle of slage, but it would ruin it's edge and probably affect balance.
My players would be more likely to throw a flask of alchemist fire at something than to try and coat a sword with it.

When a sword was quenched in Western Europe (yes I know the katana was different and used clay and a differential quench to preserve the edge), it was quenched in oil. When it came out of the quench the entire blade was on fire.

[TuggyNE]

When a sword was quenched in Western Europe (yes I know the katana was different and used clay and a differential quench to preserve the edge), it was quenched in oil. When it came out of the quench the entire blade was on fire.

Medieval European history: more metal and anime than you are.

:smallbiggrin:

[Raineh Daze]

When a sword was quenched in Western Europe (yes I know the katana was different and used clay and a differential quench to preserve the edge), it was quenched in oil. When it came out of the quench the entire blade was on fire.

Flaming blades are awesome. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zithf1B1Cuo) Clearly, the SU part comes from having such an effective lighter in a medieval setting. :smallbiggrin:

[Amphetryon]

Fixing the Fighter hardly requires a complete re-write, since it's the ultimate modular class. What the Fighter gets is bonus feats, so what you need to do to fix it is to create good feats. Just create feats good enough that each of them is worth the same amount as what any other class gets from two class levels.

The issue here is that the somewhat modular nature of the Class and Feat system doesn't really isolate ANY of the Feats to a given Class especially well. As long as Clerics and Wizards - and other Classes with access to their spell-lists - can even temporarily gain Fighter-only Feats, you have to consider the fact that creating Feats that are only SUPPOSED to help the Fighter also ends up helping those other Classes, should they get the notion to use the tools to get them which are already built into their Class features by their spell-list.

[Ashtagon]

The problem with ToB for me is that it doesn't cover all the martial concepts.

It does an excellent job of replacing the fighter, paladin, and monk. To an extent, it covers certain barbarian tropes (the beast warrior, not so much the berserk rager). It more or less ignores swashbuckler, ranged, scout, and rogue martial concepts though.

This ends up creating a situation where those concepts that were ignored by ToB are very suboptimal. That gap is covered by the homebrew that's available, but out of the box, there's almost nothing for them.

[Raineh Daze]

Swashbuckler is a mechanical concept and not just an attitude? :smallconfused:

[ArcturusV]

Well, should be a mechanical concept. But it was never a good one in 3.5. Because when I think of buckling swashes it's usually of the Errol Flynn variety. But parries, feinting, and such generally are poorly represented or very suboptimal options.

[Vaz]

Really? While it works with 2 handed weapons and is obviously better with them, iron heart can fairly effectively showcase Swashbuckler; manticore parry, and ironheart surge are fairly "hollywood hero" musketeer flavour, and Stormguard Warrior exactly the same.

[sonofzeal]

The problem with ToB for me is that it doesn't cover all the martial concepts.

It does an excellent job of replacing the fighter, paladin, and monk. To an extent, it covers certain barbarian tropes (the beast warrior, not so much the berserk rager). It more or less ignores swashbuckler, ranged, scout, and rogue martial concepts though.

This ends up creating a situation where those concepts that were ignored by ToB are very suboptimal. That gap is covered by the homebrew that's available, but out of the box, there's almost nothing for them.
Depends on disciplines.

Swashbuckler? Warblade with Diamond Mind focus.

Scout? Swordage with Desert Wind and Tiger Claw.

Rogue? Uhhhhh.... wazzat, as far as martial concept goes? Swordsage with Shadow Hand probably does just fine there though.




....point about ranged. Ah well. Can't have everything.

[Ashtagon]

Depends on disciplines.

Swashbuckler? Warblade with Diamond Mind focus.

Scout? Swordage with Desert Wind and Tiger Claw.

Rogue? Uhhhhh.... wazzat, as far as martial concept goes? Swordsage with Shadow Hand probably does just fine there though.

....point about ranged. Ah well. Can't have everything.

Your "scout" and "rogue" are both using explicitly supernatural powers, which utterly destroys the character concepts in question.

[Raineh Daze]

....point about ranged. Ah well. Can't have everything.

Well, there's the PrC about throwing things.

But it's the Book of Nine Swords, so... lack of ranged support is eminently unsurprising.


Your "scout" and "rogue" are both using explicitly supernatural powers, which utterly destroys the character concepts in question.

Doesn't destroy them for me. So what if they're not 100% mundane? So long as it isn't a low magic setting, a little bit of supernatural abilities is not the end of the world. And you can still convert Desert Wind to Ex if you really want. Unless concepts are ruined by gaining a magic sword at level threeish or something. :smallsigh:

[Boci]

Your "scout" and "rogue" are both using explicitly supernatural powers, which utterly destroys the character concepts in question.

So don't pick the supernatural maneuvres...

[Amphetryon]

Your "scout" and "rogue" are both using explicitly supernatural powers, which utterly destroys the character concepts in question.

"Utterly destroys" all the Rogue or Scout Character concepts in question? Really? :smallconfused:

[Ashtagon]

So don't pick the supernatural maneuvres...

That's most of the options insta-deleted then.

[Raineh Daze]

That's most of the options insta-deleted then.

1/3 < 1/2, therefore deleting 1/3 of the options is not deleting 'most' of them.

Don't see why there's much point in objecting to supernatural maneuvers unless you're doing a low fantasy setting. Yes, someone is so good at tricks with their sword it goes beyond what should be possible with mere muscle strength. So what? It's not as if they wouldn't end up festooned with magical jewellery, and using a magic weapon, and if they're a rogue, using any other magical doodads that are lying around.

[Ashtagon]

1/3 < 1/2, therefore deleting 1/3 of the options is not deleting 'most' of them.

Don't see why there's much point in objecting to supernatural maneuvers unless you're doing a low fantasy setting. Yes, someone is so good at tricks with their sword it goes beyond what should be possible with mere muscle strength. So what? It's not as if they wouldn't end up festooned with magical jewellery, and using a magic weapon, and if they're a rogue, using any other magical doodads that are lying around.

When the ground behind my character's feet ignites as I walk, it's a little hard for me to say my character is not using any magic.

[Vaz]

Being fair to the Mundane characters, the idea is to be reliant only on themselves, not just some "magical doodad". History isn't filled with Sorcerers as heroes, they are assistants, or antagonists, to which the hero must prevail.

There might be magic sword somewhere, like Excalibur, for example. But merlin is in the background, arthur is the hero. Mary Sues are not fun.

Lord of the rings would have been terrible had Gandalf just made a teleport circle to mount doom, then gone to the Astral plane and made a Projection then jumped into Barad Dur and Mindraped Sauron into a good little boy, or Shivering Touched Smaug.

[Komatik]

I don't have paladins actually, well I do, but not as a base class. So no crusader, and even if I did, I very much dislike the random nature of the crusader. I find it would another layer of bookeeping to use yet another system to decide which maneuver he get back. That's a clunky way of doing things.

As for the warblade, I keep a very tight lid on anything to mess with the action economy in my game, so diamond mind is something I'd keep an eye on if I allowed it, and let's not even start on the horrible brokeness of iron heart surge. But the main reason is one of power compared to the rest of my players.

The Crusader recovery mechanic is really clunkily written on paper, but IIRC flows really, really well with a deck of maneuver cards (available as pdf from WotC) that you shuffle up and draw your granted maneuvers from. You run out, reshuffle and draw. Fulfils the rules to a T without undue clunkiness and brainhurt.

Iron Heart Surge should be rewritten anyway. I mean, one of the iconic uses of it would be overcoming a mental domination or hold person type of effect with sheer training and force of will, but the maneuver doesn't have an exception from the general requirement of being able to move...

EDIT: And hell yes Devoted Spirit needs some liberal application of the supernatural tag to it. WTF they list literal, visible auras of magical energy as Ex?

[Raineh Daze]

When the ground behind my character's feet ignites as I walk, it's a little hard for me to say my character is not using any magic.

"Why are you trailing fire?"

"Steady stream of oil. Took forever to get the flow right."

Now, how about the six schools that do not contain SU maneuvers?

[sonofzeal]

Your "scout" and "rogue" are both using explicitly supernatural powers, which utterly destroys the character concepts in question.
Codswallop.

The Scout one can be done without supernatural. Desert Wind does have quite a number of supernatural fire-based maneuvers, but it also has non-Su things that boost speed and maneuverability (Wind Stride, Flashing Sun, Zephyr Dance, Desert Tempest). It's no coincidence the discipline skill is Tumble. And Tiger Claw is exclusively mundane.

