Tome of Battle Overhaul: A Survey

[Eldan]

So. Me and a few other people over in homebrew were thinking about going over Tome of Battle and redoing the mechanics. We have a few ideas, but we aren't quite sure where we should go with this, so we thought we'd ask people what exactly they think of the Tome.

We would appreciate if you could answer those questions below. Short answers are fine, longer answers and other suggestions are appreciated.

Note that we are talking about the mechanics here, not the fluff. That's another matter entirely, and we'd rather not touch that.


1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?Yes.
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?Most: Interesting, varied melee options. Least: Tie between stance progression and Stone Dragon's prereq of being ground-bound.
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?Archery maneuver discipline.
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?I like it, and no. Many posters have mentioned how it makes more sense than many at-will abilities, since you shouldn't be able to "spam" the technique and expect it to work IRL.
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)Depends on the maneuver. This is already the case - many "counters" have prerequisites. Sometimes you're just hitting someone really hard, which could happen to anyone, and sometimes you're countering someone's charge, which obviously only happens vs. a charge.
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)6. The maneuvers do the heavy lifting in combat currently IME, but the stances shouldn't be the main thing.
6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)When I think thematically/movie style, people change their stance/style when they learn something new, or things aren't working out, or they were "holding back." I'm not sure how well this fits into D&D/RPGs. In games of D&D people switch stances generally because they have one "always on" stance, and another stance that may be better for the current situation. I like the current mechanics.
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)No.
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?They should be stances. That's why you can change stances relatively easily.
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)They also have maneuver known prerequisites. Nitpick: You should clarify that maneuvers known count as prerequisites for all ways of learning a maneuver.
10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)This may be difficult to implement, but I would do a modular thing where they *can* give bonuses, but as a baseline the weapon shouldn't matter too much. Feat chains or particular maneuvers might be based on discipline weapons, but not much else.
11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?5. Unlike feats, you can switch maneuvers out for better ones. If they scale with anything it should be Initiator Level, like many maneuvers already do; otherwise dips are too good.
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?Where 5 is the norm, 4. Initiators have a variety of ways to access maneuvers now, but they're all limited and come at some real cost. I like that, but I'd also like to see additional ways to access those maneuvers.

[AttilaTheGeek]

As a co-writer of the survey, I'll be the first response.

1) No, but that's because we play Pathfinder.
2) I like most that melee characters have lots of options on any given round. I like least that initiators have to prepare their maneuvers in advance.
3) Distinctive styles for different weapons.
4) Not at all. I think the maneuvers one can initiate should depend only on the stance they're in (and, of course, what they know).
5) That's twice now I've written an answer in a preceding question! It's almost like I wrote the survey or something :smalltongue: I think maneuver use should depend on stance, so 9.
6)I think stances should be changed every round, or multiple times per round.
7) I do not think so. I believe stances themselves should give benefits, but the act of changing should not.
8) They should be stances. They are small enough cases that they don't need their own category, and in combat they're more of an advantage (when they apply) than any other stance.
9) Yes, namely base attack bonus. I also think the Swordsage should have full BaB for the purposes of qualifying for maneuvers.
10) I would say a 6. A school should be more effective with its favored weapon, but an initiator shouldn't be required to have a favored weapon of every school they know maneuvers from.
11) About a 3. Learning how to strike harder is represented by STR increases as you level up; scaling damage from that strike isn't needed on top of that.
12) Maybe a 5? (Now I see what you mean about the 1-10 scale). I would like to see 6th-level initiators, the same way there are 6th-level partial casters.

[Balthanon]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?

Yes.

2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?

I like the multiclassing mechanics the most, followed closely by the per encounter powers with a recovery option mechanics

3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?

Numerous expansions. :)

4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?

I think it's actually a good method of limiting power a bit while still allowing flexibility out of combat (or potentially in with Adaptive Style)

5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)

It depends on the maneuver, it works for some, others not so much.

5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)

5 or 6, it depends upon the stance really. I don't know that any are overpowered but there are a few that I've very seldom chosen.

6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)

I don't see any point to forcing this.

7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)

Maybe as part of a class feature, I don't see a point to adding this into the basic rules.

8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?

Don't see any reason to change them from stances as is-- maneuverability and senses can have significant effects in combat.

9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)

If you want to make things a bit more complicated. The existing system works fairly well, really. It can be difficult enough as it is to qualify for some maneuvers if you're attempting to get a diverse array depending on class. This also introduces some issues based upon Swordsage's medium base attack bonus-- they're supposed to be the savants of the martial adept world and yet they might not qualify for half the maneuvers they can access due to base attack bonus?

10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)

I could see this being another area where you could expand upon it. Likely better rather than forcing the use of the weapons. Again-- a good candidate for feats or class features though.

11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?

5-- they're pretty good where they're at. The ability to replace maneuvers with higher level variants takes care of this for the most part.

12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?

8-- not every class should gain them, but they're a good supplement for weaker prestige classes and classes. If the class already has significant abilities then it should generally be left alone to give the player a choice-- do I interrupt my maneuver progress for these abilities or continue with something that grants them.

[Jeff the Green]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
Yes.
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
Most: it gives mundane melee more than 1-3 possible actions in combat.
Least: it mostly limits you to melee
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
Support for ranged combat.
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
I'm torn. It's coherent and works on a balance level, but it lacks verisimilitude. Perhaps a modified version of the Truenamer's Law of Sequence.
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
I think it would be cool if that were true for some maneuvers, but annoying and restrictive if it were the case for all of them.
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
5
6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
Yes.
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
Yes.
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
Own category.
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
Yes.
10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
5-7.
11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
10.
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
7.[/QUOTE]

[Callin]

I honestly dont think I could say my view any better than how GoodbyeSoberDay says it.

Tome of Battle is honestly fine for me and my group just the way it is. It does lack ranged support though.

[necroon]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
Heavily so.
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
Most: Flexibility and visual appeal of the "Blade Magic" in general. Least: The direct tie between disciplines and Skills (but that is more of a problem I have with the skill system than a problem with ToB)
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
A "How to create your own Martial Discipline" section: It should be easy for a reader to adapt or create a Martial Discipline in the same way it is for them to create a spell (or line of spells).
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
It's Okay. I do not see another viable method for it and resource management is, in my opinion, an important theme.
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
This should apply to some stances but not all. Most should be usable whenever.
6. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
5
7. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
No and Yes: This should depend on playstyle and the discipline you are using. Some combat forms are fluid and I can see a bonus for changing in and out of stances in response to attacks. Others are rigid: you take your one offensive stance and keep hitting/swinging away.
8. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
I got side-tracked and answered this above... my bad!
9. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?

I could see an argument for either. I would say utility. Let maneuverability and adaption be a bigger part of TOB. The Wizard can have both Mage Armor, Water-Walking, and True Seeing after all.
10. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
No.
11. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
Perhaps change it up to use Weapon Groups instead of weapons: that way it's easier to add weapons to the game (by just adding them to the list instead of the discipline itself).
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
7: They should be usable at later levels. Perhaps Meta-Maneveurs Feats would help?
13. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
Assuming we are at a 1 now I would say a 2.5: Let people treat 1/4th their BaB as their IL (assuming they have no initiating classes). Maybe boost it to 1/2 with a feat or use 1/2 instead of 1/4th?

[FleshrakerAbuse]

1. Yes.
2. The thing I like most is it gives options to melee to actually use, of which can sometimes give out-of-combat uses. However, I dislike that one has to ready maneuvers, which doesn't make as much sense for the game.
3. More diversity and better ways for other melee classes to more easily gain access to the maneuvers.
4. The expended maneuvers and recovery makes sense, but the readied ones doesn't have much interest.
5. A passive ability that gives minor tactical bonuses. 4.
6. Not really... if they want to change it, they would change it.
7. Probably not. The new bonus is the difference from the new to old.
8. Using them as stances seems to take up more combat-based stances, but maybe giving utility stances a bit of boosts to combat and combat some skill-based (minor) bonus might help.
9. Only for very few, because often abilities that need a skill already uses it (eg, Tiger Claw Strikes).
10. 4. Most of the time, a specific weapon should be similar to another enough to be used, and it makes some weapons ambiguous. Maybe all related weapons might make more sense, but still shouldn't be too important.
11. The most basic of abilties can and should still find some use later levels, so having it scale for every few other extra levels till it maxes 5-10 levels might work.
12. It would make sense for some classes to have easier ways of learning basic maneuvers that fit with their role, but maybe a slightly weaker variant (basic iron heart for fighters, paladins and marshals some form of white raven or devoted spirit, rogues shadow hand, monk setting sun and desert wind).

[Barsoom]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
1. Yes
2. Most: Martial classes can do more than "I attack ... again". Least: individual class progressions could have used better planning. Also, Iron Heart Surge.
3. They threw a bone to ranged combat with Bloodstorm Blade, but more is needed.
4. I am on the fence with that. On one hand, I understand it might be unbalancing to just let all maneuvers be useful. On the other hand, it doesn't make sense that a martial adept needs to prepare ... a particular swing?
5a. Only? No. Sometimes, yes. Something like immediate reactions, a-la Countercharge. But that shouldn't be the rule.
5b. 5/10. What's now is fine.
6. Currently stances can be switched once per round. Are you suggesting to switch them more often than once per round? No way. We don't want to get too bogged down in actions that switch between sets of situational bonuses.
7. No.
8. A good point. I can see some of the noncombat utility being feats or class features that are 'always on', and not stances
9. There are enough prerequisites as it is.
10. 1/10. Not too important. If you make using a Discipline weapon critical, a discipline that accidentally didn't get any good (read: optimized) weapons is not going to be used at all. Basically, you're giving yourself, the designer, an extra chance to screw it up.
11. 5/10. Some things should scale well with level, and some not. If everything would scale nicely, it would be boring. This way, you have all sorts of tradeoffs, you can take maneuvers that are good now but become worse later, or you can build up for the higher levels. All in all, it's okay to have a low-level maneuver to become irrelevant at level 20. That's why it's low level.
12. 8/10. Some cool maneuvers should be restricted by prereqs, but most should be available to everyone.

[Emperor Tippy]

So. Me and a few other people over in homebrew were thinking about going over Tome of Battle and redoing the mechanics. We have a few ideas, but we aren't quite sure where we should go with this, so we thought we'd ask people what exactly they think of the Tome.

We would appreciate if you could answer those questions below. Short answers are fine, longer answers and other suggestions are appreciated.

Note that we are talking about the mechanics here, not the fluff. That's another matter entirely, and we'd rather not touch that.


1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
Yes.

2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
Least: The editing and how the book is laid out.
Most: Probably the Swordsage, but more seriously the general mechanics.

3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
Archery support is the big one.

4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
Just fine and no, always available maneuvers negates one of the big mechanical balancers of the book.

5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
Should be Maneuver specific, if another class is made then it depends entirely on the specifics.

5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
Somewhere between a 5 and an 8, generally they should play a role in most every combat and play a large role in how that specific character acts.

6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
They are already plenty easy to change in or out of combat, it should remain the players choice.

7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
No.

8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
Stances.

9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
No, only IL and previous maneuvers known.

10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
Generally minimally important, maybe a 3-5.

11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
5-7

12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
5-7.


----
By and large the mechanics of the ToB classes are excellent.

[137beth]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
Not usually. I, and most of my group, view the maneuver mechanics as too "magic-like." Not necessarily because they are similar to Vancian-casting, though. Partly, have to work really hard to justify how limits on maneuvers readied/encounter make sense without magic. For the Warblade, this creates a dissonance between the fluff and the crunch. For the crusader and swordsage, I'd rather just use a more powerful hombrewed version of the paladin and monk.
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded? The biggest issues I see with it are a) the dissonance between fluff and crunch, b)the lack of variety/specialization within and across disciplines (you don't get enough different maneuvers...) and c) the lack of scaling.
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
What I thought it was missing was support for mundane ranged attackers. Archers, throwers, crossbowers, etc are troubled in 3.5 without using magical enhancements, and they could have used additional support.

4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
Yes, the readying mechanic really screams "magic" at me, regardless of whether it has "su" printed next to it.
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
I think some maneuvers should require specific conditions, while others should not. Versatility vs. power.
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
I'd say about 3. I like the tactical options provided by different stances, but I don't want them to dominate tactical decisions.
6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
Yes, being able to change stances is the only part of the mechanic which is interesting to me (or makes sense), and it should be perfectly doable in combat.
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
I think it should be fairly neutral, aside from the fact that you are (presumably) switching to a more favorable stance.
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
Utility should be a separate category.
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
Yes, please, this makes it easier to see how it interacts with the rest of the game.
10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
I'm not going to give a number, but I think most actions should be doable with all weapons, with occasional bonuses for preferred weapons.
11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
10, I am of the opinion that no class feature should ever be made entirely obsolete (for example, I don't like 3.5's separation of dispel magic from greater dispel magic, since at high levels normal dispel magic will never succeed. On the other than, I think PF's change to dispel magic works better, since at high levels, if you can avoid its limitations, it is still better to use a lower level slot for normal dispelling...)
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
5. I think you should be able to build a pure martial class without any subsystems (note to non-homebrewers: tier 3 martial classes without subsystems or pseudo-magic like ToB are possible, even though WotC was never able to do it. Look at any of several fighter, rogue, barbarian, or (some) monk fixes on the homebrew forums, or even a ranger fix which removes spellcasting. ToB style magic is only "necessary" to make interesting and powerful martial classes if you are allergic to homebrew).
Those are roughly my thoughts. I think ToB is was a great idea with a lot of promise, but the execution was sorta hit-or-miss.

[The Dark Fiddler]

1. Yes, though my players are very polarized on the book; half use it regularly, and the rest avoid it like the plague.

2. What I like least would have to be... the odd prerequisites on using Stone Dragon, I suppose. Picking what I like most would be ridiculously difficult.

3. A few fighting styles could use more representation. Archery is commonly discussed, but I feel as though a polearm discipline and a sword-and-board discipline, for example, would be great. After all, TWF got its own style!

4. I think it works fine as-is, though I wouldn't be adverse to the idea of a new class doing it slightly differently.

5. 6; I feel they're just a bit short of the mark at the moment.

6. No, I don't think they should be changed more often.

7. Like my answer to number 4, I don't think it should be changed for already existing classes but wouldn't mind a new class that had a mechanic that benefited switching stances.

8. Stances work well for them, I think, but there maybe be a few cases where another type may work better.

9. No. I don't even like the "x same-discipline maneuvers" prerequisites.

10. 3; I don't mind a slight boost for using discipline weapons, but restricting variety is almost always a bad thing in my book. Preventing somebody from, say, using Shadow Hand maneuvers with a greataxe is not cool.

11. 5; I'm going with this, because it seems like the most neutral option. Because ToB differs from magic in that you ready a set number of maneuvers rather than selecting a number from each level, it doesn't matter all that much. It's more like psionics in that regard. As such, I don't really care either way.

12. I'm not sure what you're asking here, so abstain.


As a co-writer of the survey, I'll be the first response.

Nice try, but somebody beat you to it :smalltongue:

[Raineh Daze]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
Yes.


2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?

Most? Having something to do other than repeat the same action time after time. Least? Er... the absolutely appalling formatting of the maneuvers is really damn high. Seriously, order them by level and discipline, not alphabetically. :smallyuk:


3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?

Archery. Mounted combat. Dinosaurs.


4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?


I kinda like the readying mechanics, I just wish they were given a little more in the way of flavour. It's another thing to set the various initiaors apart.

Maybe something like having a maneuver of at least X levels lower always available?


5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)


Maybe only using a school's maneuvers with one of their stances. Reliance on the enemies doing certain things? Euch.


5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)

You've counted 5 twice.

Anyway, 7. How you're fighting should have a bigger impact than it does.


6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)


Yup.


7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)

Sounds like a good idea.


8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?

Own category! No need to clutter up stances with this...


9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)

'Attribute value' should only be per stance. Anything else should be per school.

Honestly, it'd be quite nice to get some high-requirement, late-game schools. Maybe tied to PrC's or exotic weaponry.


10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
7. I think they should be better, and strikes limited to a certain class, but you shouldn't be tied to exactly one school at a time.


11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?

5, if the levels remain. 10 if they don't. Scaling is a wonderful toy.


12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?

Err... 2. If you build a class around a mechanic, handing that mechanic out like an STD seems silly.

[Vinyl Scratch]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
I have played in a game that included the book. One of the other players was a swordsage, I think. I would not mind using it in a game of my own in the future.

2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
It's a book all about giving more mundane types nice things. The maneuvers and stances allow for way more interesting melee fights and also characters with more unique fighting styles.

One thing I disliked about the book itself is how the maneuver stat blocks are listed. They are all grouped by discipline, while stuff like spells are just in alphabetical. Its counter-intuitive to me. On a more mechanical side, I remember reading how each discipline had signature weapons, but they were never mentioned anywhere else. (Maybe I missed it.)

3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
Something for archery, maybe. A unique prestige class specializing in each discipline could be neat. Maybe make the unarmed swordsage an actual variant, one like lion totem barbarian or dungeon crasher fighter, that replaces class features for monk-like ones.

4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
I've read it several times, I do not understand how crusader works. I'm sorry.

The limit, however, should stay. It inhibits just spamming one ability over and over. This makes for more unique fights, in my opinion.

5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
It depends. Counters should obviously be counters, but most others should be useable most of the time. It is not like it is hard to counter dedicated melee if you put effort into it. In the end, I feel that situational maneuvers should be a bit stronger than more general effects in order to balance them.

5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
6, maybe. There should be more access to a variety of stances, giving minor, situational buffs. Variety should give influence to using and changing between them more often.

6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
Sure, why not? There just needs to be more of them, with unique benefits.

7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
Its one way to influence people to change stances often, but it can easily make things complex.

8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
They are fine where they are. It forces a choice between utility or combat prowess.

9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
It could spice things up, but they should not be too specific or too harsh.

10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
5. It should grant a minor benefit, but using a different weapon should also be viable. Additionally, knowing multiple disciplines means carrying and enchanting more weapons.

11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
3. They should be useful enough to be considered. Note that the way maneuvers refresh now sort of makes them useful when the more powerful ones have been expended.

12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
4. ToB is very multiclass friendly, and i think it should stay that way. However, the best way to get maneuvers and stances should be tanking levels in a initiator class, or a theurge-like class.

[Endarire]

I already overhauled the Tome of Battle mechanics (http://antioch.snow-fall.com/files/members/Endarire/DnD/Greg%20Campbell%5C%27s%20Revised%20D%26D%203.5%20M artial%20Disciplines%20for%20Public%20Distribution %2012%2014%2012.zip).

In short, I...
-Removed all maneuver prereqs. Initiator level and discipline access (or maneuver access via items or feats) are the only prereqs.

-Made the stance progression the same for every martial class. You get a new stance at martial class level 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, and 15. This means there are only level 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 stances.

-Let everyone swap maneuvers and stances known every day. By 3.5, there were too many standard builds because the best maneuvers were taken and there was so little room to replace/experiment.

-Added 3 martial disciplines that were started by others and heavily revised m. Unquiet Twilight focuses on Undeath (because it's cool and not touched upon in ToB). Eternal Mount focuses on being mounted and doing mount-specific tricks. Falling Star is the ranged discipline.

-Gave all martial adepts options for their swift actions from level 1. Every martial adept (Crusader, Marshal, Ranger, Swordsage, Warblade) has native access to at least 1 swift or immediate action maneuver.

-Ordered the maneuvers and stances by level. For example, "Level 1 Setting Sun Maneuvers" is followed by "Level 1 Setting Sun Stances."

-Realized that melee needs to have special abilities to have fun, too. They can inflict every notable status effect, and can access stances which cover the major immunities (mind blank, freedom of movement, true seeing, death ward/life ward, flight).

[Bakkan]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?

Yes, often.


2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?

Most: Ways to make skills very relevant in combat (Concentration, Sense Motive, etc). More generally, more complex combat mechanics.
Least: That several mechanics interact unintuitively or ambiguously (WRT, IHS, Idiot crusader)


3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?

Archery and Mouned Combat. More Prestige classes that are enterable at around level 6.


4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?

I love the recovery mechanic for Crusaders, the recovery mechanic for tha Warblade is decent but a little boring, the recovery mechanic for the Swordsage is terrible. I don't want maneuvers to normally be available without limit. That said, I wouldn't mind a way to perform the same maneuver twice or three times in a row if there's a cost associated, such as a feat.


5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)

Yes, that's one place that ToB could have done better. In partcular I would like to see more synergy between different strikes, such as one maneuver that sickens an opponent and another that only has full effect if used on a sickened opponent. Generally, strikes should have a reduced effect if used in an inappropriate situation rather than simpoly being unusable.


5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)

8. Stances should be capable of giving significant situational bonuses that if used properly will greatly increase the initiator's effectiveness in combat.


6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)

Yes. The choice between using a boost or changing a stance should come up fairly often.


7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)

No, the stances themselves should be good enough to justify changing to them.


8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?

Stances.


9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)

The only prerequisites should be number of known maneuvers from the school and initiator level.


10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)

5. Strikes should be better if you're using a favored weapon. What I would like to see is a sequence of maneuvers that have different rider effects based on which discipline weapon you're using. The classes should have class features that reward using favored weapons, as should the feats.


11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?

2, but the classes should have an easy way of trading out low-level maneuvers for high-level ones, as the ToB ones do. Getting new abilities is more fun than having the old abilities become more powerful.


12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
3. Every class should have at least one exclusive discipline, and few disciplines should be shared by more than two classes. The Martial Study feat or similar should exist for the sake of dabblers, but should have stricter prerequisites than it currently does.

[Eldariel]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?

Almost invariably, yes. The only exception are the odd Caster-only games with no martial classes allowed (even there, it can be useful in small dozes for some antagonists).


2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?