As for the Rogue one, I'm still kinda confused what "Rogue" as a martial archetype is supposed to mean in the first place. The word is basically just synonymous with "Outlaw", which could be anything. Shadow Hand offers Assassin's Stance for Sneak Attack though, and has a number of non-Su maneuvers like Stalker in the Night (break cover, attack, and return to cover without being spotted) that work for Assassins. Really though, whichever direction you take things, you could probably make due with other disciplines. Diamond Mind, maybe, since there's a lot of overlap between Swashbuckler and Rogue.

If you actually tried for five minutes to make it work, you'd find ways.

[Amoren]

Actually, ToB probably helps those concepts just for the fact it can be used as a dip. A rogue who can dip a single level or two of Swordsage to pick up Assassin's Stance or Island of Blades, grab Shadow Blade, and a few choice maneuvers, would have a lot of tools that help bump it up. This is probably one of the bet things about ToB, they make it easily dippable with the 1/2 initiator level rule so that other concepts can take a level or two for choice to fit into their concept.

As for reasons against it... The only real two that I'd roughly agree with is the lack of familiarity/time on the DM's part to learn it, and the low optimization floor. I can see those two being problems, that might not allow the book to fit in THAT particular game. But over all, I think it's a rather good book resource. I may not be the largest fan of the fluff, but I always tend to flavor things differently depending on the character.

[Malimar]

I've been formulating a suspicion for a few years, and I'll try to put it into words. (Because there's nothing new under the sun, probably other people have expressed basically the same notion countless times, often better than I can.) My idea is this:

Banning Tome of Battle isn't about ToB qua ToB. It's about the kind of player who uses Tome of Battle. Non-optimizers who want to melee just play fighters/monks/barbarians/paladins; in general, the only people who even realize ToB exists are optimizers (and non-optimizers who are being coached by optimizers). The kind of player who uses Tome of Battle is the kind of player who optimizes more than most DMs are comfortable with.

It's difficult to ban the medium-to-high-op mindset (it can be done, but it requires good communication skills, which is a talent only the best DMs possess). It's much easier to ban the one tool that all and only optimizers use.

(In the end, banning ToB for this reason only kicks the problem downstream a bit. Optimizers denied ToB will just resort to a spiked chain tripper or a clericzilla or something else high above the effectiveness of the average group..)

[eggynack]

I've been formulating a suspicion for a few years, and I'll try to put it into words. (Because there's nothing new under the sun, probably other people have expressed basically the same notion countless times, often better than I can.) My idea is this:

Banning Tome of Battle isn't about ToB qua ToB. It's about the kind of player who uses Tome of Battle. Non-optimizers who want to melee just play fighters/monks/barbarians/paladins; in general, the only people who even realize ToB exists are optimizers (and non-optimizers who are being coached by optimizers). The kind of player who uses Tome of Battle is the kind of player who optimizes more than most DMs are comfortable with.

It's difficult to ban the medium-to-high-op mindset (it can be done, but it requires good communication skills, which is a talent only the best DMs possess). It's much easier to ban the one tool that all and only optimizers use.

(In the end, banning ToB for this reason only kicks the problem downstream a bit. Optimizers denied ToB will just resort to a spiked chain tripper or a clericzilla or something else high above the effectiveness of the average group..)
I don't think this is entirely true. People don't go into ToB purely for optimization reasons. That doesn't even make sense to some extent, due to the low marginal benefit of optimization on those classes. I think that the reason people go into ToB is because they want to play a mundane character with more options open to them than attacking. People want to do cool stuff, and ToB has a lot of cool stuff for people to do. It may be accurate that it takes some system mastery to know that ToB classes can make worthy tier 3 replacements of core mundane guys, but I don't think that ToB is soley the purview of optimizers at all.

[Terazul]

That's most of the options insta-deleted then.

There are literally 12 supernatural maneuvers in Shadow Hand. Less than half. 21 in Desert Wind, but most of those are variations on "+1d6 fire damage!" or "2d6 fire damage in a cone!". Out of all the maneuvers a Swordsage has access to, only like 23% are remotely magical in nature. It's really easy to make a completely mundane Swordsage. Excluding Sense Magic at 7th, anyway. Speaking of Shadow Hand/Desert Wind, it's always amusing everyone likes to harp on these two for being oh-so magical but really DW is one of the weakest schools in the entire book anyway.

Also, since someone else (on the first page, no less) just had to go on about too anime/wuxia, I give the inevitable response. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=nj6183dobjm2187kh5ncnbnjo3&topic=6574.0)


Banning Tome of Battle isn't about ToB qua ToB. It's about the kind of player who uses Tome of Battle. Non-optimizers who want to melee just play fighters/monks/barbarians/paladins; in general, the only people who even realize ToB exists are optimizers (and non-optimizers who are being coached by optimizers). The kind of player who uses Tome of Battle is the kind of player who optimizes more than most DMs are comfortable with.

That's a pretty big assumption. There have been plenty of cases where I was playing with people new to 3.5, showed them the Tome of Battle and they went "Cool!', because now they had a fighter/monky/roguey/knighty/whatever character that could do cool things from level 1, instead of waiting till level whatever of some prestige class to get a 2/day special attack. They didn't think that was a thing you could have, until it was mentioned to them. ToB gives options other than full-attack. People tend to like that.

[Eslin]

I've been formulating a suspicion for a few years, and I'll try to put it into words. (Because there's nothing new under the sun, probably other people have expressed basically the same notion countless times, often better than I can.) My idea is this:

Banning Tome of Battle isn't about ToB qua ToB. It's about the kind of player who uses Tome of Battle. Non-optimizers who want to melee just play fighters/monks/barbarians/paladins; in general, the only people who even realize ToB exists are optimizers (and non-optimizers who are being coached by optimizers). The kind of player who uses Tome of Battle is the kind of player who optimizes more than most DMs are comfortable with.

It's difficult to ban the medium-to-high-op mindset (it can be done, but it requires good communication skills, which is a talent only the best DMs possess). It's much easier to ban the one tool that all and only optimizers use.

(In the end, banning ToB for this reason only kicks the problem downstream a bit. Optimizers denied ToB will just resort to a spiked chain tripper or a clericzilla or something else high above the effectiveness of the average group..)

Speak for yourself about DM comfort - it's not like ToB is optimisers only (I often recommend it to new players because it's so hard to screw up, and it's actually hard to optimise ToB very much since the optimisation floor and ceiling are so close together), but even if it were that really isn't a bad thing. Only new players are allowed classes like wizard, but if you're picking up a bard or a totemist I actively encourage my players to optimise.

Optimisation is a good thing - you pick what you want to be good at and you try to make a character that is good at it. Deliberately holding yourself back takes quite a lot of the storyline out of things, so players should be encouraged to try to make the best characters they can make within the parameters I set.

Am I the only DM out there who enjoys being able to throw powerful stuff at his players and expect them to come up with interesting ways to defeat them?

[Chronos]

Quoth Squirrel_Guy:

The problem with feats is that, unless their fighter-only feats, then any class/character can take them, and they're not an advantage. If they're fighter-only feats, then they might as well just be class features anyways.
One solution I came up with for that, a few years back, is feats that scale with the number of fighter feats you have (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190066) (ignore the PrC at the bottom; that was really just an afterthought). Yes, anyone can take them, and they're not specifically restricted to fighters, but they'll be more effective for fighters.

And yes, barbarians etc. can take feats from the fighter list, too, and in fact usually will. Improving the barbarian as a side-effect of improving the fighter isn't a bad thing. But the fighter still gets more feats, which would be significant if there were enough good feats available. It's like the difference between the wizard and the sorcerer: Yes, any given thing the wizard can do, a sorcerer can do, too. But no sorcerer can do all of the things any given wizard can do. Similarly, a barbarian might be able to replicate the fighter's tricks, but won't be able to replicate all of them, since he doesn't have enough feat slots for it.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I don't think this is entirely true. People don't go into ToB purely for optimization reasons. That doesn't even make sense to some extent, due to the low marginal benefit of optimization on those classes. I think that the reason people go into ToB is because they want to play a mundane character with more options open to them than attacking. People want to do cool stuff, and ToB has a lot of cool stuff for people to do. It may be accurate that it takes some system mastery to know that ToB classes can make worthy tier 3 replacements of core mundane guys, but I don't think that ToB is soley the purview of optimizers at all.

Player: "I want to refluff the Barbarian as a Warblade! I'm a Conan clone"

DM: "Why don't you want to play a Barbarian if you're a Barbarian?"

Player: "Because Warblade is better..."

Whether that "better" because you want to out optimizing the Wizards or simply that you don't like having Rage and attack feats as all your bells and whistles the only actual reasons to "refluff" a class are pretty basic here.

If people want to argue that ToB is seamlessly insert able as a martial "fix" they basically reduce themselves to "this class is just better mechanically" whatever way they spin their mechanical interest. Because if it carries out the same concept as a Barbarian/Fighter/Swashbuckler/etc why don't you just play those and remove all doubt that's what you are playing. At which point you really should not be surprised that nobody believes you aren't just looking for mechanical advantage.

The player trying cosplay their favorite anime character without actually gishing is who ToB is for. That player is more likely to be guilty of just trying to genre shift the campaign. And certainly there are "anything goes" campaigns or setting where that's alongside, the half-ogre with spiked chain, the vampire, and the wizard/psionic tiefling and everything is just kind crazy like that... but that amounts to just one style of play.

[nedz]

History isn't filled with Sorcerers as heroes, they are assistants, or antagonists, to which the hero must prevail.
Wait, what ? :smallconfused:
I think you mean literature ?


Lord of the rings would have been terrible had Gandalf just made a teleport circle to mount doom, then gone to the Astral plane and made a Projection then jumped into Barad Dur and Mindraped Sauron into a good little boy, or Shivering Touched Smaug.

True enough.

But both Aragorn and Glorfindal could drive the wraiths away with the strength of their personality. Maybe they get Turn Undead or Chastise Spirit or something ?

[eggynack]

Player: "I want to refluff the Barbarian as a Warblade! I'm a Conan clone"

DM: "Why don't you want to play a Barbarian if you're a Barbarian?"

Player: "Because Warblade is better..."

Whether that "better" because you want to out optimizing the Wizards or simply that you don't like having Rage and attack feats as all your bells and whistles the only actual reasons to "refluff" a class are pretty basic here.

If people want to argue that ToB is seamlessly insert able as a martial "fix" they basically reduce themselves to "this class is just better mechanically" whatever way they spin their mechanical interest. Because if it carries out the same concept as a Barbarian/Fighter/Swashbuckler/etc why don't you just play those and remove all doubt that's what you are playing. At which point you really should not be surprised that nobody believes you aren't just looking for mechanical advantage.

The player trying cosplay their favorite anime character without actually gishing is who ToB is for. That player is more likely to be guilty of just trying to genre shift the campaign. And certainly there are "anything goes" campaigns or setting where that's alongside, the half-ogre with spiked chain, the vampire, and the wizard/psionic tiefling and everything is just kind crazy like that... but that amounts to just one style of play.
You're missing the point by a bit. Warblades are more than better than fighters. They're also more interesting. They may not be more interesting to everyone, but someone can think that they're more fun to play without being in it entirely for optimization. Personally, just about the only reason I'd play a class is because I believe that the mechanics of that class are interesting. Some people want to play warblades because they're better, and some play them because they seem cool, and some play them because they offer a pretty novel mechanical structure. Calling all of those things optimization is just being reductionist.

[Boci]

Player: "I want to refluff the Barbarian as a Warblade! I'm a Conan clone"

DM: "Why don't you want to play a Barbarian if you're a Barbarian?"

Player: "Because Warblade is better..."

Or:

Player: "Because I find maneuvers more fun than full attack/trip"
Player: "Because I like being able to use tactical movement and readied actions without screwing my damage potential"
Player: "Because I've played a barbarian more times than a warblade and I want something less familiar"
Player: "Because I feel like it. Why does it matter to you which martial class I use?"

[Amoren]

Or:

Player: "Because I find maneuvers more fun than full attack/trip"
Player: "Because I like being able to use tactical movement and readied actions without screwing my damage potential"
Player: "Because I've played a barbarian more times than a warblade and I want something less familiar"
Player: "Because I feel like it. Why does it matter to you which martial class I use?"

Player: Because I want to be a cunning/smart fighter, and aside from one feat Fighter and Barbarian don't interact with intelligence in any regard to demonstrate using tactics and smarts in combat.

(Seriously, I love Warblade's Intelligence synergy. Then again, I love anything that synergizes with intelligence. :D )

[Soras Teva Gee]

You're missing the point by a bit. Warblades are more than better than fighters. They're also more interesting. They may not be more interesting to every one, but someone can think that they're more fun to play without being in it entirely for optimization. Personally, just about the only reason I'd play a class is because I believe that the mechanics of that class are interesting. Some people want to play warblades because they're better, and some play them because they seem cool, and some play them because they offer a pretty novel mechanical structure. Calling all of those things optimization is just being reductionist.

I didn't miss it.

I do fail to see what differentiates mechanics being "interesting" from being "more effective" that is verifiable from an outsider perspective.

Yeah you can say it all you want, but you can say your CG drow ranger isn't Drizzt but I'm not inclined to believe you. Oh I'm sure there's some exceptions to that particular stereotype but when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Arguing that something isn't automatically the case says precisely nothing about the actual frequency, only that it isn't as certain as death, taxes, and that there is porn of it.

And when "interesting" and "effectiveness" comes as the automatic the flipside of the coin it stops being simply letting you do what you want because it actually has an effect on play.

And that divide disappears entirely when the context is macroscale game design as ToB as the "fix" for martial types. Because the only thing reason they "need" to fix is effectiveness here. Unless you think ordinary attack rolls aren't as clear a mechanic as the game gets or something. So everything is already tied to optimizing as a general impulse.

[Gharkash]

Do you imply that you want to play something you find interesting and fun in the made up world of the game we play to have fun? DESTROY THE HERETIC!

In a more serious note, do you hate on a ranger that uses blades of fire or a monk with fiery fist/fiery ki defense/ki blast (note these are also fighter bonus feats) as much as you hate on swordsage? Is the one more anime than the other for some reason i cannot understand?

[NEO|Phyte]

I do fail to see what differentiates mechanics being "interesting" from being "more effective" that is verifiable from an outsider perspective.

It's a fairly simply differentiation.

Let's take an ubercharger for example. Valorous weapon, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, etc. Enough raw damage to oneshot just about anything. Is it effective? Heck yes. Is it interesting? Not particularly, it does exactly one thing: charge.

Now let's take a Warblade. It has actual options in how it hits things. That's what makes it more interesting.

[eggynack]

I didn't miss it.

I do fail to see what differentiates mechanics being "interesting" from being "more effective" that is verifiable from an outsider perspective.

Yeah you can say it all you want, but you can say your CG drow ranger isn't Drizzt but I'm not inclined to believe you. Oh I'm sure there's some exceptions to that particular stereotype but when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Arguing that something isn't automatically the case says precisely nothing about the actual frequency, only that it isn't as certain as death, taxes, and that there is porn of it.

And when "interesting" and "effectiveness" comes as the automatic the flipside of the coin it stops being simply letting you do what you want because it actually has an effect on play. Oh there's other cases of that but general agreement is seems to be that its a lot wider

And that divide disappears entirely when the context is macroscale game design as ToB as the "fix" for martial types. Because the only thing reason they "need" to fix is effectiveness here. Unless you think ordinary attack rolls aren't as clear a mechanic as the game gets or something. So everything is already tied to optimizing as a general impulse.
Interesting and effective can actually be two completely different things. Let's look at two classes at the same tier. The first, is the barbarian. They have access to basically three or four different options in combat. They can pounce, or trip, or intimidate, and they can maybe toss a fourth thing on there, or replace one with another. It all basically comes down to hitting your opponent on the head repeatedly. Second, let's look at the warmage. Most of the stuff they do is some form of blasting, but they have some pretty good options. More importantly, some people find casting more interesting than punching. They're the same power level, so the thing that would draw someone to one rather than the other is difference in mechanics rather than difference in power level.

Warblades are more powerful than barbarians, but they also use completely different mechanics. You could alter the warblade such that it would be tier 4, and you'd still have people wanting to play it because sometimes you want to do more than full attack. There's much more than effectiveness that needs to be fixed on martial types, because many people find the single minded nature of the barbarian boring. They want to be able to stab stuff, and be able to make more decisions than, "How much power attack should I use?"