I like the basic system itself the most. Scaling maneuvers, the preparation system, by and large the recovery methods, just how maneuvers themselves function within the system.


3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?

Some schools:
- Mundane "assassin" school (non-magical Rogue is very hard right now)
- Mundane "mobility" school (Desert Wind is the magic version; something like Skirmish)
- Ranged support/schools in general (e.g. one for volley archers/snipers, one for mobile archers/skirmishers, etc.)
- Simple depth; since there are no ToB supplements, the amount of material is relatively small. A more in-depth TWF, THF, S&B, Grapple and Unarmed schools for starters.


4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?

I like it. I think it brings some dynamicity to combat. However, I think the current number of maneuvers known and readied (at least for non-Swordsages) is a bit low, which can easily lead to repeating a single maneuver (only fitting one you prepared) in a situation. I think the current system would be perfect with more maneuvers overall, more maneuvers known and more maneuvers readied (would also make Adaptive Style more interesting).


5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)

For few really niche maneuvers (such as AoO ones)? Yeah, I think they should exist but they shouldn't be the rule. I think most maneuvers should still be available always just to ensure strategic versatility and keeping the abilities interesting by ensuring variety.


5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)

5-7. 6. Some are good right now, I find (Press the Advantage, Thicket of Blades, Leading the Charge, etc.) while others could use a bit more punch (Giantkilling Style, Absolute Steel, Wolverine Stance, etc.). Some more specialized stances could afford to be stronger in their specialization (e.g. Grapple-stances).


6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)

Yes, though I think the action cost is correct already; the characters just need more stances available and more specialized, interesting stances and less no-brainers (e.g. Thicket of Blades) to incentivize switching based on combat scenario.


7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)

It could be an interesting mechanic to explore but it's impossible for me to say without practical experience in play. It could have some undesired side-effects such as having players switch stance constantly even when it makes no sense just for the bonuses.


8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?

Eh, they work as both. Scent has a lot of combat utility due to being able to locate hard-to-see enemies; Hearing the Air makes sense too. I think they might be too cheap if they're not consuming the Stance-slot, but they might be too automatic as stances.

Perhaps a middleground were to be desirable; granted as long as you have a certain number of maneuvers of a given school readied and you're of certain level or some such? Just brainstorming, I don't feel Stance-mechanic is necessarily perfect for them though it's functional.


9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)

Only in edge-cases. I think half of the system's charm currently is how easily you can see what you can or can't learn; adding excess complexity would add little and make it a lot more of a hassle, I find.


10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)

As it stands? 1. Depends how you actually do the disciplines though; weapon style specialized disciplines could very well want more strict restrictions (but they could be written into the disciplines themselves, much like Stone Dragon's boneheaded limitation).


11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?

8; I think Wall of Blades is a good example of how maneuvers should strive to be, good throughout but with interesting alternatives later on. Nightmare Blades grow too obsolete for my tastes (and some maneuvers, say Wolf Fang Strike, are just bandaid fixes to broken combat mechanics).


12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?

8. I think maneuvers should be martial combat. I think everyone doing attacks should have some incentive to use the system and proper warrior classes just being so significantly better at them that they're naturally going to be the best on their field of work.

[Amnestic]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?

Yes.

2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?

Most: Some of the really fun maneuvers. Shouting FIVE SHADOW ICE CREEPING ENERVATION STRIKE! is wayyyyy more fun than 'I full attack' :D
Least: Poor editing on the book.

3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?

Archery/Ranged support. Whether that should just be a new style or a new class entirely, I'm not sure, but archers/ranged need something cool too.

4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?

Fluffwise the readying mechanic doesn't make much sense for any class besides Crusaders. Mechanically I think it's fine, though the refresh mechanics may need a look at (Swordsage and their feat tax).

5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)

Some maneuvers are already like this (Counter Charge). I don't think they should be stance-restricted though, since that would severely cut into the action economy. Think it's fine as is.

5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)

5.

6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)

I think it's fine where it is. You change as the fight requires.

7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
I don't think so. You're already getting the benefit of an offensive oriented stance, there's no need to add a further benefit.

8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?

No, since some of the stances are utility you might want in combat and choose over a more offensive/defensive oriented stance. Making the choice between them is something I like.

9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)

I don't think so.

10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)

More important than they are now, in my opinion. Make them better with discipline weapons, but don't limit them only to discipline weapons. Incentivise their use, but don't make them incapable of using when you don't have that weapon on hand.

11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?

I think they're fine as they currently are.

12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?

Having half-IL for other classes is probably one of my favourite concepts of ToB. Multiclassing into a ToB class after a few levels isn't nearly as punishing as losing spell levels in a spell-casting class. I think between feats (Martial Stance/Study), items which grant maneuvers and multiclassing, non-Initiators have a decent array of methods to gain access to ToB maneuvers.


Spoilered for your pleasure ;) Hope this helps

[Blatm]

1. Yes
2. Like: More options, more effective for martial characters. Dislike: 1. No archery, 2. Often better to do a full attack, 3. Not enough stances; right now you spend all your time in the best one with little variation, 4. I don't feel like the schools have very different flavour, especially with regards to prefered skills and weapons.
3. Solutions to the above problems
4. Both seem reasonable to me. I might like the crusader to have more control over his maneuvers, possibly by having the option to roll between fewer, or weight them differently.
5a. No
5b. 7
6. This might be interesting.
7. This seems a bit too complicated
8. Their own category. There are many stances and maneuvers which can be useful outside of battle, and the system should allow them to be used like that in a natural way.
9. No. I think this would limit the options available to the characters, which is what I like the most about ToB.
10. 7. Only give bonuses, don't give penalties.
11. Like spells, so 5?
12. 8 (to all classes). I would like the difference in the classes to come from how they make use of these maneuvers.

[Zaydos]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
Yes
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
Melee options beyond full attack or opposed rolls. I also like the options it has for enabling full-attacks (Sudden Leap + Leaping Dragon's Stance for example), and the defensive Diamond Mind maneuvers such as Mind Over Body, and the fact that the strikes let you move and make a meaningful attack without obsoleting the full-attack option. Dislike: Ex Heal spell (not Crusader's healing maneuvers, just that they are Ex), lack of archery options, bad editing (Iron Heart Surge, only 1 1st level Tiger Claw maneuver with no prerequisites), White Raven Tactics on self.
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
Archery. Also as someone else noted Mounted Combat.
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
Quite well, I like the resource management aspect. Not necessarily, but I enjoy looking at interesting homebrew and it sounds like it could be interesting homebrew. Someone else suggested having low enough level maneuvers always available and I like that idea, but have the caveat it should only apply to Strikes, since low level boosts and counters level with you very well (Diamond Mind, Sudden Leap).
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
As is? Probably not since, while many should not be spammable most aren't strong enough to be useful with limiting conditions that are more than just jumping through simple hoops.
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
5.
6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
That sounds neat and like it could be an interesting mechanic. Would probably requiring a narrowing of stance's effects so that you aren't going to always want to be in say Assassin's Stance.
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
Could be one way to encourage switching them, but becareful. ToB is in my RL games the strongest things that see play (they aren't optimizers... well except the wanna be power gamer who just reads optimization guides and... plays ToB) and one reason I love it is it hits a power balance I like.
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
I like them as stances, it's a tactical decision more in combat ability or something out of it.
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
It could be interesting, but be careful with this since you don't want to make things too hard. This could be used to make the discipline skills matter more, but again it would be easy to overdue.
10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
3. It's hard to get less than they already are (I'm looking at you Shadow Blade for making yours matter), but if you change things enough you could do interesting things with this. That said I like the ability to have my warrior use the weapon he wants. Though, it might be neat to make the disciplines work better with certain non-spiked chain exotic weapons to make that a feat worth taking.
11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
6. I like that Strikes get obsoleted, though there are exceptions (Wolf Fang Strike is bad at Lv 2 on) and it already has a good balance between low level Counters (which get better as you level), boosts (which stay about as useful), and Strikes (which are really good when you get them but will have to be swapped out eventually). So while it could use some fixing it doesn't need much.
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
4. I like the ability to pick things up with a level dip or get some limited stuff with feats so it really shouldn't be that much harder. Now I'm not saying make it too easy, you don't want someone to be able to replicate your entire class features with a few feats, but pick up bits and pieces, sure.

[SciChronic]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?

Yes, my DM is fully aware of how strong magic is in the tier list, and so ToB help level the field, not entirely, but some.


2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?

Most: Maneuvers and stances adding variety to mundane combat
Least: lack of incentive to take PrC Initiators, why go into Eternal blade when the Warblade 20 can Dual stance


3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?

more magic items


4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?

A universal recovery mechanic needs to be established rather than once for each base class, that way non initiators that take maneuvers will have a way to use them more than once per encounter. Maneuvers should not be always available, without limit, otherwise you could just perpetually use Time Stands Still for infinite actions.


5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
only in certain stances could be interesting, but see below.


6. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
5, as they stand, they are situational, where some have broader uses while other more defined, this is a good spot to be at as Maneuvers should have the larger influence


7. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
this would require changing stance changing to a free action that you cannot do more than once (similar to the 5ft. step) as many boosts are also swift actions, and having 2 things take swift actions clogs up your battle flow


8. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
This could be useful, but first #7 would be needed, and a larger list of stances would be needed as there is not too much variety in stances, and not many good ones to take, along with having more stances known for each initiator class.


9. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
depends, fluff-wise they seem to make sense. Tiger Claw gives a primal animalistic feel, as such a stance granting things such as scent makes sense. likewise Shadow Hand gives off a ninja vibe, and running on water fits that.


10. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
probably not, as it makes it harder for dips into initiator classes. Also the base initiator classes share some school, and additional prereqs would reduce the already rather small pool. Also some maneuvers already carry innate needs for skill ranks.


11. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
1, makes taking maneuvers from other disciplines less useful, this would reduce their versatility and could possible drop them to tier 4 depending on how important the weapon is.


12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
7, allows for more viability for dips into initiator classes


13. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists? increase the strength of the feats that grant maneuvers and stances (possibly make it based on your initiator level?) as spending a feat for a single maneuver is a terrible trade, especially considering if you are taking it as a non-initiator as the pre-reqs for maneuvers and your lower initiator level make it an increasingly terrible trade-off

As a whole:
1. make a universal recovery mechanic
2. Improve existing and create more PrCs
3. Larger Maneuver and Stance list
4. Make dips, or non-initiator multi-classing more viable

are the big ones

[Krazzman]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?

Yes we do. Albeit only because I actively brought the book into the game and our DM is quite sad that Warblade straight out of the book replaces a fighter. And some other classes as well but he can live with it. In the game I DM we play Pathfinder.


2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?

Most: I like being able to have a Melee'er being able to do more awesome stuff out of the book. Have options instead of Attack attack attack, even if it is quite clear that at the current state of play with my warblade it is quite: Special Attack, Attack, Special Attack. But it gives quite some funny thing. Additionally the warblades Weapon aptitude is awesome. Give him a weapon an 15 minutes and he'll rip your face of with it.
Least:
Progression in the system itself. It just feels off sometimes. It actually is better to get 2 levels of fighter into a pure warblade in terms of Stance progression completely losing on your capstone ability.