[Komatik]

The mere thought of playing a Fighter puts me to sleep. In addition to the acting stuff, this is a game. That means that character concepts can't just be acting - they have to be backed up my mechanics at some point. That, and charge=>full attack full attack full attack is ridiculously dull.

Actual swordsmanship is interesting, and precisely composed of the kind of specific techniques that ToB has. There's a ton of nifty little things you can do. The warblade translates those things into game mechanics way better than the fighter could ever hope to. It also happens to be interesting to play.

There's also a tremenoud difference in sheer feel: Like casters, the ToB classes have something of their own. Someone sneaking by, the caster sees it with his spell, the druid-bat echolocates it, you hear someone is there, gotta be wary...

A standard melee class would just be boned without a magical trinket. How the hell am I going to feel like an awesome swordsman if all the interesting mechanical things I am able to do are a result of magical trinkets instead of hard training and study?

Class choice process:
1: Is it interesting to play?
2: Does it fit the feel and power level of the campaign?

[Boci]

I didn't miss it.

I do fail to see what differentiates mechanics being "interesting" from being "more effective" that is verifiable from an outsider perspective.

The blubert - deals 100 damage as a standard action that by passes DR and all defences.

The glubert - Deals about 10 damage chosen from 4 different energy types chosen when the attack is made, but this can be scaled upwards or downwards depending on which types where used previously, effectivly "chaining" them.

Which is more effective? Which is more interesting? If the statement of yours I quoted is true, the answer to those two questions should be the same.

[Ashtagon]

stuff

I was specifically told up[thread to use Setting Sun for scout character concepts. I notice how you deftly go from that to noting that 23% of the entire range of swordsage manoeuvres across all available disciplines are magical. Then you go into a defence against anime and wuxia, which is a charge I never made.

Do you often move goalposts?

The weird bit about your incoherent defence is that I actually like ToB in concept. My complaint was specifically that some martial concepts aren't supported by it, which makes building such concepts using the old now-sub-optimal classes the only way to go.

[Boci]

The weird bit about your incoherent defence is that I actually like ToB in concept. My complaint was specifically that some martial concepts aren't supported by it, which makes building such concepts using the old now-sub-optimal classes the only way to go.

Maybe that's true, but is that really a reason to dislike the book? How many of those archytpes did core cater to? Complete warrior? Playershandbook II?

[Der_DWSage]

Several good reasons for disliking or being apathetic to Tome of Battle really has cropped up. (The former being the fluff and the lack of editing, the latter being yet ANOTHER book in the line of 9000 for 3.X, even if it is one of the better ones crunch-wise.)

However, the way I've seen it...Tome of Battle is all about filling a niche that they saw that needed to be filled. Specifically, an advanced 3.X player that wants to play non-magic melee, but have gotten bored with standing still and swapping their full attack action with other people. spellcasters get options, even poor ones like Paladins and Rangers. Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, or Rogue? 'I guess I watch how exactly I approach, and try to hit him again.' Every session, for the 5-ish years before ToB came out.

So, talk of the metagame, the crunch, the fluff, and everything else all you like. If it's a low-op game, you either disallow the ToB or you tell the player to tone down their choices of martial maneuvers and keep it in check. (Perhaps putting the fatigued/exhausted rules similar to what another poster had done earlier for a wizard.) If it's a med-op game, go ahead and allow it. If it's a high-op game, you push the book on the players and go 'are you SURE you only want a regular Fighter with Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization?'

tl;dr version
Beginning players use Fighter and Barbarian, because it's simpler and fairly easy to understand.
Advanced players that still want a melee option that's interesting from fight to fight use Tome of Battle, because they've swapped full attack options so often they've memorized their to-hit like a phone number.

EDIT:Dear lord, I post mid-way through page 6 and I end up on page 7?

[Ashtagon]

Maybe that's true, but is that really a reason to dislike the book? How many of those archytpes did core cater to? Complete warrior? Playershandbook II?

Yes, it's true. I dislike Tome of Battle. I hate it so much I just 20 minutes ago posted a homebrew prestige warblade for someone in another thread.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15322416&postcount=61

[eggynack]

I was specifically told up[thread to use Setting Sun for scout character concepts. I notice how you deftly go from that to noting that 23% of the entire range of swordsage manoeuvres across all available disciplines are magical. Then you go into a defence against anime and wuxia, which is a charge I never made.

Do you often move goalposts?

The weird bit about your incoherent defence is that I actually like ToB in concept. My complaint was specifically that some martial concepts aren't supported by it, which makes building such concepts using the old now-sub-optimal classes the only way to go.
I don't think that ToB necessarily has to solve every problem to be a good thing. There are some good solutions for other things in other places. Factotum is even more magical than the swordsage, but if I'm building a rogue, that's what I'm building. It just seems to encapsulate all of the things that I think a rogue should be capable of. Also, if you think of arcane dilettante as an expansion of use magic device, then the factotum can be seen as a direct growth rather than an indirect one. You can find a good replacement for just about everything if you use more than just tome of battle.

... Except archers. Archers kind of get hosed.

[Boci]

Yes, it's true. I dislike Tome of Battle. I hate it so much I just 20 minutes ago posted a homebrew prestige warblade for someone in another thread.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15322416&postcount=61


Fair enough, wrong choice of words from me, I just get a bit annoyed when someone takes the time to say:


The problem with ToB for me is that it doesn't cover all the martial concepts.

Without acknowledging the context of "But then again its just one book so it could hardly have covered everything".

[Eslin]

I don't think that ToB necessarily has to solve every problem to be a good thing. There are some good solutions for other things in other places. Factotum is even more magical than the swordsage, but if I'm building a rogue, that's what I'm building. It just seems to encapsulate all of the things that I think a rogue should be capable of. Also, if you think of arcane dilettante as an expansion of use magic device, then the factotum can be seen as a direct growth rather than an indirect one. You can find a good replacement for just about everything if you use more than just tome of battle.

... Except archers. Archers kind of get hosed.

Archers were never good in the first place though =/

It is a pity, since if archery (in a non cleric or manticore belt context) could ever be made fun and varied in 3.5 ToB would be the book to do it. That's what homebrew's for a I guess, there are several really excellent archery disciplines on these forums.

[Komatik]

I didn't miss it.

I do fail to see what differentiates mechanics being "interesting" from being "more effective" that is verifiable from an outsider perspective.

Yeah you can say it all you want, but you can say your CG drow ranger isn't Drizzt but I'm not inclined to believe you. Oh I'm sure there's some exceptions to that particular stereotype but when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Arguing that something isn't automatically the case says precisely nothing about the actual frequency, only that it isn't as certain as death, taxes, and that there is porn of it.

And when "interesting" and "effectiveness" comes as the automatic the flipside of the coin it stops being simply letting you do what you want because it actually has an effect on play.

And that divide disappears entirely when the context is macroscale game design as ToB as the "fix" for martial types. Because the only thing reason they "need" to fix is effectiveness here. Unless you think ordinary attack rolls aren't as clear a mechanic as the game gets or something. So everything is already tied to optimizing as a general impulse.

Interesting and powerful are not the same thing. At all. The Fighter is horribly dull, and horribly weak. Pun-Pun is atrociously overpowered, and just as boring because it practically only has one move: Win.

Druid is powerful as hell, but very interesting. There's all kinds of interesting ways to solve problems. The same description pretty much applies to a Binder, except that the power level is far lower. It's still interesting.

Hell, I'd rather play an Adept than a Fighter. Full Attack all day is just that goddamn boring. You could make a Weakblade class and I'd still rather play it than the Hulking Hurler (though let's face it, throwing mountaintops at people is awesome). In fact, that right there is just it: ToB can't really approach the power of a Hulking Hurler, yet I'd rather play ToB. Because ToB is powerful enough that I don't feel like a gimp yet is interesting. Playing a Hulk I would be tremendously more powerful but feel like a gimp because I have exactly one thing I can do.


I play Magic. There's a deck called Show and Tell that's really strong. I would never play it. I'd fall asleep in the routine of "Cast Show and Tell, put autowin card on the battlefield, win the game". There's also a deck called White Weenie that plays little dudes and attacks with them until the opponent is dead. It is also a horrible piece of boredom, and sucks to boot.

I play the game to outwit opponents, to work out fun synergies and such. It's why I play Elves. Weaker deck than Show and Tell, a lot stronger than White Weenie, but fits my style to T.
Can play multiple styles from slow, grinding games utilizing lots of synergies between different game pieces to quick, explosive blowouts. Sometimes you intend to draw a couple cards but end up noticing you can just barely assemble a card draw and mana generation engine and end up with a whole army on the board and a full hand of cards on Turn 2. When all you intended was to play a couple dudes and draw a couple cards.

[navar100]

The problem with feats is that, unless their fighter-only feats, then any class/character can take them, and they're not an advantage. If they're fighter-only feats, then they might as well just be class features anyways.

Not necessarily because not every fighter player would want to fight the same way. Even the basics of two-handed, two-weapon, sword & shield, & maneuvers (trip, bull rush, disarm, etc.) play differently.

[Raineh Daze]

Not necessarily because not every fighter player would want to fight the same way. Even the basics of two-handed, two-weapon, sword & shield, & maneuvers (trip, bull rush, disarm, etc.) play differently.

There are classes that get options about their class features. Every spellcaster. Rangers. Paladins. Add in ACF's and it's almost literally every class. :smalltongue:

[navar100]

I don't like the nature of this thread, as it has become less about stating your own opinion and preferences, and more about pointing out how stupid other peoples reasons are.

You start with this . . .


Sure, if I were to play a super-optimized game with only munchkins, ToB would be right in. But in a friendly neighborhood roleplaying night it is most unwelcome.

and end with this, calling people who like and use Tome of Battle "munchkins" who care nothing about roleplaying.

:smallsigh:

[Squirrel_Dude]

Then make them a series of alternate class features. Maybe a series of which you pick at first level. Call character archetypes or something. Maybe evey class can use them.

That will totally solve the problem.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Interesting and powerful are not the same thing. At all. The Fighter is horribly dull, and horribly weak. Pun-Pun is atrociously overpowered, and just as boring because it practically only has one move: Win.

Druid is powerful as hell, but very interesting. There's all kinds of interesting ways to solve problems. The same description pretty much applies to a Binder, except that the power level is far lower. It's still interesting.

In this case of the same class they are linked. General agreement seems to be you can only gimp yourself as a ToB class so much without outright idiocy.

And you don't see the kind of advocacy for playing say something like Mystic Theurge which should be interesting (c'mon you have a huge possible spell list) but isn't considered all that powerful for a caster.


Hell, I'd rather play an Adept than a Fighter. Full Attack all day is just that goddamn boring. You could make a Weakblade class and I'd still rather play it than the Hulking Hurler (though let's face it, throwing mountaintops at people is awesome). In fact, that right there is just it: ToB can't really approach the power of a Hulking Hurler, yet I'd rather play ToB. Because ToB is powerful enough that I don't feel like a gimp yet is interesting. Playing a Hulk I would be tremendously more powerful but feel like a gimp because I have exactly one thing I can do.

If there was the Weakblade I dare say it wouldn't cause a lot of problems. Sure you're a funny little sword mage, but you aren't overturning the conventions of the game. Likely get sorted in the Misc. category with Bards and Monks.

Of course you'd have a lot less interest in people playing it too.

Bet you money.

[Boci]

And you don't see the kind of advocacy for playing say something like Mystic Theurge which should be interesting (c'mon you have a huge possible spell list) but isn't considered all that powerful for a caster.

But that could just as easily be because the MT is clumsily handled, or because catsers are already interesting enough. Beguiler and dread necro get mentioned a fair bit, and they are weaker than a straight sorceror.


If there was the Weakblade I dare say it wouldn't cause a lot of problems.

Technically the warblade is the weakblade. For a powergamer the fighter is stronger. Its only for someone who isn't interested in power gaming that the warblade is stronger.

[Gharkash]

The fact that ToB discussions tend to devolve into flame wars with the flame covered up in guises of civilized discussion in no time manages both to amuse and sicken me.

[eggynack]

Technically the warblade is the weakblade. For a powergamer the fighter is stronger. Its only for someone who isn't interested in power gaming that the warblade is stronger.
Really? My impression was that warblades are pretty much universally more powerful. Fighters top out at around tier 4, while warblades bottom and top out at around tier 3. Still, your general claim is correct. For an optimizer, warblades can be a bit uninteresting due to the low effect of optimization.

[Kazyan]

In this case of the same class they are linked. General agreement seems to be you can only gimp yourself as a ToB class so much without outright idiocy.

And you don't see the kind of advocacy for playing say something like Mystic Theurge which should be interesting (c'mon you have a huge possible spell list) but isn't considered all that powerful for a caster.


If there was the Weakblade I dare say it wouldn't cause a lot of problems. Sure you're a funny little sword mage, but you aren't overturning the conventions of the game. Likely get sorted in the Misc. category with Bards and Monks.

Of course you'd have a lot less interest in people playing it too.

Bet you money.

What we really need to verify this is a pair of classes where one has a nice, juicy mechanic for making things interesting and giving you options, whereas the other simply has better numbers and is generally better, then see how they stock up in terms of how often they're mentioned on this board.

And hey, the Lurk and Psychic Rogue fit those descriptions, respectively. Psychic Rogue gets mentioned occasionally, mostly in skillmonkey discussions. Lurk, however, is one of the least-mentioned base classes in the game.

[Boci]

Really? My impression was that warblades are pretty much universally more powerful. Fighters top out at around tier 4, while warblades bottom and top out at around tier 3. Still, your general claim is correct. For an optimizer, warblades can be a bit uninteresting due to the low effect of optimization.

Tiers aren't power, they are versatility. If you want power with melee, sooner or later its going to come down to how big your numbers are, and fighters lend themselves to greater numbers.

[Ashtagon]

What we really need to verify this is a pair of classes where one has a nice, juicy mechanic for making things interesting and giving you options, whereas the other simply has better numbers and is generally better, then see how they stock up in terms of how often they're mentioned on this board.

And hey, the Lurk and Psychic Rogue fit those descriptions, respectively. Psychic Rogue gets mentioned occasionally, mostly in skillmonkey discussions. Lurk, however, is one of the least-mentioned base classes in the game.

The people who like the lurk class tend to lurk rather than post :smalltongue:

[Kazyan]

The people who like the lurk class tend to lurk rather than post :smalltongue:

You dropped your rimshot. I'll just bend down and ge-- *is Psionic Sneak Attacked*

[Raineh Daze]

What we really need to verify this is a pair of classes where one has a nice, juicy mechanic for making things interesting and giving you options, whereas the other simply has better numbers and is generally better, then see how they stock up in terms of how often they're mentioned on this board.

And hey, the Lurk and Psychic Rogue fit those descriptions, respectively. Psychic Rogue gets mentioned occasionally, mostly in skillmonkey discussions. Lurk, however, is one of the least-mentioned base classes in the game.

How does the CA Ninja fare? :O

[Soras Teva Gee]

Tiers aren't power, they are versatility. If you want power with melee, sooner or later its going to come down to how big your numbers are, and fighters lend themselves to greater numbers.

Suuuure they aren't.

By the way I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you and the broadly agreed upon core power trio classes just so happen to also be Tier 1 by sheer coincidence

Versatility means power in a structure like this. Sure you can make the proverbial spiked train trip Fighter and leave a Wizard on the ground because the Wizard happens to have not chosen to play by flying around mirror imaged 24/7. That's why things can still be broken as crap disruptive builds even without being that unbeatable in the grand scheme of things. Because they force the game to operate at a higher power level in compensation.

But we all know that broadly speaking the higher up the scale you go the more the classes can keep going up power wise. There's some learning curve in there and you don't have to reach the true heights possible, which is why casters cause less problems in play then "on paper" in optimization discussion.

However power and optimizing is all about taking potential and min/maxing the heck out of it. More versatility you have, the more power you have.

So that defense there, don't mean much.

[Terazul]

I was specifically told up[thread to use Setting Sun for scout character concepts. I notice how you deftly go from that to noting that 23% of the entire range of swordsage manoeuvres across all available disciplines are magical. Then you go into a defence against anime and wuxia, which is a charge I never made.

Do you often move goalposts?

The weird bit about your incoherent defence is that I actually like ToB in concept. My complaint was specifically that some martial concepts aren't supported by it, which makes building such concepts using the old now-sub-optimal classes the only way to go.