3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?

Generally spoken DnD 3.5 misses on Archery as a whole. A few feats from Pathfinder ("Ranged Powerattack" [name eludes me] and Hammer the gap and similar things are able to mitigate a few weaknesses but not as a whole.)
Mounted Combat feels awkward most of the time, I don't know if a few of the white raven maneuvers work while mounted but seeing as this is a big combat terrain left untouched by the book. "Magical" Combat, Spiritual Combat, getting the strength of a Brickwall or the swiftness of a tiger... but nothing exclusivly for Mounted or archery or mounted archery.


4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers?
Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?

Not really that much. Swordsages have a Feat-tax making them nearly unplayable in a dexterity focused build until level 6 with everything other than Human or Halfling (the ones which get bonus feats). In a current game a friend plays a Halfling Unarmed Swordsage.
Warblades Form of swift action for recovery + normal attack is a bit less severe as the swordsages. The Crusader one on the other hand feels a bit clunky out of the book and seems to need a card solution to play more smoothly.


5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)

No. But if they should I would like to have more Stances. Both known and in the book. To better decide from.


6. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)

5 to 7. It's hard to scale. I think they are currently fine from the impact in a few special cases. A few should be "buffed".


7. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)

No. But again IF it becomes the norm there should be more variety.


8. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)

The stance-bonus itself should already be enough benefit.


9. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?

With more variety and more known this is irrelevant. Certain utilities should depend on "Initiator Style".


10. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)

No. No. No. No. It would be like to have a wizard needing 5 Ranks in Disable device/Pick lock to learn knock. It would enforce the melee can't have nice things without a price reaction a lot of people see as a flaw in the system.
With another system that instead of a maneuver/stance progression skill ranks/bab or other factors then yes. This would open this up for "everyone". Leading to a system where this can come as a system that limits how many you can use per encounter but having the "whole" list of strikes/stances that you meet the prereqs for.


11. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)

5. Bonuses from discipline weapons but giving a bit more weapons into these and other lists with different bonuses depending on type (slashing piecring etc.)


12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?

7. Similar to how spells get better. Doing slightly more damage as you advance or getting other benefits. Maybe looking at the progression of incarnum bring some good ideas.


13. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?

I like that you have a few specialists that get more and a bit broader list of strikes/stances and so on but being able for everyone else.
Getting Iron Heart for Barbarians, Fighters getting to choose 2 depending on style, Divine Spirit for Paladins, Shadow Hand for Rogues etc. Together with the system about being able to use ALL maneuvers/stances that you meet the prereqs.

[peacenlove]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
Yes
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
Most: Setting sun discipline
Maneuvers cover defensive / utility (Mountain Hammer, Wall of Blades, Hearing the Air) options as well as offensive ones.
Least: Swordsage recovery mechanic / feat tax. Stances aren't streamlined (See crusader 8th level stance). No capstone for crusader / limited for Swordsage. Assasin's stance is requirement for many prestige classes / feats so you stay there from 5th level and onward.
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
Support for archery. Support for 2WF could be better. Guidelines for new maneuvers. 10th level maneuvers.
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
Balanced and (hell) no. Crusader kinda achieves it but has limited focus so he is acceptable.
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
No. This is why counters exist. They should be enriched if needed
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
4 at low levels, 6 or 7 at high. Stances are pretty powerful at 1st level but they don't scale well.
6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
Yes but with feat tax
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)No. There is no precedent of doing so in DnD and being able to adapt tactics is a reward on its own
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
Remain as stances. Maybe at higher levels rename them as "utility stances" and give the ability to dual stance with "combat" stances
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
No. In many cases prerequisites on maneuvers should be normalised (See elder mountain hammer)
10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
1, 5 if we are talking about weapon groups. Weapons are plenty already and an initiator shouldn't be useless because he fights with a punching dagger rather than a normal one
11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
If 5 is the existing scaling then definitely 7-8
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
If, again, 5 is the existing, then 4. Clear any and all maneuvers and stances that allow easy entry to PRC's out of their intended function (Assasin's stance) and they are good

Answers in blue

[BWR]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
Not in games I run. I have played in games where the DM permits it. I did not approve of them in the game


2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
I like how they made melee classes better, but immensely dislike the mechanics they used. Fluff never entered into it.


3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
I can't really comment, since I think the entire execution was flawed from concept and out.


4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
It's...ok. It's basically the same as kata from Way of the Samurai (L5R d20), a mechanic I'm not overly fond of, but don't actually dislike. Making maneuvers always available would put them more along the lines of feats, which is what should have been done in the first place - make a bunch of Combat feats that were powerful and restricted to mundane types.

Ignored the rest of the questions because I've already answered everything relevant to my position.

[sonofzeal]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
Yes, though not exclusively. My IRL group has highly limited book lore / optimization skill, so I tend to forgo ToB myself but encourage them to play martial adepts when appropriate.

2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
Most: the tactical flexibility. Even just in Core, I love using the environment and situational advantages ("Super-laser attack? Ready action to drop prone behind cover with Total Defence for +12 touch AC!"), so ToB lets me do more of what I love with Standard Action attacks, swift action movement, etc.

3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
An archery discipline.

4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
I think the current limits are fine. Heck, just 1/enc with no recovery would be fine.

5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
.....isn't that what the "Counter" tag is for?

5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
Varies. Some are significant, some are minor, some offer non-combat utility. I like the utility ones.

6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
It competes with other uses of swift actions, but I like being able to make that choice, so a hearty YES!

7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
Eh, could be interesting, but I'm basically neutral.

8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
Being stances is fine, but I can see the logic in breaking them off. As long as they're around, I'm happy.

9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
That might get over-complicated. I'd rather just make the prerequisites more consistent.

10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
I think the whole idea of discipline weapons isn't really that useful, as it limits refluff potential. So, no.

11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
I think they already do, to some extent. There's a lot of 1st lvl maneuvers I could see a high level character using.

12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
....?

I think the game would be better if more characters had access to maneuvers. I wouldn't complain if there were some special maneuvers only available to certain PrCs or whatever, but that strikes me as an inelegant solution in general.

[Telonius]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
Yes.

2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
Most: granting interesting and useful new abilities to melee. Least: Crusader recovery mechanic, some poorly-worded maneuvers (looking at you, IHS), and some disparity among the power levels of the disciplines (Desert Wind and Stone Dragon seemed to get the short end of the stick).

3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
It seems like they'd intended to put in some stuff for the Discipline Weapons, but either forgot about it or removed it. As it is, the only time it really matters is for things like Shadow Blade. (A random +1 here and there doesn't count as mattering). Basically, I'd like to see either some mechanical effect of using one of the discipline's favored weapons, or ditch the concept altogether.

4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
I think Swordsage's is ideal. *EDIT: assuming you fix the feat tax from first level. (Always forget about that - it's a class feature disguised as a feat, as much as Natural Spell is for a Druid). Warblade's recovery mechanic is just a shade too powerful IMO, and Crusader's just plain annoys me. (Really not sure why, it just does).

5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
I like the idea of only being able to do a maneuver when in the appropriate stance. But if that were the rule, I'd want the classes to have access to more stances. Otherwise you'd basically be telling Warblade to pick a prohibited school, and Swordsage that there's one school you can't have maneuvers from until level 20.

5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
6

6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
I think this already happens; changing to Child of Shadow from Island of Blades, for instance.

7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
Seems kind of unnecessary, since you wouldn't be changing stances to begin with if you didn't want the benefit the other stance would give. It also sounds like it would be another one of those really situational bonuses that everybody forgets to add.

8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
Hard call. Walking on Water, Scent, Spider Climbing, Shadow Jaunt & company... they don't seem particularly melee-ish, so Maneuvers don't feel like a clean fit. (The Shadow Blade stuff makes slightly more sense, because Swordsage is up to his ears in maneuvers anyway). But there are so few stances available, not too many people would really want to spend one on a situation that's not going to come up all that often. If I were designing something from the ground up, I'd put that sort of thing in its own category.

9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
They effectively already have a BAB requirement, since they only become available at certain levels. I wouldn't make maneuvers have any other requirements than what they have now. But maybe having a high attribute, skill rank, etc., should make a stance more effective. I always at least consider taking Flame's Blessing just because of this.

10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
5. Currently they're 1 (negligible importance).

11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
Maneuvers - 1 (they shouldn't). There's already the swap-out mechanic; I think it works well enough.

12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
I think Martial Stance/Martial Study hits the right balance. If you really want the ability but don't want to dip the class, a feat or two should be able to get it.

[Starbuck_II]

So. Me and a few other people over in homebrew were thinking about going over Tome of Battle and redoing the mechanics. We have a few ideas, but we aren't quite sure where we should go with this, so we thought we'd ask people what exactly they think of the Tome.

We would appreciate if you could answer those questions below. Short answers are fine, longer answers and other suggestions are appreciated.

Note that we are talking about the mechanics here, not the fluff. That's another matter entirely, and we'd rather not touch that.



1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
Anytime I'm allowed I splash a little in.
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
Most some of the moves sound cool and are useful, but Crusader's recovery hard to do without cards.
I love the save as concentration idea.
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
Long Ranged maneuvers like archery
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
I don't mind it in general.
I'm worried what would change if it had no limit but I'm be interested in looking.
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
Not really. Well Counter maneuvers do that already like Counter charge. Are you making all maneuvers counters?

5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
5.

6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defense?)
You'd have to change the amount of stances though.

7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
That might be cool.

8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
Stances seem easiest method.

9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
No, then they become feats.

10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
Is 1 good or 10 good? Assuming 10 good a 6.
Be better with discipline weapons not limited without.

11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
6.

12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists
5

[Talya]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
Yes.

2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
Oh man. I love how TOB integrates a relatively new system so seemlessly into 3.5. I love how well TOB multiclasses. I dislike the lack of viable errata and a few broken (as in "this doesn't work") mechanics.

3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
Ranged combat. More versatile PrC options.


4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
It's perfect.
No.

5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
Not unless the maneuver requires them (IE. throwing someone who charges you should require them to charge you...i actually forget if that's a maneuver already.)

5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
5.

6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
It's fine how it is.

7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
No more than they already do.

8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
They're fine how they are.

9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
No.

10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
It's fine how it is. (3?)

11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
It's fine how they are. (And they already remain useful a long time.)

12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
Eeenteresting. Martial Study does that now. Where are you going with this?

[Amphetryon]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?

1. Yes, whenever possible.

2. Most? It gives melee something relevant to do other than "hit the thing with the thing." Least? It's nigh on impossible to extend ToB's benefits to a mundane Ranged combatant.

3. See above: Ranged combat support.

4. Very much, and no, not really.

5. As written, no, but I could see certain homebrew maneuvers being made to work with those parameters.

5b. 5

6. No.

7. No, but I could see certain homebrew stances being made to work with those parameters.

8. I have no problem with the utility maneuvers staying as maneuvers, and the utility stances staying as stances.

9. Not really.

10. 6: I could see maneuvers granting a rider effect if used with a discipline-specific weapon.