No, I responded to you about being able to make a mundane swordsage, and then proceeded to respond to other posts I had seen earlier on in the thread about "too anime" wuxia. If it came off as those were directed soley at you, sorry. I figured the "also, since someone has already brought up this other topic" thing would be enough for that to be clear, though looking back I forgot "else" in there. Fixed. :smallconfused:

But yeah. Really easy to make a mundane scout/ranger type. That hasn't changed, no goalposts moved. I just also felt it was a good time for the discussion as a whole to accept that the most "magical" class isn't all that magical.

[Boci]

However power and optimizing is all about taking potential and min/maxing the heck out of it. More versatility you have, the more power you have.

Those 2 statements directly contradict eachother. Is having power about min/maxing or versatility? You do know those two things are opposite right?

The answer by the way, for melee at lest, is min/maxing. Uber charging, and dealing enough damage to one-shot threats. And fighters are better at that than martial adepts are.

[Talderas]

How does the CA Ninja fare? :O

It's a rogue with different proficiencies that ceases being a rogue once you expend all your limited resources for the day because sudden strike is a terrible mechanic.

[Raineh Daze]

It's a rogue with different proficiencies that ceases being a rogue once you expend all your limited resources for the day because sudden strike is a terrible mechanic.

Well, unless you get the Invisible Fist monk, but hey. Was just wondering how much it came up.

Also, Soras? The Tier system is versatility. Sorcerers aren't weaker than Wizards, they just can't have the possibility to pull off all the crazy tricks at once. Hence, Tier 2. It's the whole basis for the thing.

[Seharvepernfan]

To be honest, I've never really understood why so many people are so vehemently opposed to the Tome of Battle, to the extent that they refuse to allow it in their games. While I can certainly understand disliking a subsystem (I've never much cared for Incarnum myself), I have a hard time understanding why someone would dislike a subsystem to the extent that they feel the need to ban it entirely.

Personally, I'm okay with it in some games, allow little bits of it in others, and ban it from yet others entirely. It depends on the game and setting that I'm running. In grittier games, I don't allow it. (For the record, I have done my best to balance the 3.5 system, using the best houserules and fixes I have come across or came up with myself)

I like the flavor of the classes and many of their abilities. My first D&D character ever would have been better-suited to a warblade than the fighter he was (he matched the Warblade class, and even some of nine-swords fluff, almost perfectly).

My problems with it are:

1. Some abilities are sourceless magic. The swordsage creates fire from nothing, basically as often as he likes, with no prerequisites except level, and sometimes not even then. I don't like that. The warblade gets a maneuver that lets him throw his sword or whatever as a line attack, then it returns to his hand. :smallannoyed: I don't like that either.

2. Some of the abilities are neat, mechanically, but are hard to explain, like emerald razor. You just get to ignore armor, for no good explainable reason. In games where gameyness isn't going to "ruin the flavor", I'm okay with that. In others, I'm not.

3. I actually like fighters, barbarians, rangers, and yes, even monks (paladins, not so much, but I'm okay with people playing them). I know that these classes and martial adepts can coexist in the same world, but we all know who the pc's are gonna play. More to the point, I like combat without ToB stuff just fine. I like using quick-draw to hit distant opponents with my iterative strikes, after great-cleaving everybody around me on my first hit. I like Improved Trip, and Overrun, and readied-attacks.

So, it's a mixed bag for me. I don't always want it to be there when I'm playing, but I don't always want it to be banned either. Some parts, though, I never like (though I may allow them).

[Raineh Daze]

1. Some abilities are sourceless magic. The swordsage creates fire from nothing, basically as often as he likes, with no prerequisites except level, and sometimes not even then. I don't like that. The warblade gets a maneuver that lets him throw his sword or whatever as a line attack, then it returns to his hand. I don't like that either.

Warblades are clearly the adventurers most in the market for string.

[ArcturusV]

It's a rogue with different proficiencies that ceases being a rogue once you expend all your limited resources for the day because sudden strike is a terrible mechanic.

Coming from pre-3rd edition, I didn't mind Sudden Strike. It's basically how backstab worked on thieves anyway. Except that it's better as you can use ranged weapons.

So the "horrible gimping" of Sneak Attack into Sudden Strike never really struck me as a crippling flaw. I was already used to playing that style.

Though the fact it has 2 fewer skill points per level is an unnecessary nerf in my mind. The lack of armor and restricted weapons is enough of a nerfing that I don't see the need to cut skill points on a skill monkey type class.

[Boci]

1. Some abilities are sourceless magic. The swordsage creates fire from nothing, basically as often as he likes, with no prerequisites except level, and sometimes not even then. I don't like that.

Its a supernatural ability. Plenty of monsters have at will supernatural abilities, if you are fine with that why create artifical differences between their abilities and those of a PC?


2. Some of the abilities are neat, mechanically, but are hard to explain, like emerald razor. You just get to ignore armor, for no good explainable reason. In games where gameyness isn't going to "ruin the flavor", I'm okay with that. In others, I'm not.

You guide your blade to weak point in their armour/hide. Its no worse than a rogue having uncanny knowledge of an aberation's vital organs.


I like using quick-draw to hit distant opponents with my iterative strikes, after great-cleaving everybody around me on my first hit. I like Improved Trip, and Overrun, and readied-attacks.

But you can do those with ToB. If your not playing a fighter, martial adepts can do those pretty much just as well as any of the other classes. Martial adepts do full attack, as some maneuvres boost them. And they are better at readied attacks, because they don't lose out for using them.

[Doug Lampert]

Fixing the Fighter hardly requires a complete re-write, since it's the ultimate modular class. What the Fighter gets is bonus feats, so what you need to do to fix it is to create good feats. Just create feats good enough that each of them is worth the same amount as what any other class gets from two class levels.
The problem with feats is that, unless their fighter-only feats, then any class/character can take them, and they're not an advantage. If they're fighter-only feats, then they might as well just be class features anyways.

Not actually true. Follow the logic of what was said: "Just create feats good enough that each of them is worth the same amount as what any other class gets from two class levels."

Two levels of a real classes features is GOOD! That's something like 6 level appropriate spells. If you wrote a BUNCH of feats (minimum of enough for every feat a human fighter gets) that were that good then EVERYONE gets a lot more powerful, but the fighters are pretty well ballanced.

Mind you, I think the power level has gone up so far that you're redesigning the ENTIRE GAME at this point, but you COULD fix the fighter with feats that are available to anyone if the feats were good enough and present in sufficient numbers.

You just need to be prepared for the fighter's two feats at level 18 to BOTH be about as good as 6 level 9 spells per day.

[Seharvepernfan]

Its a supernatural ability. Plenty of monsters have at will supernatural abilities, if you are fine with that why create artifical differences between their abilities and those of a PC?

A valid point. However, though some monsters get at-will abilities, those abilities are usually weak. Sorcerers only get so many spells per day, despite having "innate" powers. I just don't like the lack of limitations on certain desert wind/shadow hand abilities.


You guide your blade to weak point in their armour/hide. Its no worse than a rogue having uncanny knowledge of an aberation's vital organs.

Isn't that what all attack rolls are (or are meant to be)?

Most aberrations looks like they have their brains inside their head, their hearts in their chest, and their necks and arteries in mostly the same places. That said, I don't think sneak attack is so much anatomical-knowledge as much as precision targetting - they just aim for the spots that look like it'd hurt (head/neck/chest/spine/major arteries), and are good at hitting them. It's also more about attacking in ways/places that the target doesn't suspect, though both arguments have flaws, I'll admit.


But you can do those with ToB. If your not playing a fighter, martial adepts can do those pretty much just as well as any of the other classes. Martial adepts do full attack, as some maneuvres boost them. And they are better at readied attacks, because they don't lose out for using them.

This is true, but a martial adept is going to use maneuvers first and foremost, and stuff like this last. Also, it seems like most people playing martial adepts will not take feats like Improved Trip or whatever when they have maneuvers that do the same thing, but better. Anyway, my original point here was that I like winning because of those things, not just using them when my maneuvers aren't applicable/available.

Again though, like I said, sometimes I'm perfectly fine with most of this, it's just that sometimes I'd rather not have ToB around, in the same way that I'd rather not have warlocks around when I'd rather have sorcerers. It's just a taste thing, and I don't expect everybody (or even most) to share it.

[Boci]

A valid point. However, though some monsters get at-will abilities, those abilities are usually weak.

Monsters get some pretty potent Sp and Su abilites that can be used at will, mostly outsiders, but once you start going through the MM 3-5 there's quite a few others.