11. 5: as they are now.

12. 5: Martial Study/Stance do that just fine right now.

[Eldan]

Interesting results. From what people are saying here, I think we should just abandon this project, people like the book as it is. There's enough ranged support for ToB already in other 'brews.

[AmberVael]

So. Me and a few other people over in homebrew were thinking about going over Tome of Battle and redoing the mechanics. We have a few ideas, but we aren't quite sure where we should go with this, so we thought we'd ask people what exactly they think of the Tome.

I'd like to challenge your premise and make an alternate suggestion. I'll try and keep it short.

Basically, there are plenty of people who are just fine with Tome of Battle as is. It could be tweaked a bit, but for them, it doesn't actually need an overhaul (whether or not they'd enjoy the result). Even your project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284192) doesn't seem to challenge its balance or effectiveness, only the precise implementation. I get the objections there, and I do see them echoed. I think the questions and thoughts you're voicing are not uncommon and could be addressed in a way that people like.

I do not, however, think overhauling Tome of Battle is the way to go. By doing an overhaul of it, you attempt to replace something that works just fine. You compete with something preexisting and functional. (http://xkcd.com/927/) This just leads to conflict- not necessarily between people, not necessarily bad feelings even, but just... two systems that will generally be seen as mutually exclusive.

Why bother with that mutual exclusion? The concepts and ideas you're working with, I think, could just as easily apply to a new system. And frankly, I think it would take about the same amount of work, and might end up more cohesive and coherent by attempting to stand alone rather than take from something preexisting and fundamentally different.

By making a new system, you obviate a great deal of that conflict (if not all of it). There's just a new option that can be used alongside another option. D&D can always find use for new well made classes and systems- that's what makes homebrew fun.


Edit: Heh, seems like I had good timing. I don't think you should abandon it, just... redirect it.

[Eldan]

Well, ToB is already hogging a lot of the best terminology. Calling our stuff "Stances" and "Strikes" as well is just inviting conflict. Plus, there's a lot of really good basic mechanics in ToB that I'd have no idea what to replace with.

My basic idea wasn't even to make a new system, or to overhaul the ToB much. I was just annoyed at the preparation mechanic, which to me not only makes no fluff sense at all for meleers, but also steps on the toes of my all-time favourite system, Vancian Casting, for no good reason.

I think I'll just go back to homebrewing more magic. It's easier and more interesting.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Eldan
Interesting results. From what people are saying here, I think we should just abandon this project, people like the book as it is.

And just this moment I finished typing up my comments.

:smallfrown:


Originally Posted by Eldan
I was just annoyed at the preparation mechanic, which to me not only makes no fluff sense at all for meleers, but also steps on the toes of my all-time favourite system, Vancian Casting, for no good reason.

Amen to every word.

[Eldan]

Ah, well. I have a few other ideas for what I could homebrew. Maybe start making a few more hybrid animals or planar diseases, or dig one of my older ideas out of one of my old diaries. Prestige classes, more rituals, Eladrins, planar locations, something like that.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Eldan
I think I'll just go back to homebrewing more magic.... Maybe start making a few more hybrid animals....

The cosmos could always use a few more funky creatures.

:smalltongue:

[Vknight]

Note that we are talking about the mechanics here, not the fluff. That's another matter entirely, and we'd rather not touch that.


1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?

1: Yes. It is awesome
2: No alternate options for Fighter/Rouge/Barbarian/Monk trading things out for Maneuvers and Stances. That some of the abilities are Supernatural, they should all count as extraordinary :smallbiggrin:.
3: We have a divine, a warrior. But no Tome of Battle+Psionic stuff?
4: Readying mechanics are fine there is a feat for it otherwise it would be too powerful
5: No
6: I would like several stances, and the ability to shift between them for free during your turn
7: Yes
8: Yes they can be stances, and or other things
9: No cause that gives ways to limit things further
10: I think they should be better with the weapon. So 7. Assassins Stance does +4d6 instead of +2d6, with the preferred weapon
11: 7 better and better but magic is always the greatest weapon
12: 5 variant stuff for other martial classes. So Fighter that loses half or 1/3 of his bonus feats. But gains maneuvers.

[Zaq]

So. Me and a few other people over in homebrew were thinking about going over Tome of Battle and redoing the mechanics. We have a few ideas, but we aren't quite sure where we should go with this, so we thought we'd ask people what exactly they think of the Tome.

We would appreciate if you could answer those questions below. Short answers are fine, longer answers and other suggestions are appreciated.

Note that we are talking about the mechanics here, not the fluff. That's another matter entirely, and we'd rather not touch that.


1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?

1) Yes, heavily. It's recommended to anyone who wants to hit things.

2) I like the options, the fact that initiators are harder than traditional melee to shut down, and the fact that all three of them succeed at feeling very different. I like how dip-friendly they are, both as a primary initiator dipping into something else and as a primary something else dipping into initiator. I like that all three classes benefit from, but are not screwed without, mental stats. I don't like the Swordsage's recovery system, the weird way that PrCs interact with initiator levels, or the fact that all Crusaders feel almost exactly the same until level 5 or 6 at the earliest.

3) As many others have stated, an archery discipline. You were just looking for that answer, weren't you?

4) I like it just fine as it is. At-will with no restrictions would be boring, since you'd just spam the same damn thing over and over, and it would make them harder to balance.

5) I don't like that as a general rule. Having a specific mechanic for doing so (perhaps a feat or PrC that gives you the option), or baking an extra rider into maneuvers without restricting use ONLY to such conditions (for example, "You attack the target and do X to it. If the target hit you on its last turn, also do Y to it."), that could be interesting, but I don't like the idea of restriction being the baseline.

5 part 2, electric boogaloo) Since you get so few stances, I think they're about good where they are. In my experience, it's very rare for someone to change stances mid-battle (it does happen, but not often), though whether that's good as a design goal is another question.

6) I think you would need to provide greater access to stances to make that happen. Most characters have so few that there's an obvious choice to use at any given time. Making it so that different stances occupy a similar enough niche that more than one will be useful in a given fight will require that the characters not be spending such fiercely limited resources on similar things. I'm not sure if I'm articulating this the way I really want to, so if this is at all unclear, tell me.

7) I'd be careful with this. Any bonus you give would have to be small enough to not overshadow the stances themselves, but would have to scale in such a way as to not be obsolete before too long. Maybe mobility would be good? Perhaps shifting to or from a certain designation of stance would let you move a certain distance, which would scale with level. Alternately, perhaps you could tie it to the school of the stance. I don't know if the school of the stance you're leaving or the school of the stance you're entering should be the deciding factor, but that could be interesting. Stone Dragon could give you DR for a turn, White Raven could let you reposition an ally or grant an ally a bonus, Shadow Hand could give you concealment, Desert Wind could give you a short-lived fire damage buff, Diamond Mind could boost your saving throws, and so on. Do be aware that with the current system, this hits Warblades harder than the other two, since they have more demands on their swift actions.

8) It depends on what else you do with stances and how powerful direct-combat stances end up being. If you go with the school-based bonus idea I brainstormed above, there's less of a cost for taking a utility stance than there is under the current system. Alternatively, you can designate that characters get a certain number of utility stances as they level, and while they take your stance slot, they don't come at the cost of other stances known. If you don't improve stances much from how they currently are, I think taking a utility stance probably has too high an opportunity cost unless it's something very specific.

9) They already have prerequisites of maneuvers known, which is generally enough as it is. I don't think BAB or skills should factor into it. You could lose the current system of prereqs, but I don't think it's especially odious, at least not with the current swapping system.

10) Very little, maybe 2 or 3. If you want to keep the preferred weapon system (which I find to be kind of stupid, honestly), I say it definitely should never be a restriction. I'm OK with it providing small bonuses here and there, but not so much that I would feel punished for using another weapon, or that using a non-preferred weapon would be a truly bad choice from an optimization perspective. The weapon system in 3.5 is simply not robust enough for that. The prereq system already incentivizes sticking to a small set of schools anyway; no need to completely ruin the characters who want to pull from a wider selection (and thus aren't likely to have overlapping preferred weapons).

11) This is tricky. Some maneuvers, like the DM save-replacers or Sudden Leap, inherently stay useful, because their usefulness comes from giving more options, not just "hitting harder." That said, if standard-action strikes are going to be competitive with charging and/or full attacks, they have to scale, especially if the maneuvers offer the enemy a save. The existing maneuver-swap system works well for this to a certain degree, but baking some scaling into maneuvers wouldn't be terrible. You'll have to be careful to ensure that maneuvers that are clear upgrades of one another still matter (e.g., if Mountain Hammer scales automatically, why have Elder Mountain Hammer?) or end up removing them. Also, definitely apply this to stances as well; some stances age well, but some age very, very poorly, and that's painful when you know so few and can't swap them.

12) Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about how easy it is for a Warblade to grab some Desert Wind, or about how easy it is for a Swashbuckler to grab some Diamond Mind? If you made recovery somewhat easier for non-initiators, the existing system of just using Martial Study isn't awful. I'd be willing to look at a system that increased flexibility (maybe even a feat to let an initiator swap an entire school?), but I wouldn't call it a critical priority. If the items that have you maneuvers were better defined, that would probably also be a good idea.

[Eldan]

Just a quick aside, but: there's at least four ranged disciplines I know of already made on those boards. I don't think we need to do those :smallwink:

[Eldariel]

Just a quick aside, but: there's at least four ranged disciplines I know of already made on those boards. I don't think we need to do those :smallwink:

Most of 'em require some polishing though, and tend to be a bit chaotically profiled.

[Adamantrue]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not? I tend to avoid it when possible, due to personal preference (I happen to like the more mundane options, which are too easily overshadowed by martial adepts). However, it is often included due to popularity with two other players.
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded? I actually really like the new Feats & the Duel of Wills rules. I least like the lack of support for the standard mundane classes when it comes to using Maneuvers & Stances, as it appears as more of a tacked-on afterthought instead of being more inclusive.
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle? Character options that allow the Standard Classes to utilize the rules as well, like those that had been included in other kinds of books (ie: a Paladin variant that gained Martial Adept level & used Maneuvers & Stances instead of spellcasting).
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit? The existing readying mechanics work quite well.
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?) Its an interesting idea, and may do a lot to improve my own personal opinion on the rules.
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.) 4

6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?) I'm indifferent at the moment. I suppose I'd have to see how it was implemented to form an opinion.
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.) Not a benefit I'd include if you intended to encourage changing Stances more frequently.
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category? I like them as Stances.
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values) I like the idea, and think basing it on BAB would do a bit more to add support to the more mundane classes (like Fighters or Monks). Could get weird when it comes to Maneuvers that replicate Feats, and the Swordsage should get a benefit that allows it to retain its full range (and maybe offer Monks the same benefit).

10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?) 8, but there should be a fairly simple way to include a preferred weapon with little investment into another Discipline (a Feat is too much investment, but I'm unsure how else to include it).