Isn't that what all attack rolls are (or are meant to be)?

No, because normal attacks don't by pass armour, emerald razor does.


It's also more about attacking in ways/places that the target doesn't suspect, though both arguments have flaws, I'll admit.

And often it seems like people are far more forgiving of flaws outside of ToB mechanics. Not saying you are, just a trend I noticed.


This is true, but a martial adept is going to use maneuvers first and foremost, and stuff like this last. Also, it seems like most people playing martial adepts will not take feats like Improved Trip or whatever when they have maneuvers that do the same thing, but better.

Trip isn't actually that easy to replicate with maneuvres. And I must admit I find it strange to prefer the old version. Why would it mean less to accomplish something with disarming strike over improved disarm?


Again though, like I said, sometimes I'm perfectly fine with most of this, it's just that sometimes I'd rather not have ToB around, in the same way that I'd rather not have warlocks around when I'd rather have sorcerers. It's just a taste thing, and I don't expect everybody (or even most) to share it.

Everyone has their preferences, and I hope you don't mind my questions, I just like debating.

[eggynack]

You folks do realize that monks, the class that the swordsage is ostensibly based on, has a bunch of Su abilities, right? Fully six of his abilities have the Su categorization. Why are we comparing the swordsage with the Su abilities of monsters, when the abilities of PC's are right there?

[Boci]

You folks do realize that monks, the class that the swordsage is ostensibly based on, has a bunch of Su abilities, right? Fully six of his abilities have the Su categorization. Why are we comparing the swordsage with the Su abilities of monsters, when the abilities of PC's are right there?

Because the monk's Su abilities suck/have a daily limitation, and the complaint was that the swordsage has powerful, virtual at will Su abilities.

[Raineh Daze]

Because the monk's Su abilities suck/have a daily limitation, and the complaint was that the swordsage has powerful, virtual at will Su abilities.

Well, yeah, the monk sucks. This is an established fact. :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

Because the monk's Su abilities suck/have a daily limitation, and the complaint was that the swordsage has powerful, virtual at will Su abilities.
That seems like such an odd argument though. I don't see why the delineating factor between Su abilities that mundane-ish PC's can have, and Su abilities that mundane-ish PC's can't have should be defined by how good they are.

[Philistine]

Improved Trip is very very good for a Setting Sun-based Swordsage. It's probably not worth bothering with if you aren't grabbing a bunch of Throws - but then, it's also probably not worth grabbing a bunch of Throws unless you have/are getting ImpTrip.

[Boci]

That seems like such an odd argument though. I don't see why the delineating factor between Su abilities that mundane-ish PC's can have, and Su abilities that mundane-ish PC's can't have should be defined by how good they are.

Of course it is. A maneuvre that replicates a ninth level, even if it is Su, is clearly not going to work (well, maybe for some of the weak ones). Its all a question of where you draw the line, and Seharvepernfan seems to do so before you or me. Its just different play preferences.

[Big Fau]

Not actually true. Follow the logic of what was said: "Just create feats good enough that each of them is worth the same amount as what any other class gets from two class levels."

Two levels of a real classes features is GOOD! That's something like 6 level appropriate spells. If you wrote a BUNCH of feats (minimum of enough for every feat a human fighter gets) that were that good then EVERYONE gets a lot more powerful, but the fighters are pretty well ballanced.

Mind you, I think the power level has gone up so far that you're redesigning the ENTIRE GAME at this point, but you COULD fix the fighter with feats that are available to anyone if the feats were good enough and present in sufficient numbers.

You just need to be prepared for the fighter's two feats at level 18 to BOTH be about as good as 6 level 9 spells per day.

The problem with that is the Fighter is still at the bottom of the barrel, you've just put the barrel on stilts.

[Seharvepernfan]

No, because normal attacks don't by pass armour, emerald razor does.

I meant that "guiding your blade to weak points in the armor" is what all attack rolls are supposed to be, or at least what Bab is supposed to do, and your result is how successful you were at it.

[eggynack]

I meant that "guiding your blade to weak points in the armor" is what all attack rolls are supposed to be, or at least what Bab is supposed to do, and your result is how successful you were at it.
Yeah, and emerald razor makes you really really good at doing that. Instead of putting your effort into dealing more damage, or getting more attacks, or imposing a status effect, for one shining moment of clarity, you can see your opponents weaknesses to a level that wouldn't be accessible to someone with less focus. The flavor of it makes sense to me.

[Talya]

Heck, it reminds me a bit of the swordfights in say, The Princess Bride (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC6dgtBU6Gs). Which is very "Western". But still has lines like: "You're using Bonetti's Defense against me?" "I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain." "Naturally you must expect me to attack with Cappapeia." "Naturally, but I find that Sybil cancels out Cappapeia, don't you?" "Unless the enemy has studied Ipzagria, which I have."

I love your comparison. But... your quotes were so wrong....


Inigo Montoya: You are using Bonetti's Defense against me, ah?
Man in Black: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain.
Inigo Montoya: Naturally, you must expect me to attack with Capo Ferro?
Man in Black: Naturally, but I find that Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro. Don't you?
Inigo Montoya: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa... which I have!

[Amphetryon]

The people who like the lurk class tend to lurk rather than post :smalltongue:

But, by your own earlier statement, every "rogue or scout concept" which can be filled by a Lurk is "utterly destroyed" by Tome of Battle. This is apparently without exception, and without possibility of redeeming features left, by virtue of the language you chose to use.

Which goalposts were moved, again?

[Ashtagon]

But, by your own earlier statement, every "rogue or scout concept" which can be filled by a Lurk is "utterly destroyed" by Tome of Battle. This is apparently without exception, and without possibility of redeeming features left, by virtue of the language you chose to use.

Which goalposts were moved, again?

Humour is lost on this thread :smallannoyed:

tbqh, I have absolutely no idea how the lurk fares as a class on which to make a rogue/scout concept character. I don't even have the vaguest idea which book it's in, although I suspect it may be one of the two psionics books.

The post you just quoted was a pun on the class name and the normal meaning of the word lurk in the context of an Internet forum.

[Snails]

ToB doesn't really seem like the sort of thing that would ever mesh with the PHB classes, unless they're played well.

I think that is the most common concern. Many DMs are not necessarily against the ToB itself, but they (and some players) are not interested in relearning an entire set of replacements for the Core martial classes. ToB makes the Core martial classes all obsolete.

The players most interested in ToB tend to be players who have enough Rules Fu and Max Fu that they can do okay in a non-ToB campaign. Opening up the ToB widens the gap between the non-maximizers and the maximizers, because some non-maximizers will simply stick with the Core classes.

While every complex system will reward player skill, reasonable DMs may be more concerned about avoiding vastly increasing the effect of differences in player skill than about shrinking the differences between martial and spellcaster classes.

[Amphetryon]

Humour is lost on this thread :smallannoyed:

tbqh, I have absolutely no idea how the lurk fares as a class on which to make a rogue/scout concept character. I don't even have the vaguest idea which book it's in, although I suspect it may be one of the two psionics books.

The post you just quoted was a pun on the class name and the normal meaning of the word lurk in the context of an Internet forum.

I got the pun. I was still confused as to how concepts which use the Lurk to fit a rogue or scout archetype are "utterly destroyed" in "every" instance by the fact that ToB and the Swordsage exist.

[Raineh Daze]

I got the pun. I was still confused as to how concepts which use the Lurk to fit a rogue or scout archetype are "utterly destroyed" in "every" instance by the fact that ToB and the Swordsage exist.

Err... the Lurk was brought in with comparison to the Psychic Rogue, which is normally advocated more.

I think the problem there is that you can literally link to the Psychic Rogue, seeing as it's online and all.

[nedz]

So you can (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b).

I've never really looked at this class, how does it rate ?

[Chronos]

It's got all of what a standard rogue has, just in slightly smaller quantities, and has a decent set of psionic abilities that nicely complement roguishness.

[SciChronic]

Yeah, and emerald razor makes you really really good at doing that. Instead of putting your effort into dealing more damage, or getting more attacks, or imposing a status effect, for one shining moment of clarity, you can see your opponents weaknesses to a level that wouldn't be accessible to someone with less focus. The flavor of it makes sense to me.

For anyone who has done martial arts and sparring, i compare emerald razor to times when the high adrenaline seems to slow time for you and almost pure instinct tells you "blocking this punch will provide the perfect opening to kick them here before they can block it." Keep in mind that Emerald razor is part of the Diamond Mind discipline which relies upon the concentration skill.

whereas sneak attacks are "they are distracted so their defense is full of holes, perfect for my dagger to slip in... here"

[GoddessSune]

Specifically, I don't understand why you think making it so that mundane classes can gain parity with casters is a bad thing.

Well, I do not agree with the whole tier thing, weak mundane and all that stuff. And to be simple: If you run a game unfairly(by the modern weak definition of fair) it eliminates 75% of the so called problems. And you can get rid of the other 25% by getting rid of point buys, builds and other such things.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I understand the idea behind removing point buys (decreasing minmaxing and such), but I would disagree that they necessarily decrease tiers. In my experience, if I get a bunch of mediocre stats, I normally play a martial or divine character because they're normally a bit more MAD. If I get a couple high stats and some other low stats I normally play a more powerful character like a wizard or sorcerer because they aren't nearly as MAD. The problem is that the more powerful classes are more powerful party because they can survive having worse statistics overall. That's just in my experience, though, and I understand why one would prefer rolling to point buys.


1 question, though. How do you get rid of "builds?"

[sonofzeal]

If you run a game unfairly(by the modern weak definition of fair) it eliminates 75% of the so called problems.
.........elaborate?

[TuggyNE]

1 question, though. How do you get rid of "builds?"

Ban that munchkin-happy "internets" thing the kids are talking about. What good has come of that loony invention anyway?

[Sith_Happens]

A valid point. However, though some monsters get at-will abilities, those abilities are usually weak. Sorcerers only get so many spells per day, despite having "innate" powers. I just don't like the lack of limitations on certain desert wind/shadow hand abilities.

And do you have the same problem with Warlocks?

[Rubik]

And do you have the same problem with Warlocks?Or Dragonfire Adepts? Or binders? Or incarnum users? Or Reserve feats?

[sonofzeal]

Or Dragonfire Adepts? Or binders? Or incarnum users? Or Reserve feats?
Or Druids with at-will Disguise Self, or Monks with at-will Tongues (which isn't even listed as magical despite breaking all laws of physics and suspension of disbelief FOREVRZ)?

[Rubik]

Or Druids with at-will Disguise Self, or Monks with at-will Tongues (which isn't even listed as magical despite breaking all laws of physics and suspension of disbelief FOREVRZ)?Or psionic characters with psionic feats? Or familiars? Or psicrystals?

[RFLS]

Well, I do not agree with the whole tier thing, weak mundane and all that stuff. And to be simple: If you run a game unfairly(by the modern weak definition of fair) it eliminates 75% of the so called problems. And you can get rid of the other 25% by getting rid of point buys, builds and other such things.

I mean...3.5 set itself up to remove the adversarial relationship between DM and player. Running a game unfairly is a really good way to just piss off the guy playing the wizard when you hit him with something 10x stronger than anything you've touched the fighter with.

Point buy benefits melee. This has been demonstrated repeatedly. It's a field equalizer.

I'd suggest that, if you don't want builds, you pick up freeform RPGs, because....honestly, you just can't play any sort of tabletop without a build. Shadowrun, Mouseguard, D&D, PF, Iron Kingdoms, Call of Cthulu. Every single one of those has a "build."

[sonofzeal]

Or psionic characters with psionic feats? Or familiars? Or psicrystals?
Or Spelltouched feats? Or Shadowdancer? Or Archmage with Arcane Fire? Or......... :smallbiggrin:

[GoddessSune]

In my experience, if I get a bunch of mediocre stats, I normally play a martial or divine character.....That's just in my experience, though, and I understand why one would prefer rolling to point buys.

I'm not sure why you think this way. If you have a powerful class(?) like I guess you'd say wizard(?) that has an intelligence of 11, they are way, way worse off then the fighter with a strength of 11. The fighter can still fight and do damage without a whole +2 from strength, but the wizard can't cast more then 1st level spells.


1 question, though. How do you get rid of "builds?"

Well, low or average ability scores right from the start really put a damper on builds. You need high abilities for lots of feats, classes and such. A lot of builds are built on very shaky ground with lots of ''well the book does not say this or that, so lets just rule 100% in my favor'' kind of thing, you can just say ''no''. The simple RP requirement that you must join a group to get a prestige class, feat or such is also a great way to break a build(so character's can't just get the crunch.

Though the best might be the (modern way of thinking) Unfair Game.


.........elaborate?

Unfair is exactly what it sounds like. Think of the most unfair thing you can think of that might happen in a game. The kind of thing you would never do. I've done that, and worse.

Modern D&D is very fair and most games challenge players with no chance of catastrophic failure. They have more 'lite'' failures along the lines of ''darn that did not work lets try something else''. It's a lot like playing Chess, but without taking the opponents pieces, as your just ''trying out stratagems against each other''.

The Unfair Game also puts a huge damper on builds, as a lot of builds require characters to ''wait around'' and get classes, feats and such to get abilities, feats and such down the road. But this requires that the DM be in agreement with the player not to ''take advantage'' of this flaw.

It's one way, a very popular way to run a game....but it's not mine.

[Eslin]

The big guns:

Persistent undermaster! Opalescent glare! At will command word items! Nanobots! The wizard teleporting everyone somewhere to rest and regain spells, the fighter or barbarian repeatedly charging for hundreds of damage, a bard keeping dragonfire inspiration up all day!

[Eldest]

I'm not sure why you think this way. If you have a powerful class(?) like I guess you'd say wizard(?) that has an intelligence of 11, they are way, way worse off then the fighter with a strength of 11. The fighter can still fight and do damage without a whole +2 from strength, but the wizard can't cast more then 1st level spells.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you are referring to roll 3d6 in order with this? After you chose your class?

[Eslin]

I'm not sure why you think this way. If you have a powerful class(?) like I guess you'd say wizard(?) that has an intelligence of 11, they are way, way worse off then the fighter with a strength of 11. The fighter can still fight and do damage without a whole +2 from strength, but the wizard can't cast more then 1st level spells.



Well, low or average ability scores right from the start really put a damper on builds. You need high abilities for lots of feats, classes and such. A lot of builds are built on very shaky ground with lots of ''well the book does not say this or that, so lets just rule 100% in my favor'' kind of thing, you can just say ''no''. The simple RP requirement that you must join a group to get a prestige class, feat or such is also a great way to break a build(so character's can't just get the crunch.

Though the best might be the (modern way of thinking) Unfair Game.



Unfair is exactly what it sounds like. Think of the most unfair thing you can think of that might happen in a game. The kind of thing you would never do. I've done that, and worse.

Modern D&D is very fair and most games challenge players with no chance of catastrophic failure. They have more 'lite'' failures along the lines of ''darn that did not work lets try something else''. It's a lot like playing Chess, but without taking the opponents pieces, as your just ''trying out stratagems against each other''.

The Unfair Game also puts a huge damper on builds, as a lot of builds require characters to ''wait around'' and get classes, feats and such to get abilities, feats and such down the road. But this requires that the DM be in agreement with the player not to ''take advantage'' of this flaw.

It's one way, a very popular way to run a game....but it's not mine.

If everyone's highest ability score is 11, the wizard and druid are far better off than the monk or fighter. The wizard will need to concentrate a lot on it, but eventually will be able to cast whatever level of spells is necessary while the druid can if necessary function with no good stats at all.

And a lot of the best feats don't need ability scores for them, but as it happens most of the feats that mundanes rely on (such as power attack) do.

Wizard whose int starts at 11: start off at middle age (12), take human paragon asap (14), make a headband of intellect +2 as soon as possible (16) and when you hit level 4 take +1 int (17).

Or be illumian with aeshkrau and take sentinel of bharrai or persist bite of the werewhatever etc then focus on non save giving spells.

Be a druid, pump wisdom where possible and spend your time as an animal.

As say a monk... cry?

[Rubik]

Or Spelltouched feats? Or Shadowdancer? Or Archmage with Arcane Fire? Or......... :smallbiggrin:Or cantrips in Pathfinder? Or spellcasters with wands? Or anyone with a hat of disguise? Or changelings? Or characters with psychoactive skins? Or spellfire wielders? Or spellthieves?

[graymachine]

Holy crap, this has stretched on. I think, in the future, I need to entitle all of my threads, 'I don't like Tome of Battle!'