11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer? 3 (but I'm sure I'm in the minority here). The mechanic that swaps out Maneuvers as you level, combined with their frequency of use when compared to any single spell slot means you shouldn't have a lack of options, and encourages smarter selections throughout the character's lifetime.

12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists? 10. There simply isn't as much comparable support for those classes as there should be, when compared to arcane or divine spellcasters (sure there were some Feat options, but they weren't on the same scale as the added Spells).

[ngilop]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?


1 yes, to me ToB is "Fighter, Rogues and Paladins REDUX" it is what those 3 classes should have been out of the gate in 3rd ed.
2 That the maneuvers all required melee as default, and the stupid stone dragon 'must touch ground' BS. that the manuevers were stagnant whne you go them, unlike every spell in the game that scales. the fact that martial charatcers were as good at MARTIAL maneuvers as non martial ones.. like really the wizard is .5 an initiator and so is the dman fighter.. why does WoTC sh!t on the fighter every chance it gets?.and to a lesser degree how the disciplines all required only certain weapons..
3 Support for teh 'classic' fantasy warrior archetypes, there is ZERO archery supports and I found the weapon+sheidl support to be lacking.
4 I like the readying mechanic for the manuevers, that being said I think a Coold down period woul dhave worked just as good, for example you cannot use elder mountain hammer for 4 rounds afterwards.
5 I think stances are in a sweet spot right now so Id keep them at 5, though I would like to see more and more varied stances.
6 I am up in the air about this one hand says they are good where thay are, and the other says fighters need to be more badass' so I guess that changing more often would be good , but would require a higher BaB.
7 No, the stance itself already gives you a benefit of some sort the simple act of changing them should not net you anything more.
8 SOem of them should stay stances, liek walk on water, but scent it should just be its own category, not so much a stance but maybe something akin to it some kind of passive ability.
9 I think it should just boil down to BaB, with some of the more powerful ones ( in regards to other such ones of teh same level) needing additinal requirements like skill points or attribute value.
10 2, what weapon you have should not matter. but I can see that a few rare maneuvers are better whneyou use a certain weapon, like stoen vise being better if you use a heavy mace or maul.
11 10. They should scale just like spells, the lower level ones having a smaller cap, while the 9th level ones not having a cap at all. I see nothing wrong with strike of perfect clarity doing +1d10 per level with no cap. i mena look at disintegrate..
12 10, all martial classes should have access to martial maneuvers hell 3/4 of them are things that honestly every fighter, paladin, ranger, barbarian, and rogue should have got from the get go. I mean why can't they just rename iron heart surge to "BY CROM!!!!!" it basically the same thing. I can see the paladin, ranger, hexblade, and duskblade getting less than say the pure mundanes as they have spells to back them up and other actual class abilities.

[soveliss24]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
When I DM, yes. So far I have not played in someone else's game where it was allowed, but I hope to get a chance.
2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
Most: Fun, flavorful melee options. And Time Stands Still.
Least: The fact that it's usually used to replace Fighter and Paladin, my favorite classes.
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
Sword and board support. There are a couple of counters to throw S&B a bone, but I'd like to see at least one complete discipline for it.
4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
I like it as-is. Don't think it needs to be changed.
5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
Counters cover this just fine already.
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
5 works fine for me. A few of the weaker stances could use improvement, but the better ones are fine where they are.
6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offense to defense?)
Possibly, though I don't know how best to implement it. Not a big issue to me either way.
7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
It would make a cool gimmick, but I'd probably only have it apply to a few specific stances (possibly a way to buff the aforementioned weaker stances?)
8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
Stances.
9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
No.
10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
3-5. I think in general they should matter to discipline-focused feats, but not maneuvers.
11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
5. Most of them are ok as-is.
12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
1. Only Initiators. I strongly dislike seeing builds that use Martial Study/Stance to build non-initiators with the best maneuvers tacked on as an afterthought. Having non-Martial Adept classes add .5 to IL is more than enough.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?

Yes, Firstly it's 1st party material and my group allows all first party material be default, secondly it's tier 3 melee.

2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?

I love the modular nature of ToB, by selecting maneuvers you can make almost any melee concept. Something I dislike, low level Crusaders always being alike.
3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?

Ranged combat, also better grapple support would be nice.

4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?

I like the existing recovery mechanics, but maybe it would be best to remove the feat tax from Swordsage's.

5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)

No, well maybe if there were some new more powerful abilities that were more situational that would be cool or maybe some maneuvers with different recovery mechanics. Basically, if there's maneuvers that are less easy to use make it a system you opt into.
5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)

6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?) maybe 7 or 8 I'd like to see more stances with both pro's and con's like Punishing Stance.

7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)

No, Different stances should be their own reward.

8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?

Sounds good.

9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)

Skill ranks might be nice, no to the rest .

10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)

3-4 maybe a small bonus for using an in discipline weapon.

11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?

10 I'd love to see some of the chains replaced with a single maneuver.

12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?

5, I like the current system, but some choice in schools at character creation would be nice.

[Amnestic]

Just a quick aside, but: there's at least four ranged disciplines I know of already made on those boards. I don't think we need to do those :smallwink:

You could always collate them into a dedicated archer initiator class, if you're feeling homebrew-y :smalltongue:

[Aegis013]

1. Yes, in fact in my upcoming gestalt game, I ended up with a party of 5 martial adepts (restrictions against T1 and T2s were levied, but any combo of T3's was acceptable).

2. It adds an interesting and useful subsystem to the game. More subsystem options is a good thing. Especially when it's giving nice things to melee bruisers.
The thing I like least about Tome of Battle is the absence of support for the archer archetype, and secondarily the poor wording on maneuvers such as White Raven Tactics and Iron Heart Surge (though those are relatively easy fixes).

3. Archery support is a big one, as mentioned in #2. Though if you're good with homebrew, there's plenty of homebrew support there.

4. I think the current mechanics are excellent when it comes to readying/expending maneuvers.

5. No, I think the current system is excellent. Judging by my players flocking to the book, I think they agree.

5(b). Maybe a 6. Some of the school's stances could use some tweaking to be more competitive with their peers (such as Punishing Stance being great and being better than a lot of the 3rd level stances, or Aura of Triumph being rather lackluster, for example). And on that note, Crusader needs a tweak in terms of stance progression. When new stances are available and when you get to pick new stances are very weird.

6. Not really. My players will switch stances maybe once in a couple of combats, and that seems dynamic enough on average. However, exceptions occur when doing things like duels with Master of Nine levels, using Counter Stance and Dual Stance for Stance of Alacrity + Other Stance ends up causing you to switch stances very very frequently during a fight. Having the option to go that route or not seems good.

7. I don't think so. There's a degree of complexity already present in the subsystem to maintain it as very interesting, interactive and useful. Unnecessary complexity isn't good, but if I knew more specifics about what exactly you had in mind, I might change my mind.

8. They fit reasonably well in the category of Stances, I don't see a need to change it.

9. They already do. They require a particular IL and for the initiator in question to meet the required number of maneuvers from that school in order to select that maneuver. That's easily enough in the way of prerequisites though some tweaking to lower maneuver number prerequisites for sub-par maneuvers would probably be good.

10. Maybe a 2? Presently the discipline weapons appear to be at 1, as they have no real impact on the game (except the case of Swordsage's discipline focus which grants them weapon focus). However, because there is a lack of a significant number of weapon options in the lists of discipline weapons, having anything that could be seen as punitive for not taking a discipline weapon is likely a step in the wrong direction. Minor benefits for using a discipline weapon might be alright though.

11. If the present set up is considered a 5, maybe a 6 or 7, it's nice to not have your moves become obsolete in a couple of levels, but there should certainly be encouragement for getting the newest level available and trading up when it's available for each class.

12. Not sure how to put this on a scale, but I think having a school that is unique to each class is a good thing. It helps define their niche and gives them flavor. However, access to trading non-unique schools around would be nice, as being able to mix-and-match helps support a wider variety of concepts.

[Novawurmson]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?
-Yes. I use it as a DM, but my players have only dabbled in the Martial Study and Martial Stance feats.

2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?
-Enjoy most: Meaningful round-to-round choices for melee characters, synergy with multi-classing.

Enjoy least: Lack of support for all combat styles (ranged combat and mounted combat come to mind immediately), very limited lists of maneuvers and stances, too many raw damage increases.

3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?
-As above, support for more combat styles. More disciplines for other character themes (elemental themes, nature themes, etc.)

4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?
-Absolutely not. That's kind of the point of meaningful choices, at least to me - the choice to know when to use something and when to wait.

5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)
-I think it could be a useful way of adding to the interaction of combat, but I wouldn't do it for every maneuver.

5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)
-5-6. I feel like they're already pretty meaningful.

6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)
-I think there should be incentives for switching in combat.

7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)
-I like the idea for a specific feat (i.e. a tactical feat) or for a specific class, but not for all initiators all the time.

8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?
-I'm fine with them being stances, but their own category (like Rogue talents in Pathfinder) is also OK.

9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)
-I feel like initiator level does well as-is. I'd like to see more maneuvers scale with initiator level, though.

10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)
-If 5 is where they are currently, 5. I like feats and other choices that encourage using certain weapons, but I like the option to use whatever weapons I feel like.

11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?
-If a 5 is where they are currently, I'd say 6. They could scale a little better, but I feel like they remain useful longer than many spells.

12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?
-If a 5 is where they are at currently, I'd say 7. I like options!

[Palanan]

--Okay, I guess we're still posting survey replies. Here's mine, from the rather minority perspective of being a non-ToB fan:


1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?


No. I've had some extremely bad experiences trying to use this book in my campaigns.

2. What do you like most/least in the Tome of Battle, fluff excluded?


I like the fundamental idea--that there could be something more to melee than "I stand my ground and full attack, AH-gain."

But I don't like the implementation, which I've always found confusing and nonintuitive. Some of this may be due to the exceptionally poor writing of the book, as well as its badly disorganized, almost random presentation of essential concepts.

And as Eldan mentioned, I especially dislike the recovery mechanism(s), which to me seem to have been shoehorned into a quasi-Vancian system simply because that's what the designers were comfortable with.


3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?


ToB had the opportunity to address one of the greatest deficiencies in 3.5 combat, which is the failure to support ranged combat. They blew it. If you do anything, please give us some worthwhile disciplines for archery. The same could be said for mounted combat.


4. How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers? Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?

The mechanics for readying maneuvers gave me a lot of trouble; change them.

Perhaps some basic maneuvers that are always available, the way Pathfinder allows cantrips and orisons at will? And then the more substantial maneuvers with limits?


5. Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)


Perhaps some maneuvers could be limited to situational or conditional use, but I think this should be done sparingly.


5. On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)


Probably about 7...but I really dislike most of the stances I've seen, and some other mechanic could take their place.


6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offence to defence?)


Sure.


7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)


...Maybe, but again I would do this sparingly, perhaps as part of a situational/conditional requirement.


8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?


Their own category, if you must have them at all. The stance that gives Scent has always struck me as absurd. "Martial Meditations" might be a faintly more sensible category.


9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)


Yes, absolutely.


10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)


It would make sense that a strike technique should be finely balanced for the discipline's preferred weapon. A penalty for using a non-discipline weapon seems just as logical as a penalty for using a weapon you don't have proficiency with.


11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?


Probably about a 7.


12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?


Somewhere in the 5-7 range?




Originally Posted by Amnestic
You could always collate them into a dedicated archer initiator class, if you're feeling homebrew-y

Seconded!

.

[137beth]

My basic idea wasn't even to make a new system, or to overhaul the ToB much. I was just annoyed at the preparation mechanic
That and the nonscaling are my biggest issues with the mechanics.
And I don't think you should abandon it. There are some people here who like it as-is, but there are also people here who abhor homebrew, and there are people who are happy with core-only as-is, so I don't think that that is a reason not to homebrew:smalltongue:

[SciChronic]

I would just like an expanded maneuver and stance list, as some levels just leave you wanting as an initiator, especially when it comes to stances when you are multi-classing. I abandoned a Factotum 8/Warblade X build almost entirely because of the awkward times you gained stances. I gained my second stance 1 level before i got access to 5th level stances, and my 3rd 1 level before getting access to 8th.

If you reduced the versatility of some stances, but added many more, and increased stances known, combat would become much more interesting for initiators.

That said, i'm sure someone has created expanded maneuver and stance lists.

My second big gripe is the awkward, and imbalance of recovery mechanics. crusaders just get random ones, swordsages must spend a full round to get 1, and warblade just goes "lol i pretend i'm a fighter for a round" and gets all of his back. A universal system for recovery needs to be established.

maybe if we go by what you were hinting at making stance changing more important, changing to and from an "offense" stance refreshes a strike, changing to and form a "defense" stance refreshes a counter, and changing to and from a "precision" stance refreshes boosts, maneuvers that are none of these can either be refreshed during any stance change in place of strikes, counters, or boosts, or not at all, and may only be used once per encounter.

[Eldan]

Love that idea. I'll put it in my notes. Changing stances refreshes a strike. Simple and elegant.

[SciChronic]

Love that idea. I'll put it in my notes. Changing stances refreshes a strike. Simple and elegant.

To do it though, you'd need to increase stance progression a decent amount, and increase the stance list as i stated earlier.

A new base class of PrC that revolves around stance dancing could be interesting.

changing stance provide X bonus to Y based on Z modifier instead of refreshing maneuvers

[Endarire]

Sci: Consider what I said here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15331117&postcount=15), earlier in the thread.

[Kane0]

1. Yup
2. Options! Which discipline? Which stances? Which maneuvers known? Which maneuvers ready?
3. Some more specific options. Ranged fighting, sword & board, double weapons, etc. Possibly also a distinction between common (and broader) disciplines and more rare ones (which are also more specific)
4. I like having fire and forget for non-initiators like those taking martial study, but fire and & renew like warblades for initiators. A cooldown would be a good alternative, or specific actions recovering one or more maneuvers (such as making an AoO, sneak attack, fighting defensively, moving, etc) for specific classes/archetypes
5. Yes and no. Not being able to repeat the same awesome moves each turn isn't good, but having conditions to be met like tactical or style feats would make them much more annoying (like Stone Dragon 'must be standing on solid ground' annoying)
5. somewhere between 4-6. Having a noticable but not unmanageable impact on combat. Out of combat is different, one should not be in a combat stance at all times. (Idea: Each stance has a combat and out of combat benefit which changes as combat begins. Alternatively, swift action to change from non-combat to combat benefit. Like the reverse effect of truenamer utterances)
6. Yes. Having them do different things in and out of combat, having options that would make you want to switch between, etc is good.
7. Probably not. You changed your stance for a reason in the first place, you don't need another bonus on top of that. Refreshing a maneuver sounds cool though.
8. Have them be out of combat versions of stances, with those benefits being replaced by others when combat begins (or switching between the two)
9. yes, some other pre-requisites would be necessary (having X amount of maneuvers known of the same school is a good idea, but there definitely needs to be more maneuvers to choose from)
10. For common disciplines not important at all (1-4). For rare disciplines much more, as the specific nature of the discipline reflects both the weapons of choice and combat style (6-8). This opinion also extends to the associate skill of the disciplines, but i'd rather do away with both of these parts myself.
11. 8-10, just like spells. Have them scale with level so you dont need another higher level of the maneuver that does the same thing with bigger numbers. Will also keep lower level maneuvers relevant for longer and stop them being really good at the level they are gained and drop off too quickly.
12. Common Disciplines should be accessible to everyone, rare disciplines act kind of like PrCs that need to be discovered and/or initiated into, and thus are more restricted.

Example Common disciplines: Iron heart, Stone Dragon, White Raven (or at least their ideals: Practice, endurance and co-operation)
Example Rare disciplines: The energy draining portion of Shadow hand, the healing portion of Devoted spirit, the TWF portion of Tiger Claw, etc.

[ddude987]

1. Yes
2. Feeling more effective and versatile
3. ranged manuverists
4. I like the warblade mechanic. I hate crusaders mechanic. I havent read swordsage in a long time. I feel maneuvers always available would not be over-powering.
5. No. Versitility is key to improvement, as well as involvement
5. 5
6. No
7. Interesting concept. I think yes.
8. Own category. Stances are quick to change anyways so trading an offensive stance to track someone with scent when out of combat isn't much of a trade off in the first place.
9. No, maneuvers have levels like spells and should progress as such
10. 3, as a player I don't want to get shoved into a certain weapon just because I want to play a certain class.
11. 8
12. 8, I think that all martial adepts should get at least a choice of a few maneuvers from each discipline

[GreenETC]

1. Yes, I've always loved and used the Tome.
2. I love the multiclassing concept, since it means that ToB can be implemented at any point on a build while still maintaining relative power level.
As for the least, I really dislike that there's no ranged options, and I am also bothered by the fact that in multiple instances, maneuvers or stances are either duplicates or completely pointless, like Stonefoot Stance being rather worthless, or how Mountain Hammer and Foehammer are the same thing, and accessible together to the SAME character.
3. More ranged options. As well as better options for collecting/moving up through the maneuvers. Once you start getting further up in maneuvers, the prereqs make high level multiclassing a problem for getting good maneuvers.
4. I don't particularly like the readying mechanic, but I don't want maneuvers to be at-will, and I would much prefer readying to having all maneuvers ready simply because I would prefer all Initiators to have MORE maneuvers.
5. God no. Sure, I like the counters, but I don't think anything beyond being able to react to a specific move should be there unless the Initiator is given WAY more maneuvers to justify picking situational ones.
5. I feel they should be more of a 7.
6. I feel shifting stances should be a regular part of combat.
7. Changing stances should give no more benefit than the stance itself gives. However, I would prefer that stances give bonuses to maneuvers from their disciplines.
8. Sure, though they need to be all encompassing goodies, like Blindsense or Spider Climb.
9. No, I already feel like high level maneuvers have much more prerequisite than needed, basically preventing someone from dipping in later or from managing more than two styles of maneuvers easily.
10. 3. I don't feel preferred weapons should stop someone from using abilities, though you could add bonuses with preferred weapons, but I feel that it would just end up making things more complicated.
11. 1. Maneuvers shouldn't scale much with level, but stances should. I would prefer it be easier to replace maneuvers, like the Mountain Hammer line does.
12. 7. I feel that maneuvers should be easy to get, though specializing should be rewarded.

[Eldan]

Okay. I've been looking at the results for a while now. What would People think if we mainly did the following:


-Standardize the maneuver refresh mechanic to be similar to that of the Warblade for all characters. Possibly include alternate ways to refresh maneuvers, such as Special strikes that refresh maneuvers,

-Increase the number of stances known from an early level. Start everyone out with about three stances. Possibly also more maneuvers known.

-More stances and maneuvers for each School in general, especially mundane utility stances, counters and strikes that inflict conditions other than damage.

-Try to clean up some of the badly written maneuvers and formatting.

[Amphetryon]

Personally, I prefer the Crusader recovery mechanic, because the cards are easy to make and use, work very well in my experience, and generally prevent Players from either forgetting about some of the maneuvers or intentionally neglecting them.

[Eldan]

Ah. I've only ever played on Skype and Forums, and there the Crusader is a total pain.

[SciChronic]

Okay. I've been looking at the results for a while now. What would People think if we mainly did the following:


-Standardize the maneuver refresh mechanic to be similar to that of the Warblade for all characters. Possibly include alternate ways to refresh maneuvers, such as Special strikes that refresh maneuvers,

-Increase the number of stances known from an early level. Start everyone out with about three stances. Possibly also more maneuvers known.

-More stances and maneuvers for each School in general, especially mundane utility stances, counters and strikes that inflict conditions other than damage.

-Try to clean up some of the badly written maneuvers and formatting.those sound great!

personally i'd love some better PrCs as the only one really worth going for is Eternal Blade, and in doing so you forfeit The Warblade capstone, which is amazing, so it might not be worth doing so.

Also a base class or prestige class that revolves around stance dancing would be interesting.

as for added flavor maybe include a mechanic for discipline specialization? maybe sacrifice access to a certain discipline and you automatically gain a bonus maneuver for each level (though you must have the initiator level to use it) for a chosen discipline. Or maybe increase the effectiveness of a chosen discipline. This would allow interesting benefits for sacrificing benefits for the sake of RP. I had a Factotum 8/Warblade X character idea for an upcoming campaign. I restricte.d myself from taking any maneuvers from the white raven discipline because of the nature of my character to never rely on anyone but herself, and the White Raven Discipline is all about the Team, the factotum was all about the Self

[Eldan]

Again, I really don't want to cover stuff that's already out there. Age of Warriors already had probably Close to a hundred homebrew disciplines and a similar number of prestige classes for them. So, that's not really necessary.

[Bakkan]

I would be disappointed if everyone used the same recovery mechanic. IMO it's the biggest thing that distinguishes the classes from each other, tied with exclusive discipline access.

[sonofzeal]

Okay. I've been looking at the results for a while now. What would People think if we mainly did the following:


-Standardize the maneuver refresh mechanic to be similar to that of the Warblade for all characters. Possibly include alternate ways to refresh maneuvers, such as Special strikes that refresh maneuvers,
Eh, maybe.


-Increase the number of stances known from an early level. Start everyone out with about three stances. Possibly also more maneuvers known.
Ooo! Interesting!

Be careful not to front-load too much though. Martial Adepts are already seriously front-loaded.



-More stances and maneuvers for each School in general, especially mundane utility stances, counters and strikes that inflict conditions other than damage.
YES! Especially on utility!


-Try to clean up some of the badly written maneuvers and formatting.
Well yeah. There's some good fixes out there that do that already though. BG put together their own errata that does this, for one.

[Eldan]

I see. I'll have to go look that up, then. I did once start my own errata for Iron Heart surge, which split it into three different maneuvers, but we'll see.

I think frontloading is a secondary concern. You can only be in one stance at a time anyway and, well. It's not the ToB's fault that other classes don't have any interesting features of their own.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Amphetryon
Personally, I prefer the Crusader recovery mechanic, because the cards are easy to make and use, work very well in my experience, and generally prevent Players from either forgetting about some of the maneuvers or intentionally neglecting them.

I'll respect Amphetryon's appreciation for the cards, but in my case they were a real hassle, and only served to make my introduction to ToB a deeply frustrating experience. I can only guess this approach was meant to appeal to people with experience playing MtG or some other card-based game.

To me, it seemed absurdly out of place in the 3.5-verse, and completely nonsensical for a character to receive a handful of randomly cycled abilities, repeating unpredictably like damaged Morse code from on high. The card-shuffling recovery mechanic is one of the reasons I gave up on using a crusader when I first tried ToB.

Clearly most other people haven't had the same difficulties in wrapping their minds around the concept, but it was a real factor in turning me off to the book. For my part, I'd love to see a completely different way to recover maneuvers.

I'm no game designer, but rather than infinitely recoverable maneuvers in the warblade vein ("I'm a master swordsman! --I'm a fighter! --I'm a master swordsman! --I'm a fighter!") maybe something like a pool of "maneuver points," which can be spent in different amounts on maneuvers of different levels, and then recovered after a period of minutes or hours after an encounter?

[Eldan]

Maybe. We were talking about different recovery mechanics. A few that I had thought of:

You have all your maneuvers available once, at which point you have to do something to refresh them, because your enemy saw all your tricks.

Changing stances refreshes maneuvers.

Maneuvers have a cooldown of ~2 turns, to avoid spamming.

I was thinking about a different Kind of divine inspiration mechanic for the Crusader. Something that allows you to pull random maneuvers out of thin air if you need them, but I couldn't think of anything good.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Eldan
Maneuvers have a cooldown of ~2 turns, to avoid spamming.

Absolutely this. The infinite, binary spamming of manuevers doesn't work for me, and was on the verge of causing real issues in my last campaign, owing to a certain very poorly written maneuver that could have been exploited.

To me it seems reasonable to limit them somehow, if nothing else to represent the strain or fatigue caused by repeatedly using complex, demanding motions. We have to save these guys from carpal tunnel syndrome.

:smalltongue:


Originally Posted by Eldan
You have all your maneuvers available once, at which point you have to do something to refresh them, because your enemy saw all your tricks.

The last phrase is golden. Instantly reminds me of my favorite scene from the first season of Rurouni Kenshin, when Saitō throws four gatotsu at Kenshin, who comes up with a response on the fly.


Originally Posted by Eldan
I was thinking about a different Kind of divine inspiration mechanic for the Crusader. Something that allows you to pull random maneuvers out of thin air if you need them....

Another excellent idea. Definitely worth working on.

[Prime32]

I'll respect Amphetryon's appreciation for the cards, but in my case they were a real hassle, and only served to make my introduction to ToB a deeply frustrating experience. I can only guess this approach was meant to appeal to people with experience playing MtG or some other card-based game.

To me, it seemed absurdly out of place in the 3.5-verse, and completely nonsensical for a character to receive a handful of randomly cycled abilities, repeating unpredictably like damaged Morse code from on high. The card-shuffling recovery mechanic is one of the reasons I gave up on using a crusader when I first tried ToB.

Clearly most other people haven't had the same difficulties in wrapping their minds around the concept, but it was a real factor in turning me off to the book. For my part, I'd love to see a completely different way to recover maneuvers.Eh, crusader actually seemed like the most logical recovery mechanic to me, since the randomised maneuvers represent all the minor positioning and timing issues that are normally too ad hoc and fine-grained for the rules to cover. It's also the most interesting narratively, since it keeps combats varied.

As for new recovery methods, I wrote one for a Full Contact Magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FullContactMagic) warmage class that starts with no maneuvers readied, gains a random one whenever it attacks or casts a spell (note it can cast multiple spells per round at high levels), or can ready any maneuver of its choice as a move action. The class also had stackable class features which let you expend maneuvers to make your spells stronger, meaning that your maneuvers effectively doubled as a "charge meter" for your strongest magic.

One thing that annoyed me about ToB was that Adaptive Style really should be something anyone can do. Though it's not like there weren't feats like that already (*cough* Improved Grapple *cough*).

[Talionis]

1. Do you use Tome of Battle in your games? If no, why not?

Yes.

2. What do you like most/least in the tome of battle, fluff excluded?

Most, that melee characters get multiple options and utility. It changes it from just I attack each round to I use a particular maneuver. Additionally, not all the maneuvers are attacks so they can give utility that provide options. Non-casters tend to be a little more boring to play and this makes it less boring.

Least, how little support Tome of Battle has. Its only one book. There isn't a ToB for ranged characters (Bloodstorm Blade isn't enough and oddly doesn't advance initiator levels, was that a typo?). Many obvious combinations for prestige classes are missing, ToB was obviously supposed to work with psionics, but no prestige class helps to advance both. I'm also not a fan of the breakdowns of which base class gets access to which disciplines. (ex: Setting Sun is only Swordsage, but its not terribly magical and would make sense in any of them)

3. What do you think is missing from the Tome of Battle?

More material and support. Ranged non-caster support. More prestige classes.

4. a)How much do you like the existing readying mechanic for maneuvers?

They aren't the easiest mechanic to keep track of, but I use the maneuver cards found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a, they work just fine.

I'm least happy with Swordsage and most happy with Warblade. I think most people are. Even with Adaptive Style Feat Swordsage recharge mechanic seems a bit costly. But I would mind less if Swordsage was more caster-lite only. I don't mind it for Shadow Hand and Desert Wind, but for disciplines like Setting Sun and Tiger Claw it seems they should both recharging should be easier.

4. b)Would you prefer if maneuvers were always available, with no limit?

No. The best thing about ToB is that you don't use the same attack every turn. The recovery mechanics force you to use different maneuvers every turn and that's important. If you have access to all your maneuvers, you'll only use your best maneuver over and over. Less repetitive and opening options is what makes the ToB fun.

If you are looking for something else you might look at the every five turns mechanic Binders use (Tome of Magic). I would argue its actually harder to keep track of every five turns than the current recovery mechanics, especially if you print cards for the maneuvers.



5. a)Do you think initiators should only be able to use their maneuvers when certain conditions are met? (E.g. only in certain stances, or after enemies have done certain actions?)

No. You have to keep the mechanics simple enough. I don't like too much complexity in my games. I know that some of the tactical feats work that way and I could see adding more tactical feats that combine with maneuvers for fun varied interactions. But on the whole I always wanted to increase my characters options and make my characters more flexible.

5. b)On a scale of 1-10, how much influence should Stances have on combat? (5 being where they currently are.)

Six. I like the way they are now. I'd love more stances. More stances would provide more options and some of those options would be offensive. Thus I say a slight increase would be okay. But I wouldn't want a large deviation from what stances currently do.

6. Should stances be changed more often in combat? (For example, to show shifting from offense to defense?)

At high levels, I'm okay with saying at level 12 Warblades can change stance is a free action once per five turns, but at low levels the idea of stances is that they reflect a choice the character is making. If you want to be more offensive you are in an offensive stance if you choose to be defensive you are in a defensive stance. I wouldn't want most ToB characters to be switching from Offensive to Defensive stances each turn. Turn systems mechanically could make it hard to have people attack you while you were in an offensive stance and theoretically you should be punished defensively since the character chose to be in the stance.

7. Should changing stances give a benefit? (For example, changing from a defensive stance to an offensive stance giving a bonus on the next strike.)

Not in general. But I could see a prestige class that could work that way and it might be fun.

8. Should Utility abilities like scent or walking on water be stances, or their own category?

I would keep this the way it is. They can always be abilities for base or prestige classes. But I have no problem with them fitting into the stance category. I generally try to have at least a stance that I like to be in during non-combat. There is no penalty to being in a stance and I wouldn't add a penalty. This keeps everything fairly simple. I don't see the need to add categories.

9. Should learning maneuvers have prerequisites other than initiator level? (For example, base attack bonus, skill ranks, attribute values)

No. I actually am not a huge fan of the current need for a certain number of prerequisite maneuvers from a discipline. Mostly because they seem arbitrary in number. Spells do not work that way. I wouldn't add further complexity to the mechanic. In general initiator level already limits at what level characters have access to certain maneuvers and minimum level of access really helps you to set the appropriate power level of maneuvers.

10. On a scale of 1-10, how important should a discipline's preferred weapons be? (For example, should strikes be limited to discipline weapons, or be better with discipline weapons?)

Two. Discipline weapons are interesting, but shouldn't be there to hamper creativity. In general, I like the idea of Swordsage gaining weapon focus feat for all the weapons in one of their disciplines, but I don't like the idea of limiting maneuvers to work only if a discipline weapon is used.

11. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers scale with level, so that they stay relevant longer?

Six. Spells do a pretty good job of this. You want higher level maneuvers to be better than low level maneuvers, and since most maneuvers do damage it may be difficult to scale all maneuvers to initiator level. That being said, we don't want our old maneuvers to be worthless or terrible. Trading out old maneuvers for newer maneuvers helps with this mechanic and it is missing with prestige classes. You might grant the replacing of maneuvers to the prestige classes as well.

12. On a scale of 1-10, to what extent should maneuvers be available to all martial classes, or just specialists?

Five. Maneuvers are already very "dippable". So a rogue could easily take a few levels in Swordsage to gain some cool maneuvers. I do not think that current ToB feat for non-Initiator classes to gain maneuvers works well since they do not have a recovery mechanic.

That being said, I am open to more base initiator classes or adjusting other base classes to get a recovery mechanic, say the current Swordsage mechanic. But I'd be leery to grant that to casters so I'm not sure how to balance it.

Extra --

Song of White Raven feat should probably also be boosted by Prestige Classes that allow you to select White Raven Maneuvers. I always wanted a Bard/Crusader Prestige Class too.

[SciChronic]

Oh something i forgot to mention:
retraining of maneuvers and stances. Maneuvers and stances quickly become obsolete due to the higher level maneuvers and stances. This is magnified when multiclassing into or out of initiator base classes. In the case of multiclassing into, this is partially solved by removing the maneuver requirement for higher level maneuvers, but is is still easily possible to be stuck with an array of weak maneuvers and stances that just sit and gather dust because the ones you learned last level are simply better. In the case of multiclassing out of an initiator, your initiator level still rises, enemies will get stronger, but your maneuvers and stances are just as weak as when you stop leveling that class, and when you use your second level strike as a swordsage 4/ monk 6 against a dragon, you might as well have just full attacked, you would have done more damage. Too bad you didnt at least take a boost, cause those are swift action, but when you became swordsage 3, that strike was your largest source of damage.

While the base initiator classes can retrain a single maneuver at level 4 and every even level thereafter, that means if you want your maneuvers to matter later, you have to stick with that class, and only that class. This makes it highly undesirable for you to take anything but that base initiator class, not even other base initiator classes, or a PrC, of which are, as a whole, weaker than the base class.